One of the areas about which they continue to deceive is healthcare. We’ve addressed this issue several times (most recently in Tax Reform Opponents Seek to Deceive and Scare Seniors). Last week, they said that the proponents of the MTRA had not given a satisfactory answer. The fact is, we have – it’s just not one they like!

Let’s look at what the measure actually says in section 1(e):

(6) Sales of pharmaceuticals or medical services by a licensed health care professional for the direct benefit of any individual’s health care, where such sales or services are not subject to being recouped from another source;

The opponents’ deception regarding healthcare revolves around the words “…subject to being recouped….” They say that essentially means all healthcare will be taxed. If they really wanted to know what “recouped” means, they could find out by spending as little as $6.50 for a dictionary!

The opponents are spending a lot of money to oppose tax reform that would bring about the largest economic-activity boost the state has seen in our lifetime. They have engaged some high-priced consultants to aid them. So, just in case they can’t afford the $6.50, I’ve taken the time to give them the simple definition from Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary:

re·coup /rɪˈku:p/ verbre·coups; re·couped; re·coup·ing

[+ obj] : to get back (money that has been spent, invested, lost, etc.) : recover
▪ It will be hard for us to recoup the loss. ▪ Movie studios can turn to video sales to recoup the costs of a movie that does poorly at the box office. ▪ She recouped only a portion of her investment. (emphasis added)

• Missouri Senate Bill 469
• Senator Bob Dixon’s Twitter
• Missouri Revised Statutes Chapter 536
• Missouri Senate Joint Committee on Administrative Rules
• SIGN the UFM ACTION ALERT to STOP BIG GOVERNMENT IN MISSOURI
• New Senate District Committee

You can contact the hosts by emailing missouriminute@unitedformissouri.org or by sending us a message on twitter @United4MO or @Senator32 or by visiting http://www.cozadcompany.com/ or on facebook.

Two bills, House Bill 1291 and Senate Bill 651, are prime examples of how small, even well-intentioned bills grow government.  CLICK HERE to take action.

HB1291 (Nance, R-36) and SB651 (Schaefer, R-19) do the same thing – they establish a new board for the purpose of licensing home inspectors. Sounds like a fairly noble cause, doesn’t it? The problem is that government has grown over the years with such boards that should be self-regulating and self-policing, not government regulated.

Government regulation and licensing does nothing but add cost. It also usually gives control or an advantage to a segment of the business sector being regulated – usually at the detriment of others in that sector. It’s also up for debate whether these boards and commissions actually perform a service for the public.

A good example of a non-government group is Underwriters Labatories (UL). We have all heard of this independent product safety certification organization. It’s not a government “board.” It was established in 1894 and preceded any government regulations.

The “UL” approach can and should be applied to such things as the home inspector certification process. Government boards should not control these matters; these boards grow government and grow the cost to the consumers.  You can do something about this latest attempt to grow government.

CLICK HERE to send an email to your legislator letting them know you oppose HB1261 and SB651. Let them know that if there is a problem with the home inspection industry, it should be solved by consumers and the industry – not by government!

There is opposition to these bills in the legislature.  Your action now by CLICKING HERE can have an impact in this attempt to expand government. Share this link with others and let them know they too can help!

As we outlined in Tax Reform Opponents Seek to Deceive and Scare Seniors, the deceptions seem to know no end.  The opponents attempt to scare seniors and anyone else in whom they can create fear.

It’s Easy to Create Fear But Not so Easy to Tell Truth for Some outlined the main differences between the estimates of the proponents and the opponents. Subsequently it’s been shown that the only real difference between the opponents and the proponents is in the expansion of the sales tax base.

The opponents claim the expansion is mythical and a shortfall will occur. Well at least some of the opponents do. Some opponents working for the same organization actually declare that everything or almost everything will be taxed.

Is it a sign of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing or is it a purposeful attempt to make sure the spectrum of possible confusion areas is covered? Based on what I have observed, it is more likely the latter.

This is an important point for the opponents.  The alleged shortfall is one of the fear tactics they employ. Another one is the attempt to create the false illusion that everything or almost everything will be taxed.  Obviously you can’t have a shortfall and still tax everything or almost everything! These two positions are opposite one another yet the opponents use them both.

The opponents have hired two “experts” to present their fiscal distortions, er, I mean their fiscal positions on the measure.

One of the people hired is a former joint committee staffer, Brian Schmidt, to write some white papers on the topic.  Brian is good guy. I’m not sure if they fed him the “inputs” or not but it’s clear as you read the white papers the inputs were not accurate when compared to the facts of the proposal.

The other person, Jim Moody, has been around Jefferson City a long time in various government positions and longer as a lobbyist.  The last time we had occasion to disagree, we were several hundred’s of millions of dollars apart.  I’m glad to say it came out my estimates were proven correct.  I’m satisfied the same due diligence has been applied toward the MTRA.

So surely with two “experts” they are in agreement on whether an expansion of the sales tax base takes place under the proposal, right? Actually, they are not!

In his submission to the State Auditor’s office on behalf of the Coalition for Missouri’s Future, Jim Moody had this to say about the proposal:

“The only expanded service that could be identified that would be taxed under the new initiative petitions would be cable and satellite telecommunications providers.” And “[…] there are no new revenues to be generated by expanding the services that are taxed under the two initiative petitions.” (emphasis added) http://www.auditor.mo.gov/notes/11-63.pdf

Moody claims that there will essentially be no expanded base and thus a shortfall.

Brian Schmidt doesn’t agree. In one of his white papers, he acknowledges the expanded base:

“Under the proposed sales tax, the number of taxable services would be expanded greatly, impacting purchases made by both households and businesses.” (emphasis added)

Schmidt went on to further identify 44 services that would be subject to tax that currently are not.  He has to in order to make some points in his white paper that ignore data on the issue and the real world experience of Tennessee as can be seen starting about 6:57 mark of this video.

So here we have two “experts” on tax issues disagreeing and they are on the same team!  The only reason to allow this disagreement within is because it makes sure you can use either end of the spectrum to cause confusion and fear!

The opponents will likely say it is a function of the confusion of the proposal itself.  Sounds good – at least until you actually read the proposal and see how plain and simple it is.

Both “experts” apply distortions to their analyses.  So – we are then left with the question “Which ‘expert’ are we to believe?”

Schmidt is right on the expansion of the base but wrong on impacts.

The opponents of the MTRA have recently deployed white papers that allegedly show the devastating impacts of the proposal. If the white papers were based on the facts – they would be devastating. Unfortunately for the opponents, when they feed their contractors garbage inputs, they get garbage output.

Take for example their white paper allegedly showing the drastic impact on seniors on a fixed income.  They once again use false assumptions such as healthcare being taxed under the MTRA. As we explain in Gone With the Wind and the Missouri Broadcasters Association, healthcare won’t be taxed for anybody, much less seniors.

The best way to battle false and deceptive information is of course with the truth. The following information is a real-life example of a low-fixed-income senior. I know this lady well – I’ve been married to her daughter for quite awhile.

Let’s first take a look at the income and expenses of this senior.

As you can see, this senior makes very little and spends nearly all her income.  However, most of what she spends is not subject to the consumption tax in the MTRA.  Her rent, insurance, gasoline and healthcare including prescription medicines are not taxable. So how will this senior be affected?

Food will be taxed differently than it is today. The opponents always want to point to the increase in state sales tax rate on food and always ignore the fact that local tax rates will be reduced because they will also be collected on the same broader base as the state sales tax.  This results in the average increase of $.03 per $1 on food.

They also generally ignore that used goods, such as clothing or furniture from a consignment store, would also not be taxed. For this senior, that eliminates most of her miscellaneous purchases. But, in order to take a worst-case scenario under consideration, we will assume all her miscellaneous purchases are taxed. This is the impact of the MTRA on this senior:

This low-fixed-income senior will be paying $3.72 more per month when the MTRA is fully implemented. And that is worst case. If she continues to shop at consignment shops, etc., she can further reduce that amount.

As the saying goes, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.” The opponents of the MTRA are pulling out all the stops to distort the facts regarding the proposal. Our responsibility is to supply those pesky details called “the truth.”

Tomorrow, we will talk about how they can’t even agree amongst themselves!

You can contact the hosts by emailing missouriminute@unitedformissouri.org or by sending us a message on twitter @United4MO or @Senator32 or by visiting http://www.cozadcompany.com/ or on facebook.

The Missouri Taxpayer Relief Act (MTRA) provides a way to re-energize our economy by putting more money in people’s pockets. What happens when people have more money? They consume stuff! When you consume stuff, you create more demand . . . which creates more jobs . . . which creates more opportunities! Missouri can and should be the leader in creating opportunities for us, our kids, and our grandkids.

The opponents of the MTRA, meanwhile, continue to offer false attacks and distortions of the measure. They can (and actually do) know better, but they can’t win on the facts or on the truth. That leaves them with the only tool they know is effective: fear.

Fear is powerful – especially when you stir in a few half-truths and make it sound “good.”  The opponents of the MTRA are zen masters at this technique.

One example is that healthcare will be taxed. It won’t. As we explained in Gone With the Wind and the Missouri Broadcasters Association, no healthcare is taxed unless someone pays you back for it.  Payments by insurance companies are not taxed. Deductibles are not taxed. Co-pays are not taxed.

The opponents’ quivers are full of poison arrows – arrows that are dipped in half-truth creating what they hope is poison for much needed tax reform. The opponents’ problem is that the antidote for their poison arrows is the truth. They are counting on the truth not being able to be delivered in sufficient quantities to be an effective antidote.

United for Missouri will continue to be one of the delivery vehicles for the antidote on the MTRA. We will continue to expose the opponents falsehoods and half-truths whenever and wherever we can. You can get an idea of some of the antidote to the deceptive arrows campaign here.

Missouri wasn’t the only state given this warning. It’s a ridiculous threat made to “protect” the “First in the nation….” It’s a disservice, and, in my honest opinion, the state parties should have stood up and told the national parties to take a hike, but they didn’t.

The legislature gets a lot of the blame for a $7 to $8 million fiasco that many consider little more than a political beauty contest. They managed to pass a bill eliminating the primary only to have it vetoed by the governor. They failed to override the veto, and they failed to pass another bill to eliminate the primary during special session last fall.

You have some candidates who are still in the race not even bothering to campaign here or not bothering to even get on the ballot. Then you have some candidates who laid down their $1,000 registration fee but are no longer in the race.

A great disparity of opinion exists about whether tomorrow means anything at all. My personal contention is that unless you have a local issue on the ballot, it really does mean very little.

If you do go to your appointed polling place, you are likely to encounter people who ask you to sign petitions to get initiative questions on the ballot. There are a number of them vying to get on the ballot, as noted on the SOS website.

Sometimes people make a big deal out of the number of initiatives submitted. Most of the time, this fuss is made because they disagree with the proposal. However, that is no reason to want to restrict the people’s ability to submit these petitions. As is usually the case, you cannot prohibit the “bad” people from doing something without restricting your own freedom. Those who want the initiative process to be more restrictive ignore the fact that when you shut one person or group out, you shut them all out.

In states that have taken restrictive actions on initiatives, the opposite outcome has resulted. Those groups that were supposedly the ones to be most affected flourished, while those not intended to be affected suffered. It’s one of those “be careful what you ask for” situations.

Some of those initiatives approved for circulation and signature collection are not actually being circulated. And some that are being circulated will fail to get the requisite signatures. At the risk of alienating some because I didn’t specifically mention the initiative they are most interested in or because I oppose one they are, I recommend two you should sign if given the opportunity and one you most definitely should not.

The Let Voters Decide coalition may be collecting signatures for the Missouri Taxpayer Relief Act. If approved, it will eliminate double taxation of income and sales by eliminating the individual income tax and replacing it with a consumer-driven sales tax. It will create jobs and make Missouri the economic engine of the Midwest. We have written extensively about the measure, debunking false information from the big-government-spending opponents. You should definitely sign that one!

The next measure you may be asked to sign is the Safer Missouri Local Control petition. The state took control of the St Louis Police Department away from the taxpayers of St Louis during the Civil War. It was a purely political move. We are commemorating the 150 anniversary of the Civil War. One of the ways to commemorate is to give the taxpayers of St. Louis control of the police force they are paying for back to them!

The petition you SHOULD NOT sign is euphemistically known as the Your Voice Counts initiative.  The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) decieved voters in passing Proposition B, the so-called Puppy Mill initiative.  The legislature and governor, working with animal rights groups in Missouri as well as the agriculture community, fixed some very serious – even unconstitutional – issues with Proposition B during last year’s legislative session. All these groups signed off on the compromise – except for the out-of-state HSUS!

Now, HSUS is seeking revenge by proposing a measure that is so devoid of reason it’s pathetic. And as they did with Proposition B, they are trying to dress it up and make it look and smell pretty – it isn’t and it doesn’t!  Missourians should expect the legislature to honor their will but should also expect them to correct mistakes, which they did on Proposition B.

It’s easy to fixate on unemployment and be encouraged to see Missouri’s rate has fallen – but unemployment only considers those who are actively seeking a job in Missouri. Many people who want to be employed have stopped looking. Others may have moved away from the state to seek employment. Fewer jobs means fewer people in Missouri, and ultimately less economic activity and revenue.

On the heels of Governor Nixon’s State of the State Address last week, the Post-Dispatch and others blasted the Governor’s stubborn fixation on tax credits as a silver bullet for job creation. This year promises more budget cuts, mainly targeted at education, while Nixon vows to expand the use of tax credits as the main mechanism of job creation in Missouri.

Let’s give the Governor a gut-check: what kind of track record do tax credits have if our state shed 11,800 jobs last month?

Sen. Jason Crowell’s opinion in the Southeast Missourian gives us some numbers by which to judge Missouri’s tax credit success:

Over the last 13 years the state’s jobs plan has been to increase tax credits, which it has done by 430.8 percent, equaling $545 million in 2011 and projected to reach $639 million in 2012. Yet, the promised jobs have not come.

Clearly, the government picking who should get a tax break hasn’t worked, and it’s left average taxpayers holding the bill, scrambling to fund state services. It’s a solid bet that you would create more jobs than the Governor has been able to if that same money, instead of being funneled to special interests, was instead returned to the taxpayers who earned it.

You can contact the hosts by emailing missouriminute@unitedformissouri.org or by sending us a message on twitter @United4MO or @Senator32 or by visiting http://www.cozadcompany.com/ or on facebook.

Private interests hire lobbyists with their own money to tell their “story”.  It becomes a part of their cost of services or products.  They make a decision as to whether to pass those costs along to their customers.  Public entities hire lobbyists with taxpayer dollars and when they do, it is a direct cost to the taxpayers.

Lobbyists, particularly on the state level, often get a bad rap because they are an easy target.  It is true they have access and many of them or their clients make political contributions as well.  The public generalizes about lobbyists and some consider all lobbyists the same.  They aren’t.

My experience has been the majority of lobbyists provide accurate information regarding the issues or at least accurate in regards to the client being represented.  It’s up to the legislator to ask the right questions to uncover the other side of the story. It’s really as simple as asking “what will those opposed to your position tell me?”

Lobbyist are regulated and for legitimate reasons. Over the years, several bills have been proposed to limit the use of taxpayer dollars to employ lobbyists to convince legislators to vote “yes” or “no” on bills. The lobbying efforts from public entities are usually represented as being on behalf of the taxpayers of the public entity.  The real truth is that the vast majority of the efforts are in favor of the public entity and not the taxpayers that public entity represents.

Each time a bill has been introduced to eliminate public funding lobbying but still allow public entities to hire lobbyists to provide info only, the lobbyists and public entities have been successful in thwarting the bill.  The bill has never made it out of committee to my knowledge.  So far the lobbyists and public entities wishing to continue using the taxpayers as their source of funding to influence the legislature have won the battle at the expense of their funding source, the taxpayer.

It’s obvious that legislators do not want to take on the lobbyists in this matter. We have a lot of work to do before we can get to this position but it can be done.

This year House Bill 1494 has been introduced that would as described early, merely require a public entity to disclose any lobbyists they hire to represent them using taxpayer dollars and how may dollars they spend.  It also requires the public entity to disclose memberships in organizations paid for by taxpayer funds.

Now surely this is considered an innocuous requirement of public entities to disclose right? Wrong!  Lobbyists have already circled the wagons and apparently caused enough uproar that the very basic bill is expected to have significant problems.

This should not be an acceptable position.

We the people who are providing the funding for these lobbyists should require more accountability from those public entities who spend our hard earned money to hire them. Asking them to disclose who they hire and how much of our money they are using to do it should not even be an issue they fight against!

Over the next few weeks we will likely ask you to contact your legislator regarding HB1494 and where they stand.  It’s a very simple disclosure bill.  What are the legislators, public entities and lobbyists afraid of in the bill?  Surely it isn’t the shining of the light on how they spend our money, is it?

You don’t have to wait to contact your state representative – call or write them now!

You can contact the hosts by emailing missouriminute@unitedformissouri.org or by sending us a message on twitter @United4MO or @Senator32 or by visiting http://www.cozadcompany.com/ or on facebook.

He and his cronies have changed the rules to make it look like the rich are getting richer. They have changed how income is reported or counted making it look much worse than it really is simple by changing how it is reported. It is important you believe the President’s deception. If you don’t, he can’t convince you to do even more damage to our economy than he already has done.

But even beyond that, you can’t implement the President’s tax plan because it just does not work! Of course, nothing else he has done has worked either!

Here is why the President’s piddly plan won’t work:

You can contact the hosts by emailing missouriminute@unitedformissouri.org or by sending us a message on twitter @United4MO or @Senator32 or by visiting http://www.cozadcompany.com/ or on facebook.

The first issue was Senate Bill 464 which prohibits the Governor and unelected bureaucrats from establishing the Obamacare health insurance exchange unless the legislature or vote of the people have authorized it.  We covered the issue in Episode 42 of the Missouri Minute where we interviewed the sponsor Senator Rob Schaaf.

Then we issued our first Action Alert of the legislative session and nearly 1,000 members responded in the first 48 hours!  The Small Business, Insurance and Industry committee voted the bill out on a 6-1 vote last Tuesday.  Your participation helped make this a reality!

The committee also heard on the same day Senate Bill 560 sponsored by Senator Luann Ridgeway.  SB560 has the same prohibition but adds two additional elements. The first is to establish legal standing so that any taxpayer can bring a lawsuit if the provision is violated.  The second element requires that defense of any lawsuit for violation of the prohibition has to come from the budget of the department who is accused of the violation.  This is important as defense of such lawsuits are normally taken from the state legal defense fund.

You can still e-mail your senator about your support for SB464 and SB560 by clicking here. The full senate will take up the bill(s) and need to hear from you!

The second major piece of taxpayer friendly legislation passed the House and was sent on to the Senate.  House Joint Resolution 43, the Taxpayer Protection Act’s most important element limits the amount of growth in state spending based on population growth and Consumer Price Index (CPI). The House amended this limitation to include a growth of 1.5% of the previous year’s general revenue collection.  This should be eliminated by the Senate in their version of the measure.

As you might expect, those who believe there should be no limits on how much of our tax dollars should be spent were against the bill.  They believe the only limitation is how much they can squeeze out of us.  False claims about the measure putting the budget on cruise control and removing legislators from the  decision process is simply false.

HJR43 will not only keep the members of the legislature in control of how our money is spent but it will provide a sharper focus on what it is spent on.  The spending limitation will require legislators pay more attention to where the money is going rather than just a baseline add to the budget process they go through now.

Our second Action Alert of the legislative session was in support of HJR43.  We had a number of members respond quickly to the last minute notice and again were effective.

Below is the vote on HJR43.  You can readily identify those legislators, 105 of them, who side with the taxpayer and a more accountable spending process.  You can also readily identify those legislators, 54 of them, who believe they should be able to spend our money and as much as of it as they think they need to.  You decide!

AYES: 105

NOES: 054

PRESENT: 000

ABSENT WITH LEAVE: 004

Grass roots are having an impact on legislation. Sometimes it’s not always the one we want to have or the level we want but you are being heard!  We will have additional Action Alerts during the session.  Please consider weighing in with your elected representative to let them know where their constituents stand.

This week on the Missouri Minute: Carl Bearden and Woody Cozad record live – with special guest Senator Rob Schaaf. Today: Transparency, Healthcare and a new legislative session.

You can contact the hosts by emailing missouriminute@unitedformissouri.org or by sending us a message on twitter @United4MO or @Senator32 or by visiting http://www.cozadcompany.com/ or on facebook.

The Senate Small Business, Insurance and Industry Committee conducted a hearing on Senate Bill 464 prohibiting the establishment of an insurance exchange by the governor and/or unelected bureaucrats! If you are unaware of the shenanigans that have been attempted to bypass the legislature on this issue, you will want to read Missouri Health Insurance Exchange Back in the News! to see what is going on.

An Action Alert will go out today to give you an opportunity to let the committee members know of your support for voting Senate Bill 464 out of committee and letting the full Senate vote on the issue.

The House has also been addressing important issues. We all know that the federal government has a spending problem.  We don’t always think of state and local governments as having a spending problem – but they do. Rep. Eric Burlison has proposed the Taxpayer Protection Act (House Joint Resolution 43) as a tax expenditure limitation measure.  The House Budget Committee heard the bill today and voted to send it on to the full House.

The measure limits the growth in state spending to the growth in population plus inflation. It also establishes a true rainy day fund, and when state collections outstrip the state spending limit and all emergency funds are full, the state income tax rate will be reduced by the nearest .25%!  The full House will likely take HJR43 up next week. Via an Action Alert, you will receive the opportunity to let your state representative know that you support this reasonable limit on growth in state spending.

The House Rules committee heard House Bill 1140, which would expand the level of local government reporting on the state’s accountability portal. The Office of Administration would be required to maintain public school and county government information, including detailed employee compensation data and operating budgets as well as bonded indebtedness levels.

I don’t think anyone would be surprised that there are some who are opposed to doing this. Our experience providing this service for free to local governments shows that many are not all that anxious to share taxpayer data with the taxpayers themselves. We will be supporting this effort as it moves through the legislature.

We have had two local government entities step up to the plate to provide this information to their taxpayers via our Transparency Portal project. The Mehlville Fire Protection District has the most comprehensive data available. The Liberty Public School District provides expenditure data but no salary data – but it’s a start!

To be sure, there has been some bad stuff proposed, as there is every year. But so far, with six legislative days completed, we’re off to a good start.

We’ve written about the various attempts Governor Nixon and/or the unelected bureaucrats working for him have made to prepare the way for the Obamacare insurance exchange.  Obamacare Insurance Exchange Comes Through Back Door in Missouri revealed that unelected bureaucrats and a commission attempted to establish the insurance exchange – even though it had been rejected by the legislature.

Backdoor Health Insurance Exchange Update told the story of how we were on the verge of having the insurance exchange crammed down our throats. Had it not been for the immediate action of some state senators, the federal grant would have been accepted and the groundwork for the insurance exchange would have been laid.

Senator Rob Schaaf (R-34) has introduced Senate Bill 464. The bill would prohibit the establishment, creation, or operation of a state-based health insurance exchange unless the exchange is created by a legislative act, an initiative petition, or referendum.  The bill doesn’t prohibit the establishment of a healthcare insurance exchange, but it does prohibit the governor or any unelected bureaucrat from doing it!

Senator Scott Rupp, chair of the Small Business, Insurance, and Industry committee, conducted a hearing on the bill yesterday. Senator Rupp has asked to be a co-sponsor on the bill and will likely ask the committee to vote the bill out next week. KMOX (1120 AM) has a report on the hearing conducted on the bill yesterday (“Another Roadblock to Obamacare in Missouri“).

The bill has a referendum clause since it is statute and would go to a vote of the people.  The governor cannot veto the bill with this provision in it.

The hearing was indicative of what you can expect in regards to the opposition. The opposition will not likely be very public. It will be underground. At some point, the senators who support the opposition will have to speak out and make some sort of argument against the bill or filibuster it in some way.  The problem is they will have to, at some point, expose their support of an insurance exchange.

You will have an opportunity to encourage senators to support SB464. Our first Action Alert of the year will be on SB464 and will give you the opportunity to let members of the Senate Committee know that you support the bill. Look for it soon!

Skype had some audio issues early on in the podcast (pops), it gets much better a few minutes in. 

You can contact the hosts by emailing missouriminute@unitedformissouri.org or by sending us a message on twitter @United4MO or @Senator32 or by visiting http://www.cozadcompany.com/ or on facebook.

Happy New Year!

(note: links in graphic are not operational.)

You can contact the hosts by emailing missouriminute@unitedformissouri.org or by sending us a message on twitter @United4MO or @Senator32 or by visiting http://www.cozadcompany.com/ or on facebook.

I mentioned in in the previous blog post that it appears the opponents are even confusing themselves. As evidence of this possibility, I offer the opponents introduction of alleged contradictions.

A couple of new slides were part of the presentation at the debate in Ozark. Both slides were intended to show some conflict in either language or various presentations done by different people supporting the Missouri Taxpayer Relief Act.  They did neither.

The first slide in question attempted to create the impression – the false impression – that one proponent said that all business to business transactions would be taxed while another said they would not.  If you take each statement in context, you will find they are not contradictory but are saying the same thing.

The Missouri Taxpayer Relief Act provides that there will be no business to business tax where the item being purchased will be used in a product or service for retail. Intermediate business to business activity, such as copy paper for the office copier, will have a sales tax paid on it. That’s what both said and that’s what both meant.  This can be found in the petitions in Section 1(f)(12).

Interestingly enough, Section 1(f)(12) is part of the confusion factor that Jim Moody attempts to use to continue to deny that there will be no tax on healthcare.  He used a tweet of mine from our last debate in Springfield, where I used the example of a for-profit entity buying an MRI as an example of “recoupement” and explained in Gone with the Wind and the Missouri Broadcasters Association. They would pay sales tax on that purchase but could not charge a sales tax on the healthcare service.

Moody attempts to say that 1(f)(12) overrides 1(f)(6). It simply does not. If the words “not subject to being recouped from another source” were not present in 1(f)(6), then the for-profit purchase would not be taxed. However, neither 1(f)(6) nor 1(f)(12) are dependent on each other and each stands alone. No ambiquity. No question. Any judge, even one who participated in the recent debacle known as legislative redistricting, would have no problem understanding that principle.

The issue of marginal and effective rates was also hit upon in the debate.  The statement was made that “nobody pays 6 percent.” That’s partially correct but not entirely accurate. We will cover that in another blog posting.

Perhaps one of the most disturbing revelations as to how far the opponents are willing to go to distort and confuse came from a prepared statement made by a long-term member of one of the area’s local school boards. She indicated that the measure should be opposed because of who may or may not support it. Forget about encouraging people to study the issue and get all the facts, which you would expect a school board member to do. No, the message was solely that we must oppose this because of who supports it. It’s a sad commentary on the state of education when we have school board members who not only discourage critical thinking, but who also don’t practice such thoughtfulness.

After hearing these types of “rebuttals” frequently, I’m beginning to wonder if the opponents haven’t confused themselves.  We might have to admit that they are so good at their objective of confusing and distorting that it works on them as well!

Joe Friday never uttered those words. He actually said most often, “All we want are the facts, ma’am.” It’s easy to make up the thought that Friday actually said, “Just the facts, ma’am,” because it sounds like something he might have said. Reminds me a lot of the deceptive technique opponents of the Missouri Taxpayer Relief Plan employ to mislead people!

You see, they say things that “sound right” but really aren’t. The “factoids” sound convincing and like they could be true – thus creating what the opponents want, which is confusion and doubt. Confusion and doubt are the best friends of those who want someone to vote “NO” on anything.  It doesn’t matter whether the information is entirely accurate or even applicable, as long as it serves its purpose.

A good example of the latter statement occurred at a debate between myself and Jim Moody, who represents the Coalition for Missouri’s Future (which would more appropriately be called the Coalition for Missouri Falling Further Behind). The coalition is upfront about its opposition to the tax reform and jobs plan represented by the Missouri Taxpayer Relief Act but offers no alternative other than the status quo. The status quo is failing Missouri on many levels. If you are going to be against a policy proposal, that’s OK. But when you offer nothing but the status quo, it’s not OK.

The debate was before a full house at the Ozark Chamber of Commerce. Jim provided his usual slide presentation with a couple of extras added.  The extras made me wonder if the opponents aren’t confused themselves. (More on that in a second blog posting.)

Jim usually talks about a lot of things that have no bearing on the measure or the use of comparisons to Tennessee.  For example, he always refers to the Tennessee Excise Tax (corporate tax) and the Privilege Tax (which professionals like lawyers and doctors pay). He presents them as though they are a necessary component to the Tennessee sales tax model – they aren’t.  They are in fact additional sources of revenue to Tennessee, but they have nothing to do with the sales tax model we are discussing.

He also discusses a couple of things that are at least sales tax issues and differences between the Missouri Taxpayer Relief Act and the current Tennessee model: most notable, the “single article” tax and the 8.25% sales tax on satellite TV. The problem with using these as a “measure” of why the tax reform proposal won’t work is that the facts just don’t add up.

The “single article” tax brings in $38 million out of $6.4 billion. I can tell you that in the state budget, you’re almost talking about a rounding error.  It’s not a factor in the tax reform propsal and it’s not necessary to generate adequate revenue, as I demonstrated here.

The satellite tax example is even sillier.  Jim’s message is that Tennessee taxes satellite services at 8.25%. It brings in a whopping $40 million out of $6.4 billion. Unlike the “single article” tax, the tax reform proposal will tax satellite services at 7% rather than 8.25%. In other words, we will tax satellite services at 85% of the rate Tennessee does today. Not much of a shortcoming!

I”ve often said that there is nothing wrong with disagreements. People and groups often have different opinions, and there is nothing wrong with that.  However, even Sgt. Joe Friday and Officer Gannon would tell you that you are entitled to your own opinion but not to entitled to your own facts.

You can contact the hosts by emailing missouriminute@unitedformissouri.org or by sending us a message on twitter @United4MO or @Senator32 or by visiting http://www.cozadcompany.com/ or on facebook.

Burnham’s Law – Missouri Association of REALTORS® listed a number of falsehoods that MAR is telling its members.  It seems they were none too happy when the primary proponents of the Missouri Taxpayer Relief Act – Let Voters Decide – provided information to REALTORS® all across the state about what was really going on.

MAR responded with misleading information and held back the real reason for originally objecting to the proposal – it didn’t specifically exempt real estate commissions. Of course, the REALTORS® neglected to point out that they left that out of their Amendment 3 campaign in 2010. Why? Well, probably because they knew that if they had put that in as a part of the amendment, people might realize that the measure was not as altruistic as they thought.

Prior to this inaccurate information being disseminated by MAR – and since the proposal was always about eliminating the income tax, and real estate commissions are income – there was no real conflict. I was invited to participate in discussions with Missourians for Fair Taxation (aka the Missouri Association of REALTORS®) regarding the matter. We met with the president of MAR, their lobbyist, their attorney and their political consultant on April 15, 2011, to see if there was a way to resolve what appeared to be a conflict based on an easy-to-clarify misunderstanding.

The meeting was cordial, and it was agreed that the attorney for Let Voters Decide and the attorney for MAR would work out some language that would address MAR’s stated concerns. The summary of this effort can be found here.

Once you read the summary, you can understand why the folks at Let Voters Decide and I were surprised at the opposition that MAR still had to the measures. However, once you read the “supporting” details sent to MAR membership, you will understand that it really wasn’t about the issues, but about politics and keeping potential “partners” in the fold in case there ever was a potential, tiny chance that the legislature would try to undo both Amendment 3 and the real estate provisions of the Missouri Taxpayer Relief Act.

There is a significant problem with that faulty logic – namely, the legislature can’t undo a Constitutional provision!  They have to put it before the voters to change the Constitution. I don’t know about you, but I can’t foresee any time in which voters as a whole would approve anything that would so drastically increase the cost of their homes, whether buying, selling or transferring them.

If the story stopped there, it would be bad enough. However, the president of Let Voters Decide attempted to contact the two families who really call the shots at MAR to let them know what had transpired. Surely, they didn’t have the complete information available to them about the issue?

A letter was sent to the Mendenhall and Keating families outlining what efforts had been made.  To my knowledge, the letter remains unanswered.  One source close to the MAR has suggested the reason is that one of these folks is vying to become president of the National Association of Realtors and that this “fight” would help in that cause.  If I operated like Missourians for Fair Taxation, I would present that as a “fact.” However, I don’t have confirmation of that and, unlike Missourians for Fair Taxation, I will tell you that I do not know whether it is factual or not – rather than just tell you it is.

Regardless of  the validity of anyone’s political aspirations within the national organization, the fact remains that MAR is willing to sacrifice the demonstrated potential for state economic growth represented by the Missouri Taxpayer Relief Act. It’s particularly peculiar, given that the tax reform proposal would in turn create the potential for more sales as people move up to bigger houses, or move into the state and need a home.  They are willing to sacrifice your economic opportunity to protect their political position.

You may have heard that Missouri is a low income tax state and that the tax system isn’t a deterrent to economic growth. You can only come to that conclusion if you are complacent in your research, ignoring the facts of real business decisions.

The real measure of a state’s tax friendliness is a company’s willingness to consider relocating to your state. Applying the adage that something is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it (Albert Pujols being the latest example), tax climate is in fact a major consideration.

Will a ranking from a non-partisan organization help a state make the short list for consideration? Maybe. Does tax climate play a part? Yes. We don’t have to guess about this. We can look at some extensive research that has been done, in which researchers actually talked to people who make the decisions about relocation.

Development Counsellors International (DCI) first conducted the most comprehensive survey of corporate executives with site selection responsibilities in 1996. The most recent survey, Winning Strategies 2011 report, provides a number of interesting outcomes demonstrating the difference between facts and “factoids” – and the regurgitation of those factoids is no substitute for real research or investigative journalism.

Texas has held the number-one spot since 1999. And for those who say it’s because of the state’s oil – try again and see if you can find out how much of Texas’ revenues oil really represents. The decision makers had this to say about why Texas has held the number-one spot for so long:

Those who believe that Missouri’s tax climate is friendly enough to attract a lot of new businesses do not have the facts. Or, they are capable of rejecting the facts in order to support their false notions – or to protect their special interest exemptions, such as advertising.

These folks remind me of George Bailey in It’s a Wonderful Life. He had an angel in front of him. He could see him with his own eyes. He could hear him with his own ears. But he couldn’t accept it in his head.

The facts are available to support the tax reform proposal. The opponents, like George Bailey, won’t accept them – even though they are right there in front of them.  But unlike Bailey, the majority of opponents have a special interest in confusing and confounding people with factoids.

If it weren’t so ridiculous and underhanded, it might be funny.

You can contact the hosts by emailing missouriminute@unitedformissouri.org or by sending us a message on twitter @United4MO or @Senator32 or by visiting http://www.cozadcompany.com/ or on facebook.

KSGF Podcast

The graphic is a little dated when it comes to the state budget, which is approximately  $23 billion today. However, it certainly represents the fact the opponents of the Missouri Taxpayer Relief Act love spending other people’s money. In fact, they enjoy that activity so much that they will go to nearly any length to make certain nothing upsets their apple cart. Among their favorite methods? Distorting the facts regarding the proposed tax reform!

Perhaps the proponents of the Missouri Taxpayer Relief Act should be pleased. After all, if the supporters of big-government spending programs and taking dollars directly out of our paychecks didn’t think that this proposal was a threat to life as they know it (i.e., soliciting and receiving bigger government dole-outs for their special interest causes), they wouldn’t be working so hard to create clever distortions of the truth.

Last week I pointed out just one of the deceptive approaches they are using to confuse people. In Tax Reform Opponents Use Deceptive Tactics to Scare and Confuse, I point out that they attempt to confuse people about how many versions of the petition are ready for signature collection. Even though on one day their spokesperson tweeted about an article that clearly says there are only two versions available, the very next day he posed the disingenuous question: Which of the 13 versions will be chosen? Either the opposition truly can’t get its act together, or it is purposely misleading the public.

Then, in Gone With the Wind and the Missouri Broadcasters Association, I point out the fact that the opponents are willing to tell outright lies about the measure. The opponents claim health care and prescription drugs will be taxed – they won’t. But, of course, the opposition refuses to let the truth get in the way of a good political campaign based on falsehoods and distortions!

It’s Easy to Create Fear But Not so Easy to Tell Truth for Some strongly refutes the opponents’ false “to be replaced” revenue number and highlights the fact they ignore the expanded base created by the tax reform proposal.  Still, they labor on, hoping citizens of Missouri don’t do the research for themselves.

Finally, Burnham’s Law – Missouri Association of REALTORS® exposes a number of myths promulgated by the Missouri Associations of Realtors, who are the prime backers of Missourians for Fair Taxation. This is another group that hopes you will only read their name and not truly understand their false attacks on the measure.

One of the latest falsehoods the opponents are telling is that food will be taxed at 10% under the plan. This one is unusual, as the opponents ordinarily will at least take some tiny bit of truth and stretch it out of proportion.  In this case, just as with the healthcare issue, they lie.

Section 1(3) (1) of both petitions specifically limit the state sales tax on food to 5.5%. The opponents will say, “But wait, there is also a sales tax on the local level, sometimes approaching 5%, which would make the sales tax on food 10%!” I want to thank the opponents for giving us the opportunity to refute yet another falsehood!

The fact is that section 1(i) of both petitions requires that all local government rates be recalculated for the expanded base.  It protects these entities from losing money but it also prevents them from gaining a windfall. The opponents ignore this part of the provision because they don’t like it.

So what does that mean for the sales tax on food? Projections for the recalculation of local taxes indicate that the statewide increase on food will be around 3 1/2 cents on every dollar. I hate to burst the opponents’ bubble, but nowhere in the state will the sales tax on food be 10%.

We will continue to expose the falsehoods and distortions of the Missouri Taxpayer Relief Act.  Unlike the opponents, I feel obliged to tell the truth about the measure!

You can contact the hosts by emailing missouriminute@unitedformissouri.org or by sending us a message on twitter @United4MO or @Senator32 or by visiting http://www.cozadcompany.com/ or on facebook.

I wrote about the distortions of one of the major opposition “members,” the Missourians for Fair Taxation, in Burnham’s Law – Missouri Association of REALTORS®.  Another “member” has also been spreading falsehoods in ads running across the state (I blogged about that in Gone with the Wind and the Missouri Broadcasters Association). These blog posts outline the half-truths and outright falsehoods regarding the Missouri Taxpayer Relief Act in an obvious effort to scare people. There is nothing wrong with being opposed to an issue. But there is everything wrong when you have to lie as part of your strategy!

The spokesman for Missourians for Fair Taxation regularly posts misleading information. Let me make this clear: I know and like the spokesman, Scott Charton. I’ve worked with him on other projects. He is good at what he does. What’s not clear is if he actually believes the misleading information he is spreading, or whether his employers are insisting he do so and he wants to just keep his job. The most recent example of misleading information occurred within the last few days.

Yesterday, Scott posted this on Twitter:

@ScottCharton When will backers of the “Almost Everything Tax” shoot straight with MO voters about which of the Unlucky 13 versions they’ll settle on?

On the surface, it may seem to be a fair question.  The Let Voters Decide campaign has submitted and had approved thirteen versions of tax reform. Unfortunately for Scott and his employers, they are not able to keep their information straight.

Missourians for Fair Taxation know that, at the time of Scott’s tweet yesterday, there were only two petitions eligible for circulation. Here’s Scott’s tweet from November 29, 2011, acknowledging that fact:

@ScottCharton More monkeyshines from backers of MO’s risky “Almost Everything Tax”; learn more at DeclineToSign.org tinyurl.com/cxd4nsx

Scott should have been aware beforehand – or at least after reading the article he tweeted about – that there are only two versions of the petition eligible for circulation. Are Missourians for Fair Taxation that out of touch with the facts, or are they that bent on deception?

Scott and his employers appear to need a little assistance.  On one hand, they don’t seem to be able to find the text of the two petitions. I guess that information is difficult to find when you are so busy trying to develop deceptive information to distort the facts.  For the opposition’s convenience, here are the links, which all Missouri voters have been able to view for weeks:

http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2012petitions/2012-075.asp

http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2012petitions/2012-076.asp

Scott and his employers know – or should know, if they understand how the ballot-initiative process works – that when you actually circulate a petition, you have to have the exact language attached as that approved by the Secretary of State including the language for the Constitutional amendment. Now, we know that Missourians for Fair Taxation are aware that petitions are being circulated.  That’s why they have established their deceptive “Decline to Sign” site.  Every person asked to sign the petition has the language in front of them. Do Missourians for Fair Taxation truly not know this? Or do they – and are they once more attempting to deceive and create confusion?

So far, the press hasn’t done any in-depth analysis of the false claims; instead, they’ve merely regurgitated the false information. The people of Missouri deserve better from journalists.

As we expose the falsehoods being utilized by the opponents, it’s clear that they are either grossly misinformed and ignorant of the facts, or they are purposely distorting them. Either way, their credibility is very suspect.

They got the fact that businesses that choose to allow smoking do so as a business decision.  If those who own the business, who have everything to gain and everything to lose decide that it’s a good decision they should have the right to allow smoking on their premises. If enough patrons let them know they are against smoking in the establishment by not patronizing the business, then the owner can make the decision to go smoke free.  The principle here is that the business owner’s personal freedom is in operation to make that decision not government or the tyranny of the majority.

Those voting against the ban also understand that NO ONE is forced to enter or work in a smoking establishment.  As patrons of businesses we can decide whether we want to do business there or not.  If we are concerned about the health issues associated with second hand smoke, we can simply choose to go somewhere else.  Big government has no role in making our life easier in making this choice by eliminating the choice of others.

Workers have the ability to find other service jobs at smoke free establishments as well.  In fact, one of the pro-smoking ban witnesses stated that she worked in a smoking environment, became a smoker and then quit.  She didn’t want to work in a smoking environment any longer so she found a new job.  That’s the way it is supposed to work!

Plato, Aristotle, Madison, de Tocqueville and JS Mill all warned of the tyranny of the majority.  Sadly because of the shortcomings of our educational system today, many do not understand what “tyranny of the majority” even is much less understand how dangerous it is to our liberties! JS Mill in his book On Liberty lays it out as

decisions made by a majority under that system would place that majority’s interests so far above a dissenting individual’s interest that the individual would be actively oppressed, just like the oppression by tyrants and despots.

Too often I have opined on the actions of the St Charles County Council in a negative manner.  Unfortunately, they deserved it for such things as making pseudoephedrine require a prescription which most people rejected and are now taking their business to St Louis County. So now I’m glad to acknowledge the good efforts of the county council!

I do not believe that those council members who supported the smoking ban are tyrants or despots.  I do believe they totally misunderstand their roles in a republican form of government.

They certainly misunderstand the role of government to avoid and protect against the tyranny of the majority.

You can contact the hosts by emailing missouriminute@unitedformissouri.org or by sending us a message on twitter @United4MO or @Senator32 or by visiting http://www.cozadcompany.com/ or on facebook.

Gone with the Wind was based on events immediately prior to, during and immediately following the Civil War. The book and the movie were certainly based on a real event in our history. Some scenes may even portray some of the “conditions” that may have existed as told through the eyes of Margaret Mitchell. To that end, Gone With the Wind appears more factual than the deceptive MBA ads running around the state.

The MBA is running fictional radio ads all across the state against the proposed MTRA. Like all good works of fiction, there is at least a modicum of truth – in this case very little. I’ve been tempted to send an e-mail to MythBusters to put the MBA myths on national TV as being busted but haven’t, yet.

I’m not sure if the ad guys have ever read the proposal for tax reform contained in the MTRA. If they have, they should go to Hollywood and get a job writing for a new science fiction show. Their ability to distort reality is very good and I’m sure they could make a good living at it.

What’s fictional in the ads? I thought you would never ask! The ads claim that from cradle to grave you will be taxed.

• They claim you will be taxed for having a baby and other healthcare treatments. You won’t!
• They claim you will be taxed for buying prescription medicines. You won’t!

Had the ad writers read the measure they would have found in Article X, section 1(f)(6) that not only are healthcare services not subject to the sales tax – including birthing babies – neither are prescription drugs! Let’s give them the benefit of the doubt and presume they don’t have access to a dictionary so they can look up the big word “recoupment”.

Recoupment is the recovery of something already expended. It doesn’t mean it was an amount that was not owed or paid. It’s doesn’t mean that a refund of overpayment may be due. Perhaps the ad writers got confused between refunds and recoupment. A refund is not a recoupment. A good dictionary would clear up that problem.

I don’t know about you but I’ve never experienced recoupment of my co-pays. Once I’ve paid them i don’t recover or recoup them.

I’ve never experienced recoupement on my deductibles. My agreement with my insurance carrier says i will pay a certain level of deductible before they pick up their portion. I don’t recover my deductible from the insurance company once I’ve paid it.

The ads claim you will be taxed to die and be buried. Here they have their modicum of truth. It is true that things like caskets and urns would have a sales tax, not much different than today. However, the MBA would falsely have you believe that everything in the burial process would be taxed.

But once again reading the measure does wonders for eliminating fiction. Articke X, section 1(f)(3) and 1(g)(2) clearly state that embalmer and funeral director services won’t be subject to taxes. So not much changes from today

Listening to the ads you would never know that the real reason the MBA is running them is they will be one of the 150 or so special interest exemptions that would be eliminated. Yes advertising will now be subject to sales tax. Wonder why that wasn’t part of the ad?

Frankly Scarlett, the MBA ads just don’t match up with the facts. They are a lot like Scarlett – deceitful and misleading.

You can contact the hosts by emailing missouriminute@unitedformissouri.org or by sending us a message on twitter @United4MO or @Senator32 or by visiting http://www.cozadcompany.com/ or on facebook.

Hoping to learn something, I read their missives, er, I mean their press release and interviews only to find it to be deja vu all over again! Sadly, it was nothing more than the same deceptive narrative we have seen in the past.

The members of this new coalition are by and large the same, big government crowd who know how to work the existing system and don’t want anybody messing with their rice bowl. I’ve done battle with many of them before and no matter how many times you expose them, they keep coming back. They are using the same tactics of distorting and outright tell lies about the measure as a previously announced group.  It’s probably because they are using some of the same political “consultants” as the other totally misnamed group.

The new group and others tell so many falsehoods that it’s hard to choose which ones to address first.  It’s probably best to start with the foundation of whether the proposal will provide adequate revenue to provide state services. On one hand the new group calls the proposal the “tax everything” tax and then says it won’t generate enough revenue.  If it indeed taxes everything then one would have to accept the fact that it would generate more than enough revenue.

The group claims that the Missouri Taxpayer Relief Act would have to replace at least $7.9 billion.  That’s patently false.  It’s so false that any other claim made by the group should automatically be dismissed as unreliable.  After all, if you can’t even get the most basic element right, how can you be trusted to get anything right?  Here’s the facts.

The base of the discussion is the Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 General Revenue collections from the state Office of Administration.  The opponents use state FY2011 numbers but the Bureau of Economic Analysis data is not yet available for FY2011 so using FY2010 at this time is the most accurate with documentation sources available.

Here is what the opponents say needs to be replaced (FY2011 numbers):

The problem is, the only part that needs to be replaced is the individual income tax portion.

• The current sales taxes are not being replaced, they will still be collected over a broader base
• The Senior Circuit Breaker is paid out from the individual income tax collections and are part of it’s replacement
• Prop C (Education sales tax) is not being replaced but will still be collected over a broader base
• Majority of tax credits are corporate and will be unaffected by measure. Individual tax credits can be redeemed through 2016. No replacement necessary.

The false revenue shortfalls the opponents calculate ignore the expanded base. The current sales tax base will be nearly doubled:This following graphic shows how the individual income tax amount will be replaced.

As you can see, the expanded base plus the existing sales taxes and other general revenue sources would have generated in excess of $7.5 billion, more than the actual FY2010 General Revenue collections. From this amount, the Prop C, Parks and Soils and Conservation would be supplied.

The new group and others apparently believe that if you repeat distortions or falsehoods enough, people will believe them. From their list of supporters, that may be true for some.

We will be pointing out other distortions and untruths in the coming days and weeks.

You can contact the hosts by emailing missouriminute@unitedformissouri.org or by sending us a message on twitter @United4MO or @Senator32 or by visiting http://www.cozadcompany.com/ or on facebook.

It was apparent to most in the state that the special session had died weeks ago. However, being eternal optimists (or just not wanting to be the first to say goodbye), the legislature kept the session on artificial life support. Until yesterday, the taxpayers of the state were very much in danger of a last-minute recovery that might have been good politics for some but bad policy for all.

Everyone is quick to assess blame.  I don’t think that is really important.  What is important is that the legislature actually functioned as it should – sort of. The Aerotropolis/China Hub was a pipe dream that was really no different than past promises of greatness. The difference was that rather than having shallow claims go unchallenged and the masses blissfully unaware of what was happening, grassroots activists got engaged, and the largest part of the Aerotropolis bill was shown to be unnecessary.

In fact, it was shown to not only be unnecessary with millions of square feet of existing warehousing space available but it was exposed to be a nice little fund for just a few developers at the expense of seniors and other taxpayers.  The foibles of the proposal with other elements thrown in are numerous but why beat a dead horse.  At least dead for now.

There were good elements of the economic development bill.  The Senate was on the right track to bring more accountability and caps to huge taxpayer giveaways.  I confess to have supported some of these in the past when they appeared to be productive uses.  It’s kind of one those areas that you wish you knew then what you know and understand now.

It’s difficult for those on the outside to understand and accept that many of the legislators they malign for proposing what many consider not so good ideas, chief among them of government picking winners and losers are really well meaning.  They are sincere in their attempts to make the economic future of our state brighter and more vibrant.  The malady many of those well meaning legislators suffer from is that they really think they can accomplish this through government largess.  They can’t but they truly believe they can.

The House had a valid point as well.  The Senate has increasingly become a body where for good or bad one senator can stop something.  The once limited use of a filibuster has now become a common threat.  I can understand the reluctance of the House not to give one senator carte blanche control over sunsets.

The interesting thing is there already exists an avenue for addressing tax credits.  What members of the House nor the Senate seem to fully understand is that the House Budget Committee or the Senate Appropriations Committee can effectively kill any tax credit program they want just by voting against it.  Just ask the sausage casing folks.

Yes, the special session is concluded. We can now rest peacefully.  At least until January 4, 2012 when our liberties will once again be in danger as the legislature meets for the Second Regular session of the 96th General Assembly.