Today’s action alert will contain a few bills that should pass and a few bills that should die.  You will be given the opportunity to respond on all or some of them.  Let’s get started.

Nixon DOR Scandal

This long Nixon scandal began several months ago when it was discovered the Department of Revenue (DOR) was scanning, retaining and sharing our personal data.  All of which is against state law. You can read more about this at United For Missouriand at www.wrongwayjay.com

Governor Nixon and his administration continue to deny and deceive Missourians on this issue.

A portion of this can be resolved by several bills in the legislature, they are Senate Bill 75, Senate Bill 252,House Bill 787and House Bill 886.  All of these bills address the Nixon DOR scandal in some way. This late in session chances are that portions of these bills will be rolled into one or more of the other bills. Click here to send your Representative and Senator an email in support of these bills.

Liquor Wars

Several bills were sponsored that would give a Missouri based liquor distributor a monopoly in the business area.  The bills would make it nearly impossible for any small business who signed up with this distributor to get out of their contract.  Monopolies are wrong no matter what state they are based in.

The measure was attached as an amendment in the House on Senate Bill 114.  The Senate Bill now goes to the back to the Senate where it should go to conference and have the measure removed or the bill should be filibustered.  Click Here to let your Senators and Representatives know that you oppose a monopoly creating legislation.

Tax Credit Reform

Missouri is greatly in need of tax credit reform.  The best answer is to totally eliminate them. That is not going to happen, so incremental steps to reform them are necessary.  Several Senate Bills placed meaningful caps on the largest tax credit programs.  The House refuses to place meaning full caps on these programs.  Two bills, Senate Bill 120and House Bill 698make changes to existing tax credit programs and sadly add some new ones.

The House version of 698 is far worse!  The Senate versions of these bills place meaningful caps on tax credit programs although they add new ones.  Overall, the caps outweigh the creation of new tax credits. Click here to let your Senator and Representative know you want meaningful tax credit reform.  Let them know you support the Senate caps.

Your immediate attention is required on these bills.

Click Here to support the elimination of scanning, retention, and sharing of our personal data by the Nixon administration.

Click Here to tell your legislators you do not support the creation of monopolies for any business.

Click Here to let your legislators know you support meaningful tax credit reform and caps.

Now is the time to let your legislators know your position on these important issues.  We encourage you to send at least one of these emails, but hope that you will participate in sending all three.  We must remain engaged to protect our liberties!

#wrongwayjay

For weeks, the Nixon administration has denied anything untoward was going on regarding the collection, retention and sharing of our personal data. We now know that was factually incorrect!

Hearings by the Senate Appropriations Committee have revealed a string of misleading statements and outright lies from the Nixon Administration. The biggest lie is that they are not complying with REAL ID. When one looks at the facts, it’s not difficult to see that it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck it’s pretty much a duck!

Some want to make the issue all about “black helicopters” and “gun paranoia” concerning Concealed Carry Weapons (CCW) holders. Problem is the issue far exceeds anything related to CCW.

Watch the discussion on the Jaco Report from yesterday.

The Nixon administration continues to evade and avoid the truth. Last week it was revealed that there had not been one or two releases of CCW holder names but that the list was actually put up on a website for the federal government to access. The highway patrol didn’t do it. the Department of Revenue didnt’ do it. The Office of Administration (OA) Information Technology did it without any authorization to do so!

The password for this website was part of an email that was received by the committee. The House investigators attempted to log on to the website and the portal was still active – long after the site was supposed to be down.

In an almost comedic reaction, OA told the Speaker of the House they planned to do an investigation of unauthorized access to the unauthorized site. So in retaliation for being investigated for the violation of state laws, the Nixon administration is attempting to intimidate legislators. What a joke!

The other thing the Nixon administration wants people to believe is that this is strictly political. Most Missourians don’t think that violation of a state law that was meant to protect the privacy of Missourians as being political. Most think it is criminal!

Speaker Tim Jones has appointed a special investigative commission to look further into the violation of state law. It’s an unusual action required by the stonewalling and ignoring of the concerns of Missourians over the DOR scandal.

Go to www.WrongWayJay.com and let the Governor know you demand better from the top elected official of the state!

#2013wrongwayjay

Go to www.WrongWayJay.com and let the Governor know you demand better from the top elected official of the state!

#2013wrongwayjay

On the surface this battle may just appear to be a fight between our states wholesalers and distributors in the liquor business. Two of the three players in our three tier system are battling because of a recent court decision that has turned their world on its head.

The history behind our current law dates back to the 1930s and was an over-reaction to the ratification of the 21^st amendment that repealed prohibition. As often happens in the course of massive change to culture through government action is the people accept an encroachment on liberty without a challenge. In an effort to “protect” the people from the evils of alcohol, we allowed for state law to infringe on our freedom and the free market system.

What other industry aside from utilities do we apply such an anti-competitive standard? Would we apply this to the auto industry? How about fast foods? The fallacy that is being promoted is that we should fear competition in our state when it comes to the liquor industry. That government knows best.

The fact is that SB 365 and HB 759 are both attempts to impede on the right to contract, freedom of association and letting the free market work to benefit consumers.

Missouri law should always error on the side of freedom and liberty. The free market works! Capitalism works! Limited government works!

If the concern is that the regulating of wine and hard liquor will somehow be going away if these bills don’t pass this session, which concern is unfounded.

One final thought. Remember the gas wars when we were children? They are now illegal due to actions of the state. In the end the consumers were the winners of those wars but now can no longer benefit from them. The consumers always win when free market principles are applied.

Jim Lembke

United for Missouri

Governor Nixon continues to try to persuade the media to move on to something else besides his DOR scandal.  He gets increasingly frustrated that he can’t waive his magic wand and make the magical database scandal go away!  The solution is actually pretty simple Governor – take responsibility for your administration’s actions! Tell the truth; stop the scanning, retention and sharing of Missourians personal documents and punish those who violated the law!

It ‘s been tough getting straight answers from the bureaucrats and Governor in Jefferson City.  Senator Kurt Schaefer and the Senate Appropriations committee has held hearings around the state on the issue.  The hearings were well attended and a couple of common themes emerged – loss of trust in state government and the desire to have the scanning, retention and sharing of personal data stopped!  Here is a video of Senator Schaefer describing what is happening in violation of state law:

http://youtu.be/S6DwS7GiIdc

The press continues to ask the Governor about the DOR scandal.  He keeps stuttering and hem hawing giving the press and Missourians a lot to be confident about what he is saying (tongue firmly planted in cheek!). If one looks at the contractor hired by the state to gather our data and issue licenses, non-driver’s licenses and concealed carry weapons permits it gets even worse.  The data is not safe with this company as demonstrated with problems they have had in Indiana and Georgia.

The legislature is taking a number of actions to protect Missouri citizens. The bureaucrats are not assisting in this effort. A number of bills have been passed in the Senate and the House to address this Governor’s administration failures. As session draws to a close, the Governor will be given the opportunity to sign one or more of these bills.  Some might ask, what good will that do since he isn’t requiring his adminstration to obey the law he signed in 2009?

One interesting action taken by Representative Nick Marshal is the issuance of a House Remonstrance (HRM) 1.  It’s not available on the House website but you can read page 1 here and page 2 here.  There were 96 Representatives who signed the Remonstrance. This is a serious step forward putting the Governor on notice that failure to take action will be considered a “willful neglect of duty” under Article VII, Section 1 of the Missouri Constitution.  This is an action not taken lightly.

Governor Nixon has bobbed and weaved through out this issue.  He has done everything except take responsibility for it and the actions of his administration.

This week, we begin a new series of ads on this long Nixon scandal.  We will continue as long as it takes to get the Governor to do his job for Missourians! Here’s the latest ad:

Go to www.WrongWayJay.com and let the Governor know you demand better from the top elected official of the state!

#2013wrongwayjay

Every state surrounding Missouri has been discussing tax reform of some sort. Some of them like Kansas and Oklahoma have actually been doing it and racing ahead of Missouri.

The protectors of big government spending are all beside themselves that tax reform is actually not only being discussed but several version have passed. These henny pennies resort to what they do best – distort and outright lie about not only the impact of the proposed Missouri bills but about the reality of what is happening in other states!

The henny pennies sell their snake oil that education funding will be cut. And if that’s not your “soft” area, they through in the old stand-by “other state services” will be negatively impacted. They make it sound ominous. Some legislators don’t want reform so they leap to take up the false doctrine being preached by big government supporters.

Other legislators who would otherwise inclined to or should be inclined to support tax reform get a little nervous because they hear this false doctrine from schools – most of which have no knowledge of what they are saying but merely repeat the false doctrine they have been spoon fed.

It’s usually the same group of big government supporters that oppose any move that lets taxpayers keep more of our money in our pockets to spend in stimulating the economy. They believe in the failed – time and time again failed – thought that government spending grows the economy. It never has and never will.

These henny pennies point to Oklahoma and Kansas as failures in their attempts. These attacks are demonstrably wrong. It is amusing though to hear the same big government, anti-tax reform scripts being used in all the states. Funny because they aren’t true.

Take Oklahoma for example. The same things were being said when in 2005 the Oklahoma Legislature passed what was, at that time, the largest personal income tax cut package in the state’s history. The official estimate similar to our Fiscal Notes was that, by Fiscal Year 2007, the tax cuts would cost the state $150 million. The reality was that, by Fiscal Year 2007, individual income tax collections actually grew by $305 million, and state sales tax collections grew by $243 million. So, what was estimated, using static analysis, would be a $150 million hole turned into a $548 million surplus for the state. Facts are pesky things.

Kansas has just begun implementing their tax cuts. The biggest problem with the Kansas bill isn’t the tax cuts but the fact the legislature didn’t include proposed elimination of various tax credits and tax deductions. Despite the claims of the big government supporters, Kansas is not cratering and is growing it’s small business base!

Here’s a brief interview with Kansas Secretary of Revenue, Nick Jordan regarding tax reform. We will be posting the full interview later.

If legislators and big government supporters are satisfied with being 48th in GDP the past decade and likely to drop even lower, then they are right – don’t do anything or worse yet – keep doing all they things we have been doing that aren’t working.

Missouri can and should make tax reform a priority but ONLY if legislators want to make Missouri prosperous and a contender in the Midwest region.

#2013taxreform

United for Missouri has documented many of the various story lines the Nixon administration has trotted out to see if they would work. You can read about many of them here.

You can also find videos and numerous links and documented evidence regarding the ever changing scandal story at www.WrongWayJay.com

Governor Nixon has now moved on from denial to trying to make the problem go away without fixing it. He has fired, er, I mean the Director of Revenue resigned – scandal didn’t go away. The Govenernor and his people had to figure something else out.

I can imagine the conversation going something like,

Staffer: “Wait – I’ve got it! It’s all the gun nuts that are the problem. We will tell them we aren’t going to scan their CCW certificates and they will be happy! We will still collect all the data necessary to comply with the REAL ID act but hey, we aren’t scanning their CCW certificate!”

Governor: “Brilliant! Let’s do it and move on.”

So the Governor issued a decree that Concealed Carry Weapons (CCW) certificates would not be scanned. This led many, including those in the press, to think and report that no documents would be scanned for CCW applicants. That was a false impression and report! Here’s the facts:

Governor Nixon could avoid a lot of this, in his own words, kerfuffle if he would simply come out and tell Missourians what they deserve to know.

Missourians deserve to know that their data will no longer be scanned. There is no state law authorizing it and no deparment rule to implement it.

Missourians deserve to know how their state government is going to destroy data already collected and what evidence will be presented to them that demonstrates it has actually been destroyed.

Missourians deserve to know who will be taken to task for this violation of privacy and intent of the state laws on the books! The resignation of the Director of Revenue who had only been there for five or so months is not the answer. The problem is, one or more of the offenders are FOJ’s (Friend of Jay’s) and are unlikely to be punished for their misdeeds.

Finally, Missourians deserve to know that they have a Governor that they can trust to be honest and in touch with what is going on in his administration. A Governor that takes charge and responsiblity for those actions.

So far, Missourians are getting nothing they deserve!

Go to www.WrongWayJay.com and let the Governor know you demand better from the top elected official of the state!

#wrongwayjay

The Governor continues to try to bury his administrations malfeasance. It’s not the first time he has taken the tack of ducking, denying and deceiving Missoruians. Usually he gets away with it. He’s frustrated this time because when he waives his magic wand to make the magic database go away it’s not working.

This time the evidence and the violation of Misssourians privacy is causing him problems. He isn’t getting away with doing the sidestep shuffle.

The first major media market to do a story on this is Leisa Zigman from KSDK St. Louis. Here’s her report from last night: Why Missouri may be giving a French conglomerate access to your personal information

Leisa’s report makes it clear that there are a lot of unanswered questions. The answers that have been provided are often contradictory. And now, we find that it wasn’t just the Social Security Administration that was getting the data. Turns out it was a joint project between SSA and the ATF!

You can get more information and take action by going to www.WrongWayJay.com!

#wrongwayjay

Click here to see the documents.

Go to www.WrongWayJay.com and let Governor Nixon know this is unacceptable!

#wrongwayjay

Governor Nixon has denied for weeks that any data on Missourians was being collected and sent anywhere. He made fun; literally sneering in one video, of anyone who would dare say it was happening.  He made these bold, brash statements even though in his own words, he hadn’t really gotten into the details.  Turns out he should have gotten into the details because it is happening.  And it’s happening on his watch – again!

The Senate Appropriations Committee led by Senator Kurt Schaefer has been doing a great job on behalf of Missourians trying to get to the bottom of the issue.  They have had to play what they call “20 questions” with the Department of Revenue (DOR) and others trying to get information for their constituents.  It really should not have to be this way but it is.  This has been the M.O. of the Nixon administration – duck, deny and deceive.

The committee had already established that despite initial denials, a database was established. Personal data on all Missourians coming to get driver’s licenses, non-driver’s licenses and Concealed Carry Weapons (CCW) permits was being scanned, loaded into a database and sent to an out-of-state contractor for processing. All of this is now established fact.

DOR denied they had received any funding from Homeland Security to do any of this in furtherance of establishing REAL ID compliance contrary to state law.  Turns out they have received at least four grants including one to do biometric measurements of Missourians.  This is an established fact.

Until last week, Governor Nixon and everyone else in his administration had denied providing the federal government with any personal information on Missourians.  On Thursday, it was revealed that this too was happening.  The DOR and the Missouri State Highway Patrol has provided the federal government the names and information on ALL CCW holders in the state of Missouri – not once but twice!  This is now an established fact.

It’s time the Nixon administration stopped trying to deceive Missourians.  It only makes things worse.  It’s time Governor Nixon stepped up and took responsibility for the actions of his administration and for his role in either being a poor executive or his role in an orchestrated cover up!

Go to www.WrongWayJay.com and get more information.  You can also take action to tell the Governor to step up and do his job for Missourians and stop protecting bureaucrats!

#wrongwayjay

Senator Kurt Schaefer (R-19) has been leading this effort as chairman of the Senate Appropriations committee. We spoke with Senator Schaefer the day the boxes were delivered.

Governor Nixon has been disengaged on the issue.  His response so far is that he hasn’t “…gotten into the details on this other than to say that no, we’re not moving forward on trying to implement Real I.D.”  He is apparently unaware of the full testimony that has been provided by his DOR on the issue.  If he were, he would be more inclined to get into the details if he is not working to cover them up.

You can get more information and take action by going to www.WrongWayJay.com!

#wrongwayjay

In questioning before the Senate Appropriations committee, the Deputy Director finally admitted that indeed the department is a recipient of grants from Homeland Security to include biometric measurements of pictures.  Listen to the inquiry here:

Recognize the reason Senator Kurt Schaefer was so upset was because first he was told there were no grants from Homeland Security.  Then he was told there was a grant to buy special hole punches and routers.  Finally, he received the testimony in the audio above. Why is that signficant?

The Governor acknowledges he signed a law that says the state will not comply with REAL ID.  That law is Revised Statutes of Missouri (RSMo) 302.183.  Based on the testimony in the audio clip above, the DOR is in violation of 302.183.4.

4. Any biometric data previously collected, obtained, or retained in connection with motor vehicle registration or operation, the issuance or renewal of driver’s licenses, or the issuance or renewal of any identification cards by any department or agency of the state charged with those activities shall be retrieved and deleted from all databases. The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to any data collected, obtained, or retained for a purpose other than compliance with the federal REAL ID Act of 2005. For purposes of this section, “biometric data” includes, but is not limited to:

(1) Facial feature pattern characteristics;

(2) Voice data used for comparing live speech with a previously created speech model of a person’s voice;

(3) Iris recognition data containing color or texture patterns or codes;

(4) Retinal scans, reading through the pupil to measure blood vessels lining the retina;

(5) Fingerprint, palm prints, hand geometry, measuring of any and all characteristics of biometric information, including shape and length of fingertips or recording ridge pattern or fingertip characteristics;

(6) Eye spacing;

(7) Characteristic gait or walk;

(8) DNA;

(9) Keystroke dynamics, measuring pressure applied to key pads or other digital receiving devices.

It’s time for Governor Nixon to take this issue seriously.  He should step up and take responsibility for the department’s actions, assure Missourians he will get the answers and support a full and comprehensive audit of DOR.  You can go to www.WrongWayJay.com to learn more and to take action!

#wrongwayjay

The republican majorities have been very consistent in their opposition not to expand Medicaid or establish a state exchange. These are the two main pillars of Obamacare.

The leaders in both the house and the senate have also been consistent in their desire to fix a broken Medicaid system through reforms that would benefit those who receive their healthcare and those who pay for it.

Back to last Wednesday and the senate floor. Senator Kiki Curls brought to the body her bill on reforms to Tele-medicine in the morning session. Senator Rob Schaaf offered a reform amendment that would have prohibited the practice of insurance companies putting gag orders on doctors and providers from revealing the retail prices of treatments and services to their patients. This amendment is all about transparency and good old fashion common sense.

Who buys a product or a service not knowing the cost? Only in our current healthcare system do free market principles not apply.

Senator Schaaf has been trying to bring common sense reforms to Missouri laws for over 12 years that are market based and will bring competition resulting in lower prices for the consumer.

Because of Schaaf’s amendment the bill was laid over to be brought up in the afternoon session. Between the morning and afternoon sessions the special interest went to work on the other senators.

Once again, the special interest prevailed! The Hospital Association and the insurance companies’ lobbyist turned up the heat on senators on both sides of the aisle. In the end this common sense reform was defeated. No transparency today in healthcare today.

The vote was 12 yeas to 22 no. We encourage all UFM members to contact the yes votes on this amendment and thank the senators that stood up to the powerful special interest in an effort to promote good government reform.

We would also encourage our members to contact the no votes and let them know how disappointed you are that they voted for the status quo which is failing both the people who use the system and those who pay for the system.

Let them know you are watching their votes and will not stand for anymore missed opportunities.

Jim Lembke

A full and comprehensive independent audit is required.  Go to www.WrongWayJay.com and read more about the issue and take action there!

#WrongWayJay

The House has had two votes on expansion and they were both resounding NO’s!  The Senate Appropriations committee is preparing to conduct a hearing on Senate Bill 349 (Levota D-11) upon morning adjournment  on Wednesday, March 13.

Based on the input they are getting from their constituents, they should be voting the bill down!  However, you can still help make that happen.

First, if you have not yet sent an email to your representative and senator in opposition to the Obamacare Medicaid expansion you can still do so by clicking here.

Second, if you are at all able, attend the hearing. At last word, the committee was set to allow 30 minutes from proponents and opponents each. Even if you only come and say “I oppose the Obamacare Medicaid expansion proposal” it would be helpful.  Your presence will make a difference!

#2013mediciadexpansion

Governor Nixon who continues to follw his modus operandi of being AWOL when important issues are discussed in the legislature, has decided to get engaged.  It’s interesting that he uses a page from Barack Obama’s “the sky is falling” sequestration book!

You recall that the President claimed the world as we know it would cease to exist if sequestration were to happen.  Everyone woke up the day of sequestration and the world had not ended.

Similarly, Governor Nixon makes an equally false claim that the bill perfected by the senate, SS#2 SB26 is a tax increase.  If he was more engaged in the process, he would know that the bill is actually projected to CUT taxes by $450 million.

So how can the Governor so stridently hit the class warfare argument as hard as he does in his sudden opposition  to SB26? He relies on the portion of the bill that includes an increase in the state sales tax from 4% to 4.5% over a period of five years.  If that is all the bill did, it would indeed be a tax increase.  But it isn’t all it does and it does not represent a tax increase.

Aside from the sales tax issue above, let’s look at the changes in the income tax system.

1. Everyone gets a tax cut. The act reduces the maximum tax rate on personal income by 0.75% over a period of five years. For all tax years beginning on or after 2018, the maximum tax rate will be 5.25%.  If the federal government pass the Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013, or similar legislation, the maximum rate of tax on personal income will be reduced an additional 0.25%. (Sections 143.011 & 143.021)
2. Government recognzies the real job creators – small business.  The act creates an individual income tax deduction for business income and phases it in over a five-year period. Taxpayers will be allowed to deduct five percent of business income for the 2013 tax year and, once fully phased-in, will be allowed a fifty percent deduction for all tax years after the 2016 tax year. Shareholders of S corporations and partners in partnerships will be allowed a proportional deduction based their share of ownership. (Section 143.022)
3. Large corporations also get some relief. The act reduces the tax rate on corporate income by 0.75% over a period of five years, beginning with the 2014 tax year. For all tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2018, the tax rate on corporate income will be 5.5%. If the federal government pass the Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013, or similar legislation, the maximum rate of tax on personal income will be reduced an additional 0.25%. The act also exempts the first $25,000 of corporate income from taxation. (Section 143.071)
4. Low income individal receive additional tax relief far exceeding a half-cent sales tax increase. In addition, to the reduction of the top tax rate outlined in the first point, the act increases the exemption amount by $2,000 (on top of the $2,100 deduction already provided) for individuals with a Missouri adjusted gross income of less than $20,000. (Section 143.151)

Other elements such as participating in the Streamlined Sales Tax consortium and closing some loopholes in the definition of Nexus are included in the bill.  All in all out, the bill reduces taxes signficantly and does so for all.

Missouri has lagged it’s neighboring states and all but two of the 49 other states in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) through the first decade of the 21st Century.  Now, we see Kansas taking bold steps and attracting the real job generators in this country, small businesses.  Missouri has seen almost $1.6 billion in wealth flee the state since 1995.  The Governor’s defense of the status quo and special interests is not acceptable.

The Governor has falied to show leadership in improving Missouri’s economy.  Now that the legislature is taking on much needed reform, he is defending the status quo and special interests.  That’s not what Missouri needs.

Missouri needs and deserves a Governor that is willing to be a part of the process and be truthful, not speak out solely because he wants to stake out a more leftist position for his politcal future.

#2013taxreform

Besides the bills addressed in Medicaid Expansion – Your Voices Heard!, two key issues arose regarding Medicaid expansion in the past few days.  One dealt with a bill that was filed last week which was errantly said to expand Medicaid. It didn’t.  The second dealt with a poll petitioned by proponents of the Obamacare Medicare expansion.  You will no doubt be surprised that the poll results support expansion!

First, we will look at the alleged expansion bill, Senate Bill 456 sponsored by Senator Mike Parson.

208.248. Any section of any legislation passed by the general
2 assembly that authorizes the provisions of MO HealthNet benefits to
3 persons described in Section 2001 of Public Law 111-148 shall sunset on
4 December 31, 2016, unless reauthorized by an act of the general
5 assembly. The department of social services shall notify the revisor of
6 statutes if such changes to the MO HealthNet program occur.

That’s it. No expansion. No support for expansion.  Could it be used as a “shell bill” later? Possibly and that’s a legitimate concern that deserves to be watched over.

I’ve spoken directly with Senator Parson and Senator Dempsey about the bill.  While I disagree with the need to file the bill, I’m convinced that it was not done with any intention to use it to expand Medicaid.

It’s interesting that Senator Dempsey was labeled as “in on” this non-Medicaid expansion movement.  He is not a co-sponsor of the bill and wasn’t even aware of it until it was introduced.  There has been over 8200 emails sent by our members opposing the Obamacare Medicaid expansion.  Senator Dempsey has recieved a copy of every one and he is quite aware of the opposition to expansion.  He has never expressed the desire to expand it.

The second issue is a poll that was released this week stating that Republicans would do well to support the Obamacare Medicaid expansion.  The poll was done by Republican strategists who have been hired by those who have the most to gain from expansion – hint it’s not taxpayers or current Medicaid recipients – to convince Republicans to vote for the expansion.  Problem is that the poll is not trustworthy and is so far not being accepted by legislators as being meaningful.

What the poll does demonstrate is the intense pressure that is being applied to members of the General Assembly to take a foolhardy action.  It demonstrates the lengths to which those who support the Obamacare Medicaid expansion and the big government spending represented by it are willing to go.  Every day people are walking into legislators offices in order to convince them to vote against the will and best interest of their constituents.  It is without a doubt some of the most intense pressure I have seen in my time in the capitol.

Should we be concerned about bills that might be used as vehicles to implement the Obamacare Medicaid expansion? Absolutely!

We should never hesitate to jump with both feet on those who would take obvious actions that counteract what their constituents have clearly indicated is their will. However, when that time comes we should have our facts straight and our guns aimed in the right direction.  We won’t pull any punches if and when that time comes.

Until then, we need to encourage them to continue standing with us, not attacking them for something they didn’t do.  The result of the latter is a loss in credibility.

#2013Medicaidexpansion

Over the past four years the debate over tax policy in the general assembly has been like climbing mount Everest. At the end of the day, both sides desire has been to put forth policies that create jobs and grow our states economy. Easier said than done. This important debate has earned the general assembly in particular the senate the label of “dysfunctional”.

It is important to have some history and context when considering the direction that will best serve our state and the taxpayers who pay the bills. Over the last 30 years Missouri and her neighboring states have taken a path that competes for jobs by trying to pick the next emerging industry or by planning growth and development.

If we have learned anything by this lengthy experiment it is that government is not very good at central planning or picking winners and losers. That said, this does not mean that someone did not benefit from these policies. Through the creation of 61 targeted tax credit programs, many businesses, developers and wealthy taxpayers have reaped the rewards of mercantilism.

This direction and the decisions made by legislative leaders in both parties have put Missouri on path to mediocrity. Our revenues and growth have been dismal. Our GDP has lagged behind our neighbors. Our slow growth in population has cost us representation in congress.

It seems that term limits again may be the producer of change. The personality of the senate has shifted dramatically. That metamorphosis has allowed movement in the area of tax policy. Only time will tell if that movement is in the right direction.

Tuesday night the senate perfected SB 120. This bill takes the first step in accomplishing something that has not been done in the last 4 years as this debate has evolved. It creates four (4) new targeted tax credit programs.

These programs have familiar goals. They place government and central planners at the apex of job creation and economic development. As stated earlier that has not been working well for Missouri.

In addition to creating four (4) new tax credit programs, SB120 attempts to put new caps on a number of existing programs. This effort is in response to the concern of many legislators that these programs have grown out of control causing uncertainty in the budget process every year. It is important to note that in this fiscal year there have been record redemptions of $629 million from these targeted, tax credit programs.

The supporters of SB120 point to these new caps and their savings as justification for creating four (4) new give-a-way programs. To their credit, reducing the size of targeted, tax credit programs that benefit a small select group is a step in the right direction.

Here is the concern. SB120 has just passed its first hurdle in the legislative process. As it makes its way to the House it will without a doubt change. It will likely put on the weight of additional tax credit programs, and lose the only good thing about the bill, the savings. If the House restores the caps to their current level or even close making this bill revenue neutral, it should die a quick death when it goes back to the senate.

The bottom line is SB 120 is taking our state in the wrong direction. Our focus should be on bills like SB26 that take a global look at our tax policy. We need to have a tax policy that serves all Missourians by being fair, moral and equitable. Good tax policy will make for good economic development policy.

Jim Lembke

#2013taxreform

The hearing was conducted yesterday.  For over an hour and a half, those who wanted more government spending which adds to the national debt gave their testimony imploring the committee to take the “free” federal money.

After all this testimony, I was able to provide the sole testimony in opposition to the expansion proposal.  A summary of my testimony can be found here. The take away is that there is no such thing a “free” money.  It’s a fairy tale – not all fairy tales have happy endings!

While the Government Oversight and Accountability Committee voted down HB627, the House Appropriations – Health, Mental Health, and Social Services also rejected an amendment to add the expansion dollars to the budget.  All in all a good day for fiscal responsibility.

A couple of bills have been proposed to reform the current broken system.  Representative Dr. Keith Frederick has proposed one of those bills.  HB608 contains a number of innovative reform ideas that should be discussed.

Today, Representative Jay Barnes introduced House Bill 700.  It’s a good attempt to transform Missouri’s current Medicaid system into a market-based  system. Or at least as close as one can come with any government program.

It changes eligibility for the state program (pages 6 and 7) reducing the number of people eligible in the state. It removes some people from the program and adds others.  All in all, about 140,000 people will be added.

Some will say that’s a bad thing – expanding people on Medicaid.  While that might appear to be a bad thing on the surface one would be missing the fact that by reducing the overall eligibility statewide, future growth of the Medicaid roles will be limited.  That’s a good thing.

The proposal makes the Medicaid system more market driven.  Recipients will get to choose their insurance company rather than the state doing it for them at no additional cost to taxpayers.  Recipients will also be made responsible financially for their health care decisions through several mechanisms in the bill.

The basic structure with some modifications is actually pretty good. What is not good is that the proposal depends on the Obamacare Medicaid expansion dollars even though it is not the Obamacare Medicaid expansion program.  That’s a non-starter!

The transformation should not use Obamacare Medicaid money.  It should instead identify either the amount of federal match necesary to make the program work and make it part of the necessary waiver. Or, added populations should be removed to make the current match work.

HB700 is a good concept – bad funding source!

The opportunity to reform Medicaid has never been better.  HB608 and HB700 contain some very good ideas that should receive careful consideration and action.  The outcome should not include using the Obamacare Medicaid expansion dollars

#2013medicaidexpansion

With over 8000 emails sent so far and two resounding NO votes – Missourians are against Obamacare and its elements including Medicaid expansion!

If you haven’t already weighed in with your representative and senator you can still do so.  If you have but know others that would like to share this link!!!!!

YOUR URGENT ACTION REQUIRED – Stop the Medicaid Expansion!

#2013Medicaidexpansion

It can’t be the fact that Medicaid expansion adds billions of dollars to the national debt.  It can’t be the fact that adding more people to a Medicaid system that is broken and yields no signficant improvement in health care outcomes doesn’t make sense for taxpayers or recipients.  When you go through the facts and not the political hyperbole, there is no reason left to expand Medicaid – except for politics.

The latest governor to flip-flop is Rick Scott in Florida.  He makes a weak case for doing it and is either woefully ignorant of good policy and prinicple or he simply ignores the fact that like Republicans in Congress with the debt ceiling and tax hikes has set himself and Florida up for a huge trap later.

According to an article in National Review and contrary to Governor Nixon’s pronouncement, politics is driving factor in many of the decisions.  It certainly appears to be the case in the Florida Governor’s decision.

But Scott’s low approval ratings were almost certainly the primary factor in his Medicaid expansion decision, says Michael Cannon, director of health policy studies at the Cato Institute. (Cannon served on Scott’s transition team in December 2010.) Scott’s approval rating is a mere 33 percent, and he is perhaps “vulnerable to a potential primary challenge,” according to a poll conducted last month by the Public Policy Center. (emphasis added)

Michael Cannon at CATO continues to do a great job of exposing the foolishness of Obamacare.  He does a particularly good job of commenting on Scott’s recent statement and with some inside knowledge as well.

The bottom line is that Medicaid expansion can be an alluring attraction for those worried more about politics than good policy or principle.

Rick Scott’s ObamaCare Flip-Flop

By MICHAEL F. CANNON

Word is that Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R) has decided to throw his support behind, or at least drop his opposition to, ObamaCare’s Medicaid expansion. His formal announcement, which may come tomorrow, will receive much attention. Scott was an early opponent of ObamaCare. He parlayed that opposition into a bid for governor in 2010, and rode the anti-ObamaCare wave into office. Shortly after becoming governor, he announced he would not lift a finger to help the federal government implement the law. I followed all this pretty closely. I served on Scott’s gubernatorial transition team, at his invitation.

Now, it appears Scott doesn’t see the point in opposing the Medicaid expansion. Never mind that – according to my colleague Jagadeesh Gokhale, whom the Social Security Administration consults when making these types of projections – the expansion will cost Florida $20 billion over the first 10 years, and add 3 million Floridians to the Medicaid rolls. Never mind that many of those Floridians currently have private health insurance. Never mind that Medicaid will provide them inferior access to care. Never mind that expanding Medicaid would make those millions of voters dependent on government for their health care, and thus would expand the constituency for more government spending and higher taxes.

There is speculation that Scott made a deal with the Obama administration: he would drop his opposition to the Medicaid expansion in exchange for HHS approving Florida’s plan to put its Medicaid enrollees in managed care plans. HHS approved Florida’s plan today. But economists have shown that moving Medicaid enrollees into managed care increases state and federal spending because it lures more people into the program. So it appears that Scott supported ObamaCare’s Medicaid expansion so that the Obama administration would support his.

Scott says he still opposes having Florida create a health insurance Exchange. Then again, he said the same thing about the Medicaid expansion. So in addition to whatever other damage his flip-flop does, he has squandered his credibility as an opponent of ObamaCare.

To reclaim any credibility on this issue, Scott would have to file an Oklahoma-style lawsuit to block the illegal taxes that the Obama administration is trying to impose on employers in Florida and the other 33 states that have opted for a federal Exchange. Or will he sell out Florida’s job creators too?

http://www.cato.org/blog/rick-scotts-obamacare-flip-flop

#2013Medicaidexpansion

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

CLICK HERE to let your elected officials know you oppose the proposed Obamacare Medicaid expansion supported by Governor Nixon and big government spending special interests!

‎I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.- James Madison

When asked, Missouri voters have overwhelmingly rejected various aspects of Obamacare such as the individual mandate and bureaucratic establishment of a healthcare insurance exchange.  There is no doubt that if a vote to overturn Obamacare were placed on the ballot it would pass overwhelmingly!

Supporters of Obamacare and its associated big government spending are pulling out all the stops to convince the Missouri General Assembly to expand Medicaid in the state.  It’s bad policy, it won’t help those who proponents say it will help and it will increase Missouri’s share of the federal debt! CLICK HERE to act now.

The debate on whether the General Assembly should expand Medicaid is heating up.  The Governor and supporters of big government spending are crisscrossing the state, walking the halls of the capitol building and sending emails trying to make the case for expansion.  Unfortunately, most of what I hear them saying isn’t accurate.  The old adage “if sounds too good to be true it probably is” aptly applies here.

The “selling” points seem to be grouped into four main areas:

1.      The federal government will be funding it for “free” for the first few years.

• False – It is not free it is our tax dollars and borrowed Chinese funds (40-46% borrowed). Missouri would not be adding almost $6 billion to the federal debt/deficit by rejecting expansion.

2.      Missouri’s Medicaid money will be spent in another state if we don’t’ take it.

• False – Medicaid funding is primarily based on the number of recipients/services delivered. It’s not like highway funds that can simply be moved away from one state to another.  Any state will be reimbursed for their Medicaid program based on the recipients/services provided not on what money is available because another state did not expand Medicaid.

3.      Expansion will create jobs.

• Unsupported – This is based on a study performed by the University of Missouri and a North Carolina company.  Similar studies performed in the past have proven completely inaccurate. Any jobs created by Medicaid expansion are really government jobs being paid for in the private sector by federal and state taxpayer money.

4.      Better healthcare outcomes will result when more people have access to government provided healthcare.

• Unsupported – There is no reliable data available to support the statement. In fact, Oregon’s experience is that expansion results in nominal healthcare outcome improvements but with significant increase in healthcare facility utilization and costs.

Your immediate attention is required to prevent more government spending. Click Here!

The pressure is on your legislators to enact this big government expansion.  They have been bombarded by proponents supporting expansion.  They are receiving lots of visits from special interest groups and have been receiving a lot of signatures in support of expansion.  We need to let them know they are on the right track NOT TO expand Medicaid! CLICK HERE to act now.

One of the financial rating service, Moody’s, has downgraded Missouri’s outlook to negative on credit rating.  Why? Our extreme reliance on federal funds which will only get worse with Medicaid expansion putting our state’s credit rating in danger.

Implementing Medicaid expansion will not only exacerbate the reliance on federal funds but place the state at financial risk with no way to pay for the expansion WHEN the federal government changes the rules. Let there be no doubt they will change them at some point – they have in the past and absolutely no reason to think they won’t in the future!

But it’s not only the cost to state taxpayers of nearly $6 billion in federal funds (Moody’s warning) but the Kaiser Family Foundation projects it could cost the state anywhere from $1 – $3 billion of state funds through 2022.  Missouri taxpayers cannot afford to expand Medicaid. CLICK HERE to let your representative and senator know you OPPOSE Medicaid expansion.

Thank you for your activism. Grassroots soldiers have shown they are effective all across the state.  You have already been seeing the grassroots impact in statements from legislative leaders saying NO to expansion.  Without consistent support and backing, it will grow more and more difficult for them to continue to say NO!

Now it is time to reinforce your NO vote to your legislators.  We must remain engaged to protect our liberties!

Sincerely,

Carl Bearden

Executive Director

United for Missouri

Like what United for Missouri’s Future and United for Missouri are doing? Invest in our work by clicking here. We’re supported by our more than 66,000 citizen-activists statewide. Your contribution in any amount will go a long waytoward promoting free-market policies at all levels of government – local, state and federal. Thanks!

#2013Medicaidexpansion

The House Economic Development Committee heard three bills (HB191, HB182 and HB423) that would expand and create new targeted tax credit programs. Committee members listened to testimony from a packed house of supporters looking for taxpayers to subsidize their business endeavor(s).

From Mayor Sly James of Kansas City to developer Paul McKee, one by one the committee was showered with grand plans and promised returns for taxpayer investment. Special interest groups and lobbyist stood against the walls of the hearing room waiting to get their chance to testify why these new programs would be the panacea for creating jobs in Missouri.

By the end of the night, United for Missouri was the only group to testify that asked committee members to ask these questions about these and any other proposed tax credits:

• Do these bills make Missouri’s tax policy more just, moral and equitable?
• Do these bills stop the practice of government picking winners and losers?

In regards to the bills heard last night in committee, the answer to both questions is NO!
Jim Lembke

#2013taxreform

If you have missed them, be sure to read our blogs

Medicaid Expansion – Wrong Answer, Part I

Medicaid Expansion – Wrong Answer, Part II

#2013medicaidexpansion

‎I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.- James Madison

In Medicaid Expansion – Wrong Answer, Part I, I discussed the four main “selling” points for expanding Medicaid.  They are:

1. The federal government will be funding it for “free” for the first few years.
2. Missouri’s Medicaid money will be spent in another state if we dont’ take it.
3. Expansion will create jobs.
4. Better healthcare outcomes will result when more people have access to government provided healthcare.

As you can imagine, as many of of these “selling” points are exposed as not being the magic elixir they claim to be, new ones are developed.  We will continue to expose the snake oil remedies as they are given.

Today, we will take a look at the last two “selling” points.

Medicaid Expansion Creates Jobs

This “selling” point is very purposefully designed.  The proponents of Medicaid expansion know that jobs and the economy is the number one issue on people’s minds.  They very astutely commission a study thats appears to indicate what a boon to job creation spending nearly $6 billion (b) of federal money, 40% of which is borrowed, and a few billion of state taxpayer money will be.  Problem is historical experience indicates they are wrong.

A study done by the University of Missouri and an out-of-state company shows that by implemeting this federal stimulus program of expanding Medicaid 24,000 jobs will be created.  The fact that these studies have proven to be notroriously wrong in the past aside, let’s look at this claim.

Who will be creating these jobs?  Many of the jobs will be located in the private sector but they will be paid for by taxpayer using borrowed Chinese funds.  The federal funds for Medicaid expansion along with the state’s portion of funding will be paying for these jobs.  The private sector will not be creating them.  The private sector will not be paying for them just serving as a government agent passing the money through.  The money spent will be taxpayer money and the taxes collected from those jobs will not equal what the taxpayers spend on those jobs.  It’s simply another federal stimulus program gone wrong.

How much credence should we give to these projections?  Experience tells us we should give little to none to them.  These types of economic projections are made on a regular basis. And just as regularly, they prove to be overly optomistic much less accurate.  Can you say MAMTEK?

Here’s a prime example of how these studies are used to support programs that otherwise couldn’t get funded  - Historic Preservation Tax Credits.  When this tax credit was developed, the projections were that over a five year period the credit would cost $71.5 million and for every $1 in tax credit issued, the state would receive $1.10 in return.  Sounds pretty good doesn’t it?

The reality is that over that five year period the tax credits issued were $640 million and it’s costing taxpayers nearly $.77 for every $1 in tax credit issued.  There is absolutley no reason to believe that 24,000 jobs will be created under Medicaid expansion.  In fact, historical experience shows just the opposite!

Medicaid Expansion will result in Better Helathcare Outcomes

Just in case the questionable economic arguments fail to sway you, the proponents also include tugging at your heart strings.  They will talk about the 300,000 people who will be “eligible” for Medicaid under the expansion and how their healthcare outcomes will be improved and that helps us all.  Sounds good but it’s not working that way now with just under 900,000 people on the rolls. How will adding more people to a broken system improve healthcare outcomes? Answer: it won’t.

There is scant, reliable evidence that Medicaid access signficantly improves healthcare outcomes.  This isn’t speculation. Oregon has demonstrated that access to government funded healthcare does not signficantly improve healthcare outcomes but usage and costs absolutely go up.

The proponents also claim that expanding Medicaid will save lives.  The facts show that this is a false claim.  Even when you study Medicare which deals with an older and usually sicker population, the evidence does not support this type of claim.  You can read more about this and other facts here.

Bottom line is that the Obamacare Medicaid expansion is not helpful to those who might be given coverage and it’s not helpful or cost effective for those paying for it.  Adding more people to a broken system will not assist them nor taxpayers.

The Missouri legislature should continue their efforts to reform the existing Missouri Medicaid system making it truly effective for those who are receiving services as well as those who are paying for them.

#2013medicaidexpansion

The “selling” points seem to be grouped into four main areas:

1. The federal government will be funding it for “free” for the first few years.
2. Missouri’s Medicaid money will be spent in another state if we dont’ take it.
3. Expansion will create jobs.
4. Better healthcare outcomes will result when more people have access to government provided healthcare.

In some cases, the arguments are outright false and in others, they are very misleading!

Free Money

Whenever you hear this one you should have the compulsion to grab your wallet and run away as fast as possible!  Here are the basics.

Federal money is not “free” money.  Taxpayers provide federal money period.  Even if it’s borrowed Chinese money taxpayers pay it back.  Missouri is projected to receive approximately $5.7 billion (b) in “free” money.  We know that around $.40 of every dollar is borrowed. So not only will taxpayers pay the $5.7b plus the state match that will be needed – projected to be between $1b and $3b, we will also be paying the interest on that “free” money.  Anyone who believes this is a good deal needs to take an intensive credit counseling course!

Fact is if Missouri does not expand Medicaid the federal deficit and debt will be that much less.  So far, a handful of states have said no to Medicaid expansion.  The CBO estimates that those states who have refused to expand Medicaid have reduced federal deficits by $84b. The states that are refusing to expand Medicaid are doing more to reduce federal deficits than Congress and the president.  Missouri should join that group in reducing the federal deficit!

Missouri’s “Share” will go to other states

This is the most outlandish claim of them all.  The Governor made a statement in the state of the state address “…will we let the tax dollars that Missourians send to Washington be spent in other states instead? Other states would get the benefits, and we’d get the bill.”  When queried about what exactly was the Governor basing his statement on, his staff replied “Missourians pay federal taxes.  Those federal taxes are used to fund federal programs, such as Medicaid.”  Sounds good but doesn’t hold up under scrutiny.

Medicaid is not just “given” to states.  People have to be enrolled, services provided etc. in order for the federal government to provide Medicaid funding.  The cold hard fact is that if any other state enrolls and provides services to more people than was projected, they will receive MORE Medicaid funds from the feds whether Missouri expands Medicaid or not.  That money would not come from Missouri’s “share” because we did not expand Medicaid.

As far as paying for those people in other states – you already are.  Every Missourian who pays federal taxes pays for the funds expended by the federal government everywhere, not just in our state.  We are currently paying a portion of California’s Medicaid program through our federal taxes.  This will not be any more if Missouri doesn’t expand Medicaid.  In fact, as indicated earlier, the federal deficit and our share of it would be less if more states refused to expand Medicaid!

The Governor rightly knows that nobody really wants to pay anybody else’s bill especially if they get nothing for it.  However, his basis is all wrong and it’s just a political ploy to convince people to accept more state and federal spending.  I don’t know about you, but I would like the Governor Nixon who was there before the election to come back! The new, big spender Governor Nixon isn’t going to work out very well for Missouri.

We will address the remaining “selling” points in another blog.  If you get the opportunity, please encourage your representative and senator to just say “NO” to Medicaid expansion.  In the near future, we will be giving you an opporutinty to do just that!

#2013medicaidexpansion

Opponents of necessary reforms such as tax reform and employee freedom point out that Missouri ranks very low on most measures of taxation.  They claim for example that if taxes were really important, that Missouri should be booming.  They ignore the fact that one element in and of itself does not make for economic success.

Opponents are starting to admit that there is no silver bullet solution.  It’s probably to optimistic to think that   they will actually put together the fact that you need tax reform and employee freedom.  But you know what they say, even a blind hog finds an acorn once and awhile!

Wednesday, the House committee on Workforce Development and Workplace Safety Committee will hear House Bill 77  dealing with Employee Freedom.  There will be a committee substitute dropped to remove the orginail proposal to send the measure to a vote.  This is something the legislature can and should do.

Our friends at Missouri First are providing their usual service to give all of us the opportunity to turn in a witness form in support of the bill whether we can attend or not.  I encourage you to take advantage of this service and fill out the generic witness form as outlined below.

You can make a difference!

FROM MISSOURI FIRST

Did you know that the Missouri has “Employee Freedom” in the state Constitution?

That’s right, Article I, Section 29  says, “That employees shall have the right to organize and to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing.”

Properly applied, that means even if 99% of the employees at a company choose to form the XYZ Union, the other 1% (or any individual) still has the right to choose someone else — including themselves — to represent them.  The Constitution declares an individual’s right to either join the union or refrain from joining the union a majority of his coworkers formed.

So why is Missouri not considered a “Employee Freedom” state?

It’s because our state legislature has thus far failed to do their duty to protect the rights of Missouri workers from an unconstitutional federal law from 1935 (The National Labor Relations Act, aka “Wagner Act”).

That will change if  HB 77 (Rep. Eric Burlison) becomes law.

Commonly known as  ”Employment Freedom”, this bill will have a public hearing in the Workforce Development and Workplace Safety Committee on Wednesday, Feb. 6th.

Although polls indicate most union members don’t think anyone should be forced to join a union, their leadership will fight this bill tooth and nail!

Your help is needed!

Please either attend this hearing or, if you can’t make it, fill out an online witness form which will be presented with hundreds of others at the hearing.  Include your own comments on the form.

Witness Form Links for HB 77 (Employee Freedom in Missouri)

Generic Witness Form: Click for Witness Form

Please fill this form out now and pass this email on to as many friends as you can!

For Liberty,

Ron Calzone

#2013employeefreedom

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

There have been a number of tax reform efforts and discussion led by legislators over the years. Representative (now Senator) Ed Emery, Representative Andrew Koenig, former Senator Chuck Purgason, and former Senator Luann Ridgeway have been leaders in the discussion.  Until now, they have been legislative voices in the wilderness. That all changed last week!

By now, everyone is hopefully aware that Kansas essentially stopped the so-called “border war” battles and made the move to claim victory in the war.  You can read more about what Kansas has done here.

Senators Eric Schmitt, Will Kraus and John Lamping presented bills last week that would result in a comprehensive and cohesive change to Missouri’s tax policy.   Their presentations marked the most extensive and in-depth conversation to be held about tax reform in decades.  The bills: SB11, SB26 and SB31 vary and none are likely to be the final form.

The Senators were not only well versed on what their bills do but versed on why Missouri needs to be engaged in changing our tax policy.  Almost every state around us is looking to reduce and/or eliminate the income tax.  Tax policy is not the only factor in people moving from one state to another but it is an important one.

A recent book, How Money Walks - How $2 Trillion Moved Between the States, and Why It Matters details how much wealth is leaving states like Missouri for states who have better tax burdens and better regulatory environment.

Oklahoma is also working to reduce their income tax.  The Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs has published a couple of good resources on the topic.  Eliminating the State Income Tax in Oklahoma: An Economic Assessment and Economics 101 are very good reads on the topic.

As you would expect, the big government folks were out in force against the bills.  There was nothing really new in the arguments.  You know, the world is going to end if you eliminate income taxes etc.  They did offer some alleged unfairness in the Kansas plan.

For example, the opponents claim that  the Kansas plan gives small business owners a tax cut but not W-2 employees.  That’s false on at least two counts.

The most obvious inaccuracy is that W-2 employees in Kansas DO GET a tax cut.  The top rate is reduced from just over 6% to just under 5%!  As of January 1, 2013, W-2 employees saw a real tax cut.

One thing the opponents never seem to get is that if employers don’t make money the W-2 employees don’t have jobs. The small business pass through tax cut will help not only the owners but employees as well.

The other allegation is that there has been nearly $1 billion dollars in tax cuts in the past 15 years or so yet the growth that is purported to come from tax cuts isn’t being seen as measured by state government revenues.  Aside from using the wrong measure, the allegation simply doesn’t hold up.

None of the tax cuts were part of a comprehensive tax reform policy. Almost all of them were based on politics not tax policy.  For example, the largest tax cut was removing the state general revenue sales tax from food.  The tax cut dealing with the elimination of the tax on social security was fair since that money has already been taxed once but neither of these has an impact on making Missouri a more attractive state to relocate a business.

The biggest problem with the sales tax is that with over 130 exemptions the sales tax base is hollowed out.  It would bring in more and be more dependable if the base were broader.

If Missouri is going to grow economically and be competitive with neighboring states much less the rest of the country we need tax reform.  So far, the legislature is off to a good start on the discussion.

#2013taxreform

Mo’ Money Will Not Solve MO Problems

James V. Shuls

Wouldn’t it be nice to have a lot of money? So much money that you could do everything you want to do without worrying about the cost. Of course it would, and it would also be nice to have a unicorn; but we live in the real world, with resource constraints. For most of us, that means making decisions about what works best and putting our money into those things, rather than wasting our money on things that do not work. The one thing we know from the field of education is that what we are currently doing has not been working and we cannot afford to continue down the same path. Rather than throw good money after bad, we need to rethink how we operate public education in Missouri.

By many measures of academic achievement, Missouri ranks near the middle of the pack when compared to other states. On the best state-to-state comparison, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), Missouri fourth graders ranked 28^th in math and 32^nd in reading in 2011. Missouri’s eighth-grade students ranked 33^rd and 25^th in math and reading, respectively. At the high school level, the state’s average ACT score has remained unchanged at 21.6 for the past eight years.

We are stuck in the middle with no signs of becoming “un-stuck.” Using data from NAEP and several international comparison tests, notable education scholars Eric Hanushek, Paul Peterson, and Ludger Woessmann analyzed national and state level trends in achievement. They found United States performance to be middling in comparison to other countries. From 1995 to 2009, 24 countries had educational gains larger than the United States and 24 had smaller gains. In their analysis, Missouri once again appears average when compared to other states, ranking 27^th in the annual rate of growth in math, reading, and science achievement. Missouri does not seem to be improving rapidly in comparison to other states or other countries.

The answer to our apparent inertia is not simply more money. Many rigorous studies have shown, including the one cited above, that increased funding simply does not buy higher achievement. From 1992 to 2008, real per-pupil spending on K-12 education increased by nearly 40 percent. Last year, Missouri spent approximately $9,600 per student. For a class of 25 students, that equals $240,000. And that figure is just for current operating expenditures, which typically does not cover the cost of buildings and classrooms. For the 2013 fiscal year, spending on elementary and secondary education will consume more than 36 percent of the state’s general revenue operating budget.

Freedom, not money, is the answer to Missouri’s education problems. Our education system is rife with burdensome regulations and limitations that inhibit teachers and school leaders from addressing the most pressing needs at their schools. At the same time, most families lack the ability to express any meaningful choice in where their child goes to school. We need to allow school officials to innovate and we need to empower families to choose.

The state cannot afford to continue the path we are on, but we can certainly afford to dole out more freedom. Arizona lawmakers have discovered a way to promote freedom while saving money, with the use of education savings accounts. Families who wish to homeschool or place their child in a private school can now receive a portion of the funds that would have been spent on their child. They can use these funds for approved education purposes, including textbooks, tutoring, and even tuition. Because students only receive a portion of the funds, the state saves money and families have more options. In my book, that is a win-win.

James V. Shuls is the education policy analyst at the Show-Me Institute, which promotes market solutions for Missouri public policy. 

#2013education

#show-me

=====================================================================================
On Wednesday, January 9, 2013, our newly elected representatives and senators of Missouri will raise their right hand and swear to uphold the United States and Missouri Constitutions. Have you ever considered what it means to take an oath to uphold these important documents?

We are a sovereign people that are governed by our constitution and the rule of law. In our system of government, we the people have acknowledged that our creator endowed us with certain rights. These rights do not come from those that we elect. On the contrary, the elected representative and senators job is to protect and uphold our God given rights.

The preamble to the Missouri Constitution states: “We the people of Missouri, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for this goodness, do establish this constitution for the better government of the state.”

Article 1, Section 1 of the Missouri Constitution states: “That all political power is vested in and derived from the people…”

Article 1, Section 2 states: “That all persons have a natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and the enjoyment of the gains of their own industry….”

Taking an oath is a sacred thing and should not be entered into without great consideration. It is about time that we the people hold our elected leaders accountable to their oath and their responsibility. It will not serve the future of our republic to dwell on the past and those that have ignored their duty to hold their oath, we must look to the future.

Let our collective resolution in this new year be to hold our public servants to their oath and to govern by our constitutions and the rule of law.

Jim Lembke
United for Missouri’s Future/United for Missouri

#2013General

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

(click for larger/full view)

Callaway County Commission considers assault on property rights.

CLICK HERE to let your County Commissioners know you oppose the establishment of an Enhanced Enterprise Zone (EEZ) in Callaway County!

The Callaway County Commission has been preparing to establish a large Enhanced Enterprise Zone (EEZ) that would blight 170 square miles or 20% of the county. The result would be the ability to condemn private property and provide it to private companies who would in turn receive tax breaks to “create” jobs. The only problem is, the track record for EEZ’s and other government “economic development” programs is dismal!

These economic development “tools” usually accomplish two or three things – none of which provide overall improvements to job creation.

One of the things they do is simply just move businesses and jobs from one area, usually nearby, to another. Moving jobs from one area to another is not job creation.

Another “accomplishment” is that these programs involve giving tax breaks to the companies who take advantage of free infrastructure and usually property and/or income tax breaks. What happens when 170 square miles of property is taken off the rolls for a period of time? You guessed it – other County taxpayers have to pick up the slack created by those forgone taxes.
Blighting can have a similar affect to foreclosures – depressing land values. If a property is “bad enough” to be blighted, its value is less. If that property’s value is less and your property abuts it, your property values will be impacted even if only temporarily. It’s a domino effect.

Perhaps you could accept all of these factors if jobs were created and the economy in the county were improved. The fact is that EEZ’s have not only been shown to be ineffective, areas with EEZ’s actually perform at a lower level than those without them!

Your immediate attention is required Click Here!

As citizens of Callaway County have become more aware of the County Commission plans and educated about the lackluster performance of EEZ’s they have become vocal in their opposition. The result of these voices being raised is that the County Commission has slowed down their efforts to establish the EEZ. But the possibility still exists that they will continue to work on it. CLICK HERE to act now.

You can be part of the voices of Callaway County and let the County Commission know that an EEZ is not the answer to economic development in your county. The Commission could be taking several actions of their own and encouraging the state to create a better economic climate that treats all taxpayers the same and actually attracts jobs without government giveaways.
Here’s how you can make a difference.

Send an email to the County Commission and let them know you do not support the establishment of an EEZ by CLICKING HERE! They are just beginning to learn of the problems associated with such a measure and citizen opposition to it! Your input NOW can have a significant impact on them.

Another way to affect this issue is to forward a copy of this link to everyone you know. The more people who weigh in with the County Commission the harder it will be for them to take this action.

Thank you for your activism. Grassroots soldiers have shown they are effective all across the state and here in Callaway County. Already grassroots people have had an impact in slowing the process down. Now it is time to bring it to an end. We must remain engaged to protect our liberties! CLICK HERE!

The bill that was passed is the biggest tax increase in 20 years. Some might say that would be OK because they got spending cuts in return. Hah! In return for the biggest tax increase in 20 years they also voted for spending increases – NOT SPENDING CUTS!

But not to worry. I’m reading several, especially from Republicans, press releases today where those voting for this shameful debacle are claiming it’s a “tax cut for the middle class”. That’s a load of bovine fecal matter!

The “tax cut for the middle class” or “saving the middle class” argument is such an obvious farcical statement that it boggles the mind. It just goes to show how dumb those in Washington think the voters are. Can you blame them for thinking that though after seeing the results of the last election?

We had several Missouri elected officials who decided it’s better and easier to cast a vote that might help them get re-elected than to do what is right for Americans and Missourians which is usually a hard thing to do and might require explanation. Here’s how the Missouri delegation voted:

Senate:
McCaskill – Yes
Blunt – Yes

House:
Clay – Yes
Akin – No
Carnahan – Yes
Hartzler – No
Cleaver – Yes
Graves – Absent
Long – No
Emerson – Yes
Luetkemeyer – Yes

A Yes vote was not about saving the middle class or anything else that was worthwhile to America. It was all about special interests and getting good press coverage for being able to “compromise” so they could have a better shot at getting re-elected. Compromise can be good when done without compromising fundamental principles. On that score Washington and several Missouri members of Congress get an “F”.

A Yes vote was a failure to represent what was best for Missouri and the Nation!

A solution is already in place and awaiting action in the Senate and his signature. So what’s the problem? The solution doesn’t include his class warfare solution or give him the ability to raise the debt ceiling!

The US House of Representatives passed an extension of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 aka “Bush Tax Cuts” on August 1, 2012. You remember all the press coverage the passage of H.R. 8 received don’t you? After all, it passed on a strong bipartisan vote of 256 to 171.

If passed by the Senate and signed by the President the bill would postpone the “fiscal cliff” tax hikes for another year and set in place a process for fundamental tax reform next year (2013). The bill was passed before the election and should have been acted upon by the Senate in quick order. Of course, we know that Harry Reid and the President have no real interest in finding the right solution but will continue to insist on “their” solution. That’s the reason that nearly six months later the Senate has taken no action on H.R. 8.

While a great deal of the blame for not finding a real solution to the fiscal cliff lays at the feet of Obama/Reid, Speaker Boehner hasn’t really been offering a solid plan either. All he had to do was to point out that H.R. 8 was passed that would give more time to find the right solution. The country will suffer as a result of the Obama/Reid/Boehner failure to find the right solution that doesn’t raise taxes on job creators and cuts spending!

Our friends at American Commitment have put together an Action Alert so that you can easily contact Senator Blunt and McCaskill urging them to get the Senate on the ball and pass H.R. 8! Just as we make it simple to contact your state legislators, American Commitment is doing the same on the federal level. They provide a template for your use and then send it on to the Senators.

Here’s how I modified the Action Alert template they provided by adding my personal input as the first paragraph:

Raising taxes is ludicrous when the real problem is spending! I and many other Missourians DO NOT support the President’s or Speaker Boehner’s solution to increase taxes!

I recommend you do the same and let Blunt and McCaskill know that the current rush to raise taxes and not really cut spending is unacceptable! Pass H.R. 8 extending the tax cuts and reform the tax code. No excuses!

Unfortunately we have Democrats and Republicans who are all too willing to sell out that future – the future of our children, grandchildren and beyond – all to be “liked” and so they can say they were able to “compromise”. NO is sometimes the right answer and it certainly is now when it comes to higher taxes, more spending and no real solutions!

Compromise is often nothing more than “you should agree with me or as close to my position as possible”. That’s the case for the President in the fiscal cliff discussions. It’s also the case when it comes to state level politics from time to time.

Those who want to expand government are the ones crying for “compromise”. They want the Republicans who have taken the correct stand AGAINST establishing a state health care exchange and expanding Medicaid, neither of which Missouri can afford to do, to somehow compromise and spend more money and make government bigger. Republicans need to stand firm and reply with a resounding “NO”!!

‎”No” is often the right answer and no compromise is necessary especially on a State Health Care Exchange which will cost Missouri businesses lots of money if enacted and reduce jobs without providing any state control. It’s also the right answer on Medicaid expansion which taxpayers cannot afford.

Compromise is not always the answer especially when it’s the wrong answer. It certainly is the wrong answer on these two issues!

#2013Medicaidexpansion
#2013exchange

http://moscout.com/will-fed-politics-have-a-psychological-impact-on-state-politics/

While many very important issues such as tax reform, tax credit reform, medical malpractice, right to work and others have already been mentioned prior to the beginning of the new session, healthcare still dominates the discussions. Missourians are more focused on this issue than any other right now in our state.

Legislative leaders and other members have expressed their intention that there will be no health care exchange and no expansion of Medicaid. Both of these are the right direction for our state and are in keeping with the will of most Missourians.

Some in the grassroots movement mistakenly believe that Proposition C and Proposition E took care of the issue and that is all legislators need to stay strong. They are very much in error in that thinking. There will be intense pressures from groups who will benefit from both of these actions. If we do not remain vigilant and supportive of those taking a stand against these big government actions we will find ourselves with one or both!

There is absolutely no question the Medicaid expansion is bad for the state. I’ve written three blogs so far about why and you can find them here. The state and federal government cannot afford the expansion. We have seen not only here in Missouri but across the nation that there is no real empirical or reliable data that Medicaid improves health outcomes. If the states do not expand Medicaid, the federal deficits would shrink by $900 billion over 10 years!

What may surprise people the most however is the belief among many well intentioned legislators that it is absolutely necessary to implement a state run healthcare exchange. I would respectfully disagree with them.

A recent conversation regarding exchanges caught me by surprise. Some legislators believe that by allowing the federal government to implement an exchange – something they are not funded to do – that they will be accused of implementing Obamacare in Missouri. I tried to explain that the grassroots in Missouri see implementation of a state exchange to be implementing Obamacare. We will be taking action to make sure that all legislators know that NOT implementing an exchange is the right way to go!

The CATO Institute has done a lot of work on exchanges and Medicaid expansion. In a recent article published in National Review Online, Michael F. Cannon gives about 13 arguments against creating exchanges. Let’s look at a couple of those arguments. I highly recommend you read Obamacare Still Vulnerable for the full details.

Implementing a state healthcare exchange will cost the state’s employers lots of money:

Twelfth, defaulting to a federal exchange exempts a state’s employers from the employer mandate — a tax of $2,000 per worker per year (the tax applies to companies with more than 50 employees, but for such companies that tax applies after the 30th employee, not the 50th). If all states did so, that would also exempt 18 million Americans from the individual mandate’s tax of $2,085 per family of four. Avoiding those taxes improves a state’s prospects for job creation, and protects the conscience rights of employers and individuals whom the Obama administration is forcing to purchase contraceptives coverage.

If job creation is the number one priority, why in the world would the legislature want to enact a measure that will result in higher taxes on the employers of the state? It doesn’t make sense economically or politically.

Another reason NOT to do a state exchange is the cost to the state and federal government to run them. It’s projected that most states will spend between $10-100 million to implement and run an exchange. Missouri doesn’t have the money and neither do the feds! Fact is according to the article, if all states declined to participate in the exchanges, the federal deficits would fall by roughly $700 billion over 10 years!

Missouri should NOT establish a healthcare exchange!

#2013Medicaidexpansion
#2013exchange

History shows that these government “freebies” are anything but free. Even Democrat Governor Warren Hearnes pointed out when it was first passed that Medicaid would bankrupt states at some point. He was right. Missourians could not afford the government expansion of Medicaid that occurred in the 1990′s and they can’t afford Obamacare expansion either.

The fact of the matter is that all the nice things you hear about Medicaid just aren’t supported by the facts. When Missouri reformed Medicaid in 2005 and Missouri Healthnet was created, it was to accomplish all those things that you are hearing the expansion of Medicaid would do except it reduced the Medicaid rolls. People on Medicaid were supposed to be healthier because of the preventive care aspects. Emergency room visits and costs were to be reduced because of the preventative care measures etc, etc, etc. Few if any of these things have actually happened.

Doctors have by and large stopped taking Medicaid patients. My personal physician and his partner are one of the few who will take new patients and they are reaching the point they can’t afford to do it either. Obamacare will exacerbate this problem by reduced payments for services and by creating a doctor shortage. Doesn’t really do you any good to have Medicaid if you can’t get access to a doctor. So what does that leave? Emergency room visits. They are still the routine.

Republicans are often their own worse enemy. One need only look at what is happening in Washington and the alleged fiscal cliff. Republicans have folded in the past and the likelihood they will do so again is pretty high in many people’s mind. Compromise is a necessary function in life. The problem comes in compromising principle and some don’t seem to know where that line is.

That’s why I found the commentary by Dave Helling in today’s Kansas City Star to be interesting. Dave points out that the Republicans are now supporting requiring non-profits who engage in campaigns to disclose their donors. It is true Republicans did not agree with this idea a couple of years ago. It think it is also accurate that they do so now only because some were attacked by pop-up non-profits.

The legislature being political creatures are subject to feel good measures like this one. They can stand-up and say they are adding transparency but they don’t really address why the pop-up non-profits popped up! It’s not because donors are cowards but because they have seen the results of retaliation and attacks by not only liberal groups but from conservatives as well. It’s a “fix” that merely treats the symptom but leaves the disease unchecked.

At any rate, Dave uses this “flexibility” as a possible indicator that Republicans will cave on Medicaid expansion. I don’t think there is a correlation but he makes some points that are potential problems for Republicans.

Rural hospitals are one of the attack points. No one should be confused – hospitals negotiated the reduction in payments in exchange for MANDATORY Medicaid expansion. The Supreme Court dealt them a blow as they should have. The hospitals had no authority and absolutely NO right to negotiate such a deal. Now, rural hospitals will likely suffer for the deal made by the big guys.

Here’s a solution to the problem. The legislatures should re-work the formula for distributing the Federal Reimbursement Allowance (FRA) that hospitals pay into as a tax on themselves. This money is then used by the state to draw down additional federal money and re-distributed to hospitals. The legislature should change the distribution formula to favor the rural hospitals even more than it does now. This would at least in part make up for the bad deal the big guys cut that may have an impact on rural hospitals.

Republicans need to hold strong for their constituents as a whole and not special interest groups. They should not expand Medicaid!
#2013Medicaidexpansion

Governor Nixon and his co-conspirators in expanding government and government spending will be out and about this week spreading word about job creation by government through more government spending. We know that has worked so well in the past!

They will be waiving about a study done by the University of Missouri and a Virginia company (Dobson DaVanzo & Associates, LLC) purporting the creation of over 24,000 jobs if only the state will agree to spend just a few hundred million more dollars a year to expand Medicaid. The problem is that these studies have notoriously been wildly over optimistic and never quite seem to live up to their projections. No one should have any confidence that 24,000 jobs will be created by spending more money on expanding Medicaid. It is simply a ruse to get those who aren’t paying attention to say “yes, that’s like ‘free’ money – we should do that!”

We heard the reverse of these projections in 2005 when we reformed Medicaid taking the eligibility rate from 133% – the level the expansion would take the state to is 138% – down to the federal minimums that are in place today. According to some of these same ‘players’ the world was going to come to an end, people would be dying in the gutters and Missouri would be devastated. NONE of that ever happened. Just like 24,000 jobs WILL NOT be created by spending more money.

Here’s a for sure clue that it’s an over exaggeration, ““Expansion will not cost the state,” Kuhn said.” (editor note: Kuhn is President and CEO of Missouri Hospital Association) History and experience demonstrates that the old adage of ‘If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is’ certainly applies in this case!

One of the co-conspirators in this effort is the Missouri Hospital Association (MHA). You may remember that MHA spent around $400,000 trying to get people to vote NO on Proposition C in 2010. Just as the money they want taxpayers to pony up on Medicaid expansion, their money was not well spent when Missourians rejected their call overwhelmingly!

In an attempt to reach out and work together, I offer this proposal. If the legislature actually deems it necessary to expand Medicaid they should require that all the co-conspirators post some sort of bond that would cover the amount of taxes the state is expected to collect every year as a result of the expansion. If the study is accurate, then the bond would not be redeemed for that year. If the state did not collect the tax revenues projected in the study, then the bond would be redeemed for that year and every year that the state did not collect the projected revenues.

MHA, Missouri Primary Care Association, Missouri Foundation for Health, University of Missouri, Dobson DaVanzo & Associates, LLC and anyone else who is “selling” the snake oil should be willing to step up and put their money where their mouth is. After all, they are asking the taxpayer to put up their hard earned money to do it!

#2013Medicaidexpansion

The reality is that most of those supporters know that the battle is far from over. They are merely trying to convince those not paying too close attention that it is. For those of us who are paying attention, our job is equally important to educate people on the fact that the battle still rages as outlined in this Forbes article.

Two major healthcare issues – healthcare exchanges and Medicaid expansion – face the Missouri 97th General Assembly as it convenes on January 9, 2013. In reality, the two issues are intertwined.

Too many people have the idea that healthcare exchanges are automatically bad. The concept for exchanges is actually pretty sound. The Missouri legislature has worked on trying to establish an exchange for over a decade long pre-dating Obamacare exchanges. The reason Missouri didn’t already have a healthcare exchange is because we – I was in the legislature at the time – couldn’t figure out how to implement one that wasn’t more (big) government and didn’t impede the market.

The Obamacare exchange whether state or federal makes anything we considered look like RC racing cars going up against NASCAR’s Carl Edwards! A state exchange today must meet the requirements of Obamacare in order to be approved. Certainly a federal implemented exchange would be even worse. However, I fall into the camp that says the feds don’t have the money to implement an exchange in the states who refuse to implement one and that roadblocks won’t be laid out in Congress to slow or eliminate exchanges. The 97th General Assembly should reject implementing a healthcare exchange!

The Supreme Court decision upholding the individual mandate as a tax did have the silver lining saying the feds did not have the Constitutional authority to “compel” the states to expand Medicaid by withholding existing funding. We have reason to believe that the legislature will refuse to expand Medicaid as the taxpayers can’t afford it under any conditions.

The Kansas City Star has an article about this issue. It reiterates the voice of many legislators that Medicaid will not be expanded. It also highlights the pressures that legislators will be under from their local hospitals to do just that – expand Medicaid for their financial benefit. DO NOT underestimate this pressure!

The hospitals through the American Hospital Association (AHA) negotiated reductions in reimbursements to the hospitals in exchange for Medicaid expansion. Their original “negotiation” was that states would be “forced” to expand Medicaid ensuring they wouldn’t miss out on any money. These un-elected people from the hospitals “agreed” to bigger state government spending on behalf of the state legislatures without the consent of those legislatures or the taxpayers of the states!

There may be rural hospitals that are put into tough binds. The blame is already being attempted to be placed on the Republican majorities in the General Assembly for creating the situation by refusing to spend like the federal government – money they can’t afford. The fact is any rural hospital that will be put in those tough situations will be there because of the “big” boys who negotiated away their payments. The “big” boys may have to limit their future expansion projects to one or two cranes or limit their CEO pay raises.

Now that their “negotiated” deal has been dealt a setback by actually putting the decision back in the hands of those elected to make it rather than the un-elected hospital consortium, they are up in arms with the prospect of not receiving the payments from expanded Medicaid program in Missouri. The General Assembly should not bow to the pressure of these special interests who had no authority to negotiate such a bad deal on the legislatures behalf!

Let the hospitals understand that when you make a deal with the Devil – he always gets the better end of it!

#2013Medicaidexpansion
#2013exchange

Politics: An excellent campaign post-mortem from Bill Whittle

Published by: Robert Laurie on Friday November 23rd, 2012

By ROBERT LAURIE – Wouldn’t it be nice to have a real conservative run for President?

If you haven’t heard of Bill Whittle, he’s a blogger and host of “Afterburner with Bill Whittle” over at Pajamas Media. He’s sharp as a tack, accurate, and powerful emerging conservative voice. Despite what he says in this video, there are rumors swirling that, fed up with the GOP’s “conservative light” candidates, he’s eyeing a 2016 run. We’ll see if that turns out to be anything more that speculation, but there are an awful lot of people hoping it is.

At any rate, this speech was given the weekend of November 15th Palm Beach Florida. It serves as an absolutely excellent post-mortem of the Romney campaign, and a bit of wish-fulfillment for Conservatives desperate for a “real” candidate.

Imagine if we had a nominee who sounded like this…

After a long period of big government Governors democrat and republican, Kansas now has a Governor that means business when it comes to making Kansas competitive not only with Missouri but nationally. Kansas’ tax reform measure enacted this year means they are leaving Missouri in the minor leagues while they move on to the major leagues.

So far, the indication is that Missouri is still holding on to the bat wondering what happened to the other team. We will see when the legislature convenes whether or not they are willing to stay in the pee wee league or move up.

That’s kinda the message in this clever video. Enjoy and then ask your legislator what they are going to do about moving Missouri to the major leagues of tax reform!

#savemissourijobs

The last failed attempt at a tobacco tax increase prior to Proposition B was a proposed constitutional amendment guaranteeing the money would be spent where the measure said it would be spent. Voters rightfully rejected that as well indicating that it’s not just where the money will be spent but how it is being spent that is a problem.

Despite claims to the contrary, it’s not that Missourians especially certain Missourians aren’t taxed enough already.  It’s that they rightfully doubt that the hard earned money being confiscated from them is being spent correctly. Evidence exists to support their doubts.

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and food stamp dollars are being spent all over the country and other parts of the world at casinos in the US and the Caribbean, Disney World etc.  Who can really say that taxpayers are not well founded in their disgust and disdain for paying more taxes?

A wholesale restructuring of the tax code is in order but not the way the big government spenders like Missouri Budget Project wants to see which are in reality tax increases.   Tax increases only temporarily increase revenues until people either find out how to work around them or avoid them primarily by relocating their business. California is experiencing this now and it will accelerate with the passage of several tax increases on November 6th.

Tennessee’s tax model would be best but Kansas has shown a very good approach to making significant tax policy changes that will generate economic activity which will increase government revenue.

The state needs to do a bottom up assessment of all programs. It’s tough to get entrenched bureaucrats to tell you what is really happening or not with programs especially if the Governor isn’t interested in doing it.  They wouldn’t prioritize the programs they are responsible for administering when I was budget chair. All programs were #1 priority.

The reluctance to do a genuine in-depth assessment isn’t a partisan issue.  Whether there is a Democrat or Republican Governor each tries to protect particular programs.  Likely different programs’ being protected but the outcome is the same, no true reform.

Where can real reform start?  Here are just a few areas to consider. They aren’t all inclusive and certainly not easy, but things of value are rarely easy to obtain or achieve.

Tax credits should be reduced if not eliminated combined with tax reform eliminating corporate income taxes and pass through business taxes ala Kansas.  Kansas decided to stop playing the “I’ll see your tax credit and raise you two more” game with Missouri and has implemented real tax reform positioning them to attract new businesses and expansion of others.

Eliminate useless professional licensing of professions like hair braiders, interior designers etc. that add costs, discourage competition and only benefit those already in the profession not the general public.  The General Assembly should add no more professional licensing activities and eliminate many more.

Education reform is also necessary. Missouri has spent billions of dollars in increased public education funding since the 1993 no-vote tax increase and have seen nothing in return in the way of improved educational outcomes.  We are measuring the wrong things and rewarding poor performance.  Taxpayers did not succumb to “it’s for the children” mantra of Proposition B and they were right not to do so.

Once serious reform by the state is accomplished a true need demonstrated, only then should Missourians give any serious consideration to tax increases. Then again, maybe at that point the state may be right sized.

Veterans come in all shapes, sizes, race and gender. Most veterans that I know have pretty much the same attitude as I do about our service. We are not ashamed of it but we aren’t, except for Veteran’s Day or other holiday occasions, parading it around either. Many of us belong to a veterans group but some don’t. Regardless of how individual veterans choose to remember their service some of which was entered voluntarily and some not, we owe them all a debt gratitude for their service whether they ask for it or not.

To all the veterans who have put on the uniform in service to our country – THANK YOU!

As I’ve been reading various thoughts on the outcome of the Presidential race, many are very angry and bitter. I understand that. While President Obama failed to capture a mandate he did capture the victory. Contrary to the calls of the Obama supporters, we cannot afford to stand down and let him complete his mission of making America just another nation in the world during his second term. I know that I won’t be doing that.

One of the best comments I have read this morning from a Missouri perspective comes from Senator-elect Ed Emery. Ed is a great person and sincere public servant. I want to share Ed’s post with you. I hope it serves as an encouragement to continue fighting for what is right.

Post from Senator-elect Ed Emery:

Thanks for the victory!!!

“For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.” – the Apostle Paul to Timothy

United for Missouri does endorse issues. We have already provided detailed information on all the issues and you can read about them here. Here’s a summary of those issues.

YES on Amendment 3 – Judicial Reform
This is probably one of the most misunderstood measures on the ballot. Missouri’s judicial selction process needs some changes. Amendment 3 doesn’t go far enough but it is an improvement over the existing process controlled by the trial bar. Unfortunately the Secretary of State’s ballot language is misleading and confuses many. It’s my hope enough people vote YES on Amendment 3 to indicate to the legislature that judicial reform is important even if Amendment 3 is not the reform they want.

YES on Proposition A – Return Local Control of the St Louis Police Department to the citizens of St Louis
Lot’s of disinformation about this proposition but it is a fundamental conservative principle. Some voters outside of St Louis don’t understand why they are voting for it. Once they find out they have “title” to the St Louis Police Department they are ready to give it back!

It is interesting to read the history of a democrat controlled legislature taking away the police department from the republican controlled St Louis City at the beginning of the Civil War. Now it is primarily republicans who don’t want to give the police department back to the democrat controlled St Louis City. Let’s look at some of the facts regarding the record of state control of the St Louis Police Department:

1. Regularly reported by the FBI as the #1 or 2 crime city in the country.
2. State taxpayers paid for defense and liability claims against the St Louis Metropolitan Police Department (STLMPD) – over $6m between FY06-FY10. Courts have found in numerous cases that the STLMPD is a state agency since they are controlled by a state appointed board and that the state has the obligation to pay. (Office of Administration)
3. City taxpayers have been paying $3.5m/yr in duplicated services such as HR, IT, etc. – wasted, unnecessary spending a result of state control. (State Auditor Fiscal Note 11-75)
4. One-third of the City budget is controlled and spent by the state. The City cannot become more efficient when it doesn’t control 1/3 of its budget.
5. The state controlled board of police commissioners negotiated and signed a collective bargaining agreement that included fair share. This should be challenged by an officer who is forced to pay it as there is a legal question about requiring fair share on public employees who are the only employees in the state that have right-to-work provisions.
6. Evidence has been presented that the State controlled board of police commissioners has a record of corruption. No evidence has been given to support the allegations that the City of St Louis is corrupt commensurate with the Pendergast/Daley machines.

Additional consideration: 70% of the voters of St Louis City voted that they wanted their Police Department back.

Local control is a Jeffersonian principle and a YES on Proposition A supports that principle!

NO on Proposition B – Tobacco Tax
The proponents of Proposition B have mastered the art of deceptive advertising. They claim big tobacco opposes Proposition B in an attempt to incite voters to vote yes. Problem is big tobacco has stayed on the sidelines because Proposition B will benefit them by taxing little tobacco. The proponents also claim that the proposition guarantees funding for the items in the measure. It doesn’t. No statute can bind future legislatures when it comes to appropriations. Proposition B (for BAD) is a deceptive attempt at social engineering through taxation that will result in less money not more. Vote NO on Proposition B!

YES on Proposition E – Healthcare Exchange
Proposition E is a straightforward measure. A yes vote simply says that the Governor an un-elected bureaucrats cannot establish any healthcare exchange unless the legislature or the people vote to allow it. Yes on Proposition E!

#ballotissues12
#amend3
#propa12
#propb12
#prope12

The opponents of Proposition A which are primarily located in the greater St Louis region, have used all sort of emotional but unsupported reasons to get people to vote no on Prop A. Let’s look at the four P’s of Proposition A. Three of them are used by the opponents of Proposition A and the fourth is ignored or dismissed by them.

Perception – lacking any facts or substantive argument against returning to the people of St Louis City their police department the opponents of Proposition A seek to create false perceptions they believe will emotionally move people to a no vote. For example, they tell people that St Louis City government is corrupt. They produce no evidence of any corruption in the chain of command of the city but they know people suspect it is true and simply try to play on emotions.

Fact is that there has been more demonstrable corruption in the state controlled Board of Police Commissioners than their has in City government. Here’s a couple of examples of corruption under state control. Don’t fall for the false perception gambit.

Personalities – lacking facts to oppose Proposition A, the opponents attempt to attack personalities. Rex Sinquefield, AFL-CIO, La Raza you name it, if they think they can stir up no votes by throwing personalities against the wall and getting it to stick, they will and have. The problem is they can’t produce any shred of evidence that any of the personalities that they attack have a vested interest in Proposition A. Oh sure, they will pontificate on their thoughts as to why they think it is the case relying heavily on the perception tactic above. But when push comes to shove, when you tell them you are a native Missourian and ask them to Show-Me the facts – that can’t deliver.

Partisanship – the recurring theme of most of the opponents of Proposition A is that the City of St Louis has been under Democrat control for too long. They may be right on that issue but they are wrong as it being a reason to oppose local control. It’s telling when you hear the underlying argument that if Republicans were in control it would be different. It’s almost amusing to listen to Republicans complain about giving the Police Department back to the Democrats when you consider it was the Democrats who took it away from the Republicans of St Louis in the first place!

In reality, “the democrat machine” in St Louis is rather pitiful when it comes to “machines”. Oh sure they have a firm grip on politics in St Louis City but that’s because the Republicans decided to move out in droves not because they are some well-oiled “machine”. They have a long way to go before they show up in the history books as a Pendergast/Daley type operation! Not only is it unsubstantiated, but the hue and cry of “the democrat machine” does not trump the fundamental, conservative principle that is local control.

Principle – many of the opponents choose to ignore or simply dismiss that there is a fundamental, conservative principle involved in local control. They instead want to eschew it for the first three P’s.

As I wrote in Proposition A Is Jeffersonian Principles In Action! local control is a firmly supported conservative principle. All the false perceptions, attacks on personalities and partisan arguments cannot and do not override the basic principle of local control.

There have been no facts, no evidence presented not to end the Civil War takeover of the St Louis Police Department by the state. The first three P’s are often combined into a propaganda assault tying elements from the three together. Still no evidence or facts presented to support it but then again it wouldn’t be propaganda if they did!

It’s time the citizens of St Louis who expressed their desire in a November 2010 vote in which 70% said they wanted their police department back had it returned to them! Just as you and I hold our local officials accountable, they must have the ability to do the same. It’s been over 150 yeas since they have had that ability.

Vote YES on Proposition A!
#propa
#ballotissues12

On Tuesday, St Charles County voters will see six (6) questions on the ballot seeking to change the County Charter. With one exception, everyone of these questions was introduced on August 13, 2012 and approved on August 27, 2012. There was little to no public discussion by the Council of these proposed changes to the County constitution – the charter. Aside from the normal public comment period which is limited to three (3) minutes per person with six (6) people allowed to speak per meeting, there was no opportunity afforded the public to ask questions or provide input on these proposed changes.

Many of the questions on the ballot are somewhat misleading, combine multiple changes into one question and/or represent significant changes to County operations. The fact the Council decided that the public didn’t need to have any time to discuss these changes whether large or small warrants a strong repudiation of their actions by voting NO on ALL Charter amendments!

The St Charles County Charter has clear requirements for passing an ordinance. Nothing can get on the ballot without that process. So hurried and rushed was the Council process for placing these items on the ballot that they violated the Charter provisions as determined by Judge Ted House on one bill and they did it again on at least one other bill that could be subject to litigation after November 6th if it is adopted. Fortunately, one of those bills was removed from the ballot.

Significant major changes are being proposed by several of the ballot questions. Voters of St Charles County should be concerned about the fact the Council purposely left them out of the discussion on these major changes to the Charter. Issues relating to removal and replacement of Council members and the wholesale change of the law enforcement function in the County deserved a full and public discussion that never took place!

The Council apparently has the view that it’s not their job to explain their actions to you. It’s your job as a voter between the time they passed it and November 6th to find out what the questions are all about and determine whether you want to approve them or not. Perhaps that might have worked if the Council had provided forums for laying out the proposals and having the public ask questions about them. That should have occurred before the vote to place them on the ballot. Sadly, it didn’t occur at all and that is an affront to the voters of St Charles County!

The voters of St Charles County should remind the County Council that it is OUR government not theirs. They are elected to represent us not establish fiefdoms and dictate outcomes to us. We should demand they be accountable to us and that they follow the provisions we have put in place via the Charter.

The best way to send the Council that message is for voters of St Charles County to vote NO on ALL Charter Amendments!

#ballotissues12

 
#propa12
#ballotissues12

The debacle known as the Affordable Care Act aka Obamacare brought about many bad things. The Obamacare war is far from over. States, including Missouri are fighting back against this federal overreach.

Missouri was first in the nation to challenge Obamacare in passing Proposition C in August of 2010. 71% of Missouri voters said they rejected Obamacare’s individual mandate.

The next assault on Obamacare came in the form of the mandated healthcare insurance exchange. The House actually passed a healthcare exchange in the 2011 session. Many representative were convinced that it was better than having the Federal government implement an exchange for Missouri. The bill went to the Senate and ran into problems. Information became available that the Obamacare bill did say the feds could implement a healthcare exchange in any state that did not establish one by January 2014 but that provision was not funded. The Senate didn’t like the contents of the House bill and it died.

You would think that would be the end of story but you would be wrong. A backdoor approach was attempted to establishing the exchange since the legislature didn’t do it.

In a convoluted approach, the Missouri Health Insurance Pool (MHIP) – an appointed gubernatorial commission led by the director of the Department of Insurance, Financial Institutions and Professional Registration who is also appointed by the Governor – attempted to accept a grant of $21 million which would have laid the foundation for the healthcare exchange even though the legislature had rejected it. You can read more detail about that attempt here.

After this attempt was foiled, other attempts were made. The latest was the addition of a $50 million grant to upgrade Medicaid computer systems. Grant documents made it clear that this was to lay the foundation for the Obamacare Exchange. Thanks to emails from many of our members, the House beat back the attempted addition and the Senate removed it!

Now voters have the opportunity to put a nail in the coffin of all the backdoor attempts to establish the healthcare exchange by voting YES on Proposition E. Proposition E prohibits the establishment of any healthcare exchange unless it is by a vote of the legislature or the people. That’s the way it should be not by the Governor or un-elected bureaucrats!

United for Missouri recommends you vote YES on Proposition E!
#PropE12
#ballotissues12

Proposition B raises the basic tobacco tax and adds additional taxes on products resulting in a 760% increase in taxes. I don’t smoke cigarettes. I really won’t be affected by the tobacco tax increase from a cost measure. I am however, highly offended by this attempt at social engineering through tax increase proposal!

The proponents of Proposition B truly hope you aren’t paying attention to the details. If you do, you will see they have cobbled together a “deal” that attempts to buy off certain segments and get votes. One sure fire way to tell how bad Proposition B actually is when you hear “it’s for the children” or something similar. In this case, it’s for education.

Proposition B pretends to fund education both elementary and secondary as well as higher education by providing some portion of the increased taxes to those areas. The part the proponents hope you don’t cognitively connect is the smoking cessation portion.

If one were to actually make a cognitive connection to the smoking cessation portion and the funding portion, one would logically and accurately come to the conclusion that someone is going to get shafted! If the smoking cessation portion actually works, then there will be less money that goes to education. Then why would education be supporting a tax increase if they will not see more money in the future due to reduced tobacco tax revenues?

Well aside from being greedy and showing no education improvement in the last 20 years despite receiving an approximate 312% increase in general revenue spending, they will be able to use any decrease in funding from the tobacco tax to lobby for increased general revenue funding or claim the legislature is cutting education funding. They’ve demonstrated in the past and currently that they are not beyond stretching the truth to get what they want.

But they may as well start complaining right now because the projected revenues will not materialize. In fact, using the proponents own numbers regarding the number of packs of cigarettes sold in Missouri there will be a projected $67 million shortfall. Not a good way to start.

This is at least the third time a tobacco tax has been proposed in recent years. Each time, the proponents have tried to pick a “winner” to link up with to try to convince people to vote for the tax increase. So far, the majority of people have recognized the fallacy contained in these proposals. Hopefully they will again by voting NO on Proposition B on November 6, 2012!

#PropB12
#ballotissues12

A number of ballot issues will be presented to voters when they go to the polls on November 6th. Our blog presented an early look at the issues as evaluated by the good folks at Missouri Family Network. Their analysis and recommendations can be viewed here. Today, we discuss Amendment 3.

Amendment 3 is a constitutional amendment that makes some very small adjustments to the way primarily Appellate and Supreme Court judges are selected in Missouri although some circuit judges are also subject to the process. Since 1945, Missouri has operated under what is commonly known as the non-partisan court plan or more commonly as the Missouri Plan. The Missouri Plan has been replicated with changes in a number of states. However, it has flaws and in recent decades, has been co-opted by trial attorneys.

It’s not accurate for defenders of the Missouri Plan to claim it’s so popular that several states have used it as a pattern for their own applications. As mentioned earlier, no state has implemented THE Missouri Plan. All have made significant changes.  The Missouri Plan has flaws and needs to be improved.

The Missouri Plan results in the appointment of higher court judges (State Supreme Court and Appeals Court judges) and Circuit Court judges in St Louis City, County and Greene County. All other circuit court judges, including associate circuit judge positions are elected by the people of the circuit.  As a result, those appointed never stand for election but do stand for retention. Confusion and frustration are the result and little to no real knowledge is made available about judges up for a retention vote.

How are these judges selected? A non-elected judicial commission reviews applicants for the open position and makes three recommendations to the Governor. The Governor has to choose one of the three.  Once appointed judges serve on the bench, they face an initial retention vote at the next general election and then for every few years depending on the level. For example, after the initial retention vote, Supreme Court Justices are only subject to a retention vote every twelve years.

Unfortunately, since there is no campaigns waged regarding retention, the only information people have to decide to retain is lawyer and in limited cases, juror evaluations. This results in what I call lawyers having judges but what about the people? If my memory serves me correctly, there may have been one judge who has not been retained since the plan started.

The Missouri Bar Association, and the trial lawyers in particular, control the process behind the scenes to elevate their own selections without approval from or accountability to the voters.  Until recently, the judicial commission process was not open to public scrutiny. Even now, more could be done to improve that situation.

So what does Amendment 3 do? It seeks to realign the appointments and tenure of members of the judicial commission to coincide with the sitting Governor.  Before, Governor’s could always claim their choices were limited by a judicial commission they did not appoint. That excuse is removed.

The Governor also now is responsible for choosing the majority of commission members and the amendment expands the number of choices of finalists for the Governor to choose.  Now instead of three the Governor would have four finalists to choose from to serve. It’s still a take it or leave it panel but it’s a small step.

United for Missouri recommends a YES vote on Amendment 3 and we encourage the legislature to consider more in-depth changes to this process.

#Amendment3
#ballotissues12

As previously mentioned in Proposition A Is Jeffersonian Principles In Action! I used to be an opponent of Local Control. The primary reason was that I, like many others, believe that the City of St Louis should be encouraged to clean up their act and withholding Local Control of their Police Department was one way to do that. I was wrong!

The state should never be in the position of withholding control of a local function such as a police department for political purposes. For example, the Pendergast corruption in Kansas City was the reason the Police Department there was taken over by the state. Good reason. Civil War era politics was the reason the St Louis Police Department was taken over. Now it’s for other political reasons that the St Louis Police Department is not under City control.

However, one of the legitimate concerns that was always raised during the discussion of local control was protection of the Police Pension System. The state manages and controls the system while the City of St Louis funds it. That will not change with the passage of Proposition A. While I believe the pension system is archaic, it is a promise that was made and should be kept.

This was the primary reason that the St Louis Police Officers’ Association (SLPOA) used to oppose local control in the past. In fact, when the local control bill, House Bill 71, was passed by the House by a 109-46 margin, it contained significant pension protections against the fear of City abuse. Proposition A continued these protections and even made some improvements.

Listen to pension expert Jim Deustch testify regarding the pension issue here.  

He is very thorough in explaining the issue and why the City of St Louis cannot change the existing pension plans for the police department.  Not only can they not change the existing pension plan, they won’t even control it. It is in a trust not controlled by the city. Proposition A contains the same and even stronger language than House Bill 71 or Senate Bill 23.

You will hear from the opponents about how the City is taking over the Fire Fighter Pension fund and making changes. While I have not tracked all of that issue from what I read and see that is true. What is also true is that
the same thing cannot happen to the police pension as outlined above.

Proposition A is about returning control of the police department they pay for but have no control over to the taxpayers and voters of St Louis City. You and I would be outraged if the state were to come in and take control of our local law enforcement agencies. We should be outraged that the state maintains control of the St Louis Police Department! It’s inefficient, it’s unaccountable to the people the City and it’s just plain wrong!

The Civil War has been over for almost a 150 years. It’s time to return the St Louis Metropolitan Police Department back to the citizens of St Louis! Vote YES on Proposition A!
#PropA12
#ballotissues12

Proposition A – Local Control if approved by the voters of the state will return control of the St Louis Police Department to the taxpayers and voters of St Louis City where it belongs. The state took control of the St Louis City Police Department in 1861. It’s time the citizens of St Louis got it back!

In addition to the lack of no accountability to the people paying for most of the bills, the citizens of St Louis, state control of the St Louis Police Department through a Board of Police Commissioners appointed by the Governor with consent of the Senate creates bigger government. The costs associated with the state controlled function affects not only St Louis City taxpayers but ALL state taxpayers.

State taxpayers pick up the bill in a number of ways. First, there is the expense of the appointment and confirmation process. Then there is the expense of defending the state controlled police department against liability claims by the Attorney General. An finally, there is the expense of paying out liability claims against the state controlled police department.

The cost of the appointment and confirmation process are difficult to determine. The cost of defending and paying judgments against the police department have been quantified. We state taxpayers paid out over $6 million for the “privilege” of controlling the St Louis Police Department between Fiscal Year 2006 and Fiscal Year 2010.

Does it cost the City of St Louis more money to have the state control its police department? Yes!

Not only does the City pay for the day-to-day operations of the Police Department which amounts to 1/3 of the City budget, but they also pay for duplicate services. The state controlled Board of Police Commissioners operates it’s own Human Resources, Legal, Purchasing, accounting and IT departments. How much extra does this involuntarily cost the taxpayers of St Louis? Estimates are $3.5 million per year.

As I wrote on Friday, there really is no case to be made for continuing the Civil War era policy of state control of the St Louis Police Department. There was a time in this country that such an approach was all the rage. Like most fads, state control of major metropolitan police departments faded long ago – except in St Louis and Kansas City.

Some will have you believe that the St Louis Police Department was taken over because of corruption – it wasn’t – and that it should be left with the state because of it. I addressed the specter of alleged and unproven corruption in Proposition A Is Jeffersonian Principles In Action!. Kansas City was taken over – twice – for corruption. It will not be long before the leaders and citizens ask for the police department back too. And they should get it!

Proposition A is in fact well grounded in Jeffersonian principles. For those who believe the City of St Louis should become more efficient, returning control of 1/3 of its budget for which it has essentially no control today would be a great start!

Proposition A will reduce the size of government and provide protections for police officer pensions. We will talk about that in the next blog.
#PropA
#ballotissues12

The St Louis Police Department was taken over by the state in 1861 to keep the largest para-military organization in the state, the St Louis Police Department from becoming a part of the Union Army possibly helping to defend the Federal Arsenal located there and to keep them out of any movement that might see Missouri consider secession.

It was politics pure and simple.

And it remains only politics that keeps the St Louis Police Department under state control today.

To put it simply: Local Control is a common-sense, good-government initiative found in the writings of Thomas Jefferson:

“It is by dividing and subdividing these republics, from the great national one down through all its subordinations, until it ends in the administration of every man’s farm by himself; by placing under every one what his own eye may superintend, that all will be done for the best. What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government, which has ever existed under the sun? The generalizing and concentrating all cares and powers into one body…”

St. Louis is one of only two cities in the entire nation, Kansas City being the other and for quite different reasons, that does not control its own police department. Think about this, how would you and the citizens of your city and/or county feel if you had a state-run police department over which you had no say and represented 1/3 of your city’s budget? Jefferson City should not be in the business of controlling our police departments and they have no business controlling the St. Louis police department and 1/3 of the St Louis City budget.

I’ve been aware of and involved in this issue for more than 11 years.  In fact, I was once an opponent of local control.  However, I have come to realize that the issue truly shouldn’t be about trying to use the control of the St. Louis Police Department to force political change in the City which is often the case.  It’s about the fundamental, conservative principle Jefferson outlined keeping government closest to the people. That’s what returning control of the police department back to the taxpayers of St. Louis, who pay the bulk of the costs would accomplish. 

The question you have to ask is, just because St Louis City may be a democratically controlled city, does that mean conservative principles such as smaller government and government closest to the people should not apply?  For many around the state, that answer is a resounding no –they do apply!

Opponents often raise the specter of corruption in St Louis City, but never provide any documented proof of such corruption.  Most allegations are connecting ghost dots.  There have been no arrests of mayors or aldermen.  It’s a false attack that lingers because, unfortunately, people do not always bother to look into the facts.

Ignoring the fact that no mayor or alderman has been arrested for corruption, if that is truly the litmus test then one must be willing to accept one of two possibilities. The first is, there is no corruption anywhere else in the state. The second is, the state should be taking over lots of law enforcement agencies around the state. One of the other condition must exist for the “corruption” angle to really apply.

Applying the logic being used regarding corruption, the St. Peters Police Department should be under state control. The past Mayor of St Peters was convicted, not just alleged as in St Louis, but convicted of actual corruption. How do we know that the corruption stopped at the Mayor? According to the opponents of Prop A, state control should have been asserted!

The state controlled board of police commissioners has had more corruption issues than the Mayor or Board of Alderman. The former police chief was given a golden parachute retirement after his daughter was caught driving an impounded towed vehicle. When it was investigated, a towing scandal was unearthed and the chief suddenly retired.

A commissioner used his “Get out of jail free” card to rescue his nephew from jail.  That caused quite a scandal and the commissioner resigned.

When the corruption charges are dispatched the discussion usually then goes on to concerns about “interference” by City officials.  Proposition A specifically protects and prohibits retaliation against any police officer who reports conducts that may be illegal or unethical in Sections 84.341 and 84.342.

Bottom line is the Civil war has been over for nearly 150 years.  The citizens of St Louis have been paying for a police department they nor their elected officials control in any substantive way.  State taxpayers are exposed to liability claims for the state controlled police department every year and for the most part get nothing in return for their money.

Control of the St. Louis City Police Department was taken away from the people by a political act.  There is no sound, justifiable reason for the state – all of us – to keep control of the department and not return it to the rightful owners – the taxpayers of St Louis City.

The conservative principle of local control should prevail and it means more than 4 people chosen by the Governor.  Almost 70% of St Louis voters said in November 2010 they wanted their police department back.  The language was quite clear on the ballot:

Unless you think it’s ok for the state to take control your local police and sheriff’s department, I would encourage you to vote YES on Proposition A! More info at www.safermissouri.com
#PropA
#ballotissues12

We provide Missouri Family Network’s recommendation hear. UFM supports the recommendations but may do so for somewhat different reasons. We will be providing our views as the election draws near.

Thanks to Kerry and the folks at Missouri Family Network for all their hard work!

Missouri’s Statewide Ballot Questions – Nov. 6^th, 2012

Analysis and Recommendations from Missouri Family Network

Here in Missouri registered voters often have the opportunity to vote on statewide ballot measures which are proposed to change State Statutes (Propositions) or the State Constitution (Constitutional Amendments).  These ballot measures come from two sources, either the State Legislature or citizen initiatives.  The citizen’s initiative process is regulated by the State Constitution and is always designated to appear on the next General Election ballot following their successful completion of the signature gathering process.  Those statewide ballot questions put forward by the Legislature may have a designated election date embedded in the proposal, otherwise such issues default to the next General Election date, or another election as directed by the Governor.

On November 6, 2012 Missouri voters will see four statewide ballot questions.  Two have come from the General Assembly of the Legislature, and two have come to the ballot through citizen initiative efforts.  Of the four, one is a Constitutional Amendment and three are Propositions seeking to change State statutes.

The purpose of this article is to help provide voters with some additional information on each of these four ballot questions so you can make a more informed vote.  Here at Missouri Family Network we provide our recommendations of “YES” or “NO” votes so voters understand the perspective of our analysis up front.  All voters are challenged to take the time to seek out opposing information and vote your convictions with clarity.

Constitutional Amendment 3   -   Vote YES   (Proposed by the General Assembly, SJR 51)

Official Ballot Title:  (what voters will see in the voting booth)

Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to change the current nonpartisan selection of supreme court and court of appeals judges to a process that gives the governor increased authority to:

• appoint a majority of the commission that selects these court nominees; and
• appoint all lawyers to the commission by removing the requirement that the governor’s appointees be nonlawyers?

There are no estimated costs or savings expected if this proposal is approved by voters.

Fair Ballot Language:

A “yes” vote will amend the Missouri Constitution to change the current nonpartisan selection of supreme court and court of appeals judges to a process that gives the governor increased authority to appoint a majority of the commission that selects these court nominees. This measure also allows the governor to appoint all lawyers to the commission by removing the requirement that the governor’s appointees be nonlawyers.

A “no” vote will not change the current constitutional provisions for the nonpartisan selection of supreme court and court of appeals judges.

If passed, this measure will have no impact on taxes.

Analysis:   Constitutional Amendment 3 addresses the infamous Missouri Nonpartisan Court Plan.  Falsely reported to be of such popularity that several States have used it as a pattern for their own applications, the truth is that no State has duplicated it without first making significant alterations!  Now, for the first time, Missouri voters have an opportunity to address some of the faults of this constitutional provision that have led our State into judicial darkness.

Under the current nonpartisan court plan, all higher court judges (State Supreme Court and Appeals Court judges) and certain specified Circuit Court judges are appointed rather than elected.  This has led to widespread confusion and frustration among voters, and insulation from accountability for the judges.

Currently these judges are pre-selected by a non-elected judicial commission.  When a vacancy occurs on these courts a judicial commission fields applications from interested individuals.  A slate of potential finalists are presented to the sitting Governor, who in turn makes the final appointment from the slate.  Once appointed judges serve on the bench, they face an initial retention vote on the ballots of voters from the appropriate jurisdictions, and repeated retention votes thereafter.  However, due to the nature of the process there are no campaigns or advertising related to these retention votes resulting in voters having no idea how to discern anything about such judges.  Human nature leads the majority of voters to support status quo and 99% of judges never lose their retention.  To make matters worse these retention votes can take as long as twelve years (Supreme Court members) to recycle!

It is all too common for voters to go to the polls on election day and see judge retention questions for the very first time, not knowing they were even going to be on the ballot.  When anything questionable regarding a judge comes up, there is no one to hold accountable.  The appointing Governor points to the judicial commission for not advancing better finalists to pick from.  The commission members wash their hands saying it was the Governor who appointed a judge.  No lawmaker had anything to do with the appointment.  Voters end up with no way to hold anyone accountable.

To make matters worse, the Missouri Bar Association, and the trial lawyers in particular, control the process behind the scenes to elevate their own selections without approval from or accountability to the voters.  Only until recent months, and following years of high profile criticism, has the judicial commission process even allowed public access to the interviews conducted with applicants for vacant judgeships.

Constitutional Amendment 3 realigns the appointments and tenure of members of the judicial commission to coincide with the sitting Governor.  This creates a political environment that removes the excuses used to avoid accountability.  While the commissioners never have to face voters, at least the Governor cannot pass blame if voters can tie the commission’s slate of finalists to the Governor.  This provides some degree of accountability, and possible recourse for voters.

Other changes include expanding the number of finalists presented to the Governor to appoint from.  The current three finalists would grow to four.  This increases the possibility of a pro-life applicant to survive the process during years in which a pro-life Governor is in office.

The end result of Constitutional Amendment 3 is that a poor quality Governor will continue to appoint judges which voters would never elect.  But voters would have opportunities to hold a Governor accountable for doing so.  However, a pro-life Governor would be in a much better position to bring pro-life judges forward by appointing conscientious commission members.

Missouri Family Network recommends a “YES” vote for constitutional Amendment 3 as a vote for accountability.  It is not a magic pill to fix everything wrong with Missouri’s judiciary, but at least it is a step in the right direction.

Proposition A   -   Vote YES   (Proposed by a citizen’s initiative petition.)

Official Ballot Title:  (what voters will see in the voting booth)

Shall Missouri law be amended to:

• allow any city not within a county (the City of St. Louis) the option of transferring certain obligations and control of the city’s police force from the board of police commissioners currently appointed by the governor to the city and establishing a municipal police force;
• establish certain procedures and requirements for governing such a municipal police force including residency, rank, salary, benefits, insurance, and pension; and
• prohibit retaliation against any employee of such municipal police force who reports conduct believed to be illegal to a superior, government agency, or the press?

State governmental entities estimated savings will eventually be up to $500,000 annually. Local governmental entities estimated annual potential savings of $3.5 million; however, consolidation decisions with an unknown outcome may result in the savings being more or less than estimated.

Fair Ballot Language:

A “yes” vote will amend Missouri law to allow any city not within a county (the City of St. Louis) the option of establishing a municipal police force by transferring certain obligations and control of the city’s police force from the board of police commissioners currently appointed by the governor to the city. This amendment also establishes certain procedures and requirements for governing such a municipal police force including residency, rank, salary, benefits, insurance, and pension.  The amendment further prohibits retaliation against any employee of such municipal police force who reports conduct believed to be illegal to a superior, government agency, or the press.

A “no” vote will not change the current Missouri law regarding St. Louis City’s police force.

If passed, this measure will have no impact on taxes.

Analysis:   Proponents of Prop. A primarily argue from a “local control” perspective, as well as outlining the history of the current law.  Opponents focus on the concern of mismanagement and/or possible corruption at risk from placing the St. Louis Police board under the control of the City.

MFN rejects the bulk of both positions and makes our final recommendation of a “YES” vote based on citizen’s control.  Allow me to explain:

Let’s first look at “local Control.”  This is not a fully valid reason for changing current policies and practices.  The principles of local control come from the historic debates surrounding education.  At the base of these education debates are divided philosophies regarding any government’s jurisdiction over education in the first place.  While government may provide a free system of public education, it certainly has no moral authority to dictate education policy to those not interested in government schools.  In fact many effectively argue the State has no compelling purpose for being involved.  (This is an ongoing debate.)  Because education ultimately resides with the will of parents alone, local control principles play an incredibly important role.

However, law enforcement is in fact one of the basic purposes of government.  Thus the local control argument in this case does not fit well.  To make the case stronger is the fact that while the State of Missouri should rightfully be seen as a sovereign State (in relationship to other States, nations, and even our own Country, the United States of America), it is also THE sovereign political/civil entity.  All cities, towns, villages, counties, townships, precincts, etc. are subservient to the State as the sovereign authority which allows all the others to exist, and in what form.  In all matters of political sub-divisions within the State, the authority of the State ultimately trumps local control.  The single legitimate use of this argument resides in the values of locally directed and customized control that is often only realized at the local level and bearing the benefits of efficiency not otherwise recognized or appreciated from a central planning bigger government.

Secondly we reject opponents’ concerns over possible mismanagement and/or corruption.  If the City of St. Louis is this untrustworthy we should be hearing ongoing cries for disbandment of the City’s charter, or a state take-over of City management.  (Stick with me a moment longer please.)  No one claims the City does not have significant political problems.  However, among the hundreds of thousands of residents, there are many fine citizens who work tirelessly to improve the City and support efforts to hold people accountable.  And amazingly, there is no hue and cry for the City to be dissolved.  Yet this writer has seen several towns and villages come and go in less than 50 years, including urban, suburban, and rural communities!

Facts:  Over 150 years ago the State’s population distribution was weighted within the City of St. Louis by staggering proportions.  With the Civil War bearing down the Governor and State leaders realized that the St. Louis Police Department was by far the largest para-military force both in Missouri as well as west of the Mississippi River!  To risk divided factions targeting control of this force was a major concern for the State and the safety of thousands.  As a result of these developing political/military dynamics, the State asserted its Sovereignty and took over control of the police department.

So here we are over 150 years later and the State has never restored Control of the St. Louis Police Department back to the citizens of the City!  What if this were your local police, fire department, or other service providers or local infrastructure?  In fact the citizens of every other community in the state regulates its own services through the constitutional republic methods of civil structure.  As a result people can hold local politicians accountable for any mismanagement and/or questions of corruption.

It has proven to be inefficient and costly to Missouri taxpayers to have the members of our State Legislature micro-manage the policies of the local police in St. Louis City.  To save Missouri taxpayers money and to treat St. Louis City citizens with proper respect, it is incumbent upon Missouri voters to say “YES” to Proposition A.

Proposition B   -   Vote “NO”   (Proposed by a citizen’s initiative petition.)

Official Ballot Title:  (what voters will see in the voting booth)

Shall Missouri law be amended to:

• create the Health and Education Trust Fund with proceeds of a tax of $0.0365 per cigarette and 25% of the manufacturer’s invoice price for roll-your-own tobacco and 15% for other tobacco products;
• use Fund proceeds to reduce and prevent tobacco use and for elementary, secondary, college, and university public school funding; and
• increase the amount that certain tobacco product manufacturers must maintain in their escrow accounts, to pay judgments or settlements, before any funds in escrow can be refunded to the tobacco product manufacturer and create bonding requirements for these manufacturers?

Estimated additional revenue to state government is $283 million to $423 million annually with limited estimated implementation costs or savings. The revenue will fund only programs and services allowed by the proposal. The fiscal impact to local governmental entities is unknown. Escrow fund changes may result in an unknown increase in future state revenue.

Fair Ballot Language:

A “yes” vote will amend Missouri law to create the Health and Education Trust Fund with proceeds from a tax on cigarettes and other tobacco products.  The amount of the tax is $0.0365 per cigarette and 25% of the manufacturer’s invoice price for roll-your-own tobacco and 15% for other tobacco products.  The Fund proceeds will be used to reduce and prevent tobacco use and for elementary, secondary, college, and university public school funding.  This amendment also increases the amount that certain tobacco product manufacturers must maintain in their escrow accounts, to pay judgments or settlements, before any funds in escrow can be refunded to the tobacco product manufacturer and creates bonding requirements for these manufacturers.

A “no” vote will not change the current Missouri law regarding taxes on cigarettes and other tobacco products or the escrow account and bonding requirements for certain tobacco product manufacturers.

If passed, this measure will increase taxes on cigarettes and other tobacco products.

Analysis:   Proposition B is a massive tax increase at best, which should be rejected.  At its worse, it is a politically correct attack on the tobacco industry and an attempt at social engineering that must be rejected.  Giving proponents the benefit of the doubt, let’s simply evaluate the tax perspective.

Just a few years ago Missouri shared in the “tobacco settlement agreement” brought about by the 1990’s politically motivated attacks and resulting litigations created by a democrat congress angry over tobacco industry support of republican candidates over democrats.   Hundreds of billions of dollars were distributed to the States, including Missouri, with little going to cessation programs or assistance for those harmed by tobacco.  Basically the money was absorbed by the State to prop up its 1990’s government growth spurt (a time in which state government doubled in size and costs).

Now we are being asked to accept a tobacco tax increase for the purpose of funding tobacco related medical services and education.  (What supporters of Prop B need to do is go back to the Legislature and ask them to reallocate current state revenues to make up for the funds already spent that should have provided these programs.)

There are two groups of voters facing this tax increase:

First are consumers who would face a significant tax jump on their tobacco products.  For these folks a “NO” vote is easy.  However, they may find it more difficult to sway their friends – so take a puff, or bite off a chaw and read on about the second group, the non-tobacco users who pitch their tents in two different camps.

The first camp of non-tobacco users see tobacco use as a personal choice.  These campers believe smokers have been warned for decades that tobacco use is harmful and that more taxes will not create any resolve for the problems associated with tobacco use.  For these folks let us consider the implications of such a new tax within the context of a politically correct culture.  Governments today believe they can dictate such things as the size of your soft drinks?  (You get the picture.)  What may be the next target of politically motivated taxes?  Fast food?  Non-eco friendly products?  ???

The second camp of non-tobacco users see tobacco as a vice, or a sin.  For these folks let’s consult Scripture.  Let’s see, how many times does the Bible point to civil government leaders being blinded to the victims of vice because of tax revenues received?  (Check out the minor prophets and the teachings of Proverbs, as well as other precepts.)  This is exactly why the State cannot bring itself to stop casinos or alcohol abuse.  There is just too much money coming into State coffers while the social costs (which are higher) gush out through multiple agencies and services.

So for tobacco users and non-users, a huge tobacco tax increase is not an attractive proposal.  Missouri Family Network recommends a “NO” vote for all citizens heading to the polls on November 6^th, no matter which group or camp they reside in.

Proposition E   -   Vote YES   (Proposed by the General Assembly SB 464)

For your understanding of the issue we have provided both the original version of the ballot question (which was rejected by the court as misleading) as well as the replacement question which will appear on your ballot as written by the court.  Our analysis will follow.

(what voters would have seen in the voting booth)

Shall Missouri law be amended to deny individuals, families, and small businesses the ability to access affordable health care plans through a state-based health benefit exchange unless authorized by statute, initiative or referendum or through an exchange operated by the federal government as required by the federal health care act?

No direct costs or savings for state and local governmental entities are expected from this proposal. Indirect costs or savings related to enforcement actions, missed federal funding, avoided implementation costs, and other issues

are unknown.

Fair Ballot Language:

A “yes” vote will amend Missouri law to deny individuals, families, and small businesses the ability to access affordable health care plans through a state-based health benefit exchange unless authorized by statute, initiative or referendum or through an exchange operated by the federal government as required by the federal health care act.

A “no” vote will not change the current Missouri law regarding access to affordable health care plans through a state-based health benefit exchange.

If passed, this measure will have no impact on taxes.

Official Ballot Title:  (NEW Version)

(what voters will see in the voting booth)

Shall Missouri Law be amended to prohibit the Governor or any state agency, from establishing or operating state-based health insurance exchanges unless authorized by a vote of the people or by the legislature?

No direct costs or savings for state and local governmental entities are expected from this proposal. Indirect costs or savings related to enforcement actions, missed federal funding, avoided implementation costs, and other issues

are unknown.

Fair Ballot Language:

A “yes” vote will amend Missouri law to prohibit the Governor or any state agency, from establishing or operating state-based health insurance exchanges unless authorized by a vote

of the people or by the legislature.

A “no” vote will not amend Missouri law to prohibit the Governor or any state agency, from establishing or operating state-based health insurance exchanges unless authorized by a vote

of the people or by the legislature.

If passed, this measure will have no impact on taxes.

Analysis:   Proposition E simply asserts that without voter approval, or that of the citizen’s duly elected members of the State House and Senate, the Governor nor his agencies shall enable ObamaCare on his own.

Last year a group of Missouri State Senators and the Lt. Governor’s office discovered and diverted plans by certain members of Governor Nixon’s administration to create the health care exchanges for implementing ObamaCare in Missouri.  These healthcare exchanges provide the administrative framework for enabling the federal government’s healthcare takeover and is opposed by a supermajority of Missouri citizens.  (See Prop. C, 71% adoption vote, August 3, 2010)

Following the revelations of what many citizens consider a “scandal” the State Legislature passed SB 464 which seeks to prohibit the Governor, or any state bureaucracies from establishing such exchanges without voter approval or that of the voter’s elected members of the General Assembly.

After passage of the legislation proposing this constitutional amendment, the Secretary of State (Robin Carnahan) in tandem with the Attorney General (Chris Koster) drafted the summary ballot question for voters to read in the polling booth.  But because their ballot question was so misleading and designed to taint the election, Lt. Governor Peter Kinder and a large host of republican members of the Legislature filed suit challenging the legality of the ballot title.

Implementation of the “Affordable Care Act” requires a new healthcare exchange system which carries a price tag of upwards to fifty million tax dollars ($50,000,000.00).  However the federal government is willing to provide the money (which still comes out of our pockets) if Missouri‘s Governor or another state agency agrees to accept it.  Thus it is important to expressly prohibit such a move through the executive orders of the Governor or other actions by unelected bureaucrats.

Missouri Family Network recommends that citizens concerned about the various implications of ObamaCare should cast a “YES” vote for Constitutional Amendment 3 in order to reserve such a move to themselves.  As a constitutional republic it is wholly appropriate to restrict such authority to voter approval or that of the 197 member Legislature.

 
#ballotissues12

The Charter is the County Constitution. Charter changes should not be proposed and acted upon in 30 days much less without public hearings to gather input. It’s a disgraceful way to conduct the people’s business!

Yesterday, Circuit Judge Ted House ruled that the Charter requirements for placing Charter amendments on the ballot DID have to follow the same requirements as outlined for any other ordinance passed by the Council. He made that ruling in denying the Writ of Mandamus to place the invalid smoking ban on the November ballot. Judge House understands what some on the County Council apparently don’t – the Charter actually means something and is to be followed as the people passed it!

The County Executive should have vetoed every one of the Charter amendments if for no other reason than the rush to the ballot process. The County Executive’s office apparently lacks the checks and balances the Governor’s office uses to review legislation passed by the legislature to insure that it meets the constitutional and statutory requirements. In the case of the County, the Charter and ordinance conflicts should also have been part of the review. Had that been done, the fact the Council violated the Charter by not providing required public notice would have been cause to veto the bill(s) as well as the conflicting language.

The County Executive and Council knew before they passed and signed the bill that there was a charter violation. They are claiming because it was going to the voters they didn’t have to follow the Charter. They use a St Louis lawsuit for their cover. Judge House disagreed.

The problem is that the case they use was not very thoroughly researched. If it had been, some doubt would have been created and should have been reported to the Council and Executive that the case may not hold up in defense of their violation of the Charter. That possibility might have been raised but there is no evidence that was even discussed.

The Sheriff’s proposal may be bad in its own right but it is indicative of a much larger problem that has developed in County Government. It leaves the perception that the Charter is binding when the powers that be want it to be and not so much when it gets in the way.

Regardless of the outcome of the Charter Amendments, and perhaps because of the outcome, citizens need to start demanding more accountability from their County Government to follow the Charter and not find excuses on how to circumvent it!

Cronin3

The problem for the Senator should be that as people find out about her real record they know she is not standing up for Missouri. Despite her false claims to the contrary, she has never demonstrated her willingness to stand up against the President OR her party when her vote actually made a difference! She apparently did’t realize how bad off she was when she asked a crowd “what’s a matter, don’t you trust me?” and the resoundingly said “NO”! And they were right not to do so!!!

As we detailed in We Have Our Answer – Senator McCaskill IS a Soldier in Obama’s War on Coal! she is more than happy to tell us one thing back home but then do another in DC. She took this action knowing full well that it would adversely affect energy costs back in Missouri and cost Missouri jobs.

Fortunately for Missouri and the rest of the country, the US House has voted to protect us. It’s just too bad we couldn’t count on OUR US Senator Claire McCaskill to do the same!

http://www.americancommitment.org/house-votes-to-stop-obamas-war-on-coal/

House Votes to Stop Obama’s War on Coal

Sep21
2012 Written by Phil Kerpen

The House has voted 233 to 175 to stop Obama’s War on Coal. There were 214 Republicans joined by 13 Democrats who voted to stand up for coal and affordable electricity. The 13 Democrats deserve kudos for standing up to Obama. They were:

Altmire D PA
Barrow D GA
Berkley D NV
Bishop (GA) D GA
Boren D OK
Boswell D IA
Chandler D KY
Costa D CA
Costello D IL
Critz D PA
Cuellar D TX
Donnelly (IN) D IN
Holden D PA
Kissell D NC
Loebsack D IA
Matheson D UT
McIntyre D NC
Peterson D MN
Rahall D WV

There were 162 Democrats and 19 Republicans who voted no. They voted not to stand up to Obama’s economically destructive war on coal and the president’s promise to make electricity prices “necessarily skyrocket.” The Republicans were:

Bass (NH) R NH
Bilbray R CA
Dold R IL
Fitzpatrick R PA
Gibson R NY
Hayworth R NY
Johnson (IL) R IL
LoBiondo R NJ
Reichert R WA
Rigell R VA
Smith (NJ) R NJ
Wittman R VA
Wolf R VA

American Commitment activists have now sent over 100,000 letters and emails to Congress through www.WarOnCoal.com urging an end to the War on Coal.

We commend the House for doing the right thing, but the failure of the Senate to act makes clear that the future of affordable, reliable electricity depends on electing a new president who will end the War on Coal, a new Senate willing to stand up to out of control regulators, or both.

When the required reading of the bill number and title was made, no motion to override was even made! In caucus meetings prior to the session convening it was apparent that the votes to override were not present. There was some grumbling and complaining about the way the argument had been framed as a tax increase when many wanted it to be called just re-instituting a tax. The problem is that it was a tax increase. I’m not very popular in some offices today!

I’ve written before that when the bill was originally passed, many on both sides of the aisles thought it was the right if not only solution to the problem of the un-level playing field. Since that vote, more legislators learned that some of the information they had received was either not complete or accurate.

For example, one legislator was heard to say that they did not know that local governments could place this issue on the ballot on their own. If they had known that at the time of the vote, they would not have voted for the bill.

It’s easy to condemn those who supported the bill originally. I don’t argue that legislators could and should have possessed more knowledge about the bill but that doesn’t work out as you might think it does.

I believe the sponsor of the bill Rep. Ryan Silvey believed it was the right thing to do. While I disagree with him, he still believes it is the right thing and that it’s not a tax increase. Rep. Silvey is also the House Budget Chair. Legislators had no reason to doubt the bill with the Budget Chairman sponsoring it.

The faces of the municipal league folks as I left the building were very long. They now will have to go back to their “members” – cities that use your tax dollars to join and work against you on issues such as this – and propose alternatives.

Solutions to the Car Sales Tax Increase is a feasible alternative. It would place on a statewide ballot in every locality that didn’t have a use tax in place the question of whether or not the voters of that locality want to have one. If it passes in a locality (municipality or county) they will have a local use tax. If it doesn’t, they won’t.

This alternative would meet the Constitutional requirement for the local taxes to be approved or disapproved by local voters. The state picks up the tab for the elections which is more efficient and saving local taxpayers money and the question is asked all at once. It would level the playing field for all that chose to do so.

It’s a better solution than HB1329.

So far it doesn’t look like they have the votes to override. But tax hungry local governments are pushing the legislature hard to override the bill. The voters in many of the local government jurisdictions have already said NO to a use tax but their elected officials want the legislature to do an end around those voters!

HB1329 will result in higher taxes and result in taxpayers paying for ANOTHER lawsuit that will likely prevail and over turn it. Don’t let the tax hungry local governments succeed – let your legislator know you oppose the veto override of HB1329!

http://www.unitedformissouri.org/statewide/have-you-taken-action-yet

HB1329

Don’t let people fool you – House Bill 1329 is a tax increase! It will implement a tax that does not exist. At this time, nearly 123,000 people will receive a “taxes due” notice retroactively after already paying the existing state use tax. They will definitely tell you that it’s a tax increase.

Those who say it is not a tax increase point to the fact that it was recently collected up until the time the Supreme Court ruled the tax unconstitutional and that they are merely reinstating it. But the fact is they are creating a new tax, not re-instituting a tax.

The Missouri Constitution Article X, section 10(a) prohibits the legislature from establishing a local tax without a vote of the local people. House Bill 1329 is a violation of the state constitution and violates the US Constitution’s Interstate Commerce Clause as it is currently written. It’s an up or down vote. The bill cannot be repaired in veto session.

Let your legislators know they should not vote to violate the constitution! TAKE ACTION

HB1329

Many reasons are given for the “need” to override the Governor. Quite frankly, none of them hold water.

One reason given is that the bill is necessary to “level the playing field” for Missouri car dealers. HB 1329 contains a provision that was intended to retroactively collect the new tax from people who purchased vehicles since the court decision as part of that “leveling” process. The Not So Level Playing Field Tax Increase explains why this reason is no longer a valid consideration. (Hint: 89% of car purchases that would be subject to the new tax increase WERE NOT purchased from out-of-state dealers!) Interestingly enough, legislators are already talking about eliminating the retroactive portion of the bill if the Governor would agree to not tax people according to the provisions of the bill they want to override.

Another reason is that local governments need the funds from the tax increase or essential services like police and fire will be negatively impacted. The problem with this excuse is that it really doesn’t hold water. A municipal or county budget that is so dependent on this very specific tax increase is a budget that is built on a house of cards. Between property taxes and the majority source of sales taxes – which are not from the proposed tax increase – these governments have the ability to prioritize their spending to protect police and fire services. That is, they do unless they are just using it as a scare tactic to convince people otherwise.

The real solution to this “problem” is for local governments to do what they have always had the power to do – place a local use tax on the ballot and have their voters vote! Some of the cities and counties pounding on legislators to take this unconstitutional action have asked their voters to implement a local use tax and they said no. Why would the legislature want to override the will of their constituents and raise taxes without a vote?

An alternative to local governments not doing their job or not liking their voters answer is pretty simple. The General Assembly and the Governor could agree to place on a statewide ballot the approval of a local use tax. This would entail a provision that if the voters in any municipality or county said no, that local government entity would not be authorized to collect a local use tax. There would be no retroactive component and no blanket approval process.

The General Assembly should pass on creating a new local tax increase. Not only is it against the Missouri Constitution, it’s bad politics!

‘Sure sounded good at the time but recent data shows that most of those who will be taxed retroactively did not purchase their vehicles from out-of-state dealers. Most of us probably agree with the level playing field argument for Missouri car dealers. We certainly want our Missouri car dealers to have the opportunity to be competitive with out-of-state dealers. When the issue came up during session, the thought was that most of the “missed” taxes were the result of out-of-state purchases giving out-of-state dealers some advantage. Now we know better.

Last week, the Governor identified 122,702 purchases that would retroactively be subject to the new tax. Yesterday data was released that shows that of those 122,702 purchases, almost 108,000 of them were purchased from individuals, not out-of-state dealers! So much for the level playing field argument!

The issue with HB1329 certainly demonstrates for all the naysayers that tax policy does matter! The naysayers will quickly find out if HB1329 is overridden that people do understand the importance of tax policy firsthand.

When 89% of the people who purchased cars from another individual since the court decision became final receive their new tax due statement, they will understand tax policy matters. They will not understand that they are part of leveling the playing field because it doesn’t for them. They will understand that if their representative or senator voted to override the Governor on HB1329, that those elected officials raised their taxes!

But what about the “loss” to local governments who “need” the money? They cannot blame the state for any loss of revenue. They can only blame themselves. They have had 3 opportunities to ask their voters to approve a local use tax since the court decision. The local government elected officials who didn’t ask have failed in their duties and have absolutely no right to complain about any lost revenues or to blame anyone but themselves!

HB1329 is not the fix for the problem. Counties and cities should show the necessary leadership and courage to ask their local taxpayers whether or not they want to have a local use tax. Some are doing so but many more are not. This is a vast failure of leadership.

As I said earlier, at the time the bill was passed it may have seemed like a really good thing to do, leveling the playing field and all that. Now that the facts are known, there is no excuse for voting for an override of HB1329.

Just to show that Ken Berry wasn’t the only one who could pull the old hidden ball trick, County Council members Joe Cronin, Nancy Matheny, Terry Hollander and John White pulled their own hidden ball trick at the last County Council meeting. We should expect transparency from all levels of government and instead, got an example of how much like the old hidden ball trick government operations can be.

The County Council was considering Bill Number 3881 which would place a smoking ban on the November ballot. Despite having failed to follow the requirements of the St Charles County Charter to make the bill available to the public 36 hours before its first reading – first transparency as well as legal problem with the bill – the Council moved on to consider the bill.

The second transparent and potentially legal problem is that Councilman Cronin dropped a complete substitute of the bill, dividing it into two questions. The language in the ordinance appears to contradict the charter language and has other problems. With little-to-no discussion, the Council proceeded to adopt this substitute that had no public input and no public discussion.

The content was troubling enough, but the fact that even the council members who opposed the bill brought up neither the Charter violation nor the violation of the public trust by dropping the substitute without opportunity for public discussion is even more troubling. It gives the impression that this is not the first time this type of action has occurred. It calls into question how the residents of St. Charles County are being represented.

The Council passed several Charter amendments that night. All of them appear to have been hastily drafted and presented in a rush to meet a deadline that has been known for a very long time. You would think that when proposing changes to the county’s constitution – that’s what the Charter actually is – there would be more thought put into those changes. You would also think that there would be more opportunity for public input and interaction.

Unfortunately, the umpire, County Executive Steve Ehlmann, apparently didn’t see the sleight of hand and signed the bill. It could have been as a minority member of the Missouri House and Senate, floor substitutes were common place. I was a member of the first Republican majority in the House in 50 years. One of the first changes we made to the House Rules was to eliminate the shenanigans that can manifest themselves in floor substitutes by elminating them. The County should do the same.

As one of the original County Council members, I see a significant degradation in how the public is part of the process. We certainly made mistakes along the way. We made decisions based on what we thought was best for the public and solicited their input even on tough issues. We understood that we were elected to make tough decisions, not punt them to the public for a vote because we didn’t have the courage to take a vote and explain it. We are a republic after all, not a democracy.

We were setting the standard. Sadly, a standard that appears to have been relaxed.

Cronin3

This conversation or a similar one will take place in over 123,000 households in Missouri this fall if the legislature makes the bad and incorrect decision to override Governor Nixon’s veto on House Bill (HB) 1329. HB1329 had good intentions but represents the worst scenario possible for all of us but especially legislators: bad policy and bad politics! Usually you can work through one of those but not both.

The attempt to defend HB1329 has been to draw our focus to “out-of-state” car purchases and leveling the field for Missouri car dealers. I’m all for that! HB1329 IS NOT the way to do it however!

Many legislators I have talked with don’t understand that the retroactive taxation of people who have purchased a car since the unanimous Supreme Court ruling throwing the tax out applies to individual to individual sales, not just out-of-state car purchases. While I don’t have the numbers – although I’m certain they will be known before the election on November 6th – I would wager that the majority of those 123,000 transactions currently subject to the new retroactive tax are individual to individual sales!

I’m pretty sure when Governor Nixon sent the letter to legislators and the media (copy of one here) it’s pretty clear that those tax bills will go out prior to the November 6th election. I think it is also likely that any legislator voting to override the Governor’s veto will see that tax increase vote in their opponent’s campaign literature – and it will be a correct accusation.

The solution is simple – let the local governments place the use tax on the local ballots as required by the state constitution! The government associations such as the Missouri Association of Counties (MAC) – full disclosure I served on the board of directors when I was a county councilman from St Charles – and the Missouri Municipal League (MML) – an organization who never met a tax they didn’t like as long as they were getting a part of it – are trying to convince legislators to override the Governor’s veto. They claim to be representing their constituents but they are really representing their member governments not constituents!

These entities are wailing about lost revenues but that claim is bogus. How can we know that? Well for starters, we can look at the fact that counting the November 6th election, there will have been 3 elections that EVERY county and city that does not currently have a use tax could have placed a use tax on the ballot. Why didn’t MAC and MML encourage their members to do so? If they did, they weren’t very effective.

At last count – it could change as this week’s ballot measure deadline has recently closed – only 14 counties have placed the measure before their voters via the ballot. Three (3) of these votes have already taken place and 2 of 3 passed.

Instead, MAC and MML are banking on legislators to ignore the state constitution so their member governments won’t “have” to place the use tax on their ballots and to override the will of many voters in the state who have already voted AGAINST use taxes – some of them multiple times.

HB1329 may have sounded good when it was originally passed. Now everyone knows better!

We submitted almost 23,000 signatures to the election authority but when the signatures were verified, we came up slightly short of the total required. The issue was very popular in attracting signatures as demonstrated by the fact over half the invalid signatures were from unregistered voters!

It’s interested as we saw those who oppose smoking bans not wanting to sign the petition. They believed that government should not be intruding on business decisions. I agree. The unfortunate fact is that government has the view that they have the right to do so under the guise of “public health”.

The fact is public health is a red herring. Even in today’s environment, no one is forced to breath in second-hand smoke. Customers who object can simply choose not to patronize the business. Employees who choose not to be exposed can find another service sector job. Even during the worst of the economic downturns service sector jobs were available. Everyone who breathes in second-hand smoke at any bar, restaurant, etc. does so at their own choosing.

Once the anti-smoking ban people understood that yes, the proposal did ban smoking in every business location in St Charles County but allowed business owners to make business decisions as to whether they wanted to allow smoking in their establishments, they were more inclined to support the measure.

Even some pro-smoking ban people supported the measure. The requirement for signage on smoking establishments and the fact that all businesses would be required to go smoke free unless they decided to take the measures contained in the proposal and that many businesses would likely not wish to go to the expense to be a smoking establishment made sense to them.

When people are presented with the facts that the proposal is a balanced approach to the scorched earth polices supported by Councilman Cronin and others, they were inclined to support the petition. Only the most zealot opponents of property rights remain opposed to the reasonable solution.

The Committee has withdrawn the petition and requested the signatures be returned. The County Charter does not place a time limit on the collection of signatures. We believe that the signatures should be returned. The Committee does not consider litigation as our first choice but if we must, we will stand for the rights of the citizens who signed the petition and demand the County abide by the Charter provisions.

Councilman Cronin’s bill will be up Monday night. It is a bad bill and contains a number of problems areas. Personally, I don’t see how the County Executive can sign this bill as it makes no appreciable changes to the first bill he vetoed.

In addition, Councilman Cronin violated the provisions of the Charter in introducing his bill. The St Charles County Charter, Section 2.601 reads in part:

Each shall be in written or printed form, and shall be read aloud in its entirety the first time, or if more than two (2) pages in length, the first reading may be by title only if written copies are made available to the public through the Registrar’s office at least thirty-six (36) hours prior to the time scheduled for the first reading.

The result of sunshine request to the County Registrar’s office revealed the ordinance in question was not delivered to the office until 5:12pm on Friday, August 10, 2012. The office hours are 8-5pm. The bill was not posted on-line and was not available to the public 36 hours in advance of the meeting on Monday, August 13, 2012. As I said earlier, I would think the County Executive would veto the bill for the same reasons he did before. However, if he doesn’t, we will insist that the County abide by the Charter requirements for the introductions of bills.

Stayed tuned

Cronin3

Many legislators are trying to build their case for raising taxes by telling people that it’s not a tax increase because people were already paying it until the courts ruled it illegal. Lots of political double-speak going on here.

The tax has not been collected since earlier this year. So by definition it would now be a new tax. A tax that should be voted on at the local level, not railroaded by the legislature in an apparent unconstitutional move.

Now the hue and cry of sky is falling is being ramped up. To hear the supporters of this tax increase talk, businesses are going to shutter their doors, local governments will default on their debt, road safety will be jeopardized and local government services will cease. I don’t have a problem with believing that local governments over-spend just like state and federal governments and so need the money. What I have a problem with is that everyone of the affected governments has passed at least two opportunities to fix the problem and most are missing a third! None of these opportunities include having the legislature increase taxes without a vote of the people!

The Missouri Supreme Court first issued their opinion that the “sales tax” collections that had been going on for some 60 years was illegal on January 31, of this year. It’s interesting to note the position that doing something wrong for 60 years makes it somehow okay, but I digress. The January 31st date was technically too late to place the issue of a local use tax on the April ballot. I say technically because the local government entity could have to go to the courts to get it placed on the April ballot but no guarantees so let’s give them a pass.

However, they have no such pass on the June, August or even the upcoming November elections. They can claim they believed the state was going to “fix” the problem for them but they have no excuse. Osage County certainly didn’t rely on that excuse when it placed it’s local use tax on the August 7th ballot. It passed.

Local governments have no excuse for not placing a local use tax on the ballot. The Quill v North Dakota case back in the 1990′s should have been enough warning to any county and city about establishing a local use tax. Now that the courts have rightfully found that a retail sales tax cannot be charged to purchases not made in the state – and in certain cases within the state – these entities are scrambling to have someone else clean up after them.

HB1329 may have good intentions but it’s the wrong solution to a real problem. The Governor’s veto message hits all the high points – or should we say, low points — of the bill without political rhetoric. The solution is not a state level solution — especially when it involves breaking the state constitution to “solve” it.  All that will lead to is further uncertainty and loss of revenue for these local governments.

The legislature SHOULD NOT override the Governor’s veto of HB1329. They should take a stand for their constituents and let local governments do their jobs – putting a local use tax on the ballot at the next opportunity. They have already missed several and have NO right to complain about the loss of revenue!

More information to come.

http://fox2now.com/2012/08/21/bearden-talks-about-smoking-ban-proposal/

Let’s hit the most glaring falsehood the Council uses in trying to demonize the petition effort – they call it “the Casino” bill.  How can you know that the accusation is false? Both the petition proposal AND the Council bill EXEMPT the casino from the smoking ban! The only difference is that the casino could decide by taking various steps to allow smoking in other parts of their building under the petition but so could all other businesses in St Charles County. The Council continues to make false statements without the facts to support them.

I got involved in this when Councilman Cronin was working on his first smoking ban proposal.  It was as wrong headed as the second one and the current one. Fortunately it did not make it on the ballot as County Executive Ehlmann rightfully vetoed it. He should do the same to the current bill – if it makes it that far!

During this initial effort, I met up with local bar owners who immediately recognized the bill for what it really is – an attack on property rights.  They not only recognized an attack on property rights but knew the attack was aimed squarely at them.

During this time, Troy Stremming, Senior Vice President of Government Relations & Public Affairs at Ameristar had commented in the Post-Dispatch that while they appreciated the exemption in Councilman Cronin’s original bill – just as they are in the current version – he  was not a supporter of smoking bans. In fact, he stood with the small businesses who were objecting to the ban:

“I agree with all of those small businesses when it comes to the business rights issue,” he says. “As long as smoking is legal in the United States, then it should be up to the business owner — who has invested his own capital — how to run that business.” St. Charles Suburban-Journals

The bar and small business owners actually got the ball rolling.  A draft was developed by the bar owners, bowling alley owners, restaurants, veterans organizations, tobacco/cigar shops and Ameristar.  Many of these people have everything they have invested in the businesses Councilman Cronin and others want to negatively impact.  It was a joint drafting effort not Casino driven.  No one on the Council has bothered to ask about this, they have been content with making unfounded accusations. Apparently it’s more fun when you don’t have to worry about the facts!

It is true that Ameristar provided funding for the signature collection effort.  All the funds have been used for legal work and signature collection efforts. No compensation for me or any one connected to me has been received and none is planned through-out the campaign or after.

But surely you can understand why Councilman Cronin and others are calling this the “casino bill” right?

One of the tried and true ways of shifting the attention from a really bad idea or issue is to create a distraction or a bigger “bogey man”.  In this case, Councilman Cronin and  others want you to think it’s the casino.  They can’t gain any sympathy for their cause if they don’t have a ready-made target like Ameristar to cover up their proposal to attack St Charles County small businesses.

Councilman Cronin and his supporters claim they want people to vote on a ban. He claims the petition turned in with 22,850 signatures is the status quo but only because he either hasn’t read it, is just parroting his handlers or both. The petition actually requires every business in St Charles County to go non-smoking unless they take very specific and direct actions otherwise.  The petition proposal is far from the status quo and will protect public health AND the rights of private, small business owners.

It’s a win-win! And contrary to the political speak of the Council – it’s not “the casino” bill, it’s a small business jobs protection bill.

Cronin3

HB1329 was a response to a court case, Street v. Director of Revenue. In Street, the court found that the practice of charging sales taxes on out of state purchases such as cars was not authorized.  The result was numerous cities and counties whose citizens had not approved a local Use Tax as required by the Missouri Constitution lost the revenue from these purchases.  The  ”fix” was to have the legislature pass HB1329  which bypasses the local voters and essentially establishes a new tax on the local level.  This is wrong on so many levels and I give Governor Nixon credit for laying them  all out.

The supporters of the bill in the General Assembly will tell you that this levels the playing field, especially for car dealers in the state.  They will also tell you that the cities and counties who failed in the past to ask their voters for a local Use Tax need the funds.  They will also say that this is not a new tax since it has been collected before.  Each of these points are either wrong or misleading.

It is true that car dealers in the state might be at some disadvantage with the tax.  Most information indicates people will not go too far out of their way to save a few bucks.  It’s unfortunate that local dealers did not encourage their cities and counties to place a local Use Tax before their voters to legally even the playing field.  Going around the people is not only wrong, it’s against the Missouri Constitution.

The cities and counties who are now complaining about the “lost” revenue have no one to blame but themselves.  They have had the power all along to solve this problem.  They could have and should have asked their voters if they wanted to have a local Use Tax – but they didn’t because it was too easy to rely instead on the back door “sales tax” approach that has been determined to be illegal. Osage County asked its voters on August 7th if they wanted a local Use Tax. They said yes. Why didn’t every city and county without a Use Tax put it on the ballot in August?

As for the argument that this is not a new tax because it’s just a reinstatement of a tax that has been collected in the past  - well not really a good argument.  It might be a good argument if you are trying to renew a legal tax that the people have approved in the past but it’s not.  If you are instituting a tax that has been illegally collected in the past all you are doing is legitimizing the past illegal actions.  And in this case, doing so in a way that violates the state constitution. Worst yet, they have attempted to make it retroactive so that people who purchased and legally registered vehicles after the court decision would be sent NEW tax bills. That’s a new tax!

Governor Nixon pointed out many of these things in his veto letter. He also points out an issue with the Interstate Commerce clause in the US Constitution and double taxation.  On this issue, Governor Nixon got it right.  The legislature SHOULD NOT override his veto.

We will be sending out an action alert regarding this issue prior to the Veto Session.  Constituents need to let their Representatives and Senators know they oppose this attempt to raise taxes locally on the state level in violation of the Missouri Constitution.

The St Charles County Council introduced a proposed ordinance placing a total smoking ban on businesses in St Charles County with some exemptions.  Actually the bill was sponsored by Councilman Joe Cronin who has failed twice in the past to get enough support to place his anti-property rights bill on the ballot.  Hopefully County Executive Steve Ehlmann will maintain the position he had when he vetoed the first bill the Council passed on which the current proposal is based! Cronin’s proposal contains the same problems as the County Executive noted before.

A committee for which I am the treasurer, Committee for Economic Liberty (CFEL), undertook a petition drive to place a compromise charter amendment on the ballot.  CFEL collected 22,850 signatures which are being verified by the County Election Authority. The County Counselor’s office has issued an opinion that the petition turned in is legally insufficient.  CFEL disputes that opinion and will take whatever action is necessary to see that the 22, 850 citizens of St Charles County who signed the petition voices are heard.

Councilman Cronin and others are quick to point out that Ameristar Casino donated $100,000 to CFEL.  They falsely claim that the amendment was written by the Casino and that I was hired to make it all happen.  Sounds good doesn’t it?

Unfortunately Councilman Cronin and others are as factual as Claire McCaskill was when she claimed a commercial that was run agaisnt her was full of paid actors when in fact, they were all her constituents!  She was wrong and had to apologize.  Councilman Cronin and others are also wrong but I don’t expect nor want an apology.

The only truth in Councilman Cronin’s accusation is that Ameristar did donate $100,000 to CFEL. That’s where the truth stops in Councilman Cronin’s accusations.

The contributions were reported to the Missouri Ethics Commission (MEC ID: C121327) as required by law and expenses have been reported also. The Post-Dispatch, Suburban Journals and the Patch have all reported the contributions.  No secrets being kept.

All expenses that have been made to date were for legal review of incorporation of the committee, filing of ethics documents and signature collection.  None of these expenses have financially benefited me directly or indirectly.

The proposed charter amendment that 22,850 St Charles residents signed was not written by the Casino.  They did participate in its development as did owners of local bars, bowling alleys, veterans groups and tobacco shops.

Council Chair Nancy Matheny exposed the ridiculous nature of Councilman Cronin’s accusation when she pointed out that the Casino would be exempted under both the CFEL proposal and Cronin’s.  Using Councilman Cronin’s logic, it would be just as appropriate to claim that the Casino wrote his bill also.  However, that would be just as false as his accusation that they wrote the CFEL version.

Councilman Cronin and Councilman Joe Brazil both made statements to the effect that I was “hired” to do this effort by the Casino.  I know most of us are getting tired of elected officials telling us what they think is correct rather than getting the facts first. Sadly, it just comes with the territory.

The fact is I am not hired to do this effort.  I nor my organization is paid by Ameristar nor the Committee for Economic Liberty to do this effort.  Our mission is to support limited government actions and oppose big government proposals like Councilman Cronin’s.

Just as we see the President trying to deflect the discussion from the economy and other important matters the same is true of Councilman Cronin and others.  Rather than discuss the real issues, they attempt to distract with half-truths and innuendo.

The citizens of St Charles County deserve an honest discussion not a diversion.

Cronin3

During the past year, the St. Charles County Council has taken up such bills endangering property rights — not once, but twice.  Fortunately, both failed to make it to the ballot.  The Council was asked to pass a fair compromise bill earlier this year but they refused. Now that 22,850 St. Charles voters have signed a petition to place an excellent compromise on the ballot, the Council is seeking to subvert the effort.

The people who want to trample business owners’ property rights are unwilling to work toward a mutually agreeable solution.  It’s all or nothing.  They want to penalize businesses for the use of a legal product - tobacco. They are so hell-bent on accomplishing their mission that they are willing to put businesses out of business. Councilman Cronin is leading the effort.

Those who do not believe that business owners should be allowed to make decisions on the use of legal products try to scare people. They claim that banning the voluntary use  of, and exposure to a legal product is necessary for public health reasons.  That’s rationalization for nanny state government intrusion into private businesses.

The fact of the matter is that no one in St. Charles County is exposed to second-hand smoke who does not willingly choose to be.  The only exception to this might be children, whose parents or guardians smoke, but even the Council’s latest errant proposal won’t stop that exposure!

The logical solution to this “problem” is for folks who are bothered by it to simply not to go to places that allow smoking.  The nanny state supporters will claim employees are involuntarily exposed to smoking.  I’m pretty sure indentured servitude ended in America quite some time ago, at least in business.  No employee is forced or mandated to work in a place that allows smoking.

However, because Americans have generally become soft on individual rights, we are more willing to accept sounds-good, feels-good proposals like a smoking ban.  ’Seems the only time we might get upset is when someone talks about taking something we like.  Get ready, it’s only a matter of time.

Working with businesses around the county,  we developed a compromise proposal.  It places a smoking ban on every business in the county.  The difference is that a business can make a decisions like businesses do every day about changes they could make to remain a smoking establishment. You can see the initiative petition sign-up sheet and charter amendment here. The primary points are:

• All establishments allowing smoking must have a clearly placed sign at their entrance(s) stating they are a smoking establishment.
• Smoking allowed in establishments serving those 21 and over.
• Other venues may allow smoking ONLY in ventilated and enclosed areas separated from the rest of the building or facility.
• Cigar bars and tobacco shops can allow smoking.

We collected and turned in 22,850 signatures to the St. Charles Election Authority on Wednesday. The initiative petition was simple and straightforward.  Opponents claim that people were “fooled” into signing the petitions.  But as you can read, the information was straightforward on the petition and the two-page (versus twenty-four pages for the Council bill) charter change was available for all to read.  I don’t know about you, but I don’t sign petitions that I don’t read.

The Council should stop playing games with the livelihood of so many businesses in St Charles County.  Let the people’s voice be heard on the initiative petition. Let businesses and consumers make their own choices. More government IS NOT the answer!

Cronin3

Last week we provided several blog postings/videos of what the charter amendments were all about.  You can read and watch them all by clicking here.

The proposed City charter amendments don’t fix any problems – they simply create more.  They do however, shift more power to City Hall.  Springfield voters should vote NO on all the charter amendments!

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

It’s hard to explain to some people – especially those who might believe that government taking more of your money than they should is the way it should be is and no accountability is necessary.  Add anything to zero and you get something greater than zero.  Again – not a difficult concept to understand that if you end up paying more than you would have – that’s an increase! I offer you this example of the media disputing the fact many will pay more because of the actions of their local governments but it’s not an increase:  This is a tax increase?

If you want to find out if your local government is increasing your taxes for the weekend, you can find the listing here.

Today, Carl Hurd provides a summary and wrap-up of the three proposed amendments.

Charter Amendment 2012-1 seeks to eliminate the primary election that takes place at the February election. The reasons behind the elimination of the primary appear to be the fact that it will save the city money and it’s very cold time of year for seniors to come out and vote.

The primary election was put into place in the city charter after elections in the late 70′s and 80′s where elected by less than a majority of Springfield voters. A charter commission recommended that the charter be changed to establish the primary election in February and the top two candidates would move on to the April election where one would receive a majority of the votes cast. This system has worked well for the citizens of Springfield.

The state has eliminated the February election except for bond issues. However, as a home-rule charter city, Springfield could still conduct their primary election in February. As an alternative, they could conduct the primary in April and the city general election in August. In many cases, this might actually save the money the city says they are trying to save and give better weather for residents to participate. The current proposal should be defeated and the City should come back with one that retains the primary setup established long ago and that has been working so well.  United for Missouri joins with the Citizen Rights Coalition in recommending a NO vote on this proposal.

Charter Amendment 2012-2 is a very onerous amendment. Among the numerous changes it makes to the initiative process, seven in all – from how initiative petitions are started to how long citizens have to collect signatures – it actually changes the fact that initiatives can now include issues that add cost to city government operations. The current charter provisions do not allow initiatives to contain costs driven issues.

The proposed charter amendment for initiative petitions adds bureaucratic hurdles and would discourage citizen efforts to change their city government through the initiative process. It would insulate City government from citizen involvement and reform proposals. United for Missouri joins with the Citizen Rights Coalition in recommending a NO vote on this proposal.

Charter Amendment 2012-3 is in my opinion the most onerous proposition of the three.  The current requirement for initiative petitions is to collect a number of signatures equal to 10% of those voting in the last mayoral election.  The City Council believes that 10% is too low.  In reality, 10% is a lot of signatures to gather. The City Council wants to penalize citizen activists by making the signature requirement even harder – and you aren’t going to like the way they are wanting to do it!

The City Council proposes to change the number of signatures required to be 7% instead of the current 10%.  So you say, “well that’s better!” It’s not.  The want it to be 7% of REGISTERED voters and represents a 300% increase in the number of signatures required to be gathered by citizens.

That’s bad enough but when you realize that REGISTERED voters include people who no longer live in the city either because they have moved or are DEAD – then you know that your signature is being diluted and the City Council is devaluing your participation! You might say that all you have to do is clean-up the voter registration role.  Believe me, Richard Struckoff is doing all he can to do that but the federal laws and regulations do not allow simple, common sense clean-up of voter roles.

You can watch what your fellow citizens have to say about these amendment by clicking here.

All in all out the citizens of Springfield should reject all the proposed charter amendments.  They do not solve the problems they are said to solve.  They do give the City Government more control and power.  That’s the wrong direction!