Davis: Questions on the November Ballot

Every election season constituents ask me about the non-candidate questions they will encounter on the voter-ballot.  If the question changes the state statutes, it is called a proposition.  If it changes the state constitution it called an amendment.  This November, we have two propositions and three constitutional amendments.  If you want to read the full ballot language here is a link to the ballot questions: November 2- Ballot Measures This week I will explain the propositions and next week, the remaining amendments.

Proposition A

Taxing people for earning a living is a bad idea.  Remember the phrase, "The power to tax is the power to destroy"?  Some economists say we have a high unemployment rate because we have such a great unemployment compensation system.  In countries where they have no unemployment compensation system, they have virtually no unemployment because people simply cannot afford to not work.  On the other hand, when people pay a higher taxation rate merely because they earn more wages, we have defined a public policy that discourages meaningful work.

Many people don't realize that those who work in Kansas City and St. Louis forfeit additional wages out of their paychecks than the rest of the state merely because they work in big cities that have the constitutional authority to extract an additional income tax.

Prop A puts the brakes on St. Louis and Kansas City's ability to add this extra layer of income tax on their residents.  Whether the cities like this or not, it could enhance their desirability and ability to attract corporations.

When you get your paycheck, do you look at the net or the gross amount?  Most people look at their take home pay.  If Prop A is successful, it may feel like a pay-raise to the employees because they will see a larger dollar amount that is left after the "garnishment" for taxation is removed.  It may also boost the morale of the employees to see a little more reward for their labor.  That's why many will be supporting Prop A.

If you want to read more about this, click here: Let Voters Decide

Proposition B

Representative Cynthia Davis in her backyard in the heart of District 19 with one of her "grand-dogs", Katie.  She came from a shelter and is living proof that many Missourians have wonderful experiences with dogs coming from all kinds of backgrounds.  Regardless of any hype you may hear, our current laws regarding the care of animals work pretty well.

This proposition has nothing to do with dogs.  It has to do with growing government bigger and making the taxpayer fund it.  The best way to explain Prop B is to ask if the residents of this state are smart enough to know how to take care of their pets without the government dictating down to the level of their food and beverage service.  After reading the ballot language, it would make one wonder why dogs and cats are not extinct in Missouri if we don't have government telling us how to take care of them already.  In addition to the first reason, many will be voting against this because we, the taxpayers will have to pick up the additional expense of enforcing the new law.  At some point we need to trust our residents to manage their pets.  We already have laws that remove pets from people who don't properly care for them.

The reality is Prop B is a "Big Government" notion promoted by those who think more tax dollars will solve every issue.  With a Republican majority in the legislature, we are too busy working on ideas to get government out of our lives and wallets; therefore short of putting this on the ballot, there would be no other way for this to pass.  If this were such a good idea, the elected officials could make this a law in any city or county or in our entire state any time we wanted to do so.

If you would like to learn more about this, click here: What's behind Prop B.

Dialoging with you is good, so please let me know what you think about these ballot initiatives. You can send me your opinion by clicking here: Cynthia Davis

A Little Bit of Humor

One beautiful autumn day, a Park Ranger discovered a man sitting in the woods chewing away on a dead Bald Eagle. "Hey mister, the Bald Eagle is a protected species, and killing one is punishable offence", said the Park Ranger.

The man was swiftly arrested, and ushered before the judge.

In court, he pleaded innocent to the charges against him, claiming that if he didn't eat the bald eagle he would have died from starvation.

"I was so hungry" complained the defensive camper, "the Bald Eagle was the only food I could find!"

To everyone's amazement, the judge ruled in his favor.

In the judge's closing statement he asked the man, "I would like you to tell me something before I let you go. I have never eaten a bald eagle, or ever plan on it. But I'd like to know: What did it taste like?"

The man answered, "Well, it tasted like a cross between a Whooping Crane and a Spotted Owl."