ST. LOUIS – The Missouri Department of Transportation will close the center lane at the interchange of westbound I-70 and Route 370 in St. Charles County the weekend of Oct. 15-18 to continue bridge repair work on the interchange, weather permitting.
Crews will close the center lane of westbound I-70 at Route 370 at 9 p.m. Friday, October 15, 2010. They will close a second lane between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. Friday and Saturday nights. All lanes on westbound I-70 will reopen by 2:30 p.m. Monday, October 18.
Plan ahead to avoid work zones by calling 1-888-ASK-MODOT or visiting our website at http://www.modot.org/stlouis/.
Travelers can get up-to-the-minute traffic information on interstates or major state routes by dialing 5-1-1 from most cell phones; if 5-1-1 isn't available from your telephone, please dial 877-478-5511 (877-4STL-511).
14 October 2010
Davis: Constitutional Amendment One
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
However, my experience has been that even with the plain language summary there is a much more "behind-the-ballot" question. In the next Capitol Report I will continue to explore the depths of the remaining ballot questions so you can make an informed choice when you vote November 2.
Constitutional Amendment #1
The purpose of having a charter form of government is so that each government entity can determine its own set of rules. I like county charters because it allows the maximum amount of public input from citizens.Amendment One forces all charter counties to elect its assessors. I am not in favor of this amendment because it is good to allow counties to have local control. Some will vote for this because they believe that unless the state government forces its will upon the counties, the counties will hire assessors who might rip off the people. When the state demands counties elect its assessors, it removes some of the county's decision-making authority. Most charter counties already elect the assessor. If it were really causing a problem, why wouldn't the people change the county charter?
Here is one very special caveat: Apparently, Jackson County doesn't want to elect its assessor, so it has a special carve-out. Article 3, section 40-42 of the Missouri Constitution prohibits passing special legislation for just one city or county, therefore the amendment is written in a manner that defines the area being exempted by its population. If this amendment passes -and long as Jackson County stays within a certain population bracket- that county will always be treated with a different set of rules than the rest of the state.
Here are a few questions to consider:
- Are the counties so irresponsible that the state government must force them to elect the assessors?
- What is so special about Jackson County that it deserves to be exempt?
- Which county is going to want to change the state constitution in the future to accommodate it alone?
- Why didn't we read any articles about how bad these appointed county assessors are?
The problem is not the process; it's the philosophy of the assessor's office. We are not going to fix our level of taxation by a new method of selecting the assessors. When was the last time you heard a county assessor run by saying, "If you vote for me I will work to charge you the least amount possible!"? A lot of people complain about how high their real estate taxes are, yet people typically vote for increases. Therein is the problem.
Your thoughts are important to me, so please let me know what you think about Missouri Constitutional Amendment One. You can send me your opinion by clicking here Cynthia Davis
Cynthia In The News
Last week I was published in World Net Daily. Some of my most faithful readers know I have been working on marriage issues for many years. For an article to be published in a national publication, it must have value beyond the state of Missouri. David Usher is a national figure who is joining me in this battle to lower the divorce rate and to create more justice in the divorce laws. For years he has worked toward finding practical solutions. We collaborated to produce our best thoughts and information for this article and hope you enjoy hearing about why we must make an impact to reduce the divorce rate in America.
Marriage: America's greatest fiscal issue
Posted: October 07, 2010; 1:00 am EasternBy David R. Usher and Missouri Rep. Cynthia Davis
[Link to Original Article]
Marriage is one of the five most important issues of the 2010 elections. It will remain a controlling factor in the American dilemma until some form of the "10 Marriage Policies to rebuild America" is enacted at federal and state levels.
Why? Marriage-absence is driving federal and state deficits. Health-care coverage, personal bankruptcy and home-loan defaults are infrequent problems for married couples. Children raised in intact families are the last to get in trouble, flunk out of school, join a gang, have babies, become chronic substance abusers, commit crimes, or grow up to be criminals.
Social spending is by far the largest line and fastest-growing item in federal and state budgets. Social spending does not put out fires, nor does it save the starfish. It buys another round of marriage-absence and deficits.
Consider Missouri, which is in much better shape than many other states, but typical in its spending priorities:
The direct cost of marriage-absence to taxpayers in Missouri is $1 billion to $1.5 billion per year. Missouri had 23,299divorces in 2009, each costing the state at least $18,000 per year, and as much as $27,600 annually, depending on the analysis applied. Out-of-wedlock births add another 33,543 cases at similar cost.
Marriage-absence is eating Missouri alive. Social services spending is the largest line item – at 32.7 percent of total spending – expenditures for which there is no good news to report.
In Missouri, social spending is 50 percent higher than spending on education. Schools are shortchanged and saddled with an impossible unfunded mandate – making up for what children lack not having both a mother and a father in the home. Under-parented children are predominantly the ones with aggravated behavior problems and low test scores. If most children came to school disciplined and ready to learn, schools and children would succeed – and so would America.
The cost of criminal interdiction arising from marriage-absence is alarming. Eighty-five percent of all youths sitting in prisons grew up in a fatherless home. Improving marriage rates will translate into immediate and substantial reductions in spending on crime and prisons.
Many incorrectly assume that recent increases in poverty rates are primarily a result of today's high unemployment rates. Wrong. The "war on poverty" will be won only by improving marriage rates. When two adults support one household, high unemployment rates are far more survivable. The latest census income data prove the fact that unmarried households are the highest-risk group for poverty regardless of job availability. In good times or bad times, their incomes are only 35 percent to 67 percent of what married couples earn.
Missouri is facing a $1 billion deficit in 2012. If sensible marriage policy reduced illegitimacy and divorce by half (also happily resolving the greatest problems many Missourians face), it would today be running significant surpluses and could easily expect a balanced budget or surplus in 2012.
America would be a strong nation today had Ronald Reagan envisioned the need for trickle-down social policy interlocked with trickle-down economic policy. Both are required to create a strong economy and balanced federal and state budgets.
Welfare actively destroys marriage in economic downturns. Individuals divorce or simply cohabit to qualify for years of comparatively rich long-term welfare benefits, and then remain unemployed or underemployed for decades. The corrosive interaction between existing unemployment and welfare policy predicts today's record cohabitation and illegitimacy rates (and the deficits America is drowning in).
Eight years ago, James Q. Wilson pointed out the nexus between marriage, freedom and economic success: "The nation is becoming divided into two nations; not a nation of the rich and the poor, but a nation of the married and the unmarried bearing children. The effort of the United States to expand freedom and economic opportunity to everybody is now running up against this wall." Eight years later, we collided with the wall and wonder where our freedoms, economy and future went.
America is in sociopolitical economic meltdown. Our freedoms, economy, political and administrative systems and banking systems are crumbling. Everyone is desperately seeking answers, but nobody has yet mentioned the one answer addressing the majority of America's economic problems, human needs and dreams.
Republicans and tea partiers are hopeful that America can be restored solely by executing traditional conservative fiscal and constitutional ideals. Given the unquestionable hierarchy of America's contemporary problems, it is naïve to think we can avoid fiscal collapse or re-establish constitutional order unless we address the root problem.
"Marriage Values" policies created by the Center for Marriage Policy match precisely with core conservative and libertarian principles. Marriage naturally establishes and ensures the fundamental freedoms, rights and limited government that Republicans and tea partiers now demand.
"Marriage Values" is not a cultural debate, nor does it force anyone to marry. It marks the terminus of today's government-driven gender war, the war on marriage and the war on church first launched by Betty Friedan.
Marriage is the leading women's issue of the 21st century. Today, millions of unhappy welfare mothers must "do it all," live in poverty in unsafe streets while waiting for some politician in Washington to save them. We are confident that most women will prefer the many benefits Marriage Values policy offers.
We have one simple choice to make: Marriage or monstrous quongocratic government. All grass-roots organizations, conservatives, libertarians and tea partiers must focus on real policies that will rebuild America. Join with us in enacting the 10 Marriage Policies to rebuild America. The erosions of rights everyone is bemoaning, the high taxes we cannot afford and the deficits of monolithic helicopter government will naturally abate when marriage is restored as the social norm.
David R. Usher is president of the Center for Marriage Policy. Cynthia Davis is state representative for Missouri's 19th District.
A Little Bit of Humor
Two elderly Wal-Mart greeters were sitting on a bench at the entry way when one turns to the other and says,
"Slim, I'm 73 years old now and I'm just full of aches and pains. I know you're about my age. How do you feel?"
Slim says, "I feel just like a new-born baby."
"Really, Like a new-born baby?"
"Yep. No hair, no teeth and I think I just wet my pants."
13 October 2010
Nance: Summary of Ballot Issues
At right: 
Magna Seating Systems workers supply seats for the Ford Escape.
"Voting is a right best exercised by people who have taken time to learn about the issues." –Tony Snow
"In less than three weeks, voters will be going to the polls to consider three potential amendments to the Missouri Constitution and two propositions. I have included the information below in hopes it will help you and give you ample time to research the impact of each of these issues. For more information, you may obtain the full text on the Secretary of State's website." An amendment is sent to the people to vote on through the general assembly. A proposition is sent to the people by initiative petition.
Official Ballot Title:
Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to require the office of county assessor to be an elected position in all counties with a charter form of government, except counties with a population between 600,001-699,999?
It is estimated this proposal will have no costs or savings to state or local governmental entities.
Fair Ballot Language:
A "yes" vote will amend the Missouri Constitution to require that assessors in charter counties be elected officers. This proposal will affect St. Louis County and any county that adopts a charter form of government. The exception is for a county that has between 600,001-699,999 residents, which currently is only Jackson County.
A "no" vote will not change the current requirement for charter counties.
If passed, this measure will not have an impact on taxes.
Official Ballot Title:
Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to require that all real property used as a homestead by Missouri citizens who are former prisoners of war and have a total service-connected disability be exempt from property taxes?
The number of qualified former prisoners of war and the amount of each exemption are unknown, however, because the number who meet the qualifications is expected to be small, the cost to local governmental entities should be minimal. Revenue to the state blind pension fund may be reduced by $1,200.
Fair Ballot Language:
A "yes" vote will amend the Missouri Constitution to exempt from property taxes all real property used as a homestead by any Missouri citizen who is a former prisoner of war with a total service-connected disability.
A "no" vote will not add this exemption to the Missouri Constitution.
If passed, this measure will decrease property taxes for qualified citizens.
Official Ballot Title:
Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to prevent the state, counties, and other political subdivisions from imposing any new tax, including a sales tax, on the sale or transfer of homes or any other real estate?
It is estimated this proposal will have no costs or savings to state or local governmental entities.
Fair Ballot Language:
A "yes" vote will amend the Missouri Constitution to prevent the state, counties, and other political subdivisions from imposing any new tax, including a sales tax, on the sale or transfer of homes or any other real estate.
A "no" vote will not change the Missouri Constitution to prevent the state, counties, and other political subdivisions from imposing a new tax on the sale or transfer of homes or any other real estate.
If passed, this measure will have no impact on taxes.
Official Ballot Title:
Shall Missouri law be amended to:
Fair Ballot Language:
A "yes" vote will amend Missouri law to repeal the authority of certain cities to use earnings taxes to fund their budgets. The amendment further requires voters in cities that currently have an earnings tax, St. Louis and Kansas City, to approve continuation of such tax at the next general municipal election and at an election held every five years or to phase out the tax over a period of ten years.
A "no" vote will not change the current Missouri law regarding earnings taxes.
If passed, this measure will impact taxes by removing the ability of cities to fund their budgets through earnings taxes. The only exception is that voters in cities that currently have an earnings tax may vote to continue such taxes.
Official Ballot Title:
Shall Missouri law be amended to:
Fair Ballot Language:
A "yes" vote will amend Missouri law to require large-scale dog breeding operations to provide each dog under their care with sufficient food, clean water, housing and space; necessary veterinary care; regular exercise and adequate rest between breeding cycles. The amendment further prohibits any breeder from having more than 50 breeding dogs for the purpose of selling their puppies as pets. The amendment also creates a misdemeanor crime of "puppy mill cruelty" for any violations.
A "no" vote will not change the current Missouri law regarding dog breeders.
Magna Seating Systems workers supply seats for the Ford Escape."Voting is a right best exercised by people who have taken time to learn about the issues." –Tony Snow
"In less than three weeks, voters will be going to the polls to consider three potential amendments to the Missouri Constitution and two propositions. I have included the information below in hopes it will help you and give you ample time to research the impact of each of these issues. For more information, you may obtain the full text on the Secretary of State's website." An amendment is sent to the people to vote on through the general assembly. A proposition is sent to the people by initiative petition.
Constitutional Amendment 1
[Proposed by the 95th General Assembly (First Regular Session) SJR 5]Official Ballot Title:
Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to require the office of county assessor to be an elected position in all counties with a charter form of government, except counties with a population between 600,001-699,999?
It is estimated this proposal will have no costs or savings to state or local governmental entities.
Fair Ballot Language:
A "yes" vote will amend the Missouri Constitution to require that assessors in charter counties be elected officers. This proposal will affect St. Louis County and any county that adopts a charter form of government. The exception is for a county that has between 600,001-699,999 residents, which currently is only Jackson County.
A "no" vote will not change the current requirement for charter counties.
If passed, this measure will not have an impact on taxes.
Constitutional Amendment 2
[Proposed by the 95th General Assembly (First Regular Session) HJR 15]Official Ballot Title:
Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to require that all real property used as a homestead by Missouri citizens who are former prisoners of war and have a total service-connected disability be exempt from property taxes?
The number of qualified former prisoners of war and the amount of each exemption are unknown, however, because the number who meet the qualifications is expected to be small, the cost to local governmental entities should be minimal. Revenue to the state blind pension fund may be reduced by $1,200.
Fair Ballot Language:
A "yes" vote will amend the Missouri Constitution to exempt from property taxes all real property used as a homestead by any Missouri citizen who is a former prisoner of war with a total service-connected disability.
A "no" vote will not add this exemption to the Missouri Constitution.
If passed, this measure will decrease property taxes for qualified citizens.
Constitutional Amendment 3
[Proposed by Initiative Petition]Official Ballot Title:
Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to prevent the state, counties, and other political subdivisions from imposing any new tax, including a sales tax, on the sale or transfer of homes or any other real estate?
It is estimated this proposal will have no costs or savings to state or local governmental entities.
Fair Ballot Language:
A "yes" vote will amend the Missouri Constitution to prevent the state, counties, and other political subdivisions from imposing any new tax, including a sales tax, on the sale or transfer of homes or any other real estate.
A "no" vote will not change the Missouri Constitution to prevent the state, counties, and other political subdivisions from imposing a new tax on the sale or transfer of homes or any other real estate.
If passed, this measure will have no impact on taxes.
Proposition A
[Proposed by Initiative Petition]Official Ballot Title:
Shall Missouri law be amended to:
- repeal the authority of certain cities to use earnings taxes to fund their budgets;
- require voters in cities that currently have an earnings tax to approve continuation of such tax at the next general municipal election and at an election held every 5 years thereafter;
- require any current earnings tax that is not approved by the voters to be phased out over a period of 10 years; and
- prohibit any city from adding a new earnings tax to fund their budget?
Fair Ballot Language:
A "yes" vote will amend Missouri law to repeal the authority of certain cities to use earnings taxes to fund their budgets. The amendment further requires voters in cities that currently have an earnings tax, St. Louis and Kansas City, to approve continuation of such tax at the next general municipal election and at an election held every five years or to phase out the tax over a period of ten years.
A "no" vote will not change the current Missouri law regarding earnings taxes.
If passed, this measure will impact taxes by removing the ability of cities to fund their budgets through earnings taxes. The only exception is that voters in cities that currently have an earnings tax may vote to continue such taxes.
Proposition B
[Proposed by Initiative Petition]Official Ballot Title:
Shall Missouri law be amended to:
- require large-scale dog breeding operations to provide each dog under their care with sufficient food, clean water, housing and space; necessary veterinary care; regular exercise and adequate rest between breeding cycles;
- prohibit any breeder from having more than 50 breeding dogs for the purpose of selling their puppies as pets; and
- create a misdemeanor crime of "puppy mill cruelty" for any violations?
Fair Ballot Language:
A "yes" vote will amend Missouri law to require large-scale dog breeding operations to provide each dog under their care with sufficient food, clean water, housing and space; necessary veterinary care; regular exercise and adequate rest between breeding cycles. The amendment further prohibits any breeder from having more than 50 breeding dogs for the purpose of selling their puppies as pets. The amendment also creates a misdemeanor crime of "puppy mill cruelty" for any violations.
A "no" vote will not change the current Missouri law regarding dog breeders.
Gatschenberger: Ballot Questions Review
Watch your mailbox for my 2010 District Directory and Survey!
Why is this Survey so Important to YOU?As your elected Representative… I am your servant. As your servant… I need you to tell me what to do!! I need your input to do the best job I can do. If I don't know what you think… I don't know how to vote to best represent your interests. Please consider taking a few moments of your time at http://www.turnkey-software.com/s/citizen to take my survey and help me… to help you. Or if you prefer… mail back the paper copy of the survey located in the center of my District Directory that will be delivered to your mailbox. I really appreciate your input!
Five Missouri Ballot Questions for the November 2, 2010 Election - Fair Ballot Language
Some of the most important items on ballots can often be propositions and amendments. Yet, often the wording on them is purposely misleading to try and pass things that the American people wouldn't support. Below is the "Fair Ballot Language" that you will see on your ballot. Please familiarize yourself with it, so that you will not be confused on Election Day, November 2nd.
Constitutional Amendment 1
Official Ballot Title:Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to require the office of county assessor to be an elected position in all counties with a charter form of government, except counties with a population between 600,001-699,999?
Fair Ballot Language:
A "yes" vote will amend the Missouri Constitution to require that assessors in charter counties be elected officers. This proposal will affect St. Louis County and any county that adopts a charter form of government. The exception is for a county that has between 600,001-699,999 residents, which currently is only Jackson County.
A "no" vote will not change the current requirement for charter counties.
If passed, this measure will not have an impact on taxes.
I will Vote "YES", on Constitutional Amendment 1 to hold county assessors accountable!
Constitutional Amendment 2
Official Ballot Title:Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to require that all real property used as a homestead by Missouri citizens who are former prisoners of war and have a total service-connected disability be exempt from property taxes?
The number of qualified former prisoners of war and the amount of each exemption are unknown, however, because the number who meet the qualifications is expected to be small, the cost to local governmental entities should be minimal. Revenue to the state blind pension fund may be reduced by $1,200.
Fair Ballot Language:
A "yes" vote will amend the Missouri Constitution to exempt from property taxes all real property used as a homestead by any Missouri citizen who is a former prisoner of war with a total service-connected disability.
A "no" vote will not add this exemption to the Missouri Constitution.
If passed, this measure will decrease property taxes for qualified citizens.
I will Vote "YES" on Constitutional Amendment 2 to support disabled former POWs!
Constitutional Amendment 3
Official Ballot Title:Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to prevent the state, counties, and other political subdivisions from imposing any new tax, including a sales tax, on the sale or transfer of homes or any other real estate?
It is estimated this proposal will have no costs or savings to state or local governmental entities.
Fair Ballot Language:
A "yes" vote will amend the Missouri Constitution to prevent the state, counties, and other political subdivisions from imposing any new tax, including a sales tax, on the sale or transfer of homes or any other real estate.
A "no" vote will not change the Missouri Constitution to prevent the state, counties, and other political subdivisions from imposing a new tax on the sale or transfer of homes or any other real estate.
If passed, this measure will have no impact on taxes.
I will Vote "YES" on Constitutional Amendment 3 to prohibit sales taxes on your home!
Proposition A
Official Ballot Title:Shall Missouri law be amended to:
- repeal the authority of certain cities to use earnings taxes to fund their budgets;
- require voters in cities that currently have an earnings tax to approve continuation of such tax at the next general municipal election and at an election held every 5 years thereafter;
- require any current earnings tax that is not approved by the voters to be phased out over a period of 10 years; and
- prohibit any city from adding a new earnings tax to fund their budget?
Fair Ballot Language:
A "yes" vote will amend Missouri law to repeal the authority of certain cities to use earnings taxes to fund their budgets. The amendment further requires voters in cities that currently have an earnings tax, St. Louis and Kansas City, to approve continuation of such tax at the next general municipal election and at an election held every five years or to phase out the tax over a period of ten years.
A "no" vote will not change the current Missouri law regarding earnings taxes.
If passed, this measure will impact taxes by removing the ability of cities to fund their budgets through earnings taxes. The only exception is that voters in cities that currently have an earnings tax may vote to continue such taxes.
I will Vote "YES" on Proposition A… this is a local control issue!
Proposition B
Official Ballot Title:Shall Missouri law be amended to:
- require large-scale dog breeding operations to provide each dog under their care with sufficient food, clean water, housing and space; necessary veterinary care; regular exercise and adequate rest between breeding cycles;
- prohibit any breeder from having more than 50 breeding dogs for the purpose of selling their puppies as pets; and
- create a misdemeanor crime of "puppy mill cruelty" for any violations?
Fair Ballot Language:
A "yes" vote will amend Missouri law to require large-scale dog breeding operations to provide each dog under their care with sufficient food, clean water, housing and space; necessary veterinary care; regular exercise and adequate rest between breeding cycles. The amendment further prohibits any breeder from having more than 50 breeding dogs for the purpose of selling their puppies as pets. The amendment also creates a misdemeanor crime of "puppy mill cruelty" for any violations.
A "no" vote will not change the current Missouri law regarding dog breeders.
If passed, this measure will have no impact on taxes.
I will Vote "NO", on Proposition B… I feel we have enough laws specific to this issue already in place.
On the Federal Level … Restoring Freedom
I am in the process of researching Article V of the U.S. Constitution to restore our State's Rights… and would love to have your thoughts. Watch the informational video at www.restoringfreedom.org
Fun Facts
“I hope I shall possess firmness and virtue enough to maintain what I consider the most enviable of all titles, the character of an honest man.” –George Washington
“If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” –George Washington
11 October 2010
Goodman: The Fiscal Note
My newsletter the "The Fiscal Note" is now available online! You can access the newsletter by clicking here:
The Fiscal Note.
Thank you for taking a few moments out of your busy schedule to look over this information. I hope you find the articles informative and helpful in understanding the work your state government did this year to help make Missouri a better place to realize your dreams and pursue prosperity.
I am genuinely grateful for the opportunity to serve you in the Missouri Senate.
Jack Goodman,
Senator District 29
The Missouri General Assembly is constitutionally mandated to pass a balanced, responsible and realistic state budget each year by a certain deadline (this year’s was May 7). As a starting point for determining the state budget, legislators considered the governor’s budget proposal, which he submitted to the Legislature at the beginning of this year.
Unfortunately, the budget scenario originally presented by the governor did not prove to be accurate. One problem was the governor’s reliance on overly optimistic revenue projections for the remainder of the current and upcoming fiscal years. The other problem was the governor’s ill-advised dependence on $300 million in additional, unrealized federal funds. To date, no bill guaranteeing extra money has been passed by Congress, and quite frankly, it would be the height of irresponsibility for state lawmakers to continue relying on the federal bailouts as a legitimate funding source, rather than reducing the ongoing cost of government.
Without the hypothetical $300 million in the governor’s original budget proposal, funding for state departments, programs and services was especially tight. For FY 2010, which ended June 30, 2010, net general revenue collections declined 9.1 percent compared to FY 2009, from $7.45 billion last year to $6.77 billion this year.
Ultimately, the Legislature reduced the FY 2011 budget by nearly $500 million from the budget proposal offered by the governor in January (FY 2011 runs July 1, 2010, through June 30, 2011). These cuts were needed because, unlike the federal government, Missouri lawmakers are required by law to ensure that the state does not spend beyond its means. The recession has left legislators with no choice but to reduce costs. As a lawmaker who was present for the last round of drastic budget cuts, I can assure any doubters that, regardless of party, it is gut-wrenching to consider cutting programs and services that people truly rely on. These are the types of decisions that were required of us this session.
Here in Missouri, the Legislature maintained its commitment to fiscal responsibility. Although budget cuts are painful, we must never forget our duty to thoroughly examine every single taxpayer-provided dollar state government spends to determine if that expenditure is vital to Missourians. I feel fortunate to have so many like-minded, fiscally conservative colleagues who refuse to vote for job-killing taxes and who are willing to shoulder tough budget decisions to ensure the state’s future prosperity.
At the end of June, the governor called a special session to pass tax credits for a specific auto company and its suppliers, as well as state employee pension reform [SB1] — two issues that failed to reach a consensus during the regular session. This time around, both bills were ultimately sent to the governor’s desk, though I, along with a few of my colleagues, did our best to stand against HB 2, the $150 million tax credits package.
I appreciate the value of the jobs and economic activity that a large industry brings to our state, but the government should treat everyone with an even hand. Many employers in the 29th District are struggling to maintain payroll without cutting jobs. If one of these small- or medium-sized businesses told the governor they would leave the state if the taxpayers didn’t bail them out, it wouldn’t matter. These businesses lack the same bargaining strength as major national corporations. I hate to see any job lost, but I do not think government can or should be all things to all people. I do, however, think government should be the same thing to all people. Government must stop the practice of choosing winners and losers by giving perks to some at the expense of others.
It is also significant to remember that this tax incentive would come in a year when the governor has withheld funds from infrastructure and education, expenditures that I consider to be more sound and appropriate investments of taxpayer dollars than investing in select private companies. Instead, we should pursue job creation by maintaining an educated workforce, solid infrastructure and the tax and regulatory relief that encourages all to privately invest in Missouri jobs.
An old battle continued in the Legislature this year over taxpayers’ rights. I was right at the heart of debate, fighting for the proper use of taxpayer dollars and standing firm against taxpayer subsidies for illegal drug use among welfare recipients.
I sponsored SB 615 to allow drug testing of work-eligible recipients of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) if there is reasonable suspicion that a recipient is using drugs. If an individual tests positive for a controlled substance, he or she would be ineligible for benefits under the program for three years and would be referred to a substance abuse treatment program. Dependents of a person who tests positive for drug use would continue to receive benefits through a third-party payee. Thus, innocent family members would not be penalized, but drug users would not be able to get their hands on the money.
Of course, we want to curb illegal drug use in Missouri, but this bill is about more than the war on drugs. Taxpayers have a reasonable expectation that their hard-earned dollars should not be used to foot the bill for illegal behavior. Many Missourians already feel as though the federal government is recklessly spending their tax dollars on bank bailouts, special interest projects and “job creation” bills that do not actually create sustainable jobs. Sometimes it seems like government is interested in helping everyone except the taxpayer who pays bill. Here in Missouri, the Legislature must take steps to protect taxpayers’ rights. I believe one guarantee that should be made to Missourians is that their hard-earned tax dollars will not subsidize drug use by those on government programs.
Simple drug tests are required for many jobs across the state. It is fundamentally unfair to take money from taxpayers who must pass drug tests at their jobs, then give that money to potential drug users. Additionally, the TANF program was designed to help people transition back to work. If recipients cannot pass a simple drug test, the stated goal of getting the recipient back to work cannot be achieved and the entire program becomes a failure.
Drug testing would also help separate the people who are abusing the system from those who really need help getting back on their feet. Unfortunately, SB 615 did not receive final approval this year. However, protecting the taxpayer from reckless government spending will remain one of my highest priorities next year.
The severe, worldwide economic downturn and resulting state budget crisis requires your Missouri government to do more than merely cap spending. We must rethink how government works and make meaningful changes to improve efficiency and effectiveness with fewer resources. This session, the Missouri Senate worked to advance this goal through its “Rebooting Government” initiative, designed to collect and implement citizen-submitted ideas to cut costs and improve government efficiency.
The Missouri Senate devoted real time to reviewing hundreds of ideas it received from Missourians for downsizing and streamlining government. Several senators presented strategies implementing the best of the suggested solutions through legislation.
In all, it was estimated that Rebooting Government recommendations could have saved Missouri taxpayers between $690 million and $790 million per year. Although many of the reforms encountered stiff resistance, it was a worthwhile exercise for legislators to step back and take a fresh look at old practices, and reassess whether Missouri can afford to keep doing business as usual. As further budget reductions will likely be required next year, the Legislature must continue the pursuit of strategic restructuring to enhance efficiency and ensure it is rendering the best product for the least cost to the taxpayers supporting the operation of Missouri government.
One positive outcome of the special session was the successful passage of state employee pension reform, a move that is expected to save around $660 million over the next 10 years. This measure was necessary, as we simply cannot sustain the costs of the system in its current form. We had to move toward a plan the taxpayers could afford and that was sustainable so the state could keep its promise to its employees. The legislation we passed during the special session will create a different retirement plan for any person who becomes a new state employee on or after January 1, 2011.
Members of this new plan will contribute 4 percent of their pay to the retirement system and must work for the state for at least 10 years to be vested. Also, to be eligible for normal retirement under this plan, employees will be required to reach age 67 and have at least 10 years of service, or reach age 55 with the sum of their age and service equaling at least 90. These meaningful changes will help ensure that the system doesn’t crash down around us as we work toward an economic recovery.
While I am pleased that we made changes that will create a more sustainable pension system, I will not support any future moves to alter the retirement system currently in place for teachers. The Public School Retirement System (PSRS) and Public Education Employee Retirement System (PEERS) together comprise the largest retirement system in Missouri, and should not be subject to changes by the Legislature, as they have already proven they are successful on their own. The legislation we passed during the special session will not affect PSRS/PEERS, but if any such proposal springs up next year, I will stand firmly against it.
The Fiscal Note.
Thank you for taking a few moments out of your busy schedule to look over this information. I hope you find the articles informative and helpful in understanding the work your state government did this year to help make Missouri a better place to realize your dreams and pursue prosperity.
I am genuinely grateful for the opportunity to serve you in the Missouri Senate.
Jack Goodman,
Senator District 29
Legislature Passes Fiscally Responsible Budget
Like most states across the nation this year, Missouri confronted a historic budget crisis with severely declining revenue, but continued demand for government programs and services. As session progressed, it became increasingly clear that unprecedented revenue shortfalls would force the Legislature to make very difficult decisions to preserve the future economic stability of our state.The Missouri General Assembly is constitutionally mandated to pass a balanced, responsible and realistic state budget each year by a certain deadline (this year’s was May 7). As a starting point for determining the state budget, legislators considered the governor’s budget proposal, which he submitted to the Legislature at the beginning of this year.
Unfortunately, the budget scenario originally presented by the governor did not prove to be accurate. One problem was the governor’s reliance on overly optimistic revenue projections for the remainder of the current and upcoming fiscal years. The other problem was the governor’s ill-advised dependence on $300 million in additional, unrealized federal funds. To date, no bill guaranteeing extra money has been passed by Congress, and quite frankly, it would be the height of irresponsibility for state lawmakers to continue relying on the federal bailouts as a legitimate funding source, rather than reducing the ongoing cost of government.
Without the hypothetical $300 million in the governor’s original budget proposal, funding for state departments, programs and services was especially tight. For FY 2010, which ended June 30, 2010, net general revenue collections declined 9.1 percent compared to FY 2009, from $7.45 billion last year to $6.77 billion this year.
Ultimately, the Legislature reduced the FY 2011 budget by nearly $500 million from the budget proposal offered by the governor in January (FY 2011 runs July 1, 2010, through June 30, 2011). These cuts were needed because, unlike the federal government, Missouri lawmakers are required by law to ensure that the state does not spend beyond its means. The recession has left legislators with no choice but to reduce costs. As a lawmaker who was present for the last round of drastic budget cuts, I can assure any doubters that, regardless of party, it is gut-wrenching to consider cutting programs and services that people truly rely on. These are the types of decisions that were required of us this session.
Here in Missouri, the Legislature maintained its commitment to fiscal responsibility. Although budget cuts are painful, we must never forget our duty to thoroughly examine every single taxpayer-provided dollar state government spends to determine if that expenditure is vital to Missourians. I feel fortunate to have so many like-minded, fiscally conservative colleagues who refuse to vote for job-killing taxes and who are willing to shoulder tough budget decisions to ensure the state’s future prosperity.
Taxpayer Shakedown
At the end of June, the governor called a special session to pass tax credits for a specific auto company and its suppliers, as well as state employee pension reform [SB1] — two issues that failed to reach a consensus during the regular session. This time around, both bills were ultimately sent to the governor’s desk, though I, along with a few of my colleagues, did our best to stand against HB 2, the $150 million tax credits package.
I appreciate the value of the jobs and economic activity that a large industry brings to our state, but the government should treat everyone with an even hand. Many employers in the 29th District are struggling to maintain payroll without cutting jobs. If one of these small- or medium-sized businesses told the governor they would leave the state if the taxpayers didn’t bail them out, it wouldn’t matter. These businesses lack the same bargaining strength as major national corporations. I hate to see any job lost, but I do not think government can or should be all things to all people. I do, however, think government should be the same thing to all people. Government must stop the practice of choosing winners and losers by giving perks to some at the expense of others.
It is also significant to remember that this tax incentive would come in a year when the governor has withheld funds from infrastructure and education, expenditures that I consider to be more sound and appropriate investments of taxpayer dollars than investing in select private companies. Instead, we should pursue job creation by maintaining an educated workforce, solid infrastructure and the tax and regulatory relief that encourages all to privately invest in Missouri jobs.
Protecting Taxpayers' Rights
An old battle continued in the Legislature this year over taxpayers’ rights. I was right at the heart of debate, fighting for the proper use of taxpayer dollars and standing firm against taxpayer subsidies for illegal drug use among welfare recipients.
I sponsored SB 615 to allow drug testing of work-eligible recipients of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) if there is reasonable suspicion that a recipient is using drugs. If an individual tests positive for a controlled substance, he or she would be ineligible for benefits under the program for three years and would be referred to a substance abuse treatment program. Dependents of a person who tests positive for drug use would continue to receive benefits through a third-party payee. Thus, innocent family members would not be penalized, but drug users would not be able to get their hands on the money.
Of course, we want to curb illegal drug use in Missouri, but this bill is about more than the war on drugs. Taxpayers have a reasonable expectation that their hard-earned dollars should not be used to foot the bill for illegal behavior. Many Missourians already feel as though the federal government is recklessly spending their tax dollars on bank bailouts, special interest projects and “job creation” bills that do not actually create sustainable jobs. Sometimes it seems like government is interested in helping everyone except the taxpayer who pays bill. Here in Missouri, the Legislature must take steps to protect taxpayers’ rights. I believe one guarantee that should be made to Missourians is that their hard-earned tax dollars will not subsidize drug use by those on government programs.
Simple drug tests are required for many jobs across the state. It is fundamentally unfair to take money from taxpayers who must pass drug tests at their jobs, then give that money to potential drug users. Additionally, the TANF program was designed to help people transition back to work. If recipients cannot pass a simple drug test, the stated goal of getting the recipient back to work cannot be achieved and the entire program becomes a failure.
Drug testing would also help separate the people who are abusing the system from those who really need help getting back on their feet. Unfortunately, SB 615 did not receive final approval this year. However, protecting the taxpayer from reckless government spending will remain one of my highest priorities next year.
Rebooting Government
The severe, worldwide economic downturn and resulting state budget crisis requires your Missouri government to do more than merely cap spending. We must rethink how government works and make meaningful changes to improve efficiency and effectiveness with fewer resources. This session, the Missouri Senate worked to advance this goal through its “Rebooting Government” initiative, designed to collect and implement citizen-submitted ideas to cut costs and improve government efficiency.
The Missouri Senate devoted real time to reviewing hundreds of ideas it received from Missourians for downsizing and streamlining government. Several senators presented strategies implementing the best of the suggested solutions through legislation.
In all, it was estimated that Rebooting Government recommendations could have saved Missouri taxpayers between $690 million and $790 million per year. Although many of the reforms encountered stiff resistance, it was a worthwhile exercise for legislators to step back and take a fresh look at old practices, and reassess whether Missouri can afford to keep doing business as usual. As further budget reductions will likely be required next year, the Legislature must continue the pursuit of strategic restructuring to enhance efficiency and ensure it is rendering the best product for the least cost to the taxpayers supporting the operation of Missouri government.
Pension Reform
One positive outcome of the special session was the successful passage of state employee pension reform, a move that is expected to save around $660 million over the next 10 years. This measure was necessary, as we simply cannot sustain the costs of the system in its current form. We had to move toward a plan the taxpayers could afford and that was sustainable so the state could keep its promise to its employees. The legislation we passed during the special session will create a different retirement plan for any person who becomes a new state employee on or after January 1, 2011.
Members of this new plan will contribute 4 percent of their pay to the retirement system and must work for the state for at least 10 years to be vested. Also, to be eligible for normal retirement under this plan, employees will be required to reach age 67 and have at least 10 years of service, or reach age 55 with the sum of their age and service equaling at least 90. These meaningful changes will help ensure that the system doesn’t crash down around us as we work toward an economic recovery.
While I am pleased that we made changes that will create a more sustainable pension system, I will not support any future moves to alter the retirement system currently in place for teachers. The Public School Retirement System (PSRS) and Public Education Employee Retirement System (PEERS) together comprise the largest retirement system in Missouri, and should not be subject to changes by the Legislature, as they have already proven they are successful on their own. The legislation we passed during the special session will not affect PSRS/PEERS, but if any such proposal springs up next year, I will stand firmly against it.
Holsman Receives Green Leader Award from Missouri Votes Conservation for 2nd Time in Four Years
KANSAS CITY MO - Missouri Votes Conservation, a statewide pro-environmental group based out of St. Louis, has selected State Representative Jason Holsman (D-Kansas City) to receive their Green Leader Award for the second time in four years.
Holsman, who has been one of Missouri's top proponents of renewable energy resources, successfully passed two pieces of environmental legislation this year. The PACE act [HB2178] allows homeowners to finance energy efficiency improvements to their properties, making technologies such as solar panels and windmill micro-turbines a reality for many middle-class Missourians. The Urban Farming Task Force legislation [HB1848] creates a joint interim committee of Missouri's General Assembly to study agriculture, vertical farming, and sustainable growing in the state's urban areas.
At right:
Representative Holsman visits a Solar Research facilty in 2007
Representative Holsman is the ranking member on the House Committee on Energy & the Environment and has served on Missouri's Energy Future Committee. Earlier this year Holsman receive the Energy Efficiency Champion award from Renew Missouri.
Holsman first received the Green Leader Award in 2007 for his work as a freshman legislator in passing the Easy Connection Act [HB869], which allowed property owners who produced their own electricity to sell excess energy back to their local electric provider.
Holsman, who has been one of Missouri's top proponents of renewable energy resources, successfully passed two pieces of environmental legislation this year. The PACE act [HB2178] allows homeowners to finance energy efficiency improvements to their properties, making technologies such as solar panels and windmill micro-turbines a reality for many middle-class Missourians. The Urban Farming Task Force legislation [HB1848] creates a joint interim committee of Missouri's General Assembly to study agriculture, vertical farming, and sustainable growing in the state's urban areas.
At right:
Representative Holsman visits a Solar Research facilty in 2007Representative Holsman is the ranking member on the House Committee on Energy & the Environment and has served on Missouri's Energy Future Committee. Earlier this year Holsman receive the Energy Efficiency Champion award from Renew Missouri.
Holsman first received the Green Leader Award in 2007 for his work as a freshman legislator in passing the Easy Connection Act [HB869], which allowed property owners who produced their own electricity to sell excess energy back to their local electric provider.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
