Rupp: Governor’s Council on Disability Accepting Applications for 2011 Inclusion Award

Hard-working Missouri citizens and businesses that exemplify excellence and dedication to helping others should be rewarded; and therefore, I am happy to announce that the Missouri Governor's Council on Disability is currently accepting nominations for the 19^th Annual Inclusion Award.

The Inclusion Award is awarded to Missouri citizens, businesses or organizations that demonstrate fine leadership skills and the best inclusion practices. The award will be presented at the Power Up 2011 conference and expo sponsored by Missouri Assistive Technology.

Inclusion practices are methods of assisting and welcoming people with disabilities in schools, the workplace and the community, allowing them to feel useful and embraced by others. The council defines inclusion as a place where everyone belongs and is accepted on an equal basis.

Past winners of the Inclusion Award include citizens who have modified homes of injured veterans returning from combat, employers who have given jobs to newly graduated students with learning disabilities, and teachers who have allowed mentally challenged students into their average classrooms, encouraging them to do projects based on their individual interests.

The Missouri Governor's Council on Disability has a long history of helping others, dating back to the era of World War II. The organization was founded after President Harry S. Truman issued an Executive Order founding the President's Committee on Employment of the Handicapped. The committee was organized primarily to aid the returning WWII veterans who were wounded in action, helping them return back to the U.S. workforce. In 1949, Missouri established the Governor's Council on Disability to help prevent problems in the workplace that disabled people may encounter. Forty-five years later, the council has expanded beyond helping handicapped people in the workplace, assisting them in all aspects of life. Currently, the council represents more than one million Missouri residents with various handicaps.

I am very proud to promote this organization. Through my efforts as the Chair of the Blue Ribbon Panel on Autism, as well as my contributions to the Missouri Commission on Autism Spectrum Disorders, I've remained dedicated to helping children with disabilities. Allowing them to grow up to be happy, productive members of society is a top priority.

The deadline for nominations of the 2011 Inclusion Award is December 1. For more information about the Missouri Governor's Council on Disability, or to download an application for a nomination, visit www.disabilityinfo.mo.gov and click on the "GCD Now Accepting Nominations for Inclusion Award" link.

If you have any questions or comments about this week's column or any other matter involving state government, please do not hesitate to contact me.  You can reach my office by phone at (866) 271-2844.

Davis: Ballot Measures Revisited

I have received several requests for access to local sample ballots and state-ballot measures. The below links will assist you in finding just what your need to be an informed voter.

For local St. Charles County candidate & ballot information: St. Charles County Election Information

To locate a sample ballot for any Missouri county go to Missouri Center For Voting Rights and fill in the information, the next page will give your voter information and a link to your county's sample ballot.

For St. Louis and surrounding areas: St. Louis Metrovoice

To view Missouri state ballot measures only: State Ballot Measures

If you want to view the bios of Missouri judges and the governors who appointed them. Missouri Blue Book

The following links will give you information for Federal-office candidates: American Family Association; Voter Scorecards; Missouri Election Resources; Missouri Family Policy Council

Proposition B—Revisited

The Capitol Report from last week generated a great deal of interest and a few more questions, so I will continue to examine the issue further.  It is not my mission to change anyone's mind, but to help you understand the complexities of the issues you will read on your ballot.  There are unintended consequences and legal gyrations behind every ballot measure issue.

I am a conservative.  My regular readers are aware of this.  My decisions that guide how I vote are based upon one significant question:  "Will it grow government bigger or will it shrink government?"  Government is already obese; short of a complete collapse, it could never become too small in our lifetime. From the very beginning, it was never too small.  Our government started out about the right size and has incrementally enlarged until it is now engorged. Every time government grows bigger it costs more money, so to vote for bigger government is to vote against the taxpayers.  The official ballot information from the Missouri Secretary of State's Office estimates that state government entities would incur costs of $654,768.

The theory behind the push for Prop B is similar to the logic used by anti-gun lobbyists.  They think that more laws will prevent people from using guns inappropriately.  Guns don't kill people.  People kill people.  If we pass more laws about guns, it will not stop people from using guns to commit crimes.  The good breeders already take great care of their dogs.  The conservative position is that the free market will self-correct.

Whether you vote for or against this proposition will depend on whether the question for you is:

"Does Missouri have inadequate laws pertaining to dog breeding?"
Or
"Does our government need more laws to control and limit the size legitimate businesses can grow?"

I certainly wouldn't want our government to regulate how many books I can sell in my bookstore, what kind of shelving I must have and make me into a criminal guilty of a misdemeanor if my inventory is not properly displayed dusted.

For additional views on the issue, link to these websites: Veterinary Association, Against Prop B, Beware of Prop B, Thinking Through Prop B

Constitutional Amendment #2 – Tax Exemption for Former Prisoners of War Who are also Disabled

This is designed to put a provision into our state constitution that will allow those who served and were captured as prisoners of war and also disabled to be exempt from having to pay real estate taxes.

Those who vote for this are voting to financially benefit a small percentage of veterans who they consider worthy of special honor translated into an economic benefit.  Those who vote against this will be voting against setting a precedence allowing special interest groups to be exempt from paying taxes like everyone else.

Whether you vote yes or no will depend on if you think the question is:

"Do you want to give tax breaks to special people?"
Or
"Do you want to give one group of people a special tax abatement for which need is not tested?"

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 – No New Taxes

This one is being promoted by the Real Estate industry because they want to assure that home sales will never be taxed.  Those who vote for this will be voting to make sure there will never be any additional taxes to home sales.  While this may seem like an easy decision for conservatives, there is another side.  Those who vote against this are doing so for two reasons.  Those on the left view the sale of homes to be an opportunity to take advantage of more fund generation for governments.  Those on the right view this as the enemy of the fair tax.  The Fair Tax is premised upon the idea that everybody ought to be taxed broadly so that the tax level is lower for all rather than a few.

Missouri Representative Ed Emery recommends a "NO" vote because,

"It combines a legitimate attempt to stop the incessant attempts of state government to raise taxes by calling them "fees" with what I see as a stealth attempt to thwart The Missouri Jobs and Prosperity Act (formerly the Missouri Fair Tax) by exempting 4% of real estate transactions. Approximately 96% of those transactions are of used homes and would not be subject to a first-use sales tax. If you favor elimination of the Missouri income tax as proposed by SJR 29 in 2010, then you will not be in favor of Amendment 3. If passed, Amendment 3 will result in a higher tax rate to replace the income tax and will also begin the relentless parade of special interests demanding exemptions from the broadened tax base that represents a key element of the Fair Tax model. I hope we are not too late to inform the electorate and defeat this special-interest sponsored amendment."

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.

Your thoughts are important to me, so please let me know what you think about the ballot issues. You can send me your opinion by clicking here: Cynthia Davis

A Little Bit of Humor

Two politicians had locked themselves out of their rented car, and unfortunately some important papers they needed for a meeting were inside. "Let's use a coat hanger to pull up the lock," suggested the first.

"Oh, no," argued the second. "Someone might see us and think we were trying to break in."

"Then we could use my pocketknife to cut away the rubber around the window and stick our fingers through to pull up the lock."

"No, no! People would think we're too stupid to know how to use a coat hanger to open cars."

"Well, we'd better do something fast. The top's down and it's starting to rain!"

Kraus: Upcoming Ballot Issues

November Ballot Issues

Voters will have a lot to decide besides candidates in the November 2 General Election.  It features five statewide ballot issues.  In addition, both Lee's Summit and Kansas City have ballot questions specific to those who live within their respective borders.  Because it is helpful to know the question before you are in the booth with pencil in hand and faced with a choice, I want to briefly recap all of the ballot issues.

Statewide, there are three constitutional amendment questions and two propositions.  A constitutional amendment amends Missouri's state constitution.  A proposition, however, amends Missouri law or statutes.

Amendment #1, if passed, would require the office of county assessor to be an elected position in all counties with a charter form of government, with the exception of counties with a population between 600,001 and 699,999.  This proposal will mostly affect St. Louis County, brought about by the number of complaints from that area of the state over assessed property valuation.  Because Jackson County is within the exempted population range, it would not be affected by passage of this amendment.

Amendment #2, if passed, would exempt any Missouri citizen who is a former prisoner of war with a total service-connected disability from having to pay property taxes on all real property used as a homestead.

Amendment #3, if passed, would prevent the state, counties or other political subdivision from placing a tax on the sale or transfer of homes or any other real estate.  This includes any transfer tax or sales tax.  Missouri does not currently impose such a tax; this amendment would prohibit the state from ever passing such a tax.

Proposition A also deals with a tax.  Currently, both St. Louis and Kansas City impose an earnings tax.  For the cities that currently impose this tax, Proposition A, if passed, would require an election be held at the next municipal election and thereafter every five years to give the voters a chance to vote up or down on continuance of the tax.  If voted down, cities would have 10 years to phase out the tax.  For other cities in the state, a yes vote on this proposition would repeal their authority to ever use earnings taxes to fund their budgets.

Proposition B, if passed, would impose additional regulations on dog breeding operations.  This proposition is opposed by the Missouri Farm Bureau and Missouri Veterinary Medical Association and supported by animal rights groups.

Locally, Lee's Summit has four questions on the ballot.  Each seeks authority to issue general obligation bonds for such items as equipment, sidewalks, and road improvements.

Kansas City also has one ballot question seeking issuance of general obligation bonds to retire debt.  Two additional questions are on its ballot - one to impose a sales tax of ¼ percent to fund public safety measures and one to require redistricting of Council districts every 10 years.

I hope this summary will help you understand the questions you will encounter in the voting booth.  The exact wording for these ballot questions can be found at the Jackson County Election Board website (statewide and Lee's Summit), and the Kansas City Board of Election website (statewide and Kansas City).  Whatever your position on these issues, don't forget to get out and vote next Tuesday!

PSC to Hold Public Hearings on KCP&L Electric Rate Cases

The Missouri Public Service Commission (PSC) will hold local public hearings in December to receive customer comments on two electric rate increases filed by KCP&L.

The first case was filed by the KCP&L Greater Missouri Operations Company.  Both its Missouri Public Service (MPS) and L&P (formerly St. Joseph Light and Power) service territories are requesting a rate increase of nearly $15 per month for the typical residential customer.

Testimony will also be taken from customers of Kansas City Power & Light Company which also has an electric rate case before the PSC. If granted, that rate increase would be nearly $13 per month for the typical residential customer.

December 7, Kansas City. Two local public hearings will be held at the Cohen Conference Center of the Kansas City Public Library-Plaza Branch, 4801 Main Street.

For the first hearing, a PSC public information/question and answer session starts at 11:30 a.m. The local public hearing and the taking of sworn testimony will follow.  Beginning at the end of the first hearing and until 5:30 p.m., the Commission will host a listening post. PSC staff members will be available to answer questions from the public.

A second local public hearing will start at 5:30 p.m. with a PSC public information/question and answer session. The local public hearing and the taking of sworn testimony will follow.

December 8, Lee's Summit. Lee's Summit North High School, Lecture Hall, 901 NE Douglas Street. A PSC staff public information/question and answer session starts at 5:30 p.m. with the local public hearing and the taking of sworn testimony to follow.

If you wish to comment or need further information, you may contact the Office of the Public Counsel, P.O. Box 2230, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102-2230; telephone 1-866-922-2959; email opcservice{at}ded{dot}mo{dot}gov or the Public Service Commission, P.O. Box 360, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102; telephone 1-800-392-4211; email pscinfo{at}psc{dot}mo{dot}gov.

Joe Smith: New Message Boards Provide Traffic Updates on Route 94

Six new boards installed next week and operating late November

ST. LOUIS – Beginning November 1, six new dynamic message boards are being installed along Route 94 in St. Charles County. By the end of November, the boards will provide travel times and key traffic information for drivers including information about Route 94, I-70, Route 364 and Route 40/61.

“These boards are similar to the ones already available on the interstates, just a little smaller. They provide instant communication with drivers on road conditions up ahead,” said MoDOT Assistant St. Louis District Engineer Tom Blair.

The boards are located on Route 94 at the following locations: westbound at O’Fallon Road, eastbound near Wolfrum Road, eastbound near Jungs Station Road, westbound near Zumbehl Road and eastbound and westbound on either side of I-70.

“The locations were strategically chosen to provide drivers information before reaching the key major highways and river crossings on I-70, Route 364 and Route 40/61,” said Blair. “By having information in advance, drivers can make better decisions about what road or river crossing they want to take.”

MoDOT is also installing similar message boards on Route 141 and on Lindbergh Blvd (Route 61/67) in St. Louis County later this fall.

Purgason: Constitutional Amendments on the Nov. 2 Ballot

Previous Capitol Reports have discussed Propositions A and B that will appear on the November 2^nd ballot. Ballot "Propositions" allow you to vote on whether a change will be made to Missouri statutes and do not impact our state constitution. However, there are three constitutional amendments proposed on the Nov. ballot, and it is important to know why they are there and how they would affect Missouri.

Amendment 1 affects only two of Missouri's four charter counties: St. Charles and St. Louis. A Charter County is one with its own municipal constitution. These counties are still subject to the state constitution but have considerable powers to otherwise govern their own affairs. Missouri's other charter counties are Green Co. which elects its assessor and Jefferson Co. which was able to cut itself out of this change. This amendment was proposed by your General Assembly and is needed for government accountability. Voters should have a say in who assesses their taxes. I recommend a vote FOR Amendment 1.

Constitutional Amendment 2 would exempt U.S. POW's from property taxes on their homes. I recommend a vote FOR Amendment 2 simply because it seems a justifiable benefit to those who have clearly sacrificed for our nation. However, it will affect very few Missourians and is more political than substantive. Amendment 2 illustrates a critical weakness in the property tax model; it is easily manipulated to gain political favor by picking winners and losers. Missouri should eliminate the income tax by moving to a tax of consumption instead of productivity and then evaluate expanding the consumption tax to rid ourselves of property taxes

Constitutional Amendment 3 appears on the Nov. 2^nd ballot by initiative petition. I recommend a vote AGAINST Amendment 3. It combines a legitimate attempt to stop the incessant attempts of state government to raise taxes by calling them "fees" with what I see as a stealth attempt to thwart The Missouri Jobs and Prosperity Act (formerly the Missouri Fair Tax) by exempting 4% of real estate transactions. Approximately 96% of those transactions are of used homes and would not be subject to a first-use sales tax. If you favor elimination of the Missouri income tax as proposed by SJR 29 in 2010, then you will not be in favor of Amendment 3. If passed, Amendment will result in a higher tax rate to replace the income tax and will also begin the relentless parade of special interests demanding exemptions from the broadened tax base that represents a key element of the Fair Tax model. I hope we are not too late to inform the electorate and defeat this special-interest sponsored amendment.

There is additional information and analysis of these ballot issues on-line and in print media. I have given you my view, but I encourage you to investigate further if you are still unsure.

As always, you may contact me at 573-751-1882, e-mail to chuck{dot}purgason{at}senate{dot}mo{dot}gov or write to me at State Capitol, Room 420, 201 West Capitol Avenue, Jefferson City, MO  65101.

Joe Smith: MoDOT to reopen Jungermann Road across Route 94 Friday

http://www.modot.org/stlouis/news_and_information/District6News.shtml?action=displaySSI&newsId=61611

ST. LOUIS – The Missouri Department of Transportation and its contractor, Fred Weber Inc., will reopen Jungermann Road across Route 94 in St. Charles County before evening rush, Friday, October 29, 2010.

At the same time, MoDOT will return the north outer road (Centre Pointe Drive) between Woodstone and Harvest to one-way, and will reopen the ramp from westbound Route 94 to Centre Pointe Drive.

This is part of a $44 million project to extend Route 364 from east of Jungermann Road to west of Central School Road in St. Charles County. Crews will also construct outer roads build Route 364 over Woodstone and Jungermann Roads and construct a bridge to carry Central School Road traffic over the new route. There are additional projects to extend Route 364 all the way to Mid Rivers Mall Drive. The project is scheduled to be complete in 2012.

Ridgeway: 2010 Statewide Ballot Measures

On Tuesday, November 2^nd, Missourians across the state will head to the polls to cast their vote in this year's general election.  You will be voting on candidates for various offices, plus you have the opportunity to vote on several proposals that, if adopted, will change our state laws or Constitution. These ballot measures cover topics ranging from taxes to regulations on agriculture. I want to provide you with a brief outline of these proposals to help you make informed choices on election day.

Constitutional Amendment 1 (Proposed by legislation)

"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. (Estimate by State Auditor.) Of the two counties with a charter form of government and an appointed assessor, this proposal affects only St. Louis County (Jackson County is exempted). By 74-26%, St. Louis County voters passed a ballot proposal in August to elect their county assessor, which is also the intent of the proposed constitutional amendment.

Clay County voters currently elect our assessor.  However, there have been proposals to change Clay County to a charter form of government.  Depending on how the charter is drafted, it could remove the power of Clay County residents to elect our assessor. If you are okay with the possibility that our county assessor could be hired by other elected officials (and therefore not elected by the voters), you may choose to vote "no". On the other hand, if you want to ensure that our county assessor is always elected and therefore directly accountable to the voters, you should vote "yes".

Constitutional Amendment 2 (Proposed by legislation)

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. (Estimate by State Auditor.)  Most property taxes go to public schools and the estimated reduction to schools and all local governments is $186,717.

Constitutional Amendment 3

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?

If approved, this proposed constitutional amendment would prohibit a new tax, including a sales tax, upon the sale or transfer of real estate. Since these transactions are not currently taxed, the adoption of this amendment would have no impact on state or local tax revenues.  Opponents of this measure tend to be those who generally don't like carving out more items for tax exemption, which further complicates our tax code.  Also, many people would like to see some form of "Fair Tax" imposed in Missouri, which would eliminate the state income tax and replace it with a broad-based sales tax, which may include some form of taxation on the sale of real estate.  If your views fall into either one of these categories, you may choose to vote "No".  Supporters of this amendment want to ensure that real estate transactions continue to remain tax-free.  A "yes" vote supports this position.

Proposition A (Proposed by initiative petition)

Earnings Taxes

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?

The proposal could eliminate certain city earnings taxes. For 2010, Kansas City and the City of St. Louis budgeted earnings tax revenue of $199.2 million and $141.2 million, respectively. Reduced earnings tax deductions could increase state revenues by $4.8 million. The total cost or savings to state and local governmental entities is unknown. (Estimate by State Auditor.) St. Louis and Kansas City collect earnings tax from those who live in or work in these cities. This proposal would allow voters in these cities to decide whether to continue or phase out the earnings tax. Also, this proposal would prohibit any other cities from enacting an earnings tax.

If you support the ability of cities to tax your earnings, then you would vote "no" as this vote will continue to allow earnings taxes. If you want to eliminate the Kansas City Earnings Tax (which equals 1% of your wages) or at least want the chance to vote on whether this tax should be kept or repealed, you should vote "yes".  Also, if you want to prevent other cities around the state (including Liberty, Smithville, Gladstone, etc.) from ever imposing an earnings tax on your income, you should also vote "yes".

Proposition B (Proposed by initiative petition)

Dog Kennels & Owners - Agriculture

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?"

It is estimated state governmental entities will incur costs of $654,768 (on-going costs of $521,356 and one-time costs of $133,412). Some local governmental entities may experience costs related to enforcement activities and savings related to reduced animal care activities. (Estimate by State Auditor.) This proposal is backed by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), which has become a very controversial organization.  It is also backed by local animal rights activists.  Interestingly, I received an e-mail from such an activist, who had this to say about the measure:

"Admittedly there are both pros and cons to the intricacies of this particular proposition. It is not written as thoroughly and as perfectly as all animal welfare advocates would hope, and it IS another law in a pile of laws that have not been successfully enforced throughout our state. In addition, if all goes as planned, many mills will close due to not being willing or able to abide by the new regulations which will result in thousands of dogs being displaced and needing homes. Missouri shelters probably WILL see an increase in intake should this pass.... Are we certain that all puppy mills will be 'cleaned up' and/or 'wiped out' if Prop B passes? No, we're not."

According to the Missouri Farm Bureau (which generally supports all Missouri agriculture interests) this ballot proposal would impose "unaffordable and unnecessary regulations on reputable dog breeders. Moreover, breeders who are bad actors that do not comply with existing laws and regulations will not be affected by more regulations." The Missourians for Animal Care Coalition (www.missourifac.com), including MFB, opposes Prop. B and supports the newly formed Alliance for Truth (www.alliancefortruth.com).

It is generally thought that this measure will pass, even though both proponents and opponents of the measure agree that this will be just another law that won't be enforced.  Why?  Because the enforcement is mostly at the county or municipal level and, for whatever reason, current laws just aren't enforced by many county prosecutors.  There are probably as many reasons for this as there are prosecutors (strained budgets require them to concentrate on crimes against persons is one I've heard).  Other opponents are concerned that this law is only the beginning of the HSUS agenda that they believe will lead to more laws preventing standard practices for dairy, beef, poultry and pork production.  This issue is very emotional as no one wants to see animals suffer.  However, both supporters and opponents of this measure seem to agree that the outcome won't do much to stop "bad actors" involved in dog breeding or kenneling.

Stouffer: Judges & Other Ballot Issues Will Be on Your November Ballot

With a critical election on the way, it is important to remember that there are many more races than the statewide and federal mid-term seats that will appear on your ballot. Voters will also be asked to decide the future of most of the judges in the state of Missouri.

Missouri's Non-Partisan Court Plan, also known as The Missouri Plan, applies to judges who sit on the Supreme Court of Missouri and the Missouri Court of Appeals. Voters will be asked whether or not to retain these judges on November 2.

The 21^st Senatorial District is in the Court of Appeals' Western District. In addition to Missouri Supreme Court Justice Zel Fischer, folks will be asked "yes" or "no" to retain Appeals Court judges:

• Alok Ahuja, who was nominated in 2007 by Gov. Blunt;
• Victor Howard, who was nominated by Gov. Carnahan in 1996;
• Karen King Mitchell, who was nominated in 2009 by Gov. Nixon;
• Mark Pfeiffer, who was nominated by Gov. Nixon in 2009; and
• James Welsh, who was nominated in 2007 by Gov. Blunt.

Clay County also has some of its own judges in the Seventh Circuit, as mandated by the Missouri Plan:

• Shane Alexander, who was nominated by Gov. Blunt in 2008; and
• K. Elizabeth Davis, who was also nominated in 2008 by Gov. Blunt.

In Clay County, voters will also decide the fate of two Associate Circuit Judges:

• Donald Norris, who was appointed in 2004; and
• David Chamberlain, who was appointed in 2008.

There will be other judges on the ballot in other parts of Missouri, including the Court of Appeals' Southern District:

• Robert Barney, who was nominated by Gov. Blunt in 1995; and
• Donald Burrell, Jr., who was nominated in 2008 by Gov. Blunt.

There will only be one judge up for retention in the Eastern District:

• Mary Hoff, who was nominated in 1996 by Gov. Carnahan.

Larger areas of the state are divided into circuits as well, including:

• St. Louis (22^nd Circuit);
• St. Louis County (21^st Circuit);
• Jackson County/Kansas City (16^th Circuit);
• Platte County (6^th Circuit); and
• Greene County (31^st Circuit).

Even though the Missouri Plan has seen its fair share of criticism over the years, it continues to be a model for other states and gives folks the opportunity to have their say in who stays and who goes. Occasionally, a judge will not be retained, at which point picking a replacement is up to the governor and a lengthy, thorough screening process. This is yet another reason why voting is so very important.

Related Articles on Ballot Issues:

• August 26, 2010 – Amendment 1: Electing Assessors Instead of Appointing Them
• September 2, 2010 – Amendment 2: Ballot Initiative for Veterans
• September 9, 2010 – Amendment 3: Ballot Question Would End Double Taxation
• September 16, 2010 – Proposition A: The Stouffer Report: Ending Double Taxation in Missouri
• September 24, 2010 – Proposition B: Passing Prop B Will Harm Rural Missouri

Ruestman: Sharia Law

FOR YOUR INFORMATION

I wanted to share some information about Sharia Law which has come to light recently in the US.

There is a movement in the West to allow Sharia law to govern personal status law such as marriages and divorces.  See this link from the Council on Foreign Relations:

http://www.cfr.org/publication/8034/islam.html

Also, this link offers information as well:  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1510867/What-is-sharia-law.html

Below are some tenets of Sharia law which were compiled by http://marychristinalove.wordpress.com .  This and more are available in this extensive report:

http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/upload/wysiwyg/article%20pdfs/Shariah%20-%20The%20Threat%20to%20America%20(Team%20B%20Report)%2009142010.pdf

Please be aware of this information.

Best regards,
Marilyn

Tenets of Sharia Law:

1. Jihad defined as "to war against non-Muslims to establish the religion" is the duty of every Muslim and Muslim head of state (Caliph).  Muslim Caliphs who refuse jihad are in violation of Sharia and unfit to rule.
2. A Caliph can hold office through seizure of power (through force).
3. A Caliph is exempt from being charged with serious crimes such as murder, adultery, robbery, theft, drinking and, in some cases, rape.
4. A percentage of Zakat (alms) must go towards jihad.
5. It is obligatory to obey the commands of the Caliph, even if he is unjust.
6. A Caliph must be a Muslim, non-slave male.
7. The Muslim public must remove the Caliph in one situation, if he rejects Islam.
8. A Muslim who leaves Islam must be killed immediately.
9. A Muslim will be forgiven for murder of:
   • an apostasy
   • an adulterer
   • highway robber
   This makes vigilante street justice and honor killing acceptable.
10. A Muslim will not get the death penalty if he kills a non-Muslim.
11. Sharia never abolished slavery and sexual slavery and highly regulates it.  A master will not be punished for killing his slave.
12. Sharia dictates death by stoning, beheading, amputation of limbs, flogging and other forms of cruel and unusual punishments even for crimes of sin such as adultery.
13. Non-Muslims are not equal to Muslims and must comply to Sharia if they are to remain safe.  They are forbidden to marry Muslim women, publicly display wine or pork, recite their scriptures or openly celebrate their religious holidays or funerals.  They are forbidden from building new churches or building them higher than mosques.  They may not enter a mosque without permission.  A non-Muslim is no longer protected if he commits adultery with a Muslim woman or if he leads a Muslim away from Islam.
14. It is a crime for a non-Muslim to sell weapons to someone who will use them against Muslims.  Non-Muslims cannot curse a Muslim, say anything derogatory about Allah, the Prophet, or Islam, or expose the weak points of Muslims.  However, the opposite is not true for Muslims.
15. A non-Muslim cannot inherit from a Muslim.
16. Banks must be Sharia compliant and interest is not allowed.
17. No testimony in court is acceptable from people of low-level jobs, such as street sweepers or a bathhouse attendant.  Women in such low level jobs such as professional funeral mourners cannot keep custody of their children in case of divorce.
18. A non-Muslim cannot rule even over a non-Muslims minority.
19. Homosexuality is punishable by death.
20. There is no age limit for marriage of girls under Sharia.  The marriage contract can take place anytime after birth and consummated at age eight or nine.
21. Rebelliousness on the part of the wife nullifies the husband's obligation to support her, gives him permission to beat her and keep her from leaving the home.
22. Divorce is only in the hands of the husband and is as easy as saying, "I divorce you" and becomes effective even in the husband did not intend it.
23. There is no community property between husband and wife and the husband's property does not automatically go to the wife after his death.
24. A woman inherits half what a man inherits.
25. A man has the right to have up to four wives and she has no right to divorce him even if he is polygamous.
26. The dowry is given in exchange for the woman's sexual organs.
27. A man is allowed to have sex with slave women and women captured in battle and if the enslaved woman is married her marriage is annulled.
28. The testimony of a woman in court is half the value of a man's testimony.
29. A woman loses custody of she remarries.
30. To prove rape, a woman must have four male witnesses.
31. A rapist may only be required to pay the bride-money (dowry) without marrying the rape victim.
32. A Muslim woman must cover every inch of her body which is considered "Awrah," a sexual organ.  Some schools of Sharia allow the face and some don't.
33. A Muslim man is forgiven if he kills his wife caught in the act of adultery.  However, the opposite is not true.

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."

Rupp: Monitoring the Sale of Pseudoephedrine Products in Our State

An innovative, statewide computer network tracking the sales of drugs containing pseudoephedrine, a common ingredient found in cold medicines, will soon be found in all Missouri pharmacies. The monitoring of these products is necessary, due to the fact that the drug can also be used to produce an illegal drug in our state – methamphetamine.

Past studies have shown that 7.1 percent of persons in Missouri age 12 or older have reported using meth one or more times during their life. This drug is very dangerous, causing possible psychosis, loss of memory, violent behavior, and mood disturbances. The highly hazardous production process is getting easier as well, luring people in to making their own drugs that require only a few components.

Considering this alarming trend, the statewide computer network is designed to notify law enforcement and pharmacies if a buyer is purchasing products containing pseudoephedrine at several different stores or pharmacies, stopping that person from getting the materials they need to produce methamphetamine.

In 2005, the Missouri General Assembly passed and the governor signed Senate Bill 10, which limits the amount of some over-the-counter cold medications containing pseudoephedrine that customers can buy. Purchases are limited to quantities of nine grams of medicine in a 30-day period and sales are required to be logged. Gel capsules and syrup forms of pseudoephedrine-based medicines were not included in the legislation, since dry tablets are normally sought for meth production.

Further legislation addressing meth production in our state was passed in 2008. With the governor's signature on SB 724, pharmacies' monitoring of pseudoephedrine purchases became more advanced by upgrading from a paper log to an electronic log. The law also requires a photo ID to be issued with each purchase.

Currently, more than 340 of Missouri's estimated 1,300 pharmacies are registered with the online network and participate in the program. Several other pharmacies stated that they will be registered by the end of this year. Many pharmacists and law enforcement officers will undergo training to familiarize themselves with the new computer system.

We continue to take the issue of eliminating methamphetamine labs and preventing meth addiction in Missouri very seriously. The safety of our state's citizens is always a top priority.

If you have any questions or comments about this or any other topic regarding state government, please visit my website, e-mail me, or call my office at (866) 271-2844.

Purgason: Propositions on the November 2 Ballot

We will soon have an opportunity to go to our respective polling places and cast our ballots.  I would like to take this chance to express my views on the ballot issues we will be voting on.  No matter what your stance is on the issues, please exercise your right to vote.

There will be two Propositions on the November ballot.  Propositions allow you, the voter, to make changes to the state statutes.  They have no impact on the state constitution.

Let's begin our discussion of November 2 ballot issues with Proposition A.

There is no economic law or historic example to quarrel with the benefits of prosperity to society. Related descriptors include productivity, efficiency, opportunity, risk/reward, success, and achievement. Prosperity is sought, not just for its own merit, but for its pervasive, extraordinary, and overwhelmingly positive effects. Evidence as well as common sense confirms that no one benefits from poverty, and everyone benefits from prosperity.

Without exception, an examination of nations, states, or peoples confirms the link between prosperity and a clean environment, a healthy society, education, recreation, transportation, technology, convenience, and the list goes on. Too often public policy – particularly tax policy – works against the benefits of prosperity. Prop A, if passed in November, will allow voters in St. Louis and Kansas City to realign with the principles of prosperity and will help protect all Missourians from local officials who might naively impose jobs-killing taxes on their earnings.

For years our two largest cities have imposed a 1% tax on the wages of individuals who live or work in their jurisdictions and on business profits. Voters functionally powerless to eliminate or modify the earnings taxes, and nothing but common sense (frequently in short supply) protects other Missouri cities and towns from politicians' propensities to take more. Passage of Prop A will not prohibit earnings taxes but will amend state statutes to require a vote of tax payers every five (5) years to continue imposing the tax. In other words, it sunsets the existing and any future taxes on earnings – hence the slogan "Vote Yes on A – Let Voters Decide."

If voters reject an existing earnings tax the cities are allowed to phase it out over 10 years allowing officials to examine whether the revenues are essential and how to replace them. Kansas City and St. Louis need prosperity if they are to create jobs, build schools, and grow. Job-killing taxes on earnings hinder that growth, and at the very least should be subject to the vote of the peoples.

Many of us in the Missouri House were expecting the November ballot to include a vote to eliminate all state taxes on income, but that hope was thwarted by the reluctance of Speaker Richard and other members of House leadership. The Missouri Jobs and Prosperity Act [SJR29] now must wait another year.  But the principles of Prop A are the same. It is simply bad policy to tax what we want more of – success and prosperity. Until Missouri aligns public policy with the laws of economics and common sense, we will continue to be our own worst enemy. Let's pass Prop A in November and turn loose the power of economic prosperity.

Proposition B will be on Missourian's November 2^nd ballot.  No matter how it is promoted it is fundamentally the product of ignorance.  It reflects ignorance about breeders, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), the power of the free market, property rights, and liberty. It is being driven by propaganda rather than truth and depends on emotional appeal rather than the achievement of meaningful reform.

Advertisements supporting Prop B state that there are more than 3,000 puppy mills in our state.  According to the Missouri Department of Agriculture, there are 2,813 licensed kennels in Missouri, 1.451 of those are commercial breeders.  These facilities are inspected at least once a year.

Missourians love their pets and hate to see animals abused.  Dog breeders, and I have met a number of them, raise dogs because they love dogs and enjoy seeing others find just the right dog for their family.  The goal of these small business people is to satisfy the public's longing for pets at a cost most can afford A single flea bite on an otherwise perfect puppy means an unacceptable price penalty along with the determination to find and fix any problem.  If a puppy has anything more serious, they might just be refused.  It simply does not pay to mistreat animals.  But the best breeder would be hurt the most by Prop B.

Many are ignorant about the nature and objectives of HSUS – the organization behind Prop B.  A visit to www.humanewatch.org or www.activistcash.com will help you assess whether their intentions have anything at all to do with the treatment of animals.  HSUS's own website lists 14 executives whom it is reported received $2.5 million in 2008 in pension benefits alone; their salaries are not available. In that same year less than a half million dollars went to animal shelters (less than 0.5% of their budget).

However, most harmful is ignorance of the significance of property rights to basic American freedoms.  There is no more important unalienable right that our constitution secures than that of property rights.  Personal property – almost unheard of before the United States exceptional founding – is the right that guarantees all others.  It is the only right that once lost will almost certainly not be restored short of armed conflict.  Prop B directly assaults property rights and for that reason alone is completely unacceptable and should be ruled unconstitutional.  But the courts aside, no issue is important enough to concede to government our last defense against its abuse of the people.

Dispelling ignorance about what is actually in Prop B will help defeat it at the ballot box.  First of all, the use of the word "cruelty" is to invoke prejudice, not reason.  For example, keeping 51 dogs is cruel but keeping 50 is not; keeping a dog in a 5' by 5' 11" enclosure is cruel while adding one inch to the length makes it kind; kennel temperature of 45 degrees F is kind while 44 degrees is cruel.  "Cruelty" is not for the dog; it is for the emotional appeal.  We're told Prop B is for "large-scale" breeders, but just 11 female dogs makes you a "large-scale" breeder, and your animal quarters will have to be heated and air conditioned.  Finally, if Prop B is about animal cruelty then why are hunting dogs excluded from the regulations?

Proposition B is not about animals or about cruelty, it is an assault on property rights, small businesses, and the free market.  It employs a proven strategy for stripping rights from the people and empowering the elitists: 1) find an innocent lovable party - puppy, 2) make them a victim with an emotion-stirring label - puppy mill, 3) make "more government" the solution – Prop B.  If voters take a broader and thoughtful perspective and if they insist that freedoms be protected and that policies be logical rather than emotional, then American ideals will win, and Prop B will fail in November.

As always, you may contact me at 573-751-1882, e-mail to chuck{dot}purgason{at}senate{dot}mo{dot}gov or write to me at State Capitol, Room 420, 201 West Capitol Avenue, Jefferson City, MO 65101.