Category Archives: Legislative Agenda

Lions and Tigers and Bears, oh my! Part II

Posted on by

Right to Work has passed the Missouri House once again. And again some ‘Pub Senators are trying to block it. Senate President Pro Tem Tom Dempsey was mentioned in the Washington times:

Senate President Pro Tem Tom Dempsey said that chamber also will debate the “right-to-work” bill limiting union fees, which passed the House quickly but faces opposition among some senators. Dempsey has said he’s unsure how he would vote. — Washington Times.

The RTW bill handily passed in the House. But, when it arrived in the Senate, the union shills worked hard to block it from coming to a vote. They know they’ll likely lose if a vote is taken. Don’t be fooled. The unions are one of Dempsey’s larger contributors if not the largest. He did his part by forcing a debate on the bill. His intent is to have the RTW bill amended and sent back to the House. It’s a time killing tactic. It’s worked before.

***

union-shills

Paid for by taxpayers.

Did you know that Missouri taxpayers are paying for union shills to lobby our legislature? It’s true. The Missouri Torch has the story.

Here’s how it works. A government entity, say  Missouri’s Department of Corrections, or the Parkway School District hire some union officials. But—they do no work for their taxpayer funded salary. Instead they spend their time lobbying in Jeff City and elsewhere—taxpayer paid, full time union lobbyists. The records detailing the scheme are there—if you can get them. That’s the trick.

Read the story in the Torch and then realize how the unions have their hands in all our pockets.

Facebook

Post-Ferguson Era

Posted on by

According to some news outlets, we are now in a ‘Post-Ferguson Era.’ The Eric Garner case in New York has pushed Ferguson from the national headlines.

Like you, I haven’t a clue what ‘Post-Ferguson Era’ means. Regardless, Ferguson continues to be highlighted in Missouri’s news—Nixon is still running from it, Attorney General Chris Koster was successful is keeping out of the limelight and is using Ferguson for his advantage for 2016. Democrat legislators from St Louis are proposing new bills that would cripple law enforcement if/when they encounter violent thugs, and the Kansas City ‘Red’ Star has a surprisingly balanced editorial!

The millennium has come! The KC Star has an editorial contrary to the liberal party line!

Let’s get back to the headlines.

http://media.washtimes.com/media/image/2014/11/24/fergusonjpeg-06e2e_c0-326-3000-2074_s561x327.jpg?e6f3f10d7e7b7f874d41be4a69b48182d5e91f7e

Missouri Governor Jay Nixon

Democrat Governor Jay Nixon, during a visit to the Missouri bootheel was asked about his orders for the National Guard. Nixon responded:

“Our plan was to have, and we did have, over 700 guardsmen out that night, guarding locations all throughout the region. We wanted to have the local police — St. Louis County and St. Louis City — and others, to patrol on the front lines who had been engaging directly with many of those folks throughout the summer. We thought that was better than bringing in the National Guard in full military garb straight onto those streets. Obviously Monday night, we were somewhat surprised by the … riots, not helped by the number of folks trying to whip that up at various times. As the night went on, we did bring in additional guardsmen into the police department there to back up the folks who were there, and ended up getting out their response teams in the area.”

Nixon continued:

“Really, the choice that night was whether we’re going to lose lives or lose property. When you have that many hundreds of people shooting guns and running throughout the area and looting, I think it was important to preserve life, and I think all of the unified commanders, as well as the guard’s folks, did a great job of that. We didn’t have a single shot fired by a single law enforcement officer, and we had hundreds of shots fired out. We didn’t have a single shot fired by a national guardsman, and we had none of them significantly injured. So while it was a difficult thing to watch, and challenging, in many ways, I think that when we look back at this, having those law enforcement officers out first, having the guard there behind them, was in fact the best way to do it.” — Southeast Missourian.

While Nixon was on his road-trip, Chris Koster was establishing his position for a future run for Governor. Koster is hoping to gain some kudos over Missouri’s ‘Deadly Force’ statute that Koster claims is contrary a federal court decision.

By M. Alex Johnson

Missouri’s attorney general called Tuesday night for a change in state law to make it tougher for law enforcement officers to justify the use of deadly force, a week and a half after a grand jury declined to indict former Ferguson police Officer Darren Wilson in the shooting death of unarmed teenager Michael Brown.

NBC News reported last week that one of the factors that would have complicated any prosecution of Wilson was a Missouri statute that gives peace officers greater leeway in using deadly force than is allowed in many other states. In a statement to MSNBC’s “The Last Word,” Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster said Wednesday night that state lawmakers should bring the statute into line with an important Supreme Court ruling.

“Among the problems that Ferguson has brought to light is the need to update Missouri’s use of deadly force statute,” Koster said. “This statute is inconsistent with the United States Supreme Court’s holding in Tennessee v. Garner. Consequently, it is important this statute is amended by the Missouri legislature to incorporate the Garner decision and to avoid confusion within the criminal justice system.”

The 1985 Garner decision is one of two Supreme Court rulings — the other is from 1989 — addressing when a law enforcement officer can justifiably use deadly force.

The 1985 decision says it’s justifiable only if the officer has probable cause to believe a fleeing suspect is a violent felon and poses a significant threat to the officer or the public — requiring the existence of a threat before an officer can use deadly force. The 1989 decision — Graham v. Connor — found that an officer’s justification for use of deadly force must be assessed in the context of a “reasonable” officer’s state of mind under the specific circumstances — one of which can, but doesn’t necessarily have to be, a threat to the officer or the public.

In an interview last week with NBC News, Roger Goldman, Callis Family Professor of Law emeritus at St. Louis University Law School, said that under the current statute, “if I’m representing the police officer, I’m arguing that Missouri law allows an officer to use deadly force to stop a fleeing felon even if he is not a danger to the public or fellow officers.”

I am not a lawyer so I’ll leave a review of Koster’s comments to those who are. However, I’d like to point out a flaw in Professor Roger Goldman’s logic—Michael Brown was NOT a fleeing felon. He was an aggressive thug who initiated the attack on Darren Wilson and was attacking Wilson when he was shot. If Brown had run, he probably would still be alive today. Assuming, of course, that he wasn’t shot by some storekeeper who had a weapon and was determined not to be a victim of thuggery.

Some residual protesters are walking to Jeff City to make their demands known to a legislature that is not in session and to a Governor who is out of town. According to some reports, the protesters have met some contrary opinions along the way.

Marchers endure counter-protest in Rosebud

By Jeff Haldiman, Thursday, December 4, 2014

More than halfway through their journey to the Capital City, marchers on a 120-mile journey from Ferguson were met with opposition Wednesday as they journeyed through Mid-Missouri.

…

Andrew McFadden Ketchum came from Denver to join the marchers on a whim and said it has become an “amazing experience.”

“There’s a lot of love here,” he said. “I was surprised at what I saw in Rosebud. It was so quiet when we went in and then bang, the noise started.”

Ketchum posted a video to YouTube, which shows the group walking through the small Gasconade County town. Residents are seen standing along the highway quietly until the group approaches the center of town where some members of the crowd begin yelling.

Someone can be heard shouting, “No peace, no welfare checks!”

“All this for a thug and a thief,” shouts another resident in an apparent reference to Michael Brown.

Although the legislature is out of session, December is when bills are pre-filed for the upcoming session. Two St Louis legislators want to constrain police when encountering suspects on the street.

Vet Ferguson bills with care in Missouri legislature

12/03/2014 4:11 PM

Missouri lawmakers have responded to the police shooting of teenager Michael Brown in Ferguson with a host of bills on matters such as police use of deadly force and overuse of traffic tickets by some cities.

The spate of legislation filed in advance of the 2015 session’s Jan. 7 start could lead to thoughtful discussions. But it is important that the General Assembly vet the bills carefully.

Two Democratic senators from the St. Louis area, Maria Chappelle-Nadal and Jamilah Nasheed, have filed legislation aimed at limiting the circumstances under which a police officer can use deadly force. Nasheed’s bill would require officers to use other options first, such as a taser, and issue a warning before firing a shot. It also would cause officers to be suspended without pay pending an investigation if they fired at a suspect more than 20 feet away.

Lawmakers and the public need to hear from police about these proposals. Good police departments heed to standards and best practices developed and constantly re-evaluated by law enforcement professionals. State legislators should tap that expertise before setting their own rules.

The same goes for bills that call for the appointment of a special prosecutor in all officer-involved shootings. Lawmakers need to hear from prosecutors about the wisdom of that idea.

Maria Chappelle-Nadal and Jamilah Nasheed are Missouri’s leading gun control advocates. They have opposed every bill in the legislature that supports gun owners and bills that enhance Missourian’s 2nd Amendment rights. Perhaps the photo below from the Riverfront Times blog is indicative of the separation between them and the rest of Missouri.

Photo from the Riverfront Times.

The photo above is the supposed original version according to the Riverfront Times. When it was shared on the internet, it was trimmed to exclude to two outer figures leaving only the center sign and protester. The Riverfront Times now claims that the verbiage of the sign was altered from “leaves home” to “robs a store.” I’ve examined the photo closely and the digital information with it and I can see no evidence that it has been altered. But I make no claims to be an expert on digital photos. Regardless of the validity, there is a truth in the message as it appears above—a truth that is being ignored because it doesn’t support an protester’s and the St Louis liberal agenda.

Perhaps the Riverfront Times and the protesters are upset that the photo reveals a truth behind the lootings and burnings in Ferguson. It would seem the two legislators from St Louis prefer the logic of the photos above as a basis for law than a law that protects businesses from thugs and thieves.

Facebook

Hearts and Minds

Posted on by

…is an old phrase made famous in the ’60s and ’70s. The concept was valid. However, the implementation left a lot to be desired. The phrase came to me today as I read an article in the American Thinker. Most of the nation is watching the candidates for federal office. But there are hundreds of other candidates running for local, county and state offices as well and the prognosis for THEM is more telling on the sensibilities of the country. The outlook for the dems is potentially worse than anyone thought.

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/content/images//2014-10-16%20Senate%20Map%20(600).png

Center for Politics Projected Map of the 2014 general election

One clarification. When the article below speaks of chambers, it counts the state Houses and state Senates separately. One state, Nebraska, has a single-chamber legislature. Nebraska is also, by state law, non-partisan. That leaves 98 partisan legislative chambers.

State Legislatures and 2014

By Bruce Walker, October 19, 2014

Most of the midterm attention seems to be on control of the United States Senate, with some attention on key gubernatorial races like Florida and Wisconsin, and with a smidgen of notion to the size of the Republican House majority after 2014.  Most pundits see Republicans padding that current majority by some seats.

There is another level to the 2014 midterm that passes almost completely under the political radar:  control of state legislatures.  Twenty years ago, in the 1994 midterms, Republicans made dramatic gains in state legislatures – a vital part of our constitutional system, which had been utterly dominated by Democrats for a century.

How weak had Republicans been in state legislatures?

Consider these data.  After the 1980 Reagan landslide, Democrats held 74 of the 98 partisan state legislative chambers.  After the 1984 Reagan landslide, in which Democrats carried only one state, Democrats held 67 out of the 98 chambers.  After George H. Bush beat Dukakis in 1988, Democrats held 72 out of 98 chambers.  Even when Republicans were winning the White House easily, Democrats held overwhelming strength in state legislatures.

This really changed when Newt Gingrich nationalized the midterm election with his Contract With America, which swept Republicans into secondary statewide elective offices, like lieutenant governor and state attorney general, as well as state legislative seats.  After the 1994 midterms, Republicans held 46 of the 98 state legislative chambers; they held the same number after Clinton was re-elected in 1996.  This strength actually grew after the 1998 midterms, when Republicans were losing House seats, and grew again after the 2000 presidential election. 

That was a tipping point.  Democrats had long, and rather boastfully, gerrymandered congressional districts so that the number of Democrats in the House was significantly larger than the number of votes Democrat candidates in House races received.  In the reapportionment and redistricting after the 2000 census, Republicans, for the first time in a century, could stop Democrat gerrymandering and, in fact, gerrymander themselves.

Just as importantly, Republicans could now stop Democrat gerrymandering of state legislative districts and could, in fact, draw the district lines in state legislatures to maximize the number of seats Republicans would win.  This strategy proved so resilient that even after the 2008 election – after two straight elections of big Democrat gains – Democrats held only 62 of the state legislative chambers, five fewer than they held after the 1984 Reagan landslide.

Hidden in the congressional gains of the 2010 Republican landslide, the GOP controlled 59 state legislative chambers, far more than at any time in modern history, and as a direct consequence of that, Republican governors like Scott Walker were able to push through laws to limit public employee unions, reduce voter fraud, and protect the sanctity of life, among other conservative reforms.  

Because 2010, like 2000, was the election to choose state legislatures who would draw congressional and state legislative districts for the next decade, this Republican midterm gain was particularly important.  So even when Obama was re-elected in 2012, the congressional seats that had been drawn after the census largely by Republican state legislators elected a comfortable (albeit smaller) House Republican majority, and the state legislative districts drawn largely by Republicans gave the GOP 56 of the 98 partisan state legislative chambers – a slight drop, but far more than Republicans had ever held in the heyday of Reagan or Eisenhower, both of whom won two landslide presidential elections.

After the 2014 midterm, which looks increasingly like a Republican wave election that will bring victory to Republicans in state elections as well as Senate and House elections, that 56 state legislative chambers could grow – perhaps a lot.  The Democrat majority makes for just one vote in the Colorado Senate, Iowa Senate, Nevada Senate, and Washington Senate.  In other chambers, the Democrat majority could easily be swept away by a modest Republican tide: Colorado House, Maine Senate, Minnesota House, Minnesota Senate, Nevada House, New Mexico Senate, New Mexico House, New York Senate, Oregon House, Oregon Senate, Washington House, and West Virginia House. 

Depending upon the outcome of gubernatorial races, this could put Republicans in a position to actually control state government in sates like Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, and Iowa.  These legislatures could pass and Republican governors sign new laws that rein in the political levies of public employee unions or create new and more effective ways to investigate and prosecute voter fraud.

No one is going to be talking about state legislative races on the Tuesday evening of this midterm, but the impact on politics and policies could be huge.

Liberal tyranny is spreading everywhere from Houston’s Mayor Annise Parker attempting to suppress religious speech to the city of Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, ordering two pastors to officiate same-sex marriages or face fines and/or imprisonment. These two examples of suppression of free religious speech is no different from Kansas City’s Mayor Sly James passing an ordinance banning the open carry of a weapon, “to send a message,” to open carry advocates. The purpose of the ordinance was, again, the suppression of free speech and expression.

In the end, all these acts by government are suppression of ‘unalienable’ and constitutional rights by leftist controlled governments. That is why gaining control of local and state governments is so important. Political rot starts at the top. Political recovery begins at the bottom.

Facebook

Yaaawn…

Posted on by

What a week. I’ve been busy, the news-feeds are fixated, perhaps rightly so, on the Ebola outbreak. Commentators say the CDC is lying. Others say they aren’t. No one, except for a privileged few, really know what is going on nor the danger of a widespread outbreak.

I’m not interested in writing about Ebola. While my major in college was the equivalent of Pre-Med, I am not a medic, nor an EMT. I don’t claim to have any special knowledge other than a high-degree of well-earned skepticism. The real truth of it all, in my opinion, is that no one really knows what will/could/may happen with Ebola.

Change subject.

The political news has vanished from the national news scene in favor of Ebola. CNN is on a witch-hunt searching for contaminated sheets and clothing in Dallas. Ditto for most of the MSM.

In Kansas, Pat Roberts is losing…a result of his own garbage-strewn primary race that alienated his conservative core. All the so-called ‘moderates’, i.e., democrats masquerading a ‘Pubs, are publicly backing Greg Orman, the democrat running as an independent. Yeah, sure.

http://images.politico.com/global/2014/01/15/140115_sam_brownback_ap_605.jpg

KS Governor Sam Brownback speaking before the Kansas Legislature.

The same applies to Sam Brownback who is discovering he can’t buck the über-liberal education and union lobby plus their lust to spend. The Kansas establishment thought they could control Brownback. When they found they couldn’t, they turned to supporting a democrat, thus exposing their true allegiance.

And to top it all off, the Royals are in the playoffs for the World Series. Their run came at an appropriate time to redirect attention to baseball instead of politics. Whatever bangs their gong.

On the Missouri side, Representative John Diehl, the golden-boy chosen years ago to be the next Speaker of the Missouri House, is running into trouble. Conservatives are openly supporting his opponent in an attempt to remove him from office. The conservatives claim that Diehl is no ‘Pub and has blocked significant numbers of crucial, conservative legislation. They are out for payback.

And so the week ends. I’m ready for the weekend.

Facebook

It’s on! Veto Override Session

Posted on by

I had hoped to go to Jeff City this morning to do some politicin’. Well…I didn’t. I’ve been running on a sleep deficit for several days and it caught up with me last night. I woke up at 9:15am and it is a three-hour drive to Jeff City.

I’ve been urging folks to go to Jeff City and lobby their legislators on a number of bills, SB 656 for one, the Armed Teacher bill. There are more on the block if the backer’s can get 2/3rds of the House and Senate to override Nixon’s veto.

Eli Yokley’s PoliticMO Newsletter has this to say.

VETO SESH — the budget: ‘Missouri legislators look to override $40 million of Nixon cuts at veto session,’ PoliticMo: “When the Missouri House convenes for the first day of veto session tomorrow, they will be faced immediately with dozens of spending items vetoed by Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon that would cost the state $40 million. Nixon – a Democrat – has framed it as the Republican-controlled legislature opting to “grow government,” noting that their budget included 30 spending items not in the budget he presented. On the other side, the Legislature’s budget leaders said Tuesday Nixon’s priorities are in the wrong place, accusing him of putting his travel expenses above funding for priorities like children and victims of domestic abuse. …  Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Kurt Schaefer, R-Columbia, … who was joined by House Budget Committee Chairman Rick Stream, R-St. Louis, was non-specific when asked which items the legislature would specifically address. That information, he said, would be made available after the two budget leaders present their suggestions to members of their party tomorrow morning. Lawmakers will move through the 50 line-items one by one Wednesday morning starting in the House. Stream said debate would be limited in order to move quickly and on to other bills.

“Nixon has indicated that he could very easily turn around and withhold the new spending, especially if lawmakers override his vetoes of what he has depicted as costly sales tax measures. He has already withheld nearly $600 million due to that and sluggish state income. Schaefer said that decision – whether to withhold the money – is one the governor will have to make, but that legislators are planning to proceed with the override effort “to send the message on behalf of Missourians who are in need of these programs that the governor is wrong.'” http://bit.ly/1AyzRHS

— guns: ‘Missouri Republicans push for gun bill victory,’ by the AP’s new Summer Ballentine (@esballentine): “Missouri Republicans are clashing again with Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon on guns, as lawmakers approach a vote today that could overturn his veto of legislation allowing teachers to bring firearms to school and other residents to carry them openly in public. After multiple setbacks, a veto override would mark a victory in Missouri for backers of expanded gun rights. A measure that would have voided federal gun control laws died in the final hours of session this May. Nixon vetoed a similar bill last year that could have subjected federal officers to state criminal charges and lawsuits for attempting to enforce federal gun control laws. Lawmakers passed a less sweeping bill this session that would allow specially trained school employees to carry concealed guns on campuses. The measure also would allow anyone with a concealed-weapons permit to carry their gun openly, even in cities or towns with bans against open carry. …

“Missouri lawmakers’ efforts to pass gun legislation are part of a larger movement among conservative states. After 20 children and six adults died in 2012 during a mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, some Republican-led state legislatures, including Missouri’s, fought against stricter gun control laws backed by Democratic President Barack Obama. … David Kopel, an associate policy analyst for the libertarian think tank Cato Institute, said the president’s policies played a powerful role in motivating Second Amendment activism. About 30 states allow the open carrying of guns without a permit, and about 13 others require some sort of license. Kansas in April approved a measure allowing the open carrying of firearms, which, like Missouri, will trump any local bans on open carry. Georgia gun owners can carry firearms openly in more places after the Legislature reduced open-carry restrictions, and lawmakers voted to make Arkansas an open carry state last year.” http://bit.ly/1uvYWT1

— abortion: ‘House speaker advocates for abortion-policy bills on eve of veto session,’ Columbia Missourian: “Speaker of the House Tim Jones had harsh words for Gov. Jay Nixon on Tuesday as he advocated for House bills 1132 and 1307 on the eve of the legislature’s veto override session.  … Jones said he hoped that the legislature would override the governor’s vetoes on the two bills.  House Bill 1132 establishes a tax credit for contributions to pregnancy resource centers, maternity homes and food pantries. House bill 1307 extends the waiting period for a woman considering an abortion from the current 24 hours to 72 hours. … Jones also said of House Bill 1132 that those who wanted to see the bill enacted into law were “simply asking for an extension of the public-private partnership.'” http://bit.ly/1p79qCM

Another veto to overturn is for SB 523, the Student Protection bill sponsored by our own Senator Ed Emory.

This act prohibits school districts from requiring a student to use an identification device that uses radio frequency identification technology to identify the student, transmit information regarding the student, or monitor or track the location of the student. The bill protects our students in public schools from unwanted data surveillance and tracking. This also prohibits the transmission of this data. — Missouri Alliance for Freedom.
The Legislature has already overridden one of Nixon’s vetos this year, the Tax Cut bill, SB 509, vetoed by Nixon early in the 2014 legislative session. The Legislature, promptly overrode Nixon’s veto within a week, if I remember correctly. Now, it’s time to continue that trend.

***

The Kansas Senatorial Soap Opera continues—with lawsuits. ‘Independent’ candidate Greg Orman is being sued in Federal court over the failure of his holding company to pay royalties to another company. The suit has been slowly making its way through the legal system since 2012.

Chad Taylor is now suing the state of Kansas—Kris Kobach as Kansas Secretary of State, to get himself removed from the November ballot. It’s a liberal tactic to shift democrat votes who would normally vote for Taylor, to vote for ‘democrat-masquerading-as-an-independent/RINO’ Greg Orman.

Kobach refused to remove Taylor from the ballot citing Kansas law.

Kobach cited a 1997 Kansas statute requiring a withdrawing candidate to declare he or she is “incapable” of serving if elected. Taylor’s letter, Kobach said, referenced the law but did not contain the required language. — Kansas City Star.

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/news/government-politics/article1512707.html#storylink=cpy

According to Kansas law, the only valid reason for candidate withdrawing at this point in the election cycle is if the candidate is incapable of holding the office—such as a severe illness, injury, or sudden mental defect of the candidate. Taylor’s problem is that he has none of these valid reasons for withdrawing. None, that is, than obeying the democrat party’s diktat to quit.

I’m sure Pat Roberts would love to join in. I wouldn’t be surprised if he weren’t checking to see who he can sue to join in on the fun.

Facebook

Legislative Session Roundup

Posted on by

Democrat Governor Jay Nixon has been using his pen to veto some bills. His biggest veto, the HB 509, the Tax Cut bill, was overridden before the 2014 session ended. He waited until the session was over to veto these bills.

A number of these bills contain tax cuts or reforms in one fashion or another. Nixon’s constant screed was that the bills would cut revenues and unbalance the budget. Nixon did not acknowledge that it is the Legislature that creates the budget, not the governor. These vetoes prove, once again, that Nixon has never met a tax he didn’t like.

• HB1296 – Allows a seller to advertise that the required sales tax will be assumed or absorbed into the price of the property sold or the services rendered if the amount of the tax is separately stated

06/11/2014: Vetoed by Governor Nixon

• HB 1455 – Changes the laws regarding burdens of proof for the director of revenue in ascertaining tax liability of a taxpayer

06/11/2014: Vetoed by Governor Nixon

• HB 1865 – Modifies provisions of law relating to sales and use tax exemptions for utilities used or consumed in the preparation of food

06/11/2014: Vetoed by Governor Nixon

• SB 584 – Modifies provisions relating to taxation

06/11/2014: Vetoed by Governor Nixon

• SB 612 – Modifies provisions relating to taxation

06/11/2014: Vetoed by Governor Nixon

• SB 662 – Requires the Department of Revenue to notify affected sellers of certain decisions modifying sales tax law

06/11/2014: Vetoed by Governor Nixon

• SB 673 – Modifies the duration of unemployment compensation the method to pay federal advances, and raises the fund trigger causing contribution rate reductions

06/17/2014: Vetoed by Governor Nixon

• SB 693 – Modifies provisions relating to taxation, fire sprinklers and merchandising practices

06/11/2014: Vetoed by Governor Nixon

• SB 727 – Modifies provisions relating to farmers’ market and SNAP (Food Stamps) benefits

06/11/2014: Vetoed by Governor Nixon

• SB 829 – Modifies provisions relating to burden of proof in tax liability cases

06/11/2014: Vetoed by Governor Nixon

• SB 860 – Modifies provisions relating to taxation

06/11/2014: Vetoed by Governor Nixon

If you read any of the veto letters, you will find a common theme.

“…the General Assembly disregarded the normal legislative process, slipping in costly provisions without public hearings and without fiscal notes reflecting the impact on the state budget. And, as legislators ignored the legislative process, so too did they ignore the budget process…”

The budget process is owned by the Legislature. They are constitutionally required to submit a balanced budget. Nixon, however, by withholding funding to a number of areas, such as Education, has artificially created short falls in areas of state responsibility. The money was available. Nixon just chose not to spend it according to the budget. His hypocrisy is not surprising; he’s a democrat.

 

 

Facebook

Followup

Posted on by

It didn’t take long for Missouri Democrats to take retribution against Representative Keith English (D-Florissant.) English was the sole democrat vote needed to override Democrat Governor Jay Nixon’s veto of the Tax Cut Bill (SB509.)

Yesterday, the day following English’s veto-busting vote, he received a letter from House Democratic Leader Jake Hummel removing him from his committee assignments. Some insiders claim it was a symbolic gesture because none of English’s committees will be meeting for the remainder of this legislative term.

It is remarkable to observe the differences between democrats and the ‘pubs. English was disciplined by being removed from his committee assignments for a critical vote against the demands of his party. Last September, Senators Dempsey and Richard, reversed their votes on similar bills during the veto session, voting to uphold Nixon’s vetos. Their change of votes, from for-the-bill to against-the-bill, occurred after they accompanied Nixon on a taxpayer-paid junket to Europe. Nothing happened to those two. English, however, lost his committee assignment.

English’s decision to vote for the tax cuts, some $620 million when the cuts are activated, was not a recent occurrence.

“English was a special guest at a private reception for Republican lawmakers on Tuesday night. He told members that he wanted to vote in favor of the bill when it was first brought up in the House, but that he was urged by Republican leadership to hold off until the override vote in an attempt to avoid pressure from Democrats, including the governor.” — PoliticMO Newsletter, May 8, 2014

I haven’t examined English’s voting record. I would not be surprised that he has sided with the ‘Pubs in the past.

***

HB 1439, the Second Amendment Preservation Act, is hung up in committee in the House. It had passed in the House on April 12th on a vote of 114 to 41. It went to the Senate and passed there on a vote of 23 to 8. However, (isn’t there always a ‘however?) the Senate made some changes to the bill. Those changes required a confirming vote in the House. That vote has not yet happened.

Why?

There was a provision in the House version that was changed in the Senate; a change some House members demand be reinstated. If the House changes the Senate version, we are in another series of ping-pong from House to Senate and time is running out.

I’m coming to believe we will not pass HB1439. Some insiders who have watched this bill closely from the beginning believe it was designed to fail, that it contained a poison-pill or two.

It is not a good bill. It is a hodge-podge of components that should rightly have been proposed and voted upon individually instead of being collected into a monstrous Congress-style conglomeration of components. One reason why this bill is bad is that if it is passed and is enacted, we, the CCW holders in the state, would lose reciprocity with a number of states…maybe half of those states who currently recognize our permits.

HB1439 lowers the age for a CCW permit from 21 to 19. That would make our CCW permits incompatible with those states whose lowest age is 21 for a CCW holder.

Our neighbor, Kansas, is one whose minimum age for a CCW permit is 21. Think for a moment of the consequences if we lost reciprocity with Kansas! I live within ten miles of the Kansas/Missouri border. I travel to Kansas several times a week. I used to work in Kansas. Imagine not being able to legally carry in Kansas and all the burdens that would ensue!

There are other issues in HB1439 that can cause issues, too. For me, I won’t cry if it fails to pass. Yes, there are provisions in it I would dearly love to see enacted—open carry for one (although I would probably not carry openly myself. I do believe, however, that we should have the option. Kansas will have Open Carry in a few months.)

If HB1439 fails this year, we must learn from our mistakes. I believe it is a strategic mistake to roll all the firearm/CCW/2nd Amendment items into one bill. Yes, it may be a convenience for those sitting in Jeff City, but it has great dangers as we are seeing now with HB1439.

Personally, I’m going to meet with my Senator and Representative and urge them to fight to change how we organize any future bills for firearm and 2nd Amendment rights. One bill for each item. If an issue cannot stand alone on its own virtue, perhaps it shouldn’t be passed? When we have an omnibus-style bill, like we’ve attempted to pass in the last two years and have failed, there will always be one issue or another that will/could stop its passage. Let’s chalk this idea of attempting to pass a large complex bill under the “Lessons Learned” column and vow not to repeat it.

 

Facebook