Far from it.
From Governor Jay’s Nixon’s veto of SB 509:
….Moreover, the revenue triggers in the legislation only apply until the tax cuts are fully phased-in. After that time, under the legislature’s own estimates, there would be at least $620 million less in general revenue available each and every year, regardless of whether revenue collections are going up or down. In addition, the legislation’s annual cost would continue to grow above the legislature’s $620 million annual estimate because the income bracket adjustments in the bill for increases in the consumer price index would continue indefinitely. See Section 143.011.3. This provision alone would result in an additional $128 million in annual revenue reductions ten years after the legislation is fully phased-in, increasing each year in perpetuity….
A bill cannot be bipartisan when it needs a majority of only one party to pass it.
Democratic lawmaker removed from committees after voting with GOP on tax cut
by Eli Yokley • May 7, 2014
….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.
When you find yourself in a deep hole the first rule is to stop digging.
While the House was in session today, working to complete the process on budget bills by the deadline on Friday, we spoke with three representatives about the veto override vote of SB 509. Representative Keith English was the only Democrat in the General Assembly to vote to override Governor Nixon’s (D) veto:
Representative Keith English (D)(center) – May 6, 2014.
Show Me Progress: So, it’s been an, uh, something of an interesting week for you, hasn’t it?
Representative Keith English (D): Uh, it’s been a very interesting week. You know, um, I worked very hard with both sides of the aisle this week to make sure that, uh, we try to do what we can to make the state move forward, be more competitive with other states, stopping right to work and paycheck deception, stripping teachers of their pensions and the tenure. Um, I had to look really deep into, uh, legislation that we can be more competitive. And I think this bill is definitely gonna do that.
Show Me Progress: You’re, you’re referring to Senate Bill 509.
Representative English (D): Senate Bill 509, that’s correct. Senate Bill 509, uh, will take a two year period, the next two years, we’ll look at, uh, how much money we generate. Then on the third year, through the next five years after that, if, and that’s the big word, if, we can get small businesses, which are the backbone of this, this state, uh, to help generate seven hundred and fifty million dollars to the good, uh, we will, uh, give a little bit back to those businesses to reinvest in their companies to expand more.
And with the rising cost of health insurance, uh, under Obamacare, uh, and insurance companies, uh, dropping companies for uh, for different reasons, uh, and the possibility of the federal government increasing minimum wage to a possible ten dollars and ten cents an hour I feel strongly that we have to do something to tell the small businesses in Missouri, don’t move away, we’ll try to help you. Um, in my district we have businesses that are struggling so bad, uh, and with business of course, and if we can give them some incentive to hire more people, ’cause a lot of them have cut back, cut back to three and four employees when they had five and six. And being a small business owner, um, I know exactly what that feels like.
Show Me Progress: But, uh, didn’t, you know, in some ways, uh, uh, the, the concept of sort of an economic stimulus, per se, with this kind of, uh, cutting back of, of revenue in the sense of, of tax cut, per se [crosstalk] it’s, it’s, the bill made it structural though, and something that can’t be rolled back.
Representative English (D): Well, in the bill [crosstalk]…Well, there’s a failsafe in there, in case, if we don’t hit that hundred fifty million the bill dies. The bill will not move further. It has to, for the five years, has to increase a hundred and fifty million. The failsafe in this bill is, is that it will not cut funds to education. We have to increase seven hundred fifty million, if we don’t the bill’s moot. There’s a lot of people out there that are saying that there’s a possibility that this bill will not move forward, but we have to do something. We do have the lowest taxes of any state neighboring us, we do have the best cities, the best home structures, we have the greatest people and tools and resources. I don’t know what else to do to bring big business here. We’ve had Chrysler move out. Ford closed up and moved out. We’ve had so many businesses that have moved out of state. And if that’s the, the, the issue there, as we have lowest taxes, Florissant, that I represent, is one of the best places to retire. I want to make sure that this continues for a long time. And the only way I could see to do that in the legislation that we have, and the ideas that we have bipartisan sitting at the table, and I believe this was a bipartisan bill. Unfortunately the Governor vetoed it, it made it a partisan issue. I had four, maybe five other Democrats that wanted to be with this bill but just couldn’t go against the Governor. And I had to do something.
Representative Stephen Webber (D) [file photo].
Show Me Progress: So, how would you, how would you characterize the, uh, the vote on, um, the final vote on, uh, the override on SB 509?
Representative Stephen Webber (D): I mean, it’s certainly shortsighted, uh, to begin with. You know, if, if it’s a good idea it’s something that we should do now. The fact that people pushed off, um, the tax cuts so that they’ll never have to deal with the consequences of their actions, they’ll never actually have to budget, they’ll never actually have face the reality of not funding schools. Um, to me, that, that’s very irresponsible.
Show Me Progress: Would you characterize the bill as bipartisan?
Representative Webber (D): No, absolutely not. No. No, it’s clearly not. I mean, um, getting you know, less than two percent [one person] of the Democrats doesn’t make it a, a bipartisan bill.
Uh, I’ve described it as, it’s like, it’s like boiling a frog. You know, you put frog, a frog in the water and you turn up the heat. And so it feels good at first, and then it starts slowly, by the time you realize you’re burning, you’re boiling it’s, it’s too late. Uh, that’s the way this bill works. I mean it, it doesn’t, uh, fully implement for seven years at the earliest. And so every single member of this General Assembly will be termed out, um, before they have to face the true impact of cutting school funding, of not funding higher education. And at that point, all people are gonna know is there not money, there’s not money for these projects. They’re not gonna know who’s fault it is, they’re not gonna know who to blame, they’re not gonna , they’re not gonna say, oh, let’s go back to, in twenty twenty-two they’re not gonna say let’s go back to twenty fourteen and look at who voted for this bill. I mean, that’s not gonna happen. [crosstalk] Um.
Show Me Progress: Uh, so for, um, and, and, to be clear, the, the, the only way that the, the, the, the bill is reversible is if it comes to a vote of [crosstalk] of…
Representative Webber (D): We have to change the law again, right.
Show Me Progress: Well, you have to change the, and the change will have to go to a vote of the people due to the Hancock amendment.
Representative Webber (D): Correct. Correct.
Show Me Progress: And, and so, there is no sunset clause on any of this.
Representative Webber (D): No. Uh, and, and, they keep saying there’s these triggers and, and the folks that know that, uh, they know that’s incredibly misleading. They know that every year, um, that, the hundred fifty million dollars a year that you have to hit is eaten up very quickly in, in, you know, mandatory, uh, spending for federal match programs, um, I mean, inflation, population growth. It, it clearly will result in a, uh, cut to education funding. And they either, um, most of them know that and they’re just misleading people. Um, those that don’t know that are just uninformed.[….] It clearly will result in education cuts.
Representative Jeremy LaFaver (D) – May 8, 2014.
Show Me Progress: So, I want to talk with you about the, uh, Senate Bill 509, the veto override.
Representative Jeremy LaFaver (D): Uh huh.
Show Me Progress: Um, would you characterize, what, what would you characterize, the, the long term effect of the bill?
Representative LaFaver (D): Unknown. I think that there are a lot of things up in the air, particularly with the section that the Governor pointed out, that eliminates the top bracket. I think the long term effect, um, is truly unknown. It’s either gonna be bad or it’ll be devastating.
Show Me Progress: Would, would you characterize, uh, any part of the bill as bipartisan?
Representative LaFaver (D): No.
Show Me Progress: [….] Do you, is there, is, is there any easy way to fix any of the problems in the bill?
Representative LaFaver (D): No.
Show Me Progress: [….] Is there any kind of sunset provision in the bill?
Representative LaFaver (D): No.
Show Me Progress: None whatsoever?
Representative LaFaver (D): No. In order for us to fix it, uh, through the legislature anyway, we would have to pass something and then it would have to go to the voters as a tax increase. And so, if we’re gonna try and fix the, uh, section that the Governor is talking about we would have to then go back and approve a tax increase of four point eight billion dollars and ask Missourians to increase their taxes by four point eight billion.
There are people in Missouri and out who are laughing last.
Bill signing Kabuki (July 12, 2013)
Rep. Denny Hoskins (r): your constituents know what you’re doing to them (August 26, 2013)
HB 253: any way you slice it (September 11, 2013)
HB 253: Watch out – It’ll be baaaaaaaaaack (September 11, 2013)
SB 509: once more, with feeling (April 17, 2014)
SB 509: Governor Jay Nixon (D) strikes back (April 22, 2014)
SB 509: dueling on Twitter (April 22, 2014)
SB 509: Would you like some whine with your bill? (April 23, 2014)
SB 509: strange gyrations (April 23, 2014)
The Missouri GOP, Evel Knievel and political stuntsmanship (April 24, 2014)
SB 509: the folks back home ain’t buying what they’re selling (April 24, 2014)
SB 509: in a wingnutshell (April 28, 2014)
SB 509: veto it is (May 1, 2014)
SB 509: Governor Jay Nixon’s (D) Veto (May 2, 2014)
SB 509: “Brawndo! It’s got electrolytes!” (May 3, 2014)
SB 509: You were expecting anything else? (May 5, 2014)
SB 509: not so much these days (May 6, 2014)
The face of shame (May 6, 2014)
The day Missouri went down the toilet (May 7, 2014)
…and now you know the rest of the story (May 8, 2014)