On January 18, 2011 HJR 10, a bill which would put the defunding of public education on the ballot for a vote in Missouri, was introduced in the House. Vouchers!

If approved by the voters this would gut the establishment clause in the Missouri Constitution which is in, count ’em, two places:

Missouri Constitution

Article I

BILL OF RIGHTS

Section 7

Public aid for religious purposes–preferences and discriminations on religious grounds.

Section 7. That no money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, sect or denomination of religion, or in aid of any priest, preacher, minister or teacher thereof, as such; and that no preference shall be given to nor any discrimination made against any church, sect or creed of religion, or any form of religious faith or worship.

[emphasis added]

Article IX

EDUCATION

Section 8

Prohibition of public aid for religious purposes and institutions.

Section 8. Neither the general assembly, nor any county, city, town, township, school district or other municipal corporation, shall ever make an appropriation or pay from any public fund whatever, anything in aid of any religious creed, church or sectarian purpose, or to help to support or sustain any private or public school, academy, seminary, college, university, or other institution of learning controlled by any religious creed, church or sectarian denomination whatever; nor shall any grant or donation of personal property or real estate ever be made by the state, or any county, city, town, or other municipal corporation, for any religious creed, church, or sectarian purpose whatever.

[emphasis added]

The bill:

FIRST REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 10

96TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES BARNES (Sponsor), DIECKHAUS AND JONES (89) (Co-sponsors).

0842L.01I                                                                                                                                                  D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

JOINT RESOLUTION

Submitting to the qualified voters of Missouri an amendment repealing section 8 of article IX of the Constitution of Missouri, and adopting one new section in lieu thereof relating to educational freedom.

Be it resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring therein:

           That at the next general election to be held in the state of Missouri, on Tuesday next following the first Monday in November, 2012, or at a special election to be called by the governor for that purpose, there is hereby submitted to the qualified voters of this state, for adoption or rejection, the following amendment to article IX of the Constitution of the state of Missouri:

           Section A. Section 8, article IX, Constitution of Missouri, is repealed and one new section adopted in lieu thereof, to be known as section 8, to read as follows:

           Section 8. [Neither the general assembly, nor any county, city, town, township, school district or other municipal corporation, shall ever make an appropriation or pay from any public fund whatever, anything in aid of any religious creed, church or sectarian purpose, or to help to support or sustain any private or public school, academy, seminary, college, university, or other institution of learning controlled by any religious creed, church or sectarian denomination whatever; nor shall any] The parents or guardians of children in this state shall have the freedom to choose any school for their minor children to attend and, should they choose a school outside that assigned to them by geographical location, then shall be provided with a stipend to pay for education at any accredited school of elementary or secondary education in an amount equal to the amount that would otherwise be paid by local and state government for the child to attend the public school in his or her school district. Notwithstanding this provision, no grant or donation of [personal property or] real estate shall ever be made by the state, or any county, city, town, or other municipal corporation, for any religious creed, church, or sectarian purpose whatever.

           Section B. Pursuant to chapter 116, RSMo, and other applicable constitutional provisions and laws of this state allowing the General Assembly to adopt ballot language for the submission of a joint resolution to the voters of this state, the official ballot title of the amendment proposed in section A shall be as follows:

           “Shall the Constitution of the State of Missouri be amended to delete the ban on providing state funding to educational facilities controlled by religious organizations and replace it with a provision ensuring the freedom of parents or guardians of minor children to choose any accredited school of elementary or secondary education with the use of public funds?”.

[emphasis in original]

Notice what gets cut out [in brackets]?

Do you suppose that Representatives Barnes, Dieckhaus, and Jones (r) aren’t originalists when it comes to the Constitution? Just asking.

Surely he’s not that foolish.

But the word I get is that AG Koster is still leaning toward doing it. If it’s true, this puzzles me for a couple of reasons. The first is that he claims he’s being nonpartisan. He stressed the fact that the legislature, by passing SR27, and the voters, by passing Prop C, have told him what they expect someone nonpartisan to do.

That sounds reasonable at first glance, but one might just as easily argue that SR27 was an attempt to bully him into becoming partisan. Whether or not you agree with the word “bully”, this much is indisputable: joining that suit would be highly partisan. He would not be representing Missouri, because many Missourians are grateful to no longer worry that a pre-existing condition, a lifetime cap, or job loss might rob them of health insurance. Joining the suit would mean that he doesn’t represent that half of the state.

The second reason I’m puzzled is that he’s too savvy not to know that the second he signs on to that suit, the Democrats who are going to care enough to vote in the 2012 primary will despise him. I don’t know if Margaret Donnelly or Jeff Harris would be up for a rematch, but as long as only ONE of them took him on, she or he would stand a good chance–because Democratic voters would remember Koster’s perfidy and punish him. Every activist in the state would work to paste a sign saying “Koster the Imposter” over that winning smile.

Attorney General Chris Koster needs to butt out of this politically charged, partisan issue and concern himself with the stated duties of his office.

Update: St. Louis Activist Hub has a fine piece on the subject of Koster’s future, should he join the lawsuit. Adam takes my thinking one step further and notes that even if Koster were to win the primary, he’d lose the general because neither side would have much to do with him. Our Attorney General needs to focus on the road ahead before he drops an axle into a pothole the size of Audrain County.

Via Twitter:

@UKProgressive  DenisCampbell

Bumper sticker: “AT LEAST THE WAR ON THE MIDDLE CLASS IS GOING WELL..” 6 hours ago

That about sums it up.

Update:

Pinning the meter on maximum snark:

To the Sports Editor:

The bizarre behavior of Gil Meche, who gave up $12 million because he “felt bad” about taking money he had not earned, is a slap in the face to those toilers in the finance industry who courageously set aside their moral scruples and accept multimillion-dollar bonuses in the face of an economic crisis of their own making. It is to be hoped that Meche, in light of the example of those whose Ivy League degrees attest to a deeper understanding of this sort of moral and ethical quandary, will change his mind….

Awesome, freakin’ awesome.

Previously: Attorney General Chris Koster (D): let the fundraising commence (January 27, 2011)

Yesterday, at the Missouri Ethics Commission, there was another flurry of campaign contributions for Attorney General Chris Koster (D):

Report of Contributions Received > $500 During Legislative Session

C031159 01/29/2011 MISSOURIANS FOR KOSTER Heard, Robins, Cloud and Black LLP 300 Paseo De Peralata, Suite 200 New Mexico NM 87501 1/28/2011 $15,000.00

C031159 01/29/2011 MISSOURIANS FOR KOSTER Bill Robbins III 721 Calle Picacho Santa Fe NM 87505 Heard Robins Cloud and Black LLP Attorney 1/28/2011 $10,000.00

C031159 01/29/2011 MISSOURIANS FOR KOSTER ETC Capital LLC 38955 Hill Tech Dr Farmington Hills MI 48331 1/28/2011 $2,500.00

C031159 01/29/2011 MISSOURIANS FOR KOSTER Dickstein Shapiro 1825 Eye Street NW Washington DC 20006 1/28/2011 $2,500.00

C031159 01/29/2011 MISSOURIANS FOR KOSTER Chitwood Harley Harnes LLP 1230 Peachtree St. NE Ste 2300 Atlanta GA 30309 1/28/2011 $1,500.00

C031159 01/29/2011 MISSOURIANS FOR KOSTER Michael C. Moore 202 Covenant Crossing Flowood MS 39232 Self Attorney 1/28/2011 $1,000.00

C031159 01/29/2011 MISSOURIANS FOR KOSTER Justice for America 2219 Vista Large NE Albuquerque NM 87106 1/28/2011 $1,000.00

C031159 01/29/2011 MISSOURIANS FOR KOSTER Thomas F. Reilly 60 Palfrey Street Watertown MA 02472 Cooley Manion Jones Attorney 1/28/2011 $1,000.00

C031159 01/29/2011 MISSOURIANS FOR KOSTER Distilled Spirits Council 1250 Eye Street, NW Suite 400 Washington DC 20005 1/28/2011 $1,000.00

C031159 01/29/2011 MISSOURIANS FOR KOSTER APX Alarm Security Solutions 4931 North 300 West Provo UT 84604 1/28/2011 $1,000.00

C031159 01/29/2011 MISSOURIANS FOR KOSTER Bernard Nash 10771 McGregor Drive Columbia MD 21044 Dickstein Shapiro Attorney 1/28/2011 $1,000.00



C031159 01/29/2011 MISSOURIANS FOR KOSTER Morgan Drexen, Inc. 1600 South Douglass Road, Suite 100 Anaheim CA 92806 1/28/2011 $1,000.00

C031159 01/29/2011 MISSOURIANS FOR KOSTER Entertainment Software Association 575 7th Street, NW #300 Washington DC 20004 1/28/2011 $1,000.00

C031159 01/29/2011 MISSOURIANS FOR KOSTER Rent A Center 5501 Headquarters Dr Plano TX 75024 1/28/2011 $1,000.00

C031159 01/29/2011 MISSOURIANS FOR KOSTER A.C.N., Inc. 1000 Progress Place Concord NC 28025 1/28/2011 $1,000.00

Interesting locations.

That’s $41,500.00 in one day.

In case you were wondering, Representatives Todd Akin (r), Vicky Hartzler (r), Jo Ann Emerson (r), Sam Graves (r), Billy Long (r), and Blaine Luetkemeyer (r) are co-sponsors (along with 173 others) of HR 3, the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act”.

The bill contains a curious use of language:

…SEC. 309. TREATMENT OF ABORTIONS RELATED TO RAPE, INCEST, OR PRESERVING THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER.

     `The limitations established in sections 301, 302, 303, and 304 shall not apply to an abortion–

           `(1) if the pregnancy occurred because the pregnant female was the subject of an act of forcible rape or, if a minor, an act of incest; or

           `(2) in the case where the pregnant female suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the pregnant female in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself…

Pregnant female?

Kay at Balloon Juice:

…as a not-now-pregnant female who was included in anti-choice statutory language up until yesterday, I’d sure like to know why “pregnant females” have all of a sudden been carefully set apart from the larger category of “women”.

Any guesses? Is it meant to include the people formerly known as “girls” or is it some brand new poll-tested language intended to divide? The last time I recall using the phrase “pregnant female” I was talking about a hamster.

[emphasis added]

In Missouri, SB 95 [pdf], as introduced, line 8:

…3. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person having custody or ownership of more than ten female covered dogs [for the purpose of breeding those animals and selling any offspring for use as a pet] shall provide each covered dog…

Also, SB 113 [pdf], as introduced, line 8:

…3. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person having custody or ownership of more than ten female covered dogs for the purpose of breeding those animals and selling any offspring for use as a pet shall provide each covered dog…

Or HB 131, as introduced:

…3. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person having custody or ownership of more than [ten] one hundred female covered dogs for the purpose of breeding those animals and selling any offspring for use as a pet shall provide each covered dog…

Or HB 281, as introduced:

…3. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person having custody or ownership of more than ten female covered dogs for the purpose of breeding those animals and selling any offspring for use as a pet shall provide each covered dog…

Or HB 94, as introduced:

…3. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person having custody or ownership of more than ten female covered dogs for the purpose of breeding those animals and selling any offspring for use as a pet shall provide each covered dog…

And HB 99, and HB 332.

Why is it that the sponsors of HR 3 in Congress didn’t see fit to use the term “woman” and/or “girl” in that passage of their bill?

But, pregnant female?

The Missouri General Assembly, even in the following example of anti-choice legislation (HB 213), doesn’t use that convention of language:

…the abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant woman whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, or when continuation of the pregnancy will create a serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman…

[emphasis added]

Or, in SB 65 [pdf], as introduced, line 13:

…a condition which, on the basis of a physician’s good faith clinical judgment, so complicates the medical condition of a pregnant woman as to necessitate the immediate abortion of her pregnancy to avert the death of the pregnant woman or for which a delay will create a serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman…

[emphasis added]

Curiouser and curiouser.

There’s been lots of noise – well, at least some noise – about whether or not Bristol Palin should have been invited (and later disinvited) to speak about sexual abstinence at Washington University. Some critics asked what she could contribute that would be worth the $20,000 fee that she charges for such appearances. Others asked why she should be regarded as an authority on abstinence just because she failed to practice it.

While both points may have merit to a greater or lesser extent, there’s another aspect it seems to me everyone is missing. If you want to promote abstinence, Bristol Palin is a very poor example, not because she had a child as an unmarried teenager, but because she has parlayed that event into a very lucrative living. For Palin, crime may not pay, but teen pregnancy certainly has.

Here I need to say that while I believe it’s unfair to criticize family members of political figures as long as they remain private, Bristol Palin has made herself fair game. Daughter Palin hasn’t just been willing, but eager to take advantage of her mother’s celebrity and use it to rake in the dollars. She is interesting for two reasons, she’s Sarah Palin’s daughter and she had an out-of-wedlock baby, and she’s making the most out of both.

No matter how sincerely Bristol Palin may talk about the negative aspects of her experience and the merits of abstinence, doesn’t it strike anyone that her life provides just the opposite lesson? Here’s a young woman, nineteen years old, who just purchased her own five-bedroom house in Phoenix Arizona where she has implied she wants to go to college. Given the big-bucks she can currently pull in, she will certainly not want for child-care; her independence is assured for a number of years. Some might even consider little Palin’s tabloid-created persona glamorous. A confused teenager could be excused if she decides that Palin made out-of-wedlock pregnancy pay off really well.

In the interest of putting my biases up front, I should note that I believe the whole abstinence schtick, at least when it comes to establishing public policy, is silly and unrealistic. That said, I’ve got nothing against exploring the pros and cons and all the nuances fully in events like that planned for Wash U. If, though, I were responsible for putting together a panel to discuss the issue, I would want to insure that my pro-abstinence participant could represent that point of view in the best way possible. Would exploiting Bristol Palin’s notoriety really  have done that?

Wednesday night, I attended Governor Holden’s monthly Pizza and Politics event at Webster University, where Sen. Rob Mayer and MO State Budget Director Linda Luebbering were the guests. A reporter for The Beacon asked how high sales taxes would have to go if the Fair Tax were implemented. Sen. Mayer was surprisingly frank about it.

Here’s the meat of what Mayer had to say:

MAYER: There’s a lot of things that I have concerns about that, that ‘fair tax.’ And I probably shouldn’t be this frank and candid with you, but I can’t see us passing that ‘fair tax’ in this session. Now, I’m just one Senator and I probably shouldn’t make that kind of statement, but there’s a lot of details in that tax, in that proposal, that concern me. And you make a good, you ask a good question– how much does the sales tax have to be? You know, they talked about seven and a half percent or eight percent. But just, what, this last year, the realtors I guess, passed, wasn’t it some time of petition that would exclude them from that. And then, you know, then you start taxing attorneys and CPA services. And you know, then you get into this issue, well, certain ones want to be exempted out. And then everybody else wants to be exempted out. And before long, you’re talking about ten, twelve, thirteen percent. So, I mean, the concept intrigues me, but for me, there’s got be be a lot — I’ve got to have a lot of answers.

Bottom line: Not in the Senate, not this year anyway. And Luebbering’s assessment was even less favorable.

We actually did a fiscal analysis. I think, to the senator’s point, it’s a moving target because when some of the criticism comes back on ‘we’re gonna tax nursing homes’, they exempt nursing homes from the tax and we have a new version. And so it’s a moving target to try to figure out what the tax rate would actually be, based on the services that would be taxed. Based on the analysis we’ve seen, one of the versions would require a 14 percent tax rate with the average local taxes tacked on. We fondly refer to that rate as ‘Buy Kansas’ because people would go over the border to Kansas and buy things at that kind of tax rate.

But if this–should I dignify it by calling it an idea?–gets no traction in the Senate, that just shoves it down the road to an initiative petition. The question is, which version would Sinquefield pay to get on the ballot? Because whichever version he picks, the petition will face outrage–that we, of course, will fan. “What?! You’re not going to exempt nursing homes?” Or doctors? Or child care? Or auto repair? Or whatever.

St. Louisans will call it ‘Buy Illinois.’ Businesses in Kennett will call it ‘Buy Arkansas.’ Folks in Neosho will call it ‘Buy Oklahoma.’ And if/when an initiative petition is filed, we’ll come up with a catchier name for it. The fairly crazy tax? Is it too early in the meeting for the table to entertain other suggestions?  

Governor Jay Nixon (D) and Lieutenant Governor Peter Kinder (r), the leading rivals for the gubernatorial race in 2012, reported a tad bit of fundraising success yesterday. At the Missouri Ethics Commission:

CONTRIBUTION OF MORE THAN $5,000.00 RECEIVED BY ANY COMMITTEE FROM ANY SINGLE DONOR – TO BE FILED WITHIN 48 HOURS OF RECEIVING THE CONTRIBUTION

C091145 FRIENDS OF PETER KINDER [pdf] 1/28/2011

HBE Corporation

11330 Olive Blvd.

St Louis, MO 63141 1/27/2011

$10,000.00

[emphasis added]

CONTRIBUTION OF MORE THAN $5,000.00 RECEIVED BY ANY COMMITTEE FROM ANY SINGLE DONOR – TO BE FILED WITHIN 48 HOURS OF RECEIVING THE CONTRIBUTION

C001135 JAY NIXON FOR MISSOURI [pdf] 1/28/2011

Kansas City Power And Light Co.

PO Box 418679

Kansas City, MO 64141

1/27/2011

$25,000.00

[emphasis added]

Contribution in Excess of $500 Received Within 48 Hours

C001135 JAY NIXON FOR MISSOURI [pdf] 1/28/2011

Gallop, Johnson & Neuman, L.C.

101 S Hanley

Clayton, MO 63105

1/27/2011

$5,000.00

[emphasis added]

Three to one. It’s interesting to note who is lining up where.

Sales taxes are regressive.

regressive tax: Taxation that takes a larger percentage of a lower-income and a smaller percentage of a higher income. For example, a tax on the basic necessities (which form a larger percentage of the expenditure of the lower income population) is a regressive tax…

[emphasis added]

SJR 1 [pdf] would do away with the state income tax and institute a state sales tax. On damn near everything.

The good news, if this passes and becomes law? The extravagant mansions of the new gilded age will be built to last for generations. The bad news? There won’t be any peons around for those generations who could afford the measly price of admission to those museums of excess or have enough education to care.

Yep, this’ll surely redistribute the wealth. Upward:

FIRST REGULAR SESSION

SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 1

96TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY SENATOR RIDGEWAY.

Pre-filed December 1, 2010, and ordered printed.

TERRY L. SPIELER, Secretary.0215S.01I

JOINT RESOLUTION

Submitting to the qualified voters of Missouri, an amendment repealing section 4(d)of article X of the Constitution of Missouri, and adopting one new section in lieu thereof relating to the revenue-neutral replacement of all taxes on income with an amended sales and use tax.

Be it resolved by the Senate, the House of Representatives concurring therein:

That at the next general election to be held in the state of Missouri, on Tuesday next following the first Monday in November, 2012, or at a special election to be called by the governor for that purpose, there is hereby submitted to the qualified voters of this state, for adoption or rejection, the following amendment to article X of the Constitution of the state of Missouri: Section A. Section 4(d), article X, Constitution of Missouri, is repealed and one new section adopted in lieu thereof, to be known as section 4(d), to read as follows:

Section 4(d). 1. In enacting any law imposing a tax on or measured by income, the general assembly may define income by reference to provisions of the laws of the United States as they may be or become effective at any time or from time to time, whether retrospective or prospective in their operation. The general assembly shall in any such law set the rate or rates of such tax. The general assembly may in so defining income make exceptions, additions, or modifications to any provisions of the laws of the United States so referred to and for retrospective exceptions or modifications to those provisions which are retrospective….

…2. For all tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2013, no tax shall be imposed upon any income derived from any source within this state, and all revenues lost as a result of the prohibition on the taxation of income under this section shall be replaced by the levy and imposition of a tax upon the consumption or use in this state of taxable property or services. Taxable property or services shall mean any property (including leaseholds of any term or rents with respect to such property but excluding intangible personal property and used property) and any service consumed or used in this state, except for such property purchased to be a component part or ingredient of the new tangible personal property to be sold at retail. No tax shall be imposed under this section on any taxable property or service purchased for a business purpose in a trade or business, including agriculture, or purchased for an investment purpose and held exclusively for an investment purpose. For purposes of this section, the term “purchased for a business purpose in a trade or business” shall mean purchased by a person engaged in a trade or business and used in that trade or business for resale, to produce, provide, render, or sell taxable property or services, or in furtherance of other bona fide business purposes. For purposes of this section, the term “purchased for an investment purpose” shall mean property purchased exclusively for purposes of appreciation or the production of income, and tuition and fees paid to an accredited institution of higher education for educational services. All sales tax exemptions in place as of the effective date of this section exempting purchases other than the purchases enumerated in this article shall be void.

3. The rate of the tax levied and imposed under subsection 2 of this section shall be five and eleven one-hundredths percent. As may be recommended by the tax adjustment commission established by subsection 8 of this section, the general assembly may enact one rate adjustment, to be effective no later than the beginning of fiscal year 2014, after the imposition of such tax if the revenue lost as a result of the prohibition on the taxation of income is greater than or less than the revenue received from the tax imposed in th i s section. Notwithstanding the limitation on total state revenues as provided in article X, section 18 of this constitution, such adjustment shall be calculated to ensure that the amount of revenue received is substantially equal to the amount of revenue that would have been generated by the taxes repealed under this section averaged over the three immediately preceding fiscal years. Local political subdivisions shall recalculate their local tax rates, including local tax revenue to be deposited in the school district trust fund, affected by this section to produce the same or substantially similar revenue as collected in the immediately previous fiscal year. The general assembly may provide by law for determining the scope of taxable services and for otherwise implementing the provisions of this section. Exemptions from such tax may be provided by law upon an affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of the elected members of both chambers and approval by the governor.

4. Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 43(a) and 47(a) of article IV of this constitution, the rates of tax levied and imposed under those sections shall undergo a one-time recalculation, taking into account any adjustment in the tax base. This recalculation shall determine the new rates that would produce an amount of revenue for the fiscal year of recalculation substantially equal to the amount actually received in the year of recalculation under the prior rate described in those sections of the constitution. These new tax rates shall be recalculated in this same manner should the rate of tax levied under section 4(d) of article X of this constitution be readjusted.

5. The taxes that are replaced under this section are as follows: (1) Withholding taxes and individual and corporate income taxes; (2) Corporation franchise and bank franchise taxes; (3) All existing state sales and use taxes; (4) All local earnings taxes authorized by state law.

6. The department of revenue shall determine a method for providing a sales tax rebate for each duly registered qualified household of this state. The sales tax rebate shall be distributed to each qualified household beginning January 1, 2013. The monthly amount of the rebate shall be equal to the product of the rate of sales tax established under this section and one-twelfth of the annual poverty guidelines updated periodically in the Federal Register by the United States Department of Health and Human Services under the authority of 42 U.S.C. Section 9902(2), as amended.

7. The department of revenue shall promulgate rules as otherwise provided by law to implement the provisions of this section.

8. There is hereby created a “Tax Adjustment Commission”, whose members shall be the governor, or his or her designee, the chair of the house budget committee, and the chair of the senate appropriations committee. The purpose of the tax adjustment commission shall be to recommend a one-time adjustment to the
rate of tax established in subsection 3 of this section. The commission shall meet prior to January 1, 2014, to conduct studies of a tax rate adjustment which would provide an amount substantially equal to the amount of revenue that would have been generated by the taxes repealed under this section in fiscal year 2012. The tax rate adjustment shall only be recommended to the general assembly upon unanimous vote of the commission. If the general assembly is not in regular or special session at the time the commission’s recommendation is received, the general assembly shall automatically convene in special session within fourteen days of receipt of the recommendation. A concurrent resolution, not subject to substantive amendment in either chamber, shall be introduced in the house of representatives for approval or rejection. If approved, the concurrent resolution shall be considered by the senate for approval or rejection. If approved by both chambers, the concurrent resolution shall be presented to the governor, and, within fourteen days of such presentment, the governor shall return the concurrent resolution to the house of representatives endorsed with his or her approval or accompanied by his or her objections. If the concurrent resolution is approved by the governor, the tax rate adjustment shall become effective at the beginning of the following calendar quarter. If the concurrent resolution is not approved by the governor, the general assembly shall automatically convene in special session within fourteen days of such disapproval to reconsider the resolution as otherwise provided in section 32 of article III of this constitution. If the concurrent resolution is approved by a two-third majority in each chamber, the tax rate adjustment shall become effective at the beginning of the following calendar quarter.

9. The revisor of statutes, in conjunction with the department of revenue, the state tax commission, and other tax-related agencies and departments, shall prepare and submit to the committee on legislative research a proposed bill repealing those provisions of law which are deemed unenforceable or unnecessary under the provisions of this section.

10. The provisions of this section are severable. If any provision of this section is found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unconstitutional, the remaining provisions are valid except to the extent that the court finds that the valid provisions, standing alone, are incomplete and are incapable of being executed in accordance with the will of the people.

Section B. Pursuant to chapter 116, RSMo, and other applicable constitutional provisions and laws of this state allowing the general assembly to adopt ballot language for the submission of a joint resolution to the voters of this state, the official ballot title of the amendment proposed in section A of this act shall read as follows:

“Shall the Constitution of the State of Missouri be amended to eliminate individual and corporate income tax, and state sales and use tax and to enact a single, revenue-neutral sales tax on new purchases of goods and services, and to exempt property purchased for business or investment from the sales tax?”

[emphasis in original]

As usual, the devil is in the details:

“…Taxable property or services shall mean any property (including leaseholds of any term or rents with respect to such property but excluding intangible personal property and used property) and any service consumed or used in this state…”

Uh, you know, people with lower incomes tend to rent. They’ll have to pay taxes on their rent under this bill.

But:

“…No tax shall be imposed under this section on any taxable property or service purchased for a business purpose in a trade or business, including agriculture, or purchased for an investment purpose and held exclusively for an investment purpose…”

Landlords who rent said properties will not pay the sales tax when they purchase the property.

Redistribute the wealth upward, anyone?

There’s this gem, repealing the earnings taxes in Kansas City and St. Louis:

“…5. The taxes that are replaced under this section are as follows: (1) Withholding taxes and individual and corporate income taxes; (2) Corporation franchise and bank franchise taxes; (3) All existing state sales and use taxes; (4) All local earnings taxes authorized by state law. …”

The bill sets the starting state sales tax rate at 5.11%. Adding in local taxes can bring it to over 7%. There is a one time provision to raise the tax to be revenue neutral. No sane analyst has come in under 10% to achieve that goal.

If this comes to pass invest in pitchfork and torch stocks. Buy heavily into popcorn futures. Then sit back on your couch, pass the popcorn and wait for the first average Joe to get an additional 15% tacked on for:

….And those taxes would be applied not just to goods, as most current sales taxes are, but to nearly everything you buy, including auto repair, haircuts, prescription drugs, housing rents, utilities and child care. Some proposals also would tax doctor’s visits and prescription drugs….

…Here’s the bottom line: 15 percent. On darn near everything. For a pipe dream.

[emphasis added]

(from Twitter, hat tip to our good friends at Fired Up!)

Pitchforks and torches. That’s an investment opportunity you’re not gonna want to pass up.

The usual suspects have proposed a constitutional convention for the purpose of amending the Constitution so that state legislatures would have to approve raising the national debt limit. Yeah, that’ll turn out really well.

FIRST REGULAR SESSION

House Concurrent Resolution No. 19

96TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES GATSCHENBERGER (Sponsor), FRANZ, LONG, KOENIG, DIEHL, BARNES, SCHARNHORST, MOLENDORP, KELLEY (126), FITZWATER, JONES (89), NANCE, NOLTE, BROWN (50), PACE, JONES (117), RICHARDSON, PARKINSON, DENISON, HINSON, ZERR, SCHOELLER, SCHATZ, REIBOLDT, SCHIEFFER, LARGENT, ALLEN, GUERNSEY, RIDDLE, LANT, LEACH, BROWN (85), LICHTENEGGER, GRISAMORE, DUGGER, SCHAD, COX, LOEHNER, BAHR, COOKSON, FRAKER, BURLISON AND WIELAND (Co-sponsors).

0497L.02I

AN ACT

Relating to the calling of a convention proposing amendments to the United States Constitution.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, as follows:

           WHEREAS, Article V of the Constitution of the United States provides authority for a Convention to be called by the Congress of the United States for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution upon application of two-thirds of the Legislatures of the several states (“amendments convention”); and

           WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Missouri favors the proposal and ratification of an amendment to said Constitution which shall provide that an increase in the federal debt requires approval from a majority of the Legislatures of the separate States:

           NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the members of the House of Representatives of the Ninety-sixth General Assembly, First Regular Session, the Senate concurring therein, hereby respectfully applies, as provided for in Article V of the Constitution of the United States, for an amendments convention to be called for the purpose of proposing an amendment which shall provide that an increase in the federal debt requires approval from a majority of the Legislatures of the separate States; and

           BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the amendments convention contemplated by this application shall be entirely focused upon and exclusively limited to the subject matter of proposing for ratification an amendment to the Constitution providing that an increase in the federal debt requires approval from a majority of the Legislatures of the separate States; and

           BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this application constitutes a continuing application in accordance with Article V of the Constitution of the United States until at least two-thirds of the Legislatures of the several States have made application for an equivalently limited amendments convention; and

           BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this application be dispatched by the Chief Clerk of the Missouri House of Representatives to the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, each member of the Missouri Congressional delegation, and the presiding officers of each house of the several State Legislatures requesting their cooperation in applying for the amendments convention limited to the subject matter contemplated by this application.

[underline emphasis added]

Is anyone in the republican majority in Jefferson City concerned about job growth and unemployment rather than symbolic teabagger legislation? Just asking.

Previously: The Ultimate in teabagger Bills: it was only a matter of time (January 26, 2011)