Today is the first day for prefiling bills for the 2015 session of the General Assembly. With the current right wingnut super majority in the House we’re not particularly surprised by the thumbnail sketch descriptions of many of the bills we’ve seen prefiled up to this point:

HB 30 Requires a person to submit a specified form of photo identification in order to vote in a public election with specified exemptions

Sponsor: Dugger, Tony (141)

Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2015

LR Number: 0227H.01I

Last Action: 12/01/2014 – Prefiled (H)

Bill String: HB 30

[….]

HJR 1 Proposes a constitutional amendment specifying that a person seeking to vote in a public election may be required by general law to provide a valid governemnt-issued photo identification

Sponsor: Dugger, Tony (141)

Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2015

LR Number: 0224H.01I

Last Action: 12/01/2014 – Prefiled (H)

Bill String: HJR 1

[….]

Voter photo ID. Check.

HB 32 Modifies the “Big Government Get Off My Back Act”

Sponsor: Hoskins, Denny (054)

Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2015

LR Number: 0508H.01I

Last Action: 12/01/2014 – Prefiled (H)

Bill String: HB 32

[….]

We can’t wait to read the full text of the bill when it becomes available to see what unintended (maybe) consequences in the original need to be “fixed”.

And, of course, there’s a string of anti-working people bills:

HB 46 Requires the State Board of Mediation to conduct an election to certify the exclusive bargaining representatives of an appropriate collective bargaining unit for certain public employees every two year

Sponsor: Lant, Bill (159)

Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2015

LR Number: 0548H.01I

Last Action: 12/01/2014 – Prefiled (H)

Bill String: HB 46

[….]

HB 47 Specifies that all individuals shall be guaranteed the freedom to work without being required to join or pay dues to any labor organization

Sponsor: Lant, Bill (159)

Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2015

LR Number: 0546H.01I

Last Action: 12/01/2014 – Prefiled (H)

Bill String: HB 47

{….]

HB 48 Prohibits any public employee from being required to pay dues or other fees to a labor organization

Sponsor: Lant, Bill (159)

Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2015

LR Number: 0547H.01I

Last Action: 12/01/2014 – Prefiled (H)

Bill String: HB 48

[….]

Apparently representation without individual responsibility is tyranny. Or socialism. Or something.

HJR 2 Proposes a constitutional amendment that specifies that all individuals shall be guaranteed the freedom to work without being required to join or pay dues to any labor organizations

Sponsor: Lant, Bill (159)

Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2015

LR Number: 0584H.01I

Last Action: 12/01/2014 – Prefiled (H)

Bill String: HJR 2

[….]

No surprises at all.

My all time second favorite bill ever introduced in the Missouri House:

HB 1014 Prohibits the use of global positioning systems to monitor mileage in order to impose any mileage tax in this state

Sponsor: Smith, Joe (14) Proposed Effective Date: 08/28/2009

CoSponsor: LR Number: 2332L.02I

Last Action: 03/12/2009 – Read Second Time (H)

HB1014

Next Hearing: Hearing not scheduled

House Calendar HOUSE BILLS FOR SECOND READING

The bill text is simple:

FIRST REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE BILL NO. 1014

95TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVE SMITH (14).

2332L.02I

D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

Relating to motor vehicle mileage taxes.

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

           Section 1. No global positioning system or other technology that identifies and records a person’s location at all times shall be used to monitor mileage traveled by any motor vehicle on any road, highway, or street in this state for the purpose of imposing any tax on the mileage traveled by such motor vehicle.

Silly, now how are the black helicopters gonna track our every movement? Those microchips they implanted in us at birth just don’t have the necessary range.

My all time favorite bill?:

Automotive deer hunting!

You had to ask.

Then there’s this:

HB 1031 Allows students at two-year or four-year colleges or universities to seek tuition reimbursement for college remedial courses under certain circumstances

Sponsor: Emery, Edgar G. H. (126) Proposed Effective Date: 08/28/2009

CoSponsor: Ruestman, Marilyn (131) ……….etal. LR Number: 2093L.01I

Last Action: 03/12/2009 – Introduced and Read First Time (H)

HB1031

Next Hearing: Hearing not scheduled

House Calendar HOUSE BILLS FOR SECOND READING

The bill text reveals who has to pay:

FIRST REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE BILL NO. 1031

95TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES EMERY (Sponsor), RUESTMAN, SMITH (14), BIVINS, ERVIN AND FAITH (Co-sponsors).

2093L.01I

D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

To repeal section 173.750, RSMo, and to enact in lieu thereof two new sections relating to remedial course reimbursement.

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

           Section A. Section 173.750, RSMo, is repealed and two new sections enacted in lieu thereof, to be known as sections 161.720 and 173.750, to read as follows:

           161.720. 1. Beginning with academic year 2010-2011, any student who graduates from a Missouri public high school and enrolls in a public two-year or four-year degree program in Missouri within the same calendar year may apply to receive reimbursement for tuition for remedial courses to which such student is assigned by the college or university under the conditions described in this section.

           2. A college course shall qualify as remedial if it is:

           (1) In the subject of reading, English composition, or mathematics; and

           (2) Is designated by number, title, course description, or other means, as necessary to prepare a student for the first college-level course in the subject.

           3. The department of elementary and secondary education shall, by rule, establish a method by which a student may apply for, provide documentation for, and receive a reimbursement for such tuition no more frequently than twice a year. Reimbursement shall be directly proportional to the graduating high school’s three-year rolling average of percentage of graduates enrolled in any remedial course bases on the unduplicated count as reported for the annual graduates’ performance report required by section 173.750, RSMo. No reimbursements shall be made for retaking a remedial course.

           4. The joint committee on education, as established in section 160.254, RSMo, shall review available data on remediation rates after the close of the 2013-2014 academic year to determine:

           (1) The effects, if any, of this section upon remediation rates, including the possible overidentification of students for remediation;

           (2) The correlation, if any, between performance on the end-of-course high school level statewide assessments and the need for remediation in the freshman year of college;

           (3) The effects, if any, of the alignment of high school exit and higher education entrance competencies as required under subdivision (7) of subsection 2 of section 173.005, RSMo;

           (4) If possible, the extent to which information concerning remediation rates is used to improve high school instruction; and

           (5) Any other matters related to remediation, including but not limited to the availability and kinds of data, that should be considered for the creation of effective public policy.

The departments of higher education and elementary and secondary education, and the research offices of the general assembly, shall provide assistance as needed. The joint committee shall make such recommendations as it believes are necessary to the general assembly to reduce the need for remediation.

           5. The department of elementary and secondary education shall consider, if recommended by the joint committee after review of the data in subsection 4 of this section, the creation by rule of an increasing penalty for districts whose remediation rates do not show sufficient improvement.

           6. Reimbursements under this section shall be funded by withholdings from the classroom trust fund payment of the graduating school district. Any amount needed for reimbursement under this section that exceeds the amount available from the district’s classroom trust fund payment shall be waived.

           7. Any rule or portion of a rule, as that term is defined in section 536.010, RSMo, that is created under the authority delegated in this section shall become effective only if it complies with and is subject to all of the provisions of chapter 536, RSMo, and, if applicable, section 536.028, RSMo. This section and chapter 536, RSMo, are nonseverable and if any of the powers vested with the general assembly under chapter 536, RSMo, to review, to delay the effective date, or to disapprove and annul a rule are subsequently held unconstitutional, then the grant of rulemaking authority and any rule proposed or adopted after August 28, 2009, shall be invalid and void.

           173.750. 1. By July 1, 1995, the coordinating board for higher education, within existing resources provided to the department of higher education and by rule and regulation, shall have established and implemented a procedure for annually reporting the performance of graduates of public high schools in the state during the student’s initial year in the public colleges and universities of the state. The purpose of such reports shall be to assist in determining how high schools are preparing students for successful college and universit
y performance. The report produced pursuant to this subsection shall annually be furnished to the state board of education for reporting pursuant to subsection 4 of section 161.610, RSMo[, and shall not be used for any other purpose].

           2. The procedures shall be designed so that the reporting is made by the name of each high school in the state, with individual student data to be grouped according to the high school from which the students graduated. The data in the reports shall be disaggregated by race and sex. The procedures shall not be designed so that the reporting contains the name of any student. No grade point average shall be disclosed under subsection 3 of this section in any case where three or fewer students from a particular high school attend a particular college or university.

           3. The data reported shall include grade point averages after the initial college year, calculated on, or adjusted to, a four point grade scale; the percentage of students returning to college after the first and second half of the initial college year, or after each trimester of the initial college year; the percentage of students taking noncollege level classes in basic academic courses during the first college year, or remedial courses in basic academic subjects of English, mathematics, or reading; and other such data as determined by rule and regulation of the coordinating board for higher education.

[emphasis in original]

“…6. Reimbursements under this section shall be funded by withholdings from the classroom trust fund payment of the graduating school district….”

Are you thinking what I’m thinking? Yep, someone will figure out that they can game the system, take remedial courses, and make their public school district (and all those teachers and administrators they hated) pay for it.

Ed Emery (r-126) has all kinds of interests:

…In addition to his legislative duties, Rep. Emery provides character education and Character First! training materials to businesses and institutions through his small business called Character Returns!…

That’s what we need in the Missouri General Assembly. More characters.

Representative Jeff Roorda (D-102) introduced a bill to bring Missouri statutes in line with a previous landmark Missouri Supreme Court ruling:

HB 1006 Allows all employees of any public body to form and join labor organizations and present proposals to any public body relative to salaries and other conditions of employment

Sponsor: Roorda, Jeff (102) Proposed Effective Date: 08/28/2009

CoSponsor: Meadows, Tim (101) LR Number: 2385L.01I

Last Action: 03/11/2009 – Introduced and Read First Time (H)

HB1006

Next Hearing: Hearing not scheduled

Calendar: Bill currently not on a calendar

The Missouri Supreme Court decision in 2007:

SC87980: Independence-National Education Association, Independence-Transportation Employees Association, Independence-Educational Support Personnel, Randi Louise Mallett, and Ron Cochran, Appellants, v. Independence School District, Respondent.

… Case Style: Independence-National Education Association, Independence-Transportation

Employees Association, Independence-Educational Support Personnel, Randi …

Handdown Date: 05/29/2007      Author: Michael A. Wolff, Chief Justice     Vote: REVERSED AND REMANDED. Stith, Teitelman, Russell and White, JJ., concur; Price, J., concurs in part and dissents in part in separate opinion filed; Limbaugh, J., concurs in opinion of Price, J.

…Court en banc holds: (1) Article I, section 29 of the state constitution – which guarantees that “employees shall have the right to organize and to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing” – applies to the public employees who brought this case as well as to private-sector employees. To the extent that it holds otherwise, City of Springfield v. Clouse, 206 S.W.2d 539 (Mo. banc 1947), contradicts the plain language of the constitution and is overruled.

…

Let’s see what HB 1006 actually says:

[The bill will remove the text in bold and brackets]

FIRST REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE BILL NO. 1006

95TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES ROORDA (Sponsor) AND MEADOWS (Co-sponsor).

2385L.01I                                                                                                                                                  D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

To repeal section 105.510, RSMo, and to enact in lieu thereof one new section relating to public employee labor organizations.

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

           Section A. Section 105.510, RSMo, is repealed and one new section enacted in lieu thereof, to be known as section 105.510, to read as follows:

           105.510. Employees[, except police, deputy sheriffs, Missouri state highway patrolmen, Missouri national guard, all teachers of all Missouri schools, colleges and universities,] of any public body shall have the right to form and join labor organizations and to present proposals to any public body relative to salaries and other conditions of employment through the representative of their own choosing. No such employee shall be discharged or discriminated against because of his exercise of such right, nor shall any person or group of persons, directly or indirectly, by intimidation or coercion, compel or attempt to compel any such employee to join or refrain from joining a labor organization[, except that the above excepted employees have the right to form benevolent, social, or fraternal associations. Membership in such associations may not be restricted on the basis of race, creed, color, religion or ancestry].

[emphasis added]

That looks simple enough. Want to make any bets on if the republican controlled General Assembly does anything to pass the bill?

HB 949 Requires drug testing of certain Temporary Assistance for Needy Families applicants and recipients

Sponsor: Gatschenberger, Chuck (13) Proposed Effective Date: 08/28/2009

CoSponsor: Zerr, Anne (18) ……….etal. LR Number: 2326L.01I

Last Action: 03/06/2009 – Read Second Time (H)

HB949

Next Hearing: Hearing not scheduled

Calendar: Bill currently not on a calendar

HB 968 Modifies the requirements for food stamp eligibility

Sponsor: Nasheed, Jamilah (60) Proposed Effective Date: 08/28/2009

CoSponsor: Oxford, Jeanette Mott (59) ……….etal. LR Number: 1912L.01I

Last Action: 03/06/2009 – Read Second Time (H)

HB968

Next Hearing: Hearing not scheduled

Calendar: Bill currently not on a calendar

First, let’s take a look at the carrot in the form of HB 968:

FIRST REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE BILL NO. 968

95TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES NASHEED (Sponsor), OXFORD, CARTER AND WALTON GRAY (Co-sponsors).

1912L.01I                                                                                                                                                  D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

To amend chapter 208, RSMo, by adding thereto one new section relating to eligibility for food stamps.

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

           Section A. Chapter 208, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 208.247, to read as follows:

           208.247. 1. Pursuant to the option granted the state by 21 U.S.C. Section 862a(d), an individual who has pled guilty to or is found guilty under federal or state law of a felony involving possession or use of a controlled substance shall be exempt from the prohibition contained in 21 U.S.C. Section 862a(a) against eligibility for food stamp program benefits for such convictions, if such person, as determined by the department:

           (1) Is currently successfully participating in a substance abuse treatment program approved by the division of alcohol and drug abuse within the department of mental health;

           (2) Is currently accepted for treatment in and participating in a substance abuse treatment program approved by the division of alcohol and drug abuse, but is subject to a waiting list to receive available treatment, and the individual remains enrolled in the treatment program and enters the treatment program at the first available opportunity;

           (3) Has satisfactorily completed a substance abuse treatment program approved by the division of alcohol and drug abuse;

           (4) Is determined by a division of alcohol and drug abuse certified treatment provider not to need substance abuse treatment; or

           (5) Is successfully complying with, or has already complied with, all obligations imposed by the court, the division of alcohol and drug abuse and the division of probation and parole.

           2. Eligibility based upon the factors in subsection 1 of this section shall be based upon documentary or other evidence satisfactory to the department of social services, and the applicant must meet all other factors for program eligibility.

           3. The department of social services, in consultation with the division of alcohol and drug abuse, shall promulgate rules to carry out the provisions of this section, including specifying criteria for determining active participation in and completion of a substance abuse treatment program.

[emphasis in original]

Okay. Get people in need of help some help without adding roadblocks to them succeeding in fixing their problem(s). Sounds reasonable and humane.

Now let’s look at the stick in HB 949:

FIRST REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE BILL NO. 949

95TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES GATSCHENBERGER (Sponsor), ZERR, COX, KINGERY, RIDDLE, ALLEN, DIECKHAUS, BROWN (149), WILSON (130), PRATT, DAY, BIVINS, DEEKEN, TILLEY, SMITH (14), NIEVES, SCHAD, SMITH (150), FAITH, WETER, LOEHNER, FLOOK, JONES (89), HOSKINS (121), ICET, SCHARNHORST, WOOD, LARGENT, BURLISON, GUERNSEY, BROWN (30), STREAM, SANDER, FLANIGAN, CUNNINGHAM, PARKINSON, ERVIN, HOBBS, FRANZ, NOLTE, McNARY, DUGGER, KOENIG, YATES AND DENISON (Co-sponsors).

2326L.01I                                                                                                                                                  D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

To amend chapter 208, RSMo, by adding thereto one new section relating to illegal drug use of applicants and recipients of temporary assistance for needy families benefits.

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

           Section A. Chapter 208, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 208.027, to read as follows:

           208.027. 1. The department of social services shall develop a program to test applicants or recipients, who are otherwise eligible for temporary assistance for needy families benefits under this chapter, for the use of a controlled substance whenever a case worker of an applicant or recipient believes, based on reasonable suspicion, that such applicant or recipient engages in illegal use of controlled substances. Any applicant or recipient who is found to have tested positive for the use of a controlled substance, which was not prescribed for such applicant or recipient by a licensed health care provider, shall, after an administrative hearing conducted by the department under the provisions of chapter 536, RSMo, be declared ineligible for temporary assistance for needy families benefits for a period of three years from the date of the administrative hearing decision. The department shall refer an applicant or recipient who tested positive for the use of a controlled substance under this section to an appropriate substance abuse treatment program approved by the division of alcohol and drug abuse within the department of mental health.

           2. If a parent is deemed ineligible for temporary assistance for needy families benefits due to the failure of a drug test under this section, his or her dependent child’s eligibility for such benefits shall not be affected and an appropriate protective payee may be established for the benefit of the child. If the parent refuses to cooperate in establishing an appropriate protective payee for the child, the department shall appoint one.

           3. The department of soc
ial services shall promulgate rules to develop the provisions of this section. Any rule or portion of a rule, as that term is defined in section 536.010, RSMo, that is created under the authority delegated in this section shall become effective only if it complies with and is subject to all of the provisions of chapter 536, RSMo, and, if applicable, section 536.028, RSMo. This section and chapter 536, RSMo, are nonseverable and if any of the powers vested with the general assembly pursuant to chapter 536, RSMo, to review, to delay the effective date, or to disapprove and annul a rule are subsequently held unconstitutional, then the grant of rulemaking authority and any rule proposed or adopted after August 28, 2009, shall be invalid and void.

[emphasis in original]

…Any applicant or recipient who is found to have tested positive for the use of a controlled substance, which was not prescribed for such applicant or recipient by a licensed health care provider, shall, after an administrative hearing conducted by the department under the provisions of chapter 536, RSMo, be declared ineligible for temporary assistance for needy families benefits for a period of three years from the date of the administrative hearing decision. …

Three years. This is temporary assistance. People who are in immediate need and have a substance abuse problem could actually use help in the form of substance abuse counseling, finding a job, getting housing, and help putting food on the table. In the long run that will save society a lot of money. Draconian punishments doen’t help solve the problem.

A question for the sponsor and co-sponsors of this bill: Have you ever illegally used a controlled substance? Just asking.

Have you noticed the parties who’ve sponsored or co-sponsored these different bills? Interesting.

Let’s see what the National Institute on Drug Abuse has to say on the subject:

…Drug addiction is a complex but treatable disease. It is characterized by compulsive drug craving, seeking, and use that persist even in the face of severe adverse consequences. For many people, drug abuse becomes chronic, with relapses possible even after long periods of abstinence. In fact, relapse to drug abuse occurs at rates similar to those for other well-characterized, chronic medical illnesses such as diabetes, hypertension, and asthma. As a chronic, recurring illness, addiction may require repeated episodes of treatment before sustained abstinence is achieved. Through treatment tailored to individual needs, people with drug addiction can recover and lead productive lives.

The ultimate goal of drug addiction treatment is to enable an individual to achieve lasting abstinence, but the immediate goals are to reduce drug abuse, improve the patient’s ability to function, and minimize the medical and social complications of drug abuse and addiction. Like people with diabetes or heart disease, people in treatment for drug addiction will also need to change their behavior to adopt a more healthful lifestyle.

In 2006, 23.6 million persons aged 12 or older needed treatment for an illicit drug or alcohol use problem (9.6 percent of the persons aged 12 or older). Of these, 2.5 million (10.8 percent of those who needed treatment) received treatment at a specialty facility. Thus, 21.2 million persons (8.6 percent of the population aged 12 or older) needed treatment for an illicit drug or alcohol use problem but did not receive it. These estimates are similar to the estimates for 2005.*

Untreated substance abuse and addiction add significant costs to families and communities, including those related to violence and property crimes, prison expenses, court and criminal costs, emergency room visits, healthcare utilization, child abuse and neglect, lost child support, foster care and welfare costs, reduced productivity, and unemployment.

The cost to society of illicit drug abuse alone is $181 billion annually.1 When combined with alcohol and tobacco costs, they exceed $500 billion including healthcare, criminal justice, and lost productivity.2,3 Successful drug abuse treatment can help reduce these costs in addition to crime, and the spread of HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, and other infectious diseases. It is estimated that for every dollar spent on addiction treatment programs, there is a $4 to $7 reduction in the cost of drug-related crimes. With some outpatient programs, total savings can exceed costs by a ratio of 12:1…

[emphasis added]

Let’s look at a scientific study, again from NIDA:

…Day Treatment With Abstinence Contingencies and Vouchers was developed to treat homeless crack addicts. For the first 2 months, participants must spend 5.5 hours daily in the program, which provides lunch and transportation to and from shelters. Interventions include individual assessment and goal setting, individual and group counseling, multiple psychoeducational groups (for example, didactic groups on community resources, housing, cocaine, and HIV/AIDS prevention; establishing and reviewing personal rehabilitation goals; relapse prevention; weekend planning), and patient-governed community meetings during which patients review contract goals and provide support and encouragement to each other. Individual counseling occurs once a week, and group therapy sessions are held three times a week. After 2 months of day treatment and at least 2 weeks of abstinence, participants graduate to a 4-month work component that pays wages that can be used to rent inexpensive, drug-free housing. A voucher system also rewards drug-free related social and recreational activities.

This innovative day treatment was compared with treatment consisting of twice-weekly individual counseling and 12-step groups, medical examinations and treatment, and referral to community resources for housing and vocational services. Innovative day treatment followed by work and housing dependent upon drug abstinence had a more positive effect on alcohol use, cocaine use, and days homeless.

References:

Milby, J.B.; Schumacher, J.E.; Raczynski, J.M.; Caldwell, E.; Engle, M.; Michael, M.; and Carr, J. Sufficient conditions for effective treatment of substance abusing homeless. Drug & Alcohol Dependence 43: 39-47, 1996.

Milby, J.B.; Schumacher, J.E.; McNamara, C.; Wallace, D.; McGill, T.; Stange, D.; and Michael, M. Abstinence contingent housing enhances day treatment for homeless cocaine abusers. National Institute on Drug Abuse Research Monograph Series 174, Problems of Drug Dependence: Proceedings of the 58th Annual Scientific Meeting. The College on Problems of Drug Dependence, Inc., 1996.

[emphasis added]

Ah, the difference is that there needs to be a comprehensive approach. You think? It would appear that one shouldn’t punitively cut someone off from help before they get into treatment.

Well, well, well…

HB 887 Designates the mastodon as the official state prehistoric mammal

Sponsor: Gatschenberger, Chuck (13) Proposed Effective Date: 08/28/2009

CoSponsor: LR Number: 2165L.01I

Last Action: 02/26/2009 – Introduced and Read First Time (H)

HB887

Next Hearing: Hearing not scheduled

Calendar: Bill currently not on a calendar

Silly, everyone knows that this singular honor is only truly deserved by the Missouri republican party.

Speaking of prehistoric habits. Let’s see, any bill with “predictable” and “tax” in the title has got to be sponsored by a republican:

HB 888 Establishes the Predictable Property Tax Act

Sponsor: Nieves, Brian D. (98) Proposed Effective Date: 08/28/2009

CoSponsor: Ruestman, Marilyn (131) ……….etal. LR Number: 1771L.01I

Last Action: 02/26/2009 – Introduced and Read First Time (H)

HB888

Next Hearing: Hearing not scheduled

Calendar: Bill currently not on a calendar

Yep.

So much for local control, eh?

HB 875 Prohibits political subdivisions from restricting the open carrying of firearms and requires them to incorporate the justifiable use of force defenses into local ordinances regarding weapon offenses

Sponsor: Largent, Scott (120) Proposed Effective Date: 08/28/2009

CoSponsor: Leara, Mike (95) ……….etal. LR Number: 2059L.01I

Last Action: 02/25/2009 – Introduced and Read First Time (H)

HB875

Next Hearing: Hearing not scheduled

House Calendar HOUSE BILLS FOR SECOND READING

Uh, if state law allows a “justifiable use of force defense” then isn’t that the law in the State of Missouri by definition? Just asking.

Let’s be redundant and say the same thing over and over again repeatedly several times a lot.

The details:

[section in brackets to be deleted][section in bold to be added]

FIRST REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE BILL NO. 875

95TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES LARGENT (Sponsor), LEARA, MUNZLINGER, WILSON (130), FLANIGAN, BURLISON, GUERNSEY AND RIDDLE (Co-sponsors).

2059L.01I                                                                                                                                                  D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

To repeal section 21.750, RSMo, and to enact in lieu thereof one new section relating to firearms.

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

           Section A. Section 21.750, RSMo, is repealed and one new section enacted in lieu thereof, to be known as section 21.750, to read as follows:

           21.750. 1. The general assembly hereby occupies and preempts the entire field of legislation touching in any way firearms, components, ammunition and supplies to the complete exclusion of any order, ordinance or regulation by any political subdivision of this state. Any existing or future orders, ordinances or regulations in this field are hereby and shall be null and void except as provided in subsection 3 of this section.

           2. No county, city, town, village, municipality, or other political subdivision of this state shall adopt any order, ordinance or regulation concerning in any way the sale, purchase, purchase delay, transfer, ownership, use, keeping, possession, bearing, transportation, licensing, permit, registration, taxation other than sales and compensating use taxes or other controls on firearms, components, ammunition, and supplies except as provided in subsection 3 of this section.

           3. Nothing contained in this section shall prohibit any ordinance of any political subdivision which conforms exactly with any of the provisions of sections 571.010 to 571.070, RSMo, with appropriate penalty provisions, [or which regulates the open carrying of firearms readily capable of lethal use] or the discharge of firearms within a jurisdiction, provided such ordinance complies with the provisions of section 252.243, RSMo, and incorporates the justification defenses found in chapter 563, RSMo.

           4. The lawful design, marketing, manufacture, distribution, or sale of firearms or ammunition to the public is not an abnormally dangerous activity and does not constitute a public or private nuisance.

           5. No county, city, town, village or any other political subdivision nor the state shall bring suit or have any right to recover against any firearms or ammunition manufacturer, trade association or dealer for damages, abatement or injunctive relief resulting from or relating to the lawful design, manufacture, marketing, distribution, or sale of firearms or ammunition to the public. This subsection shall apply to any suit pending as of October 12, 2003, as well as any suit which may be brought in the future. Provided, however, that nothing in this section shall restrict the rights of individual citizens to recover for injury or death caused by the negligent or defective design or manufacture of firearms or ammunition.

           6. Nothing in this section shall prevent the state, a county, city, town, village or any other political subdivision from bringing an action against a firearms or ammunition manufacturer or dealer for breach of contract or warranty as to firearms or ammunition purchased by the state or such political subdivision.

You know the 120th Legislative District could have had Kristi Kenney as a representative but the republican party spent an ungodly amount of money and instead they got Scott Largent. What a waste.

And is this a solution in search of a problem?:

HB 873 Provides that homeschooled students shall be treated the same as non-homeschooled students for financial aid purposes

Sponsor: Schaaf, Robert (28) Proposed Effective Date: 08/28/2009

CoSponsor: LR Number: 2028L.01I

Last Action: 02/25/2009 – Introduced and Read First Time (H)

HB873

Next Hearing: Hearing not scheduled

House Calendar HOUSE BILLS FOR SECOND READING

FIRST REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE BILL NO. 873

95TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVE SCHAAF.

2028L.01I                                                                                                                                                  D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

To amend chapter 173, RSMo, by adding thereto one new section relating to student financial aid.

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

           Section A. Chapter 173, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 173.1160, to read as follows:

           173.1160. Students who have completed a secondary school education in a home school setting that is treated as a home school or private school under state law shall receive the same consideration as nonhomeschooled students for purposes of financial aid, and no rule or prerequisite for such aid shall be conditioned so as to disadvantage homeschooled students.

This particular discussion is actually only about one bill. But it’s a doozy:

HB 814 Establishes the Fair Tax Act of 2009, replacing the state income tax with a state sales tax

Sponsor: Emery, Edgar G. H. (126) Proposed Effective Date: 08/28/2009

CoSponsor: Nieves, Brian D. (98) ……….etal. LR Number: 0893L.01I

Last Action: 02/19/2009 – Read Second Time (H)

HB814

Next Hearing: Hearing not scheduled

House Calendar HOUSE BILLS FOR SECOND READING

Okay. Here’s a short lesson in tax policy. One of the reasons we have progressive taxes (like, for instance, an income tax) in which the upper margins of income (not the lower) are taxed at a higher rate is because those upper margins of income are made possible by and the result of the investment of infrastructure by our civilized society. Regressive taxes are bad because if you tax everyone at the same rate (like a sales tax on food and other consumable commodities like gasoline) the poor pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes because those consumable commodities are a higher percentage of their expenditures in the process of even freakin’ staying alive.

The first clue that this is about right wingnut insanity is the title. Any bill that has the words “Fair” and “Tax” in the title is really about cutting taxes for corporations and wealthy people and has nothing at all to do with fairness for anyone else. An extra added bonus would be the a mention of unearned income like inheritance somewhere in the bill. Let’s see:

FIRST REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE BILL NO. 814

95TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES EMERY (Sponsor), NIEVES, SCHAAF, BIVINS, RUESTMAN, JONES (89), PARKINSON, SCHAD, BURLISON, KOENIG, WILSON (119), FISHER (125), FLANIGAN, DETHROW, DAVIS, SMITH (14), ALLEN, KRAUS, RUZICKA, STEVENSON, GUEST, ICET, KELLY, MUNZLINGER, McNARY, SCHOELLER, COOPER, WASSON, PARSON, WELLS, MEINERS AND BRUNS (Co-sponsors).

0893L.01I                                                                                                                                                  D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

To amend chapter 144, RSMo, by adding thereto one new section relating to the Fair Tax Act of 2009, with a referendum clause.

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

           Section A. Chapter 144, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 144.001, to read as follows:

           144.001. 1. This section shall be known and may be cited as the “Fair Tax Act of 2009”.

           2. For all taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2011, 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 all use or consumption of taxable property or services in this state. The rate of such tax shall be five and eleven one-hundredths percent. The general assembly may enact one adjustment 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 this section. Such adjustment shall be calculated to ensure that the amount of revenue received is equal to the amount of revenue lost under this section.

           3. The taxes that shall be replaced under this section are as follows:

           (1) Withholding taxes and individual and corporate income taxation;

           (2) Corporation franchise and bank franchise taxes;

           (3) All tax exemptions and deductions related to income and sales taxes;

           (4) The estate tax;

           (5) All other state taxes on any source of income.

           4. The department of revenue shall determine a method for providing a monthly sales tax rebate for each qualified family. The sales tax rebate shall be distributed to each qualified family on or before the first business day of the month for which the sales tax rebate is being provided. The amount of the sales tax rebate shall be determined annually and 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 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under the authority of 42 U.S.C. 9902(2), as amended.

           5. The department of revenue shall promulgate rules to implement the provisions of this section. Any rule or portion of a rule, as that term is defined in section 536.010, RSMo, that is created under the authority delegated in this section shall become effective only if it complies with and is subject to all of the provisions of chapter 536, RSMo, and, if applicable, section 536.028, RSMo. This section and chapter 536, RSMo, are nonseverable and if any of the powers vested with the general assembly under chapter 536, RSMo, to review, to delay the effective date, or to disapprove and annul a rule are subsequently held unconstitutional, then the grant of rulemaking authority and any rule proposed or adopted after August 28, 2009, shall be invalid and void.

           Section B. Section A of this act is hereby submitted to the qualified voters of this state for approval or rejection at an election which is hereby ordered and which shall be held and conducted on the Tuesday immediately following the first Monday in November, 2009, or at a special election to be called by the governor for that purpose, pursuant to the laws and constitutional provisions of this state applicable to general elections and the submission of referendum measures by initiative petition, and it shall become effective when approved by a majority of the votes cast thereon at such election and not otherwise.

           Section C. The official ballot title for section A of this act submitted under section B of this act shall read as follows:

           “Shall Missouri Statutes be amended to eliminate individual and corporate income tax and estate tax, and to enact a single, revenue-neutral sales tax of five and eleven one-hundredths percent on new purchases of goods and services, and to exempt property purchased for business or investment from the sales tax, and to provide each family with a monthly sales tax rebate?”.

[emphasis added]

Yep, that estate tax would be out. It’s the republican way – protect “earned income” from the tax collector.

HB 805 Establishes the Professional Relationships Between Teachers and School Districts Act

Sponsor: Wilson, Kevin (130) Proposed Effective Date: 08/28/2009

CoSponsor: Jones, Timothy W. (89) ……….etal. LR Number: 1867L.01I

Last Action: 02/18/2009 – Introduced and Read First Time (H)

HB805

Next Hearing: Hearing not scheduled

Calendar: Bill currently not on a calendar

There’s no text available yet. Let’s see, it’s offered by a republican and “Establishes the Professional Relationships Between Teachers and School Districts…” Okay, that would probably be serf and lord of the manor, without a union…

HB 806 Doubles the fines for moving violations occurring while a driver of a vehicle is using a wireless communications device

Sponsor: Wilson, Kevin (130) Proposed Effective Date: 08/28/2009

CoSponsor: Wallace, Maynard (143) ……….etal. LR Number: 1484L.01I

Last Action: 02/18/2009 – Introduced and Read First Time (H)

HB806

Next Hearing: Hearing not scheduled

Calendar: Bill currently not on a calendar

If this passes I just know someone will try to hard wire their cell phone to get around it.

HB 807 Designates the Missouri River as the official waterway of the State of Missouri

Sponsor: Wilson, Kevin (130) Proposed Effective Date: 08/28/2009

CoSponsor: Wallace, Maynard (143) ……….etal. LR Number: 0333L.01I

Last Action: 02/18/2009 – Introduced and Read First Time (H)

HB807

Next Hearing: Hearing not scheduled

Calendar: Bill currently not on a calendar

Damn. I had the Gulf of Sidra in the Show Me Progress corporate headquarters betting pool…

No more robocalls?

HB 715 Prohibits using automatic dialing announcing devices in certain situations

Sponsor: Bringer, Rachel (6) Proposed Effective Date: 08/28/2009

CoSponsor: LR Number: 1806L.02I

Last Action: 02/12/2009 – Introduced and Read First Time (H)

HB715

Next Hearing: Hearing not scheduled

House Calendar HOUSE BILLS FOR SECOND READING

It’d be ironic if Lieutenant Governor Peter Kinder (r – fear mongering) were to cast the deciding vote against this bill if it made it to the Senate.

Let’s look at the details:

FIRST REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE BILL NO. 715

95TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVE BRINGER.

1806L.02I                                                                                                                                                  D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

To repeal section 407.1095, RSMo, and to enact in lieu thereof two new sections relating to the telemarketing no-call list.

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

           Section A. Section 407.1095, RSMo, is repealed and two new sections enacted in lieu thereof, to be known as sections 407.1095 and 407.1100, to read as follows:

           407.1095. As used in sections 407.1095 to [407.1110] 407.1107, the following words and phrases mean:

           (1) “Automatic dialing announcing device” or “ADAD”, a device or system of devices which is used, whether alone or in conjunction with other equipment, for the purposes of automatically selecting or dialing telephone numbers and disseminating prerecorded or synthesized voice messages to the numbers selected or dialed;

           (2) “Caller”, a person, corporation, firm, partnership, association, or legal or commercial entity who contacts or attempts to contact a subscriber in this state by using a telephone or telephone line;

           (3) “Caller identification service”, a type of telephone service which permits telephone subscribers to see the telephone number of incoming telephone calls;

           (4) “Message”, any call regardless of its content;

           [(2)] (5) “Residential subscriber”, a person who has subscribed to residential telephone service from a local exchange company or the other persons living or residing with such person;

           [(3)] (6) “Telephone solicitation”, any voice communication over a telephone line from a live operator, through the use of ADAD equipment or by other means for the purpose of encouraging the purchase or rental of, or investment in, property, goods or services, but does not include communications:

           (a) To any residential subscriber with that subscriber’s prior express invitation or permission;

           (b) By or on behalf of any person or entity with whom a residential subscriber has had a business contact within the past one hundred eighty days or a current business or personal relationship;

           (c) By or on behalf of an entity organized pursuant to Chapter 501(c)(3) of the United States Internal Revenue Code, while such entity is engaged in fund-raising to support the charitable purpose for which the entity was established provided that a bona fide member of such exempt organization makes the voice communication;

           (d) By or on behalf of any entity over which a federal agency has regulatory authority to the extent that:

           a. Subject to such authority, the entity is required to maintain a license, permit or certificate to sell or provide the merchandise being offered through telemarketing; and

           b. The entity is required by law or rule to develop and maintain a no-call list;

           (e) By a natural person responding to a referral, or working from his or her primary residence, or a person licensed by the state of Missouri to carry out a trade, occupation or profession who is setting or attempting to set an appointment for actions relating to that licensed trade, occupation or profession within the state or counties contiguous to the state.

           407.1100 1. A caller shall not use an automatic dialing announcing device in making any telephone call to a residential subscriber who has provided notice to the attorney general of such subscriber’s objection to receiving telephone solicitations unless the subscriber has knowingly or voluntarily requested, consented to, permitted, or authorized receipt of the message.

           2. A caller shall not use an automatic dialing announcing device unless the device is designed and operated to disconnect within ten seconds after the subscriber terminates the telephone call.

           3. The provisions of this section shall not apply to:

           (1) Telephone calls from school districts to students, parents, or employees;

           (2) Telephone calls to subscribers with whom the caller has had a business contact within the past one hundred eighty days or a current business or personal relationship; or

           (3) Telephone calls advising employees of work schedules.

We could all sign up for the “no call” list and not get any more robocalls from Peter Kinder’s friends? My goodness, what would we do for content around here during an election year if this came to pass?

It appears that some republicans in the General Assembly don’t like the work that Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan has been doing on ballot statements.

HB 695 Establishes a Joint Committee on Ballot Statements

Sponsor: Davis, Cynthia L. (19) Proposed Effective Date: 08/28/2009

CoSponsor: Scharnhorst, Dwight (93) ……….etal. LR Number: 0912L.03I

Last Action: 02/12/2009 – Introduced and Read First Time (H)

HB695

Next Hearing: Hearing not scheduled

House Calendar HOUSE BILLS FOR SECOND READING

Let’s encourage even more partisan ballot initiative wrangling here in Missouri since we’d all like to be just like California, eh?

Here’s a solution in search of a problem:

HB 696 Requires Missouri driver’s examinations to be administered in English

Sponsor: Davis, Cynthia L. (19) Proposed Effective Date: 08/28/2009

CoSponsor: Nolte, Jerry (33) ……….etal. LR Number: 1734L.01I

Last Action: 02/12/2009 – Introduced and Read First Time (H)

HB696

Next Hearing: Hearing not scheduled

Calendar: Bill currently not on a calendar

I wasn’t aware of the fact that the colors on traffic signals were only understandable in
English.

“…Examinations conducted under the authority of this section shall only be administered in the English language so that the applicant can demonstrate his or her ability to read the English language sufficiently to understand highway traffic signs and safety warnings. The director shall neither supply nor permit the use of language interpreters in connection with the written and driving tests required under this section….”

Uh, that’s why most civilized countries in the world, you know, employ recognizable graphic designs in their signs.

So, is the next logical step to have licensed drivers from other countries pass an English proficiency test before they’re allowed to drive here? I mean, you know, it could be a safety issue as this legislation has noted…