Previously:

Opening of the 2014 legislative session – photos (January 8, 2014)

House Democratic Caucus press conference – Jefferson City – January 8, 2014 (January 8, 2014)

House Democratic Caucus press conference – Q and A – Jefferson City – January 8, 2014 (January 9, 2014)

House Republican Caucus press conference – Jefferson City – January 8, 2014 (January 10, 2014)

“…Putting a billion dollar band-aid on a broken system does not improve health care outcomes. And, in fact, uh, two major pieces of information came out this week  – the State of Delaware, uh, did a Medicaid expansion, completed Medicaid expansion last year. They were handed a bill this year, uh, at the very beginning of this year that said they had to come up with an initial twenty-five million dollars. Secondarily, there was a major study that came out of Oregon that said that Medicaid expansion does not pro vue, not improve access to health care or health care costs and actually visits to the E R have increased. So, before we just dump money into the same old, uh, broken system let’s look at reforming it and making it better so more Missourians could benefit…”

Here’s what the Oregon Medicaid study really said

By Ezra Klein

May 2, 2013 at 3:11 pm

….The initial batch of results was released in August 2012. The data covered the first year of the Medicaid expansion and found that the folks on Medicaid were getting more care, reporting better health (both physical and mental), and seeing fewer financial problems than the people who weren’t on Medicaid.

The second set of results was released Wednesday. The data now covers two years and, importantly, includes clinical measures of health rather than relying on the reports of the study participants. These results are more mixed, but also more telling.

Here’s what we can say with certainty: Medicaid works as health insurance….

[….]

….There’s voluminous evidence that managing diabetes and treating depression and being able to go to the doctor improves health. You have to be willing to throw quite a lot of existing theory and evidence out the window to believe that stuff won’t pay off down the road….

Medicaid calculation change could cost Delaware $25 million

Jan. 2, 2014

[….]

“….There’s nothing wrong with what the federal government did,” Landgraf said. “It’s just that it was terribly unfair that they gave us preliminary numbers that we’re basing our budgets on and all of a sudden there’s a dramatic shift in that number.”

Medicaid, which is jointly funded by the state and federal governments, provides health insurance for the poor and disabled. More than 215,000 are enrolled in Delaware, a number that’s growing due to a slow and imbalanced economic recovery….

….By 2020, the federal government will pay 90 percent of the health care costs for new beneficiaries and higher reimbursements for about 40,000 adults making up to 100 percent of the poverty level already receiving Medicaid. Stephen Groff, director of the state’s Medicaid program, said the calculations indicate that the expansion under Obamacare will still financially benefit the state in the long run….

[….]

On Wednesday afternoon the House Republican Caucus held a press conference in the House Lounge after the opening of the legislative session in Jefferson City. Speaker Timothy Jones (r) took questions from the media after his prepared remarks.

Speaker Timothy Jones (r) taking questions from the media at a press conference

in the House Lounge after the end of the first day of session on January 8, 2014.

This is the first half of the question and answer session.

The video:

The transcript:

Speaker Timothy Jones (r): I have many of my caucus members here who can get more specific on some of these issues if you’d like to speak to any of them or address your questions to them. Uh, in addition, uh, the issue that will, of course, be here at the beginning of session, all the way through and at the end, the budget, our House Budget chairman, Rick Stream, is here to answer those questions. So, happy to take any questions.

Question: Mister Speaker your, your, your comments on the speech on, on school choice, does that mean that [inaudible] here is essentially dead in the House?

Speaker Timothy Jones (r): Uh, I’m not sure, I’m not sure I understand the question, premise of the question.

Question: You’re, are you saying that, that you opposed to giving school districts in St. Louis County and Kansas City area the right to refuse kids transferred out of unaccredited schools [inaudible]?

Speaker Timothy Jones (r): As I’ve said, uh, I am hopeful that all students continue to have the option for a good education. You know, I think we need to remember where this law came from. Uh, this law was passed with great foresight by a Democratically controlled General Assembly many, many years ago, and I believe, signed into law by a Democratic governor. I applaud their foresight. They, they, this was, this was an option that, that folks hoped would never happen , but in the case, if we had failing schools with, with no, with no end in sight for the status quo that this law would take effect. And I would say that it is a large bipartisan coalition that is very excited that for the first time in nearly forty years kids have an opportunity to escape the failing districts that they have, that they have been consigned to because of their zip codes. So, I’m willing to consider, uh, any legislation that will allow school districts to operate in a better efficient manner and to help them, uh, deal with the new, with the new law that’s been affirmed by our Supreme Court. But I want to make sure we protect the students’ choice, the students’ opportunities to finally have the opportunity for good education.

Question: What, what do you say to those school districts in St. Louis County that have been arguing [inaudible] that they don’t have adequate resources, facilities, and enough teachers to handle the potential numbers that’d be coming in from Normandy School District?

Speaker Timothy Jones (r): You know, it’s interesting that you bring up that question. I actually was speaking with uh, former, uh, well, I, I actually don’t know his current status, but the superintendent of the Ferguson Florisant School District, Dr. Art McCoy. And I, I had a meeting about a month or two ago and he said we have the capacity, and any superintendent who wants to try and serve these children can absolutely do so. I know that shortly after Dr. McCoy accepting new students into his district he was, he was placed on some form of, uh, of, of leave. And I don’t know what his current status is. So, it seems that the education establishment continues to want t punish those who want to change the status quo and not work with us to change these districts that have been failing for so long. So, I, I would, I would take the words of Dr. McCoy to heart. I think if, eh, if, uh, if, if a school district wants to help the children in these failing districts they can do so. And I’ve spoken to many superintendents who have said, we just need some parameters, we need some tweaking, but, uh, I think to, to completely end the opportunity for choice is huge mistake for kids of our state.

Question: Is making some changes to the transfer law a priority for you this session?

Speaker Timothy Jones (r): You know, I will be happy to, to, uh, you know, education is a priority for me. Helping kids succeed is a priority for me and I think it’s a priority for our caucus. So I will be happy to consider, uh, any piece of legislation that will assist in that regard.

Question: Is it broadening choice? Is that still on your agenda? Because right now you talk about choice, but it’s only for students that are in the failing districts. Are you gonna push again for something, tax credits , vouchers, however you want to put it, to, to broaden out that choice?

Speaker Timothy Jones (r): You know, I, I won’t be filing any particular legislation in that regard but I’ll, I’ll wait to see what my caucus members file and what people want us to move forward on.

Question: Do you think the current law. If no changes are made, can work as it is now? Or do you see this as a law that needs some clarification to it?

Speaker Timothy Jones (r): Well, this law has been in effect for several months now and the world has not come to an end in the world of public education. As I said, I think if superintendents and, and local school leaders want to make this law work I think they can. If they feel they need some assistance from the legislature I invite them to come up with a proposal, uh, uh, to, to make it better.

Question: And are you concerned at all there’s those urban districts that are saying that they could go bankrupt if nothing’s done to fix this transfer situation?

Speaker Timothy Jones (r): They have gone bankrupt or they could go [crosstalk], they could go bankrupt?

Question: They could go bankrupt.

Speaker Timothy Jones (r): Well, I think we’ll have to wait and time, time, time will see exactly what changes we need to make. As I said, I’m more than happy to consider, uh, any proposals that are put before us to make sure that kids are the number one priority here.

Question: Income tax cuts, uh, how are they going to be different than last year?

Speaker Timothy Jones (r): Well, I know those bills, uh, have been drafted and will, and will soon be filed. I, I think there’s going to be, uh, probably some bills that are filed that may be very similar to the ones last year. I think you’re also gonna see some new proposals that focus on families, uh, middle, middle income families, uh, on small businesses. So I think you’re gonna, because, because we don’t know if the Governor is interested in providing tax relief for any Missourian I think you’re gonna see a number of options being put on the table. So the Governor can pick and choose, uh, as to whether he wants to provide tax relief for anyone.

Question: Have you talked with the Governor about this?

Speaker Timothy Jones (r): Uh, he, he, uh, he and I have not spoken on this subject.

Question: Do you plan to?

Speaker Timothy Jones (r): Uh, my door is open to the Governor, uh, any day, any time. I’m, I’m actually free this afternoon if he’d like to stop by and talk about tax relief.

Question: Subject of education funding, the Governor and the House Democrats have both called for more funding for the foundation formula. I believe you’ve used the term, appropriate funding for public education. What do you consider appropriate?

Speaker Timothy Jones (r): Well, you know, the House has always been committed to more funding for education. Every single year I’ve been here the Missouri House, uh, has, has appropriated more money for education, except during the, the incredibly difficult budget years where we had to cut nearly a billion dollars out of the budget. And then we held education harmless. So, that’s been a priority for us. The Governor has been the one that’s used the most severe budget axe on the education system. He has time and again cut millions of dollars out of higher education. He’s withheld transportation dollars from K through twelve. Uh, you know, the, the Governor has used our education dollars and our budget in general, uh, to, to whatever his whims may be. Uh, I, I, I know you’re gonna see some significant legislation this year to prevent the Governor from using the budget, uh, as his own personal slush fund, to follow the constitution and to follow the appropriations, uh, as he signs in the bills that the General Assembly passes. So, last year the Missouri House, I believe, appropriated more money in a single year than ever before to K through twelve education. We’ll continue to make that priority again.

Speaker Timothy Jones (r).

Question: Mister Speaker [crosstalk].

Question: Will you expect any leadership support for any type of, say, alternate Medicaid proposal that would include both reforms and somewhat of an, of an increase or expansion of the, basically, what Representative Barnes has been working on?

Speaker Timothy Jones (r): You know, the Missouri House had several bills last year that, that moved, uh, moved forward, um, and involved transforming Medicare, uh, Medicaid and reforming Medicaid. Uh, there’s also been some stand alone reform bills. Uh, as we saw last year the Missouri Senate, um, was simply not interested in the topic. And we need a partner in this if we’re gonna move forward, uh, in, in actually getting the issue across the finish line. In the mean time I’m, I will be more than happy to move legislation forward, uh, along the same lines that we did last year, transforming Medicaid, making it better. We have a broken system. Putting a billion dollar band-aid on a broken system does not improve health care outcomes. And, in fact, uh, two major pieces of information came out this week  – the State of Delaware, uh, did a Medicaid expansion, completed Medicaid expansion last year. They were handed a bill this year, uh, at the very beginning of this year that said they had to come up with an initial twenty-five million dollars. Secondarily, there was a major study that came out of Oregon that said that Medicaid expansion does not pro vue, not improve access to health care or health care costs and actually visits to the E R have increased. So, before we just dump money into the same old, uh, broken system let’s look at reforming it and making it better so more Missourians could benefit.

Previously:

Opening of the 2014 legislative session – photos (January 8, 2014)

House Democratic Caucus press conference – Jefferson City – January 8, 2014 (January 8, 2014)

House Democratic Caucus press conference – Q and A – Jefferson City – January 8, 2014 (January 9, 2014)

“…We have never before seen a federal government, uh, act in such a way to infringe upon our rights and liberties, upon our privacy, uh, con, big, big data, big government are walking hand in hand to try to do all they can to insert themselves into our daily lives like I’ve never seen before in my lifetime…

Volume 5: The National Security Agency and Fourth amendment Rights [Church Committee]

[NSA][July 1, 1969][….]

MINARET specifically includes communications [co]ncerning individuals or organizations involved in civil disturbances, anti-war movements/demonstrations and [mi]litary deserters involved in anti-war movements.

[….]

Book II: Intelligence Activities and the Rights of Americans [Church Committee] [April 26, 1976]

[….]

Intelligence agencies have collected vast amounts of information about the intimate details of citizens’ lives and about their participation in legal and peaceful political activities. The targets of intelligence activity have included political adherents of the right and the left, ranging from activists to casual supporters. Investigations have been directed against proponents of racial causes and women’s rights, outspoken apostles of nonviolence and racial harmony; establishment politicians; religious groups; and advocates of new life styles. The widespread targeting of citizens and domestic groups, and the excessive scope of the collection of information, is illustrated by the following examples:

(a) The “Women’s Liberation Movement” was infiltrated by informants who collected material about the movement’s policies, leaders, and individual members….

[…]

Some of us are older than others.

On Wednesday afternoon the House Republican Caucus held a press conference in the House Lounge after the opening of the legislative session in Jefferson City. Speaker Timothy Jones (r) addressed prepared remarks to the assembled media and onlookers.

Speaker Timothy Jones (r) (center, at the microphone) and a substantial portion of the House Republican Caucus

in the House Lounge after the end of the first day of session on January 8, 2014.

The video:

The transcript.

Speaker Timothy Jones  (r):  Good afternoon everyone. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Thank you all for being here. I want to thank all the members of my caucus, uh, for attending as well.  Uh, well, welcome to the first day of another legislative session here in the Missouri House. And, as you heard, um, I intend our agenda this year to focus on four major policy areas – growth and opportunity for all Missourians, guaranteeing access to a great education, generating affordable and abundant energy, and guarding and protecting Missouri values that so many Missourians, uh, regardless of political party, hold dear.

Uh, providing growth and opportunity for Missourians means we’ll con, we’ll continue to consider any policy, any positive legislative change that will give our citizens, our workers, our employers the opportunity for new jobs. That, that is, that is our job number one – creating that business climate here in Missouri so jobs, business owners want to come here.  Removing barriers, uh, reducing, reducing the role of government in our lives, that as we saw last year, tends to just make economic climates worse across our country. Uh, we’re gonna create a business friendly and job creating environment here with a lower tax burden, reduced regulatory burdens, and ending costly, frivolous litigation.

Uh, our, our priorities are gonna be in tax relief. Missourians need and want lower taxes. We’ve heard that time and time again in all of our districts across the state. Why is that true? Because many Missourians see our bordering states doing exactly that – reducing tax burdens on their citizens, on their family farmers, on their small, uh, small and medium sized businesses. And they’re seeing positive economic growth. I mean, this, these are, these are not politics, these are policy changes. And the states around us that have reduced tax burdens have seen explosive growths, uh, in their budgets, in their revenues, in the jobs they’ve created, in the wages for their workers. And that simply means that we will then have more opportunity to, to increase funding for education and for our, our health care system for those in our Medicaid system.

Uh, Missourians also want us to engage in significant tax credit reform, like the Missouri House did last year, hoping that our colleagues in the Senate take another, uh, good look at what was a very positive step in that direction, uh, ending the Governor’s practice of picking winners and losers through centralized planning. Missourians want tax breaks for all, not just a few chosen few.

Medical malpractice reform. You know, I, as I’ve toured the state I, I’ve heard this time and time again from the health care providers, uh, along the bordering areas, between our states and states like Oklahoma, uh, and Kansas, and Arkansas. We are bleeding jobs in our health care industry because other states are now more welcoming to our health care providers. And that means our patients are being put at risk as well. As, as more and more dollars are spent on legal defense funds and less and less on access to care and, uh, research and development, uh, our entire health care industry, uh, is at serious, serious risk. The State of Kansas upheld nearly the identical law that our Supreme Court, uh, threw out a couple years ago. And if you want to know how we can have reasonable medical malpractice caps here in our state, why those are constitutional, why those are appropriate I would urge everyone to go back and dust of Judge Mary Russell’s dissent and read that. The argument is made there.

Uh, worker freedom. Twenty-four states, nearly half the country have now empowered their workers over old entrenched union bosses and given workers the ultimate freedom to make their own choices. In this day and age I don’t understand why workers can, why, why we can’t trust workers with that choice. They should have that freedom. Why? Because again, many of our bordering states have implemented or have those policies. They’re seeing explosive growth in their economies. The top three things that job creators look at when they are looking, uh, at all the options available to them across the country are a state’s tax policy, regulatory policy, and that’s where your, your labor laws fall, and litigation policy. If you’re not competitive in those three areas they pass you by.

Education reform. We must continue to work towards a public education system that provides an excellent education for all. There is no reason why, uh, we should have some of the best performing schools in the nation and at the same time, a few miles away from some of these highest performing schools, have some of the, the worst schools in the country that have been failing for forty years. The status quo is not what we should continue to want to pursue. We should want to pursue change, positive change so every student, whether they’re in an urban area, suburban area, or a rural area has access to a great quality education. Funding is definitely part of the equation, but you have to have accountability, you have to have choice in order to obtain success.

Uh, generating affordable energy. Our infrastructure is aging. We need to look at investing in an aging infrastructure if we’re gonna continue to enjoy some of the lowest utility rates, uh, in the country. This is a bipartisan issue that I’m looking forward to working on with my colleagues across the aisle to make, to guarantee that the consumers, uh, in our state continue to have abundant affordable energy, but that that energy is available, uh, in the decades to come.

And finally, uh, another issue that has enjoyed great bipartisan support, and that’s guarding and protecting Missouri values. We have never before seen a federal government, uh, act in such a way to infringe upon our rights and liberties, upon our privacy, uh, con, big, big data, big government are walking hand in hand to try to do all they can to insert themselves into our daily lives like I’ve never seen before in my lifetime. And the Missouri House stood up against this type of big government intrusion, successfully last year on, on several accounts. We exposed Governor Nixon’s Department of Revenue for their unlawful practices. We held the Department of Social services accountable and continue to do so, in their closure of records relating to child abuse cases. Uh, we, we also exposed, uh, the Department of Social Services’ attempt to permanently move people to the entitlement state and off of temporary assistance.

You know, Missourians want a hand up, not a hand out. Missourians want to work. We’ve always been an industrious state. And if you go back and, and, and look, uh, in our nation’s history, this is a bipartisan issue. Uh, both John F. Kennedy and Robert F. Kennedy spoke about the value of work, of getting people off, eventually, of that public subsist, subsistence and moving them into the work force. And if we can just implement, uh, smart policies in these areas we will create the opportunity for all Missourians to share in prosperity for all.

So I’ve outlined, uh, the agenda. Uh, it’s gonna be a very vigorous year. It’s gonna be, uh, I, I believe, a positive year for Missouri. Uh, we’re gonna, we’re, we’re gonna be getting to work, uh, nearly immediately and right away.

Speaker Timothy Jones (r).

The second regular session of the 97th General Assembly commenced at noon today in Jefferson City.

Architectural detail in the Missouri capitol building.

Expectations for any legislative accomplishment or any significant bipartisan agreement during this session have already been low.

Representative Chris Kelly (D) – the first member on the floor before the start of the session.

Speaker Timothy Jones (r) partisan remarks to the House pretty much insured that there’s not going to be any progress on legislation on a number of issues. Medicaid anyone?  

Speaker Timothy Jones (r) addressing the House.

State Auditor Tom Schweich (r) watches the proceedings in the House from a side gallery.

Representative Jill Schupp (D).

Rep. Vicki Englund (D).

Representative Chris Kelly (D).

“The welfare of the people shall be the supreme law” – noble sentiment, rarely accomplished.

And definitely not in this session of the General Assembly.

The mood throughout the day could only be described as subdued.

A detail from the Thomas Hart Benton painting in the House Lounge.

I’ve got news for you – as long as there are billionaires willing to pay for the debate…

Speaker calls for debate on Right to Work legislation

Jones maps out priorities on eve of legislative session

Jan. 3, 2014

Republican Missouri House Speaker Tim Jones offered a full-throated case for Right to Work legislation Thursday night, placing the policy front and center in his agenda for the new year….

And from the working peoples’ side, along U.S. Highway 50 in west central Missouri:

Paid for by Committee to Protect MO Families Martin Walter, Treasurer.

“….If the General Assembly did not intend that taxpayers should get any benefit from the backward-looking change, why include the language? Courts are loathe to render statutory meaningless….to say the tax tables….apply only prospectively robs the phrase ‘or before’ of any meaning….”

Well, the Speaker did ask. Attorney General Chris Koster’s (D) letter [pdf] in reply:

Attorney General of Missouri

August 29, 2013

The Honorable Timothy W. Jones

Speaker, Missouri House of representatives

State Capitol, Room 308A

201 West Capitol Avenue

Jefferson City, Missouri 65101-6806

Dear Speaker Jones,

You ask whether the changes in Senate Substitute for House Bill 253 (2013) – vetoed by the Governor – “applied retroactively,” and therefore would enable taxpayers to “seek refunds of taxes previously paid for up to three prior tax years.”

In the opinion of this Office, the plain language of the new legislation suggests that, if certain triggering events set forth in the statute occur, taxpayers may seek refunds of taxes paid in the three preceding tax years.

The language that gives rise to this conclusion may be found in two key provisions of the new legislation. First, the proposed amendment to § 143.011.1(1) establishes the base tax table:

for all tax years beginning on or before the later of December 31, 2013, or the first calendar year after the amount of general revenue collected in any of the three fiscal years prior to such year by at least one hundred million dollars” (emphasis added)

Second, the proposed new § 143.011.2 provides that “[i]f the federal Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013,” or similar legislation,” becomes law, then:

the director of the department of revenue shall, by rule, adjust the tax tables of subsection 1 of this section to decrease the maximum rate of tax by one-half of a percent.

A taxpayer’s right to a refund for previous tax years depends on the interplay of these two provisions. If the statutory criteria are met such that § 143.011.1(1)’s changes to the tax table become effective , the base tax table is set not just for that calendar year, but also for all tax years before that year. That is, the new § 141.011.1(1) would set the tax rate not only for the tax year the provision becomes effective, but also retroactively for every preceding tax year in Missouri history.

[….]

Of course, that change alone would not entitle taxpayers to seek refunds for payments in previous tax years, because the base tax table defined in the new § 141.011.1(1) is identical to the base tax table in the old statute.

If the federal Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013 or similar legislation also passes, however, the maximum tax rate in every tax table included in subsection 1 is decreased by one-half of a percent. § 143.011.2 As noted above, the new subsection 1 sets the tax table for the tax year the provision becomes effective and every year before. It follows, then, that the maximum tax rate would be reduced by one-half percent not only for the tax year in which the new legislation became effective, but also for the previous tax years. Because there is a three-year statute of limitations on filing an amended tax return, a taxpayer could seek a refund for the three previous years See § 143.801.1 (providing for a “refund of an overpayment” for up to three years after the original return was filed).

To illustrate the point, consider the following hypothetical: In 2010, 2011, and 2012, a taxpayer making $100,000 in taxable income each year would have been required to pay $315 plus 6% of the excess over $9,000 (or $5,460) in state income tax. Now that suppose that in 2013, HB 253 became the law, the conditions were met that required the tax table in § 141.011.1(1) to be adopted, and the federal marketplace fairness Act (or similar legislation) was enacted. As a result, this taxpayer’s rate, per the tax table in § 141.011.1(1), would be decreased by .5%, lowering his or her maximum tax rate to 4315 plus 5.5% of excess over $9,000. And because the tax table in § 141.011.1(1) applies to “all tax years beginning on or before” the tax year in which § 141.011.1(1) becomes effective, this taxpayer’s tax rate for 2010, 2011, and 2012 would be retroactively lowered as well. Using the newly revised rate, the taxpayer would have overpaid by $455 each year. That taxpayer, relying on the retroactively revised tax tables, may seek a refund.

In your opinion request, you state that “members of the House of Representatives need to be aware of any statutory language that would inadvertently cause Missouri Revised Statute § 141.011.1(1) to be applied retroactively.” The portion of § 141.011.1(1) that resets the base tax table for “all tax years beginning on of before” the year the provision becomes effective contains just such language. Inadvertent or not, the plain language of the statute is the first and most persuasive guide for courts in determining legislative intent. See Hadlock v. Dir. of Revenue, 860 S.W.2d 335, 337-38 (Mo. banc 1993). here, the plain language of the statute alters the tax rate nor just for the year the new provision becomes effective and onward, but expressly alters the tax rates for tax years “before” that year. If the General Assembly did not intend that taxpayers should get any benefit from the backward-looking change, why include the language? Courts are loathe to render statutory meaningless, see id.; to say the tax tables in § 141.011.1(1) apply only prospectively robs the phrase “or before” of any meaning. Moreover, even if the language of the statute could be considered ambiguous, courts require a construction in favor of the taxpayers of our state and strictly against the government when taxes are imposed. See President Casino, Inc. v. Dir. of Revenue, 219 S.W.3d 235,239 (Mo. banc 207).

Ina memorandum, dated August 9, 2013, that was sent to you from the Committee on Legislative Research and that has since become publicly available, two arguments are made in support of the purely prospective application of the new legislation:

[….]

First, the memorandum acknowledges that Missouri law permits taxpayers to seek refunds for overpayments in prior tax years, citing § 143.801, but argues that “The section has never been interpreted to permit reopening past tax periods due to later-enacted deductions, credits, or other tax breaks.” The memorandum ignores, however, the specific language of this particular taxation statute, which, by its express terms, resets the tax tables for tax years before the year in which the provision becomes effective. Contrast this with a number of other tax changes and deductions in which the effective date of the new provision applied to “all taxable years beginning on or after” a particular date. See, e.g., § 143.118; § 143.127; § 143.173.2.

Second, the memorandum suggests that Article I, § 13 of the Missouri Constitution, which prohibits any law that is “retrospective in its operation,” would prevent taxpayers from seeking refunds for past years (that is, “retrospectively”). But as the very case relied upon by the memorandum states, “The provision of the Constitution inhibiting laws retrospective in their operation id for the protection of the citizens and not the state….’The state may constitutionally pass laws retrospective lwas impairing its own rights, and may impose new liabilities with respect to transactions already past on the state itself or on the governmental subdivisions thereof.'” Graham Paper Co. v. Gehner, 59 S.W.2d 49, 51-52 (Mo. banc 1933); see also Savannah R-III Sch. Dist. v. Public Sch. Retirement Sys. of Mo., 950 S.W.2d 854, 858 (Mo. banc 1997) (“Because the retrospective law prohibition was intended to protect citizens and note the state, the legislature may constitutionally pass retrospective laws laws that waive the rights of the state.”). Thus, the constitutional prohibition against the retrospective application of laws would not pose a barrier to taxpayers seeking refunds under these circumstances.

Respectfully,

s/

CHRIS KOSTER

Attorney General

[emphasis in original]

Shorter Attorney General Koster: “You made a mess, you can’t blame anyone else.”

Previously:  

New Missouri Rule: if the governor governs right of center you can’t call him a “liberal” (July 1, 2013)

Bill signing Kabuki (July 12, 2013)

Rep. Chris Kelly (D): HB 253 – “I’d like to know what your opinion is.” (July 19, 2013)

Rep. Denny Hoskins (r): probably not gonna sustain the Governor’s veto of HB 253 (August 19, 2013)

Sec. of State Jason Kander (D) to Texas Gov. Rick Perry (r): You forgot about that Medicaid thing? (August 23, 2013)

Rep. Denny Hoskins (r) to UCM on HB 253: I don’t care, I’d rather be the new Speaker Pro Tem (August 24, 2013)

Rep. Denny Hoskins (r): your constituents know what you’re doing to them (August 26, 2013)

HB 253: Because those dissolute leeches at the public trough should shut up, that’s why! (August 28, 2013)

Missouri Democratic Party on HB 253: Yes, yes, let’s talk about Texas Gov. Rick Perry (r)…. (August 28, 2013)

The Governor’s Ham Breakfast at the State Fair is the one annual event that is usually the largest gathering of politicians in Missouri, outside of when the General Assembly is in session. The attendance this year appeared down when compared to last year.

There was no forest of campaign signs (okay, I saw a couple of lonely Tom Schweich (r) yard signs) and no gauntlet of campaign t-shirted volunteers offering to plaster attendees with candidate campaign stickers.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D) and Attorney General Chris Koster (D) did not attend.

We spent some time talking with media people who don’t despise bloggers. Yes, there are a few. And we had the opportunity to talk with some state representatives and a state senator. We asked about the coming override vote on Governor Jay Nixon’s veto of HB 253. We got some interesting responses. It appears that the Democrats believe that if the override vote were held today the Governor’s veto would be sustained. The republicans are telling others in the media that “it’ll be close” but they believe they will have the upper hand.

The buzz is that some wavering republican representatives are receiving pressure from constituents to sustain the Governor’s veto and pressure from republican leadership, facing loss of committee chairmanships, if they do.

School districts and their constituencies have been doing a good job about communicating their displeasure with HB 253. Higher education not so much.

Nope, this wasn’t on the menu, but it was the grand champion cabbage at the Missouri State Fair.

Missouri Secretary of State Jason Kander (D).

Senator Roy Blunt (r).

Speaker of the Missouri House, Timothy Jones (r).

State Auditor Tom Schweich (r).

In the parking lot, on a candidate’s vehicle:

Yeah, right, give the base a reason to sit on their hands in the general election.

The Governor’s Ham Breakfast is a convenient opportunity for getting file photographs of Missouri politicians. We take a lot of photographs. Some don’t turn out:

Facial expressions captured via still photography like this happen to everyone. That’s one reason why we take a lot of photographs.

Some do:

Representative Vicky Hartzler (r).

That’s better.

There was a sign posted at the entry this year stating that photography or video recording were forbidden, unless you had a media credential. Maybe someone thought the trackers were getting to be a bit much.

Former Representative Russ Carnahan (D).

Representative Billy Long (r).

State Senator Ron Richard (r).

State Representative Dean Dohrman (r), 51st District.

We spoke with several representatives about the upcoming override of Governor Jay Nixon’s veto of HB 253. We didn’t get to ask Representative Dean Dohrman (r). He voted for the bill in the regular session, thereby screwing school districts and the higher education institutions in or near his district.

Governor Jay Nixon (D) at the breakfast.

At the point during the breakfast that the auction of the champion hams and bacon started under the tent we exited to check out the fair. In the Home Economics Building they were checking in pies for judging.

If I had only had a fork with me…

And they were judging rabbits in the poultry/rabbit shed:

Making a run for it on the judging table…

State Treasurer Clint Zweifel (D) made the rounds on the fairgrounds after the breakfast, here greeting people in one of the agriculture buildings.

There are vendor booths all over the fairgrounds:

Is anyone surprised?

Lieutenant Governor Peter Kinder (r) at the republican party tent on the fairgrounds after the breakfast.

And we check one off the list:

Yes, we got a photo of the butter sculpture, sort of.

At the Missouri State Fair last night (August 11, 2013)

Of state fair rodeo announcers and clowns: res ipsa loquitur (August 12, 2013)

You know you’ve struck a nerve… (August 12, 2013)

We don’t get a lot of mail (August 13, 2013)

Seriously? (August 14, 2013)

In the parking lot at the Missouri State Fair (August 15, 2013)

Previously:

Campaign Finance: pay the piper, call the tune (April 25, 2013)

This is getting even better. Via Twitter:

Jason Hancock ‏@J_Hancock

Republican Reps. Thomson and Gannon, both former teachers, are no longer listed as members of the House Education Committee. #moleg 5:51 PM – 25 Apr 13

Fired Up! Missouri ‏@FiredUpMissouri

Meltdown in the #MOLeg as @SpeakerTimJones goes on a rampage, removing GOP teachers Gannon and Thomson from House Education committee. 6:16 PM – 25 Apr 13

Roy Temple ‏@roytemple

Given what @SpeakerTimJones is doing in public to please @Studentsfirst & Rex, it makes you wander what he’s doing behind closed doors.1:24 PM – 25 Apr 13

Pass the popcorn.

10. Buy Mega Millions tickets constantly, blame the left when you lose, say you didn’t really wanna win anyways.

9. Raise money for friends, tomorrow’s the deadline.

8. Put your “David Atchison is worse than Rush Limbaugh” argument into a thesis format.

7. Tell more stories of your father’s veterinary experience and how it makes you a women’s health expert.

6. Figure out if bringing the Hunger Games to Missouri counts as a jobs bill

5. Prank Call Orly, see if she blames Obama

4. Figure out how you’ll get the Missouri House featured in the ‘lame stream media’ this week

3. Check the betting line on the James Higgins/Leonard Steinman Libertarian primary.

2. Figure out if the War on Religion includes holding Baseball’s Opening Day on Good Friday

1. Pantsless party

for the benefit of a certain leader who shall go nameless

Today at the Missouri Ethics Commission,  a contribution for Representative Timothy Jones (r):

Contribution in Excess of $500 Received Within 48 Hours

C051087 CITIZENS FOR TIMOTHY W JONES [pdf] 1/17/2012

American Legislative Exchange Council 1101 Vermont Avenue NW 11th Floor Washingto[n], DC 20005 1/17/2012 $1,071.39

Heh, even more efficiency.

Previously: Campaign Finance: ALEC, ALEC, they can write bills for you! (January 14, 2012)

Thursday, at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals [pdf]:

FILED

DEC 22 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-56827

D.C. No. 8:09-cv-00082-DOC-AN

OPINION

[….] Representative CYNTHIA DAVIS, Missouri [….] State Representative TIMOTHY

JONES, Esq., Missouri [….]

Plaintiffs,

v.

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA; MICHELLE L.R. OBAMA; HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, Secretary of State; ROBERT M. GATES, Secretary of Defense; JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Vice President and President of the Senate [….]

Defendants – Appellees.

Appellate cases are always an interesting read because there’s usually a succinct summary of what’s what:

Plaintiffs-Appellants contend that Barack Obama is constitutionally ineligible to be President of the United States. United States District Court Judge David O. Carter dismissed Plaintiffs’ constitutional claims, as well as their claims for declaratory and injunctive relief, for lack of standing. We affirm the dismissal for lack of standing, albeit on somewhat different reasoning than that of the District Court.

[….]

[emphasis added]

Well, that was short and to the point.

[….]

A.

CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS: STANDING

[….]

3. State Representatives

Plaintiffs allege that state representatives have “unique standing” because they have a “special non-delegable constitutional right and responsibility to verify the qualifications of the Chief Executive Officer of the United States of America who is responsible for allocating large sums of [federal] funds, since receipt of funds from any officer without legal authority would be complicity in theft or conversion.”

In South Lake Tahoe, we rejected as insufficient to establish standing a similar contention that a public official could conceivably be exposed to civil liability while carrying out his official duties. 625 F.2d at 238-39. We noted that whether the officials could in fact be subject to civil liability was dependent on “multiple contingencies,” including the likelihood of any civil suit and the question whether the official would be immune from any such suit. Id. at 239. The alleged harm to the state representatives in this case is just as speculative and conjectural as in South Lake Tahoe, for similar reasons. This group of plaintiffs therefore fails to establish standing. See Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-61.

[….]

[footnote] 6 Plaintiffs never filed a motion for leave of court to file a Second Amended Complaint and only mentioned in passing such a request in their motion for reconsideration, filed on November 9, 2009, after the District Court granted

Defendants’ motion to dismiss. [end footnote]

[….]

…noting that Plaintiffs had six months between the original complaint and the amended complaint to attempt to set forth civil RICO allegations. The District Court found Plaintiffs’ “failure to do so inexcusable.”

[….]

***

The District Court properly dismissed the plaintiffs’ constitutional claims for lack of Article III standing. Moreover, the District Court did not err in dismissing Plaintiffs’ quo warranto, FOIA, or RICO claims. Accordingly, the dismissal by the District Court is AFFIRMED.

Appellants’ emergency petition for writ of mandamus, filed November 8, 2011, is DENIED.

[….]

COUNSEL

Gary G. Kreep, Ramona, California, and Orly Taitz, Rancho Santa Margarita, California, for the plaintiffs-appellants.

[….]

[emphasis in original]

That reads a might testy.

It’s gonna be really interesting when Speker Elect Jones (r) takes over.