“…The truth is that you are being used by a small group of very self interested people.  When, in the future, you read about the manipulation of the government by a few super rich people at the expense of average citizens remember that you actively participated in just such a scheme when you sent this letter…”

Representative Chris Kelly (D). [file photo]

Representative Chris Kelly (D) replied to a letter he received on HB 253. The letter he received:

Dear Representative Kelly:

HB253 is the first opportunity in nearly 100 years to reduce taxes for all Missourians – and take a stand on the side of every day Missourians who have weathered the storm of this economic recession instead of special interests and government bureaucrats who only wish to serve their own interests.

Perhaps more importantly, HB253 would allow Missouri to stop spending and start growing by directing an increase in state revenues back to taxpayers instead of into expanding the size of government that promotes greater waste.

I urge you to support HB253 during the upcoming veto session.

Sincerely,

[xxxx]

The response from Representative Kelly (D):

Dear [xxxx],

Thank you for the letter regarding HB 253.

The bill is significant to me not simply as a state rep but also as a taxpayer.  I am 66 years old and had a heart attack this past May.  I now take six different pre[s]cription medications.  253 imposes the state sales tax on that medicine.  My pharmacist calculated that if the veto override, which you support is successful I will pay about $140 per year in sales tax; significantly more than any benefit from the income tax decrease.  I am not alone.  In fact I am probably paying less for medicine than most people in my demographic (geezers).  

The bill also imposes the sales tax on college text books.

In addition,  the bill allows income tax payers to go back three years to file amended returns and receive more refunds.  The sponsors claim that this is a “mistake”.  They now say that the prescription medicine tax is a mistake.  If anyone in the private sector made those kind of mistakes they would be fired.

That amounts to about  half a billion dollars worth of “mistakes”.  It turns out that all the “mistakes” are things wanted by Rex Sin[que]field, the guy who made more than $1.5 million in campaign contributions to the supporters of the bill.

This is one of the sloppiest bills I have seen in my 17 years in the House.  It is a disgrace that any legislator would allow it to move forward, if for no other reason than its quality.

The truth is that you are being used by a small group of very self interested people.  When, in the future, you read about the manipulation of the government by a few super rich people at the expense of average citizens remember that you actively participated in just such a scheme when you sent this letter.

The very wealthy will see a huge benefit and average people will pay the tab. Every supporter of [HB]253 should be ashamed.

A further note.  The letter you sent me is a form written by the media people who are funding the political campaign for [HB] 253.  I’d like to know what your opinion is.

Chris Kelly

And that’s how you deal with astroturf.

We received the following from Representative Chris Kelly (D):

Expanded Health Care Coverage in Missouri

By Rep. Chris Kelly

The most important issue facing the next Missouri General Assembly is whether to expand health care coverage for uninsured Missourians who have incomes below 138% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL).  (FPL equals an income of $23,050 for a family of four.)

The costs and benefits of expansion have been analyzed in three separate studies: one by the Missouri Office of Budget and Planning, one by the Kaiser Foundation, and one by the University of Missouri Medical School in cooperation with Dobson, DaVanzo & Associates.  The MU study is the most conservative, so I will rely upon it.  The projected economic benefits and the number of Missourians covered by the expansion are substantially higher in the other two studies.

The Federal Affordable Care Act (ACA, also known as Obamacare) allows states to expand their medical coverage to 138% of FPL.  The Federal government will pay 100% of the cost through 2016.  That percentage will phase down to 90% in 2020. About 161,000 additional Missourians would receive medical coverage under the expansion.  Absent expansion, those Missourians will continue to live without health insurance.  When they experience health problems, they show up at hospitals and are treated–but the cost of that care is not completely compensated.  We all pay the cost of their treatment. It is redistributed through increases in our health care premiums or absorbed by the hospitals as uncompensated care.  

There is a provision in law whereby hospitals receive money to offset the cost of uncompensated care (called DSH or Disproportionate Share Hospital allotments).  The DSH provision will be substantially reduced.  It has been replaced by the option for states to expand coverage.  That means that Missouri hospitals will lose DSH payments and, if there is no expansion of Medicaid coverage, they will also absorb the cost of treating people with no insurance–a huge financial burden.

Statewide, the cost of decreased DSH payments will be roughly a half billion dollars.  Losses to hospitals resulting from other changes in law will be about $2.6 billion.  On the other hand, if Missouri expands coverage, the State will receive an additional $8.2 billion from the Federal Government in the years between 2014 and 2020.  The state will be required to pay about $333 million, all occurring after 2017.  The economic expansion would include an additional 24,000 new jobs with a payroll of nearly $7 billion and a total impact on Missouri’s economy of more than $16 billion.  Tax revenues to the State would increase by more than $850 million. The tax revenue from the increased jobs and economic activity will generate more than double the cost of expansion.

Viewing the loss of DSH payments at a local level, Christian Hospital in St Louis County will lose about $30M dollars.  The combined losses to Boone Hospital and the University of Missouri in Columbia will be about $28M.  Proportional losses will occur to hospitals in Springfield, Kansas City, St Joseph, Cape Girardeau and Joplin.  The pattern is the same for all larger hospitals.  They will be seriously harmed, but will survive.

Having grown up in a rural community with a small hospital, I wondered what was likely to happen in rural Missouri.  I studied the probable result of expansion of Medicaid verses non-expansion in West Plains, Missouri as an example.

Ozarks Medical Center (OMC) is a 114-bed hospital, serving eleven counties and about 160,000 people.  The closest large hospital is in Springfield, 100 miles away.   OMC will lose about $2,225,000 as a result of the reduction of the DSH provision.  OMC will still be required to treat all who appear at its door.  In the event that those patients do not have insurance, OMC will not be fully compensated for that care. The hospital estimates that cost next year to be approximately $6-8 million.

On the other hand, if the State were to expand Medicaid coverage, more than 9,000 additional people would have medical insurance in the West Plains service area.  In addition to the benefits of medical insurance for those patients, the entire South Central Region will experience an economic benefit.  The Federal contribution in the region is estimated to be $463M.  More than a thousand jobs would be created. The total economic benefit to the region would be almost $800M.  Much of this expansion would occur in Howell County.  More patients mean more pharmacists, more nurses, more physical therapists, etc.

OMC is larger and stronger than some other rural hospitals. As one looks east toward the Bootheel, the situation becomes more troubling.  The hospitals are smaller and their patient populations are poorer.  If Missouri does not expand coverage, Missouri could lose more than a dozen rural hospitals–perhaps as many as twenty-five–a tragedy for rural Missouri.

I recently heard a story that illustrates the importance of these institutions to their communities.  In 2007 a devastating tornado destroyed the entire town of Greensburg, Kansas.   The people had to decide whether to rebuild.  Many said, if the hospital rebuilds, we will too.  Rural hospitals are often the economic nuclei of their communities.  Their loss would in some cases mean that their communities would lose the critical mass necessary to stay economically viable.

There is only one rational conclusion:  Missouri will gain far more than it loses from the expansion of health care coverage.

Opponents of expansion say, “We cannot afford it,” but these claims are simply an expression of opposition to the concept of “Obamacare” without analysis of the actual economic costs and benefits.   Whether one supports or opposes the underlying philosophy of Obamacare, it is the law of the land. Missouri should not undermine the solvency of its own hospitals and decimate the economic lifeblood of many rural communities just for the sake of demonstrating political purity. The Legislature has an obligation to examine what is economically best for the State of Missouri.  We should work together to find a solution we can all live with.

We journeyed to Jefferson City this morning, checked in at the House Communications Office and then set up our still cameras in a side gallery. Over the course of the morning session we had conversations with Representatives Joe Aull (D), Jason Kander (D), Chris Kelly (D), Jill Schupp (D) and Mary Still (D). Representative Denny Hoskins (r) crossed the aisle and we had a lengthy conversation in the side gallery about redistricting and its aftermath, the budget, revenues, and HB 1229.  

Speaker Steve Tilley (r) at the dais.

Stained glass above the press gallery and dais in the House chamber.

Representative Jill Schupp (D-82).

Old media in the press gallery above the dais. There’s a lot of space up there, but not very many people occupying it anymore.

 One gets the feeling that the paradigm has been changing and it isn’t finished just yet.

Debate across the aisle.

Representative Stephen Webber (D-23).

Representative Mary Still (D-25).

Minority Floor Leader Mike Talboy (D-37)(left) and Speaker Steve Tilley (r)(right) in conversation at the back of the House chamber.

After the noon recess in the House we encountered American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and Communications Workers of America (CWA) members with signs marching to the Capitol steps. After a few cheers the union members were instructed to leave their signs in a pile for collection before the went into the building. Later in the afternoon we encountered small groups in the halls  and offices speaking to individual members of the House.

Which side are you on? Which side are you on?

As the AFSCME, CWA and SEIU members gathered in front of the steps Representative Mark Parkinson (r) was exiting the building. We greeted each other and had a pleasant enough conversation. Apparently, Representative Parkinson believes public workers should be happier then they are.  

Previously: The GOP approach to government finance vs. reality. (January 16, 2012)

We had a lively exchange about HJR with Representative Chris Kelly (D) two weeks ago. As WillyK, the author of the original post, wrote in a comment:

So, Representative Chris Kelly (D) sent us the following on HJR 43:

PUT SOME AWAY FOR A RAINY DAY

“Let Pharaoh take action to appoint overseers in charge of the land, and let him exact a fifth of the produce of the land of Egypt in the seven years of abundance. Then let them gather all the food of these good years that are coming, and store up the grain for food in the cities under Pharaoh’s authority, and let them guard it. Let the food become as a reserve for the land for the seven years of famine which will occur in the land of Egypt, so that the land will not perish during the famine.”  Genesis 41, 34-36

Representative Eric Burlison (R-Greene) has introduced House Joint Resolution 43 to limit the amount of General Revenue Missouri State government may spend in any given year and to provide for reserve funds to be used in times of emergency and economic downturns.  HJR43 is similar to previous resolutions sponsored by former House Budget Chairman Allen Icet. As a Democrat, I support this bill. This is my reasoning…

…If adopted by a vote of the people, HJR43 would work as follows:  In any given year the percentage of state spending could increase by the sum of: 1) the percent of population growth, 2) the percent increase of the Consumer Price Index, and 3) 1.5% of the previous year’s budget.  If additional revenue remained available, the next one percent would be assigned to retire outstanding State debt.  Additional available dollars would automatically flow into the cash operating reserve fund to be used for emergencies and in times of economic downturn.  If additional revenue remained and the cash operating reserve fund was filled, it would trigger a one-time reduction in individual income tax rates.

I offered an amendment to Rep. Burlison’s bill, which would use FY2008 as the base year to trigger this law, rather than FY2010, as originally proposed. That is, the entire plan would take effect only when state general revenue reached the FY2008 level, at almost exactly eight billion dollars.  The FY2010 budget was a low point in recent state history, and would have triggered this action at a much lower level. My amendment was subsequently passed by the Budget Committee and the Rules Committee, and will be included in the bill as voted upon by the full House of Representatives.

The Cash Operating Reserve Fund would require about $325 million to be filled. These funds could be used in case of emergency, such as the 1993 flood or the 2011 Joplin tornado, upon request of the Governor and an affirmative vote of two-thirds of both Houses or, in years of negative economic growth, upon agreement of the Governor and a simple majority of both Houses.

To illustrate let us assume that HJR43 were in effect now.  This year our General Revenue is about $7.33 billion.  Nothing could happen–this law would not come into play–until revenue grew back to $8 billion. That alone allows for growth of $670 million, a growth rate of about 8%.   Let us then assume that the year after revenue reaches $8 billion–let’s call it Year 2–Missouri experiences revenue growth of ten percent ($800 million)–a growth rate that has happened only twice in the past twenty years.  

Let us further assume zero population growth and a CPI (Consumer Price Index) growth rate of 3% in Year 2.

Zero population growth plus $240 million (3% of $8 billion) plus $120 million (the additional 1.5% allowed in the HJR) equals $360 million of new spending (on top of the $670 million spent in the previous year).  

$80 million (1%) would then be used to pay debt service, leaving an additional $360 million to flow into the cash operating reserve fund.  At this point there would be no money remaining for any tax rebate but, in any future year, revenue in excess of $360 million, adjusted for inflation, would be returned to taxpayers as a temporary reduction in all state individual income tax rates.

The net result is that the State would have used $360 million for education, public safety, corrections, health, mental health, while all of the other essential state services would have healthy balances in the reserve funds, have less public debt and be prepared to provide temporary reduction in all state individual income tax rates in future years. (I have purposely used low numbers for population growth and CPI.  Any increases in those numbers would result in more money being available for appropriation.)

When State Revenue reaches the FY2008 Base Year Revenue of $8B,

State spending would be allowed to increase by:

% Population Growth + % Increase in CPI + 1-1/2% of the Previous Year’s Budget

Example: = 0 + (3% x $8B) + (1.5% x $8B) = allowable spending

= 0 + $240M + $120M =  $360M

In this example, if total revenue were $8.8B in Year 2

($8B base + $800M additional revenue):

•  $360M could be used to increase spending

•  1% ($80M) would go to Debt Service  (1% of the 2008 Base Year Budget of $8B)

•  The remaining $360M would be placed in the Cash Operating Reserve Fund.

•  With the $800M exhausted ($360M + $80M + $360M), no revenue would flow to the

   taxpayer protection and stabilization fund in Year 2

Opposition to HJR43 takes two major forms:

First, opponents argue that no limit on state spending is necessary–the legislature, comprised as it is of rational and thoughtful people, will use its’ best judgment and spend the increases wisely.  One of the disadvantages of being the longest serving member in the Legislature is that I can remember things.  In 1996, state revenue grew by more than 10%. Democrats, who controlled both Chambers and the Governor, were terrified that the Hancock Amendment might actually work to trigger refunds so they repealed the sales tax on prescription drugs and food.  In 2007 state revenue growth again topped 10%. The Republicans, who controlled the Governorship and both Chambers, emulated the Democratic folly and decreased the income tax.  Together these two permanent tax decreases cost the State more than $525 million.  Of course, in the years immediately following, the revenues returned to more normal levels and the state was left with the disaster created by enacting permanent solutions to the temporary problem of unusually high one-time revenue.  In neither case was either party willing to save money for a rainy day.  It would have been far better for the Democrats in 1996 to allow Hancock to work and far better if the Republicans would have practiced the prudence that Republicans preach and saved the money in 2007.  Alternatively, they both could have enacted a one-time taxpayer rebate.

We can be certain that Missouri will face crises in the f
uture.  The 1993 flood should have provided ample forewarning for the Joplin tornado and the economy will inevitably wax and wane.  The empirical evidence is that without some kind of reasonable braking mechanism the Legislature will not save sufficiently to meet the natural and economic crises that are certain to come.  It is also important to realize that by most every assessment we will never again see a circumstance under which the Hancock Amendment’s limitations to state spending would be imposed.  HJR43 is, in essence, a replacement of the Hancock Amendment, not an addition to it.

The other objection to HJR43 is that it is a TABOR bill.  TABOR, the so-called Tax Payer Bill of Rights, is the measure enacted by the voters of Colorado in 1992 that caused serious economic dislocation in that state and which has since been substantially modified.  TABOR and HJR43 are similar only to the extent that the limitation on spending growth is based on population and CPI.  TABOR contained none of the mitigating protections in HJR43 (the additional 1.5% growth, the 1% for debt service, or the emergency and stabilization funds).  HJR43 also contains a sunset clause (of 5 years), which TABOR did not. TABOR contained substantial restrictions on local governments, again which HJR does not.  The only reasonable way a person might compare HJR43 to TABOR is to argue that any constitutional limit on governmental spending is inappropriate.  Some opponents refer to HJR43 as “TABOR lite”.  I prefer to think of it as “TABOR rational”.  The evidence is strong that HJR43 will actually result in more stable, predictable, and gradual growth rather than the wide swings that we have experienced, especially because each time we have had a temporary upward swing in revenue, it was used as an argument to permanently decrease revenue.

An important difference exists between how much revenue the Government raises and how it manages that revenue.  I am now and have consistently been an unapologetic, pro-tax Democrat. Missouri clearly has insufficient revenue to cover the basic services required of state government. This year I have sponsored the Internet Sales Tax Bill.  Last year I sponsored an increase in the tobacco tax.  I was a proud supporter of Governor Mel Carnahan’s tax increase for education and, at the request of Governor John Ashcroft, was the successful sponsor of the largest tax increase in the history of the State of Missouri, the Federal Reimbursement Allowance.  

HJR43 is not a limit on taxes.  Under its provisions the people of Missouri are free to enact any taxes they choose and those taxes would be exempt from the provisions of HJR43.  HJR43 is a mechanism for the rational management of state dollars and a control over unrestrained growth. HJR43, if passed into law, would be enacted as a constitutional amendment only by a final vote of the people.  In an issue of this magnitude, that’s where the final say belongs.

Joseph, who I regard as the patron saint of governmental budget geeks, had it right.  Put some away for a rainy day.

In an op-ed piece in the Sunday Post-Dispatch, state rep. Chris Kelly (D-Columbia) used a bit of our history to impress readers with what we can do to put Missourians back to work despite these tough economic times:

In 1982, then-Gov. Christopher “Kit” Bond, working in a bipartisan manner with Democratic legislative leaders, passed and sent to the people a proposed $700 million building bond issue to construct and repair needed major buildings at our colleges and universities and at other state buildings.

The people of Missouri agreed and voted to use some of their taxes to pay off this bond issue. Thousands of Missourians went to work in dozens of trades, constructing needed classrooms, laboratories and hospitals. Those facilities still serve Missouri 27 years later. Now, Gov. Jay Nixon and the Legislature should follow the example of Gov. Bond and send a fifth state building bond to the voters for approval.

Why?

Because large scale construction is an excellent way to put numbers of people to work.

Because interest rates are at rock bottom.

Because the construction industry, hungry for work, will offer favorable bids.

Because:

A large construction bond issue is, by order of magnitude, the biggest jobs bill the governor and Legislature could enact. Construction of the buildings would employ thousands of workers in every craft all over the state. The facilities, once built, would require the employment of more people, and the students educated at the facilities would bolster our economy with their technical and scientific skills.

…[T]he work that will be done is vital to the future of Missouri. Our colleges and universities have massive backlogs of needed new facilities, mostly to teach the hard sciences.

Kelly says that he and Steve Tilley, R-Perryville, sponsored a bill last year for a $750 million bond issue. It passed in the House overwhelmingly and looked set to do the same in the Senate until a few Republican senators threatened a filibuster. Nixon neither supported nor opposed it. We need for the fate of the bill to turn out differently this year:

If [we] act quickly, we can send a fifth state building bond to the people for their approval this coming April, and we can actually pass the necessary appropriation bills in the spring, getting people to work by summer.

I fear, as do many market observers, that our window of low interest rates may soon pass. It will be a shame if we wait until interest rates rise and then say, “Oh gee. We missed our chance.” Voters make the final decision; it is their money. They should be allowed to decide to dedicate their tax money to build Missouri’s future.

If those who agree call the governor and legislators and ask them to act now on the state bonding program, we can make real progress in Missouri.

Chris, I’m gonna write my rep, Ted Hoskins, and my senator, Rita Days about this issue and include a link to your op-ed piece. Those of you who see the sense of Kelly’s plan can easily find out who your state rep and senator are if you don’t already know and get their contact info. Those of you who live in a Republican Senate district are, for once, well placed to do the most good. Take advantage of your opportunity.

At Governor Holden’s monthly Pizza and Politics forum Wednesday evening, Ed Martin, the Republican challenging Russ Carnahan next year, and Chris Kelly, a Democratic representative who was elected in Columbia just last year, faced off on the question of term limits.

Kelly spoke first. Because he had previously served in the legislature for twelve years in the eighties and early nineties, he had the historical knowledge to appreciate how the House differs from what it used to be. His main argument was that term limits destroy necessary institutional memory and depth of knowledge. Bitter partisanship fills the gap left by departing long term legislators.

Kelly pointed out that currently, each party caucuses with its members twice a week, and they use those occasions to “throw each other partisan red meat” and “inflame sectarian passion.” In the past, he says, representatives had served with each other sometimes for decades. It was harder to characterize someone as a mindless Republican shill if you had been to his daughter’s wedding.

And people voted their own conscience instead of lock stepping with their party.

“In the bad ole days before we had term limits, we caucused twice a session because no one in their right mind would go to the caucus and listen to their political party tell them how to vote.” Kelly maintained that if the party had tried to tell them how to vote, legislative giants like John Schneider and Wayne Goode would have said something like “‘Go to hell. I know what I’m supposed to do. I’ve been on this issue for many, many years. I understand the issue very well. I’ve spent my entire adult life studying it, and I’m gonna decide how I’m going to vote based on that store of knowledge.'”

The video clip begins with Kelly describing how much less today’s legislators know:

I post his pledge for the record. But I don’t expect it to be put to the test with a win next year.  

Rep. Chris Kelly, D-Columbia, is sending this letter to press outlets all over the state. He argues convincingly for a bond issue to fund new construction on state university and junior college campuses:

The Fifth State Bond Issue:

Let’s Not Play Politics With Our State’s Future

by State Representative Chris Kelly

Since last December I have been nagging anyone who would listen–and some who would not–to consider a Fifth State Building Bond. I believe we should allow the voters to decide if Missouri should dedicate some of the tax revenue that taxpayers are already paying to a large-scale capital program.  We could construct needed buildings at every university and community college in the state.  We could also replace some of our mental health and other facilities that are literally falling down around our ears.  We could undertake these projects at record low costs because every contractor in the state is hungry and, if we act quickly, we could borrow the money at record low interest rates. At the same time, we could create jobs to help alleviate an unemployment rate approaching 10%.

I now see that several key legislative Republicans have recently reversed their positions on the issuance of State General Obligation Bonds–the bonds that would be used to construct important state and higher education buildings and to put thousands of our fellow citizens to work at high-paying construction jobs. Their reversal comes directly on the heels of a change in the position of our Democratic Governor who now has decided to support the sale of the bonds.

It looks awfully like my Republican colleagues thought the bonds were a good idea when Jay did not support them.  Now that Jay supports the bonds, they are, all of a sudden, a bad idea.  These Republicans say the Governor ought to use federal stimulus money to complete the building work.   However, these same legislators voted to use much of the stimulus money to operate the government’s day-to-day operations.  Further, the immutable fact is that we finished FY 2009 with revenue about 6.9% less than the previous year. That is a lot of money. Everyone in this discussion knows that if we don’t protect some of the stimulus money for FY 2011 and 2012 we will be in much worse shape in those years than we are today.

Bipartisanship Is Our Best Policy

I was encouraged during the 2009 legislative session that we had a good chance to be successful with the bond Issue. Many thoughtful Republicans looked at the idea–including my co-sponsor Rep. Steve Tilley (R-Perryville)–decided that it had merit, that it was good for Missouri, and got on board regardless of party labels.  A bipartisan group of hardworking legislators came within a whisker of sending the bond issue to the voters. As the session wore on, we were joined by university and community college advocates and by business and labor groups around the state. More and more people considered the actual merits of the proposal and decided–without any political gamesmanship–that the bonds were a good idea. I was particularly grateful to my supportive GOP colleagues because they had no political reason to help me.  They simply made a decision in the best interests of Missouri, even if it meant working across the aisle.

Governor Nixon has now voiced support for the program. He is considering calling a special session so that the legislature might pass a bond issue, send it to the voters, and get Missouri back to work. I hope that my Republican colleagues, many of whom I have come to like and respect, will not bail on the idea simply because the Governor now supports it.  It is time for all of us to put our party labels aside and do what is best for Missouri.

In 1982 then-Governor Kit Bond and some smart, perceptive Democrats worked across the aisle to adopt and send to the voters the Third State Building Fund.  Missourians supported it in a statewide vote. Lots of sensible state construction was completed that has served us ever since.  Lots of people went to work and there was no tax increase. In fact, there has never been a tax increase as a result of any of our previous four State Building Bond issues.

The debt service on the Third State Building Fund will expire in two years.  This same revenue stream will pay for most of the Fifth State Building Fund with only very minor additional pressure on the budget.  We can do in 2009 what Governor Bond led us to do in 1982 and what Missourians have done four previous times.  We can sell General Obligation Bonds.  We can complete vitally needed state projects, put thousands of people to work, and we can do so at a record low cost.

The Argument For

There are four positive reasons for the legislature to send a bond proposal to the voters:

1. The buildings to be constructed are vital and long overdue;

2. The Building Fund will put thousands of Missourians to work in the very near future;

3. The State will complete the work at very low cost, both in terms of the cost of construction and the cost of borrowing the money; and

4. The money belongs to the taxpayers and the Legislature should allow them to make the decision.

The Argument Against

Only one argument is ever voiced against a bond issue: That we ought not incur debt.  The argument fails because the state will always complete large capital improvements with debt of one kind or another. It is simply a matter of when and how. General Obligation debt is the most conservative and proven method. It is also the least expensive.  This is not some credit card spending spree.  It is the construction of educational and medical facilities that will serve our state for fifty years.

Most of all, the debt argument fails because, in the last analysis, the state’s revenue belongs to the people.  It is their money.  Missouri voters ought to be permitted to decide if they are willing to dedicate some of their own tax dollars to needed capital construction and to job creation.  I am sometimes amazed to hear the same people who oppose a bond issue argue that they represent the interests of the taxpayers.  Please don’t help so much!  Just get out of the taxpayers’ way and let them choose how they want to use their state revenue.  Let them vote.

I am particularly puzzled by the comments of my old friend Lt. Governor Pete Kinder who was for the bonds before he was against them. Lt. Gov. Kinder now says, “This bonding initiative is merely a debt plan that will fail to put any Missourians back to work in the near future.” He knows that it is impossible to do hundreds of millions of dollars of new construction and not put many thousands of people to work at good jobs. Further, the projects will have a long-term positive effect by employing thousands of Missourians at the new facilities.

Let’s Build for Our Future

Finally, I implore my colleagues in the Legislature:  Please don’t turn what has been a sensible, issue-oriented discussion into a political weapon.  The Bond Issue ought to be judged on what it can do for Missouri.

I hope every thinking Missourian will consider whether our state ought to engage in a large-scale capital improvement and job-creation program. Please take the time to contact your Senator and Representative and make your position clear. I hope that we will not miss this opportunity because we would rather play politics than build our State.

Rep. Kelly can be contacted at chris@chriskelly24.com

Chris Kelly, D-Columbia, talked to me Tuesday about the legislative session just ending.

He said there is still the tiniest glimmer of hope for restoring 35,000 people to Medicaid. But, as in the case of Tinkerbell at death’s door, he said, “we’ll have to do a lot of clapping.”

Usually, we measure a legislative session by what gets passed, but Kelly maintains that this time, we’ll measure it by what didn’t make it. And, as of Tuesday, at least, he was glad to see the following ideas looking pretty dead:

• campus conceal/carry
• a constitutional amendment about prayer (At best, he says its akin to telling people that Missouri is called Missouri. The federal and state constitutions have protected the right to prayer for a couple of hundred years now, so why restate the obvious? And at worst, this two page law runs the risk of unintended consequences. What those might be, he couldn’t say, since “unintended” indicates that we don’t know yet.)
• coerced abortion
• court “deform” (“No,” he tells me, “I didn’t say court reform; I said court deform.)”

I’d have added substituting a larger sales tax for the state income tax, but Kelly doesn’t follow the progressive orthodoxy on that one. He likes that sales tax idea. (I didn’t have time to get into the details of his opinion. Must ask sometime.)

He did see a few minor victories, like:

• $12 million for Metro
• Retaining the Caring for Missouri program, which trains health care workers for rural Missouri
• the possibility that still exists that HJR 32, his own proposal, will get past Crowell’s filibuster in the Senate. The constitutional amendment would allow entities to propose up to $800 million in general obligation bond issues for buildings in higher educational institutions and other places like mental health institutions. The votes are there if Crowell were to fold.

From MNEA lobbyist Otto Fajen:

“We’re the people you hire to protect you from the people you elect.”

From Rep. Chris Kelly, D-Columbia:

“Oh, I’m sure we and all Missourians will be better off when we pass that “Freedom to pray” constitutional amendment.  After all, it is just a much simpler alternative to health care.”

From Rep. Jeanette Mott Oxford, commenting on the House Republicans’ refusal to accept $100 million in free Medicaid funds a year because that would be offering “welfare” to “able bodied adults”:

“It’s funny what we call welfare and what we don’t. When we help millionaires and billionaires build a baseball stadium, we don’t call it welfare.”

HD 24 in Columbia (the southern third of Boone County) is going to be a brawl–an expensive brawl between incumbent Republican Ed Robb and Democratic challenger Chris Kelly (pictured at left).

In 2006, Jim Ritter challenged Robb, and they fought the most expensive House campaign in Missouri history. Between them, they spent over $300,000, with Robb having a spending edge of $42,000. With that advantage, he managed to eke out a 211 vote victory. When Ronny Richardson talked to me about that race early last month, he praised Jim Ritter’s fine qualifications, but he thought the outcome might have been different if Ritter had been willing to throw a few punches. Some streetfighting smarts were called for because Robb’s got nothing against getting down and dirty. Ronny figures that holding back in a brawl isn’t part of Chris Kelly’s nature.

I asked Kelly about that assessment, and he said, “Me? I’m a little bunny rabbit.”

Um-hmm. With claws.

After assuring me of his gentle nature, he got down to brass tacks assessing the way the race is going. He’s well known in Columbia for serving twelve years in the House in the eighties and nineties, for successfully running for associate circuit judge, and for writing a column in the Columbia Tribune for several years. In fact, he’s never lost an elective race. And, like so many other Democrats I’ve talked to, he figures that the way to win a race is with a good ground game. He’s already knocked on more than 5,000 doors.

But in this district, money is necessary. So far, that aspect of the race looks to be in Kelly’s favor. As of eight days before the primary, he had brought in $110,000, 85 percent of it from individual donors. And he’s spending it too. He says he’s already up on TV, which I take to be the explanation for a $10,000 expenditure to Starwood Enterprises.

If you trust appearances, it looks as if Ed Robb (pictured at left) had better get cracking because, as of eight days before the primary, he had raised a little less than $58,000. But I don’t trust appearances. I figure that the big money will start pouring in after the campaign finance limits come off on August 28th.

Once the money’s in–most of it from businesspeople and PACs–it will go for a lot of media:

Like the last election, Robb’s campaign plans to spend the most money during the last few weeks of the campaign because if voters are bombarded with ads throughout the campaign, “people get tired of hearing your name,” he said.

………

Robb said this campaign is so costly because of the many media outlets in Columbia: advertising is expensive, especially television and radio ads.

But let’s not forget that this race is about more than who has the most money and who knocks on the most doors. It is about issues, and on that score, Kelly is the man.

He’s pro-choice, all the way, for example. In 1993, he introduced the first bill in the history of the state to appropriate funds for birth control and family planning. He says that “it was a two hour floor battle and we passed it by one vote.” A lot of women who were involved in that battle remember his part in it and are very involved now in his campaign.

As House Leader, he led the fight to get the KATY trail built. For that, he was given the Sierra Club legislator of the year award–an award he’s received twice. Considering his love of the out of doors–that’s him going over the falls–he and the Sierra Club are a natural fit.

He also believes in protecting the environment by favoring local control of CAFOs.

“On CAFOs I’m a total believer in local control. You can make an argument that a local county might want a CAFO, but that is their business. The only reason to move it to the state is so that Big Ag can control the situation.”

The message Kelly is stressing most this election season is how Republicans have changed for the worse since he was in the legislature. He’s appalled at their extreme partisanship. Kelly says that when he was in the House, he and Republicans disagreed on issues and fought about them, but they were personally collegial, knew about each other’s kids and thought of each other as friends. Now they’re hiring private investigators to chase the opposition around.

When he was in the House, he understood the need for and the art of compromise. When the Nancy Cruzan case arose in the eighties–she was a young woman in a persistent vegetative state whose family wanted to remove the feeding tubes–Kelly drafted legislation that the Catholic Conference, which opposed Cruzan’s family’s wishes–was willing to accept. The bill allowed families to have feeding tubes removed, but only if two doctors affirmed that the patient was in a persistent vegetative state and only if the patient had, while still mentally competent, delegated such authority to the family in a clear and convincing way. Ashcroft, as governor, signed the legislation.

Ed Robb is one of the partisans that Kelly decries. Robb voted for the Medicaid cuts. He didn’t vote for the sale of the MOHELA assets, but that presumably was because, like many Republicans, he feared the science buildings the money would be used to construct might conceivably someday be the site of stem cell research.

Robb, in turn, disparages Kelly as a “tax-and-spend liberal” partly because Kelly has staunchly opposed spending cuts to the University of Missouri and partly because, as a legislator, he voted for the Excellence in Education Act, which boosted funding for elementary and secondary education. Chris responds that if the Excellence in Education Act was such a bad idea, then Robb ought to vote to repeal it. As if Robb would make a politically risky move like that.

So the sniping has started, and we shall see how heated the exchanges get by November 4th. We’ll also see how much money gets spent, how many doors get knocked on, and, most important, who wins.

Top photo of Kelly courtesy of The Maneater. Photo of Robb courtesy of Project Vote Smart