• About
  • The Poetry of Protest

Show Me Progress

~ covering government and politics in Missouri – since 2007

Show Me Progress

Tag Archives: 2011

Kansas City antes up to support the earnings tax vote in 2011, part 6

24 Monday Jan 2011

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

2011, earnings tax, Kansas City, missouri, Proposition A, Rex Sinquefield

Today at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

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

A101430 SAVE KANSAS CITY COMMITTEE [pdf] 1/24/2011

Julia I Kauffman

5942 Overhill Circle

Mission Hills, KS 66208

1/24/2011

$10,000.00

Lockton Companies

444 W. 47th Street Suite 900

Kansas City, MO 64112

1/24/2011

$15,000.00

[emphasis added]

Yep, Kansas City people with the ability to do so are stepping up. I wonder what they think of Rex Sinquefield? Just asking.

Previously:

Kansas City antes up to support the earnings tax vote in 2011, part 5 (January 18, 2011)

Kansas City antes up to support the earnings tax vote in 2011, part 4 (January 13, 2011)

Kansas City antes up to support the earnings tax vote in 2011, part 3 (January 9, 2011)

Kansas City antes up to support the earnings tax vote in 2011, part 2 (January 4, 2011)

Kansas City antes up to support the earnings tax vote in 2011 (January 3, 2011)

Finally, part 2 (December 20, 2010)

Finally (December 14, 2010)

HB 26: an attempt to fix some of the mess of Proposition A (December 3, 2010)

Where’s Kansas City on fundraising for the 2011 earnings tax vote? (November 27, 2010)

St. Louis leads the fundraising way on the April 2011 earnings tax vote (November 16, 2010)

Any bets that the Royals follow through for Kansas City? (November 13, 2010)

Kansas City antes up to support the earnings tax vote in 2011, part 5

18 Tuesday Jan 2011

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

2011, earnings tax, Kansas City, missouri, Proposition A, Rex Sinquefield

Uh, that’s an understatement.

The past few days at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

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

A101430 SAVE KANSAS CITY COMMITTEE [pdf] 1/15/2011

International Association of Fire Fighters

Local 42

6320 Manchester Ave suite 42A

Kansas City , MO 64133

1/15/2011

$150,000.00

Polsinelli Shughart

700 West 47th ST Suite 1000

Kansas City , MO 64112

1/15/2011

$20,000.00

[emphasis added]

Nope. That first one is not a typo. This is probably what people mean when the say they’re “going all in.”

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

A101430 SAVE KANSAS CITY COMMITTEE [pdf] 1/16/2011

George K. Baum & Company

4801 Main Street

Kansas City , MO 64131

1/16/2011

$7,500.00

[emphasis added]

Previously:

Kansas City antes up to support the earnings tax vote in 2011, part 4 (January 13, 2011)

Kansas City antes up to support the earnings tax vote in 2011, part 3 (January 9, 2011)

Kansas City antes up to support the earnings tax vote in 2011, part 2 (January 4, 2011)

Kansas City antes up to support the earnings tax vote in 2011 (January 3, 2011)

Finally, part 2 (December 20, 2010)

Finally (December 14, 2010)

HB 26: an attempt to fix some of the mess of Proposition A (December 3, 2010)

Where’s Kansas City on fundraising for the 2011 earnings tax vote? (November 27, 2010)

St. Louis leads the fundraising way on the April 2011 earnings tax vote (November 16, 2010)

Any bets that the Royals follow through for Kansas City? (November 13, 2010)

Kansas City antes up to support the earnings tax vote in 2011, part 4

13 Thursday Jan 2011

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

2011, earnings tax, Kansas City, missouri, Proposition A, Rex Sinquefield

The money to support the campaign for the continuation of the earnings tax in Kansas City which will be on the April ballot keeps coming in.

The past few days at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

A101430 01/11/2011 SAVE KANSAS CITY COMMITTEE The Zimmer Companies P.O. Box 411299 Kansas City MO 64141 1/11/2011 $10,000.00

A101430 01/11/2011 SAVE KANSAS CITY COMMITTEE BlueCross BlueShield of Kansas City P.O. Box 419169 Kansas city MO 64141 1/11/2011 $20,000.00

A101430 01/13/2011 SAVE KANSAS CITY COMMITTEE US Bank 4000 W Broadway Robbinsdale MN 55422 1/12/2011 $12,000.00

[emphasis added]

Previously:

Kansas City antes up to support the earnings tax vote in 2011, part 3 (January 9, 2011)

Kansas City antes up to support the earnings tax vote in 2011, part 2 (January 4, 2011)

Kansas City antes up to support the earnings tax vote in 2011 (January 3, 2011)

Finally, part 2 (December 20, 2010)

Finally (December 14, 2010)

HB 26: an attempt to fix some of the mess of Proposition A (December 3, 2010)

Where’s Kansas City on fundraising for the 2011 earnings tax vote? (November 27, 2010)

St. Louis leads the fundraising way on the April 2011 earnings tax vote (November 16, 2010)

Any bets that the Royals follow through for Kansas City? (November 13, 2010)

Kansas City antes up to support the earnings tax vote in 2011, part 3

09 Sunday Jan 2011

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

2011, earnings tax, Kansas City, missouri, Proposition A, Rex Sinquefield

The money to support the campaign for the continuation of the earnings tax in Kansas City which will be on the April ballot keeps coming in.

The past few days at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

A101430 01/08/2011 SAVE KANSAS CITY COMMITTEE Commerece Bank Commerece Bank Shares, INC. 1000 Walnut Street Kansas City MO 64106 1/8/2011 $15,000.00

A101430 01/08/2011 SAVE KANSAS CITY COMMITTEE Husch Blackwell Operating Account 4801 Main Street Suite 1000 Kansas City MO 64112 1/8/2011 $10,000.00

A101430 01/08/2011 SAVE KANSAS CITY COMMITTEE Husch Blackwell Operating Account 4801 Main Street Suite 1000 Kansas City MO 64112 1/8/2011 $10,000.00

A101430 01/08/2011 SAVE KANSAS CITY COMMITTEE Black & Veatch 11401 Lamar Overland Park KS 66211 1/8/2011 $25,000.00

[emphasis added]

Uh, that double contribution from Husch Blackwell may be a typo. We’ll be able to check it in the quarterly report.

A101430 01/06/2011 SAVE KANSAS CITY COMMITTEE Stinson Morrison Hecker L.L.P P.O. Box 419251 Kansas City MO 64141 1/6/2011 $7,500.00

[emphasis added]

Previously:

Kansas City antes up to support the earnings tax vote in 2011, part 2 (January 4, 2011)

Kansas City antes up to support the earnings tax vote in 2011 (January 3, 2011)

Finally, part 2 (December 20, 2010)

Finally (December 14, 2010)

HB 26: an attempt to fix some of the mess of Proposition A (December 3, 2010)

Where’s Kansas City on fundraising for the 2011 earnings tax vote? (November 27, 2010)

St. Louis leads the fundraising way on the April 2011 earnings tax vote (November 16, 2010)

Any bets that the Royals follow through for Kansas City? (November 13, 2010)

Missouri General Assembly 2011 Legislative Session: Minority Caucus press conference -January 5th

08 Saturday Jan 2011

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

2011, capitol, General Assembly, legislative session, Mike Talboy, missouri, press conference

House Minority Leader Mike Talboy (D-37) took questions from the media

in the House Lounge for the House Democratic Caucus press conference on January 5, 2011.

Note: some of the questions from the media were inaudible on the audio recording – indicated by [….]

Representative Mike Talboy (D-37), House Minority Leader: …If you have any questions just go ahead and, uh, let us know and we’ll get either myself or the appropriate member up here to talk about whatever you have questions on.

Question: How are you guys, it’s a small group, gonna align against the Republicans when they try to steamroll you on everything?

Representative Talboy: Well, quite frankly, in the minority, um, it, it’s no different. We have thirty-five thousand five hundred people in each of the [inaudible] represented . We have fifty-seven districts that expect us to come down and represent what is important to them and we’re going to continue to do that. I think we’re going to hold the majority accountable if we don’t agree with their ideas and we’re going to try to work together to make good ideas better. And I think that is quite possibly, you know, the best we can, we can offer our constituents. And it makes no difference whether we’re in the majority or the minority, we’re gonna do the same thing.

[….]

I, I think any Speaker, whenever they don’t lose the speakership or the majority always thinks they have a mandate.

[….]

I don’t believe that anybody has a mandate on being able to represent the best interests of the State of Missouri….

….Question: Of all what’s outlined in the Showme Initiatives that he [Speaker Tilley] did what parts might you agree with what might you think are objectionable?

Representative Talboy: Well, uh, you know, I, it, it’s one thing of those things the devil’s in the details. I mean obviously this caucus has, has been fairly vocal on a couple of the issues that he’s brought up.  Uh, you know, the first [inaudible] the overall costs you’re talking about, um, what significant programs are actually going to entail, implement, and to actually carry out. I think those are, you know, two of the points. You can talk like, one, about what these programs are gonna be, but if you don’t have a true valuation on those you may actually be spending us, spending us into even further economic problems than we have currently. And, well, I think that if you look at, uh, I know that there was great debate last year on the [inaudible] issue and I think that when you look at the overall cost of that program, while it makes for good headlines, the implementation may be disastrous to our state budget.

Question: What about education? Um, obviously just to talk about a lot of cuts there.  [inaudible] Kansas City, I have a lot of friends there who are concerned about that district losing a lot of money [inaudible].

Representative Talboy: Yeah, I think that, uh, what we have to do is really get into the, the nitty gritty of what happens in the education process and talk about changes or, you know, reform or whatever you want to call it, we need to absolutely positively make sure that we aren’t harming the system in our zeal to try to try something new. And I think that is first and foremost what we need to make sure that we have our education professionals, the Sarah Lampes,  the Genise Montecillos, the Joe Aulls, the Ira Anders and, and everybody in, in my caucus and everybody in theirs sit down and actually talk about what happens when some of these things hit classrooms. And what that effect has, not only on the teachers and the students, but the ability for the students to get to school, learn, and everything in between.

Question: Uh, seems like a pretty wide consensus that job creation/economic development should be the top priority this year. Where do you think this consensus [inaudible] ?

Representative Talboy: I think that in the House we haven’t had much of an issue as far as creating, uh, jobs packages and in getting them out with a  wide, uh, swath of both parties supporting. Those traditionally have failed over in the Senate and, and have bogged down repeatedly over there. I think that now is the time we take a look at every program that has been implemented, that we are currently using, that has been proposed before, new proposals based on either one of those, or coming up with something that is so far fetched, but having that discussion, neither party has a patent on good ideas. And I think that that’s the one thing when you’re talking about job development that we need to make a concerted effort to do is make sure that both parties are at the table, we’re sitting down and examining every possible idea because we are in a very tough spot right now.

Question: Uh, how about the, uh, a lot of industrial business groups were in the capitol yesterday [inaudible] six priorities that [ inaudible] Republicans [inaudible] today [inaudible].

Representative Talboy: You know we haven’t gotten most of the details on some of those, but I, I think that I look forward to having those discussions and I think that we can, uh, talk to them and see where we might be able to agree or where we might be able to make agree, uh, a bill that we disagree with better.

[….]

Uh, I, I think that when you’re talking about a tax increase you can [inaudible] , you know, you have a lot parameters that go along with the tax increase. And when you have say, a cigarette tax has been proposed or some of these other things that have been proposed you have to look at what their overall valuation to the bottom line of our, our state budget and what harm to the folks in the state actually would be. And I think that’s one of ’em where there might be some consensus to talk about. There might be some, I think streamlined sales tax I know that that’s been brought up as far as collecting uncollected taxes and those, uh, states are moving towards implementing a streamlined sales tax for Internet sales. I think those are two things that you have heard a lot about and would be worth discussing.

Question: What are your thoughts about the possibility of giving the House Budget Committee subpoena powers?

Representative Talboy: You know, I , that was a, a new thing for me. I hadn’t heard that one in a while. And, uh, you know, I think that it’s gonna be interesting.  I’m interested to see what act, what Steve and, and the folks in the Speaker’s office want to do with the budget committee and what Chairman Silvey is going to actually do with those subpoena powers and how they’re going to execute them.  You know, throwing out there and saying we’re gonna have subpoena powers, what they’re actually gonna be used for I think is going to be [inaudible] telling than any [inaudible].

Question: [inaudible] understanding what might motivate that proposal?

Representative Talboy: No. That would be a question that I would ask him. I, I probably have the same question you do.

[….]

Well, I think that any time you start talking about, uh, subpoena powers , subpoenaing witnesses, it always, by its very nature, becomes a adversarial type of a, a situation. And I hope that it’s not going to make things more partisan and I hope that if they are going to have the subpoena power that they use it responsibly.

[….]

I, I haven’t experienced any issues having, uh, having a free flow of information, communication lines being open.

Question: Another rule change, uh, the Speaker talked about was, uh, shut
ting off amendments on bills on the floor. What do you think about that?

Representative Talboy: Well, I, you know, it, it’s interesting because I believe in the new Republican, uh, Congress in Washington, D.C. actually got rid of the closing of the bills in the rules committee, uh, after a couple of, of people complained over this last General Assembly that they had about what, uh, what the impact of that was and so I think that might be something we need to talk about.

[….]

No, I think that having the discussion, I’m open to talking about what the, that rationale would be or how you were going to use it, but I don’t think that that is something I would say absolutely positively is, is going to be a good idea to do under rules. And especially if, if you have the folks that just had it implemented on them talking at the national level about what a disaster it was, so much so that they got rid of it. Uh, I think that’s a conversation worth exploring and I, I continue to believe that.

Question: Speaker Tilley also talked, uh, in his speech about, uh, restricting driver’s licenses for people who [inaudible] speak English well enough to understand the test. Um, do you fear that that’s gonna be [inaudible] working legal residents, um, lose their transportation?

Representative Talboy: Absolutely.

[….]

Uh, I think I’m, I, my voting record’s pretty clear on, on that issue. I, this is my, beginning of my fifth year in this, fifth year that I’ve heard [inaudible]. It’s the first time in the Speaker’s address, when I first came down here Speaker Jetton talked about having English as the official language of the State of Missouri and they’ve I think tried to figure out new ways to re, repackage the same deal.

[….]

I, I hope that they don’t use the, the process to be partisan political, uh, with the representation of the 40th District in the State of Missouri. What we, what we know is there are, uh, two levels of, of the courts that have heard this case. They have both adjudicated it. It was a unanimous decision at the Court of Appeals. And unless there’s some evidentiary, uh, arguments that are, are contained that have not been brought forward and, and litigated I, that, that would be news to me.

Question:  Representative Rizzo is here, um, I guess taking part in everything do you have any, uh, concerns that the investigation will lead to him being taken out of his seat?

Representative Talboy: Again, I, I trust our judicial process and I think that when you have those, uh, those justices stand and, and Court of Appeals judges, Circuit Court judges looking at the evidence that is presented to them and applied to [crosstalk]…

Question:  But the in House, uh, with Tilley [crosstalk]…

Representative Talboy: Uh, again, I still think that you, you have to have a, a understanding and a respect for the, the law as written. Aand the evidence that’s been presented has not been able to overturn the law as it’s [inaudible] anything.

Question:  So, so are you basically saying if Tilley starts up a special committee to take a look at this that they should just look at what the court rulings have already been and say that’s it?

Representative Talboy: I think that’s a very good, very good starting point. If they find something that they think is, is there I’m sure that they will discuss it, but I, again, I don’t think with as much media’s attention that has been given this, uh, this election, and it’s an August election, very beginning, we’re still talking about it the next year. Uh, I think that if there was something new under the sun we would have seen it by now and it would have been appealed to the Supreme Court.

Question:  But ultimately it’s the Missouri House that will decide to, to [inaudible][crosstalk]…

Representative Talboy: And that’s, and again, that’s why I hope the process does not become political where you have the Speaker who endorsed the opponent in, in the Republican primary getting into party nomination processes.

Question:  How would you characterize your working relationship with the Speaker?

Representative Talboy: I so far have enjoyed a very, uh, good working relationship. We have very good open lines of communication and I’ve enjoyed it thus far. It’s been, uh, you know, obviously I, I’d like to be Speaker, but. [laughter] But, I, I think that, uh, you know, if he’s, he’s exhibited a distinct change from what we have seen over the last two years and in the working relationship from that office. And, and [crosstalk]…

Question:  The last two years, or last six?

Representative Talboy: Well [crosstalk]…

Question:  Or last, I mean [crosstalk]…

Representative Talboy: I won’t, I won’t [crosstalk]…

Question:  [inaudible][crosstalk]

Representative Talboy: …speak for, for Paul LeVota and to Rod Jetton and their relationship when, when they were there but I do know, being very close to the situation between, uh, Speaker Richard and, and Leader LeVota it was not necessarily the greatest of times.

[….]

Well, I think that you always pick and choose your battles. You don’t want to just argue for the sake of arguing. [inaudible] I don’t, I don’t think that gets us anywhere. I don’t think that’s ever gotten anybody anywhere. I think that what you, we need to do is make sure that if we disagree that we make sure that we express the reason we disagree, viable alternatives, and if we agree, discuss why we agree. And if we have ideas on how to make bills that we disagree or agree with better we need to express those points. Even if we know that they have the votes to pass the bill it doesn’t necessarily mean that we can’t get up and talk about why we think what’s contained in those bills is an issue. And I think that being able to make sure that the citizens know what is in those bills and how that’s going to affect them on a day to day basis is absolutely something that we need to have.

Question:  Do you worry about the numbers at all, like three votes short of an override majority, if three of your members move over they can override the Governor?

Representative Talboy: Well, I think that’s, I, I’ll worry about that when we find something that’s gonna be possibly be overridden as a veto but I, I don’t know, being able to tell you that, if I have any reason to worry. But I believe in my caucus and I believe in my caucus members and if they have an issue with something that they fundamentally and, and deep down in their core needs to be one way or the other then they’re gonna give reasons for it and they’re here to, they’re sent here to do a job and you have to respect the, they know their constituents best.

Thank you everybody. Appreciate it. [applause]

Kansas City antes up to support the earnings tax vote in 2011, part 2

05 Wednesday Jan 2011

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

2011, earnings tax, Kansas City, missouri, Proposition A, Rex Sinquefield

The money to support the campaign for the continuation of the earnings tax in Kansas City which will be on the April ballot keeps coming in.

Today at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

A101430 01/04/2011 SAVE KANSAS CITY COMMITTEE Saint Luke’s Health System 4401 Wornall Rd Kansas City MO 64111 1/3/2011 $10,000.00

A101430 01/04/2011 SAVE KANSAS CITY COMMITTEE State Street Bank 801 Pennsylvania Kansas City MO 64105 1/4/2011 $20,000.00

[emphasis added]

Previously:

Kansas City antes up to support the earnings tax vote in 2011 (January 3, 2011)

Finally, part 2 (December 20, 2010)

Finally (December 14, 2010)

HB 26: an attempt to fix some of the mess of Proposition A (December 3, 2010)

Where’s Kansas City on fundraising for the 2011 earnings tax vote? (November 27, 2010)

St. Louis leads the fundraising way on the April 2011 earnings tax vote (November 16, 2010)

Any bets that the Royals follow through for Kansas City? (November 13, 2010)

Kansas City antes up to support the earnings tax vote in 2011

04 Tuesday Jan 2011

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

2011, earnings tax, Kansas City, missouri, Proposition A, Rex Sinquefield

The money to support the campaign for the continuation of the earnings tax in Kansas City which will be on the April ballot keeps coming in.

Today at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

A101430 01/03/2011 SAVE KANSAS CITY COMMITTEE Shook Hardy & Bacon 2555 Grand Blvd. Kansas City MO 64108 1/3/2010 [sic] $20,000.00

A101430 01/03/2011 SAVE KANSAS CITY COMMITTEE J.E. Dunn Construction Company 1001 Locust Street Kansas City MO 64106 1/3/2011 $25,000.00

[emphasis added]

Previously:

Finally, part 2 (December 20, 2010)

Finally (December 14, 2010)

HB 26: an attempt to fix some of the mess of Proposition A (December 3, 2010)

Where’s Kansas City on fundraising for the 2011 earnings tax vote? (November 27, 2010)

St. Louis leads the fundraising way on the April 2011 earnings tax vote (November 16, 2010)

Any bets that the Royals follow through for Kansas City? (November 13, 2010)

Symptom of the Universe

02 Sunday Jan 2011

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

2010, 2011, new year, old decade

I don’t want to go through a decade like that again.

BGinKC  Blue Girl

@Shoq @c_axis Actually, while the number rolled over to 10 last year, the decade ends at midnight tonight.Since no year 0, decades end in 0. 31 Dec

Bumper stickers in the People’s Republic of Madison – a reflection of the times.

Bumper stickers not in the People’s Republic of Madison – another reflection of the times.

A little bit of good, a lot of bad, frustration, disappointment, and a lot of crazy.

Why is it that so many right wingnut bumper sticker texts end with an exclamation mark? ALL CAPS ISN’T AVAILABLE? Just asking.

mathematicsprof  math prof

FINALLY, a prime number year 2011 …. first one since 2003. 31 Dec

mathematicsprof  math prof

2011 is also the sum of 11 CONSECUTIVE prime numbers: 2011=157+163+167+173+179+181+191+193+197+199+211

31 Dec

mathematicsprof  math prof

2011 is also the sum of THREE consecutive primes 2011 = 661+673+677 . Can you write 2011 as the sum of 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, … primes? 17 hours ago

Is this a good sign? Probably not.

From New Year’s Eve:

BGinKC  Blue Girl

Just four timezones left to go and then the US is DONE with this miserable fucking decade. 31 Dec

Exactly.

St. Louis has a good fundraising December in support of the earnings tax on the April 2011 ballot

27 Monday Dec 2010

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

2011, earnings tax, missouri, Proposition A, Rex Sinquefield, St. Louis

In a good sign for the Proposition A victim city on the eastern side of the state Citizens for a Stronger St. Louis, a committee supporting the continuation of the earnings tax which will be on the April 2011 ballot, has had a good December when it comes to fundraising:

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

A101422 CITIZENS FOR A STRONGER ST LOUIS [pdf] 12/24/2010

Simmons Attorneys at Law

707 Berkshire Blvd.

East Alton, IL 62024

12/24/2010

$25,000.00

[emphasis added]

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

A101422 CITIZENS FOR A STRONGER ST LOUIS [pdf] 12/22/2010

M. Peter Fischer

9806 Litzsinger Road

St. Louis, MO 63124

retired attorney

12/22/2010

$10,000.00

[emphasis added]

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

A101422 CITIZENS FOR A STRONGER ST LOUIS [pdf] 12/21/2010

Burns & McDonnell

425 S. Woods Mill Road

Suite 300

Chesterfield, Missouri 63017

12/20/2010

$5,000.00

[emphasis added]

December 20th was an especially good day:

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

A101422 CITIZENS FOR A STRONGER ST LOUIS [pdf] 12/21/2010

St. Louis Regional Chamber and Growth

Association

One Metropolitan Square, Suite 1300

St. Louis, MO 63102

12/20/2010

$15,000.00

Nestle Purina Pet Care

901 Chouteau Avenue

Saint Louis, MO 63102

12/20/2010

$25,000.00

[emphasis added]

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

A101422 CITIZENS FOR A STRONGER ST LOUIS [pdf] 12/18/2010

Ameren Missouri

PO Box 66892

St Louis, MO 63166

12/17/2010

$25,000.00

[emphasis added]

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

A101422 CITIZENS FOR A STRONGER ST LOUIS [pdf] 12/15/2010

DFC Group, Inc.

7777 Bonhomme

St. Louis, MO 63105

12/15/2010

$10,000.00

[emphasis added]

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

A101422 CITIZENS FOR A STRONGER ST LOUIS [pdf] 12/9/2010

Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 562 Voluntary

Political, Educational, Legislative, Charity &

Defense Fund

12385 Larimore Road

12/9/2010

$10,000.00

[emphasis added]

Ah, working people!

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

A101422 CITIZENS FOR A STRONGER ST LOUIS [pdf] 12/6/2010

Thompson Coburn LLP

One US Bank Plaza

St Louis, MO 63101 12/6/2010

$25,000.00

[emphasis added]

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

A101422 CITIZENS FOR A STRONGER ST LOUIS [pdf] 12/2/2010

Downtown St Louis Partnership, Inc.

906 Olive Street, Suite 200

St Louis, MO 63101 12/2/2010

$15,000.00

[emphasis added]

That would be $165,000.00 if anyone is counting. A far cry from $11,218,000.00, but it’s a start.

HB 26: an attempt to fix some of the mess of Proposition A

04 Saturday Dec 2010

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

2011, General Assembly, HB 26, missouri, prefiled, Proposition A, Tishuara Jones

On December 1st the prefiling of bills started in the House for the first regular session of Missouri’s 96th General Assembly.

Representative Tishuara Jones (D-63) prefiled HB 26, a bill which appears to try to fix some of the mess that was caused by Proposition A.

The cities of Kansas City and St. Louis will have the continuation of their current earnings taxes on the April 2011 ballot. And also because of Proposition A those votes will occur every five years if the continuation of the tax is approved by the voters in those respective cities.

The problem is that with the current five year time line on those earnings taxes it makes it more expensive to sell bonds. With no guarantee that the revenue will be there in year six longer term bonds become riskier for the holder and hence, more expensive for the cities.

The taxpayers in those cities can thank Rex Sinquefield for that.

HB 26 is an attempt to lengthen the term of the earnings taxes from five to twenty years. The text:

FIRST REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE BILL NO. 26

96TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES JONES (63) (Sponsor), CURLS, BEATTY, CARTER, WALTON GRAY, NASHEED, SMITH (71), MAY AND TALBOY (Co-sponsors).

0168L.01I   D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

To repeal sections 92.105, 92.111, and 92.115, RSMo, and to enact in lieu thereof three new sections relating to city earnings taxes.

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

Section A. Sections 92.105, 92.111, and 92.115, RSMo, are repealed and three new sections enacted in lieu thereof, to be known as sections 92.105, 92.111, and 92.115, to read as follows:

92.105. It is the intent of sections 92.105 to 92.125 that starting in 2011 voters in any city imposing an earnings tax [will] shall decide in local elections to continue the earnings tax. If the majority of local voters vote to continue the earnings tax, it [will] shall continue for [five] twenty years and then [will] shall be voted on again. If a majority of voters in any city having an earnings tax vote against continuing the earnings tax, it [will] shall be phased out pursuant to section 92.125 in such city over a period of ten years. Further, sections 92.105 to 92.125 prohibit any Missouri city or town that does not, as of November 2, 2010, impose an earnings tax, from imposing such a tax on residents and businesses.

92.111. 1. After December 31, 2011, no city, including any constitutional charter city, shall impose or levy an earnings tax, except a constitutional charter city that imposed or levied an earnings tax on November 2, 2010, may continue to impose the earnings tax if it submits to the voters of such city pursuant to section 92.115 the question whether to continue such earnings tax for a period of [five] twenty years and a majority of such qualified voters voting thereon approve such question, however, if no such election is held, or if in any election held to continue to impose or levy the earnings tax a majority of such qualified voters voting thereon fail to approve the continuation of the earnings tax, such city shall no longer be authorized to impose or levy such earnings tax except to reduce such tax in the manner provided by section 92.125.

2. As used in sections 92.111 to 92.200, unless the context clearly requires otherwise, the term “earnings tax” means a tax on the:

(1) Salaries, wages, commissions and other compensation earned by its residents;

(2) Salaries, wages, commissions and other compensation earned by nonresidents of the city for work done or services performed or rendered in the city;

(3) Net profits of associations, businesses or other activities conducted by residents;

(4) Net profits of associations, businesses or other activities conducted in the city by nonresidents;

(5) Net profits earned by all corporations as the result of work done or services performed or rendered and business or other activities;

92.115. 1. Any constitutional charter city which as of November 2, 2010, imposed or levied an earnings tax may continue to impose or levy an earnings tax, pursuant to sections 92.111 to 92.200, if it submits to the qualified voters of such city on the next general municipal election date immediately following November 2, 2010, and once every [five] twenty years thereafter, the question whether to continue to impose and levy the earnings tax authorized pursuant to sections 92.111 to 92.200, and if a majority of qualified voters voting approve the continuance of the earnings tax at such election.

2. The question submitted to the qualified voters in any such city shall contain the earnings tax percentage imposed and the name of the city submitting the question and shall otherwise contain exactly the following language:

Shall the earnings tax of …..%, imposed by the City of ….., be continued for a period of [five (5)] twenty (20) years commencing January 1 immediately following the date of this election?

YES        NO

3. If the question whether to continue to impose and levy the earnings tax fails to be approved by the majority of qualified voters voting thereon, the earnings tax levied and imposed on November 2, 2010, shall be reduced pursuant to section 92.125 commencing January first of the calendar year following the date of the election held under this section or January first of the calendar year following the calendar year in which such election was authorized under this section but not held by such city.

4. No city which has begun reductions of its earnings tax pursuant to section 92.125 [may] shall, by ordinance or any other means, with or without voter approval, stop or suspend such reduction.

[emphasis in original]

Good luck in getting this through a republican dominated General Assembly.

← Older posts
Newer posts →

Recent Posts

  • Anything else going on?
  • Cass County Democrats – Back to Blue Dinner – Belton, Missouri – April 25, 2026
  • About that ratio
  • “Show me your papers. Pull down your pants.”
  • Never met a Fascist conspiracy theory he didn’t like

Recent Comments

Uh, in case you were… on Some right wingnuts with money…
Winning at losing… on Passing the gas – Donald…
TACO Tuesday | Show… on TACO or Mushrooms?
TACO Tuesday | Show… on So much winning
So much winning | Sh… on Passing the gas – Donald…

Archives

  • April 2026
  • March 2026
  • February 2026
  • January 2026
  • December 2025
  • November 2025
  • October 2025
  • September 2025
  • August 2025
  • July 2025
  • June 2025
  • May 2025
  • April 2025
  • March 2025
  • February 2025
  • January 2025
  • December 2024
  • November 2024
  • October 2024
  • September 2024
  • August 2024
  • July 2024
  • June 2024
  • May 2024
  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007

Categories

  • campaign finance
  • Claire McCaskill
  • Congress
  • Democratic Party News
  • Eric Schmitt
  • Healthcare
  • Hillary Clinton
  • Interview
  • Jason Smith
  • Josh Hawley
  • Mark Alford
  • media criticism
  • meta
  • Missouri General Assembly
  • Missouri Governor
  • Missouri House
  • Missouri Senate
  • Resist
  • Roy Blunt
  • social media
  • Standing Rock
  • Town Hall
  • Uncategorized
  • US Senate

Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org

Blogroll

  • Balloon Juice
  • Crooks and Liars
  • Digby
  • I Spy With My Little Eye
  • Lawyers, Guns, and Money
  • No More Mister Nice Blog
  • The Great Orange Satan
  • Washington Monthly
  • Yael Abouhalkah

Donate to Show Me Progress via PayPal

Your modest support helps keep the lights on. Click on the button:

Blog Stats

  • 1,043,212 hits

Powered by WordPress.com.

 

Loading Comments...