Speaker Pro Tem Denny Hoskins (r) sent out his weekly legislative session report today:

Denny Hoskins, CPA

Speaker Pro Tem

Missouri House of Representatives

District 54

[….]

Capitol Report

April 24, 2014

….Governor Nixon has consistently tried to scare Missourians away from reducing the tax burden and chose to cherry picked a phrase in this bill and twisted it to fit his deceptive messaging. The Governor contends SB 509 will eliminate the top tax bracket, but his opinion has been dismissed by former Missouri Supreme Court Justice Ray Price and the Missouri Society of CPAs who agree the bill will require the tax tables to be redrawn and not eliminate the entire tax bracket as the Governor says….

[emphasis in original]

Who’s doing the dismissing?:

Nixon says Republican tax cut bill would cost Missouri billions

April 22, 2014 11:30 pm  •  By Virginia Young

….[House Majority Floor Leader] Diehl [r] cited a legal opinion by former Missouri Supreme Court Chief Justice William Price, who was asked to review the bill by Dempsey. Price concluded that Missouri courts would find that the 5.5 percent tax rate would apply to all incomes over $8,000 even after the reduction is fully implemented. Price is Diehl’s law partner at Armstrong Teasdale, a St. Louis law firm….

[emphasis added](hat tip to Bob Yates)

Fancy that.

The lead editorial in today’s Warrensburg Daily Star Journal takes issue with SB 509:

Mo. tax cut bill ill-considered; veto necessary

….What lawmakers meant to pass is, understandably, a source of concern. But what [Governor] Nixon said they actually passed is an unmitigated catastrophe….

….The trouble is, what lawmakers wrote is not abundantly clear. What they wrote is questionable legally, and therefore dangerous fiscally.

When the fate of the state is at stake, lawmakers should be scrupulous in what they write, and in how carefully they read. They should allow debate that answers questions, something the House did not allow. No matter the intent or ultimate legal decision regarding, Senate Bill 509 looks like sloppy lawmaking and that is not a good for Missouri….

….Anyone who would vote to override a veto of HB 509 risks plunging Missouri into a financial abyss from which there may be no way out.

The home town newspaper isn’t buying what Representative Hoskins (r) is selling. Fancy that.

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)

AG Chris Koster (D) to Speaker Jones (r) on HB 253: you all certainly made a mess of things… (August 29, 2013)

Speaker Tim Jones (r) and HB 253: hone your legal analytical skills litigating birth certificates (August 30, 2013)

HB 253: any way you slice it (September 11, 2013)

HB 253: Watch out – It’ll be baaaaaaaaaack (September 11, 2013)

SB 509: once more, with feeling (April 17, 2014)

SB 509: “….We’d like to think that most of them are not simpletons….” (April 18, 2014)

SB 509: Governor Jay Nixon (D) strikes back (April 22, 2014)

SB 509: dueling on Twitter (April 22, 2014)

SB 509: Would you like some whine with your bill? (April 23, 2014)

SB 509: strange gyrations (April 23, 2014)

The Missouri GOP, Evel Knievel and political stuntsmanship (April 24, 2014)

 In case you wondered what Missouri Republican legislators are currently cooking up, they are starting impeachment hearings against the Governor. They think that if they set off some big rhetorical fireworks, reality-challenged Missourians (a.k.a., the Republian base) might be susceptible to becoming so riled up about the Governor’s efforts to take care of business that they’ll show their appreciation come election time.

If you want more background read the earlier post by Blue Girl, (“When ideology overtakes governing”). After doing so, you’ll be in a good position to appreciate Rep. Mike Moon’s (R-157) effort at wit when he attempted to defend the risible GOP project:

Moon says the Governor has called the impeachment resolutions “stunts.”   But he says,  “I  guarantee you I’m no Evel Knievel,” referring to the famous motorcycle stunt rider.

Rep. Moon is right that there are some differences beetween the famous stuntman and the state’s GOP lawmakers – although the difference might have to do with something other than performing stunts. Evel Kneivel, who attempted to jump motorcycles over strings of trucks, canyons and other lethal spaces, had to know something about what he was doing in order to avoid going terminally splat. Can we say the same thing about the Republican contingent in Jefferson City? Is it possible that these folks don’t have a clue? For example, the latest evidence that we are represented by buffoons pulling one mindless stunt after another is the current manifestation of the GOP’s ongoing preoccupation with cutting the taxes of the wealthy, SB509:

Nixon says lawmakers might have intended to lower the income tax at the top level.  But what they did to is eliminate state income taxes on incomes of more than $8,000.   He maintains the wording is clear. “Senate Bill 509 says that once this legislation is fully phased in, the top bracket ‘shall be eliminated,'” he says. “The result of this provision is to wipe out 97% of all individual income tax collections in the state of Missouri.”

Nixon’s got expert opinion on his side and the GOP have got an retired Missouri* Supreme Court judge who disagrees. So how do the intellectual giants in the lege come down on the topic? According to Senate floor leader Ron Richard, “we got one learned man who says it’s not an issue; one learned man who says it is. So what do you do?  You take your best shot and try to deal with what you think is your best interest.”  

Does that mean that Richard thinks it is in the state’s best interest to get tangled up in litigation that could do away with most income tax? Or is he just saying that Republicans propose to do nothing about what is either a dangerous error or a potentially dangerous ambiguity? Am I the only person who sees the problem with this response? You think that Richard and his GOP colleagues have got some hidden agenda that would keep them from fixing an ambiguous passage? Or does he think a slap-happy approach to state tax revenue is really the way to go?

Bolstering the latter explanation is the fact that this is not the first time that the geniuses in Jefferson City have proven unable to draft coherent legislation. They made a potentially disastrous drafting error when they tried to push a tax cut bill through last session. And it wasn’t the only such error. Just think – these bozos can’t even get the basics right even when they’ve got outside lobbyists, like the American Legislative Educational Council (ALEC), who want to write legislation for them!

Supporting the hidden agenda thesis, however, is the Governor’s contention that maybe these folks are sneaking in through the back door in order to to do billionaire Rex Sinquefield’s dirty tax cutting work:

Nixon said there were only two possible explanations for how this happened,” the newspaper reported. “It was either an accident or it was put in deliberately ‘at the behest of ideological interests led by one St. Louis billionaire.’ ”

The governor was apparently referring to wealthy financier Rex Sinquefield, who has long advocated eliminating Missouri’s income tax as a way to attract more business to the state.

Nixon hasn’t offered any hard proof for this assertion, but, on the other hand, Missouri’s wild-West attitude toward influence buying in government, coupled with Sinquefield’s rather lavish generosity towards compliant pols, does lend his accusation a certain piquancy, particularly when the GOPers try to pooh-pooh the potential problem when it’s pointed out to them. This point of view suggests that perhaps the strongest resemblance between Missouri GOP pols and Evel Knievel might be that they’re all folks who are (or, in the case of Knievel, were) paid for performing dangerous stunts.

And cutting already low taxes in a low service state is unequivocally a dangerous stunt. The same stunt has backfired in Kansas and it has failed dismally to benefit the citizens of Texas and Oklahoma, states that, while experiencing growth primarily due to their oil reserves, have drastically  curtailed essential services. Which point suggests another significant difference between Missouri GOP pols and Evel Knievel: while Knievel himself shouldered all the risks in return for the cash, the Missouri stuntsmen are content to pocket the bucks (whether quid pro quo or not) and to shove the danger off onto the shoulders of Missouri citizens.

* The word “Missouri” added for clarity.

Advice for the republican controlled General Assembly – which they tend to ignore.

More sputtering from yesterday via Twitter, from Speaker Pro Tem Denny Hoskins (r):

Denny Hoskins, CPA ‏@DLHoskins

MO CPAs & former MO Supreme Court Justice Price say @GovJayNixon analysis on #SB509 is incorrect. #moleg #WhoDoYouBelieve? 4:05 PM – 22 Apr 2014

A reply:

E. J. Miller ‏@EJMillerEsq

@DLHoskins @SpeakerTimJones Mendacity and incompetence of #MoLeg clearly shows the moral and intellectual decline of American conservatism 4:30 PM – 22 Apr 2014

Okay, that left a mark. Though he didn’t mention twerking.

More gyrations:

Denny Hoskins, CPA ‏@DLHoskins

@EJMillerEsq So you disagree w/former Supreme Court Justice Price & MO CPAs on this tax interpretation but agree with the college professor? 5:39 PM – 22 Apr 2014

Because we all know that college professors just occupy space and CPAs never make misteaks.

E. J. Miller ‏@EJMillerEsq

@DLHoskins @EJMillerEsq I can read too! #PlainLaguage #Sinquefield 6:18 PM – 22 Apr 2014

Tom Pendergast ‏@voteearlyoften

@EJMillerEsq @DLHoskins it really is very simple. all words in statute must be given meaning. What else is meant by the sentence? 8:18 PM – 22 Apr 2014

Good question. Yes, indeed.

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)

AG Chris Koster (D) to Speaker Jones (r) on HB 253: you all certainly made a mess of things… (August 29, 2013)

Speaker Tim Jones (r) and HB 253: hone your legal analytical skills litigating birth certificates (August 30, 2013)

HB 253: any way you slice it (September 11, 2013)

HB 253: Watch out – It’ll be baaaaaaaaaack (September 11, 2013)

SB 509: once more, with feeling (April 17, 2014)

SB 509: “….We’d like to think that most of them are not simpletons….” (April 18, 2014)

SB 509: Governor Jay Nixon (D) strikes back (April 22, 2014)

SB 509: dueling on Twitter (April 22, 2014)

SB 509: Would you like some whine with your bill? (April 23, 2014)

From Governor Jay Nixon (D):

Governor Jay Nixon ‏@GovJayNixon

Fatal flaw or hidden agenda? Either way, #SB509 demonstrates #moleg reckless approach to our budget http://governor.mo.gov/news/ar… … 5:11 PM – 22 Apr 2014

And a reply:

Caitlin Kerber ‏@CaitlinKerber

@GovJayNixon maybe you should link to something other than YOUR OWN website. Just saying, who is the one pushing their own agenda? #moleg 5:14 PM – 22 Apr 2014

Uh, he’s the Governor. People voted for him. They expect him to push his agenda. Who elected the billionaire? Just asking. By the way, the Governor openly pushing his agenda means that it’s not “hidden”. There is a difference.

We never get out of junior high school.

Caitlin who?:

Speaker Pro Tem

Denny Hoskins (54)

Room: 301

[….]

Legislative Assistant: Caitlin Kerber

Interesting.

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)

AG Chris Koster (D) to Speaker Jones (r) on HB 253: you all certainly made a mess of things… (August 29, 2013)

Speaker Tim Jones (r) and HB 253: hone your legal analytical skills litigating birth certificates (August 30, 2013)

HB 253: any way you slice it (September 11, 2013)

HB 253: Watch out – It’ll be baaaaaaaaaack (September 11, 2013)

SB 509: once more, with feeling (April 17, 2014)

SB 509: “….We’d like to think that most of them are not simpletons….” (April 18, 2014)

SB 509: Governor Jay Nixon (D) strikes back (April 22, 2014)

The right wingnut republican controlled General Assembly made a big boo boo. Is anyone surprised?

A press release from the office of Governor Jay Nixon (D):

Senate Bill 509: Impacts of Section 143.011.2(4) Eliminating Top Income Tax Bracket

April 22, 2014

“With the simple stroke of my pen, this bill would separate Missouri from every state in the nation – as the only one unable to meet even the most basic obligations to its people,” Gov. Nixon said. “For generations, Democrats and Republicans have worked together to protect Missouri’s spotless AAA credit rating and keep our state on a fiscally responsible path. Now is not the time to veer off this proven course. That’s why I’m calling on members of the legislature to abandon this dangerous scheme, and work with us on a responsible approach – like the one I laid out earlier this year – that will protect public education and keep our state moving forward.”

   Senate Bill 509 [pdf] contains a provision that would eliminate entirely the income tax for Missouri taxpayers with incomes over $9,000.

   Missouri’s tax code contains a number of brackets, or ranges of income subject to certain levels of taxation.  Currently, the top individual income tax bracket applies to all Missourians with incomes greater than $9,000 a year.  

   The new Section 143.011.2(4) in Senate Bill 509 provides that once the legislation is fully phased-in, the top tax bracket “shall be eliminated.” Eliminating this top tax bracket would result in a new top tax bracket that applied to taxpayers with Missouri taxable income “Over $8,000 but not over $9,000.” However, there would no longer be a tax bracket for Missourians with incomes over $9,000, thereby eliminating altogether the income tax for such taxpayers.

   This analysis is supported by the independent legal opinion of Professor Cheryl D. Block of the Washington University School of Law. For more than thirty years, Professor Block has taught classes on tax law, legislation, and statutory interpretation. Professor Block is an expert on tax policy and author of a leading textbook on corporate taxation, which is in its fourth edition.

   Professor Block’s analysis confirms that the language in Senate Bill 509 would “completely eliminate the top state personal income tax bracket” and, as a result, taxpayers with incomes “over $9,000 would pay no tax at all.”

   A fiscal analysis performed by the Office of Administration, Division of Budget and Planning, shows that the provision eliminating the income tax on Missourians with incomes greater than $9,000 would reduce state general revenue by approximately $4.8 billion annually, eliminating 97 percent of all individual income tax collections and wiping out 65 percent of the state’s general revenue budget.

   A fiscal impact of this magnitude would jeopardize even basic funding for education and vital public services and is likely to result in a downgrade to Missouri’s spotless AAA credit rating, maintained over decades and reaffirmed by all three leading independent credit rating agencies just last year.

The legal analysis from Washington University School of Law Professor Cheryl D. Block is available here. [pdf]

The fiscal estimate produced by the Office of Administration, Division of Budget & Planning is available here. [pdf]

[….]

[emphasis in original]

Meanwhile, the usual republican suspects sputter:

John Diehl, Jr ‏@johndiehljr

@eyokley Governor’s contention of #SB509 flaw is laughable. MO SupCt would never take his position on that reading of the bill. 7:58 AM – 22 Apr 2014

There’s so much win in that.

Denny Hoskins, CPA ‏@DLHoskins

#SB509 is a tax cut for MO individuals and small businesses, NOT special interest groups. @GovJayNixon needs to read the bill! #moleg 10:25 AM – 21 Apr 2014

Apparently Governor Nixon (D) did. And so did professor Cheryl Block. You’d know that if you had read her analysis.

MOSenate08 ‏@MOSenate08

@J_Hancock @jshormanNL @johndiehljr Looks like the governor is once again grasping at straws. I’m confidant courts would uphold the intent. 8:47 AM – 22 Apr 2014

That’s the right wingnut republican version of “we didn’t mean what we wrote”. This truly inspires confidence.

Peter Kinder ‏@PeterKinder

Will the unhinged hysteria campaign of #MO @GovJayNixon against #tax cuts work this time? 1:10 PM – 22 Apr 2014

Thank you for that, Captain Dunsel.

Meanwhile:

Tony Messenger ‏@tonymess

Remember when #moleg GOP said last year they could fix all the mistakes from last year’s messed up tax cut bill? Instead they made new ones. 10:12 AM – 22 Apr 2014

Tony Messenger ‏@tonymess

Once again, @rexsinquefield overreaches by trying to eliminate his tax bracket, while his minions suggest otherwise. When will #moleg learn? 10:13 AM – 22 Apr 2014

Tony Messenger ‏@tonymess

Can’t imagine the #MOGOP would sabotage their own tax cut bill so they could go through entire charade again next year. #kaching #moleg 12:14 PM – 22 Apr 2014

They would have to possess a modicum of understanding for that theory to be operative.

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)

AG Chris Koster (D) to Speaker Jones (r) on HB 253: you all certainly made a mess of things… (August 29, 2013)

Speaker Tim Jones (r) and HB 253: hone your legal analytical skills litigating birth certificates (August 30, 2013)

HB 253: any way you slice it (September 11, 2013)

HB 253: Watch out – It’ll be baaaaaaaaaack (September 11, 2013)

SB 509: once more, with feeling (April 17, 2014)

SB 509: “….We’d like to think that most of them are not simpletons….” (April 18, 2014)

“…Propeller beanies are optional for all involved, but the sponsors should be required to wear them anyway…”

Representative Nick Marshall (r) in Jefferson City. [file photo]

Representative Rick Brattin (r) [file photo].

Propeller beanies, indeed.

The hearing schedule on Wednesday for the House Judiciary Committee:

97th General Assembly, 2nd Regular Session

Hearing Schedule

[….]

Hearing Date Wednesday, April 23, 2014

[….]

Committee: Judiciary

Chair: Cox, Stanley – (Rep-52)

Vice Chair: Elmer, Kevin-(Rep-139)

Date: Wednesday, April 23, 2014

Time: 12:00 PM or Immediately Upon Morning Recess

Location: House Hearing Room 1

Note:

Executive session may be held on any matter referred to the committee.



Public Hearings will be conducted for the following bills:

HR 380 — ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT

Sponsor: Marshall, Nick A (Rep-013)

Co-Sponsor: Brattin, Rick (Rep-055)

Adopts Articles of Impeachment for Governor Jay Nixon for the issuance of Executive Order 13-14 regarding the filing of a Missouri state combined income tax return by certain same-sex couples

HR 476 — ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT

Sponsor: Moon, Mike Michael (Rep-157)

Co-Sponsor: Brattin, Rick (Rep-055)

Adopts articles of impeachment against Governor Nixon for failure to issue writs of election to fill vacancies in the General Assembly without delay as required by state law

HR 923 — NOTITLE

Sponsor: Brattin, Rick (Rep-055)

Co-Sponsor: Marshall, Nick A (Rep-013)

Adopts articles of impeachment for the Governor based on his failure to discipline or dismiss executive branch employees responsivle for the released of concealed carry endorsement information

What a colossal waste of time.

Previously:

HR 380: impeaching Governor Jay Nixon (D) because of teh gay thing (February 6, 2014)

HR 476: keeping their eyes on the bouncing rubber ball (February 13, 2014)

HR 923: the ultimate in right wingnut – guns and impeachment (March 11, 2014)

Wait, wait, don’t tell me (November 18, 2014)

Impeaching Nixon? (November 17, 2014)

“….The choice facing members of the legislature has never been clearer: they can support Senate Bill 509 or they can support public schools, but they cannot do both….”

Today, from Governor Jay Nixon (D):

Gov. Nixon issues statement on data showing the impact of Senate Bill 509 on funding for local public schools

April 17, 2014

Senate Bill 509 would drain $620 million annually from public education and other priorities.

Jefferson City, MO

Gov. Jay Nixon today issued the following statement regarding data requested by the Missouri School Boards Association showing the impact Senate Bill 509 would have on local school districts across the state.

“These new numbers show that if the legislature succeeds in punching a $620 million hole in our state budget with this unaffordable giveaway to special interests, it’s our students and schools who will pay the price,” Gov. Nixon said. “Senate Bill 509 would drain hundreds of millions of dollars annually out of our K-12 schools — weakening our economy, undermining our stable business climate, and putting full funding of the foundation formula out of reach. Missourians want good schools and good jobs, not another dangerous scheme to defund our K-12 classrooms.”

According to the fiscal estimate produced by the legislature, Senate Bill 509 would reduce state revenues by more than $620 million annually when fully implemented.  K-12 education is heavily dependent on general revenue, so public schools are affected disproportionately by measures that reduce the general revenue budget, such as Senate Bill 509.

“Missouri already has the sixth lowest taxes in the nation and even the conservative Tax Foundation has slammed these ill-conceived gimmicks for failing to create jobs or generate economic growth,” Gov. Nixon said. “For our state to succeed in today’s high-tech global economy, we need to our students to be prepared to compete worldwide. But instead of investing in public education, this legislature has chosen to funnel money away from our classrooms and into the pockets of lawyers and lobbyists who need it the least.  The choice facing members of the legislature has never been clearer: they can support Senate Bill 509 or they can support public schools, but they cannot do both.”

Senate Bill 509 includes a 25 percent tax deduction for so-called “business-income.”  This type of income is often reported by wealthier individuals, such as lawyers and lobbyists, with LLCs or corporate partnerships.  In February, the right-leaning Tax Foundation wrote that “special carve-outs like this simply encourage individuals to structure themselves as pass-through entities for tax reasons, even if there is no economic or business reason for doing so.”

Instead of the unaffordable approach taken by Senate Bill 509, Gov. Nixon has laid out a proposal to fully fund the K-12 foundation formula and give working families a responsible tax cut by reining in wasteful tax credit expenditures.

Over the coming days, the Governor said his administration would continue to review the bill to identify any additional unintended consequences or drafting errors.

A link to the breakdown of district funding levels if Senate Bill 509 becomes law is available here.  The data was generated using the same methodology used by education groups in assessing the impact of House Bill 253 last year.

How the “Friends of K-12 and Higher Education” voted [pdf] in the House:

JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE

Second Regular Session, 97th GENERAL ASSEMBLY

FIFTY-THIRD DAY, WEDNESDAY, APRIL 16, 2014

[….]

On motion of Representative Koenig, SS#3 SCS SBs 509 & 496 was truly agreed to and

finally passed by the following vote:

AYES: 104

Allen Anderson Austin Bahr Barnes

Bernskoetter Brattin Brown Burlison Cierpiot

Conway 104 Cookson Cornejo Cox Crawford

Cross Curtman Davis Diehl Dohrman

Dugger Elmer Fitzpatrick Fitzwater Flanigan

Fraker Franklin Frederick Funderburk Gannon

Gatschenberger Gosen Grisamore Guernsey Haahr

Haefner Hampton Hansen Hicks Higdon

Hinson Hoskins Hough Houghton Hurst

Johnson Jones 50 Justus Keeney Kelley 127

Koenig Kolkmeyer Korman Lair Lant

Lauer Leara Lichtenegger Love Lynch

Marshall McCaherty McGaugh Messenger Miller

Molendorp Moon Morris Muntzel Neely

Neth Parkinson Pfautsch Phillips Pike

Pogue Redmon Rehder Remole Rhoads

Richardson Riddle Roorda Ross Rowden

Rowland Scharnhorst Schatz Schieber Shull

Shumake Solon Sommer Stream Swan

Thomson Torpey Walker White Wieland

Wilson Wood Zerr Mr. Speaker

NOES: 048

Anders Black Burns Butler Carpenter

Colona Conway 10 Curtis Dunn Ellington

English Englund Frame Gardner Harris

Hubbard Hummel Kelly 45 Kirkton Kratky

May Mayfield McCann Beatty McDonald McKenna

McManus McNeil Meredith Mims Mitten

Montecillo Morgan Newman Nichols Norr

Otto Pace Peters Pierson Rizzo

Runions Schieffer Schupp Smith Swearingen

Walton Gray Webber Wright

PRESENT: 000

ABSENT WITH LEAVE: 008

Berry Ellinger Engler Entlicher Hodges

LaFaver Reiboldt Spencer

VACANCIES: 003

Speaker Jones declared the bill passed.

[….]

104 members of the House voted to screw education. And they know it.

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)

AG Chris Koster (D) to Speaker Jones (r) on HB 253: you all certainly made a mess of things… (August 29, 2013)

Speaker Tim Jones (r) and HB 253: hone your legal analytical skills litigating birth certificates (August 30, 2013)

HB 253: any way you slice it (September 11, 2013)

HB 253: Watch out – It’ll be baaaaaaaaaack (September 11, 2013)

“…House Bill 1770 was perfected by a vote of 78-68, four votes short of the constitutional requirement for final passage…”

A press release from Governor Jay Nixon (D):

Gov. Nixon issues statement on the failure of Right to Work to garner the votes necessary for final passage

April 9, 2014

Jefferson City, MO

Gov. Jay Nixon issued the following statement on the failure of House Bill 1770 to garner the votes necessary for final passage:

“Today, a bipartisan coalition of legislators rejected Right to Work, marking a victory for Missouri working families and a setback for the out-of-state ideologues and special interests trying to attack them,” Gov. Nixon said. “At a time when we should be focused on policies that create jobs and move our state forward, this misguided political maneuver would take us backward by undermining workers and weakening our economy.  I will continue to stand on the side of the hard-working men and women of Missouri as we work together to build a brighter, more prosperous future for our state.”

The Missouri Constitution requires a constitutional majority for final passage of a bill.  House Bill 1770 was perfected by a vote of 78-68, four votes short of the constitutional requirement for final passage.

[emphasis in original]

Lieutenant Governor Peter Kinder (r) does a half hearted victory dance, via Twitter:

Peter Kinder @PeterKinder

Thank you to those supporting #RTW today and everyday. Advance worker freedom and kickstart the #Missouri economy. #MOleg 3:39 PM – 9 Apr 2014

And this one, which is quite funny:

Roy Temple ‏@roytemple

While Rep @calebrowden44 lacks conviction, he’s at least consistent in his cowardice. He took another walk on a hard vote. #RTW 3:41 PM – 9 Apr 2014

Yawn.

Even more Articles of Impeachment were filed against Governor Jay Nixon (D) today by Representative Rick Brattin (r):

SECOND REGULAR SESSION

House Resolution No. 923

97TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES BRATTIN (Sponsor), MARSHALL, WILSON, POGUE, MOON AND BAHR (Co-sponsors).

5880L.01I

ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT

           WHEREAS, the people of the State of Missouri cherish their right to bear arms, as protected by the Missouri Constitution and the Constitution of the United States; and

           WHEREAS, in November 2011 and again in January 2013, the Missouri Highway Patrol released the full list of the more than 163,000 Missourians who have concealed carry endorsements to the federal Social Security Administration (SSA) Office of Inspector General based only a verbal request for such information; and

           WHEREAS, in response to the verbal request by the federal Office of Inspector General, the Missouri Highway Patrol asked for and received the full list of Missouri’s concealed carry endorsement information on a disc from the Division of Motor Vehicle and Driver Licensing within the Department of Revenue; and

           WHEREAS, while the verbal request by the federal agent violated Social Security Administration protocols, the release of the entire database of concealed carry endorsement information was a clear violation of Section 571.101, RSMo, which at the time of the November 2011 and January 2013 releases stated in relevant part:

“571.101. 8. … An applicant’s status as a holder of a certificate of qualification or a concealed carry endorsement shall not be public information and shall be considered personal protected information. Any person who violates the provisions of this subsection by disclosing protected information shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor.”; and

           WHEREAS, Governor Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon’s administration maintained that the releases were legal and done to aid a federal investigation into disability fraud related to mental illness claims; and

           WHEREAS, such federal investigation was designed to compare the concealed carry endorsement list with a list of Social Security recipients to determine whether any endorsement holder who met the mental health qualifications for a concealed carry endorsement had also sought benefits for a mental illness; and

           WHEREAS, Andrea Spillars, the Deputy Director of the Department of Public Safety, testified before the Senate Appropriations Committee in April 2013 that the sharing of information among law enforcement agencies was legal and common. She also testified that “There’s nothing in the law that prevents (a federal investigator) from getting that information in batch form” and that the agency could release the information again legally to federal investigators; and

           WHEREAS, the release of the full database does not fall under an acceptable law enforcement function because it was not limited to specific named persons that the Social Security Administration were investigating, but was an intelligence gathering activity involving an entire group of persons who were not named individuals under federal investigation, which constituted a serious abuse and violation of their right to privacy; and

           WHEREAS, in March 2013, a Missouri citizen was denied his concealed carry permit after being told by a Department of Revenue license office that it would make digital copies of documents needed for a permit to carry a concealed weapon; and

           WHEREAS, at the time of the denial, the Missouri Department of Revenue had installed new computer equipment that records certain information as a part of the federal Real ID Act of 2005, in violation of state laws prohibiting the Department from implementing the federal Real ID Act and which require that concealed carry endorsement data be kept confidential; and

           WHEREAS, for weeks, the Department of Revenue repeatedly denied that it was implementing Real ID or turning over concealed carry endorsement information. Only after the discovery of the scanning and retention of certain concealed carry documents did the Department of Revenue later admit that it had twice turned over the entire database of concealed carry endorsement information to the Highway Patrol and was, in fact, scanning and retaining certificates of qualification for concealed carry endorsements; and

           WHEREAS, in early April 2013, Governor Nixon stated unequivocally, “This State of Missouri is not collecting a bunch of unuseful data to send to some sort of magical database someplace to mess with people. It’s not happening.”; and

           WHEREAS, on April 16, 2013, Governor Nixon announced that the Department of Revenue would no longer scan or retain certificates of qualification for concealed carry endorsements and stated, “It has been determined that the scanning and retention of concealed carry certificates are not essential to the integrity of the license issuance process.”; and

           WHEREAS, these violations of state law, the unlawful infringement on and abuse of the personal privacy rights of concealed carry endorsement holders, the delay in government agencies in revealing these violations, and the lies told by government agencies surrounding these violations demanded swift investigation and decisive action by Governor Nixon to hold accountable those government agencies and employees who engaged in unlawful actions; and

           WHEREAS, Article IV, Section 2 of the Missouri Constitution states:

“The governor shall take care that the laws are distributed and faithfully executed, and shall be a conservator of the peace throughout the state.”; and

           WHEREAS, Article VII, Section 1 of the Missouri Constitution states:

“All elective executive officials of the state, and judges of the supreme court, courts of appeals and circuit courts shall be liable to impeachment for crimes, misconduct, habitual drunkenness, willful neglect of duty, corruption in office, incompetency, or any offense involving moral turpitude or oppression in office.”; and

           WHEREAS, after his discovery of such serious violations and unlawful actions by government agencies and employees, Governor Nixon’s failure to immediately discipline or dismiss those persons responsible for state law violations and those responsible for the subsequent delay in admitting such violations constitutes a willful neglect of duty by Governor Nixon to ensure that the “laws are distributed and faithfully executed” under Article IV, Section 2 of the Missouri Constitution; and

           WHEREAS, Article VII, Section 2 of the Missouri Constitution vests the sole power of impeachment in the House of Representatives:

           NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Missouri House of Representatives, Ninety-seventh General Assembly, finds, charges, and presents that Governor Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, while so acting as the Governor of the State of Missouri, failed to immediately discipline or dismiss those members of the executive branch in the Missouri Highway Patrol and Department of Revenue responsible for twice releasing personal protected information regarding concealed carry endorsements to a federal agent in violation of state law, and failed to immediately discipline or dismiss those members of the executive branch responsible for unlawfully scanning and retaining concealed carry endorsement documents by the Department of Revenue, constituting acts which are impeachable acts under Article VII, Section 1 of the Missouri Constitution, and that by doing such aforesaid acts Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon was and is guilty of the commission of willful neglect of duty; and

           BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Missouri House of Representatives adopts the following:

ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT

ARTICLE I

           That the Missouri House of Representatives under the authority of Article VII, Section 2 of the Missouri Constitution does find, charge, and present that Governor Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, while so acting as the Governor of the State of Missouri, contrary to the standards of conduct prescribed for an elected executive official of the state, committed an act impeachable under Article VII, Section 1 of the Missouri Constitution, in that, Governor Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, after his discovery of serious violations of state law and unlawful actions by government agencies and employees, knowingly failed to immediately discipline or dismiss those members of the executive branch in the Missouri Highway Patrol and Department of Revenue responsible for twice releasing personal protected information regarding concealed carry endorsements to a federal agent in violation of state law.

           That by the doing of the aforesaid act, Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon was and is guilty of willful neglect of duty, an impeachable offense under Article VII, Section 1 of the Missouri Constitution, and that such act has shaken the faith and confidence of the citizens of the State of Missouri in their ability to have faith in their elected public officials, and has breached the public trust that the laws of this state will be faithfully executed.

ARTICLE II

           That the Missouri House of Representatives under the authority of Article VII, Section 2 of the Missouri Constitution does find, charge, and present that Governor Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, while so acting as the Governor of the State of Missouri, contrary to the standards of conduct prescribed for an elected executive official of the state, committed an act impeachable under Article VII, Section 1 of the Missouri Constitution, in that, Governor Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, after his discovery of a serious violation of state law and unlawful actions by government agencies and employees, knowingly failed to immediately discipline or dismiss those members of the executive branch responsible for unlawfully scanning and retaining concealed carry endorsement documents by the Department of Revenue.

           That by the doing of the aforesaid act, Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon was and is guilty of willful neglect of duty, an impeachable offense under Article VII, Section 1 of the Missouri Constitution, and that such act has shaken the faith and confidence of the citizens of the State of Missouri in their ability to have faith in their elected public officials, and has breached the public trust that the laws of this state will be faithfully executed.”; and

           BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that upon impeachment by the House of Representatives, Governor Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon shall stand trial before a special commission of seven eminent jurists to be elected by the Missouri Senate in accordance with Article VII, Section 2 of the Missouri Constitution for willful neglect of duty; and

           BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chief Clerk of the Missouri House of Representatives be instructed to prepare properly inscribed copies of this resolution for Governor Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, the Missouri Supreme Court, and the Missouri Senate.

[emphasis in original]

Add in Sharia law or the Tenth Amendment or Abortion and we’d have a right wingnut trifecta.

Propeller beanies are optional for all involved, but the sponsors should be required to wear them anyway.

Previously:

HR 380: impeaching Governor Jay Nixon (D) because of teh gay thing (February 6, 2014)

HR 476: keeping their eyes on the bouncing rubber ball (February 13, 2014)

A bill, introduced yesterday by Representative Jim Neely (r) in a fit of pique over Governor Jay Nixon’s (D) lack of alacrity in setting special elections for vacant General Assembly seats:

SECOND REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE BILL NO. 2066

97TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY



INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES NEELY (Sponsor), FITZWATER, BARNES, CORNEJO, DOHRMAN, SPENCER, ROWDEN, BROWN, CURTMAN, MCGAUGH, MILLER, REMOLE, REDMON, ROSS, JUSTUS, LICHTENEGGER AND HANSEN (Co-sponsors).

6240H.01I    D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

To repeal section 21.110, RSMo, and to enact in lieu thereof two new sections relating to legislative representation.

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

           Section A. Section 21.110, RSMo, is repealed and two new sections enacted in lieu thereof, to be known as sections 21.110 and 135.1776, to read as follows:

           21.110. If the governor receives any resignation or notice of vacancy, or if he or she is satisfied of the death of any member of either house, during the recess, he or she shall[, without delay, issue a writ of election to supply the vacancy] issue a writ of election within ninety days that requires a special election to supply the vacancy. The special election must be held within one hundred eighty days from the date the governor receives notice of a resignation, death, or other event creating the vacancy.

           135.1776. 1. This section shall be known and may be cited as the “Patrick Henry No Taxation Without Representation Act”.

           2. In the event the governor violates the time limitation provisions of section 21.110, notwithstanding whether that section is deemed mandatory or directory by a court of law, all taxpayers residing within the house or senate district devoid of representation shall be entitled to receive a tax credit under this section.

           3. A taxpayer shall be entitled to a tax credit against the taxpayer’s state tax liability incurred under the provisions of chapter 143, excluding sections 143.191 to 143.265 and related provisions, in an amount equal to one thousand dollars, multiplied by the fraction or mixed number decimal equivalent resulting from dividing the number of months the district was without representation after the expiration of the one hundred eighty-day requirement to hold a special election under section 21.110 by twelve. Partial months may be rounded in standard fashion to the nearest one hundredth place using the requisite number of days in such month. Tax credits issued under this section shall be fully refundable. No tax credits issued under this section shall be sold, transferred, or assigned.

           4. The department of revenue shall implement this tax credit upon notice of a violation of section 21.110 by any individual and the verification of such violation by the department. Public records shall suffice for a determination of whether a violation of section 21.110 has occurred, except that any individual may bring an action in an appropriate circuit court seeking a writ to require the department to enforce the provisions of this section and any such action shall be subject to de novo review in the circuit court.

           5. The department of revenue may promulgate rules to implement the provisions of this section. Any rule or portion of a rule, as that term is defined in section 536.010, that is created under the authority delegated in this section shall become effective only if it complies with and is subject to all of the provisions of chapter 536 and, if applicable, section 536.028. This section and chapter 536 are nonseverable and if any of the powers vested with the general assembly under chapter 536 to review, to delay the effective date, or to disapprove and annul a rule are subsequently held unconstitutional, then the grant of rulemaking authority and any rule proposed or adopted after August 28, 2014, shall be invalid and void.

[emphasis in original]

Some suggestions for amendments:

If we claim on our state income tax filing that our State Representative or State Senator “sucks” can we get a tax credit? If both suck is the tax credit doubled? Or, to be generous, if only one sucks do we just get half of the tax credit?

If our representatives in the General Assembly introduce bills that don’t pass or aren’t signed into law during the regular session do we get a tax credit based on the percentage of bills that aren’t successful? What about a special or veto sessions?

If our representatives in the General Assembly join caucuses that we don’t agree with can we declare that on our state income tax filing and get a tax credit based on the percentage we do agree with?

If our representatives aren’t present for each vote on the floor or in committee can we get a tax credit based on that percentage?

Could we get a tax credit for every bill filed with a reference to the Second or Tenth Amendments? Okay, that’s not fair – that would bankrupt the state.

If people in a legislative or senate district receive a tax credit under the bill do we reduce general state expenditures (roads, bridges, schools, etc.) in those districts by a comparable percentage? Really, why should they benefit from the largesse of the rest of the state if they don’t want to contribute to the general welfare? Just asking.