• About
  • The Poetry of Protest

Show Me Progress

~ covering government and politics in Missouri – since 2007

Show Me Progress

Tag Archives: HJR 43

Rep. Dan Houx (r): your awl reely stoopit

10 Friday Mar 2023

Posted by Michael Bersin in Missouri General Assembly, Missouri House

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

54th Legislative District, Dan Houx, General Assembly, HJR 43, missouri, right wingnut

HJR 43.

Dan Houx (r) [2018 file photo].

From an email communication to his constituents:

[….]
Protecting the Constitution – HJR 43 is designed to protect the state constitution from the influence of out-of-state interests by allowing voters to decide if the state should raise the threshold to modify the constitution in the future. The measure would change the threshold required to approve changes to the state constitution. Currently, changes to the constitution require only a simple majority for approval. If approved by the legislature and voters, HJR 43 would raise the threshold to 60 percent voter approval for passage.

Proponents say the increased threshold will help minimize the influence of out-of-state groups that have no ties to Missouri but spend millions of dollars to change the state constitution. The sponsor of HJR 43 said the groups “try to reimagine Missouri in their vision.” He said, “I think it should be in the vision of the people of the state of Missouri.”
[….]

If you’re worried about wealthy interests (in-state and/or out-of-state) exerting undue influence in our elections when they spend millions of dollars trying to overwhelm voters with bullshit ads and mailings then do something about campaign finance reform, fool.

This resolution is just right wingnut dogma geared to gutting the ballot initiative process in Missouri. It’s embarrassing.

A small sample of the witness statements on HJR 43 submitted to the House Elections and Elected Officials Committee:

This proposed amendment is unnecessary, harmful, and misleading. It would lead to MORE out-of-state money affecting our ballot initiatives. It reduces the ability for the will of the people to be our supreme law. Also, the dog-whistle about only citizens voting is the exact kind of unnecessary addition to the state constitution your side claims to want to keep out of the constitution.

I am against changing the initiative process. It works, (witness Hancock amendment, right to farm, the conservation department). Proposed attempts to increase necessary percentages will effectively kill the ability of citizens to directly participate in democracy. This is a transparent effort to subvert the will of the majority of the people of Missouri. Leave it alone.

Notwithstanding that the Hancock Amendment was, and still is, a huge mistake and the Right to Farm was a ridiculous gesture.

This bill makes it more difficult to place and pass measures on a ballot. The people have a right to be heard in the simplest manner possible.

You’d think.

We should not be making it harder for Missourians to get things they want passed in our state. We have passed so many good things the last few years using this process. It’s awesome that these have had bipartisan voter support as well. Making it harder for voters to have their voices heard is unconstitutional and Un-American. If our legislators can’t get the job done then we should be able to get things on the ballot ourselves and lawmakers should not be making it harder for us to so

I believe these proposed limitations of the MO people’s ideas and voices all head the wrong direction. I think voters’ voices should be stronger and easier to become law, not harder with more obstacles, as these proposed rules are attempting.

The right wingnut controlled General Assembly considers that a feature, not a bug.

As a citizen of Missouri and an activist who has spent countless hours encouraging people to vote, I strongly oppose any legislation that makes it more difficult for Missouri citizens to get initiatives on the ballot and/or create higher thresholds for passing ballot initiatives. Missouri’s initiative petition process has been used to represent the will of the people ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE. This is the only recourse Missourians have when our public servants fail to address issues that are important to us. The current system which entails getting hundreds of thousand of votes to be considered for the ballot is already rigorous (as it should be). Have you ever stood on a street corner or knocked doors in an effort to get support for a cause or a candidate (or for yourself?) I imagine many of you have and thus you understand how hard you work for every issue, for every vote, for every signature. One can easily extrapolate that to the already complex and lengthy process it takes to obtain signatures for a statewide ballot initiative. In other words, it’s already difficult- we don’t need you to make it more so. If Republican legislators continue to support and eventually pass this legislation, they will reap what they sow. An electorate who will easily identify that their Republican legislators have upended the Missouri Constitution in an attempt to weaken the influence of the very people who put them in Jeff City

The initiative petition process is amongst the purest forms of democratic participation. For more than a century, Missouri citizens across the political spectrum have been able to have their voices heard through the initiative petition process. The Missouri constitution guarantees: “The people reserve power to propose and enact or reject laws and amendments to the constitution by the initiative, independent of the general assembly.” The process already requires a high threshold of signatures from registered voters to get a proposal on the ballot. Missourians across the political spectrum have used and benefited from the citizen initiative process. Measures passed by a majority – as is currently the case – reflect the will of the people. Making it more difficult – as these bills do – undermines the will of the people. Representatives should e supporting the will of the people – that’s what we elected you for.

I oppose this change to the initiative petition process because it makes it more difficult for Missourians to engage in direct democracy. The recent legislature is notorious for not considering the will of the people and passing policy that harms Missourians in need of workplace protections, social services, and full and fair access to elections. These bills expand our long help practice of majority rule that is defined as 50% plus one. Placing higher thresholds for getting initiative petitions on the ballot and passing ballot measures into law limits the will of the people. It is already extremely difficult, time consuming, and costly to get initiatives on the ballot. Majority rule in Missouri should be maintained and defined as it always has, equal to or greater than half votes cast.

Campaign Finance reform anyone?

Outrageous. Republicans in this state are out of control. Reign it in please.

We already knew that.

Ballot initiatives engage Missourians directly into the democratic process, increase civic participation and investment, and most importantly, give citizens a voice in the policies that govern our lives. Limiting this process is anti-democratic, plain and simple. I oppose this bill.

[….] I have been a volunteer collecting signatures on initiative petitions for the last 40 years. I have worked on campaigns that won, and on campaigns that lost. But I would say that all my work has been successful in that it promoted citizen voter awareness of issues and provided an opportunity for voters to have a direct voice about policies that affect them. I highly value the fact that since 1907 the Missouri Constitution has guaranteed the power of the people to propose and “enact or reject laws” independent of the General Assembly. This House Joint Resolution seeks to weaken that power. Voters from across the political spectrum: conservatives, progressives, moderates and independents have used this important tool of direct democracy. Collecting the required number of signatures is already a difficult undertaking. I have collected signatures in blistering heat and biting cold. I (along with hundreds of others) have spent hours talking to voters outside grocery stores, churches, fish fries, schools, elections, at parades and sports events. I say this not to ask for sympathy, but to underscore how important the tools of direct democracy are to me and to all Missourians. Creating more rigorous standards regarding the numbers of signatures needed, and raising the bar for what constitutes a majority, weaken the voices of the people. These proposed changes shift power toward elected officials and the special interests who court their favor. This is taking Missouri in the wrong direction. I urge you to protect the Constitutional rights of Missourians and vote NO. Thank you for this opportunity to share my perspective.

Participatory Democracy will become a faint memory, if that.

Rep. Chris Kelly (D): response on HJR 43

31 Tuesday Jan 2012

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ 6 Comments

Tags

Chris Kelly, General Assembly, HJR 43, missouri

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:

…I have tried to present arguments to show that this is a wrong-headed approach to the state’s financial problems, though I would gladly entertain your counter arguments…

Which is to say, somewhat more diplomatic than the following:

….Since you like it, why not make the case here for why it doesn’t suck, and why we should jump on the bandwagon, and how you certainly pulled the wool over the eyes of all those reactionary right wingnuts in the General Assembly?….

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.

The GOP approach to government finance vs. reality.

17 Tuesday Jan 2012

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ 6 Comments

Tags

Ginese Montecillo, government spending, HJR 43, missouri, Rex Snquefield, Steve Tilley, TABOR, TEL

Progressives pride themselves on being members of the reality-based community. This preference for reality directly pits them against today’s GOP, the members of which are almost uniformly enthralled by ideological fantasies that involve assumptions unsupported by facts (e.g. low taxes on the wealthy support growth) and that result in simplistic, often destructive policies (e.g., cutting government spending during a recession). Nowhere is this attitude more evident than in the battle over how to finance government.

In Missouri this dynamic has played itself out in what threatens to become a yearly ritual: the effort to impose TABOR-style spending caps. This year is no exception; GOP legislators are  proposing a a resolution(HJR 43) that would place on the November ballot a constitutional amendment to enact a TABOR variant, a tax and expenditure limit or TEL:

The proposal, which would amend the Missouri Constitution, would limit the growth in annual state spending to the inflation rate plus the percentage change in population for Missouri. Any extra revenue would help pay off state debt, cover emergencies or go back to taxpayers as temporary tax cuts.

Similar efforts to handcuff future legislators have failed in the past, but there are two factors that could make a difference this year. First, Missouri’s plantation master, Rex Sinquefield, supports the concept and has supplied his main man in the House, Speaker Steve Tilley (R-106), with a sizeable payout. Second, the inevitable Democratic quisling has been secured, in this case, Rep. Chris Kelley Kelly (D-24), who thinks it will be fine to handicap future legislators as long as the cap is high enough – based on 2008 revenue – and does not take effect right away, but is delayed until state revenues reach that highpoint.

It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that it’s never a good idea to decrease legislative flexibility, particularly when dealing with future conditions that cannot be accounted for in the current environment. As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities notes, here are numerous factors that belie the seeming simplicity of this approach to enforced government spending restraint.

— No existing measure of inflation correctly captures the growth in the cost of the kinds of services purchased in the public sector, so the inflation adjustment generally is not sufficient to allow the continuation of existing services. State governments spend much of their money on education and health care, which typically have cost increases greater than the general rate of inflation. […]

— The subpopulations that state governments serve tend to grow more rapidly than the overall population growth used in the formula. […]

— The rigidities of formula-based budgeting, such as a population-plus-inflation growth factor, do not allow funding of new priorities that may be embraced by the public, such as reduced class sizes or more stringent corrections policies. They do not allow states to adapt to federal mandates that require states to spend more in areas such as security and education, and they may have no provisions for emergency spending on natural disasters or other unanticipated problems.

— A TEL based on a population-plus-inflation growth factor, or any other artificial formula, moves the budget process away from the careful weighing of competing priorities and consideration of the value of new initiatives and toward a process defined by sterile limits that require the shrinking of government services in most years.

Most damming, of course, is the Colorado experience with its TABOR law which had a disastrous effect on the state. Speaker Tilley seems to think that this new effort to limit future finance options is  “very, very different” from the Colorado law, but it is difficult to figure how it really differs in substance, or how it answers any of the objections outlined above.

Of course, the Missouri TEL wouldn’t take effect until state revenues have recovered significantly, but even in the highwater year of 2008, revenues were arguably not sufficient for the state’s needs. Rep. Ginese Monticello (D-66) expressed concerns about education and social services in Missouri under the proposed formula:

Even if I could get all the money in the world for education I have some concerns for social services as well. So, it seems to me that we’re kind of locking some groups into a continued future of being under funded when our needs in our state are becoming greater with unemployment still at really high levels

Bear in mind that Missour’s infrastructure was in sad shape long before the recession; Missouri’s bridges, for example, are the seventh worst in the nation in terms of decay. Also stop to consider that Missouri is already a very low tax state – 43rd lowest in the nation.

Wouldn’t this low tax status combined with the need for greater social, educational, and physical infrastructure investment lead one to think that Missouri’s legislators would be better employed if they were to spend some time overhauling the moribund state tax system, or perhaps looking for some revenue enhancements, like setting up a mechanism for collecting Internet sales taxes, or raising cigarette taxes that are also much lower than in most states? But such rational activity, of course, would mean abandoning ideology for reality.

Subscribe

  • Entries (RSS)
  • Comments (RSS)

Archives

  • 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

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

  • 775,156 hits

Powered by WordPress.com.

 

Loading Comments...