Snowstorm didn't stop Capitol progress

By Miica Patterson

(MDN News) -- Neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night could keep Missouri lawmakers from passing their bills this week.

After leaving the state Capitol early two weeks ago, state lawmakers remained in the building for a full week of work last week, despite continuing snowfall. Missouri experienced a major winter storm with heavy snowfall, sleet and freezing rain with some areas in the state getting as much as a foot of snow on Thursday, Feb. 21, according to the National Weather Service.

Both the House and Senate adjourned early Wednesday, Feb. 20, so legislators could return home to their districts before the storm hit.

Sen. Dan Brown, R-Rolla, said the winter storm did put Senate committee meetings behind schedule but they made it up this week.

Referring to an extended debate over a bill that would make deep cuts to the state's tax credit programs, Senate President Pro Tem Tom Dempsey, R-St. Charles, said some senators were here into the early morning hours of Wednesday, Feb. 27, to get worked finished in the chamber.

Rep. Chris Kelly, D-Columbia, said House committees also worked longer hours to make up for lost time because of the storm. He said the extra time spent in House committees varied but the storm didn't slow down progress too much.

"It was a very minor disruption," Kelly said. "It wasn't significant in any way."

In 2011, Rep. Wanda Brown, R-Lincoln, was hospitalized after getting in a car accident in Camden County during that year's blizzard. Brown injured her neck and back during the accident.

While Brown since recovered and is still a member of the House, leaders in both chambers are much more cautious now about working through snowstorms when members have to get home.

Higher education officials voice support for $950 million bond proposal

By Matthew Patane
(MDN News) -- Higher education officials from across the state came before a House panel Tuesday, Feb. 5, to voice their support for an almost billion dollar bond proposal and to ask for state funds for a growing list of campus building and renovation projects.

University of Missouri System President Tim Wolfe said the four-campus system has a $1.3 billion backlog of projects, such as renovating the engineering buildings at the system's Columbia campus. Representatives from other state colleges and universities echoed Wolfe's remarks with their own lists of projects that have been put on hold due to a lack of state funds.

Last month, House Speaker Tim Jones, R-Eureka, announced the creation of a special committee that was established for the express purpose of dealing with the $950 million bond proposal. In addition to construction on college campuses, the bond would dedicate funds for state buildings and facilities and potentially transportation infrastructure.

Committee chairman Rep. Chris Kelly, D-Columbia, said he would prefer if the bond proposal was combined with a transportation funding measure that was introduced earlier on Tuesday. If approved by voters, that legislation would dedicate funding specifically for Missouri's roads and transportation infrastructure through a one-cent increase of the state sales tax for 10 years.

No one spoke in opposition to the bond proposal at Tuesday's hearing, but Kelly acknowledged that the atmosphere may not remain friendly as the committee continues to work on the measure.

"Every single one of us will be disappointed, but every single one of us will be delighted," Kelly said. "There's no way that we can do everything that we need to do, but we can do some very good things and move our economy forward."

House lawmakers push to decrease penalties for marijuana possession

By Miica Patterson
(MDN News) -- People caught with small amounts of marijuana in Columbia usually only face a small fine. Now a trio of Democratic state lawmakers wants to make that the case for all of Missouri.

Three House members, including Columbia Rep. Chris Kelly, introduced legislation Thursday, Feb. 7, that would decrease the current penalties for marijuana possession of 35 grams or less.

Like Columbia's ordinance, the House bill would punish possession of less than 35 grams with a fine of no more than $250 and a suspended sentence. Suspended sentences allow a conviction to be erased from a person's record if they pay their fines, follow orders from the court and stay out of legal trouble for a set period of time.

Missouri's current law states possession for that amount of marijuana is punishable by up to one year in jail and a $1,000 fine.

Kelly, who is co-sponsoring the bill, said as a Boone County judge he heard hundreds of misdemeanor cases involving marijuana. Many university students receive convictions for lesser crimes, which keep them from better careers and a better life, he said.

"It's serious, but it shouldn't cloud a person's life forever," Kelly said. "At some point, society ought to let people up and let them go back to being productive citizens."

Rep. Kathie Conway, the vice-chairwoman of the House Crime Prevention and Public Safety Committee, said she fears that lighter penalties could mean more people driving under the influence of the drug.

"I'm not sure I want to put another chemical out there and it's just a slap on the wrist, until we have a better way of detecting it," said Conway, R-St. Charles.

"Fiscal cliff" could lead to less revenue for Missouri

By Brendan Cullerton

(MDN News) -- How the federal government handles the upcoming "fiscal cliff" scenario could have major implications for Missouri revenue.

Without action by the federal government, the tax cuts of former President George W. Bush will expire on Jan. 1, 2013. This expiration would raise the federal income tax rate if Congress cannot come to an agreement before the new year.

Missouri allows a six percent tax deduction on state income taxes for any federal taxes paid, with a limit of $5,000. If people have to pay more in federal taxes because of higher tax rates, then the state tax deduction could be higher, costing Missouri revenue.

Legislators agreed that if the state revenue fell, education funding would take the biggest hit.

"It could be a significant number," said Sen. Rob Schaaf, R-St. Joseph. "I mean 6 percent of a large number can be a very large number."

Rep. Chris Kelly, D-Columbia, said Missouri is one of few states that allow such a deduction, and that puts the state at a disadvantage.

State budget director Linda Luebbering said other factors, like an increase in state gross domestic income, could offset any revenue loss caused by a rise in federal  income tax.

Opinion -- Proposition B: The Right Thing to Do for Missouri's Children

 by State Rep. Chris Kelly
Missouri voters will soon decide whether to increase Missouri's tobacco tax from 17 cents a pack (lowest in the nation) to 90 centsan increase that would still place us nineteenth lowest in the nation. Fifty percent of the revenue will go to public elementary and secondary schools, 30% to higher education, and 20% for smoking cessation and healthcare programs. I sponsored a similar bill in the legislature and am a strong supporter of the tobacco tax increase, which will appear on the November 6th ballot as Proposition B.

Proposition B provides an opportunity to achieve several important results:

    €  Smoking will decrease
    €  Fewer Missouri young people will begin to smoke;
    €  Fewer Missourians will die from smoking-related diseases;
    €  Missouri will see lower Medicare and healthcare costs; and
    €  The estimated $283 million increase in revenue will go to our most pressing needs
        - $162 million new dollars for public Elementary and Secondary education;
        -   $85 million for our public institutions of Higher Education; and
        -   $56 million for smoking cessation and healthcare.

Criticisms of Proposition B aboundfrom threatened loss of businesses and jobs, to loss of state revenue from those purchasing tobacco products across state lines, to unfairly targeting smokers. These are desperate claims without merit. One criticism of Proposition B invoked by the tobacco lobby deserves further analysis.  That is, whether the additional revenue generated for education would simply offset the general revenue (GR) that would have gone to education, resulting in no effective increase in overall educational funding. You may have heard ads referring to the likelihood of money going in the "front door" and out the "back door"a criticism that has often been levied against lottery funds. In budget parlance, this is called "supplanting"where money is used from one source to take the place of money from another source. Supplanting would mean that no net addition of funds to education or healthcare would result.

The legal restrictions outlined in Proposition B and the protection given to education in the Missouri Constitution undercut this criticism. Nonetheless, I want to address this issue as fairly and as accurately as I can.

Supplanting can take several forms:

1.  Direct supplantation would occur if Prop B funds were placed into the General Revenue Fund, rather than into the Health and Education Trust Fund as mandated by law. This form of supplantation is neither legally possible nor politically plausible. By law, money placed into the special Health and Education Trust Fund can only be used for the three purposes set out in the lawElementary and Secondary Education, Higher Education, and Smoking Cession/Healthcare. The language specifically says that any balances in the Trust Fund "shall not revert to the general revenue fund."

2.  Indirect supplantation refers to supplanting in its most common form, a situation in which the legislature would reduce the amount of money now going into the General Fund for education by some amount because of the increases coming from Prop B‹the so-called "back door" approach. The plain language of Proposition B prevents this form of supplanting. For the Legislature to do this would be illegal.

Such supplanting of funds is also not politically feasible. First, education enjoys a Missouri constitutional preference in that, after public debt, education must receive priority funding. Second, the natural inclination of legislators is to fund education at the highest possible level, given revenue constraints. The political forces one would have to confront to reduce the amount of General Revenue currently going to education would be overwhelming. Even a suggestion of the taking of current GR from schools would result in a firestorm of opposition to legislators both from within and beyond their own party, inviting electoral disaster. Third, the amendment requires that the state auditor shall perform an annual audit of the fund, including "an evaluation of whether appropriations for tobacco-related programs and elementary, secondary, and higher education have increased." The state auditor is obligated to make copies of each audit available to the public and to the General
 Assembly.

3.  Supplanting through erosionIt is technically possible that, in future years some amount of General Revenue that would have gone to Higher Education, for example, might instead be used to deal with other state issuesthe dismal conditions of the Veterans' Homes, overtime compensation for prison guards, or nurses for disabled children who are wards of the state. It is impossible to quantify or know with certainty what the increase in GR funding to education would have been, absent the addition of Prop B funds. There is simply no reasonable way to determine what future funding might have been. We do not know if another Joplin-type storm will occur, or whether we will suffer another significant economic downturn, or if we will lose an expensive roof at a state hospital that requires state funds. We do know that education has the most effective advocates in the Capitol and that in any budgetary prioritization education is likely to prevail.

Having served on the Missouri House of Representatives Budget Committee for 14 years, with two terms as Chairman, I understand the process of state budgeting. Without the naiveté of youthful exuberance and with the experience of having seen how budgets are formed, I know that passing Proposition B will result in significant new revenue to healthcare and to education at all levels, and that neither direct nor indirect supplanting will occur.  Education will continue to receive both the statutory and popular lion's share of general revenue. The protections against supplanting as written into the amendment are intentionally as strong as could have been made and, unlike previous legislation involving lottery or gambling revenues, include language to prevent supplanting to the legal extent possible.

I am positive that the vast majority of my colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats, join me in that resolve. Should supplanting occur against all our efforts, Missouri voters will know and can take the next electoral opportunity to take decisive action against the legislators responsible. There is no perfect safeguard, but there is also no question that Prop B will result in significantly more revenue for education at every level, as well as for smoking cessation and healthcare.

During my 35 years in public life I have found that the best policy is to tell people the truth and trust them to do the right thing.  Ultimately, the voters will decide, as it should be, but before you cast your vote, please weigh the enormous benefits that Prop B brings to the state against the criticisms levied by those paid to promote their cause. I believe there is no legitimate reason to reject Prop B.

Proposition B is the right thing to do for Missouri's children. Please vote "YES" on November 6th.

Legislators suggest bond issues for infrastructure improvements

State lawmakers are exploring the possibility of using bond issues to pay for repairs at Missouri's college campuses, mental health facilities, the state Capitol and highways.

Senate Appropriations Chairman Kurt Schaefer, R-Columbia, said capital improvements will be a major theme in the next legislative session. He and Rep. Chris Kelly, D-Columbia, are working on a nearly $1 billion bonding bill to make those improvements.

Sen. Mike Kehoe, R-Jefferson City, said any options that allow more funding for highways and bridges should also be considered. Kehoe is the chair of the Senate Transportation Committee.

He said a bond issue should also be considered for a transportation project such as the rebuilding of bridges, or Interstate 70, which the state's transportation department has said is in need of vital repairs.

The idea of a bond issue to make improvements is nothing new to Kelly or Schaefer. Kelly said this will be the fifth consecutive session he will push a bonding bill.

In 2009 Kelly proposed a $700 million higher education bond issue to make improvements on campuses. It passed the House but was filibustered in the Senate. Kelly and Schaefer also worked together to create a joint resolution in 2010 to issue bonds, but that bill never made it out of the House.

Kelly and Schaefer said they will have the bipartisan support necessary this time.

"In the preliminary conversations I've had with fellow legislators, I think there's quite a bit of support for it," Schaefer said.

However, a familiar opponent has emerged. Sen. Jason Crowell, R-Cape Girardeau, said while the state has a backlog of deferred maintenance, funding should come from the state's general revenue stream as opposed to borrowed money.  

Crowell, who is leaving the General Assembly due to term limits, said lawmakers would rather borrow money than fix issues in state spending, like tax credits and pensions. The state doled out 8 percent of its expenditure on tax credits alone in the last fiscal year.
 
"Why in the world would we open up a new credit card when we give out $700 million in tax credits?" Crowell said. "They want to steal from my grandchildren to pay for debt."

Missouri voters will decide whether to raise the tobacco tax this November

(Missouri Digital News) -- This November, Missourians will vote on whether to approve a cigarette tax hike.

The initiative, Proposition B, would put an additional 73 cents per pack tax on cigarettes, increasing the total state tax to 90 cents per pack. Missouri currently has the lowest tobacco tax in the nation at 17 cents a pack.      

Prop B is estimated to bring in $283 million to $423 million a year, according to an estimate from the state auditor. The proceeds would be divided between K-12 education, higher education and tobacco prevention and education programs.   

Supporters of Prop B, like Rep. Chris Kelly, D-Columbia, said increasing the tax will discourage smoking in Missouri and provide important education funds.

"For potential teenage smokers, there's a strong correlation between price and starting to smoke. And so, we know the tax will produce revenue that we need, and we also hope that it will discourage teenage smokers," Kelly said.

Ron Leone, executive director of the Missouri Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Store Association, said Prop B's 760 percent cigarette tax increase is devastating.       

"It will hurt Missouri consumers, it will force small businesses to close, it will cause people to lose their jobs and it will generate less tax revenue for local and state coffers that are already stretched thin because of the great recession," Leone said.     

Twenty percent of the proceeds from the tax would go toward tobacco abstinence programs, 50 percent for K-12 education and 30 percent to higher education.

House Budget chair blisters the governor's budget director over disaster funds

The House Budget Committee grilled State Budget Director Linda Luebbering about the $150 million being withheld by the governor for disaster relief. The governor has set aside the money in anticipation of payments to Joplin and other areas affected by natural disasters without knowing exactly how much money is needed.

Committee chairman Ryan Silvey, R-Kansas City, charged Gov. Jay Nixon's action was unconstitutional because the state's constitution does not give him power to withhold funds from the budget to use the money for other purposes.

Article 4, Section 27 of the Missouri Constitution empowers the governor to withhold funds if revenue collections are running below the estimate upon which the budget was based. Silvey charges that provision does not empower the governor to cut agency allotments to reserve funds for other purposes the governor wants to finance.

Luebbering said money is needed to cover the expected costs for disaster relief in Joplin and the flooding in southeast Missouri. State obligations could include debris removal or rebuilding schools but as of now there is no breakdown of the specific costs, she said.

"We think setting aside $150 million for all these efforts is a perfectly reasonable amount of money," Luebbering said.

Silvey and other members of the committee questioned why the governor was withholding money from the 2012 fiscal year instead of using the money available in the state's Rainy Day Fund. Created in 2000 as the Budget Reserve Fund, the Rainy Day Fund contains roughly $500 million, half of which can be used for disaster relief payments.

"The Rainy Day Fund is an option," Luebbering said. "I don't know if we will use the Rainy Day Fund."

The constitution requires a two-thirds vote by the General Assembly to use the Rainy Day Fund for emergency relief. In July, Nixon said he would include disaster relief funding as part of the legislature's special session that begins Sept. 6, but in the official call issued Aug. 22, Nixon left out the issue. A special session can take up only the specific issues included in the governor's call.

Silvey questioned why the governor decided to exclude the legislature from discussing the disaster funding in the special session.

Directly facing Nixon's top budget official, Silvey repeatedly voiced frustration about the administration's approach, saying, "The governor does not want to deal with the legislature."

Luebbering said the governor made the decision to restrict expenditures to allow for more flexibility later in the year. She said the governor's office was looking at the broader constitutionality of the issue and previous court cases that established precedence for the decision to withhold funds. She could not name the cases she was referring to.

"The executive branch has the authority to balance the budget," Luebbering said.

Silvey said he did not feel a solution was reached at the meeting but was glad the committee served its purpose in questioning the decision.

"It's clear that the governor does not like dealing with the legislature," said Silvey. "It's clear that he'd rather have flexibility than go along with the constitution."

Rep. Chris Kelly, D-Columbia, told the committee the issues with the governor's budget is due to the legislature's own action in crafting a budget that left the door open for the governor to use funds for disaster relief without clear legislative authorization. He called on the Budget Committee to close the administrative flexibility in executive spending.

"It is easy to drive a truck through that little flexibility hole without seeing the damage," Kelly said.

Silvey said these issues will likely affect bills in the next legislative session.

"Our problem isn't where's the money's going but the process that it's getting there," Silvey said. "We want to see the money going where we appropriated it."

Earlier this month, State Auditor Tom Schweich sent the governor a letter questioning the constitutionality of the governor's budget withholding actions. Schweich charged that Luebbering's budget official failed to provide any information substantiating that revenue collections were falling below the original estimates upon which the budget was based.

House Budget Committee finalizes 2012 budget

The House Budget Committee ended debate in record time on Missouri's 2012 budget after a mark-up session Tuesday.

This year's mark-up lasted only one hour compared to last year's which took nearly three days. Rep. Chris Kelly, D-Columbia, credited the hard work of the Budget chairman, Ryan Silvey, R-Kansas City, and the fair process this year as the reasons the mark-up was historically brief.

"He was very professional, efficient, effective, bi-partisan and worked with people," Kelly said.

Rep. Jamilah Nasheed, D-St. Louis City, agreed with Kelly on Silvey's performance but said she wished the process was less "orchestrated" by House leadership.

The 13 House appropriations bills were all passed with only 1 no vote. Kelly said this has never happened before while he has been in office.

Missouri's amended $23.2 billion budget represents an overall 2.5 percent decrease from last year's budget and includes a 7 percent reduction in funds for higher education. Last year over 300 amendments were offered, but this year only 18 were brought before the committee.

The ranking member on the budget committee, Rep. Sara Lampe, D-Springfield, said "there simply is no more money" to make amendments.

Kelly offered an amendment which moved funds from the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority (MoHELA) to General Revenue. Earlier in the budget process the committee used $12 million from MoHELA to offset a reduction in the Access Missouri Scholarship Program. Today, Kelly motioned that the money for Access Missouri instead come from General Revenue which would provide more stability for the program from year to year since the money from MoHELA will not be available every year.

Kelly's amendment ultimately passed, but he said this issue will be contested in the Senate.

Lampe offered an amendment to add $8.9 million to the elementary and secondary education transportation fund. In order to fund her increase, Lampe proposed to eliminate Missouri's ethanol subsidy program. She said education transportation is underfunded by $55 million and that is "devastating" to rural school districts.

"I think our kids are worth it," Lampe said.

After opposition from the committee, Lampe withdrew her amendment before a vote.

Kelly also presented an amendment which would reduce Missouri House of Representatives mileage.

"We need to show our commitment to what we are asking everyone else to do," Kelly said.

The amendment was passed despite some opposition from committee members.

Some lawmakers said they were disappointed in the budget situation this year and the lack of available money.

Lampe said the budget cuts will continue unless the Republican majority is willing to have a conversation about increasing state revenue.

"There is no political will to do that ... we can't plug the leak anymore ... it's affecting our kids," Lampe said.

Lampe said instead of raising revenue, House Republicans have decreased it. She said the elimination of the corporate franchise tax passed by the House would cost the state $85 million in revenue.

Although the House committee has finalized the budget their continues to be debate in the Senate about the use of federal funds. Missouri has received $189 million from the federal government that must be spent by next year and only on elementary and secondary education. Some Republicans in the Senate have pledged to block that money along with other funds from the federal government.

"You have the federal government stealing from this generation and generations to come by spending money they don't have," Sen. Jim Lembke, R-St. Louis County, said in a radio interview on using federal money for unemployment benefits, which he blocked in the Senate.

Lampe, a former teacher, disagrees with their logic.

"Why would we turn down money for our kids? It's just insane," she said.

Nasheed also said many of the budget amendments passed in the House will face opposition in the Senate.

"It is a whole different monster over there," she said.

The budget will be sent to the House floor when the legislators return from their spring break on March 28.

---