Casey Guernsey -- Proposition B

Over the last several weeks, I have been writing about the various propositions on the ballot for next week.

Of the four initiatives, the tobacco tax increase — Proposition B — has spurred the most discussion. It is certainly true that Missouri has the lowest tobacco tax in the nation and that cigarettes can damage our health. However, I am very much a believer in personal responsibility and I simply do not agree that a 760 percent tax increase on a targeted business of any variety is equitable during these challenging economic times. As always, there is much more to this proposition than a tax increase and I'd like to explain that.

We all remember the ballot initiative that dealt with gaming funds (casino and lottery) several years ago. We've also learned that despite the fantastic campaign advertisements promising huge increases in education funding, this did not transpire. What actually happened was a swap in revenue sources for education which kept education funding at the same level. This isn't what the voters thought would take place! All of these funds were supposed to fund increases in dollars to our schools and help solve our education problems. Since then, our largest two school districts remain unaccredited. And now, we are faced with yet another campaign to raise taxes for our schools that could end with a broken promise.

Those supporting Proposition B claim lawmakers could only use the money for education and health care. Missourians have rejected similar tax increases on the ballot in 2002 and 2006. If you look at how this proposition is worded, it mandates the money to be placed in a 'Health and Education Trust Fund' and those funds to be used to educate children about tobacco use. Prop B also increases the amount of money tobacco companies must pay into an escrow fund. The devil is always in the details, and my concern is that this money will be used for tobacco education funding and NOT sent to schools for them to spend on general education improvements, Capital improvements,  text books, etc. I am concerned this won’t increase education dollars like the general public expects, but rather create a new education program that will wind up costing us even more dollars to administer.

Proposition B would also establish a commission of political appointees to spend almost $60 million of our tax dollars per year without oversight. This unelected panel could spend tax dollars on virtually whatever they want with zero accountability.

Diverting money is a classic way to avoid tough decisions to cut spending. I am concerned that this massive tax increase would ensure wasteful spending will continue, or become even worse, in our state. I'm like you; if we have a proposition about education funding - it should be about education funding! This ballot initiative is more about punishing tobacco companies than it is increasing education dollars at our local schools where it is needed.

Our elected officials are accountable each and every election, while the commission established in this initiative is not. In addition, I have never felt a tax increase of this size was necessary to continue to provide existing services in this state when we continue to have tax credits and other spending programs that are out of control.

To me, this proposed tax increase seems too large. For those who believe the funds will go to a good purpose, I will remind them our challenge is not a lack of budget funds, but rather how we spend those dollars. The solution is not more revenue raised on the backs of hard-working citizens; it is prioritizing the funds available and certainly not creating new expensive programs, commissions and propositions as Prop B does.

I am a “no” vote on Proposition B. It is true, we need to spend more money on education and if this proposition had actually done that, I would view it entirely different. However, I do have many constituents that feel otherwise on this proposition. We will soon know the outcome of this issue after the Nov. 6 election.

It is an honor to serve as your Missouri State Representative, and I do appreciate your input on matters of importance to you, your family and community. Please feel free to contact me at 573-751-4285 or casey.guernsey@house.mo.gov. Thank you for taking an active role by voicing your opinions on our state and national governmental matters.

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.

Proposed Cigarette Tax to Have Local Impact

The proposed cigarette tax on the November 6th ballot will have both positive and negative local impact. On the positive side, the school will get more money from the initiative, which will not go into the Funding Formula like the rest of the tax dollars are. On the other hand, it will mean that the cost of tobacco will go up.

Casey's and Country Corners in Grant City both get business from Iowa residents who go across the border to pay cheaper taxes for tobacco. Missouri currently has one of the lowest tobacco tax rates in the country. Cheralee Pointer, manager of the Grant City Casey's, said that passage of the amendment would not hurt Casey's that much since Missouri's tobacco tax rate would still be lower than Iowa's. But she noted that there were certain categories, like alcohol and tobacco, that were always a favorite target of taxes and that there were other areas that could have been targeted by this measure.

Jon Adwell, Worth County Principal, said that anything that generated money for the school was a good thing as long as the money was being spent as designated. He expressed concern that the legislature might turn around and take out funds elsewhere and have the new tax offset that; the legislature did something similar after the Lottery was passed in the 1980's.

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.

Opinion: Constitutional Amendment Filed to Protect Missouri Voters

by Your Vote Counts

In response to the continued attempts of a handful of career politicians to overrule the will of Missouri voters, the Voter Protection Alliance has filed a constitutional amendment to provide greater protections for voter-approved initiatives.

The Voter Protection Act would require a three-fourths vote in both the House and the Senate, or a vote of the people by referendum, in order for the legislature to repeal or amend a citizen initiative. The group plans to gather signatures to qualify the measure for the November 2012 ballot.

State legislators in Jefferson City have been working to repeal or weaken citizen-approved ballot measures on issues such as puppy mills, clean energy, school funding and minimum wage. The Voter Protection Act fact sheet has more details on these repeal efforts. The Voter Protection Act is a response to these threats to the voting rights of Missouri citizens. The measure has been endorsed by groups from the left to the right who are concerned about protecting the will of the people and the integrity of the ballot initiative process, including Citizens in Charge, The Humane Society of the United States, ASPCA (American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals), Americans for Tax Reform, National Taxpayers Union, U.S. Term Limits, Stop Child Predators, and Americans for Limited Government.

“A narrow legislative majority should not override the vote of millions of Missourians,” said State Representative Scott Sifton, D-96, who supports the Voter Protection Act and has introduced a similar measure in the legislature. “The time has come for the Missouri Constitution to protect the will of the voters.”

The Voter Protection Act would provide constitutional protections for citizen ballot initiatives similar to those that exist in other states. The measure still allows the state legislature to exercise its legislative authority, and if there are major problems with an initiative they will be able to build consensus for a three-fourths vote. But it adds a layer of accountability and a higher threshold so the will of the people cannot be simply discarded with a narrow vote of the legislature.

Missouri is one of only ten states that allow the state legislature to amend or repeal an initiative statute at any time after its adoption by a simple majority of both houses. A number of other states—including Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Michigan, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Utah, Washington and Wyoming—limit the legislature’s ability to unilaterally ignore the will of the voters.

“Elected officials should be accountable to the voters, not the other way around. Yet, the Missouri legislature has too often amended or completely overturned initiatives adopted by the voters,” said Paul Jacob, president of Citizens in Charge. “Citizens need to protect their votes so career politicians in Jefferson City cannot simply substitute their judgment for the wisdom of Missouri citizens. With the Voter Protection Act, the voice of the people will not be so easily drowned out in the capitol.”

“The Missouri Senate has voted to repeal the puppy mill measure passed last November before the law has even had a chance to take effect, just as lawmakers tried to repeal the voter-approved ban on cockfighting,” said Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of The Humane Society of the United States. “If politicians are so easily able to defy the will of the voters and dismantle these measures, than what other issues will be next?”

“This amendment insures that when ‘We the People’ speak through the initiative process, the politicians can't silence our speech,” stated Joe Maxwell, a Mexico, Mo. hog farmer, and former lieutenant governor, who supports the amendment.

“When Missourians pass a ballot measure, their vote should be respected. That’s why we need to pass the Voter Protection Act, which will require legislators to reach a 3/4ths vote of the legislature or get voter approval before amending or repealing a voter-enacted measure,” said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. “Protecting initiative rights is critically important for Missouri taxpayers.”

“The proposed measure limiting the power of the General Assembly to undo laws enacted by the people is one of the most important steps that can be taken to ensure a truly limited and responsive government,” said Bill Wilson, president of Americans for Limited Government. “All too often those in power ignore the people and act as though a popular initiative vote is merely ‘advisory.’ Politicians are servants of the people, not the other way around. Americans for Limited Government wholeheartedly supports and endorses the Voter Protection Act.”

“The proposed Voter Protection Act is a vital move to ensure the people of Missouri keep their right to enact laws by initiative,” said Phil Blumel, president of U.S. Term Limits. “Politicians have long craved the ability to kill the initiative rights. The enactment of the Voter Protection Act is crucial to the defense of the fundamental principle on which our nation was founded. All term limits supporters in Missouri should strongly back this amendment and I encourage all citizens to enact this common sense reform.”

"The popular initiative process has proven to be a vital and valuable tool for citizen activists seeking to limit taxes and spending,” said Duane Parde, president of the National Taxpayers Union. “Unfortunately too many elected officials would rather see this tool tossed away or fall into disuse. That's why the Voter Protection Amendment truly can be called the Taxpayer Protection Amendment."

“Missourians should be confident that their vote will be honored,” said ASPCA President & CEO Ed Sayres. “The ballot initiative process, such as with Proposition B, reflects the power that concerned citizens have to participate in legislative reform, and lawmakers shouldn’t be permitted to subvert the judgment of voters in favor of special interests.”

“Missouri politicians should be ashamed of themselves for attempting to overturn the will of the voters,” said Stacie Rumenap, president of Stop Child Predators. “Kudos to everyone who’s supporting the Voter Protection Act which should help remind our elected officials they’re accountable to voters, and not the other way around.”

The main section of the Voter Protection Act would add the following language to the state constitution:

“A statute enacted by citizen initiative pursuant to this article shall not be repealed or amended by the general assembly, except by either a three-fourths vote of the members of each house or a vote of the people through a referendum or unless such statute explicitly provides that the general assembly may repeal or amend it by a majority vote of the members of each house. This section shall apply prospectively to actions of the general assembly relating to statutes enacted by citizen initiative pursuant to this article, whether the initiative statute was enacted before or is enacted after the effective date of this section.”

More information is available at protectvoters.com.

Opinion: Missouri Farm Families Find Success in 2011 Legislative Session

by the Missouri Cattleman's Association


Farm families around the state work tirelessly each year to provide more market value to Missouri than any other industry. Missouri legislators, and agriculture groups, recognized that effort and protected Missouri producers in a big way this year.



This legislative session agriculture had several pieces to negotiate during the process.” said Jeff Windett, executive vice president of the Missouri Cattlemen’s Association. “None of which made it without significant discussion in both chambers.”



MCA and all of agriculture worked hard to promote a positive agricultural message throughout the session and found success with many bills coming out of the general assembly.



The biggest victory for agriculture this session was the Proposition B solution. MCA believes that this bill truly strengthened the basis behind the original Proposition B and finally protects legitimate dog breeders by eliminating limitations on the number of dogs each breeder can have and breeding cycles. The bill also stopped an outdoor exercise mandate and changed the square footage requirements for dog cages. Gov. Nixon gave his approval to the compromise on April 27, 2011.



“It’s safe to say that I’ve never been through so many ups and downs as I have with this issue during the session,” Windett said. “It was a monstrous effort by agriculture groups and legislators.”



Farm families were also protected under Sen. Brad Lager’s, R-Maryville, bill concerning nuisance suits. It restricts the right to sue under nuisance law to those who have ownership interest in property being affected by the nuisance. Farmers are also no longer subject to repeated lawsuits against their crop or animal production farm under one specific nuisance claim.



The omnibus agriculture bill sponsored by Sen. Brian Munzlinger, R-Williamstown, has high hopes of being signed by Gov. Nixon and creates the Puppy Protection Trust Fund to compliment the Proposition B compromise. A second key provision in this bill requires the Department of Agriculture to publish a list of weeds considered “noxious” and must be eradicated. It also prohibits the sale of any noxious weeds.



The last piece of legislation to mention is the omnibus judicial bill that will create a Class C Felony for anyone receiving stolen property valued at more than $3,000. Livestock was specifically named as a concern within the language, which marks a huge gain in the efforts to reduce cattle theft in the state. The bill was sent to the Governor for his final approval.

A Moment with Mike -- Retaining Small Businesses

The tradition of “throwing paper in the air” brought an end to the first session of the 96^th General Assembly at 6:00 p.m. Friday evening. It is difficult to describe that mixture of feelings that include relief, fatigue, disappointment, pride, satisfaction and patriotism as you ponder the reality of the many bills, initiatives and ideas that have either passed through the process or failed, but will have an effect on the citizens of Missouri for years to come. The cumbersome process is frustrating at times but also adds some protection from ideas and regulations that may seem progressive and necessary by some and redundant or harmful to others.

A bill only becomes law after it has gone through a number of steps in both the House and the Senate. Getting agreement throughout the process without having things added to the bill that are undesirable is difficult. These steps guarantee that anything that passes and is sent to the Governor for one more step has been vetted appropriately. That does not mean that we all agree but each Representative or Senator tries to represent the constituents in their part of the state and hopefully most things passed represent the over-all good for the state.

We started session with a pledge to live within our means, keep taxes low and balance the state budget. I believe we have accomplished these priorities and have passed measures that will positively affect Missourians in all walks of life. One top priority was to create an atmosphere to attract and retain small business and we successfully passed legislation that will reduce regulations and cut down on frivolous lawsuits for small businesses and family farms.

We continued to represent Missouri taxpayers by requiring drug tests for welfare recipients, if they are suspected of abusing drugs, so we know our tax dollars are used to provide a hand up and not a hand out. We went after the worst of the worst by toughening penalties on those who attempt to facilitate human trafficking and we took a strong stand for the unborn and defined what a viable life in Missouri actually is. We passed a reasonable fix to Prop B that will improve the safety and enforceability of animals and bad actors, but also protect our agriculture industry and we made several changes in the “right to carry” laws including the extension of these rights to 21 year olds which makes us consistent with the other states around us.

Two pieces of legislation approved by the General Assembly will appear on the November 2012 ballot for voter approval. One will be to protect and clarify the rights of Missourians to pray in public places and the other will determine the need for a photo ID to vote.

I was pleased that we were able to extend the MO Rx program that benefits over 200,000 senior citizens and we funded the Area Agencies on Aging to enable them to continue the “Meals on Wheels” program that provides a service to those who cannot provide well for themselves.

One of the more difficult initiatives that took a lot of time and consideration was the passing of a redistricting map that would establish the boundaries for the 8 congressional districts in our state. This was completed with a historical override of the Governor’s veto and this will be in law for at least the next ten years.

These are a few of the initiatives that were passed this session and I will give a more detailed overview of some of these in the coming weeks. Right now I am looking forward to staying in the district and seeing all of you at the parades, carnivals, dinners and other events throughout the area.

If you have questions, you may reach me at my Capitol number 573-751-9465, at the local district number, 660-582-4014, by email at mike.thomson@house.mo.gov or by mail at Room 401B State Capitol Building, Jefferson City, MO 65101

A Moment with Mike -- Light at the End of the Tunnel

I recently noticed a cartoon that stated, “Due to budget shortages, the light at the end of the tunnel has been turned off.” That is not true at the Capitol where we have two weeks left in this legislative session. Several big issues that have been a concern are close to completion and there is a mad scramble to pass legislation that individuals feel is important to their districts.

The budget, which is the biggest responsibility of the General Assembly is now in conference and will probably be finalized this week. The redistricting map, which has been very controversial as it bounced back and forth between the Senate and the House has been agreed on and sent to the Governor. The compromise on Proposition B, which has been debated all session, has been signed by the Governor and several initiatives that were set forth at the beginning to help make Missouri more business friendly have been passed.

One of those bills signed into law last week will phase out a tax that applies to more than 3,000 businesses currently operating in Missouri. SB 19 will gradually eliminate Missouri’s franchise tax on company assets such as buildings and inventory. The franchise tax has been in existence since 1917. While the legislature has reduced the tax over the years, leading business organizations have proposed doing away with the tax entirely as part of the “Fix the Six” legislative package. The bill we approved will reduce the tax each year until it is phased out entirely in 2016. Missouri is one of only a few states that have both a corporate income tax and a corporate franchise tax. By eliminating what is, in effect, double taxation, we fan put Missouri on a level playing field with other states that are competing to attract new businesses and jobs.

Another bill on its way to the governor’s desk for approval is one I mentioned in a report early on in the legislative session. Last week the Senate finally sent back to us a slightly revised version of the “Big Government Get Off My Back Act” that was passed by the House in January.

If signed into law by the governor, the act will limit federal mandates on small business owners in the Show Me State. In addition, the bill would increase the size definition of small businesses and require that any federal mandates on these businesses be approved by the General Assembly. With both of these provisions, we hope to allow businesses to operate without fear of new regulations or mandates that will negatively impact how they do business. We think it’s a key component to our efforts to revitalize our economy.

Another portion of the bill further helps small businesses by providing tax deductions to small employers who create new full-time jobs with annual salaries that meet the county average wage. Under the bill, a small business would be able to deduct ten thousand dollars for each full-time job created or twenty thousand dollars per new job if the employer offers health insurance for the new employees and pays at least half of the premiums for such insurance.

Two weeks left and the light at the end of the tunnel is coming into view.

If you have questions, you may reach me at my Capitol number 573-751-9465, at the local district number, 660-582-4014, by email at mike.thomson@house.mo.gov or by mail at Room 401B State Capitol Building, Jefferson City, MO 65101

"Stand Up For Farmers!” Rally, Organized by Missouri Farmers Care, Draws Hundreds

At 5:00 pm on Wednesday afternoon, the south lawn of the Missouri Capitol teemed with nearly 1,300 pro-agriculture supporters. The rally, organized by Missouri Farmers Care, focused on the joint effort of Governor Jay Nixon, Missouri legislative leaders, agriculture advocates and animal welfare experts to craft a “Missouri Solution” for the problems caused by Proposition B.

“Today, hundreds of Missourians travelled to the Capitol to let their leaders know that Missourians won’t stand idly by as big-money, special interests attack our farm families,” explained Don Nikodim, chair of Missouri Farmers Care. “That’s why Senate Bill 113 and the Missouri Solution are so important. We have to protect agriculture from radical groups like HSUS.”

The highlight of the rally came when Jon Hagler, head of the Missouri Department of Agriculture, announced Governor Nixon’s support for a “Missouri Solution” that will fix Proposition B. The result of an agreement between Missouri’s agriculture community and local animal welfare advocates, the “Missouri Solution” will ensure that dogs and puppies receive the treatment and care they deserve, while preserving Missouri jobs and protecting Missouri farmers.

“We’re proud that Governor Nixon is standing with us against radical outside interests like HSUS,” Nikodim said. “The Missouri Solution is a clear example of what can happen when we all work together. Missouri’s farmers, pet providers and animal welfare experts all support this agreement that eliminates cruelty while protecting our homes, farms and jobs.”

The “Missouri Solution” proposal will complement Senate Bill 113, sponsored by Senator Mike Parson (R-Bolivar), which improves enforcement of current animal cruelty laws, strengthens standards for animal shelters, cracks down on unlicensed breeders and removes controversial provisions hidden in Proposition B that threatened animal agriculture in Missouri.

Also speaking at the event were; House Speaker Steve Tilley (R-Perryville), Senate Pro Tem Rob Mayer (R-Dexter), Senator Mike Parson (R-Bolivar), Senator Brian Munzlinger (R-Williamstown), Veterinarian Dr. Alan Wessler and local farmer Chris Chinn. The event was emceed by Missouri Farmers Care Chair, Don Nikodim.

“It was inspiring to look out and see so many people coming together to fight for our farms and our families,” Nikodim concluded. “We sent a strong message today that Missouri will continue to stand strong against radical outside interests like HSUS that threaten our homes, our jobs and our values.”

A Moment with Mike -- Right to Hunt, Fish, & Raise Livestock

As we round 3^rd base and start the home run stretch in this legislative session, we are spending more and more time on the floor debating and passing legislation that will result in a better Missouri.

Proposition B and the legislature’s plan to fix some of the flaws inherent in the voter-approved amendment has received a lot of media attention. For some this has become an extremely controversial subject as they disagree with the idea of changing any of the provisions contained in Prop. B. But for anyone who takes the time to look at some of the unreasonable requirements contained in the act and the damage they could do to honest and lawful dog breeders, they understand the need to fix this well-intentioned but flawed change to our constitution. These fixes are based on good old common sense.

We passed the Proposition B fix legislation last week and sent it on to the governor for his approval. The bill maintains the heart and soul of the proposition adopted by Missouri voters and even strengthens many of the protections for our canine friends. Some of the changes include requiring more inspections of dog breeding facilities each year; dramatically increasing the amount of veterinarian involvement in decisions made by and about dog breeders; and giving the Missouri Department of Agriculture additional authority to go after and shut down unlicensed breeders. The bill also would require breeders to pay fees to help generate funding for the state to hire additional inspectors. Some of the fixes made to the original language include common sense changes like removing the 50-dog limit for breeders and clarifying the penalty provisions so dog breeders aren’t sent to jail for something as simple as a dog knocking food into its water dish.

Some have tried to portray this legislation as a way to undo the will of the voters. I can tell you with certainty there isn’t a single legislator who would support a bill that would cause additional danger for an animal. However, some of the provisions in Proposition B would have done nothing less than force many reputable dog breeders out of business. The bill we passed protects the health and safety of “man’s best friend.” At the same time it allows this important industry, which employs thousands of Missourians, to continue in our state. I am confident in saying the reforms we passed put the care and health of the dog as the number one priority of any breeding facility.

Protecting dogs was not the only crucial issue we took up last week, however. We passed two proposed constitutional amendments that would give voters the chance to protect rights such as raising livestock and the right to hunt and fish from groups that may want to limit them or even take them away. If approved by the Senate, voters will have the opportunity to reaffirm those rights at the polls.

As we continue to approach home plate, more crucial issues will be debated that affect thousands of Missourians every day. I will continue to do my best to represent the people of Northwest Missouri and to help make Missouri a better place to live.

If you have questions, you may reach me at my Capitol number 573-751-9465, at the local district number, 660-582-4014, by email at mike.thomson@house.mo.gov or by mail at Room 401B State Capitol Building, Jefferson City, MO 65101

Dog breeding law provisions overturned in Missouri House

State lawmakers gave final approval Wednesday to a bill that repeals a number of restrictions set in place by the dog-breeding law, passed by voters last November.

In a press conference following the House vote, Gov. Jay Nixon had little to say regarding his opinion of the legislation. He simply stated that he would be sure to review the bill and promised to continue the allocation of resources for law enforcement practices.

The law currently in place tightens the rules governing practices of dog-breeders throughout the state. The legislation passed by the House would undermine those restrictions.

The bill removes the 50-dog limit placed on kennels as well as requirements for larger cages. Instead, the bill requires using regulations to be set by the Department of Agriculture.

The new legislation would also allow for civil penalties and misdemeanor charges for repeat offenses, apply a $25 annual fee to support law enforcement efforts and allow licensing costs of up to $2,500 instead of $500.

Rep. Tom Loehner, R-Koeltztown, who handled the bill in the House, said the restrictions imposed by Proposition B would call for extensive renovations to the state's kennels, putting some breeding operations out of business.

"Don't go out and punish everyone that is in this industry," Loehner said. "Whether they are doing a good job or not, that is totally wrong."

Bill supporters maintain that voters were unaware of the costly consequences that the law would have on dog-breeders - a claim that critics of the legislation argue against fiercely.

"I'm extremely upset that not only I, but a million other voters in the state of Missouri, voted in favor of Prop B," Branson resident Becky Iverson said. "And for whatever reason, our legislature has decided that the people don't apparently know what they need."

Sen. Robin Wright-Jones, D-St. Louis, said the legislation sets a dangerous precedent.

"We're overturning the voice of the people; it disenfranchises them," Wright-Jones said. "We need to live with what the people say. That's the process and we're turning it around."

The legislation has been the source of heated debate over the course of the spring session, with protests at the Capitol happening almost weekly. The most recent occurred Tuesday when volunteers from local shelters and the Humane Society of Missouri turned out in an eleventh hour effort to defend Proposition B.

Following the Senate's passage of the legislation in March, the House gave its approval Wednesday in a vote of 85-71. It will now go before the Democratic governor to sign into law.

---

Cut to the Chase -- Legislation Improves Enforcement of Dog Breeder Laws

By Leslie Holloway

The bill the Missouri Senate recently passed to amend Proposition B does what Prop B was supposed to do—beef up enforcement and raise standards of care for dogs at licensed facilities, while allowing reputable breeders to remain in business.

The bill increases the cap on license fees from $500 to $2500 to generate more funding for inspections and enforcement. It also adds a new $25 fee to support Operation Bark Alert, an enforcement program based on caller tips overseen by the Missouri Attorney General’s office and the Department of Agriculture. According to the Attorney General, the bill expands his authority to pursue criminal violations and seek court injunctions.

Prop B placed more responsibility for enforcement on local officials. However, the Missouri Sheriffs’ Association testified in favor of amending Prop B because county sheriffs do not have the manpower to enforce it. Prop B provided no additional funding. In fact, state officials estimated Prop B would add more than $600,000 to the Department of Agriculture’s program costs.

For most voters, regardless how they voted on Prop B, the real issue is how dogs are treated. Under the bill, more dogs at more facilities will have excellent care. Like Prop B, the bill requires “sufficient food and clean water; necessary veterinary care; sufficient housing, including protection from the elements; sufficient space to turn and stretch freely, lie down, and fully extend limbs; regular exercise; and adequate rest between breeding cycles.”

Not even one of Missouri’s 1400 licensed facilities meets all of Prop B’s specific standards. The bill passed by the Senate sets standards, too, but calls for veterinarians to make recommendations appropriate for the age, species and health of individual dogs. In addition, unlike Prop B, the bill applies to retail pet stores, shelters and rescues as well as commercial facilities.

Critics of the bill made several false claims, such as it allows dogs to be exposed to extreme weather conditions and deprived of clean water. Current laws and regulations prohibit such treatment, and so does the bill. Moreover, the bill puts more specific requirements into statute, such as providing outdoor exercise and a solid surface upon which to lie, as well as more resources for inspection and enforcement.

Rather than repeal Prop B, lawmakers kept what made sense and came up with a bill more effective in getting rid of the disreputable breeders nobody wants in business. It is not the first time a law passed by ballot initiative was improved through the legislative process, and it probably will not be the last.

(Leslie Holloway, of Jefferson City, Mo., is the director of state and local government affairs for the Missouri Farm Bureau, the state’s largest farm organization.)

Missouri Senate passes bill easing Proposition B restrictions on dog breeders

The Missouri Senate removed a year's worth of efforts to restrict Missouri dog
breeders by passing a bill that dilutes most Proposition B restrictions.

The bill, passed with a vote of 20-14, removes the measure's limitation on 50 dogs
in breeding facilities and also dissolves requirements for bigger cage sizes.

Missourians voted 52 percent in favor of Proposition B in November general election.

Since then, some lawmakers have argued voters were unaware that the measures passed
in Prop. B were harming good breeders and a legitimate industry in the state.

Humane Society spokeswoman Barb Schmitz said this isn't true.

"The issue was thoroughly debated for a year," Schmitz said. "Voters knew what they
were doing. And if lawmakers are really intent on overturning the will of the
people, then I find that extremely disappointing."

Sen. John Lamping, R-St. Louis County, warned there is a problem with easing the
restrictions Missourians voted to pass with Proposition B.

"There's a risk to legislating this way, by proposition," he said. "I think I'm
quite confident that my district read the bill, did their best to understand the
bill and voted their will. I think this is a very dangerous way to legislate."

Sen. Maria Chappell-Nadal, D-St. Louis County, voted against changing the law, but
she acknowledged supporters' arguments about voter confusion in November.

"Proposition B does not deal with pounds, yet it is messaged to our constituents
that Proposition B is saving puppies," she said.

The bill now will be sent to the House for debate. If it passes, it will be sent to
the governor to sign into law.

Senate Advances Measure to Go After Unlicensed Dog Breeders in Missouri

The Missouri Senate gave second round approval today advancing a measure that would create a new crime targeting unlicensed dog breeders, as well as strengthening the guidelines and increasing the number of inspections of licensed dog breeders in Missouri. Sen. Mike Parson, R-Bolivar, sponsored Senate Bill 113 & 95. The bill now moves to the House for similar consideration.

Parson said the bill keeps the heart of the proposition Missouri voters adopted by strengthening provisions and inspections of licensed dog breeders and cracking down on unlicensed breeders. It is estimated there are more than 1,500 unlicensed breeding facilities in Missouri.

“We all want puppies and dogs to be bred and raised under healthy and safe conditions,” said Parson. “That is why we have created a new crime and funding mechanism to hire more inspectors to go after and shut down unlicensed breeders in our state. We also build on the will of the people by making sure licensed breeders must follow common-sense guidelines to protect the health and well-being of their dogs and new puppies.”

Senate Bill 113 & 95 allows the Missouri Department of Agriculture to refer cases of unlicensed breeders to the Attorney General, circuit attorney, or local prosecutor. It also makes it a crime to operate without a license, with punishment ranging up to a Class A Misdemeanor. Parson said the bill also raises the cap on the license fee for breeders from $500 to $2,500, and creates an additional fee of $25 per breeding facility to fund Operation Bark Alert. The fee structure funding would potentially go to hiring an additional five inspectors to join the department’s current staff of twelve inspectors.

“This legislation will truly make a difference as it gives the Dept. of Agriculture every tool they need to combat bad operators, and go after unlicensed facilities,” said Parson.

Parson said the bill also dramatically increases veterinarian involvement. It requires breeders to consult veterinarians to determine how often a dog can breed and must have a veterinarian approved exercise plan for each dog. Stacked cages would be allowed, but only if they include an impenetrable barrier keeping waste and fluids from dropping on the dog below.

The bill also requires breeding facilities to keep sale and veterinarian records for two years on every dog, and make them available to Dept. of Agriculture inspectors upon request. The measure also changes the definition of "pet" to only apply to dogs.

Senate Leader Robert N. Mayer, R-Dexter, said it was important to clarify provisions in Proposition B.

“These common-sense changes will protect the health and safety of ‘man’s best friend,’ while allowing this important industry to continue in Missouri,” said Mayer. “It reforms the industry by making the care and health of the dog the number one priority of any breeding facility.”

Cut to the Chase -- Addicted to Chewing and Swallowing

ADDICTED TO CHEWING AND SWALLOWING
By Dan Cassidy

Mike Rowe, the iconic pitchman for Ford Motor Company and host of the television show Dirty Jobs says he is "addicted to chewing and swallowing." So are more than 300 million other Americans. Unfortunately, it is no longer enough for our nation's farmers and ranchers to produce food, fiber and fuel. Today, those who produce must talk directly with those who consume.

Microsoft founder Bill Gates receives accolades for using his wealth to rid the world of maladies such as malaria. U.S. farmers are no less impressive; the combination of hard work and new technologies continue to prime the pump of prosperity. Today, each U.S. farmer produces enough food and fiber for 155 people. Yet, the wagons are circled and American agriculture is under fire. A lethal army of do-gooders, ranging from animal rights extremists to greenhouse gas alarmists, has gone Hollywood by using celebrities and slick solicitations to take their messages to the masses. Their strategy is working.

Farmers and ranchers are trustworthy, hard-working, and notoriously independent. Agriculture organizations work hard to forge common ground and speak with a unified voice, but farmers' historical bond with elected officials and consumers is falling victim to the misinformation and high-dollar rhetoric of people like Al Gore and Sheryl Crow.

Agriculture has no choice but to put skin in the game. Fact will still trump fiction, but we have to ante up. Consider hog, dairy, beef cattle, soybean, corn and other farmers already contribute millions of dollars to research and promotion efforts through checkoffs, and yet consumers still fall prey to modern snake oil salesmen. We cannot be afraid to raise the food security stakes. Farmers have to become evangelical about their industry and explain why they take great pride in producing food for our nation's families.

Bruce Vincent, a logger and motivational speaker from Montana argues every farmer's business plan should include at least one hour a week to advocate for their industry. We must be better prepared for the next battle; it takes money to share our story from Pierce City to St. Louis and everywhere in between. Last November, a 30-second primetime television commercial in St. Louis could cost up to $3,000.

More than $4 million was spent promoting Proposition B in Missouri, with at least half coming from the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). HSUS is an east coast factory fundraising machine using television propaganda to finance its animal rights agenda. Campaign reports filed just before Election Day show 82 percent of the funding in support of Proposition B came from out-of-state organizations and individuals. Nearly 75 percent of that amount came from New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and California.

Proposition B passed by less than 2 percent and failed in 103 of Missouri's 114 counties. The measure passed by large margins in the St. Louis and Kansas City metropolitan areas. Not surprisingly, this was ground zero for the Proposition B media blitz. Ultimately, opponents were outspent about 9 to 1 by supporters.

Today, we are dealing with well-funded adversaries who are more comfortable talking on the Oprah show than the coffee shop. In this new environment, farmers and ranchers must not only speak with a unified voice and take time to educate others, but have the money necessary to share their message with everyone else addicted to chewing and swallowing.

(Dan Cassidy, of Fulton, Mo., is chief administrative officer of
Missouri Farm Bureau, the state's largest farm organization.)

Mo. House overturns voter-approved minimum wage law

By a near party-line vote, Missouri's House voted Tuesday [March 1] to put a cap on the minimum wage law that Missouri voters approved five years ago. Most of the House Republicans voted in support of the change, not one Democrat voted to approve the measure. In 2006, 76 percent of Missouri voters approved a measure to raise minimum wage and tie it to the inflation rate. The House-passed bill would prohibit Missouri's minimum wage from exceeding the federal level. Both are currently set at $7.25, but because Missouri uses the consumer price index to set its minimum wage, the state's level could increase past the federal level if the cost of living increases. Rep. Sylvester Taylor, D-St. Louis County, said employees will be at a disadvantage if the measure passes. "If you don't take care of your workers, what message are you sending to your workforce?" Taylor said. Republicans, including the bill's sponsor, Rep. Jerry Nolte, R-Gladstone, said lowering minimum wage would create jobs. By eliminating the inflationary increases, businesses wouldn't need to pay higher labor costs and could maintain jobs for low-skilled workers, he said. "Those of you who are voting on this bill, go home this weekend, go to your small businesses, look them in the eye and ask yourself, 'Can I tell them how I voted on this bill? Can I tell them that I am standing with them to create jobs?'" Nolte said during House debate. Allowing Missouri's minimum wage to increase above the federal rate and that of surrounding states would make doing business in Missouri less attractive for employers, said Republican Floor Leader Tim Jones, R-St. Louis County. "None of the bordering states which we compete economically with and competitively with have this (inflation rate) provision," he said. "It is an anomaly." All 57 House Democrats joined with four Republicans to vote against the bill. They said lowering the minimum wage would cost Missouri thousands of jobs and hurt families that live below the poverty level. Rep. Mike Colona, D-St Louis, said Republicans don't care about the voice of the people. "House Republicans today told the people of Missouri that their opinion as expressed at the ballot box doesn't matter," Colona said. The minimum wage issue is one of three proposals pushed by Republicans in the legislature to change proposals approved by Missouri voters. Legislation to repeal restrictions on dog breeders, which voters approved last fall, has advanced in the legislature. Lawmakers also have proposed a plan to force Missourians to foot the bill for AmerenUE to pursue a permit to build a second nuclear reactor in the state. "Some things are passed by the voters and I think we should respect that," said House Speaker Steve Tilley, R-Perryville. "But if there's unintended consequences that we feel like the residents in our district didn't understand or didn't realize were going to occur, we have an obligation as their representative to fix it."

Dog breeders converge at Capitol to save their industry just months after voters restrict them

Just months after Missourians voted to limit the number of dogs in breeding facilities, lawmakers already are attempting to change that restriction. Many breeders have converged at the Capitol to argue for more lax regulations to save their businesses. Hubert Lavy owns a large dog breeding facility in Silex, in Lincoln County. He sells many puppies but also donates some to organizations as companion dogs for people with special needs. He said under Prop. B legislation, he no longer will be able to sustain his business. "Please don't let these people take this away from me," said Lavy. "It's all I have. It's all I want to do." Lavy said Proposition B, which restricts breeders to owning only 50 breeding dogs, is flawed because its authors do not have knowledge of the breeding process. He said cage size dimensions specified under Prop. B are too big for puppies to survive in. "If you have this area for the mother when she has her puppies, the puppies will walk away and go into the corner and chill, and you will lose the puppies because it's too big," Lavy said. "You need a smaller area no bigger than a four by four (feet)." Columbia Second Chance founder Betsy Casteel said her no-kill shelter has had difficulties rehabilitating dogs from bad breeders. She said the current legislation might not be perfect but said it's better than nothing. "It is probably flawed, so people who are critical may have some weight, but to me it is flawed in that there is no funding to go with it," Casteel said. "If we had sufficient funding for the inspectors we already have, there probably would be no reason to have Proposition B." Both Senate Bill 113 & 95 and House Bill 131 would take away the 50-dog limit for breeding facilities and repeal other restrictions if passed.

Guess what? The process worked.

One of the House leaders has ties to one of the Humane Society's so-called "dirty dozen," one of the kennels that was in extremely bad shape. But the article notes that the problems in the kennels have mostly been solved, thanks to the State Department of Agriculture. Guess what? The process worked. No need for Prop. B.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/political-fix/article_ef57fb04-4069-11e0-8250-00127992bc8b.html

House committee amends Proposition B; approves unlimited dogs

The House Agriculture Policy Committee passed a bill Tuesday (Feb. 15) lifting the Proposition B restriction on the number of dogs breeders can have.

November of last year, Missourians passed Prop. B with 52 percent of the vote.

The bill would repeal the 50-dog restriction and lets breeders have an unlimited number of dogs at their facility.

Under the bill, dogs would not have to be examined by a licensed veterinarian unless they have an injury or illness.

Barb Schmitz with Missourians for the Protection of Dogs said the bill essentially guts Prop. B.

"It goes through and systematically undercuts every single important measure that would protect dogs, and it actually removes the protections from Proposition B and puts us back under the standards under pre-Proposition B law," Schmitz said.

Bill sponsor Stanley Cox, R-Sedalia, said voters in his district voted against passing Prop. B in the first place.

"There's a really good argument that you should not take away from, certainly, people who do a good job of breeding animals, raising puppies," Cox said. "You should not take away their livelihood."

A substitute to House Bill 131 was passed with six minor amendments, including specifications about licensed breeders. The new substitute will be sent to the House Rules Committee, which will vote whether to pass it onto the House floor.

Schmitz said she wants representatives to honor the voters' wishes and not amend Prop. B so soon.

"For folks who are saying there's some sort of mysterious problem with it, I think it's way too early for us to know that," Schmitz said. "Let's let it take effect. If there's some sort of problem, then it'll become apparent, and it can be fixed then."

Cut to the Chase: HSUS True Colors Beginning to Show

The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) hired a small army of contract lobbyists to further their interests in the state of Missouri. Even after spending millions and barely passing Proposition B in the November election, it seems HSUS is not through with our state.

During their campaign on behalf of Proposition B, HSUS assured us they were just concerned with dogs and had no interest in livestock production in the state. These assurances must come with a sell-by date, because they have most certainly expired. Contract lobbyists are now working the halls of the Capitol urging the defeat of House Bill No. 100, a bill that guarantees Missourians’ rights to continue to "raise livestock in a humane manner."

Heck, the bill would put the humane treatment of livestock into Missouri law. One would reasonably assume that the Humane Society ought to favor humane treatment, but I guess not. The bill requires Missouri farmers to use "generally accepted scientific principles" in their production of livestock. Again, it seems an organization that purports to fight for the welfare of four-legged creatures ought to be in favor of science, but the HSUS has little use for science when emotion is so much more effective in separating the organization's supporters from their money.

In the past few days, I visited with farmers who struggled through the recent blizzard to care for their livestock. One of my friends spent the day of the blizzard struggling through snow drifts to make sure his hogs had enough feed, ending the day stranded in the ditch while he attempted to drive through the white-out conditions. He made it home safely, but he was willing to risk his life to care for his animals.

Another friend spent the day on crutches feeding hogs. He wasn't supposed to be working, but he was the only member of his family who could reach their hogs because of the dangerous travel conditions. Sensible regulations on animal care may be necessary, but consumers should never, ever forget farmers routinely put the welfare of their animals before anything else, including their own safety.

HSUS believes perfection was reached in the fall of 2010 with the narrow passage of Proposition B. The organization argues the people have spoken, the results are engraved on stone tablets, and there is no need for improvement. But in the same election, the people of the state voted in a legislature empowered to work the people's will. If that legislature, in its wisdom, decides there is a need to improve upon the work of the people, it is their right and indeed their responsibility to do so.

Initiative petitions are a valued part of democracy, but it is not possible for initiatives to do more than reflect a rather rough approximation of the people's will. Bills under consideration to amend Proposition B will strengthen the ability of present law to protect dogs being raised by Missouri's licensed dog breeders. That is a very good thing, and will more accurately reflect the will of an electorate concerned about the treatment of animals, but not expert in the crafting of legislation.