|
| ||
|
|
| |
|
October 16,
2008 Volume
4, Number 41 | ||
|
In This
Issue
E-Mail
cynthia.davis@house.mo.gov
Chair Vice Chair
Vice Chair
Official Homepage for Official Government Homepage for your
Look up Missouri House Bills – View
Entire Text, Summary, and Last Action Look up Consumer Federal
Links |
November
4 Ballot Issues
Constitutional
Amendment No. 1 Proposed by the
94th General Assembly (First Regular
Session) HJR7 Shall
the Missouri Constitution be amended to add a statement that English shall
be the language of all governmental meetings at which any public business is
discussed, decided, or public policy is formulated whether conducted in
person or by communication equipment including conference calls, video
conferences, or Internet chat or message
board? It is
estimated this proposal will have no costs or savings to state or local
governmental entities. __Yes __No Additional
Information Not on the Ballot You
can click on the following link, where I discussed the English language
issue in my Capitol
Report 3-20-07.
For a
full text of the bill, click on this link: Constitutional Amendment
1. Constitutional Amendment
4 Proposed by the 94th General
Assembly (Second Regular Session) SJR 45 Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to
change provisions relating to the financing of stormwater control projects
by:
It is
estimated the cost to state governmental entities is $0 to $236,000
annually. It is estimated state governmental entities will save
approximately $7,500 for each bond issuance. It is estimated local
governmental entities participating in this program may experience
savings, however the amount is unknown. __Yes __No Additional
Information Not on the Ballot Proponents:
This proposal originated in the Missouri Department of Resources
(DNR). According to DNR, bond funds for the loan program are
available at 2 percent interest. However, most first-class counties
such as Opponents: According to the website of
the League of Women Voters, opponents argue that these changes would limit
the project options of municipalities involved in stormwater control
projects. Leftover funds from the repayment of loans currently are
returned to General Revenue funds, and this proposition would allow the
DNR to keep those funds for future projects. Therefore, opponents
also argue that a designated use fund limits the ability of the For a
full text of SJR 45, click on this link: Constitutional Amendment
4 Ballot
Issue Recap Proposition
A: Gambling So many of you wrote me last week
asking about Prop A, it warrants a recap. Prop A is based on bad
economics. How can the casinos start with a finite amount of money,
shuffle it around, prey on the poor and elderly and then sell it to us as
something that is going to be good for our schools?
Proposition A is bad for children, bad for the economy
and bad for crime prevention, and it is no bargain for our
state. To the contrary, it is going to cause far more harm than
benefit.
A website that is committed to just the facts
about Proposition A is here: Casino
Watch Here is a quote
from the St. Louis Post Dispatch last Sunday: “There is nothing painless about the human cost of
gambling. Several academic studies have found higher bankruptcy rates in
areas with casinos. Other studies have linked gambling with suicide. A
study of members of Gamblers
Anonymous found that 13 percent had tried to kill themselves
and as many as 50 percent said that had thought about it. A 2006 study
commissioned by the state of http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/editorialcommentary/story/463A63888BB474CC862574E500815283?OpenDocument http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/editorialcommentary/story/5CDB799ECC112C20862574E4007EA9B2?OpenDocument If you are interested in the history of gambling
in Information on the Amendment 1, Amendment 2,
Propositions B and C Proposition B (Proposed by
Initiative Petition)
The
exact cost of this proposal to state governmental entities is unknown, but
it is estimated to exceed $510,560 annually. Additional costs for
training are possible. Matching federal funds, if available, could
reduce state costs. It is estimated there would be no costs or
savings to local governmental entities. __Yes
__No Additional
Information Not on the Ballot Proponents:
Missourians for Quality
Homecare placed this issue on the ballot.
Proposition B creates an oversight board, Missouri Quality Homecare
Council, whose members would be appointed by the Governor. According to
this organization, the creation of a board would strengthen and provide
for coordination of existing home care services. In addition, it
provides for collective bargaining rights for home care workers and the
Service Employees International Union supports the Opponents:
The Missouri Chamber of In addition, the Missouri Alliance for Home
Care, the trade association
representing the interests and concerns of home health agencies and
companies, and the Associated Industries of Missouri
are very concerned about the ramifications of this
proposal, which allows for unionization of workers paid from Medicaid
funds, and these two organizations believe that the ballot language
is very deceptive. The storyline of this question is very misleading
on its surface, expands government involvement in personal healthcare, and
is deceitful within the fine print unavailable in the voting
booth. The way this proposition is worded, “Shall the
elderly and Missourians with disabilities continue living independently in
their homes,” is a scare tactic in the first line. This proposition
has no bearing on whether these Missourians will be able to continue
living in their homes or not. Furthermore, most people understand
that quality home healthcare is far cheaper than any form of institutional
care. Proposition B will create more layers of
government bureaucracy in the delivery of personal health care
needs. Every program run by government is less efficient and less
responsive toward those in need than private competition-based services
that attract quality personnel who have the attributes that fit the
services offered. Do we really need another government program to
oversee a government program? The cost to It is deceitful that the labor/unionization issue
is left completely out of the ballot question. Proposition B has
little to do with true quality care, but is focused on wages and driving
up care costs! Throughout the proposal are details about how this
new government group is to oversee the “workforce” of the industry with
all personal care attendants across For a full text of this proposition, click on this
link: Proposition
B Proposition C (Proposed by
Initiative Petition) Shall Missouri law be amended to require
investor-owned electric utilities to generate or purchase electricity from
renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, biomass and hydropower with
the renewable energy sources equaling at least 2% of retail sales by 2011
increasing incrementally to at least 15% by 2021, including at least 2%
from solar energy; and restricting to no more than 1% any rate increase to
consumers for this renewable energy?
The estimated direct cost to state governmental
entities is $395,183. It is estimated there are no direct costs or
savings to local governmental entities. However, indirect costs may
be incurred by state and local governmental entities if the proposal
results in increased electricity retail
rates. __Yes
__No Additional
Information Not on the Ballot Proponents:
Proponents argue that, because 85 percent of the state's electricity is
generated by burning coal, the passage of Proposition C would result in a
cleaner environment and less dependence on the use of non-renewable energy
sources and foreign oil. In addition, they argue that the increased use of
renewable technologies would reduce carbon dioxide emissions and help to
alleviate global warming. This proposition only applies to investor-owned
utilities such as AmerenUE; it does not apply to rural cooperatives or
municipally-owned utilities. Opponents:
There is no organized opposition to this proposal. However, an
economist might argue that the proposition would artificially create
demand and drive up the cost of renewable energy technologies. It
also might rush technologies to the marketplace that are not market
ready. In addition, the proposal moves investor-owned utilities away
from the concept of least-cost production. While all of this may
increase the cost to produce energy, the proposition includes a cap on
rate increases due to this particular proposition of 1 percent per year.
Because this increase is allowed each year, the increase could actually be
2 percent over two years, 3 percent over three years, and so on. In
addition, this increase would not be su On
first read, Proposition C sounds great. But how can statutory law
force utility producers/providers to meet artificial thresholds for
alternative energy sales and not allow the cost for producing that energy
to be paid for? Yes, utility companies operate in tens and hundreds
of millions of dollars annually. But these high dollars are derived
from sheer volume of customers. This mandate is impractical to
impose and could very well result in an energy train-wreck similar to
Any business with a relatively small margin of
profit has special conditions to meet. Remember, utilities are like
McDonald’s; the profits are in the huge customer base. Under this
proposition, utilities have only two years to find and replace 2 percent
of their product line with alternative sales. In just another ten
years, a utility is required to come up with alternative sources of
product for no less than 15 percent of total sales without passing on
the majority of that cost to its customers! This may not be realistic. If Proposition C passes, we may be in for a rough
ride. Quality and reliability can be expected to decline as
preventative services for electrical delivery is forced to absorb
financial shocks. Should we expect the same amiable customer services
from operators and linemen when they are all discouraged with wage
cuts? When future natural disasters hit Alternative energy is a wonderful goal that most
of us support with anticipation. If Proposition C passes, the
language still may not survive. The Legislature may be forced to
rewrite it by the complaints and demands of the very folks who voted
‘yes,’ thinking it was a good idea, yet unaware of the economics of energy
production/delivery. On this issue, a ‘no’ vote with a degree of
faith in the free market is a much wiser path until a more reasonable plan
is put forward. For a full text of this proposition, click
on this link: Proposition
C. Nov. 4
Sample Ballot For President and
Vice-President:
For
Governor:
For Lieutenant
Governor
For Secretary of
State
For State
Treasurer
For Attorney
General
For U.S. Rep. in Congress –
2nd District
For U.S. Rep. in Congress –
9th District
For State Rep. 19th
District
For Circuit Judge Circuit No.
11 Div. #1
For County Council, Dist.
#4 Shall Judge Patricia
Breckenridge of the Shall Judge Shall Judge Kurt S. Odenwald of
the Eastern District Court of Appeals be retained in
office? Shall Judge Roy L. Richter of
the Eastern District Court of Appeals be retained in
office? A Little
Bit of Humor…
Honor
Virus This virus works on the honor system.Please delete all the files on your hard disk,then forward this message to everyone you know.Thank you for your cooperation.
This Capitol Report is a weekly
newsletter by Representative J If you know of anyone else who
would like to receive my Capitol Report, please send an e-mail to Cynthia.Davis@house.mo.gov with the
person’s name and e-mail address. We’ll add them to the
list. L If you would like to stop receiving
the Capitol Report, email us at Cynthia.Davis@house.mo.gov
with “unsubscribe” in the
su | |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
