GEORGE KENNEDY: Gun, tax bills resting, not dead

Thursday, September 12, 2013 | 6:06 p.m. CDT; updated 12:18 a.m. CDT, Friday, September 13, 2013

The headline on the Missourian’s account Thursday of the legislative veto session said “Gun, tax bills put to rest.” That was true enough and cause for at least muted celebration. It’s pretty clear, though, that they’re only resting. They’re not dead.

The speaker of the House of Representatives, where 15 of his fellow Republicans had a belated attack of good judgment and switched their votes to support Gov. Nixon’s veto of the tax cut bill, called the outcome only a “temporary setback.”

Given the Republicans’ fervent commitment to lifting the tax burden from the backs of the state’s wealthiest residents, we can be confident that House Bill 253 or something similar will return next year. Rex Sinquefield, who has largely financed the anti-tax campaign so far, won’t want to walk away from his investment in legislators.

Caleb Rowden and Caleb Jones, the two Republicans whose House districts include corners of Boone County, were not among those who changed their minds, or at least their votes. Both voted to override. The three Democrats who represent the core of the county were also consistent in their opposition to the bill. (Because the bill originated in the House, the first vote on overriding the veto was held there. When the override failed, there was no vote taken in the Senate.)

As Missourian readers know, this was a bill – and an idea – that deserved to die. Not only was the legislation so poorly written that it inadvertently would have increased taxes on prescription drugs and textbooks, its main beneficiaries would have been the wealthy and its likely victims our already underfunded schools and social services.

My colleague Phill Brooks noted Thursday that most of the 15 Republicans who switched their votes come from rural areas.  A website calling itself "the conservative alternative" already has posted the contact information for all 15 and invited readers to rebuke them.

The gun bill would have been a bad joke if its proponents hadn’t taken it so seriously. It would have, among other things, purported to nullify federal gun control laws, criminalized any attempts to enforce those laws and even made it a crime for newspapers to publish the names of gun owners.

The mere fact that it was unconstitutional on its face did not dissuade Reps. Rowden and Jones from continuing to support it. Even more strangely, our Republican senator, Kurt Schaefer, a lawyer, also voted to override the governor’s veto. The two Republican leaders of the Senate, by contrast, recognized the unconstitutionality and voted to sustain the veto.

The front page of Wednesday’s Columbia Daily Tribune illustrated that bill’s triumph of ideology over reality. A photograph of gun supporters outside the Capitol showed a man carrying a placard with the words “Guns save lives.” Next to that picture was the story about the Ashland High School student who shot himself to death earlier this week.

In fact, the “Second Amendment Preservation Act,” as it was called, was so extreme that its sponsor, a Republican from St. Peters, was forced to admit that the NRA was “neutral” on it.

The overwhelming Republican majority in both houses of the Legislature managed to override a record number of the Democratic governor’s vetoes. Among the bills vetoed but now revived is one that will provide more profit to payday lenders and another that will protect the Doe Run mining corporation from paying fully for the consequences of its waste disposal practices. To his credit, Rep. Rowden voted with our Democratic delegation to sustain the Doe Run veto.

Gov. Nixon held a news conference to celebrate the defeat of the tax cut, but his comments reported by the Missourian applied more broadly. “My sense is there has been a shift to more of a political discourse than a governing discourse,” he said. The evidence for that assertion was being provided even as he spoke.

Finally, the 97th General Assembly has adjourned for the year. A fair summary would be, I think, that it could have been worse. If worse is yet to come, at least it won’t come before January, when the legislature reconvenes.

George Kennedy is a former managing editor at the Missourian and professor emeritus at the Missouri School of Journalism. He writes a weekly column for the Missourian.

Like what you see here? Become a member.

Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Ellis Smith September 13, 2013 | 7:59 a.m.

The key here is not whether these situations will occur again but whether legislation dealing with them wll be better crafted next time around.

In my opinion, legislation dealing with firearms isn't necessary, well or poorly crafted.

This week's Iowa media noted that the state's three public universities have gotten serious about curbing tuition raises, keeping them moderate and holding them to no sooner than every other academic year. Affordability is now the number one issue.

Iowa's population is about 55-60% that of Missouri's. If Iowa has only three public universities, mathematics suggest that Missouri might have six (maybe one or two more).

How many public universities does Missouri have, George? I'm not certain some of us can deal with such large numbers; our mathematical skills are limited. :) Are we to believe no fat and redundancies exist?

Iowa's public universities operate under a single governing Board of Regents. "Regents" is a term frequently associated with public and private university governance; the first definition in most dictionaries for "Curator" is "one who oversees a museum." I've always thought choice of the term "Curator" seemed apt for UM System.

What has that to do with the situation covered in your article? This: Possibly the higher public edcuation establishment in Missouri might spend less time worrying about future legislative sessions and more of that time improving its own performance. Tell us what will be done, and when we can expect it to be done.

(Report Comment)
George Kennedy September 13, 2013 | 11:04 a.m.

Ellis --

As you know, the UM system has three full-service campuses, plus the School of Mines down in the Ozarks somewhere. All told, we're into double digits in public universities. I doubt the legislators who won't support them adequately would ever agree to abolishing any. I hope the Iowa legislature is more forward looking.

Thanks for reading, and for writing.


(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith September 13, 2013 | 2:15 p.m.

What has been done, is done. The Missouri legislature in 1870 botched implementation of the federal Morrill Act (according to a 1983 book by historians Christensen and Ridley). You should find solance in that, George, because it shows the 2013 legislature is far from alone in making a real mess of things.

If Missouri were like most states there would be TWO large, strong public universities, each purposely having certain programs the other does not. There wouldn't be any "second tier" public universities or colleges. (Iowa's third university was historically its teachers' college*.) The competition between two universities would have made them leaner and more competitive (in the eyes of prospective students, legislators and state taxpayers).

But that can now never be in the state of Missouri. No existing campuses are going to be razed. :)

My main point is that if you and the Missourian wish to serve the public as best you can then you should devote more space to telling us - concretely - what is being done to improve university performance.

The "product's" PRICE is out of control (versus other products and services). Has the "product" itself improved? I will ask that again.

*- It has been considerably upgraded. Iowa wasn't going to raze any existing campuses either. It has the distinction of having more tenured professors teaching introductory classes (few TAs) than most domestic universities. Present enrollment ~12K (Iowa and ISU are each >30K.)

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.