Jay Nixon

Missouri House overturns unemployment limits bill veto

May 12, 2015 By Mike Lear

The state House has voted to overturn Governor Jay Nixon’s (D) veto of a bill that would shorten the length of time Missourians can receive unemployment benefits, but the question might not even be considered in the Senate in the final three days of the session.

Scott Fitzpatrick (photo courtesy; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

Scott Fitzpatrick carried the unemployment bill in the state House. (photo courtesy; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

The Republican-controlled House mustered just enough votes to overturn the veto of a bill that would link the length of time workers can get unemployment benefits to the unemployment rate, shortening it to as few as 13 weeks if that rate stays below 6-percent. The current time period is 20 weeks. The national standard is 26.

Representative Margo McNeil (D-Florissant) said the measure will only hurt people who need help.

“We’re going to vote to be the absolute lowest state in the nation? The absolute stingiest state in the nation, with this override?” McNeil asked fellow representatives during debate, Tuesday. “Where is our humanity?”

Representative Keith English (I-Florissant) said the bill would hurt him, his family, and anyone who works a seasonal job.

“January 1 starts unemployment, Mr. Speaker, so the second week in April is the thirteenth week,” English told his fellows. “So we might get a job at Labadie Powerhouse, Meramec Powerhouse, somewhere where we’ve got about a 20- to 30-week shutdown, but then what happens is as the work starts to come down we get laid off. Well, if we used our 13-weeks of unemployment, Mr. Speaker, guess what, when we get laid off we go down to the bottom of the list, and there’s no work coming around the holidays … when we cut from 20 to 13 weeks there is no money left, so now what happens? We go on [the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program].”

Republicans say shortening the length of time people can receive benefits reduces the amount employers have to pay into it. This bill would also make it more difficult for a former employee who is getting a severance package to receive unemployment, and would increase the amount the state could keep in its unemployment insurance trust fund.

Backers say the state has had to borrow federal money when that fund has run dry. Sponsor Scott Fitzpatrick (R-Shell Knob) says that practice has hurt Missouri businesses.

“It makes employers less competitive across state lines to states that have better unemployment trust funds that work right,” said Fitzpatrick. “It just makes sense to make this thing solvent. It makes no sense to leave it the way it is right now.”

It is now up to the Senate whether to vote to override Nixon’s veto, but after Republican leadership in that chamber forced a vote on a so-called “Right to Work” bill, Democrats in that chamber say they will make it as difficult as possible to move any legislation in the final three days of the session.

Chamber applauds bill that redefines ‘misconduct’ becoming law

July 21, 2014 By Mike Lear

The state Chamber says a bill that will make it harder to get unemployment benefits will benefit both employees and employers.

The bill changes the definition of “misconduct” in relation to employment, so that it is harder for people to get unemployment benefits after doing things like violating an employer’s rules or even state standards that could get an employer in trouble.

Lawmakers backing the bill gave examples during debate including employees who urinated off of buildings or fell asleep on the job, yet were still able to draw benefits, and said the bill is needed to keep such things from happening again.

Vice President of Governmental Affairs with the Missouri Chamber, Tracy King, says fewer people getting benefits takes pressure off the unemployment trust fund.

“I think this is a common sense first step in what we need to do to try to shore up the unemployment trust fund and the system that’s out there,” says King, “so that it is out there for the people who truly need it.”

King says it was a series of compromises that led to Governor Jay Nixon (D) allowing the bill to become law this year, after vetoing similar legislation the past three years.

“There was some opposition with the Missouri Association of Trial Attorneys last year. We worked with them on trying to compromise on this legislation, as well as the unions,” says King. “We felt like we found common ground.

She says the bill also includes language Governor Nixon wanted.

“The Governor vetoed a similar provision last year and in that veto message he stated that he needed some additional language in order for us to be in compliance with the U.S. Department of Labor. We included that this year.”

The bill takes effect August 28.

Backers, critics argue significance of Missouri’s new ‘right to try’ law

July 16, 2014 By Mike Lear

Next month, Missouri will have a “right to try” law in place that aims to allow terminally ill patients who have exhausted conventional treatments to seek the use of drugs, devices and products that haven’t gone all the way through the federal Food and Drug Administration’s testing process.

John DiPersio, MD, PhD (left) and Show-Me Institute analyst Patrick Ishmael

Governor Jay Nixon (D) signed legislation on Monday to make Missouri the third state to enact such a law, to give patients and their doctors the opportunity to try so-called “investigational” drugs if the makers of those drugs agree.

Proponents of the measure like Show-Me Institute analyst Patrick Ishmael say it will mean a lot to patients.

“I think they’re going to find this legislation as being very helpful to them, being very hopeful for their families,” says Ishmael, “and at the end of the day it provides them an opportunity to pursue treatment and care that before, the state may have been able to step in and try to prevent.”

See the legislation, HB 1685

The bill has critics, however, who say it won’t actually do anything.

“The problem is there’s this thing called the FDA,” says Doctor John DiPersio, Deputy Director of the Siteman Cancer Center in St. Louis and Chief of the Division of Oncology at Washington University in St. Louis.

DiPersio says a mechanism for giving patients access to investigational drugs already exists. He says no matter how the new law reads, the administration to a patient of a drug still under development without FDA approval is illegal.

“If you gave an investigational drug and the FDA found out about it … outside of a clinical trial, outside of their proper mechanism, then it could be potentially catastrophic for the patient, the physician and the institution,” says DiPersio.

DiPersio says it is unlikely pharmaceutical manufacturers would risk development of new drugs by giving them to patients under the terms of the “right to try” law.

“You can’t just give your drug to everybody in the country that wants it and not be in a position to actually, rigorously follow those patients,” says DiPersio, “because if something bad happens then it could undermine the development of the drug, number one. Number two is that there are liability issues.”

HB 1685 was sponsored by Representative Jim Neely (R-Cameron)

Proponents counter that one company, Neuralstem Inc, has expressed interest in making available experimental treatments for Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS, otherwise known as Lou Gehrig’s Disease), under Colorado’s right to try law.

Still, DiPersio says allowing such access to new drugs not only threatens their development, but he criticizes the bill for allowing drug companies to require patients receiving an experimental drug, product or device, to pay for them.

“Under the current practices you’d have to get FDA to approve it, it actually reduces or limits the liability of the company providing it, insurance companies have to pay for the standard of care associated with it and any complications because it’s FDA approved,” says DiPersio, “But now, you’re telling me that the companies can actually ask for a payment for an investigational drug for which there is no known cost associated with it, so they could make up a cost.”

Ishmael says there is no way to be sure what drug manufacturers are going to do.

“Do we know the future about what the FDA will do, about what drug companies will do? This is a new innovation in the law, and really it’s a de-regulation where the state is getting out of the way,” says Ishmael.

Ishmael says he has no doubt the legislation will make a difference.

“There is something to be said for hope. There is something to be said for opportunity,” says Ishmael, “and I think the patients who are in a terminal situation deserve the hope and the opportunity of making sure that the state is not going to stand in their way when they seek this sort of experimental medication.”

The law becomes effective August 28.

Budget restrictions mean no raise for transportation employees, either

July 11, 2014 By Mike Lear

Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission member Joe Carmichael (courtesy; Missouri Department of Transportation)

Transportation Department employees, like other state employees, will not be getting a raise because of actions taken by Governor Jay Nixon (D) with the budget.

One of the items Governor Nixon has put a halt on funding in the new budget is a one-percent, across-the-board raise in pay for state employees.

The Transportation Commission can act independently of that budget, but Commissioner Joe Carmichael says it follows what other state agencies do, so a matching raise for transportation employees is also on hold.

“There was also a $25 a month employee deferred comp match, and that is part of the withholding as well,” says Carmichael. “Again, we’ll follow suit, and those are very difficult things.”

Carmichael expresses optimism the restriction will not be permanent.

“We expect once state revenues improve and the state budget becomes more certain that those will be lifted,” says Carmichael. “That’s certainly our hope and, I think, it’s a reasonable expectation.”

Carmichael also noted the restriction of $1-million for the state transit assistance program and $3-million for capital improvements to ports.

Nixon says the legislature’s budget was more than 780-million dollars out-of-balance. Lawmakers say he is using inflated and inaccurate numbers.

Gov. Nixon vetoes bill to allow sale of alcohol in State Capitol, historic penitentiary

July 10, 2014 By Mike Lear

Governor Jay Nixon (D) has vetoed a bill that would allow alcohol to be sold at events in the State Capitol and the historic Missouri State Penitentiary.

Governor Jay Nixon says events in the State Capitol should not include the selling of alcohol. (photo courtesy; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

Supporters said the bill would allow the Missouri Capitol Commission to include alcohol sales at celebrations of the laying of the cornerstone of the capitol and the state’s Bicentennial, and would help generate revenue for the restoration and maintenance of the Capitol. Other events held at the retired State Penitentiary would further the effort to draw tourism to the prison and Jefferson City.

Nixon says he disapproves of the bill because he wants children and families to continue to be comfortable visiting the Capitol.

“They do not come to see the sale of liquor by the drink,” writes Nixon. “Moreover, they introduction of alcohol sales in the Capitol is particularly troubling because the bill does not restrict sales in the presence of minors, nor does it limit sales to certain hours of operation.”

Nixon continues, “The additional revenues for Capitol restoration and maintenance that proponents assert would result from House Bill No. 1359 becoming law are outweighed by the message it sends to children and families. We should not sell alcohol in the Capitol.”

The bill cleared both the House and the Senate with enough votes to overturn a veto, if such an attempt is made in September’s veto session and if enough lawmakers vote the same way.

Highway Commission’s role on Amendment 7, post project list approval

July 10, 2014 By Mike Lear

Now that the Highways and Transportation Commission has approved a final project list for the Amendment 7 ballot issue, it’s not going to totally step away from the issue.

“We’re not part of a campaign. That’s left to other people,” says Chairman Stephen Miller of Kansas City, “We’ll be a resource to anyone that needs education about these projects.”

The projects total more than 800, ranging from a stretch of sidewalk in some communities to the $500-million dollar expansion of 200 miles of Interstate 70 from four lanes to six. All of them hinge on voter approval of a three-quarters of one-cent sales tax on August 5. Opponents say that tax increase would disproportionately burden the poorest 20% of Missourians.

Governor Jay Nixon (D) has been one such critic. Asked about Nixon’s opposition, Miller, who was appointed by Nixon, says it is the governor’s prerogative as it is for any Missouri voter, to evaluate the project list and the potential impacts of the tax.

“We’re prepared to let all voices be heard in that process, including our public leaders,” says Miller.

Miller is asked about Governor’ Nixon’s opposition to the transportation tax proposal:

Sponsors of ag bills expect to overturn vetoes, defend deer language

July 9, 2014 By Mike Lear

Governor Jay Nixon (D) has vetoed two agriculture omnibus bills because they contain language that would transfer regulatory control of captive deer to the Department of Agriculture. The sponsors of those bills say those vetoes will be easy overrides in September.

Representative Casey Guernsey (left) and Senator Brian Munzlinger sponsored agriculture omnibus legislation including captive deer language, in the 2014 session. (photos courtesy; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications and the office of Sen. Munzlinger)

Nixon says the bill violates the state’s Constitution, which says the Department of Conservation is responsible for the control and regulation of wildlife.

Senator Brian Munzlinger (R-Williamstown) says the bill is worded so as not to violate the Constitution by specifying that captive deer are not wild.

“Actually if you look at the Constitution, it says, ‘wildlife,'” says Munzlinger. “If you look at the (legislation’s proposed) definition of ‘livestock,’ it says ‘anything not taken from the wild,’ so I think if you look at clear definitions the governor was clearly wrong in his veto of Senate Bill 506.”

Backers of the captive deer provisions in that bill and House Bill 1326 say it would protect hunting preserve operators from new regulations that would put some of them out of business. Proponents of those new regulations say they are needed to prevent the spread of chronic wasting disease (CWD) from imported captive deer into the wild population.

Munzlinger accuses the Governor of standing against private property rights, and the House sponsor of those bills, Representative Casey Guernsey (R-Bethany), agrees.

Guernsey says the new regulations, “literally allow unaccountable, unelected officials a power grab to confiscate and regulate private property and farmers specifically, unlike we’ve ever seen before in the State of Missouri.”

Nixon, in his veto messages on the bills, calls it, “unfortunate,” that the legislature amended the deer language to, “two pieces of legislation that otherwise contain worthy provisions advancing Missouri agriculture.”

Munzlinger says the deer language “fit right in” with the bills.

“I think it was a good part, too,” says Munzlinger. “It was another sector of our agriculture industry – a private property rights issue that is related to agriculture because they are livestock. They are owned by those individuals, taken care of by those individuals.”

Munzlinger adds, “I cannot believe this governor came out against private property rights. That’s exactly what it is. We made a clear distinction that these were captive cervids that were property of the owners, and yet he didn’t clarify between ‘captive’ and ‘wild’ in his comments.”

Both lawmakers believe the vetoes will be overridden in September’s veto session.

Guernsey tells Missourinet, “We’ve passed and overridden the governor’s veto on agriculture legislation before. This isn’t the first time the governor’s vetoed agriculture’s priorities. I’m confident that if you look at the votes on all ten of these individual proposals, they passed out of the House and the Senate with pretty significant margins in a bipartisan fashion, so we’re going to do everything we can to override the veto.”

Read the Governor’s veto messages for SB 506 and HB 1326 (both are .pdf files)

Nixon vetoes two agriculture bills, cites opposition to captive cervid language

July 8, 2014 By Mike Lear

Governor Jay Nixon (D) has vetoed two agriculture bills that, among other provisions, would have added captive deer to the definition of “livestock” in state statute, thereby putting them under the control of the Missouri Department of Agriculture rather than the Department of Conservation. His announcement of the vetoes focused on those provisions.

The provision is backed by the captive deer industry, who says regulations adopted recently that would ban importation of white-tailed deer and other cervids from other states, and enact tougher fencing requirements, could cause operators to shut down.

Proponents of the regulations say they are necessary to fight chronic wasting disease (CWD). The Conservation Department says CWD is not a threat to humans, but threatens the state’s deer herd, and the hunting industry tied to it.

The sponsors of those to agriculture bills, Representative Casey Guernsey (R-Bethany) and Senator Brian Munzlinger (R-Williamstown) say they believe the governor’s vetoes can be overturned.

The bills are Senate Bill 506 and House Bill 1326.

Treasurer candidate Sen. Schmitt welcomes debate about tax cut proposals (AUDIO)

July 2, 2014 By Mike Lear

Republican state Senator Eric Schmitt (R-Glendale) ended months of speculation about his political future Wednesday by declaring his candidacy for the State Treasurer’s office in the 2016 campaign cycle.

Senator Eric Schmitt

Schmitt has helped author the major tax cut proposals of the last two legislative sessions, both of which were vetoed by Governor Jay Nixon (D), with the latter of the two vetoes having been overturned. He knows if he becomes the Republican nominee for Treasurer in 2016, those tax cut bills are likely to be focused on by any Democratic opponent. He says he welcomes that debate.

“I hope that this campaign is about issues like reforming our tax code, and again I’m proud of the leadership role that I’ve been able to have in that debate,” says Schmitt. “I think any time we can allow people to keep more of what they earn, people to have more take home pay, that means a lot for families all across this state.”

Schmitt as Treasurer he can draw on his time as the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Jobs, Economic Development and Local Government.

“In that office I think you are uniquely positioned to make sure that people are aware of what that growth strategy is, what it should be for our state, and I’m looking forward to that,” says Schmitt.

Schmitt, a lawyer, cannot seek another term in the Senate. He had been considered a likely candidate for attorney general.

Senator Kurt Schaefer (R-Columbia) has already declared his candidacy for Attorney General and House Speaker Tim Jones (R-Eureka) has also been considering running for that office. Schmitt says they didn’t factor in his decision not to join that race.

“The treasurer’s office is a natural … there’s alignment there with some of the things I’ve spent a lot of time on and policies I’ve advocated for, so for me that was the office that made sense,” says Schmitt.

One of his priorities during his time in the legislature has been finding ways to help patients and families deal with autism. Schmitt has an autistic son, and says that will remain a priority to him if he is elected Treasurer.

“I empathise and I want to do everything I can in that office to make programs available for folks,” says Schmitt. “One of the things I think I can also bring to that job is I have a good working relationship with both Republicans and Democrats in both the House and the Senate, and so to the extent there are priorities that we need to get passed I feel confident working with the legislature to try to move those priorities through.”

At the end of April, Schmitt had more than $866,000 in his campaign account.

AUDIO: Mike Lear interviews Senator Eric Schmitt, 10:22

Gov. Nixon vetoes ‘extreme and disrespectful’ bill to lengthen abortion waits

July 2, 2014 By Mike Lear

Governor Jay Nixon (D) has vetoed legislation that would have tripled the waiting period for an abortion in Missouri.

Nixon called the legislation “extreme and disrespectful” for not including an exemption for women that have been the victim of rape or incest.

In a statement, Nixon said the bill “demonstrates a callous disregard for women who find themselves in horrific circumstances and would make Missouri just one of two states in the nation to take such an extreme step.

He adds, “Lengthening the already extensive waiting period serves no demonstrable purpose other than to create emotional and financial hardships for women who have undoubtedly already spent considerable time wrestling with perhaps the most difficult decision they may ever have to make.”

The Senate sponsor of the legislation, David Sater (R-Cassville), says he is disappointed with the veto.

Sater issued a statement saying abortion, “is an irreversible and permanent decision, and taking the time to think about the consequences is not unreasonable or a burden.

Sater says the law would not change the availability for victims of rape of medical treatment of contraception.

The legislation passed the House and Senate with majorities that would be great enough to overturn the Governor’s veto. Sater says, “I am confident my colleagues will again vote in (the September veto session) in support of life.”

Planned Parenthood issued a release praising Nixon’s action. Paula Gianino, President and CEO of the organization’s political arm in St. Louis, said, “Governor Nixon knows this bill would not help women. It would block access to safe, legal abortion and makes it more difficult for women to get the care they need.” The veto is also supported by the American Civil Liberties Union.