Missourinet

Your source for Missouri News and Sports

You are here: Home / Archives for veto

Budget restrictions mean no raise for transportation employees, either

By

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

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 ‘extreme and disrespectful’ bill to lengthen abortion waits

By

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.

Legislative budget chairs slam Gov. Nixon for budget vetoes and restrictions (AUDIO)

By

Republican budget leaders are slamming Governor Jay Nixon (D) for the actions he has taken with the state budget for the fiscal year that begins July 1. They say he is using “inflated” figures to estimate the impact of tax break bills passed on the final day of the session, and playing politics with the state’s children and the disabled in an attempt to force lawmakers not to override his vetoes of those bills.

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kurt Schaefer (R-Columbia) and House Budget Committee Chairman Rick Stream (R-Kirkwood) co-chair the budget conference committee. (photo courtesy; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kurt Schaefer (R-Columbia) and House Budget Committee Chairman Rick Stream (R-Kirkwood) co-chair the budget conference committee. (photo courtesy; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

Nixon announced on Tuesday vetoes totaling $144.6-million and restrictions of $641.6-million from the state budget. Coupled with federal and other dollars that results in a reduction of $1.12-billion dollars for state programs, services and employees.

Nixon says the legislature sent him a budget that was more than $786-million out of balance. He says that’s in part because the legislature didn’t account in its budget for the impact of those 10 tax break bills, which he says could rise to $425-million in lost state revenue.

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kurt Schaefer (R-Columbia) and House Budget Committee Chairman Rick Stream (R-Kirkwood) say those bills were paid for in the general assembly’s budget proposal, and say Nixon has overplayed the effect those bills will have on state revenue.

“We looked at all the fiscal notes (on those bills) and (Nixon) took the high position on all those fiscal notes,” says Stream, “so we disagree with him on those estimates.”

Nixon’s is restricting proposed increases of more than $100-million for K-12 public schools and $43-million for colleges and universities, and says he could release those funds if the legislature doesn’t overturn his vetoes of those ten bills.

“He inflates the numbers,” says Schaefer of Nixon’s assessment of those bills, “to really hold school kids, kids with autism, mental health services, other things, hostage in order for Missourians to not get a tax break.”

Both budget directors say withholds have been anticipated because state tax revenues are behind last year’s, and behind the projections both Nixon and the legislature used in proposing the new budget.

“We budgeted to a number that we thought we were going to grow to and it just didn’t happen in the six months that we’ve had to look at it,” says Stream.

Schaefer says Nixon has exacerbated the revenue shortage by not having a plan for economic development.

“The only economic development plan this governor has had for six years is expand welfare and take Obama dollars,” says Schaefer.

AUDIO:  Schaefer criticizes Gov. Nixon, accusing him of having no plan for economic development

Nixon says the legislature’s inaction on expansion of Medicaid eligibility, that could draw more federal dollars, is making the state’s economic situation worse.

Nixon also blames the need for his actions in part on the legislature basing its budget on the passage of tax amnesty legislation. Schaefer says the budget didn’t assume the passage of that legislation, which has been offered but hasn’t achieved passage for several sessions.

House Republican leaders: Nixon using fear tactics to back vetoes, overturn attempts uncertain this soon

By

House Republican leaders accuse Governor Jay Nixon (D) of using fear tactics and overblown numbers in his assessment of the ten tax break bills he vetoed last week, but they don’t yet know if their party will seek to overturn his vetoes.

Nixon says those ten bills would cost state, county and city budgets $776-million dollars in revenue he says would be lost to “sweetheart deals” for special interests. He has been traveling the state to promote his arguments in defense of the vetoes, and telling local governments to leave room in their budgets to absorb the losses he says would be incurred if the legislature overturns those vetoes.

House Speaker Tim Jones (R-Eureka) tells local governments to use their own analysis.

“Because my impression of what these bills tried to do, what their intent was, was to reign in Governor Nixon’s out of control Department of Revenue, which has been out of control in many ways,” says Jones.

Majority Floor Leader John Diehl (R-Town and Country) says the local government leaders he’s talked to aren’t taking the Governor’s message about those ten bills seriously.

“His playbook of scare tactics is wearing pretty thin with people,” says Diehl of the governor. “He’s cried wolf on numerous different occasions over the past couple of years, none of which have proven to be true.”

Legislative analyst estimates on what the fiscal impact of most of those bills could be are still being updated, but Jones says he’s hearing that Nixon’s estimates are off.

“The consensus is that the governor’s numbers are completely inflated and generally seem to be pulled out of thin air without a lot of backup data,” says Jones. “I know that’s why the proponents of the bills and the sponsors are doing their best to make sure that their analysis is fully supported by the facts. They were comfortable about that the first time around, so we’re just going back and double checking.”

Several House Republicans have alluded to possible attempts to override Nixon’s vetoes of at least one of those bills when lawmakers return for the annual veto session in September, but Diehl says it is premature to predict whether such attempts will be made.

“We will take a look at the governor’s veto message to see if any valid points are raised in the veto message. Here, I don’t think there are any,” says Diehl. “We then take that veto message and the bill and we’ll discuss it as a caucus in August when we all meet again.”

Diehl says House and Senate Republican leaders must also meet before any decisions will be made about addressing the governor’s vetoes.

“I think it’s premature,” says Diehl of announcing overturn attempt now, “but I think there’s a strong possibility that we’ll make efforts to do that.”

See an earlier story on the ten bills vetoed by Governor Nixon

Gov. Nixon will veto proposed changes to student transfer law

By

Governor Jay Nixon (D) will veto legislation that proposed changes regarding Missouri’s 1993 student transfer law.

Governor Jay Nixon (D)

Governor Jay Nixon (D)

In a statement Nixon announced that he would reject the legislation over concerns that it would allow the diversion of tax money to private schools without accountability to voters, and says it would not address issues resulting from the existing transfer law. He also criticizes the bill for eliminating the requirement that unaccredited school districts pay for the transportation of their students who transfer.

Nixon calls the “private option” in the bill a “dangerous voucher scheme that would undermine the core principles and protections enshrined in Missouri’s constitution.

“Throughout the legislative session I repeatedly made it clear that any effort to send public dollars to private schools through a voucher program would be met by my veto pen,” Gov. Nixon said. “The General Assembly ignored my warnings, and this veto will be the result.”

The statement does not address whether a special session will be called for the legislature to address the transfer situation. Critics of the bill have urged Nixon to call one and express optimism that different results could be reached, despite having the same lawmakers work on the proposal.

See Nixon’s statement

Transfer bill sponsor: ‘No different bill would be passed’ in a special session

By

The House sponsor of the proposed change to Missouri’s student transfer law says a special session to revisit the issue would be a wasted effort.

House Budget Committee Chairman Rick Stream (photo courtesy; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

House Budget Committee Chairman Rick Stream (photo courtesy; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

Representative Rick Stream (R-Kirkwood) and other lawmakers who worked on the proposed transfer law fix are waiting to see whether Governor Jay Nixon (D) will veto the bill and call a special session, as the bill’s critics have called on him to do.

Stream says if those things happen, the first thing lawmakers will try to do will be to attempt to overturn Nixon’s veto. He says the Senate has the votes for the overturn, though it’s not clear if the House does.

“If it did not happen, and then he expected us to pass a different bill, he’s mistaken,” says Stream. “No different bill would be passed.”

Critics have accused the bill’s writers of only being interested in enacting a law that would let private schools draw tax dollars with transfers. Stream says the goal of the bill was to let students get out of poor performing districts as quickly as possible.

“This was one of the ways to do it,” Stream says, “To put them into charter schools and private schools close to their home, so they didn’t have to make the hour-long bus ride out to Francis-Howell or Kirkwood or Mehlville or anywhere else for that matter.”

Governor Nixon has said he will act soon on the bill.

Weighing in on whether to veto the transfer bill and call a special session

By

Critics of the bill that proposes change to Missouri’s student transfer law say it doesn’t fix anything, and want Governor Jay Nixon (D) to tell lawmakers to try again.

The bill lawmakers sent to Governor Nixon includes a provision that after three years of a district in St. Louis City or County and Jackson County being unaccredited, would allow its local tax dollars to go to a nearby private school if its students transfer there.

Opponents like Representative Genise Montecillo (D-St. Louis) say that’s all the bill was about, and they want Nixon to veto it.

“I’ve heard from all of my superintendents, I’ve heard from my constituents. I don’t think there’s a superintendent in this state that supports this plan,” says Montecillo. “Those people that understand education and what it takes to improve education outcomes opposed this plan, and yet they continued to refuse to take vouchers off the table. If that’s not about agenda, then explain to me what it is about.”

Nixon has said he opposes any legislation that would let tax dollars go to private schools, but hasn’t said what he will do with this bill.

Some lawmakers say Nixon has indicated to them a veto and special session are coming

He tells reporters he knows he must act soon, with one school district bankrupt and another close to it because of the cost of student transfers.

“We’re going to expedite a review of this bill,” says Nixon. “Obviously I’ll have to make a decision on it relatively quickly because of the fiscal timeframes involved.”

Opponents of the bill want Nixon to call a special session so that a new bill can be created. He has not said whether he will.

House Speaker Tim Jones (R-Eureka) says if that happens, he wants to see more involvement from the Governor in a solution.

“If the governor vetoes this issue, then he owns it and he has to come up with a solution,” says Jones. “I will challenge him to propose and work with us, like he did in the Boeing special session. You saw that when this governor wants to, he can actually engage with the legislature, be a leader and get things done in a short period of time.”

Montecillo says it’s not up to the Governor to propose a plan.

“We have a plan,” says Montecillo. “The problem that [Republicans] have and what they dislike about that, it is a clean transfer fix. It addresses a single problem facing the state. It is void of the agenda that they want to push and promote.”
Opponents of the bill say the Governor has some leverage over what lawmakers might or might not attempt to put into a bill in a special session through the call he would issue for that session.

Lawmakers: Nixon’s office indicates special session coming on transfer bill

By

House members who oppose the transfer legislation that has been sent to Governor Jay Nixon (D) say his office has indicated to them that he will call a special session for a new bill to be created.

Representative Tommie Pierson (at podium) is joined by Representative Clem Smith (left) and other House Democrats who oppose the proposed transfer legislation.

Representative Tommie Pierson (at podium) is joined by Representative Clem Smith (left) and other House Democrats who oppose the proposed transfer legislation.

The Chairman of the legislative black caucus, Representative Tommie Pierson (D-St. Louis City), urges Nixon to veto the bill that has been passed as soon as he receives it. 

“Hopefully we can come closer to solving the problem if not solve the problem during a special session,” says Pierson.

Representative Velda Village Hills (D-Clem Smith) says the bill does nothing to help schools in danger of going bankrupt and shouldn’t be called a transfer bill. He says it is really about pushing school vouchers, and does so in largely black school districts.

He blames leadership in the House for pushing that issue and says a special session will reveal their motives.

“Is this truly about the education of these children in these districts? If the majority party fails to do something in [the special session], that answers the question right now,” says Smith.

Representative Chris Kelly (D-Columbia) says just because the same lawmakers would likely be dealing with the issue again does not mean a different result can not be expected.

“Nixon vetoes it … the voucher people will know they can’t get their stuff unless they compromise,” says Kelly. “The compromise is fixing the problem in Normandy, not using the problem in Normandy as a screen behind which to hide vouchers.”

A request for comment from Governor Nixon’s office is pending at the time this article is being published.

Gov. Nixon vetoes tax cut bill, offers counters to Republican arguments (VIDEO)

By

Governor Jay Nixon (D) has laid made good on his threat to veto tax cut legislation, and says it is the only thing only thing that will prevent Missouri public schools from losing hundreds of millions of dollars.

Governor Jay Nixon (D)

Governor Jay Nixon (D)

Nixon cites the Missouri School Boards Association finding that Senate Bill 509 would reduce state education funding by $223-million annually. He rejects Republican claims that the triggers in their bill would prevent such losses. 

“There’s nothing in here that protects education. Nothing,” Nixon told the Capitol press corps on Thursday. “We had a provision that said let’s guarantee to fund the formula. We put that in that bill. We worked with Senator (Will) Kraus. We put that on the floor of the Senate. They saw what the words were and they made a specific not to include that.”

Nixon also says language in two places in the legislation would result in the eliminating of income taxes on Missourians with annual income of $9,000 or more, thereby wiping out $4.8-billion annually, or 67 percent of the state’s general revenue.

See the Governor’s full statement about his veto of SB 509

Republicans say Nixon could have raised his concerns when he was working with them on early versions of the tax cut. Nixon says they’re trying to shift blame.

“What that statement tells me is they know the bill is drafted in correctly and they’re looking for somebody to blame.”

Republicans will seek to overturn Nixon’s veto early next week after they return to Jefferson City. The effort would begin in the Senate where 23 votes are needed for the necessary two-thirds majority. If the effort is successful there, it would go to the House where 109 votes are needed. GOP leadership in both chambers believe they have the necessary votes.

 

Lone House Democrat to vote for tax cut still undecided on Nixon arguments

By

The only Democrat in the State House who voted for a proposed income tax cut says he still doesn’t know what he thinks of Governor Jay Nixon’s (D) concerns about the proposal.

Representative Jeff Roorda (photo courtesy; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

Representative Jeff Roorda (photo courtesy; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

Representative Jeff Roorda (D-Barnhart) has had a few days to review the contention of the Nixon Administration that the bill would wipe out $4.8-billion in state revenue by eliminating state taxes for all income beyond $9,000 a year.  Republicans say that claim is “laughable.”

Nixon is expected to veto that legislation and legislative Republicans are expected to then attempt to overturn his veto. If all 108 House Republicans vote to overturn they would still need at least one Democrat to vote with them. Since Roorda voted for the bill initially, he is being asked whether he could be that one.

“I’d like to not be in this situation,” says Roorda. “I feel a bit in the spotlight and I certainly didn’t seek the spotlight in this case.”

Roorda says he still wants more information about what the bill would actually do.

“The danger is that because of [the Hancock Amendment] if the courts say [Nixon is] right, you’re eliminating the top bracket through the legislative language, statutory language, we couldn’t fix it over here. “We’d have to go back to the voters,” says Roorda. “Although the bill wouldn’t have taken effect yet with the cuts, it would be enacted and would be a tax increase.”

Roorda thinks the bill does too much for corporations and too little for working people, but says he voted for it because his options are limited as a member of the minority.

“It does do something for working families,” Roorda says.

Roorda says Governor Nixon’s office has been reaching out to him and House Speaker Tim Jones (R-Eureka) hasn’t.

“My vote’s very much in play,” says Roorda.

If Nixon is going to act on the bill he must do so this week.  If he does veto it, the decision whether to vote to override might never fall to Roorda.  Because it is a Senate bill, the Senate would first take it up to consider an override.  23 votes are needed in the Senate to override a veto.  Republicans hold 23 seats in the Senate.