How to Vote on the November 4th Ballot
Issues
An
analysis of the issues and why you should vote YES or NO on them
Commentary
by Kerry K. Messer
On
November 4th the citizens of
Constitutional Amendment 1 - Vote YES
Official Ballot Title: (What you will see in the voting booth)
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.
Why vote YES on Constitutional Amendment 1
Most
opponents of this measure claim it will disenfranchise non-English speaking
members of the general public. They
argue that minorities should be able to conduct government business and record
official documents in any language they are familiar with. Such actions and documents create a
disadvantage, or misinformation, to the vast majority of
Adoption
of Constitutional Amendment #1 will NOT prohibit the use of any kind of second
language assistance for those who need it.
However, since English is the common language of our state, nation and
culture, all government actions would be held and recorded in English. This way the general public can observe or
participate in the spirit of the standard “open meetings” law and understand
the proceedings. Additionally, any
government (public) meetings which result in public documents being created to
record such meetings and their results will be printed and archived in English
so Missourians can review or research such documents without the needed aid of
a third party interpreter.
The
use of non-English is NOT prohibited if an elected or appointed official has no
English speaking skills or is relating communications to non-English
individuals. However, any public votes
or other official proceedings must be held and recorded in English with any
other languages treated as secondary to English. Assistance for non-English speaking persons,
as participating officials or as general public observers, may be accommodated
and is not prohibited.
Constitutional Amendment 4 - Vote YES
Official Ballot Title: (What you will see in the voting booth)
Shall the
• limiting availability of grants and loans to
public water and sewer districts only;
• removing the cap on available funding and
existing restrictions on disbursements;
• requiring loan repayments to be used only
for stormwater control projects?
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.
Why vote YES on Constitutional Amendment 4
Currently
the Missouri Constitution provides for the General Assembly to issue bonded
indebtedness up to 200 million dollars for stormwater
and sewer management systems in first class counties and
Constitutional
Amendment 4 limits use of this financial assistance offered to sewer and water
districts to only “public” projects and alters the allocation formula. The current formula pro-rates available funds
based on the populations of all potentially qualifying political subdivisions. This amendment allows the formula to be reevaluated
after those communities not needing such funding and allows those with greater
needs to reapply for the remaining assets.
Any use of the funds will continue to be distributed based on total
population ratios of needy communities as long as funds are available.
The
General Assembly is allowed to directly allocate up to 10 percent (20 million)
of the total dollars devoted to these projects.
(Otherwise remaining funds are filtered through the Clean Water
Commission and the Department of Natural Resources.) Current law also requires all loans and
grants under this legislative authority to be allocated in a 50 percent to 50
percent ratio. This amendment eliminates
this ratio and allows for flexibility in loan/grant balances. However, the 10 percent cap on direct
allocation remains intact.
All
repayments of loans, including interest, shall be deposited back into the fund
and no longer transferred back into general revenue. This provision will help strengthen the
program and build a stronger foundation for
Proposition A - Vote NO
Official Ballot Title: (What you will see in the voting booth)
Shall
• repeal the current individual maximum loss
limit for gambling;
• prohibit any future loss limits;
• require identification to enter the gambling
area only if necessary to establish that an
individual is at
least 21 years old;
• restrict the number of casinos to those
already built or being built;
• increase the casino gambling tax from 20% to
21%;
• create a new specific education fund from
gambling tax proceeds generated as a result of this
measure called
the “Schools First Elementary and Secondary Education Improvement Fund”;
and
• require annual audits of this new fund?
State governmental entities will receive an
estimated $105.1 to $130.0 million annually for elementary and secondary
education, and $5.0 to $7.0 million annually for higher education, early
childhood development, veterans, and other programs. Local governmental
entities receiving gambling boat tax and fee revenues will receive an estimated
$18.1 to $19.0 million annually.
Why vote NO on Proposition A
Proposition
A removes the all important “individual loss limit” of
$500 per two hours in
Prop A is DANGEROUS
for Missourians as it takes away key law enforcement tools needed to prevent
and investigate heinous crimes, and it takes away the ability to enforce the
Missouri self–ban list, know as the Disassociated Person List, thereby leaving
Missouri families vulnerable to the tragic consequences of problem and
pathological gambling.
Federal
and State law enforcement personnel from numerous agencies agree that loss
limits greatly restrict money laundering and discourages organized criminal
activities. Criminals from low level
drug dealers to sophisticated international terrorists ignore
Prop A is DECEPTIVE
about the economy as Missouri’s competitive outlook is exceptionally strong
with a loss limit, and removing the loss limit will result in a massive,
monopolistic expansion of gambling which will hurt Missouri’s economy and lead
to a loss of a half a billion dollars by Missouri families.
Claims
of a competitive disadvantage do not match the economic reality of
Prop A is DISHONEST
about schools as this petition not only represents another elaborate shell game
as demonstrated in 1994, but it’s also dishonest about the grand claims of
school funding as half of Missouri schools will not even be eligible for any
money and a significant amount of the money in the fund will not be distributed
to those schools who are eligible.
While
the fine print of the proposal claims that new revenues will “not be used to
replace existing funding” of schools, what will actually occur with any new
casino revenues is that non-casino funding will be reduced so there will be no
“existing funding” to be replaced! Each
year’s State budget for schools is taken out of general revenues first, and
then designated gambling proceeds are added in. Until that budget is adopted
annually, there is no “existing funding” for that year. So, just as with every other ‘promise’ about
gambling proceeds (former lottery and casino claims) all the legislature has to
do is budget less from general revenues for the next year and no “existing
funding” will be replaced!
Over the last few years over one hundred
millions dollars ($100,000,000) have been added to the state’s budget for
public schools. However, this increase
has been due to
Interestingly, efforts to commission an
unbiased economic impact study to expose this fact have been thwarted by casino
industry lobbyists and the millions of dollars casinos use to sway state government in order to keep the
general public in the dark over the economic realities associated with their
predatory practices.
The bottom line is the fact that NO
“additional” revenues will flow into
For
more information visit: www.NOonA.com
Proposition B - Vote
NO
Official Ballot Title: (What you will see in the voting booth)
Shall Missouri law be amended to enable the
elderly and Missourians with disabilities to continue living independently in
their homes by creating the Missouri Quality Homecare Council to ensure the
availability of quality home care services under the Medicaid program by
recruiting, training, and stabilizing the home care workforce?
The exact cost of this proposal to state
governmental entities is unknown, but 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.
Why vote NO on Proposition B
The above ballot question to appear in a
voting booth near you was written, as well as the other Propositions in this
election, by Secretary of State Robin Carnahan.
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.
First. In the very
first line of the ballot title “Shall…the elderly and Missourians with
disabilities continue living independently in their homes” is an incredible
scare tactic! No one, not a single
lawmaker, politician, healthcare policy advocate, or any other credible voice
would suggest anything otherwise.
Everyone knows and understands that quality home healthcare is far
cheaper than any form of institutional care.
Homecare is universally agreed to be better physically, mentally, and
emotionally for the wellness of the vast majority of individuals. Everyone in healthcare policy strives to
expand homecare as the first and preferred choice!
Next. Proposition B
only creates more layers of government bureaucracy in the delivery of personal
health care needs. Every program run by
government is less efficient and less responsive to those in
need than private competition based services which 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
Lastly
– but of no less concern. Prop B is
deceitful in that the labor/unionization issue is left completely out of the
ballot question! Prop B has little to do
with true quality care, but is focused on wages and driving up health care
costs! Throughout the proposal are
details about how this new government group/Council is to oversee the
“workforce” of the industry with all personal care attendants across
Shame
on Secretary of State Robin Carnahan for failing to tell the truth to
Missourians! Only time will tell how
many hurting Missouri families will be priced out of home care and forced into
government run institutions, just so some labor union can collect dues from the
State’s 15,000 personal home care providers!
Anyone care to guess where her political donations will be coming from?
Proposition C - Vote NO
Official Ballot Title: (What you will see in the voting booth)
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.
Why vote NO on Proposition C
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 the 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 shear volume of customers.
This mandate is impractical to impose and could very well result in an
energy train-wreck similar to
Establish
any business with a relatively small margin of profit (remember utilities are
like McDonalds, the huge profits are in the huge customer base). Now you have only two years to find and
replace 2 percent of your product line with alternative sales. In just another ten years you are required to
come up with alternative sources of product for no less than 15 percent of your
total sales without passing on the cost to your customers! Get real!
Environmentalists
often feed on one another’s latest fears.
If they sell Proposition C to
Alternative
energy is a wonderful goal that most of us support with anticipation. But the artificial demands of Proposition C
are unworkable and unwise. If it passes,
don’t expect it to survive. The Legislature will 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. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------
MetroVoice Voting Recommendations
for the
November 4th Ballot Issues
Constitutional
Amendment 1.....Vote YES
Constitutional Amendment 4.....Vote YES
Proposition A…………………....Vote
NO
Proposition
B...............................Vote
NO
Proposition
C...............................Vote
NO
-----------------------------------------------------------
Publisher’s Note...
Kerry Messer is Founder and President of Missouri Family Network
(MFN), a pro-family lobbying organization based in Festus, MO. He is
also a lobbyist for the