Contentious ballot issues

[bhsup]

I'm starting this to mention a couple of ballot issues on the Aug. 5th ballot here in Missouri, but I certainly don't want the topic restricted to just those two issues. If any of you have local/state (or the foreign equivalent) issues that are getting partisan and heated, please share! I would, however, ask that federal ( or national for those not from USA and are not blessed with the virutes of federalism ) issues out of here.

Okay, first up is a sales tax for transportation improvements. Yes, you read that right, sales tax for roads...

Should the Missouri Constitution be changed to enact a temporary sales tax of three-quarters of one percent to be used solely to fund state and local highways, roads, bridges and transportation projects for ten years, with priority given to repairing unsafe roads and bridges? This change is expected to produce $480 million annually to the state's Transportation Safety and Job Creation Fund and $54 million for local governments. Increases in the gas tax will be prohibited. This revenue shall only be used for transportation purposes and cannot be diverted for other uses.

I really don't know where to begin here! Wait, yes I do. They want to impose a friggin' sales tax to pay for roads and crap. Talk about the most regressive way to do it. The way it should be done, increasing the fuel tax, would actually be banned. For the life of me, I cannot fathom what moron thought this one up. Oh, and the State has already had talks with Kansas City officials and promised them something in excess of $140 million (I forget the -exact- figure) if this passes to help KC build more street car lines. So basically some poor working mom down in Springfield is going ot have to help KC build street cars every time she buys milk for her kids.

So where should they get the money, you ask? Simple, increase the per gallon fuel tax to whatever is needed and implement a surcharge for every purchase and licensing of those freeloading electric cars that don't use fuel, thus use the roads without helping maintain them. Hybrids too, but not nearly as much as the pure electrics, obviously. Obviously, I will be voting NO on Constitutional Amendment #7.

--------------------

Next up, the "Right to Farm" bill. This bad boy has caused some incredibly heated discussions, editorials for and against, etc. Farm Boy, if you read this thread, I am very, very interested in your take on this. I really haven't made up my mind yet which way to go on this one, and your input would be invaluable.

Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to ensure that the right of Missouri citizens to engage in agricultural production and ranching practices shall not be infringed? The potential costs or savings to governmental entities are unknown, but likely limited unless the resolution leads to increased litigation costs and/or the loss of federal funding.

It sounds nice and righteous on the surface, but there are a lot of people (farmers and non-farmers) opposed to it because they fear it will lead to massive hog farms getting even worse with no way to regulate them anymore, etc. Then again, there are a lot of farmers that support it.

 

[Phrossack]

I thought Amendment 7 specifically avoided sales tax on groceries.

 

[bhsup]

It seems you are correct. I used a bad example in my post, then. Thank you for catching that. So instead of milk, she'll have to help Kansas City pay for street cars when she clothes her kids. Still not acceptable.

Here is the full amendment. The relevant part to sales tax on food is Section 30(e) part 1. http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2014ballot/HJR68.pdf

 

[hobbsyoyo]

It's my understanding that the right to farm bill got its big start (and its major reason to exist) as a reaction to the restrictions on dog breeders that voters passed in 2012 (and then were partially overturned by the legislature). I will be honest and admit I haven't read much on the Right to Farm ammendment, but it's not for lack of interest - I read/watch/listen to lots of news sources but when it comes down to it, no one will actually give a break down of what the actual bill accomplishes with its language.

If what is posted above is the actual language of the ammendment (instead of merely a ballot summary) than I would have to oppose it. It is far too broad and would basically strip the state of any ability to regulate bad agricultural practices. I do not want Missouri to continue on as the puppy mill capital of the US - the conditions were absolutely atrocious at a lot of those places and corrective action was needed. The bill, as I see it, basically gives farmers/ranchers a free hand to do whatever the hell they want even if they are engaged in immoral acts and even harm the land they work through bad practices. You wind up with dust bowls and puppy mills if you go that route.


On the transportation tax - actually, you've changed my mind on this. You're right, it should be funded by gasoline taxes as a matter of principal. I was leery of the bill before hand because the majority of the improvements to STL are slated to come in the form of highway expansion instead of public transit, which is really what the region needs. Still, I was leaning slightly in favor as it is important to pay for infrastructure improvement when needed. But you've actually swayed my opinion, this is a bad bill.

 

[dutchfire]

#7: No, for the reasons you mentioned. People who use roads should pay for roads.

#1: I don't think this is very necessary, and it sounds like was made by people who want to avoid zoning laws. Zoning laws are quite useful.
Does it cover marijuana?

 

[bhsup]

Here is the full text, Hobbs.

http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2014ballot/HJRNos117.pdf

@Dutchfire: It doesn't touch marijuana at all. That's illegal in Missouri (and obviously federally) via other statutes.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It sounds nice and righteous on the surface, but there are a lot of people (farmers and non-farmers) opposed to it because they fear it will lead to massive hog farms getting even worse with no way to regulate them anymore, etc. Then again, there are a lot of farmers that support it.

Without doing any research or being anywhere near Missouri, the bolded part strikes me as being the primary purpose of this proposition. I would bet that the massive hog farms are the farmers who are supporting it, in terms of funding. I doubt that ordinary farmers do much of anything that they need a law to protect them from being interfered with. This is for agri-factories, in all probability. Agri-factories are by and large horrifying.

 

[dutchfire]

@Dutchfire: It doesn't touch marijuana at all. That's illegal in Missouri (and obviously federally) via other statutes.

Your right to farming shall not be infringed, unless you farm something we don't like, then it will be.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Thanks for the link! Holy mother of legislative clusterfraks, that is waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too broad. Basically, the ballot summary you posted is the exact language, plus some fluff about how amazing and important agriculture is.

The bill is horrible just based on how broad it is - particularly as has been noted, the real purpose of the bill isn't to protect the poor old farmer (which isn't under existential threat of annihilation by the government) but rather to protect big ag businesses from scrutiny and practical or desired regulation.

So basically it's the

Pro-Puppy Mill Ammendment By People For Producing Lots Of Pork And Puppies Real Cheap
and Piss Off you Pansy-Ass People Who Don't Like Hog Poop and Poop By-Products in your Area.​

 

[bhsup]

Interesting take. I am not sure of the hemp laws in Missouri to be honest and what is and isn't allowed and how it intertwines with mary jane growing, so not sure. But it would be amusing as hell if this passed and someone used it as a justification to start a hemp farm.

 

[Antilogic]

Woah, VR is advocating for a tax increase? Color me bedazzleated.

That CA #1 could be problematic if it eliminates zoning restrictions for agricultural activities.



Here's a nifty site that tracks what's on US ballots. Looked up what will be coming up for Massachusetts this year and we have four questions on the ballot at the moment (ballot text not released yet, here are links to the full petitions):

SECTION 1. Section 1 of chapter 64A of the General Laws is hereby amended by striking out, in the definition of “tax per gallon”, the following words:-, “adjusted at the beginning of each calendar year, by the percentage, if any, by which the Consumer Price Index for the preceding year exceeds the Consumer Price Index for the calendar year that ends before such preceding year; provided, that the Consumer Price Index for any calendar year shall be as defined in section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code pursuant to 26 U.S.C. section 1; provided further, that the tax shall not be less than 21.5 cents per gallon.”

SECTION 2. The provisions of this law are severable, and if any clause, sentence, paragraph or section of this measure, or an application thereof, shall be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such judgment shall not affect, impair, or invalidate the remainder thereof but shall be confined in its operation to the clause, sentence, paragraph, section or application adjudged invalid. Effective January 1, 2015.

This dovetails with the discussion on Missouri's gas tax prohibition: in Massachusetts, it is inflation-adjusted annually to pay for road maintenance. I haven't heard a good argument to remove the inflation adjustment, the law's opponents are sticking to standard anti-tax arguments and overblown comparisons to the start of the American Revolution.

So I'm probably voting against repeal.

(it's about two pages long with 11 sections, I'll just do a quick summary below)

Long story short, this initiative expands the recycling program for alcoholic beverages, water, and soda to most beverages in aluminum cans or glass bottles like sports drinks, flavored waters, etc. I don't see a reason why these drinks should be considered separately if they are in similar packaging and I'm in favor of recycling, so I'm voting for it.

SECTION 1.
Section 7 of chapter 4 of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2012 Official Edition, is
hereby amended by striking out clause Tenth and inserting in place thereof the following clause:
“Tenth, ‘Illegal gaming,’ a banking or percentage game played with cards, dice, tiles or dominoes, or an electronic, electrical or mechanical device or machine for money, property, checks, credit or any representative of value, but excluding: (i) a lottery game conducted by the state lottery commission, under sections 24, 24A and 27 of chapter 10; (ii) pari-mutuel wagering on horse races under chapters 128A and 128C; (iii) a game of bingo conducted under chapter 271; and (iv) charitable gaming under said chapter 271.”
SECTION 2.
Chapter 23K of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2012 Official Edition, is hereby amended by adding the following section 72 following section 71:
“Notwithstanding the provisions of this chapter or any general or special law to the contrary, no illegal gaming as defined in section 7 of chapter 4 shall be conducted or permitted in this commonwealth and the commission is hereby prohibited from accepting or approving any application or request therefor.”
SECTION 3.
The several provisions of this Act are independent and severable and the invalidity, if any, of any part or feature thereof shall not affect or render the remainder of the Act invalid or inoperative.

Should Massachusetts have resort casinos? In 2011, the legislature passed a law allowing four of them: one in each region of the state plus one "slots parlor" to be built anywhere. It's on the ballot again in 2014, though not expected to go down. I have some concerns the casinos are receiving tax incentives that may not be recovered if they struggle financially.

Gotta say, I'm not sold either way yet.

(like #2, it's several pages long with several subsections)

Long story short, this law would guarantee a minimum of 1 hour paid leave for every 30 hours worked for employees to care for sick family members or themselves, regular medical checkups, etc. and you can roll over 40 hours (one week of full-time work) to the next calendar year. Also provides some legal cover in case employers try to take retributive action against employees who use them.

Fully in support of this, I'm voting yes.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Bhsup and I had a discussion about school funding and I had a similar reaction when I learned he was (generally speaking) not against taxing for it. But it makes sense when you realize his focus is all about local-level taxation and policy and anti-federal taxation and policy. You can be a small government conservative and support some taxes, there just aren't many as most seem to fixate on reducing taxes to the exclusion of everything else.

Which goes to show why Bhsup is one of those rare awesome posters that you can have a decent conversation with and not a rabid politico.

Apologies for speaking for Bhsup, just wanted to throw that out there.

 

[bhsup]

Oh, indeed. I am in favor of taxes that are actually good and come from the proper level of government. Our State conservation dept, for example, is world class and I am basically "shut up and take my money" whenever they have a ballot issue for a tax for that dept. Schools, being a State and not federal responsibility, are not that hard for me to be convinced to support State and local tax increases for, but I look at each issue still. But anyway, sorry, I didn't mean to go off on my federalism views here.... Moving on.

@Antilogic: That's actually a pretty smart way to do it, tying the fuel tax to an automatic yearly increase based on inflation. Glad to see you're gonna vote against doing away with that.

Regarding your casino initiative, I urge you to vote against it. Casinos came to Missouri and the second they got their foot in the door, they went to the general assembly to basically undo all of the restrictions imposed on them at the ballot initiative (it was not a Constitutional amendment, so they could alter it.) Games of skill only, no games of chance? Bah, screw that. Restricted to floating riverboats on the Missouri river? Bah, screw that. A completely enclosed concrete lagoon within 1,000 feet if a river is good enough. They're bad news. Squash them, hard.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

They're bad news. Squash them, hard.

My nephew is employed by one. Keep them, please.

Thus we see the complexity of politics illustrated.

 

[Antilogic]

Bhsup and I had a discussion about school funding and I had a similar reaction when I learned he was (generally speaking) not against taxing for it. But it makes sense when you realize his focus is all about local-level taxation and policy and anti-federal taxation and policy. You can be a small government conservative and support some taxes, there just aren't many as most seem to fixate on reducing taxes to the exclusion of everything else.

Which goes to show why Bhsup is one of those rare awesome posters that you can have a decent conversation with and not a rabid politico.

Apologies for speaking for Bhsup, just wanted to throw that out there.

I must have missed that thread.

Oh, indeed. I am in favor of taxes that are actually good and come from the proper level of government. Our State conservation dept, for example, is world class and I am basically "shut up and take my money" whenever they have a ballot issue for a tax for that dept. Schools, being a State and not federal responsibility, are not that hard for me to be convinced to support State and local tax increases for, but I look at each issue still. But anyway, sorry, I didn't mean to go off on my federalism views here.... Moving on.

@Antilogic: That's actually a pretty smart way to do it, tying the fuel tax to an automatic yearly increase based on inflation. Glad to see you're gonna vote against doing away with that.

Regarding your casino initiative, I urge you to vote against it. Casinos came to Missouri and the second they got their foot in the door, they went to the general assembly to basically undo all of the restrictions imposed on them at the ballot initiative (it was not a Constitutional amendment, so they could alter it.) Games of skill only, no games of chance? Bah, screw that. Restricted to floating riverboats on the Missouri river? Bah, screw that. A completely enclosed concrete lagoon within 1,000 feet if a river is good enough. They're bad news. Squash them, hard.

Yeah, point-of-sale taxes can be aggravating but Massachusetts has excellent mass transit options if you are dead set against paying the gas tax. That, and I'm not kidding, the local GOP representatives demanding its repeal have invoked the Stamp Act, the Tea Party, and no Taxation without Representation as the primary and perhaps sole argument for overturning it. I think they missed the day where the representative body they are members of passed the inflation adjustment into law. Or forgot or something.

Regarding casinos, it seems like the Missouri experience follows the standard model for special interest groups and corruption. Maybe accelerated, I haven't read much about the goings-on there. In the Massachusetts context, I don't like the incentive/grant structure that could lead to being a drain on the state finances, and given how much the casinos are struggling in Atlantic City, Delaware, and Connecticut, it just seems like a losing proposition.



In other news, I'm a bit disappointed the anti-corporate personhood ballot initiative was not certified because, and get this, it would trample on the rights of corporate "people" and we aren't allowed to do that. The $10.50/hr minimum wage ballot initiative was withdrawn because the state legislature just passed a $11/hr minimum wage, so huzzah.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

We had that conversation in the secret place where the cool people hang out, not cfc.

 

[DaveShack]

The fuel tax vs. sales tax question is a lot more complex than it looks. You would think that a fuel tax will hit rich folks with cars more than poor folks, but in reality the poor folks pay too. They pay in the form of higher prices for goods that are moved by truck, which is pretty much everything. If the same amount of tax is collected either way, the economic impact should be the same.

If anything, taxing fuel will increase the cost of food relative to other consumer goods, because food is bulkier and you have to pay to ship more food than is actually consumed. Some spoils on the rack and is discarded, but it was shipped already.

This is of course assuming the fuel tax applies to both diesel and gasoline. If it affects gasoline without affecting diesel, then it fails to tax the heaviest vehicles, which cause the most road damage.

 

[Antilogic]

The fuel tax vs. sales tax question is a lot more complex than it looks. You would think that a fuel tax will hit rich folks with cars more than poor folks, but in reality the poor folks pay too. They pay in the form of higher prices for goods that are moved by truck, which is pretty much everything. If the same amount of tax is collected either way, the economic impact should be the same.

If anything, taxing fuel will increase the cost of food relative to other consumer goods, because food is bulkier and you have to pay to ship more food than is actually consumed. Some spoils on the rack and is discarded, but it was shipped already.

This is of course assuming the fuel tax applies to both diesel and gasoline. If it affects gasoline without affecting diesel, then it fails to tax the heaviest vehicles, which cause the most road damage.

Definitely so, any form of a point-of-sales tax (whether on fuel, on consumer purchases, food, etc.) will hit the poor harder than the rich. In a perfect world, I'd rather have a simple graduated income tax and some form of an accumulated wealth tax (i.e. a property tax) for a general fund that covers all the functions of government and do away with these additional ones.

Sadly, that's not on the ballot.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Fuel tax is generally recognized as a regressive tax, in that the poorer you are the heavier the burden. You burn the same gas and pay the same tax to drive to a crappy job as you would to a good one.

This is not meant as an endorsement or condemnation, just something to know. The only generally recognized progressive taxes there are in the US are income tax and estate tax, which [sarcasm] surprisingly enough [/sarcasm] are the ones most complained about by people who can afford access to media.

 

[DaveShack]

There is a misconception that higher income automatically means excess income. There are a lot of people out there who would be considered filthy rich by the measurement of income alone, but just barely making ends meet (or in some cases not making ends meet) if real expenses are taken into account.

If excess income could be targeted, then by all means target it.

The person driving to a crappy job should still have to pay something for the road. A totally progressive system would result in that person paying nothing but getting the same infrastructure benefit.