KANSAS CITY — Round Two.

Politically speaking, that’s what the upcoming veto session is starting to look after Gov. Jay Nixon vetoed a tax reform bill last week, causing Republicans to scramble in advance of that September meeting to come up with enough votes to override the governor’s pen.

Republicans want your state income tax bill lowered over the next several years. Democrats want to count on a steady income tax revenue stream by keeping the rate where it is now.

GOP lawmakers think the bill, which calls for phased-in personal income tax reductions and greater business exemptions, is what the state needs to spur economic growth.

Speaker of the House Tim Jones wants the tax reductions as a way to be more business-friendly, citing aggressive competition for

JONES: A GOP override attempt of Nixon’s income tax cut veto is likely.

employers from states such as Kansas.

Jones also cites the projected budget surplus at the end of the fiscal year as another reason to cut taxes.

“I’m disappointed that he [Nixon] would reject a bill that would lower taxes on every Missourian.”

The debate is likely to take on a big government versus small government angle in the coming weeks. When asked whether an override attempt could occur on the tax bill, Jones indicated his caucus is eager to put it on the table.

“It’s in our philosophical wheelhouse,” he said.

The plan has the backing of Missouri’s main business associations, including the Chamber of Commerce and Associated Industries of Missouri.

Republicans will decide which vetoed bills to revisit at their caucus retreat in August. An override attempt on the tax bill, according to numerous House members, is all but certain.

Nixon has already begun a campaign against an override, saying the move away from income taxes and towards more reliance on sales taxes is risky for the state. In his veto message Nixon called the plan “an ill-conceived, fiscally-irresponsible experiment” that could harm revenues for education and “vital public services” despite the expected surplus for this fiscal year.

He also points to what all sides agree is an error in the drafting of the bill’s language that would result in an increase in prescription medication taxes. Democrats say that would mean about $200 million in additional taxes on Missourians, many of whom are elderly and on fixed incomes.

Republican leaders agree with that assessment but want an override anyway, saying the prescription tax issue will easily be fixed in the next full session. By state law, vetoed bills cannot be amended during the veto session.

Democratic state Sen. Scott Sifton, who opposed the bill, doesn’t like the idea of implementing a law with the promise of a future fix.

“I’m tremendously uncomfortable about passing a massive sales tax increase into law on the assumption that we can get something done next year,” Sifton said.

Sifton is not opposed to debating tax reforms but wants to see this discussion start over in 2014. In his view, that’s playing it safer than taking action when both sides know there’s still a problem in the solution.

SIFTON: Due to poor language, the tax cut bill should be reconsidered in 2014.

“Even matters of broad consensus can be very, very difficult to get through the process. So, I would much rather see the veto be sustained and come back next year and talk about a tax policy adjustment that doesn’t include a sales tax increase for seniors who can’t afford it and, frankly, isn’t going to badly undermine our ability to fund education for the next ten years,” he said.

Given the GOP determination to implement the income tax cuts, the questions remains: will they have enough votes?

Activists on the left, including the Missouri Budget Project, have already begun asking supporters to contact their local lawmakers and pressure them to sustain the veto. The number of Republicans needed to swing the override chances back in Nixon’s favor isn’t very big.

109 votes in the House and 23 in the Senate are needed to override Nixon’s veto. Republicans have those numbers elected but that does not guarantee a party line vote, as Jones points out.

“Just because we’re in the same party doesn’t mean everybody agrees,” he said.

Three Republican House members didn’t agree the first time around, voting against the bill. It still passed with 103 votes, with seven Republicans absent.

Three Democratic representatives voted for the measure, but keeping them on board when a Democratic governor is fighting to sustain his veto is far from guaranteed.  Jones said he plans to personally visit with all three to see if they will “choose to play politics or stay true to their original vote.”

Jones said he doesn’t assume he has the six votes needed to override from the seven Republicans who missed the original vote.

“I don’t take any single vote for granted,” he said.

Sifton believes there’s a chance of sustaining Nixon’s veto, despite the GOP’s ability to override if they simply stay unified.

“The fact is, governing parties are not monolithic…we have routinely seen bills passed out of the House, not with 109 votes, but with more like 90 votes,” he said. “There are folks in the majority and in the minority who are not going to vote the party line just because it’s the party line.”

The veto session won’t occur until September, but the politics of it are well underway now.

The post Missouri income tax cut battle looms in veto session appeared first on Watchdog.org.

Landowners 1, Eminent Domain 0.

Last week, the Missouri Supreme Court shot down a port authority’s attempt to seize 30 acres of land in Scott County from owners Velma Jackson and Alicia Seabaugh.

HANDS OFF: Landowners in Scott County get to keep their land on the Mississippi River.

Officials from the Southeast Missouri Regional Port Authority wanted to use eminent domain to acquire the property, undeveloped land along the Mississippi River, and lease it to a private company. The company wanted the property so it could transfer oil from North Dakota by rail onto river barges.

The unanimous decision hinged on the court’s interpretation of a 2006 law limiting the use of condemnation for economic development.

“The Missouri Supreme Court decided that Missouri’s post-Kelo reform statute has some real teeth,” Dana Berliner, a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice, which litigates eminent domain cases nationwide, said in an email. “When the new law says that property cannot be taken for economic development, it means it.”

Missouri reformed its eminent domain laws — one of 44 states to do so — after the U.S. Supreme Court’s controversial 2005 decision in Kelo v. New London, which allowed New London, Connecticut, to seize a residential neighborhood for a redevelopment project. The current statute prohibits eminent domain procedures where economic development is the sole purpose.

Last summer, a Scott County Circuit Court judge ruled in favor of the port authority, finding that, in addition to economic development, the purpose of the land grab was to promote “river commerce” and “private investment” in the port. But the state Supreme Court reversed the decision, ruling that promoting commerce and investment is promoting economic development.

With the funds from leasing the property, port officials had envisioned a $20 million project to add infrastructure to existing port authority property. Without eminent domain, “It really does limit you once you build a port,” Dan Overbey, executive director of the port authority, told the Associated Press. “You can’t really hop, skip and jump around to expand the port. If you have someone and they don’t want to sell…it leaves you with few alternatives.”

But that was what the legislature intended, according to Supreme Court Judge Zel Fisher, who wrote the opinion: “Though [the revised statute] may make a taking more difficult to effectuate, that difficulty is the intended result of the statute, the primary purpose of which was to limit the opportunities for which a condemning authority may use the power of eminent domain [italics in the original].”

Prior to the law’s passage, Missouri municipalities had been among the most active users of eminent domain in the country. Officials in St. Louis, Kansas City, Arnold, Blue Springs, Clayton and other communities around the state either condemned or threatened to condemn property for private redevelopment projects.

Before reform, the law even allowed private developers to file condemnation actions independently; now only government agencies can do so.

“This is a significant decision,” Berliner said, “because many states enacted similar provisions in the wave of eminent domain reform statutes.  Missouri’s Supreme Court is not known for its protection of property rights…. so if even the Missouri Supreme Court holds that these laws impose real restraints on government, then all the other states with similar laws are likely to follow suit.”

The post Missouri landowners win eminent domain test case appeared first on Watchdog.org.

ST. LOUIS – Missouri received an “F” grade from an election-monitoring group for its weak campaign disclosure requirements, but the Show-Me State can take solace in the fact that half the states in the union earned the same score.

FAILING: An election-monitoring group says Missouri could keep better tabs on election spending.

A report from the National Institute on Money in State Politics released earlier this month shows that Missouri and most other states don’t practice much oversight into the election spending by superPACs and other groups.

Missouri scored a perfect 50 out of 50 for its stringent requirements of independent election expenditures, including the target of advertising and the political position of the spender. The state’s failure came from its anemic position on electioneering communications, or political advertising that doesn’t explicitly request support or opposition of certain candidates.

The institute said that half the states, including Missouri, don’t require reporting of electioneering advertisements.

“This assessment demonstrates the poor state of disclosure of the money spent by outside groups,” said Edwin Bender, executive director of the institute. “The majority of states will elect their governors and other major statewide offices in 2014. But the public will not know how much money will be spent to influence the outcome of most of those races.”

Read the report here.

The post An ‘F’ for Missouri in election spending oversight appeared first on Watchdog.org.

KANSAS CITY – A week ago state lawmakers joined together for that picturesque, bi-partisan tradition of throwing stacks of paper into the air to celebrate the legislative session’s end.

While media pundits discuss the gamesmanship of the session and choose political winners and losers, it remains to be seen how this year’s politics will impact Missourians.

NIXON: Pushed hard for Medicaid expansion, but was unsuccessful in swaying GOP lawmakers.

Among the highest profile debates was one proposal that had little chance of passing. In fact, it’s the decision to not enact the push for Medicaid expansion that made headlines.

Prior to the session, House Speaker Tim Jones made it clear on Missouri Viewpoints that he was against expansion.

Jones said the state couldn’t afford to add hundreds of thousands to the roles even with the promised boost in federal spending, which under the Affordable Care Act pledged full coverage initially, rolling back to 90 percent after three years.

“It’s not a sustainable program,” he said. “The states cannot afford it and I say to people, ‘Where do you want our priorities to be? Do you want us to continue to cut education to fund welfare or should we strike a balance between the two?’”

Missouri Hospital Association President Herb Kuhn believes the legislature’s inaction will hurt residents’ pocketbooks.

“Few Missourians realize the high cost they pay for caring for the state’s uninsured and underinsured…(Medicaid expansion) will lead to lower costs for businesses that provide health care benefits and more money in individuals’ wallets.”

In a recent op-ed published in the Kansas City Star, Kuhn also claims the decision to not expand the Medicaid roles will result in less access to emergency care.

“This will inhibit growth in the health sector and throughout the economy, and it will weaken hospitals’ ability to provide vital services to their communities. For example, hospitals in the Kansas City area have recently announced staff and service reductions and Heartland Health in St. Joseph has alerted local officials that without increased enrollment through Medicaid, it can no longer subsidize $1.7 million a year in ambulance losses and will discontinue its ambulance service.”

Kuhn and Missouri Chamber of Commerce President Dan Meehan call the cost of uninsured patients a “hidden tax”.

Opponents of the plan think spending more money on what they call a bad system will only increase problems in the long run.

Patrick Werner, Americans for Prosperity’s Missouri director, was glad to see no action taken on Medicaid expansion because he believes it’s an ineffective program.

“Why would we want to put people into a system that’s dysfunctional at best?” he asked.

Werner says the focus should be on reforming Medicaid to deliver better quality health care that costs less. That, he believes, is an investment that would improve health care access to more Missourians than following the mandates of ACA.

Union measures

Could changes be coming to some Missouri workplaces? The answer is “yes” if one Republican idea takes hold. The GOP wasn’t able to push through a so-called “Right to Work” plan this year, but the party did pass a bill focused on liberal money in politics.

In what conservatives call “paycheck protection”, the legislature approved a measure that requires many public sector unions to get the consent of individual members before spending a portion of their dues on politics.

Organized labor almost exclusively supports Democrats, of course. Republicans say the measure protects workers. Opponents label the move “paycheck deception” and call it an attack on unions.

ISHMAEL: Union workers should be able to control “their free speech dollars.”

Show Me Institute policy analyst Patrick Ishmael thinks the impact goes beyond the money deducted from a paycheck.

“The presumption should be that union members’ money is their money, not the union’s money,” he said. “I think they should be able to control their free speech dollars.

“It ends up protecting union members who don’t necessarily want their dollars spent on politics they don’t support. Unions can compete for those free speech dollars just like any other political group or candidate.”

There’s more to it than that, according to Lawrence Magee. He’s a union member who works for MSD in St. Louis and, in his view, limiting unions’ ability to fund advocacy hurts more than just the candidates who get labor’s support.

“I voluntarily contribute to giving a voice to all workers, and I don’t need extremist legislators to get in the way of my freedom to make that decision. Plain and simple, these extremist proposals do nothing but impede my rights as a worker.”

Catie Shinn is also a state employee and union member who sees the paycheck protection effort as a way for Republicans to battle unions.

“Making it more difficult for me to be a union member won’t help families struggling to make pay the bills,” she said.

That’s if the law goes into effect, which is unlikely. Gov. Jay Nixon is expected to veto the measure and Republicans won’t have the ability to override that if there are even a few defections.

Tax reform

Another 2013 effort by lawmakers deals with everyone’s paychecks, not just union members.

Jones and other Republicans used words like “historic” to tout the tax reform bill they passed. The plan cuts personal and corporate income taxes over the next 10 years and slashes some other business taxes in half over the next five years.

Republicans say it’s needed in order to make Missouri competitive as surrounding states become more aggressive in recruiting industry and the jobs they bring.

Ishmael agrees with the approach, saying “There’s a lot that’s been said about Kansas, but it’s not just about Kansas. There are a lot of states that would like to take Missouri’s businesses. Doing nothing really isn’t an option for us.”

Nixon and fellow Democrats worry that those cuts will hurt the state by draining revenue from already lean budgets. The Missouri Budget Project’s Amy Blouin said doing this is worse than doing nothing, though. She believes many Missourians will feel a direct impact.

BLOUIN: Tax cuts will hurt public services.

“Missouri is already reeling from years of budget cuts that have boosted class sizes, jacked up college tuitions and left our bridges and highways marred with potholes,” she said. “By reducing state revenue, the tax cut would require even more extreme cuts to these vital public services, resulting in fewer teachers and more delayed road repairs, and putting a college education out of reach for many families. “

Ishmael doesn’t foresee any major changes right away because the changes are gradual. Still, he thinks keeping more money in personal pockets instead of state coffers is a good thing.

“It provides them with more take-home pay. That helps poor families but, in addition to that, all families will be able to enjoy the small increase in the income tax deduction,” he said.

Blouin doesn’t think most Missourians will enjoy the change. She expects many of us to pay more in the end, just to a different level of government as a result of cuts in state spending.

“Many Missourians will likely see sales and property taxes increase at the local level because communities won’t have what they need to support local schools, health departments, transportation and other services.”

Even if Nixon vetoes the change, Republicans may have the votes needed to override. If that happens, Missouri workers will watch closely to see if the promised job creation brings work to their community.

The post Missourians brace for impact of just-concluded legislative session appeared first on Watchdog.org.

Missouri senators concluded the legislative session without voting on a bill that would have strengthened the state’s alcohol distribution cartel.

The inaction on the legislation, which would have made it more difficult for spirits suppliers to switch distributors, brings the latest round of the state’s “Liquor Wars” among producers and distributors to a close.

BREWERS AND MIDDLEMEN: Anheuser-Busch InBev and other beer manufacturers can’t sell directly to consumers under Missouri’s liquor laws.

“It’s not the government’s role to legislate business relationships,” Ben Jenkins, spokesman for the Distilled Spirits Council, which represents manufacturers such as St. Louis-based Luxco, said in an email to reporters. “If a wholesaler doesn’t want to lose a brand, they should compete to keep it – not pass anti-competitive laws that prevent competition.”

After Prohibition, Missouri, like most states, enacted a three-tier alcohol distribution system. The law forbids manufacturers of liquor, wine and beer from selling directly to the public. Instead, suppliers must sell to state-licensed wholesalers who in turn sell to retailers before products reach consumers.

In theory, the system disperses market power among the different tiers — producers, distributors and retailers. But the state-mandated middlemen between producer and buyer also raise costs. The law shields wholesalers from competition with a state residency requirement, effectively barring out-of-state distributors from doing business in Missouri.

Moreover, until a 2011 federal court ruling, producers were not allowed to switch wholesalers unless they could show in court they had “good cause,” like a wholesaler entering bankruptcy. The legislation would have revived the pre-2011 rules.

Sue McCollum, CEO of Major Brands, the state’s largest wholesaler, warned that thousands of jobs, including Major Brand’s 700 employees, might be at risk. But many legislators were unconcerned.

“I don’t see a bunch of jobs going away; I see the market changing,” Sen. Ed Emery, R-Lamar, told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, “I see those that do the best not only surviving, but thriving.”

Major Brands had pushed for the law, igniting what pundits called “Liquor Wars,” and saw dozens of lobbyists descend on Jefferson City advocating both for and against the legislation.

Gov. Jay Nixon vetoed a similar bill last year.

In March, two major producers, Bacardi USA and Diageo Americas, sued Major Brands in an attempt to terminate their distribution agreements with the company, something that in other industries is a regular business decision and does not require litigation. Major Brands has countersued both suppliers, arguing that Missouri law gives them a “franchise,” an exclusive right to sell Bacardi and Diageo’s brands.

Missouri’s regulatory landscape may be due for more change depending on the outcome of another lawsuit in which a Florida-based distributor has sued the state over Missouri’s wholesaler residency requirements. Southern Wine and Spirits, which operates in 32 states and the District of Columbia, is the nation’s largest wholesaler, but it cannot do business in Missouri without a favorable ruling. A federal appeals court heard oral arguments last month and a decision is imminent.

According to a 2010 Federal Trade Commission study, restraints on competition like Missouri’s protect suppliers at the expense of consumers. “There is a vast economics literature…that provides evidence that” franchise systems are “associated with harm to consumers in the form of higher prices and reduced output.”

Lowering beer prices seems to be a priority of the Obama Administration. The U.S. Department of Justice’s antitrust division recently forced Anheuser-Busch InBev to alter the terms of a deal it made to acquire Grupo Modelo, makers of Corona, lest the brewing giant raise prices.  While a federal breakup of Missouri’s wholesaling cartel seems unlikely, it would be consistent if the federal government’s goal is to decrease the cost of spirits.

The post Legislative inaction ends latest ‘liquor wars’ in Missouri appeared first on Watchdog.org.

ST. LOUIS – It appears the Missouri Department of Revenue’s practice of scanning documents of driver’s license applicants will soon end.

NO SCAN: Both the Missouri House and Senate passed a bill this week forcing the revenue department to stop scanning residents’ personal documents.

Both the House and Senate of the Missouri Legislature overwhelmingly approved a bill that would require license fee offices to stop scanning and storing such documents as birth certificates, concealed weapon permits and U.S. Passports.

The legislation moves to Gov. Jay Nixon’s office, whose administration has been at the center of the controversy after the revenue department ordered its license fee offices to start the new procedures in December, unbeknownst to the public until they applied for licenses.

The bill carries a veto-proof majority, so even if the Democratic governor says no, lawmakers can override his decision.

The Senate passed the legislation 25-8 Wednesday after the House approved it by a 123-29 margin earlier in the week.

Nixon ordered the revenue department to stop scanning concealed carry weapon applications after receiving plenty of criticism from residents and legislators, but fee offices continue to scan documents from applicants for other licenses.

Sen. Will Kraus, R-Lee’s Summit, the sponsor of the bill, believes the governor will sign it.

“I think he understands that people value their privacy, and they don’t want their birth certificate and other source documents in databases up at the Department of Revenue,” he said.

Carl Bearden, a former GOP lawmaker from St. Charles and founder of United for Missouri, thinks it’s more likely Nixon will not sign the legislation.

“He still doesn’t get how important this issue is … which I think is a big mistake,” Bearden told Missouri Watchdog.

Nixon could not be reached for comment Thursday.

The bill also requires DOR to purge the database of documents already in storage in its Jefferson City offices.

Department officials have said the database will help enhance security and catch fraud, but lawmakers, largely Republicans, have accused the Nixon administration of trying to comply with the federal REAL ID Act, which state law specifically forbids.

Kraus’ legislation also opens up the DOR to liability – the bill would allow residents to file civil suits if they feel they were harmed by the new license procedures.

A Stoddard County man has an ongoing lawsuit over the scanning flap, his action bringing the issue to the forefront in March.

An original provision of Senate Bill 252 would have transferred the responsibility of issuing concealed carry endorsement cards from the revenue department to county sheriffs, but the House removed that passage and put it into Senate Bill 75, which it passed Wednesday night.

BEARDEN: Missourians won’t trust their state government unless someone is held accountable for the invasion of privacy.

Rep. Eric Burlison, R-Springfield, who sponsored SB 75 in the House, said it was “a move that will give the people of Missouri confidence that the process will not violate their rights.”

The transferral of CCW permit power would take effect Jan. 1, if passed by the Senate and signed by Nixon.

House Speaker Tim Jones appointed an independent committee earlier this month to investigate who authorized the release of some of the information the revenue department gathered to federal officials.

Bearden said he hopes those responsible for the information release will be held accountable.

“How did this happen in the first place, what happens to the people involved and how do Missourians regain confidence in their state government?” he asked.

Contact Johnny Kampis at johnny@missouriwatchdog.org.  For more Missouri Watchdog updates, visit Facebook and Twitter, or sign up for our free newsletter with investigative reports and breaking news alerts.

The post MO lawmakers overwhelmingly pass legislation to stop DOR scanning appeared first on Watchdog.org.

ST. LOUIS — The tea party is gaining some unlikely allies in its clash with the Internal Revenue Service.

Two U.S. senators, Claire McCaskill of Missouri and Dick Durbin of Illinois, both Democrats, had harsh words Monday over the agency’s special tax scrutiny of conservative groups.

IRS: High-ranking officials likely knew more about scrutiny of conservative groups than they admit.

The IRS admitted last week that some employees unfairly targeted about two dozen tea party groups across the United States, requiring those applying for 501(c)(3) or 501 (c)(4) tax-exempt status to disclose membership lists, associations, videos of rallies and more.

Following a ceremony Monday honoring federal law enforcement officials at the Eagleton Federal Courthouse in St. Louis, McCaskill told the media that high-level IRS employees should be canned.

“Anyone who was in a position of responsibility that knew this very un-American activity was going on should be fired,” said McCaskill, a target of the tea party during the 2012 elections.

The IRS blamed low-level employees in its Cincinnati office for the malfeasance, but documents that surfaced Monday reveal knowledge of the targeting went much higher.

U.S. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, provided information based on discussions with the inspector general’s office investigating the case showing that acting IRS chief Steven Miller was briefed on the practice on May 3, 2012, when he was deputy commissioner.

That sparked a sharp-tongued response from Rep. Dave Camp, R-Michigan, who chairs the House Ways and Means Committee.

“It is almost inconceivable to imagine that top officials at the IRS knew conservative groups were being targeted but chose to willfully mislead the Committee’s investigation into this practice,” he said in a statement.

That committee will hold a hearing on the issue Friday, and Miller is expected to testify.

Documents from the House Ways and Means Committee that surfaced Monday indicate the scrutiny goes back at least two years and that the head of the IRS Exempt Organizations division, Lois Lerner, knew her agents were targeting tea party groups and did not disclose that fact to the committee during two meetings. That committee was investigating the issue after receiving complaints from tea party groups.

“It is absolutely unacceptable to single out any political group — right, left or center,” Durbin said. “It goes back to the worst days of the Richard Nixon administration.”

McCaskill said she hopes Democrats and Republicans in Congress will come together to hold those people responsible for the targeting accountable.

“You can’t pick out who you’re going to apply the law to based on who they are, who they know or what they believe,” she said. “Not in America.”

Jeannine Huskey, organizer of the Show-Me State-based Eureka Tea Party, said her group was not affected because it didn’t receive enough donations to apply for nonprofit status. The Eureka organization had about 500 members at its peak prior to the 2012 presidential election, but is now largely inactive.

She said the scrutiny may have dissuaded other tea party groups from applying with the IRS.

“It’s terrible,” Huskey told Missouri Watchdog. “I think it scared away a lot of groups from starting the process.”

There’s been no indication that top officials in the Obama administration knew about the IRS’ activities, and the president said Monday that the agency should be “held fully accountable.”

“If in fact IRS personnel engaged in the kind of practices that have been reported on and were intentionally targeting conservative groups, then that’s outrageous. And there’s no place for it,” Obama told reporters.

The Senate Finance Committee announced Monday it will join other congressional committees investigating the issue.

Contact Johnny Kampis at johnny@missouriwatchdog.org.  For more Missouri Watchdog updates, visit Facebook and Twitter, or sign up for our free newsletter with investigative reports and breaking news alerts.

The post Strange bedfellows: McCaskill, Durbin side with tea party on IRS scrutiny appeared first on Watchdog.org.

ST. LOUIS — Legislation that would have tacked on an infrastructure surcharge to Missouri power bills may be dead, but many customers could still see their rates increase this year.

AMEREN: The power company that services most of the Missouri population sparked the rate increase discussion last summer.

The Missouri Public Service Commission has yet to act on a proposal that could establish a separate rate class for lower-income residents, which would mean customers in the higher rate class almost certainly would pay more for their power.

The case, which was initiated last August, remains open for public comments and input from community groups.

The comments have been largely negative, with one resident calling the idea “socialist.”

“Other rate payers should not foot the bill,” wrote Sherrie Poppa of St. Joseph. “There are agencies out there that help low income people with their utility bills. We all have to pay our bills. We shouldn’t have to pay someone else’s bills.”

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development lists several assistance programs for Missourians on its website.

Some of those agencies Poppa references have written in favor of the discount for poorer people.

“Our clients will continue to face a stark choice that they should not have to face, e.g. choosing between paying their utility bills or medical bills or grocery expenses.” wrote Legal Services of Eastern Missouri.

Show-Me Institute policy analyst David Stokes said that rather than a new government-mandated policy, he’d like to see more focus on voluntary programs such as Dollar More, which allows Ameren Missouri customers to donate $1 each month to help the needy.

“For truly, truly needy people I think the programs that they have could be expanded,” Stokes said.

Missouri groups have debated whether the PSC even has the legal authority to create a separate rate class, and question whether utilities could adequately track personal income levels to ensure unqualified customers don’t participate.

“Utilities are not suited or equipped to conduct these activities,” wrote Diana Vuylsteke on behalf of Missouri Industrial Energy Consumers.

At the center of the controversy is Ameren, whose rate increase request last year during a simmering-hot summer sparked months of public meetings and the PSC proposal.

The company, which services a large portion of the Show-Me State, was granted a 10-percent rate increase by the PSC in December after asking for a 15 percent jump. The investor-owned company said it needed $376 million to pay for infrastructure improvements and for energy efficiency programs required in a 2009 law passed by the Missouri General Assembly.

The 2012 increase followed a 7-percent boost in 2011. The PSC has approved five rate hikes for Ameren in the past seven years.

That was part of the impetus behind Senate Bill 207 — the ability to impose the infrastructure-funding surcharge and avoid near-annual trips to the PSC. Utilities say they need money more quickly to improve electrical reliability, but opponents trashed the legislation, arguing that Missouri residents have faced enough rate increases in recent years.

Several Republican senators filibustered the bill in early May and promised to do it again in the unlikely chance it comes up again before the close of the 2013 legislative session on Friday.

MO PSC: How long before commissioners act on the proposal? There’s no official timetable.

“These senators know that giving Ameren and other utilities a blank check at the expense of families and businesses is terrible for our economy,” said Chris Roepe, spokesman for the Fair Energy Rate Action Fund, after the legislation stalled.

Ameren’s 2012 profits inflamed the SB 207 discussion. The company released reports showing its return on equity last year was 11.66 percent, well above the 10.2 percent maximum it’s legally authorized to earn, a difference of $80 million in additional profits. Ameren said the unusually hot summer was a factor, and that barring that it would have made a 9.5 percent return on equity.

Ameren’s president and CEO, Thomas Voss, received a compensation package of more than $6.2 million in 2012, including a $1 million salary, a nearly 9.3 percent increase from 2011.

Missouri Watchdog could not reach Roepe for comment on Monday. His group is made up of organizations such as AARP and Missouri Association for Social Welfare that have spoken in favor of the separate rate class.

PSC spokesman Kevin Kelly and Commissioner Robert Kenney, who announced the proposal last summer, did not return calls for comment.

Kelly told Missouri Watchdog in December that there is no official timetable on deciding the issue.

Contact Johnny Kampis at johnny@missouriwatchdog.org.  For more Missouri Watchdog updates, visit Facebook and Twitter, or sign up for our free newsletter with investigative reports and breaking news alerts.

The post Another MO power bill increase? PSC yet to act on rate class proposal appeared first on Watchdog.org.

ST. LOUIS – A teacher union attack on a Missouri think tank sparked collateral damage when Rex Sinquefield resigned from the board of the investment company he helped create.

Sinquefield, who founded the St. Louis-based Show-Me Institute, recently quit his post on the board of directors of Dimensional Fund Advisors, the Austin-based company through which he made the millions he’s now using to influence political policy in Missouri.

SINQUEFIELD: Gave up investment firm board spot to avoid backlash after teacher union blacklist.

Last month, the American Federation of Teachers put out a black list of financial advisers that have ties to people who favor public pension reform. The powerful education union noted Sinquefield’s ties to DFA and his creation of the Show-Me Institute.

“The Show-Me Institute has explicitly called for Missouri to shift to a defined contribution plan for state employees,” the report says. “In addition, the Show-Me Institute is part of a larger network of conservative state-based organizations – the State Policy Network – that routinely advocates for pension privatization.”

DFA was among about three dozen funds listed in the report that had advisers or executives that contributed to or sit on the governing board of organizations that advocate pension reform.

A spokeswoman for the company told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch in an email that Sinquefield “decided to step down in order to ensure that his personal opinions were not confused with Dimensional policy.”

DFA Chairman David Booth told Pensions & Investments magazine that Sinquefield’s “political aspirations and workings got us into the penalty box. That is not something he wanted to do.”

Sinquefield retired from the firm in 2005, though he stayed on its board of directors. He moved back to his native Missouri and has given at least $20 million to political candidates in the state in the past five years who believe in his conservative philosophies of lower income taxes and less government regulation.

The Show-Me Institute fought back after the AFT report was released, saying the group would “not be bullied.”

“It is ironic, and sad, that a union which claims to represent kids and teachers is using pressure tactics to defeat proposals that would benefit both groups,” wrote Executive Director Brenda Talent. “We will continue our principled fight for Missouri’s students, taxpayers and pensioners – whether the AFT likes it or not.”

The report also put Manhattan Institute and StudentsFirst on its “Retirement Security Privatization Watch List” for their support of pension reform.

American Federation of Teachers did not respond to a request for comment from Missouri Watchdog on Tuesday.

Contact Johnny Kampis at johnny@missouriwatchdog.org.  For more Missouri Watchdog updates, visit Facebook and Twitter, or sign up for our free newsletter with investigative reports and breaking news alerts.

The post MO’s Sinquefield resigns investment firm post after teacher union attacks appeared first on Watchdog.org.

ST. LOUIS – Missouri House Speaker Tim Jones said Monday that he will form a committee to investigate the possible violation of privacy rights by the Missouri Department of Revenue.

JONES: Committee will determine who authorized release of private information to federal agencies.

The Bipartisan Investigative Committee on Privacy Protection will include two sheriffs, two county prosecutors, a retired FBI agent and a former Department of Revenue director.

“I hope that Governor (Jay) Nixon will work with this committee to help provide the clear answers we need,” Jones said in a statement.

After it came to light in March that the revenue department was directing license offices across Missouri to begin scanning personal documents such as U.S. Passports and birth certificates for a statewide database, Republican lawmakers accused the Nixon administration of trying to comply with the federal REAL ID Act, which state law prohibits. Nixon denied those claims, but directed the DOR to stop copying concealed carry weapon permit information.

Lawmakers in the House and Senate already are investigating the issue. State Auditor Thomas Schweich plans to broach the topic in planned audits of several license fee offices across the Show-Me State.

“The people of Missouri need answers so we can make sure this doesn’t happen again,” Jones said. “Our private information has been put at risk, and those responsible must be held accountable. This independent commission will help to uncover the truth about this violation of Missourians’ privacy and help recommend ways we can avoid such problems in the future.”

The House speaker said the group will try to determine who allowed various state and federal officials access to Missourians’ private information.

Social Security agent Keith Schilb testified before a legislative committee last week that he sought Missourians’ concealed-carry permit holder list from the Missouri State Highway Patrol as part of an investigation of persons obtaining ineligible disability benefits. Schilb said the list was destroyed because his investigation never got off the ground.

Jones previously asked Attorney General Chris Koster to form a committee, holding an impromptu press conference in front of the AG’s office in the old state Supreme Court building last month, but Koster has declined to initiate an investigation.

Jones said Monday the committee will include Audrain County Sheriff Stuart Miller, Jefferson County Sheriff Glenn Boyer, retired FBI agent Gary Fuhr, former DOR director Omar Davis, Randolph County prosecutor Mike Fussleman and Stoddard County prosecutor Russ Oliver.

Jones said he may add some of his lawmaking colleagues to the committee. Forming the panel will give him subpoena power.

Oliver first gave the issue statewide attention when he filed a lawsuit on behalf of a local man, challenging the DOR’s right to scan and store his CCW information.

Jones said his committee will issue a report on its findings by Sept. 1.

Contact Johnny Kampis at johnny@missouriwatchdog.org.  For more Missouri Watchdog updates, visit Facebook and Twitter, or sign up for our free newsletter with investigative reports and breaking news alerts.

The post Independent committee to investigate revenue department flap in Missouri appeared first on Watchdog.org.