Koster Directly Contradicts Nixon in Post-Dispatch Op-Ed

Photo credit:  KBIA
Photo credit: KBIA

According to Gov. Jay Nixon’s Department of Economic Development, Missouri is one of the awesomest place for business:

The Missouri Advantage stems partly from the low operating costs that give businesses in Missouri a greater return on investment. Because of the Missouri Advantage, companies like IMB and Data Systems International Inc. have recently located here.

  • Missouri has the 3rd lowest business costs (including taxes, utility and labor costs) in the U.S. according to CNBC.
  • Missouri has the 5th best corporate income tax rate index according to the Tax Foundation.
  • Missouri has the 8th lowest commercial energy costs in the nation.
  • Missouri is committed to the information technology industry and offers numerous tax and financing incentive programs.

You know who disagrees with the premise that Missouri’s a business friendly state?

Attorney General Chris Koster:

How business-friendly is Missouri compared to 49 other states? Not as friendly as you may think. The conservative Tax Foundation ranks Missouri 16th nationally. The Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council ranks Missouri 21st. CNBC calls Missouri the 26th most business-friendly state. Missouri’s own Kauffman Foundation ranks its home state 28th, and Forbes Magazine says Missouri is the 30th most business-friendly state in the U.S. We can do better.

Nixon says all is well.  Koster says differently.

Koster says to fix this, Missouri should cut taxes.

But last month, Gov. Jay Nixon was repeatedly bragging about Missouri’s tax rates, claiming in his State of the State address that “Missouri’s a low-tax state – sixth lowest in the nation – and we like it that way.”

It can’t be both.  We can’t be a great place for business and a mediocre place for business.

Which is it, guys?


Koster Directly Contradicts Nixon in Post-Dispatch Op-Ed

Nasheed Says Nixon Openly Furious Over Her Appearance with Kinder: “I’ve Never Seen Anything Like It.”

Sen. Jamilah Nasheed from St. Louis, made an appearance last month with Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder and called for the restoration of $14 million in low income tax credits Gov. Nixon blocked to grease his Boeing legislation’s passage.

From the Lt. Gov. Kinder’s press release:

Sen. Nasheed and other members of the caucus have said they oppose any effort to use the Boeing deal “as an excuse to deprive needy senior citizens and low income Missourians of decent housing.”

Her appearance with him not only cost her the chair of the Missouri Congressional Black Caucus, but enraged Gov. Nixon:

She declined to provide details of a black caucus meeting that Nixon attended Wednesday, except to say he was openly furious about her appearance with Kinder.

“I don’t want to get into it, because we’re trying to work on some agenda items with him . . but (Nixon) was angry. I’ve never seen anything like it,” Nasheed said.

Probably a little like this, but with gray hair.
Probably like this, but with gray hair.

Meanwhile, the tax credits have not been restored. The Boeing legislation became a moot point when the company reached a deal with union workers in Washington state.

Nasheed Says Nixon Openly Furious Over Her Appearance with Kinder: “I’ve Never Seen Anything Like It.”

Makes Sense: Nixon Opposed to Higher License Fees, Good with Higher Income Tax

Gov. Jay Nixon vetoed SB 51, which would have created new license fees and increased the fees already in place.

Personally, I don’t have a problem with his veto and don’t know why Republicans would try to override it, but Nixon’s being questioned about it for some reason, so here’s the quote:

“It demands that our citizens pay more, but fails to promise that in return government will actually do more. It increases the price tag of government while doing nothing to improve the product. And that’s not a Missouri value,” Nixon said.

Pardon me, but that’s simply not true.

Missouri’s roads and bridges are in poor condition, bad enough some wanted to increase sales tax in the state by $800 million a year to work on them.

Why couldn’t the new fees be used for that?

Again, I’m not for paying more money when I go to the DMV. That trip is painful enough, but let’s not pretend Missourians value the promise of a politician.

“Oh, I’m against increased looting of my wallet because Sen. Schmedley’s bill didn’t promise I’d get something for it.”

No, we’re against increased looting of our wallet because we don’t like government looting our wallet.

What’s more outrageous about this quote is that Nixon didn’t hesitate to veto a tax cut bill.

What promise do I get for that?


Sounds about right.

Makes Sense: Nixon Opposed to Higher License Fees, Good with Higher Income Tax

United for Missouri Releases Video Listing Nixon’s Deceptions and Failures in Leadership

United for Missouri released a video this morning that the St. Louis Beacon descrbes as “the first time that the groups seeking an override of the governor’s veto have directly attacked Nixon.”

Carl Bearden writes at United for Missouri:

The Governor’s track record of claiming to know what is going on in his administration is pretty dismal. His willingness to take responsibility, having the buck stop at his desk, is non-existent. His ability to be trusted…

The Governor’s track record of knowing what is going on in his administration is pretty dismal. His willingness to take responsibility – having the buck stop at his desk – is non-existent.

Here’s the video:

Those are just touching on the surface of those three issues.

If you’re wondering what’s keeping the General Assembly from overriding Nixon’s veto, check out my four part series on it:

United for Missouri Releases Video Listing Nixon’s Deceptions and Failures in Leadership

Nixon Continues Dishonest Campaign Against Tax Cut Veto Override, Cites Bogus Danger of Drop in Credit Rating

Gov. Jay Nixon continues to use dishonesty and fear mongering in order to preserve his veto of Missouri’s first tax cut in nearly 100 years. While at a news conference in Kansas City, Nixon claimed overriding his veto would jeopardize Missouri’s AAA credit rating:

At a news conference at Commerce Bank in downtown Kansas City, Nixon cited notices from three ratings agencies — Standard & Poor’s, Moody’s and Fitch — all of which, he said, hinted at downgrades if the tax measure becomes law.

“The General Assembly can and must step back from this ledge,” Nixon told reporters.

Missouri’s credit is rated AAA by Standard and Poor’s, a rating it has held for at least a decade.

What, exactly, would motivate them to downgrade Missouri’s credit rating?

Eli Yokley reports:

The agencies’ concerns were mostly rooted in the potential for the state to be liable for some $1.2 billion in retroactive tax breaks if the U.S. Congress were to enact the federal Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013.

One thing about that – it’s fallacious:

…refunds for previous tax years would not be allowed under the Bill of Rights of the Missouri Constitution. Although the tax cut that is triggered by passage of the federal Marketplace Fairness Act is effective immediately, it would not, as some have claimed, result in refunds for previous tax years.

Article I, Section 13 of the Missouri Constitution is part of the “Bill of Rights”, the foundation upon which the people of Missouri grant power to their legislature and executive branch. The Missouri Constitution serves as a basis for all statutes. The Article states:

“In order to assert our rights, acknowledge our duties, and proclaim the principles on which our government is founded, we declare:
Section 13. That no ex post facto law, nor law impairing the obligation of contracts, or retrospective in its operation, or making any irrevocable grant of special privileges or immunities, can be enacted.”

That section clearly states that the legislature has no power to enact a tax law that is “retrospective in its operation.” Any change in tax rate would only be available to taxpayers beginning with tax years occurring after the effective date of the law. The effective date of this contingent tax cut is August 28, 2013. There is no provision allowing for refunds for previous tax years and, if one had been included, it certainly would have fallen under constitutional challenge.

Nixon’s a smart guy, surrounded by smart folks. Surely he knows his argument isn’t sound.

Unless he doesn’t really understand the state’s Constitution.

Nixon Continues Dishonest Campaign Against Tax Cut Veto Override, Cites Bogus Danger of Drop in Credit Rating

Nixon Ignorant About Koster’s Plans to Revive Gas Chamber, Offers No Leadership on State Executions (Video)

Last week, Attorney General Chris Koster stunned some Missourians when he suggested he might bring back the gas chamber to execute death row inmates in the state:

The state’s attorney general, Chris Koster, has warned that unless Missouri is allowed by the state supreme court to press ahead quickly with pending executions under its current lethal-injection protocol, its drug supplies will expire. In that case, the state might have to turn to the only other option open to it – the gas chamber.

That’s right. We have a gas chamber in Missouri.

You know who didn’t know that?


Yeah, that’s right.

During a press conference in St. Louis Tuesday, Nixon was asked about Koster’s suggestion.

“We don’t have a gas chamber,” he said.

Watch his reaction. You can tell Koster’s plan is news to him.

The reporter then became the person to tell the governor what his Attorney General was proposing.

Because communication isn’t important.

Nixon then not only refused to offer his opinion, but he refused to lead on the issue, pushing the whole thing off on another branch of government:

“I don’t want to get into it. Once again, most of those issues involving it are part and parcel of what is going on in the courts about the various methods and I think it’s best handled by…we’ll just let the judicial branch deal with that.”

The question he was asked was, “Are you ok with the gas chamber?”

It’s a great opportunity for him to lead, but since there’s apparently zero communication between the Attorney General and the Governor, he passed it off.

Which is worse: the lack of communication between Governor Nixon and Attorney General Koster, or Nixon’s failure to lead? (Tweet this.)

Nixon Ignorant About Koster’s Plans to Revive Gas Chamber, Offers No Leadership on State Executions (Video)

House Speaker Withdraws Subpoenas For Nixon Staffers, Forms New Committee, Hints Subpoenas May Be Reissued

Speaker Tim Jones withdrew a subpoena for six members of the Nixon Administration issued when they refused to appear before the Bipartisan Investigative Committee on Privacy Protection last month. The subpoenas were withdrawn last week:

That could bring a quiet end to a hubbub that arose when five current Nixon staffers and his former Revenue Department director declined to comply with House subpoenas to appear June 27 before an investigatory panel compromised of legislators, law enforcement officials and other citizens.

Cole County Judge Dan Green later that day issued an order temporarily blocking the subpoenas from being enforced. The judge was to receive written arguments from attorneys representing the executive and legislative branch officials as to whether that order should be made permanent.

Jones explained in a statement why the subpoenas were withdrawn:

…Jones told reporters that the subpoenas for the officials to appear before the House’s committee on privacy protection were no longer necessary because the committee’s initial hearing has already happened. Instead, Jones said he and the committee’s chairman, state Rep. Stanley Cox, were working with the administration to “make sure that these individuals will testify at a future hearing of the investigative committee.

“I urge Governor Nixon to come clean and order these officials, including his top aides, to stop obstructing this investigation,” Jones said. “Missourians deserve the truth about this threat to our privacy.”

Jones formed another committee, comprised only of legislators, to look into the handling of driver’s licenses, chaired by Rep. Stanley Cox, the same Republican who issued the subpoenas. Why?

Cox said Monday one disputed point had been whether a subpoena could be issued for a committee consisting of lawmakers and non-legislators.

Cox says he is convinced the previous subpoenas were valid but that the new committee removes the potential for disputes.

Which makes this tweet to Dana Loesch a little more relevant:

Which minions?

Sources tell me these two:


They could be wrong.

House Speaker Withdraws Subpoenas For Nixon Staffers, Forms New Committee, Hints Subpoenas May Be Reissued

Complete List of Gov. Nixon’s 2013 Vetoes


Here’s what the Governor vetoed so far this year:

  • April 19, 2013 – SB 182 –  Eliminates state and local use taxes on motor vehicle sales and modifies state and local sales taxes on such purchases (Veto Letter)
  • May 14, 2013 – SB 350 – Eliminates the renter’s portion of the Senior Citizens Property Tax Credit and creates the Missouri Senior Services Protection Fund (Veto Letter)
  • May 17, 2013 – SB 60 – Modifies the law regarding the accreditation requirements for reinsurance companies and specifies when insurers can take credit or reduce liability due to reinsurance (Veto Letter)
  • June 3, 2013 – SB 267 – Specifies how courts may rule in contractual disputes involving the law of other countries and jurisdictional issues involving other countries (Veto Letter)
  • June 5, 2013 – HB 253 – Establishes the Broad-Based Tax Relief Act of 2013 that reduces the tax on corporate business income and business income for sole proprietors, partners, and shareholders in S-corporations (Veto Letter)
  • June 25, 2013 – SB 29 – Requires authorization for certain labor unions to use dues and fees to make political contributions and requires consent for withholding earnings from paychecks (Veto Letter)
  • June 26, 2013 – SB 51 – Modifies provisions relating to the regulation of motor vehicles (Veto Letter)
  • June 28, 2013 – HB 19 – (Partially Vetoed) – Appropriates money for capital improvement projects (Veto Letter)
  • June 28, 2013 – HB 10 – (Partially Vetoed) – Appropriates money for the expenses, grants, refunds, and distributions of the Department of Mental Health, Board of Public Buildings, and Department of Health and Senior Services
     (Veto Letter)
  • June 28, 2013 – HB 7 – (Partially Vetoed) – Appropriates money for the expenses and distributions of the departments of Economic Development; Insurance, Financial Institutions and Professional Registration; and Labor and Industrial Relations (Veto Letter)
  • July 1, 2013 – HB 278 – Prohibits any state or local governmental entity; public building, park, or school; or public setting or place from banning or restricting the practice, mention, celebration, or discussion of any federal holiday (Veto Letter)
  • July 1, 2013 – SB 265 – Prohibits the state and political subdivisions from implementing policies affecting property rights and from entering into certain relationships with organizations (Veto Letter)
  • July 1, 2013 – SB 224 – Modifies provisions relating to crimes and law enforcement officers and agencies (Veto Letter)
  • July 2, 2013 – HB 611 – Changes the laws regarding unemployment compensation (Veto Letter)
  • July 2, 2013 – SB 170 – Allows members of public governmental bodies to cast roll call votes in a meeting if the member is participating via videoconferencing (Veto Letter)
  • July 2, 2013 – HB 329 – Changes the laws regarding certain residential real estate loan violations (Veto Letter)
  • July 2, 2013 – SB 28 – Redefines “misconduct” and “good cause” for the purposes of disqualification from unemployment benefits (Veto Letter)
  • July 2, 2013 – SB 342 – Modifies provisions relating to agriculture (Veto Letter)
  • July 2, 2013 – SB 9 – Modifies provisions relating to agriculture (Veto Letter)
  • July 2, 2013 – SB 34 – Requires the Division of Workers’ Compensation to develop and maintain a workers’ compensation claims database (Veto Letter)
  • July 3, 2013 – SB 77 – Allows for certain neighborhood youth development programs to be exempt from child care licensing requirements (Veto Letter)
  • July 3, 2013 – SB 73 – Modifies provisions relating to the judicial process, including provisions relating to motorcycle brake lights (Veto Letter)
  • July 3, 2013 – SB 110 – Establishes procedures to follow in child custody and visitation cases for military personnel (Veto Letter)
  • July 3, 2013 – HB 339 – Requires uninsured motorists to forfeit recovery of noneconomic damages under certain circumstances (Veto Letter)
  • July 3, 2013 – SB 129 – Establishes the Volunteer Health Services Act to allow for licensed health care professionals to provide volunteer services for a sponsoring organization (Veto Letter)
  • July 3, 2013 – HB 301 – Adds the prosecutor of the jurisdiction into which a sexually violent predator is to be released to the list of those who must be served the offender’s petition for conditional release over specified objections (Veto Letter)
  • July 5, 2013 – HB 436 – Establishes the Second Amendment Preservation Act which rejects all federal acts that infringe on a Missouri citizens’ rights under the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution (Veto Letter)


As Eli Yokley of PoliticMo says, we’re not done yet:

Complete List of Gov. Nixon’s 2013 Vetoes

Jones Calls For Veto Override on Gun Bill

Missouri Speaker of the House TIm Jones
Missouri Speaker of the House TIm Jones
No surprise here:

Republican House Speaker Tim Jones responded that he was “shocked” that Nixon would veto the bill, saying the Democratic governor is usually a supporter of gun rights.

“He generally has been an ardent supporter of the Second Amendment. I think he made a political, calculated move to veto House Bill 436,” Jones said. “I really don’t know what got to him other than special interest groups on the left.”

Jones brushed aside Nixon’s criticism of the bill: that it harkens back to the Civil War-era concept of nullification.

“The governor’s legal theories on this are just that: legal theories,” Jones said. “They are not the current state of the law of the land. Congress can pass all the laws, but it doesn’t make them de facto constitutional.”

Jones added that he believes the Supreme Court would find the bill to be constitutional.

Opponents of the law say there’s no reason to waste money on a federal court case which is sure to follow enforcement of this law. Attorney General Eric Holder already threatened Kansas with such action, to which they replied, “Bring it on.”

I predict the veto will be over-ruled this September.

Is that a good thing or a bad thing? Let me know in the comments.

Jones Calls For Veto Override on Gun Bill