An Analysis of some 2016 Missouri ballot questions is the subject of this Big B File.<\/p>\n
There are a number of ballot questions\u2026. including Proposed amendments to the Missouri state constitution on the ballot in the November 8th<\/sup> 2016 elections. Here is the Big B Files\u2019 analysis of the statewide ballot questions and a St. Louis County ballot question.<\/p>\n First, I will tackle the statewide Constitution amendments proposed on the ballot in the November 8th<\/sup> 2016 elections one by one. Most deal with taxes\u2026either raising, continuing, or establishing new taxes, while one deals with forms of ID presented at the polls when you vote.<\/p>\n Now, Let\u2019s take a look at the proposed Missouri constitutional amendment number 1…<\/p>\n CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO.1 Shall Missouri continue for 10 years the one-tenth of one percent sales\/use tax that is used for soil and water conservation and for state parks and historic sites, and resubmit this tax to the voters for approval in 10 years?<\/p>\n The measure continues and does not increase the existing sales and use tax of one-tenth of one percent for 10 years. The measure would continue to generate approximately $90 million annually for soil and water conservation and operation of the state park system.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This amendment was first adopted by Missouri voters in 2005 and comes up for a vote every 10 years. No new taxes are being imposed by this proposed amendment\u2026it is just simply asking voters whether they want the tax to continue for another 10 years or get rid of it altogether. The Big B Files has no opinion in regards to which way to vote on this constitutional amendment, but my guess is that this will probably be renewed by the voters of Missouri as it is not a new tax, but continuing an existing one.<\/p>\n Now, Let\u2019s take a look at the proposed Missouri constitutional amendment number 2…<\/p>\n CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 2 Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to:<\/p>\n It is estimated this proposal will increase state government costs by at least $118,000 annually and have an unknown change in costs for local governmental entities. Any potential impact to revenues for state and local governmental entities is unknown.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This proposed constitutional amendment is nothing more than enshrining into the Missouri constitution Campaign finance Reform along the lines of McCain \/ Feingold law, as the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act is known, that even the Washington Post<\/a>\u2026.very much a Liberal publication and part of the Ancient Media\u2026said that it was bad law and had very bad, if not devastating, on the elections process.<\/p>\n People and groups on the right and on the left went and formed Super PACs (Political Action Committees) under Section 501(c)(4)<\/a> of the federal tax code to bypass the regulations of McCain \/ Feingold.\u00a0 Hey Campaign Finance folks and Liberals\u2026how has that worked out so far?<\/p>\n The best check and balance is not limiting campaign contributions, but full disclosure of campaign contributions under FOIA, and Missouri\u2019s Sunshine law<\/a> that are designed to make the entire election process completely transparent and then, of course, there is US\u2026the voters of Missouri!<\/p>\n The Big B Files recommends that Missouri voters reject and vote no on Proposed Missouri Constitutional Amendment 2 because everywhere at the federal, state, and local levels that this has been tried\u2026. the exact opposite effect has resulted. Again, Hey Campaign Finance folks and Liberals\u2026how has that worked out so far?<\/p>\n Now, Let\u2019s take a look at the proposed Missouri constitutional amendment number 3…<\/p>\n CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 3 Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to:<\/p>\n When cigarette tax increases are fully implemented, estimated additional revenue to state government is $263 million to $374 million annually, with limited estimated implementation costs. The revenue will fund only programs and services allowed by the proposal. The fiscal impact to local governmental entities is unknown.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Ahh\u2026haven\u2019t we heard this pitch before?\u00a0 That\u2019s right\u2026those who want to raise taxes (they are usually on the left) usually use this tactic to get the taxpayers to pay for their favorite programs, etc. by increasing the \u201csin\u201d taxes i.e. taxes on tobacco products & alcoholic beverages (wine, beer, whiskey, etc.) with promises such as the new taxes will fund only certain programs and services and not go into the general fund and be in a \u201clock box\u201d of sorts. Like I said before\u2026 haven\u2019t we heard this pitch before?<\/p>\n I remember this same pitch made numerous times back in Illinois (where I grew up) that previous tax increases on these \u201csin\u201d products would go to anti-smoking programs (or other health programs).\u00a0 In the end, it would usually be either diverted or the Politicians would take out of a.k.a. \u201cborrow\u201d from the fund and put the money into the general fund to pay for things and programs that had absolutely nothing to do with health\u2026never to return those taxpayer funds to the \u201clocked\u201d fund.<\/p>\n The Big B Files recommends that the Missouri voters say no to this amendment because if they tax the sin taxes, what is to stop them from asking for other taxes to go up on us as well\u2026. the taxpayers of Missouri have had enough with tax increases and feel like we have been taxed to death.<\/p>\n Now, Let\u2019s take a look at the proposed Missouri constitutional amendment number 4…<\/p>\n CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 4 Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to prohibit a new state or local sales\/use or other similar tax on any service or transaction that was not subject to a sales\/use or similar tax as of January 1, 2015?<\/p>\n Potential costs to state and local governmental entities are unknown, but could be significant. The proposals passage would impact a governmental entity\u2019s ability to revise their tax structures. State and local governments expect no savings from this proposal.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This is another common sense ballot measure that exempts exercise facilities such as yoga studios that the state of Missouri has in the past as \u201cEntertainment\u201d facilities and subject to a tax.\u00a0 As ABC 30 KDNL in St. Louis<\/a> explains\u2026…<\/p>\n ST LOUIS \u2014 It seems the politicians can figure out a way to tax anything they can to take more of your money. The latest story of that comes from a couple of “Hot Yoga” instructors. Carol Stocks and Erin Stack have run a yoga studio in Richmond Heights (Pure Hot Yoga, yogastlouis.com) for the past decade, and have been paying a tax they think was unlawfully applied to them.<\/p>\n Apparently, the State of Missouri has been taxing some gyms and workout facilities, but not others. Pure Hot Yoga was designated as “entertainment” rather than exercise by the state, so the business has been paying an extra entertainment tax. This makes it tougher for it to compete with other workout options that are not getting taxed.<\/p>\n As many who have done Hot, Bikram Yoga can tell you how much of a workout it really is. Sports Agent Lou Tevlin says he’s seen professional athletes take the course and pass out.<\/p>\n In fact, Erin and Carol say that one of their former students who opened their own place successfully sued to have the tax money returned. So while they are preparing to file a similar lawsuit, they are also pursuing legislation in the Missouri Legislature to make changes to the tax code.<\/p>\n – Taxing Yoga: Studio Working To Get Tax Money Back, Change Missouri Tax Laws You can watch the interview of the Yoga studio owner by clicking here<\/a>. \u00a0The Big B Files recommends that the voters of Missouri vote in favor of the proposed Missouri state constitutional amendment number 4 on November 8th<\/sup>.\u00a0 \u00a0Now, Let\u2019s take a look at the proposed Missouri constitutional amendment number 6…<\/p>\n STATE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 6 Shall the Constitution of Missouri be amended to state that voters may be required by law, which may be subject to exception, to verify one\u2019s identity, citizenship, and residence by presenting identification that may include valid government-issued photo identification?<\/p>\n The proposed amendment will result in no costs or savings because any potential costs would be due to the enactment of a general law allowed by this proposal. If such a general law is enacted, the potential costs to state and local governments is unknown, but could exceed $2.1 million annually.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This is a totally common sense ballot measure, considering you have no choice but to produce a government issued Photo ID to do the following, among others:<\/p>\nPROPOSED MO CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS MEASURES<\/strong><\/h3>\n
\nProposed by Article IV, Section 47(c)<\/em>
\nMissouri Constitution<\/em>
\n(SJR 1, 2005)<\/em><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n
\nProposed by Initiative Petition<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n
\nProposed by Initiative Petition<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n
\nProposed by Initiative Petition<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n
\n– BY THE ALLMAN REPORT (ABC30 St. Louis) \u2022 MAY 5TH<\/sup>, 2016<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\nProposed by the 98th General Assembly<\/em><\/strong>
\n(Second Regular Session) <\/em><\/strong>
\nSS HJR 53<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n