My Mom asked me about what I thought of the Constitutional Amendments on the fall ballot. I honestly didn't know. So I figured I'd take a deeper look, and thought some of you might want to come along for the ride.
Amendment 1
In plain language: Renew a 10-year sales tax to help fund state parks/historic sites and soil/water preservation efforts.
Analysis: It's been in place since 1984. It's a benefit from a tax you don't even think about.
Recommendation: Please vote yes, because the benefits are worth the money.
Amendment 2
In plain language: Campaign contribution limits. It would limit donors to $2,600 contributions to state offices and to $25,000 for political parties. It bars people from hiding the source of gifts, requires unions/corporations to jump through some hoops to contribute, and creates a complaint process/penalties for violations. There's a minor financial impact on the state.
Analysis: Missouri voters approved contribution limits in 1994, but the GOP-led General Assembly threw them out in 2008. We, as a populace, talk a lot about wanting to reform "the system," and wishing for more accountability/transparency. This is a chance to do that on a state level.
Recommendation: Please vote yes, because this is a good first step toward bringing order to the state's chaos.
Amendment 3
In plain language: Raising taxes on cigarettes from 17 cents a pack to 77 cents a pack in four increments by 2020. The money goes to a new Early Childhood Health and Education Trust Fund, and the money will be divided out by a commission. It's estimated to bring in $263-$374 million a year.
Analysis: I don't smoke. No one in my immediate family does, either. So at first blush, it's free money (to us) for education. Who wouldn't want that? But that's a dramatically oversimplified view.
What is this cigarette tax intending to do? For one, proponents say it'll deter smoking. If that's true, then the most effective way to do that with a tax increase is to do it all at once — the sticker shock prompts many into quitting. Or make it a high enough tax increase that it would be a detriment. But this amendment doesn't do that. Instead, it graduates in the tax hike a dime or so a year, which undermines its ability to deter smokers — small price hikes don't deter smokers. And further, opponents say tobacco taxes under $1 don't deter people at all.
Missouri's tobacco taxes are the lowest in the nation at 17 cents a pack, so the tax rate should be higher. This is a weak hike in comparison to our neighbors -- we'd still be far lower than 6 of our 8 neighboring states (Nebraska and Tennessee would be lower if passed, but all other neighbors are over $1 in per-pack tax.).
There's no doubt we need money for early childhood funding -- Missouri is 47th in the nation (!) for that. The Legislature should do something about that.
One reason for the tax is to get smaller tobacco companies to pay their share. Small tobacco companies have been avoiding paying certain taxes. This is a known problem, one that Chris Koster has fought against as Attorney General (though he's against this amendment). We're the only state in the country that hasn't fixed this problem. So big tobacco companies, who are funding the support of this amendment, want to see their competitors pay their fair share, and a "happy coincidence" would be that Big Tobacco's profits might go up as a result. That's... not wrong, though it makes me feel icky to side with Big Tobacco. Morally, I always feel icky siding with Big Tobacco. They're not wrong that the loophole needs to be fixed, but the state Legislature has been specifically tasked with that twice, and they've failed to do so.
This bill does include some unnecessarily weird language, though. It specifically bans any funding from this bill to go toward abortion services, stem cell research, or research into the harmful effects of tobacco. These are... troubling additions, as they are the only subjects specified and they're lawsuit bait waiting to happen. In fact, the proponents have already tried seeking legal opinions from former judges to bolster their defense on this issue, but these three issues did not need to be added. They muddy the waters and I'm sure most voters can find one of those three things they would like to see funded.
Sometimes, it's important to see who are the allies and enemies of a proposal. In the pro-camp? Tobacco companies. Big tobacco companies, specifically R.J. Reynolds, of Camel brand fame. In the anti-camp? Many but not all major health, education and child-oriented groups. Further, both governor candidates are against it, albeit for very different reasons. Eric Greitens is against all new taxes. Koster supports early education, but finds the amendment to be a clumsy attempt to fix it. Almost every major paper in Missouri (with the lone exception of the back-and-forth St. Louis Post-Dispatch, who endorsed it, then opposed it, then endorsed it again) has said to vote no.
Finally, there are some opposed that feel that any new revenue created by the state will inevitably not go toward its intended use. I lived in Kansas, and this is what happened to the money supposed to go to KDOT. I hate to be cynical, but this happens to nearly everything. Some will go toward the intended purpose, but maybe not all.
I'm unmoved by the arguments against an unelected commission giving out the money. That's how the sausage gets made a lot of times. This isn't a great argument for those against it.
Recommendation: I went back and forth on it, but I'll probably vote no, and here's my logic: We should have higher tobacco taxes. We need early childhood education. Smaller tobacco companies need to pay their fair share. But this doesn't really deter smokers, adds some provisions that should not have been included, and has fairly broad opposition from both parties. The state is starving for early education, and this would give us soup and a fork. We need the soup, but a fork is no way to eat it.
However, it's a tough call. I liked what the St. Louis Jewish Light had to say: "...the choice is really dependent on where your personal priorities lay. If you believe that adding some tax is better than none and funding early childhood education in a substantial manner is better than not funding it, then this is a Yes vote for you. However, if you believe that the increase in cigarette taxes isn't enough or won't have significant enough health benefits, or you oppose the other provisions or sin taxes in general, then you may be at No."
Amendment 4
In plain language: Ban all new state and local sales taxes on any services that weren't taxed before 2015.
Analysis: This is pushed by the Missouri Association of Realtors, who want to have protection against possible taxes on their services. But this is a real handcuff for state and local governments and is unnecessary.
Recommendation: Vote no.
Amendment 6
In plain language: Voter ID law. You'd have to show a valid photo ID to vote.
Analysis: This is a partisan issue. In general, Republicans want photo IDs to vote and Democrats don't.
Republicans believe that voter fraud is a real problem, and that voter ID laws prevent that from happening. They believe that the fundamentals of democracy are protected by a photo ID law. To them, it's common sense and doesn't affect a lot of people.
Democrats have some problems with that. 1) The only type of voter fraud stopped by voter ID laws is in-person voter impersonation. One in-depth study found only 31 possible cases of that nationwide since 2000. Voter impersonation is exceedingly rare nationwide -- More people died from being mauled by a dog in 2015 alone than voter impersonation cases over a 15-year period. In a country of several billion votes since 2000, we've only had 31 possible cases. The biggest cause of voter fraud is absentee ballots -- this doesn't solve that at all.
2) There are some people who are unlikely to have voter IDs who still wish to vote. This includes the elderly, some students, some people of color, etc. The estimate is that there are 200,000 people in Missouri who would have to jump through hoops in order to vote. African-Americans are twice as likely as whites not to have a voter ID. Latinos are 2.5 times as likely. It can be difficult for those without voter IDs to get them. Here's John Oliver in February talking about voter ID laws (language warning, and although there are lots of jokes, he's got a lot of good points).
3) Many voter ID laws are being shot down by federal judges for the above reason. Passing this amendment would likely just end with it getting overruled.
Recommendation: Vote no. It's a solution without a problem. If 200,000 people are less likely to vote in this state for a problem that may not exist, then that's not a great plan.
Proposition A
In plain language: Raise cigarette taxes to 40 cents a pack by 2021. The funds would help pay for transportation issues. This tax hike would automatically be revoked if any city or county passes its own tobacco tax. Revenue from this hike is around $100 million a year.
Analysis: It's like a worse version of Amendment 3.
This one is funded by the small tobacco companies who want to keep avoiding the loophole I mentioned earlier, as well as to confuse voters.
Recommendation: Vote no. Transportation is a worthy cause, but the tax hike won't deter anyone from smoking, the ban on city/county tobacco taxes is horribly restrictive, and this really isn't a whole lot for transportation, in the grand scheme of things.
No comments:
Post a Comment