Final Looking Down Ballot - Robin Carnahan for Secretary of State

This one is easy. The Republican candidate wants to impose restrictions on voting that will disenfranchise thousands of the poor and elderly. Robin Carnahan supports Missouri voters, and supports early voting.

The fact that Robin Carnahan has demonstrated competence in her job for the past 4 years is even more reason to vote for her. Her common-sense use of the internet for businesses to get licenses and to enhance state records access has saved money and opened up our government.

Not only will Robin Carnahan be a great Secretary of State, she already is one. Stick with a winner.

Looking Down Ballot: Chris Koster for Attorney General

I don't hide my disappointment that Chris Koster won the primary, and I believe that his tactic of recruiting Molly Korth Williams to jump into the race was contemptible. I even toyed with the idea of endorsing Mike Gibbons to register my displeasure.

But, despite it all, Chris Koster is the best candidate for the office. For me, the issue that illustrates why we need Chris Koster is the Missouri Plan, about which I've written frequently. Gibbons wants to make changes to it, and Koster recognizes that it is working effectively, and should not be tampered with. I understand how an uninformed non-lawyer may be duped into thinking that we need to change the Missouri Plan, but not someone who is seeking to lead Missouri's law firm.

There are other reasons to oppose Mike Gibbons, such as his eagerness to shut down the investigation into Matt Blunt's emails, but, really, if he can't even get the Missouri Plan right, the choice is clear.

Vote for Chris Koster for the good of Missouri, even if it kind of makes you feel dirty.

Looking Down Ballot: Clint Zweifel for Treasurer

Clint Zweifel is exactly the kind of guy you want in the Treasurer's office. Careful, diligent - perhaps not the most exciting guy in the room, but very much the kind of guy you would trust to faithfully execute tasks with utmost competence.

Brad Lager has shown himself to be an undisciplined political opportunist.

Vote for Clint Zweifel.

Biblical Mystery

The week before this one, the First Reading at Mass began with:

Thus says the LORD:
"You shall not molest or oppress an alien,
for you were once aliens yourselves in the land of Egypt.

That should answer any questions that Fundamentalists may have regarding how to vote on Missouri Amendment #1. Straight from Exodus 22.

Looking Down Ballot: Dr. Sam Page for Lieutenant Governor

When I met Dr. Sam Page, I asked with genuine puzzlement why he would want to be the Lieutenant Governor. Underlying my puzzlement was my impression that Lieutenant Governor is kind of a half-hearted ambition, kind of like a kid dreaming of being the MVP of Minor League Baseball or wanting to be Alfred instead of Batman.

Sam Page wants to be the Lieutenant Governor, and Missourians should give him the job. It turns out that under Missouri's Constitution, the Lieutenant Governor is more than just a "Vice Governor", and Sam Page is uniquely qualified to carry out the duties of the job. Here, from Sam Page's web site, is a description of the task he is seeking:

The Lieutenant Governor assumes the powers and duties of the Governor when the Governor is absent from the state or is unable to serve. This is common knowledge, but the other roles of the office are little known:

* The Lieutenant Governor is the only statewide elected official that is part of both the Executive and Legislative branches. Under the Constitution, the Lieutenant Governor is President of the Missouri Senate and presides over the Senate, subject to the procedural rules of the Senate.
* The Constitution also gives the Lieutenant Governor the right to debate and vote on issues when the Senate sits as a Committee of the Whole.
* The Lieutenant Governor is to stand ready to cast a vote in the case of a tie.
* In addition, by law, the Lieutenant Governor serves on Twelve Boards and Commissions and of these, half have much to gain by the presence of a physician. Sam can and will make a serious contribution.

Commissions and Boards

* THE GOVERNOR'S COUNCIL ON PHYSICAL FITNESS AND HEALTH
The Council promotes physical fitness and health throughout the state by implementing programs, fostering communication and cooperation and developing statewide support.
* THE MISSOURI SENIOR RX PROGRAM (CHAIR)
The Program assists seniors in handling high costs of prescription drugs.
* THE PERSONAL INDEPENDENCE COMMISSION (CO-CHAIR)
The Commission examines existing programs and services, provides community based treatment, facilitates communication and collaboration between state agencies, Health and Community based services, and consumer directed care.
* THE STATEWIDE SAFETY STEERING COMMITTEE
* SPECIAL HEALTH, PSYCHOLOGICAL, AND SOCIAL NEEDS OF MINORITY OLDER INDIVIDUALS COMMISSION
The Commission studies certain needs of the state's minority older individuals and makes recommendations.
* THE BOARD OF FUND COMMISSIONERS
The Board issues, redeems, and cancels state general obligation bonds and performs other administrative activities related to state general obligation debt as assigned by law.
* THE BOARD OF PUBLIC BUILDINGS
The Board has general supervision and charge of state facilities at the seat of government. The Board also has the authority to issue revenue bonds for the construction of state office buildings and certain other facilities.
* THE MISSOURI DEVELOPMENT FINANCE BOARD
The Board assists infrastructure and economic development projects in Missouri by providing the critical component of the total financing for projects that have a high probability of success but are not feasible without the Board's assistance.
* THE MISSOURI HOUSING DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
The Commission works to provide quality, safe, affordable housing for low and moderate-income citizens of Missouri.
* THE MISSOURI RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
The council adopts and revises a comprehensive state rural investment guide consisting of policy statements, objectives, standards, and program criteria to guide state agencies in establishing and implementing programs relating to rural development.
* THE MISSOURI TOURISM COMMISSION
The Missouri Tourism Commission promotes the growth of Missouri's travel industry.
* THE SECOND STATE CAPITOL COMMISSION
The Commission evaluates and recommends courses of action on the restoration and preservation of the Capitol.
* THE VETERANS BENEFITS AWARENESS TASK FORCE (CHAIR)
The Task Force helps Missouri veterans access and receive their earned benefits.
* THE MISSOURI COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSION
The Commission nurtures volunteerism by encouraging an atmosphere that enables citizen service to prosper.
* ADVISOR TO DEPARTMENT OF ELEMENTARY/SECONDARY EDUCATION ON EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION AND THE PARENTS-AS-TEACHERS PROGRAM

Sadly, our current Lieutenant Governor does not even realize the scope of his duties. Buried in a long article about the race in the Kansas City Star is this horrifying indication of the incumbent's lack of concern for his duties: "On early-childhood issues, Kinder said he did not consider them part of the lieutenant governor’s portfolio of tasks." Sadly, the incumbent Lieutenant Governor has the same uninformed view of his job as I had, before I met Dr. Sam Page.

Dr. Sam Page not only knows what the job of Lieutenant Governor entails, he is eager to take it on and do it well. Missouri is lucky to have a man of his caliber running for the job, and we should take the opportunity to replace an uninformed, underqualified Republican with an impressive, serious Democrat.

Vote for Sam Page for Lieutenant Governor.

Looking Down Ballot: Question - Light Rail

The last item on next Tuesday's ballot will be the Light Rail question. I've struggled with this one, caught between the hopeful image of clean rail cars swiftly delivering workers around the city, and the staggering reality of spending a billion dollars for an abbreviated gimmick. As much as I want to embrace the change, I cannot get on board for the light rail extravaganza, and I will be voting against it.

I reach that conclusion regretfully and respectfully. I think the vast majority of the supporters of Light Rail are forward-thinking and well-intentioned. I simply think they are not paying enough attention to the reality of the proposal. In my opinion, the light rail proposal costs too much, accomplishes too little, disproportionately burdens the poor, weakens our city's ability to address the future, and contains way too many unresolved questions.

Costs too much. Even the proponents of this measure acknowledge that we're looking at spending a billion dollars on the starter line. That's over $2,200 dollars for every man, woman and child in Kansas City. Now, I'm perfectly willing to blow big taxpayer dollars for the right project, but not for a train that doesn't even get me to the airport. And, after we install it, we have to pay operating subsidies every year to keep it running. In the face of an economic slowdown and a tightening of credit, can Kansas City truly afford to saddle itself with another expense that keeps on charging?

Accomplishes too little. This line won't get anyone to the airport. This line won't get anyone out to South Johnson County. You won't be able to ride it to the stadiums. It won't serve the West Side, or the Northeast. It will probably skip Westport, and it will definitely skip The Legends. It's only a starter line - a truncated version of what we all wish we could have.

While my optimistic friends claim that we have to start somewhere, the truth is that this "start" will have us paying 3/8 of a percent in sales tax for 25 years. Does anybody believe that we will be able to afford to toss in another, probably higher, tax to run it up to the airport in a few years? And then another to run it to the stadiums? No magic genie is going to make our starter line grow into a robust rail system. Instead, we will blow all our money on a starter line that will remain a starter line for at least a quarter century.

Disproportionately burdens the poor. Sales taxes are regressive - those who spend everything they own on goods to survive bear a disproportionate measure of the tax burden. Sales taxes in a city surrounded by other shopping venues are even more regressive. Ironically, those of us blessed with personal transportation will be able to cruise over to a locale with a reduced sales tax rate while those dependent on the rails will be stuck with high taxes.

Weakens our city's ability to address the future. The billion dollars we are talking about spending on this starter line is money that will not be around to meet future wants, or even our current needs. We have a host of infrastructure needs that aren't as pretty or exciting as a rail car, but they must to be met. If we go "all in" for light rail, we will be taxing ourselves to the hilt and we will not be able to go back and tax ourselves to address our delapidated sewer system, or upgrade our buses, or build a downtown stadium, or any of the dozens of desires and must-haves that we will develop in the coming years. We're kind of like the kid swearing to his parents that if he can just have this bike, he will never, ever ask for anything else again. Smart parents know better.

Too many unresolved questions. What route will the plan take through downtown? Cordish wants the route adjusted away from Grand even though that is the most logical route available, and nobody will tell Kansas City voters what route we will use. (A cynic might be justified in concluding that the planners simply don't want to announce Cordish's victory until after voters are fully on the hook.) Similarly, we don't know what the ridership projections are - yet we're supposed to tax ourselves without knowing them. Even more shockingly, we don't know how much, if any, the federal government will toss into this project. The economic feasibility of the project hinges on the feds coming up with almost half of the money, but there's no promise that we'll get anything remotely like that amount. But, regardless, the tax will start being imposed right away.

A light rail system would be a nice thing to have, and I want one. I don't dispute that it would help some workers get to some jobs, and it would have some economic development benefits along the line. Light rail is a great idea. But so are a lot of things that we cannot afford. We cannot afford to blow a billion bucks on a starter line that will take too few people too few places.

Looking Down Ballot - Proposition C - Renewable Energy

Proposition C is not only a forward-thinking, inexpensive step in the right direction for Missouri, it is also a wonderful Rorschach ink blot test to uncover fundamental attitudes about the intersection of Government and the Free Market. Absolutists see Proposition C as a scary monster out to devour the Free Market, while realists see it as something positive and helpful.

Here is the language of the measure (and, while I'm at it, here is the link to the Kansas City sample ballot):

Shall Missouri law be amended to require investor-owned electric utilities to generate or purchase electricity from renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, biomass and hydropower with the renewable energy sources equaling at least 2% of retail sales by 2011 increasing incrementally to at least 15% by 2021, including at least 2% from solar energy; and restricting to no more than 1% any rate increase to consumers for this renewable energy?

The estimated direct cost to state governmental entities is $395,183. It is estimated there are no direct costs or savings to local governmental entities. However, indirect costs may be incurred by state and local governmental entities if the proposal results in increased electricity retail rates.

The question that voters ought to be pondering is whether we are "in" or "out" on breaking our dependence on fossil fuels. I believe now is the time to move forward and seize for Missouri some of the economic, ecological and societal benefits of renewable energy.

The arguments against helping Missouri take a leadership position in the new economy is that it represents an expensive and unjustified intrusion on the Free Market. If alternative energy is a viable option, they argue, the market will recognize and exploit that fact, and utility companies will move toward renewable energy on their own.

Those arguments, based on the fundamental immorality of Libertarianism, ignore the reality of the marketplace in the 21st Century. While it is nice to sit back and dream of the day when enlightened utility companies will embrace new technology, there are two main reasons they never will, and why we need Proposition C to help our state economy.

First, the marketplace is fundamentally conservative, and requires encouragement to adjust its approach on energy. The utility industry is simply not a nimble industry, and never will become one without encouragement. Billions of dollars in "sunk costs" have bound the industry to centralized production and fossil fuels. If I owned a fantastically expensive power plant that burned coal, I, too, would resent a movement toward wind energy, which could reduce the relative advantage I have in the marketplace for electricity. Just as wise saddlemakers and livery stables opposed governmental involvement in paving roads for those unproven cars, utility owners are fighting a rearguard battle against a shift toward renewable energies. Their self-interest does not reflect what is best for Missouri.

Second, Missourians are justified in this enhancement of the free market because the utility industry has so many hidden societal costs. In ways we never really stop to consider, we have been subsidizing fossil-based utilities since their birth. When a coal plant emits "acceptable levels" of pollution, Missourians are subsidizing the profits of the owner by absorbing that pollution. Similarly, when the Missouri National Guard sends troops to Iraq, we are subsidizing our dependence on fossil fuels. (I won't argue whether the Iraq War is a war for oil, but I will insist that our involvement in the Middle East is largely motivated by the region's petroleum.) On the positive side, we demand that our utilities provide us with energy, even after an ice storm, when it might be more economically efficient to wait until spring to repair the lines. The "free market" is a myth in the heavily-regulated and high-social-cost realm of power generation.

Proposition C represents an opportunity for Missouri, and one we should support enthusiastically. In demanding a move toward renewable energy, Missourians will be getting out in front of and supporting the next wave of industrial change. We will be helping the market work for us instead of against us by encouraging innovation and new thinking. If the beneficent boards of our utility companies really had Missouri's interest at heart instead of their own, we would have moved this way generations ago. They, of course, do not have our best interest at heart, so this Proposition C will serve to make our voices heard.

Vote for Proposition C so that Missouri can be at the front of the next industrial revolution.

Looking Down Ballot - Proposition B - Better Home Health Care For Missourians

Proposition B, on first glance, looks like a good idea. But when you take a more careful, analytical look at it, you realize that it's a great idea.

Here is the language that will appear on your ballot in less than two weeks:

Shall Missouri law be amended to enable the elderly and Missourians with disabilities to continue living independently in their homes by creating the Missouri Quality Homecare Council to ensure the availability of quality home care services under the Medicaid program by recruiting, training, and stabilizing the home care workforce?

The exact cost of the proposal to state governmental entities is unknown, but is estimated to exceed $510,560 annually. Additional costs for training are possible. Matching federal funds, if available, could reduce state costs. It is estimated there would be no costs or savings to local governmental entities.

While I often get accused of being verbose, even I see no need to expound on the merits of helping people live independently in their homes.

When I see a measure so obviously correct, I can't help but wonder if anybody is opposing it, and, if so, why? Thank Goodness I read Big Muddy Politics regularly, because that blog managed to find and destroy the anti-Proposition B argument. In a nutshell, the best that the Missouri Chamber of Commerce can come up with is the fear that the home health care workers might - gasp! - unionize, and that better home health care for Missourians could, possibly, cost a little more than bad home health care.

Believe me, I understand the differences of opinion concerning some unions, and a good-faith (but deeply flawed) argument could be made that some unions have created conditions that have led to off-shoring of manufacturing jobs, I am at a loss to explain why it would be a horrible thing to have a home health care work force that is well-trained and decently paid. Only a pathologically knee-jerk anti-worker reactionary could oppose increasing the qualifications, training and wages of one of the few groups of Missouri workers whose jobs are immune from being exported! (Though, to be fair, the Missouri Chamber's fantasy world probably would include herding retired blue-collar workers onto cargo ships to be exported to third-world countries if the lowered cost of care would reduce corporate pension obligations.) Incidentally, those same well-qualified, well-trained and decently paid home health care workers are the very same people who will be taking care of our grandparents, parents and even ourselves when we want to stay in our homes.

Vote "Yes" on Proposition B. It sounds like a good idea because it is a good idea.

Looking Down Ballot - Proposition A - No Loss Protection or Competition for Casinos

Vote No on Proposition A.

Kenny Hulshof and Jay Nixon agree that they do not want Proposition A to be law when one of them becomes Governor.

Proposition A is not about shiny apples and schools, no matter what its proponents try to portray. It is about money - huge amounts of money siphoned out of Missouri and into the pockets of out-of-state gambling interests. But jet-setting casino owners are a singularly unattractive lot, so they have dirtied our schools and children by drafting them into the battle as human shields for corporate greed.

Here is the language that will show up on your ballot two weeks from today:

Shall Missouri law be amended to:

repeal the current individual maximum loss limit for gambling;

prohibit any future loss limits;

require identification to enter the gambling area only if necessary to establish that an individual is at least 21 years old;

restrict the number of casinos to those already built or being built;

increase the casino gambling tax from 20% to 21%;

create a new specific education fund from gambling tax proceeds generated as a result of this measure called the “Schools First Elementary and Secondary Education Improvement Fund”; and

require annual audits of this new fund?

State governmental entities will receive an estimated $105.1 to $130.0 million annually for elementary and secondary education, and $5.0 to $7.0 million annually for higher education, early childhood development, veterans, and other programs. Local governmental entities receiving gambling boat tax and fee revenues will receive an
estimated $18.1 to $19.0 million annually.

In a nutshell, this provision would give existing casinos a license to sucker people to go "all in", protect them from competition (is this a great country or what?) and allow problem gamblers onto the floor all for a measly 1% tax increase.

Can Missourians be bought so cheaply? Even if Missourians are willing to whore themselves to the Las Vegas gambling interests, won't we salvage a shred of pride so that we're not cheap whores? At least not the cheapest in the neighborhood?

Does anybody else here remember when casinos were first sold to Missouri? Maybe old folks like me have begun to forget, but the discussion wasn't about casinos - we were all talking about "Riverboat Gambling". Nobody talked about garish neon monstrosities - we were promised old-fashioned steam ships cruising our scenic shores. Like many others, I voted in favor of the measure, with visions of playing a few games of poker while cruising up and down the river front. I'm a sucker for Mark Twain and sarsaparilla.

We were duped. Soon after the election, lo and behold, we learned that the riverboats wouldn't actually be riverboats, and that they would look like Times Square whorehouses instead of the Delta Queen. Suckers.

We were also told back then that our schools would benefit from massive infusions of money. Suckers.

We were told that the industry would not damage our communities. Suckers. Last year there were over 1600 crimes that were directly casino-related, not counting the sad crimes of desperation done by pathetic addicts hidden throughout out communities.

Finally, we were told that we would be protected by loss limits. Yes, that was a part of the campaign, and an earnest promise made by the same out-of-state gambling interests when they were trying to talk themselves into our state. Now, they want to free themselves of their obligations. They want to be free to encourage compulsive gamblers to go "all in' with their life savings, and their children's futures, and they want to be able to turn a blind eye when criminals invade the casino floors.

But they want to talk about shiny apples and schools.

How stupid do they think we are?

Vote No on Proposition A.

Star on Amendment 4 - Conspiracy or Breakdown?

The Kansas City Star came out today with an endorsement of Missouri Constitutional Amendment #4. I suspected the endorsement was on its way when the Star's Prime Buzz avoided linking to my analysis of the giveaway to real estate and heavy construction. While I wouldn't even want to hint at a sense of entitlement to a link from another blog, the "Blog Watch" feature of the Prime Buzz is fairly generous in linking to political analysis in other blogs.

The Powers That Be seem to have decided that the less voters know about Amendment #4, the better, and it appears that the Kansas City Star has decided to sit back and allow that to happen. In three short paragraphs regarding Amendment #4, the Star manages to deliver a falsehood and a misdirection. Here, in it's entirety, is the complete coverage provided by the Kansas City Star on Amendment #4 during this entire election cycle:

The state deserves more leeway in how it uses tax-exempt bonds approved by voters 10 years ago for stormwater projects across Missouri, including in Kansas City.

The state wants to offer more loans, which have to be repaid by local utilities, and fewer grants, which don’t have to be repaid.

The change should lead to quicker access to the stormwater funds, allowing faster improvements. And it would not increase state taxes.

Paragraph 2 is a lie, and paragraph 3 is completely misleading.

While the Star claims that the Amendment will provide for more loans, the exact opposite is true. Quoting from the summary of the enabling legislation, "Currently, the Department of Natural Resources is required to provide both grants and loans using the funds resulting from the issuance of storm water control bonds, with 50% of the funding to be used for grants and 50% for loans. This amendment removes the percentage requirements as well as the requirement that both forms of financial assistance must be offered together. Additionally, the amendment removes the requirement that grants are limited to 50% of the cost of a storm water control project." I cannot explain how the Star managed to make such a wild misstatement, but it is one they should trouble themselves to correct. Whether it was from lack of research, complete misunderstanding, or they were bamboozled in one of their too-frequent editorial meetings with real estate developers and heavy construction leaders, they owe the public a correction.

As for the claim that the Amendment will not increase taxes, that's true only in the most technical sense. It does not increase taxes, but it eases the process for spending tax dollars, and allows more of them to be spent. To me, that is a whole lot like raising taxes. Denying that it raises taxes is kind of like saying that dynamiting a levee does not flood the land behind it. This Amendment "merely" blows a hole in the taxpayer protections that currently exist.

Furthermore, the Amendment goes further and diverts loan repayments away from taxpayers, so it will not be available to fund educational and medical needs of citizens, instead of fiscal needs of heavy construction and real estate developers. While that is technically not a tax increase, it will reduce tax revenue.

The Star has failed to provide news coverage regarding Amendment #4. Its brief editorial is 2/3 wrong. It is even refusing to link to sources that do provide strong analysis and thorough research. Is the Star part of a conspiracy of silence to keep voters ignorant, or did they simply have a complete breakdown in their research and analysis?

Looking Down Ballot - Missouri Constitutional Amendment #4 - Stormwater Changes

Constitutional Amendment #4 is a classic "down ballot" item. It's confusing, with no practical impact apparent to the average voter, and nobody is going to talk about it before the election. Nobody is spending money to oppose it, and the people who stand to profit from it are smart enough to lay low and not draw any attention. No billboards on I-70 will be exhorting citizens to oppose or support Constitutional Amendment #4. So it provides me with a rare opportunity to be the sole voice in opposition to a statewide issue, and I'm cantankerous enough to take it.

VOTE "NO" ON CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT #4.

Here's the language that will appear on your ballot:

Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to change provisions relating to the
financing of stormwater control projects by:

limiting availability of grants and loans to public water and
sewer districts only;

removing the cap on available funding and existing restrictions on
disbursements;

requiring loan repayments to be used only for stormwater control projects?

It is estimated the cost to state governmental entities is $0 to $236,000 annually.
It is estimated state governmental entities will save approximately $7,500 for each bond
issuance. It is estimated local governmental entities participating in this program may
experience savings, however the amount is unknown.

Here's a more informative piece about the enabling legislation. 99 out of 100 voters will read this language and vote "yes" or "no" without understanding what in the heck it is really about. Because we're polite, docile voters who assume that measures like these are about helping to build necessary storm sewers, 56 of those voters will vote "yes", and the wealthy real estate interests and heavy construction companies will toast our ignorance with fine champagne.

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT #4 WILL TRANSFER MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF YOUR TAX DOLLARS TO SUPER-WEALTHY SPECIAL INTERESTS.

A few weeks ago, I did a post that included a mention of how Kansas City is controlled by "dirt and concrete" - the twin interests of heavy construction and holders of prime real estate. It should come as no surprise that the same interests of dirt and concrete control much of what happens in Jefferson City, too. Constitutional Amendment #4 will enable millions of tax dollars - money that will not go to support education or children who need healthcare - to be spent on storm water projects designed to enhance property values of favored interests and generate millions of dollars in revenue for the heavy construction companies that will install those storm sewers.

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT #4 MISLEADS THE PUBLIC ABOUT THE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS AT STAKE.

Alert readers will note that my claim that millions of dollars will be transferred is controverted by the very language that will appear on the ballot. Gone Mild claims that millions are at stake, while the ballot language pegs it at a measly few hundred thousands of dollars.

Who is right? Gone Mild, of course.

The figure included on the ballot is only the amount of money that will go to hire a few people to shovel the real money to the interests of dirt and concrete. The millions of dollars that will get transferred will come from other appropriations, so they don't get counted. It's kind of like if someone gives you the keys to a vault full of gold, and you claim that they only gave you a $3 key.

In this case, that key opens the door to about $150 million in tax dollars that got approved a decade ago, but hasn't yet found its way to the people that lust for it. Tax law changes are part of the reason, but this Amendment goes beyond making a few technical changes in tax laws. In fact, it abolishes the requirement approved by the voters that half the give-away be in the form of loans. It also eliminates a $20 million cap on the size of the projects we taxpayers will be paying for.

PASSAGE OF CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT #4 WILL SUPPORT VOTER DISENGAGEMENT.

The reason you don't know more about Amendment #4 is not because you're stupid. It's because the powers that be expect you to docilely support a multi-million dollar giveaway without bothering to provide you with justification or even explanation. In fact, they are probably right. I expect that this Amendment will pass, because Missourians have lost touch with their "Show me" attitude, and will assume that something like this wouldn't have made it to the ballot if it weren't a good idea. In a climate where the interests of dirt and concrete can fleece the public for $150 million dollars without even undertaking a massive PR campaign to explain why, ignorant voters are a useful tool. As long as we go along with misleading down ballot measures and can be relied on to pass them without demanding to know what they are, we will continue to be surprised by finding provisions like this one coiled and hissing in the middle pages of our ballots.

Looking Down Ballot - Missouri Constitutional Amendment #1 - English Only

As promised last week, I'll be offering my opinions on the various measures that show up "down ballot" from the big Presidential and Gubernatorial races. Here is a sample ballot for Kansas City voters, and a new voter expecting to show up and cast a vote for Obama might be surprised to see page after page of judges, candidates, amendments and propositions. (If you live outside of Kansas City, it should be fairly simple to google your local election board and find a sample ballot online.) A little preparation can help you vote wisely in these important, but less publicized electoral offerings.

Constitutional Amendment #1 is a prime example of the danger of unprepared voting.

Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to add a statement that English shall be the language of all governmental meetings at which any public business is discussed, decided, or public policy is formulated whether conducted in person or by communication equipment including conference calls, video conferences, or Internet chat or message board?

An off-the-cuff review of this proposal might leave a voter thinking that this is a reasonable step which could prevent our public meetings from turning into cacophonous, confusing messes. An unprepared voter could fail to see just how bad this Amendment is.

VOTE "NO" ON CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT #1.

It is tempting to do a little armchair psychoanalysis of why this has been put on our ballot, and speculate about wedge issues and xenophobia and the creation of fear of differences, but that is heated territory that will deepen the very divide I would prefer to bridge. Instead, I will focus not on the motivations of its proponents, but on the practical effect of this Constitutional Amendment.

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT #1 WOULD WEAKEN OUR ABILITY TO GOVERN EFFECTIVELY.

Quite simply, Amendment #1 handcuffs government in dealing with its citizens. It is simply a fact of life that some groups of people in Missouri are more adept at languages other than English. This has been a fact here in Missouri since the beginning of human population, as the Illini, Osage and other tribes shared Missouri, through the French settlements that continued speaking French long after the Louisiana Purchase, through the quaint German communities along the Missouri, and continuing now as groups of Hispanic, Vietnamese and Sudanese immigrants form distinct communities in our urban areas. Missouri has never, ever, been a mono-lingual state, and yet it has never, ever felt the need to enshrine English as our official language.

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT #1 IS DANGEROUS TO OUR SAFETY.

To be effective, particularly in times of emergency, a government must communicate quickly and effectively with its citizens. Amendment #1 would prevent government from holding meetings in languages other than English. If the police want to hold a public meeting to discuss a rise in gang activity in a non-english speaking community, it would be illegal for them to conduct it in the language of the people who would be most helpful and knowledgeable. If a public health crisis were to emerge within a non-english speaking community (perhaps a virus or tainted food), the government would be specifically prohibited from holding a meeting, conference call or even an internet chat board to discuss the problem in the language of the impacted population.

Why would we want to prevent our government from communicating in the most effective method for the specific purpose?

What would happen if an immigrant from Bosnia or Georgia or the Sudan or Guatemala showed up with a rare strain of influenza, threatening a repeat of the great Spanish Flu pandemic of 1918? Do we really want to prevent our government from communicating with a specific population on how to prevent its transmission, or even how to comply with a quarantine?

Again, why would we want to prevent our government from communicating in the most effective method for the specific purpose?

Is anybody really concerned that the Hispanic hoards are going to take over our government and we'll have to beg for our government queso? (Heck, they can't even get a seat on our school board, where they comprise a quarter of the constituency.) Does anyone mistakenly believe that this Amendment would prevent us from needing to scroll through the language choice screen at the ATM? (It won't.) Does anyone really believe that the new immigrants coming here for a bigger slice of the economic pie are going to fail to adopt the dominant language, just as the German, Polish, Italian, Russian, French, Chinese populations that preceded them?

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT #1 IS UNNECESSARY AND DANGEROUS.

VOTE "NO" ON CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT #1.