This week's episode of "This Week in Missouri Politics" (Sundays at 11 AM on Channel 30) was pretty interesting. Is us usually dominated by conservative Republican rural MOLEG legislators. But to keep it somewhat balance, they usually invite one person from St. Louis media, or politics. Last week, Jason Rosenbaum was the guest. Today, Jeff Rainford was the urban guest.
Jeff Rainford was fantastic. I like when he lectured MOLEG about ethics. He also talked a lot about the stadium.
Here is a link to the 1/2 show.
I see California will be voting on splitting the state into 3 states. Each new "state" will have one of the three largest cities. Their state called "Southern California" will include San Diego. The state called "California" will included LA. The state called "Northern California" will include San Francisco. A lot more has to happen for this to actually come to pass including acceptance at the federal level. If this works, would Missouri consider something similar?
Option 1: Split Missouri into two states, East Missouri and West Missouri. KC would be the capital of West Missouri, and St. Louis Unitus (newly merged with the county?) would be the capital of East Missouri. Springfield would likely go to East Missouri. St. Louis, MO metro population is 2.1M, 35% of the state. KC, MO metro is 1.2M, 20% of the state, and Springfield metro is .46M, 7.5% of the state.
Option 2: Option 1 above PLUS, convince the southern half of Illinois to join Western Missouri with St. Louis Unitus as its capital city as the new state SILEMO, or Cahokia, or Confluence, Ozarka, or whatever. East side cities might be included in St. Louis Unitus.
I would think the Old Courthouse could be the symbolic capital, but we might ask legislators to stay in their homes and meet virtually to avoid sex scandals, easy wining and dining by lobbyists, and expensive travel and sessions -- things that seem to happen when boys get away from home for a few days. Legislators would have to come out of their homes and explain their votes to their next door neighbors directly.
(KC might want to similarly split off Eastern Kansas and make KC the capital of EsKWeMo, or something.)
It's almost certainly just for "fun" or wishful thinking. Not only would the entire state of California have to approve it, so would the US Congress and the President. From a political standpoint, depending on the demographics of the proposed new states, whoever is in control of Congress would certainly take into consideration potential impacts to the electoral college and affects on the Senate and House. Splitting California into 3 democratic states would shift more power to democrats... something I'm sure republicans would be very against (and vice versa).
Gary, do you have any idea of the remaining political steps that have to happen for this California division to be realized?
Or are you just having fun?
The California split will really be on the ballot in November. But polls show residents oppose splitting by a margin of 4-1, so it will fail. If it passed, then Congress would have to approve the split per Article IV, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution. So this won't happen now. So I guess I'm just having fun. Didn't mean to get your hopes up.
^I'm pretty sure this has been proposed off and on in some variation since the thirties. You can see hints of it in the water fights in Chinatown. (And yes, it's a movie. But the spats over water rights are real enough.)
Seems like Nicole Galloway is seriously considering a gubernatorial run during the next election cycle, which is fantastic news, IMO. She's done a helluva job as the state's auditor so far, and I see a lot of people from both sides of the aisle with positive views of her. Could almost be an easy win, even, especially if the state's Republicans back Parsons as their candidate of choice, seeing as he has all the personality and charm of a brick wall (not to mention a lot of negative stigma surrounding some of the legislation he's passed).
Trololzilla wrote:
Seems like Nicole Galloway is seriously considering a gubernatorial run during the next election cycle, which is fantastic news, IMO. She's done a helluva job as the state's auditor so far, and I see a lot of people from both sides of the aisle with positive views of her. Could almost be an easy win, even, especially if the state's Republicans back Parsons as their candidate of choice, seeing as he has all the personality and charm of a brick wall (not to mention a lot of negative stigma surrounding some of the legislation he's passed).
If you didn't already know, our Governor and other high ranking state officials are firmly in the pocket of big Tobacco. Here are some gems from the recent article.
“I don’t know if pricing it out of someone’s reach is always the right answer,” Parson said
"We know in Missouri that we are above average when it comes to smoking,” Parson said. “We’ve got to realize that’s a problem."
And for the coup de grace
“I would say someday, down the road, you will see the industry and the Legislature come up with some sort of an agreement on how we’re going to tackle this issue,” Parson said.
What an infinitely naive comment. Yes, Mike, lets just wait for the Tobacco Companies to come to the table on reducing tobacco use. We have got to get these hillbillies out of Jeff City.
Our gas tax is less than half the National average (Alaska is the only state that’s lower). Our cigarette tax is less than 10% of the national average (lowest in the country, the next lowest state - Virginia - is almost twice as high).
Given the ridiculous discrepancy, I think it’s fair to say that Missouri’s taxing policy encourages tobacco consumption. Which is a totally perverted public policy.
Based on its track record, I’d love to see the Missouri legislature basically abdicate it’s responsibility for setting gas and tobacco tax rates, and pass a law that it will take in average of each of the tax rates in our neighboring states, minus the highest (Illinois) and lowest (Tenn for tobacco, Oklahoma for gas) and have it adjust for inflation.
Trololzilla wrote:
Seems like Nicole Galloway is seriously considering a gubernatorial run during the next election cycle, which is fantastic news, IMO. She's done a helluva job as the state's auditor so far, and I see a lot of people from both sides of the aisle with positive views of her. Could almost be an easy win, even, especially if the state's Republicans back Parsons as their candidate of choice, seeing as he has all the personality and charm of a brick wall (not to mention a lot of negative stigma surrounding some of the legislation he's passed).
If Galloway wins it will be anything but easy.
If Greitens got elected by 6 points and was crazy, I think Parson's who isn't viewed as crazy would do better. It wasn't like Koster wasn't liked either. I know people who usually vote Republican that wouldn't touch Greitens and would vote for Parsons. I think Parsons will win pretty easily but I could be wrong.
You have to consider Greitens the candidate vs. Greitens the governor.
Greitens the candidate was a decorated military veteran, accomplished scholar and author, non-profit advocate for veterans, was a republican that lived in the city and was also a political outsider - which dovetailed nicely with the Trump message and election. Whatever your political leanings, strategically he was the perfect candidate at the perfect time. He had something to appeal to conservatives, moderates and independents alike.
Greitens the governor was a mad man.
All of this is to say, Greitens was an extremely strong candidate at just the right time. I don’t think there’s any reason to think Parsons would have a whole lot more support than what Greitens mustered. And while Parsons’ relative calm and stability compared to Greitens or Trump may appeal to some, on the other side of that coin is that he’s not the most charismatic or exciting figure.
Our gas tax is less than half the National average (Alaska is the only state that’s lower). Our cigarette tax is less than 10% of the national average (lowest in the country, the next lowest state - Virginia - is almost twice as high).
Given the ridiculous discrepancy, I think it’s fair to say that Missouri’s taxing policy encourages tobacco consumption. Which is a totally perverted public policy.
Based on its track record, I’d love to see the Missouri legislature basically abdicate it’s responsibility for setting gas and tobacco tax rates, and pass a law that it will take in average of each of the tax rates in our neighboring states, minus the highest (Illinois) and lowest (Tenn for tobacco, Oklahoma for gas) and have it adjust for inflation.
Mo Leg has sent a bill to the governors desk that will decimate many of the special taxing districts cities use to attract development. Essentially, raising gas or cigarette taxes, or implementing an online sales tax are untenable, but we can't give tax breaks to developers. More GOP hypocrisy.
You have to consider Greitens the candidate vs. Greitens the governor.
Greitens the candidate was a decorated military veteran, accomplished scholar and author, non-profit advocate for veterans, was a republican life long democrat before he planned to run for governor that lived in the city
CERTAIN TAXING DISTRICTS (Section 67.1545, 238.207, 238.235, & 238.237)
Current law authorizes community improvement districts (CIDs) and transportation development districts (TDDs) to impose a sales tax on purchases made within such districts if approved by a majority of voters living withing the district. This bill requires such sales taxes to be approved by a majority of the voters of the municipality in which the district is located. Additionally, current law authorizes TDDs to charge and collect tolls or fees for the use of a project if approved by a majority of voters within the district. This bill requires such tolls or fees to be approved by a majority of voters within the municipality in which the TDD is located.
So will this new bill require a city-wide vote of St. Louis City for a taxing district whose borders align with the MLS Stadium borders? Or can the BOA approve the MLS special taxing district? BTW, how is it better for MLS franchise to get $$s via a special taxing district whose borders match the stadium property, vs. just raising prices of tickets, vending, and parking? Are the state or feds cut out of some of the loot with a special taxing district? Why does the state want to limit special taxing districts?
The governor hasn't signed the bill. If he does, it will go into effect Aug 28th. The BoA is attempting to pass the MLS CID now.
I bet that public comment on this bill has been pretty minimal.
Tell him to VETO the bill due to this specific section. Tell him these are the sorts of big-government ideals that California and New York when pushing federal regulations onto States like Missouri.
