http://www.stancoxrep.com/capitolReport.php Weekly capitol reports from State Representative Stanley Cox en-us http://www.stancoxrep.com/capitolReportRSS.xml http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=131 Saturday, February 11, 2012 Last year I was the chief sponsor in the Missouri House of SJR 2. This Joint Resolution, which was passed by both the House and the Senate, will go to Missouri voters later this year. If it passes this state-wide vote, which seems very likely, it will authorize legislation to require a voter to present photo identification when they vote. An unfortunate reality of recent elections is that instances of voter fraud have continued. As recently as last few years an Illinois man was prosecuted for voting for President in both Missouri and Illinois and ACORN workers were charged with election fraud in Kansas City. Missouri has a long history of voter fraud especially in the urban center. For a people that cherish the right to vote as much as American, this practice is troubling.

Photo identification is required to open a bank account, buy Sudafed, rent a movie or board a commercial airplane. It seems reasonable to me to require that same level of identification when a citizen casts a vote. I have worked on this issue with others for over five years. As the primary sponsor in the House of a proposed Constitutional Amendment known as the “Voter Protection Act “, I worked hard to assure that we crafted legislation that will protect the integrity of elections in our state. This measure is designed to protect Missourian’s fundamental right to vote. Our current law relating to voter identification is very weak and is subject to manipulation by the dishonest few who cheat in elections.

Voter fraud is not a mythical issue. The U.S. Supreme Court, in its majority opinion upholding Indiana’s Voter Id law, recognized that flagrant examples of voter fraud are real and can affect the outcome of a close election. If we continue to let this problem go unchecked, our election principles will erode and legitimate voters will be disenfranchised. HB 1104 takes steps to protect the integrity of our elections by requiring voters to prove their identity. This ensures that each eligible person can vote without having their voice diluted by lawbreakers.

In anticipation of passage of the Constitutional Amendment, SJR 2, the House passed House Bill 1104 which will put this proposed Amendment to the Missouri Constitution in effect. We sent similar legislation to Governor Nixon last year but he vetoed it. Strong public support for these principles might cause the Governor to rethink his position and sign this important legislation.

Critics of this legislation argue that requiring voters to show a photo ID will suppress elderly, minority and poor citizens, keeping them from the polls. They say that these groups are less likely to have photo identification, and it is more difficult for them to obtain it. In an effort to alleviate these concerns, HB 1104 allows all citizens without the proper photo identification to obtain one free of charge from the state or their local license bureau. It also exempts individuals born before 1941. However, if the voter cannot afford to pay for the documentation required to obtain an ID, they can still vote by casting a provisional ballot which will be counted. Under this legislation, no one entitled to vote will be denied a vote. HB 1104 protects the integrity and principles of our electoral process by ensuring that only eligible people are voting.

Elections are the lifeblood of democracy, and the “One Man One Vote” principle supporting our elections is there to ensure that every vote counts. For these reasons, it is our duty here in the House to protect the integrity of our elections and the principles on which they are based. Last week, we took a step toward this goal by passing HB 1104 as part of our Blueprint for Missouri.
http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=130 Saturday, February 4, 2012 The attorney who later became our third President, Thomas Jefferson, became well known in Virginia a few years before he authored the Declaration of Independence. Various Baptist preachers had ran afoul of a law in that state that required that all ministers of "Gospel of Jesus Christ" be licensed by the government. He defended this Baptist ministers because he opposed state sponsorship of religion and because he believed these individuals had a right to practice their religion free of government intervention. At that time in our history many states, including Virginia, had an established religion. The writers of our United States Constitution in 1788 resolved to divorce our new nation from the European way of having an official state religion and also to prohibit our government from interfering with individuals from freely following their religious convictions. To accomplish this they included these words in the First Amendment to the United State Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

One problem that existed in the 18th Century in America was state sponsorship of religion. The authors of these two founding documents of our nation would probably be surprised to discover that one of our problems in 21st Century is an attack by government and others on religious liberty. The recent court challenges to the Pledge of Allegiance because it includes a reference to "God", the challenges to public expression of faith and the attempts to stop religious organizations from using public spaces are examples of what some describe as a "war on religion." Just last week Vanderbilt University, a private research university in Nashville Tennessee, announced that student prayer groups must allow atheist to participate in their meetings.

Even our federal government seems to be attacking religious organizations and churches or at least it is oblivious to the moral convictions of our citizens. A statement recently issued by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius outlined the “final rule” which mandates the items and services that must be included in all employer provided health insurance policies under ObamaCare. The preventive health services mandated by the federal government will include sterilization procedures and a wide range of contraception items including the "morning after pill". To the surprise of many, including the Conference of Catholic Bishops, no exemption is permitted for religious organizations who have moral objections to these type of services. Many religious organizations, including the Catholic Church, run large institutions which employ thousands of employees which provide essential services to the communities that they are located. These include hospitals, schools, universities, adoption agencies, and organizations that provide other charitable services. Because no exemption for conscience is provided these entities they will have decide whether to violate a tenant of their faith, not provide insurance to their employees or close their doors.

This significant departure from our nations traditional respect for matter of faith and conscience has caused some observers to describe this action of President Obama to be an attack on our Constitutional guaranteed religious liberty. In response to this ruling by Secretary Sebelius, Missouri Senator Roy Blunt is the lead sponsor of the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act, a bill in his chamber that dials back “requirements for coverage of specific items and services.”

In order to protect people of faith and conscience in Missouri, I am currently drafting legislation to protect Missouri citizens from this assault in regard to employer provided health insurance. My legislation will protect employers and employees from a legal requirement of offering or accepting a service under a health plan when such services or benefits violate their religious belief or moral convictions. My legislation would also prohibit government from discriminating against or penalizing an employer that for moral or religious reasons does not offer a specific item or benefit in a health insurance plan. I hope to have this legislation filed within the next couple weeks. This legislation is designed to help protect the religious liberty of all Missourians.
http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=129 Friday, January 20, 2012 Missouri has a long history of prohibiting public funds to be used to pay for abortions, unless the abortion is necessary to save the mother's life. This makes sense regardless of one's views as to whether abortion should be legal. I am of the belief that a person's life begins at conception and so abortion is the killing of an innocent human life. Should my tax dollars be used to support and pay for an action I believe to be an unjust killing of innocent human life? I would be made an accomplice against my will.



In these economic times, I do not believe that I have to work very hard to convince the good people in my district that their tax payments should be used to fund unnecessary abortions. Unfortunately, Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers receive significant amounts of money from the federal government pursuant to Title X of the federal Public Health Service Act, more commonly known as simply "Title X." Title X is a program for the federal government to fund family planning programs run by various clinics, so long as Title X funds are not used for programs where abortion is considered a method of family planning.



So what's the problem? Public funds should not be used to fund abortions and both Missouri and the federal government have taken preventative to ensure that public funds are not used to pay for abortions. The problem is that money is easily manipulated. Say I had an alcoholic friend who I gave money to under the strict conditions that my money not be used to buy more alcohol. My friend takes the money and buys some groceries. Now he has extra grocery money and he buys some alcohol. He never used my money to buy alcohol, he used his own.



Planned Parenthood takes Title X funds from the federal government and uses the money to defray the cost of abortions. A worker will tell the mother not to say whether she wants to have an abortion or not and then will use the Title X funds to do a preliminary ultrasound and other work necessary preparative work for an abortion. Once the preparation is done, the worker will ask the mother if she wants and abortion and then will charge only for the actual abortive procedures. Title X funds can be used for follow up care once the abortion is completed. Title X funds never actually paid for the abortive act, but indeed were used to ensure that the Planned Parenthood could provide abortions at the cheapest rate possible.



I have filed a bill which will require abortion providers who receive Title X funds to file an accounting with the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services which will account for every penny received through Title X. This accounting will be a public record and the identity of the patients of the abortion providers will be protected. Our tax dollars are being given to organizations such as Planned Parenthood by the federal government and we should be able to see just exactly how our money is being spent. http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=128 Saturday, January 14, 2012 Missourians expect their government to use their hard-earned tax dollars wisely, especially during these tough economic times. Last week, the Missouri House moved to implement the first pillar of our Blueprint for Missouri by passing two bills out of committee that protect taxpayers and make our government more accountable.

Taxpayers provide the resources of state government, and, without them, we wouldn't have the resources to provide vital services like public education, roads and bridges. For this reason, the Missouri House has moved to protect taxpayers by passing out of committee one Bill that increase transparency at the local level and one that makes State government more responsive.

President Harry Truman once said, "Secrecy and a free, democratic government don't mix" Making otherwise "inside" information readily available to you allows for you to judge the effectiveness of how our government is doing their job. HB 1140 is an effort to provide taxpayers with the information needed to make informed decisions about government.

Currently, information about state spending is available online at the Missouri Accountability Portal. HB 1140 requires counties and schools to submit their debts and holdings to the Office of Administration for posting on the portal. This gives taxpayers a one stop shop for tracking how their state and local tax dollars are being spent, expanding the information available to them. Under this proposed legislation, school districts and public charter schools must annually collect and submit detailed employee compensation data and the district's annual operating budget and bonded indebtedness to the Office of Administration for inclusion.

HB 1140 also requires each county to collect and annually transmit to the Office of Administration for inclusion on the portal detailed compensation information for all elected county officials, a copy of the detailed financial statement that counties are currently required to publish, and any cash reserves.

HB 1135 improves transparency in Missouri government by requiring the review of administrative rules. Over time, department rules become outdated or obsolete. By requiring these rules to be reviewed periodically, we can ensure that all agency rules are efficient and effective. This proposal also allows ordinary people the right to request an administrative rule change. The agency must respond to any such request and inform a committee of the General Assembly about the request and their response. Under current law, these administrative rules can stay on the books of a state agency indefinitely. HB 1135 also requires all administrative rules to sunset after 10 years. By including the sunset provision, all rules will have to pass through the public comment process periodically, giving citizens a say in how our executive departments run.

In the next few days, I expect to file at least two other Bills which will make the interworking of government in Missouri more open to scrutiny and accountable. The "Political Subdivision Construction Bidding Standards Act" require public bidding of all construction contracts let by Missouri local governments. Without a clear requirement of public bidding, some of these valuable contracts will be awarded to cronies to the public officials rather than to the best bid. Local governments that have current legal requirements or standards in effect for bidding of these type of contracts in effect are exempted from this proposed legislation.

The other Bill that I will file shortly requires State agencies that receive federal grants to tract the money received and report to the General Assembly how the money was spent. Currently millions of federal money is received by various Missouri agency. These funds are often shifted among the various agency and spent with no legislative oversight. The General Assembly and taxpayers need to know how these monies are used.
http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=127 Saturday, January 7, 2012 The New Year is a time for new beginnings, and, here in the Missouri House, we started our second legislative session on January 4th with a fresh perspective and a renewed sense of purpose by releasing our Blueprint for Missouri. The Blueprint is our plan recently announced by our Speaker Steven Tilley to move Missouri forward. The program rests on four important issues: creating jobs, protecting taxpayers, reforming schools and protecting our values.

Nationally our job creators remain fearful of spending money and expanding their payrolls. Their fear is based upon several factors including their concerns about the unsustainable federal spending and debt, concern that their taxes at the federal level will go up and that the Obama's Administration inclination to increase regulation on business will bankrupt them. The uncertainty created by Obama Care and the President's war on domestic energy continues to impede job creation.


We in Missouri cannot undo what is happening in Washington but we can make positive steps to encourage job creation in our state. Putting Missourians back to work will be a priority again this session. Last session, we took several steps to create jobs. We cut taxes on small businesses adding new employees, eliminated the franchise tax and adopted several measures to improve the business climate. But with an unemployment rate still above 8%, there is still work to be done.

Nationally there was some good news regarding job creation in the Unemployment Insurance Weekly Claims Report of last week issued by the U.S. Department of Labor. Unfortunately that same report was not so good for Missouri. According to that report dated January 5th, the unemployment insurance claims increased in Missouri by 3,236 last week following layoffs. Missouri was reported as one of 19 states across the country with more than 1,000 initial claims last week.

Job creation will remain a top priority for us in the Missouri House this session. By helping entrepreneurs cut through bureaucratic, red tape and improving the business climate, we can continue to get Missourians back to work. We need to ensure accountability for decisions made by the Missouri Department of Economic Development.

One idea designed to improve the business climate is by enacting a loser pays law this session. Attorneys fees racked up due to frivolous lawsuits can be burdensome or even bankrupt small businesses. Loser pays will lower the number of frivolous suits and cut litigation costs businesses have to pay. That money can then be used to hire new employees or expand the business. Likewise, we need to address issues relating to the Worker's Compensation Laws. Recent events and court decisions has added uncertainty to a system that has been in place for decades.

One innovative idea to spur job creation is the Entrepreneur Virtual Resource Network. This new program would provide resources to the Department of Economic Development for a website that pools the information needed to start a small business in the state. Entrepreneurs are the lifeblood of job creation, but they often need assistance in navigating the regulatory hoops necessary to create their business from scratch. This website will give them a one-stop shop on how to get their idea to the marketplace.
http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=126 Sunday, December 11, 2011 Since beginning my service as your State Representative, I have worked very hard on a measure that would reform the method we use in Missouri to choose appellate judges and the judges in the urban areas. If my proposed changes to the Missouri Constitution passes both houses of the Missouri General Assembly, it would still have to be approved by a majority of voters in a state-wide election before it would becomes law.

Judges in court houses in the vast majority of Missouri Counties have always been chosen just like most other county officials-by elections. I have never heard of any dissatisfaction with this method of selecting our judges. There is nothing like facing the voters periodically to cause a public official to do a good job. My proposal would not change how these judges are chosen. Many of my constituents might be surprised to find out that appeals court judges including Missouri Supreme Court Judges and many trial judges in the more urban communities are not chosen like other public officials. These judges are not chose by election. These judges are chosen in a process that begins with a group of commissioners who take applications of individuals who are seeking an appointment. These commissions chose three candidates and submit their name to our Governor for the final selection. This system for choosing appellate and urban trial judges originated in the 1940's and is sometimes referred to the "Missouri Plan."

My concern about the Missouri Plan is that it is dominated by lawyers. This system is dominated by lawyers because a clear majority of these commissioners are chosen by and must be members of the Missouri Bar. I do not accept the premise that Supreme Court Judges should be chosen by lawyers who appear before them. I think the selection process should be more representative of our State. Under our present system, members of the third coequal branch of government in Missouri is being chosen by a system dominated by licensed attorneys. Just like choosing the executive and the legislative branches, I believe that ordinary citizens should have their interests protected and that they should have the dominate role in selecting all judges.

Under the current provisions of the Missouri Constitution, this selection process is secret. The identity of the applicants and the time and place of the commission meeting had always been secret until about a year ago when the Missouri Supreme Court voluntarily made some changes to open us the process. Clearly these changes were a response of my prior legislative activity. Under present law they could go back to the secret system as it existed for over fifty years at any time. During her visit to Columbia a couple years ago, even moderate former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor agreed such secrecy is bad for judicial selection. If we retain the current selection method, we need to change the law to assure that the identity of the applicants be made public and that meetings of the commission remain public.

The House Joint Resolution that I have filed in the past will change the present system so that the public has more power than any special interest group in the selection of judges and it will assure that the commission doesn't go back to secret meetings. This has been a difficult struggle. The organized lawyer's trade associations in Missouri have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in lobbying and advertising to stall this effort and effectively retain the status quo. A group of concerned citizens earlier this year unsuccessfully attempted to get a proposal for direct election of these judges on the ballot. The same groups that opposed my reforms challenged in court this initiative petition attempt as well. I have been encouraged by many individuals to again file this reform legislation. I am filing this legislation in the near future.

Bottom line, my proposal would make the process more public, make it more accountable and remove the dominance of special interest groups. The selection of judges is too important to leave up to lawyers and the public needs to have their interest protected.
http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=123 Friday, November 25, 2011 You have probably heard of the tragic events that recently occurred on the campus of Penn State University at State College, Pennsylvania. A former assistant football coach has been accused of years of sexual abuse of young boys. Adding to the embarrassment to that institution is the apparent failure by Penn State's then head football coach, Joe Paterno, and several of the universities’ top administrators to properly report these allegations of abuse to authorities. Last week Missouri's Attorney General Chris Koster urged the Missouri Legislature to expand Missouri's so-called "mandatory reporter" law. The "mandatory reporter" law currently requires members of professions that deal directly with children to report suspected abuse or neglect of children to the Missouri Children's Division, a state agency. Mr. Koster wants to make every adult in the state a mandatory reporter.

There is a regrettable tendency in America for politicians to overreact to tragic events by immediately seeking new laws that they believe might stop these terrible things from happening again. Although I believe that Attorney General Koster earnestly believes that such a change in law would help protect children, I have some serious doubts about this conclusion.

Missouri has had some version of a mandatory reporter law since the mid-1970's. Our current law requires physicians, other health practitioners, mental health professionals, social workers, child-care workers, juvenile officers, probation or parole officers, jail or detention center personnel, teachers, principals or other school officials, ministers and peace officers to report to State authorities information about possible child abuse if they have reasonable cause to suspect abuse. Those people who are currently required to make these reports are subject to criminal prosecution for a misdemeanor which can result in a year in jail and a fine of one thousand dollars if they fail to report. I would point out that generally these individuals are professionals who have some training or expertise in identifying the signs of child abuse and neglect. Incidentally, most of those who failed to report at Penn State are required under their law to make a report but failed to do so.

I believe that there are serious problems related to expanding this requirement to the entire population. First of all, the average person who is not trained in this area might have trouble distinguishing child abuse from appropriate discipline by a parent. If you are in Wal-Mart and saw a woman applying two swats to the rear end of her 6 year old child, would you feel compelled to report this to the authorities-especially if you faced a possible jail sentence? Contrary to what some people believe, appropriate corporal punishment to children remains lawful in Missouri. Even though no one is required to report appropriate discipline administered to a child, expanding this law to everyone will certainly increase the number of reports to this State agency of conduct which is clearly lawful. Likewise I question who is qualified, other than a professional, to recognize "emotional" abuse of a child in a brief contact. This proposed change in the law would require everyone to report emotional abuse to a child if there is reasonable cause to suspect abuse.

My fear is that the frequency of false report would increase. Only 18 states have required reporting by everyone. Even under our present system, out of the 2.9 million reports of child abuse in our nation annually, about 2/3rds of those reports were “unfounded”. If Missouri adopted a requirement that everyone was require to report whenever they had reasonable cause to suspect abuse, the frequency of the unfounded reports would certainly increase because of the fear of being prosecuted for a crime.

Another concern I have of requiring everyone to report these incidences would be be the glut of child abuse reports that would result and in turn make it more difficult for understaffed investigators in the Children's Division to sort thru large number of unfounded allegations made by people. Legitimate reports of abuse might get overlooked under these circumstances.

I wouldn't suggest that there is no room for improvements in the current child abuse reporting system. I certainly believe the system can be improved. I have real concern about any proposed legislation that under threat of prosecution mandates all ordinary citizens to make decisions that are more reasonably left to professionals. I also believe that any changes in the law should be based on what is best for these children and should not be driven by an overreaction to what recently happened in Pennsylvania.
http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=122 Saturday, November 19, 2011 Governor William Bradford, who was the leader of a small band of “Pilgrims” who had settled in Massachusetts, declared a celebration of thanksgiving after their first successful corn harvest in the new world in November of 1621. Only One-half of the Mayflower’s original passengers and crew lived to see their first New England spring after arriving in the fall of 1620. These survivors received invaluable help from Squanto, a member of the Pawtuxet tribe and other Native Americans from his tribe and the Wampanoag tribe who taught the Pilgrims, who were weakened by malnutrition and illness, how to cultivate corn, extract sap from maple trees, catch fish in the rivers and identify edible plants.

That original festival lasted for three days. While no record exists of the historic banquet’s exact menu, the Pilgrim chronicler Edward Winslow wrote in his journal that Governor Bradford sent four men on a “fowling” mission in preparation for the event, and that the Wampanoag guests arrived bearing five deer. Historians have suggested that many of the dishes were likely prepared using traditional Native American spices and cooking methods. Because the Pilgrims had no oven and the Mayflower’s sugar supply had dwindled by the fall of 1621, the meal did not feature pies, cakes or other desserts, which have become a standard of modern celebrations.

During the American Revolution, the Continental Congress designated one or more days of thanksgiving a year. In 1789 George Washington issued the first Thanksgiving proclamation by the national government of the United States. He called upon Americans to express their gratitude for the happy conclusion to the country’s war of independence and the successful ratification of the U.S. Constitution. Our next two Presidents also designated days of thanks during their presidencies. After that there was no national celebration of Thanksgiving until President Abraham Lincoln finally did so in 1863, at the height of the Civil War. In his proclamation he encouraged all Americans to ask God to “commend to his tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife” and to “heal the wounds of the nation.” He scheduled Thanksgiving for the final Thursday in November.

A real lesson can be derived by President Abraham Lincoln’s declaration of a day of Thanksgiving during the darkest days of Civil War. Today our nation and our people are suffering the effects of the greatest economic downturn since the Great Depression on the 1930’s. National unemployment numbers remain at a dismal 9%. Actual unemployment and underemployment is even higher than this number because it doesn’t reflect those people who have given up finding a job. Home foreclosures remain at record levels and there are scarier things that are happening in Europe. Our nation is facing significant challenges in the next few years. Some experts predict that unemployment might remain at these high levels for three to five years.

Despite all of this gloomy news, we in the United States do have a lot to be thankful about. In our country, the poor remain rich by the standards of much of the world. According to a recent study conducted by the Heritage Foundation derived from Census data, 80 percent of poor households have air conditioning. 92 percent of poor household in America have a microwave and nearly three-fourth have a motor vehicle. Half have a personal computer and two-thirds have cable or satellite television. 43 percent have internet access and One-third have a wide-screen plasma or LCD TV. 83 percent of poor families reported having enough food to eat and 96 percent of poor parents stated that their children were never hungry at any time during the year because they could not afford food. The average poor American has more living space than the typical non-poor person in Sweden, France, or the United Kingdom and the vast majority of the homes or apartments of the poor are in good repair. We have big challenges ahead, but we all have much to be grateful about.

Our Nation has surely been blessed by God. We have a resilient population who are up to the task. We have unbelievable natural resources. Most importantly, we have a nation that will continue to protect and appreciate our natural God given rights. These include the right to worship our God and be thankful for the blessing we have. In America we can move up the economic ladder if we prepare ourselves and work hard. These are all blessings worth celebrating. On next Thursday, I encourage you to continue the great American tradition of celebrating Thanksgiving with your family and friends. I also encourage that you remember the poor during the upcoming holidays and give to the charities that help the truly needy.
http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=121 Saturday, November 5, 2011 One of the Bills debated on the floor of the Missouri House of Representatives earlier this year was legislation which would require a prescription for products that contain pseudoephedrine such as Sudafed, Claritin-D, Mucinex-D and dozens of generic brand cold and sinus relief medicines. The proponents of this legislation argue that pseudoephedrine is frequently used by criminals in the illicit manufacture of methamphetamine, commonly referred to as “Meth” and that requiring consumers to obtain a prescription for these substances from their physician would reduce the supply of this common precursor and therefore deter manufacturing of Meth.

Anyone who lives in Central Missouri is well aware of the horrors of Meth addiction. I have observed first hand individuals who were in the late 20’s or early 30’s and who looked 60 years old. They often suffer from malnourishment, have lost their teeth and suffer from various physical afflictions directly related to their abuse of Meth. In addition to the harm to the abuser, it is hard to quantify the damage to children, families, and the cost to law enforcement and to society as a whole brought about by the abuse of this terrible illegal substance. As a former Prosecuting Attorney I have seen over and over the harm caused by the individuals who manufacture, sell and consume Meth and other “controlled substances.”

Over the last several months I have been contacted by several constituents who are concerned about the bill we considered earlier this year and the consequences of requiring a prescription for this medicine that they and their family members often use. Pseudoephedrine is well known for shrinking swollen nasal mucous membranes; and it is often used as a decongestant. It reduces nasal congestion and other symptoms commonly associated with colds or allergies. Other beneficial effects may include increasing the drainage of sinus secretions, and opening of obstructed Eustachian tubes. These constituents are concerned about the problems and costs related to having to go to their doctor to obtain a prescription for this medicine every time they have a cold or sinus condition. I have visited with a physician who was concerned with the number of patients who will fill the waiting rooms of physicians across our state and keep doctors from treating the truly sick. Although I seldom use these products, I am convinced that their availability without a prescription is important to these individuals.

I am presently opposed to requiring a prescription for Sudafed and these other cold and sinus remedies and have voted against the legislation more than once. In addition to the problems to patients created by such legislation, making these substances “controlled substances” seems a radical departure from what we have done in Missouri in the past. The legislature in the past has deemed substances “controlled substances” only when they were dangerous or were at least highly addictive and posed a threat to public health. None of the proponents of this legislation have given me an example where Missouri has made a otherwise lawful and useful medicine a “controlled substances” simply because wrongdoers misuse the substance.

The battle against meth is a complicated one. It will take time and a concerted, mutual effort by law enforcement agencies, legislators and private citizens to make a difference. An electronic reporting system implemented in Missouri last December can be a useful adjunct in that fight. This system instantly reports purchases of pseudoephedrine in excess of the statutory limit to law enforcement. It allows honest law-abiding citizens to get their medication and provides law enforcement with the names of people who are buying this medicine to be used in the illicit manufacture of Meth. Before we take the extreme step of requiring a prescription, I believe we need to give the electronic reporting system an opportunity to work.

Members of the legislature are often called upon to make important decisions that will affect the health and safety of our citizens. I certainly encourage you to contact me and let me know your opinions about this subject. Your advice is important to me.
http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=120 Saturday, October 29, 2011 Earlier this year I filed legislation designed to make our homes and streets safer. This proposed legislation, House Bill 257, was referred to the committee that I chair, the Standing Committee on the Judiciary. After the public hearing it was referred to the House floor where it was easily passed by a vote of 100 in favor and 57 opposed. Unfortunately this legislation received a cooler reception in the Senate and did not receive a hearing by the committee to which it was referred.

The idea for this legislation came from representatives of the Missouri Association of Prosecuting Attorneys who were concerned by a report that is prepared for Missouri Judges who are about to determine the sentence of individuals found guilty of felonies in our State. Their concern was that a portion of the reports which are prepared by Missouri Sentencing Advisory Commission (MoSAC) include misleading information that has caused some judges to give too lenient sentences for convicted criminals including certain violent offenders and sex offenders.

Prosecutors expressed a concern that these recommended sentences, which provides for one-size-fits-all recommendations are inappropriate. After a careful review I came to agree with the prosecutors that the recidivism based data provided by MoSAC are often seriously misleading to judges and policymakers. These prosecutors believe that MoSAC's recommendations have little value because they are not based on rigorous scientific data.
The defects in the preparation of these reports are the use of incorrect assumptions to reach the conclusion that probation is always better than incarceration. They reach this conclusion by ignoring the social costs of not incarcerating serious offenders. Serious scientific have indicated that the imprisoning serious offenders rather than granting them probation might actually protect society from 15 additional crimes per defendant jailed. These misleading reports only consider the financial cost to the State to keep a criminal locked up. It is certainly correct that operating a prison system is very expensive. Yet, it is a core responsibility of state government to run the criminal justice system which not only designed to rehabilitate and punish wrongdoers but also are essential to the protection of our citizens. These reports fail to recognize that it is better for society to imprison many of these most serious offenders.

The prosecutors shared actual situations that have recently occurred in Missouri courts. Roggenbuck was convicted after a jury trial of five counts of possession of child pornography. Roggenbuck was a registered sex offender, and his Sentencing Assessment Report (SAR) noted that he had been convicted of sexually abusing five different children in Washington State in the 1980s and 1990s. He had served 8 ½ years in prison in the 1990s for the last four offenses. While in prison, Roggenbuck was required to complete sex offender treatment. While in this prior treatment program, Roggenbuck admitted being sexually attracted by prepubescent males, and admitted “grooming” his victims and turning his intent back on the minors. The report from his earlier treatment concluded he was not successfully addressing all facets of his sexual deviance and showed a tendency for secrecy and manipulation. That same prior report determined that his likelihood of committing another sexual offense was “high.” The Sentencing Advisory Commission Risk Score for Roggenbuck was listed as “good.” “Good” is the highest possible rating, meaning Roggenbuck was supposedly a “low risk” for reoffending. Therefore, the MoSAC recommendation was for 120 days of shock treatment (no prison). Fortunately the sentencing Judge ignored the SAR report and sentenced the defendant to the maximum term of 35 years in prison by running the 7-year sentences on his five counts consecutively.

I would be less concerned with these unjust recommendations if the sentencing judge always ignored them. Unfortunately that is not always the case. West, which I previously reported in my April 3, 2011 Capitol Report, was convicted at trial of selling crack cocaine near an elementary school. On two occasions, West sold $100 worth of crack cocaine to an undercover detective. A few days later, the undercover detective arranged to buy $500 of crack cocaine from West. When West arrived to complete the final transaction, he was arrested. All of the sales occurred across the street from an elementary school. During one of the narcotics sales, children were playing soccer in the school playground across the street. West, who had earlier posted bond, fled the courthouse during a lunch break in his trial and did not return. West was convicted of three class A felonies, including two counts of delivering a controlled substance near a school and one count of second degree drug trafficking. Despite all of this, the MoSAC recommendation was for probation, which the Court imposed. This best illustrates the problem with this agency and the reports that they generate.

The legislation that I filed would stop MoSAC from wasting taxpayer money making reports which purport to provide guidelines for sentences for the courts which are not based upon any scientific data or common sense. The misleading aspect of these reports is their use of “recidivism” as the basis to evaluate the alternative sentences. Recidivism rates are at best uninformative, and likely mislead judges about the social costs of different sentencing dispositions. Recidivism is defined in this context as the likelihood to be reincarcerated. The lesson drawn by MoSAC is that prison is not only costly, but it causes criminals to re-offend. This is a serious error in logic. Using this measure which has been adopted by MoSAC, you will always conclude that it is better to give defendants probation or a light sentence because it fails to take in account that judges most often send the individuals who most likely to reoffend to prison. Judges do not randomly assign criminals to prison or probation. The threat to public safety is taken into consideration; therefore, those individuals who initially are sentenced to prison terms are expected to have a higher probability of re-offending. It should not be surprising that these really “bad guys” are more likely to go back to prison when they are finally released.

This erroneous information can only mislead judges and make our state less safe by encouraging judges to not incarcerate these dangerous offenders. I intend to refile this legislation for the next regular session of the Missouri General Assembly that begins in January. Over the next several weeks I intend to report on other legislation that I intend to file durning the next legislative session.
http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=119 Sunday, October 2, 2011 In July of 2010 it an announcement was made in Moberly that Hong Kong based Mamtek International would bring over 600 manufacturing jobs to that community. That company promised that it would produces the "SweetO" brand of sucralose, an artificial sweetener. The City of Moberly issued $39 million in industrial development bonds. The state offered nearly $18 million in incentives. When the ground was broken for the plant, Governor Jay Nixon and former Governor Bob Holden were on hand. "SweetO is just about to make Missouri's economy a little sweeter," Nixon reportedly said that day.

This sounded like great news for Randolph County where unemployment exceeded 10%. The promise was that 120 good paying jobs-$17 per hour-to be created by Christmas and up to 600 more as assembly lines were added over the next few years. Officials bragged that the whole package was put together in the amazing time of 73 days and was supposed to include $8 million in private investment.

Several delays have occurred over the last several months but everything appeared to move forward this summer. Now this sweet deal has turned sour. Plant construction has halted. Mamtek has laid off all of its employees. The company missed its first $2.2 million bond payment on August 1st. The public became aware of these problems when the bank who was the agent for these bonds release a statement on September 1st. Unless the City of Moberly can find someone else to take over the project, the City appears liable for $39 million. In this situation there were obvious clues that this proposal was too good to be true. I believe that the problems that eventually resulted in the default of this project would have been discovered if the State of Missouri and local developers has practiced "due diligences". "Due diligence" is the standard of care that we should exercise when we are dealing with someone else's money.

When questioned at a recent news conference about the States involvement, Governor Nixon said "I don't run the Department of Economic Development," he said, "and I don't work details at the ground level." The Missouri Department of Economic Development has now made assurances that no State money has been payed to this ill-fated project because the laws authorizing these incentives requires that actual jobs be created before payment is made. Despite the Governor denials it is clear that local economic development officials first learned of Mamtek International through the Missouri Department of Economic Development.

Despite his attempt to avoid responsibility, the Governor who appointed the Director of the Missouri Department of Economic Development and his appointees bear much of the responsibility for the mistakes made. It is apparent that the Governor thru his appointees did not exercise "due diligence". Any investigation into Mamtek International would have raised red flags. Even a Google search of this company might have put these folks on notice. Just before the deal was struck with Moberly this company was in negotiations with Bismarck North Dakota. In an article in the Bismarck Tribune posted on the internet on May 7, 2010, Russ Staiger, President and CEO of the Bismarck-Mandan Development Association indicated that that city had declined a similar offer from Mamtek without further research into the project, which he called "a bit sketchy". In a recent interview that same individual described the company as having a "pushy" demeanor that made him uneasy. Staiger recently told the Columbian Tribune that "The business of economic development is full of carpetbaggers and scallywags. You just have to be cautious."

While the company said it had a plant in Fujian Province, China, Janet Morales, editor and publisher of a weekly newspaper called The Moberly Mirror could found no evidence of one. She contacted trade publications and competitors, and found no one knew of Mamtek. Due diligence, including contact with Staiger and Morales might have avoided the bad decision to proceed in this project.

There have been several news reports recently that Mamtek was raising private capital by finding Chinese citizens so eager to become U.S. citizens that they would invest $500,000 in the project to make them eligible to obtain a United States Visa. There is no indication that Missouri officials knew of this offensive practice. This practice does cause one to reflect on the integrity of the developers that Missouri was doing business with. I believe that the State had a responsibility to carefully and cautiously look into this matter instead of expediting the approval to 73 days from the more normal approval period of six months. There are some indications that at least one other Missouri Community, Marshall, passed on this proposal.

Currently investigations have begun by the Security and Exchange Commission, the Missouri Attorney General, the Randolph County Prosecuting Attorney and a Missouri Senate Committee. Hopefully this experience will cause the Governor and his staff to be more cautious of the possibility that they are dealing with carpetbaggers and scallywags.
http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=116 Friday, September 16, 2011 A couple months ago I was contacted by an elderly constituent. This lady explained that she was homebound and had been receiving in-home services from Missouri’s Division of Health and Senior Services, “MDHSS” for some time. Missouri provides these services so that elderly and disable people can remain in their home instead of being institutionalized in a long term care facility. She explained to me that she had become dissatisfied by the private organization that was helping her with personal care and housecleaning under a contract with our state and needed help to obtain groceries on a weekly basis. She explained that she had contacted MDHSS and they told her that she was required to contact SynCare and was provided a phone number. She further explained to me that although she had made repeated telephone calls over several weeks to SynCare she was unable to obtain a respond. She called me so that I could help her get a response to her request.

I had never heard of SynCare. My Legislative Assistant contacted the MDHSS with the complaint. State employees at MDHSS got back to me promptly with an answer for this lady. Within a week I received a second and similar complaint from another lady. I thought that it was unusual to receive two identical inquiries from constituents in such a short time. I recently have learned more detail about recent problems in the MDHSS and why these ladies were have problems. These problems all originate with a State contract worth $5.5 million that MDHSS entered into in January of this year with a private company headquartered in Indiana named SynCare. The purpose of this contract was to help that state agency connect about 50,000 Missourians with the Medicaid services that will keep them at home and out of more expensive nursing homes. After hundreds of other complaints and inquiries by committees of the General Assembly, the State fired SynCare in August.

Certainly our state government can make mistakes; after all we are all human. Unfortunately, there are details to this story that have recently been disclosed by the St. Louis Post Dispatch that are reason for serious concern. First, the individual who initially evaluate the competitive bids that lead to the lucrative contract awarded this January, Christine Larsen, took a high paid position with SynCare in May. That doesn’t pass the smell test. The Post Dispatch was able to determine that SynCare had little experience in providing these types of services which brings into question why did Missouri entered into a contract with SynCare.

Of most concern to me is the appearance of impropriety of the company that is the principle owner of SynCare, Centene Corp. which is a Clayton-based health care management company, which is one of the largest political contributors in Missouri. That company's lobbyists in Jefferson City include attorney Chuck Hatfield, a longtime Governor Nixon political adviser. Centene's most recent donations to Governor Nixon's campaign included $10,000 on Nov. 18 of last year; $5,000 on June 21and another $20,000 on June 26. SynCare donated $5,000 to Nixon on July 5, just before its mismanagement became public. The Governor in a written statement denied any involvement in the selection of SynCare. Meanwhile, Margaret Donnelly, the Director of the Department of Health and Senior Services, who is a Nixon appointee, recently explained to a legislative committee as to what steps her agency is currently taking to clean up this mess.

It appears to me that these mistakes were made by these officials because of the attempts of the current administration to cozy up to these political contributors. Well connected lobbyists, campaign donations and back-room deals should not guide the process of handing out millions of dollars in public contracts that provide real and important services to ordinary Missourians who seem left out of the process.

I have recently written a letter Director Donnelly and Governor Nixon and insisted that a complete investigation be made as to how this contract was awarded and the possibility of conflicts of interest violations by present and former public officials. I have also insisted that the report be made available to the General Assembly and the public. We need a public airing of these transactions. I will let you know of the response to my inquiry.
http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=115 Sunday, September 11, 2011 On August 26th 2011 State Auditor Tom Schweich filed a lawsuit against Governor Nixon for alleging that he violated the Missouri Constitution by withholding of over $170 million appropriated by the Legislature. Very little press coverage was given to the principle behind Auditor Schweich’s action and the importance of that principle.

The withholds were made from appropriated funds for: Parents as Teachers, Bright Flight Scholarships, Medicaid, community colleges and state universities, veterinary student loans, community intervention programs, Area Agencies on Aging (funding partially restored), domestic violence grants (funding partially restored), children's treatment services, the judiciary, trade zone facilities, regional port authorities, math and science tutoring, the Scholars and Fine Arts Academy, the Missouri Department of Transportation, the Missouri Federal and State Technology Partnership Program (MOFAST), MOHELA Projects, the Missouri State Penitentiary (MSP) Remediation, marine maintenance facility, civil detention and legal fees, Alzheimer's grants, Access Missouri Scholarship, crisis care services (funding partially restored), the Missouri Research and Education Network (MOREnet), the Office of Child Advocate, Boonville Readiness Center, community development corporations, transportation, early grade literacy, industry training, local air pollution control, eating disorders staff & expenses, mediation, firefighter training and several other budget line-items.

The Governor announced that these funds were withheld because of the significant obligations that the State had incurred as a result of this year’s natural disasters including the tornados in Joplin, Sedalia and St. Louis and the flooding in the Missouri River and its tributaries. He is correct in pointing out the obvious that state government has incurred substantial obligations, but he was wrong in how he has dealt with this problem. The legislature (General Assembly) has the exclusive authority to appropriate taxpayers money. Although the chief executive (Governor) has authority to withhold appropriated money under our state constitution when revenues are below projections, he otherwise does not have the authority to do so. In this case, the Governor announced his withholdings in June before the fiscal year had even started. The Governor’s action was a violation of the” separation of powers” between these two branches of our government. While the governor has exclusive authority to administer appropriated funds, the legislature has exclusive authority to decide where these funds should be spent. Without this principle of separation of powers, too much power is vested in the executive.

This constitutional principle of separation is important even when the money is being withheld to go to a very worthwhile purpose such as storm relief. Governor Nixon clearly had other options. He had funds available in the State “Rainy Day Fund” and certainly could have requested a supplemental appropriations and a Special Session of the General Assembly if he chose. Incidentally, the Governor withheld money from the Republican controlled legislature and the Republican State Auditor’s office but left his own budget alone as well as all other Democrat statewide officials.

The “Third Branch of Government”, the Courts, will in due time sort this matter out. Meantime the Missouri House is working on legislation to assure that this particular need is properly dealt with by the citizens elected representatives. Hopefully the Court decision in this case will discourage this Governor and future governors for again usurping the authority of the people’s representatives.

http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=114 Friday, August 26, 2011 In the face of the economic challenges our state faces getting our economy back on track and getting Missourians back to work must be our top priority of the Missouri General Assembly. Throughout this year’s legislative session we worked in a bipartisan manner to craft a major job creation bill that would help give our economy the jump-start it so desperately needs. We set our sights high on a major package that would dramatically overhaul our state’s job creation incentives but unfortunately, on the final day, our efforts came up just short.

We did not let this setback stop our commitment to jobs, though. Throughout the summer months, a bipartisan group of legislators continued working to forge a compromise. In July, we were able to reach a basic agreement on a monumental jobs bill that will overhaul our state’s job creation incentives and help attract 21st century employers to our state. I am very happy that the Governor recently called a Special Session set to begin on September 6th to work on legislation designed to encourage employers to create jobs in Missouri.

The agenda includes incentives to add high-tech jobs, expand job creation and job retention incentives, and open our state’s products to international markets. This historic package will create various programs that will bring thousands of new jobs to Missouri in the fields of science and technology, innovation, construction, and administration.
It is estimated that these incentives will create tens of thousands of new Missouri jobs: jobs that are desperately needed right now. With an unemployment rate hovering around 9%, it is imperative that we do what we can to get Missouri’s economy moving again.

In addition to these new, innovative incentives, we will also overhaul existing incentive programs. In all, we will eliminate seven programs, create periodic review of all remaining incentives, all while saving an estimated 1.5 billion dollars for our state over the next 15 years. These tax credits came into existence over the last couple decades. It is time to carefully evaluate the merit of all of them and eliminate some, cut back on some of them and preserve the ones which deserve State expenditures.

The combination of new incentive programs with a re-tooling of our current economic development programs represents the kind of bold action our state’s economy needs. Now, to pass this important legislation, the General Assembly will carefully look at the specifics of the proposal and make some important decisions.

The Governor has included in the call of the Special Session a few other issues. One of them has to do with restoration of local control of the St. Louis Police Department to the City of St. Louis. Currently the City has to pay all of the expenses in connection with that department but is not accountable for its operation. I am not absolutely certain why the legislature took away local control of that department in the early part of the 20th Century, but there does not seem to be a compelling reason for continuing this policy. I would like to hear from you concerning this and other issues of concern.
http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=113 Friday, August 19, 2011 From the tornadoes that hit Joplin, St. Louis, and even Sedalia to the flooding in the southeastern and northwestern parts of the state, Mother Nature has ravaged our state this year with numerous deaths and millions of dollars in damages. Many of our neighbors and fellow Missourians are hurting, and they need our help.

In response to the need of the many Missouri families who have suffered as a result of the devastating storms, House Speaker Steven Tilley, R-Perryville, created the Interim Committee on Disaster Recovery. I am very pleased that he appointed me to serve on this important committee. He formed the committee to develop a plan that improves the state’s ability to respond to disasters. At the end of July, our committee released its recommendations on changes we can make to help communities hurting from the disasters.

The committee’s primary recommendation is to call a special session to allow the legislature to discuss the use of the Budget Reserve Fund, also known as the “Rainy Day Fund,” to aid disaster victims and their communities. The Budget Reserve Fund was created by a voter-approved constitutional amendment in 2000 to provide the state with cash-flow in times of need, especially in the event of major disasters.

We’re fortunate that our Budget Reserve Fund currently has a balance of $500 million. While we would prefer to pay for disaster recovery directly from our state budget, the budget difficulties we have had in recent years makes that option problematic. Using some of the money from the Budget Reserve Fund will mitigate the strain on the budget, and help put our citizens and our communities on the road to recovery.

Using the reserve funding is the right thing to do but it’s also important we ensure the proper level of accountability and oversight when using these dollars. The General Assembly is committed to protecting your tax dollars by ensuring the funds are used only for disaster-related costs. To do this, the Disaster Recovery Committee recommended forming a Joint Oversight Committee to monitor every dime spent out of the fund.

Oversight of the money set aside by the governor for economic assistance in Joplin is also important. You may recall, the governor unilaterally created the Jumpstart Joplin program which will provide $22 million in short-term housing recovery assistance and $100 million in low-income housing tax credits. We should monitor this program to ensure this program’s efficiency and effectiveness. We want to lend a helping hand to those Missourians who legitimately need assistance while also protecting your tax dollars from fraud and abuse.

I am proud of the work done by the Interim Committee on Disaster Recovery, and I applaud my fellow members who have worked hard to ensure Missouri’s disaster victims receive the help they need.
http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=112 Saturday, August 6, 2011 On August 5th Standard and Poor’s downgraded the United States government’s sovereign debt rating from AAA to AA+. Another credit rating organization, Fitch Ratings, reaffirmed Missouri’s AAA credit rating June 29th. The difference in credit ratings of the U.S. and that of Missouri is directly related to the fiscal policies of these branches of government. I believe it is worth considering the difference in the way Missouri conducts their fiscal affairs as compared to our national government.

Although the full impact of this decision of Standard and Poor’s downgrade is not completely known at this time, it will certainly have an impact on the cost of interest paid by federal taxpayers on what seems the never expanding national debt. Just before the S & P downgrade and in response to the debt crisis, Congress and the President put into law a provision that requires that a Committee of Congress make budget cuts before the end of this year in an attempt to start the process of reducing our national debt. Whether this is a sufficient response to our current problems will be seen. My guess is that this is a Band-Aid when we need major surgery. In resolving how we should respond to this U. S. fiscal mess, we need to understand how much debt our national government has and how we got there.

According to the United States Department of Treasury, Bureau of Public Debt, our gross national debt increased $1.9 trillion in Fiscal Year 2009 and $1.7 trillion in Fiscal Year 2010. As of August 3, 2011, the Total Public Debt Outstanding was $14.34 trillion dollars, of which $9.78 trillion was debt held by the public. As of the end of the second quarter of 2011, the US Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was $15.003 trillion. Total Public Debt Outstanding as a percentage of was GDP was 100% and debt held by the public was 65.2% of GDP. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) refers to the market value of all final goods and services produced in our country. This means that our national debt is currently worth the same as the value of all goods and services created in America in a year. This figure of 100% is not far from the 130% of Greece. In response to their debt crisis, all debt issued by the nation of Greece is currently rated at “junk bond” status. It certainly doesn’t seem reasonable that we can sustain such massive national debt on a long term basis.

How we got there is simple. Our national debt national debt was over $10 trillion in 2008 and we have added $3.6 trillion since then. Three years ago we had too much national debt and we have since added 40%. Our recent Federal Stimulus, generous tax credit for home purchases and “cash for clunkers” has done nothing to turn the economy around but have pushed us over the edge in debt. The mistakes that we have made are not just President Obama’s mistakes. It began before he was sworn into office. He just accelerated the train wreck. Mistakes have been made by both Democrats and Republicans. We do things differently in Missouri. In Missouri, our State Constitution mandates that we live on the money we have coming in.

What can we do about it horrible Federal debt? The solution is to do something to create discipline at the national level. How is this possible? As I said before, we balance our budgets in Missouri because we are required by law to not spend more than we take in. We have, in effect, a Missouri Balanced Amendment in our State Constitution. In an attempt to do the same thing in our national government, on at least a couple occasions since 2007, the Missouri House of Representatives have passed a Resolution supporting a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U. S. Constitution. I have always supported and voted for this legislation.

Besides electing fiscally conservative members of Congress, adoption of a U. S. Constitution Balanced Budget Amendment is the only solution. The U. S. House passed a Balanced Budget Amendment just a couple weeks ago but it was blocked in the Democrat controlled U. S. Senate. I encourage that you contact your member of Congress and your Senators and express your position on the importance of considering such legislation.

As the U. S. government continues to deal with the problems of debt and the high unemployment, we should feel good that the upcoming Special Session of the Missouri General Assembly is primarily focused on job creation. In these difficult times, that is a big enough problem.
http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=111 Saturday, July 23, 2011 While Washington D.C. struggles and literally faces another potential shut in just a few days– the Missouri General Assembly continues to work to improve our state’s job climate. Most Americans are upset about President Obama’s failure to lower unemployment despite the expenditure of Trillions of Dollars and our ever growing national debt. Washington’s failure to adopt true job creation policies is not an excuse for the Missouri General Assembly to do nothing. The Missouri General Assembly is continuing our efforts to encourage businesses to invest in jobs in our State. We need to create private jobs not government jobs. We recognize that this is the way out of our current recession. Likewise, the General Assembly is laying plans to substantially reduce the annual cost of previously authorized tax credits which will ensure that our State budget in future years remains balanced and reasonable.

Missouri's Republican legislative leaders were traveling the state last week, announcing a proposed agenda for a likely Special Session to be held in September on an economic development package that will also resolves a dispute over the state's tax credit programs. By passing legislation to encourage private job growth, we continue to fulfill the proper role of government. As opposed to President Obama’s approach, this legislation is not about picking winners and losers, but instead is meant to be another tool in Missouri’s economic development toolbox that will allow the state to attract and retain private job creators.

Missouri House Speaker, Steven Tilley and Senate President Pro Tem Robert Mayer expressed their belief that a consensus had been reached between legislative leaders on these important issues that had been left unresolved when the Legislature adjourned in May. Another possible subject to be taken up might be the issue of local control by St. Louis of their City police.

In their joint announcement, Tilley and Mayer said the economic development deal would be "a groundbreaking job creation plan." Although the exact legislation passed will be seen, Tilley indicated that it will be very similar to Senate Bill 100 which was proposed earlier this year. The economic development package will likely include:

• Tax Credits for an Air Freight Hub in St. Louis.

• Sales and Use Tax Exemption for Creation of Data Centers.

• Establishment of Missouri Science and Reinvestment Act designed to providing funding designed to attract science and innovative companies to Missouri.

Additionally the bill is expected to put substantial limit a number of current tax-credit programs including the tax credits for historic preservation and low-income housing and eliminate other programs. With these changes, the state's cost savings estimated to be $1.5 billion over 15 years. These saving will result by the use of “sunsets” to these existing programs and by reducing the amounts available each year.

These legislative leaders are expecting to meet with Governor Nixon soon to coordinate these efforts to encourage private job creation and to eliminate unnecessary State expenditures which will help balance our future budgets.
http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=110 Sunday, July 10, 2011 Two months have now passed since the close of this year’s legislative session. It has been great to be back in the district full-time where I have been able to attend numerous events and meetings and see friends, family and constituents. As the dust has now settled from the end of session, I have had the opportunity to look back at many of the bills that we have passed and I am proud of the work we have done. Over the last several weeks I have written about several bills sponsored by me that were passed during the regular session. I think it would be useful to discuss some of the other things that were accomplished this year. Among the highlights:

• Drug testing for welfare recipients – one common sense piece of legislation that I was proud to vote for this year would require a mandatory drug test for those welfare recipients believed to be under the influence of illegal drugs. The bill will help ensure that your tax dollars are not being used to subsidize the drug use of welfare recipients by providing this common sense safe guard for taxpayers.

• Passing a balanced budget – unlike the federal government, your state government recognizes the need to live within its means. Once again, the legislature made the tough, but necessary decisions to ensure that your state budget remains balanced. These important decisions will ensure that your state government does not head down the same dangerous path as the federal government.

• No new taxes – tough economic times for Missourians have meant tough budget times for state government. But despite sagging revenues, we chose to look for ways to cut waste, fraud and abuse and make the difficult spending reductions, instead of looking to taxpayers to further foot the bill. We know that tax dollars are your dollars, not the government’s, and we believe that you are taxed enough already. I am proud to say we overcame these tough budget challenges without a single tax increase on Missouri families or businesses.

• Congressional redistricting – while Missouri grew by more the seven percent over the past ten years, our population growth failed to keep pace with the national average. The result: the difficult decennial process of Congressional redistricting would be even more challenging as Missouri would go from nine seats, to eight. After months of negotiations we were able to pass a map that ensured adequate representation for all Missourians. Although I had preferred and voted in favor of an amendment that was a slightly different as it affects a portion of my District, I did vote for the final compromise. Despite Governor Nixon’s veto, the House and Senate were able to muster the two-thirds majorities necessary to accomplish one of the few veto overrides in Missouri history.

• "Big Government Get Off My Back Act" – during these tough economic times, Missouri small businesses are struggling. To provide relief, we passed a the "Big Government Get Off My Back Act" which puts a moratorium on new regulations and fees and requires that any federal mandate be approved by the General Assembly before it goes into effect. The bill also provides for tax deductions for those small businesses that create new full-time jobs.

• Photo Identification for voting – another piece of common-sense legislation that I was proud to support were a Bill and Joint Resolution providing for Photo Identification requirement for voting. Along with Representative John Diehl of Town and Country, I was the author of the House version of this law and had worked on it for several years. In this day and age where we are required to show a form of photo identification to board a plane or get a library card, we believe it’s a common-sense requirement for voting. Unfortunately, Governor Nixon did not feel the same way and decided to veto this important bill. The legislature will have an opportunity to attempt an override of his veto again when we return for our veto session in September. Even if we are not successful in a possible override vote, voters next year will have their say when they consider a Joint Resolution that authorizes this legislation.

• Protecting Life and the Second Amendment – HB 213 and SB 65 both passed with overwhelming majorities that make late term abortions illegal. The legislation, if signed by the governor will make it illegal to abort a child after 20 weeks. It was an honor for me to support legislation that helps protect the unborn.

• Right to Bear Arms-The Founding Fathers meant for us to have the right to keep and bear arms and I intend to do everything in my power to protect that right. This year we were able to bring Missouri into similar standing with most other conceal and carry states by bringing the age necessary to obtain a permit down from 23 to 21. This was commons-sense legislation that allows for properly trained and licensed individuals to carry a weapon and use it to defend themselves and others.

The Governor still has until July 14th to either sign or veto bills and we remain hopeful that he will take the opportunity to support many of these important proposals that help our state.
http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=109 Saturday, July 2, 2011 Two thousand and eleven will certainly go down as one of the most trying years in Missouri history. The tornado that occurred in Joplin on May 22nd killed more than one hundred and fifty Missourians and was the worst tornado recorded in the United States since 1950. Folks in and around Sedalia continue to work hard at putting their life’s back together after the devastating May 25 tornado. Parts of southeast Missouri have been, and will continue to be, flooded for months. As a result, Missouri farmers and families have lost both their homes and their livelihoods. All the while a perfect storm of snow melt in the north along with record rainfall continues to threaten our state with projected flooding more damaging than even the historic floods of 1993.

Over the last couple weeks I have participated in public hearings conducted by the Interim Committee on Disaster Recovery. The first meetings of this committee was held in Sedalia and than we went to Joplin last week. Missouri House Speaker Steven appointed me as a member of this committee in the wake of flooding around the state and tornadoes that struck the St. Louis area, Sedalia and left a path of destruction in Joplin. The committee is to address the numerous issues that come along with the clean up after such devastation. Committee members will also look at both the short and long term recovery process and investigate how the state can assist in helping these regions clean up and move forward.

The hardships placed on Missouri families by Mother Nature are compounded by the challenges many Missourians face in trying to provide for their families during these trying economic times. Missouri’s unemployment rate continues to hover around 9 percent. Almost one in ten Missouri residents are actively looking for a job and don't have one - the actual number of unemployed is much higher, as many people have simply given up.

At the hearing held in Joplin we heard from representatives from the Joplin school district, local government, local hospitals and ordinary citizens. We heard reports that in Joplin 7500 homes were damaged by the E-5 tornado with 4000 destroyed or left uninhabitable. Eight public schools were damaged including the destruction of the cities only high school. The school district estimates their losses at $150,000,000. Officials estimate that 1800 vehicles were destroyed, 500 businesses destroyed and 4500 jobs displaced. Just as important as these numbers, we heard from regular people who are struggling every day with their losses and are trying to restore to their ordinary lives. We heard ideas from these folks about how Missouri and local governments can better meet these challenges in the future

We heard testimony about how buildings can be constructed to better survive these terrible winds. On the other hand we were warned against making too many unnecessary regulations on houses, like mandatory basements, because if these requirements make houses too expensive to build or repair. Individuals testified that these types of regulations end up hurting rather than helping people. We heard a very sensible proposal from administrators of the only surviving hospital in Joplin which would allow physicians who are not currently licensed in Missouri to be permitted to temporarily practice their profession in our State when there is a disaster and a shortage of professionals. Some of these obstacles faced by individuals involved in the disaster recovery can be fixed by simply changing laws or regulations.

As part of my trip to Joplin, I toured the neighborhoods in that city. Besides the utter devastation in Joplin, I was most impressed with the response of volunteers from all across or State and nation. Literally, thousands of Good Samaritans have donate their time to the clean up and recovery efforts. The rebuilding after these disasters will be primarily accomplished by individuals.

We in the Missouri General Assembly can help in the effort to restore these lost jobs by continuing in our effort to reduce the burdensome regulations on job creators created by government. Our State government can help by providing some short term help to the victims. There is a role for government, but mostly government needs to remove the obstacles and allow individuals and charities to do their good work. Due to the magnitude of the Joplin tornado, the Speaker has asked for a report on the short term needs of the area detailing areas the legislature can assist by the end of July and if a Special Session should be convened. The committee will put together a comprehensive report by the end of the year.
http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=108 Monday, June 13, 2011 Our nations Health Care is simply too large and complex to be managed at the federal level. How can we expect Washington bureaucrats to solve a problem that they’ve helped create over the past several decades!

About 18 months ago Washington liberals didn’t listen to the majority of Americans when they rammed through Congress their reckless health care plan. Last August Missourians were the first voters in the nation to go to the ballot box and reject the federal health care takeover. The results were as stunning as they were clear: more than 71% of Missouri voters, including Republicans, Democrats, and independents, supported Proposition C and the effort to protect an individual’s right to make his or her own health insurance choices. Missourians sent Washington a clear message: stay out of our health care decisions. A "Yes" vote was an expression of support to preserves your present right to keep your own health insurance plan or choose any other private plan or no plan without being penalized for that choice. The votes in favor of Proposition C in our community were approximately 75% of the total cast.

Not surprisingly, Washington’s reaction was tone-deaf. The White House dismissed the Proposition vote, claiming that the results meant “nothing” according to The Hill. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s response was even more offensive. According to the Wall Street Journal, Reid dismissed the results of the election, claiming that Missourians aren’t educated enough to understand the federal health care law. Reid: “It’s very obvious that people have a lack of understanding of our health care reform bill,” Reid said. “The more people learn about this bill, the more they like it.”

In a recent Wall Street Journal article, Governor Mitch Daniels of Indiana says, “Unless you're in favor of a fully nationalized health-care system, the president's health-care reform law is a massive mistake. It will amplify all the big drivers of overconsumption and excessive pricing.” Governor Daniels and twenty other governors recently signed a letter to Kathleen Sebelius requesting more flexibility on health care reform. That’s a step in the right direction and we think the best solution is to return the responsibility and authority for health care to the states, where the problem has a better chance of being solved.

State governments all across the country are tired of the encroachment of the federal government. As a result, several States have banded together to sue the Federal Government, asking judges to strike down ObamaCare as unconstitutional. These efforts are making progress, as several courts have now found the law unconstitutional. The US Supreme Court will ultimately determine if the law is constitutional or not. If they do the right thing, they will get rid of the problem – but there is no telling what will happen, and it could be years. Worse yet, the court may side with the lower courts that have upheld the law. The bottom line is that we need to do everything possible to make sure ObamaCare does not ravage our state’s healthcare system with its unfunded mandates and crippling tax increases. Simply put, when the prices of operating a business go up, the easiest place to save money is on wages. Businesses operating on the margins might have to reduce their workforce just to comply with ObamaCare.

The Missouri General Assembly continues to try to be part of the solution in the health care debate. In April we sent the Interstate Health Care Compact legislation (House Bill 423) to the Governor for his signature. An Interstate Compact is a legal device that states can use to work together aside from the Federal Government. We already have Interstate Compacts on issues as diverse as energy production, our border with Nebraska, and the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers. Compacts can be given legal powers from Congress that overrules Federal Laws. Authority for Interstate Compacts was established in the Constitution (Article I, Section 10), and more than 200 such agreements are currently in effect. The purpose of this legislation is to do away with the mandates of ObamaCare and return healthcare decisions to the member states within the Compact. I enthusiastically supported this important legislation and was one of the 105 favorable votes when the Missouri House passed it in March.

Missouri is the fourth state to send this Compact to its governor for signature. If enacted and authorized by Congress this Compact will result in “block grants” to the member states and health decisions being made at the state level-which will certainly not include the health care mandate required under ObamaCare. I would encourage you to contact Governor Nixon and express your opinion on this important subject.
http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=106 Monday, June 6, 2011 When I was a child most children in America had the good fortune of living in homes with both of their parents. All parents were not great parents but most of them did a good job of supporting their children and providing adequate food, clothing and shelter. Today the two parent family is a minority. I recently read of a poll that indicated that even married couples were also less common than other living arrangements.

I certainly have a lot of concern and regret about these changes. A good argument can be made that some of these changes occurred in part because of government action. When decisions were made fifty years ago by our Federal and state governments to pay welfare payments only when the father was not present in the home, the resulting absence of fathers in the home should not be surprising.

One action by government in response to the problems created when both parents don’t do right by their children by providing support is laws making it easier to collect support from dead-beat parents who are not paying child support. These efforts started several years ago. I was involved in efforts to modernize the law relating to child support collections in the recently concluded 96th Regular Session of the Missouri General Assembly.

I was the chief sponsor of House Bill 260 that is now awaiting the Governor’s signature. This bill incorporates the 2008 version of the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act into Missouri law. If signed by Governor Nixon, Missouri will be the twenty-third state to adopt this model legislation. If adopted, this legislation facilitates enforcement of child support where a parent attempts to escape payment by moving to another state or country. This law would prevent the obligated parent from shopping for more lenient enforcement provisions in other states.

My legislation strengthens the legal effect of orders entered by a court in the home state and prevents another state from entering an order inconsistent with Missouri law where the order was originally entered in Missouri, unless the parties agree. This most significant change in this legislation is to make it easier for local court process for enforcing or modifying a foreign country's order where the foreign court refuses to enforce or modify. It allows a Missouri resident to seek support from a parent located in any foreign country that has entered into The Hague Convention relating to family support orders. This modernization of child support law is designed to see that all parents meet their legal and moral obligation to provide support for their children.

Since Speaker Steven Tilley gave me the responsibility as Chairman of the Standing Committee on the Judiciary, I have endeavored to attempt to make changes that will help individuals, including those responsible for obtaining the support due children, have the legal tools available which will allow them to navigate the legal issues involved and obtain the support needed for these children. This legislation will help these people.
http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=105 Monday, May 23, 2011 Missourians deserve openness in state spending. Transparency in state government promotes efficiency in the use of our resources and helps protect us all from the corruption that can occur when no one knows how our precious state funds are being spent. During my service in the Missouri General Assembly, I have filed legislation that was designed to open the windows to state government so the public can judge the actions of both elected and appointed State officials. This includes legislation in 2009 that was eventually signed into law in 2010 that mandated that future Governors keep the Missouri Accountability Portal web site up and running. This web site includes information about contracts that our state government enters into with various vendors.

One class of vendors that was not included in the Missouri Accountability Portal legislation was contracts with private attorneys who are sometimes hired by State government. While there may be certain circumstances under which this practice of government hiring outside lawyers is justified, its expanded use in recent years and the opportunity for abuse make the establishment of certain hiring guidelines a prudent policy. Because these hired attorneys are often paid only if their case is successful, a profit motive arises where a public-interest of the State should take precedence. Some have even suggested that the hiring of outside lawyers by local and state politicians is part of a corrupt practice known as “pay for play”. Under this variant of “pay for play”, a politician grants a lawyer a lucrative contingency fee contract without a public knowledge or competitive bid and sometimes earlier or later the politician receive a generous political contribution.

A Wall Street Journal analysis of this practice documented the extent of campaign giving by plaintiffs' law firms specializing in shareholder litigation. It found that of 25 leading law firms that specialize in this type of litigation, their lawyers and family members contributed a total of more than $21 million in the past decade to state-level candidates and party funds, as well as to national-party groups that work to elect state officials.

Earlier this year I filed House Bill 255 to address the increasing prevalence of government officials hiring outside private attorneys on contingency fee to conduct litigation on behalf of the state. This legislation would prohibit any state agency or agent from retaining a lawyer or law firm until an open and competitive bidding process has been undertaken. My goal was to reduce the opportunity for “pay for play” under such contracts in our state.

Other Missouri legislators, including State Senator Brian Munzlinger, filed similar legislation aimed at addressing this problem. Senator Munzlinger’s bill, referred to as the “Private Attorney Retention Sunshine Act”, was passed this year and included in legislation that I initiated in the House. My bill, House Bill 111, came back from the Senate on the last day of session, May 13th with the “Private Attorney Retention Sunshine Act” as a part of it. I am very pleased to have played a part in passing this important legislation.

This legislation which did not get very much play in the media, might be some of the most important legislation passed this year. By opening the process in hiring this lawyers and requiring competitive bidding, the opportunity for abuse for political purposes is significantly reduced. This law which is awaiting the Governor’s signature will help ensure that State funds are not used to promote the candidacy of politicians.
http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=104 Monday, May 16, 2011 The First Regular Session of Missouri’s 96th General Assembly concluded on May 13th. I am proud of the progress and changes we were able to make on behalf of Missouri families and the citizens of this state. It is hard to believe, but just five and a half months ago I started my weekly journey to the state capitol through the snow and cold weather.

Today however, spring is here and as a new season shares its rejuvenation we in the general assembly feel there is a lot of rejuvenation in store for our state. When we began session, we started with our pledge to live within our means, keep taxes low, and balance our state budget. We have successfully completed all of those things made significant changes in the culture in Jefferson City as well. We started sooner than ever before, our Speaker Steven Tilley gave the minority party more power and a greater voice, and ushered in a new era of greater cooperation among elected officials.

Throughout this session our top priority was creating jobs for Missouri and we successfully passed measures that would reduce regulations and cut down on frivolous lawsuits for small businesses and family farms. We even cut taxes for some small businesses. Over the next several weeks I will discuss many legislative initiatives that we have sent to the Governor and others that did not pass. I am very pleased to report that I was the chief sponsor in the House of six bills that were Truly Agreed and Finally Passed. This week I want to report about one of my bills that I was able to get passed. The idea for this one came to me from a local constituent.

Some time ago I was contacted by a pastor of a small church located in the 118th District. The Missouri Department of Natural Resources (DNR) had apparently made a random inspection of the church’s water well and determined that it was not safe. Shortly afterwards the pastor contacted a local well digger to determine the cost of a replacement well and was shocked to find out that it would cost as much as $40,000. An ordinary domestic well used my homeowners usually cost between $6000 and $8000.

The pastor contacted me and asked if I could help. After I investigated this matter I determined that low quantity users of well water could safely use the water wells which are currently permitted for multifamily users but that Missouri law did not allow it. These multifamily wells can be constructed for a small fraction of the cost of commercial wells that state law currently requires. To fix this problem, I drafted legislation with the help of DNR that adjusted Missouri law to allow the use of these less expensive wells which will provide safe water to churches and other benevolent organizations that exist all across our state. This same legislation assures that these same churches and other benevolent organizations will not have to replace, change, upgrade, or alter their existing wells as long as they provide safe water and do not pose a threat to ground water.

Regretfully, this fix to Missouri law did not come quick enough to help this particular church congregation. After the passage of several extensions granted by DNR, this local church had to go ahead and construct this very expensive commercial well last year. Despite this set back, the church pastor volunteered to again come back to Jefferson City for the legislation hearing on the bill that I sponsored, House Bill 250.

With the pastor’s help and the help of a lot of other people, I was able to finally pass this legislation that will help rural churches all across Missouri for years to come. Truly, some of the best ideas for legislation have come from my constituents. My personally pledge to residents in the 118th District is to find common sense solutions to the problems that we encounter. If you have an idea that might make things better in Missouri, please don’t hesitate to contact me.
http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=103 Saturday, May 7, 2011 In the 2005 the Missouri General Assembly passed into law a requirement that individuals present photographic identification when they vote in person. This was in response to the public concern about something odd that had happened in St. Louis during the 2004 presidential election and that in several counties - there were more individuals on the registered voting lists than people who actually lived there.

An unfortunate reality of recent elections is that instances of voter fraud have continued. As recently as last couple years an Illinois man was prosecuted for voting for President in both Missouri and Illinois and ACORN workers were charged with election fraud in Kansas City. Missouri has a long history of voter fraud especially in the urban center. For a people that cherish the right to vote as much as American, this practice is troubling.

When the 2005 Photo ID requirement was challenged in court, the Missouri Supreme Court said that this requirement was unconstitutional under state law, because voting is a fundamental right under our state constitution, and one or two named individuals in the case may have a hard time getting the photographic identification required to vote. Voting is a fundamental right. It should be protected to the fullest extent of the law. One way to protect the right to vote is to make sure that everyone’s vote counts equally. When individuals vote illegally, it reduces the value of the legally cast ballots – as they literally have less power.

I have worked on this issue with others for over four years. I am the primary sponsor in the House of a proposed Constitutional Amendment known as the “Voter Protection Act “. This measure is designed to protect Missourian’s fundamental right to vote. The Missouri Supreme Court still doesn’t agree, so we’re going to poll the people. At the next statewide election, you will likely have the opportunity to vote on Senate’s version of the “Voter Protection Act “designated as Senate Joint Resolution 2. This is an Amendment to our State Constitution that would also allow early voting, and also would grant the legislature the power to specifically require voters to present photographic identification at the polls.

This important legislation would require voters to produce a form of photo identification when voting to help reduce fraud and abuse in our elections. I believe that in this day and age, requiring photo identification to vote is a common sense requirement. We all need a photo ID to cash a check, rent a movie, buy Sudafed or get on an airplane. To ensure that this measure does not discourage voting, we have created exemptions for the older Missourians (born before 1941), the disabled, and those unable to afford the documents necessary to obtain proper identification.

I believe that requiring identification protects those of us who vote legally from those that don’t. The courts don’t agree. On this issue, you will get to decide if the Senate finally passes this legislation prior to the May 13 adjournment. If they do, you will have an opportunity next year to protect our right to vote by amending our constitution to allow us to require photographic identification for voting.
http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=102 Sunday, April 24, 2011 On April 13th the Missouri House finally passed the “Canine Cruelty Prevention Act" (Senate Bill 113) which has now been sent to the Governor to either approve or veto. This legislation is very similar my House Bill 131 which was previously debated on the floor of the Missouri House. The aim of this legislation is to fix the problems which in Proposition B which was approved by Missouri voter last November by the very thin margin statewide of 51.6% in favor. This very close vote occurred despite the fact that the opponents to these Prop B spent very little in advertising when an out of State radical animal rights organization spent millions in support of this vote. According to the Columbia Missourian, almost 2.3 Million Dollars used to support the media campaign in favor of Proposition B was raised from outside of Missouri. These animal rights organization have stated their objective to outlaw animal agriculture and to ban hunting. They certainly avoided stating these radical positions when promoting Prop B last year.

As I described in prior Capitol Reports this voters initiative had several deficiencies. The first problem with Prop B is that it eliminates thousands of Missouri jobs. In the public hearings of my bill in the Missouri House Agriculture Policy Committee no one disputed this conclusion. Everyone agrees that no existing licensed dog breeder could meet its requirements. Unfortunately, neither Veterinarians Associations, industry standards, nor the Missouri Department of Agriculture was consulted in creating the language behind the Prop B legislation. One example of a Prop B weakness would be the mandatory temperature range for dog facilities that would ban the use of heat lamps for pups. Veterinarians who testified confirmed some young puppies would die under this regulation. Another shortcoming of Prop B is that it provides no funds to ensure regulation of the pet breeding industry Most of Missouri’s dog breeders are small family operations that raise dogs because they love them, and they want to supplement their income. Proposition B will literally put them out of business – while those already operating illegally will continue to do so. Unchanged, Proposition B hurts legitimate dog breeders.

The bill which is now on Governor Nixon’s desk allows hundreds of family owned licensed pet breeding facilities owners who do a good job to stay in business. It helps retain several thousand jobs in rural Missouri. It increases the license fee to provide funding for inspection of licensed facilities and to promote Operation Bark Alert which targets unlicensed facilities. This legislation increases from a maximum fee of $500 to $2500 plus an additional fee of $25 for Operation Bark Alert. The bill uses scientific principles, industry standards, Veterinarians, and the Department of Agriculture to help set requirements. It further defines the process in which the Department of Agriculture handles repeat offenders of violations in their facilities and requires the Attorney General and prosecuting attorneys to file charges.

By eliminating the 50 breeding dog limit of Prop B and recognizing that all breeds do not have the same health and space requirements the legislation passed by the General Assembly allows good dog breeders to stay in business. The legislation clearly provides more regulation on the dog breeders than existed under prior law, but the regulation improves the business of dog breeding rather than eliminating it.

In an additional welcome development last week an agreement was entered into between the Humane Society of Missouri and organizations representing dog breeders to attempt to pass additional legislation this year to put into statute some of the regulations that the Department of Agriculture is expect to enact in connection with this legislation. Under these rules, caging standards are expected to gradually increase, giving licensed commercial breeders time to adapt. This legislation is expected to provide for annual, hands-on veterinary exams and larger cages with outdoor runs. The Governor also promised to propose more funding for the inspectors in the Department of Agriculture.

Despite the efforts of Missouri residents to come to a reasonable resolution of this controversy, both the Humane Society of the United States and the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals expressed disappointment with the agreement. Their conduct of refusing to support these reasonable changes which will give additional protection to dogs but allow the dog breeding industry to survive confirms the true radical agenda of these organizations.
http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=101 Saturday, April 9, 2011 While Washington D.C. struggled and literally faced a potential shut down last week– the Missouri House continues to work to improve our state’s job climate. Last week we passed several measures to help jump-start our economy. Our efforts included work on legislation eliminating the state’s franchise tax on businesses, promoting international trade at Lambert Airport in St. Louis, and providing incentives to high-tech businesses to locate in our state. It has been our primary goal this session to create Missouri jobs for Missouri residents. These bills are a part of our efforts.

Missouri’s franchise tax is not simply a tax on businesses that are franchises. It is a tax on a corporation’s income as well as its assets, and it applies to every Missouri Corporation worth more than one million dollars. Proponents of the repeal argued that often when businesses are weighing where they should locate in the future, they choose states without franchise taxes. Businesses like these therefore would avoid locating in Missouri as long as the tax is in place.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, Missouri only collects about 3% of its revenue from corporate taxes of any kind and the franchise tax is only part of this collection. This tax cut will help attract more businesses to open, expand, or relocate to Missouri. We can create more jobs by allowing businesses to flourish than we ever could by raising taxes. In the next fiscal year the franchise tax cut is expected to save Missouri businesses $16,554,054 - that is a lot of jobs. The year after that, it would save Missouri businesses upwards of $35,000,000. By the time the franchise tax is completely phased-out in five years, Missouri businesses will be saving around $85,000,000 a year. That is 850 new $100,000 jobs that could be created, or 1,700 new $50,000 jobs. This incentive will encourage essential job creation. The franchise tax elimination which we passed will be delivered to the governor for his signature.

The House last week also passed a plan to make Lambert Airport in St. Louis a major international trade hub from products coming from Asia. Our proposal would provide tax incentives to freight haulers who used the airport in international trade. This proposal is essential to create an international marketplace in Missouri and a demand for our products internationally. The creation of this market will bring new jobs and new investment to our state. Lambert-St. Louis International Airport is not being fully utilized and is capable of becoming a hub for international trade routes. The amount of economic activity generated by these trade routes should be immense.

Finally we perfected another economic incentives bill to bring new high-tech companies to Missouri. House Bill 468 will create the Missouri Science and Innovation Reinvestment Act, or MOSIRA, and attract data center businesses to our state. The field of science and innovation technology is growing rapidly and competition among states to attract this corporation is intense. Missouri needs these programs and incentives to move ahead. By offering incentives for science and technology corporations to locate in Missouri many new jobs will be created around the state, not just in these fields, but in other industries with goods or services that support the science and technology corporations.

These last two bills still have some procedural hurdles left to jump before they are finally passed. This session continues to be centered on job creation. It is our goal to turn around the economic climate of this state, people who want to work should have the opportunity to get good jobs. The best way we can do this is to bring more good jobs to this state.
http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=100 Sunday, April 3, 2011 Shortly after I learned that Missouri House Speaker Steven Tilley decided to appoint me as the Chairman of the Standing Committee on the Judiciary, I meet with representatives of the Missouri Association of Prosecuting Attorneys about a concern that had with a report that is prepared for Missouri Judges who are about to determine the sentence of individuals found guilty of felonies in our State. Their concern was that a portion of the reports include misleading information that has caused some judges to give too lenient sentences for convicted criminals including certain violent offenders and sex offenders.

Prosecutors were concerned about Missouri Sentencing Advisory Commission (MoSAC) recommended sentences, which provides for one-size-fits-all recommendations are inappropriate. The recidivism data provided by MoSAC are often seriously misleading to judges and policymakers. These Prosecutors believe that MoSAC's recommendations have little value because they are not based on rigorous scientific data. Because of my concern for these issues, I filed House Bill 257 earlier this year which would stop the distribution of the erroneous recidivism data to sentencing judges. This bill has moved thru the House and is now awaiting consideration on the House floor.

The defects in the preparation of these reports are the use of incorrect assumptions to reach the conclusion that probation is always better than incarceration. They reach this conclusion by ignoring the social costs of not incarcerating serious offenders. Serious scientific have indicated that the imprisoning serious offenders rather than granting them probation might actually protect society from 15 additional crimes per defendant jailed. These misleading reports only consider the financial cost to the State to keep a criminal locked up. It is certainly correct that operating a prison system is very expensive. Yet, it is a core responsibility of state government to run the criminal justice system which not only designed to rehabilitate and punish wrongdoers but also are essential to the protection of our citizens. These reports fail to recognize that it is better for society to imprison many of these most serious offenders.

I was persuaded that the Prosecutor were correct in their concern when they shared actual situations that have recently occurred in Missouri courts. Geveshausen pled guilty to seven sex crimes. She admitted repeatedly engaging in sexual acts with her 16-year-old daughter and also allowing her boyfriend to have sex with her daughter and to record the crimes on videotape. During some of the sex acts, the girl is visibly pregnant. During others, she is bound. Nevertheless, the Sentencing Advisory Commission recommendation was for probation. Fortunately, the sentencing court ignored the MoSAC recommendation and sentenced Geveshausen to a total of 58 years in prison.

I would be less concerned with these unjust recommendations if the sentencing judge always ignored them. Unfortunately that is not always the case. West was convicted trial of selling crack cocaine near an elementary school. On two occasions, West sold $100 worth of crack cocaine to an undercover detective. A few days later, the undercover detective arranged to buy $500 of crack cocaine from West. When West arrived to complete the final transaction, he was arrested. All of the sales occurred across the street from an elementary school. During one of the narcotics sales, children were playing soccer in the school playground across the street. West, who had earlier posted bond, fled the courthouse during a lunch break in his trial and did not return. West was convicted of three class A felonies, including two counts of delivering a controlled substance near a school and one count of second degree drug trafficking. Despite all of this, the Sentencing Advisory Commission recommendation was for probation, which the Court imposed.

MoSAC continues to make recommendations which are not based on science and are unjust. The most outrages recommendations involve sex offenders and those found guilty of assaults. My concern is that this Commission, which is not transparent in its operation and produces misleading data, can give a few liberal judges an excuse to put these serious criminal offenders on probation when society would be better off if they go to prison. I have come to the conclusion that the best way to deal with this Missouri Sentencing Advisory is to abolish the Commission and save the taxpayers the costs associated with it. That is the goal of HB 257.
http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=99 Sunday, March 20, 2011 On March 3, 2008 a 54 year old Crestwood, Missouri man received serious injuries that resulted in his death two days later when he was knocked to the ground by a 19 year old man from Georgia in a parking lot of a Starbucks coffee shop in St. Louis. The events that lead to the older mans death began a few minutes before when the Georgia man stole a tip jar from the counter inside the Starbucks and the older man chased him outside in an unsuccessful attempt to stop the thief. The criminal was arrested by police shortly afterwards and eventually plead guilty to involuntary manslaughter and was sentenced to a year in the county jail.

What is most unusual about this story are the subsequent events. After his release from jail the criminal attended an unusual reunion at the store last year, in which two of sons of the victim and other relatives rewarded him with forgiveness, saying they knew he intended no harm. According to the St. Louis Post Dispatch, “They hugged and cried together and planted a memorial tree.” The family of the victim has now filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the Starbucks alleging that Starbucks "did not employ security to prevent the perpetration of such crimes" and that it "invited the act of perpetration of said crime" by having a tip jar. The suit claims that as a "direct and proximate" result of this their relative died. The family of the victim is claiming unspecified money damages against Starbucks. The killer was not named as a defendant in the lawsuit.

You might ask how this is possible. The kill after serving a short jail sentence is forgiven but the owner of the store is defending a lawsuit for having a tip jar on the counter. The answer to this puzzling situation is the state of our civil law in Missouri which has developed over the last twenty years that frequently hold a merchant liable for damages caused by a third party criminal when the merchant had no reason to foresee the situation. Missouri law has expanded the scope of premises liability for business owners in recent years, going so far as to hold a business owner liable where there is a history of unrelated criminal or violent acts in the vicinity of the business. More and more, the liability of illegal activities of third parties that are committed on a business owner’s property is being placed unfairly on Missouri businesses.

In order to fix this bizarre result, I am the chief sponsor to House Bill 252. This legislation is designed to correct this inequity in the law. My bill, the “Business Premises Safety Act”, is an attempt to codify the common law as it had previously been. House Bill 252 would require a plaintiff to prove that the business owner knew or had reason to know that the criminal acts that caused damage “are occurring or are about to occur on the premises.” The criminal acts must “pose imminent probability of injury to a person.” The plaintiff may prove that the “same criminal acts have occurred on the premises within the prior 24 months” and that they are “likely to occur again.” I am pleased to report to you that this legislation was passed by the Missouri House last week 117-38.

My legislation is common sense tort reform which will help attract and keep business in Missouri which will result in jobs for our citizens. By filing this legislation I hope to restore some reason and predictability to property owners when they have done nothing wrong. Strange lawsuits like the one recently filed against Starbucks have been the result of Missouri appellate court rulings that seemed to be designed to find deep pockets rather than justice. My recent appointment to Chairman to the Standing Committee on the Judiciary of the Missouri House puts me in a better position to work to correct some of these problems in our laws.

The same legislation has a provision that confirms the right of a business invitee to keep a lawfully possessed firearm in their motor vehicle when their vehicle is parked in the parking lot of a merchant. This provision helps protect the 2nd Amendment Rights of law abiding citizens. This bill now moves to the Senate for consideration.
http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=98 Saturday, March 12, 2011 On March 11th the Obama administration granted the first federal permit for deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico since a moratorium was put in place last May. With the political instability in Libya, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere in the Middle East gasoline pump prices have began to surge. Last week I paid $3.37 per gallon. Many experts are predicting $4.00 per gallon gasoline this summer and possibly higher later this year. These facts make it clear that we must free ourselves from our dependence of foreign oil and use the domestic and other reliable sources of oil which are readily available.

Since President Obama assumed office gas prices have risen 87%. Part of the explanation is that global demand for oil is rising, and the competition for foreign resources has intensified. By 2035, the United States, Japan, Europe, China, and India are projected to need 25 percent more imported oil than in 2005, with China and India accounting for the major portion of that increase.

Also part of the explanation to our current crisis is that the Obama Administration has not done what is prudent in regard to our domestic energy sources. Oil and gas exploration in the Gulf's deep waters has been stopped since May, when President Barack Obama announced a six-month drilling moratorium in the wake of the April explosion of the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig, which killed 11 workers and set off the worst offshore oil spill in U.S. history. The administration lifted the ban in October—a month ahead of schedule—but hadn't issued until last week any permits for new deep water oil wells. In January, The Wall Street Journal reported that the delay has hurt both the oil industry, which has seen billions of dollars in projects put on hold, and the Gulf Coast's economy, which has been hit hard by the slowdown.

Rather than dwelling on the ill-conceived “cap and trade” legislation designed to reduce carbon emissions, the President needs to encourage domestic exploration of our substantial petroleum reserves currently locked up in Alaska, off-shore and shale oil in our Western States. According to the Energy Information Agency, domestic offshore oil production will fall 13 percent in 2011, a loss of about 220,000 barrels/day, mainly due to the continued lack of permits for the Golf of Mexico. If we use the reserves that we have and increase domestic refining, we can protect our nations from the uncertainty caused by unreliable foreign markets.

In addition to failing to develop domestic markets the Obama Administration is setting on their hands in granting a permit which would permit additional Canadian crude oil to be delivered to the United States by pipeline. On June 30, 2010, TransCanada Corporation commenced commercial operation of the first phase of the Keystone Pipeline System. Keystone's first phase was highlighted by the 537 mile conversion of natural gas pipeline to crude oil pipeline and construction of an innovative bullet line that brings the crude oil non-stop from Canada through North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri and Illinois to market hubs in the U.S. Midwest.

When completed, the planned project will increase the commercial capacity of the Keystone Pipeline System from 590,000 barrels per day to approximately 1.1 million barrels per day. This indecision by the President has been made based upon unreasonable environmental concerns. Realizing that this may bring some immediate relief to our State, I recently signed a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton which was signed by dozens of state legislators across our nation encouraging her to act promptly on this permit request. I am hoping for a prompt decision.

If we are to have a stable and reliable energy supply, we need to act now to unlock our vast domestic oil reserves and take advantage of the oil available from our neighbor to the north.
http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=97 Sunday, March 6, 2011 I was not surprised that Proposition B passed last November. Proposition B was the legislative initiative designed to further regulate the pet breeding industry in Missouri. I assumed that the language on the ballot approved by Secretary of State Robin Carnahan described this entire industry as “puppy mills” could have only one outcome-a favorable vote. Despite the outcome, I surprised in the closeness of the vote. The measure passed by the very thin margin statewide of 51.6% in favor. This was surprising in that state-wide public opinion poll taken in February of 2010 showed that over 90% of the respondents favored this legislative change.

The vote in the 118th Legislative District was markedly different than the state-wide vote with almost 64% of voters opposed to this proposal. Similar to the 118th.District, this measure failed in 103 of Missouri’s 114 counties. This change of opinion from February to November was a result of some grass roots opposition to this measure which helped the voters to recognize the problems with this proposal. As the campaign proceeded, many voters recognized what the Springfield-News Leader editorial opined, “the measure [was] well intentioned, but not in the state’s best interest.”

I certainly support humane treatment of all animals. I know that those who voted in favor of Prop B were certainly well intentioned. But, a careful looks at the inadequacies of Proposition B have lead me to the clear belief that changes need to be made. At the urging of many of my constituents, I filed a bill to make some common sense changes to this legislation. The goal of my proposed legislation (House Bill 131) is to prevent abuse of animals associated with dog breeding. I know this is the intent of the voters. The voters did not intending a wholesale destruction of the dog breeding business in our State. It is my belief that some modifications of Prop B can maintain the will of the voters and allow the dog breeding business to continue.

The first problem with Prop B is that it eliminates thousands of jobs. In the public hearings of my bill in the Missouri House Agriculture Policy Committee no one disputed this conclusion. Everyone agrees that no existing licensed dog breeder could meet its requirements. Unfortunately, neither Veterinarians Associations, industry standards, nor was the Missouri Department of Agriculture consulted in creating the language behind the legislation. One example of Prop B weakness would be the mandatory temperature range for dog facilities that would ban the use of heat lamps for pups. Veterinarians who testified confirmed some young puppies would die under this regulation. Another shortcoming of Prop B is that it provides no funds to ensure regulation of the pet breeding industry. Prop B also fails to address the issue of unhealthy puppies who enter into the market place.

The current version of my legislation which has passed out of this Committee allows hundreds of family owned licensed pet breeding facilities who do a good job to stay in business. It helps retain several thousand jobs in rural Missouri. It doubles the required number of veterinarian visits to the facilities. It increases the license fee to provide funding for inspection of licensed facilities and to promote Operation Bark Alert which targets unlicensed facilities. This legislation increases from a maximum fee of $500 to $2000 plus an additional fee of $25 for Operation Bark Alert. The bill uses scientific principles, industry standards, Veterinarians, and Department of Agriculture to help set requirements. It requires puppies purchased from exempt operations to have same vaccination and health requirements as those sold from licensed facilities. The bill increases the penalty for breeders having stacked cages without impervious barrier. It further defines the process in which the Department of Agriculture handles repeat offenders of violations in their facilities and requires the Attorney General and prosecuting attorneys to file charges.

By eliminating the 50 breeding dog limit of Prop B and recognizing that all breeds do not have the same health and space requirements my legislation allows good dog breeders to stay in business. In addition to criminal penalties violations this, provides injunctive relief and civil penalties up to $1000 for each violation. The legislation clearly provides more regulation on the dog breeders than existed under prior law, but the regulation improves the business of dog breeding rather than eliminating it.
http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=96 Saturday, February 26, 2011 Transparency is crucial to improving the accountability and responsibility of state government. Last week the Missouri House of Representatives took a great step at increasing transparency in our state government. The two largest classes of local government entities in Missouri are counties and school districts. These entities have budgets that are sometimes millions of dollars and all of them receive revenue from local taxpayers. Because these entities are so large and receive such a large portion of their revenue from local taxpayers, we felt it was important to provide people public access to the financial situation these entities are facing. Currently there is no easy way to get this information. The information is public, but incredibly hard to find.

As a result of our concerns, we passed HB 139 last week. This bill requires school districts and county governments to collect information that is already public and send it to the Missouri Accountability Portal at – http://mapyourtaxes.mo.gov/ . The Missouri Accountability Portal currently displays only the salaries of most state workers, those applying for state tax credits, and the expenditures of state agencies. This legislation requires disclosure of information from counties and school districts.

Once this information is sent to the Portal, individuals will be able to search for all kinds of information as well as public employee salaries. In addition to compensation data, school districts would need to provide the school calendar, the district budget, and school policies. County governments must also collect and provide their budget for inclusion on the internet web site.

During floor debate an amendment was added that would require the Governor to disclose how much money he is spending on state travel and the purpose of the trips. Gov. Nixon’s travel has come under great scrutiny lately when we found out he has spent nearly $400,000 in statewide travel since being in office. Aside from the staggering amount, some of the events he went to were sporting events and political events. While it is important for our Governor to be able to travel the state, especially in emergencies, better transparency on this issue would also lead to more accountability. Incidentally, this amendment passed the House by a unanimous vote.

With this information is available on the internet, citizens will be able to hold their county and school district officials accountable for the decisions they make. We will also be able to keep a better eye on the Governor’s extensive travel habits and make sure they are appropriate. It’s your taxpayer money and you should have better access to how it is spent. Also, researchers will be able to use the information to compare salaries across counties and school districts, as well as other data. This could help develop ideas to reduce costs and create more efficiency.

Right now it’s hard to develop plans on how to save money on a state-wide level without easily knowing where it is all being spent and this legislation is a step in the right direction. By this change of law, we have opened the window to State and local government units.
http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=95 Saturday, February 19, 2011 Because few rights are as sacred as our right to vote, one of the basic responsibilities of government is the fair and accurate administration of the elections. To help ensure fair and accurate elections in Missouri, the Missouri House Elections Committee forwarded House Joint Resolution 14 and House Bill 329 last week for consideration by the House of Representatives. This important legislation requires voters to produce photo identification before voting and would establish procedures to allow early voting. I am the chief sponsor of HJR 14 and Representative John Diehl of Town and Country is the chief sponsor to HB 329. John and I and other members of the House Elections Committee have worked for a couple years to put together this pair of bills that will make it easier to vote and harder to cheat.

An unfortunate reality of recent elections is increased instances of voter fraud. As recently as last couple years an Illinois was prosecuted for voting for President in both Missouri and Illinois and ACORN workers were charged with election fraud in Kansas City. Missouri has a long history of voter fraud especially in the urban center. For a people that cherishes the right to vote as much as American, this practice is troubling. This important legislation would require voters to produce a form of photo identification when voting to help reduce fraud and abuse in our elections. We believe that in this day and age, requiring photo identification to vote is a common sense requirement. We all need a photo ID to cash a check, rent a movie, buy Sudafed or get on an airplane. To ensure that this measure does not discourage voting, we have created exemptions for the older Missourians (born before 1941), the disabled, and those unable to afford the documents necessary to obtain proper identification.

With the photo identification requirement, we have established necessary safeguards to help prevent voter fraud and ensure the integrity of our elections. It is important to point out that through this bill, the state is required to provide at least one form of personal identification required to vote, at no cost, to a qualified citizen who does not already possess the required identification and cannot afford to get one.

Currently, there are thirty-two states that allow early voting. But unfortunately, Missouri is not yet one of them. This pair of legislation would provide an early voting period for those individuals who choose to vote before Election Day. It would also establish regional voting centers to ensure broad access to the early voting process. By giving voters a wider opportunity to vote, access to the electoral process will improve and voter participation might increase.

For too long, Missouri’s election laws have lacked many of the statutory provisions available to other states that encourage electoral participation and provide the necessary safeguards to prevent voter fraud and abuse. With the initial passage of House Joint Resolution 14 and House Bill 329, we are one step closer real elections reforms that will effectively promote increased participation and ensure free and fair elections. To fully implement this legislation, voter would have to approve HJR 14 later next year.
http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=94 Saturday, February 5, 2011 Despite the snow, ice and strong winds of last week’s blizzard, the work in Missouri’s House to fix our economy continues. We are working to improve the environment for small businesses, entrepreneurs, and large employers by making it easier for them to do business in our state.

The Missouri House Republicans continued sending a strong message to the business community this week when we moved forward a proposal to limit a worker’s liability when their co-workers have a work related injury. One recent court decision held that if an employee is working and one of their co-workers is injured on the job, that co-worker can sue their fellow employees for action or inaction in addition to their worker’s compensation case. So, if you’re at work, simply doing your job, and a co-worker gets injured, they may try to hold you civilly liable for money damages.

House Bill 91, a Worker’s Compensation fix was passed out of the Rules Committee in which I serve last Monday and will likely see floor action this week. This act overrules the recent court ruling that allows workers to sue their fellow employees when they get hurt. “The success of Missouri’s small business owners is the key to turning this economy around and to do that we have to make some fundamental changes to our business environment” said Rep. Steve Tilley, Speaker of the Missouri House.

Prior to this court ruling, fellow servants (co-workers) could not be sued for workplace injuries unless the injury was caused by willful or intentional acts. HB 91 restores the prior law and provides that an employee cannot receive double compensation in these situations. That injured employee will still be able to recover for the work related injury under Worker’s Compensation. This potential for double liability can have a significant impact on employers in Missouri. If not fixed, this problem could result in employers moving to other states and a loss of jobs in our State.

Why would a new business want to locate in a state with this kind of legal environment? Unfortunately not enough do, and we need to change it. Testifying against this common sense reform was limited to the Missouri Association of Trial Attorneys. . It appears to me that they are more interested in business for themselves rather than jobs for the rest of us.

Job creation is a key element to the Show Me Solutions initiative announced by House Speaker Steven Tilley last month. The Republican majority believe the best way to create new jobs is overhauling Missouri’s business environment through fundamental changes. Anything we can do to reduce the frivolous lawsuits that our business owners are now enduring will help turn this economy around. One big judgment against a small business owner can mean to loss of two, three or more employees’ jobs. These types of reforms such as HB 91 should lead to more jobs for Missourians.
http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=93 Saturday, January 29, 2011 Following up on our campaign pledge to root out waste and fraud in Jefferson City and make state government more accountable, legislation endorsed by the Republican majority in the Missouri House was given initial approval last week which will require a drug test for some welfare recipients. The Missouri House advanced this common-sense legislation to help Missouri’s economy and families. House Bill 73 would prevent illegal drug users from receiving certain state benefits. The bill would require the Department of Social Services (DSS) to develop a screening process for recipients of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Program. To be tested, DSS must have reasonable suspicion that a person is using illegal substances.

Sadly, around 60,000 children each month are TANF welfare payments. While this program means well, these benefits are distributed to whoever is registered as the child’s parent, and far too often these “parents” spend money meant to feed their child on themselves. One ugly example of how these welfare payments are spent is on drugs and alcohol. In bad cases parents are abusing taxpayer good will on a bad habit that is otherwise meant for hungry children, but in the worst instances pregnant “mothers” who receive the benefits are choosing a bad habit over their child. This legislation provides help for any affected children thru alternate caregivers if a parent is disqualified.

It is important that we help our state’s most needy citizens. Most of these citizens are responsible, hard-working members of society, just trying to keep their heads above water. But there are a small number of those who take advantage of the system. I believe in order to receive assistance from the state you must test drug-free. Many recipients have families and small children to care for, and a healthy home environment is vital for a meaningful childhood. This is why I cosponsored this legislation.

Based on data from 2010, there was an average of around 85,000 individuals on TANF every month. None of these individuals were tested for illegal drugs as a condition of receiving their money. However, most people can’t get a job today without taking a drug test, yet those who are receiving welfare are not made to take this same test. Speaker Steve Tilley in commenting on this proposal said, “Missouri families are facing tough times and we owe it to them to make sure people receiving state aid are using this money to get back on their feet, not to support a bad habit.”

Simply put, we can do better and we should do better. If we are going to decide to give assistance to needy children and families there must be some accountability to the taxpayers. Some Democrat members on the floor of the House criticized this proposal because they said it lacked compassion and was irresponsible. I feel like one of our greatest responsibilities is to taxpayers and not addressing this issue is abusing the compassion of all those Missourians whose hard earned dollars are helping these families get by. This legislation was passed the initial by a vote of 121 in favor and 37 against.
http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=92 Saturday, January 22, 2011 Last week Governor Jay Nixon gave his State of the State address to the General Assembly and the people of Missouri. Nixon skipped the opportunity to discuss his presented budget and instead focused on some past accomplishments. This is regrettable. With unemployment at 9.5% and most surrounding states performing better than we are, I had hoped to hear some specific ideas to lower this number and his ideas as to how to cut waste in State government.

Even as the Governor outlined some past successes there was a stark difference between his approach to economic development and the plan House Republicans are pursuing. Known as the Show Me Solutions Initiative, House Republicans have centered their job creation effort on proposals partnered with pro-business groups to improve the business environment. The Governor talked about tweaking, expanding, or consolidating in any number of programs, but we need to focus on the bigger picture and that should be improving the overall economic environment for small businesses to operate.

One of the measures House Republicans touted in their Show Me Solutions Initiative was HB 45, which they passed by a vote of 152 in favor an 11 against just hours before the Governor gave his address. HB 45 offers tax deductions incentives to small businesses that add new employees at the average annual county wage and doubled it if they also offer to pay for 50% of the new employee’s healthcare benefits. This legislation is aimed at small business because that will be the source of job creation if we hope to turn our economy around. In fact, through the committee process and on the floor we heard that there are over 100,000 small businesses in the Missouri and employees in those businesses account for 60% of employment. Those numbers show how important entrepreneurs and everyday Missourians are to our economy. Perhaps the most important provision in the bill stated that any new rules, fees, or mandates passed by the federal government must first be approved by our general assembly. The Show Me Solutions Initiative is based upon a philosophy that creating a stronger business climate is essential to turning our state around and getting us back on our feet economically.

I have had a chance to make a preliminary review of Governor Nixon’s budget. It included total reductions of about $300M in various programs, far less than the $700M previously promised by the Governor and his staff. The Governor proposed 863 job cuts statewide, while holding his own office staff harmless to any cuts. In contrast, House Speaker Tilley has led by example, by reducing his office budget by 15%.

I understand there are a lot of difficult decisions to make in state government and the Governor is at the forefront of making a lot of them, but this philosophical difference will probably be a key point of dissention of how we decide to improve the job creation climate in the state of Missouri. We should all be willing to make bold decisions and lead by example, that’s why we were elected. This week we started off with a great bill to encourage entrepreneurs to hire new employees and create a more stable and fair business climate for the state of Missouri. These are the kind of decisions we want to continue to lead with as we continue through the rest of the legislative session.
http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=91 Saturday, January 15, 2011 On August 3rd, 2010 the people of Missouri made their voice heard clearly through the ballot box. Proposition C, the Healthcare Freedom Act, passed overwhelming by 71.1% propelling Missouri to the forefront of a national fight over this important issue. The vote in favor of Proposition C in our community was even higher at approximately 75% of the total cast. With the overwhelming bipartisan support Proposition C passed in 114 of 116 election jurisdictions—including every county in the state—garnering more than 668,000 votes in Missouri. However, despite this call from the people of Missourians to reject this federal intrusion, two of our key state leaders have remained silent on their duties to uphold and defend the will of the people.

House Resolution 39, sponsored by Ward Franz of West Plains, was adopted by the Missouri House last week which aims to address this issue and calls on Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster to defend the citizens of Missouri by joining in the multi-state lawsuit against the implementation of the federal healthcare mandate passed by Congress as part of Obamacare. More than twenty other states have now signed onto the lawsuit. HR39 specifically addresses the failure of Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster to join the lawsuit given the overwhelming support Missouri voters displayed last August against this new federal mandate. HR39 goes further to proclaim that the mandated healthcare bill is a clear misuse of the Commerce Clause within the US Constitution and that the penalty for failure to purchase healthcare is unconstitutional.

I was proud that in just the second week of the legislative session Republicans in the Missouri House of Representatives wasted no time in moving this resolution through committee and to the House floor. We were proud to stand up for the overwhelming number of Missourians who sent us to Jefferson City to take on battles just like this. Unfortunately, one by one House Democrats stood in opposition to HR39 and continued to defend the damaging policies of President Obama and former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.

One of the key amendments added on the House floor also encouraged Gov. Jay Nixon to take action and make a stand as well. As the Chief Executive of the state and the former Attorney General we feel it is important for the Governor to get involved on behalf of the people of Missouri. As pointed out on the House floor, it has been six months since the people of Missouri have voiced their opinion and the Attorney General and Governor have still not taken any action.

While the debate on the Healthcare Freedom Act was heated and lively, bipartisanship was still not lost. Last week, we also passed new House Rules under which we operate as a legislative body. Under these Rules power was extended to the minority to have a greater voice in the process. “I made it clear we were going to lead by example and change the culture of politics in our state,” said Speaker Steve Tilley. “ These efforts are just the beginning of our pledge to deliver substantive changes in the first 50 days of session.” I am pleased to have played a role in the adoption of these Rules which do give a greater voice to the minority and therefore create a more bipartisan environment in our state capitol.
http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=90 Sunday, January 9, 2011 In his Opening Session Address on Wednesday January the 5th, the new leader of the Missouri House of Representatives, Speaker Steven Tilley, set forth a bold agenda for the Missouri House as we begin this year’s legislative work titled the “Show Me Solutions Initiative” that encompasses five (5) key areas: Job Creation, Taxes and Spending, Government Accountability, Education, and Healthcare. Over the next few weeks, I will focus in on each of these topics. First, I will discuss what the State of Missouri can do to help create jobs.

Speaker Tilley outlined several specific proposals to encourage Job Creation in our State. At the same time Tilley, recognized our real hope for prosperity when we said, “Government does not create jobs. Entrepreneurs, small business owners, and large employers do. Government’s role is not to run the economy, but to facilitate a business climate where the entrepreneurial spirit can thrive.”

He argued that it is imperative to reduce small business regulation and taxes. Specifically he will assure a review and a reduction of job killing regulations on small businesses and work to phase-in full deductibility of federal income taxes from state taxes. As an additional encouragement to small business to expand employment, Tilley proposed a moratorium on any new regulations, fees, or new taxes for small businesses. To help workers and families he strongly opposes any new taxes on individual and families at this time.

He promised to work toward small business tort reform. He proposed legislation that will significantly improves the workplace environment in Missouri by strengthening the legal requirements to file a suit and capping damage awards that have gotten out of hand. He specifically identified successive lawsuits in connection with alleged agriculture nuisances as having a negative impact on job creation in rural Missouri.

Speaker Tilley suggested that job opportunities to legal residents are being adversely impacted by the Federal Government failure to stop illegal immigration. He believes it is the right thing to do to protect Missouri workers by adopting an immigration bill similar to the law passed in Arizona. Related to the issue of illegal immigration is the shocking reality that human trafficking exists in America today. He promised the tools necessary for strict enforcement of the laws that prohibit this despicable crime. To increase safety for our citizens, he proposed that Missouri cross referencing any arrested illegal immigrant with the sexual predator list. To increase safety on Missouri streets and highways, he proposed that all Missouri driver’s license examination be given exclusively in English.

Over the next several weeks, I will discuss in detail other elements of the “Show Me Solutions Initiative” including our plans to reduce our State budget and I will report to you the progress of these efforts. I will also report on the progress relating to reordering the priorities of State government as we work through the budget. We have to do more with less, just like nearly every Missouri business and family. By living within our means, we can position Missouri well when the economic recovery begins.
http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=89 Sunday, January 2, 2011 When the First Regular Session of the 96th General Assembly begins on January 5th, we have important business to attend to. When considering the issues before the Missouri legislature, most news accounts deal with the challenges relating to balancing the State budget. The problems relating to current shortfall of $500 million can not be underestimated. We must and will pass a balanced budget. We will do this without a tax increase. This terrible recession is not the time to raise taxes on hard working Missourians. Beyond the budget, there are other important issues that we need to deal with.

The first priority is to help put Missourians back to work. If we do our job, we can take steps to improve employers’ ability to hire and retain employees, and secure certainty in take-home pay of every working family in Missouri. Government is not the solution to our bad economy but we need to assure that our State government is not making it worse. TAX REFORM, TORT REFORM, and REGULATORY REFORM will make our state more attractive to the business investors that will put our folks back to work.

One idea I have regarding TAX REFORM relates to the Tax Credit I discussed in a prior report. I will file legislation this year to repeal the Movie Production Tax Credit. Rather than spending State money to encourage movie production in Missouri we need to reduce the taxation and regulation on the businesses that will put our folks back to work. This particular Tax Credit is wasteful and spends way too much money and produces little employment. We need to forget the bright lights of Hollywood and encourage job creation in the areas that we do well.

One idea I have regarding TORT REFORM is the Business Premises Safety Act. I will push for the adoption of the Business Premises Safety Act that I previously sponsored. It restores common sense and predictability to anyone who operates a business where the public is invited to come upon their premises. This proposed legislation affords civil protection to business premises owners for the criminal acts of third parties, unless they know the criminal acts are occurring, or the same criminal act has occurred on the same premises within the past 24 months. Right now business owners can be liable for an injury caused to a customer when the business owner has no way of predicting that the criminal is going to come upon their premises. As incoming Chairman of the Standing Committee on the Judiciary I promise to work on legislation that can reduce the unreasonable cost associated with litigation related to running a business.

In future reports I will discuss in detail other ideas to cut State expenditures and to encourage job creation and report to you the progress of these efforts. I will also report on the progress relating to reordering the priorities of State government as we work through the budget. We have to do more with less in government. Hard-working families throughout rural Missouri are doing this. We started this last year and will continue the trend until we start to see a real recovery.

One important decision we need to make concerning REGULATORY REFORM is to deal with the broken “Second Injury” Fund. We need insure that injured employees are fairly compensated without adding additional taxes to Missouri’s job creators.

These are all big challenges and big opportunities for you legislature this year. It is now time for us to get down to work.
http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=88 Thursday, December 23, 2010 You have probably heard the news from the United States Census Bureau that Missouri will be losing one representative to Congress effective after the 2012 Congressional elections. Currently Missouri is represented by nine members in Congress. The U. S. Constitution requires the federal government to conduct a census ever ten years for the purpose of apportioning the 435 delegates nationwide to that body. This is a process that has occurred ever ten years since 1790. Missouri's loss of one congressional seat will give the state its smallest delegation since the 1850 census. This census report confirms that the U.S. population continuing a trend of moving from the Midwest and Northeast into the Southern and Western states.

In a Capitol Report I wrote back in June, I expressed my concern that Missouri had a realistic chance of losing a member of Congress based upon preliminary figures then released by POLIDATA Demographic & Political Guides. I then predicted that if Missouri final count is off by as little as ten thousand people, our Congressional delegation will shrink from nine to eight. As it turned out, according the St. Louis Post Dispatch, Missouri would have needed to count a mere 15,029 more people in the census to avoid losing a congressional seat. Even though Missouri’s population has grown by 7% since the last census ten years ago and now exceeds 6 million people we have not grown as much as the nation as a whole-9.7%. The current Census data my be viewed at http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data/ .

I am not happy that my prediction turned out to be correct. This bad news diminishes Missouri’s relative strength not only in Congress but also in the Presidential selection process. Just recently, the incoming Speaker of the Missouri House of Representatives, Steven Tilley, appointed a Redistricting Committee to redrawn Congressional lines. I am very pleased that I was chosen by him as the Vice Chair of that Committee. Our job is to hold public hearings and come up with a plan that can meet with approval of the entire House, the Missouri Senate and our Governor. If we fail at our task, the Courts step in and draw the lines. The drop of one Congressional seat certainly makes our job more difficult.

In addition to my new job as Chairman of the Standing Committee on the Judiciary in the House, I have the additional responsibility of working on developing a redistricting plan that is fair, legal, and acceptable to the General Assembly and the Governor. My experience of working on the committee the redistricted the Missouri House twenty years ago will certainly be helpful.
http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=87 Monday, December 13, 2010 With winter quickly approaching, it is a good time to discuss highway safety and what the State of Missouri is currently doing to make travel across Missouri safer. Over the last five years the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) has embarked on several initiatives that have made travel on State highways safer and more enjoyable.

With all of the discussion about the proper role of government over the last couple years there is nearly universal agreement about several things that state government needs to provide to the citizens in exchange for the tax revenue that we send it. One of these duties that Missouri government is expected to provide is a good systems of highways throughout our State. A quality highway system is necessary for families, commerce, and touches virtually ever aspect of modern life.

As a taxpayer and a frequent traveler, I sincerely appreciate all of the improvements to existing highways made over the last five years by MoDOT. The improvements to I-70 are remarkable. Five years ago the potholes on that highway were a clear impediment to safe and efficient travel. Likewise other State maintained highways were in a similar state of disrepair. The resurfacing and the improvements in safety of many of or major arteries across our State after neglect in the late 90's and early 00's is a reason for celebration.
This agency of Missouri government has help make travel safer in other innovative ways. In 2007 MoDOT introduced an online Traveler Information Map which is on the world wide web.. The Missouri Department of Transportation’s online Traveler Information Map, linked to their homepage at http://www.modot.org has been helping drivers navigate work zones, snowy roads and flooded routes since then. Now it will do even more.

Radar imagery has been added to the online map. With a feed from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the radar layers give a snapshot of weather conditions so travelers can see what’s going on and what’s on the way. The look of the map has also changed. Although easy navigation of the map remains the same, it now loads quicker and it’s easier to zoom in. With a click of a button you can look at planned work sights and this web site give you access to traffic camera where you can take a personal look at rood conditions. Real time traffic information Kansas City, Springfield and St. Louis is included from the homepage of MoDOT. In addition, commercial truck drivers are now able to view height restrictions, commercial zones and oversized/over dimension information.

Winter travel tips from the site are to winterize your car with fresh antifreeze, a good battery, a properly operating exhaust system and oil that will withstand the rigors of cold weather. If possible, avoid driving until the roads are safe and passable. You certainly don't want to slide off the road. Do a thorough pretrip inspection of your vehicle, paying special attention to your tires, brakes, windshield wipers and windshield wiper fluid. A good list of equipment that should be in your car is also included. I encourage you to visit this web site and drive carefully.
http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=82 Saturday, December 4, 2010 Last week Missouri House Speaker-Elect Steven Tilley announced the 42 House members who will chair committees for the 96th General Assembly which starts in January. Republican members will hold 39 of the committee chair positions while three committees will be chaired by Democrats. I am honored to be one of the 163 members of the body to receive this vote of confidence from Speaker Tilley when he chose me a Chairman of the Standing Committee on Judiciary.

Some of the other individuals that will chair important committees include Rep. Ryan Silvey (Kansas City) who will chair the powerful Budget Committee. Rep. Scott Dieckhaus (Washington) who will chair the Elementary and Secondary Education Committee. Rep. Mike Thomson (Maryville) who will chair the Higher Education Committee, Rep Tom Loehner (Koeltztown) who will chair the Agriculture Policy Committee and Rep. Anne Zerr (St. Charles) who will chair the Economic Development Committee.

Much of the work done on bills in the legislature is done within the various committees. Under the committee structure of the House all bills which are filed must be heard by a committee. Testimony from the public and other interested persons are held in committee hearings. If the committee supports the legislation, it can be amended and forward on to be considered by the entire House. As Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I control the agenda of the meetings and can have a positive effect on the important matters that come before this Committee.

The Standing Committee on Judiciary may consider and report upon bills and matters referred to it relating to the judicial branch of the State and the practices and procedures of the courts of this State, and on matters pertaining to civil and administrative laws and procedures, and on matters relating to the ethics of public officials. Possible bills that could be considered by the Judiciary Committee include Appellate Judicial Selection Reform, Court Electronic Filing Legislation, Legislative Reform of Child Support Law to facilitate enforcement of child support where a parent attempts to escape payment by moving to another state or country and tort reform legislation.


Republicans will make up 106 members of the 163 member House of Representatives when it convenes in January, an all-time high. But last Thursday's cross-party committee chair announcement is also believed to represent the greatest-ever level of minority leadership participation. The historic 2011 session of the state legislature got a little more historic when Speaker of the House Steven Tilley announced that three of the 42 House committees will be chaired by minority party Democrats. The OzarkFirst.com reported that Tilley said, "I've always believed that the person is more important than the party. I think it's important to choose people who are best qualified for the position, regardless of the party."

At a State Capitol news conference last Thursday, Tilley announced the following Democrat Committee Chairs; Rep. Jamilah Nasheed, (St. Louis) as chair of the House Urban Issues Committee, State Rep. Chris Kelly, (Columbia), as chair of the Appropriations Committee for Public Safety and Corrections; and Rep. Linda Black, (Bonne Terre), as Corrections Committee chair.

I am genuinely pleased by this appointment and look forward to serving in this important position and working with other committee chairs in their important tasks. The next session of the Missouri General assembly begins at noon on Wednesday, January 5, 2011.

http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=81 Wednesday, November 24, 2010 I imagine that almost everyone who reads this has a special place in their hearts for veterans. Without their service and sacrifices and the dedication of those in uniform today America would not be free. Recently our community has done a wonderful job of recognizing the service rendered by our active duty military personnel and our veterans. Our local Veteran's Day celebration was not diminished by the rain showers that afternoon. Because of the special sacrifices made by those who serve in the military, our nation and state engages in numerous activities to help these former service members

America has a long history of providing support and assistance to our military veterans. I remember my Grandmother describing the "Old Soldiers Home" near Higginsville where local Confederate veterans from the Civil War spent there last few year on earth. These types of homes for elderly North and South veterans existed all across our nation.

More than twenty years ago I had the honor of being appointed by then Governor John Ashcroft as a Commissioner of the newly created Missouri Veteran's Commissions. Since my service on that Commission I have made an effort of keeping tract of that agency and what they do for veterans. I am pleased to announce that they have just completed and published on the World Wide Web a new "Veterans benefits in the State of Missouri". This resource is intended to be a comprehensive guide to Veteran and Active Duty Military benefits. The guide may be accessed by going to the Missouri Veterans site at http://www.mvc.dps.mo.gov/. Just click the link on the left identified as "State Veterans Benefits Guide"

The Missouri Veterans Commission manages seven long term skilled nursing homes, six state Veterans cemeteries, provides benefits assistance through its Service Officers, assists Veterans through an Ombudsman program and has initiatives for Veterans Outreach, Minority Veterans, Women Veterans, and Incarcerated Veterans. The Commission operates a very nice Veterans Home in Warrensburg and a Veterans Cemetery is located in Higginsville.

Information about this Missouri Veterans Home can be obtained by talking to a Veterans Service Officers who works for the Commission. Information about the availability of a Veterans Cemetery is available through a local funeral director.

Veterans Service Officers (VSO) are located throughout the state and can assist you if you are a Veteran, widow/widower of a Veteran, child of a deceased or disabled Veteran, or a parent who has lost a son or daughter in military service. Service officers provide counseling and assistance when you have questions about compensation, pensions, education benefits, life insurance, medical benefits, state benefits, and burial benefits. The Missouri Veteran’s Commission Service Officer for Benton, Hickory, Pettis, and Saline is headquartered in Sedalia at 816 Westwood, Sedalia, MO 65301. Appointments can be made by calling 660-530-5544

Sedalia recently became the home of a Community Based Outpatient Clinics (CBOC). CBOC are United States Veterans Administration operated medical facilities throughout the state in local communities that offer primary care services to eligible Veterans. A CBOC provides services that may include, but are not limited to: routine physical examinations, immunizations, prescription of medications, on-site laboratory and x-ray services, women's care, referral to specialists and/or the local VA hospital as appropriate, mental health, counseling, and group therapy. The location of the Sedalia facility and phone number is 3320 West 10th Street, Sedalia, MO 65301, 660-826-3800.

Other information contained in this Guide includes Professional License Extensions due to Military Service, how to request Military Funeral Honors, and Federal Education Benefits for Veterans. I hope you find this information helpful. These services are provided to our veterans because many of they need more that a pat on the back.
http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=78 Saturday, November 20, 2010 In the 1970’s, the General Assembly made the actions of government agencies in Missouri more open by enacting the “Sunshine Act,” which is included in chapter 610 of State law. To balance the needs of openness in State government with the need of confidentiality of certain records this chapter provides certain reasonable exemptions to the open records mandate. The exceptions currently provided by law include exemptions of National Guard records, student records of public education institutions, investigative records of law enforcement, and employment records of government employees.

To care for neglected, abused and abandoned children, The Children’s Division licenses foster parents throughout our state. Foster parents selflessly care for these unfortunate children by providing them with a safe and loving home. As it stands right now, there is no provision in the Sunshine Act which protects from public disclosure the intensely personal information about possible foster parents obtained in the licensing process. Currently, foster parent licensing records are public records.

The licensing process for foster parents by necessity delves into deeply personal topics for the potential parents. It is important to carefully vet every foster parent to ensure that when a child is placed in his or her care, that child is placed in the best environment possible. As a result, any psychological or emotional issues, ranging from minor depression or anxiety to drug/alcohol abuse as a teen, regardless of whether those issues have been resolved, are made part of a record which can be viewed by the public. Additionally, financial information, educational achievement records, vocation, and any dysfunction within the extended family is information that is required to be made public if a request is filed with the Children’s Division.

For example, a foster parent may have experienced a period of severe depression following the death of a close family member. The foster parent has, prior to seeking licensure, dealt with the death and moved on. There is no current threat of recurring severe depression. Another family might have a sister who is an alcoholic or has a child who was sexually abused. All of this information is now part of a public record that can be viewed by anyone.

It is important that the public be able to review the records of the foster parents to ensure that the parents are properly vetted and that children placed in their custody are in good hands. However, for the reasons stated above, discretion must be used to determine which information should be made public.

To fix this problem I intend to file legislation soon that will provide another exemption from the Sunshine Act for personal information about foster parents except for a summary report published by the Children’s Division describing the vetting process. This will allow this sensitive, private material to be protected from public disclosure.

Foster parents are volunteers who willingly insert themselves and their families into difficult situations so that a child has the opportunity to receive the best care possible while their parents work towards reunification. We as a State need to provide them protection from an unwarranted invasion into their personal lives.
http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=77 Sunday, November 14, 2010 Of the several surprising election results we saw on November 2nd, many of us were surprised in the closeness of the vote on Proposition B. Proposition B is the legislative initiative designed to regulate the pet breeding industry in Missouri. The language on the ballot approved by Secretary of State Robin Carnahan described this entire industry as “puppy mills.” The measure passed by the very thin margin statewide of 51.6% in favor.

The closeness of this vote state-wide surprised many because of a public opinion poll taken state-wide in February which showed that over 90% of the respondents favored this proposal. The vote in the 118th Legislative District was markedly different than the state-wide vote with almost 64% of voters opposed to this proposal. Similar to the 118th.District, this measure failed in 103 of Missouri’s 114 counties. Of course, the measure passed overwhelmingly in the state’s two largest cities. This change of opinion from February to November was a result of some grass roots opposition to this measure which helped the voters to recognize the problems with this proposal. Voters in our area of the State recognized what the Springfield-News Leader editorial opined, “the measure [was] well intentioned, but not in the state’s best interest.”

The passage of Proposition B means additional standards for dog breeders, in addition to the 22 pages of regulations from the Missouri Department of Agriculture, that licensed breeders already comply with. Unfortunately, no veterinarians were consulted in creating the language behind the legislation. One example would be the mandatory temperature range for dog facilities that would ban the use of heat lamps for pups. We do not have similar laws for our state’s nursing homes or schools. Likewise one provision of this Prop B provides that breeding animals must have unrestricted access to outdoors at all times. This will actually endanger puppies because the mother will unintentionally drag their puppies outside and risk death from exposure. It is my opinion that if Proposition B is allowed to go into effect, without substantial change, it will end the pet breed industry in Missouri and will result in substantial job losses.

The reason that such a bad legislation passed was the amazing flow of out of state money into Missouri to promote this measure-97% of the total spent. In May, the campaign effort in support of the initiative had received a total of about $500,000 in contributions. According to reports at the time, the majority of funds - $450,000 - came from the radical “animal rights” organization, Humane Society of the United States. This organization is a radical “animal rights” organization which opposes pet ownership, hunting, fishing and animal agriculture. According to the Columbia Missourian, almost 2.3 Million Dollars used to support the media campaign in favor of Proposition B was raised from outside of Missouri.

Because Proposition B is legislation, the Missouri General Assembly can act next year to correct the problems with this legislation. I am considering filing legislation to do this. I would encourage the residence of the 118th District to contact me by phone at (660)826-5456 or by email at stanley.cox@house.mo.gov to let me know their opinion on how I should represent their interests in this important matter.
http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=76 Saturday, November 6, 2010 Over the next several weeks I will report to you about some of the legislation I am considering filing in the next legislative session. One of the big challenges next year is to make the hard decisions necessary to balance our State budget. The first issue that I shall discuss directly relates to the current budget problems. I will discuss a little known tax credit that prior legislatures have authorized known as the Film Production Tax Credit.

According to the State agency in charge of the Film Production Tax these tax credits were issued in the amounts of the amounts of $1,642,701 and $164,086 in fiscal years 2008 and 2009 respectively. They were redeemed in those same years in the amount of $1,920,709 and $970,673 respectively. A tax credit of this type is issued to a film production company who agrees to spend money in our State. These tax credits can be used as a credit on State income tax or sold to some other person who will be allowed to reduce their taxes by the amount of film credits issued. The original argument for this program that originated more than ten years ago is that it will create jobs and other economic activities in Missouri. There is now good reason to doubt this premise.

First of all, there has not been a thorough scientific study of the effectiveness of this tax credit in Missouri made public or provided to members of the General Assembly. I contacted this agency and they sent me a study from New Mexico, and a couple brief reports made after the completion of two films in Missouri. One such report stated that: “Missouri can boast exceptional benefits from this venture. Film production crews infused nearly $12 million into a diverse range of Missouri businesses. The resulting increase to Gross State Product (GSP) is 2.68 times the state investment of $4 million.” They arrived at this $12 Million of economic activity created by taking the amount of money spent by Missouri for these credits and using a multiplier provided by Regional Economic Models, Incorporated. Little detail is provided in either report. These reports remind me of reports about claimed jobs created by the last year’s federal stimulus legislation-little detail and unpersuasive conclusions.

A September 2010 a report titled “FILM INCENTIVES IN MICHIGAN” by economist David Zin for the Michigan Senate Fiscal Agency came to a very different conclusion. Michigan has a similar tax credit and they commissioned this scientific study. This study determined that $37.5 million in credits made during Fiscal Year 2008-09 reflected approximately $97.7 million in private spending, of which an estimated 47.4% ($46.3 million) effectively left Michigan and did not contribute to the State's economic activity. That report determined that the cost to taxpayers in 2008 of employment associated with the tax credit ranged from $186,519 per job to $42,991 per job, depending on whether only direct jobs or total employment impacts are examined. The 2009 cost to taxpayers of employment associated with the tax credit ranged from $193,333 to $44,561 per job, depending on whether direct or total employment impacts are examined. This report concluded that “The nature of the credit and the resulting activity is such that under current (and any realistic) tax rate the State will never be able to make the credit "pay for itself" from a State revenue standpoint, even when the credit generates additional private activity that would not have otherwise occurred.”

In light of this new study, I have come to the conclusion it is time to seriously consider eliminating Missouri’s Film Production Tax Credit. I personally enjoy a good movie. Any economic activity in Missouri, including film production is good. We simply need to eliminate this program unless a thorough scientific study demonstrates its effectiveness. I expect to file legislation in end this wasteful expenditure of taxpayers money,
http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=75 Sunday, October 24, 2010 I have had a number of constituents ask my about Proposition A which is another initiative proposition that will appear on the November 2nd ballot. The proposition relates to city “earnings tax” that currently exists in Kansas City and St. Louis. This is a tax on the “earned income” derived from within these cities. Earned income includes salaries, wages, other compensation, and net business profits earned as a result of work done in the city. These cities currently assess a 1% tax. The earnings tax accounts for approximately 15% of total revenue for both Saint Louis and Kansas City. For 2010, Kansas City and the City of St. Louis budgeted earnings tax revenue of $199.2 million and $141.2 million, respectively. According to one study, nationally earnings taxes are uncommon in large cities. Only 25 of the 150 largest American cities, including Kansas City and St. Louis, have this tax.

Official Ballot Title Reads:
Shall Missouri law be amended to:
• repeal the authority of certain cities to use earnings taxes to fund their budgets;
• require voters in cities that currently have an earnings tax to approve continuation of such tax at the next general municipal election and at an election held every 5 years thereafter;
• require any current earnings tax that is not approved by the voters to be phased out over a period of 10 years; and
• prohibits any city from adding a new earnings tax to fund their budget.

Simply stated this Proposition A, if adopted, requires a vote every five years in Kansas City and St. Louis on whether they will retain this tax and it prohibits new earnings taxes in other cities.

Supporters of this legislation believe ending “earnings tax” would result in lower rates of suburban migration and higher rates of personal income growth than Kansas City and St. Louis. They believe that this tax has hurt these communities by encouraging people to locate work and homes outside their borders. A study by Show Me Institute supports this conclusion. Supporters also argue that if the earnings tax is removed revenue from sales, payroll, and property taxes should rise even if no other tax rate or service changes are made. They claim that the benefits caused by the end of this tax will likely offset the revenue lost by ending the tax. Supporters of Proposition A complain that these two cities don’t treat everyone the same and grants exemptions and exceptions to selected companies.

Opponents to this proposal, including the two cities receiving the tax and other argue that this change will hurt the cities and its residents. The police union in St. Louis claim that it will result in a loss of over 600 police officers. Many argue that this proposal takes away local control. Some religious leaders have expressed concern that the poor would be hurt by approval of this legislation.

Apparently there has been a serious discussion in other cities about creating new earning taxes. I also note that the Mayor of Springfield recently came out against Proposition A. I hope this information will be of help.
http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=74 Sunday, October 17, 2010 In my last “Capitol Report” I provided some information on Proposition B that will appear on the November 2nd ballot. That can be viewed on my web site at http://staterep.stancox.com/archives.php. This week I will discuss Constitutional Amendments 3 and 2.

Even though we are a relative low-tax state, it still costs more and more to live in Missouri every year. Prices on goods and services are rising, but wages are not increasing at the same level. In addition, we remain in a recession that is prolonged by policies coming from Washington, D.C. that only cause more uncertainty about our future. With the current conservative majority of the Missouri House and Senate, there is no immediate likelihood that a new tax will be created in our State. We all understand that things can change. Only few years ago, an effort was made to take a serious look at every tax that is paid in Missouri with an eye toward creating new taxes and new sources of revenue for out state. This is why the initiative proposal Constitutional Amendment 3 was put forward.

The official language of Amendment 3 states:

“Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to prevent the state, counties, and other political subdivisions from imposing any new tax, including a sales tax, on the sale or transfer of homes or any other real estate?”

This Amendment is written to prohibit real estate transfer taxes which does not currently exist in Missouri but does in all but 13 states. This is like a sales tax on homes and would be charged every time a home was sold. It is my understanding that some states impose a tax up to 4% of the value of the home. The proponents of provision argue that real estate transfer taxes are family-unfriendly. Small farms and family homes that have been passed down for generations would be subject to the unfair burden of double taxation, if transfer taxes are imposed on land for which property taxes have already been paid for decades. I find this argument persuasive and will vote for Amendment 3. If this passes, future legislatures will not be able to impose this new tax.

Amendment 2 is a proposal from the legislature last year that will exempt the home of a total service-connected former prisoner of war from real estate taxes.

The official language of Amendment 2 states:

“Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to require that all real property used as a homestead by Missouri citizens who are former prisoners of war and have a total service-connected disability be exempt from property taxes?”

Because there are very few Missourians who would qualify for this exemption, there is a small cost to local government and the Blind Pension Fund which derives revenue from real estate taxes. The cost to the Blind Pension Fund is estimate to be less than $2000 per year. Amendment 2 is the result of legislation passed by the Missouri General Assembly in 2009. House Joint Resolution 15 was a bi-partisan effort in both the Senate and the House, and comes from a continued commitment from Missouri lawmakers to help our veterans including those who have a totally disabled and those who were captured by our enemy. We owe it to these folks after they risked life and limb to keep our country free. I support this proposal as well. If you have questions about any of the proposals on the November 2nd ballot, please fell free to contact me.
http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=71 Monday, October 11, 2010 In addition to selecting office holders on the General Election ballot on November 2, 2010, voters will consider five statewide issues. These issues include three proposed Constitutional Amendments and two propositions submitted by initiative petitions. In this report I will discuss one of these initiative proposals, Proposition B. The supporters call it the “Puppy Mill Prevention Act”. Opponents argue that it poses a serious threat to the and legitimate business of pet breeding. Let’s look at the facts.

The ballot summary states that this provision prohibits any breeder from having more than 50 breeding dogs for the purpose of selling their puppies as pets, require large-scale dog breeding operations to provide each dog under their care with sufficient food, clean water, housing and space; necessary veterinary care; regular exercise and adequate rest between breeding cycles, and establishes a new misdemeanor offense.

The first question that should be asked is whether we need this law. There is already an offense of animal abuse. If you mistreat, fail to provide adequate care or abuse an animal you are violating current law. The limitation of 50 breeding dogs is certainly a change in existing law. I am not sure why a pet breeder with 50 animals is ok and 51 should be a violation of law. The opponents of this legislation rightly point out that this provision will immediately destroy countless jobs in this industry. The pet industry is a significant industry in our State and provides great economic activity
that we need in these difficult economic times.

The opponents to Proposition B argue that this proposal misses the point. This industry of pet breeding is already regulated by both the Missouri Department of Agriculture and the U. S. Department of Agriculture. Puppy Mills,unlicensed pet breeding, is already illegal in Missouri. If we need anything it would be more enforcement of existing laws and not a proposal that would put hard working Missourians out of work. Opponents argue that to destroy a legitimate business is a direct assault on property rights.

The most alarming aspect of this proposal is that it has almost totally been supported by out of State money and is a project of the Humane Society of the United States. This organization is a radical “animal rights” organization which opposes pet ownership, hunting, fishing and animal agriculture.
According to reports and campaign finance records, more than 97% of monetary and in-kind contributions supporting this proposal are from outside the state of Missouri. Donations are reported to have come from Washington, D.C., California, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York and Ohio. According to the Columbia Missourian, almost 2.3 Million Dollars have been raised from
other states. In May, the campaign effort in support of the initiative had received a total of about $500,000 in contributions. According to reports at the time, the majority of funds - $450,000 - came from the Humane Society of the United States. It seems fair to ask why these radical outside groups would come to Missouri to push this proposition. This question, we can probable be answered by recognizing the positive press and resulting increased donations that these radical organization might receive by winning a initiative limiting the rights of this segment of animal agriculture in a State so dependent on agriculture.

Proposition B is opposed by the American Kennel Club, the Missouri Veterinary Medical Association, Missouri Farm Bureau, Missouri Pet Breeders Association, the Center for Consumer Freedom, the Alliance for Truth, Missouri Family Network, and countless other organizations. Please study this issue carefully and vote on November 2nd. http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=65 Sunday, October 3, 2010 Over the last few years I have worked hard in the legislature on a measure that would reform the method we use in Missouri to choose appellate judges and the judges in the urban areas. Incidentally, court judges in rural Missouri are chosen like all other government officials-by elections. The House Joint Resolution that I sponsored last year passed the Missouri House but was never voted on in the Senate. My proposal would make the process more public, make it more accountable and remove the dominance of special interest groups in the judicial selection process. Right now the system is controlled by a small group of trial lawyers. I believe the system is elitist in that it minimizes the input of ordinary citizens in the selections of these important members of the judicial branch of government.

Even though my proposal would have strengthened the merit selection aspect of the present "Missouri Plan", the organized lawyer's trade associations in Missouri spent hundreds of thousand of dollars in lobbying and advertising to stall this effort and effectively retain the status quo. A group of concerned citizens attempted unsuccessfully to get a proposal for direct election of these judges on the ballot earlier this year. The same groups that opposed my reforms challenged in court this initiative petition attempt as well.

Our present method of selecting these judges was originally adopted in the late 1940's and was amended by voters once around 1980. My personal preference is that the appellate judges in Missouri not face partisan elections. This is why I have devoted so much energy to reform the present system. I prefer to improve the present system rather than scrap it for partisan elections. Even though my legislative initiative has not yet got to Missouri voters, some progress has been made. Last week Missouri Chief Justice Ray Price announced some reforms that the Supreme Court has made in the selection process. Under this change the public will be able to observe interviews of prospective judges by the judicial selection commissions. The public will also be able to nominate potential candidates and find out the commission's votes. About a year ago the prior Chief Justice altered the selection process by making the date of the meetings of the selection committee public and by identifying the name of the nominees that were sent to the Governor. Prior to these changes, the date of meetings was secret, the interview process was secret, the identity of the individuals forwarded to the Governor was secret and the vote of the commission was secret.

There is little doubt that these changes made by the Missouri Supreme Court in the selection process resulted from the concerns and efforts that I and others had made to reform the prior secret system of judicial selection. I personally want to thank Judge Price for his efforts in getting these changes. I think his changes are good and I welcome anything that helps lifts the vale of secrecy of this system. I certainly hope that some of my other reforms might become law. One provision included in my proposal would make public the names of all applicants. It is impossible to evaluate the function of this commission if we don't know the names of those individuals they considered. Also left unchanged by the actions of the Supreme Court is that the commission that selects new judge remains dominated by lawyers. It is made up of four lawyers (three representatives from the legal profession and the Supreme Court Chief Judge) and three non-lawyer member.

I do not accept the premise that Supreme Court Judges should be chosen by lawyers who appear before them. I think the selection process should be more representative of our State. My proposal would add one more non-lawyer to the selection commission. If this change was adopted, the power in the selection process would tilt in favor of ordinary citizens away from lawyers. This is a proposal that former U.S. Supreme Court Sandra Day O'Connor made when she visited Missouri last year in support of merit selection of appellate judges. She advocated two reforms of our Missouri Plan including the reduction of the influence of lawyers and more openness when she visited the University of Missouri Law School in Columbia. She seems to share my position that the selection of judges is too important to leave up to lawyers and the public needs to be more involved. Professor Bill Eckhart, an advocate of these changes does a good job explaining the need for these proposed changes in the YouTube video at http://tiny.cc/zKaHD.
http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=64 Saturday, September 25, 2010 Over the last few weeks I have written several Capitol Reports contrasting how the Missouri General Assembly handles problems, “The Missouri Way” with how the Congress deals with the same issues, “The Washington Way”. Previously I discussed two issues: Policies of Taxing and Spending, and the Size of Government. These reports can be read at http://staterep.stancox.com/archives.php
. In this edition, I will make this distinction relating to Life, and Traditional Family Values issues.

Many serious observers believe that American values are under assault. Whether it is a federal court in California striking down a referendum vote on defining marriage as exclusively between one man and one woman, Congress threatening to change “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” without input from our military or President Obama’s challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), many of us are worried and upset. DOMA is a federal law that allows individual states to not recognize other forms of marriage. I was shocked to hear that late last year that the U. S. Justice Department, under the direction of the White House, reversed its position and filed a brief in opposition of DOMA. This action poses a threat on Traditional Marriage in every state including our own. The President through his lawyers is now asking a federal court to declare DOMA as unconstitutional. I do not know if his efforts will be successful or not. I do fear that they might be successful at stripping away protection of the form of marriage that has served western civilization all of our modern history. I also fear is that this action might point to an attempt to directly abolish DOMA in the United States Congress. If DOMA is declared unconstitutional or is changed by Congress, Missouri would be forced to recognize any relationship recognized as “marriage” by any another state.

Despite denials by its sponsors, Obamacare opens the door to federally funded elective abortions. This will occur because of the federal subsidy built into the plan. The legal history of challenges to similar legislation makes this result nearly certain. In passing this health care mandate, Congress and the President are providing government funded abortions even though an overwhelming majority of Americans agree that it is not the job of the government to pay for elective abortions.

The intent to radically change the definition of Marriage and the implementation of tax supported elective abortions is contrary to the wishes of the vast majority of Americans and is an example of the “Washington Way.” Congress and the President are not only unresponsive to the general sentiment of the American people, but they seem to be hostile.
In 2004 Missouri voters by a large majority adopted a state constitutional amendment that recognizes that a marriage shall exist only between a man and a woman. Missourian overwhelmingly adopted this change to our State Constitution and agreed with the arguments in favor of traditional marriage. The most compelling of these arguments is that traditional marriage is the only institution that effectively protects and provides for the welfare of our children. You might remember that Vicky Hartzler was the spokesperson for this successful referendum.

This year I am proud to have voted for Senate Bill 793 passed by the Missouri legislature that requires that abortion providers to provide clear information relating to alternatives to abortion, information relating to the development of unborn children and the consequences of various abortion procedures. The purpose of this legislation is to assure that any consent to these abortion procedures be fully informed and not coerced. Although Governor Nixon refused to sign this legislation that passed by a large bipartition majority, he did not veto it so it recently went into effect. These are good examples of the “Missouri Way” of addressing these important issues.
http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=63 Saturday, September 18, 2010 As you have probably heard in the media a few days ago, the Missouri House of Representatives attempted to overturn one of Governor Nixon’s vetoes during our annual Veto Session. The bill that the Governor vetoed, House Bill 1903, would have set up a Joint Committee of the Legislature to control and keep track of the stimulus funds that President Obama and the US Congress forced upon the States last year. The need for such legislative oversight was confirmed just a short time ago when we discovered that the administration allowed some of these funds to be improperly diverted to the “Social Justice” film festival in Warrensburg. If these taxpayer produced stimulus funds are going to come to our State, it only makes sense for the Legislature, the body that always retains the “power of the purse”, to have some say and control over how these funds are directed and spent.

Back in Regular Session, in May, almost every member of the Missouri House of Representatives agreed. Over 150 members of the House voted for this bill during Regular Session and only three Representatives voted against the bill. You would think that with such an overwhelming, bipartisan, massive majority the Governor’s veto would be easily overridden and Missouri taxpayers would be given some protection regarding the use of these stimulus funds. Unfortunately, politics and partisanship trumped good public policy and on a nearly complete partisan, party line vote, House Democrats “voted against the bill after they voted for it” and decided to protect the risky fiscal policies of their Governor.

In defense of their vote, House Democrats made an argument, that “because the Governor decided the bill was unconstitutional, and then it must be so.” The bill is not unconstitutional. This argument is simply the Governor’s and the House Democrats interpretation based upon specious argument. Their argument held that because another provision added to the law which will never go in effect contained some faulty language that the highest court in our state would eventually strike it down this legislation. This argument is disingenuous and an attempt to explain a flip-flop vote.

The real reason that House Democrats voted against a bill was that it would have brought more transparency and accountability to how our stimulus funds are being spent and they decided to place party and politics over good public policy. It is unfortunate that after all we have seen and heard from the American people these last couple years that the Governor and House Democrats want to continue reckless spending and disastrous policies originating out of Washington. With the defeat of this proposal we will have to wait until next year to reign in the Governors careless use of these funds.

Let me end on a positive note, I want to commend and take note of the one Democrat who joined all of the House Republicans in voting to overturn the Governor’s veto on this good government bill. My good friend and colleague, Rep. Jamilah Nasheed from the City of St. Louis, put partisanship and policy aside and voted once again for a bill that she voted for during the regular session. I want to congratulate and thank Rep. Nasheed publicly for her courage and the strength of her convictions. If only the remainder of her caucus had been so intellectually honest and given the Missouri taxpayers the protection from Washington policies that they all deserve we would all be better off.
http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=62 Saturday, September 11, 2010 A couple weeks ago a NBC News/Wall Street Journal Survey showed that 71% of the American people disapproved and 21% approved of the job that our U. S. Congress in Washington is doing. At the same time, a recent poll indicated that a majority of Missourians agree with the general direction of Missouri State government. The most likely explanation for this difference is that there are at two ways to run government. There is the “Washington Way” directed by Congress and our President. This approach concludes that government needs to be bigger and should expand into ever aspect of our life despite the inevitable growth of the public debt that will follow. There is also the “Missouri Way” that is more responsive to our citizens, seeks private solutions for problems and recognizes that the only way out of our current economic problems is to keep taxes low and encourage private investment.

What is the source of this desire for a larger role for government? Just recently I saw a television interview of a local official who represents the Lower Ninth Ward of New Orleans. This is an area in that City where hurricane Katarina destroyed most of the homes. He was asked by the reporter as to what the federal government should do to help them recover. His answer was that there should be federal grants to provide for mowing of the empty lots in that neighborhood. Our nations founding fathers would be shocked to hear that a proper role of our national government was lawn mowing-or that a public official would expect our federal government to pay for it. As far as I am aware, federal grants for this purpose have not yet been made. I wouldn’t be too surprised if it is included in President Obama’s next “stimulus” program. After all, according to the Kansas City Star, $100,000 from last years $787 billion stimulus bill was improperly diverted to the recent Show Me Social Justice International Film Festival in Warrensburg. I believe that Film Festivals are not a proper role for government at any level.

For much of last year, many Americans have taken to the streets to protest the federal government’s irresponsible agenda including national healthcare and the jobs killing cap and trade. Washington liberals didn’t listen when they rammed through Congress their reckless health care bill. When given a vote on Proposition C in August, Missouri voters sent a clear message: more than 71% of Missouri voters, including Republicans, Democrats, and independents, supported Proposition C and the effort to protect an individual’s right to make his or her own health insurance choices. Missourians sent Washington a clear message: stay out of our health care decisions. Contrary to the Washington approach there are market based solutions to the problems of health care. This year the General Assembly passed and the Governor signed House Bill 1498 that requires health insurance providers to promptly pay claims put forth by doctors, hospitals and other health care providers for services provided to patients. This is a common sense, “Missouri Way”, reform that will improve healthcare in Missouri that will reduce costs and inefficiency and will not grow the size of government.

As we deal with the budget problems facing Missouri next year, all Missourians need to recognize the primary purpose of our state government. Providing for public education, public safety and health are the core role of our state government. Our government exists to defend our liberties and life itself. I believe that state government has a role in economic development. We need to make our State attractive to job creators. We as a state need to be very careful in expanding our state government’s involvement beyond these traditional roles.

The reason that we as a nation find ourselves in this ballooning of our federal government is that there are lots of people who have a pet project such as lawn mowing in the Lower Ninth Ward or “Social Justice“film festivals in Warrensburg and the rest of us taxpaying citizens don’t stand up against such wasteful use of taxpayers money. If we don’t take a stand government will continue to grow and our debt will continue to skyrocket. Once we recognize the problem, the solution becomes obvious.
http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=61 Saturday, September 4, 2010 Several months ago I met a gentleman at my office in Jeff City who addressed me “Congressman.” I quickly corrected him by informing him that this title is reserved for our representatives in Washington D. C. and invited him to address by my first name. After this encounter I realized that my correction was motivated by my hope not to be confused with what is going on in Washington. Recent public surveys indicate that the American’s very unhappy with what is going on in Congress. At the same time, polls indicate that a majority of Missourians agree with the general direction of Missouri State government. Why are attitudes so different? This led me to the conclusion that there are at two ways to run government. There is the “Washington Way” directed by President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Senate Leader Reid. There is also the “Missouri Way.” The “Missouri Way” is more responsive to our citizens, seeks private solutions for problems and recognizes that the only way out of our current economic problems is to keep taxes low and encourage private investment.

The distinction between these two approaches can be made in several ways: Policies of Taxing and Spending, Size of Government and Life Issues and Traditional Family Values. Over the next few weeks I will discuss these alternative approaches to public service. I will start with Washington’s and Missouri’s approach to Taxing and Spending.

During the first 100 days of his presidency, President Obama signed the $787 billion stimulus bill into law, proposed an eye-popping $3.6 trillion federal budget for the 2010 fiscal year, and created other multi-billion-dollar government programs supposedly to help grease the economic wheels. It took the United States of America 233 years (1776-2009) to amass a national debt of $11 trillion. Yet President Barack Obama's record large 2010 budget deficit estimated at $1.85 trillion and his own spending plans will likely double the national debt over the next 10 years. There seems to be no limit in the Presidents and Congress’s appetite to spend our money and run up large deficits. The most immediate affect of such a reckless policy is to force our national government to raise the rate of interest paid on government borrowings so as to attract lenders. We all fear that the “Washington Way” of spending will lower the standard of living of our children, our grandchildren and generations to come.

As a direct consequence of this spending, the President is now calling for a massive tax increase at the federal level by ending most of the Bush Tax Cuts. The President is using tiresome class warfare arguments by proposing a big income tax increase for the “rich” who have over $200,000 per year income. This tax will hit 50% of all small business income because 85% of small business owners are taxed on profits at individual tax rates. We are all smart enough to know who creates new jobs in America, and it isn't people or businesses that don't make a profit. Americans have also relearned the hard way over the last 18 months that the government doesn't create net new employment. We need not raise taxes in the middle of the worst economic times since the “great depression.” Despite this obvious truth, big taxes and big spending is part of the “Washington Way” of doing things.

The “Missouri Way” is no new taxes. Last year, Governor Nixon made a promise not to raise taxes. Despite this promise, in late December, his tax commission voted to raise real estate taxes on some Missouri farmers by almost 29%. This decision by the State Tax Commission would increase taxes on much of the farmland in our community. The State Tax Commission recommended increasing the productive values for the highest quality of agricultural land. The commission’s proposal would raise taxes on the most productive agricultural land, which generally consists of cropland, by 29 percent and decrease taxes on less productive land. The changes would result in an overall 11 percent tax increase statewide on agriculture land with the impact being larger in the 118th Legislative District. The General Assembly earlier this year passed a Joint Resolution that killed this jobs killing tax increase.

The “Missouri Way” is also a balanced budget. With little help for the Chief Executive, the General Assembly pared $600 million from the original proposed budget. We have made State government more accountable and efficient. Budget challenges continue when the General Assembly reconvenes next January. These challenges will be met to reach a balanced budget without new taxes because this is the right way to run a government.
http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=60 Sunday, August 29, 2010 By now you have probably heard of the "Cordoba Initiative" where an American Islamic leader, Feisal Abdul Rauf, with the support of the Mayor of New York and President Obama is making plans to build a 15 story Islamic center at "Ground Zero" in New York City. The supporters of the project state that this project is the way to make a statement opposing what happened on September 11, 2001. Over seventy per cent of the American people, according to a recent poll, disagree. Other legitimate concerns include the source of funds for this proposed Mosque. There are concerns that secret money from foreign radical Islamic sources might pay for the expensive project. Recently there are concerns that this Imam has radical and maybe anti-American goals guiding these plans. No one doubts that these American Muslims have a right to build the Mosque at this location, but such a decision simply seems wrong.

We all remember where we were early on the morning of September 11, 2001. Nineteen hijackers took control of four commercial airliners. At 8:46 a.m. that morning, American Airlines Flight 11 was crashed into the World Trade Center's North Tower, followed by United Airlines Flight 175 which hit the South Tower at 9:03 a.m. Another group of hijackers flew American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon at 9:37 a.m. A fourth flight, United Airlines Flight 93, crashed in rural Pennsylvania at 10:03 a.m., after the passengers onboard attempted to retake that airplane The death toll of the attacks was 2,995, including the 19 hijackers. The former location of the twin towers was promptly dubbed "Ground Zero."

Nine days later, President George W. Bush spoke before the nation and a joint session of the United States Congress, regarding the events of that day, the rescue and recovery efforts, and his intent in response to those events. The clearest memory I have of these events is the response of average American citizens to this tragedy. The courage of the police, firefighters and ordinary citizens was truly inspiring. I also remember the rise of sincere patriotism. American flags were flown in neighborhoods all over our great nation. The United States responded to the attacks by launching the War on Terrorism: our nation invaded Afghanistan to depose the Taliban, who had harbored al-Qaeda terrorists. American almost universally supported this action. Young Americans members of the U. S. Armed Services supported and volunteered for this mission and many gave their life in this national effort.

The American people realized the need to stand up to these radical Islamic terrorists. The Americans who have and will continue to resist the construction of a Mosque at "Ground Zero" do so because such a project is disrespectful to the memory of those who lost their lives on September 11, 2001. Some have even argued that "Ground Zero" is "sacred soil". They take this position, not out of disrespect for people of the Muslim faith, but out of respect for those who have died and will continue to die in our nations War against Radical Islam.
http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=57 Saturday, August 14, 2010 For more than a year, many Americans have taken to the streets to protest the federal government’s irresponsible agenda. Instead of adopting policies that create private sector jobs, Congress and the President have taken a course that has not improved the economy and has actually scared our nation’s job creators into inaction. Individuals who otherwise would be expanding their business and creating jobs are fearful that their taxes will be raised or the feds will add other costly regulations to these businesses.

Washington liberals didn’t listen when they rammed through Congress their reckless health care bill—but they can’t help but hear us now. Missourians two weeks ago were the first voters in the nation to go to the ballot box and reject the reckless federal health care takeover. The results were as stunning as they were clear: more than 71% of Missouri voters, including Republicans, Democrats, and independents, supported Proposition C and the effort to protect an individual’s right to make his or her own health insurance choices. Missourians sent Washington a clear message: stay out of our health care decisions. The votes in favor of Proposition C in our community were approximately 75% of the total cast.

Overwhelming bipartisan support of Proposition C passed in 114 of 116 election jurisdictions—including every county in the state—garnering more than 668,000 votes in Missouri. This was a bipartisan declaration to Washington. The Conservative Majority in the Missouri General Assembly have been right all along—it is time to repeal the existing health care law and replace it with a conservative alternative that does not burden Americans with unnecessary mandates and outrageous costs.

The Missouri Republican Party stood strongly in favor of Proposition C, unanimously endorsing the Health Care Freedom Act and contacting Missourians to encourage a YES vote. Likewise tens of thousands of Democrats and independent voters voted YES on Proposition C. This entire effort was clearly a bipartisan effort.

Not surprisingly, Washington’s reaction was tone-deaf. The White House dismissed the Prop vote, claiming that the results meant “nothing” according to The Hill. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s response was even more offensive. According to the Wall Street Journal, Reid dismissed the results of the election, claiming that Missourians aren’t educated enough to understand the federal health care law. Reid: “It’s very obvious that people have a lack of understanding of our health care reform bill,” Reid said. “The more people learn about this bill, the more they like it.”

This tone-deaf and arrogant reaction is exactly the reason why so many Americans across the country are fed-up with Democrats in Washington. More than 71% of voters sent a clear message rejecting the liberal agenda yet Democrats continue to dismiss the will of the people and insist that we’re simply not capable of making our own decisions.
http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=56 Friday, August 6, 2010 The United States District Court for the Northern District of California’s recent decision represents what may be the biggest threat to representative democracy, not only in California, but also in Missouri and in our federal government.

In 2008, a petition was generated by the citizens of California to pose the question of whether the California constitution should be amended to read that “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” Approximately 13.7 million people – over one third of California’s population – turned out at the polls to weigh in on the question. The majority of the voters (7,001,084) decided that California’s constitution should in fact be amended to limit marriage to that between one man and one woman. Incidentally, Missouri approved a similar Constitutional Amendment a few years ago.

Regardless of one’s personal stand on the issue, there can be no doubt that the people of California and Missouri made a moral decision that marriage should be between one man and one woman. This is how democracy works.

And this is how democracy is destroyed – one district judge, Vaughn R. Walker, appointed by President George H.W. Bush, recently released a decision in which he claims that Prop 8 violates the United States Constitution. The words “marriage” or “same sex” do not appear anywhere in the Constitution. What does appear, however, is the Tenth Amendment which reads, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Judge Walker then, has single handedly overturned the express will of 7,001,084 voters. This case will almost certainly go all the way to the Supreme Court. If Judge Walker’s ruling if affirmed in the Supreme Court, then every defense of marriage act, including Missouri’s, will be held unconstitutional and overturned by the ruling of nine unelected justices.

Judge Walker’s ruling underscores the fact that the opinion of one judge, unelected by the people, has more legal weight then the democratic vote of over seven million people. It is therefore extremely important to ensure that our judges and justices are good men and women who will faithfully abide by the Constitution. We passed our own Prop C and sent a message to the federal government that we will not be forced to buy health insurance by the federal government. The words “health insurance” or “mandate” or “healthcares” likewise are not found in the Constitution.

Missouri selects her Supreme Court justices under the Non-Partisan Court Plan. The plan works something like this: a committee of lawyers and non-lawyers assembles a panel of three potential judges and the governor selects one from that panel to be on the Court. There have been attempts to change the way this system works so that the public, through their elected representatives, has more of a say on who is appointed to our highest court, but so far these attempts have proven unsuccessful. Last year I proposed a bill to enlarge the panel the governor could choose from and allow the governor to ask for a new panel. The governor is elected by the people and so is answerable to the people. My bill passed through the House, but never made it through the Senate.

Democracy is a fragile thing. Seven million voters can pass through a proposition to amend the state constitution and one unelected judge can strike it down. It is therefore vital to our democracy to ensure that the judges who are supposed to protect our democratic system are men and women who will abide by the law and not make their own law.
http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=55 Sunday, July 25, 2010 In addition to the party primaries voters will decide one state-wide ballot proposition next Tuesday, August 3rd. On that ballot you will find Proposition C, the “Health Care Freedom Act” which was passed in the last legislative session by a bipartisan, super majority vote of the House and Senate. The General Assembly placed it on the August 3rd primary ballot as an opportunity for Missourians to express their views on being forced into government defined health insurance products.

For over a year, many Americans from Massachusetts to Missouri to California have rallied time and again against government run health care. In town hall meetings, outdoor protests and in the voting booth, many have sent Washington a clear message: No. Washington did not listen despite the fact the clearly over half of all Americans strongly oppose this idea pushed by the President.

But the Missouri legislature did listen, and we passed the “Health Care Freedom Act”. Many believe that efforts within the Federal Government threaten to put complete control over individual’s health care in the hands of government bureaucrats, partisan politicians, and appointed “experts.” Government control means you will have less freedom to make the health care choices that are best for you and your family. In my opinion patients should have the right to pay directly for medical services with their own money. That’s because when consumers control the dollars, the patient makes the medical treatment decisions. When the government controls the dollars, they make treatment decisions based on what’s best for the government, not what’s best for the patient.

Proposition C provides Missourians a voice in the future of their own health care. A "Yes" vote preserves your present right to keep your own health insurance plan or choose any other private plan or no plan without being penalized for that choice. It also allows Missourians to select the federal government designed and approved insurance plan.

A "No" vote on Proposition C would limit Missourians to only a federal government designed and approved plan. Passage of Proposition C creates two guidelines for future health reform: the right to opt out of a government-sanctioned health care system and the right to spend your own money on lawful medical services. It does not require that the state opt out of any federal program or bar Missourians from participating in any plan of their choice including the federally designed plan.

The ballot language reads:
Shall the Missouri Statutes be amended to:
*"Deny the government authority to penalize citizens for refusing to purchase private health insurance or infringe upon the right to offer or accept direct payment for lawful healthcare services.
*Modify laws regarding the liquidation of certain domestic insurance companies?"

The entire language of the two page bill may be found at the following link: http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills101/biltxt/truly/HB1764T.HTM .

If Proposition C passes on August 3rd, it will become a Missouri statute. Missourians will be the first Americans in the nation to have a vote on this issue. It is a very important election. Many people around the country will be watching for the Show-Me State election results. Whether you support or oppose this legislation, I encourage you to vote on August 3rd.
http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=54 Saturday, July 17, 2010 On July 6th the Obama administration file a lawsuit against Arizona in connection with that states recently passed legislation. This lawsuit charges that the Arizona law cracking down on illegal immigrants conflicts with federal law, would disrupt immigration enforcement and would lead to police harassment of those who cannot prove their lawful status. Filed in federal court in Arizona, it says the state's measure is unconstitutional and asks a judge to stop it from taking effect. Critics of the President claim that there is a political motivation to this lawsuit and that Arizona had to act because of the failure of the federal government to act to mitigate the dangers to that state’s citizens caused by the essentially open board with Mexico. Civil rights groups call Arizona's statute the nation's toughest law against illegal immigrants and say it targets Hispanics, though the legislation says police "may not consider race, color or national origin" in seeking to determine immigration status.

In light of the current controversy resulting from this legislation passed in Arizona, it might be helpful to review the actions of Missouri's General Assembly relating to illegal immigration.

In the 2008 Session, the General Assembly passed HB 1549. I cosponsored this bill. This law changed the statute regarding illegal aliens and immigration status verification. This legislation was described at the time as among the toughest measures in the country to deal with illegal immigration. Key provisions include;


LAW ENFORCEMENT

An arresting law enforcement agency is required within 48 hours to verify through the United States Department of Homeland Security the lawful immigration status of a person charged with a crime and held in confinement if verification cannot be made from documents in the possession of the prisoner or after a reasonable effort by the arresting agency. Upon verification that the prisoner is an illegal alien, the arresting agency must notify the federal department.

If a judge reasonably believes that a person is an illegal alien, bail will be denied until the person can provide verification of lawful presence in the United States.

EMPLOYMENT

Business entities and employers are prohibited from knowingly employing, hiring, or continuing to employ illegal aliens in Missouri. Participation in E-Verify is required for all public employers and business entities receiving a state contract or grant in excess of $5,000 or a state-administered tax credit, tax abatement, or loan from the state. Participation in a federal work authorization program which helps employers know the status of people they want to hire is an affirmative defense to an allegation that a business entity knowingly hired an illegal alien.

Failing to provide identity information on employees within 15 business days after receipt of the request by the Attorney General will result in the suspension of a company's applicable local licenses, permits, and exemptions until the information is supplied. Knowingly employing an illegal alien will result in the suspension of a company's applicable local licenses, permits, and exemptions for 14 days. A second violation will result in suspension for a period of one year, and a third or subsequent violation will result in permanent suspension.

If a business with a state contract or grant or state-administered tax credit, tax abatement, or loan from the state has employed illegal aliens the contract will be terminated and the suspended from doing business with the state for a period of three years. Additional violations will result a permanent ban from doing business in this state. The state may withhold up to 25% of the total amount due to the business entity upon termination of the contract.

The Attorney General must maintain a database documenting any business entity whose license, permit, or exemption has been suspended or whose state contract has been terminated. Failure by a municipality or county to suspend any applicable license or permit of a violator as directed by the Attorney General within 15 business days after notification will be deemed a violation of the sanctuary cities provision and subject the municipality or county to the specified penalties.

SANCTUARY CITIES

Some local governments have adopted policies whereby they will not cooperate with federal immigration officials. These local entities are sometime called, “Sanctuary Cities.” Under this 2008 law passed in Missouri, any county, city, town, or village is prohibited from enacting a sanctuary policy. If they enact a sanctuary policy, they will be ineligible for money provided through grants administered by the state of Missouri until the policy is repealed or is no longer in effect.


DRIVER'S LICENSES

The Department of Revenue is prohibited from issuing driver's licenses to illegal aliens and persons who cannot prove lawful presence in the United States. Missouri will not extend full faith and credit to out-of-state driver's licenses issued to illegal aliens. The commercial driver's license written test must only be given in English. Translators will not be allowed for applicants taking the test.

It is against the law to assist any person during a driver's license, nondriver's license, or instruction permit examination process when that person knows or recklessly disregards the truth that a fraud or deception is being committed. Or assisting any person in applying for a driver's license, nondriver's license, or instruction permit when that person knows or recklessly disregards the truth that the application contains or is substantiated with false or fraudulent information or documentation, conceals a material fact, or is otherwise fraudulent or engaging in a conspiracy to commit any of the preceding acts or aiding or abetting in the commission of any of the acts. Violation of this provision is a class A misdemeanor.

PUBLIC BENEFITS

Aliens unlawfully present in the United States are prohibited from receiving a state or local public benefit unless it is offered under Federal Law 8 U.S.G. 1621(b). Documentary evidence accepted by the Department of Revenue for obtaining a driver's license will suffice as proof of citizenship, permanent residency, or lawful immigration status. Nonprofit organizations regulated by the Internal Revenue Service are not required to enforce these restrictions, nor are they prohibited from providing aid.

TRANSPORTING ILLEGAL ALIENS

Any person knowingly transporting an illegal alien in this state for the purpose of trafficking in violation of Sections 566.200 - 566.215, drug trafficking in violation of Sections 195.222 and 195.223, prostitution in violation of Chapter 567, or employment will be guilty of a felony punishable with imprisonment for not less than one year, a fine of not less than $1,000, or both.

In the 2009 Session the General Assembly passed HB 390. This law prohibits college or university students who are unlawfully present in the United States from receiving financial aid, including institutional aid awarded by public postsecondary educational institutions and state-administered postsecondary grants and scholarships awarded by all postsecondary educational institutions. All postsecondary institutions of higher education must annually certify to the Department of Higher Education that they have not knowingly awarded financial aid to a student who is unlawfully present in the United States.

It is worth noting that the legality of many of these laws were questioned by opponents with the threat of taking the state to court and overturn these laws. I am aware of no court challenge to either of these laws and none of them has been successfully challenged in court.

One of the main sources of technical and other information for the laws passed in Missouri was Kris Kobach Professor of Law at UMKC. He has in his capacity as an attorney represented parties advocating for stricter laws regarding illegal immigration in Missouri and nationwide. He was involved in Arizona's latest laws. The tough legislation passed in Missouri in 2008 which was never challenged by the federal government makes this current lawsuit against Arizona seem odd and does seem to support the accusation that the lawsuit is politically motivated.
http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=53 Saturday, July 10, 2010 During the last week of June, the Missouri House fulfilled the Governor's call and convened for a Special Session. He ordered the General Assembly back to the Capitol to pass two bills which were debated during the regular Session which ended in mid May. One of the bills provided tax incentives for automotive manufacturers and suppliers - the other seeks to revamp the state employee retirement system.

The Governor's call was surprising for several reasons. The Governor didn't express interest in these issues during the regular session. He did not list them as priorities. The House and Senate didn't have a consensus on these issues during the regular Session, nor did the Governor work with us to gain the consensus needed. Missouri tax dollars pay for Special Session, and in a time when fiscal responsibility is a top priority, it seems that the wisest decision would have been for the Governor to lobby the bills during the regular Session and work with members to reach a consensus.

Even though I believe there was a better way to go about the passage of this legislation, the Governor made the call to Special Session and we answered that call. House Republicans acted swiftly, utilizing as few Missouri taxpayer dollars as possible. In fact, we passed an initial version of both bills after only one day of debate. We worked ahead of time to gain the consensus needed to pass both bills. We are now trying to reconcile the House and Senate versions of this legislation. Let me discuss separately why we need to act on these two bills.

Growing Missouri Jobs

I certainly have some reservations about our State granting tax breaks to a private business. The reality is that Missouri finds itself in competition with the other 49 states for good jobs. Other states often offer tax breaks more generous than Missouri. If we are to grow and prosper as a state, we must grant tax breaks to attract and retain good jobs. Under the leadership of Speaker Ron Richard, Republicans in the House of Representatives have been champions for economic development in our state. HCS House Bill 2, sponsored by Representative Jerry Nolte, R-Gladstone, was passed in the House several times but stalled in the Senate. I worked with Representative Nolte on the House floor when the House passed the bill earlier this year. The bill provides tax incentives for automotive manufacturers and suppliers in Missouri. By reducing the amount of tax dollars these companies would owe the State of Missouri, they are able to create more jobs and retain the employees already in place. As you know, the down economy has left thousands of Missourians unemployed. With the number of jobless citizens on the rise, job creation and retention is imperative. One of the projects that this legislation is directed is the possible loss of 3000 to 4000 jobs in the Ford Claycomo Plant near Kansas City. If Ford leaves Missouri, these jobs and many other jobs in related industries will also be lost. Some of these job are in the 118th District.

Re-organization of State Employee Retirement Benefits

The State of Missouri has an extensive and quite generous set of retirement benefits for employees. However, given economic conditions and declining revenue numbers, the current system is unsustainable. . Because of fiscal restrictions, a change needs to be made. HCS House Bill 1, sponsored by Representative Viebrock R-Republic, makes the necessary changes needed to allow the state retirement system to thrive in years to come. Attracting responsible, hard-working employees is something the State of Missouri takes very seriously, so we must be careful to continue to have an attractive retirement package, just not one that could bankrupt the state. In addition, we want to ensure fairness to current state employees. Through this legislation, existing employees would retain the retirement benefits they receive in the current system. A fiscally responsible retirement package that our state can afford, while continuing to attract good employees to Missouri government jobs is important -- and we took a good first step when we passed this bill.

Upon the writing of this report final action on these two bills has not been completed. I remain optimistic that the House and Senate will be able to reach a compromise on these two important bills. http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=51 Monday, July 5, 2010 The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” For most of our history, all American believed that this short passage meant what it said in that our people had a right to keep and bear arms. Over the last forty years these rights have come under serious challenge. Earlier this decade, the District of Columbia passed a law that prohibited private ownership of firearms. In an important decision of the U.S Supreme Court in 2008, District of District of Columbia v Heller that Court clearly stated that the government had no right to strip its residences of this fundamental individual right to possess firearms.

By the narrowest margin (5-4), the U.S. Supreme Court last week ruled that the Constitution guarantees that all Americans-not just residence of the District of Columbia-have the right to bear arms, fortifying what many have correctly believed since ratification of the Second Amendment in 1791. The case decided just last week, McDonald v. Chicago, involved a restrictive handgun law in that city similar to the District of Columbia law previously struck down in 2008.

Prior the this decision, last October, I agreed to sign an Amicus Curiae Brief filed before the Supreme Court in this very lawsuit. This brief was filed on behalf of me and other members of various state legislatures who believed that Chicago wrongfully claimed authority to strip its citizens of this right. An Amicus Curiae Brief is a useful method to provide legal arguments to this Court.

“Self-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day,” wrote Justice Samuel Alito, who was joined in the majority opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts and justices Anthony Kennedy, Antonio Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

According to the Wall Street Journal the court’s ruling for the first time elevated the Second Amendment provision to the status of a fundamental right states can’t abridge, the. Localities enacting gun restriction laws often rely on a states’ rights argument, maintaining that the Second Amendment applies only to the federal government. “The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government,” Thomas Jefferson wrote. “The beauty of the Second Amendment,” he also noted, “is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.”

The ruling is not absolute. As in its 2008 ruling striking down a District of Columbia handgun ban, the court noted there is not “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” Alito emphasized that despite “doomsday proclamations,” the ruling “does not imperil every law regulating firearms.”

This Supreme Court ruling held that the right to bear arms is among constitutional rights considered fundamental American principles of liberty, which override state laws. I believe the nation’s founders would find one of the dissenting Justice wrong in his contention that the ruling creates “a new liberty right.” Shortly before the drafting of the Bill of Rights America had just come through a bloody revolutionary war sparked when British troops were sent to Lexington and Concord to confiscate American’s firearms. The majority of the Court held that the framers of the Constitution and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment considered that right to be fundamental and necessary to our system of ordered liberty.

My service as your State Representative does not usually entail signing Briefs filed before our Nations highest Court. Because of the importance of this issue I willingly took that step. I am gratified with the result of this litigation and I am pleased to have played a small part in this important Supreme Court decision.
http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=50 Saturday, June 26, 2010 On 4th of July we celebrate the birth of our great nation. It’s a celebration of liberty and independence. The birth of our nation has an unforgettable history and sparked traditional celebrations that have continued for hundreds of years.

This celebration started in 1776, on July 2nd, when the United States of America was separated from Great Britain. Congress then focused on the Declaration of Independence, primarily authored by Thomas Jefferson, and agreed upon on July 4th of that year. Around this time, John Adams had written to his wife Abigail that it would be the most memorable epoch in the history of America. He thought that it should be, “…celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival,” and that, “It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires and illuminations from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forever more.”

I would argue that this celebration is even more than the memorial of independence. I believe that our nation had and still has an opportunity to be an example for the entire world. To really understand the uniqueness of our nation, we have to look back to history before our separation for Great Britain. Why are we different from the “Old World”? Many people came to our land to seek freedom from the oppression that existed in Europe during its entire history. Many were seeking to worship God as they believed. Many believed that if this “New World” obeyed the laws of God that we would be place that the entire world would admire-hence a “The shining city on a hill”. Some might not know that this phrase originated from the words of Christ as reported in the Book of Matthew.

"You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hid. Nor do men light a lamp and put it under a bushel, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven." (Matthew 5:14-16)

During his entire career, President Ronald Reagan often repeated this theme. His words describe the kind of nation that the Pilgrims first envisioned. His words capture the kind of nation that we all hope for.

I've spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace, a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity, and if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it and see it still.
(Ronald Reagan's Farewell Address to the Nation, Oval Office, January 11, 1989)

The 4th of July is a great opportunity to remind us of the unique opportunity that we all have to live in the greatest nation in the world. May God bless you, bless your family and bless the United States of America.
http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=49 Monday, June 14, 2010 Most serious observers of the direction of our society have repeatedly warned about the growth of the sex industry in our communities. Over the last few decades these types of businesses have proliferated in our State, even in rural Missouri. One of the greatest concerns many people have about this development is the potential harm to our children. What can civil government do about this issue? There have been a number of scientific studies which have documented the “negative secondary effects” of these enterprises. The more that we learn about these effects, the more compelling the case for reasonable regulation becomes.

On May 13th the House of Representatives passed Senate Bill 586 by a strong bipartisan vote regulating sexually oriented businesses in our State. The following day, the Missouri Senate finally passed this legislation and forwarded it to the Governor. As of the writing of this report, Governor Nixon has not yet signed this legislation. I expect that he will sign it sometime in the next few weeks. Let me address some of the facts that we considered in connection with this legislation.

The purpose of this legislation is to regulate businesses variously known as “juice bars”, “adult movie and video arcades” and “adult bookstores”. Some of these “negative secondary effects” caused by these businesses include personal and property crimes, prostitution, potential spread of disease, lewdness, public indecency, obscenity, illicit drug use and drug trafficking, negative impacts on surrounding properties, urban blight, litter, and sexual assault and exploitation. The sponsors of this legislation successfully argued that these negative effects could be reduced by the adoption of some reasonable regulation of these enterprises.

To reduce these effects, this legislation adopts a number of policies that have been tested in other jurisdictions to be constitutional and that will not unreasonably interfere with constitutionally protected expression. The provision of this legislation includes that after August 28, 2010, no person shall establish a sexually oriented business within 1000 feet of a preexisting school, house of worship, state-licensed day care, public library, public park, residence, or other sexually oriented business. We can all agree that opening of these types of operations next to a church, a school or a day care business is not reasonable.

This legislation further provides that no persons can operate a sexually oriented business if the person has been convicted of, or released from confinement, for certain crimes within the last eight years. These crimes involve certain sex crimes, money laundering and income tax evasion.

This legislation provides that live entertainers my not make physical contact with customers and provides a minimum distance of separation between the entertainers and customers. The legislation prohibits such business from being open between the hours of midnight and 6:00 a.m and most importantly prohibits person under the age of eighteen on the premises. Under this legislation alcohol shall not be sold, used, or consumed alcohol on the premises. The act does not prevent political subdivisions from enacting ordinances to regulate sexually oriented businesses which are stricter but not inconsistent with the legislation.

This legislation is a common sense effort to deal with a very difficult issue. I believe that it goes the right direction to protect our citizens, including children, from the scientifically documented dangers of the sex and porn industry. The legislation’s chief sponsor in the Senate was Matt Bartle of Jackson County and in the House, Ed Emery of Barton County. We had several votes on this legislation in the House before it was finally passed. On each of the votes at least 117 legislators voted yes and no more than 32 opposed it.
http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=48 Monday, June 7, 2010 Currently Missouri is represented by nine members in Congress. The U. S. Constitution requires the federal government to conduct a census ever ten years for the purpose of apportioning the 435 delegates nationwide to the body. This is a process that has occurred ever ten years since 1790. So far only 78% percent of Pettis County households have returned their census forms. The percentage in Saline County and Lafayette County are 70% and 74% respectively.

There is a realistic concern that Missouri might lose a seat in Congress. Of the five states that are closest to the next lower number of members in Congress based upon predictions made by POLIDATA Demographic & Political Guides, Missouri has the smallest number that would result in the loss of a seat. Said in another way, if Missouri final count is off by as little as ten thousand people, our Congressional delegation will shrink from nine to eight. This information may be view on the web at http://www.polidata.org/news.htm. If Missouri loses a seat in Congress, we will collectively lose influence in our nation’s capitol and also lose some of our influence in the Presidential selection process. States like California and Texas are expected to be the big winners.

There are other ramifications to an undercount of people in our community. Other political subdivisions including the Missouri General Assembly use this same data for reapportionment. The numerous pubic service announcements over the last several months have informed us that the census data is used for a variety of purposes by the federal government and State and local government. . In fact, over $400 billion in federal assistance funds for our state and local governments — used to support our roads, schools, and hospitals — are allocated according to census data. There is an indication that the rural areas in our State are underperforming as compared to the metropolitan areas. If outstate Missouri is not fully counted, we in rural Missouri can lose representation in the Missouri legislature to our big city brothers and sisters.

Over the next few weeks, census workers will be placing phone calls and going to the residences of citizens who have not yet returned their forms; please do your best to provide them with the required information. Under Title 13 of the United States Code, all of the information you provide is strictly confidential and the Census Bureau may not sell or give away your address to people who may want to send you mail. However, if you are concerned about the credentials of anyone claiming to be a census worker, you may call (800) 923-8282 or your local census office in Kansas City at (816) 977-2100, Odessa at (816) 565-4031, Columbia at (573) 818-3310), or Springfield at (417) 520-2510).

If you have not received your Census form, you should call 1-866-872-6868 or the Odessa Census Office at 816-565-4054. I urge you to do this today. A undercount of less than two-tenths of one percentage of our population will result in a loss of a member of Congress in our State. An accurate count includes your household.
http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=47 Monday, May 31, 2010 According to studies, about three in every ten Americans will be involved in an alcohol-related motor vehicle accident at some time in their lives. Many times, these accidents result in serious injuries and even death. In Missouri, we made it a priority to strengthen the existing drunk driving laws and took further steps to help safeguard our citizens from the risk created by drunk drivers. I am pleased to have played a significant role in the crafting of this legislation as a member of the House Crime Prevention Committee, which originally heard the public hearings on this legislation.

The Missouri General Assembly passed legislation this year that would create stronger penalties for Driving While Intoxicated offenders and made other changes in our laws that will make our road safer by setting up a system which will help modify the behavior of repeat DWI offenders. HB 1695, 1742 & 1674 which was sponsored by Rep. Bryan Stevenson, R-Webb City, contains a wide range of provisions dealing with drunken driving offenses including stronger penalties for DWI offenders. The bill requires drivers with blood-alcohol levels of at least 0.15 percent to spend 48 hours in jail, and those with at least 0.2 percent to spend at least five days in jail, unless they complete the requirements of a DWI court or other court-ordered treatment.

In addition, the bill allows any circuit court to set up a DWI Court for repeat offenders or those whose blood-alcohol content exceeds 0.15 percent. Several Missouri courts already offer DWI Courts, which allow repeat DWI offenders to avoid jail time while receiving treatment for alcohol abuse and close monitoring. Under a DWI Court, the offender would apply for admission. If they qualified, they would enter into a program requiring intensive supervision that would include abstinence from alcohol, counseling, and might include wearing a device that will electronically and instantaneously detect any alcohol in their body. In addition, they would be required to work and obey the other requirements normally imposed on individuals on probation. If they satisfactorily complete the one year program, the offenders would avoid a prison sentence. Based upon studies of similar programs there is a high degree of success in these programs where individuals actually change their destructive behavior of drunk driving. An added benefit is that these programs are significantly cheaper for the State than locking these people up in prison. In these bad economic times for our citizens and for our State budget, these changes providing for DWI Court hold a promise to better protect our citizens from the dangers of repeat drunk drivers on our roads by modifying this destructive behavior of these individuals at a savings for taxpayers.

The bill also requires state courts rather municipal courts to handle any DWI case involving a defendant with two or more alcohol-related contacts with authorities or intoxication-related traffic offenses, requires police and prosecutors to adopt policies for reporting information on DWI offenses to a central databank, increases the minimum jail time for previous DWI offenders from five to 10 days, and increases the minimum jail time for a persistent offender to 30 days. It will require all municipal judges to complete courses on state drunken driving laws and direct their courts to report all DWI case dispositions to a central databank, holding them more accountable to the process. These changes were necessary because a number of municipal courts in the urban areas of Missouri were not punishing these offenders as they should have.
http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=46 Monday, May 24, 2010 Many Missouri citizens were and continue to be outraged with the passage of health care legislation, the so-called, “ObamaCare”, that President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid pushed through Congress earlier this year. I want my constituents to know that the majority of the Missouri General Assembly share your outrage and that we have passed a bill that seeks to protect you and your family from this harmful federal mandate portion of that federal legislation. I speak of the provisions within the federal health care reform bills that would mandate that individuals purchase health insurance or face fines and penalties. This imposition of a federal mandate has caused concern constituents among many of our citizens and has resulted in state legislators from around the country, including here in Missouri, to propose what has come to be known as the "Health Care Freedom Act."

When the United States House of Representatives passed their health care bill, yielding over two thousand pages, they immediately took away our basic rights. Congress and the President have ignored the cry of the American people and they pushed their own agenda – leaving our citizens to pick up the expensive tab. Because I believe that Congress has no right to mandate that our citizens have to purchase a particular product, the federally approved health care plan, I cosponsored this legislation.

There is a fine line when it comes to government mandates, and Congress and the President have crossed that line. Even though no Republicans in the United States House and Senate voted for the bill that was adopted, the Democrat majority found the votes they needed for it to pass. The federal health care bill costs approximately $940 billion, which is a concern as we face such a serious economic recession, not to mention our national debt which has shot up into the trillions. Someone has to pick up the tab, and that someone is you and me. We will be taxed through penalties if we refuse to buy health care and adhere to federal guidelines.

I have no direct influence over the actions of our President and Congress, but I do have a say when it comes to what we do in the Missouri to protect citizens from the federal health care mandates. Why should the government dictate what you must and must not do – especially when it comes to your own health care insurance? Many studies show that if the federal legislation is passed, average health care premiums in Missouri could rise as much as 98%. For the Missouri General Assembly to do nothing under these circumstances would have been the wrong

On the first day of this year’s session, we introduced the Health Care Freedom Act on the floor of the House and approved it for final passage in early March. Now that it has passed the Senate, it will go to the ballot in August for a vote by YOU, the people. The Health Care Freedom Act would give individuals and employers the opportunity to pay directly for lawful health care services without being subject to federal penalties and states that the purchase or sale of health care insurance in private health care systems cannot be prohibited by law or rule. The voters of Missouri will be the first in the nation to vote on legislation that is designed to protect us from the unlawful federal intrusion in our personal lives.

A majority of states in the country have filed legislation to oppose the federal health care legislation, and we are hopeful that you will join us in this fight. States should retain the power to regulate health care and allow their citizens the freedom to choose between health care options in the open market. I feel that health care decisions should be left to doctors and patients, not Washington politicians and bureaucrats.
http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=45 Sunday, May 16, 2010 Last week was the final week of Ninety-Fifth Session of the Missouri General Assembly and much has been accomplished this year. We have sent a balanced the budget to the Governor for his signature without a tax increase. Services directed at our Senior Citizens, K-12 education, veterans, public safety and other essential State services have survived the necessary budget cuts the best.

I am extremely proud of the passing of SB844 - the Ethics bill, and hope that this will bring some change to this legislative body and how public officials are held accountable. Regardless of whether we are Republican, Democrat or Independent, we can all agree on one thing: maintaining our integrity as public servants should be something we strive to maintain as we work to better the lives of Missourians across our state. The men and women who have voted us in to office expect us to be honest and work ethically as we pursue legislation that will benefit Missouri
families – including the decisions we make in our personal lives, and they deserve nothing less.

The Ethics bill (SB 844) passed this session by the legislature included the following provisions:

Bidding Process: The act requires all bids administered by the office of administration to be subject to a competitive bid process.

Bribery by the Governor’s Office: Last session, two House members swore by signed affidavits that they were bribed by the Governor’s office. In exchange for a vote on an issue important to Governor Nixon, his staff promised the members a job in return for a favorable vote. Through the ethics bill, the Governor’s bribery tactics will be 100% illegal.

Ethics Commission: Currently, within 120 days of receipt of a complaint, the special investigator submits a report to the commission. This act changes that threshold to 90 days. In addition, all reporting to the Missouri Ethics Commission must be done electronically.

Contributions During Session: If an elected official receives a contribution of $500 or more during legislative session, that contribution must be reported within 48 hours. In addition, there will be increased penalties for late contribution reports whether during or not during legislative session.

Here is a quick overview of some key legislation that passed in both the House and the Senate this year:

• Budget: Protecting Missourians, No New Taxes
• Protecting the Lives of the Unborn - SB793
• Health Care Freedom Act: Opting Out of the Federal Plan
• Urging Congress to Put a Stop to “Cap and Trade” Legislation
• Resolutions to the Federal Government: Balance the National Budget - HCR 34 & 35
• Ensuring Prompt Payment to Health Providers -HB1498
• Providing Aid to Children with Autism in Missouri - HB1311
• Strengthening DWI Laws - SS SCS HCS HB 1695, 1742 & 1674
• Passing a Resolution canceling the Tax Increase on Agriculture lands
• Regulation of Sexually Oriented Businesses


Over the next several weeks I will provide more detailed information relating a few of the 106 Bills passed by both the House and the Senate this year. I will provide you information on any vetoes made by the Governor. I you have specific questions concerning any legislation acted on this year, please contact me.

I am pleased to have been the principle sponsor of two bills that passed both houses this year and to have been the sponsor of numerous amendments that were added to other bills. My bills that made it to the Governor’s desk include HB 1408 which requires speeder refund of income tax refunds and HB 2201 which helps the businesses that originate residential mortgages to continue to make loans to prospective homeowners.

This summer I will be spending more time in the district with constituents. If anyone would ever like to visit with me, feel free to call my Jeff City Office or at my District phone number at 660-826-5456. Karen, my Legislative Assistant will be in the office routinely checking email and phone calls.
http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=43 Sunday, May 9, 2010 Regardless of whether we are Republican, Democrat or Independent, we can all agree on one thing: maintaining our integrity as public servants should be something we strive to maintain as we work to better the lives of Missourians across our state. The men and women who have voted us in to office expect us to be honest and work ethically as we pursue legislation that will benefit Missouri families – including the decisions we make in our personal lives, and they deserve nothing less.

On the first day of session this year, Speaker of the House, Ron Richard, R – Joplin, committed to bringing comprehensive ethics reform bill to the floor that worked to stop unethical behavior in the House and in all publicly elected offices across the state. Last week, we came through on that commitment by passing SB844.

The proposal comprehensively addresses the many concerns raised this year following the ethical and legal troubles of a number of elected officials in Missouri. We believe that there must be public trust in elected officials for state government to work effectively. Because of this, we have spent months carefully crafting ethics reform legislation that will overhaul the existing ethics laws and add new penalties, restrictions, and reforms that will help eliminate and appropriately punish unethical and illegal behavior by Missouri’s elected officials.

While the proposal contains numerous important provisions, some of the most important measures help to ensure ethical behavior:


• Bribery of Elected Officials: The Governor or anyone acting on his behalf shall not make any offer or promise of an appointment to any position in exchange of a legislator’s vote. Any member who accepts a bribe is guilty of the crime acceding to corruption. Any bribe on any level will not be tolerated.

• Elected Officials as Lobbyists: No member of the General Assembly shall serve as a lobbyist for two years after the conclusion of their last term in the General Assembly.

• Felony Benefits: Any elected official who is found guilty or pleads guilty to a felony will immediately forfeit all benefits from the state.

• Transparency in Appointments: For every appointment made by the Governor, Speaker and President Pro Tem of the Senate, information shall be publicly disclosed of the appointee and the amount of any contribution they have made to any campaign or candidate committee for a period of four years prior to the date of the appointment. This will also apply to the spouse of the appointee or any business where the appointee holds a substantial interest. Appointments should be made solely on merit, not on campaign contributions.

• Lobbyist Gifts: No elected Missouri official shall accept a gift from a lobbyist in excess of $2,500.00 dollars per year. Honorarium gifts shall not count against the total. Items having a value of less than ten dollars do not count against the total.

• Campaign Contribution Limits: The limit on campaign contributions is limited to $20,000.00 per year.

• Committee to Committee Transfers: No person shall transfer campaign funds from committee to committee with the purpose of concealing the donation source. Punishment for the first violation is the funds must be returned; the second violation is a Class C misdemeanor; for the third and subsequent violations the person transferring the funds is guilty of a Class D felony.

• Donations from Appointees: An elected official cannot use the power of their position to leverage campaign donations. Therefore, no statewide office holder shall accept any donation from any person whom the office holders appoint to a position with the advice and consent of the Senate.

• Drug Testing of State Elected Officials: Requires all state elected officials, members of the General Assembly, leadership staff and Gubernatorial department heads to be drug tested.

• Early Voting: Requires each election authority to create one advance voting center in each senatorial district and allows any registered voter to vote early. This allows for greater access and participation in the voting process.

• Photo ID Requirement: Requires individuals to show a photo ID when voting on Election Day. This is similar to legislation contained in HB 1966.

• Fee Office Reform: Requires the Department of Revenue to use only county collectors, treasurers or city collectors as fee office agents.

• Secret Ballot Guarantee: Guarantees the right to vote by secret ballot in elections involving the formation of a union or a labor organization.

• Political Activity Dues: Union dues may not be used for any political activity if designated as not for political uses by the member contributing the dues. This provision also adds a $10,000 fine per violation and a Class D felony.

As your state representative, I have a large amount of respect for you – my constituent – and out of that respect; it is my responsibility to act in an ethical manner. I understand my responsibility to act with integrity and take it very seriously. The provisions in SB844 work to ensure this behavior with members not only in the House of Representatives, but on a state-wide level. We are now calling on the support of the Governor, so that the Senate will take up and pass the bill and it can be signed in to law as soon as possible.

Our State Capitol and legislative process was founded by men and women who had a deep reverence for the state of Missouri. Their intentions, written into the stone in the House Chamber, are clear: Honor, Truth, Virtue and Equality. When this legislation is adopted, you can have more certainty that these virtues are being sought after by your State officials.
http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=42 Monday, May 3, 2010 I have twice taken an oath in connection with being sworn-in as a member of the Missouri House of Representatives. Part that oath includes, "I do solemnly swear….that I will support the Constitution of the United States and of the State of Missouri…..” The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution provides, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The Missouri Constitution contains a similar provision. The preservation of this important right to “keep and bear Arms” sometimes require legislation. I have on several occasions filed legislation to help protect this fundamental right.

A couple years ago, I discovered that under current law businesses can choose to ban lawfully possessed concealed weapons from public parking lots on their property. This is why I am the chief sponsor House Bill 1400, the “Business Premises Safety Act”. Last week the Missouri House passed it by a vote of 113-40.

The legislation would prohibit businesses open to the public from restricting the lawful storage of a firearm in a motor vehicle on their premises. Without this legislation, law abiding citizens, who under current law have a lawful right to possess a firearm in the motor vehicle for their personal safety, might have to leave their gun at home. With this legislation, Missourians can leave there gun in their locked vehicle. I believe that when people fully have the right to possess the firearms that the legislature has previously authorized, we are all safer. When we authorize lawful, good citizens to carry the firearms, we actually increase the safety of the public.

Another provision of the bill would protect businesses from liability for the criminal acts of a third party. This is a situation where a criminal comes upon someone’s business premises and injures a customer. Under HB 1400, businesses would be liable for these acts only if they know or have reason to know the acts are occurring or are about to occur that pose imminent injury to a person or that the same criminal acts have occurred on the premises within the past 24 months and are likely to occur again. Over the last few years, Missouri courts have increasingly held business owners liable for acts committed by criminals on their property when they could not reasonably foresee that the injury might occur. This legislation will restore the requirement that no one should be held liable for acts that they could not reasonably predict. This legislation now goes to the Senate for their consideration.
http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=41 Wednesday, April 21, 2010 One of the most basic responsibilities of government is administering the election process because few rights are as sacred as our right to vote. To ensure free and fair elections in Missouri, the Missouri House of Representatives gave approval in the Missouri House to House Joint Resolution 64 and House Bill 1966 this week. This is important legislation that would establish procedures to allow early voting and require voters to produce photo identification before voting. I am the chief sponsor of HJR 64 and Representative John Diehl of Town and Country is the chief sponsor to HB 1966. John and I and other members of the House Elections Committee have worked for over a year to put together this pair of bills that will make it easier to vote and harder to cheat.

An unfortunate reality of recent elections is increased instances of voter fraud. For a people that cherishes the right to vote as much as America, this practice is troubling. This important legislation would require voters to produce a form of photo identification when voting to help reduce fraud and abuse in our elections. We believe that in this day and age, requiring photo identification to vote is a common sense requirement. We all need a photo ID to cash a check, rent a movie, buy Sudafed or get on an airplane.
To ensure that this measure does not discourage voting, we have created exemptions for the elderly, the disabled, and those unable to afford the documents necessary to obtain proper identification.

With the photo identification requirement, we have established necessary safeguards to help prevent voter fraud and ensure the integrity of our elections. It is important to point out that through this bill, the state is required to provide at least one form of personal identification required to vote, at no cost, to a qualified citizen who does not already possess the required identification and cannot afford to get one.

Currently, there are thirty-two states that allow early voting. But unfortunately, Missouri is not yet one of them. This pair of legislation would create a four day early voting period for those individuals who choose to vote before Election Day. It would also establish regional voting centers to ensure broad access to the early voting process. By giving voters a wider opportunity to vote, access to the electoral process will improve and voter participation might increase.

Through this same legislation, the Secretary of State would be required to establish procedures for absent military member voters and overseas voters to request voter registration applications and absentee ballot applications. At least one form of electronic communication for use by the military and overseas voters must be designated for requesting voter registration applications and absentee ballots. These voters may request and designate a preferred method of electronic transmission of these applications and ballots or request receipt by mail. While our men and women overseas are fighting for our freedom and making sacrifices for our great country, we should do what we can to make the voting process easier for them.

For too long, Missouri’s election laws have lacked many of the statutory provisions available to other states that encourage electoral participation and provide the necessary safeguards to prevent voter fraud and abuse. With the initial passage of House Joint Resolution 64 and House Bill 1966, we are one step closer real elections reforms that will effectively promote increased participation and ensure free and fair elections. This legislation now goes to the Senate. To fully implement this legislation, voter would have to approve HJR 64 later this year.
http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=40 Tuesday, April 13, 2010 Recently, the Missouri House passed House Concurrent Resolution 46 and it was sent to it the Senate. HCR 46 opposes the Cap and Trade bill – urging Congress to stop their progress on the legislation and urges the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to put an end to the plan by that will create a massive hidden energy that will crush Missouri families, farmers, and businesses. The Wall Street Journal called the pending Cap and Trade bill the “biggest tax in American history.” As energy rates rise, everyone who flips on a light switch or drives a car will be affected. This will act as a regressive tax, impacting those who spend larger portions of their incomes on energy and other necessities.

This Federal legislation that I oppose has passed the U. S. House and is pending in the Senate. If the bill finally passes, energy rates will rise exponentially. In fact, the Missouri Public Utility Alliance estimated that electric bills could increase by 82% by 2030— they stress that this is an optimistic estimate. Estimates vary, but one thing is clear: Cap and Trade will cost Missouri thousands of jobs and raise electricity rates on the average family hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars. President Obama proposed this legislation even thought he warned that the legislation would cause electricity rates to “skyrocket.” These facts have caused some commentators to call this bad legislation “Cap and Tax”.

By supporting the cap-and-trade energy tax, the President and Democrats in Congress have directly attacked Missouri’s two largest industries—agriculture and tourism—along with every business in the state. One version of the bill (H.R. 2454 in 2009) would have established a national building code for commercial and residential buildings, requiring a 30 percent reduction in energy use immediately after passage and an additional 50 percent reduction in energy use by 2014—meaning that bureaucrats in Washington will tell you how to build your house.

We are also asking that the EPA rescind the recent decision made regarding the formal endangerment finding on greenhouse gases, seeing as the evidence was deemed to be flawed by the scientific community. It is imperative that we allow proven scientific measures and technological advances to help guide us in our environmental decisions. Direction to the federal government from the EPA should not be the sole source – especially when they try to control legislative objectives coming out of Congress that have harmful effects on our state and our citizens. Incidentally, Congress has control over the EPA and could legislatively reverse this bad decisions if were willing to do the right thing.

By a bipartisan vote of 112 yes and 41 no, the Missouri House of Representatives took a stand against Cap and Trade, sending a clear message to President Obama and Congress. I urge you to contact Senator Kit Bond and Senator Claire McCaskill and let them know what you think about this pending Federal legislation.

I want to once again thank my constituents who took the time to respond to the survey mailed in February. There were almost 400 responses. On the issue of taxes, 51.7% of those who responded opposed the “Fair Tax” while 48.3% supported it. When asked if they prefer simplification of the current tax structure by having fewer tax brackets, 82.4% supported this option. When asked if they everyone should have a personal deduction for the purchase of health care, 91% favored this option. Although this survey is unscientific, the results, especially the comments, were helpful to me. I did take the time to personally read all comments. Thanks again for taking the time.
http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=39 Tuesday, April 6, 2010 Whether we are pro-life or pro-choice, we can all agree that expectant mother should not be put at risk by threats or intimidation designed to force then to have an abortion. I have constituently supported the life of the unborn as a member of the Missouri House. Even so, I believe this idea is worthy of support even among pro-choice advocates. Just last week the House finally passed legislation that protects expectant mothers from this type of harm. House Bill 1327 and 2000, changes the laws regarding the consent requirements for obtaining an abortion and creates the crime of coercing an abortion. Many times, women who seek an abortion only do so because they are forced or pressured to do so by their husband, boyfriend or any other outside force. This is wrong and should be against the law. Coercion occurs when the pregnant mother losses her free will and choice as a result of this type of conduct.

The bill also takes steps to protect pregnant mothers by requiring a thorough checklist of items that must be completed before an abortion is performed or induced. Abortions cannot be performed or induced without the voluntary, informed and uncoerced consent of the expecting mother at least 24 hours prior to the abortion. The physician must provide orally and in writing the following items: The physician’s name, medically accurate information including the abortion method, any risks associated with the method being performed, alternative to abortion and follow-up care information. Pregnant mother should be provided medically accurate information including the abortion method, any risks associated with the method being performed, alternative to abortion and follow-up care information.

Physicians must also provide prominently displayed statements encouraging a pregnant woman seeking an abortion to contact agencies that help women carry an unborn child to full term and statements that inform the women that no one can coerce a person to have an abortion. A facility must maintain a toll-free, confidential, 24-hour hotline telephone number for callers to obtain regional information about abortions, risks and alternative to abortions. This information must also be available on the facility’s website.

Another major component of the bill would make it a crime to coerce a woman to have an abortion through acts such as assault, stalking threatening her employment or withholding an academic scholarship. The bill also would require physicians and abortion clinics to notify prosecutors when a woman under the age of 18 inquires about having an abortion. The bill would require that prosecutors be notified at least a day before an abortion. We certainly need to protect underage children from this type of abuse conduct. If a person is found guilty of this despicable behavior, he or she will be subject to face a class A felony with a maximum prison term of 10 years, a fine of up to $10,000 or both.

Through these important steps, we are hopeful that expecting mothers will be fully informed about abortion and the risks that may result from the procedure. Most notably, we hope that this legislation will save lives of the unborn and allow expectant mothers to have the care, attention and resources they need to carry their unborn child to full term. This bill passed with bipartisan support with a vote of 113 yes and 37 no. The bill now goes to the Missouri Senate for consideration.
http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=38 Sunday, March 28, 2010 Everyone knows that we are facing the worst economy since the Great Depression. Projected state revenues are down nearly 14% over the past fiscal year. Our State budget in this fiscal year is $23 Billion and our available revenues no longer support this type of spending. We are facing a $500 to $800 Million revenue short-fall in next fiscal year and even more in the following year. Raising taxes will severely cripple businesses and would cause more long term unemployment. Cutting spending is the only proper course of action.

Many people in our state have grown accustomed to various programs and spending commitments. All Representatives have been flooded with emails from various parties asking that we not make reductions to their program. Each program has its supporters and its critics. We all know we need to reduce spending but we have had a hard time reaching an agreement about which programs should stay, go or be reduced. Reaching 82 votes in the Missouri House is very difficult concerning these contentious issues.

Last week the Missouri House gave final approval Thursday to the 13 appropriations bills that make up the fiscal year 2011 state operating budget. Through committee work and amendments adopted on the House floor, members cut more than $224 million in general revenue from the budget proposed by Governor. Additionally, various statutory changes are being considered to structurally change government and government programs that will have a direct impact on future State budgets.

The bulk of the cuts made on the House floor took place when members approved an amendment offered by Rep. Maynard Wallace, R-Thornfield, to eliminate a $105.7 million increase in funding to the state's 523 public school districts. By approving the amendment, the House froze funding for the school foundation formula at the same level as that of the current year. Wallace, a former school superintendent, said the decision to eliminate the increase was difficult but necessary.

“I think everybody here knows that I am always looking for more money for schools. I would like to increase it $105 million instead of decreasing it by that, but I'm trying to be realistic,” said Wallace. “This takes us back to basically the money the schools are operating on this year and I think speaking to school people from across the state, they're anticipating some cut. Let's do it in a timely manner to where they can plan and work with it. It also does help us get a balanced budget but my focus is on trying to help the schools deal with a realistic number of state dollars they're going to get.”

Based upon the approval of this amendment, funding for Public Schools was held harmless to the fiscal year 2010 funding level bringing K-12 funding to over $5.3 Billion. The Career Ladder for public school teachers was fully funded in the approved budget. Parents as Teachers took a reduction in the Governor’s budget, however the House put back $1M from that reduction. Higher Education funding was held at the Governor’s proposal. Public institutions have agreed not to increase tuition for students or their families if we keep their funding at the Governor’s proposal. Bright Flight scholarships were increased by $7.5 Million to cover new statutory requirements for the program. Access Missouri Scholarship was funded to a tune of over $80M.

Even with these cuts, Missouri is likely short of the total reductions that actually need to be made for the next fiscal year. The Senate has agreed to make up differences with additional spending reductions when they receive the budget as passed by the House. This is next step in the budget process. Under the Missouri Constitution the Missouri General Assembly must pass a balanced budget and the budget must be delivered to the Governor for signature by May 7th. The Missouri House last week has taken a good first step of making the cuts that must be made.
http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=37 Monday, March 22, 2010 In prior reports I have described how state revenues are way down this year and most experts don’t expect them to rise in the next year or two. News accounts every day describe how countless Missourians have lost their jobs and many of our citizens are having difficulty providing for their families. As members of the Missouri House, as we continue to find ways to decrease spending in the state budget, we recognize our responsibility to reduce the costs associated with the operation of the Missouri House of Representatives itself.

It might seem self-evident that the only effective way to be a leader is to be willing to sacrifice. When we were subjects of Kings, such willingness to sacrifice by them was unexpected. I believe that under our representative form of government, willingness to share in the current problems should be expected. If the leaders in the Executive and Legislative branches of the State of Missouri are asking others to give up so much, we must likewise share in the difficulty.

You might be surprised to find out that it costs taxpayers over $19 million per year to pay salaries, equipment, printing and other expenses associated with the Missouri House of Representatives. The members of the House need to show our commitment to smaller government by making significant cuts in the budget that directly affects the operation of the legislative branch of our State. I am happy to report to you that we have recently made significant first steps to decrease our own House budget.

Along with the Accounts Committee Chairman, Representative Kenny Jones, we have taken a step to reduce state travel by House members. Most travel expense reimbursements are currently being denied – which will save a good portion of House budget funds. Cellular phone reimbursements which have previously been paid to some members have also been eliminated, saving the House $55,000.

Every ten years, after completion of the Federal decennial census, the Missouri House and Senate are required to redistrict and redraw our Congressional lines. In the past this has resulted in a one-time expenditure of funds for staff, equipment and supplies. Unlike the Governor’s Office of Administration, the Missouri House will fulfill our constitutional redistricting responsibilities without using additional fiscal resources. This was a savings of $100,000 – 200,000 of the House budget funds.

In addition, we worked with the Joint Committee on Legislative Research to eliminate the Legislative Budget Office which was a $242,000 savings. In the past, many House members have been a member of several key Organizations including the National Conference of State Legislatures, the American Legislative Exchange Council, the Counsel of State Governments and so forth. This year, we opted out of our memberships in effort to reduce spending. These are worthwhile organizations, but we simply don’t have the funds to pay for this out of State funds. This provided us a total of $345,000 in savings.

Finally, we are in the process of replacing our paper system in the Chamber with laptop computers in effort to reduce paper consumption and costs. Although the laptops were expensive, over time we expect to see significant decreases in paper costs.

It is my hope that we are able to find cost savings of at least $1 Million from the House of Representative’s own budget. Cost savings of this amount out of a budget of $9 Billion seems small. Yet, as State leaders must show our commitment to reaching a balanced budget. Our elected leaders should lead by example. This is one way that we can deal with our current difficulties.
http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=36 Monday, March 15, 2010 It seems like just last week that I reported to duty in Jefferson City this session. Since then we have been busy filing bills, conducting committee meetings and before we knew it, we were passing legislation on the floor. I am extremely happy to report that we have made real progress in important issues that affect your life and we have completed the first half of session. We hit the ground running and we continue our work upon returning for the remainder of session after the spring break on March 15th. I want to provide you a report on success so far and also report on an idea to protect you and your family from the federal healthcare mandate now being considered in Washington, the so-called, “ObamaCare”.

The General Assembly has since January stopped the real estate tax increase on farmland proposed by the Governor’s tax commission. The House has passed House Bill 1408, which I sponsored, that requires prompt income tax refunds, passed a good job creation bill, House Bill 1675, and passed a requirement the health insurance companies pay valid insurance claims promptly-real health insurance reform. We have also passed resolutions calling for the Federal Government to balance the federal budget and to halt the common practice of the Federal Government passing the cost of their “big ideas” onto state governments and our taxpayers.

As the health care debate rages on in Congress, several members of the House of Representatives in Missouri have come to an idea that might protect Missourians from the most oppressive provision of the proposed Federal Legislation. I speak of the provisions within the federal health care reform bills that would mandate that individuals purchase health insurance or face fines and penalties. This has caused many of our constituent’s serious concern and caused state legislators from around the country to propose what has come to be known as the "Health Care Freedom Act."

Whether in attempted meetings with our Congressman, letters to the editor or in the extensive polling that has been done on the issue, time and again Missourians have voiced their overwhelming opposition to the health care reform proposals in Congress. Unfortunately, Congress continues to ignore the will of those who strongly oppose the federal health reform proposals. In response, state legislators have worked to stand up for their constituents by speaking out against the harmful provisions within these bills and creating protections against them within state laws. Many studies show that if the federal legislation is passed, average health care premiums in Missouri could rise as much as 98%.

Because of the fact that Congress is refusing to listen to the vast majority of the American people regarding the fact that we do not want this legislation, we introduced the Health Care Freedom Act (HJR 57) in the Missouri House. The companion bill, SJR 25, was filed in the Senate by Senator Jane Cunningham. To protect Missourians from this action, I along with 74 of my colleagues co-sponsored, House Joint Resolution 57, Missouri's version of the Health Care Freedom Act, in the Missouri House of Representatives. The proposed constitutional amendment has two major provisions; it would ensure that Missourians have control over their own health care decisions and would prohibit government penalties and fines for failing to comply with government efforts to mandate health insurance. Quite simply, health care mandates do not work. A similar mandate in Massachusetts has led to a 42 percent increase in health care spending and still left hundreds of thousands uninsured. Not to mention, the constitutionality of these mandates remains in question. It is clear that these proposed mandates would not cure our health care ills, but would only cause further damage.

Similar legislation, which has now been proposed in 35 states, would create state constitutional protections against federally mandated health insurance purchases and prohibit government fines and penalties for refusing to purchase insurance. I and many Missourians believe that Congress has overstepped its authority with many of the provisions within the health care proposals. I feel that health care decisions should be left to doctors and patients, not Washington politicians and bureaucrats.

Just before spring break, the Missouri House of Representatives gave initial approval to the Health Care Freedom Act to protect Missourians from these federal mandates and penalties. A final vote in the House on the proposed constitutional amendment will likely come within the next week or two. If passed by the legislature, Missourians will have the opportunity to vote on this proposal in the November election. With a majority vote, Missouri will join many other states in the Union to constitutionally protect the rights of its citizens to manage their own health care decisions. While Congress continues to ignore the will of the people, the Missouri legislature hears your voices and we will continue to fight for you.
http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=35 Sunday, March 7, 2010 Last week the Missouri House passed HB 1408 & 1514. This legislation, which I filed in January, requires the prompt payment of Missouri income tax returns. Current state law allows the government to not return Missourians excess income taxes until August 15th. It does not make sense that we taxpayers will be assessed an interest charge on income tax that is not paid when due and the State of Missouri can hold onto our refunds longer than it take s to process the tax returns.

Last year I received several inquires from constituents about a delay in their income tax refunds. Upon an investigation, I discovered that our Governor had allowed the Missouri Department of Revenue to withhold income tax refunds up to four (4) months. I also came to the conclusion that the reason for the decision was to allow the use these funds to meet the short term financial needs of our State when revenue had dropped as a result of the recession. The lengthy withholding of these income tax refunds due our residents was not the only alternative that the Governor had. The Governor always has a right to cut spending to meet these shortfalls. Instead of cutting spending, he took a no interest loan from all of these taxpayers who were due tax refunds. The constituents who called me had all expected a quicker refund of their overpayment of income tax and they needed the money. This lengthy withholding of tax refunds is wrong and that is why I drafted this legislation. .

If the taxpayers don’t pay what is due the State on April 15th our State assesses interest and penalty. If Missouri doesn’t promptly pay refunds, the State should pay interest on that money. This legislation requires the state to payback income tax returns within 45 days of April 15th, which is how the Federal government operates with tax returns. It is sad for me to report that in this situation the Federal government is more efficient than our state government.

The bottom line is this is your money, the taxpayer's money. Missourians worked hard to earn it and should have a prompt return of their excess taxes. There is no reason for the state government to take longer than the Federal government when it comes to your income tax return. This is the type of the common-sense, reform that will help working Missourians in everyday life.

March 4th was the beginning of the mid-session eleven day break from work at the Capitol. We still have a lot of work remaining when we return. This includes passing a responsible budget and addressing the most pressing needs of Missourians in these difficult times. I appreciate everyone who took the time to complete and return my legislative questioner that I mailed to your households. Hopefully we will be able to complete the review of your responses and report back to you what it says in the next few weeks.
http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=34 Sunday, February 28, 2010 In prior Reports, I have discussed the need of health care insurance reform. Last week Congressional leader along with the President meet in Washington to discuss the status of Federal legislation on this subject. America's health care system is in need of change, but not change that consists of overhauling one-sixth of America's economy by centralizing health care decisions in Washington. The cornerstone provisions of the House and Senate proposals, along with the President's recent recommendations, would put more power in the hands of bureaucrats and politicians. The legislative process thus far has been characterized by little transparency or bipartisanship. To be successful, the Federal health care debate must begin by setting aside the highly unpopular House and Senate bills.

Because of the controversy surrounding the issue, nothing has been done so far on a national level to improve the system. In the Missouri House of Representatives, however, the wheels are turning and we are accomplishing the common-sense steps necessary to advance health care insurance reform. The leadership in the Missouri House of Representatives has a more common sense conservative approach to health care insurance reform than our Congress in Washington D.C. A piece of true healthcare cost reform legislation passed the Missouri House this week with overwhelming support. HB 1498 requires health insurance providers to promptly pay claims put forth by doctors, hospitals and other health care providers for services provided to patients. This is a common sense reform that will improve healthcare in Missouri and will reduce costs and inefficiency.

When health insurance claims are delayed, patients suffer. The cost of these delays is passed onto the consumer and this ends up being an extreme inefficiency in our healthcare system. Working Missourians must pay their bills and debts in a timely manner; I see no reason why health insurance companies should not also be held accountable. HB 1498 is meant to address some of the issues uncovered in a 2009 report published by the Missouri Department of Insurance, which showed Missouri health care providers have dealt with significant payment delays in claims filed with insurance companies.

This report showed more than 26 percent of claims at 69 Missouri hospitals are past due by 90 days or more. Overall, in the second quarter of 2009, hospitals reported $153 million in claims unpaid after 90 days. Currently only two-thirds of claims are processed within sixty (60) days of the claim. Under current law insurance companies are allowed to suspend the payment process. Through this legislation, a health insurance company would no longer have the ability to delay payments to providers by suspending a claim through loopholes and special exceptions. Instead, the health insurance company would be allowed 45 days to process and pay or deny the provider’s claim. This excellent piece of compromise legislation will change that and make the entire system more efficient, reliable and cost conscious. Insurance Companies will still be allowed to deny payments that are not legitimate but otherwise they must promptly pay these claims.

Our doctors, dentists and other health care providers should not be forced to wait on payment for months on end. Healthcare providers do the work needed to keep Missourians healthy and they should be paid for it. HB 1498 is a common-sense reform that will make sure that happens. I applaud all of the health care providers and insurance companies who came together in a bi-partisan way to craft a piece of legislation that will improve the health care system for all of Missourians.
http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=33 Saturday, February 20, 2010 Last Thursday, the Missouri House of Representatives gave final approval to legislation meant to attract and retain manufacturing jobs and make Missouri competitive with other states trying to do the same. Rep. Jerry Nolte, R-Gladstone, sponsors HB 1675, which passed by a bipartisan vote of 134-17. Representative Nolte asked me to help him shepard this legislation through floor debate last week and I was glad to help pass this important legislation.

This bill would allow qualified manufacturers in Missouri to keep 50 percent of their withholding tax from retained jobs for 10 years. To qualify, a manufacturer has to earn at least 10 percent of their revenues from products exported outside the United States or 20 percent of revenues on products exported outside Missouri, make at least a $50,000 capital investment per full-time employee, and manufacture a new product. In addition, any supplier with more than 10 percent of their revenues coming from a qualified manufacturer would be able to retain 100 percent of their withholding tax on newly created jobs for three years, as long as they create at least five qualifying new jobs. The bill also includes taxpayer protections in the event the manufacturer or supplier fails to meet the requirements of the act.

For years, Republicans in the House of Representatives have worked to improve economic development in the state of Missouri. In recent months, however, the focus on job creation has been even stronger due to our economic downturn. This particular bill focuses on creating and maintaining jobs in our state by targeting two groups: Manufacturing Employers as well as Manufacturing Suppliers.

This legislation is not about picking winners and losers, but instead is meant to be another tool in Missouri’s economic development toolbox that will allow the state to attract and retain manufacturers. We’ve had experiences in the past where we’ve tried to attract manufacturers, and we’ve ended up having to do it on the fly. What this is going to do is have something on the shelf so when an opportunity comes to this state to attract a major manufacturer, we’re going to be able to immediately jump into action and be competitive with other states.

Although this legislation is targeted at keeping the Ford Motor Company factory located in Claycomo, and the 3,700 jobs it provides, this legislation also could apply to many other companies and industries of varying sizes. Other states have been offering significant incentives to entice this major employer now located in Western Missouri. The type of incentives offered by this legislation puts our State in a position to compete with other states for major employers. States all over the nation are competing with us for jobs, and we must do all we can to prevent jobs from leaving Missouri.

Putting our citizens back to work is a top priority in the House and we are passionate about our focus which is to create jobs, retain the jobs we already have in place and working to attract new business to our state. House Bill 1675 acts as a safeguard to taxpayers in many ways, some of which include the following:

• If illegal aliens are employed, companies must repay the tax benefits granted to them.
• If the company fails to meet the requirements in the bill, they will be required to repay benefits to the state.

Washington’s failure to adopt true job creation policies is not an excuse for the Missouri General Assembly to do nothing. This legislation and other steps we are now taking in Jefferson City will encourage businesses to invest in jobs in our State. We need to create private jobs not government jobs. This is the way out of our current recession.
http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=32 Sunday, February 14, 2010 You might have followed the news stories last week which started when, U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill publicly criticized Republican leaders in the Missouri legislature. She said we shouldn’t complain about the federal bailout dollars sent to our state because those dollars were meant to help us and create jobs. I’m afraid that Senator McCaskill didn’t do her research before making this unfounded assertion. Since the bailout dollars have been received, Missouri has lost an additional 62,600 jobs and the unemployment rate sits at 9.6%. The bailout didn’t work.

Last year, when Republicans in House of Representatives heard that a federal bailout package was headed to our state, we wanted to send it back. We don’t agree with the bailout mentality and we don’t believe that spending our way out of the recession is the answer. When we asked to send the money back, we learned that the money, which are Missouri tax dollars, would be sent to other states. This was unacceptable to us – we shouldn’t be bailout out the states around us with our own tax dollars. Senator McCaskill criticized us then and called us, “short-sighted” for wanting to send back the bailout. We were ridiculed by Congress.

We next decided to take the bailout money and send it back to the people of Missouri in the form of a tax rebate. Well, Senator McCaskill didn’t like that either. In fact, Washington DC sent us a very clear message that sending the money back in a tax rebate would be illegal and not what the bailout was intended for. This left us with one of two choices: sending the money back and allowing Missouri tax dollars to flow to other states, or using the bailout for the state of Missouri and do what the federal government told us to do. As you can see, we didn’t have much freedom with our own tax dollars.

This is not a partisan issue. This is a very serious issue concerning the future of the prosperity of our country. I am a firm believer that Senator McCaskill, who voted to raise the debt ceiling by 1.9 trillion dollars, needs to listen to what the citizens of Missouri are saying and stop trying to win a political battle.

We don’t want tax dollars sent to our state in the form of a bailout – we want Congress to balance the national budget and use our tax dollars wisely. Each year for nearly a decade, House Republicans have worked in a responsible fashion to balance our state budget and use wise fiscal planning. We don’t spend money we don’t have – it’s that simple. We are calling on Senator McCaskill and her DC cohorts to follow our lead. Please spend less time criticizing us, and more time focusing on what our citizens want.

Currently, our federal government has racked up an estimated 100 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities that our nation’s children and grandchildren will be left to pay. Still, it appears Congress does not intend to work to repair this damage. In fact, recently, President Obama submitted his budget recommendations to Congress which included 3.8 trillion dollars in spending; 1.6 trillion of which we cannot afford and will be piled on top of the more than 12 trillion dollars of national debt that we already have.

We, in the Missouri House, recognize the danger of continually passing unbalanced budgets and adding trillions of dollars each year to our national debt. That is why, last week, we passed House Concurrent Resolution 34 & 35 which urges the United States Congress to submit a balanced budget amendment to the states. Should Congress pass the proposed amendment, it would need the ratification of three-fourths of the states to become an amendment to the United States Constitution. In a further attempt to get the attention of Congress, we also passed HCR 38 which demands that the Federal Government stop creating unfunded mandates for the states including Missouri. I cosponsored both of these bill which were both authored by State Representative Allen Icet from Wildwood.

Requiring the federal government to balance its budget each year is long overdue. For decades, efforts to pass a balanced budget have come up short. I believe that to ensure a fiscally stable future, our federal government must begin to live within its means. In light of the recent increase in deficit spending and the growing national debt, we must act now.
http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=30 Sunday, February 7, 2010 Last week, the Missouri House passed House Bill 1377, which would prevent illegal drug users from receiving certain state benefits. The bill would require the Department of Social Services (DSS) to develop a screening process for recipients of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Program. To be tested, DSS must have reasonable suspicion that a person is using illegal substances.

In tough economic times your hard earned tax dollars should not be spent on those abusing the system and using your money for illegal drugs. Many employers, including the military and the federal government, require drug testing to be employed. There is no excuse for welfare recipients not to live up to the same standard. This legislation will help cut costs and ensure that your money is used in the best way possible.

During debate on the House floor, an amendment was added to the bill that requires all members of the General Assembly, state elected officials and elected judges, to take a drug test before being sworn into office, and once every two years after that. The House overwhelmingly supported the amendment, feeling that elected officials should be held responsible if they are found to be taking illegal drugs.

It is important that we help our state’s most needy citizens. Most of these citizens are responsible, hard-working members of society, just trying to keep their heads above water. But there are a small number of those who take advantage of the system. I believe in order to receive assistance from the state you must test drug-free. Many recipients have families and small children to care for, and a healthy home environment is vital for a meaningful childhood. This is why I cosponsored this legislation.

I hope that this bill will be signed in to law and inspire those who receive welfare and use drugs to end that abuse and turn their lives around. This bill provides appropriate protection for the minor children of these adults who choice to abuse drugs and our welfare system.

If this bill passes the Senate and is signed by the Governor, it will make a difference. Not only will this bill reduce the size of government, but it will get those abusing the system off the government welfare and ensure they get the help they need. I hope you will join me in supporting House Bill 1377.
http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=29 Sunday, January 31, 2010 Governor Nixon recently made a promise not to raise taxes. Despite this promise, in late December, his tax commission voted to raise real estate taxes on some Missouri farmers by almost 29%. This decision by the State Tax Commission would increase taxes on much of the farmland in our community. The State Tax Commission recommended increasing the productive values for the highest quality of agricultural land. The productive values are used to determine the amount of property tax paid by land owners. The commission’s proposal would raise taxes on the most productive agricultural land, which generally consists of cropland, by 29 percent and decrease taxes on less productive land. The changes would result in an overall 11 percent tax increase statewide on agriculture land with the impact being larger in the 118th Legislative District.

This would be a devastating blow to our agricultural producers after one of the worst farm income years since 1945. Missouri farmers are a lifeline to our state’s economy – we simply can’t afford to raise taxes on their land. The decision to raise taxes on this key industry during the worst economic times since the great depression can only be described as ridiculous.

In the House of Representatives we also promised we wouldn’t raise taxes – but unlike the Governor, we mean it. That’s why, this week we brought a House Concurrent Resolution to the floor, opposing the Governor’s tax hike on farm land. Farmers are the heartbeat of Missouri, and as Representatives it is our job to protect those who grow and raise crops and livestock that feed our state, our nation and our world. An increase of taxes on the vital industry would certainly have a ripple effect on all of our businesses and jobs that depend in a significant way on the success of our farmers and ranchers. From vendors of agricultural supplies to the service industry, much of the commerce and resulting jobs in Pettis and Saline Counties are tied to their success.

By law, the Missouri General Assembly has 60 days from the start of the legislative session to pass a resolution rejecting the commission’s proposal; otherwise, the changes go into effect Jan. 1, 2011. By a vote of 140-15, House Concurrent Resolution 3, 7 and 17 passed out of the House last week. In a bipartisan fashion, the House spoke out against this tax increase on agricultural land. The resolution now heads to the Senate for consideration. I cosponsored this legislation.

There is a consensus in our society that a certain level of taxation is necessary to provide government with funds for essential services such as public education, roads, and law enforcement. Our leaders must recognize that there are times that government needs to tighten its belts, learn to make do with our current level of taxation and not increase the burden on taxpayers. This is one of those times. Regardless of the mixed signals that come from Governor Jay Nixon about tax increases, rest assured that the majority of the Missouri House of Representatives will consistently opposes any increase of taxes.
http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=28 Sunday, January 24, 2010 We are in the midst of very difficult times. As an elected official, I know that you want straight answers about the future of our state and as your State Representative it is my job to give you those answers. Last week, Governor Nixon gave his annual “State of the State Address” to the General Assembly and to the people of Missouri. Although much of the content of that speech was uplifting, it soon became obvious that the Governor’s solutions for the problems of our state just aren’t going to cut it. In fact, much of what he “said” was quite contradictory to what he actually “does”. Let us consider the facts.

On Governor Nixon’s watch, nearly 62,000 Missourians have seen their jobs disappear. That means, nearly 170 Missourians lose their job each day. The unemployment rate has grown to an astonishing 9.6%, which is the highest it has been in a quarter of a century. We must reverse this trend. Last year, when the unemployment rate was much lower, the Governor made the mistake of relying on a federal bailout. He pledged that he would use stimulus money to create jobs. Well, he has already blown through 80% of the stimulus funding that we have received and the jobs have not materialized.

We cannot spend our way out of this crisis, particularly with federal bailout funds that mortgage our children’s futures; we must help Missouri’s small businesses create new, innovative jobs. That is the only way our state will remain competitive in an ever evolving global market. House Republicans are working to bring Missouri businesses innovative programs and job training initiatives. Two weeks ago, the Speaker of the House held a two-day summit with key business leaders across the state of Missouri, searching for answers on how to grow the economy – right now, not years from now. The attendees of that meeting were tasked with further research and are planning to meet again to discuss what they can do to implement job creation and job retention in our state.

In addition to using stimulus money to promote job growth in our state, the Governor also used it to irresponsibly balance our budget, despite our constant warnings to the contrary. In remarks last year, Governor Nixon dismissed his concern about skyrocketing debt and actually said: “If there’s debt, Missouri kids and grandkids will pay that debt off.” This is a truly shocking statement. Our burden should not be passed on to future generations. Last year, the Governor borrowed money from the state’s rainy day fund, and shuffled money between accounts in closed door meetings. His use of the rainy fund simply added to the problems the Missouri has this fiscal year. Further, just like his colleagues in DC, the Governor’s office lacks transparency. Last year, the House and Senate passed a bill to make the Governor’s budget accessible to you online, but the Governor preserved his ability to move money around without the knowledge of the public by vetoing that bill.

And now here we are, one year later. Because of the Governor’s failure to act swiftly to address the budget crisis, we now face an even bigger shortfall. To add insult to injury, while Governor Nixon made a promise to not raise taxes, just weeks ago his tax commission voted to raise taxes on Missouri farmers by almost 29%. This is a devastating blow to our agricultural producers after one of the worst farm income years since 1945. Missouri farmers are a lifeline to our state’s economy – we simply can’t afford to raise taxes on their land. In an effort to stop this madness, the House passed a concurrent resolution HCR 7out of committee last week opposing this massive tax hike on one of our State’s most important and largest industries. I am a cosigner of this necessary legislation.

Rest assured, House Republicans will not raise your taxes. We will continue to tighten our belts and find ways to stretch every dollar, just like countless Missouri families and businesses must do every day. Since the Governor has mishandled the State’s fiscal affairs over the last year, it is necessary that the House continue to be the watchdog of the taxpayers money. The House majority accepts that task. http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=27 Monday, January 18, 2010 According to a Rasmussen Reports poll released recently, 55 percent of the American people oppose and only 40 percent support the federal healthcare takeover and mandate being thrust upon us by President Obama, Senator Majority Leader Reid and Speaker Nancy Pelosi. The legislation is convoluted and full of provisions that will raise the cost of living for most everyone in our state. This legislation is likely to be considered for final passage in the next few weeks. As a member of the Missouri House of Representatives, I am particularly concerned about the financial harm that this legislation will have on our State.

This Federal legislation contains a provision that obligates the states to substantially increase the amount of money that each state will be required to pay for Medicaid. You are probably aware that in their effort to obtain the support of U. S. Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska for the legislation, supporters of the legislation included a provision that exempted that State from the provision requiring Nebraska to pay this cost and shifted Nebraska’s increased cost for Medicaid to the remaining states. Missouri’s share of the cost of an expanded Medicaid program would be as high as $450 million per year. The Medicaid program already requires more than $100 million per year in new funding for natural caseload growth. Missouri’s budget could not bear this new shift of cost without increasing taxes or cutting expenditures on education or other vital state services.

Last week, I wrote to the Governor and demanded that he take a position on this important issue. So far, I have not heard back from him. For the good of our great State, he needs to end his silence. I publicly call for our Attorney General, Secretary of State and State Auditor to do the same. Their input at this time might at least obtain the removal of the provision from this legislation that will certainly bankrupt our State.

Governors in other states have publicly warned that this legislation will bankrupt their states. Included in this group of Governors is Democrat Governor Bredesen of our neighbor state Tennessee who called this legislation the “mother of all unfunded mandates” in describing his opposition to the legislation. Missouri’s chief executive, Governor Jay Nixon, has remained silent on his position concerning this legislation despite the certain harm it will bring upon our State. Indeed, only one of our state officials has expressed where they stand on this important legislation. Lieutenant Governor Peter Kinder has publicly called for the defeat of “ObamaCare” and has called for the Governor and other state officials to do the same.

Some argue this federal takeover of healthcare is an infringement on our State’s Sovereignty and is unconstitutional. Regardless of this issue, unless our State Officials desire to cut funding to public education or other important state services, Missouri simply does not have the money to afford President Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi’s social experiment. Governor Nixon and our Attorney General, Secretary of State and State Auditor certainly understand that this legislation being forced through by their Party will bankrupt the state of Missouri and yet they say nothing. The time has come for all of our elected State Officials to take a side on this issue.
http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=25 Monday, January 11, 2010 On Wednesday, January 6th, House Speaker Ron Richard (R-Joplin) dropped the gavel and opened the second session of the 95th General Assembly with a concise speech that set the agenda for our work this year. The economic challenges continue to be a concern in every household and business across the state. The economic downturn has left no household or business in Missouri untouched, and the unemployment rate has dropped to a staggering 9.5%. Among the House’s priorities will be to do what it can to assist individuals and businesses lift themselves out of this recession and provide them the necessary tools to spur economic growth. The forces of personal initiative and the free market will be the true forces that take us back to growth and prosperity.

We have worked passionately for the past several years to boost economic development in Missouri. That effort will continue this year as we craft an economic package that will aim towards making Missouri a more attractive place to conduct business. We are focused on keeping the jobs that are currently in place, in addition to bringing new jobs to our state.

We are also taking a very close look at revising our state’s ethical standards for elected officials and looking closely at government accountability across the board. The task of the newly created Special Standing Committee on Government Accountability and Ethics Reform will be to create one, bi-partisan House Bill that will restore the public’s trust in its Government by seeking to remove even the appearances of impropriety. We must never forget we sit in the people’s chamber and our sacred duty as their elected officials is the maintenance of the integrity and sanctity of the Missouri House of Representatives. We are here to make our state a better place for Missourians to work and live.

Finally, I remain firmly committed to not raise taxes on working Missourians. Families all over the state are tightening their belts when it comes to their budget, and in Jefferson City we will continue to do the same. Fiscal discipline and prudence will become the bywords for this year’s session. You demand nothing less with your hard earned tax dollars. Government must spend within its means and keep from running budget deficits like the federal government. Now is the time to make wise fiscal decisions and leave our children and grandchildren with a bright future, not with mountains of debt. As the Speaker said in his opening day remarks, “Fiscal discipline and prudence will become the bywords for this year’s session.” As constituents, you demand nothing less and as you elected officials we will give you nothing less.

Our House is composed of responsible, hard-working members, and I trust that this will be a productive session of which all Missourians can be proud. http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=24 Sunday, January 3, 2010 Governor Matt Blunt in July 2007 signed an executive order launching the Missouri Accountability Portal (MAP), a free, Internet-based tool that provides easy to use data about state spending and other valuable information. This site has help ensure that state government is accountable to its citizens. Missourians deserve openness in state spending. Our State government must be transparent because the dollars that come from our taxpayers belong to the people of our state. The MAP has use technology to allow Missourians to better see how their tax dollars are being used. Whether it is contracts that the State makes with vendors or a list of folks who don’t pay their taxes, the Missouri Accountability Portal has provided Missourians with up-to-date information to track the use of their tax dollars.


The Missouri Accountability Portal was one of the first comprehensive searchable databases of financial records based on real-time data in the nation. The portal, as its acronym MAP implies, provides citizens a map to their tax dollars. The MAP site was established within existing state resources and is updated at the close of each business day to provide up-to-date access to information about state spending, allowing citizens to demand fiscal discipline and responsibility. Users can search the MAP site by budget category, vendor or contract. Links to other public information maintained by the state are also available on the MAP site. In addition, state employees’ salaries are listed in a searchable database.


Last year several legislators became convinced that it was time to adopt legislation to mandate the continuation of the MAP website. Although Governor Nixon continued this website created by his predecessor, a future Governor without legislation to mandate its continuation could simply discontinue this important service. This is the reason that the General Assembly passed HB 544 last year. In addition to mandating MAP, this legislation also provided that the Governor must identify all money withheld from the budget immediately. This Governor has on several occasion withheld money and kept the withholdings secret for weeks. The public need this information as well. The Governor said in his veto message that he vetoed this legislation based upon the inclusion of same language about access to a portion of the Capitol by members of the legislature. Since the members of the legislature already have access to that part of the Capitol, I believe his veto was unwarranted. I will again work with other member of the Missouri House of Representatives to put in law the requirement that this information shall remain available to the public.


I encourage you to visit the MAP site at http://mapyourtaxes.mo.gov. http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=23 Saturday, December 26, 2009 Ask almost any public school teacher and I am sure he or she will tell you the teaching profession is incredibly rewarding and fun. The men and women who choose to become educators do so because they are passionate about the idea of helping to prepare our young people for future success. You will find few workers in this state more dedicated or enthusiastic when it comes to the work they do. Words cannot express how much we appreciate all they do for our kids and for our state.

However, even though the teaching job is incredibly rewarding, there comes with it an immense amount of responsibility. For hours each day the safety and well-being of our children are in the hands of these individuals. More often than not we expect our educators to provide flawless care. Although we all realize that isn’t possible, there are many parents who are ready to go as far as to pursue a lawsuit against a good teacher who has done nothing wrong.

These frivolous lawsuits are creating an environment in our state that worries teachers and, if left unchecked, could lead to a system of education that cannot meet the needs of our kids. The last thing we want is an environment where teachers are more focused on trying to avoid litigation than on providing the best educational experience possible. Unfortunately, our current system is causing more and more teachers to worry about their own liability rather than enhancing a student’s ability.


Some of the examples of lawsuits we have seen over the years have been nothing short of outrageous. A teacher doing nothing more than trying to intervene in a fight between students can wind up the target of a lawsuit. A few years ago we saw several Missouri students who brought suit against their school and administrators after they were removed from a school-sponsored event at which they showed up inebriated. That case has been tied up in the legal system for years and is a perfect example of the kind of frivolous lawsuits our school officials can be subjected to under current law.

We in the Missouri General Assembly believe our system of education should be focused on helping our kids rather than dealing with litigation. Because of this we are once again working on legislation that would provide liability protection to teachers and school officials who are only trying to do their jobs to the best of their abilities.

The legislation we are working on would expand the existing liability protection for teachers and other school personnel. This bill will increase and improve some of the existing protections and establish a legal precedence to throw out lawsuits if the teacher or school staff was acting within established school board policies. This legislation will in no way, however, protect teachers or staff that are not following school board policies or are willfully negligent in performing their duties. This legislation which I have agreed to cosponsor is similar to House Bill 96 that I cosponsored last year. That bill passed out of the House last year by a voter to 160 for and 0 against but was not voted on in the Senate. The chief sponsor, Representative Maynard Wallace, expects to again file this legislation prior the first day of session which begins January 6th.

The Teacher Liability Protection Act will provide the teachers and school personnel of our state with the security they need to do their jobs correctly without fear of reprisal. Teachers who are negligent will still be subject to punishment but the men and women who are doing their best to help our kids will have the protections they need to focus on giving our kids the best educational experience possible.

In addition to giving our teachers peace of mind and a sense of security, this legislation also offers the benefit of saving a great deal of money for our school districts and state. Rather than using taxpayer money to defend teachers from lawsuits that should never have been filed in the first place, we can focus on using our resources to provide a better educational system. Certainly it is better to use our dollars for new textbooks rather than attorney fees.

With this legislation we hope to sign into law this year, we take an important step toward creating an environment where the focus is on education rather than litigation. We want teachers to feel secure when they are doing their jobs and following the guidelines of the school board. We don’t want them to look over their shoulders when they are doing what is right.

The children of Missouri rely on their teachers to give them the education they will need for the future, and this legislation will give teachers the tools they need to create the best educational environment they can provide.
http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=22 Saturday, December 19, 2009 In 1791 the first ten Amendments to the United States Constitution were ratified. Included in these was the Second Amendments which provides, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” For most of our history, all American believed that this short passage meant what it said in that our people had a right to keep and bear arms. Over the last forty years these rights have come under serious challenge. Earlier this decade, the District of Columbia passed a law that prohibited private ownership of firearms. In an important decision in 2008, District of District of Columbia v Heller the United States Supreme Court clearly stated that the government had no right to strip its residences of this fundamental individual right to possess firearms.

A couple months ago, I agreed to sign an Amicus Curiae Brief filed before the Supreme Court in the lawsuit, McDonald v Chicago, where that City claims authority to strip its citizens of this same right. This brief is being filed on behalf of members of various state legislatures who willingly lent their name to this worthy effort. A decision from the Supreme Court is expected next year. I am committed to do everything I can do to protect the citizens of our State from the loss of any of the fundamental rights set out in our Bill of Rights, including the right to bear arms. Over the last three years I have had several opportunities to support legislation drafted to protect the Second Amendment. This year I am the chief sponsor of a bill, House Bill 1406, which will help protect certain individuals from unjustifiably losing this important right.

In 1980, to address the problem of abuse between domestic partners, the General Assembly passed laws that allowed for victims of domestic abuse to seek an order from a judge if they were abused, threatened with abuse or they were harassed by a domestic partner. On frequent occasions these provisions provide a necessary method for these victims to protect themselves from the abuser by getting an order that the abusers must not have contact with the victim for a one year period. One of the collateral consequences of such an order is that current federal law provides that a person subject to an Adult Protection Order can not legally possess a firearm. Part of Missouri’s Adult Protection statute is the right to appeal the entry of such an order. Unfortunately, our appeals process often takes longer than the term of such an judgment and is not finished before the expiration of the one year court order. Appellate courts often decline to review such an order if it has expired before the conclusion of the appellate process. This is under a policy of judicial economy where courts do not review a controversy that no longer exists-referred to as being “moot.” The result that can occur under existing Missouri law is that an Adult Protection erroneously entered by a trial judge can not be appealed and the defendant loses their right to possess a firearm. House Bill 1406 would clarify the law and give anyone who has such an order entered against them the right to have a proper judicial review and appeal.

Thousand of Adult Protection Orders are entered against individuals across our State each year. I would estimate that dozens are erroneously entered and the individuals who such orders are directed improperly losses the protection afforded the Second Amendment to possess a firearm with no judicial review. This legislation would protect these citizens. It would be wrong to ignore the rights of these citizens. To ignore the possible loss of rights of these few puts all of our Constitutional Rights in jeopardy. http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=21 Monday, December 14, 2009 I had the great fortune of being raised in a home where my mother insisted that we attend Church and Sunday School each week. As a child, I remember learning in Church the universal principle known as the “golden rule”. That simple rule which requires each of us to treat others as we would like to be treated is a central belief of Christianity and most of the other major religions of the world. As a student of history I have come to believe that the golden rule should apply to our relationship as citizens to our representative government. Our leaders should treat us in the same fashion as our leaders demand that we treat our government. I call this the “golden rule of leadership.” Unfortunately, our leaders and government do not always treat us as they expect to be treated.

In most of the world, the nature of the relationship of an individual to their state or nation is one of a ruler to their subjects. Under these forms of government all power is vested in the government and privileges are things bestowed upon us by that central authority. The founders of our great nations saw things differently. They believed that our rights emanated from God or “natural law”. The Declaration of Independence defined the concept of that natural law in these words; “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”. Because we are granted these rights by God, we are not called “subjects” but we are referred to as “citizens.” Our leaders are not our rulers, they are public servants. Our government should not be arbitrary or unfair to its citizens and governments should be subject to the same restrictions that we as ordinary persons must endure in an organized society. In a sense, government should treat as fairly as it insists that we treat government. Our government should never take advantage of us.

As your State Representative, I hope to identify situations where our State is taking advantage of our citizens so that I can try to remedy them. Earlier this year I received several inquires from constituents about a delay in their income tax refunds. Upon an investigation, I discovered that our Governor had ordered the Missouri Department of Revenue to withhold income tax refunds up to four (4) months. I also discovered that the reason for the order was to use these funds to meet the short term financial needs of our State when revenue had dropped as a result of the recession. The lengthy withholding of these income tax refunds due our residents was not the only alternative that the Governor had. The Governor always has a right to cut spending to meet these shortfalls. Instead of cutting spending, he took a no interest loan from all of these taxpayers who were due tax refunds. The constituents who called me had all expected a quicker refund of their overpayment of income tax and they needed the money. This seems wrong and is certainly a violation of the golden rule of leadership. If the taxpayers don’t pay what is due the State on April 15th our State assesses interest and penalty. If Missouri doesn’t promptly pay refunds, the State should pay interest on that money.

In an attempt to fix this problem, I have filed legislation. This legislation, if enacted, will reduce the time that Missouri has for paying income tax refunds from four (4) months to forty-five (45) days. Incidentally, forty-five (45) days is the same time that the Federal Internal Revenue Service has to pay refunds. It does not seem logical or fair that our State Government can take an interest free loan from the taxpayers without their consent. Sometime in the future Missouri will once again experience a shortage of cash. We need to put a stop to the unfair practice of withholding tax refunds for up to four months and require the Governor to look elsewhere for these funds.
http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=19 Tuesday, December 1, 2009 In recent reports, I have talked about the Missouri General Assembly efforts to help improve our economy by creating quality jobs in our State. I have also discussed our State Government’s challenge to live with our declining State revenues. As you know, Missouri is not allowed to run a deficit in its annual budgets. I feel compelled to share some disturbing information that I have recently came across concerning our Federal Government spending.

Earlier this year President Obama signed the $787 billion “stimulus bill” into law which created multi-billion-dollar government programs supposedly designed to help grease the economic wheels and create jobs. There has been much criticism from outside of the White House as to whether this bill has lived up to the promises made. The promises include that our national unemployment figures would not exceed 8% if we adopted this legislation. Our current national unemployment figures exceed 10%. Another criticism has been that the money has not been spent quick enough to improve the economy. This seems a legitimate complaint in that the supporters of this legislation claimed that there were “shovel ready” construction projects that would use the money quickly and create jobs quickly.

The most serious criticism of the stimulus bill relates to the skepticism generated by the President’s claim that as of October 31st, 640,329 jobs have been saved or created as result of that legislation. In order to prove this point the Obama Administration created the web site at http://www.recovery.gov . The announced purpose of this web site was to assure us that the program is working as promised. This site can be used to look up jobs allegedly created/saved by zip code. My examination of the data has been more disturbing than calming to me.

From information on this web site and provided by recipients of these government programs, sorted by zip code, the U. S. Government spent $8,735,322 in zip code 65301 and 20 jobs were created/saved; $375,133 in zip code 65334 and 0 jobs were created/saved; $339,050 in zip code 65337 and 0 jobs were created/saved; and $79,000 in zip code 65351 and 2 jobs were created/saved. Collectively, in these zip code areas that make up part of our community, 22 jobs were created at the taxpayer cost of almost $10 million. This amounts to a per job cost of about $450,000 per job. This web site sponsored by our Federal Government has only increased my skepticism of the entire legislation. Using the Governments nation-wide figures of 640,329 jobs created/saved at a current expenditure of $157 Billion dollars, the cost per job has been $242,000 per job. Either we taxpayers are either paying way too much for each job created or the Government is not able to accurately account to us for the expenditure of our money.

It took the United States of America 233 years (1776-2009) to amass a national debt of $11 trillion. Yet President Barack Obama's record large 2009 budget deficit estimated at $1.85 trillion and his spending plans will likely double the national debt over the less than ten years. There seems to be no limit in the Presidents and Congress’s appetite to spend our money and run up large deficits. The most immediate affect of such a reckless policy is to force our national government to raise the rate of interest paid on government borrowings so as to attract lenders. I continue to fear that this might result in hyper inflation sometime over the next couple years. The news over the last couple weeks indicated that our largest national creditor, China, continues to decrease it purchases of U.S. Government Securities at the same time we need to borrow more money.

For the sake of our children and grandchildren, this crazy policy of spending must come to an end. Even the socialist nations of Europe have publicly criticized this behavior. I sincerely wish that the Federal Congress and our President would reconsider some of the reckless actions they have taken with taxpayers’ money over the last year and begin to follow the more prudent course that Missouri has taken. These are difficult times. We citizens need to hold our public officials accountable for their actions. I have communicated my concerns to my Congressman and Senators. I encourage you to do the same.
http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=18 Tuesday, November 24, 2009 Over the last couple weeks there have been several press releases from the Governor Nixon's office relating to a “deal” that he has entered into with public universities and colleges to freeze tuition in exchange for the promise that the State of Missouri will maintain their support for higher education in the upcoming fiscal year at 95% of last years budget. This information from the Governor is misleading in that it is designed to leave the impression that he has protected students and parents from an increase of tuition. It is time to set the record straight.

First of all public colleges and universities in Missouri are not allowed to raise tuition above the Consumer Price Index as a result of a bill (SB 389) that was passed in the House and Senate in 2007 and signed by Governor Blunt. Under this bill, which I supported, these institutions can not raise tuition next year because the cost of living is currently flat. The motivation for this legislation was to provide some relief for students and their parents who are trying to pay for tuition that has increased significantly faster than the cost of living cost over the last twenty years.

Incidentally, this bill passed on a largely party-line Republican vote (91-64 in the House, 23-11 in the Senate). Indeed the than Attorney General Jay Nixon opposed this bill. At that time Nixon said, “Moreover, the so-called ‘tuition caps’ in Senate Bill 389 provide far more fuel for political sound-bytes than actual protection for students and their families.” You can read his letter at http://ago.mo.gov/newsreleases/2007/pdf/MOHELA_Veto_Letter_SB389.pdf
. The truth is that the Governor is now touting a freeze on tuition costs which he has nothing to do with and that he opposed when it was signed into law in 2007.

The reality is that Governor Nixon has been cutting education funding since the first month he was in office—when he slashed millions of dollars intended for construction projects on campuses across the state. (Associated Press, January 28, 2009) A cynical person might conclude that Nixon invented this “deal” to distract the press from the real story—that he is slashing funding for higher education. Another possibility is that he has forgotten that he opposed the Republican majority’s legislation that has provided real relief to hard-working Missouri families.

There is one other problem about this information flowing out of the Governor’s office. The General Assembly has a role to play in the budget process including funding for higher education. While the level of cuts that will have to be made to higher education have not been determined, they might actually be more than 5%. During the budget process, higher education will have to compete for limited money with public schools (K-12) public safety and health needs. It certainly makes no sense to enter into a “deal” where public colleges and universities give up nothing in exchange for preferential treatment in the budget negotiations. With all of these problems with the misinformation coming from the Governor, we can find some comfort in the fact that this “deal” is not binding on anyone and that the legislature will endeavor to make the best possible choices when we reassemble in January.
http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=17 Monday, November 16, 2009 Unless you have been fortunate enough to be vacationing in a foreign land where cable or the internet is not available, you have likely been inundated with news and discussions regarding the takeover of our health care system by the Federal Government. Recently, our Lt. Governor, Peter Kinder (R-Cape Girardeau), took a stand against President Obama’s promotion of his government-run health care plan, crafted by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Washington Democrats want you to believe that the current plans pending in Congress will not add to the trillions of dollars of national debt. Additionally, they are not telling you that you and your family are going to be picking up the tab on these excessive new health care costs.

Governors across the country – from both parties – are expressing grave concerns with the federal push for government-controlled health care. We are in one of the worst economic recessions that our country has ever seen. This is not the time to implement such an expensive program. It would burden our taxpayers while they are struggling at home to pay their bills and provide for their families.

In Missouri, Republicans in the General Assembly have made good financial decisions and provided our state with a balanced budget each year. While other states sink around us, Missouri has held strong in our tough economic climate. The federal plan for government-controlled health care would undo all of our hard work and very quickly bankrupt our state.

Governor Jay Nixon has remained silent on this issue. But as your State Representative, I am speaking out against government-run health care. I simply will not stand for an increase in your taxes or severe cuts to vital state programs. Government cannot spend its way back to prosperity. History has shown this to be true, time and time again.

To that end I have agreed to co-sponsor a House Joint Resolution to be sponsored by Representative Tim Jones (District 89) that calls for a Constitutional Amendment to the Constitution of the State of Missouri that is designed to say no to any Government takeover of our health care system. My good friend and colleague, Senator Jane Cunningham, is expected to file the same proposal in the Senate. If this Resolution passes both chambers of the Missouri General Assembly, then it will be placed on the ballot in November 2010 for you and your family to decide whether or not you want to join me and millions of other Americans in telling the Federal Government to keep their hands off of our health care. The enumerated powers of the Federal government, which are fully detailed in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, does not authorize the federal government the power to mandate that the individuals of the states be forced into any particular health care plan.

We do need to address the rising costs of health care. And many conservatives and Republicans have designed plans to do just that. Addressing issues of transparency, portability, fair tax treatment and appropriating money towards the “uninsurable” problem and addressing pre-existing conditions are some of the pillars of the reasonable, calculated, intelligent health care reform. A massive government takeover of our health care system, resulting in punitive taxes, rationing of care and mandating of services is absolutely the wrong path to take.

I hope that you will continue to join me as we work towards maintaining our health care freedoms here in the State of Missouri and I will definitely keep you posted on our progress in this matter.
http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=16 Friday, November 6, 2009 World War I – known at the time as “The Great War” - officially ended when the Treaty of Versailles was signed on June 28, 1919, in the Palace of Versailles in France. However, fighting ceased seven months earlier when an armistice between the Allied nations and Germany went into effect on the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month. For that reason, November 11, 1918, is generally regarded as the end of “the war to end all wars.”

In November 1919, President Wilson proclaimed November 11 as the first commemoration of “Armistice Day” with the following words: "To us in America, the reflections of Armistice Day will be filled with solemn pride in the heroism of those who died in the country’s service and with gratitude for the victory, both because of the thing from which it has freed us and because of the opportunity it has given America to show her sympathy with peace and justice in the councils of the nations…" The original concept for the celebration was for a day observed with parades and public meetings and a brief suspension of business beginning at 11:00 a.m.

Later on, a shoe store owner in Emporia, Kansas proclaimed that Armistice Day should honor all war veterans, and not just those who served in World War I. With the help of a US Representative, also from Emporia, a bill for the holiday was pushed through Congress. President Dwight Eisenhower signed it into law in 1954 – officially naming it, “Veterans Day”.

Veterans Day provides us with an opportunity to show our appreciation to all who have fought for us. Thousands of men and women have left their spouses and children to serve and protect Americans. We honor those who have given their lives as the price for our freedom, and those who have returned home disabled and immobilized as the price for our liberty. To these men and women we owe our tributes, our respect and our gratitude.

After the Revolutionary War, President George Washington said, "We owe these veterans a debt of gratitude, indeed a debt of honor." So, all over the nation on November 11th, Americans will gather together to remember and pay tribute to our veterans. That day is a chance to thank those who have selflessly answered the call to duty, and to remember those who have served. Close to 50 million Americans have served the cause of freedom, and more than a million have died. Additionally, more than 140,000 were taken prisoner-of-war and many others were never accounted for. Veteran’s Day is a day to reflect upon the sacrifices of so many.

We are very fortunate to live in a free country, and one that is protected by the greatest military effort in the world. As Americans citizens, we have an obligation to honor and help our veterans, regardless of age – although it seems we can never begin to repay what they have given up for us. The bravery and dedication of those who have served, and those who currently serve our country is immeasurable. We are truly blessed to live in a strong, beautiful place that gives us the freedom to think, speak and believe without restraint. And, God bless the United States of America-where, because of all the service members today, and the Veterans of yesterday-is still the land of the free and the home of the brave. http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=15 Wednesday, October 28, 2009 As I was driving home a couple weeks ago I saw a bumper sticker that contained a slogan that said “It’s a child not a choice.” Even though I have seen that slogan many times before, this time it made me think about one of the most important duties I have as your elected official. Being someone who is strongly pro-life, and representing an area that shares my respect for the sanctity of all life, those words resonated strongly with me as I thought about the work we have done in recent years to reduce the number of abortions in our state. While we continue to live in a Roe vs. Wade world where abortions are legal, there is still much we can do, and have done, to ensure more Missourians make the choice of preserving the life of their unborn child.

President Clinton once state that he felt that abortion should be kept ”safe, legal and rare.” No matter how you feel about Roe vs. Wade we call all work to make abortion safe and rare. It’s with great pride that I tell you that in 2007 Missouri had the fewest number of abortions performed in the state since 1975. And, the fact we have reduced the number of abortion clinics operating inside our borders from 10 down to 3 is further proof that our dedication to pro-life initiatives is producing results. In just the last few years we have cut off taxpayer funding for abortion providers like Planned Parenthood, created programs to promote alternatives to abortion, developed a tax credit program for donations to pregnancy resource centers, instituted new regulations for abortion clinics and strengthened Missouri’s parental consent laws. These life-saving changes we have implemented have made Missouri one of the shining stars in this nation when it comes to making abortions as safe and as rare as possible.

Last session, the House introduced a bill aiming to protect the sanctity of human life. HB46, which I cosponsored, was brought to the floor and passed with an overwhelming “yes” vote of 115 members. Unfortunately, the bill did not make it to the Governor’s desk for final signature. We want to see a reduction in the number of abortions in our state and we believe we can do this by assuring that the pregnant women who seek abortions are safe, healthy and fully educated about their options. These are a few of the things we think a pregnant woman seeking an abortion should receive before the procedure would take place: the name of the physician who is to perform or induce the abortion, medically accurate information about the procedure, alternatives to the abortion, a telephone number for the physician in case she has questions, the location of a hospital within 30 miles of where the abortion is performed and where she may receive follow-up care if complications arise. As the woman learns about her unborn child, the procedure and other safety measures, the law would require her to have the opportunity to see an ultra-sound and hear the child’s heartbeat. We think that these are positive steps in effort to lower abortion rates in Missouri and protect the health of these pregnant women.

In addition to these points, we want to prohibit coercion. Although it is difficult to think about, many women are forced by others-whether it be a spouse, significant other or parent-to abort their unborn babies. Our legislation would make all abortion facilities required by law to display a sign that notifies pregnant women that it is illegal to coerce a woman to have an abortion, which we believe will aid in this effort. One of the things we have learned in studying the abortion issue is that boyfriends, friends, employers and even parents can go as far as to threaten physical violence in an effort to get a pregnant woman to have an abortion. We expect those around us to be pillars of strength in trying times, but in the case of abortion many of the people who should be supportive end up exerting undue influence that leads to a bad decision being made. In fact, according to a study published in the Medical Science Monitor, 64 percent of American women who had abortions reported that they felt pressured to make that decision by others. These are women who were faced with the most important decision of their lives but weren’t able to make it of their own free will. That’s something we don’t want to see happen in Missouri ever again.

The House has not given up on the sanctity of life. Our members are passionate about legislation centered on reducing the number of abortions in our state and we will continue to fight for the lives of the unborn. We are determined to bring it up again next session, and I look forward to giving it my vote.
http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=14 Wednesday, October 21, 2009 Over the last couple years I have worked in the legislature on a measure that would reform the method we use in Missouri to choose appellate judges and the judges in the urban areas. If these proposed changes to the Missouri Constitution passes both houses of the Missouri General Assembly, it would still have to be approved by a majority of voters in a state-wide election before it would becomes law. The House Joint Resolution that I sponsored earlier this year passed the Missouri House but was never voted on in the Senate. I am expecting to file this legislation again in the next legislative session that begins in January. This week I want to discuss the particulars of the legislation and the need for it.

In the late 1940’s as a result of serious political corruption in our state, which was centered in our big cities, reform minded people came up with the “Missouri Plan”. The Missouri Plan was designed to diminish the power of special interest groups had in the selection of judges including the judges on the Missouri Supreme Court, the Courts of Appeal and urban trial judges. The Missouri Plan became a popular model for judicial selection of state judges across our nation. The changes which I propose are prompted by the desire to restore the Missouri Plan to how it was originally worked. To do this we need to make some minor but important changes. The change that I propose would brings our State more in line with the non-partisan court plans followed by twenty-seven other states and the District of Columbia..

In the 1970’s there was an unwise change to the plan that took away from the Governor of the power to send back the panel of judicial candidates if the Governor didn’t want to select any of the three individuals submitted to him by the judicial selection panel, “Commission”. My proposal restores the Missouri Plan back to the original form which allowed the Governor to reject the entire panel once.

The second criticism of the present law is that the current judicial selection procedure is dominated by special interest lawyer organizations which represent a small group of the members of the Missouri Bar. These groups have been able to dominate the Commission because lawyers compromise a majority of the Commission. My proposal would add an additional non-lawyer to the Commission and tilt the control away from lawyers and the judge member of the Commission. Instead of being controlled by a small group of people, ordinary citizens through there elected chief executive would have more control over the Commission. Lawyers would continue to choose their Commission members as in the current fashion. The proposal passed by the House this year also increases the panel of judicial candidates submitted by the Commission to the Governor from three to four nominees. This would give the Governor more candidates to choose from.

My legislation filed earlier this year provided for Senate confirmation of all Commission appointments and would make their terms concurrent with the Governor. This adds a check and balance to the process. Finally, my legislation which was voted out of the House this year would make the process more open and public. Under the present law all of the Commission activities are done behind closed doors. Because everything is done secret, the public has no way of judging the conduct of this important governmental body. Under this proposal, meetings of the Commission would no longer be secret; identities of the judicial applicants are public, even though interviews and deliberations can be made in private.

Nothing in this proposal would alter our citizens right to retention votes every six or 12 year. My proposal is similar to the proposal made by the American Judicature Society. This is a well respected non-partisan organization headquarters at Drake University. You can look them up on the web at http://www.ajs.org.When retired United States Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor earlier this year spoke in Columbia at the University of Missouri Law School she advocated two reforms of our Missouri Plan including the reduction of the influence of lawyers and more openness. Professor Bill Eckhart, an advocate of these changes does a good job explaining the need for these proposed changes in the YouTube video at http://tiny.cc/zKaHD. There is nothing in my proposal that would change the way we choose judges in the rural counties that I represent. We will still get to vote for these judges like all other public officials.

Bottom line, my proposal would make the process more public, make it more accountable and remove the dominance of special interest groups. Incidentally, these were the goals of the original Missouri Plan. I would point out that there has been very active opposition to these reforms by lawyer’s organizations which currently benefit by their control of the selection process of these judges. My argument to their position is that the selection of judges is too important to leave up to lawyers and the public needs to be more involved. http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=13 Wednesday, October 14, 2009 During the summer and early fall of last year the most common inquiry I had from constituents related to their concern about the high price of gasoline. Last July, the retail price of regular unleaded gasoline was hovering around $4 per gallon and we were all worried that it might go higher. With the current price at about $2.20 per gallon and the problems relating to our current recession on everyone’s mind, this spike in gasoline prices seems a remote bit of history. Energy cost is still an important issue and continues to be an issue that Missouri Government keeps track of and provides to the General Assembly and to the public through the Missouri Energy Bulletin which is a publication of the Missouri Department of Natural Resources. The latest edition of this publication provides some interesting information and some insight into the cost of all forms of energy and what we might expect in the future. It also provides some information to help answer the question of what happened to the energy crisis of last year.

Crude oil prices are up 56 percent this year but are down 53 percent from the July 12, 2008, record settlement of $147.27 per barrel. The Oct. 7, Energy Information Administration (EIA) petroleum update reported U.S. oil inventories decreased 1 million barrels for the week ending Oct. 2 as domestic refineries returned idled units from seasonal maintenance. U.S. crude supplies currently stand at 337.4 million barrels or 34.8 million barrels higher than at this time last year. Supplies are 10 percent above the five-year average for this time of year. Crude oil is the commodity that is turned into gasoline and many other forms of liquid energy. On Oct. 5, Missouri’s statewide average retail price for gasoline was $2.18 per gallon, down 10.7 cents or 5 percent in the past month and $0.98 per gallon lower than it was at this time last year. The average price for diesel fuel fell 6.5 cents in the past month. Missouri’s average retail price for diesel fuel price is $1.40, or 37 percent, lower for the comparable period in October 2008. U.S. gasoline inventories are 27.6 million barrels higher than at this time last year. Gas stocks are 6.9 percent higher than the five-year average at this time. With higher inventory and less demand, it is not likely that we will have gasoline price much higher for the next several months than they currently stand. When we had $4 per gallon gasoline, we had much higher demand, and the world supply was short.

Approximately 58 percent (1,261,397) of Missouri households use natural gas to heat their homes. Natural gas is also used to produce goods and electricity. The New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) during the first week of October traded futures prices for natural gas increased by 6 cents. The weakness in the near-month contract likely reflects robust storage inventories and expectations of a milder winter. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) predicted that the upcoming winter would be 1 percent warmer than both last winter and the 30-year average. Working gas in storage as of Oct. 2 totaled 15 percent above the five-year average inventory level for the week according to EIA’s Natural Gas Storage Report. U.S. natural gas supplies are 14.9 percent higher than last year at this time. According to the EIA’s Short Term and Winter Fuels Outlook released Oct. 6, EIA expects Midwest households heating primarily with natural gas to spend an average of $147, or 15 percent, less this winter. The 15 percent decline in natural gas expenditures reflects an 11 percent decrease in prices and a 4 percent decrease in consumption. Heating expenditures for the average household are projected at $854 for the winter heating period.

Approximately 13 percent (293,603) of Missouri households heat with propane, which is also used to support commercial operations, produce goods, dry grain harvests and fuel vehicles. On Oct. 5, the average Missouri retail price for residential propane was $1.46 per gallon, down 1 percent from last month and 35 percent lower compared to last year. On Oct. 5, Missouri’s average retail price for residential propane was $1.46 per gallon, 1 cent or 1 percent lower than the average price last month, and 35 percent lower than last year’s average price of $2.25 per gallon. According to the Missouri Energy Center’s propane price survey conducted Oct. 5, retail residential propane prices had a spread of 65 cents between the lowest price reported at $129.9 per gallon and the highest price at $194.8 per gallon. For the week ending Oct. 2, U.S. propane supplies increased 43,000 barrels to 72.9 million barrels and stand 11.9 million barrels higher than at this time last year. Midwest inventories increased 294,000 barrels, or 1 percent, in the past month. At 31.3 million barrels, Midwest inventories are 6.4 million barrels or 26 percent higher than the 24.8 million barrels reported at this time last year. According to the EIA’s Short Term and Winter Fuels Outlook released Oct. 6, EIA expects Midwest households heating primarily with propane to spend an average of $433, or 21 percent, less this winter.

The good news is that regardless of the weather this winter, the average Missouri household is likely to spend considerably less this year to heat their home and to fuel the cars. Some of this difference is cause by a drop of demand caused by the recession. Some of the difference relates to other market forces at work. When the economy gets better the energy crisis that we were experiencing a little more than a year ago is likely to return. Rather than dwelling on the ill-conceived “cap and trade” legislation designed to reduce carbon emissions, Congress needs to encourage domestic exploration of our substantial petroleum reserves currently locked up in Alaska, off-shore and shale oil in our Western States. If we use the reserves that we have and increase domestic refining, we can protect our nations from the uncertainty caused by unreliable foreign markets. The crisis of last year is likely to return unless our Congress comes to grips with these problems and adopts a comprehensive energy plan for U.S. energy independence.

You can subscribe to the Missouri Energy Bulletin by contacting the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Energy Center, P.O. Box 176, Jefferson City, MO 65102-0176; Phone: (573) 751-3443 or (800) 361-4827; Fax: (573) 751-6860; E-mail:energy@dnr.mo.gov; You can directly access it at web address:www.dnr.mo.gov/energy/transportation/fb.htm http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=12 Wednesday, October 7, 2009 Over the last few weeks there have been several news stories about the decline of Missouri State revenues in recent months. This week I will discuss the present financial condition of our state and suggest what will have to happen in the short term and what the Missouri General Assembly need to do in the long run to deal with these problems.

The lead story a few days ago was that Missouri Revenues had declined over sixteen percent as compared to last year. Sales and use tax collections were down 10.6 percent last month when compared to September 2008. Year-to-date, sales and use tax revenues are down 6.7 percent. Individual income tax revenue fell 12.6 percent in September when compared to the same time period last year. Since the 2010 fiscal year began July 1, income tax has declined by 8.2 percent year-to-date, from $1.31 billion last year to $1.20 billion this year. Corporate income and franchise taxes are down 9.3 percent on the year, falling 21.1 percent in the month of September when compared to September 2008. Of more concern, there is a ten percent shortfall in the budget for the current year which was adopted just a few months ago. Even tax revenue generated from the sale of beer is down, dropping 13.14 percent for the first three months of the 2010 fiscal year. Liquor taxes are the state's fastest growing revenue source at 8.02 percent more for the fiscal year.

At the current rate taxes are received there will be a shortfall in money in the States checkbook even after including the $2.2 billion in federal stimulus funds meant to shore up the state's budget this year. The worsening economy is one reason why the Governor slashed $430 million in spending from the 2010 fiscal year budget in June for mostly one-time economic stimulus projects. But even with the cuts, the Governor’s budget office projects the state will have an end balance of negative $42.5 million by the end of March without additional cuts, according to a monthly cash flow analysis report. The state typically needs at least $100 million at any moment to make payroll and pay bills.

The economy continues to represent the big and bad news. Missouri’s unemployment as of August is 9.5 percent which includes 11,500 jobs lost in January, 11,000 jobs lost in March and over 6500 jobs lost in August. This is not the time to raise taxes. Just like everyone else, Missouri has to live with the income we have and therefore cuts will have to continue. How is this going to affect State services? First of all, Missouri need to meet its obligation to educate our children. Other essential programs include public safety and public health. I will oppose any efforts to decrease full funding of the “funding formula” for kindergarten thru 12th grade. Beyond core responsibilities of the State, we need to consider all other State expenditures. One reduction that has already been discussed is the Career Ladder program. The General Assembly created the program in 1985 to reward teachers who seek to advance. In 2007-'08, 342 districts participated at a cost of $36 million to the state. Cuts of popular programs will occur and this might include the Career Ladder. We need to fund essential programs and eliminate or cut other things that we spend money on.

Our State budget will be a major issue in the upcoming legislative session starting in January. I believe that if the conversation in the legislature deals solely on with aligning state expenditures with state revenue we will miss the most important point. I agree with Majority Leader Steven Tilley’s opinion that the legislature must consider how best to stimulate Missouri’s economy and create jobs. I also agree with Representative Tilley who said the state can’t cut its way out of the current budget mess. We need to make the changes that will encourage business to spend money in Missouri to create jobs. This is the only way out of the current economic mess.
http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=11 Tuesday, September 29, 2009 As we face one of the worst economies our nation has seen since the Great Depression, job creation remains a top priority in the House. Thousands of Missourians wake up each morning unemployed and unable to provide for their families. In fact, this week we learned that Missouri’s unemployment rate is the highest it’s been since 1983 and only ten points away from being at an all time high. As legislators, it is our job to turn this trend around and work to build our economy and put our citizens back to work and that is exactly what we have done.



Last February, the House passed House Bill 191, expanding the Quality Jobs Act, which has proven past success in Missouri. One of the main purposes of the Quality Jobs Act is to provide incentive programs that seek to attract business to Missouri, and in turn, boost the job market. After passing through the Senate in May, HB191 was signed into law and became the top accomplishment by the General Assembly in 2009.



Recently, the Director of Economic Development stepped down, leaving one of the most vital cabinet positions with an interim Director until the position is filled. This concerns me, especially when considering our current economic state. Right now, job creation is crucial and not something we should leave in limbo. It is my sincere hope that the Governor acts quickly to fill the position so that we may continue on the fast-track to economic prosperity.



As we approach the 2010 session, economic development will remain one of our top priorities. We look forward to seeing a strong head at the Department of Economic Development so that we may work with the Director to improve Missouri business and create jobs for our citizens. I realize many of you are without a job or know someone close to you who is without work. You can be certain that we are working diligently to remedy this problem. As the national economy begins to build itself back up, House Republicans will make sure Missouri is ahead of the game. http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=8 Tuesday, September 15, 2009 When I was first elected to the Missouri House I actively sought membership on the Elections Committee of the House. Having been involved in electoral politics for several decades, I believed that I could contribute to the important work of that committee. How elections are conducted and how votes are counted is the lynch pin to our representative democracy. Without good laws fairly enforced our country fails. Attempts to threaten and the intimidation of voters is currently illegal in Missouri and everywhere else in our great nation. Because of my commitment to honest and fair elections, I was shocked back in May when I learned that the United States Justice Department had dropped a voter intimidation case against an organization know as the New Black Panther Party.

These charges arose from an incident that occurred during the 2008 General Election when two members of this organization dressed in paramilitary garb at a polling place near downtown Philadelphia engaged in activity that Bartle Bull, a former civil rights lawyer and publisher of the left-leaning Village Voice, described as "the most blatant form of voter intimidation I've ever seen". One of them, they say, brandished a nightstick at the entrance and pointed it at voters and both made racial threats. Mr. Bull says he heard one yell "You are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker!" (Some of this behavior is on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU&feature=player_embedded.

The U. S. Justice Department in the first week of January filed a civil lawsuit against the New Black Panther Party and three of its members, saying they violated the 1965 Voting Rights Act by scaring voters with the weapon, uniforms and racial slurs. In March, Mr. Bull submitted an affidavit at Justice's request to support its lawsuit. The complaint said New Black Panther Party Chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz confirmed that the placement of these two individuals was part of a nationwide effort to deploy New Black Panther Party members at polling locations on Election Day. The Justice Department sought an injunction to prevent any similar future actions by New Black Panther Party members at polling locations.

When none of the defendants filed a response to the complaint or appeared in federal district court in Philadelphia to answer the suit, it appeared almost certain Justice would have prevailed by default. Instead, the department in May suddenly allowed the party and two of the three defendants to walk away. According to the Washington Times, six career prosecutors who wanted to proceed in this lawsuit were overruled by the political side of the Department of Justice and the U. S. Attorney General Eric Holder.

There was outrage over this decision among members of Congress, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, and the career staff in the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division. A spokesman for the Justice Department said the dismissal was "based on a careful assessment of the facts and the law." Many doubt this explanation in light of certain statements made by the New Black Panther Party to members of the national media. Republican members in Congress are attempting to get hearings on these events. Hopefully, Congress will force the Department of Justice to reinstate this lawsuit and obtain an injunction against this out of control organization.

There are lessons for all America in this disturbing story of voter intimidation. First, we need to elect people to office who will always be vigilant in the protection of our voting rights and the right to be free of this type of voter intimidation. Also, it is foolish for us to believe that our leaders will always do the right thing for us. My efforts to protect the rights of voters this next legislative session will deal with a clarification of the requirements of voters to prove who they are to the election officials. I intend to file a resolution requiring a voter to present a Photo ID when voting. My resolution would contain an exemption for the elderly who sometimes have difficulty in getting a State ID. I am also considering including some limited early voting provisions which will make voting easier. A famous Missourian once said that it should be “easy to vote and hard to cheat”. These words will continue to guide my efforts in the Missouri General Assembly.

http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=7 Friday, September 4, 2009 Missouri law provides tax relief for folks over 65 and for those who are totally disabled under two separate programs. An individual may apply for tax relief under only one of these programs. These programs were created to help seniors to be able to continue to reside in their homes. Generally, the income of seniors decline after retirement but their fixed cost such as property tax remain the same or continue to grow. This is the idea behind the tax relief provided by these two programs. Without the tax relief afforded by these programs, some seniors would have to give up their homes.

The deadline for application under the Homestead Preservation Credit is on October 15, 2009. To be eligible this year you must be at least 65 years old or be totally disabled and you must have experienced an increase in you real estate property tax of 2.5% over your 2008 real estate taxes. If you are approved, the credit will apply to the taxes due next year. This program is available only to individuals or married couples that have an adjusted gross income on their Federal Income Tax Form of $77,254 or less.

The other program of tax relief for seniors and disabled individuals is the Missouri Property Tax Credit Claim(Circuit Breaker) program. The deadline for this application is April 15th of each year. There are often volunteers who will help you with your application for this program around income tax time. The income limits for this program are:

If you are RENTERS / PART YEAR OWNERS-- If, your single your income must be $27,500 or less. If you are married filing combined, your total household income must be $29,500 or less.

If you YOUR HOME and have OCCUPIED YOUR HOME THE ENTIRE YEAR-- If single your total household income must be $30,000 or less. If married filing combined, your total household income must be $34,000 or less. If you are a 100% service connected disabled veteran, do not include VA payments in this calculation.

To determine which credit is best for you or learn more about these programs or to get the forms you can go to http://dor.mo.gov/tax. You can also contact the Missouri Department of Revenue at by calling (573)751-4450. Their mailing address is: Harry S Truman State Office Building, 301 West High Street, Jefferson City, MO 65101.

I hope that many of you will be able to take advantage of these services. These are good programs designed to allow seniors to help themselves by staying in the own homes. Please contact my office if you need help filling out the papers or have trouble getting the correct forms and we will do whatever we can to help.
http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=4 Tuesday, September 1, 2009 A few weeks ago I explored in a Capitol Report why most Americans oppose President Obamas wholesale restructuring of our health delivery system. In that article that I titled, "Health Care System That Does'nt Make Us Sick" I pointed out the clear advantages of our system over systems that currently exist in other nations which are characterized by lack of choice and rationing of care. I also pointed out that I agree with many Americans who believe that reforms should be made to our current system that would deal the current problems of access and cost. I mentioned the benefit of tort reform to reduce unwarranted lawsuits against doctors and other health care providers which increases the cost of these services. I also discussed the problem of the uninsurable, who are folks who simply cant obtain health insurance because of preexisting condition and other financial problems. To deal with this issue, affordable and publicly subsidized high risk pools should be created and funded in each state.

Rather than throwing out our present system which services so many American very well, I would suggest these additional Free Market solutions to the problems that need to be addressed:

1. Individual Subsidies. Provide tax credits or vouchers to individuals that buy their own healthcare. Currently the biggest tax break in the country is that health benefits through employment are not taxed. So why should people that work at jobs that do not provide healthcare have to pay for the entirety of their premiums with after-tax dollars? Currently 4 in 10 Americans change jobs every year. Under this proposal people who opted to buy their own plans would have completely portable healthcare.

2. Interstate Purchase. Currently purchasing insurance is restricted to the state you live in. This restriction only applies to those trying to purchase their own coverage. Large corporate plans can have recipients in any state and therefore have more choice. If insurance companies had to contend in a national market they would be able to compete for anyone's business without the burden of state regulations that drive up prices.

3. Association Packages. Allow churches, professional and trade organizations, labor unions and community groups to purchase large healthcare packages as a bloc. This will lead to a better continuity of care and control over benefits and providers.

4. Eliminate Fraud. Medicare and Medicaid fraud is a major burden to the countries healthcare system. Outright criminal activity accounts for as much as 10% of healthcare spending, that's $200 billion a year. This level of fraud can be prevented with a better electronic system. It is simply impossible to track with a paper based system.

5. Transparency. Allow consumers to see price and quality. Healthcare is the only industry that consumers cannot view the product next to the price and make an economic decision about their care. There is no way for patients to know which hospitals are best at performing the procedure they need or what the infection rates are in that hospital. This is vital information to have an informed marketplace and keep costs minimal. For a great example view: http://www.floridahealthfinder.org

6. Information Technology. One of the most unnecessary costs associated with healthcare is costs having to do additional or repeated tests because a specialist or another doctor does not have access to your full medical records. Not only is converting to a computer based system a long-term cost effective strategy it will save thousands of lives by alerting doctors before giving you a prescription if it conflicts with another medication you are taking. If a 19th century doctor walked into a 21st century hospital the only thing he would recognize is the medical records room. Incentives need to be designed to get hospitals to abandon the paper records system.

These market based proposals, if adopted, will transform American health care into an even better system than we have today. Contrary to the legislation currently pending in Congress, these proposals will not result in a loss of individual choice, rationing of care for consumers and would not result in the discouragement of medical innovation that made American the destination of people all over the world who need medical care. These proposals are the prescription that will make our medical care system even better. http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=3 Sunday, August 23, 2009 In 1996 there was much concern across our nation that several states including Hawaii were about to adopt same-sex marriage laws. Opponents of such laws feared that the other states would then be required to recognize such marriages under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution. That provision of our United States Constitutions provides in part, full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. In order to reduce this possibility a bi-partisan vote in the majority of both houses of the U. S. Congress passed Public Law No. 104-199, Defense of Marriage Act "DOMA". President Bill Clinton signed this legislation on September 21, 1996. Without DOMA there is a fear that Missouri and other states would have to accept these types of union that are currently recognized in such states as Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Iowa. This would mean that a gay couple married in Iowa who subsequently moved to Missouri would have the same rights and privileges as man and woman who were married. These rights would include the ability to adopt children.

In 2004 Missouri voters by a large majority adopted a state constitutional amendment that provided, That to be valid and recognized in this state, a marriage shall exist only between a man and a woman. Missourian overwhelmingly adopted this change to our State Constitution and accepted the arguments in favor of traditional marriage. The most compelling of these arguments is that traditional marriage is the only institution that effectively protects and provides for the welfare of our children.

Several weeks ago President Obamas Justice Department had filed a brief in federal court in support of DOMA. It is certainly our President and his administrations responsibility to defend the laws adopted by Congress. This court filing apparently set off a flurry of protests from his gay-lesbian-bisexual-transgender-whatever allies.

I was shocked to hear last week that the U. S. Justice Department, under the direction of the White House, has reversed its position and filed a second brief this time in opposition of DOMA. This action poses a threat on Traditional Marriage in every state including our own. The President through his lawyers is asking a federal court to declare DOMA as unconstitutional. I do not know if his efforts will be successful or not. I do fear that they might be successful at stripping away protection of the form of marriage that has served western civilization all of our modern history. I also fear is that this action might point to an attempt to directly abolish DOMA in the United States Congress.

Since we already have a provision in our Constitution providing protection to traditional marriage, we in Missouri are better off than other states. I will certainly work in the Missouri General Assembly to continue the defense of traditional marriage. This might include Missouri defending our position in federal courts. If you fell as I do that marriage should be exclusively defined as being between a man and a woman I would encourage you to act by contacting your congressman and U. S. Senator and encourage them to resist any efforts to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, If we are successful in this effort we will protect future generations in our state from the problems inherent in these modern definitions of the institution of marriage. http://www.stancoxrep.com/viewArchive.php?q=2 Tuesday, August 18, 2009 It probably seems like every time you turn on the television, theres another plan from the White House and Congress making government bigger and our taxes higher. It sounds like they have no qualms in saddling our future with a massive amount of debt. Even Governor Nixon is quoted as saying, "If theres debt, Missouri kids and grandkids will pay that debt off."

During the first 100 days of his presidency, President Obama has signed the $787 billion stimulus bill into law, proposed an eye-popping $3.6 trillion federal budget for the 2010 fiscal year, taken over a massive $700 billion Wall Street bailout program (TARP) and created other multi-billion-dollar government programs supposedly to help grease the economic wheels. It took the United States of America 233 years (1776-2009) to amass a national debt of $11 trillion. Yet President Barack Obama's record large 2009 budget deficit estimated at $1.85 trillion and his own spending plans will likely double the national debt over the next 10 years. There seems to be no limit in the Presidents and Congresses appetite to spend our money and run up large deficits. The most immediate affect of such a reckless policy is to force our national government to raise the rate of interest paid on government borrowings so as to attract lenders. I fear that this might result in hyper inflation sometime over the next couple years. The news this week indicated that our largest national creditor, China, has recently decreased it purchases of U.S. Government Securities at the same time we need to borrow more money.

Most recently, youve probably seen clips from townhall events on healthcare. You may have even attended one. I believe it has been a great testament to the will of the American people. We dont want bigger government and we dont want higher taxes. When talking about a government healthcare system, we want a program that is accessible, affordable and provided to the people who need it the most. We want private health business to continue to grow and flourish. And we want all citizens to have a right to the care they desire not the care the government dictates to them.

Despite what is happening in Washington D.C., the Missouri House is and has been dedicated to strong fiscal discipline. For the past several years, we have produced a balanced budget and made tough decisions. We have stayed away from big government programs and wasteful spending and we intend to remain fiscally responsible. We successfully resisted a push by our Governor and others earlier this year to greatly expand Missouri Medicaid Program to include able bodied adults. Governor Nixon argued that we should do this because there was money for this program from the Federal Government over the next two years. The Governor was quickly proven wrong. The shortfall of revenues to Missouri has exceeded any projected surplus. The Missouri House rejected this plan for two reasons. First of all, we resolved that it was financially imprudent to do so. We all knew the state economic outlook was grim and that we should not expand government programs during times of economic difficulty. Secondly, I personally reject the argument the expanding a government entitlement in this manner is good public policy. We need to endeavor to reduce the number of people who are dependent of government and not increase the number of citizens relying on welfare.

Government financial concerns are serious issues the affect not only us but also the well-being of our children and grandchildren. What should concerned citizens do about these issues? Most importantly, good legislators want to hear from you the people of Missouri. I hear from my constituents on a daily basis and my work on the House floor reflects those concerns. I urge all of you to contact me, your State Senator, Congressman and United States Senators and express your position on how you would like us handle the taxes you send to government. The bottom line is that we public servants work for you and you are in charge of our nations and our states checkbook. Your involvement by communicating to your representatives will help to create a bright and solid future for the state of Missouri and our nation.