One of the greatest benefits Missouri has enjoyed from having a Democrat governor these past few terms has been his power to limit the damage the Republican-dominated Legislature is doing. If a Republican governor were signing Missouri laws in 2013 – we’re looking at you, Peter Kinder, despite your avowed affection for our city – then Missouri would be poised, by force of law, to erode its tax base by at least $800 million and attempt to secede self-destructively from the union on the essential questions of gun control and expanded health care. Gov. Jay Nixon has wielded the veto pen mightily and campaigned tirelessly in defense of the future of this state and its communities, and we commend him.
Most recently, Nixon has barnstormed the state to educate the public about House Bill 253, a project funded and steered by billionaire financier Rex Sinquefield, which would implement corporate tax cuts and replace the revenue, in part, by implementing a new state sales tax on prescription drugs and college textbooks. The bill’s boosters have appealed to the populist notion of tax cuts for everyone, but the deepest cuts by far benefit corporations and those at the upper reaches of the tax brackets. The corporate tax rate would slashed almost in half – from 6.25 down to 3.25 percent – and business taxes on partnerships and LLCs would be slashed by a full 50 percent. Individuals at the top income tax bracket would see their state income tax reduced from 6 percent to 5.5 percent. “The truth,” Nixon has been going around the state telling people, “is the main constituency for House Bill 253 is one wealthy individual and a few special interests.”
We don’t need to speculate about the impact this loss of revenue would have on our state. One need only look west to Kansas, where similar tax policy changes have been enacted. “When Kansas embarked on its risky tax scheme,” Nixon has been pointing out, “it became one of the only states in 2013 that had to cut funding for education, and raise taxes by $777 million.” (Further, Kansas’ bond rating was downgraded, as the state is now seen as less fiscally stable.) Or we can look south to Texas, which has higher property and sales taxes – and even higher corporate taxes – than Missouri. “Texas schools perform far behind ours,” Nixon has been telling the public, “and the state’s services – or lack thereof – for their most vulnerable citizens are inadequate.”
Nixon states the matter rightly: “House Bill 253 is a risky experiment that threatens to knock Missouri off our proven, fiscally responsible course and set our economy back for years to come.” At press time Nixon had delivered this message on nearly 30 stumps during his statewide summer tour to educate the public about House Bill 253, hitting the larger cities (St. Louis, Kansas City, Springfield, Columbia) but also towns like Eldon and Bolivar. He is encouraging people to pressure their elected officials to let the governor’s veto stand when the Legislature convenes next week for veto session. Nixon is backed by more than 85 school boards across the state, who estimate that projected cuts to public school budgets, as a result of HB 253, would be the equivalent of eliminating between 5,400 and 9,400 teachers across the state.
The bill’s supporters publicly dispute this claim, though Sinquefield’s other main policy agenda, in addition to cutting corporate taxes, is privatizing the public school system. Sinquefield has always understood that draining public schools of public funding furthers his private school agenda. If HB 253 did contribute to the downfall of public education in Missouri, it’s difficult to imagine Sinquefield and his supporters doing anything but rejoicing. We commend the governor’s bold leadership in defying them and attempting to defeat this dangerous legislation and defend our public schools. The governor’s leadership in defining this issue for the voters is critical beyond the challenge to his veto, as he also has preemptively educated voters before any future Sinquefield-funded statewide ballot initiative.
