We applaud the City of Kansas City for its leadership in trying to beat back a dangerous tax initiative pushed by billionare financier Rex Sinquefield. After a statewide petition drive funded by Sinquefield, the initiative in question (Proposition A) is set for the November ballot. It would give statewide voters the opportunity to force voters in the cities of St. Louis and Kansas City to vote whether or not to sunset the 1 percent city earnings tax that currently supplies both city governments with their single most reliable tax base for funding necessary public services, such as fire and police protection.
The suit filed by Galen Beaufort, city attorney for Kansas City, claims the ballot measure is unconstitutional and asks Cole County district court to order it off the ballot. Beaufort was goaded by his City Council, which had unanimously authorized the city attorney to challenge the petition initiative. City Council members said they have no plan for how to replace the 40 percent of their budget they would lose if statewide voters trigger citywide voters to elimininate the earnings tax.
St. Louis Mayor Francis G. Slay broke his silence on this critical issue with a note on his campaign site, posted after the ballot petition was approved. In this post, Slay admitted that his administration also has no plan to replace this potentially lost revenue. Slay said Sinquefield, his single largest campaign donor, had privately told him he would not fund a campaign pushing this initiative in St. Louis should it make the April 2011 municipal ballot. A Sinquefield spokesman contacted by the Post-Dispatch did not back up this claim. At any rate, if Slay is setting his sights on April, he is making a mistake that puts our citizens – and the City’s fiscal standing – at risk.
To concede the statewide vote in November is to give Sinquefield the advantage. Once the measure passes statewide, voters in Missouri’s two cities would face this issue every five years. If the measure is defeated in November, then it is up to Sinquefield to fund another ballot initiative (he has spent more than $6.8 million on this campaign) and go through this entire process again – after taking a stinging political loss.
Either Sinquefield or St. Louis (and Kansas City) will be put on the defensive by the outcome of the statewide vote in November. City voters and everyone who benefits from a safer St. Louis should pressure Slay to back his own city, and not his campaign donor, as the November 2 election looms.
The November statewide vote is not a lost cause. Kansas City is showing leadership, but out-state voters also have reason to oppose it. Sinquefield’s initiative would preclude other city governments in the state from passing an earnings tax. While “no new taxes” is a perennially popular campaign slogan, so is local control. Some St. Louis union leaders, who have been gauging interest in the rural areas, are finding that many local elected officials and voters do not like the idea of a statewide vote dictating their local tax laws. Kansas City gets it; out-state is starting to get it. What is the St. Louis political leadership waiting for?
