Source: http://barnesformissouri.com/category/goa/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 02:54:14+00:00

Document:
The following is a link to a letter I sent to the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services this morning regarding the state plan for Ebola, and the text of that letter copied-and-pasted in this post.
Health officials confirmed the first case of Ebola diagnosed in the United States yesterday. Reports from Dallas, Texas indicate that the patient had traveled to Liberia and had presented at a hospital with symptoms, but was allowed to return home. After his illness grew worse, he returned to the hospital. NBC News reports that the patient did not receive appropriate treatment until his nephew contacted the Centers for Disease Control. There are further reports this morning of a potential Ebola diagnosis in Hawaii.
Does the Department have a written protocol for actions to take in the event a person in Missouri is diagnosed with Ebola other than the “Methods of control” section of the Control of Communicable Diseases Manual referenced in Section 4.0 of the Division of Community and Public Health manual?
What steps has the Department taken or will it take to help ensure that a Missouri hospital does not make the same mistake that the hospital in Texas made – and inadvertently send a patient with Ebola home?
What steps will the Department take to notify the general public?
What steps will the Department take to identify, contact, and monitor persons with whom a person infected with Ebola had recent contact?
How will the Department coordinate efforts with the Centers for Disease Control?
How will the Department coordinate efforts with local health officials and statewide healthcare organizations?
The Department’s existing Communicable Disease Investigation Manual indicates that “U.S. hospitals are well equipped to isolate cases and control spread of the virus.” Are there designated hospitals in Missouri which are better equipped to handle a potential Ebola patient? Has the Department identified those hospitals?
As concerns grow over the spread of this disease, I believe it is vitally important for the Department to actively assure Missourians that state government is prepared to move quickly in the event of an Ebola diagnosis in our state.
The cardinal rule of statutory construction is that the intention of the legislature in enacting the statute must be determined and the statute as a whole should be looked to in construing any part of it. Words are to be given their plain and ordinary meaning whenever possible. Where the words of a statute are capable of more than one meaning, the courts give the words a reasonable reading rather than an absurd or strained reading.” JS v. Beaird, 28 S.W.3d 875, 876 (Mo. banc. 2000).
“Each word, clause, sentence, and section of the statute will be given meaning, and (Missouri courts) will not interpret (a) statute in a way that renders some phrases mere surplusage.” Farish v. Mo. Dep’t of Corrections, 416 S.W.3d 793, 796 (Mo. 2013). “Consistent with these principles, a sentence should not be given meaning that thwarts a section; a clause should not undermine a sentence.” Middleton v. Mo. Dep’t of Corrections, 278 S.W.3d 193, 196 (Mo. banc. 2009).
In support of his interpretation, Gov. Nixon enlists a letter from Prof. Cynthia Block from Washington University School of Law in St. Louis. It is telling that neither Gov. Nixon nor Prof. Block mention the duty of Missouri courts to examine statute in context to avoid absurd readings and interpretations that render some provisions meaningless.
Where the words of a statute are capable of more than one meaning, the courts gives the words a reasonable reading rather than an absurd or strained reading.” JS v. Beaird, 28 S.W.3d 875, 876 (Mo. banc. 2000).
Putting proposed §143.011.2(4) in context illustrates how Gov. Nixon’s interpretation would lead to absurd results. First, the reductions are limited to “one-tenth of a percent” and “no more than one reduction shall occur in a calendar year.” See proposed §143.011.2(1). Second, the reductions “shall only occur if the amount of net general revenue … (increases) by at least one hundred fifty million dollars.” See proposed §143.011.2(2). Third, the other significant tax relief provision in the bill allows individual taxpayers who receive income from a pass-through business entity to deduct up to 25 percent of income received from the pass-through from their federal adjusted gross income. See proposed §143.022. It does so through the same measured stair-step approach as the reduction in individual income tax rates.
Nixon’s interpretation would require a Missouri court to examine the careful stair-step approach of §143.011.2 and conclude that, instead of intending to ensure that general revenue would not be starved from tax reductions, the legislature really intended to take a series of small nibbles at the top marginal tax rate followed by a gigantic bite. In the first four years, the court would find that the legislature intended to reduce the rate by 1/60th in careful steps, then suddenly, in year five, reduce the top rate by 56/60th’s. Taken in context, this is an absurd result.
· Each word, clause, sentence, and section of the statute will be given meaning, and (Missouri courts) will not interpret (a) statute in a way that renders some phrases mere surplusage. Farish v. Mo. Dep’t of Corrections, (Mo. 2013).
Nixon’s interpretation would also require a court to conclude that the legislature enacted the second tax relief provision even though it would have no significance if income above $8,000 could not be taxed. If SB 509 is interpreted in the strained manner Nixon fears, there is no actual tax relief to any individual who receives pass-through income in excess of $10,666. Thus, Gov. Nixon’s strained interpretation would render proposed §143.022 meaningless for the vast majority of Missouri small business owners.
· Where the words of a statute are capable of more than one meaning, the courts give the words a reasonable reading rather than an absurd or strained reading.” JS v. Beaird, 28 S.W.3d 875 (Mo. banc. 2000).
144.285. Brackets for collection of tax. – 1. In order to permit sellers required to collect and report the sales tax to collect the amount required to be reported and remitted, …, the following brackets shall be applicable to all two percent taxable transactions: (1) On sales of less than twenty-five cents no tax shall be added.” Automatic Retailers of America, Inc. v. Morris, 386 S.W.2d 901 (Mo. 1965).
In Automatic Retailers, Missouri’s then Director of Revenue argued that this “zero bracket” for sales less than 25 cents was not actually a bracket with a zero tax rate. The Missouri Supreme Court rejected the argument, upholding the bracket of zero percent.
Contrary to Gov. Nixon, the only reasonable interpretation of the definition of “tax bracket” in SB 509 is that the phrase denotes an income point at which a different tax rate will be applied. Under this interpretation, creating a tax rate of zero for income above $8,000 does not eliminate the top tax bracket. Instead, it applies a different rate to the existing bracket. Under this reasonable interpretation, a court would reject Gov. Nixon’s interpretation of SB 509 as setting the top bracket to zero because that would not actually eliminate the bracket and effectuate the intent of the statute. Instead, it would merely change the rate for the top bracket.
This more reasonable interpretation is also consistent with the dictionary definition of “bracket” as “a section of a continuously numbered or graded series.” See Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary. The word “section” is defined as “one of the parts that form something.” See Merriam-Webster’s. It connotes the action of “cutting or separating by cutting” so as to show distinction with other parts. To “eliminate” the top tax bracket under this interpretation would be to tear down the wall of separation between the current top rate which would no longer exist and the new top rate.
Is the rule of statutory construction that tax laws should be construed strictly against the taxing entity iron-clad, or is it subject to other rules of statutory construction?
As the Missouri Supreme Court has explained, “Rules of statutory construction cannot be rigidly applied. Most often, for every rule suggesting one resolution, another rule exists that suggests the contrary. ” South Metropolitan Fire Protection District v. Lee’s Summit, 278 S.W.3d 659, 666 (Mo. 2009).
Although tax laws are to be strictly construed against a taxing entity, this rule is not iron-clad. Like other rules of statutory construction, the tax statute rule must give way to “the cardinal rule” of statutory construction” – that the intent of the legislature be determined by examining “the statute as a whole” and, where words of a statute “are capable of more than one meaning, the courts give the words a reasonable reading rather than an absurd or strained reading.” J.S. v. Beaird, 28 S.W.3d 875, 876 (Mo. banc. 2000).
No rule of statutory construction is iron-clad save for “the cardinal rule” – that courts must give effect to the intent of the legislature. Regarding SB 509, it is clear that the intent of the legislature is not to make the tax rate zero for all income above $8,000, but instead to gradually reduce the top rate contingent upon economic growth and then adjust the brackets accordingly to remove the section divider currently placed at $9,000 of income.
 2. (1) Beginning with the 2017 calendar year, the top rate of tax 27 under subsection 1 of this section may be reduced over a period of 28 years. Each reduction in the top rate of tax shall be by one-tenth of a 29 percent and no more than one reduction shall occur in a calendar 30 year. The top rate of tax shall not be reduced below five and one-half percent. Reductions in the rate of tax shall take effect on January first of a calendar year and such reduced rates shall continue in effect until the next reduction occurs.
 (2) A reduction in the rate of tax shall only occur if the amount of net general revenue collected in the previous fiscal year exceeds the highest amount of net general revenue collected in any of the three fiscal years prior to such fiscal year by at least one hundred fifty million dollars.
Missouri and Kansas have a long history of competition – and worse. In the 1860s, we fought in the Civil War. We used to compete in sports every year, until KU chickened out when Mizzou moved to the SEC. And, for the past decade, we’ve battled to lure jobs across the border by dangling so-called jobs tax credits.
In the past four years, Missouri and Kansas have collectively doled out $217 million in corporate subsidies to seduce Kansas City area businesses to shuffle jobs across state lines, but fail to add any new jobs to the region. In these years, Kansas has spent $141 million to entice the re-location of 3,433 jobs from Missouri, and Missouri has spent $76 million to lure 2,929 jobs from Kansas – for a net difference of 504 jobs at $430,000 per job. However large, these numbers still fail to take any “retention” tax credits into account to theoretically keep a company from moving jobs elsewhere.
Unfortunately, rather than create a long-term low tax climate for all entrepreneurs and families, these corporate subsidies only provide special benefits to the privileged few big enough to be aware of the benefits and savvy enough to work the system. Both states shuffle the cards around, hold celebratory gubernatorial press conferences, and pretend as if real economic growth is occurring.
In the era of a 24-hour news cycle, these perpetual press releases touting corporate subsidies create the appearance of success. These results prove that our economic development border war is not leading either state to prosperity. Instead of improving our economy, the border war paves a path of mutually assured destruction.
Both states give hard-earned taxpayer dollars to businesses to move just a few miles. Their employees probably never move. They don’t start shopping in new places. They don’t generate new economic activity for the region. The only change is the address from which they operate.
This is insane economic policy. And it illustrates the fundamental problem with our so-called jobs tax credits: they don’t actually create new jobs, especially when the subsidies are spent in competition with Kansas.
House Bill 1646, sponsored by Speaker Tim Jones (R-Eureka), directs the Governor and the Department of Economic Development to negotiate a corporate subsidy ceasefire with Kansas for the nine combined border counties in the Kansas City metro area. It tells Kansas that we’re willing to work for the greater benefit of the entire Kansas City region, but we’re not going to unilaterally disarm. If Kansas passes a similar law, we’ll call a truce.
This limited bill enjoys broad support in the legislature. As one who is skeptical of the entire corporate subsidy shell game, I’m hopeful that it’s the first of many steps to re-examine our economic development policy. Going forward, we should pursue an interstate compact with several other states to shift the focus away from specialized giveaways and back to lower taxes for everyone.
In 1996, President Clinton and a Republican Congress enacted welfare reform legislation requiring welfare recipients to work. The concept is simple. Americans – and Missourians – are not stingy when it comes to helping people who are willing to help themselves. We’re willing to help those who have fallen on hard times temporarily so that they may get back on their feet. But we aren’t willing to continue to distribute hard-earned taxpayer dollars to people who show no personal responsibility and would rather live off a government check. Welfare programs should be a safety net for the industrious, not a hammock for the indolent.
House Bill 1901, which I have co-sponsored, attempts to bring the principles of welfare reform to our state Medicaid program by requiring able-bodied Medicaid recipients to participate in the workforce to remain eligible for Medicaid. Under the current system, it is morally reprehensible but economically rational for a person at the lowest end of the income scale to refuse work in order to remain eligible for Medicaid. Consider a single mother who makes $3,000 a year. If she accepts a job that pays her an additional $5,000 per year, she loses health care coverage worth approximately $5,200. It is economically rational for her to refuse the new job because. After all, she’s essentially working for free. But by turning down this first job, she’s much less likely to get the next job which may lift her out of poverty. The current system is a welfare trap.
HB 1901 moves Missouri out of the welfare trap. It compels capable recipients to work, and it rewards such work by increasing eligibility for the working poor. By passing this bill, Missouri could lead the nation in bringing welfare reform to Medicaid.
On Monday, the House Committee on Government Oversight and Accountability heard three other bills designed to ensure welfare benefits are reserved for those who need it most and to improve health outcomes of recipients.
House Bill 1861, sponsored by Rep. Wanda Brown, is a direct response to an expose from Auditor Tom Schweich, who uncovered 366 cases of welfare recipients spending Missouri welfare benefits for several months in other states, including one such recipient, for five months, in the Virgin Islands. HB 1861 would bar benefits for any recipient who doesn’t use them in Missouri for 90 days – eliminating wasteful and fraudulent entitlement spending by recipients who are no longer Missourians.
House Bill 1864, also sponsored by Rep. Brown, requires the Department of Social Services to use data analytics software to cross-check the eligibility of welfare recipients to ensure that they are indeed eligible. The department estimates that it will save at least $4 million a year in Medicaid. As chairman of the committee, I plan to combine these bills and require an eligibility cross-check for recipients who have left the state, likely increasing savings.
House Bill 1879, which I sponsored, encourages healthier lifestyles for food stamp recipients by starting a pilot project to provide bonuses for purchases of fresh fruits and vegetables at Missouri farmers’ markets. The goal of this legislation is to help fight the public health crisis of obesity. We know that eating fresh fruits and vegetables leads to better health, but they aren’t always available or affordable for food stamp recipients. This bill gives an added incentive and ability for recipients to eat healthier foods. Plus, the bill benefits local farmers and small business owners by growing the market of people likely to buy their homegrown goods.
The committee will combine these bills and a few others to create a welfare reform omnibus bill, carried by Rep. Brown, to save taxpayer money and reduce waste, fraud, and abuse.
Fox 2 from St. Louis reports on Auditor Schweich’s findings of welfare fraud through the use of welfare cards in different states – and, in at least one case, the Virgin Islands. Worth noting – Rep. Wanda Brown filed HB 1861 last week to put an end to this practice and I was glad to be the first co-sponsor.
The House Committee on Government Oversight and Accountability will hold a hearing on the state’s execution protocol on Tuesday, January 22 at 2:00 p.m.
Regardless of what anyone thinks of the death penalty, everyone should agree that it must be carried out according to the requirements of the Constitution and laws of our state.
The hearing will focus on two areas of the Department of Corrections’ execution process.
First, the committee will seek the standards, if any, that the Department has for determining whether the condemned has had all of their constitutional appeals determined by the appropriate courts.
At approximately 10:52 p.m. on December 11, 2013, Missouri executed Allen Nicklasson before this court had completed its review of Nicklasson’s request for a stay of his execution, a request he brought in a pending action challenging the constitutionality of Missouri’s execution protocol. That bears repeating. Missouri put Nicklasson to death before the federal courts had a final say on whether doing so violated the federal constitution.
Second, the committee will seek information on the Department’s process for determining the new drug it would use for executions, including allegations that the drug was obtained by an unlicensed pharmacy.
The Department of Economic Development responded late this afternoon with a box of documents relating to the state of Missouri’s response to Boeing’s request for RFP for production of the 777x.
I’ve attached the most relevant documents to this post.
It’s interesting that DED Director Mike Downing leads off DED’s RFP response with a paragraph highlighting Missouri’s tax climate. I agree. Taxes matter most. So let’s enact broad-based tax relief to encourage job growth throughout the economy – not just to the special and privileged few.
It’s also worth noting that these are opening offers. A final deal could have looked a little bit different. The cost to taxpayers could have been higher. For example, Gov. Nixon had greater authority to negotiate on BUILD benefits. At the same time, the cost could have ended up being lower as well – for instance, if Boeing did not create as many jobs as contemplated in the offers below.
Credit where it’s due: I’ve frequently been a critic of DED and our so-called jobs tax credits. However, DED has always been very cooperative and timely with document requests. They were again this time. In addition, regardless of whether you think the Boeing subsidy legislation was good public policy, the documents provided show that DED exhibited great competence in putting this package together in a very short time period for Boeing.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §143
 §143
 §143
 §143
 §143
 v. 
 §143
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.