On Tuesday, Gov. Nixon announced $786 million in budget vetoes and withholds. Then he blamed the Missouri Legislature for ruining the economy through inaction on Medicaid and a series of sales tax bills passed in the last week of session.
Gov. Nixon is dead wrong on the first charge. And mostly wrong on the second.
First, let's go back to January - when Gov. Nixon proposed a budget that was an estimated $310 million in the red. The cause of Gov. Nixon's deficit was nearly evenly split between his own delusional estimates of economic growth ($160 million) and his insistence that the Legislature bet the budget on future revenue increases from long-shot policy proposals ($150 million).
The Legislature did the right thing and declined to follow Gov. Nixon's irresponsible budget. Instead, we took a conservative approach, refusing to roll the dice on bills that weren't yet law. In the end, we passed a budget that was significantly smaller than Gov. Nixon's proposal.
Gov. Nixon's actions this week cut even further. If the Legislature had agreed to Gov. Nixon's pie-in-the-sky-spend-it-fast budget proposals, this week's vetoes would have been $310 million more.
Slow economic growth right now has nothing to do with the Legislature's failure to pass a Medicaid bill during this past session. Putting aside any beliefs on Medicaid's impact on the economy, even if the Legislature had passed such a bill, it could not have been implemented in time to have any impact on the economy today. In fact, the only bills worth discussing would require extensive waivers from the federal government to allow Missouri to re-invent Medicaid in a free market conservative mold - and negotiations on those waivers would take months.
Second, Gov. Nixon has overstated the costs of many of the sales tax bills that he vetoed. He pins the collective cost of those bills at $776 million. But officials in the Nixon administration were singing a different tune during the past legislative session - or, in some cases, not singing at all. On most bills, Gov. Nixon was AWOL. On other bills, his officials indicated cost during session which was significantly less than the cost claimed in Gov. Nixon's veto letters.
With his actions this week, Gov. Nixon returned to the tactics of last summer when he withheld millions of dollars in education funding to scare legislators away from voting to override his veto of an income tax cut. When a chisel or hammer might be needed, Gov. Nixon never fails to bring a bludgeon.
It's an open question whether the legislature will override any of the sales tax vetoes. But it won't be the result of the bullying bludgeon strategy. Instead, Gov. Nixon's veto messages identify ambiguities in several of the sales tax bills which should cause serious concern..
For example, Senate Bill 612 provides in part that the Department of Revenue must notify taxpayers anytime sales tax is applied in a new way to goods or services before taxes can actually be collected. Everyone should agree this is a good concept. The devil, however, is in the definition of "notify." Gov. Nixon's veto letter identifies an ambiguity that could be construed to make the measure cost as much as $200 million per year. While I doubt Gov. Nixon's price tag, unlike his Chicken Little argument on alleged ambiguities in this year's income tax cut bill, he has a point with SB 612.
A wait-and-see approach to local vetoes and withholds
Tucked among Gov. Nixon's 213 separate budget actions were several items which impact Mid-Missouri. He line-item vetoed $6 million to convert St. Mary's into a new state office building and money for maintenance and upkeep at the state Capitol. He's also withholding money for the state employee pay raise and deferred compensation contributions.
With regard to the vetoes, I will work with colleagues from Mid-Missouri, including Sen. Kehoe and Rep. Bernskoetter to try to override Gov. Nixon's decisions. I'm particularly disappointed in his decision for St. Mary's - an idea for which he joined Sen. Kehoe, Rep. Bernskoetter, and myself in early January to announce his support - and one which would save the state money over the long-term and improve education opportunities in Mid-Missouri.
Regarding the withholdings, I'm cautiously optimistic that the money will be released later in the year - after veto session.
Where's Gov. Nixon's plan for education?
Gov. Nixon also vetoed the most substantive education reform bill that the Legislature has passed in 20 years. I've written several times on the substance and potential impact of Senate Bill 493. It was designed to give students in struggling districts the same opportunities that students in affluent areas enjoy. While Gov. Nixon armchair quarterbacks SB 493, he still hasn't put forth his own proposal. It's far easier to take shots at the players from the comfort of his office on the second floor than to put on the pads and enter the arena of ideas.
State Rep. Jay Barnes, R-Jefferson City, represents Missouri's 60th District.