Think now before next Tuesday

In today’s information age, why does an editor like me even bother to suggest how you might vote next Tuesday? After all, with a little effort, you have access to the same information I do. So, why risk the chance of offending you if I happen to think the opposite of your opinion?

Well, it’s not about a scorecard. The exercise isn’t a game where next Wednesday morning you tally the score and either crow or eat crow on the outcome. No, the idea in writing this column is to get you to think BEFORE you cast your vote. That’s the goal regardless of whether you agree with what you read here.

To vote on your convictions means you must have some. Please note the word “conviction” rather than merely opinion. Perhaps you are offended by me presuming to tell you what to think. But that’s certainly not my heart in this matter. Instead, I offer the following in hopes of prodding you to think … and I certainly hope you do more homework than what can only be briefly summarized here.

One non-ballot surprise affects Lake Viking. During the 99th General Assembly, HB1887 was enacted which states private homeowner associations shall not “prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the display of political signs.” I read that as politicians in Jefferson City taking care of their own political interests regardless of what we as private citizens or, in this case, private homeowner associations, want.

This comes to mind when I consider Amendment 1, known as “Clean Missouri.”

In my view, Amendment 1 is the most important decision on the Nov. 6 ballot.

YES on Amendment 1

The “Clean Missouri” proposal

The Republican Party tried to remove this measure from the ballot, and it’s hard not to think for partisan reasons. They’ve painted this proposal as a Democrats’ project, when it seems to me this is simply a statewide vote, not ethics being imposed on us.

In fact, I would say whichever party is in the minority would likely champion some means of reform because whichever party is in the majority has little incentive for change.

Some Republican leaders understand this, such as State Sen. Bob Schaff (R-St. Joseph) and former Sen. Jack Danforth. Consider Danforth’s words: “Under the current system, lines are drawn in order to provide safe districts for one party or the other. True political contests do not exist when general election results are foregone conclusions.”

Missouri is hardly the model of ethical behavior when looking at Jefferson City from afar. Witness what transpired with former Gov. Eric Greitens, and I don’t mean about his sexual escapades, but rather his intimidating abuse of dark money.

This proposal brings “dark” independent candidate contributions into public light. It also brings legislative documents and committee proceedings and electronic communications under Missouri’s Sunshine Law and forbids political fund-raising on state property, including the state capitol. It eliminates most lobbyist gifts.

How long do you think we’ll have to wait in order for the legislature to address these points?

We’re not just getting along leaving things as is. The redistricting process is the main item “Clean Missouri” is known for and with good reason. The current process became so skewed last time that a judicial panel stepped in to redraw state House and Senate districts for only the second time in state history.

The argument that the demographer to direct redistricting after each census would be a political crony of the State Auditor is weak. Amendment 1 requires the names of those submitted to be approved by the individual legislative body being. And if the politicians can’t agree, then the demographer will be picked by a lottery.

Opponents of Amendment 1 say the proposal enables new districts to be drawn like “spokes of a wagon wheel” where an urban area could stretch hundreds of miles into a rural area and, thus, undercutting rural interests. But what they don’t tell you is that Amendment 1 institutes a complicated mathematical formula as a guide to avoid exactly this circumstance. The amendment, in fact, retains the language already written into the Missouri Constitution, requiring districts to be “contiguous and compact.”

It seems to me that arguing how districts will be redrawn like “spokes of a wagon wheel” is not very likely. Some even say this exaggeration is absurd.

Politicians in Jefferson City and their lobbyist friends have no interest in cleaning up their cozy insider system of gifts, favors and designing their own legislative districts. This is one example when initiative petition is the necessary path to improvement. Amendment 1 is a rare opportunity to effect positive change. If you’re frustrated with bad examples involving ethics in politics at Jefferson City, a yes vote is against more of the same.

NO on Amendment 2

Medical marijuana with 4% tax

NO on Amendment 3

Medical marijuana with 15% tax

NO on Proposition C

Medical marijuana with 2% tax

The sheer fact that there are three ballot issues dealing with medical marijuana makes a strong case that something should be allowed. But even though I do think there is a place for legal medical marijuana use, I’m unconvinced that any of these three proposals puts forward the right way.

Newspaper publishers of greater means endorse Amendment 2, such as the St. Joseph News-Press, Kansas City Star, and Springfield News-Leader among others. One reason is that the 4% sales tax would go to help fund the Missouri Veterans Commission.

It is said that Proposition C, with its tax at 2%, would not provide enough revenue to have a positive impact on drug treatment, education and public safety. And Proposition C would only change state law, not our state’s constitution.

Perhaps the worst of the three marijuana proposals is Amendment 3. This proposal would essentially establish a new branch of government with no oversight from the legislative or executive branches. What’s more, the person who personally funded the petition drive to get this proposal on the ballot (Brad Bradshaw) drafted the measure which some say puts himself in control over a board that would use the resulting tax funds.

If any one of these three initiatives gains voter approval, then marijuana’s use under Missouri law could put our state at odds with federal law. This could cause unnecessary legal problems.

Another legitimate concern is how legalizing medical marijuana may be the gateway to full legalization. Perhaps, you argue, a vote for one of these marijuana initiatives is a long way from full legalization, including recreational use. But then, do you remember how legalized gambling was only going to be on riverboats?

The Missouri State Medical Association (MSMA), along with multiple medical associations, oppose all three medical marijuana ballot questions.

In 31 states where medical marijuana is legal, healthcare has not improved. To the contrary, numerous problems have developed in schools and education, law enforcement and judicial system. Automobile and industrial accidents involving drivers under the influence of marijuana has increased demands on emergency rooms and hospitals due to toxicity and accidental ingestion, and diversion for non-medical uses.

This should give everyone pause.

If Missouri voters want to approve the use of medical marijuana in restricted ways, then we may be better served to enact the law through the “meat grinder” of the legislative process. And it’s on us to require the leaders we elect to justify and explain what we’re doing …or make them accountable for what they’re not doing.

Yes on Amendment 4

Bingo advertising

If you worry that bingo sponsored by civic organizations and churches will contribute to the negative aspects of gambling, then vote no. But this proposal only involves bingo in a state which already legalizes gambling.

There is no cost or savings for government entities if voters approve this proposal. It simply allows a civic or church group to promote their bingo games where proceeds are mostly spent on community projects.

YES on Proposition B

Minimum wage increase

Why would anyone choose to live where you can work full-time and still wonder where your next meal’s going to come from? If this is the measure, then a vote for Proposition B makes sense. And the 85-cent per hour increase every year until it hits $12 an hour in 2023 makes the transition less painful.

Battles over what should be the minimum wage have been ongoing since 1938 when a 25-cent per hour rate was established. The debate will not abate whether voters approve or disapprove next Tuesday. With voter approval, more arguments may merely be postponed and renewed until such time for the next round of debate.

There is little argument, however, that the gap between the rich and poor keeps getting bigger. The last federal tax cut may have boosted the economy but the trickle down never seems to reach the pockets of those living in economically depressed regions like Northwest Missouri.

Studies show that 60% of those making minimum wage are women. More than 250,000 Missouri children rely on the support of a minimum wage worker.

As a small business owner, I shudder when considering how raising the bottom rung on the payroll ladder impacts the total of all being paid. Mandating a 53% increase in the minimum wage will have a huge impact on small employers and farms.

I would prefer to allow the marketplace to determine who should be rewarded and compensated at which rates. But alas, the marketplace doesn’t readily curb appetites of those we think are tempted by greed.

Understand, though, a yes vote brings unanticipated consequences to even those you intend to benefit. It will be interesting, for instance, to see McDonald’s or other national chain franchises replace humans with more computers and customer order kiosks.

At some point we must recognize that investing in education and skills training is a better way rather than the periodic clash over minimum wage. Phasing in a minimum wage increase is a poor substitute but a needed “band-aid” for too many financially bleeding households.

Yes on Proposition D

Increase the motor fuel tax

Nobody wants more tax. Every driver I know wants better roads and highways. The question: Will we get what we pay for?

Proposition D would increase the state’s gasoline tax in 2.5-cent increments during the next four years until it totals 10 cents. Approval of this initiative next Tuesday will allow Missouri to receive additional matching funding from the federal government.

Missouri’s gas tax now is 17 cents, ranking 49th among the union’s 50 states. Because of inflation, that tax is equivalent to 7 cents in 1996 dollars when the current tax rate was set.

If approved, the measure when fully implemented would generate at least $288 million annually for the state road fund and $123 million annually to local governments for road construction and maintenance. According to safermo.com (a proponent of the measure), Daviess County would receive $379,120 for distribution. Local towns would receive the following amounts for streets:

Gallatin $28,092

Jamesport $8,242

Pattonsburg $5,474

Winston $4,074

Altamont $3,209

Coffey $2,611

Jameson $2,092

Lock Springs $897

Opponents argue that some tax money will go to help fund the Missouri State Highway Patrol …as if that weren’t a legitimate use.

Proponents say the average driver will spend an additional$1.28 a month during the first year and $5.10 per month when the tax is fully phased into use. So, each driver here can expect to pay about $60 a year to get about $433,811 in new revenue for local use.

Nobody wants more tax. Every driver I know wants better roads and highways. And it’s those who drive and buy fuel who pay for the increase. It seems reasonable to vote yes on Proposition D.