24thState

Right to Work is the Right to Prosper

Guest Contributor, Bill Randles

The state of Missouri has a fundamental economic choice to make.  Will we pursue a proven path to prosperity or continue to sacrifice the economic good of all to pander to a small special interest group?  If Missouri does not become a right to work state its economic decline will continue.

There are two types of states in terms of labor laws.  Missouri is one of 27 states that is a “closed shop” state.  That means if you wish to work in a business that is already unionized, you must join the union to get a job.  You must also, therefore, consent to a mandatory deduction from your check to be used for essentially whatever purposes (including political) the union chooses.  In the 23 right to work states, it remains up to the individual worker whether to join a union and whether to have his wages docked by the union.

The long-standing decline of union membership in the US is being vigorously resisted by union leadership and their pet politicians.  Union membership has dwindled in the private sector to about 6.9% of workers.  In the public sector, the number is about 36%.  Obviously, the market has spoken and whatever purposes unions may have served in the past, the private sector has largely moved on. However, as evident by the large number of public sector unions, politicians who pay court to union leadership remain determined to prop up unions.  The cost to the rest of us is substantial.  Missouri and the other closed shop states continue to lose jobs and economic development to the other right to work states.  In fact, since this “recovery” began only the then 22 right to work states have added net jobs.  Additionally, during the last census, only the then 22 right to work states added congressional representation as well.  Thus we have a clear contrast between a broken model and a successful model.  Recently, Indiana recognized this model of success and has become the 23^rd right to work state.  Yet Missouri stubbornly clings to the broken model.  Why? (see our earlier post on Indiana)

It is because Jay Nixon and the Democratic Party have been bought and paid for by the labor unions.  Labor unions along with trial lawyers are the largest contributors to Nixon’s political campaigns and they’ve gotten good value for what they’ve paid for.  He stubbornly refuses to even consider right to work legislation and works hard to peel off enough Republican legislators to prevent the legislation from even coming to his desk.  The fact that it costs Missouri jobs, raises the price of every single item sold in this state, and will dramatically inflate the costs of projects in the future like rebuilding Joplin does not trouble Nixon and the Democrats one bit.  On the contrary, loss of jobs and a hidden union tax on every transaction in the state of Missouri is a price they are happily willing to pay to continue to pay off their devoted union backers. 

So the choice Missourians need to make is quite clear.  Will we choose economic prosperity for all or a stunted economy that panders to a few?  Will we have a free, open, and vibrant economy or continue closed tightly regulated, crony capitalism?  When I am elected governor I will promptly push through a right to work statute which will benefit all Missourians.  Missouri does not have to live with the mediocrity that we have endured in our economy and political system over the last several years.  The people of this state do not have to be held hostage by special interests and their captive politicians any longer.  Missouri must become a right to work state and in 2013, in the first legislative session after I’m elected governor, it will.  

Missouri is in last place and in dire need of OFFENSE against Nixon.  He obviously does not know how to make a state survive, let alone thrive.

The China Hub is back

Repackaged as the “Freight Forwarders Incentive Act,” HB 1476 is the reincarnation of the failed China Hub bill that cost the 24th State hundreds of thousands of dollars in a protracted and futile special session last year.

This year's “Freight Forwarders Incentive Act” is the portion of the Aerotropolis Bill SB 8 that gave $60M in tax credits to exporters who send goods out through Lambert Airport to an international destination, presumably to China. HB 1476 - heard in the Economic Development Committee today - gives the same $60M to State approved Freight Forwarders.

The questions about the China Hub bill still remain unanswered with the Freight Forwarders Incentive Act.

• Why is the rest of the state excluded from these incentives by the requirement that only freight leaving Lambert Airport is eligible for the Tax Credits?
• Why are only international freight forwarders favored by the state with these Tax Credits?  Why not include domestic freight forwarders?
•  Why are these Tax Credits transferable – allowing, in effect, cash payments to businesses that receive them and allowing businesses that do not engage in international exports to lower their tax rates?
• What is the increased tax burden to the rest of the businesses in the state?  Those that don’t receive this special break, but have to make up the difference of lost state revenue?
• Most perplexing of all, why does the Republican majority that claims to support capitalism continue to promote the same mercantilist (crony-capitalist) polices that King George used to oppress our founding fathers?

It will be interesting to see if the new label will make this bill any more palatable to the tax payers of our state who aren’t on the receiving end of this governmental largess. 

 

Gubernatorial Candidate Bill Randles on Governor Nixon's Speech

Because you probably won't see this candidate's response in any other media:

Randles Responds to Nixon's State-of-the-State Address

Liberty, Mo., January 18th, 2012 -- Bill Randles released a written statement today in response to Governor Jay Nixon's State of the State address given last night.

"Last night Jay Nixon delivered his fourth State of the State Address. It was simply more of the same failed policies that have placed Missouri near the bottom in every measure. His governorship has been one of failure in every category.

He claims Missouri is a business-friendly state, but a study released by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in 2011 ranked us dead last in terms of regulatory burden and business-friendliness. Under Jay Nixon Missouri lost 90,000 jobs in 2010, the third worst performance in the country. Missouri is one of only three states that spends more than 30% of its state budget on Medicaid alone.

Under Jay Nixon, Missouri has lost a record number of jobs and businesses. His solutions? More bandaids in the form of government programs and crony capitalism. The same formula he has been pushing for three years and that has failed so miserably.

We heard not one word about any serious reform of the policies that led us here. He, of
course, said nothing about our broken tax code, dysfunctional judiciary, or outdated labor
policies. No, he once again has chosen to put the interests of trial lawyers, labor unions, and
crony capitalists ahead of the interests of ordinary Missourians.

His education policies are a disgrace. He makes excuses for the failures of the Kansas
City and St. Louis public schools. He mouths the teachers union line that more money will fix everything – ignoring the billions of wasted dollars already poured into them. He then has the audacity to attack charter schools and claim they need to be more accountable. But apparently this call for accountability does not apply to the public schools in our urban areas that have incinerated billions of dollars, dimmed the future prospects for generations of out more vulnerable children, and enjoyed a virtual monopoly for decades. No, Jay Nixon prefers to placate and reward the failed urban education monopoly and continue to trade our children’s futures for his political convenience.

Jay Nixon is a failed governor. Last night’s speech shows a tired product of a corrupt political machine uninterested in and unable to fix the serious structural problems in our state. He seems to believe his record of failure has earned him another four years. Missouri businesses, tax payers, and children cannot afford another four years of Jay Nixon."

--Bill Randles, Republican gubernatorial candidate

For more information on the Randles for Governor campaign, visit our website, Facebook fanpage, and Twitter feed.

Redistricting Reveals Why The "Missouri Plan" Fails

The new legislative map is out.  There will be plenty of opining as political operatives have time to analyze it.  Here are my initial thoughts:

The "Missouri Plan", offically called the Non-Partisan Court Plan, was invented with the noble goal of removing politics from the judicial branch of government.  This new map shows, sadly that the judges are perfectly capable of being political.

 

All maps have to meet certain legal goals in order to surive legal challenges.  These pertain to ideal size, gerrymandering, etc.  So the new ideal size is 176,145.  Were there no population limits, a treacherous map designer would be tempted to make a few huge districts of the other party and many small districts of his own party.  Well, while many predicted that St. Louis County would lose a  seat, the odds held that the Democrats would more likely lose a seat as the population decline is in the Democrat areas and increase is primarily in Republican areas.  Considering that these maps must be fair for 10 years, one would think that the Democrat areas would be above the average size to account for expected loss and and the Republican seats under size to account for future growth.  But then, one would understimate these judges. 

The judges removed the seventh district from St. Louis County.  Of the eight remaining districts, four are solidly Democratic and four are solidly Republican.  Three of the four Republican seats top out way above the max at over 180,000 people.  Remember, this is the growth area, so these seats will continue to get even more population dense.  The Democrat districts by contrast, are all 176,000 people or smaller.  With population decline patterns, these deviations will get dramatically worse over the next ten years.  The effect is that a resident of a Republican area has less of a voice than a resident of a Democrat area, by a significant degree, and the trend will worsen every year.  The judges were clearly aware of this but chose to ignore it.

Another trick used since the first maps were drawn, is to lump all of the Ds in one district and the Rs in the other.  This cheats voters who end up with few real campaigns, but it also balkanizes State Capitols because lopsided districts tend to elect candidates from the radical extremes of the respective parties rather than moderates who must appeal to independents.  These districts are all over 58% tilted to one party with the exception of a single GOP seat that now leans slightly Democratic, opening the potential of St. Louis County going from 4:5 GOP to 5:3 Democrat. 

If these judges were non-partisan, they certainly achieved an amazingly partisan victory. It will be very interesting to watch how these maps survive party analysis and court scrutiny.  Stay tuned.

 

 

Red Flags for RINOs

On Tuesday morning, September 13th, St. Louis Mayor Slay testified in support of local control of the of the St. Louis Police department. I testified against local control on behalf of the St. Louis Tea Party. Senate Bill #1 turned over control to the City of St. Louis and was scheduled in front of Committee Chairman Senator Kevin Engler, (R-Farmington).

In the 15 years I have testified in front of various committees both for and against legislation, Senator Engler was the rudest Missouri legislator I have ever encountered. He interrupted me on 5 separate occasions and obviously did not support the Tea Party position. When I advised that the Tea Party objected to the fiscal responsibility aspect and cost involved in the special session that is when he advised that the cost of the hearing was ZERO dollars. He then castigated me regarding my lack of knowledge on the costs to taxpayers in regard to the special session.

At the hearing I wore my Tea Party Express tee shirt and I was advised by a Senator after the hearing that Senator Engler is a RINO and hates the Tea Party. Engler blames the Tea Party for not being President Pro-Tem of the Missouri Senate and credits Ron Hamby, Ron Calzone and the Missouri Leadership Project for the demise of his leadership position.

A google search gave me insights into Senator Engler’s distain for Tea Party beliefs. Senator Engler’s son Andrew Engler is a paid lobbyist for American Traffic Solutions, which is the firm behind the red light cameras throughout the St. Louis area. St. Louis City has over 25 locations implemented by ATS designed to generate revenue for Mayor Francis Slay and the City of St. Louis. It does not take a detective to connect the dots between ATS and Senator Engler’s relationship with Mayor Slay.

Also, on the Jefferson County Tea Party website there is an article exposing lobbyist Andrew Engler and his father Senator Engler outlining their support for red light cameras, which is opposite Tea Party view points. The article “Wolves in our Midst” explains why wearing a Tea Party logo shirt was like waiving a red flag in front of a bull.

Steven Tilley & Friends

Well, I could not resist putting these together in one post (make sure you check out the linked articles for context):

 H/T Reboot Congress

 

 

 

 

 

 

H/T MOPNS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now combine those with this video:

 

Between these samples, Aerotropolis, support for red light cameras, opposition to right-to-work, and countless other examples, is Steven Tilley sure he has the correct letter behind his name?  Most disappointing Speaker and legislative session ever...

 

Jefferson City's Backroom Deals

Tuesday in Jefferson City the K and N Patriots held a rally against Aerotropolis in the rotunda of the State Capitol. I attended to show my support and then lobby legislators in an attempt to defeat the bill.

The Tea Party friendly Senators all related a common theme that they were unsure what agreements had been worked out between Governor Nixon and republican leadership in the Senate and the House. All thought it was a waste of taxpayer money and the only issue of utmost importance worthy of a special session was Joplin relief. It was obvious the tea party Senators were not in agreement that the special session was necessary and were alarmed at the backroom deals and secrecy of the negotiations.

The hearing times were all subject to change and any type of schedule to testify against bills detrimental to tea party beliefs were in flux and designed so that those in opposition to the republican leadership's agenda would be in disarray. Ron Calzone did an excellent job rallying members of the tea party from across the state to fight the tax giveaways and to quote Ron “Stop Crony Capitalism” in the form of tax credits.

The bills were all being filed with different variations and the Aerotropolis bill was up to 350 plus pages before the day’s end. The state representatives were reading these bills and, unlike Nancy Pelosi and the national health care bill, the representatives wanted to read the legislation before passing it to discover what was in it.

The local control bill which has nothing to do with jobs was also included in the special session. A number of versions regarding local control were discussed behind closed doors and one version of local control changed the funding process of the police pension.

Senator Jason Crowell (R-Cape Girardeau) was the champion of the day and battled President Pro Tem of the Senate Rob Mayer on the secret agreement between Governor Nixon and republican leadership on the necessity of the special session. These issues need citizen influence, committee involvement and legislative debate. The backroom deals to appease Rex Sinquefield and Paul McKee need to be stopped.

I attempted to meet with the sponsors of Aerotropolis, Senator Eric Schmitt and State Representative Caleb Jones. Both were too busy to meet with a citizen lobbyist and both ducked my attempts to meet and discuss the issue of Aerotropolis. The special session and the backroom deals and lies in regards to the issue of JOBS is really about special interests. That is what gives patriots across the state distain for government.

The more government meets the more government inflicts burdens upon the citizenry.

Reporting from the State Capitol

I will be in Jefferson City today to observe the special session.  Look for updates on Twitter (@24thstate), and if I have time, I will write up a blog post before this evening on our legislators' activity.

If you get the opportunity, ask your state legislators why the special session was called at all, and expect a load of hogwash.  The only thing they should be addressing is Joplin, but they have taken this opportunity to push through pet projects at taxpayer expense.  All in all, pretty disappointing from a state legislature we all worked so hard to elect.

"We live in a stage of politics, where legislators seem to regard the passage of laws as much more important than the results of their enforcement." -William Howard Taft

Does Aerotropolis Implement Agenda 21?

This past Tuesday evening there was a meeting in St. Louis county to discuss the proposed "aerotropolis" legislation. Aerotropolis or the "China hub" is part of the Economic Development bill that is being taken up in a special session of the Missouri General Assembly next week. Among other things, the legislation provides $300 million of tax credits for the construction of warehouses while existing warehouse space already meets the needs anticipated by the legislation.

A concern raised recently about the legislation is whether or not it is intended to further the goals of Agenda 21. Agenda 21 is a United Nations action plan for globally implementing, so called, "sustainable development." At the heart of the conservative criticism of Agenda 21 is its disregard for property rights:

The Agenda 21 plan openly targets private property. For over thirty-five years the UN has made their stance very clear on the issue of individuals owning land;

Land… cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes. The provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interest of society as a whole.

So is the pending Aerotropolis legislation a mechanism for bringing the UN's central plans to St. Louis and Lambert Airport?

A couple weeks ago, the left leaning Missouri Budget Project released: Aerotropolis: If You Build It, Will They Come? This policy paper states in part [emphasis in original]:

However, mounting evidence casts serious doubt on Lambert-St. Louis International Airport’s ability to become a sustainable international trade cargo zone as intended by the proposal. Excess existing capacity throughout the nation, declining air cargo transportation and the lack of other critical environmental characteristics that define successful cargo hubs raise serious questions about the viability of the “Aerotropolis” proposal.

The phrase "sustainable international trade cargo zone" implies a connection to the UN's sustainable development goals. That's not a lot to go on; however, last October, the East-West Gateway Council of Governments recieved a Federal grant of $4.6 million dollars for sustainable development. The St. Louis Business Journal noted [emphasis added]:

The funding, made available as part of U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s $100 million Sustainable Communities Regional Planning Grant Program, will also go toward a transit-oriented analysis, economic development plan and a traffic flow evaluation.

In their proposal for that grant, they identified parts of the St. Louis region as "Potential Community Planning Areas". On page 30 of their proposal, Lambert is one of the areas circled. That map is reproduced here:

As an aside, I found this passage in that grant proposal worthy of ridicule:

Even with that durable history, there is an acute need for St. Louis to plan for its future by considering in tandem the decisions it makes affecting transportation, housing and the environment. That need is made more urgent by the region’s endemic governmental fragmentation that remains an obstacle to any regional plan or progress, including the Regional Plan for Sustainable Development (RPSD) that is the goal of this grant application.

The jackals of the East-West Gateway (EWG) may truly want to improve the region, but the derision and condecension festering in that bolded phrase make clear that the community they want to plan is nothing like the communities that actually exist. Communities that would necessarily have to be merged to meet the EWG's centralized governing objectives. When asking Washington, DC, to fund their local vision of one-world government, they besmirch the people and towns that give St. Louis its unique charm.

But that is not the only grant that EWG has sought. About a year ago they submited a "Tiger II" grant application which included (in Appendix C) a request for $10.5 million for "enhancing freight and commerce". I do not believe that this grant proposal was funded. Appendix C begins with this description:

The Air Freight Hub builds upon an initiative started by representatives of China, the State of Missouri, St. Louis County and the City of St. Louis to develop St. Louis as the Midwest hub for U.S. and Chinese commerce. The goal of these discussions is to improve commerce and trade between the Midwest and China, and establish a hub for that trade in St. Louis, Missouri, centered on the Lambert St. Louis International Airport. While the focus of the China Hub Initiative is on China, the proposed improvements will encourage the movement of freight between other trading partners as well. The ultimate goal is to develop St. Louis into a gateway for freight movement by air into the Central United States. Other major air freight hubs are at or near capacity, experience long delays in moving cargo, and have slow air transport turn-around. Greater land travel distances negatively affects the movement of goods from air freight hubs, causing delays, increased energy use, and increased costs to shippers and to the consumer. Lambert St. Louis International Airport is ideally suited and geographically positioned to be a major distribution center for air freight in the Central United States. We are at the nexus of major interstate freight highways, railways, and riverways – able to distribute and collect manufacturing, biotechnical, agricultural, and retail goods for our region faster and more efficiently than any other mid-American city.

Increasing trade both domestically and internationally must be a goal of the St. Louis region if it is to grow. The vision of those advocating for an aerotropolis--a vision captured well in the description above--is a worthy one. $300 million in tax credits are not. And if the pending legislation puts in place the legal framework for Agenda 21 or advances it in any way, as I suspect it does, then it's more than just tax credits that have to be removed from the bill.

Local Control Means Republicans Never Have To Say Responsibility

The St. Louis Tea party was actively lobbying several issues in Jefferson City this past legislative session; however, there were two key pieces of legislation that I focussed on. One issue was the elimination of red light camera tickets on a statewide basis. The second issue was to defeat the attempt to turn local control of St. Louis police Department from state control to mayoral control.

Numerous St. Louis Tea Party members testified for Senator Lembke’s bill in support of eliminating red light cameras and the tea party supports the elimination of all photo traffic enforcement. Cities contract out photo enforcement not for safety, but for generating revenue. Even an amendment that Senator Lembke introduced to not eliminate red light camera enforcement, but codify rules regarding enforcement and specifications on yellow light timing, was stripped out in conference by Senator Stouffer (R). Senator Stouffer explanation was that the red light camera issue was a local control issue and he complied with the request of the Missouri Municipal League, to strip senator Lembke’s amendment.

In the Missouri House of Representatives, Speaker Steve Tilley assigned Representative Paul Wieland’s red light camera bill to an unfavorable committee and the bill was never heard or voted on. American Traffic Solutions (ATS) and The Missouri Municipal League have more influence with the Speaker then the overwhleming majorities of voters who oppose red light cameras.

I testified at a Senate Hearing against mayoral control of the St. Louis Police because the St. Louis Tea party is in support of an effective police department without city government interference. No one can say St. Louis City government is effective or efficient. The St. Louis Police Officers Association then threw their members “under the Bus” and switched their position. The carrot of a collective bargaining agreement enticed them to back mayoral control. Senator Engler (R) proposed the Senate Substitute in support of mayoral control citing collective bargaining was a local issue.

Mayor Slay was quoted saying: “There wasn’t really any opposition to the local control bill in terms of merit”. However, the mayor underestimated the influence of Tea Partiers and our good governance principals. We can take ownership in helping defeat the mayoral control bill. Thanks to responsible Tea Party Senators the mayoral control bill died in Fiscal Review.

Speaker of the House Steve Tilley made local control his number one issue. Mayor Slay and Rex Sinquefield money once again have more influence with Speaker Tilley than does the Tea Party. At some point Republicans need to stop using "local control" as an excuse to do the bidding of campaign donors and democratically controlled cities. These money sources (to politicians and municipalities) should not cause our legislators to abrogate principals of good government as they balance state authority and local control.