Constitutional Amendment 1
Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to add a statement that English shall be the language of all governmental meetings at which any public business is discussed, decided, or public policy is formulated whether conducted in person or by communication equipment including conference calls, video conferences, or Internet chat or message board?
It is estimated this proposal will have no costs or savings to state or local governmental entities.
YES. The notion that we, as a cohesive society, should provide a multitude of a official documents in a multitude of languages to accommodate a multitude of immigrants, is absurd. Legal immigrants are welcome, but don't be a disrespectful, ungrateful punk and demand the world spin the direction you command. Unfortunately, this is all too common occurrence in this 21st century me-me-me climate. Consider this a "When in Rome...." constitutional necessity to preclude numerous time wasting law suits.
Constitutional Amendment 4
Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to change provisions relating to the financing of stormwater control projects by:
* limiting availability of grants and loans to public water and sewer districts only;
* removing the cap on available funding and existing restrictions on disbursements;
* requiring loan repayments to be used only for stormwater control projects?
It is estimated the cost to state governmental entities is $0 to $236,000 annually. It is estimated state governmental entities will save approximately $7,500 for each bond issuance. It is estimated local governmental entities participating in this program may experience savings, however the amount is unknown.
A reluctant NO. I believe these guys are onto a good idea with limiting public monies only for public projects - not private development - but needs more details in the admitted unknowns. Politicians with blanks checks are a BIG NO in my book. Re-word and try again.
Proposition A
Shall Missouri law be amended to:
* repeal the current individual maximum loss limit for gambling;
* prohibit any future loss limits;
* require identification to enter the gambling area only if necessary to establish that an individual is at least 21 years old;
* restrict the number of casinos to those already built or being built;
* increase the casino gambling tax from 20% to 21%;
* create a new specific education fund from gambling tax proceeds generated as a result of this measure called the “Schools First Elementary and Secondary Education Improvement Fund”; and
* require annual audits of this new fund?
State governmental entities will receive an estimated $105.1 to $130.0 million annually for elementary and secondary education, and $5.0 to $7.0 million annually for higher education, early childhood development, veterans, and other programs. Local governmental entities receiving gambling boat tax and fee revenues will receive an estimated $18.1 to $19.0 million annually.
Not just NO, but H3LL NO!
I don't care about 'loss limits' one way or the other. Loss limits are nanny state baby sitting for adults. If these morons are stupid enough to gamble away their kids lunch money or their retirement funds; it’s a free country.
Same for not building more casinos. We regulate permits for gas stations, grocery markets, and liquor stores, so if the zoning says ‘commercial’, and as long as gambling is legal - build a casino. Iffen you don't like these joints, then outlaw the activity.
I don't care about ID one way or the other, either. If you don't need it to vote, why worry about it for folks to piss the money away?
Increasing the gambling tax falls on my deaf ears, too. ALL taxes receive a NO from me, anymore.
What I do object to is giving over-bureaucratized, marginally efficient with dubious results, gub’mint run monopolies any more money. Too many gub’mint schools are failing, and too many of their malignantly unionized personnel unfit for their jobs which leave parents - the tax payers - the ones paying the bills - little recourse.
It’s time for new options & new resources - like vouchers for private schools, if so desired. Parents are the best advocate for their child’s educational needs.
So, until ’spreading the wealth around’ is considered (Right, O-Man?), no more money for gub’mint schools!
School vouchers, YES. Prop A, NO.
VOTE SCHOOL VOUCHERS - VOTE SCHOOL CHOICE.
After all. Who could be opposed to choice?
(besides the malignant gub’mint school unions)
Proposition B
Shall Missouri law be amended to enable the elderly and Missourians with disabilities to continue living independently in their homes by creating the Missouri Quality Homecare Council to ensure the availability of quality home care services under the Medicaid program by recruiting, training, and stabilizing the home care workforce?
The exact cost of this proposal to state governmental entities is unknown, but is estimated to exceed $510,560 annually. Additional costs for training are possible. Matching federal funds, if available, could reduce state costs. It is estimated there would be no costs or savings to local governmental entities.
A reluctant YES. I'm always skeptical of gub'mint run programs, but if there was ever a good use for state government resources, Medicaid for the disabled & elderly is it. State government resources. It's why we have the 10th Amendment. I'll take my chances with these unknowns because people tend to keep a closer eye own their own kin, and a state legislature can be managed & made responsive under these parameters.
Proposition C
Shall Missouri law be amended to require investor-owned electric utilities to generate or purchase electricity from renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, biomass and hydropower with the renewable energy sources equaling at least 2% of retail sales by 2011 increasing incrementally to at least 15% by 2021, including at least 2% from solar energy; and restricting to no more than 1% any rate increase to consumers for this renewable energy?
The estimated direct cost to state governmental entities is $395,183. It is estimated there are no direct costs or savings to local governmental entities. However, indirect costs may be incurred by state and local governmental entities if the proposal results in increased electricity retail rates.
Not just NO, but H3LL NO!. Oh, it sounds well & good for mandates on alternative energy production, but we all know what happens when gub'mint sticks it slimy fingers into the market place (think sub-prime train wreck). And I'm not thrilled with this 'However, indirect costs may be incurred...' without any details or restrictions. Reliable and cost efficient energy production that turns a profit is best left to the professionals - not politicians. In short, if consumers & the market place demand it, it will be produced.
Up next: The 'right' politicians to vote for this election. Stay tuned for further marching orders, you mind numbed missourians!
