Ed Emery: Why all of Gov. Nixon's vetoes were wrong

In the view of Sen. Ed Emery, R-Lamar, Gov. Nixon was wrong to veto an anti-union bill, another bill that would eliminate unemployment benefits for just about anybody a boss decides to get rid of, and yet another that would severely cut the amount of funding for education.

More from the world of Ed Emery below:

During and after the 2013 regular session, we have seen a record number of vetoes from the governor’s office. Approximately 30 bills were rejected this year, many of which would’ve spurred Missouri’s economic development and put more money back in the wallets of taxpayers. The governor cites various reasons as to why he vetoed certain bills, but some appear shallow and suggest politics may have trumped policy in doing what is best for Missourians. 

I’m a strong proponent of a small government with limited interference, particularly when it comes to taxation. People are concerned about excessive government control, and they want to be in charge of their own livelihoods and business decisions. If we take a step back, limit overbearing regulations for industry and minimalize taxes, increased job opportunities and economic success will follow. The following are three bills that would have strengthened our economy, but were rejected by the governor.

Reducing Missouri’s Income Tax

One of the most important bills passed during the 2013 regular session and vetoed by the governor was HB 253, a priority bill for the majority of Missouri lawmakers. We have seen success in our border states with little or no income tax — Tennessee, for instance, has a zero percent individual income tax, has surpassed Missouri in population, and has lower debt per capita. The nine states in our country with no income taxes have outpaced the nine states with the highest income tax rates in population growth, GDP growth, and revenue growth. Lawmakers recognized the need for Missouri to be more competitive and provide incentives for industry to develop further in our state. 

House Bill 253 would’ve lowered personal state income tax and corporate state income tax by .5 percent over a 10-year timeframe and created a $2,000 deduction for Missourians making less than $20,000 adjusted gross income. The legislation also would’ve created tax amnesty and added language to reprieve certain fees and penalties. Bottom line, the bill would have provided more freedom to run a successful business and limited harmful taxes that make it difficult to expand and hire new employees. House Bill 253 is a positive, across-the-board tax cut initiative that would’ve put more money into the hands of hard-working Missourians and benefitted the economy. 

In late June, the governor decided to withhold funding from the FY 2014 budget, an action that many believe is unconstitutional and likely an attempt to scare voters and undermine attempts at a veto override in September. The Missouri Constitution only allows a governor to withhold funds if state revenues are below the projected revenues. This year, Missouri’s revenues exceed the projections. In his veto, the governor cites that if the Legislature overrides his veto on HB 253, a hole would be created in state revenue. I’m extremely disappointed that the governor decided to play the politics card and threaten lawmakers. 

Redefining “Misconduct” in the Workplace

A measure to redefine the term “misconduct” was also vetoed by the governor. Currently, misconduct includes a wanton or willful disregard of the employer’s interest and a disregard of standards of behavior the employer has the right to expect. Senate Bill 28 would’ve changed the standard to a knowing disregard of the interest and a knowing violation of the standards the employer expects. The legislation noted misconduct to include chronic absenteeism, tardiness, and unapproved absences following a written warning. We’ve heard cases of clear misconduct — ranging from repeatedly falling asleep on the job to using profane language in front of school children — and those individuals are still obtaining unemployment benefits by the state. This is disgusting and needs to be stopped. By tightening the definition of misconduct, we would’ve been able to weed out the dishonest individuals from the unemployment benefits system more effectively. 

It’s estimated that SB 28 would have reduced Missouri’s debt by more than $500 million by avoiding payments to those who have used poor judgment while on the job and are now collecting unemployment. However, the governor decided to dismiss this proposition, and instead, has withheld critical funding from the FY 2014 budget for education, capital improvements, and other state services. 

The goal of the bill was to restore integrity to Missouri’s unemployment benefits system. Too many people who are let go from their jobs due to irresponsible behavior are obtaining unemployment benefits. This is unfair to the honest people who really need those funds and Missouri taxpayers whose hard-earned dollars fund that system.

Protecting Missourians’ Paychecks from Unauthorized Use

Paycheck protection legislation was rejected by the executive office, as well. This bill was all about putting more authority in the hands of the employee, particularly with regards to paychecks. Senate Bill 29 would have allowed public employee labor unions to withhold fees from a public employee’s paycheck only upon his or her written consent. 

The legislation would have also required the employee’s annual consent for certain unions to use fees and dues for political purposes. If you found out that your money was going toward a political purpose without your approval — particularly a cause with which you had a moral objection — you would likely be upset. Your paychecks should not be used to fund a public union’s political gain or personal motives. Employees deserve the right to decide what to do with their money, plain and simple. A better step would have been to make Missouri a “Freedom-to-Work” state, but due to the political power of special interest labor unions, that improvement may have to be done withMissouri’s initiative petition process.

The governor has appropriate jurisdictional authority to veto any measure; however, the Missouri Legislature has the ability to overrule that veto. If the primary bill sponsor makes the motion to override the governor’s veto and an agreeing two-thirds majority vote is obtained in both chambers, the veto can be overridden. This year, our veto session will fall on Wednesday, Sept. 11.  You will be able to follow the coverage of veto session by listening to live debate available on the Missouri Senate website at www.senate.mo.gov.