Charlie Davis on the budget and his kidney stone

(In his latest report, Rep. Charlie Davis, R-Webb City, talks about the budget which was passed by the House last week and his problems with a kidney stone.)

Last week, the Missouri House of Representatives passed a balanced and fiscally responsible budget that contains the largest education budget in the state’s history, funds Medicaid reforms, and increases appropriations for business development while limiting wasteful spending.

Davis on gun bill: We have no obligation to obey unconstitutional federal laws

(In a segment of his latest report, Rep. Charlie Davis, R-Webb City, explains why he supports the Second Amendment Preservation Act.)

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

When these words were ratified by the early states as the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the men who drafted them were understandably wary of a centralized government with no checks on its authority. Patrick Henry warned his fellow Founders:

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.”

Henry wasn’t the only Founder who cited the need to stay on guard against a power-hungry government. George Mason highlighted English attempts to disarm colonists. Noah Webster astutely observed that, “[b]efore a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe.” The man many consider the “father of the Constitution,” James Madison, described the kingdoms of Europe with disdain as “afraid to trust the people with arms” and assured his countrymen that the right to keep and bear arms would ensure that citizens would never need to fear their government. And early academic commentaries by noted legal scholars lauded the Amendment, with one saying that the right to keep and bear arms “may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.”

The downfall of civilizations comes when they forget their roots. Sadly, too many in power today have either forgotten their roots, believe that they “don’t apply in the modern world,” or view them with disdain. Luckily, the Founders contemplated this as well, and crafted a government that reserves certain powers for the federal government while preserving all other powers for the states—to ensure that the federal government could never garner enough power to quash the will of the people.

That is why I joined with my colleagues in co-signing HB 1439, the Second Amendment Preservation Act. This is a crucial bill that prevents federal overreach by recognizing the Second Amendment as preserving a right to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed. Further, the bill recognizes the Tenth Amendment as the Founder’s intention to make each as the intended arbiter of the power to make laws regarding the everyday life, liberty, and property of its citizens.

In addition, the Senate has passed a very similar version with SB 613. Today, the House General Laws Committee passed SB 613. It will go to the floor from here. With passage of either bill, any attempt by the federal government to infringe on your right to self-defense will be invalid in Missouri.

Some critics will deride these bills as unconstitutional and an attempt at nullification. They are well-intentioned, but misguided in their belief. While nobody disputes that Congress has the power to regulate true interstate commerce, Congress often uses “interstate commerce” as a catch-all to justify well-meaning but unconstitutional bills that have nothing to do with interstate commerce. There is absolutely no obligation on the part of any state to recognize unconstitutional acts of Congress. This is not overriding federal law—instead, this is a declaration that such laws are not valid or constitutional.

No person in Missouri should ever be put in fear of being made a felon by the simple act of exercising their constitutional rights. With passage of the Second Amendment Preservation Act, they will be able to rest assured that they will never encounter that situation—now, or in the future.

House bill designed to protect funerals from protesters

(In a segment of his latest newsletter, Rep. Charlie Davis, R-Webb City, addresses a new bill that would protect funerals from the members of the Westboro Baptist Church.)

On April 26, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit struck down a statute passed by the Missouri General Assembly back in 2006 creating the crime of "unlawful funeral protest". The purpose of that law was to protect individuals who were burying their loved ones from the disruption of a small, but radical group who are members of a church in Kansas.

In 2005, this "church" began picketing near the funerals of American Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines. They claim a right to this activity in a public place so that they may deliver their religious message to their intended audience in a timely and relevant manner. At the soldiers' funerals, members of this group display signs containing such statements as "God Hates Fags," "Divorce Plus Remarriage Equals Adultery," "God Hates Adultery," "God Hates the USA," "Thank God for Dead Soldiers," "Priests Rape Boys," "Fags Doom Nations," and "9-11: Gift From God." Since 1989, members of this same church have picketed in order to publicize their religious message and to fulfill their asserted obligation to warn society of God's wrath. As a result of this court decision, Missouri residents currently have little protection from this disturbing activity.

Stanley Cox is the sponsor of House Bill 1372 designed to fix the problem in the prior legislation. The obvious challenge is to balance the constitutional protection of free speech for the protestors with the rights of funeral attendees to mourn in peace and privacy. According to the Court of Appeals, the prior language was too broad when it tried to include the “procession” in the protected zone. The language in his bill has been tested in a different case involving the City of Manchester and is not likely to result in the expensive litigation that followed the earlier bill.

The bill’s language states that, " A person commits the offense of unlawful funeral protest if he or she pickets or engages in other protest activities within three hundred feet of any residence, cemetery, funeral home, church, synagogue, or other establishment during or within one hour before or one hour after the conducting of any actual funeral or burial service at that place". A violation of the statute is a B misdemeanor which is punishable with a fine or up to 6 months in jail.

I would be remiss if I did not mention the Patriot Guard Riders for their service all across Missouri and other states. This private organization shows their sincere respect for our lost heroes, their families, and their communities by shielding the mourning family and their friends from interruptions created by any protestor or group of protestors. This organization has done a wonderful service in numerous locations across our state in recent years. Hopefully, this bill will make it through the legislative process, receive the governor's signature and provide even more protection to the families of our fallen service men and service women.

KSN Video- Missouri House passes new child abuse investigation bill

A report from KSN's Sydney Ryan

Charlie Davis: This is the year we will reduce taxes in Missouri

In a portion of his latest newsletter, Rep. Charlie Davis, R-Webb City, talks about legislation passed by the House to lower taxes for Missourians and Missouri businesses.

Last year saw the legislature engage in a public battle with the governor as he fought to deny a tax cut your legislature wanted to provide to hard- working Missourians. His reasoning at the time was based on economic fallacies including a false assertion that cutting the tax rate would jeopardize funding for education. The governor also employed other illogical arguments as he wasted taxpayer dollars in the new taxpayer funded plane he purchased to campaign all over the state against lowering your tax burden. The end result was a veto of the tax cut we passed and a decision made by those of us here in the legislature to revisit the issue this year.

This week we made good on our promise to renew our effort to reduce your tax burden as we approved two bills to lower that burden for both Missouri families and businesses. The first bill (HB 1253) would implement a 50 percent deduction for business income. It also would cut corporate income tax from 6.25 percent to 3.125 percent over a period of five years. For these tax savings to be phased in, state revenues would have to remain above the level they were in 2012 (the largest budget in state history at that time). The bill would reduce the tax burden on Missouri businesses by nearly $350 million per year.

The second bill (HB 1295) implements a reduction of the individual income tax rate from 6 percent to 5.3 percent over a period of seven years. It also increases the current deduction for individuals who earn less than $20,000 annually from $2,100 to $3,100. The bill also includes the business income tax deduction. To protect education funding, the legislation also requires revenues to increase by $150 million annually. In addition, the bill specifies that of the revenue increase, $60 million would go to public schools and $30 million to higher education in each year. The bill is estimated to produce a tax savings for Missourians of more than $700 million annually.

I am excited that we have moved these bills to the Senate so early in the process, and equally thrilled that our Senate counterparts are hard at work on their own versions of a tax cut. This week we also saw Missouri Attorney General Koster publicly support lowering the tax burden here in Missouri because he believes that will create a better business climate. Even more encouraging is that our governor is starting to understand that the public desires a reduction in our tax burdens and so even he is now indicating he will support lowering your tax burden.

It seems like this will be the year that we will reduce taxes in Missouri and open the door for growth and opportunity for families and businesses. We have seen in states like Oklahoma, Kansas and Tennessee where a lowered tax burden actually causes revenues to go up rather than down. As we look to position Missouri for long-term economic prosperity it is imperative that we allow our citizens and businesses to keep more of their hard-earned dollars so they can reinvest in their communities. After all, you know far better how to spend your money than does the government.

Richard: Gun law protects Missourians against unconstitutional federal laws

In his latest newsletter, Sen. Ron Richard, R-Joplin, provides an update on this week's legislative action.

The Missouri Senate took on two high profile measures this week relating to gun rights and the waiting period to receive an abortion. Both of these topics involve highly personal stances and can evoke strong emotions. I was proud to see senators debate both proposals with the utmost respect for their fellow colleagues’ opinions. The upper chamber remains a place marked by civil discourse and fair and honest discussion of the issues facing our state.

Shown above, Sen. Ron Richard, right, testifies with Rep. Charlie Davis on Senate Bill 718 during the Senate Small Business, Insurance and Industry Committee on Tuesday, Feb. 18, 2014.

Charlie Davis: Gov. Nixon must be held accountable

In a portion of his latest report, Rep. Charlie Davis, R-Webb City, says that Gov. Jay Nixon must be held accountable.

The founders of our State, just like the founders of our nation, wrote constitutions that created three coequal branches for our government with clear lines of authority. In regard to taxing and the spending of tax money, the legislature passes a budget into law which is signed by the executive. Thereafter, it is the executive responsibility to spend the money as it is appropriated by the legislature. Under this model, if income to the government is below expectations, the executive would withhold expenditures to make up for the shortfall.

Missouri’s State Constitution is very clear about when the governor has the power to withhold funds appropriated by the General Assembly. It states, “(the governor) may reduce the expenditures of the state or any of its agencies below their appropriations whenever the actual revenues are less than the revenue estimates upon which the appropriations were based” Article IV Section 27. Until recently, there was a general understanding that this meant simply that the governor can withhold money only when revenue is short of estimates.

Starting in his first term, Governor Jay Nixon charted a different course. He began withholding money even when revenue was coming in as predicted. He would then sometimes later release the funds, but other times he would spend money on other items that had not been approved by the legislature in the budget. Indeed, our current governor has never gone through a fiscal year without issuing withholds, even despite having one of the most explosive growth rates on record in fiscal year 2013 (over 10% growth). Despite the Constitutional restrictions, he has gone so far as to withhold dollars to build a fund balance to carry over money for his favorite projects to the following year.

This January, the Governor proposed the largest spending increase and largest budget in the history of the State all while continuing to withhold $135 million in the current fiscal year’s appropriations. Missouri’s current chief executive is treating Missouri’s Treasury as is personal funds with little consideration for the decisions made by the elected representatives of our citizens.

Last year, the Governor used K-12 education and higher education as political bargaining chips by withholding their funding for leverage to defeat a tax cut (HB253). There have been court challenges to this practice, but Missouri’s courts so far have been unwilling to force the governor to abide by or State Constitution. Representative Todd Richardson, Poplar Bluff, has filed a proposed Constitutional Amendment which, if approved by voters, would give the legislature a method of challenging the governor’s actions.

House Joint Resolution 72 establishes a constitutional protection from the Governor withholding from the State’s public debt and bond liabilities to ensure the State pays its debts and protects the taxpayers from our credit rating being decreased. Otherwise, if the legislature believes withholds are not in the best interest of the state or the taxpayers, the General Assembly may, by a 2/3rds vote in both chambers override the governor’s withhold in the same manner as a veto override.

HJR 72 requires the governor to inform the General Assembly when he reduces an appropriation or changes the rate of expenditure and those changes must stand up to legislative scrutiny. This is why I strongly support the passage of the resolution which will go to the voters later this year. With the passage of HJR 72, and its approval by the voters, the Governor would no longer be able to use the education of our children for leverage in his political games.

Rep. Charlie Davis on Nixon budget plan: The dollars aren't there

In a portion of his latest report, Rep. Charlie Davis, R-Webb City, offered his thoughts on Gov. Jay Nixon's State of the State address.

The State of the State address was on Tuesday night and I will have some raw numbers from the governor’s budget next week.

 I can tell you that there is about $500 million dollars that we would have to come up with to pay for his budget. The dollars simply aren’t there to pay for everything.

We in the legislature want to fund all our programs the best we can but to be over optimistic is the wrong thing to do. To present a budget that goes way beyond what the economists predict our growth will be is irresponsible.

 Our University of Missouri economists and our house and senate budget committees had predicted a 4.2% growth this nest fiscal year (I believe that to be too high.) The governor decided, for the first time, to go out on a limb and use HIS numbers, refusing to listen to the economists. He says we will have a 6% growth in Missouri’s economy.

I just hope all our departments don’t get their hopes up and start spending money we don’t have. We will budget a 4.2% increase in general revenue but will not put our citizens and our state’s fiscal house in jeopardy.