Issues
Click to read more about the positions that the Adam Smith Foundation was created to defend:
- Judicial Reform
- Government Accountability
- Education Reform
- Tax & Spending Reform
- Protecting Private Property
- Responsible Health Care Reform
HIGHLIGHTS from the BLOG:
Environmentalists are constantly working to pass liberal measures to interfere...
In what can best be described as a close call, caps on non-economic damages...
Representative Shane Schoeller has sponsored the Fair Influence in Government...
Adam Smith Foundation Blog
Environmentalist Measures Threaten our Nation's Economy
April 21, 2010
Environmentalists are constantly working to pass liberal measures to interfere with the economy by placing penalties on energy use, putting arbitrary limits on waste production, and blocking our nation from using our own resources. Even when the measures are confined to one state, they can have a lasting impact on our nation because of the interconnectedness of modern markets.
Many of you are probably familiar with the acronym CARB. CARB stands for California Air Resources Board - one of the most powerful environmental regulatory agencies in the nation. CARB standards for air pollution frequently surpass those of the EPA, and several other states have chosen to adopt CARB standards. Though the regulations are meant to apply only to those states that adopt them, the size of the market in California and these other states often means CARB standards become de facto standards for marketing products throughout the nation since it makes little since to produce a California-specific version of each effected product, even though the regulations mean the product will be more expensive to produce. This can be seen widely in the automotive industry - those of you who own newer cars are likely familiar with the acronyms LEV, ULEV, or SULEV: all emissions standards that were originally specified by CARB but have become a part of the national lexicon because of the interaction of government interference and market forces.
Many of you are also probably familiar with the practice of "outsourcing" manufacturing jobs. One of the key reasons companies outsource jobs is to take advantage of environmental laws that do not introduce an artificial cost to production. By moving to nations that do not have the strict standards of the United States, companies have access to cheap energy and save money by avoiding costly equipment like exhaust "scrubbers." Unfortunately, these lost jobs are unlikely to return without significant changes to our nation's environmental regulations.
Voters need to say no to short-sighted environmental legislation. Decisions made in California and other states have a tendency to spread throughout the nation, and that is something we cannot afford. Missouri gets approximately 83% of our electricity from coal, according to the latest figures from the Department of Natural Resources. Coal is the cheapest and most sensible option for Missouri consumers, but it and other fuels that are readily available in the Midwest are the biggest targets of liberal environmental legislation. Unfortunately, laws designed by liberals from outside of our state don't often think about the problems we will encounter if their regulations are forced upon us.
By allowing government to continually interfere with the market by enacting strict environmental laws, we become less competitive on the world market. A returned focus on solid economic principles can help ensure we do not let environmentalists pull our economy down.
Tort Reform Upheld, For Now
April 3, 2010
In what can best be described as a close call, caps on non-economic damages have been upheld by the Missouri Supreme Court in Klotz v. St. Anthony's. In a carefully-crafted per curiam decision designed to allow the justices to avoid taking responsibility, the members of the court avoided addressing the constitutionality of tort reform itself, choosing instead to decide the case by striking down the portion of the law that allowed retroactive application of damage caps. By addressing only the constitutionality of the retroactivity clause, the court has left the caps themselves open for a challenge in the future.
What will happen if the court chooses to address the caps in a future case? A possible result can be seen in the concurring opinion of Justice Wolff. In a short concurrence that reads more like an op-ed than a work of legal reasoning, Justice Wolff argued that caps themselves should be considered unconstitutional because they violate the right to trial by a jury by interfering with the jury's decisions, saying that the only way to make these caps constitutional would be for the people to vote them into the constitution.
If the court does agree to hear a future challenge to our tort reform caps, will it face the same reception as Klotz v. St. Anthony's? Will our court openly acknowledge that caps are constitutional, or will they choose to embrace the view held by Justice Wolff and invalidate the entire law? Only time will tell.
It's about time. Thank you, Representative Schoeller.
February 11, 2010
Representative Shane Schoeller has sponsored the Fair Influence in Government Act, HB 1872, which would prohibit entities who receive taxpayer money from using these funds for lobbying. Many lobbyists have publicly opposed this bill, saying that it will prevent municipalities and government agencies from effectively communicating about bills that are important to them, but make no mistake - the real reason they are protesting this bill is because it threatens to cut into their ability to collect mountains of taxpayer cash every year.
We think it is about time that someone in the capitol stands up to prevent taxpayer money from subsidizing lobbyists who may not always be focusing on our best interests. Lobbying should be funded by people who choose to spend money to express their own viewpoint, not by taxpayers who have no choice in the matter.
Tax Credits and Market Intervention
September 9, 2009
On September 4th, the Wall Street Journal published an editorial about the failure of Michigans tax credits which the Adam Smith Foundation found particularly interesting. Tax credits which are essentially government spending in disguise are often used in Keynesian efforts to try to encourage economic growth in states with stagnant economies.
As pointed out by the WSJ, over $3.3 billion in tax credits were dispensed by the Michigan Economic Development Corporation and $1.6 billion has been spent in other efforts to create or retain jobs. Despite this massive increase in supposedly business friendly tax credits, jobs have left Michigan at a record rate, the state now suffers from the highest unemployment rate in the nation, and it is one of the least hospitable business climates in the U.S.. Why is this? These tax credits cut into the state budget, and the cost must be paid by raising taxes on everyone.
Missouri should take a good hard look at Michigan when it comes time to dole out the next round of tax credits. Missouri gives out millions every year in tax credits for economic development purposes money that comes off of the top of the budget and forces businesses and Missouri families who are not privy to tax credits to pay higher taxes just to keep the budget balanced. If Missouri and other states would focus on responsible market-friendly policies like lower overall tax rates and legal reform rather than outright intervention, the economy would be much stronger and the budget would not suffer.
PRESS RELEASE: The Adam Smith Foundation Protests Ike Skelton's Decision to Not Hold Town Hall Meetings
August 13, 2009
(Jefferson City, MO) - The Adam Smith Foundation, in conjunction with Americans for Prosperity - Missouri, hosted a surrogate town hall outside of Congressman Skelton's Jefferson City office. The organizations decided to host a surrogate town hall as a forum for citizens to share their views on healthcare policy with their elected representative, as Congressman Skelton was either too busy or not interested enough in his constituents' views to host a town hall meeting of his own. Over 100 people turned out to show their concern over controversial legislation that will soon come to the House floor. A video record of their statements was made and will be shared with Congressman Skelton.
"I think it is discouraging to see elected representatives berate the citizens they serve for speaking their mind at public forums," said John Elliott, President of the Adam Smith Foundation, describing the purpose of the planned protest. "Town hall meetings and constituent contact serve as opportunities for our representatives to hear public concerns on legislation - an essential part of a representative democracy. It is irresponsible to steer clear of town hall meetings just to avoid talking about controversial legislation. Our national debt is approaching $12 trillion. Now more than ever, the citizens of this nation need to be informed about legislation that could drive our debt higher. How can our legislators claim to represent us if they won't listen to us?"
The protest took place at 5:30 p.m., August 12th, 2009, at Congressman Ike Skelton's office - 1401 Southwest Boulevard in Jefferson City.
For more information, please visit our webpage at http://www.adamsmithfoundation.com/ or e-mail info@adamsmithfoundation.com
Income Tax: A Costly Endeavor
August 11, 2009
The Show-Me Institute recently published an editorial in the Columbia Daily Tribune advocating the elimination of Missouri's income tax, an idea we support. The Institute found that eliminating the income tax would increase economic growth, saying "real GDP gains would total $438.6 billion" over the course of 25 years. Their research made it clear that staying with the income tax system is costing our state billions of dollars. $438 billion is not some paltry sum that can just be ignored - it is real money that will not make it to Missourians' pockets without major change.
It is clear that the income tax is a heavy weight that keeps our economy from developing as quickly as it should. It penalizes success, hinders economic growth, and is far too complex. As the Show-Me Institute pointed out, states that have no income tax have enjoyed higher rates of economic growth than Missouri, which has been languishing below the national average for years. Our state is in need of a better approach to taxation, and we need it now.
This economic downturn marks the perfect time to wean ourselves from our current tax structure. If we were to eliminate the arcane income tax and switch to a more responsible tax, like the Fair Tax or a flat tax, it would provide a solid base for future prosperity and help us recover from this recession much more quickly. We simply cannot afford to accept the status quo.
Fair Tax - A Better Tax System
June 16, 2009
It is great to see thousands of people gathering and calling for meaningful change in the income tax system as they did in Columbia this weekend. Replacing the outmoded and unfair income tax system will benefit all, as it will do away with a system that has become too cumbersome to be dealt with by anyone but tax professionals, substituting a fair, consumption-based tax system that is consistently and simply applied via a sales tax. Under a Fair Tax, there would be no more loopholes, no more IRS deductions from paychecks, no more audits - just a simple sales tax like that already applied to every purchase by the state and cities.
In addition to the ease of a Fair Tax, there would be economic advantages. The current system taxes success by taking a percentage directly from earnings. A Fair Tax would accomplish the same thing - progressive taxation - but do so by linking taxation to consumption, not outright income. The more people earn, the more they spend, stimulating the economy and filling the state or federal budget at the same time. The current system prevents spending by taking the money up front, slowing the economy.
The Adam Smith Foundation is glad that so many have gathered to voice their support for a better tax system for our state and for the nation. The income tax has outgrown its usefulness - it holds the economy back and is too complicated for anyone but an accountant to understand. A sales tax would work far better, and we are glad to see that the idea is gaining steam.
Initiative for Term Limits on Statewide Offices
April 20, 2009
An organization supporting the implementation of term limits for statewide offices, Term Limits for Missouri, announced on April 13th that they are now gathering signatures for an initiative petition to put a proposal for statewide office term limits on the November 2010 ballot.
Term limits for statewide offices will extend the benefits that term limits in the Missouri legislature have given the state, ensuring that politicians do not become entrenched and encouraging the introduction of new ideas to our government. Limiting the term of statewide officeholders to two four-year terms is a responsible and sensible way to ensure that the politicians in these offices worry less about re-election, fundraising, and political maneuvering and more about serving the people.
When our state's legislative term limit amendment was passed, it was done with a vote of support from Missourians who were tired of the non-responsive ways of pre-term limits government. Unfortunately, not only are some politicians not happy with the new grassroots call for term limits for statewide office, they are now calling for very negative change in the citizen-supported term limits for the legislature. Missour's term limits work, and they should not be changed to benefit career politicians. Missourians deserve Representatives and Senators who are more concerned about what is best for their constituents than what is best for their career.
We believe that the people of this state are best served by a government that is truly "of the people." Term limits help to ensure that representatives do not lose touch with their constituents by discouraging careerism. In a legislature with term limits, Representatives and Senators are generally citizen legislators, rather than career politicians, keeping them in touch with the needs of the hard-working, tax-paying families in their district by virtue of the fact that they, too, have regular jobs and live the life of a working person rather than the life of a career political insider.
The Adam Smith Foundation supports the implementation of term limits at the statewide level, and joins Term Limits for Missouri in calling for the protection of our current legislative term limit laws. We urge you to show your support for term limits by signing the petition to implement term limits for statewide offices, as well as by calling your local legislators and telling them not to support any effort to change or extend legislative term limits. Term limits work in ensuring responsive, effective government, and will continue to benefit Missouri as long as they are enforced in a manner consistent with their original intent as approved by the public.
Merit Pay - A Sensible Solution
April 1, 2009
A new merit pay proposal for St. Louis teachers was discussed in a recent article written by Tony Messenger for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch (which can be found here. Senator Jane Cunningham added an amendment to Senator Shields' SB 291 that would allow teachers in the St. Louis school system to opt out of tenure and potentially earn higher salaries if they meet performance goals, increasing the incentive for educational improvement.
Without a doubt, the youth of this great nation deserve access to the best education available to them, and this means they need an education system that encourages effective teaching and prepares them for a competitive world. In light of our needs, the current tenure system is illogical and irresponsible. Granting tenure to teachers creates a system of job safety and salary uniformity based on years of experience rather than skill level. This system covers bad teachers, sub-par teachers, and great teachers alike, keeping bad teachers from having to worry about improving while keeping excellent teachers from surpassing their lackluster colleagues in salary or benefits.
A system that keeps the bad employed and does not allow for rewarding the good would be unacceptable in any other field. It is unthinkable that this is the standard model for our education system, and it is irresponsible for it to continue. Linking performance to salary and employment is the cornerstone of productivity. Benefits for those who excel and punishments for those who lag behind encourage people to strive to be the best that they can be. Our current system lacks any incentive for improvement, and it keeps failing our children. Merit pay proposals, like the one proposed by Senator Jane Cunningham and backed with a bipartisan vote, are a promising way to make our schools better. The Adam Smith Foundation applauds all those who lent their support to this measure, and encourages the creation of similar programs on a statewide level.
Term Limits: Working for Missourians
March 13, 2009
There has been much discussion around the capitol lately about allowing more "flexibility" in term limits by allowing legislators to spend a maximum of 16 years apportioned between either legislative body, a change from the current system of allowing a maximum of eight in each. This is motivated not by popular demand, but by pure self-interest on the part of legislators who want to be able to spend more time in one house than they are currently allowed.
One thing that these self-serving legislators tend to forget is that there is a reason term limits are structured the way they are: the citizens of this state want new legislators and new ideas to be added to each body from each district every eight years, if not more often. Term limits were meant to encourage good government, fight entrenchment, and increase competition in elections by eliminating incumbents after eight years and shaking up the composition of our government.
Changing term limits would increase the possibility for entrenchment by allowing a legislator to choose either to run for more terms in the House or more terms in the Senate by choosing to run for fewer terms in the other body. It would also reduce the beneficial atmosphere of competition that exists under the current system, as House members would no longer be forced into competitive primaries with other termed-out House members campaigning for Senate seats; instead, they would be able to "wait it out" in the House until the next election cycle, when their chances at winning might be easier, or even choose to stay in the House until the end of their 16 years in the legislature rather than risk their legislative career in a broader, more-competitive election.
The current system creates beneficial competition and ensures the infusion of fresh ideas and new legislators in each district after a period of time no longer than eight years. This is why the citizens of Missouri called for and approved the current structure of the state's term limits. Voters cannot allow the benefits of the current term limit system to be thrown away for flexibility's sake. We urge you to call your legislators and tell them to say "No" to efforts to weaken term limits.
Senator Cunningham Files SJR 15
March 13, 2009
The Adam Smith Foundation praises Senator Jane Cunningham for filing SJR 15, which, if passed, will put a constitutional amendment before the voters to prevent the state from being forced to comply if a court orders the state to raise taxes. The legislature is the only branch of government with the authority to raise taxes, yet courts have shown willingness to attempt to legislate from the bench. We are glad that lawmakers like Senator Cunningham will stand up to keep courts from encroaching on legislative duties, and urge you to contact your local legislator and tell them to support this bill and protect Missourians from abuse of judicial power.
Responsible Tax Policy
March 2, 2009
In an editorial from the January 2-8, 2009, St. Louis Business Journal, Joseph Haslag wrote about the positive impact of revising the state tax structure to encourage budget stability. He suggested ending government reliance on the state income tax, citing the dependence of income tax revenue on economic cycles and the irresponsibility of raising income taxes to compensate for state deficits during hard economic times. As a substitute source of state revenue, he suggests use of the less-volatile sales tax. The Adam Smith Foundation agrees with Mr. Haslag's assessment of the problems with a state income tax.
Taxing income is unfair to Missourians. The income tax penalizes prosperity and takes money away from taxpayers that could otherwise be used for economic growth, whether through increased spending or capital investments. Mr. Haslag explains that the income tax "[acts] as a drag on growth because either businesses must pay higher wages to compensate, or employees will work fewer hours, cutting into productivity," a result with far-reaching consequences for Missourians. Furthermore, Mr. Haslag notes that as the economy slows down, income tax revenue follows and the government is left with a budget shortfall that some want to remedy with higher taxes.
Higher income taxes aren't the answer to economic woes, ending our dependence on the income tax is. Income tax slows growth and takes more money out of Missourians' bank accounts. A sales-tax-only system would not tax economic success, nor would it inhibit economic growth. In addition, as Mr. Haslag asserts, it would provide a steadier stream of revenue, which would remove the incentive for the legislature to raise taxes in times of economic hardship. With an expected budget deficit looming over the Missouri government and a nationwide economic slowdown, Missouri needs responsible tax policy that will not drag down our economy.
Good News for Landowners
January 29, 2009
The Secretary of State announced on January 21, 2009, that three new initiative petitions are being circulated in an effort to reform Missouri's eminent domain laws (the release from the St. Louis Business Journal can be found on our press page). If at least one of these petitions collects enough signatures to be put onto the ballot, it will be good news for landowners in Missouri who are tired of being required to give their land away for low prices to commercial developers for "economic development."
Undoubtedly, economic development is a worthwhile goal, but it should not come at the expense of property rights. The right to own and trade property without government interference is essential to a market economy; to force individuals and small businesses to sell their land to big-box stores and commercial developers in order to spur "economic development" is to ignore capitalism entirely. It is an unfair advantage that is being given to well-connected developers at the expense of families and small businesses, an advantage that does nothing but encourage corruption and unsound business practices.
Individuals occupying a plot of land which a developer wishes to build on should be allowed to negotiate a sale for a fair price or to outright refuse to sell if that is their prerogative. This is how business is done normally, and it has worked for centuries all over the world. Allowing corporations to circumvent the market through political connections is undermining the foundation of free-market America. This must change, and concerned Missourians have a chance to make a change for the better.
To get involved in the effort for eminent domain reform, please contact Ron Calzone at ron@mofirst.org.
Relief? From What, Exactly?
January 16, 2009
With the current economic debacle dominating the political landscape, much has been said about the importance of tax relief for working Americans. Undoubtedly, easing the burden of taxation on all Americans would help to create economic security by giving families and businesses more money to invest in their needs. A simple solution would be to cut wasteful government spending and put the money saved back into taxpayers' wallets. Unfortunately for the hard-working people who pay into our tax system every year, the "relief" being proposed by liberals is something entirely different.
The liberal idea of "relief" is not reduced taxes for all who pay in to the system; instead, they propose to increase government spending on welfare and are spinning it as a supposed benefit to the middle class. Yes, many taxpayers will receive a modest tax break. Unfortunately, many other people to which "relief" is being extended do not even pay taxes, yet liberals want to "refund" actual taxpayer money to them. What they have repeatedly refused to acknowledge is that much of their so-called "tax relief" plan is nothing more than redistributive economics in disguise.
Sensible people are asking where this "refunded" money comes from, and we aren't getting a genuine answer. One can only assume this is because the truth would expose a lie being propagated by the left, a lie upon which their economic plan is built. The truth is that the money liberals will use to pay for their plan to "save the economy" is taxpayer money, coming directly from the pockets of those who pay their hard-earned money into the system. This money could be used to truly relieve the burden on many who pay taxes, but liberals have of course chosen to live up to the tax-and-spend stereotype.
In these trying times, hard-working Americans need a government with the economic sense to do what is right: reduce spending and give actual tax relief, not take money out of middle-class America's pocket to support increased welfare spending.
Enough Already!
November 4, 2008
On Wednesday, October 29th, the governors of New York and New Jersey came to Congress to plead for federal tax money to help reduce their states' budget deficits, and it is sure that more states are to follow. The question, though, is why should it be the job of all taxpayers in the nation to pay for irresponsible budgeting at the state level? State income taxes are supposed to take care of state expenditures, and state legislatures are supposed to budget accordingly. To have the federal government pay for part of these states' expenses would, in effect, tax non-residents for services provided to residents in financially-strapped states. This would make a mockery of what little of the federalist system is left.
Of course, not all the blame for these actions lies with the states. It is doubtful that these states would be coming to the federal government for help had Congress not shown such willingness to subvert free market principles and bail out badly-managed companies to the tune of $700 billion dollars. Obviously, several states think they can now make the government toss another couple hundred billion their way. Unfortunately, they seem to forget where this money comes from: taxpayers throughout the nation.
It is time for the government to put a stop to these handouts. Not only is it a waste of taxpayer money, it is irresponsible fiscal policy. All that a bailout accomplishes is to encourage a company or a state to continue unsound financial practices. If they are not forced to make hard decisions to rein in their spending, they won't do it. The market, left to its own devices, would force companies and state governments to practice responsible spending or face tough times until they do so. This is the essential corrective power of the market, and our government's handouts are interfering, rewarding the very people who caused our economy's current problems and doing nothing to encourage responsibility. Congress needs to know that taxpayers have had enough already.
Is Capitalism Dead?
October 10, 2008
The recent Congressional bailout of many of our nation's biggest financial companies has many people asking one question: Is capitalism dead in America? There are those who believe that the bailout indicates our nation's willingness to give in to the allures of socialism, choosing to prop up businesses in hard times using public money rather than to let the market correct itself as it naturally will. Others see such regulation of the economy as a necessary evil, having lost faith in the ability of a complex economy to regulate itself. Those who aren't so quick to leave capitalist ideas realize that the bailout is a serious government intrusion into a volatile market in the midst of correcting itself.
The bailout is a sad reminder that Congressional leaders have forgotten how to properly interact with the economy. Yes, the market is in a downturn, but politicians must remember what got our nation to this point: it was not the invisible hand of the market, but a series of ham-fisted attempts by Congress to regulate the economy. For the government to interfere more is irresponsible.
To bail out companies only keeps the market from correcting itself. The market, through mergers, sales, and revisions of strategy, would have turned around without government interference. Unfortunately, the government's decision to throw taxpayer money at failing companies has interfered with the natural survival of the fittest in the economy. In a free market, these companies would have been forced to change management practices and streamline to meet the demands of the present. Instead, the bailout has been marked by golden parachutes, expensive trips, and no change in direction.
Were Congress to have taken a more responsible course, choosing to insure bad bank loans or to make loans to troubled banks, rather than handing out taxpayer money with attached government regulation, the interference with the market would have been minimized and taxpayers would have profited. Instead, taxpayer money has been handed over to failed financial institutions, the stock market is still in a downturn, and regulation of the economy has increased.
Our legislators need to learn how capitalism works. The government should regulate as little as possible and let the market operate in its natural state: efficient, responsive, and prosperous. Trying to artificially change the financial direction of our country is doing nothing more than holding us back.
The Wall Street Journal Sees a Problem, Why Doesn't the Missouri Bar?
August 27, 2008
The Wall Street Journal Sees a Problem, Why Doesn't the Missouri Bar?
On August 23rd, the Wall Street Journal published an editorial (which can be found here) that detailed the problems with "merit selection" plans, specifically mentioning the catastrophic failure of the Missouri Appellate Judicial Commission to act in a manner compatible with the spirit of such a plan. To the astute observer, it cannot be denied that there is a problem with the Missouri Plan. Why, then, can't the Missouri Bar see the problem?
As the article mentions, courts in states with so-called "merit selection" plans have been steadily marching to the left, out of step with the ideals of the voters and the rest of the government. This happens because trial attorneys are allowed to game the system, pushing nominees of their choice into state courts and keeping responsible conservative judges out. Trial attorneys do this only for personal gain, knowing that they can count on liberal judges to treat them kindly in the appellate courts and subscribe to judicial activism.
It is time for a change in Missouri. We need responsible courts that have the best interests of the citizens in mind. This is why we need a reformed Missouri Plan to call our own. Missourians deserve openness and accountability in our judicial nominating system, and it is time for legislators to stand up to the Missouri Bar and stand up for our rights.
The ABA's Proposal for Nationwide Merit Selection: A Bad Idea Made Worse
August 19, 2008
On Thursday, August 14, a Wall Street Journal editorial was written about the American Bar Association's decision to endorse "merit selection" for federal judges. Much like the author of the editorial, we of the Adam Smith Foundation feel that a move to such a system on a national scale would be disastrous and a major Constitutional foul. To make a bad matter worse, the accompanying push to adopt "merit selection" at the state level is a mistake.
As the author of the article points out, state "merit selection" systems don't de-politicize the process, they just move the politics away from the watchful eye of the voters and into back rooms and private offices. In a democracy, the last thing a government should do is allow part of the political apparatus to be put out of reach of voters. A functioning democracy must not allow for the voters to be silenced just because the bar thinks it is a good idea.
Instituting "merit selection" at the federal level would be an even more tremendous mistake. While the Senators involved would still be accountable to the voters (unlike the "merit selection" committees in most states, where the committee members are usually not elected officials), to implement such a system would be to completely disregard the framers' intent when designing the judicial selection process. The system provided for in the constitution works, and there is no reason to change it or to diminish the president's role in selecting judges. The current system allows for the president to check the legislature's power and vice-versa. Tipping the scales in favor of the legislature would accomplish nothing other than to remove one constitutional safeguard from the judicial selection process.
The Wall Street Journal article can be found here.
The Big Top is Going Back Up
August 1, 2008
Once again, it is time for the three-ring circus known as the Appellate Judicial Commission to get back to work and decide the fate of our state's Supreme Court. As you may recall, Justice Stephen Limbaugh, the court's staunchest conservative, was appointed to the federal bench by President Bush. His departure left a gaping hole that trial attorneys want to fill with yet another lawyer-friendly judge. Twenty-three people have applied to take part in the fight to fill the position, and it looks like things are shaping up for this summer's nomination process to be just as controversial as last summer's.
Some say this year's process will be different. Advocates of the Missouri Plan insist that the citizens of Missouri will see a smooth, non-partisan process to select Justice Limbaugh's replacement, giving the Governor a panel of apt potential judges to choose from. After last summer's fiasco, it is fairly obvious that a smooth nominating process is unlikely. It is equally unlikely that the members of the Commission will try to uphold a non-partisan approach to filling this vacancy, despite the lip service they pay to non-partisanship. Special interests have too much control over the Commission and, under current law, there is little that anyone outside the Commission can do about it.
Hopefully, Justice Stith will resist the temptation to (again) misuse our state's nominating process. Maybe the Commission will finally nominate someone based solely on their ability to function as a responsible, apt judge rather than based on their political or personal affiliations. Unfortunately, with a broken Missouri Plan still in use, it is almost assured that this will not be the case.
Supreme Court Strikes Down Millionaire Rule in Big Victory for Free Speech Advocates
July 10, 2008
The recent ruling in Davis v. FEC has scored a victory in the fight against government control of free speech. Under the old rule, should a candidate choose to use $350,000 or more of their own money in financing their campaign, they were actually penalized, forced to use standard contribution limits while their opponent was allowed to bypass standard limits and raise three times more money from each donor until their campaign reached spending parity.
Proponents argue that the Millionaire's Amendment "leveled the playing field," but all it really did was discourage candidates from putting their own money on the line as a way of speaking their mind on the issues for fear that, in doing so, they would allow their opponent access to an unfair advantage. The Supreme Court, in a spot-on decision written by Justice Scalia, acknowledged that the Millionaire's Amendment was more of a burden and punishment than a measure of "equalization" and struck down the law.
In acknowledging this, the Supreme Court has pointed out a glaring fault in campaign finance laws: they limit the ability of every American to speak with their pocketbooks, promoting the political speech they support using their hard-earned money. Unfortunately, they couldn't go so far as to get rid of contribution limits, being that it was not within the scope of the case. Maybe next year...
SLOW DOWN THE SPENDING
May 13, 2008
Earlier this month the AP reported that Missouri's tax revenues dropped sharply, to 1.9%. According to David Lieb's report, alarms were sounding in the Capitol. Whatever alarms sounded were apparently not loud enough. Legislators need to slow down the spending.
When Governor Blunt came to office, Missouri was in terrible fiscal shape. Budget cuts were made, priorities re-adjusted, and the fiscal situation dramatically improved. But all of that hard work, and the criticism that came along with it, are at risk of being squandered. Could anyone blame Missourians for being upset at Republican legislators or the Governor if Missouri's budget situation in 2010 looks substantially like the budget situation in 2004?
The St. Louis Post, with whom we frequently disagree, had some useful cautionary words about this:
Tom Kruckemeyer, chief economist for the nonpartisan Missouri Budget Project, said that the decline in revenue collections - coupled with the national economic slump and tax cuts enacted in 2007 - means that Missouri "almost certainly will face a budget shortfall of nearly $500 million in fiscal 2010." Fiscal 2010 begins July 1, 2009.
In other words, whoever becomes governor of Missouri in January is going to face a major financial crisis in his or her first year in office.
The root of the problem is pork. Legislators are fascinated with their ability to pass special appropriations for this or that. But, just like a family's budget, the state budget must sacrifice special expenditures when times are tight, as they certainly might be very soon.
The first person to stand up and lead the charge to slash the budget, in anticipation of the difficult road ahead, will surely be criticized for cutting whatever it is that gets cut. But that person will also have the luxury of sleeping well at night, knowing that Missourians all across the state will be better for it in the long run.
The Wall Street Journal has printed yet another editorial attacking the Missouri Plan for selecting judges.
May 12, 2008
The Wall Street Journal has printed yet another editorial attacking the Missouri Plan for selecting judges. The latest, from this Saturday, focuses on the Tennessee version of the Plan and the opposition it has received from both Republicans and Democrats in that state, including governor Phil Bredesen. It looks likely that Tennessee will soon be abandoning the Missouri Plan. It is unfortunate Missouri's legislature did not elect to do the same during the last session. From the WSJ article:
Since the 1970s, Tennessee has used a modified Missouri Plan for choosing its judges, known to its proponents as "merit selection." Intended as a way to keep politics out of judicial selection, the method has instead given disproportionate influence to the state trial bar and tilted state courts leftward. The Tennessee plan is set to expire this summer, requiring it to be renewed, reformed, or left to disappear when the legislative session ends this month.
Not if the trial lawyers can help it. Under the current process, nominees to the state appellate court and state supreme court are chosen by a 17-member nominating commission, of which 14 are lawyers and 12 are chosen from among five lawyer groups, including the Tennessee Association for Justice (aka the Tennessee tort lawyer lobby), the Tennessee Bar Association, the District Attorneys General Conference and the Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.
Sounds familiar.
The American Spectator magazine publishes article concerning the Missouri Plan for selecting judges.
April 23, 2008
The American Spectator magazine has published a pseudonymously written article concerning the Missouri Plan for selecting judges. Be sure to check it out, as it contains some very good facts and arguments. Here is a snippet:
This system for choosing judges, called the Missouri Plan, was adopted by Missouri voters in 1940 (and by more than 30 states since) following a few contentious elections said to have been influenced by the Tom Pendergast machine out of Kansas City. The Missouri Plan was sold as a way to keep politics out of the court system, but as the Wall Street Journal reports, the plan "has instead marched Missouri's courts steadily to the left." This is due largely to the left-leaning judicial commission, which recommends judicial candidates. Last year Missouri Governor Matt Blunt was so dissatisfied with the liberal nominees for the state Supreme Court he considered rejecting all three, which would have allowed the commission to select the most liberal candidate. If you think this is "keeping politics out of the courts," I have a bridge I'd like you to take a look at.
Government Waste: Pig Book
April 8, 2008
Ctizens Against Government Waste has once again done yeoman's work by compiling data and releasing it in the annual "Pig Book." This year's Pig Book details more than 10,000 in pork projects across the country, totaling more than $17.2 billion. According to the organization's guidelines:
A "pork" project is a line-item in an appropriations bill that designates tax dollars for a specific purpose in circumvention of established budgetary procedures. To qualify as pork, a project must meet one of seven criteria that were developed in 1991 by CAGW and the Congressional Porkbusters Coalition.
Unfortunately, Missouri's legislators were cited by the book. As reported by the Sedalia Democrat:
Skelton's earmarks included $10.4 million for a chapel at Fort Leonard Wood, $11.4 million for a consolidated communications center at Whiteman Air Force Base and $341,000 for facilities and equipment at State Fair Community College, according to the watchdog group.
Skelton's total of $45.9 million for 10 projects was only the third highest for the state. U.S. Rep. Jo Ann Emerson of the Missouri 8th District ranked highest, tied for 51st place, with $60.7 million for 50 projects.
Missouri gubernatorial candidate Kenny Hulshof, U.S. representative for Missouri's 9th District, brought home about $19.5 million for 13 projects, placing him in sixth place for the state and tied for 224th overall for the House.
Missouri senators were on the opposite ends of the pork spectrum.
Sen. Christopher "Kit" Bond ranked ninth out of 100 with $309.8 million for 142 projects, while junior Sen. Claire McCaskill came in dead last with no pork spending and no projects.
McCaskill was tied for last place with fellow Sens. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., Jim DeMint, R-S.C., Russ Feingold, D-Wis., and Presidential nominee John McCain, R-Ariz.
They say one man's pork is another man's bacon. But it looks like Missourians may be overdosing on bacon. Call your federal legislator and let them know it's time to stop building bridges to nowhere and to start giving Missourians the chance to spend that money the way they want.
Welcome to Our New Site
February 23, 2008
Welcome to the new and improved Adam Smith Foundation website. We hope the changes we have made will provide you with an easier and more enjoyable experience.
Call Senator Kevin Engler and Senator Charlie Shields and tell them to support Senator Jane Cunningham's healthcare bill!!
The Adam Smith Foundation urges you to call Majority Floor Leader Kevin Engler (573-751-3455) and President Pro Tem Charlie Shields (573-751-9476) and tell them to support SJR 25, Senator Jane Cunningham's healthcare bill. SJR 25 would prohibit laws interfering with freedom of choice in healthcare.
Email Alerts
Sign up today for important email alerts to stay up to date on issues affecting your government. While optional, your address and phone number allow us to contact you with important information.
