Several business-targeted bills falter
For some of the state’s business organizations, the 2011 legislative session was a win-some, lose-some affair.
At the beginning of the session, a number of groups — including the Missouri Chamber of Commerce — established a six-point agenda appropriately named “Fix the Six.”
The proposals included eliminating Missouri’s franchise tax, making it harder for someone to sue for discriminatory firing and altering workers compensation laws. They also wanted changes in the state’s unemployment system, the minimum wage law and lawsuit regulations.
Although some longstanding initiatives — and newer ones — managed to make it to the finish line, other items were stymied either through a veto from Gov. Jay Nixon or the expiration of the legislative time clock. Here are some of the big-ticket issues that were debated during the session:
Franchise tax repeal
Nixon signed the gradual repeal of the so-called “Franchise Tax,” which places a levy of one-thirtieth of 1 percent on a company’s assets. Under the proposal, the tax will disappear by the 2016 tax year.
The tax was already restricted in 2009 when the Missouri Legislature and Nixon confined the tax to businesses with more than $10 million in assets. The new law expands the scope to businesses over that threshold.
“Phasing out this burdensome tax will encourage businesses to expand their operations and create jobs in Missouri, boosting our economy and making our state more competitive for years to come,” Nixon said in a statement.
The bill received plaudits from the Missouri Chamber of Commerce. Dan Mehan, the Chamber’s president and CEO, said in a statement that the initiative “will make Missouri more competitive and help bring new jobs and investment to the Show-Me State.”
Employee law changes
One initiative Nixon didn’t support was a bill that would raise the legal threshold for employees to sue for discrimination.
The legislation would have made any discriminatory act a “motivating” factor in wrongful termination lawsuit, as opposed to the current “contributing” factor standard. It also would have lowered the possible amount of punitive damages.
Nixon ended up vetoing the bill in St. Louis and said the bill was harmful to portions of the Missouri Human Rights Act.
“The bill would make it harder to prove discrimination in the workplace and would throw new hurdles in the path of those whose rights have been violated,” said Nixon, according to text from a speech the governor gave in St. Louis. “That is unacceptable. It is not who we are. And it stops here.”
In a statement, Mehan said the bill would have made Missouri’s employment law mirror that of the federal Civil Rights Act and would “have brought Missouri law back in line with other states, reduced frivolous lawsuits and ensured more timely and fair resolution for legitimate discrimination cases.”
Mehan said discrimination is wrong and should be stopped. “However,” he continued, “Missouri laws are so unfairly skewed that employers are unable to adequately defend themselves against even the most frivolous claims.”
The legislature could still attempt to override Nixon’s veto before May 13, which it had not done as of press time. Lawmakers could also try to overrule Nixon at its annual veto session later this fall.
Workers compensation changes
The legislature considered Sen. Jack Goodman’s legislation to move co-employee liability and occupational disease coverage into the workers compensation system.
“Currently, all Missouri workers are at risk of being sued and held liable for honest accidents at work, and that is simply unfair,” Goodman said in a statement. “With this bill, we will return protections to Missouri employees. Now only co-workers who purposefully and dangerously cause other employees harm could be held personally liable.”
The Missouri Chamber of Commerce said in a statement that employers might find it difficult to recruit and retain employees in key supervisory and safety positions “without offering to indemnify them against lawsuits by co-workers.”
“There are few issues that engage our members more than workers compensation,” Mehan said in a statement. “Employers are extremely concerned about the potential liability these court cases pose to their businesses. Resolving these court cases is one of the most important legislative reforms we have advocated this legislative session.”
As of press time, the legislature was still deliberating on Goodman’s legislation.
Tax credit changes
Lawmakers in the Missouri Senate have been debating significant structural changes to tax credits during the past few years. This year, they might have finally had a breakthrough.
Some conservative Republican lawmakers have wanted to place restrictions, such as caps, legislative appropriation authority and expiration dates, on popular tax credit incentives. That clashes with other lawmakers who argue that some of the programs in the crosshairs are crucial toward fostering economic growth in the state. Some have balked, for instance, to major changes to the Historical Preservation Tax Credit, an incentive used extensively in the St. Louis and Kansas City areas.
But this year, senators came to a compromise of sorts. The Senate authorized tax credits for biotechnology research and enticements to bring a “China hub” to St. Louis’ airport. In exchange, lawmakers agreed to place restrictions on, among other things, the historic tax credit, a property tax credit for senior renters and credits for low-income housing.
Sen. Jason Crowell, a Cape Girardeau Republican who has been pushing for tax credit alterations, said the provisions of the legislation could save the state $1.5 billion in the next 15 years. Although he said he wasn’t a supporter of some of the tax credits such as the China hub incentives, he added that the bottom line made up for the additional spending.
“I think by saying we want new stuff, you’re tacitly admitting that the old stuff isn’t working,” Crowell said. “But everybody’s always said, ‘We want all the old stuff that we know is not working, and then we want the new stuff.’ That’s how tax credits have grown 412 percent over the last 12 years. So finally we are shifting the paradigm to say, ‘You know what? We’re not only going to look at the new stuff you’re talking about, but we’re going to look at the old stuff. And we’re going to reallocate existing resources that also results in a net savings to the taxpayers.’”
As of press time, the bill still needed another House vote to go to Nixon.
Nuclear power
Lawmakers in 2009 wrestled with legislation that could have prompted ratepayers to contribute to the construction of a new nuclear power plant in Callaway County. That legislative initiative was needed due to a voter-approved law restricting utility companies from passing on construction costs to consumers.
That effort failed after some lawmakers objected to how rate increases would affect consumers and large businesses. After the issue lay dormant in the 2010 session, supporters of building another plant came back with a bill that would pay for an early site permit, a tool supporters say will lead the way in building the new Callaway County facility.
Supporters of the second Callaway County plant say the project will create an abundant energy source and foster thousands of new jobs. But some opponents, such as Crowell, would only go along with the bill in exchange for increases in funding to the Office of Public Counsel. That entity represents ratepayers and the public before the Public Service Commission.
As of press time, the nuclear power bill still had not passed the legislature. At least one supporter, Sen. Robin Wright-Jones, D-St. Louis City, said the effort was dead after lawmakers failed to get the measure through the Missouri Senate earlier this year.
One of the bill’s mid-Missouri supporters, Sen. Mike Kehoe, R-Jefferson City, said the legislature did take some positive steps toward passage during this legislative session.
“I think we accomplished the goal of getting it out on the floor, having a good debate on it and showing support from senators all over the state,” Kehoe said. “The point is the conversation needs to be had…because nobody else has come along and said, ‘Here’s what we’re going to do for energy in 15 years.’ This apparently still seems to be the most acceptable way to move forward.”
At the beginning of the session, a number of groups — including the Missouri Chamber of Commerce — established a six-point agenda appropriately named “Fix the Six.”
The proposals included eliminating Missouri’s franchise tax, making it harder for someone to sue for discriminatory firing and altering workers compensation laws. They also wanted changes in the state’s unemployment system, the minimum wage law and lawsuit regulations.
Although some longstanding initiatives — and newer ones — managed to make it to the finish line, other items were stymied either through a veto from Gov. Jay Nixon or the expiration of the legislative time clock. Here are some of the big-ticket issues that were debated during the session:
Franchise tax repeal
Nixon signed the gradual repeal of the so-called “Franchise Tax,” which places a levy of one-thirtieth of 1 percent on a company’s assets. Under the proposal, the tax will disappear by the 2016 tax year.
The tax was already restricted in 2009 when the Missouri Legislature and Nixon confined the tax to businesses with more than $10 million in assets. The new law expands the scope to businesses over that threshold.
“Phasing out this burdensome tax will encourage businesses to expand their operations and create jobs in Missouri, boosting our economy and making our state more competitive for years to come,” Nixon said in a statement.
The bill received plaudits from the Missouri Chamber of Commerce. Dan Mehan, the Chamber’s president and CEO, said in a statement that the initiative “will make Missouri more competitive and help bring new jobs and investment to the Show-Me State.”
Employee law changes
One initiative Nixon didn’t support was a bill that would raise the legal threshold for employees to sue for discrimination.
The legislation would have made any discriminatory act a “motivating” factor in wrongful termination lawsuit, as opposed to the current “contributing” factor standard. It also would have lowered the possible amount of punitive damages.
Nixon ended up vetoing the bill in St. Louis and said the bill was harmful to portions of the Missouri Human Rights Act.
“The bill would make it harder to prove discrimination in the workplace and would throw new hurdles in the path of those whose rights have been violated,” said Nixon, according to text from a speech the governor gave in St. Louis. “That is unacceptable. It is not who we are. And it stops here.”
In a statement, Mehan said the bill would have made Missouri’s employment law mirror that of the federal Civil Rights Act and would “have brought Missouri law back in line with other states, reduced frivolous lawsuits and ensured more timely and fair resolution for legitimate discrimination cases.”
Mehan said discrimination is wrong and should be stopped. “However,” he continued, “Missouri laws are so unfairly skewed that employers are unable to adequately defend themselves against even the most frivolous claims.”
The legislature could still attempt to override Nixon’s veto before May 13, which it had not done as of press time. Lawmakers could also try to overrule Nixon at its annual veto session later this fall.
Workers compensation changes
The legislature considered Sen. Jack Goodman’s legislation to move co-employee liability and occupational disease coverage into the workers compensation system.
“Currently, all Missouri workers are at risk of being sued and held liable for honest accidents at work, and that is simply unfair,” Goodman said in a statement. “With this bill, we will return protections to Missouri employees. Now only co-workers who purposefully and dangerously cause other employees harm could be held personally liable.”
The Missouri Chamber of Commerce said in a statement that employers might find it difficult to recruit and retain employees in key supervisory and safety positions “without offering to indemnify them against lawsuits by co-workers.”
“There are few issues that engage our members more than workers compensation,” Mehan said in a statement. “Employers are extremely concerned about the potential liability these court cases pose to their businesses. Resolving these court cases is one of the most important legislative reforms we have advocated this legislative session.”
As of press time, the legislature was still deliberating on Goodman’s legislation.
Tax credit changes
Lawmakers in the Missouri Senate have been debating significant structural changes to tax credits during the past few years. This year, they might have finally had a breakthrough.
Some conservative Republican lawmakers have wanted to place restrictions, such as caps, legislative appropriation authority and expiration dates, on popular tax credit incentives. That clashes with other lawmakers who argue that some of the programs in the crosshairs are crucial toward fostering economic growth in the state. Some have balked, for instance, to major changes to the Historical Preservation Tax Credit, an incentive used extensively in the St. Louis and Kansas City areas.
But this year, senators came to a compromise of sorts. The Senate authorized tax credits for biotechnology research and enticements to bring a “China hub” to St. Louis’ airport. In exchange, lawmakers agreed to place restrictions on, among other things, the historic tax credit, a property tax credit for senior renters and credits for low-income housing.
Sen. Jason Crowell, a Cape Girardeau Republican who has been pushing for tax credit alterations, said the provisions of the legislation could save the state $1.5 billion in the next 15 years. Although he said he wasn’t a supporter of some of the tax credits such as the China hub incentives, he added that the bottom line made up for the additional spending.
“I think by saying we want new stuff, you’re tacitly admitting that the old stuff isn’t working,” Crowell said. “But everybody’s always said, ‘We want all the old stuff that we know is not working, and then we want the new stuff.’ That’s how tax credits have grown 412 percent over the last 12 years. So finally we are shifting the paradigm to say, ‘You know what? We’re not only going to look at the new stuff you’re talking about, but we’re going to look at the old stuff. And we’re going to reallocate existing resources that also results in a net savings to the taxpayers.’”
As of press time, the bill still needed another House vote to go to Nixon.
Nuclear power
Lawmakers in 2009 wrestled with legislation that could have prompted ratepayers to contribute to the construction of a new nuclear power plant in Callaway County. That legislative initiative was needed due to a voter-approved law restricting utility companies from passing on construction costs to consumers.
That effort failed after some lawmakers objected to how rate increases would affect consumers and large businesses. After the issue lay dormant in the 2010 session, supporters of building another plant came back with a bill that would pay for an early site permit, a tool supporters say will lead the way in building the new Callaway County facility.
Supporters of the second Callaway County plant say the project will create an abundant energy source and foster thousands of new jobs. But some opponents, such as Crowell, would only go along with the bill in exchange for increases in funding to the Office of Public Counsel. That entity represents ratepayers and the public before the Public Service Commission.
As of press time, the nuclear power bill still had not passed the legislature. At least one supporter, Sen. Robin Wright-Jones, D-St. Louis City, said the effort was dead after lawmakers failed to get the measure through the Missouri Senate earlier this year.
One of the bill’s mid-Missouri supporters, Sen. Mike Kehoe, R-Jefferson City, said the legislature did take some positive steps toward passage during this legislative session.
“I think we accomplished the goal of getting it out on the floor, having a good debate on it and showing support from senators all over the state,” Kehoe said. “The point is the conversation needs to be had…because nobody else has come along and said, ‘Here’s what we’re going to do for energy in 15 years.’ This apparently still seems to be the most acceptable way to move forward.”