State Spending Limit --- HJR 48
and Inititive Petition Proposal
The Missouri Squeeze
The Secretary of State found that the initiative petition for a constitutional amendment for a state spending limit failed to meet the requirements to be placed on the November 2006 Election Ballot. The promoters of this amendment went to court to try to overturn the Secretary of State's ruling, but the Cole County Circuit Court ruled that the petition did not qualify for the ballot. Thus there was no vote in November on this proposal.
MTJ opposed HJR 48 in the 2006 state legislative session. The proposal was approved by the House committee, but was never brought to the House floor for debate. HJR 48 was a legislative proposal for a state constitutional amendment that limits state appropriations. The initiative petition proposal calls it a "State Spending Limit." They mean the same thing.
Our state constitution already provides safeguards for spending state tax dollars. It requires that any money spent by the state must be appropriated by the General Assembly which is made up of our elected representatives and senators. Because we elect these officials, they are already accountable to the people for the way the state's dollars are spent.
An appropriation is an official act of the Missouri General Assembly that authorizes spending a set amount of the state's funds for a specified item or items. The Governor can veto some appropriations.
Our constitution also presently requires that the state's budget must be balanced. (More dollars cannot be spent (appropriated) than the state has. No "deficit spending is" allowed.
What these proposals mean is that our elected state lawmakers cannot spend more dollars that the state already has---no matter what is needed---if that spending would bring the total spending for that fiscal year over the limit set by this proposal.
Both HJR 48 and the Initiative Petition Proposal limit state spending in the same way. They prohibit appropriations in any fiscal year that are more than the total state general revenue appropriations from the previous year by more than the "appropriations growth limit." The appropriations growth limit is the greater of zero or the sum of the annual rate of inflation and the annual Missouri population growth. The initiative petition proposal has the same limit.
See the Summary and text of the bill as introduced: http://www.house.state.mo.us/bills061/bills/hjr48.htm
See the text of the initiative petition proposal at: http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2006petitions/ppFinanceSpending-39.asp
House Joint Resolution 48 was sponsored by Reps. Beardon and Lager and a host of other Republican representatives.
The State Spending Limit proposals are a serious threat to adequate funding for programs and services that Missouri citizens need. The people pushing for these proposals are not satisfied with the revenue limit of the 1980 Hancock Amendment, and the 1996 "Amendment 4" that requires voter approval of any tax increase that exceeds $50 million, adjusted annually.
HJR 48 and the initiative petition proposal prohibit appropriations in any fiscal year from exceeding the growth of inflation and population changes plus 1%.
The courts have ruled that tax increases approved by the voters do not count in "total state revenues" under the Hancock Amendment. This means that when revenue growth is calculated to determine if the Hancock limit is exceeded, those revenues are not included. HJR 48 specifies that revenues that result from a voter-approved fee or tax increase would not be included in the appropriations growth limit for the year in which they are passed. The initiative petition petition proposal does not include this provision.
Under HJR 48, what happens to revenue that exceeds the Appropriation Limit? The excess is to be transferred, in equal amounts, to the Cash Operating Reserve Fund and the Budget Reserve Fund, which are created by the bill. The petition proposal gives these Funds different names and tightens the restrictions on how the money in them can be used.
Limits are also specified for these new Funds. For revenue collected that exceeds the limits of those Funds, income tax payers ONLY get a refund. And just like Hancock, taxpayers who don't make enough to owe income tax would not receive a refund---even though they have a heavy tax burden through the sales taxes, gas taxes, and other regressive taxes they must pay.
The threat posed by these state spending limit proposals should not be underestimated. If either is approved, it would permanently damage the state's ability to provide needed services and programs for Missourians. It appears to be part of the present General Assembly leadership's agenda to totally destroy the state's social welfare programs and whittle state government down so it cannot be effective. It seems to follow the goal of Grover Nordquist of Americans for Tax Reform (an anti-tax group):
"My goal is to cut government in half in 25 years
to get down to the size we can drown in the bathtub."
HJR 48 amends article IV of our state constitution that pertains to the Executive Department. (Hancock and Amendment 4 were changes in article X that pertains to Taxation. HJR 48 is simply a FURTHER RESTRICTION on the state's ability to meet needs, but attacks that ability from a different angle.
The initiative petition proposal added a new Article XIV to the Missouri Constitution. The purpose of both is the same.
MISSOURIANS FOR TAX JUSTICE OPPOSED HJR 48 AND OPPOSED THE INITIATIVE PETITION PROPOSAL. They are not a "Taxpayer Bill of Rights" but an attempt to undermine representative government.
HJR 48 failed in the 2006 legislative session (as did similar proposals in 2004 and 2005).
Last update:12/28/06
Back to MTJ Home