mic Posted March 3, 2011 Posted March 3, 2011 I received this email. It is poorly written, but I believe "sunset" means the bill will remove a conservation funding source. I'm not a MO resident so I don't have a vote, but my opinion is eliminating this tax would be a bad thing. Missouri Stream Team Watershed Coalition Advocacy Alert Representative John Cauthorn just introduced HJR 22 to sunset the Design for Conservation Sales Tax. The Conservation Sales Tax is 1/8 of 1% of every taxable sale. For every $8 spent on taxable items, one penny goes to conservation efforts managed by the Missouri Department of Conservation. This bill proposes a constitutional amendment submitting the conservation sales and use tax for reauthorization in 2012 and every ten years thereafter. If passed this could have significant negative effects on the Stream Team Program and conservation efforts of our water resources. Please contact your Representative and Senator immediately and voice your oppposition to this legislation. Find contact information for your Representative and Senator by entering your zipcode here. Sincerely, Holly Neill, M.S. Executive Director Missouri Stream Team Watershed Coalition PO Box 2132 Ozark, Missouri 65721
eric1978 Posted March 3, 2011 Posted March 3, 2011 One more reason why elections matter... Just sayin'.
skeeter Posted March 3, 2011 Posted March 3, 2011 I wonder why this guy would do that ? Was he busted for poaching or fishing violations and wants revenge ? It doesn't save the State anything. Remember the old saying...."No one is safe when the Missouri State Legislature is in session". Proven time after time, year after year.
Gavin Posted March 3, 2011 Posted March 3, 2011 Senator Cauthorn introduces that bill at every session. It never goes anywhere.
Tim Smith Posted March 3, 2011 Posted March 3, 2011 Senator Cauthorn introduces that bill at every session. It never goes anywhere. This Cauthorn cat seems completely sold out to the ag lobby and has no love for conservation or the first concern for anything but making money for the ag industry. Here he is saying the MDRN is a failure because there are too many deer in the state. Here he's threatening a witness who came to Missouri to testify against the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Agro-business interests (notably Missouri agrobusiness interests) have made it all but impossible for farmers to get non-GMO soybeans in the entire Western Hemisphere (minus Brazil). Cross pollination to non-GMO seed lines is rampant and the organic and green producers I know trying to get their hands on non-GMO feeds are finding that more and more difficult. Shrimp farmers who want to use non-GMO soybeans for their feeds so they can comply with ecocertification standards are looking at a 25% mark-up. Some of them may have to opt out simply because they can't afford it. Pile Cathorn's regular support for ethanol on top of that and it's pretty clear he's just another pork barrel politician with an under-developed sense of ethics and lots of buddies with deep pockets at Monsanto.
jdmidwest Posted March 4, 2011 Posted March 4, 2011 As it is currently designed, the tax never had an ending date. The new proposal would bring it to a vote before the people ever 10 years. It seems to be an attempt to bring some accountability to the MDC and allow more control by the citizens of MO. With the decline of the current younger generations becoming involved in the outdoors, there may come a time where voters may not feel the need for what the MDC provides us. "Life has become immeasurably better since I have been forced to stop taking it seriously." — Hunter S. Thompson
eric1978 Posted March 4, 2011 Posted March 4, 2011 The only reason I can think of to bring it to the floor for a vote is to vote it down. Considering what an infinitesimal amount the tax is, and what considerable good it does for our state and anyone who enjoys nature here, it would be ludicrous to cut it. There are plenty of other ways to balance a budget...how about fines for government representatives who are in cahoots with lobbyists? That should bring in some serious revenue.
jdmidwest Posted March 4, 2011 Posted March 4, 2011 The only reason I can think of to bring it to the floor for a vote is to vote it down. Considering what an infinitesimal amount the tax is, and what considerable good it does for our state and anyone who enjoys nature here, it would be ludicrous to cut it. There are plenty of other ways to balance a budget...how about fines for government representatives who are in cahoots with lobbyists? That should bring in some serious revenue. Since the tax funds the MDC entirely, sunseting the tax will not increase the general revenue, just eliminate the MDC the way I see it. Or it will become a part of the state and will be funded out of the general sales tax revenue. MDC has taken a few lumps this year. Elk Restoration is proceeding against the will of many. Mountain Lions are a sore subject. "Life has become immeasurably better since I have been forced to stop taking it seriously." — Hunter S. Thompson
flytyer57 Posted March 4, 2011 Posted March 4, 2011 ...how about fines for government representatives who are in cahoots with lobbyists? That should bring in some serious revenue. That would bankrupt every elected member of government. There's a fine line between fishing and sitting there looking stupid.
eric1978 Posted March 4, 2011 Posted March 4, 2011 That would bankrupt every elected member of government. In the words of the Tan-Man, "So be it." Let them eat carrots!
Recommended Posts