Within the first paragraph of The Maneater’s latest editorial on Missouri House Bill 253, the editorial board decisively condemns the tax cut as “tragic.” The true tragedy when it comes to HB253 is not the content of the bill; it’s the fact that Gov. Jay Nixon has successfully and intentionally misguided thousands of students across our state about a rather important piece of legislation.
The Maneater starts their argument by claiming that 253 has been sold to the public as a reductive question of lower or higher taxes, but if you actually read the content of the bill you will find that tax rates are the only real question at hand. All other talks of cutting education funding are not found within the bill, but have come from the office of the Governor. In fact, Gov. Jay Nixon is the one who has threatened to unconstitutionally withhold funds already appropriated to public educational institutions if the override passes. That is not a feature of the bill, but rather a political tactic Nixon is using to get students to oppose the first Missouri income tax cut since the 1920’s. This isn’t the first time Nixon has threatened education either. Let’s not forget that the “More for Less” campaign mentioned in the editorial was in response to threats to UM system funding made by who? None other than Jay Nixon.
The editorial board then calls the bill a tragedy for the second time on the grounds that it would result in $800 million in lost revenue. What this claims fails to take into consideration is the actual economic impact of tax cuts and the revenue-dependent triggers built into the bill. Reducing tax rates has a stimulative effect on the economy, which leads to increased government revenue. This is especially true when looking at a policy designed to attract businesses from other states (other markets). More economic activity logically means more money collected from taxes. Secondly, the $800 million figure, which is the bedrock of the editorial board’s argument, is only one third of equation. HB253 is a phased in tax cut, which means that rates would be decreased .5% every year for ten years instead of all at once. For each phase to happen, state revenues must grow by at least $100 million in that year. Over ten years that means for the full tax cut to be implemented, state revenues would necessarily have to rise by $1 billion. For us to lose the $800 million The Maneater focuses so heavily on we’d have to take in $1 billion. That would leave us with a net gain, not loss, of $200 million. Where will some of that extra $200 million inevitably go? Funding for public universities like Mizzou.
The Maneater then refers to a bi-conditional statement that has been heavily touted by 253 opponents across the state: “If the loss in revenue forces budget cuts to education, our tuition could rise by 8-16%.” First of all there won’t be a loss in revenue – if there is, the cut simply won’t go into effect. The other part of that widely cited estimate comes from the strange assumption of the Nixon administration that Congress might enact the Federal Marketplace Fairness Act (an internet sales tax) sometime soon. Admittedly, the MFA would alter the revenue numbers IF it passed. However, the assumption that it will pass is baseless, especially considering Missouri Sen. Roy Blunt is a co-sponsor of the senate bill and he has indicated to Missouri lawmakers that it has no chance of passing anytime soon.
The most cringe-worthy line in the editorial comes toward the end. The Maneater declares that Rep. Berry should have considered the consequences before bringing “a bill to the Statehouse that jeopardizes public education funding in the name of lower taxes.” Again, this is not a feature of the bill. This condemnation of 253 based on things that aren’t included in it is an irresponsible misrepresentation on the part of The Maneater. The language in 253 does not cut education funding in any way, shape or form. Jay Nixon is the only individual who has made that threat and he’s done so based on assumptions that simply do not align with the facts. When you look at the bigger picture, HB253 is a revenue-positive bill.
My question to the editorial board is this: Have you personally read the bill? Choosing to editorialize about such an important issue lays a heavy burden on the writer, and my fear is that this time The Maneater fell short of fulfilling its obligation to its readers to objectively examine the facts firsthand.
Like many other students, I will be attending the September 5th MSA event focused on HB253. I encourage my peers to not simply accept what they hear from the well-meaning speakers at that event, but to instead engage them in a meaningful discussion about the realities of this bill. Ask questions, listen with a critical ear and think for yourself. When it comes to contentious issues like HB253, good civic education doesn’t entail taking someone’s word for it.
_—Garrett L. Poorman,_
_garrett.poorman@mail.missouri.edu_