If you live in Missouri, you're voting for Prop B.

I was kind of meh on Proposition B, http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2010petitions/2010-085.asp --what little I knew of it I didn't disagree with, but I wasn't that sure about it. Tonight I went to a presentation on it.

Presently in Missouri, puppy mills are overseen by the Department of Agriculture, & local law enforcement can't seize animals. Proposition B would allow law enforcement--sheriffs & city police--to step in & remove animals. It also mandates at least yearly veterinary visits & mandates exercise areas, whereas present law does not require these things. But it's the fact that violations would become misdemeanors, & that puppy mill operators could no longer automatically keep out police or the ASPCA, that really persuades me.

I'm voting for it. Furthermore, you're voting for it. Don't believe me? Check out the linked text. Understand that right now there is no limit on number of breeding bitches kept, no requirement for veterinary care, & no authority granted to local law enforcement to stop reported abuses. Prop B changes all that.

http://YesonPropB.com
573-263-9226

the other ballot issues (Missouri)

Constitutional Amendment 1
Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to require the office of county assessor to be an elected position in all counties with a charter form of government, except counties with a population between 600,001-699,999?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA....no. I'm sorry, maybe there's some historical reason why this is framed this way, but it's just too silly for a constitutional amendment. "OK, everyone does things this way, unless you have between 600K & 700K inhabitants non-inclusive. Hope the census doesn't screw you up, Jackson County!"


Constitutional Amendment 2
Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to require that all real property used as a homestead by Missouri citizens who are former prisoners of war and have a total service-connected disability be exempt from property taxes?

I have no great objection to laws exempting former POW's from property tax, or giving retired schoolteachers chocolates on Valentine's Day, or paying the rent of retired police officers, or what have you. But does anyone else think this is too goofy for a constitutional amendment? Yeah...no.


Constitutional Amendment 3
Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to prevent the state, counties, and other political subdivisions from imposing any new tax, including a sales tax, on the sale or transfer of homes or any other real estate?

It's not a vote on a tax, it's a vote against having a vote on a tax, & completely unnecessary due to the Hancock Amendments. Utterly unworthy of being in the constitution. No no no. Also, the double taxation argument is hogwash. We pay personal property tax & sales/transfer tax on other items (like vehicles) all the time.


Proposition A
Shall Missouri law be amended to:
repeal the authority of certain cities to use earnings taxes to fund their budgets;
require voters in cities that currently have an earnings tax to approve continuation of such tax at the next general municipal election and at an election held every 5 years thereafter;
require any current earnings tax that is not approved by the voters to be phased out over a period of 10 years; and
prohibit any city from adding a new earnings tax to fund their budget?

Huge no. If this passes, it will because people think fewer taxes is the same as less tax. It's not. If Springfield can never have an earnings tax, that doesn't mean its taxes won't go up. It means sales & property taxes can't be cut by going to a broader-based system including earnings taxes. (A combination of the two may actually be better for business in the city limits than a reliance on only one.) The nicest things I can say about it are that it doesn't prohibit county earnings taxes (but it does restrict the city of St Louis, which is like a county); & at least it's not a constitutional amendment.