Reports from the 51st District

Capitol Report, Aug. 18

Posted Thursday, August 18, 2016, at 2:30 PM
View 1 comment
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • Regarding SB 641 -

    Your commentary is somewhat misleading. I believe Nixon vetoed SB 641 because for some reason the legislature decided to make this tax break retroactive back to the 2014 tax year, a year with many disaster payments to farmers.

    Did you find money in the budget somewhere to do this as it will be pretty expensive? I see you made no mention of the retroactive aspect of this bill.

    I could personally get behind not taxing farm subsidy payments, but the retroactive thing makes this bill a non-starter for a state that is struggling to keep it's budget balanced in the first place.

    Regarding SB 844-

    Apparently you are not a lawyer, and neither am I, but this would add significant problems for the victim of damage from livestock. It would require the injured party to prove negligence in court, thereby making the injured party jump through hoops that currently do not exist.

    Why would you think the owner of an animal is not liable for damage done by that animal? If my dog escapes his pen and kills someone, am I only responsible if the family of the injured party can prove I am negligent?

    I suggest anyone interested should read Nixon's veto letter posted here. I would add that as Governor Nixon is an attorney, he would be a good judge of the effects of this legislation. Perhaps you have not read it.


    Regarding HB 1414-

    It seems you are being misleading with this commentary also. This bill is not limited to Animal Diseases and is so general that it would apply to any and all data on agriculture and conservation practices.

    Why in the world would you want to shield the payment of public tax dollars from the public that the money came from in the first place?

    Do the citizens not have a right to know where our government is spending our tax dollars?

    This bill is obviously designed to keep those mega-farmers who know how to milk the most money from farm programs out of the public eye, where folks would be able to scrutinize the methods and amounts paid out to certain individuals or corporate farms.

    What is wrong with open and honest government? I am a farmer and I have no problem what-so-ever with anyone who wishes to see what programs I have enrolled in, any amounts I have been awarded, and what it was spent on.

    Soil and Water Conservation programs are a great thing, and I think the public access to the information on who and what the public's tax money is paying for is not a bad thing.

    This bill reeks of special interest influence.

    -- Posted by Smart Dog on Fri, Aug 19, 2016, at 1:14 PM
Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration: