so the legislature over-rode Nixon's veto on tax cuts

[hfojvt]

Hard to get details on what is all in the bill other than cutting the TOP rate from 6% to 5.5%.

KCTV5 mentioned it only in passing that a household making $44,000 a year would get a tax cut of $40 or so (I cannot remember the exact number and they didn't mention it at all at 10).

Oooh, $40. Almost $3.50 a month - a whole gallon of gas.

Well a family making ten times that much will get FIFTY times as much in tax cuts - $2,020 a year. And a family making $4.4 million a year will get a cut of $21,820.

ITEP notes that "76 percent of the tax reduction would fall to the wealthiest 20 percent of Missourians."

http://www.ctj.org/taxjusticedigest/archive/2014/02/missouri_done_deal_lets_hope_n.php

But that was a deal that EVEN Nixon was agreeing to.

Just another way our society becomes more unequal.

[hfojvt]

1. Missouri really needs to elect some Dems to the legislature

"The GOP holds large majorities in both chambers but needed a little Democratic help to accomplish the two-thirds vote required to override this year's veto. The House voted 109-46, with Democratic Rep. Keith English of suburban St. Louis joining all 108 Republicans. The GOP-led Senate voted Monday to override the veto on a party-line 23-8 vote."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/missouri-lawmakers-override-veto-enact-tax-cut-23606164

By my calculation, they did not even need any Democratic help to get over that veto. 108-47 is still almost 70%, well over 2/3.

Missouri only voted for Romney by 54-44. It is sad that the legislature is so lopsided in favor of Republicans, especially with both Nixon and McCaskill getting re-elected in 2012.

[pstokely]

2. this is part of the problem of the party ignoring local elections

Last edited Thu May 8, 2014, 03:27 PM - Edit history (2)

and Nixon also wouldn't campaign for Dem legislators

http://www.kansascity.com/2014/04/25/4982373/getting-more-missouri-democrats.html