3 ms·

It's entirely political. Else he'd have also sent letters to members of the bar in MO's general Assembly which is equally if not more to blame for the current s

It's entirely political. Else he'd have also sent letters to members of the bar in MO's general Assembly which is equally if not more to blame for the current situation. (And is, IME, a ridiculous embarrassment to the state...)

jessaustin 10y ago
I'm sure he's got more cases to assign. If, after the inevitable delaying tactics, he can actually force the governor to do this, he'll have many more letters to send, and precedent will have been set. (At least, until the new legislative session starts in January.)
xenadu02 10y ago
Actually the MO Assembly tossed them $4.5 million in additional funds, specifically to hire more ad litems in child abuse cases (the attorneys appointed by the court to represent the child directly). For some reason the governor's office has withheld $3.5 million of those funds (apparently that's a power the MO governor has?).
- hga 10y ago
  It is, and I think it's rather common for states, and he's usually used it responsibly to keep the state's finances semi-sane. Don't know about this example, though. The US president used to be able to do this, Thomas Jefferson was the first in 1801 per Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impoundment_of_appropriated_funds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impoundment_of_appropriated_fu...), and it continued to help keep the US Federal budget a bit sane until in 1974 when the Nixon excuse was used, as it was for so much else, to completely change the way we did budgeting (and much else, like campaign financing, the primary system, etc.). As someone who's been there for the before and after, this was not an improvement, something that's going to be brought forcefully to everyone's attention when e.g. we are no longer viewed as the least worst place to stash your wealth.
- throwaway729 10y ago
  > Actually the MO Assembly tossed them $4.5 million in additional funds ...and also cut $60M in tax revenue without matching spending cuts, taking the political win of lower taxes while forcing the governor to choose between screwing the state Kansas-style or else taking the political fall-out for spending cuts. Heads I win, tails you lose. It's all theater, and you're being duped if you think the legislature isn't at least equally responsible for MO's under-funding of p much everything. > apparently that's a power the MO governor has? Yes, it's actually for more common than not in state governments. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line-item_veto_in_the_United_States#Governors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line-item_veto_in_the_United_S...
superuser2 10y ago
The letter states that the legislature approved funding; the governor vetoed it.
- throwaway729 10y ago
  The legislature approved funding but also passed $60M in tax breaks without matching spending cuts. Nixon then cut this (and 130 other) budget line items in an attempt to balance the now-much-smaller budget [1]. The legislature is just as complicit in the current situation as Nixon. You don't get to slash taxes and then complain that it's someone else's fault that there's no money for critical programs. [1] http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/less-new-money-for-public-defenders-in-missouri-as-governor/article_3962607e-b4cf-586b-b491-f18d7c6f96a7.html http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/less-ne...
  - toomuchtodo 10y ago
    Would you happen to have a roll call for those who voted for the tax cuts?

jessaustin 10y ago

I'm sure he's got more cases to assign. If, after the inevitable delaying tactics, he can actually force the governor to do this, he'll have many more letters to send, and precedent will have been set. (At least, until the new legislative session starts in January.)

xenadu02 10y ago

Actually the MO Assembly tossed them $4.5 million in additional funds, specifically to hire more ad litems in child abuse cases (the attorneys appointed by the court to represent the child directly). For some reason the governor's office has withheld $3.5 million of those funds (apparently that's a power the MO governor has?).

hga 10y ago
It is, and I think it's rather common for states, and he's usually used it responsibly to keep the state's finances semi-sane. Don't know about this example, though. The US president used to be able to do this, Thomas Jefferson was the first in 1801 per Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impoundment_of_appropriated_funds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impoundment_of_appropriated_fu...), and it continued to help keep the US Federal budget a bit sane until in 1974 when the Nixon excuse was used, as it was for so much else, to completely change the way we did budgeting (and much else, like campaign financing, the primary system, etc.). As someone who's been there for the before and after, this was not an improvement, something that's going to be brought forcefully to everyone's attention when e.g. we are no longer viewed as the least worst place to stash your wealth.
throwaway729 10y ago
> Actually the MO Assembly tossed them $4.5 million in additional funds ...and also cut $60M in tax revenue without matching spending cuts, taking the political win of lower taxes while forcing the governor to choose between screwing the state Kansas-style or else taking the political fall-out for spending cuts. Heads I win, tails you lose. It's all theater, and you're being duped if you think the legislature isn't at least equally responsible for MO's under-funding of p much everything. > apparently that's a power the MO governor has? Yes, it's actually for more common than not in state governments. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line-item_veto_in_the_United_States#Governors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line-item_veto_in_the_United_S...

superuser2 10y ago

The letter states that the legislature approved funding; the governor vetoed it.

throwaway729 10y ago
The legislature approved funding but also passed $60M in tax breaks without matching spending cuts. Nixon then cut this (and 130 other) budget line items in an attempt to balance the now-much-smaller budget [1]. The legislature is just as complicit in the current situation as Nixon. You don't get to slash taxes and then complain that it's someone else's fault that there's no money for critical programs. [1] http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/less-new-money-for-public-defenders-in-missouri-as-governor/article_3962607e-b4cf-586b-b491-f18d7c6f96a7.html http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/less-ne...
- toomuchtodo 10y ago
  Would you happen to have a roll call for those who voted for the tax cuts?