The Joplin Globe, Jan. 23
Boostraps and more
Joplin has shown the nation — make that the world — that it can pick itself up and keep on going even after being hit by terrible disaster.
The community also has demonstrated its desire to make improvements to the town during the rebuilding, and relayed those desires to an advisory committee. Some 1,500 responses were received by the group. Hats off to this committee and to the residents who attended the meetings and those who made suggestions. We know that among those were people who had been left homeless by the tornado, yet wanted to be part of the bigger vision for Joplin.
On Thursday, in a historic event, Joplin and Duquesne city leaders, school leaders and business leaders met to endorse the recommendations of the advisory committee.
Now, it's time to turn the vision into reality. ...
First and foremost, in terms of priorities, should be the return of neighborhoods in the tornado-ravaged zone. Pilot neighborhoods with sidewalks and green spaces should give way to what becomes the norm for Joplin. While we don't want a "Stepford" style town, we do like the idea of communities where families can walk and play and sit on the front porch and talk without having to compete with the passing traffic.
That's why we also like the emphasis on rebuilding with trails and parks in mind. Joplin has the good fortune to possess areas like Shoal Creek and Turkey Creek that give its residents access to the beauty of nature. We need to make sure in the rebuilding process that we add to those public-access areas, not subtract.
Some of the items recommended, at least for now, should be viewed as "wish list" items. Who knows, though.
On Friday, Joplin got the good news that it's receiving $45 million in Community Development Block Grant funding for recovery from the May 22 tornado. It can be used for projects such as construction and repair of housing, property acquisition, infrastructure repair, rental assistance, social services and economic development.
Selection of the master developer will be, in our view, a key component of the success of the plan.
___
The Columbia Tribune, Jan. 22
Immigration: Controlling the illegal type
Most people think illegal immigration should be controlled. But how? Is it possible?
Though you wouldn't know it to hear the most virulent critics rail on, serious progress has been made along the Mexican border. Expensive and effective controls include physical barriers and increased enforcement capability.
The Associated Press reports such measures have driven apprehension of migrants to a 40-year low: 2011 was the Border Patrol's slowest year since 1971.
In years past, border agents relied on sending scofflaws home without punishment right where they came from, only to be reunited with smugglers who collected additional fees to send them back again. Now U.S. agents send the migrants far from their original point of entry, a tactic said to be effective.
Despite these efforts, lawmakers continue to look for ways to find so-called illegals who make it into obscurity here. For instance, a bill being heard in the Missouri Senate would require public schools to check immigration status of all students. School officials object — and for good reason.
This bill has the same problem inherent in laws tried in various states requiring police to check immigration documentation for anyone stopped for any reason. This sort of unrelated mandate puts officers or teachers in the position of enforcing possible violations without reasonable cause and beyond their jurisdictions.
The most effective tactic would be an emphasis on employee groups. Work opportunity is the primary reason people cross borders illegally, and successful efforts have been launched to cut off employment by certain companies, but targeting employers is not universally popular.
Companies that have been forced to fire undocumented Mexicans, for instance, have discovered the low-cost unskilled jobs can't be filled with domestic workers. Large agricultural companies resist additional immigration control, a silent protest that leads to a political stalemate.
So lawmakers turn to less effective methods — at the borders, in schools and on the highways — that don't put the government in direct conflict with such a large segment of employers or the economy.
Politicians think if every illegal immigrant could be stopped at the border, such conflict might be avoided, but incentives for illegal crossing only will get larger as crossing becomes harder and the magnet of employment remains undiminished. We don't have the political gumption to allow large numbers of legal, temporary low-skill workers into our country to satisfy an otherwise unmet demand.
The current system will continue, a fight against an uncontrollable tide.
___
The Springfield News-Leader, Jan. 20
Proposals to amend Missouri's Constitution deserve serious and deliberate consideration.
So, we urge the General Assembly to slow down in their haste to pass a resolution asking voters to approve a complex amendment aimed at capping increases in state government spending.
The so-called Missouri Taxpayer Protection Act, House Joint Resolution 43, would tie spending increases to the rate of inflation and population growth in Missouri. It would use 2008 state spending of $8 billion as the base — and since current spending is well below that level, it could be several years before the cap would kick in, if approved by voters.
The proposal, sponsored by Rep. Eric Burlison, R-Springfield, also would specify how excess revenues would be used, diverting them to pay down state debt or into reserve funds, or even to temporarily reduce state income tax rates.
Burlison has some good arguments that the plan could help even out the boom and bust cycle of state budgets, leading to better long-term plans and rainy day funds to deal with emergencies. Proponents say current restrictions are not enough to keep government from expanding rapidly when times are good.
But Missouri's Constitution already includes a limit on growth of tax revenues in the form of the Hancock Amendment, adopted by voters in 1980. We are concerned the additional limits imposed by this proposed amendment may make it increasingly difficult for state government to address critical needs and rapidly emerging priorities.
K-12 education, higher education and infrastructure costs do not always directly relate to inflation and population trends. The health care and other needs of an aging population may require different solutions in the future.
Plus, new caps on state spending may lead to new local taxes, or higher property taxes. And, ironically, setting 2008 as a base may actually lead to more rapid state spending increases than needed in the short run.
Let's not rush a constitutional change before understanding all the ramifications.
___
The Kansas City Star, Jan. 18
Gov. Jay Nixon should do more to improve Missouri
Jay Nixon's latest budget presentation and State of the State address say two things about Missouri's governor.
—He is a good manager and an even better politician.
—He is determined to play it safe, even when he shouldn't.
Nixon's proposed budget for next year reduces expenses by $508 million in ways designed to produce as little uproar as possible.
His administration found $192 million in savings in the Medicaid program through smart measures such as more use of generic drugs, rebates from pharmaceutical manufacturers and more efficient management of chronic conditions.
But the state's colleges and universities absorb a body blow. Nixon calls for a drastic 12.5 percent cut to each school's budget, marking the third straight year that the chronically underfunded institutions would lose money.
On the plus side, Nixon's budget avoids cutting funds for elementary and secondary schools. And it includes a 2 percent salary increase for state employees, who have gone three years without a raise.
Overall, it is a safe, damage-control budget designed to get Missouri through one more rocky fiscal year.
About the boldest theme Nixon advanced in his speech was a call for the legislature to pass a bill demanding more accountability from charter schools.
Nixon, who is well-positioned for re-election, could have done some long-term good by endorsing a proposed ballot initiative to increase the state's lowest-in-the-nation cigarette tax. He could have promoted legislation to bring in revenue by collecting sales taxes from Internet purchases.
Instead, the governor boasted in his speech that he has never sought a tax increase. He condescendingly instructed colleges and universities to "cut overhead and administrative costs," refusing to acknowledge that the schools have been doing that for years.
Missouri will get by on Nixon's proposed budget, and chances are the governor's political career will prosper. But some of the state's most valuable investments are increasingly at risk while the governor plays it safe.
