Category Archives: taxes

What’s the Matter With Missouri? 

Posted on by
Reply

A century ago, Emporia Kansas newspaper editor William Allen White wrote an editorial called “What’s the Matter With Kansas,” a scathing column reacting to a populist takeover of Kansas government.

Here in Missouri, the pending loss of a third NFL team and the uncertainty about retention of one of our major league baseball teams, coupled with memories of other pro sports teams we’ve lost (two major league baseball teams and two NBA teams) have sparked some to think, “What’s the Matter with Missouri?

Let’s be clear at the outset of this discussion that there’s a lot that’s RIGHT about Missouri. There’s always something wrong about Missouri politically, depending on where you stand. But let’s not forget what is right as we look at what’s the matter with our state today.

One of Missouri’s biggest problem is that it’s too proud of our cheapness. Expecting the promotion that we are a low-tax state will produce steady economic development significant enough to make a major impact on our economy does not seem to be borne out by the realities.

If all of the tax cuts or eliminations we have seen in the past several years really worked, our metro areas would be economic giants in the Midwest. Our smaller cities would be centers for mid-corporate expansion and our even smallest communities might not be withering. Missouri would not be in danger of losing another seat in the U. S. House of Representatives, not because we are losing population (as is easy to say) but because other states are growing faster.

One of our biggest problems is that we are satisfied to be mediocre. But it can be argued that thinking economic growth springs from being a low tax state is questionable if low taxes are consistent with being the progressive state that excites potential investors.

US News’ most recent ranking of the states puts us 31st out of 50 in many categories. Our highest rankings are in fiscal stability and “opportunity,” where we are 11th (more on that in a minute).  We’re 18th in natural environment. Our economy ranks 25th.   After that—well…..

33rd in education

37th in infrastructure

43rd in health care

43rd in crime and corrections.

39th in teacher salaries, according to the MNEA.

World Health Review says we are among the states with the highest rates of homelessness—one dismaying factor that describes our economy, the numbers increasing 22% in the last five years, 39% more than in 2013 and 78% more than in 2018. People don’t flock to Missouri to become homeless.  This is a home-grown problem that includes many people with mental health issues. Speaking of which—

Mental Health America uses seventeen criteria to rank us 36th  in mental health and well-being—40th among adults.

Digging deeper into “opportunity,” US News ranks us 14th in equality and in affordability. But we are only 34th in economic opportunity.  And what does that mean? “It takes into account a state’s poverty rate, prevalence of food insecurity, and median household income as wellas he level of income inequality among residents… These four comprehensive metrics are indicators of more than just economic opportunity in a given state; they intersect with employment, stability and health – affecting the quality of life of a state’s population,” says the survey.

In health care, we are 28th in low obesity rate, 34th in low suicide rate, 39th in public health, 39th in low infant mortality rate and overall mortality rate and 44th in low smoking rate.

We don’t want to drag this out so we’ll let you read the 50 states report by US News and you can explore why its surveys do not rank us better.  Best States | U.S. News State Rankings and Analysis

States are far more than their sports teams. Once we look beyond the glitz and glamour of the coliseum and look at what should make us a great place to live, we find a grittier and less attractive view. To think that the things that drag us down will be improved by reducing the financial ability to lift them up seems to this layman’s eyes false economy.

We cannot escape the shortcomings that short-change ourselves if our big selling point is that we have low taxes. The exciting visuals of sports teams quickly fade when people look at the quality of real life and that quality is not improved by continued diminution of resources to improve it.

This is a campaign year and, of course, a tax cut is a favorite way of pleasing voters. Candidates, however, might want to focus on how income tax elimination will make Missouri better than 31st and how it will elevate our low standing in personal categories and whether paying sales taxes on a plumber’s visit makes us a place to which significant numbers of people and businesses want to move. Sooner or later, it will become clear that our drive to be a state known for its tight-fistedness won’t perform much economic magic.

Useless arguments about “tax and spend liberals” versus “don’t tax and can’t spend conservatives” won’t solve what’s wrong with Missouri, and as great as our state is in float streams and tourist attractions, there’s plenty the matter with it that we can overcome if all of us recognize that WE are responsible for being 31st or 43rd or—-pick a number as long as it’s in the 30s or 40s.

The first gubernatorial inauguration I covered was that of Warren Hearnes when he became the first Missouri governor elected to two consecutive four-year terms. He said on that clear but chilly January day, “To do and be better is a goal few achieve. To do it, we are required to make sacrifices—not in the sense of shedding our blood or giving our lives or the lives of those we love,  but sacrifice in the sense of giving of a part of those material things which we enjoy in abundance. A great people will sacrifice part of that with which they have been blessed in order that their children might be better educated, their less fortunate more fortunate, their health better health, their state a better state.”

What’s the matter with Missouri?  When have any of our recent leaders laid down this kind of challenge to all of us?  Would we accept it if they did?

Failure to issue that challenge….and a failure to respond to it is what’s the matter with Missouri.

Pimples

Posted on by
Reply

Back in the Twentieth Century, when your correspondent enrolled at the University of Missouri, male freshmen and sophomores were required to enroll in what we called “rot-see,” more properly, ROTC—the Reserve Officers Training Corps.  Two years of military education designed to encourage students to join the Army, Navy, or Air Force after two more years of military education.

I decided to focus my energies on becoming a journalist.

One of our instructors in Crowder Hall, a Sergeant whose name I might be able to recall in the middle of the night, once referred to Fort Leonard Wood as “a pimple on the ass of humanity.”

I think of him almost every time I walk into a convenience store and see a line or two or more of machines that are or are not slot machines (according to their owners) but are instead Video Lottery Terminals.

Owners of the machines say they’re legal because there aren’t slot machines that are state-regulated. The casinos, which want a monopoly on all things gambling (except the state lottery that they can’t lay their hands on, so far) say they are slot machines and state law allows only casinos to have legal slot machines.

The question of their legality tied up the Missouri Senate so badly that for three years in a row that almost no legislation was passed except for a state budget. Most of the instigators of that deplorable era have moved on or moved out, allowing the legislature to actually accomplish several things for good or for ill in the most recent regular session.

The legacy of those deadlocks is Amendment 2, the sports wagering proposal barely grafted onto our state constitution last November that will have almost no benefit to the citizens but will greatly fatten the pocked of casinos and our sports teams.  Backers of legalized convenience store slot machines refused to let sports wagering legislation, or almost any other legislation, go anywhere unless those bills also legalized the slot machines.

The backers of the VLTs, therefore, are largely to blame for Missouri now having a constitutional amendment rather than a law.  Laws are easier to correct or to make more fair for the people of the state than amendment is.

The casino industry also is largely to blame because it refused any kind of a compromise. The legislature refused to be the adult in the rooms (the House and the Senate) and put it collective foot down and resolve the issue in a way that protected the state’s interests.

The stage is now set to decide in the court system if those “gray market” machines are or are not legal.   A few days ago, a St. Louis federal jury ruled that the biggest supplier of those slot machines has been engaging in unfair competition and has misled players and stores about how the games operated.

The jury had no trouble deciding—in only two hours after a five-day trial. The owner of traditional bar games had sued Torch Electronics and won a half-million dollars, four times what was sought.

The jury’s finding could clear the way for Federal District Judge John Ross to rule whether these machines are legal. He has indicated a reluctance to wade into the “politically fraught” waters involving this issue but indicated he would rule after the Torch case was decided.

Gambling generates a lot of Money in Missouri and it’s important that those in the biz make sure those who make decisions on laws and regulations are friendly.

Tthose who make that money have not been shy about buying high-level political friendships with it, thanks in large parts to the financially-persuasive involvement of former House Speaker Steven Tilley, now an influential lobbyist who has endeared himself to key figures such as Governor Kehoe, whose political action committee account was fattened by a quarter-million dollars last year, and former Attorney General Andrew Bailey, who kept Torch money and who backed away from defending the Highway Patrol—which had been sued by Torch to keep it from seizing machines.

Bailey’s predecessor, now-U.S. Senator Eric Schmitt, returned $5,800 in campaign donations from Torch’s owners after questions were raised about possible conflicts of interest. State Treasurer Vivek Malek, after a Tilley-arranged meeting with Torch’s owner, put stickers on the VLTs advertising the state’s unclaimed property program, which had nothing to do with those machines but drew criticism from those who thought they indicated the state had licensed them.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported that the plaintiff’s attorney in the case told the jury that 101 of Torch’s 6,000 machines throughout Missouri took in $32 million in seven years and generated $11million in profits to Torch, a payout rate of about 65% while regulated casino slots pay out more than 90%. No law requires operators of those machines to share their wealth with state programs and services.

There has been a general reluctance by city and county prosecutors to declare the machines beyond the law. One county and one city have taken that step but a ruling by Ross of illegality could give others the backbone to challenge the machines’ presence.

Regardless of how Judge Ross rules, the conflict about whether they are or whether they aren’t slot machines has left Missouri with an unfortunate result.  Sports wagering is now in the Missouri Constitution rather than in the Missouri Revised Statutes.  Putting something in the Constitution doesn’t make it immune from change but the opportunity for constitutional change is much harder than it is to change a law.

Regardless of how Judge Ross rules, Missourians are losers because the people we elected to represent us in the Capitol didn’t do their jobs in voting video lottery machines legal or illegal and failed to pass a sports gambling law that serves the people.

You might ask them why they lacked the backbone to put the state in control of the gambling industry rather than the other way around. Check their campaign contribution reports on file at the Missouri Ethics Commission and you might find some answers.

The Repetition of History

Posted on by
Reply

Philosopher George Santayana’s most famous quotation, taken from his Life of Reason, or The Phases of Human Progress came to mind the other day while I was doing some research about former Jefferson City Mayor C.W. Thomas, who suggested 100 years ago this year that Jefferson City build a convention center.

But he died before that could happen. A few months later the stock market collapsed and the Great Depression gripped our country until World War II created the economy that got us out of it. By he time the Greatest Generation had led us to a country that was a positive example to the rest of the world, Cecil Thomas and his vision had been forgotten.

Our mayor badly wants to see a convention center built. And many of us are watching with dismay as our greatness is being destroyed, not returned.

Santayana wrote more than a century ago:

“Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

I came across this editorial published March 19, 1920 in The Central Missourian, a Democrat newspaper published in the nearby town of Russellville that raises important questions that seem quite contemporary.

A Party Without Conviction

The Republican party has always been a party of expediency, for all its great claim to consequential policies and principles. Its affairs have usually been governed by men of rather lax convictions, who would trade anything for power. In former years, when the tariff fetish was set in the central altar of all apostles of political buncombe, nothing counted save an opportunity to promote the tariff policies demanded by the masters of Republicanism, Men and measures went by the board in the continuous and unremitting fight for prohibitive schedules and restrictive customs laws. Various bugaboos were used at different times to frighten the people, but there was always the tariff behind the whole Republican program.

Anything served to win with, if the manufacturers might control the tariff. But there came a time when the tariff schedules, mounting higher with every revision, fell of their own weight, and the progressive movement in the Republican party began, with great promise, at first, under sincere leadership. Then arose the greatest opportunist of them all, with all due respect, Colonel Roosevelt. He was more flexible of mind than the stand-pat leaders. He believed in the tariff, but he wanted four years more in the Presidency, and was willing to turn free trader, if need be, to win.

He capitalized the dissatisfaction of the Republican masses, and espoused the progressive tendencies of the times, sweeping aside the men whose earnest fights in Congress had built up the movement against the reactionaries. The Colonel could not rule, so he wrecked. For the first time in history the stand-pat forces had refused to compromise, in order that the party might win. In 1916, the Republican party had no issue, it had no leader save Roosevelt, and he was both feared and hated by the inner circle. So it invaded the United States Supreme Court and drafted Justice Hughes, concerning whom neither the country nor the leaders knew overly much.

The West deserted the camp, for the West had taken seriously the progressive movement, and, with native shrewdness, the West discerned the wolves of stand-pattism behind the Hughes mask., The expedientists lost their most important battle. The same situation is developing in 1920. The Republican party has no program. no policy, no leadership. And there are even disputes among the chief manipulators as to what considerations of expediency may dictate.

Meanwhile, candidacies of no special distinction, and without a particle of evidence of popular enthusiasm in any direction. are developing and delegates are being chosen. What will the Republican party stand for? No man can tell. What will the candidate represent? Nothing, except the desire of the Republican party to get into power and run the government, which it regards as its vested right. The candidate is likely to be merely a stuffed shirt, the platform a set of innocuous and meaningless phrases.

The Republican party must think the American people are a lot of weak-minded children, petulant, irritable and altogether foolish.

*****

“A tariff as a weapon for defense is wanted,” declared General Wood in his St. Louis speech. There is something too vague about this declaration to warrant much discussion, like nearly all of the utterances of the General, when he gets away from military matters. Does the General know that almost all of our commercial treaties with foreign countries forbid discriminatory duties, and provide that our tariffs shall be levied equally against the products of all nations? How then, could the tariff be used as a weapon of defense, or offense, either, so far as that goes? Then the General says we should have a tariff to “protect American industries that are essential to America, not a tariff to protect industries which are artificial and whose protection adds to the living cost of our people.” The General is on dangerous ground and might give away the whole Republican argument if this suggestion should be carried to its logical conclusion.

Will George be proven correct more than a century after this observation?  Perhaps the answer is whether, in 2025, WE are the weak-minded children, petulant, irritable and altogether foolish or whether we recognize that we are led by someone who is.

Is He Just Joshing Us?  

Posted on by
Reply

“Joshing,” as in “teasing,” or “joking with” others.

Senator Josh Hawley recently proposed the federal government issue $600 tariff rebate checks per person—a family of four getting $2,400.

Such a deal he has for us!

What makes no sense is that in true Trumpian fashion, he is blaming President Biden for the perceived necessity for the checks. “Americans deserve a tax rebate after four years of Biden policies that have devastated families’ savings and livelihoods,” Hawley said as he announced his plan, and suggested, “My legislation would allow hard-working Americans to benefit from the wealth that Trump’s tariffs are returning to this country.”

Now, hold on a minute. He’s spouting totally misleading statements that rely on public ignorance of how tariffs work.

We are going to un-ignorance any of you who think other countries are paying the United States big taxes, the tariffs of which President Trump is so proud. They are not.  WE are the ones taking it in the billfold. Britannica.com makes it easy to understand:

Let’s review how tariffs work.  First, neither a foreign company nor its home country pays any additional tax when it brings products here. United States companies buying the products are the ones paying a tax (the tariff) to Customs and Border Protection at the port of entry. They pay the foreign manufacturer the price of the goods and then they pay an additional amount to CBP before the products are released to them.

And how do those companies recover that extra fee, including the tariffs President Trump seems to arbitrarily set?  As the illustration shows, they make you and me pay more for our Korean refrigerator, our Canadian steel, our Chinese fireworks, Indonesian shirts, etc. We already are seeing some stores post signs telling customers how much more items cost because of the President’s tariffs. He’s intimidates some companies into not doing that. But he can’t scare all of them.

Therefore, Hawley’s proposal would have the federal government give us a rebate check to offset some of the extra money that we are paying for foreign-made products because of the Trump tariffs and we will use that money to buy more products with inflated costs because of the tariffs.

This is an economic program based on the Menard’s rebate system.

So, when Hawley says, ““My legislation would allow hard-working Americans to benefit from the wealth that Trump’s tariffs are returning to this country,” he is indulging in nothing short of verbal sleight of hand. There is no money “returning to this country.” It is here already and WE will pay it. In effect, he proposes putting some money in our right-hand pocket after the Trump tariffs take money out of our left-hand pocket.

Six hundred dollars might not come close to reimbursing us for our tariff-increased out-of-pocket expenses in the purchase of a new car, or the accumulated costs of less costly things we buy throughout the year.

And how much will this gracious gesture cost our debt-ridden federal government? How much of the tariff-raised money that could go toward reducing the Trumpian increase in our national debt will instead be sent back to us as a fake bonus?

A few days ago the census bureau put our national population at 342,201,496.

In our calculations, we probably are over-simplifying the math and the subtleties of who would be eligible for a rebate. We don’t know, for example how many of those 342.2 million people are criminals, mental patients, gang members, and drug-sellers from south of the border who wouldn’t be eligible to receive anything and, if the administration has its way, won’t be here to collect a check anyway. But just by multiplying the population number by 600, we could up with a total expenditure of $205,320,897,600. That’s $205.3 BILLION of our own money that will be returned to us.

Missourians (our population of 6,282,690) would receive $3,769,614,000 of their own money back.  The best thing that can be said for the deal is that it’s better than the Menard’s rebates that you only get if you buy something else later.

HOWEVER all of us might not get one of these checks if Congress falls for this scheme—your vigilant observer for example.

Hawley has told listeners to Steve Bannon’s podcast that  Trump’s tariffs are “on track to raise over $150 billion this calendar year alone,” well short of the calculated total above. But that shortfall can be adjusted because Hawley says it won’t go to those who supported Trump’s favorite punching bag, Joe Biden. “You’d give it to our people,” he said. “The rich people don’t need it…All those Democrat donors of Wall Street, all these fund guys, who all hate the tariffs…We ought to give a portion back to our working class blue-collar voters who powered the Trump revolution, who got this president into office multiple times, and who are the backbone of this nation.” Multiple times meaning “two.”

Get out the hip boots, folks. It’s awfully deep in here.

I’m not saying I supported Joe Biden in 2024, thus becoming disqualified under this  Hawley/Trump frequent flyer program. It’s just that you will never find my lip prints on the presidential ring.

Pro-Trump blue collar folks will be rewarded for their loyalty but anti-Trump blue collar workers won’t be rewarded? We suppose he knows how to separate a red blue-collar worker from a blue blue-collar worker.  Perhaps he’ll use the people from ICE who are widely respected for their skills of discerning who gets hauled off to God knows where, largely based on physical appearance, to determine awardees.

This pinpointing of disloyal blue collar workers and keeping the Washington bureaucracy (what’s left of it, anyway) from sending checks to undeserving garbage men, grave diggers, and gas station operators should keep the total outlay below the amount we just computed.

And remember, this scheme just gives us back our own money that otherwise would be used for such things as building more wall in the Southwest where we are still waiting for the first check from Mexico that Trump promised would pay those costs, reimbursing this country for all those miles of fence.

This country is more than $30 TRILLION in debt. Where will it find the money for Hawley’s warm and fuzzy give-back plan? You and I will provide it by paying for Trump’s tariffs, as we have provided the money for the wall Mexico will pay for.

So far he hasn’t tied tariffs on Mexican products to the recovery of fence costs.

While thousands of his constituents have to deal with cutbacks in the food stamp program, the school meal programs, safety net reductions, cuts in disaster aid, attacks on disease prevention and control, and friends and relatives hauled away by masked hooligans in ICE outfits, he’s going to load up on a souvenir airplane, build a ballroom where even more of his friends can pay a lot of money to be in the same room with him, and gather as many other shiny tchotchkes that catch his eye. And he and Hawley hope to take our minds off of his meat-cleavering of programs that serve the people at large by giving us back a few hundred of the bucks it’s costing us to buy any of the myriad of things made somewhere else that they are making us pay more to buy.

Blaming President Biden for all of the broken promises or created problems of this administration as well as giant increases in the federal debt has become a misleading Republican whine that is beyond tiresome. Liars might figure, but figures don’t lie. And the figures show Trump stands balding head and shoulders above Biden and Obama when it comes to running up the national debt.

A study by consumeraffairs.com shows the Biden administration increased the national debt by $6.17 trillion while the first Trump administration drove it up by $8.18 trillion. (The Obama administration, ran it up by $8.34 trillion, but it took him eight years.) The calculations show Biden increased the national debt by 21.7 percent. Trump hiked it by 40.43% and some analysts say his Big Ugly Bill will add $2.5-3.8 trillion more.

Last we heard, Hawley hadn’t attracted any supporters, particularly others in his party, many of whom think the tariff revenues should be used to reduce the national debt or at least to retard its growth.

Next thing you know, Trump will be demanding the Nobel Prize for Economics—as he also wants it for Peace achieved through international bombing and national cruelty.

Let’s wait and see how Hawley figures out a way to get this dead bird to fly. Just remember, it’s our money that you and I might someday get back, not dollars paid by any foreign government or foreign manufacturer.

Six hundred dollars that we can use to pay tariff-inflated prices on other goods..

Maybe it’s not so different from Menard’s rebate system after all.

Sports: Trades but no immediate gains; Stadiums suit; History on the track

Posted on by
Reply

By Bob Priddy, Missourinet Contributing Editor

Neither of our major league teams found any blocks to bust in the late-season trading period. But both got a little help and some possible future performers.

(ROYALS TRADES)—Backup Kansas City Royals catcher Freddy Fermin has been traded to San Diego for a couple of pitching prospects. The Royals get pitchers Ryan Bergert and Stephen Kolek, both of who started games last week. Kolek has made fourteen starts this year and comes over with a 4.18 ERA. Bergert is a reliever who has a 2.78  ERA and is averaging almost one strikeout per inning this year.

Fermin had been the backup to Salvador Perez behind the plate. No replacement for Fermin has been announced by the team as we go to press.

Kansas City got a last-minute deal done to strengthen its outfield defense by getting Giants outfielder Mike Yastrzemski, a 34-year old veteran hitting .231 this year. He’s the son of Hall of Famer Carl Yastrzemski, he great Boston Red Sox outfielder. The Giants get minor league pitcher Yunior Marte from the Royals.

That deal paid off quickly for KC on Friday night when Yastrzemski homered in his first game in Royal Blue helping the Royals win for the seventh time in their last ten games and reach the .500 mark for the first time in a month.

Saturday, KC moved some of its player chess pieces around, adding Bergert and pitcher Baily Falter to the active roster, optioning Jonathan Bowlan to Omaha, and designating pitcher Thomas Hatch for assignment.

They had gotten Falter in their trade with the Pirates that gave Pittsburgh first baseman prospect Callan Moss and reliever Evan Sisk. .

Hatch had been cut loose by the Pirates after the 2023 season and spent the last couple of years playing in Japan. He signed a minor league deal with KC after the Hiroshima Toyo Carp announced he wouldn’t be retained this  year.  He was added to the Royals roster on June 5th and DFA’d the next day. Nobody else wanted him so he was sent down to Omaha before returning July 29. He pitched one inning and gave up two runs before his latest demotion.

The Royals started this week back at .500 for the first time since June 30

(DOWNHILL)—It didn’t take long for the Royals to decide a 45-year old journeyman pitcher couldn’t cut it with his 14th major league team.  Rich Hill was designated for assignment last week after two starts, both of which were no-decisions and the last of which was worth only four innings and led to some of the pitching staff’s 14 walks in a game.  In his two starts, he pitched nine innings, gave up five earned runs (seven overall) on nine hits.

Hill has asked to become a free agent instead of going back to Omaha.

Hatch took his place on the roster, but only briefly.

The Royals pitching staff is pretty lean now with Bubic out, probably for the year with a rotator cuff injury, and Cole Ragans (also with a rotator cuff strain) and Michael Lorenzen on the IL with a left oblique strain.

(CARDINALS)—-The Cardinals were not as active as some expected as the trading deadline rushed toward them, making some potential upside trades by unloading some expiring contract players. Some position players considered possible trades remain with the club, leaving St. Louis with some attractive bait for off-season and free agent acquisitions. Nolan Arenado and his no-trade clause remain in St. Louis.

Just a year after Ryan Helsley set a Cardinals record with 49 saves, he has been sent to the Mets with St. Louis getting three minor leaguers that are considered guys with solid futures: shortstop Jesus Baez and right-handed pitchers Nate Dohm and Frank Elissalt.

Although he’s been a closer for St. Louis, he’s expected to be the setup man for Edward Diaz in New York. He worked his first game as a Met on Friday night, pitched one inning, allowed to hits but struck out the side in his 37th appearance of the year. His ERA dropped to 2.92.

Helsley’s departure leaves the Cardinals with JoJo Romero as their best closer option. But he’s also the only left-handed reliever, so Manager Oil Marmol has indicated the Redbirds will use the committee approach to close out games the rest of the way this year.

The key player for the Cardinals in this trade is Baez, a shortstop who is the Mets’ number five prospect and ranked 92nd in all of major league baseball. He’s hitting .242 after 75 games in the minors this year. He’s played other infield positions, too.

The Cardinals also got rid of reliever Steven Matz, shipping him to Boston for one of the top prospects in the Red Sox farm system,

Blaze Jordan, who is 22, a five-year minor leaguer with a career average of .291 with 55 homers and 303 RBI. This year he has hit .308 in double and triple-A, with a dozen home runs and 62 RBI. The Cardinals also like the fact that he strikes out only ten percent of the time.

He first attracted public attention when he was a kid. When he was 11, he hit a homer that went 395 feet. At thirteen, he hit one that came down 500 feet away from the batter’s box.

Shortly before the trade deadline, the Cardinals sent reliever Phil Maton to the Texas Rangers. Maton was having the best year of his career, with 40 calls from the pen, 48 Ks in 38.1 innings and a 2.35 ERA. In return, the Cardinals get some promising minor leaguers; pitchers Mason Molina, a starter, and reliver Skylar Hayes. Molina is in High-A and Hayes is in  Triple-A.

After the wheeling and dealing was finished, the Cardinals lost for the eighth time in their last eleven games Sunday to drop below .500 at the start of this week.

(FEDDE)—It took just 4 2/3 innings for the Atlanta Braves to learn why the St. Louis Cardinals dumped Erik Fedde.  Pitching against the Royals last week, Fedde gave up four earned runs on five hits (one being a home run). He struck out three in his first appearance.

(FOOTBALL POLITICS)—Whether the Chiefs and the Royals stay in Missouri has been thrown into some additional uncertainty by the filing of a lawsuit that challenges recent legislative action providing state funding to keep them from moving to Kansas.

Two state senators, Mike Moon and Bryant Wolfin have been joined by property rights activist Ron Calzone in filing suit saying legislation providing financial help is unconstitutional. Their suit challenges the proposed state funding as a “direct gift or bribe to the owners of the  Chiefs and the Royals.”

The legislation commits the state to issue bonds to pay for as much as one-half of the costs of renovating Arrowhead Stadium and building a new stadium for the Royals. Tax revenue generated by the teams would help pay off the bonds.

Kansas is promising to issue bonds paying up to 70% for new stadiums if the teams move across the state line.

Negotiations involving the two states and the two teams are continuing. The legislature meets in September to consider overriding any of Governor Kehoe’s vetoes of bills from the regular session that ended in May. Kehoe could convene a concurrent special session to pass a bill answering the court challenges but it is too early to make that decision.

The Chiefs play their first pre-season game next Saturday.

(UFL)—The United Football League is going to look different next spring but the changes do not directly affect the St. Louis Battlehawks.

The new man in charge of league business operations, Mike Repole, has announced at least two teams and maybe all four of the USFL franchises will be moved—the Memphis Showboats, Hosuton Roughnecks, Birmingham Stallions, and the Michigan Panthers. The Michigan Panthers won their division this year but lost the DC Defenders in the championship game, which was played in the St. Louis dome in March. The only new market confirmed so far is Columbus, Ohio although the league has trademarked four team names from the original UFL: Oakland Invaders, Philadelphia Stars, New Jersey Generals, and Tampa Bay Bandits.

Repole candidly admits attendance is one reason new markets are being sought. Last year, the Battlehawks drew about 30,000 fans per game but the rest averaged five-to-twelve thousand.

The XFL franchises, which include St. Louis, have not been mentioned for any changes. The Battlehawks’ division includes teams from Houston, San Antonio, and Arlington, Texas and the Defenders.

Repole says the league does not expect to expand for 2026 but he sees 10-12 teams within the next five years and 16 within the next decade.

Off to the Races:

(INDYCAR)—A major change in IndyCar and its premier event, the Indianapolis 500—Roger Penske has sold one-third interest in the racing series to FOX Sports for a reported $130 million.  The move is described as “a strategic investment and partnership designed to launch new growth for IndyCar.”  The deal includes an extension of the broadcast rights that FOX now holds as its first season of broadcasting IndyCar races begins to wind down.

Observers consider the arrangement to be part of Penske’s succession plan.  He’s 88 now and still heavily involved in the operations of his sprawling business empire that fields teams in four top-level motor sports series, his trucking company, and a number of car dealerships as well as the Indianapolis Motor Speedway and the IndyCar series.  The speedway and the series are the only Penske operations that are now partly owned by FOX.

Penske bought the Speedway and the IndyCar series in 2019 and has poured millions of dollars into that ownership. Some voices, however, who admire him as a businessman don’t see the kind of promoter that they believe IndyCar needs. They think Penske Entertainment, the division that manages the racing partners, has taken a major step to be more entertaining and thus expand the open-wheel racing audience.

Although IndyCar does not run any races in Missouri, it has several within driving distances of various areas of our state with races just across the river in Illinois, in southern Iowa, Nashville, and (for a little longer drive) at the Circuit of the Americas near Austin, Texas.  And, of course, Indianapolis twice in May.

(NASCAR)—NASCAR was on the track in Iowa this weekend with William Byron stretching his fuel just far enough to win with three closes competitors also trying to reach the finish on their available fuel.

Most teams expected to get about 110 laps on the .875 mile track but Byron and his closest competitors got about 130, thanks in part to some caution flags that slowed the field and increased fuel mileage. A dozen cautions that covered 72 of the race’s 350 laps—21 of the last 100–helped drivers squeeze the last drop from their tanks.

It’s Byron’s second win of the year. He also won the season opening Daytona 500.

Chase Briscoe, who started on pole for the fifth time this year and the second race in a row, was about 1.2 seconds back, just ahead of Brad Keselowski, Ryan Blaney, and Ryan Preece.

Only three races are left in the regular season. Thirteen drivers have locked in positions for the 16 positions for the championship run-off.  Three non-winners are in the field on points: Tyler Reddick, Alex Bowman, and Chris Buescher. The three closest to them, Kyle Busch, Ty Gibbs, and A. J. Allmendinger are among those far enough below the cutline that they need a win to claim a spot in the championship round.

(Photo credits: Yastrzemski—Facebook; Jordan—Baseball Prospect Journal; Baez—Redbird Rants; Penske—Bob Priddy); Byron–NASCAR)

Here We Go Again

Posted on by
1

We’ve seen this scenario played out before. Republicans cut some taxes and the economy goes into the toilet soon after with the state having reduced its ability to fund programs that people rely on during economic downturns, especially lower-income Missourians.

The national economy isn’t in the toilet (yet, perhaps), but Congress has approved President Trump’s budget that will harm thousands of Missourians.  At the same time, Governor Kehoe is thinking about signing the bill eliminating some taxes that will produce revenues.

He already has vetoed hundreds of millions of dollars from the budget approved by the legislature, citing concerns about state finances in the fiscal year that is  newly underway.

We must be missing something. This doesn’t seem to add up to us. On one hand, there is concern that the state can afford the things the legislature approved and on the other hand there’s—

Wait a minute.

Aren’t we on the same hand?

Finger one: Cut the budget because of uncertainty of state finances, much of it caused by federal cuts in some important programs.

Finger two: Cut Missouri taxes to reduce total revenues even more?

One estimate is that the tax cuts reduce program funding by about a half-billion dollars at a time when not-so-beautiful bill in Washington eliminates a lot of federal money coming here.

To be sure, there are some good things in the bill he plans to sign.  A capital gains tax reduction will be welcomed by many who have capital gains but that’s one reason the liberal-leaning Missouri Budget Project isn’t a fan of the bill.   The MBP says five percent of Missouri taxpayers will get eighty percent of the benefits.

But it’s not all for the high-rollers. The Circuit Breaker property tax program will increase the income levels of people eligible for it, a change that will affect almost 200,000 households. The state sales tax is being lifted for diapers and women’s hygiene products. And there are some other things the MBP admits are badly-needed.

The conventional Republican wisdom is that if you reduce taxes, the infusion of those moneys into the general economy will generate more revenues to offset the taxes. We can’t say that we have noticed significant improvements in the economy when the legislature reduces Missourians’ taxes.

We are in sympathy with the stated reasons for lowering these taxes but we wonder if freezes are more protective of the overall well-being of state services than cuts at this time.

For more than fifty years we have listened to all kinds of people complain about the lack of money for schools, health and mental health, prisons, law enforcement, housing, nutrition and a host of other issues.  This scenario is kind of like the old saying, “Everybody talks about the weather but nobody does anything about it” except the talk about taxes also includes doing something about them.

Sometimes though, it is best to heed the phrase-altered advice, “Don’t just do something. Sit there.”

To be honest, we admit having no grasp of the subtlety of economics that one probably needs to understand the rationale for these cuts.  We only took one economics course in college. Everything else we know about the economy is reflected in our utility bills and grocery prices. And in our taxes.

Jim Mathewson, who served in the legislature from Sedalia and was the President Pro Tem of the Senate for eight years, a record that will never be broken in this unfortunate era of term limits, said several times, “People don’t remember that you cut their taxes. But they sure remember when you raise them.”

It’s a nice bill today but the people who remember it are the ones who won’t benefit, especially those hit with the federal cuts.  One thing we’ll watch is to see whether there’s a political fallout in state politics that will be anywhere the fallout being predicted at the national level.

 

NIL

Posted on by
Reply

We don’t use the word “nil” very much in this country. And when somebody does—as in the score of a soccer game, one-nil—it is considered something of an affectation. On this side of the Atlantic we use “nothing.”  Every now and then somebody says “zero” instead of “nil.”

I started writing this entry yesterday, just after breakfast.  I’m glad I had already eaten because I saw Eli Hoff’s story in the Post-Dispatch that said my university had spent almost $32 million last year to buy athletes and I lost my appetite.

—-for collegiate sports.

Mizzou is spending a quarter of a billion dollars to put more seats into a facility that might fill them seven out of the next 365 days.  And then it’s spending more than half of the Name-Image-Likeness money on the players who will perform on the field below regardless of whether they win.

Name Image Likeness came about because of a court decision that said universities have to compensate the athletes whose names, images, and likenesses appear on shirts, mock jerseys, programs, TV promotions for the athletic department, and so forth.

So schools bid for the thoroughbred players who, once signed, have no particular loyalty to the school and can bolt for a higher-paying job at another university as soon as the season is over. And the fan base, which is paying twice as much for season football tickets this year plus a healthy “gift” (in politics the phrase is “lug.”) that entitles them to park somewhere in Boone County, watches a team to whom institutional loyalty is minimized thanks to the transfer portal and education is secondary rather than post-secondary.

The phrase “student-athlete” is so Twentieth Century.  The “athlete-student” is the name of the game these days, especially in the high-profile sports of football and basketball.  If you’re a future Wimbledon winner, you might get a few financial crumbs to play tennis for some university, but don’t expect to be paid to appear in some goofy television commercial for a company that kicks in big bucks to buy the best football and basketball players.

But being paid some pretty good money to be a college athlete isn’t a bad deal. Some jocks will have some financial security before they enter the real world where most of them will not become professional-professional athletes, rather than professional amateurs. And a few, such as WNBA star Caitlin Clark, might have to take a salary reduction to turn pro.

The NCAA says that these paid athletes are still amateurs as far as it is concerned.

Three concluding points:

I’m proud of the degree I have from the University of Missouri and I do make modest membership contributions to the alumni association. But I’ll never buy a ticket for a university sporting event because the financial tail has outgrown the dog on many of our college campuses.

I admire the athletes who DON’T have one eye on the ball and the other on the transfer portal. But the portal game is a mercenary one and I won’t support it.

The NCAA might say these folks are amateurs, but the NCAA does not run the State of Missouri and the state is missing a good bet by not extending its Athletes and Entertainers Tax program to levy an income tax on  visiting NIL-paid athletes who play here. The professional-professional athletes pay that tax. The million-dollar quarterback from Alabama or Georgie or Ohio State, etcetera, should contribute, too.

Now, there is a qualification to this spleen-letting this morning and it is this: NIL is a very complicated issue that the fan in the stands or in the fan in the recliner might not completely grasp and the reflexed knee in  this entry might be missing some important points that render these thoughts in-valid.  That’s why we have the reaction box at the end of these entries—so the host can be set straight on things. So have at it.  Reasonable discussion is always welcome (but stay within Captain Woodrow Call’s guidelines that we established a long time ago.

(As we were wrapping up this entry, we came across a 2024 article in Harvard Law Today that has an interview discussing the history and the significance of legal actions that have brought us to this point.  https://hls.harvard.edu/today/peter-carfagna-on-the-state-of-the-ncaa-nil-and-amateurism/).

 

Notes from a Quiet Hill 

Posted on by
1

—-stuff we can’t resist commenting on but don’t want to spend time writing more about.

As we were about to file this piece last night, the New York Times reported that this country’s largest Protestant denomination, the Southern Baptists, had overwhelmingly voted to try to get the Supreme Court to overturn its ruling approving same-sex marriage.

I am a Protestant. And as is the case with the Southern Baptists, I consider myself a Christian. But I struggle to understand how those who also call themselves Christians can then dictate who other people can love, how they can love, and whether some are not permitted to love at all.

After all, love is at the core of Christianity.

Protestants and Catholics alike like to quote First Corinthians 13:13: “Three things will last forever—faith, hope, and love—and the greatest of these is love.” (New Living Translation,)

We are free to practice our religion however we wish in this country, even if it seems inconsistent with the great Love chapter of the Inspired Word. I think my faith (which is different from religion) is more in line with Paul’s letter to the Christians at Corinth.

Okay—-now that the heavy stuff is out of the way:

0-0-0-0

If I was a reporter covering the White House, there are two words that I would say almost all the time when I’m talking to today’s President or other politicians, but especially the President whose statements are from here to Mars away from the truth:

“Prove It.”

He wouldn’t. But he’d call me “nasty” for suggesting something he has no interest in doing.

0-0-0-0-

Wonder what’s going to happen to the Tesla that President Trump bought from Elon Musk while they were still best buds.

Tell ya what I’m gonna do.  If there are any who view these entries who has the fevered ear of our president, tell him that I’ll give him $2,500 for it. I’ll even fly to Washington on my own dime and drive it back to Missouri, stopping for a relaxing recharge every 375 miles or so. I would like for him to sign it somewhere that won’t get lost in a rainstorm and to have it fully charged when I pick it up.

That’s my top offer. I could lower  the price it if the President thinks my offer is too high for showing his new disdain for Elon.  And I won’t object if he’d just give it to me.

If any of you have any connections that can accomplish this deal, let them know of this kind offer.

-0-

We like Andy Borowitz, a satiric columnist and a serious observer of things.  He recently reported, tongue in cheek, that the President of Mexico—exercising the beyond-boundaries prerogatives our President thinks the world should honor—has exercised her own beyond-boundaries prerogative. She has renamed our Liberty Bell.

TACO Bell.

As in, “Trump Always Chickens Out” after his big tariff announcements.

Mr. Trump is real touchy on a lot of things and this one really is sand in his underwear. All the more reason to say it.  But I won’t remind him of that when I pick up the Tesla

-00-

Missouri has an artists and athletes tax that requires the state income tax be deducted from payments made for concerts and professional sports event participants..  When the Cubs play in St. Louis, the players’ daily pay during the series is subject to the income tax.

I suggested to the House Ways and Means Committee earlier this year that we need to similarly tax highly-paid college athletes for their Name, Image, and Likeness incomes. They’re not amateurs anymore, nor are they student-athletes. We have athlete-students with the emphasis on the first word. You can’t have million-dollar amateurs.

Plus, the experience would be a good introduction to the real world of income taxes for these players.

The Ones Most Interested  

Posted on by
Reply

—and the places most damaged.

We’ve had three weeks or so to digest the results of the November 5 election.  We are going to offer some insights in the next few entries.

One of the amendments we voted this month proposed something that we’ve seen before—a statewide vote to force a city or an area to allow something the people there did not want.

That was Amendment 5, which would have forced the people living and working at the Lake of the Ozarks to accept a commercial casino in their midst.  Two areas of Missouri were involved: the area where a casino is proposed and an area fearful that it would be the next place forced to accept one.

We’re talking about the Lake of the Ozarks and Branson.

It might be instructive to see their thoughts about the sports wagering amendment and the casino-placement amendment. We looked at the votes in five lake counties and in five Branson-area counties.

Both groups wanted nothing to do with either proposal, sports wagering or a casino.

The five lake counties were 57% against sports wagering, Amendment 2, that barely passed statewide with only 50.074% of the votes (as of last night), a margin so small a recount can be justified if the losers want to pay for it.  The five Branson-area counties opposed it to the tune of 60%.

Amendment 5 was the issue that was most stark in its possibilities for these two areas and the message sent by these ten counties was more than no. It pretty much amounted to a “Hell, No.” Camden County rejected the proposal 10,621-14,375. Taney County swamped it 9,875-16,071.  Sixty percent of the voters in the five lake counties rejected the casino. In the Branson area, the rejection was even greater, 61.4%.

End result: People in those ten counties don’t like sports wagering but their people can do it if they want, but they’re sure don’t want them ever to do it in a local casino.

Both of these counties have promoted their areas as family-friendly tourism destinations.  Branson was worried that a Lake of the Ozarks casino would be the precedent-setter for a casino campaign in Branson. Amendment 5 would have forced one area to accept something the voters clearly did not want, and exposed the other area to a similarly unwelcome intrusion later.

Branson had a taste of this issue twenty years ago when voters defeated a proposal to put a casino next to the White River at Rockaway Beach.

How about counties that have casinos?  Amendment 3 failed in three of them—Cape Girardeau (46.4%), Lewis (Mark Twain Casino in LaGrange—46/7%), and Cooper (Boonville 48.5%).

This time, the casino industry spent ten-million dollars on a petition effort and an election campaign for Amendment 5.  Their efforts netted them less than 48% of the statewide vote.

In St. Charles County, the home of Missouri’s most lucrative casino, Amendment 3 got only 53.4%.

The spending on the Lake of the Ozarks proposal was pocket change compared to the huge amount invested in the sports wagering amendment. It took $41 million from the two biggest internet bookies to overcome the $14 million dollar opposition campaign financed by another bookie. The victory margin was only (as of last night) 4,360 votes out of almost three million votes cast.  The certified final results will be posted after the Missouri Board of Canvassers meets on December 10.  Presidential electors meet a week later. Congress is to certify the federal results on January 6.

The casinos will get their money back pretty fast.  The host cities of the casinos will lose millions because of the support their voters game to Amendment Two.

How much will they lose?  There are two factors.  The state tax rate on gambling (table games and slot machines is 21%.  Host cities get ten percent of that amount. In the last fiscal year, ten percent of the state gaming taxes collected provided $39,711,780 to the host cities.

But sports wagering will provide ZERO money from the state gaming tax, which will be only ten percent to begin with.  The State Auditor estimates casino revenues in the first five years will be $1,044,684,612.  The states ten percent will amount to $104,467,878, all of it earmarked for higher and lower education. None of it goes to the home cities. None.

If Amendment 2 followed current law, the casinos’ own home dock cities would split an additional $10,446,788.

But it’s worse than that.  If the tax rate on sports wagering were the same as it is on other forms of gambling—and the industry has never given a consistent answer why is should not be—the home dock cities would have split an additional $21,938,377 in those first five years.

The casino industry will recover more than one-half of the money it spent on the campaign by giving their own host cities the shaft. Permanently.

I can show you the math; the casinos wouldn’t.

The manifest shortcomings in taxes can only be remedied by adoption of another amendment. A campaign that focuses on those shortcomings and either corrects or overturns Amendment 2 might be considered, given the paper-thin margin of victory for sports wagering. It would be interesting to know the reactions of city councils in the thirteen host cities if they are ever shown these numbers. I doubt the industry, its leaders, or its supporting organizations have ever given these figures to the cities

The casino industry has never been put on the defensive at the Capitol or at the ballot box.

And maybe it should be, as we will discuss in our next commentary because what could be coming will be only worse.

Winning for Missouri: More Like the Mugging of Missouri 

Posted on by
Reply

One last shot at Amendment 2 before next Tuesday’s vote on it. And a warning that this amendment might have far-reaching results that have gone unnoticed.

Unfortunately, these considerations are being offered to late to be circulated enough to make a difference. But let’s put the issues on the record. Or at least, this person’s perspective.  Disagreements are welcome in the box at the end of this entry. We’ll talk about the casino industry’s efforts and we’ll discuss some sports teams questionable claims late in this post.

A key part of the proposed amendment is the sports wagering tax rate—10% —a back door tax cut of about 25% for all forms of gambling.

And here we must note that later we will discuss a clause in the proposed amendment that can lead to later mischief that will further disadvantage the state and its people.

The industry-supported legislation has never defined sports wagering as a special category.is listed as just another kind of game of skill.  In the lengthy list of those allowable games, it has been inserted after “Double down stud” or “any video representation of such games.”

It is that last clause that nobody has talked about.  But it’s important for future developments in the casino industry.  Here’s why.

People are not going to casinos as they once did.  The generation that has spent hours at the slot machines and the tables is dying off. Admissions are almost half what they were a dozen years ago or so.  As this trend continues, the casino industry must find ways to get customers to play these games. If they won’t go to the casinos, the casinos must—in effect—take the games to the consumers. This amendment is a template for later proposals to expand remote wagering to other forms of gambling.

This amendment legalizes remote betting in our casinos for the first time. Some of our casinos already have tested a version of remote gaming within the casinos, calling it “hybrid gaming.” In those casinos, customers who can’t find room at their favorite gaming table have gone to a nearby computer terminal, have set up their account, and have placed bets at the table as if they were there.

The tests haven’t generated much revenue. But the system has been tested.  No matter what the industry calls it, whether it’s fifty feet from the table or fifty miles from the sportsbook, it’s remote wagering. Don’t be surprised if casinos become more involved with it.  And that phrase is going into the constitution if voters approve Amendment Two.

We are not sure if that phrase in the amendment will mean casinos can offer remote betting on table games and slot machines without more legislative action. But it would not be in the proposal if the industry did not have a reason for it being there.

The Casino industry cleverly set the parameters for the discussion of sports wagering early:

—We can’t do sports wagering at 21% (the rate the state established more than three decades ago for table games and slot machines (incidentally, about 85% of casino revenues come from the slots).

—Sports wagering is different from other forms of gambling and needs special treatment.

Neither statement is true.

The industry has consistently claimed sports wagering is unique and requires its own special betting area and its own special tax rate, the latter reason justified differently year-to-year in bills introduced in the legislature.  The first bills proposed a tax rate of 6.25% (the lowest in the nation), 6.75% (the present low), 8%, and 10%.  The industry has seemed to have trouble sticking to its story when advocating a tax rate of less than 21%.

A couple of years ago the Senate tried to make the rate 12% and there was talk that the casinos would compromise on 15% because it was the average of the states around us.  We’ll get to that in a little bit.

The truth is that sports wagering is just another item on the gambling menu and its presence on that list supports that point. But the casinos have tried to get the legislature to believe it is special. And they want voters in a few days to believe it, too, so they can get a cut in overall tax rates (by our calculation) of about 25%.

The industry has never produced any independent studies in any legislative hearing we have attended, to justify the claim that sports wagering is a fragile flower needing lots of TLC, including the low tax. None of the pro-amendment advertising has offered any justification for it either.  And the voters, who understandably don’t closely follow the policy-making, or lack of it, by the legislature are left to make decisions based on thirty-second television commercials of questionable verity.

One industry argument has been that casinos will spend a lot of money establishing a unique area where the sports wagering can take place, an argument that falls apart because all forms of gambling have THEIR unique betting areas.  It’s why you can’t roll dice at a blackjack table. You can’t play poker at the roulette wheel table. You can’t play craps at the poker table and you can’t bet on where the ball will land on the big wheel at the Texas Hold ‘Em table.

There is nothing inherently unique in sports betting, regardless of industry claims. It operates the same way as other forms of wagering.  The consumer has money; the casinos have a system that will take all of it through time. The player at the poker table places a bet. So does a bettor in the sports betting area. The casino processes the bets, paying the winners and keeping the losers’ money. At the end of the day, the casino proceeds go into the same bank account with the proceeds from table games and slot machines.

Every year, the industry seems to have changed its justification for a sweetheart tax rate, raising a simple question that should been asked but never was: “How can the industry’s claims be trusted if it cannot stick to its own story?

In 2019, the industry demanded a 6.75% rate because “that’s what they charge in Las Vegas.”  A quick review of the Nevada gaming laws showed something the industry avoided telling our lawmakers: that 6.75% ALL forms of gambling in Nevada.  The industry also neglected to tell the legislators that the Nevada gaming law allows no deductions and no carryovers of casino losses from one month to the next, as is proposed in Amendment 2.  It was pointed out that the Nevada template would mean that Missouri would have two choices: either lower its present tax rate to 6.75 so all forms of gambling would be treated uniformly or to charge sports wagering a 21% tax.

Here are other reasons offered for a low tax rate:

—The casinos need to keep the extra money to properly promote and advertise this unique form of gambling. A representative of Penn National Gaming told a House committee in 2022 that a higher tax would hinder Missouri’s ability to compete with illegal gaming sites. He said, “When you are able to spend more in marketing, you are able to drive more in volume and revenues.”

The position of the industry that money should be taken away from the education fund and from home dock cities to subsidize promotions and advertising was questionable when the industry was generating revenues of about $1.7 billion at the time. Wouldn’t you think the industry should pay for its own promotions and advertising?

A critic argued that there is no reason the state should subsidize advertising for an industry of that size by reducing funding for the school systems and home dock cities (ten percent of the gaming tax goes to the thirteen host cities of Missouri’s casinos).  Additionally, major betting companies already were advertising on professional sports broadcasts and have stepped up their advertising since.

The proposal for using money traditionally earmarked for the education fund to publicize and promote sports wagering included no accountability language that would have required casinos to show the money actually had been used as proposed instead of just pocketed.

They also claimed the money not given the state in taxes was needed to convince Missourians to quit using illegal betting sites.  We’ll touch on that a little bit later.

—The casinos originally claimed the house advantage in sports wagering is “only” four percent (in 2023 the industry testified it was five percent).  But a study done for the UNLV Center for Gaming Research indicates that four percent is higher than most popular table games, sometimes double or more, and the industry has never asked for a favorable tax rate for table games.

In truth, the house advantage for sports wagering is more than four or even five percent, as the casino industry has claimed in some later legislative committee hearings. The website legalsportsreport.com charts statistics month-by-month in every state from the first month sports wagers were made in that state. As of last Sunday night, the webpage calculated $408-Billion dollars had been wagered in states allowing casino gambling on sports. The casino advantage worked out to 8.6%, more than double what the industry told legislators, and adding up to $35.1 Billion dollars.

Delaware, which has the highest tax on casino revenues, had the highest house advantage—25.1 to 46.5.  Delaware taxes casinos at a 50% and we’ve not heard any organized opposition to it.

Another excuse has been that Missouri needs a low tax rate to compete with surrounding states. Kansas is at 10. Iowa’s rate on casino earnings is 6.75, and according to an industry spokesperson. Missouri needs to have a low tax to keep Missourians from going to another state to place their sports bets.

The industry has presented no independent studies indicating casino customers care about the amount of taxes the casinos pay. In reality, the so-called competition rests on a simple question: Does Missouri have legal sports wagering? If Missouri legalizes it, Missourians presumably will place bets here because they don’t have go to some other state.

The industry also claimed it needs to have a much lower tax so it can pay for building sportsbook facilities within the casinos. If ninety percent or more of sports wagering will be done remotely, there’s not much reason for an elaborate sportsbook.  And, besides, building a sports betting facility in a casino should be considered a normal business expense with its own tax implications at the end of the business year.

This amendment has been called a “compromise between the stakeholders”—the six professional sports teams, the casino industry, and the remote betting industry” by St. Louis Cardinals president Bill DeWitt III.

But there are far more stakeholders than that. None of their representatives were invited to work on this “compromise.” Where were representatives of public education, host cities, veterans, the Access Missouri Scholarship Program, the National Guard program that provides veterans’ funeral escorts, people who develop gambling problems (we have seen several studies indicating those problems will triple with sports wagering), or even the Missouri Gaming Commission?

Here’s an answer: They were not invited because they were not considered participants in drafting gambling policy. Instead, they are industry targets whose only usefulness is based on how much money the industry can take from them or keep from programs benefitting them.

There’s one more stakeholder. The legislature, hired by the citizens to protect their interests. But the legislature has been MIA in protecting its constituents. The “compromise” is not a compromise at all.  It was, instead, an agreement to have the legislature give each of the stakeholders what they want. When the legislature fumbled several chances to satisfy the teams and the casinos, Amendment 2 was created.

It’s important as we reach the conclusion of these discussions to ask, “How did we reach this point?”

One reason this issue is on the ballot is that the legislature refused to resolve a competing issue—the legality of the gambling machines in many of our convenience stores, Video Lottery Terminals.

Supporters of video lottery terminals, while professing that they are legal, want the legislature to make them legal. The casinos see them as competing for their slot machine revenues and have not allowed an up-or-down vote on the VLT bills.  Supporters of the VLTs have filibustered the sports wagering legislation, demanding VLT legalization legislation be part of any sports wagering measure. The stalemate, especially in the Senate, has been a key factor in the pretty disgraceful deadlocks there that have resulted in historically-low levels of bill passage during the last three sessions.

The legislature lacked the courage in the face of extensive and aggressive lobbying by the casino industry to establish policies protecting the state’s interests and year after year considered the industry proposals without question. Only once that I recall did I hear a legislative committee member seriously press the chief industry lobbyist on some of these issues—Senator Denny Hoskins who was the leader in the unsuccessful efforts to legalize VLTs—was told he was out of time before he had finished his questioning. The replies he had received were vague at best.

A couple of years ago, I talked to the sponsor of a bill raising the tax rate to ten percent. A year earlier he had sponsored the industry’s bill that set the rate at eight percent. “What’s magical about ten percent?” I asked. “Last year it was only eight.”

He responded, “I figured that if ten was good enough for Jesus it was good enough for me.”

I was stunned for a second or two, and when I recovered my composure, I asked, “Jesus had twelve disciples not ten.  Can I get you up to 12?”

All I got in response was a smirk.

I found his responses to my questions arrogant, disrespectful, and dismissive. While I would not use the same phrases to characterize those who have advocated for this legislation, I think it is accurate to say there has been a certain confidence on their part that no outside opinions would be tolerated in the annual legalization efforts.

The legislature’s refusal to challenge industry-backed bills year after year is an indication of who has been in charge of things in the Capitol on this issue. Its inability to deliver what the industry—and in the last few years, the pro sports teams—wanted means the issue is likely to be put into the Missouri Constitution next week and the legislature will not be able to change things to protect the interests of the people of Missouri very easily.

I expect the mugging of Missouri and its people to succeed next Tuesday.  And we can thank a few generations of the people we think represent us at the Capitol for aiding and abetting it through their inaction.