BlogAds

Show Me Progress blog advertising is good for you

Blogads

MMA
Search




Advanced Search
Local / Regional Links
National Links

Missouri news, views, and issues - Show Me Progress

Special Session Roundup

by: Clark

Fri Aug 24, 2007 at 07:20:43 AM CDT


PubDef has some pretty good coverage of the ongoing special session (here, here, and here.) Essentially, the House GOP defeated a motion by State Rep. Jamilah Nasheed (D-St. Louis) to vote on the Land Assemblage Tax Credit (the one that's basically tailored to one man - Paul McKee in North St. Louis) separately from the rest of the bill. Strangely, the House leadership then ruled out of order an amendment offered by Jeannette Mott Oxford to reduce the acreage requirement from 75 to 30, which would allow smaller developers access to the credit. House Speaker Rod Jetton ruled that it was beyond the scope of Matt Blunt's call for special session. Jetton used the same logic when Rep. John Burnett (D- KC) tried to amend the anti-scalping repeal to limit scalpers to a 20% markup.

In other words, Matt Blunt gets to tell legislators exactly what to legislate, and they have the privilege of being able to vote on it. That ought to be fun when Jay Nixon becomes governor in a year.

Clark :: Special Session Roundup
Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email




Thanks for the privilege (0.00 / 0)
If Jay Nixon tried to get that kind of lemming-like devotion from a Republican legislature, the lemmings would turn into lions.  They are masters of the double standard.

No wonder people think the legislature is a joke (3.00 / 1)
How on earth can any amendment on the bill that is before the legislature be "beyond the scope" of the call for a special session.  They are just supposed to give up or down votes?  That makes no sense. 

It might make sense that you couldn't tack on an amendment calling, say, for universal health insurance. 

I know next to nothing about the Mo. House Rules.  Once the leadership rules on something is there no appeal?  Or is it just that the Dems are so outnumbered that they wouldn't succeed on any protest?  It sounds crazy on its face but it would be interesting to hear exactly how this fits into the house rules.


I wondered the same thing (0.00 / 0)
Could the bill be struck down at a later date because of Blunt's usurpation of the legislative prerogative?

[ Parent ]
On Antonio's blog (0.00 / 0)
I saw that they expect the senate to make revisions which will automatically send it back to the house.  So they get another shot at it. 

Maybe it's all procedural gamesmanship?  I can't tell because, as I said, I don't really know the rules of the game.


[ Parent ]
Struck down later? (0.00 / 0)
I can't see Dems trying to get it struck down because of Blunt's usurpation of power.  They're divided as it is--mainly because the money is going to help revive the inner city.

That's another thing (3.00 / 1)
I noticed a Republican from Joplin quoted as saying that this is much needed help for St. Louis City. Since when does a Republican from Joplin care about impoverished areas of St. Louis?

[ Parent ]
About
Read before posting:

Getting Started

Posting Guidelines

Diary Formatting Tips

Congressional Contact Info

Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Share This Site



Show Me Progress on Facebook

Other State Blogs
News & Announcements

(Sitemeter stats from July 01, 2008)

Powered by: SoapBlox