Politics
U.S. Rep. Jason Smith pushes child tax credit expansion

[ad_1]
Missouri Congressman Jason Smith is hoping to inch his colleagues toward future bipartisan collaboration with a bill that increases the child tax credit and provides incentives for business research and development and low-income housing.The Salem Republican joined forces with Oregon Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden to put forward the Tax Relief for American Families and Workers Act.While Smith noted in an interview with St. Louis Public Radio that neither side of the political spectrum is completely happy with the bill, the agreement could provide guidance for federal lawmakers struggling to come up with legislation around immigration or aid to Ukraine or Israel.“Sen. Wyden and myself politically are two totally different souls,” Smith said. “He’s a progressive in Oregon, and I’m a conservative in Missouri. But we can find some common ground in this bill.”Smith spoke with St. Louis Public Radio about the tax relief legislation, which could soon come to the House floor. (Questions and answers have been modified for clarity and length.)Jason Rosenbaum: How does it change “refundability” with the child tax credit? Can you explain the concept of refundability to people who may not understand that type of tax jargon?Jason Smith: The child tax credit, as it currently exists, is broken up into two directions. It’s a $2,000-per-child tax credit. But the refundability aspect is roughly $1,700. And what that means is that families will receive at least $1,700 whether they still owe taxes or whether they don’t owe taxes. They would still get that $1,700. This bill actually increases it $100 every year over the next three years. When the 2017 tax cuts were passed, it created the refundability at $1,400 indexed with inflation. And that’s why it has gone up in the last seven years to $1,700.Rosenbaum: So let’s just say there’s a taxpayer who has two children. They work at a gas station, but they don’t earn enough to pay federal taxes. So under this bill, would they get $3,600?Smith: Under the first year, they would get $3,600. And then the year after that it would be $3,800. Because it’s a $100 increase over the next three years on the Child Tax Credit, starting with this year.Rosenbaum: What would you say to folks who would say that’s somewhat underwhelming increase given how inflation has kind of rocked our collective worlds?Smith: That’s also just one point of the changes in the child tax credit in this bill, there’s three other items that we’re doing.One, we’re eliminating what I refer to as the child penalty. There’s a work requirement for the Child Tax Credit where you have to work so much before you can qualify. And how current law is there’s work requirements for your first child and your second child and your third child. But once you earn it with your first child, under this bill, you earn it, whether you have two children, whether you have three children or four children. That is a huge provision that will help a lot of working families.The other thing that we’re doing is raising the Child Tax Credit for people who owe federal taxes. It’s been $2,000 since 2017. It has not changed even though inflation has gone up 20%. But we’re starting to index it for inflation moving forward. So the top-line Child Tax Credit will continue to grow as well. So there’s a couple of different levers. And the issue is that when you’re in a divided government, where my counterparts on the Senate side are controlled by Democrats and we are controlled by Republicans, you have to find some common ground. And this is where we were able to get common ground when you’re looking at an $80 billion tax bill.Rosenbaum: I watched a committee hearing of this bill on Friday. And it was illuminating because it showcased some of your Democratic colleagues’ positions on this pretty vividly. They wanted the Child Tax Credit to go up to [American Rescue Plan levels] of $3,600 and full refundability. Why did this bill not go that far?Smith: Well, what they wanted would cost $120 billion a year. And over the three-year period, it would have cost $360 billion just on the child tax provisions alone. And it would have transformed the child tax credit to more of just straight-out direct checks. And that’s not how the child tax credit was created. And they also didn’t want work requirements. That was one of the amendments that they offered that we voted down.Rosenbaum: I also know there was an amendment to try to have the monthly checks come back. Can you explain why Republicans oppose that?Smith: It’s like telling Americans, we don’t trust you to spend your tax refund appropriately. So we’re going to direct you that you only get a 12th of it every month. We believe that you can make the best decisions using your own money the way that you want. So when you get that tax refund, you should just get it all at once instead of the government actually receiving interest income by not paying you all of what they owe you.Rosenbaum: There were obviously more things in this bill, besides the Child Tax Credit. There were a number of fairly significant business incentives. Your colleague, Missouri Congressman Emanuel Cleaver, was quoted saying: “I’m not sure I’m ready to genuflect over a deal that makes corporate tax provisions a number one priority [over the Child Tax Credit].” You’re gonna hear that a lot when this bill comes up from Democrats. What is going to be your general retort to that line of argument?Smith: Well, that’s just simply not true. And why I would say that the parameters of this bill is that half the amount is on the Child Tax Credit and half is on business incentives. That’s exactly what it is. It’s an $80 billion bill. And that’s how it’s divided. It’s just that the Child Tax Credit is so costly. And to do what the Democrats want, I just told you, over the same time period, it would have cost $360 billion when this one tax bill is only $80. And it’s paid for by removing bad tax policy. So I would love it if the Democrats could find $360 billion, which they can’t. And they don’t have the solution. So if you want change, you need to do it incrementally, and it needs to be paid for, and it needs to be something that is palatable by both sides.Rosenbaum: My understanding is the Low Income Housing Tax Credit aspect of the bill would increase the amount of credits that get distributed to states. If that’s accurate, how do you think that’s going to make a difference when it comes to cultivating low income housing across the country?Smith: Well, there is no question that America is facing an affordable housing crisis. That’s why addressing the housing crisis is another top priority in this bill. This is a housing tax provision that expired several years ago with a proven record of being very beneficial. It is expected just by the provision of this low-income housing tax credit, it will affect, just in our home state, 1,500 additional housing units, 2,300 jobs and $260 million in wages and business income. So it will have a pretty, pretty strong impact just in the state of Missouri.Rosenbaum: Your colleague Congressman Mike Thompson of California noted that this bill could be a template of sorts to deal with other tough issues, such as overhauling immigration laws. Do you think this could be a signal to both parties, but particularly House Republicans, that bipartisanship isn’t a dirty word?Smith: I’ve been taking arrows from different entities and different groups, because they felt like that I gave too much on the Child Tax Credit, or that we didn’t go far enough. But I believe this is the best policy under a divided government. And of course, we need to do the same thing when it comes to securing our border. We need to do the same thing when it comes to funding our government. It’s the same thing when you’re looking at world affairs.
[ad_2]
Source link
Politics
Poll: Support for Missouri abortion rights amendment growing

[ad_1]
A proposed constitutional amendment legalizing abortion in Missouri received support from more than half of respondents in a new poll from St. Louis University and YouGov.That’s a boost from a poll earlier this year, which could mean what’s known as Amendment 3 is in a solid position to pass in November.SLU/YouGov’s poll of 900 likely Missouri voters from Aug. 8-16 found that 52% of respondents would vote for Amendment 3, which would place constitutional protections for abortion up to fetal viability. Thirty-four percent would vote against the measure, while 14% aren’t sure.By comparison, the SLU/YouGov poll from February found that 44% of voters would back the abortion legalization amendment.St. Louis University political science professor Steven Rogers said 32% of Republicans and 53% of independents would vote for the amendment. That’s in addition to nearly 80% of Democratic respondents who would approve the measure. In the previous poll, 24% of Republicans supported the amendment.Rogers noted that neither Amendment 3 nor a separate ballot item raising the state’s minimum wage is helping Democratic candidates. GOP contenders for U.S. Senate, governor, lieutenant governor, treasurer and secretary of state all hold comfortable leads.“We are seeing this kind of crossover voting, a little bit, where there are voters who are basically saying, ‘I am going to the polls and I’m going to support a Republican candidate, but I’m also going to go to the polls and then I’m also going to try to expand abortion access and then raise the minimum wage,’” Rogers said.Republican gubernatorial nominee Mike Kehoe has a 51%-41% lead over Democrat Crystal Quade. And U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley is leading Democrat Lucas Kunce by 53% to 42%. Some GOP candidates for attorney general, secretary of state and treasurer have even larger leads over their Democratic rivals.
Brian Munoz
/
St. Louis Public RadioHundreds of demonstrators pack into a parking lot at Planned Parenthood of St. Louis and Southwest Missouri on June 24, 2022, during a demonstration following the Supreme Court’s reversal of a case that guaranteed the constitutional right to an abortion.
One of the biggest challenges for foes of Amendment 3 could be financial.Typically, Missouri ballot initiatives with well-funded and well-organized campaigns have a better chance of passing — especially if the opposition is underfunded and disorganized. Since the end of July, the campaign committee formed to pass Amendment 3 received more than $3 million in donations of $5,000 or more.That money could be used for television advertisements to improve the proposal’s standing further, Rogers said, as well as point out that Missouri’s current abortion ban doesn’t allow the procedure in the case of rape or incest.“Meanwhile, the anti side won’t have those resources to kind of try to make that counter argument as strongly, and they don’t have public opinion as strongly on their side,” Rogers said.There is precedent of a well-funded initiative almost failing due to opposition from socially conservative voters.In 2006, a measure providing constitutional protections for embryonic stem cell research nearly failed — even though a campaign committee aimed at passing it had a commanding financial advantage.Former state Sen. Bob Onder was part of the opposition campaign to that measure. He said earlier this month it is possible to create a similar dynamic in 2024 against Amendment 3, if social conservatives who oppose abortion rights can band together.“This is not about reproductive rights or care for miscarriages or IVF or anything else,” said Onder, the GOP nominee for Missouri’s 3rd Congressional District seat. “Missourians will learn that out-of-state special interests and dark money from out of state is lying to them and they will reject this amendment.”Quade said earlier this month that Missourians of all political ideologies are ready to roll back the state’s abortion ban.“Regardless of political party, we hear from folks who are tired of politicians being in their doctor’s offices,” Quade said. “They want politicians to mind their own business. So this is going to excite folks all across the political spectrum.”
[ad_2]
Source link
Politics
Democrat Mark Osmack makes his case for Missouri treasurer

[ad_1]
Mark Osmack has been out of the electoral fray for awhile, but he never completely abandoned his passion for Missouri politics.Osmack, a Valley Park native and U.S. Army veteran, previously ran for Missouri’s 2nd Congressional District seat and for state Senate. Now he’s the Democratic nominee for state treasurer after receiving a phone call from Missouri Democratic Party Chairman Russ Carnahan asking him to run.“There’s a lot of decision making and processing and evaluation that goes into it, which is something I am very passionate and interested in,” Osmack said this week on an episode of Politically Speaking.Osmack is squaring off against state Treasurer Vivek Malek, who was able to easily win a crowded GOP primary against several veteran lawmakers including House Budget Chairman Cody Smith and state Sen. Andrew Koenig.While Malek was able to attract big donations to his political action committee and pour his own money into the campaign, Osmack isn’t worried that he won’t be able to compete in November. Since Malek was appointed to his post, Osmack contends he hasn’t proven that he’s a formidable opponent in a general election.“His actions and his decision making so far in his roughly two year tenure in that office have been questionable,” Osmack said.Among other things, Osmack was critical of Malek for placing unclaimed property notices on video gaming machines which are usually found in gas stations or convenience stores. The legality of the machines has been questioned for some time.As Malek explained on his own episode of Politically Speaking, he wanted to make sure the unclaimed property program was as widely advertised as possible. But he acknowledged it was a mistake to put the decals close to the machines and ultimately decided to remove them.Osmack said: “This doesn’t even pass the common sense sniff test of, ‘Hey, should I put state stickers claiming you might have a billion dollars on a gambling machine that is not registered with the state of Missouri?’ If we’re gonna give kudos for him acknowledging the wrong thing, it never should have been done in the first place.”Osmack’s platform includes supporting programs providing school meals using Missouri agriculture products and making child care more accessible for the working class.He said the fact that Missouri has such a large surplus shows that it’s possible to create programs to make child care within reach for parents.“It is quite audacious for [Republicans] to brag about $8 billion, with a B, dollars in state surplus, while we offer next to no social services to include pre-K, daycare, or child care,” Osmack said.Here’s are some other topics Osmack discussed on the show:How he would handle managing the state’s pension systems and approving low-income housing tax credits. The state treasurer’s office is on boards overseeing both of those programs.Malek’s decision to cut off investments from Chinese companies. Osmack said that Missouri needs to be cautious about abandoning China as a business partner, especially since they’re a major consumer of the state’s agriculture products. “There’s a way to make this work where we are not supporting communist nations to the detriment of the United States or our allies, while also maintaining strong economic ties that benefit Missouri farmers,” he said.What it was like to witness the skirmish at the Missouri State Fair between U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley and Democratic challenger Lucas Kunce.Whether Kunce can get the support of influential groups like the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, which often channels money and staff to states with competitive Senate elections.
[ad_2]
Source link
Politics
As Illinois receives praise for its cannabis equity efforts, stakeholders work on system’s flaws

[ad_1]
Medical marijuana patients can now purchase cannabis grown by small businesses as part of their allotment, Illinois’ top cannabis regulator said, but smaller, newly licensed cannabis growers are still seeking greater access to the state’s medical marijuana customers.Illinois legalized medicinal marijuana beginning in 2014, then legalized it for recreational use in 2020. While the 2020 law legalized cannabis use for any adult age 21 or older, it did not expand licensing for medical dispensaries.Patients can purchase marijuana as part of the medical cannabis program at dual-purpose dispensaries, which are licensed to serve both medical and recreational customers. But dual-purpose dispensaries are greatly outnumbered by dispensaries only licensed to sell recreationally, and there are no medical-only dispensaries in the state.As another part of the adult-use legalization law, lawmakers created a “craft grow” license category that was designed to give more opportunities to Illinoisans hoping to legally grow and sell marijuana. The smaller-scale grow operations were part of the 2020 law’s efforts to diversify the cannabis industry in Illinois.Prior to that, all cultivation centers in Illinois were large-scale operations dominated by large multi-state operators. The existing cultivators, mostly in operation since 2014, were allowed to grow recreational cannabis beginning in 2019.Until recently, dual-purpose dispensaries have been unsure as to whether craft-grown products, made by social equity licensees — those who have lived in a disproportionately impacted area or have been historically impacted by the war on drugs — can be sold medicinally as part of a patient’s medical allotment.Erin Johnson, the state’s cannabis regulation oversight officer, told Capitol News Illinois last month that her office has “been telling dispensaries, as they have been asking us” they can now sell craft-grown products to medical patients.“There was just a track and trace issue on our end, but never anything statutorily,” she said.
Dilpreet Raju
/
Capitol News IllinoisThe graphic shows how cannabis grown in Illinois gets from cultivation centers to customers.
No notice has been posted, but Johnson’s verbal guidance comes almost two years after the first craft grow business went online in Illinois.It allows roughly 150,000 medical patients, who dispensary owners say are the most consistent purchasers of marijuana, to buy products made by social equity businesses without paying recreational taxes. However — even as more dispensaries open — the number available to medical patients has not increased since 2018, something the Cannabis Regulation Oversight Office “desperately” wants to see changed. Johnson said Illinois is a limited license state, meaning “there are caps on everything” to help control the relatively new market.Berwyn Thompkins, who operates two cannabis businesses, said the rules limited options for patients and small businesses.“It’s about access,” Thompkins said. “Why wouldn’t we want all the patients — which the (adult-use) program was initially built around — why wouldn’t we want them to have access? They should have access to any dispensary.”Customers with a medical marijuana card pay a 1% tax on all marijuana products, whereas recreational customers pay retail taxes between roughly 20 and 40% on a given cannabis product, when accounting for local taxes.While Illinois has received praise for its equity-focused cannabis law, including through an independent study that showed more people of color own cannabis licenses than in any other state, some industry operators say they’ve experienced many unnecessary hurdles getting their businesses up and running.The state, in fact, announced last month that it had opened its 100th social equity dispensary.But Steve Olson, purchasing manager at a pair of dispensaries (including one dual-purpose dispensary) near Rockford, said small specialty license holders have been left in the lurch since the first craft grower opened in October 2022.“You would think that this would be something they’re (the government) trying to help out these social equity companies with, but they’re putting handcuffs on them in so many different spots,” he said. “One of them being this medical thing.”Olson said he contacted state agencies, including the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation, months ago about whether craft products can be sold to medical patients at their retail tax rate, but only heard one response: “They all say it was an oversight.”This potentially hurt social equity companies because they sell wholesale to dispensaries and may have been missing out on a consistent customer base through those medical dispensaries.Olson said the state’s attempts to provide licensees with a path to a successful business over the years, such as with corrective lotteries that granted more social equity licenses, have come up short.“It’s like they almost set up the social equity thing to fail so the big guys could come in and swoop up all these licenses,” Olson said. “I hate to feel like that but, if you look at it, it’s pretty black and white.”Olson said craft companies benefit from any type of retail sale.“If we sell it to medical patients or not, it’s a matter of, ‘Are we collecting the proper taxes?’ That’s all it is,” he said.State revenue from cannabis taxes, licensing costs and other fees goes into the Cannabis Regulation Fund, which is used to fund a host of programs, including cannabis offense expungement, the general revenue fund, and the R3 campaign aiming to uplift disinvested communities.For fiscal year 2024, nearly $256 million was paid out from Cannabis Regulation Fund for related initiatives, which includes almost $89 million transferred to the state’s general revenue fund and more than $20 million distributed to local governments, according to the Illinois Department of Revenue.Medical access still limitedThe state’s 55 medical dispensaries that predate the 2020 legalization law, mostly owned by publicly traded multistate operators that had been operating in Illinois since 2014 under the state’s medical marijuana program, were automatically granted a right to licenses to sell recreationally in January 2020. That gave them a dual-purpose license that no new entrants into the market can receive under current law.Since expanding their clientele in 2020, Illinois dispensaries have sold more than $6 billion worth of cannabis products through recreational transactions alone.Nearly two-thirds of dispensaries licensed to sell to medical patients are in the northeast counties of Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake and Will. Dual-purpose dispensaries only represent about 20 percent of the state’s dispensaries.While the state began offering recreational dispensary licenses since the adult-use legalization law passed, it has not granted a new medical dispensary license since 2018. That has allowed the established players to continue to corner the market on the state’s nearly 150,000 medical marijuana patients.But social equity licensees and advocates say there are more ways to level the playing field, including expanding access to medical sales.Johnson, who became the state’s top cannabis regulator in late 2022, expressed hope for movement during the fall veto session on House Bill 2911, which would expand medical access to all Illinois dispensaries.“We would like every single dispensary in Illinois to be able to serve medical patients,” Johnson said. “It’s something that medical patients have been asking for, for years.”Johnson said the bill would benefit patients and small businesses.“It’s something we desperately want to happen as a state system, because we want to make sure that medical patients are able to easily access what they need,” she said. “We also think it’s good for our social equity dispensaries, as they’re opening, to be able to serve medical patients.”Rep. Bob Morgan, D-Deerfield, who was the first statewide project coordinator for Illinois’ medical cannabis program prior to joining the legislature, wrote in an email to Capitol News Illinois that the state needs to be doing more for its patients.“Illinois is failing the state’s 150,000 medical cannabis patients with debilitating conditions. Too many are still denied the patient protections they deserve, including access to their medicine,” Morgan wrote, adding he would continue to work with stakeholders on further legislation.Capitol News Illinois is a nonprofit, nonpartisan news service covering state government. It is distributed to hundreds of newspapers, radio and TV stations statewide. It is funded primarily by the Illinois Press Foundation and the Robert R. McCormick Foundation, along with major contributions from the Illinois Broadcasters Foundation and Southern Illinois Editorial Association.
[ad_2]
Source link
-
Politics2 years ago
Prenzler ‘reconsidered’ campaign donors, accepts vendor funds
-
Board Bills1 year ago
2024-2025 Board Bill 80 — Prohibiting Street Takeovers
-
Business3 years ago
Fields Foods to open new grocery in Pagedale in March
-
Board Bills3 years ago
2022-2023 Board Bill 168 — City’s Capital Fund
-
Business3 years ago
We Live Here Auténtico! | The Hispanic Chamber | Community and Connection Central
-
Entertainment1 year ago
OK, That New Cardinals/Nelly City Connect Collab Is Kind of Great
-
Entertainment3 years ago
St.Louis Man Sounds Just Like Whitley Hewsten, Plans on Performing At The Shayfitz Arena.
-
Politics1 year ago
Illinois residents can submit designs for the state’s new flag