Seventh Signature and the Bill is Free!
The governor will be jetting around Missouri over the coming week for ceremonial signings of H.B. 1311, the Autism Spectrum Disorder Coverage Bill. On Thursday, he will go to Joplin, Springfield, and Columbia. On Friday, he’ll be in St. Louis and Kansas City. On Tuesday, he’ll be in Cape Girardeau. Why one bill requires the governor to be present at six signing ceremonies across the state leads to questions about fiscal responsibility. One would hope that this expense and hoopla isn’t devoted to each of the more than 100 bills delivered to the governor for a signature.
Beyond travel expenses, though, the signing of this bill will be costly for Missouri. I’ve written before about why I think an autism mandate is bad policy for Missouri. The bill may be a huge gain for the 300 to 350 families that will be helped by the mandate, but the rest of Missouri will pay for it in higher insurance costs and foregone jobs.
I have no problem with my insurance covering unforseen events such as having a child born with autism. I do have a problem with my health insurance covering medical afflictions relating to adults making the conscious decision to be obese or a smoker.
Comment by DaveG — June 8, 2010 @ 7:03 p.m.
Perhaps the visits around the state to sign this specific bill are bundled with other official business? That would mean that Nixon’s trips around the state are not solely for the purpose of signing every single bill but rather represent one part of an official itinerary. If that is the case, Nixon is to be commended for fiscal responsibility here.
Comment by Eapen Thampy — June 8, 2010 @ 8:29 p.m.
Interesting conjecture, Eapen, but there really isn’t any evidence to support that. In fact, as of this afternoon, the bill signing dates for St. Louis and Joplin switched, leading one to believe that he wasn’t there for other business. His tight schedule (allotting only enough time for travel) would also point to the governor only being in these locations for the bill. (The new Thursday times: 10 a.m. St. Louis, 12:45 p.m. in Springfield, 3 p.m. in Columbia. Enough time for a ceremony and a plane/helicopter ride.)
Really though, in this day and age, why does one need to sign something six times when once is more than enough? (Cape Girardeau has been dropped, but five is still excessive, in my opinion.) I understand that this is an important bill to many people, but personally, I sincerely hope this grandiose spectacle is not repeated for multiple bills.
Comment by Caitlin Hartsell — June 9, 2010 @ 9:58 p.m.
I don’t think that you can infer that Nixon’s tight travel schedule means that official business is not “bundled”. Many important conversations happen during these trips, if not directly with the governor, then with his staff. I think it would be unfair to not assign that charitable and plausible interpretation to Nixon’s trip, and I think that there is also significant value to a governor to cover that much distance and catch a glimpse of what’s happening around the state.
Clearly, too, bill signing ceremonies rarely happen in this fashion, and I don’t think that there’s any indication that this specific one happened in an excessive or frivolous manner. If you’re going to level that implication I think you need much clearer support for your argument.
Comment by Eapen Thampy — June 10, 2010 @ 11:01 a.m.
I apologize; I assumed that linking to other articles showing that this behavior is rather common (and a large expense for the taxpayers) was sufficient evidence. In case you missed them, here they are again:
http://www.columbiamissourian.com/stories/2009/06/02/gov-jay-nixon-bills-other-offices-flights/
http://www.showmedaily.org/2010/02/fiscal-responsibility.html
Comment by Caitlin Hartsell — June 10, 2010 @ 11:23 a.m.
Oh, no, I read the same articles, but I don’t think they support the implication you drew from them. You point to data that says Jay Nixon flew a lot and draw the implication that it is excessive or frivolous, my argument is that you can’t draw that implication on the basis of the evidence presented. You have to win that these expenditures represents waste, not just that they happened.
Comment by Eapen Thampy — June 10, 2010 @ 1:23 p.m.
In other words, you look exclusively at costs, and not benefits.
Comment by Eapen Thampy — June 10, 2010 @ 1:24 p.m.
The other argument I’d make is that Nixon has an approval rating around 60%, last I saw. If these trips really represented waste, I’d hazard a guess that there would be a lot more noise made about them, and his approval rating would reflect that.
Comment by Eapen Thampy — June 10, 2010 @ 1:28 p.m.
“Why one bill requires the governor to be present at six signing ceremonies across the state leads to questions about fiscal responsibility. One would hope that this expense and hoopla isn’t devoted to each of the more than 100 bills delivered to the governor for a signature.”
I think the original post still speaks for itself. I didn’t say that these actions were definitively fiscally irresponsible, but they raise questions that have not been answered by the governor or yourself. Politicians should be held accountable to the taxpayers; they owe the public answers about their expenditures. Unless you have any sort of evidence (beyond unsubstantiated conjecture) that this is a responsible use of funds, you don’t have much of an argument, especially considering that this governor travels more than any previous governor, despite the fact that modern technology makes that necessity moot in this day and age.
Comment by Caitlin Hartsell — June 10, 2010 @ 1:55 p.m.
And regarding his popularity rating, these trips are not well-known, as he hides them in other departments’ budgets.
Comment by Caitlin Hartsell — June 10, 2010 @ 1:56 p.m.
While I hate to flood the comments, I think that this is worth noting, from the Kansas City Star:
“The multiple ceremonial signings are becoming routine for Nixon. Already this year, he has done fly-around signings for a drunken-driving bill, while last year he made multiple stops to trumpet passage of job-creation legislation.”
Comment by Caitlin Hartsell — June 10, 2010 @ 2:31 p.m.
You think that modern technology makes travel for the purpose of generating “local” information moot? In theory I agree with that notion, but there are still large inefficiencies in practice.
Comment by Eapen Thampy — June 14, 2010 @ 1:46 p.m.
More about the governor’s travel.
And yes, I do not think the governor needs to go to 5 or 6 places to sign one bill. It’s needlessly expensive, but we obviously won’t agree here.
Comment by Caitlin Hartsell — June 14, 2010 @ 1:54 p.m.
Yes, because I’m making an argument that distinguishes between nominal and real reasons for the governor traveling. You note the nominal reason is to sign these bills. I argue that the real reason is to bundle official business.
Comment by Eapen Thampy — June 14, 2010 @ 2:46 p.m.
If it can be demonstrated that such bundling is going on, that would make the practice less egregious, but even if the governor needs to be in each location for a reason unrelated to the bill, the signing ceremonies themselves each take time and constitute unnecessary duplication of effort.
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, assuming efficiency-maximizing behavior from public officials is generally unwarranted.
Comment by Eric D. Dixon — June 14, 2010 @ 4:05 p.m.