Tony Lovasco – Missouri House of Representatives Newsroom

Help for low-income and disabled Missourians a focus in final days of session

In the House, proposals that would help Missourians with disabilities, those with low incomes, and new mothers on state assistance, are being given every chance to become law before the end of the session next week. The chamber has voted to add those pieces of legislation to several bills that are still in play in these final days.

*Representative Melanie Stinnett (Photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)*

Among those is a transitional program meant to help people get off of state assistance gradually as their income increases. House members say the state’s assistance programs for low-income Missourians trap people in poverty because if they accept a raise that puts them above a program’s limits, they could lose more in state benefits than they gain from a raise.

The measure, sponsored by Representative Alex Riley (R-Springfield), would let people incrementally transition off of state assistance, “Trying to create this transitional system that encouraged people to work, that encouraged people to take those raises and to start to work their way up the income ladder and to hopefully, once this goes into effect, actually reduce the number of people receiving benefits in the state.”

That provision is the product of years of work by members of both parties. Lee’s Summit Democrat Keri Ingle called it a, “great bill … it’s been a bipartisan effort to essentially wean folks off of assistance, whether it’s TANF or SNAP, and make it easier for Missourians to get what they need to be successful working citizens while at the same time making sure that all of their needs are being met.”

*Representative Bridget Walsh Moore (Photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)*

The House has voted this week to add that language to two bills. It did the same for language sponsored by Representative Melanie Stinnett (R-Springfield) that could allow individuals with disabilities to finally be able to advance in their careers without worry of losing state assistance.

The changes to the state’s Ticket to Work health insurance program within MO HealthNet would increase the limit to how much a person can earn before they lose benefits, and would not count up to $50,000 of a spouse’s income toward that limit. It would also direct state agencies to have policies to recruit and keep employees with disabilities and create competitive ways to integrate them into workforces.

“These are people who are actually begging us to work, who want to work, who want to get promotions, who want to seek new jobs. What [this] bill does is address the fiscal cliff, making sure that you don’t have to do quite as much of a tap dance that too many people in our state are doing, where you’re allowed to make so much money but only to a certain point,” said St. Louis Democrat Bridget Walsh Moore.

Walsh Moore, who lives and works with a disability, said the benefits that individuals stand to lose often enable them to have a job in the first place. Things like, “a personal care attendant, your health insurance your additional services and equipment that you receive through the state that allow you to work. This would address and allow you to make more money, put that money back into the economy because if you make more money you’re going to spend more money.”

*Representative Alex Riley (Photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)*

Also supported in the House this week has been a bipartisan plan to extend post-partum coverage under MO HealthNet or Show-Me Healthy Babies from 60 days to a year.

Stinnett, one of several sponsors of this proposal, said, “In 2019, 75-percent of pregnancy-related deaths in Missouri were determined to be preventable; those deaths that were attributed to things like embolism, hemorrhage, infections, concerns with cardiovascular health, chronic health conditions, and there’s one common denominator that can save these women’s lives, and that’s healthcare access.”

Several Republicans have cited this as an important pro-life provision. Representative Darin Chappell (R-Rogersville) said, “We who talk about being pro-life, I don’t know how we do that and then cut off the most vulnerable of our society after 60 days … I believe if we’re ever going to spend money [on benefits programs] it ought to be for those most vulnerable among us. Those very ones that we fought for them to be able to be born. We have to take care of them.”

Representative Tony Lovasco (R-O’Fallon) said even very conservative Republicans like himself could get behind all of these proposals, which don’t expand the state’s assistance programs.

*Representative Keri Ingle (Photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications*

“The reality is we are in a situation where we all, in all of our districts, have employers that are begging for workers. The number of unfilled positions right now is just astronomical and the idea that we as a state might incentivize people to stay home and not work and not take a promotion, not take a job opportunity because they might just make a slim little bit more money that puts them in a hole when it comes to feeding their family, well that’s just insane.”

Sponsors are hopeful at least one of the bills containing these provisions will reach the governor’s desk before the session closes at 6pm on May 12.

House considers further reduction in vehicle safety inspection requirements

A state representative who several years ago championed an easing of Missouri’s vehicle safety inspection law says it’s time to make more vehicles exempt.

*Representative J. Eggleston (Photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)*

Senate Bill 89, passed in 2019, rolled back that law. Since it was enacted, safety inspections have not been required on vehicles that have fewer than 150,000 miles and are up to ten years old. That portion of SB 89 was proposed by Representative J. Eggleston (R-Maysville).

He says in the time since that law passed Missouri’s roads have been no less safe.

“[SB 89] got rid of about half of the cars that needed to be inspected from being inspected … here we are, two or three years later, I’ve looked, I have not found any sudden burst of cars falling apart and causing accidents so I think we’re ready to get rid of [vehicle inspections],” Eggleston told the House Committee on Downsizing State Government.

Eggleston’s proposal, however, wouldn’t completely eliminate inspections in Missouri. Under House Bill 2499, all vehicles made since 2012 and having fewer than 150,000 miles would be exempt.

“I toyed with just doing an all-out, getting rid of it all at once … but because of some of the consternation [about the 2019 proposal], I thought we’ll just ease out of it,” said Eggleston. “So I basically said, ‘Any car that’s not being inspected today is not ever going to have to be inspected. Any of them that are inspected today will continue’ … so over time this will just naturally phase itself out.”

Eggleston’s idea has some support, including from O’Fallon representative Tony Lovasco (R).

“I do think that ultimately, as technology increases, we’re going to see more and more construction improvements made and what not where [inspections are] really going to be completely superfluous very soon, and I think it does makes sense to have it just drop off naturally rather than us revisiting this every few years,” said Lovasco.

Representative Michael Burton (D-Lakeshire) doesn’t support extending the 2019 legislation. He said for him it’s an issue of safety.

“Let’s talk about a cracked windshield. That’s something that’s inspected whenever the car goes through an inspection, and I know we have laws where you can’t drive around with a cracked windshield but we also know that police officers right now are generally not pulling people over for that, but I think that can be a safety issue … same thing with seatbelts. Whenever you get a car inspection they’re checking to make sure all the seatbelts work and what not. That’s a safety concern of mine.”

Eggleston said there are 35 states which have no vehicle inspection requirements, and that includes all the states that border Missouri. He said that hasn’t made their roads less safe than those states who have such a requirement.

“Their statistics on accidents and deaths are no different than ours. There’s no correlation between states that have inspection programs and safety at all,” said Eggleston. “The safety issue you were talking about, it’s perceived but I don’t think it’s actual. There’s no data to back that up.”

The committee’s top Democrat, Gretchen Bangert (Florrisant), opposed the 2019 legislation and has reservations about taking it further. She also dislikes that the 2019 law allows vehicles to be sold without an inspection, and wishes this bill would reverse that.

“So I could have a car that’s a junker and has some sort of issue, and if you don’t know because you don’t get an inspection yourself and just trust me, then the car hasn’t been inspected. That’s one loophole that I wish we could look at is if you were selling a car to another person that it would have to be inspected regardless of the miles,” said Bangert.

Eggleston said it is up to a potential buyer to decide whether to get an inspection on a vehicle they’re considering purchasing.

His 2019 legislation, as a stand-alone before it was amended onto SB 89, passed out of the House 102-45.

The committee has not voted on HB 2499.

Previous stories:

Bill rolling back vehicle inspection requirement signed into law

House votes to roll back, rather than eliminate, vehicle inspection requirements

House committee asked to weigh stronger civil asset forfeiture law

A House committee has been asked to consider closing what’s been called a “loophole” in Missouri law regarding civil asset forfeiture.

*Representative Tony Lovasco (Photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)*

Civil asset forfeiture, “allows the government to take your private property without compensation and without the need to convict you or even charge you with a crime,” Representative Tony Lovasco (R-O’Fallon) told the House Committee on General Laws.

“Now you might think that this is a ridiculous process that we wouldn’t allow here in Missouri, and you’d mostly be right,” Lovasco continues, but he says there’s a hitch. While Missouri law doesn’t allow for civil asset forfeiture without a conviction he said local prosecutors are getting around it through the federal equitable sharing program.

“This program allows local prosecutors to transfer assets to federal jurisdiction to actually proceed with a case under federal law, which does not have the same due process rights that Missouri’s law affords,” said Lovasco.

He said the federal program also allows 80-percent of the proceeds stemming from seized assets to go to the law enforcement agencies who seized them, “which creates an unfortunate, perverse incentive to be very, very aggressive at actually filing these cases.”

Lovasco’s proposal, House Bill 1613, would block Missouri law enforcement and prosecutors from transferring seized property to federal authorities. It would also stipulate that federal authorities working with authorities in Missouri must give responsibility for seized property to a state entity.

The bill would apply to seizures including less than $100,000 in U.S. currency. Lovasco explained this was a compromise with law enforcement, who told him that most cases involving that amount of money or more are tied to drug trafficking. He said he doesn’t like this limit but it will make the bill more appealing to some lawmakers.

The plan has bipartisan appeal including from Peter Merideth (St. Louis), the committee’s top Democrat. He told Lovasco he strongly agrees with the proposal but he also doesn’t like that $100,000 cap.

Lovasco said nationwide, the median amount of money that has been seized by authorities is less than $1,300. In Missouri the number is higher, but he argues that in most cases money has been seized from people who aren’t involved in crime at all.

He showed his colleagues a blank Uniform Vehicle Stop Report which includes check boxes for listing contraband that is discovered.

“Currency is listed as a check box. We are in a situation where simply traveling throughout the State of Missouri with legal tender could mark you as a target for law enforcement and subject to having your property taken from you without trial. That is unacceptable. My bill aims to correct that,” said Lovasco.

Reverend Darryl Gray of St. Louis told the committee civil asset forfeiture reform is important in the African American communities of the state.

“If one of your colleagues is driving down the street going to buy hay with $10,000 in cash and they got pulled over and one of my colleagues is driving down the street in my neighborhood with $10,000 in cash, your friend might go home with $10,000. Where I live they’re not going home with that $10,000. That’s another reality, too,” said Gray.

“Stopping someone in my community with x-number of dollars, be it $10,000, $5,000, or $1,000, and you take that away based on some suspicion you have and … turns out that no crime has been committed, the effect that has on that person’s family, that is my biggest concern.”

The only opposition to the bill voiced in the hearing came from St. Charles County. Lobbying on behalf of the County, Michael Gibbons said the county’s prosecutors and others believe such asset forfeiture is an effective tool in fighting drug trafficking. He maintains it is done in St. Charles County without abuses described by Lovasco and other backers.

“We believe that this is a very important tool to combat the kind of crimes that we’re seeing. We think we do it effectively, we absolutely believe we do it the right way and … there’s been no evidence presented today, anyway, that says that we’re not,” said Gibbons.

The committee has not voted on the legislation.