Blunt talks of legal reform, prioritizes education

Springfield Business Journal: What are your top priorities for business in Missouri?

Matt Blunt: Improving the entrepreneurial climate is one of the most important things I can do as governor of the state. I am committed to doing it. I would say the two most important (aspects) are, in order, liability reform and workers’ compensation reform. Those are two costs that really are making it difficult for Missouri entrepreneurs and employers to be competitive with entrepreneurs and employers in other states. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce ranks the business legal climates of states and they rank Missouri 41. That’s not nearly competitive enough. You’ll see action on both those issues this year in the Missouri General Assembly.

SBJ: Reducing taxes on small businesses is part of your economic development plan. What taxes have you identified, and how do you plan to reduce them?

MB: I’ve called for eliminating the franchise tax, which I think is an antiquated tax. We’re going to need to watch carefully what the federal government does in terms of tax reform. I know the president has mentioned it, and several members of the Congress have a real commitment to tax simplification or perhaps shifting how taxes are collected. As they make their changes, I think we need to look at ways that we can have a tax burden in our state that is truly competitive with other states in the nation.

SBJ: Your tax cuts would resemble those at the federal level?

MB: When the federal government makes changes in the tax code, that has an impact on Missouri. If they’re doing things that simplify the tax code at the federal level, I think Missouri is going to follow suit. One of the reasons to simplify the tax code is to make it less costly for entrepreneurs and employers to comply with. If Missouri doesn’t follow suit, then we deprive our citizens of that benefit.

SBJ: What specific issues would a tort reform bill need to address to get your signature?

MB: To have a meaningful tort reform bill, you certainly need venue reform so cases that don’t have anything to do with St. Louis city aren’t tried in St. Louis city. Venue reform is essential, and I’m for pretty strict venue language that would try civil litigation in the venue in which it occurred.

I think we need a more reasonable noneconomic damage cap. I publicly support a cap as low as $250,000 for noneconomic damages in medical malpractice cases. Ten states, including Texas and California, have a $250,000 noneconomic damage cap on medical malpractice cases. If it works in 10 states, including the nation’s two most populous, it could work here, and I think it’d be beneficial to our doctors.

The joint and several liability reform is essential. I don’t believe if you’re 1 percent liable you ought to pay 100 percent of the damages because you have the most assets of all the parties involved in the case.

SBJ: What specific issues would a work comp reform bill need to address to get your signature?

MB: We need to ensure that work truly is the dominant cause that the injury exists. I think we need to have an impartial construction of the statute. Certainly, appointments that I make to the Labor and Industrial Commission and administrative law positions will be appointments that really do reflect a desire to ensure that the statutes are being applied in a fair and impartial way to make sure that every Missourian that’s injured on the job is adequately compensated, but also to help ensure that there is not fraud. The goal is to be a system that is competitive with other states.

SBJ: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has indicated the No. 1 concern for small businesses is health care costs. What is the role of the governor and the state government in addressing those costs?

MB: Liability cost, medical malpractice insurance costs are a component of health care costs. I think we need to look at liability reform that helps doctors and health care providers reduce those costs. It does have an impact. In my administration, you’ll have an administration that actively encourages the Congress to allow for association health care plans so that small employers can band together and purchase health care plans. That allows them to spread their risk and also have the same buying power that large employers in our nation have today.

SBJ: How soon would you hope such plans could be put to use?

MB: Obviously, it’s always difficult to move things through the Congress – Washington is a cumbersome place. I think if they were to pass legislation allowing association health care plans to cross state borders, it would be fairly quickly that you would see those sorts of ... plans come into the marketplace.

SBJ: You have said that public education is your top budget priority. How will that be reflected in the budget you submit?

MB: The budget I submit is going to demonstrate that we’re a little more serious about keeping commitments to public education. We’ll spend more on education in this coming fiscal year than we did in the last, and I think that is important. Education ought to be our No. 1 budget priority, just as it ought to be our No. 1 public policy priority.

One of the most important things that we can do, and something that we will begin to do in the weeks ahead, is craft a new school funding formula – one that’s got greater equity. The process that we will embark on is going to demonstrate that we’re serious about providing solid funding for public schools all across our state. I believe that’s the most important thing that state government does. There is no need to wait for a court to tell us that the formula is broken. We all know it is broken. We seldom benefit in government when we allow the courts to tell the rest of government what to do. I think we need to begin that process and craft a new formula, if possible, before the courts make a decision, ordering us to take some action on the formula.

SBJ: Isn’t that easier said than done?

MB: I think everything is easier said than done.

SBJ: You voted in favor of Amendment 3. What is your take on the issue, considering public education is your top budget priority and Amendment 3 opponents say it will take money away from schools?

MB: I think it’s a matter of basic government accountability. Tax dollars that are collected for a specific reason need to be spent on that purpose. It undermines confidence in all of state government whenever you fail to keep that commitment.

SBJ: You are not concerned that education will lose out on this deal?

MB: I think most of the recipient agencies, the agencies that were receiving transportation tax dollars, can be more efficient than they are today. We are going to work with those agencies to make them more efficient and to really deal with a phased-in loss of that transportation tax revenue.

SBJ: You and Claire McCaskill fought a close race, and it wasn’t always pretty. Have the two of you spoken since the election?

MB: We spoke the night of the election. Auditor McCaskill was gracious in calling me and congratulating me on the victory. Certainly, I thanked her for that call and told her I wanted to work with her in her capacity of state auditor in the next couple years to make improvements in our state government.

[[In-content Ad]]