Senator proposes constitutional 'Show Me Prosperity Fund' to fund state government from investment earnings
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
SubscribeSummary
A Senate sponsor introduced SJR95, a constitutional amendment proposing a long‑term endowment to be seeded by a one‑time appropriation and grown by compound returns with the eventual aim of replacing state tax revenue; senators pressed for realistic funding and timeline assumptions.
Senate Joint Resolution 95 (SJR95) was introduced and debated as a long‑term plan to transform state finance. The sponsor described creating a constitutionally protected 'Show Me Prosperity Fund' overseen by the state treasurer, intended to grow by investment returns and, over many decades, distribute earnings that could replace state‑imposed taxes.
On the floor, senators asked practical finance questions: what initial appropriation would be required, how long the fund would need to compound, and whether it is prudent to seed such an endowment while the state faces short‑term budget pressures. The sponsor emphasized intergenerational planning, gave numerical examples (illustrating the power of compound interest over many decades), and said implementation details—including any initial appropriation—would be worked through with budget chairs.
Senators noted tradeoffs: appropriating funds to a seed endowment would mean unavailable dollars for today’s services (for example, developmental disability services or other pressing needs mentioned on the floor). Other senators suggested gifts and private donations could supplement any legislative appropriation.
The Senate adopted a committee substitute and perfected SJR95 for printing; the measure, as a constitutional amendment, would require voter approval to take effect. Supporters framed it as a long‑range structural reform; critics warned about opportunity costs, timing and the need for clear numerical modeling.
The Senate moved the substitute forward for printing and further consideration; floor questions signaled a continuing legislative conversation about the feasibility and tradeoffs of using investment returns as an eventual replacement for tax revenue.
