Sifting the Christians

From: Broken Believers

 "The characteristic of the modern State is that those who appear to govern do not in fact govern. They are constrained by forces which they do not name, which they rarely understand, and which they cannot openly oppose. The result is that public men become timid. They avoid plain speech. They fear exposure more than injustice, and loss of position more than loss of honor. In such a condition courage disappears first, and freedom follows it." -- Hilaire Belloc

 By Gretchen Garrity

Pro-life Christians and Christian politicians, still reeling from the 2024 vote to enshrine abortion in the Missouri Constitution, are now being confronted with the issue of how to undo it. 

How did it come about that Roe v. Wade was overturned on June 24, 2022 but abortion in Missouri was voted in on Nov. 5, 2024? In 2022, Missouri had immediately acted on the overturning of Roe v. Wade by means of a trigger ban, which effectively outlawed abortion except to save the life of the mother.

Less than 24 months later, a well-organized and well-funded campaign to allow for the legal murder of pre-born persons was conducted and passed in Amendment 3. The pro-life response was to provide a new and improved Amendment 3 added to the November 2026 ballot. The ballot language is as follows:

“Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to:

• Repeal the 2024 voter-approved Amendment providing reproductive healthcare rights, including abortion through fetal viability;

• Allow abortions for rape and incest (under twelve-weeks’ gestation), emergencies, and fetal anomalies;

• Allow legislation regulating abortion;

• Ensure parental consent for minors’ abortions;

• Prohibit gender transition procedures for minors?

State governmental entities estimate no costs or savings. Greene County estimates it may experience an unknown increase in tax revenue. Other local governmental entities estimate no costs or savings."

The ballot language purports to make clear exactly what your Yes or No vote would mean. Let's examine it more closely.

The language is couched in such terms that a Yes vote seems to bring more restrictions on abortion. But does it accomplish the end of abortion? Does it really restrict abortion?

Issue No. 1: Does the new and improved Amendment 3 curtail or restrict in any way chemically-induced abortions, which comprise about 63% of abortions nationally?

The simple answer is NO, chemical abortions wherein the mother takes an abortion pill and aborts her baby at home, is not addressed in the new Amendment 3. At this time there is no legislation in Missouri that regulates this type of abortion, and under reporting of these abortions is common.

Issue No. 2: How is rape of minors construed for the purposes of abortion in the new Amendment 3? 

Because a minor (anyone under 18) cannot legally consent to sexual relations, all babies conceived by minors can be considered the result of rape and thereby aborted.

Issue No. 3: "Ensures parental consent for minors' abortions" is an addition designed to fool voters. According to an article in the Missouri Independent, "Missouri’s parental consent law requires a minor attempting to access abortion receive at least one parent’s consent. The other parent must also be notified. If that’s not possible, they can also ask a judge to bypass the requirement." Read the article to see how deeply invested some groups are in ensuring your teen can get an abortion without your consent. 

That clause is added to convince voters that the "improved" Amendment 3 is adding something new. It is not. Amendment 3 ensures nothing for parental consent that was not already in Missouri law.

Issue No. 4: What is meant by "emergencies" in the ballot language?

According to the actual proposed language of Art. 1, Section 36(a), which will replace Section 36.1 of the Missouri Constitution should Amendment 3 be approved, a medical emergency is "a condition that, based on reasonable medical judgment, so complicates the medical condition of a pregnant woman as to necessitate the immediate termination of her pregnancy to avert the death of the pregnant woman or for which a delay will create a serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman. A medical emergency shall include, but not be limited to, an ectopic pregnancy at any point following the diagnosis of such and treatment for a miscarriage;"  

First, ectopic pregnancies do not end in abortion because such pregnancies are not viable.  According to The Heritage Foundation, "Treating an ectopic pregnancy is different from having an abortion. Abortion is an intentional, unnatural procedure that kills the baby in the womb. An ectopic procedure, in contrast, attempts to save the life of both mother and unborn child. A number of  treatment options are available, but each seeks to separate the embryo from the fallopian tubes."   

The treatment is not considered an abortion, so why was this included in the language of Amendment 3? If you want to get down to brass tacks, this kind of language is a form of witchcraft, because it seeks to manipulate the citizen to believe and vote a certain way.

Would a medical emergency be considered a woman who is depressed or suicidal? Would a gallbladder attack be considered a major bodily function that was impaired? One can see there will be no end to the medical emergencies upon which an abortion doctor can have "reasonable medical judgment."

Additionally, the term "under twelve weeks' gestation" is included only for instances of rape and incest. Abortion for "emergencies" and "fetal anomalies" is not restricted to a gestational range. It is stated in the fair ballot language but that has no binding legal effect. So again, witchcraft is employed with misleading information in the fair ballot language that is not in the actual wording of the ballot or the amendment. 

There's more. Is an examination legally required to determine the age of the pre-born baby? According to Missouri law, Missouri Revised Statutes § 188.030.2(1), yes "Except in the case of a medical emergency." There's that term again. Medical emergency. One can imagine the abortion industry will find many such emergencies if Amendment 3 is passed.

Issue No. 5: Are there guardrails in the new Amendment 3 for determining a rape occurred? No. There are no provisions in the proposed Amendment 3 or any current Missouri statutes. There is NO requirement to provide proof of rape. There does not need to be a police report, a physical examination or any other threshold in order to procure an abortion. A woman can simply assert that a rape happened and procure an abortion.

Are you beginning to see how voters are manipulated?

 Issue No. 6: Abortions will be publicly funded. Though not noted in the ballot wording, when looking at the actual amendment language you will find: "No public funds shall be expended for the purpose of performing, inducing, or otherwise assisting any abortion, except in cases of medical emergency, rape, or incest, as otherwise authorized by law." So, yes pro-life taxpayer, you will be paying for abortions if Amendment 3 passes. Medical emergencies, rapes, incest and 'otherwise authorized by law' will "necessarily skyrocket" (to quote a former President) when the abortion industry is involved.

Issue No. 7: Amendment 3 tacked on the following clause, "Prohibit gender transition procedures for minors." Currently, Missouri has banned "gender transition surgeries, cross-sex hormones and other gender-affirming care for minors." The ban is due to expire in 2027. A good question to ask legislators who allow for temporary laws, is WHY? What political advantage is there by voting for temporary laws regarding children's health and welfare? And WHY tack on vague, lawyerly wording onto Amendment 3? Again, it's there to fool voters and lull them into a sense that some good is being done when it is not.

Are you feeling the chaos and confusion yet?

Sen. Mike Moon aptly describes the dilemma. He says, "Whether your decision to vote ‘yes’ or ‘no’ likely depends upon how much you trust in government.  How often have you seen the government enact a law (or, the people amend the constitution) and return to make additional changes after the law was passed (or, amendment adopted)?

I imagine the same action or inaction will occur with Amendment 3 (2026).  In my short 13-year experience in the MO General Assembly, I have witnessed a strong reluctance to re-visit the ‘hard’ topics in back-to-back sessions.  Although, we’ve been told that when Amendment 3 (2026) passes, “we’ll come back and make the necessary changes” (to remove the exceptions for rape, incest, and fetal anomalies).

The reality (again, my opinion) is that many of the ‘promise makers’ will be long gone from the legislature after the 2026 session, so they will have no ‘dog in the hunt’." 

Do read and subscribe to Sen. Moon's Report. He goes into detail about the sausage-making that happens in Jefferson City, and how a permanent solution to outlawing abortion in Missouri has been stopped by the likes of President Pro Tem Cindy O'Laughlin, who is aptly satirized HERE.

The Moral Implications for Christians

Legislators and presumed pro-life organizations who are pushing for a yes vote on Amendment 3 argue that some babies will be saved by the new A3. Is it true? Based on just the few arguments presented above, it is hard to imagine justifying the murder of many small persons in the hopes that a few may be saved.

There is not one single Bible verse that justifies killing babies in abortions.

— Stop Abortion Now (@LifeNewsToo) February 1, 2026

Is the language and intent of Amendment 3 justified in scripture? Paul addresses this issue in Romans.

"And why not say (as some people slander us by saying that we say), ‘Let us do evil so that good may come’?" (Rom. 3:8). 

The JB Phillips translation explains this concept more fully:

"It is like saying that if my lying throws into sharp relief the truth of God and, so to speak, enhances his reputation, then why should he repay me by judging me a sinner? Similarly, why not do evil that good may be, by contrast all the more conspicuous and valuable?...But, of course, such an argument is quite properly condemned."

The foundational Scripture that prohibits murder is Ex. 20:13, "Thou shalt not kill." There is no room for exceptions to murder. Jesus reiterated this commandment in the Gospel of Matthew, "...but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments...Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness..." (Matt. 19:17-19)

Nowhere in Scripture is it permissible to do evil that good may come. Nowhere is it suggested that Christians should compromise with or promote some murders so that other murders may possibly be averted. This type of mixture was condemned by Christ in Revelation when He confronted the compromising church at Pergamos. The Christians there had begun compromising with the pagan culture. They were apparently mixing Christian and pagan practices, and worse, some were teaching other Christians to do so also.

When pro-life groups run incremental legislation in red states, they delay the abolition of abortion.

There are more than a dozen states with Republican governing trifectas and legislative supermajorities. Planned Parenthood and the Democrats have no ability to stop these states…

— Ben Zeisloft (@BenZeisloft) February 2, 2026

Amendment 3 is a compromise with evil through the concept of Incrementalism. It is not a valid argument in terms of obedience to God's command to 'do no murder'. It can be implied in other things, such as implementing a plan to reduce taxes, or the phasing of a building plan. It is not valid to compromise on clear moral instruction from Scripture.

Satan greatly desires to "sift" Christians, to shake them loose from the foundation of Christ. A local pastor I know has said, "In matters of truth there is no compromise."

For a Christian to vote yes to murder certain unborn persons is a type of satanic compromise. It promises that by doing evil, good may come. Christians are accountable to God for their votes. Scripture is clear, murder is not permissible.

The Solution

The pro-life movement has been deeply subverted by those who compromise with the pagan concept of child murder. Organizations like Missouri Right to Life are content to allow the sacrifice of children while hiding under the cover of incrementalism. Instead of supporting personhood and equal protection bills that would effectively make abortion a crime, they now fight tooth and nail to prevent the criminalization of murder through abortion. Murder is a crime no matter who commits it or how small the victim.

You must understand that the leaders of the Pro-Life Movement are pro-choice liberals.

This is not distinguishable in any sense from how Planned Parenthood will oppose this bill. https://t.co/xiYeYTms2F

— James Silberman (@JSilbermanFTS) January 30, 2026

It is time for our legislators to SUPPORT, HEAR, and PASS a personhood or equal protection bill in Missouri. This would essentially stop abortion. Our leaders must be willing to lead and govern as they were elected to do.

That politicians like House Majority Leader Jon Patterson and President Pro Tem Cindy O'Laughlin continue to obstruct the bills put forth to abolish abortion is a disgusting stain on the now infamous GOP Super Majority in Missouri. Compromised GOP legislators continue to put forth and support amendments like A3, indicating a captured party that is at the mercy of "forces which they cannot openly oppose." They are willing victims of witchcraft--the manipulation of their minds and souls--in order to accomplish evil. 

Below are bills currently introduced in the Missouri Legislature, as well as the language of A3 that will be added to our state constitution should A3 pass. It must be noted that any of the bills below would have dramatic effect on ending abortion in Missouri.

Personhood resolutions ( From Abolish Abortion Missouri):

HJR 109 filed by Representative Burt Whaley

SJR 72 Filed by Senator Mike Moon

Equal Protection Bills:

HB 1682 Filed by Representative Burt Whaley

SB 951 Filed by Senator Mike Moon

 Additionally a repeal for Amendment 3 has been filed:

SJR 107 Filed by Senator Mike Moon

FULL TEXT OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT

If Amendment 3 is passed, the following language will replace Section 36.1:

Section 36(a).

1. The state's duty to protect public health and welfare includes protecting the integrity and ethics of the medical profession. The state's interest in regulating the practice of medicine is even greater in areas of medical and scientific uncertainty or in areas that raise grave moral and ethical concerns, including abortion and gender transition procedures.

2. An abortion may be performed or induced upon a woman in cases of medical emergency, fetal anomaly, rape, or incest. In the case of abortions performed or induced in cases of rape or incest, the abortion may be performed or induced no later than twelve weeks gestational age of the unborn child.

3. The general assembly may enact laws that regulate the provision of abortions, abortion facilities, and abortion providers to ensure the health and safety of the pregnant mother. These laws shall include, but not be limited to, laws requiring physicians providing abortion care to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital; laws requiring facilities where abortions are performed or induced to be licensed and inspected for clean and safe conditions and adequate instruments to treat any emergencies arising from an abortion procedure; laws requiring physicians to perform a sufficient examination of the woman to determine the unborn child's gestational age and any preexisting medical conditions that may influence the procedure; and laws requiring ultrasounds to be performed only by physicians or licensed medical technicians.

4. No abortion shall be performed or induced upon a woman based on a prenatal diagnosis, test, or screening indicating a disability in an unborn child, except in cases of a fetal anomaly.

5. No public funds shall be expended for the purpose of performing, inducing, or otherwise assisting any abortion, except in cases of medical emergency, rape, or incest, as otherwise authorized by law.

6. Except in cases of a medical emergency in which consent cannot be obtained, no abortion shall be performed or induced upon a woman without her voluntary and informed consent, given freely and without coercion. In the case of a minor under the age of eighteen years who is not emancipated, no person shall knowingly perform or induce an abortion, except in cases of a medical emergency in which consent cannot be obtained, unless the attending physician has obtained:

(1) the written consent of the minor and a parent or legal guardian; and

(2) documentation of the consent is retained in the minor's medical record. Licensed medical physicians shall be required to provide women with medically accurate information. The general assembly may enact laws to provide for the right of a minor to consent to an abortion as granted by a court order.

7. Fetal organ harvesting after an abortion is not permitted under any circumstances.

8. A woman's ability to access health care in cases of miscarriages, ectopic pregnancies, and other medical emergencies shall not be infringed by the state.

9. No gender transition surgeries shall be knowingly performed on children under eighteen years of age, and no cross-sex hormones or puberty-blocking drugs shall be knowingly prescribed or administered for the purpose of gender transition to children under eighteen years of age. The provisions of this section shall not apply to the use of such surgeries, drugs, or hormones to treat children born with a medically verifiable disorder of sex development or to treat any infection, injury, disease, or disorder unrelated to the purpose of a gender transition.

10. Any action challenging the validity of any state law relating to reproductive health care shall be brought in the Circuit Court of Cole County, Missouri. If a pleading, written motion, or other paper drawing into question the constitutionality of a state statute does not include the state, one of its agencies, or one of its officers or employees in an official capacity, the party bringing the action shall file a notice of constitutional question and serve it on the attorney general and the attorney general shall have the right to intervene in the litigation.

11. The general assembly shall have the authority to enact laws to carry out the provisions of this section.

12. As used in this section, the following terms mean:

(1) "Cross-sex hormones", testosterone, estrogen, or other androgens given to an individual in amounts that are greater or more potent than would normally occur naturally in a healthy individual of the same age and sex;

(2) "Fetal anomaly", a structural or functional abnormality in the unborn child's gestational development that would make life outside the womb impossible;

(3) "Fetal organ harvesting", collection of fetal tissue, organs, or fluids, including any biological material, for the purpose of selling or collecting for scientific purposes, but shall not include the utilization of fetal tissue, organs, or fluids to determine the cause or causes of any anomaly, illness, death, or genetic condition of the unborn child, the paternity of the unborn child, or for law enforcement purposes;

(4) "Gender transition surgery", a surgical procedure performed for the purpose of assisting an individual with identifying with and living as a gender different from his or her biological sex;

(5) "Medical emergency", a condition that, based on reasonable medical judgment, so complicates the medical condition of a pregnant woman as to necessitate the immediate termination of her pregnancy to avert the death of the pregnant woman or for which a delay will create a serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman. A medical emergency shall include, but not be limited to, an ectopic pregnancy at any point following the diagnosis of such and treatment for a miscarriage;

(6) "Puberty-blocking drugs", gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues or other synthetic drugs used to stop luteinizing hormone secretion and follicle stimulating hormone secretion, synthetic antiandrogen drugs to block the androgen receptor, or any other drug used to delay or suppress pubertal development in children for the purpose of assisting an individual with a gender transition;

(7) "Reasonable medical judgment", a medical judgment that would be made by a reasonably prudent physician, knowledgeable about the case and the treatment possibilities with respect to the medical conditions involved.

13. All provisions of this section are severable. If any provision of this section is found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unconstitutional or unconstitutionally enacted, the remaining provisions of this section shall be and remain valid.

For your viewing pleasure

 Missouri State Senator Mike Moon has shared helpful instructions on accessing the House's media archives (see below). You can view his latest newsletter HERE.

"Instructions for Accessing MO House of Representatives Media Archives
 
From the House.Mo.Gov website, click on the ‘menu’ bar (in the upper right of the page, you should see three stripes stacked one upon the other – that’s the ‘menu’ bar).
 
When the next page opens, click on the word, ‘Media’
 
When the next page opens, click on the phrase, ‘Media Center Menu’ at the top of the page.
 
When the next page opens, click on ‘Archive Video’.
 
At the top of the next page, click in the search field (the white space to the right of the words, ‘Start Date’
 
A calendar should appear: Using the arrows to the left and right of the Month and Year, select the date of the desired recording.
 
When the list of recordings appear, if the date you’re looking for is not in the list, click the word, ‘Next’ at the bottom right of the page.  A continued list should appear.  Continue this action, until the desired recording date appears in the selection.
 
Once you’ve ‘clicked’ on the desired selection, click on the arrow to begin the recording."

 

Episode 10: Abolish Abortion Missouri's Dr. Wes Scroggins

Dr. Wes Scroggins is the Executive Director of Abolish Abortion Missouri. He spoke with Right to Win Ozarks about current legislation and the Biblical foundation of AAMO.

Dr. Scroggins is a Professor of Management at Missouri State Uiversity, and an ordained minister. He is active in the fight to end abortion in Missouri and works with state legislators on abortion abolition legislation. He also works to educate the church on issues impacting the culture.

Current legislation noted in the podcast includes:

SJR8

SB119

SB619

HB1072

HB1119

HJR9

HJR14

Crosspost: 0% Income Tax is Managed Decay

 By David Rice

According to the Missouri Independent, Mike Kehoe stated during the campaign, “Since I’ve been in state government, we’ve cut the income tax from 6% to 4.7%,” Kehoe said. “I have backed $2.4 billion in tax cuts since I’ve been in office. But now, we need to take that to zero. That’s a key to our economic development strategy.”

 He’s working closely with two organizations, Americans for Prosperity and the American Legislative Exchange Council, to help push bills through this session to accomplish his campaign promise.

@RareCamellia [Camellia Peterson] is an AFP Lobbyist, self-declared Libertarian [Big-Government Libertarian], and School Choice [Tax-Funded Private and Homeschools] proponent. Experience has shown that it is always worth investigating how her benefactors manipulate the tax code if she is behind something.

Missouri's 2025 legislative session has revealed two competing visions for tax reform, each with dramatically different impacts on how Missourians will pay taxes. One plan aims to directly reduce taxes, while another reorganizes how taxes are collected while maintaining state revenue. 

The bill Kehoe supports doesn’t reduce spending, though I am sure they will claim their pretensions of tax cuts. Under Kehoe’s tenure as Lt. Governor, spending in Missouri doubled from ~$27B to ~$52B. This year, his budget is $54B. Kehoe stated they cut $2.4B in tax cuts, yet they spent so much money that it is hard to see where the tax cuts occurred.

 Bill Sponsors

Senator Mike Moon, widely recognized as the Senate's most conservative member, has introduced Senate Bill 1029. His proposal would phase out corporate income tax entirely by 2029, reducing it by 0.8% each year until it reaches zero.

On the other hand, Representative Bishop Davidson, not known for conservative values, introduced House Bill 100 and House Joint Resolution 1. These bills are backed by Americans for Prosperity (AFP), a pseudo-conservative advocacy group, and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), an organization that develops model legislation for state lawmakers. 

Bills are often written by front groups like ALEC, who then convince Reps like Davidson to present them in exchange for support during their runs for office. Reps like Davidson rarely read the bills but are convinced easily because they want the office and the prestige that comes with the office.

Several senators, including Curtis Trent, Ben Brown, Nick Schroer, and Jill Carter, have filed identical bills to increase the chances of passage. These senators have shown more interest in serving their own re-election than their constituents. 

Two Different Approaches

Moon's approach is straightforward: remove corporate taxes that businesses currently pass on to consumers through higher prices. Companies paying less in taxes can reduce prices on everyday items like groceries, shoes, and gas. His bill states, "Beginning with the 2029 tax year, there shall be no income tax on corporate income."

The AFP/ALEC plan is far more complex—this complexity is purposeful. They don’t want you to be able to read it or understand it. They disguise it using legal code. While marketed as an income tax reduction, it introduces a European-style consumption tax system known as the Value Added Tax (VAT). Here's how it works:

First, they expand what can be taxed. The plan removes Missouri's current ban on taxing services (adding a new tax) and sets a sales tax rate of "three and seven hundred seventy-five thousandths percent" on goods and services. This means you'll pay taxes on products and services like car repairs, haircuts, and professional fees. 

This is taking more money out of your pocket that you can’t afford and giving it not to the business owner but to the government. Taxes—corporate taxes—always go to the government. They don’t go to the business. The people who pay for them are the end consumers—you and me. Mike Moon understands this. AFP/ALEC also assumes you’re stupid and will be easily fooled. 

Second, they create a "Tax Reform Fund." The bill states, "if the amount of net general revenue collected exceeds the anticipated general fund revenue expenditures for a fiscal year by one million dollars or more," that extra money goes into this fund.

Finally, they promise income tax relief, but with conditions. The law says income tax rates can only be reduced "if the tax reform fund reaches and maintains a minimum balance that is greater than or equal to one hundred twenty million dollars." In other words, you'll only see income tax relief if the state collects enough extra money from the new service taxes.

Here is Mike Moon’s Plan:

1. People won’t give the government any more money when they buy goods through corporate taxes. 

2. The end.

Here is the AFP/ALEC Plan

1. People will now have a new tax through haircuts, car repairs, and professional services. 

2. People will pay more for groceries, gas, and goods.

3. If people have paid enough money through the VAT tax system and been good boys and girls, and only if the government gets $120M in reserves will they get an income tax break.

4. There are no guarantees that there will be a reduction to 0%. It’s only proposed.

The government does not have to reduce its spending but is encouraged to spend more under this model. Under Mike Moon’s model, the government has to reduce its spending because it generates less revenue from the taxpayer. 

Understanding the European Model

The AFP/ALEC plan mirrors the Value Added Tax (VAT) system used in Europe. Under a VAT system, taxes are built into the price of goods and services at every step of production and sale. While your paycheck might look bigger because of reduced income tax, you'll pay more every time you purchase anything from a good to a service.

So, the corporations still have to pay their taxes to Missouri every step of the way under the AFP/ALEC plan, which gets pushed to you. Then, they will add new taxes, which get driven to you again. The corporation doesn’t pay taxes on anything. The consumer pays taxes on everything. Taxes for a business are a cost built into the price of every tube of toothpaste, every roll of toilet paper, and every bag of Tostidos. 

The AFP/ALEC plan doesn’t assist you or save you money unless you can somehow drop out of the economy and live as a homesteader. Yet, this won’t work because they will rely on income tax if you do. You would have to quit working and buying not to pay any taxes into their system. A few of us are hardy enough to do that, but most of us do not have the resources to live as a homeless person. 

Think of it this way: Moon's system recognizes that government taxes on businesses make your groceries, shoes, and gas more expensive. He wants to make those items cheaper by removing those taxes. The AFP/ALEC system says they'll give you more money in your paycheck, but only after you've paid higher prices on everything you buy and if the state collects enough revenue from those higher prices.

Impact on Missourians

The difference between these approaches is significant. Under Moon's plan, corporate tax reduction would directly lower business costs, potentially reducing consumer prices. 

Under the AFP/ALEC plan, while your paycheck might eventually show less tax withholding, you'll pay new taxes on services and likely higher prices on goods to make up for it without forcing the government to be lean or to force the government to reduce its budget. If the government never reduces its budget, it may have enacted a VAT and an income tax system, which we’ll never get rid of.

Governor-elect Mike Kehoe has promised to eliminate Missouri's state income tax—but you can be sure he will plan to increase your tax burden. The state receives 65% of its revenue ($13.35 billion) from income taxes. [Consider how much of our revenue comes from other sources and how much we overspend right now.]

In 2024, Missouri’s income tax declined for the first time. Our population is flat and not growing. Our children are not being born. Our people are retiring and aging out of the job market.

Do you understand why they want a VAT? Because they can tax retirees using a VAT when they can’t tax their retirement accounts. This is about an aging population that must be taxed to maintain enormous expenditures.

 

With more young people postponing families, birthrates plummeting, and family formation not occurring until a later age, AFP/ALEC is also calculating they can take more of the expendable income from these young individuals rather than encourage them to have families and have children. They are managing our decline rather than trying to head it off. They have decided the culture war is lost (a strange thing for supposedly conservative groups to give up on), and they are helping RINO legislators capitalize on it to spend more money like Democrats. 

 

The AFP/ALEC plan ensures this revenue continues through expanded sales taxes, while Moon's plan seeks an actual reduction in total tax collection.

For Missouri taxpayers, the choice is between a genuine tax reduction that could lower prices and our budget versus a restructuring that maintains state revenue while making taxes less visible. While the AFP/ALEC plan's promise of zero income tax sounds appealing, the reality is that Missourians could end up paying the same amount or more in total taxes, just in a different way.

The battle over these competing visions will likely define Missouri's 2025 legislative session. Kehoe’s plan, backed by the AFP/ALEC, aims to continue spending at unsustainable levels through a regressive tax structure to take money from families who can’t afford to spare it.

Mike Moon plans to reduce the costs for every family across the state by removing the government’s invisible hand from business costs that we don’t see in gas, groceries, and goods. Mike Moon’s plan doesn’t add a new tax to our services or lock us into a new tax in our code that we may never remove again.

Conclusion

The contrast between these approaches reveals more than competing tax policies—it exposes fundamentally different visions for Missouri's future.

The AFP/ALEC plan represents sophisticated bureaucratic management that accepts demographic decline as inevitable. It aims to maintain high government spending through complex tax mechanisms by shifting tax burdens to young professionals and retirees while making taxation less visible but more pervasive. It's a nuanced strategy for managing Missouri's diminishing population and changing demographics without addressing the root causes of decline.

Moon's approach, by contrast, represents a vision of economic liberty. By removing corporate taxes that inflate the cost of everyday goods, his plan returns money directly to people's pockets. This gives families more resources for formation and growth while forcing the government to operate within reduced means. Rather than managing decline through bureaucratic complexity, it trusts Missourians with their own economic choices.

The fundamental difference isn't just about tax rates or revenue collection. It's about whether Missouri will accept and manage its decline through sophisticated tax schemes or potentially empower its citizens through economic freedom to reverse these trends. 

Moon's straightforward plan offers a genuine reduction in tax burden and government scope, while the AFP/ALEC proposal ensures continued high spending through an intricate web of consumption taxes.

For Missouri's future, the choice is between managing decay and enabling renewal.

Follow me on X @HickChristNews

HickChristian is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

 

Mugwump Media interviews Sen. Mike Moon

 

Twelve Stones Podcast, Ep. 8: Burt Whaley, Representative-elect for the 138th

 

Let's Do This And Protect The Preborn

 Find your legislator HERE.