Nixon talks to the Southeast Missourian about his plans for Missouri

Jay Nixon interview, Sept. 12, 2008

Interview conducted at Democratic State Headquarters, Jefferson City.

Rudi Keller: What I am trying to do with these stories is part political biography and part talking about your plans for the state of Missouri. I was an intern with UPI in 1987, the last intern actually that UPI ever had, when you walked in and raised your arm to swear in as a state Senator. And, you know, so we have kind of known each other for quite a number of years. This is your third time to run for an office other than Attorney General in a year that ends in 8. You ran in 08, in '88 against Jack Danforth and quite frankly you were badly beaten.

Jay Nixon: Most objective signs would indicate that.

Keller: In '98, it was a very hard-fought battle with Kit Bond, and you got about 43 percent of the vote. And then in '08 you appear to be the front-runner. Is the third time the charm?

Nixon: Well, I mean running for governor is much different from running for the United States Senate. It is an entirely different type of race. And we feel good about where we are in this race. The lessons that I have learned in all my elections, whether it is 2008, 1998 or in the last election where I got more votes than anyone's ever gotten for office in Missouri, Democrat or Republican.

I'd like to believe that through my political career I have maintained my values, but continue to increase the trust of the people of the state of Missouri that I will do, I will do what I say and that I share their values. I feel that all of these parts of my life have led me up to a point here today where we feel, where I feel extremely prepared. Not only to run the kind of race it takes to win, but I really do spend more of my time rather than thinking about give and take of the campaign, more about you know, kind of trying to provide the leadership it takes to get the change we need in Missouri to get the state moving forward again.

Keller: Um, when you came in to the Missouri Senate and I'll just quote Jim Mathewson about this. He said, "He thought he was going to turn the whole world around the first session and everything was going to fall in place for him."

Nixon: chuckle

Keller: "He had a lot of enthusiasm. He saw things and thought he ought to try to fix them all the fist year he was there. I told him you can't always have the floor every hour of the day because folks start resenting that."

Um, how have you changed from that first blush of, you know, you know, enthusiasm? Have you mellowed?

Nixon: I would like to believe I am still enthusiastic and I am still impatient for change. I mean, I think, when I see wrongs, I move forward, always have. But no, I have learned quite a bit. I was the only freshman Senator elected that year. I had 33 teachers, Jim Mathewson has been a valued friend and political confidant and somebody who has been very, very helpful to me throughout the entirety of that process. I was just with Jim Mathewson again this weekend and I was with him at state fair two weeks before that.

I was lucky, most, especially with term limits now, with 10 or 15 new senators each term, I was blessed to have 33 teachers, as opposed to a smaller number.

How I've changed? I think a number of things. First, from a personal perspective, my boys are 20 and 18 now. That is much different from having two infants.

I've been through a tremendous amount of work in my six years in the state Senate and 16 as AG that have given me, I think, a broader perspective. I think that, and I understand while I may, while I may talk a little bit more slowly, and the bottom line is that I keep the same intensity I had on Day 1, which was to make things better for the state of Missouri.

And quite frankly as we sit here right now, Rudi, whether I talk slower or not, I mean we're sitting in state with an unemployment rate at a 10 year high, 200,000 Missourians out of work. More people, have lost their jobs in the state of Missouri in the last year than in all of our eight border states combined,

These folks have slashed health care benefits to 400,000 people.

They've sold away the student higher education loan authority. And so I think my intensity has always been something that burns bright, whether its in the Missouri Senate. or as Attorney General or on the basketball court, or wherever, I am a competitive guy. But I have learned a lot over the years.

Keller: When I talked to Roger Wilson about you and this year's race and looking back, he said: "Some people might think '88 was a banzai run. I don't think so. It was calculated and accomplished -- Jay got around the state and met a lot of people and he was not afraid of a fight."

Have you planned a political career from law school or earlier in your life? Was getting to the state Senate part of a plan, you thinking Jay Nixon is going to be somebody in the state of Missouri?

Nixon: Well I mean I come from a family that was steeped in public service. The stories I tell about at various times, my mother and father in my small town held public positions. I mean my Dad at one point was mayor of DeSoto, Mo. My Mom was on the school board and rose to the point of president of the school board. She was on the park board. She was on the board that helped choose the first president of Jefferson Junior College, who ended up being Charlie McClain, who went on to not only do a great job there with the formation of the junior college, now community college system, but also to turn Truman State into the outstanding institution that it is.

So, I have always felt that, you know, that, of my entire life I have been somebody who has, has, has tried to chart a leadership path to make the, the, the changes that are necessary to make this a better place to live in, whether it was when I was an Eagle Scout and senior patrol leader of Troop 559 in DeSoto, or played football in high school or whatever. All those things I think put together a package that,,,

But that being said, I went back after law school and went into private practice and worked in private practice in that area. That's something different from me and my opponent but that is neither here nor there.

But I have also tried to stay in contact with, and, with the values of the people that work for a living. And I think that's, I mean, um, the lessons I learned were not from the politicians around Jefferson County as much as the people I worked with in the summers when I was a laborer and we were building things and they were proud of the work they were doing or the people I meet with now who are out of work.

I always seen my time in public service just like it was when I'd answer the phone at dinner with my Mom and Dad there involved locally trying to help people.

Keller: You mentioned you opponent and him not having any private practice experience as an attorney. Harold Volkmer wishes that Kenny Hulshof had some private practice experience as an attorney and he urged you to give him an opportunity to do that in the fall of, in 1994, when Hulshof was acting as a prosecutor through your office and he announced he was running for the Ninth Congressional District seat. Volkmer says you kept him on..."Nixon helped beat Harold Volkmer. He helped make Kenny Hulshof... It would only be justice if Kenny won the primary and ran against Jay because Jay is the one who helped beat you" is what he has been told by some of his friends.

Nixon: That wouldn't have been '94, that would have been '96. His quote may have been about 94,

Keller: Right, but, but.

Nixon: But Kenny did not win that election.

Keller: Right, then after the election of '94. And Mr. Hulshof has told me that he asked you during '94 and you essentially told him his job would be secure when he lost the election. Um, and that, Harold Volkmer said came to you after the election asking you, because Hulshof had promised to run against him again two years later, asking you to be a good Democrat and show Hulshof the door.

Nixon: First of all, two separate pieces, the '94 piece and the '96 piece. In '94 Kenny was working for me and was involved in the middle of some important cases. Folks that know me know that I have always been someone who worked hard to expand that part of our office and have successfully done so. But also believed that, to crime victims and others we are going to finish the piece and in areas outside of that Congressional District, the Ninth, there were still a number of cases that Kenny had to complete. He worked on a part-time basis to complete those cases. I thought, my oath at that point was to the people of the state of Missouri and not to the Democratic Party, and my job was to make sure those uh, those cases that Kenny had been assigned were completed and my sense is they were. When he lost that campaign he did come back and continue in his role. He was, uh, I think by the time the '96 campaign rolled around and I think the records would reflect this but I think by that time he was off in to full-time politics after that.

Keller: Mr. Volkmer said that he thinks that one reason you kept Kenny on was that he was a good basketball player and you liked to play basketball with him. And I asked Mr. Hulshof about this and he said he was on a St. Louis television station when they said why don't you decide this on the basketball floor and he said, and he said he told you that what he told them was, 'Of course I am going to win, Jay can't go to his right.'

Nixon: I think that this is far too important an office to be decided in that way. Kenny and I have shot some basketball. He's a fine athlete, but we did play basketball together and whatnot. But I don't think the people that lost their health care and lost their jobs want to have two politicians out shooting free throws to decide which policy they want. I think they want a policy that moves this state forward and a Congressman that's voted for trade deals that cost the state 45,000 jobs to China, voted to give special tax breaks to companies, and otherwise,

I am not making light of this campaign in any way shape or form. I think I've got a good sense of humor about a lot of things. But I don't joke about who should be the next governor of the state of Missouri. There is an election coming up in not that long and we have seen what those elections can do.

Four years ago we elected a governor, that this fellow has embraced his policies and 400,000 people have seen their health care cut.

We elected a governor by a small percentage last time that Kenny Hulshof has embraced his policy and we've turned down $1.5 billion in federal money that could have been used for health care for the people of the state of Missouri. Health care premiums are increasing and job losses are increasing. So, without, and I appreciate the congressman's attempt at humor but to me, I think I am not going to belittle the importance of this election or its relevance to the lives of Missourians.

Keller: You've had some changes in some of the views you have taken over time. When you first got to the Senate you were more of a pro-life person. How have your views evolved and what has been the guiding principle you have used, for when you have made a decision that my earlier idea about this was wrong or needs to be revised. How do you guide yourself on that?

Nixon: I support Missouri law as it currently exists. There's been a lot of changes to it since that time. I support the law as it sits right now, which I think it strikes a fair balance. And, that's borne through from a lifetime of experience and impressions and opinions.

But the bottom line as it sits right now I support that. I don't support the zeroing out of family planning money, which has limited, especially among many of the least among us the opportunity to get family planning assistance that I think is so valuable if we are going to bring down the number of unintended pregnancies.

The policies that we have right now that my opponent has embraced continues to put at risk for unintended pregnancies for too many young women. I would hope that we could kind of bring those forces together and find some common ground on some actual progress here.

Keller: As you rolled out various proposals that you would set as policies as governor, one of the ideas was a Performance Review Commission to look over the actions, duplication of services. Gov. Blunt had a Government Reform Commission. How is yours different and how could it be more effective?

Nixon: I think that, once again, I am not running against Gov. Blunt. But its clear his performance review, or whatever he called it, commission had a lot of contributors on it and the record stands. I mean the legislature and others did not embrace their recommendations because on a number of fronts their recommendations were not relevant to moving the state forward.

I mean whether it's in their attacks on centers for independent living, which provided countless Missourians the opportunity to access services, disability, disabled folks to attract services, whatever.

Mine is different. I am not talking about bringing together 12 titans of industry that are contributors and tell them to come up with a magic plan.

We want to get down and look at the various programs. Performance review is something we want to have not only folks from the private sector but also folks from the public sector involved in. There are a huge number of people doing public service in the state of Missouri, whether it is a teacher or a cop or a worker at Social Services or Revenue that are fine people that have great ideas and great input about how we can make government more efficient and more effective.

As Attorney General I have done just that. I mean last year we saved or returned to taxpayers $20 and 80 cents for every dollar appropriated to the office. Our combined total is billions of dollars, over $2 billion in my years as attorney general.

Those performance review process and that work, I think, is not designed, as my predecessor's was, to bring these folks in and have a view over everything. I think we want to narrow in on individual programs and areas so we can actually get some concrete recommendations for management so we can more efficient and effectively manage this state, not just make speeches about waste and fraud but talk about things that can make government more efficient.

So I think the fundamental difference between what he did and what I am talking about doing is not having a 30,000-foot look at this, but let's roll up sleeves and get people involved in the various agencies and the various areas so we can see what's working and what's not and allocate resources to the places that are making the most difference.

Keller: You have mentioned several times the cuts in Medicaid, the 400,000 people...the 100,000 people off the rolls, 300,000 people who saw their services diminished. I hear conflicting amounts of money to restore those services, those people to the Medicaid rolls. In the spring, when I was doing a story about our special legislative election, I heard $260 million approximately of state general revenue to restore all the services to the level they were in 2005. Republicans constantly and continually say, and, that it would, that it is a billion dollar tax hike...

Nixon: They are just wrong. They are just wrong, Rudi. The numbers that we're using, the $261 million, comes from a fiscal note from the Blunt administration. Their own fiscal note. It's their numbers.

They get into a political season and they want to exaggerate and scare people and that's a usual tactic. But the bottom line is we have sourced our documents. Our documents are what the Blunt Administration presented to the legislature, and what the fiscal note process laid out. So our source documents are very, no matter how much rhetoric they have, we actually have source documents.

And quite frankly when it comes to health care plans, my health care plan is less expensive when it comes to state dollars and provides care for more people than my opponent's plan. And so ours is both more efficient and more effective. So we're using their documents to prove what ours would cost and have done so, and I think in a very direct way.

Keller: There is an $833 million surplus sitting in the treasury. Do you think you can restore these cuts and maintain a significant surplus or avoid cutting back on increases that you might give to other parts of state government such as higher education or student grants or aid?

Nixon: I think budgets are about priorities. I am not exactly sure, it is hard to tell. One day they issue a press release saying how much is in the bank and how much is not the other day. I'll look at those, but budgets are about priorities. I am confident with that with the numbers we have seen that we have the resources in the upcoming budget to restore the cuts, to expand health care opportunities for kids and to move forward to the Missouri promise and making college more affordable.

Keller: I've got two more questions for you. The Missouri Foundation for Health, created when Blue Cross and Blue Shield moved from being a not-for-profit to profit, a for profit um,...

Nixon: Actually it was created after litigation. That transaction was approved by the Missouri Department of Insurance. Only subsequent, after litigation, when I as attorney general said no we are not going to let that, no matter whether the Department of Insurance approves that transfer or not, you cant take that much not for profit assets and turn that into a for profit company, absent having to provide a resulting trust in that regard.

I don't mean to be hypertechnical about that but that difference was important the time and was basis of the litigation which led to what's now a $1.2 billion private foundation.

Keller: Well John Hancocks' Web site has made a crusade of criticizing you because of some of the grants that are made by the foundation. There are various advocacy groups and public policy groups that are receiving these grants. Some of them have been critical of the priorities of the Republican administration. Is that a proper use of the funds from that foundation?

Nixon: Well, it's a private foundation. I don't appoint the members of that foundation. We appointed an original board and after that time a community advisory board was appointed to screen applicants and present those applicants to the board that chooses those. And at no time, at no time, since the formation of that foundation or even before it, have I atone single time asked for one penny to be appropriate to anything. And, it's a non profit and it operates independently and should do so. I do not appoint the board members nor have I asked them at any particular time.

That's what you want. You want an independent not-for-profit focused on improving the health care opportunities for Missourians, similar to the foundation that was founded on the Kansas City side.

The two largest health care foundations in this state were founded because of my litigation, not backing up away from the big corporate interests but instead standing up for consumers and because of that, we now have in excess of $1.7 billion in non-for-profit trusts out there that are operating independently and I think have made a difference for Missourians health.

Keller: Well if these foundations trusts were set up for the benefit of the citizens of Missouri, why aren't they under the control of the citizens' representatives in the legislature?

Nixon: Well no non profit is under control of the citizens. That's a separate area of law. The Red Cross should not be under the control of Congress. The Deaconess Foundation should not be under the control of state representatives. It's a non-profit...we don't need to have...first of all, you don't need to have government coming reaching inside people's wills and estates or nonprofits. I mean, well, does the Missouri Senate want to reach inside the Danforth Foundation and begin to tell them what the arch should look like or what health care foundations should be.

Keller: The Danforth Foundation wasn't created as a result of litigation saying that a company had violated the laws of the state of Missouri or needed to return the not-for-profit benefit that had been gained through its business activities in the state of Missouri...

Nixon: But the legislature wasn't involved, when Blue Cross Blue Shield was a non profit, they weren't involved in litigating, meaning legislating their dollars, even when they were a non profit before they made the change. This legislature has neither the authority nor should they have the desire to get involved in non-profits whether it is the Little League or the Danforth Foundation or the Missouri Foundation for Health or whatever. Those are nonprofit charity assets that are put in place so that they can do their work absent the reach of the folks in the legislature. And it is an incredibly dangerous precedent and I think quite frankly would not succeed either legally. And as a policy perspective, whether legal or not, as a policy perspective is deeply wrong to say that dollars left for the various charities or for various non-profits across the state could be raided by the legislature, as I said before, whether it is the Little League or the Kaufman Foundation or whatever.

Those are non profits set up under our laws as non-profits. They are not set up as slush funds for the legislature and I think that is why, since 1821 and today, which has been a long time, you haven't seen this sort of even discussion because thoughtful minds appreciate they have neither the authority nor is it a good policy area.

And it would make it extremely difficult to continue to attract the contributions to our charities across the state that are necessary. If people thought they were giving their money to The Humane Society, and that money could somehow be taken by the Missouri Legislature and moved over for their pet projects, they would be much less likely to contribute and this is a state which has traditionally had a tremendous nonprofit help to what we are doing. I mean he Kaufman Foundation in Kansas City -- Kansas City a few years ago was rated as one of the most generous communities in the country

The Nelson Art Gallery. I mean, what's next, if some members of the legislature didn't like a particular painting, that they would start taking money from the Nelson-Atkins Museum over there. The bottom line is there's a reason why these are separate and it is an appropriate reason. And I support the continuation of that.

Keller: I was just thinking since it was a result of litigation that was begun by the state. But I want to get my last question in here before he takes you away.

The economy of the state of Missouri you have mentioned several times. Unemployment up, we just heard from the Census Bureau, about incomes, incomes down in the last seven years nationally. The economic development policies of the current administration have included things such as one large tax credit for someone who is buying up land in North St. Louis, a large tax credit for a single entity that the were trying to attract for the manufacture of airplanes in Kansas City. We have something called the Quality Jobs Act provides tax credits for companies that bring jobs into a county that are above the county median level and provide health insurance. We have things like the DREAM Initiative which has resulted in some planning money and other initiatives in Cape Girardeau and other cities around the state. There was a report from Ball State university that says Missouri has the No. 1 manufacturing climate in the nation. Um, are some of these good ideas, some of them bad ideas that the current administration has pursued and what are you going to do to improve on Missouri's ability to attract and retain good jobs for its people?

Nixon: I have not had an opportunity to read the full Ball State report. But any report that says the manufacturing economy of the state of Missouri is good right now, when we have lost more jobs than all of our eight states combined in the last year and when we have had 45,000 jobs, good jobs, that have gone overseas because of trade deals, I don't think understands the reality of what Missourians are sitting at the dinner table trying to balance their checkbooks before the end of the month and finally getting to zero and seeing the jobs that have been shipped overseas and out of this state.

So the bottom line is we can have, people can say what they wan, but the bottom line is that this economy in Missouri is not competing as well as it needs to and we need to make some changes to get it moving forward again.

Some of the programs you talked about are performing and some aren't. That's why performance reviews are so important and that's one of the tings that have been dramatically missing from our economic development arm in the state of Missouri is getting a look back a year later, three years later. Whether the instruments to spur economic development actually have provided the jobs. And I have been one that as Attorney General at times when we saw what we felt was wrong in that regard we went out and tried to make a difference. We haven't gotten any referrals on those matters under this administration.

For example, you may recall, Rudi, that the state of Missouri and the city of Jefferson gave IKON a $500,000 grant to expand their facilities here in Jeff City. They subsequently announced those jobs were going to Tijuana. I went after them and got that $500,000 back. And put that money in to help provide more jobs in Missouri. I have been long and strong in my opposition to the land acquisition tax credit, the $95 million tax break for one person in St. Louis, which I don't think to this juncture has provided anything near the economic impact in a limited budget, in a limited time, that we need to have. But that's one of the reasons I have called for performance reviews in these areas.

Some of our tools are working and making a difference in some of these situations. There have been times in which the Quality Jobs Act has been a great help to move things forward, whether it is the plant expansion in Washington, Mo., or other places where we have seen good jobs attracted to Missouri. So I am not critical of everything that has been done, I just think we need to make sure we are understanding that when taxpayer dollars are being spent, be it in tax credits or direct appropriation, we need to have performance reviews about whether the promises have been lived up to and whether or not the jobs out there that they say they are going to create have been created.

On many of these fronts we need to make sure we are getting what we pay for and if we are not, we need to change those programs so we do.

Keller: All right, thank you very much for your time today.

Jay Nixon video

var inlinePlayerParameters = "f":"MOCAP","mk":"en-ap","containerId":"inlinePlayerContainer","type":"ByUUIDS","prop1":"535dd687-510c-4c92-90d2-ddae7f4cacb2,a3a81dd7-dd25-4c8b-932d-d173c5b4cc81,4b2af904-5b3e-4cf5-be0f-52d4c46eb6cb,c0e96c96-ce87-4064-99cd-6dec6b37bf2c","skin":"0","headlineColor":"#AB0110","borderColor":"#BBDDEE","padding":"4","sort":"Default","sortdir":"Descending"</script><script type="text/javascript" src=""></script>