You’re sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door. Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers. At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way.

With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun. You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it. In the darkness, you make out two shadows. One holds something that looks like a crowbar.When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire.

The blast knocks both thugs to the floor. One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside.

As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you’re in trouble.

In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few that are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless. Yours was never registered. Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died. They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm.

When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter. “What kind of sentence will I get?” you ask. “Only ten-to-twelve years,” he replies, as if that’s nothing. “Behave yourself, and you’ll be out in seven.”

The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper. Somehow, you’re portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choirboys. Their friends and relatives can’t find an unkind word to say about them.. Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both “victims” have been arrested numerous times.

But the next day’s headline says it all: “Lovable Rogue Son Didn’t Deserve to Die.” The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters.. As the days wear on, the story takes wings. The national media picks it up, then the international media. The surviving burglar has become a folk hero. Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he’ll probably win.

The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you’ve been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects. After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time. The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars.

A few months later, you go to trial. The charges haven’t been reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted. When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you. Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man. It doesn’t take long for the jury to convict you of all charges. The judge sentences you to life in prison.

This case really happened. On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk , England , killed one burglar and wounded a second. In April 2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term.

How did it become a crime to defend one’s own life in the once great British Empire? It started with the Pistols Act of 1903. This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license. The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns.

Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns. Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987. Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the streets shooting everyone he saw. When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead. The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of “gun control”, demanded even tougher restrictions. (The seizure of all privately-owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.)

Nine years later in Dunblane, Scotland, Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school. For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable, or worse, criminals. Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners. Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns. The Dunblane Inquiry, just a few months later, sealed the fate of the few sidearms still owned by private citizens.

During the years in which the British government incrementally took away most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism. Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun. Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released.

Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying, “We cannot have people take the law into their own hands.” All of Martin’s neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had no fear of the consequences. Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars.

At the conclusion of the Dunblane Inquiry, citizens who owned handguns were given three months to turn them over to local authorities. Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law. The few who didn’t were visited by police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn’t comply. Police later bragged that they’d taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens.

How did the authorities know who had handguns? The guns had been registered and licensed. Kind of like cars. Sound familiar?

Wake up, America. This is why our Founding Fathers put the Second Amendment in our Constitution.

“…It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds.” –Samuel Adams

Remember: When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

Editor’s Note: As you read a 2009 update on the case, keep in mind how public sympathy would typically be different had the home held a mother and young baby. So then, why is one man’s life less valuable than a mother/baby? Note the “journalist’s” use of the word vigilante in the title. Vigilante: “One who takes or advocates the taking of law enforcement into one’s own hands.” The protection of one’s life and home– inside that home– qualifies as the action of a vigilante? Hopefully not in America!

*Mark Muller is an avid hunter and owns multiple businesses, including Max Motors, an auto dealership south of Kansas City. Muller drew national attention defending gun rights during this compelling CNN interview. Muller is also featured in a new book, “God, Guns & Guts,” by Ben Phillipi. (Until the official website is finished, the book’s Facebook page is staying current.)

A proposal to build an oil pipeline across the state gained the support of Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon.

The governor joined with officials from Shelby County Tuesday to voice his support for the project.

The Flanagan South Pipeline, proposed by Enbridge Inc. in Calgary, Alberta, would run around 600 miles from Flanagan, Illinois, Cushing, Oklahoma, crossing 11 counties in the Show-Me State.

The pipeline would follow the existing Spearhead Pipeline System.

“Major investments in domestic pipelines create skilled construction jobs, support community growth and ensure reliable access to North American energy,” Nixon said in a prepared statement.

Enbridge is conducting a binding open season to recruit potential customers to participate in the pipeline project. The energy delivery company is also conducting civil and environmental surveys.

The potential investment, along the entire pipeline, could total $1.9 billion.

Pending regulatory approval, plans call for construction to begin in the middle of next year.

(Go to original article)

The judiciary is the overlooked branch of government – until a citizen finds himself caught up in its machinery.  But anyone wishing to reform Missouri’s government must take a serious look at the broken Missouri court system.  As a lawyer with 20 years experience practicing throughout the nation, I can attest that the Missouri judiciary is among the most inefficient, expensive, unaccountable, and hostile to business court systems in the country.  To secure the rights of Missouri’s citizens, protect Missouri businesses, and establish a properly functioning state government the Missouri court system must be revised top to bottom.  We must reform Missouri’s judiciary in terms of how judges are selected, the standards they must meet, and increased accountability to the public.

[From editor: For latest updates on judicial reform across the nation, click on your state here.]

Missouri selects many of its judges through a so-called non-partisan, non-political arrangement known as the Missouri Plan. Under this plan, a board interviews candidates and provides a list of three recommendations to the governor for an opening on the bench.  The governor must pick one of these three to the judgeship or the process starts over.  In theory, this plan was meant to provide a merit based, non-political selection process for judges.  In fact, what it actually does is move the politics into the back room out of public sight where it is tightly controlled by the bar association and the governor.  Imagine, if someone recommended we go back to picking other office holders in backrooms where almost no information is provided to the public.  People would rightfully protest that this is a move back to the smoke-filled rooms of the 1800s.  But, minus the smoke, that’s exactly how we pick judges in Missouri.

A theme you will find throughout this article and my political philosophy is that sunlight is the best disinfectant.  Thus, I will seek open, partisan election of judges in Missouri.  Some might protest this is politicizing the judiciary.  My response is that the judiciary is already politicized in this state, it’s just a question of who gets to select the judges.  Instead of a small group in a back room that has a direct interest in the business of the courts, I propose the voters get the final word.

To those who suggest that the public is somehow not qualified to select its own judges, I would remind them that the public selects the officials who set the entire state budget, are responsible for public safety, and who manage the most complicated details of the public’s business.  I think the public is quite well-qualified to determine who ought to sit on the bench in the local courthouse and decide wills, divorces, and criminal cases.  As we will see in the section on greater accountability, under my proposal the public will no longer be kept in the dark of the actual performance of judges and will be much more informed to make those decisions.

One of the problems in Missouri is that there are few concrete standards judges are required to meet.  For example, attempts in the past to make judges accountable for actually moving their caseload along have largely been toothless.  Judges who don’t meet these standards have still been eligible for promotion and retention.  A judicial reform plan that puts judges on a tight schedule they will be required to meet is essential.  Clear deadlines will be placed upon judges based on the type of cases filed and their performance in meeting them will be tracked.  Simple matters like wills and divorces will not be allowed to linger for years in the court system.  From the date of filing of basic civil and criminal matters, the courts will have a firm deadline whereby they must resolve them.  Justice delayed is justice denied – but it’s also the most expensive kind of justice.  By setting tight deadlines individuals and businesses will no longer be stuck in limbo for years waiting for a judge to do his job.  Also, this will motivate courts to eliminate needless expense and delay that greatly increases the cost of every lawsuit in the state of Missouri.

Other standards courts will be expected to meet will streamline the process and eliminate much of the individual discretion in the court system.  Areas of frequent contact between individuals and the court system will be greatly simplified with clear forms and standards that a court must apply.  No longer will the key question in any case be which judge a litigant has drawn.  We will return to a government of laws, not of men.  Likewise, we will simplify and shorten the discovery process to eliminate the burden, harassment and expense of litigation.  We will enact tough new standards for the dismissal of frivolous lawsuits and track judges’ compliance with this new rule.  Though beyond the scope of this article, there will also be comprehensive tort reform, including loser pays, which will simplify the Missouri judicial process.

An independent judiciary is a critical protection for the freedoms of the citizenry.  However, an unaccountable judiciary is a danger to freedom.  In Missouri, we have a largely unaccountable judiciary.  Judges are selected in backrooms by the special interests involved in the process.  Is it little wonder then that as members of the same tight club, higher courts do little to effectively review the behavior of lower courts in this state?  As any experienced lawyer knows, selection or promotion of judges in this state has virtually nothing to do with merit and everything to do with connections.  This is a cozy arrangement for those in the club, but the public is on the outside looking in.  Why in the world should the Missouri public tolerate government employees (which all judges are) exercising tremendous control over their lives but with virtually no accountability to them?

But what about the retention elections?  Aren’t those supposed to be the way judges are accountable to the public?  Perhaps that was the idea, but in operation the process is a sham.  Mediocre judges consistently get high ratings from the bar and actual useful information about the judges is virtually impossible for the public to obtain.  The public is kept in the state of ignorance regarding the performance of judges and forced to vote blind in judicial elections.  Voting without information may be a pointless ritual, but it’s not democracy.

Under my proposal, judicial elections would no longer be guess-work.  As discussed above, judges would be expected to meet clear standards and objective criteria.  How they meet those standards would be available to the public on-line and in handouts at the voting booth.  The voter may weight these criteria as she sees fit, but she will no longer be required to vote blindly in judicial retention elections.

Despite its ceremonies, the judiciary is simply another branch of government.  It has powers, limitations, and accountability.  In Missouri, the judiciary has been isolated from the people too long.  It is time for us to shine light on the operation of the court system, impose real standards of performance, and return the ultimate power to the people.  This is meaningful reform that will improve the functioning of our court system and restore the confidence of the people in Missouri’s system of justice.

Bill Randles is running for governor in the state of Missouri. Visit his website.

There is a great deal of talk about the need for tax reform and for creating a positive climate for business, but too little attention has been paid to how a proper tax policy can fix many of our economic and political problems. I believe the Fair Tax is the only tax system that can resolve many of Missouri’s structural economic and political woes. There has been a great deal of research and debate in Missouri regarding how the revenue base from a Fair Tax would compare to an income tax. The purpose of this article is to focus on how a Fair Tax would eliminate many of the barriers to economic development in Missouri and clean up a great deal of the political corruption inherent to an income tax.

The Fair Tax is simply a somewhat broader, flatter sales tax. The Fair Tax would eliminate personal and corporate income taxes in Missouri and replace them with this modified sales tax. One of the key benefits of the Fair Tax is obvious to anyone who has ever dreaded April 15. There would no longer be the angst, turmoil, and difficulty of preparing year-end tax returns. Each of us would pay our taxes each time we buy a new good or service. It would be clear, transparent, and within the control of the taxpayer. These are precisely the reason politicians and special interests loathe and fear the Fair Tax. It would not be subject to manipulation and special deals.

The income tax is the most efficient tool of political corruption ever devised. With it, politicians are able to reward friends, punish enemies, and surreptitiously control matters that ought to be beyond their purview. The rewarding friends is easy to see. Favored industries are given tax breaks to relocate, expand jobs, or do whatever else the politicians want. These tax breaks are, of course, not free. Whatever income tax breaks are given to these industries are made up for by ordinary citizens. It is a hidden subsidy, a hidden tax, and a redistribution of income all rolled into a deceptive little package. Politicians taut the benefits and very few folks take the time to calculate the cost.

Of course politicians want to retain the income tax. Without it how would they foist such things as the China Hub on Missouri’s taxpayers in the future? But it is also a tool of control. We hear a lot these days about closing tax loopholes but rarely see it happen. That is because those loopholes provide a secretive way for politicians to pass out favors or exercise control that does not have to go through the usual public process of legislation. Put simply, a legislature might not have the power to tell an individual to do something, but by offering a tax break if the person does it, they get the same result without pesky problems like public scrutiny and constitutional challenges.

But in addition to political corruptness, the income tax is simply built on a flawed economic model. It is a basic economic principle that if you tax something you get less of it. Therefore, if we tax income-producing activities it should be no shock we get less of them. Thus, in Missouri we get less businesses expansion, capital invested, and jobs created. To compensate for the problems caused by the income tax, Missouri economic developers try to recruit businesses to the state by offering them tax breaks. This makes about as much sense as hitting someone with a hammer in your right hand while you offer them a band-aid with your left hand. Here is a much more sane proposal:  eliminate the tax system that deters business growth and job creation in the first place.

Politicians love to sell this or that special tax deal for a favored business by claiming that removing the tax burden is essential to get the business to come here or expand. Well why isn’t what is good for a handful of businesses good for all? By eliminating the negative incentive of the income tax we would unleash the economic power of Missouri’s private sector. Businesses would be encouraged to come to Missouri, to expand, and to innovate. When other states are trying to recruit businesses by offering them certain tax breaks, Missouri could simply say to them, your tax rate here is zero. Every Missouri citizen would benefit from the economic growth.

The Fair Tax would end the practice of politicians using the tax code to pick winners and losers. In exchange for politicians relinquishing power they should never have had anyway, we will make Missouri an engine of job creation and economic expansion. The Fair Tax is the answer. The only question is whether the public will be able to force the politicians to do the right thing.

The cross-hair stickers were noticed around 1:00 pm on Tuesday.

As law enforcement tries to determine whether the stickers were a prank or legitimate threat, at least some of the legislators are taking the stickers seriously.

There seemed to be no direct correlation between the lawmakers. They were first noticed while senators were debating a bill related to President Obamacare.

Were it required to categorize the story for indexing, one wonders if it would fall under humor, the bizarre, or regular community news.

Students at a new Utah high school are facing disappointment after their choice for a new school mascot was rejected for one of the strangest reasons possible: Board members deemed it might be seen as offensive to middle-aged women.

As reported by Salt Lake City Fox affiliate KTSU, Draper (Utah) Corner Canyon High announced its new mascot and school colors on Wednesday, with Canyons School District officials proclaiming that the school’s teams will be called the Chargers, using a blue and white color scheme.

That’s all fine and good except for the fact that the school’s future student body — which was given the opportunity to select its own future mascot — had chosen to be the Cougars. With some 23 percent of the student vote, the Cougar choice was far preferred to other options, which included the Chargers, Diamondbacks, Falcons, Raptors, Broncos, Bears and Cavaliers.

The reason why the future student body gravitated toward Cougars is pretty clear: Area collegiate power BYU uses the Cougar as its mascot and enjoys an enormous fan base of area residents and those who follow the Mormon faith (BYU is a Mormon institution).

Still, the Canyons School Board refused to accept the Cougar as a mascot out of fear that it might offend older women. In the current edition of the Webster Dictionary, the second definition for cougar sights a slang terminology that refers to “a middle-aged woman seeking a romantic relationship with a younger man.”

To say that the board’s reaction to having a school play as the Cougars was a bit over the top is certainly an understatement, particularly when one considers the fact that BYU and a host of other high schools in Utah use the Cougar as their mascot. By pulling the right to pick their own mascot away, the school board turned what appeared to be a nice nod toward student self determination into a first overbearing act of a new administration that doesn’t even exist yet. Appoint Dean Wormer as principal and the student rebellion will be ready to go by the first day of school.

More significantly, why would the board even offer “Cougars” as a potential mascot choice if it wasn’t prepared to accept it? That lack of logic is positively baffling. Surely everyone could have saved themselves a lot of face if they simply had not allowed prospective students to choose to be the Cougars in the first place.

Of course, there’s still plenty of time for the Canyons School Board to re-consider and give the students back their Cougars. Corner Canyon isn’t scheduled to open until fall 2013, so the initial announcement of school colors and mascot was seen as a way to get positive attention for a project that remains on schedule.

Needless to say, it doesn’t seem to have quite worked out that way.

Visit the school’s website for more information and updates.

In response to pressure from the Freedom Center of Missouri, St. Charles City Attorney Mike Valenti announced this morning that the City will drop charges against two petition circulators who were cited last weekend for gathering signatures on the city’s public sidewalks.

This controversy was sparked in the early hours of January 15, when two volunteers with the Show-Me Cannabis Regulation campaign were gathering signatures on North Main Street in St. Charles. The ballot initiative seeks to legalize the production, sale, and use of marijuana under Missouri law and to regulate it in a manner similar to tobacco or alcohol. Two police officers approached the petition circulators, issued them citations for “soliciting without a permit,” and confiscated some of the petitions, which included approximately fifty signatures. Acting on behalf of the volunteers, the Freedom Center of Missouri insisted that the First Amendment required the City to drop the charges, return the seized petitions, and to destroy any copies the police had made of those petitions. The City has agreed to comply.

“We felt it extremely important to establish that this sort of interference with citizens’ freedoms of speech and petition will not be tolerated,” said Dave Roland, the Freedom Center’s director of litigation.

In an email sent to announce the City’s actions Valenti said: “The City views this matter as an isolated incident and fully respects citizens’ First Amendment right to lawfully collect petition signatures on public sidewalks.”

“We applaud Mr. Valenti for his swift action,” said Jenifer Zeigler Roland, the Freedom Center’s executive director. “Citizens’ right to share political viewpoints and to petition the government when they believe laws should be changed is an essential part of our constitutional system. Police officers should know that this right may be freely exercised on public sidewalks, but if the police make a mistake municipal attorneys ought to follow Mr. Valenti’s lead and correct the constitutional violation as quickly as possible.”

Founded in November 2010 and headquartered in St. Louis, the Freedom Center of Missouri is a non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to research, litigation, and education in defense of individual liberty and constitutionally limited government. Additional information about the Freedom Center’s mission, cases, and activities can be found online at www.mofreedom.org.

At the outset, it is critical to make a distinction between the two ways the federal government has overstepped its bounds. The first is unfunded mandates, meaning the federal government simply passes rules upon states, localities, schools, or individuals without offering any financial incentive to comply. Unfunded mandates can be summed up as the federal government saying, “Do this because I say so.” The second area of federal intrusion are partially funded mandates. That means the federal government imposes its will upon one of the above groups, but offers to pay part of the cost. These can be summed up as, “Do as I say in exchange for the smallest possible check.” These two different classes of federal intrusion require different strategies.

The unfunded mandates, which include Obamacare, environmental regulations, and a host of other intrusions, have become increasingly sweeping in the last decade. Vast areas reserved for the states by the Constitution such as education, public safety, health, and community development have all been seized upon by an overzealous federal government. The core legal position of my administration would be simple – unfunded mandates are unconstitutional. We will then press back in every respect against federal overreach into areas that rightly belong to the states or individuals. But simply saying we oppose these intrusions is not enough. If we do not bring the proper weapons to the fight, the battle is lost before it begins. I intend to resist the federal government’s domination of the lives of Missourians by following sophisticated legal, regulatory and public relations campaigns that have already proven successful. The two most successful nullification movements of our lifetime are the medical marijuana movement and the sanctuary city movement. The medical marijuana movement is entirely evading federal drug control laws through a web of regulatory and public relations responses. The sanctuary city movement is likewise adopting their own regulations which have the effect of entirely evading federal rules about harboring and reporting illegal immigrants.

Now I want to be clear that I don’t agree with the goals of either of these movements – I am against medical marijuana and sanctuary cities. But the methods used by these nullifiers have worked and show every evidence they will continue to work. It is a complex process that cloaks actual defiance with a covering of regulatory, legal, and public relations tactics. These nullifiers have accomplished their goals through this multi-layered strategy that should serve as a model for how we resist unfunded mandates in healthcare, environmental, educational and other areas in this state.

A different strategy is required to pull Missouri and its citizens out from under the burden of partially funded federal mandates. These are programs where the federal government offers some sort of payment in exchange for our giving up some portion of our individual or states rights. Put simply, every time the federal government shows up with a check in one hand there are a pair of handcuffs in the other. Pulling ourselves out from under this burden must be one area at a time. For example, the Environmental Protection Agency claims vast regulatory powers over how we conduct our affairs here in Missouri, but has a very small enforcement staff of its own. What the EPA does in Missouri is pay the Missouri Department of Natural Resources a few million dollars per year. In exchange, the DNR agrees to serve as the EPA’s cops here in Missouri. Missouri is not obligated to enforce these EPA standards unless we take that money. So, on day one of my administration, I will refuse that federal money and say to the EPA “we will no longer enforce your rules in this state.”

In the area of education, the amounts transferred to the state are more substantial but I would encourage the legislature to reject all federal educational funds in their entirety from the beginning of my administration. Once we are no longer taking federal education money, Missouri’s position reverts back to my view on unfunded mandates – that they are unconstitutional. In other words, we will refuse the federal money and take the position that the federal Department of Education has nothing to say about how Missouri educates its children.

Admittedly, there are areas where the amounts of federal money coming to the state are so huge that those programs will have to be reformed in Washington or it will take some time for Missouri to wean itself off of them. The chief example of this sort of program is Medicaid, which currently consumes 35% of the entire state budget. Of Missouri’s $24 billion state budget, we receive more than $7 billion from the federal government to fund Medicaid. Obviously, we could not immediately refuse that money and balance our budget. So I would consistently press Washington for two related steps. First, I propose that the federal government immediately take the restrictions off Medicaid and transform it into no strings attached block grants so that we may innovate as we see fit. Second, I would press the federal government to stop draining so much tax money out of the state of Missouri. Currently, it takes huge amounts to D.C. and then sends some portion of that money back to us with strings attached. It would be like me robbing your house and then offering to give your television back, but only if you watch the channels I say.

The states are governments of general jurisdiction under our Constitution. The federal government is a government of limited powers. For decades, that notion has been turned on its head and the states have been treated as little more than dependent provinces by the federal government. In the near term, those of us who believe in limited federal government must have a winning strategy to put the federal government back in its place. This will not only defeat specific policies but fan a national movement which will in the long-term put people committed to constitutional limits in congress, the White House, and on the Supreme Court. This will be a lengthy fight, but we must adopt a strategy to win it one battle at a time.

Bill Randles is running for governor in the state of Missouri. Visit his website.

The state budget for next fiscal year outlines a reduction in spending, similar to last year’s proposal by Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon. But it turns out, state spending is likely to increase this fiscal year.

The budget proposal for fiscal 2013, starting July 1, was released during the State of the State speech delivered by Nixon Tuesday.

The budget plan outlines $22.98 billion in total expenditures for the upcoming fiscal year, down .96 percent from the amount appropriated by lawmakers for fiscal 2012.

Originally, spending for this fiscal year was predicted to decrease by more than 1 percent, shrinking to less than a percent by December.

The state’s budget office, however, restated total expenditures for fiscal 2011 and adjusted the appropriation numbers for fiscal 2012 while preparing for the new budget plan.

Medicaid appropriations, which moved money around without actually spending any funds, were taken out of the final numbers, Missouri Budget Director Linda Luebbering told Missouri Journal.

Total expenditures, therefore, dropped 1.92 percent to $22.2 billion in 2011 compared to 2010.

Instead of dropping for this fiscal year, as originally predicted, spending is likely to increase.

If all of the 2012 appropriations are spent, total expenditures will increase by 4.4 percent to $23.2 billion this fiscal year. Luebbering warned, however, that it is not known exactly how much will be spent by the state until after the fiscal year has ended.

Putting aside the likelihood the final numbers for fiscal 2012 will change, not to mention the budget plan for fiscal 2013 will not be finalized until May, state spending reductions are rare.

In the last 30 years total expenditures have dropped year over year only three times.

Total expenditures increased 468 percent from $3.9 billion in 1981 to $22.2 billion in 2011.