STLPR0%

Missouri Senate passes $3 billion+ supplemental budget, sends bill back to House

By Sarah Kellogg38%

3/3/2026, 11:22:20 PM

BS Summary: The article has not yet been analyzed.

After a contentious floor debate, Missouri senators passed their version of the supplemental state budget Tuesday. 
Senators voted 24-6 to approve the bill. 
Because the Senate made changes to the House version, the measure now returns to the Missouri House. 
If the House passes it without changes, it will then go to Gov. Mike Kehoe. 
The supplemental budget will serve as a stopgap for the current state budget, which ends June 30. 
Some of the changes in the Senate version include adjustments to Medicaid match dollars. 
“There's been better numbers supplied to us, even since our committee, and we've made an adjustment to match those new dollars after new counts have come out,” Senate Appropriations Chair Rusty Black, R-Chillicothe, said. 
Additionally, the Senate stripped out nearly $15 million that would have gone toward improving the Missouri Capitol Building. 
“We determined on the Senate side to pull that expenditure out of the supplemental budget and discuss that a little bit longer and see if we can get maybe a different figure,” Black said. 
Remaining in the bill is $86 million in general revenue for St. Louis tornado relief. 
That’s in addition to the $100 million the legislature allocated last year during a special session. 
Senators spent several hours discussing the legislation, with Sen. Lincoln Hough, R-Springfield, expressing his dislike of some parts of the bill. 
Hough is a former Senate Appropriations Committee chair who was stripped of that chairmanship last year. 
He contends it was due to his voting against cutting off debate on several key issues. 
Hough asked Black about several items in the budget bill that he did not believe belonged, saying new decision items should not appear in supplemental budgets. 
“The 14 years that I've been in and out of this building, a supplemental has been treated as the bridge to get between one appropriation authority fiscal year to the next,” Hough said. 
Two of the items Hough opposed were taken out in a later version of the bill on the floor. 
One was $150,000 for Missouri’s participation in the Great American State Fair in Washington, D.C. 
“I can't imagine that for an event that we knew and have known for years is coming, that all of a sudden it's an emergency to spend $150,000 to send a half a dozen people on a field trip to Washington, D.C., for some duration of time,” Hough said. 
The other removed item was nearly $1 million for the Missouri attorney general’s office to establish a solicitor general’s office in Chesterfield, including new furniture. 
Several senators took issue with that budget item, including Sen. Maggie Nurrenbern, D-Kansas City. 
“Do we prioritize vital services for our constituents, or are we prioritizing superfluous spends? And I think this is an opportunity for us to have some cost savings here,” Nurrenbern said. 
The legislation is HB 2014. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 1.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 12.5%Sarah Kellogg: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.2%Anchoring Bias12.5%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 1.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.7%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 1.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 24.1%Sarah Kellogg: 7.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.3%Framing Effect24.1%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 19.7%Sarah Kellogg: 1.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Status Quo Bias19.7%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 3.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 4.8%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 10.4%Sarah Kellogg: 2.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.9%Pessimism Bias10.4%This article: 6.6%Sarah Kellogg: 4.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.1%Negativity Bias6.6%This article: 3.4%Sarah Kellogg: 2.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.1%Self-Serving Bias3.4%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 3.4%Sarah Kellogg: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias3.4%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 1.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 3.4%Sarah Kellogg: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Horn Effect3.4%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 3.4%Sarah Kellogg: 0.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Ad Hominem3.4%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 7.0%Sarah Kellogg: 1.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.6%Appeal to Authority7.0%This article: 6.6%Sarah Kellogg: 1.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%False Dilemma6.6%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 1.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 3.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.7%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 6.6%Sarah Kellogg: 9.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 6.6%Appeal to Emotion6.6%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 1.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 2.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 10.4%Sarah Kellogg: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Personal Incredulity10.4%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.8%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

473 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.