JEFFERSON CITY | A conspiracy theory won a bit of legislative legitimacy last week in the form of resolutions presented in Missouri House and Senate committees.

The issue involves the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, or SPP, an agreement among the United States, Mexico and Canada that … well, what it does depends on whom you ask.

According to official sources, such as the White House and the SPP itself, the partnership is an economic and security pact that “outlines a comprehensive agenda for cooperation among our three countries while respecting the sovereignty and unique cultural heritage of each nation.”

(Article continues below)

In short, it seeks to lower barriers to trade and raise defenses against security threats.

The skeptics, however, see it as a step toward abandoning the U.S. Constitution and merging Mexico, Canada and the United States into a single North American Union.

Two lawmakers — Rep. Jim Guest, a King City Republican, and Sen. Chuck Purgason, a Caulfield Republican — have filed resolutions that state such concerns in clear, if unsubstantiated, terms.

Guest told the House Judiciary Committee that the partnership plans include construction of a quarter-mile-wide highway stretching from Mexico to Canada and built on land taken by eminent domain. The merged country would use a common currency called the Amero.

The SPP is aware of the rumors. The partnership’s Web site, www.spp.gov, includes a myth vs. fact page that debunks assertions like those from Guest and Purgason.

“The SPP does not attempt to modify our sovereignty or currency or change the American system of government designed by our Founding Fathers,” it says at one point.

• • •

The deal to repeal last year’s tax increase on Kansas residents who work in Missouri appears to be running into a wall of indifference in the Missouri Senate.

The legislation was approved 145-0 by the House on Feb. 12. But the Senate took two weeks to assign it to the Ways and Means Committee, which held a public hearing on March 3. The roughly 2½-minute hearing showed that committee members were familiar with the bill. It also demonstrated a profound apathy toward fixing the problem.

Full article here.