UPDATE: Sen. Kurt Schaefer, R-Columbia, has offered a nuanced change to his position on the proposed bond issue. He’s still in favor of it, but he doesn’t approve of Nixon offering support of the plan in exchange for holding back federal money from building projects approved by the Legislature. Here’s a statement from Schaefer:

“My support of the original bonding measure was to fund bricks and mortar projects that would get Missourians back to work. At the end of this legislative session, that goal was greatly accomplished with the passing of House Bill 22. The money to fund many of the Lewis and Clark projects, with the priority being the Ellis Fischel Cancer Center, is available for the Governor to release today. I still support a bonding proposal that allows the voters of Missouri to decide whether the State should incur debt for capital improvement, and I’m glad the Governor now supports it too. But, I have no intention of supporting a measure that enables the Governor to spend the one-time, job-creating, capital improvement money we gave him on his annual operating budget while at the same time asking tax payers for more.”

JEFFERSON CITY — Trying to assert himself into a debate over a proposed bond issue for university and state buildings in Missouri, Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder today panned the proposal.

“The governor’s bonding plan is nothing more than another government bailout that will put our state in debt for nearly a quarter of a century,” Kinder said in a news release.

In a letter to lawmakers nearly two weeks ago, Gov. Jay Nixon pushed lawmakers to get behind a plan for the state to issue bonds (at least $700 million and probably more) to fund university and state building projects. Such a proposal had bipartisan support in the General Assembly this session, but Nixon was silent about it then. (The plan passed the House easily and died in the Senate).

But because of continued lagging state revenue, Nixon vetoed some building projects approved by lawmakers — and held back money on others — to balance the budget. Now he wants lawmakers to pass a bond issue proposal to finance the buildings over 20 or so years. Voters would have the ultimate say.

Nixon, and the plan’s supporters, including state Rep. Chris Kelly, D-Columbia, state Rep. Steve Tilley, R-Perryville, and state Sen. Kurt Schaefer, R-Columbia, say the plan makes sense because interest rates are low and the federal government will pay for about a third of the interest under the Congressional stimulus legislation.

Nixon is considering calling lawmakers into a special session to debate the bond issue proposal.

Kinder — who is considered the Republican favorite to challenge Nixon for governor in 2012, is throwing cold water on that plan, even though many members of his party support the idea.

“I strongly urge the governor to utilize the one time funds available in the state’s bank account and fund the construction projects that legislators authorized just a few months ago,” he said. “That is a plan that will truly make a difference for hardworking Missourians.”

For Nixon to do what Kinder suggests, he would either have to cut elsewhere from the budget lawmakers approved, or fill the gap with federal stimulus funds that both Nixon and key budget writers in the House and Senate hope to hold on to for the 2011 budget year.