Meet Tom Nelson, a valuable resource for information about climate change. His self-named blog — Tom Nelson — consolidates a wide variety of material that you won’t find on the websites of the “warmists.”
Author: Bob Weeks
Barack Obama and the Price of Change
The Competitive Enterprise Institute, an important organization dedicated to advancing the principles of free enterprise and limited government, has a short (one minute) video that does a little arithmetic and arrives at the price of President-elect Obama’s plans for economic stimulus. Hint: it’s a pretty big number.
Official Reaction to Possibility of State School Bond Funding Cuts
The possibility that the State of Kansas might eliminate aid to school districts to help the pay for bond issues is causing quite a stir at USD 259, the Wichita public school district. (See Kansas Budget Problems Threaten School Bond Aid for background.)
It seems that the district is letting Linda Jones, chief financial officer for USD 259, be the primary responder to this situation. She’s been quoted on several local media outlets.
KWCH Television quoted Ms. Jones as saying that “it [USD 259] will not scale-down the plan to cuts costs but rather ask the taxpayers to make up the difference.”
KSN Television quoted her this way: “I know in all the conversations I was in we couched it the 25 percent was based on current law, that’s what we expected and that was subject to change.” (I’d be interested in learning of any public communication from USD 259 where it was mentioned that the 25% might change. I don’t recall any.)
On KAKE Televison, she said that the projects would go on. “The local taxpayers would be paying the difference.”
Sunday, on the KPTS television program “Ask Your Legislator” Wichita Democrat Tom Sawyer said that “there is a real problem with trying to take away money from bond issues that have already passed.” Changing the rules would be “pretty unfair.” It would make a good court case for someone — unfortunately, he added.
(On this program Senator Jean Schodorf, Republican of Wichita, promoted the false idea that a bond issue is effective economic stimulus. See Wichita School District Economic Impact for more about this issue.)
In one respect, this boils down to a consideration of which promise is most important to keep: the Wichita school district’s promotion that 25% of the bond cost would be paid for by someone else, or the promotion that taxes would be raised by a certain amount. Those taxes will have to be raised to a higher level if the Wichita school district decides to spend all $370 million that the voters authorized.
Judging by the statements of Ms. Jones and others at USD 259, I suggest that Wichita taxpayers prepare to pay even higher taxes.
Changing Rules Now Bad, Says Wichita School Board President Lynn Rogers
“It amounts to changing the rules in the middle of the game,” said Wichita school board president Lynn Rogers. “And it’s really bad policy.”
This is the Wichita Eagle reporting his remarks to the possibility that the State of Kansas might stop the aid to school districts that helps them pay for bond issues. Mr. Rogers may object because it means that USD 259, the Wichita public school district, may lose a great deal of money. It also means that the district may not be able to fulfill one of its campaign promises, that being that the state would pay for 25% of the cost of the bonds.
It’s ironic that Rogers objects to “changing the rules in the middle of the game.” I wonder if he remembers that the Wichita school district originally scheduled the bond issue election for May 6, 2008.
Then, perhaps sensing that the mood of the electorate was not in his favor, he voted — along with all other school board members — to delay the election to some future date. This was after one of the opposition groups had already spent a considerable sum on a mailing, and after both opposition groups had spent much time and effort. Evidently the time and money of opposition groups means nothing to Mr. Rogers. Unless, of course, it’s the time and effort spent earning income so that they can pay taxes to the Wichita school district.
So now we’ve learned something about Mr. Rogers and other school district officials. When they control the rules, changing them for their own advantage is good. But when others control the rules, Rogers wants them to adhere to a standard that he himself is not willing to follow.
Here’s Why Kansans Need to Take Control
As an introduction to my post What Impact do Kansas Voters Have on Judges?, Todd Epp of Kansas Watch writes “Um, this lawyer suggests, hopefully none?!”
My post mentions Kansas University Law Professor Stephen Ware‘s call for an end to the lawyer-dominated process of selection Kansas judges. Mr. Epp’s reaction — and he is a lawyer — should strengthen the resolve of Kansans to take control of this process away from lawyers and their narrow self-interest.
What impact do Kansas voters have on judges?
Recently a Kansas blog covered a political event and wrote this in a post titled Defending America Summit Brought out the Wingnuts:
Stephen Ware, Professor at the University of Kansas Law School:
“What’s unusual about Kansas is about how little the people’s wishes matter. There are no checks and balances in the judicial selection process.”
********. It’s called a retention voted [sic]. Don’t like Justice Dan Biles? Vote him out in a year. And, hey, aren’t all professors supposed to be crazy liberals?
I asked Mr. Ware about the value of retention votes in giving a voice to the people. As it turns out, he said, no Kansas Supreme Court justice has ever lost a retention vote, and only one lower court judge has. “This is consistent with the pattern around the country, in which judges hardly ever lose retention votes. That’s mostly because there’s no rival candidate to spark a real debate.”
So it appears that in Kansas, retention votes have not been a meaningful way for voters to engage in the process of choosing their judges. However, I will trust this blogger to educate us about crazy liberals.
This blogger also mentions (A few notes on the Governor’s budget) that the Kansas Senate’s President is Derek Schmidt. Call your office, Stephen Morris.
Wichita City Council Candidate James Barfield Addresses Activists
At Monday’s combined meeting of Campaign For Liberty and Hope For America Coalition, candidate for the Wichita city council district 1 seat James Barfield spoke to the 40 or so activists who gathered.
“Wichita has a gang problem. A legalized gang operating at 455 N. Main. It’s time for a gang intervention.”
He went on to remark that government was not designed to take private tax dollars and bail out private enterprise. But that’s what our local city government is doing. Government takes money from taxpayers and gives it to developers, he said. “I despise people who think they can come to the public trough.”
Barfield believes that Wichita city council members are in the pockets of developers, and the taxpayers pay for that. He told the crowd “We don’t have a voice. We have little say in what they do.”
Kansas Legislator Rosters Not Ready
At the Kansas Legislature website, two useful pages to visit are the roster of house and senate members. These pages hold the names of all the members, along with their email addresses and a link to the page for each member.
As of today, these pages aren’t ready for this year’s legislative session, which started Monday.
Kansas Budget Problems Threaten School Bond Aid
Oops. When I wrote this article, I proceeded as though it was Rhonda Holman who penned the Wichita Eagle editorial I refer to. But the author is Phillip Brownlee. It just seemed like a Rhonda Holman editorial.
Because the State of Kansas is short on money this year and the next few years, lawmakers are looking for ways to save. School bond issues now appear on the radar screen.
Last year, USD 259, the Wichita public school district, used the fact that the state would pay 25% of the cost of repaying bonds as a key issue in their “informational and educational” campaign to persuade Wichita voters to pass a $370 million bond issue. Here’s some background on the law and how it works.
The statute that governs the amount that the state pays school districts for bond issues is KSA 75-2319. The statute describes a process whereby the state board of education computes the assessed valuation per pupil (AVPP) of each school district in the state. Then, each district is assigned a state aid percentage. The less AVPP, the higher the percentage. The opposite is true as well. In fact, some school districts receive no state aid at all.
This calculation is performed each year. Because the formula is based on the relationship between the characteristics of any single school district and the state as a whole, the state aid percentage might change. The 25% that the Wichita school district used in their campaign for the bond issue is not guaranteed to be true for years in the future. It could increase, or it could go down.
In today’s Wichita Eagle, editorialist Phillip Brownlee (Don’t break contract on bond aid) writes that “the state is committed to pay 25 percent.” Voters went to the polls “understanding that the state would and was obligated to help pay.”
But as we see, the promise claimed by USD 259 is merely a state statute, subject to the whims of the legislature and governor, not to mention the ability of the state to pay. Further, the 25% could change, too. This information was evidently judged not relevant by the Wichita school district.
So what is likely to happen? According to reporting on KAKE television, USD 259 chief financial officer Linda Jones says the projects would go on, and local taxpayers would pay the difference. Brownlee echoes this: “If lawmakers now renege on this contract, local taxpayers will see their taxes go higher than the amount they counted on when they approved the bond issues.” (Here again Brownlee refers to a non-existent contract.)
There are, however, a few other courses that neither of these two mention.
One is to wait. The bill, in it current form, says that payments to school districts would resume after June 30, 2011.
Another course — citizen activist Charlotte Foster asked me if this is possible — is to reduce the amount the Wichita school district borrows and spends. If the district would not spend the entire $370 million, it could keep its promise to local taxpayers that the mill levy would rise by a specific amount. That’s a promise Brownlee doesn’t mention in his editorial.
Is it possible for the Wichita school district to spend less than $370 million on this bond issue? The resolution voted on authorizes the district to issue bonds “in an amount not to exceed $370,000,000.” It doesn’t say the district is required to spend that much. Further, no time limit is specified. Either of these two courses are permissible.
Mr. Brownlee claims that reducing the state aid for school bonds would be unfair, as if taxation is ever fair. Certainly the 49% of the voters who voted against this bond issue didn’t agree with the need to spend $370 million. I don’t think they’d mind if the Wichita school district, in recognition of fiscal realities, decides to spend less than authorized.
Background:
Jay Emler, Republican from Lindsborg introduced Senate bill 20, which says, in part: “On and after January 1, 2009, through June 30, 2011, school districts are not entitled to receive payments from the school district capital improvements fund for any general obligation bonds issued on and after January 1, 2009, through June 30, 2011.”
Kansas Votes will cover this bill here.