Voice For Liberty

Category: Kansas state government

  • Kansas Policy Institute on Kansas 2014 budget

    Kansas Policy Institute president Dave Trabert offered the following statement today regarding the release of fiscal year 2014 — 2015 budget proposal by Governor Sam Brownback:

    On taxes: “HB 2117 was a great step in the right direction on taxes and we should absolutely continue to lower taxes on all Kansans. We applaud Governor Brownback’s efforts to eliminate income taxes in Kansas, but increasing sales taxes in July is not the way to do it. Completely eliminating the income may require a sales tax increase, but the rate cannot be determined until government stops giving away taxpayer money in the name of economic development and gets spending under control.”

    On spending: “We can’t know how much government should spend until we actually look for ways to be more efficient. Spending less is not about cutting service, it’s about providing the same or better service at a better price. The Governor’s budget does so in some places but it should go further. 31 states are estimated to have spent less per-resident than Kansas in 2012 so we can certainly find ways to be more efficient — especially given that general fund spending has increased 32% since 2005.”

    “We often hear laughter when we ask people around the state if government operates efficiently and a recent public opinion poll we conducted with SurveyUSA backs this up. In fact, 83 percent of Kansans believe the state government could operate five to 10 percent more efficiently.”

    On K-12 Finance and Gannon implications: “The $654 increase in Base State Aid Per-Pupil called for in the Gannon court ruling, would bring total taxpayer aid to schools to $14,045 per-pupil this year. It costs a lot of money to operate our schools, but it’s how the money is spent that matters, not how much. No study has ever been conducted in Kansas to determine what it costs for students to achieve required outcomes and have schools organized and operating in a cost-effective manner. Legislators have an obligation to fund schools, but they also have an obligation to do so in a way that makes effective use of taxpayer money.”

    “The education focus should be on outcomes. Billions in increased aid to schools over the years have not improved student achievement on independent national exams. Even state assessments show that only 56 percent of 11th grade students read grade-appropriate material with full comprehension. More money isn’t the answer to raising student achievement. It’s time to start looking for real solutions..”

    On KPERS: “Gov. Brownback clearly recognizes that last year’s KPERS reform didn’t go as far as it needs to. So even though it isn’t formally in the budget a move to a 401(k) style plan for new hires and non-vested current employees stops the likely $15 billion KPERS hole from getting deeper and, if properly structured, starts filling it back in.

  • Reaction to Kansas State of the State Address, 2013

    Governor Sam Brownback delivered his State of the State Address on January 15, 2013. The as-prepared text of the address may be read here.

    Americans for Prosperity-Kansas:

    “Americans for Prosperity-Kansas continues to support the eventual elimination of the income tax in Kansas, and we applaud Gov. Brownback for making this a priority in 2013″” said AFP-Kansas state director Derrick Sontag. “We would support a trigger mechanism for future rate reductions in the proposal rather than legislators continuing to seek a reduction in the rate every year.

    “We have no doubt that continued reductions in the income tax rate will help create economic activity, expand the tax base and create jobs.

    “We’re coming off a years-long cycle in which excessive government spending stifled Kansas families and resulted in stagnant population growth, taxpayers migrating to other states, and the loss of tens of thousands of private sector jobs. The Governor said it best when he pointed out that some choose to grow spending rather than jobs.

    “We look forward to working with legislators and the Governor in the coming session on other important areas of reform such as judicial selection — giving citizens of Kansas more direct input in the judges who sit on the Kansas Supreme Court and Kansas Court of Appeals. Senate confirmation or elections of judges would certainly create a more transparent process that is accountable to the people.”

    Senate Democratic Leader Anthony Hensley and House Democratic Leader Paul Davis issued the following statement. Hensley is wrong about the school spending figures, as I report in Kansas Democrats wrong on school spending.

    “Governor Brownback’s $2.5 billion dollar self-inflicted budget shortfall, a result of his irresponsible tax policy, has brought Kansas to the edge of its own fiscal cliff. He has brought Washington, D.C. politics to Kansas, and they do not belong here,” said Hensley. “Four months into office, he signed the single largest cut to public education in Kansas history. In just three school years, statewide funding for K-12 education was cut nearly $442 million, or a cut of $620 per child. It is no surprise that a three-judge panel issued its ruling last Friday that the Legislature isn’t meeting its K-12 school funding duty under the Kansas Constitution. Members of the Legislature took an oath just yesterday swearing to uphold the Constitution of Kansas. What is our oath worth if we renege on our constitutional duty to adequately and fairly fund our schools?”

    The 2013 legislative session will likely be marked by three major issues: a budget deficit created by tax breaks for the wealthy and big corporations, a court order to restore funding to Kansas public schools and a fundamental debate over checks and balances in Kansas.

    “Democrats want to be part of the solution to this problem, but we cannot support proposals that make the gap between the rich and the middle class even wider. The most troubling part of the Brownback Agenda is the extent to which it brings Washington-style politics to Kansas. We need Kansas based solutions to our Kansas problems, which means funding for Kansas schools, lower property taxes, and proposals to create good paying jobs for middle class families,” said Davis.

    Some tweets:

    Someone doesn’t understand the difference between “deductible” and “refundable”:

  • Kansas budget solution overlooked

    As Kansas prepares for a legislative session that must find ways to balance a budget in the face of declining revenues, not all solutions are being considered.

    Generally, the choices are presented as either raising revenues or cutting services. An example comes from H. Edward Flentje of Wichita State University. In a recent op-ed, he presents two solutions: (a) raising more revenue, by canceling the recently-passed tax cuts and retaining the current sales tax rate hike instead of letting it expire, or (b) cutting services. (H. Edward Flentje : State facing fiscal cliff, December 16, 2012 Wichita Eagle)

    In the Kansas City Star, Steve Rose made a similar argument.

    I hope that “cutting services” means cutting spending on services, not the actual level of services the state provides, although that could probably use some trimming, too.

    How much spending does the state need to cut? Kansas Policy Institute has calculated that a one-time spending cut of 8.5 percent, followed by spending growth of four percent per year, would produce a balanced budget with ending balances.

    Does anyone think this goal can’t be met? If not, then perhaps cutting four percent in each of the next two years could be a goal.

    But either way, we can cut spending while maintaining services people have become accustomed to expect from government. Remaking government is a way to do this. We can make government more efficient, despite the claims that it is impossible to do so.

    As an example, in 2010 the Wichita school district saved $2.5 million per year by adjusting school starting times, thereby saving on transportation costs. This was after district officials claimed — repeatedly — there was nothing they could cut. Spending had already been “cut to the bone,” officials said.

    When we see incidents like this, the governing body trumpets the savings, and then, unfortunately, often stops looking for savings. But we need to keep looking. An example of a way to save money is school choice.

    School choice saves states money

    While proponents of public school spending argue that school choice programs drain away dollars from what they claim are underfunded public schools, this is not the case.

    In 2007 The Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice released the study School Choice by the Numbers: The Fiscal Effect of School Choice Programs, 1990-2006. According to the executive summary: “Every existing school choice program is at least fiscally neutral, and most produce a substantial savings.”

    How can this be? The public school spending lobby, which in Kansas is primarily the Kansas National Education Association (KNEA, the teachers union) and the Kansas Association of School Boards (KASB), would have us believe that educational freedom would kill public education. They say that school choice program drain scarce resources from the public school system.

    But when researchers looked at the actual effects, they found this: “In nearly every school choice program, the dollar value of the voucher or scholarship is less than or equal to the state’s formula spending per student. This means states are spending the same amount or less on students in school choice programs than they would have spent on the same students if they had attended public schools, producing a fiscal savings.”

    So at the state level, school choice programs save money. They don’t cost money to implement; they save money.

    Further research on school choice programs funded through tax credits confirms this.

    Other ways to save

    In 2011 the Kansas Legislature lost three opportunities to save money and improve the operations of state government. Three bills, each with this goal, were passed by the House of Representatives, but each failed to pass through the moderate-controlled Senate, or had its contents stripped and replaced with different legislation.

    Each of these bills represents a lost opportunity for state government services to be streamlined, delivered more efficiently, or measured and managed. These goals, while always important, are now essential for the success of Kansas government and the state’s economy.

    Kansas Streamlining Government Act

    HB 2120, according to its supplemental note, “would establish the Kansas Streamlining Government Act, which would have the purpose of improving the performance, efficiency, and operations of state government by reviewing certain state agencies, programs, boards, and commissions.” Fee-funded agencies — examples include Kansas dental board and Kansas real estate commission — would be exempt from this bill.

    In more detail, the text of the bill explains: “The purposes of the Kansas streamlining government act are to improve the performance, streamline the operations, improve the effectiveness and efficiency, and reduce the operating costs of the executive branch of state government by reviewing state programs, policies, processes, original positions, staffing levels, agencies, boards and commissions, identifying those that should be eliminated, combined, reorganized, downsized or otherwise altered, and recommending proposed executive reorganization orders, executive orders, legislation, rules and regulations, or other actions to accomplish such changes and achieve such results.”

    In testimony in support of this legislation, Dave Trabert, President of Kansas Policy Institute offered testimony that echoed findings of the public choice school of economics and politics: “Some people may view a particular expenditure as unnecessary to the fulfillment of a program’s or an agency’s primary mission while others may see it as essential. Absent an independent review, we are expecting government employees to put their own self-interests aside and make completely unbiased decisions on how best to spend taxpayer funds. It’s not that government employees are intentionally wasteful; it’s that they are human beings and setting self-interests aside is challenge we all face.”

    The bill passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 79 to 40. It was referred to the Senate Committee on Federal and State Affairs, where it did not advance. HB 2120 died in a senate committee chaired by Pete Brungardt, who was defeated in August.

    Privatization and public-private partnerships

    Another bill that did not advance was HB 2194, which in its original form would have created the Kansas Advisory Council on Privatization and Public-Private Partnerships.

    According to the supplemental note for the bill, “The purpose of the Council would be to ensure that certain state agencies, including the Board of Regents and postsecondary educational institutions, would: 1) focus on the core mission and provide goods and services efficiently and effectively; 2) develop a process to analyze opportunities to improve efficiency, cost-effectiveness and provide quality services, operations, functions, and activities; and 3) evaluate for feasibility, cost-effectiveness, and efficiency opportunities that could be outsourced. Excluded from the state agencies covered by the bill would be any entity not receiving State General Fund or federal funds appropriation.”

    This bill passed by a vote of 68 to 51 in the House of Representatives. It did not advance in the Senate, falling victim to a “gut-and-go” maneuver where its contents were replaced with legislation on an entirely different topic. Steve Morris, president of the Kansas Senate and a member of the moderate coalition, chaired the committee that killed this legislation. He won’t be in the Senate next year.

    Performance measures

    Another bill that didn’t pass the entire legislature was HB 2158, which would have created performance measures for state agencies and reported that information to the public. The supplemental note says that the bill “as amended, would institute a new process for modifying current performance measures and establishing new standardized performance measures to be used by all state agencies in support of the annual budget requests. State agencies would be required to consult with representatives of the Director of the Budget and the Legislative Research Department to modify each agency’s current performance measures, to standardize such performance measures, and to utilize best practices in all state agencies.” Results of the performance measures would be posted on a public website.

    This bill passed the House of Representatives by a nearly unanimous vote of 119 to 2, with Wichita’s Nile Dillmore and Geraldine Flaharty the two nay votes.

    Opposition to these bills from Democrats often included remarks on the irony of those who were recently elected on the promise of shrinking government now proposing to enlarge government through the creation of these commissions and councils. These bills, however, proposed to spend modest amounts increasing the manageability of government, not the actual range and scope of government itself. As it turns out, many in the legislature — this includes Senate Republicans who initiated or went along with the legislative maneuvers that killed these bills — are happy with the operations of state government remaining in the shadows.

    HB 2158 was victim of a “gut-and-go” maneuver in a committee chaired by Carolyn McGinn, another member of the moderate coalition. She will be returning to the senate next year, but probably won’t have the ability to stop legislation like this.

  • Kansas can improve its budget process

    This year Kansas made a leap forward in reducing income tax rates. The next step for Kansas is to reduce its spending, both to match the reduced revenue that is forecast, but also to improve the efficiency of Kansas government and leave more money in the hands of the private sector. Specifically, Kansas needs to improve its budgeting process and streamline state government.

    In Kansas, like in many states, the budgeting process starts with the previous year’s spending. That is then adjusted for factors like inflation, caseloads, and policy changes that necessitate more (or rarely, less) spending. The result is that debates are waged over the increment in spending. Rarely is the base looked at to see if the spending is efficient, effective, or needed.

    There are several approaches Kansas could take to improve this process. One is zero-based budgeting. In this approach, an agency’s budget set to zero. Then, every spending proposal must have a rational or justification for it to be added to the budget.

    Zero-based budgeting can be successful, but, according to the recent paper Zero-base Budgeting in the States from National Conference of State Legislatures, it requires a large commitment from the parties involved. It also can take a lot of time and resources. Kansas could start the process with just a few agencies, and each agency could go through the process periodically, say once every five or six years. Some states have abandoned the zero-based budgeting process.

    In its State Budget Reform Toolkit, American Legislative Exchange Council advocates a system called priority-based budgeting. This process starts with deciding on the core functions of state government. That, of course, can be a battle, as people have different ideas on what government should be doing.

    ALEC reports that “In 2003, Washington state actually implemented priority based budgeting to close a budget deficit of $2.4 billion without raising taxes.”

    The problem that Kansas will face in reducing state spending and streamlining its government is that there are those who are opposed. Streamlining often means eliminating programs that aren’t needed, aren’t performing as expected, or are very costly. These programs, however, all have constituencies that benefit from them — the concept of concentrated benefits and dispersed costs that public choice economics has taught us. These constituencies will be sure to let everyone know how harmful it will be to their self-interest if a program is scaled back or ended.

    Streamlining also means that there may be fewer state employees. Some will say that the loss of state employees means a loss for the economy, as the state workers will no longer be receiving a paycheck and spending it. This reasoning, however, ignores the source of state workers’ pay: the taxpayers of Kansas. With fewer state employees, taxpayers will have more money to spend or invest. The problem is that it is easier to focus on the employees that may lose their jobs, as they are highly visible and they have vocal advocacy groups to watch out for them. This is an example of the seen and unseen, as explained by Henry Hazlitt.

  • Flight options from Wichita decline, compared to nation

    A program designed to bring low air fares to Wichita appears to meet that goal, but the unintended and inevitable consequences of the program are not being recognized.

    The legislative agendas for Wichita and Sedgwick County call for supporting the retention and funding of the Affordable Airfares program. This program provides taxpayer money to subsidize low-cost air carriers in Kansas. Most of the program’s funds have been spent in Wichita, in particular on AirTran Airways.

    According to Regional Economic Area Partnership, the managing organization, the goal of the program is “to provide more air flight options, more competition for air travel, and affordable airfares for Kansas.”

    Is the Affordable Airfares program meeting its goals? If we look at “air flight options,” and if we consider the number of monthly departing flights as a measurement, Wichita isn’t doing well compared to the nation. The chart at the end of this article illustrates.

    (Since this data is highly seasonal, I present a 12-month moving average, so that each point plotted is the average of the previous 12 months data. Also, I index January 2000 to 100.)

    Of particular note is that over the past two or three years, the trend of flights nationally is level, while the trend of flights available in Wichita is declining.

    In its Kansas Affordable Airfares Program Fiscal Year 2011 Report, REAP addresses the goal of “more air flight options” and reports:

    “Air service through Wichita Mid-Continent Airport addresses the statutory objective of more flight options, as follows: A total of 11 airlines provide service from Wichita to seven nonstop destinations with connecting service and four nonstop destinations with no connecting service. Overall, there are on average 38 daily (with 40 on weekdays) nonstop or one-stop flights by commercial air carriers, providing access to 4,989 U.S. and international destinations.”

    This statement simply addresses the current situation. But the goal is more flight options. Which is better evidence of meeting the statutory goal: A simple recitation of what’s available today, or looking at the trend, especially comparing Wichita to the nation? REAP’s statement provides very little information as to whether the program is meeting its stated goals, or whether the program is desirable. We should ask that REAP recognize the data and its implications.

    This trend is an example of unintended consequences of government intervention and regulation. The Affordable Airfares program imposes a rough form of price control on airfares in Wichita. If the program didn’t do that — and it appears it succeeds at this goal — then there would be no point in having the program.

    The inevitable effect of price controls is that less is supplied, compared to what would have been supplied. This economic phenomenon is reliable and predictable.

    While travelers prefer low air fares to high, this is not the only consideration. For those who need to travel on short notice, the availability of flights is very important.

    For more about flights in Wichita, see In Wichita, confusion over air traffic statistics.

    Monthly flights, Wichita Airport and nationally.

  • In Wichita, confusion over air traffic statistics

    As the governments of Wichita and Sedgwick County prepare their legislative agendas for next year, retaining the Affordable Airfares program is a high priority for most officials. This program provides taxpayer money to subsidize low-cost air carriers in Kansas. Most of the program’s funds have been spent in Wichita, in particular on AirTran Airways.

    It’s almost certain that air fares are lower now in Wichita than they might be if not for the Affordable Airfares program. But another goal of the program is not being met. That goal is to increase the flight options from Wichita. This number has been declining for many years, but local officials seem reluctant to acknowledge this. A report produced last year by Kansas Legislative Division of Post Audit, while containing many useful findings, muddies the water in a way that makes it difficult to see the trends at the Wichita airport.

    Here’s an example: Sedgwick County’s 2012 legislative platform states “The Post Audit report also concluded that ‘the program appears to have the desired effect … fares have decreased while passengers and flights have increased.’”

    In the chart provided in the LPA document, there mare many years where the “percent change in flights from prior year” is zero or negative. That means that for that year, the number of flights declined.

    In the chart (below) titled “Monthly Departures, Wichita” we see the number of flights leaving Wichita each month since 2000. (I gathered this data from the same source as did LPA, but independently.) I draw a trend line starting in 2000. That line barely slopes upwards, supporting a claim that “flights have increased.”

    But suppose we start the trend line on January 1, 2003, about seven months after AirTran entered the Wichita market. In this case, the trend line slopes downwards, and rather sharply. Which of the two lines best represents the performance of the Affordable Airfares program? I would contend it is the second line, as it shows what has been happening for the past nine or so years: Flight options from Wichita are declining.

    Considering passengers, shown in the chart titled “Monthly Passengers, Wichita and U.S.”: If we take as a starting point any time from 2000 to 2002, the number of passengers is higher now than then. But since 2004 the trend for Wichita passengers is pretty flat. (Since the monthly passenger data is highly seasonal, I present a 12-month moving average, so that each point plotted is the average of the previous 12 months data.)

    Comparing Wichita to national data, we can see that for the past two years the national trend is slowly rising, while Wichita’s trend is flat. The gap between national and Wichita is increasing, although slowly. This means that Wichita passenger traffic is not keeping pace with national.

    In presentations made as part of the Wichita/Sedgwick County Community Investment Plan attendees are told: “Fares have decreased (24 % overall) while passengers (23% increase) and flights have increased.”

    You have to make a selective — and I would say tortured — reading of the data for this statement to make sense and be true. The survey administered to program participants, at least in draft form, holds similar errors.

    Is the number of flights important? To the business traveler — who often must make travel arrangements on short notice — it is. An available seat on an airplane, even if the fare is high, is the primary concern.

    Other facts regarding the Affordable Airfares program are muddy too. The LPA report from February 2011 is Affordable Airfares: Reviewing the Benefits Claimed As a Result of State Funding to Lower Airfares. In its “Answer in Brief” the audit states: “Overall, the program appears to have had the desired effect. Since Wichita’s original affordable airfare program (FairFares) began in 2002, fares have decreased, while the number of passengers and the number of available flights have increased. However, the Regional Economic Area Partnership’s (REAP) annual reports on the program contain numerous inconsistencies and inaccuracies. Further, the economic impact of the program has been significantly overstated. Specifically, the estimated number of jobs created and the State’s return on investment were overstated because of key methodological errors and the use of some inaccurate data. We also found that overall accountability for the State funds is lacking.”

    Specifically, some of the problems LPA found were:

    • REAP officials don’t use the best data available on fares and the number of passengers.
    • The baseline years and industry benchmarks REAP officials use for comparisons are inconsistent from year to year, and sometimes even within the same report.
    • REAP officials omitted data on the number of flights available to passengers — a key goal of the program — from all but one of the annual reports.
    • The annual financial reports contain numerous errors and inconsistencies.
    • The general approach to estimating the number of jobs created appears reasonable, but the actual estimate includes some key methodological errors and uses some inaccurate data. … As a result, the 2008 study’s estimate of more than 9,700 average annual jobs from AirTran entering the Wichita market is significantly overstated. … The calculated return on investment to the State is also significantly overstated.
    • Overall accountability for state funds is lacking.
    • There is a perception among some people in the State that REAP isn’t sufficiently independent to administer the State Affordable Airfares Fund.

    Thea actions of Wichita and Sedgwick County officials show that they are either uninformed regarding these issues, or that they simply don’t care.

    Monthly departures from the Wichita Airport.
    Monthly passengers, Wichita Airport and nationally.

  • You should be able to photograph your ballot

    Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach wants to make it illegal to photograph your completed ballot, and he wants the power to enforce this law.

    There’s a thorny question here: Who owns your ballot? You, or the state? If you, then can you be prohibited from photographing something that you own?

    The usual argument for such a law is that it constrains the buying and selling of votes. A photo of your ballot, it is said, would be proof to a vote-buyer that you delivered the service you promised, if you were to sell your vote. With no ability to prove your vote, it’s thought that there would be fewer buyers.

    I don’t think, however, that the state should start judging why people voted as they did. Those who voted for Democrats in Kansas: Did they do so because these candidates promised to take more money from others in order to spend more on schools for their children?

    Those who voted for Barack Obama: Did they do so because he promised to take more taxes from high income earners to give everyone else more “stuff?”

    When a political party transports someone to the polling place because they believe the voter will vote in their favor: Is that buying a vote? Or only providing free shipping and handling?

    As H.L. Mencken wrote some years ago — before government got really big — “Every election is a sort of advance auction of stolen goods.” Whether the sale is implicit or explicit, it doesn’t change what’s happening. There’s no need to create new laws or enforcement powers.

    If we’re really interested in reducing the market to buy and sell votes, let’s reduce the power of government to give away stuff that someone else has paid for.

  • Kansas property tax honesty is needed

    Kansas Governor Sam Brownback has proposed property tax reform that may bring balance and relief to property taxes.

    The governor’s proposal is that when the value of property taxed by local governmental jurisdictions rises, the mill levy (tax rate) will be lowered so that there is no increase in total tax dollars levied.

    New property will still come on the tax rolls at its appraised value. Local governments can vote to raise the mill levy if they feel they need more property tax revenue.

    But instead of relying on rising property values automatically boosting tax revenue, government will have to be honest with citizens when they want more money. While property values haven’t risen in recent years, hopefully they will soon, and we could have this problem again.

    Most proposals in Kansas for property tax reform consist of simply transferring tax revenue from the state to local jurisdictions. That’s not very much reform.

    In 2008 I noted this phenomenon in the following article:

    The combination of a rising mill levy (the rate at which property is taxed) and rising appraised values mean that property taxes paid to USD 259, the Wichita public school district, rise rapidly.

    Appraised values in Wichita have risen faster than general inflation. The Consumer Price Index, a measure of the general inflation rate, rose by 24% from 1999 to 2007. Over the same time period, the Sedgwick County house price index rose by 34%. This means that district revenues — if the mill levy didn’t change — will rise faster than the inflation rate. When the mill levy is increased, property tax revenues rise very rapidly. The following table illustrates.

  • Wichita-area legislators on government efficiency

    Who could be against more efficient government? Even those who score poorly on the Kansas Economic Freedom Index say they are in favor of efficiency and eliminating waste. Here’s an example from the campaign website of Nile Dillmore, who is running for re-election:

    “Nile rejects that ‘tax-and-spend’ is the most effective and efficient way to manage government! Nile supports cutting waste and inefficiencies and keeping our tax burden as low as possible.”

    But as is often the case in politics, legislators’ campaign rhetoric and promises don’t align with their actual votes. For example, in the 2011 session of the Kansas Legislature HB 2194 was introduced, which in its original form would have created the Kansas Advisory Council on Privatization and Public-Private Partnerships.

    According to the supplemental note for the bill, “The purpose of the Council would be to ensure that certain state agencies, including the Board of Regents and postsecondary educational institutions, would: 1) focus on the core mission and provide goods and services efficiently and effectively; 2) develop a process to analyze opportunities to improve efficiency, cost-effectiveness and provide quality services, operations, functions, and activities; and 3) evaluate for feasibility, cost-effectiveness, and efficiency opportunities that could be outsourced. Excluded from the state agencies covered by the bill would be any entity not receiving State General Fund or federal funds appropriation.”

    This bill passed by a vote of 68 to 51 in the House of Representatives and did not advance in the Senate. Wichita-area legislators who are running for re-election and who voted against this bill included Dillmore, Gail Finney, Geraldine Flaharty, Dan Kerschen, Dillmore’s current opponent Brenda Landwehr, and Jim Ward.

    In response to the vote on this bill, Dillmore was quoted in the Wichita Eagle: “Rep. Nile Dillmore , D-Wichita, pointed out that the Republicans cheered 44 days ago when newly elected Gov. Sam Brownback, in his State of the State address, repeatedly said ‘The days of ever-expanding government are over’” ‘What’s our response?’ Dillmore said. ‘Let’s create a commission for this. Let’s create a commission for that. Let’s grow some government.’”

    But this bill — and two others described below — proposed to spend modest amounts aimed at increasing the manageability and efficiency of government, not the actual size and scope of government itself. As it turns out, many in the legislature are happy with the operations of state government remaining in the shadows, despite claims made during campaigns.

    Another bill from 2011 was HB 2158, which would have created performance measures for state agencies and reported that information to the public. The supplemental note says that the bill “as amended, would institute a new process for modifying current performance measures and establishing new standardized performance measures to be used by all state agencies in support of the annual budget requests. State agencies would be required to consult with representatives of the Director of the Budget and the Legislative Research Department to modify each agency’s current performance measures, to standardize such performance measures, and to utilize best practices in all state agencies.” Results of the performance measures would be posted on a public website.

    This bill passed the House of Representatives by a nearly unanimous vote of 119 to 2, with Wichita’s Dillmore and Flaherty the two nay votes. The bill didn’t advance in the Senate.

    Another 2011 bill was HB 2120, which according to its supplemental note “would establish the Kansas Streamlining Government Act, which would have the purpose of improving the performance, efficiency, and operations of state government by reviewing certain state agencies, programs, boards, and commissions.” Fee-funded agencies — examples include Kansas dental board and Kansas real estate commission — would be exempt from this bill.

    In more detail, the text of the bill explains: “The purposes of the Kansas streamlining government act are to improve the performance, streamline the operations, improve the effectiveness and efficiency, and reduce the operating costs of the executive branch of state government by reviewing state programs, policies, processes, original positions, staffing levels, agencies, boards and commissions, identifying those that should be eliminated, combined, reorganized, downsized or otherwise altered, and recommending proposed executive reorganization orders, executive orders, legislation, rules and regulations, or other actions to accomplish such changes and achieve such results.”

    In testimony in support of this legislation, Dave Trabert, President of Kansas Policy Institute offered testimony that echoed findings of the public choice school of economics and politics: “Some people may view a particular expenditure as unnecessary to the fulfillment of a program’s or an agency’s primary mission while others may see it as essential. Absent an independent review, we are expecting government employees to put their own self-interests aside and make completely unbiased decisions on how best to spend taxpayer funds. It’s not that government employees are intentionally wasteful; it’s that they are human beings and setting self-interests aside is challenge we all face.”

    The bill passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 79 to 40. It died in the Senate. Wichita-area legislators who are running for re-election and who voted against this bill included Dillmore, Finney, Flaharty, Landwehr, and Ward.