Voice For Liberty

Category: Kansas state government

  • Money flows to Kansas elections

    Kansas Watchdog, in its article Tracking the PACs — big money flowing into crucial Senate contests, lays out the action of political action committees seeking to influence Kansas voters in the August primary election.

    The issue of third-party money involvement has been a concern to many, with Democrats and moderate Republicans railing against “special interest” money, frequently referring to the Kansas Chamber of Commerce and Americans for Prosperity. The claim is that these organizations are attempting to buy an election.

    Thanks to Earl Glynn’s reporting in Kansas Watchdog, we see that both sides have PACs that funnel money to, or advocate in favor of, candidates. In the case of moderate Republicans, we see that the Senate Leadership Committee PAC has received contributions from special interest groups, and then funneled that money in favor of moderate Republicans. Senate President Steve Morris controls this PAC.

    A large contributor to Morris’ PAC is Kansas National Education Association (KNEA), the teachers union. This is a special interest groups that advocates for the interests of teachers, not students and taxpayers.

    Another contributor is Kansas Contractors PAC. Its job is to get the state to spend as much as possible on roads and highways, without regard to whether these are needed or wanted.

    Casino money makes its way to the PAC, too. The existing casinos in Kansas would like to see competition prohibited.

    There are more special interest groups contributing in favor of moderate candidates, including labor unions, perhaps the most highly specialized interest group of all.

    Contrast these special interests with groups like Americans for Prosperity. I have supported AFP for many years because AFP promotes economic freedom, which is good for everyone, not just for certain groups. While the Kansas Chamber is more focused on business, a thriving business climate in Kansas is good for everyone — consumers, workers, taxpayers, and government coffers. We don’t have this now in Kansas. Instead, we have low private sector job creation at the expense of government jobs.

    Some are concerned about the influence of PAC spending, and also that of third parties that spend in favor of, or in opposition to, candidates. These are independent expenditures. They’re not supposed to be coordinated with the candidate or campaigns. Some of the most misleading and harshly negative ads come from these groups, instead of from the candidates’ campaigns.

    This level of separation allows candidates to disavow or distance themselves from these ads. A solution is to allow larger donations to be made directly to the candidates. In this way, the campaign is responsible for the advertisements and can’t shift blame to someone else.

  • Huelskamp: Kansas needs Health Care Freedom Amendment

    An open letter from Congressman Tim Huelskamp of the Kansas first district to Republican Kansas State Senators Pete Brungardt, Jay Emler, Terrie Huntington, Jeff Longbine, Carolyn McGinn, Steve Morris, Tim Owens, Roger Reitz, Vicki Schmidt, Jean Schodorf, Ruth Teichman, Dwayne Umbarger, and John Vratil. These are the “traditional,” “reasonable,” “moderate” Kansan Republicans.

    July 31, 2012

    Dear Senator:

    While all Republicans in Washington are working hard to fulfill Kansans’ wishes to stop ObamaCare from destroying our liberties, I am disappointed that you and many other Topeka politicians are actually hindering our efforts.

    The reasons to undo ObamaCare are countless. It carries a trillion-dollar price tag over the next decade. It increases family premiums, burdens our small businesses, invades our privacy, and stomps on our religious freedom. States like Kansas will continue to bear the costs of expensive federal mandates. And, Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has refused to offer waivers she was more than willing to grant to unions and businesses connected to the Obama Administration.

    As you may know, before being elected to Congress, I strongly supported adding the Health Care Freedom Amendment to our state Constitution. If passed, it would allow Kansans to have a say on a law they fundamentally oppose: ObamaCare. The citizens of Ohio were given this opportunity — so should the people of Kansas.

    However, when this Amendment came to you during the 2012 Session, I was extremely disappointed that you refused to allow a vote of the people if the law was upheld by the Supreme Court. What a mistake. Kansans deserve to have a say on ObamaCare — whether you like it or not — and whether a narrow Supreme Court majority refuses to defend the Constitution.

    As you know, ObamaCare is a significant threat to the wallets, the liberties, and health care access of Kansans. It was rammed through Congress behind closed doors, without public input, and many are still reading it “to see what was in it.” And for you to hide behind the Supreme Court and with Obama, Pelosi and Reid instead of the people of Kansas — that is very disappointing.

    In closing, please reconsider your opposition to putting the Health Care Freedom Amendment to a vote of the Kansas people.

    Sincerely,

    Tim Huelskamp

  • Kansas traditional: the platform

    Will “traditional,” “reasonable,” “moderate” Kansan Republicans be defeated in the August 7, 2012 Kansas primary? Would that defeat be good or bad for Kansas?

    Kansas newspapers have featured an op-ed by H. Edward Flentje of the Hugo Wall School of Urban and Public Affairs at Wichita State University. (A referendum on Brownback, July 27 Winfield Courier.) His tone, as is that of many newspaper editorials appearing through the state, is that it is vital to preserve the “traditional” moderate Republican approach to Kansas government, as it is those who “believe government has a more affirmative role in assuring a high quality of life for Kansans.” The implication, made explicit later on, is that the rise of a conservative majority in the Kansas Senate would be bad.

    Here’s one area in which Flentje is incorrect. He characterizes the moderates as “Republican legislators who may exercise independent judgment on alliance issues.” He and others use the phrase “march in lockstep with [Kansas Governor Sam] Brownback” as criticism of conservative challengers, who they say will be merely puppets of Brownback, incapable of independent thought.

    But when we look at the record of “moderate Republican” legislators, we usually see them “marching in lockstep” with the Kansas National Education Association, labor unions — especially public employee unions, trial lawyers, and other assorted special interest groups.

    Following are the areas in which Flentje says Brownback wants legislators to “march in lockstep” and whether it would be good to maintain these policies that Flentje prefers.

    “Eliminating state income taxes and seeking higher sales and property taxes to address state obligations, consequently shifting the state tax burden to lower-income residents.” I’m not aware that conservatives are pressing for higher sales and property taxes. There has been some difference of opinion over ending the temporary statewide sales tax increase, and that may play out in the next legislative session. The best way we can address state spending — living up to the obligations Flentje alludes to — is to streamline Kansas government. But moderates oppose this. See Kansas reasonable: Government reform.

    The best way to pay for government services is to grow the economy and create jobs. But Kansas has performed poorly during the past decade under the reign of “traditional” moderate Republicans (and their coalition with Democrats) in the House and Senate. Just a few years ago, after a decade of moderate policies, Kansas was the only state to have a loss in private sector jobs over the past year.

    “Restraining state spending on public schools and shifting school funding to property taxes at the local level.” Moderates oppose one way we can save on schools: school choice through charter schools, vouchers, or scholarship tax credits. All these programs reduce the burden of school spending on both the state and school districts. Other than this, moderates “march in lockstep” with those who constantly call for more school spending, even to the point of suing the state’s taxpayers for more money. They join with the special interests who fight against accountability measures. They also fight against an honest assessment of the condition of public schools in Kansas, and when you look under the covers, it’s not the pretty picture that education bureaucrats paint. See Kansas reasonable: The education candidates.

    “Cutting funding for the arts and public broadcasting.” Those who seek money from government for arts are a special interest group. They make an economic case that government spending on the arts is good for the economy, but there’s no evidence that this form of government spending is different from any other. Instead, it takes tax money from people and forces them to spend it on things they may not want. Instead, government bureaucrats — listening to narrow special interest groups — decide how to spend money.

    “Shifting the funding of state universities to students and their families through higher tuition and fees.” What a novel idea! Expecting those who use a service to pay for it!

    “Challenging judicial independence and enacting measures that make state judges more susceptible to outside political influence.” Kansas judicial selection is highly politicized and undemocratic, with out-sized power concentrated in a special interest group: lawyers. Among the fifty states, Kansas is at the undemocratic extreme in the way we select judges, and moderates support this. See Kansas reasonable: Judicial selection.

    “Placing out-of-state, for-profit insurance companies in charge of managing aid to elderly, disabled and vulnerable residents.” Outsourcing is one way that governments can increase quality of service and reduce cost. There’s no reason to think that just because a service is presently provided by the state, that is the best way to provide it. In fact, waste and inefficiency are characteristic of government. Far from being a rip-off or waste of taxpayer monies, the profit motive — found only in the private sector — is a reliable motivator. The challenge of the state will be to make sure that companies profit when they provide good service, efficiently.

    “Spending more time finding ways to limit a woman’s access to abortion and targeting with legal action any group that supports such access.” My focus is primarily on issues of economic freedom. Others will have to weigh in on this issue.

    “Punishing party members who dare to cooperate with Democrats on legislation.” Both parties do this. Ask Senator Chris Steineger how the Kansas Democratic Party feels about those who don’t toe the party line.

    Whether the election is or is not a referendum on Kansas Governor Sam Brownback, Kansans need to reflect on the legacy of traditional Republican leadership and governance and realize this has not been the path to jobs and prosperity.

  • Kansas reasonable: Government reform

    What is the record of the Kansas moderate Republicans who promote a “reasonable,” “balanced,” and “responsible” approach to Kansas government? Regarding government reform, prominent members of the moderate coalition have blocked important bills that could reform Kansas government for the betterment of everyone.

    Recently-passed tax reform in Kansas has lead to fear-mongering that the state will suffer large deficits in upcoming years and will have to cut services like education and social services. There are many ways, however, that Kansas government can save money and still provide the essential services that Kansans rely on.

    But moderate, “reasonable,” “traditional” Republicans have blocked efforts to improve the operations and reduce the cost of Kansas state government. In 2011 the Kansas Legislature lost three opportunities to do just this. 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. But moderate, “reasonable,” “traditional” Republicans had a role in each of these defeats.

    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, a member of the moderate coalition.

    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.

    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.

  • Why Kansas had to cut taxes

    By Sam Brownback, Governor of Kansas

    When Jeff Colyer and I took office in January of 2011, tens of thousands of fewer Kansans were working in private sector jobs than a decade ago. Our state was losing residents to all surrounding states. We had the highest taxes in the region and ranked among the worst in private sector job creation. Something had to be done if Kansas was going to be a place where our children and grandchildren could stay to find a job and raise a family.

    When we took office, there was $876.10 in the state’s coffers and a projected deficit for the next fiscal year of $500 million. Through a combination of fiscal restraint, smart cuts, and focusing our resources on the core functions of government, we took that half billion dollar deficit and turned it into a half billion dollar surplus. This billion dollar swing was achieved in one year.

    Now that Kansas’s economy is getting back on track and we’ve taken the necessary steps to get the government’s fiscal house in order, it was time to take a stand for the future of our state. In May, the Kansas Legislature passed and I signed the largest tax cut in state history, eliminating state income taxes on small businesses and reducing the tax burden on every hardworking Kansan.

    From day one, my administration’s top priority has been to grow the Kansas economy and create jobs. We had to reverse the trend of capital loss that we were suffering to every state around us and still the tide of rural population decline. This is what we ran for office promising to and we have taken swift and decisive action.

    We did this because it was time to shake up the status quo of taxing, spending, and declining. In our federalist system, state governments are forced to compete against each other for capital, jobs, and residents. Competition offers two options: you can either refuse to adapt to changing conditions and fall behind those who do, or you can lead the way to the future. Kansas had to change the way it competes regionally and nationally for residents and jobs, and so far we have made great progress.

    In addition to reducing the tax burden on Kansas families and small businesses, we also improved our economic development toolbox with targeted incentives like letting businesses of any size deduct 100 percent of the expense of new business equipment and machinery. We created Rural Opportunity Zones to help recruit people to counties with sharply declining populations. And we established education programs to increase engineering and tech career students to meet our businesses’ future workforce needs.

    Our new pro-growth tax policy will be like a shot of adrenaline into the heart of the Kansas economy. It will pave the way to the creation of tens of thousands of new jobs, bring tens of thousands of people to Kansas and help make our state the best place in America to start and grow a small business. It will leave more than a billion dollars in the hands of Kansans — they know far better how to spend their money than the state government. An expanding economy and growing population will directly benefit our schools and local governments.

    We will continue to work to provide a business environment that will keep our state regionally and globally competitive. We will continue to reform state government so that it is more efficient, effective and responsive to our citizen’s needs. We will continue to meet the needs of our state’s most vulnerable. We will continue to provide for high quality schools.

    But most of all, we will continue to strive to make our state even better. Kansas’ lost decade is over. No longer will we be satisfied with our children moving to another state for better opportunities. No longer will we accept having the highest tax burden in the region. Now is the time to grow our economy, not state government, and that’s what this our policies will do.

    We are just getting started in Kansas, but we are off the sidelines and in the game.

  • Kansas reasonable: Judicial selection

    Kansas Republicans who promote themselves as the “reasonable” candidates — “traditional” Republicans, they like to say — support a method of judicial selection in Kansas that is not democratic. In fact, Kansas is at the undemocratic extreme in judicial selection.

    Kansas University law professor Stephen J. Ware has extensively researched and written on the method of judicial selection in the United States. His paper The Bar’s Extraordinarily Powerful Role in Selecting the Kansas Supreme Court reports that in Kansas, a select group of lawyers has tremendous control over the nominating process for the Kansas Court of Appeals and Kansas Supreme Court. It’s a process that desperately needs reform, despite the effort that Kansas lawyers spend defending their elite privileges and powers in this regard. “Reasonable” Republicans enable them.

    Ware wrote this in a Lawrence Journal-World editorial:

    What makes the Kansas Supreme Court selection process unusual is not that it’s political, but that it gives so much political power to the bar (the state’s lawyers). Kansas is the only state that gives its bar majority control over the commission that nominates Supreme Court justices. It’s no surprise that members of the Kansas bar are happy with the current system because it gives them more power than the bar has in any of the other 49 states and allows them to exercise that power in secret, without any accountability to the public.

    In the conclusion to his paper, he summarized: “In supreme court selection, the bar has more power in Kansas than in any other state. This extraordinary bar power gives Kansas the most elitist and least democratic supreme court selection system in the country.”

    Defenders of the present system say it keeps politics out of judicial selection. But Ware has noted that nine of the last 11 people appointed to the Kansas Supreme Court belonged to the same political party as the governor who appointed them. It reminds me of a quote from William “Boss” Tweed, political boss of Tammany Hall, that summarizes our problem accurately and concisely: “I don’t care who does the electing so long as I do the nominating.”

    In February the Kansas Senate took a vote on agreeing to amendments to a bill that, if accepted and passed, would implement a system where the governor would appoint judges to the Court of Appeals, and then the Senate would confirm or reject the nominee. This is a system like the United States and many states use. A “Yea” vote was a vote in favor of this system. Here are the votes: Yeas: Abrams, Apple, Bruce, Donovan, Kelsey, Longbine, Love, Lynn, Masterson, Merrick, Olson, Ostmeyer, Petersen, Pilcher-Cook, Pyle, Taddiken, Wagle. Nays: Brungardt, Emler, Faust-Goudeau, Francisco, Haley, Hensley, Holland, Huntington, Kelly, King, Kultala, Marshall, McGinn, Morris, Owens, Reitz, A. Schmidt, V. Schmidt, Schodorf, Teichman, Umbarger, Vratil. Present and Passing: Steineger.

    Voters in Kansas ought to ask the “reasonable” Republicans who voted against a democratic method of judicial selection why they defend the self-serving position of a special interest group.

    Judicial selection among the statesJudicial selection among the states. Kansas is alone in giving the bar extreme power. From Kansas University School of Law Professor Stephen J. Ware.

  • Kansas Health Care Freedom legislation: The real story

    By Kansas Senator Mary Pilcher-Cook, R-Shawnee

    We need honesty and integrity in campaigns. It is crucial that Kansas citizens receive correct information about legislators’ voting records and not just rhetoric with platitudes. Kansas Senate President Steve Morris said he never supported the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. However, his actions and votes indicate he was not willing to protect Kansas citizens and their liberty against the controversial federal health care law.

    Over the course of three years, President Morris was continually asked to allow a vote on the Senate floor for a Kansas Health Care Freedom Amendment so Kansas citizens would be able to vote for it on the ballot this year and continue to act freely concerning their own health care decisions. State sovereignty as guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment in our U.S. Constitution gives the primary duty to the state to protect the liberty of the people in regards to their health care. However, the legislation was repeatedly given roadblocks in the Senate and it was necessary to maneuver the measure around several Senate leadership-imposed barriers.

    Please review the votes from official Senate journals so you are not deceived by “Washington-DC style politics.” The accurate historical record with links to these journals is on www.kansashealthcarefreedom.com, which also explains the voting gymnastics that transpired over the years.

    In 2010, the proposed constitutional amendment was referred to two committees and a subcommittee (usually a bill is only referred to one committee by leadership). One committee passed it without a recommendation, and the second committee referred it to a subcommittee. In the final hours before adjournment, a motion was made to move the measure out of committee. President Morris voted against this motion. (Senate Journal April 28, 2910. A “Yea” vote was in favor of health care freedom. Yeas: Abrams, Apple, Barnett, Brownlee, Bruce, Colyer, Donovan, Huelskamp, Kelsey, Lynn, Marshall, Masterson, Ostmeyer, Petersen, Pilcher-Cook, Pyle, Schmidt D, Taddiken, Wagle. Nays: Brungardt, Emler, Faust-Goudeau, Francisco, Haley, Hensley, Holland, Huntington, Kelly, Kultala, Lee, McGinn, Morris, Owens, Reitz, Schmidt V, Schodorf, Steineger, Teichman, Umbarger, Vratil.)

    In the 2011 session, I amended the language of the Health Care Freedom Amendment into a prescription health care bill on the Senate floor as the “Kansas Health Care Freedom Act” — a law instead of a constitutional amendment. President Morris voted against the floor amendment. Only after the amendment was added and it was obvious the measure was going to pass is when “every” Republican in the Kansas Senate voted for it. (Senate Journal Mar 22, 2011. A “Yea” vote was in favor of health care freedom. Yeas: Abrams, Apple, Bruce, Huntington, Kelsey, King, Longbine, Love, Lynn, Marshall, Masterson, McGinn, Merrick, Olson, Ostmeyer, Petersen, Pilcher-Cook, Pyle, Schmidt V, Schodorf, Steineger, Taddiken, Teichman, Umbarger, Vratil, Wagle. Nays: Brungardt, Emler, Faust-Goudeau, Haley, Hensley, Kultala, Morris, Owens, Reitz, Schmidt A. Present and Passing: Francisco, Holland, Kelly. Absent or Not Voting: Donovan.)

    In the 2012 session, the Health Care Freedom Amendment was defeated in the Senate. Interestingly, seven senators who voted for final passage first voted to send the measure back to committee. (Senate Journal Feb. 23, 2012. A “Nay” vote is in favor of health care freedom. Yeas: Brungardt, Emler, Faust-Goudeau, Francisco, Haley, Hensley, Holland, Kelly, Kultala, Longbine, McGinn, Morris, Owens, Reitz, A. Schmidt, V. Schmidt, Teichman, Umbarger, Vratil. Nays: Abrams, Apple, Bruce, Donovan, Kelsey, King, Love, Lynn, Marshall, Masterson, Merrick, Olson, Ostmeyer, Petersen, Pilcher-Cook, Pyle, Schodorf, Steineger, Taddiken, Wagle. Present and Passing: Huntington.)

    As far as money being involved in politics, President Steve Morris is in charge of a Senate Leadership PAC that receives out-of-state money and spends massive amounts sending out nasty and false attacks on fellow Republicans who did not vote for President Morris to be in his leadership position. President Steve Morris voted against abolishing this PAC last session.

    When there are conflicting views, please get the facts and evaluate the votes. On Tuesday, August 7, be prepared to vote for the candidates who stand with integrity about their votes.

  • Kansas reasonable: We’re number 47 (and 48)

    What is the record of those who promote a reasonable, balanced, and responsible approach to Kansas government? These are terms that Kansas moderate Republicans use as they seek re-election in the August primary election. But this approach has lead to slow economic growth and economic development programs that don’t seem to be producing the results we want. Now we know part of the reason why the “Kansas reasonable” approach hasn’t worked well: Our tax rates are high — way too high.

    Earlier this year the Tax Foundation released a report that examines the tax costs on business in the states and in selected cities in each state. The news for Kansas is worse than merely bad, as our state couldn’t have performed much worse: Kansas ranks 47th among the states for tax costs for mature business firms, and 48th for new firms.

    The report is Location Matters: A Comparative Analysis of State Tax Costs on Business.

    The study is unusual in that it looks at the impact of states’ tax burden on mature and new firms. This, according to report authors, “allows us to understand the effects of state tax incentives compared to a state’s core tax system.” In further explanation, the authors write: “The second measure is for the tax burden faced by newly established operations, those that have been in operation less than three years. This represents a state’s competitiveness after we have taken into account the various tax incentive programs it makes available to new investments.”

    The report also looks at the tax costs for specific types of business firms. For Kansas, some individual results are better than overall, but still not good. For a mature corporate headquarters, Kansas ranks 30th. For locating a new corporate headquarters — one that would benefit from tax incentive programs — Kansas ranked 42nd. For a mature research and development facility, 46th; while new is ranked 49th. For a mature retail store, 38th, while new is ranked 45th.

    There are more categories. Kansas ranks well in none.

    In its summary for Kansas, the authors note the fecklessness of Kansas economic development incentives: “Kansas offers among the most generous property tax abatements and investment tax credits across most firm types, yet these incentives seem to have little impact on the state’s rankings for new operations.”

    While economic development incentives can help reduce the cost of taxes for selected firms, incentives don’t help the many firms that don’t receive them. In fact, the cost of these incentives is harmful to other firms. The Tax Foundation report points to this harm: “While many state officials view tax incentives as a necessary tool in their state’s ability to be competitive, others are beginning to question the cost-benefit of incentives and whether they are fair to mature firms that are paying full freight. Indeed, there is growing animosity among many business owners and executives to the generous tax incentives enjoyed by some of their direct competitors.”

    But there is one incentive that can be offered to all firms: Reduce tax costs for everyone. The policy of reducing tax costs for the selected few is not working. This “active investor” approach to economic development is what has led companies in Wichita and Kansas escaping hundreds of millions in taxes — taxes that others have to pay. That has a harmful effect on other business, both existing and those that wish to form.

  • In Kansas, political signs are okay, despite covenants

    It’s common for neighborhoods to have restrictive covenants that prohibit homeowners from placing any signs in their yard, except for signs advertising homes for sale. But a 2008 Kansas law overrides these restrictive covenants to allow for the placement of small political yard signs starting 45 days before an election. Still, residents of covenant neighborhoods may want to observe their neighborhood’s restrictions, even though they are not valid under the law.

    The bill was the product of then-Senator Phil Journey of Haysville. The bill passed unanimously in both the Kansas House and Senate.

    According to the First Amendment Center, some 50 million people live in neighborhoods with homeowners associations. And laws like the 2008 Kansas law are not without controversy, despite the unanimous vote in the Kansas Legislature.

    While the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that governmental entities like cities can’t stop homeowners from displaying political yard signs, a homeowners association is not government. Instead, it is a group that people voluntarily enter.

    Generally, when prospective homeowners purchase a home in a neighborhood with restrictive covenants, they are asked to sign a document pledging to comply with the provisions in the covenants. If those covenants prohibit political yard signs, but a Kansas law says these covenants do not apply, what should a homeowner do?

    Practically: Should you display signs in your yard?

    While Kansas law makes it legal for those living in communities with covenants that prohibit political yard signs, residents may want to observe these convents. Here’s why: If neighbors are not aware of this new Kansas law and therefore still believe that the yard signs are not allowed in your neighborhood, they may think residents with signs in their yards are violating the covenants. By extension, this could reflect poorly on the candidates that are being promoted.

    The people who believe the covenants against yard signs are valid are misinformed, but they may vote. Whether to display yard signs in a covenant neighborhood is a judgment that each person will have to make for themselves.

    The Kansas statute

    K.S.A. 58-3820. Restrictive covenants; political yard signs; limitations. (a) On and after the effective date of this act, any provision of a restrictive covenant which prohibits the display of political yard signs, which are less than six square feet, during a period commencing 45 days before an election and ending two days after the election is hereby declared to be against public policy and such provision shall be void and unenforceable.

    (b) The provisions of this section shall apply to any restrictive covenant in existence on the effective date of this act.

    Or, as described in the 2008 Summary of Legislation: “The bill invalidates any provision of a restrictive covenant prohibiting the display of political yard signs, which are less than six square feet, 45 days before an election or two days after the election.”