Voice For Liberty

Category: Kansas state government

  • Kansas Governor Parkinson says “thank you”

    This week outgoing Kansas Governor Mark Parkinson released a “thank you” to Kansans that has been commented on — favorably — in many Kansas newspapers and media outlets. The entire piece may be read at the governor’s site at Thanks So Much.

    The governor’s list of “achievements” — his language, not mine — is a reminder that under Parkinson and his predecessor Kathleen Sebelius Kansans have lost economic and personal freedom. It’s nothing that we should thank Parkinson for, and nothing he should be proud of.

    Under achievement number one (“Steering the state budget through a very challenging time”) Parkinson wrote “Suffice it to say that I cut state spending more than any governor in Kansas history.” He doesn’t mention that he was forced to make these cuts, as Kansas can’t run deficits like the federal government.

    Achievements two, three, and four have to do with his promotion of wind power in Kansas. It’s almost impossible to overstate how unwise these policies are. See Wind power: a wise investment for Wichita and Kansas? for a recent discussion of why wind power is a bad investment. Relying on the manufacturing of wind power equipment as an economic development strategy is an even worse idea. The governor praises legislation that requires utilities to increase their usage of renewable power such as wind. But I’d ask the governor this: If electricity from wind is so desirable, why do utilities have to be forced — and heavily subsidized — to produce it?

    Achievement seven highlights “Economic development wins,” mentioning Black and Veatch, Cerner, Bombardier LearJet, and Hawker Beechcraft in particular. Each of these “wins” required large subsidy from the state. Worse, these taxpayer giveaways cement our practice of bureaucratic management of economic development instead of creating a vibrant Kansas business climate where innovation and entrepreneurship thrive. This state policy filters down to counties and cities, to the point where the first consideration for businesses and entrepreneurs is not is this something that will create value for customers and profit for me and my investors but rather what type of government help can I get?

    Achievement eight is the statewide smoking ban. Parkinson’s championing of it means that he doesn’t believe that adult Kansans can decide for themselves whether they want to be around smokey places, and that he has little respect for private property rights.

    Achievement nine is the new transportation plan. The governor claims it will create or keep 175,000 jobs. Most of these must be highway construction jobs, as it is that industry that heavily supported the plan. As usual, the governor and other advocates of government spending fail to see the jobs that are lost due to the government spending and the taxes necessary to pay for it. Veronique de Rugy explains: “Taxes simply transfer resources from consumers to government, displacing private spending and investment. Families whose taxes have increased will have less money to spend on themselves. They are poorer and will consume less. They also save less money, which in turn reduces the resources available for lending.” In addition, Kansas roads rate very well, even number one among the states in one highly-publicized study. Why the need to so much new investment?

    Finally, achievement number ten is “Keeping Kansas a great place to do business.” If this is true, I wonder why do we have to spend so much on subsidies to keep Kansas companies from expanding elsewhere or packing up and leaving entirely, as with Hawker Beechcraft?

  • Kansas sales tax exemptions mischaracterized in Kansas City Star

    A recent editorial in one of Kansas’ leading newspapers may lead readers to believe that eliminating sales tax exemptions holds the key to solving the state’s budget problems. But following the advice of the editorial would place Kansas at a severe disadvantage to other states in manufacturing.

    The Kansas City Star editorial, titled Education should trump tax breaks in Kansas, holds this paragraph: “For every penny of sales tax collected in Kansas, the state exempts 2 cents. Brownback should be looking at ways to spread, not increase, the tax burden more fairly so everyday Kansans aren’t asked to prop up breaks for businesses.”

    While the numbers the editorial cites are correct, they are used in a misleading way, as we can easily see.

    In 2009, the retail sales tax brought in $2,286.7 million. According to a study by the Kansas Legislative Division of Post Audit is titled Kansas Tax Revenues, Part II: Reviewing Sales Tax Exemptions, Kansas has 99 sales tax exemptions that cost the state an estimated $4.2 billion in 2009. That’s pretty close to the two-to-one ratio of exemptions to collections that the Star editorial mentions.

    But if the Star had cared to look any farther, they would have realized that this number is an illusion. The audit report noted: “Six of those exemptions, accounting for $3.4 billion, relate primarily to taxing goods at the final point of sale, and not taxing government entities.”

    An example of an exemption that contributes toward the $3.4 billion figure is exemption 79-3606 (m), described as “Ingredient/Component parts: Of items manufactured or produced for sale at retail.” The audit report estimates that for 2009, this exemption cost the state $2,248.1 million in lost sales tax revenue.

    This exemption isn’t really an “exemption,” at least if the sales tax is thought of as a retail sales tax designed to be levied as the final tax on consumption. That’s because these goods aren’t being sold at retail. They’re sold to manufacturers who use them as inputs to products that, when finished, will be sold at retail.

    An example would be an aircraft manufacturer purchasing a jet engine to be installed in an airplane that is being built. Most states don’t tax this type of sales. If Kansas decided to tax these transactions, it would place our state’s manufacturers at a severe and crippling disadvantage compared to almost all other states.

    There are two other exemptions that fall in this category of inputs to to production processes, totaling an estimated $461 million in lost revenue. When we consider these numbers, the premise of the Star’s editorial — that there are untold riches to be collected if we close tax breaks — isn’t true. That is, unless the Star really believes we should be taxing these type of intermediate business transactions. I wouldn’t be surprised if it thinks we should.

    I agree with the Star that we should be looking for ways to spread the tax burden. Then, let’s lower the rates.

  • Hawker Beechcraft deal not proud moment for Kansas

    This week the State of Kansas, City of Wichita, and Sedgwick County struck a deal with Hawker Beechcraft that allows Hawker to stay in Wichita rather than moving to another state.

    While outgoing Governor Mark Parkinson and other leaders praise the deal, it was not a good day for Kansas.

    It’s difficult to blame Hawker. That company saw similar Wichita-based companies receive corporate welfare, most recently Bombardier Learjet. Who can blame Hawker for wanting the same? In fact, when the state and local governments are willing to readily hand out corporate welfare, you can make a case that Hawker has a fiduciary duty to its shareholders to seek the same.

    Therein lies the problem: Kansas’ approach to economic development is piecemeal. We respond to problems, as in the case of Hawker. But the state’s response gives more companies the incentive to come up with their own “problems” that require state intervention.

    When recruiting or retaining companies, the state and its local governments presume they have the ability to select which companies are deserving of public subsidy.

    What we have is a situation where a relatively small number of companies receive help from the state and its taxpayers, which only serves to increase the cost of business for everyone else.

    Nonetheless, politicians and bureaucrats call this making an investment in, say, Hawker Beechcraft or whatever company is asking for handouts or tax breaks. The problem is that we don’t know if investing in these companies is the right investment, if government should be making these investments at all. (In the case of Hawker Beechcraft, there is some evidence that this company may need to shrink substantially in order to survive, handouts notwithstanding. See Report: Hawker should divest all but King Air.)

    We need economic development policies that nurture all companies. Somewhere in Wichita or Kansas there is a small unknown company that has half a dozen or so employees — maybe more, maybe less — that is working on some innovation. If we’re lucky, we have many such companies. These companies could be working on a new technology, manufacturing process, computer software, video game, internet site, food processing technology, retail concept, chemical process, restaurant idea, engineering methodology, agricultural process, airplane wing — we just don’t know. Many will fail. But some will succeed, and few will, hopefully, succeed in a big way.

    But these small startup companies may not fit in to the economic development programs the city and state have. Any of these now-small companies could become the next Cessna, LearJet, Beechcraft, or Pizza Hut. We just don’t know — we can’t know — which small companies will succeed. But these companies, when in small startup stage, struggle to pay the taxes that large companies are able to escape. Being small, they may also be disproportionally impacted by regulation. It’s not necessarily the case that a small startup aviation company is competing directly with Hawker Beechcraft and is handicapped by the larger company’s tax advantages and handouts. But these two companies could be competing for the same employees, for example, and that puts the smaller company at a disadvantage.

    How can we identify which companies are deserving of government subsidy? Which companies should have their tax burden softened at the expense of others? Allocating resources — deciding what to do — in the face of uncertainty is the crux of entrepreneurship. It’s something that government is not equipped to do, as its incentives and motivations are all wrong.

    In order to succeed, Kansas needs to embrace dynamism in its approach to economic development. For more on this see Kansas economic growth policy should embrace dynamism and Embracing Dynamism: The Next Phase in Kansas Economic Development Policy.

    Unfortunately, the Hawker Beechcraft deal, along with most of the policies of the state and the City of Wichita move in the opposite direction: towards more state-controlled economic development.

  • Kansas economic growth policy should embrace dynamism

    A dynamic market where many new business startups attempt to succeed and thrive while letting old, unproductive firms die is what contributes to productivity and economic growth. But most economic development policies, including those of Kansas and Wichita, do not encourage this dynamism, and in fact, work against it.

    That’s the message of Dr. Art Hall, who spoke to the Wichita Pachyderm Club on the topic “Business Dynamics and Economic Development in Kansas.” Hall is Director of the Center for Applied Economics at the Kansas University School of Business.

    At the start of his talk, Hall said that economic development has become an industry of its own, a public industry sometimes implemented as public-private partnerships. But its agenda is often not genuine economic development, he said.

    In a short history lesson, Hall described how Walter Beech came to Wichita from North Carolina simply because Clyde Cessna was in Wichita. Sprint began in Abilene in 1899. Fred Koch, who founded the company that became Koch Industries, came to Wichita because Lewis Winkler was here. “Serendipity — that’s the theme.”

    Hall displayed a map of taxpayer migration. There is a huge and wide swath of deep blue — representing the highest rate of out-migration — stretching north to south through the Great Plains, including much of Kansas. The Plains are urbanizing, Hall said. Pockets are doing well, but generally the rural areas are losing population. Economic development strategies must realize this long-term trend, he said.

    A chart showed the geographic distribution of income earned in Kansas. In 1970, 55 percent of income was earned outside the state’s two major urban areas: Wichita and the Kansas City and Lawrence areas. In 2008, that number had declined to 38 percent. The cause of this is people moving to cities from small towns and rural areas.

    On a map of Kansas counties, Hall showed how jobs are moving — concentrating — to a few areas of the state. “I think this is a positive development, because density tends to be a precursor to productivity, and productivity — meaning the value of output per worker — is one of the core fundamental definitions of economic growth.” It’s the reason, generally speaking, as to why cities are prosperous.

    Hall said that we should care about our rural communities, but if we slow down the process of densification, we may be losing out on productivity growth and its benefit to economic development.

    Continuing on this important theme, Hall said that the key to real and sustainable economic development is productivity growth: “Productivity growth happens on the front lines of individual businesses. You cannot will productivity growth. You cannot legislate productivity growth. You must create the conditions under which individual businesspeople, slogging it out on the front lines every day, create prosperity and productivity by trying new things and working hard. That requires a climate in which they feel optimistic enough to try new things, are rewarded for their efforts, and are willing to test new ideas.”

    Dynamism is one of the most underappreciated aspects of the U.S. economy among those working in economic development, Hall told the audience. There is a high correlation between the average size of a business and economic growth, and particularly employment growth. In other words, small companies tend to grow faster than large companies. In the chart Hall displayed, there is a clear demarcation at companies with about 20 employees.

    But most of our economic development policies have a bias towards big business. Hall said this is understandable. Further, he said that Wichita is a big business town, meaning that statistically, it is not poised to be a fast-growing area. Hall said we should create an atmosphere where we have lots of small businesses, where there is lots of experimentation. “If our economic development policies are biased against that, that is not helpful.”

    A chart showed that each year many business firms die or contract, and many others are born or expand. These numbers are large, relatively speaking: in most years, around 150,000 jobs are created through new firms or expansion of existing firms, and about the same number are lost. Given that Kansas has about one million jobs, each year about 30 percent of Kansas jobs are in in play, just as a result of business dynamics.

    Hall said that when the Kansas Department of Commerce announces the creation of 80 new jobs in Kansas, we need to remember that the marketplace swamps anything that individual economic development agencies can do. Hall called for policies that can handle a large volume of businesses — 15,000 to 25,000 — in growth mode each year. Our state’s economic development policies can not handle this level of volume, he said.

    Another chart of the states illustrated the relationship between job reallocation rate — the “churn” of jobs — and the economic growth rate in a state. States with high growth rates have high turnover rates in jobs. Kansas ranks relatively low in economic growth.

    Economic development policy should encourage new business startups, Hall said, although there is a high correlation between newness and death of businesses. “What you’re trying to do is have enough experimentation that enough good experiments take hold, and they grow.” This concept of experimentation is related to serendipity, or “making desirable discoveries by accident” that Hall mentioned earlier.

    But much economic development policy focuses on retaining jobs. Hall said that if what we mean by job retention is saving jobs in companies that ought to die, the policy is not productive. Instead, job retainment policies should create a climate where people can find new jobs quickly here in Kansas. Job retention should not mean bailouts, he added.

    Hall emphasized that while there is a high correlation between new businesses and being small, he said it is new businesses that are most important to driving economic growth.

    Newness of business firms is vitally important, Hall said. Summarizing a chart of Kansas job creating by age of the firm, he told the audience: “Without year-zero businesses [meaning the newest firms], the entire state of Kansas is almost always losing jobs. It’s the same for the United States. It’s the newness that matters. We want new businesses, but new businesses create churn, as there’s a high correlation between birth and death.”

    Hall said this is a complicated process, and that most discussions of economic development do not recognize this complexity.

    Hall explained that the state, in conducting economic development activity, often acts as an investor in a company. Specifically, he said that the state acts as an “active manager” similar to an actively managed stock mutual fund. The other type of investor or mutual fund is the passively-managed index fund, where the fund invests in all stocks, usually weighted by the size of the firms. Which approach works best: active management, or investing in all companies. This historical record shows that very few actively-managed funds beat index funds, only 2.4 percent from 1994 to 2004.

    Hall said the data shows it is very difficult to predict which are the right firms to pick to come to Kansas. Therefore, we need policies that benefit all companies in order to have a dynamic market in new business firms. “Everyone gets the same deal,” he said.

    Hall recommended three specific policies: First, universal expensing of all new capital investment made in Kansas, which means that companies can deduct new investment immediately. Second, eliminate the tax on capital gains. Third, automatic property tax abatements for new or improved business investment for a period of five years.

    Hall’s talk was based on his paper from earlier this year titled Embracing Dynamism: The Next Phase in Kansas Economic Development Policy. That paper contains the charts referred to, and also more detail, additional information, and policy recommendations.

  • Kansas economic expert to speak in Wichita

    This week Dr. Art Hall will appear twice in Wichita. Hall is the Director of the Center for Applied Economics at the Kansas University School of Business. Hall has performed extensive research on the Kansas economy, and has produced a number of reports that have generated controversy, largely for their blunt assessment of the situation in Kansas.

    On Thursday (December 16), Hall will speak at an event sponsored by Americans for Prosperity, Kansas chapter. The topic of this free lecture is “The Size of Local Government in Kansas.” This event will be held at the Wichita Downtown Public Library at 223 S. Main, on the third floor, from 7:00 pm to 8:30 pm. For more information contact John Todd at john@johntodd.net or 316-312-7335, or Susan Estes, AFP Field Director at sestes@afphq.org or 316-681-4415.

    Then on Friday (December 17) Hall will speak at the Wichita Pachyderm Club on the topic “Business Dynamics and Economic Development in Kansas.” The public is welcome at Wichita Pachyderm meetings. For more information click on Wichita Pachyderm Club.

  • Brownback appointments a mixed bag

    Incoming Kansas governor Sam Brownback has made some appointments to his economic team. Two of the appointments illustrate why Kansans need to maintain a cautious watch on Brownback as he takes over the governor’s office. A third gives us hope that the Kansas budget can be fully understood and managed.

    The major mistake made by the new governor is retaining Deb Miller as Kansas Secretary of Transportation. Miller promoted the very expensive and largely unneeded highway plan that passed the legislature and was signed by the governor. She also promotes the expansion of passenger rail service in Kansas, which is a very expensive proposition that will be used by very few people.

    An appointment that has both positive and negative aspects is that of Nick Jordan to be Kansas Secretary of Revenue. Jordan served in the Kansas Senate for several terms where he earned a moderate-to-conservative voting record, based on my assessment of ratings from the Kansas Taxpayers Network. The most troublesome aspect of Jordan’s legislative career is his shepherding of the Kansas Economic Growth Act. This legislation greatly expanded the power of the state to engage in large-scale economic intervention. It’s all in the name of growing the economy of Kansas, which is a noble and desirable goal. But the legislation presumes that government knows how to grow an economy better than markets do, which is a false presumption.

    The very pleasant surprise is the appointment of Steven J. Andersonas Budget Director. He has worked to develop model budgets for Americans for Prosperity. He also prepared a document titled Analysis of State Unencumbered Fund Balances in Kansas for the Kansas Policy Institute.

  • KansasOpenGov.org provides state data to citizens

    KansasOpenGov.org provides an easy-to-access repository of data about Kansas state and local governments, giving citizens the data they need to hold officials accountable.

    KansasOpenGov.org is a project of the Kansas Policy Institute. This week I spoke to KPI President Dave Trabert and received a demonstration of the website and some ways it can be used.

    On its opening page, KansasOpenGov.org displays a map of Kansas, showing the county boundaries. As you roll the pointer over each county, data about taxes and population appears. Clicking on a county displays a table of tax and population data for the last 12 years.

    Many subject areas of KansasOpenGov.org allow you to search the database in your own way, but also provide pre-defined reports and charts that can be accessed with one click. For example, under “Pay and Benefits” there are two such reports, showing state employees earning $100,000 or more, and another showing overtime pay.

    The overtime pay report holds some interesting numbers, as shown in the accompanying video walkthrough. Some employees are earning a lot in overtime. Trabert said: “When government says we couldn’t possibly spend any less — as we heard from the governor and others in the last session in order to justify a tax increase — when you have people who sit behind desks such as planners and program consultants earning over $30,000 in overtime — it begs the question: How close are you looking?”

    High overtime expenses may mean that agencies should look to hire additional employees rather than paying expensive overtime. Some jobs, such as highway patrol officers, are stressful, and high overtime earnings may mean employees are working long hours. This may be unfair to them as well as unproductive.

    Another subject area of KansasOpenGov.org is school district revenue and spending. This data is supplied by the Kansas State Department of Education, which in turn gets data from school districts. The “District Comparison Tool” displays two charts, side-by-side, and visitors can select different districts to be shown in each chart.

    KansasOpenGov.org has added some additional data, such as an indication for each school district as to whether it has joined Schools for Fair Funding, the organization that is suing the state for more funding. This allows users to compare these schools with all schools. Interestingly, the SFFF schools receive substantially more state and federal funding (on a per-pupil basis) than the statewide average for all Kansas schools. The SFFF schools receive less local funding, however. But overall, they received more funding than the average school district.

    Other insight that can be found at KansasOpenGov.org is the fact that schools increased their contingency fund balances last year at the same time they laid off teachers and other staff. Again, this lead Trabert to question the claims of spenders, this time the schools: “What we want to show is that when people say we can’t spend any less, you’re hurting the kids, and they’re asking for a tax increase: taxpayers have the right to know the facts. … The state has the right to justify the spending, but people don’t get a chance to ask for the justification if they don’t know the facts.”

    Growth in Kansas property taxesGrowth in Kansas property taxes. Click for a larger view.

    The section on property taxes lets visitors create charts for each county showing the growth in taxes, inflation, and population. For most counties, and for the state as a whole, taxes increase much faster than inflation or population.

    Some of the data the system makes available requires additional explanation. For example, looking at the state’s checkbook shows a check written by the treasurer for $269,940,000.00 with the notation “DEFEASED DEBT – PRINCIPAL PAYMENTS.” This language — provided to KansasOpenGov.org by the state — certainly needs explanation.

    In other cases, some of the data the state supplies may be misleading at first glance. For example, a look at employees of the Legislature and their pay shows one member of the Kansas House of Representatives being paid over $106,000 in one year — way more than legislators actually earn. But this person also has another state job, and the two pay sources are combined in the data the state supplies.

    KansasOpenGov.org lets users download most data to spreadsheet programs such as Microsoft Excel, which means that the data can be further analyzed and presented.

    Going forward, the system is built and operating, and Trabert said that new data will be added to the database as it becomes available from the state. He also plans to add more data about individual school districts. The state refused to provide benefits costs for state employees, and Trabert hopes the state will provide this data in addition to base pay and overtime data.

  • Kansas budget examined

    The Kansas Consensus Revenue Estimating Group met in early November and issued a new forecast for Kansas revenue for fiscal year 2011, the current fiscal year. The new estimate is $5.785 billion, which is 11.4 percent above receipts in fiscal year 2010. A large reason for the increase in revenue is the one cent per dollar statewide sales tax that went into effect on July 1, 2010, which was the first day of fiscal year 2011.

    In its forecast for the Kansas economy, the group’s report dismisses the likelihood of a double-dip recession. “Concerns of a double-dip recession nevertheless have waned over the summer, and assumptions are that modest growth will continue in the national and state economies in 2011 and 2012.” Not all economists would agree with this forecast.

    Kansas employment has increased slightly; with nonfarm employment increasing by about 1,000 jobs over the past year. From April 2008 to February 2010, Kansas lost 75,800 jobs, according to the Kansas Department of Labor. Unemployment claims data verifies this trend: “One positive sign relates to initial unemployment claims data, which throughout most of 2010 have been well below the same time periods studied for 2009.”

    Kansas budget going forward

    At a meeting of the Special Committee on Assessment and Taxation last Friday, members were warned about the expiration of the temporary sales tax and its impact on the fiscal year 2014 budget. At that time the sales tax is scheduled to fall from 6.3 percent to 5.7 percent, with 0.4 percent remaining to fund highways. This means the state’s general fund faces a “significant decrease,” according to Chris Courtwright, principal economist for legislative research. The number mentioned was $308 million less sales tax revenue in fiscal year 2014 than in fiscal year 2013. This, said Courtwright, is sure to be talked about “a lot” over the next two years.

    Alan Conroy, Director of Kansas Legislative Research Department, briefed committee members on the status of the budget. Perhaps the most significant challenge legislators face is that the budget estimate for fiscal year 2012 includes $491.7 million — nearly one-half billion dollars — in federal stimulus (ARRA) funds. These funds were designed to be a short term boost to the states, and the states will not be receiving this money during the next fiscal year. Overall, the budget for fiscal year 2012 is estimated to have an ending balance of minus $492.4 million, which is almost exactly equal to the loss in ARRA funding. This is the gap between spending and revenue that the legislature will be grappling with during the session that starts in January.

    Other challenges need to be faced. Conroy said that last budget benefited from a $149 million transfer from the highway fund to the general fund. There were other such transfers, described as “extraordinary” by Conroy.

    Also, school finance in 2012 is assumed to be funded at the level of $4,012 base state aid per pupil. Conroy said that current law prescribes funding at $4,492 bsapp, which would require an additional $327 million in spending.

    The current fiscal year is short about $60 million dollars, and the legislature will have to deal with this.

    Analysis

    The prepping for the expiration of the temporary sales tax increase is already going on, with legislative research staff warning committee members of the large budget shortfall to appear in fiscal year 2014 “if no other changes in policy are made” and if “current law” remains in place.

    Odds are that the sales tax will not go away, if past history is a guide. In 2002 the legislature raised the sales tax. A fiscal note accompanying the bill stated: “The state sales and compensating (use) tax rate would be increased from 4.9 to 5.3 percent, effective June 1, 2002. The rates would then be reduced to 5.2 percent on June 1, 2004; and to 5.0 percent on June 1, 2005.” But the two scheduled reductions never took place.

    Similarly, the Kansas budget benefited from the federal stimulus program, as did all states. We used that money to keep our spending high when tax revenues would not cover the spending. This action has left the Kansas budget in terrible shape, and it’s unknown what steps the governor and legislature will take to make up for the nearly $500 billion gap in the budget.

  • Kansas election was about taxes, spending

    Derrick Sontag of Americans for Prosperity, Kansas chapter analyzes the recent Kansas election and what the results mean. Sontag is optimistic when he writes — referring to the many new conservatives elected to the Kansas House of Representatives — “These new statehouse members will not bow to the demands of taxpayer-funded lobbyists as their predecessors did.” I hope he’s correct.

    Read a paper, watch the news, or venture online and one will find numerous opinions as to why this month’s election results were as one-sided as they were in Kansas. Experts have compared campaign strategies, analyzed campaign finance reports, even opined about which side had the most enthusiasm amongst its base of supporters. But what few have concluded is what I believe to be the truth: the candidates who won simply had the winning message.

    When looking at the victorious candidates in Kansas or across the country, you’ll find individuals who pledged to adhere to fiscally conservative and limited government principles. You’ll find candidates who pledged to cut spending, reduce government debt, and to stop the knee-jerk reaction to increase the tax burden on families and businesses during economic downturns. You’ll find candidates who pledged to reject implementing the federal government’s takeover of our health care system.

    The election results weren’t even close, with all five contested statewide races decided by double digits. What makes it even more impressive is three of the statewide races saw the incumbent lose by 22, 18, and 13 points. The closest race — that of Attorney General — was more than likely decided by the candidates’ stance on joining the suit to fight the federal health care bill, something that incumbent Attorney General Steve Six declined to do.

    Equally as impressive were the results in the Kansas House of Representatives where — counting the primary cycle — 20 seats switched hands from liberal legislators to fiscally conservative candidates who all openly campaigned against the tax-and-spend philosophy that dominated the debate in Topeka last year.

    These new statehouse members will not bow to the demands of taxpayer-funded lobbyists as their predecessors did when they passed the second largest tax increase in state history in order to pay for an increase in spending of $200 million. Rather, they will adhere to the demands of taxpayers and remember the message their future constituents delivered; be more responsive, be more accountable and be an advocate for us, and not proponents of the big government polices proven to be harmful to the Kansas economy.

    Led by Governor-Elect Sen. Sam Brownback, our state has a bright future of returning power to the people by delivering a more efficient and responsive government. Americans for Prosperity looks forward to working with these public servants in an attempt to reform our government.

    Derrick Sontag is the state director of the grassroots group Americans for Prosperity-Kansas. He lives in Topeka.