Voice For Liberty

Category: Kansas state government

  • Kansas House of Representatives, a bloodbath for Democrats

    Before yesterday’s election, conservatives in Kansas hopefully thought it might be possible to gain a working majority in the Kansas House of Representatives. The surprising result was a conservative wave larger than any election observer could have foreseen.

    Before the election, the party breakdown in the Kansas House was 76 Republicans and 49 Democrats. As 63 votes constitute a majority, it is often said that the House is a conservative body. The reality, however, is that there had been a core of about 55 conservative Republicans, meaning those who would vote against big-spending budgets and tax increases. A coalition of Democrats and moderate Republicans — “left-wing Republicans,” as KansasLiberty.com describes them — worked together to pass measures like a big-spending budget, a statewide sales tax increase, and other decidedly non-conservative legislation.

    Those days may be over, at least for now.

    It appears that Republicans picked up 15 seats in the Kansas House. (Update: The number of Republican gains is 16, for a composition of 92 Republicans and 33 Democrats.) Most of the Republicans who defeated incumbent Democrats ran on an explicit platform of limited government. They can be expected to join the core of 55 conservatives to create a working majority of conservatives in the House — although you never know.

    Representative Steve Brunk, who was unopposed in his own reelection, said it was a good night not only for Republicans, but also for those who believe government should live within its means without raising taxes, and for those who believe that money belongs to taxpayers first.

    These results represent a major pushback against the statewide sales tax increase championed by Governor Mark Parkinson, who decided not to seek election to the office he holds. The “bipartisan, moderate coalition” that Parkinson often praised is gone, having been soundly rejected by voters.

    Some notable results from yesterday include Kansas House District 4 (Fort Scott and areas to its north and west), where Caryn Tyson defeated incumbent Shirley Palmer. Palmer had voted for the big-spending budget this year, but didn’t vote for the sales tax to pay for it.

    In Kansas House District 23 (Merriam and part of Shawnee), incumbent Democrat Milack Talia had also voted for the budget increase, but not the sales tax. He was defeated by Brett Hildabrand.

    In Kansas House District 16 (parts of Overland Park and Lenexa), Democrat Gene Rardin had also voted for the budget increase but not the necessary sales tax to pay for it. He was defeated by Amanda Grosserode, who organized the first tea party event in Kansas, although at that time it was billed as a “tax revolt protest.”

    In Kansas House District 97 (parts of south and southwest Wichita) incumbent Democrat Dale Swenson ran for the first time as a Democrat, having switched parties last year after representing the district since 1995 as a Republican. He lost to Les Osterman.

    Kansas House District 87 (parts of east and southeast Wichita) saw political newcomer Joseph Scapa handily take back the seat given up by Raj Goyle as he unsuccessfully ran for U.S. Congress.

    In Kansas House District 95 (parts of west and southwest Wichita) Benny Boman, who has run for the office several times before and didn’t even have a campaign website, defeated Melany Barnes, who had been appointed to fill the seat that Tom Sawyer had represented for many years.

    Kansas House District 67 (Manhattan and surrounding area) saw incumbent Democrat Tom Hawk fall to Susan Mosier.

    Going forward

    Most of the new Republican members of the Kansas House can be expected to join the conservative camp, which should give conservatives a working majority. But how these new members actually behave once in Topeka will have to be observed over time.

    After the Democrat/moderate Republican coalition got their way in the last session, there was some talk of a “coalition Speaker” — someone chosen from the moderate Republican camp. This possibility is now gone, and it is certain that the current Speaker, Mike O’Neal, will be reelected to that position without a serious challenge.

    The majority leader, however, will likely change. Ray Merrick, the current leader, may be interested in moving to the Senate to replace Jeff Colyer, who will resign to become lieutenant governor. Even if Merrick stays in the House, he is butting up against the customary term limit for majority leader. At last night’s gathering of Republican legislators in Wichita, none were willing to speculate about who is interested in becoming leader, although Arlen Siegfreid, current Speaker Pro Tem, is mentioned as in the running. Richard Carlson and John Grange are two other names mentioned as interested in this position.

    To replace Siegfried, names mentioned include Steve Brunk, Jene Vickrey, Virgil Peck, and Larry Powell.

    Peck, along with Jeff King, is mentioned as being interested in replacing Senate Majority Leader Derrick Schmidt, who will leave the Senate to become Attorney General.

    House Republican leadership also will select a new chair of the powerful Appropriations committee to replace Kevin Yoder, who is moving on to the U.S Congress.

    Other important committees in the House of Representatives that may see changes in their chairs include Taxation, should Richard Carlson become Majority Leader, and Commerce and Labor, should Brunk become Speaker Pro Tem. Federal and State Affairs was chaired by Melvin Neufeld, who was defeated in his bid for reelection.

    The House will meet on the first Monday in December to elect their leadership.

    The next legislature will also draw the new district boundaries during the redistricting process.

  • Kansas ranks low, says Tax Foundation

    New rankings published by the Tax Foundation indicate that the business tax climate in Kansas is poor. Kansas ranks 35th among the 50 states, just 15 spots from the bottom. In last year’s ranking, Kansas placed 32nd, so our state is slipping relative to other states.

    The economic development strategy of Kansas and Wichita is to offer tax abatements as an inventive to lure or retain industry. The study authors note the problem with this and what this action tries to cover up: “State lawmakers are always mindful of their states’ business tax climates but they are often tempted to lure business with lucrative tax incentives and subsidies instead of broad-based tax reform. … Lawmakers create these deals under the banner of job creation and economic development, but the truth is that if a state needs to offer such packages, it is most likely covering for a woeful business tax climate. A far more effective approach is to systematically improve the business tax climate for the long term so as to improve the state’s competitiveness.”

    Are taxes and tax policy important? After a review of the literature, the report concludes: “… the general consensus of the literature has progressed to the view that taxes are a substantial factor in the decision-making process for businesses.” But there are some authors who disagree.

    The state business climate index considers these factors: corporate taxes, individual income taxes, sales tax, unemployment tax, and property taxes. Kansas performs best on unemployment taxes, ranking 7th among the states. Our worst raking is 41st in property taxes. In sales tax, Kansas ranks 32nd, and this does take into account the statewide sales tax increase of one cent per dollar that started July 1.

    The report recognizes that taxes are only one of many factors that companies use when deciding where to locate facilities. Kansas’ low ranking means we can make large improvements in this area. If we don’t, we are likely to have to keep up our ad hoc approach to economic development, were we craft special deals under the guise that we know which deals to make.

    The full report is available at the Tax Foundation by clicking on 2011 State Business Tax Climate Index. An introductory article is at Background paper: 2011 State Business Tax Climate Index (Eighth Edition).

  • Kansas Statehouse renovations examined

    The restoration of the Kansas Statehouse was featured on a recent episode of Sunflower Journeys. While providing an interesting look at the history of the stonecarvings on the building’s exterior, the show made a mistaken argument about the economics of the project.

    During the episode Vance Kelley, a project manager for Treanor Architects, promoted the economic development aspects of the capitol building’s restoration. Since the workers are local, he said that utilizing local labor forces, means that tax dollars get passed along to local merchants: “Actually we’re generating, I think it’s been estimated between six and seven times the amount of money within the local economy. Preservation actually creates jobs. It is economic development in itself.”

    This argument — that government spending of this type creates jobs — is commonly heard from advocates of more government spending. It’s a popular argument among historic preservationists, too, as they seek to justify why their work is so expensive, and why public money should be expended on it.

    Does government spending create jobs? The short answer is no. The primary reason is that government can only spend what it takes from someone else. It might do the taking now, in the form of taxation, or it might borrow, which delays taxation to the future. Either way, many people have less money to spend, save, and invest because of the taxation.

    Kelley’s argument does have a ring of truth to it. Local merchants — Topeka, he means — are benefiting. Taxpayers across the state are taxed to send money to be spent largely in Topeka. This benefit, however, comes at the expense of spending — and related jobs — in other parts of Kansas. This, however, is a selfish argument.

    Kelley may not be aware of the seen and unseen fallacy that pervades popular thinking. When we go to Topeka — or watch taxpayer-funded public television — we can see the glory and magnificence of the government spending on the Kansas Capitol. Finding the harm caused by the taxation necessary to pay for this, however, is disbursed across the state and very difficult to find. But it exists.

    Kelley also referenced the multiplier. That’s the observation that money spent gets spent again, and again, and again. That’s true. But advocates of government spending like Kelley think that only government spending is magically multiplied. The truth is that any spending is multiplied in this way. It’s a natural phenomenon of economics.

    Some people make the argument that people may not spend their money during uncertain times. Instead, they may save it. But where do savings go? Many people put their money in a bank, which then lends it to people who want to spend it. Other people buy stocks or bonds, or pay down debt. Either action provides funds for others to spend. It’s only when people save money by stuffing it in their mattresses that this argument — that government must spend — applies. And very few people do this.

    The further truth is that when spending their own money, people are usually careful. Government? Not so much. Evidence of this is the ornate decorative carvings illustrated in the Sunflower Journeys episode. Few private building are built to this standard, because people — even wealthy people — spending their own money don’t value this frivolity very highly.

    Instead, it’s government, spending taxpayers’ money, that ends up building elaborate monuments to itself.

    There are some cases where government spending creates wealth, such as in the building of needed highways. It does not follow, however, that only government is capable of making this investment. Further, streets and highways are far removed from ornate stonecarvings on a government monument.

  • Kansas restrictive covenants eased regarding political yard signs

    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.

    The bill was the product of then-Senator Phil Journey of Haysville. Journey is now a judge in the Kansas 18th Judicial District. 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?

    In his monumental work For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto, Murray N. Rothbard argues that the right to free speech is not based on some “vague and wooly” concept that protects the “public interest,” such as prohibition of falsely crying “fire” in a theater. Instead, it should be based on property rights. (page 43)

    In the case of falsely crying “fire” in the theater, Rothbard argues that this act violates the contract between the theater owner and patrons to enjoy the presentation without interruption. It violates their property rights.

    While a homeowner certainly owns the yard in front of his house, he does so based on the voluntary agreements entered into, such as payment of an agreed-upon amount of money to the previous owner. Another agreement entered into is between the new homeowner and all the other homeowners in the neighborhood through the restrictive covenants.

    So if those restrictive covenants prohibit political yard signs, that restriction is something that has been mutually agreed to. It is part of the property rights that homeowners in the neighborhood enjoy. It cannot be violated without violating the property rights of those who bought their homes with the understanding that the covenants are part of the property they purchased.

    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, that may cause them to think badly of those with yard signs, and by extension, the candidates that are being promoted.

    Yes, these people who believe the covenants against yard signs are still valid are misinformed, but they vote, too. 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.”

  • In Wichita and Kansas, economic development is not working

    The effort of Wichita and Kansas to retain Hawker Beechcraft, one of our leading employers and a Wichita institution, provides a lesson in the futility of corporate welfare as an economic development policy: Someone is usually willing to pay more. We would be much better off if we start transforming Kansas to a state where all companies are nurtured, not by bureaucratic and political oversight and handouts, but by a low taxing and spending environment, and a reasonable regulatory regime.

    Recently I was shown a listing of all the industrial revenue bonds (IRBs) that Hawker Beechcraft and its predecessors have been authorized over the last 20 years. The number is large: $1.2 billion. This is not money that any governmental body has lent to Hawker Beechcraft. The purpose, instead, of the IRB program is to allow companies to escape paying property tax on property purchased with the bond proceeds. In some cases, companies escape paying sales tax as well.

    It would be difficult to calculate how much tax Hawker Beechcraft and its predecessors have not paid due to the abatements, but it is a lot. The company still pays some property tax. Records from the Sedgwick County Treasurer’s system indicate the company paid $971,073 in tax year 2009.

    When asking for tax breaks like this, companies often point out that they hire many people and pay good wages, so the taxing entities make up their money in other ways. That may be true. In fact, the cost-benefit analysis the city and county use make just that reckoning: if we give up collecting some tax from a company, how much additional tax will we collect from everyone else? Perhaps government officials don’t realize that much of this “benefit” is simply taxes shifted to someone else.

    Nonetheless, politicians and bureaucrats call this making an investment in, say, Hawker Beechcraft or whatever company is asking for tax breaks at the moment. 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.

    Somewhere in Wichita or Kansas there 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. Some people may not even think of looking to government for economic development assistance, as when I interviewed a successful Vietnamese grocer in Wichita. He didn’t know “where to dig” for government handouts.

    Any of these now-small companies could become the next Microsoft, Google, Home Depot, or Pizza Hut. We just don’t know which. 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. 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.

    For politicians, the prime motivation is to be reelected. It is rare that the time horizon of a politician extends beyond the next election.

    For bureaucrats, the motivation is to expand their sphere of influence and power.

    Neither of these motivations are compatible with entrepreneurship. Some are not compatible in any way with running a business. For example, a business firm looks at its employees as a cost that must be managed and controlled if a profit is to be made and the firm survive. But to government, spending on employees is a social benefit, and one that is paid for by someone else.

    Another problem is the nature of knowledge. In a recent issue of Cato Policy Report, Arnold King wrote:

    As Hayek pointed out, knowledge that is important in the economy is dispersed. Consumers understand their own wants and business managers understand their technological opportunities and constraints to a greater degree than they can articulate and to a far greater degree than experts can understand and absorb.

    When knowledge is dispersed but power is concentrated, I call this the knowledge-power discrepancy. Such discrepancies can arise in large firms, where CEOs can fail to appreciate the significance of what is known by some of their subordinates. … With government experts, the knowledge-power discrepancy is particularly acute.

    I emphasized the last sentence to highlight the problem of the dispersed nature of knowledge.

    There are other problems with government management of economic development. We need to move away from this and towards a free market approach to economic development. This will take some time, and until then, we’re forced to defend our industry from other states, as we are presently doing with Hawker Beechcraft.

    But if we don’t start transforming Kansas, we’ll be doing this forever. And someone else always seems to have more money to spend.

  • Kansas spending should be cut, not frozen

    By Dave Trabert, Kansas Policy Institute.

    A recent Wichita Eagle editorial, “Freeze means big cuts,” said gubernatorial candidate Sam Brownback’s intention to freeze state spending would cause big cuts in services by not replacing federal stimulus money. The unspoken presumptions one must accept to make that leap are (1) every government program and service is essential and (2) every program and service is being provided as efficiently as possible.

    Most programs are never examined to determine whether they are effective, and independent efficiency studies are rarely conducted, yet we’re to believe that government could not possibly spend less money without wreaking havoc on taxpayers?

    Governments commonly present taxpayers with Soprano-like ultimatums — “either pay higher taxes or surrender necessary services” — as though there are no other options. But there are countless options. For example, eight consecutive studies conducted by Legislative Post Audit found ways schools could operate more efficiently and still meet outcome requirements. State employees pay far less for medical insurance coverage than private sector employees. The state spends millions of dollars on overtime, conference travel, organization dues, advertising campaigns, and in 2009, enough mileage reimbursement to fund twenty-five round trips to the moon!

    Government not only can spend a lot less money, it must for the sake of the state’s economic future. Admittedly, that sounds a bit alarmist, but consider the facts.

    Private sector jobs increased just 5.2 percent between 1998 and 2008, well below the national average of 7.9 percent and worse than all but one neighboring state. We’ve also lost population due to domestic migration (U.S. residents moving in and out of states), representing 2.5 percent of total population over the last decade and the worst performance in the region. At the same time, our state and local tax burden increased significantly. State and local taxes jumped 59 percent between 1999 and 2009 but income available to pay taxes only increased 38 percent.

    Underperforming in job creation and losing on domestic migration while the tax burden rises is not a coincidence; it’s part of a very clear national pattern.

    Between 1998 and 2008, the ten states with the lowest combined state and local tax burdens averaged 16.5 percent private job growth and gained 3.8 percent population from domestic migration; the ten states with the highest tax burdens grew jobs by just 6.1 percent and lost 3.3 percent population from domestic migration. Tax burden rankings are provided by the Tax Foundation using FY 2008 data. Kansas was ranked number 21 but is now likely well inside the top twenty, with nearly $500 million in increases just this year between sales, unemployment and property taxes.

    Freezing spending might slow the rate of decline but it won’t solve this problem, as our tax burden will continue to grow. Kansas’ overall population is increasing because the birth rate exceeds the death rate, but infants don’t pay taxes; coupled with domestic migration losses, each year sees fewer and fewer taxpayers. The burden on remaining taxpayers goes up, it becomes more expensive to create jobs and the downward spiral continues.

    By cutting spending and reducing the tax burden, Kansas can become a state that leads in job creation and attracts population, but only if we’re willing to make the necessary changes.

  • Kansas judicial retention elections

    Today’s Wichita Eagle contains an article about Kansas Supreme Court Justices and their retention elections. These elections, where voters are asked whether a judge should remain a member of the court, represent the primary way that ordinary Kansans participate in the selection of who sits on our state’s highest court and appeals court.

    The Eagle article focuses on Justice Carol Beier and the campaign against her retention by Kansans For Life. The issue here is that Beier rules in ways that Kansans For Life doesn’t like. That’s a political issue, and voters can make up their minds as to whether Beier’s votes represent their interests.

    Missing from the article is mention of an issue surrounding Chief Justice Lawton Nuss that doesn’t have anything to do with politics, but rather his official conduct on the bench.

    Here’s how the Kansas Commission on Judicial Performance described one issue: “In 2006, Justice Nuss self-reported a potential ethical violation to the Commission on Judicial Qualifications. A subsequent investigation of this incident resulted in a finding that Justice Nuss had violated the Code of Judicial Conduct by having an ex parte conversation relating to a pending proceeding. The Commission on Judicial Qualifications subsequently admonished Justice Nuss for his conduct in the matter and ordered him to cease and desist from future similar activity.”

    The admonishment resulted from an improper meeting with two legislators, according to Lawrence Journal-World reporting: “The Commission on Judicial Qualifications said Nuss violated three Canons of Judicial Conduct when he spoke with Sens. Steve Morris, R-Hugoton, and Pete Brungardt, R-Salina, about a school finance bill while school finance litigation was still pending before the court. In its commentary, the commission said Nuss’ meeting on March 1 ‘resulted in the appearance of impropriety which undermines public confidence in the judiciary …’”

    The article also noted this breakthrough accomplishment of Nuss: “It is the first time in Kansas history that a state Supreme Court judge has been found in violation of the judicial ethics rules.”

    There was another ethics issue involving Nuss and this case that didn’t result in admonishment or any other sanction. Before joining the Supreme Court, Nuss worked for a law firm that represented a school district that sued the state as part of the Montoy school finance lawsuit. I contended that Nuss should have recused himself from the proceedings. See The ethics case against Justice Lawton R. Nuss.

    Karl Peterjohn, at that time executive director of the Kansas Taxpayers Network, wrote: “If you were being sued, and as a taxpayer you are, would you like to face Justice Lawton Nuss, who used to represent your legal challenger? Nuss was in the law firm that represents the lead plaintiff, the Salina public school district, until he joined the court in October 2002.”

    These are the types of issues that Kansans need to know about as they vote on whether to retain Kansas Supreme Court justices.

  • Kansas business climate: not good

    On this week’s episode of the KAKE Television public affairs program “This Week in Kansas,” Kansas Policy Institute Dave Trabert told host Tim Brown that Kansas tax policy is creating a poor environment for business. “Kansas is becoming increasingly a difficult place to do business,” Trabert said.

    Kansas needs to look at its economic development strategy, he added, to create a system where everyone — small and large business — has an equal opportunity to succeed.

    Brown noted that during this year’s session of the Kansas legislature, the consensus was that taxes — the sales tax in particular — had to be increased. Trabert said the tax increase didn’t have to happen: “Kansas is the only state in our region that took that route. Every other state around us found ways to balance their budget without raising taxes.”

    Trabert also noted that the legislature had two studies that showed a tax increase would cost jobs. Asked by Brown about about the claim that services would have to have been cut if taxes weren’t increased, Trabert said that wasn’t the case. The budget that was passed increased spending by over $200 million. This increase in spending adds to the tax burden in Kansas.

    Regarding the possibility of Hawker Beechcraft moving to Louisiana, Trabert said that state has a top corporate and personal marginal income tax rate that’s about half of that in Kansas. Low tax burden states perform much better than high-tax burden states in private-sector job growth, he said. Low-tax burden states have weathered the recession better, too.

    Trabert also mentioned the out-migration from Kansas, an “early warning signal” that he said has been largely ignored. High-tax burden states are losing population to low-tax burden states. Kansas has lost population due to domestic migration for 11 straight years, he said.

    David Allen Seaton, President of the Winfield Courier newspaper, was part of the panel. He mentioned the split between the Kansas Chamber of Commerce and local chambers of commerce. Local chambers were in favor of more taxes and spending, while the Kansas Chamber strongly opposed it. Seaton’s argument was that the services that government provides — education, Medicare, prisons — is as important to the economic climate as the tax burden. Trabert answered that the choice is presented as either/or: “Either we have to raise revenue, or we have to cut the services we want.” Trabert said we should look to provide services at lower cost.

    An example Trabert provided is the audits of a handful of Kansas school districts, which uncovered ways the districts could save money. He also said that the budget being worked on for next year spends $1 billion more than five or six years ago.

    Testimony presented to Kansas Legislative Committee

    In September Trabert presented testimony to a special committee of the Kansas Legislature. His testimony, which may be read here, provides more detail about the differences in the economies of high-tax burden states as compared to low-tax burden states. On why the low-tax burden states perform better, Trabert wrote: “Both performance comparisons (private sector job growth and domestic migration) make perfect sense. Given the means and opportunity, we all tend to gravitate toward what we perceive to be the best ‘deal.’ Human and financial capital is no different; it will go where it is treated the best. People want to retain more of their earnings and states with the lowest state and local tax burdens let them keep more of their hard?earned money to spend as they wish.”

    According to Trabert’s testimony, the Tax Foundation ranks Kansas as having the 21st highest state and local tax burden in the country. But this is likely to change, as Kansas increased taxes this year, and our neighboring states did not.

    Trabert notes a discrepancy in the definition of the term “income” that may lead some to conclude that the tax burden in Kansas is not rising: “The Kansas Legislative Research Division (KLRD) says [the tax burden is not rising], but they are using the federal government definition of personal income to calculate the tax burden. The problem is that that definition includes money in ‘income’ that is not available to pay taxes, such as employer contributions toward pension funds, health insurance, social security and Medicare. … Over the ten year period ending June 30, 2009, income available to pay taxes went up 38% but state and local taxes shot up 59%, resulting in a significant jump in the tax burden.”

    Trabert recommends that Kansas gradually eliminate both the personal and corporate income tax. Missouri is moving in this direction, and that provides a competitive threat to Kansas.

    For property taxes, limiting the rate of growth would provide relief from rapidly-rising tax burdens.

  • Kansas elected agency officeholders use websites as campaign billboards

    Kansas state government agencies are headed by a mix of elected and appointed officials. After looking at the websites for agencies headed by elected officials, Kansans would be justified in asking if all are using their agency websites for campaign purposes.

    Of the four agencies (other than the governor and lieutenant governor) that are headed by officials who must seek statewide election, all use their agency’s website to get their name and photograph exposed to the public.

    While it is important for Kansans to know who is heading state government agencies and how to contact them, there is a distinct difference between the website prominence of agency heads who are elected and those who are appointed. Based on research from earlier this year, only about one-third of the websites for agencies with appointed chief executives feature that person on the front page of the website. For agencies with elected chiefs, all feature the elected official, often prominently.

    While adding a photograph or even a video to a website doesn’t appreciably increase the cost of providing the service, this type of self-promotion must be considered a form of campaigning.

    Elected offices

    The page for the Kansas Secretary of State features a large photo of incumbent Chris Biggs, along with a reproduction of his signature. Under the heading “About Us,” the page promotes his “vision and leadership.” Biggs faces a Republican opponent in the general election.

    At the website for Kansas Attorney General, visitors are greeted by the headline “Attorney General Steve Six.” The font page holds a video message from Six and a welcome message. The site carries the message “Copyright 2007 – 2009 Attorney General Steve Six,” which raises the question as to who the website and its content belongs to: Six or the people of Kansas. Six faces a Republican opponent in the general election.

    The office of the Kansas Insurance Commission features the large headline “Kansas Insurance Commissioner Sandy Praeger” and her photograph. Praeger is running for re-election this year and defeated her Republican opponent in the primary election. She faces no major party challenger in the general election.

    The website for the Kansas State Treasurer features the large headline “Dennis McKinney Kansas State Treasurer” and his photograph. McKinney faces a Republican challenger in the general election.

    Appointed cabinet posts

    The Kansas Governor’s office identifies 15 cabinet posts. Some of these agencies, like the Department of Revenue and Department of Transportation are quite visible, while some are obscure. With one exception, the heads of these agencies are appointed by the governor. They do not run for re-election.

    Each of the 15 cabinet offices has a website. Of these, six have the agency’s commissioner or secretary featured on its front page. One of these six is the lieutenant governor, which differs from the others in that the lieutenant governor is not the head of an agency, and must run for office on a ticket with the gubernatorial candidate.

    At the Kansas Department of Revenue, there is no mention of Secretary Joan Wagnon on the agency’s front page. To find a page about her, readers must click on “About” and then on “Secretary of Revenue.”

    At the Office of the Kansas Securities Commissioner, there is no mention of Commissioner Marc Wilson on the agency’s front page except his mention in a list of news stories. Wilson was appointed to this office on May 25, with an effective date of June 7.

    The Kansas Department of Transportation is one of the state’s most visible agencies. Secretary Deb Miller’s name is not on the agency’s front page except for a mention in a list of news headlines. To get her page, readers must click on “About KDOT,” then “KDOT Leaders,” and then on “Deb Miller.”

    At the Kansas Department of Corrections there is a photograph of Secretary Roger Werholtz with a link to his biography page.

    At the Kansas Department of Health and Environment there is a photograph of Secretary Roderick L. Bremby near a welcome message at the top of the main page for the agency.

    The Kansas Department of Labor agency site makes no mention of Secretary Jim Garner except in a news story near the bottom of the page. Readers must click on the “About Us” link to find a link to Garner’s biography page.

    The Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services (SRS) agency website has no mention of Secretary Don Jordan on its front page. Readers muct click on “Agency Information,” the “Find out more,” and then “Executive Staff” to find mention of Jordan. That page contains just his name and telephone number. Using the agency’s search feature found no biography page for Jordan.

    The front page for the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks makes no mention of Secretary Mike Hayden. Clicking on “Site map,” then “About KDWP,” and then on “Executive Services” found no mention of Hayden. Using the agency’s search function for “Hayden” found a welcome message from him.

    The Adjutant General’s departmental site has a photograph of Maj Gen Tod M. Bunting along with a welcome message on its front page.

    The Kansas Department of Aging makes no mention of Secretary Martin Kennedy on its from page. Readrs must click on “About KDOA” and then on “Meet the Secretary” before finding Kennedy’s biography.

    At the Kansas Department of Commerce, Secretary Bill Thornton is mentioned on the agency’s front page. Users must click on “About us” before finding a link to Thornton’s biography page.

    The Kansas Juvenile Justice Authority agency website features a large photograph of Commissioner J. Russell “Russ” Jennings along with a link to his biography page.

    The Kansas Highway Patrol has no mention of Superintendent Colonel Terry Maple on its front page. Users must click on “About the KHP” and then on “Colonel’s Welcome” to find Maple’s photograph along with a welcome message, but no biography.

    Lieutenant Governor Troy Findley‘s front page holds his photograph and biography.

    The front page for the Kansas Department of Administration makes no mention of Secretary of Administration Duane Goossen. The “Contact Info” page lists many divisions of the agency with contact information and links. The “A – Z Subject Index” does not mention his name.