Voice For Liberty

Category: Kansas state government

  • Kansas Economic Freedom Index updated

    Now that the 2010 session of the Kansas Legislature is over (except for a largely ceremonial final day) and the important votes have been cast, I’ve updated the Kansas Economic Freedom Index.

    Most legislators ranked just about as expected based on their past behavior. But there is at least one notable exception, that being Raj Goyle, a Wichita Democrat who is seeking that party’s nomination for the United States Congress. His rating for this year is 67%. No House Democrat scored higher than that, and 30 House Republicans scored lower.

    Goyle’s votes this year are out of character with his past voting behavior, and must be attributed to preparing to run for Congress against a likely fiscally conservative Republican nominee.

    I’ve received criticism from one lobbyist concerning the way I prepared this index. The specific criticism related to using votes taken in “committee of the whole” action rather than at the time of final action. The lobbyist said that if a person voted for (or against) a bill in final action, that is the only vote that should be used in an index like what I’ve created.

    The problem is that sometimes close votes in the committee of the whole turn into near unanimous votes in final action. The committee of the whole vote, therefore, provides discriminating power that the final action vote does not.

    Further, every recorded vote (not all committee of the whole votes are recorded) are public record, and legislators know that their vote is recorded in the journal of the House or the Senate for anyone to see.

    When I decided to prepare the Kansas Economic Freedom Index I knew, and was advised by several people with knowledge of how legislatures work, that I needed to use preliminary votes or final action votes as needed in order to distinguish legislative positions. After receiving this criticism, I talked to these people and others — members of the legislature, legislative staff members, lobbyists, and others — and confirmed that my actions are correct.

    I’ve also received criticism for some of the bills that I’ve included. For example, I included H. Sub. for Sub. SB 514, better known as the Community Defense Act. This bill includes detailed regulation of the conduct that may take place inside sexually oriented businesses. It also includes limitations on where these businesses may be located, specifically not within 1,000 feet of schools, churches, state-licensed day care facility, libraries, parks, and residences. These types of restrictions on conduct between consenting adults, as well as the centralized planning that the zoning restrictions implement, are contrary to both personal and economic freedom.

  • Kansas or New Jersey: Which state is on the better road to prosperity?

    By Derrick Sontag.

    What’s the difference between Kansas and New Jersey? One answer that comes to mind: unlike the comparison to our neighboring states, Kansas has a more limited, fiscally conservative government than the Garden State. Or so we thought.

    Let’s look at the actions of the two states over the last few weeks. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, in response to a budget deficit approaching $11 billion, has proposed a 5 percent reduction in state spending. This is a result of his campaign promise to force government to live within its means, a pledge that led him to defeat an incumbent governor. This and voters being fed up with an excessive tax burden.

    There are some pressuring Gov. Christie to raise taxes but he has said that to accede to tax increases would “kill a job market already on life support.” He went on to say, “Mark my words today: if a tax increase is sent to my desk, I’ll veto it.”

    How do Christie’s actions compare to what’s happened in Kansas? In response to a budget gap of more than $500 million, Kansas Governor Mark Parkinson threatened to veto any budget that hit his desk that didn’t rely on a tax increase. Two weeks later a coalition of Democrats and liberal Republicans complied with his demands by passing the second largest tax increase in the history of our state, a sales tax increase designed to fund a spending increase of more than $200 million.

    There have been claims the tax increase will create economic growth and job creation, despite a well-respected economist’s study indicating quite the contrary. It’s as if legislators are echoing the economic growth pledges heard in Washington D.C. when the stimulus plan passed. Instead, that D.C. plan has led to 10 percent unemployment and, according to initial projections, will result in our GDP being lower ten years from now than if Congress had done nothing at all.

    Apparently Gov. Christie and a majority of the voters in New Jersey understand the economic truism of “the more you tax something the less of it you’re going to get.” They can point to years of fiscally liberal practices and an unbearable tax burden.

    So what’s the difference between the two states? We’ll always have a beautiful landscape and friendly people. But let’s hope New Jersey doesn’t end up being the state with a better road to prosperity.

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

  • Kansas Senate passes tax bill, on to House

    Tonight the Kansas Senate passed its tax bill, adding about $330 million in new taxes for fiscal year 2011, which begins on July 1, 2010. The primary source of the new tax revenue is a one cent per dollar increase in the sales tax. The measure passed with 23 votes in the 40 member Senate.

    Kansas Governor Mark Parkinson issued this statement after the legislation passed:

    This evening, as I worked in my Statehouse office and listened to the floor debate, I was stirred by the honesty, sincerity and passion with which Senators spoke.

    Tonight, 23 Senators — some Republican, some Democrat; some from our rural districts, some from our urban cores — put politics aside and came together for the common good.

    These leaders stood up, and protected those things which make our state great: quality schools, safe communities and a society that does not turn its back on those most in need.

    I am proud of these leaders, and I know Kansans are too. There is still work to be done and challenges ahead, but we are moving forward, protecting what we have and building for the future.

    Somehow voting for tax increases has become confused with political courage.

    Voting Yes on the bill were all Senate Democrats except Chris Steineger. Joining them were Republicans Pete Brungardt, Jay Emler, Terrie Huntington, Bob Marshall, Carolyn McGinn, Senate President Stephen Morris, Ralph Ostmeyer, Tim Owens, Roger Reitz, Vicki Schmidt, Jean Schodorf, Mark Taddiken, Ruth Teichman, Dwayne Umbarger, and Senate Vice President John Vratil.

    Voting No on the bill were Republicans Steve Abrams, Pat Apple, Jim Barnett, Karin Brownlee, Terry Bruce, Jeff Colyer, Les Donovan, Tim Huelskamp, Dick Kelsey, Julia Lynn, Ty Masterson, Mike Petersen, Mary Pilcher-Cook, Dennis Pyle, Senate Majority Leader Derek Schmidt, and Susan Wagle. As mentioned above, Democrat Chris Steineger voted No.

  • Kansas House starts debate on new budget; little progress made

    This afternoon the Kansas House of Representatives is debating its replacement budget. The legislation being considered is known as the “Feuerborn amendment.” At 417 pages, it has been divided into 13 sections, with part “A” being the language that “guts” the existing bill. (Click here to view this amendment.)

    On Tuesday the budget advanced by the House Appropriations Committee failed to pass the entire House. The Feuerborn amendment is being promoted by House Democrats as a “bipartisan” budget. This refers to the fact that a coalition of Democrats and Republicans — the Republicans being referred to by one publication as “left-wing Republicans” — will likely band together to pass a budget that increases spending and requires tax increases to pay for it.

    In the debate over part A, Representative Bill Feuerborn, a Garnett Democrat and Ranking Member of the House Appropriation Committee insisted that Kansas agencies have “already cut to the bone” and are now “into the bone.” In about two hours of back and forth, Overland Park Republican and Appropriations Chair Kevin Yoder and Feuerborn discussed specific aspects of the amendment.

    In closing his remarks, Yoder said that this 417 page amendment makes huge decisions about spending without the level of input and deliberation that the budget decision deserves.

    Representative Kasha Kelly, an Arkansas City Republican, said that tax increases that will be necessary to fund the spending in the amendment will be harmful to the Kansas economy. Instead of looking at asset sales, she said we’ve adopted a “hoarding mentality,” with the state wanting to keep what it owns, but demanding that citizens send what’s theirs to the state.

    She said that the state is not being creative in looking for alternatives to tax increases, and is too eager to impose a job-killing tax increase on Kansans.

    Wichita Republican Phil Hermanson said he was disappointed at the cuts to veterans in the Feuerborn amendment.

    House Education Budget Committee Chairman Joe McLeland, a Republican from Wichita, said that we need to consider the taxpayers of Kansas and not place an extra burden on them. He said that his committee found ways to help K-12 education come up with money to cover the federal stimulus dollars that will be ending.

    He also said that the state has chosen to pay school districts late, and his committee had a provision that requires the state to pay schools on time.

    At 5:13 pm the House adjourned until 9:00 am tomorrow so that members may attend a funeral of a member’s mother.

  • Kansas budget, taxes, still being worked on

    At the Kansas statehouse yesterday, some progress was made on the budget, but much work remains. With the session about to end, large decisions about taxation and spending have yet to be made.

    Talking to one lobbyist who has been observing statehouse politics for many years, I said “This is a heck of a way to make public policy.” He replied we’re way past considerations of public policy — we’re talking politics now. I remembered my political science professor in college, who said the definition of politics is “who gets what, when, and how.”

    A matter that is still on the calendar is the transportation bill, HB 2650 (fiscal note). This bill was passed by the House earlier in the session and is on the Senate’s calendar. Yesterday many supporters of the bill were in the statehouse, some wearing blue buttons reading “Highway investment means jobs.” Another button read “Safe roads save lives.”

    The halls were also packed with advocates for the disabled, including many people in wheelchairs or other mobility devices. Patrick Terick, Governmental Affairs director for Cerebral Palsy Research Center in Wichita, said that some programs such as one that creates custom wheelchair cushions have been cut by large amounts.

    In the afternoon session of the Senate, an amendment offered to its budget bill provided evidence of the diversity of Kansas and the difference between wealthy and poor areas of the state. The amendment, offered by Senator Karin Brownlee, a Republican from Olathe, would route KPERS contributions in a way that lets these payments be used in calculating a district’s local option budget. (The LOB allows school districts to levy property taxes. There is a limit as to how much tax can be levied, that being a percentage of the district’s budget.) By routing KPERS contributions in a different way, those payments could be used to increase the LOB limit. This would not change the amount paid to KPERS, or change the amount that districts would report they spent.

    During debate, some senators pointed out that poorer school districts would not have the ability to increase their LOB. Senator Anthony Hensley, a Republican from Topeka and Senate Minority Leader, said that many school districts cannot afford to raise local property taxes.

    Senator Janis Lee, who represents a geographically large district in northwest Kansas, said this amendment is “disequalizing,” referring to the Kansas school equalization process, which sends money from wealthy districts to those with less assessed property value per student.

    Senator John Vratil, a Republican from Leawood in Johnson County and Senate Vice President, said that Johnson County contributes 28 percent of the tax revenue the state collects, while receiving only 11 percent back in return. He also mentioned that Johnson County school districts are in the lowest ten percent of districts in operating costs per student. Given that, he asked “Is it too much that we have the authority to tax ourselves to provide a quality education?” Brownlee repeated this sentiment in her closing.

    On a roll call vote, the amendment failed by 16 to 22 votes.

    Later Senator Ty Masterson, an Andover Republican, offered an amendment that would raise $300 million in revenue through a variety of methods, most importantly the sale of some Kansas state-owned assets. The amendment would set a timeline for the identification, evaluation, and sale of assets, with some sold in time to be used in fiscal year 2011, the budget year that starts on July 1, 2010.

    Preliminary reports indicate that the state owns some $12 billion to $16 billion in assets. The Masterson amendment called for selling $175 million in fiscal year 2011. This figure is somewhere between one percent and two percent of the state-owned assets.

    In debate, some senators opposed this plan as being unrealistic. In a roll call vote, the amendment failed with 12 yea votes and 28 nays.

    A related amendment by Senator Mark Taddiken passed in a later session. It calls for the creation of an inventory of state assets and a prioritized list of assets that could be sold, but does not require the sale.

    Senator Tim Huelskamp, a Republican from Fowler, offered an amendment that would limit the growth of state government spending to the rate of population growth plus the rate of inflation. Some states have limitations like this, and they can be useful in restraining the growth of government.

    Remarks during debate included the concern that with an aging population and the state’s entitlement structure, state spending may need to increase rapidly to meet the needs of the elderly. Senator Marci Francisco, a Lawrence Democrat, said that we are not funding the state’s need for services adequately now, and we should try to be in a position to fund more agencies and programs.

    This amendment failed by a vote of 15 to 25.

    In the House, it was a waiting game all day as the alternative budget bill — “Feuerborn Amendment” — was being prepared. The new budget amendment was to be available at 8:00 am this morning, but it was not, and the house recessed with plans to resume at 11:00 am. But those plans were revised, with the House now planning to meet at 1:30 pm.

  • Kansas budget still being worked on

    Yesterday the Kansas House failed to pass a budget that did not require raising taxes. The budget, referred to as the “cuts budget” or the “Yoder budget” had only 45 votes in its favor, and would have been vetoed by the governor, based on his stated criteria for an acceptable budget.

    Two amendments were offered that would use the sale of state-owned assets to generate revenue. The first amendment, offered in the morning session, passed with 79 votes. A second similar amendment offered late in the evening would have set a specific requirement of $175 million of asset sales with much of it earmarked for schools. That amendment failed, getting 56 yea votes and 64 nays.

    The assets sales are important to conservatives, as the plan provides a way to raise revenue without a sales tax increase. The sales tax is viewed by conservatives as a long-term job killer, while the traditional spending lobbies and the governor view it as essential.

    Questioning during debate, mostly by liberals but also by some Republicans, indicate much confusion surrounds the asset sale plans. In particular, Cindy Neighbor, a Democrat from Johnson County, asked who the tenants would be if the state sold some of its office buildings. Additionally, she asked for a list of properties that would be sold, the names of the buyers, and the sale prices for these properties.

    Representative Ann Mah, a Topeka Democrat, referred to a Legislative Post Audit study that found there was only $7 million in assets that could be sold. Supporters of asset sales indicate there may be from $10 billion to $16 billion of state-owned property, although not all might be considered for sale. The discrepancy in the two figures derives from the fact that the audit Mah mentioned considered only land, and only that land that state agencies considered to be surplus. Supporters of the assets sales plan have a much broader definition of assets that might be considered for sale.

    In any case, the state needs an inventory of the property it owns. A new system is coming online this summer that will help in this process.

    At one time it was thought that the House would likely concur with whatever bills the Senate passed. But Hawver’s Capitol Report speculates that is less likely now, as House moderates and liberals are preparing their own budget bill, possibly ready this afternoon. It also appears the session will last until at least Friday.

    The Senate did not debate its budget or tax bills yesterday. At yesterday’s caucus of senate Republicans, plans were developed to debate both today. The budget plan, as presented to the caucus, increases general fund spending by 3.2 percent, which is less than the governor’s plan. The plan results in a budget shortfall for fiscal years 2010 and 2011 of $300.7 million, requiring increased tax revenue to fund this amount.

    Conservative members of the caucus asked about assumptions built into the budget, especially the 4.0 percent growth in tax receipts built into the budget. Several contented that this is not realistic, especially in light of falling tax receipts in the current and past years. Budget officials said that the 4.0 percent figure is what has been traditionally used. Although there are signs that the Kansas economy may be improving, it seems that the tax receipt projections are overly optimistic.

    A question was also asked about the Bush tax cuts, which are scheduled to expire during the next fiscal year. It seems unlikely that these cuts will be extended. Budget officials explained that the impact of the expiration of these tax cuts on Kansas tax revenue will not be factored in until the November consensus revenue estimates.

    The budget includes no funds for the transition to the new governor that will take office in January 2011.

    If an increase in the sales tax passes and is signed into law, it would take effect on July 1. In an effort to gain revenue for the current year, retailers may start collecting the extra tax starting June 1 on a voluntary basis. 30 day notice of tax rate changes is required to be given to retailers. The budget estimates assume that one-third of retailers will collect the tax staring June 1.

    The budget presented does not include a plan to sell state assets. That will probably be introduced as an amendment during today’s debate.

  • Kansas budget may be settled today

    Last night the Kansas Senate Ways and Means committee came up with a new tax package. The main ingredients are a one cent per dollar increase in the statewide sales tax, but no increase in cigarette taxes. The package relies on the federal government extending a Medicare matching funds program boost, which Congress has not yet passed.

    Yesterday the House postponed debate on its tax bill until today.

    Several senators said it is unknown whether the Senate has enough votes to pass its budget bills. Sources in the House and other observers tell me that the most likely scenario is that the House will agree to whatever passes the Senate.

    Tomorrow is the last day the legislature has money to pay salaries for both members and support staff such as legislators’ secretaries. There are some contingency funds that could be used to extend the number of days that can be paid, however.

  • Kansas is a Republican, not conservative, state

    A recent editorial prepared by the Kansas Republican Party concluded with: “Kansas Republicans are presenting a united front with sound plans to meet the challenges of a 21st century economy. Our philosophy centers on liberating the promise of the individual and family as the answer, not more government growth, on a path to prosperity.”

    That’s a fiscally conservative message. The practice of many Kansas Republicans, however, is far removed from this message advocating limited government. Kansas Republicans, especially the Senate leadership, are working to increase taxes in Kansas in a way that leads to more government growth at the expense of many thousands of private sector jobs in favor of government jobs.

    It starts with Kansas Governor Mark Parkinson. Although he is a Democrat, it was not long ago he was a Republican, even holding the chairmanship of the Kansas Republican Party. In his State of the State address in January, Parkinson proposed a temporary once cent on the dollar increase in the sales tax and an increase in cigarette taxes. Although the majority of the sales tax is pitched to Kansans as a temporary measure, these temporary taxes have a nasty habit of becoming permanent.

    In the Senate, the leadership trio of President Stephen Morris, Vice President John Vratil, and Majority Leader Derek Schmidt agree with the governor that increasing taxes is the way to balance the Kansas budget. In particular, Vratil imported a California law that taxes the sugar content of soda pop. The California law had the benefit that the tax revenue would go towards promoting childhood health. In Kansas, the revenue would go to the general fund.

    In both the Senate and the House of Representatives, Republicans hold a majority of seats. But many Republicans do not vote a conservative position on taxes and spending. At a recent legislative forum, Representative Ray Merrick, who is House Majority Leader, explained the political reality in the House. There are 76 Republican members of the House, but Merrick said that on the “very best day” there are 55 who will vote with him, meaning they are conservative Republicans. 63 votes are required to pass legislation in the House.

    Who are these legislators that belong to the Republican party but don’t vote with conservatives on issues of taxation and spending? According to rankings prepared by Americans For Prosperity-Kansas, for the 2009 session of the Kansas Legislature, the Democrat with the highest (most fiscally conservative) ranking is Jerry Williams, with a ranking of 55%. There are 11 Republicans who rank equivalent or lower than this. Their names are:

    Jill Quigley of Lenexa,
    Sheryl Spalding of Overland Park,
    Kay Wolf of Prairie Village,
    Ron Worley of Lenexa,
    Terrie Huntington (now in the Kansas Senate) of Fairway,
    Jo Ann Pottorf of Wichita,
    Tom Sloan of Lawrence,
    Don Hill of Emporia,
    Bob Brookens of Marion,
    Barbara Craft of Junction City, and
    Charles Roth of Salina.

    For the Senate, a similar analysis is clouded by the presence of Democrat Chris Steineger, who is an outlier among Democrats for his consistent votes in favor of fiscal restraint and taxpayers. But some of the worst-ranking Republicans are these:

    Jean Schodorf of Wichita,
    Pete Brungardt of Salina,
    Stephen Morris of Hugoton, who is President of the Senate,
    Tim Owens of Overland Park,
    Roger Reitz of Manhattan,
    Derek Schmidt of Independence, who is Senate Majority Leader,
    Vicki Schmidt of Topeka, and
    John Vratil of Leawood, who is Vice President of the Senate.

    The Kansas Economic Freedom Index, a new project of mine, will also let us learn who votes in favor of economic freedom and against big government, no matter what their party affiliation indicates.

  • Kansas sales tax studies are different

    As the Kansas Legislature decides whether to balance the budget through reductions in spending or increases in taxes, two studies of the impact of a sales tax increase have emerged. The two arrive at different conclusions, and it’s important to understand the differences between them.

    The most recent study, produced by Wichita State University economist John Wong found that increasing the sales tax rate in Kansas would preserve jobs, after both job losses and gains are considered.

    The earlier study was conducted by Art Hall, who is Director of the Center for Applied Economics at the University of Kansas. It found that increasing the sales tax rate would result in a large loss of jobs over six years.

    So what is the difference between the two studies?

    Kansas Watchdog’s Paul Soutar reported this: “Both economists were quick to point out that one study is not more correct than the other. They just use different tools to answer a slightly different question. Both agreed that Wong’s study is a static snapshot of the impact of the tax increase in 2011 and does not take into account changes in behavior caused by increased sales tax or project the impact beyond 2011 as does Hall’s.”

    State of the State KS has interviews with both economists and longer versions available only to subscribers.

    In Wong’s interview, he said that the model he used, IMPLAN, is a computer model based on input-output analysis. It seeks to answer the question of what happens when you change one economic variable?

    Wong said that “Anytime you take money out of people’s pockets, that’s bad.” When there’s a cut in state spending, it is felt most directly by users of state services and by state employees who may lose their jobs. The impact is more localized, he said.

    While low income people are affected proportionally more by an increase in sales tax, Wong said that low income people use a lot of state services, and their loss of these services might be greater than the extra sales tax they may pay.

    Wong said that the Hall study did not take into account what would happen if the state reduced its spending. But in his interview Hall contradicted Wong’s contention that his study did not take into account the effect of the extra state spending that a higher sales tax would allow, saying that job losses would have been higher if the effect of government spending was not included.

    In his interview, Hall said that his study looked at a six-year time frame. The findings are that the private sector loses 26,000 jobs, the public (government) sector gains 7,000 jobs, and private sector loses $2 billion in personal income.

    Hall said that Wong’s computer model does not take into account the fact that people will react to tax increases. “It’s as if people are robots, and we know that’s not right,” adding that the model he used tries to account for this.

    Hall further distinguished the two studies: “People do respond to price changes. That’s the core of economics. Professor Wong’s model does not even take that into account. It’s not Professor Wong’s fault. The tool he’s using was really built for other purposes. The tool we’re using is trying very explicitly to take into account what people do when taxes increase, or decrease, for that matter.”