Voice For Liberty

Category: Kansas state government

  • Kansas budget can be balanced without tax increases

    As the Kansas Legislature prepares to get to work next week producing a budget plan for the next year, Kansans are being told that tax increases are inevitable. Several sources, however, have ideas and detailed plans as to how the state can avoid tax increases.

    Kansas Senator Chris Steineger, a Democrat from Kansas City, has a list of cost-cutting measures that could be implemented quickly. See Kansas can have fast, achievable savings for his list.

    Steineger also has what he calls the billion dollar list, which contains items that could save even more money. Some of these proposals such as downsizing the legislature, consolidation of Kansas counties, and consolidation of state agencies, might take more time to implement. But these proposals, if implemented, would place Kansas government on a permanent low-cost track.

    The Kansas Policy Institute has developed some proposals for savings that it delivered in the form of a letter to Kansas Governor Mark Parkinson. The proposal contains some revenue enhancements that are not in the form of tax increases, which is usually what proponents of revenue enhancements mean. It also contains many cost-cutting measures.

    In the letter, KPI President Dave Trabert raises a point that I’ve not heard from any other source. The large budget gap that is routinely mentioned is composed in part of federal stimulus (ARRA) dollars that Kansas received, just like other states. But these funds will not be available in the next budget year, fiscal year 2011. According to KPI, ARRA funds accounted for $205 million of spending in fiscal year 2010.

    Should these “missing” funds — which everyone knew were temporary — now be used to create a large “budget gap” in order to justify the need for tax increases? Trabert explains: “KPI uses a taxpayer-focused approach that defines 2010 spending as that which was funded by state taxes. Your proposed 2011 budget would allow government to continue spending at levels funded by both state and federal tax dollars. It was well known that the stimulus money was temporary and that the state should plan accordingly, so state taxpayers should not be required to pay more to make up the difference.”

    The need to avoid further tax increases is vital to the Kansas economy, as Trabert notes in his letter to the governor: “The Kansas economy is already absorbing a $163 million unemployment tax increase that is negatively impacting jobs and we must do everything we can to avoid further damage.”

    The KPI letter and analysis may be read by clicking on Letter to Kansas Governor Mark Parkinson.

    Another plan comes from Americans for Prosperity-Kansas, which has prepared its commonsense budget proposal for fiscal year 2011. AFP’s plan contains both long-term and short-term measures for restoring our state’s fiscal health. It contains many specific measures that could be taken immediately to balance the budget without raising taxes.

    The AFP document is a comprehensive look at Kansas government spending, as noted in the introduction: “Following the approach of a concise but broad-ranging examination of every function Kansas state government attempts to perform, AFP has produced a budget that makes real tax cuts possible for Kansas taxpayers. AFP has gone beyond the traditional cursory examinations of state spending where the stock solutions are merely eliminating waste, fraud, abuse, and/or rooting out duplication.”

    As an example, for the Revisor of Statutes office the proposal suggests this: “This department received an increase of over 23 percent for FY 2008 which only partially reflects the cost of two FTEs for committee staffing. With the updated computer systems and additional staffing the Revisor’s office should be able to suffice with the reduction of 15 percent of appropriations funding.”

    The AFP budget proposal was developed by Steven J. Anderson, a certified public accountant with extensive experience in government accounting and budgets.

    The AFP budget proposal may be read at AFP-Kansas releases FY 2011 “Commonsense Budget Proposal.”

  • Kansas small business will be harmed by targeted tax increases

    In the following op-ed, Philip Bradley explains the harm that targeted tax increases will bring on small businesses in Kansas. Bradley is a lobbyist — a member of a group of people widely criticized for obtaining special governmental favor for their clients. After spending quite a bit of time in Topeka this legislative session, I’ve realized that many lobbyists are simply trying to prevent their clients and their businesses and industries from being harmed by excessive taxation or harmful regulation. That’s certainly the case described below.

    For so many small business owners in Kansas, it has been nearly a two years since we started experiencing the toughest economic times ever. So many customers have quit coming into our establishments and those who have come will spend much less. Some small business owners have had to cut back employees and many more have reduced employee hours. And, worst of all, the personal investment portfolios built up for our futures have been cut in half.

    These crippling economic times do not bode well for this state where 70% of employees work for the small business owner. But for those of us who have owned our own shops for many years, 2008-2010 have not been the only years of tough times. Often, simply making the weekly payroll is a tough proposition regardless of how the rest of the economy is doing. That is why I believe the small business owners of Kansas will get through these rough times.

    Unlike many others, we do not ask for a “bail-out” or “stimulus package” from Washington or Topeka. We simply want to be treated fairly and be allowed to operate our businesses with the full rights of private property owners. We have been fortunate in Kansas that state and local government has not often dealt us a untenable heavy hand either with taxation or overregulation.

    But right now in Topeka, there is a threat on the horizon that could make it even tougher for some small business owners to make ends meet during this recession.

    As a representative of the Kansas Licensed Beverage Association, I encourage all owners of bars and taverns throughout our state to urge members of the Kansas Legislature to especially forget raising targeted taxes. How could any elected official who has met with any business owner in his district or any of the thousands of people who are laid off — even give any new taxes one thought?

    And why do the owners of bars and taverns care about new targeted taxes? It’s simple. On any given night, up to 50% of bar patrons are fixed or limited incomes. And many of them are blue collar workers or lower income retirees. If the Kansas Legislature nearly doubles the rate with new taxes targeted at specific businesses to solve the whole states spending shortfall as proposed, it will be another financial jab at some of our best customers. If our best customers have less to spend, then that really impacts hospitality venues even more and the already large tax burden we have.

    Legislators are being pushed by professional advocates with a tax spending agenda, regardless of the consequences to businesses and despite making the rough economic climate rougher. I hope legislators will listen to the taxpayers and not these lobbyists. We are not against education, schools, social programs or government. We are the first and usually the last folks that those groups come to for assistance in our local communities. And we give and help! We have and we will in the future, for we are not battling each other but working together to help our state weather this, just another storm.

    So, if new taxes are voted in, it means that state government has made a key contribution to worsening the personal and business situation of our members. And that is something that state government should not do to small business or any business in Kansas. Instead we all should and will create jobs, build communities and climb out and upward!

    I want to encourage all our bar, restaurant and tavern owners to quickly contact their members of the legislature and urge them to vote against all new targeted taxes that would punish selected businesses and reward others. Also, urge your customers to do the same. Right now, legislators are under a lot of pressure from tax receiving group’s lobbyists. Don’t let them shout you down!

    Philip Bradley, pbc consulting
    Representing Kansas Licensed Beverage Association, Kansas Viticulture & Farm Winery Association, Craft Brewers Guild of Kansas and Equal Entertainment Group.

  • Kansas budget gap, the real numbers

    On Friday the Kansas Consensus Revenue Estimating Group met and released their estimate of revenue for the remainder of the current fiscal year and the next. (The current fiscal year is 2010, which ends on June 30, just about 2.5 months from now. Fiscal year 2011 starts on July 1.)

    Revenue estimates for both years were revised downwards. For the remainder of fiscal year 2010, the revenue estimate was revised downwards by $46.4 million, or 0.9 percent from the November estimate. For fiscal year 2010, the number was revised downward by decreased by $83.8 million, or 1.6 percent from November’s estimate.

    These numbers are important because they are the numbers that the legislature, by law, has to work from when it reconvenes on April 28. Having a common set of numbers to work with means that arguments as to whose estimates of revenue are correct are avoided. Some degree of politicization of the budget is eliminated.

    The release of the revenue estimates caused Kansas Governor Mark Parkinson to release a statement that read, in part: “This estimate confirms what we have predicted since the start of the year — despite having already cut more than a billion dollars in state spending, Kansas still faces a $510 million budget shortfall. This hole is too big to fill with additional cuts. $510 million in cuts would decimate our schools, public safety programs and safety net services for our most vulnerable Kansas.” This was followed by a reassertion of his proposal to temporarily increase the sales tax by one cent on the dollar.

    The governor said that cuts in spending would “decimate our schools.” This is contraindicated by noting that USD 259, the Wichita public school district, found a way to save $2.5 million per year by adjusting school starting times, thereby saving on transportation costs. Undoubtedly more savings like this can be found.

    Not everyone agrees with the governor’s numbers and the need for a tax increase. Two weeks ago the Kansas Policy Institute placed a newspaper advertisement that explained some of the problems with the governor’s facts and his promotion of a tax increase. The numbers cited in the ad are a little different now that we have the recent revenue estimates, but the points are the same: The purportedly large “gap” is based on what the governor wants to spend, not what needs to be spent. There are many ways to save money, and tax increases will harm Kansas.

    Following is the text of the Kansas Policy Institute ad:

    With all due respect Governor Parkinson, your claims about state spending and your premise for tax increases simply aren’t true.

    First of all, the primary cause of the budget “gap” isn’t to prevent drastic cuts to state spending, it’s that you want to increase state spending by $380 million.

    Your proposed general fund budget of $5.831 billion is 7% higher than your estimate of FY 2010 spending and $1.1 billion more than we spent in FY 2005. The state provided good services when we spent a billion dollars less and it’s disingenuous to claim that we couldn’t possibly spend less without devastating the ability to meet taxpayers’ needs.

    The true “gap” is $122 million, which is the amount that revenues are predicted to decline next year. There are many viable options to cover the revenue shortfall without raising anyone’s taxes or eliminating services. Here are just a few:

    • Sell some state property. Some legislators already have a plan in place that could generate up to $150 million.
    • Pay schools sooner (and on time) so they don’t need large carryover cash balances to pay their bills, freeing up a large portion of nearly $700 million.
    • Privatize some services and functions. Private sector employers can do a job for less money and the services would still be available.

    There are many more examples listed on our web site at www.KansasPolicy.org.

    The Kansas economy is already absorbing $163 million in higher unemployment taxes, which is predicted to cause further job loss. Raising other taxes will cost more jobs and do further damage to the economy. We can maintain current state spending without raising anyone’s taxes, and we respectfully ask that you adopt that common-sense approach and drop your demand for harmful tax increases.

  • Kansas taxes and spending debated

    Should Kansas increase taxes or control spending in order to balance its budget? On the editorial page of the Wichita Eagle yesterday, three editorials discussed the Kansas budget, taxes, and spending.

    Rhonda Holman’s editorial featured Kansas Governor Mark Parkinson and his claims that the temporary one-cent sales tax used to fund the Intrust Bank Arena in downtown Wichita wasn’t noticed, and therefore didn’t harm the economy. The governor’s reasoning is incorrect, as taxes do indeed harm the economy.

    When it was proposed in Wichita in 2002 to have a sales tax increase of one-half cent per dollar to build an arena, Wichita car dealers claimed that it would place them at a competitive disadvantage. So people and business do notice the effect of sales taxes.

    While the geography is different — the proposed Wichita sales tax was to be only for one city, while the governor’s sales tax is for the entire state — the principle is the same: Higher taxes in Kansas will place our state at a competitive disadvantage.

    This editorial also mentions “painful cuts to education” that have been made. More about that in a moment.

    A second editorial was written by Bernie Koch, who is Executive Director of the Kansas Economic Progress Council. He takes the position that we can’t make additional cuts, concluding that “To simply rely on cuts will damage the institutions and systems needed to survive the Great Recession and pursue economic recovery.”

    Referring to a SurveyUSA poll from last month, Koch wrote: “86 percent [of Kansans] said they were somewhat or very concerned about cuts to education.”

    The problem with this poll is that the people of Kansas are very uninformed about school spending and cuts. First, there are plenty of cuts to be made, cuts that don’t affect the classroom. Recently the Wichita school district was able to find $2.5 million annual savings by adjusting transportation schedules at a small number of schools. Now that district is looking at savings that can be had in administration.

    So when the Eagle editorial board and the governor claim that “painful cuts” have been made to schools, were those painful cuts made before transportation schedules were adjusted? Kansans should ask where these priorities are set.

    Second, Kansans are simply uninformed — perhaps deliberately misinformed — about the level of school spending, as a poll conducted by the Kansas Policy Institute found. This poll, released last week, found that “fewer than one Kansan in 10 has a clear idea how much money schools actually receive — or spend — to educate elementary, middle and high school students across the state.”

    Further, when informed about the true level of spending and the increase over the past five years, 81 percent of Kansans oppose tax increases for school spending. Only 11 percent were willing to pay increased taxes.

    The third editorial was written by Kent Beisner, who is interim president and CEO of the Kansas Chamber of Commerce.

    Beisner accurately diagnoses the cause of the problem: “The governor and his allies in the Legislature actually have the audacity to claim that recent tax cuts are to blame for the state’s budget deficit. But when the Legislature cut taxes earlier this decade, revenues to the state skyrocketed. The problem occurred when the state showed zero fiscal restraint and committed to spending more than it was taking in, erasing more than a $950 million budget surplus in just two years. Kansas most definitely does not have a tax-cutting or revenue problem.”

    The way to get out of this problem is to control spending so that taxes don’t have to be raised. A low-tax environment is the best tool Kansas can use to attract and keep business, Beisner added: “If the Legislature adopts what will amount to the largest tax increase in the state’s history, states more competitive than Kansas will no doubt take advantage of our resulting anti-growth climate and lure our employers and workers out of the state.”

  • Kansas smoking ban opponents meet in Wichita

    A group primarily composed of business owners met in Wichita on Thursday to discuss the recently passed Kansas smoking ban and what might be done to overturn it or mitigate its damage to business.

    Phillip Bradley of Kansas Licensed Beverage Association briefed the group on the current status of the smoking ban and what types of action might be possible in the future.

    Bradley told the group that it’s nearly impossible to get a new bill through the Kansas Legislature at this time. The greatest chance for action is to have an amendment added to a bill that’s already in conference. He mentioned SB 454 as a possibility, adding that it’s being made into a “Christmas tree,” meaning that many interests are attempting to add to the bill.

    There are three issues related to the smoking ban that can gain traction with legislators, Bradley said. The first is that the state exempted state-owned casinos from the smoking ban.

    The second is the “ten foot rule,” which says that smoking is not allowed within ten feet of “any doorway, open window or air intake” of a building, except for those buildings (like state-owned casinos) that are exempt from the smoking ban. This is a problem for downtown areas or malls where businesses may be in close proximity to each other, and to sidewalks and outdoor patios where smoking is permitted.

    The third relates to treating similar classes unequally in the law. Private clubs that were in existence before January 1, 2009 can be exempted from the smoking ban. Private clubs formed after that date, however, are subject to the smoking ban.

    Bradley explained some of the difficulties involved in understanding legislative action. The so-called “gut-and-go,” for example, is where a bill that is passed by one chamber — say the Senate — is stripped of its content by the other chamber, the House of Representatives in this example. The original text of the bill is replaced with new text, which might refer to a totally different topic. The reformulated bill — passed by the House, even though it now refers to a totally new and possibly entirely different subject — goes back to the Senate as having already been passed by that body.

    Representative Brenda Landwehr, a Republican who represents parts of northwest Wichita and who is chair of the House of Representatives Health and Human Services Committee, addressed the group and offered advice as to how to influence legislators. She recommended personal telephone calls to legislators explaining how the smoking ban will impact their businesses. If legislators say studies show that smoking bans have no impact on business, she suggested callers ask legislators why the state exempted its state-owned casinos from the smoking ban. “People don’t understand the amount of money that bars bring to this state,” she added.

    Landwehr said that the state-owned casinos, being exempt from the smoking ban, are competition to already-existing bars near the casinos, both existing and those that may open in the future.

    She advised the group that legislators generally respond first to people who live in the district they represent.

    Ali Issa, owner of Heat Cigar and Hookah Lounge in Wichita, where the meeting took place, urged the group to take action. Expressing the concern that the smoking ban is harmful to business, he said “Our goal is to stay in business.” He urged the group to make calls to legislators and spread the message through social media like Facebook.

    A question asked by some business owners asked about the possibility of gathering signatures on petitions. As Kansas has no initiative and referendum process, it’s not possible to force votes on state laws through this process. Petitions, however, can powerfully express the sentiment of the public.

    It was mentioned that under a conservative Kansas governor — presumably Sam Brownback — the smoking ban might not survive. But Sheila Martin, a Hutchinson business owner and activist in the smoking ban issue, said that many people will be out of business by the time Brownback becomes governor in January 2011.

    The group plans to hold a public meeting soon to bring attention to this issue.

    A website has been established to support the efforts of business owners. It may be accessed at Kansas Right to Choose.

    Other coverage of this meeting is at Business group will fight state’s smoking ban.

  • Kansas governor speaks on spending, taxes

    In a press conference this afternoon, Kansas Governor Mark Parkinson said there are no more spending cuts possible, and that taxes must be raised.

    Parkinson said the Kansas economy has made progress, but there are still significant challenges. He said that in February the unemployment rate went down, and that has been noticed in the declining number unemployment benefits applications.

    He said that March revenues may exceed estimates.

    Concerning the first part of the legislative session, Parkinson said that the consensus is that state programs can’t be cut any farther. He said that after one billion dollars in cuts, there are no more possible cuts. “There just isn’t any other area that we can cut.” Some conservative legislators have confided to him that they agree, he said.

    He said the “Yoder budget,” which he said calls for cutting school spending while at the same time leading to potential property tax increases, has gone nowhere. He said he believes this budget doesn’t have enough votes to proceed.

    The solution is not painful, Parkinson said. He said we should raise the tobacco tax to the national average and pass the temporary one cent sales tax. He repeated the assertion, as he has in the past, that the people of Wichita didn’t notice the start or the end of the one cent sales tax used to build the Intrust Bank Arena.

    The tax would go away, he said, except for a small part used to fund a highway plan.

    Other reporting is at Parkinson, Senate leaders predict mix of tax increases to solve budget crisis and Gov renews call for tax increases. State of the State KS provides video at Governor Calls House Budget Reckless and Says Legislators See Need For Taxes.

  • Kansas House candidate to address Pachyderms

    On Friday April 2 at the Wichita Pachyderm Club, Eric Payne will address members and guests. Payne is a candidate for the Republican Party nomination for the Kansas House of Representatives for the 87th district. This district in east and southeast Wichita is currently represented by Raj Goyle. Joseph Scapa, another candidate for this position, will speak to the same group on April 30.

    All are welcome to attend Pachyderm club meetings. The program costs $10, which includes a delicious buffet lunch including salad, soup, two main dishes, and ice tea and coffee. The meeting starts at noon, although it’s recommended to arrive fifteen minutes early to get your lunch before the program starts.

    The Wichita Petroleum Club is on the ninth floor of the Bank of America Building at 100 N. Broadway (north side of Douglas between Topeka and Broadway) in Wichita, Kansas (click for a map and directions). Park in the garage just across Broadway and use the sky walk to enter the Bank of America building. Bring your parking garage ticket to be stamped and your parking fee will be only $1.00. There is usually some metered and free street parking nearby.

  • Amtrak, taxpayer burden, should not be expanded in Kansas

    Recently the Kansas legislature and governor decided to authorize the Kansas Secretary of Transportation to establish and implement a passenger rail service program in the state. This service would most likely be implemented through Amtrak, the federal passenger rail authority.

    This service, true to the nature of Amtrak, would require subsidy from taxpayers in order to survive. Most of the arguments of rail supporters boil down to “other things get subsidy, so we want ours too.” The proper response to this is to advocate for ending all subsidy to all forms of transportation. In this way, we can fully learn which forms of transport are truly valued, and by what relative margin. Then private sector investment can be channeled to where people — not politicians, government bureaucrats, and rail enthusiasts — value it most.

    Rail supporters — we should be accurate and call them taxpayer-funded rail supporters — argue that the total dollar volume of taxpayer funds redirected to support Amtrak is small. That, however, ignores the context of the passenger mile. In this context, government funding of rail travel is truly alarming.

    In 2008, a Cato Institute report stated “In 2006, subsidies to Amtrak totaled just over $1 billion, or about 22 cents per passenger mile.” The subsidy to highways was about one-half cent per mile.

    Subsidyscope, an initiative of the Pew Charitable Trusts, has a recent study about the taxpayer subsidy flowing into Amtrak. For the Heartland Flyer route, which runs from Fort Worth to Oklahoma, and is proposed by taxpayer-funded rail supporters to extend into Kansas through Wichita and Kansas City, we find these statistics about the finances of this operation:

    Amtrak reports a profit/loss per passenger mile on this route of $-.02, meaning that each passenger, per mile traveled, resulted in a loss of two cents. Taxpayers pay for that.

    But this number, as bad as it is, is totally misleading. Subsidyscope calculated a different number. This number, unlike the numbers Amrak publishes, includes depreciation, ancillary businesses and overhead costs — the types of costs that private sector businesses bear and report. When these costs are included, the Heartland Flyer route results in a loss of 13 cents per passenger mile, or a loss of $26.76 per passenger for the trip from Fort Worth to Oklahoma City.

    This isn’t the type of business we should import into Kansas for economic development purposes. Hopefully Kansans will realize the tremendous burden to taxpayers that is Amtrak.

  • AFP to present Kansas budget update

    On Wednesday March 31, Susan Estes of Americans for Prosperity-Kansas will present on the topic “An update on the budget shortfall in Kansas, how we got there through excessive spending, and how our state’s tax burden compares with neighboring states.”

    This presentation will be from 7:00 pm to 8:30 pm at the Wichita Central Public Library in downtown Wichita, in the private meeting room on the top floor.

    For more information or to RSVP, contact John Todd, Wichita AFP volunteer coordinator at john@johntodd.net or 316-312-7335, or Susan Estes, AFP Field Director at sestes@afphq.org or 316-681-4415.