Voice For Liberty

Category: Kansas state government

  • Kansas makes unwise bet on passenger rail

    Last week Kansas Governor Mark Parkinson signed into law HB 2552, which enacts the Midwest Interstate Passenger Rail Compact. This act will promote improvements to passenger rail service and the development of plans for long-range high speed rail service in the Midwest, according to the governor’s press release.

    “Passenger rail service in Kansas would create economic opportunities for the future, but the planning must begin now,” said Parkinson in a press release. “A strong public infrastructure system helps attract businesses and jobs to our state, and a high speed rail service is another piece in furthering our economic recovery. I am pleased to sign these two bills that will set the gears in motion for increased avenues of transportation in Kansas and the entire Midwest.”

    The governor also signed SB 409, which authorizes the Kansas Secretary of Transportation to establish and implement a passenger rail service program in the state.

    In Kansas, the Northern Flyer Alliance has promoted this legislation as a way to return passenger rail service to Kansas, specifically from Kansas City through Wichita to Oklahoma City and Fort Worth. It’s a bad idea. Any expansion of Amtrak, which is how this service would be implemented, is bad public policy.

    Consider some of the recent history of Amtrak. In 2001, the Cato Institute Policy Analysis Help Passenger Rail by Privatizing Amtrak contained this in its summary:

    Amtrak has failed to secure an increasing portion of America’s growing transportation market. It carries only about three-tenths of 1 percent of all intercity passengers. Its on-time performance on most routes is terrible, and it covers up this fact by measuring punctuality at a limited number of stops and building in lots of extra time before those stops.

    Many of Amtrak’s trains run much more slowly today than did trains on the same routes earlier this century. Moreover, Amtrak uses creative accounting to disguise its financial problems. For example, Amtrak receives many subsidies from government agencies and has recently abandoned standard accounting practices to hide operating expenses as capital costs.

    In the recent Cato Institute briefing paper High-Speed Rail Is Not “Interstate 2.0”, author Randal O’Toole provided this summary:

    The administration has likened President Obama’s high-speed rail plan to President Eisenhower’s Interstate Highway System. Yet there are crucial differences between interstate highways and high-speed rail.

    First, before Congress approved the Interstate Highway System, it had a good idea how much it would cost. In contrast, Congress approved $8 billion for high-speed rail without knowing the total cost, which is likely to be at least $90 billion.

    Second, highway users paid for interstate highways, whereas high-speed rail will be almost entirely subsidized by general taxpayers who will rarely use it.

    Third, interstate highways connect all 48 contiguous states and major metropolitan areas. The FRA’s high-speed rail plan consists of six unconnected networks that reach only 33 states and less than two-thirds of the nation’s 100 largest urban areas.

    Fourth, the average American traveled 4,000 miles on interstates in 2007. High-speed rail proponents optimistically estimate that the average American would ride the FRA’s high-speed rail system less than 60 miles per year.

    Finally, interstate highways improved social welfare by increasing highway safety. In contrast, far from saving energy and reducing pollution, high-speed rail would actually increase energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.

    For all these reasons, the United States government should not fund high-speed rail. The $8 billion in high-speed rail stimulus funds should be invested in safety improvements, not in new trains and new routes that will add to future taxpayer obligations.

    Amtrak also has problems with transparency and accountability, and has troubles complying with provisions of the federal Inspector General Act. A recent investigation concluded: “… contrary to the requirements of the IG Act, the OIG’s independence at Amtrak has been diminished and threatened by recent policies and practices at Amtrak affecting OIG investigations and giving the appearance that OIG is subordinate to the Law Department. The involvement by the Law Department in OIG investigations both impermissibly and unnecessarily restricts the OIG’s access to document and information …”

    Amtrak is a federal agency that should be disbanded immediately, not expanded.

    In testimony before the Kansas House Transportation Committee on March 3, advocates for the Northern Flyer project gave several reasons for supporting it. One reason is that other states are getting federal money for similar projects, and Kansas residents are “donating to what other states will receive.” The point was made that fares will offset some of the operating expenses, but that this rail services will not be profitable. Rail should not be expected to operate without subsidy, proponents said. Many other forms of transportation are subsidized, too, and the amount of money spent on rail subsidy is small.

    But when compared to other forms of transportation, rail is subsidized at a much higher rate. According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, in 2002, highway use was subsidized at the rate of negative $1.00 per thousand passenger miles. “Negative numbers show user charge payments to the federal government in excess of cost responsibility,” explains the report, meaning that highway drivers are subsidizing other forms of transportation.

    Commercial aviation was subsidized at the rate of $6.18 per thousand passenger miles, with general aviation racking up subsidy at the rate of $91.42 (2001 figures.)

    Railroad received $210.31 per thousand passenger miles. It’s a very expensive way to travel.

  • Kansas legislature special session possible

    Yesterday’s edition of the KPTS television public affairs program Ask Your Legislator featured talk on taxes and speculation that a special session of the Kansas Legislature might be needed this summer.

    Senator John Vratil, a Republican from Leawood and vice-president of the Senate, said that the way to solve the budget problem is through a combination of cuts and tax increases. He said its unlikely that there will be increases in income taxes and property taxes.

    Vratil has been in favor of a variety of tax increases, including raising the sales tax and starting a tax on soda pop.

    Representative Marti Crow, a Leavenworth Democrat said she’s heard rumors that House leadership is talking about “going home” without a budget. She said it’s been a “do nothing” year in the house, and that it’s irresponsible for the legislature to not be doing its job.

    Vratil said that the Senate leadership has taken the position that the budget should be handled until after the consensus revenue estimates become available on April 16. This is different from the usual practice, where the legislature creates on budget by the end of March, and then revises it after the April estimates are available.

    He said it is possible that there could be a special session of the legislature in July to deal with the budget.

    Both Vratil and Crow said that there will probably be future efforts to extend the recently-passed smoking ban in Kansas to include casino floors. They also added that their constituents are in favor of tax increaes.

    Reporting from the Lawrence Journal-World is at Senate vice president says special session on budget possible.

  • New Kansas Economic Freedom Index

    A new Kansas Economic Freedom Index has been issued for both the Kansas House of Representatives and the Kansas Senate, based on new votes being recorded. See Kansas Economic Freedom Index.

  • Health care amendment fails to pass in Kansas, protest filed

    Today the Kansas House of Representatives failed to pass House Concurrent Resolution 5032. This resolution would have amended the Kansas Constitution to provide Kansas protection from federal health care mandates. Specifically, the explanatory section of the bill states: “The purpose of this health care freedom amendment is to preserve constitutionally the right and freedom of Kansans to provide for their health care.”

    The resolution failed to pass by a vote of 75 to 47. Two-thirds, or 84 votes, were required for passage of this constitutional amendment. This vote is part of the Kansas Economic Freedom Index.

    A group of House members filed a protest, which is printed in the journal for the day. It’s a useful analysis of what the just-passed federal law will do for us, complete with references to the legislation:

    MR. SPEAKER: Pursuant to Article 2, Section 10, of the constitution of the State of Kansas, we protest the non-adoption of HCR 5032.

    The Federal Health Care legislation is a violation of the United States Constitution. The legislation is not within the powers granted to Congress through the Commerce Clause in Article I, Section 8. The legislation is unprecedented and unconstitutional because never before has Congress attempted to compel Americans to purchase any good or service simply as a requirement of lawful citizenship. Health Care has historically been a primarily a state responsibility.

    Additionally, we protest the passing of Federal Health Care legislation, in part, for the following reasons:

    The sections described below are taken from HR 3590 as agreed to by the United States Senate and from the reconciliation bill as displayed by the Rules Committee.

    You are young and don’t want health insurance? You are starting up a small business and need to minimize expenses, and one way to do that is to forego health insurance? Tough. You have to pay $750 annually for the ‘‘privilege.’’ (Section 1501)

    (more…)

  • Kansas senate debate centers on free speech, transparency

    This afternoon the Kansas Senate debated for about 90 minutes on an amendment that would require more disclosure for “issue ads” or communications in favor of candidates by third parties.

    Senator Terrie Huntington, a Republican from Fairway, introduced the amendment to Senate Substitute for HB 2079. Its language, apparently identical to Senate Bill 418, states: “Any person who spends or contracts to spend an amount of $500 or more per calendar year for any electioneering communication” must file reports that disclose the identity of the donor and the amount of the contribution.

    At one point in the debate, Senator Terry Bruce, a Hutchinson Republican, asked Huntington why it is the government’s business who makes a contribution? Huntington replied the she didn’t know why the government has campaign finance laws, except that she has to file reports of her contributors.

    Bruce also objected to what he called “loose language” in the bill. Several times he asked about the use of the word “specifically,” saying that the bill was vague in who would be required to disclose contributions. He suggested that churches might have to disclose their donors if this amendment becomes law.

    Senator Anthony Hensley, a Topeka Democrat who is the long-time minority leader of the Senate, said that this amendment applies only to those who contribute over $500 for the purpose of electioneering communication. He added that this type of communication does not include communications made by membership organizations solely to their members. That would not be covered by this amendment, he said.

    Senator Susan Wagle, a Wichita Republican, made a case for anonymous free speech based on the Constitution. People should be allowed to state an opinion, she said. She referred to a series of “Snoop dog” ads used in recent elections that were, she said, traced back to abortion doctor Dr. George Tiller of Wichita. Noting that Tiller was murdered last year, she said “somebody got upset, and he was murdered. And that’s why we protect free speech, and that’s why we allow for anonymous free speech.”

    Senator Tim Huelskamp, a Republican from Fowler in southwest Kansas, raised the issue of how this amendment would affect unions and their communications. Huntington said that unions are not formed for the express purpose of campaign electioneering.

    Hensley said that unions typically form political action committees, which must disclose their contributors. If they don’t do that, they are treated the same as corporations.

    Huelskamp raised the question what if an organization sends out a communication to their members, but someone else — not a member — inadvertently receives the communication? This is important, as the language of the amendment says that communication solely to members is not covered. Huntington did not seem to have a satisfactory answer to this.

    What about editorials, Huelskamp asked? Huntington said that editorials printed in newspapers not controlled by the candidate are not covered by the proposed amendment. Huntington said that newspaper editorials are not written for the purposes of electioneering, which Huelskamp disputed, noting that editorialists “write all the time trying to influence elections.” He recognized the concern that some have for the wealthy influencing elections, and that some own newspapers and other outlets. Why do they get to editorialize and send out their opinions?

    Huntington noted that newspapers are covered under the freedom of the press guaranteed in the Constitution, and that we all know who owns the newspaper. Huelskamp said that ownership is not necessarily known in all cases. He asked about the distinction between an individual buying an ad in the newspaper versus an editorial writer saying the same thing. Would the ad buyer be subject to disclosure, but not the editorial writer? What is the reason for the distinction, he asked?

    Huntington replied that editorials are not included in the definition of electioneering communications in this amendment. Huelskamp pressed for the reason why this is so. Huntington replied that these do not expressly advocate for or against a particular candidate, so they were not included in the definition of electioneering communication.

    Huelskamp noted that express advocacy is the whole purpose of this amendment, so why are these exemptions in the amendment? Huntington was not able to give a specific answer.

    Huelskamp said that this amendment would create a situation where a newspaper editorial writer could write something, and then a private citizen could pay for an ad with the exact same language, and the citizen — not the editorial writer — would be subject to election reporting requirements. Why, he asked, should those who own a newspaper have more free speech than others?

    During the debate there seemed to be confusion on spending $500 or more on a communications piece versus contributing $500 or more to an organization.

    Huelskamp mentioned a case in 1958 Alabama, where that state tried to determine who were members of the NAACP. The Supreme Court ruled that there is a right to anonymous groups to get together and influence the political process, he said. Legislation like the proposed amendment, he told the Senate, would have prevented the NAACP from reporting on the action of the Alabama legislature.

    In closing, Huelskamp said that even ads that let citizens know what elected officials are doing are affected by laws like these. The purpose of this amendment, he said, is to limit and chill speech of those who might disagree.

    Hensley said this amendment is about the peoples’ right to know. He mentioned the organization Americans for Prosperity, saying he thinks it doesn’t want people to have the right to know about their contributions and expenditures. He said that AFP is, in fact, electioneering.

    Hensley contended again that all the amendment says is that if you contribute more than $500, you’re going to have to disclose. He said we know who writes newspaper editorials and letters to the editor.

    Hensley mentioned an award he received from Kansas Sunshine Coalition for Open Government, and that Huelskamp was also honored as a “friend of the public’s right to know. That’s what this is all about.”

    Joining the debate again, Bruce addressed the issue of whose information will be made public. He said that this amendment would require disclosure of anyone who has contributed $500 or more to an organization.

    Senator Jeff Colyer delivered a short lesson on American history, telling how founding fathers such as Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and Thomas Jefferson wrote anonymously — electioneering, Colyer contended.

    In a roll call vote, the amendment failed with 18 votes in favor, and 21 against.

    Analysis

    Hensley’s accusation of Americans for Prosperity reveals the true target of this amendment. It, along with a few other organizations, are being singled out in this proposed law. These organizations are largely conservative, although those on the political left have tried to hide large political contributions, as a Kansas Meadowlark investigation revealed.

    I believe that Hensley confuses government action with private action. Open records, which is an issue Huelskamp has been closely involved with, is concerned with citizens’ right to know what government is doing. This amendment addresses actions that private individuals may take. There’s a huge distinction between the two, and that’s one of the largest issues in this amendment.

    In making his remarks about knowing who writes newspaper editorials and letters to the editor, Hensley may have forgotten about unsigned editorials and features like the anonymous and popular Opinion Line in the Wichita Eagle. Most newspapers also allow comments to be left to articles on their online editions, and these are almost always an anonymous form of communication and commonly used for blatant electioneering.

    A problem with this amendment is that individuals may make contributions to organizations for general use, not earmarking the dollars for any specific use such as a political mailing. How would organizations decide whose contributions to disclose?

    In the end, the best solution is a government so small, so limited and powerless, that it doesn’t much matter who is in charge. Then campaign finance won’t be very important.

    This vote is part of the Kansas Economic Freedom Index.

  • Raj Goyle votes to end Kansas corporate income tax!

    Did a vote by Raj Goyle last week in favor of ending the Kansas corporate income tax signal a genuine shift in his mindset, or was it merely election-year posturing?

    Goyle, a Democrat who represents parts of east and southeast Wichita, is a candidate for the Democratic Party nomination for United States Congress from the fourth district of Kansas.

    Last week on the floor of the Kansas House of Representatives, Richard Carlson, a Republican from St. Marys and chairman of the House Taxation Committee, offered an amendment to a bill. The main purpose of the amendment was to eliminate the Kansas corporate income tax. The text of the amendment and the recorded vote appear in the journal for March 16, 2010, starting on page 1130.

    The amendment failed on a recorded vote by a margin of 84 to 30.

    Goyle was the only Democrat in the House to vote in favor of the measure. This is out of character for the congressional hopeful. In 2009, according to vote rankings prepared by Americans for Prosperity-Kansas, 18 members of the Kansas House had a more liberal voting record than Goyle, while six had the same score as Goyle. There are 125 members in the House.

    In the 2008 rankings prepared by the Kansas Taxpayers Network, only 11 of 125 members had a lower — meaning farther left on the political spectrum — score than Goyle.

    This vote to end Kansas corporate income taxes also is surprising considering Goyle’s past employment with the Center for American Progress, an organization with a definite liberal agenda. It explicitly advocates for higher taxes to fund increased government spending.

    So as I hope you can understand, I just had to put an astonisher after this headline. Goyle hasn’t responded to an email message requesting comment.

    Update: In 2008 Goyle voted in favor of HB 2762, which proposed to reduce corporate income taxes by several measures. This bill passed the House by a wide margin.

  • In Kansas, everyone wins or we all lose

    By Dave Trabert, Kansas Policy Institute.

    One of the biggest obstacles to conflict resolution is the petty notion that one party has to lose in order for the other party to win. Amazingly, people (regrettably, including me) who very clearly understand and explain this common-sense concept when settling squabbles among their children can completely lose sight of it when they are engaged in a conflict. It happens in the boardroom, in personal relationships, in union negotiations and is increasingly becoming the hallmark of politics.

    The budget battle raging in Topeka is a classic example, where the actions of both parties make one wonder whether it’s more important to both that the other party lose than for anyone to win. Party, in this case, refers not to Democrats and Republicans but to those who want a tax increase and those who oppose tax increases. Those pushing for a tax increase primarily do so under the premise that a tax increase is the only way to balance the budget without crippling the state’s ability to provide necessary services. Those opposed to tax increases believe they would be harmful to the economy and that further spending reductions can be made without undermining the ability to provide services. One side says no further cuts are possible, the other says they are.

    But the debate really isn’t about whether spending cuts are feasible; it’s whether state spending should be increased. Those pushing for a tax increase say it’s to prevent unwarranted spending reductions, but they are really calling for a $380 million or 7% spending increase. The facts suggest that the true disagreement is over a great ideological divide over the growth of government.

    Pursuit of absolute “either/or” positions will have a negative impact on citizens regardless of which side prevails. Kansas Policy Institute is among those who believe that tax increases would cost jobs, but we also believe that across-the-board spending cuts could produce undesirable results. Instead of waging ideological war, legislators should be working together to find ways we can do both: avoid harmful tax increases and prevent crippling service cuts.

    By the way, Kansas employers are already absorbing a $163 million (81%) increase in unemployment premiums, so there will be a big tax increase. The budget debate will only decide if it will be even greater.

    The House Appropriations Committee made some recommendations last week that are moving in the right direction of common-sense compromise. The proposal maintains total state aid to schools (but doesn’t replace approximately $172 million in declining federal aid), restores $6.9 million in welfare aid to the developmentally and physically disabled and offsets expected revenue declines by reducing state government payroll 5% through mandatory furloughs and a 1% across-the-board cut to agency operating budgets (except K-12, colleges, corrections, and human service caseloads). The plan doesn’t raise taxes and leaves a $312 million ending balance.

    Perhaps the most contentious aspect of the House plan is that schools would still see a decline because of less federal money. There is ample evidence as provided by various Legislative Post Audit reports that schools could save a lot of money by operating more efficiently, and probably more than enough to offset the loss of federal money. On the other hand, some districts have chosen to make high-profile cuts that directly impact students (and even encouraged to do so by some education officials as a means of rallying support for tax increases), so students could suffer unnecessarily if the federal money isn’t replaced.

    Alternatively, it would be interesting to see how schools would respond to a proposal that would maintain total state aid and replace federal stimulus money, which could be accomplished by selling some state assets (an option that has already been vetted). Schools would be held harmless, the State would be increasing its portion of aid and taxpayers wouldn’t have to suffer a tax increase. Total per-pupil aid is currently $12,225 and 26% higher than five years ago; most taxpayers would probably find that to be a pretty good outcome in today’s economy.

    It may not be everything schools want and it may be more than some legislators feel is necessary, but as Mick Jagger once said, “You can’t always get what you want, but if you try sometimes you just might find you get what you need.”

    Come to think of it, that’s a pretty good budget theme. Maybe it should be the legislature’s official song.

  • Kansas Economic Freedom Index launched

    The purpose of the Kansas Economic Freedom Index is to identify Kansas legislators who vote in favor of economic freedom — and those who don’t. Financial issues like taxes and spending will be important, but I will include issues like smoking bans and seat belt laws.

    This is the first version of the index. As I become aware of votes that should be included, and as new votes are taken, I’ll update the index.

    In the index, each bill has a weight. This is a number from 1 to 10, with 10 meaning the bill is of greatest importance. When I calculate the index value for a legislator, I add up the weights for the bills being considered, and add up the weights the legislator “earned” based on their votes, and that’s the basis of the calculation.

    As this is a new project that I just started, I welcome feedback. Please write to bob.weeks@gmail.com or call me at 316-708-1837, day or evening.

    The permanent page for the index is Kansas Economic Freedom Index.

    Links to current versions of the Kansas Economic Freedom Index:

    Kansas Economic Freedom Index, Senate
    Kansas Economic Freedom Index, House of Representatives

  • 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.