Voice For Liberty

Category: Kansas state government

  • Kansas Senate blocks new journalism

    Does the application for press credentials to the Kansas Senate contain questions designed to limit or restrict the types of organizations that apply?

    A bit of background: In a New York Times op-ed from a year ago (News You Can Endow), the authors tell of the financial troubles of newspapers: “Today, we are dangerously close to having a government without newspapers. American newspapers shoulder the burden of considerable indebtedness with little cash on hand, as their profit margins have diminished or disappeared.” The reaction of newspapers: “News organizations have cut costs, with grave consequences.”

    It’s an important issue. As the article states: “If [Thomas] Jefferson was right that a well-informed citizenry is the foundation of our democracy, then newspapers must be saved.” I would argue that it doesn’t matter much if newspapers survive in their present form of physical delivery — as the Wall Street Journal’s John Fund has said, on dead trees.

    But newspaper-style journalism must survive. Former editor of the Wichita Eagle W. Davis “Buzz” Merritt wrote a book that chronicles some of the changes in newspapers over the past decades (Knightfall: Knight Ridder and How the Erosion of Newspaper Journalism Is Putting Democracy At Risk). My review of the book contains Merritt’s summary of the properties of newspaper-style journalism that separates it from other forms: “… newspaper journalism is ‘not shaped by a limiting technology,’ such as a television broadcast; it values completeness over immediacy, it is lengthier and deeper than other sources of journalism, its goal is relevance rather than entertainment, and opinion and analysis is presented separately from news.”

    Returning to Kansas: Newspapers in Kansas have suffered financially. The Wichita Eagle and Kansas City Star have reduced their staff. Morris Publishing, owner of the Topeka Capital-Journal, recently filed for bankruptcy.

    Now some organizations have been created and are stepping up to fill the void. These organizations are of the type that the Times op-ed recommends as a way to save newspapers: non-profit organizations.

    Specifically, Kansas Watchdog and Kansas Reporter, both started last year, provide coverage of Kansas issues. Both are staffed by experienced journalists, some with reporting backgrounds in Kansas newspapers. Similar efforts are springing up in many states.

    They’re both non-profit organizations, and that has created a problem.

    Here’s a question on the application for Kansas Senate press credentials: “Please list below the organization’s shareholders, owners or major contributors: (Shareholders, owners or major contributors of 5% or over)”

    The problem is that many people who donate to non-profit organizations prefer to remain anonymous. Donors may prefer anonymity for any number of reasons.

    Regarding donor-funded journalism, some argue that anonymous donors will require that the news be produced in a way that advances a political agenda. That’s possible, and equally so for news outlets on both the political left and right. It can happen whether donors are anonymous or known. It happens in traditional media, no matter what the structure of ownership.

    These issues — primarily how newspaper-style and investigative journalism will survive — are vitally important. It’s likely that the answers will be known only after a period of experimentation where answers are hammered out in public.

    But Stephen Morris, who is president of the Kansas Senate, seems determined not to let this happen.

    You can read all the questions the Kansas Senate President’s Office asks by clicking on 2010 Kansas Senate Press Credentialing Application.

  • Kansas alternative media discussed on Kansas Week

    Access to the Kansas Senate by alternative media is discussed on the KPTS Television public affairs program Kansas Week. Bob Weeks is the guest. Tim Brown is the host.

    Other information on this topic is available at Kansas alternative media senate access discussed on WIBW, Kansas alternative media shut out of legislative access, and Kansas alternative media discussed on Kansas Week. The latter story contains video of a previous appearance on the KPTS television public affairs program Kansas Week regarding this issue.

    The application form for Kansas Senate press credentials for 2010 is available at 2010 Kansas Senate Press Credentialing Application.

  • Dale Swenson on Kansas tax exemptions

    Do Kansas business tax exemptions benefit only business at great cost to the state? Member of the Kansas House of Representatives Dale Swenson thinks so, according to a recent letter written by him that appeared in the Wichita Eagle.

    He cites a Kansas sales tax exemption on the purchase of hearing aids, something Swenson says helps “regular folks.” The way it helps folks — and only those folks with hearing problems, by the way — is by making these purchases less expensive.

    But right after this Swenson complains about tax exemptions for business, that, he claims, benefit only business to the detriment of everyone else: “This means average citizens are paying more and more to fund public services, while business pays less and less.”

    The problem with this argument is that taxes are a component of costs that business firms face. When costs are lowered, firms can reduce prices to their customers, just as hearing aids are less expensive when not taxed. Big-tax advocates often argue that business just pockets the tax savings as a way to increase profit. But when markets are competitive, that’s not easily done. Savings are passed along to consumers.

    The people of Kansas who would like to have a job also benefit from lower taxes on business. The state and local governments like the City of Wichita continually grant targeted tax relief to businesses in order to induce them to locate in Kansas, or to stay here instead of leaving. Whether these targeted incentives work is a separate issue. I and others contend they don’t, and that a better policy is lower tax rates spread over a broad base. But it is evidence of belief that high taxes are bad for business, and low taxes are good for jobs — at least for private sector jobs.

    The real problem the legislature faces is that spending in Kansas has risen rapidly in recent years, developing constituencies that are accustomed to or dependent on ever-rising government spending. When revenues fail to keep pace, there’s a big problem.

    For good measure, Swenson throws in a few pokes at those who oppose his big-taxing and big-spending agenda: “Now we have self-proclaimed ‘think tanks’ that are well-financed (likely by some of those businesses that benefited from tax cuts and exemptions).”

    He also writes: “During the next five months, when you read or hear self-proclaimed independent groups criticizing spending for our schools and programs, take a moment to wonder who would want to make these cuts.”

    From these jabs, should we conclude that Swanson believes being well-financed is bad, and that being independent is good? I don’t know, but a quick look at Swenson’s campaign finance reports shows generous contributions from KNEA (the Kansas teachers union), Stuart Elliott (a Wichita labor organizer), Kansas Families for Education PAC (a school spending advocacy group) , Service Employees International Union, Kansas State Council of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Kansas AFL-CIO COPE fund, and Wichita/Hutchinson Labor Federation.

    From this writer’s viewpoint, it looks like Swenson is beholden to two special interests: unions and public school spending advocates.

    By the way, the reports also show a contribution from Sedgwick County Republican Women. I wonder if this group would like their money back, since Swenson left the Republican Party and became a Democrat.

  • Kansas alternative media senate access discussed on WIBW

    Kansas Watchdog reporting at Kansas Senate decides who is press and who is not may have caught the eye of Topeka radio talk show hosts Raubin Pierce and Megan Mosack, as they invited me to appear on their show today to talk about my inability to obtain press credentials at the Kansas Senate.

    (By the way, isn’t it great that people in Topeka and northeast Kansas have a radio talk show that covers politics and public policy? We definitely could use something like this in Wichita.)

    My appearance is available for listening at the show’s archive page under the heading “Thursday’s Show 2nd Hour”, although I think the easiest way to listen will be to click on this direct link. If all goes well, an audio file will download and start playing in your computer’s media player. After a little banter by hosts Raubin and Megan — they’re on location at a pizzeria in Overbrook, and the pizza sounds delicious — I appear a little more than two minutes into the recording.

    The application form for Kansas Senate press credentials for 2010 is available at 2010 Kansas Senate Press Credentialing Application.

    Previous reporting by me on this issue is at Kansas alternative media shut out of legislative access and Kansas alternative media discussed on Kansas Week. The latter story contains video of my appearance on the KPTS television public affairs program Kansas Week.

  • Kansas property tax reform proposed

    The Kansas Policy Institute has released a proposal for property tax reform in Kansas that will protect property owners from what some call “stealth” tax increases. These increases result from the fact that the property tax system has two factors or moving parts: appraised valuations, and the mill levy (or tax rate). Governments — the state and local units such as counties, cities, school districts, fire districts, townships, etc. — may not increase their mill levies, but when appraised values rise, property owners pay more tax and more revenue flows from the private sector to government.

    Representative Steve Brunk, a Republican who represents Bel Aire and parts of far northeast Wichita, is the bill’s sponsor in the legislature.

    At a press conference announcing the proposal, Rep. Brunk noted that in an age of lengthy and complex bills that no one can understand, the enabling legislation for this reform is a page and a half, double spaced. (Read the bill and other information about this proposal at Kansas Policy Institute Property Tax Reform Data.)

    Brunk said that legislators on both sides of the aisle appreciated the simplicity of the bill. He also said that legislators liked protecting people that are in their homes, giving them the ability to accumulate wealth in their property, instead of having that wealth drained away by rising property taxes.

    Dave Trabert, president of KPI, presented findings that from 1997 to 2008, total property taxes collected in Kansas increased by 92%, which is three times the rate of inflation and over 11 times the increase in population during the same period.

    This rapid rise in property tax collections closely matches my research on taxes paid to the Wichita school district, where I found that from 1999 to 2007, taxes paid to the district increased by 91%.

    Elected officials have not voted to implement all of this increase, although there have been increases in the tax rates, or mill levy. Rising property appraisals have accounted for much of the increase.

    The reform proposed by KPI and Brunk includes these factors:

    Total property taxes on existing property will not increase without voter approval. Appraised values may rise, depending on market factors, but if they do, the mill levy will move proportionally in the opposite direction so that total tax revenue is unchanged.

    Appraised values may not increase uniformly. Individual property owners may find that their property changed value at a different rate than the average. This is a factor that is different from last year’s proposal. In that plan, all property increased in appraised value at the same rate, which some criticized as unfair and possibly unconstitutional.

    This proposed legislation excludes the 20 mills collected by the state for schools, the 1.5 mills collected for the state building fund, and any mill rate increase approved by voters from adjustment.

    Even with the mill levy being adjusted so that tax collections on existing property is unchanged, governments would still experience increased revenue. That’s because new construction has been increasing the tax base by about three percent per year. That is not affected by this proposed legislation.

    Finally, voters could approve increases in the mill levy (tax rate) at any time.

    KPI has conducted opinion surveys that show broad support for property tax reform.

    Last year Brunk and KPI (then known as the Flint Hills Center for Public Policy) proposed a property tax reform measure known as Proposition K. The proposal this year incorporates feedback and concerns expressed last year.

    In particular, the exemption of the 20 mill statewide property tax for schools from this proposed legislation may help convince school spending advocates to support this measure. Additionally, measures like bond issues that are passed by voters are not affected. Increases in school districts’ local options budget would be affected, as these would need to be put to a vote of the people, and existing mill levies would be subject to change.

    A benefit of Proposition K — at least to me — was the predictability of assessed valuation increases, as all would increase at a uniform set rate. Furthermore, new construction was to be valued based on actual construction costs instead of an appraiser’s judgment. These measures are not present in this year’s plan.

    Property taxes are different from most other taxes in that citizens must pay property tax even though they may have earned no income with which to pay the tax. The simple act of owning a home requires citizens to pay tax. For those on fixed incomes, that can be a problem.

    We should also remember that renters, in effect, pay property tax too, as taxes are part of the cost structure that landlords face. Further, businesses and utilities pay property tax too, and at far higher rates than homeowners. Anyone who purchases goods, services, and utilities is affected by rapidly increasing property tax rates that these firms pay.

  • Kansas Governmental Ethics Commission hearing today

    Today the Kansas Governmental Ethics Commission is holding a hearing to consider changes to its rules regarding confidentiality. James Meier of Lawrence has experience with these rules, as he relates in Kansas Governmental Ethics Commission in need of reform. Following is the testimony that Meier will deliver at the hearing this afternoon.

    Subject: Proposed amendments to K.A.R. 19-6-1

    Madame Chairwoman and members of the Commission, I am here to testify against changes to K.A.R. 19-6-1 in their current form.

    Before considering changes to the confidentiality rules of the Commission, I believe it is vital that members publicly recognize why these changes are being sought. This is not a normal review; rather these changes are specifically being pursued to comply with a 2009 Attorney General’s opinion that Ethics confidentiality rules violate the free speech rights of Kansas citizens.

    I would also be remiss if I did not publicly recognize that this very Commission handed down an unconstitutional fine of $7,500 to a private citizen who did nothing more than exercise his right to free speech. Because of the actions of this Commission, the state of Kansas now may face a costly lawsuit in federal court.

    Current state statutes and regulations prohibit the public from knowing about complaints where no probable cause is found.

    While I’m sure that you are confident in your findings, the fact remains that the public can not independently verify the work of the Commission. In essence, the Commission that is charged with keeping Kansas’ public officials ethical cannot be checked itself by the public at large.

    With the public unable to verify that this Commission is uniformly applying the law, a huge credibility problem has arisen.

    However, if additional steps were taken to increase the transparency of the Commission, I believe that credibility could be restored.

    Therefore, it is my opinion that the Commission should reject the proposed changes and instead conduct a full review of all regulations concerning Commission procedures, and amend them to allow the public full review of all Commission documents after a finding of facts has been made.

    It is also my opinion that the Commission should pursue statutory changes with the Kansas Legislature to allow for the public review of any and all Ethics Commission documents after a finding of facts has been made.

    It is my firm belief that ultimately, it is not this nine member Commission that keeps public officials ethical; it is the people of Kansas. I ask that you make the necessary changes to allow the public to do its job.

    Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

  • Kansas tax exemptions should be cut

    One of the ways that Kansas might increase revenue this year is to reduce or eliminate the many sales tax exemptions that our state has issued over the years. The governor didn’t mention this in his state of the state address, but this reform would be a good thing to do, even if we’re not in a tight budget year with legislators desperately looking for revenue or savings.

    The Tax Foundation provides some principles of sound tax policy. The many exemptions in Kansas don’t conform to several of these principles, as follows:

    First, a tax policy should be simple with low administrative costs. Each tax exemption creates administrative work. Have you ever stood in line at the grocery store behind someone buying groceries for a tax-exempt organization? The paperwork seems complex and takes time to complete. I’ve been tempted to offer to pay the sales tax just to get the line moving.

    Then, there’s transparency. According to the Tax Foundation: “Tax legislation should be based on sound legislative procedures and careful analysis.” When combined with the principal of neutrality (“The primary purpose of taxes is to raise needed revenue, not to micromanage the economy”), Kansas tax policy is lacking. For example, there are many “named” exemptions, meaning that an organization is granted an exemption crafted specifically for its benefit.

    For example, there is this exemption: “3606 (vvv) Property and services purchased by Jazz in the Woods and sales made by or on behalf of such organization.” This benefits a charitable project of the Overland Park South Rotary Club. The Kansas Advisory Council on Intergovernmental Relations (KACIR) has recommended this policy: “Repeal all exemptions granted ‘by name’ to a specific organization. Either replace it with an exemption for all organizations similarly situated, or revoke the exemption.”

    While this recommendation would increase simplicity and transparency, it would not do much to conform to another principle: broad bases and low rate. “As a corollary to the principle of neutrality, lawmakers should avoid enacting targeted deductions, credits and exclusions.” While charitable activity is noble, there’s no real reason why it should have a favored tax status. Someone has to decide which charities deserve the special status, which leads to problems. While paying tax means a charity will have less money to spend on its mission, a compensating factor is that if tax rates were lower, people would have more money to donate.

    Most of the advocates of exemption elimination hope to raise more money for government to spend. We ought to simplify this part of our tax code for reasons of good government, whether it raises more tax revenue or not.

  • Resolution seeks to clarify role of Kansas courts, legislature

    Kansas House of Representatives member Pete DeGraaf, a Republican from Mulvane, will soon introduce a resolution “concerning the expenditure of public moneys to finance certain litigation against the Legislature or the State of Kansas.” Dick Kelsey will introduce the resolution in the Kansas Senate.

    Language in the resolution clarifies the role and purpose of both courts and legislatures, noting that “Courts are concerned only with the legislative power to enact statutes and appropriate money, not with the wisdom behind those enactments or appropriations.”

    The resolution also recognizes “The determination of the amounts, sources and objectives of expenditures of public moneys, especially at the state level, presents issues of enormous practical and political complexity, and resolution appropriately is largely left to the interplay of the interests and forces directly involved and indirectly affected in the arenas of legislative and executive activity.”

    The resolution specifically states that any ruling by a court regarding a specific level of funding is to be considered advisory only, not binding. It also forbids tax money from being used to “finance or support litigation challenging the constitutionality of the amount of any legislative appropriation.”

    The full text of the resolution is available here. Coverage from State of the State Kansas is at Senator Kelsey Introduces Resolution Preventing Public Funds To Sue the State.

  • Kansas governor proposes taxes, smoking ban, green energy projects

    Kansas Governor Mark Parkinson‘s State of the State address Monday proposed two new taxes, a comprehensive statewide smoking ban, and a cabinet team to promote green energy projects. He didn’t propose closing tax exemptions, and he made no mention of an available method that could help Kansas make it through a fiscal shortfall.

    The complete text of the governor’s address, as prepared for delivery, is available at Protecting What We Have, Building for the Future.

    What’s missing from the governor’s address is recognition that the state is sitting on hundreds of millions of unused cash that could be tapped to get the state through a tough spot. The Kansas Policy Institute has performed research and analysis that indicates that by spending down these fund balances, Kansas schools and agencies could continue delivering services without requiring a tax increase.

    In his response to the governor, which was recorded before the governor spoke, Speaker of the House Mike O’Neil opposed tax increases. He didn’t mention the fund balances.

    Instead of making use of an untapped resource, the governor proposed tax increases. In particular, the governor proposed taxes that fall hardest on poor and low income people.

    His proposed cigarette tax falls hardest on low-income people, as they smoke proportionally more than high-income people, and spend proportionally more of their income on cigarettes.

    The increase in sales tax again falls most harshly on low income people, as they spend nearly all their income. Wealthier people may save a lot of their income, and saving isn’t subject to sales taxes, at least not for now. Purchasers of stocks and bonds don’t pay sales tax.

    Although the sales tax is proposed to last just three years (the bulk of it, anyway; two-tenths of a cent is proposed as a permanent tax to fund a highway plan), there is a definite risk that these taxes become permanent. The Intrust Bank Arena, which just opened in downtown Wichita, was funded by a temporary sales tax. That tax ended as scheduled, but there were those — including at least one officeholder — who wanted the tax to continue.

    At the same time the governor proposes to raise money through increased taxation of cigarettes, he also proposes a comprehensive statewide smoking ban. This is at cross purposes. Does the governor want people to smoke or not?

    It will also be interesting to see how comprehensive any proposed smoking ban legislation will be. The ban proposed last year exempted state-owned casinos like the one that recently opened in Dodge City.

    The governor didn’t address eliminating the many tax exemptions, which the Secretary of Revenue is promoting as a way to raise perhaps $200 million per year in revenue.

    The governor didn’t mention Schools for Fair Funding’s decision to sue the state for more school spending.

    In his address, O’Neil said that Kansas families and businesses are struggling and making sacrifices.

    While tax revenue to the state has fallen, demand for government spending has continued. Raising taxes now near the end of a recession, he said, is short-sighted and counterproductive. It is not prudent to raise taxes. “Raising taxes now in the middle of a severe recession would mean losing tax-paying businesses that are already struggling to survive.” Loss of these businesses and their employees would make the fiscal situation worse, he said.

    This applies to either new taxes or to the elimination of tax incentives. Either would harm growth and reduce capital that businesses need. “Simply put: Kansas businesses can’t pay more unless they make more.” While a tax hike may be attractive in the sort term, increasing taxes is harmful in the long run.

    O’Neil said it’s a false choice to either allow business to keep its money or fund government’s obligations. Business must be strong if government is to be fiscally sound. If business grows and prospers, the state’s fiscal situation will improve.

    O’Neil said the 2010 legislature will thoroughly examine all spending to make sure that government is operating efficiently, and is spending only on those things necessary to fulfill the legitimate role of government.

    He supported a budget stabilization process — by constitutional amendment if necessary. He said we should work towards using zero-based budgeting. More audits are needed, and he reminded us that Kansas used to have a state auditor.

    On education funding, O’Neil said that when all sources of funding are considered, schools have been cut less than 1.5% on average, and schools are receiving more funding than in fiscal year 2008. The school funding lawsuit is irresponsible, he said. K through 12 education cuts have not been as severe as cuts to other state agencies.