Voice For Liberty

Category: Kansas state government

  • Kansas DUI Law Change Could Backfire

    KAKE Television reports on a new bill in the Kansas House of Representatives. The title of the story is Bill Could Bring Major Changes To Kansas DUI Laws.

    Sponsored by freshmen house member Aaron Jack and Olathe representative Lance Kinzer, the goal of the bill is to reduce inconsistencies in the current law, and also to increase penalties.

    The bill is House Bill 2263.

    As reported by KAKE, the bill contains the idea of “impairment to the slightest degree.” The specific language in the bill is “No person shall operate or attempt to operate any vehicle within this state while … under the influence of a combination of alcohol and any drug or drugs to a degree that …”

    Then comes the language in the existing law: “renders the person incapable of safely driving a vehicle.”

    The proposed change is “impairs the person’s ability to safely operate a vehicle to the slightest degree.” (emphasis added)

    No doubt the goal of this bill is to reduce the likelihood that Kansans will encounter dangerous drivers who aren’t able to safely operate their automobiles. That’s a good thing. But sometimes increasing penalties for something can have unintended consequences.

    Mark R. Crovelli offers a look at the decision-making that accompanies drinking and driving in his article Drunk Driving Laws Cause Drunk Driving Accidents:

    It then occurred to me that I wasn’t thinking about the costs of drunk driving in the right way, because I was only considering one cost of drunk driving. Under our current drunk driving laws, however, there is an additional cost that every drunk driver is certainly aware of; namely, getting caught drunk driving. The drunk driver is thus faced with two serious costs to consider: 1) dying in a fiery crash, and 2) getting caught by the police and going to jail. The cost of getting caught drunk driving and going to jail, moreover, is drastically increased if the driver chooses to drive in a manner that draws attention to himself — like driving ten miles per hour — even if the driver knows that driving slowly is the safer thing to do.

    So, the drunk driver is faced with the following choices: 1) drive slowly and safely, and almost certainly get arrested and go to jail for drunk driving, or 2) drive the speed limit, and have a decent chance of not getting arrested, although this increases one’s chances of getting in an accident. Understandably, many drunk drivers choose the latter alternative, simply because the chance of arrest and jail time is a certainty, whereas the chance of a fiery crash is only a distant risk.

    Do drivers go through this type of decision-making process in Kansas? What — do all the cars in the parking lots of bars and taverns belong to designated drivers only? Of course not. There’s a balance here, and no matter how well-intentioned a law may be, it has the potential for causing unforeseen behavior.

    This crackdown on driving while even slightly impaired is at cross purposes with one of Wichita Mayor Carl Brewer‘s initiatives, which is to create entertainment zones where the drinking of alcoholic beverages can happen on the streets — while walking about, of course, not while driving. But undoubtedly this practice would lead to more people making the decision illustrated above, only now with the line drawn more strictly, and the penalties more severe.

    Background: Lew Rockwell raises the same point in part of a broader article Legalize Drunk Driving.

  • Kansas voter data difficult to use

    At the Kansas Meadowlark, Earl Glynn has an article that illustrates some of the difficulties that researches face when working with voter data. I haven’t done nearly as much of this as Earl has, but I can tell you there have been times when I’ve been quite frustrated with voter data that I’ve received. I’ve had to spend time manipulating data in order to get it into useful formats.

    The Meadowlark story is Comparing Voter Registration to Nov. ‘08 Ballots in Allen County. Too Difficult?

  • Legal Notices in Kansas Newspapers

    Kansas Liberty reports on Senate Bill 164, which would allow publication of legal notices on the Internet only. Presently these notices must be published in a newspaper. The measure is viewed as a way to save money.

    The Kansas Liberty story (Local governments take aim at small-town newspapers) reports that the downside is that many small newspapers rely on the revenue from printing legal notices, and may suffer if this revenue is lost. We already have one such example. Just a few months ago Sedgwick County switched from the Derby Reporter to the Wichita Eagle, and the Derby paper has announced plans to stop publication. See Derby Reporter Gives Up.

    But it’s not the responsibility of small town governments — really their taxpayers — to keep local newspapers in business. If there is a less expensive way to deliver legal notices that still meets the public policy goal of widespread distribution, the state should allow it.

    Here’s a possibility. The story reports this: “Don Moler, executive director of the League of Kansas Municipalities, said many states have adapted a system under which local governments can publish abbreviated legal notices in newspapers. The abbreviated notices then direct readers to the local government website, City Hall or a public library to read the notice in full.”

    One good thing about legal notices on the Internet is that search engines can find them. Through tools like Google Alerts, people can be automatically notified of legal notices about topics that interest them.

    It’s interesting that this bill applies only to second and third class cities, which are small towns. Why not apply this to first class cities too?

  • Proposition K op-ed confuses issue

    Today’s Wichita Eagle contains an op-ed by Glenn W. Fisher, regents professor emeritus at Wichita State University and property tax expert (Con: Tax plan would shift burden, be arbitrary, February 8, 2009 Wichita Eagle). The subject of this piece is Proposition K, an effort to reform the property tax appraisal system in Kansas.

    Proposition K is starting to attract attention and debate, the reason for two op-ed pieces in today’s newspaper. The piece by Fisher, however, contains a number of puzzling arguments.

    First, Fisher states: “Proposition K would do nothing to reduce taxes or spending.” This statement is not true or false, as the amount of tax revenue raised through property taxes depends on two things — the “moving parts” referred to in Proposition K: The first is appraised values, and the second is the mill levy that governments impose. Proposition K proposes a growth rate of appraised values that is less than what has been happening. So unless governments raise the mill levy, it is very likely that the amount of tax revenue collected will be less than it would be under the present system.

    Proposition K, however, does not address spending, so it’s curious as to why Fisher included this in his argument.

    Here’s something else that’s peculiar in this article: Fisher says “… it is very likely that the courts would find it violates the provisions that require various classes of property to be assessed at specified percentages of value.” But Proposition K has nothing to do with assessment percentages. (This is the law that says residential property is assigned an assessed value that is 11.5% of its appraised value, commercial property at 25% of appraised value, utility property at 33% of appraised value, plus a few other classes.)

    Instead, Proposition K proposes reform in appraised values. Why Fisher would bring into this argument the assessment percentages of various classes of property — something that has absolutely nothing to do with the merits of Proposition K — is not relevant and confuses the issue.

    Finally, Fisher states: “The property tax began with the idea that market value is a good measure of the owner’s ability to pay …” The problem, however, is that this is not an absolute linkage. As stated in the Proposition K document: “Property values represent wealth, not income. Growing home values do not imply growing incomes.” Those people on fixed incomes who find their property values — but not their incomes — growing rapidly take little comfort in Fisher’s judgment of the ability to pay.

    Fisher’s piece is paired in the Wichita Eagle with Pro: Proposition K is fair, equal, transparent. Read the entire Proposition K proposal at Proposition K: A Better Property Tax System for Kansans.

  • Proposition K Website Now Open

    Proposition K is a measure designed to reform property tax appraisals in Kansas. There’s now a website with supporting information.

    The site allows readers to leave comments, and some comment writers make good points.

    The link to the website is Proposition K.

  • Proposition K is a Constitutionally Valid Reform Option for Kansas

    Some opponents of Proposition K, an effort to reform property tax appraisals in Kansas, are questioning whether this measure would conform to the Kansas Constitution. The following news release from the Flint Hills Center for Public Policy introduces a study that answers this question.

    New Study Shows that a Constitutional Amendment is Not Required

    (WICHITA) Wednesday Rep. Steve Brunk (R-Bel Aire) introduced legislation to reform the property tax system in Kansas. The bill changes the way that the taxable base is set. The current system relies on a system of appraisals, which is purported to be fair market value. Proposition K, as the bill is being called, changes the system by setting the taxable value at the appraised value as of January 1, 2010 and that baseline is adjusted not by reappraisal but by an annual increase set at 2%.

    A new study by the Flint Hills Center, “The Constitutionality of Proposition K,” considers whether this proposed reform can indeed be made through statutory change or whether a constitutional amendment is required.

    Author of the study, Vice President of Programs Sarah McIntosh says that, “Proposition K is a valid statutory change. Under the Kansas Constitution the legislature has to provide a ‘… uniform and equal basis of valuation …’ Proposition K meets this requirement because of the way it sets the baseline, applies a uniform rate increase, and does not re-evaluate property when sold.”

  • At Kansas Days, the Campaigns Are On

    At Kansas Days this year, a big topic is how to decide on the Republican candidates for office next year. There are a number of important positions to fill — Kansas governor, United State senator, perhaps two empty United States congress seats, and some other state-wide offices.

    Several prominent Republicans expressed to me their desire to avoid divisive primary elections next year, especially the race for United States Senator between Kansas’ first and fourth district congressmen, Jerry Moran and Todd Tiahrt. It’s thought that a hard-fought primary would be expensive in terms of money and energy that should be conserved for application against the nominee of the Democratic Party.

    (So far the Democrats haven’t produced candidates for either the senate or governorship. It seems a little premature to be worrying about that now, as we are some 18 months out from the August 2010 primary. This illustrates the extreme level of interest in the Republican primary contests.)

    Whether candidates favor primaries seems to depend on their relative standing in the race. For Governor of Kansas, the two candidates are United States Senator Sam Brownback and Secretary of State Ron Thornburgh. It’s thought that Brownback has the upper hand in this race. In fact, the newly-installed chair of the Kansas Republican Party has managed a campaign for Brownback.

    Addressing the fourth congressional district meeting, Thornburgh said “There are those who question whether within the Republican party we ought to have primaries. Some think we ought to do it like the Democrats. You just put a couple people in the back of the room and let them decide. … I’m not a big fan of that. I like this little thing called democracy, and I think it works.”

    For United States Senator, the conventional wisdom that’s been explained to me is that Tiahrt has the advantage in this race, although the Moran campaign has a poll that shows its candidate in the lead. Whatever the case, Moran isn’t looking forward to a primary. Speaking to the fourth congressional district meeting, he said “I dislike this scenario … Todd and I have been friends since we’ve known each other. We’ve been allies on almost every issue that has arisen in Washington DC … While I don’t like what’s occurring here, that he and I may be squaring off against each other in a primary, at the end of the day, I want to everything that I can do to make sure that we remain allies and friends.”

    I think that Kansans of all parties are best served when politics is conducted in the open and not in secret. To avoid what some are fearful of — wasting money in primaries — Republican candidates in primary elections could agree to spending limits. Candidates could also agree to campaign on issues only, avoiding negative attacks on their opponents. The problem is, however, that as Rep. Moran said, he and Rep. Tiahrt agree on almost everything. When that’s the case, campaigns usually shift to the negative.

  • Did Kansas Governor Order Budget Cuts Last Year?

    Has the Kansas budget already been cut for fiscal year 2009, the budget year ending June 30, 2009?

    Some people think so. A commenter to this blog says “the Governor did order these cuts,” referring to cuts made starting last summer.

    But is this the case? I asked the governor’s office about this, and they sent a link to a press release from last June. It’s not clear if it refers to actual cuts, or requests to find ways to spend less. It starts like this: “At the State Finance Council meeting today, Governor Kathleen Sebelius announced that she is asking all cabinet agencies to find ways to reduce their upcoming budget by one to two percent.”

    (The press release is at www.governor.ks.gov/news/NewsRelease/2008/nr-08-0627b.htm.)

    Is this the same as ordering budget cuts? It’s hard to say.

    The Associated Press, however, leads us to believe that cuts were never made by state agencies in their 2009 budgets. From their story of November 28, 2008 GOP leaders to Sebelius: order cuts now:

    In June, Sebelius informed state agency officials it might be necessary to reduce spending 1 percent to 2 percent in the current fiscal year and to be prepared to trim as much as 5 percent the following year.

    After the November election, Sebelius told agencies that planning should reflect a possible 3 percent cut this fiscal year.

    Senate Minority Leader Anthony Hensley, a Topeka Democrat, said he didn’t believe it necessary for the Legislature to pass a bill because the governor is “seriously intending” to make cuts in the current budget.

    Sebelius spokeswoman Nicole Corcoran said the governor will begin a review next week of recommendations from Cabinet agencies of options for reducing costs. She said Sebelius hasn’t ruled out formal action in the near term.

    So did she cut the budget last summer, or didn’t she?

    Does “planning for a possible 3 percent cut” mean the same thing as actually spending less? It doesn’t seem so.

  • Public Forum on Kansas Property Tax Reform

    The Flint Hills Center for Public Policy is holding public forums on Proposition K, an effort to reform property taxes in Kansas.

    The first of these meetings will be held on Thursday, January 29 at 6:00pm at Willowbend Golf Club (8001 Mulberry Drive in NE Wichita). The public is invited to attend. Here’s a link to a map of the meeting location.