Voice For Liberty

Tag: Kansas fourth district

  • In Kansas, Club for Growth PAC taps Pompeo, Huelskamp

    The Club for Growth is a national organization that advances prosperity and economic growth by promoting economic freedom and limited government. Each year it ranks federal lawmakers on how well they follow these principles on its scorecards. (For a look at how current Kansas Congressman and Senate hopefuls Todd Tiahrt and Jerry Moran ranked on the scorecard, see Club for Growth gives slight nod to Tiahrt over Moran.)

    The Club for Growth Political Action Committee (PAC) endorses candidates for the United States House of Representatives and Senate. According to communications director Mike Connolly, the PAC usually endorses from 12 to 20 candidates each election cycle, he said. This year the PAC has endorsed 13 candidates so far, including two in Kansas.

    Connolly said the PAC endorses candidates who share a belief in principles of limited government, economic freedom, and individual responsibility. It does not consider social issues when deciding which candidates to endorse.

    The Club for Growth PAC does not make endorsements in all contests, Connolly said. It looks for candidates who it believes will be solid fiscal conservative leaders when they get to Congress. It also looks for contests where the PAC can have an impact. In districts where no candidates are in step with the Club for Growth’s principles, it makes no endorsement. With 55,000 members across the country, limited government conservatives view a Club for Growth PAC endorsement as a reliable stamp of approval, Connolly added.

    In Kansas, with three open House seats and one open Senate seat, the Club for Growth PAC has made two endorsements. It is possible that the PAC could make other endorsements in Kansas — both the third House district in northeast Kansas and the United States Senate campaigns are vigorously contested — but as the August primary nears, that becomes less likely.

    In the race for Republican Party nomination for United States Congress from the first district of Kansas, the Club for Growth PAC endorsed farmer and Kansas Senator Tim Huelskamp of Fowler.

    David Ray, the Huelskamp campaign manager, said that Huelskamp’s record on fiscal issues like spending and taxes that are important to the Club for Growth PAC is “absolutely stellar.” He also said that a reason the PAC endorsed Huelskamp is that one of his opponents, physician and Kansas Senator Jim Barnett of Emporia, has not upheld principles of fiscal responsibility. It is not known whether Barnett sought the PAC’s endorsement.

    In the fourth district of Kansas, centered around the Wichita metropolitan area, the Club for Growth PAC endorsed Wichita businessman Mike Pompeo.

    Pompeo said that he viewed the Club for Growth PAC’s endorsement as a “good housekeeping seal of approval” for candidates who are committed to limited government, less regulation, and growing economies by getting government out of the way.

    Pompeo said he participated in an interview and that the PAC investigates the backgrounds of candidates thoroughly. He also said that he’s one of the few candidates endorsed by the PAC without a voting record, the usual benchmark for making endorsements. He said that his experience and commitment to the principles of the Club for Growth PAC earned the endorsement.

    He also said that Wichita businessman Wink Hartman, the leading contender besides Pompeo, sought the Club for Growth PAC endorsement.

    At the Club for Growth PAC website, you may read its endorsements of Tim Huelskamp and Mike Pompeo. The Barnett and Hartman campaign offices did not return telephone calls requesting comment for this story.

    Update: Scott Paradise, the Hartman campaign manager, said that Hartman met with the Club for Growth PAC, but did not seek its endorsement. Paradise characterized the Club for Growth PAC as a special interest group, saying the Hartman campaign decided not to seek contributions from such groups. The Club for Growth believes it works to advance prosperity and opportunity for everyone equally through economic freedom and personal liberty.

  • Kansas Republican Assembly endorsements announced

    The Kansas Republican Assembly has released its endorsements for federal and state offices. The list of endorsed candidates may be viewed here.

    In the race for Republican Party nomination for United States Congress from the first district of Kansas, the KRA endorsed farmer and Kansas Senator Tim Huelskamp of Fowler.

    In the fourth district of Kansas, centered around the Wichita metropolitan area, the KRA endorsed Wichita businessman Mike Pompeo.

    Of note, the KRA issued no endorsement in the second and third Kansas Congressional districts. This is because no candidate achieved the two-thirds majority necessary to earn the group’s endorsement.

    For the same reason, KRA is not making an endorsement in the race for United States Senate between Todd Tiahrt and Jerry Moran.

    The KRA warns of a group with a similar name that is making endorsements. Voters should be sure of the credentials of an organization that they rely on for endorsements.

  • The Hartman clean campaign pledge: Pompeo response

    In the contest for the Republican Party nomination for United States Congress from the fourth district of Kansas, Wichita businessman Wink Hartman has run many advertisements making an issue of a clean campaign pledge. He’s signed it, and says that leading rival Mike Pompeo won’t sign it.

    I asked Rodger Woods, manager of the Pompeo campaign, why his candidate didn’t sign the pledge. Woods mentioned two reasons.

    First, Woods said that the meaning of the word “clean” is subjective. He said that Pompeo has committed to running a truthful campaign, the meaning of which is not subjective, noting that “truth” and “factual” do not appear in the Hartman pledge.

    Second, Woods said that the purpose of primary elections is the find the best candidate. The tone of Hartman’s pledge, he said, is that Republicans are best served by not bringing up certain sets of issues.

    Woods said that Pompeo has been committed from the start to being truthful, and he is satisfied that the campaign is fulfilling that commitment. A recent Pompeo press release stated “To date, no Mike Pompeo ad has mentioned any opponent. All Pompeo advertising has been built around Mike Pompeo’s positive record and the issues facing voters.” By my observation, this appears to be true.

    Woods didn’t say this, but sometimes these clean campaign pledges are used to neutralize or deflect negative information that is about to be revealed. In this case, Hartman promoted his pledge shortly before issues of his controversial Florida residency and Florida voting were made public. (Hartman’s Florida voting was first reported in my story Hartman, candidate for Congress from Kansas, recently voted in Florida.) If a rival candidate were to mention inconvenient facts, it allows the other campaign to make allegations of dirty campaigning.

    Facts, even unpleasant, need to be aired during primary election campaigns, I believe. Better for both parties to deal with them then rather than during the general election contest.

    While Pompeo did not sign the pledge, that shouldn’t stop Hartman from living up to its standards, if he chooses to. But recently Hartman started running a television advertisement that lives up to all the worst expectations of negative campaigning.

    It uses — as is standard practice in negative attack ads — unflattering images of the opponent. After quoting a leftist Kansas blog when it declared “Pompeo has thrown the first ugly punch,” the announcer states “No big surprise. Pompeo worked in Washington DC as a lawyer before moving to Kansas.”

    The fact is that Pompeo worked in Washington for three years after graduating from law school. While Hartman’s ad is factually correct, this is the type of attempt at a backhanded compliment that most people would agree violates a plank of Hartman’s clean campaign pledge: “2. Treat Republican opponents with respect by focusing campaign advertisements on our own campaign’s vision for Kansas; this includes not mentioning fellow Republicans negatively in television or radio commercials.”

    Hartman’s ad continues with the announcer stating “And the Pompeo record on jobs? He took Kansas jobs to Mexico. That’s right: took Kansas jobs to Mexico.”

    Pompeo has stated that when the company he managed, Thayer Aerospace, opened a facility in Mexico, the Mexican plant was a condition of a contract with a customer. The Mexico jobs were new jobs, not jobs previously held by Kansans that were transferred to Mexico.

    The ad concludes with “Mike Pompeo: just another Washington insider we can’t trust.” While there is no specific definition of “Washington insider,” at least one of Pompeo’s policy positions and his past action is in direct opposition to what “insiders” want: term limits.

    In a speech to the Wichita Pachyderm Club last November, Pompeo told of his efforts, working pro bono, in favor of an effort in Arkansas of that state placing its federal office holders under term limits. I also reported “On term limits, Pompeo said he would like to see a constitutional amendment for term limits, but he would not make a personal pledge to limit his own service.”

    Along with most of the other candidates in this contest — including Hartman — Pompeo opposes earmarks, another favorite Washington “insider” perk.

    Hartman’s ad, besides going against the spirit and letter of his clean campaign pledge, also starts to drag the fourth district campaign down into the type of negative campaign that voters say they dislike. The other candidates besides Hartman and Pompeo in the race have not raised enough campaign funds to do any television or other widespread advertising.

    The candidates and their campaign websites are Wichita businessman Jim Anderson, Wichita businessman Wink Hartman, Wichita businessman Mike Pompeo, Latham engineer Paij Rutschman, and Kansas Senator Jean Schodorf.

  • Schodorf poll shows closer Kansas fourth district contest

    Last week’s poll concerning the Republican Party nomination for United States Congress from the fourth district of Kansas showed Mike Pompeo making big gains to slightly overtake Wink Hartman, with Jean Schodorf and Jim Anderson far behind. A striking feature of that survey was the low number of undecided voters, just eight percent.

    Now Schodorf has released a poll with results that, while producing the same ordering of candidates, show a closer race between the top three candidates, with a much larger number of undecided voters. The results, along with the SurveyUSA results from last week, are as follows:

                Schodorf Poll    SurveyUSA
Pompeo          20%              39%
Hartman         19%              37%
Schodorf        14%               9%
Anderson         2%               6%
Not sure        45%               8%

    Schodorf’s poll was conducted on June 18 and 19, while the SurveyUSA study announced last week was conducted from June 21 through 23.

    SurveyUSA included 609 respondents who SurveyUSA determined to be likely voters in the August primary election. Its 95 percent certainty interval is 4.1 percent. The Schodorf effort, according to the press release, consisted of 400 personal interviews conducted with a 95% level of confidence. No interval was given for that confidence level.

    Jayhawk Consulting Services conducted the poll for the Schodorf campaign.

    The SurveyUSA poll starts with a Random Digit Dialed (RDD) sample provided by a third party. Respondents are then asked questions to determine if they are likely primary voters. In an email response from candidate Schodorf, she said that her poll included only voters who voted in two of the last three primary elections. This information can be determined from publicly-available voter records.

    The press release for the Schodorf campaign poll criticizes the methodology SurveyUSA uses in its polls. According to Jim Yonally, president of the polling firm: “We use well-educated adults, who are experienced callers. We talk to people one on one to get a better feel for what they are thinking. It’s my understanding the media poll uses a recorded voice to ask questions.”

    SurveyUSA feels that its automated response polls are accurate and publishes a report card of its results compared to other polling firms. An interview with Jay Leve, SurveyUSA CEO, provides more insight into SurveyUSA and its methods. He would not comment on this specific poll and the criticisms leveled by Schodorf’s pollster.

    The Republican Party candidates and their campaign websites are Wichita businessman Jim Anderson, Wichita businessman Wink Hartman, Wichita businessman Mike Pompeo, Latham engineer Paij Rutschman, and Kansas Senator Jean Schodorf.

  • Earmarks and Kansas elections

    The topic of earmarks is playing a role in contest for the Republican Party nomination for United States Senate from Kansas between Todd Tiahrt and Jerry Moran.

    The United States Office of Management and Budget provides one definition of earmarks: “Earmarks are funds provided by the Congress for projects, programs, or grants where the purported congressional direction (whether in statutory text, report language, or other communication) circumvents otherwise applicable merit-based or competitive allocation processes, or specifies the location or recipient, or otherwise curtails the ability of the executive branch to manage its statutory and constitutional responsibilities pertaining to the funds allocation process.”

    What is the difference between earmark spending and “regular” government spending? Speaking on the floor of the House in March 2009, Ron Paul, the libertarian member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Texas and Republican presidential candidate in 2008, made these remarks:

    In reality what we need are more earmarks. Just think of the 350 billion dollars that we recently appropriated and gave to the Treasury Department. Now everybody is running around and saying, “We don’t know where the money went, we just gave it to them in a lump sum.” We should have earmarked everything. It should have been designated where the money is going. So instead of too many earmarks we don’t have enough earmarks. Transparency is the only way we can get to the bottom of this and if you make everything earmarked it would be much better.

    This is a key distinguishing characteristic of earmark spending: legislators, rather than agencies like the Treasury Department, decide how and where the money is spent.

    According to Taxpayers for Common Sense, earmarks are estimated to cost $11 billion in the current fiscal year (2010), which is down from $15 billion the year before. The Washington newspaper The Hill warns, however, that some of this decrease is due to a change in classification of some spending.

    While some view earmarks and their elimination as a defining issue, we must remember that the level of earmark spending is relatively small compared to the entire federal budget. The 2010 budget calls for spending $3.55 trillion, so earmarks account for 0.3 percent of this amount. Considering discretionary spending only — and earmarks are discretionary — earmarks are 0.8 percent of $1.368 trillion planned discretionary spending.

    This is not to say that this spending is not harmful and should not be eliminated.

    Paul — accurately self-described as “America’s leading voice for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies” — defends his insertion of earmarks into appropriations bills. In an article titled Earmarks Don’t Add Up, Paul explained why:

    The total level of spending is determined by the Congressional leadership and the appropriators before any Member has a chance to offer any amendments. Members’ requests are simply recommendations to allocate parts of that spending for certain items in that members’ district or state. If funds are not designated, they revert to non-designated spending controlled by bureaucrats in the executive branch. In other words, when a designation request makes it into the budget, it subtracts funds out of what is available to the executive branch and bureaucrats in various departments, and targets it for projects that the people and their representatives request in their districts. If a congressman does not submit funding requests for his district the money is simply spent elsewhere. To eliminate all earmarks would be to further consolidate power in the already dominant executive branch and not save a penny.

    A spokesman for House Appropriations Chairman David Obey, a Wisconsin Democrat, was quoted in The Hill article as saying “Earmarks represent less than 1 percent of the federal budget, and they don’t add a dime to it — they are simply a way for Congress to direct funding that would otherwise be directed by administration officials.”

    So here we have both liberal and conservative legislators defending the system.

    It goes without saying that we need to reform this process. Currently, it allows members to say that since the money’s going to be spent somewhere, let’s spend it in my district. The motivation of members is that since their districts are taxed to send the money to Washington, they need to fight to get their districts’ fair share back — and some more, for good measure. This used to be one of the measures of success of a Congressman.

    But the rise of federal spending and indebtedness has been one of the primary motivating factors of the tea party movement, and earmarks are a favorite target of conservative ire and anger.

    So how do the two veteran Kansas Congressmen rank on earmarks and “pork” spending? The Club for Growth compiles a scorecard called the RePORK Card. This measures votes on “68 anti-pork amendments” in the 2009 Congress. Club Executive Director David Keating writes “The RePORK Card will help taxpayers measure the dedication of their representatives to changing the culture of corruption that surrounds pork-barrel spending.”

    For 2009, Moran scored 96 percent, voting against 65 of the 68 measures. Tiahrt scored 29 percent, voting against 20 of the 68.

    In the previous year for this project (2007), the two representatives’ scores were much closer: Moran scored four percent, while Tiahrt scored zero percent.

    According to analysis by Taxpayers for Common Sense, Tiahrt was responsible for 13 “solo” earmarks in the 2010 budget, totaling $5,550,000 in spending. Moran was close behind with eight earmarks with a total value of $5,150,000. Solo earmarks are defined as “The total of earmarks on which only that member’s name appears.”

    Considering solo earmarks and earmarks with other members, Tiahrt notched spending of $63,400,000, with Moran at $18,600,000. These earmarks are defined as “The total of earmarks on which that member’s name appears, either by itself or with other members. TCS does not split an earmark.”

    In a recent forum of candidates for the Republican Party nomination for United States Congress from the fourth district of Kansas sponsored by the Wichita Metro Chamber of Commerce, candidates were asked about earmarks.

    (The candidates and their campaign websites are Wichita businessman Jim Anderson, Wichita businessman Wink Hartman, Wichita businessman Mike Pompeo, Latham engineer Paij Rutschman, and Kansas Senator Jean Schodorf.)

    Rutschman said representatives want to do things that are in the interest of their states, but we should not pass earmarks that are detrimental to the nation.

    Schodorf said that the appropriation process should be transparent, but that we need to cut spending today.

    Anderson said that he is against earmarks, saying that the process provides for corruption of the political process. He would support legislation outlawing the process.

    Hartman said he is totally against earmarks, noting that many people think that earmarks are good when they “make your grass turn green,” but a “bridge to nowhere” is different. He seconded Anderson’s concern about corruption.

    Pompeo said he is against earmarks, saying that if “safe roads make good sense, we in Kansas can figure out how to fund them.” He agreed with concerns about corruption.

  • Kansas fourth district Congressional poll shows big change, surprise

    Updated and expanded since last night’s story.

    A just-released poll shows that the race for the Republican Party nomination for United States Congress from the fourth district of Kansas has changed dramatically since the last poll in February.

    The February poll showed Wichita businessman Wink Hartman with a large lead over Wichita businessman Mike Pompeo, Kansas Senator Jean Schodorf, and Kansas Senator Dick Kelsey, who has since withdrawn due to family health problems. Wichita businessman Jim Anderson was further behind.

    Now Pompeo has edged Hartman slightly, polling 39 percent to Hartman’s 37 percent. These two candidates have separated themselves from the rest of the field and are in a virtual tie, as the margin separating the two is well within the poll’s margin of sampling error of 4.1 percent.

    The poll indicates that only eight percent of voters are undecided, a low number compared to other Kansas polls. In a poll conducted at the same time for the Kansas first district Republican nomination, 16 percent are undecided. In a May poll for the Kansas Republican Party nomination for United States Senate, 15 percent were undecided.

    This low number of undecided voters is not good news for the Anderson and Schodorf campaigns, as both have a lot of ground to make up in a short time to catch the two leaders. The primary election is August 3rd, with advance ballots starting to be mailed on July 14th. The deadline for registering to vote or changing party affiliation is July 19th.

    Some interesting results from the pool include these observations:

    For voters self-identified as “conservative,” Pompeo leads Hartman 41 percent to 40 percent. For “liberal” voters it was Pompeo over Hartman by 33 percent to 20 percent. Schodorf, who is set off from the other candidates by her moderate voting record and positions, could garner only 18 percent of these self-identified liberal voters. 20 percent were undecided.

    Among women, Schodorf increases her vote from nine percent to 11 percent. In this category, Hartman leads Pompeo 37 percent to 35 percent.

    For voters who have a favorable opinion of the tea party movement, Pompeo outpolled Hartman 42 percent to 39 percent. Anderson, who has described himself as the tea party candidate, trailed with seven percent.

    Pompeo edged Hartman among pro-life voters and gun owners by three and four percentage points respectively.

    A question this poll can’t answer is whether Pompeo’s upward trajectory is likely to continue. The Hartman campaign started advertising on television early, which surely contributed to his lead in the February poll. By the time of that poll, it was estimated by one source that he had spent over $200,000 on television advertising.

    The Pompeo campaign has not lacked for money. Campaign finance reports for March 31 showed that it had raised $606,274 and had $432,611 on hand. (At that time the Hartman campaign had spent $307,871.) If the Pompeo campaign’s strategy was to conserve funds and wait until closer to the election to start television advertising, the strategy appears to be working.

    It has been thought that the best chance for a Schodorf victory was for her to take advantage of the two characteristics that separate her from the other candidates — her gender and her moderate or liberal positions. (The recent entry of Paij Rutschman in the race provides another alternative for voters wanting to vote for a female candidate, but Rutschman polled only one percent.)

    But with Schodorf barely increasing her total among woman voters, and trailing both Hartman and Pompeo among self-described liberal voters, it appears that this strategy is not working.

    A surprise in this poll is on the Democratic side. In this contest Raj Goyle has been presumed to be the sure victor, as his campaign has raised, by now, surely over one million dollars and is receiving national attention. His opponent, Robert Tillman (no website can be found), is running for office for the first time. He hadn’t filed any campaign finance reports as of the end of March, presumably because he had raised little or no money.

    But the poll shows Goyle with only 42 percent of the vote, and Tillman with 32 percent. 26 percent are undecided. This is an unexpectedly close result.

    The candidates for the Republican Party nomination (and their campaign websites) are Wichita businessman Jim Anderson, Wichita businessman Wink Hartman, Wichita businessman Mike Pompeo, Latham engineer Paij Rutschman, and Kansas Senator Jean Schodorf.

    Kansas fourth Congressional district poll results

  • Kansas fourth district Congressional candidates answer individual questions

    Last week’s forum of candidates for the Republican Party nomination for United States Congress from the fourth district of Kansas featured a set of questions tailored individually for each of the four candidates who participated.

    The candidates for this nomination (and their campaign websites) are Wichita businessman Jim Anderson, Wichita businessman Wink Hartman, Wichita businessman Mike Pompeo, and Kansas Senator Jean Schodorf. Election filing records maintained by the Kansas Secretary of State indicate that Paij Rutschman of Latham has filed for the Republican Party nomination, but little is known about this candidate at this time, and Rutschman did not appear at this event.

    Hartman answered his question first. The question and his response are covered in my article Hartman state tax issue still a little bit murky.

    Anderson’s question asked when was the last time he voted in any primary election. Anderson answered “2008, I believe.” He added that “the primary is the most is the most important election” and that he would defeat Raj Goyle in the general election. He asked the audience to examine the candidates, their history, what they’ve done, and how they’ve conducted themselves.

    He used the opportunity to recommend voters choose a candidate who will follow the Constitution, “the one in my pocket that they’re not using right now in Washington.”

    Schodorf was asked about the recently-passed tough Arizona immigration law. Would you support such a law? Schodorf said that she understood why Arizona enacted the law, saying Arizona was forced to do it due to the federal government’s inaction. She said the federal government should have been enforcing a strong border. She said we need to help Mexico keep the border safe so that guns, drugs, people, and money do not come here. She told the audience she has voted for tough laws against the trafficking of illegal immigrants.

    She added that she supports using the National Guard to secure the border.

    Pompeo’s question concerned a Wichita Eagle article covering a Washington fundraiser for him that was attended by lobbyists. Would lobbyist contributions affect your voting, and how would we know?

    Pompeo noted that he had four times as many Kansas contributors as the other candidates combined, a source of pride for him. While he said he has accepted contributions from political action committees, other candidates also sought such contributions, but were not successful in obtaining them. He cited his endorsement by the Kansans for Life PAC, which was sought by the other pro-life candidates for the nomination. He also mentioned his endorsement by the Club for Growth, which was sought by one of the other candidates, he said.

    In rebuttal, Anderson said that yes, PAC money will affect decisions and votes, that PACs want favors from legislators.

    Analysis

    In checking the candidates’ responses, I was not able to verify that Anderson voted in the August 2008 primary election in Sedgwick County. In an email response to my question, Anderson wrote that he “truly wasn’t sure if I had voted in the 2008 Primary as I was deeply involved in opening my business, PostNet.” He’s right: listening to the recording of the forum, he was hesitant in his answer.

    Regarding contributions from political action committees, I would recommend that voters consider the purpose or goal of each PAC. If the goal of the PAC is to increase taxes and spending — particularly when for the exclusive benefit of its members — voters should take that into account if they are interested in fiscally conservative candidates. Other PACs and organizations like the Club for Growth seek growth, prosperity, and economic freedom for everyone equally.

  • In Kansas, some campaigns for Congress face charges of hypocrisy

    A guest editorial by Sue C.

    I have been active in the Kansas Tea Party Movement since March of 2009. The basic tenants of it are attractive to me. The emphasis on freedom, liberty, personal responsibility, and love of the Constitution is inspiring. The tea party movement is supposed to be “a new politics” — one of honesty, integrity, and a return to traditional values.

    Unfortunately I have been observing a disquieting hypocrisy in the movement of late, especially in campaigns that said they were going to run clean, honest races. Many are acting like the same Washington politicians they have been critical of. Some of these campaigns are staffed with Tea Party members, hoping to support honorable candidates. Many are my friends.

    I will outline a few examples of the “hypocrisy” I have observed, and let you decide for yourself if you agree with me or not. I choose to leave off names. My observations are from campaigns in the in the Kansas first district, Kansas third district, and Kansas fourth district (KS-01, KS-03, and KS-04).

    • Campaign staff constantly complain that their competitors are flush with money from “big donors.” Yet when asked if their campaigns would take the same money, if offered to them, I was told, “Oh, yes!”
    • Various campaigns have told me that they are very upset about all the endorsements their competitors are getting. Then in the next sentence I am hearing about their attempts to solicit endorsements from similar groups and individuals. One campaign was even encouraging their volunteers to start up blogs, and give the campaign “endorsements” from them.
    • One campaign staffer was demonizing the political action committee (PAC) donations another campaign was getting, even going so far as to call them “Washington Insiders.” Come to find out, that same campaign had applied for many of the same PAC monies and endorsements! They expressed anger to me that “their guy” didn’t get the nod. These same campaigns are continuing to this day to try and get money from various PACs not yet committed to a candidate.
    • The candidates that are getting PAC money feel that they need to minimize these contributions, which saddens me. The truth is PACs are important in politics: Individuals with similar value systems combine their resources in an effort to help get candidates, who share their same beliefs, elected.
    • “We’re not politicians!” This is a constant refrain in so many of the statewide races, and it makes me laugh every time I hear it! These candidates have been kissing the babies, shaking the hands, working the phones for donations, and marching in the parades along with all the other candidates for over a year now. I have to disagree with this refrain: They are all politicians now.
    • Tea Party “leaders” are signing up every Conservative they can find to run for precinct committeemen and committeewomen positions, and encouraging all their friends to get in local races. This is at the same time they lament all the “career” politicians who worked their way up through the party through this very same method.
    • Some campaigns are saying “We hate lawyers.” The truth is that all these candidates, if elected, will have to hire staffs full of lawyers! The House and Senate bills are written by them. Reality needs to set in: lawyers have a vital place in politics. Folks on the Right will need really good ones to help reverse the harmful laws the current Congress has already passed.
    • Quite a few blogs and emails have been written lately which are attacking candidates, starting gossip, and spreading rumors. This is definitely a sad trend that I am seeing. It is horrible to see people I had previously admired practice this destructive behavior. Personal responsibility and integrity are being sacrificed in attempts to advance a political campaign.

    Although I could share many other examples, I will now stop. One thing that I have realized is that if we want the Tea Party Movement to continue to inspire citizens, we will need to pull back from the trend toward hypocrisy that I have just outlined. Otherwise the movement will fail. And so too, might our country.

  • Hartman state tax issue still a little bit murky

    At Wednesday’s forum of candidates for the Republican Party nomination for United States Congress from the fourth district of Kansas, the issue of candidate Wink Hartman and his residency arose. The discussion, however, didn’t lead to much new information about the issue.

    In her question to Hartman, moderator Anita Cochran referred to a recent Wichita Eagle article about Hartman’s residency. Comments left to that article referred to the fact that Florida has no state income tax. Cochran asked: “Did he [Hartman] file as a Florida resident for federal taxes?”

    Hartman replied: “The fact is, Florida does not have personal income tax. So obviously the article’s wrong on the first base. The second base: I have filed federal income taxes in the state of Kansas every single year.”

    Cochran followed up: “So was the tax savings a factor in your decision to establish residency in Florida, or not?”

    Hartman replied: “You’re using a word that’s kind of a misnomer: residency. I’m a resident of Rose Hill, Kansas.”

    The problem with Cochran’s initial question is that the important issue is state income taxes, but she asked in which state he filed his federal taxes.

    While Hartman’s answer contained a confusing claim about the Eagle article being wrong, he answered Cochran’s question about filing federal income taxes. I don’t think it matters much in which state he filed his federal taxes, as federal tax rates are the same across the country. But Kansas has a personal income tax, which is a not insignificant 6.45 percent in the top bracket.

    In response to a query by email, Scott Paradise, manager for the Hartman campaign, wrote “Wink has paid all of his state income taxes in Kansas. We couldn’t be more clear on this issue.”

    I hate to get too picky, but that answer is different from saying that Hartman filed Kansas state income tax returns. These answers are not going to satisfy his critics on this issue.

    In the end, the issue of taxes may not be the most important issue. First, income earned in Kansas must be declared on a Kansas state income tax return. The Kansas tax instructions define “Kansas source income” as, in part, “Income from a business, trade, profession or occupation operating in Kansas, including partnerships & S Corporations.” Even if filing as a resident of another state, the Kansas income tax must be paid.

    So Hartman’s businesses — at least the ones operating in Kansas — would pay Kansas taxes in their income.

    Second, most people engage in strategies to minimize their income tax bill. They hire tax preparers or use software to find all available deductions and credits, whether they be straightforward in the law, or loopholes. In fact, state and federal government use tax deductions and credits to distribute largesse and influence the behavior of people, so government expects people to make use of them.

    Those with high income or wealth usually hire experts to plan in advance how to structure their business or personal affairs in a way that maximizes their income or wealth after taxes are paid.

    So if a homestead tax exemption is available, most people, I think, would claim it.

    The issue of Hartman voting in Florida is more important to me. He and his wife could have voted in Kansas very easily, and it wouldn’t have cost more than the effort to request an advance ballot by mail and a few postage stamps.