Voice For Liberty

Tag: Kansas Governor

  • What Was Really the Matter with the Kansas Tax Plan

    What Was Really the Matter with the Kansas Tax Plan

    From Kansas Policy Institute.

    What Was Really the Matter with the Kansas Tax Plan

    New Book Outlines Tax Lessons from Kansas “Experiment”

    Tax relief opponents have repeatedly pointed to the 2012 Kansas tax plan as their primary example of why tax cuts do not work. But, other states like North Carolina, Indiana, and Tennessee contemporaneously, and successfully, cut taxes. What was different about the Kansas experience?

    The answer to that question is multi-dimensional according to a new book from Kansas Policy Institute, entitled What Was Really the Matter with the Kansas Tax Plan — The Undoing of a Good Idea. The book covers the six years between the conception of Brownback’s tax cuts in 2011, the tax package being signed into law in 2012 and later repealed with the largest tax hike in state history in 2017. It documents the many mistakes that occurred, a toxic political undercurrent, and several unrelated economic circumstances that negatively impacted the budget and multiple misconceptions along the way.

    Author and KPI president Dave Trabert says, “Much of what went wrong was avoidable. We hope citizens and legislators across the nation can learn from the mistakes made in Kansas as they strive to create the best path forward for everyone to achieve prosperity with lower taxes.”

    The final chapter of the book is “Lessons Learned” and includes these big lessons:

    1. Don’t cut revenue and increase spending.
    2. Explain why tax relief is necessary (i.e., what are the consequences of not reducing the tax burden).
    3. Develop a comprehensive plan to balance the budget on less tax revenue, with room for the unpredictable but inevitable misfortunes (like plummeting oil and farm commodity prices).
    4. Have the right systems in place, including performance-based budgeting and a reliable revenue estimating process.

    To ensure that lawmakers have this information as they work in statehouses around the country, nearly 8,000 complimentary copies are being distributed to every state legislator across the country in partnership with The Heartland Institute.

    Danedri Herbert, an experienced journalist currently writing for the online publication “The Sentinel,” co-authored the book and former U.S. Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma wrote the Foreword. Coburn writes, “This is a very important book, not only for state and national legislators who try to represent citizens instead of special interests, but also for taxing and spending watchdogs in the press and those involved with good government citizen activist groups.”

    What Was Really the Matter with the Kansas Tax Plan is published by Jameson Books, Inc. and copies will be available on Amazon.

    Trabert concludes, “Kansas could have successfully cut taxes as other states have done. The undoing of a very good idea—allowing citizens to keep more of their hard-earned money—gets to the crux of the serious state and national challenges we face: policy takes a back seat to politics. The efforts of many elected officials are not on solving problems in ways that create the best path forward for all Americans to achieve prosperity, but on maintaining and consolidating power.”

  • WichitaLiberty.TV: Kansas Gubernatorial Candidate Dr. Jim Barnett

    WichitaLiberty.TV: Kansas Gubernatorial Candidate Dr. Jim Barnett

    In this episode of WichitaLiberty.TV: Dr. Jim Barnett is a candidate for the Republican Party nomination for Kansas Governor. He joins Bob Weeks to make the case as to why he should be our next governor. View below, or click here to view at YouTube. Episode 185, broadcast February 24, 2018.

    This is the first in a series of appearances by gubernatorial candidates for 2018. We hope that all major candidates, of all parties as well as independents, will accept our invitation. The filing deadline is June 1, the primary election is August 7, and the general election is November 6.

    Shownotes

  • WichitaLiberty.TV: Danedri Herbert, Editor of The Sentinel

    WichitaLiberty.TV: Danedri Herbert, Editor of The Sentinel

    In this episode of WichitaLiberty.TV: The Sentinel’s Danedri Herbert joins Bob Weeks to discuss the upcoming gubernatorial debate, the Kansas Legislature’s website and transparency, and accountability in government. View below, or click here to view at YouTube. Episode 184, broadcast February 17, 2018.

    Shownotes

  • Unemployment in Kansas

    Unemployment in Kansas

    New Kansas Governor Jeff Colyer proudly cites the low Kansas unemployment rate, but there is more to the story.

    In his recent speech to the legislature, Kansas Governor Jeff Colyer said, “There’s some good news to report here. According to the most recent data, the Kansas unemployment rate is 3.4%. That’s one of the lowest in the country, and the lowest our state has seen in more than seventeen years!”

    Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, part of the United States Department of Labor shows changes to Kansas employment. The recent peak of the unemployment rate in Kansas was in 2009, when the rate reached 7.3 percent, averaging 6.9 percent for the entire year. In December 2017 it was 3.4 percent, just as the governor said. But since the unemployment rate is a ratio of two numbers, it can change for several reasons, and not all reasons are good news.

    As shown in the nearby table, the unemployment rate since 2009 is down, and down a lot. Similarly, the number of unemployed persons is down, too, by nearly half. Good news.

    But the number of employed persons has barely changed since 2009, rising by just one percent. At the same time, the labor force has fallen by 2.4 percent. The contracting labor force is the largest factor in the declining Kansas unemployment rate, and that is not good news.

    Kansas labor statistics. Click for larger.
  • Voting to raise taxes in Kansas

    Voting to raise taxes in Kansas

    Printable tables of voting on legislation that raised taxes in Kansas.

    The legislation that implemented tax increases in Kansas in 2017 is SB 30, titled “Concerning taxation; income tax, determination of Kansas adjusted gross income, modifications, rates, itemized deductions and credits; sales and compensating use tax, collection and distribution thereof, STAR bonds.” 1

    Important action on this bill took place on June 5 and 6. On the first day, each legislative chamber passed a conference committee report. That’s a version of the bill that’s produced by a committee of three members of each chamber. It resolves differences between the bills passed by each chamber. The report is then sent to each chamber for a vote where no amendments are allowed. This report passed both chambers and was sent to the governor.

    The governor vetoed the bill, so each chamber then had a chance to override the governor’s veto with a vote of two-thirds of its members. The override was successful, and SB 30 became law.

    For the first vote in the House, which passed with a fairly narrow margin of six votes over what is required, a number of Democrats voted Nay, presumably because they thought the tax increase was not large enough. On the vote to override, all Democrats except one voted in favor of higher taxes, and quite a few Republicans switched their votes from opposition to higher taxes to voting in favor of higher taxes.

    In the Senate the vote was more consistent. The first vote passed with 26 votes. The second vote, which required 27 votes to be successful, achieved exactly that number, as one Republican senator switched to vote in favor of higher taxes.

    In the downloadable and printable pdf tables, notable votes are indicated. For vote 2, the override vote which passed the bill into law, Republican votes are indicated. Additionally, those members who changed their support of higher taxes from vote 1 to vote 2 are indicated. For House of Representatives votes, click here. For an abridged version that prints on one page, click here.

    For Senate votes, click here.

    To find who represents you in the Kansas Legislature and other offices, use Kansas Voter View, specifically this form.

    Of note, the two votes mentioned above are not the only votes on SB 30. The bill started its legislative journey as a bill titled “An act concerning sales taxation; relating to the Kansas retailers’ sales tax act.” Later all language in the bill was deleted and an entirely new bill was created, although it retained the designation SB 30. Votes taken before that time are not relevant to the final purpose of the bill.

    —
    Notes

    1. Kansas Legislature, SB 30. Available at http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2017_18/measures/sb30/. ↩
  • Kansas bills deserve the veto pen

    Kansas bills deserve the veto pen

    Kansas Governor Sam Brownback may exercise a line item veto over any item in the just-passed budget and school spending bills. Here are a few ideas that deserve the veto.

    A small matter: In his recommended budget, Kansas Governor Sam Brownback recommended moving the Kansas Securities Commissioner to the Insurance Department. That happened. But his recommendation to move the Board of barbering to the Board of Cosmetology was not followed. As a result, $186,384 must be added to spending for FY 2018. This is all funds spending, not general funds. There is a deletion of spending from the Board of Cosmetology that partially offsets this spending, but it is a lost opportunity to save. 1 2

    A large matter: The efficiency study commissioned by the legislature recommended savings in the method of acquiring health insurance for public school employees. This was not adopted. Therefore, $47,200,000 in general fund spending is added over what the governor recommended. 3 4

    This is the type of spending that needs to be vetoed. Except: There is no line in a bill that designates this spending. Instead, this “spending” in the form of savings not realized. The governor should veto SB 19, the school funding bill, in part or in whole. Such a veto, along with a likely override, would send a message to Kansas taxpayers that the legislature chose to spend this money instead of pursuing needed efficiency.

    —
    Notes

    1. “For FY 2018 and FY 2019, the Governor recommends certain consolidations that include moving the Securities Commissioner to the Insurance Department and moving the Board of Barbering to the Board of Cosmetology. The Governor estimates that combining the agencies will create efficiencies and save money over the long-term.” The Governor’s Budget Report for Fiscal 2018, Vol. 1. p. 77 ↩
    2. Conference Committee Report for HB 2002, Sec. 12 (a) ↩
    3. “The FY 2018 budget assumes savings of $47.2 million from implementation of Alvarez & Marsal efficiency recommendations to include K-12 health benefit consolidation and sourcing select benefit categories on a statewide basis.” Budget Report, p. 17 ↩
    4. “Add $47.2 million, all from the State General Fund, for removing savings associated with A&M recommendations for health insurance and procurement for FY 2018.” Bill Explanation For 2017 Senate Sub. For House Bill 2002, p. 10. ↩
  • Which Kansas governor?

    Which Kansas governor?

    In Kansas, a governor is proud of savings and efficiencies.

    Can you guess which Kansas governor and administration did these things?

    • Looked for future highway projects “where it seemed the amount of money set aside exceeded the need, or where the scope of individual projects had changed,” and took credit for $278 million in savings.

    • Took credit for saving $67 million by adjusting the inflation rates used in estimating future project costs.

    • Took credit for $306 million in savings by spending reserve funds, deciding that money wasn’t needed just “sitting in the bank.”

    • Refinanced bonds so that payments would be lower for a few years, but higher afterwards.

    If you guessed Kathleen Sebelius, you’re correct.

    Sources are: Hanna, John. $1 billion claim falls on KDOT — Analysis: Governors’ savings often readjustments. Topeka Capital-Journal, January 30, 2006. Available at http://cjonline.com/stories/013006/kan_onebil.shtml#.WP4Z__krLWW.
    Moon, Chris. New ad claims huge savings — $1 billion a focal point of Sebelius’ re-election bid despite skeptics. Topeka Capital-Journal, August 07, 2006. Available at http://cjonline.com/stories/080706/leg_govad.shtml#.WP4bvvkrLWU.

  • Kansas revenue estimates

    Kansas revenue estimates

    Kansas revenue estimates are frequently in the news and have become a political issue. Here’s a look at them over the past decades.

    A favorite criticism of liberals and progressives across the nation is that in Kansas, actual revenues to the state’s general fund have fallen short of projections, month after month. Reading most newspaper reports and editorials, one might think that these negative variances are a new phenomenon, and one relished by the Left. As many as a dozen articles on this topic have appeared in the New York Times in the past two years.

    The revenue estimates in Kansas are produced by a body known as the Consensus Revenue Estimating Group. It consists of one member each from the Division of the Budget, Department of Revenue, Legislative Research Department, and one consulting economist each from the University of Kansas, Kansas State University, and Wichita State University.

    As described: “This group meets each spring and fall. Before December 4th, the group makes its initial estimate for the budget year and revises the estimate for the current year. By April 20th, the fall estimate is reviewed, along with any additional data. A revised estimate is published, which the Legislature may use in adjusting expenditures, if necessary.”1

    The estimates are important because the legislature and governor are required to use them when formulating budgets and spending plans. If the estimates are high, meaning that revenue is less than expected, it’s possible that the legislature or (more likely) the governor will need to make spending cuts. (The other alternative is that leftover funds from prior years may be used, if available.)

    If, on the other hand, the estimates are too low, meaning that revenue is higher than expected, the state has collected too much tax revenue. In this case, the state should refund the excess to taxpayers. Some states do that, notably Colorado, although residents may vote to let the state keep the excess.

    Some states have true rainy day funds, and the excess revenue might be used to build that fund’s balance. In a true rainy day fund, the fund’s balances can be spent only during specific sets of circumstances.

    But in Kansas, the excess revenue is simply called the “ending balance” and is available to spend at the legislature’s whim. That’s what happened in fiscal years 2014 and 2015, when the state spent $340 million and $308 million, respectively, of the ending balance rather than cut spending.

    What has been the history of the revenue estimates compared to actual revenue? First, know that making these estimates is not easy. Some of the inputs to the process include the inflation rate in future years, interest rates in future years, and the prices of oil and natural gas in the future. If someone knew these values with any certainty, they could earn huge profits by trading in futures markets.

    The state makes the revenue estimates available.2 I’ve presented the results since 1975 in a chart at the end of this article. For each year, two numbers are presented. One it the difference from the Original Estimate and actual revenue. The other is the difference from the Adjusted Final Estimate and actual revenue.

    We can see that in fiscal years 2014 and 2016, the variance of the estimates is negative, meaning that revenue was lower than the estimates. The magnitude of these variances, however, is not out of line with the magnitude of the variances of other years, either positive or negative.

    In fact, the negative variances — revenue shortfalls, in other words — in the periods 2002 to 2003 and 2009 to 2010 were generally much larger in magnitude than those of recent years. This is of interest as Duane Goossen, who was the budget director during these periods, is a prominent critic of the recent revenue shortfalls. Evidently, he has forgotten the difficulty of creating these estimates.

    While Goossen along with newspaper reporters and editorialists use the negative revenue estimate variances as a political weapon against the governor and conservatives, it is in the interest of the people of Kansas that revenue estimates be as accurate as possible. In an effort to produce more accurate revenue estimates, Governor Brownback created a commission to study the issue. That group released its report in October.3

    Kansas revenue estimate errors. Click for larger.

    —
    Notes

    1. Consensus Revenue Estimating Group. Available at budget.ks.gov/cre.htm. ↩
    2. Kansas Division of the Budget. State General Fund Receipt Revisions for FY 2016 and FY 2017. May 2, 2016. Available at: budget.ks.gov/files/FY2017/CRE_Long_Memo_April2016.pdf. Also Kansas Legislative Research for 2016 figures. ↩
    3. Governor’s Consensus Revenue Estimating Working Group. Final Recommendations. Available at budget.ks.gov/files/FY2017/cre_workgroup_report.pdf. ↩
  • In Kansas, the war on property rights

    In Kansas, the war on property rights

    John Todd makes an appearance on The Voice of Reason with Andy Hooser to talk about proposed legislation in Kansas that would be harmful to private property rights. View below, or click here to view on YouTube. Recorded on March 16, 2017.

    For more information on this important issue, see In Kansas, the war on blight continues: Kansas governments are trying — again — to expand their powers to take property to the detriment of one of the fundamental rights of citizens: private property rights.