Voice For Liberty

Tag: Kansas legislature

Articles about the Kansas legislature, both the House of Representatives and the Senate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    (more…)

  • Kansas senate debate centers on free speech, transparency

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Analysis

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

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

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

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

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

    This vote is part of the Kansas Economic Freedom Index.

  • Raj Goyle votes to end Kansas corporate income tax!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • In Kansas, everyone wins or we all lose

    By Dave Trabert, Kansas Policy Institute.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Kansas Economic Freedom Index launched

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

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

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

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

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

    Links to current versions of the Kansas Economic Freedom Index:

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

  • Kansas news digest

    News from alternative media around Kansas for March 22, 2010.

    Republicans on the left help defeat Health Care Freedom Amendment

    (Kansas Liberty) “Greg Ward, co-founder of the Kansas 9.12 Project and founder of the Kansas Sovereignty Coalition, was disappointed in the outcome, but said he was especially concerned about the actions of the Republican members who voted against the measure. ‘I am amazed at the number of Republicans working to limit the liberties we have instead of limiting the overreaching government on both the federal and state level that seeks more and more control of our lives,’ Ward told Kansas Liberty.”

    House, Senate committees take a stand against increasing taxes

    (Kansas Liberty) “The House Appropriations Committee adopted a budget plan today that could patch the state’s deficits for fiscal year 2010 and fiscal year 2011 — without raising taxes. The proposal would leave the state with positive balance of more than $300 million in fiscal year 2011 and would cut approximately $360 million. The Republican plan would create a 1 percent across-the-board cut, excluding education and health and human services caseload.”

    Tax on sugary beverages could still be considered

    (Kansas Liberty) “The Senate Assessment and Taxation Committee made it clear yesterday that it was not interested in several of the tax-increasing proposals brought before the committee — including a proposal to create a tax on sugary beverages. For legislation to be voted on during a committee meeting, a member has to make a motion for the legislation to be passed out of committee, and that motion has to be seconded. However, the Senate Taxation Committee did not even have enough tax-supporting members for the majority of the proposals to be considered for a vote.”

    Day-care bill passes GO in Senate

    (Kansas Liberty) “Voice vote in general orders indicates Kansas Senate wants all child-care providers licensed and inspected by state.”

    Kansas tax panel offers balanced budget, no new taxes

    (Kansas Reporter) “TOPEKA, Kan. – Kansas House Appropriations committee members unveiled a new plan Thursday for balancing next year’s state budget without raising taxes.”

    Exemptions severely erode Kansas’ tax bases, audit finds

    (Kansas Reporter) “TOPEKA, Kan. – Kansas property tax exemptions for machinery and equipment created in 2006 have significantly eroded local tax bases across the state, state auditors reported Wednesday.”

    KOSE seeks more protection for whistleblowers

    (Kansas Reporter) “TOPEKA, Kan. – Some state employees feel they have a way to gain more revenue for Kansas. Two members of the Kansas Organization of State Employees (KOSE) testified before the Senate Ways and Means Committee Wednesday that strengthening whistleblower protection for state employees would mean less waste.”

    Debunking Myths in the School Funding Debate

    (Kansas Watchdog) “Protesters pushing for tax increases to end education funding cuts chanted, ‘We want what’s right, not what’s left’ at the State Capitol Tuesday.”

    3rd District Candidates Debate

    (Kansas Watchdog) “Overland Park, Kan. – A candidate debate and forum of eight 3rd Congressional District candidates was held Saturday at the Blue Valley Northwest High School. About 300 people attended to listen to 7 Republicans and a Libertarian candidate.” Related: Closing Statements from 3rd District Debate (video).

    Sun Editor Steve Rose Needs Facts and Figures not Fear Mongering about Schools

    (Kansas Watchdog) “Steve Rose in his ‘Memo’ this week, ‘Teachers, programs slashed. Thanks, Ray,’ needs more hard facts and figures instead of fear mongering about ‘slashing’ school budgets.”

    Congressional Candidates Debate at Hope For America Meeting in Overland Park

    (State of the State KS) “Republican and Libertarian candidates for Congress debated in Overland Park Saturday in the race for Congress in the 3rd District.”

    U.S. House passes historic health reform legislation

    (Kansas Health Institute News Service) “TOPEKA – The U.S. House has spoken on health reform, approving 219-212 a Senate-passed health reform bill that now goes to the president for signature into law. But the debate in Kansas, and across the country, continues.”

    Menu labeling discussed

    (Kansas Health Institute News Service) “TOPEKA – It’s not clear what will happen to federal health reform legislation that would require chain restaurants to label menu items, but the Kansas Legislature won’t take any action on the measure this year.”

  • Medical marijuana testimony presented in Kansas House committee

    This week the Kansas House of Representatives Health and Human Services Committee held an informational hearing on HB 2610. This bill would legalize the use of medical marijuana for certain debilitating medical conditions. Representative Gail Finney, a Democrat who represents parts of east Wichita, introduced the bill.

    An informational hearing means that the committee would take no action on the bill, so there would be no vote taken and no possibility that the bill would advance out of the committee to be considered by the entire House.

    There were two bills on the committee’s agenda before the marijuana measure. After these were dispatched, Representative Brenda Landwehr, a Wichita Republican and committee chairman, announced that she had to testify at another committee. Representative David Crum, the committee’s vice-char and an Augusta Republican, also had to attend a different committee meeting. In their absence, Representative Geraldine Flaharty, a Wichita Democrat, presided over the proceedings.

    Leading off the testimony, a woman from Augusta who suffers from multiple sclerosis said she wished for other drugs besides oxycodone and morphine to relieve her pain. In the past, marijuana gave her relief, she said, but now that she stopped using the drug, she has become worse, now barely able to walk. “But I’m too old to break the law,” she said.

    David Mulford of Hutchinson said he has suffered from both chronic pain and muscle spasms for 20 years. He said he has long-term experience with Marinol (a prescription pill form of the main psychoactive substance found in marijuana) and medicinal herbal cannabis.

    He quoted John Walters, former director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, who said in 2002 that “The Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research is currently conducting scientific studies to determine the efficacy of marijuana in treating various ailments. Until that research is concluded, however, most of what the public hears from marijuana activists is little more than a compilation of anecdotes.”

    Mulford said that this research is now available, referring to a recent report from the Center for Medical Cannabis Research at the University of California. He said that this study found that herbal cannabis has benefits for individuals that do not respond well to current therapies. Medicinal cannabis was found to safe and effective, he said the study found.

    Marinol, while an important part of his treatment plan, does not provide the same benefits as herbal cannabis. He said he finds it difficult to believe that anyone would consider him a “faker,” using his illness as an excuse to get high. He said he needs to manage his health, and only that. “We must place patients above politics,” he added.

    Anthony Buckland told of how in the days before his daughter died from cancer at the age of 16, there were no non-narcotic drugs available for her to use. Cannabis, he said, would have helped control her nausea and increase her appetite, as well as controlling pain. The daughter did not want to break the law, which would have been necessary in order to use cannabis.

    Brian Leininger, an attorney from Overland Park who has experience as a district attorney and city prosecutor, spoke on behalf of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP), an organization of former and current law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and judges who at one time had fought the war on drugs, but are now opposed to the prohibition of drugs. He said that marijuana is classified as a schedule 1 drug, meaning that it has no medical benefit, which he said is not true. Many far more dangerous and harmful drugs are not classified as schedule 1 drugs, and are prescribed regularly.

    He said that 14 states have approved cannabis for medical purposes. He urged the committee members to take a fair look at this legislation and vote for it when the times comes. “It’s the compassionate thing to do,” he added.

    Dan Dawdy presented information on the scientific aspects of cannabis and Marinol, the pill form of synthetic THC. One difference, he said, as that Marinol contains just one compound, while medical cannabis in herbal form contains 60 naturally-occurring cannabinoids. He told the committee that the fact that Marinol is ingested orally is a problem too, according to experts. Of the many cannabinoids in natural cannabis, several have been found to be medically useful.

    Dawdy explained: “We do not stop at one headache medicine or one cholesterol-lowering drug. Why not? It’s simple: one medicine doesn’t work for everyone, it doesn’t work in every situation, or for every need. … Even the best drugs don’t work for everyone.” He added that “I used to believe that cannabis was not medicine — it just made people not mind being sick.” But after seeing the medicine in action, he came to realize that medical cannabis has the ability to help many ill people improve their lives.

    Tom Ballard, who said he is a long-time resident of Kansas, spoke on the issue of cannabis dependency. He told the committee that “cannabis lacks the physical and psychological dependence liabilities associated with most other substances.” He said that only ten percent of those why try cannabis meet the clinical criteria for drug dependency, which is less than the 15 percent associated with alcohol use. He said that the majority of cannabis users who are in treatment programs are there as a condition of their probation, not their choice. “Prohibitionists disingenuously argue that these admissions to treatment justify the need to maintain cannabis’ illegal status when in reality it appears to be the policy and not the use that results in the commitment of cannabis users to treatment centers.”

    Ballard also addressed the effect of cannabis use on driving, saying that its effect on the ability to drive — compared to the effect of alcohol — is mild.

    Tyler Feeney said that we should be having hearings on this matter, not an informational session where the leadership of the committee — referring to Representatives Landwehr and Crum — is not present, saying that they “obviously don’t care.” The audience expressed its approval of this sentiment with applause and cheers. He said it’s a disconnect when legislators take money from the pharmaceutical industry, cigarette makers, and people who sell booze, but panic at the idea of marijuana. “14 other states have done this, and the apocalypse hasn’t hit yet.”

    He promoted medical marijuana as a way to help solve the state’s budget problem by earning revenue through its sale.

    Feeney urged the committee to hold a real hearing instead of this informational hearing, which he characterized as a waste of time. He thanked the committee members who were still present, as by this time, many committee members had left the room. Chairman Flaharty said that some members had other appointments, and that’s why they had left.

    Patrick Wilbur, Executive Director of Drug Policy Forum of Kansas, said it’s obvious that for some patients, cannabis is the best answer for them. Also, this bill does not endorse or legalize the recreational use of cannabis. He cited an ABC News/Washington Post poll that found that 81% of Americans endorsed the legalization of medical marijuana. “This is not a fringe issue. This is mainstream,” he said. The approval numbers are not as high in Kansas, he said, but there is still a solid majority of Kansans that support this.

    Cheryl Riley, founder and director of the Kansas Medical Cannabis Network, spoke about the evidence supporting the medical use of cannabis, stating: “Four decades of intensive research and clinical trials in Israel and elsewhere has proved beyond any doubt to rational minds that medical cannabis is indeed effective therapy for a wide array of medical conditions.” She noted that the American Medical Association has asked the DEA to reschedule cannabis so that clinical studies could be conducted.

    She also told the committee that many religious organizations have announced support for medical cannabis as a matter of human compassion.

    In written testimony supplied to the committee, Dr. Jon Hauxwell, a retired physician living in Hays, wrote: “Cannabis denialists rely on a derisive catch phrase, ‘medical excuse marijuana.’ Apparently we are to believe that the tens of thousands of people who can attest to the unique benefits of cannabis therapy when other drugs have failed, are simply deluded, or faking. This is cruel and cynical. One wonders how many of these patients the denialists have actually interviewed, and by what criteria they dismissed these affirmations as crazy or deceitful. These patients deserve compassion, not derision.”

    On the potential for abuse if Kansas legalizes medical cannabis, Hauxwell wrote to the committee: “As a licensed physician, I could legally prescribe or administer methamphetamine, cocaine, morphine, Oxy-Contin, and barbiturates. There are indeed some people who seek to divert these drugs for abuse. Doctors must be vigilant, and sometimes we get fooled. But we as a society have made a commitment: The abusers don’t get to call the shots. They will not be allowed to deprive legitimate patients of the right to the treatment they need.”

    Concluding his written testimony, Dr. Hauxwell explained that cannabis is safe, provides proven benefits, and is a valuable and necessary option for treatment:

    It is biologically plausible — and demonstrable — that cannabis safely offers a wide variety of benefits for health, benefits which have already been discovered and applied by patients across the world, and over centuries.

    Denialists maintain that even if cannabis does treat a variety of medical conditions, it is unnecessary because these conditions can be treated with currently available drugs.

    However, these drugs often have side-effects more disabling than cannabis, or don’t work well for some individuals. If these drugs are already adequate, we could make at least two predictions: One, no other new drugs will ever be introduced to treat the conditions cannabis can treat, because they too would be “unnecessary.” And two, no cancer patient will ever again tell her oncologist “I’m not going to take any more radiation and chemo. I know what that means, but I’d rather die than go through that again.”

    Written testimony presented at this hearing is available at Informational Presentations on Kansas Medical Marijuana Act. A USA Today article that references Representative Finney and the Kansas bill is Slowly, states are lessening limits on marijuana. A recent poll that shows support for medical marijuana in Kansas is Survey USA News Poll #16266.

  • Kansas sugar tax testimony heard, bill doesn’t advance

    Wednesday’s meeting of the Kansas Senate Assessment and Taxation Committee heard testimony on SB 567, which would increase taxes on drinks sweetened with sugar. At the next day’s meeting, the bill didn’t advance out of committee.

    Several hundred employees of soft drink companies, many wearing clothes with logos of their companies, were in the statehouse, and many attended the hearing.

    In his opening remarks, Senator Les Donovan, a Wichita Republican, said that his intent is to revise the bill so that the tax is four-tenths of a cent per teaspoon of sugar instead of one cent, saying that to the audience of soft drink company employees “that should relieve 60% of your anxiety.”

    He added, as he has said in other recent meetings of this committee, that he doesn’t want to have to ask people for more taxes. But he contended that the budget has been “slashed” many times, and that more tax revenue is required.

    Proponents of the bill generally cited two reasons for their support: First, it would raise more revenue for the state. Second, it would improve the health of Kansans, a claim that some opponents of the bill disputed.

    Kathy Cook, Executive Director of Kansas Families for Education Foundation, said the state’s children, disabled, and elderly can’t afford any more cuts. It’s more than a political decision, she said, it’s really now a moral decision. Her written testimony suggested increasing income taxes on those making over $100,000 per year.

    Jason Eberhart-Phillips, the Kansas State Health Officer, said that sugar-sweetened beverages are “not a necessary part of anyone’s diet.” The drinks generally deliver many calories but few nutritional benefit.

    Opponents of the bill raised the cross-border shopping issue. Written testimony from the Kansas Chamber of Commerce noted that “Our peer states are already salivating at the prospects of both a sales tax and a tobacco tax increase. You can now add the proposed doubling of the liquor gallonage tax and this bill to the list of tax increases our competitor states would like to see Kansas enact.”

    The Kansas Beverage Association in its written testimony noted that the bill is not really about fighting obesity, as no money from the proposed tax is earmarked for obesity programs. (A California bill that is the model for this legislation places all the tax revenue collected in a fund for improving the health of children.)

    The Association also said in its testimony that the American Beverage Association has set voluntary standards for beverages sold in schools, and that in three years, the number of calories from beverages sold in schools has been reduced by 90%. The testimony added that kids in schools are still eating pizza, cheeseburgers, candy bars, and ice cream.

    The owner of a restaurant and bar in Olathe said that the competitive nature of the restaurant combined with the recession means that the ability to earn money on food sales is reduced, meaning that the beverage side of the business becomes more important. He said that this tax increase might drive him to reduce his employee count.

    Some opponents noted the large number of businesses that would be affected by this tax, and the job losses that the tax would cause.

    The fiscal note the accompanies the bill notes some difficulties in enforcing the tax: There are many distributors of the products to be taxed, and some don’t have a business location in Kansas. There are very small companies producing products that will have to be taxes, and there are private label products that are shipped directly to companies in Kansas. The note estimated that there could be 500 to 600 products that would be subject to this tax, and that ensuring compliance with the law may be difficult.

    Senator Karin Brownlee, an Olathe Republican, said that the link between sugar pop and obesity is not clear. Taking issue with Chairman Donovan’s contention that revenues must be raised, she said that some legislators realize that spending is the problem. There were four years in a row, she said, where spending increased by 9 percent. “Until the state gets a handle on our spending, we don’t need to be talking about new taxes.” She asked that when businesses are not making money, how do we take more from them?

    Donovan, who owns an automobile dealership, interjected that he will have to charge customers an additional three or four hundred dollars if the Kansas sales tax — based on his actions — is raised. “It’s not good for me, it’s not good for my business, but we are out of options, the way I see it.” He said he didn’t disagree with the claim of government bloat and that government spending has gone up faster than income lately, but the state has cut billions in taxes for both. business and individuals.

    Brownlee said that it appears the majority is headed towards tax increases, but this should not be the first response to the budget problem.

    The committee took action on this bill and other proposed tax bills on Thursday. As reported in Kansas Reporter and Kansas Liberty (Senate Committee says no to new taxes, House, Senate committees take a stand against increasing taxes) the tax bills did not advance out of committee.

  • Tax law imported to Kansas from California

    As states struggle to generate revenue to fund expansive spending programs, they look to impose more and higher taxes. Now a Kansas senator is importing California tax law in an effort to solve the Kansas budget problem by raising revenue instead of controlling spending.

    The legislation being imported is California SB 1210, which imposes a tax on sweetened beverages like soda pop. In Kansas, SB 567 contains large sections of statutory language taken word-for-word from the California bill.

    There’s not a spoonful of sugar large enough to sweeten the bitter fact that Kansas is becoming more like California with its out of control spending and taxation.

    No senator’s name appears on the Kansas bill, but sources tell me it is the handiwork of John Vratil, a Leawood Republican who is Vice-President of the Senate.