Articles about the Kansas legislature, both the House of Representatives and the Senate.
A group of citizens who don’t agree with Kansas Governor Mark Parkinson’s decision to sign the statewide smoking ban bill is planning a protest in Salina.
The governor will sign the smoking ban bill on Monday at 3:30 pm at the Salina Public Library. It’s a ceremonial signing, as the actual bill was signed earlier today.
Update: Coverage of the hearing, including written testimony, is at Medical marijuana testimony presented in Kansas house committee.
Next week the Kansas House Health and Human Services Committee will hold an informational hearing on medical cannabis in Kansas.
Representative Gail Finney, a Democrat who represents parts of east and northeast Wichita, has introduced HB 2610, which would legalize the use of medical marijuana for “certain debilitating medical conditions,” according to the bill’s summary.
The hearing on this bill, which is informational only and will not result in a vote by the committee, will be held at 1:30 pm on Wednesday March 17, in room 784 of the Docking State Office Building, which is just west of the Kansas statehouse.
This week USA Today published an article Slowly, states are lessening limits on marijuana which describes efforts across the country to allow those suffering from certain medical conditions to make use of medical cannabis. The article mentions Finney and her effort in Kansas:
Even in conservative Kansas, where the Legislature recently voted to outlaw a synthetic drug that mimics marijuana, backers of looser marijuana laws say they have hope.
Rep. Gail Finney, a first-term Democrat, has proposed legalizing marijuana for use by the critically ill. The bill is unlikely to pass this year, Finney says, but she wants to use the hearings to educate fellow lawmakers and plans to reintroduce it until it passes.
“It’s time for Kansas to have an open, honest debate about this,” she says.
She thinks many of her House colleagues would support the bill if they didn’t fear backlash in an election year — a fear she says is unfounded. A Feb. 2 poll of 500 Kansans by KWCH-TV in Wichita found 58% supported medical marijuana.
“If they were in touch and in tune with their constituents,” Finney says, “they would know that this is what they want.”
The poll referred to is available here.
Today the Kansas Senate debated and passed Senate Substitute for House Bill 2437.
This bill creates a “primary” seat belt law, meaning that a law enforcement officer can stop a car when the officer believes someone in the car may not be wearing a seat belt. Currently, the car must have been stopped for other reasons before the officer could cite occupants for not wearing seat belts. The bill would send about $11 million federal dollars to Kansas; $1 million earmarked for transportation safety, but the rest could be shifted into the state general fund. Governor Mark Parkinson has identified this money as being used to close the state’s general fund budget gap.
Senator Tim Huelskamp, a Republican from Fowler, objected to the bill because it’s a federal mandate that interferes with our local state control. The federal government has taken our tax money, he said, and is using it to coax our state into passing the primary seat belt law. Huelskamp’s actual language was stronger, using the term “outright bribery,” and noting with displeasure that the governor was acceding to this action.
Senator Davie Haley, a Democrat from Kansas City, along with Senator Oletha Faust-Goudeau, Democrat from Wichita, expressed concerns that the seat belt law and the texting laws could be used as pretexts for stopping cars when the real aim of the officer is to perform a stop or search that couldn’t have been performed otherwise. “Driving while black” is the term both senators used, perhaps alluding to studies that have shown that minority drivers are stopped more often for minor traffic violations than non-minority drivers.
The bill also bans text messaging or electronic mail while driving. During the debate Senator Chris Steineger, a Democrat from Kansas City, gave Kansans a defense if they’re ticketed for texting while driving: The bill doesn’t prohibit using a phone for making telephone calls while driving. In fact, the bill contains language providing an exception “if the person reads, selects or enters a telephone number or name in a handheld wireless communication device for the purpose of making or receiving a phone call.”
Steineger wondered how a law enforcement officer could tell, just by looking, if a person is dialing a telephone number or entering a text message. He couldn’t get a specific answer from Senator Dwayne Umbarger, who was carrying the bill.
Next week there’s going to be a march on the Kansas statehouse asking for more spending on Kansas schools. In support of the march and the plea for more spending, a group has created a website titled Adequate Yearly Funding.
In an effort to make a factual case for more school funding, the page presents the fact that since 1992, base state aid per pupil in Kansas has increased from $3,600 to $4,012, an increase of 11%. The page illustrates how the cost of other things has increased by larger factors.
The problem with these facts is that they are incomplete. Base state aid per pupil is just part of the Kansas school funding formula. If we look at total funding by the state of Kansas we get quite a different picture.
I don’t have figures back to 1992, so I’ll start with the 1998 school year. Base state aid in that year was $3,720, so the increase to $4,012 — the current number — is 8%.
When considering total state funding, we go from $4,533 to $6,292 during the same period. That’s an increase of 39%. But the school spending lobby wants you to believe the increase is only 8%.
If we consider total school spending, the increase is from $7,222 to $12,225, which is an increase of 69%. Again, the school spending lobby wants you to look at just the 8% increase. According to them the rest of the increase is to be ignored.
The chart below illustrates the numbers. While base state aid increased only slightly, both total state aid and total spending increased much more rapidly.
We have to ask this question: Are those who use figures like this to make the case for more school spending merely misinformed, or are they deliberately misleading citizens and legislators?
By the way: since the Adequate Yearly Funding site is in support of education, is it being too picky to expect proper use of words and language? Twice the site erroneously creates the plural form of a noun: “If you’re creative and enjoy creating interesting and catchy slogans and logo’s please email them …” Then there’s this: “We now have approval to hold our march on capitol grounds, Ann Mah one of our area legislators (and great advocate for education) has graciously sponsored the march.”
As Kansas struggles to deal with a budget deficit, Democrats and some Republicans are proposing tax increases, particularly an increase — temporary, they say — in the sales tax. A common argument advanced is that an extra one cent tax on every dollar spent will hardly be noticed. The one cent tax used to build the Intrust Bank Arena in downtown Wichita is cited as an example of a sales tax used for the common good of the people.
Besides the fact that it’s way too early to judge the success (or not) of the arena, sales taxes do hurt.
My post from 2004 Prepare for sales tax-induced job effects now described job losses in Little Rock due to the sales tax that paid for that city’s arena. In this example, the job losses were smaller than the number of jobs created by construction. This is partly because the sales tax lasted just one year, and more importantly, the state of Arkansas paid for 40% of the arena’s cost. In other words, the entire state subsidized the construction job gains in Little Rock. Still, jobs in retail and service industries were lost.
If the state of Kansas raises its sales tax, we won’t have the luxury of a huge inflow of out-of-state money to duplicate the effect observed in Little Rock from the inflow of out-of-city money. Instead, it’s certain that a sales tax increase will negatively affect private sector jobs and our state’s economic growth and future.
As evidence, a 1996 study by the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta found that state and local taxes negatively affect a state’s growth rate, and that this effect of taxation is sizable. This study looked at all taxes.
Specifically considering sales taxes, a 1998 study by the Beacon Hill Group looked at the effect of a half-cent increase in Ohio’s sales tax. The study “found that an increase in the state sales tax rate from 5% to 5.5% would result in the loss of at least 49,000 jobs and would leave Ohio’s stock of capital at least $4.4 billion smaller.” The authors concluded there was a 90% certainty that this result would occur.
More recently, a 2009 proposal to increase Washington’s sales tax from 6.5% to 6.8% was analyzed by the Evergreen Freedom Foundation. Its conclusion was that the tax increase “would cost the private sector approximately 6,800 jobs and result in less disposable income for Washington residents.
A sales tax increase will provide funding for more public sector jobs at the expense of private sector jobs. The result is a loss of economic freedom as individual choice is replace by spending controlled by the legislature and government bureaucrats. Does anyone believe that government spends as wisely as people spend their own funds? I don’t.
Yesterday over 200 people packed a room at Wichita State University to attend a forum of Wichita-area Kansas state legislators. The meeting was chaired by Representative Steve Brunk, a Republican who represents Bel Aire and parts of far northeast Wichita.
One of the topics underlying much of the meeting was the subject of tax cuts to business. Proponents of government spending say the state has given up too much revenue by granting tax cuts.
Sometimes, in case of the business franchise tax, the state levies a tax simply for existing. This tax is being phased out over a five-year period starting in 2007. Government spending interests — including Governor Mark Parkinson — want to reinstate this tax, however.
There are sometimes disagreements as to what a “cut” means. In his opening remarks, Representative Jim Ward, a Democrat who represents parts of southeast Wichita and is also assistant minority leader, referred to a recent $95 million tax cut given to business, saying this is not a good thing to do when the state needs more tax revenue. Representative Brenda Landwehr, a Republican who represents parts of northwest Wichita, disagreed with Ward’s characterization.
The program referred to is an expansion of a program that lets companies keep their employees’ Kansas withholding taxes when new jobs are created. Proponents of these types of economic development incentives that are granted through the tax system argue that without the incentive, no jobs would be created, so there would be no new taxes to collect. Therefore, the program is without cost. They also often argue that the new jobs create other economic activity that is taxed, and this is a source of revenue for the state.
There is ample evidence, however, that these targeted economic development incentives often do not work as intended.
In answering one question, Landwehr referred to the Health Care Freedom Act. This possible amendment to the Kansas Constitution would allow Kansas to opt out of certain areas of possible federal health care legislation, such as the requirement that citizens purchase health insurance. Landwehr said that the issue goes back to what the Constitution and the Bill of Rights really say. Freedom and liberty are two key words, she said. “If government decides that they should be the one dictating to you what company your health issuance should be with, what benefits you should have or not have, we’re going to have less providers. … We need to be able to make these decisions ourselves.”
Addressing the number of uninsured in Kansas, Landwehr said that over half are the “invincibles” — young people 18 to 30 years old who choose not to purchase health insurance. Another segment are the underinsured.
On the recently-passed statewide smoking ban, Brunk read a question that asked “Why is smoking not bad for you in state-owned bars?” Brunk remarked that the questioner probably meant state-owned casinos, to the amusement of the audience. I thought to myself if the state can own casinos, why not bars? And if the state owned bars and taverns, would the smoking ban apply to them?
Rep. Landwehr criticized the smoking ban based on liberty, freedom, and property rights. She also mentioned problems with the bill regarding how the casino floor air — where smoking is allowed — would be kept separate from the air in the rest of the building. Representative Geraldine Flaharty, a Democrat who represents parts of south-central Wichita, said that the health issues of smoking overrode these issues.
Education, however, was the topic of interest to many in the audience.
Representative Joe McLeland, a Republican who represents parts of west Wichita and who is chairman of the House Education Budget Committee, said that education funding is a tough issue. He mentioned the large unencumbered fund balances in Kansas school districts, mentioning specifically that the Wichita school district has $252 million in its fund balances as of December. “Schools have a lot of money,” he said to disapproval of the large number of school spending advocates in the audience.
McLeland said that schools routinely transfer unspent money from the general fund — which can’t be carried forward to the next year — to other funds. These other funds generally fall into the category of restricted funds. Schools continually remind everyone that money in these restricted funds can’t be spent with the same degree of flexibility that money in unrestricted funds can. This is part of an effort by schools to treat restricted funds — which according to recent Wichita school district presentations are 59.5% of the district’s spending — as though they don’t exist and shouldn’t be counted as part of school spending.
McLeland said that this week he will introduce legislation that will reduce the number of funds from 27 to five and will prohibit transferring general fund dollars to restricted funds, including capital building funds.
McLeland also said that state law requires school districts to spend 65% of their budgets in the classroom. Since the state average is about 55%, McLeland said schools are not following this law.
Uniform accounting is a new law passed recently, McLeland said. With 293 school districts in the state, each reporting numbers differently, it is difficult to compare budgets.
McLeland also referred to the voluntary efficiency audits that school districts could participate in. The Derby school district is the only local school district that participated. The audit found that Derby instructional services spending was above average for its peers, but teacher salaries were below the peer average. McLeland said that the reason for this surprising finding couldn’t be determined due to the lack of standard accounting and reporting.
Representative Judy Loganbill, a Democrat who represents parts of east and southeast Wichita and who is also a Wichita school teacher, asked the rhetorical question “how often do you visit a school?” She mentioned the battle between unencumbered and encumbered funds. “Approximately 60 percent of a school’s budget must go to certain places. It has to. … What’s left over is where we get the unencumbered funds. … When you’re looking at your unencumbered funds, that’s where your salaries come from.”
She also mentioned the difficulty of determining what constitutes spending in the classroom. Things like transportation, utilities, books, materials — all are essential to schools, she said. She also mentioned the need to produce highly qualified and educated students to lead us into the next generation. She said that businesses don’t come into our state because of the employee withholding tax break discussed above, but because of quality of life issues like schools, good roads, and safe neighborhoods.
After a short break so that many of the legislators could leave to attend a funeral of a former legislator, Representative Kasha Kelley of Arkansas City gave an overview of the Kansas budget and the budget process.
A question to her referenced the large number of unemployed in Kansas. If tax breaks to business are such a good deal, why are there so many unemployed? Rep. Jim Ward expressed similar sentiment earlier. A proper answer to this question is that yes, there are large numbers of unemployed in Kansas at this time. Our unemployment rate is lower than the nation’s, however, and we should be grateful for that. Furthermore, we don’t know what our jobs situation would be if taxes on business had not been reduced. Since taxes in all forms are a drag on jobs creation, it is certain that there would be fewer jobs in Kansas if not for some tax reductions.
Also, some of the tax breaks given are quite small in relation to the state budget. In 2007, which is when the franchise tax reductions started, that tax brought in about $4.6 million. To place this number in some context, in February alone the state fell $71 million short of projected revenue.
Another questioner who identified himself as a former family business owner and a teacher for 12 years questioned the effectiveness of tax abatements and breaks on job creation.
One questioner criticized the state’s economic forecasts, calling for an honest assessment, perhaps by different company. It has been the case that over the past year or so, actual revenues have been significantly less than forecast. Brunk responded that the projections are developed by economists from state universities. It should be noted that economic forecasting is very difficult, and very few people foresaw the tremendous decline in the nation’s and state’s economies. If someone could forecast these things with certainty, they could make trades in financial markets that would generate very high returns.
Regarding the claim that business tax cuts are costing the state too much lost revenue: The problem with this analysis is that it presumes that the government has first claim on the income of businesses — and people too, for that matter. Those who believe in the principle of self-ownership, meaning that people own themselves and the things they produce, have a problem with this attitude.
I fully agree with the critics of targeted tax breaks. The state, as do all governments, has a poor record of being able to choose which companies or class of companies should benefit from special tax treatment and subsidy. A report by the Division of Legislative Post Audit from 2008 found that “it’s difficult to accurately assess the results of economic development expenditures.” Overall, the report was skeptical of the expenditures on economic development and its ability to produce jobs.
The school spending lobby, hungry for more tax dollars, refuses to acknowledge simple facts. The existence of the unspent fund balances is vigorously disputed, even though Kansas Deputy Education Commissioner Dale Dennis has said that schools can use these funds if they want. This is contrary to school spending advocate and Kansas school board member David Dennis in his flawed Wichita Eagle op-ed.
The schools also have no explanation for why the unspent balances in the funds grow rapidly, from $74 million to $94 million over the last four years for the Wichita school district. Instead, the schools would rather be left alone and unaccountable. Hopefully some initiatives in the legislature, such as the common accounting requirements, will lead to greater transparency and accountability.
The school spending lobby must also face the fact that the Kansas state achievement tests, which show large increases in school performance, are almost certainly fraudulent, as is the case in most states. The link between the huge increase in Kansas school spending and these test scores is used as an argument not to cut schools spending.
We also saw again the school spending lobby’s claim that restricted funds don’t count, as though schools are totally hamstrung when it comes to this money.
The contentiousness in the audience between the school spending lobby and the rest of the audience should lead us to question why we turn over such an important matter to government.
A bill has been introduced in the Kansas House of Representatives which would require consolidation of small school districts and increase the ability to manage schools through common accounting standards and information availability.
The bill, which is HB 2728 “an act concerning school districts; relating to the reorganization thereof,” has been assigned to the Kansas House Education Budget committee.
Highlights of the act include the requirement that a school district have a full-time equivalent enrollment of at least 10,000 students. A “school district re-organization commission” of 11 members would draw the boundaries of the new districts. Each of the districts would be governed by a seven-member board.
The bill lists a number of the duties of the newly-formed regional education centers. Many are aimed at efficiency and removing duplication of effort.
One of the provisions of the bill is that the new districts will use a statewide uniform accounting and reporting system based on a uniform chart of accounts. Further, the bill mandates reform of school district’s data-gathering and sharing effort. A section of the bill prefaced with this statement: “The purpose of this section is to allow any person desiring to obtain, analyze and compare financial and performance data of school districts the ability to do so.”
Furthermore, “Such system shall be an internet-based data reporting system which is freely available and accessible.”
Other information on this bill is at Consolidation Heats Up.
On Wednesday, the Taxation Committee of the Kansas House of Representatives heard testimony on HB 2496, which would expand the historic preservation tax credit program. This program provides tax credits to qualified historic preservation projects. I testified at the hearing, and my written testimony is at Kansas historic preservation tax credits should not be expanded.
The idea of tax credits confuses some people. Some may confuse credits with a tax deduction. Some may believe that tax credits are given out at no cost to the state. But in fact, the tax credits are quite costly. As I told the committee members, if the state grants a tax credit, and then does not reduce state spending by the amount of the tax credit, other taxpayers in Kansas have to make up the difference.
That’s one of my core reasons for opposing the tax credits. Since the state does not — and is not likely to — reduce spending by the amount of credits granted, the result is a transfer of money from Kansas taxpayers to the recipients of the credits. But even if the state did reduce its spending, the result would still be a implied decision by the state that it can better decide how to spend money than its citizens can.
Besides this, the arguments of those in favor of the historic preservation tax credits are self-serving and in some cases misleading. Some of the conferees are involved in projects that were to receive tax credits. They are not happy now that they may not get them.
Other conferees were local units of government such as Dale Goter, lobbyist for the City of Wichita. Wichita has a big stake in the tax credits, as the renovation of the Broadview Hotel is on hold because the developers may not receive the tax credits. The developers and the city claim that the project is not economically feasible without the tax credits. We don’t really know whether this is true. When government subsidy is available, people have a way of designing project budgets in a way the requires the subsidy. Why would someone turn down free money?
It should also be noted that the tax credits the Broadview developers are seeking — perhaps $3 million to $4 million — are on top of many millions in subsidy the city has already approved.
The arguments of other conferees must be questioned. Brenda Spencer of Wamego, who owns a preservation consulting business, told of a project in Leavenworth that will house a company employing 400 people. This results, she said, in an annual payroll of $26 million, with resultant tax dollars flowing to the state and local government.
The problems with this illustration of the purported success of the historic preservation tax credit program are these: Would the jobs not have been created unless there was a historic property to house the workers? Could the workers work somewhere that wouldn’t require tax credits? These jobs: are they new jobs? Were the workers formerly unemployed, or did they leave other jobs to work in the historic building? To the extent that happened, the jobs, with their tax payments to the state, can’t be counted as new.
Christy Davis, owner of another preservation consulting firm, testified that since 2001, the tax credit program has leveraged $264 million in private dollars, which she said is a 400% return on investment for the state. The problem with this analysis (it was made by others, too) is that it assumes that none of the projects would have proceeded if not for the tax credits. It credits the program as being the only reason why this activity took place. This is undoubtedly false.
Further, this analysis treats the state as though it were the owner of these properties. That isn’t true, either.
Davis also testified that since work on historic buildings is 50% more labor intensive than new construction, the tax credit program has the effect of a jobs creation program. I doubt that the developers of historic preservation projects see creating a lot of jobs as a benefit. To business, workers are a cost to be controlled, not a benefit to be expanded. If the state wants to view historic preservation as a jobs creation program — meaning that more jobs are better than fewer jobs — let the state mandate that, say, power tools can’t be used on these projects. Then even more workers will be needed.
Can we also agree that owners of firms that profit from a government program qualify as a special interest?
Goter, Wichita’s lobbyist, also stated in his written testimony: “The return on investment for the public dollar spent on historic renovation is totally recovered in a 10 year span from increased property taxes alone. That return is shared by local and state governments through their respective mill levies.”
This statement reveals the flaw in the reckoning used by government in making economic development calculations. To government, the return is in the form of increased tax revenue. Many citizens don’t view things the same way. For government to make an investment of taxpayer funds just so it can receive even more tax revenue is appealing to government bureaucrats and politicians who want to expand their sphere of influence and control. But not so much for everyone else.
For me a lesson I learned from the hearing is how easily those who consider themselves fiscal conservatives can become derailed by programs like this. Olathe Representative Arlen Siegfreid, a member of the Taxation Committee as well as Speaker Pro Tem of the Kansas House of Representatives, offered written and oral testimony in favor of this bill.
Support of this bill is at odds with his stated positions. On his personal website, under the heading “Fiscal Responsibility” appears this sentence: “However, particularly in times of economic peril, sometimes the ‘wants’ we’ve fertilized with ample resources grow to become ‘needs’ and our well intentioned investments in promising ideas and programs become the dangerous government growth that each candidate swears to defend against at all costs on the campaign trail.”
The historic preservation tax credit program, as reported in an audit recently completed by the Legislative Division of Post Audit, has grown tremendously from its initial cost. The audit, titled Kansas Tax Revenues, Part I: Reviewing Tax Credits, identifies the historic preservation tax credit as a program that the legislature may want to re-evaluate, as the program is significantly more expensive than originally planned. The fiscal note that accompanied the tax credit legislation when passed in 2001 and revised in 2002 reported an estimated annual cost of $1 million. In 2007, the actual cost was $8.5 million.
This is an example of a government spending program growing out of control — the type of “dangerous government growth” Siegfreid mentioned above.
Siegfreid’s website also states: “My subsequent re-elections affirm that notion, and I’m now more committed than ever to reducing the strain government and it’s [sic] failed policies are placing on individual taxpayers — and our local businesses.”
As mentioned above, when the state grants tax credits, other Kansas taxpayers have to pay more taxes to make up the shortfall in revenue. This is an example of the type of strain Siegfreid says he is against.
Finally, Siegfreid has authored a tax simplification bill, stating that “Kansas tax policy is too complicated.” Tax credits are an example of increasing complexity of the state’s tax code.
News from alternative media around Kansas for March 5, 2010.
(State of the State KS) “A House committee heard testimony on a bill Wednesday that would lengthen the period of time public school teachers must work to five years before eligible for tenure.”
(State of the State KS) “The House KPERS committee considered a bill Tuesday that would encourage early retirement for some government workers to save costs.”
(State of the State KS) “Kansas Democrats gathered to celebrate and campaign at Friday and Saturday’s Washington Days in Topeka.”
(Kansas Liberty) “In the near future, Kansas residents will be forced to comply with a statewide smoking ban, which has received the support of both chambers of the Kansas Legislature. Today, the House voted 68-54 to concur with the conference committee agreement reached between select members of the House and the Senate.”
(Kansas Liberty) “Tammi Hill, owner of the Peace of Mind Home Child Care Center in Olathe, has been brought to tears of frustration over a new piece of legislation which is currently in the Senate Public Health and Welfare Committee. Senate Bill 447 would create several new restrictions for day care providers, including regulations on how long children can take using the bathroom, how long a provider can speak with a parent, and how long a provider can spend with any inspector that may drop by the ensure the care center is in compliance with regulations.”
(Kansas Liberty) “Americans for Prosperity-Kansas has launched a new web page dedicated to informing Kansas residents about how an increased cigarette tax could cost the state revenue, instead of bringing in additional revenue as suggested by the Democrats.”
(Kansas Watchdog) “About 400 people attended a Board Night Out at Wichita’s West High School Monday evening. A similar number attended another forum at Wichita’s Southeast High School. USD259 Wichita Board of Education President Barbara Fuller, board member Lanora Nolan and Superintendent John Allison attended the West High gathering and offered their assessments of the decisions facing the district because of the ongoing state budget crisis.”
(Kansas Watchdog) “The Associated Press is reporting that Kansas Congressman Todd Tiahrt has been exonerated in an ethics probe of his connections with defense lobbying firm PMA and its clients. The probe found no violations by Tiahrt or five other members of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. The late John Murtha (D-Pa.) topped the list of who received large donations from PMA Group and its clients and steered earmarks to PMA clients.”
(Kansas Reporter) “TOPEKA, Kan. – February’s $71 million tax collection shortfall dropped Kansas revenues for the month deeper into budget crisis territory, legislative researchers reported Thursday.”
(Kansas Reporter) “TOPEKA, Kan. – Kansas’ first round application for a slice of $4.35 billion in new federal education stimulus money has been rejected, but education officials say they plan to try again in a second round next June. The Kansas State Department of Education said it learned Thursday that it is not among 16 finalists selected to receive grants under the Obama administration’s Race to the Top plan for educational reform.”
(Kansas Reporter) “TOPEKA, Kan. – Kansas House Taxation Committee members reluctantly voted Tuesday to raise $169 million in new taxes by requiring homeowners and renters to a pay 5.3 percent sales tax on their water, electric and natural gas bills that are now tax-exempt.”
(Kansas Reporter) “TOPEKA, Kan. – A controversial business tax credit once flagged as a drain on Kansas’ budget needs more money to help create jobs in Kansas, backers told a Kansas House Taxation committee Wednesday. Opponents, however, argued that removing a state lid on Kansas Historical Preservation tax credits, which last year were lopped by more than half their previous levels, would perpetuate the inefficient use of taxpayer money and give the recipients an unfair advantage over competitors who aren’t similarly subsidized.”
(Kansas Health Institute News Service) “Sadie Carpenter said no one ever told her why she and her husband weren’t allowed to adopt their great granddaughter. Marilyn Dilley said she and her husband were never told why they couldn’t adopt a boy they’d cared for as foster parents.”