Voice For Liberty

Tag: Kansas legislature

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

  • Kansas historic preservation tax credits audit reveals inefficiency, data problems

    Yesterday the Kansas Legislative Post Audit Committee received an audit recently completed by the Legislative Division of Post Audit. The audit, titled Kansas Tax Revenues, Part I: Reviewing Tax Credits, revealed that the historic preservation tax credit program is not efficient. Further, the Department of Revenue is not accurately tracking the cost of the program.

    Historic preservation tax credits provide funds to those who wish to renovate qualified historic buildings. Last year the legislature placed a cap on the dollar amount of credits that could be issued, and that caused some developers in Wichita to complain that their projects were no longer economically feasible. The city has made expansion of the amount of available credits a legislative priority. Wichita Governmental Affairs Director Dale Goter (in plain language, the city’s lobbyist) was present at the committee hearing, as was I.

    In the audit, the historic preservation tax credit is identified as a program that the legislature may want to re-evaluate. In this case, 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 estimated an annual cost of $1 million. In 2007, the actual reported cost was $8.5 million.

    The audit also finds that the historic preservation credit is not cost-effective:

    The Historic Preservation Tax Credit isn’t cost-effective. That credit works differently than the other three because the amount of money a historic preservation project receives from the credit is dependent upon the amount of money it’s sold for. Our review showed that, on average, when Historic Preservation Credits were transferred to generate money for a project, they only generated 85 cents for the project for every dollar of potential tax revenue the State gave up.

    The audit also found that there were data recording problems at the Kansas Department of Revenue regarding the tax credits. The audit found that some tax credits weren’t recorded in a tracking database, even though the credit had already been claimed on a tax return. Over a five-year period, about $6 million in tax credits was under-reported by the Department of Revenue. This is the information that lawmakers had concerning the cost and performance of the tax credit program.

    The audit noted “The Department doesn’t have sufficient computer controls to ensure that its database entries are accurate. … Finding problems like these in a relatively small sample raises questions about the integrity of the Department’s tax credit information.”

  • Kansas news digest

    News from alternative media around Kansas for February 16, 2010.

    Supreme Court denies motion to reopen Montoy case

    (Kansas Liberty) “The Kansas Supreme Court decided today that it would not be reopening the Montoy school funding case. … Reopening the Montoy case would have saved the districts a significant amount of time and money.”

    Committee considers school consolidation

    (Kansas Liberty) “Small district complains that community economically relies on schools, Representative says towns should not solely rely on taxpayer dollars to function.”

    Groups launch government transparency Web page

    (Kansas Liberty) “Americans for Prosperity and the Kansas Policy Institute have teamed up to provide an online transparency tool that will allow Kansas residents to see exactly how the government uses their taxpayer dollars.”

    Joe the Plumber Campaigns For 4th Dist. Candidate Jim Anderson

    (State of the State KS) “Joe ‘The Plumber’ Wurzelbacher talks about his role in the 2008 Presidential election and why he is endorsing 4th Congressional District candidate Jim Anderson (R).”

    Senate Education Debates Catastrophic Aid For School Districts

    (State of the State KS) “The Senate Education Committee debated changes to catastrophic aid for school districts after claims jumped to $12 million in 2009 and are estimated to be $47 million this year.”

    Rep. Jim Ward Discusses Education Funding and Budget Solutions

    (State of the State KS) “Rep. Jim Ward (D) talks about budget options. He is the House Assistant Minority Leader.”

    House panel rejects proposed tax-break moratorium

    (Kansas Reporter) “TOPEKA, Kan. – Kansas House Taxation committee members rejected a state panel’s recommended three-year moratorium on new sales, property and other tax exemptions.”

    Sales tax plan hurts low income Kansans, critics say

    (Kansas Reporter) “TOPEKA, Kan. – A Kansas panel’s proposal to streamline sales tax exemptions in the state would hurt many of the state’s most fragile citizens, critics told state legislators.”

    Supreme Court denies schools’ bid to reopen funding suit

    (Kansas Reporter) “TOPEKA, Kan. – Kansas’ Supreme Court Friday rejected a request by 74 Kansas schools to reopen a landmark school financing case and allow the schools to seek a reversal of recent state school funding cuts.”

    House committee rejects moratorium on tax credits or exemptions

    (Kansas Health Institute news service) “TOPEKA – The House Taxation Committee concluded hearings Tuesday on a bill that would repeal sales tax exemptions for non-profits and charities and eliminate the state exemption on the sale of residential utilities.”

    People who lost state-funded social services tell their stories

    (Kansas Health Institute news service) “TOPEKA – Daniel Perez is a single parent. His 18-year-old son, Danny, is severely autistic. When left alone, Danny will spend hours crinkling cellophane. ‘It’s what he likes to do,’ his father said.”

    Government payrolls show continuing, long-term growth as private sector jobs decline

    (Kansas Watchdog) “Kansas continues to lose private sector jobs as it adds more taxpayer-funded government jobs, a trend mirrored at the national level. The private sector lost 57,900 jobs between December 2007 and December 2009 while government added 3,200 jobs in Kansas according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).”

    Fuzzy “Facts” vs Freedom in Smoking Ban Debate

    (Kansas Watchdog) “There’s almost no debate that smoking is unhealthy, but there’s plenty of debate about whether and how to implement a statewide ban on smoking in public to reduce exposure to second-hand smoke. Interested citizens, lobbyists and speakers filled the Health and Human Services hearing room in the Docking building Wednesday.”

    LPA School Consolidation Audit Points the Way for Savings

    (Kansas Watchdog) “Monday’s Legislative Post Audit school consolidation report found the state could save as much as $138 million per year by consolidating smaller school districts. … Several district superintendents filed objections to the report, most citing a desire for local control of consolidation decisions and a desire to avoid the challenges of working with other districts. LPA auditors stated, ‘None of the issues they raised prohibit consolidation.’”

  • Kansas advocates for disabled face well-funded challenger

    Friday’s press event held by ACT (Advocates in Communities Team) of South Central Kansas provided an opportunity to learn about disabled Kansans and their families, and the challenges they face from reduced spending by the state.

    The stories told at the event and in supplementary materials are compelling. If there is a role for government-provided services to those who can’t help themselves, these are the people.

    But a problem that advocates for the disabled face is that the major recipient of Kansas general fund spending — that’s the K through 12 public school spending lobby — has enormous resources at its disposal. And it doesn’t like to share.

    Legislators tell me that the budget this year is a battle between the school spending lobby and everyone else. I spoke to several advocates for the disabled, and they assured me that it’s not a battle between these two competing interests. But the schools have, so far, fared very well. Figures I obtained in December from the Kansas State Department of Education indicate that spending, on a per pupil basis, is estimated to drop by 3.43% for the current school year. That’s not a lot, despite the claims of the school spending lobby.

    The school lobby is well-funded and the most powerful in the statehouse. The Kansas National Education Association (or KNEA, the teachers union) has a political action committee, which spent, according to IRS filings, $344,941 on political activity in 2008. But that’s just the tip of the iceberg. KNEA itself has revenue of over $8 million annually, and can afford to pay at least four employees salaries over $100,000.

    KNEA’s sister organization — they share a well-paid lobbyist — the Kansas Association of School Boards (KASB) had revenues of $4,167,025 in 2007. It can afford to pay its executive director $201,927 in salary and benefits in 2007, along with an expense account of $11,331.

    In addition, some school districts like Wichita USD 259 employ full-time lobbyists.

    The primary purpose of these organizations and lobbyists is to keep the river of taxpayer money flowing to the government schools at the expense of everyone else, including disabled people and taxpayers. Even if a “revenue solution” (that’s a euphemism for a tax increase) is found, schools will be out front arguing that they should get the largest share.

    Cuts to schools mean that parents might have to pay for schoolchildren to participate in athletics. It might mean that class sizes grow a little, which is not a bad thing, despite schools’ claims. The school districts that have passed bond issues might consider delaying their building booms a few years.

    None of these things seem as important as care for the disabled in Kansas.

  • Wichita-area legislators to meet with public

    The South-central Kansas legislative delegation will meet with citizens on Saturday March 6 from 9:00 am to 11:00 am. The location is the Hughes Metropolitan Center at Wichita State University. There will be a presentation on the Kansas budget and written questions from the audience.

    Representative Steve Brunk is chair of the delegation.

  • David Burk, Wichita developer, overreaches

    Today’s Wichita Eagle contains a story about a well-known Wichita real estate developer that, while shocking, shouldn’t really be all that unexpected.

    The opening sentence of the article (Developer won tax appeal on city site) tells us most of what we need to know: “Downtown Wichita’s leading developer, David Burk, represented himself as an agent of the city — without the city’s knowledge or consent — to cut his taxes on publicly owned property he leases in the Old Town Cinema Plaza, according to court records and the city attorney.”

    Some might say it’s not surprising that Burk represented himself in the way the Eagle article reports. When a person’s been on the receiving end of so much city hall largess, it’s an occupational hazard.

    And when you’ve been the beneficiary of so much Wichita taxpayer money, you might even begin to think that you shouldn’t have to pay so much tax anymore.

    At the state level, you might seek over a million dollars of taxpayer money to help you renovate an apartment building.

    Burk has certainly laid the groundwork, at least locally. A registered Republican voter, Burk regularly stocks the campaign coffers of Wichita city council members with contributions. These contributions — at least for city council candidates — are apparently made without regard to the political leanings of the candidates. How else can we explain recent contributions made to two city council members who are decidedly left of center: Lavonta Williams and Janet Miller? Burk and his wife made contributions to their campaigns in the maximum amount allowed by law.

    This is especially puzzling in light of Burk’s contributions to campaigns at the federal level. There, a search at the Federal Election Commission shows a single contribution of $250 to Todd Tiahrt in 2005.

    It’s quite incongruous that someone would contribute to Tiahrt, Williams, and Miller. Except Williams and Miller can — and have — cast votes that directly enrich Burk. Politicians at the federal level don’t have the same ability to do that as do Wichita city council members. Well, at least not considering Wichita city business.

    So which is it: is Burk a believer in Republican principles, a believer in good government, or someone who knows where his next taxpayer handout will come from?

    Burk’s enablers — these include Wichita’s lobbyist Dale Goter, Wichita Downtown Development Corporation president Jeff Fluhr and chairman Larry Weber, Wichita City Manager Robert Layton, Wichita economic development chief Allen Bell, and most importantly Wichita Mayor Carl Brewer and various city council members — now have to decide if they want to continue in their efforts to enrich Burk. Continuing to do so will harm their reputations. The elected officials, should they run for office again, will have to explain their actions to voters.

    At the state level, the bill that will enrich Burk will likely be voted on in the Kansas Senate this week. Then, similar action may take place in the Kansas House of Representatives. Let’s hope they read the Wichita Eagle in Topeka.

  • Kansas historic preservation tax credits should be eliminated

    It’s time to recognize historic buildings for what they are: a premium feature or amenity whose extra cost should be born solely by those who chose to own them or rent them.

    Supporters of historic buildings tell us that renovating them is more expensive than building new. Likewise, building a home with granite kitchen counter tops and marble floors in the bathrooms is more expensive than a plainer home. These premium features are chosen voluntarily by the homeowner, and it is right and just that they alone should pay for them.

    There’s no difference between these premium features and choosing to live in a historic building. Those who desire them choose them voluntarily, and should pay their full cost. Forcing everyone to subsidize this choice is wrong. It’s an example of a special interest gone wild.

    Supporters of historic building preservation subsidy tell us that these historic buildings define the character of a city. They have succumbed to the design fallacy, “the notion that architectural design is a major determinant in shaping human behavior.” It may be so for some people. Let each person decide for themselves, and then pay — or not pay — for its perceived benefit.

    It’s often true that historic preservation tax credits go to subsidize the choices of well-off people. For example, at a meeting of government officials with Wichita-area legislators in January, Wichita Downtown Development Corporation president Jeff Fluhr presented examples of several buildings in Wichita that have been rehabilitated, including the Wichita High Apartments, which he said will rent for $1,000 to $2,000. He mentioned condos in the Grant Telegraph building, which he said range in price from $300,000 to $950,000. Do the taxpayers of the state of Kansas need to subsidize people who can afford rents and prices like these?

    Wichita High ApartmentsWichita developer Dave Burk stood to pocket over $1 million in taxpayer money on this project.

    The use of tax credits, however, leads many to believe that what the state is doing is not a direct subsidy or payment. In order to clear things up, maybe we should require that the state write checks instead of issuing credits.

    Indeed, if the state issued checks to real estate developers, citizens would look at things differently. They’d wonder why they’re subsidizing the construction of apartments that rent for up to $2,000 monthly, or condos worth nearly a million dollars. They’d be angry. Using a semi-mysterious mechanism like tax credits shrouds the true economic transaction taking place.

    These expenditures of tax money — being issued as credits rather than appropriations — go through a different process than most expenditures of state money. Recently some have started to use the word “tax appropriations” to describe tax credits. These expenditures don’t go through the normal legislative process as do most appropriations.

    It’s time to recognize these historic preservation tax credits as payments to a special interest group. Unfortunately, as with most special interest groups, the group receiving the payment — tax credits in this case — has an extreme interest in the matter. They benefit greatly. But to the rest of the populace — well, does it really matter to them? John Stossel explains the problem like this:

    The Public Choice school of economics calls this the problem of concentrated benefits and dispersed costs. Individual members of relatively small interest groups stand to gain huge rewards when they lobby for government favors, but each taxpayer will pay only a tiny portion of the cost of any particular program, making opposition pointless.

    That’s the situation we face with the historic preservation tax credits. A few real estate developers will enrich themselves at state expense. Well-to-do renters and condo buyers will get a better deal. To everyone else, it’s just another way that government nickels and dimes us to death.

    It should be noted that one of the most vocal proponents of the tax credits is Christy Davis, a historical preservation consultant who operates a company that assists property owners and governments in obtaining funding for historic preservation projects. She’s the very definition of a special interest group.

  • State budget ‘gap’ is all about perspective

    By Dave Trabert, Kansas Policy Institute

    When businesses or individuals talk about cutting their expenses, it means they are going to spend less money that they did in the past. But when governments talk about budget cuts they often have a different perspective: they are spending less than they had hoped to but not necessarily less than the year before. For example, we often heard how Kansas schools had to cut their budgets last year but they still spent $12,660 per pupil, or 3.9% more than the previous year.

    “Gap” is another example of how the meaning of words differs depending upon one’s perspective. When it’s said that a tax increase is needed to close a $400 million budget “gap” in the 2011 state budget, one might reasonably assume that that means recession-driven revenue declines have created a “gap” that needs to be filled to maintain the same level of spending.

    But that is not the case. The Consensus Revenue Estimate calls for general fund revenues to decline by $122.2 million. Governor Parkinson’s budget proposal calls for spending to increase $380 million; that’s 7% more than we’ll spend this year and $1.1 billion more than we spent in FY 2005. From a revenue, or taxpayer, perspective, the gap is $122.2 million — not $400 million.

    It really does come down to perspective. Most of the proposed expenditure increase is to replace declines in federal stimulus money, so from the government’s perspective there is less money to spend unless taxes are increased. (Another way to replace those federal tax dollars is to become more efficient and reduce spending without cutting services, but the bureaucracy doesn’t seem interested in that option.)

    Governor Parkinson is proposing a significant spending increase but he deserves no blame for redefining the meaning of “gap;” his budget proposal was very forthright in explaining his rationale for spending more money. (OK, maybe he could have corrected those who are overstating the amount of the “gap” but at least he didn’t start it.)

    Whether we should raise taxes to increase spending as the governor and others are proposing is a legitimate topic of debate that needs to be held out in the open, but taxpayers need to know the truth about the details in order to make informed decisions.

    You can download more commentaries, news and publications at www.kansaspolicy.org.

  • Some Kansas Democrats are reluctant to show their party affiliation

    Over the weekend the Wall Street Journal had an online piece (Kansas GOP Could Be Its Own Worst Enemy) that mentioned how Raj Goyle, candidate for United States Congress from the fourth district, doesn’t mention his party affiliation on his website or campaign materials.

    It’s not only Goyle that omits this information. A short while ago I received notice of a young man running for the Kansas House of Representatives for the 96th district. That district, currently represented by Republican Phil Hermanson, covers parts of south-central and southwest Wichita.

    This candidate — Brandon Whipple is his name: what party is he running in? I’ve looked pretty carefully at his campaign website, and just like Goyle’s, I don’t see any political party affiliation mentioned.

    Whipple apparently hasn’t yet filed for office, as the Sedgwick County election office doesn’t have him listed. So his party affiliation isn’t available there.

    But his Facebook page gives it away. He’s a Democrat.

    Why don’t Kansas Democrats like Goyle and Whipple prominently mention their party affiliation?

  • Kansas teachers union makes it easy to ask for money

    Thanks for Kansas Liberty for uncovering an effort of the Kansas National Education Association (or KNEA, the teachers union) to make it easy for school spending advocates to ask for more tax money.

    This is part of the effort by the Kansas school spending lobby to pass tax increases on Kansans so that schools won’t have to face the same tough choices that businesses and families have to make.

    The KNEA effort makes it easy to solicit legislators with just a few clicks of the mouse. There is a list of talking points with red arrows. By clicking on the arrows, folks who want to tax their fellow Kansans can include boilerplate text in their message to legislators.

    Here are the teachers union talking points:

    • Kansas is in serious trouble. And it is not trouble caused by overspending; it is caused by over cutting.
    • Cuts made by the state in Medicaid have caused Kansans with disabilities to lose services and low-paid care-givers have seen their pay decline.
    • Our schools have cut employees and for the first time in generations, the educational opportunities available to our children are at risk of being cut and lost.
    • The safety of our communities is at risk as you approve cuts that will turn prisoners lose and close down correctional facilities.
    • Repairs and reconstruction on our highways will come to a halt if the state doesn’t get serious about these funding challenges.
    • For too long the legislature has been handing out corporate tax cuts while vulnerable programs have to cope with fewer and fewer resources. A legislature that is more interested in protecting corporate tax cuts than the vulnerable citizens of this state is a legislature that has lost its moral compass.
    • We have long enjoyed life in a state that knew how take care of its people, educate its children, and build great roads and highways. That quality of life is being eroded right now.
    • But you, as a state legislature, can turn things around. I urge you to pass a tax bill that will stop these cuts and protect our quality of life. House Bill 2475 will do that. And I for one am willing to pay a few pennies more for a loaf of bread if it means our schools stay open, our seniors have access to home-based care, the disabled are given a helping hand, our roads remain top quality, and our communities are kept safe.
    • Please support a revenue increase to protect the lives of Kansas citizens.