Tag: Kansas legislature

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

  • Moving Kansas schools from monopoly to free choice

    Paul Soutar of the Flint Hills Center for Public Policy has released a report that tells how Kansas could get better value for the money the state spends on K-12 education. Charter schools and school choice programs could — if not for opposition from the existing public school lobby and teachers unions — provide flexibility and and impetus for improving all Kansas schools.

    Kansas doesn’t have many charter schools. Part of the problem in Kansas, Soutar reports, is the law that governs charter school authorization: “… unlike most other states, Kansas charter schools are not truly independent. State law says they can only be authorized by school districts. That’s like Burger King having to ask McDonald’s for permission to open down the street. Even when local school districts authorize a charter school, there are obvious problems achieving the independence and educational difference charter schools are intended to offer.”

    The article also explores the battle over school choice programs in Kansas.

    (This is a Scribd document. Click on the rectangle at the right of the document’s title bar to get a full-screen view.)

  • Oklahoma tinkers with petition law; Kansas has none

    Sometimes we in Kansas like to poke fun at our neighbors to the south in Oklahoma. I’m sure they do the same to us.

    But one way in which Oklahoma has Kansas beat is in Oklahoma citizens’ ability to petition their government through the process of initiative and referendum.

    It’s not possible to do this in Kansas, at least for our state government. And Oklahomans have to be vigilant to make sure the right to petition isn’t taken away from them. It’s a continual effort.

    Paul Jacob, president of the Citizens in Charge Foundation summarizes the legislative action in Oklahoma this year as relates to initiative and referendum:

    Certainly, I’m encouraged to see Oklahoma citizens win major victories this year. The legislature passed a constitutional amendment to lower the signature requirement. That amendment will appear on the ballot next year. Legislators also passed SB 800, which mandates that challenges to the wording of a petition be dealt with prior to signature gathering. The governor signed SB 800 into law.

    But it’s disappointing to see the governor kill HB 2246. Most importantly, HB 2246 would have increased the time citizens have to gather petition signatures from a scant 90 days, currently, to a full year under the language of the bill. This is the most important reform needed in Oklahoma and one we’ll continue to push.

    While freedom-loving Oklahomans have to work each year to make sure their right to petition their state government isn’t watered-down so much as to be useless, we in Kansas have no such concern. That’s because we can’t petition our state government.

    What would it take for Kansans to gain the right to petition their state government? We’d need to amend the Kansas Constitution. That requires passage of the amendment by a two-thirds majority of both the Kansas House and Senate, and then passage by a majority vote of the people.

    It’s a difficult challenge.

    Citizens in Charge has a page listing the benefits of initiatives. Perhaps the most important is “Ballot initiatives allow citizens to enact meaningful policy changes that otherwise have little chance of being passed by politicians.”

    Legislators don’t like to share the power to make laws with citizens. Unfortunately, since legislators would have to pass a petition law by a difficult to achieve super majority, Kansans may have to continue to wait for the freedom and power that Oklahomans enjoy.

  • Kansas school spending lobby pot calls kettle black

    After the 2009 Kansas Legislature ended its session in May (notwithstanding the formal closing in June), the Kansas National Education Association (KNEA, the teachers union) produced a document wrapping up the session and setting the stage for the future. It’s titled What’s next? (Legislatively speaking).

    Kansans need to be aware of the agenda of this organization and its allied school spending lobby partners. Using an unimpeachable issue — “it’s all about the kids” — this organization seeks to increase spending on public schools at great cost to Kansas taxpayers. This is at the same time it works hard to keep the government school monopoly on public dollars for education in place, stomping out any form of school choice programs that are found to be cost-saving and effective in many states.

    What’s really telling about this document is its complaining of the political power of groups like Americans For Prosperity and Club For Growth. That’s because without a doubt, the richest and most powerful lobby in Kansas is the school spending lobby. Browse through the finance reports filed with the Kansas Secretary of State, and you’ll see that the KNEA spends hundreds of thousands of dollars each year in support of candidates for the Kansas House and Senate, and other offices too.

    The document criticizes Kansas economic development spending for not producing “economic expansion or significant job growth.” But the school spending lobby is quick to highlight the purported economic benefit of government spending on schools. They don’t tell us that a dollar spent on public schools is a dollar taken through taxation. If left in the hands of its original owner, economic activity would have taken place, too.

    What is the problem in Kansas?

    The KNEA and the school spending lobby believes that Kansas has a revenue problem. They call it a “structural deficit.” What it means is that Kansas taxes are not high enough: “The plain fact is that the tax policy of the legislature is designed to keep Kansas in a fiscal hole. … You see, the Kansas revenue system has something that tax folks call a ‘structural deficit.’ Structural deficits result when spending increases outpace revenue collections.”

    Many Kansans, including Americans For Prosperity, believe that Kansas has a spending problem. According to Kansas state director Derrick Sontag, if Kansas spending had increased by even as much as 5% each year for the last five years, our state would have a $2 billion surplus.

    Instead, spending has increased so rapidly that Kansas, at the start of this year, faced a $1 billion deficit.

    The school spending lobby also believes that tax cuts are a “cost” to Kansas government that we can’t afford: “In a memo prepared by legislative research in response to a legislative inquiry, a list of 70 new tax cuts have been enacted between 2000 and 2008. Eighteen have come in the last four years with a total cost to the state through 2013 of $1.135 billion. This does not include $87 million in foregone revenue due to a decision to not decouple from the federal tax code last year.”

    Instead of believing that money first belongs to those who earned it, the school spending lobby believes that letting people retain more of their earnings is an expense we can’t afford.

    Where is the political power in Kansas?

    The KNEA complains: “But it [increasing taxes] won’t happen until legislators put the good of Kansas ahead of an endorsement — and the political money that comes with it — by Americans for Prosperity and the Club for Growth.”

    It’s ironic to hear the school spending lobby complain that their opponents are using “political money.” KNEA is one of the biggest spenders on lobbying in Topeka. Large school districts like USD 259, the Wichita public school district have their own full-time lobbyists — paid for by taxpayers. There’s all the campaign contributions, as mentioned above.

    Plus, an endorsement by the KNEA is highly sought after. Candidates complete a lengthy questionnaire to earn its endorsement. That document is really more a manifesto telling candidates what they must believe and do to get the union’s endorsement and a contribution. You can read last year’s version by clicking on KNEA legislative questionnaire.

    The single-minded goal of the school spending lobby is to spend so much that Kansas is put out of business. They aren’t shy about using political money — and taxpayer-funded lobbying and lawsuits — to achieve that goal.

  • $29 cut marks end of Kansas school spending rise

    Paul Soutar of the Flint Hills Center for Public Policy reports on the rapid rise in Kansas school spending, and what may be in store for the future.

    (This is a Scribd document. Click on the rectangle at the right of the document’s title bar to get a full-screen view.)

  • Kansas historic tax credits should end

    The Wichita Business Journal reports that without historic tax credits, some redevelopment projects might stop.

    In other words — the Business Journal isn’t quite so blunt — if taxpayers don’t give developers money, some of their projects might not be economically feasible. Or so the developers say.

    Spotlighted in Wichita Business Journal reporting is Dave Burk, a well-known developer in Wichita who specializes in getting the taxpayer to fund portions of his developments.

    Often the funding comes in the form of TIF district financing or special assessment financing used in ways it’s not normally used.

    These complicated financial arrangements serve to hide what’s really happening. Developers like Burk say that these financing schemes don’t cost government or the taxpayer anything. But they go to great lengths to secure them. In the case of Burk, he makes sure to make plenty of campaign contributions.

    But tax credits are pretty easy to understand. They excuse someone from paying taxes. If they’re refundable tax credits, the government will even send you a check.

    This is a lot different from a tax deduction, in which case you get to reduce your income. That usually leads to a reduced tax liability, but by a much smaller amount. Maybe even nothing, if your business has a loss for the year.

    Instead, tax credits reduce your tax liability on a dollar-for-dollar basis. And unless government reduces its spending by an equal amount, the rest of the taxpayers have to make up the difference.

    The Kansas Legislature recognizes this, and in an effort to save from losing some revenue in a tough budget year, placed a cap on the amount of tax credits that could be issued over the next two budget years.

    That’s what has Burk concerned. Without his gift from the taxpayers, he doesn’t know if he can complete his project.

    Tomorrow, though, something might happen to change his prospects. That’s when the legislature meets for its ceremonial closing. Sometimes actual business is done, and there’s some talk, according to Hawver’s Capitol Report, that legislative action could be taken to help subsidized developers like Burk.

    Let’s hope that the legislature decides in favor of free markets. If people want to live in historic buildings, let them pay the full cost of what it costs to produce these properties. Anything else means that the taxpayers at large pay for a privileged few like Burk and his tenants.

    Sources tell me that Burk continually has his hand out a city hall, looking for whatever subsidy he can get — even to the point of annoying former city manger Chris Cherches.

    It’s time to let free markets work. If Dave Burk has an idea he can sell to the public and make a heap of money, more power to him. But let’s stop the taxpayer-subsidized gravy train.

  • Budget battles in Topeka

    The following analysis by Flint Hills Center for Public Policy Fellow Jonathan Williams provides a useful summary of the past legislative session in Kansas regarding the budget.

    Now that lawmakers have left Topeka after adjourning the 2009 legislative session, we have some time to reflect on their actions. As usual, there is both good news and bad news to report for Kansas taxpayers.

    Being an eternal optimist, I think it is appropriate to start with the good news. There were no major tax increases in the recent budget that closed a projected $328 million budget deficit for fiscal 2010, which starts on July 1, 2009. There were, however, unsuccessful attempts by former Gov. Sebelius’ administration and some legislators to stop the phase out of recent pro-growth tax reductions. Thankfully the majority realized it would be pure economic folly to increase taxes on Kansans attempting to navigate the current economic downturn.

    The American Legislative Exchange Council’s recent study, Rich States, Poor States ranks Kansas’ economic outlook at a mediocre 24th nationally. The study reminds policymakers that budget deficits are not a justification to increase taxes. For now, the scheduled phase down of the corporate income tax and the phase out of the franchise and death taxes will continue as planned. Over time, these actions will enhance Kansas’s business climate and make the Sunflower State a more attractive place for business development in the future — and that is indeed good news.

    While the budget was at least temporarily balanced for the start of fiscal year 2010, many in the legislature have grave concerns that additional budget restraints were not adopted. The current plan leaves the state a token ending balance of $17,000. House Speaker Mike O’Neal, R-Hutchinson said “That will last us about a day, and then we’ll be under water.” Unfortunately the Speaker’s projection is likely to be correct. Few economists remain hopeful that state coffers will recover anytime soon, since the worst state budget deficits generally follow national economic downturns. (Editor’s note: Since this piece was written last week, we’ve already learned that state revenues have declined quickly, and spending adjustments mist be made.)

    Another common complaint from conservatives in the legislature is how the budget relies on one-time federal stimulus money to balance the budget. Stalwart conservative Sen. Susan Wagle said, “We’re leaving the problem on the table. We are not fixing one darn thing. This is one-time money.” National observers have warned states that federal dollars are accompanied by numerous strings that could increase state obligations far into the future. When the federal dollars dry up in the next 18-24 months, states that have relied too heavily on stimulus funds could face some very difficult decisions. As the great Milton Friedman would point out, there is no such thing as a free lunch.

    One crucial point, which has received for too little ink, is how Kansas’ budget shortfall could have been entirely prevented. There would be no talk of budget problems if lawmakers would have simply allowed government to grow at a sustainable rate of growth — similar to the private sector. If lawmakers would have restrained spending growth beginning in fiscal year 1992, by limiting the growth of government to the rate of increase of population plus inflation, this spending restraint would have cumulatively saved Kansas over $15 billion. That’s right, if lawmakers would have resisted the urge to overspend, the debate over tax increases and budget cuts would be completely irrelevant.

    With a projected ending balance of merely $17,000 for the next fiscal year, lawmakers will clearly be forced to revisit the budget battles in the near future. Let’s hope they remember that no state has ever taxed its way to prosperity. Maybe the next time state revenues pick up, more legislators will be receptive to the idea of saving for a rainy day.

    Jonathan Williams is a Fiscal Policy Fellow with the Kansas-based Flint Hills Center for Public Policy and Director of Tax and Fiscal Policy at the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). A complete bio on Mr. Williams can be found at www.flinthills.org/content/view/24/39/, and he can be reached at jwilliams@alec.org. To learn more about the Flint Hills Center, please visit www.flinthills.org.

  • Emporia’s Jim Barnett will run for Congress

    Jim Barnett, a physician and Republican member of the Kansas Senate from Emporia, will join the field seeking the nomination for United States Congress from the first district of Kansas.

    Barnett ran for Kansas governor in 2006 against Kathleen Sebelius. His running mate was Kansas Senator Susan Wagle of Wichita.

    But when Wagle — a proven fiscal conservative — ran for president of the Kansas Senate, Barnett did not support her. In fact, sources say he encouraged others to vote against her.

    So instead of a proven fiscal conservative leading the Senate, Kansas was stuck with the continued tenure of moderate Republicans: Senate President Stephen Morris, Vice President John Vratl, and Majority Leader Derek Schmidt.

    This was particularly unfortunate for Kansas as this was a tough budget year. The Kansas House ended up simply concurring with the budget that the Senate produced — a budget that we now know had mistakes and omissions. Already the governor is forced to make spending decisions that should be made by the legislature.

    Barnett’s lifetime rating from the Kansas Taxpayer Network’s legislative rankings is poor, meaning that he has been inclined to vote for increased taxation and spending. His message in today’s Emporia Gazette story was different, however, citing his “history of fiscal responsibility.”

    He also said that “There is no doubt that government has gotten too big” and that “we need someone who’s fiscally responsible.”

    Too bad he doesn’t believe that as a member of the Kansas Senate. He could have backed up his words with action.

  • Update on 2009 Kansas legislature

    Here’s a summary of the 2009 Kansas legislative session prepared for Sedgwick County Commissioners by the county’s lobbyist.

    (This is a Scribd document. Click on the rectangle at the right of the document’s title bar to get a full-screen view.)

    Sedgwick County Legislative Update, 2009-05-13

  • Watkins addresses Kansas budget, Republicans, schools

    Speaking at at the regular weekly meeting of the Wichita Pachyderm Club on May 22, 2009, Kansas House of Representatives member Jason Watkins addressed the Kansas budget, Kansas Republicans, and school spending.

    Watkins represents House district 105, which includes parts of west and northwest Wichita. He is Vice-Chair of the House Appropriations Committee, which was the center of some fast-paced legislative action this year as it worked on the Kansas budget.

    Regarding the budget during the past legislative session, which ended in May: Watkins felt there was an opportunity for reform that the legislature should have taken advantage of. The injection of federal stimulus money, however, reduced the urgency of the Kansas budget crisis, and no reform took place.

    Kansas received about $1.8 billion in federal stimulus, with about $1 billion under the control of the legislature or the governor. The rest went directly to state government agencies.

    About $50 million, Watkins said, went to the Kansas Weatherization Office. That office has one man on its staff, and he told Watkins he had no idea how to spend all that money.

    True budget reform has been delayed, but is needed.

    Watkins said that there’s no doubt that the Kansas National Education Association (KNEA, the teachers union) is the most powerful lobby in Kansas.

    In 2008, Watkins said he had four children in the public school system. “Based on what the KNEA and the other education lobbyists told us this year, my kids must have gotten a horrible education in 2008. … Because the cuts we were talking about making would have taken K-12 education back to 2008 levels.” But the spending lobby painted a picture of failing schools if these cuts were made. Schools could absorb no cuts, they said.

    As a result, Kansas was forced to make large cuts in spending on programs such as assistance for the mentally and physically disabled in order to “empire build” in the Kansas public school system system.

    Addressing the need for budget reform, Watkins said that the present system, where each year’s budget is based on the past year’s plus an increase, produces anomalies. He illustrated a case where an agency might be able to get some federal money if the state spends some if its own. It might be, say, a three-year program. So the legislature authorizes and appropriates the funds.

    Then three years later the federal money is gone, so the program ends because the state funding alone is not sufficient for continuation. But the money the state allocated is still in the agency’s base budget — even through the program no longer exists.

    We need either zero-based budgeting or performance-based budgeting, Watkins said. Every state that’s done zero-based budgeting, however, has backed away from it, he said. There must be some type of performance measure, however.

    Watkins also said Kansas needs a legislative budget office. Presently the legislature receives a budget from the governor and works from that.

    In 2012, Watkins said the Kansas budget will face a huge challenge, as that’s the first budget year without the federal stimulus money.

    The budget that finally passed this year is full of problems, Watkins said. The budget was not debated on the floor of the Kansas House of Representatives, as that body simply voted to concur with the bill that the Senate passed. A group of moderate Republicans decided to team with Democrats to accomplish this, he said.

    With Republicans controlling the legislature, how did that happen? Watkins said “We do have people in the Republican Party who are Republicans in name only.” Republicans can disagree on issues, he said, but they shouldn’t vote with the Democrats 95% of the time. There are a group of about 16 Republican House members that constantly vote with the Democrats, and that produces a number large enough to pass legislation.

    In responding to a question about new Kansas Governor Mark Parkinson, Watkins said that while Parkinson said he’s not going to run for governor is 2010, no one’s asked him whether he’s going to run for senate in 2010. The compromise on the coal plant that Parkinson agreed to may have laid the groundwork for a state-side campaign.

    A question asked how does the school spending lobby have so much power? Watkins told how his opponent last year had never even voted. The KNEA gave him $500 (the maximum amount allowed) for the primary election, and that amount again in the general election. Yet, Watkins said his opponent never campaigned.

    It’s also not just the KNEA. There are other allied special interest groups. If the Democrats need something, these are the groups they go to.

    Watkins said the school spending lobby has a powerful argument unless people are presented with the facts and figures. That is, of course: “I’m for kids. Why do you hate them?” Because we have a disengaged public, Watkins said, people go along with this argument, which helps to further the cause and power of the education lobby. There is no question this lobby is the “bully in the Capitol.”

    He also said that the media doesn’t want to fight the school system. He told how one spending advocacy group refused to speak out at a meeting because they didn’t want to get the “schools made at them.” This is more evidence of how powerful the school spending lobby is.