Tag: Kansas legislature

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

  • Find your Kansas elected representatives

    If you want to know who represents you in Washington and Topeka, here’s an easy way.

    The Institute for Policy & Social Research at the University of Kansas (my alma mater) provides a service that lets you find representatives for a specific address, or for an entire county. It also links to profiles and maps for election districts.

    Click on Find Your Legislator to use this service.

  • Watkins to speak at Pachyderm

    This Friday, Kansas House of Representatives member Jason Watkins will speak at the regular weekly meeting of the Wichita Pachyderm Club.

    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.

    All are welcome to attend Pachyderm meetings. Lunch is $10, or you may attend the meeting only for $3.

    At Pachyderm meetings, there’s usually plenty of time for the speaker to take questions from the audience. The meeting starts at noon, although those wishing to order lunch are encouraged to arrive by 11:45. The location is Whiskey Creek Steakhouse at 233 N. Mosley in Old Town. You can view a map of this location by clicking on Google map of 233 N. Mosley.

  • School finance attorney criticizes budget cuts

    You had to see this one coming.

    The Kansas school spending lobby has been wondering out loud if cuts to school funding would prompt a renewal of the Kansas school funding lawsuit.

    It’s been going on all year.

    Now that school funding has been cut, how long will it be before a lawsuit is filed? Not long, I suspect.

    Scott Rotschild reports in the Lawrence Journal-World story School finance attorney criticizes budget cuts.

  • Final budget legislation still fails to provide long-term budget solutions for Kansas

    Here’s a message from Americans For Prosperity — Kansas that, I believe, accurately assesses the current legislative session — now nearly over — and also the past few sessions. AFP State Director Derrick Sontag doesn’t mention the inflow of federal stimulus funds which took a lot of pressure off the legislature. That stimulus money isn’t free, however, and the burden of paying for it will show up somewhere else in the future.

    TOPEKA — Kansas legislators are wrapping up the 2009 Kansas Legislative session. Although some progress was made toward closing the state’s budget deficit, long-term solutions were not created, said Americans for Prosperity-Kansas state director Derrick Sontag.

    “Last week Governor Parkinson and many in the Legislature put multiple tax increase proposals on the table for consideration involving halting the phase-outs of the franchise and estate taxes, along with decoupling legislation,” Sontag said. “AFP vehemently fought these proposals, communicating to lawmakers that Kansas taxpayers shouldn’t bear the brunt of the Legislature’s failure to efficiently spend tax payer dollars.

    “While we’re pleased that legislators were willing to make some tough decisions on the budget without simply turning to taxpayers for more, it’s disappointing to see where their priorities were in terms of budget cuts.”

    The bill sent to the Governor for approval includes an additional $38 million in bonding for the statehouse renovations while slashing public safety funding by $8 million, as well as cutting more than 10% of funding to the Judiciary that may result in a 30 day furlough for certain Judiciary employees.

    “We fear this budget is too short-sighted, as we will be no better off in the fiscal years ahead,” Sontag said. “According to Kansas Legislative Research, in the next two fiscal years, 2011 and 2012, our deficit will be even more than the $330 million shortfall for fiscal year 2010.

    “It’s key to remember that just 22 months ago we had $934 million in the bank and now, even with the tax bill passed by legislators, our ending balance will be only $17,000.”

    Sontag said we must change the way we spend money in Topeka because temporary budget cuts and shifting money around will not make our state fiscally solvent.

    “This would not have happened had our expenditures only matched receipts for the past four years, but we let spending spiral out of control,” said Sontag. “State general fund spending increased by 48% between FY 2004 and FY 2008, while revenue receipts increased by 38% during that same time period. The days of deficit spending have come to an end and now the legislature should focus on enacting budget reform measures from this point forward.”

    AFP has supported such budget reform measures as zero-based budgeting, which requires agencies to take a top-to-bottom approach look at their expenditures, and a budget stabilization fund that requires the state to put money aside as a cushion to see us through economic downturns without making drastic cuts to essential government services and public safety.

    “Public safety is the most essential function of government, yet some lawmakers chose to cut its funding by millions of dollars instead of applying more cuts to public education, a part of government that has realized a 53% increase in spending since 2003,” said Sontag. “AFP will continue to encourage legislators to consider real budget reform in the future to address the budget situation, without increasing the burden on taxpayers in the next session.”

  • KNEA call for action overstates case, misleads Kansans

    Today’s edition of Under the Dome Today contains a call for action.

    This newsletter is the update of legislative action provided by KNEA, the Kansas National Education Association. For those of you who might think that an organization with such a lofty name is dedicated to the betterment of the education of Kansas schoolchildren, I must remind you that KNEA is the teachers union. Sorry about that.

    KNEA’s call for action is this:

    “It is critical now that you contact your Representative — especially Republicans. Let them know that cuts of 4.75 per cent will cause serious damage to student learning, cause districts to raise student fees and limit student programs, jeopardize all non-tested programs including foreign languages, art, and music. The state simply must not turn its back on this whole generation of Kansas children and abandon completely the progress made since the settlement of the school finance lawsuit.”

    A few points:

    The 4.75% reduction in funding is calculated considering only the state’s portion of the total funding of school districts. For USD 259, the Wichita public school district, state funding provided 62.7% of all the money this district spent. (2007-2008 school year, according to the Kansas State Department of Education.)

    So the reduction in total school spending, at least in the Wichita district, is quite a bit less than what the KNEA wants you to believe.

    The context of this cut bears mentioning, too. Spending on schools in Kansas in recent years has been increasing rapidly. So rapidly that school apologists either don’t know, or don’t want to admit, just how much schools have to spend. This was demonstrated by Rep. Melody McCray-Miller at a recent legislative forum in Wichita. Wichita board of education member Lanora Nolan disputed these same figures at a Wichita Pachyderm Club meeting.

    How fast has Kansas school spending been increasing? Real fast. The charts at the end of this article illustrate.

    No doubt these cuts will force school districts to cut back. I think that thinking Kansas will agree, however, that schools — if they really want to — will be able to manage the cuts in ways that don’t harm their core mission.

    Kansas school spending per pupil outpaces inflation

    Kansas school state aid per pupil outpaces inflation

  • For Kansas senate leadership, state jobs most important

    Over the past year, private sector employment in Kansas declined by 1.9%. At the same time, public sector employment — these are government employees at all levels — increased by 1.9%. (Indicators of the Kansas Economy)

    Considering state employees, there were 41,609 FE (full-time equivalent) employees in fiscal year 2008. The estimate for FY 2009, from the Governor’s Budget Report is 41,808, an increase of just less than one-half of one percent. But it’s still an increase, at a time when businesses across the state are shedding jobs to meet challenging economic conditions.

    In the Kansas Senate, there was a proposal yesterday to reduce state spending by an amount necessary to balance the Kansas budget. Instead, the measure passed doesn’t balance the budget unless “revenue adjustments” are made. These adjustments, which mean higher taxes on business, will have the effect of reducing private sector employment in Kansas. Government jobs, however, will be preserved.

    That’s not a wise move for Kansas — increasing the size of government at the expense of business.

    Many Kansas Senate Republicans recognize this and voted accordingly yesterday. But there are three in particular who didn’t. These three — Senate President Stephen Morris, , Vice President John Vratl, and Majority Leader Derek Schmidt — unfortunately, and inexplicably, hold the senate’s top leadership positions.

  • KNEA: No shared sacrifice

    Despite the fact that Kansas school spending has been increasing rapidly in recent years, and despite the fact that K-12 education has been spared the large cuts that most other state agencies are facing, it’s still okay to whine.

    That’s the attitude of KNEA (the Kansas National Education Association, the teachers union) expressed in the late edition of Under the Dome Today.

    I wish I knew who wrote these flowery dispatches. This issue starts with an extended quotation from Dante’s Inferno, something I may (or may not) have read in college.

    After its excursion into Medieval allegory, this edition describes how the Senate Tax Committee, chaired by Les Donovan of Wichita, decided to not decouple from the federal tax code, decided to not cancel the phase-out of the state tax, and put on hold the phase-out of the corporate franchise tax. (That’s a tax on the simple fact of existence.)

    The KNEA raises the specter of children not being educated at every turn. They did it again in this issue of their newsletter. This is their staple.

    If the ability to educate the children of Kansas hangs in the delicate balance of small shifts in funding, we’re in a lot of trouble. The incessant whining of the KNEA and the rest of the education spending lobby needs to be exposed for just what it is.

  • Kansas tax policy facts from AFP

    Americans For Prosperity — Kansas has prepared some information about Kansas tax policy.

    This information is timely, as there are people — including our new governor Mark Parkinson — who want to “adjust” our tax system in ways that will harm the Kansas economy. The result is what’s termed “revenue solutions.”

    Specifically, some want to delay the implementation of some tax reductions that were passed a few years ago by the Kansas legislature. It’s claimed that since these tax reductions are for Kansas businesses, it’s possible to take them back without harming the Kansas economy. This is false.

    Also, some want to decouple Kansas tax law from the federal tax code, so that when Congress grants a tax cut to Americans, the state of Kansas won’t be harmed.

    Kansas Tax Talking Points, April 2009

    Kansas Tax Policy Talking Points • • • • • In 2008, the Tax Foundation ranked Kansas as having the 21st highest state and local tax burden and 33rd overall business climate. Kansas already ranks 38th nationally in Business Tax Structure, behind all of its peer states except Iowa at 45th. Peer states include all surrounding states plus Iowa. (Growth Economics Inc. Annual Competitive Index 2009) Kansas also ranks 38th nationally in Business Tax Burden. (Growth Economics Inc Annual Competitive Index 2009) The truism of “if you want less of something, tax it more” applies. The state should be growing our way out of this recession, not exacerbating it and slowing our recovery by taxing businesses. Halting these reductions will perpetuate the “unstable tax climate” associated with the state. Estate Tax Phase-out Repeal (HB 2047): HB 2047 would repeal the estate tax phase out by permanently freezing the tax at 2008 rates. This tax was scheduled to go away completely after this year. • Under House Bill 2047, businesses with under $1 million in assets remain exempt from the estate tax; however, assets over $1 million would be taxed as follows: o $1 million – $2 million would pay a 1% tax o $2 million to $5 million would pay $10,000 plus 2% of excess over $2 million o $5 million to $10 million would pay $70,000 plus 5% of excess over $5 million o $10 million + would pay $320,000 plus 7% plus excess over $10 million • Kansas will remain at a competitive disadvantage unless we allow this tax burden to expire as scheduled. o Kansas is one of only 10 remaining states with an estate tax and only Iowa and Nebraska are our peer states with it. o However, even Iowa and Nebraska have exemptions for direct descendents, which Kansas does not. • The estate tax is an obstacle for small and family owned business owners leaving their businesses to family members. o Family businesses can lose up to 55% of all its assets when it passes from one generation to the next. o 70% of families choose to cash out or abandon their businesses after one generation, often laying off workers. o Only 13% survive into the 3rd generation. (Source: U.S. Chamber of Commerce) Franchise Tax Phase-out Repeal (HB 2028): The franchise tax is a tax on a companies’ net worth. Companies pay this tax just for the privilege of doing business in Kansas. There are no offsets for corporate subsidiaries, which must pay the full franchise tax and are thus penalized under Kansas law. • Under the bill passed in ’07, the rate went to .09375% in ’08 and would have gone to .0625% in ’09 and finally to .03125% in 2010 before being completely phased out for 2011 and subsequent tax years. • In a recession, the worst thing the state can do is increase taxes on Kansas businesses. Decoupling Federal & State Depreciation Schedule: Changes to federal depreciation calculations also affect state taxable income because states conform to federal rules on depreciation in the calculation of their business income taxes. Decoupling prevents immediate revenue losses at the state level, but it increases complexity for states and taxpayers as businesses must conform to different depreciation schedules in different tax jurisdictions. • Most states have coupled their depreciation rules with federal guidelines. If federal officials adopt temporary accelerated depreciation provisions as part of a stimulus package, states can either decouple from the federal system, or be forced to raise revenues or cut spending to counter the loss in business income tax revenue. • Lowering the cost of capital will help spur the Kansas economy. Entrepreneurs will be more likely to invest in capital equipment, which will create jobs, income and a more desirable destination for investment. • Many in the Statehouse frame this issue as merely as a “cost” for the state. In actuality, the higher the so called cost, the greater the investments being made in Kansas and its future. If indeed the state would “lose” $77 million (estimated fiscal note of NOT decoupling), this represents $77 million in investments that will help create better, higher paying jobs. Corporate Income Tax Phase-out Repeal: As passed in 2008, HB 2434 reduced the top corporate income tax rate (incomes over $50,000) to a flat 7%, phased in over time as follows: 7.35% to 7.10% in tax year 2008; 7.05% in tax years 2009 and 2010; and 7.00% in tax year 2011 and thereafter. • Employers throughout Kansas are the very entities that help the Kansas economy. Let’s not make matters worse and punish those who create jobs, make investment and grow the state’s tax base by levying higher taxes on them. The Case Against Decoupling Kansas Tax Law The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 extended for one year the depreciation rules of the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 of 50% bonus deprecation. Decoupling would mean trading off a key long run economic development strategy for short-term revenues that will be nowhere near sufficient to cover the budget gaps currently projected. Kansas’ long-term strategy is to make it one of the most investment friendly tax environments in the nation. However, consistency is a key element of any investment related goal. Decoupling goes in exactly the wrong direction. It sends the signal that investors will be the first targets when budget problems arise. And it is questionable whether it would provide the tax revenue legislators desire. It is very unwise tax policy to have small businesses bear the brunt of the budget gap – especially when everyone considers the gap to be driven by K-12 education spending. Why, as a policy matter, should that not be all taxpayers in the state? Kansas is consistently in the bottom ten of states with regard to business formation. Using small businesses as a cash source will not help that situation. Decoupling has the potential to place the highest burdens on smaller businesses. And the franchise tax is essentially a small business property tax. Stopping the phase out does promise about $15 million per year, but that is based on pre-recession net worth levels, not 2009 levels. Bottom line: If businesses do start investing again in 2009, decoupling could make other states even more attractive vs. Kansas. Economic Benefits of the Holcomb Power Plant Expansion • The Project will maximize the value of the existing Holcomb Station site for the benefit of Sunflower Electric’s Member systems for generations to come. • The benefits created by the Project for communities located in the region include job creation, new tax revenues, and an increased demand for goods and services. • Fiscal notes associated with the rate reductions for each year are as follows: o FY09 ($13.3 M); FY10 ($15.9 M); FY11 ($15.9 M); FY12 ($18.6 M); FY13 ($18.6 M); 5-year total ($82.3 M) o Total Project Impacts, Two Units Jobs Temporary Impacts Western Eastern Kansas Kansas Out-of-State Western Eastern Kansas Kansas Out-of-State 1,501 967 2,466 11,857 274 53 329 280 $42.3 $35.9 $78.3 $321.9 $14.8 $1.4 $16.1 $7.4 $1.2 $.453 $9.3 NA Earning s Local & State Taxes o Dr. Ralph Gamble, a noted economist and former professor at Fort Hays State University, conducted an economic impact study of the Project. He found that the average number of jobs available in western Kansas will grow by more than 1,500 during the construction period. These workers will earn more than $42 million per year. The taxes collected will increase by more than $1 million, and construction crew spending in Kansas is expected to be more than $56 million. ? At full operation, the Project will add more than 250 full-time equivalent positions in western Kansas, earning nearly $15 million per year. It is estimated that about 2,500 jobs (direct and induced) will be created in Kansas with an annual payroll of $78 million during the construction period. Permanent Impacts $.300 $.054 $.684 NA • ? The Project will also result in the purchase of many goods and services for the power plant and by the workforce. Certain construction materials will likely be obtained locally, while major equipment will be obtained nationally and internationally.