Voice For Liberty

Tag: Kansas state government

Articles about Kansas, its government, and public policy in Kansas.

  • Steineger introduces Kansas county consolidation bill

    Kansas Senator Chris Steineger, Democrat from Kansas City, has introduced a bill whose aim is to reduce the number of counties in Kansas. The bill is Senate Bill 198. It’s pretty short to read at just two pages, part of that being the list of counties to be merged.

    I’ve covered this idea in earlier posts based on listening to Sen. Steinger speak in public, and in private. See Kansas Senator Chris Steineger on Redesigning Kansas Government and Redesigning Kansas County Government: Follow-up.

    Sen. Steineger also had an op-ed piece in the Wichita Eagle at Sen. Chris Steineger: Modernize Government. The Lawrence Journal-World has an Associated Press piece at Kansas legislator wants to consider drastically reducing number of counties. The Hutchinson News reports on this and has reader comments in Kansas too bountiful in number of counties?

    When I heard Sen. Steineger talk about this, my thinking went along the line that two counties would merge into one. But it turns my thinking was too constrained. Steineger’s bill proposes merging 105 Kansas counties into 13. For example, Sedgwick, Butler, Sumner, and Cowley counties would be merged into one new county. (The list of counties to merge is in the text of the bill.)

    Reporting in the Pittsburg Morning Sun reveals that southeast Kansas legislators are not keen on the idea of county consolidation, or on the reduction of their numbers (a related concern of Steineger’s). See
    Legislators sound off on idea to consolidate    .

    Comments left at the Journal-World article show mixed support and ridicule of the idea. But some of the detractors, I believe, are not thinking of the dynamic changes that would take place.

    For example, one comment says “You would end up with the situation where in a ‘populous’ new county it would take days to get access to any service even as simple as a marriage license.” Evidently this comment-writer believes that staffing levels would not be adjusted to match the number of people in these new counties.

    Another writer says “I also have the feeling that many small towns would lose economically by having the county seat taken away from them.” Related to this is the comment “Sure it might cut taxes, but what happens to all of those county jobs?” I imagine that some present county seats would suffer some if they were no longer the seat. These losses might come in the form of reduced employment if county offices are no longer in the town. If you believe that local government is a jobs program, that is a loss. But government jobs come at a price — taxation. If there are fewer government employees, that leaves more money in the pockets of taxpayers, and they will be able to spend it on other, more productive, uses. This leads to other jobs being created. But they’re not government jobs, which is a bad thing to some people.

    Another comment: “You think people want to spend a whole day driving to the courthouse 100 miles away to go handle thier [sic] business?” If courthouses are farther away than they are now, people will need to adjust. That might be difficult for some. Just last week I was talking to someone who complained about having to go through security at Wichita city hall (not a county office, I realize) in order to pay their water bill. Someone else remarked that there are many ways to pay a water bill besides going to city hall — mail, Internet, drop-off boxes at the grocery store, etc. But this person said they didn’t trust the system, and they wanted a receipt. With the government office being potentially a two-hour drive, will people change their ways and do more business by mail, telephone, or Internet?

  • Kansas DUI Law Change Could Backfire

    KAKE Television reports on a new bill in the Kansas House of Representatives. The title of the story is Bill Could Bring Major Changes To Kansas DUI Laws.

    Sponsored by freshmen house member Aaron Jack and Olathe representative Lance Kinzer, the goal of the bill is to reduce inconsistencies in the current law, and also to increase penalties.

    The bill is House Bill 2263.

    As reported by KAKE, the bill contains the idea of “impairment to the slightest degree.” The specific language in the bill is “No person shall operate or attempt to operate any vehicle within this state while … under the influence of a combination of alcohol and any drug or drugs to a degree that …”

    Then comes the language in the existing law: “renders the person incapable of safely driving a vehicle.”

    The proposed change is “impairs the person’s ability to safely operate a vehicle to the slightest degree.” (emphasis added)

    No doubt the goal of this bill is to reduce the likelihood that Kansans will encounter dangerous drivers who aren’t able to safely operate their automobiles. That’s a good thing. But sometimes increasing penalties for something can have unintended consequences.

    Mark R. Crovelli offers a look at the decision-making that accompanies drinking and driving in his article Drunk Driving Laws Cause Drunk Driving Accidents:

    It then occurred to me that I wasn’t thinking about the costs of drunk driving in the right way, because I was only considering one cost of drunk driving. Under our current drunk driving laws, however, there is an additional cost that every drunk driver is certainly aware of; namely, getting caught drunk driving. The drunk driver is thus faced with two serious costs to consider: 1) dying in a fiery crash, and 2) getting caught by the police and going to jail. The cost of getting caught drunk driving and going to jail, moreover, is drastically increased if the driver chooses to drive in a manner that draws attention to himself — like driving ten miles per hour — even if the driver knows that driving slowly is the safer thing to do.

    So, the drunk driver is faced with the following choices: 1) drive slowly and safely, and almost certainly get arrested and go to jail for drunk driving, or 2) drive the speed limit, and have a decent chance of not getting arrested, although this increases one’s chances of getting in an accident. Understandably, many drunk drivers choose the latter alternative, simply because the chance of arrest and jail time is a certainty, whereas the chance of a fiery crash is only a distant risk.

    Do drivers go through this type of decision-making process in Kansas? What — do all the cars in the parking lots of bars and taverns belong to designated drivers only? Of course not. There’s a balance here, and no matter how well-intentioned a law may be, it has the potential for causing unforeseen behavior.

    This crackdown on driving while even slightly impaired is at cross purposes with one of Wichita Mayor Carl Brewer‘s initiatives, which is to create entertainment zones where the drinking of alcoholic beverages can happen on the streets — while walking about, of course, not while driving. But undoubtedly this practice would lead to more people making the decision illustrated above, only now with the line drawn more strictly, and the penalties more severe.

    Background: Lew Rockwell raises the same point in part of a broader article Legalize Drunk Driving.

  • Kansas Senator Dick Kelsey Announces for Congress

    On Friday Kansas Senator Dick Kelsey announced that he is a candidate for the United States Congress. Kelsey seeks the seat presently held by Todd Tiahrt, who is running for United States Senate. The Wichita Eagle covered the announcement in the story State Sen. Dick Kelsey to run for Tiahrt’s congressional seat.

    A question I asked Kelsey afterwards is if Tiahrt will endorse a successor. Kelsey said that he doesn’t believe Tiahrt will make an endorsement, and he doesn’t think he should. Tiahrt, he said, needs every friend he can get in his run for the Senate.

    What about the primary between Tiahrt and Jerry Moran? Many Republicans want to avoid this primary. Kelsey said that a positive primary will not hurt, and in response to my suggestion, said that a spending limit would be great.

  • Kansas voter data difficult to use

    At the Kansas Meadowlark, Earl Glynn has an article that illustrates some of the difficulties that researches face when working with voter data. I haven’t done nearly as much of this as Earl has, but I can tell you there have been times when I’ve been quite frustrated with voter data that I’ve received. I’ve had to spend time manipulating data in order to get it into useful formats.

    The Meadowlark story is Comparing Voter Registration to Nov. ‘08 Ballots in Allen County. Too Difficult?

  • Todd Tiahrt on the Kansas Senate Primary

    At Friday’s meeting of the Wichita Pachyderm Club, United States Congressman for the fourth district of Kansas Todd Tiahrt was the speaker. Dion Lefler of the Wichita Eagle covered Tiaht’s speech in the news story Tiahrt offers thoughts on Obama, stimulus to Wichita Pachyderm Club. After the meeting I spoke to the congressman and asked a few questions.

    One topic that seems to be on the minds of many Republicans is the desire to avoid a prolonged primary battle for the United States Senate seat between Tiahrt and Kansas first district congressman Jerry Moran. I asked Tiahrt if it’s important to avoid this conflict.

    “Everybody that’s concerned about that ought to get on my team right away. That would be the most significant thing that would eliminate a primary.” Tiahrt added that people are looking for someone who gets the job done. He said that I’m the one who gets the job done, and that our senators come to my office, not Moran’s, when things need to get done in the House.

    I asked if he and Rep. Moran could come to some agreement to avoid a messy primary, perhaps expenditure limits. Tiahrt would not make a commitment to such an agreement unilaterally and said “I’m going to do what it takes to win.” Voters in Kansas have a right to know the records of both candidates, he said, and limiting resources might limit his ability to get out the message.

    Many local Republicans are expressing interest in replacing Tiahrt in Congress. So does he have a favorite? “We have a lot of quality candidates” was his diplomatic response.

  • Legal Notices in Kansas Newspapers

    Kansas Liberty reports on Senate Bill 164, which would allow publication of legal notices on the Internet only. Presently these notices must be published in a newspaper. The measure is viewed as a way to save money.

    The Kansas Liberty story (Local governments take aim at small-town newspapers) reports that the downside is that many small newspapers rely on the revenue from printing legal notices, and may suffer if this revenue is lost. We already have one such example. Just a few months ago Sedgwick County switched from the Derby Reporter to the Wichita Eagle, and the Derby paper has announced plans to stop publication. See Derby Reporter Gives Up.

    But it’s not the responsibility of small town governments — really their taxpayers — to keep local newspapers in business. If there is a less expensive way to deliver legal notices that still meets the public policy goal of widespread distribution, the state should allow it.

    Here’s a possibility. The story reports this: “Don Moler, executive director of the League of Kansas Municipalities, said many states have adapted a system under which local governments can publish abbreviated legal notices in newspapers. The abbreviated notices then direct readers to the local government website, City Hall or a public library to read the notice in full.”

    One good thing about legal notices on the Internet is that search engines can find them. Through tools like Google Alerts, people can be automatically notified of legal notices about topics that interest them.

    It’s interesting that this bill applies only to second and third class cities, which are small towns. Why not apply this to first class cities too?

  • Proposition K op-ed confuses issue

    Today’s Wichita Eagle contains an op-ed by Glenn W. Fisher, regents professor emeritus at Wichita State University and property tax expert (Con: Tax plan would shift burden, be arbitrary, February 8, 2009 Wichita Eagle). The subject of this piece is Proposition K, an effort to reform the property tax appraisal system in Kansas.

    Proposition K is starting to attract attention and debate, the reason for two op-ed pieces in today’s newspaper. The piece by Fisher, however, contains a number of puzzling arguments.

    First, Fisher states: “Proposition K would do nothing to reduce taxes or spending.” This statement is not true or false, as the amount of tax revenue raised through property taxes depends on two things — the “moving parts” referred to in Proposition K: The first is appraised values, and the second is the mill levy that governments impose. Proposition K proposes a growth rate of appraised values that is less than what has been happening. So unless governments raise the mill levy, it is very likely that the amount of tax revenue collected will be less than it would be under the present system.

    Proposition K, however, does not address spending, so it’s curious as to why Fisher included this in his argument.

    Here’s something else that’s peculiar in this article: Fisher says “… it is very likely that the courts would find it violates the provisions that require various classes of property to be assessed at specified percentages of value.” But Proposition K has nothing to do with assessment percentages. (This is the law that says residential property is assigned an assessed value that is 11.5% of its appraised value, commercial property at 25% of appraised value, utility property at 33% of appraised value, plus a few other classes.)

    Instead, Proposition K proposes reform in appraised values. Why Fisher would bring into this argument the assessment percentages of various classes of property — something that has absolutely nothing to do with the merits of Proposition K — is not relevant and confuses the issue.

    Finally, Fisher states: “The property tax began with the idea that market value is a good measure of the owner’s ability to pay …” The problem, however, is that this is not an absolute linkage. As stated in the Proposition K document: “Property values represent wealth, not income. Growing home values do not imply growing incomes.” Those people on fixed incomes who find their property values — but not their incomes — growing rapidly take little comfort in Fisher’s judgment of the ability to pay.

    Fisher’s piece is paired in the Wichita Eagle with Pro: Proposition K is fair, equal, transparent. Read the entire Proposition K proposal at Proposition K: A Better Property Tax System for Kansans.

  • Jerry Moran Clarifies Attitude Towards Obama Administration

    At the general meeting at Kansas Days on January 31, Kansas first district congressman Jerry Moran sought to clarify or recast the impression a news story left in the minds of attendees.

    A Wichita Eagle news story headlined Moran: Obama easier to work with than Bush starts with the sentence “The day after filing to run for U.S. Senate, Rep. Jerry Moran told a Wichita audience that President Obama may be easier to work with than President George W. Bush was.” Referring to this story, Moran said these words:

    I will tell you that I don’t think that’s the case, despite the headline, although I will tell you that time and time again I thought that Republican leadership and sometimes the White House failed to remember what Republicans were about. All my life growing up, what I knew about Republicans were that we were the party of fiscal responsibility. We were the ones who had the ability to say no, we can’t afford that. Now don’t you wish we had that in the banking world today? For all those loans the banker said “I’m sorry, I can’t make that loan, you can’t afford that house?”

    That’s what we need in Congress. That’s what we need in Washington, is someone who has the ability to say no. So when President Bush and Republican leaders proposed that we expand Medicare in ways that, in my opinion, we couldn’t afford, in ways that, in my opinion, were developed to advance the causes of the pharmaceutical companies as compared to seniors in Kansas, we said no.

    And when we decided that the number one priority of the Bush Administration was No Child Left Behind, and we wanted to engage the federal government in the classrooms of Kansas, I said no.

    So yes, there are times in which when we as Republicans don’t agree. I guess I disagree with our administration, particularly the Secretary of the Treasury, who thought we could afford $700 billion to bailout Wall Street. The problems with that are many. But once you start down that path, how do I, as a Member of Congress, have the moral standing, the wisdom, to decide your business succeeds and your business fails.

    When the automobile manufacturers came back asking for money I heard Members of Congress say “But you gave $700 billion to Wall Street. Surely you can afford $34 billion for the automobile manufacturers.” Well, I don’t know if I disagree with that logic, but the fault is we couldn’t afford the $700 billion in the first place.

    That’s not how the story is written. But I did say to the folks at an agricultural business meeting in Wichita yesterday that when it comes to our ability to sell Kansas agricultural products to Cuba, the Obama Administration may be easier to work with than the Bush Administration was.

    I didn’t intend to have that conversation with you this afternoon, but I will tell you my position in regard to the Obama Administration is one of concern.

  • Proposition K Website Now Open

    Proposition K is a measure designed to reform property tax appraisals in Kansas. There’s now a website with supporting information.

    The site allows readers to leave comments, and some comment writers make good points.

    The link to the website is Proposition K.