Voice For Liberty

Tag: Kathleen Sebelius

  • Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius scores low again

    In the Cato Institute’s Fiscal Policy Report Card on America’s Governors for 2006, Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius earns the grade of “D.” She earned the same grade on their previous survey.

    Fortunately, Kansas may not be in the bad condition that the low grade of our governor might indicate. That’s because the Cato methodology includes governors’ policy recommendations as well as actual results. Had all of Governor Sebelius’s recommendations and desires made it into law, we in Kansas would very well be in trouble.

    How did Governor Sebelius fare so poorly? According to the report: “Governors who have cut taxes and spending the most receive the highest grades. Those who have increased spending and taxes the most receive the lowest grades.” What is unusual and good about this report is that it considers what governors recommended, as well as what actually happened.

    This is important. Governor Sebelius takes credit for having no increases in taxes during her term. That’s not for trying, though. Her proposed tax increases were rejected by the legislature. The Cato study, however, sees through that, and grades her accordingly.

    Why are low taxes important? From the study:

    This report card emphasizes the importance of tax cuts in general because the evidence shows that states that reduce taxes improve their prospects for economic growth. For example, a 1996 study by Zsolt Besci of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta found that “relative marginal tax rates have a statistically significant negative relationship with relative state growth averaged for the period from 1961 to 1992.” The message of the study for state governments is that “lowering aggregate state and local marginal tax rates is likely to have a positive effect on longterm growth rates.” A study for the congressional Joint Economic Committee by Richard Vedder of Ohio University came to a similar conclusion. A study by Thomas Dye of Florida State University found that states with no income tax had higher personal income growth (and smaller government growth) than states that had an income tax.

    Tax changes enacted in the states offer a useful laboratory for exploring the effects of tax policy. A comparison of the economic performance of the 10 states that increased taxes the most with the economic performance of the 10 states that cut taxes the most during 1990–2005 suggests that when states reduce taxes they improve their relative economic performance.

    Kansas, as has been noted, has a relatively high tax burden, and had our governor had her way, our taxes would be higher now. As poor as our economic growth and job growth has been recently, it would undoubtedly have been worse had our governor been able to pass the tax increases she proposed.

    But there’s something even more important than economic growth and jobs at stake. Collecting more tax revenue and spending more means Kansas government is getting larger, and that’s been happening even though there has not been a tax increase. Large and powerful governments, be they local or national, are the opposite of liberty and freedom. That’s why Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, with her only partially unfulfilled goal of higher taxes and larger government, personifies Ludwig von Mises’s admonition that “government is essentially the negation of liberty.”

  • Is the teflon off the Sebelius administration?

    Is the Teflon Off the Sebelius Administration?
    By Karl Peterjohn, Kansas Taxpayers Network, www.kansastaxpayers.com

    Second terms are often difficult and contentious for Kansas governors. Bill Graves’ second term was filled with higher taxes, a record long legislative session and imbroglio oversoaring state spending, and a weakened Kansas economy in his last year, 2002.

    Now Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius may have run into some similar second term problems with a new utility issue over rates suddenly reappearing. This problem followed in the wake of the Sebelius administration’s health and environment secretary’s ruling that rejected a proposed power plant expansion in southwest Kansas. This utility rate issue flared into a front page problem when the state agency overseeing utility rate hikes raised questions about communications between the governor, utility officials, and the impact this might have on the state rate setters in the Kansas Corporation Commission.

    Governor Sebelius did not receive this type of inquisitive or extensive news coverage when she proposed to raise property, income, and sales taxes during her first term as governor. The highly irregular school finance lawsuit that resulted in a special legislative session and a plan to spend an additional $2000 per pupil in additional state spending on public schools did not receive this type of media scrutiny either.

    It is important for Kansans to note that newspapers like the Wichita Eagle that ignored Governor Sebelius’ trip to Turkey this year to give a closed-door speech to the Bilderberg group in Istanbul’s Ritz-Carlton Hotel at taxpayer expense initially began reporting this utility controversy on their front page. The Eagle as well as a number of other Kansas newspapers did not seem interested in this tax funded overseas trip and this abuse of the Kansas Open Meetings and Open Records statutes but are interested in utility rates.

    The controversy over setting electric rates for wind and other politically correct power generation forms raises some interesting questions about Kansas’ economy in this early part of the 21st century. In the past, Kansans have been happy to export wheat, cattle, aircraft, automobiles, and a variety of other products but now the idea of building an expansion on a coal fired power plant that might export some of its electricity has been rejected by the Sebelius administration. This rejection might destroy the feasibility of building wind power facilities too.

    Sebelius’ bankrupt secretary of health and environment Rod Bremby is in a difficult position of rejecting a power plant expansion because of carbon dioxide emissions while authorizing new ethanol plants that also emit CO2. This ruling is inconsistent and contradictory. Denying future permits because of carbon dioxide emissions will shut down a huge number of businesses in this state. These problems could expand much further since there are a huge number of firms emitting carbon dioxide. So the risk and uncertainty in operating a Kansas business will be a growing problem in this hostile business climate.

    In northern California an effort is underway to ban the use of fireplaces because of carbon dioxide pollution. Tractors and a host of other diesel or gasoline powered engines emit carbon dioxide too.

    The future of Kansas requires reliable electricity production but our state leaders focus lies elsewhere. The sizable hoopla in south central Kansas is now over a new state owned and operated casino to be located somewhere within the boundaries of Sumner County. It is interesting to note that the Kansas Supreme Court must define, “state owned and operated,” and that is being litigated while four firms are seeking the license for the casino in the south central part of Kansas to go with “state owned and operated,” casinos in the southeast and Kansas City areas.

    Kansas government should know that owning and operating casinos as well as government buildings will all require efficient and reliable sources of electricity.

  • The collectivism of Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius

    A few excerpts from Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius‘s inaugural address from January 2007:

    Yet our opportunities will be limited only if we fail to come together around a shared vision for our state. Only a failure to act as “One Kansas” can compromise our future and dash our hopes.

    We all recognize, in our hearts, that we are only as strong as the most vulnerable among us. It’s not enough to allow a few to reach the stars while others live a life of limited horizons. The promise of our state is best realized when all our citizens are able to achieve their highest potential.

    Therefore, we must embrace a new politics of true empowerment, understanding that diversity of thought, of belief, of opinion creates a vibrant, prosperous state. We must recognize that our differences make us stronger, yet those differences are never greater than our similarities.

    We can form a more perfect union, we can achieve greatness, and we can honor our birthright as a state only if we join hands and meet the future as one.

    Together, we’re humble enough … Together, we are a mighty chorus …

    In her speech the governor is telling us — although she does not say this explicitly — that the State of Kansas is more important than the people who live in Kansas. She tells me that if I do not subscribe to her shared vision for Kansas, it is I who will be responsible for its failure. Well, Madame Governor, there are very few areas where I agree with you and your vision for the future of our state.

    In case you don’t recognize it, the name for what the governor espouses is collectivism. Collectivism places the interests of the state above the interests of individuals. It says that man exists not for his own end, but instead exists to serve the state, and the state’s needs outweigh all others. If your goals are in harmony with the state’s goals, and if you are willing to condone a coercive state pursuing those goals through force, that’s good for you. The next election, however, may bring a different governor who has a vision that you don’t share, this time backed by an even-stronger state apparatus to enforce it.

    Collectivism is the enemy of freedom and liberty. When the Ludwig von Mises Institute commemorated F.A. Hayek, it summed up his main contribution to political economy as “Collectivism is Slavery.” His important book “The Road to Serfdom” illustrates how central planning for the common good — that would be the “shared vision” of the Sebelius-led “One Kansas” — leads to the loss of all individual economic and personal freedom.

    Collectivism is the opposite of individualism. Individualism does not mean that a person lives in isolation from others, although people certainly may do that if they wish. Instead, individualism means that people live their own lives as they best see fit. And I hope that most people don’t see themselves as a tool the state uses to serve the ends of others under the direction of Governor Sebelius. Instead, they live for themselves, seeking to improve their own situation and that of others around them, on a voluntary basis.

    That is the difference between liberty and what Governor Sebelius wants for Kansas. We can rely on voluntary arrangements made freely by consenting people. Or, we can have state mandates backed by electoral majorities or bureaucratic action, enforced by law. Done in the spirit of “One Kansas,” of course.

    In her speech, the governor promoted diversity of thought, but she opposes any move towards helping the citizens of Kansas escape the most conformist bureaucracy our state has: its public schools. Allowing parents to choose the school they send their children to, thereby releasing the forces of entrepreneurial creativity in schools, would dramatically increase the diversity of education in our state. As it is, most Kansas parents have no real choice but to send their children to the government schools, which, by their very nature, induce conformity and allegiance to the state. “One Kansas” is, thus, perpetuated.

  • It’s not yours to cut

    An article in the April 22, 2007 Wichita Eagle by Dion Lefler states: “All together, those [tax] cuts will cost the state $570 million in lost revenue in the next five years, according to the consensus report estimates.”

    A statement like this reveals a faulty line of thinking: that the government has a legitimate claim on a large part of our incomes and wealth. Then if, somehow, the government is persuaded to “give” any of that claim back to us, this gift has to be paid for.

    It’s the people who “give” tax money to the government, not the government who “gives” it back to the people in the form of tax cuts. If the government cuts taxes, the government gives us nothing. It simply takes less of what is ours in the first place.

    Liberal publications with a national audience like The New York Times use thinking like this all the time. It’s very disappointing to see it at home in Wichita and Kansas.

    This backwards thinking about taxes was also revealed in reporting by David Klepper in the May 12, 2006 Wichita Eagle: “They [Kansas lawmakers who supported the cuts] consider the cuts a wise, $128 million investment to spur new investment by business, new jobs, more economic activity and, consequently, higher tax receipts.”

    In the same article: “Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, a Democrat, who first proposed the business machinery tax cut, agreed. ‘We’re not giving away money for the sake of giving it away,’ she said. ‘I’m hoping that the economic growth will actually help fund the school plan that we just passed.’” (emphasis added)

    It is depressing to realize that the Governor of Kansas equates letting people keep a little more of the money they earned with the state “giving it away.”

    Furthermore, the true motives of politicians are revealed: they say they are “investing” in tax cuts in the hope that the state will collect even more tax money in the future.

    We should be asking this question of our elected representatives: If tax cuts stimulate investment, jobs, and economic growth, why didn’t you cut these burdensome taxes last year?

  • Higher Education Wants A Spending Spree

    Higher Education Wants A Spending Spree
    By Karl Peterjohn, Kansas Taxpayers Network

    Soaring spending has not been spent evenly. The six Regents universities in Kansas initially asked for $727 million to fix deeply neglected buildings at these campuses. Governor Sebelius has performed a valuable service by responding that the Kansas Turnpike have higher tolls to fund this spending.

    The value in Governor Sebelius’ proposal is not based upon its merits. Higher education and the Kansas turnpike are both state entities but are related about as much as lightning and lightning bugs. Since the Kansas turnpike is funded with tolls, so this state agency operates with very little legislative oversight and even less public attention.

    That is unfortunate because the Kansas turnpike was supposed to become a free highway when the original bond funding was supposed to be paid off well over a decade ago. Sadly, that hasn’t happened so the turnpike jobs are safe and additional bond funding has turned this temporary entity into a permanent fixture. Here is a case where one generation of politicians made promises and their successors’ successors ignored those promises. Politicians have been known not to keep their promises so it is not surprising that a former state senate minority leader now heads up the turnpike authority.

    The turnpike does generate a steady stream of income and Governor Sebelius wants an additional portion of that used for the six Regents universities initial spending plan. This is based upon the dubious notion that the universities are “under funded” and lack funds for building maintenance. That is despite the fact that these six universities are spending a combined total of over $1 billion in tax funds and tuition for their operations. Taxpayers have increased their funding 55 percent during the last decade and now totals over $9,000 per pupil and that ignores hundreds of millions more paid in tuition.

    The universities operate primarily for the benefit of administrators and senior faculty. Look at where a sizable portion of this increased spending will go. At K.U. there are two airport hangars that need $378,635 for covering their aircraft.

    The K.U. chancellor’s, home, garage, and guest house need $607,027 in repair spending. That is property tax-free housing for the chancellor. That is the largest chunk of the $1,392,547 needed to properly house the six Regents institutions’ presidents and one K.U. chancellor.

    In addition, the Regents are claiming that millions more are needed for facilities like Allen Field House, Bramlage Coliseum, and Ahearn Field House. A number of these sports complexes generate massive sums of cash in men’s sports. The universities complain about a lack of funding but their endowments have been growing nicely and that seems to be completely ignored in the public discussion here.

    The average Kansas taxpayers do not get to live in property tax-free housing. The average Kansan is not making the large salaries enjoyed by Regents institution leaders who are all making massively more in salary than even the governor. In the last few years the average student at these schools has been facing double digit annual percentage increases in their tuition while the university presidents are enjoying annual double digit percentage increases in their salaries.

    There is support from free spending editorial pages, like the Wichita Eagle, that have endorsed the Regents original spending package. Providing the Regents with a fiscal pass on how this deterioration in facilities occurred ignores responsibility for operating the university system during the last decade. In Bill Graves’ first term as governor his “crumbling classrooms” proposal was passed and was supposed to help the Regents universities and their buildings and facilities. Basically a decade later, taxpayers are spending more, students are paying higher tuitions, and facilities are still a mess.

    Needless to say, salaries for administrators and faculties as well as benefits have grown much faster than the average Kansan’s income. Ohio University Professor Richard Vedder’s “Going Broke By Degree” book outlines this problem well. The situation in Kansas is not unique and exists in many other states. The absolute real financial burden of sending a child to college has grown substantially over time. Moreover, that burden has grown faster than people’s incomes. Giving the Regents a blank check will aggravate and worsen this state’s fiscal problems while not addressing the real challenges in higher education.

  • The next four years

    The Next Four Years
    By Karl Peterjohn

    The gubernatorial race in Kansas is generating fewer negative ads statewide than a single Wichita area race for the Kansas House of Representatives. If this crude barometer of political sentiment is correct, Kathleen Sebelius will easily be reelected governor November 7.

    For political prognosticators in the mainstream Kansas press this is as much a certainty as criticism of President Bush leading the nightly news or Senator Kerry sticking his foot in his mouth. A second term for Governor Sebelius is going to impact Kansans and for many of them it will be an expensive experience.

    Governor Sebelius is already calling for increases in excise taxes. More tax hike proposals will appear after November 7. What will be interesting is seeing if the next Kansas legislature will finally be ready to pass the property, income, sales, and excise tax hikes she unsuccessfully sought during her first term. When Bill Graves was governor he got his tax hikes passed during his second term in office. Second terms have had a history of being rather ugly with both the Graves and Carlin precedents as a warning to any second term Kansas governor.

    The governor’s tax and spending programs may rest on her success in getting like minded legislators elected November 7. Former Republican turned Democrat Cindy Neighbor is running for the legislature against conservative Republican Mary Pilcher Cook. A Neighbor victory will be a significant step towards raising Kansas taxes. The governor’s coattails for down ticket legislative races will be an important factor in determining the reception the governor’s next tax and spend proposal will receive at the statehouse.

    The next Kansas budget covering all funds will top $12 billion. It took some budgetary sleight-of-hand to keep it under $12 billion this year. If spending growth expands in Governor Sebelius’ second term as fast as it did during her first, expect the spending to grow above $14 billion. If the judicially active Kansas Supreme Court continues to budget state spending, the growth could easily double and raise total spending over $16 billion.

    More spending by lawsuit will become a common part of the Kansas governmental scene as the legislature becomes an increasingly secondary factor in setting state spending priorities. The next school finance lawsuit is going to be a factor in state spending during the next four years. Lawsuits directing other parts of the state budget will continue to be major events impacting Kansas government finances too.

    Government job growth will be an increasingly important factor in Kansas. The school finance studies beginning with Augenblick and Myers indicate that the solution for improving Kansas public schools is more school employees. Despite the stagnant number of students, the solution is to expand the schools. Since some schools, like Wichita, already had 8,587 employees last year for fewer than 49,000 students, so lowering an already low six students per employee ratio seems unlikely to improve educational achievement. Costs will soar as will the taxes needed to pay for this profligacy.

    Governor Sebelius is already proposing higher excise taxes to finance expanded Hillary-style state health care programs. In addition, Medicaid costs that require a state payment for 40 percent of the costs are growing rapidly with annual increases exceeding $100 million.

    During their last Topeka debate Governor Sebelius and Senator Barnett were both asked what they would do if the state received a fiscal windfall. Senator Barnett cited his proposal to cut state taxes and said he would return the windfall to taxpayers. Governor Sebelius said she would increase state spending for school children.

    Government will grow during the next four years regardless of who is elected. However, the size and rate will vary dramatically. Governor Sebelius’ reelection guarantees that Kansas government spending will soar. Economic growth will not be able to keep up with spending. Kansans need to get ready for some major “revenue enhancements,” to help Governor Sebelius fulfill her spending schemes.

  • Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, opponent of liberty

    According to “Fiscal Policy Report Card on America’s Governors: 2006” recently released by The Cato Institute, Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius earns a grade of “D.”

    How did she fare so poorly? According to the report: “Governors who have cut taxes and spending the most receive the highest grades. Those who have increased spending and taxes the most receive the lowest grades.” What is unusual and good about this report is that it considers what governors recommended, as well as what actually happened.

    This is important. Governor Sebelius takes credit for having no increases in taxes during her term. That’s not for trying, though. Her proposed tax increases were rejected by the legislature. The Cato study, however, sees through that, and grades her accordingly.

    Why are low taxes important? From the study:

    This report card emphasizes the importance of tax cuts in general because the evidence shows that states that reduce taxes improve their prospects for economic growth. For example, a 1996 study by Zsolt Besci of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta found that “relative marginal tax rates have a statistically significant negative relationship with relative state growth averaged for the period from 1961 to 1992.” The message of the study for state governments is that “lowering aggregate state and local marginal tax rates is likely to have a positive effect on longterm growth rates.” A study for the congressional Joint Economic Committee by Richard Vedder of Ohio University came to a similar conclusion. A study by Thomas Dye of Florida State University found that states with no income tax had higher personal income growth (and smaller government growth) than states that had an income tax.

    Tax changes enacted in the states offer a useful laboratory for exploring the effects of tax policy. A comparison of the economic performance of the 10 states that increased taxes the most with the economic performance of the 10 states that cut taxes the most during 1990–2005 suggests that when states reduce taxes they improve their relative economic performance.

    Kansas, as has been noted, has a relatively high tax burden, and had our governor had her way, our taxes would be higher now. If re-elected, there is no reason to believe her appetite for more tax revenue would be diminished. As poor as our economic growth and job growth has been recently, it would undoubtedly have been worse had our governor been able to pass the tax increases she proposed.

    But there’s something even more important than economic growth and jobs at stake. Collecting more tax revenue and spending more means Kansas government is getting larger, and that’s been happening even though there has not been a tax increase. Large and powerful governments, be they local or national, are the opposite of liberty and freedom. That’s why Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, with her only partially unfulfilled goal of higher taxes and larger government, is an opponent of liberty.

  • Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius and Kansas jobs

    A recent television advertisement by Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius touts “… nearly 2.5 years of positive job growth.” The viewer is, by my estimation, supposed to credit the governor for this growth.

    But a look behind the scenes reveals a situation that only a politician could take pride in. Our governor must be hoping that people won’t take a moment to examine the reality.

    As reported in The Wichita Eagle on July 7, 2006:

    Kansas’ job growth was fourth-worst in the nation during the first quarter, according to a quarterly report by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.

    The number of jobs in Kansas grew at a rate of 0.4 percent in the year ending March 31. The national rate was 1.6 percent.

    The fastest-growing sectors were in government and construction, which each added about 4,000 jobs.

    If it wasn’t for government jobs growing at a rapid rate, our state’s job figures would be even worse.

    A quick gathering of some statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that for every year from 2002 to 2005, Kansas lags the nation in job growth rate, and by a large amount.

    There have been some periods of spectacular job growth in Kansas. The Kansas City Star reported in March 2005 “Nonfarm payroll employment in Kansas grew from January to February by the largest percentage increase of any state, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported this morning. ” But this growth was sustained for only one month, and may be the result of some statistical anomaly.

    For growth in jobs over a period of time, however, our state is lagging far behind the country as a whole, and this is something Governor Sebelius is proud of.

  • Kansas Governor’s Race Heats Up

    Kansas Governor’s Race Heats Up
    By Karl Peterjohn, Executive Director, Kansas Taxpayers Network

    The first of a series of debates highlighting significant differences between the two leading candidates for governor have begun in Kansas. The kick off was the state fair debate between Governor Sebelius and her GOP opponent state Senator Jim Barnett September 9.

    The conventional wisdom is that this gubernatorial race was going to be a snoozer with Sebelius’ huge fund raising advantage but a number of minor events, none hugely significant by themselves, indicates that the Sebelius reelection campaign has some problems. A decline in poll numbers according to a Rasmussen poll in late August had Sebelius with only a 48-to-37 percent lead over Barnett.

    The real problem for Sebelius is that her poll number dropping below 50 percent is bad news at a time when Barnett is not advertising on TV and Sebelius’s ads still rule the airwaves. It is a bad sign when your poll numbers are slipping and only your ads are being broadcast. The controversy over several of the Sebelius ads hasn’t helped.

    As this is being written, Sen. Barnett has taken a modest lead at the state fair straw poll conducted by the Secretary of State. That’s a change from four years ago when Sebelius easily won that straw poll. Nationally, Professor Larry Sabato’s ranking on the Kansas gubernatorial race dropped a notch from “solid” to “likely” retention by Democrats.

    A much larger problem is the new state’s budget estimates just came out showing that a major state budget problem is real. That is a point that Sen. Barnett has been complaining about beginning at the state fair debate. State revenues are not likely to grow fast enough to match the spending hikes demanded by the activist Kansas Supreme Court and government spending advocates. That could lead to the state needing an additional $262-to-519 million if revenue growth continue lagging.

    This bad budget news is not getting much news coverage. If the average Kansan knew about this fiscal problem, the gubernatorial campaign would shift in a fiscal direction hurting the incumbent. Governor Sebelius does not want to spend the last two months of this campaign debating her 2007 tax hike proposal. In addition, she does not want to talk about the Democrat dominated Kansas Supreme Court and how the tax ‘n spend liberals from the Kansas Supreme Court, to a majority of state legislators, to the governor’s office have created a new fiscal mess.

    In 2006, major tax cuts were enacted in nearby Oklahoma and Texas. Billions in property, income, and estate tax relief were enacted. Other states enacted significant tax reform too. Sadly, Kansas revenue growth in the last two years is roughly half of the national average. The large economic stimulus in neighboring states enacted this year is huge when compared with the paltry $35 million in personal property tax cuts for business enacted by the Kansas legislature over the next two years. Contrast this with the $1 billion in increased government school spending plan enacted this year in Topeka.

    Two other issues where Senator Barnett scored well at the state fair debate were the role of the Kansas Supreme Court in setting spending as well as the state providing a special tuition break for illegal aliens at Kansas state universities. Judicial activism is an issue helping Barnett but the state university subsidy for illegal aliens’ tuition is one that resonates enough that the governor’s campaign felt compelled to respond with a new radio ad in mid-September.

    Barnett touted his proposal for strengthening the state’s economy with four tax cuts and reducing the growth rate in state spending. Barnett also blasted the governor’s unsuccessful proposal to raise property, income, and sales taxes. Sebelius fired back criticizing Barnett for backing the Graves tax hike on sales and cigarettes in 2002.

    Sebelius is at a disadvantage over four years ago since she has her record as an incumbent to defend. In addition, Sebelius’ legislative votes helped create the statewide property tax in 1992 and set a tax hike record, voted to raise that property tax again in 1994, and proposed an additional hike as governor. These are fiscal votes that will confirm the traditional, tax ‘n spend liberal label that Sen. Barnett will try to stick on Gov. Sebelius if he can raise the cash to advertise. Sebelius, who has the strong backing of Wichita abortion Dr. George Tiller’s ProKanDo PAC money, remains by far the record setting fundraiser in Kansas gubernatorial history so her ads will dominate the airwaves. Sebelius remains the favorite to win reelection despite these problems.

    No matter how lively the Kansas gubernatorial race becomes during the last two months of the campaign it will struggle to come close to the intensity of newly minted Democrat Paul Morrison’s effort to remove Republican incumbent Phill Kline as Kansas Attorney General

    Karl Peterjohn is the executive director of the Kansas Taxpayers Network and is a former California Department of Finance budget analyst and newspaper reporter.