The Kansas legislature in 2017 has been unpredictable, even wild, as the various factions of moderates, liberals, and conservatives have put forth new proposals. Throw in a chastened Governor Brownback and his veto pen and no one could foresee the final policy results.
But now the budget has been approved and the smoke has at last cleared. And you, Kansas voter, need to look carefully at this landscape.
This landscape now includes a “new” all-time largest tax increase in state history, the much lauded Senate Bill 30. It comes in at just over $1.2 billion in new taxes in 2 years, and on the GOP side, you can thank Senator Ed Berger (R-Hutchinson) and Rep. Steve Becker (R-Buhler) for the pleasure.
Under SB 30, if your wages are under $ 60,000 a year your tax rates are going up 14% by 2018, and if your household makes over $60,000 your new tax bill will be 24% higher than in 2016.
But wait a second, you say, I thought they were just trying to make those lucky small business owners pay up, by closing the “LLC loophole”. Well yes, that was part of the new law, but you, the taxpaying individuals are on the hook for $724 million more as well. Surprised?
Opinion polls showed strong public support for also using spending cuts to balance state finances. One committee vote even sought a 5% , then 1%, then 0.5% across the board spending cut but, in 2017 Topeka, it failed, failed and failed.
I asked Senator Berger why he didn’t support even this token spending decrease. He said “it was not fair” to do this to government agencies “with only 3 months left in the fiscal year”. But then, in June, Berger voted to retroactively increase 2017 taxes on small businesses, with only 6 months left in the calendar year. Is that fair Senator?
Further, the final version of SB30 refused to put forth any savings from the Alvarez and Martinez efficiency study because they didn’t think it would work. A $6.3 billion state budget and nary a nickel can be saved through efficiency?
Sen. Berger and Rep. Becker in the end not only couldn’t see any way to cut spending they actually voted to raise spending. SB 30 comes with $ 280 million in spending increases over the previous budget cycle.
Part of this spending increase was $27 million for an extra 2.5-5.0% pay increase for all state employees. Sen. Berger justified this to me by stating “state employees have not had a pay increase since 2009” and that bothered him greatly.
Unfortunately for Berger, the Kansas Sentinel in an online story in June provided a link to the Kansas State Civil Service Pay Plans (google it) where you can see state pay details.
It showed state employees in any job have automatic “step increases” of roughly 2.5% a year, for up to 14 years, regardless of overall pay changes. Thus the same position (level 21 for example) that paid $ 15.03 a hour in 2009, now pays $ 18.26 per hour, and will pay $21.13 per hour in 6 more years. So much for no “pay increases”. Welcome to Topeka.
Another aspect of tax savings that SB 30 ignored was the $195 million the conservative “Truth Caucus” found by simply requiring school districts to spend down excess unencumbered cash reserves. It is not widely known but school district ending cash has doubled in 10 years (to over $900 million).
Berger made a big issue (correctly in my view) of the necessity of having a 7.5% ending balance for the state of Kansas. But here we have government entities with a 15-25% ending cash balances and he just ignores that fact and socks voters with even higher taxes.
Maybe this is what you would expect from someone who has worked his entire life for the government, but Berger campaigned in 2016 as a “responsible” conservative and his voting record seems anything but.
Rep. Becker’s motivation is different in all this. He is the classic tax-and-spend politician. He just stuck most of the households in his prosperous district with up to a 24% tax hike and he gushes on his June 6th Facebook “the ship has finally been turned. The future of this Great State has brightened tonight.”
Or is it rather the “future” for Topeka bureaucrats, lobbyists, and special interests, who FYI provided the bulk of Beckers campaign funds the last 5 years, brightened quite a lot? I would think it is the later.
Change is a constant in politics. But the tax changes approved in Topeka in 2017 were, on the whole, disappointing, disillusioning, and mostly unnecessary.
It has been an exceptionally dry winter in Kansas this year. Fortunately, spring is upon us with its promise of much needed rain.
But if you combine springtime high humidity, dormant winds, and air cooler than the Kansas landscape you can get fog and lots of it. Which, come to think of it, is an apt metaphor for Topeka.
It was Mary Clarkin’s recent article “Adoption, medical pot split lawmakers” (News, April 1) that got me thinking about the climate in our state legislature.
In Clarkin’s article, the issue at hand was Senate Bill 401, the simple 1 ½-page Adoption Protection Act relating to, and I quote, “the religious freedoms of private entities” involved in foster care or adoption services.
Ever since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in 2015 redefining marriage, liberal groups have been on a roll to expand the impact of this decree. One area has been in how adoption’s are treated.
In multiple blue states, Catholic Charities and many Christian agencies have been forced out of business by the state because they don’t believe in placing children with same-sex couples. Even though the number of same-sex placements is miniscule (about 1%) and even though there are multiple secular agencies that accommodate that market, faith-based agencies in those states must conform or else.
In more conservative areas, a number of state legislatures have been proactive to prevent such legal abuses of power. Kansas would be the eighth state to clarify its law.
Senate Bill 401 was introduced by Sen. Molly Baumgardner (R-Louisberg) to insure that faith-based adoption agencies would be free to both be true to their religious identity and to serve as many children as possible.
In response the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union), the Johnson county Mainstream Coalition, and the gay activist Equality Kansas groups all went on the attack. That provoked a lengthy debate this March in the Kansas Senate. The Senate then passed SB 401 on a 28-12 vote with Senator Ed Berger (R-Hutchinson) voting with the majority.
In the House a similar measure (HB 2867) was introduced by Rep. Susan Humphries (R-Wichita) with 31 co-sponsors including Reno county Republican representatives Joe Siewert and Jack Thimmesch.
The testimony in favor of the measure is nicely archived at the kansastruthcaucus.org website (under Issues).
The testimony came from a broad and diverse group that included the Catholic conference and Catholic Charities, the Kansas Family Policy Alliance, multiple Christian adoption agencies, and the Kansas Department of Children and Families.
The Catholic Conference noted the new law does not take away anyone’s right to adopt but guarantees that in a “diverse society” all adoption providers can thrive.
Eric Teetsel of the Kansas Family Policy Alliance quoted President Thomas Jefferson who assured the nuns at a Catholic orphanage in New Orleans in 1804 that in America “your rights are sacred and inviolate” and that “your institution will be permitted to govern itself according to its own voluntary rules, without interference from the civil authority”.
But to the modern version of Democrats allowing faith-based groups to make their own judgment calls is “state-sanctioned discrimination”. Even though the facts are that these agencies are funded privately and receive no direct state funds, and only need state licensing to operate.
The Democrats version of legal reality is so severe, it was noted, that if Mother Theresa and her Sisters of Charity had come to Kansas they would not be allowed to do their child and adoption ministry!
Nevertheless, on March 29 the Senate Bill was presented to the House as a concurring resolution but it failed 58-64. Locally, Republican Representatives Thimmesch and Seiwert were yes votes, while Rep. Steve Becker (R-Buhler) joined Jason Probst (D-Hutchinson) in voting no.
Siewert expressed dismay to me that an act of simple religious accommodation would be defeated in the legislature. But I was not so surprised given the Democrats (and, it should be noted, Rep. Beckers) 2016 negative votes on the Campus Religious Freedom Act. That measured passed, but the arguments against it were almost identical to those raised against SB 401.
There is still time this session for another vote on this measure, and some believe it could pass.
I am not so optimistic. In the same April 1 article Mary Clarkins recounted a legislative attempt to legalize medical marijuana in Kansas. The very same local representatives who voted against religious liberty (Becker and Probst) voted for increased access to pot. How telling.
The dazed and confused coalition is apparently upon us. Common sense being, I would argue, the first thing now missing in this political fog.
Topeka in 2017 went down pretty much as you’d have expected if you had paid any attention to the campaigns of those who prevailed over our conservative incumbents.
The tax exemption for small businesses came to an end, money for state spending began an upward trajectory, with K-12 education being the chief beneficiary.
Even more money would have been spent but for some valiant vetoes by the Governor as he tried to stem the moderates and liberals thirst for larger government spending.
Reno county legislators were part of this trend. Policy groups on the left and right have documented this with their new ratings of individual legislators for 2017.
The Mainstream Coalition out of Johnson County was (mostly) quite pleased with our local delegation. On this liberal scale of 1-100, the Coalition gave Republican representatives Jack Thimmesch a paltry 22 percent rating and Joe Siewert a 44 percent. But Steve Becker came in at 80 percent, with Senator Ed Berger leading the pack at 90 percent out of 100.
The Kansas Policy Institute’s free-market Freedom Index for 2017 has a parallel evaluation. Conservatives struggled to gather votes throughout the session so for the KPI even Seiwert and Thimmesch only rated at the 50- to 51-percent level. The numbers sank to 34 percent for the late Patsy Terrell, with Steve Becker at 17 percent and Ed Berger at 12 percent.
The fact that a full-throated liberal Democrat like Terrell could surpass the self-proclaimed conservative Becker and Berger on this index shows how far afield Topeka went in 2017.
I suppose the only question for 2018 is whether Becker and Berger can out-liberal former Hutchinson News editorial writer Jason Probst, Terrell’s chosen replacement. We shall see.
But a new year is upon us, with even a new Governor as Jeff Collyer steps in this month for the departing Sam Brownback.
Collyer has a tough plate on his hand, but so really does everyone in Topeka, conservative or liberal, Democrat or Republican.
For one, the Supreme Courts ruling on educational funding comes with a price tag (though still unstated) of $600 million a year and up.
Liberal policy groups, along with their liberal-to-moderate statehouse majority, are happy to make good on such spending promises for education. Even more they want to add to it Medicaid expansion, plus additional highway and social service spending.
However, legislators always prefer tax increases to not be in election years. And 2018 is even riskier politically since 100 percent of any new taxes will be born by taxpayers across the board given that the small business exemption is no longer operative.
I have heard two of our legislators (in forums in Buhler and Hutchinson) resort to the half-truth that they aren’t “raising” taxes they are only “restoring” tax-rates and that taxpayers still have it better now than in 2012.
That’s pure bull. Here’s why: If no changes had been made to tax law in 2012 our state sales tax would have reverted to 5.3%. Instead it has moved up to 6.5%, which raises an additional $500 million every year. Add in the $600 million retroactive income tax increase of 2017 and the combined total far exceeds the $750 million annual loss of the original Brownback tax cut.
These data points are easily found by comparing year-to-year state revenue numbers.
The realities of increasing Kansas tax-and-spend may be overshadowed by another issue as the session progresses.
Pro-life and social conservative leaders are convinced the state Supreme court will soon release a decision on abortion proclaiming that abortion is a “constitutional right” implicit in the Kansas constitution.
Such a ruling would invalidate years of pro-life legislation and restrictions on abortion in the state court system. The only solution is for a constitutional amendment to be presented to the voters. Other states have successfully pursued this course, Tennessee being the most recent example.
This would be a political dogfight, as a two-thirds majority is required to get this through the legislature.
Conservatives are also hoping for action on another constitutional amendment, this one stopping the courts from solely determining school funding. Liberal groups hope to repeal the property tax lid and pass gun control laws (on bumpstocks). These are long shots politically from both sides of the aisle.
But the budget issue looms largest. You can make the case that our $6.3 billion state budget ought to be $7.0 billion (or even more) in 2018. But you have to pay for it.
The corporate PACs of the vested interests in Topeka are filling legislators coffers even as we speak. This is not a year for voter inattention to state government.
The 2018 Kansas legislative session ran its course this week. It was a flurry of activity with changes to final budget numbers in both the House and the Senate. Hypothetically, since I am writing this Thursday night, some grand spending compromise will be reached.
Whether those budget numbers went up or down, at the hands of past legislatures, used to be a matter of statehouse suspense. But anymore, in our moderate and liberal dominated 2017-2018 Topeka, the only way the numbers go is up.
Other issues besides the budget and school spending are also being debated. The Adoption Agency Protection Act, aimed to protect faith-based adoption agencies from the whims of future Topeka officialdom, will likely pass (or fail) by a razor-thin majority.
A lobbyist for the Catholic Bishops conference, pointedly wrote in the Kansas City diocesan newspaper that “voting for Republicans no longer guarantees that you will have a legislator that respects religious liberty.” Sad, but true.
All such issues will be decided for the year by final adjournment May 4, excepting the K-12 school spending portion of the budget. For that is now the personal legal project of the seven-member Kansas Supreme Court.
The legislature is hopeful that a $525 million a year increase, stair-stepped over 5 years, will satisfy the court’s definition of adequacy. Whether the court opts for a higher number ($800 million, $1 billion, $2 billion?) or a quicker time frame (1-3 years?) is anyone’s guess.
The court decision will drive the state budget for years to come.
To take stock of the last 5 years of Kansas taxes and general fund budgets, I looked at the Kansas Budget Reports from the Kansas Legislative Research Department.
These figures represent the years following the original Brownback tax cuts. The first year of disparities was covered by the existing state cash balances. In later years the budget has been balanced through KDOT and other “transfer” payments.
But now, even with the largest tax increase in Kansas history in 2017, the question remains whether spending can be kept within the limits of existing revenue.
The most recent (April 20) tax numbers, bolstered by a strong economy and the side-effects of federal tax changes, show record-breaking revenue in the range of $6.8 billion.
But with the governor’s original 2018 budget proposal showing $6.6 billion in spending, those high tax numbers still just barely put us in the black. And once the final legislative numbers arrive (much less the Supreme Courts school spending verdict) could that black not turn to red?
The 2017 income tax increases were around a 13 percent increase for most taxpayers (jumping to 23 percent in 2018). This increase, coupled with the repeal of the small business tax exemption, is now expected to bring in over $700 million more for FY2018.
When the fiscal year started the state had only $108 million in its general fund cash reserves.
So there is not much room for error.
I started this week listening in person to the debate of the Democrat gubernatorial candidates at the Stringer Fine Arts Center. It was a well-run debate. Plus it was very interesting despite the lack of two of the major candidates, Jim Ward and Josh Svaty.
The candidates were not shy in proposing new spending and governmental programs. It made past Kansas history seem so clear. When our last elected Democrat governor (Kathleen Sebelius) was in office, the state general fund budget went up an incredible 40 percent in 5 years (from $4.34 billion in FY2004 to $6.06 billion in FY2009).
This spending spree came to an end with the recession in 2009 and subsequent election of Sam Brownback in 2010.
But at the Democrat debate, the moderator, Hutchinson News editor Ron Sylvester, quipped that he had always heard that, “some of the best Democrats in Kansas are registered Republicans.”
Is the current legislature, with its nearly 2-1 Republican majorities, proof of this maxim?
We will discuss the politics of that question next time.
The news media as a whole has a plethora of problems. The internet and growth of online media outlets, declining print readership and ad spending, along with industry consolidations are all real headaches.
But the greatest is the lack of public trust. The percent of the American public, according to Gallup, who have even a “fair amount” of trust in the press dropped to a record low of 32% in 2016 (it was even lower for Republicans and adults 49 or younger).
This lack of trust in the press often is tied to the perception of press bias.
As a writer on the editorial page, I am free to show my bias. I do analysis. That’s what an opinion page is for.
But many of you, myself included, are appropriately disillusioned if you go to someone’s news pages and read articles by the Associated Press (or others) that seem more like editorials, with illustrations, or at the very least “news analysis,” rather than straight news.
Some professional press people get very sensitive about claims of “press bias,” but I think such sensitivity is misplaced. Bias is inevitable, and it is better to acknowledge it than become defensive.
I read pretty widely and have a simple model to gauge bias in news stories. First, read an article about some topic in an actual journal of opinion. For conservatives, you’d read the National Review, the Weekly Standard, or the Daily Caller. The corresponding liberal news outlets might be the New Republic, The Nation, or the Huffington Post.
Then read on the same topic what an AP news article (or Reuters, or Washington Post) has to say and see if they cut it fairly down the middle or does it sound suspiciously like what an “opinionated” journal has had to say. It’s a great way to red flag biased articles.
Another method I use to check bias is how the press reports an event in which I was in attendance. I have been to hearings or council meetings where the press report matched the reality of what I saw and heard. I was impressed.
Other times, not so much. And other times, I wonder if myself and said reporter were even living on the same planet!
I have heard the same critique from local political figures who deal with the media regularly. Some journalists they respect, others they just don’t trust. It could be journalistic bias, or maybe it is just sloppiness. But you have to be at the event to check media validity with this approach.
The first serious research on national press culture and bias was the 1986 book “The Media Elites” by Stanley Rothman and Robert Lichter. It detailed the political and cultural beliefs of 238 leading journalists in the print and news media.
It was astonishing in a negative way. While the nation voted overwhelmingly for Nixon in 1972, top media figures went 81% for liberal Democrat George McGovern. This press landslide was repeated for Carter and Mondale and Dukakis with later studies showing a full 90% of media figures supporting Bill Clinton in 1992. The Obama years were likewise lopsided.
The research of Rothman and Lichter highlighted the fact that notions of a left-wing press “conspiracy” were misplaced. It was the press culture that was the problem. Any of us would agree that a corporate environment that was politically monolithic could not help but present a distorted reality.
Ken Sterns, former CEO of National Public Radio told the New York Post recently “when you are liberal, and everyone else around you is as well, it is easy to fall into groupthink”.
Stern said this effected ideas even about what stories are legitimate or worthy of coverage.
The Politico did a recent piece “The Media Bubble is Worse Than You Think” which highlighted the related problem that remaining old-line media and upcoming new media are increasingly headquartered in cities that lack any political diversity.
When 80-90% of voters in your New York City, Washington or Seattle neighborhood have yard signs for Hillary Clinton how would that not effect what you think is of news or political/cultural significance?
All Americans have a vested interest in a free and vital press. We can survive “fake news” if there remains a press culture that genuinely separates fact from fiction, hard news from analysis.
Trust needs to be restored for the Fourth Estate to thrive. Trust, once lost, is hard to make right. Whether the established American, even Kansas, media is up to this task remains to be seen.
