Voice For Liberty

Category: Kansas state government

  • Floods and whirlwind (of spending in Kansas)

    Floods and Whirlwind
    By Karl Peterjohn, Executive Director Kansas Taxpayers Network

    Kansans are focused upon the floods as well as the results of the tornados that tore up this state in early May. The wrath of Mother Nature is upon us just as the Kansas legislature has left its own flood of spending and whirlwind of legislative changes on this state. The legislature’s fiscal wrath might be overlooked by Kansans focused upon their flooded basements or providing help and assistance to the devastated folks who survived in Greensburg. Kansans ignoring the legislature do so at their peril.

    Kansans will soon have to pay another $1/2 billion more for state government. As one liberal Democrat legislative leader put it, “We spent it,” was the watchword from assistant minority leader State Representative Jim Ward, D-Wichita, to his home town newspaper April 22 when asked about the 2007 session at that point. A few days later the legislature returned to Topeka and spent even more.

    That’s the budget that will soon become law as a result of the 2007 Kansas legislature. Governor Sebelius’ signature is needed to make this $6.089 billion General Fund budget official. This is a 10.4 percent spending hike over last year’s budget.

    It is almost a billion more than the 2006 budget of $5.139 billion. That’s 18.5 percent in two years. Has your salary gone up 18.5 percent in the last two years?

    Ironically, there have been newspaper articles targeting the less than $35 million in tax cuts as a fiscal problem for Kansas. The Wichita Eagle warned that cutting the business franchise tax and reducing the tax penalty on social security payments to seniors could place this state in fiscal jeopardy. Tax cuts are a problem while spending growth is ignored among the liberal Kansas newspapers.

    Obviously, these are fiscally liberal journalists who never bothered to read the budget. Now there was pressure from the liberal spending lobbies starting with the Kansas Supreme Court as well as the governor demanding massive hikes in state school spending. That part of the court’s edict will expand almost $200 million in one year or $450 per pupil. In addition, the rest of the spending lobbies from the state regents universities and social service welfare spending advocates are among the most prominent who perpetually dominate the budget process in Topeka. That why a liberal spending advocate like state senator Tony Hensley, D-Topeka, praised the 2008 budget on the senate floor before voting for it.

    Nebraska is looking at major reductions in a variety of anti-competitive state taxes and may use a sizable part of their budget surplus coming from the Bush tax cuts for some major, over $200 million in income and property tax cuts in a state with 60 percent of the Kansas population. Last year Oklahoma passed an even larger dollar amount of income tax cuts. In April the Tax Foundation (taxfoundation.org) reported that Kansas has the 15th highest total of state and local taxes as a percentage of income among the 50 states.

    Kansas went into this budget cycle with over $734 million as a beginning cash balance. That will soon be spent. The real challenge that awaits us is state revenues are growing at only a fraction of state spending, and this spending growth cannot continue without raising Kansans’ taxes.

  • Regents spending plan and Wichita State University’s spending criticized

    Regents Spending Plan and Wichita State University’s Spending Criticized
    From Kansas Taxpayers Network

    “Wichita State University’s part and the rest of the “crumbling classrooms” Regents Institution’s spending plan raises troubling fiscal problems now,” warned Kansas Taxpayers Network’s Executive Director Karl Peterjohn. “The initial list of proposed expenditures from the Board of Regents included substantial amounts of dubious spending proposals. Statewide over $1.4 million in spending on six presidential mansions was recommended in the November 29, 2006 spending plan. The total cost at all six universities is $727 million.

    At that time, over $4 million was proposed for Cessna Stadium alone. Tens of millions more were included in other sports complexes like Allen Field House, Ahearn Field House, and Bramlage Coliseum. K.U. also wanted over $378,000 for airplane hangars,” Peterjohn said.

    Specifically, the November 29, 2006 proposal had taxpayers picking up $113,580 in remodeling and expansion costs for the property tax free presidential residence at W.S.U. The Cessna Stadium price tag was $4,012,225. Smaller amounts sought by W.S.U. included $36,757 for the Golf Pro Shop.

    Since that time additional dubious spending of $450,000 for a giant millipede statue has been the most publicized W.S.U. spending proposal in March. “The university has hundreds of thousands of dollars for an ugly arthropod statue but can’t take care of its buildings,” Peterjohn said. “A decade ago the six universities were provided with millions in bond funds to take care of its facilities during the Graves administration. Sadly, it does not appear that good stewardship is occurring at W.S.U. or on the other five Regents Institution campuses,” Peterjohn added.

    When Wichita University was absorbed into the Regents system a supposedly “temporary” property tax of 1.5 mills was continued on property taxpayers in Sedgwick County. That property tax has apparently become permanent and is an additional source of W.S.U. revenue totaling roughly $6.6 million a year.

    “The Regents are spending over $1.872 billion in funds this year that includes $435 million in students’ tuition (see Vol. 1 2008 Governor’s budget report page 117). This spending now exceeds $20,000 per pupil, including tuition, annually. Why can’t these six tax funded universities operate with this already very generous amount of funding and take care of their buildings with this money?” said Peterjohn.

    Wichita State University’s 2007 budget has spending at $194.6 million. By comparison, K.U. and the K.U. Medical Center have a combined spending of $796.7 million while Kansas State University is at $647.1 million for this year.

  • United Van Lines Shows Kansas Decline

    United Van Lines Shows Kansas Decline
    by Isaac Ferguson

    Kansans are voting with their feet and the result is that population growth is much faster in more competitive and taxpayer freindly parts of the country. According to the annual migration study conducted by United Van Lines, one of the nation’s largest moving companies, the Midwest and Kansas especially, are losing people at a greater rate than the rest of the nation. Of the people United Van Lines moved in Kansas from January to December of 2005, 52.6% were leaving Kansas while only 47.4% were entering. According to this study, Kansas has the second highest loss of people in the region. In contrast, this study found that 53.5% of the moves handled by United Van Lines in Colorado were people entering into their state. This influx of people puts Colorado ahead of all of the rest of the states in this region.

    Kansas also lags behind compared to states that are more competitive and taxpayer friendly. People moving to Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington and Wyoming all are greater than in Kansas. All of theses states excluding Kansas have one thing in common: they have no state personal income tax.

    The United States Census Bureau historically verifies these migration trends. According to population data collected by the Census Bureau from 1990 to 2000, Kansas with a population growth rate of only 8.5% had the second slowest population growth rate among Kansas and the surrounding states. Data collected by the Census Bureau continues to show Colorado with a growth rate of 30.6% as being the highest in the region. When compared to these states without a state personal income tax, Kansas and South Dakota come in last in population growth rates.

    Kansas isn’t just behind in the region but has also fallen behind Arkansas and Utah in population growth rates. These alarming trends show that Kansas is need of a serious wakeup call. As Kansans continue to leave the Midwest, the elected leadership of Kansas has to take action to ensure these trends don’t continue. This data shows that the more competitive and taxpayer friendly a state is the more likely that state is to experience less people leaving as well as a higher population growth rate. By reducing high taxes, limiting governmental growth, limiting judicial activism and implementing a cap on government spending, Kansas will then begin to reverse these dire trends.

    Sources:
    Southeast, West Continue to Attract Residents as Midwest, Northeast See More Leave
    American Fact Finder

  • The stink in the Kansas Legislature and statehouse

    A friend sent this short commentary along with analysis by former Kansas Senator Kay O’Connor of Olathe. As I have written, in a free society people should be able to gamble. Relying on gambling for economic development of our state, however, is a losing proposition. With the problems gambling brings — and even casino supporters concede there are problems — and the small amount of revenue it may actually generate, we may someday wish that the normal legislative process had been followed.

    A former legislator Kay O’Connor describes the gambling bill’s legislative progress. Kansas could soon be the first state in the U.S. to have “state owned and operated casinos.” I can’t wait to see the civil service exam for “Cocktail waitress II” or “Pit boss I”.

    THE STINK CONTINUES

    In the Topeka, Kansas, legislature there is something called “process.” This process is highly respected by all good legislators. Properly followed process assures that any legislation has multiple opportunities for public input and legislative actions.

    The Kansas state owned casino bill that Governor Sebelius recently signed into law, is a glaring example of process denied.

    First, I will try to simplify an understanding of the process so that a layman can follow not only how it works, but also how important it is to assure good government.

    1. A bill is introduced in either the Senate or House of Representatives. (There are many ways that this can happen, but that is a discussion for another day)
    2. The bill is given a number and assigned to a committee in the House of origin.
    3. With interest in the bill the committee chair schedules a PUBLIC hearing. (Proponents and opponents may speak to the bill.)
    4. If interest continues, the bill is worked and may be amended.
    5. With sufficient support the bill is sent to the full House. (40 Senators or 125 House of Representatives, depending upon which House the bill started in)
    6. If interest continues, the bill is heard again by the full House with opportunities to amend. (No PUBLIC comment allowed.)
    7. With support the bill is sent to the opposite/second House and assigned to a committee, where the same “process” is repeated.
    8. After this series of steps is completed in the second House, and if there were amendments to the bill, it is often sent to a conference committee of 3 House and 3 Senate members for possible further amendments and is sent back to both Houses to be voted on again.
    9. With support it is then sent to the governor for signature.

    In the case of the State owned casino gambling bill, nearly all of the above process was skipped. Most especially denied was any PUBLIC input time.

    SB 66 (originally only the lottery extension bill) went through the normal process until it reached the floor of the opposite/second House. According to the above this would be after steps 1 through 7 in the first House and continuing in the second House at step number 6. After a 12-hour debate the lottery-extension-only bill emerged with the 90 pages State owned casinos bill amended into the lottery bill. Thus, the State owned casinos bill had NO PUBLIC HEARING and only a privileged few legislators had even seen it before that day.

    With this maneuver the State owned casinos bill was allowed NO PUBLIC INPUT. In a calculated risk, opponents of the State owed casinos tried a maneuver to kill the bill before it got to conference committee. Allowing it to go to conference committee would still have denied public input.

    Sometimes “process” is purposely denied when there are non-controversial amendments or they may be controversial but short, simple and easy to understand amendments. In my fourteen years in the legislature the “process” was always respected, especially with long, complicated and/or controversial bills. This respect for process came from both parties and all shades in between.

    Because process was denied, we now have a long and complicated bill signed into law that is probably unconstitutional and will surely result in years of lawsuits, gives Kansas a paltry 22% share of the proceeds (over 50% is more common), and gives Kansas the distinction of being the first State in the Union to own casinos with the too likely possibility of criminal elements getting more involved in Kansas government to protect their interests.

    Whatever your position on the gambling issue, this is no way to make laws.

    Because of my knowledge of the process and the legislature, it is my considered belief that this fiasco was engineered by Democrat Governor [Kathleen] Sebelius, her contributors in the gambling industry, and gambling-interest attorney and Republican Senator John Vratil from Leawood. Do I have proof positive? No, but the stink is all around.

  • Economic fallacy alive in Kansas at Docking Institute

    As reported in the Wichita Business Journal at wichita.bizjournals.com/wichita/stories/2007/03/19/daily26.html, the Docking Institute of Public Affairs at Fort Hays State University has produced a report that seems to say that the $727 million deferred-maintenance backlog at Kansas universities is, well, really a good thing.

    (The report is available to read at www.kansasregents.org/maintenance.html)

    Why? Quoting from the press release that accompanies the report: “This report displays the substantial and positive economic impact that a comprehensive state university building maintenance funding solution would have on the state’s economy,” said Reginald L. Robinson, President and CEO of the Kansas Board of Regents. “University maintenance funding would produce a dramatic ripple effect through the state’s economy creating thousands of new jobs, millions of dollars in increased earnings, and billions of dollars in increased state economic output. As state policymakers continue to focus on ways to improve the state’s economy, they need not look any farther than our crumbling state universities.”

    After reading this, it is tempting to wish that our universities were in even worse condition. By fixing them, we could really ramp up our state’s economy!

    But I am saddened to conclude that the authors of this report see only the immediate effects of the spending they promote. They fail to see the secondary effects. As Henry Hazlitt wrote in his classic work Economics in One Lesson:

    This is the persistent tendency of men to see only the immediate effects of a given policy, or its effects only on a special group, and to neglect to inquire what the long-run effects of that policy will be not only on that special group but on all groups. It is the fallacy of overlooking secondary consequences. (emphasis added)

    It’s easy to fall victim to this type of thinking. The economist Walter E. Williams summarizes the broken window fallacy that Frederic Bastiat recognized long ago:

    Bastiat wrote a parable about this that has become known as the “Broken Window Fallacy.” A shopkeeper’s window is broken by a vandal. A crowd forms, sympathizing with the man, but pretty soon, the people start to suggest the boy wasn’t guilty of vandalism; instead, he was a public benefactor, creating economic benefits for everyone in town. After all, fixing the broken window creates employment for the glazier, who will then buy bread and benefit the baker, who will then buy shoes and benefit the cobbler, and so forth.

    Those are the seen effects of the broken window. What’s unseen is what the shopkeeper would have done with the money had the vandal not broken his window. He might have employed the tailor by purchasing a suit. The broken window produced at least two unseen effects. First, it shifted unemployment from the glazier, who now has a job, to the tailor, who doesn’t. Second, it reduced the shopkeeper’s wealth. Explicitly, had it not been for the vandalism, the shopkeeper would have had a window and a suit; now, he has just a window.

    As Professor Williams also brought to our attention, even educated people such as Princeton economist Paul Krugman failed to take into account all factors — the broken window fallacy that Bastiat recognized — when he wrote in The New York Times that the destruction of the World Trade Center “could do some economic good.”

    In general, public works — like fixing the universities — are promoted as job-generators. It is as though the jobs generated come at no cost. But that’s just not true. Here’s Hazlitt discussing the building of a bridge:

    … The first argument is that it will provide employment. It will provide, say, 500 jobs for a year. The implication is that these are jobs that would not otherwise have come into existence.

    This is what is immediately seen. But if we have trained ourselves to look beyond immediate to secondary consequences, and beyond those who are directly benefited by a government project to others who are indirectly affected, a different picture presents itself. It is true that a particular group of bridge workers may receive more employment than otherwise. But the bridge has to be paid for out of taxes. For every dollar that is spent on the bridge a dollar will be taken away from taxpayers. If the bridge costs $1,000,000 the taxpayers will lose $1,000,000. They will have that much taken away from them which they would otherwise have spent on the things they needed most.

    Therefore for every public job created by the bridge project a private job has been destroyed somewhere else. We can see the men employed on the bridge. We can watch them at work. The employment argument of the government spenders becomes vivid, and probably for most people convincing. But there are other things that we do not see, because, alas, they have never been permitted to come into existence. They are the jobs destroyed by the $1,000,000 taken from the taxpayers. All that has happened, at best, is that there has been a diversion of jobs because of the project. More bridge builders; fewer automobile workers, radio technicians, clothing workers, farmers.

    There really is no free lunch. What Kansans spend on university repairs can’t be spent on something else.

    Should Kansas spend the money that the Regents are asking for to repair the universities? Because it fails to recognize the secondary effects of the proposed spending, the analysis put forth by the Docking Institute doesn’t answer that question.

  • Are you a second class Kansan?

    Are You a Second Class Kansan?
    By Karl Peterjohn, Kansas Taxpayers Network

    The Kansas legislature is in the process of deciding how wide the separation will be between various classes of Kansans. State Senator Peggy Palmer, R-Augusta, and State Representative Judy Morrison, R-Shawnee, introduced bills in their separate legislative houses that would have exempted social security payments from the Kansas personal income tax this year.

    Both bills attracted numerous co-sponsors for this tax cut proposal with a $19 million price tag. The intent was to eliminate the disparate treatment that exists in Kansas income tax law that exempts government pensions while taxing social security. Private pensions in Kansas are also taxable, but this bill does not address the entire disparity, just the social security portion.

    So government employees are granted a large tax break while citizens working in the private sector are expected to pay more. What is particularly outrageous about this disparity is the fact that folks with modest social security and private pensions are already paying substantially more in Kansas income taxes than, say a retired Kansas Supreme Court justice or a retired university professor.

    Now, everyone who pays into social security will be charged at both ends. They are taxed on their income when paying into social security while they are also taxed when receiving a social security check. Public employees are only taxed when they pay into their KPERS state/local pension contributions, but their government pension checks come back tax free.

    The private sector pensions and social security payments are taxed. In addition, additional state tax funds are needed by the state to make up for the unfounded liabilities within KPERS. Another pension cost is for the occasional “bonus” checks the legislature provides to government retirees that are most frequent in the fall of even numbered years when elections are pending. That price tag is another burden for the second class private sector citizen to pay in Kansas. The private sector also lacks civil service job protections too.

    Opposition to the Palmer-Morrison bills is coming from self-described “moderates” in both parties who are worried about excessive tax cuts as they get ready to debate whether state spending should grow as much as 9 percent and top $6 billion in the General Fund for the first time, or some smaller amount that might increase state spending by “only” 4.5 percent. Should state spending grow $250 million (4.5 percent) or over $500 million?

    Liberal Senator Janis Lee, D-Kensington, opposes exempting social security in the senate tax committee. Senator Lee believes that many low income folks are already exempt and this proposal would benefit, “the rich.” Apparently, the middle income folks with private pensions and social security should continue to pay more than retired bureaucrats and university professors from the Regents Institutions.

    In Kansas, the citizens who have worked in the private sector are second class citizens expected to pay more than their more affluent neighbors with government pensions. This is unfair. This is another reason that private sector Kansans have a tendency to retire to states with more equitable fiscal climates.

  • 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.

  • Kansas lags fiscally again

    Kansas Lags Fiscally Again
    By Karl Peterjohn, Kansas Taxpayers Network

    Kansas is once again falling behind. The growth in state tax receipts has allowed the legislature to increase state spending. This revenue growth could also provide some much needed tax relief to try and make this state’s fiscal climate more competitive.

    This is an urgent priority that is coming home to folks in Topeka as a recent major employer in Topeka, Payless ShoeSource Inc., announced a distribution center will close and that will cost that community as many as 550 jobs. Businesses restructure all the time but losing all of these jobs at one time should get the attention of this state’s leaders. This loss hurts.

    Triple taxation of business revenue and assets by the state helps make Kansas an uncompetitive state. Business property taxes, business income taxes, and taxes on assets through the state’s business franchise tax are all significant burdens. Governor Sebelius has proposed cutting the state’s franchise tax by $7 million or about 15 percent. In addition, she has also proposed a small reduction in the state corporate income tax that would be paid for by eliminating some corporate income tax credits.

    A surprisingly unified Republican caucus on Valentine’s Day had all house Republicans and about a 1/4 of house Democrats voting for a bill that would cut the business franchise tax by over $15 million and begin a three year phase. In three years, Kansas would join the other 30 some states without this tax. A number of legislators are also looking at trying to reduce property taxes and the tax burden on the elderly so broad based tax relief is provided too.

    Kansas tax law discriminates against seniors receiving social security and private pensions. Kansas personal income taxes are owed by Kansans receiving social security and private pension income. Government pensions for federal, state, and local government employees are exempt from the state income tax.

    This is unfair. This is another way that Kansas treats government and government employees better than taxpayers and private pension recipients. Bills are pending in both the house and senate tax committees that would add social security payments to the tax exemption. State Senator Peggy Palmer, R-Augusta, and Rep. Judy Morrison, R-Shawnee, are leading the push for this tax reform. A large number of their colleagues have joined them as co-sponsors in pushing for this $18 million tax cut.

    Senate leadership has been telling legislators not to pass more than $15 million in tax cuts this year. That’s only about 5 percent of the revenue growth. The bipartisan senate leadership under Senate President Steve Morris, R-Hugoton, that got a huge $466 million state school spending hike enacted last year, wants to limit tax cuts.

    Fiscal conservatives in the Kansas legislature want at least $60 million or 20 percent of the windfall revenue created by growth in the state’s economy returned to taxpayers.

    Making the Kansas economy competitive is a critical, but tax reform is also a regional issue too. Democratic Governor Mike Beebe of Arkansas has just forced through that state’s Democratic controlled legislature a $319 million package of individual and business tax cuts to make Arkansas’ economy more competitive. Arkansas recently passed Kansas in population and is projecting a large $840 million state surplus this year.

    The Republican Governor of Nebraska is pushing for over $240 million in across the board income tax cuts and an end to state death taxes to make Nebraska more competitive. This would follow in the footsteps of the large income tax cut and death tax abolition enacted last year by Oklahoma’s Democratic Governor and Republican legislative leadership in Oklahoma. Last year Texas with Republican Governor Perry and that state’s GOP controlled legislature passed over $11 billion in mainly property tax cuts.

    Our neighbors are serious about becoming fiscally competitive. In Kansas, it looks like all too many leaders including the Democratic Governor and Republican Senate President are concerned about growing spending and throwing a few small crumbs to taxpayers. There is a real need at the statehouse to focus on this state’s economy by enacting significant tax cuts that will improve this state’s dismal fiscal climate.

  • Spending and the true cost of government

    (WICHITA) – While lawmakers face a challenge to increase spending from many directions, they need to resist some of these pressures in order to control excessive government spending. In a policy brief released by the Flint Hills Center, “The Virtue of a Self-Imposed Spending Cap for the Kansas Legislature,” Jonathan Williams documents the growth of state spending in Kansas. This year the combined spending of state and local government in Kansas will exceed $15 billion, up from $ 4 billion in 1957. Even when adjusted for inflation, that represents a 279 percent increase in that period. Accordingly, in that same period, per capita spending has grown from $2000 to $5700.

    The constant pressure on lawmakers to continually spend more is also reflected in Williams’ review of Kansas spending over the last 15 years. The Kansas Department of Budget statistics show a 54 percent real growth of State General Fund spending and a 51 percent real growth of total state spending.

    There is a tendency for legislators and citizens to focus their attention on taxes. Often, however, taxes will remain constant while the economy is strong, but spending will increase at double digit rates. The spending then becomes unsustainable when the economy weakens. Williams warns that lawmakers and citizens need to understand the concept that total spending equals the truest cost of government, or excessive spending will continue at all levels of government. Read more in The Virtue of a Self-Imposed Spending Cap for the Kansas Legislature found at www.flinthills.org.