Voice For Liberty

Tag: Americans For Prosperity

  • Well-intentioned policies do more harm than good

    By Derrick Sontag, Americans for Prosperity-Kansas. A version of this appeared in the Wichita Eagle.

    Medicaid.gov Keeping America Healthy

    Governor Brownback and legislators in Kansas must make an important decision this legislative session. Following the Supreme Court’s ruling in June 2012, Kansas must decide whether it will vastly expand its Medicaid rolls. Adding hundreds of thousands of Kansas residents to Medicaid is the exact wrong policy for our state.

    The desire to expand Medicaid is well-intentioned, but will do more harm than good. The plan ignores the realities of the Medicaid system.

    Medicaid is a broken, costly system traditionally serving low-income populations focusing on pregnant women, children and the disabled. Its expansion is a key component of the President’s health care law.

    Unfortunately, Medicaid is rife with problems. Medicaid’s unique structure–jointly managed by the state and the federal government — results in subpar outcomes for covered families. Medicaid combines countless restrictions and paperwork requirements for providers while at the same time paying half of other insurance plans. This results in a lose-lose for providers, forcing many out of the Medicaid market. A recent study found 32 percent of Kansas doctors won’t accept new Medicaid patients.

    These problems lead to even bigger problems for Medicaid patients and families. The health outcomes for Medicaid patients dramatically lag those on private insurance or Medicare. Study after study has confirmed these results.

    Adding hundreds of thousands of people to this system will only make these problems worse and does not qualify as real health reform.

    Even if Medicaid wasn’t a broken system, Kansas can’t afford to expand coverage.

    The federal government is making gigantic promises to encourage states to comply. According to the President’s health care law, the federal government will pay 100 percent of expenses for newly eligible individuals for the first three years stepping down to 90 percent by 2020.

    This seems like a great deal for Kansas. The state can leverage federal funding to provide for its residents. But not so fast.

    The federal government can’t afford these promises. The President himself has twice suggested the government cut its reimbursement to states due to the high costs imposed. Even if the government honors its generous promises, Kansas taxpayers will pay an additional $525 million in the next 10 years just for this expanded population.

    By refusing to create a health insurance exchange last year, Gov. Brownback admitted the health care law won’t result in better care or better outcomes for patients. Expanding Medicaid, while well-intentioned, is just another flawed health care idea coming from Washington.

    Instead of subject Kansas to a broken, costly system, Kansas’ leaders should refuse to expand the Medicaid rolls in the Sunflower State.

  • Bill would end taxpayer-funded lobbying in Kansas

    Kansas lobbyist expenditure report

    A bill has been introduced in the Kansas Senate that would end or limit taxpayer-funded lobbying.

    The heart of this bill, SB 109, is “No public funds may be used directly or indirectly for lobbying. No public funds may be used to pay membership dues to an association that is engaged in lobbying the state. Public funds shall not be used for the purpose of employing or contracting for the service of any person whose duty and responsibility includes lobbying.”

    Taxpayer-funding lobbying is one of the worst excesses of government. Commenting on the revelation that TARP bailout funds were spent on lobbying, David Boaz wrote:

    It’s bad enough to have our tax money taken and given to banks whose mistakes should have caused them to fail. It’s adding insult to injury when they use our money — or some “other” money; money is fungible — to lobby our representatives in Congress, perhaps for even more money.

    Get taxpayers’ money, hire lobbyists, get more taxpayers’ money. Nice work if you can get it.

    Later in the same article he wrote: “Taxpayers shouldn’t be forced to pay for the very lobbying that seeks to suck more dollars out of the taxpayers.”

    Locally, Americans for Prosperity-Kansas wrote this last year:

    Taxpayer-funded lobbying reform has been a part of AFP-Kansas’ legislative agenda for a number of years. Back in 2007, we conducted a statewide open records request to find out just how many government entities and associations were using tax dollars to lobby the legislature for more tax dollars. We had a hard time getting answers. Many local governments were part of such associations that regularly lobby, but few were willing to recognize that it was tax dollars paying for those memberships, and tax dollars helping fund the organizations’ lobbying efforts.

    Fighting the endless cycle of taxpayer-funded lobbying has been a part of this organization’s mission for years, so we welcomed news this week that the Brownback Administration is trying to do something about it. The Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services is changing language to its contracts in an effort to tighten restrictions on taxpayer-funded lobbying by state contractors.

    This is certainly an important step, but more can be done. AFP-Kansas will continue to push for legislation restricting taxpayer-funded lobbying in all forms. Unless we are able to achieve serious reforms, the culture of “more is never enough” under the capitol dome is sure to continue.”

    Taxpayer-funded lobbying can be very expensive in two ways: First, the cost of performing the lobbying, and secondly, the cost of the government spending that the lobbyists seek.

    And that lobbying can be expensive, successful or not. The lobbyist for USD 259, the Wichita public school district is paid $99,588 per year, according to records at Kansas OpenGov. Since she spends much time in Topeka (that’s where the money is), there’s surely much additional travel and lodging expense.

    Oh, and she’s not really a lobbyist. That’s a crude word to use to describe someone who’s only working for the kids, as the school district tells us. Instead, she’s Director of Governmental Affairs.

    Either way, we’ll all be better off if we don’t have to pay for government lobbying government.

  • Reaction to Kansas State of the State Address, 2013

    Governor Sam Brownback delivered his State of the State Address on January 15, 2013. The as-prepared text of the address may be read here.

    Americans for Prosperity-Kansas:

    “Americans for Prosperity-Kansas continues to support the eventual elimination of the income tax in Kansas, and we applaud Gov. Brownback for making this a priority in 2013″” said AFP-Kansas state director Derrick Sontag. “We would support a trigger mechanism for future rate reductions in the proposal rather than legislators continuing to seek a reduction in the rate every year.

    “We have no doubt that continued reductions in the income tax rate will help create economic activity, expand the tax base and create jobs.

    “We’re coming off a years-long cycle in which excessive government spending stifled Kansas families and resulted in stagnant population growth, taxpayers migrating to other states, and the loss of tens of thousands of private sector jobs. The Governor said it best when he pointed out that some choose to grow spending rather than jobs.

    “We look forward to working with legislators and the Governor in the coming session on other important areas of reform such as judicial selection — giving citizens of Kansas more direct input in the judges who sit on the Kansas Supreme Court and Kansas Court of Appeals. Senate confirmation or elections of judges would certainly create a more transparent process that is accountable to the people.”

    Senate Democratic Leader Anthony Hensley and House Democratic Leader Paul Davis issued the following statement. Hensley is wrong about the school spending figures, as I report in Kansas Democrats wrong on school spending.

    “Governor Brownback’s $2.5 billion dollar self-inflicted budget shortfall, a result of his irresponsible tax policy, has brought Kansas to the edge of its own fiscal cliff. He has brought Washington, D.C. politics to Kansas, and they do not belong here,” said Hensley. “Four months into office, he signed the single largest cut to public education in Kansas history. In just three school years, statewide funding for K-12 education was cut nearly $442 million, or a cut of $620 per child. It is no surprise that a three-judge panel issued its ruling last Friday that the Legislature isn’t meeting its K-12 school funding duty under the Kansas Constitution. Members of the Legislature took an oath just yesterday swearing to uphold the Constitution of Kansas. What is our oath worth if we renege on our constitutional duty to adequately and fairly fund our schools?”

    The 2013 legislative session will likely be marked by three major issues: a budget deficit created by tax breaks for the wealthy and big corporations, a court order to restore funding to Kansas public schools and a fundamental debate over checks and balances in Kansas.

    “Democrats want to be part of the solution to this problem, but we cannot support proposals that make the gap between the rich and the middle class even wider. The most troubling part of the Brownback Agenda is the extent to which it brings Washington-style politics to Kansas. We need Kansas based solutions to our Kansas problems, which means funding for Kansas schools, lower property taxes, and proposals to create good paying jobs for middle class families,” said Davis.

    Some tweets:

    Someone doesn’t understand the difference between “deductible” and “refundable”:

  • Americans for Prosperity-Kansas applauds Sedgwick County Commission for rejecting public financing for Bowllagio

    TOPEKA, KAN — The Kansas chapter of the grassroots group Americans for Prosperity applauds the Sedgwick County Commission for rejecting the proposed tax-increment financing (TIF) district for the Bowllagio development in Wichita.

    “We are pleased that Sedgwick County commissioners unanimously voted against public funding for this entertainment development,” said AFP-Kansas grassroots coordinator Susan Estes. “Commissioners apparently realized it wasn’t a good deal for taxpayers in Wichita and Sedgwick County.”

    Estes said this proposed development was another example of a developer receiving several layers of public financing, and that additional public financing would give the Bowllagio developers an unfair advantage over competing businesses.

    “Those who will benefit from today’s vote are the taxpayers and the existing businesses who have worked for years to invest in this community,” she said. “This would have been just another example of government picking winners and losers in the marketplace.”

    Although some may say today’s vote was a “win” for opponents of the TIF district, Estes says it was more of a win for good government.

    “This isn’t a victory in the traditional sense,” she said. “The bottom line is, we believe the Sedgwick County Commissioners today acted in the best interests of their constituents.”

    From Americans for Prosperity-Kansas.

  • Debunking the debunkers on taxes and growth

    By Americans for Prosperity State Policy Manager Nicole Kaeding

    While Congress and the President currently debate the best path to hold off the upcoming fiscal cliff, many states across the country have already tackled similar challenges this year. Some states took up the challenge of passing tax reform, but others decided to follow failed tax-and-spend policies. The hard-fought battles for lower tax rates and broader tax bases will benefit taxpayers and businesses struggling in this weak economic recovery. Instead of applauding these changes, opponents have relied on a faulty analysis to claim that lower taxes do not promote economic growth.

    Two states, Kansas and Maryland, illustrate the diametrically opposed views. In Kansas, lawmakers fought to secure the largest tax cut in the state’s history. The state is consolidating its three income tax brackets into two, lowering their rates to 4.9 percent and 3.5 percent, and also cutting rates for small business owners. In Maryland, on the other hand, the state dramatically increased taxes on the so-called “rich” instead of cutting their bloated state budget. The Old Line State’s tax change raises rates on those making more than $100,000 a year to an astounding 8.95 percent.

    Opponents in Kansas and other states looking to lower tax rates, such as Nebraska and Oklahoma, argued that lower tax rates do not encourage economic growth. They argue that empirical results do not show the benefits of lower tax rates. But, their analyses rely on selective samples and counterintuitive methods.

    One such study was published in February by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) titled “High Rate Income States are Outperforming No-Tax States.” The study claims that nine states with high income taxes grew faster than nine with no income taxes whatsoever.

    The study compares the real growth in per capita GDP. The nine high-tax states grew by 10.1 percent versus 8.7 percent for no-tax states, they claim, but there are several problems with this analysis.

    First, one of the high-tax states is Oregon, which grew by more than 25 percent. Oregon’s growth is solely attributable to one company, Intel. From 2000 to 2010, the subcategory of real GDP which contains Intel’s economic contributions grew by 1,450 percent. That dramatic growth will pull any average upward. Ironically, one of the reasons Intel is located in Oregon is the state government’s massive tax subsidies sheltering it from their high taxes. These tax credits and subsidies are an explicit acknowledgment that the Beaver State’s tax climate is uncompetitive.

    Similar arguments can be made for other high-tax states like Maryland, which is home to numerous government agencies and contractors which fuel the states’ economy. Maryland’s economy has grown rapidly in recent years — not because of its private sector, but because of its proximity to a seemingly unlimited pot of wasteful government spending in Washington, D.C.

    Additionally, ITEP’s analysis relies on per capita growth rates. In general, there is no problem with utilizing per capita growth rates, as they show the benefit of economic growth to each citizen. In this case, however, the nine high-tax states are experiencing much slower population growth than the nine no-tax states. During the decade of 2000 to 2010, the no-tax states’ population grew almost three times faster than the high-tax states. As such, growth on a per capita basis will happen slower in any state whose population is growing that rapidly. On paper, the high-tax states are in essence benefiting from individuals fleeing destructive tax climates.

    Recalculating the analysis using real GDP figures from 2000 to 2010 for the same groups of nine states illustrates the argument for low income taxes. During that time period, the nine no income tax states grew by 26 percent — well above the national average of 19 percent. The nine high-tax states grew by only 17.8 percent.

    Further, much more determines a state’s competitiveness than personal income tax rates. States compete on a multitude of tax rates, like sales or corporate income, as well as low tax complexity. For instance, there are more than 9,600 sales tax jurisdictions within the fifty states. An item as simple as a candy bar could be taxed at numerous rates in one state based on whether its primary ingredient is sugar or flour. Studies that ignored these realities are far from convincing.

    By reforming tax systems, individuals and businesses are able to keep more of their hard-earned money, increasing their ability to spend and save, as well as increase their incentive to earn more. While not all things are within the control of state lawmakers, they can work to create a welcoming environment for economic growth. Instead of relying on faulty analysis, states should follow the lead of Kansas and reform tax rates for all of their residents.

  • Steve Rose defends Kansas school spending

    Attitudes toward Kansas public schools, or facts about them: Which is most important? For boosters of the Kansas school spending establishment, attitude is all that matters. The actual facts about Kansas schools — if we were honest enough to recognize and confront them — need not be considered.

    Kansas City Star columnist Steve Rose is a case in point. His recent op-ed Negative attitude toward public schools is scary is scary itself for its vigorous and misinformed defense of a system that isn’t working very well for Kansas schoolchildren.

    Kansas Policy Institute president Dave Trabert left this comment to Rose’s article:

    It’s quite telling that your basis for saying schools operate very efficiently and spending has only kept up with inflation is a lobbying group that advocates for more spending rather that actual figures from the Dept. of Education of the state budget office.

    Here are the facts according to official government data for the period 2001 to 2011:

    • Inflation was 24.2% (Bureau of Labor Statistics, Midwest Urban Cities)
    • FTE enrollment increased 1.8% (KSDE)
    • Taxpayer support of public education increased 55.8%; state aid +37.6%, federal +155.4% and local +67%. (KSDE)
    • 2012 is expected to be a record-setting year for taxpayer support of public education, at $5.672 billion (KSDE)

    Here are a few more facts that, like those listed above, are not generally known to the public and are routinely denied by education officials.

    • $402 million more in state and local aid was not spent between 2005 and 2011 but was used to increase operating cash reserves (KSDE)
    • Instruction spending per-pupil increased 84% between 1999 and 2011 (KSDE) while inflation was up only 32% (BLS)
    • Taxpayer support of public education in Kansas increased from $3.1 billion in 1998 to $5.6 billion in 2011 (KSDE) yet student proficiency levels are well below 50% (US Dept. of Ed.)

    Telling parents the inconvenient truth is not attacking schools, teachers or anyone else. It is giving them the facts they need to make fully informed decisions about what needs to be done to improve public education.

    Kansas Senator Mary Pilcher-Cook was mentioned in the Rose op-ed and offered this response:

    In his commentary on my response to a candidate survey from Americans for Prosperity at www.afpks.org, Steve Rose used the term “hogwash” to describe this statement, with which I agreed: “Parents, teachers, and taxpayers should have a transparent system so they know how much money is being spent in each school and school district.” He stressed that I had put the statement in bold-face type.

    It’s a bold-faced belief. Repeatedly, I have heard frustration from parents, teachers and taxpayers who say they do not know how tax money is being spent. This is especially true in education, which represents a huge investment by the taxpayers of Kansas. I agree with Mr. Rose that “how much” is being spent at the school district level is a matter of public record. However, what is not known is how much is being spent at “each school,” and more precisely, “how it is being spent” at each school. Individual schools have substantial budgets. How much ends up in the classroom? How much goes to fund lobbying for more money by the school administration? How much goes to fund activities and programs that are more properly described as something other than education?

    It is important to remember that school based budgeting not only exposes inefficiencies and problems but it also highlights positive areas, as well. However, without the information, we are not fully equipped to make informed decisions regarding our schools. Parents, teachers, and taxpayers should have a transparent system so they can have more input over local school decisions. Mr. Rose thinks that kind of information is “hogwash.” This will come as a surprise to many of his readers, no doubt.

    On the bright side, it is amusing that Mr. Rose quotes “facts” from the Kansas Association of School Boards, a lobbyist group that continually insists on tax increases and demands more funding without any accountability for public education, while at the same time saying that my figures “came right out of the conservative propaganda.” Actually, the data I used came from the Kansas State Department of Education.

    Maybe Mr. Rose forgot that just a few years ago the Shawnee Mission School District dropped its membership with the KASB because the KASB uses taxpayers’ money to continually lobby against local control, something many taxpayers think is urgently needed for schools in Johnson County.

    Mr. Rose’s bogeymen-of-the-moment, “ultra-conservatives Charles and David Koch of Wichita,” have never lobbied the state of Kansas for any special interest money that would benefit only themselves, their companies or their industry. In my experience, their interest is advocating tax policies that would be beneficial to every Kansas citizen.

    I typically bold-face responses in questionnaires and surveys to help distinguish between my response and the questions offered. It’s a formatting choice, not a rhetorical weapon. But in this case, let me use boldface to reiterate a very simple point: I believe parents, teachers, and taxpayers should have a transparent system so they know how much money is being spent in each school and school district.

    If Mr. Rose believes otherwise, he can boldface his “hogwash” as much as he likes. After all, it’s his ink — and his hogwash.

  • In Kansas, rejecting left-wing Republicans

    The headline in the Kansas City Star reads “Voters reject middle ground in Kansas Senate races.” A more accurate conclusion is that voters have realized that the governance of Kansas by a coalition of Democrats and left-wing Republicans has not been in the state’s best interest. Stagnate job growth as compared to other states, increasing spending on schools with no accountability and not even an honest discussion of achievement, falling behind other states in school reform and school choice, a highly undemocratic method of selecting our state’s top judges, resistance to privatization and other measures to streamline government, business tax costs topped by only a few other states: these are some of the results of this coalition.

    But yesterday, Kansas voters said goodbye to many of the left-wing Republicans — the so-called “moderates” or “traditional Republicans” — and nominated conservatives in their place. Some nominees face Democratic challengers in November.

    The results are a surprise not only for the number of victories by conservatives, but the margin of victory. In Johnson County, incumbent Senator Tim Owens was defeated 60 to 40. Owens ranked at the bottom of all senators — Democrats included — in the Kansas Economic Freedom Index.

    In a neighboring district, incumbent Senator Mary Pilcher-Cook won her primary election by a 64 to 36 margin. Pilcher-Cook ranked at the top of the Kansas Economic Freedom index. Conservative Steve Abrams, who ranked well in the KEFI, also defeated a challenger.

    Another notable result is the defeat of Senate President Steve Morris.

    Other defeats of moderates, some being incumbents, include Jeff Melcher over Pat Colloton to replace John Vratil, Jacob LaTurner over Bob Marshall, Forrest Knox over John Grange, Jeff King over Dwayne Umbarger, Greg Smith over Joe Beveridge, Bob Reader over Roger Reitz, Tom Arpke over Pete Brungardt, Michael O’Donnell over Jean Schodorf, Mitch Holmes over Ruth Teichmann, and Dan Kerschen over Dick Kelsey. Kelsey will dispute being lumped in the moderate camp, but on economic freedom issues, he ranked just barely above neutral.

    There were some victories for the moderates. Kay Wolf won the primary to replace Terrie Huntington, which is a retention for moderates. In Topeka, moderate Vicki Schmidt retains a place in the Senate, as does Carolyn McGinn in south-central Kansas. Pat Apple defeated a challenge from Charlotte O’Hara. Apple ranks barely above neutral in the KEFI, while O’Hara, in the Kansas House, was near the top. Jeff Longbine survived a challenge from conservative James Fawcett.

    Commenting on the results, Americans for Prosperity–Kansas state director Derrick Sontag said “The primary results make one thing clear: Kansans support those who promote fiscally conservative, limited government, free market policies. Fiscal conservatives are now being elected because of the policies that have failed our state for years. This new field of candidates vying for office reflects a continued desire to put a stop to the rampant state spending and high tax burdens of the past. It is evident from the results at the ballot box that Kansans want a reasonable, responsible government and we are optimistic that our state is now starting to head down the path toward prosperity and a strong Kansas economy.”

    In local races in south-central Kansas, voters rejected the challenge by left-wing Republican Wichita City Council Member Jeff Longwell to incumbent Karl Peterjohn. Longwell had the endorsement of Wichita Mayor Carl Brewer and all Wichita City Council members except Michael O’Donnell (district 4, south and southwest Wichita). Three Sedgwick County Commission members endorsed Longwell, too. As there is no Democratic contestant, this race is over.

    In suburban Andover, voters rejected a proposed property tax increase for schools. Update: After the final canvass of votes, the tax increase passed by two votes.

  • Money flows to Kansas elections

    Kansas Watchdog, in its article Tracking the PACs — big money flowing into crucial Senate contests, lays out the action of political action committees seeking to influence Kansas voters in the August primary election.

    The issue of third-party money involvement has been a concern to many, with Democrats and moderate Republicans railing against “special interest” money, frequently referring to the Kansas Chamber of Commerce and Americans for Prosperity. The claim is that these organizations are attempting to buy an election.

    Thanks to Earl Glynn’s reporting in Kansas Watchdog, we see that both sides have PACs that funnel money to, or advocate in favor of, candidates. In the case of moderate Republicans, we see that the Senate Leadership Committee PAC has received contributions from special interest groups, and then funneled that money in favor of moderate Republicans. Senate President Steve Morris controls this PAC.

    A large contributor to Morris’ PAC is Kansas National Education Association (KNEA), the teachers union. This is a special interest groups that advocates for the interests of teachers, not students and taxpayers.

    Another contributor is Kansas Contractors PAC. Its job is to get the state to spend as much as possible on roads and highways, without regard to whether these are needed or wanted.

    Casino money makes its way to the PAC, too. The existing casinos in Kansas would like to see competition prohibited.

    There are more special interest groups contributing in favor of moderate candidates, including labor unions, perhaps the most highly specialized interest group of all.

    Contrast these special interests with groups like Americans for Prosperity. I have supported AFP for many years because AFP promotes economic freedom, which is good for everyone, not just for certain groups. While the Kansas Chamber is more focused on business, a thriving business climate in Kansas is good for everyone — consumers, workers, taxpayers, and government coffers. We don’t have this now in Kansas. Instead, we have low private sector job creation at the expense of government jobs.

    Some are concerned about the influence of PAC spending, and also that of third parties that spend in favor of, or in opposition to, candidates. These are independent expenditures. They’re not supposed to be coordinated with the candidate or campaigns. Some of the most misleading and harshly negative ads come from these groups, instead of from the candidates’ campaigns.

    This level of separation allows candidates to disavow or distance themselves from these ads. A solution is to allow larger donations to be made directly to the candidates. In this way, the campaign is responsible for the advertisements and can’t shift blame to someone else.

  • Looking for Senator Reasonable

    Below, Alan Cobb of Americans for Prosperity Foundation provides rebuttal to a recent op-ed by H. Edward Flentje of the Hugo Wall School of Urban and Public Affairs at Wichita State University. In his op-ed (Senate elections will shape state’s future, June 24, 2012 Wichita Eagle) Flentje explains his interpretation of the importance of eight Kansas Senate races where Republican incumbents have conservative challengers. These races will likely determine balance of power in the Senate, which has been controlled by a coalition of Democrats and left-leaning Republicans, usually called “moderate” Republicans. A version of this appeared in the Wichita Eagle.

    Looking for Senator Reasonable

    By Alan Cobb, Americans for Prosperity Foundation

    I’ve been looking for those reasonable Kansas state senators who occupy leadership positions that my friend Ed Flentje mentioned a few days ago in this paper. I looked and looked, but can’t find them.

    The Senate leadership I’ve seen for more than the last decade certainly isn’t opposed to tax increases, sometimes actively supporting them, and has done everything they can to thwart any kind of spending reform.

    Nearly every good piece of public policy that has passed the Kansas Legislature during this time frame has been despite Senate leadership efforts to stop it. This includes the nation’s first budget transparency act, which AFP worked hand-in-hand with the Kansas Press Association to pass, over strong objections and efforts to kill the bill by Republican leaders in the Senate

    I always smile when so-called “traditional” Kansas Republicans invoke the name of one of my heroes, Dwight Eisenhower. Eisenhower was hardly a moderate. He was the last President to oversee a true reduction of Federal spending. Over the last several decades, Kansas moderates treat spending increases as fait accompli and spending cuts as the end of the world as we know it. This is not how Eisenhower would have governed and this is not how he did govern.

    Senate leaders and those who have supported them have not exercised fiscal restraint as Dr. Flentje states, and to say so really strains credulity. Or in the vernacular I like to use, that dog don’t hunt.

    Since Steve Morris was elected Senate President in 2004, State General Fund spending has increased almost 31 percent while inflation during that same time period has been a little over 18 percent. Total Kansas government spending, including Federal contributions, has increased more than 39 percent. Though 2012 data isn’t available yet, population growth in Kansas from 2004 to 2011 has increased by a disappointing 4.5 percent.

    Most Kansans, including those of the traditional moderate Republican persuasion probably would not describe that as fiscal restraint.

    This group of moderate senators has not proposed alternatives and has simply made every effort to stop legislation supported by Gov. Brownback and other limited government, free market senators. As much as being so-called moderates, this group of senators has really been simply anti-conservative. It really isn’t much of an intellectual base for public policy.

    Those that support a different path for our State want something better for Kansans. Certainly those that support the status quo desire the same. The results of the status quo are known. We shall see the outcome of bold change

    I agree with Dr. Flentje that the results of August 7 could fundamentally change the future of Kansas. Under the current leadership that can be traced to Govs. Mike Hayden, Joan Finney, Bill Graves and Kathleen Sebelius, we’ve seen significant state budget growth, large state debt increase, state tax increases, sluggish economic growth and slow population growth. We have more people moving out of Kansas than moving in and those moving out are headed to states with a lower tax burden than Kansas.

    I don’t know about the rest of the state, but this Kansan does not think that is a path that we should continue.