Voice For Liberty

Tag: Kansas Policy Institute

  • Wichita event: The future of innovation and investment in broadband

    The FCC has proposed reclassifying the Internet as a public utility to get total regulatory control. How can you help stop the FCC Internet takeover?

    Learn about the efforts to keep the Internet in the free market during a free lunch seminar, “The Future of Innovation & Investment in Broadband” next Thursday at the Wichita Petroleum Club. Hear from Bruce Mehlman, co-chair of the Internet Innovation Alliance and former Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Technology Policy in the George W. Bush administration, on efforts to expand broadband access and how to keep the Internet in the free market.

    Registration is free when you RSVP, but seating is limited. Register by 5 p.m. Friday, Aug. 6, for a chance to win a $500 Apple Store gift card!

    The event is from 11:30 am to 1:00 pm on Thursday August 12, at the Wichita Petroleum Club, on the ninth floor of the Bank of America Building at 100 N. Broadway (north side of Douglas between Topeka and Broadway) in Wichita, Kansas (click for a map and directions)

    This luncheon is sponsored by Americans for Prosperity-Kansas, Mid-American Communications Alliance, Wichita Independent Business Association, and Kansas Policy Institute.

    Registration is free when you RSVP by clicking on action.mocomm.org/rsvp. Learn more by calling Susan Estes of AFP at 316-681-4415, or by email at sestes@afphq.org.

  • Avoiding bad decisions in good times

    By Dave Trabert, Kansas Policy Institute.

    An associate of mine once said, “Some of the worst decisions are made in the best of times.” His observation pertained to negotiating agreements with labor unions but I was reminded of it by a news report saying local governments may eliminate 500,000 jobs across the country if Congress doesn’t pony up more federal tax dollars. The story was based on a survey released by the National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties and United States Conference of Mayors.

    Here’s the taxpayer perspective.

    According to the US Census Bureau and the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the country’s population grew 34.4% between 1980 and 2008 but local government employment jumped 51.3%. If local government employment had simply kept pace with population gains, there would be 1.6 million fewer local government jobs today. Instead, we’ve seen runaway property taxes (93% over the last twelve years in Kansas) and higher local sales taxes. Governments chose to add extra employees when revenues were flowing (instead of reducing taxes and improving the economy), and now face the painful task of backing off some of their excess employment.

    Local government job growth outpaced population growth in most states but some were extreme, including Kansas, which had 65% local government job growth but only an 18% population increase. In 2008 Kansas had 65.7 local government employees for every thousand residents; that’s 39% above the national average and the second-worst state ratio in the country.

    No one wants to see someone lose their job, but using tax dollars to subsidize employment is bad policy to begin with and spending federal dollars on local government employment destroys the Constitutional protections of state sovereignty. Governments have no money of their own; they simply take money from taxpayers and redistribute it. Raising federal taxes to maintain a bloated local government workforce will only make an already weak economy even worse.

  • In Kansas Legislature, a bad year for freedom and liberty

    It was a bad year for economic freedom in the Kansas Legislature. There were the big votes that most people know of — the big-spending budget, the increase in the sales tax, and the statewide smoking ban — but the legislature passed — and the governor signed — many other laws that chip away at personal liberty and economic freedom. The following list contains many of these bills.

    This list was produced by Bob Corkins of Kansas Votes, a project of the Kansas Policy Institute. It contains only bills that were enacted into law. There were, of course, some bad bills that didn’t make it all the way through the lawmaking process.

    Corkins said that 2010 was the worst session for personal liberty that he could think of in more than two decades of working in the Kansas Statehouse. In many cases these bills had broad support among conservatives.

    Some of these bills are concerned with what people might consider to be minor, unimportant matters. But the legislature thought they were important enough to be the subject of legislation. And while some might seem to chip away at personal liberty and economic freedom in small, insignificant ways, taken together over years, it all adds up.

    Further, when lawmakers pass laws like this and no one complains, and when they get re-elected year after year, it emboldens them to take on bigger challenges to personal liberty and economic freedom, like increasing sales or other taxes. It hardens their resolve to block expansions of economic freedom like school choice programs.

    An example of a bill contrary to personal liberty and economic freedom is House Bill 2130, which requires every occupant of a car to wear a safety belt. Now I happen to think seat belts are a great idea. I always wear mine and ask everyone in my car to wear theirs. But it’s a different matter when the state requires their use. It’s an example of lawmakers trying to protect us from ourselves. Once they start down this road, it’s very difficult for them to stop.

    I’m aware of the argument that says because automobile accidents produce serious and costly injuries that drive up the cost of health care for everyone, and seat belt use reduces the severity of these injuries, we ought to regulate the behavior of people by requiring use of seat belts. We can expect to see arguments made like this more often as our nation moves towards greater collectivization of health care and its costs. What we ought to do, however, is reverse this trend in health care.

    An example of a move away from a uniform tax system is House Bill 2554, authorizing the PEAK (Promoting Employment Across Kansas) program. This program allows certain employers to keep most of the withholding tax their employees pay. Programs like this are contrary to economic freedom because, in this case, we have the state deciding how to direct resources. An alternative that is in harmony with economic freedom is to rely on free markets for this guidance. Besides being contrary to economic freedom, there is scant evidence that economic development programs like this work, in terms of increasing overall prosperity.

    Don’t think for a moment, however, that conservative Kansas legislators rose in opposition to this bill and its intervention into free markets. In the Senate, the bill passed 40 to zero. In the House, the bill passed 109 to 12. Of the 12 votes in opposition, eleven were from Democrats who mostly have far-left voting records. Brenda Landwehr was the only Republican to vote against this bill.

    Another example of government intervention in markets is Senate Bill 430, which restored and boosted a historic preservation tax credit program. In my testimony to a House committee on this bill, I said “We must recognize that a tax credit is an appropriation of Kansans’ money made through the tax system. If the legislature is not comfortable with writing a developer a check for over $1,000,000 — as in the case with one Wichita developer — it should not make a roundabout contribution through the tax system that has the same economic impact on the state’s finances.”

    Principles of economic freedom and personal liberty contend that the state should not be spending this money, whether through direct appropriations or the tax system. Very few conservatives voted against this bill on these principles.

    The following list of enacted bills is ordered, Corkins says, from the “most atrocious to the merely very bad.” Each bill is linked to its page on Kansas Votes.

    Senate Bill 572 (Propose state budget for 2011)
    to approve a state budget that would authorize total spending for the current 2010 fiscal year of $5.416 billion in State General Fund spending (SGF, that portion of the budget paid primarily with state-imposed sales and income taxes) and $14.414 billion from All Funds (including SGF, federal aid, and state agency fees), and for spending $5.621 billion SGF and $13.685 from All Funds in fiscal year 2011.

    House Bill 2360 (Increase state sales, income taxes)
    to enact a state sales tax increase from the current 5.3 percent up to 6.3 percent, amend the Kansas Taxpayer Transparency Act, expand the food sales tax rebate program, and expand the state earned income tax credit (EITC) program.

    House Bill 2221 (Ban smoking in public and workplaces)
    to ban smoking in enclosed areas, including all public places, any placy of employment, taxicabs, hallways and more, but would not apply to outdoor areas, private residences, hotel or motel rooms, tobacco shops, certain private clubs and casino gaming floors.

    House Bill 2320 (Impose nursing home tax)
    to create a provider assessment tax on nearly all licensed beds within skilled nursing care facilities in the state of Kansas; deem the Kansas Health Policy Authority to be the state agency to calculate and implement the provider assessment; establish a Quality Care Fund where all assessments and penalties collected through the assessment program would be deposited; and, establish a Quality Care Improvement Panel.

    House Bill 2356 (Increase state inspections of child care facilities)
    to adopt “Lexie’s law” requiring the Department of Health and Environment to inspect every child care facility once every 15 months. The inspection frequency of a family child care home following an initial inspection will be at intervals that the department determines to be appropriate to assess the health, safety and well-being of children being cared for in the family child care home. In addition, to open certain records to the public regarding the identity of maternity center, family day care home, and child care facility licensees, but would allow the state to withhold such information if necessary to protect public health and safety or that of the facility’s patients or children.

    House Bill 2130 (Mandate seat belts, allow traffic stops)
    to amend state law to require every occupant of a passenger care to wear a safety belt. A law enforcement officer would now be permitted to stop a passenger car for any violation of the seat belt requirement by anyone in the front seat or anyone under 18. The fine for violations would be $5 until July 1, 2011, when it would increase to $10.

    House Bill 2650 (Launch new state transportation works program)
    to initiate a new state transportation works program, providing for the construction, improvement and maintenance of the state highway system; authorizing financial transfers between the State Highway Fund and the Rail Service Improvement Fund; increasing vehicle registration fees; increasing the borrowing authority of the Kansas Department of Transportation; and, pledging $8 million in transportation projects for each county in Kansas over the next 10 years.

    Senate Bill 409 (Development of passenger rail service in Kansas)
    to authorize the Kansas Secretary of Transportation to establish and implement a passenger rail service program in the state. To establish the program, the Secretary would enter into agreements with Amtrak and other rail operators to develop passenger rail service serving Kansas and other state. The agreements can include cost-sharing agreements and joint powers agreements. The Secretary should also enter into agreements with local jurisdictions along a proposed route. The bill also gives the Secretary authority to make loans or grants to passenger rail service providers for the purpose of restoring existing rail infrastructure, for rail economic development projects and the cost to initiate and operate passenger rail service. The bill does not specify where program funding would come from.

    House Bill 2476 (Extend and increase court fees)
    to increase a number of court fees and extend such judicial branch surcharges through fiscal year 2011 to fund non-judicial personnel working in the court system; the compromises recommended would alter specific fee increases for specific court actions with the fees ranging generally between $10 and $20.

    Senate Bill 200 (Repeal partial HMO tax, apply full rate to all)
    to repeal the partial state tax of 0.5 percent imposed on premiums charged against a few Health Maintenance Organizations so that the full one percent premiums tax would be applied uniformly against all HMOs.

    House Bill 2582 (Extend and reallocate e-911 tax revenue to locals)
    to delay for one year — until July, 1, 2011 — a provision in current law that discontinues the wireless enhanced 911 grant fee and the VoIP enhanced 911 grant fee, abolishes the wireless enhanced 911 advisory board and the grant fund, and that directs the distribution of the unobligated balance in the grant fund to public safety answering points (PSAPs).

    House Bill 2554 (Expand tax incentives for hiring new workers)
    expanding the PEAK program (Promoting Employment Across Kansas) by liberalizing its definitions, relaxing its requirements so that a company would be eligible if it relocated or expanded a portion of its business operations into the state, permitting qualified companies to retain 95 percent of the employees’ withholding taxes if the median wage paid to the new employees at least equals that paid throughout the county, and by requiring an independent evaluation of economic development incentives administered by the Kansas Department of Commerce.

    House Bill 2226 (Change earmarks of traffic fine revenue, increase fines)
    to increase the fine assessed on traffic infractions that are on the uniform fine schedule by $15. The revenue generated by the increased fines would be distributed to several justice related programs, including the Crime Victims Compensation Fund, the Crime Victims Assistance Fund, the Community Alcoholism and Intoxication Programs Fund, the Boating Fee Fund, the Children’s Advocacy Center Fund, and the criminal justice information system line fund.

    Senate Bill 430 (Limit use of certain tax credits)
    make a 10 percent cut in certain income tax credits permitted under current law; repeal a $3.75 million cap that had been imposed on historic preservation income tax credits; make statutory amendments needed for Kansas to remain in national compliance with the streamlined sales tax act; impose a $10 fee for delinquent taxpayers who enter into an installment payment plan agreement in excess of 90 days from the date of the payment plan agreement; and, people with intangibles tax liability would be required to file their returns with county clerks, rather than the Department of Revenue.

    House Bill 2501 (Allow exemption from liability limit on mortgage insurers)
    to allow the Kansas Department of Insurance to waive (at the sole discretion of the Commissioner of Insurance) the current requirement that a mortgage guaranty insurance company must have a total liability that does not exceed 25 times its capital, surplus and contingency reserve; to amend the definition of “RBC instruction” to mean risk-based capital instructions promulgated by a specified national insurance association; to prohibit firms that offer health care plans from requiring or requesting genetic tests, and prohibiting insurance companies from charging a higher premium because of any genetic test results; and, to grant rights to insurance customers in seeking special exceptions for cases in which their credit histories may affect their insurance coverage, allowing any such customer who experiences an “extraordinary life circumstance” that hurts their credit, and thereby causes an adverse insurance action, to obtain reasonable exceptions to the insurer’s rates.

    House Bill 2485 (Increase evaluation period for trucking licenses)
    to increase the time period from the current 12 up to 18 months for the Kansas Corporation Commission to verify a trucking company’s fitness and regulatory compliance for its continued operation.

    House Bill 2472 (Specify rights in common interest communities)
    to enact a set of rights and duties regarding people who live in common interest communities such as associations of apartment owners, but not owners currently and similarly bound by covenants unless they agree otherwise – setting forth duties in such communities regarding bylaws, owner voting rights, dispute resolutions, access to property, borrowing money, communications with owners, recordkeeping, and other matters; to prohibit until July 1, 2011, any city from adopting or enforcing any rule requiring the installation of a multi-purpose residential fire protection sprinkler system; and, to decrease down to 90 days, but permit a court to extend to up to 180 days, a compliance period for an abandoned property owner to carry out a rehabilitation plan where the property is brought into compliance with fire, housing and building codes and current on all ad valorem property tax owed, and to reduce from three to two years the time a person who purchases a house from an organization that has rehabilitated an abandoned property must occupy the house.

    Senate Bill 389 (Compensation to dentists in health insurance plans)
    to only permit a health insurance plan — including any individual health insurance policy, the State Children’s Health Insurance Plan and the state Medicaid program — to set fees for covered services (and not for uncovered services)provided by a dentist who is a participating provider in the plan.

    Senate Bill 377 (Regulate retainage in construction contracts)
    to prohibit an owner, contractor or subcontractor from withholding more than a five percent limit on the contract as retainage (money withheld to ensure proper work performance); to require release of retainage on an undisputed payment within 30 days after substantial completion of the project; to permit no more than 150 percent of the value of incomplete work, due to a contractor or subcontractor, to be withheld by an owner or contractor and require it be paid within 45 after completion of the work; and, to permit a general contractor to request an alternative security in lieu of retainage, such as an irrevocable bank letter or credit, certificate of deposit or cash bond.

    Senate Bill 373 (Amending application of municipal court fees)
    to require a $19 municipal court fee be imposed uniformly statewide in each case filed in municipal court, other than a nonmoving traffic violation, where there is a finding of guilty, a plea of guilty, a plea of no contest, or a forfeiture of bond or a diversion.

    House Bill 2433 (Liberalize school purchasing process, Prison sales)
    to allow all state educational institutions more independence in choosing how they acquire goods, supplies, equipment, services and land leases without the need to route acquisitions through the Kansas State Director of Purchases; and, to authorize the Department of Corrections for the next three years to sell prison-made goods to private citizens and businesses in Kansas.

    House Bill 2415 (Exempt universities from surplus property law)
    to exempt the six Kansas Regents universities from the current duty to dispose of any of their personal property through the terms of the Kansas Surplus Property Act. That law ordinarily makes the goods available for sale to the general public.

    House Bill 2411 (Criminalize incense, “K2”)
    to criminalize the unauthorized use or possession of certain chemicals known as “K2”, BZP and TFMPP that have been added to herbs and incense to produce hallucinogenic effects when inhaled or consumed.

    House Bill 2353 (Ratify local sales tax vote for jail)
    to retroactively validate a local election last year in Chautauqua County to impose a countywide sales tax where money raised would pay for a new county jail and law enforcement facility.

    House Bill 2160 (Require state workers’ health plan to cover autism)
    to require the state employees’ health plan to cover services for the diagnosis and treatment of autism spectrum disorders in any covered person less than 19 years old, and to require health insurance policies include coverage provisions for orally administered anti-cancer medications.

    Senate Bill 83 (Require licensure of naturopathic doctors)
    to change the regulatory status of naturopathic doctors with the Board of Healing Arts from registrants to licensees and to permit naturopaths to form professional corporations; and, to include two licensure categories — “exempt license” and “federally active license” — in the Physical Therapy Practice Act.

  • For Kansas school spending lobby, truth is frustrating

    Today’s lead Wichita Eagle editorial complains that a Kansas public policy group’s position on school fund balances is frustrating.

    It would be one thing if the findings made by the Kansas Policy Institute were false. But it has been found that these findings are true: Kansas schools have been spending down the funds in the way that KPI has said they could do.

    The problem is that these facts are inconvenient to the school spending lobby and its request for ever-increasing funding for schools at the expense of taxpayers and other competing budget interests. It should be noted that this lobby is a special interest group itself, as is the teachers union, school employees, unions like SEIU that represent school employees, and school superintendents. The Kansas Policy Institute, according to its website and also my observation of its activities, advocates for “free enterprise solutions and the protection of personal freedom.” These are things that everyone benefits from. It is incorrect and wrong for the Wichita Eagle to refer to KPI as a special interest group.

    For more background on this issue, see:

  • Kansas schools have used funds to increase spending

    Although revenue to Kansas school districts has declined, schools have been able to increase spending by using fund balances. These fund balances have been the subject of controversy, with school spending advocates insisting that they can’t be used in the way that we now see they have been used.

    The controversy over school spending has been played out in the pages of the Wichita Eagle, both on the editorial page and in advertisements placed by public interest groups.

    The group that has placed most of the ads, the Kansas Policy Institute, was mentioned, although not by name, in an Eagle op-ed written by several Wichita-area school superintendents.

    The op-ed states: “This group’s goal is to cast doubt on school funding.” We’ve found, however, that there is plenty of doubt and misinformation about Kansas school funding. A recent poll that KPI commissioned found that very few Kansas residents are well informed about school funding and spending.

    School spending advocates have every motivation to keep the public from learning the facts, as the KPI poll found that when Kansans are presented with the truth about school spending, very few are willing to personally pay more taxes for increased spending on schools.

    As to the controversy over fund balances, a Kansas Watchdog story (Schools Districts Tap Cash Reserves to Increase Spending ) gives more details. (Kansas Watchdog is a project of the Kansas Policy Institute.)

    I spoke with KPI president Dave Trabert about the recent figures released by the Kansas State Department of Education. He said there are several things that Kansans should learn from these figures, the first being that there is good news in these results. Schools have been able to increase spending despite losses in revenue.

    Trabert said that the challenge that schools may have is to find a way to offset half of the loss of federal stimulus funds. In the case of USD 259, the Wichita public school district, that figure is $9.7 million. The recent report from KSDE states that the Wichita district will end the current school year with $14.5 million in its contingency reserve fund.

    Trabert said that the contingency fund provides the funding needed to keep spending at current levels. There is no need to cut anything, including employees. (The Wichita school district recently announced plans to cut 117 employees.)

    While there may be increased costs in some areas that can’t be avoided, districts have options. A bill introduced in the Kansas Legislature would give districts additional flexibility in using fund balances that are not available presently. The bill is HB 2748.

    Even without this bill, Trabert said that school districts can “spend down” fund balances simply by not adding as much to the various funds that school districts have been adding. That’s the other piece of good news: school districts have been spending down the funds that they claim can’t be used.

    By using fund balances, schools in Kansas were able to increase spending by an estimated $320 million in the current school year. Revenue to Kansas school districts declined by about $50 million, but $370 in fund balances were used to boost total spending by $320 million. Trabert verified these figures with Kansas Deputy Education Commissioner Dale Dennis.

    School districts in Kansas also complain that the state is often tardy in making its payments to them. Legislation has been introduced that would require the state to pay on time. The state has the money, Trabert said, noting that if the state truly did not have the funds, we would see plummeting bond ratings for the state. But the state’s policy, as stated in the 2009 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report is “As a cash flow management policy, the State seeks to avoid borrowing from its own idle funds to meet expenditure obligations of the State General Fund.”

    So the money is there, but the state makes a deliberate decision to not pay school districts on time.

    There is still money in funds that can be used for the upcoming school year. Schools should be able to meet their funding needs without asking the state to increase taxes.

  • Kansas budget can be balanced without tax increases

    As the Kansas Legislature prepares to get to work next week producing a budget plan for the next year, Kansans are being told that tax increases are inevitable. Several sources, however, have ideas and detailed plans as to how the state can avoid tax increases.

    Kansas Senator Chris Steineger, a Democrat from Kansas City, has a list of cost-cutting measures that could be implemented quickly. See Kansas can have fast, achievable savings for his list.

    Steineger also has what he calls the billion dollar list, which contains items that could save even more money. Some of these proposals such as downsizing the legislature, consolidation of Kansas counties, and consolidation of state agencies, might take more time to implement. But these proposals, if implemented, would place Kansas government on a permanent low-cost track.

    The Kansas Policy Institute has developed some proposals for savings that it delivered in the form of a letter to Kansas Governor Mark Parkinson. The proposal contains some revenue enhancements that are not in the form of tax increases, which is usually what proponents of revenue enhancements mean. It also contains many cost-cutting measures.

    In the letter, KPI President Dave Trabert raises a point that I’ve not heard from any other source. The large budget gap that is routinely mentioned is composed in part of federal stimulus (ARRA) dollars that Kansas received, just like other states. But these funds will not be available in the next budget year, fiscal year 2011. According to KPI, ARRA funds accounted for $205 million of spending in fiscal year 2010.

    Should these “missing” funds — which everyone knew were temporary — now be used to create a large “budget gap” in order to justify the need for tax increases? Trabert explains: “KPI uses a taxpayer-focused approach that defines 2010 spending as that which was funded by state taxes. Your proposed 2011 budget would allow government to continue spending at levels funded by both state and federal tax dollars. It was well known that the stimulus money was temporary and that the state should plan accordingly, so state taxpayers should not be required to pay more to make up the difference.”

    The need to avoid further tax increases is vital to the Kansas economy, as Trabert notes in his letter to the governor: “The Kansas economy is already absorbing a $163 million unemployment tax increase that is negatively impacting jobs and we must do everything we can to avoid further damage.”

    The KPI letter and analysis may be read by clicking on Letter to Kansas Governor Mark Parkinson.

    Another plan comes from Americans for Prosperity-Kansas, which has prepared its commonsense budget proposal for fiscal year 2011. AFP’s plan contains both long-term and short-term measures for restoring our state’s fiscal health. It contains many specific measures that could be taken immediately to balance the budget without raising taxes.

    The AFP document is a comprehensive look at Kansas government spending, as noted in the introduction: “Following the approach of a concise but broad-ranging examination of every function Kansas state government attempts to perform, AFP has produced a budget that makes real tax cuts possible for Kansas taxpayers. AFP has gone beyond the traditional cursory examinations of state spending where the stock solutions are merely eliminating waste, fraud, abuse, and/or rooting out duplication.”

    As an example, for the Revisor of Statutes office the proposal suggests this: “This department received an increase of over 23 percent for FY 2008 which only partially reflects the cost of two FTEs for committee staffing. With the updated computer systems and additional staffing the Revisor’s office should be able to suffice with the reduction of 15 percent of appropriations funding.”

    The AFP budget proposal was developed by Steven J. Anderson, a certified public accountant with extensive experience in government accounting and budgets.

    The AFP budget proposal may be read at AFP-Kansas releases FY 2011 “Commonsense Budget Proposal.”

  • Kansas budget gap, the real numbers

    On Friday the Kansas Consensus Revenue Estimating Group met and released their estimate of revenue for the remainder of the current fiscal year and the next. (The current fiscal year is 2010, which ends on June 30, just about 2.5 months from now. Fiscal year 2011 starts on July 1.)

    Revenue estimates for both years were revised downwards. For the remainder of fiscal year 2010, the revenue estimate was revised downwards by $46.4 million, or 0.9 percent from the November estimate. For fiscal year 2010, the number was revised downward by decreased by $83.8 million, or 1.6 percent from November’s estimate.

    These numbers are important because they are the numbers that the legislature, by law, has to work from when it reconvenes on April 28. Having a common set of numbers to work with means that arguments as to whose estimates of revenue are correct are avoided. Some degree of politicization of the budget is eliminated.

    The release of the revenue estimates caused Kansas Governor Mark Parkinson to release a statement that read, in part: “This estimate confirms what we have predicted since the start of the year — despite having already cut more than a billion dollars in state spending, Kansas still faces a $510 million budget shortfall. This hole is too big to fill with additional cuts. $510 million in cuts would decimate our schools, public safety programs and safety net services for our most vulnerable Kansas.” This was followed by a reassertion of his proposal to temporarily increase the sales tax by one cent on the dollar.

    The governor said that cuts in spending would “decimate our schools.” This is contraindicated by noting that USD 259, the Wichita public school district, found a way to save $2.5 million per year by adjusting school starting times, thereby saving on transportation costs. Undoubtedly more savings like this can be found.

    Not everyone agrees with the governor’s numbers and the need for a tax increase. Two weeks ago the Kansas Policy Institute placed a newspaper advertisement that explained some of the problems with the governor’s facts and his promotion of a tax increase. The numbers cited in the ad are a little different now that we have the recent revenue estimates, but the points are the same: The purportedly large “gap” is based on what the governor wants to spend, not what needs to be spent. There are many ways to save money, and tax increases will harm Kansas.

    Following is the text of the Kansas Policy Institute ad:

    With all due respect Governor Parkinson, your claims about state spending and your premise for tax increases simply aren’t true.

    First of all, the primary cause of the budget “gap” isn’t to prevent drastic cuts to state spending, it’s that you want to increase state spending by $380 million.

    Your proposed general fund budget of $5.831 billion is 7% higher than your estimate of FY 2010 spending and $1.1 billion more than we spent in FY 2005. The state provided good services when we spent a billion dollars less and it’s disingenuous to claim that we couldn’t possibly spend less without devastating the ability to meet taxpayers’ needs.

    The true “gap” is $122 million, which is the amount that revenues are predicted to decline next year. There are many viable options to cover the revenue shortfall without raising anyone’s taxes or eliminating services. Here are just a few:

    • Sell some state property. Some legislators already have a plan in place that could generate up to $150 million.
    • Pay schools sooner (and on time) so they don’t need large carryover cash balances to pay their bills, freeing up a large portion of nearly $700 million.
    • Privatize some services and functions. Private sector employers can do a job for less money and the services would still be available.

    There are many more examples listed on our web site at www.KansasPolicy.org.

    The Kansas economy is already absorbing $163 million in higher unemployment taxes, which is predicted to cause further job loss. Raising other taxes will cost more jobs and do further damage to the economy. We can maintain current state spending without raising anyone’s taxes, and we respectfully ask that you adopt that common-sense approach and drop your demand for harmful tax increases.

  • Kansas school spending lobby impossible to satisfy

    A new report by the Kansas Policy Institute provides some insight into the voracious appetite of the Kansas school spending lobby for taxpayer dollars: There’s never enough.

    In A Kansas Primer on Education Funding, Volume III: Analysis of K-12 Spending in Kansas this story is told:

    So the rumors of school funding wars persist, with legislators and taxpayers asking “how much is enough?” and schools pressing for more money with no real end in sight. Speaker Pro Tem Arlen Siegfreid (R-Olathe) shared with me a conversation he had with Mark Tallman, Assistant Executive Director/Advocacy for the Kansas Association of School Boards (KASB), which illuminates the dynamics at play:

    Early last session Mark Tallman and I engaged in a conversation about the budget and school spending. During the conversation the difficulty of increasing school spending as ‘required’ by Montoy was juxtaposed against the need to cut school spending by the same percentage as other portions of the State budget. During our discussion I asked Mr. Tallman if we (the State) had the ability to give the schools everything he asked for would he still ask for even more money for schools. His answer was, “Of course, that’s my job.”

    We’ve known for some time that the appetite for money by the school spending lobby can’t be satisfied. In 2007, when the Wichita school board voted to raise taxes I wrote this:

    Lynn Rogers, then the USD 259 (the Wichita public school district) school board president, and Connie Dietz, then vice-president of the same body, attended. There had been a proposal to spend an additional $415 million over the next three years on schools. Asked if this would be enough to meet their needs, the Wichita school board members replied, “No.”

    At least Rogers was not lying. Much more Kansas state spending than that was approved, and true to his word, the Wichita Board of Education still found it necessary this week to raise taxes so the public schools could have even more money.

  • Kansas school spending study finds $717 million in potential savings

    From the Kansas Policy Institute.

    A new study on K-12 spending in Kansas concludes that schools statewide are spending as much as $717 million more than is necessary, and that implementing the “best practices” of more efficient districts could eliminate the need to raise taxes or cut spending on other essential services.

    Volume 3: Analysis of K-12 Spending in Kansas of KPI’s series “A Kansas Primer on Education Funding” also finds that, despite district claims that they are underfunded, most districts haven’t spent all of the money they received in past years. A preliminary version of this study was released in January based on 2007-08 spending; the study has been updated with newly-released data from the 2008-09 school year.

    The ability to spend significantly less money, which supports the findings of studies by the Kansas Division of Legislative Post Audit, and the fact that schools have dramatically increased their cash reserves strongly refutes the validity of asking suing the state for higher funding.

    Volume 3 is published by Kansas Policy Institute and written by KPI president Dave Trabert. Volumes 1 and 2 of “A Kansas Primer on Education Funding” were published in 2009, chronicling the history of education funding from statehood and providing ground-breaking analysis of Montoy vs. State of Kansas, respectively.

    The full analysis of K-12 spending and previous volumes are available for individual download at www.KansasPolicy.org. Printed copies of each study are available upon request.