Voice For Liberty

Tag: Kansas state government

Articles about Kansas, its government, and public policy in Kansas.

  • Open records in Kansas

    Recently I was recruited to participate in the Sunshine Blogger Project. Its purpose is to “find out whether America’s governors properly archive the e-mail that comes into and goes out of their offices, and are able to provide copies of those e-mails when members of the public request them.”

    I believe that open records and meetings are important, both to news media and citizens, so I agreed to take part in the project.

    On February 7, 2008 I mailed (by postal mail) my request for the records of interest, which are emails sent and received by the office of Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius for a recent four-day period. We asked that the emails be delivered electronically, which seems natural given that computerization is the essence of email.

    On February 15 I received a letter from JaLynn Copp, the Assistant Chief Counsel to the Governor, stating that the office is “in the process of reviewing your request and generating a response.”

    As of February 25 I hadn’t received that response, so I called to inquire. I left a message requesting my call to be returned. Over the next few days I made several calls and left messages, but no one returned my call. Finally I was able to reach the Assistant Chief Counsel, who then briefly described the details spelled out in a letter that I received on February 28.

    The Governor’s office has approximately 25 full-time employees, the letter explained. It will take a minimum of two hours for each employee to conduct a review of each employee’s computer to see if any of the requested emails fall under one of the many exemptions to the Kansas Open Records Act. This adds up to $1,350. The office requests payment before any work will be done.

    The letter I received contained this paragraph:

    I will look into the possibility of providing our response in electronic form as you have requested. This may be an additional charge; I can let you know what that is if it is possible. If it is not possible, then we would provide the information in hard copy and this would cost .25 per page. Of course, we will not know the up front costs of how many pages this would be until we do the searches. This would be assessed after we have done the searches and would need to be paid before we turned over the documents to you.

    I found this paragraph remarkable. I am not able to fully understand what this means, and I have written to ask for clarification. Part of what I wrote is this:

    I have a question or two. Will the total cost be the estimated $1,350 for reviewing plus $.25 per printed page that is supplied to me? Will your office be performing the review reading from printed pages or from reading the emails on a computer in their original electronic form?

    I ask because it seems to me that if the review is going to be conducted by reading the emails on a computer, then printing costs could be avoided. Alternatively, if the review will be performed by reading printed pages of paper, then perhaps the $.25 per printed page charge could be waived, as the material would have been already printed.

    I’ll update this article when I receive an answer. It may take some time, as the Assistant Chief Counsel did not share an email address with me.

    Recommended sites: State Sunshine and Open Records, WikiFOIA, the wiki for helping people understand and use the Freedom of Information Act at the state and local level, Kansas Sunshine Coalition for Open Government.

  • Regulatory uncertainty weakens Kansas’ economy

    In this article, Karl Peterjohn states that the professional staff at the Kansas Department of Health and Environment approved the permit for a new coal-burning electricity plant in Kansas, but the agency’s Secretary, Rod Bremby, overruled that staff. It seems as though he and Governor Kathleen Sebelius were trying to stake new political ground in America. Why they would want to do this is not clear to me and many other Kansans. China builds a new plant like the one proposed for Kansas every seven to ten days. India builds many, and so do some other countries. Since it’s not called global warming for nothing, it doesn’t matter where these plants are built. They all affect the global atmosphere, as far as carbon dioxide is concerned, in precisely the same way. So two Kansas politicians, cheered on by a few newspaper editorial writers, place the Kansas economy at great risk for what benefit? Perhaps in a few years, on a hot summer day when little wind is blowing, the chillers at the Wichita Eagle building on East Douglas will slow to a crawl, the editorialists’ computers switch to battery back up power with only a few minutes left to finish the day’s work, and no electricity is available to run the printing presses or the servers hosting the Eagle’s web site. But at least we in Kansas spewed only 0.01% as much carbon into the atmosphere as did the new Chinese coal plants.

    Regulatory Uncertainty Weakens Kansas’ Economy
    By Karl Peterjohn, Kansas Taxpayers Network, www.kansastaxpayers.com

    The regulatory uncertainty created by Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) Secretary Ron Bremby’s decision to deny a permit to Sunflower Electric’s proposed power plant places the Kansas economy at risk and should be obvious to everyone. Sadly, this everyone does not include the Wichita Eagle’s editorial board’s February 27th editorial.

    Electric utilities are already highly regulated by the state as well as federal rules and edicts. Sunflower Electric’s proposed coal fired electrical power plant expansion had been through numerous permits and regulatory requirements. The professional staff at KDHE had recommended approval based upon the criteria elected officials had placed in Kansas law.

    Secretary Bremby decided that he would add new criteria that no federal or state elected officials had approved. Kansas became the first state to declare that carbon dioxide emissions are pollutants. That became his basis for denying a construction permit.

    The Wichita Eagle was correct in pointing out that Bremby’s ruling was a first. Bremby’s edict was not only a first in Kansas, it was a first for the entire nation. Bremby’s decision became national news as Kansas became the only state where carbon dioxide emissions became a pollutant. Elected officials did not make this decision but a single bureaucrat, who last year filed for bankruptcy, and who ignored his professional staff in making his ruling. The rule of law has been replaced in Kansas in this important case by the rule of a bureaucrat.

    Carbon dioxide is emitted by people, our cars, our machines, and even in our fireplaces. Since Mr. Bremby decided to make carbon dioxide a pollutant by regulatory edict, any and all other firms that emit carbon dioxide are now at regulatory risk. If carbon dioxide is a “pollutant,” let’s have our elected officials be the ones who change the law.

    Will the Sunflower precedent be extended to non-utilities, like new or existing ethanol plants, that also emit CO2? Will this edict be placed on existing coal-fired power plants? Will this occur quickly or slowly? To large and small firms equally, or not? This is regulatory uncertainty. This is obvious to everyone who has run a business and met a payroll.

    This also demonstrates how far we have moved in Kansas away from a free market system to one where the state controls the economy. When Mr. Bremby’s boss, Governor Sebelius, outlined her support for a smaller expansion of Sunflower, the state control of this economic decision making process was clear. This is state control that economists have warned against.

    Nobel Laureate economist Milton Friedman warned over a quarter century ago, “Wherever the state undertakes to control in detail the economic activities of its citizens, wherever, that is, detailed central economic planning reigns, there ordinary citizens are in political fetters, have a low standard of living, and have little power to control their own destiny.” This type of government control is an excellent reason why the average income of Kansans lags well below the national average as well as our state’s overall economic growth.

    This is a reason why the risk, uncertainty, and the probability of a lack of profits drives business expansions and entrepreneurs away from locating in a state where the rule of law has been replaced by unpredictable and delayed edicts from arbitrary bureaucrats.

  • Are you polluting Kansas?

    Lost in the debate over the building of a coal-fired electricity plant in Kansas is the fact that China builds a plant like this every week to ten days, according to the New York Times. Nonetheless, newspaper editorial writers like Randy Scholfield of The Wichita Eagle want to saddle Kansans with higher utility bills and a stifling regulatory structure. There is no doubt that other forms of producing electricity are more expensive than coal. Mr. Scholfield’s newspaper is full of stories of woe about how people can’t pay their bills when the price of natural gas or gasoline goes up. Yet, he is willing to ask them to pay more for something of dubious value. At the same time, his position holds the real possibility of reducing economic growth in Kansas, which should lead to more tales of woe for the Wichita Eagle to report.

    Even the New York Times recognizes that wind power can’t be our sole, or even major, source of power. As it reported on February 23, 2008: “Despite the attraction of wind as a nearly pollution-free power source, it does have limitations. Though the gap is closing, electricity from wind remains costlier than that generated from fossil fuels. Moreover, wind power is intermittent and unpredictable, and the hottest days, when electricity is needed most, are usually not windy.”

    Thank you to Karl Peterjohn of the Kansas Taxpayers Network for the following explanation.

    Are You Polluting Kansas?
    By Karl Peterjohn, Kansas Taxpayers Network

    It is a biological fact that every time Governor Sebelius breathes, she exhales carbon dioxide. Every editorial writer at the carbon dioxide phobic Wichita Eagle also exhales carbon dioxide with every breath.

    Are they polluting? All mammals exhale carbon dioxide and the plants that inhale carbon dioxide (CO2) need this compound to grow. This is part of the photosynthesis that is the foundation for life on earth. This is basic biology. CO2 has never been made a pollutant by the action of either the state or federal elected officials. Now the advocates of man-made global warming claim that it is. That is now Governor Sebelius’ and her staff’s official position.

    Governor Sebelius’ Secretary of Health and Environment, Rod Bremby, took the arbitrary and capricious action last year of declaring CO2 a pollutant. Bremby’s decision stopped the permit, that his professional and technical KDHE staff had approved. That would have allowed a major 1.4 megawatt expansion by Sunflower Electric in Holcomb, Kansas of the existing coal fired power plant that operates there. Bremby based his denial solely upon CO2 emissions.

    Bremby’s highly controversial decision made the front page of major newspapers across the United States and will have a major negative economic impact on Kansas if it stands. Bremby’s decision dramatically raised the risk for anyone planning to put a new or expanded industrial business in Kansas.

    Kansas consumers are at increased risk from higher electrical costs and less reliable service. Brian Moline, a former state utility regulator and Democratic legislator, warned the Wichita Pachyderm Club February 22 that Bremby’s ruling, “…will ultimately filter down to rate payers,” in the form of higher electrical bills.

    Moline also warned that this issue goes well beyond Sunflower Electric’s permit and puts the entire due process and rule of law in Kansas at risk. Moline credited state senator Carolyn McGinn with the most vivid description of this bureaucratic mugging. McGinn compared it to a driver going through an intersection and then being stopped by a police officer for not stopping for the traffic light at the intersection.

    The driver complains that there was no traffic light at the intersection and the police officer says, “Well there should be one there so I’m arresting you anyway.” Sunflower Electric is the woebegone driver being arrested by Officer Bremby. All Kansans are going to be financially hurt if Bremby’s CO2 edict stands.

    By declaring CO2 to be a pollutant a variety of other plants that use carbon based energy are now at legal risk. These include existing chemical, industrial, as well as the new ethanol plants that are being built or have just been built here. Airplane and auto manufacturers in Kansas as well as oil refiners and chemical plants have to renew permits to emit CO2. These are now in increased jeopardy as are all of the other coal fired power plants. Bremby’s questionable judgment in this matter is certainly amplified by his bankruptcy filing last year.

    If Bremby’s CO2 edict is allowed to stand other sources of CO2 are also at risk. CO2 emissions occur well beyond industrial activities. Much of the CO2 occurs naturally. Your gas or propane furnace also emits CO2. Wood burned in fireplaces emits CO2 as do automobiles. If Governor Sebelius and her administration’s CO2 edict stands we all become polluters. New restrictions, charges, and limits on everyone using carbon based energy will soon appear under this edict.

  • Wichita school bond issue not the only proposed tax increase

    As the residents of Wichita consider whether to vote for the $350 million school bond issue proposed by the board of USD 259 (Wichita public school district), be aware that the bond issue and its associated increase in property taxes is not the only tax increase the public schools in Kansas would like to have. The following article from Karl Peterjohn explains.

    Tax Funds Being Spent To Push For Kansas Tax Hike
    By Karl Peterjohn, Kansas Taxpayers Network. Released September 20, 2007.

    Your tax dollars are being used to push for an increase in Kansas income taxes. Do you want your tax money spent on raising your taxes?

    This tax hike plan was initially reported by in the Hawver’s Capitol Report (www.hawvernews.com) state capitol newsletter August 27. The Kansas Association of School Boards (KASB) is seeking another statewide income tax hike. This tax hike would be used to provide more state tax dollars to the 296 Kansas public school districts.

    What is not clear is how big a tax hike is being sought by the government school spending lobby. KASB is a large organization with over 30 employees operating out of its posh, marble floored offices with a multi-million dollar budget in west Topeka near Wanamaker Road. KASB is funded with tax dollars coming from 295 Kansas public school districts with only one district not having a KASB membership.

    In the 2007 legislative session KASB registered 13 lobbyists to push for more spending and additional property tax authority during the 2007 legislative session. In addition to this taxpayer funded lobbying group, many of the KASB member school districts also have their own taxpayer funded lobbyists at the statehouse too.

    This tax hike scheme would provide additional tax funds to substantially expand the already budgeted $122 million to pay off the final year of the Kansas Supreme Court’s Montoy school finance lawsuit. That budgeted amount will provide roughly $275 per pupil or over $5,000 more per 20 student classroom next year. For KASB, that is inadequate. The school districts want more money in addition to the increased local property tax increases authorized by the legislature this year for all 296 Kansas public school districts. Your tax dollars are helping raise your property taxes.

    This isn’t the only fiscal battle your tax funds are helping finance. There has been a major open records battle trying to get the recalcitrant school districts funding this lawsuit to report how much money has been spent for this litigation.

    Kansas taxpayers face automatic tax hikes due to property tax appraisal valuation inflation as well as higher income taxes through inflation generated bracket creep in our state income tax. KASB and other taxpayer funded lobbyists regularly fight any proposals to make it harder to raise state and local taxes in Kansas.

    Many Kansans are unhappy about these tax hikes that no elected official has to vote for. More Kansans would be outraged if they knew their tax money is being spent to promote higher taxes as well as more state spending. This year the state’s General Fund budget grew 10.4 percent but that is not enough for these groups.

    There are roughly 70 school districts, cities, counties, and other governmental bodies lobbying legislators at the statehouse. Efforts by legislators to stop this abuse have failed often due to the powerful push from these taxpayer funded lobbying organizations.

    When the senate’s local government committee chairman Tim Huelskamp, R-Fowler, held hearings on a bill to stop this taxpayer abuse last year the room was filled with tax funded legislators opposing this bill. The bill was killed by bipartisan senate leadership and never even got debated on the senate floor. So taxpayers are left with this question: How much of your tax dollars are the lobbyists spending at the statehouse trying to raise your taxes?

  • Property rights should control Kansas smoking decisions

    A system of absolute respect for private property rights is the best way to handle smoking. The owners of bars and restaurants have, and should continue to have, the absolute right to permit or deny smoking on their property.

    Not everyone agrees with this simple truth. Some ask why is there no right to clean air when there is the right to smoke. The answer is that both breathing clean air and smoking are rights that people may enjoy, as they wish, on their own property. When on the property of others, you may enjoy the rights that the property owner has decided on.

    It’s not like the supposed right to breathe clean air while dining or drinking on someone else’s property is being violated surreptitiously. Most people can quickly sense upon entering a bar or restaurant whether people are smoking. If people are smoking, and patrons decide to stay, we can only conclude that they made the choice to stay. The owners of bars and restaurants do not have the power to force people to stay and breathe smoke.

    Employees may make the same decision. There are plenty of smoke-free places for people to work if they don’t want to be around smoke.

    Some think that if they leave a restaurant or bar because it is smoky, then they have lost their “right” to be in that establishment. But no one has an absolute right to be on someone else’s private property, much less to be on that property under conditions that they — instead of the property owner — dictate.

    Property rights, then, are the way to solve disputes over smoking vs. clean air in a way that respects freedom and liberty. Under property rights, bar and restaurant owners will decide to allow or prohibit smoking as they best see fit, to meet the needs of their current customers, or the customers they want to attract.

    A property rights-based system is greatly preferable to government mandate. Without property rights, decision are made for spurious reasons. For example, debate often includes statements such as “I’m a non-smoker and I think that …” or “I’m a smoker and …” These statements presuppose that the personal habits or preferences of the speaker make their argument persuasive.

    Decision-making based on personal characteristics, preferences, or group-membership happens often in politics. Lack of respect for property rights allows decisions to be made by people other than the owners of the property. In the case of a smoking ban, the decision can severely harm the value of property like bars or restaurants that caters to smokers. This matters little to smoking ban supporters, but as we have seen, they have little respect for private property.

    By respecting property rights, we can have both smoking and non-smoking establishments. Property owners will decide what is in their own and their customers’ interests. Both groups, smokers and nonsmokers, can have what they want. With a government mandate or majority rule, one group wins at the expense of the rights of many others.

  • Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius scores low again

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

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

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

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

    Why are low taxes important? From the study:

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

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

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

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

  • The Kansas legislative buffet

    When Sen. Phil Journey, a legislator who is known as a conservative, uses the term “legislative buffet,” it reveals the wisdom and foresight of Bastiat, who long ago described the legislative process as this: “A share of the plunder for me, for me!”

    The Wichita Eagle article “Water, med school join priority list” (November 30, 2007) describes the battle Wichita-area legislators face: “work together to compete for state resources or lose out to other areas, primarily Johnson County.” As Kansas will spend some $12 billion this year — and probably much more the next — there’s a lot at stake. Whether Wichita gets its fair share of spending on local needs depends on how agile our local senators and representatives are at the buffet.

    What’s not often discussed is the absurdity of sending billions of local dollars to Topeka each year, hoping we are judged worthy enough to get some of it back. Or, perhaps we’re hoping to hit the jackpot: if we have very good legislators who can really “belly up” to the buffet, they might manage to get back more from Topeka than we sent. This pattern is not unique to Wichita; each city or region has its own needs and priorities. Why not just leave the money at home, letting each city or county decide how much and on what to spend?

    Even better: many, if not all, of the things we want the legislature to do could be done privately, without any government intervention. Then we could accomplish things through voluntary cooperation, instead of the coerced march of our dollars to Topeka, where we have to then fight to get them back. Conservative legislators like Sen. Journey should seek to end the “legislative buffet” instead of restocking it year after year.

    Your principle has placed these words above the entrance of the legislative chamber: “Whosoever acquires any influence here can obtain his share of legal plunder.” And what has been the result? All classes have flung themselves upon the doors of the chamber, crying: “A share of the plunder for me, for me!”

    — Frederic Bastiat, “Selected Essays on Political Economy” (1848)

  • The collectivism of Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Taxes in Kansas at an All-Time High

    Taxes in Kansas at an All-Time High
    By Dr. Barry Poulson

    At no other time in the state’s history have state and local governments imposed such a heavy tax burden on Kansas residents. This year, state and local taxes will capture 11.2 percent of the state’s income.

    The graduated income tax contributes to this all time high by creating a boom of revenue and spending during prosperous economic times. In periods of rapid growth, income tax revenue increases faster than income. Excited by these new funds, legislators increase state spending with new or expanded programs to match.

    With this boom often comes a bust. In a recession, income tax revenue falls more rapidly than income. Politicians offset the shortfall with “temporary” taxes, fees, and debt. That additional revenue is then built into permanent spending programs, and the “temporary” taxes, fees, and debt rarely disappear. With the exception of Nebraska, the state has raised individual and corporate income taxes more than any other state in the region.

    This boom and bust of revenue and spending was especially evident during recent economic cycles. Throughout the 1990’s, the economy grew and revenue increased more than 7 percent per year, outpacing the growth in income of only 5.2 percent. When recession hit in 2001, the state found itself with a shortfall. Most of it was due to declines in personal and corporate income tax revenue. As they had in prior recessions, politicians responded by increasing taxes and fees, and by issuing more debt.

    Paralleling the increased tax burden has been an unprecedented increase in the debt burden imposed by the state on its citizens. In 1992, Kansas’ government debt was around $424 million, a lower than average level for a state of similar size. By 2005, debt had swelled to $3.95 billion, an increase of nearly 832 %.

    The current budget is projected to incur a deficit of half a billion dollars. During the recent recession, state spending continued to grow despite the fall in revenue. Initially, spending from state general funds decreased as the recession hit, but they have since recovered. Even with a recovery from the recession, revenue growth will not be enough to fund current policies.

    In fact, the unconstrained growth of state spending has far outpaced the growth in personal income for the last three decades. Limiting our scope to the last three budget cycles, we find that General Fund spending increased 8.6%, 9.6%, and 8.6%. In the current budget, state General Fund spending is projected to increase an incredible 18%, far outstripping the growth in the state economy.

    In recent years, Kansas has been in a race to the bottom to become the most heavily taxed state in the region. While Kansas has been raising taxes and adding debt, surrounding states have pursued more prudent tax policies.

    The sharp increases in spending, taxes and debt have resulted in a decline in the state’s business climate. Throughout the last decade, Kansas has consistently ranked among the bottom group of states in business tax climate. Among the surrounding states, only Nebraska has a lower business tax climate ranking.

    Kansas has been an underachiever in economic growth during the past decade. The difference is exacerbated when compared to the more rapidly growing neighboring states like Colorado. At one time, Kansas had a larger population and higher Gross State Product than Colorado. As Colorado’s individual and corporate income taxes were reduced, their population and Gross State Product outgrew Kansas.

    A heavy tax burden is a major factor contributing to slower growth in some states, and Kansas in recent years has fallen into this category of one of the nation’s heavily taxed states.

    Dr. Barry Poulson is a professor of economics at the University of Colorado and a distinguished scholar with Americans for Prosperity.