Voice For Liberty

Tag: Kansas state government

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

  • The Perverse Kansas Gambling Law

    As humans, we have the right to gamble, as it is an activity that people may voluntarily take part in, and it causes no harm or violence to others.

    As such, we have to wonder why most forms of gambling have been illegal in Kansas for so long.

    More importantly, what has changed this year that would cause the state to allow us to gamble in casinos? What has happened that would cause this activity, formerly considered a vice by the state, to be allowed and even desired?

    The answer is simple: the anticipation of millions of dollars in new revenue for the state to spend. It is for that reason that the legislature and governor are willing to let the people gamble in casinos.

    They changed their mind cheaply, too. The amount of revenue it is estimated casinos would bring to the state is barely more than one percent of the state’s total spending. Subtract from that the extra spending that even casino supporters concede the state will need to fix the problems some gamblers will cause.

    It’s sad to realize the legislature and governor can be bought so cheaply.

    We as humans have the inherent right to gamble. The legislature should not have to pass a law allowing this right, we should not have to gain a majority vote in order to exercise this right, we should not have to suffer huge expansion of government regulation to tell us where and when and on how many of what type of machines we can exercise this right, and we shouldn’t have to pay the state a huge chunk of casino revenue in order to exercise this right.

    That’s what is perverse about gambling law in Kansas.

  • The Kansas Gambling Law I’d Vote For

    Here’s the one law concerning gambling in Wichita and Kansas that I would vote for: “All laws prohibiting and regulating gambling in Kansas are hereby repealed.”

    That’s the only law consistent with personal freedom and liberty.

    The law that has been passed, however, provides more power for the state and more opportunities to regulate our lives.

    Even casino supporters concede large social costs will accompany a casino. As we have government that stands willing to pay these costs, the taxpayer will suffer these costs.

    In the balance, the expansion of state bureaucracy, tax collection, and regulation, plus the social costs that the state believes it must shoulder; these considerations outweigh our freedom to gamble.

  • Disenfranchising and Dissing Kansans

    Disenfranchising and Dissing Kansans
    By Karl Peterjohn, Kansas Taxpayers Network

    “All political power is inherent in the people…,” begins one part of the Kansas Bill of Rights that is part of the Kansas Constitution. This is one important provision that has been eviscerated and destroyed by the Kansas Supreme Court with the quiet support of a large number of elected officials as well as much of the Kansas news media.

    When was the last time you got to vote on raising your property taxes for city, county, or other local services? How about a local bond issue that didn’t involve the government schools? This political power might be inherent but for most Kansans it is mainly invisible. In most other states these votes are routine and in several of our neighboring states these votes are mandatory.

    In Sedgwick County there is a political storm brewing with an upcoming countywide casino gambling referendum scheduled for August 7. The voters will be deciding if a “state owned and operated casino,” can be established here. This follows countywide votes in half a dozen other counties where there has been support for expanding gambling.

    This begs the question of the role of the people. Why do only Kansans in a few select counties get to cast these votes? Where in the Kansas Constitution is there a provision for countywide gambling votes? How did Kansas get into its current position on gambling expansion?

    In 1986 voters approved a measure that everyone on both sides of this issue saw as establishing a state lottery. No one on either side mentioned casinos back then. The lottery was created by this constitutional amendment (Article 15 Section 3c) after a wide majority of statewide voters approved this amendment in 1986.

    That vote has been transformed into a vote authorizing, “…state owned and operated casinos.” Who made this transformation? The Kansas casino situation looks like the judicial equivalent of Steven Spielberg’s latest Hollywood movie based upon the kid’s cartoon program from the 1980’s. It was the Kansas Supreme Legislature…..ooops, that’s the Kansas Supreme Court who ruled that casinos were legal based upon the lottery vote and created the current legal foundation that the legislature and governor used to authorize “state owned and operated,” casinos in Kansas.

    This will give Kansas the equivalent of being the very first state in this country with state owned and operated casinos. This ought to be interesting. I can’t wait to see the civil service exam for, “Pit boss grade I,” or “Cocktail Waitress grade II,”….oops we must be politically correct: “Cocktail Server grade II.”

    Or perhaps this is just a legal fig leaf that will be thrown away so a few state franchised monopoly casinos can be created. If this is the case, Kansas will then help make a few rich casino owners even richer. This unique legal mess demonstrates how the judicial elite are in control of this state but also that state ownership, i.e. socialism and a state monopoly is alive and well in Kansas.

    Our appointed judicial masters put us in this bizarre position and a majority of our legislature and Governor Sebelius sanctified this foundation with a “no legislative hearings” gambling bill this year. This also puts the state in the difficult position of regulating what it is also owning and operating. This conflict of interest will create perpetual legal problem for the state until this provision is changed.

    The Kansans living in close to 100 Kansas counties do not have a vote on establishing Kansas casinos. They are disenfranchised. The average Kansan has been dissed by the activist judges and won’t have a gambling vote. There is no other state in this country where statewide gambling would be created without all of the people deciding this issue. Only in Kansas could the judicial and “mainstream” political establishment be so arrogant and omnipotent.

  • Wasteful Kansas statehousesSpending

    Wasteful Statehouse Spending
    By Karl Peterjohn, Executive Director, Kansas Taxpayers Network

    Wasteful spending at the Kansas statehouse is nothing new. What is new is the wasteful spending on the Kansas statehouse. This building still has the ugly look of a construction site with a soaring price tag. In 2007 a bipartisan group of legislative moderates are intent on continuing this unlimited statehouse spending spree.

    When the legislature enacted SB 660 in 2000 authorizing $40 million in bond funding for the statehouse remodel that did not seem too terribly out of line. That had followed six figure appropriations for remodeling the legislative chambers that had started the remodeling process at the statehouse. There are just over 317,000 square feet in the Kansas statehouse. That means the initial cost of $126 per square foot is not out of line with new commercial or residential construction costs.

    What a difference a few years make. The statehouse remains disheveled with parts of the building closed off, a few areas completed, other untouched, and a final price tag that is nowhere to be found. Supposedly, three of the five phases of this remodeling project have been finished but the final result is still at least four years away.

    The price tag for the three phases is currently estimated at $175 million (or about $550 per square foot with lots of feet remaining to be remodeled) and might even top $300 million. The age and condition of the building is the excuse for the growing cost overruns in the mainstream press reports.

    During the budget debate in the 2007 legislature Sen. Tim Huelskamp, R-Fowler, proposed an amendment requiring the Department of Administration to prepare a report on the costs of the capitol renovation project as part of the budget bill debate. This idea was rejected on a 17-19 vote with prominent “moderates” including the legislative leadership of both parties in the senate opposing this effort at fiscal accountability. In Kansas “moderates” are spelled “l-i-b-e-r-a-l”.

    Psst. That’s a statehouse secret you aren’t authorized to know.

    An unsuccessful effort to have legislative post audit examine state house spending was made by Rep. Peggy Mast, R-Hamilton, and Sen. Chris Steineger, D-Kansas City, during this session. A number of legislators are justifiably nervous over the soaring costs since there are a limited number of improvements that are visible in the few areas that are finished with an already soaring bill for taxpayers.

    Other states that have faced old statehouse buildings have made a number of changes. Missouri has been through six statehouses in its 186 years as a state. In Florida a brand new statehouse is located near the old, historic statehouse in Tallahassee. Arkansas also has two statehouses. Kansans are grossly overspending and will only have a single remodeled statehouse to show for spending that could easily top $300 million by the time the remodeling is completed sometime in the next decade. We could have had a brand new and larger building at a fraction of what this remodel is costing.

    The total cost is now rapidly approaching $1,000 per square foot and this figure should alarm Kansans. Sen. Tim Huelskamp, R-Fowler, said, “The cost for this project is soaring.” He also warned taxpayers, “You can’t go over budget if you have no budget.”

    When state’s General Fund budget is growing 10.4% next year and topping $6 billion for the first time next year, when an activist Kansas Supreme Court orders a complacent majority of legislators and a compliant governor into an $850 million school spending spree that started a couple of years ago, what’s the big deal over a few hundred million for the statehouse remodel?

    Would you spend close somewhere between $500 to a $1,000 per square foot in building your business or home? Hey, it’s only your tax dollars. And there are several other state office buildings across the street from the statehouse that are now being prepared for remodeling once the statehouse work gets finished.

  • Floods and whirlwind (of spending in Kansas)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • It’s not yours to cut

    An article in the April 22, 2007 Wichita Eagle by Dion Lefler states: “All together, those [tax] cuts will cost the state $570 million in lost revenue in the next five years, according to the consensus report estimates.”

    A statement like this reveals a faulty line of thinking: that the government has a legitimate claim on a large part of our incomes and wealth. Then if, somehow, the government is persuaded to “give” any of that claim back to us, this gift has to be paid for.

    It’s the people who “give” tax money to the government, not the government who “gives” it back to the people in the form of tax cuts. If the government cuts taxes, the government gives us nothing. It simply takes less of what is ours in the first place.

    Liberal publications with a national audience like The New York Times use thinking like this all the time. It’s very disappointing to see it at home in Wichita and Kansas.

    This backwards thinking about taxes was also revealed in reporting by David Klepper in the May 12, 2006 Wichita Eagle: “They [Kansas lawmakers who supported the cuts] consider the cuts a wise, $128 million investment to spur new investment by business, new jobs, more economic activity and, consequently, higher tax receipts.”

    In the same article: “Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, a Democrat, who first proposed the business machinery tax cut, agreed. ‘We’re not giving away money for the sake of giving it away,’ she said. ‘I’m hoping that the economic growth will actually help fund the school plan that we just passed.’” (emphasis added)

    It is depressing to realize that the Governor of Kansas equates letting people keep a little more of the money they earned with the state “giving it away.”

    Furthermore, the true motives of politicians are revealed: they say they are “investing” in tax cuts in the hope that the state will collect even more tax money in the future.

    We should be asking this question of our elected representatives: If tax cuts stimulate investment, jobs, and economic growth, why didn’t you cut these burdensome taxes last year?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • United Van Lines Shows Kansas Decline

    United Van Lines Shows Kansas Decline
    by Isaac Ferguson

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

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

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

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

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

  • The stink in the Kansas Legislature and statehouse

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

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

    THE STINK CONTINUES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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