Tag: Kansas Supreme Court

  • Breaking the statehouse budget deadlock

    Breaking the statehouse budget deadlock

    By Karl Peterjohn

    The budget deadlock has begun at the Kansas statehouse. The legislature cannot leave Topeka until they have approved the next biennial state budget that will begin July 1. Usually, this includes the governor’s signature on that legislation. That might not happen this year. That’s the issue.

    Governor Brownback is not willing to fund a multi-year, multi-billion spending bill demanded by the liberal legislative majorities in both houses. Earlier this year he vetoed a record-breaking income tax hike scheme. So far, the governor has been successful in having his vetoes sustained.

    The pressure is going to be applied for the governor’s fiscally responsible Republican allies opposed to income tax hikes.

    The powerful government employee spending lobbies, headed by arguably, the most powerful lobby in this state, the KNEA teachers’ union, that spending priorities for the reliably liberal Democrats in the legislature along with a large number of other self-described, “progressives,” or “moderates,” big spending Republicans now hold sizable majorities in both houses of the Kansas legislature. However, the bi-partisan spending factions are short of the two-thirds majorities required to override Governor Brownback’s repeated vetoes. The spending lobbies have come close, and did override the governor’s pass a record-breaking income tax hike proposal in the Kansas house, but that override effort ultimately failed by three votes in the senate.

    The other powerful spending lobbies among the road contractors, hospitals, and the most powerful appointed body: ethically flawed and disciplined Chief Justice of the Kansas Supreme Court, Lawton Nuss, and his fellow band of black-robed lawyers on the Kansas Supreme Court continue to try and force massive state spending hikes. Several members of this court, including Nuss, represented school districts and school finance litigation issues before joining the court.

    Massive tax hikes will be required to fund this spending spree. Spending estimates indicate the increases proposed would be $2.25 billion over five years according to State Representative John Whitmer. Expanding Obamacare under the guise of Medicaid expansion could be even more expensive after the first few years.

    What is different with earlier Kansas budget battles besides another zero on the cost? In this digital age we are in, everything seems to have moved digitally into a win/lose, up/down, on/off configuration.

    The lawyers on Kansas’ top court with their school funding edicts, will all be providing pressure and using the leftstream Kansas news media to try and push a handful of Republican legislators to shift their votes, so everyone can go home with a huge income tax hike. Sadly, this destructive tax hike is unlikely to be successful in funding all of the proposed state spending proposals.

    This is the big spenders’ dream scenario for the next state budget.

    The scenario for fiscally responsible legislators and Governor Brownback is less clear. In the analog days of the 20th century, when people looked for win-win, instead of zero-sum games where every winner means there must be a loser, compromise was the answer.

    To his credit, Governor Brownback has expressed a willingness to compromise. Brownback has supported and signed smaller excise tax hike bills in recent years. He continues to be blasted by liberal media critics in the editorial pages across the state. These tax hikes tried to reach a legislative compromise that allowed a continued growth in state spending. This spending growth was being driven by the perpetual school finance lawsuits.

    There is another solution if the legislative deadlock continues, and there is a recent and nearby example for Kansas elected officials to consider: let the people decide. The Kansas Constitution has a provision that, “…all political power in this state is inherent in the people.” This is in the Kansas Constitution’s Bill of Rights.

    How would empowering Kansans work?

    In 2016, in our neighboring state to the south, Oklahoma, the state spending lobbies convinced the legislature to place a one cent sales tax hike on the statewide ballot. In November 2016 Oklahoma voters decided the fate of this sales tax hike. It was rejected by the voters.

    A compromise between Governor Brownback and his fiscally conservative GOP legislative allies on one side could be reached with the larger number of Democrat and Republican tax hike advocates in the legislature using this “let the people decide,“ approach. Kansas taxpayers need to have a say in the massive new spending schemes appearing at the statehouse.

    The tax hike advocates can place their proposal for raising state taxes/spending on either the August or preferably the November 2017 election ballot where a statewide referendum could be held. Both sides could make their case to voters. All political power is inherent in the people, and letting the voters decide would certainly be preferable to having appointed lawyers in black robes setting state fiscal policy with big-spending legislators as their willing accomplices.

    Karl Peterjohn is a former journalist and served two terms as a Sedgwick County commissioner between 2009-17. He advocated on behalf of Kansas taxpayers as the executive director of the Kansas Taxpayers Network between 1992-2009.

  • WichitaLiberty.TV: Ben Jones on the death penalty in Kansas

    WichitaLiberty.TV: Ben Jones on the death penalty in Kansas

    In this episode of WichitaLiberty.TV: Ben Jones of Equal Justice USA and Conservatives Concerned about the Death Penalty explains issues surrounding the death penalty. View below, or click here to view at YouTube. Episode 144, broadcast March 26, 2017.

    Shownotes

  • WichitaLiberty.TV: James Franko of Kansas Policy Institute

    WichitaLiberty.TV: James Franko of Kansas Policy Institute

    In this episode of WichitaLiberty.TV: James Franko of Kansas Policy Institute joins Bob Weeks and Karl Peterjohn to discuss education in Kansas and the state budget. View below, or click here to view at YouTube. Episode 141, broadcast March 5, 2017.

    Shownotes

  • Decoding the Kansas teachers union

    Decoding the Kansas teachers union

    Explaining to Kansans what the teachers union really means in its public communications.

    After the November 2016 election, the Kansas National Education Association — our state’s teachers union — wants to explain to Kansas the meaning of the results. But it takes a seasoned eye to recognize the subterfuge the union uses to advance its interests. The message from the union may be read at It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. Following, quotes from the union missive and interpretation.

    “But at KNEA, we are focusing on what the 2016 election means for public education.” Here the writer — lobbyist Mark Desetti — correctly identifies the concern of the teachers union: Public education. Not education, but only public education. Why? Teachers in private schools are not union members. Neither are teachers in charter schools, even though these schools are public schools. So you can see the concern of the union is more precisely only the public schools where there are union members.

    “And here in Kansas, our legislative races look more like the best of times.” The public schools really hate being called government schools. But when the outcome of elections affects your outlook, well, that sounds like a government institution.

    “At least for those of us who advocate for children, schools, and teachers.” The teachers union’s only concern is teachers. Do not be persuaded otherwise. If the union really cared about children, it would stop opposing school choice programs.

    “Combined with moderate Republican victories, this creates a pro-public education block of as many as 75 votes.” Again, public education is the union’s concern.

    “The people of Kansas, regardless of party affiliation have let it be known that they are done with the Brownback ‘experiment’ and want to go in a new direction. That direction includes funding our schools and taking care of our children and families.” Governor Brownback was ill-advised to liken cutting taxes to an experiment. As adults, we ought to recognize the boasting of politicians. This doesn’t mean that cutting taxes was wrong. Cutting taxes is the right thing to do, as it means government leaves more resources in the hands of those who earned it. It leaves more money in the productive private sector, instead of in the wasteful public sector, Also, the union should have ended the last sentence at “funding our schools.” If the union truly cared about children and families, it would stop opposing giving parents the power of school choice.

    “Kansans also rejected the governor’s attempt to politicize our Supreme Court.” But, the court is already politicized, and in a direction the union favors. So, the union appears to be taking the high ground.

    “This vote ensures that our courts will stay free of political and ideological tampering.” If the court really wanted to stay out of politics, it would rule that the level of school spending is a legislative decision, not a judicial decision. But since most of the justices were nominated by a committee overstocked with political liberals, then appointed by liberal governors, the union is pleased with the court.

    “Justice should never be for sale.” Well, when you already own the justices on the Kansas Supreme Court, it’s easy to float such high-minded, but transparent, proclamations.

    Do not be persuaded by the claims of the Kansas teachers union. The union continually opposes reform measures that would help students simply because reform would mean fewer union members. That — and only that — is the job of the teachers union.

  • Did the Kansas Supreme Court read these cases?

    Did the Kansas Supreme Court read these cases?

    The merit system of judicial selection in Kansas has sprung a leak, finds the United States Supreme Court.

    One of the purported benefits of the merit system of judicial selection in Kansas is that it produces quality jurists who rule on the law, not on their personal beliefs or ideologies.

    But a recent case shows otherwise. Following, a selection of dialog between Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt and United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia:1

    JUSTICE SCALIA: Did the Kansas Supreme Court read these cases?
    MR. SCHMIDT: Perhaps I ought not answer that, Justice Scalia, but —
    JUSTICE SCALIA: How can you explain it if — if indeed our prior cases are so clear on the point?
    MR. SCHMIDT: Justice Scalia, I, of course, don’t —
    JUSTICE SCALIA: They don’t like the death penalty.

    Here, in one exchange, Scalia exposes the legal incompetence of the Kansas Supreme Court because they rule based on their policy preferences, not the law. “Did the Kansas Supreme Court read these cases?” That’s a question a law school professor asks a lazy student. It shouldn’t need to be asked of justices on the highest court in Kansas.

    But the United States Supreme Court found it necessary to ask if Kansas judges were reading their cases. This is precisely what the merit system is supposed to avoid.

    For more on this see this video from Joseph Ashby.


    Notes

    1. Oral arguments in Kansas v. Gleason and Kansas v. Carr, October 7, 2015. http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2015/14-452_b18j.pdf.
  • Kansas Democrats: They don’t add it up — or they don’t tell us

    Kansas Democrats: They don’t add it up — or they don’t tell us

    Kansas Democrats (and some Republicans) are campaigning on some very expensive programs, and they’re aren’t adding it up for us.

    A sampling of campaign literature from Kansas Democratic candidates in south and west Wichita for the Kansas Legislature1 reveals several common threads:

    • Few will identify themselves as Democrats.
    • Eliminating the LLC loophole is popular.
    • Eliminating or reducing sales tax on food is popular.
    • Eliminating the 2015 sales tax increase is popular.
    • Fully funding schools is popular.
    • None of these show the cost of these ideas, nor do they offer ideas on how to pay for these things, except for eliminating the LLC loophole.

    What will these things cost? Here’s some figures.

    LLC loophole and food sales tax: This year a bill was proposed in the Kansas Legislature to restore taxation of non-wage business income, that is, to eliminate the so-called “LLC loophole.” It would also reduce the sales tax on food from 6.5 percent to 2.6 percent. The fiscal note for this bill estimated an increase in tax revenue to the state of $260.9 million from the non-wage business income, and a loss of revenue to the state of $234.1 million for the sales tax reduction.2

    Extrapolating the food sales tax figures implies that eliminating the sales tax on food would mean a loss of revenue to the state of $435 million, assuming no change in consumer behavior.

    Rollback general sales tax: In 2015 when the legislature voted to raise the statewide sales tax from 6.15 percent to 6.50 percent on July 1, 2015, it was estimated that revenue to the state would increase by 164.2 million. For fiscal year 2017, by 186.7 million.3

    (By the way, the tax on cigarettes was increased by an estimated $40.39 million. If we’re rolling back sales tax increases, we should roll back this 50 cent per pack increase, too. I haven’t seen any advocates for this.)

    Fully funding schools: Who knows what “full funding” really means? The Kansas Supreme Court believes it — and it alone — has the ability to put a number on this. A consensus seems to be developing at around $450 million per year in additional school funding is what the court may order.

    Adding up the costs (using some numbers a few years old): $260.9 million – $435 million – $164.2 million – $450 million equals -$1,310.1 million in changes to annual general fund revenue. ($-1,350.5 million if we want to be fair to smokers.)

    This is the proposed change to Kansas general fund revenue that these candidates omit from their campaigns. It is the amount by which taxes must be raised, or spending be cut (or a combination of taxes and cuts). Some of these numbers are estimates that could be off by a lot. There can be some quibbling, such as reducing the food sales tax instead of eliminating it, which will change the numbers. But there’s no doubt that the plans Kansas Democrats propose will cost a lot of money.

    Total revenue to the general fund in 2016 was $6,073.4 million. Major sources include:
    Income taxes (individual, corporate, financial institution): $2,640.8 million
    Excise taxes (sales, compensating use, cigarette, liquor, severance): $2,927.7 million

    So if the state wanted to raise spending by, say, $1.310 billion dollars, it would have to raise income taxes by 49.7 percent, or excise taxes by 44.7 percent. Or a combination. Either way, that’s a lot.

    When you see candidates for the Kansas Legislature — Democratic and Republican — mention these programs, ask if they know how much they will cost. Ask whose taxes will be raised or whose programs will be cut.

    And ask this really important question: Just how will all this make Kansas a better state?

    1. Photographs of a number of pieces may be viewed in this folder at Flickr: https://flic.kr/s/aHskMJfGNc.
    2. Kansas Legislature. HB 2444. Eliminating the business non-wage income tax exemption and reducing the sales tax rate on food. http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2015_16/measures/hb2444/.
    3. Kansas Legislature. Revenue Enhancements and Other Provisions; Senate Sub. for HB 2109, as amended by House Sub. for SB 270 and HB 2142. http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2015_16/measures/documents/summary_hb_2109_2015.pdf.
  • Kansas school fund balances

    Kansas school fund balances

    • Kansas school fund balances rose significantly this year, in both absolute dollars and dollars per pupil.
    • Kansans might wonder why schools did not spend some of these funds to offset cuts they have contended were necessary.
    • The interactive visualization holds data for each district since 2008.

    As Kansans debate school funding, as the Kansas Supreme Court considers ordering more school spending, and as school spending boosters insist that school spending has been slashed, a fact remains constant: Kansas schools don’t spend all the money they’ve been given. Fund balances grew in many years, and rose rapidly this year.

    Fund balances are necessary for cash flow management. The issue is what levels of balances are necessary. Based on recent data from the Kansas State Department of Education, fund balances rose rapidly after 2008, remained largely level from 2011 through 2015, and rose for 2016.

    For the school year ending in 2015, total cash balances were $1,745,557,046. (This total does not include non-school funds like museums and recreation center funds.) For 2016, the figure was $1,871,026,493. This is an increase of $125,469,450, or 7.2 percent.

    Kansans might wonder why schools did not spend some of these funds to offset cuts they have contended were necessary.

    I’ve gathered data about unspent Kansas school funds and presented it as an interactive visualization. You may explore the data yourself by using the visualization. Click here to open the visualization in a new window. Data is from Kansas State Department of Education. Visualization created using Tableau Public.

    Kansas school fund balances, all districts. Click for larger.
    Kansas school fund balances, all districts. Click for larger.
  • WichitaLiberty.TV: Radio host Andy Hooser

    WichitaLiberty.TV: Radio host Andy Hooser

    In this episode of WichitaLiberty.TV: Radio show host Andy Hooser visits the KGPT studios to talk about upcoming elections in Kansas and the presidential campaign. View below, or click here to view at YouTube. Episode 130, broadcast October 16, 2016.

    Hooser’s radio show is The Voice of Reason with Andy Hooser. Its Facebook page is here, and the podcast is here.

  • Kansas Supreme Court: Making the law

    Kansas Supreme Court: Making the law

    Do the justices on the Kansas Supreme Court make new law? Yes, and here is an example. View below, or here at YouTube.

    For more on this issue, see Kansas Supreme Court: Making law, part 2.