Wichita Eagle, Nov. 19
Budget denial:
Now that the election is over, state lawmakers are being more honest about the severity of the state’s budget problems though some are still in denial about the difficulty of balancing the budget through spending cuts alone.
During the campaign, many lawmakers and Gov. Sam Brownback downplayed or denied that the state was facing large budget shortfalls. But less than a week after the election, new revenue estimates showed the state must reduce planned spending by $279 million before July, and it needs an additional $436 million in spending cuts or revenue increases next fiscal year.
And that is just to get to zero. Restoring the statutorily required ending balance next fiscal year could require an additional $450 million in cuts or revenue.
Lawmakers are now acknowledging that they face a daunting task, though they are divided on whether all options, including taxes, should be on the table.
House Speaker Ray Merrick, R-Stilwell, said that delaying or reversing income tax cuts was a nonstarter. Rep. Steve Brunk, R-Wichita, declared that the Legislature is “not going to make any changes in the tax code.” But Senate President Susan Wagle, R-Wichita, and some other lawmakers have wisely said that both sides of the budget ledger revenue and expenses need to be considered.
Where and how might lawmakers cover the shortfall?
K-12 education accounts for half of the state general fund spending, which makes it a natural target. But Brownback bragged during the campaign about education funding, so it would be difficult to flip-flop and cut spending now. Besides, the courts likely will rule again that the state is inadequately funding education and needs to increase spending.
Medicaid, which is about 20 percent of the budget, is also difficult to cut because it is an entitlement and KanCare contracts already have been signed. So that could leave only about 30 percent of the remaining budget which supports prisons, higher education, social services, etc. to absorb the spending cuts.
Lawmakers likely will raid more money from the state’s transportation fund, as they have been doing for several years. They likely also will target some state economic development programs, such as the Kansas Bioscience Authority. They may consider forcing school districts and universities to spend down some of their cash reserves - though that would penalize them for being fiscally prudent.
Lawmakers should delay future tax cuts but likely won’t. However, they may look at eliminating or reducing more tax deductions as a way to raise revenue without changing tax rates. They may also consider raising the sales tax again though a better alternative would be to eliminate some sales tax exemptions. They should consider placing a cap on the amount of pass-through business income that is not taxed that way the policy truly targets small businesses, as Brownback claimed, and not the wealthiest Kansans.
What is certain is that eliminating the budget shortfall won’t happen simply through “efficiencies.”
___
The Topeka Capital-Journal, Nov. 20
Silly Democrats:
Kansas House Speaker Ray Merrick opened his mouth wide and inserted both feet during a recent interview with a newspaper reporter.
Merrick was chided on this page for his poor choice of words and his attitude toward state employees, who he said were, among other things, net consumers who didn’t produce anything.
It must be the silly season, as the Kansas Democratic Party followed the news of Merrick’s comments with an online petition that calls for Merrick to be ousted from his leadership post. It may be great theater, but it also is a waste of time that serves no purpose, other than to fire up party members.
It is known as playing to the base, and it generally does little, if any, good.
That is the case here, as members of the large Republican majority in the Kansas House will decide who leads them. It probably will be Merrick, who at this time has only one announced competitor for the position, who has a list of embarrassing comments of his own on the record.
Jason Perkey, director of the Kansas Democratic Party, knows the online petition will play no role in selection of the House speaker and said it was intended, in part, to make Republicans aware of how Kansans feel about Merrick’s comments.
But Merrick and other Republicans got that message soon after the speaker’s comments were published in The Wichita Eagle, as is evidenced by Merrick’s subsequent statement designed to calm the waters.
As we said, the petition was good theater, and if the Kansas Democratic Party leadership thought it was something it had to do, so be it. But it is of no real consequence.
Democrats in the Legislature have their own decision to make. With former House Minority Leader Paul Davis leaving his seat for a failed gubernatorial bid, his former colleagues have to find their own new leader. Then, they must decide how they are going to spend their efforts during the upcoming legislative session.
Given they are a small minority in the House, as well as in the Senate, their impact on legislation isn’t going to be great, and there aren’t enough “moderate” Republicans in either chamber to aid their cause. (Another reason their petition is a futile exercise.)
There will be some legislation on which Republican and Democrat lawmakers can agree. Where they can’t, Democrats must represent the opposing view and, if possible, strive for incremental changes they believe will serve all Kansans.
___
The Hutchinson News, Nov. 21
Keystone Pipeline:
When Congress - not if - sends the president a bill authorizing the Keystone XL oil pipeline, he ought to sign it contingent on approval by the legislatures in the states affected. The fixation on this pipeline has become irrational, and it shouldn’t be decided by irrational politicians.
The Keystone is what is called a red herring. It’s a distraction from far more important issues. But it’s one that Republicans use to generate emotional capital they can use against the president.
The reality is both the concerns against and the benefits touted about the pipeline are exaggerated. The jobs would be temporary, so the economic benefit is grossly overpromoted. It isn’t about gas prices, which already are low and falling. At the same time, the environmental concerns seem hollow. Canada already is mining the oil, and the U.S. State Department has concluded the risk of an oil spill is slight.
First of all, know that two-thirds of the pipeline already is completed. It already carries crude from the oil sand fields in Canada into Oklahoma, where it can get to the Gulf of Mexico. The proposed XL portion provides for a couple of additions to the network.
Consequently, it seems like the proverbial horse is already out of the barn, so why such a fight is being waged at the federal level is puzzling. But that’s politics. And why this is another red herring - much like all the fuss over drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska.
The Keystone XL project on Tuesday fell a single vote short of proceeding in the Senate. Doesn’t matter. It will be approved once Republicans take control of the Senate in January.
In the meantime, it’s more fodder for the politicians. Sens. Pat Roberts and Jerry Moran of Kansas go on ad nauseam about it. It’s a favorite talking point.
The debate over the Keystone XL shouldn’t be in Washington but at the state level, and Roberts and Moran haven’t done their constituents any favors by their role in the political crusade for this pipeline.
The fight over the XL should be in Montana, South Dakota and Nebraska, where the state supreme court is still reviewing the route.
The debate is done for Kansas, where the pipeline already has been built. Here, state lawmakers gave TransCanada full latitude to use eminent domain to build wherever they wanted, nearly $50 million in income tax credits and a 100 percent, 10-year tax exemption.
Landowners and county governments got ignored when TransCanada built the 210-mile pipeline through six counties. Those counties - Washington, Clay, Dickinson, Marion, Butler and Cowley - lost about $8.5 million a year on the deal. That while being tasked with providing fire and emergency service in the event of a pipeline explosion or other accident.
Given the limited economic benefit - the Keystone XL pipeline only sustains 50 jobs after the two years of construction - we shouldn’t be giving tax incentives to a Canadian company to build an oil pipeline.
It isn’t fair for politicians to cast away the interests of the local citizens who will live with the pipeline for their own political gain.
As for Kansas, if Roberts and Moran - and our House delegation - acted in our best interest, they would oppose more pipeline construction. From a provincial self-interest, we should prefer that oil be transported by rail. That would be to the benefit of a new industry we just attracted to our state - a rail tanker car refurbishing plant to be built in Hutchinson that will employ three times the number the Keystone XL will.
___
Lawrence Journal-World, Nov. 19
Academic scandal:
People who care about Kansas University are legitimately concerned about the academic scandal involving the University of North Carolina basketball team.
After all, nine years covered by the UNC academic investigation came during the tenure of former KU basketball coach Roy Williams and Wayne Walden, the basketball academic counselor who followed Williams from KU to UNC. Also, the investigation confirmed 18 years of academic fraud at UNC, including 10 years when KU Chancellor Bernadette Gray-Little was serving as a top academic officer at UNC.
It’s no wonder KU friends and alumni have some questions and concerns about whether the KU basketball program also could get caught up in the UNC scandal - and Gray-Little’s refusal to address the situation does little to calm those concerns.
In February, soon after news broke about UNC basketball players receiving grades for fake classes in the Department of African and Afro-American Studies, Gray-Little issued a statement saying that, if she had known about the problems at UNC, she “would have taken action to address them.” Since that time she has refused to comment on the situation at UNC. Nor has she commented on any steps she might have taken to make sure KU athletic programs were in the clear regarding academics both before and since she arrived on campus in 2009.
Maybe KU has nothing to fear. Maybe everything on the academic front was on the up and up when Williams and Walden were at KU and after they left. But coaches or academic officials denying that they knew anything about a situation that arguably should have at least raised their suspicions isn’t very comforting. Being able to deny you knew anything about an unpleasant situation doesn’t mean it didn’t happen - or that you shouldn’t have known it was happening at the time.
This is a situation that cries out for involvement by the Kansas Board of Regents, whose members also have been unwilling to comment on the issue. Are the regents demanding more answers from Gray-Little than she is willing to give to the public? What are the regents doing to ensure that all state universities are free of the kind of academic scandal that has erupted at UNC? These are questions that need to be answered.
This is an instance where the silence of KU’s chancellor and the Board of Regents isn’t golden - it only raises concerns and suspicions about what the public isn’t being told.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.