The Topeka Capital-Journal, Oct. 12
Courts will determine same-sex marriage issue:
Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt said he wanted to have legal issues surrounding same-sex marriage resolved in an orderly fashion, which prompted him on Friday to ask the Kansas Supreme Court to block issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples in this state.
Given what transpired in Kansas following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision earlier in the week not to accept cases for review from the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled Utah and Oklahoma same-sex marriage bans were unconstitutional, Schmidt’s action was appropriate.
Although Kansas is within the jurisdiction of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, its statute and constitutional amendment defining marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman were not part of the lawsuit that involved Oklahoma and Utah.
That means the state statute and constitutional amendment still stand, although Johnson County District Court issued a marriage license to a same-sex couple and some counties have decided to take applications for marriage licenses from same-sex couples but tell applicants a license won’t be issued until a higher Kansas court rules on the issue.
What was needed here was some order, and we think that’s what Schmidt wanted to provide and the Kansas Supreme Court supplied later Friday with an order halting issuance of marriage licenses to same sex-couples.
As it stands now, the state does not have to recognize same-sex marriages. Same-sex couples who wed thinking they will receive benefits and rights enjoyed by men and women who marry might be mistaken. And what good would it do a same-sex couple to apply for a marriage license on hold?
It will take further action by the courts to resolve this issue in Kansas. Let it play out.
Regardless of whether you support or oppose same-sex marriage, recent federal court decisions have given an indication of what is to come. The U.S. Supreme Court could have settled the issue by accepting the cases from the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals but, for some reason, chose to avoid it.
In some instances, states not involved in a particular lawsuit but within the jurisdiction of a federal appellate court that has overturned a state’s ban on same-sex marriages have simply stopped enforcing their own prohibitions.
That is not going to happen in Kansas, where there is strong sentiment within state government and across the state for protecting the traditional definition of marriage.
The federal courts eventually will be asked to rule on Kansas’ statute and constitutional amendment. Until then, a little order was in order.
___
The Wichita Eagle, Oct. 9
Be upfront about state budget problems:
Neither Gov. Sam Brownback nor Democratic gubernatorial candidate Paul Davis is leveling with the public about the state’s budget problems.
Here’s what they aren’t saying: Regardless of who wins the election in November, there will be major spending cuts - likely starting this fiscal year.
Brownback won’t even admit there is a problem. He insists that job growth will cover any projected shortfall and dismisses experts at bond-rating agencies who say otherwise.
“The sun is shining in Kansas and don’t let anybody tell you any different,” he says in one of his campaign commercials.
His budget and tax officials are busy spinning revenue numbers and downplaying concerns about the looming shortfalls. State budget director Shawn Sullivan seems as if he spends much of his workday posting comments on news websites and social media.
Davis is more upfront, acknowledging that the budget outlook is bleak. But other than proposing that the state freeze future income tax cuts - which would help but not be nearly enough to cover the projected shortfalls - he won’t say what spending cuts likely would be required.
It’s not only gubernatorial candidates who are whistling past the budget graveyard. During interviews with The Eagle editorial board, many GOP legislative candidates have brushed off revenue shortfalls as mere estimates - even though the state budget is based on those estimates.
And those estimates keep getting worse. September’s tax collections were $21 million less than expected. So far, state tax receipts for this fiscal year are $23.4 million less than estimates, nearly wiping out the state’s projected ending balance for this fiscal year.
The revenue drop caused the Kansas Legislative Research Department last week to increase the projected budget shortfall for next fiscal year to $260 million, up from an earlier estimate of $238 million. So balancing the budget for fiscal year 2016 and restoring the statutorily required ending balance could require more than $700 million in additional tax revenue, budget cuts or a combination of both.
One of the few groups talking about the budget challenges is the Kansas Policy Institute. The free-market think tank linked to Koch Industries released a five-year budget plan that includes a $1 billion reduction in transportation funds over the next 4 1/2 years and decreases in state funding to school districts and state universities by $148 million and $38 million, respectively, this fiscal year. But even those cuts likely wouldn’t be enough to balance the budget and restore the state’s ending balance reserves.
Candidates are asking voters for their support in November. They need to treat those voters with respect by leveling with them about the severity of the budget problem and explaining what they intend to do about it.
___
The Clay Center Dispatch, Oct. 8
Brownback’s Medicare:
Dissatisfied with your Medicare? We have yet to find anyone complaining about the convenience and service of federal Medicare.
We also have yet to find anyone who would willingly give up their Medicare in order to sign back up with a private, for-profit insurer.
Yet there continues to be a large number of Kansas elderly who will vote for Sam Brownback and Tim Huelskamp, two politicians working for a state takeover of the federal Medicare program.
Brownback has put Kansas in a compact of states wanting to turn Medicare into a state block grant style program so private, for-profit companies can run the programs. It would first have to be approved by the U.S. Senate.
Yet Kansas’ short history running federal programs has been disastrous.
Kansas has already taken over Medicaid, the health care program for the poor, and the three companies running that program in Kansas called KanCare are struggling with it, losing $110 million last year, and another $72.6 million in the first half of this year.
Given that Medicaid disaster, why should Kansas be taking over Medicare, the federal health care program for seniors?
There is no groundswell among Kansas seniors demanding to have their Medicare turned over to private companies.
It may be that too many don’t understand that this is a real issue. The idea may be so radical that people don’t believe it when they hear about it - or believe it’s just campaign scare talk.
It is scary. But it’s not just talk.
Secondly, neither Brownback nor Huelskamp are singing the praises of the plan out on the campaign trail, no doubt because to do so might frighten seniors.
As well it should.
And thirdly, the press in Kansas has all but ignored the issue, choosing instead to spend most of the time and ink on education, budget and the optics and the horse race aspects of the campaigns.
Seniors are already scared, at least those who understand it.
“If Kansas takes over my Medicare I’m moving out of Kansas,” one local senior said defiantly Sunday afternoon, echoing what the Davis campaign people say “we’ve been hearing all over the state.”
The plan would have to be ratified by the U.S. Senate to succeed, a long shot even if the GOP does win control. Brownback’s opponent, Paul Davis, is telling voters he will scrap the plan if he is elected governor this November.
___
The Kansas City Star, Oct. 10
Outside ’dark’ money speaks loudly in governor’s race:
Kansans, hold on to your armchairs. As the Nov. 4 election approaches, you may witness on your TV screens a more than average onslaught of negative political advertising. You can thank the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Center for Public Integrity has found that TV ad spending by the two leading candidates for Kansas governor tallies $6.3 million so far - for 18,700 ads. Most of that money has come from outside groups. The two largest spenders are so-called “social welfare” 501(c)(4) organizations, whose individual donors do not need to be identified.
One organization backing incumbent Gov. Sam Brownback to the tune of $1.8 million is Alliance for Freedom, a “Virginia-based group advocating for limited government and a free market.” That group has links to the family of Dick Cheney and echoes the Koch brothers’ philosophy.
The other big spender ($1.3 million for ads attacking Brownback and thus benefiting his opponent, Paul Davis) is Kansas Values Institute. The center calls it a Democratic group with ties to the Kansas affiliate of the National Education Association.
These “dark money” efforts accelerated after the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision, which loosened campaign finance laws regulations. It’s more regrettable evidence of what Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has called the current court’s worst decision.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.