The Wichita Eagle, Nov. 7
State finances a mess:
Last spring’s record-long legislative session and historic tax hike have failed to put Kansas’ fiscal house in order. It’s time for Gov. Sam Brownback and GOP legislative leaders to clean up the mess, which was of their making.
Friday’s downward revision of revenue estimates for the current fiscal year confirmed what had been obvious after four months of lagging tax collections. The state isn’t taking in enough cash to cover its budget obligations, and could face a nearly $120 million hole for the year that ends next June 30.
State budget director Shawn Sullivan announced a variety of fund raids, transfers and “targeted reductions” to help the state escape this fiscal year with a mere $5.6 million ending balance. Not surprisingly, the highway fund will take another big hit - $50 million.
Even if the state ekes by this fiscal year, it faces more budget problems the following year. And the year after that.
It’s the long-term systemic fix that will really tax the state’s top leaders - and selectively add to the tax burden of Kansans.
First, Brownback must level with Kansans, and perhaps even himself, about what’s gone wrong and what must happen to make things right. Hard as rebalancing the state budget through fiscal 2017 will be, that won’t account for the state law mandating a 7.5 percent ending balance (which would take about another $475 million) or a likely Kansas Supreme Court order that millions more be spent on public schools.
As for rank-and-file lawmakers such as Rep. Pete DeGraaf, R-Mulvane, who sincerely believe that “Kansas still has a spending problem”: They’ve had plenty of opportunities to point to places to cut, and will have others as the crisis plays out.
Yet more and more key legislators are finding fault with the 2012-13 tax cuts, which went too deep and have done little to encourage hiring and economic growth. They also see clearly the fundamental unfairness in having zeroed out state income taxes for what turned out to be 330,000 Kansas business owners and farmers. Then they compounded the offense by raising the regressive statewide sales tax from 6.15 to 6.5 percent last summer. Though the governor and some lawmakers have started to talk up “consumption taxes” as if there are higher sales tax rates to come, sluggish collections since July suggest that source has its limits. And dreams are fading of Kansas joining the majority of states that either discount or exempt sales tax on food.
The lawmakers who sought to revisit the business-income exemption last spring were paralyzed by Brownback’s veto threat. He should withdraw it - or, better yet, lead Kansas back to fiscal health and a balanced tax system.
___
Lawrence Journal-World, Nov. 8
Public shouldn’t have to go to court to gain access to information:
The governor’s lack of transparency in appointing people to fill public offices in the state once again is drawing fire.
Last week, the Associated Press, the Kansas Press Association and the Hutchinson News filed a lawsuit to contest Gov. Sam Brownback’s refusal to reveal information about the candidates he considered before appointing a magistrate judge in Reno County. The position was left vacant by the retirement in July of a judge whose term ran through 2016.
After the June 15 deadline for applications had passed, the governor’s office refused to release any information about the people seeking the job. An open records request filed by the Hutchinson News was refused on the basis that state employment records aren’t subject to the open records law.
That argument recently was rejected in a similar case filed by the AP and the Salina Journal. In Saline County, voters chose to expand their county commission from three members to five, which gave the governor the responsibility of appointing two new members to the commission. As he did in Reno County, he made those appointments but kept secret all information about other people who applied for the posts. A Shawnee County judge ruled in September that those applications were not exempt under the Open Records Act.
Like the Saline County commissioners, the Reno County magistrate is an elected position, not appointed as are district judges in about half of Kansas counties, including Douglas County. That may make the Hutchinson case even stronger, but the fact is that all application materials related to judicial appointments in the state should be a matter of public record.
That is standard procedure in counties where judges are appointed as well as for the Kansas Supreme Court. The nominating groups receive applications and announce the names of those who have applied as well as the names that are forwarded to the governor for his selection. By contrast, since the Supreme Court Nominating Commission has been eliminated from the process for selecting members of the Kansas Court of Appeals, applications for those positions go straight to the governor’s office, which has refused to release the names of or information about anyone except the person who is appointed to the court. That also has been the policy when the governor fills vacant district court positions in counties that elect their judges.
Critics of the Supreme Court Nominating Commission say the process isn’t open or democratic enough, but that process is far more transparent than the process currently being followed by the governor’s office.
Although the governor’s office has said it will appeal the ruling in the Salina case, the argument that applications to fill elected offices and judicial positions should be protected in the same way as a general state employment application just doesn’t hold water. These people are being appointed to serve the public in positions that are subject to public election or retention votes. Hiding information about the process by which these positions are filled is an affront to government transparency and the public trust.
___
Topeka Capital-Journal, Nov. 6
Relax KPERS restrictions on retired teachers:
A group of Kansas public school administrators want the state to amend a law designed to reduce the number of educators who return to teaching after they retire and begin collecting benefits under the Kansas Public Employees Retirement System.
Members of the group made a good case Wednesday before a joint House-Senate pension committee.
However, one argument they didn’t make, but perhaps should, is the law specifically targets people in one profession - education. Meanwhile, other government employees can retire from a city, county or state position, begin collecting KPERS benefits and then accept a position with another government entity without undue restrictions.
Subjecting teachers to special rules makes little sense, especially in a state where teachers are in demand.
G.A. Buie, executive director of United School Administrators of Kansas, told members of the joint committee about 1,500 positions in the state’s public schools are occupied by retired personnel. Two-fifths of those people work in special education.
The special education field is not a walk in the park, and it is unlikely school districts could replace 600 special education teachers if they all resigned.
Sue Givens, superintendent of the El Dorado school district, also noted the difficulty many districts have finding teachers for some positions. Finding someone to teach French in Hugoton or Ness City could take years, she said.
The law being discussed limits most education KPERS retirees to three years of “double-dipping,” with a $25,000 annual supplemental earnings cap, but authorizes a potential one-year exception if approved by the Legislature.
The law also exempts difficult-to-fill licensed school positions, but in some rural school districts that definition would fit just about any open position.
Givens suggested the law should allow school employees to retire, comply with the existing 60-day cooling off period and then begin working full-time in a different district. Retirees who make the transition could pay a surcharge, equal to 30 percent of his or her salary at the new district.
The school districts represented by the group have sufficient reason to ask that the rules on educators who re-enter the profession after retiring be relaxed. Legislators should give their suggestions serious consideration.
School administrators know better than legislators how difficult it is to fill teaching positions. Limiting their ability to hire qualified people could adversely impact the quality of education our young people receive.
___
Salina Journal, Nov. 8
The voices of no experience:
You wouldn’t hand the keys to your new car to your 13-year-old for a night on the town, but some American voters apparently are at least contemplating doing something far more foolish this presidential election.
A Quinnipiac University survey released this past week shows that Donald Trump and Ben Carson are tied atop the GOP presidential poll at 24 and 23 percent, respectively.
According to the poll, Carson has the best favorability rating at 49 percent, while only 25 percent view him negatively. At 56 percent, Trump has the worst favorability rating of anyone except Jeb Bush, with only 37 percent having a positive view of Trump.
Trump and Carson are followed by Marco Rubio at 14 percent, Ted Cruz with 13 percent, Bush 4 percent and then a host of other also-rans.
While they’re successful in their own fields, neither Carson nor Trump has any political experience, and in national politics, voters have always tended to vote for those whom they could trust to get the job done. Typically, someone with experience.
This is why when Barack Obama, a first-term senator from Illinois, first started to run for the presidency, he was easily dismissed. No experience, no way. But now, that doesn’t hold.
There is a lot of anger and disillusionment among voters, especially on the GOP side. They look at a career politician, and instead of seeing someone who has the chops to make things happen - something they demand - they see a tainted insider. They want someone such as Carson or Trump, who mirror their frustration with Washington.
But without that vital political experience, more often than not what you get is a Jesse Ventura in Minnesota, or Arnold Schwarzenegger in California. Even more than half of those in the Quinnipiac poll who approve of Carson admit he doesn’t have the experience to be president.
Helping to guide a nation demands more than just good intentions, bluster or a fresh face. It takes know-how to get anything done in Congress or on the world stage. We understand the frustration at the way Washington works, but choosing a surgeon or a TV reality show host/businessman as our next president will only make things worse.
This is no time to hand the keys to amateurs.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.