April 2001

April 26, 2001
(Distributed to Kansas newspapers April 23, 2001)

Outlast...but who wins?

At the Statehouse, this is the week (or two) that holds immense possibilities for Democratic legislators. And, for fiscally conservative Republicans, the legislative wrap-up session holds the possibility of seeing that campaign talk of paring "big government" and "taxes too high" actually come true.

The state is roughly $205 million short of money for the next 15 months, and there is no pretty way out of the situation, unless, of course, the situation is just what legislators campaigned about.

So, we're down to the point where sharp budget cuts, ignoring needs of the poor, the elderly, the handicapped and even some of the needs of the middle-class, are in the Legislature's gunsights.

And, with their outsized majorities in the House and Senate, most of the cuts and shuffles and interception of money is going to have to be done by Republicans. That's both the Republicans who campaigned as liberals and moderates, and those who campaigned as meat-eating budget-cutters who told voters that the way to reduce the size and scope of meddlesome state government is to starve it, to force reductions in spending, in programs, in employees and in throw weight.

There is no reason for Democrats to have to vote for anything unpleasant, anything that is going to look icky on a campaign brochure when they go to print in just over a year. This is the time of year, when the tough decisions are on the plate, that Democrats probably ought to sit back and see how Republicans intend to solve this problem...and count the number who do and count the number who don't see a real problem here, but rather just a lucky coincidence that will lead to sharply smaller government.

Now, we've heard talk about "bipartisan" efforts on this and that for the entire year, but frankly and politically, there are enough Republicans in each chamber to pass a sharply cut budget, cause inconvenience and pain, and take the heat--or the credit--for it.

No, that's not what we call excellence in governing, but it can happen, and for the good of the two-party system in Kansas, it probably ought to happen if Democrats will just think this thing through, logically.

It's three sessions before the band of just 10 Democrats in the Senate have to stand for reelection, but it is just 19 months before House members stand for reelection. The budget that is being assembled this week and probably into next week will last until June 30, 2002--the heart of campaign season circa 2002.

With 46 Democrats and 79 Republicans in the House, and the magic number being 63 votes to pass legislation in that chamber, every step toward adjournment of the Legislature could be done by Republicans alone. Democrats could easily take the rest of the session off, if they chose.

So, should Democrats vote for anything unpleasant? Probably, politically, not.

But Republicans are themselves divided and maybe the best guess before the votes actually go up on the voting board in the House is that the most conservative House Republicans are the 39 who voted three times against electing Rep. Kent Glasscock, R-Manhattan, as Speaker. They are presumed to be the most conservative of the conservative Republicans and hold the key to passing the budget cuts, possibly the "revenue enhancements" needed to adjourn the 2001 session of the Legislature.

Politically, Democrats have a chance to highlight the split among Republicans, to force that party to pull itself together and find 63 Republicans to settle the budget mess.

Will that happen? Probably not.

At some point, as they always do, Democrats are going to choose sides among the Republicans, and they're going to forget about the partisan politics that got them to the Legislature in the first place. Probably about the middle of next week, when the sun is shining, when the windows in the House chamber are open and the blinds are clinking in the wind, Democrats will relent, will start talking about getting home, and they'll let Republicans off the hook.

There will be some bipartisan votes, some blend of 15 or 20 Democrats who vote for something they don't really like but figure they have to support to get this session adjourned.

And, it's very likely that Republicans, on the cusp of a telling and well-publicized party split, will have outlasted their Democratic opposition, and wrap up the year's work and start considering how to not let it be widely known that there was a near-civil war in the House.

Oh, and then go out and try to find Republican opponents for Democratic House members who helped avert that war.

April 19, 2001
(Distributed to Kansas newspapers April 16, 2001)

Taxes, anyone?

This is the week in which the legislative appropriations committees are going to come to an important decision--whether they can merely cut their way to a balanced budget for the state.

At risk is lawmakers' record skein of six years of tax cutting, and that has a major impact on the possibility that the powerful kindergarten-12th grade industry lobby will see sizable increases in funding in the next school year.

That means that educators need just a pinhole in the no-new-tax to wriggle through in order to make their case that significant tax increases are needed to finance public schools.

With more than $200 million in new or reallocated money needed in the next 15 months, chances look a little better than even that some new tax revenue is going to be necessary. And once a dab of new tax money becomes inevitable, it is going to be up to the influential K-12 lobby to talk legislators into a little more money, or a lot more money, to pump $100 million or more into schools.

This is the week that appropriations committees have the duty to figure out whether it is possible to take care of all the obligations of state government without a tax increase of some sort. The Senate Ways and Means and House Appropriations Committees are going to have to be thorough, and wind up the week utterly unable to provide the state's agencies with the money they need without some new revenue source. And because those committees will have to guide the state through this session, and leave some possibility of a tax hike-free next (House election year) session, chances are at least even that some industries are going to see an increase in taxes.

Oh, and those taxes that we were all making fun of two weeks ago are starting to look stronger now, and will likely look even stronger at week's end.

Look at the most-made-fun-of tax proposed by Senate Education Committee members: The soda pop tax. Now, have you ever heard of anything sillier?

As a matter of fact, yes. There are sillier taxes. Because the key to a tax increase is finding an industry or product that can survive the tax without damaging the market for that industry or product.

Does anyone out there think that a two-cent a can tax on soda pop is going to prevent anyone from drinking pop? Come on, now.

Yes, a lot of states have had the soda pop tax, and a lot of states that had a pop tax have dropped it, but there has been no allegation that one less can of pop was drunk, or that due to a pop tax, rum drinkers could no longer afford the Coke to mix with their rum. It just hasn't happened, and it's not likely to happen in Kansas.

Oh, and the liquor taxes that have been bandied about? Well, a key to whether the industry can remain alive with a little more tax is probably best illustrated by revenue projections which indicate that drink taxes are among the sturdiest of taxes. A dab of tax doesn't stop drinking, or even damage sales of alcohol except out at the far fringe of the industry...where drink prices and taxes ultimately combine to provide a different level of tip for waitresses and waiters. For example, a $2.75 cocktail probably makes it too easy for drinkers at the bar to leave an even $3, which translates into a 25-cent tip. But a $2.50 drink probably makes it as easy for a $3 bill to yield a 50-cent tip.

And all those people who confidently say that a tax will hurt the soft drink bottlers or the liquor industry simply don't understand that bottlers and distillers and wholesalers don't pay taxes, their customers do.

But the key for educators is going to be appropriators finding out that they just have to have more money to do a workmanlike job of financing state government. Without meeting that threshold question, all the rest is pretty much dust in the wind.

So this is the week to glean from news reports whether a tax increase of some sort is inevitable.

That decision makes it a whole new ball game for the state agencies that need more money to do whatever it is that they are assigned to do, and that decision similarly opens the door to significant increases in school finance.

Oh, and all that talk about quality of teaching, about accountability, about rewriting the formula for distribution of money to schools? It's too late in the session for any of that to come into play in any thoughtful manner.

Buckle up for the ride.

April 12, 2001
(Distributed to Kansas newspapers April 9, 2001)

Losing 15 pounds in 2 weeks?

Well, it's time for the Legislature to work the governmental equivalent of losing 15 pounds in two weeks.

While there are probably a handful of Kansans who have lost weight that fast--and maybe some more who are on the "Survivor" show who have accomplished the same--this isn't something that most of us have much experience at.

What's it take? Probably some pretty ugly stuff.

Like, remember early this session, when nursing homes wanted about $60 million to boost salaries for the people who take care of the state's elderly? Your mom or grandmother or uncle or aunt who is in a nursing home, who needs personal service that you can't provide yourself?

Well, chances for that expenditure look pretty slim right now.

And the people who care for Kansans with mental retardation? They're looking for $36 million in state money, to be matched with $24 million in federal money, to come up with another $60 million for salaries. Chances look pretty slim there, too.

But we're not done yet in the effort to bring state spending down by $185 million over the next 15 months.

Why mention the folks that most Kansans really wouldn't mind, in good times, spending money on? Because when it comes to state budgets, they were on the outside, anyway, hoping that there would be an uptick in revenues, or that at least the Legislature would be able to come out of this session without big budget cuts that would make a little money for those efforts possible.

By now, that clearly isn't going to happen.

Even those other folks, the ones who provide the services that most Kansans may occasionally need--say, court clerks or prison guards or Highway Patrol troopers--don't look like they're going to wind up with the raises that their spokesmen say are necessary to keep them on the job. State employees, too, are looking at a suddenly diminished chance for raises.

Not increasing salaries is probably the easiest way to not spend money, and the Legislature is going to have to not spend a lot of money to get through the next fiscal year, maybe two fiscal years.

But even legislative leaders don't believe that they can merely cut spending to make up for the anticipated shortfall in state revenues to finish up the last three months of this fiscal year and the full 12 months of Fiscal Year 2002, which starts July 1. Somewhere, there's going to have to be some new revenue, they agree.

So, what's the easiest way to pick up revenue? Senate President Dave Kerr, R-Hutchinson, figures that the first place the state ought to start is by collecting taxes that are already due the state, but which haven't been paid. That's what legislators call "low-hanging fruit" that can be picked easily. You do that by hiring a bunch of people to get on the phone and call deadbeats and tell them you want the money they owe Kansas and you want it now.

Surprisingly, there may be as much as $500 million out there waiting for operators to call. Now, figure that half that money is owed by people who don't have it, and that another 25 percent may be just mistakes, that people don't owe it at all, and the state has bad numbers. But there may still be $125 million out there, and maybe the state could collect half of that pretty quickly. Maybe, maybe not, but it's worth a shot, anyway.

And there's another roughly $110 million hidden away in special use funds that were designated to be spent on just specific things, maybe children's programs, maybe trust funds from which only the interest is intended to be spent. Some of those can be tapped, too.

And, so far, without raising any taxes, Kansas may have gotten about even, or close to it.

It means some pretty fast action and some pretty decisive action, but that, and some nickle-and-dime reductions in spending programs already approved, might just pull Kansas to fiscal daylight. There's enough gloom and doom out there, but there also are some potential revenue sources to be tapped.

April 5, 2001
(Distributed to Kansas newspapers April 2, 2001)

Scaring the common sense out...

Probably not since the days when out-and-out wacko House sergeant at arms Boston Corbett scared the bejesus out of the House by firing his pistol into the ceiling has a law enforcement agency literally scared the common sense out of the House of Representatives.

Corbett more than a century ago did a little, well, we call it "acting out" now, when the House got unruly and he shot into the air to restore order. It didn't work. Corbett was fired, and the Kansas House went back to business as usual...which is where it still is today.

Last week, the House voted the Kansas Highway Patrol--atop the 8 percent salary increase recommended by Gov. Bill Graves in his State of the State message--another 5 percent salary increase.

Now, most people think Kansas Highway Patrol salaries are a little on the low side.

Their salaries are low compared to some of the ritzier cities and counties in the state, and low nationally, and regionally.

Graves' proposal would have bumped salaries nicely, and put the patrol back into the running on salaries. It's not like patrolmen and women are leaving the force now to work in convenience stores.

But, the interesting part is that somehow, within the patrol's budget, there is about $900,000 in spare money kicking around that the bosses there believe can be either saved or not spent on whatever the Legislature last year wanted the money to be spent on, to hand out additional 5 percent raises for troopers.

Not many state agencies have roughly $1 million in spare change in their budgets. We hope. Most Kansans would probably like to think that the Legislature budgets state agencies pretty tightly, and that it would be rare indeed, except possibly for a printing error or a comma mistake, for the patrol to have that much money just lying around loose.

So, when the patrol indicated it had some cash, legislators were quick to allow the agency to go forward with its salary boost-upon-boost plan, and the measure shot out of the House with around 100 votes.

The patrol might have a spreadsheet somewhere showing how it will not spend $900,000 on other things to be able to spend it for raises (which will have to be built into salary adjustments next legislative session) but many of us Railsters see patrol cars sitting, idling in the median of highways, waiting for trouble to come to them, rather than roving the roads looking for trouble.

Or, maybe the patrol will just quit firing warning shots to save ammo.

This is probably the week that the issue is going to be straightened out, but for one morning in March, it seemed pretty much like the Kansas Highway Patrol had taken up Corbett's job of scaring the House into something that probably wouldn't happen on a regular, orderly day of budgeting.

Look for something that doesn't go into the salary base of the KHP, and look for it not to cost $900,000.