December 2006
Dec. 28, 2006
(Distributed to Kansas newspapers Dec. 25, 2006)Worried about your legislator?
This may be tough, but some of you might want to pencil into your appointment books a few minutes to feel sorry for Kansas legislators. Don’t make it a whole hour, but maybe a few minutes, maybe before lunch…
The problem? Very practically, Kansas legislators don’t make enough money for what they do. Now, there’s always debate there, some are probably over-paid for what they do and some are probably underpaid for what they do, but the general salary for rank-and-file legislators is a little low. It’s about $23,000 a year all-told, and while that sounds like a livable wage for four months’ work in the spring, you gotta remember that the four-month job, and for many a couple days during the summer months for interim committees, pretty much breaks up your work year.
If you’re farming and have enough family and help, winter isn’t a bad time to be in the Legislature, but if you’re selling insurance or houses or working for a bank or a store or an aircraft plant, or are an accountant or lawyer, well, that one-third of the year out of the workplace probably diminishes your overall earnings, and probably doesn’t put you on track for a more responsible and higher-paying job in the legislative off-season. And the lawyers, increasingly in an eat-what-you-kill business that is dependent on billable hours, generally take a beating by serving in the Legislature…one of those places where occasionally, it’s nice to have a lawyer around.
The problem is that $23,000 is without a realistic doubt low, but $100,000 is without a doubt high, and there is a number in between somewhere that is probably right.
This is a part-time job, of course, but it generally wrecks the rest of the legislator’s year. Retirees? The wealthy? Sure, we have them in the Kansas Legislature, but do we really want virtually all state policy and law made by those people? No more than we’d like virtually all state policy made by, say, smokers or Masons or vegetarians. We need a mix of backgrounds in the Legislature which means that ideally, it ought to be possible for anyone to be able to run and win and then be able to afford to serve.
Oh, and we probably don’t need a full-time legislature, because at some point, legislators become meddlesome if they’re given too much free time. Ideally, they’d be like volunteer fire fighters—there when something is ablaze and back at their regular work when there’s nothing pressing.
But…it would take legislative action of some sort to find that right number and pass it into law. That means haggling in committees and voting on the floor of the House and Senate. There are options, the so-called BRAC procedure patterned after the Pentagon’s Base Realignment And Closure deal, where something happens unless Congress (or in the salary example, the Legislature) votes to stop it. The BRAC procedure seems at first glance to take pressure off legislators on a pay raise proposal divined by high-minded members of some commission and brought into the Statehouse on chiseled stone tablets, but practically, it’s legislators voting for raises for themselves, or, if they want to be coy about it, voting for raises to become effective after the 2008 elections when the full House and Senate stand for election.
Practically, the legislative salaries are too low for most Kansans to be able to afford to spend four months of the year in the Legislature. Fixing that is so politically dangerous that it hasn’t been tried in a number of years.
This may be that time when it would be best to just lock the doors of the House and Senate and let them take one, single vote in secret, announce only the vote count without names, and see what happens. But you can imagine the chances of that happening.
Wondering why you ought to think about this for a couple minutes before lunch?
Because when the Legislature’s in session, it usually takes a legislator only a couple minutes to find a lobbyist to take him/her out to lunch…
Dec. 21, 2006
(Distributed to Kansas newspapers Dec. 18, 2006)Some Christmas thoughts
Maybe it is the Christmas gifts scattered under the tree or maybe it’s just that the holidays are a time when we like to feel safe and secure, but some in the Statehouse are looking at reasons not to feel safe and secure.
One reason not to feel safe and secure is the knowledge that thousands of Kansans are going to be arrested, tried, convicted and sent to prison this coming year and nearly that many are going to be released, having either completed their sentence or arranging for parole to shorten their prison time.
And, not surprisingly for those of us who are caught up in the emotions of the holidays, we just don’t think about hundreds and hundreds of convicts leaving prison with not many of the problems that resulted in them getting incarcerated being fixed.
When people come out of prison, we’d like to think that they pick up life amongst us with some skills. It would be nice if they could find a job, establish a new life and not feel the need to take the stereos from our cars, our TVs from our homes, to get into fights or rob other folks.
Well, the bad news from a recent study of the state’s criminal justice system is that 72 percent of prisoners are being released to life among us without even participating in any sort of vocational education program in prison that would allow them to find jobs, support themselves and their families and become people we don’t have to fear. Another 10 percent get some vocational education, and just 18 percent of those people coming back out of prison to live among us, shop with us, go to movies with us get the vocational training in prison to allow them to do that.
Anyone else rather scoot into our middle-of-the-row theater seat in front of people who have jobs just like us, make a living, and don’t bother people anymore? Well, we’re not doing a very good job of making sure people coming out of prison will do that.
Substance abuse? Fifty-two percent of prisoners with a substance abuse problem didn’t participate in a drug or alcohol treatment program and 12 percent didn’t complete it.
That’s also something that makes us a little less safe living with people who are coming out of prison.
Those two statistics may be the reason that 65 percent of new admissions to prison are people who violated the conditions of their probation or parole—most likely because they just can’t find a job and/or quit drugs or drinking when they’re out and cause more problems.
Maybe it is spooky because while those people are in prison, it’s the perfect time to turn them around. If there’s ever a captive audience for vocational training and substance abuse programs, it’s people who are…literally, captives.
The problem, of course, is that those rehabilitation programs take money and staff and nobody is thinking much about that being a good way to spend money when there are things that can be done, maybe even taxes cut for those of us who didn’t break any laws or hurt anyone. But you gotta weigh the effect of more programs on those of us who are going to be seeing those former convicts on the street, in the stores, at the movies.
And the staff? There are thousands of Kansans out there who are upset that there seem to be more government jobs being created. Most of those, of course, are in local government or at schools, but there are Kansans who just don’t like taxpayer-supported jobs. For many of us, it might depend on what those state employees do. Maybe adding to our sense of safety is a worthwhile reason for new jobs.
Does this sound holiday-ish? Probably not. But worth considering.
Dec. 14, 2006
(Distributed to Kansas newspapers Dec. 11, 2006)Something nice for seniors
The whole ballgame has changed in the Kansas Statehouse.
No, we’re not talking about one seat or another changing hands in the House, we’re talking about 2008—and what members of the Legislature who want to seek reelection can do to make that possible.
And, a state senator has come up with an idea that was probably too good to waste on an election cycle in which the Kansas House was standing for reelection, and the Senate was in the middle of its four-year terms.
The idea? A change in Kansas law that would exempt Social Security payments from Kansas income taxes.
It’s an idea that would cost maybe $18 million a year in lost revenues, and the lost revenues would come from what are now generally called “seniors” instead of old folks or retirees, and the beneficiaries would be voters generally over age 65 who are among the most reliable voters in the state.
After all the wailing and gnashing of teeth and rending of garments that accompanies campaign speeches in which candidates want to do something for “seniors on fixed incomes,” the idea by Sen. Peggy Palmer, R-Augusta, seems to be the simplest, most straightforward way to do just that.
Now, sure there are retirees receiving Social Security benefits who have other sources of income, other pensions, other benefits, but there are very few senior citizens in Kansas who aren’t getting a Social Security check.
Got a bunch of other money coming in? Well, for those who aren’t dependent on Social Security as their only source of income, that benefit may look picayune, but for those who have only Social Security, well, it’s a benefit that will be appreciated.
And you gotta think that when politicians are talking about the “seniors living on a fixed income,” they’re talking about the Social Security-only crowd.
Best thing about the Palmer idea? It sounds simple, and it is simple, and it can all be done from the 3rd floor of the Statehouse, where the House and Senate meet. It’s self-contained to state government.
The benefit could become effective in 2007, which means that in the spring of 2008—a House-Senate election year—the exemption would show up. That means those seniors could see a benefit just months before the elections, probably in time to show gratitude in the voting booth for those who helped them and made it clear that they helped them on campaign brochures.
That “it all happens in Topeka” aspect is probably the key to the proposal.
Legislators just need mention something about property tax caps or deferrals or nearly anything else in the way of property tax relief for seniors, and county commissioners come unglued. It quickly becomes a contentious matter that pits legislators wanting to do something for seniors against their home-district county commissions, city councils, maybe school boards, nearly every unit of government that has a stake in property tax and in maintaining the valuation base against which property taxes are levied.
If politicians and seniors groups want to complain about rising property taxes, well, at least the Social Security income tax exemption gives seniors money with which to pay those property taxes. This might be the simplest way to do something nice for senior citizens that the Legislature has considered in several years.
Is this pretty transparent? Is it pandering to a group of voters that politicians need for their election or reelection in 2008? Sure it is.
What was your question again?
Dec. 7, 2006
(Distributed to Kansas newspapers Dec. 4, 2006)A nice gift
There’s a bit of news that isn’t making its way out of the Kansas Statehouse yet but which is probably the nicest holiday gift that members of the Kansas Legislature can receive.
It’s a complicated spreadsheet calculation that shows, if nothing major changes, that the Kansas Legislature isn’t going to have to levy any new taxes between now and Election Day, 2008.
Imagine that! Two years—an entire term for members of the House of Representatives and the final two years of the term leading to the every-four-years election of members of the Kansas Senate—during which there appears to be enough revenue coming into the state that there’s no need to raise your taxes.
It doesn’t get much better than that for members of the Legislature, where every election is a referendum on hundreds of votes they make on bills—but the key generally turns out to be whether your legislator voted to raise your taxes.
The numbers? It looks like Kansas will end the current fiscal year next June 30 with $754 million in the bank. That’s the ending balance, and it amounts to 13.5 percent of the amount the state will spend this year. That’s a nice, comfortable balance.
Next fiscal year—the one that the governor and Legislature will write the budget for in the upcoming session—looks like, if nothing new and unexpected happens or spending or tax cuts aren’t made, there will be $579 million left over after all the bills are paid. That’s 9.9 percent of total spending and that’s still a comfortable balance.
It’s the next year—the one the governor and legislators will write the budget for in 2008, an election year for the House and Senate, by the way—that things get a little tight. Again, with no new programs, no new tax cuts, just operating state government at current levels, the ending balance drops to $342 million, or 5.6 percent of spending. That’s a little tight.
There’s a state law that is often temporarily repealed in tight financial times that requires the ending balance in the State General Fund to be 7.5 percent of spending. It’s a goal, it is talked about a lot by fiscal conservatives, but generally, it is just a guideline. After all, how many folks have 7.5 percent of take-home pay socked away in a bank account at the end of the year?
Remember all the campaign trail talk about the school finance bill that was touted as one “we can’t afford”? Well, the ramp-up of payments for that school plan are included in the numbers, so, yes, we can afford that school finance plan.
All of that sounds preposterously simple. But, those numbers that mean no tax increases are needed are grounded on the bedrock that the Legislature does nothing new…no new programs, no tax cuts (remember, cutting taxes is spending, too), no spending except that which is already required by state law, or which shifts due to inflation or other predictable factors.
If it was that simple, just come to town, approve the budget and do nothing else, legislative sessions would be shorter. Who’d run for a job like that? Just driving to Topeka to OK spending, with no new ideas, no new programs, no new anything? Nobody, of course. We’d send a high school kid to just vote yes once and be done with it.
So, this apparent availability of money to do just the bare minimum governance without raising taxes? Don’t look for that to happen here.
But the good news might be that there’s enough money in the state treasury for the next two years for some small amount of neat stuff to happen. After that? Well, that’s an election away, isn’t it?