December 2008

Dec. 25, 2008
(Distributed to Kansas newspapers Dec. 22, 2008)

Term limits: Winner or loser?

We’ve heard what appears to be a solid, cross-my-heart and hope-to-die promise by U.S. Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., that he absolutely, positively won’t seek a third term in the Senate.

The deal here is term limits, and Brownback set a two-term limit on his service in the Senate, and in 2010, he’ll have wrapped up his two terms and presumably look for other work…maybe in the Statehouse as governor of Kansas.

It’s a personal decision, but Brownback is likely to become a poster boy for a proposition that might not be a good idea for Kansas.

This term limits business is a big deal among some—there’s even a Florida-headquartered outfit that encourages term limits and apparently raises enough money that it can fly a guy around the country touting, well, term limits.

Now, let’s think about this from the standpoint of a relatively small state, say, Kansas.  Of course, size of the state doesn’t matter in the Senate, where it’s two per state regardless of size. But, just who represents you, his/her experience, and that person’s history has a lot to do with how a small state fares in Congress. It’s really about influence: the influence of the senator among members of that exclusive club, of influence with agencies and departments. It’s also partly about rejecting influence of special interest groups when it’s appropriate for your state.

Now, in Brownback’s case, he’s a Republican, and Democrats outnumber his party in the Senate. That means he could wind up, even in a Democrat-dominated Senate, with a “ranking minority” status, which gives a small state’s senator a chance to subtly take the sharp edges off legislation so that Kansas isn’t inadvertently or even purposely disadvantaged by legislation that is going to pass anyway… Just another use of that multi-term influence, the chance to build capital by taking thorns out of paws over an extended number of years.

And there’s the important technical knowledge needed to put a concept—or protection from a concept—into federal law. Most people would prefer an experienced mechanic or heart surgeon even if they spent 12 years in the trade already.

It would, of course, all be different if every Senate seat had a two-term limit attached. Then, the floor is level. That experience and that building of relationships, if not friendships, are all equally limited. Whether that’s a good idea is probably worth debating, but an optional two-term limit is, well, remarkable in itself.

Do you campaign on the premise that in case you just aren’t good at being a senator, well, it will be over after 12 years? Or that after a first term, or second term, your constituents won’t notice if you’ve voted wrong for the state?

Because, remember, there’s already a term limit on all elective offices…and it is created by voters. If you’re not good, or at least not better than the candidate running against you, voters can limit your terms by not reelecting you.

Term limits? Might be an interesting little experiment on a national level. But state-by-state, well, it has some disadvantages.

Brownback’s decision is, of course, a personal one, and there’s nothing wrong with just deciding two terms is enough and he’d like to take up golf or gardening or something. An individual term limit? Fine, that’s what Brownback promised and that’s what he’s doing. But a two-term limit can put a state at a disadvantage in the Senate.

Worth thinking about…

Dec. 18, 2008

(Distributed to Kansas newspapers Dec. 15, 2008)

Vote with your feet

Lots of talk about this Statehouse renovation, about the millions spent, about the millions yet to be spent and the need for one final bond issue that will be required to complete the job.

What’s that talk, from some reporters who ought to know better and from editorial writers who don’t? That it’s likely to take another $100 million to complete the renovation of the State Capitol building.

Sounds like a lot of money and the state is in one and heading into another year in which there’s not going to be enough money for basic services, for schools, for health care, for programs for the poor and their children.

Yes, from a bird’s eye view, things don’t look good for Kansas government and its taxpayers.

That talk is that surely Kansas legislators won’t vote to issue bonds—the amount isn’t yet known—to finish the last section of the Statehouse. That last section’s work would create the offices, the meeting rooms, the visitor center so that your children can get off the school bus and enter the building and maybe get a snack before touring the building where state laws are hammered out and where the governor works.

All sounds pretty simple, doesn’t it? Legislators will just say no to issuing bonds to complete the job that, by next year, will be about three-quarters done…the east, west, and this year the south wing of the building historically correctly restored, but with the first class phones, power, safety and computerization gear that we expect in modern buildings.

Well, let’s think about this just a minute.

So far, the renovation of the Statehouse has provided plush, historically correct and attractive offices for…the leaders of the Kansas House and Senate. Nice, fancy offices for the leaders.

And almost every member of the State Senate is in newly remodeled offices, too, with fancy expensive wooden desks, high ceilings, glistening transoms above the doors and nice work spaces for not only senators but their staffs and secretaries.

Oh, and did we mention that because of the renovation and the need to keep the work of state government under way at the same time, that the current remodeling effort has made more than 90 offices for members of the Kansas House disappear?

Oh, and did we mention that even after the south wing of the Statehouse renovation is completed, that at least 50 members of the Kansas House won’t have brand spanking new offices yet?

For the upcoming session, more than 90 House members will be officing in the Docking State Office Building, across a street or through a long underground tunnel from the Statehouse.

Probably at least 10 minutes away from the House chamber, state representatives will be carrying their satchels and laptop computers and all the information they think they’ll need each legislative day. They’ll be at least 15 minutes from their cars—parked in the bond-financed underground parking garage just north of the Statehouse—to their Docking Building offices to shed their coats and read their mail and respond to e-mails before returning to the Statehouse.

Are you thinking that for all the bluster about cost overruns, about tight economic times, that those duly elected representatives are going to enjoy their second-class status of officing outside the Statehouse?

We’re not thinking that, either.

So for all the wailing and gnashing of teeth this session, don’t be surprised if at some point, there’s a little vote on that last bunch of bonds and House members decide that, yes, we probably ought to finish this project started in good times, which will have to be voted on in bad times and be completed about the time the state’s economy is in recovery.

Dec. 11, 2008

(Distributed to Kansas newspapers Dec. 8, 2008)

NOT visions of sugar plums dancing in Kansas legislators’ heads…

It’s that time of this year, and we’re not talking about holidays or mistletoe or snowmen or whatever you think of at this time of year.

We’re talking—those of us who spend most of our time in the Statehouse gleaning the rumors, talking to agency directors, to lobbyists and occasionally to a taxpayer or two—about taxes.

Because it’s going to take cuts to state spending that are unheard of in recent memory or tax increases that are unconscionable or more likely an unappealing mélange of both to get Kansas through the upcoming legislative session.

The cuts? Necessary to meet what could be hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue shortfall coming into the state treasury and the effect of tax relief that joyful legislators granted over the past few years that are just now coming on line. Oh, and then there are some spending increases promised and just now coming due.

So, the hottest list in the Statehouse now is a simple blue sheet, economically printed on both sides of the page, which shows potential costs and potential rewards of some complicated tax changes.

For example, just reeling back in some already-promised tax reductions would bring the state millions of dollars. Take, for example, the corporate franchise tax, which lawmakers are phasing out now to the unbridled joy of Kansas corporations. It’s a tax on corporate capital and it is scheduled to disappear in a couple of years. Just not letting it happen brings the state an additional $14 million next year. That’s a chunk of change, but it doesn’t by itself solve anything.

What if the state decides to levy a 1 mill property tax statewide?  It would raise about $31 million next year, but, well, it’s a property tax and is as widely hated as burnt toast. People drive from across the state to Topeka to complain about property taxes. It’s almost the subject matter more than the actual amount. It’s a political bright line.

State sales tax? This is a big money-raiser, but with more political problems. Add 1 percent to the state’s existing 5.3 percent sales tax, and you’ve got about $350 million heading toward the state bank account.

But there are problems with that, of course, because it applies to food. At some point it becomes a social issue because it just adds to the problems of poor people buying groceries for their families. They pay the tax on groceries now, but upping it by 1 percent raises the whole fairness issue and the spectre of  poor or middle-class Kansans paying sales tax on virtually every penny they earn—and spend—while wealthier Kansans have cash that they don’t spend and therefore isn’t taxed.

That raises complications. Do you sales-tax, say, shrimp or steak, but not catfish or hamburger?  Or whatever rich people eat but not what poor people eat? How does the Legislature decide that? Or, do you exempt food entirely or just for poor people? Just for skinny people and not fat people? See how complicated it gets?

Those are “people” taxes.

But what about government taxes?  The state promised as part of helping counties and cities make up for lost revenue from eliminating the property tax on manufacturing machinery and equipment—an eco devo deal—to compensate those local units of government for the loss, in an effort termed the “slider.” That “slide” of money to local units whose tax base was reduced by the tax exemption amounts to about $45 million this year, and next year. That’s serious money, but it means that local units of government have less money for whatever it is they do. That means, at some point, the state saving money just pushes budget cuts and the possibility of having to raise taxes down to local units of government.

Yes, there are visions—but not of sugar plums—swirling in the heads of legislators…

It’s that time of year.

 

Dec. 4, 2008
(Distributed to Kansas newspapers Dec. 1, 2008)

An express lane?

We found out who Kansas voters liked during the Nov. 4 election when the State Canvassing Board last week finalized the results.

The canvass turned out just what we knew the day after the election, who won, who lost, that sort of thing.

But we also learned a little about Kansas voters.

Some apparently left the baby in the car, or had a lunch date, or needed to get home to defrost the refrigerator. Or, you could make other crazy assumptions about the people who took the time to vote, but just didn’t spend much time at it.

For example, Kansas set a record in voting, some 1,234,765 voted…for president.

But while that’s a record, some 25,000 fewer Kansans, who were in the voting booth anyway or maybe filling out an advance ballot at their home, apparently weren’t so sure just who should be the U.S. Senator for the state. The total of votes in the U.S. Senate race—remember it? You probably saw TV ads about the bald guy and the guy with a pretty good head of gray hair—drew just 1,210,690 total votes.

We don’t know where they live. But the effect is roughly allowing every Kansan to vote on the presidential race but leaving the U.S. Senate race off the ballots in, say, Sumner County (population 25,256).

It’s called voter falloff, and from the top of the ballot to U.S. Senator, some 25,182 voters “fell off” voting at that point.

Further down the ballot, in the No. 3. spot, some 1,208,272 voters weighed in on their local congressional race. Across the four districts that comprise the Kansas House delegation, 2,418 voters who voted in the Senate race didn’t bother with the House races.

Maybe they couldn’t choose, maybe they left the engine running in their cars or “Dancing with the Stars” was starting and they had to finish up their advance ballot quickly so as not to miss the observations of the cranky judge. Figure, maybe, that the congressional race question was left off the ballots in, say, Stanton County (population 2,404) or something…

Learning a dab about the voter falloff business? Don’t tell members of the Kansas Senate.

In the 40 State Senate districts—OK, seven of them were uncontested races—a total of 982,454 Kansans voted.

That statewide total of votes in Senate races is 252,311 fewer votes than Kansans cast for president. Now, let’s see, that would be about the populations of Douglas, Harvey, Saline, Cloud, Finney, Riley and Rawlins counties just not willing to participate in choosing members of the State Senate.

Talk about busy Kansans, we didn’t have time to total up the votes for Kansas House; someone had to let the dog out…

But if you’re going to be cautious about mentioning to members of the State Senate the total number of votes they amassed, don’t say a word—in fact, try to avoid—Kansas Supreme Court Justices Eric Rosen and Lee Johnson.

They were on the ballot for retention, a simple “they can stay” or “turn in the black robes” choice. But…they were pretty far down the ballot for choices that amounted to “let them keep working” or throw ‘em off the court.

The retention votes? Just a statewide total of 979,595 for Rosen (he keeps his job, by a vote of 685,695-293,900) and 964,542 for Johnson (677,594-286,948, he stays).

This voter falloff business apparently is real.

Which makes you wonder whether in the interest of saving trees or money or ink or something else in 2010, Kansans might have the choice of a full ballot or just an “express” ballot…?