January
2000
Jan. 28, 2000
(Distributed to Kansas newspapers on Jan. 24, 2000)Maybe it's being grown-up, or maybe it's being just too tired for nonsense, or maybe it's a long-stifled seed of consumer protection that makes us Railsters hope we've seen a corner turned in Statehouse news gathering.
And we hope we saw that corner turned last Friday.
That was the day two reporters asked, well, just pretty dumb questions that that showed either so much bias that if one reporter could actually produce a piece with that strong a slant to it, he didn't need quotes anyway, or that the other reporter didn't know enough about the topic to try to write a story that would enlighten anyone.
See, it gets like that around the Statehouse, usually on Fridays, which are press conference days. It's when you listen to either the young pups in reporting, or those who you figure are just not quite as smart as the people who consume the news they believe they are gathering. Or, there are just some reporters who on Friday need a quote--any quote--on a topic that they believe they know a little something about so the reporters can do their stories quickly and start their weekends.
Well, last Friday it happened again, and luckily, the news conference host stayed calm, but you could tell he was keeping cool while trying to make the answer sound not too much like a scolding of the reporter who should have been embarrassed, but just let his tape recorder keep recording...
OK, the subject was coming around to Bi-State II. It's the follow-up to the original bi-state cultural district law which allowed residents of Johnson County, Kan., and in Jackson, Platt and Clay counties in Missouri the opportunity to vote for or against a proposition that would add one-eighth percent sales tax to their purchases to raise money to renovate Union Station in Kansas City, Mo. Wyandotte County didn't vote for it in 1996, and that county's residents didn't pay the additional sales tax on what were presumably the subsistence-level purchases they made while scratching out a meager living in Wyandotte County.
Bi-state I involved the Legislature passing a bill that allowed residents to vote on whether to tax themselves for what has turned out to be a nice KC metro area asset. The bill just let them vote. Now, Bi-State II is about the same deal, except that this time, there's no specific prohibition against use of some of the tax money for sprucing up athletic fields. It's still a sales tax, it's still up for a vote, and if voters say no, well, nothing happens.
So, what's the question of the day: "Is it fair to make poor people in Wyandotte County pay taxes for luxury skyboxes for rich people in Royals Stadium?"
Senate President Dick Bond, R-Overland Park, held the press conference, and the question was lobbed to him.
Now, Bond is sharp, or he wouldn't have gotten to be Senate president, but the correct answer probably was a lot closer to "how did anyone this dumb get indoor work as a reporter?" than an explanation that Wyandotte County probably won't pay the bi-state tax again, that a bi-state authority will agree on how to spend the proceeds of the tax that may or may not include stadium improvements.
It was one of those answers that clearly states that the premise is wrong, restates the premise so that it is right, and then offers the answer along with an inaudible warning that mixing the right answer with the wrong question would be a bad mistake for the reporter to make.
Next question that was too dumb for answering, and which Bond didn't answer, or even fool around with, was comparing the issue of mandatory seatbelt use to abortion.
The question this time was something along the lines of "if Republicans want to prohibit abortion because they want people to be responsible for their actions, then why wouldn't Republicans oppose mandatory use of seatbelts?"
Well, there are pro-life Republicans and pro-choice Republicans and probably both stripes of Republicans and most grownups would draw a pretty wide line between abortion and a $10 or $25 ticket for not wearing seatbelts.
Anyhow just for fun, answer that abortion/seatbelt question any way you want, and then try to make up a five-word headline to express your answer. Can't do it. Shouldn't do it. Bad question.
What happened?
Far as we can tell, the reporter with the Bi-State question that really didn't ask anything, well, didn't do much with it. Nobody else did, either.
And the abortion-seatbelt question? Well, it hasn't turned up in any newspapers either. Yet.
Jan. 23, 2000
(Distributed week of Jan. 17, 2000)Well, it just took a week, but this budget emergency that the state is facing has ratcheted down several degrees.
It's as if two months ago, the barn was on fire. Now, well, there may be a kid out smoking behind the barn...
Not the emergency we were led to believe, and, it turns out after the Senate and House worked their separate bills on reducing the budget for the current fiscal year right in mid-stream, all this fuss about starving the schools was...bunk.
Yep, it appears that the only person in the Statehouse who was proposing reneging on the $50-a-pupil increase in state aid to schools was Gov. Bill Graves himself...not because he's mean, we're told, but because it was the only way to get the Legislature to go along with the recision bill.
Now, let's do this slowly, and you'll see how both Republicans and Democrats get to blast one another, and the governor, and both be at least a dab right, or close enough for government work.
Last year, the Legislature passed and Graves signed into law an appropriations bill that promised to increase the state aid to elementary and secondary schools by $50 per pupil for the current school year, and $50 for the year that starts next fall.
Whether that was a good idea, well, who knows.
But the bill was passed, the promise made, and then, last fall, Graves cites the lack of tax money flooding into the state so fast that you need boots to keep your socks dry.
OK, now, at that point, schools were still getting the money as provided by state law, but Graves was making scary noises. Not changing state law, of course, but making noises that could scare a school superintendent.
Well...then comes the recision bill, and sure enough, Graves proposes to remove some of the money necessary to make the full $50 appropriation this year. Nope. Nothing changed, and won't until the Legislature agrees to the school spending cut and Graves signs it into law. That never happened last week, and isn't likely to happen this week.
So, how do politicians position themselves on this bill?
Democrats say voting against the bill is a no-brainer. Graves is making things unpleasant for Kansans for no good reason, and too fast, too. And, they say, they voted for the $50 increase for schools last year, so don't try to make voters believe they don't want the $50 for schools.
Republicans say that the bill that was amended so that it doesn't reduce the $50 for schools somehow becomes a reaffirmation. It's borderline bunk, but it seems to work to most House and Senate Republicans' satisfaction. If no bill passes, schools get $50. If this recision bill passes, schools get $50.
Is this trip necessary?
What really happened? Republicans didn't cut school money. Democrats didn't cut school money. Republicans want credit for "saving us" and Democrats say we were never even close to the window ledge, anyway.
Perfect harmony. Only guy who gets beat up is the governor, and he was saved from himself by legislators. Imagine that, saved by legislators.
***
Been wanting to donate blood, but find that, without an income tax deduction, you just can't put your heart into the effort?Well, there may be others like you out there. And maybe Rep. Tom Sloan, R-Lawrence, has a solution.
He's proposing an income tax credit of $10 a pint for each pint you donate to a nonprofit blood bank. Oh, and you can get $300 for donating body parts that aren't blood.
Well, budgets are tight...people need blood and other stuff and, well, we'll see whether this bill is a good idea, or just a catchy bill...
Jan. 13, 2000
(Distributed to Kansas newspapers Jan. 10)There was a time not so many years ago when you could smell the sizing in the Christmas shirts all the legislators wore when they came to Topeka, and know that the Legislature was starting.
Now, if you think that has anything to do with nostalgia, it really has more to do with how easy it is to wash shirts now, and that there are now women in the Legislature and lobbying and staffing and researching, and that the boy legislators are better about their grooming habits.
The 2000 session started on Monday this year and most boy legislators had already washed their holiday shirts once or twice.
Girl legislators have the luck to either wear their tasteful gifts, or bring them to Topeka and not wear them and nobody back home will be the wiser. Most boy legislators don't know whether the clothing they received over the holiday was tasteful or not. Girls do.
In Topeka, the excitement is general when the Legislature comes to town. Oh, yes, we do tend to keep the dogs up on the porch when there are lawmakers roaming about, and we don't leave the laundry out on the line unwatched. But the Legislature is essentially a camp of about 1,000 people plopped down in the middle of a city of considerably more people.
Figure 165 legislators. Now add a couple hundred secretaries, file clerks, etc. Now, stir in maybe 400 lobbyists, a dozen or so reporters, and legislative staffers who have spent about seven months resting up from last session, and get tossed into the new session all over again.
That's the village that probably couldn't raise a child, or maybe even a puppy, during its four months in town.
And, legislators and lobbyists and staffers and reporters all tend to talk in legislative shorthand which most people with real lives don't bother to learn, and so we all wind up talking mostly to each other at the Statehouse, or at nearby bars or restaurants, or even when we bump carts at the supermarket here.
It's probably like, well, it's exactly like when friends want to discuss the merits of the French soccer team or the Argentinean soccer team, and we can only act like we give a hoot for about five minutes before we start wondering if that is new hair we feel coming in or whether the car is still under warranty.
So, there's likely to be a little gear-shifting when legislators return home for the weekends. A little "now, how do I explain this in good standard American" look in their eyes when you ask what's hot at the Statehouse.
And, yes, there is a small amount of time, maybe just through the end of January, when little of what happens at the Statehouse is really very important to anyone's lives. You might want to give legislators until February to expect much in the way of a solid report on what is going on in Topeka.
***
Democrats, you can do something productive, while Republicans ponder just what happened to Gov. Bill Graves. He switched from tab collar shirts, those ones with the tight collars that have a special little fastener under the knot of your tie, to a standard spread collar shirt.Now, Graves wore the tab collar model for more than a decade. Until last month, he just up and changed. Just felt like doing something different, he said. Maybe that's middle-aged crazy among middle-aged Republican governors. He didn't switch to wearing boots, or get a tattoo or anything else unusual that we could see.
We did notice, though, that now he's wearing shirts with collars like those worn by George Bush Jr. Oh, and Graves is also now wearing collars that are not just like those worn by Sen. Orrin Hatch, of Utah, another of those guys who wants to grow up to be the GOP presidential nominee. Unsure whether this a big deal or not. But, Republicans, you can now join Democrats in doing something productive.
Jan. 7, 2000
(Distributed to Kansas newspapers Jan. 3)Remember all the years that you've heard governors and legislators and, heck, even the younger members of the media, say that the Legislature was "going to get a running start this session"?
And remember all those years when the Legislature just lolled around, while its new members found the best restaurants in Topeka that a lobbyist would take them to, or maybe learned that there's no difference in Lottery odds just by being in Topeka, closer to where some of the numbers are chosen.
Well, have you noticed that nobody's telling you that anything is going to get off to a running start this year? It's because it isn't, and nobody believes you're going to be tricked again. Especially with a "revision" bill in the offing.
The concept of "off and running" or "a running start" implies that most, or, as we say in Topeka, 21 members of the Senate and 63 members of the House, are agreed to anything, and running, roughly, mind you, in the same direction.
The same direction in this case means going along with Gov. Bill Graves and cutting at least $64 million of spending that the Legislature was flatly proud of last year. Things like extra money for education, for pay raises, for a lot of nice touches for the state. Well, voting for those things is pretty easy...voting against them is tough...and voting to take that nice spending away is the toughest assignment.
Now, who, besides the governor, wants that bill passed again? Railsters are looking around at the relevant parties, and don't see a lot of hands up in the air.
Oh, the Senate might go along with the plan. But look at the House, still badly fragmented, and see who is hoping to pass that revision bill quickly.
Graves is hoping for an almost-mini-session. Where the Legislature devotes its energy to that revision bill, clearing the decks for the budget for the coming fiscal year. That's the orderly way to do it, finish one job before starting another. Makes a lot of sense.
OK, if you've read this far, you already have the idea that this simple plan is unlikely to succeed.
Now, we knows it sounds logical. First, clean up the current fiscal year (that's Fiscal Year 2000, which began July 1, 1999, and won't end until June 30, 2000) so that we're ready to plan a budget for FY 2001, which starts July 1, 2000, and continues until June 30, 2001.
Graves is hoping to get the revision bill in his hands, ready to sign, within 10 days of the Legislature returning to session. After that, he says, pieces of FY 2000 get mixed in with bits of FY 2001, and it gets messy. Sorta like trying to take the Scotch out of the water, once they're already blended in the glass.
Count on the Senate to approve the bill, and count on the wheels to come off the wagon in the House, where, recall, the three major parties in order of numbers are the Democrats, with 48, Moderate Republicans with maybe 40 or 41, depending on the weather, and conservative Republicans, 36 or 37.
First, why should Democrats, who don't have enough votes by themselves to pass anything, vote for a bill that is even the slightest bit icky, that is, taking money away from anyone? Give up? The answer is simply that there is no reason for Democrats to vote for such a bill.
Now, the moderate Republicans. Why would they vote for the revision bill? Just because Graves asked them to. They will recognize that the Graves way is the simple, workmanlike way to deal with one fiscal year with too little money, and another fiscal year with barely just enough money. And, they tend to like Bill Graves.
And the socially conservative Republicans? Why would they vote for such a bill? They haven't voted with the governor in the past year, and aren't likely to change now. Plus, there's a chaos advantage for the most conservative of Republicans, in that they want to shrink government. And, they believe the way to shrink government is to cut off its money supply. So, any money supply that is already appropriated in this fiscal year should stay appropriated in this fiscal year.
That means big cuts in FY 2001. Big cuts mean smaller government. That's a very different reason than Democrats have for voting against the revision bill, but the result is virtually the same...neither side has to immediately come into session and start taking anything away from anyone.
So, what's that all mean? Well, a messy start to the legislative session which starts Jan. 10; a lot of confusion for the public trying to keep track of things without having to drop out of the rest of life and camp at the Statehouse, and campaign promises that we can't tell whether were broken or not.
Welcome to the big top. It's going to be a bumpy ride.
Jan. 1, 2000
(Distributed to Kansas newspapers Dec. 27)You see, there was this space on the state's school testing standards that used to contain the question, "where do thumbs come from?" and all of a sudden was blank in the newest editions. So, Railsters figured how to fill that void.
It's going to be a simple question, like "name the 10 most powerful Kansas political/government leaders."
It's a list that Railsters call "Earthmovers" because, in certain areas of public life, those 10 can literally make the earth shake when they want it to. Compiled by Hawver's Capitol Report, here are 1999-2000 Kansas "Earthmovers":
1. House Minority Leader Jim Garner, D-Coffeyville. How'd a Democrat wind up on top of the list? By promising that he could deliver the votes of the 49 Democrats in the House of Representatives on any issue. He called the tune in winding down the 1999 session, and he goes into the 2000 session with more clout than anyone... And, his clout grows the longer he's not challenged to "put up or shut up."
2. U.S. Rep. Dennis Moore, Olathe. Another Democrat in a Republican-tilted state, he seized the 3rd District Congress seat from a conservative, has voted pretty much right on issues that the district counts as important, and looks good in a suit. Can he win reelection? Probably, though it's not going to be easy. He's got a nice-sized bankroll to campaign with, and his is the single race in Kansas where Democrats statewide are going to be investing in getting him reelected.
3. Republican State Chairman Mark Parkinson, Olathe. Finally, a Republican, and one who is leading a still-fractured party that is likely to redefine itself at August's primary election as either solid Republican fiscal conservatives, or Republicans more interested in talking about abortion and religion than in actually running government. Moderate-to-liberal Republicans only took over the party in August 1998, and they could lose it to conservatives if they don't turn out large numbers of voters.
4. U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas)/State Rep. Phill Kline, R-Shawnee. Kline gets here because DeLay is assembling millions of dollars to help hard-right Republicans get elected to Congress, and he'll start spending money in the primary. Delay's Republican Issues Majority PAC is Kline's lifeline through the primary election, and seed money toward the most expensive congressional general election fight Kansas has seen, in the Johnson County-dominated 3rd Congressional District.
5. John Moore/The Children's Cabinet. Cessna vice president Moore, of Wichita, is the gatekeeper to millions of dollars of tobacco manufacturer payments to the state that is now targeted to helping children. That means keeping schoolteachers, state employees, college professors, the elderly and the handicapped out of that trough of cash. It's going to be a tough job; he's going to be challenging his friends and even the governor, but if Kansas really thinks children are important, he's the one who is going to have to fight for them...
6. Secretary of Aging Connie Hubbell, Topeka. She gets to rebuild an agency that was either ill-managed or just plain not-managed the past few years. She gets to rescue the frail elderly from waiting lists for service, and ensure that grandma and grandpa are well taken care of when they need nursing home care. This is the job that nobody can afford to see fail, and that level of support is powerful.
7. Insurance Commissioner Kathleen Sebelius, Democrat, Topeka. She's the one and only credible statewide-elected Democrat, and she can probably be governor in 2002 if she wants to. A lot of hopes are riding on her, but luckily, as insurance commissioner, she has a lot of authority to do things to big HMOs and insurance companies on behalf of voters...er, policyholders.
8. Gov. Bill Graves, Republican, Salina, Topeka, Mission Hills. Far down the list for a governor, but he's seeing the natural deterioration of authority that comes from being a lame duck in snug state budget times. His dwindling political capital needs to be spent on buttressing the moderate wing of the GOP during 2000 elections. If George W. Bush becomes president? Maybe a Cabinet slot.
9. Attorney General Carla Stovall, Republican, Topeka. There is power in this: no Republican, no Democrat can defeat her for reelection in three years, or even make her spend more than about $1.50 on her reelection campaign. But she's got some real challenges ahead...like her role in agricultural antitrust issues that are boiling out on the farm.
10. Kansas State Board of Education. Meets in Topeka. Political party? Doesn't seem to matter. Sparked the largest political/moral/governmental issue in decades with evolution/creation flap. Don't look for Legislature to abolish the agency, just rough it up a little, take some of its authority away.