July 2002

July 25, 2002
(Distributed to Kansas newspapers July 22, 2002)

Replacing six-pack abs

This week and next, you might want to keep a pencil and paper handy near the chair where you sit to watch television, because it is starting to look like it might be tough to find the toll-free number for those folks who promise to send you out the gear to generate six-pack abs.

That's because the major statewide races for Kansas governor hit the airwaves and for three of the four Republicans, it is use-it or lose-it time.

Senate President Dave Kerr, Wichita Mayor Bob Knight and State Treasurer Tim Shallenburger are going to be "up." Up, you see, is on the air with TV commercials. The opposite of up is "dark" and dark means no TV spots running. That isn't where anyone wants to be because at this point of the GOP gubernatorial campaign, some polling indicates that maybe half of people who have been polled by one campaign or another have any idea who they are going to vote for.

Oh, there's another GOP candidate who would like to have the chance to run against Insurance Commissioner Kathleen Sebelius, the only Democratic gubernatorial candidate, and that's former Eudora school superintendent Dan Bloom. He's pretty much financing his campaign out of his pocket, isn't spending much money and at this point, is what you'd have to call "ground clutter." He'll probably get a couple thousand votes, and at this point, barring something surprising, like Bloom pulling a child out of a burning barn--and being captured on home video doing it--he is just a couple thousand votes that will represent "none of the above."

But it is the major GOP players whose ads the next couple weeks go under the microscope. And you'll find that there isn't much there in the 30-second spots.

They so far all talk about protecting education. And that's well and good and what most voters want to hear, but none of the ads is going to be specific about how they intend to do it. Is it pass an education spending bill first, and then let the rest of the state spending divvy up what's left? Probably not. Is it raise taxes almost immediately, so that the Legislature has a pot of money to deal with for K-12 financing? Or is it somehow, quickly, figuring a way to go through the books of the 300-plus Kansas school districts and by long-distance, somehow prune away spending that isn't absolutely necessary?

Actually, right now, none of the above plans has any guarantee of success.

There is this matter of a Kansas Legislature to be dealt with. Nothing gets done in the way of considering what to do with the state's biggest budget item until we know who is in the Legislature. A Legislature can support any governor's plan or derail any governor's plan.

And, for at least 52 of the state's 125 House districts, whoever was there last session is going to be there for the upcoming session. Those are the districts where only the incumbent filed for election, or an incumbent stepped down in time for only one candidate to file for the seat. So, for more than two-fifths of the state's voters, there ought to be an indication of whether whatever Sebelius thinks up for schools (24 Democrats are unopposed for reelection) or one of the three major GOP candidates thinks up (28 Republicans are unopposed for reelection) will be supported or opposed.

Now, those already-assured Republican and Democratic House members may not all stand at attention if their party's gubernatorial candidate is elected, but there is at least an indication that they will give serious consideration to a governor of their own party.

Tax increases? You can tell a little from the TV ads. Shallenburger apparently won't generate any of his own, and Knight and Kerr aren't eager for tax increases, of course, but want to look at the books first to see what they'll have to work with as governor. Nobody's promising to raise taxes. No, not even Sebelius. That would be foolish.

You'll notice that editorial writers and some just plain reporters are going to spend a lot of time in the next couple weeks trying to pry specific information out of candidates about how to finance state government if they are elected, and you'll notice that the press has little luck. That's because it is all different once you've won the state's top job. Instantly, there are more numbers available, more projections, and more time to see whether the state's economy is still trending downward or takes a bump upward.

If you're hoping to tell how any candidate is going to handle the state budget crisis from their television ads, well, it won't work.

What can you tell from what the candidates' own campaigns spend thousands of dollars to put between the reruns of last winter's television shows?

None of them has six-pack abs.

July 18, 2002
(Distributed to Kansas newspapers July 15, 2002)

A trend on the doorsteps?

Something is happening out there on the doorsteps of Kansas when candidates for the House of Representatives are telling reporters that reporters are the only ones asking them whether they are pro-life or pro-choice.

From Johnson County to the western border, the abortion issue is either one that candidates believe has been put to rest, or one that pales in significance to the business of balancing a budget, financing schools and making sure that the next session of the Legislature does something that will provide seniors with prescription drug cost assistance.

Is abortion still an important issue? Sure it is to some voters. But it may be going the way that capital punishment went as a hot-button issue 15 years ago that has waned in significance because state law now allows for the most heinous of offenses, committed with the most gross intent, the death penalty. Back in the olden days, reporters asked whether candidates believed in the death penalty, and only the most brazen of reporters would ask candidates what they intended to do for the other 89 days of the legislative session. Some had answers, some didn't. And for some voters, that was all they really cared about.

The possibility is that Kansas may have gone about to the end of the leash on what the U.S. Supreme Court will allow in the way of state regulation of abortion. Clearly for the first two trimesters of a pregnancy, the state can do virtually nothing to prohibit abortions. And even in the last three months of a pregnancy, Kansas has essentially given the fetus its own health care provider. Icky stuff like partial-birth abortion hasn't been dealt with yet, but that is a procedural challenge that gets pretty gruesome for the doorstep during a campaign.

But the reports of candidates that only the reporters are asking about abortion probably means something. Either that there are other issues that strike at a lot more Kansans' welfare than abortion, or that abortion is a social issue that should be dealt with in the quiet times, if there are quiet times when facing hundreds of millions of dollars of budget deficit, school district staff reductions and longer waiting lines for services for the sick and the elderly.

In interviews with candidates, none has suggested that Kansas, which has a pretty thick body of law on abortion, start repealing any of its statutes which regulate abortion. Most in interviews suggest that the state probably has enough law right now, and only a handful even spontaneously offer suggestions for more abortion law. And those suggestions invariably are to outlaw partial-birth abortion, and little else.

Abortion, for most candidates, clearly is a second-tier issue.

And if they're not being asked on the doorstep whether they are pro-life or pro-choice (party affiliation is still the No. 1 question), Railsters have to wonder whether it will be more than a second-tier issue for voters in either August primaries or in the November general election.

Maybe tough economic times for the state, and its trickle-down effect on counties and cities and school districts, have redirected voters' threshold issue for electing legislators. Maybe abortion turns out to be a big issue when there isn't a lot else to discuss, when state revenues are flooding in and the Legislature's most pressing choices are whose taxes to reduce or what can be done for people with impairments.

It is somewhat surprising, but even candidates who fear that abortion is the great sieve issue in their districts haven't come up with a fairly standardized response to questions about abortion. You'd recognize them, those two-sentence responses that seem to be memorized so that the wording is the least precise--or offensive to either pro-life or pro-choice voters.

Even among pro-life candidates and pro-life incumbents, there is a great divide on abortion. There are the spear-carriers, who receive by fax or e-mail model legislation to do something to restrict abortion, and those who pick and choose only among bills that make it out of a committee and to the floor of the House where it appears that they first learn of the bills during debate.

And more often, candidates for the Legislature and even for governor are taking the position that they'd like to eliminate abortions, of course, but that they're not interested in fighting for weeks over new wrinkles in the state's abortion law that are likely to be unconstitutional, or that even present the opportunity for a challenge in the courts. There is frustration, of course, among pro-lifers that there are few grand slam opportunities possible. That may be why a bill to allow distinctive license plates that bear the motto "Choose Life" seemed to be a less than heroic effort for pro-lifers this session.

Is this a watershed year for the abortion issue in Kansas? It's too early to tell, but there are signs from the people who are applying fingers to doorbells and knuckles to screen doors that the issue is fading among people who are doing the voting.

When it comes to the point that only reporters are asking the question, there is a good chance that many Kansans have moved on to something else.

July 11, 2002
(Distributed to Kansas newspapers July 8, 2002)

Mid-year course corrections

There continues to be a good (bad) chance that Gov. Bill Graves is going to have to make some mid-year course corrections in the budget to account for falling state revenues.

And maybe it is just his nature of being careful, watchful and not prone to kick-start decisions that sees him holding off until August--and after the GOP primary election--a decision on whether he will institute budget allotments to state agencies. Those allotments are basically gubernatorial overrides of the budget that the Legislature approved based on even-then faulty revenue projections.

If the Legislature authorized, say, the barber board to spend $1,000 on a publicity campaign for barbers about the importance of whisk-brooming the chair between customers, Graves could cut that amount by half. And, presumably, either only even-numbered barbers would get the message, or maybe all barbers would get the message to whisk after very-other customer.

That's allotment. Spending authority is cut and it is up to the agency chiefs to decide how best to do it.

Now, the key for the people who run state agencies for the just-over-half year left in Graves' administration is when they get the news about their agency allotments. Outside of normal, common-sense economies like not buying any more of those fake plants that look like giant, green Tootsie-Pops as office decor items, the people who run agencies would like to know as soon as possible if their last half-year in generally good jobs is going to be one of hardscrabble economies, or whether they get to spend the money that the Legislature approved for them to spend.

Oh, and don't forget that most of the real big dogs in state government serve at the pleasure of the governor--and nobody's going to care what gives Graves pleasure after noon, Jan. 13, 2003, when he picks up his suitcase and leaves for his American Trucking Association job in Washington. They'd hate to spend their last six months counting paperclips and telling clients that the new road is going to be two-lane gravel.

So there are not only gubernatorial candidates, but their friends who are already lining up for those jobs, who have some passing interest in if allotments start and when allotments start, and how large they will be.

Who wants to work on a successful gubernatorial campaign, get a new job and find out he/she has to work out of his/her car, or that there's no money for coffee for the staff for the next six months?

So, while all this election stuff is going on, and all the candidates are talking about economy in government and cutting waste, fraud and abuse and anything else that sounds catchy, a guy who isn't running for anything is pretty much ordering up the music for the new governor's debutante ball.

What are his choices?

Well, Graves can either start cutting budgets as soon as the results are in from the primary election, or he can wait until later in the year when whatever allotments are made will have big political ramifications.

Say he starts early, in August, and gives government time to slowly reduce spending. That means that a new governor comes into the job with a little--and we're talking weeks here--breathing room. A little smaller fire to put out. And the Legislature gets a little more time to survey the landscape, too, which is important because, remember, nobody quizzes out for these jobs.

Say Graves starts late...maybe November. Then, whatever allotments he makes have to be squeezed into fewer months, resulting in bigger dislocations, and probably some panic. Like when the buffet restaurant soothingly announces over the loudspeaker that people who had the potato salad might want to visit the county health department after dessert.

That delay means a new governor can use his/her inaugural address to blast Graves while the outgoing governor sidles off the steps to a waiting--presumably idling--car. But by the time Graves makes it to the county line, the new governor is going to be announcing either a plan for new taxes to shore up the state government or cuts that lead to torchlight marches on the Statehouse.

See, that's how interesting this business about budget allotments and waiting month-by-month to see whether state revenues have increased or decreased can be.

Of course, all that could be unnecessary. Every Kansan with equity in their homes might rush out this month and buy a new car or bass boat, or now that the taxes are high enough, take up smoking.

But Railsters aren't counting on that.

July 4, 2002
(Distributed to Kansas newspapers July 1, 2002)

The middle-ground pledge

Well, it won't be long now until we start reading about candidates for the Kansas House of Representatives who have signed a "no-tax" pledge.

The idea behind that pledge probably isn't bad, given that most people would rather not have their taxes increased. Now, that pledge would be better if candidates could write in the names of people whose taxes specifically won't be raised. If a candidate could, if elected, manage to name you specifically in a bill and absolutely insulate you from new or higher taxes, then you'd have a friend for life.

But candidates can't. So the only real "no-tax" pledge that means anything to anyone who can successfully operate a screen door isn't available.

But the "no-tax" pledge is a little too simplistic to count as much of an accomplishment except, maybe, if the signer's penmanship is exemplary.

And, year after year, candidates either sign the no-tax pledge, or don't.

But the problem, then, is that voters are supposed to come to some opinion about the suitability of the candidate based on him or her signing something that really doesn't work the way we'd like it to work, or not signing something that really doesn't work the way we'd like it to work.

That's instructive? No, we don't think so.

It's a little like a candidate promising not to sing loudly in French. If they promise, well, things will be quieter, and if they don't promise, we'll just move away from them when they are singing in French. We haven't really accomplished anything, except guaranteeing that we'll keep our eye out for the folks singing in French.

Surprisingly, for years now, nobody has come up with a variant of the no-tax pledge that indicates that a candidate will actually spend some time trying to figure out ways not to raise taxes and still provide the programs and services that we really want.

If someone with impressive letterhead came up with a pledge that went something like "I will spend most of my time trying to find ways to not raise taxes," now that would be something worthwhile that a candidate could sign that some voters might actually care about.

Implicit in that "spending most of my time" business is the promise to actually root around in the state budget to see if there is stuff there that isn't absolutely, positively needed to provide the services to Kansans that they expect state government to provide. It's like a vow to floss, or at least to prime before painting.

The "trying to find ways not to raise taxes" could include looking over the state budget to see whether everything that the state finances really needs to be done. Candidates who fuss about government meddling in people's lives or businesses could spend a little time convincing other legislators that there are some things out there which really don't need to be done and on which no money need be spent.

Don't count on those ideas coming from the government itself, because, well, people who work for government generally like their jobs and would prefer not to be retrained from knowing how to do something that might not need to be done to learning how to do something that really ought to be done.

See, this is the stuff that new faces, new ideas, new candidates, new legislators bring to the Statehouse: The ability to look at something that has been done for some time, and asking why.

If a candidate pledges that he or she just flat isn't going to ever vote to raise taxes, he or she sort of avoids all that reason for investigating ways to not raise taxes. Why bother rinsing out milk cartons if you're just going to throw them out anyway?

What happens if a candidate pledges to spend a lot of time trying to not raise taxes and just can't make the budget work? Oddly, only a handful of legislators have ever done that. They generally come to the Legislature either having signed the no-tax pledge, or alternatively having some spending ideas, whether it is to funnel more money to something or other, or to create something neat that they believe Kansans would be willing to pay more taxes for.

There just hasn't been much of that middle ground in recent history.

And, some of us who hang out at the Statehouse are curious what would happen if legislators spent about 85 percent of the session investigating whether the state is doing just what most of us would like and no more, and then seeing whether it really takes an agency or a department or even two people to do it.

Now, that might be an interesting pledge for candidates. But we're not holding our breath for anyone to take it...