November 2005
Nov. 24, 2005
(Distributed to Kansas newspapers Nov. 21, 2005)Longer prison terms?
Kansas has this very real problem with sex offenders.
And, there are two ways to fix it, members of the Kansas Legislature are finding.
One way is the result of some canny lawyering by former Kansas Attorney General Carla Stovall. Stovall determined that sex offenders, who have a propensity to repeat their crimes after their prison terms are over, essentially are released to, well, commit more crimes against Kansans.
To stop that, and because prisons in Kansas offer not much in the way of rehabilitation, Stovall took to the U.S. Supreme Court and won authority for civil commitment of sex predators who have completed their prison terms, but obviously ought not be set free to roam the state.
That civil commitment requires that the state offer programs in a secure setting in which psychologists, psychiatrists and others essentially try to "re-wire" the brains of sex offenders so they won’t bother anyone again.
That’s probably the right way to go about rehabilitating sex offenders. It makes logical sense. It would make more sense, of course, if the state started that re-engineering of sex offenders’ personalities and brains the first day they arrived at prison, but Kansas just doesn’t do that.
So, now, after the prison sentence is served by sex offenders, they are evaluated and generally found to still have antisocial behaviors and are civilly committed to programs where rehabilitation is tried.
This isn’t an exact science, apparently, and nationwide, social service agencies are working on how best to un-program sex offenders so they don’t cause trouble again. In Kansas, we’re working off a seven-step program at the end of which, with luck, the offender is rendered pretty safe. Pretty safe isn’t close enough when you’re dealing with sex predators, and the seven-step program might last seven or more years...maybe 10 years... Surprisingly, the sex offender program is seven steps, and most Alcoholics Anonymous programs are 12 steps...
But, it turns out that civil commitment treatment after prison costs two to three times what just plain prison time costs for sex offenders.
Anyone think that we’re maybe getting warm to the solution that the Kansas Legislature is going to pursue in the upcoming session?
Yes, it’s longer sentences, much longer sentences for sex predators, so we keep them locked up for a minimum of 25 years on some counts, at popular prices--about what we’d spend annually to keep a run-of-the-mill burglar or car thief locked up. The state could start the higher-priced civil commitment business years later, and have the predator safely locked up and away from the public.
Politically, this deal is an election-year no-brainer.
What’s better on a brochure than lengthening sentences for a class of criminals everyone despises? And what’s better than accomplishing that at relatively low costs, though don’t look for candidates to put that aspect of the legislation on their brochures. Even the most flinty of fiscal conservatives isn’t going to bore us with "we’re safer...and dollars ahead!" as part of their explanation of vote.
Now, this isn’t, of course, the best way to solve this problem. Sex offenders probably ought to get treatment, counseling, and eventually be rendered safe to return to society. But there’s no 100 percent foolproof way to accomplish that available now. Maybe later, but not now. Relatively inexpensive prison time is apparently the simplest answer now, legislators are thinking. It’s not a solution, but it’s all that has come to the forefront yet..
Nov. 17, 2005
(Distributed to Kansas newspapers Nov. 14, 2005)Is this a real fight?
Every now and again the Kansas Legislature, made up of popularly elected and generally well-intended folks, tries something that most of the people who elected them to office probably think is either foolish or just impossible.
It’s a treat when legislators try something impossible because it is interesting to watch.
The latest improbable effort is going to be to slap a 10 percent excise tax on things sold at adult book and video stores and at strip clubs and escort services.
Real deal here is, of course, that there are many legislators, and probably a large number, maybe a majority, of Kansans who would prefer that none of those businesses operated in Kansas. They don’t go to those places, don’t believe they know anyone who does and, well, they’re just sort of icky businesses to have here.
Fair enough.
But, they’re legal businesses, provide jobs, generate property, sales, income and drink taxes and just about all the other taxes that every other business pays. People who don’t go to those businesses don’t help the businesses pay their taxes, and they don’t have to like the businesses. They’re all strictly opt-in (or, walk-in, we guess) and we’ve never heard of a school field trip to any of those joints.
The issue probably comes down to what lengths folks who don’t like adult businesses are willing to go to shut them down or at least discourage them without looking foolish in the process. We’re betting that a 10 percent excise tax may discourage frugal accountants or actuaries or maybe investment bankers from spending money at those places, but practically when it comes to vices, does a 10 percent tax stop anything? We’re betting... no.
At some point, the people who don’t like those adult businesses probably ought to figure a way to shut them down, or at least try. It takes a majority of the Legislature, of course, and if enough legislators just don’t like those adult-oriented businesses, they need to pass a law shutting them down.
Because those businesses are legal, the state probably can’t shut them down. Legislators could pony up some high-minded justification for using the police power of the state to prohibit those businesses because of whatever real or imagined danger to public health or safety that they represent. At least that’s a defensible position to take.
It probably isn’t constitutionally possible, there being protections for 1st Amendment speech (which we understand extends to dancing) or to dirty books or magazines or videos you can take home. But for those who just don’t want those businesses in Kansas, a statute outlawing them would probably be the right way to start the war with adult-oriented businesses that people don’t want their children or maybe their friends or any other Kansans to have access to without crossing a state line somewhere.
The battle would be joined. It would be the state law vs. the U.S. Constitution, and if the anti-adult oriented business folks win that one, well, then they’ve made their mark. If they lose, well, at least they went down in a fair, high-stakes fight over good and evil.
The whole business of adult books and movies and dancing and escorts ought to be settled in some epic confrontation, where people choose sides and stress their beliefs in morality and in freedom of expression, and commerce.
A 10 percent tax pretty much trivializes the effort. Estimates are that the 10 percent tax would raise about $1 million for the state. That amount in a $5 billion budget is... trivial.
We’ve elected a Legislature of Kansans.. .not Munchkins.
But, a battle between Munchkins might be interesting to watch.
Nov. 10, 2005
(Distributed to Kansas newspapers Nov. 7, 2005)Not that simple...
Probably the best news short of winning the Lottery was delivered to the Kansas Legislature and Gov. Kathleen Sebelius last week.
The news is that there is enough money expected to flow into the Kansas Treasury that there is no need for the governor to propose, or the Legislature to have to consider, new taxes for the upcoming session.
In an election year for the governor and the Kansas House of Representatives, the news plays two ways.
First, the governor won’t have to propose a tax increase. It’s not likely a governor would propose a tax hike in an election year, but if revenues were slumping and important state needs couldn’t be funded, Sebelius would either have to propose sharp budget cuts–in an election year–or a tax increase, or be branded a political coward. Election year or not, a governor has to be expected to present a workmanlike plan for the state. But thanks to the expected revenues, she’s in the clear for next year’s election.
For the Legislature: First, it deprives lawmakers of a chance to deride the governor for proposing to raise taxes. She won’t. It also means that in order to keep the state government and the services it provides their constituents, legislators won’t have to vote for new taxes. That’s always good because whoever runs against an incumbent can be counted on to be smart enough to raise the tax issue. Now, of course, people who aren’t in the Legislature next session can’t vote for or against taxes, but we’re betting any challenger would crow that he/she would have found a way around raising taxes, and no matter how specious the argument, it’s a popular one, nonetheless.
The state’s economics gurus have looked at the tea leaves and squirrel entrails and determined that the state is going to take in $221 million in "new" money next year. That’s enough to cover ongoing expenses, pay the bills for nearly $300 million in additional spending on schools approved during the 2005 regular session and the summer special session, and have a little extra money floating around.
That’s good financial news for the state–and remember, in Topeka Statehouse hangers-on don’t care that the increased revenues came out of your pocket, only that they arrived here so they can be fought over and spent. Sorry, but that’s what we do here in Topeka.
Is this too much good news? Of course it is. Nothing in the Statehouse is that simple.
You see, there’s enough money to cover last year’s spending for K-12 education, but not much for any new spending on schools. And the Kansas Supreme Court has already told the Legislature and the governor that it believes the state will need to spend more money to adequately provide for proper funding of public schools. That new spending, if it’s more than about $50 million or $100 million, is going to be a problem. The court has already mentioned the possibility of $500-plus million next year unless the Legislature can demonstrate that it doesn’t take that much.
We’re figuring that the Supreme Court is going to demand some pretty stout proof that the state is spending enough.
So, probably, next session, if there is a tax increase or severe chopping of state services that Kansans apparently want, it’s going to be because the Kansas Supreme Court orders up $100 million or $200 million in new spending on schools.
What’s that mean? Boiled down, it means that only the Kansas Supreme Court, with its decision on how much money the state is required to spend on K-12 education, can either force a tax increase or require the Legislature to avoid a tax increase to cut spending sharply to "create" new money that can be spent on schools. Almost everyone can find a program or two to whack, but nearly everyone has one or two favorite programs they believe need stable or rising state spending to improve.
Next year, the tough decisions are likely to be forced on the governor and Legislature by the court.
We’ll see how that works out.
Nov. 3, 2005
(Distributed to Kansas newspapers Oct. 31, 2005)$3 billion a year in costs
Some members of the Legislature last week saw something that was remarkable, ground-breaking and ultimately a major budget-cutter for not only state government but for people who don’t have much to do with state government.
We’re hoping they realize what they saw.
It was a short video clip that showed a patient identification card being swiped through a card reader. It wasn’t dramatically different than the card readers we see everyday at the department store, the gas station, the bank money machine.
But this card reader picked up health insurance information and some medical information on the patient, and almost instantly figured out whether the patient had insurance, what it covered, whether there was a co-pay or deductible involved, and electronically notified the card-carrier’s insurance company.
Doesn’t sound very remarkable to you? Maybe not, because we’re used to similar card readers at the grocery store, the department store and the ubiquitous automated teller station telling us whether we have the credit we need to cover a purchase or enough money in the bank to get some fast cash.
But for the medical industry, it’s a big deal.
For all the talk of science and cutting-edge breakthroughs in treatment of pain and disease, the billing operations of most physicians’ offices are antiquated. It takes a lot of time and a lot of people for the doctors to get their money from insurance companies and patients, to settle the bills and produce revenue for the physician. Too long. Too many hours. Too much staff. And, ultimately, too much money.
The Governor’s Health Care Cost Containment Commission, one of those commissions that pops up whenever a governor sees a problem to which the solution isn’t readily apparent, has zeroed in on a standardized medical card and card readers as a key to cutting the cost of health care for Kansans.
Lt. Gov. John Moore is leading the commission and as a former Cessna vice-president, he’s bought a lot of health insurance for a lot of employees and isn’t a guy who tolerates a lot of inefficiency.
So, why is this medical identification card a big deal, or a deal that might become a big deal? Because the smart folks in the health industry figure that between 25 percent and 30 percent of the money spent in Kansas on health care is administrative expense... nearly $3 billion a year in Kansas. Now, patient identification card readers aren’t going to save an even $3 billion for Kansans, but it seems to be a good place to start, doesn’t it?
What happens if things get efficient? Costs drop. That’s where the state sees the benefit. Overhead in the Medicaid program for the poor drops. Overhead in your health insurance premiums, whether you pay premiums from your own pocket or an employer picks them up, drop.
Maybe we get smarter about what Medicaid covers, maybe premiums drop so employers can offer health insurance to more workers or better health insurance to the workers they have. Everything gets a little better. People gripe about the cost of government-paid health care, but they don’t want to be around sick people. Premium-payers are always looking for a break for themselves.
This medical identification card seems like a piece of the answer to rising health care costs.. .not all of it, not most of it, but a decent place to start. Most of us carry some sort of medical card, anyway. Why not trade it for something that makes medical care cheaper.