October 2002
Oct. 31, 2002
(Distributed to Kansas newspapers Oct. 28, 2002)The week of living dangerously
Kansas politicians are now entering the most dangerous week of the 2002 campaign season, the week where all their best-laid plans are set, voters either buy their concepts or don't, or something unexpected happens.
It's the week when, in a well-planned campaign, the media buys and the last few public appearances are set, when all the yard signs that are going to be planted are planted, and when candidates are hoping that everything they've done since the primary election comes together.
And, chances are good that in some campaigns, that's exactly what will happen. Democrat gubernatorial nominee Kathleen Sebelius has crowded the skies with television ads, and Republican nominee Tim Shallenburger has got his airtime bought. No more signs are being printed.
It's up in the air now, and Sebelius, who appears to have a single-digits margin in polls, has to hope that it holds and that the weather on election day is bright, sunny, mild and an invitation for everyone in the state who is eligible to vote to get out and do it.
Shallenburger has to hope that his swing through much of northwestern Kansas last week with a bus full of generally more moderate Republicans than he is showed party unity, that more moderate Sens. Sandy Praeger, R-Lawrence, the insurance commissioner candidate, and Lynn Jenkins, R-Topeka, the GOP state treasurer candidate, like him just fine and that he gets along well with moderates, too.
And...while everyone likes good weather, Shallenburger and Sebelius both know that conservative Republicans would make it out to vote in a hailstorm, while moderates and many Democrats tend to watch the weather more closely.
But this is the week, too, when election day weather aside, the unexpected can happen. The talk on the Shallenburger Express bus last Friday turned to news of Minnesota U.S. Sen. Paul Wellstone's plane crash. That could happen, a candidate could be in an accident.
Or, a car carrying a candidate could back over a cat...(one reason that statewide candidates very rarely drive themselves in the closing weeks of a campaign) .
There is always the last-week charge and countercharge, the twist of a record that plays badly if the press will pick it up widely, when there is little time to explain or respond. There is a lot more minutiae being faxed or e-mailed or pamphleted in this campaign than previously largely because the communications possibilities are more extensive than they used to be.
At the top of the ticket, or at least near the top, because nobody is betting that Republican U.S. Sen. Pat Roberts is going to have much of a race against his third-party opponent, this is the week when school finance continues to be pounded on by both gubernatorial candidates.
Not surprisingly, there's not much new to be learned about either Sebelius' or Shallenburger's position on school finance. School superintendents who last legislative session complained--but privately were saying they could probably survive a 3 percent budget cut from the state--aren't saying that now where anyone can overhear.
Both candidates are saying they want to hold education harmless, Shallenburger urging a major revision on how money is distributed that sounds good to small school districts, Sebelius just talking about pumping the same amount of money into the formula that's there now, which educators like to hear, but talking in code that makes small districts fear voluntary consolidation at the end of a sharp stick.
And...maybe there is a lesson to be learned in that while the Legislature in recent years has spent more money on K-12 education that everyone talks about, much of it was spent "outside" of the numbers that show up on the all-important scorecard: Base State Aid Per Pupil. It's one of those complicated areas where if the Legislature did good but the good doesn't show up on the BSAPP scoreboard, did the Legislature really do good?
Oh, and of course, the school industry generally thinks up how it wants new money spent. The industry can ask the money be shot into BSAPP or some nether region of the budget where it doesn't show up, but it is rare when the Legislature itself decides where the money needs to go.
So, what's this week look like for candidates? It's one of constantly looking over your shoulder...believing that if nothing unexpected happens, each will win his/her race.
But it's also a week of knowing that they can't remember the last week when nothing unexpected happens..
Oct. 24, 2002
(Distributed to Kansas newspapers Oct. 21, 2002)Every race counts
Kansas Democrats are facing the real possibility--barring some gung-ho campaigning in the final days before the general election--of joining their Senate friends in the unenviable position of having less than one-third of the seats in the Kansas House of Representatives.
What's that mean? As Senate Democrats have learned, it means that even if all the Democrats there line up and vote as a bloc, they still can't prevent Republicans from changing the order of business in debate, making extraordinary motions to consider or not consider bills, or altering the rules of debate in the middle of a game. And, depending on who winds up being governor, Democrats won't be able to prevent Republicans from overriding gubernatorial vetoes, let alone sustaining vetoes on their own.
It tilts the entire government process. This year, Senate Democrats had to watch while Republicans essentially ran the show, save for a couple times when Democrats linked up with conservative Senate Republicans to get bills--notably reapportionment bills--passed.
It was only in the House where the real opportunity to stop runaway legislation opposed by Democrats had a chance, where 46 Democrat votes were available.
The simple math: for just passing a bill, 63 votes are necessary in the House. Republicans held 79 seats, Democrats 46 last session. For big stuff--resolutions, changing rules, sustaining vetoes--it takes 84 votes (we're dealing with whole bodies here, no fractions), so Democrats need at least 42 seats after the upcoming election to stop those rules changes, passage of resolutions or proposed constitutional amendments, or to override vetoes.
>So, the rules remain: with 63 votes in the House, you can pass bills, you can really set the agenda. With 84, though, if you can keep them together for party-line votes, you are truly the master of the universe. You can do anything you want...and the only real brake on power and authority is whatever courts won't let you get away with.
Democrats lost four of their 46 seats in the House in the process of reapportioning the Kansas House to equalize the representation of Kansans in the House. Those four losses were cases where two Democrats were thrown into the same district to run against one another, for a net loss of seats.
And through the primary election, where 63 seats were decided due to lack of major party opposition, 39 are Republican, 24 Democrat.
Of the remaining 62 seats for which the general election is necessary, well, seven are major party candidates against either Libertarians or Reform Party candidates. No Libertarian or Reform Party candidate has ever been elected to the House, so we're figuring that those go to the major party candidate:
Figure five Republicans and two Democrats emerge from those seven elections.
The likely total is now 44 Republicans and 26 Democrats.
That brings us to 55 seats "in play."
And probably 40 of those are predictable...either longtime incumbents against freshmen challengers, or districts so heavily weighted, registration-wise, that you can pretty reliably pick the winners unless something really unusual happens, like public nudity or a flier in support of Saddam Hussein.
The 40 "predictables" probably bring the post-election split to 71 Republicans and 39 Democrats...with Democrats needing at least three of the remaining 15 seats that are likely up for grabs to hold that edge to prevent Republicans having, within their own party two-thirds of the votes, enough to literally rewrite the rule book on the fly as it suits their whim.
Does every race matter? It's starting to look like it.
Oct. 17, 2002
(Distributed to Kansas newspapers Oct. 14, 2002)Counting down
After 93 months as governor, Bill Graves is probably heading into the last--and most uncomfortable--three months of his leadership of Kansas.
We're about three weeks away from the election of a new governor, and sometime the night of Nov. 5, we're going to know who gets to run the store for the next four years.
Once we know whether it is Democrat Kathleen Sebelius or Republican Tim Shallenburger, Graves will have to slip into that awkward period of reminding people that "I am still the governor of the state until January 13."
(We're not very worried about Libertarian Dennis Hawver or Reform Party nominee Ted Pettibone, because they got their chance to swim with the dolphins during the campaign, getting into a couple campaign forums, being interviewed a few times by the media, and both essentially just shooting for at least 1 percent of the popular vote so their party doesn't have to petition just to get a line on the state ballot in four years.)
Because once we know the incoming governor's name, Graves becomes what is essentially a Statehouse docent, showing the governor-elect the place, making sure that there is room for a transition staff, working that delicate balance of offering assistance when it is asked for but not pushing into the early decision-making that will help shape the new administration.
Oh, there will be times when Graves will get to field questions from the governor-elect about how to accomplish something or other...or the second- or third-reaction to a change in how the office runs. Those might just be the good days when there is still governor work to be done by Graves.
It must be a weird time for a sitting governor who after nearly eight years is watching some of the things he believes are important slide to the sidelines and some of the things that he believes are unimportant become important for a governor-elect.
Railsters who have hung out at the Statehouse for years have gotten to know Graves' style, his inclinations, and we're betting that the day after the general election Graves will be helpful, accommodating, instructive and supportive to whomever gets his chair next.
But he's entering a time when he is essentially the auxiliary governor, the guy who is watching for the little business-as-usual stuff to do, not, as he has for the past eight years, thinking up new things that he would like to do.
It must be a little like being a birthday boy, up early to dress nicely and then just waiting to see if anyone remembers it is his birthday.
There will be cabinet meetings he can hold, but we're betting that the Cabinet secretaries who are going to be leaving office when the new administration takes over are in literal shutdown mode. Diligent secretaries will be making sure that their agencies are on track to handle budget cuts that Graves has already ordered so they have a clean handoff to their successors.
It would be nice, for example, if cabinet secretaries could find some cost-savings to have in place for their successors. Or, it would be nice if outgoing secretaries could start making their lists of front-burner issues that wouldn't be immediately apparent to a successor.
But this is a weird time in the Statehouse, coming into the general election and the hand-wringing that the election day budget estimate committee will deliver even before the polls are closed and then there are the frenetic two months while a new administration takes over.
We don't expect to see Graves aimlessly wandering the halls.
But we are wondering as the second of his two terms in office winds down, whether there's much to do. Because Graves likes to be doing things.
Oct. 10, 2002
(Distributed to Kansas newspapers Oct. 7, 2002)No wrong vote
There's probably a good reason kicking around why Kansas needs a full-time state treasurer, but Railsters looked around and haven't found it yet.
Nonetheless, we're gonna have one, and it's going to be a pretty high-testosterone woman, either a Republican or a Democrat. The new state treasurer is going to be either a ring-wise certified public accountant who might be a little strong on qualifications or the smart daughter of a former Kansas governor who has operated programs for years and probably will have no problem with the treasurer's office besides remembering to add a couple or three zeros to the figures she's used to dealing with.
Practically, though, there is always interest in maintaining the largest feasible number of elective offices to provide more little hooks for voters to turn out and vote the rest of the ballot.
So, who've we got? Is there a bad choice?
We've got Republican State Sen. Lynn Jenkins, R-Topeka...she's the CPA and proud of it, a head and a half shorter than Democrat Sally Finney, who learned what a state treasurer does at the breakfast table with her mother, the late Treasurer, then Gov. Joan Finney.
Is there an issue in the office that everyone is whispering about? No, not now. In fact, it's been such a loosely run office in the past that when one treasurer leaves and another starts, there's not even an audit to settle just what amount of money the new officeholder gets to preside over. Far as Railsters can determine, when the administration changes, nobody even counts the stamps or the petty cash.
But what the office does provide is a natural platform for anyone looking for a shot at the big job--governor of the state. Former Gov. Joan Finney used the office as a platform from which to scour the state for meetings of at least three people who wanted a speaker from Topeka. She combined that experience, and the vast number of Kansans who suddenly saw a state official show up in the midst of their Rotary or Kiwanis or Shrine meetings or home demonstration unit annual meetings or quilting bees, to become governor.
Current Treasurer Tim Shallenburger has used the office similarly, combining its two major public programs--one for unclaimed property, the other a college savings plan--as entree to a wide range of civic groups and clubs.
We'll see whether it works as well for Shallenburger as it did for Finney...
But, is there a real barn-burner of an issue in the treasurer's office? No.
Oh, there's a possible expansion of the state's low-interest farm loan program.
It's interesting on one level because, with interest rates as low as they are now, the state essentially gives, without interest, state idle funds to banks which promise to loan up to $55 million to farmers who need operating loans to put seed in the field.
Jenkins wants to see that program expanded, so the state can subsidize more low interest loans for farmers, and possibly expand the program to small businesses which need capital.
Finney, on the other hand, notes that it was her mom who lobbied the Legislature to start that program, and wants it audited to make sure that the state-subsidized loan pool is being used to assist farmers who are pretty much locked out of conventional loans, but who still have strong business plans for their farms.
So, what's the choice here? It's a matter of style--and party affiliation--as much as anything else.
Republican Jenkins has the edge in registered Republicans who are her natural voters. Finney has a name that is well-remembered in Kansas, and it's worth remembering also that when her mother was elected governor, Republicans had the edge in voter registration, too. Statistically speaking, Finney should have been defeated at the polls, handing former Gov. Mike Hayden a second term.
But that didn't happen.
So, is there a right or wrong vote for state treasurer this time around?
Probably not. If it's ability to do the job, call the race a tie.
Besides those voters who dogmatically vote their party's candidate no matter what, it might come down to a matter of...height. Or hair color. Or shoe size, we guess.
Even though both have a strong interest in the state's financial situation, they're running to be caretakers of the money that the state has...not offering up investment programs to double the state's money through canny stock picks or bond straddles.
Oct. 3, 2002
(Distributed to Kansas newspapers Sept. 30, 2002)A campaign about...what?
It looks like we have about a month for the campaign for Kansas governor to switch gears from a campaign about not much of anything into a campaign about...well...something. Or, not.
So far, let's see, we have both Republican Tim Shallenburger and Democrat Kathleen Sebelius who have made K-12, or maybe even all education, their first priority.
We're presuming that it's the last thing they think about before they go to sleep at night.
And we figure that while they're sleeping, they both, independently, dream about being governor and riding around in a big blue Ford and maybe renting out their homes while they get to sleep at Cedar Crest.
(It's not like either has a home in, say, Mission Hills where they can get away for the weekend like Gov. Bill Graves. Sebelius lives maybe three miles from Cedar Crest. Shallenburger lives maybe a block and a half away...short enough that if the first few days in office, the paper carrier doesn't get the subscription switched, Shallenburger can pad down to the old house to pick up the paper and carry it back to Cedar Crest to read.)
Then, after an exhausting night dreaming, we're betting that they wake up and get back to thinking about education again. Which is not all bad, mind you, but thinking about education all the time is about like thinking about Christmas. It just happens.
When it happens in a year when things have been going well, we have a big Christmas and the front room is littered with wrapping paper. When Christmas happens in a year when not much went right, there's less wrapping paper under the tree.
The point is, there's not much under the tree this year. If either candidate has a way to do anything more than just keep funding for education stable, they're not telling us about it. So, we're figuring the K-12 education is going to be essentially frozen--which may look good in comparison to most other activities that state government finances.
Clearly, each wants to do some different things with elementary and secondary funding. But the point may be that they're going to have about the same amount of money with which to do it. At the end of the day, if you look at all the school districts in the state as comprising the state's elementary education, every dollar they want spent on it is going to be spent with the same districts.
We're not seeing a lot of big-deal changes in elementary and secondary education. If there was a lot of money laying around the state treasury, maybe we'd see some real differences, some Hail Mary play that would make a real difference, but in terms of dollars being spent on public education, not much changes.
So what else do the candidates fight over? Well, there is concealed carry of guns, Shallenburger's for it, Sebelius isn't, but that's not exactly a door-to-door, argue with your neighbors issue. It's a sideline issue.
Both candidates are intensely interested in agriculture. Shallenburger keeps talking about underground drip irrigation, whatever that is, and Sebelius talks about hiring a real go-getter for a State Secretary of Agriculture to go get whatever's out there for ag. Again, we can read between the lines.
Neither is thinking about ag every minute they aren't thinking about education or dreaming about riding in a blue Ford.
Economic development and jobs? Well, education has a role in both of those, both say, and while Sebelius keeps talking education, Shallenburger maintains that stable or even lower taxes are a big deal to business. We're thinking Shallenburger's probably right here, but Sebelius gets points, too, because we can't think of a business that wants to move to a state where the workforce is so poorly educated that it keeps getting wrapped up in the machines.
The environment? Here, the best a governor can hope for is that whatever turns out to be good for the environment isn't bad for farmers, or if it is bad for farmers, that the federal government will have some sort of program to make it right.
Crime? Both solidly against. It's safe to talk about, nobody likes crime, and the best part of talking about crime now is that both candidates are far too smart to ask the second question about getting tough. The second question is whether we have enough prison cells to lock up these people we're newly getting serious about, or whether we need to build a new prison to contain them. They're safest just talking getting tough, not any of the ramifications of getting tough.
But for now, well, we're not hearing a lot about grand designs for state government, about sweeping new programs. Nope, we're hearing mostly about stuff we're already doing, stuff that doesn't cost any money, and stuff that most of us never really thought hard about until, in the absence of anything else substantial, we're being forced to think about now by the candidates.
But, come to think about it, it would be nice to be driven around in a big, blue Ford.