The American Dream Express will roll into Wichita Thursday. The campaign-style bus tour promoting the “Taxpayer Bill of Rights” will make a stop at the Wichita Independent Business Association from 10:30 to 11 a.m. But while the goal of TABOR is worthy — curbing the growth of government spending — amending a one-size-fits-all budget formula into the Kansas Constitution is the wrong approach. It’s lawmakers’ job to sort out spending priorities and make difficult budget decisions. If they aren’t doing that to our satisfaction, we have a simple remedy: Vote the bums out of office.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- DavidB on Health care reform would save state money
- DavidB on Minority status in Senate; majority approval at home
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
44 Comments
Kansas doesn’t need TABOR. It would be just another excuse for legislators to further decline their obligations to make sound fiscal decisions in Topeka.
What sound fiscal decisions have came out of Topeka? Kansas definitely needs something to curb the “ask and you will receive” legistlative mentality.
Mr. Brownlee, the problem with your suggestion to vote the bums out is the opportunity doesn’t come along often enough. Terms of political offices are generally too long, four years and even six years for some positions. More checks and balances are needed.
In 2005, Kansas’ General Fund will top $5 billion for the first time. This is an important milestone when you consider that the state had its first $1 billion budget only 25 years ago in 1980. This spending growth is more than three times faster than Kansans’ wages and is over $1,850 for every Kansan each year.
In addition, the special session means that the state’s All Funds budget that includes highway, Medicaid, and a variety of other non General Fund spending will now top $11.5 billion for the first time. This budget passed the $10 billion spending milestone only a couple of years ago in 2003 but is growing rapidly as welfare and medical spending is included.
Does anyone want to seriously argue that Topeka doesn’t have enough money? The current system isn’t working. Kansas’ high tax rates are driving Kansas jobs, Kansas retirees and the brightest of Kansas youth to lower tax havens.
Our system of government is not stagnant. It can be modified through the use of amendments to the constitution, which provides the framework for that government. The most famous amendments in the United States are collectively known as the Bill of Rights. The most infamous is the sixteenth amendment, which broadened the taxation power of the government. As both examples illustrate, amendments can be used to either constrain or empower the government.
TABOR is a reaction to the fiscal irresponsibility of the Kansas government. It may not be a perfect solution, but that’s why our government can be changed. We live in the information age. Many of us are appalled to learn of the pork given to special interests or the outright purchase of votes by politicians. In days past we depended on newspapers to keep government open and honest. However P. Brownlee shows from his misleading title to his lack of civics education that the Wichita Eagle is not a newspaper to be depended on.
JWINK suggests shorter terms for “the bums”, but wouldn’t that just further the main problem?-ACCOUNTABILITY.When you know you’re a lame duck and it’s just a matter of time, why not shower your cronies with pork?
HOW DO WE HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE?We’ve voted them out time and time again and nothing’s changed!
The major difference in the two political parties is that one is in office and the other wants to be.WAKE UP PHILLIP!Vote the bums out is not a solution.
Actually Tracy! We haven’t voted them out. They get re-elected over and over and over again. Many times without opposition. Without a major scandle, an incumbant will always get re-elected.
We wouldn’t need TABOR, if the government was responsible and spend the taxpayers money wisely, but the education system, medicare/medicaid is going to make that impossible. That is where the cost of government is.
Out of curiosity, Joe, how do you propose we tighten up the ship on education spending? While certainly there are some administrative and non-classroom costs that can be trimmed, I doubt there is enough there to effect the change a lot of people seem to want. At some point the cuts will affect the classroom, be it larger classes or a less experienced and lesser quality faculty (because the pay will not attract the best).
What if all public school stopped offering sports and other extra-curricular activities? How much would that save per year? I doubt the state constitution says we have to provide our children a football and basketball team.
According to Robert Reich, former secretary of Labor in the Clinton Administration, businesses locacte to any given area primarily as a result of the skills of the available labor pool and NOT tax rates. If one accepts this common sense arguement, one can easily see that the entire basis of the TABOR movement is a load of B.S.
Talk to people you know in Colorado, if you want to get an notion of what a loser idea the whole TABOR movement is.
Please join me in protesting this bus tour tomorrow. The continuing employment of the clown representative, Brenda Landwehr, speaks to what a poor suggestion Phillip’s solution is.
If someone like Landwehr can continue in office, there is no hope for reasoned public policy in the state of Kansas. If you live in Landwehr’s district, you owe it to your self, children, and anyone you care about, to vote for anyone who runs against her!
Thanks, Steve.
Some major car company just relocated to Canada because they have nationalized health care.
You can use the efficiency of the gov’t to drive down health care costs like Canada does (of course, you’d have to pay for it through taxes).
Or you can pray to your god the marketplace to miraculously provide healthcare and watch costs skyrocket and business flee the US and 45 million Americans not buy health care and watch people die from lack of health care like we do.
Of course, we pay less taxes because we don’t have nat’l health care. On the other hand, we make it harder for business to do business because they have to provide private health care.
It’s a bad trade off. Although conservatives can’t bring themselves to ever even consider it, sometimes a big gov’t program is the most cost effective way of providing an essential service.
“Call it the hip that changed health-care history. When George Zeliotis of Quebec was told in 1997 that he would have to wait a year for a replacement for his painful, arthritic hip, he did what every Canadian who’s been put on a waiting list does: He got mad. He got even madder when he learned it was against the law to pay for a replacement privately. But instead of heading south to a hospital in Boston or Cleveland, as many Canadians already do, he teamed up to file a lawsuit with Jacques Chaoulli, a Montreal doctor. The duo lost in two provincial courts before their win last week.
The court’s decision strikes down a Quebec law banning private medical insurance and is bound to upend similar laws in other provinces. Canada is the only nation other than Cuba and North Korea that bans private health insurance, according to Sally Pipes, head of the Pacific Research Institute in San Francisco and author of a recent book on Canada’s health-care system.
“Access to a waiting list is not access to health care,” wrote Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin for the 4-3 Court last week. Canadians wait an average of 17.9 weeks for surgery and other therapeutic treatments, according the Vancouver-based Fraser Institute. The waits would be even longer if Canadians didn’t have access to the U.S. as a medical-care safety valve. Or, in the case of fortunate elites such as Prime Minister Paul Martin, if they didn’t have access to a small private market in some non-core medical services. Mr. Martin’s use of a private clinic for his annual checkup set off a political firestorm last year.”
This is what we want for healthcare, Galahad?
I’m going to play devil’s advocate; Robert Reich is what is known as a politician. They don’t make common sense arguments they make politically persuasive arguments.
Available labor is only one factor in the choice of where a business locates. If it were ‘the’ factor as Reich asserts then no factories would have moved to Mexico, India, China, etc. This is known as common sense.
Anon–
No it’s not. I’m not saying we should outlaw private medical care, like only Canada and Cuba have done.
We should have some level of gov’t medical care for all citizens of the US, however.
Proudman,Reich left the government before the end of the 2nd Clinton term. He now teaches at a program connected to Berkley; he was, up until this summer, at Brandies. I admit, he is in places that hold political views that are different than what one usually finds in the Heartland.
I also believe you are right that businesses consider more than labor pools in making location decisions. I think one reason Colorado has been able to survive their TABOR law is that it is a beautiful, desirable place to live. Though I love Kansas, one cannot say the preceding about her. This grasp of facts about my home state does not mean that we have to give massive tax breaks to businesses, because they won’t look at us otherwise. Having a good public school system is attractive to businesses. High Tech/High-profit businsesses tend to have employees who are concerned about their childrens’ education – thus tax dollars spent on education can have a business benefit and it is not simply a handicap as the TABOR clowns would have you believe.
When my kids are in College, I am moving to Colorado, but not before!
Steve E.,
Are you claiming that a Professor at Berkley is not a left-wing politcal hack? :)
No, in fact, I thought Reich had very realistic, real world, notions about the world of work & business. He was as far from a union/socialist type labor advocate as one could get. He was in on NAFTA.
This question leads to another topic – which is the reason Repubs hated Clinton, et al. with such a vengence. Bill and company co-opted the few good ideas that Repubs ever had. I see Reich in that camp. I suppose this is a rant for another blog. But thanks for asking.
OK, on a serious note….
I agree that sound educational opportunities do attract business to an area. But I think you are implying that we need to increase taxes to pay more for education or at least have the option. The TABOR plan does include ways to increase taxes; it’s just more difficult than the methods available today.
Gee, I thought I was serious.
On TABOR – I advise you to talk to people you might know in Colorado. They will tell you that when voters are presented with a TAX, no-TAX alternative that they vote for . . . guess which one??? Sometimes the no-TAX alternative is fine, but I don’t know anyone who visits me from Colorado who doesn’t rave about how good Kansas highways are.
Representative government means that one has to make decisions on issues that may not good for every single person. That is just part of the game. I see Landwehr and others trying to avoid this basic responsibility – oops, did I use the “R” word in talking about someone from the GOP??? I apologize. I _was_ kidding just then – but not too much.
The legislature has a responsibility to define what amounts to an adequate public education. A job that is harder than cooking up laws to discriminate against innocent Kansas citizens. The Supreme Court stepped in and did the legislature’s job. Then people like Landwehr (who, BTW, has the guts of a buglar) have the gall to sit around and moan about activist courts. It was just amazing!
The more I see about TABOR, the more I think it’s just one more attempt by the neocon anarchists to throw a monkey wrench into state government, and the school system in particular. The schools being the bone they’re tossing to the social conservatives.
Steve,
You’re presenting anecdotal evidence against the Colorado TABOR. Sure, I have people I could quiz there but I’ll only get their viewpoint, not facts.
TABOR is nothing more than a way to force the legislature to act with some fiscal responsibility. Conventional wisdom would say that you can’t say that about a Republication dominated legislature.
So much for conventional wisdom.
But let’s continue to use the education example. The legislature wasn’t going to do anything. However they were forced into action when the courts cited they weren’t following the constitution. Simply, they got kicked in the pants for not living up to their duties. Obviously you cannot count on your elected representatives to do the right thing every time. They’re not perfect. So that’s why we need TABOR, to force fiscal responsibility on them.
Proudman,I’m seriously impressed by your arguments for TABOR. (And Ed, if you’re tuned in, I am not joking in this case).
In terms of facts against TABOR in Colorado, I urge you to go on a driving tour of the state to collect your “facts”. I want to live in Colorado some day, but I will have to have a beefier vehicle to do so safely/comfortably.
I am fundamentally opposed to moving to a non-representative form of government. I think people can be so busy working their two jobs that they can’t always be as informed as would be desirable. Witness the marriage amendment that so overwhelmingly passed last year – when an existing law covered the problem the amendment was supposed to fix. Some will argue that I am endorsing an elitist, non-populalist type of government. I would disagree with that assessment and I would counter that things the majority might oppose can still be important for minority rights, those without power (children come to mind) AND frankly, the greater good of the populace.
It really comes down to this question – Do you have faith that representative Government can work? If you think, definitely not, you should support TABOR. If you do support TABOR and its logical extensions of a pure democracy, I am wondering if people like Landwehr will be able to see the non-necessity of her job and volunteer to step down. I don’t know about you, but I won’t be holding my breath waiting for that might happen.
Also, something the TABOR folk aren’t talking about – that I’ve heard anyway – is that holding elections all the time is not a free endeavor – it does cost some serious funds. I understand that freedom isn’t free (I just wish Landwehr and her ilk understood this better) and I think there is a better way than TABOR. I am happy with my Republican representative, Jo Ann Pottorff, I vote for her each time she runs, I send her money, and I let her know what I think about what she is going to vote for. I cannot see anything that is broken with this system. She usually runs around the 50% mark on Peterhead’s … oops, I meant to say Peterjohn’s list – which is about where I think all legislators belong. (NOTE for Ed: I was kidding in the previous sentence)
Thank you for this discussion.
(NOTE for Ed: I was kidding in the previous sentence) – Can you figure where the humor is though, Ed?
You don’t have to say it, I know I would fail miserably in the Catskills. :-)
Why thanks Steve E.
Steven E., you said “I understand that freedom isn’t free.” But how free are we when we are taxed in so many ways that are simply a transfer of one person’s money to another person? Does that increase our freedom, or just make us slaves to the desires of others and the politicians’ desire to satisfy them?
Anon,I hope I am understanding your question. Last I knew, no one is taxed in this country at a 100% rate. Thus, it pays to make more money. By my definition, when one is making money, one is necessarily not enslaved. That being said, there sure have been times in my life when I felt like I was “working for the bank” – but, I believe people have the choice to avoid, or get out of, that situation.
You raise a related issue I think. For some reason the idea of people paying their fair share has gotten terribly unfashionable – especially when we are talking about taxes. I believe in progressive taxation. Those who have benefitted more from the great things our country and economic system have to offer, should pay more than those who have not. So, what you may be seeing as slavery, I may define as a privilege. That being said, I have more of those type of privileges than I would sometimes like (particularly around April 15th). But, I don’t think someone making less than me should have to pay my share. And I espcially would not like it if someone’s (or my own) grandchildren had to pay my fair share. Luckily, I will never be well off enough that I will have to worry about being in this latter group.
Thanks.
My point still stands.Voting the bums out of office in no way resembles holding anyone accountable, it only encourages them to pack the pork barrel while they still have time.TICK..TICK..TICK….
I sure wish I payed 100,000 a year in taxes.
I agree with Tracy, if she is saying that it is hard to see a millionaire as a victim of taxation.
The TABOR movement is funded in large part by Koch Industries.
Why even bother to ask if it’s a good thing? If they like it, it sucks.
Actually Jeff you have something there. Sports and extra-cirricular activities is wasteful. Most rural school district refuse to consolidate because they want a seperate sports team.
Granted, it is the only entertainment they got, but it cost the state millions upon millions of dollars, and I don’t see sports attracting businesses to the State as far as education goes.
Plus! I know people talk about class sizes, what is wrong with large class size? I have never seen a study that smaller class sizes are better, I guess it is percieved it is better. But in college, many classes are very large, why is that any different than K-12. Nobody is adovacting for smaller college class sizes.
Plus! We pour billions into education for K-12, but neglect community colleges, university, and Technical Schools. Why?
The recent round of additional money the State was forced to give to schools (granted probably needed) but what did they do with it? The Teachers wanted a 12.5% raise (granted maybe needed), but to suck additional money away from kids?
Galahad:Koch Industries are the same people who broght us the John Birch Society (Daddy Koch was a founding member). The Koch family are among the 50 richest (last I checked) people on the planet. I have wondered why it is necessary for people of that immense wealth to pick on poor people – maybe they should find someone their own size!
What I love about the Kochs is that they have a non-profit public policy institute – known as the Flint Hills Center for Public Policy – sounds legit enough doesn’t it. The less than energetic reporting staff at the Wichita Eagle will sometimes quote their spokesmen like they are legitimate, non-ideological news sources – just helpful citizens advising that we should never have any taxes! Right, they are real helpful! They really care about what happens to Kansas and your average Kansan. The FHC for PP argue that we do not need universal health coverage – the basis for their argument is that more rich people are withdrawing health insurance all the time – they can afford to pay out of pocket for health care – thus universal coverage is not needed. I kid you not, that is what those Bozos are saying. That is like saying that we don’t need to have fire departments in East Wichita, because if the Koch house should unfortunately burn down, it would not matter, because the Koch’s can afford to rebuild – rest of you people, you’re SOL. Suffice it to say, these people trouble me.
I am just remembering that not only was the John Birch Society birthed (partially, at least) here in Wichita, but so was the Church of Scientology. I wonder if there is something wrong with the water here?
To add a little more . . .
The guy heading up the propaganda arm of Koch Industries (Flint Hills Center for Public Policy) – is the same person who set up the Cato Institute. We are not talking about small dollar fascists here, these are national big guns.
What I wonder is, why Kansas? I would like to see some media source have the intestinal foritude to take on this story.
I think it may not happen in good old Do-dah, however.
Galahad,Did you ever write for the publication _F-5_? Just wondering.
Not yet, Steve. But I probably send something their way one of these days.
Thanks for the update on Koch and Flint Hills BS Institute.
I e-mailed them once asking where their funding came from and the cowards sent me two e-mails back without answering my question.
I suspected the Koch’s were involved.
Here’s a carrot on a stick for a pro-tax groupie,
Can you tell me what the definition of ‘fair share’ is when it comes to taxes?
That’s relatively simple. It is somewhere in between what I, as an individual taxpayer pays (”more than my fair share”) and less than what the guy in the next higher bracket pays (”less than his fair share”). Next question.
Seriously though,I have wondered if a flat tax of 10% (or some similar figure) that NO ONE could get out of might be the fairer way to go. That flies in the face of progressive taxation, but if were able to gather more funds from the higher income brackets – would that not make it worth it?
Don’t forget that our current tax system started as a flat tax on just the very rich. It has morphed into our current tax code.
I favor the national retail sales tax as a replacement.
I presume, Proudman, you’re referring to the Fair Tax (fairtax.org)? Its probably too daring of a shift for this country. Yes, everything would suddenly be more expensive, but you would have all your paycheck, not you paycheck minus at least 25%. Want to pay less in taxes? Spend less. It should encourage savings and for me personally would help me erase the debt I currently carry in a big hurry.
I am referring to the Fair Tax. I just didn’t want to derail the discussion over to alternative tax theory.
The logic here is simple.
Typicallly, those who make the most do so at the expense, or by the labor of those who make the least. Too, their elevated economic status avails them greater protection in terms of justice and medical care.
In a society that pretends to fairness, these perks must needs come at a cost. Thus progressive taxation. Those who benefit most from the benefits of a society and people they exploit are bound by necessity to pay the dues.
JR, could you elaborate on the exploitation that you wrote of?
JR,
The people you speak of are already compensated for their labor. Nobody is profiting at their expense because nobody is forcing them accept a particular level of wages. Your argument is well suited in say communist China, Zimbabwe, or feudal Europe, not Kansas.
Steve,To add a bit, Pappy Fred Koch made his original fortune building oil refineries for the Soviet Union. He claimed to be a personal friend of Lenin and Stalin, added to their strategic capabilities (for a shitload of cash), and then went and helped found the Jack Ash Society. Now ain’t that gratitude!Koch Industries also was involved in a scheme to defraud Indians by short-measuring the oil they took from reservations.They are robber barons of the first water!