Are conservatives willing to expand government to control it? Some Republican state lawmakers are frustrated that they never get to give closer scrutiny to budget issues, such as baseline spending that goes largely unexamined each year.
“We can’t fix this problem here today,” Rep. Joe McLeland, R-Wichita, a member of the House Appropriations Committee, told the Associated Press.
But the group’s solution doesn’t sound very conservative: Extend the working days (and salaries) for lawmakers and staff by several months. In fact, that would head in the direction of a full-time Legislature.
Would having more time spur lawmakers to get down to business? Or just lead to even more procrastination and frivolous legislation? Just think of the damage lawmakers could do up in Topeka year-round.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
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
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- kansasdem on Whose ‘unchecked spending’?
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/24
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/24
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/24
34 Comments
Joe “FREE LUNCH” McLeland has never met a lobbyist he didn’t like. That is why he leads the pack in accepting goodies from them. I guess if he can become full-time he can rake in even more goodies for his favors.
The only time to feel safe is when the legislature is NOT in session.
Keep the suckers out of the capitol. Rise up and tell them to go home!
Ben and Littlejohn I couldn’t agree with you more. What we need is less government not more. Career politicians should go the way of the dinosaurs.
Having lived in California for 20 years, I have seen the effect of a full time legislature—and it is HORRIBLE. Every year over 1,000 new laws go into effect. Every year they spend and tax more than the previous year. Every year they cost the taxpayers more in ‘expenses’. Every year, the legislators become more distant from the people that elected them.
Remember George McGovern? When he ran the last time for re-election, it surfaced that he didn’t have a South Dakota drivers license or any legal residence in the state he was supposedly representing. We do NOT need that mindset here!!!!!
I don’t think governing ends at the end of the legislative session.
Things need attention right away. But many here have said that this does leave too much time for them to dream up stupid crap.
I would be willing to pay them more and give them more time to tend to business. But certainly not year-round.
Considering the conservatives waste so much time legislating and debating non-issues like banning human animal hybrids it’s no wonder they don’t have time for serious things.
NO, NO, NO. Previous posters have said it all, and they’re all right.
I don’t get paid for any of the time I spend in Topeka, and I spend waaaay too much up there as it is. A full-time legislature would make it impossible for volunteers to have any influence on legislation (it’s already very difficult).
A full-time legislature means all lobbying would have to be done by year-round, full-time professionals, and would drive the smaller non-profits out of the Capitol. The “system” already favors the well-financed, entrenched interests. This would only make is worse.
Just think as the world population grows so do the problems.You cannot handle things as they were in the past, change is unavoidable.
All good points. I don’t want a full-time legislature either, but the system is broken and it’s a joke. It’s not the republicans or the democrats here folks. It’s a system that needs some serious updating.
I know the popular thing here is to poke jabs and make fun, and they are an easy target, but come on! Something needs to change…
For example; this year Wildlife & Parks will get $250K to get rid of Salt Cedars. That will now be in their budget forever. Say they are successful in getting rid of the salt cedars. They don’t need that $250K any longer. But it will be a part of their basline budget and won’t even be considered next year. Only spending increases are considered by the budget committee(s). Don’t ask to see the overall budget or what an agency is spending money on. You won’t get it. That’s one small example in one agency – there are hundereds more – year after year!
Then you wonder why your taxes are high and getting higher. The budget increased over 10% this year again! Did you make 10% more this year over last? Has your income increased 10 fold every year for the last 6 years? What gives here folks?
The saying “a penny wise, a pound foolish” comes to mind.
If you don’t want the legislature to really control the budget – then who do you suggest?
Ben,good post on McLeland – he reps my area, but he doesn’t rep me.
Ithink going to full time legislature would accomplish a couple of things
1) eliminate many competent people that can serve on a part time basis
2)Give the legislatures more time to posture and postulate, with not any more time dedicated to actually doing business
Mangino,
All good points about baseline and lack of scrutiny. But look at how the radical conservatives spend their budget debate time: On *abortion.* The big show-stopper this year was the adding of several reporting requirements to abortion providers. It had *nothing* to do with the budget, but was made a budget proviso anyway when the rules were suspended by the radicals.
It doesn’t matter what one thinks of abortion – the budget debate is not the place to have the abortion debate. If the proponent, Rep Lance Kinzer, had really wanted to have the abortion discussion during session, he could have introduced his bill in the Health Committee. Instead, he wanted to hold the budget process hostage to his personal views.
1) eliminate many competent people that can serve on a part time basisPosted by: littlejohn | May 01, 2007 at 04:08 PM
You’re right on that. Many of the state legislators have “day jobs” they take leaves of absence from during session. If it were a full-time legislature, or even extended further into spring, many wouldn’t be able to stay up there.
Raptor -
Regarding the example you used to make your point with George McGovern – the very same criticisms could have been leveled at Bob Dole. As for Mangino’s comment about salt cedar (tamarisk) removal – salt cedars are not indigenous plants in Kansas, and they consume HUGE amounts of water that otherwise would nourish wheat crops and bluestem. If we are going to try to conserve our water supplies, removing salt cedar is very important.
Another fact about salt cedars: The Wyoming Bureau of Land Management reports on their website that a single, mature salt cedar will consume 200 gallons of water EVERY DAY. In addition, they create a very saline soil around them that eventually destroys the ability of native plants and grasses to grow in the same area.
Even with a 90-day session, a lot of legislators collect out-of-session money and per diems with committee work throughout the year.
There are certain number of legislators who milk such duty because their “day jobs” don’t pay as well. There are about as many independently wealthy legislators whose incomes really don’t depend on day-to-day presense, so they can push their agendas and collect lobbyist money in their spare time.
A 90-day session allows legislators to play “stall ball” on some issues; refer it to committee, put it off to next year, hope it will go away. Some times that turns out to be a good thing. But when political parties posture with hot-button issues, they clog the legislative calendar with attempted gotcha votes that serve no purpose except at election time to accuse an opponent of voting against cute puppies and that crap.
Politicians will always find a way in between the laws that regulate them. Any legislative reform will require continual revision. But let me throw this out as a starting place:
For Primary Elections, anything goes. Candidates can raise as much money and/or spend personal fortune to their hearts’ content. Primaries are, after all, party affairs.
But after the Primary, each candidate gets a set amount of taxpayer money to wage their General Election campaign. (Third, fourth, fifth parties will cause some sort of formula to be developed; but that can me worked out.)
80% of Kansans don’t give a rat’s patoot about primary elections because it happens during vacation season and, frankly, most people aren’t party partisans. Raising the importance of traditional electioneering to the primary might increase voter turnout. But the result would be:
After the Primary, both major candidates would start on an equal basis. And, perhaps, parties such as the Libertarians, the Greens, the Prohibitionists, etc., would be on that same equal standing.
The problem with the rich and corporations and unions and other special interest groups funding elections is that politicians tend to follow the money. If the only money they have with which to wage a general election campaign comes from taxpayers, guess who’ll they listen to?
(I promise you, the corporations and special interests will figure out a way to push the people out of the picture. As I said, reform will take time and long-term re-evaluations of how politicians can dream up ways to corrupt themselves.)
I guess my point is that the problem with representative government in Kansas isn’t a side-issue such as a 90-day session or a 6-month session or a 3-hour session every 7 years.
How could we — liberals and conservatives and moderates and everyone in between — create a state government that’s really responsive to the people and and can be expected to work in the people’s best interests?
I’ve thrown out some ideas. (Maybe they should be thrown out.)
You have any better ideas?
Long Time Poster,
Your understanding of Kansas’ campaign finance is inaccurate.
Candidates for Kansas House of Representatives and Kansas Senate are limited to $500 per donor per election, whether it’s primary or general. Candidates for statewide office, such as Governor and Attorney General, have a $2000 limit per donor per election. There is no public financing of Kansas campaigns, whether statewide or local.
Similar rules apply to Federal offices. Candidates for Federal office – Congress, Senate, President – may only accept $2300 per election (primary and general), per donor. Presidential candidates can get public funding, but only if they pledge not to spend more than a set amount (I don’t know what that amount is, but I’m sure a clever person could google it).
The only unlimited spending in primaries is for precinct committee chairs. Very odd.
I understand that there is a movement afoot to seek a refund of the presidential matching funds from George W Bush.
Just another idea to float out there. Remove any limits on personal giving to candidates. Each donaiton must be made available to the public. Delete the ability for any group to give anything. THe principal being if you can vote,you can donate whatever you wish. if you can;t vote, you can’t donate. Whatchya think?
Littlejohn,
A contested Kansas House seat can be won with as little as $15,000. A contested primary can be won for $5000.
With unlimited donations, one person could “buy” both primaries in a race – Republican and Democratic – and control the final outcome. One person could “buy” the general election with $25,000 or so.
Wouldn’t Phil Ruffin love that?
Maybe if the kansas legies wouldnt cater to wingnuts like kinzer and little timmy huelskamp who gum up the process posturing on abortion and depriving cities of domestic partnership registires…
…They’d have time to get the real work done in 90 days. You know, without the “stall ball” on gay marriage and nutty side issues.
And isnt it funny how the oh so fiscally conservative REPUBLICANS who control both houses cant put the budget FIRST in the session? THEN they can engage in their favorite play activities like gay bashing, doctor bashing, school bashing, etc.
‘Cause ya know, that is what most of the leggies think is important. Playing in people’s private lives instead of doing the STATE’s business. Which, I thought, they were first elected to do.
I think the wingnuts, both democrat (jan pauls and candy ruff) and republicans (kinzer and huelskamp) should have to eat all their veggies like the state budget before they get their sweet dessert of gay bashing and tiller hating.
I see your point, though I would think that the numbers would be higher than that. However, since the “buyer” would have to be made public, along with his donaiton amount, i think that would mitigate things. I think the national parties, the pacs, the unions, the moveon.orgs, the swiftboaters, whatever group can be listed, hold far greater sway because of their ability to drop in so much money. I would much rather limit them to zero, and the voters to whatever they want. Of course, I could be naive in thinking that maybe people would actually give a damn
First of all, government funding of elections would make legislators accountable to government, not the voters. They already think it’s their money, what makes you think if it is part of their campaign warchest they’ll think it is taxpayer money.
The current campaign finance system is so confusing because of “sham” organizations. Money will find its way into the process. Phil Ruffin, George Tiller, Charles Koch and everyone else who wants to give more than the limits can get around them.
The best reform would be to remove all limits on candidate donations and require 24-hour electronic reporting of all donations. Couple that with an online database that is up-to-date and no one will be able to buy an election. The voters would naturally reject any candidate who received “too much” from any interest.
Second of all, the limits are $500 for House in the Primary and another $500 in the General ($1000 max per 2-year election cycle); $1000 for Senate in Primary and again in General ($2000 max per 4-year election cycle), and $2000 for statewide office holders in primary and again in general ($4000 per 4-year election cycle).
Littlejohn,
Nope, those are the numbers. There are some house seats that are more costly (87th District comes to mind), but the balance in the KS House between far-right Republicans, moderate Republicans, and Democrats is a very fine one. Controlling half a dozen seats can control leadership, committees, and outcomes on votes.
It would be nice if people gave a damn about who was financing campaigns, but I don’t see it in the local races. When I’ve seen someone try to make the opponent’s donors an issue, it always seems to fall flat. That’s true of both sides, by the way.
I’m a “First Amendment Radical” for the most part, and have a strong philosophical belief that if you don’t like someone’s speech, don’t restrict it, just make more speech of your own. When it comes to campaign finance, though, I swallow principle in favor of doing everything we can to keep offices from being outright bought. It’s not a perfect solution, and there are ways to tweak it, I’m sure, but I’m not willing to throw it out.
“The voters would naturally reject any candidate who received “too much” from any interest.”
Uh, newb, with all due respect…
I dont see that happening NOW! Why would it happen later? The tiller haters get TONS of “interest” money. Little timmy huelskamp and lance kinzer just keep getting elected.
Voters dont care. They just swallow the propaganda whole and, like oliver, ask “may I have some more please?”
We get the government we deserve.
We get the government we deserve.
Posted by: ksfarmgrrl | May 02, 2007 at 09:33 AM
So my high school government teacher said back in the darkage days of 1972
Newb,
I disagree with government financing of campaigns. As I pointed out upthread, buy-in on Kansas House races is VERY low. If someone is such a moron that they can’t raise a few thousand dollars to be competitive in a House race, they don’t belong on the ballot.
The fact is, with low limits on campaign donations, it forces candidates to get out and ask for money from a wide variety of people. Candidates use their ties to community groups, churches, neighborhood associations, etc, to raise that money. Those are the people who will know the issues best, and who are usually in a good place to determine if a candidate will credibly represent their views.
It’s a good screening process for nutcases with delusions of grandeur.
Tom-
I understand your position. Not sure I disagree, andit wouild be scary as hell, I think, but it wouild be interesting. Do you think by removing Interest group money, more individuals might be interested in doing something, as their vote and contribution might “actually count”? I am not sure where all the voter apathy comes from. Sometimes I am quite apethetic about the candidates, but never the system itself. Seems like the ” i got my tv, my ipod, my wheels, who cares” attitude is way too prevalent.
The fact is, with low limits on campaign donations, it forces candidates to get out and ask for money from a wide variety of people. Candidates use their ties to community groups, churches, neighborhood associations, etc, to raise that money. Those are the people who will know the issues best, and who are usually in a good place to determine if a candidate will credibly represent their views.
It’s a good screening process for nutcases with delusions of grandeur.
Posted by: Tom | May 02, 2007 at 09:39 AM
Good points
Farmgrrl,
It’s not that voters don’t care where the money comes from – they do. They’re just cynical about it. They know every politician asks for money, and they expect a certain amount of it to be “dirty.” The question pretty much generates a giant helpless shrug.
There is no reason for campaign money to be dirty. A lot of people that complain about candidates raising money from lobbyist are the same people that have not written a check to a candidate.
The problem comes when one person has multiple companies. The can write a check for the maximum amount out of each one of those companies at the same time they can write a personal and one from their spouse. Then you start going down the line of your relatives to give. So let’s say a person has 5 companies and they are giving to a person running for state representative (which has a $500 limit for the primary election and then another $500 for the general election). That one person can give $3,500 to a candidate in the primary and another $3,500 in the general. This is a way to circumvent the law on campaign donation limits. You have to really do some research to find out that one person owned 5 companies.
So if you remove the limits but make every person report that gives to a candidate you will be able to really see who contributes. You could also put a rule that would not allow you to use your multiple companies to hide behind.
There needs to be more individuals making donations.
Sara,
I used the word “dirty” in quotes because that’s what many voters think it is.
Removing contribution limits doesn’t help follow the money. People with something to hide will still find ways to hide it. In fact, removing limits could make it *easier* to hide money by allowing individuals to “bundle” contributions under one donor’s name – something that’s illegal, but because of low limits, isn’t a campaign issue.
Always keep this in mind: Every single “fix” to the campaign finance system just creates new holes to exploit. You can bet someone will find them, too.
In the software industry, where I used to work, there’s a saying: “An upgrade is where we take out the old bugs and put in new ones.” The same is true for campaign finance, I’m afraid.