From the Topeka Capital-Journal

Analysis: GOP big obstacle for Brownback on taxesPosted: March 17, 2013 - 1:50pm

By John Hanna

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Democrats have been the Kansas Legislature’s harshest critics of Republican Gov. Sam Brownback’s push to eliminate the state’s personal income tax, but a bigger obstacle to his ambitions comes from GOP lawmakers, despite their support for his goal.Brownback wants to follow up on big individual income tax cuts enacted last year by phasing in a second round of rate reductions during the next four years. But he also is trying to avoid the big cuts in education funding, social services or public safety predicted by critics of last year’s tax reductions.So to help stabilize the budget, Brownback also wants to cancel a sales tax decrease scheduled for July. Many legislators in both parties don’t want to break the promise to constituents, and the powerful Kansas Chamber of Commerce is against doing it. Few, if any, Democrats will vote for Brownback’s proposal, and it is a tough sell for some Republicans.The governor and his allies did prevail in the Senate, which passed a bill last week further cutting personal income tax rates and keeping the sales tax at its current rate. But the House expects to debate its own legislation this week to allow the sales tax to drop and make less aggressive income tax rate reductions than Brownback proposed.“Where the governor’s going, we like, but not how we get there,” said Rep. Scott Schwab, a conservative Olathe Republican who is vice chairman of the House Taxation Committee.Brownback is lionized in some national conservative circles for attempting to position Kansas to phase out personal income taxes. But last year’s cuts created a budget shortfall and, if left alone, will continue creating gaps in the short-term. The governor repeatedly promised Kansas could cut income taxes — and stimulate its economy — without jeopardizing education funding, social services, public safety or highway projects.“These are good things to invest in,” Brownback told GOP senators the night before their chamber’s debate on taxes. “You’ve got to work it all together.”Critics question the fairness of eliminating income taxes and forcing Kansas to most heavily rely on the sales tax to finance state government. Poor Kansans tend to pay a higher percentage of their incomes to the sales tax than wealthy residents, and Democratic Sen. Tom Holland, of Baldwin City, said the Senate’s tax bill makes a regressive tax system worse.“The legislation is a continuation of tax policy designed to benefit big business and the wealthy,” said Holland, who ran unsuccessfully for governor against Brownback in 2010.

Brownback’s administration contends last year’s income tax cuts were so broad that all classes of taxpayers benefit, with social services already protecting the state’s poorest residents.Republicans, who hold a 92-33 majority in the House, would have to be seriously divided for Democrats’ continued criticism to mean much politically.GOP legislators were divided in 2010, when then-Democratic Gov. Mark Parkinson successfully pushed lawmakers to boost the sales tax to its current 6.3 percent rate to balance the budget. Moderate Republicans sided with Parkinson, but backers of the tax increase promised most of it would be temporary, which is in part why the sales tax is set to drop to 5.7 percent in July.Some current House Republicans don’t want to break the promise and others ran against the increase in 2010 and 2012. Democrats saw a net loss of 16 seats in the House in the 2010 election.Freshman Rep. Allan Rothlisberg, a conservative Grandview Republican, said if a new tax bill doesn’t contain a “hard-core end” to the 6.3 percent sales tax rate, “Then the answer is no.”The plan before the House, approved by its Taxation Committee, does demonstrate the pitfalls for income-tax cutters in also allowing the sales tax to drop. For one thing, the plan siphons $370 million from highway projects over two years.The measure also doesn’t guarantee individual income tax rates will drop during the next four years, as Brownback’s plan does. Instead, the House committee’s plan sets up a mechanism for automatically lowering income tax rates if overall state revenues grow by more than 2 percent each year.Legislative researchers projected the top rate, which dropped to 4.9 percent from 6.45 percent under last year’s law, could fall to 4.88 percent for 2016.Rep. Arlen Siegfreid, a conservative Olathe Republican, who supports phasing out income taxes, said the House plan slows down the process considerably.Speaker Ray Merrick, a Stilwell Republican, said GOP leaders still believe Brownback’s sales tax proposal will fail in the House, but nevertheless are “running the traps.”“I’m still pretty certain, but it’s a moving target,” Merrick said.

State House, Senate set to debate budget proposalsChambers differ on plans for tax cutsPosted: March 16, 2013 - 3:58pm

By John Milburn

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Republican leaders are confident the Kansas Legislature can approve a balanced budget that lowers taxes without making deep cuts to essential state programs, although the two chambers differ on some of the details.The House and Senate are set to begin debate this coming week on bills that propose how to spend some $14 billion, including $6 billion from the state general fund. Senate Majority Leader Terry Bruce said Friday that the House and Senate versions have differences, but both would give the state cash in the bank on June 30, 2014 — the end of the next fiscal year.“The two do have to be reconciled in conference committee,” said Bruce, a Hutchinson Republican.Bruce said the state would face a deficit in fiscal year 2018 of approximately $135 million based on current budget and tax projections. The plan calls for 1.8 percent increases in state government spending in each of the next two fiscal years and a 4 percent increase in each year after that.Senators propose ending balances of $430 million in fiscal year 2014, which starts July 1, and $310 million in fiscal year 2015. House budget writers peg 2014’s ending balance at $500 million and 2015’s at $420 million.Legislators built the budgets on tax plans that would make further reductions in income tax rates, although the House version wouldn’t keep in place a 2010 increase in the state sales tax rate that is scheduled to expire after June 30. The Senate version would keep the sales tax rate at 6.3 percent, instead of allowing it to slip to 5.7 percent.The Senate passed its tax plan on Thursday, and the House is expected to debate its bill next week.House Taxation Committee Chairman Richard Carlson said the chamber’s tax plan is different from the one proposed by Republican Gov. Sam Brownback, but has the same goal of eliminating the state’s income tax.“The House plan is responsible and sustainable because it controls spending and you never cut taxes more than the growth of the economy allows,” said Carlson, a St. Marys Republican. “We’re just taking a slightly different path.”Senate President Susan Wagle said she had concerns about the budget committee’s proposed reductions for state research universities and hoped legislators could find savings elsewhere.“I believe there are places where there is money that we can take a look at,” said the Wichita Republican.Like the Senate, the House budget proposal doesn’t cut K-12 schools, public safety or state hospitals. House Appropriations Committee Chairman Marc Rhoades said legislators took recommendations from state agencies to make $25 million in spending cuts.“The budget plan is good for taxpayers,” said Rhoades, a Newton Republican. “The House budget identifies savings in areas of state spending that do not affect core services. We are always looking for increased accountability from state agencies as they provide services to Kansans.”

House Minority Leader Paul Davis, a Lawrence Democrat, said he is concerned about proposals to siphon money from the state’s ongoing highway program to shore up the rest of the state budget. The tax plan that the House is considering would divert $370 million in transportation funds over two years.Both he and Senate Minority Leader Anthony Hensley, a Topeka Democrat, said the transportation program that began in 2010 will create 175,000 jobs during its 10-year lifetime — far more than the Brownback administration has projected from last year’s tax cuts.“This is a self-inflicted budget crisis,” Davis said. “This is a budget crisis that was brought on by a massive tax plan that the state just can’t afford.”The two Democrats also criticized the proposed budgets for trimming spending from Brownback’s recommendations for higher education. The governor has proposed holding spending flat, and Davis and Hensley say reducing it will force tuition increases that will hurt students and their families.“Everything that’s up here right now in terms of a fiscal issue is driven by this insatiable need to go to zero on the income tax — everything,” Hensley said. “They’ve got to have the money in order to try to pay for the income tax cut.”

Sixteen GOP senators flip, support elevated sales taxThree Shawnee Co. senators vote against freeze at 6.3%Posted: March 14, 2013 - 5:10pm

By Tim Carpenter

THE CAPITAL-JOURNAL

Sixteen Republican senators who voted three years ago against a 1-cent, three-year hike in the Kansas sales tax reversed course Thursday by aligning themselves with Gov. Sam Brownback's plan to finance income tax cuts by perpetuating the elevated sales tax.The bill passed 25-14, but the three Shawnee County senators — Republican Vicki Schmidt and Democrats Laura Kelly and Anthony Hensley — voted against House Bill 2059, which freezes the 6.3 percent sales tax rate scheduled to fall to 5.7 percent July 1.In 2010, these Topeka senators voted to impose the sales tax and were among supporters subsequently targeted for election defeat by virtue of that position.Senate Majority Leader Terry Bruce, R-Hutchinson, and Senate President Susan Wagle, R-Wichita, were among GOP members who opposed the temporary sales tax hike three years ago, but agreed to dedicate the $262 million produced annually by the higher sales tax to the governor's tax reform agenda."Kansas tax policy is headed in the right direction," Bruce said. "We will become very competitive regionally with these tax reductions while growing job opportunities."

Hensley, the Senate's Democratic leader, said the income tax reductions were weighted in favor of wealthy individuals and large companies. Sustaining of the sales tax would fall disproportionately to the working class, he said."People of Kansas deserve leaders who are good on their word," Hensley said.Sen. Michael O'Donnell, a Wichita Republican, defeated incumbent Republican Jean Schodorf in the August primary based largely on her support for the sales tax. He made a vow to seek repeal of the elevated sales tax if elected, and he voted with 13 moderate Republicans or Democrats against the bill."I promised my district in person and in mailers that I would fight to repeal that sales tax when I was serving them in Topeka," O'Donnell said. "People call me plenty of things, but they can't call me a liar."Sen. Dennis Pyle, R-Hiawatha, decided to "pass" on the Brownback tax plan. The 16 other senators who were in the House or Senate for the previous sales tax vote all decided to cast "yes" votes.The roster of those switching: Sens. Steve Abrams, of Arkansas City; Pat Apple, of Louisburg; Elaine Bowers, of Concordia; Les Donovan, of Wichita; Mitch Holmes, of St. John; Dan Kerschen, of Garden Plain; Jeff King, of Independence; Forrest Knox, of Altoona; Julia Lynn, of Olathe; Ty Masterson, of Andover; Rob Olson, of Olathe; Mike Peterson, of Wichita; Larry Powell, of Garden City; Mary Pilcher-Cook, of Shawnee; Bruce and Wagle.As House members, Olson and Powell added their name to an explanation of vote when they disapproved of the sales tax increase."It is the apex of hypocrisy for the government to amass more wealth and means by commanding citizens to forfeit even more of their income and livelihood by making every item purchased more expensive," the explanation said. "The tax increase is flawed at its very core because it perpetuates the myth that Topeka knows how to spend the people's money better than the people know how to spend their own hard-earned money."None of the 10 senators who voted for introduction of the three-year spike in the sales tax while in the House or Senate in 2010 voted on Thursday to maintain the elevated level of the tax.Sen. Tom Holland, a Baldwin City Democrat, said the average Kansas taxpayer would lose money with the Brownback sales and income tax adjustments."The bill reneges on the promise that the Kansas Legislature made to sunset the temporary sales tax," he said.Under the bill approved by the Senate, personal tax deductions — excluding charitable contributions — will be phased out in proportion to future decreases in the individual income tax. Future income tax cuts would drop the bottom rate to 2.5 percent in 2014 and 1.9 percent in 2016. The upper rate of 4.9 percent will move to 3.5 percent in 2017.The Kansas Legislative Research Department produced an estimate of the financial impact of the bill.In the fiscal year starting in July, the Senate bill would allow the state to collect an additional $316 million by keeping the sales tax and eliminating exemptions. Not until

fiscal year 2018 do reductions in state income tax exceed the tax increases contained in the bill.Over the five-year period, however, the state would add $497 million to its treasury if the Senate bill became law.The House expects to debate a tax bill next week. Its Taxation Committee approved a plan allowing the sales tax to decrease while phasing out income tax deductions and diverting money from highway projects, the Associated Press reported. The measure’s cuts in income tax rates would be less aggressive than those proposed by Brownback and wouldn’t occur unless state revenues grew at least 2 percent each year.House GOP leaders have said repeatedly they don’t think Brownback’s sales tax proposal can pass their chamber.

Senate GOP closes caucus after Brownback addressSenate Majority Leader's office cites chamber rule in going to closed meetingPosted: March 12, 2013 - 8:01pm

By Andy Marso

THE CAPITAL-JOURNAL

With the Senate poised to take up a key tax bill Wednesday, the body's Republican super-majority heard a presentation from Gov. Sam Brownback outside the Capitol Tuesday night, then went into a closed caucus meeting.Brownback spoke in a conference room on the first floor of the Aviva office building at 555 S. Kansas Ave. He urged the Republican senators to adopt his tax plan, which would extend a temporary sales tax and remove a couple deductions from the income tax code in order to absorb last year's income tax cuts and promise more in the future without digging too far into the state budget.Brownback acknowledged that there is a lot of "history" and "emotion" that surrounds the revenue-producing provisions, but asked the senators to put that aside in the interests of the state's future."This is a big deal tomorrow on the tax vote," Brownback said. "It's needed."Brownback said his state budget director, Steve Anderson, and Revenue Sec. Nick Jordan would be available to answer questions, then left for his daughter's birthday party.At that point, Senate Majority Leader Terry Bruce, R-Hutchinson, announced that the impending discussion would be a closed caucus and asked the media to leave.The Kansas Open Meetings Act allows legislative bodies to exempt themselves and Senate rules decree that partisan caucuses may be closed.

Bruce said he hoped to keep such closed meetings to a minimum, but said "strategy" would be discussed Tuesday night and he didn't want the senate's eight Democrats privy to what was said.An Associated Press reporter logged a formal complaint on behalf of himself and the other four reporters present, noting that the tax bill would likely be one of the most important debates the Senate has this session.Sen. Tom Holland, D-Baldwin City, said closing the caucus "doesn't do the people any good," but shows that Republicans are struggling to reach consensus publicly."They've got consternation in the ranks over whether they're going to support the tax plan or not," Holland said.

Panel proposes state agency pay overhaulProvision would lock in current payroll for two years, without regard to vacanciesPosted: March 12, 2013 - 2:46pm

By Andy Marso

THE CAPITAL-JOURNAL

A surprise revision to the House Appropriations Committee's budget proposed Tuesday would fundamentally change the way the Legislature funds state agency wages and benefits.The change, suggested by Rep. Gene Suellentrop, would lock in compensation for two years based upon an annualization of what has been dispersed to the current work force in the fiscal year that began July 2012 — without regard to the number of full-time employee positions left open.“We know agencies will keep certain FTEs open for certain amounts of time to gather dollars,” said committee Chairman Marc Rhoades, R-Newton.According to a form distributed Tuesday, a handful of state agencies would come out above their current budget projections under the plan. But the majority wouldn’t, leading to a total savings of about $36 million in each of the next two fiscal years.Suellentrop, R-Wichita, said the State Finance Council would have authority under the proposal to allow select agencies to increase wages and fund longevity bonuses within their existing resources. Those agencies would include the Department of Transportation, adjutant general, Kansas Highway Patrol, Department of Corrections and state hospitals.The Board of Regents’ budget would be cut almost 35 percent under the proposal, and 14 agencies would have to absorb reductions of more than 10 percent.

“This would be pretty drastic, and I’ve got a feeling a lot of agencies would come back to us and say you’re essentially putting us out of business, (because) we can’t operate with this kind of a cut," said Rep. Jerry Henry, D-Atchison.Kirk Thompson, director of the Kansas Bureau of Investigation, passed a letter to committee members saying the measure would be "devastating," especially in light of additional cuts proposed the previous day.Thompson said the rationale for it was "based on flawed logic" about vacant positions."Knowing the state was in tight financial times, we have been fiscally conservative in filling positions, waiting to see what funds were available," Thompson said. "The effect of this amendment would be to punish agencies that were prudent and reward those that overspent."Thompson said the amendment would result in layoffs because the salaries of recently hired KBI agents aren’t fully reflected in the annualized budgets.Rep. Ward Cassidy, R-St. Francis, said he liked the general idea of the amendment, but was receptive to concerns raised by KBI."We'd like to have it as fair as we possibly can on this," Cassidy said.Rep. Brian Weber, R-Dodge City, Rep. Sydney Carlin, D-Manhattan, and Rep. Barbara Ballard, D-Lawrence, raised concerns about how the measure might affect federal funding and grant money some agencies and public universities receive.At one point Rhoades seemed exasperated by other committee members referring to the measure as "cuts.""This is not a cut," he said. "This is 2013's budget for 2014."Henry said the proposal, which will be up for more debate Tuesday evening, came as a surprise to many committee members.“We did not have a talk about this — not as a committee and not as a subcommittee,” Henry said. "This may have been Rep. Suellentrop doing this with very few other people knowing about it.”The measure ultimately was amended to reflect pay revisions passed by subcommittees this year, making that the new salary limitation benchmark for the next two years.A motion by Rep. Marvin Kleeb, R-Overland Park, to exclude the public universities failed 9-13.

Think tank analyst questions Brownback's tax policyBenefit of state income tax cuts to small business creation at issuePosted: March 11, 2013 - 7:39pm

By Tim Carpenter

THE CAPITAL-JOURNAL

Reform embraced by Gov. Sam Brownback and legislative allies to shrink state income taxes to inspire small business job growth won't produce the economic gains promised or serve as a magnet for entrepreneurs, a Washington think tank analyst said Monday.Michael Mazerov, senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, was in Topeka to speak with legislators as they prepared to debate budget and tax bills influenced by the governor's belief that drawing income tax rates closer to zero could inspire economic renewal."There's a ton of research out there that argues very strongly this will not appreciably help small businesses," he said. "When you actually look at the number of people who own a small business where they could conceivably make a decision to hire somebody based on their tax situation, it's a very, very small share."He said entrepreneurs didn't pull up stakes and locate businesses in other states simply by comparing income tax rates. A study of 20,000 companies founded by graduates of Massachusetts Institute of Technology showed one-third were based in Massachusetts. Yet, only 10 percent of these MIT graduates were originally Massachusetts residents."Entrepreneurs start their businesses where they live," he said. "The notion that somebody who might otherwise have started a business in Nebraska would decide to start the business here, just because of elimination of the income tax, is not born out by research."In 2012, Brownback signed a bill eliminating the income tax on nonwage income tax for owners of limited liability corporations, sole proprietorships and other small businesses.The governor also agreed to collapse Kansas' current three-bracket system to two brackets starting in 2013. It dropped the highest rate to 4.9 percent from 6.45 percent and 6.25 percent. The lowest tax rate will be 3 percent rather than 3.5 percent.At outset of the current legislative session, Brownback proposed an additional cut in individual income tax rates. His goal is to phase out the personal income tax in Kansas.He recommended the state deal with a projected $260 million gap between anticipated revenues and spending commitments by sustaining a 6.3 percent statewide sales tax scheduled to decline to 5.7 percent in July.Nick Jordan, secretary of the Kansas Department of Revenue, said the experience of no-income tax states, such as South Dakota, demonstrated "the idea that a low income tax rate helps spur economic growth and job creation.""Seventy-five percent of job growth comes from small businesses," Jordan said. "Our proposed changes to tax policy are not just trying to get a business to move here from out of state but to grow the small businesses already in Kansas."Dan Murray, Kansas director of the National Federation of Independent Businesses, said small business owners preferred lower income tax rates and a broader tax base through elimination of exemptions.

"Any reduction in that may be spent in the economy or invested back into the business," he said.Mazerov said enactment of broad tax reductions aimed at small businesses did little more than scatter revenue among people with part-time businesses, passive investors and hedge-fund players."It doesn't help them create jobs," he said. "It puts money in their pockets — a little bit."

BOE concern: Lawmakers infringing on its authorityDeBacker: Some legislators cite inaccurate data on Common CorePosted: March 12, 2013 - 5:25pm

By Celia Llopis-Jepsen

THE CAPITAL-JOURNAL

The Kansas State Board of Education voted Tuesday to send a letter to Gov. Sam Brownback and each member of the Legislature reminding them of the board’s authority and responsibilities under the state Constitution.Conversation at this month's meeting of the state board turned repeatedly to whether the Legislature would pass a bill banning Kansas' current mathematics and English standards — and whether that would infringe on the board's authority.The House Education Committee is considering a bill that would force the state board to scrap its current guidelines in those subjects, called the Common Core. The committee has held two hearings on the standards, which Kansas adopted in 2010. Most states are using them, effectively creating a set of national standards in math, reading and writing for the first time.Discussion in the Education Committee has centered on whether the federal government pushed Kansas into accepting the Common Core and whether the standards are a good choice for Kansas schools.Education Commissioner Diane DeBacker updated the state board on that discussion Tuesday, telling the board that some lawmakers had received incorrect information about the Common Core."It's been frustrating to sit in the audience and not be able to provide accurate information," said DeBacker, who may get a chance to speak at a third hearing on the standards on Wednesday."Determining the standards in the state of Kansas is your authority," DeBacker also said. "We have to be mindful of that and remindful of that."A few board members asked what recourse the board had if the Legislature passed a bill canceling its math and English standards and how best to communicate with lawmakers.

"What strong voice can we have, individually as board members and collectively as board members?" asked Jim McNiece, of Wichita."I'd like to know what our recourse can be to help some of these committees understand that the standards are our responsibility and that it isn't a legislative decision," said Sally Cauble, of Liberal.Ken Willard, of Hutchinson, said he wasn't sure whether the bill violated the board's authority, but that he was concerned about misunderstandings among lawmakers.He said the "prevailing sentiment" among skeptics seemed to be that Kansas should avoid federal encroachment on education matters, but there was little evidence that the Common Core leads to greater federal control.DeBacker said some lawmakers think the U.S. Department of Education pressed Kansas to adopt the Common Core by linking it to grants called Race to the Top. She said Kansas hadn't qualified for those grants and had made the decision not to make the changes the federal government was looking for in doling them out.By a vote of 7-2, the board decided to draft a short letter to the governor and lawmakers noting its duties and roll under the Constitution. One board member, Willard, abstained.Meanwhile, the board voted to work with the Center on Educational Testing and Evaluation at The University of Kansas on next year's math and reading assessments.Kansas will adopt new state tests in math and reading in 2014-15 to reflect the Common Core. Current tests are based on standards from 2003.The tests to be used starting in 2014-15 are still being developed, leaving a one-year gap. The board will ask the center to modify current tests to match Common Core. The modified tests will serve as next year's math and reading assessments and as interim assessments after that. Interim assessments are extra tests that districts can administer to get a sense of how their students will perform on the main state tests.

Mediators, court date set for Kansas school caseTopeka attorney, Pepperdine law dean chosen to mediatePosted: March 11, 2013 - 12:14pm

By John Milburn

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Attorneys involved in a Kansas school finance lawsuit on Monday announced they had picked the dean of Pepperdine University’s law school and a Topeka attorney to serve as mediators to settle the case.The attorneys told Kansas Supreme Court Chief Justice Lawton Nuss that law school dean Deanell Tacha and Topeka attorney James Steven Pigg will mediate the case. Tacha is the former chief judge of the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. Nuss had

given the parties until last Friday to agree on a mediator to assist in brokering a settlement.Nuss also announced that the court would hear the appeal of a lower-court ruling on the case on Oct. 8 in Topeka. Each side will have on hour to present arguments in the case.“My guess is we’ll have more than one or two spectators in the gallery,” Nuss said.No time was given for a ruling, but it is likely the decision could come during the 2014 legislative session.The state is appealing a January ruling by a three-judge panel in Shawnee County that legislators must increase the state’s annual spending on schools by at least $440 million.The lawsuit was filed in November 2010 by the parents and guardians of 32 students and the Wichita, Hutchinson, Dodge City and Kansas City, Kan., school districts, after the state backed off from previous promises on its education funding. The state is the only defendant.Gov. Sam Brownback and Attorney General Derek Schmidt, both Republicans, sought the mediation, saying they wanted to see whether the parties could resolve the case out of court.Nuss said the court would contact Tacha and Pigg to inform them that they had been approved to serve as mediators. A date for the start of settlement talks wasn’t set. The chief justice suggested that it would helpful for the state to have representatives in the room whom would be authorized to approve any deal that is struck.Arthur Chalmers, a Wichita attorney hired to defend the state in the case, said House Speaker Ray Merrick and Senate President Susan Wagle have indicated that they wouldn’t be present at mediation at the start, but Brownback’s chief of staff Landon Fulmer and representatives from the attorney general’s office would be at the table.Attorneys for the school districts and parents said having people at mediation who are authorized to approve a settlement was necessary.“If the matter’s going to be resolved, it’s not going to be resolved unless we have those people at the table,” said Alan Rupe, attorney for the plaintiffs, who suggested Nuss consider issuing an order compelling legislative leaders to attend.“I’ll give that some thought,” Nuss said.Last week, Democratic leaders in the Legislature said they would be filing a request with the court to be a part of the mediation process.The court also has ordered both sides to begin filing briefs with the court to continue the march toward the October court hearing if mediation fails. Nuss said no motions from attorneys to extend the time for filing the documents or seeking a continuance for the October hearing would be granted.Nuss said Monday’s conference call was the first of its kind in a case of this magnitude to allow members of the media to listen to the conversation. A handful of media outlets, including The Associated Press, listened to the discussion but weren’t allowed to ask questions.

Supreme Court will hear on voter I.D. laws MondayFive states may be affected by outcomePosted: March 17, 2013 - 3:26pm

By Jacques Billeaud

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court will struggle this week with the validity of an Arizona law that tries to keep illegal immigrants from voting by demanding all state residents show documents proving their U.S. citizenship before registering to vote in national elections.The high court will hear arguments Monday over the legality of Arizona’s voter-approved requirement that prospective voters document their U.S. citizenship in order to use a registration form produced under the federal “Motor Voter” voter registration law that doesn’t require such documentation.This case focuses on voter registration in Arizona, which has tangled frequently with the federal government over immigration issues involving the Mexican border. But it has broader implications because four other states — Alabama, Georgia, Kansas and Tennessee — have similar requirements, and 12 other states are contemplating similar legislation, officials say.The Obama administration is supporting challengers to the law.If Arizona can add citizenship requirements, then “each state could impose all manner of its own supplemental requirements beyond the federal form,” Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. said in court papers. “Those requirements could encompass voluminous documentary or informational demands, and could extend to any eligibility criteria beyond citizenship, such as age, residency, mental competence, or felony history.”A federal appeals court threw out the part of Arizona’s Proposition 200 that added extra citizenship requirements for voter registration, but only after lower federal judges had approved it.Arizona wants the justices to reinstate its requirement.Kathy McKee, who led the push to get the proposition on the ballot, said voter fraud, including by illegal immigrants, continues to be a problem in Arizona. “For people to conclude there is no problem is just shallow logic,” McKee said.The Associated Press reported in September that officials in pivotal presidential election states had found only a fraction of the illegal voters they initially suspected had existed.In Colorado, election officials found 141 noncitizens on the voter rolls, which was 0.004 percent of the state’s nearly 3.5 million voters. Florida officials found 207, or 0.001 percent of the state’s 11.4 million registered voters. In North Carolina, 79 people admitted to election officials that they weren’t citizens and were removed from the rolls, along with 331 others who didn’t respond to repeated inquires.

Opponents of Arizona’s law see it as an attack on vulnerable voter groups such as minorities, immigrants and the elderly. They say Arizona’s law makes registering more difficult, which is an opposite result from the intention of the 1993 National Voter Registration Act.Proposition 200 “was never intended to combat voter fraud,” said Democratic state Sen. Steve Gallardo of Phoenix. “It was intended to keep minorities from voting.”With the additional state documentation requirements, Arizona will cripple the effectiveness of neighborhood and community voter registration drives, advocates say. More than 28 million Americans used the federal “Motor Voter” form to register to vote in the 2008 presidential elections, according to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission.An Arizona victory at the high court would lead to more state voting restrictions, said Elisabeth MacNamara, the national president of the League of Women Voters.Opponents of the Arizona provision say they’ve counted more than 31,000 potentially legal voters in Arizona who easily could have registered before Proposition 200 but who were blocked initially by the law in the 20 months after it passed in 2004. They say about 20 percent of those thwarted were Latino.Arizona officials say they should be able to pass laws to stop illegal immigrants and other noncitizens from getting on their voting rolls. The Arizona voting law was part of a package that also denied some government benefits to illegal immigrants and required Arizonans to show identification before voting.The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the voter identification provision. The denial of benefits was not challenged.Opponents “argue that Arizona should not be permitted to request evidence of citizenship when someone registers to vote, but should instead rely on the person’s sworn statement that he or she is a citizen,” Arizona Attorney General Thomas C. Horne said in court papers.“The fallacy in that is that someone who is willing to vote illegally will be willing to sign a false statement. What (opponents) are urging is that there should be nothing more than an honor system to assure that registered voters are citizens. That was not acceptable to the people of Arizona.”The Arizona proposition was enacted into law with 55 percent of the vote.This is the second voting issue the high court is tackling this session. Last month, several justices voiced deep skepticism about whether a section of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, a law that has helped millions of minorities exercise their right to vote, especially in areas of the Deep South, was still needed.This case involves laws of more recent vintage.The federal “Motor Voter” law, enacted in 1993 to expand voter registration, allows would-be voters to fill out a mail-in voter registration card and swear they are citizens under penalty of perjury, but it doesn’t require them to show proof.Under Proposition 200 approved in 2004, Arizona officials require an Arizona driver’s license issued after 1996, a U.S. birth certificate, a passport or other similar document, or the state will reject the federal registration application form.

This requirement applies only to people who seek to register using the federal mail-in form. Arizona has its own form and an online system to register when renewing a driver’s license. The court ruling did not affect proof of citizenship requirements using the state forms.State officials say more than 90 percent of those Arizonans applying to vote using the federal form will be able to simply write down their driver’s license number, and all naturalized citizens simply will be able to write down their naturalization number without needed additional documents.Former Arizona Senate President Russell Pearce, a leading Republican proponent of Proposition 200, strongly disputed claims that Arizona doesn’t have voter fraud problems. “They turn a blind eye,” Pearce said of the state’s election officials.But Karen Osborne, elections director for Maricopa County, where nearly 60 percent of Arizona’s voters live, said voter fraud is rare, and even rarer among illegal immigrants.“That just does not seem to be an issue,” Osborne said of the claim that illegal immigrants are voting. “They did not want to come out of the shadows. They don’t want to be involved with the government.”The main legal question facing the justices is whether the federal law trumps Arizona’s law. A 10-member panel of the 9th Circuit in San Francisco said it did.The appeals court issued multiple rulings in this case, with a three-judge panel initially siding with Arizona. A second panel that included retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who from time to time sits on appeals courts, reversed course and blocked the registration requirement. The full court then did the same, and that decision will be reviewed by the justices in Washington.The case is 12-71, Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc.

Emergency unemployment checks to feel 10.7% sequester cutBenefits will see reduction on or shortly after March 31Posted: March 14, 2013 - 10:40pm

By The Capital-Journal

Kansans receiving Emergency Unemployment Compensation will see their checks reduced by 10.7 percent beginning on or shortly after March 31, the Kansas Department of Labor announced Thursday.The reduction is a result of the Budget Control Act, commonly known as “sequestration” federal budget cuts that will lower the federal funds made available to individual states who administrate unemployment payments.Kansas currently qualifies for Tier 1 of the EUC program, which provides up to 14 additional weeks of benefits to qualified claimants.While the amount of benefits paid will be reduced, the 14-week period of additional benefits will not be affected, the Labor Department said.

The Kansas agency said it was told by federal authorities to notify EUC recipients of the change and how it will affect the benefits they will receive.

Governor gets star-studded KPERS reform castBill Bradley, Nobel laureate coming to pitch 401(k)-style planPosted: March 16, 2013 - 4:30pm

By Andy Marso

THE CAPITAL-JOURNAL

After meeting with Gov. Sam Brownback in Texas, a cast of big names will come to the Legislature on Monday to discuss possible major reforms to the state pension system.The list includes Bill Bradley, a former U.S. Senator and NBA basketball player, and Robert C. Merton, a Nobel laureate professor from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Both are affiliated with Dimensional Fund Advisors, an Austin-based investment firm led by David Booth, a Lawrence native and major University of Kansas donor who made headlines in 2010 when he purchased the original rules of basketball for about $4.3 million.Merton and Bradley, along with Lt. Gov. Jeff Colyer, are slated to speak to the House Pensions and Benefits Committee at 9 a.m. Monday.They are listed as proponents of Senate Bill 117. Friday's calendar is related to a $500,000 transfer from highway patrol training funds, but Rep. Steven Johnson, R-Assaria, the chairman of the committee, said SB 117 is "a vehicle that will be used to consider plan design" for overhauling the Kansas Public Employee Retirement System.It will be the first attempt to alter KPERS — which has 281,000 members statewide — of the year and it comes two months into the session.Johnson was with Brownback, State Treasurer Ron Estes, KPERS executive director Alan Conroy, budget director Steve Anderson and Senate Vice President Jeff King, R-Independence, when they flew to Austin to meet with Booth and Co. during the Legislature's two-day "turnaround break" at the beginning of March. Colyer traveled separately.There they heard from assorted officials at DFA, which Booth co-founded in 1981 with Rex Sinquefield, a fellow University of Chicago Graduate School of Business alum who has become a St. Louis billionaire bent on eliminating Missouri's income tax.Johnson has been at the center of 2012 KPERS reform talks, including a nearly yearlong stint on a study commission. He said he had limited connections, but couldn't take full credit for bringing the trip together.

"I spoke with them two years ago," Johnson said. "But I think everything came together with David Booth and his connection to KU."Johnson said Booth has expressed professional interest in helping states with unfunded pension liability and with his home state's actuarial liability hovering around $9 billion, the match seemed natural.DFA's foray into retirement investing is fairly new, but the company offers a 401(k)-style "direct contribution" plan favored by Johnson, King and other conservatives because it transfers risk of investment losses from the state to the employee.But Democratic leaders said letting DFA officials come to the Legislature to help design a KPERS plan to be administered by the private sector would give Booth's company an obvious leg up when it came time for the state to submit that contract for bids."This is a sweetheart deal of gargantuan proportions," Senate Minority Leader Anthony Hensley, D-Topeka, said. "In this case you're bringing in people that will make money on it.""You have a state procurement process you need to follow," Sen. Tom Holland, D-Baldwin City, added. "Where's the RFP (request for proposal)? Where are the requirements?"Johnson said he could see how DFA's role in helping legislators craft a plan design could appear to other retirement investment companies, like Topeka's Security Benefit, to allow an unfair advantage."I agree with the perception," Johnson said. "That's how I would feel if I worked for any other company. My opinion is you have to name the players later. Have two-plus players to be named later in the plan design."Holland said he also had concerns about Merton's investment theories, calling it "very risky stuff."When asked if the $4.5 billion losses that Merton's hedge fund, Long-Term Capital Management, suffered in 1998 before being bailed out by other Wall Street firms gave him pause, Johnson said "I'm actually unaware of them."Johnson said he doubted hedge fund strategies would make their way into a 401(k)-style plan. He added that the current KPERS board "does an exceedingly good job of handling the money" and if the state moves to a direct contribution plan, the board would likely maintain a role overseeing the private companies that administer it.Hensley said the KPERS conversation has already been settled. After months of study and debate, the Legislature voted last year to convert KPERS to a cash balance plan — a compromise between the 401(k)-style and the traditional pension that was signed by Brownback and is projected to pay off the unfunded liability in about 20 years.“It appears this whole debate about KPERS is going to be revisited, which I think is very unfortunate," Hensley said. "I think the Legislature took some very good steps last year to resolve the KPERS controversy.”Brownback praised the cash balance plan when the Legislature passed it last May and lauded it again Tuesday night while addressing Senate Republicans prior to a closed caucus. He didn’t mention Merton's impending visit or a direct contribution push. But his spokeswoman, Sherriene Jones-Sontag, said that while the governor believes last year’s reform was "a step in the right direction," more needs to be done.

"Governor Brownback has always thought the state should implement a defined contributions system for non-vested state employees and new hires," Jones-Sontag said. "You will recall during the 2012 legislative session he supported the KPERS (Study) Commission recommendations to do just that."Jones-Sontag also said if the Legislature opts for a direct contribution plan, the bidding process would be run by KPERS.King, who co-chaired that commission, watched its direct contribution recommendation fall out of favor amid concerns that it wouldn’t actually lower the state's current unfunded liability. King said Friday that while that is still true, he hasn’t given up on a direct contribution plan as a way to prevent future retirement plan debts tied to the state."It was a positive step forward, there's no question about that," King said of the cash balance reform. "I've said many times I think there's more we can do."According to documents Johnson received in Texas, DFA's direct contribution plan allows employees to set a "target retirement date" and then uses algorithms to establish how much employees should contribute in order to statistically expect a certain annual income floor and a higher "desired annual income" after they retire, depending on market fluctuations.Employees would be able to monitor those numbers and change them periodically to adjust for market shifts or lifestyle changes."It's to your benefit to be more engaged in this process," Johnson said, versus the traditional pension system in which "you get what you get."

Officials upset budget chief obscured impact of tax billAnderson's department changes fiscal note on property tax billPosted: March 14, 2013 - 12:21pm

By Andy Marso

THE CAPITAL-JOURNAL

Gov. Sam Brownback's state budget director changed a property tax bill's fiscal note this week to obscure the predicted impact to local governments, causing officials who represent Kansas cities and counties to cry foul.Melissa Wangemann, the legislative director and general counsel for the Kansas Association of Counties, said she believes the move was "absolutely" politically motivated and should concern legislators who rely on the fiscal notes attached to each proposed bill."I think the Division of Budget is supposed to be offering up impartial and accurate information," Wangemann said.

Don Moler, executive director of the Kansas League of Municipalities, said budget director Steve Anderson did not consult his group on the revision either.“I do think it’s interesting that the fiscal note has changed," Moler said. "The interpretation, apparently, of our comments in the original notes has also changed. I think the question one would have to ask is, why?”Brownback's spokeswoman, Sherriene Jones-Sontag, said Anderson's office "reviews fiscal notes regularly and updates and corrects them as needed" and his revision removed politics KAC and the League contributed to the fiscal note."The budget director was asked to review the fiscal note for HB 2285 and determined that without actual data that showed the exact impact of the bill, the 'If…then…' statement was political and should be removed," Jone-Sontag said in a email.Jones-Sontag said Rep. Scott Schwab, R-Olathe, requested the review.The proposal in question is House Bill 2285, which would redefine what commercial machinery and equipment is taxable property.KAC and the League provided Information in last month's original fiscal note that estimated the bill's impact on their members, which is not unusual. What happened next, Wangemann said, is unprecedented in her 16 years of consulting on fiscal notes for KAC and former Secretary of State Ron Thornburgh: the bill didn't change, but its fiscal note did.The original fiscal note stated that KAC and the League "indicate that the bill would significantly reduce the amount of local property tax collections." A revised fiscal note issued by budget director Anderson's division Tuesday removed the word "significantly" — a value judgement Wangemann found strange.But there was a second change that was more unsettling to Wangemann. The original fiscal note stated the bill would force local governments to either raise fees, raise mill levies, or cut spending because it would reduce assessed property valuations by about $583.6 million statewide.Anderson's revised fiscal note did not change that number — but removed the three possible outcomes."In the fiscal effect statement original issued, language was included that attempted to describe the potential actions local governments might take in response to passage of this bill," the revised note says. "That information has been removed as it is not directly an outcome of passage of HB 2285."Wangemann strongly disagreed in a letter to KAC members."To say that increasing the mill levy, increasing fees or decreasing expenditures are NOT a direct outcome of passage of HB 2285 is an outrageous comment," Wangemann wrote.Wangemann said Wednesday she could not fathom what other choice Anderson's division believes local governments could make, faced with the loss of an estimated $64 million in property tax revenue statewide.Shawnee County counselor Rich Eckert said in January his county's property tax revenue would drop between $7 million and $8 million upon passage of the bill.

The revised fiscal note was released the same day the House Taxation Committee passed HB 2285 on to the full House.The committee chairman, Rep. Richard Carlson, said he believes the new fiscal note more accurately reflects the bill, but said it would be better for the committee and full House to have identical information when they vote."I would have preferred one fiscal note," said Carlson, R-St. Mary's, adding the committee has nothing to do with writing the notes.KAC and the League testified against HB 2285. The list of proponents included the influential Kansas Chamber of Commerce, part of a coalition that disputed its effects."The opposition will state that big tax shifts will occur statewide as the result of our proposal," the coalition said. "However, this information is inaccurate."Kent Eckles, the Chamber's vice president for government affairs, said his organization did not contact Anderson about revising the fiscal note.Anderson has been no stranger to controversy lately. He said he offered to resign after a recent Wichita Eagle article called into question several of the key budgetary numbers that have come out of the Brownback's office — including a $2 billion addition to former Gov. Mark Parkinson's final budget that Anderson acknowledged was erroneous.Rep. Jim Ward, D-Wichita, referenced those numbers when shown the changes to the HB 2285 fiscal note Thursday."This is disturbing in and of itself," Ward said. "But when you put it in a pattern of the administration — whether it be the school numbers, KanCare numbers or the $2-billion mistake — you have a situation where it raises serious questions about their credibility. We should be able to disagree about the policy, but the numbers, the math, should be unassailable."House Minority Leader Paul Davis, D-Lawrence, said he's "suspicious" of the new fiscal note."The budget director has lost a great deal of credibility because of the issues we've had with inaccurate and skewed numbers he's presented the Legislature in the past," Davis said.Jones-Sontag said Brownback "continues to have complete confidence in his budget director."

House-passed bill allows Capitol gunslingersBill permits concealed and open carry of guns in StatehousePosted: March 14, 2013 - 3:20pm

By Caitlin Doornbos

THE CAPITAL-JOURNAL

A bill overwhelmingly approved by the House on Thursday allows people to bring concealed handguns into Kansas public buildings and contains a provision permitting open carry of firearms in the Statehouse.Initially intended to broaden access for people with a concealed-carry license, House Bill 2055 was amended by the House to enable legislators to walk through the Capitol with an exposed gun on the hip.By a 2-to-1 margin, the House sent to the Senate the bill removing barriers on concealed carrying of guns in public buildings that fail to provide “adequate security measures,” such as metal detectors and security personnel.During House floor debate on the bill Wednesday, Rep. John Wilson, D-Lawrence, offered an amendment to include the Statehouse as a public building subject to the law. If schools were to become zones open to people with concealed guns, he said, the place where legislators work ought to be treated equally.“If we can expect guns to protect first-graders and universities, we should expect the same of the Legislature,” Wilson said.However, when Wilson’s amendment was drafted, a legislative staff member inadvertently struck language that banned open carry in the Capitol. Upon hearing of the error, two representatives changed their votes.But Rep. Brett Hildabrand, R-Shawnee, said he was supportive of open carry in the Capitol. What began as a legislative mistake evolved into a substantive discussion of open carry among House lawmakers.“I’m having a literal interpretation of the Second Amendment,” Hildabrand said. “There’s no asterisk next to it that says ‘except for in the Capitol building.’ ”Wilson, who voted against the bill on final action, said he was apprehensive about the flood of guns into high-stress environments. He noted courthouses were exempt from the bill’s reach because of the heightened emotion associated with legal affairs.“The Capitol is no different," he said. "We’re dealing with people’s lives and with moral and religious beliefs. Heated and passionate arguments can increase the potential for unsafe actions.”The bill was moved to the Senate on a vote of 84-38.

Senate bars public PAC payroll deductionsAmendment aimed at addressing free speech concerns tacked onPosted: March 14, 2013 - 4:26pm

By Andy Marso

THE CAPITAL-JOURNAL

Senate Democrats decried a 24-16 vote Thursday to disallow public employees from arranging an automatic deduction from their paycheck for union political action committees.Senate Minority Leader Anthony Hensley, D-Topeka, said it was an attempt by the conservative supermajority to silence the "loyal opposition" from PACs like that of the state's teachers' union, which frequently endorses Democratic and moderate Republican candidates who support upping school funding.Sen. Tom Holland, D-Baldwin City, agreed, calling the bill "tyranny."“It’s easy for the majority to run over the minority just because you’ve got the numbers," Holland said. "Might does not make right. This is wrong.”Sen. Julia Lynn and Sen. Rob Olson, both Olathe Republicans, said the bill was meant to protect taxpayers who pay a nominal fee for each financial transaction associated with payroll deductions.“The real peanut of the bill is to take government out of the transaction business to use taxpayer funds to deduct money for a political purpose,” Lynn said.“It’s very simple," Olson said. "If they want to contribute to a PAC, all they got to do is go to the bank and set it up. The state has no business being involved in any political activity. The Kansas taxpayers are subsidizing this, and it’s wrong."But Sen. Laura Kelly, D-Topeka, pointed out that the state already doles out public paychecks to legislative leadership staffers who are allowed to be involved in partisan political activity. She said the entire bill was based on political preferences.And Hensley said Olson's premise is flawed because the Kansas Organization of State Employees has a long-standing agreement with the Department of Administration to reimburse the state for the payroll deduction transactions, which Hensley said run to about 6 cents each.“To somehow represent this as the taxpayers being involved in the political process is not true,” Hensley said.Hensley later produced the section of the contract between the state and union — Article 6 — that outlines the reimbursement agreement.Rep. Greg Smith, R-Overland Park, said that as a teacher who declined to join the union, the bill would provide him and others like him protection from coercion.“I see this piece of legislation as legislation that allows a choice,” Smith said.Sen. Dan Kerschen, R-Garden Plain, was among Republicans who voted against the bill. Kerschen, a farmer, noted that he had an automatic deduction from his wages for years that went to a dairy PAC."I cannot vote to deny someone the same privilege I had," Kerschen said.The bill, Sub House Bill 2022, has already passed the House in a slightly different form. Lynn said the Senate's version was narrowed to address union concerns that it would prohibit uses of regular dues — not PAC dues — in a way that would infringe on free speech rights.Lynn said the amendment borrowed language from a Utah law upheld by a federal appeals court.

The bill also includes a provision that allows employers to deduct from employee wages if that employee owes them for items such as tools, uniforms or phones.

Editorial: DUI loophole must be closedPosted: March 14, 2013 - 7:49pm

By The Capital-Journal

The Kansas Senate should make short work of passing, and Gov. Sam Brownback should make short work of signing, a bill that proposes to amend the state’s laws on driving under the influence.House Bill 2218 already has been passed unanimously by the House and should receive similar treatment when it goes to the Senate floor.The bill will make it clear a motorist who refuses a field sobriety test after being legally stopped for a nonalcohol-related violation can be arrested for driving under the influence and the motorist’s license can be revoked by the Kansas Department of Revenue.New language is required in the wake of a 2012 Kansas Supreme Court decision in a case in which a motorist was stopped for driving on a suspended license then, after officers detected the smell of alcohol, refused to take a sobriety test. The driver was charged with DUI and his license was revoked.In its decision, however, the Supreme Court noted the driver’s refusal to submit to the sobriety test was inadmissible because current law says a driver must be specifically arrested for an alcohol- or drug-related driving incident before officers can request testing.It’s unknown how many drivers have been stopped for one reason or another and then required to submit to sobriety or drug testing when officers suspected they had been drinking or using drugs. That’s not the issue here. Law enforcement officers, due to an earlier Kansas Court of Appeals decision, have been working for years under the assumption the procedure was in line with state statutes.Now that everyone knows that’s not the case, it’s time to amend DUI laws to give law enforcement officials the authority they need to remove drunken drivers from our highways, streets and roads.Ed Klumpp, a former Topeka police chief and now legislative committee chairman of the Kansas Association of Chiefs of Police, in testimony on the proposed bill said drunken drivers are accountable for their actions regardless of the reason for the initial arrest.Establishing whether the person was operating the vehicle while under the influence should be the ultimate goal of the statute, even if that information is gathered after a lawful arrest for another charge, Klumpp said.Exactly.Drunken drivers across the country are responsible for a heavy, annual toll of death, injury and property destruction. Everyone should want our law enforcement officers to

do everything within their power to get them out of the driver’s seat whenever possible.For now, the Kansas Supreme Court’s ruling effectively limits law enforcement efforts to combat drunken driving. It’s important that our Legislature and governor amend the DUI laws so law enforcement officers can do their jobs.

Washburn crime lab funding rejected againCommittee rejects attempt to restore money to get project startedPosted: March 12, 2013 - 1:19pm

By Andy Marso

THE CAPITAL-JOURNAL

The House Appropriations Committee rejected an attempt Tuesday to restore $3.5 million in seed money for a Kansas Bureau of Investigation crime laboratory at Washburn University.It was the committee's second vote to put off funding the design stage of the lab, placing next year's proposed ground-breaking squarely in jeopardy. There is wide agreement on the committee that the high-tech forensics lab is needed to recruit and retain scientists and ease a statewide backlog of DNA evidence awaiting testing.But some conservative committee members raised concerns about the cost of the lab, projected at about $55 million, and the lease with Washburn, on the assumption that the state could get a far better deal in the private sector.“This kind of gives me the willies," said Rep. Mark Hutton, R-Wichita, a contractor by trade. "This thing, I just don’t think it’s the best deal for the state.”The vote to reject the $3.5 million appropriation came a day after Washburn President Jerry Farley and KBI Director Kirk Thompson came to Rep. Virgil Peck's House Transportation and Public Safety Budget Committee to answer a series of questions that legislators said had to be addressed before the project could move forward.Following that meeting, Peck, R-Tyro, came back to the appropriations committee and attempted to restore the funds. But by the time Hutton, Rep. Mark Kahrs, Rep. Jerry Lunn and Rep. Marvin Kleeb had all expressed concerns over the tentative terms of the state's partnership with Washburn, Peck seemed resigned to seeing the $3.5 million dissipate again.“I appreciate the discussion, I understand most of the discussion," Peck said. "This is a way to save money up front for the state."Farley said Monday that after the state fronts the $3.5 million, Washburn would competitively bid the construction phase and issue bonds to pay for it. Those bonds would then be rolled into the cost of a lease with KBI that Farley estimated would last about 20 years.

Rep. Ron Ryckman Jr., R-Olathe, who also heard from Farley and Thompson Monday, joined Peck in supporting the project, telling the other appropriations committee members that the KBI is spending $190,000 to train forensic scientists, only to see 14 percent of them leave each year.He said he sympathized with committee members concerned that they couldn’t see the precise lease terms before committing the $3.5 million, but there's little way to remedy that.“It’s difficult for the department to estimate an accurate cost per square foot without the drawings,” Ryckman said.Kleeb and Lunn both represent Overland Park, and Kleeb previously suggested KBI might get a better deal by renovating an existing forensic lab in Johnson County.Lunn noted during Tuesday's meeting that under the 20-year lease the state could end up spending $4 million per year without owning the building afterward — a figure that caused Kahrs to mouth the word "wow."“That’s got to be an astronomical price per square foot," said Lunn, a real estate investment consultant. "Anybody in the private sector would love to build you a building and have you as a tenant for 20 years at that price.”Thompson, who was at Tuesday's hearing, said afterward the KBI would have to do more to educate legislators about the need for the lab and ease their concerns about the proposed government-government partnership between his agency and Washburn.Farley said they should know Washburn is "more like a private university than a government university." He said the governor and the attorney general suggested the partnership and his school isn’t in it for the money or seeking a sweetheart deal."We're here to help," Farley said. "If they don't need our help with the project, they're going to have to find somebody else. I don't think there are going to be many people who are going to build a building without a commitment that somebody's going to pay for it."

Farley provides answers on KBI crime labFunding for project in doubt amid appropriations committee concernsPosted: March 11, 2013 - 5:08pm

By Andy Marso

THE CAPITAL-JOURNAL

Washburn University President Jerry Farley came to the Statehouse Monday to answer questions and ease legislators' concerns about the cost of a Kansas Bureau of Investigation crime lab proposed to be built on campus.

Gov. Sam Brownback had allocated $3.5 million in his budget for initial design and planning of the facility, which is estimated to cost about $50 million to build and outfit. But the House Appropriations Committee put that funding on hold last week amid concerns about a lack of details regarding what the $3.5 million would buy and what the terms of the agreement between Washburn and KBI would be."I thought it went well," Farley said after speaking to the House Transportation and Public Safety Budget Committee. "I emphasized that we're playing a supporting role and we want to be helpful."Farley told the committee that the $3.5 million is the seed money needed to get the project off the ground in the form of an architectural design and engineering specifications.After those are finalized, Farley said the next step would be to put the project up for a competitive bidding process to find a construction contractor.Washburn would then issue bonds to fund the program — bonds that would be paid by KBI through a lease agreement that Farley saw lasting about 20 years.Farley said the sooner that process gets started, the less costly it will be, both because of regular inflation and because interest rates are currently at historic lows."I'd love to issue all that debt today," Farley said.Rep. Bob Grant, D-Frontenac, said Washburn and KBI are unlikely to find a better time to solicit bids for construction services.“The quicker we get started on this, the better price we’re going to get," Grant said. "We’ve seen it on the road projects we’ve done. Construction companies are hungrier than a starving coyote.”Rep. Ron Ryckman Jr., R-Olathe, who, like Grant, sits on both the transportation budget committee and the Appropriations Committee, said that even though the lease agreement can’t be finalized until the bonds are signed, he believed members of the latter committee would feel better if Washburn and the state could sign a memorandum of understanding that outlined at least a price range.Farley said that likely wouldn't be a problem.Rep. Virgil Peck, R-Tyro, who also sits on both committees, said the memo "certainly helps." Peck also asked KBI director Kirk Thompson if the agency could kick in some of the initial $3.5 million out of existing fee funds, rather than a new state appropriation. But Thompson said that is off the table."As far as we are concerned we do not have sufficient uncommitted funds," Thompson said.Peck said that wouldn't be a "deal-breaker" and he remains committed to ensuring the crime lab is built.The lab is needed to ease a statewide backlog of DNA evidence testing as well as stem a tide of departing scientists. Thompson said the current crew of 57 have about 400 square feet of space for each of them, while accreditation guidelines recommend 1,000. He said that, plus stagnant wages has led 33 to leave in the last seven years — a turnover rate of about 14 percent for positions that cost an estimated $190,000 to train.

"They’re in cramped quarters,"Thompson said. "They’re in the basement of a 1929 building. The working conditions are just not something we can draw people to.”

Mah gives up title, not next year's raceFormer state rep planning to run for seat she lost by 27 votesPosted: March 11, 2013 - 3:18pm

By Andy Marso

THE CAPITAL-JOURNAL

Former Rep. Ann Mah, D-Topeka, has given up her old legislative title, but not her plans to run next year against the man who defeated her.Mah's practice of continuing to refer to herself as "Rep. Ann Mah" in written testimony even after Rep. Ken Corbet, R-Topeka, beat her in the 54th District race last year irked the Kansas Republican Party, which threatened to seek prosecution for "impersonating a public figure."When Mah spoke Monday before the House Elections Committee, she came bearing testimony that identified her as a "former teacher, former engineer, former state representative and current lobbyist for the middle class."Mah said she hasn’t been contacted by any prosecutors yet."I think it's more of a sign that they think I could actually win next year and they're trying to do a preemptive strike to try and discredit me any way they can," Mah said of the Republican party's concerns. "And that's OK, that's politics."Clay Barker, the executive director of the Kansas GOP, had also taken issue with Mah's personal website, which he said suggested she remained a legislator.Mah has since added a prominent box on the home page that reads "Thank you for visiting my website. While I no longer serve in the Kansas House of Representatives, I hope you find the information here helpful in learning more about Kansas government and the 54th District."Barker didn’t immediately respond to an emailed request for an update on the Republicans' complaint against Mah.Mah was in the House committee Monday to testify on a bill that would extend to Secretary of State Kris Kobach the power to prosecute voter fraud crimes.That power currently resides with local district attorneys and county attorneys. Patrick Vogelsberg, of the Kansas County and District Attorneys Association, said his group is opposed to the bill, but would accept a compromise that would give dual authority to the Kansas Attorney General's Office and locals."That way the authority remains within a professional prosecutor,” Vogelsberg said.But Kobach said 16 state agencies — including the Kansas Insurance Department and Kansas Securities Commission — currently have authority to prosecute fraud within their areas of expertise and it would break little new ground for him to have the same as chief elections officer.

Kobach said instances of double-voting, or voting in multiple jurisdictions "happens all the time in America" and that coercion of vulnerable voters in nursing homes is also widespread.“No one believes right now that they’re going to be punished for this," Kobach said. “It is so easy to get away with this right now.”Kobach was the only proponent of the bill, which would also stiffen penalties for voter fraud, making some types a felony.Kobach was opposed to an amendment tacked on by the Senate which would prohibit him and future secretaries of state from operating a Politicial Action Committee that doles out money in races other than their own. He said the provision was "illogical" because other officials on the canvassing board also have PACs and said the prohibition is also "potentially unconstitutional."Mah testified as neutral, saying she was for the prohibition on Secretary of State PACs, against raising the felony penalties and ambivalent on giving Kobach prosecutorial authority because she believed that would expose that there is little of the illegal immigrant voting that Kobach has cited as the reason for voter ID and proof of citizenship laws.

Blogs / Political Runoff 

Political RunoffTim Carpenter reflects on governmentBY TIM CARPENTER

Tue, 03/12/2013 - 1:27pm

Jenkins: Climbing ladder to amplify voice of womenWASHINGTON -- U.S. Rep. Lynn Jenkins was on a telephone conference call that evolved into discussion about the Republican Party's capacity to connect with people when House Speaker John Boehner issued an invitation.

"We have some challenges in our party relating to people. One of the areas is with women," said Jenkins, a Kansas Republican. "On the call about 18 months ago, some of us were saying, 'You're just missing the boat.' They weren't talking to womens' hearts."

Boehner's response: "'If you don't like it, you ought to run for leadership.' So, we did."

Jenkins, who serves Topeka and the 2nd District in Congress, lobbied more than 230 of her GOP colleagues and won election to the fifth-highest leadership position in the House, excluding the Ohio Republican serving as House speaker.

In her role as House conference vice chairwoman, she's a conduit of information from rank-and-file members to this upper-tier leadership group.

"I think it's great for Kansas," she said during an interview in Washington, D.C. "I hear a lot at home, 'Those guys don't know what they're doing. You need to tell Boehner this.' Well, now I can. At least once a week, I am at the leadership table where we are talking about legislation, what direction we're going, some of the politics of that."

"I don't always agree with my friends at the table," Jenkins said, "but at least I know that Kansans have a voice -- a common-sense voice of reason."

She views the position as an opportunity for building relationships among the diverse set of Republicans in the House.

"There was a time when Boehner tried to come in an say, 'This is what we're going to do, team.' That fell flat. We're very independent-minded these days. We don't much like to be told what the plan is."

Jenkins said the daily work to expand connections in Congress could be the source of consensus, among Republicans and Democrats, capable of moving policy forward.

From the Wichita Eagle

Eagle editorial: Promises, schmomises Published Friday, March 15, 2013, at 4:16 p.m. Updated Friday, March 15, 2013, at 4:16 p.m.

Cheered on by Gov. Sam Brownback, the 2013 Kansas Senate voted last week to make liars of the 2010 Legislature and then-Gov. Mark Parkinson – by supporting extension of a sales-tax increase scheduled to sunset June 30.

Other proposals would further treat the $8.2 billion, 10-year transportation plan like money free for the taking, though Brownback once said the state should seek alternatives to massive sweeps of highway funding. Also wobbly are the state’s commitments to funding for K-12 public schools, higher education, social services, gambling-addiction help, a college-savings matching plan for low-income students, and more.

Promises, schmomises.

The Statehouse priority this year and for the foreseeable future is paying for last year’s rash tax-cut plan. The governor and his allies are seizing any revenue and budget cuts they can find to keep the state moving further down the path toward eliminating the state’s income tax while maintaining a 7.5 percent ending balance – come what may for Kansas.

The Brownback-blessed, Senate-passed tax plan would enable the state to collect an extra $316 million in fiscal 2014, thanks to the continuation of the higher sales-tax rate and a 24 percent cut to income-tax deductions. It’s unlikely that the plan will win approval in the House, where many lawmakers oppose turning a temporary sales-tax hike into a permanent one and also favor cutting the budget into balance. A rival proposal offered last week in the House by Rep. Richard Carlson, R-St. Marys, would let the sales-tax rate drop but make further income-tax cuts dependent on revenue growth of more than 2 percent a year – too slowly for many Republicans.

But even if the Senate bill did pass the House, $50 million or more still would need to be cut from the 2014 budget, according to Senate Majority Leader Terry Bruce, R-Hutchinson.

Of course, before it’s all over, even legislators who champion K-12 schools and look out for social services funding may favor the higher sales tax rather than see those budget areas further slashed and local governments forced to raise property taxes.

Some of them used the five-hour Senate debate last week to highlight the harm done to poor Kansans by last year’s tax plan, which eliminated a food sales-tax rebate that benefited the working poor, a child-care tax credit, the homestead refund for renters, and credits targeting the disabled. As it is, only one (Mississippi) of the 14 states that tax food sales does so at a higher rate than Kansas.

“Nobody is going to walk away with everything they want,” Bruce said. “But hopefully it’s what the state needs right now.”

Actually, what the state needs right now are leaders capable of recognizing that last year’s tax-cut bill was a mistake – one now being compounded by making low-income Kansans bear a disproportionate share of the cost of fixing it.

For the editorial board, Rhonda Holman

Read more here: http://www.kansas.com/2013/03/17/2718011/eagle-editorial-promises-schmomises.html#storylink=cpy

Michael A. Smith: Texas may not be good model By Michael A. Smith Published Sunday, March 17, 2013, at 12 a.m.

“Look out, Texas, here comes Kansas!” So said Gov. Sam Brownback during this year’s State of the State address.

The governor looks down south and sees Kansas’ future. Brownback particularly admires Texas’ lack of a personal income tax – his goal for our state.

I am skeptical. Despite frozen weather, it is Minnesota that stands out in most quality-of-life surveys.

Which state should be our guide? Let’s go to the numbers.

First come the costs. According to the Tax Foundation, in 2010, the total per capita state and local tax cost for Texans was $3,104, or 7.9 percent of income. Kansas’ figures are $3,802 and 9.7 percent, and Minnesotans pay $4,727, or 10.8 percent. The average-income Minnesotan shells out $1,623 more in state and local taxes each year than his counterpart in Texas, with Kansas in between.

Is it worth it?

Brownback promises that Texas-sized tax cuts will grow our economy. By this logic, Minnesota’s tax “burden” should be detrimental. The numbers tell a different story.

Minnesota’s per capita income, at $43,790 is a good deal higher than either Texas’ ($39,142) or Kansas’ ($39,389). And growth? From 2000 to 2010, per capita income in Texas grew by 26 percent, narrowly edging out Minnesota’s 24 percent. Kansas outshines both states, with a 31 percent growth rate.

Minnesota wins hands down for per capita income, Kansas for growth and Texas for neither. In fact, the average Minnesotan takes home more money after paying state and local taxes: $39,063 in Minnesota, $36,038 in Texas and $35,587 in Kansas.

What does all this money buy? One thing is health care, and the gap is vast.

In Texas, 1 in 4 residents has no health insurance: At 24.6 percent, that is the highest percentage in the nation. Minnesota approaches the other end of the spectrum at 9 percent. Only Hawaii and Massachusetts have lower percentages of uninsured. Kansas comes up in between, at 13 percent. Furthermore, Minnesotans live 21/2 years longer than Kansans or Texans. Average life expectancy is 80.9 years for Minnesota, 78.4 years for Kansas and 78.3 for Texas.

Which state lights the way for schooling? According to the U.S. Census, 80.4 percent of Lone Star State residents graduated from high school, and 26.1 percent hold bachelor’s degrees or higher – both lower than national averages. Minnesota blows these numbers away: 91.6 percent high school grads, 31.8 percent bachelor’s or higher. Kansas’ numbers are respectable, too: 89.5 and 29.7 percent.

On the other hand, Texas incarcerates a quarter million of its own people. For every 100,000 Texans, 632 are in prison. The comparable statistic for Kansas is just more than half that: 324 per 100,000. Minnesota almost halves the numbers again: 183 per 100,000. On a per capita basis, Texas has 31/2 times as many of its own citizens in prisons as does Minnesota, and twice as many as Kansas.

These numbers tell a different story than this year’s State of the State address.

Brownback prefers to mess with Texas. As for me, when it comes to benchmarking state and local policy, I’ll be listening for the news from Lake Wobegon.

Read more here: http://www.kansas.com/2013/03/17/2718024/michael-a-smith-texas-may-not.html#storylink=cpy

More doubts about low-tax claims

Another researcher is challenging Gov. Sam Brownback’s contention that lower

state income taxes will be like “a shot of adrenaline to the heart” of the state’s economy. Michael

Mazerov, senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, saidthat “there’s a ton of research

out there that argues very strongly this will not appreciably help small businesses,” and that very few will

“make a decision to hire somebody based on their tax situation.” Iowa finance experts

also published “Selling Snake Oil to the States,” which concluded that there is no significant relationship

between lower income taxes and growth in state gross domestic product. But the American Legislative

Exchange Council contends that the critics’ research is flawed and that the tax reforms will help “grow the

economic pie for everyone.”

Read more here: http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2013/03/more-doubts-about-low-tax-claims/#storylink=cpy

Senate majority leader: Income tax cuts will mean at least $50 million in spending cuts

By BRENT D. WISTROM Eagle Topeka bureau Published Thursday, March 14, 2013, at 10:37 a.m. Updated Thursday, March 14, 2013, at 8:46 p.m.

TOPEKA — A bill that would push income tax rates down while eroding the value of most tax deductions and that would extend a sales tax increase that was set to expire this summer won approval in the Kansas Senate on Thursday.

With 25-14 support, the bill will now likely wait on the sidelines until the House votes on its own tax-cut proposal.

The tax cuts are expected to force corresponding cuts to the state’s evolving budget for next year. That could include cuts to state universities and state courts, although much is likely to change in the coming weeks.

Driving down income tax rates is a top priority for Gov. Sam Brownback and most of the Senate Republicans he and other conservatives helped during last summer’s grueling Republican primary elections.

But it has forced a debate about extending a sales tax increase that was approved in the face of recession-fueled budget problems in 2010. That left many Republicans with a choice between reversing their stance on the sales tax in the name of cutting income taxes or opposing income tax cuts to let the sales tax decline in July as scheduled.

Sixteen Senate Republicans who opposed increasing the sales tax in 2010 voted Thursday to extend it indefinitely in order to drive down income tax rates.

Some of them noted impending budget problems caused by income tax cuts signed into law last year after moderate Republicans resisted deep tax cuts because of budget concerns and conservatives pushed through a bill that many thought would never become law.

Sen. Les Donovan, R-Wichita, the longest-serving Republican in the Senate, said he has voted against tax increases and for cuts for years. But he said the state has to continue the sales tax at its current level to make the rest of the budget cuts work.

Those who endorsed the plan including the sales tax extension but opposed the sales tax increase in 2010 include Sens. Steve Abrams, Pat Apple, Elaine Bowers, Terry Bruce, Les Donovan, Mitch

Holmes, Dan Kerschen, Forrest Knox, Julia Lynn, Ty Masterson, Rob Olson, Mike Petersen, Mary Pilcher-Cook, Larry Powell and Susan Wagle. Sen. Dennis Pyle passed on the vote Thursday.

Republican Sens. Carolyn McGinn of Sedgwick and Vicki Schmidt of Topeka voted no, saying they strongly oppose breaking their promise to let the sale tax decrease from 6.3 percent to 5.7 percent this summer.

Sen. Michael O’Donnell, R-Wichita, said he opposed the plan because he promised to let the sales tax expire during his successful campaign against Republican Sen. Jean Schodorf last summer.

“People call me plenty of things, but they can’t call me a liar,” he said.

Sen. Tom Holland, D-Baldwin City, said the bill not only breaks lawmakers’ promise to let the sales tax decrease, it also takes more money from taxpayers than it gives them in its first four years of implementation.

“The Legislature’s continuation of tax policy is designed to benefit the big businesses of the wealthy at the expense of hard-working Kansas taxpayers,” he said.

Holland and other Democrats say that relying on the sales tax while eliminating income taxes for 191,000 businesses, lowering rates for individuals, eroding deductions and cutting the state budget creates a regressive tax system that hurts the state’s neediest.

Lawmakers will likely have to cut a minimum of $50 million in state spending from next year’s budget to accommodate income tax cuts, Senate Majority Leader Terry Bruce, R-Hutchinson, said.

The cuts could, however, go much higher – to perhaps $70 million, he said.

Such spending cuts could grow in following years to deal with lower revenue resulting from the income tax cuts. But if the income tax cuts spur economic growth, as Republicans project, the spending cuts may not be as extreme, Bruce said.

The proposal faces strong opposition in the House, where Republican leaders say they don’t want to extend the temporary sales tax increase.

Senators and House representatives may compromise on the sales tax issue in some way, but it’s not clear how just yet, Bruce said.

“Nobody is going to walk away with everything they want,” he said. “But, hopefully, it’s what the state needs right now.”

Under the plan advanced by the Senate, the sales tax would be frozen at 6.3 percent, and income tax rates for the state’s bottom bracket would be trimmed from 3 percent to 2.5 percent in 2014 and dropped to 1.9 percent in 2016. The top rate would drop from 4.9 percent to 3.5 percent in 2017.

Rates would then be cut more whenever the state has more than 4 percent annual revenue growth.

Brownback had proposed eliminating the real estate property tax and mortgage interest deductions to bring in more state revenue to offset reduced income taxes.

But senators rejected those ideas.

Read more here: http://www.kansas.com/2013/03/14/2715748/senate-majority-leader-income.html#storylink=cpy

Sales tax growth a positive sign for Wichita-area businesses

By Dan Voorhis The Wichita Eagle Published Wednesday, March 13, 2013, at 11:38 p.m.

If last year felt like a slightly better year for local businesses, that’s because it was.

Merchants of all kinds in the Wichita area saw more people walk through their doors than in recent years.

Sales tax figures from the Kansas Department of Revenue indicate that Sedgwick County businesses saw a collective revenue increase of 4.4 percent in 2012.

When an inflation estimate is added in, county businesses still saw an increase of 2.6 percent.

Christmastime sales in 2012 were up 3.7 percent over 2011, although when adjusted for inflation, the gain was closer to 2 percent.

Ken Stoppel, president of Building Controls and Services, had a flat 2012, but expects to see a significant turnaround in 2013 with a number of big projects, such as the new airport terminal, the Rhatigan Student Center, and an expansion of Hospira in McPherson.

The big news of 2012 was his move into the Fisher’s Transmission building at 1730 E. Douglas.

He bought the 22,000-square-foot building three years ago and took on the task of a historical renovation. It was a labor of love for the dedicated downtown-ophile, as well as providing the space to accommodate his cramped employees. But there were times during the recession that he questioned the wisdom of expanding.

“The fact that we made the move looks pretty courageous now that I look back at it,” he said, with a laugh.

Lagging the nationThe Wichita area clearly is taking longer to regain its stride.

Nationally personal consumption started growing again in 2010 and rose 5.0 percent in 2011. Sedgwick County sales tax spending was still falling in 2010, but did increase by 3.8 percent in 2011.

In 2012, Sedgwick County sales tax receipts grew by 4.4 percent, while national personal consumption spending rose 3.7 percent. Although sales tax revenue and personal consumption data don’t measure exactly the same purchases, the two figures give an indication of the pace of the recovery.

And this one mirrors previous business cycles, in which Wichita lagged the national economic cycles by 12 to 18 months. One of the key reasons, say economists, is that the customers of Wichita’s corporate aircraft makers tend to cancel orders after it becomes obvious a recession is happening, and then the aircraft companies wait to see how deep the recession will be before laying of thousands of workers. They start rehiring well after their customers start coming back to place orders. The number of aircraft workers today remains virtually unchanged over the past two or three years, down 11,000 from peak employment, according to the Kansas Department of Labor.

Jeremy Hill, director of the Center for Economic Development and Business Research at Wichita State University, said Sedgwick County is rebounding, slowly, without much help from the corporate aircraft makers.

Wichita businesses are seeing a bump from the state’s agriculture sector, as strong prices and government insurance payouts are helping to mitigate the drought impact, as well the upswing in oil drilling in southern Kansas.

And, he said, people just seem to be coming out of their shells. Getting past the election helped, he said, but likely not enough to eliminate uncertainty for companies.

“The consumption side is an important driver for all the support sectors, so having the retail sales go up is definitely good,” he said. “The consumers are ready to start moving forward, but I’m not sure it can be sustained.”

He said that continued wrangling in Washington, as well as Topeka, on important questions of taxation and regulation, are forcing companies to wait.

“It’s very clear,” he said. “I’ve talked to a lot of people locally and they told me they will be very cautious moving forward.”

Cautious optimismWho thrives, who survives and who fails depends on the sector and the decisions made at that business.

For many in construction, real estate, information, restaurant and retail, tough times continue. But others saw better times in 2012.

Les Eck, president of Rusty Eck Ford, said he sold more than 4,000 cars, about 3500 retail and the rest to fleets. That was a 10 percent gain, he said.

He is looking for another 10 percent this year, he said.

That’s a function of the local economy, he said, plus cutting prices, advertising and new products from Ford. He said that 65 percent of his F150 truck buyers get one with the V6 EcoBoost engine, which is engineered to give more power in a smaller engine.

“The thing that’s driving this market is new product and new technology,” he said. “(Ford CEO) Alan Mullaly is putting a lot of money into new product.”

QuikTrip company spokesman Mike Thornbrugh said his company has seen sales growth in Wichita, although he wouldn’t say how much. A lot of the company growth comes from new products, he said, such as the company’s larger Generation 3 stores that sell more fresh and prepared foods. The company built one at Kellogg and Hillside and announced plans for two more.

“A lot of success depends on how good of a retailer you are,” he said. “If you don’t change, then sales will be stagnant.”

Read more here: http://www.kansas.com/2013/03/13/2715246/sales-tax-growth-a-positive-sign.html#storylink=cpy

Brownback urges passage of tax plan; Republicans talk strategy in closed meeting

By Brent Wistrom Eagle Topeka bureau Published Tuesday, March 12, 2013, at 10:04 p.m. Updated Tuesday, March 12, 2013, at 10:30 p.m.

TOPEKA — On the eve of a pivotal vote, Gov. Sam Brownback on Tuesday urged Senate Republicans to approve the tax cuts and extended sales tax increase he has proposed to bolster the state economy.

“This is a big deal,” he said. “It’s needed. It puts us in a very solid position for us moving forward in the future, getting income tax rates down and funding our core competencies and our core needs.”

Speaking to 25 members of the 32-member Senate GOP caucus, Brownback acknowledged the political baggage tied to the tax cuts – extending a sales tax increase many Republicans opposed, doing away with the popular mortgage interest deduction, and preventing big cuts to core government services that could be forced by deep tax cuts approved last year.

“These all have histories and legacies,” he said. “A lot of emotions go into that.”

Brownback, however, urged them to set aside the political history, look at the big picture and tackle the tough issues to move the state forward.

Republicans are divided over tax policy.

A Senate panel approved Brownback’s proposal but only after jettisoning a portion of the bill to eliminate the real estate tax deduction that benefits about 372,000 taxpayers with an average deduction of $125. Meanwhile, a House panel has approved an alternative plan that lets the sales tax drop and channels future state revenue growth toward income tax rate cuts.

Senate Majority Leader Terry Bruce banned reporters from staying in the room of a downtown Topeka office building after Brownback completed his speech to Senate Republicans. Bruce said Republicans needed to discuss the state’s budget and their strategy in debating and voting on Brownback’s plan Wednesday.

Bruce said it was the Senate GOP’s first closed caucus meeting and that senators needed to talk strategy and budget in private. The Senate’s rules allow them to close their meetings.

Members of the media formally objected to the closing of the meeting.

When reporters left, top Brownback administration officials – including Revenue Secretary Nick Jordan and Budget Director Steve Anderson – remained to answer questions and talk about taxes and budget.

Brownback’s former chief of staff, David Kensinger, who now runs a lobbying firm and is chairman of Brownback’s policy organization, Road Map Solutions, also remained.

House Minority Leader Paul Davis, who was at a nearby Democratic fundraiser, said that Senate Republicans should discuss taxes and budget in the open, especially because they have a majority capable of passing laws without Democrats.

Brownback’s proposal, which is expected to get a first-round vote Wednesday, would keep the temporary sales tax hike, leaving the state’s rate at 6.3 percent.

His proposal would cut the upper tax bracket to 3.5 percent from 4.9 percent in 2017 and drop the lower tax bracket to 1.9 percent from 3 percent from 2014 to 2016.

He also wants to buy down income taxes further with revenue growth exceeding 4 percent. The governor ultimately wants to zero out the income tax for Kansans.

But House Republican leaders say the Republican-dominated House has no appetite for extending the sales tax rate.

The House Taxation Committee on Tuesday approved an alternative that would lower personal income tax rates any time the state’s revenues exceed 2 percent growth year-to-year. It wouldn’t extend the sales tax, but it would pipe $370 million in transportation funding into the state’s general coffers over the next two years to help prevent deep service cuts.

Republicans and Democrats voiced dissent though – Republicans because it doesn’t cut taxes fast enough, and Democrats because it could cut government services and they say the state’s property taxes should be cut first.

“That’s not a glide path to zero,” Rep. Nile Dillmore, D-Wichita, said, borrowing a phrase Brownback has used to describe his push to eliminate income taxes.

Rep. Arlen Siegfreid, R-Olathe, finished the sentence for him: “It’s a trans-Atlantic flight.”

Read more here: http://www.kansas.com/2013/03/12/2713430/brownback-urges-passage-of-tax.html#storylink=cpy

New income tax plan emerging in Kansas House By JOHN HANNA AP Political Writer Published Monday, March 11, 2013, at 6:04 p.m. Updated Thursday, March 14, 2013, at 12:16 a.m.

TOPEKA, Kan. — A powerful Republican lawmaker said Monday he has a proposal to reduce Kansas' personal income taxes that would also allow the state sales tax to drop as scheduled, avoiding the GOP governor's plan to stabilize the state budget by maintaining the current sales tax rate.

Rep. Richard Carlson, chairman of the House Taxation Committee, wants to allow the income tax rate to drop annually but only if state revenues grow by at least 2 percent each year. Gov. Sam Brownback's proposal calls for cutting income tax rates by a specific amount every year regardless of how much money the state is bringing in.

Carlson said his plan also would allow Kansas' sales tax to drop as scheduled, starting in July, as promised three years ago when lawmakers temporarily hiked the sales tax to help fill a budget gap. The governor's plan would keep the sales tax where it is - but Carlson said he doubts the House would approve canceling the decrease.

"We feel there's going to be difficulty in passing the extension of the sales tax," said Carlson, who shared details of his plan with The Associated Press on Monday, a day before he planned to present the plan to his committee.

Carlson also is proposing that the state divert $370 million from highway projects over the next two years if legislators can't trim spending enough elsewhere in the budget.

Both his and the governor's plans follow the massive income tax cuts that were enacted last year to stimulate the state economy but are now projected to create a budget shortfall for the fiscal year that begins in July. Carlson, of St. Marys, said he tried to craft a plan that could pass the House, where GOP leaders have been cool to canceling the sales tax decrease.

The governor also wants to eliminate two popular income tax deductions for homeowners to prevent budget problems. Carlson said he'd like to phase out all individual income tax deductions as tax rates dropped, rather than targeting specific breaks.

Brownback's goal is to position the state to phase out personal income taxes. Last year, the state reduced individual income tax rates, cutting the top one to 4.9 percent from 6.45 percent, and exempted the owners of 191,000 partnerships, sole proprietorships and other businesses from income taxes. However, the reductions created a projected budget shortfall for the next fiscal year.

Both the budget gap and the desire for additional income tax cuts led Brownback to propose keeping the sales tax at its current 6.3 percent rate, rather than letting it drop to 5.7 percent in July. Also, he wants to eliminate income tax deductions for homeowners' property taxes and the interest on their mortgages.

The Senate is expected to debate tax legislation this week. Its Assessment and Taxation Committee approved a bill containing the governor's plan, except for his proposal to scrap the property tax deduction.

Sen. Les Donovan, a Wichita Republican and chairman of his chamber's tax committee, said the emergence of a new plan in the House is a positive sign. The final version of any tax legislation is likely to be drafted by negotiators for the two chambers.

"At least we have something - a target," Donovan said.

But Rep. Tom Sawyer of Wichita, the ranking Democrat on the House tax committee, wasn't impressed with Carlson's plan. Like other critics of last year's cuts, he argues that they favored the state's wealthiest residents over its poorest ones, and he said Carlson's proposal does nothing to correct the problem.

Also, he said, continued reductions in personal income taxes will handcuff the state's efforts to finance public schools and force local districts to boost property taxes at a time when local levies already have been rising.

"We've got a property tax problem in Kansas, not an income tax problem," Sawyer said.

Read more here: http://www.kansas.com/2013/03/11/2711790/apnewsbreak-new-kan-income-tax.html#storylink=cpy

Brownback not sure Medicaid expansion is sustainable

The newly formed Kansas Medicaid Access Coalition – which includes more than 30 groups

representing consumers, health care providers and religious organizations – is urging Gov. Sam

Brownback to allow the federal expansion of Medicaid in Kansas. But Brownback continues to express

doubts. “Right now, I can’t see a path that’s long-term fiscally sustainable for us in the state of Kansas to

manage,” Brownback told Yahoo! Finance recently. “But if we can do something that’s a partial measure,

something that we can sustain over time, I’m very willing to look at that.” A study by the Kansas Hospital

Association estimated that the expansion would inject more than $3 billion into the state’s economy,

create 4,000 jobs over the next seven years, and likely save the state more money than it cost. But

Brownback predicted that the cost for states likely would go up due to federal budget problems.

Read more here: http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2013/03/brownback-not-sure-medicaid-expansion-is-sustainable/#storylink=cpy

New coalition pushing for Kan. Medicaid expansion By JOHN HANNA AP Political Writer Published Tuesday, March 12, 2013, at 4:06 a.m. Updated Tuesday, March 12, 2013, at 1:50 p.m.

TOPEKA, Kan. — A new coalition promised Tuesday to lobby Kansas officials to expand the state's Medicaid under the federal health care overhaul, even if the Republican-controlled Legislature passes a resolution opposing it.

The Kansas Medicaid Access Coalition launched its pro-expansion lobbying campaign with a Statehouse news conference. The coalition includes more than 30 advocacy and health care groups, including AARP Kansas, Kansas Action for Children, the Kansas Mental Health Coalition and the state chapter of the National Alliance on Mental Illness.

Medicaid provides health coverage for the needy and disabled. The 2010 federal health care overhaul championed by President Barack Obama encourages states to expand their programs by promising to pay almost all of the cost.

Many Republican legislators strongly oppose the federal health care law and are skeptical the federal government will keep its funding promises. Republican Gov. Sam Brownback also is a vocal critic of the overhaul but has said he'll leave a decision about expanding Medicaid to lawmakers.

A resolution opposing an expansion is before the House, but no debate has been scheduled. Anna Lambertson, the pro-expansion coalition's coordinator, said it will lobby at the Statehouse and get groups' members to contact lawmakers in hopes of stopping the resolution, but if it passes, "That's certainly not the end of the road."

And the Rev. Barbara Gibson, deacon at St. John's Episcopal Church in Wichita, said, "Shame on us as advocates if we can't help the legislators save face and find a way to change that stand-firm position, to find a way to make it easier for our legislators to say yes to Medicaid expansion."

Brownback's administration commissioned a recent study saying a Medicaid expansion would cost the state $600 million over the next 10 years. The Kansas Hospital Association also commissioned a study showing the expansion would be a small, net financial gain for the state.

Both studies assume the federal government keeps its promise to fund all of the expansion through 2016 and to cover at least 90 percent of the cost after that. Brownback has expressed doubts about the commitment, and many GOP legislators believe the federal government will be forced to back off as it attempts to close its budget deficit.

"We're on the hook," said House Appropriations Committee Chairman Marc Rhoades, a Newton Republican backing the resolution. "When the carrot goes away, all you get is the stick, so that's the scary part."

Read more here: http://www.kansas.com/2013/03/12/2712237/new-coalition-to-push-for-kan.html#storylink=cpy

Kansas open-records bill unlikely to advance, but debate continues

By RICK PLUMLEE The Wichita Eagle Published Friday, March 15, 2013, at 8:45 a.m. Updated Friday, March 15, 2013, at 9:03 a.m.

After recently filing an open-records request with the Maize school district, Jan Jarman received a bill for almost $1,000.

It was that kind of experience that led state Sen. Jacob LaTurner, R-Pittsburg, to craft a bill that would set a cap on the amount governmental agencies could charge in complying with Kansas Open Records Act requests.

“This has been a source of revenue for counties and cities,” LaTurner said Thursday, “and I don’t think it should be. We should cover the cost of staff time and making copies, but it shouldn’t be a source of revenue for people to find out information about their government.

“It should be as open as possible.”

Earlier this week, a number of city and county officials testified against the bill during a Senate’s federal and state affairs committee hearing. They cited the need to cover their costs.

But most of the concerns reflected the original draft of Senate Bill 10, which would have prohibited governmental agencies from charging for any staff time and set a fee of no more than 25 cents per copied page.

LaTurner amended the bill during a hearing so that it called for only the first hour of staff time being free and set a charge for additional time ranging between $20 and $50 an hour. But the charge for each copied page was amended to 10 cents.

“His amendments pretty much took the guts out of it,” said Dale Goter, who testified against the bill as lobbyist for the city of Wichita.

LaTurner said, “I was trying to strike a compromise that everybody can agree to.”

It’s not likely the bill will go much further for now.

“I doubt if we have time to work that bill this session,” said Sen. Ralph Ostmeyer, R-Grinnell, committee chairman. “We’re running out of time, and it’s pretty controversial. We may let it sit over the summer.”

Technically, legislative sessions last two years, so the committee could pick up the bill in 2014 without it needing to be reintroduced.

“It’s my belief some of this bill will become law,” LaTurner said.

As the open records act is written now, a governmental agency can establish a “reasonable” fee for copying and staff time in complying with requests. That leaves it open to interpretation by the agency.

For the Maize school district, that meant sending the $1,000 bill to Jarman. She had requested a wide range of records that involved how the district determined whether her daughter went to Maize High School or Maize South High School.

A vast majority of the request was for documents used by the school board and e-mails by top administrators in discussing the policy. She said she received more than 300 pages of documents but that many were repetitive.

One of the best ways to ensure “the government is working for its citizens, rather than against them, is to make its actions open and accessible,” Jarman said in written testimony provided for the hearing. “Eliminating the charge of staff time to provide public records sends a strong signal from this body to the State that we believe in the ability of citizens to serve as a check against intrusive government.”

She said she later received a $150 refund from the district.

Supporters of the bill said it’s important to define costs, in part because of inconsistency from one jurisdiction to another.

“The biggest complaint we’re getting now, especially regarding school districts, is they’re charging outrageous fees,” said Randy Brown, executive director of the Kansas Sunshine Coalition. “Some of it has nothing to with stuff people ask for. Some of it they’re trying to bill people for how much it costs to have a lawyer to look at stuff, and there’s no reason to have a lawyer look at it.

“When we have a law that says ‘reasonable’ cost, it’s bound to cause trouble because it’s such a vague term. You can’t legislate common sense.”

Brown said in many cases governmental agencies simply need to direct people to where they can find the information online. Or the documents can be sent electronically without having to make copies, he added.

The city of Wichita charges 25 cents per copy for the first 10 pages and 10 cents for each additional page, according to the city’s website. Goter said that to dig out some old records, the city has to pay a courier $48 to retrieve them from the salt mines in Hutchinson.

The city turned down about 40 of the more than 200 open records requests it received last year, Goter said.

The biggest problem, he said, are requests that are “over the top.”

“If you have as your agenda that you just want to frustrate local government, this is a way you could virtually paralyze it,” he said, “because all we would do is answer KORA requests.”

He cited a request by Bob Weeks, a blogger for WichitaLiberty.org, who asked the city to provide more than 19,000 e-mails written by City Council member Jeff Longwell. Another request came from council candidate Clinton Coen, who asked for a year’s worth of e-mails written by incumbent James Clendenin.

Goter said those requests were denied because it would take more than 40 days for a city attorney to redact some information.

“You make these broad requests,” Weeks said, “and you get a big bill. If you make it narrow, you may not get what you want. You don’t always know what to specifically ask for.”

During a legal dispute between Airbus and Boeing, Goter said Airbus filed an open records request for the city to provide 10 years’ worth of industrial revenue bond information.

“We had to hire a temporary employee to meet that,” Goter said. “If you made all that free, you’re subsidizing Airbus, Boeing and whomever.”

In written testimony presented to the committee, Rich Gannon, governmental affairs director for the Kansas Press Association, said the amount charged to fulfill requests was inconsistent from one jurisdiction to another.

“A public record is, by state law, the property of the citizens of Kansas,” Gannon said. “However, in hearing horror stories from my members, you would conclude these records are the personal property of public agencies, available only after reporters and ordinary citizens jump through hoop after hoop to try to get what is rightfully theirs.”

LaTurner, a first-term senator, said no one approached him about writing the bill.

“I have constituents who have concerns,” he said. “It’s worth having the debate up here.”

Read more here: http://www.kansas.com/2013/03/15/2717459/kansas-open-records-bill-unlikely.html#storylink=cpy

Capitol Beats: 'We’re respectfully requesting your absence …'

Published Saturday, March 16, 2013, at 2:58 p.m. Updated Saturday, March 16, 2013, at 9:35 p.m.

Say what?“We’re respectfully requesting your absence …”

That’s how Senate Majority Leader Terry Bruce politely booted newspaper reporters from a Senate Republican strategy session on the eve of the group’s wide-ranging, five-hour debate on tax cuts that resulted in approval of a major tax cut plan that’s expected to force significant cuts to state services. The Associated Press formally objected to the private session on behalf of the AP, Wichita Eagle, Kansas City Star and Topeka Capital-Journal.

16That’s the number of Republican senators who opposed a sales tax increase in the face of budget woes in 2010 who opted to continue that sales tax hike indefinitely to accommodate income tax cuts. Democrats called it hypocrisy. Republicans defended it as part of an overall tax reduction they say will spur growth and as a way to prevent cuts to education caused by the tax cuts.

TrendingThe number of places Kansans with concealed-carry licenses can bring firearms appears to be trending upward. The House strongly backed a plan last week that makes local governments allow qualified people to carry in most public buildings unless they control access with metal detectors and guards. A Democrat who opposed it said that out of fairness people ought to be able to bring guns into the Capitol as well. The idea was approved, and it accidentally also lets people openly carry guns in the Statehouse. That concept is likely to get stripped from the bill.

News aheadA move to push back renewable energy standards has been revived, and some expect a national TV crew to come to town as some conservative Republicans look to give energy companies more time to meet standards requiring certain amounts of peak energy use to come from alternative sources, such as wind turbines. Lawmakers will also continue debate on a plan to drug test anyone suspected of using drugs while getting unemployment or welfare benefits. Meanwhile, a Senate panel will work on a proposal to further deregulate telephone companies, and lawmakers will continue a complicated dialogue over how to cut spending and taxes without causing too many political headaches.

Brent Wistrom

For more legislative news, go to www.kansas.com/politics and follow @BrentWistrom on Twitter.

Read more here: http://www.kansas.com/2013/03/16/2719319/capitol-beats.html#storylink=cpy

Calling out legislators on their sales-tax hypocrisy

Sixteen current state senators who had bitterly opposed and voted against the

temporary sales-tax hike in 2010 nevertheless voted last week to make it permanent, arguing that it’s now

needed to pay for income-tax cuts. They may not have lost any sleep over the hypocrisy of their flip-flop,

but it upset some of the moderate GOP legislators who were targeted for defeat after voting for the

increase. “I think it’s disingenuous that people who were so adamantly opposed to it are saying, ‘Oh, no –

it’s OK,’” former Sen. Ruth Teichman of Stafford told the Hutchinson News. Former Sen. Jean Schodorf of

Wichita told The Eagle editorial board: “It seems like the end justifies the means, and the conservatives

believe that cutting income tax is so important to people that they don’t think the public will see the

hypocrisy of raising the sales tax.”

Read more here: http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2013/03/calling-out-legislators-on-their-sales-tax-hypocrisy/#storylink=cpy

Lawmakers trust teachers with guns but not dues

Several bills this legislative session reflect a mistrust of public schoolteachers.

One bill prevents teachers from having voluntary donations to political action committees deducted from

their paychecks. Another bill would weaken teachers’ collective-bargaining rights. Another bill would

require them to teach doubts about global warming. Yet when it comes to guns, lawmakers seem to have

complete trust in teachers. Under a bill the House approved last week, school boards could allow any

employee licensed to carry a concealed handgun to bring a firearm to school.

Read more here: http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2013/03/lawmakers-trust-teachers-with-guns-but-not-dues/#storylink=cpy

Wichita school board members say they don’t want teachers to carry guns in schools

By Suzanne Perez Tobias and Brent D. Wistrom The Wichita Eagle Published Thursday, March 14, 2013, at 4:26 p.m. Updated Thursday, March 14, 2013, at 7:29 p.m.

A majority of Wichita school board members say they do not support allowing teachers to carry firearms in schools – an option under a bill approved by the Kansas House on Thursday.

“Forget it,” said board member Barbara Fuller, a retired teacher and former teachers union president.

“I cannot believe that it would even be a consideration in public schools. … I look at this Legislature, and I’m not sure where they come from or what they’re doing.”

Under House Bill 2055, known as the Personal and Family Protection Act, most public buildings would either have to have security checkpoints at public entries or allow Kansans with concealed-carry licenses to bring weapons inside.

In addition, local school boards and university and college presidents could designate employees who could carry concealed weapons inside their buildings.

Rep. Steve Brunk, R-Wichita, said he hopes school boards will take advantage of the law. “Just the fact that they can do that will give the bad guys pause,” he said. “Maybe they’ll think there could be consequences if I go into this building.”

But five of seven board members who set policy for Wichita schools, the state’s largest district, said they oppose allowing teachers to carry weapons.

“In general, I don’t feel guns belong in schools. That will always be my take,” said Sheril Logan, a former assistant superintendent for middle schools who was elected to the board in 2011.

It wouldn’t matter “whether a person has a right to carry a concealed gun – and I’m sure many of our teachers do,” she said. “A gun should be locked up and away from children. If you put a gun in a purse, in a locked closet, it’s not accessible to you anyway in an emergency-type situation.

“I just think there are better ways for us to (improve) security.”

Board member Lanora Nolan said she didn’t have enough information about the proposed legislation to comment Thursday. Messages left for Jeff Davis, a police sergeant and school board vice president, were not returned.

Three other board members – Lynn Rogers, Betty Arnold and Connie Dietz – said they would not support altering the district’s no-weapons policy to allow teachers to carry guns.

“I’m not for taking away a ban on weapons in schools,” Arnold said.

Under current district policy, only school resource officers – trained police officers who work in the high schools – are allowed to carry firearms. Dietz said she wouldn’t support changing that policy.

“If I was a teacher walking around my classroom with a gun strapped to my hip, I personally would not want to do that,” Dietz said. “I think there are other things school districts could do (to improve security), given the money to do it.”

Added Rogers, the board president: “Lots of people are looking for simple solutions to security issues, and I think this is one of them.”

The House passed the proposal on an 84-38 vote, and it now moves to the Senate.

The same bill contains what lawmakers say is a technical error that allows the open carrying of guns in the state Capitol.

Rep. John Wilson, D-Lawrence, said he wanted to let concealed-carry licensees take weapons into the Capitol since they would be allowed to carry in many other public places. But an error in drafting the bill allows open carry, a mistake that he said warrants more debate.

“This is not an insignificant mistake,” he said. Wilson opposes the bill overall.

The Capitol has armed guards and a metal detector at its two primary public entrances; other entrances can be accessed by state employees and contractors who have access badges.

Last year, Capitol security and Topeka police investigated a potential threat after someone spotted a truck near the Statehouse that had homemade fireworks and an empty gun holster in it. The suspect was caught in the tunnel linking the nearby Docking State Office Building to the Capitol. The suspect was later released and was not immediately charged with any crime.

The idea of letting people openly tote guns in the Capitol will almost certainly be stripped from the bill, Brunk said.

The House also passed House Bill 2199, known as the Second Amendment Protection Act, on a 94-29 vote.

Under it, Kansas-made guns and ammo would be immune from federal laws, and state officials could arrest and prosecute federal agents that try to confiscate Kansas-made weapons.

Rep. John Rubin, R-Shawnee, who drafted the act, said he expects the Senate to pass both bills and Gov. Sam Brownback to sign them, perhaps with some changes.

Read more here: http://www.kansas.com/2013/03/14/2716354/wichita-school-board-members-say.html#storylink=cpy

Lawmakers ending hypocrisy on guns in Statehouse

One of the few somewhat positive things to say about the Kansas

House debate Wednesday on guns – which included references to the Branch Davidian compound and

Ruby Ridge to justify state gun rights – was that House lawmakers voted to end the hypocrisy of

mandating that local governments allow guns in their buildings while banning guns in the Statehouse.

Rep. John Wilson, D-Lawrence, offered the amendment that opened the Statehouse to concealed

weapons. Legislators “appear to think the more law-abiding gun owners in a place, the safer that place

becomes,” he said. Though he doesn’t necessarily agree with that view, Wilson said: “If guns are safe

around first-graders, I really believe guns should be safe around us here in the Capitol.”

Read more here: http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2013/03/lawmakers-ending-hypocrisy-on-guns-in-statehouse/#storylink=cpy

Eagle editorial: Turnpike bill unclear Published Wednesday, March 13, 2013, at 12 a.m.

It is not clear what the purpose is of a bill the Kansas House passed Monday that encourages the Kansas Turnpike Authority and the Kansas Department of Transportation to cooperate more. Is it a face-saving measure for Gov. Sam Brownback, who had called for a full merger of the two agencies? Or is this an incremental step toward consolidation and siphoning off toll revenue?

Also, why is House Appropriations Committee Chairman Marc Rhoades, R-Newton, still counting on $30 million in savings from the merger? And what was up with Rhoades’ wild claim (for which he apologized Tuesday) that KTA president and CEO Michael Johnston had offered to transfer $25 million to the state if Brownback would drop the merger proposal?

Brownback proposed the merger during his State of the State address, saying the two agencies were one of the clearest examples of duplication in state government. His budget projects savings from the merger of $30 million over the next two fiscal years.

But the proposal was met with strong resistance from lawmakers who consider the turnpike a crown jewel of the state’s road system and who fear that toll revenue might be used for other purposes. Also, KDOT Secretary Mike King admitted that there is no breakdown of the savings.

So the House backed off of Brownback’s merger idea and approved a revised bill that would encourage more cooperation and allow the agencies to work jointly on roads that connect to the turnpike. But the messages about the legislation were mixed.

Some proponents of the bill reassured concerned lawmakers that nothing really would change, as the two agencies already are required to cooperate. But Rep. Mark Hutton, R-Wichita, argued that the KTA should pay off its debt and transfer the turnpike to the state. He compared the turnpike to an adult who still lives with his parents.

“It’s time to kick Junior out of the house,” Hutton said.

Critics of the merger note that the turnpike already pays its own way, and it is the state that wants to mooch off the turnpike’s revenue and reserves.

“My fear is we are just one statute away after this to capture those cash reserves,” said Rep. Nile Dillmore, D-Wichita.

Dillmore also challenged Rhoades during a House Appropriations Committee meeting Monday on why he was counting the $30 million in savings, noting that the amount seems “plucked straight from the air.” Rhoades responded with his claim that the KTA’s Johnston tried to buy off Brownback.

Johnston said the claim was “absolutely false, preposterous and laughable,” and he wasn’t satisfied with Rhoades’ apology. “How do I get my good name back?” he asked.

There likely could be some efficiencies if the KTA and KDOT merged. But given the unsubstantiated claims and muddled messages, lawmakers should be wary about fixing something that isn’t broken.

For the editorial board, Phillip Brownlee

Read more here: http://www.kansas.com/2013/03/13/2713208/eagle-editorial-turnpike-bill.html#storylink=cpy

More wild claims about turnpike merger

House Appropriations Committee Chairman Marc Rhoades, R-Newton, is still

counting $30 million in savings over two years from merging the Kansas Turnpike Authority with the

Kansas Department of Transportation, even though the heads of both KDOT and KTA have said they

don’t know what the specific savings would be. What’s more, when Rep. Nile Dillmore, D-Wichita,

complained that the savings “seems to be a number plucked straight from the air,” Rhoades claimed

Monday that KTA president and CEO Michael Johnston had offered to transfer $25 million to the state if

Gov. Sam Brownback would drop the merger proposal, the Lawrence Journal-World reported. Johnston

said later that “there is no truth” to Rhoades’ claim. Rhoades apologized Tuesday for the claim, saying he

was misunderstood, but Johnston wasn’t satisfied. “How do I get my good name back?” he asked. By Phillip Brownlee

Read more here: http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2013/03/more-wild-claims-about-turnpike-merger-2/#storylink=cpy

Bill to combat voter fraud in House By Trevor Graff Eagle Topeka Bureau Published Monday, March 11, 2013, at 11:46 p.m.

A bill that would give the Kansas secretary of state power to prosecute voting crimes got a hearing Monday in a House Committee.

Senate Bill 63 won approval in the Senate 31-9 late last month.

“If voter fraud is to be taken seriously, we must change how we approach the enforcement of election crimes,” Secretary of State Kris Kobach said in written testimony. “Diversions are not a deterrent. There must be fines and there must be convictions.”

SB 63 focuses on the prosecution of cases of people who vote twice — in different districts or states — in the same election. The Kansas secretary of state’s office reported 11 cases of such voting in the 2010 election cycle.

Opponents of the bill question the need for it, saying the number of reported cases is low.

“Considering the limited tax dollars that we have and a lot of the crimes people are worried about, going after some grandmother who has dementia and accidentally sent in her absentee ballot then went to the polling place isn’t something we should be using taxpayer dollars on,” said Rep. Tom Sawyer, D-Wichita.

Kobach said that county and district attorneys might fail to prosecute voting fraud cases because of a lack of resources that causes them to prioritize crimes and prosecute more serious felonies.

Others say the secretary of state doesn’t need prosecutorial power when local entities already have that power.

“Crimes that are considered in this legislation are no different from all of the other crimes currently being prosecuted by our local county and district attorneys,” said Patrick Vogelsberg of the Kansas County & District Attorneys Association. “If the situation requires, the county or district attorney will request the advice and consultation of the attorney general on the crimes suggested by this legislation.”

The bill would create notable shifts in the severity of penalties for voting crimes, from misdemeanors to lower-level felonies for acts involving advance voting and or voting without qualification.

“Felony offenses are among the most serious offenses that can be committed,” said Rep. Russell Jennings, R-Lakin. “While they don’t always include persons being directly impacted, they are of an egregious nature sufficient to warrant the extinguishment of a number of rights. My initial inclination is going from a class C misdemeanor to a level seven, eight or nine felony is a bit of a big jump for a crime.”

The House Elections Committee expects to work on the bill late next week.

Read more here: http://www.kansas.com/2013/03/11/2712091/bill-to-combat-voter-fraud-in.html#storylink=cpy

Kansas bill would reclassify some state employees By BRENT D. WISTROM

Eagle Topeka bureau Published Monday, March 11, 2013, at 10:41 a.m.

TOPEKA — A new bill backed by some conservative Republicans would make it easier for the state to fire some employees and make it easier to give raises to top performers.

House Bill 2384 would shift a variety of state employees to the unclassified system, allowing the state to discipline or fire them without allowing them to appeal the action through the state civil service board.

The bill would apply to many supervisors in the Department of Children and Families, Department of Revenue, state attorneys and tech workers.

“It’s a conversation we need to have,” said Rep. Marc Rhoades, who is chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, which is considering the bill.

No one spoke in favor of the bill, but Rhoades said he and other people he didn’t name are in favor of it as a way to reward top performers and facilitate discipline for poor performance.

Rep. Marvin Kleeb, R-Overland Park, said he has heard the state struggles to jettison poor workers and sometimes even hires new workers to help support ones that can’t perform all their duties.

Rebecca Proctor, an attorney representing the American Federation of Teachers in Kansas, said the merit system used in Kansas was created to prevent politically based hiring and firing on the federal level. In 1940, Kansas voters approved creating a merit-based civil service system.

She said it protects employees from coercion via political influence, and the proposed new law would erase that.

“If you’re on the wrong side politically, you can lose your job,” she said.

Proctor said programs such as food stamps and federal grants for adoption and emergency services require the state to have a merit system for employees working on those programs.

She said the state hasn’t taken that into consideration.

“You have no idea what the impact to the budget will be with the loss of that money,” she said.

Rhoades, R-Newton, said that the bill is crafted to avoid the loss of federal money.

Rep. Jerry Henry, D-Atchison, said the bill could allow some employees to get big raises without justification.

“I have a concern about that," he said.

The committee hasn’t voted on the bill yet, but it could in coming days.

Read more here: http://www.kansas.com/2013/03/11/2711169/kansas-bill-would-reclassify-some.html#storylink=cpy

Eagle editorial: Leave courts alone Published Monday, March 11, 2013, at 6:09 p.m. Updated Monday, March 11, 2013, at 6:09 p.m.

The secretive process being used by Gov. Sam Brownback to fill a vacancy on the Sedgwick County District Court provides another reason why legislators shouldn’t let him take over judicial selection for the Kansas Court of Appeals.

The Senate recently passed a constitutional amendment that would give the governor free rein to pick members of both the Court of Appeals and Kansas Supreme Court, subject to state Senate confirmation. Doubt in the House may have foiled a constitutional change, but the chamber voted to scrap the 36-year-old law that assigns the Supreme Court Nominating Commission of attorneys and non-attorneys to screen applicants and recommend three finalists to the governor for each vacancy on the Court of Appeals.

If the Senate passes House Bill 2019, which could happen Tuesday, Kansas will end up with one method of selection for its Court of Appeals and another for its Supreme Court. Such a hybrid system would be unique in the nation, some legal experts say – and the solution to a nonexistent problem.

As Tom Malone, chief judge on the Court of Appeals, noted in House testimony, less than 3 percent of the court’s decisions are reversed or modified on review by the Supreme Court, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce last year ranked Kansas as fifth best in the nation for a business-friendly legal system, eighth for judicial impartiality and ninth for judicial competence. Where’s the problem?

The House bill also could create long vacancies on the court, with a seat that became vacant after the Legislature had adjourned in May remaining open until a Senate confirmation vote could be held in January. That’s no way to treat this vital court.

And what’s going on in Sedgwick County provides a troubling preview of what Brownback has in mind for the Court of Appeals.

To fill the Sedgwick County District Court vacancy created by Brownback’s appointment of Judge Tony Powell to the Court of Appeals, the Governor’s Office took the applications itself rather than continue the long tradition of using a Wichita Bar Association panel to vet candidates and publicly recommend three finalists. Brownback’s spokeswoman said last week that 15 lawyers had applied for the judgeship, but that applicants’ names would not be made public.

Never mind transparency – something GOP lawmakers have called for in urging appellate-court reform – or how local expertise could have informed the selection and ensured that Sedgwick County’s particular needs were served.

While Brownback has complained that the status quo “allows a special-interest group to control the process of choosing who will be our appellate judges,” he is functioning as a special-interest group of one for the District Court opening.

Legislators should not give Brownback the power to treat the Court of Appeals selection process with similar disdain for legal input and public scrutiny.

For the editorial board, Rhonda Holman

Read more here: http://www.kansas.com/2013/03/12/2711807/eagle-editorial-leave-courts-alone.html#storylink=cpy

Pompeo, Roberts, Moran question Air Force’s light air support contract

By Molly McMillin

The Wichita Eagle Published Tuesday, March 12, 2013, at 11:01 a.m. Updated Tuesday, March 12, 2013, at 4:26 p.m.

Members of the Kansas congressional delegation sent a letter to the Secretary of Defense asking why the Air Force passed over Beechcraft in a $427.5 million light air support contract to supply planes to Afghanistan.

The delegation is requesting a “thorough, compelling explanation for your decision,” the letter said.

The initial contract for 20 airplanes was awarded to Sierra Nevada Corp. and Brazil-based Embraer earlier this month.

The two partners offered the Air Force Embraer’s A-29 Super Tucano, while Beechcraft offered the AT-6, an attack version of its T-6 military trainer.

The contract could be worth as much as $1 billion, depending on future orders.

Beechcraft announced Friday that it is protesting the award based upon findings in a debriefing last week.

“This announcement is not only disappointing to workers in our state, but it raises significant concerns for the entire U.S. defense industrial base,” the letter addressed to Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel said.

The letter was signed by Sen. Pat Roberts, Sen. Jerry Moran and Rep. Mike Pompeo.

According to the delegation’s letter, Beechcraft’s bid was 30 percent lower than that of Embraer and Sierra Nevada.

“As the nation is facing immense financial hurdles, including a trillion-dollar cut to the Department of Defense over the next decade, it seems unwise to select a higher-priced supplier with a product of inferior quality,” the letter said. “Furthermore, that supplier is based outside the United States.”

Beechcraft’s proposal would have preserved 1,400 domestic jobs at 181 companies in 39 states, the letter said.

“With our national employment rate at nearly 8 percent, it is imperative that programs funded by the taxpayer maintain a focus on increasing job growth and spending here at home,” it said.

An Air Force spokesman said the bids were fairly evaluated.

“We are confident that this decision is well supported and that the offerers’ proposals were fully and fairly evaluated, consistent with the evaluation criteria and the solicitation,” said Lt. Col. Brett Ashworth, a spokesman for the Air Force.

Maureen Schumann, a spokeswoman with the Department of Defense, said only that the letter has been received and the secretary will respond directly to its authors.

For its part, Sierra Nevada and Embraer issued a statement saying that the Air Force looked at three criteria in selecting the contract winner: mission capability, past performance and pricing.

The A-29 Super Tucano received an exceptional rating on technical capability and low risk in all other categories, the statement said. The plane has a long, established track record.

“Based on these factors, we are confident the Air Force selected the A-29 as the lowest-risk solution for the U.S. and its partner nationals and overall best value,” the companies said in the statement.

The companies also said they plan to insource jobs to Jacksonville, Fla., where the planes will be assembled.

“We feel it establishes an exciting future model of bringing high-tech aerospace manufacturing jobs back to the United States to stem the recent tide of moving jobs offshore,” the statement said.

The award will support more than 1,400 American jobs, with more than 100 companies supplying parts and services, according to Sierra Nevada.

The Kansas delegation’s letter said the writers thought that the Air Force’s rejection of Beechcraft’s bid was based largely on whether Beechcraft could receive certification of the AT-6.

“This is an unreasonable concern given the history of its aircraft certification in both civil and military spheres,” the letter said. “Additionally, the accelerated timeline in this competition is due directly to the failures of the Air Force in the previous LAS procurement process, which caused nearly a year’s delay.”

The competition for the award has taken nearly three years. It has been plagued by delays and legal challenges as the two rival manufacturers battled for the contract.

It’s the second time Beechcraft has protested an award to Sierra Nevada and Embraer.

The Air Force canceled the deal in March 2012 following objections by Beechcraft, which said it had wrongly been excluded from the bidding process, and then Sierra Nevada challenged that decision, requesting that its contract be reinstated.

An Air Force investigation found that the bidding process had been flawed and that bias existed toward Embraer and Sierra Nevada, which led to the restart of the competition.

Sierra Nevada then contended that the revised bid proposal was tilted in favor of then-Hawker Beechcraft.

U.S. Court of Federal Claims Judge Christine O.C. Miller wrote in a Nov. 1 opinion that, based on the evidence of bias, “the Air Force’s decision to cancel the contract award to SNC and re-solicit proposals was reasonable and rational and should stand.”

Finally, the delegation argues in the letter that the light air support contract, which is under the Building Partnership Capacity Program, establishes a program of record for all 27 allied nations under the program.

“The BPC program’s intention is to share U.S. capacities, expertise, maintenance, part supply and so on with BPC allies,” the letter said. “However, by awarding the LAS contract to a foreign-based entity, the department has risked building true partnership capabilities.”

Read more here: http://www.kansas.com/2013/03/12/2712615/pompeo-roberts-moran-question.html#storylink=cpy

Kansas’ congressional delegation protests budget cuts at airport control towers

By Molly McMillin The Wichita Eagle Published Tuesday, March 12, 2013, at 4:02 p.m.

Sen. Jerry Moran plans to introduce an amendment to the Senate Continuing Resolution to stop planned funding cuts to air traffic control towers, including seven towers in Kansas.

The Federal Aviation Administration’s proposed cuts includes furloughs for nearly 47,000 FAA employees for about one day per pay period through September, eliminating midnight shifts at more than 60 towers around the country and closing 238 air traffic control towers at airports with fewer than 150,000 flight operations or 10,000 commercial operations a year.

Wichita Mid-Continent Airport is on the list of airports that would eliminate midnight shifts.

“Irresponsible cuts from sequestration will put the flying public at risk, impair access to rural areas, jeopardize national and civil security missions and cost jobs,” Moran said in a statement.

Moran and other members of the Kansas congressional delegation also sent a letter to Department of Secretary Ray LaHood and FAA Administrator Michael Huerta opposing the cuts.

“We request that the FAA pursue more efficient spending resolutions that will not have such a devastating impact on air safety,” the letter said.

The cuts to air traffic control towers include 189 of 251 towers included in the Contract Tower Program. Contract towers account for about 28 percent of all control tower operations. A review of the program found that the average contract tower costs roughly $1.5 million less to operate a year than a FAA tower, largely due to lower staffing and salary levels, the letter said.

The cuts seem “especially inefficient,” considering the FAA still plans to continue spending on activities unrelated to safety and does not plan to implement a hiring freeze or cut non-essential programs, the letter said.

“On the other hand, if the FAA closes these towers, all Americans will be put at risk,” the letter said.

The FAA has known about sequestration for more than 18 months and had ample time to structure more balanced and responsible cuts, it said.

Read more here: http://www.kansas.com/2013/03/12/2713002/kansas-congressional-delegation.html#storylink=cpy

From the Kansas City Star

Working smarter and harder: KC picks up the pace on patents March 11BY MARK DAVISThe Kansas City Star

Patents have become one of the hottest properties in business — and Kansas City is turning up the heat.

In the last few years, we’ve broken out of our historically sluggish pace of innovation, at least as it’s measured by newly issued patents. A patent is a legal federal recognition that an invention is yours.

Silicon Valley may not hear footsteps, but patent growth around here has more than doubled the national pace since 2008, according to data generated by the Brookings Institution.

Kansas City inventors and researchers are working smarter, not just harder.

“That means you’re a city generating solutions and answers to problems instead of just manufacturing the widget over and over again,” said Jeff Pinkerton, senior researcher at the Mid-America Regional Council in Kansas City.

Some of the credit goes to Harley Ball and his team of patent experts at Sprint Nextel Corp. They secured 618 new patents last year based on the work of the company’s “inventors.” It was easily Sprint’s best year, and most of the area patents sprang from work here.

“Since the recession, patent growth has been very strong in Kansas City,” said Jonathan Rothwell, lead author of a Brookings study last month on patents in metropolitan areas. “There’s a huge spike. … A big part of that seems to be Sprint.”

Kansas City boosts other potent patent producers.

Technology-heavy firms like Garmin Ltd., Cerner Corp. and Honeywell International Inc. regularly turn innovations here into patents from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Individuals who win patents on their own collectively trail only Sprint in the number of new patents awarded in the area each year.

And why not go after a patent? Intellectual property is big money, both in the marketplace and the courtroom.

In December, for example, the bankrupt Eastman Kodak Co. sold its patents to a group of companies led by Apple Inc. and Google Inc. for more than half a billion dollars. And this came after Apple had won a $1 billion verdict against rival cellphone maker Samsung over patent disputes, though a judge has slashed the amount by 40 percent.

Kansas City’s patent holders have seen their share of patent disputes, too.

What’s behind the surge?Patents have been a bit of an uphill battle for Kansas City.

The local economy historically has emphasized mature industries like rails and trucks that have become less prone to innovation.

Even some of the area’s longtime research leaders haven’t been big patent producers.

MRIGlobal, the nonprofit research center that dates back to World War II, displays 80 of its patents on a wall. Most of MRI’s work, however, is done

under contract for industry and government.

“We work for other people, so there’s not as many (patents) as you would expect,” spokeswoman Pam Sharitz-Tesch said.

The University of Missouri-Kansas City is a research university, but not on the scale of Washington University in St. Louis.

The region just hasn’t been productive patent-wise.

One measure Brookings made compared a metropolitan area’s patent production to its working population. For decades, the Kansas City area’s rank among metro areas had bounced around in unenviable territory, between 174 and 244.

No more. The area made the top 100 in 2011 and surged to 64 last year thanks to growth in patents.

Businesses lead Kansas City’s patent production, according to data from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Sprint easily claims the top spot among area patent generators. The 618 patents it received last year covered work here, in Reston, Va., and at other Sprint locations. And it was three times the number of patents the company received in 2008. Sprint holds more than 2,700 patents in all.

Garmin Ltd., with more than 725 patents, regularly produces 10 to 30 patents a year in the Kansas City area, U.S. patent office data show.

Honeywell Federal Manufacturing & Technologies LLC, which has run a federal weapons plant in Kansas City since 1949, has generated more than 100 patents, recently about a handful each year.

The company, however, said it doesn’t benefit financially from the patents or the commercial licensing of the technology, which supports future federal technology. Also, the technology becomes freely available to any federal agency.

Sprint’s inventor cultureSprint’s increased patent activity reflects more than increased innovation. It also grew from a greater effort to capture that work in patents, said Ball, the company’s vice president of intellectual property and technology services.

Many of its patents defy simple description. They tend to be highly technical and usually need more than one run at the patent office to gain official recognition as something distinct from earlier patents.

For example, Sprint says its Patent No. 8320313 involves a “method and system for carrier frequency

management based on slot contention,” whatever that means.

Consumers benefit from patents even if they don’t realize it.

Sprint’s Patent No. 8307110 means its customers’ cellphones won’t run down their batteries trying to get fresh readings on the Dow Jones industrial average or the Royals game when there’s no update to be had. Others help Sprint manage its call centers or deal with push-to-talk phone features.

Many stem from employees’ regular efforts to make Sprint’s wireless network run better.

Ball leads a team of attorneys and analysts who turn ideas into patents, but he said it is important that employees understand what can lead to patents.

Sprint holds a lunch each year to recognize employees whose work leads to patent applications and to encourage attention to possible patents. A patent filing also triggers a cash “honorarium” for the employee.

“We have a culture of patenting now,” said Ball, a patent lawyer who joined Sprint more than 20 years ago.

Little guysLarry Sutton has had a tough time getting a patent. He’s still waiting more than four years after applying to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Sutton is a chemist in Atchison, Kan., who came up with a new antibiotic technology.

With “patent pending” to his credit, Sutton gained backing from investors and formed a corporation, Sopharmia Inc.

Even with backing, Sutton said he finds the patent process to be expensive. There is a steady stream of fees attached to a patent effort, and he found an experienced patent attorney’s help to be vital.

“You start running up 10, 20, 30, 40 thousand dollars by the time you pay all the fees,” Sutton said. “We’re trying to advance the technology. We can’t afford to put it all toward the patent process.”

And he’s working hard to file for two new patents by mid-March. U.S. patent law is changing, and the new rules may make it harder on patent holders.

“You want to be under the old rules,” said James Brazeal, director of the technology transfer office at UMKC.

One change will award a patent to the first to file an application on an invention. The law currently uses a first-to-invent standard. Patent holders also may find it more difficult to fend off challenges during reviews after a patent is granted.

The Americans Invent Act also helps small inventors by creating a lower fee

for universities and “micro-entities” that seek patents. Small filers currently pay half the standard rate. Micro filers will pay a fourth.

A smaller fee would have helped Mike Smoker, a Leawood resident who has been trying to work through the patent process more or less on his own.

Smoker studies background contamination in his day job as a chemist, looking specifically for pesticides in food.

His invention is a clear portable box to contain fumes, debris and dust thrown off by small hand-held tools such as a grinder or soldering tool.

The patent application, which he filed in December after a year of effort and the help of friends, explains why his box solves problems not addressed by inventions that received U.S. Patent Nos. 4505190 and 55450082, and how Patent No. 4505190 isn’t easily portable.

“It was a lot more expensive and time-consuming and harder than I thought,” Smoker said. “Getting my working prototype slapped together was easy and fun compared to doing all the editing, research and getting the graphics done.”

Still, such individual efforts lead to more than 50 new patents a year in the Kansas City area, data through 2010 show.

Patent protectionNationally there has been a surge in patents, in part because more things can be patented.

Rapidly evolving and new industries such as telecommunications and biotechnology feed the surge. So does the innovative practice of patenting business methods.

Computer software became patentable with a 1981 U.S. Supreme Court decision, said Chris Holman, an associate professor at UMKC focused on intellectual property and biotechnology. Other court decisions added to the list of what can be patented.

Since 2005, he said, courts have been pulling back on what is patentable.

Holman is closely following a lawsuit that will decide whether Monsanto can defend patents it holds on genetically modified seeds. One question at issue is whether a soybean farmer can plant second-generation seeds — those that came from soybean plants that were grown with Monsanto’s patented seeds.

Courtrooms also are where patent infringement battles have played out. Often the targets of lawsuits are companies that hold plenty of patents themselves.

Garmin officials declined to talk about company’s patents, mostly because the maker of satellite-based navigation

devices faces so many lawsuits claiming patent infringement. It has been through five lawsuits that it was able to get dismissed or settled, and it still faces twice as many active cases.

“All 10 of these are patent troll cases,” Garmin spokesman Ted Gartner said in an email.

He added that few of the parties that are suing Garmin actually sell products, the cases don’t involve technology the suing parties use or was commercially valuable to them, and the accusations against Garmin are untrue.

Sprint similarly faces patent infringement claims, including being one of 15 companies sued by Steelhead Licensing LLC, a company that bought the patents from British Telecom.

Ball, without commenting on specific suits Sprint faces, said most involve “non-practicing entities” that essentially buy patents and sue “for a living.”

Sprint also has defended its own patents in court.

Its 2005 suit against Internet phone service provider Vonage landed a $69.5 million jury verdict in Sprint’s favor and ultimately an $80 million payment. Sprint successfully claimed Vonage was using technology covered by patents Sprint was issued in the early 1990s.

And Sprint is suing again involving some of the same patents. This time its

targets are Time Warner Cable, Comcast Cable and others.

“We would consider these patents to be extremely important and valuable,” Ball said.

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2013/03/11/4114483/kc-area-picks-up-the-pace-on-patents.html#storylink=cpy

Capitol Watch: Medicaid wrangles and legal quagmires March 15

Critical conditionNearly 30 speakers representing dozens of organizations and thousands of Missourians made a strong argument in favor of Medicaid expansion to a state Senate committee this week.

One speaker, representing an anti-tax group, testified in opposition.

Guess who the senators listened to?

The Republican-led Senate did more than reject Democratic Sen. Paul LeVota’s bill to expand Medicaid as called for in the federal Affordable Care Act. Leaders followed up with a statement making it clear that all of the sound arguments about the benefits of a Medicaid expansion for Missouri’s citizens and economy have fallen on deaf ears.

The statement cited a dishonestly high cost for the expansion, using a preliminary number from a national

research group that includes no economic benefits or offsetting savings to the state. Gov. Jay Nixon’s budget department, with a much better grasp of the situation, has calculated that an expansion would be profitable for Missouri every year through 2022.

The Senate leaders didn’t completely slam the door on an expansion, saying they would “review and discuss any and all responsible proposals that would provide more effective and responsible delivery of vital health services to our population.”

That’s good. But how about some responsible, reality-based thinking on their part as well?

Who’s in charge?One would think a legislature that continually proclaims its reluctance to spend money would be cautious about passing bills almost certain to embroil the state in costly litigation.

But on a 94-29 vote, the Kansas House declared this week that the federal government has no authority to regulate firearms manufactured, sold and kept in Kansas.

It made for a long, blustery debate, but the bill is plainly wrong and should be rejected by the state Senate. The U.S. Constitution states that acts of the U.S. Congress “shall be the supreme law of the land … anything in the Constitution

or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”

The Kansas House also passed a bill allowing schools and colleges to designate employees who would be permitted to carry guns in the buildings. This legislative quagmire should also be rejected by the Senate.

And while proclaiming its emancipation from the federal government, the Kansas House decreed that people with concealed carry permits should be able to take guns into city, county and state buildings unless the local governments provide adequate security, like metal detectors and guards.

Elected city and county officials undoubtedly would like to make that decision on their own. But the same Kansas Legislature which has declared independence from Washington has no problem telling local governments what to do.

Make it stopMissouri lawmakers are off on spring break, presumably to soak up the tourist attractions of Kansas, their role model.

The Missouri Senate this week gave preliminary approval to a bill mimicking the Kansas income tax cuts, but on a smaller scale.

They will cost the state at least half a billion dollars a year in revenues while forcing citizens to pay more in sales

taxes and doing little to encourage economic growth.

A few wealthy Missourians would make out wonderfully under this bill, while an Associated Press analysis calculated that two working parents making slightly more than $45,000 a year would see a net gain of $35 and a loss of vital state services.

Let’s hope for a legislative epiphany over the break.

The Kansas Legislature will be on the job next week, which isn’t really a good thing.

Among many bad bills in the hopper is a proposal to cap salaries and wages for all state government agencies, including colleges and universities.

Some read House Bill 2231 to mean that schools couldn’t even use grants and other external funding sources to hire and retain talented faculty and leaders.

There would be no faster route to mediocrity for the public universities that are Kansas’ greatest assets. A hearing is scheduled for 3:30 p.m. Monday.

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2013/03/15/4123864/capitol-watch-medicaid-wrangles.html#storylink=cpy

Kansas House approves three gun rights measures March 14The Associated Press

TOPEKA — A proposal to let school districts and state colleges designate employees who can carry concealed weapons and another to expand the number of public buildings where concealed weapons are permitted passed the Kansas House with broad support Thursday.

Another measure declaring that the federal government cannot regulate firearms manufactured, sold and kept in Kansas also was approved. But lawmakers readily acknowledged such a law would be challenged as unconstitutional because federal law trumps state law.

All three measures now head to the Senate.

The school district and state college proposal would allow the institutions to choose employees who could carry concealed firearms inside their buildings, even if such weapons were banned for others. The bill was approved 84-35.

Senate Majority Leader Terry Bruce, a Hutchinson Republican, said some senators are “very apprehensive” about language in that bill. But he noted that a Senate committee was reviewing gun rights measures and pledged that the chamber would give them serious consideration.

The proposal to expand the number of public buildings where people could bring concealed weapons includes the statehouse.

However, Rep. John Wilson, a Lawrence Democrat who got the statehouse added to the bill, said a drafting error inadvertently allowed open carry of weapons in the building.

“This is not an insignificant mistake,” Wilson said in explaining his vote against the bill.

The measure to disallow federal regulation of Kansas firearms, which was approved 94-29, arose over concerns that federal authorities would confiscate firearms as they tighten regulations after the mass school shooting in Connecticut.

However, even Rep. Lance Kinzer, a backer of the measure, suggested the law may face court challenges. The Olathe Republican said legislators should be careful about promising to stand up to the federal government on similar issues.

Rep. Bob Grant, a Frontenac Democrat, suggested the real motive for the bill was to use any “no” votes against lawmakers in future elections.

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2013/03/14/4121247/kansas-house-approves-3-gun-rights.html#storylink=cpy

Bills in Kansas Legislature would allow school employees to carry guns

March 12BY BRAD COOPERThe Kansas City Star

TOPEKA — Christina Blair of Shawnee has twin daughters in high school, including an aspiring teacher.

She worries what might happen “if a madman comes in with a gun and you’re locked in a classroom. How do you defend against that? You can’t,” Blair said.

“I would feel much safer,” she said, “if there was another way for teachers to defend their classroom.”

Judith Deedy of Mission Hills has heard arguments about how gun-free zones might invite violence against the defenseless. Yet with three kids in elementary schools, she’s not convinced that arming school staff is the answer.

“Guns in schools with curious children,” she said. “What more could possibly go wrong there?”

The national debate over guns and classrooms has taken root in Kansas, where some lawmakers are maneuvering to allow schoolteachers to carry guns.

Two bills to expand the state’s concealed-weapons law contain provisions that would let school boards allow any employee licensed to carry a concealed handgun to bring a firearm to work.

They echo others introduced in Missouri and at least a dozen other states following the mass shooting at a

Newtown, Conn., elementary school in December.

The bills follow a path scouted by the National Rifle Association, which has called for armed security guards at every school to fend off the next mass shooting.

“When you’ve got somebody coming in with a gun that intends harm, the only real answer is a good guy with a gun,” said state Sen. Forrest Knox, an Altoona Republican and the primary sponsor of the gun legislation.

His line closely mimics the words of Wayne LaPierre, the NRA’s executive vice president, and his organization’s stance that the road to safety is manned with broader use of firearms to keep danger at bay.

Knox said the legislation gives school districts more latitude to decide how to protect themselves from armed intruders. He said schools could decide who gets to carry concealed weapons and impose any further requirements. The measure would include community colleges and universities.

“We need to give schools flexibility,” Knox said, “to do whatever they choose.”

The Kansas bills are expected to see action this week, close on the heels of South Dakota becoming the first state to expressly allow school employees to carry guns.

Officials at the National Conference of State Legislatures said other states have granted exceptions to their weapon-free school zones that might be interpreted to allow teachers to carry guns.

But the organization was not aware of any state law specifically authorizing teachers to carry firearms — the way South Dakota has done and Kansas is contemplating.

Missouri’s bills appear stalled, at least for the moment, in committee. Meanwhile, Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon has made clear his opposition.

Today, the Kansas House is expected to take up a bill that would require the state, cities and counties to allow concealed weapons into their buildings unless they have security checkpoints at public entrances.

College and government-run hospitals could still ban guns for four years without installing the security measures.

A comparable bill in the Senate is scheduled for a committee hearing Thursday.

Efforts to allow concealed weapons in public buildings have fizzled in previous legislative sessions. But this year, the idea is greeted by a decidedly more conservative Senate.

Neither officials from the National Rifle Association nor the Kansas State Rifle

Association returned calls for this article.

An NRA spokesman told The New York Times that the group supported and lobbied for the South Dakota legislation.

Even without legislative action, some think guns might still legally find their way into Kansas schools. The state association of school boards contends existing law might already give superintendents the power to authorize their staff to carry firearms.

Some teachers say they feel vulnerable in their classroom, noting there’s not much that would keep an intruder out.

“We’re really just sitting ducks here,” said Tina Keith, a Shawnee Mission social studies teacher.

Keith would support letting teachers carry concealed weapons if the faculty had training beyond the eight hours of instruction spelled out in the state’s concealed-carry law.

“Having the general public believing or knowing that people within the school are armed or trained would be a deterrent,” she said.

Yet other teachers and some parents aren’t ready to put triggers at the ready.

“The people that would have guns — they’re not trained to be a police officer that knows how to attack a situation,”

said Randy Davis, a retired Merriam police officer and the father of two high school students.

“If you are putting a life-and-death piece of equipment into your hands, are you prepared to take the next step?”

Some area school districts are cool to the idea of letting staff carry weapons.

“It just makes no sense,” said Shawnee Mission Superintendent Gene Johnson. “There are better ways for us to address safety issues than putting a gun in everybody’s hand.”

Blue Valley Superintendent Tom Trigg said he did not expect his district to allow employees to carry weapons if the bill became law.

Both districts are participating in a school safety project — called Defense of our Schools — that involves roughly 200 school officials and police officers from across Miami and Johnson counties.

Created in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings, it intends to identify the best practices for school safety.

“We’ve got a good plan,” said Overland Park Police Chief John Douglass, “but it needs tweaking.”

Meanwhile, schools in other parts of Kansas have started taking action to protect students in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook shooting.

The Emporia School Board voted in January to post armed guards — both retired police officers — at the school district’s middle school and high school. The guards started Feb. 1.

The district started looking at armed guards before the Sandy Hook shootings when officials attended a training session on school shootings that was offered by the Department of Homeland Security, spokeswoman Nancy Horst said.

From that training, they learned that having guards on site would greatly reduce any response time to a crisis, she said. She said the new security was added with little or no public resistance.

“One of the reasons that this went through fairly quickly and didn’t get a lot of backlash,” she said, “is those men are retired police officers and have been in our community a long time.”

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2013/03/12/4116802/kansas-is-contemplating-arming.html#storylink=cpy

Kansas mental health advocates to rally to have funding restored March 12

TOPEKA — Mental health advocates plan to rally in Topeka this week for increased funding for services throughout Kansas.

Thursday’s event is sponsored by the Kansas Mental Health Coalition.

Shawn Sullivan, state secretary of aging and disability services, plans to take part in a morning gathering at the Topeka Performing Arts Center.

In the afternoon, Gov. Sam Brownback is scheduled to address the advocates in the Statehouse.

Rally participants are pushing for the governor and legislators to restore money that was cut from mental health services.

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2013/03/12/4114982/kansas-mental-health-advocates.html#storylink=cpy