Another court panel has said, again, that the state isn’t spending enough money to provide K-12 students in every school district in the state with the education they need to meet the state’s new Rose Standards, which presumably set them up for successful lives.

The decision, which will presumably someday be affirmed or modified by the Kansas Supreme Court, has already set off some predictable, and some unanticipated, response from the Legislature.

The simplest reading of the decision is that Kansas needs to send more money from Topeka to those districts. But, as with nearly every issue with a pricetag—an estimated $548 million boost in funding this year—the details almost overwhelm the problem, if a majority of legislators concur that there is a problem.

There are dozens of legislators who believe that the state is spending enough money now on K-12, and that local school districts are misspending that money—either on administrators who don’t actually teach children how to read or do long division, or by not running their districts in a tight, businesslike, economical manner.

And, there are dozens, too, who believe that if the state would spend more money on schools, then local property taxpayers would see savings, children would have more teachers and we’d have a state rife with children who are going to succeed in their lives, whether it’s learning a vocation or going on to higher education and becoming prosperous members of society.

Oh, and there are probably also dozens of legislators who believe the courts don’t have any business meddling in education and the finance thereof, and that nobody really knows whether our kids in schools are getting a sound education or not.

It doesn’t get a lot more confusing, does it?

The whole issue that everyone supports—getting Kansas kids the best education possible—gets dissected so many ways, looked at from so many vantage points, that the focus can be lost. Remember, this funding issue is a legislative issue, which means that 63 votes in the House and 21 in the Senate decide the response.

There are some obvious included issues to be fought out. If the state spends more money on school finance, what else in government doesn’t get funded, and does the state need to raise more money—that’s taxes—to fund schools and everything else?

Property tax-financed local option budgets—originally designed to allow districts to provide the special services that are important to the constituents of school board members—have now been hijacked to pay for basic costs that the judges last week said the state isn’t adequately financing anymore. The “local option” portion of school finance isn’t really optional anymore.

So, does the Legislature just rename and claim credit for that local option budget, which at least on paper appears to make the state more supportive of the basic cost of keeping the schools open? There are takers for that option, and the judicial panel did in its findings say that the state making pension payments for teachers is part of support for public education.

And…there are those Rose Standards which are the new measurement of quality education in Kansas. Those standards haven’t been reduced to a test so that from the vantage point of Topeka, lawmakers can tell whether whatever money is spent on K-12 is getting the results that the state wants…or not…and why.

So, besides this little budget problem ahead—cutting about 10 percent of state spending or some lesser amount balanced by tax increases—there’s the school issue to deal with.

We’ll have to see where this goes…or if lawmakers decide to just study school finance for another couple years while the kids get older…

Syndicated by Hawver News Co. of Topeka, Martin Hawver is publisher of Hawver’s Capitol Report. To learn more about this nonpartisan statewide political news service, visit www.hawvernews.com.

It has become obvious that the upcoming legislative session will deal with very significant budget shortfalls.  The state’s revenues have been very disappointing in recent months, and we are facing a $294 million budget shortfall for the remainder of this fiscal year, followed by a shortfall of $436 million by the end of the next fiscal year which begins July 1.

The budget shortfall for the current year must be dealt with quickly since we are already halfway through the fiscal year.  Governor Brownback has proposed a solution to fill the budget hole but his proposal contains only $73.5 million of direct cuts and primarily solves the short-term problem with $206.5 million of one-time funds transfers.  That approach only magnifies the size of the budget shortfall for the following year.  If Governor Brownback’s proposal is approved by the legislature then the projected shortfall for fiscal year 2016 becomes $663 million.

State general fund budgeted expenditures for the year are projected to be $6.35 billion so the shortfall represents 10.2% of the entire budget.  Half of the budget is comprised of expenditures for K-12 public education, a constitutional responsibility of the state and the subject of a current lawsuit.  So if that portion of the budget is held harmless, is it reasonable to think that all other state budgets can be cut by 20% to make up the deficit?  Keep in mind that plenty of budget cutting has already occurred in recent years in response to reduced state revenues during the great recession.

I am not advocating the following cuts, but offer them to illustrate the magnitude of the problem facing us.  The entire budgets for public safety and general government could be eliminated and we still would not have filled the $648.3 million hole in the budget for fiscal year 2016.  That means the budgets for all elected statewide offices and cabinet-level departments could be eliminated, all legislative functions be defunded, highway patrol and KBI abolished, and all state prisoners let out on the streets, and we still would not have eliminated the budget deficit.

I believe that cuts of this magnitude cannot be made responsibly without drastically affecting state governmental services.  As a life-long Republican and a fiscal conservative I recognize that government must operate as efficiently as possible.  But I was also elected to insure that state government provides the services its citizens depend upon and that those services are delivered in a manner that is as user-friendly as possible.  It will be impossible to fill the looming budget deficits with nothing but budget cuts and still uphold our duty to provide those services.  Some form of additional revenue will be required.

Most states are currently experiencing expanding revenues so the situation in Kansas is fairly unique.  The majority of the problem is due to the income tax cut enacted during the 2012 legislative session.  It was sold to a majority of legislators on the promise that leaving more money in the pockets of the taxpayers would grow the economy and actually lead to greater state revenue receipts.  The first part of that promise is valid, and there is no doubt that granting a tax break can stimulate the economy.  But the second part of the promise is highly controversial.  President George H. W. Bush once called the theory “voodoo economics”.

It is becoming obvious that attempting to replace income tax revenues with sales tax revenues just will not happen, even when we fully account for the dynamic effect of the tax cut.  Evidence continues to grow that the “shot of adrenaline to the heart” of the Kansas economy that Governor Brownback touted has not and will not happen.

I did not vote for the tax cut in 2012.  Although I recognize that tax cuts can stimulate the economy I also understand that we can overdo it in the short run and create serious budgetary problems.  During debate on the 2012 tax bill I argued that the plan went “too far too fast” and I continue to believe that.  Recently others have come to agree with me, including an editorial board which endorsed Governor Brownback only two months ago.

So what do we do now?   Those of us who voted no in 2012 would vote to reverse part of the tax cuts, but those who voted yes will resist.  Other options are available but all carry negatives.  Do we raise sin taxes on liquor or cigarettes?  How about another increase in sales tax, which would send even more Johnson and Wyandotte County folks across the state line to do their shopping?  Should we increase the motor fuels tax?  We will also look closely at current sales tax exemptions.  If we were to put a tax on services instead of just goods we could actually reduce the sales tax rate and perhaps even remove the sales tax on food.  But I am guessing most of you would resist a tax on legal, accounting, engineering, or medical services.  There are no ideal alternatives but I have become convinced that some sort of “revenue enhancement” must be part of the budget solution.

I am honored to represent the people of the 118th District in Topeka, and I welcome your questions, concerns and suggestions.

State Rep. Don Hineman, R-Dighton, can be reached at (620) 397-3242 or [email protected].

It’s fairly common that traps set for bobcats remain empty for a while, (at least it’s common for my bobcat traps to remain empty for a while,) as bobcats are nomads and may pass through your chosen area only once every few days.

So it was no surprise to me that the traps I was checking were indeed empty again. However a weather front was forecast to move through that night so I wanted to be certain the traps were as they should be in anticipation that the approaching weather would incite critters to get out and roam.

I was back off the beaten path a couple hundred yards in an L-shaped wooded pasture through which a brushy dry creek wound like a writhing snake. Where I was, the pasture made a right-angle and for fifty yards or so the creek crowded the fence line leaving a scant 10-foot trail between it and the bordering alfalfa field.

The landowner had taken advantage of the creek’s bone-dry state and cut lots of the brush and trees along it, simply toppling them into the creek bed, making it a perfect bobcat hunting ground.

I usually check traps from the pickup window or four wheeler seat unless given a good reason to walk up to them, like tonight. In the narrow trail described above, a cow path cut into the ground on the rim of the creek and at one spot a big rock lay across the path.

I get a dandy trapping magazine called Trapper’s Post and the most recent issue seemed dedicated to bobcat trapping with articles on the subject by several experienced trappers around the country. One article described and illustrated a good set for bobcats that involved making them step over an object laid across a trail.

Coyotes are just wary enough that they often shy away from obvious objects placed in their path for them to step over and around, but bobcats can be guided and shown where to step with ease. The article showed how a bobcat can be guided to step directly into traps placed on each side of the object laid across the trail. It seemed to me that the rock across the cow path was an ideal spot to try that trick for the first time. The rock stuck out of the ground 3 or 4 inches, just enough to cause any critter traveling the cow path to step up and over it.

I bedded in a trap on each side of the rock directly in the center of the cow path, surrounded each trap with natural looking sticks to force the cat’ to step directly into the trap, dusted the traps over with a little grass and placed a couple long sticks along the edges to be sure any traveling critter stuck to the path.

I climbed from the pickup to walk toward the apparently empty traps, and a flash of fur caught my eye. God robed bobcats in an amazingly beautiful coat that blends with nearly any color scheme found in His Creation, and that, coupled with a feline’s crazy ability to flatten itself to the ground, had hidden this bobcat on the other side of the rock. Only when I began walking toward it did it feel threatened enough to give up its position.

Ever since my brother and I started trapping as kids, we’ve had this sometimes idiotic desire to try every new idea that comes along. Sometimes they work, sometimes they don’t. But nowadays I have to guard against doing quite the opposite; when I find something that works, I stick with it, which is sound wisdom, but I easily become closed-minded to new ideas in the process.

Allow me to offer some advice to outdoorsmen and women, no matter your chosen sports. When you find ways and methods of doing whatever that work for you, by all means stick with them. But always remain open to new ideas and every year try a few of the ones that make the most sense to you; when all is said and done, you’ll not be disappointed! Continue to Explore Kansas Outdoors.

Steve Gilliland, Inman, can be contacted by email at [email protected].

Last month, I unexpectedly had to spend a couple of days in Hays due to an accident that required repairs to my Subaru.

I want to recognize the work done by Augie’s Towing and Repair. Since I needed a Subaru part and a matching tire to do the repairs, they worked tirelessly to try to get the parts as quickly as possible. It did not go smoothly but they went above and beyond the necessary to help me out.

They even started work at 5:30 a.m. on a Saturday morning to get me on the road by noon that day. I want to thank Augie, Daryl, James and Scott for all they did.

I also want to say that everyone else I met in my time in Hays was friendly and helpful.

Sincerely,
Ken Remsen, Bolton, Vt.

“You never let a serious crisis go to waste. … It’s an opportunity to do things you think you couldn’t do before.” — Former Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel

In American politics, major policy change comes in two ways. First, your party can capture the legislative and executive levers of power, with majorities producing a new policy direction.

This occurred in 2012, when Kansas Republican majorities enacted radical reductions in the Kansas income tax structure, both across the board and especially for almost 200,000 small businesses and individual proprietorships. Kansans voted, and elected officials responded with a sharp change in policy.

A second cause of major change comes with the onset of a crisis, such as the Depression or 9/11, which generates wholesale policy changes that would have likely proved impossible in ordinary circumstances. When a crisis appears, policymakers often respond not with agenda items that directly address the situation; rather, they resuscitate pet proposals that previously could gain little political traction.

Thus, the 9/11 tragedy produced, above all, a mish-mash of law enforcement policies and the creation of the huge and unproductive Department of Homeland Security.

In Kansas, the governor and the legislature face a real crisis: the collapse of state revenues in the wake of the 2012 tax cuts. Unlike 9/11 or the Depression, this crisis is self-imposed; indeed, it flows directly from Governor Brownback’s tax-cutting agenda.

And despite many expressions of cheery sentiments, the cold fact is that Kansas must find a way to live within a general fund budget that will decrease by 11 percent or so in the next 18 months. Predictably, House Speaker Ray Merrick sees no revenue problem, just a spending problem, although it’s unclear where the cuts will come from.

For others, however, Rahm Emanuel’s words ring true. It’s time to trot out various ideas that heretofore have found precious little support.

Exhibit A here is the idea that that the state’s school finance formula should be thoroughly revised. This was a non-starter for Governor Brownback in 2011, but the 2015 budget crisis gives this initiative new legs. Brownback notes: “…we ought to just open the whole thing up. It’s just that the formula has grown very complex, convoluted (and) questionable. … you ought to open it up, redo it and sunset it in four years so you’re having a regular discussion about where half of your state general fund goes.”

In many ways, the governor is right, but unstated here is the intense dislike by many Republicans of a system that equalizes spending across the state, based on a host of categories. This week’s Gannon decision on school funding has upped the ante. Not only will the formula likely be rewritten, but the Legislature might well put forward a constitutional amendment to revise the wording that requires equalization.

In addition, the tax revenue decline has opened the doors to reconsideration of the venerable – and so far discredited – proposal to replace KPERS, a fixed-benefit retirement plan, with a fixed contribution, IRA-like plan, at least for future beneficiaries. State government has long underfunded KPERS, and such a change would dramatically change the state’s role, despite not resolving current shortfalls.

Other issues, such as limiting the scope of teachers’ negotiations with school districts and further privatization of social welfare services, might also surface, all within the “crisis” context.

Many of these issues deserve serious consideration. But let’s be clear why they are on the 2015 agenda. The post-2010 Republican majority created a major budget/revenue crisis. And now, this same majority can re-introduce its favored policies, arguing that they are absolutely essential to react to a crisis that “no one could have anticipated.”

Rahm Emanuel would be proud.

Burdett Loomis is a professor of political science at the University of Kansas.