By KENT STEWARD
Hays City Commissioner

I oppose the request from the owners of The Mall for a Community Improvement District to collect a 1 percent sales tax on site for up to 22 years to raise as much as $3.15 million for improvements to the facility. This is an important issue for our community, so I wish to state clearly the reasons for my opposition.

During a recent meeting, Commissioner Eber Phelps pointed out that I had spoken in favor of the proposed convention center, which would have been funded with a CID, and he asked why I did not support this similar plan for The Mall. It was a fair question.

He was correct that I was generally in favor of the convention center, although my support was conditional on the final details that had yet to be resolved, most especially who the owner would be. And that is the crux of my opposition to a CID for The Mall. As a public facility, the convention center would have been owned, eventually if not at the outset, by the community. The Mall is privately owned.

This is a critical distinction that some either do not see or do not appreciate. The United States fought for its independence mostly over the question of taxes. Taxation is a tool given by citizens to their elected officials, and that authority should not be abused. I believe taxes should be levied only for government operations and services, not to put money into the pockets of private individuals. Municipal taxes should pay for such things as police protection, fire protection, roads, sewers, drinking water, airports, parks and libraries. It also is appropriate to levy a special tax to build a public swimming pool or a sports complex or a convention center. A majority of commissioners — or, in the case of a public vote, a majority of citizens — might decide that such a project is unaffordable or unneeded, but it is not fundamentally inappropriate to pay for a public project with taxpayer dollars.

Related story: Commission expected to vote on mall taxing district Thursday

The proposed CID for The Mall is a case of Robin Hood in reverse. It would take from the poor and give to the rich. The taxpayers of Hays include elderly people on fixed incomes, struggling young families and the working poor of all descriptions. I think we can agree that the owners of the Mall are wealthy, at least by most people’s standards. So, in practical terms, the CID would take money from poor people in Hays and give it to the rich owners of The Mall. It also bothers me that those owners do not live in Hays. I’ve never seen them, only their representatives.

Some of the proponents of the CID point out that the impact would be voluntary because people could opt not to shop at The Mall and thereby avoid paying the new sales tax. That is true in theory but not in practice. As Commissioner Phelps pointed out recently, receipts from the taxing district that was created for Home Depot show that people shop there regardless of the higher sales tax.

The fact that the rich owners of The Mall believe they should receive a handout from Hays taxpayers is emblematic of the mentality that is destroying America. Just about everyone seems to believe the government owes them something, rich or poor. At least poor people actually need the help. Our federal government is nearly $18 trillion in debt and on the verge of bankruptcy, and it is this mentality of entitlement that is the root cause.

As a nation, we are also seeing the gulf grow ever wider between the rich and the poor. These sorts of inappropriate tax handouts to wealthy individuals serve to widen that gulf.

In a presentation to the Hays City Commission, one of the representatives of The Mall made a point of reading off a very long list of Kansas communities that have created CIDs. He seemed to think that legitimized the request. I think just the opposite. It shows that this abuse of taxation is widespread. I might be accused of alarmism for saying that a $3.15 million CID for The Mall will contribute to the economic decline of the nation and make the gulf between rich and poor even wider, but as they pointed out, Hays is not an isolated example. This abuse is rampant across the nation.

Finally, I do not enjoy having to put this point forward, but I simply have no confidence in the owners and operators of The Mall. I do not understand what local proponents of the CID see in the performance to date by the owners and operators that would entice them to become business partners with them. I do not think local proponents would want to invest their own money in this enterprise, but they want to invest your money.

As you can see, this is not a difficult decision for me, but I concede two points that cause me to question myself to some extent.

First, wise people know you should never say never. As great as my conviction is against handing out tax money to private companies, I admit there are examples where it seems to have worked. One is local. The limited partnership in which the city provided money to the Liberty Group for the renovation of downtown buildings contributed to an unprecedented revitalization of structures in our core area. That was before I joined the Commission, but I believe the city contributed about $100,00 to that project. Another example would be the Village West development in Wyandotte County, which has sparked an economic resurgence in that community. Principles are important, but so is facing reality. If I believed the owners and operators of The Mall could deliver on what they are promising, I would at least consider supporting the CID, but I see nothing in their performance that makes me believe that.

And second, I very much want The Mall to survive and prosper. I believe the owners should invest their own money and to earn their own profits, but if the Hays City Commission approves the CID tonight, I will continue to shop at The Mall. I hope those of you who can afford it will do the same. I want The Mall to succeed for the good of our community.

Do you suppose the shellacking Democrats took following the results of the November 4th midterm elections changed any minds about which side one should be on? Of course, I am talking about Democrats, not Republicans who came out the big winners.

One thing is for sure, all those liberal Dems that come out of the woodwork with comments about my writings, usually name calling, aren’t about to change how they vote. I wonder how many go to the same church every Sunday that I do as they try to put me in my place?

I don’t mean to get personal about me. I want to get personal with Democrats who are open-minded Christians.

No matter how you look at the election aftermath it was a tsunami, a real beating, a firestorm for Democrats. Obama’s excuse that two-thirds didn’t vote, as if that would have made a difference, doesn’t hold water. Maybe the onslaught would have been worse. Nor would communicating better about his “transforming America agendas” have made a difference. The facts are, people went to the polls fed up with his six years of trying to make America something totally different than it has been in the past.

I ask that readers pay special attention to the 4 “Cs” I reference that appear to have different meanings among the two parties.

This election should be a wake up call for fair-minded Democrats. Destroying our Constitution (1) established by our Founders is not what this country needs. Replacing free market Capitalism (2) with Socialism won’t get us out of the slowest economic recovery since the Depression.

Forcing Christianity (3) to take a back seat to everything we do may haunt us for years to come. That being said, I have asked the following question numerous times in the past with no response, therefore, I ask it again as I try to reach open and fair-minded Democrat Christians, most of whom are pro-life.

The question is: “what does the pro-choice party offer that is more important to this country (or shall we say civilization) than saving the lives of the unborn?” I sure would like an answer to that question! Maybe the silence indicates there is no plausible answer for anything in a Democrat platform being more important. Then why vote for abortion? A vote for a Democrat is a vote for abortion no matter how you look at it!

Helping the poor is not a good answer to my question. Since welfare began, we have not succeeded in our war on poverty. In fact, under Obama, the gap between the rich and poor has widened and isn’t getting as many people as possible on welfare just for more votes bordering on immorality? Since when do all those part time jobs created by our sluggish economy get people out of poverty?

How does one turn a blind eye on the numerous scandals of this administration? Another bombshell recently as the chief architect of Obamacare admitted a deliberate scheme in writing the bill to lie to the public about how OC would be funded knowing as proposed it would not pass, then on top of that went on to say Americans were too stupid to pick up on the deception.

Although abortion is the single biggest issue between the two parties there are many other positives coming from the Republican Conservative (4) side like less government in our lives, more personal responsibility, less spending, a strong military, free market Capitalism as noted above and adhering to our Constitution, and an emphasis on Christian values.

What is it they say, “use your head, not your heart.” How about using both when voting for our next president in 2016! Have a heart for those poor defenseless unborn babies!

Les Knoll lives in Victoria and Gilbert, Ariz.

While many shoppers are feeling the pinch of price increases, there’s a way today’s smart, frugal shoppers can save money on the family food bill. Some estimates place this figure at 10 -15 percent. On the average food bill, this could mean a savings of $700 – $1,200 a year.

Most shoppers, my wife is one of the best, have compiled a list of cost-cutting ideas. Here are some effective ways to save at the checkout counter.

First, smart shoppers should know what they are buying. Today’s modern supermarkets carry as many as 50,000 items. This number has more than tripled since 1980.

Product information is essential in selecting the best buy. This requires reading, listening and studying. For example, the product label is a source of information on nutrition, menu use, quantity and quality of the food item.

Secondly, cost-conscious shoppers must buy when and where the price is right.

There are many times to buy on special. Purchase store or generic brands or buy in quantity. Comparative shopping leads to savings because different stores usually specialize in different items.

Shopper loyalty cards may be another way to save on the family food bill.

Accurate record keeping has become an important part of a smart shopping routine. Money-saving ideas take time but result in time well spent. One-half hour of planning before each shopping trip can result in substantial savings.

Cost-conscious shoppers influence the entire food industry. If shoppers do not check prices, retailers may display items that sell by saturation advertising or gimmick packaging which increase food costs.

Retailers who respond to cost-conscious shoppers must look for the best buy from suppliers. Farmers who fill these orders must make the best use of their resources to meet the competition.

Smart shopping can bring satisfaction instead of frustration. Initially, this satisfaction results from actual savings in the family’s food budget. Secondly, the wise shopper realizes intelligent buying keeps our food industry the best in the world.

Securing the most for your food dollar is significant to every consumer. It is worth the effort.

John Schlageck, a Hoxie native, is a leading commentator on agriculture and rural Kansas.

On Election Day, the people of Kansas spoke loud and clear.

Kansas stood up and said enough. Enough of the status quo, enough of the gridlock, enough of the president’s “pen and phone,” enough of the autocratic and unconstitutional march toward a bigger, more intrusive federal government.

The same message was sent throughout the country as Americans stood together and made a stand for our jobs, for our families, for our children and for our future.

We made a stand to return Republican values to Washington, D.C., and fight for the principles of limited government, fiscal discipline and free enterprise.

In the Senate majority, my focus will be to change the direction of our country and deliver constructive, conservative solutions to Washington.

I will be bold. I will be conservative. I will fight loudly and aggressively for our Kansas values and to stop President Barack Obama’s failed liberal policies.

And here in Kansas, that starts with agriculture, the backbone of our economy.

As your champion, we will achieve great things for Kansas and the country. Farmers, ranchers and the rural communities that support them endeavor every day to feed an unstable world. These hardworking Americans deserve to be treated with dignity and respect.

However, under the Obama administration, our rural communities have been targeted rather than supported.

You can trust that I will bring dignity, common sense and respect back to farm country.

We will restore free market principles. We will open new markets for our exports. We will remove burdensome regulations and we will use American agriculture as a tool in our foreign policy to bring peace to a hungry and troubled world.

With the new Republican majority, I will endeavor to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to ensure similar efforts are made across the federal government.

We will repeal and replace Obamacare, lifting the burden on our job creators and lowering costs for patients.

We will stand up to unconstitutional attempts to impose amnesty for undocumented immigrants by executive order.

We will open the Keystone Pipeline, shed the yoke of the EPA and finally become energy independent.

We will grow our economy and create jobs. We will get the Obama regulators off the backs of our main street businesses, and reform the tax code so you can take home more of your paycheck.

We will protect and restore our constitutional rights to free speech and bear arms.

We will restore common sense in our foreign policy, and America will begin to lead the world again.

This election was so important because so much was at stake — our values, our prosperity, our future and our very faith in government.

America spoke with a strong voice at the polls: Get this country back on track.

This Marine is ready to do just that.

Pat Roberts is a Republican U.S. senator from Dodge City.

Dear Dave,
My daughter is a freshman in college, but I didn’t save for her education. My parents said it was my job to pay for my college, and that’s what I’ve told her. She’s going to have about $12,000 in student loan debt after her first year, but how do I talk to her about not ending up with $50,000 in debt when she’s through?
Paul

Dear Paul,
If you want her to pay for college, then, as her dad, you have to coach her on how she’s supposed to come up with the money and manage it properly. She’s already behind the eight ball because it sounds like you didn’t teach her the correlation between work and money earlier. So, you’re going to have to get real busy, real fast unless you want her to be drowning in debt when she graduates.

I think you owe her a leg up at this point. Twelve thousand dollars doesn’t just magically appear in an 18-year-old’s hands. I’m perfectly okay with kids working through college and parents cracking the whip when it comes to acting responsibly. But if you expect them to pay for it, you first have to show them how to do that. Otherwise, they’re going to hit the default button and wind up $50,000 in debt when they graduate. That’s a really bad plan!

If you have some money, I think you should help her along while teaching her how to make money, save and budget. Then, maybe she’ll be prepared to pay for her last couple of years with some good, hard work!
—Dave

Dave Ramsey is America’s trusted voice on money and business. He has authored five New York Times best-selling books: Financial Peace, More Than Enough, The Total Money Makeover, EntreLeadership and Smart Money Smart Kids. The Dave Ramsey Show is heard by more than 8 million listeners each week on more than 500 radio stations. Follow Dave on Twitter at @DaveRamsey and on the web at daveramsey.com.

In time for Veterans Day, approximately 6,000 veterans across the Big First District will begin receiving Veteran Choice Cards in their mailboxes thanks to bipartisan reforms I helped pass through Congress in August. This is the first set of Choice Cards being sent by the Veterans Administration to Veterans residing more than 40 miles from a VA health facility. An additional estimated 4,400 cards will be sent in mid-November to Kansas Veterans who are still awaiting care after more than 30 days in the VA system.

Rarely do common-sense solutions to real problems enter into Washington’s mindset. Yet this past spring, after news broke of the horrifying negligence, preventable veteran deaths, and secret wait lists at the VA, both Washington and the American people finally started paying attention to what I have been saying for years: the VA needs real reform. As a cosponsor of the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act, I was proud to see all the work I have done on the House Veterans Affairs Committee come to fruition as the President signed into law the biggest reform the VA has seen in decades.

With eight uncles who served in the Armed Forces, it is an honor to represent our nation’s Veterans and provide oversight and policy solutions to ensure our veterans get the care they deserve and has been promised to them. Since the first committee hearing I attended, I have been amazed at the stonewalling, the excuses, the missed deadlines, and the culture of complacency condoned and encouraged by many political appointees and high-level VA bureaucrats.

The stories we heard coming out of the Phoenix, Arizona VA Medical Center were only further evidence of why the VA needs fundamental reform. After dozens of oversight committee hearings, finally my colleagues on the other side of the aisle understood what I had been saying for years — why don’t we just give Veterans the freedom to choose their own doctor and their own hospital in their local communities?

Veteran Choice Cards were mailed on November 5, 2014 to approximately 6,000 Veterans in Kansas residing more than 40 miles from a VA health care facility. While these individuals are automatically eligible for non-VA care at their local community hospital or physician’s office, they must call the VA hotline to confirm authorization for outside care. Within the next 90 days, all Veterans who were enrolled in VA health care prior to August 1, 2014 or are eligible to enroll as a recently discharged combat Veteran within 5 years of separation will receive cards. However, only those residing more than 40 miles from a VA health facility or waiting more than 30 days from their preferred date of care, will be authorized for non-VA care. The call center number to confirm eligibility is 866-606-8196.

For too long the VA has been more concerned with protecting their bureaucracy rather than serving our Veterans. The Choice Card Program returns the focus back to where it should have been all along: the Veteran and his/her family. As this law continues to be implemented, I will continue to press the VA for accountability and ensure proper oversight of the program.

This Veterans Day let us remember to thank those that have served our country with valor. And let us hope that this Choice Card begins to correct the wrongs our own VA has wrought upon our own heroes. Veterans Choice Cards provide a new start for those that most deserving.

Know that serving and representing those who have so selflessly devoted themselves to our country is an honor and responsibility I will never take for granted. If you have any questions or concerns regarding the implementation of this new law, please do not hesitate to reach out to my Hutchinson office at 620-665-6138.

Congressman Tim Huelskamp represents the First District of Kansas in the U.S. House of Representatives. In addition to his membership on the Veterans’ Affairs Committee, Rep. Huelskamp serves on the Small Business Committee, the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Energy & Trade, the Subcommittee on Health & Technology, and the Subcommittee on Contracting & Workforce.

Dave Trabert, president of Kansas Policy Institute, offered the following in response to Monday’s announcement from the Consensus Revenue Estimating Group:

“The new revenue estimates will likely be used in some circles to promote fear of massive budget cuts, but the state budget can still be balanced without service reductions or tax increases. Implementing the KPI budget would only require the state to operate 1.3% more efficiently this year and 4.3% next year. Even most government employees would agree that the state can operate a couple of percentage points more efficiently.

“Kansans deserve better than ‘sky is falling’ scare tactics. We encourage legislators and media to honestly examine facts without political filters and present citizens with viable solutions to provide services at a better price. No finger pointing…no attempts to score political points…and no shading the facts…just civil debate of viable solutions.”

There are now enough Republicans in the House of Representatives and Senate that newly re-elected Gov. Sam Brownback presumably can get about whatever he wants done.

Now, that’s about as good as it gets for a governor who has his own very conservative ideas about where he wants the state to go policy-wise for the next four years and what sort of mark he wants to leave on the state.

Yes, every governor wants to leave a mark, something distinctive that can be traced back to his leadership, in the final term.

And, it appears — barring a sudden economic turnaround in revenues that might or might not happen two or three years into this administration — that it is going to be low-cost innovations that will be what Brownback leaves for Kansas after he is … well, doing whatever he wants to do starting in two or four years.

Oh, that two or four years is because there is a presidential election coming up that Brownback might choose to be a part of.

If the governor’s tax plan takes off — and it might just be that corporations around the nation and world were watching to see whether he got re-elected — well, there will likely be money to spend.

But the state revenues may not shoot up, and if so, he’s going to have to find a less costly way to leave a mark on the state besides maybe a highway off-ramp in every county or some method to sneak water from eastern Kansas to western Kansas without the federal government jumping in to stop him.

So, look at some philosophical issues that he might consider. At or near the top of that list of possibilities is public education, plus some method to fund it adequately to meet the Kansas Supreme Court’s view of equal educational opportunities wherever a student lives or to move the responsibility for that funding from the state and into the communities where those pupils live.

There is probably some way to accomplish that, but the quickest is to rein in the Supreme Court’s authority to determine what is a suitable education and the state’s proportional share of the cost of that suitable education.

It’s not being talked about out loud much, but there are legislators in both the House and Senate who are looking at carving the Supreme Court out of what eventually comes down to the state writing a check for K-12 education, and local school boards taking it from there. Maybe a suggestion from the court, maybe some guidelines from the court, but nothing that would allow the court to essentially write the dollar amount of that check the Legislature has to sign.

Constitutional amendment resolutions are floating around that would essentially do that, turn Supreme Court decisions—and we’re awaiting one now on adequacy of funding for K-12 education—into essentially a suggestion. Sorta like those notes some of us have seen in the screen door telling us it is time to mow…

Nobody doesn’t want to adequately finance public education, but there are practical budget limits that the governor and legislators have to stay within, and there are enough slogans and catch-phrases to make those limits sound like either brutal financial necessities or good public policy.

And, there’s the similarly brutal counter offensive possible. Anyone thinking what would happen if Brownback’s budget for K-12 next session or legislative trimming of that budget would make, say, high school football or basketball unaffordable?

Strange to think about, but something like high school sports could be the nuclear option for schools which are squeezed by state funding and the ability or willingness of district property taxpayers to see their tax bills rise.

Or, of course, we might just see Brownback propose to leave a mark on state government by trimming out some of those assistants to secretaries of state Cabinet agencies or the motor pool switching to motor scooters and Priuses.

We’ll see about this legacy business, won’t we…

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.

I have breaking news from the frontlines of the war.

No, not the new war in Iraq. That really is Iraq War III for us — our nation’s third trip there in just 25 years. Maybe the third try will be the charm, though I really don’t think there’s anything charming about it.

Nor do I mean our wars in Syria, Pakistan, Yemen, or…oh, who can keep up?

Rather, I mean our oldest ongoing war and the longest in American history, now going on 13 years: Afghanistan.

This life-destroying, money-sucking, soul-sapping wreck of a military escapade hasn’t gone at all well for Team USA. We’ve failed to crush the Taliban, plant the flower of democracy, or even slow the elite’s culture of corruption.

And now I bring hard news about the most modest of American goals in Afghanistan, namely defeating the poppy flowers. Yes, even fields of flowers have gotten the best of us in that woeful land.

After the Bush-Cheney invasion, a top U.S. priority was to stop the planting of poppies — the flower that produces opium and heroin. Afghanistan had become No. 1 in world opium production — the sale of the drug financed the repressive Taliban forces we had come to defeat.

For a decade, our troops played a leading role in eradicating poppy fields, lectured farmers, paid officials and farmers to switch to alternative crops, and waged all-out war on the pretty flower that can turn lives so ugly.

Having spent more than 10 years and $7.6 billion on the war on Afghanistan’s poppies, where are we?

More land than ever was dedicated to growing the flowers last year, reports John F. Sopko, the U.S. special inspector general for Afghanistan reconstruction. Those poppies yielded an all-time record harvest that generated some $3 billion in profits for the Taliban — a $1 billion boost from 2012, Sopko revealed.

And Afghanistan remains the undisputed leader of the opium business, having provided 80 percent of the world’s opium supply last year.

Just like the Iraq War, the war on Afghanistan’s poppies looks like it will drag on for years without any winners.

OtherWords columnist Jim Hightower is a radio commentator, writer and public speaker.