Have you ever wanted to make a strategic change in your company? Have you wanted to motivate people to raise awareness for a cause? Have you yearned for policy change in your city? If so, you might have grappled with just how to go about those changes? My answer is by exercising leadership – difficult, yet rewarding work.

As indicated by John Schrock, a biology professor from Emporia State, in his column last week, many higher education institutions are implementing leadership programs at an extraordinary rate. Is it a scam, as his editorial pointed out last week? Not in the least bit. As chair of the Department of Leadership Studies at Fort Hays State University, let me take this opportunity to share about leadership programs in higher education and how students are applying their learning to multiple contexts. Research shows that employers are seeking employees with the ability to communicate, work in teams, think critically, and solve problems. It is the role of higher education institutions to give students opportunities to develop these skills which they can incorporate in many aspects of their lives.

The number of leadership programs across the country has been ubiquitous, with over 1000 programs focusing on training, development, and education. These programs range from certificate programs to minors to even bachelor’s degrees in Organizational Leadership. Just as any discipline, research, theory, and practice are foundational to the study and teaching of leadership studies. Two large leadership programs in Kansas are housed at Fort Hays State University and Kansas State University. At these two institutions, students are studying and learning leadership as a process, not as a position or as a program for only the “best”. Leadership Studies faculty members in these two outcomes-based programs are dedicated to providing students with a comprehensive interdisciplinary educational experience that is based on both classroom theory and the practical application of leadership knowledge, skills, and behaviors.

The discipline of leadership studies, as it is taught at K-State and Fort Hays State, is based on a definition of what constitutes leadership, best articulated by Joseph C. Rost (1991): “Leadership is an influence relationship among leaders and followers who intend real changes that reflect their mutual purposes.” Leadership studies provides a specialized educational environment, including coursework, internships, and service-learning activities, that enhance the life experiences and strong undergraduate education that play a critical role in leadership development.

The mission of the School of Leadership Studies at K-State is developing knowledgeable, ethical, caring, inclusive leaders for a diverse and changing world. The mission of the Fort Hays State University Leadership Studies program is to educate and nurture citizens to lead our organizations, communities, state, nation, and beyond.

Key foundational elements for leadership programs are as follows:

• Need for Leadership – With the complex problems and challenges of our changing world, the need for leadership is great.
• Teaching Leadership – Leadership can be taught. It is possible to develop and provide students with a learning environment that will foster critical leadership skills and capabilities.
• Leadership for All – Leadership education is not just for a select few, but rather, all individuals can and should benefit from leadership education and development activities.
• Theoretical Foundation – These academic programs are based on an extensive theoretical foundation in the field of Organizational Behavior and Leadership Studies.

Academic courses and additional learning opportunities at each institution give students opportunities to learn skills, capacities and processes that are transferable to multiple contexts. These contexts through which our students “do” leadership are numerous – from non-profits to government to for-profit companies. Upon graduation, organizations do not hire our students to be the “leader”, but to be effective organizational players through exercising the leadership “process” at many levels of the organization.

Rigorous course based and program assessment is conducted throughout these programs so as to ensure that students are learning what we think they are learning. I mention only two academic leadership programs in Kansas; however, there are dozens more phenomenal programs throughout the United States who prepare students with similar pedagogical methods and content.

And this leadership process I mention above? What does it look like? Doing leadership is difficult. It is messy. It does not always feel good. It is challenging. It is rigorous. It is not necessarily about being the boss or administrator. It is about creating change through a process at multiple levels of an organization. It is not about making the most money. This leadership process is taught not out of books that are written by “highly rich people”, but scholars and practitioners that have conducted years of quantitative and qualitative research. These texts are rich with case studies, theory, and practical applications – all which connect to student learning.

I invite you to visit the FHSU Department of Leadership Studies or any other collegiate academic leadership program to learn more about the programs. The revolutionary growth of leadership programs is not for recruitment, but because leadership programs are providing students an opportunity to learn skills and capabilities that they can use not only throughout their career, but their neighborhoods, communities, and homes. We don’t attempt to produce “leaders”, but people who can mobilize others and enact change in many aspects of their lives.

This growth in leadership programs is not a scam. It is reality. It is what is needed in our schools, communities, companies, neighborhoods, and beyond. Maybe, just maybe, what our world needs is more leadership.

Dr. Jill Arensdorf is chairwoman and associate professor in the Fort Hays State University Department of Leadership Studies. [email protected]

Dear Dave,
I’m getting married soon, and my fiancée and I together have saved about $9,000 for our wedding. Right now, we’re doing really well on our budgets and almost always have money left over each month. Should we use the extra money to continue paying down our debt, or is it okay to use it for a few wedding incidentals?
Nathan

Dear Nathan,
I love the idea of having a nice, reasonable wedding paid for with cash. Some people look at weddings as an excuse to go nuts, but you guys sound like you have a good plan in mind.

The average cost of a wedding in America right now is around $30,000. Even if the extras you mentioned run $5,000 to $6,000, you’re still talking about half that amount. So, let’s look at it this way. Basically, you’re asking me if it’s OK to put your debt snowball on hold temporarily in order to modestly enhance your already reasonable wedding plans. My answer is yes!

Now, if you’d told me you wanted to drop $50,000 on the wedding instead of getting out of debt, I’d think you were crazy. It doesn’t sound like you two are going to abuse the situation, though. I think you’re both being very wise.

God bless, and I hope you have long and happy lives together!
—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.

If the EPA’s proposed rule to redefine waters of the United States becomes law, farming and ranching as we know it today may end.

“This is one of the most egregious oversteps of Congressional intent that has happened in modern times,” says Ryan Flickner, Kansas Farm Bureau public policy senior director. “Certainly since the Clean Water Act of 1972.”

Under the proposed rule, the Environmental Protection Agency intends to wield much more authority than Congress wrote into this law.

EPA published its proposal in the Federal Register April 21. It contends the new rule clarifies the scope of the Clean Water Act. In reality it provides more confusion and less clarity for farm and ranch families and could classify most water and some land features as waters of the United States.

Ordinary field work and everyday chores like moving cattle across a wet pasture, planting crops and even harvest may one day require a federal permit if this proposal becomes final.

Clean water is important to all of us, but this issue is not about water quality – it’s about federal agencies attempting to gain regulatory control over land use.

Throughout this republic’s history, Congress, not federal agencies, has written the laws of the land. Two Supreme Court rulings have affirmed the federal government is limited to regulating navigable waters. EPA’s recent proposal sends conflicting messages and would extend the agency’s reach.

Also at stake here are the roles of state and federal government, Flickner says – where that line is drawn and where it may be crossed.

Congress initially said the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers could only regulate “navigable” waters.

Farmers and ranchers are straight-forward people who believe words mean something. Agricultural producers believe the authors (Congress) of the Clean Water Act included the term navigable for a reason.

Is a small ditch navigable?

Is a stock pond navigable?

Ever see any maritime barges trying to navigate a southwestern Kansas gully during a cloud burst?

Because a farmer’s field, a homeowner’s lawn, a golf course or a playground collects water after a rain does not mean they should be regulated under waters of the United States. The new regulatory proposals could do exactly that.

What about the EPA claims that agricultural exemptions currently provided under the federal Clean Water Act should relieve farmer and ranchers of any need to worry about the proposed rule?

Exemptions provided in the act are mostly limited to plowing and earth moving activities. They do not apply to farm and ranch tasks like building a fence across a ditch, applying fertilizers or other forms of pest and weed control. Nor do they offer protection from land that has entered agricultural production since the 1970s.

If EPA’s proposed rule becomes law, many farming practices would require government approval through a complex process of federal permitting.

EPA’s so-called exemptions will not protect farmers and ranchers from the proposed waters rule. If farmlands are regulated as waters, farming and ranching will be difficult, if not impossible.

Public comment will be accepted until Oct. 20. Contact the EPA and Corps and let them know your opinion on this critical issue.

“Enough is enough,” Flickner says. “Kansas farmers and ranchers have worked with our state agencies including the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, Kansas Department of Agriculture and our elected officials. Let’s continue to work with these people who are more knowledgeable about our state.”

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

This year, USD 489 kicked off the school year by inviting all faculty and staff to attend a motivational workshop, and they asked yours truly to provide an inspirational message.

I was so honored and a bit nervous to speak — I mean, what could I say that could be memorable and interesting for a group of about 500 people? My ancestry has a long line of teachers, (I compared my grandmother to Laura Ingalls Wilder after hearing some of her stories), so I truly wanted to do my best.

I set out like most people do when they prepare for a daunting task; I looked for ideas to “borrow” from someone famous or really smart. Thanks to Robert Fulghum’s poem, I shared with these talented folk my version called, “What I really need to know, I learned from a Pop Tart.”

You see, I was first introduced to Pop Tarts in college, but didn’t start toasting them until I was way into my professional career.
For 10 years, I placed my tarts into the slot, and then I tipped over the toaster to get them out. For 10 years, I burned my fingertips and left crumbs everywhere with each Pop Tart toasting experience.

Until one day, a fellow coworker suggested something profound. She said, “Why don’t you just turn the Pop Tart upright?”

I had always placed the tart sideways, and not once thought about how easy it would be if I turned it the other direction. (Trust me. I’m still getting teased!)

As much as this experience makes me smile to this day, I realized some interesting aspects that I shared with the USD team and will share with you.

• Life is about perspective — by looking at a problem in a different way, however small, you can bring about great change.

• Education never ends — you can learn from any one at any time.

• Life’s little moments can be profound.

• Accept life’s humbling moments with grace and humor.

• Find joy and wonder in the simplest of acts.

To all those experiencing the joy of going back to school, whether you are a teacher, parent or student, may this school year be the best one ever!

Tammy Wellbrock is executive director of the Hays Area Chamber of Commerce.

Today’s hot topic is: college costs too much! Much anger is focused on public university tuition that has risen faster than health care costs. It might seem that, similar to the medical establishment, higher public education can charge as much tuition as they want and nobody can do anything about it.

So what are the major causes of exorbitant tuition? Legislatures. Visionaries. And student customers.
State legislatures have switched from viewing education as a public good to a private good. Some states cut all higher education funding. When the 2007 recession dramatically trimmed many states’ tax revenues, their “public” universities were unaffected. They had already moved to “state in name only” and student tuition was underwriting all of the costs.

The second guilty parties are the national and state “visionaries” that insist that everyone is college-able. From President Obama and Governor Brownback wanting 60 percent of citizens to have higher education degrees, to the Kansas Board of Regents insisting on growth in retention and graduation, the myth that everyone should go to college is printed on banners hanging in many high school hallways.

In the mid-1980s, 42 percent of the Kansas high school graduates went on to higher education. Today, twice that percent enter post-secondary schools. Most do not finish. Nationwide, about three-fourths of students who enter the private elite schools graduate, half who enter public universities graduate, and only one-fourth of those who enter community college graduate.

So even if the state legislatures supported higher education as a public, not private, good, there would be twice as many students to subsidize. Figures confirm this: in the 1980s the state provided two dollars for each one dollar the student paid in tuition. Today the state pays 92 cents in instructional costs for each dollar the student pays. Every non-college-able student in college draws money away from the college able. And now, KBOR pressure to grow and retain and graduate merely pushes public universities to inflate grades and de-value degrees.

But there is a third major factor contributing to the inflation in college costs: competition.
A feature article in the August 1 Chronicle of Higher Education describes the growing competition to attract students by campus beautification. The title says it all: “Spending Shifts as Colleges Compete on Students’ Comfort.” Substantial amounts of money are going into remodeling classrooms and student unions and dormitories that were perfectly functional. Spending on these “student services” is going up faster than spending on instruction.

The problem is simple: you can’t spend your educational dollars twice. Any commonsense Kansas farmer knows that having that reliable and productive green-and-yellow tractor working behind the house is more important than having a nice brink entrance to the front driveway. But college presidents are not Kansas farmers.

Many universities are shifting money to housing frills and expensive renovations of the campus and grounds to the detriment of the teaching force. “Instructional technology” using the latest fad equipment is obsolete in a few years, becoming another money pit. Higher administrators feel that it is more important to look teckie than to actually provide professors with the facilities that they request.

Where teckie gadgets are required, it drives up student costs and distances students from the remaining good faculty. Every dollar spent on “campus enhancements” is a dollar diverted from academics. Low salaries for new faculty then fail to recruit the best academics. More and more faculty are hired who are adjuncts. Fewer professor doors are open between classes.

It becomes a paradox: students are paying more but getting “cheaper” faculty, “cheaper” courses, and “cheaper” degrees.

Public universities are “lookin’ purty” and delivering less for more.

Even before the gubernatorial election campaign kicks off in earnest at the State Fair debate Saturday, the issue of K-12 education appears to be clear or at least outlined well enough by both Republican Gov. Sam Brownback and Democrat House Minority Leader Paul Davis, Lawrence, to put to bed.

If  K-12 education is the sole issue for a gubernatorial vote—and there are teachers, parents, grandparents and property taxpayers out there who make their decisions based on education—it’s about over.

That leaves a lot of issues out there for the campaign, but practically, we know where the school issue stands between the candidates.

Brownback, who except for claiming KPERS payments for schoolteachers as state aid to education, isn’t looking to spend any new money on K-12, and Davis says he would like to spend more, but there isn’t any more to spend after Brownback’s tax cuts.

If there’s a Davis position, it is that once there is enough money to run the state, he wants to restore the Base State Aid per Pupil to $4,492 from the current $3,852.

Brownback in the third stanza of his reelection Roadmap 2.0 campaign plan specifically doesn’t talk about money for K-12 education. It’s all programs that can be financed largely with existing money. Davis isn’t talking money, either, because there really isn’t any new money to spend.

But just because the major party candidates appear to have staked out their ground, there are some interesting facets of the elementary/secondary education debate that are worth noting.

Brownback, for example, chooses his crowd when talking about this year’s K-12 funding/policy legislation. Because he doesn’t draw a lot of schoolteachers to his political events—except occasionally to protest while wearing those red T-shirts—he often mentions that this year’s school finance bill included more than $70 million in property tax breaks for some districts’ taxpayers.

Davis actually hasn’t done a lot of large-format speeches yet, but he voted against the school finance bill Brownback signed because of policy issues—like the end of due process in tenure hearings for teachers and a $10 million tax credit for aid to non-public schools. Davis had some other ideas to put money in the classrooms, but along with fellow Democrats and moderate Republicans, never got much of a chance to push them.

So…practically, Brownback can say that Davis voted against financing schools, and Davis can say that Brownback wouldn’t support schools with funding levels that Davis and most educators believe is necessary. And by now we all can hum along with both candidates’ heartfelt exhortations that schoolchildren are the keys to the state’s economic success.

What’s left on the education issue? Talk. Lots of talk, and depending on what you want to hear, either candidate can make the sale.

But the basics are there from both gubernatorial campaigns. It’s work on nearly costless programs and cooperative agreements between businesses and schools and such, or try to scrounge up the money to expand programs, maybe pay schoolteachers more and spend more money in the classrooms on stuff that might make the kids smarter.

And, there is of course, the property tax bill, which picks up a significant percentage of the cost of educating your or your neighbor’s kids.

So, if you just vote based on elementary and secondary education, or the state/local policies that regulate it, you can probably decide now whose sign you want in your yard.

But if you’re one of those voters who weighs a bunch of issues, at least you have a start, and barring something dramatic, you can shift your focus to Medicaid expansion, care of the elderly or sick or the poor, medical marijuana, the death penalty, or whatever other brochures show up in your mailbox in the next two months.

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.

Nothing does more to erode public support for the First Amendment than public stunts deliberately designed to offend people of faith.

Think Fred Phelps and his minions waving hateful signs outside churches during military funerals. Or Terry Jones shouting, “Islam is of the Devil,” and setting fire to the Quran.

No wonder so many Americans think the First Amendment goes too far in the rights it guarantees — 38% according to the most recent survey from the First Amendment Center.

Just when you think offensive speech attacking religion has hit rock bottom, along comes a new candidate for the Rogue’s Gallery of culture war provocateurs.

Meet Adam Brian Daniels, the leader of a satanic group called Dakhma of Angra Mainyu (don’t ask) and organizer of a “black mass” to be held at the Civic Center in Oklahoma City next month.

Everyone from the city’s Catholic Archbishop Paul Coakley to Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin has denounced the planned event — to no avail. The First Amendment protects the right of any group to rent space in the Civic Center, as long as they obey the law.

A black mass, for the uninitiated, is intended to be an inversion of the Catholic Mass — a ritual designed to mock the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist that involves nudity, bodily fluids and disgusting acts not printable in a family newspaper.

On his website, Daniels promises to tone down the ritual to keep from breaking Oklahoma laws concerning public nudity, sex acts and other elements of the ritual. He originally planned to desecrate a consecrated host that he claims to have acquired from a priest in Turkey.

But after Archbishop Coakley filed suit to recover the host (arguing that all wafers blessed by a priest belong to the Catholic Church), Daniels backed down, handed over the host, and agreed to use black bread instead.

Not surprisingly, the specter of Satanists mocking the Body of Christ at the Civic Center puts Oklahoma City officials in a very uncomfortable spot. Although the city police can ensure that Daniels and his group don’t break any laws, city officials have little choice but to rent Daniels the space.

More than 50,000 people have signed a petition demanding that the city halt the black mass. Some have called for the city to invoke Oklahoma’s blasphemy law prohibiting “profane ridicule” of any religion.

But the city has no legal grounds for stopping the event.

It’s true that blasphemy laws remain on the books in Oklahoma and several other states as vestiges of a bygone era. But under the First Amendment, blasphemy is protected speech.

As the U.S. Supreme Court explained in 1952, “It is not the business of government in our nation to suppress real or imagined attacks upon a particular religious doctrine.” (Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson)

Before seeking ways to use the engine of government to censor speech attacking religion, people of faith would do well to remember that state power invoked to silence speech they don’t like today can be used to silence speech they do like tomorrow.

After all, what is “blasphemous” in the eyes of one faith could be “religious conviction” in the eyes of another. The danger to religious freedom lies in giving government the power to determine who is right.

An odious event like the black mass may strike many readers as an obvious line to draw on free speech. But however ugly and messy, freedom of expression is not free if it doesn’t include the right to offend.

History teaches that laws prohibiting “blasphemous speech” are little more than vehicles for censorship of unpopular viewpoints — religious, political and artistic. Even today, in some 30 countries around the world, blasphemy laws are still used by governments to persecute minority faiths and dissident voices.

In a free society that would remain free, hate speech should be countered — but with more speech, not government censorship.

Consider how small demonstrations by Phelps and his followers inspired huge counter-demonstrations of citizens determined to drown out his ugly message. Or how the hateful rhetoric of Terry Jones prompted people of many faiths to ban together in support of American Muslims.

The same dynamic will no doubt play out in Oklahoma City where the hideous black mass — if it takes place as planned — will be an opportunity for thousands of decent and caring people to rally around the Catholic Church by raising their voices in condemnation of a small, marginal and hateful group.

“Truth is great, and will prevail if left to herself,” wrote Thomas Jefferson in the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. Errors cease to be dangerous, he added, “when it is permitted freely to contradict them.”

Charles C. Haynes is director of the Religious Freedom Center of the Washington-based Newseum Institute. [email protected]

Lawyers will tell you that any good prosecutor could convince a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.

Well, meet that ham sandwich: Governor Rick Perry. He’s a real ham — only not as smart.

A Texas grand jury indicted Perry, charging the Republican with official abuse of power. Specifically, he’s accused of threatening to veto all state funding for a public integrity unit. Among other things, that office was investigating corrupt favoritism in one of the governor’s pet projects.

Perry was trying to muscle out of office the woman who is the duly elected head of that unit, presumably to halt its inquiry. Leave office, he publicly barked at her, or I’ll take away all your money. She didn’t, and he did.

Not smart, for that’s an illegal quid pro quo, much like linking a campaign donation to an official favor. This led to the selection of a judge, the appointment of a special prosecutor, the establishment of a grand jury and the indictment of the gubernatorial ham sandwich.

Perry and his Republican operatives quickly denounced and even threatened both the special prosecutor and the jurors as partisan hacks who, in the governor’s words, “will be held to account.”

Thuggish as that is, the national media have mostly swallowed Perry’s hokum that he’s the victim, indicted for nothing more than exercising his veto power. It’s crude politics, Rick howled, as he turned his courthouse mug shot moment into a raucous Republican political rally.

Perry has hornswoggled the pundits, but don’t let them fool you. This is serious.

Again, the issue isn’t Perry’s veto, but his linking of a veto threat to his effort to oust an elected public official. His hamming it up about being a poor victim of Democrats doesn’t withstand scrutiny. The judge who appointed the prosecutor is a Republican. And the prosecutor himself was nominated to federal office by President George H.W. Bush and endorsed by two Texas Republican senators.

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

By RON WILSON
Huck Boyd National Institute for Rural Development

July 30, 2014. Indianapolis, Indiana. The American Agricultural Editors’ Association is announcing its national awards, including the Story of the Year. And the winner is: The High Plains Journal from Dodge City, Kansas. Today we’ll learn about this remarkable publication and its emphasis on quality and innovation.

Tom Taylor is publisher and Holly Martin is editor of the High Plains Journal, which was originally a local newspaper in Dodge City. During World War II, a young Air Force pilot named Joe Berkely came from Chicago to Dodge City to help train French pilots. He met and married a Kansas girl and decided to stay. He bought the Dodge City Journal in 1945. The paper had five employees and only 132 subscribers. Ouch.

Leaders in the community, including the local county extension agent, asked for agricultural coverage in the paper. In response to the community need, Joe included more ag stories and the paper grew. In 1949, the paper was renamed the High Plains Journal.

Tom Taylor grew up at Dodge City, went to K-State, and began a career in business. Joe Berkely brought Tom on board as a salesman for the High Plains Journal in 1974.

“When I began, we were doing hot typesetting,” Tom said. “Our photographs were produced in Oklahoma City which took five days lead time. Now it’s all digital. It’s a very streamlined process, from computer to plate.”

Holly Martin joined the Journal as a reporter after graduating from K-State in 1993. Her husband is from the nearby rural community of Bucklin, population 713 people. Now, that’s rural.  Holly became editor in 2004.

There is great continuity at the High Plains Journal. After Joe Berkely retired, Duane Ross became publisher. After Duane retired, he was succeeded by Tom Taylor.

“Tom is the third publisher and I am the third editor that the High Plains Journal has ever had,” Holly said. The newspaper continues to embrace new technology and special projects to serve its subscribers.

“I don’t care if it is delivered through print or producer meetings or online videos, as long as we are providing high quality content to our farmers and ranchers,” Holly said. One innovative project is found at www.allaboardharvest.com, which chronicles the annual progression of the wheat harvest. In addition to print, this includes blogging, video, and social media to reach a broad audience.

“One couple from New York drove out to Nebraska just to meet a harvest crew.” Holly said.

Today the High Plains Journal produces five editions weekly, tailored to the cropping regions which it serves. These different editions serve western Kansas, the southern plains, the western plains, and eastern Kansas. The fifth edition is the Midwest Ag Journal, which serves Iowa, northern Missouri, and eastern South Dakota and Nebraska. All told, the publication reaches all or part of 10 states.

The High Plains Journal now has 75 employees and nearly 50,000 subscribers. “Many other newspapers have been cutting back but we’ve been able to grow,” Holly said.

“That is a testament to the high quality employees that we have here,” Tom said. “We’re like a family.”

For more information, go to www.hpj.com.

“The High Plains Journal has shown that community or niche publications can succeed in today’s tough market,” said Gloria Freeland, director of Kansas State University’s Huck Boyd National Center for Community Media. “By covering topics that are of vital interest to their audience — and producing them in print, online, video and blogging formats — they provide an essential service.”

It’s time to leave Indianapolis, where the American Agricultural Editors’ Association presented the Story of the Year award to The High Plains Journal. The winning article was titled “A Story of a Steak,” which described the progression of calves in Wyoming all the way through to processing (see www.storyofasteak.com). The next part of this story in the Journal will include an interview with a chef in Denver. It’s an innovative way to tell agriculture’s story.

We commend Tom Taylor, Holly Martin, and all those involved with the High Plains Journal for making a difference with innovation and quality. For ag journalism, the High Plains Journal sets the standard high.

Dear Dave,
I’m driving a 10-year-old car with 195,000 miles on it. The car needs $1,500 in repairs, and it’s worth $5,000. I have $40,000 in cash saved, $40,000 in investments and I make $80,000 a year. I also have $15,000 in student loan debt, but the only other thing I owe on is my house. Should I pay to repair the car or buy something else for $15,000?
Dave

Dear Dave,
Nice name! If you wrote a $15,000 check for a newer car and wrote a $15,000 check for the student loans, it would leave you with $10,000. I wouldn’t buy a $15,000 car in your situation. I’d buy a $10,000 car. You could sell your current car for around $3,500 if it needs repairs, combine that with your money and get a $13,500 car.

Then, you could write a check and pay off the student loan.
With no car payment, no student loan payment and a good car, you can really lean into your budget. Think about it. You’d have no debt except for your home, and you could rebuild your savings in a hurry and be in really great shape in about six months.

Plus, you’d have $15,000 sitting there in the meantime!
—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.

Some intensive shadowboxing may be about to break out in the so-far relatively bloodless fight between Republican Gov. Sam Brownback and Democrat Rep. Paul Davis, Lawrence, for governor.

The latest: Brownback asserts that Davis’ sketchy call for freezing the state’s multiyear income tax cut regimen—apparently to avoid budget deficits—is essentially raising taxes.

Earlier: It was Brownback who campaigned against letting the three-year penny sales tax increase expire on July 1, 2013, because he needed the money for education, and…to pay for an income tax cut bill that the Legislature wildly inflated above Brownback’s proposal.

So, who increased taxes and who proposes to increase…err…not continue cutting…taxes?

Both of them.

Is stopping a reduction in the state sales tax rate raising taxes? Is proposing to stop a future reduction in state income taxes raising taxes? You decide.

There is an interesting little twist with the income tax issue. In 2012, the Legislature did the massive income tax cuts that the state couldn’t afford. So, the next year, lawmakers who wouldn’t let the sales tax just fade away instituted a regimen of “haircuts” for income tax deductions.

Those deductions are available to Kansans who itemize their income taxes and those deductions were given a progressive “haircut.” So, the interest on your mortgage that used to be a dollar-for-dollar write-off against taxable income was reduced by 24% last year, and will be cut by 40% this tax year, and into the future, under the still murky “Davis freeze.”

The governor-led effort to keep the sales tax alive back in 2013 didn’t go entirely the governor’s way. Remember: The state sales tax in 2009 was 5.3%; it was raised by a penny to 6.3% for what was written into statute to be just three years. (Oh, a dab of that penny, .4%—that’s four cents for each taxable $10 in purchases—was earmarked for the highway department in perpetuity.)

The sales tax is now 6.15%, not the 6.3% Brownback wanted. Did Brownback raise sales taxes, or could we say he cut taxes by signing off on the sales tax continuation that was less than he wanted?

• • •

This little scrap over taxes, who raised them, and when…does have an interesting little side issue that the Brownback campaign cleverly noted.

While the tax-cut freeze that Davis is proposing hits everyone, the “haircut” provisions of current tax law are also frozen. This means that higher-income taxpayers who itemize won’t see the value of their deductions shrink any further. Which means, ironically—but factually—that freezing tax cuts actually benefits the wealthier itemizers by not further reducing the value of those deductions.

Imagine that? Davis panders to the wealthy. Or, at least that’s how the Brownback campaign has characterized it.

• • •

This little tax fight probably isn’t the issue that will send most Kansans to the window ledge to agonize over whom to support for governor.

There are schools and social issues and economic development and probably even the proper deportment when you live in the same county as a Lesser Prairie Chicken to rend our garments over.

But, it’s a start, and does anyone else think this little campaign to see who sleeps at the governor’s mansion might turn out to be fun for those of us who sleep in our own beds?

Syndicated by Hawver News Com. 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.

Twenty years ago, a few colleges and universities had some minor “leadership” programs. Usually based in business schools, students were experienced business folks. Today, public universities across the country are touting “leadership” programs, both majors and minors, to all of their student body.

This is more about recruiting students than actual production of leaders. It misleads some students into thinking there is a fast track to the top. And it defies all logic, striving to produce “all chiefs and no Indians.” (I will be criticized about being politically incorrect but there is no better phrase to capture this insanity.)

The courses in these programs, now often starting the freshman year are generic with no substantial enduring academic content.  Textbooks are modeled after the twelve-ideas-of-highly-rich-people genre. The curriculum is mostly an expansion of I’m-okay-you’re-okay feelgoodism.

But the qualities for various vocations are unique. Where is the evidence that an educational leader has the same skills as a factory manager or a colonel in the military? Where is the evidence that you can train in honesty or commonsense or other personality traits. And those facets that are trainable are part of the regular communication and writing and math curricula. But not generic one-size-fits-all “leadership”?

Aside from wasting many students’ money on tuition for a questionable curricula, there are serious down sides to instant-leader programs. And they have harmed higher education and K-12 schooling.

A few long-standing programs actually accept undergraduate students into leadership career paths. You can plan to take coursework to become an educational leader. Nationwide, the August 22 Chronicle of Higher Education reports an increase in higher administrators who did not come up through the ranks as professors themselves.

Administrators who lack any experience as a classroom teacher and researcher promulgate rules and regulations that are at best naive. At worst, they undermine the teaching and research. Having never served as a faculty member on curriculum or promotion committees, they impose procedures that do not work and which undermine faculty morale. And one of their first actions is to develop or expand the leadership curriculum.

At the K-12 level, the result has been disastrous in those states that have sidestepped the requirement to come-up-the-ranks. Since career military can retire after 20 years of service while in their mid-40s, many states have recruited these captains and majors and colonels to become school administrators. This reflects an anti-teacher attitude that somehow military commanders can “shape up our schools.”

Most states still require school administrators to have been teachers and to have experienced students in the classroom before moving into leadership positions. As a former high school teacher, I needed a school administrator who treats teachers as the professionals and provides us with the support we need. Unfortunately, that perspective is being lost as the corporate reformers and “leadership” crowd treat school teachers as assembly line workers.

If pure leadership was a skill separate from the job being done, then we can turn the military-education example around. Why not hire a 20-year veteran teacher to be general? No need to go through boot camp. No need to serve time ascending the ranks or experience what soldiers experience before you are in charge of them.

Most people with common sense—and no leadership training—realize that there are many good reasons generals should come up from the ranks. Otherwise, there would be a lot of lives lost; indeed, in times of war, we have made that mistake.

The real way to train leaders is to train the best folks at the entry level and let time and experience sort those who have the additional skills to lead. In these cases, there may indeed be a few courses that might help those exceptional people.

But the massive recruitment of students across this country into leadership programs is little more than an appeal to ego in order to attract tuition dollars.

Any small child can tell you: when everyone’s special, no one is special.