From the Topeka Capital Journal
Kansas outperforms ranking on employment
Falls short on income growth
Posted: May 4, 2013 - 5:27pm
Join the conversation
ONLINE
See a full state-by-state listing with economic ratings.
CJOnline.com
STATE RANKINGS (BEST AND WORST)
State Outlook Unemploy. Labor force Income Growth
Utah 1 10 (tie) 14 46 14
South Dakota 2 3 4 18 50
Virginia 3 13 15 8 42
Wyoming 4 7 7 (tie) 7 47
Idaho 5 23 23 49 24
Kansas 27 10 (tie) 10 24 37
Hawaii 46 12 40 17 29
California 47 49 32 (tie) 15 18
Maine 48 26 (tie) 20 (tie) 28 17
Vermont 49 4 5 (tie) 21 8
New York 50 38 38 4 43
SOURCE: U.S. BUREAU OF LAB
By Megan Hart
megan.hart@cjonline.com
Kansas ranked among the 10 best states for unemployment and labor force participation in 2012, besting
some states whose business climates are more often held up as models.
The state lagged behind the national average on growth of per capita income in 2012, though Kansas still
outperformed some states with higher-ranked economies.
Kansas had the 10th-highest rate of participation in the labor force in 2012, according to data from the U.S.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. A person is defined as being in the labor force if he or she has a job, or has looked
for one in the past four weeks. People who have given up searching for work because of discouragement or
other factors aren’t counted as part of the labor force.
Kansas also tied with Utah for the 10th-lowest unemployment rate in 2012, according to BLS data.
Per capita income grew slightly slower in Kansas than it did nationwide between 2011 and 2012, however,
rising 2.33 percent to $41,835. The nationwide per capita income growth rose 2.73 percent, to $42,693, in
2012, according to data from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.
Kansas’ business climate at the start of 2012 wasn’t held up as a model for other states. The American
Legislative Exchange Council gave the state middling marks in its annual “Rich States, Poor States” analysis
of states’ economic competitiveness, co-authored by economist Arthur Laffer. Laffer testified in favor of
Kansas’ plans to lower income tax rates and exempt nonwage income from some types of businesses in 2012.
The latest report, published in 2012, ranked Kansas 26th in its list of states best poised for future growth. The
state had ranked 27th in 2011. The 2013 report will be available later this year.
Measuring
the economy
Factors considered in the report are the state’s highest personal income tax rate, highest corporate income tax
rate, personal income tax progressivity (meaning how much more higher-income taxpayers pay than lowincome ones), property tax burden, sales tax burden, whether the state has an estate tax, burden from other
taxes, any recent tax changes, how much of tax revenue goes toward paying for debt, number of public
employees per 1,000 residents, the quality of the state’s legal system, costs related to workers’ compensation,
state minimum wage, whether a state has enacted right-to-work laws (meaning workers can’t be required to
join a union) and whether the state has a statutory limit on taxes or expenditures.
Ronald Caldwell, an economics professor at The University of Kansas, said lower taxes and being a right-towork state can encourage businesses to relocate to a state, but it takes substantial time because of the
difficulties of moving factories or other operations over a long distance.
“It’s difficult to get causation because of the long-time horizon,” he said.
Caldwell said it isn’t altogether surprising that Kansas didn’t perform equally well in employment and
income growth. States with a strong agricultural history tend to have lower unemployment over the long run,
but also have lower per capita income, he said.
“Some of the industries might not be big-dollar industries,” he said. “They’re not going to boom but they’re
not going to bust.”
The correlation between competitiveness rankings and economic outcomes also didn’t appear closely linked
in some other states. South Dakota was ranked the second-best business climate in the ALEC report, but
ranked last for income growth between 2011 and 2012. At the other end of the spectrum, Vermont’s business
climate ranked second-worst, but it had the fourth-lowest unemployment rate and the eighth-highest growth
in per capita income.
Other factors
Jonathan Williams, ALEC’s director of tax and fiscal policy, said competitiveness affects growth of
employment, population and income over the long term, though other states may make changes that wipe out
one state’s economic advantage. It isn’t clear how quickly changes to a state’s tax structure would show up in
economic benefits, he said.
“That’s really the million-dollar question,” he said. “Sometimes it does take a while for performance to catch
up with incentives.”
Other factors also have a large influence on economic growth, including certainty that the state won’t make
large changes to its tax structure or budget in the future and quality of education, Williams said. Some people
even make the argument that states in warmer climates have an advantage in attracting residents and
companies, though it isn’t as clear if that holds up statistically. Those factors weren’t included in the
competitiveness index, however, because states can’t change them quickly, he said.
“It’s a look at the factors that states can control immediately and not 20 years over time,” he said.
Mike O’Neal, CEO of the Kansas Chamber, said the chamber continues to advocate for lower corporate and
individual income taxes that will encourage business development and improve Kansas’ competitiveness
rank, while allowing the sales tax to drop. The state has ranked higher in other comparisons, however,
because of its community college system for worker education, incentives for business development in rural
counties and relatively simple regulatory requirements. Employers also tend to perceive people from the
Midwest as more desirable workers, he said.
“They talk about not only a good Midwestern work ethic, but ethical workers,” he said. “It’s not just your tax
structure. It’s a lot of things, tangible and intangible.”
Sherrienne Jones-Sontag, spokeswoman for Gov. Sam Brownback, said continuing to lower tax rates, reform
regulations and cut spending is important for Kansas to continue growing.
“Kansas’ economic results were good in 2012 because Kansas businesses and workers are among the best in
the world,” she said in a statement. “But there’s still a lot of work to do. We’re still growing out of a decade
where we lost private-sector jobs and high taxes chased away investments and opportunities.”
Sen. Anthony Hensley, D-Topeka, cautioned that economic rankings don’t capture what a state may give up
by changing its tax structure. He pointed to high rates of children living in poverty, high numbers of people
without insurance and low high school graduation rates in Texas, which has no income tax. Texas ranked
18th on the competitiveness list.
“There are other human factors when you look at these tax issues,” he said.
Tax impasse likely to push session past 80
days
Senate president encourages colleagues to lobby House members
individually
Posted: May 8, 2013 - 2:18pm
By Andy Marso
andy.marso@cjonline.com
Senate President Susan Wagle, R-Wichita, and House Speaker Ray Merrick, R-Stilwell, seem resigned to
seeing their goal of an 80-day session dissipate Wednesday, saying tax talks haven’t progressed enough to get
things done by Monday.
During a Senate Republican caucus Wednesday, Wagle told her colleagues the House is still standing firm in
its position against extending a temporary sales tax. She said the Senate's position, which is to extend the
sales tax in order to balance the budget and buy future income tax cuts, is the only way to grow the state
economy responsibly.
“We’re on the right path," Wagle said. "Your leadership team believes in the package you passed, and that’s
clearly what could hold us up and take us past the 80-day mark.”
Wagle encouraged senators to lobby House members in their district individually and promise help with next
year's re-election campaigns to quell fears of being ousted for voting to extend the sales tax.
“We’ll walk with them, we’ll knock on doors, we’ll stand with them as they go through the election process,”
Wagle said.
Merrick told his caucus he, too, foresees the session going past 80 days. A normal session is 90.
"I was hoping it would be different this year, but it always comes down to this — people jockeying for
position," Merrick said.
The Senate can’t adjourn without a budget, and Senate Majority Leader Terry Bruce said his body won’t
allow adjournment without tax changes.
Plans to do both this week appear dead, with both bodies saying they will do little heavy lifting until Friday
and Wagle saying her preference is to let senators go home for Mother's Day.
Wagle and Merrick serve on the American Legislative Exchange Council's board of directors. The Kansas
City Star reported that the leaders talked taxes last week in Oklahoma City at ALEC's annual conference —
most of which is closed to the public.
It wasn’t the first time this session lawmakers discussed tax policy off-site.
Senate Republicans held a closed caucus at the Aviva building downtown in March. Reporters were asked to
leave after Gov. Sam Brownback addressed the caucus.
The GOP senators, Revenue Secretary Nick Jordan, budget director Steve Anderson and David Kensinger,
Brownback’s former chief of staff, stayed to chat. Two days later the Senate voted 25-14 to approve a tax bill
that closely mirrors the one pushed by Brownback.
That bill includes an extension of a 0.6 of a percent sales tax increase currently set to expire July 1 — a sales
tax increase 16 of the senators who voted in favor of the extension voted against when it was proposed in
2010.
The sales tax extension — opposed by all Senate Democrats — has proved to be the sticking point in
negotiations. Brownback and a majority of senators say it is necessary to shore up the budget following last
year's income tax cuts and to buy future cuts on the "glide path to zero" income tax.
House Democrats and a number of conservative Republicans have balked at extending the sales tax. House
leaders have instead offered a plan to balance the budget with spending cuts in the short term and wait on
economic growth to trigger future income tax cuts.
Those spending cuts would hit higher education hard, with a 4 percent cut proposed for Kansas Board of
Regents institutions.
Brownback has been traveling to those institutions across the state for weeks to stump for his tax and budget
plan, which leaves higher education funding static as an alternative. On Tuesday the tour took him to Salina,
where University of Kansas Chancellor Bernadette Gray-Little has said her school's satellite medical school
campus would have to close if the 4 percent cut becomes a reality.
Dennis Lauver, president and CEO of the Salina Chamber of Commerce, said he spoke with Brownback and
encouraged a compromise that would extend the sales tax, but only for three years, and cut 0.1 of a percent
off the extension so legislators can say they reduced sales tax from current levels.
“It’s a political win-win for everybody,” Lauver said, adding that he believed Brownback was receptive to the
idea.
Legislative leaders haven’t said what type of offers have been made, but Rep. Richard Carlson, R-St. Marys,
said thus far the Senate has offered nothing close to acceptable.
"We have been in discussions over several days," Carlson said. "We have made some offers in a very high
overview. The House has actually made several offers, and we are still awaiting a good offer from the
Senate."
Gov. Brownback finishes higher education tour
Funding for higher ed in trouble with budget balancing
Posted: May 7, 2013 - 1:10pm
By The Associated Press
Gov. Sam Brownback is concluding his statewide tour aimed at building support for protecting spending
levels for the Kansas higher education system.
The Republican governor began his tour more than two weeks ago while legislators were on their monthlong
recess. He finishes the tour Tuesday at Fort Hays State University, along with a stop at the University of
Kansas School of Medicine’s Salina campus.
Brownback wants legislators to keep funding for the higher education stable in the 2014 budget. Legislators
are going the opposite direction, with the House seeking a 4 percent cut and the Senate a 2-percent cut.
The governor also wants to keep the state’s sales tax rate at 6.3 percent instead of reducing it to 5.7 percent as
scheduled in July.
Legislators resume their session Wednesday.
Income tax negotiations coming into focus
Thursday
Legislative budges must be resolved to pass
Posted: May 8, 2013 - 5:36am
By The Associated Press
Kansas lawmakers are hoping to resume negotiations over proposals for additional cuts in individual income
taxes.
Legislators were reconvening Wednesday at the Statehouse after a monthlong spring break to wrap up its
business for the year. Republican Gov. Sam Brownback wants the GOP-dominated Legislature to follow up
on massive personal income tax cuts enacted last year.
But three senators and three House members must resolve differences between the two chambers for a bill to
pass.
The Senate passed a bill containing Brownback’s plan for more income tax cuts over the next four years and
his proposal to cancel a decrease in the sales tax scheduled by law for July.
The GOP-controlled House approved a measure to allow the sales tax to drop, with less aggressive income
tax cuts.
Session to reconvene seeking tax compromise
House leader says he's ready to move toward Senate position
Posted: May 4, 2013 - 8:01pm
By Andy Marso
andrew.marso@cjonline.com
The legislative session will reconvene Wednesday with all eyes on a tax conference committee that appears
to hold the key to getting legislators out of town for the year.
Legislators must pass a budget before they can adjourn the 2013 session permanently, and budget negotiators
have said they need to know what kind of tax revenue they are working with before they can do so.
That leaves it to a group of three senators and three House members to hash out a deal that can get a majority
vote in both chambers — and get Gov. Sam Brownback's signature.
Both chambers are conservative this year, and leaders of both chambers have said they want a lower income
tax and economic growth. But while they say they want the same thing, their approaches to getting it are
opposite.
The House has settled on a plan that relies on growth to trigger income tax cuts, while the Senate and the
governor are keen on reducing income tax first to spur growth.
"By 2017, it's anticipated the House's tax plan will reduce the state's highest personal income tax bracket
from 4.9 percent to 4.7 percent," Senate Majority Leader Terry Bruce, R-Hutchinson, said April 5, the day
before the Legislature adjourned for a monthlong break. "Our plan in that same time reduces it to 3.5 percent.
Ours is much more aggressive."
The Senate proposes to shore up the budget in preparation for those deep cuts by extending a 0.6 of a percent
sales tax set to expire July 1.
Thus far, House members have resisted that. They would prefer to balance the budget through spending cuts
in the short term. If, in the longer term, the income tax cuts already passed spur economic growth as
Brownback predicts, the House plan would use all growth beyond 2 percent of the previous year's revenue to
further decrease the income tax rates.
“I just feel that it’s definitely a sensible way to go, in that you’re assured of having adequate growth before
buying down the tax rates," said Rep. Richard Carlson, R-St. Marys. "Both of them could possibly get us to
the same goal, but it’s just a different pathway.”
Carlson, the House's top tax negotiator and architect of the chamber's tax alternative, noted that even with the
elevated sales tax, the Senate's tax plan is projected to put the state in the red by 2018 unless there is
significant growth.
Carlson's Senate counterpart, Sen. Les Donovan, R-Wichita, has a powerful chip in the bargaining game in
that Brownback prefers his chamber's plan and any compromise will have to pass the governor's desk.
“The governor has a little more leverage than the average senator or representative," Donovan said.
"Governors tend to get what they want.”
Many of Donovan's Senate colleagues were against the temporary sales tax when it passed in 2010, but
enough have flipped since then to pass a tax bill that would extend it by a vote of 25-14 in March.
The vote came days after the Senate's Republican supermajority debated the merits of the tax plan in an offsite caucus that was closed to the media and the public. Brownback addressed the Republicans before
reporters were asked to leave. The governor also left before the discussions took place, but Revenue
Secretary Nick Jordan, state budget director Steve Anderson and David Kensinger, Brownback's former chief
of staff, stayed.
In a phone interview Wednesday, Donovan declined to go into details of the evening, except to say that he
"talked quite a bit about the tax plan — they asked me to run through the particulars.”
Donovan downplayed the significance of the closed caucus.
“I don’t think anybody’s minds were changed that evening” Donovan said. “They were ready to vote the way
they voted.”
While the backing of Brownback bolsters the Senate position, House members also have an ace in the hole: If
they do nothing, they get their way on the sales tax. The tax will expire automatically July 1.
Donovan acknowledged that could be an endgame, but said the budget picture would be bleak.
"What happens one year from now if we do nothing?" Donovan said. "Where’s the state going to be
financially?”
Carlson said the House budget still balances in 2014 if the state's current tax schemes remain in place, and
"it's not an emergency" if nothing passes, but acknowledged that digging into reserves won’t work in the
long-term and a deal will eventually have to be done — if not this year, then soon.
"We do have a strong negotiating position because that is the ultimate result that could happen, but I certainly
would not favor that or promote that," Carlson said of walking away from the tax table. "My position is that
we should negotiate a good bill.”
House Speaker Ray Merrick, R-Stilwell, has joined Carlson's call to negotiate.
"It’s unrealistic to say there won’t be any compromise on the budget and tax plans," said Rachel Whitten,
Merrick's spokeswoman. "As the leader of this chamber, Speaker Merrick is putting a good-faith effort
toward working with the Senate on a plan that will result in reduced government spending and a lower tax
burden."
Whitten said she still expects the final tax and budget products will include "many, many House positions."
But Donovan said the appearance that Merrick is willing to make a deal on the sales tax is a positive step.
“With Ray Merrick starting to use the word 'compromise,' that’s something I haven’t heard from him this
year," Donovan said. “Maybe there is going to be a compromise. There needs to be. We can’t go the whole
way.”
Senate Minority Leader Anthony Hensley, D-Topeka, said if the House is going to budge on the sales tax it is
going to do so over the objection of its 33 Democrats.
“I’m hearing Merrick and Carlson are saying they’re willing to compromise," Hensley said. "I believe they’re
going to have to do it with 63 Republican votes. I don’t believe there will be any Democrats who will support
the continuation of the sales tax."
Donovan and Carlson left the negotiating table a month ago with both saying their chambers wouldn't allow
them to budge much toward the other's position. Both said they had always found the other easy to work
with, but this year provides perhaps their most difficult negotiating task.
But Carlson said last week that the atmosphere tends to change after the spring break. The final revenue
numbers are in, the nonbudgetary legislative items are out of the way, and the prospect of adjourning the
session for good starts to dance in lawmakers’ heads.
“I strongly suspect in the first three or four days of the (veto) session we will come to some sort of
agreement,” Carlson said.
Editorial: Legislators should extend sales tax
Posted: May 4, 2013 - 5:31pm
By The Capital-Journal
When legislators left Topeka last month for their annual break that precedes what traditionally is supposed to
be a brief “veto session,” there wasn’t sufficient support in the House to extend a sales tax that is set to
expire, or “sunset,” on June 30.
The idea of voting to extend that tax likely has caused considerable angst on the part of many state
representatives in recent weeks, but it is something they should do.
There is no joy to be found here in coming to that conclusion, but the alternative, at least at this point, is
unacceptable.
Legislators have painted themselves into a corner on this one, in more ways than one. Last year, they passed
and Gov. Sam Brownback signed income tax cuts — without eliminating some income tax deductions that
would have softened the blow to the state’s coffers — that haven’t had time to yield the promised fruit,
economic growth and higher state revenues.
The loss of income is pinching the state’s finances and a lot of money or a lot of spending cuts are necessary
to balance the budget for the fiscal year that begins July 1. The sales tax that is to expire June 30 is a source
of additional dollars, several hundred million of them.
Legislators also have painted themselves into a corner in terms of time. They couldn’t solve the budget
problem before the recess and now must find a solution, one Brownback will sign off on, during the veto
session, although the length of that session has proven to be flexible.
Brownback has shown no sign of yielding on his goal to eventually eliminate the state income tax. So there is
no help to be found there.
During the recess, Brownback has been championing extension of the sales tax to maintain level funding of
some services, including higher education.
Just how many votes the governor has swayed is unknown. Many Republican legislators have been criticizing
for the past few years the 1 cent sales tax passed under a previous administration and the lawmakers who
voted for it then, many of whom no longer serve in the Legislature. To vote to extend the sales tax in its
entirety — 0.6 cents in to sunset while 0.4 cents will be retained to fund a transportation improvement
program — is not something those who have been vehement in their opposition to it would relish.
They may find it to be a bitter pill, but it’s one they should swallow.
Some elected officials at all levels of government delight in insisting all taxes are evil. But the simple truth is
all levels of government are responsible for funding some services that cannot be ignored.
Ignoring that responsibility is not the answer.
Disability community lobbies for Medicaid
exemption
Governor seeks to add nonmedical services to KanCare program
Posted: May 8, 2013 - 1:05pm
By Tim Carpenter
timothy.carpenter@cjonline.com
Leonard Williams is worried that reform touted by Gov. Sam Brownback might change state-financed job
coaching services that helped his developmentally disabled daughter remain employed for nine years.
He joined more than 1,000 people at a rally Wednesday outside the Capitol to urge the 2013 Legislature and
Brownback to leave nonmedical services — job training, transportation, nutrition, social skills — outside the
managed care system operated by three health insurance companies since January.
"These companies don't have experience dealing with these services," Williams said at the event sponsored
by InterHab, a Topeka organization. "Without that service of a job coach, she wouldn't be working in the
community."
On behalf of his daughter, Williams added his name to a 65-foot canvas banner designed to send a message
that folding nonmedical services for the developmentally disabled into the Medicaid system known as
KanCare would damage clients and families.
In 2012, the state postponed for one year placement of these services into KanCare. The objective of the rally
was to convince legislators there was support to continue that policy.
Sherriene Jones-Sontag, spokeswoman for Brownback, said carving out developmental disability services
would cost the state $25 million during the next two years based an assessment by the Kansas Department of
Administration.
She said KanCare recipients with developmental disabilities would keep their case managers, providers
would be paid at current rates, and coordination of services would improve for those who depend on the
system for daily needs.
"KanCare has proven it is possible to increase services and reduce cost at the same time," she said. "Now, we
have an opportunity to use those savings to dramatically improve the lives of hundreds of our most
vulnerable citizens."
The governor recently submitted a request to the Legislature to reallocate $16 million to remove 600 people
from waiting lists for disability long-term care and support services.
However, participants in the InterHab event made personal appeals for carving these developmentally
disabled services from KanCare.
"I know the way services are currently provided is the best way," said Lorie Angelo, a Wichita member of
Rainbows United who has an autistic nephew. "We have lots of government oversight now. Adding another
layer by insurance companies does not serve any good purpose. It will not save money. It will hinder services
to people who really need them."
Kay Soltz, guardian of a 31-year-old son with autism, said any declaration KanCare was a success, in
terms of providing medical services, was premature. Under the KanCare system, she said, her son was
blocked from retaining his Wichita physician of the past five years.
He was assigned a new doctor who turned out to be a pediatrician.
Soltz said the provider also sent a letter declaring medication her son had taken for a decade to be medically
unnecessary. After intervention by his pharmacist, she said, he will retain his prescription for one year.
"When my kid is not on this medication," she said, "he hits himself until he's bruised."
Social service advocates avoiding KanCare
shift
Social services, higher ed questions remain
Posted: May 8, 2013 - 5:34am
By The Associated Press
Kansas legislators are returning to the Statehouse to resume the 2013 session, continuing negotiations to
settle spending issues for the fiscal year beginning July 1.
Legislators have been on a month long break since April 5. House and Senate budget committees met briefly
over the interim to review a new state revenue forecast and remaining issues in the $14.5 billion.
A rally is scheduled Wednesday morning by social service advocates. They want Gov. Sam Brownback to
keep in-home services for the developmentally disabled from being administered by three private health
insurance companies as the state’s Medicaid provider. The services are scheduled to be folded into the state’s
KanCare system in 2014.
Budget negotiations include discussion over how to treat higher education. Brownback wants to protect
higher education from further cuts.
Disability advocates talk about divvying new
funds
Groups angle for bigger chunk for developmentally disabled Kansans
Posted: May 6, 2013 - 11:30am
By Andy Marso
andrew.marso@cjonline.com
A group of advocates for developmentally disabled Kansans said Monday they hope the Legislature will
appropriate more new funds for Medicaid services for people with those types of disabilities than those with
physical disabilities.
Gov. Sam Brownback has proposed that $18 million in savings from his Medicaid managed care program,
"KanCare," go to provide home-and-community-based waiver services for physically and developmentally
disabled Kansans currently on waiting lists.
Tim Wood, head of the Disability Rights Center of Kansas' End the Wait Campaign, said his understanding is
that Brownback's proposal would evenly distribute the money between the two groups.
“If you did that, that would take 400 off the PD list and 200 off the DD list,” Wood said.
Wood said waiver services for developmentally disabled Kansans average about $42,000 per year, while
services for the physically disabled cost about half that.
That being the case, Wood's group advocated that about $12 million go to the developmental disability
waiting list and about $6 million go to the physical disability waiting list.
With the physical disability waiting list at about 2,500 and the developmental disability list at more than
5,000, Wood said Kansans with developmental disabilities already face much longer waits — sometimes
more than 10 years.
“The list is quite a bit longer," Wood said.
Mike Oxford, executive director of the Topeka Independent Living Resource Center, said more discussion
about how to divvy up the money needs to occur. Oxford's group represents Kansans with all types of
disabilities, though he said those with physical disabilities of working age are the largest segment.
Oxford said he didn't want to "pit one group against another." He said appropriating more money for
developmentally disabled Kansans based on their services costing more would cause inevitable questions
about how efficiently the different types of services are being provided.
“If we go anywhere besides divvying up the money equally, then we get into these type of issues,” Oxford
said.
Legislators will consider Brownback's proposal for the waiting list funding when they return to session
Wednesday.
Wood's organization is part of the Kansas DD Policy Group, which hosted a news conference Monday to
applaud Brownback's budget amendment and encourage legislators to not only adopt it, but discuss long-term
plans for ending the waiting list.
The $18 million proposed is about one-fourth of the total savings Brownback said has been realized since the
state shifted most Medicaid services to three private insurance companies under KanCare.
Wood said that in apportioning part of the money to the waiting lists, Brownback is fulfilling one of the
conditions the federal government attached to approval of KanCare.
That mattered little to Topeka resident Ronda Klein, whose autistic son Curtis waited some 12 years for
home- and community-based services, in part because of a bureaucratic mix-up. Klein said she still wanted to
thank Brownback for trying to do something with the waiting list that "previous administrations never
addressed at all."
“We waited a long, long time for services for my son,” Klein said.
Wood said the waiting list hasn’t been at a manageable level since the 1990s.
Past Legislatures have brainstormed multiyear plans for paring down the list, he said, but they have never
been implemented. At this point, Wood and other advocates say the system has been underfunded so long
that stagnant wages and uncertainty have led to a decline in care providers, to the point where even if the
waiting list were fully funded, they doubt the state would have the infrastructure necessary to provide
services for all.
Klein said she has seen it first-hand with her son's caregivers, who she said are paid about $9.20 per hour
with few benefits.
Angela de Rocha, a spokeswoman for the Department of Children and Families, said she has seen no such
"capacity" problems within the system and everyone who has come off the waiting list has had no trouble
finding service providers.
Tom Laing, of Topeka-based service provider Interhab, disagreed.
De Rocha said including the services in KanCare — which Laing's group and others have opposed — would
only strengthen the provider network.
Wood said the challenge of bringing people off the waiting list while at the same time shoring up provider
capacity is one that will require careful planning and bold action beyond the governor's $18 million proposal.
“We think this is a great move on the part of the governor, and we applaud him," Wood said. "But yet again
we think this is also a great opportunity for the Legislature to develop a comprehensive, multiyear plan that
moves people off the waiting list at a reasonable pace.”
Kansas Legislature to vote on retaining kids
based on reading
Brownback's plan calls for retaining first-graders with low reading
scores
Posted: May 4, 2013 - 4:19pm
By John Milburn
The Associated Press
Legislators are expected to make quick work of remaining education issues when the Kansas Legislature
returns Wednesday to finish the 2013 session, including a proposal sought by Gov. Sam Brownback to
improve elementary reading scores.
The plan calls for testing first-graders on their skills and holding them back if they aren’t reading at grade
level. Students could be retested and parents would have a say in the matter before students are retained. The
Senate approved the compromise but still needs House approval to go to the governor.
Brownback, who first raised the issue of fourth-grade reading scores when campaigning for governor in
2010, said he would take a look at what legislators sent to him to consider. He said the discussion has been
healthy, prompting some districts to take a look at their own policies.
“That’s what my effort’s about. Let’s get on top of this thing earlier so kids can read,” he said recently.
Brownback sought support for his early learning initiatives during stops in Pittsburg and Iola last month on
his statewide tour for higher education. He said the goals of local programs, including the international Save
the Children organization, that partner with school districts to improve student learning fit with his agenda of
increasing the number of fourth-graders reading at grade level.
Mark Desetti, lobbyist for the Kansas National Education Association, said he didn’t expect many surprises
in the final days of the session, noting that most of the major policy debates had been settled or deferred to
next year for more study.
“Idleness is the devil’s workplace. Who knows what will come up,” he said. “What are left are the budget and
the tax policy to support it. I hope that they concentrate on that and are out within their 80 days.”
House Education Committee Chairwoman Kasha Kelley said she was disappointed that legislators didn’t
approve several measures she believes would have given students and parents more education options. One
plan that stalled in the House would have established a scholarship program for special needs students,
funded by contributions from businesses and corporations. Students would have been able to use the
scholarships to attend alternative school settings in an effort to meet academic needs.
“I think that’s our responsibility to give those opportunities to students and parents,” said Kelley, an Arkansas
City Republican.
One issue that won’t be discussed in great detail will be changes to the state school finance formula. The state
is appealing a January ruling from a three-judge panel in Shawnee County District Court finding that the
Kansas system for funding public schools is unconstitutional. The judges are ordering the state to comply
with current funding laws, which would result in an increase of at least $440 million in state spending.
The lawsuit was brought by attorneys representing school districts and parents and was filed in 2010. The
attorneys met unsuccessfully for two days with attorneys representing the state in hopes of mediating a
settlement. The Kansas Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case on Oct. 8 and a ruling is possible
before the start of the 2014 session next January.
Senate leader sees session going past 80 days
Posted: May 9, 2013 - 5:26am
By The Associated Press
Top Republicans in the Kansas Legislature had dreamed of ending its annual session in 80 days, a show of
efficiency that would have trimmed 10 days off the normal but often-violated schedule.
But Senate President Susan Wagle said Wednesday that it’s unlikely lawmakers can meet the goal because of
an impasse over tax cuts.
The Wichita Republican predicted during a meeting of GOP senators that the session could last most of next
week. The 80th day is Monday.
Legislators often worry about how going longer than 90 days will play with their constituents. Last year’s
session lasted 99 days. The record is 107 days, set in 2002.
Asked about Wagle’s comments, House Speaker and Stilwell Republican Ray Merrick said, “I guess that’s
her decision.”
Opponents of Common Core unite under dome
House members vow to seek derailment of the English, math
standards
Posted: May 8, 2013 - 3:58pm
By Tim Carpenter
timothy.carpenter@cjonline.com
Home schooling advocate Vanessa Everhart offered a prayer Wednesday that members of the Legislature
would flunk a plan to implement English and mathematics teaching standards wrapped in a program
sweeping the nation.
She made the appeal to a higher power during a Capitol meeting on the first day lawmakers returned to
Topeka from a one-month break. The Kansas State Board of Education voted in 2010 to adopt Common
Core, an approach to teaching these baseline subjects embraced by more than 40 states.
Everhart, who is part of the Kansans Against Common Core organization, urged legislators at the forum
under the dome to do their best to derail the initiative. So far, bills reflecting her vision haven't passed out of
House or Senate committees.
Rep. John Bradford, R-Lansing, said no one should be discouraged if the session closed without a reversal.
"We'll be here in January with a vengeance and get the job done," Bradford said. "Our children are not
robots. One size doesn't fit all."
The Kansas State Board of Education opposes legislative intervention on the curriculum issue. A letter was
sent by the board to 165 House and Senate members reminding each of the board's constitutional authority in
education.
However, Bradford and other critics believe the federal government improperly pressured or enticed Kansas
and other states to embrace the Common Core regimen. The program is likely to infuse a model of education
not suitable to public school students in Kansas, said Rep. Shanti Gandhi, R-Topeka.
"It's a bad program," said Rep. Allan Rothlisberg, R-Grandview Plaza. "Unfortunately, we've become so
addicted to the federal tax dollar we feel we cannot survive."
Rejecting by intrusion by the federal government into state education policy will deliver a dose of freedom to
Kansas, he said.
"You get your freedom back," Rothlisberg said. "We are a sovereign state. It is our duty to decide what is
best for our children."
Colorado roofing company violates Kansas
Consumer Protection Act
Duran Duran Roofing pays $50K to consumers
Posted: May 8, 2013 - 11:33am
By The Capital-Journal
A Colorado roofing company has been ordered to repay more than $50,000 to Kansas consumers.
In a news release Wednesday, Attorney General Derek Schmidt said All Trades Construction, known as
Duran Duran Roofing, and Louisa Duran were accused of taking down payments from at least six consumers,
but then never performed work on the consumers’ roofs. That action would be in violation of the Kansas
Consumer Protection Act.
The attorney general also alleged that All Trades and Duran forged a signature on an insurance proceeds
check.
A Shawnee County District Court judge ordered the company and Duran to repay $50,954 to the consumers,
as well as ordering that they pay an $80,000 civil penalty.
Dems join call for more NBAF info
Hensley wants full debate on $200M in additional funds
Posted: May 7, 2013 - 2:58pm
By Andy Marso
andy.marso@cjonline.com
Democratic leaders said Tuesday they share some of the reservations of conservative colleagues when it
comes to quickly approving $200 million in bonds for a Manhattan bio-defense facility, as requested by Gov.
Sam Brownback.
Brownback's call for the state bonding came after the Obama administration approved more than $700
million in federal funds for the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility in its proposed budget.
Brownback urged legislators to take quick action when they return Wednesday, lest budget uncertainty keep
Congress from locking in the federal commitment.
But some Republicans on the Senate's budget committee said they had unanswered questions about where the
additional costs to the state are coming from, and Senate Minority Leader Anthony Hensley, D-Topeka, said
Tuesday he has questions as well.
“I don’t want to stop NBAF," Hensley said. "What I want to know is, why do we have to have $200 million
in bonding for NBAF?”
Hensley said he was unaware there were any strings attached to the $714 million in federal funds proposed.
Sherriene Jones-Sontag, the governor's spokeswoman, said that as a former legislator, Brownback
understands the need to carefully consider major appropriations and have their questions answered before
signing on.
"Building the NBAF in Manhattan is a long-standing partnership between the federal government and the
state of Kansas that requires both share the project's approximate $1.2 billion cost," Jones-Sontag said in a
prepared statement. "In addition to the nearly $200 million the federal government has already spent,
President Obama has recommended $714 million in his FY 2014 budget, expecting the state to fulfill its
commitment with an additional investment of $202 million. The NBAF is vital to the security of our
country's food supply, the health of our livestock industry and growing our state's economy. The request for
an additional $202 million in bonding is significant but it's the right thing to do."
House Minority Leader Paul Davis said previous governors kept legislators more in the loop on the project.
Davis said even Rep. Sydney Carlin, D-Manhattan, whose district includes the proposed facility, has received
few status reports lately.
“The administration needs to be a little more forthcoming about what discussions have been had with the
federal government, what deals have been made and what obligations we have on this,” Davis said.
Davis said he and Hensley used to have regular briefings with the Department of Homeland Security on the
project but "that has really come to a screeching halt."
Davis said he is still supportive of NBAF but said he also has unanswered questions and urged more
legislative discussion.
Hensley said that with the session winding down there may be an effort to push the bonding on to the State
Finance Council without a floor debate, which he said would be a mistake.
"It seems to me that’s an issue of the magnitude that would have to be brought up to at least one floor —
either the House or Senate,” Hensley said.
Former Kan. securities chief: Crash of a
political career
Agency overhaul runs afoul; critics say Jack abused his authority
Posted: May 7, 2013 - 10:22pm
JACK'S FILE
■ Former state Rep. Aaron Jack was appointed in January 2011 by Gov. Sam Brownback to lead the Kansas
Securities Commission.
■ Enforcement action by the commission dwindled under Jack to the lowest level in more than a decade.
■ In two years, Jack presided over ouster of 70 percent of the commission’s staff and filled vacancies with
Republicans.
■ Jack launched a $566,000 radio promotional campaign featuring himself. It was canceled by Jack's
replacement upon his resignation Feb. 12.
■ On Monday, Jack revealed he no longer will seek the GOP nomination for Kansas insurance commissioner
and will manage a securities firm in Johnson County.
SECURITIES COMMISSIONER TRENDS
Fiscal year / Criminal convictions / Administrative orders / Orders to suspend, revoke bar or censure /
Regulated population
2004 / 14 / 46 / 2 / 92,491
2005 / 17 / 38 / 14 / 96,570
2006 / 9 / 18 / 1 / 102,991
2007 / 3 / 20 / 6 / 112,991
2008 / 3 / 29 / 6 / 121,303
2009 / 3 / 30 / 13 / 122,256
2010 / 7 / 42 / 12 / 116,490
2011 / 3 / 25 / 5 / 128,761
2012 / 4 / 14 / 9 / 131,479
SOURCE: KANSAS SECURITIES COMMISSION REPORTS
KANSAS SECURITIES COMMISSIONERS
Chris Biggs: July 1, 2003-March 16, 2010
Steve Wassom: March 16, 2010-June 7, 2010
Marc Wilson: June 7, 2010-Jan. 10, 2011
Aaron Jack: Jan. 10, 2011-Feb. 12, 2013
Josh Ney: Feb. 12, 2013-present
By Tim Carpenter
timothy.carpenter@cjonline.com
Up-and-coming tea party conservative Aaron Jack parlayed the election of Republican Sam Brownback as
governor into his appointment as top administrator at the Kansas Securities Commission.
Jack's GOP pedigree, legal education and decade in the financial industry landed him a plum job leading the
agency responsible for protecting the interests of Kansans placing faith in investment advisers.
He said his objective was to break the commission's slothful, unprofessional culture. Employees unwilling to
be "rehabilitated" had to go, he said. To that end, Jack presided over the firing, resignation or retirement of 70
percent of his staff.
"We had attorneys who were literally not qualified to go to court," Jack said.
Jack burnished credentials as a foe of regulation by producing an enforcement record half as robust as
predecessors. He authorized an agency-funded $566,000 marketing blitz featuring himself. With airwaves
crackling with Jack's voice, he launched a campaign for Kansas insurance commissioner.
While Jack's engine of political advancement generated momentum, criticism of his methods began to
percolate. Apprehension about Jack's conduct reached the highest level of state government.
"As a pattern of unprofessional behavior and disturbing employment practices emerged under Commissioner
Jack, I demanded immediate changes," said Landon Fulmer, Brownback's chief of staff. "As a part of those
changes, Commissioner Jack was given the opportunity to either resign immediately or be fired, and he chose
to resign."
Jack's course correction Feb. 12 pushed his campaign for insurance commissioner into a three-month death
spiral. On Monday, for the first time, Jack confirmed he would withdraw from the race.
Jack's political reversal came as no surprise to some who worked with him. A bipartisan reaction: What took
so long?
"They've turned the agency into a dysfunctional pro-industry political bastion," said securities examiner
David Ruhnke, whose 23-year career at the commission ended under Jack. "One of the best securities
agencies in the country has been wiped out."
Path to power
Jack earned his securities commissioner wings in January 2011 after being elected to a second term in the
House representing Andover and two years out of Washburn University law school.
His strategy for gaining traction in the Republican race for insurance commissioner involved riding the tea
party's wave of anger with taxpayer bailouts of American financial giants. Jack's mission was to assault the
funneling of hundreds of billions of U.S. tax dollars to banks and automakers to mitigate economic meltdown
five years ago.
The point of Jack's spear found its way to the ribs of General Motors Co. — kept afloat with $50 billion from
the U.S. treasury. Resulting federal government ownership of more than half of GM's stock, Jack said, was
unconstitutional seizure of private property. He said more than a dozen Kansas banks also were compromised
by the Troubled Asset Relief Program.
"Words mean things and that's the definition of nationalization," the Topeka Republican said.
In February, Jack's remedy was an amendment to the Kansas Constitution that he helped craft. Passage might
trip bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., if they pushed TARP II.
"It's not a radical proposal," Jack said. "It's not an angry amendment."
Of little concern to the commissioner was GM's impending announcement in March of a $600 million
investment in its assembly plant in Kansas City, Kan. The factory employs 4,000 people.
Capitol tantrum
As the March date of the plant expansion approached, GM lobbyist Dan Murray urged Jack to turn down the
flame on his automaker-fueled constitutional appeal. A Brownback administration official declaring GM's
survival plan a nefarious distortion of law might not be welcomed in Detroit.
Jack held to his script and confronted Murray in halls of the Capitol. Witnesses said Jack demanded an
apology while expressing irritation somebody had ventured behind his back to register a complaint.
Tempers run hot in the Statehouse, but lobbyists and legislators said Jack's intensity exceeded standard fare.
"Jack had him pinned up against the wall screaming at him," said Doug Mays, a former Topeka
representative and House speaker. "He completely, totally lost it."
Jack initially described the exchange with Murray as polite. He later said the discussion was "heated." Jack
insisted the conflict resulted from his endorsement of Mike Pompeo in the 2010 campaign for U.S. House.
Jack said Murray and Topeka lobbyist John Federico backed Republican candidate Wink Hartman.
"They're a Hartman guy. I'm a Pompeo guy. They have not liked me ever since," Jack said.
Murray said Jack's claim that the Capitol encounter had anything to do with Pompeo was absurd. Campaign
finance reports show Murray and Federico aided Pompeo.
"Mr. Jack's assertion is a grossly inaccurate statement," Murray said.
'Absolutely loved'
Jack's tenure as securities commissioner ended days after the ruckus with Murray. News of his departure
appeared in a statement released by the governor's office. The resignation was framed by Jack as fulfillment
of a strategy to resume work in private industry.
That characterization conflicted with Jack's comments one week earlier in an interview with The Topeka
Capital-Journal. In that meeting, Jack said he "absolutely loved" the job of commissioner. There was no hint
he had anything on his mind other than clinging to his state job and moving chess pieces ahead of the 2014
election for insurance commissioner.
The ax fell one day before a House committee was to consider Jack's anti-nationalization amendment to the
Kansas Constitution.
In subsequent interviews, Jack said he had covertly planned for months to leave state government to open an
investment advising firm. He said the decision reflected disenchantment with his state salary of $107,000.
"Don't you think people can love their job and not have it pay enough?" Jack said.
Brownback's interim commissioner, Josh Ney, said through a spokeswoman that he wouldn’t make himself
available for interviews. Steve Wassom, the agency's executive director, said current staff members were
dedicated to the core mission of protecting Kansas investors and fostering capital formation.
"I have confidence we will continue to advance that mission once a permanent leadership team is in place,"
Wassom said.
Self-reflection
As Kansas' No. 1 enforcer of securities law, Jack's devotion to promotion left a deep-ridged fingerprint on the
agency that served as birthplace of U.S. investment regulation in 1911.
Jack hatched a scheme to marshal resources of the commission, which is entirely fee funded, to brand himself
for a broad audience. He earmarked more than half a million dollars from the agency's "investor education"
program to a statewide advertising blitz featuring himself. Other Kansas officials — state treasurers, for
example — have for years been criticized for public service announcements prominently featuring their own
image in advance of campaign season.
The previous securities commissioner had no budget for PSAs, but Jack set aside $33,000 during his first
year as commissioner. In the fiscal year starting last July 1, he budgeted a staggering $566,000.
In seven months before resigning, agency officials say, Jack burned through $340,000 for media buys and ad
agency fees. Jack did voice work for two radio spots. Both hailed Kansans' ingenuity and praised the
governor. Jack mentioned his name multiple times.
Ney indefinitely discontinued the PSA program inspired by Jack on the first day he held the title as interim
commissioner.
Republican and Democratic legislators expressed doubt about the value of an investor education initiative
built on PSAs delivered by Jack.
"They're little bang for the buck. I want real education," said Rep. Pete DeGraaf, the Republican chairman of
the House Financial Institutions Committee.
Staff purge
During 25 months as commissioner, Jack said he orchestrated the departure of nearly three-fourths of 30some employees inherited from the previous commissioner. Employees with decades of experience mining
the intricate world of securities were shown the door. Typical annual turnover in the office might be less than
10 percent.
"It's just that there are different philosophies, and elections have consequences," Jack said.
Jack said he was compelled to act because the agency employed "people going through the motions." He said
workers took naps on an office couch. He fired a woman for chronic bad spelling. An examiner demonstrated
ignorance of basic investment terminology. Employees had brought children, dogs and instruments to the
office.
Former securities commissioners said the revolution hosted by Jack was unprecedented in terms of overall
personnel moves, targeting of senior employees and hiring of known political partisans.
"I didn't care what political party they were," said Chris Biggs, a Democrat who held the securities
commissioner post from 2003 to 2010. "As far as I was concerned, they were there because they knew what
they were doing."
Mays, securities commissioner from 1987 to 1991, said he made few personnel changes while running the
office. Heavy turnover doesn't promote effective enforcement because the learning curve in securities law is
steep, he said.
"It's not an easy business to learn," the Republican said. "You can't just come in and say, 'Go after the bad
guys.' It's absolutely necessary the office be well-staffed and well-funded. What you're talking about here is
money — a lot of money — and in many cases it is money saved over a lifetime."
A GOP crew
Under Jack, directors of compliance, registration and enforcement were removed. Secretaries, investigators
and examiners were jettisoned. Five agency lawyers were terminated.
The hit list included Rick Fleming, who had 15 years of experience in the office and was the commission's
general counsel. Fleming was immediately hired as deputy general counsel at the North American Securities
Administrators Association in Washington, D.C. NASAA is the national coalition of state securities
regulator. Kansas is a member.
He said the securities commission's cases were typically complex, could involve millions of dollars in losses
and might involve businessmen employing the best attorneys.
"Because of the nature of this work in protecting the weak from the strong," Fleming said, "the office has
been granted significant enforcement powers. In my view, it is very important for the office to maintain its
independence and objectivity so that the laws are applied evenhandedly to everyone without regard to their
power or political connections."
Replacements hired by Jack featured GOP credentials. He doesn't recall interviewing a Democrat.
Shannon Stone, hired as director of education, was on Brownback's U.S. Senate staff. Patricia Lightner, a
former GOP congressional candidate, was given lobbying duties. Caley Love, wife of Republican Sen.
Garrett Love, became communications director. Ney, the interim commissioner, previously had purchased a
Jefferson County law firm from the governor's general counsel.
Two policy director positions were filled by Ryan Kriegshauser, who had been with Secretary of State Kris
Kobach, and Beka Romm, who worked for a Topeka lobbying firm. Romm resigned after Jack's resignation.
Jack said he needed Kriegshauser and Romm to implement a "massive, massive policy shift" in securities
deregulation. His goal was to open Kansas as a destination state for hedge fund managers, private equity
operators and venture capitalists.
"There are a lot of overzealous regulators," Jack said.
New people, big job
Securities commission documents covering more than a decade of enforcement activities offer evidence
Jack's staff found few reasons to sanction wayward members of the investment community.
In fiscal years 2009 and 2010 — prior to Jack's arrival — the commission determined an average of 12.5
people warranted license denial, suspension, revocation or censure.
With Jack in charge the second half of fiscal year 2011, five such sanctions were issued. Jack approved nine
in 2012.
"Rules and regulations, to them, were just a hindrance. You can't have a fair securities market without rules
and regulations," said Ruhnke, the senior examiner ousted by Jack who had earned NASAA's award in 2009
for outstanding work in the field.
Under Jack, statistics regarding criminal convictions and administrative orders for misconduct suggest a
narrowing of the agency's enforcement sweep. Seven people were convicted of securities crimes and 42 were
hit with administrative sanctions in fiscal year 2010.
In fiscal 2011, in which Jack was commissioner for six months, there were three criminal convictions and 25
administrative orders issued. During his first full year as commissioner, there were four criminal convictions
— all from the same case in Wichita — and 14 administrative orders. Statistics for the current fiscal year
weren't available.
Jack said reports reflecting the agency's enforcement achievements — the same material currently presented
as factual — was falsified for years by a staff member.
Jack said enforcement director John Runnberg manipulated statistics to make it appear the agency was more
proactive than an honest presentation of the numbers would reflect.
Runnberg worked two decades as a U.S. Army criminal investigator prior to joining the commission’s staff.
He died in 2010.
"Those statistics are completely fraudulent," Jack said. "They are not accurate."
Love, spokeswoman for the securities commission, said, “All the data contained in the agency’s official
enforcement numbers is substantiated by case files and public court documents.”
Dodd-Frank
Jack's attempt to reinvent the Kansas Securities Commission occurred during an era in which state regulators
were mandated by federal law to expand their duties.
The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, called "coercive" by Jack, required
Kansas by 2012 to perform oversight of 30 percent more investment firms representing a 250 percent
increase in assets.
By virtue of Dodd-Frank, states began handling investment advisers with less than $100 million in assets
under management — four times the previous $25 million cap. States were ordered to start regulating hedge
fund advisers with less than $150 million in the fold.
Rather than add staff to reflect rising regulatory responsibilities, Jack accepted the Brownback
administration's mandate to do the job without extra resources.
"This is not the time to be growing government," Jack said. "We've got to tighten the belt."
Larry Cook, one-time Kansas Bureau of Investigation agent who served as securities commission
enforcement director for 20 years, said he sensed slippage in the agency's capacity to engage in law
enforcement activities after he retired in 2000.
Around Jack's appointment two years ago, Cook said he walked away from a meeting with Jack optimistic
the agency's performance would improve.
"It seemed to go the opposite way. It fell off the table with Aaron Jack," Cook said. "The Kansas securities
office is the only office that handles securities fraud cases. If the securities commission doesn't do the job, it
doesn't get done."
Working in style
While questions persist about Jack's approach to state regulation, he left no uncertainty about his vision of the
image employees would present to the investment community.
Jack issued an 18-page memorandum in 2011 imposing a dress code. Some workers, especially those not
earning top-tier salaries, chaffed at a mandate viewed as expensive and unnecessary.
The memo was built on the premise "our creator makes human beings" in many shapes. Jack assured coworkers the 1997 fashion book, "The New Professional Image," could help anyone recast their image.
"Team," Jack said in the memo, "our agency is unique in Kansas in that we regulate the ultra white-collar
securities industry. The bar in our industry is set distinctively high."
Jack leaned heavily on well-heeled players in the financial services and insurance industries while raising
money to back his Republican campaign for the state's insurance post.
He accumulated $54,000 by the end of 2012, the largest cash hoard among four Republicans who were
campaigning for insurance commissioner.
"I'm running," he said before his ouster in February. "We went out and raised a lot of money, and we've
worked hard."
His interest faded as he gained a sense his rightful place was at a Leawood investment firm.
"I got my cash-out job to the private sector," Jack said.
Fulmer, the governor's chief of staff, said the imperative was to properly align the securities commission to
an evolving, complex regulatory environment.
"The Brownback administration is committed to the success and the mission of the office of the securities
commissioner and is currently exploring all options to move forward and to strengthen the structure,
accountability and leadership that all Kansans expect from this important office," he said.
Legislative committees make plans to change
judicial selection
Final decision may rest with voters in statewide election
Posted: May 7, 2013 - 1:14pm
By John Hanna
The Associated Press
Two influential Kansas lawmakers said Tuesday that they haven’t dropped efforts to win legislative approval
this year of a proposal to give the state Senate a role in the selection of state Supreme Court justices.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lance Kinzer and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Jeff King
said they’ll pursue approval for an amendment to the state constitution on judicial selection after the
Legislature reconvenes Wednesday to wrap up its business for the year. Any constitutional change approved
by lawmakers would go on the ballot next year for voters’ consideration.
The Senate in January approved a proposed constitutional change to have the governor appoint members of
both the Supreme Court and the state Court of Appeals, subject to Senate confirmation. But the measure
stalled in the House, and many legislators believed when they began their annual spring break in April that
the issue wouldn’t come up again this year.
Currently, an attorney-led nominating commission screens applications for appellate court vacancies,
nominating three finalists, and the governor makes the appointment, with no role for legislators. Defenders of
the current system contend it has minimized politics, but critics contend the process is too dominated by
attorneys and not open enough.
King, an Independence Republican who also serves as Senate vice president, said supporters of changing
judicial selection are “aggressively looking at” proposals to retain a nominating commission and add Senate
confirmation. Kinzer, and Olathe Republican, said he’ll continue to work on the issue.
“I haven’t given up on it as a possibility by any stretch of the imagination,” Kinzer said.
The appellate-court nominating commission has nine members. Five are attorneys elected by other attorneys,
with the remaining four appointed by the governor. As a compromise, the Kansas Bar Association had
proposed expanding the commission to 15 members, with 11 appointed by the governor and legislative
leaders.
The group’s president, Overland Park attorney Lee Smithyman, said Tuesday it is willing to consider
compromises that also involve Senate confirmation.
The state has had the same selection process for Supreme Court justices and Kansas Court of Appeals judges
for decades, but the method for picking Court of Appeals members is spelled out in state law, making it
easier to change.
Earlier this year, lawmakers approved and Republican Gov. Sam Brownback signed a bill to have Court of
Appeals judges appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Senate, with no role for the nominating
commission. The change takes effect in July.
A constitutional amendment <0x2014> necessary to change the process for the Supreme Court <0x2014>
must be adopted by two-thirds majorities in both chambers before it can go on the ballot for possible approval
by a simple majority of voters. So far, opponents have had enough votes to block an amendment in the
House.
If lawmakers and voters don’t approve a constitutional change, the state will have different selection methods
for each of its appellate courts.
“That is not good for the state of Kansas and not good for anybody,” Smithyman said.
Voters themselves approved the current selection method for the Supreme Court as an amendment to the state
constitution in 1958. Kansas had previously elected the justices, though even after the change, voters decide
periodically whether to retain the justices and Court of Appeals judges on the bench.
Supporters call the current system “merit selection” and say it focuses on a candidate’s qualifications and
legal experience.
But criticism has intensified over the past decade, particularly among conservative Republicans who’ve
disliked Kansas Supreme Court decisions on abortion and education funding. Critics argue the current
process favors well-connected, politically centrist or left-of-center lawyers and contend Senate confirmation
of appointees will increase public confidence in the judiciary.
“I hope we get to a system that combines the best aspects of both,” King said.
Bill would provide money for Topeka levee fix
Measure would provide city of Topeka $15.73 million in matching
funds
Posted: May 8, 2013 - 3:38pm
By Tim Hrenchir
tim.hrenchir@cjonline.com
A bill before the U.S. Senate would provide $15.73 million in matching federal funding to help the city of
Topeka correct deficiencies with its Kansas River levee system, a city official said Wednesday.
The Topeka project would be among those receiving matching funds if federal lawmakers approve the
current version of Senate Bill 601, the Water Resources Development Act, said Don Rankin, the city’s utility
superintendent.
The full Senate is expected to vote on the bill soon, the Topeka-Shawnee County Riverfront Authority
learned Wednesday from one its members, Doug Kinsinger.
Rankin said the city was monitoring what was happening with the bill.
He said city officials had met with Sens. Pat Roberts and Jerry Moran, both R-Kan., and sent them emails
Tuesday urging them to support the bill, including the funding for the Topeka levee project.
Rankin said the bill, if approved by the Senate, would still need to go to the House of Representatives and
President Barack Obama for approval.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency for several years has directed the city to correct deficiencies in
its levee system. The Army Corps of Engineers would pay for 65 percent of the restoration costs if Congress
votes to proceed with the project as part of an approved Water Resources Development Act.
Rankin said the existing levee system doesn’t provide the originally authorized level of flood risk
management benefits because of deficiencies in the levee identified by the Army Corps of Engineers.
He said the proposed project would restore the reliability of the local flood risk management system by
correcting the deficiencies.
Rankin said the most recent estimates, made in 2009, indicate the project would cost $24.2 million, with the
city’s share totaling $8.47 million and the Corps of Engineers providing $15.73 million.
Rankin said the city in recent years has reserved $800,000 annually as matching funding for the levee project.
“As of January 2013, there was $3.8 million reserved,” he said. “Because of the uncertainty of the availability
of federal funding, we have identified other levee-related projects that must be completed and plan to use
portions of the $3.8 million for those purposes.”
Rankin said they include a nearly $1.24 million flood protection well rehabilitation project and a $800,000
levee certification effort.
He said Wednesday that so far, none of the city’s $3.8 million in reserves has been spent.
City Councilwoman Karen Hiller told the riverfront authority Wednesday that if Senate Bill 601 passes and
the Topeka levee project receives the federal money, the city will put forth its matching funding for the levee
project — regardless of whether that comes from the reserve fund, from issuing revenue bonds or through a
combination of both.
“It’s an absolute commitment,” Hiller said. “There’s no question about us coming up with that when the time
comes.”
From the Wichita Eagle
No quick resolution of tax dispute as lawmakers
return to Capitol



By BRENT D. WISTROM
Eagle Topeka bureau
Published Wednesday, May 8, 2013, at 4:16 p.m.
TOPEKA — State lawmakers returned to the Capitol on Wednesday to find the same tax policy
gridlock they walked away from a month ago.
Posturing and private meetings ensued. And legislative leaders emerged to tell fellow lawmakers to
settle in for a long, frustrating grind, a warning that belies the optimistic pledges of a shorter-thanusual legislative session.
The Senate’s tax plan, roughly aligned with the one pitched by Gov. Sam Brownback, seeks to
extend an increased level of sales tax at 6.3 percent to help pay for income tax cuts approved last
year and more reductions in coming years.
Senate President Susan Wagle, R-Wichita, acknowledged voting for an elevated sales tax poses
political problems for House Republicans, who face re-election campaigns in 2014. Many House
members have voiced opposition to any new taxes. Senators have already voted in support of
extending the recession-era increase.
But Wagle, who said she doesn’t expect any Democrats to support the evolving plans, promised
senators wouldn’t forget it if House members support the Senate plan.
“We’ll stand with them as they go through the re-election process,” Wagle pledged.
House Speaker Ray Merrick, a Johnson County Republican, indicated that the sales pitches from
the Senate probably won’t do much.
“This group has been lobbied by several people throughout the session — senators, the governor’s
office, the governor’s staff,” he said. “I’ve lobbied nobody. And we had a vote of 92 on one bill” —the
House’s tax plan, which doesn’t include the sales tax extension — “and a 120 on the other (in
opposition to the Senate’s tax plan), and I’ve lobbied nobody. So I think the message has been
sent.”
The political posturing comes as negotiations between the House and Senate have essentially
stalled, leaving further negotiations to be handled by Wagle, Merrick and Brownback.
Wagle said both sides have made offers. Merrick said the same. Both expect compromise, but
neither provided details on how that could be done.
“It’s going to move slow,” Merrick told fellow House Republicans. “It will eventually end, but it’s
agonizing to get there.”
Read more here: http://www.kansas.com/2013/05/08/2794841/no-quick-resolution-of-taxdispute.html#emlnl=Morning_Headlines_Newsletter#storylink=cpy
Retention of higher sales tax up for more debate
among Kansas lawmakers




By BRENT D. WISTROM
Eagle Topeka bureau
Published Tuesday, May 7, 2013, at 7:52 p.m.
Updated Wednesday, May 8, 2013, at 6:01 a.m.
TOPEKA — A penny doesn’t buy much these days. Let alone six-tenths of one.
But the $257 million that a six-tenths of a cent sales tax could generate next year is at the core of a
prolonged political debate set to resume Wednesday when lawmakers return for a legislative wrapup session.
The six-tenths of a cent sales tax, part of a temporary increase during the recession, is set to expire
July 1. The state sales tax is scheduled to drop from 6.3 percent to 5.7 percent.
Republican Gov. Sam Brownback wants to retain the higher rate to help pay for the income tax cuts
the Legislature approved and he signed into law last year.
A majority of the Senate seems to be with him on that. But the House, where Republicans have a
92-33 advantage, stands behind a plan to let the sales tax expire.
The most pronounced difference between the two chambers, beyond the political rhetoric, is that the
House plan could put the state in a more precarious situation by eroding the state’s savings account
within a few years, according to projections. The Senate’s plan keeps a comparatively stable ending
balance on the books until 2018.
That could all be complicated next fall, when the state Supreme Court is expected to rule on a
school finance case that has the potential to force lawmakers to spend more on public schools.
Politicians on all sides expect an intense debate.
“I hope that we can get some real movement going,” said Sen. Les Donovan, R-Wichita, who leads
tax negotiations for the Senate. “It’s time to get serious and get this over with.”
Rep. Richard Carlson, R-St. Marys, who leads tax negotiations for the House, said he expects to find
some kind of compromise, likely one involving the sales tax and a trigger for future income tax
reduction.
The House proposal includes tax reductions whenever the state’s revenue grows by more than 2
percent, although it doesn’t provide any initial reduction. The Senate’s plan would slightly reduce
rates over the next two years, then call for further cuts in years when revenue grows beyond 4
percent.
“We want to see an overall reduction in the tax burden for the people of Kansas,” Carlson said. He
acknowledged that means cutting spending.
Brownback toured state universities during the Legislature’s monthlong break, urging extension of
the sales tax as a way to prevent the 2 to 4 percent cuts to higher education proposed by the Senate
and House.
Democrats say it’s a false choice driven by last year’s approval of an income tax cut.
“You sort of now have the guy who started the fire has finally decided to call the fire department,”
said House Minority Leader Paul Davis, D-Lawrence. “We wouldn’t be in this situation if it wasn’t for
the income tax cuts that were far above what the state could afford.”
He and Senate Minority Leader Anthony Hensley, D-Topeka, say they don’t believe any Democrats
will vote in favor of extending the sales tax, even if it means Republican majorities will cut highereducation budgets.
But Republicans hold sway in the Statehouse, and the tax debate is directly tied to House and
Senate budget proposals.
Also tied up in the budget are potential cuts to a wide variety of state agencies; a decision on
whether to keep Kansans with developmental disabilities outside the new, privately managed
Medicaid system called KanCare; a proposed $2 million cut from the National Center for Aviation
Training in Wichita; and cuts to higher education, which could be replaced by cuts to transportation
plans.
House leaders say they don’t plan to deal with any bills that haven’t already been approved by one
of the two chambers. That could mean sidelining ideas such as allowing a higher alcohol content in
beer and wine sold in grocery stores.
But that’s always subject to change.
Among other issues expected to emerge before the planned May 18 adjournment:
• A bill allowing schools to hold back first-graders with poor reading skills. The proposal stems from
Brownback’s recommendation to hold back third-graders who can’t pass reading tests, but that plan
met resistance and was reduced to one allowing first-grade retention that could be overruled by
parents.
• A proposal to put a constitutional amendment on next fall’s ballot that could allow the governor to
appoint Supreme Court judges, subject to Senate approval
• A bill or budget proposal to provide $202 million in bonds to help pay for the National Bio and AgroDefense Facility in Manhattan.
Read more here: http://www.kansas.com/2013/05/07/2793474/retention-of-higher-salestax.html#emlnl=Morning_Headlines_Newsletter#storylink=cpy
H. Edward Flentje: Rural Kansas will pay price



By H. Edward Flentje
Published Sunday, May 5, 2013, at 12 a.m.
Republican radicalism thrives here in Kansas, the reddest of red states, and within our state, in the
reddest counties. But our brand of red-state radicalism does not bode especially well for the future of
rural Kansas.
The antics of U.S. Rep. Tim Huelskamp, R-Fowler, who represents many of the state’s rural
residents, threaten the federal spending on which these Kansans heavily rely. And Gov. Sam
Brownback’s perilous experiment in eliminating the state income tax has placed state services in
jeopardy and will eventually push more school funding onto property taxes, driving the high propertytax burdens of rural residents even higher.
Curiously, voters in the reddest counties of Kansas cheer the loudest for both Huelskamp and
Brownback.
Recent news articles by the Kansas City Star and Boston Globe highlight the hypocrisy of red-state
radicalism.
The Star found that the fiercest critics of federal spending were also big-time “takers” of federal
spending. The Star focused on Sumner County, part of the Wichita metropolitan area, and reported
that in 2010 “the U.S. government spent roughly $189 million in Sumner County, almost $7,900 for
every man, woman, and child who lives here. That’s an estimated 40 to 50 percent more, on
average, than each county resident paid in federal taxes.”
A Globe reporter traveled to Hodgeman County in rural southwest Kansas and interviewed residents
attending a public forum for Huelskamp and later at a downtown coffee klatch in the county seat of
Jetmore. Those interviewed applauded their congressman for saying “no” to federal spending and
refusing to compromise on spending even with leaders of his own party. His obstinance got him
booted from the House Agriculture Committee last year, leaving Kansas without a representative on
the committee for the first time in memory.
Hodgeman County may provide a useful prism for viewing federal spending in rural Kansas, as more
than half of the state’s 105 counties have fewer than 7,000 residents.
In 2010, for example, more than $21 million flowed from the U.S. Treasury into Hodgeman County,
providing on average $11,000 for each of the 1,916 county residents. Social Security and Medicare
benefits represented more than half of the total, and Medicaid alone another million. Direct payments
for various agricultural subsidies totaled $2.5 million, not counting $3.1 million in payments through
federally subsidized crop insurance and $765,000 in federal farm loans.
What exactly these residents paid in federal taxes is not readily available, but based on the findings
of Sumner County, they likely paid roughly $2 in taxes for every $3 in benefits.
Hodgeman County residents pay an even smaller share of the sales and income taxes that provide
for school funding, health care and transportation, among other state services. For example, Kansas
taxpayers underwrote 80 percent of the $2.8 million general fund budget of the county school district
in 2011-12, matched federal Medicaid funding in the county to the tune of more than $800,000 in
2010, and funded road projects in the county averaging $1.5 million annually over recent years. Most
rural Kansans have also benefited from the long-term shift of state finance away from reliance on
property taxes, but Hodgeman County residents still pay property taxes that average 21/2 times that
of all Kansans, compared with 16 percent less in income taxes.
Brownback’s radical plan to eliminate state income taxes is undoing state finance, and its impact will
eventually reach the doorsteps of rural Kansans. Last January, for example, when a state court
ordered lawmakers to meet their constitutional obligation in funding education, Brownback
responded that increased school funding would necessarily fall back on property taxpayers. That
action would force the high property-tax burden of most rural residents ever higher.
In sum, the monies flowing through state and national treasuries into rural Kansas counties comprise
roughly one-third of their local economies and sustain their communities. The “small government”
radicalism of Huelskamp and Brownback and their allies will diminish the economic fortunes and
quality of life of all Kansans, but its impact on rural Kansans will be the most severe.
H. Edward Flentje is a professor at Wichita State University.
Read more here: http://www.kansas.com/2013/05/05/2788411/h-edward-flentje-ruralkansas.html#storylink=cpy
Docking questions Brownback on higher
ed
At an April Wichita Downtown Rotary luncheon meeting featuring Gov. Sam Brownback,
the questioners included Jill Docking, the Democrat and financial adviser who lost to Brownback in his
first U.S. Senate race in 1996. Docking, a member of the Kansas Board of Regents from 2007 to
2010,wrote on her policy site, the Docking Blog, about Brownback’s recent lobbying to keep highereducation funding flat by extending the higher sales-tax rate. “Taken on its face, the governor’s
endorsement of ‘no cuts’ sounds like support, even the work of a savior. But when you take a look at the
history of funding for the regent institutions in Kansas, it becomes apparent that the governor is
advocating for maintaining not adequate funding but recession-level funding,” Docking wrote, citing an 11
percent decline in state funding for higher ed from 2008 through 2012. Now that Brownback wants to “lock
education funding into recession levels” to help fund his “experimental” business and personal income-tax
cuts, she continued, one “danger is that those states reinvesting in higher education after the recession
will prey on our talent pool – at the cost of Kansas’ future economic competitiveness. When you
understand this context, you come to realize that the governor is not solving the problem of adequate
funding of higher education – he is exacerbating it.”
Read more here: http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2013/05/docking-questions-brownback-on-highered/#storylink=cpy
Protesters rally at Capitol over proposal to put
developmental disability services under KanCare




By Dion Lefler
Eagle Topeka bureau
Published Wednesday, May 8, 2013, at 9:06 p.m.
Updated Thursday, May 9, 2013, at 6:09 a.m.
TOPEKA — Hundreds of Kansans with developmental disabilities and their supporters rallied at the
Capitol on Wednesday in an effort to pressure the Legislature to leave long-term disability services
out of the KanCare managed-care health program.
People came from group homes and care programs across the state to protest KanCare, Gov. Sam
Brownback’s effort to save money on Medicaid costs by contracting with private insurance
companies that provide services for a set fee per client.
Many disabled people and their caregivers are concerned that private insurers would compromise
their long-term care to save money and earn larger profits.
“The battle you’re fighting is on the side of the angels. We are on the right side of this issue,” Rep.
Jim Ward, D-Wichita, told a crowd on the south steps of the Capitol, where demonstrators erected
and signed a 64-foot-long, four-foot-tall petition addressed to the governor.
While many demonstrated on the south lawn, others were inside the building addressing their
concerns directly to whatever lawmakers they could find.
“I’m up here to talk to people about what’s going on and let them know there’s still work to do,” said
David Pracht, 44, of Wichita, a resident of The Timbers, an apartment complex where people with
disabilities live with assistance.
“For me, it’s my medical supplies and stuff they want to cut,” Pracht said. “I’m also worried about the
attendant-care side of it.”
Angela de Rocha of the Department of Aging and Disability Services said keeping long-term
services out of KanCare would cost the state savings that could be used to reduce the waiting lists
for disability services.
About 2,900 developmentally disabled and 2,600 physically disabled residents are on waiting lists for
services.
As part of its agreement with the federal government to implement KanCare, the state is committed
to using some of the savings from the program to reduce the waiting lists.
KanCare is projected to save $129.5 million overall, including $67.8 million of state funds, between
now and the end of 2015, said Brownback spokeswoman Sherriene Jones-Sontag.
The governor has earmarked $37.1 million of the savings for waiting-list reduction.
Adding long-term services for the developmentally disabled to KanCare, as scheduled on Jan. 1 of
next year, is expected to generate additional savings in state funds of $9.1 million in 2014 and $16.8
million in 2015, DeRocha said.
Those protesting the change argue that the insurance companies that run KanCare won’t know how
to handle the long-term services that vary widely from person to person.
“They’re two different worlds,” said Ray Rollins of Overland Park, who has a 30-year-old disabled
daughter and traveled from Overland Park for Wednesday’s demonstration.
He said he’s not worried about the insurance companies handling his daughter’s medical care
because “that’s what they do.”
But with her long-term services, “the insurance companies have no experience and no idea,” he
said. “It includes things the insurance companies don’t know, like job training, job searching, social
skills, living skills, transportation, safety, security and nutrition.”
Jones-Sontag countered that KanCare is already administering similar services for 12,000 Kansans
with disabilities, including the physically disabled, frail and elderly and others.
Supporters of the developmentally disabled argue that’s not comparable because most of the people
already served through KanCare have the mental acuity to advocate for themselves when dealing
with an insurance company, which the developmentally disabled lack.
Carolyn Walters said she attended the rally for Travis Conley, a 31-year-old man with mental
disabilities who receives services through Wichita-based Starkey Inc. Walters met Conley when he
was a student in her class at Levy Special Education Center and became his legal guardian 14
years ago.
She said she was concerned about a bill to nudge disabled people toward KanCare by requiring that
cases be managed by a different company than the one that provides their long-term care services,
such as housing, transportation, sheltered-workshop employment, job training and in-home
assistance.
Walters said Conley has developed a high level of trust and confidence with his case manager,
which can’t be replaced by someone he’s never met.
“That relationship with his case manager at Starkey is important to him,” Walters said. “I’d really hate
to see that relationship severed.”
Jones-Sontag said the administration is committed to allowing developmentally disabled people to
keep their case managers and service providers under KanCare.
The bill, Senate Substitute for House Bill 2155, was scheduled for a floor vote before the
Legislature’s three-week break, but it was pulled off the calendar.
The disabled people and their supporters don’t know whether they’ll get a vote on keeping their longterm services out of KanCare.
“I think they (legislators) all want to do the right thing, but I think they might be a little bit confused by
all the promises that have been put out for KanCare,” said Ron Pasmore, chief executive officer of
the Wichita-based service and training provider KETCH Inc.
He said lawmakers are concerned because the social-service budget has grown substantially in
recent years, and that he has to remind them that the developmental disabilities services budget is a
small segment of the overall Medicaid program.
“Putting everything together and saying it’s all growing confuses the issue for us,” he said.
Read more here: http://www.kansas.com/2013/05/08/2795196/disabled-rally-at-capitol-onkancare.html#storylink=cpy
Where would $100 million in savings
come from?
Keeping long-term care services for intellectually and developmentally disabled
Kansans out of KanCare would cost the state nearly $100 million, Lt. Gov. Jeff Colyer said last week. But
where exactly would those savings come from? The Brownback administration has promised that
services and reimbursement rates wouldn’t be cut, and it’s not as if the current system is flush with
funding. “It’s a grossly underfunded system at this time,” Colin McKenney, CEO of Starkey Inc., told The
Eagle editorial board earlier this year, calling the notion of the state squeezing $100 million out of the I/DD
system “very alarming.” Are these more made-up savings, like the $30 million that the administration
claimed it would saved by the turnpike merger but could never explain? Or would the savings come from
making it such as fight to get approval for services that people give up?
Read more here: http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2013/05/where-would-100-million-in-savings-comefrom/#storylink=cpy
Many in developmental disabilities community tell
lawmakers they don’t want services moved to
KanCare



By Dion Lefler
The Wichita Eagle
Published Monday, May 6, 2013, at 10:32 p.m.
With fears, and in some cases tears, people with developmental disabilities and their caregivers
pleaded with Sedgwick County legislators to block Gov. Sam Brownback’s plan to turn home- and
community-based care services over to KanCare, the state’s managed-care health program.
Matthew Cook drew loud applause when he told lawmakers that he’s concerned KanCare
contractors will put profitability over serving the needs of people like him who have developmental
disorders.
“The idea of putting my long-term-care needs in the hands of for-profit health companies is just plain
wrong and is morally wrong – the idea of somebody looking not at what I need but what their profit
margin will allow,” he said.
Cook, who said he has Asperger’s syndrome, is chairman of the community council for the Sedgwick
County Developmental Disability Organization.
Supporters of the developmentally disabled were the largest contingent among about 100 attendees
for a Monday night public forum held by the South Central Kansas Legislative Delegation.
Fifteen lawmakers attended the forum, the last one for this legislative year. On Wednesday,
lawmakers will return to the Capitol for their annual wrap-up session.
The forum offered a preview of what is expected to be a substantial protest by the developmentally
disabled community at the Capitol on Wednesday.
KanCare is the governor’s effort to reduce the state’s health- and disability-care costs by contracting
with private insurance companies that are paid flat rates per client. The program has already been
implemented for medical services.
But last year, the Legislature voted to delay having KanCare take over residential, job-training, livingassistance and other services for the developmentally disabled until Jan. 1, 2014.
Parents and service providers told lawmakers that the medical side of KanCare has been a
nightmare, and they’re afraid it will be even worse when the program takes over disability services,
which vary widely from individual to individual.
In a tearful speech, Cassandra Sines, who said she has adopted several special-needs children, told
the lawmakers that KanCare’s restrictions on mental health care had already caused substantial
problems for her daughter, who is mentally disturbed.
“Last year my 9-year-old daughter was admitted to a psychiatric treatment center,” she said. “She
was extremely aggressive to me and her dad and self-harming and destruction of property. We were
very concerned about our boys and their safety.”
She was initially approved for 90 days of treatment, with the possibility of two 60-day extensions,
Sines said.
“When KanCare was implemented, we were told that … now she would be reviewed on a week-byweek basis, and if she was denied continued treatment, we would have 24 hours to bring her home,
even if she was still having aggressive behaviors.”
She said because of the problems the family has experienced with KanCare, they’re considering
returning the girl to state custody.
“Which is not something that we want to do and not something that any family should have to do to
take care of their daughter and get the treatment that she needs,” Sines said.
She said if KanCare is expanded, “I am terrified how it is going to affect my son,” who receives
community-based developmental disability services.
Several lawmakers who addressed the constituents’ questions acknowledged there have been some
problems getting KanCare up and running. But they said they’re not sure whether those problems
are systemic or isolated incidents as change is implemented.
Sen. Ty Masterson, R-Andover, said he needs to hear from more individuals who have experienced
serious problems with the system before he will be willing to declare it broken.
Fellow Sen. Michael O’Donnell, R-Wichita, said his family has personal experience with KanCare
and that so far it has worked fine for them. His father, the Rev. Michael O’Donnell, serves as legal
guardian for an autistic adult who attends his church.
“He’s doing great,” the senior O’Donnell said after the meeting. “His funding is more than enough to
take care of his needs.”
Sen. O’Donnell said he hasn’t decided how he will vote if a KanCare carve-out measure comes to
the Senate floor but that he is committed to making sure that disabled individuals receive the care
they need.
Read more here: http://www.kansas.com/2013/05/06/2792181/many-in-developmentaldisabilities.html#storylink=cpy
Eagle editorial: Don’t delay Medicaid expansion

Published Tuesday, May 7, 2013, at 12 a.m.
With the clock running out on this year’s legislative session, it appears as if Gov. Sam Brownback
and state lawmakers may put off until next year the decision on whether to expand Medicaid.
Though delaying would be better than blocking expansion, it still would be costly, especially for
Kansans who need health insurance.
Brownback has been dragging his feet on whether to allow the expansion, which is part of the
Affordable Care Act. Though he has said that he is open to it, he has questioned whether the state
could afford the cost.
But a study by the Kansas Hospital Association showed that Kansas can’t afford not to allow the
expansion. Not only would it enable more than 150,000 Kansans to get needed insurance, it would
inject more than $3 billion into the state’s economy and create 4,000 jobs over the next seven years.
What’s more, expansion could save the state money by moving onto Medicaid some adults currently
cared for by the state, such as those with mental illnesses. The KHA study calculates a net savings
of $82 million from 2014 to 2020, in large part because the federal government pays 100 percent of
the cost of expansion for the first three years.
Delaying expansion would mean that the state could miss out on a year’s worth of increased federal
funding and lower state costs. But even more important, thousands of its citizens would go another
year without insurance.
Delaying may have become more tempting for Brownback and lawmakers after President Obama
released his budget last month postponing planned cuts to hospitals that serve low-income
uninsured patients. The payments were supposed to drop next year in expectation that many of
these patients would be joining Medicaid.
The loss of this funding without the expansion would be a severe blow to the state’s hospitals, and
could put some small hospitals out of business. Postponing these cuts takes some pressure off
Brownback to act – though there are other payment cuts from health care reforms and the
sequestration that still will be difficult for hospitals to absorb.
To his credit, Brownback didn’t make a knee-jerk, ideological decision to block Medicaid expansion,
as some other GOP governors did. But he doesn’t need another year to decide that expansion is
good for Kansas and its citizens.
He should support Medicaid expansion, without delay.
For the editorial board, Phillip Brownlee
Read more here: http://www.kansas.com/2013/05/07/2791935/eagle-editorial-dont-delaymedicaid.html#storylink=cpy
Developmental disabilities advocates support using
savings to reduce waiting lists




By BRENT D. WISTROM
Eagle Topeka bureau
Published Monday, May 6, 2013, at 11:39 a.m.
Updated Wednesday, May 8, 2013, at 6:01 a.m.
TOPEKA — Advocates for Kansans who have developmental disabilities applauded Gov. Sam
Brownback’s proposal to channel part of the savings from Medicaid reform toward providing services
for people who have been on waiting lists.
Brownback recently proposed spending $18.5 million of roughly $60 million in unexpected savings to
reduce waiting lists for Medicaid home- and community-based services.
“We think this is a great move on the part of the governor,” said Tim Wood, who manages the End
the Wait Campaign for the Kansas Developmental Disabilities Policy Group.
Wood said Brownback’s initial budget proposal essentially held funding for the developmental
disability waiver flat. He acknowledged that hundreds of people would remain on waiting lists even
with the new money, but he said the financial boost is still positive news.
“This is progress,” he said. “We would love to say we could end this tomorrow.”
Wood said his organization is asking lawmakers, who return to Topeka for a legislative wrap-up
session this week, to create a long-term, comprehensive plan to eliminate the roughly 5,000 people
from the waiting lists.
Wood said it costs about $21,000 a year to serve people on the physical disability waiver and about
$41,000 for people with developmental disabilities. He suggested trying to take an equal number of
people off each list by spending about $12.4 million on the developmental disability waiver and about
$6.4 million for those with physical disabilities.
Rosie Cooper, executive director for the Kansas Association of Centers for Independent Living, said
the money should be split equally between physical and developmentally disabled waiver programs.
“Everyone is equally important,” she said. “The need is everywhere.”
While there may be some disagreement over how the money is split up, advocates agree the needs
have increased and that the state needs a long-term solution.
“For many years, we’ve seen a growing waiting list, and we need to make sure that people that need
services get them and not sit in their mom and dad’s living room,” said Kathy Lobb, legislative liaison
for the Self Advocate Coalition of Kansas, a statewide advocacy group for adults with developmental
disabilities.
The waiting lists should be eliminated over a period of time to avoid overwhelming the system, said
Steve Gieber, executive director of the Kansas Council on Developmental Disabilities, a governorappointed group that advocates for improvements for people with developmental disabilities.
“Our ability to absorb that many people in the system would be a bit of a challenge,” he said.
Ronda Klein of Topeka said she found out about 18 years ago that her son Curtis had autism,
cognitive disabilities and seizures. Curtis, who is now 19 and attended the End the Wait news
conference Monday, was on the waiting list for home-based services for 12 years, she said.
Klein said previous governors didn’t address the growing waiting lists, and she said Brownback’s
decision is a “great first step.”
Even if the state had enough people to deal with those on the waiting list, there could still be
problems, she said. She said her provider gets paid $9.20 an hour and has no medical coverage or
vacation time.
“And the hours ... are in the evening and on the weekend,” she said. “It’s very difficult to call that a
profession. So it’s a quandary. How do you get people into those jobs?”
But helping more people could also create jobs and help the economy, she said.
In mid-April, the Kansas Department for Children and Families and Department for Aging and
Disability Services reported that 8,372 people were being served by the home- and communitybased services waiver for people with developmental disabilities.
Of that, 1,254 people were waiting for additional services, and 2,901 people were on a waiting list for
services.
Meanwhile, 5,911 were using services for physical disabilities, with 2,642 on a waiting list.
The state’s waiting lists have been under scrutiny for years as they have grown since about 1997,
the last time advocates say the state had no waiting list.
Last year, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services referred a civil rights case to the
Department of Justice for further investigation after complaints that Kansans were not getting inhome or community-based services intended to keep them out of institutions when possible.
Brownback’s administration blamed the waiting lists on the economic downturn and the policies of
past governors.
Last year, the state had trimmed its waiting lists by more than 1,000 people after it paid for a
telephone survey of those on the lists and couldn’t reach many people or found that those people no
longer wanted to be on a waiting list.
Read more here: http://www.kansas.com/2013/05/06/2791517/developmental-disabilitiesadvocates.html#storylink=cpy
Money for NBAF but not for health care?
Gov. Sam Brownback is reluctant to allow an expansion of Medicaid because he
thinks the federal government is broke and may not honor its funding commitment. But he is also pushing
the Legislature to authorize an additional $200 million in state bonds to help ensure the National Bio and
Agro-Defense Facility is built in Manhattan, without any worries that the government will honor its funding
commitment. Brownback wants NBAF because it is expected to create about 750 construction jobs and
more than 300 permanent jobs. But the Medicaid expansion is projected to create about 4,000 jobs. “I
think we can say with some certainty,” wrote Kansas City Star columnist Barbara Shelly, “that a pathogen
lab is more attractive to him as an economic stimulus than an expansion of health care to low-income
Kansans.”
Read more here: http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2013/05/money-for-nbaf-but-not-for-healthcare/#storylink=cpy
Roberts, House members fighting
Common Core standards
The professionals at the Kansas State Department of Education have invested
significant time and money in helping develop the Common Core standards, a multistate effort to align
standards and progress measures on English and math. And it looks like the standards may escape a
legislative attempt to scrap them in Kansas. But Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., was among nine GOP
senators who signed a letter last week asking for language in an appropriations bill that would bar the use
of funds to develop, implement or evaluate state-level education standards. Also last week, Kansas Reps.
Tim Huelskamp, R-Fowler, Kevin Yoder, R-Overland Park, and Lynn Jenkins, R-Topeka, and 31 other
House members sent a letter to Education Secretary Arne Duncan complaining that the “burdensome and
misguided” Common Core standards “fail to address the specific needs of our states,” and raised
concerns about how the federal government collects and distributes student data. The Common Core
standards have been adopted by 45 states, including Kansas, and the District of Columbia, and officials
have said it would cost Kansas $30 million to develop other standards and tests at this point.
Read more here: http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2013/05/roberts-house-members-fighting-commoncore-standards/#storylink=cpy
Eagle editorial: Wrap up session quickly

Published Wednesday, May 8, 2013, at 12 a.m.
Legislative leaders should keep the veto session that starts Wednesday focused and brief by
concentrating on four important issues – taxes, the budget, Medicaid and KanCare – and avoiding
last-minute shenanigans.
Resolving the state’s budget for next fiscal year hinges on lawmakers agreeing on tax policy. The
Senate wants to make permanent the statewide sales tax increase, while the House doesn’t want to
break the promise to taxpayers that the increase would be temporary.
The state has a large enough ending balance that it could make it through the next fiscal year
without extending the sales tax. But doing so would leave the state in a much deeper budget mess
the next fiscal year.
House GOP leaders are signaling a willingness to compromise. And the House’s top tax negotiator,
Rep. Richard Carlson, R-St. Marys, expects an agreement to be reached in the first three or four
days of the veto session.
One reason why the House may compromise is that Gov. Sam Brownback is pushing hard for the
sales-tax extension. And as Sen. Les Donovan, R-Wichita, noted: “Governors tend to get what they
want.”
At least that’s true with this governor and this Legislature.
After agreeing on revenue, lawmakers also will need to resolve some budget differences. For
example, the House wants to cut higher education funding by 4 percent, while the Senate proposed
a 2 percent cut. Brownback has been campaigning against any cut, arguing correctly that higher
education plays a vital role in growing the economy.
Will lawmakers agree with Brownback? If they don’t, will he veto a budget that cuts higher
education?
The Legislature also needs to support the federal expansion of Medicaid (which would bring needed
health insurance to more than 150,000 Kansans and inject about $3 billion into the state’s economy
over the next seven years) and carve out from KanCare the long-term care of intellectually and
developmentally disabled Kansans (which shouldn’t be turned over to for-profit insurance
companies). These two issues can have a big impact on the state’s economy and the daily lives of
its residents.
There is a danger that lawmakers will try to sneak through some bad legislation during the final days
and hours of the session. For example, there may be another attempt to eliminate the state’s
renewable-energy standard or to block Common Core education standards.
Lawmakers should reject such moves and stay focused on the four key issues. Besides, haven’t
they already passed enough intrusive and constitutionally suspect laws for one session?
For the editorial board, Phillip Brownlee
Read more here: http://www.kansas.com/2013/05/08/2793370/eagle-editorial-wrap-upsession.html#storylink=cpy
Eagle editorial: Shot in the foot

Published Sunday, May 5, 2013, at 12 a.m.
Kansas lawmakers were warned about the constitutional problems with the Second Amendment
Protection Act. Yet they passed it overwhelmingly and the governor, an attorney, proudly signed it.
Kansans won’t get any meaningful protection or expansion of their treasured gun rights from the law,
just the legal bills to defend it in court. In trying to fortify the right to bear arms, the state shot itself in
the foot.
The law declares the federal government cannot regulate guns and ammunition manufactured, sold
and kept only in Kansas, even allowing prosecution of federal officials who try to enforce federal
laws on such items. Kansas Assistant Attorney General Charles Klebe cautioned lawmakers in
written testimony in February: “To state the obvious, the Supremacy Clause of the United States
Constitution cannot be waived by state law, and any conflict between a valid federal law and a state
law will be resolved by the courts in favor of the federal enactment.”
Not surprisingly, the law spent only a day on the books in April before drawing the eye and ire of
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, who advised Gov. Sam Brownback by letter that it “directly
conflicts with federal law and is therefore unconstitutional,” that federal law enforcement agencies
“will continue to execute their duties to enforce all federal firearms laws and regulations,” and that
the federal government may use litigation to prevent the state from interfering in such federal law
enforcement.
The law makes even less sense when juxtaposed with the pleas of gun-rights defenders that the
country needs not new gun laws but better enforcement of existing gun laws. Legislators should not
make enforcement harder, which is what they did in creating a special category of “made in Kansas”
guns supposedly immune from federal regulation. And many of the federal agents the law treats as
felons are Kansans themselves, public servants who are just trying to investigate and prevent
crimes.
In answering Holder’s letter with his own, Brownback accurately said that “the right to keep and bear
arms is a right that Kansans hold dear” and that “this is not a partisan issue in Kansas.”
And at least for some, the law was designed to pick a fight with the federal government, not
substantively benefit the lives of Kansans.
But it’s a fight Kansas cannot afford – even if the estimated $100,000 in legal bills for fiscal 2014
seems modest – given that the state expects a $745 million drop-off in revenue next year due to the
governor’s income-tax cuts and a scheduled reduction in the sales-tax rate.
It’s a fight Kansas is sure to lose, despite assurances to the contrary by Secretary of State Kris
Kobach (who helped write the law but should stick to overseeing elections and recordkeeping).
And it’s a fight that lawmakers and the governor easily could have avoided, if they’d been as
committed to exercising due diligence as to showcasing their high regard for gun ownership and low
regard for the federal government.
For the editorial board, Rhonda Holman
Read more here: http://www.kansas.com/2013/05/05/2788404/eagle-editorial-shot-in-thefoot.html#storylink=cpy
74% of lobbyist spending on Kansas lawmakers
unaccounted for




By Dion Lefler and Brent Wistrom
Eagle Topeka bureau
Published Saturday, May 4, 2013, at 6:01 p.m.
Updated Sunday, May 5, 2013, at 8:34 a.m.
Lobbying results
Kansas Bankers Association:
Lobbying expenditure: $23,914
Result: Five bills passed, including one that reinstated a tax deduction that was inadvertently erased last year.
UnCork Kansas:
Lobbying expenditure: $15,547
Result: A proposed bill to allow the sale of full-strength alcoholic beverages in grocery and convenience stores
remains stuck in committee.
AT&T:
Lobbying expenditure: $12,537
Result: Passage of a law written by the company freeing AT&T from quality of service and consumer-protection
regulations.
The top spenders
Businesses and special interest groups spent tens of thousands of dollars on meals, sporting events, gifts and other
outings with state lawmakers. The majority of the spending is listed as "unitemized," making it unclear who benefited
from the spending.
Below is a list showing how much special interest groups spent on lawmakers. It includes all groups that spent more
than $5,000 between Jan. 1 and March 31. It includes unitemized spending, but it does not include the meals and
gifts given to non-elected legislative employees. It also does not include spending on mass media campaigns, which
include print, TV and radio advertisements and postcards intended to generate public advocacy.
Total by business
Business
Amount
Kansas Bankers Association
$23,914
UnCork Kansas
15,547
AT&T Inc. and Affiliates
12,537
Kansas Contractors Association
11,255
Kansas Credit Union Association
10,284
Kansas State Council of Firefighters
9,357
Kansas Gas Service/Oneok Inc.
8,608
Kansas Cable Telecommunications Association7,643
Kansas Electric Cooperatives Inc.
Kansas Livestock Association
ITC Great Plains
Kansas Automobile Dealers Association
Kansas Association of Counties
Hy-Vee Inc.
Wichita Metro Chamber of Commerce
Cox Communications Inc.
Kansas Farm Bureau
7,213
6,657
5,911
5,717
5,501
5,184
5,176
5,108
5,039
All figures rounded to nearest dollar.
Wordle: Top Lobbyists
TOPEKA — Lobbyists seeking to influence state laws have spent $380,000 feeding, entertaining
and giving gifts to legislators in the first three months of this year.
But you will never know how three-fourths of that money was spent because the state disclosure law
doesn’t require it.
Records obtained from the Kansas Governmental Ethics Commission show that more than 74
percent of lobbyist spending, almost $285,000, was reported as “unitemized” on state forms,
meaning that it can’t be linked to any particular lawmaker or event.
In addition, the records show that 15 of the state’s top lobbying firms sometimes listed themselves
as their own clients, further muddying an already unclear picture of who’s paying to influence
lawmakers to do what.
And when lobbyists take lawmakers to a basketball game or concert, they don’t have to disclose who
was playing, where they went or even the date of the event.
Legislative leaders defend the current disclosure law and their constant contact with lobbyists, who
they say play a crucial role in the legislative process by bringing outside expertise to the lawmakers.
“The wonderful thing is it’s all recorded and it’s open to the public and nothing can be given to a
legislator without that being documented,” said Susan Wagle, R-Wichita and president of the state
Senate. “I think we have excellent ethics standards. I mean, we do need communication with
interested parties, all people, when we pass a bill, and I’m just glad that the lobbyists report.”
One group that studied government transparency found Kansas lobbying disclosures to be far from
excellent.
Kansas earned an overall grade of C for government ethics but an F for lobbying disclosure in a
recent national study of state ethics laws.
“There was a real lack of specificity there that makes it very difficult to know what’s going on,” said
Gordon Witkin, a managing editor of the State Integrity Investigation, a joint venture of three
nonprofit, public-interest groups – the Center for Public Integrity, Global Integrity and Public Radio
International.
Among neighboring states, Nebraska got the highest grade for lobbying disclosure, a B-plus.
Colorado got a C, Missouri got a D-minus and Oklahoma matched Kansas with an F.
The investigation was especially critical of Kansas law for not requiring clients who hire lobbyists to
disclose how much they pay them, a key feature in Nebraska’s high score.
In addition, the researchers downgraded Kansas for loopholes that allow lobbyists to list the bulk of
their expenditures as unitemized.
“There seems to be a lot going on that wasn’t fully disclosed in Kansas,” Witkin said.
Carol Williams, executive director of the Kansas Governmental Ethics Commission, said some
states require more transparency in reporting.
That includes disclosure of how much businesses are paying their lobbyists and how much
businesses and lobbyists pay lawyers to write position papers or other costs related to influencing
lawmakers.
“Without that, you don’t have the full picture of lobbying,” Williams said.
Meanwhile, some states also require that lobbyists file updates to show which bills they are lobbying
for or against. Kansas requires only a generalization, such as “on behalf of teachers,” which doesn’t
give the public much insight into the lobbying activity.
Until 2000, Kansas didn’t require lobbyists to break their spending on lawmakers into categories –
they just tallied how much they spent overall. Now the state requires lobbyists to categorize
spending for meals, recreation, entertainment and gifts.
“We have made progress over the years,” Williams said.
In Kansas, anyone who is paid or appointed to influence lawmakers or spends more than $100 on
lobbying activities must register with the state as a lobbyist and pay a registration fee.
The Secretary of State maintains a database of all registered lobbyists.
The state’s ethics rules allow lawmakers to accept as much food and drink as they’d like. But they
can only accept up to $40 a year in gifts, $40 in recreation and a maximum of $100 of entertainment
from any one special interest group.
Lawmakers have resisted attempts to change the law to allow lobbyists to invite specific legislative
committees out for dinners without giving an itemized account of who went or how the money was
spent.
This summer, the ethics commission plans to begin random audits of lobbyists’ reports, which it
hasn’t done in recent years. But the commission probably won’t be able to fill one of its vacant
auditor positions because of budget cuts driven by the income tax cuts signed into law last year.
Williams said her office will still have the same authority to audit, but fewer people to do it.
“The more auditors you have, the more audits you can do,” she said.
Scotch and pedicures
One thing the records do show is that lobbying is a big business at the Kansas Statehouse.
Every day when the House or Senate is in session, a crowd of lobbyists lines the hallways outside
the chambers to speak with legislators, while more lobbyists occupy seats in the public galleries
inside.
Lobbyists take up almost all the seats at legislative committee meetings, and late in the day they
hover by the stairway that leads to the legislators’ underground parking garage, hoping to catch a
lawmaker or two going by.
But those casual encounters at the Capitol are just the starting point.
Lawmakers attended 112 recreational and entertainment events with lobbyists, mostly University of
Kansas and Kansas State University basketball games.
Lobbyists aren’t required to list the dates that they treated lawmakers to free tickets, so it could not
be determined how many of the games were regular-season and how many were NCAA
Tournament play.
Twenty legislators went bowling with lobbyists and let them pick up the tab.
Lawmakers also received a total of about 180 gifts, including 158 personalized portfolios worth about
$20 each to carry notebooks and papers courtesy of financial services firm Security Benefit Corp.,
eight state-seal plaques from various special interests, three “spa services” sponsored by the state
Medical Association and three pedicures courtesy of the Kansas Bankers Association.
By far, the biggest lobbying perk was food and drink.
Most days that the Legislature meets, lawmakers can get a free lunch and dinner from one special
interest group or another.
On many days, a buffet or deli box lunch is provided for all 165 lawmakers in a hallway just off the
Capitol Rotunda. Other days, the lunches are spread out among various delegation, caucus and
coalition meetings, where any legislator can attend and eat.
And almost every evening, some interest group sponsors a reception, banquet or meeting for groups
of lawmakers, again with food and drink provided. One lobbyist listed “Scotch & cigars” for 10
lawmakers as a food and beverage expense.
That setup is one reason why so many lobbying expenses are unitemized on the state reporting
forms.
Lobbyists aren’t required to disclose anything but the total cost of an event if they invite all the
members of the Legislature, the whole House or Senate, or the entire Republican or Democratic
caucus from either chamber.
That’s a big exception to disclosure that helped drag down Kansas’ score in the State Integrity
Investigation, Witkin said.
In addition, Witkin questioned the practice of allowing lobbyists to list their own firms as clients.
Fifteen lobbying shops did that a total of 295 times, representing more than $10,000 in spending, the
records show.
Witkin said lobbyists might occasionally represent themselves on a bill, especially if it affects the
rules of lobbying.
“It seems unusual that lobbyists are lobbying that often on their own behalf,” he said. “It would at
least raise suspicion about not wanting to disclose who the real client might be.”
But Williams, the director of the ethics commission, and some lobbyists say not all of their activity is
tied to a particular issue or client – sometimes they’re just sharing information or making small talk
over a lobbyist-funded meal.
Scott Schneider of Schneider Public Strategies, one of many contract lobbyists at the Capitol, said
some spending accommodates relationship-building with lawmakers that doesn’t involve their clients’
issues or advocacy-related specific bills.
“When I do spend a dollar, I feel I need to report it somewhere,” he said. “So I report it on behalf of
myself.”
The result of lobbying
One example of lobbying muscle this session was over House Bill 2201, written primarily by AT&T, a
perennial Capitol powerhouse with 11 registered lobbyists.
The bill allows telecommunications companies to shut down landline service to difficult-to-serve rural
customers, allows companies to quit serving poor customers receiving Lifeline subsidies, shrinks the
Kansas Universal Service Fund and pares back the authority of the Kansas Corporation Commission
to regulate fraud, billing issues and quality of service.
With the cooperation of the other major phone companies in the state, AT&T wrote the bill and got
the House Utilities Committee to enter it as a committee-sponsored bill.
It cleared the House on its first vote 118-1. In the Senate Utilities Committee, a staff-written
amendment to maintain some KCC consumer-protection oversight was replaced with a much
weaker amendment written by AT&T.
AT&T and the other phone company lobbyists had been provided with advance copies of the
proposed amendments — although they weren’t given to the Citizens’ Utility Ratepayer Board, the
state agency representing customers, according to David Springe, CURB’s chief consumer counsel.
The amended bill sailed through the Senate and a second vote in the House, and has since been
signed into law by Gov. Sam Brownback.
Lawmakers openly acknowledged AT&T’s role in writing and amending the bill and hailed the other
telecommunications companies for agreeing with it and not making legislators “choose between
friends,” as a Republican bill brief put it.
“The telecommunications community all agreed to that language and that’s why it passed with such
significant numbers,” Wagle said.
During the three months the bill was under consideration, communications companies and industry
associations supporting the bill – including cellphone companies Verizon and Sprint – spent a
combined $33,000 feeding and entertaining legislators and made more than 500 individual contacts.
AT&T alone accounted for more than $12,000 and 241 paid contacts.
Other companies spent more than AT&T. The biggest spender on Statehouse lobbying so far this
year has been the Kansas Bankers Association at $23,914 over three months.
The group came to the Capitol with a menu of requests, including:
• Reinstating a tax deduction for bank shareholders worth $2.5 million that was inadvertently
eliminated in last year’s income tax cut bill.
• Allowing banks to self-fund employee health insurance plans in preparation for full implementation
of the Affordable Care Act.
• Replacing the mortgage interest rate cap with a new system that caps the rate at 15 percent per
year.
• Allowing banks to shuffle money in the checking accounts of public agencies with other banks to
ensure the deposits are FDIC-insured.
• Eliminating the need for banks to send notices to people whose accounts are garnished by the
government, if the person has closed the account with the bank.
All of those bills passed with little resistance and have been signed into law.
Doug Wareham, a lobbyist for the association, said the vast majority of the $17,400 in unitemized
spending is for an annual, half-day workshop and reception that all lawmakers are invited to.
“Most bankers aren’t able to catch lawmakers during the day because their schedules are so full,” he
said.
The association also paid for about 200 breakfasts, lunches and dinners with lawmakers – and the
occasional plaque or pedicure.
Wareham said he wants to make sure his industry is at the table for discussions that might affect it.
“We’re pretty aggressive about it,” he added. “We want them to know what our issues are.”
Lobbying doesn’t always achieve results.
UnCork Kansas, a business coalition seeking to allow the sale of full-strength alcoholic beverages in
grocery stores and convenience stores, spent more than $15,000 on legislators in three months.
That made UnCork second only to the bankers association in lobbyist spending on legislators.
But the group appears to be no closer to its goal despite that effort plus a widespread TV advertising
campaign costing an additional $13,179.
The effort has so far been staved off by a coalition of religious conservatives concerned about
expanding access to alcohol, and small-town lawmakers whose communities depend on
neighborhood liquor stores for commerce and property tax income.
‘It’s not changing people’s votes’
Rep. Nile Dillmore, D-Wichita, said that having nearly three-quarters of lobbying money unaccounted
for could leave many Kansans wondering who is benefiting and what businesses and interest groups
are getting out of it.
“That really does lack any transparency,” he said.
Dillmore said that lawmakers are invited to standing receptions Monday through Thursday evenings.
Some receptions feature a buffet and cocktails, and direct lobbying is quietly discouraged to allow for
more relaxed socializing. Others, however, involve lobbyists who want to talk about specific bills.
In the end, however, Dillmore said the lobbyists’ efforts don’t have much influence on how he votes.
But he said it must be working because companies and interest groups keep investing in lobbying.
“They must be getting some reinforcement somewhere,” he said.
Kansas has a transparent system of recording lobbying and no significant corruption, said Rep. Scott
Schwab, R-Olathe, chairman of the House Elections Committee that sometimes deals with lobbying
laws.
The state has reasonable gifting limits, it bans lawmakers from accepting campaign money during
the legislative session, and the fact that people can see the unitemized spending means it is being
reported, he said.
Compared to the problems seen in other states, Schwab said, Kansas is doing well.
“It’s not changing people’s votes,” he said. “I think we’re getting the information the people want. We
could make it more transparent and more transparent, but we could get to the point that it’s
information overload.”
Schwab said most voters are interested in how lawmakers vote, not how many lunches they had
with lobbyists.
Lobbying activity is mostly geared toward building relationships and trust, he said.
“The entire thing is based on trust,” he said. “And to establish trust on a core level, you’ve got to get
out of the office.”
Read more here: http://www.kansas.com/2013/05/04/2789577/74-of-lobbyist-spending-onkansas.html#storylink=cpy
Eagle editorial: Collect online sales tax

Published Thursday, May 9, 2013, at 12 a.m.
The days of needing to protect the fledgling Internet are long gone, and online retail sales should be
taxed the same as sales at local brick-and-mortar businesses.
So it was good that the U.S. Senate voted this week to authorize states to collect sales taxes for
online purchases – though it was disappointing that Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., was among the 27
senators who voted against it.
Now the House – and its members from Kansas – needs to approve the bill and level the playing
field for retail businesses.
Stop picking winners and losers.
The Marketplace Fairness Act allows states to require out-of-state retailers to collect sales taxes
when they sell products over the Internet, in catalogs, and through mail or telephone orders. Current
law requires the businesses to collect taxes only if they have a physical presence in the state.
This sales-tax exemption creates a competitive disadvantage for local retailers and encourages
consumers to buy from out-of-state companies. The exemption also is costly to states, which lost an
estimated $23 billion in sales tax collections last year.
Opponents argue that collecting taxes is too complicated, given all the different state and local sales
tax rates throughout the country. But states that want sales tax collected – and it would be their
choice – must provide free computer software that calculates the tax. And the tax collections would
be sent to one agency in each state, so retailers wouldn’t have to remit them to individual counties or
cities.
Also, only businesses that have more than $1 million in out-of-state sales would be required to
collect sales taxes. So this wouldn’t apply to many small businesses and start-up companies.
Roberts voted against the bill because he considers it a tax increase, but it really isn’t. Most states,
including Kansas, already require their citizens to pay unpaid sales taxes when they file their state
tax returns. It’s just that few comply and enforcement is next to impossible.
Sen. Jerry Moran, R-Kan., missed the vote this week because of a speaking commitment but
supports the measure. He considers it a matter of tax fairness and local control.
“The legislation will not impose a new tax on the Internet or anyone,” Moran has said. “It will,
however, protect small businesses and empower states with the ability to control fiscal policy as they
see fit.”
The tax exemption might have made sense when Internet commerce was just getting going. But
online sales in the United States totaled $226 billion last year, and it’s growing every year. It no
longer needs special treatment.
For the editorial board, Phillip Brownlee
Read more here: http://www.kansas.com/2013/05/09/2794984/eagle-editorial-collectonline.html#emlnl=Morning_Headlines_Newsletter#storylink=cpy
Pompeo introduces legislation he says will help light
aircraft industry




By Molly McMillin
The Wichita Eagle
Published Tuesday, May 7, 2013, at 4:39 p.m.
Updated Tuesday, May 7, 2013, at 10:56 p.m.
Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-Wichita, on Tuesday introduced the Light Aircraft Revitalization Act, which
sponsors say would streamline the certification process, lower costs and revitalize the general
aviation industry.
Reforming certification processes would improve safety and increase innovation, Pompeo said in a
statement.
The bill is cosponsored by Dan Lipinski, D-Illinois; Sam Graves, R-Missouri; Todd Rokita, R-Indiana;
and Rick Nolan, D-Minnesota.
The average small plane in the U.S. is 40 years old, according to information from Pompeo’s office.
In announcing his sponsorship of the legislation, Pompeo said in a statement that companies that
bring new aircraft designs to market face regulatory barriers that hurt innovation. He claimed in the
past decade, the U.S. had lost 10,000 active private pilots per year in part because of a lack of costeffective, new small planes.
“General aviation safety can be improved by modernizing and revamping the regulations for this
sector to clear the path for technology adoption and cost effective means to retrofit the existing fleet
with new safety technology,” according to the legislation being proposed.
Over the past 18 months, the Federal Aviation Administration’s Part 23 Reorganization Aviation
Rulemaking Committee, composed of aviation authorities and industry representatives, worked to
create a regulatory environment that would revitalize the health and safety of new and existing light
planes, according to information from Pompeo’s office.
The legislation would require the implementation of the rulemaking committee’s recommendations
by the end of 2015.
“General aviation has never asked for a bailout, but we can cut red tape and at the same time
improve safety, effectively revitalizing the industry by cutting the cost of new planes,” Pompeo said in
a statement. “The existing outdated certification process needlessly increases the cost of safety and
technology upgrades by up to 10 times.”
The bill calls for the FAA to reorganize certification requirements to streamline the approval of safety
advancements.
It would require the creation of a “regulatory regime” for small airplanes, set broad, outcome-driven
safety objectives to spur innovation, replace current, prescriptive requirements contained in FAA
rules with performance-based ones.
It would use FAA-accepted standards to clarify how safety objectives may be met by specific
designs and technologies.
The FAA administrator would lead the effort by working with aviation regulators to adopt a
complementary regulatory approach for small planes.
For example, the leading cause of fatalities in general aviation is due to loss of control, in which the
airspeed no longer produces the required lift, causing the plane to descend in an uncontrolled stall or
spin without enough altitude to recover, information from Pompeo’s office said.
Pilots are taught how to avoid these accidents, but they remain a problem. There is tremendous
interest in technological interventions to improve the safety in these areas.
The FAA rulemaking committee developed recommendations that would allow technologies – such
as “envelope protection,” “angle of attack indicators,” and “spin-resistant features” – that would
improve safety be put into new and existing aircraft at a fraction of the cost.
But today, the cost of adding an angle-of-attack indicator into a noncertified experimental aircraft is
$800. In a certified aircraft, the same piece of equipment is $5,000 because of the added certification
paperwork and testing, according to information from Pompeo’s office.
Read more here: http://www.kansas.com/2013/05/07/2793245/pompeo-introduceslegislation.html#emlnl=Morning_Headlines_Newsletter#storylink=cpy
Roberts right about needing to regulate
compounding
Good for Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., for leading an effort to provide
more oversight of pharmacy compounding, which now is mostly unregulated. Roberts has been working
for more than 10 years to strengthen regulations regarding the mixing of medications, but the issue
received more urgency after dozens of people died last year from an outbreak of spinal meningitis linked
to contaminated steroid injections prepared by a compounding company in Massachusetts. “It really is
unfortunate that 53 people have to die and 700 get sick before we have the will to do this,” Roberts said.
Though Roberts is normally leery of more regulations, he recognizes that this is needed for public safety.
“We just have to get it done,” he said. He’s right.
Read more here: http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2013/05/roberts-right-about-needing-to-regulatecompounding/#storylink=cpy
Legislation seeks more oversight of pharmacy
compounding



By MARK MORRIS
The Kansas City Star
Published Sunday, May 5, 2013, at 10:42 p.m.
The U.S. Senate this week will begin work on a law that would provide new oversight of the practice
of pharmacy compounding.
If enacted, the law would be the first far-reaching piece of federal legislation to reform compounding
since Kansas City pharmacist Robert Courtney shocked the nation more than a decade ago with his
admission that he had diluted thousands of doses of chemotherapy medication.
Compounding is a traditional part of pharmacy practice in which pharmacists mix medications from
scratch but without having to meet the same exacting safety and quality standards that large drug
manufacturers must follow.
The legislation, written by Kansas Sen. Pat Roberts and three of his Senate colleagues, would clarify
for the first time the roles of federal and state agencies in regulating compounding.
Though Roberts has worked steadily to strengthen compounding laws over the last 10 years, his
new legislation received special urgency last fall when a spinal meningitis outbreak killed dozens
and sickened hundreds more. The outbreak was traced to contaminated steroid injections prepared
by the New England Compounding Center in Massachusetts.
Roberts, a Republican, said Friday that he is encouraged by the willingness he has seen in
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to work on this issue again.
“It really is unfortunate that 53 people have to die and 700 get sick before we have the will to do
this,” Roberts said. “We haven’t given up. We’re persevering, and we’re doing it the right way. We
just have to get it done.”
The Kansas City Star first laid out concerns about the safety of compounded medications in a threepart series in 2002. Responding to that report and Courtney’s admissions, senators organized their
initial hearing on compounding practices in 2003. But industry opposition blocked any significant
changes.
The compounding industry remains mostly regulated by a patchwork of state boards of pharmacy,
which often do not have the capacity to oversee large operations that compound thousands of doses
of sterile medications and then ship them across the country.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration argues that it is hamstrung by a lack of clear jurisdiction.
It is those large operations, described in the legislation as “compounding manufacturers,” at which
the law is aimed. The FDA would, under the proposal, have clear authority to license and inspect
those plants, while leaving traditional pharmacy compounding as practiced in local drugstores to the
states.
“We’ve seen far too many deaths in this country because some pharmacies have acted more like
drug manufacturers, without following rigorous safety rules,” Minnesota Sen. Al Franken, who has
worked with Roberts on the legislation, said in a written statement.
The proposed law would compel those large compounders to use good manufacturing processes
and ensure that a licensed pharmacist was overseeing the preparations.
Compounding manufacturers also would be subject to reporting requirements for adverse drug
reactions similar to those of traditional pharmaceutical makers.
And the law allows the government to identify products that are particularly tricky to compound, such
as extended release products, metered dose inhalers and transdermal patches, and prevent them
from being produced until compounders demonstrate they can do them safely.
Sens. Tom Harkin of Iowa and Lamar Alexander of Tennessee joined Roberts and Franken in
releasing the draft bill in late April, calling for comments from government agencies and private
interests. Those comments were due Friday.
The Senate’s Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions will hold a hearing Thursday to
consider testimony and comment from industry leaders, government officials and public health
advocates.
A likely voice in the process will be that of the International Academy of Compounding Pharmacists,
which has consistently fought any federal encroachment on pharmacy practice.
In a statement on the draft bill, the academy applauded the committee’s work but said the bill could
“create more confusion and further blur the jurisdictional authority of regulators.” Still, the academy
pledged to work with the Senate to refine the legislation.
Public health experts appeared divided on the proposed bill.
Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy group founded by Ralph Nader, issued a stinging critique of
the legislation, saying it would be “a major step backward for U.S. drug safety.”
The group encouraged the FDA to apply the same standards to compounding manufacturers that it
does to traditional pharmaceutical companies.
But Sarah Sellers, an Illinois pharmacist and longtime proponent of compounding reform, said the
senators’ draft legislation is aimed at a risky industry problem and represents a good step.
“Their work to further clarify the FDA’s authority and the responsibilities of the states is
commendable and urgently necessary to protect the public,” Sellers said.
Read more here: http://www.kansas.com/2013/05/05/2791036/legislation-seeks-moreoversight.html#storylink=cpy
The political rise and fall of Aaron Jack
When Aaron Jack – a former state representative from Andover – resigned on Feb. 12
from the top job at the Kansas Securities Commission, the announcement said he wanted to return to
private industry. But the Topeka Capital-Journalreported this week that he was told to resign or be fired by
Gov. Sam Brownback’s chief of staff. And with good reason. During his two-year tenure, Jack pushed out
nearly three-fourths of the commission’s staff, replacing many of them with GOP operatives. Not
surprisingly, the commission’s enforcement record dropped. Jack also authorized more than $500,000 to
be spent on a “public education” media campaign that seemed mostly aimed at aiding his planned run for
Kansas insurance commissioner. “They’ve turned the agency into a dysfunctional pro-industry political
bastion,” a former securities examiner told the Capital-Journal. “One of the best securities agencies in the
country has been wiped out.” So has Jack’s political career.
Read more here: http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2013/05/the-political-rise-and-fall-of-aaronjack/#storylink=cpy
Wichitan hoping to unseat Huelskamp
Bryan Robert Whitney is seeking the Democratic nomination for the 2014 District 1 congressional race
against Rep. Tim Huelskamp, R-Fowler, the Hutchinson News reported. In addition to Huelskamp’s
campaign war chest of more than $500,000 and the large GOP advantage in voter registrations, Whitney
faces another challenge: He lives in Wichita, which is in District 4. The U.S. Constitution allows Whitney to
run for any Congressional seat in the state, as long as he lives in the state. He grew up in District 1,
graduating from Syracuse High School, and plans to move back to the district in 2015 after his wife
graduates from the University of Kansas Medical School in Wichita. But Whitney acknowledged that not
living in the district during the campaign “will be difficult.”
Read more here: http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2013/05/wichitan-hoping-to-unseathuelskamp/#storylink=cpy
From the Kansas City Star
Brownback’s sales tax increase is best of bad
options
May 7
Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback is banking on the prospect that, in the next week or so, his
Legislature will approve a tax increase.
Brownback would never call it that. The Republican governor lives under the happy
delusion that he can take credit for pulling Kansas out of its Great Recession slump
without a tax increase on his record.
In fact, much of the progress Kansas has seen
in its finances is the result of a one-cent sales
tax increase that Brownback’s predecessor,
Democrat Mark Parkinson, signed into law in
2010. Part of that increase is scheduled to
expire on June 30. To renew the full one cent
would make the sales tax higher on July 1
than Kansans had been promised. It’s a tax
increase, pure and simple.
But the Legislature’s decision, when it returns
Wednesday for its “wrap up” session, is
anything but simple.
To give the governor what he wants is to give
breathing room to a horribly flawed tax policy
that began with the draconian income tax cuts
Brownback signed into law last year.
But to deny the Brownback tax increase is to
place Kansans at risk for higher property
taxes and more cuts to schools and services.
Brownback and the Legislature ought to
reverse their rash and arrogant income tax
experiment. That’s not going to happen any
time soon, though. The governor regards
income tax cuts as his ticket to national
acclaim in some circles, never mind the
devastation his policies are wreaking at home.
Kansas, however, can’t weather any more cuts
to schools, universities and social services.
For the Legislature, extending the sales tax
increase is the only responsible course of
action.
Brownback, a master at the art of illusion, has
been touring the state and portraying himself
as the champion of Kansas’ colleges and
universities. Only an extension of the sales tax
increase, he said, could hold the schools’
budgets at their current levels.
But that level is hardly adequate. Jill Docking,
Brownback’s one-time political opponent and
a former member of the Board of Regents,
noted that state funding for higher education
plunged 11 percent from 2008 through 2012.
Many states are taking advantage of
rebounding revenues to make up recessionary
losses; in Kansas, level funding is talked about
as a victory.
“Higher education is a very competitive
business,” Docking wrote on
her blog,dockingblog.com. “We will lose our
most talented students, faculty and
researchers to those states with the
commitment to education that Kansas has
had for generations, but currently, apparently,
lacks.”
Even a sales tax increase won’t cure the ills of
the Kansas budget. Brownback and key
lawmakers are desperately searching for pots
of money to plunder, for projects to defer and
for fiscal tricks to employ. The strategy is
unsustainable.
It’s been interesting — if rather sad — to
watch Brownback lobby for a sales tax
increase while also insisting his end game is
to eliminate the income tax. Under no
scenario should the Legislature entertain such
a notion. Credible studies show that the state
must attract record numbers of high-paying
jobs to close the budget gap the first round of
tax cuts has created — a feat made all the
more difficult as schools and service slip.
The governor’s tax increase would at least
save Kansas from falling faster. Lawmakers
should pass it, and close some tax loopholes
as well. Then they should begin a soulsearching process aimed at steering back to a
fiscal policy that honors the state’s traditional
values, such as good schools and services.
Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2013/05/07/4223811/brownbacks-sales-taxincrease.html#storylink=cpy
Deal on taxes and spending in Kansas could
be near
May 7
BY BRAD COOPER
The Kansas City Star
Lawmakers return to Topeka on Wednesday after a monthlong break with a deal just out
of grasp to cut income taxes and balance the budget.
Even with deeply rooted differences over renewing a sales-tax hike, key lawmakers say a
bargain could crystallize as early as this weekend.
“I have been very optimistic all along,” said
Rep. Richard Carlson, a St. Marys Republican
and one of the key budget negotiators. “We
intend to find an amicable solution that
benefits all the taxpayers in Kansas.”
No faction wants to repeat last year’s
legislative session, when lawmakers approved
controversial income-tax cuts and left angry
after failing to draw new election districts.
“People don’t want to go through what we did
last year and they’re talking,” said state Sen.
Julia Lynn, an Olathe Republican and a
member of the Senate tax committee.
Still, the shape of a solution remained unclear
Tuesday after leadership teams from the
House and Senate exchanged ideas in
Oklahoma City. They’d met there at a
conservative American Legislative Exchange
Council conference last week.
House Speaker Ray Merrick said three or four
tax plans remained in play but declined to
provide details.
Merrick said state fiscal analysts were still
running numbers on the plans to calculate
their impact on future state budgets.
“It’s just seeing how the numbers come out,”
Merrick said. “You don’t want to come back
here and undo what you did because you
made a strategic mistake.”
House and Senate budget negotiators were set
to talk Tuesday about tax plans, but that
meeting was abruptly called off. Talks seeking
a compromise may pick up Wednesday.
The major issue facing legislators is the
possible renewal of a six-tenths of a cent
addition to the state sales tax approved in
2010 amid the depths of the recession.
That part of the sales tax is scheduled to come
off the books July 1, but conservative
Republican Gov. Sam Brownback wants it
renewed to help bridge a massive revenue
hole left by income tax cuts he signed into law
last year.
Already dogged by slumping approval ratings,
Brownback wants the sales tax to avert cuts in
programs such as higher education.
However, he’s at odds with House
conservatives who would traditionally be
some of his strongest allies in the Statehouse.
He provided critical help in getting many of
them elected — as they campaigned against
the higher sales tax — in 2012.
Twenty-four House members — mostly
Republicans — voted against the sales tax
when it was approved three years ago.
The Senate has backed Brownback’s plan to
renew the sales tax and reduce income taxes
even deeper between 2014 and 2017.
Not renewing the tax means making deep
budget cuts, possibly to education, for which
senators don’t seem to have much of an
appetite.
Meanwhile, the House has passed a plan that
lets the state sales tax drop to 5.7 cents from
6.3 cents. But that plan cuts income taxes far
less aggressively than the Senate’s.
The differences between the two tax plans are
central to how much the state ends up
spending in 2014 and to what extent the
state’s colleges and universities get cut.
While the House, for instance, would lower
the sales tax, it also wants deeper budget cuts
than the Senate has proposed.
The House would cut $122 million from the
governor’s budget recommendation for fiscal
2014, including about $30 million for higher
education.
Senators would trim the governor’s proposed
budget by about $48 million and cut colleges
and universities by about $15 million.
No one is certain how all this will shake out in
the next few days.
“There is an agreement that neither side will
end up getting 100 percent their way,” said
state Rep. Marvin Kleeb, an Overland Park
Republican who sits on the House tax and
appropriations committees.
Some support exists in the House to move
away from an income tax to more of a
consumption tax, but Kleeb said lawmakers
don’t want to be perceived as raising taxes by
extending a sales tax that lawmakers
promised to roll back in 2010.
“That’s the hurdle we need to get over,” Kleeb
said.
Sen. Les Donovan, chairman of the Senate tax
committee, said he hopes lawmakers
understand the importance of getting this
dispute resolved.
“It is a pretty grave situation,” said Donovan,
a Wichita Republican. “We’ve got to get
something done. There’s no more beating
around the bush.”
Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2013/05/07/4224005/deal-on-taxes-and-spendingin.html#storylink=cpy
Colleges, Johnson County held hostage by
Brownback
May 6
Gov. Sam Brownback is trying to fool some Kansans — including Johnson County civic
leaders — into thinking he really cares about higher education.
It’s a political game that the governor is winning, as he puts Johnson Countians like
Fred Logan, vice chair of the Kansas Board of Regents, in an embarrassing position.
Brownback has received plenty of positive
attention in recent weeks by appearing at
Kansas colleges and universities to say he
wants to defend their future funding. How?He
wants to make sure the Kansas Legislature
doesn’t allow the current state sales tax to
drop — as required by a 2010 law — from 6.3
percent to 5.7 percent.
If the sales tax remains high, Brownback says,
that will create $250 million a year for the
state, and some of that money can be used to
protect higher education.
“The Board of Regents is grateful for the
governor’s efforts,” read a Sunday letter to
The Star by Logan and two other regents.
What’s not to like?
How about this: This is the same governor
who last year was roaming the state and the
halls of the Capitol arguing for massive
income tax cuts, basically to help shelter more
income for high-salaried Kansans.
The result of these cuts will be less money
coming in for the state of Kansas in the future.
Naturally, these income tax reductions will be
hurting one of the prime beneficiaries of state
funds — colleges and universities.
Brownback didn’t care enough about higher
education last year to try to protect it from
funding reductions in the future.
Now the governor essentially wants to keep a
sales tax imposed on Kansans to help make up
for all the money he and the Legislature took
away with their income tax cuts.
That means the state would continue a
regressive sales tax in a bid to continue
funding higher education at a more
reasonable level.
Brownback has some allies for keeping the tax
in the GOP-controlled Kansas Senate, but
Republican House members appear ready to
let the sales tax drop.
That could lead to a cut of tens of millions of
dollars for the colleges and universities. Don’t
expect that threat to carry much water with
the House members: They were the leaders
last year in slashing income taxes.
The governor eventually might win this
debate, as he’s won many others in his first
term. But it’s frustrating that the leaders of
colleges and universities have to bend over
backward to praise Brownback after he’s been
a leader in cutting tax revenues in the past.
Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2013/05/06/4221024/colleges-johnson-county-heldhostage.html#storylink=cpy
Governor, lawmakers considering whether
to keep planned Kansas sales tax cut
May 5
BY JOHN HANNA
The Associated Press
TOPEKA — Kansas legislators reconvene this week facing a decision about Gov. Sam
Brownback's plan to stabilize the budget by canceling a scheduled sales tax decrease,
and the political climate appears to be as volatile as the state's recent weather.
The Republican governor wants the GOP-dominated Legislature to avoid cuts in higher
education and follow up massive personal income tax cuts enacted last year with
another round of rate reductions. The key to his plan for accomplishing both goals – and
preventing budget shortfalls over the next five years – is keeping the sales tax at 6.3
percent, rather than letting it drop to 5.7 percent on July 1 as planned.
The Senate has embraced Brownback's
proposals on the sales tax and income tax
cuts. The House approved legislation letting
the sales tax drop, with less aggressive income
tax cuts. Legislative negotiators had made
little progress toward resolving both issues
when lawmakers started their break last
month.
Republican legislators involved in budget and
tax issues believe a compromise is possible,
but such an agreement would move away
from the governor's positions. Several key
legislators also said GOP legislators could
remain at odds and the Legislature could
adjourn without passing a tax bill, leaving a
major budget mess for next year.
“We're willing to negotiate, but we're just not
going to capitulate,” said lead House
negotiator Richard Carlson, a St. Marys
Republican. “Both sides have to look for
compromise, but I don't know what that
position is.”
Legislators end their spring break
Wednesday, returning to the Statehouse to
finish a state budget of roughly $14.5 billion
for the fiscal year beginning July 1 and to
complete other business for the year.
Republican leaders hope their wrap-up lasts
no more than six days, so that the annual
session ends in 80 days, 10 fewer than
typically scheduled.
Lawmakers also are likely to consider
changing education policy, rewriting state
liquor laws, granting Secretary of State Kris
Kobach new power to prosecute election fraud
cases and authorizing $202 million in bonds
to help finance a new, national biosecurity lab
in Manhattan.
But settling tax issues for the year – even if
legislators walk away – is crucial. House and
Senate budget negotiators concede that they
can't finish a spending plan for the next fiscal
year without knowing how much revenue the
state is expected to collect.
Brownback pushed for income tax cuts last
year and wants to eventually phase out
personal income taxes in the future to
stimulate the economy. But he's conceded
that the state must backfill its budget if it
wants to avoid significant cuts to education
funding and major programs. Keeping the
sales tax at its current rate would provide
$258 million in additional revenues during
the next fiscal year.
Over the past three weeks, Brownback has
toured state university, community college
and technical college campuses to build public
support for his budget recommendations
keeping higher education funding flat in the
face of proposals from lawmakers to cut it.
Democrats, though supportive of higher
education, have criticized the tour as a baitand-switch campaign to boost support for
canceling the sales tax decrease.
“I just don't think anybody has a handle on
where this ship is headed,” said House
Minority Leader Paul Davis, a Lawrence
Democrat.
With GOP supermajorities, there's no chance
that the Legislature will seriously entertain
Democrats' argument that the state ought to
rethink last year's income tax cuts.
Senate Majority Leader Terry Bruce, a
Hutchinson Republican, said canceling the
sales tax decrease remains the cleanest
solution. He expects pressure to build on
House Republicans reluctant to accept
Brownback's sales tax plan each day of the
wrap-up session.
Over the past 25 years, lawmakers have felt
squeezed at the beginning of each wrap-up to
finish their business quickly, sensing that
their constituents are frustrated with an
inability to finish the work within 90 days.
“At some point, everybody wants to go home
and end the session. That's the biggest
motivator,” Bruce said. “At some point, you
run out of options.”
Carlson said he expects negotiations over the
sales tax rate. GOP legislators have suggested
phasing down the rate or letting the tax drop
some in July but not as much as planned,
perhaps to 6 percent.
But the plan to drop the tax to 5.7 percent
resulted from a budget-balancing agreement
three years ago that temporarily boosted the
tax under Democrat Gov. Mark Parkinson.
Democrats have said consistently that they
won't break the promise, and House tax
negotiator Scott Schwab, an Olathe
Republican, said the idea remains a hard sell
among GOP representatives.
Budget projections from legislative
researchers suggest that with no changes in
tax laws, the state budget still would be
balanced for the next fiscal year, even though
future problems would loom. Schwab said the
projections would allow legislators to walk
away from tax negotiations if they don't
appear to be making any progress.
“I don't think it's responsible, but it's
possible,” he said. “We could end up saying,
`OK, we're just going to go home' and punt
it.”
Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2013/05/05/4219904/governor-lawmakersconsidering.html#storylink=cpy
Missouri, Kansas lawmakers face furious
debates over alcohol regulation
May 5
BY DAVE HELLING
The Kansas City Star
After a spring of health care and taxes, lawmakers in Kansas and Missouri are bellying
up for a final fistfight — over how liquor is sold, how much you pay for it, and how many
choices you have at the bar or liquor store.
The brawls team longtime political foes, while pitting well-paid friend against well-paid
friend. Special interests spend small fortunes on TV ads, lobbyists and campaign
contributions. Legislators, meantime, land in a dizzying crossfire between alcohol
makers, bottlers, distributors, and, in some cases, your bartender.
All because of the post-Prohibition rules
regulating demon rum and its good-time
relatives.
Concerns in the two states are slightly
different:
• Kansas is deciding if grocery and
convenience stores can sell hard liquor and
full-strength beer.
• Missouri is addressing a raging dispute
between the people who make alcoholic
beverages and the distributors who get it to
market.
The stakes are enormous. Selling booze is a
multi-million-dollar business, involving
dozens of firms, thousands of workers and
millions in tax revenue.
Add the public’s safety, health and
convenience. Mix in dozens of highly-paid
lobbyists, new-media tools and shifting
political alliances, and you’ve poured quite a
potent legislative cocktail.
“It’s been intense,” said Sen. Jolie Justus, a
Kansas City Democrat. “One issue a session
comes to a head like this.”
Kansas state Rep. Marvin Kleeb, an Overland
Park Republican, calls the combatants in his
state “very passionate.”
The debates matter.
Ultimately, specialty beers and wines may be
easier to find — or less available. Brews and
spirits could be cheaper, or consumers could
be so confused that tax revenue slumps. You
might be able to pick up a bottle of vodka with
a tank of gas and a bag of chips, but the corner
liquor store might close.
Grab a cold one. Here’s what the two states
are trying to figure out.
Missouri
Since the end of Prohibition, Missouri has
used what’s called a three-tier system to move
drinks from fermenter to glass.
Manufacturers, from Boulevard Brewing to
Anheuser-Busch InBev toMcCormick
Distilling, don’t sell directly to the
neighborhood bar or liquor store. Rather, the
makers must engage a Missouri-based
distributor, which then sells beverages to the
retailer, which sells them to the public.
The idea: Split control of liquor sales among
the makers, wholesalers, and retailers, so that
no segment of the industry can control prices
and products. Before Prohibition — and
sometimes during Prohibition — powerful
brewers and distillers could cut off
uncooperative saloons and stores, leaving
them without a product to sell.
State-based wholesalers, the theory went,
would carry different brands from different
makers, ensuring competition, lower prices,
and full access to hooch.
But in 2011, a federal judge decided the state’s
franchise laws did not uniquely protect the
relationship between liquor makers and
wholesalers. That potentially freed suppliers
to alter their distribution agreements, seek
other partners — or perhaps to bypass the
middleman all together.
“It’s chaos,” said Susan McCollum, owner
of Major Brands, one of the biggest liquor
wholesalers in Missouri.
McCollum’s company and others like it are an
integral part of the liquor sales system,
supporters say. The firms help collect state
alcohol taxes and help supervise compliance
with regulations. And because wholesalers
must be Missouri-owned, they contend, the
state’s residents are protected against
predatory pricing that could come from large,
out-of-state brewers, distillers, and bottlers.
But those services aren’t cheap. In a year,
McCollum says, Major Brands collects more
than $400 million in revenue.
Liquor suppliers say that’s cash they could
return to consumers if the middleman goes
away. Additionally, they say, there are too
many liquor makers today for a Prohibitionlike cutoff of retail products. Indeed, they
contend, more suppliers would enter the state
if they could avoid onerous agreements with
local distributors.
Of course, there’s no guarantee consumers
would see any savings if distribution
agreements are changed or ended. The money
could simply go in the manufacturers’
pockets.
Micro-brewers and small vintners have
different concerns. Many would prefer direct
sales to retailers, saving the money paid to the
middleman, but few have the marketing
muscle to directly compete with huge multinational companies. They’re watching
developments nervously, and have asked the
Legislature for protection.
Bar and liquor store owners find it easier to
deal with the distributors they know than the
suppliers they don’t, but also worry about the
cost of the three-tier setup.
All of the competing interests have collided
in Senate Bill 365 in Missouri, and
a companion bill in the House. Supporters say
the bills return the state to the three-tier
system as it existed before the courts
intervened while protecting smaller brewers
and wine makers.
“It provides consumers with tremendous
choice, it helps promote responsible
distribution, and it keeps the market
competitive all at the same time,” McCollum
said.
But several alcohol manufacturers and
suppliers, led by the Distilled Spirits Council
of the United States, have bitterly fought the
measures. They have no problem with the
three-tier system, but claim the bill unfairly
preserves antiquated and unique protections
for liquor wholesalers, hurting competition
and costing consumers.
“The three-tier system is our life and blood,”
said Donn Lux of Luxco, a bottler and blender
near St. Louis. But “we believe the (franchise)
standard should be the same for everybody.”
Both sides have dipped into the modern
toolkit of political persuasion — YouTube
videos, statehouse rallies, news releases,
anonymous fliers. A group associated with
liquor suppliers recently posted
a video comparing the liquor system with the
Berlin Wall.
And both sides have lobbied up. State records
show Major Brands has hired 19 lobbyists,
while the liquor suppliers have countered with
more than two dozen of their own.
By comparison, Kansas City Power and Light
has two Jefferson City-based lobbyists.
“Everybody’s represented well on this issue,”
said Missouri GOP Rep. Mike Cierpiot,
chuckling. “They’re working the halls pretty
hard right now.”
Those lobbyists cross traditional party lines,
illustrating the tangled nature of the
discussion — and the role of money.
One-time Democratic operative Jack
Cardetti is working alongside conservative
strategist James Harris against the bills, for
example. DemocratSteve Glorioso is teamed
with GOP consultants Jeff Roe, former GOP
House Speaker Steve Tilley and über-GOP
lobbyist Jewell Patek to push the bills
through.
Not everyone is pleased by the hard-sell
tactics. “Political consultants know only one
way — that’s to throw mud,” said Sen. Jason
Holsman, a Kansas City Democrat.
Even the tea party is conflicted. Grover
Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reformsupports
the suppliers, while Missouri’s
conservative Eagle Forum supports the
wholesalers.
And companies directly involved in the issue
have taken seemingly contradictory stands.
Glazer’s, a Texas-based wholesaler, is on the
manufacturers’ side, while Kansas Citybased Boulevard Brewing Co., a supplier,
decided last week to support the restrictions
“in solidarity with our wholesalers,” according
to Jeff Krum of the company.
For reasons that aren’t completely
clear, Anheuser-Busch InBev, maker of
Budweiser and dozens of other popular beers,
hasn’t taken a public position on the bills. A
year ago, the international brewer with major
facilities in St. Louis, said it wanted to cut its
distribution costs, but apparently hasn’t yet
brought its lobbying muscle to the Missouri
debate.
A full accounting of the special interest
spending on the liquor bill may never be
available, but all sides believe it may have
already reached seven figures.
With just a few weeks until adjournment, the
fate of the bills remains uncertain. Several
lawmakers said they’re waiting for a signal
from Gov. Jay Nixon, who vetoed a similar bill
last year because he said it didn’t do enough
to protect small brewers and vintners in the
state.
Legislators don’t want to engage in a major
floor fight on liquor issues, they said, without
some insurance Nixon will endorse the final
result.
Kansas
The liquor issue in Kansas is simpler, and, for
now, quieter.
For several years, grocers and convenience
store operators have pushed for expanded
liquor sales in their Kansas stores. They want
to sell spirits, wine, and full-strength beer in
their stores.
Those businesses tried again this year, much
to the consternation of the state’s liquor store
owners, most of them are smaller firms who
want the business to themselves.
“It would put at least half the liquor stores in
the state of Kansas out of business,” said
Marshall Rimann, who owns two liquor
stores in Johnson County. “It’s a business
killer and a job killer.”
But big-box retailers and convenience store
owners — through a non-profit company
called Uncork Kansas — say wider liquor sales
would be more convenient, competitive, and
would save consumers money.
“We’re still mystified why we have to operate
under Prohibition rules in Kansas,” said Mike
Thornbrugh of QuikTrip, one of the members
of the Uncork Kansas group. “Name me any
other business that has that kind of
protection.”
Both sides have spent time and money
discussing the issue with lawmakers.Uncork
Kansas, for example, reported spending
almost $15,000 for lobbying expenses in the
first three months of the year.
As a non-profit, the group is also required to
file a federal tax return. But a database of
those returns has no record of the filing, and a
spokeswoman for the group could not
immediately provide a copy.
“They’re spending a lot of money,” said
Kansas Rep. Stan Frownfelter, a Kansas City,
Kan., Democrat who opposes expanding
liquor sales to bigger stores.
The Kansas Association of Beverage Retailers,
which represents the smaller stores, shows
spending of $1,100 in its January lobbying
report.
The bill expanding liquor sales in Kansas
remains stalled in a House committee, but
could emerge in the veto session later this
month. And all sides expect it to come back
next year if it isn’t settled this May.
“Obviously, there’s a lot of business and
money at stake,” state Rep. Kleeb said.
Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2013/05/05/4216856/missouri-kansas-lawmakersface.html?storylink=twt#storylink=cpy