One must look no further for evidence of this than KAKE Channel 10′s website where a condensed version was published under the byline of the Associated Press with no mention of “Analysis,” “Opinion” or otherwise with it.

The fact is in the past decade, “Analysis” has become in vogue with the press to justify using opinion pieces as news. Some claim it to be the brainchild of the mainstream media attempting to further influence the electorate. More likely it is simply the symptom of a press corps seriously strapped for cash partly due to them being completely out of touch on how to report real news relevant to the public.

Whatever the reason, it’s clear they are written in an attempt to publish select facts and influence the public. In this instance, it appears Milburn is attempting to explain away Brownback’s superior proposals on education in Kansas. It’s interesting that in attempting to place blame on the courts rather than the politicians for out of control education spending, Milburn actually validates past arguments by conservatives that unelected judges in Kansas virtually control over half the state’s budget.

While in the actual piece this isn’t necessarily the explicit message, it’s interesting to note this piece from the KAKE Channel 10 revision.

Both Republican Sam Brownback and Democrat Tom Holland say they will focus on preserving what they see as an excellent system of K-12 schools. Where they differ is how they would steer the behemoth system that consumes more than 50 percent of the state budget.

History would suggest that it’s more likely that litigation, not pontification, will decide the course.

In the past two decades, action or the threat of from the Kansas Supreme Court has played a bigger role than activity in the Statehouse.

If these last two sentences are true, then that means that unelected and unaccountable judges control our tax dollars and how they are spent, not elected officials who represent the people. This stronger language by KAKE 10 shows the power of “Analysis” pieces by the press and how they can morph into a story of their own. It just so happens that KAKE happened to take the piece in a direction that highlighted past arguments made by conservatives.

The piece also once again highlights Holland’s curious stance against revising the state’s finance formula due to increased property taxes while simultaneously advocating for increasing a district’s local option budget.

In any case, the public can analyze this, “Analysis” is just another word for “Editorial.”

And will an un-elected Democrat Secretary of State give Republican candidates the run around?

State Representative Bill Light

State Representative Bill Light withdrew his candidacy for re-election to the Kansas House May 12. Light was facing a strong conservative challenge in the August primary by Dan Widder of Ulysses.

In a Hutchinson News article, Light claimed that his retirement had nothing to do with his conservative challenger, even claiming that he didn’t know Widder. However, the article notes that Light filed for re-election in January and told the Hutchinson News in November that he liked to file in January before the start of a legislative session, “so that all will know my intentions.”

When contacted, Widder stated that he had attended a legislative coffee a few weeks ago where he questioned Light about the upcoming budget debate. While he didn’t disclose his planned challenge to Light, he said that Light certainly knew who he was.

So apparently something happened during this legislative session that changed Light’s mind about serving another term. That something, I believe, is Light’s realization that voting for a massive tax increase and facing a serious conservative challenger meant his chances at winning another term were little to none.

When asked about Light’s withdraw, Widder reiterated that it changed nothing as far as he is concerned.

“I don’t plan to do anything differently,” Widder stated.

In his bid to be placed on the ballot, Widder and campaign volunteers collected the signatures of more than 175 registered Republicans in his district. Widder stated that he contacted the Kansas Secretary of State’s office prior to beginning to collect signatures and asked what the procedures were for being placed on the ballot via petition. Widder’s campaign then collected the signatures and submitted them to the Sec. of State’s office.

However the Sec. of State rejected the petitions stating that they needed to be signed by the volunteers that collected the signatures, according to Widder. So he directed all volunteers that collected signatures to sign the petition and resubmitted it to the Sec. of State’s office.

Once again, Widder said, the petition was rejected. This time another contact in the Sec. of State’s office said that each page of the petition needed to be signed on the back with the volunteer that collected those signatures. Widder stated that he simply put all the signatures together into one petition and had all volunteers sign together. Further, the Sec. of State’s office claimed that volunteers should have only signed and dated the petition after collecting all of the signatures. Due to time constraints and lack of communication with the Sec. of State’s office, Widder elected to file by fee.

Widder claimed that he made numerous phone calls to the Sec. of State’s office before beginning to collect signatures and at no time did anyone detail to him that volunteers must sign the back of each petition page they collected. Widder said each time he called he seemed to get a different reason why he couldn’t file via petition.

The Sec. of State’s office is currently being held by un-elected Democrat Chris Biggs. Biggs is one of five Democrats holding statewide office that were not elected but rather appointed by either former Gov. Kathleen Sebelius or current Gov. Mark Parkinson. Both Sebelius and Parkinson appointed only Democrats, regardless of the party affiliation of the previous office holder.

And as this Kansas Liberty article notes, Bigg’s appointment also means that the state’s three person canvassing board is now held entirely by unelected Democrats. The board is tasked with verifying the state’s election results.

The 124th House district may be a template for the rest of the state and a significant sign of how the August elections may pan out. Gov. Parkinson and other Democrats claim that they will be rewarded for raising taxes on Kansas families, but Light’s withdraw seems to indicate that liberal Democrats and Republicans know otherwise.

Democrat Dennis Moore also withdrew for re-election this year after voting in favor of national health care and multiple bailouts. The two situations are eerily similar.

Raj Goyle, D-Wichita

Only two House Democrats voted against the massive budget bill in the House yesterday, one that will require the largest tax increase in Kansas history. One was Patrick Maloney of Kingman. He replaced Dennis McKinney, who is one of many Democrats to be appointed to a statewide seat. The other was Raj Goyle of Wichita.

Goyle is a former ACLU attorney and liberal member of the Kansas House. Goyle is running for Congress in the fourth congressional district around Wichita, and just recently was the only House Democrat who voted to end the corporate income tax in Kansas. This vote was very out of character for him, and this weekend’s budget vote was even more strange.

Goyle has a measly 9% rating with APF-Kansas for the 2009 legislative session.

Could it be that Goyle is now voting how he knows the voters in Wichita want him to vote, just so he can get elected to Congress and then later vote however he wants, a la Dennis Moore?

Nahhh, that’d never happen.

They are going to debate this on the Senate floor as early as Monday next week. I don’t have a bill number handy but they all know what you talking about if you refer to the budget and proposed taxes.

This has not been a good week for conservatives in the Senate. On Wednesday the Senate defeated a motion to pull a proposed constitutional amendment out of committee – one that would have let you vote on federal health care this fall – and voted down a community of defense act. That last one is an example of how some Senators tell you one thing in person (of course I’m for lower taxes or health care freedom) but then when their vote matters, they vote differently. The Senators had known for weeks the CDA would be voted on when they returned as it was debated the last day of the regular session, then delayed until a date certain, that date being April 28. And still we have one Senator who voted yes, until it was passing, then switched to no. And as aggravating as that is to watch, what’s even more appalling is when I hear Senators voting no on this because it would cost some jobs – yet those same people want to raise your taxes. I suppose that makes sense in their minds, people can’t pay taxes if they don’t have a job, so who are we to say it’s a job that’s not good for society. Decency and morals apparently don’t factor in, whether it’s in how we make money or how we tax the people.

I think most of you would like to know how your Senator voted on the above measure. Our friends at the National Coalition for the Protection of Children & Families created a spreadsheet (linked here) showing you their votes and their contact info. Please feel free to use this information to let your elected Senators know your thoughts this weekend. I also encourage you to share your thoughts here on this blog as well!

At the Wichita School Board meeting, Harold Schlechtweg, business representative of Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 513, outlined the union’s efforts to pack a Sedgwick County legislative forum. The effort was so coordinated that Schlechtweg was able to list signs that were present at the forum and detail efforts of Wichita State University education students coming in to make calls to district employees. At one point, he even becomes somewhat confused and referred to the event as a “rally” rather than a legislative forum for the public.

Oh, oops, “I shouldn’t call it that!”

Do SEIU members have a right to be at these forums? Absolutely. Is it the union’s right to organize these people into a tax and spend frenzy? You bet. But isn’t this just the kind of actions that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called “astroturfing?”

In light of a new plan by Senate conservatives to replace the budget shortfall with revenue from the sale of state property, are schools and spending advocates really concerned about this budget or do they just want to hike taxes? According to those at the forum on Saturday, SEIU attendees shouted down legislators who were trying to save the budget with this plan. Is this not what spending advocates wanted: more spending?

With a plan on deck that would “save” the budget, shouldn’t SEIU members cheer their victory? Or maybe it’s not about the spending at all? With a plan that achieves their spending goals but not their tax desires, the SEIU supporters on Saturday showed themselves to be nothing more than tax happy bureaucrats who could care less about their neighbor who’s out of a job or taken a pay cut in this down economy.

The SEIU forum crashers care about one thing and one thing only: raising your taxes. Regardless of achieving their own spending desires, regardless of their out of work neighbors and certainly regardless of the payments future generations will be making for decades to come.

A search for each author’s name was performed in Newsbank. Newsbank has current articles from the Emporia Gazette, the Hays Daily News, the Hutchinson News, the Manhattan Mercury, the Newton Kansan, the Ottawa Herald, the Southwest Daily Times, the Topeka Capital-Journal, and the Wichita Eagle. An additional search was performed for the Kansas City Star (which is headquartered in Kansas City, MO and not included in Kansas searches in Newsbank) and online with the Lawrence Journal-World. (The Journal-World keeps previous news coverage online, unlike other the other newspapers that take down their articles after a certain period of time.)

The search for “Art Hall” returned two relevant articles in 2010, one from the Wichita Eagle and another from the Hutchinson News. These articles covered Hall’s testimony to a Kansas House committee. A third article in the Kansas City Star mentioned Hall’s findings but his study wasn’t the focus of the article. A search of the Star’s and Eagle’s blogs returned no entries.

The search for “John Wong” returned many relevant articles. An April 20 article in the Wichita Eagle outlines the study’s findings, as well as a special blog entry on the 19th. The study was also highlighted in a budget piece in the Eagle’s regular section on the 19th. This was all followed up with a favorable editorial three days later.

Similarly, an April 20 article in the Hutchinson News highlights the pro-tax study, as well as an article in the Kansas City Star. The Lawrence Journal-World had an article online devoted to the study, however a search of ljworld.com revealed no such article for the KU study. The Topeka Capital-Journal also featured the Wong study, with no such balance provided to the Hall study.

Perhaps the slant in coverage is due to the study’s findings, or even it’s timing. It’s certainly too bad that the Kansas media can’t be bothered to examine the two studies and detail their differences. At the very least it should be worthwhile to note that the pro-tax study was done in a vacuum and only covers one year, while the KU study takes into account changes in spending habits and long term effects over a six year period.

The tale of these two studies may end up being a sad testimony to the state of the Kansas media rather than how badly a tax hike would be to our state’s economy.

The study concluded that a sales tax increase would cost private sector employment, but would fuel government jobs, thus saving close to 2,000 in the first year. The study confirmed a January study by Dr. Art Hall of the University of Kansas who ran a 6 year projection of over 26,000 private sector lost jobs. Monday’s study by Dr. John Wong of WSU only made one year projections.

Monday’s study received significant media coverage because of it’s pro-tax sympathies, while Hall’s January study received little attention.

Read more at:

• Studies Agree: A Sales Tax Increase Kills Jobs
• Who’s Really Behind Pro-Sales Tax Study
• Opposition blasts Wong report stating increase in taxes better than budget cuts

“Other candidates talk about opposing taxes, but Tim Huelskamp has a proven track record of fighting tax increases to prove it,” said Huelskamp spokesman David Ray. “That’s why he won numerous awards for keeping taxes low and why the Club for growth has endorsed him.”

In additional to high profile national endorsements, Sen. Huelskamp was one of only two candidates to gain a preference vote of the Kansas Republican Assembly Board of Directors. To gain a KRA Board Preference, candidates had to get a 4/5ths vote from board members. In addition to being a friend of the taxpayer, Sen. Huelskamp has been a friend of the pro-life and pro-marriage movement in Kansas and has proven to voters he is worthy of their vote.

The KRA encourages you to donate $25 to the Huelskamp campaign today to help keep this message on the air.

• Huelskamp launches television ad
• Air war begins in Kansas first district GOP primary
• Huelskamp Launches First TV Ad

There are multitudes of lobbyists in Topeka sent on the taxpayer dime. They vary from local governments like cities and counties to many local school districts and now apparently even state departments like KDOT. Contrary to common sense, taxpayer funded lobbying is not illegal.

Certainly heads of various state departments go to the capital and regularly advocate for more money. It has essentially become standard operating procedure to ask for more than you need. It is, however, a giant step in the wrong direction for the head of a department to use state resources to outright advocate for a tax increase to pad the departments pockets.

Using state resources in this way is disturbing. But in addition to that, watch the video below and ask yourself these questions:

• Why does Secretary Miller never use the words “tax increase?”
• If Kansas roads have improved so dramatically since the 1980′s, why is a “revenue increase” needed to “spur economic development across the state?” If more roads equals more economic activity, shouldn’t tax revenues have increased as well? Or does that perhaps lend evidence to the argument that more transportation funding does not equal more economic activity?
• Why does KDOT note that new construction spending is less than in the 1970′s when they say a tax increase is needed for system “preservation?” Doesn’t preservation by definition mean there wouldn’t be new construction?

I certainly for one will not argue against more roads and better infrastructure. Preservation of the system should be a priority. However, the funds to do so must be found within the state’s current revenue stream.

Secretary Miller wants Kansans to believe that they should give more money to the government in the name of more economic activity. If that is the case, why not just go ahead and give the government everything you make and let them spend what they see fit first and then give you the rest? After all, if more money spent by the government is such a good thing, this strategy should quickly result in unprecedented state wealth.

INTRODUCTION OF ORIGINAL MOTIONS
Having voted on the prevailing side, Rep. Peck moved, pursuant to House Rule 2303, that the House reconsider its adverse action on HCR 5032 in not adopting the resolution under that order of business, Final Action on Bills and Concurrent Resolutions (see HJ, page 1226). Roll call was demanded.

On roll call, the vote was: Yeas 75; Nays 47; Present but not voting: 0; Absent or not voting: 3.

Yeas: Aurand, Bethell, Bowers, Brookens, A. Brown, Brunk, Burgess, Carlson, Craft, Crum, DeGraaf, Donohoe, Faber, D. Gatewood, George, Goico, Gordon, Grange, Hayzlett, Hermanson, Hineman, C. Holmes, M. Holmes, Horst, Huebert, Jack, Kelley, Kerschen, Kiegerl, King, Kinzer, Kleeb, Knox, Landwehr, Light, Lukert, Maloney, Mast, McLeland, Meier, Merrick, Morrison, Moxley, Myers, O’Brien, O’Neal, Olson, Otto, Palmer, Patton, Pauls, Peck, Pottorff, Powell, Prescott, Proehl, Rhoades, Schroeder, Schwab, Schwartz, Seiwert, Shultz, Siegfreid, Spalding, Suellentrop, Swanson, Tafanelli, Vickrey, Wetta, Whitham, Williams, B. Wolf, K. Wolf, Worley, Yoder.

Nays: Ballard, Barnes, Benlon, Bollier, T. Brown, Burroughs, Carlin, Colloton, Crow, Davis, Dillmore, Feuerborn, Finney, Flaharty, Frownfelter, Furtado, Garcia, S. Gatewood, Goyle, Grant, Hawk, Henderson, Henry, Hill, Kuether, Lane, Loganbill, Long, Mah, McCray-Miller, Menghini, Neighbor, Peterson, Phelps, Quigley, Rardin, Roth, Ruiz, Slattery, Sloan, D. Svaty, Swenson, Talia, Tietze, Trimmer, Ward, Winn.

Present but not voting: None.

Absent or not voting: Fund, Johnson, Neufeld.

The motion of Rep. Peck to reconsider action did not prevail.

note:
Reps. Fund and Johnson were excused on verified illness.
Rep. Neufeld was excused on legislative business.

All votes on this issue in the last week (House votes & Senate Judiciary Committee) can be found on this Kansas Liberty webpage.

Listed below are those who voted against letting the people’s voice be heard. If you know a good candidate running in one of these districts, post their website link in the comments section. If you live in one of these districts and don’t know of or see someone good running, help us find the right candidates so we can change the Kansas House in 2010!

To pass, the amendment needs a two-thirds supermajority of 84 votes in the House. Today’s vote was 76-44. Listed below is how the votes came down according to party and yea or nay. Click the members name to get their contact information and call, fax and email them TODAY.

Republican Yeas: Aurand, Bethell, Bowers, Brookens, Brown A, Brunk, Burgess, Carlson, Colloton, Craft, Crum, DeGraaf, Donohoe, Faber, George, Goico, Gordon, Grange, Hayzlett, Hermanson, Hineman, Holmes C, Holmes M, Horst, Huebert, Jack, Kelley, Kerschen, Kiegerl, King, Kinzer, Kleeb, Knox, Landwehr, Light, Mast, McLeland, Merrick, Morrison, Moxley, Myers, Neufeld, O’Brien, O’Neal, Olson, Otto, Patton, Peck, Pottorff, Powell, Prescott, Proehl, Rhoades, Schroeder, Schwab, Schwartz, Seiwert, Shultz, Siegfreid, Spalding, Suellentrop, Swanson, Tafanelli, Vickrey, Whitham, Wolf B, Wolf K, Worley, Yoder.

Contact (preferably by phone) the Republicans below and ask them why they voted against limited government.

Republican NAYS: Nays: Bollier, Hill, Quigley, Roth, Sloan.

Contact (preferably by phone) the Democrats below and ask them to once again vote yea. They will be under pressure to change their vote.

Democrat YEAS: Lukert, Maloney, Meier, Palmer, Svaty, Wetta, Williams.

Contact (preferably by phone) the Democrats below and ask them why they voted nea and ask them to change their vote.

Democrat NAYS: Ballard, Barnes, Benlon, Brown T, Burroughs, Carlin, Crow, Davis, Dillmore, Feuerborn, Finney, Flaharty, Frownfelter, Furtado, Garcia, Gatewood D, Gatewood S, Goyle, Grant, Henry, Kuether, Lane, Loganbill, Long, Mah, McCray-Miller, Menghini, Neighbor, Pauls, Phelps, Rardin, Ruiz, Slattery, Swenson, Talia, Tietze, Trimmer, Ward, Winn.

These Representatives didn’t vote. Keep in mind that they may have not been able to vote due to illness. Contact (preferably by phone) the Representatives below and ask them to make an effort to vote for the Healthcare Freedom Amendment.

Didn’t Vote: Fund (most likely would have been a yea, is currently hospitalized according to fellow House members), Hawk, Henderson, Johnson, Peterson.

As a quasi government agency, Amtrak has been loosing money for years and only continues to operate because of federal subsidies. While federal money is outside the control of KDOT, a KDOT press release notes the one time infrastructure improvement costs and annual operating cost of the four different plans.

For example, the first plan estimates an annual ridership of 92,500 at an annual cost burden to the state of $3.2 million. This doesn’t include an estimated $114 million in improvements for the line to operate. And the $114 million doesn’t include local improvements like platforms and train stations, which would have to be provided by local Kansas communities. Just taking into account the state’s annual costs, it comes to $34.60 per rider.

A more expensive alternative would bring in an estimated 174,000 annual riders but would cost the state $8 million a year in operating expenses. Excluding $476 million in infrastructure improvements, that’s just under $46 a rider. If one includes the infrastructure costs and extends out annual costs for 30 years, the cost per rider increases to just over $137 a rider.

Why would KDOT push for a service that would require $8 million a year be taken from their budget when they are canceling new construction and repair projects left and right? Rather than subsidize passenger rail service to potentially $46 a rider or more, couldn’t those millions of dollars be better spent maintaining Kansas roads that would benefit everyone rather than the few who find passenger rail service so nostalgic that they advocate government subsidies to keep Amtrak going?

Couple this with a continuing push to renovate the state capital because ‘material is so cheap’ and lawmakers so desperate to tax rather than cut spending that soda pop is now on the radar, and it certainly leaves Kansas taxpayers wondering just what happened to our government’s priorities.

Government run healthcare supporters gathered in Wichita Saturday to protest the Healthcare Freedom Amendment (HFA). The Amendment, sponsored by Reps. Brenda Landwehr, Peggy Mast and Sen. Mary Pilcher-Cook, would try to prevent the federal government from imposing fines, or even jail time, to Kansas citizens who choose not to have health insurance. Opponents of the HFA claim that it would opt Kansas out of any “public option” that passes in Washington. However, no where in the two page document are these provisions found.

The Wichita protest was to target Rep. Landwehr for her support of the HFA and was a follow up to a rally in early November in Shawnee targeting Sen. Pilcher-Cook. At that protest, government healthcare supporters were met by a large group of freedom loving patriots.

The spin from the left was that they were all shipped in by Koch Industries, even though they were unable to produce any evidence of this assertion. One would think big buses with a whole bunch of people would be easy to document. Of course, they are unable to do so because it simply doesn’t exist. Any “busing” by Koch or AFP is pure fiction, a grand lie concocted by liberals to convince themselves only the left can produce an uncoordinated, spontaneous grassroots movement.

The Koch lie seems to be in line with previous attacks by the left, where even they admit they were wrong when challenged to provide evidence.

This morning, I received an e-mail from Melissa “Missy” Cohlmia, the Communications Director for Koch Companies Public Sector. In it, Ms. Cohlmia asked:

“Can you point me to the facts behind this statement? The astroturf movement is paid for by David Koch of Wichita-based Koch Industries to the tune of $20 million of his own treasure.”

Admittedly, I failed in my post yesterday to appropriately link that statement. Mostly, however, that failure was because it’s a commonly known fact that Koch Industries is behind Americans for Prosperity, widely reported by the traditional and non-traditional press.

In fact the truth is AFP now has over 700,000 individual donors. Koch donations now account for less than 5% of AFP’s donations.

But as liberals go, they just couldn’t stop themselves and had to go even further.

One way that’s ever so popular with liberals is parading the children around. We must do it for the children, don’t you know! Thus Kansas’ 58,000 uninsured children becomes the call for more government programs. Of course, never mind there’s already a program out there called Kansas Healthwave. To a common sense Kansan that’d be evidence of a government failure, but to a liberal, it’s a call to more government action.

In fact, it seems the lefties have gotten themselves so worked up, they’ve forgotten what exactly happened in Shawnee less than a month ago.

In a weekend update, the left says things never got out of hand.

Despite the tone of our local Fox affiliate, that morning never got ugly. Passions are high on both sides, but never did the event escalate over some shouting matches.

But just a few weeks later, an organizer with the same liberal blog told a very different story to the Wichita Eagle.

“We had a bunch of (tea party supporters) come out and get pretty much in everybody’s faces,” said Sarah Burris, a spokeswoman for Forward Kansas. “They just want to raise a ruckus.”

Could it be liberals change their story based on what they think will get them the most traction in the press?

It also looks as though it’s okay to come from out of town for the rally, just as long as you make the trek for the right side. Just before the Shawnee rally, liberals had this to say:

…none, I repeat none, of the pro-Reform rally members will be bused in from surrounding areas — like American’s for Prosperity and David Koch did in Washington DC yesterday.

But they boasted of all the out of town folks for yesterday’s gathering:

Many of the demonstrators drove to Wichita from cities all over Kansas. Colin Curtis, of Manhattan made the trip because he wanted to ensure his side was represented in the debate

And I guess when flip-flopping on your version of protest etiquette doesn’t yield the results you want, you can always just start calling names.

From Twitter:

• @sarahburris: If you use teabagger in a press release do we think they’ll use it? #fwks
• @sarahburris: @immunis the experts say only if its in a quote just FYI #fwks

From the Wichita Eagle:

“We had a bunch of (tea party supporters) come out and get pretty much in everybody’s faces,” said Sarah Burris, a spokeswoman for Forward Kansas.

Now that’s a term even the Wichita Eagle won’t publish, try as the liberals might.

I’m willing to make a decent bet (tea party supporters) was inserted because the liberal’s spokeswoman decided to use a derogatory term for their opponents rather than show a little class.

Unfortunately, facts don’t get in the way of liberals. Their perception is reality, no matter how skewed it is, no matter how little evidence they have to support their assertions.

It’s the kind of insinuations and lies we should expect from this group in the future.

Kansas Action for Children released a new report yesterday that claims Kansas is continuing to fail its children when it comes to health insurance. This is a hard fact to face in light of a long time state program called Kansas Healthwave that is supposed to provide low and no income families with health insurance for their children.

In fact, the press release by KAC ignores the failure of Kansas Healthwave to enroll children, which is clearly stated in the their report, as seen in the quote above.

In fact, the report highlights the need to increase enrollment and retain children already in the program to decrease those without insurance. These actions both involve minimal effort by the state and certainly do not call for another government program. Further, the KAC report notes what was already known, that Kansas Healthwave has been a failure of a program and one government failure doesn’t justify the need for a new one, as many on the left currently advocate.

From the report:

The best approach to addressing the state’s increased rate of uninsured children is two-fold. We need to focus on outreach efforts to ensure that more Kansas families enroll their children in HealthWave. But, we also need to place an emphasis on retaining eligible children who are already enrolled in HealthWave. Similar to other states, Kansas struggles to retain eligible children in the program, which results in children “churning” in and out of HealthWave.

Any attempt by the left to use this report as a reason for more government action is asinine in light of the current failure of government to get the job done, as highlighted by the report itself. But more importantly, such action would be dishonest and deceitful, in full contradiction of the facts, and clearly only done to advance a narrow, partisan political agenda.

This past Saturday free market conservatives turned out at Shawnee City Hall to advocate for a return of the federal government to its constitutional bounds. They were met by liberal-socialist protesters who want more government involvement. One of the signs at the rally claimed there are 58,000 uninsured children in Kansas, an apparent fact the left wants to use as an argument to justify more government spending.

One has to wonder if liberal-socialists understand what their facts say about government involvement in the healthcare system to date. A September 10 KHI article notes that the number of uninsured children in Kansas has actually risen significantly the previous few years. This would be an apparent call for government action if you believe the government is a solution.

But doesn’t the state of Kansas already have a program in place that is supposed to insure children when their family can’t afford to do so? Of course, it’s called Kansas Healthwave!

According to the Healthwave website, parents can obtain no cost or low cost health insurance for their kids as long as their income is below 200% of the federal poverty level. That’s $3,675 per month for a family of four. With such high income guidelines, why are nearly 1 in 10 Kansas children still uninsured?

Isn’t this convincing evidence of the failure of government? Rather than finding a problem and then demanding government fix it, wouldn’t it be smarter to find out why the problem exists and then try to fix the reasons behind the problem rather than just demanding more government?

Only liberal-socialists would take a government failure and use it as fodder to demand more government.

Results of the KRA fourth district poll

Looks like a lot of fourth district campaigns “got out the voters” so to speak in the just closed KRA poll.

Dick Kelsey won 41% of the total votes with a record 5,110 votes. Jim Anderson was second with 34% of the vote and Mike Pompeo was third with 24%.

Results as of last Friday can be found here. Clearly a few campaigns motivated some folks to sit by the computer and vote their heart out. It’s always nice to have dedicated volunteers!

Tim Huelskamp was the previous run away winner in the first district poll. While here, take the time to vote in our new poll on how to fund additional highway improvements in Kansas. (Yes, you can vote AGAINST tax increases if your heart desires. I somehow figured out how to include that in the poll.)

You can vote for one or two options in the new poll on your right.

Politico reports:

Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) received a handwritten note Thursday from Joint Committee on Taxation Chief of Staff Tom Barthold confirming the penalty for failing to pay the up to $1,900 fee for not buying health insurance.

Violators could be charged with a misdemeanor and could face up to a year in jail or a $25,000 penalty, Barthold wrote on JCT letterhead. He signed it “Sincerely, Thomas A. Barthold.”

note to Senator Ensign

Politico goes on to say the note was a followup to a question during markup. Ah, yes, the question as to whether or not the IRS would come after you if you didn’t buy health insurance. Here’s what he was told about that:

Under questioning from Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.), Barthold said the IRS would “take you to court and undertake normal collection proceedings.”

Ensign pursued the line of questioning because he said a lot of Americans don’t believe the Constitution allows the government to mandate the purchase of insurance.

“We could be subjecting those very people who conscientiously, because they believe in the U.S. Constitution, we could be subjecting them to fines or the interpretation of a judge, all the way up to imprisonment,” Ensign said. “That seems to me to be a problem.”

If it looks like a tax increase and talks like a tax increase and walks like a tax increase…

Unfortunately an amendment from Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) to eliminate the individual mandate was rejected.

Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) was the only Republican to vote with Democrats to preserve the mandate.

State Representatives Peggy Mast (R-Emporia) and David Crum (R-Augusta) sent a letter this week to Attorney General Steve Six, requesting that his Medicaid Fraud and Abuse Unit conduct a formal investigation to determine whether SRS violated Medicaid funding rules when it directly awarded $712,000 in extraordinary funding to Community Living Opportunities (CLO) in November, 2008.

Rep. Mast chairs the House Social Service Budget Committee and serves on the House Health and Human Services Committee as well as the Joint Committee on Home and Community-Based Services Committee.

Rep. Crum is Vice-Chairman of the House Health and Human Services Committee and serves on the House Social Service Budget Committee.

Rep. Brenda Landwehr (R-Wichita), who chairs the House Health and Human Services Committee, said she was pleased Reps. Mast and Crum requested the investigation.

“Kansans deserve a determination whether SRS has again violated Medicaid funding rules through its funding decisions.  If the Attorney General’s investigation does find SRS at fault, those responsible for and involved with the additional funding decision should be held accountable for their actions,” Chairman Landwehr said.

Kansas Liberty is also covering this story and has additional background information. AG Six has said he’ll look into it but won’t comment during the investigation.

Queen Kathleen and Democratic Senator Arlen Specter attended a town hall meeting in Philadelphia where the two were trying to convince a large audience that they knew what was best for the nations health care system. Imagine their surprise when the audience insisted they read legislation before they pass it and stop and think about what exactly they’re doing before they vote. Sounds reasonable, right? Not for Queen Kathleen.

Now, isn’t Kathleen Sebelius the one who was Governor of Kansas when they passed legislation, which, by the way, no Representative or Senator had read, that allowed the state to become the first in the nation to own casinos. And since that time, hasn’t the state only broken ground on one casino when four were planned and has had to bid and rebid casinos across the state because company after company passes on building in Kansas? Now, wasn’t gambling supposed to solve all of our state’s financial problems forever and ever Kathleen?

So, how did that bill that nobody read work out anyway???

So with that in mind, get a load of the explanation she tries to pass off to the crowd.

“I’ve never been in Congress.”

I love it! But you had no problem signing a bill as Governor that you knew full well no one had read. And look what it’s gotten us!

Oh, and isn’t Arlen Specter one of three “Republican” Senators who voted for a “Stimulus” bill that none of them had read?

That crowd had every right to boo not only Specter, but Sebelius right off the stage. Both have a clear history of endorsing the kind of behavior that has gotten us into this mess and they both deserve to be told exactly what they heard yesterday in Pennsylvania.

Michael Quinn Sullivan, president of Empower Texans, began the discussion by quoting Thomas Jefferson:

I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and, if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education.

We heard a lot of good things, but one of the best comments of the night was from Grover Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform

Norquist ended the panel discussion by noting there are 513,000 elected officials in the United States and that transparency offers each would be challenger $300,000 in opposition research. “This is better than term limits,” he said.

With that in mind, KRA is going to launch a fun project, designed to get us all using this great opposition research tool in Kansas. Drop into our blog on Friday for the debut of Where’s Wampum*.

*Wampum: informal synonym for money