The KRA Blog Rotating Header Image

State Spending

Analyze this: Opinion masquerading as news

John Milburn of the Associated Press published a piece today on the various education proposals of Republican Sam Brownback and Democrat Tom Holland. Entitled “Analysis: School funding crucial,” the piece highlights a tactic used all too often by the press to publish editorial pieces as hard news.

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.”

Light withdraws bid for re-election: Will others follow?

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 a “NO” vote on the budget?

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.

Personal Budget Alert: Higher taxes coming, prepare to cut your spending

This is not good news. The Kansas Senate Ways and Means Committee just approved (8-4) a bill that will raise general state sales tax 1%, cigarette tax 55 cents a pack and wholesale tobacco products tax 30% (what will these last two do to the budget if this actually lowers purchases of tobacco as health advocates claim it might do?). To sweeten the pot, they are offering to increase the sales tax rebate on food for those who are in lower income brackets (which means nothing unless you have a dependent child under 18 OR are 100% permanently disabled OR blind OR older than 55). They are also proposing more spending on roads. And they’ve repealed some business tax credits, credits that help keep jobs in Kansas. There are days I wonder why I stay in Kansas… Then I remember it’s not over yet, this still has to pass the full Senate and the House and be signed by the Governor (which he’s begging to do, saying he won’t sign a bill that doesn’t have tax increases in it).

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!

Schools want to astroturf more than just football fields

A shocking video from Wichita Liberty tonight highlights just how badly the education lobby and other taxpayer funded groups want a tax increase.

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.