Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for April, 2011

This Is Pathetic John Vratil

Posted in Kansas, Kansas State Senate, Senator Huntington, Senator Owens, Senator Vratil, TEA Party Movement, tagged , , , , on April 29, 2011 | 1 Comment »

If you want to debate that abortion should be a woman’s decision, debate.  If you want to debate the beginning of life, debate.  If you want to debate the sanctity of life, debate.  But when Senator (Republican and Senate Vice President) John Vratil states that inspecting abortion clinics in Kansas “is truly government waste of taxpayer dollars and I oppose such waste“ is truly pathetic.  Predictably the other Johnson County liberal Senators Huntington and Owens concur. 

http://www.kslegislature.org/li/m/pdf/daily_journal_senate_20110427114530.pdf  Pages 626-627

“Associate yourself with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation. It is better be alone than in bad company.”  George Washington

Ken Dunwoody                                     GOD
Henpecked Acres                                   One Nation
14850 W. 159th St.
Olathe, Ks. 66062
(913)768-1603
kdunwoody2@aol.com  www.NOlathe.com   http://NOlathe.net http://NOjocoboco.net
View Sarah’s Story http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUWuUvOZ7RY

Read Full Post »

Kansas Senate Remains Obstacle to Annexation Reform

Posted in Annexation, Property Rights, Taxation, TEA Party Movement, tagged , , , , , on April 27, 2011 |

Annexation battle approaching limits

Legislation limiting cities’ annexing ability gets watered down

Posted: April 23, 2011

 

THAD ALLTON/THE CAPITAL-JOURNAL
The city of Topeka tried to annex land containing this Dillons store at S.W. 29th and Urish, but the Kansas Supreme Court rejected the attempt in 2007. A bill to limit cities’ ability to annex property is before the 2011 Legislature.

THE CAPITAL-JOURNAL

Legislation that would severely hinder Kansas cities’ ability to annex territory has been watered down by a Senate committee and conference committee, but Rep. Ann Mah, D-Topeka, isn’t giving up the fight.

Mah has championed efforts to revoke cities’ right to unilaterally annex property for as long as she has been serving the state’s 53rd House District — seven years.

“I’m not anti-city,” she said recently. “I just think that people should have a say in whether they’re annexed into a city and that cities should keep the promises they make about delivering services when they’re trying to annex.”

Cities now have authority to unilaterally annex territory and subdivisions immediately adjacent to their borders. If a city wants to take in property that isn’t adjacent to its borders, the county commission must grant its approval.

A House bill that was introduced this year would require cities to get county commission approval for what now would qualify as a unilateral annexation. Another House bill year would require that the larger annexations, those not adjacent to a city, be approved by the county commission and a vote of the public in the area to be annexed.

Those bills were subsequently rolled together into a Senate bill and returned to a Senate committee, which declined to concur with the changes. Senate Bill 150 then was referred to a conference committee, where a city’s ability to unilaterally annex was left intact.

Mah thinks there is still a chance a motion will be made in the Senate to concur with SB 150 as it was before the conference committee’s amendments.

“Before we went on break, it looked like we had a chance to get that done,” she said. “Where we’re getting the push-back is Overland Park. They like to annex early and often.”

Whitney Damron, a lobbyist whose client list includes Topeka, acknowledges the anti-annexation movement has been fueled by what Overland Park has done over the years.

That city several years ago made a significant annexation that is being challenged in court.

But Topeka, Damron said, hasn’t pulled off a unilateral annexation in decades.

The annexation bill in play at the Legislature would restrict all cities’ ability to provide for orderly growth, but Overland Park, Topeka and the League of Kansas Municipalities are the only ones giving the issue serious attention, Damron said.

However, the league has requested its members ask their senators to vote against any motion to concur with SB 150.

Topeka officials probably needed no such encouragement. Despite having no luck with annexation attempts in recent decades, the city remains committed to the theory of annexation.

“We believe that current annexation laws are working and that no changes are needed,” city spokesman Dave Bevens said. “The city of Topeka is strongly opposed to proposed changes that would limit the city’s authority to exercise unilateral annexation and its authority to petition its county commission.”

At some point in the last century, Topeka began the practice of extending water service, and sometimes sewer, to subdivisions beyond its borders without requiring annexation. The city only required developers to authorize a “consent to annex” that would allow the city to annex at some later date.

Attempts to cash in those consent agreements have gone down in flames.

Current property owners protest, contending they aren’t bound by documents signed by former owners, and some have promised legal action if Topeka pushed the issue.

As a result, the only annexations the city has followed through on in recent years were those in which the property owners themselves petitioned for annexation or consented to annexation.

A true unilateral annexation doesn’t require the property owner’s consent.

One memorable annexation attempt involved the Dillons store at S.W. 29th and Urish Road. The previous owner of the property had signed a “consent to annex” when services were extended, but the store’s parent company said it wasn’t bound by that agreement.

The property also was inside the boundaries of the Sherwood Improvement District and, by law, couldn’t be annexed without the district’s approval.

In 2007, the Kansas Supreme Court ruled in a unanimous opinion that the city’s annexation of the site was invalid because it was part of the Sherwood Improvement District.

The 1987 law prohibiting a city from annexing part of an improvement district trumped the consent agreement signed by the previous owner, Justice Lawton N. Nuss said.

Fredrick J. Johnson can be reached at (785) 295-1181

or fred.johnson@cjonline.com.

Read Full Post »

KANSAS SENATE WATCH- Sen. Terrie Huntington

Posted in Kansas State Senate, Senator Huntington, TEA Party Movement, tagged , , , on April 20, 2011 | 1 Comment »

 

http://www.kansasfederalist.com/KansasSenateWatch/huntington.html 

Senator Terrie Huntington

Republican — 7th District

Senator Terrie Huntington (R-Fairway)
6264 Glenfield Drive
Fairway, KS 66205

Senate District Seven (7)
Area: Northeast Johnson County, Kansas.
Home City: Mission Hills, KS
Religion: Presbyterian
Education: BA, University of Kansas
Professional Experiences: Retired Marketing Communications

Legislative Committees:
Ethics and Elections (Senate Committee)
KPERS Select (Senate Committee)
Local Government (Senate Committee)
Public Health and Welfare (Senate Committee)
Transportation (Senate Committee)
Ways and Means (Senate Committee)

Capitol Website: Click Here Emails: Terrie.Huntington@senate.ks.gov
terriehuntington@gmail.com

Capitol Address
State Office Building, Room 235-E
Topeka, KS 66612-1588

Phones:
785-296-7369
913-677-3582
Fax: 913-677-1774

Latest Scoring of Sen. Huntington Fiscal/Tax Policy

Americans for Prosperity – Kansas Chapter’s position, Senator Huntington received a rating of 12. A score of 100 is considered perfect and above 75 is considered a friend of the taxpayer. With this score Senator Huntington is considered one of the most liberal Senators in Kansas within either party.
03/25/2009
Increasing Minimum Wage SB 160 — Votes Yes — Bill Passed – House (104 – 21) Requires employers to cover the difference if tipped employees do not make enough in tips combined with a minimum wage of $2.13 an hour to equal $7.25 an hour (Sec.1). Allows employers to pay new employees who are under 20 years old a wage of $4.25 an hour for their first 90 days of employment (Sec. 1).

Constitutional Rights

2nd Amendment

National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund assigned Senator Huntington a grade of C. A+ is considered perfect.

05/10/2006
Conceal and Carry
HB 2118 — Voted No — Conference Report Adopted – House (93 – 24)
The ability for Kansan’s to carry a concealed firearm if they have the training and become licensed to do so before hand. Huntington voted no on this important law and has consistently voted against 2nd Amendment Rights in Kansas.

Property Rights

03/23/2006
Eminent Domain Constitutional Amendment
HCR 5025 — Voted No — Amendment Rejected – House (81 – 43)
HCR 5025 proposes to amend Article 15 of the Kansas Constitution by adding a new section that would prohibit state or local governments from taking, by eminent domain, private real property, except for public use. Public use would be defined as possession, occupation, or enjoyment of the land by the public at large, or by public agencies, or to acquire real property to eliminate an immediate threat to public health or safety.

Life Issues

Kansans for Life assigned Senator Huntington a 20%. 100% is the highest score.

03/18/2008
Partial-Birth/Late-Term Abortion Law Amendments
SB 389 – Voted No — Bill Passed – House (84 – 40)
The bill would require the Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services (SRS) to publish an annual report of child sexual abuse cases received by SRS from abortion providers. The name of the child and any other identifying information would be kept confidential and would not be included in the report. Huntington voted no which indicated support for late-term (3rd Trimester) abortions.

03/23/2011
Abortion Regulations
HB 2218 — Voted No — Bill Passed – Senate (24 – 15)
Self Explanatory. Huntington voted no to not regulate the abortion industry.

04/25/2007
Violence Against Unborn Children
HB 2062 – Voted No — Conference Report Adopted – House (97 – 27)
HB 2062 would amend the statute on criminal use of explosives; create a special application in sentencing for a third or subsequent conviction of burglary; enact Alexa’s Law dealing with crimes against unborn children; and amend the statute on immunity from prosecution or liability for use of force. In addition, the bill enacts new criminal provisions regarding controlled substances and paraphernalia, authorize creation of the Controlled Substances Monitoring Task Force, and expand the law regarding battery against a mental health employee. Huntington voted no against Alexa’s Law.

03/23/2011
Amending Statutes Regulating Late-Term and Partial Birth Abortion
HB 2035 — Voted No — Bill Passed – Senate (24 – 15)
Huntington voted no on amending late term (3rd trimester) abortions.

Illegal Immigration

03/07/2006 Amend HB 2615 — Voted Yes — Amendment Adopted – House (63 – 58)Huntington voted to give in-state tuition assistance to illegal aliens.

Energy Independence

02/27/2009
Allowing Coal Power Plants
HB 2014 — Voted No — Bill Passed – House (79 – 44)
HB 2014 would authorize the Kansas Electric Transmission Authority to establish and charge reasonable fees, rates, tariffs, or other charges for both the use of all facilities owned, financed, or administered by the Authority and for all services rendered by the Authority. The Kansas Corporation Commission indicates that the passage of HB 2014 would have no fiscal effect on agency operations. Huntington voted against passage of a bill that would have allowed for a new coal plant to be built in southwest Kansas.

Family Issues

For almost 40 years Federal and State Courts have upheld the constitutional right of lawmakers to regulate Sexually Oriented Businesses (SOB’s) because of the “Negative Secondary Effects” these types of businesses have on communities. The leading negative secondary effects are increased crime, increased sexually transmitted diseases, general blight, decreased property values, increased drug trafficking, prostitution, human trafficking, etc… These effects are not engines of prosperity. SOB’s do not add value to communities but are costly and increasingly burdensome to taxpayers. Senator Huntington voted against SB 514 and in favor of sexually oriented businesses.

Huntington’s Top Campaign Contributors by Category
General Contractors — $2,250
Lawyers & Lobbyists — $1,425
Business Associations — $1,400
Health Professionals — $1,050
Public Sector Unions — $1,000
Insurance — $500
Printing & Publishing — $500
Republican Officials, Candidates & Former Members — $500
Recreation & Live Entertainment — $400
Home Builders — $300
Tobacco companies & tobacco product sales — $300
Agricultural Services & Products –$275
Real Estate — $250
Oil & Gas — $200
Food & Beverage — $150

*All sources available by contacting the Kansas Senate Watch

Read Full Post »

Exciting New ‘Kansas Senate Watch’ Site Launched

Posted in Kansas State Senate, Senator Huntington, Taxation, TEA Party Movement, tagged , , , , on April 20, 2011 | 2 Comments »

http://www.kansasfederalist.com/KansasSenateWatch/

Kansas Senate Watch Releases Profile
on Sen. Terrie Huntington, R-7th

First Profile in Series

The Kansas Senate Watch has issued a detailed profile on Senator Terrie Huntington, which you can view by clicking here.

Welcome to Kansas Senate Watch

Your Online Resource about the Kansas Senate

Welcome to the Kansas Senate Watch! Powered by The Kansas Federalist, this site is dedicated to being your guide for the current Kansas Senate as we lead up to the 2012 Kansas State Senate elections, which will have a profound impact on the next decade of government in our great state.

This site was inspired by the actions of the Kansas Senate over the past several years, where despite Republicans holding as high as a 32-8 majority, often good, conservative, constitutional legislation would go to die — or, at the very least — the path was slowed. The reason for that is a number of those 32 Republicans are what have come to be known as RINO’s — Republicans In Name Only — individuals who run as Republicans to get elected in a red state like Kansas, but then vote in a manner consistent with liberal Democrats.

As such, many have asked where they can find information, in one central resource, about who the Senators are and their voting records. That is why the Kansas Senate Watch was born.

Over the next several months, we will be developing this site, and it will have several features:

Newsroom — This will be an ongoing list of recent news articles dealing with actions taken by the Kansas Senate, and we will attempt to highlight where various Senators have taken. Some of these articles will be our own, some will be from external sources.

Senators — We have initially published a list of the 40 Senators in the Kansas Senate with their contact information. Over time, we will be releasing a profile on as many Senators as we can, including a detailed analysis of their voting records.

Resources — This will include links to outside organizations and websites which will be helpful for you, the voter, in helping determine where your Senator(s) stand on issues.

RINO Alerts — This will be a special section dedicated to special reports focusing on those Republicans who say they are one thing but are clearly doing another. It will include news articles, special reports, and other items.

We will also soon be launching social networking platforms on both Facebook and Twitter.

Together, it is our hope these areas of focus will serve as an online guide for conservative-thinking Kansans who want the real story on the Kansas Senate.

Read Full Post »

“Clean Sweep” of an Entirely Different Nature

Posted in Illegal Immigration, Kansas, Kansas State Senate, Senator Huntington, Senator Owens, Senator Vratil, TEA Party Movement, tagged , , , , , on April 19, 2011 | Leave a Comment »

We could continue to dissect the Kansas Republican Party Platform and compare the votes of the seven Johnson County Republican State Senators and unfortunately the results remain the same as our first three disclosures illustrated once again below.

District

Name

Abortion Restrictions

In-State Tuition

Conceal and Carry

7

Sen. Terrie Huntington

NO

NO

NO

8

Sen. Thomas Owens

NO

NO

NO

9

Sen. Julia Lynn

YES

YES

YES

10

Sen. Mary Pilcher-Cook

YES

YES

YES

11

Sen. John Vratil

NO

NO

NO

23

Sen. Robert Olson

YES

YES

YES

37

Sen. Raymond Merrick

YES

YES

YES
It certainly is no secret that NOlathe has long standing issues with Senator Vratil and only recent issues with Senators Owens and Huntington.  This post and the last three make that perfectly clear.  But the real focus that we intend to draw here is the hypocrisy of the Kansas and Johnson County Republican Party Leadership.  The “Clean Sweep” mentality of supporting any and all candidates without regard to supporting their platform is ludicrous and a sign of COMPLETE disrespect for the volunteers that work diligently to format the platform.
 
The Republican Party measures success on the votes occuring in November when the real importance of success is measuring the votes that occur in legislative actions and the reflection of those results in comparison to the platform.  A reasonable person might suggest that the candidates endorse the party platform rather than the party endorsing a candidate.  The Republican Party does need a “Clean Sweep” of an entirely different nature.
 
“Associate yourself with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation. It is better be alone than in bad company.”  George Washington

Ken Dunwoody                                    GOD
Henpecked Acres                                   One Nation
14850 W. 159th St.
Olathe, Ks. 66062
(913)768-1603
kdunwoody2@aol.com  www.NOlathe.com   http://NOlathe.net http://NOjocoboco.net
View Sarah’s Story http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUWuUvOZ7RY

Read Full Post »

JoCo Republican Senators and Smoking (Concealed) Guns

Posted in Kansas, Kansas State Senate, Senator Vratil, TEA Party Movement, tagged , , , , , , , on April 17, 2011 | Leave a Comment »

“ We are driven by our JCRP mission: to ensure the election of all Republican candidates and be the “go to” resource for all things Republican for the people, candidates and elected officials in Johnson County.”  http://www.johnsoncountyrepublicanparty.com/ 

“We recognize that gun control only affects and penalizes law-abiding citizens, and that such proposals are ineffective at reducing violent crime.” http://www.johnsoncountyrepublicanparty.com/what-we-believe/Party%20Platform%202010.pdf 

During the 2007 session  http://www.votesmart.org/billtext/12675.pdf  HB 2528 ’Conceal and Carry’ passed both Houses but was vetoed by the Governor.  On April 26 and 27 both Houses voted overwhelmingly to over-ride the veto.  Here are the ‘smoking guns’ in Johnson County (albeit concealed) on the over-ride vote.  NOTE: Chairman Metsker’s vote on this while in the House, who does he listen to?

 

District

Name

Party

Vote

 

JoCo Republicans

Chairman Ronnie Metsker (House)

republican

NO

 

7

Sen. Terrie Huntington  (House)

republican

NO

 

8

Sen. Thomas Owens  (House)

republican

NO

 

9

Sen. Julia Lynn

Republican

YES

 

10

Sen. Mary Pilcher-Cook

Republican

No Office Held

 

11

Sen. John Vratil

republican

NO

 

23

Sen. Robert Olson  (House)

Republican

YES

 

37

Sen. Raymond Merrick  (House)

Republican

YES
 
“Associate yourself with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation. It is better be alone than in bad company.”  George Washington

Ken Dunwoody                                     GOD
Henpecked Acres                                   One Nation
14850 W. 159th St.
Olathe, Ks. 66062
(913)768-1603
kdunwoody2@aol.com  www.NOlathe.com   http://NOlathe.net http://NOjocoboco.net
View Sarah’s Story http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUWuUvOZ7RY

Read Full Post »

In-tuition of Johnson County Republican Senators

Posted in Ethics, Illegal Immigration, Kansas, Kansas State Senate, Senator Vratil, TEA Party Movement, tagged , , , , , , on April 17, 2011 | 1 Comment »

“ We are driven by our JCRP mission: to ensure the election of all Republican candidates and be the “go to” resource for all things Republican for the people, candidates and elected officials in Johnson County.”  http://www.johnsoncountyrepublicanparty.com/ 

“Incentive programs to entice illegal immigrants to Kansas must be terminated. These programs include issuing of Driver’s Licenses to illegal aliens and the granting of in-state tuition to colleges and universities to illegal immigrants.”  http://www.johnsoncountyrepublicanparty.com/what-we-believe/Party%20Platform%202010.pdf 

Since 2006 the House has attempted to over turn the 2004 statute requiring that illegal aliens residing in Kansas be allowed to pay in-state tuition to Kansas Universities.  Since 2009 Senate Leadership has blocked the House Bill from the Senate floor.  This current session HB-2006 was again blocked in committee.  What was the in-tuition of JoCo Republican Senators on repealing in-state tuition in 2008?

District

Name

Party

Vote

7

Sen. Terrie Huntington  (House)

republican

NO

8

Sen. Thomas Owens  (House)

republican

NO

9

Sen. Julia Lynn

Republican

YES

10

Sen. Mary Pilcher-Cook

Republican

No Office Held

11

Sen. John Vratil

republican

NO

23

Sen. Robert Olson  (House)

Republican

YES

37

Sen. Raymond Merrick  (House)

Republican

YES

Johnson County Republicans-  Next time you party hardy for the party, schedule a wake for your platform.

“Associate yourself with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation. It is better be alone than in bad company.” 
 George Washington
 
Ken Dunwoody                                     GOD
Henpecked Acres                                   One Nation
14850 W. 159th St.
Olathe, Ks. 66062
(913)768-1603
kdunwoody2@aol.com   www.NOlathe.com   http://NOlathe.net  http://NOjocoboco.net
View Sarah’s Story http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUWuUvOZ7RY

Read Full Post »

Do JoCo Republican Senators Abort The Party Platform?

Posted in Kansas, Kansas State Senate, Senator Vratil, TEA Party Movement, tagged , , , , , , on April 16, 2011 | Leave a Comment »

“ We are driven by our JCRP mission: to ensure the election of all Republican candidates and be the “go to” resource for all things Republican for the people, candidates and elected officials in Johnson County.”  http://www.johnsoncountyrepublicanparty.com/ 

“Every human being, born or unborn, has an inalienable right to life which cannot be infringed. We believe life begins at conception.”  JCRPKS Platform http://www.johnsoncountyrepublicanparty.com/what-we-believe/Party%20Platform%202010.pdf

Full text of HB 2218  http://www.votesmart.org/billtext/33774.pdf

Vote March 23, 2011 http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_member.php?cs_id=33774 

Johnson County Senate Votes

Abortion Regulations

HB 2218Issues: Abortion Issues, Reproductive Issues
Date: 03/23/2011
Sponsors: List of Sponsors		      

 

Bill Passed
(Senate)
How members voted
(24 – 15)

 

District

Name

Party

Vote

 

7

Sen. Terrie Huntington

republican

NO

 

8

Sen. Thomas Owens

republican

NO

 

9

Sen. Julia Lynn

Republican

YES

 

10

Sen. Mary Pilcher-Cook

Republican

YES

 

11

Sen. John Vratil

republican

NO

 

23

Sen. Robert Olson

Republican

YES

 

37

Sen. Raymond Merrick

Republican

YES

LET THE 2012 ELECTIONS BEGIN!

“Associate yourself with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation. It is better be alone than in bad company.”  George Washington
 
 
Ken Dunwoody                                     GOD
Henpecked Acres                                   One Nation
14850 W. 159th St.
Olathe, Ks. 66062
(913)768-1603
kdunwoody2@aol.com  www.NOlathe.com   http://NOlathe.net   http://NOjocoboco.net
View Sarah’s Story http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUWuUvOZ7RY

Read Full Post »

“Not Yours to Give” Rally April 28, 2011

Posted in Taxation, TEA Party Movement, Uncategorized, tagged , on April 15, 2011 | Leave a Comment »

Read Full Post »

Kansas School Finance – How It Works (Lesson 3)

Posted in Education, Illegal Immigration, Kansas, Kansas State House, Kansas State Senate, Senator Vratil, Taxation, TEA Party Movement, tagged , , , , on April 11, 2011 | Leave a Comment »

From: Greg.Smith@house.ks.gov
To: Greg.Smith@house.ks.gov
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 17:01:25 -0500
Subject: How Kansas Produces a Budget (Lesson 3)

I have posted three educational pieces on my Facebook page concerning the state school finance formula and how we produce a budget in Kansas.  I am sending them to you, in case you did not see them on Facebook.  I would encourage you to share them with as many people as you can.  It is only by education that we can truly be successful in making Kansas a better place for all.
 

In my previous two notes I have summarized the complex and confusing School Finance Formula our state uses as it is the most frequently asked about subject by constituents.  The second most asked question I get as of late has been, “How does Kansas produce a budget?”  This note, Lesson 3, in the budget series I appear to be writing attempts to address that without bloviating, opining or posturing.  I’ve done my best to keep the rhetoric out and put factual information you can use in the note.
 
Article 11, paragraph 4 of the Kansas Constitution directs the Kansas Legislature to “provide, at each regular session, for raising sufficient revenue to defray the current expenses of the state for two years.”  In short, the legislature has a constitutional mandate to prepare a budget for the state.  Sounds simple, doesn’t it?  It is amazing how many moving parts there are and what this simple phrase truly entails.
 
First, the governor provides his budget proposal to the legislature.  It is based on the governor’s vision for the direction he believes the state should take. It is based on revenue reports from the previous fiscal year as well as expenditures from that year. A preliminary review of programs is done to judge the both effectiveness and usefulness.  Projected revenues for the state are also taken into account. This is considered the starting point for the budget. Both chambers, the Kansas House and the Kansas Senate come up with their respective proposals for a state budget.
 
Each chamber has a committee that deals with the budget.  In the House it is referred to as Appropriations.  In the Senate it is referred to as Ways and Means.  Each of the committees holds hearings, gathers data, listens to testimony, and discusses expenditures they feel the state needs to make to fulfill its duty to provide the core functions of government.  It takes most of the regular session for the committees to gather their data and propose a budget.
 
To complicate matters the budget as referred to by the media, and by most legislators, is not the true budget.  An article in Forbes.com dated March 31, 2001 commits this error.  In the article is this statement,”The budget spends $800 million more in state revenues than the 2010.”  In truth, the State General Fund spends $800 million more in revenues. The All Funds budget, the true budget of the state, is reduced by almost a billion dollars.  If you recall Lesson 1 on School finance, the budget consists of two silos or wells.
 
The first silo of the total state budget is known as the State General Fund or SGF.  This part of the budget is about $6 billion.  Again this is not the entire state budget although it is frequently portrayed that way by the media.  It is the only portion of the state budget that the Kansas Legislature has the full authority to control, however.  The SGF is slightly less than half of the entire state budget.  The SGF is funded by taxes.  These taxes are:
1) Individual Income Taxes
2) Corporate and Financial Income Taxes
3) Sales and Compensating Use Taxes
4) Insurance Premium Taxes
5) Alcohol Taxes
6) Tobacco Taxes
7) Severance Taxes
8) Other taxes and income
 
The second silo of the budget is All Funds, about $12 billion, which is where all other monies collected by the state go.  The All Funds portion consists of the State General Fund and the following other revenue sources:
1) Federal Monies
2) Non-Federal Highway Fund Monies
3) University Tuition and Fees
4) Dedicated Agency Fees
5) Dedicated Tax Receipts
6) Other Dedicated Tax Receipts
 
The legislature has control over some of these fees directly but in some cases, pursuant to Article 2, paragraph 30 of the Kansas Constitution, agencies created by the legislature have this power.
 
 “The legislature may confer legislative powers upon interstate bodies, comprised of officers of this state or its political subdivisions acting in conjunction with officers of other jurisdictions, relating to the functions thereof. Any such delegation, and any agreement made thereunder shall be subject to limitation, change or termination by the legislature, unless contained in a compact approved by the congress.”  What this means is that agencies may be created by the legislature with the authority to levy fees and/or regulate how business is done by the government.  An example would be the Kansas Corporation Committee (http://www.kcc.state.ks.us/).  These agencies are needed since the legislature is not a full time body and cannot provide year round oversight of the daily operations of government.
 
Now you can see how complex that simple phrase from the Kansas Constitution, directing the legislature to “provide, at each regular session, for raising sufficient revenue to defray the current expenses of the state…” actually is.  It is further complicated by the fact that the governor has powers to modify the budget both before it is signed into law and after.  According to Kansas Statute, KSA 75-3722 the executive branch “shall, in such manner as he or she may determine, inaugurate the allotment system so as to assure that expenditures for any particular fiscal year will not exceed the available resources of the general fund or any special revenue fund for that fiscal year. The allotment system shall not apply to the legislature or to the courts or their officers and employees.”  To summarize the statute, the governor may reduce the budget that is in place to make sure that the bills are paid.  Allotments cannot be used for the legislative budget or the judicial budget.
 
The governor has line item veto power on the proposed budget as well.   So even after the House and Senate agree on a budget proposal the governor can eliminate specific sections of the budget prior to signing it into law.
To get a budget in Kansas the following process is followed:
 
Each chamber’s budget committee goes through the process of creating their version of the SGF budget.  Each chamber then debates, offers amendments and votes on their respective budget bill (or proposal).  A final product comes out of each chamber.  Prior to this year, however, for the last two years, because of philosophical differences, posturing and rhetoric the Kansas House has not produced a budget proposal.  So, for the first time in two years, the Kansas House has actually produced a budget proposal.  This may not seem like an important detail but it is.  Since both chambers produce a budget proposal and they are not identical in content, a conference committee must be held to form a single budget proposal from the legislature. A conference committee consists of 3 members from the House Appropriations Committee and 3 members from the Senate Ways and Means Committee.  As a regular practice each committee is represented by the respective committee chairperson, vice-chairperson and the ranking minority member.  2 members of each committee must agree to the compromise budget proposal before it can be voted on by each chamber.  The committee report is a crucial document because it details what was done to get the budget proposal to its compromise form.  No amendments may be added to the compromise budget proposal.  If a 2/3rds majority of each chamber passes the compromise budget proposal then it goes to the governor for approval, or line item veto and approval, or, possibly a complete rejection by the governor.
 
  In the conference committee each chamber’s budget proposal is considered the official position statement of that chamber.  Each side refers to their bill to support their position.  For the last two years, the House has not had a proposal and therefore has not had a bargaining position, so the Senate budget has for all intents and purposes been the default position on the legislative budget.  It could be argued that the House has abdicated its constitutional obligation to produce a budget proposal.  
 
A second consideration when working on the budget compromise is how strongly the budget proposal was supported by each chamber.  The larger the majority, then the stronger the position.  A constitutional majority is required by each chamber to pass any bill.  That majority of the House is a minimum of 63 representatives.  The Senate majority is a minimum of 21 senators.  The Senate passed their budget proposal by a 36 – 3 margin.  In other words, 90% of the Senate supports their budget proposal.  The House budget proposal passed by a margin of 69 – 52, or a much weaker 55%.  What this means is there is good and bad news for the conference committee process.  The good news is that for the first time in two years the House has an official budget position to bargain from so they can’t be “rolled” by the Senate, whose budget proposal is in the red.  The bad news is that House margin of support is much weaker than the Senate so it will be more difficult for the House to maintain leverage in the negotiation process.
 
The points of comparison that need to be considered in this compromise process are:
 
A)    The Senate’s budget is in the red since revenue is down from the projections that were used to formulate their budget.  The Senate budget had an $8.1 million reserve but with revenue down $20 million, their budget proposal is actually a -$11.9 million.
 
B)    The House budget proposal is in the black even though the same revenue projections were used to formulate their proposal.  The House budget proposal had $80 million in reserve, so even with the revenue shortfall, the House budget still has $60 million in reserve.
 
C)    The House budget proposal (All Funds) is almost $1 billion dollars smaller than last year’s budget.
 
D)    Remember that the reserve amounts are for the SGF portion of the budget only and not the All Funds portion.
 
E)     The House has an official position to negotiate from for the first time in two years.
 
F)     The Senate has stronger support for their proposal then the House does.
 
G)    Regardless of the final product the House and Senate agree to, the governor can selectively reduce the budget even further and probably will.
 
So, there you have a summary of the budget process and how things play out.  There are some representatives who are disappointed in the House budget proposal.  They do not feel the cuts went deep enough.  I feel more cuts could have been made, and in fact I voted in favor of every amendment that would have provided deeper cuts (except for one that was not a realistic amendment but instead was a grandstanding tactic and garnered only 8 votes in support of it).  However, what the House budget proposal represents is the deepest cuts that a constitutional majority of the House could support. 
 

It took years for the Kansas Budget situation to become so crucially flawed.  To expect it to be fully corrected in 90 days, without causing critical damage to the state, is not being intellectually honest.  The House position is a step in the right direction in fixing the defects.  A much more conservative House was elected in November as well as a conservative Republican governor.  Before rounding up a posse to run the legislature and governor out of town, wait and see what the final product is instead of reacting emotionally to proposals that do not and will not have the effect of law.
 
The legislature is on break until April 27 and the members are back in their home districts.  If you have questions about the budget I encourage you to contact your representative.  Feel free to contact me whether I represent you or not.  I will explain the House position and my rationale for supporting it.  913.302.9983 is my cell phone number.  You can email me at greg.smith@house.ks.gov

 
This is the last of the three pieces.  Thank you for your support and the emails I have received encouraging me.
 
Greg Smith

Kansas State House of Representatives
District 22
“Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.”  James Madison

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 30 other followers