Wichita Eagle, March 5
It’s encouraging that the initial response of state GOP leaders to the Kansas Supreme Court’s school finance ruling was restrained and not antagonistic. But the real test is yet to come.
Will they craft a school finance formula that meets the diverse educational needs of public schools in the state? And then will they fully fund it - and not renege on their funding promises, as they’ve done before?
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Thursday that state funding of K-12 public schools is inadequate and unconstitutional. The court gave lawmakers until June 30 to craft a suitable funding plan or potentially face school closures.
Unlike after some previous court rulings, GOP leaders didn’t react with hostility or defensiveness - though they did try to bend the ruling in their ideological direction.
Gov. Sam Brownback said in a statement that the court “correctly observes that our education system has failed to provide a suitable education for the lowest performing 25 percent of students. The old funding formula failed our students, particularly those that struggle most.”
Brownback then called for “transformative educational reform” and for the Legislature to pass a funding system that “puts students first.”
That’s code for school choice and potential public funding of private schools.
Senate President Susan Wagle, R-Wichita, said in a statement that the court reaffirmed that “legislators are the state’s chief policymakers and money appropriators.” She also said that lawmakers have a “duty to provide Kansas students with the resources they need to thrive.”
As the court determined, lawmakers haven’t been meeting that constitutional obligation.
House Speaker Ron Ryckman, R-Olathe, also emphasized the Legislature’s authority to set policy and appropriate funds. He defended the block-grant funding system - which the court declared unconstitutional - as “a short-term ’time out’ from a broken school finance formula.”
Actually, the previous finance formula was not broken. It was supported by school districts and approved by the court. The main problem was the state’s failure to fully fund it - which is why the state kept getting sued and losing in court.
Attorney General Derek Schmidt had the most straightforward and pragmatic response of the GOP leaders. He accepted the court’s finding and urged lawmakers to act quickly to approve a new funding plan, so the court would have time to review it before the June 30 deadline.
“Lengthy delay would impose needless strain and uncertainty on parents, students and school employees,” Schmidt said in a statement. He also called for “a bold legislative response, enacted swiftly, squarely targeting the constitutional defects the court identified.”
In other words, get busy, stay focused and don’t play political games. Good advice.
___
Topeka Capital-Journal, March 5
Federal officials are mulling changes to domestic violence laws. In this area, they would do well to follow the model of our elected officials in Kansas, who have taken significant steps toward protecting victims of abuse through multiple administrations.
Since 2007, the Office of the Kansas Attorney General has led a quiet but significant effort to reform a haphazard system of counseling for perpetrators of abuse. The initiative, started by Democrat Steve Six and continued by Republican Derek Schmidt, required years of complex legislative and judicial advocacy. The office now certifies a network of 37 professional Batterer’s Intervention programs across the state that meet minimum standards, a significant achievement.
Batterer’s Intervention Programs strengthen the vital services provided by the 27 victim service organizations in Kansas. Across our state, these programs offer crisis lines, shelters, counseling, court advocacy and other services to meet the needs of domestic and sexual violence victims and their children.
Domestic violence shelters in Kansas, like those elsewhere in the U.S., receive significant portions of their budgets from the federal Violence Against Women Act, an essential piece of legislation that enjoyed broad, bipartisan support for decades until the most recent authorization in 2013. A coalition of Republicans, including Attorney General Jeff Sessions, voted against reauthorizing the bill that year, although it eventually passed. Sessions is now responsible for enforcing the VAWA, and draft budget documents from Trump administration officials have proposed cutting the program entirely. The elimination of VAWA funding would be disastrous for victim services in Kansas and throughout the nation.
Elected officials must not play politics with the lives of victims and their children. Domestic violence is among our most complex social problems, and it will not be eliminated in a single presidential term. Effective policy to protect victims and prevent future violence requires long-term support. Responsible governance means a willingness to take the baton from the opposing party when needed and keep running the race.
Kansas can continue its positive work in this area with the passage of House Bill 2017, legislation sponsored by Rep. Annie Kuether, D-Topeka, that requires courts to consider current or previous protective orders issued against an offender when determining sentences for domestic battery. Our lawmakers would also be wise to consider legislation to make strangulation a felony, something that has been advocated in the past three legislative sessions by a broad coalition of victims’ advocates. To remain a model in this area, we must lead by example.
Kansans have shown we can innovate to protect our most vulnerable, despite political differences. We challenge federal officials to do the same.
___
Lawrence Journal-World, March 5
While it is good to see Kansas tax collections exceed expectations for the third straight month, that news does not mean legislators should stop their efforts to revise state tax policies.
On Wednesday, the Department of Revenue reported tax collections in February came in $36.9 million above official estimates. It was the third straight month that tax revenues have met or exceeded the state’s revised projections. Projections were revised downward in November after several months of shortfalls.
Since the revisions, revenues for the fiscal year have exceeded the new, lower estimates by about $68.5 million. Kansas Revenue Secretary Sam Williams said the latest report indicates the Kansas economy is improving.
“I am pleased to see continuing growth in withholdings and individual income taxes this month,” he said. “Month-to-month sales tax have increased 2.4 percent and is a hopeful sign that Kansans’ income growth means they have more money to spend.”
But even with the recent improvements, Kansas still faces a $281 million shortfall this fiscal year and another shortfall of approximately $500 million for the 2018 fiscal year, which runs from July 1, 2017, through June 30, 2018. It would be a mistake to assume that just because revenues have exceeded lowered expectations for a couple of months that the state’s budget is out of the woods.
Lawmakers came tantalizingly close last week to rewriting the state’s tax policies, passing a bill that would have raised roughly $1 billion over the next two years by repealing the so-called LLC exemption that allows more than 330,000 farmers and business owners to pay no state income taxes on their nonwage business income. It also would have raised individual tax rates on most Kansans and would have reinstated a third, higher tax bracket on individuals with more than $50,000, or couples filing jointly with more than $100,000 a year in taxable income.
Gov. Sam Brownback vetoed that bill. The House voted to override Brownback’s veto, but the Senate fell a handful of votes short of an override. During debate on the override bill, opponents of the override said there remained other bills waiting in the wings to address the state’s tax issues.
The responsibility to bring those bills forward hasn’t changed, said Senate Democratic Leader Anthony Hensley, of Topeka.
“Without comprehensive income tax reform, the Legislature will have failed to balance the budget and end the irresponsible practice of using one-time money to pay our bills,” Hensley said. “February’s revenue numbers don’t change this reality. It’s time to do what’s right for the future of Kansas.”
Hensley is right. Lawmakers should follow through on their pledge to offer a revised tax bill that addresses the LLC exemption, implements a revised income tax structure that is fair and reasonable for all Kansans and provides a revenue stream that allows the state to maintain state services at a level that is acceptable to the state’s residents.
___
Salina Journal, March 6
Across the United States, democracy is taking place, as previously apathetic or disengaged residents decide to take an active role in their government, largely through attendance at congressional town hall meetings.
Now that people care enough to ask questions and compel lawmakers to do their work, it seems some members of Congress aren’t quite so interested in the sometimes ugly, unruly and uncontrollable American public.
Kansas is no exception. Both Sens. Pat Roberts and Jerry Moran have missed out on scheduled town hall meetings where hundreds of constituents gathered to speak to the Washington, D.C., officials. Roberts turned down the chance to attend a meeting scheduled in Wichita, instead opting to hang out with his friends at the Kansas Chamber of Commerce dinner.
Elsewhere, members of Congress have exhibited even more worrisome behavior. In Texas, the often inflammatory Louie Gohmert expressed fear that he might be shot, citing the 2011 shooting of Rep. Gabby Giffords at a public appearance in a grocery store parking lot in Arizona.
“At this time, there are groups from the more violent strains of the leftist ideology, some even being paid, who are preying on public town halls to wreak havoc and threaten public safety,” Gohmert said Tuesday in The Hill.
Ironically, many of these members of Congress, now so fearful of violence and an armed citizenry, have campaigned on the idea that good guys with guns help keep the world safe. It seems this logic would carry over to town hall meetings and other public appearances by members of Congress.
The legitimate threat of violence against a member of Congress is slim. There’s most often intense security, screening and most people aren’t bent toward violence. And contrary to statements like those from Gohmert and President Donald Trump, while attendees of such town halls might be organized - much like the Republican-friendly tea party - they likewise aren’t paid to stir up trouble. They are citizens who at long last have demanded that they be heard.
If members of Congress choose to talk to their constituents at all, it most often is through social media or the bogus “telephone town hall” that creates a great deal of space between the elected and those they serve.
What is really happening, behind the fearful rhetoric, is that we have in Congress a group of people who are fearful of being held responsible for their actions. They are afraid to face their constituents, and they are fearful of looking in the eye the very people their decisions have harmed. We have a ruling class that would rather surround itself with comforting words, like-minded individuals and the money that flows their way from the business interests that use Congress to do their bidding.
These esteemed men and women might be afraid, but it’s not of violence. It’s a fear of stepping out from the safety of their powerful enclaves to face the truth of what they have done to this country and its people.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.