Category: Election 2018

Governor Colyer and the 2018 Election Year

5/8/2018

On the surface, Governor Colyer is doing everything that is politically sound to distance himself from Governor Brownback. But he has to do it in such a way that he doesn’t upset the far, far right who will probably determine the Republican primary outcome one way or another. He will also focus on Kansas issues and try come across as reasonable and calming in contrast with Secretary of State Kobach. For example, he recently had a signing ceremony for an executive order that would allow recently released lawbreakers to apply for state jobs. Good move, if it does not upset the far right. On the other hand, moves like his intent to sign the controversial adoption bill—which allows organizations to refuse adoption placements to LGBT couples—make it very clear that his new-found “political courage” will only extend so far.

In other words, he will work hard to communicate he is not Brownback 2.0 but without making changes on major policy issues. He will stick with the Brownback tax cut direction but smooth over a few things to hopefully make voters see him as different. He is showing signs of wanting to reach across the aisle, meeting with a mix of legislators, including Democrats. But it seems like only the tone has changed, the photo ops being more friendly, but the positions do not waver. This makes me believe, if elected, he would still be ready with the veto pen to stop many of the changes we desperately need to put this state back on the right track.

One issue he can’t run away from is his leadership to establish KanCare. Governor Brownback gave then Lt. Governor Colyer the leadership responsibility to develop the KanCare program and put it into operation. Even some Republicans join Democrats in blasting this program and with good reason. It just hasn’t worked. But we shouldn’t be too surprised. The level of passion for helping folks in need does make a difference in the effort to have positive outcomes.

He continues to oppose Medicaid expansion, a program that generates much support across the state. This is particularly true in more rural areas where their hospitals are struggling to stay open. He will also need to learn about the costly side effects of neglecting health care for thousands of Kansans. Forcing folks in need to go to the Emergency Room is a far more costly choice.

So, from a political point of view, where is our Governor as it relates to this election year? In selecting Tracy Mann to be his Lt. Governor running mate, given his limited record, Mann can help lean whatever way seems to help the most. Kobach is not going to change. He now has a bank as a running mate (Wink Hartman) and will work to hold the hard core Trump voters. Jim Barnett is a fine man but too sane to get broad support in the primary, although he will draw from some of the reasonable voters who the Governor needs to win the nomination. I don’t know where the Insurance Commissioner fits but we do know every vote he does get could have gone to someone else.

The Democrats in general can not let Colyer and Company get away with his effort to be new and reasonable. He may have changed wardrobes, but underneath, it is the same old backward movement that has Kansas looking up at almost all states on key rankings that impact the future.

0 Comments

Final Stretch of the 2018 Legislative Session

4/26/2018

0 Comments

The tentative positive outcome on both school funding and the overall budget (which could have seen more cuts to Higher Education and additional robbing from the highway fund beyond the existing $450+ million) is the direct result of many successful efforts in the 2016 legislative races. The results changed the makeup of the legislature to one that is more likely to invest wisely in public education and eventually address our serious infrastructure issues. This is the best realistic outcome for 2018. But as it has been said, it ain’t over ‘til it's over, and we are not yet there.

The bill correcting the $80 million error on school funding should be treated as simply a technical correction. But, like it or not, it is an opportunity for amendments and a rehash of the original bill passed and signed by the Governor. The wildcard here is over the three week break, what did legislators hear from constituents and/or lobbyists with money for the fall election? Were they complimented for doing what was right or castigated for over funding and bowing to the Supreme Court? As votes are taken on amendments, we will quickly know which way legislators were successfully directed.

Opinions differ on whether the school funding bill might need tax increases sometime soon. But for now, not having to make any tax increases in an election year made the most legislators happy. Unfortunately, they are working a possible tax cut for Kansans tied to the changes nationally on deductions. I understand the politics. But this is a missed opportunity to take a modest step in putting together the resources for next year that are going to be needed if we want to make further progress on getting the State of Kansas back on track.

So what is the Court’s next move? Will the legislative funding number be enough? At this point, I hope so for the sake of the court system and the positive step taken to fund education. Shooting down what the Legislature has done could set off a constitutional crisis. For sure, there would be another push for changing the Constitution and further movement to throw Judges out of office. Neither of these actions, if successful in the broader sense, would be good for the State of Kansas. It would signal a declining support for public education, a movement away from the three equal branches of government that our founding fathers knew was necessary, and it would leave partisan politics playing a much stronger role than ever.

Sine Die, final adjournment is set for May 4th. If things don’t go as hoped, there will very likely be a special session of the legislature this summer.

0 Comments

Kansas Gubernatorial Debates and Forums: 2018 Primary Election

4/17/2018

0 Comments

Given the number of candidates in both parties, the primary for both Republican and Democratic hopefuls for Governor is not just interesting but, in this election, incredibly important for the future of Kansas. Voters have choices in both parties and, to add interest, there is possibility of a well-funded Independent candidate. This cast of candidates is what makes forums or debates so important in helping both parties pick their best candidate. But each party’s implementation of forum and debate-type events is like night and day. To say the least, party strategies vary.

For the Republicans, the state party has chosen to dictate the number of joint appearances (4), control the agendas, eliminate the questions they do not want asked, and also require candidates to pledge their support to such rules. The candidates’ first appearance was February 17th in Wichita as part of Kansas Republicans’ annual party gathering, and the second was this past week. With only two joint appearances to go, one thing is clear: It will be difficult, if not impossible, for Republicans in many parts of the state to have the chance to size up their candidates and make an informed decision come August 7th.

Here comes the interesting result of these Republican rules. Jim Barnett, one of the Republican candidates, has declined to participate, given his opposition to such a controlled set of events. As a former candidate for Governor, he may have enough carry-over support to be competitive without that exposure. At least he stood up for what obviously would be a more robust and educational format. As well, Ed O’Malley, another Republican candidate, might have stayed in the race if there would have been a plan for many and open debates, allowing him the chance to gain the exposure so essential to win. But the money interests of the party prevail. They have their far-right candidates and want no part of anyone that might look like a moderate.

With the Democrats, the plan is totally different. If they’re invited, the candidates will come. To date, there have been forums put together at the local level in the far west (Colby), the southeast (Pittsburg), centrally in Abilene and Emporia, as well as in Kansas City, Johnson County, and more. On March 3rd in Topeka, clearly gathering the most attention and coverage, was the forum at the Democrats’ annual Washington Days event. As for the Democrats’ rules of engagement, except for Washington Days, they vary because the state party chose to let local organizations have some say. The goal is to have, as much as possible, a variety of questions and represent, as close as possible, the major concerns of Democrats.

So how is all this going to work out? Obviously, we don’t know. The Democrats, assuming they come together after the primary, will have a much stronger candidate having had so much experience honing his/her message. Given that the Democratic candidate will most likely be underfunded, this experience will be very important. On the Republican side, with much more money, the question is: Will their strategy be driven by outside interests using some of the same strategies that successfully put President Trump into office? As to debates in the general election, if history is any indicator, the Republicans will likely fight for as few of those as possible.

0 Comments

Can Democrats Avoid “Eating Their Own” in 2018?

3/1/2018

1 Comment

As I’ve shared in recent blog posts, in many ways, it is looking like this could be a wave year for Democrats. Recent successes with special elections across the country, many for state legislative races, have been really encouraging. Between President Trump’s first year in office and Congressional Republicans being on the wrong side of many issues from the public’s perspective, it looks good for change. Personally, I think it would be great for the country should the Democrats gain control of the Congress and also have significant success in the states on electing governors and legislators. This might send an important message to the Republican party that allowing the far-right to control the agenda has not been good for their party nor for the country. Until moderate and sane conservatives are willing to stand up to the President, the current chaos in Washington will continue.

In the meantime, the question is: Will the Democrats take advantage of this opportunity for change?

The movement that is forming in opposition to President Trump and the far-right is far-reaching, broad, and diverse. However, in order for that to amount to significant Democratic gains (and hopefully working majorities that can make progress), the leadership of the party must allow local candidates some space to reflect on what constituents want and build coalitions of support that reflect the diversity of the movement that is upon us. This not only improves the quality of representation for the constituents of that particular state or district, it also creates more opportunities for Democrats to compete all across the country. As I’ve written before, the issue of party litmus tests could end up being one of the biggest momentum killers during what should be a good year for Democrats. For example, I personally think Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia represents the people of that state very well and, on a high percentage of the issues, he works well with the Democratic Caucus. Yet, there are Democrats who want him out of the party because he doesn’t toe the line as religiously as some want. Taking this approach going forward only reduces any chance of taking control of Congress and making much-needed political progress in the so-called “red states.”

The word that President Bill Clinton will not be welcome at any Democratic candidate event out of fear that it might signal that Democrats are not going to be pure on recently emerging issues, I also find to be unnecessary. If some candidates see it that way, then those candidates should not invite him. But a blanket statement of “you’re not welcome,” takes away from many quality candidates a voice that just might be the difference between victory and defeat. Obviously, there are examples of his inappropriate behavior that in no way should be supported. But examples of questionable activity from the far past and charges that have had no real confirmation should not lead to a rush to judgment or a complete disowning, especially in cases where Democratic policies have positively impacted people's lives.

Over my years in politics, one word I’ve heard to describe the far left contingent of the Democratic Party is “kamikaze.” Now, I would say the comparison goes a bit far in literal terms, but the basic point has played out many times, where the left has pushed on positions and attacked more centrist Democrats as traitors to the cause. They would rather lose, it seems, than be seen as making a compromise that could lead to larger caucuses and much better results. I have no problem being pushed and educated from the left on issues, but when we’ve compromised to help bring everyone along, then Democrats should use that position to reach out to significant blocks of voters that can make the difference between victory and defeat. Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory leaves a bad taste.

1 Comment

Ready or Not, Campaign Season is Here

1/24/2018

3 Comments

Someone once said that the only two things guaranteed in life are death and taxes. I’d like to add one: words that are short on truth. In campaigns, candidates often say a lot of words and they’re taken at face value. But they need to be scrutinized, evaluated, and the truth shared with the voters. Unfortunately, that is easier said than done. The hard working press often try, but especially today the working reporters are too few and far between and often simply do not have the time to do the research. And then there is fake news and social media complicating things further. But, since the campaign season has officially begun, below are some messages that deserve some scrutiny from Kansans during this critical election year.

What got me started down this path were a couple of communications that stood out as examples where pushback is needed to add some truth. The first is what I’m hearing from some outspoken far-right conservative Republican legislators. They were certainly no help in correcting the disastrous Brownback tax experiment in the 2017 Legislative session. Now they are attacking Governor Brownback as if they had never gone along with his plan. Rep. J.R. Claeys, a Salina conservative was quoted in the Topeka Capital calling the budget “short-sighted.” He accused Brownback of throwing all his allies under the bus. They want us to forget how they voted and simply buy the rhetoric that re-elects the incumbent. If you think for a moment these ultra-conservatives criticizing Brownback have had a total conversion, please return to reality. Americans for Prosperity and the Koch Brothers do not change stripes. They just double down.

The second example comes from the message that Independent Greg Orman put out to jump start his effort to be the next Governor of Kansas, a bid which officially launched today. Let me say first, I admire and like Greg. He is a fine man who made a valiant effort to unseat Senator Pat Roberts in 2014. But this is 2018, and at best, all he can do is help elect Kris Kobach or possibly soon-to-be Governor Colyer. This would simply extend the Brownback misery for up to eight more years.

Orman’s a spoiler, but what really gets me is the message he is putting out that both Kansas and Washington D.C. are essentially political cesspools that only an independent can fix. I understand that has some fit with D.C., but to include Kansas with no effort to be fair or tell the whole story, I take serious exception. Democratic and moderate Republican legislators, backed by four former Governors of Kansas, made huge positive changes in the 2017 legislative session. As a word of advice, Greg, this only reinforces those who believe your real goal is a U.S. Senate seat, not serving as Governor. Those invested in Kansas politics know that both our history and our recent success proved Kansas isn’t Washington, and bipartisanship can—and does—exist.

Words used do matter, and the truth can make a real difference. I close with a personal experience to end on a softer note. When I was Speaker of the House and home for a weekend, I attended a Chamber legislative lunch. The death penalty was a frequent topic, and although I opposed it, I said little if anything. The Sunday Salina Journal really got my attention. Page two headline was “Carlin says the death penalty will only pass over his dead body.” With a tape of the lunchtime session, I was in the Journal office the next morning to share the record of what took place. In the Tuesday edition, I made the headlines again. “Carlin claims he did not say the death penalty would only pass over his dead body.” Clearly it was my personal lesson on not fighting with someone who buys printer’s ink by the barrel.

3 Comments

The 2018 Legislative Session and School Finance

1/18/2018

0 Comments

With Governor Brownback’s State of the State speech and the release of the Administration’s budget recommendations, we now have the opening of this year’s legislative session behind us. What makes this year totally unique are two factors not routinely in play. First, we don’t know how long it will be until we will have Governor Colyer—as we await news from the US Senate on Browback's confirmation effort. Second, the the Kansas Supreme Court and school finance hangs over the Capitol like a tornado on the horizon. To say this session will be a huge challenge is an understatement.

Early reaction says the budget that the Administration delivered was dead on arrival. Republicans, in particular, have led the negative response with a focus on the fact that the Governor had a nice sounding message but delivered it out of context. His avoidance of saying anything about how the state should pay for his recommendations was particularly offensive to almost all legislators. This was particularly upsetting to those who voted for tax adjustments last year in efforts to start addressing the fiscal crisis tied to the failed Brownback tax experiment.

So where are we? First let us look back to last year for a moment. As you know, very significant progress was made that included overriding the Governor’s veto on a tax plan that took a significant step in restoring much needed funds. The downside was that it was not enough to fund a reasonably full recovery. Too many legislators, as well as special interest groups, were a little too anxious to get anything close to what is needed. In the process, they likely left some important resources on the table that could have lessened the existing fiscal pressure.

Despite the progress, the Kansas Supreme Court has made it clear that even with the additional funding, it is not adequate. Their position is based on their interpretation of the Kansas Constitution regarding the state’s role in funding public education. Additionally, those who have never supported increasing education resources will be pressing for a Constitutional amendment that basically takes the Court out of any jurisdiction on school funding. Given the required ⅔ vote from both Houses, that is unlikely to happen.

Next are the political realities. Last year’s progress on school funding and the budget was clearly a heavy lift. Now we are in an election year, with the entire House up for re-election. Also, it is easy to assume that whatever tax bill reaches the Governor's desk, regardless of who is Governor, will be vetoed. There were no extra votes in last year's override. Given that fact, the likelihood of a repeat in 2018 is very slim. In addition, why would all the newly-elected members who were there for the 2017 override vote for another tax bill that, logic says, will not pass?

So where does all of this leave us? At the moment, I see no traditional answer to this constitutional crisis. My dream would be a Supreme Court that is willing to talk privately to legislative leaders from both parties about the realities that they face. Then, out of that, would come a compromise that spreads the mandated funding increase over a reasonable period of time. This might allow the money that became available from last year’s effort to be adequate to meet the first year’s commitment and then begin down a multi-year path towards meeting our constitutional commitment to public education. Although, I understand when your response is “dream on.”

0 Comments

Much at Stake for Kansas in 2018

1/4/2018

2 Comments

As we enter 2018, it is hard not to feel like we’re heading into some of the more consequential months of our history, at the national level as well as right here in Kansas. 2017 was a roller coaster year, and it seems this will continue into the current year, with an extremely influential election approaching us before 2018 ends. I will have more to say on national politics in later blog posts, but I’d like to start out this year with what we’re facing at the state level here in Kansas.

We begin the year with essentially two Governors and no one knowing for sure when and how that will change. Next Tuesday, Governor Brownback will deliver the State of the State Address to the Kansas Legislature and the citizens of Kansas. It had been assumed for months that it would be Governor Colyer giving the Address, but the workings of the U.S. Senate got in the way. It is assumed that this will get corrected when/if Brownback’s nomination is resubmitted. Why is this an issue? Politically, it complicates things for Lt. Governor Colyer. He had hoped to be leading the way, setting his own agenda, and in the process establish himself as an incumbent running for re-election.

In my judgement, the race for Kansas Governor in 2018 is more important for the future of this state than any preceding. Why do I say this? Because this election (in addition to the races for the Kansas House of Representatives) will decide whether, as a state, we once-and-for-all bury the Brownback agenda. We took a serious step in 2016 that led to the 2017 Legislature bringing a real breath of fresh air and progress to the state. The 2018 election will be a referendum on whether the people of Kansas like that direction or prefer to go back to the Americans for Prosperity approach of starving education, ignoring vital health care needs, underfunding basic state services, and neglecting our state's infrastructure.

We also start 2018 with what has to be the largest field of candidates ever for Governor within both parties and, to add to complication, a possible serious independent candidate. We are not used to this much interest and competition, especially Democrats, and from experience I know a little about how this changes things. In 1978, I had two serious, qualified opponents. It made fundraising a particular challenge because too many Democrats didn’t want to commit early or even before the Primary. On the flipside, it is fortunate for Democrats that with a very crowded Republican race that there is serious competition for the Democratic nomination. Without that, there would be no real press coverage or forums to reach the public until after the primary.

This leads me to a very practical concern, especially for the very large field of Republican candidates. Without a run-off system (where there is a second election if the initial winner has less than 50%), the party’s winner might not really be the strongest candidate. For example, it could very easily be in the Republican race that the second finishing candidate might have much more support from those finishing down the line and would win a runoff vote. This is why most observers of our current Republican field believe clearly the early leader is Secretary of State, Kris Kobach. This is despite his being very unpopular in many Republican circles—not to mention the scores of Kansans and Americans who are fed up with, among other things, his assault on the right to vote (part of which will face its day in court in March). With Kobach’s solid base of support, a crowded primary is much to his liking.

This election has so much at stake, as starkly different political agendas will go head-to-head. With so much contrast in possible outcomes, hopefully participation from voters will be driven up, even in an August Primary. Ideally, there will be many public forums where you are able to evaluate the candidates side by side, free of the all-too-often false, misleading mailers and ads that we’ve become accustomed to, especially in this big-money era of politics. And, in the end, a new Governor—who leads us into the future by bringing us together and not taking us back to the horrors of the last seven years—must prevail.

2 Comments

Deficit Concerns Won’t Slow the GOP’s Trickle Down Trainwreck

12/18/2017

0 Comments

While still absorbing the devastating tax changes from the Republicans in Congress, we are now seeing the next low blow to the working class of America. Remember how the tax bill over time added to the deficit in the trillions? This raised questions on where the so-called “deficit hawk” Republicans have gone. But now we are learning what they are really up to. With the votes apparently in hand on the tax issue (providing the rich huge benefits), they have developed a new concern about the deficit. And, when the bill they're working to pass doesn't generate enough revenue in economic growth to pay for itself—which is the classic defense used in Kansas and other places to justify implementing these trickle down trainwrecks—their answer will be to go after the entitlements, the so-called “give away” to Americans who “won’t work and/or save for their future.”

Medicare, Medicaid, and eventually Social Security suddenly now become serious targets for those who, for a long time, thought the government was doing too much for the people. Particularly now that their fiscal nightmare of a bill seems in line to pass, they say they have real concerns about the deficit. If young and extended families, particularly with children, don’t start making their case, their future becomes much more dicey. These young families face expensive child care (in most cases they both have to work to make the family budget), exploding health care costs, and student loan payments or other costs to educating themselves for the future. At the same time, salary increases are in no way adequate to cover these realities. On this one, both parties share the blame. Republicans want to privatize entitlement programs to cover up their real goal: to shut them down. Democrats defend the programs as is and have yet to address the challenges demanded by demographic reality. With folks living longer and the balance between retirees and workers changing, without changes to these programs, the end comes at some point down the line.

This is also what you get when you have a Supreme Court deciding that the very rich should have no limit as to how much they can spend to elect who they want and to get from them what they claim they need. They certainly should have a right to contribute and make their case, but it should be done on the merits, without the big-money artillery pointed directly at the elected person’s future. As a result, we now have relatively few Billionaires basically running the country into the ground, with only them benefiting from their trickle down philosophy.

So what do rank-and-file Americans do? Yelling and screaming to our family, friends, and anybody within shouting distance will not get it done. Giving up, ignoring what is going on, certainly will not help. Not registering to vote and/or not voting works right into the hands of those who are currently benefiting from the system as it is. We must, as I’ve said before, take our frustration into action.

Therefore, find forward-thinking candidates who understand the value of wisely investing and responsibly taking care of those in need, and help them get elected. Doing that begins the process of shaping tomorrow into the future we all want and need.

0 Comments

Big Money's Influence on Government

11/6/2017

1 Comment

Privatizing government functions is a topic that has been around for a long time. But it takes on added interest and concern when one party controls all the power in Washington. In this case, it happens to be the party that is most comfortable with turning basic government functions over to the private sector. Now consider the impact of the Supreme Court decision on Citizens United, which opened the floodgates for billionaires to play an unlimited role in politics. These wealthy citizens help recruit and fund the candidates they want. Then these same citizens use their influence to get legislation they need to take over previously government-managed functions.

This is about the private sector creating opportunities to run government programs for profit. The classic example is private prisons. As far as I know, it is very logical and legal that the private sector would want to manage prisons. But it certainly is not being done as a public service. The private sector wouldn’t be doing it if they didn’t think they could make money. But what really throws fuel on the fire is their lobbying skills and unlimited money to get longer sentences for nonviolent crimes. The result is more population in the prison system and, logically, the need for more prisons all-the-while padding the pockets of the already rich. That is not good government at work for the people. Fortunately, privately run prisons are getting some real scrutiny.

But the prison example is only the beginning. A frightening one that could gain traction is taking programs like Medicaid totally private. I don’t think it will happen, but the effort will certainly be made in some way at sometime. Our backstop for now is the same few Senators who have stood up to crazy replacements of the Affordable Care Act. Having Senator John McCain speaking truth to power is a solid plus for sanity, but he needs a couple of others to stand up to the pressure as well. To those who say it is easier when one is seriously ill to take a tough stand, I say this is not the first time Senator McCain has spoken up. At a well-covered campaign event in the 2008 election, he defended President Obama as a decent man and an American citizen.

I know from experience there are appropriate areas of government that can work well with the private sector. The Clinton Administration pushed finding areas that would be win-win. At the National Archives, we put the security force needed out for bids. The key to a win-win is private sector services that are non core functions of the Federal government. For example, we would never have supported putting out for bids the handling and processing of federal records in any way. For that work, we had dedicated, properly trained and motivated professionals handling these valuable assets for the interests of government and the American people.

But the final problem we have with many possible private sector run government functions is that all-too-often the private sector doesn’t even support the core functions of the agency or program being taken over. It isn’t in many cases that they think they can run it better, but that privatization creates an opportunity to shrink government without any real review or assessment of the impacts on citizens. As I’ve said many times, elections do have consequences.

1 Comment

Reflecting on Governor Brownback's Six Plus Years

9/28/2017

5 Comments

With the date set for Governor Brownback’s confirmation hearing (October 4th), we in Kansas have the opportunity to look back on his six plus years as Governor. Below are my reflections on the lasting impacts of his time in office and some thoughts on where we, as a state, go from here.

What we got from Governor Brownback was not quite what we expected. Much changed between the time he was Secretary of Agriculture and Governor. He went from being quite likable and non-controversial to being a very polarizing figure. His leadership approach was certainly not built on bringing people of different persuasions together. Not only did he change religions but, philosophically, he went from reasonably moderate to extreme right.

His policy mistakes were many but none more puzzling than his systematic destruction of the Kansas Bioscience Authority (KBA). What was at one time the darling of legislators across the board (created with bipartisan support in 2004) was now being trashed. Truth was not important and philosophical positions were often quite bizarre. None was more puzzling than his stance against picking winners and losers. He disliked that the KBA worked hard to make the wisest investments for the best interest of Kansas. He preferred that we invest the money without considering the likelihood of success. I think the Bible talks about putting the seeds where they can grow and not on the rocks.

His lack of support for all levels of public education is another example of his move to the far right, which favors private education. This dramatic change of position was totally new for Kansas. Proud of our public school system, most Kansans took for granted that the support from most public officials would be strong. With big money from private donors and other public school opponents, a push to support private education took place—more often and in new, different ways. This includes an assault on our judicial system to change the way we select judges in Kansas, in order to push the policies that these monied interest groups favored.

In his run for re-election, he loved to promise of his support for very much needed highway improvements. He was comfortable endorsing specific projects but never sharing on how they might be funded. Given he robbed extensively from the highway fund to avoid Kansas going broke, maybe that is understandable. Historically, highway maintenance and improvements had strong support from both sides of the isle, but not under this Governor.

As puzzling as anything was his adamant opposition to Medicaid expansion. Kansans were paying for it but not getting it. Despite many Republican Governors accepting the dollars and significant support from Kansas citizens, he stood his ground. The result was pain inflicted on large numbers of Kansans as well as the financial viability of many, particularly rural, community hospitals and nursing homes.

But maybe the most damaging mistake over time will be his lack of support for, and his meat ax approach to, the civil service system and public service in general. I say that because it may take a generation or more to restore the quality state workforce we once had. With the Governor's recommendation and the Legislature’s support, now when a civil service employee leaves the system the position automatically becomes political, bringing back in essence the spoils system that most of us thought was a thing of the past.

The story of the past six years will be about a Governor who sowed the seeds of political division in Kansas. From his all-out attacks on members of his own party, to his blatant disregard for opposing views of any kind, Governor Brownback leveraged a big money machine to turn our state into a petri dish for far-right policy and an extremist approach to governing. This is a far cry from the Kansas that many of us have known and loved.

What will happen to our state as a result of the Brownback years remains to be seen, and it will largely be up to us to decide. Kansans of all political stripes have certainly been activated. And, so far, there are signs that we may learn our lessons from these divisive and damaging years for our state and begin to put Kansas back on the right track by bringing people together around the solutions to our largely self-created challenges. The path forward will not be easy, and there is certainly a lot of work to do. But perhaps the next chapter can be the most exciting and impressive one yet: a state turning the page on division and building a model for how to come together, engage, and overcome the disastrous results left behind by these difficult years for Kansas.

5 Comments

Will Democrats Seize the Moment in 2018?

9/22/2017

3 Comments

Looking ahead to the mid-term elections in 2018, from an historical perspective, it should be a good year nationally for Democrats. The party that is out of power (Democratic) at the mid-term elections in the first term of a President (Republican) of the opposite party, usually does very well. Added to this traditional advantage is the divisive and puzzling start of the Trump administration.

But is the National Democratic Party smart enough to take advantage of this opportunity to make gains all across the country? To start, national Democratic leadership has for too long totally ignored many rural states. As a result, they have lost close to all of the Democratic representation that got elected in an earlier time. When I was active, not just Kansas but all our surrounding states had Democratic members in their Congressional delegations. Today there are no Democrats representing Nebraska, Kansas, or Oklahoma. Not since Howard Dean and his Fifty State Strategy have we had much focus outside of the traditionally Democratic states. It will be interesting if this changes for 2018.

In Kansas, in my opinion, Governor Joan Finney (1991-1995) was the last Democratic candidate for statewide office to actually work the entire state. She didn’t win that many rural counties (just as I didn’t in two elections), but she didn’t get beat too badly, which made it possible to win statewide. In recent statewide elections, the campaign focus has been on the few heavily populated counties while almost totally ignoring the 90 plus counties that are heavily rural. Every vote does count. For Democrats to win in Kansas, they must get back to working the entire state. When they do, I suspect in time they will also elect more Democrats from rural counties to the Legislature.

Democrats also have trouble finding the right message and knowing their audience. Framing a message and choosing the right words has never been a real strength for Democrats. They spend far too much time talking to themselves and not near enough to the people they need to reach. For example, in the 2016 Presidential election, millions of struggling Americans were ignored because the campaign didn’t think they would get their votes. Well, if you ignore them, you won’t get their vote for sure. Montana’s two-term Democratic Governor wrote a really good piece about this.

And then there is the issue of litmus tests, where disagreement on one single issue leads to no support, despite positive positions on all the other issues that are key to the future. I understand and respect those who feel that strongly about any given issue. But I would add to the conversation, shouldn’t seeing the big picture in the end prevail? Shouldn’t there be room for regional concerns and individual differences of opinion within a “big tent” party? Having a platform with a strong set of core values to serve as the “North Star” for the party makes sense, but a strict litmus test will make it so that only party hard-liners can be candidates—rather than opening up the field to other sensible, respected community leaders and aspiring public servants, who would work to carry out those values but also enter office with a desire to listen, find common ground, represent their constituents, and solve problems in a way that moves the state and country forward.

A party free of litmus tests would open the door for Democratic representation from all over our state and country. This would increase the reach of the party and create a greater role for Democrats to help shape policy on a wide range of issues. For instance, the issue of abortion illustrates the problem with litmus tests from a policy perspective. In Kansas, without “pro-life” Democrats, there would have been no override of Governor Brownback's tax policy, and—in Washington—the Affordable Care Act would have already been repealed in one of the recent votes, which have required just barely enough Democrats and Republicans to cast their votes in favor of preserving health care for millions of Americans. Each of these votes had huge implications in terms of access to a wide spectrum of health care services, and in the case of the veto override, determining the funding that would be available for our schools, roads, and all the other things Kansans care about at the state level. Often, "wedge issues" are used as a distraction from the important policy decisions at hand, and it will be key for Democrats not to fall into this trap.

So how will 2018 go? It will depend on whether the Democratic leadership and their candidates learn from the past. With the right message taken to the right audiences, and standing for something, it could be a good year for Democrats in Kansas and across the country.

3 Comments

Taxes Likely to be the Big Issue in the 2018 Kansas Elections

7/6/2017

1 Comment

With Sine Die adjournment of the 2017 Kansas Legislative Session, it is only natural that many turn their interests to the 2018 election, particularly regarding legislators and how they voted on the tax override. Set aside for now the pending Supreme Court ruling that the existing funding for education is likely inadequate. My interest here is reminding voters of two things. One: past tax cuts, started before Governor Brownback but taken to off the chart levels under his leadership, have seriously eroded our capacity to fund key investments. Two: the objective should always be finding the right level of taxes and funding that make the best investment for the state and the taxpayers.

The Koch operation held their annual planning meeting a few weeks back in Colorado to brainstorm strategies for 2018, which is a clear sign that the politics of these decisions will soon be front and center in the discussion. And you can be assured they weren’t focusing on helping supporters of proper funding levels for education and wise investments in infrastructure and other state services. They are looking for ways to not just slow the erosion of far-right support but return it to the strength of earlier years, when these special interests had their way in Topeka and other state capitals across the country. Keep in mind they are big backers of the Kansas State Chamber of Commerce who, under current management, think much like the Koch’s think and are still bought in to the idea that somehow, despite all the evidence, trickle down economics works.

My advice to those who voted for the taxes, including the motion to override Governor Brownback's veto, is to embrace what you did and the action taken to return the state to a more solid financial footing. For some legislators who promised in their campaign that they would support more dollars for education and highways, remind voters that you delivered. Not bringing up the issue will just not work, and you end up losing from both sides. Key to your message is further educating voters on the wisdom of finding the right level of support for quality public education, plus the dollars needed for highway maintenance. The negative tax impacts will always be greater when investments do not meet the state’s needs.

Because the need to find a productive level of funding seems so natural, one wonders why so many very conservative legislators can not bring themselves to ever support a tax increase. They have to know, given their agriculture and business backgrounds, that cutting too far makes no sense and leads to poor outcomes. One explanation that may answer some of this puzzle on the issue of education is that many conservative legislators are strong supporters of private education and homeschooling and would support public tax dollars going to these sources. Not properly funding public education leads to declining quality, which can encourage families to consider private education options. Maybe those ulterior motives explain their lack of support for public education. However, that approach to public budgeting only devalues the investments that the state has already made in its public school system, infrastructure, and many other areas.

And to those who very much wanted the results we got from the Legislature, now is not the time to assume the issues we’ve experienced are resolved. We need to make it clear that we very much support the courageous legislators who voted to override the veto and that we will be there with resources and help to support their reelection. It would be a huge setback for Kansas to have made this giant step forward and have it reversed as a result of the 2018 election. That could happen if common sense, moderate legislators are not successful, which will allow very narrow, backward special interests to prevail at the expense of Kansans.

1 Comment

NY Times Op-Ed Misses an Important Part of the Kansas Story

6/15/2017

5 Comments

In the June 12th New York Times, there was an excellent op-ed piece that Kansans should take pride in. The title was “Finally, Something Isn’t the Matter with Kansas,” written by Michael Tomasky. His title, of course, plays off of William Allen White’s famous essay, “What’s the matter with Kansas?” The focus of the article is the Kansas Legislature’s override of the Governor’s veto of the tax package. The piece is well-written and hopefully will be accurate in suggesting this action might just lead to a new and more positive direction in this country, which brings to mind another famous William Allen White quote from one of his later writings—and one that I have referenced in past blog posts—”When anything is going to happen in this country, it happens first in Kansas.”

But it’s the rest of the story, left out in this op-ed, that I want to focus on and what I believe will be needed if this kind of action is to spread. Contrary to the usual reporting, and reinforced in this op-ed, the new approach was not so much a change in the Republican direction on taxes as it was the bipartisan approach that made it possible. In the end, every single Democrat and enough rational Republicans cast their votes for a wiser way forward. The effort to override was backed by every former Kansas Governor of both parties. But maybe the most significant aspect is that much of the initial leadership came from a group of female legislators from both parties, working over a period of time, to lay out key elements of a tax package that ultimately passed.

Historically, both at the state and national level, it is this bipartisan approach that brings quite often the best of times. I think of Speaker Sam Rayburn and Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson, both Democrats, working with Republican President Dwight Eisenhower that led to numerous successes, including the creation of the Interstate Highway System. It was Democratic Speaker Tip O'Neil working with Republican President Reagan that brought successful reform to the Social Security System. The successes I had as Governor came from working with the majority Republican leaders in the Legislature. Contrast these examples with Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell publicly stating that his number one priority was to oppose every measure President Obama wanted, including legislation that Republicans had once proposed and supported. And, also counter to positive results on our highway system and social security, is the Affordable Care Act, which did not have bipartisan support. Now, with Republicans in total control of Congress, there is the possibility of a new health care plan, replacing President Obama’s plan but, if passed, it will be done without Democratic votes. Isn't it likely as soon as the Democrats have the power there will be another change? Working together, for instance on the needed adjustments to the Affordable Care Act (which could garner both Democratic and Republican support), would result in a much better plan and the stability to positively impact health care over time.

On a larger scale, what it takes is members of both parties agreeing on the outcomes we want to achieve for the people of our state and country, keeping the future well-being of the people at the center of the process, and checking big money interests and bitter partisan wedge issues at the door while they work to achieve the results that the people want and need. Another key to this will be reestablishing the value of truth (even when it means accepting the hard truths) and agreeing on the facts at hand. For example, the more that Kansans understood our budget challenges, the easier it became to send representatives to Topeka who had looked at the facts and agreed on the problem—which allowed citizens to more effectively voice their concerns and create a critical mass of support for the Legislature to work towards real solutions to the challenge at hand.

So, only time will tell whether what has happened in Kansas will spread across the country. Meanwhile, in Kansas—in order for this direction to continue—support for legislators from both parties who made progress possible must continue. And we should be judging future candidates by whether they support a solid, stable financial future for the state or a return to the reckless and failed fiscal and economic direction that landed us in this mess in the first place. The elections in 2018 and 2020 will determine whether this is truly a new direction for the state of Kansas or just a blip in the passage of time.

5 Comments

Forward>>

Governor Colyer and the 2018 Election Year

Final Stretch of the 2018 Legislative Session

Kansas Gubernatorial Debates and Forums: 2018 Primary Election

Can Democrats Avoid “Eating Their Own” in 2018?

Ready or Not, Campaign Season is Here

The 2018 Legislative Session and School Finance

Much at Stake for Kansas in 2018

Deficit Concerns Won’t Slow the GOP’s Trickle Down Trainwreck

Big Money's Influence on Government

Reflecting on Governor Brownback's Six Plus Years

Will Democrats Seize the Moment in 2018?

Taxes Likely to be the Big Issue in the 2018 Kansas Elections

NY Times Op-Ed Misses an Important Part of the Kansas Story

Author

Categories

Facebook

Twitter

Subscribe