Category: Historical Perspective

A Plea to Senator Roberts

1/19/2019

I think most observers of political races thought Senator Roberts would not seek reelection, but not everyone was so sure. There were frequent rumors and predictions that, given his stature, experience, and solid Republican support, he would run for another six year term despite his age. An open race would be hard to predict, and there is much less confidence of ending in a Republican victory. It is slam dunk for Republicans that he will finish his term. I say that because there were many rumors that he would step down and have Governor Brownback appoint an agreed upon replacement. I doubt Senator Roberts would work that deal with Governor Kelly.

Obviously, given my age and time frame of political involvement, I have been an observer of Senator Roberts’ career for decades. He certainly has been successful, never losing a race and a whole lifetime of work in Washington D.C. He started as staff support for Congressman Keith Sebelius. Leadership on agriculture has been a focus and he has played a very significant role on that budget, and most importantly, the once every five years renewal of the Farm Bill. I know he worked quite closely, in a bipartisan way, with then Congressman Dan Glickman. Back then, when earmarks were in practice, he was very successful at “bringing the bacon” back to Kansas. Right here at K-State, he was key in getting resources for the bioscience research facility (the Hall bears his name) and, in many ways, he was helpful in the bipartisan effort to secure support for NBAF, the National Bioscience Agro-defense Facility being built just off the K-State campus.

I write this blog not so much to recognize Senator Roberts. Others in widely covered editorials have been extremely positive and one can assume there will much more of that given he still has two years left to serve. But, since he does still have these two years to serve, I write this to make the plea for our Senator to now, free of reelection plans, step up and provide some much needed leadership on key issues not currently being addressed and also to speak out when the best interests of Kansans, or the values of our country, are not being served.

Senator Roberts’ lock-step loyalty to Mitch McConnell (who currently holds the power to end the ongoing government shutdown) and his 'look-the-other-way' approach to the words and actions of President Trump have set back the country and also hurt Kansans—even on the issue to which Senator Roberts has devoted the most time over the years, agriculture. Though he's finally shown the ability to speak at least some truth to the President and to Kansans on the issue of trade, I wonder what a difference it would make if Senator Pat Roberts would speak out on the challenges of climate change, for instance. His focus could be tied to the impacts we are already feeling with changing weather patterns that negatively impact production agriculture. Floods and droughts in the same year is a formula for disaster and in 2018 we got a taste of that in Kansas. I’m reminded the Time Magazine article sometime back on Durum wheat in North Dakota, and how rising temperatures have forced the growing of that crop further north. Another ten years and who knows what we might be facing, particularly if we do nothing to lessen the change.

The time has come for Senator Roberts to step up and, in the Kansas tradition, be a bellwether for common sense and decency in the country. If not now, we'll be left to conclude that blind party loyalty has won out, and it will put a lasting stain on a long and distinguished career in public service.

3 Comments

Governor Kelly Will Take on a Long List of Challenges for Kansas

1/10/2019

1 Comment

As Inauguration approaches and the transition period for newly-elected Kansas Governor Laura Kelly comes to an end, the initial approach to the many problems the state faces will become public and ready for the Legislature to engage. I have high confidence that the Kelly administration will do the very best they can for Kansas, and I have no intention of second guessing their directions. What I do want to do is help educate the public on just how massive the problems are and how desperately important it will be for enough legislators from both parties to set politics aside and, in a-non partisan way, work with the Governor to address our endless challenges.

I say all this because we are at a point of no return. We either step up and correct what is not working or the state, at some point soon, will be in a hole so big that getting out just may not be possible. Making these corrections will, from my experience, require at least two actions to take place. First, will be the incredible importance of quality and sustained communication from the Kelly administration to the Legislature and the people of Kansas. Kansans must understand the massive problems we face. Second, citizens need to participate, speak up, and let the Legislature know they expect (and will support) action in addressing these challenges.

The reality is that quality state government has been totally decimated as a result of the disastrous Brownback years. Public education, as it should, gets lots of attention and, to a lesser extent, the need to take care of our infrastructure is known. Both these areas must be responsibly addressed. But my point is that recent policies have negatively impacted state government across the board. Twelve and sixteen hour shifts for workers in our prisons and state hospitals are not the norm because it is the new way to better serve these agencies’ missions. These institutions simply do not have the budget to adequately undertake their responsibilities and maintain accreditation standards, which can lead to loss of federal funds, further compounding the problem.

Often forgotten is the devastating damage the Brownback administration did to the civil service system. That administration was able, with legislative support, to ignore the long standing system where merit prevailed, which lead to quality folks being attracted to public service. I am sure the Kelly administration will work to get the civil service law changed back. But in this case, the law will allow the administration to switch back to merit now and start the process of recruiting quality public servants we need to successfully carry out state programs and functions. This will all take time and probably much of the four-year term for any significant progress to be made. But steps in the right direction will need to start right away.

For quality government to be restored, it is essential that the public know the long range plan and that the initial steps taken by the Kelly administration are consistent with that plan. From a practical point of view, this will take leadership from both sides of the aisle understanding that it cannot be politics as usual. I know the Governor will be reaching out and doing her part. Key to success is whether the legislative leaders within both parties can set aside 2020 election goals and “gotcha” politics that only lead to stalemate and getting done only what has to be done. We must now put the state and its future first, or that future will not be what we want and need.

1 Comment

Memories of President George H.W. Bush

12/3/2018

0 Comments

Given the many presidential norms we've seen shattered over the past two years, we mourn the loss of someone who brought dignity, respect, and civility to the office of the Presidency. Though not loved by many at the time, eventually President George H.W. Bush significantly gained in popularity. He had the misfortune of following President Ronald Reagan, a very well liked President, and having to also eat his words on “Read my lips, no new taxes.” But since that time, the admiration and respect for both him and First Lady Barbara Bush have only grown. With their passing so close together, we have in a very short time lost two who set a high bar for public service.

My experience with President Bush included work with his Presidential Library, where I was involved heavily with setting up record storage on a temporary basis and working on the construction of the Library to ensure compliance with federal law. Here are some reflections on that time, while I was serving as Archivist of the United States.

Early in the process, the project’s lead archivist developed a relationship with the former President to the point that when the Library opened, Bush 41 wanted him as Library Director. I tried telling the President and his advisors that my man was a very good archivist but not a leader with the skills they would want and need. 41 held out and I appointed that archivist only to be contacted a short time later asking that he be removed. In their experience, he was not capable of working with the power players at Texas A&M, the Library’s home, as well as the many rich and successful supporters of the Foundation.

A special plus for me was the opportunity to get acquainted with Brent Scowcroft. A key member of the Bush 41 administration, he was the lead advisor to the President in his retirement and the person assigned to work with me. I came to know him as not just a person of many talents but the highest of character as well. Since then, he has continued to be active in public service, setting a high standard that too few achieve.

George Herbert Walker Bush will be remembered not only for his lifetime of quality public service but the way he carried out his responsibilities. Given the passage of time, I think history will be very kind to a man and a President who took seriously his role to serve.

John Carlin, Lynn Carlin, George H.W. Bush, Barbara Bush

This picture was taken about ten years ago, when Lynn and I joined the Bushes at an Eisenhower Library function.

0 Comments

Doubling Down on Climate Denial

11/27/2018

0 Comments

Despite the overwhelming evidence and grave warnings issued in a new US Government report on climate change, President Trump and supporters of the status quo continue to double-down on climate denial. In response to the report—commissioned by Congress and conducted by departments within his own administration—President Trump first worked to bury its release among the hoopla of “black Friday” and then flatly dismissed its findings, saying, “I don’t believe it.” As a concerned citizen and grandparent, the simple question I would ask to the President and anyone still denying the facts about climate change is: “What if you’re wrong?”

On December 5, 2015, I posted a blog entitled “Climate Change Skeptics, What If You’re Wrong?” I stand by that, and I'd encourage people on all sides of the issue to ask themselves that common sense question. Because, as a believer in science and a supporter of action on climate change, I would much rather be wrong and have paid some short term costs rather than face the grave consequences of inaction. And the evidence from the past three years has only strengthened my feeling about the issue, from scientific findings to the events unfolding that have already inflicted huge damage, including Hurricane Florence. But the real clincher is for me is what’s going on in California right now with fires causing damage that goes way beyond any historical pattern. I would hope that the significant loss of lives, the fact that a whole town is totally wiped out, and the unfortunate reality of more tragedy looming on the horizon would at some point get our attention.

Recently, Lynn and I were with grandchildren in Estes Park, Colorado. This area has been impacted by warmer weather in pretty dramatic ways. For starters, there are mountain pine beetles that have destroyed many pine trees due to warmer winters increasing the likelihood of damaging wildfires. There are areas where folks have built cabins and second homes in places of beauty without a second thought that they could go up in smoke at any time. The hotter, drier climate has changed all that and, as we watch California burn, you can’t help but think, “will Colorado be next?”

Since posting that first blog in 2015, I think it is fair to say we have made little or no progress on dealing with climate change. To be truthful, we really never recovered from the initial moniker “Global Warming.” It was used and abused by those who defended the status quo for various selfish reasons, including ignorance. There has been very little acceleration in US-based research and now, as a country, we have totally abandoned our international friends in dealing with the issue of climate change. Another report that really grabbed my attention from the United Nations moved up projections for crisis and irreparable damage. If significant progress is not made within the next ten years, it will be too late to save many of Earth's natural wonders such as coral reefs. And if the environmental impact hasn’t motivated you yet, the economic realities soon will. Indeed, the market is already shifting in response to climate change. So when will our government catch up? And, rather than simply reacting to the symptoms—in terms of our environment, our economy, and our national security—will we ever begin to be proactive about solutions or strategies to address root causes?

In order for progress to be made, we’ll have to change this pattern of indifference and ignorance about the problem. So how do we begin the process of putting pressure on our elected officials about the seriousness of climate change? One obvious barrier we have is the current state of politics, where an issue such as climate change gets little or no coverage in the press, and therefore, little or no educating of the American people. And compounding the problem is that as you listen to many newly elected or re-elected members of Congress as they list their priorities, climate change doesn’t tend to get mentioned. Although, as the economic impacts begin to hit home for more Americans, there is some hope this could change when the new Congress is gaveled in next year.

So what can we do? There are organized groups who are leading the cause for not just understanding of climate change but also action. What we need is for large numbers of citizens to join, to support, to lend a hand, and to help make climate change a voting issue. As I’ve always told my students, most elected officials will change their positions if their re-election is at risk. That can happen when rank-and-file citizens engage, which is what we need or it will not be just the trees that are burning.

0 Comments

BAM: A Qualified Kansan for Secretary of State

10/2/2018

1 Comment

Not getting the attention that it deserves, the race for Secretary of State here in Kansas provides a unique opportunity for change. Obviously, I’ve been around a long time, and I think it is accurate to say that in my lifetime every elected Secretary of State has been a Republican. Until eight years ago, that had not been a problem. They did their job, almost without exception, in a manner that served all Kansans, and no serious questions about their performance or motives were ever raised. As a partisan, sure I would have liked that a Democrat won at least once, but in terms of good government, we were well served.

The first Secretary that I actually knew was Elwell Shanahan, originally from Smolan. Her two brothers, for four terms, carried my petitions to file for State Representative. Successors to Elwell included Jack Brier, Bill Graves, and Ron Thornton—all good men who ran an honest shop without favor to one party or individual. Then, in 2008, we were introduced to a different kind of public servant, Kris Kobach, who is now the Republican nominee for Governor. This is setting up a choice between Kobach’s Republican successor and Brian “BAM” McClendon, a Democrat who brings very interesting skills and a commitment to restore not just sanity to the office but new ideas to better serve the voters and citizens of Kansas.

BAM—and I’m told that name will be on the ballot—is a Kansan who went to California and had huge success. He co-founded the company that became Google Earth and now has returned to Kansas to serve his native state, something that not enough Kansans who exit do. In a nutshell, BAM has the technology skills, the leadership experience, and the public service commitment to be the right person to undo the damage done by Mr. Kobach and set a new and better course for the office.

Secretary Kobach spent too much time on out-of-state immigration issues and figuring out new ways to discourage and/or stop some voters from voting—then more time and taxpayer money on defending those actions, largely unsuccessfully, in court. BAM is committed to doing the actual work of the job: protecting the right to vote, improving services for our Kansas business community, and increasing transparency and access to official state information for all Kansans.

With all the legitimate concern about the security and integrity of our election systems, it is more important than ever that our Secretary of State have a background in technology—and especially leadership within technology. BAM can lead improvements to the process that will help provide assurance to the voters that their vote was properly recorded and counted. And, instead of a Secretary of State focused on voter suppression, we can have one who is committed to increasing voter participation and citizen engagement with our government.

It is rare that someone with Brian “BAM” McClendon’s skills and experience steps up for public service. It will be up to the voters of Kansas to make their choice. I urge all voting Kansans to take a serious look at BAM and the opportunity we have as Kansans to elect a Secretary of State that is not only uniquely qualified but is such a marked and welcome contrast to Kobach.

1 Comment

A Labor Day Salute to Missouri Voters

8/29/2018

0 Comments

On this coming Labor Day, September the third, I salute the wisdom of the voters of the State of Missouri. On August the 7th, they voted to repeal their existing Right to Work law and helped restore some hope for me that the people, the voters, do have something to say and do have a role in how their government should operate. The vote was overwhelming, and I know that didn’t just happen on its own. Much work, including help from Kansas, went into educating the voter on what Right to Work really means and the benefits of workers having some of their strength restored at the bargaining table.

It was just a year ago this weekend that I posted a blog on “The Labor Movement and the Middle Class.” I stand by what I wrote then in terms of the critical link between the labor movement and the success of the middle class. But, on reflection, if you had asked me at that time of the chances that Missouri would repeal their Right to Work law, I would have probably said slim to none. I would have said so because, as I wrote, the labor movement had been on a long decline. How could they possibly have the political muscle to achieve this goal? Oh for sure the labor folks worked hard and invested much in this effort. But I really believe what brought this success this time is they got the people to understand that what they wanted would be for the greater good of the State of Missouri, not just for union members and Unions in general.

As I put this salute together, I was reminded of a parallel experience growing up on and operating a dairy and Registered Holstein herd for many years. Most agricultural commodities had a checkoff so that, as commodities were sold, there would be money pooled to promote the product and fund further research and development into that commodity. For dairy, it was milk checks to go primarily towards marketing their product. It was put in place by a vote of those who produced and sold their milk to Co-Ops primarily. But when the majority vote took place and it came time to implement, the checkoff applied to even those who opposed the checkoff. There was no “right to sell” without the checkoff but with the benefits. Everyone participated. I also remember listening to dairymen defend their system and, at the same time, oppose labor’s view on Right to Work. Apparently, consistency doesn’t always govern.

Federal laws permit and enforce many mandatory commodity checkoffs. Meaning we currently require farmers to chip in “for the good of the group,” but when workers wish to pool together their resources for their collective benefit, we pass laws that essentially exempt people from having to pay into it. Afterall, the so-called “Right to Work” is really just the right to avoid paying union dues, while any benefits that result from the negotiations—to the employees themselves or the labor market as a whole—still come your way.

So I salute the repeal of Right to Work in Missouri, and I issue a warning to their Legislature. The initial reaction from the Republican Legislative leadership on the repeal is to consider the possibility of just passing a new “Right to Work” law. In their view, they are the all-powerful legislature and are in a much better position to know what is best for the state. If that is the case, the next people's movement just might be taking them out of office.

0 Comments

Something Good in Every Day

8/19/2018

0 Comments

“Every day may not be good, but there is something good in every day.” This message is posted right over the check-in desk at the lab where I have my blood tests on a regular basis. We do have bad days for sure. But I think, all too often, we fail to see or appreciate some part of the day that was good. When not appreciated, it is often our loss as well as missed opportunities to positively impact other folks or happenings.

My most recent personal example was election day, August 7, 2018. The winners in the Primaries have now advanced to gear up for the general election in this critical election year, but in their wake, there are many other qualified and committed Kansans who offered up their names and life experiences to their fellow citizens and asked to represent them and work on their behalf. So how could something so depressing as losing an election that you and many others had put so much time and energy into have something good to acknowledge and benefit from? From personal experience, having lost three elections, I can say that it is not easy, and it often has to come days later. For Democrats, in the crowded field for Governor and 3rd District Congress, I am sure some of that reflection is still coming.

But as I look back now, I can see several positives. For starters, many candidates who lost will live to fight and win on another day, and within that group, there is a lot of talent that will be recognized and supported. Through their leadership, they will each continue to impact their communities and our state. And there will also be many valuable lessons learned from their campaigns that, in time, will have positive impacts. That is why the good and bad needs to be found, documented, and stand ready for the right opportunity to be used.

On a personal level, looking back on the Democratic Governors race, there was much good to appreciate. I got to know Josh Svaty and Katrina Lewison (as well as their spouses) much better and appreciate their huge potential for the future. I also got to listen to these two exceptional speakers election night, not just appropriately conceding to Senator Kelly, but also communicating their support going forward. They made it clear that the fight for a better Kansas goes on and that all Democrats must do their part. I also know there are hundreds and hundreds of Kansans across the state that feel the same and will be there to help now as well as with opportunities in the future.

The realities of our current system have made it even harder for qualified citizens to step up and offer their service. But, without good people with diverse experiences running for public office (and strong supporters working hard for something they believe in), we will never achieve the outcomes the people want and need. So to all those who have sought public office or given it serious consideration: We need you, and we need your leadership at all levels of government. The path to positive change will not always be an easy one; there will be bad days. But we must find the good in every day, and use it to drive the pursuit of progress.

0 Comments

Don’t Brag about Denying Pardon Requests, Thank the KS Judiciary

7/15/2018

0 Comments

Recently, Kansas Governor Jeff Colyer made a big deal about his "tough-on-crime" stance by, in essence, bragging about turning down inmate requests for clemency and pardon. The Topeka Capital-Journal headline read, “Governor Colyer slams door on murderers, rapist pleading for clemency.” In the Wichita Eagle, the Governor highlighted his “denial of 21 requests for pardons.” I am not questioning his decisions, but I do want to put those decisions in perspective and provide some context and history on our court system here in Kansas.

First, Governor Colyer is Kansas’ 47th, and the issues that deal with Pardons and Extraditions have been dealt with by Kansas Governors from day one. My attorney dealing with this area (memory says I had two in my eight years) spent a lot of time dealing with the huge number of requests put together by, almost without exception, jailhouse lawyers. This work gave some prisoners something to do and they were not without talent. The problem was they didn’t have the evidence to make the case. In my time, I dealt with thousands of requests and appreciated the quality of my legal team making sure there was no justification to approve the request. After eight years, I only responded positively twice. The inmates were both lifers dying of cancer with 5 or 6 months to live. They were expensive for the state to incarcerate, and their families were willing to take care of them. I commuted their sentences to a level where they were immediately eligible for parole, allowing the Parole Board—if they agreed—to release them, which they did. The very small number of releases is a large credit to our judicial system, which was established to carry out fair and impartial justice by merit-based selection of judges.

That experience has not been the same in some other states. Arkansas is an excellent example of the opposite. Governor Huckabee issued something like 8,000 plus pardons in his tenure. Was Huckabee, of all people, just letting people go to reduce the prison population? Definitely not! He, in fact, was the court of last resort in a state where the whole judiciary was caught up in politics and money. Someone had to provide justice. Other Governors of Arkansas had similar experiences.

So where am I headed? It makes a difference whether judges are selected on merit or on political and money connections. Until the Brownback-Colyer administration, Kansas had a judicial system pretty much free of politics and money. But all that has begun to change. Because the Court of Appeals Justices are not protected by the state constitution, it allowed Brownback-Colyer to successfully press the legislature to make those appointments directly by the Governor. So far, the attacks on our Supreme Court Justices have failed because of the protection of the constitution and the supportive votes of citizens in retaining the five justices up for retention in 2016. But clearly, Governor Colyer is in the camp of wanting to change the constitution to not only allow direct Governor appointments but taking the court out of playing a balancing role in the funding of public education.

The elections in August and November will go a long way in determining whether Kansas goes the Arkansas way or we maintain our historical support of justice and respect for the third and equal branch of government. Think about this before you vote. This is not just another inside the ballpark discussion that in the end doesn’t make a difference. It does. And the impacts for better or worse fall on individuals and entities standing up for a fair and independent judiciary in Kansas.

0 Comments

Issue One: Money in Politics

6/30/2018

0 Comments

What is it they say on solving crime and frequently mentioned on the various TV shows? Follow the money. Where does all that campaign money for members of Congress come from? How does it impact election results and most importantly how does it impact what Congress does or doesn’t do? In practice, we know it primarily comes from lobbyists and very wealthy citizens wanting to influence and control elected members of Congress. Because of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, there are no limits. And complementing that further is that much of that money is hidden from public view. So how do we hold our elected officials accountable? How do we know whether they represent us or greedy self interests?

Giving me some hope that the above doesn’t have to be the norm forever, a number of years ago a group was formed to help address some of the reforms so desperately needed in government. It is called the Reformers Caucus. It is made up of 200 plus former members of Congress and Governors from both parties who know from experience the necessities for change and that, without outside pressure, the changes will not be made. I joined a number of years ago. Titled Issue One, their first priority was to deal with the excessive impact of outside non transparent money influencing our politics.

“We the People of the United States,” our Constitution begins with these sacred words. The Preamble statement should remind us that the power and legitimacy of our democracy resides directly with us, its citizens. It is in that spirit that the Reformers Caucus is focused.

The priority for now is promoting transparency and disclosure. Given the Supreme Court and Citizens United using free speech as the anchor of their decision of no limits, we think the only logical change available to us at this time is making sure everything is disclosed and in a timely manner. That will allow citizens to factor in where the money is coming from in determining who they support. This would include super PACs and 501(c)(4) nonprofits.

Secondly, we want to encourage increased participation in the political process by providing incentives for small contributions. This would include allowing political parties to add together their small contributions and have no limit on how it is divided up. This would change the dynamic between large and small contributors and could help grow the political parties. Our package would also reduce Pay-to-Play by banning registered lobbyists from making contributions or becoming fundraisers for congressional campaigns. Then of course strengthening enforcement would be a necessity.

It is just a start, but the Reformers Caucus is making progress in getting Congressional support. What we need now is public pressure to really succeed. That is where you come in. Please learn more about how excess money is corrupting our democracy. You can make a difference.

0 Comments

Who Will Speak Up for American Values?

6/14/2018

0 Comments

This past week pushed me over the edge with President Trump. With his approval rating increasing, which will continue unless responsible Republicans speak out, time is running out. This last week took us to new levels of craziness. His cheap shots at leaders of countries who have been long time friends and allies, and at the same time cozying up to the brutal dictator of North Korea, will do serious damage to our respect around the world and in the process, hurt us economically as well as from a national security perspective. The same is true for his unlimited pulling out of almost every treaty-agreement we have with nations around the world. At some point, we are going to be isolated and pay a huge price for not addressing the situation now. We need to make it clear to the world that our responsible elected officials and citizens do not support this direction and are taking steps to return to sanity.

But topping it all is his clear position that he is above the law, that he can pardon just anyone including himself and in the process it would make no difference how serious the crime was or the damage to this country. He is being allowed to act as a dictator all too often, taking actions that Congress would have stood up to in the past. He is brilliant at diverting attention with all his craziness, his tweets, and willingness to do about anything that, for previous presidents, would have at least raised the issue of impeachment.

Then we get to the real problems, like how we can make positive changes for the future. Expecting the President to change as his poll numbers go up will not happen. Leaders in Washington must speak up and do so in a dramatic way that gets the attention of the American people. Senators McCain and Corker are not enough. The Constitution that so many Americans have died to protect for future generations is at risk. We need a Women's March or March for Our Lives type movement across the country that a broad set of Americans can get behind and get activated. We need Democrats in Washington going beyond the usual political stands to reach out across party lines and clearly speak up for our American values. We desperately not only need bipartisan conversation and action but also new Democratic leadership that can communicate more successfully and rally support for a better way forward.

We have heard for example from Senators Moran and Roberts at least express concerns about immigration. But their response came across to me as a statement to protect their political interests without taking any chance to offend the President. The question for Kansans is who in our delegation will really stand up for what is truly in the best interests of our state and nation? Are there political risks? Yes. But given what all is at stake, wouldn’t it be wiser to do what is right, knowing from a legacy perspective you stood up for the United States Constitution and our American values?

Like never before, it is essential that citizens speak up and take action now. In that spirit, please share and use the number to the Congressional Switchboard, (202) 225-3121, to connect by phone with our delegation. Communicating can make a difference.

0 Comments

National Press Impeding Progress

6/5/2018

0 Comments

Watching national news on any channel has become too much for me. I rationalize that there is nothing I can do, so why waste my time when there might be something of value I can do right here in Kansas. The only things the media cover that you can count on are negative stories going after someone or something and giving blanket coverage to the current resident of the White House.

The media has for most of our history played their role as an independent viewer, reporting to the people on what was happening at the local, state, national, and international levels. Although somebody was always questioning one aspect or another of their reporting, generally the media, in most cases, provided the available facts so critical for a democracy to succeed. But this seems to have changed. Journalism used to be about getting the story out. Today it is tied much more to selling advertising, getting clicks, making money, and cutting staff—particularly investigative reporters. The latter is particularly true of our newspapers here in Kansas.

We too often have news dominated by what is sensational and exciting versus what is of real importance for our future. Whatever brings in the most advertising dollars will garner the most coverage. In our current dog-eat-dog environment, I guess we shouldn’t be too surprised, but if you have grandchildren like I do, you kind of wonder what their future might be like.

As one plays with the TV remote on almost any given evening, flying through the channels just to see at a glance what might be happening, the odds are quite high that the subject matter will focus on tweets, outrageous behavior, investigations, self promotion, and the latest sensational revelation. The main question I always have is: What is going on that seldom, if ever, makes the news? Unless one takes in a lot of media—likely spending all day scrolling through the New York Times or Washington Post—you can be sure you are missing every day critical actions by the federal government where transparency would likely have altered the outcome.

In particular, the television media's fascination with covering the then-candidate and now current President has had a huge impact. They certainly gave him an advantage in the primary over much more qualified candidates and then did likewise in the general election. But now, as blanket coverage continues and his approval ratings seem to rise, we will soon be faced with a second term possibility. Either the press grows a spine and starts reporting more again on substantive issues and not who tweeted what, and the Republican Party comes to their senses, or we have even more real trouble ahead.

0 Comments

Oh, How Kansas Politics Has Changed

5/21/2018

1 Comment

With the Legislature done for the moment and heavily-contested primary battles heating up in both parties, I pause to take a look at just how much politics has changed since my first plunge into seeking elective office. When I ran in 1970 for the Kansas House of Representatives against Gary Sherrer (who was later Lt. Governor for Bill Graves), as far as I know, there was no outside involvement. I don’t think either party even knew we were running. Republicans were controlling the legislature and had since 1912 with little or no organized effort. In addition, there were no issues or differences pushed, just two candidates asking for votes and letting the people decide. Contrast that with the current 69th district, which would parallel mine in 1970, and you have both parties heavily focused on the eventual outcome.

When I ran for Governor in 1978, the closest thing to anything negative was the Republican line attacking my plan to address the soaring cost of utilities. They thought it was nothing but misleading politics or maybe something more colorful. For the record, it included taking the sales tax off utility bills at a time when rates were soaring and Wolf Creek was coming on line. Also, at that time, there was no way for the Kansas Corporation Commission to avoid either bankrupting the builders of Wolf Creek or dumping all the cost on the users. Compromise was not possible. But with legislative support that was changed, the sales tax came off utility bills, and the law was changed so a compromise could be found between the Utility and customers.

As Governor, I vetoed the death penalty four times and it was never really used against me. In the 1982 race for re-election with Sam Hartage, the main dispute was over my Severance Tax versus his increase in the gas tax. I think we would all agree that would not happen today. In my 16 years—eight in the House and eight as Governor—aside from my two years as Speaker, Republicans dominated, and yet much got done. It wasn’t without politics, and I’m sure some would think of it as a contact sport then as well, but we got things done. My major achievements had to have significant Republican support, especially all the constitutional amendments (parimutuel gambling, the lottery, liquor by the drink, property tax reform, and allowing state support for internal improvements) all of which required a ⅔ vote from both Houses to send them to the public vote (all carried by close to two to one).

In my opinion, the political change from a Kansas perspective started in the early 1990’s. Former legislator David Miller led successful efforts to install very conservative Republicans into leadership positions at the local level and then, in time, took over the state party leadership. It was the beginning of splitting the Republican Party into the Mods and far-right Conservatives. It also was the beginning of a big use of special interest money and not all of it focused on the truth.

So where are we today? For the second election in a row, Kansas has Democrats and moderate Republicans working under the banner of Save Kansas and backed by four former Governors (Hayden, Graves, Sebelius, and myself). The 2016 results were positive, electing enough new legislators to overturn the Brownback Tax Experiment and start the process of returning Kansas to the respect it has had in the past. In this election year, much of the big money will be with the far-right, playing loose with the facts. It will be up to moderate and sane Kansans to take a stand and help elect legislators willing to lead the state back to success. Oh, how much politics has changed.

Here's a throwback to an era of cooperation and bipartisanship in the Kansas Legislature. Pictured here is a lighter moment between Republican President of the Senate, Ross Doyen, and myself—the Democratic Speaker of the House.

1 Comment

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

Mutual Respect is a Critical First Step

4/7/2018

1 Comment

One of many lessons I teach students whenever the opportunity arises is the value of showing respect to anyone you seek to influence. This is particularly true in instances where you are trying to have an impact with someone who, you know in advance, vehemently disagrees with you. The reason of course is very simple. By being respectful, the conversation has potential to help get beyond your differences into learning more about your potential agreements and, ultimately, a compromise resolution to the conflict.

That is why the activism by the students of Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida (and the millions nationwide who joined them) is so impressive. I hope you had a chance to listen to some of the speakers at the D.C. rally and take note at how respectful they were of those who obviously disagree. They aren’t turning cars over or breaking laws to make their point. They are focused on the right way to truly have an impact and, so far, have put many of their adult counterparts to shame when it comes to engaging civilly without personal attacks or distractions. They are taking their case to the American people and pushing any and all who agree to make their message heard in policy-making and on election day. I hope to see their approach and their tone continue as they work to engage elected officials through town hall events and other advocacy efforts. This will have lasting implications, not only for the gun policy discussion but also for the future engagement of a generation that’s beginning to find its voice and take a more active role in shaping the world around it.

That is also why I took notice of a piece written by David Brooks of the New York Times, entitled “Trust and respect first, then compromise on gun control,” published in a recent edition of the Manhattan Mercury. I have long liked Mr. Brooks, a sound, but sane conservative from the old school, someone who is always respectful of others. In this article, he shared about a process for bringing together a mixture of far right conservatives and clear liberals, with the goal of building respect among each other. Only after that is achieved can you have any chance of working out your differences and coming to some compromise that serves the greater good.

Clearly Washington D.C. could use some help, and this seems to flow down into other levels of government and into our international relations as well. You might have noticed in representing the United States at the winter Olympics, Vice President Pence chose to totally snub the sister of the President of North Korea. Now that might at first blush seem very logical. But when you think about their growing capacity to do us serious harm, maybe a step or two of respect might have been a good investment for future successful diplomacy. But enough from me. I really want you to take time to read the Brooks article. It is most timely on a variety of fronts and if applied could make a difference in resolving, or at least taking mini steps, on some of our major challenges where there are polar differences and little or no respect for each other.

Fortunately, the task of reviving civility has received more attention in recent years (with different organizations and resources coming together), and perhaps it can gain more traction as we continue the task of strengthening our democracy for the 21st century. Each of our daily exchanges will help write the story. But the true test will be our ability to come together and solve problems—both big and small—today and into the future.

1 Comment

Robert F. Kennedy’s Stop in Kansas: 50th Anniversary

3/15/2018

1 Comment

Robert F. Kennedy Kansas State University

It turned out to be the year I took the plunge into elective politics, but on March 18th, 1968, I had no plan to run for any office beyond Smolan Township Democratic Committeeman. I remember going alone to the event and worrying on the drive there that the attendance may not be that great. After all, Kansas was not a hotbed of much left-of-center thinking and certainly not at K-State. I was puzzled at Kennedy’s decision to make Kansas a very early stop in his effort to win the Democratic nomination for President. He had only very recently shared this plan following President Johnson’s announcement that he would not seek another four year term. On reflection, it also puzzles me why Kennedy was invited to give a Landon Lecture. I can’t picture a similar event today, and certainly, in more recent times, the well-known and respected Landon Lecture Series does not invite active candidates from either party. Despite all of this, Kennedy's site selection made it clear that he planned to reach out and energize a new generation of voters and also that he was determined to compete and at least make his case in all areas of the country.

It was a pretty typical March day as I remember and certainly no bad weather to complicate things. Going to the Ahearn Fieldhouse was not new for me. I had been to most of the basketball games played there up to that time, having attended with my parents since it opened in the 1950-51 season. On that day, much to my surprise, Ahearn was jam packed, and he had the crowd with him from the very beginning of the speech. His message focused primarily on the Vietnam War and his differences with the Johnson Administration’s actions there. He admitted that, along with his brother, he had played a role in the very early actions in Vietnam. In a display of great character, he accepted responsibility for the past but also made it clear that he wanted the United States to find an appropriate exit in the future. By the time he ended, his audience would have followed him wherever he wanted to take them. It was truly amazing. After Ahearn, Kennedy went later that day to Allen Fieldhouse in Lawrence and experienced similar results, after of course sharing regards from Manhattan to the crowd at KU.

I remember talking with Dr. Jerry Marion, my dairy judging team coach, as I was leaving and how his reaction was so similar to mine. It isn’t that often that one speech can have that much impact. For me, there was only one other that could compare. At the 1976 Democratic National Convention, Congresswoman Barbara Jordan from Texas had the crowd spellbound with her powerful voice, a cadence that worked, and a message that was incredibly well-received.

Shortly after his appearance in Kansas, Kennedy was campaigning in an African American neighborhood in Indianapolis, Indiana the night Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.—who made a visit to K-State earlier that year—was assassinated. Kennedy's capacity to communicate was again tested as he had the role of sharing with the crowd the news and was able to do it in a way that did not set off similar violence to what occurred elsewhere during that difficult time.

Then, on June 5th—after winning the California Primary—Robert Kennedy was assassinated. I did not stay up to hear the final results in California but woke to the tragic news at 5:00am, as I prepared to go milk. If Bobby had lived, I believe there would have been no Watergate nor President Nixon. Bobby was very different than his older brother, President Kennedy. Bobby had deep-bedded, strong beliefs and he was passionate about getting things done. Though his presidency never came to fruition, his impact and enduring legacy remains in all those who were inspired by his message and his work. And this includes myself, as a result of one unforgettable day 50 years ago.

1 Comment

Potential NBAF Move to USDA is Alarming

3/7/2018

1 Comment

Just when you think nothing more crazy can come from the Trump Administration, you learn of something that is truly dangerous, and this one hits close to home. Through the budget sent to Congress, the Administration is recommending moving operation of the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF) from the Department of Homeland Security to the Department of Agriculture. Please don’t think of this as “inside baseball” that does not impact you or the state, or the country for that matter. It does. What makes this move particularly scary is the apparent interest in shaving some money from the operation of NBAF to help fund the Wall. Yes—the Wall. The one along our southern border. This should be a cause for great local concern, and I know from experience it will take a very united Kansas front to turn this decision around.

As a reminder, NBAF came about as a result of 9/11 and the consensus agreement that the United States had to take Homeland Security much more seriously. This was especially true in areas where much more advanced research would be necessary. For example, the unbelievably dangerous zoonotic diseases—the viruses that can move from animals to humans—need much more attention. In 2001, the research being done in this area was happening at Plum Island off the east coast, under the control of the Department of Agriculture, with a focus only on animal disease research. At the time, that structural organization made sense. But, after 9/11, decision makers focused on the new national security threats (particularly bioterrorism and attacks on our food systems) wisely decided to build the new facility under the leadership and management of the newly-formed Department of Homeland Security. In substance and common sense, the location decision has not changed since.

Just think for a moment about the problems that will likely evolve. The current facility construction is handled through private contracts but closely watched by Homeland Security staff. Many of whom, one would assume, will continue to work at the facility to help wisely and safely oversee the many incredibly dangerous research projects that will follow. Now, one can say that is not a real problem. Just move the staff. Yes, but how many will follow and how well will Agriculture manage and fund them? Keep in mind, Ag has crop insurance and food assistance programs that always generate intense interest and questions when it comes to budgeting. Will NABF face operational cuts in order to satisfy those other legitimate needs? And remember, it looks pretty clear that the Administration is moving to get their money for the wall by shifting the dollars from existing current needs within Homeland Security to fund wall construction.

I have yet to talk to anyone who thinks this makes sense. There is very little public awareness or much communication coming from any Kansas elected official. At the very least, we should—in a united fashion—push back, ask the tough questions, and insist upon full disclosure of all the facts. I’ve tried to think of a comparison that could help put this into perspective. For me, this would be akin to moving the K-State women's basketball coaching staff to the football program to squeeze money for something totally unrelated and ill-fated—like building a wall along the Colorado border as a way to keep the drugs from coming our way.

This decision merits serious discussion at all levels—local, state, and federal. The strategy that helped Kansas successfully attract the NBAF facility was based on a strong, united Kansas voice on the matter. Elected officials from both parties and all levels of government agreed that this facility was in the best interest of the state and the region, and their support was backed by strategic investments in things like the Kansas Bioscience Authority (which was dealt its final blow by the Brownback Administration in 2016) to help spur the growth of a new industry around this important area for research and development. All together, this helped prove that Kansas was serious about the prospects of the federal facility and also that we were ready to make the necessary decisions to ensure its future safety and success. That Kansas voice must, once again, be raised on the issue—this time, in support of a sane way forward for NBAF.

1 Comment

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

2 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.

2 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

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

<<Previous

A Plea to Senator Roberts

Governor Kelly Will Take on a Long List of Challenges for Kansas

Memories of President George H.W. Bush

Doubling Down on Climate Denial

BAM: A Qualified Kansan for Secretary of State

A Labor Day Salute to Missouri Voters

Something Good in Every Day

Don’t Brag about Denying Pardon Requests, Thank the KS Judiciary

Issue One: Money in Politics

Who Will Speak Up for American Values?

National Press Impeding Progress

Oh, How Kansas Politics Has Changed

Kansas Gubernatorial Debates and Forums: 2018 Primary Election

Mutual Respect is a Critical First Step

Robert F. Kennedy’s Stop in Kansas: 50th Anniversary

Potential NBAF Move to USDA is Alarming

Can Democrats Avoid “Eating Their Own” in 2018?

Ready or Not, Campaign Season is Here

Much at Stake for Kansas in 2018

Big Money's Influence on Government

Author

Categories

Facebook

Twitter

Subscribe