Category: Historical Perspective

Turning the Page on Reckless Tax Policy

3/25/2019

When I left office in January of 1987, there was a very balanced tax structure in place for Kansas. That system was passed and supported by a Republican-led majority in the Legislature. At the time, the understanding was that this tax plan would fund future needs and, during good years, allow the state to set aside funds for when the economy declined. Then, in the 90’s, the popularity of tax cuts started, and it's tied to the beginning of the Republican Party shift from Eisenhower’s sane, well-thought-out conservative investments to an anti-government and tax-cut philosophy at every opportunity.

Today's Republican Party has gone from one that supports making investments, like education and infrastructure, as carefully and conservatively as possible, while still getting done what needs to be done, to no longer caring at both the state and national level. For the far-right Republicans, which include true believers as well as those just afraid of a primary at the next election, it is as much as anything an anti-government philosophy. Working nicely with that thinking is of course tax cuts, particularly for the rich who fund politics in this direction.

Sound conservative thinking used to include wisely investing in key areas necessary for the good of the people and solid commerce. In the end, underfunding costs the taxpayers more. Why? Getting behind on road and highway maintenance just guarantees higher costs. Not investing in our children at an early age only leads to lives under utilized and more expenses. Communities that do not find or have the resources for dealing with legitimate human needs are not where people who have options want to live, which leads to higher taxes and less in return for those who have to stay behind.

And now in the current Kansas Legislature, some Republicans are trying to take advantage of a new national tax law to pass along another state tax break that primarily benefits the rich. We need to fund public education at a responsible and constitutional level, at least avoid further cuts to higher education to limit tuition increases, and get back to taking care of our infrastructure. On top of this, we continually turn down federal money for Medicaid expansion, something so desperately needed and wanted by many.

How did this happen? As I stated earlier, the shift started at the beginning of the 90’s. One thing for sure, you have to give credit to these early movers and shakers. They knew what they were doing and they started at the grassroots of Republican politics. They were patient, knowing this seismic shift would take time. But, most important, they were great at framing their message, using the right words to be most effective. To turn this around, some of these same skills need to be used by Democrats and moderate Republicans to patiently return Kansas to wisely investing in the future, and it must start now to make sure 2020 results in more steps in the right direction.

And, knowing the many issues and priorities we have as a state, Governor Kelly rightfully vetoed the latest attempt to take Kansas back down the road of reckless and ineffective tax policy. Now it’s up to us—the people of Kansas—to make clear to legislators that we’re ready to turn the page on these policies for good and move towards a stronger, more stable future for our state.

Kansas Senate Chamber [KPR]

1 Comment

China: Yesterday and Tomorrow

3/12/2019

1 Comment

January 1979 and my first day on the job as Governor of Kansas, I found on my desk an invitation for my predecessor Governor Bennett to go to China. He chose to wait to respond until he thought he would be re-elected in November 1978. That didn’t work out for him but it gave me a huge opening, and I quickly saw it as an excellent opportunity for Kansas and our future. The decision was made possible because Presidents Nixon and Carter made decisions to take advantage of China’s interest in opening up to the outside world. Kansas was the third state to take advantage.

So, in August 1979, I led a Kansas Trade Delegation to China to take the first step in promoting business opportunities. Some of the time was spent enjoying the things they wanted us to see, like the Great Wall. It too was built to keep invaders out, the difference being Chinese built it, paid for it, and from their perspective had a real purpose in keeping a real enemy out. Because of its massive depth, it not only served as a path to move troops and supplies but is one of the very few world objects that can be seen from the moon.

To describe where China was in 1979, a comparison on infrastructure and technology might best make the point. Here in the United States, we were finishing the Interstate Highway System proposed by President Eisenhower. In China, I was riding on dirt roads from one major city to another. Our space program was well underway while they were still recovering from years of backward Communist Leadership where much of the talent was put into restrictive camps to limit their possibility of leading change.

But there were many positives to see as well. Their wheat varieties were pretty amazing, as timing allowed us to see the crops shortly before harvest. The Chinese were creative to say the least. Gas from human waste was piped back into the living area for cooking purposes. I saw chickens fed and grown out on concrete covered with sawdust, which was along with the chicken feces collected, put in what looked like glass milk bottles, and used to produce a very special mushroom. The spirit of cultural exchange and discovery during those trips fueled an unforgettable engagement that I hope came to benefit all parties involved.

The video above features media coverage from the trip. Special thanks to Larry Hatteberg, the reporter covering the delegation, for providing archived footage from 1979 and the follow-up visit in 1984.

Forty years have passed since my first trip to China, and the view of China on later visits (I went back in 1984, '86, and '88 as a private citizen) to now, as well as their projected path forward, are difficult to believe but certainly true and should be alarming for our elected leaders. David Brooks in a recent article in the New York Times wrote, “China aims to dominate high-tech by 2025,” and from my experience, that seems realistic. Brooks’ article points out their aggressive plans that, yes, include stealing some of our technology but outlines the overall reality we must address. As an example, we struggle to have any mass transit in the United States, while they have a 200 mile-an-hour Bullet Train from Beijing to Shanghai. China has also taken significant action on climate change, an area where U.S. vision and leadership is sorely lacking. If only we spent less time stoking the flames of a harmful and ongoing “trade war” and more time on level-headed engagement, we may find better relations and improved outcomes for both countries.

Meanwhile, if we don’t—as a country—learn soon that we cannot borrow our way to prosperity and that we must wisely invest in the research, technology, and infrastructure we need to compete, it will be China who is in the position for the 21st century that the United States held throughout the 20th century. Smart conservatives invest wisely. That is true in Kansas as well, as education and taking care of our infrastructure will dictate our future.

This is a photo of myself and Governor He on his visit to Kansas in 1985. The opportunity was part of the continued engagement that took place after my second trip to China in 1984, where we visited Henan Provence.

1 Comment

Kansas Democrats and the Road to 2020

2/24/2019

2 Comments

March 1st and 2nd will be the Kansas Democratic Party’s annual Washington Days convention in Topeka. There will rightfully be much positive attention on the Kelly-Rogers administration and Congresswoman Sharice Davids who won the 3rd Congressional District. New officers for the Party will also be elected, decisions which will have a huge impact on the success of the Party in 2020. The entire Kansas Legislature will be up for election as well as four Congressional seats and the United States Senate seat being vacated by Senator Roberts.

Presidential election years provide impacts that, for the most part, we have no input into. The popularity of a Republican incumbent President and how much the Democratic candidate excites Kansas Democrats to get out and vote impacts the down ballot races. I’m convinced that Jimmy Carter's popularity with Kansas Democrats in 1976 was a key factor in gaining the majority in the Kansas House and the opportunity for me to become Speaker. Then there is the far right of the Republican Party remaining a force, particularly in Republican Primaries. Their successes in more politically balanced districts are our opportunities. But whether we take advantage will depend on several factors.

The Kansas Democratic Party needs to start with recruiting good candidates who will develop a well-thought out plan that has been tested and who will work really, really hard in their districts. I am observing signs that, more and more, younger Kansans are starting to see the necessity that they engage. This can have an enormous impact on the candidates we recruit and the voters we can work to mobilize. I see legislators like Tim Hodge, State Representative from Newton, as an excellent example of what is possible in very Republican districts with hard work and an efficient strategy. Now we need to find those candidates from a very diverse pool of possibilities that fit that mold and concentrate on where it is realistic we can win. That process, if not already in action, should start now.

It also requires us to understand the math issues. Democrats are a minority party in Kansas, and that will not soon change. This means we need to recruit candidates that not only appeal to the broad spectrum of Democrats but have the potential to reach out and attract the Independent and Republicans votes needed to win. Keep in mind, winning is important. We don’t just do all of this because we enjoy politics. Kansas has real problems that need to be addressed.

Certainly, Democrats need to stick together—understand and appreciate that a fractured party guarantees losing. This doesn’t mean we can’t have differences. We do, and that will not change. The point is, we can’t let those differences keep us from being united in our mission to help this great state. That is certainly true when the majority of Republicans vote with the far right because of either philosophy or fear.

On Saturday, March 2nd, the Kansas Democratic Party will select their leaders for the next two years. Although I am not involved this year and do not know who the candidates are, I do hope that what I have shared here represents the thinking of a majority of the delegates and the leaders they select. Achieving real success in 2020 is not just for our party but for the future we want for Kansas.

Photo from the Inauguration of Governor Laura Kelly [Chris Neal/The Capital-Journal]

2 Comments

Time to End Government Shutdowns, For Good

1/26/2019

0 Comments

The longest government shutdown in US history has finally come to an end, at least for now. But the pain this all has caused to our federal workforce and the damage done to our nation’s economy and image around the world cannot be undone. In the next three weeks, we can hope to see some movement on a compromise that satisfies both sides and leads to a longer-term funding bill. And I’m especially glad that we can have the debate the country needs to have, in the place where these decisions should be made (within the legislative process), and on the terms it deserves—without using federal workers and government services as pawns in the political negotiation. It’s also my hope that, after the immediate business is handled, this situation leads us to take a hard look at the practice of routine government shutdowns and take action to make this one the last of its kind.

Studies show that 80% of our families live paycheck-to-paycheck. Lack of savings leads to an inability to pay for much, which then impacts many small businesses who also live on an ongoing cash flow. You can’t spend what you don’t have. Federal workers and contractors suffer greatly every time a shutdown happens. And we cannot overlook the long-term damage to the federal workforce from the level of disrespect being shown towards government service and the further exodus of qualified employees who are forced to seek work (and more certainty) elsewhere. In total, the negative economic impacts will continue to pile up, as economists further assess the damage left behind and the total cost to the economy, all of which amounted to nothing but an unfortunate political stunt by President Trump.

The shutdown highlighted the mess we have in Washington. Key issues—climate change, the national debt, and ticking time bombs all around the world—are getting little or no attention. Instead, we fight over a 5 billion dollar wall the President wants that even many Republicans in Congress do not. I can assure you Presidents Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and “W” would have not pushed issues for which the public and even their own party had serious reservations.

And such actions certainly do not help our image around the world, when at the same time we have abandoned all other nations on dealing with climate change. Our approach to securing much needed trade deals seems to be “our way or the highway.” A win-win approach almost always goes into deals that get finalized, serving the best interests of both parties and the American people. Additionally, we are much better off economically when our world partners are prospering too. I fear the practice of shutting down government only emboldens those who support this kind of approach to deal-making, and we should all be wary of the precedent we risk setting by making hostage-taking a normal tool for negotiation in Congress.

In the end, this shutdown ended because the cost to the country finally became a substantive political cost to President Trump, to the point where the President himself began to take notice. The onslaught of concerns over the delivery of basic government services and the security of the American public began to pile up and, eventually, boil over—even among some of President Trump’s staunchest supporters. I’ve always said that, in the end, voters can have real influence but political leaders need to know their concerns and the facts around the issues. So maybe this was an example of that process finally playing out, and it might even help to make the scope and impact of government more real and tangible for more Americans. And, perhaps, we can all agree to view our public employees as the do-er’s of the people’s business and treat them with respect and confidence.

The past 35 days have clearly demonstrated that the practice of shutting down government serves no one. And, while it’s true that this shutdown has brought about no tangible gain, it may have brought an opportunity. It is my sincere hope that we can use this unfortunate event to find a bipartisan solution, legislatively or otherwise, to take future shutdowns off the table and seek better ways to resolve our political disagreements without inflicting such unnecessary harm on the country.

0 Comments

A Plea to Senator Roberts

1/19/2019

3 Comments

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

<<Previous

Turning the Page on Reckless Tax Policy

China: Yesterday and Tomorrow

Kansas Democrats and the Road to 2020

Time to End Government Shutdowns, For Good

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

Author

Categories

Facebook

Twitter

Subscribe