Blog Posts

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

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

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

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

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

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

0 Comments

Final Stretch of the 2018 Legislative Session

4/26/2018

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

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

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

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

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

0 Comments

Kansas Gubernatorial Debates and Forums: 2018 Primary Election

4/17/2018

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

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

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

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

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

Social Security: A Third Rail of American Politics

2/22/2018

Recently, I got my official message from the federal government about the modest Social Security cost of living increase that I am receiving in 2018. This got me thinking again about the program’s significant value for my parents and what help it has already been for me and millions of other Americans. But when I think ahead and try picturing how it will impact future generations, I really worry whether Social Security will even be there.

Why do I say this? Well, for starters, we have a tug-of-war between Republicans and Democrats in Washington D.C. Republicans generally talk about how reform is needed, but they focus on privatizing the program, and in the end, certainly reducing its value to senior citizens. The Democrats vigorously defend the program as is, fearing any offer of adjustment will be misinterpreted as anti-Social Security with a political price that will be paid at the next election. Put another way, Social Security is the third rail, the one that can kill you, in this case politically.

Here is how I see it from my limited mathematical skills. Early in the history of the Social Security Program there were many more workers contributing to the program than there were retirees benefitting. That, I believe, is generally understood. It is also true that the balance between workers and retirees has dramatically shifted and will continue to do so as we are tending to live longer and longer lives. Families are smaller and relatively speaking there are fewer workers paying into social security.

This shifting balance is not a totally new phenomenon. In the 1980’s, when work could get done across party lines, Democratic Speaker Tip O'Neill and Republican President Reagan worked together to make adjustments that extended the life of the program. That is not the environment today and, consequently, my concerns about the future escalate. Obviously, any change will face stern opposition. What the Democrats need to understand is that the opponents to social security win by doing nothing. And for now they tend to win easily because the Dems see only scarry results from taking any action.

For me as a realist, I think a couple of what would seem to be modest changes, could really extend the life of the Social Security program before it is too late. Taxing a higher income number and making modest eligibility adjustments would, for now and sometime into the future, get the job done. This is what was done in the 80's. The problem is that making any changes requires going back to a time when doing right was more important than a political chess move.

Bottom line, the good news is that we, in general, are living much longer. The bad news is it could be accompanied by the end of Social Security as we know it for millions who will desperately need it.

0 Comments

The Use of "Alternative Facts" in Kansas School Finance

2/1/2018

Last week, "alternative facts" on school finance were sought by some leaders of the Kansas Legislature to help them meet the funding goal set by the Kansas Supreme Court. To say the least, this has certainly caused a real concern and rightfully so. Alternative facts have been a huge issue for sometime in Washington. For example, prior to recent times, the non-partisan Congressional Research Services was clearly the go-to place for analysis of any subject tied to action or potential action by the Congress of the United States. That changed sometime back when very conservative members of Congress wanted analyses to be more to their liking. With the ability to use their own facts, it was much easier to accomplish their agenda. Remember the Congressional Budget Office and their analysis of the implementation of the Affordable Care Act and how it was dismissed without even a look because it did not represent what some members of Congress wanted?

Now it appears this practice is coming to Kansas and the legislature. We’ve dealt with ALEC (an organization that drafts legislation to be introduced that is clearly slanted to the far-right’s interests) for years. The funding for such work goes back to Americans for Prosperity and the Koch Brothers who have also helped elect legislators anxious to do their bidding. But this direction moved into totally new territory when legislative leaders sought outside consultants to evaluate the current funding of public schools and, given who they sought out, it is likely to be a shot back at the Supreme Court and Dale Dennis. Dale Dennis has for many many years headed up the school finance area for the Kansas State Board of Education and, in doing so, has huge support.

The practical side of all of this is that if the various interests in any given challenge can not agree on the basic facts to be used to work out their differences, final resolution will be much, much more difficult. Historically, Kansas has been a model of quality legislative research staff and revisors who legislators could work with to draft legislation and provide expert testimony to legislative committees. That started to change some time ago, but this move to discredit Dale Dennis and to reach out to a known right wing consultant, goes way over the top.

That is why former Governors (Hayden, Graves, Sebelius, and myself) sent a clear message of support for Dale Dennis to the Board of Education in advance of their meeting last Friday. They were to decide whether to implement the setting aside of Dale Dennis, discrediting him to the point that the Attorney General was asked to look into fraud. Thankfully, the board voted (9 to 1) in favor of Dale Dennis, rejecting the request of Republican legislative leaders.

In a recent blog post, I wrote about how difficult the challenge of satisfying the court's ruling on school finance will be. But when you add into that the use of alternative facts, the challenge goes to a whole new level, increasing the chance of a real constitutional crisis over funding schools in Kansas. Decisions that are this important require us to operate from the same set of facts.

1 Comment

Ready or Not, Campaign Season is Here

1/24/2018

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

The 2018 Legislative Session and School Finance

1/18/2018

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

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

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

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

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

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

0 Comments

Much at Stake for Kansas in 2018

1/4/2018

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

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

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

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

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

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

2 Comments

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

12/18/2017

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

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

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

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

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

0 Comments

Alabama Says, "Enough."

12/13/2017

For the country, last night’s results in Alabama could at some point down the road be looked at as the starting point of this country getting its act together. Yes, it was a victory for Jones over Moore. But most importantly, it was how this happened, how in the reddest of red states a Democrat could win against all odds. Moore had the President, the money, and the pressure from Republicans in general who understandably want to hold on to the majority in the Senate. Yet, the people of Alabama stood up for decency and rejected all that Moore represents in these challenging times. So how did it happen?

First of all, Jones was as good a candidate Democrats could have come up with for this race. He raised enough money to get his message out. He had apparently a great campaign staff. But the key was how he ran the campaign and the message he took to the whole state of Alabama. He worked the entire state, going into every county and organizing in those areas that most Democrats had been leaving alone. And his message was consistently moderate and more centrist. But most importantly, he made it clear he ran and will serve committed to getting things done, reaching across the aisle, avoiding as much as possible special interest politics, and staying on the issues the folks of Alabama raised as he campaigned.

The question now is will both parties learn from this and follow his general lead for the best interests of the country. The message I believe was clear for Democrats in 2018. Go to wherever the people are with your message but also listen. Keep the message focused less on ideological battles or wedge issues and more focused on the real changes the people want and need, remain committed to getting things accomplished (including working across the aisle to do so), and always look out for what would be best for the people you want to represent. For Republicans, their loss might just free them up to some extent from extremist politics. Just maybe the message might get through to the President that—as we've learned in Kansas—even lifelong Republicans can be pushed too far to the policy and rhetorical fringes and begin to demand better. But what would be really great, for example, would be Mitt Romney taking on Hatch (in his 80’s and lost in extremism) in Utah and the country getting a sane, smart conservative that would only do it to get things done. It seems to me that a return to balanced, reasonable debate would not only benefit the country’s general discourse but also result in better policy on behalf of the people.

How this really works out, no one knows for sure. But at least for now there is a little hope that the country can say, “enough is enough” to the politics of disrespect and division.

2 Comments

Another Unfortunate Step In Tax Law Overhaul

12/5/2017

Very late last Friday night, the United States Senate passed their plan to overhaul U.S. tax law. This takes us a step closer to the President’s signature and, in so doing, it becomes very clear that they voted primarily on faith. Neither side of the isle knew for sure what all was in the massive bill. And, most importantly, the American public have no idea what was offered and buried somewhere to get the final votes Majority Leader McConnell needed. Remember there were no real hearings and quality time invested in sorting out what would be best for the American people. Movement was primarily driven by doing whatever to get the votes to pass this monster along so the President can have at least one major victory in his first year.

The next step is reconciliation and working out the differences with the House version, passed much earlier where Speaker Ryan had much less trouble lining up the troops for the necessary votes. Technically, it is always possible the bill can be improved in this process, but don’t hold your breath. Republicans in Washington are hell bent on helping the very rich with permanent cuts and teasing the middle class with benefits that will go away in a few years.

Despite the image of listening to their constituents and the hard work of many Kansans to get their messages of concern across, the entire Kansas delegation is lined up to vote for the bill—regardless of solid arguments being made and overwhelming evidence of the failure of a similarly-minded law in their own state. Also, what happened to Republican concerns about the massive increases in the national debt? When you are talking about trillions one would think that would become quite a concern. Now I know there were some saying that was not going to happen, but they seemed to be on the side of wanting the bill to pass. Respected independent analysts were consistent in their major deficit concern. It seems fiscal responsibility is no longer a Republican value.

In reading the follow-up analysis of what this tax bill could end up doing, a couple of changes got my attention. One was taxing the tuition waivers that graduate students receive for participating in various teaching and research assistantships and, in the process, making it much more difficult to advance their education. Another was a proposal that undermined a research and development tax credit many companies use to encourage innovation. I still don’t know all the details and the implications, but it seems to me that reducing the graduate student population and taking away incentives for innovation will only make it even more difficult for us to compete around the world.

But it appears we do want to give the wealthiest of our citizens and companies tax breaks that help their bottom line but will have little or no help for adding jobs and salary increases for workers. This will not change until voters see through this cash grab for the rich and start voting for their own interests. Until then, the moneyed elites will prevail, to the detriment of our country’s future.

2 Comments

The Republicans' Crazy Tax Reform Effort and Why

11/17/2017

3 Comments

I know that following the tax reform legislation in Washington is not high on very many people's list for the coming holiday season. I would normally fit into that pattern myself, but this tax reform package at this time is beyond the pale. Just when you think it can’t get crazier, out comes a new twist that takes crazy to a new level. Politics is driving the reform effort—not sound tax policy or concerns for shrinking the deficit or growing the middle class. To those who think that is just a political comment, I wish it was. Republicans are now under pressure to not just give the President a long sought-after win but, most importantly, deliver to the rich and large corporate interests an unbelievable tax break.

Why are the Republicans doing this? It is primarily driven by reelection concerns. The main motivation for doing something so indefensible is the fear of a primary opponent funded by the far-right and billionaire contributors who want their tax break. These big money folks are just getting into really using their power, thanks to the Supreme Court and Citizens United, which opened up the floodgates to unlimited spending on political campaigns. Campaigns were expensive before, but now they are off the charts and we are starting to see the real results.

The tax plan as it is now, which will likely continue to change, will include rolling in Republican’s earlier failed effort to repeal Obamacare (ACA). Remember the earlier efforts, opposed by every component of the health industry, with all sorts of changes that Americans oppose in significant numbers? These changes are now apparently back up for consideration. Keep in mind that this is being done at a time when sign up for the ACA is higher than ever before, despite the Administration's every effort to discourage enrollment.

Now in fairness there are a few good parts, like tax credits for child care, in this tax reform package, and it is no surprise our Kansas Congressional Delegation is pushing these parts as their primary defense in supporting this reckless legislation. What makes their support most difficult to understand is as Kansas Republicans they should know one of their own, Governor Sam Brownback, tried this tax reform policy only to become one of the most disliked Governors in the country. It just goes to show how big money can drive common sense off the table.

The only way we get tax reform that can really benefit the American people is from a process that is more open to public involvement, where objective experts can publicly testify, and where bipartisanship is a component. Tax reform is an area that is unbelievably difficult even when it is done correctly. But, without input and some votes from the minority party, it just means when the minority party is back in power, their number one priority will be to repeal the law they all opposed when they were in the minority. It didn't use to be that way when we elected the likes of Dole and Kassebaum.

It is probably too late to communicate to our delegation and expect any positive results when our earlier messages were just dismissed. But we can remember come election time, who they represented with their votes and remind them at every opportunity that we know where they stand, and it is not with the vast majority of Kansans.

3 Comments

Veterans Day: A Celebration to Take More Seriously

11/10/2017

This Saturday will once again be Veterans Day: a day we should take much more seriously. We owe much to the men and women who have and are currently serving in our armed forces and who gave or risked their lives for the defense of this country and all that it represents. But, all-too-often, Veterans Day is just another holiday when most Americans go to work as usual or, this year, just another weekend with the usual activities. There will be some parades and special events, but in reality these won’t involve that many of our citizens. Consequently, there is not public support necessary to put pressure on Washington to address the many challenges our veterans face today.

Our defense budget is equal to much of the rest of the world’s defense put together. In that respect, we are the most powerful country in the world. But the Social Progress Index for 2015, ranking how we stand worldwide as a country in terms of taking care of people in need, puts the United States 16th. We are 30th in life expectancy, 38th in saving children’s lives, a humiliating 55th in women surviving childbirth, and the embarrassing list goes on. This is the environment our new veterans come home to, in many cases, with incredible needs that are not adequately funded.

We remember the World War II generation of veterans, “the greatest generation,” with fondness and rightfully so. This is true not only because of their success and sacrifice, but for the positive impacts around the world that followed. The veterans of the Vietnam War had a totally different experience. Controversy surrounded decisions to get involved and certainly also on how and when to get out. Our fractured country failed in many ways to appreciate the sacrifice that thousands and thousands of our young men and women made. The Ken Burns documentary on the Vietnam War certainly makes it clear that it was those at the top of the chain of command making mistake after mistake that had such great detrimental influence on thousands and thousands of lives.

Iraq and Afghanistan are totally different. Men and women signed up to do the job, and it left an environment where most Americans today, without the draft, operate as if we are totally removed. Politically, at the time, members of both parties supported President George W. Bush in making the decision to engage. Now we have North Korea as our new national security challenge, all while our elected officials have turned Washington into a political circus. It used to be that politics stopped at the water’s edge, and the country’s interests were put first. Now the rhetoric is viciously partisan, making it difficult to get any consensus including on responsibility to provide our veterans with what they have earned.

Hopefully this Saturday we can pause for two reasons. One: to appreciate all that our veterans have done for this country, and two: to commit to doing what we, as individual citizens, can do to communicate to the President and the Congress that our veterans deserve much better. This will not happen until we the people engage, cast intelligent votes, and help rescue our wonderful country.

0 Comments

Big Money's Influence on Government

11/6/2017

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

Karl Weissenbach: A Great Public Servant

11/2/2017