Dear Friends -

Let’s not kid ourselves – these are tough times for Kansas families and businesses! And now, more than ever, Kansas desperately needs moderate voices in legislative leadership positions to help get us through this crisis.

I’m running for re-election to the Kansas Senate because Kansas needs to retain these moderate voices if it is to continue to be an attractive place for families to live and businesses to conduct commerce. I’ve been one of those moderate voices in the Kansas Legislature who has consistently fought for critical investments in our public schools and state infrastructure to protect and grow jobs so that both Kansas families and businesses would flourish.

As the ranking minority member on both the Senate Assessment and Taxation and Commerce committees, I’ve sponsored and supported thoughtful and effective policy for both Kansas families and businesses. Given the economic challenges our state is facing, it is imperative that I return to the Kansas Senate to continue to make meaningful and positive contributions to the state of Kansas and its citizens.

You have a key role to play in our march towards victory in November 2012! A contribution of $50, $25, or other amount would help me to meet my financial requirements for successfully retaining my Senate seat. Your
contribution would be most helpful and deeply appreciated!

Wishing you the very happiest of holidays,

Tom

During my nine years of serving in the Kansas legislature, I have never seen a legislative session such as the one we are currently in where workers’ rights have been under a sustained attack. From cutting unemployment benefits to stripping classified workers of due process protections, the Kansas Legislature has turned a cold shoulder to Kansas workers. The assault continued last week when business interests came before the Senate Commerce Committee to advocate for so-called “paycheck
protection” legislation that amounts to nothing more than an unconstitutional stifling of the political voices of union employees.

House Bill 2130 as passed by the House would make it unlawful for any union member, professional or public employee to voluntarily have deductions taken out of their paycheck for political activities. The bill would also prohibit public employees from endorsing candidates for state or local office. The Kansas National Education Association (KNEA), and the Kansas Organization of State Employees (KOSE) were primary targets of this crushing legislation. Both organizations have been very active in Kansas politics.

Proponents in support of the legislation indicated that the purpose of the bill is to “get government out of the political process”. They believe that “government should not be involved in supporting any organization’s political activities, regardless of their merit”. They went on to state that “banning payroll deductions for political speech similarly furthers the government’s legitimate interest in distinguishing between internal government operations and private speech”.

In fact, this bill would directly inject government INTO the political process by hindering the free political speech of union members without any such restrictions to corporations and other membership organizations. The Supreme Court has recently spoken rather forcefully on this issue, coming down foursquare for First Amendment political speech in the recent Citizens United V. FEC case. In its ruling the court specifically extended political free speech to “corporations, unions and any other groups, foreign or domestic in citizenship or allegiance”. This bill also runs into trouble as it is plainly trying to discriminate against a particular viewpoint (i.e. – against that of union employees) as the bill makes no attempt to control or regulate employees making automatic payroll deductions to corporate PACs. First Nat’l Bank of Boston v. Bellotti also suggests constitutional problems (“Especially where . . . the legislature’s suppression of speech suggests an attempt to give one side of a debatable public question an advantage in expressing its views to the people, the First Amendment is plainly offended”).

I find it incredibly ironic that those who would normally clamor for less government intrusion and adherence to free market principles would turn right around and use the cudgel of government to stifle the political free speech of those that they disagree with. Like the marketplace of products and services, there is also a marketplace of political ideas. Let’s let the consumers of political thought have access to all viewpoints and decide for themselves what is best.

From erecting security border fencing and walls to increasing the number of temporary worker permits to providing a pathway to citizenship, federal politicians continue to offer a variety of solutions addressing illegal immigration. I have always believed that it is imperative that we as American citizens dialogue and develop consensus on the underlying causes of illegal immigration so that our federally elected officials can be held accountable to honestly and effectively address this issue.

Illegal immigrants come to the U.S. for jobs. The Pew Hispanic Center has estimated that there were approximately 11.2 million illegal immigrants living in the U.S. in March 2010 with approximately 8 million illegal immigrants in the work force. This means that illegal immigrants currently make up approximately 5 % of the U.S. work force, with one out of every twenty workers in America being an illegal immigrant. And this phenomenon comes with a hefty price tag. A study published by George Borjas, a professor of economics and social policy at Harvard University, concluded that by increasing the supply of labor between 1980 and 2000, immigration reduced the average annual earnings of U.S.-born men by an estimated $1,700 or roughly 4 percent. He also found that among U.S.-born men without a high school diploma (approximately the poorest tenth of the U.S. workforce), the estimated impact was even larger, reducing their wages by 7.4 percent.

I have consistently maintained that the only way we will ever reduce this significant pool of illegal labor is by having the U.S. government aggressively 1) protect its borders and 2) identify and sanction those employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants. Given the federal government’s continued inaction on the issue, however, states across the country are implementing their own solutions. This year I have sponsored legislation (SB 181) that would require both Kansas governmental entities and
Kansas businesses who receive government contracts to use the Department of Homeland Security’s E-Verify system to verify the employment eligibility of new hires starting on or after January 1st, 2012. The purpose of the bill is to begin putting employers on notice that purposefully hiring illegal immigrants will no longer be tolerated.

The Kansas Legislature has a rather dubious record on this issue. Despite a number of bills introduced since the 2003 session (a number of which I have sponsored or co-sponsored), the legislature has failed to toughen existing penalties that are widely perceived as being weak and ineffective. The legislature did, however, make some progress during 2006 by passing misclassification legislation I sponsored that assists the Kansas Department of Revenue in identifying those companies that purposefully mis-classify workers as independent contractors instead of W-2 employees (a prevalent business practice for those firms employing illegal immigrants). The bill allows the Department to charge those violators with penalties and interest for not reporting and paying state income tax withholdings. Given Kansas citizens’ concerns regarding illegal immigration, I am hopeful that E-Verify will finally become part of the state’s hiring practices this year.

There will always be those who would try to use illegal immigration as a means for simply fanning American fears and prejudices against immigrants. If we want to get serious about stopping illegal immigration, however, we must instead focus our attention on fellow U.S. citizens who knowingly or intentionally hire illegal immigrants. We simply cannot tolerate those deliberate business practices that slowly but surely undermine the economic aspirations and potential of Kansan working men and women.

In his State of the State speech last month, Governor Brownback said that one of his administration’s top priorities is to protect Kansas families. “Kansans are can-do people. We take care of each other, even when circumstances are difficult, as they surely are now. We help those in need,” he remarked.

Unfortunately, a bill approved by the Senate last week directly contradicts that message. Senate Bill 77, which was introduced on behalf of Brownback’s newly-appointed Labor Secretary, raises unemployment taxes on Kansas employers, reinstates the waiting week and eliminates trailing spouse benefits for non-military families.

All totaled, SB77 eliminates more than $13 million in annual unemployment compensation. And while it begins to replenish our UI Trust Fund, it does nothing to address those Kansas employers who have paid out nearly seven times more in unemployment benefits than they have contributed.

Because claims were initially processed manually, a “waiting week” was necessary at one time. But there is no logical reason to have a delay in benefits in today’s computer age – which is exactly why the Legislature eliminated it in 2007. Reinstating the waiting week only serves to keep needed benefits out of the hands of out-of-work Kansans and prevents those who are out of work less than 26 weeks from receiving benefits they’re rightfully due.

Eliminating “trailing spouse” benefits will make it more difficult for families to stay together when one spouse has been transferred out of the region. It sends a terrible message to Kansans about the value we place on family and marriage; and it is a step backward for thousands of Kansans trying to balance the needs of work and family.

Kansas’ home mortgage foreclosure rate is at a sobering 7 percent, while our unemployment rate is at 6.8 percent. Kansas families are in need right now!

Now is not the time to eliminate benefits that unemployed workers rely on to survive. Now is not the time to turn our backs on the promises we made to the people of Kansas.

In his State of the State Address last month, Governor Brownback emphasized a need to restructure state government, stating “the days of ever expanding government are over – and under my administration, they will not return.” The governor has subsequently signed 34 Executive Reorganization Orders (EROs), needed to combine or eliminate state agencies.

In light of our tight revenue projections, state agencies must be scrutinized. Their missions, policies, and processes must all be thoroughly reviewed to ensure that our state is operating as efficiently as possible. That’s why I support the Governor’s proposals to eliminate Kansas, Inc. and move the Kansas Health Policy Authority (KHPA) back under the Executive branch.

As a director on Kansas Inc.’s Board, I have had the opportunity to work with their management team and am impressed with the quality work they do. But I have always felt that their mission was much better served by the Kansas Department of Commerce.

I also believe that KHPA never should have been its own agency in the first place. In 2005, then-Governor Sebelius proposed that KHPA exist under the Kansas Department of Health and Environment. Instead, the legislature chose to set KHPA up as a separate entity outside of the Executive branch.

While these changes will eliminate inefficiencies and improve responsiveness, I have serious reservations about a number of Governor Brownback’s other restructuring proposals. In particular I am concerned with his proposals to eliminate the Kansas Technology Enterprise Corporation (KTEC) while transferring its functions into the Department of Commerce, and elimination of the Kansas Arts Commission.

KTEC is a private/public partnership that promotes technology-based economic development in Kansas. It is a critical component of promoting innovation and creating high-paying jobs for our citizens. Eliminating KTEC investments and Pipeline programs will not only make it more difficult for Kansas entrepreneurs in the short term, but will stymie development over the long haul.

Changing the Kansas Arts Commission into a private, nonprofit Kansas Arts Council would eliminate annual state funding of $815,000 and another $778,300 in annual federal matching funds. More than $400,000 in annual grant from the Mid-America Arts Alliance would also be lost. As a result of these funding cuts, nearly 4,000 full-time jobs supported by the non-profit arts sector would also be on the chopping block.

As our new governor, Mr. Brownback has an opportunity to take a fresh look at state organizations and challenge “business as usual” practices. With proper planning, I believe some government restructuring will be good for our state. But we mustn’t restructure so quickly as to force the elimination of services to needy Kansans.

I hope that Governor Brownback and his team carefully consider the adverse impact these decisions may have on Kansas citizens. If not, we’ll be putting our state through a lot of unnecessary transitional turmoil.