How many times have you gone out to purchase a new or used car without first looking under the hood, checking out the tires, and taking said vehicle out for at least a test drive? Pretty much never, right? That’s because you would be exposing yourself to a lot of risk (financial, personal safety, etc.) if you didn’t at least try to confirm before the purchase that the car would be able to reliably meet your particular transportation needs. Unfortunately, the Brownback administration appears determined to subject Kansas’ 380,000 + Medicaid recipients to far-reaching Medicaid reforms on January 1st of next year without first performing due diligence on the proposed changes. Given the administration’s track record at shuttering SRS offices across the state this past summer, Kansans deserve to have at least some level of confidence that the proposed reforms will deliver the intended benefits before the reforms are implemented. Otherwise, both Kansas Medicaid clients and providers could suffer greatly from unintended consequences.

Make no mistake – something needs to be done to address the spiraling costs of Medicaid that Kansas has seen over the past 10 years. Medicaid costs comprised nine percent of the State General Fund (SGF) budget for Fiscal Year 2002. Fast forward ten years later, and Medicaid now constitutes 19 % of the SGF budget. Growth in Medicaid expenditures has averaged around 7.4% a year, and that increase reflects more than just new consumers entering the system. The largest increase has been for persons with disabilities, which increased from approximately $917 million in FY 2007 to $1.16 billion in FY 2010, representing an increase of 26%. The challenge lies in determining what reforms need to be made.

Numerous Medicaid provider and consumer stakeholder groups have raised issues with the Governor’s proposed reforms, voicing concerns that the reforms may in fact not work as advertised but instead wreak havoc on the system. And other states have encountered problems in their attempts to reform Medicaid. A news article recently appeared in the Louisville Courier-Journal reporting about similar reforms that the state of Kentucky implemented on November 1st of last year and the resulting fallout. Kentucky lawmakers are now hearing from their constituents about lack of payments for medical services, challenges in getting patient medications approved and delays in authorizing services. Kentucky’s acting Medicaid commissioner told a Senate committee that “we didn’t expect the level of issues that we had”.

As Kansas embarks on reforming Medicaid, I think we should all keep in mind Hippocrates’ advice to “First Do No Harm”. At a minimum Kansas should look at implementing a limited pilot program to test out the proposed reforms and confirm the results before committing all 380,000+ clients to a new system. Otherwise, we’ll be picking up the pieces of shattered lives for years to come.

What a difference a week can make in the life of a tax proposal! Last week the Kansas Legislature was just starting to examine the details of Governor Brownback’s tax reform “Pro-Growth Plan” that the governor touted during his State of the State address on January 11th. This past Friday the governor’s plan was on life support based on strong negative reaction, and the Kansas House Republican leadership team distanced itself from the plan by announced intentions to introduce their own tax reform initiative.

To recap, the governor’s plan lowered individual income tax rates by lowering the top tax rate down to 4.9 percent (versus 6.45 percent) on taxable income higher than $15,000 (single) / $30,000 (married), lowering the bottom rate to 3 percent (versus 3.5 percent) and eliminating the current top income bracket of $30,000 (single) / $60,000 (married). His plan also doubled the standard deduction for head of household filers and exempts all non-wage business income from being taxed. The plan paid for the reduction in personal income tax rates and small business income exemption by 1) eliminating all itemized deductions, 2) eliminating various income tax credits including the Earned Income Tax Credit, the Food Sales Tax Rebate, the Child and Dependent Care credit, and 3) making permanent the temporary .6 % sales tax increase passed by the 2010 Legislature.

The Institute of Taxation and Economic Policy, a non-partisan, non-profit think tank that analyzes state and federal tax policy, found that under the governor’s plan the top 20 percent of the state’s earners would see substantial tax cuts while the bottom 80 percent would see a tax hike. For example, those earning less than $20,000 in annual income would pay on average an additional $242 in taxes, while those earning between $20,000 and $35,000 in annual income would pay on average an additional $247 in taxes. Compare that to the earners bringing in $90,000 and above, who actually begin to see savings. The study further concluded that, for most middle and low-income Kansans, any benefit received from the lower income tax rates would be lost due to on elimination of income tax credits and itemized deductions as well as the higher sales tax rate.

As the Kansas economy slowly rights itself, Kansas families continue to struggle to pay their bills and put food on the table. When it comes to taxes, everyone needs to pay their fair share, especially wealthy corporations and the richest individuals. Governor Brownback’s tax plan does exactly the opposite, forcing middle-income and poor families to pay more while dramatically lowering taxes for the most wealthy. It’s time to pull the plug on this clunker of a tax plan and instead focus our attention on the real tax dilemma facing Kansas – burdensome property taxes.

Happy New Year! I hope you and your loved ones have enjoyed the holidays. The Kansas Legislature gaveled back into session last week in Topeka to work the will of the people. The legislative plate is especially full this year as K-12 school finance, tax reform, Medicaid, KPERS, water policy, immigration, abortion and other issues will be debated.

In his 2012 State of the State address, Governor Brownback talked on a variety of subjects but directed most of his comments towards his tax reform, school finance and Medicaid proposals. I found his comments about his tax reform proposal to be particularly interesting. He proposes to lower individual income tax rates for all Kansans by bringing the highest tax rate down from 6.45 percent to 4.9 percent, lowering the bottom tax bracket to 3 percent, and eliminating the middle bracket. His plan would also eliminate individual state income tax on most small businesses. The Governor proposes to pay for the reduction in income tax revenue by eliminating various income tax credits, deductions, and exemptions and making the temporary one cent sales tax increase passed by the 2010 Legislature permanent. Given how Kansas families are struggling during these tough economic times, I think that it is extremely important that everyone pays their fair share, especially wealthy corporations and the richest individuals. As the old saying goes, “the devil’s in the details”, and as more information becomes available we’ll find out who ends up benefitting most from the Governor’s proposed tax reform and who ends up paying for it.

This could make for a very interesting legislative session. During my first eight years of service in the Legislature, a coalition of moderate Republican and Democratic legislators guided the legislative agenda in Topeka. That coalition was effectively dissolved during the November 2010 elections as Democrats lost 16 House seats to more conservative Republicans. Right now the Kansas Senate is the only remaining moderate entity in Kansas state government. Given that a slew of conservative challengers have already announced their intentions to run against moderate Republican Senate incumbents in the upcoming 2012 primaries, it will be interesting to see how those dynamics, along with our once-in-a-decade redistricting process that we’ll be undertaking this session, impact the actions and accomplishments of the 2012 Legislature.

As I did last year, I will once again be conducting town hall meetings at various locations throughout the district as we progress through the 2012 session. Notice for these events will be publicized in the near future. I hope to see you there!

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.