FEAR FACTOR, KANSAS STYLE
Opinion by Sharon DuBois

October 5, 2005

In 1920, Kansas had eight Congressional seats in Washington D.C. The 1930 census reduced that to seven. In 1940 Kansas's population entitled it to six seats, and in 1960, that was reduced to five. In 1990, our share of the 435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives became four. If current trends continue, the next census will show that Kansas will be allocated three seats. Not only is Kansas losing population, we are losing it faster than other states.

By almost any measure, the economic situation in Kansas is dismal - 31st in the nation in the Small Business Survival Index (Small Business Survival Committee: Small Business Survival Index 2004), 41st in the nation in personal income growth from 2001 to 2004 (Bureau of Economic Analysis), 6th highest in the nation in number of government employees per 100 residents (Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council).

And while our population has been shrinking, since 1972 the state budget has grown three times faster than the Kansas average wage.

There is an old adage that you can't spend your way to prosperity. And the government can't tax our way to prosperity, either.

For four days last week, I was privileged to participate in the American Dream Express. This 4-day, 24-stop bus tour of our state was organized to promote TABOR, the Taxpayers' Bill of Rights. TABOR is a proposed state constitutional amendment that would limit the growth of government to the rate of inflation plus population growth. Any additional spending would require the approval of the voters.

At every stop we were greeted with enthusiastic supporters of the measure. There were also a fair number of people who were opposed to this limitation on the runaway growth of state government. From the signs the opposition were carrying, from the questions they asked, from the one-on-one conversations we had with them after the structured part of the presentation was over, it was clear that there is a great deal of misinformation out there about TABOR, misinformation based on fear.

Here are some of the objections to TABOR that were raised by the opposition, and my comments.

TABOR will cut state-funded benefits to the poor/the disabled/health insurance.

TABOR will not cut anything. TABOR is nothing more than an effort to control government growth. If TABOR is enacted, each year's state budget will be allowed to grow at the rate of inflation plus population increase.

TABOR will eliminate 10,000 teaching positions.

Again, TABOR is not a budget-cutting measure. When the legislature's runaway taxing-and-spending is brought under control, Kansas will become a business-friendly state again. Our small businesses will be able to prosper, and a controlled-tax environment will invite new businesses into the state. New businesses, prosperous businesses mean more jobs, and more jobs mean increased population. Since TABOR ties the growth of state spending to population growth, the budget for schools would increase right along with the budget for all other government-funded services.

TABOR was bad for Colorado, and will be worse for Kansas.

Since enacting TABOR, Colorado's economy has boomed. The proposed Kansas TABOR is modeled on the one Colorado used, but includes provisions for a budget stabilization fund and an emergency fund to protect the state budget during times of recession, which were not included in the Colorado TABOR.

It's important to understand that TABOR does not eliminate the possibility of tax increases larger than inflation plus population increase. There may well be situations where that kind of increased governmental spending would be approved by the taxpayers, but under TABOR they must clearly give their approval at the ballot box.

Now, it's true that under TABOR the budgets for many government-funded agencies would not increase as fast as the recipients might like. That's the way it is in the real world, the world out here where the taxpayers live.

TABOR would require the legislature to prioritize, and our lawmakers just might decide to require those government-funded agencies to eliminate waste and to take a close look at where they might cut expenses rather than expecting the taxpayers to provide a never-ending stream of cash. And that, too, is the way it is in the real world.

Sharon DuBois is the president of Senior Ease (www.seniorease.com), as well as the editor of KsSmallBiz.com. Comments and responses may be emailed to editor@kssmallbiz.com