|
Home
Editorials, Press Releases & Letters
Fundraising
Campaign
Taxpayer
Protection Pledge Information
Public
Officials Contact List
Legislative
Vote Ratings
Reports
from Topeka
About
KTN
Contact
KTN
Links
|
KANSAS
TAXPAYERS NETWORK |
|
A
Liberal Legislator Challenges Kansas Taxpayers Network's Vote
Rating
KTN Vote Ratings
Rep. Mah:
I have heard that you made some derogatory comments about Kansas
Taxpayers Network and myself on Jim Cates radio program yesterday.
I look forward to a public debate on Kansas fiscal issues with
you to correct the left-wing misinformation you are spreading.
I would be interested in your source for your assertion that
HB 2247 contained a $400 million increase in taxes. I heard
many descriptions of this bill during the regular session but
I did not see any Legislative Research or other analysis that
contained this information at that time. Ooops, in re-reading
your post you prefaced this with the word "..potential..,"
well the KTN vote rating likes to deal with specifics, like
the votes to raise income and sales taxes in 2004 passed the
Kansas house with EVERY house Democrat voting for it. Sadly,
many fiscally liberal Republicans joined in passing that bill
out of the house, like Bill Kassebaum, Cindy Neighbor, Stan
Dreher, Mary Compton, and others you didn't get a chance to
meet because they did not return to the 2005 legislature.
Like I said in my previous post the SB 3 legislation was much
more important in school finance than HB 2247.
You should be aware that most of the recorded votes cast on
bills during final action are often unanimous or close to unanimous
with a member or two missing due to health or other excused
absences. I find it odd that you would want KTN to include bills
on modifying insurance statutes, grain elevator regulations,
the color of lights in emergency vehicles or recorded votes
on similar legislation for KTN's vote rating. Have you extended
your critique of KTN's vote rating to the other organizations,
like the teachers unions (KNEA) or Kansas chamber (KCCI) which
also use a much smaller number of votes than the 457 cast during
the legislative session?
I am sorry that you have overlooked the massive tax hikes that
were enacted between 1999 and 2003 during the second Graves
administration. The Graves administration raised sales, cigarette,
business franchise, gasoline, "enhanced" revenues,
and raised a variety of charges and other fees. These votes
were included in our vote ratings for each of these years and
are available for viewing at www.kansastaxpayers.com. More recent
tax hike and fiscal votes from 2003-05 Kansas legislatures are
there now too.
Since Governor Graves left office this trend has largely continued
albeit at a reduced level since the unsuccessful effort to raise
broadbased state taxes under Governor Sebelius' leadership failed
in 2004. Democrats lost seats in the Kansas house due to their
support for higher spending and taxes last year.
Growing Kansas spending and taxes have occurred due to pressure
from liberals and fiscal leftists supporting an expansion of
Kansas spending in both major political parties in this state
since the 1970's. I heard that you are claiming that our vote
rating is "partisan". I would point out to you that
the two lowest scores in the 2005 house rating is for two Republican
house members. In 2004's scorecard there were four senators
who receive scores of zero. Three were Republicans.
I am sorry that you seem to be unable to comprehend the meaning
of oligarchy and the damange created by the appointed Kansas
Supreme Court as you as an elected official helped surrender
your constitutional powers to the judges. The courts treated
you and your 164 legislative colleagues in such contempt that
they refused to even let any legislator appear before them before
they issued their edicts. You helped to meekly surrender your
powers as an elected official and violated your oath of office
to defend the Kansas Constitution.
Our form of government is in jeopardy in this state due to this
judicial usurpation of power that you and over 40 other house
colleagues repeatedly surrendered during the special session.
Sadly, only two Democrats in the legislature resisted this surrender.
If this trend is not reversed the Kansas legislature will become
an elected advisory body to the real power in this state: the
appointed judiciary and the governor. I have heard a number
of legislators on the floor of the house point this out to the
entire house. I was disappointed that you and so many of your
colleagues ignored this problem.
Kansas is in trouble. This state is stagnating economically
due to hostile fiscal policies that have been created before
you took office but also by these liberal/left wing policies
that you are helping promote while you have been in elected
office. I'll provide you with some excellent commentary from
a Kansas businessman that was posted earlier this week on www.kssmallbiz.com
that discusses this economic trend. I could share with you stories
about the odious "rich" that leftist politicians have
helped drive out of this state but this action does have consequences.
I hope you'll read this commentary and see a private sector
perspective and how this trend is occurring:
FUNDING OF BUSINESSES: A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE PART
II
By Kenneth Daniel
August 31, 2005
In my article of last week, I made the point that
the risk capital of businesses is almost exclusively made
up of personal savings invested in the business by the
owners plus profits left in the business. When we take
money away from businesses in the form of taxes, we are
curtailing their financial viability, their growth, and
their ability to compete with businesses in lower-tax
states.
Employees and others, including governments, that
depend on our businesses to provide salaries and tax revenues
are better off if businesses are financially sound than
if they are not. And, we really, really want our businesses
and their owners to park their wealth here instead of
elsewhere to support jobs and generate taxes for Kansas.
What other things are preventing our business owners
from keeping wealth here?
Last week the American Shareholders Association released
a report on the impact of the American Jobs Creation Act,
signed into law in 2004 by President Bush. A provision
of the act allows companies to bring their foreign profits
back to the U.S. at an income tax rate of 5.25% instead
of the normal 35% domestic rate.
Previously, companies had to leave the profits overseas
to avoid U.S. taxes, and wealth that could have supported
jobs in the U.S. was left overseas. Among the study's
findings:
According to the International Strategy and Investment
Group (ISI), 91 companies listed on the S&P 500 have
repatriated more than $191 billion back to America that
otherwise would have been invested in other countries.
JP Morgan estimates the provision will increase GDP
by an additional 1 percent over the next two years.
JP Morgan further estimates $120 billion will be used
for new investment, which will create 500,000 new jobs
over the next two years.
The lesson here is the same – business wealth
is good. We want and need our businesses to keep their
money here. An interesting question is whether Kansas
businesses that repatriate money will be hit with the
full state income tax for doing so. If they are, multi-state
businesses will almost certainly repatriate their profits
to some other state that does not have a state corporate
income tax.
Another way we punish our Kansas businesses for keeping
their money here is through our Franchise Tax. Kansas
is one of fewer than twenty states that have a stand-alone
tax on the net worth of a business. The old adage is "if
you want less of something, tax it". Kansas apparently
wants less business wealth in the state.
Kansas has yet another tax to punish business owners
who keep their wealth here, and that is the estate tax.
In 2010, when the federal estate tax goes away, Kansas
will be one of fewer than twenty states with an estate
tax. This is a virtual guarantee that our wealthiest business
owners will retire elsewhere or sell their Kansas business
interests so they can move their wealth. Even if they
don’t, the business is at risk of losing part of
its capital or of being sold to pay estate taxes.
Kansas is likely to continue to be one of the slowest-growing
states as long as we continue to eat our business nest
eggs with punitive taxes. Even when the business owners
aren’t whining, those eggs are being eaten, and
we will continue to ship most of our best and brightest
kids to other states.
The federal government has figured this out. By lowering
taxes on businesses and getting businesses to bring their
wealth back to the U.S., the national economy is cooking
along extremely well. Will we ever figure this out in
Kansas?
Kenneth Daniel (kdaniel@kssmallbiz.com)
is a Topeka small business owner and free-lance writer.
He is publisher of www.kssmallbiz.com, a website dedicated
to Kansas small business.
Sadly, the benefits from this 2004 federal legislation are
likely to diminish in the near future. This is going to result
in a reduction in the growth rate of state tax collections.
This will make the legislature and governor's job of finding
more money to feed the avaricious and litigious spending lobbies
even more difficult next year.
Unless the Kansas Supreme Court backs down from their spending
edict (I don't know why they would) the fiscal hole facing the
governor and the legislature in 2006 is massive. If we follow
the traditional Kansas path of raising taxes we will make our
uncompetitive fiscal climate even worse. We will lag behind
the rest of the country. This trend will worsen. Our young people
will leave school with degrees but with few if any local job
prospects. These young people will become "Kansas tourists,"
who come back to their state at Thanksgiving, or Christmas,
or perhaps a week during the summer to visit their family after
finding employment in more competitive parts of the country.
This is a terrible fiscal trend that I have been trying to stop
for over a dozen years. Sadly, elected officials like yourself
have succeeded in your liberal/leftist spending and tax policies
across Kansas over a number of decades. Government's share grows
while the private sector recedes. I will look forward to debating
you on fiscal issues on Jim Cates show in the near future.
The middle class you claim to represent is moving away from
the Kansas state oligarchy by voting with their feet. Since
the 2000 census Kansas has dropped behind Arkansas in population.
Arkansas! In 2010 or 2020 this state will lose another congressional
seat under current fiscal trends and we'll have only three.
Kansans may be limited at the ballot box (no property tax referendums,
and very few other tax/bond votes--unlike CO, MO, & OK)
but hard working Kansans can still vote with their feet.
Karl Peterjohn
Larry & Ann Mah <lmah@cox.net> wrote:
Mr. Peterjohn:
Thanks for the detailed explanation. And I thought I was
a good spin doctor. But to say that 13 out of 457 votes is representative
of the bills significantly impacting taxes this year is ludicrous.
To ignore a $400 million potential increase in taxes (HB 2247)
because parts of the bill were "flawed" is laughable.
Then to say that those of us who fought to protect the taxpayer's
right to access the courts to fight against bad tax law "surrendered
our powers" is perhaps the most offensive of all. The constitutional
amendment would have removed the rights of taxpayers (like the
veterans who fought for and won their case on pension taxes)
to take the state to court to change tax law. That removes the
balance of power and removes accountability from the legislature.
You would have to believe the legislature never makes a mistake
to support such an amendment. And we all know better. Remember
the Clunker Act?
Further, we did not "surrender" our powers during
the special session. We surrendered our powers when we passed
HB 2247, a bill that met none of the requirements of the law.
I spent 12 years in the Regulatory department at Southwestern
Bell. We often received orders from the KCC that we didn't like.
But our wise attorneys always said to obey the orders and appeal
them later. If you have an attorney that advises you to ignore
or disobey a lawful court order - you need a new attorney. We
are "appealing" this order with a new cost study.
We can right any wrongs in the funding during the 2006 session.
Further, I really like the idea of trying an LOB buy-down --
which the court accepted in SB3. If the new cost study shows
that we are still short on the funding of basic education, we
should simply do an LOB buydown - a move that would be tax neutral
to the taxpayers and still meet the court's requirements. You
should thank the 40 Democrats who voted to keep the taxpayers'
rights intact and keep our schools open. If you represented
the "little" people instead of the Garveys, I believe
you'd be on the same side. The feedback I got from my constituents
(from both sides of the aisle) was about 8 to 1 against the
amendment.
We can agree to disagree on what was important to count in the
ratings. It appears to me you picked votes that favored certain
legislators and ignored those made by legislators who do not
share all your philosphies. And I do believe some of the "smaller"
bills were important. Keeping Innovia here was not only important
to Topeka, it was important to the nation to keep an industry
in the U.S.
I, too, saw the Bloomberg analysis that put Kansas in the bottom
10 for being "wealth friendly". I thought it interesting
that their "average" earner in the analysis made $500,000
a year and had a $500,000 home. Nowhere near the average Kansan.
I'd like to see a study based on what the average person earns
and not the wealthy few.
As I mentioned, I agree Oklahoma needed a tax break. They were
way overtaxing in proportion to their earnings. And maybe I
should be in favor of TABOR. After a few years TABOR, Colorado
went Democratic to try and get out of it. Sorry, the "liberal"
word doesn't scare me. Liberals stand up for the middle class
and work hard to help the average worker get a better job and
a better life. And maybe we aren't always "wealthy"
friendly, because we know when unearned income gets all the
breaks, the average wage earner picks up the tab-- and the middle
class disappears.
When Governor Sebelius took office we had $12 million in the
bank. We were broke, because Graves caved to the "no tax"
folks. We closed the 2005 year with $477 million in the bank
and a good chance that we will not have to increase taxes next
year, even with the bonds coming due in 2007. That's a healthy
climate and something we can all be proud of. Taxes stayed stable
and the Governor cut spending through the BEST program. If we
continue to work on a bipartisan basis instead of throwing grenades,
we can accomplish even better things next year.
Believe it or not, I do look forward to working with you on
improving the Kansas economic and tax climate. I encourage the
exchange of tax policy ideas - especially those that help us
keep our middle class alive and thriving.
Regards,
Ann Mah
|

KANSAS TAXPAYERS NETWORK
P.O. Box 20050 Wichita, KS 67208
(316) 684-0082
Fax: (316) 684-7527
|