With less than three weeks remaining before the Nov. 5 general election, Kansas voters have every right to be puzzled about the goals, ambitions and true thoughts of many candidates.

Kansas is in a severe financial crunch with large projected deficits. This being the case, the top questions for the two gubernatorial candidates are how they intend to manage state government, pay the bills, make the necessary cuts in budgets without cutting into the muscle of state-financed operations, and whether increased taxes will be necessary to keep the state from falling into a tailspin.

Unfortunately, even after months of campaigning, costing millions of dollars, the public still doesn’t have a good idea of what to expect from either Republican Tim Shallenburger or Democrat Kathleen Sebelius.

They may say one thing along the campaign trail, but what do they actually believe and what would they really do if elected?

Shallenburger has painted himself into a corner by his steadfast commitment not to raise taxes even though he realized the seriousness of the state’s fiscal condition.

Sebelius has said she opposes tax increases but has failed to offer any firm commitments on the matter other than to say if she is elected she will initiate a complete performance audit of all state agencies to see where cuts might be made.

They both say they would do what they can to eliminate waste.

It’s a fact there is waste in state government, and there are probably many places where money could be saved. This is true for almost any business, private or public. It all depends how serious a manager or owner is about reducing waste and where a company draws the line on trimming the fat versus making cuts that seriously damage the business (or state government) in question.

It’s also a fact that it is difficult for managers of various state agencies to admit they can eliminate expenditures without harming the effectiveness of their office. They are quick to say, “We already are operating efficiently; there’s little or no room to make further cuts.”

The governor is required by law to present a budget that is based on expected revenue with no tax increases, but Shallenburger and Sebelius must know that tax increases very likely will be needed. Neither of these candidates is going to let the state sink into a terrible, long-term and costly slide into mediocrity. They must know, however, that cutting waste alone will not save enough to solve the budget deficit.

Shallenburger stands by his pledge that if he is elected, he will support a budget that does not call for a tax increase. By saying this, he has allowed his opponents and critics to paint him into a corner and suggest he would be willing to stand by and watch state government and state-assisted agencies shrivel and dry up. This is wrong, but by his statements on the tax issue and cutting waste, Shallenburger has led the public to believe there is no way he would allow taxes to be increased.

The fact is, Shallenburger does, indeed, stand firm in his pledge not to propose tax increases, BUT he has not said he would veto tax increases approved by the state Legislature. He has left the door open to possible tax increases if, after every possible effort to make the state live within its means, he sees that taxes do, indeed, need to be raised. He points out it is the job of legislators to decide to spend or not spend, tax or not tax. He is adamant that he will not propose a tax increase, but he has left the door open.

He stresses there would be all kinds of tax increases proposed by state lawmakers if they thought the governor was soft on the tax matter and not ready to fight for every possible cut of waste within state government.

Sebelius also knows tax increases will be needed if the state is to move ahead. However, she tries to skirt the issue by saying she needs to study the situation before making any commitment.

One problem facing both candidates is that whichever one is elected is almost sure to eventually let a tax increase take place, by one means or another. The public will be quick to say this is another example of candidates saying one thing when they are seeking votes and doing something different once they are in office. President Clinton was a champion at this game of making commitments, promises and pledges throughout his campaign only to conveniently forget these commitments once in the White House.

This is just one more reason Kansas voters probably don’t put much stock in current gubernatorial campaign pledges. It gives politics a bad name.

Sebelius, far more than Shallenburger, tries to come across to voters as being more compassionate, more caring and more sensitive to the needs, wishes and dreams of her fellow Kansans.

Shallenburger is portrayed as a hard, gruff, inflexible conservative and some want to point out his lack of a college degree while Sebelius is presented as soft and caring but not really standing firm on any issue.

His critics suggest Shallenburger would be more receptive to the ideas and wishes of conservatives and those in the business community while Sebelius’ critics paint her as being a captive of organized labor and trial lawyers. Some say the Blue Cross and Blue Shield insurance decision was made more for political gain than for what might be best for Kansas residents.

Many in the university community and those interested in education are quick to say Shallenburger would be a disaster for education while Sebelius would be far more supportive and understanding of the needs of education. There is no way to know, until after one or the other is elected, what the truth will be. It is difficult to believe either candidate would deliberately sit back and not try to come up with the best possible way to help all schools, K-12 and higher education, within the constraints of the state’s fiscal crisis.

It is unfortunate that after months of campaigning, the public really doesn’t have a handle on how to judge which candidate would be the best for Kansas. The only sure thing about the two office-seekers is that Shallenburger, if elected, will not propose tax increases and Sebelius, if elected, would call for a thorough study to determine if a tax increase is necessary.

The sad thing is that both candidates probably know a tax increase will be necessary. Why not acknowledge the fact and shoot straight with the public? At least Shallenburger points out he has not said he would veto a tax increase if that is what state legislators say is necessary.