Archive for Thursday, November 5, 2009
State subsistence
There’s nothing wrong with cutting government fat, but the Kansas budget can only take so much.
November 5, 2009
Advertisement
It’s hard to imagine that any Kansan doesn’t share Gov. Mark Parkinson’s “hope … to present a budget that doesn’t include any tax increases” for the coming fiscal year.
The only problem, as Parkinson noted, is “we need some help on the revenue side,” and that help doesn’t seem to be coming.
Earlier this week, the governor raised the possibility that he and the Kansas Legislature would need to consider some tax increases to meet the state’s financial obligations next year. Wednesday, he backed off that position somewhat, adding that his deliberations for proposing a tax increase would include consideration of what he sees as the likelihood state legislators would pass such increases.
Although Parkinson said Wednesday he didn’t have “a strong sense either way,” on where legislators stand on the issue of tax increases, those who have been speaking up in recent weeks have largely rejected that possibility. That could, of course, change if the state’s finances slip further between now and January.
When Parkinson make his initial statements, he correctly noted that there’s a limit to how much budget cutting the state can take. Four rounds of budget cuts already this year have been painful, and the revenue picture isn’t getting any better. October revenues announced Friday were $15 million below projections; the tax revenue shortfall for the fiscal year that started July 1 now stands at $80 million.
That virtually ensures Parkinson will have to make more budget cuts before the Legislature returns to Topeka in January. How deep those cuts will be depends largely on the figures arrived at by the state’s consensus estimating group, which meets in Topeka today. Given recent tax receipts, it’s hard to be optimistic.
No one wants to see taxes raised or restored, but neither can the state afford to cripple important budget areas that may help lead it out of the current recession. Economic development efforts are still vital, as is maintaining the quality of the state’s public schools and higher education system. Providing some level of service to people who are struggling in the current economy is both humane and an investment in the state’s safety and security.
The challenge, of course, is to balance the state’s financial needs against the taxpayers’ needs. We can’t afford to cripple state government, but we also can’t afford to pass taxes that will cripple businesses that provide tax revenue and jobs in the state.
Tax-funded state entities certainly should share the pain of the current recession, but the budget ax already has fallen heavily on many state services and almost certainly will strike again before the end of the year. Additional taxes are not a popular alternative, but after all other measures to reduce expenditures have been exercised, they may be necessary to keep state government running at an acceptable level.
More like this
- Kansas leaders step back from talk of tax hike to make up budget gap 17 comments / November 4, 2009
- Parkinson raises the possibility of a tax hike as revenue comes up another $15 million short of projections 66 comments / October 30, 2009
- As school funding takes another budget hit, KNEA calls for more responsible tax policy 4 comments / November 30, 2009
- Statehouse Live: FORECAST IN: Recession continues, budget cuts likely; 13 comments / November 5, 2009
- Court fees rise because of budget issues 1 comment / July 1, 2009
Top ads RSS
- Project Coordinator The KS Biological Survey at the University of ...
- IT Manager Medium sized, multi-state service company has opening for ...
- ALL GIRLS & GUYS $400 - $850 / week. No ...
- HOLIDAY RUSH $400/$600 week. 30 openings available in various departments ...
- INSURANCE ASSISTANT Immediate part to full-time Assistant with life, accident ...
- Turbulence ahead: Senate to begin health care debate November 30, 2009 · 22 comments
- Push to privatize is on the table November 30, 2009 · 19 comments
- Medical marijuana blurs legal lines November 30, 2009 · 27 comments
- Blog: Songs And Lyrics: It's A 'Musical' Monday! November 30, 2009 · 25 comments
- St. Louis prep Beal chooses Florida November 30, 2009 · 7 comments
- Ruling party candidate concedes in election November 30, 2009 · 4 comments
- On the street: Have you ever felt like a restaurant staff tried to rush you? November 30, 2009 · 32 comments
- Pelosi, Reid leadership warrants praise November 30, 2009 · 6 comments
- Check, please! Negotiating restaurant traffic a delicate art November 30, 2009 · 12 comments
- Suspect arrested in slayings of wife, daughters November 30, 2009 · 9 comments
- KU coach Self perks up ailing Texas youth November 30, 2009
- Play school: Check out tips for buying ‘smart toys’ for children November 30, 2009
- Decorated trees to take bow in annual holiday fundraiser November 30, 2009
- St. Louis prep Beal chooses Florida November 30, 2009
- Audience builder: Former producer develops new, local markets November 30, 2009
- A labor of love shines brightly November 30, 2009
- 6News reporter decides to follow father’s footsteps November 28, 2009
- Suspect arrested in slayings of wife, daughters November 30, 2009
- Mangino not living on his knees November 29, 2009
- Hotel group names director of rooms November 28, 2009
5 November 2009
at 1:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
“State subsistence
There’s nothing wrong with cutting government fat, but the Kansas budget can only take so much.”
Marion writes:
That is absolutley right!
When the budet can no longer be funded even if the “fat” (Hah! Fat chance!) has been removed, it is time to review the darned budget and get a few things “OUT” of it!
5 November 2009
at 5:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Made_in_China (Paul R. Getto) says…
The legislature has only three distinct constitutional obligations, public schools, the national guard and the court system. Everything else is up for discussion, I suppose. Since 80%+ of the budget goes to education, social services and fixed capital costs, there isn't much room to cut. Raise taxes, Gov! We can handle the truth.
5 November 2009
at 6:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bkgarner (Brent Garner) says…
It seems to be a universal view by government and quasi-governmental organizations—school districts for example—to reflexively talk about tax increases whenever revenues decline. Well, speaking as one who would have to pay those taxes, no thanks! Not interested! My family budget is stretched as tight as it can go. No, we don't live extravegantly! In fact, we drive used cars—10 years old or orlder, our TVs are old, everything we have is low budget. Why? Because we strive to live within our means. Does that mean we are doing without some things we would really like to have? You better believe it! So, if the populace has to tighten their belts, its time for government to tighten theirs. There should be no sacred cows! None! Government needs to live within its means just as I do!
5 November 2009
at 9:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
labmonkey (Anonymous) says…
Every school district 4A and below should have to cut one administrator and 5A-6A should have to cut two. Assuming a $50K average annual salary (which is likely a lowball number), this would cut 372 administrators from the state's payrolls shaving $18.6 million in salary alone (this doesn't even count benefits) from the state budget. This would save nearly 500 teacher jobs (if you count an average of $35K per year). Many industry jobs have froze cost of living raises….state government employees (including teachers) should not feel exempt in this economy. (And don't give me “teachers are already underpaid” crap. They average over $35K per year working only nine months per year…so in essence they would make $47K if they worked all year.) There is at least $25-30 million in education alone there in ideas.
I guarantee you could cut another $10 million of waste from KDOT. There is $35-40 million in savings…..I am sure there are more ideas out there to get us to $80 million. The rest of us have to make by on less by cutting things like cable, waiting to buy that new toy, maybe turning down the heat or AC, etc. The state (and of course, the federal government) need to have the same mentality.
5 November 2009
at 9:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Irish (Irish Swearingen) says…
There is no biologic entity called government that is spending this money.
Government is how the people govern themselves, to create stability and avoid chaos.
This money will go to help people. Help students have the schools and the teachers they need to learn. Help the working poor to keep a roof over their head and food on the table.
No one knows what tomorrow will bring and the people who are most against tax increase may very well lose their job and find themselves with no health insurance and over at Health Care Access praying to God that they can help them.
5 November 2009
at 12:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
labmonkey (Anonymous) says…
Irish-
How much of extra money did you cut a check for? We are taxed too much as it is. It is time for governments to quit wasting our money and do like people have to in times of need.
5 November 2009
at 9:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
weeslicket (Anonymous) says…
Made_in_China (Paul R. Getto) says…
“The legislature has only three distinct 'constitutional obligations', public schools, the national guard and the court system. Everything else is up for discussion,…”
quite correct.
5 November 2009
at 9:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
weeslicket (Anonymous) says…
here's something to think about:
in kansas, we lower revenues (i.e., taxes, fees and other sources of income) when times are hard.
and in kansas, when times are good pretty good, we lower revenues again.
and then in kansas, when times once again become harder, we want to lower revenues yet again.
(prediction: and once again, in kansas, when times treat us better than we are being treated now, we will seek to lower revenues once more)
where has that actually gotten us?
i understand lowering the tax burden (revenue collection) when things are hard;
but doesn't it also make sense to increase the collection of revenue when things are good,
and the burden is easier to carry?