Archive for Tuesday, April 26, 2011

Kansas Democratic leadership calls for change in taxes to help fill state coffers

April 26, 2011


As the legislative session reconvenes, Democratic leaders said Tuesday that they would push for a resolution condemning a Republican legislator for remarks he made about undocumented immigrants. And they support a tax change to pump more revenue into state coffers.

But facing huge Republican majorities, Senate Minority Leader Anthony Hensley of Topeka and House Minority Leader Paul Davis of Lawrence didn't predict the chances that their proposals would have during the session that reopens Wednesday.

Davis said the remarks of Rep. Virgil Peck, R-Tyro, are worthy of a vote of condemnation in the House.

“He has brought shame on the institution” of the Legislature, Davis said.

During a House committee meeting in March, Peck compared illegal immigrants to feral hogs and said perhaps the state should shoot them from helicopters. He later said he was joking and issued a two-sentence apology in a news release.

On the tax front, with legislators poised to make deep cuts in education and social services, Hensley said he would propose “de-coupling” the state tax system from federal tax cuts made in December.

Earlier this month, state revenue forecasters said the state would lose $53 million in the next fiscal year in likely tax revenue because of federal tax code changes.

The new federal tax provisions were made on business expensing, bonus depreciation, removal of limitations on itemized deductions for high-income taxpayers, and other tax credits.

“Our budget would be in the black but for the fact the feds made these tax changes,” Hensley said.

Democrats have proposed breaking off the state tax code from federal tax cuts in the past, but Republicans have rejected the idea.


wastewatcher 7 years ago

All the Dems want to do is throw roadblocks, stymie progress, and raise taxes. We can attribute our current situation to eight years of Sebelius and her cronies, Davis and Hensley. Remember their LIBERAL POSITIONS were soundly rejected at the ballot box last November . If the Dems want to become relevant, they should get new leadership and positive ideas.

question4u 7 years ago

Positive ideas? You mean like murdering immigrants from helicopters? Are you suggesting that condemning Peck's abominable comment somehow throws a roadblock up against progress? After all, you suggest that's all "the Dems want to do." Do you seriously think that advocating state-sponsored genocide, even if just as a sick joke, is progressive? Do you really believe that "our current situation" can be attributed to Sebelius, Davis and Hensely's timidity about putting bullets into immigrants?

You do know that Peck (at least claims) that he was kidding, right?

John Hamm 7 years ago

Democrats > spend, spend, spend > tax, tax, tax.... Don't ya jus' love 'em? NOT

Stuart Evans 6 years, 12 months ago

Republicans > exact same thing but packaged differently so they can fool you.

Joshua Montgomery 7 years ago

I know, selfish Democrats. Always pushing for more funding for education, the elderly and a social safety net for the least fortunate. Selfish, selfish, selfish.

jhawkinsf 7 years ago

I wouldn't mind a social safety net if that's what it was. It's more like a trampoline. Fall down, pick 'em up, fall down, pick 'em up, fall down ........

jhawkinsf 6 years, 12 months ago

If Glen Beck said the sun comes up in the east, would you disagree?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 12 months ago

In my limited exposure to his displays of derangement, he rarely if ever makes such statements of facts.

Rather, he makes unsupported, broad generalizations similar to your statement above.

Kontum1972 6 years, 12 months ago

and thats why glen beck doesnt have job...."his generalizations..."

jhawkinsf 6 years, 12 months ago

Yes, I responded to a broad generalization with a broad generalization. The visualization of a "safety net" was replaced with a visualization of a "trampoline".
To Bozo and Kontum, did you dislike the broad generalization of both the "safety net" and "trampoline", or just the one broad generalization of the "trampoline"?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 12 months ago

You're right. "Safety net" is a bit too broad a term. There's very little "safe" or "netlike" about it. For most people who depend on it, the net has huge holes, and they are barely hanging on to whatever threads they can grab onto.

But "trampoline" might be a good term for what Republicans would like to make it-- and they'd put it right next to cliff, and on an incline.

jafs 6 years, 12 months ago

If that's true, what would you do to structure the system as a "safety net" instead?

And, why do you think people are continuing to "fall down" rather than standing on their own?

jhawkinsf 6 years, 12 months ago

What a question. This could be a long discussion but I'll just give you a couple of quick observations. That old saying, "the road to hell is paved with good intensions", that describes government's intervention. Every time they try to solve a problem, they create another (or two). They make assumptions that sound good and reasonable, but when you go into the real world, they just don't apply. So they then go out and make some more assumptions that sound good and reasonable. Insanity - "doing the same things over and over and expecting different results".
In the world of addiction, it's commonly said that a person can't be helped until they hit "their" bottom. But the bottom for some is death. Their bottom is so unpleasant to us that we will not allow them to hit that bottom. But treatment will often fail with that type of person. the same is generally true when I spoke of a trampoline. the trampoline prevents a person from hitting their bottom. Of course, removing the trampoline will mean that some will fall, hit their head on the ground and die. And they may take their children along for the ride. So we don't allow them to hit their bottom. They lose their fear of falling. Doing it again and again, they know the trampoline will prevent them from hitting the ground. If, in fact we are committed to not allowing a person to hit their bottom, to die as a result of the consequences of their actions, then we need to come up with alternatives that are equally unpleasant to the person, a reason to get off the trampoline. Please note, I make assumptions that people are best equipped to run their own lives. I have enough problems running my own to assume I can better run their lives. There may be some exceptions, people who are developmentally disabled as an example. I'm not sure government makes the assumption that people can best run their own lives.

jhawkinsf 6 years, 12 months ago

My "plea" was for people to be given the freedom to run their own lives. And let them reap the rewards or suffer the consequences of their decisions. I think you're reading into my statement what you would like it to say rather than what I said.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 12 months ago

Yea, the 25% of kids who live in poverty should be allowed to reap all those rewards and suffer the consequences.

jhawkinsf 6 years, 12 months ago

My comment of 9:53 (below) spoke of the need for special protection where I specifically mentioned the need to protect children. Please bozo, read what I actually write instead of what you think I'm writing. And while you are critical of my broad generalizations and then you twice use the term "final solution", practice what you preach.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 12 months ago

"Please note, I make assumptions"

Lots of them, and mostly overgeneralized and baseless.

jhawkinsf 6 years, 12 months ago

I gave my opinions. Even you must concede I'm entitled to them. The difference between our approaches bozo is that when I give my opinions, I say they are opinions. When you give yours, you present them like they a facts.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 12 months ago

"I gave my opinions."

Lots of them, and mostly overgeneralized and baseless.

"The difference between our approaches bozo is that when I give my opinions, I say they are opinions. "

As you say, you're entitled to your opinions.

jafs 6 years, 12 months ago

All of that applies to a "safety net" as well - it catches people so they don't fall to their death.

What alternatives to death would you suggest to make it "equally unpleasant" - I'm not sure that's possible?

jhawkinsf 6 years, 12 months ago

I'll emphasize a sentence I made above. I have enough problems running my own life without trying to tell others how to run their lives. I would suggest the government come to the same conclusion.
Generally speaking, I would follow a libertarian model. I would allow people the freedom to make their own choices in life. And I would let the chips fall where they may. Let people make good decisions. Let them make bad decisions. Give them the freedom of choice. There would have to be exceptions, but make them rare. As I said, developmentally disabled adults need extra protection. Children certainly do. There will be others.
I think government does not solve problems often and when they do, they tend to be too expensive.

jhawkinsf 6 years, 12 months ago

Again with "final solution". The mass killings of millions based on their religion, ethnicity, etc. has nothing to do with this discussion. I have no idea why you would reference that particular phrase much less mention it twice. Perhaps you could explain how you get a final solution from my call to give people freedom to makes their own choices? Do you think they will choose mass extermination? Do you believe that if given freedom of choice they will make such bad decisions that it will result in mass self-destruction? I'm not clear where you're going with that.

jafs 6 years, 12 months ago

But originally you said you'd be ok with a safety net.

And, suggested that we make alternative equally unpleasant to death as a way to stop people from falling back onto the "trampoline" again.

When asked for details, you seem to have changed your mind, and simply want to let people suffer the ill effects of a variety of things without any net at all.

Which is it?

jhawkinsf 6 years, 12 months ago

The imagery of a safety net is one that has a person falling with the net preventing a person from falling too far. The trampoline also has them falling but with the added image of us picking them up to the level they began before the fall. My original objection was that if people don't learn for themselves that there are consequences of the fall, they have no fear of the fall. Let them pick themselves up. Let them struggle to return to their previous level and they will appreciate the struggle of the climb back up. With the struggle fresh in their minds, they will then make decisions that will prevent another fall.

jafs 6 years, 12 months ago

Again, doesn't really answer my question.

But, that's ok - you're not obligated to do so.

iLikelawrence 7 years ago

That is an awesome comparison. I've never found words to put it like that but it's very true.

newmedia 6 years, 12 months ago

You can bet if the current tax rates were increased you wouldn't hear a peep out of Hensley and Davis except probably calls for increased spending. Sad but true.

Kontum1972 6 years, 12 months ago

and where has all that lottery money gone too? isnt that the premise given when it was on the ballot..the great sums of revenue it would generate for the State....

Commenting has been disabled for this item.