Archive for Thursday, October 6, 2016

Editorial: Revenue insult

A proposal to essentially keep state revenue reports private is nonsensical, political and beneath the dignity of the office of governor.

October 6, 2016


Gov. Sam Brownback’s insistence on maintaining a set of fiscal policies that consistently puts the Kansas budget in peril has infuriated many.

But Brownback’s critics would sound more credible if they occasionally would recognize that the governor won re-election, and essentially has been enacting the policies that he campaigned upon. His opponents had every opportunity to defeat him, and they did not. On this point, the governor has the ultimate comeback: He won.

But now, Brownback has moved beyond infuriating and into the realm of insulting. The panel of experts he appointed to study ways to make the state’s revenue forecasting process better came up with many ideas. Some of them are sound. One of them is beyond the pale: Stop making the reports available to the public.

The reports compare how much the state actually collects each month with official estimates of how much the state was expected to collect. Most months since Brownback’s tax cuts, the monthly reports have shown state revenues falling short of the estimates. It is a dose of bad news each month and a reminder to voters that the governor’s tax policies are making Kansas’ problems worse, not better.

Apparently, the governor has decided he’s had all the bad news he can handle. One of the recommendations from the task force was to issue monthly reports that compare only actual collections each month with actual collections from the same month the prior year.

There are many points that could be raised here, but one key question ought to suffice: Does this mean members of the Kansas Legislature won’t be able to see the revenue estimates? If not, how can this be justified? The Kansas Legislature is responsible for passing spending bills. If anyone should have access to all reports about the state’s fiscal condition, it should be the Legislature.

If legislators are allowed access to the revenue reports and Brownback believes they won’t become public, then the governor must have damaged his mental faculties by standing too long in his much-talked-about Kansas sunshine. Or perhaps it was the fumes from the laboratory where he conducts his experiments on the Kansas economy. If lawmakers are allowed access to the reports, it is a given that those reports will be leaked to the press and the public. Why wouldn’t members of the opposition party do so? It gives them a monthly opportunity to make the governor look doubly bad: His tax policies don’t work, and he’s trying to hide that fact.

Simply put, this idea is an insult to the intelligence of Kansas voters. The appropriate officials should reject this proposal, and the governor should use it as an opportunity for reflection. He is within his rights to maintain his hidebound support for his fiscal policies. But he also must maintain the dignity of the office he holds. Such clearly political and nonsensical proposals as this one fail to meet that requirement.


Greg Cooper 1 year, 4 months ago

First, Brownkoch did NOT campaign for bankrupting the state, denying essential services to the elderly, infirm, young, old, and everybody else in the state to justify his announced tax cuts. Don't insult those who voted against him: the truth of his campaign promises is worse, by far, than what people voted for.

Now, to the rest of your editorial. You are right to be insulted by this maneuver. However, Brownkoch is totally aware that many will be appalled at his trying to hide bad news. He just doesn't give a damn, because his larger allegiance is to those who groomed and handled him, until his usefulness ran out with his lame duck season.

Sam, you've been a good little shill, but now it's time to go play by yourself. Chuck and Dave don't need you so, bye-bye. You can quit trying to rob our state, Sam, and live out your final years "in charge" of the magical land of tax relief for the wealthy. The people are starting to awaken, Sam, and they're going to be very angry at you, so you probably should tone down the "I'm smarter than the whole lot of you" BS. Maybe you should also send up a prayer to that God of yours who seems to be only attuned to people who lie, who care not one whit about others, and who pay less than no attention to the duties for which they have been chosen.

Rob Chestnut 1 year, 4 months ago

This is not a matter of who won an election. Honestly, I think that the point has no relevance. The issue is a higher responsibility of administering the business of the State of Kansas with transparency that is essential to the public trust. It is not an option.

Revenue estimates are the basis upon which the state budget is put together. Comparisons to the previous year are completely irrelevant. If revenue estimates fall short, it triggers the need to reduce spending below budgeted levels. This is a scorecard that the legislature, the public and all the stakeholders (school administrators in particular) need to know.

I do not see this move as an insult to my intelligence. It is a fundamental violation of the obligation that the Governor has to his constituents.

Mike Wasikowski 1 year, 4 months ago

Almost two years ago, you, meaning the J-W Editorial Staff, endorsed Governor Brownback for re-election in 2014, saying "Brownback should have learned from the mistakes he made in his first four years in office, and it seems reasonable to think that, if elected, he would adopt a more effective, productive agenda in his final four years, working with a Republican-controlled legislature." You further added that "It seems likely [he has] the experience and ability to serve and represent Kansas better than [his opponent], Paul Davis."

I have two questions for you, editorial staff:

1) Do you think Governor Brownback has learned from his mistakes?

2) Do you regret your endorsement of him?

Commenting has been disabled for this item.