LJWorld.com

In a few weeks our state legislature will meet to set a budget for next year. There is a projected deficit of about $300 million dollars from last year’s expenditures (about 5% of the general fund). The deficit would be about $600 million from the governors originally proposed 2011 budget. There are many proposals to address the situation. They include reductions in projected expenditures as well as significant tax increases. The piper is here.

We have already reduced our state general fund budget about 10%. Further reductions will likely impact schools, colleges and programs for the poor. Cutting is easy. A proposal to reduce the budget to the expected revenues of $5.2 Billion for the general fund is on the table (total reduction over two years of about 13%).

Sin taxes (liquor, smoking, etc.) are on the agenda and a strong majority supports increasing them. There is just one problem - they will not cover the shortfall.

Restoring sales tax exemptions and other taxes for businesses cut in recent legislative sessions is also on the table. The legislature has been very generous in reducing taxes on this group citing the action will produce jobs. One could argue that a fair amount of the current shortfall results from these reductions. Strong elements of our legislature do not support this option.

Extending sales taxes to utilities and various charitable groups is proposed. There is a lot of money in taxes on utilities as they would increase our utility bills by as much as 6% in addition to the every increasing (> 20%) overall rate increases already programmed. Taxing religious activity could help defray cuts if we can sustain the legality of our actions – this action alone will not cover the shortfall.

A general sales tax increase of up to 1% is on the table. For the math phobic that would be about a 20% increase that would hit hardest on those least able to afford it. This option can go a long way to covering the shortfall depending on how much the increase.

An increase in income taxes for the very wealthy has been proposed. This option did not fair well in the polls. Do we really have that many people with taxable incomes over $150K? This option by itself will not cover the problem although some might argue that when combined with a smaller sales tax increase it might be more equitable.

Now for those of us in Lawrence we face a property tax increase for Library improvements. We also face the costs of new recreation facility to be paid from already existing but no longer required sales tax revenue. It appears that we may also get permission to increase our local option school budget – a property tax increase locally. It is not yet clear whether the county of the city have designs on a property tax increase but noises from down under suggest one may be coming.

All of the above suggest a hefty tax increase for many of us – and I have not even presented the federal situation where we have a continuing deficit of over a trillion dollars a year that will undoubtedly lead to tax increase on many of us – not to mention increases in the costs for medical insurance and fees resulting from the new health care entitlement.

We are all going to have to face this and decide what we want done and how we intend to pay for it. One way or another we must now pay the piper. Make your choices known.

The LJW is all for the city revitalizing the old Farmland property on the east side of town. The argument appears to be future growth. The details are at best vague- as they seem to be for all our economic development activities. Just who will benefit from these efforts and who will pay?

Now, I would suspect that the latter is obvious. Current and future taxpayers will pay – for a long time. The money has to come from somewhere and last I looked there is no printing press in the city building basement. Yes, there will be some federal money, but given our federal over-commitment can we be sure it will be there?

Who benefits? I am having trouble with answering that question. First, I am not sure that “growth” for growths sake is such a good idea. Lacking detail as to the type of growth to be sought, I can only wonder. If we are to bring in more jobs such as the predominant type in our eastern business park and in our recent history, I suspect most of the new hires will not even be able to afford to live here. If we extend tax rebates to the owners of whatever we obtain it would seem to lead to a net loss. Why would we want to do this?

If we are going to be highly selective as to the growth to be obtained - where the new jobs will be well paid and perhaps actually contribute to our tax base - then maybe this could benefit our community. However, it would seem that to obtain such growth we would have to offer something unique. Competition for high paying jobs such as in biotechnology is keen and many other communities have a university and in some cases an existing biotechnology business base. What do we have to offer to trump their offers?

What I am afraid of is that this is another misrepresentation where our lawgivers are more interested in lining the pockets of some of our local business interests (developers come to mind). After we acquire various facilities and pay developers to upgrade and or repair them we will be unable to attract the kind of business that will make for a positive return Our law givers will then lose interest and like past city investments we will be left holding a less then attractive “bag”. Worse, with the acquisition of the farmland property we run the risk of open-ended costs to ameliorate environmental deficiencies. There is no guarantee our exposure is limited.

What is driving this sudden spurt in economic development? Do we have a plan? Has anyone seen that plan? You would think that responsible civic leaders would know where they are going and how they plan to get there. Is anyone clear as to the total costs to do whatever we are going to do? What are the steps? What are we expecting from KU? Is the state a party? Where will the investment come from if not the taxpayers? It would seem to me a philosophy of “if you build it they will come” is a very poor approach to nurturing the future of our city.

Does anybody know where we are going? Could our lawgivers, some of whom have ties to the development community, be working their own futures at our expense? Maybe, I am just out of touch! What do you think?

This morning, a letter to the editor suggested that there might be other options to improving the downtown library such as creating satellite facilities. Some people thought that might just be a good idea. Someone identified such a solution as a potential for the “haves” to further exploit the “have nots”. The definition seems to be geographic – west of the campus is the domain of the “haves” with the rest of the city inhabited by “have nots”.

I started to think about that and wondered if it is just that simple. I concluded it is not. We all, at least most of us, know that there is a significant amount of income transfers in our taxes at all levels. Rent subsidy, child care, child support, medical care, ownership incentives, job training and so on are there to help the “have nots”. Is it enough? I honestly do not know but I do know we are trying.

So could there be another issue in Lawrence that drives this debate? Could part of our business community be using this issue to further their own interests? Certainly, they will not come out and say they want more for themselves. However, if you wrap their interests in the “have-have not” issue does that not benefit them? Just exactly who benefits from our tax money to “downtown” – the “have nots”? Maybe the obvious is correct, certain business interests do.

I just might point out that those very interests have actually contributed to the “have not” problem. Lawrence is below the Kansas average in pay to employees (and Kansas is no shining star). So we exploit the students (and everyone else) by paying them low wages and conceal our ploy by constantly raising the “have- have not” issue as a distraction.

If I am right, and I just may be, how could we all fall for this? Must we constantly use tax money to subsidize business interests in the name of the “have nots”? Why have we allowed this artificial east-west issue to be used to divide us?

In my recent history, I have attended several symposiums on how to present a message – in these cases “frame” the message. If you wish to advocate something, how should you present it too those you hope to convince. This concept does not suggest lying but finding a specific and related concept that is favorably viewed by the group to be influenced.

For example, if you wish to establish another massive federal dependency – in this case for health care – you do not address the income transfer required to achieve your goal. You do in this example argue that reform is needed. You find a demon in the form of insurance companies and focus on real and imagined malfeasance. You can even help your advocacy by indirectly encouraging others to represent that the cost is low and the benefits high. If any one challenges you, the issue is “reframed” to reform and the meanness of those who do not support it. At all costs, you avoid arguing about money – an argument you might lose. The real issue here is reforming our system to remove some generally agreed upon shortcoming – not creating a massive income transfer program

Another example is our “Save our Schools” initiatives. The issue is “framed” as preserving neighborhood schools. There is some truth in that. What is neglected is that the specific schools to be saved are somewhat unique. Even if one were closed, the remaining smaller schools would still be within the definition of neighborhood schools in Lawrence. We demonize the administrators, an easy task, neglecting to admit that there are functions to perform and others will have to do them. You concoct solutions that seem reasonable but conceal the disproportionate impacts. The real issue, is of course, how to we fairly and equitably address a systemic and probably long-term deficit in school funding.

Another example is our recent initiative on resourcing our public bus system. The issue was framed as a necessary step to enable the poor to have transportation to and from work. It was generally concealed that there were other alternatives of lesser cost that would have served the poor. Anybody that suggested alternatives was demonized as being against the poor. As a result, we saddled ourselves with a long-term sales tax. Now, it seems to be evolving, that the funding sought may be inadequate so we may have to make up future shortfalls from our general revenue stream. The real issue here should have been how to support the transportation needs of a small segment of our community and not continuation of an underutilized system – especially given the KU system.

It seems to me that some of my fellow bloggers are very adept in “framing” issues. They are very committed to their advocacy. They seem to be willing to use every debate technique – to include misrepresentation and in some case misdirection - to sell their product. Perhaps the rest of us should be more alert to those techniques. Failure to do so may yield consequence that may be very detrimental to our community.

There are three fundamental issues with this school debate.

A number of older schools have small class sizes while some newer schools have higher pupil-teacher ratios. Perpetuating that is not fair!!

Many smaller schools have smaller areas from which they draw students. Some larger schools draw from a larger area. Which represents a true neighborhood school? If the larger draw areas still represent a neighborhood school then we could easily increase the draw area of the older schools and they would still be neighborhood schools.

The financial situation, according to both parties in Washington, will likely not improve significantly for five to ten years. This is probably not a short-term problem as represented by the groups advocating for neighbor schools. Further increasing class size in the larger schools in order to protect small class sizes in smaller schools is morally bankrupt.

As an aside, I cannot defend each specific administrative position in our school system. However, the requirements of a number of federal and state laws tend to drive staff to manage and report on these programs. Adding that workload to teachers, particularly in large class size settings would be unconscionable. I am not sure we can walk away from many of these requirements. The issue here is with Washington!

Now, I am not against small class sizes or small schools. That said, if we are going to have those than we need to provide them to all students. That would make the financial problem a lot larger than $5Mil.

Just exactly what are we arguing about?

I can not help but notice that the battle over snow removal continues. The debate in this medium takes the form of some number of people demanding that other individuals clear their snow – because they say so. The word easement gets used a lot but it is not clear if those using it actually understand the word. In my humble opinion it sounds like a bunch of teenagers demanding their parents give them the car.

We have one of the more demanding snow removal ordinances in Kansas. I guess that is not surprising given Lawrence’s propensity to demand public services. I actually have pity on the city as it tries to implement this ordinance with some thought given the current circumstances. I really believe that our law-givers did not fully anticipate the consequences of a rare snow event coupled with bitterly cold temperatures. It appears to me they tried to compensate through slack enforcement and got taken to task by those fixated on snow removal.

In my humble opinion we as a society have become very fixated on legislating the action of the citizenry. We have traded thoughtful legislation for a plethora of legislation. Bad laws make for bad outcomes. Perhaps if our snow removal laws are to be so specific there should be provision for this and other unique situations. I know the city will argue that it will make judicious decisions or at least try to do so. I have never been comfortable relying on the temperament of my law-givers to address a mess of their own creation. And then we face the cry of the mob overriding any thoughtful application.

I understand the dilemma facing the city. It has miles of public infrastructure all over the city. It has no budget or even a reasonable way of maintaining that infrastructure. It seeks public support to do so. Yes, we need to clear our sidewalks. We do this not so that people in wheel chairs can whip around in a blizzard or that young runners can be spared any impact on their routine but so that children required to walk to school can do so. Amazing how another set of law-givers messed this one up. Only something of this importance could possible warrant requiring thousands of homeowners to provide uncompensated physical services to the city on what now appears to be an unreasonable schedule.

Now most of us have a responsible level of intelligence. The city, however, thinks we are all idiots. Yes. I might have delayed removing my snow given that schools were cancelled and that temperatures were near zero with drifting snow. That would be rational. The law we have denies me the ability to use my intelligence and forces me to take physical risks to meet the requirements. Why?

I suspect that many of the tickets that have been issued are probably to landlords and businesses that simply make an economic decision. I choose to pay a $70 fine as opposed to $150 to have my property cleared. I bet they will even write off the ticket as a cost of doing business. So, is our very demanding law aggravating the very people who the city needs to help maintain the city’s infrastrure? Has anybody though about why Mr. Corliss wants to tax us though our water bill to repair sidewalks? Could it be because there is real resistance by property owners to doing so at their expense and a lack of clear legal support for the city mandating that solution? If we keep messing with people we may end up with nothing- somebody will spend the money to legally challenge the 13 percent of the citizenry that demand such a tight and simplistic requirement.

If we are going to have such a law than in my opinion there needs to be appropriate elements in the law that clearly bounds the applications so that all of us know what is responsible and required and that timeliness bows to environmental circumstances among other matters. The city should not be trying to avoid its own law because it is not adequate. The inevitable outcome of the situation we have created is the selective application of that law. Individuals employed by the city will ticket some and not ticket others based on their own personal perceptions or political pressure from their superiors. Of course that does not happen in Lawrence. Really, I watch it happen yesterday.

And, oh by the way, our school board needs to look for other ways to cut the budget or find agreement for revenue enhancement. Kids should not be walking to schools across major thoroughfares or in prohibitive weather.

The purpose of writing clear and comprehensive legislation is in part related to clearly and appropriately defining the responsibilities of those subject to its tenants but also to preclude the selective application of the law by elements of the state.

In summary, if it is worth doing it is worth doing right.

I am accused of picking on the left. In retroflection that is probably true. The right is not making many waves. The left is. I am responding to their proposed changes. In our immediate future three significant initiatives emanating from the left will likely drive really significant change. What will our country look like in 2050 given those changes? Below I have generated a thought piece that I think represents the fears of the right at this time. I admit it is extreme but the lack of definition of where these changes are going certainly allows for such a flight of fancy. If we are to reduce CO2 emissions by 50% by 2050 while lifting up the smaller countries it will certainly stress our economy. Could it lead to what I present?

The need to rapidly implement remedial actions to drastically cut CO2 as required by the climate accords of 2010 through 2020 led to a number of fundamental changes

To address the generation of CO2 from personal domiciles, groups were formed to review the stock of housing and to assign individuals to a home appropriate for their family size. At group direction and without remuneration many older homes were raised and new multi-family, more ecologically appropriate homes were built. Newer larger homes were modified to be multi family. By 2025 only certain families were allowed to remain in single family homes – most lived in small government subsidized structures.

To address the generation of CO2 from transportation sources the American transportation system has been changed. Railroads were significantly expended. Over the road long haul trucks were eliminated. Public transportation was expanded significantly. Groups were established to review application for personal autos. Only government officials and certain individuals were allowed to own one. By 2020 the stock of automobiles in the United States had been reduced to slightly more than a million.

Groups were established to identify what food products could be used. For the most part food is generated locally. High CO2 generating products had been minimized. Only certain people as determined by the various governments are allowed to consume delicacies such as meat, sea food, crops out of local season and so on. The farm population has expanded significantly with most farm land in the hands of the government as a result of the Commercial Farming Act of 2015 that confiscated all but a small number of individually owned farms.

The second major theme involves changes to health care. The health care reforms of 2010 and 2011 extended health care to everyone. Costs naturally escalated. Efforts to reduce costs significantly impacted the availability of doctors. Government was forced to recruit doctors and assign them to appropriate locations. To address the continued escalation of costs and to reduce the human footprint health care was more rigorously controlled. Health panels were established to review individual needs for care in consideration of costs and individual contributions. Seniors were routinely denied costly services. Live births were restricted to one per family. Costly routine care required permission from the local health panel. However, certain individuals as determined by governments, were provided better care so as to insure that the civilization functioned properly.

The third major theme is economics. The costs to implement climate change remediation proved truly immense. The cost of health care continued to stress the system. The diversion of resources to government directed activity all but eliminated the ability of the country to compete in the international arena. The financial expectations of 2010 were inconsistent with available resources. The population was too large for the available domestic jobs. Large corporations had fled the United States and established their headquarter in countries that were non-responsive to the Climate Accords of 2010 through 2020. Small business were unable to turn a profit given the tax rate necessary to adjust to the Climate Accords of 2010 through 2020 and as a result the Jobs Creation Acts of 2015-2020 saw most business become government owned. In order to hold down costs and to distribute population, committees were established to assign individual based on testing to specific careers and locations. By 2020 over 95% of the American populace was living at the same level as that of the1920s.

Now just maybe saner heads will prevail and change will be more gradual with due consideration for the maintenance of jobs and appropriate recognition to individuals who contribute more to the society then others. If the necessary technologies were then to mature as needed we might just thrive. However, making international agreements betting on the timely development of certain high risk technologies and significant and rapid changes to human activity just may not be a good approach!

Recently there were a series of letters to the editor addressing a performance of Vespers at KU. I saw the ad but did not attend. The letters concerned the content of the program. Apparently, a Michael Jackson song was included. Now the term Vespers pertains to the ecclesiastical and means a worship service held in the late afternoon or evening in many Western Christian churches. A Michael Jackson song would not seem to be included in that definition. It would likely not be considered religious by those of faith.

Now, I have nothing against Michael Jackson. However, I think there is a very real issue here - just who decides the meaning of words in our society? If I had attended, I would not have expected such a song. One of the writers apparently did not either. Two letter writers defended the performance because the song had merit. Great! However, if we are to arbitrarily redefine terms, how will we communicate effectively? Misunderstanding and potential conflict are a direct consequence of the arbitrary use of words.

Perhaps the writer who suggested a political intent could be correct. You would think that a university would understand the importance of language. The decision to include content inconsistent with the meaning of the term used to describe the event would suggest the writer might be correct.

Sometime back, I wrote a blog addressing the use of the term “Common Good” as a mechanism to justify government efforts that spend taxpayers’ money. Sometimes the efforts truly support the broad interest. Regrettably, all too often they support some form of small special interest. See: http://www2.ljworld.com/weblogs/loyal...

In this missive, I will address what I consider another term with the same potential to misdirect public funds. Economic Development is that term. It can truly encompass efforts that contribute to the public good or it can be misdirected toward a limited special interest with limited or no contribution to the public. How do we differentiate? One could certainly argue that when public funds are used, the public at large should directly benefit. One could also argue that the return to the public should be positive and be based on reasonable assumptions.

To meet these criteria, benefits could come in the form of lower taxes because the economic development generates significant tax revenue. Benefits could also come in the form of jobs that are broadly available to the community. One could even argue that benefits could come if the initiative brings in a new form of business that over time provides many jobs. One does need to be careful with the use of added jobs as a public benefit. Those jobs directly benefit those who are hired. They only provide broad benefits if they either result in tax reductions to most of us or provide our community with some broadly used amenity.

Conversely economic development activity that provides significant financial return to a small group with a minimal benefit to the community at large would likely not be in our interest. Even when the proposed activity does generate a new form of business that business should not benefit disproportionately a small group of investors at the expense of the community at large, even if the community does obtain additional jobs.

Lawrence has a well-written comprehensive policy on economic development. Within that policy there is a group established to assess the return to the community from any economic development activity. What I could not find within the policy is any guidelines as to what would be considered a positive return. Are generalities such as jobs or new business an adequate criterion for measuring return to all of us or do we have a policy with significant opportunity to fall under the control of special interests?

Recently there have been some interesting economic development activities proposed such as city owned laboratory space or city ownership of the former Farmland property. There are many advocates for these initiatives. What I think all of you that read this missive might wish to consider is whether you have seen anything that suggests that most of us will benefit from these investments of our tax money by our city.

In making that judgment, are generalities adequate? Are very optimistic assumptions appropriate? Should there not be some publicly approved guidelines as to what is of benefit to the community? Should we consider the establishment of a group independent of our “law givers” to assess the return and be in a position to reject such activity if there is not a reasonable probability of positive return to most of us?

Since moving here we have been very impressed with the commitment of the community to those less fortunate. There seems to be a group supporting just about any human need imaginable from battered women to our homeless. Our faith based community is very active as is our secular elements.

We as a community are again revisiting our support for the homeless. There has been consistent pressure to move our shelter from downtown. The shelter has responded by finding a location that is away from most commercial activity and about as removed as possible from residential locations. The move also enables additional services to include accommodating homeless families in a better setting.

Unfortunately, no location exists where there will not be some impact on somebody. The impact voiced about the chosen location raises issues as to transitory actions by the homeless themselves. I know the city is attempting to address panhandling in downtown. Good luck as most jurisdictions trying that have been defeated by the courts. Everyone pretty much has a right to go where they may and do as they will within the law. The new shelter location will only improve the situation for all of us.

The real question here is whether our community is willing to help the homeless. Admittedly, some of them are a long way from the warm and cuddly single moms with babies that we help with other programs. So is the nature of homelessness. However, it is just plain naive to assume if we do not help the homeless they will go away. Most of those receiving shelter are local. They will not go away; they will just find less regulated and more dispersed locations to occupy. In that circumstance, we will lose almost all possibility of helping them escape the trap they are in.

I defy anyone to find a better available location for a shelter. Lacking such a find the chosen location is about as good as we will get. We need to support the shelter as it seeks zoning approval by communicating to our commissioners our support for helping the homeless. Warm and Cuddly they are not; but they need our help just the same!