To The Editor:

The Kansas House of Representatives recently passed a $610 million, 3-year, phased-in increase in school funding. This increase is in addition to the $289.5 million increase from 2005, and was passed by the narrowest of margins in a 64-61 vote. This plan is the result of pro-tax and spend republicans teaming up with democrats to pass a plan with absolutely no funding source. As a matter of fact, when the chief sponsor of the act was asked on the house floor how he proposed to pay for the plan, he responded “We will come back and fix it next year.” What he meant was we will come back after the fall elections and raise your taxes. After the plan was passed, several architects of the plan told the press that expanded gambling would fund this plan. That is disingenuous. Expanded gambling is estimated to be worth $110 - $200 million. Even if the legislature does approve state owned and operated casinos, those revenues would fall woefully short. With no additional increase in revenues, this plan would result in a $147 million budget short fall next year. Years two and three of the plan would result in short falls of $419.3 and $492.2 million. Across the board budget cuts, excluding public safety and education, of nearly 25% would devastate the poor, elderly, and disabled. That leaves only one funding source; taxes. Since Kansas draws most of its tax revenues from property, sales, and income taxes, it would be those taxes that would be increased. Here are the increases being considered. The state sales tax could be increased by 2% (to 7.3%), which, according to the KS Dept. of Revenue, would cost the average Kansas family an additional $825 per year. The property tax could be increased by 24 mills. That doubling of the property tax would cost the owner of a $100,000 home an additional $276 per year. Also on the table is an individual income tax surtax of 21.9%. This would cost a family of four making $75K, and taking standard deductions, an additional $641 per year. However, it must be noted that state economists warn that these types of increases are unprecedented in our state’s history and could cause massive volatility in the Kansas economy in the form of job loss, decreased purchasing, and economic recession. Therefore, the possibility exists that additional increases might be necessary in order to pay for the new school finance plan.

Sadly, even this massive and, frankly, highly irresponsible and unfunded spending is not enough for the school finance plaintiffs and their attorney, Alan Rupe. Mr. Rupe was quoted in Saturday’s Wichita Eagle as saying “This legislation is not quite there yet”. In addition, those who crafted the plan included a puzzling provision that requires Legislative Post Auditors to do a study every three years. This was obviously done to arm trial attorneys with data and force more increases in future years. At first glance, this type of study requirement may seem like good policy. Only after one examines the current study and the new plan passed by the House do you truly understand the danger of this provision. The framers of the plan instituted every single increase called for in the study. However, they failed to implement a single measure of savings or accountability called for in that same study. For example, the LPA study said that large urban districts with high poverty students were under funded, but that several small rural districts were receiving too much money. As expected, they gave some new money to Wichita, Topeka, and Kansas City schools, but not only did they fail to decrease funding to the “over funded” schools; they gave them even more. Interestingly, when these same legislators had the opportunity to make the entire LPA study law, every single one of them voted no. Apparently they have decided to have their cake and eat it, too. Unfortunately, that comes with a hefty price, and that price is paid by hard working Kansans and retired property owners.

Finally, and nearly as disappointing as their unbridled spending binge was their votes on measures assuring accountability and student success. The supporters of the $600 million increase voted no on requiring superintendents to certify, as accurate, district budgets and financial statements. And they voted no on building-based budgets that would have helped ensure the money actually got to the classroom, as well as provisions requiring that schools communicate with parents.

In closing, the public must be well informed about the impact that this action will have on all Kansans. Earlier in the session the legislature took many positive actions designed to create jobs and improve the State’s economy. These initiatives included eliminating the machinery and equipment tax; something our neighboring states have already done to lure Kansas industry away from our state. We approved a sales tax holiday for back-to-school products that would greatly benefit hardworking Kansas families, as well as a phase out of the estate and franchises taxes. And last, but certainly not least, was the approval of the Fair Fares Program that would help provide affordable airfares for Kansans; something that both consumers and the business community have desired for years. All of these actions designed to create jobs and benefit every citizen of Kansas are now in serious jeopardy. At the end of the day, Kansans must ask themselves if 66 cents of every tax dollar is not enough to fund education. And if not, at what price and peril to the Kansas economy should taxes be increased to add additional money to an already very successful public education system.

Rep. Jason Watkins
Wichita