State of Kansas Finances

[WuShock16]

On This Week in Kansas this morning, it was brought up that Bill Self has opened up an LLC so that he can take advantage of the tax loopholes while the guy who sweeps the floor at AFH has to pay.

To Bill's defense, it isn't entirely uncommon. Bill Snyder has a similar arrangement. Self even had that arrangement when he coached at Illinois. The criticism doesn't fall on those particular coaches but instead the system that allows that. That seems to be one of those unintended consequences.

[shockmonster]

To Bill's defense, it isn't entirely uncommon. Bill Snyder has a similar arrangement. Self even had that arrangement when he coached at Illinois. The criticism doesn't fall on those particular coaches but instead the system that allows that. That seems to be one of those unintended consequences.

I don't think that anyone is trying to attack him. Definitely an unintended consequence because they don't create jobs by it (to my knowledge-lol). They definitely aren't doing anything illegal. Greedy? Perhaps but we all could be accused of being greedy at some point of our lives and maybe they will help the needy with the funds they save. With Medicaid being cut from some needy people, the policy is definitely a bad one.

[Aargh]

With the legislature and the executive branch absolutely refusing to acknowledge the problem and correct it by rolling back the income tax cuts, it creates the appearance that the actual goal of those in charge in Kansas is to bankrupt the State.

If the State were bankrupt, then many State functions could be privatized much more easily. In some cases that might be the only immediate solution. It's obvious that both the legislative and the executive branches want to see privatization of many State functions. Would they actually bankrupt the State in order to force privatization?

Running up over a billion in new debt, stripping all the money from KDOT, delaying pension payments, and leaving revenues below expenses sure looks like a great formula for creating a bankrupt State. I'm struggling to see any other goal in the current economic plans coming out of Topeka.

[wufan]

With the legislature and the executive branch absolutely refusing to acknowledge the problem and correct it by rolling back the income tax cuts, it creates the appearance that the actual goal of those in charge in Kansas is to bankrupt the State.

If the State were bankrupt, then many State functions could be privatized much more easily. In some cases that might be the only immediate solution. It's obvious that both the legislative and the executive branches want to see privatization of many State functions. Would they actually bankrupt the State in order to force privatization?

Running up over a billion in new debt, stripping all the money from KDOT, delaying pension payments, and leaving revenues below expenses sure looks like a great formula for creating a bankrupt State. I'm struggling to see any other goal in the current economic plans coming out of Topeka.

The problem with all conspiracy theories is that they bypass the most obvious theory. In this case, the most obvious is that they totally miscalculated.

[Aargh]

The problem with all conspiracy theories is that they bypass the most obvious theory. In this case, the most obvious is that they totally miscalculated.

The problem with the "miscalculation" theory is that they've known for several years that they "miscalculated". The fact that they have done nothing to recognize or correct the "miscalculation" creates the appearance that something else is in play.

If an employee in private enterprise proposed a change in business practices that resulted in a miscalculation of the number of revenue sources that would disappear by 70%, that employee would be terminated and the policies that emloyee had endorsed would be reversed. The business model indicates that the current legislature should be voted out in the upcoming elections.

The alternatives to a "conspiracy theory" would require an incredible lack of mental acuity in Topeka.

[SB Shock]

The problem with the "miscalculation" theory is that they've known for several years that they "miscalculated". The fact that they have done nothing to recognize or correct the "miscalculation" creates the appearance that something else is in play.

If an employee in private enterprise proposed a change in business practices that resulted in a miscalculation of the number of revenue sources that would disappear by 70%, that employee would be terminated and the policies that emloyee had endorsed would be reversed. The business model indicates that the current legislature should be voted out in the upcoming elections.

The alternatives to a "conspiracy theory" would require an incredible lack of mental acuity in Topeka.

if it good enough for Obama, it good enough for Kansas....right?

Second mistake people make is assuming that Republican means Conservative. In Kansas it is a label that people use to get elected.

You also highlight a problem - career politician. It is a problem at local and national level.
They put their own needs (reelection) ahead of their constituents needs.

[shockmonster]

Here's another interesting aspect of our Kansas Government. Our conservative Kansas legislative members are considered part time employees and are in Topeka a small portion of the year (5 months or so). Yet, they have made the law regard them as full time employees when it comes to their pensions. They talk one way but line their pockets on the back of hard working Kansans. I'm not sure how many years they have to work to be vested and receive full time pension status, nor what their percentage of income is on their salary because they are on a separate arm from other KPERS employees. Who holds them accountable for running our state into the ground?

[Awesome Sauce Malone]

Here's another interesting aspect of our Kansas Government. Our conservative Kansas legislative members are considered part time employees and are in Topeka a small portion of the year (5 months or so). Yet, they have made the law regard them as full time employees when it comes to their pensions. They talk one way but line their pockets on the back of hard working Kansans. I'm not sure how many years they have to work to be vested and receive full time pension status, nor what their percentage of income is on their salary because they are on a separate arm from other KPERS employees. Who holds them accountable for running our state into the ground?

it doesnt matter. refugees are being blocked and planned parenthood is defunded. Brownbacks experiment is a success

[Aargh]

Here's my take on the school funding problem. It goes back to the year before the block grants were enacted.

Agricultural commodities and gas and oil were sky high, and a lot of rural areas were flush with local funds. That made Johnson County eligible for additional state aid to their schools based on the relative "poverty" in Johnson County.

Then commodities and gas and oil hit the skids. Many rural areas were no longer flush with funds. This would have eliminated the additional subsidies Johnson County was getting because Johnson County was no longer relatively "poor". That didn't happen because block grants froze funding at the previous year's levels. Johnson County's funding for schools was frozen at a level they would not have qualified for if block grants had not been established.

Then the Supreme Court said that funding was not equitable. There was a simple solution. Redistribute the allocated funds.Merrick and Ryckman (I think those were the guys) would have nothing to do with that. It would have meant cuts to schools in their district. They made it clear there would be no consideration of anything that cut funds in their districts. They had enough power in the legislature that they successfully blocked discussion, debate, or consideration of any redistribution of allocated funds.

Pardon me, I must digress for a moment before the next step in this fiasco unfolds.

Then they grabbed some bill that was originally about something like naming a state snail. That bill had been through both the Senate and the House with some differing versions, so it had been sent to committee. Once a bill has been debated on both floors and sent to committee it can't be discussed, debated, or amended. Both branches have already had their opportunity to do that. The bill can only be voted up or down.

Now the committee of 6 people, which can be absolutely controlled by Merrick (a Johnson County legislator), removed all the content from the official state snail bill and substituted the school funding bill they wanted. Even though the bill no longer had any language about the state snail, the bill had already been discussed, so the Senate and House had no opportunity to discuss, debate, or amend the bill. They could only vote to accept it or refuse it. The Johnson County group was not shy about pointing out that the legislators were never going to see another, so this was a "take it or leave it" bill ramrodded through at 3 AM that was crafted by 6 people in secrecy.

Now the Supreme Court has (to absolutely no one's surprise) found this bill unconstitutional. The legislators are crying that the Court is ordering them to raise taxes, which is beyond the scope of what the Court should be doing. No, the legislature doesn't have to raise taxes. If Johnson County wants to keep the funds they are no longer entitled to under equity, then the legislature has to come up with $40 mill to create equity with Johnson County. If Johnson County will agree to some cuts to their funding (they wouldn't be the only district affected), then the legislature doesn't need to allocate additional funds to achieve equity.

It's some Johnson County legislators who created this mess. They are using the mess they created so they can lay the blame on the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court is the ultimate authority on the Constitution. If you don't like what the Supreme Court decides, you amend the Constitution, you don't politicize the Supreme Court.

[shocker3]

Here's another interesting aspect of our Kansas Government. Our conservative Kansas legislative members are considered part time employees and are in Topeka a small portion of the year (5 months or so). Yet, they have made the law regard them as full time employees when it comes to their pensions. They talk one way but line their pockets on the back of hard working Kansans. I'm not sure how many years they have to work to be vested and receive full time pension status, nor what their percentage of income is on their salary because they are on a separate arm from other KPERS employees. Who holds them accountable for running our state into the ground?

It was 10 years and then in 2007 the Legislature lowered the number of years to vest to 5 years. While the change applies to all state employees it was done because most legislators don't last 10 years. The turnover is quite high in the Kansas legislature and it is not due to large numbers of incumbents losing elections. Most legislators quit after a few years because they can't afford the low pay and time away from their families.

Ironcially enough the big pension helps contribute to the low pay problem. Legislators actual pay is only about $7920 per year (90 days x $88 per day). They do also receive $140 a day for expenses when they are meeting in Topeka and some office expense money for the time they aren't in Topeka. In total they receive about $20,000 in expense money and pay. But those legislators from outside the Topeka area have to maintain a second residence in Topeka so most of that expense money is used for expenses.

The reason that the big pension contributes to the low pay problem is that out of that $7920 pay they have to pay for that large pension. So they pay 6% on a $90,000 a year salary for pension purposes (round numbers, it is actually in the high 80s for most legislators). That is about $5400 per year. So the actual take home pay for legislators is very small ($7920-$5400-taxes). In fact, some months they actually get a negative check. Their KPERS contribution exceeds their pay for the pay period.

Politically over the years, it was much easier for legislators to increase their pension than their pay. Legislators were making about $88 per day back in 1987 and that is still about what they are paid today. So that is how this mess has evolved and grown over the years. I could post a whole history of this special legislative pension if people are interested.

[Kung Wu]

It was 10 years and then in 2007 the Legislature lowered the number of years to vest to 5 years. While the change applies to all state employees it was done because most legislators don't last 10 years. The turnover is quite high in the Kansas legislature and it is not due to large numbers of incumbents losing elections. Most legislators quit after a few years because they can't afford the low pay and time away from their families.

Ironcially enough the big pension helps contribute to the low pay problem. Legislators actual pay is only about $7920 per year (90 days x $88 per day). They do also receive $140 a day for expenses when they are meeting in Topeka and some office expense money for the time they aren't in Topeka. In total they receive about $20,000 in expense money and pay. But those legislators from outside the Topeka area have to maintain a second residence in Topeka so most of that expense money is used for expenses.

The reason that the big pension contributes to the low pay problem is that out of that $7920 pay they have to pay for that large pension. So they pay 6% on a $90,000 a year salary for pension purposes (round numbers, it is actually in the high 80s for most legislators). That is about $5400 per year. So the actual take home pay for legislators is very small ($7920-$5400-taxes). In fact, some months they actually get a negative check. Their KPERS contribution exceeds their pay for the pay period.

Politically over the years, it was much easier for legislators to increase their pension than their pay. Legislators were making about $88 per day back in 1987 and that is still about what they are paid today. So that is how this mess has evolved and grown over the years. I could post a whole history of this special legislative pension if people are interested.

I don't have time to properly digest this, so tell me if I got it right ...

Legislators work about 5 years (on average), investing $5400/yr × 5 yrs = $27,000 in order to receive a lifetime pension that would normally be granted to someone making about $90,000/yr?

[im4wsu]

I don't have time to properly digest this, so tell me if I got it right ...

Legislators work about 5 years (on average), investing $5400/yr × 5 yrs = $27,000 in order to receive a lifetime pension that would normally be granted to someone who worked for five years making about $90,000/yr?

Most defined benefit pensions are based on 60% of final earnings and 30-40 years of service and payment begins at age 65. For easy math, assume 30 years of service are required to receive 60% of the 90,000. So 5/30th of $54,000, or $9,000/year beginning at age 65.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

The Supreme Court is the ultimate authority on the Constitution. If you don't like what the Supreme Court decides, you amend the Constitution, you don't politicize the Supreme Court.

Where in the Kansas Constitution does it say that the Supreme Court gets to dictate school funding levels? Hint: it doesn't.

If the legislature passed a bill calling for K-12 tuition, the Supreme Court could say "no, that's unconstitutional".
If the legislature passed a bill calling for the abandonment of state funding, leaving it all up to local government, the Supreme Court could say "no, that's unconstitutional".

Deciding whether to spend $12,000 or $13,000 per student is not for the Supreme Court to say. That is clearly the Legislature's job. They decide, and if voters don't like their decision, voters can vote them out of office.

I actually favor increases to certain areas of education, such as teacher pay, but it is lawlessness when one branch takes on power that isn't theirs. The Supreme Court has no right to take this role on itself, and it is disturbing when people allow abuses of power simply because the abuse aligns with their political goals.

[DUShock]

Jamar, I am surprised by this logic. Given that Article 6 of the state constitution addresses education, including a passage on Section 6b, which the case was largely filed on, among other items "The legislature shall make suitable provision for finance of the educational interests of the state."(Art.VI, Section 6b) Under our constitutional republic, it is the role of the court to determine such matters.

Now, I will not wade into the ruckus that is Kansas politics as one's views are likely to remained unchanged regardless of the exchange.

[OregonShocker]

nm