|
Rep. Doug Patterson House District 28: Leawood and House phone:
785-296-7672 Date: Weekly Newsletter #6 |
Assignments:
MAJORITY WHIP CHAIR: |
Date:
Dear Constituent:
Following Turnaround (see report #5 on the web page, http://www.dougpatterson.org/newsletter/2003/2003-03-04 The Legislature
was not in session on
Committee Reports
Agriculture: Hearing on bills in the next two weeks. SCR 1604: A concurrent resolution urging Congress and the President to promote ethanol and bio-diesel. SB 135: Regarding inspections not required for buffalo or domesticated deer. SB 131: Regarding the exclusion of livestock auction barns and other livestock markets from confined feeding facility requirements.
Appropriations: Working on the 2004 Budget.
Commerce and Labor: Hearings taking place regarding ““fee bills.”” SB 133: Regarding removing open claim reporting requirement from workers compensation act. HB 2267: Regarding service performed by certain alien agricultural workers not employed under employment security law.
Education: Hearings on home rule bill; hearings on uniform budgeting for school districts.
Environment: Hearing on bill regarding waste tires.
Federal and State: Hearings regarding HB 2420: Children’’s Internet Protection Act. Hearings on HB 2354: Child in need of care act.
Health and Human Services: Hearings regarding the physical therapy bill that passed the Senate (SB 225). Hearings regarding the possibility of banning smoking in all restaurants.
Insurance: Hearings on Sub SB144: Enacting the
Tourism: Hearings on SB 134: Regarding limiting the
liability of property owners to person entering premises for agritourism and ecotourism purposes. Hearings on SB 221
which would create the southeast
Utilities:
Hearings on SB 51 which would prohibit the exclusion of excessive employee
compensation (““golden parachutes””).
THE BUDGET: THE GOVERNOR SEEKS TO USE EARLY NUMBERS We
will have official Consensus numbers in April. The reliable numbers will be
generated on or about April 22, 2003, following April 15, 2003, when tax
returns have been received abd when we can have a
realistic idea of receipts and trends for the 2004 burget
year and where we will be at the end of this fiscal year of 2003 (ending June
30, 2003). The numbers we receive in April address more than receipts. It
addresses estimates for caseloads, for school attendance, and other estimated
costs of government. 42% of the state’’s revenue
comes from personal income taxes––therefore it is more accurate to have the
Official Consensus numbers after April 15th. In fact, last year’’s
estimates, which took place in March, were off by $200 million--the largest
error in recent memory. Unlike in
If the Governor believes in her unofficial estimates, then we look
forward, and expect her to propose Governor’’s Budget
Amendments (GBA’’s) to reflect her changes, her early
estimates and propose a budget accordingly. We expect her to prove up her
budget, and if it doesn’t balance with the receipt she anticipates, then we
expect her to suggest revenue enhancements, i.e., tax increases for us to
consider. The Legislature will look
fully consider all amendments the Governor puts forward. In addition, the Legislature gets monthly
updates on the revenues that we are receiving and we have been--and continue
to--look at those numbers as we work on the budget.
The Governor’s budget proposed no tax increase, cut essentially every
line item beyond what department heads say they can live with to make things
work, from SRS, Courts, Transportation, etc. So far only K-12 education has not
been cut since the cuts, i.e., allotments made by Gov. Graves in the summer and
fall of 2002. Yet, without an ending balance and with the Comprehensive
Transportation plan funded it looks like we will be short by about
$2,000,000.00.
As I said in my first 2003 newsletter, http://www.dougpatterson.org/newsletter/2003/2003_01_13
I was optimistic that the Governor’s budget would work, keep schools
funded at current levels and get out of the budget year without a tax increase
of some sort. Based upon information we now have, I now do not think that is
going to happen.
We must look at our economic situation in the long term, not just year
to year. The best article I have read on this issue is contained in the
February, 2003 “Policy Alert” from the
“After almost a decade of good
economic conditions and strong revenue growth, most states entered fiscal year
2003 facing sharply reduced revenues, and are now struggling to constrain expenditures.
Unfortunately, this situation is unlikely to change any time soon, according to
projections developed for the
Maintaining
funding for the wide range of existing state services will place enormous
pressure on state legislatures to continue the recent practice of sharply
reining in, if not reducing, their appropriations to higher education. This
trend is in stark contrast to state actions during much of the 1990s, when most
states substantially increased their support for higher education. This
boom-and-bust cycle has become a traditional state pattern of treating colleges
and universities disproportionately well during prosperous times-and
disproportionately poorly in tight budgetary circumstances.
State
actions during the good economic times of the nineties are likely to exacerbate
the fiscal challenges that lie ahead-particularly for higher education. This is
because, during the strong fiscal conditions:
. States funded popular new programs that will now
compete with higher education for funding in both good times and bad; and
. Many
states reduced tax rates, and many did so in ways that will require explicit
action to increase them again-which lawmakers are very reluctant to do.
Further, due to demographic and economic factors in
most states, the claims on the public purse will be greater for other programs
than for higher education-continuing the trend that results in colleges and
universities getting a consistently smaller slice of the state appropriations
pie.
If economic growth is slower than normal, if states
continue to cut taxes, or if states increase spending in areas outside of
higher education, then the outlook for support of public higher education will
be even worse...
...On the expenditure side, many states will need to
rapidly increase their outlays for Medicaid, the health insurance program for
the poor and medically needy. According to the experts, Medicaid spending is
expected to grow by about 10% a year, which will drive up overall spending
considerably...
...These projections suggest that the fiscal
prospects for higher education are not rosy. The pie is no longer expanding; in
some states it is shrinking. As higher education receives a smaller share of a
smaller pie-a likely short-term scenario-colleges and universities and the
students who enroll in them will face particularly difficult financial
positions.”
I am sharing this with you to say
this: The tax levy cuts in the late ‘90's felt good when times were good, but
they are now devastating now to schools who rely on
property taxes.
As you may know, I e-mailed out a
survey on a number of issues. I am also mailing the survey out to Leawood and OP constituents. One of the questions related
to support for a tax increase. So far, the overwhelming support is for a tax
increase. Upon receipt of more information, I will publish the survey results.
To find and complete the survey, see:
www.dougpatterson.org/newsletter/2003/2003_03_07
But we must not continue to rely
upon the current old 1993 School Finance Formula. It basically takes the lions
share tax funds from communities who support their schools in every way they can
(
Rep. Jim Yonally
(R-OP) has taken the lead on drafting and proposing a new school finance
formula which places a priority on communities who support their own schools by
keeping more of local money home. We still need to finance a “suitable”
education for all students in the state, but not necessarily an “equal”
education for all students in the state. It will take some time to process this
bill and it will probably be opposed by such organizations as the KNEA and
perhaps the Kansas Association of School Boards on this “suitable” vs. “equal”
issue. But we will work it, nonetheless. In the meantime, a tax increase of
some sort, even of a surcharge or phased-out measure is going to be
necessary. As work on the budget, and
revenue options are developed, I’ll keep you advised. In the meantime, fill out
the above mentioned survey and let me know of your thoughts.
**********************************************
For
information on the legislature and for some handy links, visit my web site at www.DougPatterson.org.
As
I have done in the past, I hope to get you a report weekly. Please e_mail me at Patterson@house.state.ks.us or call if you have
questions.
ALSO,
if you have others who you believe would find these legislative reports of use,
Please e_mail me their e_mail
addresses and I will add them to my address book.
Respectfully,
Rep, Doug
Patterson