Dear Friends and Family,
I'm happy
to report that the pace has picked up significantly in the
Statehouse this week. Committees had a full schedule all week
on a variety of high profile issues, including: the FY 2010
rescission bill, tax policy, school funding lawsuits, health care,
smoking bans, and liquor sales. The budget situation remains
precarious, but I am still hopeful that we can pass some productive
policy this year despite our fiscal limitations. The halfway
point of the session is next week.
Sincerely,
Mike Slattery
State Representative
|
|
|
Because state
revenues have been consistently lower than expected, it was
necessary to make additional cuts to the FY 2010 budget that will
ensure we end the fiscal year with a positive ending balance
(referred to as a rescission bill). Most of the necessary
cuts have been made in November by Governor Parkinson, but some
required statutory action. The Appropriations Committee voted
the rescission bill out of committee last week and we took it up on
the House floor on Wednesday.
For the most part, the Legislature accepted Governor Parkinson's
proposal, with only a few amendments. Specifically, a floor
amendment was adopted that will reduce the salary of every elected
official by 5 percent (this includes all public officials who are
paid with state monies: statewide offices, state legislators,
district judges, etc). Some Medicaid cuts were also shifted
that will enable health care providers to receive more in federally
matched funds. The total state cut remains 10 percent, but by
making a few changes we were able to lessen the loss of federal
dollars.
We probably aren't finished with FY 2010 budget. Revenues
were lower than expected again in January, and the state will
likely be short approximately $40 million by July even with the
additional cuts we approved this week. I expect that we will
revisit this again in April when the most updated round of revenue
estimates are released and we have a more accurate picture of the
shortfall. In the interest of the legislative calendar, it is
best to turn our attention to FY 2011 for now.
|
House Bill 2544 Expands Beer
Sales
The House Federal
and State Affairs Committee is considering a bill that would allow
convenience and grocery stores to sell beer with 4 percent alcohol
rather than the 3.2 percent beer that they sell now. The
weaker beer was created to circumvent Prohibition regulations in
the 1930s; the law was never changed to allow grocery and convenience
stores to sell full-strength beer. If the bill passes, it
will not allow convenience and grocery stores to sell other types
of liquor. Also, Alcoholic Beverage Control would be in
charge of cereal malt beverage vendors.
Opposition to this proposal comes primarily from local liquor
stores, who are currently the only distributers of full-strength
beer. They argued that it is easier for liquor stores to
ensure underage citizens are not sold alcohol because it is
required by law that liquor store workers be at least 21 years
old. They also voiced concern that this change would just be
the first step in expanding alcohol sales to grocery and
convenience stores, followed by wine and other hard liquors.
Liquor store owners argue that because grocery and convenience
stores offer a wider selection of products, this could ultimately
put liquor stores out of business.
The proponents have been advocating for this law change for several
years. They argue that liquor stores profit from their
ability to set the price of alcohol and have little
competition. They believe this bill would not only increase
competition, it would also increase choice and convenience.
Convenience store owners contend that they do not have the room to
carry the selection of beers a liquor store would carry and
therefore would not put the liquor stores out of business.
|
House Tax Committee
Begins Series of Hearings
After five rounds of budget cuts- and a $400 million budget deficit
still looming- revenue proposals have been a major component of the
budget debate. On Monday, the House Committee on Taxation
began a two-week series on various proposals, which will continue
next week.
HCR 5028 would establish a three-year moratorium on the granting of
new tax exemptions, tax credits or economic development incentive
programs involving employer withholding taxes. This idea- in
addition to rolling back some tax exemptions- has been widely
floated throughout the interim as an alternative to a sales tax increase.
This proposal is a non-binding resolution and would not affect
exemptions already in place (a repeal of any tax exemptions already
on the books would require additional legislation). The
Kansas Advisory Council on Intergovernmental Relations (KACIR) testified
that the number of tax credits has increased exponentially in
recent years, putting a significant dent in the state's revenue
stream. As we work through massive cuts in Medicaid and
public schools, it is critical to protect what revenue we have until
the economy stabilizes.
Opponents of the proposal came primarily from the business
community, who testified that a moratorium would prevent Kansas
from being open to new business investments.
For years, the Legislature has arbitrarily granted or denied tax
exemptions with no set criteria on which to base its
decision. If nothing else, this proposal highlights the need
for clearly defined and consistent guidelines for granting
exemptions in the future.
There were several other proposals before the committee this week
and there will be more next week. I will keep you updated as
we move along. |
Disingenuous
Clean Indoor Air Act
Receives Committee Hearing
In an effort to protect Kansans from harmful secondhand smoke,
Governor Mark Parkinson encouraged the Legislature to produce a
strong statewide public smoking ban in 2010. In his State of the
State Address, Parkinson requested legislation that was not
"full of loopholes" and that would satisfy the 75% of
Kansans that want a "real public smoking ban." A
smoking ban proposal put forth by the chairwoman of the House
Health and Human Services Committee fails to accomplish this goal.
House Bill 2642 doesn't really ban anything. It would allow
businesses to decide whether to allow smoking within their building
just as they do in most places now. Businesses would be
allowed to have smoking indoors by paying an exemption fee of $1
per square foot of the designated smoking area. The bill does call
for, "physically separate smoking areas," but smoke
cannot be contained and studies have shown that separate
ventilation does not work to control exposure to secondhand smoke.
This legislation would also repeal the smoking ordinances that have
already been put in place in cities across the state of
Kansas.
House Bill 2642 is both disappointing and disingenuous. It
not only fails to protect citizens from harmful of secondhand
smoke, it also disregards the vast majority of the population's
request for a comprehensive clean indoor air law and cities and
counties that have already enacted restrictions locally.
In contrast, Governor Parkinson's proposal- House Bill 2221- makes
a serious effort to protect the health of Kansans. This bill
prohibits smoking in places of employment and restaurants and bars
with no option of paying a fee to "opt out." It also
helps to protect our workforce from involuntary inhalation of
carcinogens as well as helps to discourage our youth from becoming
regular smokers.
Currently, one in five high school students living in Kansas use
some form of tobacco.
It is in our best interest to protect our families and selves from
the detrimental effects of someone else's choices. Aside from
health benefits, it is simply good economic policy to enact a
strong statewide clean indoor air act. Our state spends $196
million on Medicaid expenses related to tobacco use.
I strongly support HB 2221 and oppose HB 2642. We need to
make the health and well-being of Kansans a major priority, and HB
2221 is just the measure to do this. I am thankful that the
vast majority of Johnson County already enjoys clean indoor air,
but it is time to make this a statewide issue.
|
Supreme
Court Denies Petition to
Reopen School Finance Case
On Friday, the Kansas Supreme Court announced its decision to deny
a petition by public school districts to reopen the 2006
Montoy school finance lawsuit. Friday's ruling from the court
means that any new challenge to the state's school finance system
must start over at the district court level.
Attorneys for a coalition of 74 districts argued that the state is
failing to comply with the court's earlier ruling that state aid to
schools was unconstitutionally low. The Court opinion says
that the July 28, 2006 decision found the Legislature to be in
"substantial compliance" with the remedial orders made by
the court in that case by passing bills in the 2005 session and
special session and the 2006 session. The Court also
said that the 2006 decision and closing the case was "limited
to determining compliance" with the Court's orders in the
specific case before the Court.
There were several problems with continuing the case originally
filed in 1996. Ryan Montoy probably is no longer in public
school and, therefore, does not have standing to sue under the new
formula. Also, the situation of the original school districts
has changed over time. And, the opinion pointed out, the case
on remand would have to go through essentially the same process as
a new case and "there is nothing the plaintiffs are seeking
that they cannot accomplish by filing a new lawsuit."
The decision to dismiss the case "was not
unanimous" but was made by a majority of the
Court. Attorney General Steve Six fought the districts'
request to reopen the case. He said a 2005 Kansas law requires that
any challenge to school finance be filed first in district court.
Despite decreased funding to public schools, I agree with Governor
Parkinson: this is not the best time for anyone to sue the state,
whether it is the Speaker of the House or public school
districts. At the end of the day, we are engulfed in a
terrible budget crisis and we need to stay focused on getting out
of this mess as quickly as possible. Legal battles prolong
everything in Topeka; they make everything more complicated and
political. Sometimes they are necessary, but in these
circumstances it's more productive for legislators to divert that
energy to the immediate budget crisis at hand.
However, my commitment to public education remains steadfast.
Regardless of the Supreme Court decision today, we have a
constitutional obligation to protect public schools. I will
do all I can to prevent further cuts to public schools in FY 2011
and will advocate to restore the devastating cuts of FY 2010 once
the economic climate of the state improves.
|
Keep
in Touch
It is a great honor to serve as your state representative,
particularly during this difficult economic time. I deeply
value and need your input on the various issues facing state
government. Again, I am here to serve and represent you, and
communication between us is vital. Please feel free to
contact me with any comments and questions. My office address
is Room L-8, Docking State Office Building, Topeka, KS 66612.
You can reach me at (785) 296-7665 or call me at home at (913)
362-7528. Additionally, you can e-mail me at mike@mikeslattery.org. |
Paid for By
Slattery for
Kansas House
Aaron Otto
Treasurer
PO Box 1171
Mission KS 66222 |
|
|
|
|
