Well, the big news last week had to be passage in the House of a controversial school finance plan. The plan was substituted for the School Finance Committee’s bill on the floor last week, having never been the subject of an open meeting in the School Finance Committee or any other committee. It’s a plan for which even the sponsors admit they have no funding source. It is millions of dollars more expensive in the current year than the Select Committee on School Finance’s plan and nearly $200M more expensive over 3 years. The Committee’s plan could be funded in the current year. The new plan has no funding source identified.
In checking with Legislative Research staff, the new plan would require that we more than double the statewide property tax mill levy (over $200 more in taxes for a $100K home), or increase the state’s income tax surcharge by nearly 22% (over $640 more for a family of four making $75K) or increase the statewide sales tax by 2 percentage points to 7.3% (over $800 more for a family of four) or some combination thereof. A Hutch News editorial Sunday noted that of the 20 House members from The Hutchinson News circulation a majority voted against the bill. That should come as no surprise given the fact the paper’s web site recently reported that, based on its own survey of readers on the question of whether they would support an increase in taxes for schools, over 70% said “No!”
The Select Committee on School Finance’s plan, worth over $400M in new funding over 3 years, was far more fiscally responsible and didn’t call for tax increases. It was supported by 61 House members, only 2 short of the necessary majority. Ironically, the new plan, which calls for millions of dollars in increased taxes and spending, doesn’t really help Reno County schools that much. In fact, Buhler’s USD 313 actually gets LESS under the new plan than it would have under the Committee’s more realistic proposal!
In addition, Kansas taxpayers and Kansas business have sought tax relief this year that they won’t get under the new school finance plan. Action taken earlier in the session by the House to phase out corporate franchise taxes, business and machinery property taxes, the estate tax and sales taxes on product rebates, will probably be lost altogether. Kansans deserve a balanced approach in the allocation of tax-supported funding. Today, due to court intervention, spending is tilted almost totally in favor of K-12 public education, while higher education, programs for the frail, elderly, disabled and almost every other beneficiary of state tax revenues go wanting.
There is strong interest in getting the school finance lawsuit behind us, but not at any cost. Last week a majority of House members agreed that the Kansas Supreme Court overstepped its constitutional boundaries in ordering the Legislature to spend millions of dollars more on schools. Last week the House voted unanimously to reject implementation of the Legislative Post Audit Cost Study. We were elected to represent our constituents, not serve as an advisory committee to the Supreme Court on school finance. Our fiscal responsibilities are to Kansas taxpayers and ALL beneficiaries of tax-supported programs funded by the state.
The governor is thrilled that the House’s action in passing a school finance plan that can’t be funded out of existing resources means her failed gambling proposal is now back on the table. Her plan for the state is to use school finance as leverage to bring about expanded gambling in the state. She has made her intentions very clear. That’s just sad. What kind of lesson does that teach our kids?
Finally, The News noted that the “bi-partisan” plan did not have the support of the Speaker of the House or 24 of 28 chairmen and vice-chairmen of House Committees. In other words, those with the most experience and leadership in dealing with the fiscal issues of the state from year to year saw this as bad public policy and fiscally irresponsible. These are not lawmakers opposed to educational excellence in the state. Recall that the governor’s own commissioned study by Standard & Poor’s found that school districts which are highly-resource-efficient are able to make adequate educational progress and achieve mandated outcomes with existing resources. The Legislature is challenged to do the same each year in order to be good stewards of the taxpayers’ money. The Court has the luxury of deciding cases in a fiscal vacuum. It is ultimately the responsibility of the peoples’ elected representatives to determine public policy and manage the purse-strings.
