Steve Rose says vetoed abortion bills are constitutional

Okay, so the headline is a little misleading. But not by much.

Steve Rose, publisher of the JoCo Sun, wrote an editorial that gives his take on how the state will look when Sam Brownback is elected Governor. First, there's this little tidbit.

Under Sam Brownback, there will be no checks and balances with the conservative Legislature.

Well, shucks Steve, I guess I must have missed the editorial you ran blasting Obama and Democrats because of the lack of checks and balances between Congress and the President. Perhaps you were waiting for a filibuster proof majority in the Senate before running that piece, huh? I'd say now would be the time to run it. Or is it only unbalanced when conservatives are in control? You might want to clarify that one.

To me what is most freighting is that his hypothetical isn't even true. Perhaps the 2010 elections will shift the House to be more conservative, but the Senate will remain in the hand of Morris and Vratil, hardly my definition of conservative. And I wouldn't exactly call the House conservative either, having just reject a completely reasonable 2010 budget. So while I appreciate the cred Rose is handing out, it seems to be mostly self serving so he can frighten people into not voting for Brownback.

As entertaining as that was, this is my favorite part.

Every conceivable anti-abortion piece of legislation that is constitutional will be approved by Sam Brownback.

Isn't that interesting? Every piece that is constitutional will be approved. So, what's he saying about the past? That every piece of legislation that was constitutional was rejected by Sebelius? I thought the party line was that anything the Legislature passed was unconstitutional? That's the last reason she gave before jetting off to D.C. Does Rose disagree with Queen Kathleen? It seems like it.

So there you have it. Even the liberals think past abortion policy changes in Kansas were constitutional. Hats off to Rose for finally having the guts to admit it, even if it was just in a passive absent-minded editorial.

Hensley is a patriot, a Joe Biden patriot

Sen. Anthony Hensley is a patriot. A Joe Biden patriot.

Hensley spouted the party line in a Kansas City Star article yesterday. Don't you know the budget problem has been caused by the state not getting enough of the money it's owed rather than legislators like Hensley spending too much?

Hensley told the paper that the Legislature has approved $6.7 billion in tax cuts to businesses from 1995 to 2005. Funny, that sounds a lot like the numbers cited by Steve Rose. Are they talking about the same study? Who knows.

Either way they both have the same problem. Did the study also look at tax increases during the same period? I seriously doubt it. During that same period, sales taxes were increased, property taxes went up, cigarette taxes increased, income taxes increased. The list goes on and on.

And just for good measure, Hensley says that unemployment taxes went down too, so that means businesses shouldn't have a problem giving more money to the government to waste. Sure, that makes sense. After all, if the state had collected more unemployment insurance premiums, that money could be used for... oh... wait. It could be used for unemployment benefits. That's it. So what's the point again???

Hensley believes that the government is entitled to your money before you are, plain and simple. Apparently the Star believes that as well.

The federal government has accelerated depreciation to encourage businesses to buy equipment. The state currently uses the federal depreciation formula for state taxes. By not going to an accelerated depreciation schedule, the state could save about $40 million.

Gee, I didn't realize that by hiking taxes on businesses the state could save money. It seems to me that by hiking taxes the state could take more money. But save? No, the state could save more money by spending less money. That's how you save. Savings, by definition, is not taking more money from the people.

Hensley and Democrats just have a completely different thought process. The government is entitled to whatever you have before you are. It's just that simple.

You know, I just don't think I pay enough taxes

Sun Publications Steve Rose is a patriot. A Joe Biden patriot.

In a Wednesday editorial, Rose blamed the state's current fiscal crisis on tax cuts over the years. And not just the cuts from last year or the year before, but all tax cuts from, well, seemingly forever.

A friend who serves in the Legislature asked the state’s research team to figure out how much all the costs of all the tax cuts have totaled since 1995. The cumulative impact on Kansas, the study finds, is a loss of $7.6 billion in revenue during that period. We are now losing about $600 million a year from tax cuts.

Of course, Steve fails to mention the 0.4% hike in the state's sales tax the last time we spent way more than we had. Since Steve fails to mention the legislator who requested the study, or really anything else about the study, I have no idea if the $600 million figure includes reductions due to the extra revenue generated by the 2002 sales tax increase. And increases in cigarette taxes. And a 83% increase in property appraisals since 1997.

Of course there are others who would say we spend too much rather than we're taxed too little. AFP-Kansas Director Derrick Sontag noted, "had we restrained spending growth to five percent since 2004, we wouldn’t be facing this budget shortfall."

However, I have a solution that everyone, liberal or conservative, can support.

I encourage the legislature to pass a law allowing anyone to voluntarily increase their tax liability. No more waiting for politicians to act. No more pleading, begging for votes to increase taxes. You can just increase your own taxes!

It's great for everyone. Steve Rose, the Kansas Jackass and others who want higher taxes and more spending can do their patriotic part.

Of course, there's been some trouble lately with Democrats paying their taxes. Maybe that's why they want tax increases, because they'll never have to pay?

Nah, I'm sure when given the opportunity to contribute even more to the government, they'll jump on board.

And because I firmly believe in leading by example, anyone who voluntarily adds to their tax liability should get their name published on a government website so everyone can see what a joy it is to give money to the government. This, in turn, will encourage others to give.

And those of us who feel that spending increases of more than 5% year in and year out are bad... well... we can just pay our required taxes and be very unpatriotic.