Penalty Killer

You are now in the week-before-the-week that the Legislature starts its 2009 session, and the session promises to be a test.

The budget is the key issue; the state is spending more money than it is likely to take in and that has to be fixed.

It’s a crisis—dollar-wise—bigger than the state has faced in recent memory.

There are two simple fixes—not solutions, mind you—but fixes that are possible. One is to raise taxes on everything in sight. Another is to cut spending sharply to make the revenues and expenditures line up. We’re talking maybe $800 million in tax increases, or $800 million in spending cuts, or some blend of the two equaling, not surprisingly, about $800 million.

But, those are just fixes—not solutions.

And, there’s a fair chance that Kansans are looking for solutions next session.

Remember a few weeks ago when Rom Emmanuel, the chief of staff to President-Elect Barack Obama, said something about a crisis being too good to waste? Now, strip away the knee-jerk reaction that Emmanuel was somehow making light of the nation’s economic crisis, and stop posturing about insensitivity to the plight of the poor, the children, the sick, the short, the balding, and Emmanuel made some sense.

Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, at a pre-legislative session interview with Hawver’s Capitol Report, seemed to agree with Emmanuel.

“I think there’s no question that a budget crunch is an opportunity, and really a mandate, to look at everything. And maybe make some tough decisions that we wouldn’t make…There’s inertia about good times; why rock the boat, why make anyone mad,” she said.

That’s probably what a lot of Kansans are looking for—tough and new decisions from the governor, the leaders of the Legislature, the old hands at lawmaking and the new boys and girls coming in.

Now, it came up fairly quickly, this budget crisis. When legislators went home last spring, the budget was pretty stout but revenues were coming in, and it appeared that some fairly routine belt-tightening this session would suffice.

It won’t, we now know.

The first week, starting with the governor’s State of the State address and budget submissions to cut spending in the current fiscal year and to figure out how to avert a deficit next year—and the Legislature’s reaction to that message—ought to pretty well determine whether we’re in for fixes or solutions.

It’s devilishly complicated, and intensely political.

Because at some point, the governor and the Legislature need to look at what the state does and whether it is doing what it needs to do and whether it is doing things that it doesn’t need to do. That seems simple.

But every dollar that the state spends on anything goes somewhere, and the people and institutions receiving that money don’t want it to go away.

That’s where the opportunity comes in. The crisis is here; everyone knows that.

The real test is going to be whether the governor and Legislature can actually cause changes and take the political heat for it. A governor not seeking reelection may be able to withstand the heat. And legislators who want to ascend to higher office might be willing to take some heat if they believe they can show Kansans that they’ve solved something instead of just fixing it.

But…remember President John F. Kennedy’s book “Profiles in Courage”? Chances are good that if Kennedy had written about Kansas government, he might have produced…a pamphlet.

Big session coming up. Big problems. Anyone looking for real solutions or will you settle for fixes?

Every House Republican and 11 Democrats voted against President Barack Obama's $819 billion stimulus package. It still passed by a vote of 244 to 188.

There are enough votes in the Senate to pass the bill, but the obstructionist Republican minority, still nursing the wounds inflicted by the public in the November election, can block it by endless political maneuvering and a filibuster.

The Republicans wail that the President's stimulus package is laden with spending proposals that don't directly attack the recession. However, instead of debating the merits of the package, instead of proposing amendments to add to or subtract from the $819 billion, the Republicans ganged up, voted as a bloc, and placed party loyalty above the needs of the nation.

These are the same "fiscally responsible" Republicans who weren't reluctant to give away billions of taxpayer money to Halliburton, KBR, and other corporations favored by the Bush–Cheney Administration. These are the same Republicans who did little to control runaway spending that brought the nation from a surplus when Bill Clinton left office to the largest deficit in the history of the nation. These are also the same Republicans, unfortunately assisted by a large chunk of complicit Democrats, who most assuredly weren't reluctant to create a $750 billion bailout package that benefited banks, insurance companies, and the Wall Street millionaires of greed, and was lacking adequate oversight or accountability.

These are the same Republicans who came up with two tax cuts or rebates, most of which helped Big Business, with some chum thrown to the masses before the 2006 and 2008 elections. Rebates, which the Republicans demand be placed in the new stimulus bill, didn't work then; they won't work now.

And, now they oppose President Obama's plan that would save or create about three million jobs, improve the nation's infrastructure, provide health care for the uninsured, fund clear-water and environmental projects, provide housing assistance, improve mass transit, provide additional funding for special education programs, and assist both the workers and the nation to recover from a Recession that began more than a year ago.

The Republicans sniff that the President didn't take their feelings into consideration. However, unlike the previous "My way or the highway" President, this President met several times with the Republicans, got their advice and concerns, and included some of their suggestions into his proposed legislation. Apparently, the Republicans think bipartisan support means that the minority party must throw temper tantrums until they get everything it wants.

What these politicians don't acknowledge is that their constituents, the American people, wanted Barack Obama to become president and lead the nation out of its myriad problems. One week after the inauguration, scientific polls showed President Obama with about a 70 percent popularity rating, the highest of any president in his first week. Only 12 percent were negative—the lowest of any president, and that includes George Washington.

In his inaugural address, Barack Obama told the nation "the time has come to set aside childish things." A core of Republicans don't understand this—they have dug in their heels and like Peter Pan are belting out the verse that they don't want to grow up.

If the Republican minority continues to whine, complain, and try to block the nation's recovery, they will cement their future as defenders of corporate greed and petty politics at the expense of the needs of the people.

California Probate Code Section 4402 provides that a power of attorney is legally sufficient if the wording in the document complies closely with California Probate Code Section 4401, the form is properly completed and the principal's signature is acknowledged.

California Probate Code Section 4401 provides a free form power of attorney that meets the requirements of California Probate Code Section 4402. The powers granted by a power of attorney are broad and sweeping. Those powers are explained in Probate Code Sections 4400-4409 and Sections 4450-4465.

The power of attorney is just one piece of an entire basic estate plan. The other parts of a California estate plan consist of a living trust, a will and an advance health care directive. To discuss estate planning in more detail, call California attorney Mitchell A. Port.

As the Kansas Legislature gets into motion this week, the talk nearly all will be about the state of the State General Fund and the current problems: flailing for air this year and sinking under water next year.

That’s all serious stuff and it is likely to send some legislators wondering about the “other” money in the state, the money that doesn’t wind up in the SGF, which is the multipurpose pool of mostly tax receipts that is the most-watched index of the state’s financial activity.

Practically, the SGF that everyone is worrying about represents about 36 percent of all money that is flowing through the state treasury.

Now, how does that happen? Well, there’s SGF money and then there’s all funds money. While last year the SGF totaled $5.7 billion, the “all funds” number, including the SGF, was a dab over $16 billion.

What’s the difference?

It’s complicated, of course, because that’s what tends to happen in the Statehouse. But over the years, agencies that wanted programs—and some are good and some are so technical it’s hard to tell whether they’re good—needed money for those programs.

Some money is in the form of fees you pay, say, when you file a lawsuit or make an application for permission to drill an oil well or something else that requires a fee. Most of that fee money goes to the agencies that perform the service, and while they’re state agencies with state employees operating out of state buildings, those fees don’t show up in the general fund. They wind up in “all funds.”

And, once a program gets its own special fees and taxes and receipts, the business of that agency can continue without a lot of legislative oversight.

It’s out-of-sight, out-of-mind and while it’s real money, lawmakers generally don’t know about it, what it’s used for and whether it is being used for something that they believe the state needs to do.

Now, much of it is federal money, sent down to states to do something that the federal government says is important, like the environment, water quality, building roads, managing health agencies and such.

Lawmakers generally don’t have the time or the inclination to look at that off-budget stuff because they’re concerned about the State General Fund. That’s the focus, and the all-funds projects tend to be out on the periphery where they’re not examined.

So, while legislators and the governor are trying to make the State General Fund balance again, the biggest portion of money that rolls through the treasury continues to roll.

Is there money to avert sharp cuts in state programs or, alternatively, raising taxes to get through the next couple years? Maybe, maybe not, but until the all-funds cash flow is examined, there’s not a good way to know.

And you know what they say about things you don’t know…

Newer Entries »