Old-timers at the Statehouse are already wondering, while the echoes of the gavel that adjourned the 2009 Legislature are still faintly ringing in the building, about next year.

We’re especially wondering about the Kansas House, which institutionally looks at life in two-year segments, the length of the term of a state representative.

What we are seeing is a real gamble, some reason for taking that gamble, and the prospects for the 2010 Legislature, all while some just-returned-home lawmakers are reacquainting themselves with their pets.
This was a session of dramatic budget cuts, hundreds of millions of dollars pulled out of state agencies that we expect to do their jobs. Practically, it’s ugly stuff. But, for a new House Speaker, Mike O’Neal, R-Hutchinson, who relentlessly opposed raising taxes or even putting already-in-law tax cuts on hold, the session was just what he proposed.

For a first-year Speaker, he got the end result he was after, and while it wasn’t pretty, it worked, and he and his House followers can say they delivered on their promise. Not a bad start, is it?

But next year, with a projection of $570 million in shortfalls again, including tax boosters that haven’t been approved anywhere, we’re looking at probably $650 million in cuts ahead.

The presumption is that next year turns out to be a year of tax increases. Oh, and did we mention that those tax increases come during a year when House members stand for reelection?

(The Senate? Members aren’t up for reelection until 2012, when it’s very possible that the economy will have rebounded and they’ll be able to base their brochures on recent nice things they’ve done for Kansans.)

Was this the right order? Spending cuts this year, tax increases next year?

Or, you have to wonder, was O’Neal’s no-tax victory this year a necessary step that will give him additional horsepower next year on rejecting or at least minimizing tax increases next year?