I appreciate having another opportunity to talk with Central Kansas radio host Paul Ibbetson, on his 105.7 FM program, “The Conscience of Kansas.”  Recently, we discussed scientific polling documenting the fiscally conservative nature of Kansas voters.  The details of the polling are available online at a non-profit I run, StateAndLocalEducation.org – part 1 here, part 2 here, and part 3 here.

You can click here to listen to my interview with Paul Ibbetson.

“The Conscience of Kansas” runs daily at 5-6 p.m. in central Kansas on 105.7 FM “The Patriot,” the station that carries Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, and Sean Hannity.

Listen live anytime to 105.7 FM by clicking here.  Here is the link to the station’s Facebook page, and the link to its Web site (still under construction).

Erroneously, it’s often said that Kansas is a “moderate state” or a “three-party state” (conservatives, moderate Republicans, Democrats).  As we write at StateAndLocalEducation.org:

There are actually 20 states which Gallup considers to be more conservative than Kansas.  Gallup ranks Kansas as #21 among the states, in terms of how many voters are considered to be conservative.

Gallup considers 40% of Kansas voters to be conservative, 39% to be moderate, and 19% to be liberal.

According to Gallup, Alabama ranks #1 with 49% of its voters identified as conservative.  Washington, DC, ranks last, with only 23% of its voters considered to be conservative.

Last year, we asked likely 2012 voters in Overland Park:  ”"Do you think city tax increases help the local economy, hurt the local economy, or have no impact on the economy?”  The answers:

Impact of city tax increases on local economy, percent:

Help the local economy:           20.9%

Hurt the local economy:           58.5%

No impact:                             14.7%

Undecided:                             5.9%

Total:                                    100%

We also asked these questions:

Question: Now I’m going to ask you some questions about your city government in Overland Park. Like many governments, the Overland Park city government faces budget shortfalls. Going forward, how should Overland Park balance its budget? Should the city government increase taxes, or cut spending?

To balance budget, increase taxes or cut spending? 

Cut spending:                            66.8%

Increase taxes:                          23.2%

Undecided:                                10.0%

Total:                                          100%

 

Question: Asked a different way… by how much should city spending be decreased? Not at all?  1-5%?  6-10%  Or 10% or more?

Spending cuts?  By how much? 

Not at all:                                13.5%

1-5% in cuts:                           39.4%

6-10% in cuts:                         29.4%

10% or more in cuts:              11.2%

Undecided:                               6.5%

Total:                                       100%

 

Question: Would making cuts to city services be acceptable to you? Or unacceptable to you?

Cuts to city services? 

Acceptable:                              55.0%

Unacceptable:                          33.8%

Undecided:                              11.2%

Total:                                       100%

 

Question: In general, have city councilmen done a good job of representing Overland Park voters? Or have city councilmen lost touch with voters throughout the city?

City councilmen have: 

Done a good job

representing voters:                  26.5%

Lost touch with voters:             52.1%

Undecided:                                   21.5%

Total:                                             100%

“Conscience of Kansas” host Ibbetson keeps 10 recent podcasts available to you for free at Podomatic.com.

Ibbetson’s main Web site is IbbetsonUSA.com.

About Paul Ibbetson:

Paul A. Ibbetson is a former Chief of Police of Cherryvale, Kansas, and member of the Montgomery County Drug Task Force. Paul received his Bachelor’s and Master’s degree in Criminal Justice at Wichita State University, and is currently completing his PhD. in sociology at Kansas State University. Paul is the author of the books Living Under The Patriot Act: Educating A Society and Feeding Lions: Sharing The Conservative Philosophy In A Politically Hostile World. Paul is also the radio host of the Kansas Broadcasting Association’s 2008,2009 and 2010 Entertainment Program of the Year, Conscience of Kansas airing on KSDB Manhattan 91.9 f.m.

Read More →

Last April, House Republicans released the Ryan budget for FY 2012 with much fanfare and promise.  The budget resolution was approved almost unanimously among the members of the conference, and they spent the subsequent spring months working on individual appropriations bills that reflected the goals and the spending levels established in that budget blueprint.

Later that year, Republicans summarily jettisoned the Ryan budget for the debt ceiling deal, the minibus, and the megabus.  Ultimately, they wound up spending more than the previous year on the discretionary side, and failed to enact any of the transformational change on entitlements and welfare as prescribed in the Ryan budget.  They also agreed to fund Obamacare and every other program that was defunded in the Ryan budget.

Fast forward to April 2012, and we are experiencing deja vu with the FY 2013 Ryan budget, albeit at a quicker pace.  Ryan introduced a watered-down version of last year’s budget, both in terms of entitlement reform and discretionary spending.  On the discretionary side, he set the topline spending at $1.028 trillion, just $15 billion below last year’s level, but $95 billion above the pre-Obama levels.  Yet, this is too harsh for the Republican establishment because it is $19 billion below the level set by the debt ceiling deal – a bill they should be ashamed of supporting in the first place.  Now it turns out that the entire budget was a joke.  This, from Roll Call:

Read More →

Last April, House Republicans released the Ryan budget for FY 2012 with much fanfare and promise.  The budget resolution was approved almost unanimously among the members of the conference, and they spent the subsequent spring months working on individual appropriations bills that reflected the goals and the spending levels established in that budget blueprint.

Later that year, Republicans summarily jettisoned the Ryan budget for the debt ceiling deal, the minibus, and the megabus.  Ultimately, they wound up spending more than the previous year on the discretionary side, and failed to enact any of the transformational change on entitlements and welfare as prescribed in the Ryan budget.  They also agreed to fund Obamacare and every other program that was defunded in the Ryan budget.

Fast forward to April 2012, and we are experiencing deja vu with the FY 2013 Ryan budget, albeit at a quicker pace.  Ryan introduced a watered-down version of last year’s budget, both in terms of entitlement reform and discretionary spending.  On the discretionary side, he set the topline spending at $1.028 trillion, just $15 billion below last year’s level, but $95 billion above the pre-Obama levels.  Yet, this is too harsh for the Republican establishment because it is $19 billion below the level set by the debt ceiling deal – a bill they should be ashamed of supporting in the first place.  Now it turns out that the entire budget was a joke.  This, from Roll Call:

Read More →

There’s got to be some way to create a legislative scorecard on committee votes.

Last month, House Republicans almost unanimously passed the “Ryan” budget resolution for FY 2013.  It established the topline discretionary spending level at $1.028 trillion, just $15 billion below last year’s levels and $19 billion below the cap set in the Budget [Out of] Control Act.  To put that in perspective, the discretionary spending level was as low as $933 billion in 2008 – pre-Obama.  We’re not exactly going back to the last century here.

Yet, even these modest cuts were too much for Obama.  Earlier this week, he threatened to veto any appropriations bill that reflects the spending figures in the Ryan budget as opposed to those working with the $1.047 cap of the BCA.  We would all expect Mitch McConnell to side with the House Republicans and the impregnable Ryan budget over Obama and Reid, right?

Wrong!

Yesterday, the Senate Appropriations Committee marked up an overall spending bill that sets the discretionary caps pursuant to the BCA – just like Obama demanded.  The vote? 27-2!  This from, CQ:

Read More →

There’s got to be some way to create a legislative scorecard on committee votes.

Last month, House Republicans almost unanimously passed the “Ryan” budget resolution for FY 2013.  It established the topline discretionary spending level at $1.028 trillion, just $15 billion below last year’s levels and $19 billion below the cap set in the Budget [Out of] Control Act.  To put that in perspective, the discretionary spending level was as low as $933 billion in 2008 – pre-Obama.  We’re not exactly going back to the last century here.

Yet, even these modest cuts were too much for Obama.  Earlier this week, he threatened to veto any appropriations bill that reflects the spending figures in the Ryan budget as opposed to those working with the $1.047 cap of the BCA.  We would all expect Mitch McConnell to side with the House Republicans and the impregnable Ryan budget over Obama and Reid, right?

Wrong!

Yesterday, the Senate Appropriations Committee marked up an overall spending bill that sets the discretionary caps pursuant to the BCA – just like Obama demanded.  The vote? 27-2!  This from, CQ:

Read More →

Recently, some of my friends have expressed shock and dismay over the Chamber of Commerce’s endorsements of big-government establishment Republicans like Dick Lugar and Jon Bruning.  After all, they suggest, isn’t the Chamber a bastion of free-market, pro-growth policies?

The answer is really simple.  It is no enigma.  The Chamber of Commerce is not conservative, pro-free-market, or even necessarily pro-growth.  They support the special interests of big business.  Period.  When those interests intersect or overlap with free-market, pro-growth policies, such as advocacy for tax cuts and lower regulations, they will side with conservatives.  But when those interests require the stewardship of big government intervention, they will side with the forces of statism.  Hence, they are not paragons of free-market commerce; they support government-run commerce, albeit with tendentious policies towards their interests.

Chamber of Commerce Republicans are the embodiment of “big-government conservatism.”  They support lower taxes and regulations, but have no desire to limit the size of government.  In fact, a powerful and officious federal government is part and parcel of their special interest agenda.  When they desire to tilt the playing field towards their special interest, big-government is their friend and the free-market is their enemy.

It is for this reason that the Chamber joined with the AFL-CIO in supporting a massive expansion of federal transportation spending.  Instead of allowing each state to pay for its own infrastructure needs, the Chamber wants unlimited federal funds flowing to contracts with their clients.  In fact, they were even willing to go against their tendency to oppose tax increases, by calling on Congress to raise the federal gasoline tax to do so.

Read More →

Recently, some of my friends have expressed shock and dismay over the Chamber of Commerce’s endorsements of big-government establishment Republicans like Dick Lugar and Jon Bruning.  After all, they suggest, isn’t the Chamber a bastion of free-market, pro-growth policies?

The answer is really simple.  It is no enigma.  The Chamber of Commerce is not conservative, pro-free-market, or even necessarily pro-growth.  They support the special interests of big business.  Period.  When those interests intersect or overlap with free-market, pro-growth policies, such as advocacy for tax cuts and lower regulations, they will side with conservatives.  But when those interests require the stewardship of big government intervention, they will side with the forces of statism.  Hence, they are not paragons of free-market commerce; they support government-run commerce, albeit with tendentious policies towards their interests.

Chamber of Commerce Republicans are the embodiment of “big-government conservatism.”  They support lower taxes and regulations, but have no desire to limit the size of government.  In fact, a powerful and officious federal government is part and parcel of their special interest agenda.  When they desire to tilt the playing field towards their special interest, big-government is their friend and the free-market is their enemy.

It is for this reason that the Chamber joined with the AFL-CIO in supporting a massive expansion of federal transportation spending.  Instead of allowing each state to pay for its own infrastructure needs, the Chamber wants unlimited federal funds flowing to contracts with their clients.  In fact, they were even willing to go against their tendency to oppose tax increases, by calling on Congress to raise the federal gasoline tax to do so.

Read More →

Senator Kent Conrad has finally made it clear that he has no intentions of passing a budget resolution.  He will offer the “Simpson-Bowles plan” without allowing any amendments or even a committee vote, much less a floor vote.  That’s some budget resolution.  Without a budget resolution to guide the topline spending numbers, the Senate Appropriations Committee has already begun markups on the 12 appropriations bills at the subcommittee level.

It goes without saying that Senate Republicans wouldn’t reward this behavior by voting for their approps bills – spending bills that fail to eliminate a single wasteful program or agency within the burgeoning government bureaucracy.  There is no way they would help grant Harry Reid superior leverage over their allies in the House like they did last year, right?

Wrong.

Of the 14 Republicans on the full committee, which includes Mitch McConnell, there is only one conservative.  That would be the most junior senator, Ron Johnson.  As CQ reports, Ron Johnson was the only no vote against the Transportation-HUD (subcommittee roster) and Commerce-Justice Science (subcommittee roster) approps bills – the first two spending bills considered yesterday.  Those bills are typically approved by voice vote, but Johnson forced a roll call recorded vote on the spending bills.

Read More →

Senator Kent Conrad has finally made it clear that he has no intentions of passing a budget resolution.  He will offer the “Simpson-Bowles plan” without allowing any amendments or even a committee vote, much less a floor vote.  That’s some budget resolution.  Without a budget resolution to guide the topline spending numbers, the Senate Appropriations Committee has already begun markups on the 12 appropriations bills at the subcommittee level.

It goes without saying that Senate Republicans wouldn’t reward this behavior by voting for their approps bills – spending bills that fail to eliminate a single wasteful program or agency within the burgeoning government bureaucracy.  There is no way they would help grant Harry Reid superior leverage over their allies in the House like they did last year, right?

Wrong.

Of the 14 Republicans on the full committee, which includes Mitch McConnell, there is only one conservative.  That would be the most junior senator, Ron Johnson.  As CQ reports, Ron Johnson was the only no vote against the Transportation-HUD (subcommittee roster) and Commerce-Justice Science (subcommittee roster) approps bills – the first two spending bills considered yesterday.  Those bills are typically approved by voice vote, but Johnson forced a roll call recorded vote on the spending bills.

Read More →

As we’ve noted throughout the past year’s imbroglio over transportation spending, it is clear that complete federal control over transportation spending in a post-interstate highway era (post 1992) is inefficient, costly, anti-federalist, and precludes state and private innovations.  Yet, Congress continues to buckle down on a policy that has failed in recent years, exposing taxpayers to future bailouts and tax increases.  Worst of all, it will preclude states from dealing with their own infrastructure needs in the most efficient way.

On March 13, the Senate passed a massive 18-month $109 billion extension (S. 1813 Boxer-Inhofe stimulus), which creates new deficits, raises taxes, continues to fund 100% of mass transit, continues expensive Davis-Bacon rules, and provides no reforms.  After initially threatening to bring the Senate bill to the House, Boehner agreed to pass a 60-day extension until June 30.  The president signed the extension shortly before the Easter recess.  Now, House leadership wants to pass another “clean” extension until September 30.  But this extension is not so clean; it will be used as a vehicle to go to conference with the Senate over S. 1813, paving the road for a final product that will be heavily weighted towards the Senate bill (because the House has not passed their own detailed long-term bill).

Conservatives must oppose this bill and must demand that we hold off on a House-Senate conference until the full House passes a conservative transportation bill, providing us with the requisite leverage headed into conference.

As it turns out, the Senate bill is even worse than previously thought, yet if we allow the House to go to conference, this is the bill that will be agreed upon.  Here are some more problems with the Senate bill that have been uncovered in recent weeks:

Read More →