Runaway Rhetorist

I've coined a new word, rhetorist. It means someone who uses rhetoric, which is the use of exaggeration or display in language. For example, in an 'As I See It' column in the September 25, 2005, Kansas City Star by Brenda Landwehr entitled, "A limit is needed on government spending", a rhetorist is born. By the time I finished the article, I decided that Brenda was indeed a "Runaway Rhetorist", having escaped both logic and candor.

Brenda's writing was in response to a column by Barbara Shelly (Robin Hood revolt comes to Kansas, September 16), concerning the so-called Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR). Landwehr alleges that Shelly, in her critique of TABOR missed the forest for the trees. This is how Landwehr's rhetoric starts: "The really big forest is that Kansas government spending for the last 30 years is growing three times faster than the average Kansan's wages." Let's analyze this allegation of Landwehr's.

First, why is it these politicos seldom cite sources like publicly available research reports? What is meant by "Kansas government spending"? Which years does the "last 30" cover? From July 1, 1975, to June 30, 2004 or some other time frame? Which expenditures make up the "government spending"? Does it include spending funded by federal aid, such as medicaid, highways, community development grants, school aid and many other sources of state income? Does it include spending funded by non-tax revenues such as tuition, lottery income, law suit settlements (i.e., tobacco) or bond issue proceeds (i.e., highway bonds)? Does "Kansas government spending" include only state government expenditures or is spending for cities, counties and schools counted as well? Was any adjustment made in the total "Kansas government spending" to account for the State's assumption of school finance? Does it include new state spending caused by 'unfunded federal mandates'? What other adjustments in "Kansas government spending" are necessary to be sure the comparison over a 30-year period is not one of apples and oranges? In other words, just what is it that is growing three times faster than the "average Kansan's wages"? Speaking of "wages", where is that figure obtained? Is "wages" the same as per capita income, or average family income? And who is this "average Kansan". What part of the Kansas population is in the data set? Well, you get the picture. How reputable are the numbers that Landwehr refers to as "government overspending" in the very next sentence in her article. And, other than her personal opinion, how legitimate is this characterization of the expenditures of the State of Kansas? If "government overspending" is the basic premise for TABOR, shouldn't this characterization deserve an in-depth analysis rather than only the proof by assertion that Landwehr has offered?

I'll skip discussing Landwehr's idea that Colorado's TABOR problems will be avoided in Kansas if TABOR is added to our state constitution, because we'll have a "budget stabilization fund". And, would she be so kind as to explain, "what happened to state budgets after the terrorist attacks of 2001"? And if a B.S. fund is needed "to avoid the shortfalls Colorado faced", does her use of the past tense mean that Colorado has solved its problem. If so why are they talking about suspending TABOR for 5 years and then perhaps, indefinitely or forever.

Let's look at some more of Landwehr's rhetoric. Next, she writes, "While you and I have to live within our means, government does not have to show that restraint." Which government is she talking about: local, state or federal? Agreed the federal level lately under the GOP has shown little spending restraint, our Kansas local and state governments live within their means, because of the "cash-basis" statute which prevents deficit spending by local governments and a state constitution that requires a balanced state budget. While a Kansas TABOR won't rein in the U.S. Congress appropriations, it would only hamstring the state. Landwehr twice refers to Kansan's money as "hard-earned" and makes the legislature appear to be looting and pillaging Kansans, getting into their pockets and all. It's odd that Landwehr claims the legislature has "little incentive to be prudent with (Kansans') money in face of special interest groups' pressure". Does she mean that lobbyists' spending on steak dinners, drinks, concert tickets, is too tempting? I understand that experience is the best teacher. And, back to the beginning of this paragraph- who says people live within their means? Has Landwehr not heard of credit card debt, personal bankruptcies, and home equity loans. Then, the Landwehr's last statement of the same paragraph really threw me: "With baby boomers soon retiring, we need to control government spending now to avoid a crisis in the future." What kind of a crisis does she think baby boomers will create for state government? Too bad she can't be more specific, but that would take away the mystery, and the resulting fear that her statement is calculated to produce.

Then, in the next paragraph we read, quoting, "With a TABOR, we the people [some plagiarism there] can take back control of the state's budget." When did the people ever have control of the state's budget? As long as there has been a Kansas constitution, the state's budget has been controlled by representatives of the electorate. She goes on, "Our founding fathers fought against the tyranny of taxation". Not true. It was the tyranny of taxation without representation that was among the reasons for the Revolutionary War. Our new federal constitution made provision for taxation, so it certainly wasn't seen as tyrannical. In her final act of rhetoric, Landwehr opines, "Today, we need to make the government a servant of the people not the people the servant of the government." Our national government has survived as the servant of the people for nearly 230 years. We don't need to do anything today to continue our record as a republic with representative government. Again, another strike-out, and so this paragraph produces no runs, no hits and three big errors.

Overall, the article is rhetorical and offers no information that would justify putting the State legislature in a TABOR straight jacket when confronted with the needs of its constituents. Landwehr cites Thomas Jefferson's sentiment for limited government. Would that she follow Jefferson's dictum that "Information is the currency of democracy." and provide the research indicating government spending growth at 3 times that of average wages. Perhaps Landwehr is a Republican in name only and a Libertarian in political philosophy?