Funding Kansas Higher Education

Let's see, on one hand, the state's universities object to local taxes for the repair of university facilities and, on the other hand, do not object to local taxes to build new higher educatiopn facilities called fetchingly, a research triangle. Can they have it both ways without being hypocrites? (Last time I checked connecting any three dots with lines always forms a triangle. So what other connection exists to make it a research triangle, when the purposes are dissimilar and only two of the facilities would actually be engaged in research, except for two universities eager to partner up to tap local funds.)

Some legislators from the boonies, places without higher education buildings in need of deferred maintenance, propose a tax on the localities with such facilities. If what's good for the goose is good for the gander, then local taxes should also be proposed to finance state-owned and operated prisons, hospitals, parks, and other facilities that are an economic boon to their home communities. While we are at it, why not extend the local taxes for state needs to all counties within commuting distance of the state institutions or facilities, since they also get an economic benefit? Come to think of it, if a county doesn't contribute enough money to support the construction and maintenance of state highways within their borders, we'll need to levy a local tax on them to make up the difference. Well, that approach would hit about everybody in the state, so I guess we can scrap the local taxes for state responsibilities idea. After all, this place called Kansas is a state,isn't it? If we are going to tax localities for state purposes without taxing the entire state uniformly, we are preaching anarchy, the negation of the idea of government. What are those yokels from Hugoton and Ingalls thinking?

Some Johnson County 'leaders' want to entice state programs, called a research triangle (a feel-good term), by proposing local taxes to pay for it, at least part of it, and probably the lion's share of it. We are reminded often, especially when school finance is discussed, that Johnson County is the prime economic engine of the state and the biggest revenue generator because of its economic prowess. If that is the case, doesn't it make sense for the entire state to share uniformly (read as 'state-wide tax') in building facilities that, because of a Johnson County location, would stand the greatest chance of being successful. After all, Johnson County is part of Kansas and as such Johnson County should reap benefits from that fact as well as contribute to its needs. Again, our 'leaders' need to rethink their willingness to spend their fellow Johnson Countians hard-earned dollars by paying higher taxes for facilities that will have benefits beyond its borders.

The idea of localities contributing to state facilities is anathema to me. The idea that a locality should help support a state university, prison, hospital or other entity that employs people and attracts outside revenue is a perversion of economic development tenets. State officials have been guilty of playing the local incentives wanted card like they were private entrepreneurs who are locating a factory. Now, in Johnson County, we find so-called leaders who are more than willing to aid and abet this line of thinking. They should be able to sell the legislature on the wisdom of locating those facilities in Johnson County rather than greasing the skids with local taxes. That's what we have a legislature for: making the hard decision of where state facilities go and how the state is going to tax for them. Do we really need to offer local taxes for a state research triangle anymore than we should expect Emporians to pay for deferred maintenance at ESU where many Johnson County students attend.

Perhaps, we need to hold some remedial education programs about federalism and state-local relations for our legislators and local leaders in order to put a stop to oppurtunistic thinking.