Kansas City Star vs. Governor Sibelius

The Kansas City Star in a Sunday editorial published the day before Kansas Governor Kathleen Sibelius gave her State of the State speech listed eight "top picks" for action by the Kansas Legislature. It occurred to me that I might listen to her Monday night speech, paying particular attention to how the legislative ideas expounded by the Governor diverged from those proposed by the Star. Below is what I learned along with my reaction.

In the area of highways, the Star proposed adding mass transit to the Kansas transportation plan. Sibelius suggested that perhaps another 10-year iteration of the plan, concluding this year, might be authorized. Mass transit is not going anywhere in Kansas. There is no interest by Kansas commuters and the City of Kansas City, Missouri, is not proposing mass transit links that would be advantageous to Kansans. Highway needs are still of major importance for movement through and around the Kansas metropolitan areas and between urban centers across the state. With federal stimulus money possible, several important highway projects that would be leading candidates for the early years of a new 10-year plan may get done. Look for all the attention to be devoted to economic stimulus with a new long-range plan coming up in the 2010 legislature.

As to public smoking restrictions, the Star wants a statewide ban on smoking in public places. The Governor made no mention of this issue, so presumably it's not high on her priority list. Presumably, she would support new laws that decrease cancer risks, therefore, if the legislature acts, which I doubt will happen, the Governor will go along. I doubt that cigarette taxes will be increased. Both parties have ruled out tax increases during a recession to cure a recession caused budget crisis and they would not want to appear hypocritical by putting both new restrictions and taxes on smokers.

To decrease deaths among teenage drivers, the Star supports raising the driving age and adding other restrictions to youthful drivers. This issue got no comment from the Governor. Since she's term limited, presumably she would not veto raising the age to begin driving. Interestingly, the Star didn't suggest a minimum age for driving, just raising it. Well, I will make a suggestion. I say raise it to 19, unless the individual wanting to drive has a high school diploma or GED certificate. That would not only make highways safer, it would reduce the expense of parking lot maintenance at high schools.

It seems to me that newspapers don't sell a lot of ad space for political campaigns and, hence, they don't protect their advertiser's interests. The Star favors disclosure of all financial donors' identities. Again, no mention of this issue by the Governor. It's hard to tell where she would come down on this issue. Personally, I feel full disclosure should be the rule. You have the right to support a candidate with your funds and to freely associate with others to do so. Why should your identity be shielded from view? There is no penalty attached to free speech, only the judgement of your peers. Why would you want to escape the judgement of your peers by donating anonymously?

Under the mantle of energy policy, the Star plugged renewable fuels for power generation rather than coal, as does Sibelius who favors expanding power generation from all sources as long as it's not coal-fired. The Senate President's response led me to believe that the Western Kansas Republicans will lead another attempt to build a power plant that mainly serves Colorado with energy and pollutes the air in Eastern Kansas. Neither the Star nor the Governor mentioned nuclear power directly. I say expand Wolf Creek Nuclear Power Plant. It has an excellent operating record from both safety and economical power standpoints. Besides, Coffey County could use more tax revenue.

For the care of vulnerable citizens, the Star is particularly interested in the mentally disabled. Sibelius extends her concern to all disabled persons. I am with her, but I cannot understand how enrollment in aid programs can be suspended as is proposed as a expense saving device. Equal protection under the law should not mean "until we can afford it." I say, "Serve one, serve all." There is a moral imperative here. The gate-keeper should be a standard of need, the worst cases get served first, rather than time of application. If that can't be done, then pony up the bucks.

Under the umbrella of health care, the Star emphasizes treatment access as of priome concern. Sibleius emphasized the advances made in Kansas towars becoming a center for cancer research. Both are important. More public clinics are definitely needed. I don't think the legislature will take any action, lacking funds and knowledge of what the Federal government will do to improve health insurance coverage.

Life science. the leading area of new research, also was of interest to both the Star and the Governor. The newspaper is pushing bioscience, while the Governor touts the economic development potential of a life science corridor between Manhattan and the Kansas City area. It is ironic that the county that passed a dedicated sales tax to boost state efforts in life sciences, cancer research and education, will probaly get the shaft from reduced state shared revenues. That's double punishment for the taxpayer. I say that, if the localities and higher education must bear the brunt of state budget corrections, then the local "Research Triangle" tax should be suspended unless or until the state fixes things.

This legislative session will be one to follow closely.