Recent Kansas editorials

The Kansas City Star, Oct. 22

Kansas Democrats should be making more forcefully

Businessman Greg Orman, who is running for Kansas governor as an independent, made some impressive arguments when he met with our editorial board recently. And the strongest of them, on our bottom-line need for more rather than fewer immigrants, is one we wish more Democrats had the courage to make as forcefully and often as Orman does.

It’s not easy. President Donald Trump believes that the way he talks about immigrants got him elected and is still great politics. He and other Republicans characterize the humanitarian and refugee crisis of the migrant caravan of Hondurans and other Central Americans as a threat instead of as a problem that no wall or family separation policy could ever solve, because so many of these migrants are desperate to save their families from violence.

Orman’s GOP rival, Secretary of State Kris Kobach, has two preoccupations: One is that illegal immigrants are supposedly costing us precious resources, and the other is imaginary voter fraud by illegal immigrants. He insists we can significantly cut spending by ending in-state tuition for undocumented students at Kansas universities and colleges - a move that would only reduce enrollment and revenue since many could not afford out-of-state tuition.

Democrats often decry the cruelty of family separation, but say more about what we should not do than what we should. Which would start with recognizing that with illegal immigration at a 40-year low, this isn’t the problem it’s made out to be.

If more Democrats dared to lay out how vital immigrant labor is to our economy, maybe their policy alternative would not be dismissed as “open borders.”

Orman does that, and argues that if Kobach’s policies were put into effect, the economy of western Kansas would collapse along with its feedlots, dairy farms and meatpacking plants, decimating whole communities. “It would be a domino effect,” Orman said.

Immigrants are 9 percent of our workforce. The 70,000 undocumented immigrants in Kansas live with 100,000 people who are here legally, and deporting them all would be beyond counterproductive: Qué desastre.

“I’m the only one in the race who has stood up to Secretary Kobach when he’s talked about his immigration plans,” Orman said. “I realize it’s a tough issue. I look at the polls, too. I understand Kansans are split…so it’s easy to lose votes by coming out and saying strongly we need to create an environment that’s not hostile to workers. It’s a lot easier to punt and say, ’Oh, it’s a federal issue.’ “

State Sen. Laura Kelly, the Democratic nominee, does push back on Kobach’s extremism but presents it as a federal issue she’d encourage Kansans in Congress to resolve. When asked about the issue when she met with the editorial board, she began this way: “Everybody recognizes our immigration system is broken and needs to be fixed.” Which is why, “Congress should step up and pass comprehensive immigration reform.” Every time they’ve come close, demagoguing has kept reform just out of reach.

Kelly knows that “part of our economy is dependent on immigration labor” and that we have a workforce shortage. “Can you imagine what would happen to western Kansas if we were to round everybody up?” Yes, we can, and every Kansan should.

Even that mental exercise won’t happen if we’re as timid as Kansas Democratic congressional candidate Paul Davis, who in a meeting with us talked about immigration the same old way: “Do we have too many people coming over the border from Mexico? No doubt about it. Do we need better border security? Yes.”

Are there really too many coming across, and if so, is that a problem here? “The issue mainly is the border,” he said, and “there should be other ways that people are run through proper channels, I guess.”

Orman said Kobach supporters tell him what bothers them is that a law’s been broken. Of course, many undocumented immigrants present themselves to authorities and legally apply for asylum. Some officials have broken the law in attempting to criminalize this legal act.

Making that case, Orman says, is “one of the fights that that needs to be fought for the sake of Kansas.” Which is difficult, brave and necessary.

____

The Topeka Capital-Journal, Oct. 20

Laura Kelly has vision to lead Kansas forward

In 2016, Kansas voters ousted many state legislators aligned with then-Gov. Sam Brownback.

A revamped, more centrist Legislature proceeded with bipartisan reversal of Brownback’s deep income-tax cuts that failed to generate the economic growth he promised. The financial strain of significant revenue losses instead triggered damaging hits to education, highways, public safety and other core services, plus accumulation of unprecedented debt.

And now, Kansas cannot afford to go backward. Too many problems persist.

Amid urgency to address lingering challenges, Kansas needs its next governor to work immediately and effectively with the Legislature.

State Sen. Laura Kelly is prepared to do so. A moderate Democrat, she’s respected on both sides of the aisle as a politically astute, pragmatic contributor.

While frank in her assessment of a tough road ahead due to fiscal uncertainty, Kelly has the right priorities in mind. She’s been a faithful advocate of educational opportunities for all students, starting with early education. Medicaid expansion needed to help working-poor Kansans and struggling health care providers would have Kelly’s blessing.

Her firsthand knowledge of the dynamics of the current legislative process and state agency operations also would prove invaluable in efforts to improve the Department for Children and Families and KanCare (Medicaid) program, both rife with problems.

With accountability lacking in many areas, Kelly vowed more transparency to restore public confidence in state government.

The senator has missed on issues, however, to include endorsing concealed carry without a permit.

But rare is the legislator who hasn’t cast a regrettable vote. Kelly at least altered her thinking after further study. Had Brownback been willing to admit the error of his steep income-tax cuts, Kansas would be better off today.

And to think far-right Republican gubernatorial hopeful Kris Kobach would revive the same reckless tax policy.

Kobach simply cannot be counted on to be a positive, focused governor. He’s deliberately shirked the duties of secretary of state by spending inordinate time chasing an imagined scourge of voter fraud and pushing policies that disenfranchised voters - all while being decidedly divisive.

The state needs a leader able to unite forces in Topeka. Kelly’s Statehouse experience and ability to govern starting on Day 1 give Kansas the best chance to move forward, making her the choice for voters on Nov. 6.

____

The Iola Register, Oct. 22

To justify budget cuts, politicians put price tag on heads of needy

For the last several years Kansas has boasted of its shrinking welfare roles. And it’s true.

Ever since the administration of Gov. Sam Brownback tightened eligibility rules, voila!, the number of those applying for benefits has shrunk.

In 2016, Kansas reduced the timeframe a family can receive food stamps from 36 to 24 months - one of the lowest in the nation - down from 60 months in 2011, forcing the number of applicants to drop from 15,000 to 5,000.

As for Medicaid, a Kansas family of three can make no more than $8,000 and qualify for its health insurance benefits.

Kris Kobach, Republican nominee for governor, said Wednesday he wants to further tighten Kansas law to stipulate that welfare recipients must log in 30 hours of work a week, up from the current 20 hours. Kobach also favors a work requirement for the able-bodied who receive Medicaid.

Brownback and Kobach justify the measures by saying welfare of all manner discourages people from getting jobs and thus damages their self-esteem.

The Trump administration views the continuation of safety net programs such as welfare as a national failing, that as a nation we’re missing the mark because we’re not all self-sufficient.

So, by eliminating food stamps and health insurance we’re doing the poor a favor, the thinking goes. We don’t want to be supporting anyone unnecessarily, after all. Which would all be well and good if those affected were in OK shape. You know. They all have jobs, with benefits.

The data, however, shows that these new requirements is a steep hill for many. For one thing, while about 90 percent of these people already work, keeping a steady job is a challenge, sometimes not of their own making, and often because of chronic physical or mental health problems, according to The Hamilton Project, a recent study on work requirements and safety net programs.

YOU MAY NOT know these working poor, but you see them. They’re the ones working two, sometimes three jobs, cleaning offices, flipping burgers or stocking shelves.

For many, if their food stamps stop, their lives just got that much more impossible.

Meanwhile, President Trump’s budget for fiscal year 2019 includes cuts of 7.1 percent to Medicare, 22.5 percent to Medicaid, and 27.4 percent to food stamps.

These programs make the difference between families receiving the nutrition and health care they need or not in order to live, and work and support their families.

In 2017, 3 million Americans were kept out of poverty because of safety net programs such as food stamps and housing subsidies.

WHEN IT COMES to looking at our state and national budgets we should not look to cut costs on the back of our poor and elderly.

Spending for services such as Medicaid and food stamps is not an extravagance.

And these people, they are worth it.

To say otherwise, is beyond the imagination of what it means to be a people of God.

____

The Manhattan Mercury, Oct. 21

Flood study proposal feels like déjá vu

We couldn’t help from rolling our eyes at the headline in Friday’s Mercury: “Officials advocate for Wildcat Creek flood study.”

It’s not that we’re against studying the issue, since gathering more knowledge is always good. It’s just that we’ve been down this path so many times, and nothing has really solved the problem. We found ourselves cheering for Manhattan Mayor Linda Morse, who said at a meeting of city and county officials: “I’m growing impatient with ’Oh well, that study didn’t work. We have to do a new one.’ I want something that is going to hold longer than five years and be relevant to this community.”

Right on.

What this is really going to come down to is money and power. Because what we’re talking about, really, is the creation of a taxing entity that can raise money from local property owners and alter the landscape so as to reduce the flooding and minimize its effects.

Taxing entities like that exist in many places: They’re called “watershed districts.” Last time we went through all this, the people looking into the issue suggested creating one here. But that recommendation got buried.

Local officials have already taken some intermediate steps from previous studies, such as a warning system. Some properties have been bought out, voluntarily, by the city government with federal help. That’s all well and good, but the most recent flood was the worst yet.

Short of obtaining some big federal grant - which the city already applied for once and didn’t get - we’re going to have to fix this problem ourselves. That’s going to require tradeoffs, and political will. Because some people are going to get stuck with the bill, and they’re going to lose power, and they’ll raise hell. We can’t really blame them for doing that, either.

But at this point, we very seriously doubt anybody is going to come up with a better plan. So, sure, study a little more. And then bite the bullet and start setting up the watershed district, and start raising money to fix the problem. Because otherwise, the flood will come again, and it will be worse.