Don Schroeder, R-Inman, left and Pat Collotan, R-Leawood
and others in the Kansas House waited to reconvene
Monday afternoon. In the meantime The Senate narrowly
voted to formally accept the House's version of the
$13.6 billion state budget and send the measure directly
to Gov. Mark Parkinson. While this was happening,
the House Appropriations Committee was meeting trying
to come up with another proposed budget from the house.
Monday is the 13th day of this year's wrap-up and
lawmakers' 88th day in session overall.
(Thad Allton, Topka Capital-Journal)
The Legislature completed adoption by a thin margin early Tuesday morning a statewide sales tax increase recommended by Gov. Mark Parkinson to close a budget shortfall threatening funding of education, public safety and social service programs.
The bill is pivotal to resolving a dispute between Republican conservatives seeking deeper cuts in spending and a coalition of Democrats and moderate Republicans who want to set the budget knife aside and add 1 cent to the 5.3 cent sales tax to generate enough cash to finance a $13.6 billion budget.
The House and Senate previously approved the spending bill, and the House's early morning 64-61 vote on the tax plan followed passage by the Senate. Parkinson has expressed support for the budget outline and the revenue package for the fiscal year starting July 1.
A final tally on the tax measure in the House was in limbo for more than four hours under a parliamentary procedure that kept the vote open until Rep. Virgil Peck, a Tyro Republican who took the day off, could be summoned from Coffeyville in southeast Kansas. He voted at 2 p.m. against the $314 million annual increase in the sales tax.
"I sincerely apologize to the body," said Peck, who criticized Republicans supporting the tax. "I know they are compromising themselves."
Voting on the House floor on the tax bill began at 10 p.m. and remained open during a "call of the House" requiring the presence of all members. The fragile coalition of Republicans and Democrats wavered during the interim. In the end, the House passed it by a three-vote margin. The Senate adopted the tax plan 23-17.
Last-minute plans for the budget and final compromise attempts ricocheted across the Statehouse on Monday. Efforts to wrap up legislative work had appeared ready to drag on for days when Johnson County Republications — key members of a coalition of Democrats and Republicans who lined up for a budget that required a tax increase — didn't get the additional local taxing authority they wanted for their school districts.
The talks appeared so off track that the House Appropriations Committee hunkered down Monday afternoon to craft an alternative budget.
"There clearly aren't the votes for taxes," the committee's chairman Rep. Kevin Yoder said before they met. "We're not going to sit here all week doing nothing."
Then, it appeared the votes might be there. Even as the appropriations committee met, the Senate mustered just enough votes to sign on to the compromise House budget that representatives approved early Saturday morning. That left the biggest remaining question mark one of funding.
The House launched into a tax debate at 7 p.m., taking up a Senate plan to raise the sales tax from 5.3 cents to 6.3 cents on each dollar spent.
"Perhaps I won't be popular, but I think perhaps it's my chance to do what is right," said Rep. Tom Hawk, D-Manhattan.
Some opponents used the vote as an opportunity to launch criticisms at school districts, from complaints of bloated administrative ranks to the powerful education lobbying presence.
Rep. Steve Huebert, R-Valley Center, questioned the reality of drastic cuts schools say they are making and asked what the state is getting for the increased investment that was forced by school finance litigation settled four years ago.
"We've gotten very good at teaching to the test," he said of touted increased gains in state assessment scores.
Opponents also pointed to the last-minute budget passed out of the House Appropriations Committee as a viable option. During those talks, Rep. Kasha Kelley, R-Arkansas City, had pushed for a provision that would move to profit $100 million from state assets by July 2011. Critics of the idea equated it to putting state property up for a fire sale that would lead the state to sell buildings and land at bottom-dollar prices.
Kelley said the state could make good profits without turning the state's assets into bargains. She noted a recent property sale she and her husband completed.
"Nobody thought we could get what we got for it," she said. "It was certainly a quick transaction."
Rep. Ann Mah, D-Topeka, balked.
"There are dreams and there are pipe dreams and there's just plain bad judgement," Mah said. "No business person would do business that way. You don't put your assets out there on a fire sale knowing you're going to have to lease them back at an unknown price."
Critics denounced the bill as a job-killer. Rep. Anthony Brown, R-Eudora, said Kansans have been taxed enough. During the budget debate last week, he failed to amend the budget bill with provisions inspired by the controversial Arizona immigration law.
"There will be no jobs for the illegal immigrants to have," Brown said of the tax plan. "So congratulations, we are passing some very tough very strict anti-illegal immigration (legislation)."
Supporters said they didn't like raising taxes but wouldn't sign off on more significant spending cuts.
"This is not an easy decision, and it's certainly not an easy vote but a number of us have heard loud and clear form our constituents they don't want to see any more cuts," said Rep. Julie Menghini, D-Pittsburg.
Barbara Hollingsworth can be reached at (785) 233-7470 or barbara.hollingsworth@cjonline.com and tweets at twitter.com/CapJ_Barb.