The economy and energy were the primary topics of discussion Saturday morning as the Emporia delegation of state legislators gathered at Flint Hills Technical College for another Eggs & Issues forum.
Sen. Jim Barnett and Reps. Peggy Mast and Don Hill addressed the state budget and what the federal stimulus package could mean for Kansas as the Legislature continues to work on the 2010 budget.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act could provide more than $1.7 billion for the state over the next two years, although Congress is still working through requirements and regulations tied to the money.
“We still have decisions to make as to whether or not we’ll be utilizing all of those federal dollars,” Hill said. “We will be making those decisions literally over the coming days.”
The stimulus money includes $81 million for budget stabilization, to be spread out for education, health care and infrastructure.
“Two caveats,” Hill said, “are that we don’t want to use one-time money that will be giving us trouble or making us vulnerable in the future. ... We don’t want to be creating permanent programs with funding that’s not coming from a sustainable source.”
Hill mentioned the fact that Gov. Rick Perry of Texas and Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana have said they will turn down stimulus money needed to shore up unemployment aid.
“For Kansas, that’s a potential of about $68 million,” Hill said, although changes will have to be made to state law to be able to use that money.
Hill said the money is a positive development for his district, the 60th, because it is an education-focused district.
Mast said having to make drastic budget cuts is difficult for her, given her positions on the House Appropriations and the Social Service Budget Committees.
“I guess I feel like I’ve got a heavier burden to bear than I ever have before,” Mast said. “... It’s been a very difficult experience in a year we need to make cuts instead of trying to meet the needs of people.”
Mast said being chair of the Social Service Budget committee has been a rewarding experience, and that she is proud of all who serve on the committee.
“I’ve been working with top-notch people who all have the same desire: to look at the needs of the most needy Kansans and try to meet those needs,” Mast said.
Mast addressed the strings attached to accepting the stimulus money, saying that lawmakers are still in the process of writing the rules and regulations for using the money.
“When (the stimulus package) was signed by President Obama, it was 1,100 pages, and it still wasn’t complete yet,” Mast said. “... So there’s this lag in time of getting things accomplished and getting things addressed. So there’s a lot of hesitancy in regard to committing the dollars in the stimulus package without knowing exactly if we’ll be breaking any federal rules and regs and having to send some of it back.”
Barnett mentioned the recent jump in the state’s unemployment rate to over 6 percent, saying that benefits have been increased $25 per period for unemployed Kansans and that the length of time for benefits to be available has been extended to the end of the year.
Barnett also brought up Senate Bill 25, the statewide smoking ban, that passed in the Senate and is being considered in the House.
“I’m very hopeful the House will work that bill and bring it to a vote,” Barnett said.
Barnett said the federal stimulus package will provide $449 million for education, saying the money will help the state avoid deep cuts in education.
For Medicaid, Barnett said $402 million will be available to help take care of the poor and the disabled in the state.
“Those are very important dollars to many people in our state,” Barnett said.
The stimulus package also will include $348 million for highways and bridges, $115 million for special education and $93 million for Title I.
Regarding the state accepting stimulus money or turning it down, Barnett said there has been a lot of discussion, and one point that came up is that if Kansas doesn’t accept it and the other 49 states do, Kansans will still be paying for it.
“What happens to job loss, what happens to job creation if we don’t (accept the money)?” Barnett asked.
Barnett also mentioned the death penalty bill, which will be debated in the Senate today. Kansas currently has 10 people on death row, though the state has not executed anyone since the 1960s. For more on the death penalty debate, see Page 8.
“This is a very weighty issue,” Barnett said, “so if you would like to weigh in on that we certainly welcome your input.
A good part of the discussion Saturday morning came as the legislators addressed a question regarding the energy bill the governor is expected to veto. The bill, which will allow two coal-fired power plants in western Kansas, passed the Senate 31-9 and the House 79-44. To override the governor’s veto, 84 votes are needed in the house.
One audience member took issue with Mast’s comment that a veto of the bill would be good for environmentalists and bad for business.
“I would say that anything that’s good for the environment is good for all of us,” the woman said. “We all breathe the air, we all live on this planet. I would like to think that this could be business, too.” She went on to say it doesn’t have to be an either — or proposition.
Hill, who voted for the bill along with Mast and Barnett, said the decision was difficult for him.
“It was made on the points ... that we have to find a balance,” Hill said. “We can’t let the capitalists destroy capitalism. We can’t let business greed or insensitivity or downright foolishness rule the day, and we have to also recognize that there is an extreme on the other side.”
Hill said both he and Mast, being from western Kansas, understand the need for development in that area. “Western Kansas needs the power, needs the economic development,” he said. He then framed the question in the context of what it would have meant for east central Kansas if Wolf Creek had been opposed by the governor.
Mast said she voted for the bill because the demand for energy in the state is real, as well as the demand for jobs and an updated energy grid.
“We’re talking about trying to deliver energy that is as inexpensive as possible so it doesn’t put a hardship on individuals who live in the state,” Mast said. “We’re trying to talk about helping our environment and delivering clean energy as much as possible.” She also said it’s about creating jobs and helping the economy.
Barnett said it’s wrong to call it the “Holcomb Bill” because it’s an energy policy. He said the bill includes provisions that will help the state and the nation develop better and more sustainable energy technologies.
“There is a sea of change occurring in our nation” regarding energy policy, Barnett said. “... This bill has much more to do than just coal. It does have good legislation for net-metering for wind and solar and others.” He said the bill also includes renewable portfolio standards.
“I do worry that there’s not enough science understood in our nation and in our legislature and in our discussions about what’s realistic for energy policy,” Barnett said, “because we have this idea of bad coal, good coal. But if we do away with coal today, we’re going to have a lot of families cold tonight.”
driveonby (anonymous) says...
Good coal fumes, bad tobacco. I'm SO confused. Barnett, you are fully aware that SB 25 is a dead bill. HB 81 is a better, more rational, thought out option. Brenda Landwehr, from Wichita, should be commended for her long look at the repercussions of SB 25. She is obviously, not bought off by the nanny crowd, and not impressed with their money from the pharmaceutical companies, as some in Topeka are.
March 17, 2009 at 7:05 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )