Imagine you worked a summer job painting fences, but continued to get paid year-round even though you’d hung up the paint brush months earlier.

Unfortunately for Kansas taxpayers, our state legislators are enjoying such an arrangement.

An expansive article in Sunday’s Kansas City Star explained how the retirement packages for state legislators are figured on incomes up to four times as much as they are actually paid.

The fuzzy math comes by way of taking what they would typically be paid for their 90-day legislative session from January to April and then multiplying that to spread across an entire year. Their pensions are then figured on that much higher figure.

So instead of basing a legislator’s pension on about $25,000, it is based on $90,000.

The difference is hundreds of thousands of dollars for Kansas taxpayers from now into perpetuity.

DEVISED in 1982, the perk is available only to state legislators and among all the nation’s states is unique to Kansas.

Only Texas, naturally, compensates their legislators more by tying their pensions to those of their district judges, who typically earn six-figure salaries.

According to KC Star reporter Scott Canon, the typical pension for a part-time state employee for 10 years of service would be $2,600 a year. But if he’s a Kansas legislator, that jumps to $16,500 a year.

The average pension for legislators is $13,109 a year, but some make as much as $55,999 a year. The arrangement is especially sweet for those who have previously served as city or county commissioners because they can add those years of service to their retirement packages. Payout is based on total years of service.

Legislators have justified their lucrative pensions on the fact that their salaries are somewhat meager, which is true enough. Legislators are paid $88.60 for each day the Legislature is in session, plus a $7,000 allowance. On top of that is a $140 per diem stipend to cover travel and lodging expenses. 

Legislators have hesitated to increase their salaries — especially during times of financial hardship — because they fear it would tarnish their images as budget-cutters. Instead, they have relied on the increasingly generous retirement program which, until now, has remained safely off the public’s radar.

BECAUSE a legislator’s job is not a full-time responsibility he should not be compensated as if it were.

The ball’s in their court to act responsibly. 

— Susan Lynn

The intimate setting Tuesday lent itself for a frank discussion between U.S. Sen. Jerry Moran and his constituents.

Instead, the senator chose to play the blame game now so common between Republicans and Democrats that it’s the norm.

The senator’s visit drew a small crowd, maybe 35. To a one they were an amiable bunch eager to learn the esteemed senator’s opinions on pressing matters.

A seasoned speaker, Sen. Moran warmed up the gathering with the standard jokes about representing the hinterland. This time, he recalled when he was still a U.S. representative and Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut asked him what exactly a farmer does. 

From there, the senator talked about his efforts to expand U.S. trade with Cuba and to improve the health care services for U.S. veterans.

“If we can’t sell Cuba wheat, then France will,” he said.

Sen. Moran remains clearly frustrated by the inability of veterans to receive health care in a timely manner and has made it his signature legislation to see they can do so in facilities close to home.

Both examples helped paint a clear picture of Sen. Moran putting Kansas first.

But then, things got murky.

When it came to answering questions, the senator deftly steered clear.

Would he support Donald Trump if he were the Republican presidential nominee?

“I never reveal who I vote for, but there are things I wish Mr. Trump wouldn’t say.”

Would you meet with Judge Garland Merrick, the nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court?

That ship has sailed, he intimated.

(In March, Sen. Moran bravely broke with the Republican ranks to suggest they allow hearings on the nominee.  A week later, he did an about-face.)

Are you alarmed about the massive death toll of those fleeing Libya and Syria?

“We need to balance the humanitarian aspect of helping with that of protecting the United States from terrorists.”

Why did you vote last month against aid to fight the Zika virus? 

“We can’t keep spending money on every little thing that comes up,” he said, and labeled Democrats as spendthrifts. 

According to Moran, who agrees the virus poses a “terrible threat” to the United States, no funding should be directed to eradicate the deadly virus until the United States can balance its budget. He is on record saying such funding could be taken from the Affordable Care Act, the contentious (to Republicans) legislation that helps states pay for health care.

Kansas, by the way, lies in the path of the mosquitoes that spread the virus. Its most serious symptom is severe brain damage to the fetuses of pregnant women. 

On Tuesday, a New Jersey woman gave birth to a baby who now appears to be affected by the disease. 

As of last week, 142 pregnant women in the United States have contracted Zika, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Infection. In one week’s time, 48 U.S. women had reported contracting the disease.

With this terrible virus now making its way to Kansas, Sen. Moran chooses to use the 56-year-old U.S. deficit as his reason to deny funding to fight its spread. 

Fortunately, not all Republicans took such a demagogic stance, and the measure, initiated by Missouri Republican Sen. Roy Blunt, passed with 23 Republicans joining Senate Democrats. 

DESPITE THE FACT he was among warm and fast friends whose support is all but guaranteed, Sen. Moran kept up a continual barrage of pokes and jabs at Democrats for what he views as their intransigence to Republican ideals.

In short, it was a missed opportunity.

How could it have been different?

Well, after almost 20 years in Congress, surely Sen. Moran has learned a thing or two about what has worked to make and keep the United States the world’s lodestar. 

So it would have been illuminating for him to share those insights as well as what he thinks will help take us forward, regardless of which political party is in control. 

Instead, he’ll keep with the negativity, because that has proven to be a winning strategy with us, the losers.

— Susan Lynn 

An ominous cloud hangs over the Kansas Capitol today, after the state Supreme Court late Friday rejected changes in school funding the Republican-dominated Legislature made earlier this year.

The justices ruled lawmakers failed to improve funding for poor districts, “… (the Legislature) has not performed its duty.”

The justices said funding was not equitable, after they directed legislators in February to make it fairer to poor districts.

The conspicuous club the court holds is an admonition that schools will be shuttered on June 30 if legislators don’t meet financial obligations the justices ruled were made clear in the Kansas constitution.

What legislators did was redistribute aid they had allocated, rather than increase funding for schools. The court said remaining flaws make the system disproportionate for poor districts.

The ruling was met by a  predictable gnashing of teeth by the leadership in both chambers, who railed that Kansas is providing more dollars for education than previously. That may seem to be true, until components of what flows to the state’s 286 local districts are examined more closely.

The justices did and have not been fooled by the rhetoric. 

When the Legislature sacked the funding formula from the early 1990s and replaced it with block grant funding this school year and next, the outcome was skewed.

To wit: Kansas Public Employees Retirement System money was included in the block grants, as well as property tax relief that was part of an earlier increase ordered by the court and special education funding, which never has been a part of general fund aid. Each district is merely a conduit for the special education funding.

Another cloud hangs outside Topeka and awaits deliberation by the justices: Whether funding for schools is sufficient by the constitution’s declaration that Kansas students be provided an adequate education.

KANSANS of every stripe should be thankful that the Supreme Court justices were insightful and meticulous in their consideration of school funding, prompted by and ongoing from when four districts sued the state over education funding in 2010.

Two factors to do with statewide economics have played an enormous role, leading up to the lawsuit.

Starting in 1992-93, school funding was determined by a base state aid per pupil formula. Revenue came from a statewide property tax levy of 35 mills. In succeeding years, with the economy surging, the levy was lowered. Eventually it settled at 20 mills, where it is today. Also, at one point in the formula the first $20,000 for residential property was exempted for general fund aid.

When the recession hit in 2007, funding suffered. More students were considered at risk because their families’ incomes had regressed. At-risk students were funded higher than the base, one of several areas where adjustments were made.

In 2012, Gov. Sam Brownback and his legion of ultra-conservative legislators deemed cutting income taxes, particularly for the wealthy and business owners, would provide a “shot of adrenaline for the economy.” Thus far that promise has been unfulfilled.

The governor and more than enough in each chamber have rejected any thought of reassessment of tax cuts, including leaving more than 300,000 business owners the advantage of paying no state income taxes.

Though not mentioned, for whatever reason, restoring some of the statewide property tax levy would be helpful in putting funding for education on better footing. Fact is, many districts’ local tax levies are less today than they were before 1992-93.

Brownback’s pet, the income tax cuts, if reversed even partially, would provide enough money to meet needs in education — projecting as much as $40 million for the inequitable issue by the Supreme Court.

Instead, Brownback has dug in his heels and refused to consider anything other than cuts and sweeping money from Department of Transportation coffers to meet shortfalls.

A painful cut in the last week was 4 percent of the state’s obligation to KanCare, the state’s privately run Medicaid program. An offshoot that has failed to resonate is that since federal dollars are matching, that portion of Medicaid funding has been cut proportionately.

Kansas cash-basis law requires budget income to meet or exceed expenditures, which in the current economic environment leaves little recourse other than cuts, as long as Brownback and his cronies persist.

LEGISLATORS return to session Wednesday for sine die, technically the last day of the 2016 session. 

Legislative leaders said over the weekend they would not deal then with school funding. That would seem to leave little choice other than to call a special session to keep schools operating, with the specter of the June 30 closure.

They will kick and scream and proclaim over and over that Kansas schools are well-funded, as well or better than most in the nation. That simply is not true, but until a more receptive group is installed in each chamber, reaching accord will be difficult.

Commend Rep. Kent Thompson for realizing schools are financially in need, and beg Sen. Caryn Tyson to understand that they are.

— Bob Johnson