Kansas House Overwhelmingly Adopts Structural Budget Reform
Topeka – This morning an overwhelming majority in the Kansas House voted to adopt structural reform of the budgeting processes through a “pay-go” provision in the House Rules. The measure specifies that on appropriation bills, amendments to increase spending will not be in order unless they reduce spending by a like or greater amount.

“The 76 to 45 vote shows that there is wide support in the House for meaningful budget reform at the state level,” said Speaker O’Neal. “This is the first step towards the fundamental changes needed to ensure the long-term fiscal health of our state. The House is committed to making the changes necessary to ensure that our appropriations process supports rather than undermines a responsible budget.”

Welcome to my Online Office!
It is an honor to serve as your voice in the Kansas House of Representatives. As you are no doubt aware, the legislature is engaged fully in meeting the historic challenges and the dire situation our Kansas budget. The shortfall in new fiscal year (July 1, 2010 – June 30, 2011) will be between $500 to $550 million.

There are two primary alternative solutions to close the gap between the state’s income and expenses. The first is increase the state’s revenue by raising taxes. The second option is to make cuts in the state budget’s expenditures. And, of course, there may be middle ground between the two opposite approaches with some combination of cuts and tax increases.

There are no simple answers to our budget problems. One the one hand, most citizens want to financially support our educational system (67% of the state budget) and help our state’s most vulnerable citizens, the disabled and the elderly.

Yet, raising taxes has serious consequences, as well. Most citizens understand that removing money from the Kansas economy through higher taxes impedes the recovery of our economy and the creation of jobs (Kansas is at a record unemployment rate with some 100,000 our citizens out of work or underemployed). Furthermore, increasing taxes will hurt Kansas families who already are struggling to make ends meet in their own personal budgets.

Obviously, we must strike a delicate balance between the level of taxation and providing important governmental services. Certainly, there are differences in opinion among many constituents on these issues.

To that end, I encourage your input by completing the on-line survey on budget expenditures, taxation, legal, transportation, public safety, energy and social issues.

My approach to serving my constituents is to weigh all of these considerations and to represent the citizens of the 48th District and Kansas the best I can.

Kleeb Participates in Tax Policy Forum on January 9
Marvin Kleeb was one of several legislators participating in a town hall meeting featuring several local area legislators. National taxation expert Patrick Fleenor from Washington DC presented information on taxation factors during an economic recession at an event hosted by the Johnson County Republican Party and moderated by Chris Stigall.

Included in the panel along with Rep. Kleeb were Senators John Vratil, Karin Brownlee, Julia Lynn, and Jeff Colyer, as well as Reps. Ray Merrick, Kevin Yoder, and Arlen Siegfreid.

The Legislator panel addressed questions submitted from the audience on the importance of tax structures in our current economic recession and our Kansas Budget concerns

The Right Kind of Solutions
I grew up with the time-honored philosophy that the government that governs best, governs least.

However, there are important areas where government can and should function as an essential element in the solution for the problems and issues of the State and its people.

When government involvement is appropriate and needed, there are five important aspects to consider:

1. The solution should have a clear desired outcome and goal.
2. The solution should be as fair and equitable as possible for all citizens.
3. The solution should not be unduly burdensome with regulations and bureaucracy.
4. The solution should be fiscally responsible.
5. If the solution involves taxation, it should be fair and not excessive.