Before you know it, kids will be trading in their swimsuits for book bags as they head back to school later this month.

It’s easy to forget that the end-of-summer ritual was endangered by a lawsuit over school funding, and that it took a special session of the Kansas Legislature to ensure that students would find doors to their local public schools unlocked.

All of us tend to take public education for granted until it’s threatened by some concrete crisis.

But, these days, even when there’s no court-imposed deadline, public schools in Kansas are being undermined by battles over funding.

No other institution has done as much to promote the social and economic well-being of both individuals and the collective state.

It’s where most of us learned to read and write. Where we learned math, history and music. Where we learned to interact with people who were different from us because of their religion, ethnic background, color or economic status.

That’s not to say we should consider public schools to be above criticism.

There’s lots of room for improvement in education, but the criticism and demands for improvement should be kept in context.

That context needs to include an understanding that Kansas schools, by objective measures, are doing an above average job.

So as roughly  a half million Kansas kids between the ages of 5 and 18 head back to public schools, it’s a good time to recognize what public schools do well.

And considering that our expectations of what schools should deliver continue to grow every year, it’s somewhat surprising that they don’t fall short of our expectations more often.

Every year schools are asked to take on more and more roles. This past year, for example, the Kansas Legislature mandated that every public school district start providing mandatory training in suicide prevention to every teacher and every staff member every year. It also mandated that public school districts develop a “building crisis plan … for each school building.”

The law passed unanimously in both chambers – because who is going to oppose efforts to identify and help students at risk of taking their own lives?

But there was no recognition on the part of lawmakers that such mandates require additional resources, in terms of time of expertise.

Over the years, good intentions and emotional pleas for new laws, new mandates and new training have added substantially to the responsibilities piled on schools.

From providing breakfast (as well as lunch) to rules about who gets to use what bathrooms, there’s a never-ending list of services, programs and rules propagated by bureaucrats and politicians who want to tell educators how to run schools.

And then we criticize schools for not spending enough time and money in the actual classroom.

What happens in the classroom is important.

In debates about spending and educational policies, the question of how Kansans can provide the best affordable education for students needs to remain at the forefront. And what happens in the classroom is the most important part of that equation.

But Kansans should also understand that what happens outside the classroom also can be important.

Maybe it’s trying to make sure students aren’t starting their school day hungry. Or having a school nurse who sometimes is the primary health care provider for students. Or it could be teachers and specialists identifying and addressing a learning disability.

The ability to effectively address those situations and countless others help students succeed in school. That’s good for the students, of course, because it means their chances of becoming independent and productive adults are much better.

And that’s good for the rest of us.

Chances are, your mechanic, your doctor and your local government officials are the products of public schools. Ten or 20 years from now, a new generation of public school graduates will be taking on those roles and jobs.

Today’s students will be paying the taxes that provide your Social Security. They will be teaching your kids and grandkids.

Today’s students are tomorrow’s workforce – blue-collar, professional and everyone in between.

It’s in our best interests, as well as theirs, to help public schools succeed.

Politicians seldom let facts get in the way of a good campaign claim. For proof, look at the confusing charges and counter-charges candidates for the Kansas Legislature make about one another.

Especially when it comes to the state budget and taxes, campaigns are apt to stretch some truths and omit vital information. And the numerous groups that send out sleazy mailings and produce mud-slinging TV spots on behalf of their candidates are even worse.

So here’s my advice about what to keep in mind as the Aug. 2 primary nears.

No. 1: Politicians who trash other politicians for raising taxes should be viewed with caution.

Some candidates are having fun criticizing ultra-conservative lawmakers for passing a big sales tax increase in 2015.

But the ultra-conservatives have a point when they note that they cut income taxes before they raised the sales tax.

What voters need to know is that, overall, taxes in Kansas increased for low-income Kansans, stayed roughly the same for middle-income taxpayers, and were significantly reduced for wealthier Kansans.

Voters should insist on a tax plan that is more nuanced and enlightened than “taxes are bad.” Look for candidates who support a tax structure that is equitable, progressive and sufficiently funds the functions of government.

That might mean raising some taxes and lowering others.

No. 2: Taxes should be viewed as a necessary tool of government.

Not every tax cut is good. The income tax cuts approved by the Legislature and Gov. Sam Brownback in 2012 and 2013 are prime examples.

First, they fail the test of being fair.

Second, when it comes to economic growth and jobs, they did more harm than good. Spending on infrastructure and investments in education have been crippled by huge funding shortfalls.

The monster budget gaps are being addressed with cuts in programs, by borrowing billions of dollars and by raising other taxes, most significantly, the sales tax.

Unlike many other states, Kansas applies its sales taxes to groceries, meaning the burden is heavier for low and middle-income families who spend a bigger portion of their income on necessities.

No. 3: Kansas’ chronic budget shortfalls are a result of bad tax policy, not the product of a weak economy.

While low prices for oil and farm goods exacerbate the problem, they aren’t the primary cause.

We know this because the state suffered huge revenue gaps even when the oil and farm economies were doing relatively well.

Wheat was selling for about $6 a bushel and oil was going for more than $70 a barrel­­­ in the summer of 2014. In 2012 and 2013, oil and farm prices were even higher.

That meant more good-paying jobs in the oil fields and bigger profits for oil companies and refineries. It also meant higher income for farmers, which in turn increased sales of farm equipment and vehicles. Together, good times in the oil and farm fields led to more business for manufacturers in those sectors.

Still, Brownback, a month after he was re-elected in 2014, said he had to chop $280 million from the current year’s spending because revenues were way below projections.

Six months later, the state was again in dire need of funds, facing budget deficits estimated at $400 million. Instead of reconsidering their income tax cuts, that’s when Brownback and his supporters again raised the sales tax.

Kansas has often weathered downturns in oil and ag. Those cycles are part of the state’s economic landscape, not the cause of budget mayhem.

No. 4: You have to admit a mistake before you can fix it.

Brownback and his supporters continue to argue that their tax policy is working. They say it’s smart to fund basic government services with borrowed billions. That it’s prudent to delay highway maintenance. That it’s good business to cut higher education and payments to healthcare providers.

Then they turn around and blame the slump in oil, the price of wheat, the media and Obama for their budget shortfalls.

They are less credible, even, than those sleazy campaign mailers.

Kansas needs a budget that actually balances, and it needs elected officials who are focused on developing tax policy that puts the state back on sound fiscal ground.

No one familiar with Hillary Clinton’s long political career was particularly surprised by the email scandal that threatens her presidential campaign.

Over several decades, Clinton, the unofficial Democratic nominee, has shown a willingness to skirt the rules and then stonewall and mislead.

One of the early documented instances occurred in 1978, just a few weeks before the general election. Then state attorney general Bill Clinton was ahead in the polls in the race for Arkansas governor, and Hillary Clinton decided it was a good time to start dealing in commodity futures.

A rookie with no experience, she made nearly $100,000 starting with a $1,000 investment in cattle futures in less than a year. When the dubious profits came to light during the 1990s, the Clintons insisted Hillary’s profits reflected her savvy trading skills.

The public learned later that Jim Blair, who worked for Tyson Foods, which has its headquarters in Arkansas, made most of the trades. Also, discrepancies in records raised questions about whether rules were followed by Clinton regarding margin calls and such.

Flash forward to 2015, when news began to spread that Hillary Clinton failed to follow government rules about handling sensitive information through email.

Instead of using secure government computer servers and email accounts, Clinton decided when she became secretary of state in 2009 to set up her own email on a private server.

As the scandal began to make headlines, Clinton insisted she broke no rules.

She said the private email was a matter of convenience because she didn’t want to use multiple mobile devices to handle business and personal email separately.

Asked about security, she said repeatedly no classified information was ever sent to or received by her private email account.

Asked about accountability, she claimed that she had turned over all work-related emails as soon as the State Department asked.

An FBI investigation found that none of that was true. Clinton did break clearly defined rules.

And she often used multiple devices to read email, as well as text and make phone calls.

The FBI also determined that she had handled more than 100 emails with classified information in her private account. Further, agents discovered that she had not turned over all her work-related emails when requested.

They declined to pursue criminal charges, but FBI officials made clear that Clinton had been careless and dishonest.

If the email and the cattle futures were two questionable instances in Clinton’s long and successful career, voters would likely shrug and move along.

But Bill and Hillary Clinton’s record of skirting rules is hefty. And their aversion to telling the truth is almost as striking as Donald Trump’s.

Among the scandals that made headlines in the 1990s were the following:

Travelgate. Shortly after moving into the White House, the Clintons clumsily ousted numerous White House staff in the travel office so they could hire their own political buddies.

Filegate. While investigating Travelgate, Congress discovered that Clinton administration officials improperly accessed the FBI files of former White House staff members, including several senior Republican officials.

Furnituregate. As they were leaving in 2001, The Clintons were criticized for claiming as their own several expensive gifts that had been given to the White House

And of course there was Whitewater, from which the Monica Lewinsky scandal was born.

Whitewater was a sketchy real estate deal that led to a long and overreaching congressional investigation. Prosecutors considered filing charges against Hillary Clinton for her role in the scandal, but decided chances for a conviction were slim to none.

Hillary Clinton insisted that the accusations of financial corruption – and later the claims of sexual misconduct by her husband – were nothing but lies invented by a vast right-wing conspiracy that had been trying to destroy the Clintons for years.

No doubt, many Republicans love to hate the Clintons. And their never-ending and often flimsy accusations lend some credence to Hillary’s claims of political persecution. On the other hand, the Clintons give their foes ample fodder.

Whether the email scandal will be the one that finally derails the Clintons is uncertain. But it is clear that the conductor in this most recent train wreck is solely and simply Hillary.

 

 

It’s July, peak vacation season for Americans, millions of whom will be heading to national parks.

The country’s impressive network of publicly owned parks, monuments and historic sites should be counted as one of the nation’s singular achievements.

Sure we can debate how well the parks are managed, as well as the federal government’s efforts to keep adding more to a park portfolio it can’t currently afford to maintain.

But on the whole, our national parks are wondrous and accessible, giving ordinary tourists a chance to see what otherwise would be available only to the wealthy.

On that most Americans agree.

And they should also agree that the parks and historic places in the parks belong to all Americans – not to the companies hired as vendors and concessionaires.

Currently, the federal government is in court fighting efforts by Delaware North to get paid for trademarks related to Yosemite National Park.

Delaware North claims it’s owed more than $50 million for trademarks that it registered while it had the concessionaire’s contract at Yosemite. Included are the Ahwahnee Hotel (a National Historic Landmark), a logo for the looming granite structure called Half Dome and even some uses of “Yosemite National Park.”

Reading about the legal dispute, it’s tough to decide whether to be angered more by the greed of Delaware North or the stupidity of government officials who allow names of publicly owned parks and facilities to be trademarked for profit.

The dispute in Yosemite is not the only one of its kind. Similar trademarks have been claimed at other national parks as management companies have changed.

The problems begin when a current concessionaire fears it might lose the contract to operate hotels, stores and other facilities in the competitive bidding processes used by the National Park Service and U.S. Department of Interior.

That’s what happened to Delaware North. Aramark outbid the company and won the right to the major concessionaire business at Yosemite.

But before it lost its contract, Delaware North trademarked things it neither created nor owned – such as the historic Ahwahnee Hotel and the words “Yosemite National Park.”

The park service is now fighting the trademarks in court, but in the interim, the new concessionaire has changed the names of some things and has stopped selling items that have “Yosemite National Park” printed on them.

Delaware North’s business move appeared to be an effort to gain an advantage in the bidding process, or, if failing that, to make more money by forcing the new contractor to pay for use of the names that Delaware North had trademarked.

It may have gotten the idea from Xanterra Parks & Resorts.

At the Grand Canyon in 2014, Xanterra, another big concessionaire at national parks, applied for about 20 trademarks as its contract was getting set to expire. According to the Associated Press, the company sought trademarks for names including Phantom Ranch, Hopi House, and El Tovar, a historic hotel on the South Rim. All are places that existed before Xanterra was created.

It dropped its efforts about the same time it won a temporary one-year contract.

In both the cases of Yosemite and the Grand Canyon, as well as one in Utah, the legal arguments bring to mind a line from a Dickens’ novel, which paraphrased reads: If the law supposes that, then the law is an ass – an idiot.

In Utah, the owners of a ski resort near Park City claim they have trademarked the commercial use of “Park City,” a town established in 1884.

Numerous businesses incorporating the name Park City have been contacted by Vail Resorts lawyers about their use of the trademark, which just happens to be the name of their hometown.

Ideally, the federal trademark office would simply deny the registration applications and shut down the nonsense.

Since it won’t, perhaps the court of public opinion needs to weigh in. The public could let the brash ingrates know what they think of efforts to unfairly claim rights to city names and publicly owned national treasures