The Legislature and Gov. Sam Brownback will soon decide in which direction to take the state.

They will either strike a course for fiscally sound ground that will support good schools, solid infrastructure and a reliable workforce, or they will lead us deeper into a swamp of borrowed money and more cuts to services and programs.

For years, the state has failed to balance its revenues with its spending. Instead it has used a series of loans, huge transfers from highway funds, and other gimmicks to pay its bills.

Even with such schemes, the state has ended up short, and has had to repeatedly cut services.

The governor this month will propose a budget that will be his map for guiding the state’s finances.

In considering Brownback’s plan, legislators and other Kansans should focus on three major issues.

The first is tax policy.

Over the past five years, the state’s tax structure has been tilted to favor the wealthy.

Income taxes for all Kansans have been cut, but income taxes for hundreds of thousands of businesses were eliminated entirely. This means that at many workplaces, the bosses don’t pay state income taxes, but the people who work for them do.

As the income tax for many was eliminated, the sales tax for all of us was raised. Because low and middle-income families spend more of their income on food and other necessities subject to the sales tax, their tax burdens have increased over the past few years.

This was the tax policy that Brownback pledged would create thousands of jobs in the state. But according to the Kansas Department of Labor, the state lost more than 25,000 jobs between November 2015 and November 2016.

Before the tax cuts took full effect, Kansas was creating jobs, albeit more slowly than just about any state in the nation. That slow growth has now turned into losses.

That’s not to say Brownback’s tax policy is to blame for the job losses. It is to say that Brownback’s policy has failed to create jobs.

And it has, at the same time, created a fiscal crisis for state government.

The first order of business is to put the state’s finances on solid ground by adopting a tax policy that emphasizes fairness and generates sufficient funds to pay for programs and services.

That brings us to the second order of business, which is the school finance formula.

Lawmakers need to ensure that the state’s public schools are adequately funded, and no one should assume that means adding substantially more money.

It might mean reducing the state’s share for capital improvements. It might mean eliminating provisions that shift money to private schools.

It definitely means making success in the classroom a priority. Funding decisions should focus on ensuring money is spent effectively to help kids learn.

The third priority for Kansas in 2017 needs to be the state’s workers.

Whether they plow our highways, teach at our universities or care for patients at state facilities, they play an important role in making Kansas the kind of state we want to call home.

For too long, they have paid the price of the state’s lousy financial planning.

Kansas, like most of the nation, was hit hard by the 2007 recession. As the nation struggled through the worst financial crisis since the 1930s, it was understandable that public employees would share in the pain.

But the recession is over. Kansas cannot afford to keep driving employees from their jobs and out of the state with lousy pay and work conditions.

Some of the problems have been well documented: crushing overtime demands for employees at state mental facilities; understaffed prisons; and too few highway patrol officers. Other issues are more difficult to quantify, but there’s little doubt that wage freezes, benefits cuts and other issues have led some of our best employees to leave.

State lawmakers can help change that. They can return the state to sound fiscal ground, a prerequisite for providing public employees more opportunities. They also can ensure our schools are funded adequately, with a focus on learning.

It won’t be easy. Lawmakers and Kansans will need to keep our state motto in mind: To the stars through difficulties.

Given the rhetoric over the past month, you might think that the nation has never been so deeply divided, or so threatened by terrorism, foreign autocrats or domestic tyrants.

Pick your danger, and you will find political operatives and TV personalities trying to convince you that we stand on the brink of cultural, political or economic doom.

History has a way of putting current events into perspective. Rather than swallow the histrionics displayed by the excitable personalities on TV and certain websites, let’s consider a few points in history when the nation faced more serious problems.

In December 1860, for example, the country was coming apart.

Abraham Lincoln had been elected president the month before, garnering about 40 percent of the popular vote.

His anti-slavery stand prompted South Carolina to secede from the United States on Dec. 20. Other Southern states threatened to leave as well unless the nation approved constitutional amendments guaranteeing that slavery would remain legal.

Kansas was a pawn in the hostile debate, as leaders tried to win political advantage without destroying the nation.

According to the National Republic newspaper published on Christmas Day in 1860, Kansas statehood was linked to the maneuvers being made by both sides at the time.

“In the Senate (yesterday) the bill for the admission of Kansas was postponed one week. Mr. Nicholson, of Tennessee, made a speech favoring secession,” the newspaper’s summary of congressional action read.

A few weeks later, Kansas did become a state, and in the spring of 1861 a bloody four-year civil war began.

But we need not go back so far to find political divisions that threatened the state and nation.

In Kansas in January 1893, there was an armed standoff in Topeka at the Capitol between Populists and Republicans.

Both parties claimed they had won enough seats to claim a majority, and according to the Kansas State Historical Society:

“… The conflict between the parties reached a crisis when the Populists locked themselves in the House Hall. The Republicans used a sledgehammer to break down the doors to the hall. The governor requested support from the state militia. …”

The governor, a Populist, brokered an agreement after three days.

More recent still was the holiday season of 1941, when the United States was reeling from the attack on Pearl Harbor.

British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, who was visiting Washington to discuss war strategy, gave a radio address that said in part:

“This is a strange Christmas Eve.  Almost the whole world is locked in deadly struggle, and, with the most terrible weapons which science can devise, the nations advance upon each other. … ”

In a piece written for RealClear Politics in 2014, Craig Shirley recounted the stunned and frightened mood of America following Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor. He noted that rather than further scare people, political leaders attempted to rally the public, but not with lofty promises and lies.

Take for example, this excerpt from Churchill’s address to Congress, delivered Dec. 26, 1941:

“Some people may be startled or momentarily depressed when, like your President, I speak of a long and a hard war. Our peoples would rather know the truth, somber though it be. … Sure I am that this day, now, we are the masters of our fate. That the task which has been set us is not above our strength. That its pangs and toils are not beyond our endurance. …”

As today’s pundits claim moral outrage over an artificial “war on Christmas,” or incite anger over Donald Trump’s latest cabinet pick, let’s keep the rhetoric in context.

While we shouldn’t undervalue the problems we face, we should recognize that earlier generations faced far greater foes and more serious challenges. They can provide useful lessons about the fortitude, persistence and knowledge we should require of ourselves and our leaders.

 

 

 

On a recent Sunday afternoon, a man walked into a Washington, D.C., pizza place and started firing a rifle.

Miraculously, no one was injured.

Edgar Maddison told police he traveled from North Carolina and started shooting in the restaurant because he was investigating for himself the widely circulated “news” he had seen on the Internet.

What news? That Hillary Clinton and her top campaign officials were raping and killing children at the restaurant.

No evidence supported the nutty tale, but still it spread through social media and was pushed by conservative websites such as Infowars, whose owner, Alex Jones, is a huge fan of Donald Trump.

The admiration is mutual.

“Your reputation is amazing,” Trump told Jones during an on-air interview during the campaign. “I will not let you down.”

After Trump won, Jones said the president-elect called to thank him for his work during the campaign.

The same Alex Jones has spent years promoting the lie that the Newtown school murders didn’t happen. Jones is among the conspiracy enthusiasts who claim President Obama made up the story that Adam Lanza killed 20 children and 6 adults at a Connecticut elementary school in 2012.

Some of those who share Jones’ lunacy started taunting the parents of the young victims.

The father of one 6-year-old who was killed received death threats in phone calls. Earlier this month, a 57-year-old Florida woman was charged in connection with those threats.

This is the kind of journalism our new president lauds. We should keep that in mind as Trump derides and demeans what he calls the mainstream media.

Trump himself has repeated and promoted fake news stories, using them to stoke the fears of Americans and give credence to his inaccurate claims. He then insults and threatens journalists who provide accurate reports for newspapers and TV networks.

The president-elect for years trafficked in lies about whether Obama was born in the United States. But he now refuses to accept the CIA’s analysis of Russian interference in the U.S. presidential campaign.

The list of other fake news and inaccurate claims made and repeated by Trump is long, but here’s a sampling:

He has repeated the false claim that millions of undocumented aliens voted for Clinton.

He adheres to the refuted story that thousands of joyous Muslims danced atop buildings in New Jersey following the attacks of 9/11.

And he has trafficked in the slander that Obama is working on behalf of Islamic terrorists.

Trump not only promotes this sludge, he has chosen like-minded men as some of his closest advisers.

Those who had hoped the status of the presidency would make Trump act responsibly were disappointed when he picked such people as Steve Bannon and Michael Flynn for his team.

Flynn, Bannon and Jones are among the Trump advisers and supporters who perpetuate fake news and spread conspiracy theories as a means of furthering their political views – and, in some cases, to boost their profits.

There are many dangers associated with having a leader who uses political propaganda in this way.

Among those dangers is that unstable supporters will take it upon themselves to act. That means more incidents like the one at the pizza place. People with more weapons than sense will decide they need to take matters into their own hands.

And if they don’t kill injure or anyone, they can taunt and traumatize their victims, as in the case of the Newtown parents.

Just as serious is the danger that more Americans are growing either unwilling or unable to separate fact and fiction.

Increasingly, people read and share only stories and rumors that fit their political views. They care less about learning the truth than about finding news that aligns with their opinions.

That’s obviously been the case for Trump, who now sets an example for the GOP and the country.

In coming weeks, we’ll learn whether his fellow Republicans and the rest of America will tolerate such toxic dishonesty.

 

Highways and city streets are growing more dangerous, as shown by the increasing number of people killed and injured in accidents.

The upward spike could be an anomaly, but data suggest that progress won over decades is now being lost.

For years, the number of Americans killed in accidents declined, dropping from 51,091 in 1980 to 32,999 in 2010.

But over the past two years, the numbers have started to rise.

Kansas bucked the trend between 2014 and 2015, when traffic deaths fell about 7 percent, but fatal accidents this year are on pace to climb 16 percent, according to information from the state Department of Transportation.

Nationally, 35,092 people were killed in traffic accidents in 2015. That was a ­7.2 percent increase over 2014, according to data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Through the first six months of this year, fatalities were up again, and are on pace to run 10 percent higher than in 2015.

What’s going on?

Experts in government and at the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety think several factors are contributing to the increase, including higher speed limits.

While added safety devices – airbags, seatbelts and automatic braking, for example – have helped save thousands of lives, they aren’t 100 percent effective, especially when tons of metal collide at speeds of 70 mph or more.

Another growing cause for accidents is what is called inattentive or distracted driving. That includes the pervasive use of cellphones and other electronic gear.

It’s something we see every day. Those who talk on cellphones and texters put not only their own lives at risk, but the lives of everyone who attempts to share the road with them.

And it’s not just the physical phone in the hand that poses danger. It’s also the navigation system or the thousands of mobile apps that are sucking attention away from the traffic around us.

Among all those distractions, studies show that texting and handling email – using a cellphone or a hands-free device – are the most dangerous activities on the road.

The research shows even listening to an audio book or having a hands-free phone conversation increases the risk of an accident. But the biggest risks come with activities that suck our focus from driving. Our brains stop being engaged in making continuous decisions about driving and instead are busy dealing with other information.

Another big factor that shouldn’t be overlooked is aggressive driving.

Growing numbers of people drive as if the road is their personal domain, and the rest of us are just obstacles that are in their way.

All of us could produce our own list of peeves about other people’s driving. Mine would include tailgating, cutting people off in traffic, unsafe passing on the highway, and failing to signal turns and lane changes.

All of these actions increase the chances of being hurt or hurting others in an accident.

And of course any accounting of traffic hazards needs to include driving without sufficient sleep, or while under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

While all of us like to think we are good drivers, and that it’s everyone else who creates problems, the truth is that most of us could be safer drivers. And we could start by being more considerate of others.

With holidays approaching, and road conditions made uncertain by winter weather, we could give ourselves and others an early Christmas gift.

It’s a present that could just keep on giving – to students headed home for semester break, to families traveling to visit relatives, to workers headed home after a long day, or night, on the job.

Let’s give ourselves the gift of better driving. Almost all of us know how to do it. We just don’t bother.

With a little effort and no inconvenience worth mentioning, we can help make the holidays a little safer and happier for more of us this Christmas.

When the FBI ended – for a second time – its investigation into the Hillary Clinton email scandal, the response was predictable.

Republicans claimed – for a second time – that they were outraged that FBI Director James Comey refused to prosecute Clinton for using a private email account when she was secretary of state. The FBI concluded that Clinton was negligent and careless in the handling of classified material. It also found that Clinton had lied repeatedly about whether she had received or sent classified material to the private account rather than a more secure State Department account.

It also confirmed that she lied when she claimed that she had turned over all work-related emails when first asked by the State Department.

Still, Comey said Clinton did not intentionally mishandle sensitive government information, and he insisted that no reasonable prosecutor would attempt to indict and convict a suspect on the evidence uncovered in the long investigation.

Infuriated Republicans claimed not only that Clinton was a criminal, but that Comey was corrupt as well.

They argued that if authorities thought Clinton broke the law, she should be prosecuted.

As a candidate, Donald Trump said he would imprison Clinton if he were elected.

Neither Trump nor his supporters seem to understand how the nation’s justice system works. Presidents don’t get to order the FBI to jail people.

And if everyone who broke the law were prosecuted, former vice president Dick Cheney would have been charged for accidentally shooting another hunter while hunting illegally in Texas in 2006.

And Donald Trump would face civil charges in Texas and Florida for allegedly defrauding customers of Trump University.

But Cheney wasn’t charged, and state officials in Texas and Florida refused to pursue lawsuits against Trump.

Such uneven justice occurs every day.

Some people get tickets for speeding, and some people don’t.

Some people get caught cheating on their taxes, and some don’t.

Some travelers who are stopped trying to take loaded guns onto airliners in their carry-on luggage face criminal charges, but most do not.

It might seem unfair, but Americans wouldn’t want (and they couldn’t afford) a system that attempted to catch and prosecute every person who breaks any law.

It makes sense to ask those in law enforcement and the court system to use their judgment. It happens when a cop lets someone go with a warning. It happens when the IRS prioritizes cases for audit and investigation based on cost versus benefit. And it happens when judges hand down sentences.

The public is free to observe and comment – as it did when activists launched efforts to oust a California judge because they decided a sentence in a sexual assault case was too lenient.

They can go on social media and complain.

Or like those who disagree with decisions in a number of police-shooting cases, they can take to the streets to protest.

What Americans also could do is consider that those making such judgments might have better information about the specific cases at issue than the rest of us.

But in this era of self-righteousness, rare is the presumption of good intentions. Instead, we believe that because we are right, those who disagree with us must be not only wrong, but immoral and unethical.

Democrats make that claim about Republicans.

Republicans make it about Democrats.

And malcontents make it about everyone.

Self-righteousness leaves little room for civil discourse.

Debate and informed disagreement are vital to a free and democratic nation. Without such discourse, disagreement and, ultimately, compromise, our political system is not viable.

As a nation, we seem to have lost the distinction between debating issues and denouncing the people who disagree with us.

Rather than giving officials and candidates the benefit of believing they are trying to do the right thing, we denounce them as well as their views.

When we are quick to condemn the motives and values of those with whom we disagree, we are claiming moral high ground that is, at best, shaky. More likely, it’s simply an illusion of superiority.