“Entitlement” is not a four-letter word, but in many circles it is flung about with the same disgust and anger that people use when cussing.

What we mean when we cuss entitlements, however, is inconsistent. Most of us, for example, have heard older conservatives lambaste people who are on Medicaid, food stamps or other welfare programs, but they also complain that they aren’t receiving enough Medicare and Social Security.

This American perspective is fueled by politicians who continually reinforce the myth that this is an “us vs. them” system. Their goal is to win support and votes by making you feel as if you aren’t getting your fair share, but that someone else is getting way too much.

An example of this divisive rhetoric comes from the Koch-supported Kansas Policy Institute, which has been hammering away at public employees’ pensions. The conservative political outfit – a tax-exempt organization – thinks it is horribly excessive that some long-time public employees will, over a 20-year retirement, receive more than a million dollars in pension payments.

The same organization also argues that it is horribly burdensome to expect millionaires – such as some coaches at Kansas universities – to pay any state income taxes.

It’s not that pensions for public employees – or big salaries – should be sacred issues that can’t be discussed.

Civil debate is worthwhile. That debate should encompass the cost of public pension funds to taxpayers. And it also should include discussion about why university coaches are typically the highest paid public employees in the state.

Are they entitled to such largesse?

It does seem that we are creating special entitlement niches for a few public employees, not only at the local and state level, but also at the federal level.

For example, the controversies created by EPA Secretary Scott Pruitt have as much to do with his sense of entitlement as his policy decisions.

The head of the Environmental Protection Agency has demanded around-the-clock security since taking office. He ordered the EPA to build him a secure $43,000 phone booth in his office suite. He has forced EPA staff to partner with lobbyists and special interests to arrange expensive foreign travel.

Pruitt feels entitled to special treatment. Similarly, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke orders National Park staff to provide his friends and family with free tours and special access, while at the same time demanding that the rest of us pay outrageous increases in entrance fees.

No modern presidency has appeared so out of touch with Americans.

Yes, it’s true that the senior George Bush appeared puzzled by the then-common use of bar codes. And yes, the Reagans were criticized for adding glitz and glamour to the White House following the comparatively modest style of the Carters.

But they are no competition for a president who spends roughly 20 percent of his time on the golf course, who defends and promotes cabinet members’ expensive tastes and travel, and who mixes business, politics and pleasure without thought of ethics or conflicts of interest.

We are seeing a sense of entitlement that is unprecedented.

That will make it more difficult to address the increasingly expensive entitlement programs funded by taxpayers.

Most Americans are willing to discuss reform of Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and other entitlement programs. But only if the politicians who are making the decisions show that they are sincere in their efforts and careful with our money.

But when officials demean ordinary Americans who depend on entitlements while using public funds to finance lives of luxury, reform becomes a much harder sale.

Many conservatives think they can make it – by focusing on the “us and them” narrative, claiming that some people are getting too much at taxpayer expense.

But the people who are getting the most are those who already have the most. And while the overall cost may not be great, Americans ought to question the motives and the logic of political leaders who want all of us to sacrifice, while demanding that we pay for their expensive tastes, habits and hobbies.

 

Kansans have much of the summer to consider which candidates they want to support when they cast their ballots in the primary election Aug. 7.

But if you want to change parties to vote in the primary, the deadline is approaching fast.

Kansas politicians have for several years been making it more difficult to participate in elections. One of the roadblocks they erected is a very early deadline for switching party affiliations if you want to participate in primary elections.

Say you want to vote in the Democratic primary but are registered as a Republican; you must visit your county election office – with a state-approved, valid ID – and change your affiliation by June 1.

You might be able to take care of it online or through a combination of telephone and mail contacts, but it will take multiple steps, more proof of citizenship, more running around and more time spent doing something that should be easy.

Why?

Because many Kansas Republicans want to exclude anyone who isn’t likely to vote for them.

It’s not just Kansas Republicans. Across the country, Republican lawmakers have pushed through repressive election laws. Their aim is to improve their odds of staying in power.

It’s not totally a partisan scheme. Incumbents in office want to make it more difficult for challengers to unseat them. That’s true of Democrats as well as Republicans, which explains why New York has one of the most restrictive laws in the country regarding voter participation in primary elections.

But only the GOP has made voter suppression a nationwide party trick. And Kansas is home to one of the Republicans’ most conspicuous planners.

Kris Kobach, currently secretary of state, has helped Republicans from coast to coast keep would-be voters from the polls.

Happily for Kobach, who is running for governor, his voter suppression scheme works hand in hand with his anti-immigration theme. He can pair tall tales of millions of non-citizens voting illegally with the need to keep people who don’t look or think like him from casting ballots.

Sadly for Kobach, judges aren’t buying his malarkey. He continues to lose court cases brought by plaintiffs who claim he is violating federal law and the U.S. Constitution.

That’s mostly good news for Kansans, but with a catch.

Kobach refuses to comply with court rulings. He has twice been found in contempt of court.

As part of her latest contempt ruling, Federal District Judge Julie Robinson said Kobach “willfully failed” to follow her earlier court orders regarding voters’ rights, and she directed Kobach to pay the plaintiff’s attorney fees.

That fee looks like it will total $52,000, which will go to the American Civil Liberties Union, which has been fighting Kansas’ restrictive voting laws in court.

At the April hearing before Robinson, Kobach tried – again – to defend his unlawful restrictions on voters in Kansas. He also argued – again, unsuccessfully – that he should not be held in contempt of court for refusing to follow the court’s orders.

Robinson, appointed by President George W. Bush, noted Kobach’s efforts to deflect blame and make excuses for failing to follow the court’s earlier ruling. And she ordered Kobach to pay the opposing party’s attorney fees.

Initially, Kansas lawmakers acted to bar state funds from being used to pay the fees. But Kobach threatened to sue the state, so lawmakers backed down.

Not only does Kobach think he should be able to deny Kansans their right to vote and to flout the orders of a federal judge, he thinks Kansans should pay the price for his refusal to obey lawful court orders.

Contempt for U.S. institutions has become a rallying cry in some Republican circles. Just consider the frequent political attacks on the U.S. Department of Justice and the scorn many Kansas Republicans heap on the state supreme court.

Kansans shouldn’t be fooled. There’s nothing conservative about defying lawful court orders and smearing law enforcement officials. There’s nothing patriotic about complying only with laws with which you agree.

You either respect the Constitution and the laws of our land or you don’t. You can’t brag that you are proudly enforcing U.S. laws regarding illegal immigration and voter fraud, but then defy – again and again and again – lawful orders of the court.

That doesn’t make you a patriot. It makes you a criminal.

 

 

Some Americans have been afraid to fly since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

You can tell them all about the impressive safety record of U.S. airlines, but facts won’t change their mind.

Scientists have observed this phenomenon in a number of areas, ranging from childhood vaccines to the weather. We let prejudice, fear and bad information outweigh logic and facts.

That’s why we don’t always do a good job of assessing risks or understanding the nature of threats to ourselves, our families and our country.

Consider the case of flying commercially.

The death of a New Mexico woman on a Southwest flight in April was the first accident-related, on-board fatality on a passenger flight since 2009.

By comparison, typically 10 or fewer passengers die on trains in the U.S. each year, and tens of thousands die in car accidents.

But those figures don’t take into account the numbers of people using different modes of transportation or the miles they travel. An analysis in Popular Science does. It shows cars and other on-the-road vehicles are by far the riskiest means of travel, followed by ferries, then trains, then buses, then planes.

Most people who refuse to fly don’t care about statistics and studies. They are still going to get into a car, and not a plane. And most will find ways to rationalize their choice.

The same kind of poor assessment skills also are being in the debate over gun safety.

First, the size of the threat is often exaggerated by those who argue for more regulation of guns.

Reliable data is hard to find, in large part because the National Rifle Association has more sway with Congress than science does, and that has thwarted government-sponsored reporting and research efforts.

But the available information makes clear that schools remain one of the safest places in America. Now, it is true that U.S. schools are more likely to be attacked than schools in most other developed nations. And it is true that gun violence in the U.S. schools is more common than in most of the developed world.

That’s because our schools are part of a society that is more violent than most of the developed world.

And in that relatively violent culture, children are much safer in school than outside of it.

On average, fewer than 10 children die each year in school shootings.

More than 100 times that number die in accidental shootings every year, according to research and public news accounts.

Most of the children who die in accidental shootings are killed in homes. There is a strong correlation between accessibility to firearms and accidental gun deaths, according to research done by Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia Research Institute.

Given the data, it’s absurd to suggest that increasing accessibility to guns in schools will make children safer. The information shows we should expect the opposite results.

So as gun-control activists use fear to argue for more restrictions, gun-rights activists use fear to argue for fewer restrictions and more guns.

Using unfounded fear and emotion to develop policy is not the way to ensure either good laws or children’s safety.

Given the cost of the effort to put more guns in schools, anyone concerned about education costs and taxes, as well as those concerned about students’ safety, should oppose state and federal mandates requiring schools to hire and maintain more armed teachers and security guards.

Florida’s new law already is pushing up taxes at the local level, as school districts struggle to comply with the mandates on armed teachers and security guards.

Other than meaningless anecdotes and sincere wishes, nothing suggests the expensive measures will make Florida children safer in the aftermath of a school shooting in Parkland, Florida, earlier this year.

The need to “do something” following a tragedy is understandable. The call to action after the Parkland massacre is justifiable.

But when we “do something” we should, as a society and a government, make sure that we are actually doing something to improve the situation. Not increase the odds that more children will be injured or die in gun-related incidents.

 

 

President Trump called James Comey a liar, a slimeball, a leaker and the worst FBI director in history.

He accused Democrats of treason for failing to applaud his speeches and policies.

He berated James Mueller, who is heading up an investigation of ties between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives.

“It’s a disgraceful situation, it’s a total witch hunt,” Trump said of Mueller. “It’s an attack on our country, in a sense, it’s an attack on what we all stand for.”

A week rarely goes by without the president attacking the character of Democrats, the FBI, reporters, or Republicans who disagree with him.

Often, his attacks include inaccurate information and accusations.

Sometimes he lies to make himself look better, including making false claims about crowd sizes at his inauguration and campaign rallies.

He also lies to protect himself, such as when he claims not to know people who, according to pictures, video, news stories and court documents, he does know.

And he lies to smear people, as he did for years with repeated false claims about Barack Obama’s citizenship. This allows him to lower public opinion about his targets’ integrity, so he looks better in comparison.

Recently, Trump called for the resignation of Sen. Jon Tester (D-Montana) because Tester questioned the character of Ronny L. Jackson, the president’s nominee to head the Veterans Administration.

Jackson has served as a doctor to not only Trump but also to presidents Obama and George W. Bush. Trump nominated Jackson to lead the VA after he fired David Shulkin.

Some Democrats and Republicans questioned Jackson’s lack of managerial experience. Then Democrats added allegations of misconduct. It’s unclear whether any of the allegations are true, but some were false.

Trump thinks Tester should resign for spreading inaccurate information. If that’s the standard, then Trump will need to lead the way out the door.

But as we have seen over the past couple of years, in this administration honesty is not a virtue but a rhetorical tool. As such, the president’s occasional concern about others’ honesty only highlights his own sad record.

The cost of lying is proving high for the nation because honesty is necessary to establish reasonable policies and make good decisions.

Without honesty and the expectation of it, no one is held accountable. Not the president, not our senators, not the people who fed the rumors of Jackson’s misconduct to the media and senators.

Those in government and those of us subject to its caprices are operating in a universe in which rumors, fickle minds and the amount of noise one can generate for or against an idea determine our fate.

Not facts. Not science. Not reasonable possibilities.

In our current Orwellian environment, the president’s cabinet members, staff, political supporters and the GOP defend his false claims and inaccurate assertions.

If honesty and the expectation of it form the foundation of sound decision-making, where does that leave us when it comes to, say, immigration policy?

In the Trump administration, policy is determined by the inaccurate claims that immigrants to this country are mostly lazy welfare cases, criminals or terrorists.

No facts support that assertion. Instead, data show immigrants tend to be like most U.S. born Americans.

The same situation exists with the president’s claims regarding voter fraud and foreign trade, to name just two other issues.

When Trump repeatedly claims that millions of noncitizens voted illegally for Democrats, he is disputing credible studies that show voter fraud is exceedingly rare – and is as likely among those who vote Republican as those who vote Democrat.

When he states that trade deals have hurt the nation’s economy, he’s ignoring years of data that show the opposite.

The president’s goal is to fuel public mistrust and uncertainty, while touting his own sometimes imaginary achievements. Trump hopes to hold on to power by exploiting Americans’ fears about crime, terrorism and their jobs.

It’s working, for Trump. But it’s hard to see how abandonment of the principles upon which our government was founded makes us a stronger, better nation.

 

 

 

 

As farmers take to the fields to plant, they find themselves in a political environment as unpredictable as the weather in Kansas.

It’s been a long while since the nation had a president who acted to decrease trade with foreign nations.

For Kansas grain farmers, foreign markets are vital, so it’s no small deal that tariffs and tough talk are driving down grain prices and damaging overseas markets for wheat, pork, corn, sorghum and other agricultural products.

Agriculture has been a bright spot on the global trade scene, reliably showing a trade surplus year after year. Between 2000 and 2016, exports of Kansas farm products more than doubled. That’s on a volume basis. If you consider the years in which crop prices were relatively high, the increases look even bigger.

Nationally, exports of ag products reached a peak of about $152 billion in 2014, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

That peak correlates with high prices for wheat, corn and other farm products.

American farmers grow way too much food for the domestic market. Without global markets, they can’t survive.

The recent slump in the ag markets is not entirely President Donald Trump’s fault. Agricultural markets are shaped by the value of the dollar relative to other currencies, availability of grains and goods from other exporting countries, the weather, transportation costs and other factors.

But the president’s trade policies have not helped.

Quite the opposite.

And he knows it. When asked about the impact that his trade war with China was having on agriculture, Trump said farmers were patriots and would understand if their way of life was undercut by his policies.

The near-silence of Kansas’ senators and congressmen on the issue of trade has been frustrating, but it’s  no longer surprising.

It’s hard to know whether our elected officials are cowed by the president’s bullying tactics and threats against those who oppose him, or whether they think they can persuade Trump to take a more reasonable course of action with flattery and obeisance.

Many farmers continue to see the situation with patient-but-wary eyes. They seem to be sticking by Trump,  who promised fewer regulations and a better economy.

In a story for the Los Angeles Times, some California farmers provided insight about their support of the president. One noted that farm prices in general tend to do better during Democratic administrations. And certainly farmers who have employed immigrants found previous administrations more accommodating.

However, the farmer said, that doesn’t automatically send farmers to the blue side of the ballot. Democrats’ propensity for higher taxes and more regulations outweigh dissatisfaction with Trump.

And, as one farmer noted, California’s Democratic candidates aren’t getting any more conservative.

For the most part, fruit and vegetable farmers in California have fared better than grain farmers and livestock producers in the Midwest under Trump’s trade policies. And some fruit and vegetable producers will be helped if Trump kills NAFTA because they will gain a competitive advantage over South American and Latin American producers.

Farmers interviewed in the Times story suggested that they still hope that somewhere behind the tariffs and threats is a plan to make the U.S. economy stronger.

But there is little to suggest Trump’s plan will aid agriculture or the ability of the United States to compete globally.

Trump has said repeatedly that he dislikes trade pacts involving more than two nations. He wants a series of one-on-one deals. Such an approach is simple-minded in a global economy in which components for your car, your phone and countless other products come from three or more countries.

For 30 years, trade pacts have expanded markets for U.S. goods, especially agricultural goods. Overall, exports have roughly doubled since 2000, according to U.S. Census data.

Yes, imports have grown too. But Americans should be less concerned about the trade deficit number than about the ability to expand our markets globally and increase exports.

That’s not where U.S. trade policy is headed under Trump.

Given the record, the president’s tariffs and tough talk qualify not as economic policy but as a political expedient, designed to win votes in swing states, rather than to expand global markets for U.S. goods.