Time for a history lesson, one that can be condensed into four headlines I found while doing online research:

From the Lawrence Journal-World in December 2014: Brownback announces $280 million in allotment cuts to fill budget shortfall.

From NPR in February 2015: Kansas will cut education funding to help close budget gap.

From the Wichita Eagle in November 2016: State facing $350 million budget gap.

From the Topeka Capital-Journal in March 2017: Kansas, facing huge budget deficits, wonders what to do next.

Recalling the chronic budget crises works as a reality check on campaign claims we’re now hearing. Such checks are needed as some Republicans and Koch-funded political groups claim huge tax cuts pushed through by Gov. Sam Brownback and the Legislature in 2012 were working until lawmakers raised taxes in 2017.

The facts don’t agree. Even with cuts to education, highways, health care and every other program lawmakers could find, the state couldn’t balance its budgets. Revenues from taxes continued to fall short of projections – month after month and year after year.

The scenario was nothing like the one painted when Brownback and Kansas lawmakers passed the income tax cuts.

The cuts exempted thousands of businesses, farms and others from paying any state income taxes and reduced rates for the rest of us. Brownback promised the cuts would spark economic revival in Kansas. In a campaign script being used again now, he said businesses would rush to the state and create thousands of new jobs. The state’s economy would grow so big and fast that the tax cuts would pay for themselves, the governor vowed.

That didn’t happen.

Instead, Kansas’ economy lagged behind the nation, ranking near the bottom in economic expansion and job growth.

And the state faced huge budget holes, which lawmakers tried to fill by borrowing billions and in 2015 by raising the most regressive of Kansas’ taxes – the sales tax. But budget shortfalls continued.

Finally, in 2017, Democrat and Republican lawmakers cooperated to roll back some of the income tax cuts – overriding Brownback’s veto. It wasn’t a complete solution, but legislators restored sanity to state tax policy.

Now faux conservatives want us to believe that voting for a tax policy that pays for the state’s roads, schools and state hospitals is a radical concept.

They point to President Donald Trump’s tax cuts as evidence that tax cuts can boost the economy. There’s some truth to that argument – and some caveats.

The first caveat has to do with the size of the tax. The higher the original tax rate, the more potential incentive exists if it is reduced. The state’s tax rate was never high enough to create much incentive.

Second, the design of the tax cut matters. Simply eliminating taxes for thousands of existing businesses and residents doesn’t encourage investment. Policies that include incentives to invest – new buildings, new jobs and research, for example – are more likely to boost the economy.

Third, the federal government doesn’t have to balance its budget. Kansas does.

The federal deficit for the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30 totaled $779 billion, the highest figure since 2012, according to the U.S. Treasury. Economists say Trump’s tax cuts are a major factor in the huge increase, and that deficits will continue to soar. Treasury officials say the deficit will exceed $1 trillion this fiscal year. That’s the annual deficit, not the cumulative debt, which is also growing at an alarming rate.

Republicans who railed against deficits during the Obama administration now cheerfully advocate bigger ones. The U.S. House last month voted for even more tax cuts. The move – made before House members went home to campaign for their jobs – would add another $600 billion to the nation’s debt over the next 10 years, according to a piece in the Washington Post.

Kansans shouldn’t be fooled again. Our schools, our roads, our universities and our health care have suffered from politicians’ reckless policies.

Unlike Washington, Kansas can’t just run up bigger deficits. Instead, we need to elect officials who choose fair and equitable tax policy over political favoritism disguised as economic policy.

Anonymous forces with unknown agendas paid millions of dollars to make sure Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed by the U.S. Senate to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court.

At the same time, other anonymous forces with unknown agendas paid millions to keep Kavanaugh from winning that post.

The Supreme Court ruled some years ago that Americans have no right to know who is spending millions of dollars to shape our government’s laws and policies. The law, the court said, allows many tax-exempt, nonprofit groups to keep secret the identities of those who finance political campaigns – for the presidency, the nation’s highest court, a seat in Congress and so on.

The result has been an explosion in such nonprofit groups and the money they spend.

The conservative group Judicial Crisis Network spent about $12 million to get Kavanaugh confirmed, according to the news site Roll Call. Other groups on the right and the left spent millions more.

Most of these groups are financed by anonymous donors, whose donations are supposed to be used to advance educational and social welfare causes.

These same groups often send you dishonest political mailers, again while pretending to engage in social welfare and educational pursuits in order to qualify as tax-exempt entities.

Even Kavanaugh seemed to object to the lack of accountability – temporarily. In his statement to senators Sept. 27, Kavanaugh said: “This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit” fueled by “money from outside left-wing opposition groups.”

“This is a circus,” Kavanaugh continued. “The consequences will extend long past my nomination; the consequences will be with us for decades.”

While liberal groups did spend millions to try to derail Kavanaugh’s nomination, conservative groups appear to have spent even more to get Kavanaugh confirmed. Huge loopholes in reporting laws will keep the public from ever knowing exact amounts, but dark money groups on both sides likely spent more than $20 million.

They set the tone for a process that was soiled by Republicans and Democrats who prize party above principle and victory above integrity.

Dark money encourages such behavior by giving people the cover of anonymity. Dark money groups act in ways that most individuals would avoid if they were personally held accountable.

That’s especially true in an era in which people who are willing to be held accountable are treated so shabbily.

The ways in which individual senators and others involved in the Kavanaugh process were insulted, threatened and intimidated should scare all of us.

Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine and her staff were subjected for weeks to rants and threats – including people who warned staff members they would be raped if Collins supported Kavanaugh’s nomination.

Collins, after much deliberation, did support the nomination, which resulted in uglier and more violent threats.

Before you trash liberals as left-wing thugs, know that right-wing thugs were just as ugly.

Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California and her staff also reported to police numerous violent and malicious threats from people angry with her opposition to Kavanaugh.

And they weren’t alone.

Threats, public shout-downs of elected officials, the mocking of congressional witnesses, denigrating political opponents as corrupt liars – all reflect a deterioration in our values. Not just our political values, but our values as decent humans.

And because the tactics appear to work, expect the behavior to grow worse.

Only if as a nation we decide that our political system and government should be transparent and accountable can we change course.

It starts by requiring public access to the names of people active in political causes and campaigns – including the amounts they give and to whom. It includes public reporting of donations by political candidates and groups engaged in shaping our political opinions, laws and policies. And it includes public reporting by elected officials and government agencies of actions and access related to political donors.

Dark money works against those efforts. It’s eroding the quality of our politics and the principles of our government.

Whether conservative, progressive or moderate, people more interested in good government than partisan wins need to come together to stop this growing scourge.

 

Two strikingly similar crimes in Iowa – the murders of two young women – also are striking in the huge difference in politicians’ reactions to the tragedies.

Mollie Tibbetts was out for a run on a summer day in July when she was attacked. The 20-year-old University of Iowa student was abducted, killed and her body left in a cornfield, where it was found more than a month later.

A 24-year-old farm worker living in the United States illegally was arrested for her murder.

The crime became national news, prompting tough commentary from the country’s highest officials. President Donald Trump, Vice President Mike Pence, Kansas gubernatorial candidate Kris Kobach, Donald Trump Jr., White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders and countless others ­seeking political advantage used the death of Tibbetts to promote anti-immigration views.

The exploitation festered to the point that Tibbetts father felt the need, despite his grief, to comment publicly. In a piece for the Des Moines Register, Rob Tibbetts wrote in part:

“They have … chosen to callously distort and corrupt Mollie’s tragic death to advance a cause she vehemently opposed. I encourage the debate on immigration; there is great merit in its reasonable outcome. But do not appropriate Mollie’s soul in advancing views she believed were profoundly racist.”

Two months after Tibbetts was killed, Celia Barquin Arozamena, a student at Iowa State University, was attacked as she was playing golf. She was killed and her body left in a nearby pond.

A 22-year-old homeless man was arrested for her murder.

Barquin Arozamena was an immigrant from Spain, working on her college degree and her dream of joining the pro tour. Her alleged killer, born and raised in the United States, has a long criminal record.

There was no political outcry about Barquin’s death. No outraged commentary from the White House. No tweets from the campaign trail.

The contrast in the reactions to the deaths of Tibbetts and Barquin highlights hard truths about today’s political landscape.

First, too many of us measure the worth of a life by whether the victim was “one of us.”

To a point, such feelings are understandable. We feel more connected to people we know, or who live in our community or state.

But when those feelings become rationale for demonizing people who are not “one of us,” we buy into a dangerous brand of bigotry.

To argue that a particular murder is evidence that an entire group of people are evil undermines fundamental principles of our nation.

To use a crime committed by one illegal immigrant to paint all illegal immigrants as unworthy and subhuman is like condemning the entire Border Patrol because one Border Patrol supervisor in Texas is a suspected serial killer.

Actually, according to the Texas Observer, the arrest of Juan David Ortiz, a supervisor in the Laredo region, was at least the fourth arrest of a Border Patrol officer from that sector this year.

Ortiz is the suspect in the murders of at least four women. A fifth escaped and reported Ortiz to state authorities.

Following Ortiz’s arrest, Border Patrol chief Carla Provost traveled to Texas for damage control.

According to the Observer, she told a press conference audience that the agency shouldn’t be judged by the misconduct of one person.

“This was one rogue individual,” she said. “I would hate for this to tarnish the great work that our men and women do.”

While some liberals called for the elimination of the Border Patrol even before the Ortiz case, most Americans agree that much of the work done by the agency is necessary. They agree with Provost that not everyone in the group should be judged by the actions of one man – or maybe even four men.

As with immigration laws, there is reason to think reforms are needed. There is cause to worry that in the current hiring binge at the Border Patrol, vetting of personnel is insufficient.

But as with immigration law, Americans would be wise to distinguish between what would be principled and productive, and what would be political, punitive and prejudiced.

 

http://www.johnmbarry.com/_i_the_great_influenza__the_epic_story_of_the_deadliest_plague_in_history__i__58204.htm

 

It’s October, and that means you can do something to help yourself and countless others with a trip to a clinic or doctor.

Getting a flu shot reduces the chances that you will miss work because of illness this winter.

For kids, flu shots make it more likely that they will stay healthy and in school or daycare.

Vaccinated people are also less likely to make coworkers and classmates sick. We are less likely to pass along what could prove to be deadly flu viruses to babies, older relatives and friends with respiratory conditions or heart ailments.

Last winter, a nasty version of the flu combined with low immunization rates and a less-effective vaccine to produce one of the deadliest flu seasons in decades.

More than 80,000 Americans died of the flu, according to the Centers for Disease Control. In Kansas, influenza was the direct cause of death for nearly 200 people last winter, according to health officials. And the flu and pneumonia were contributing causes in another 1,500 deaths in the state.

The CDC and every reputable medical organization urge Americans to get flu shots. It takes about two weeks for the vaccine to provide full protection.

But the science is far from perfect. Every year, medical experts analyze what influenza viruses will be a threat and then direct manufacturers to produce vaccines to protect against those viruses.

Last year’s vaccines, according to a piece in the Washington Post, were less effective than doctors had hoped. Even so, the vaccine still helped, Daniel Jernigan, the CDC’s influenza division chief, told the Post.

Even less-effective vaccines provide some protection. For most people, they lessen symptoms and reduce the need for hospitalization.

For older recipients, recent studies indicate getting a flu shot helps ward off heart attacks – as much so as taking blood pressure prescriptions or stopping smoking.

It’s somewhat like using your seat belt or strapping a child into a safety seat. It doesn’t guarantee you won’t be injured in an accident, but it improves your odds of surviving alive and healthy.

Given that more than twice as many people died from the flu than from car accidents last year, it makes sense to improve your odds.

As with most infectious diseases, those who are around other people – family, classmates, patients, coworkers, children in daycare – are most a risk of getting sick and of making others sick. Flu shots help protect not only you, but those around you.

It’s not difficult to imagine what could happen if Americans and the world stopped efforts to protect themselves individually and the public at large.

It was 100 years ago that the infamous 1918 influenza pandemic spread death and terror around the world.

Many experts believe it started in Haskell County, Kansas, and then spread as western Kansas soldiers reported to Army camps during World War I. It was then carried to Europe by U.S. soldiers sent abroad.

The battle against the 1918 pandemic was hindered by medicine’s uncertain and incomplete knowledge of viruses.

And it was hindered by President Woodrow Wilson, who used censorship and sedition laws to suppress news about the deadly disease. Wilson had pushed for the laws to silence critics of his administration and its plans to enter World War I. But as John M. Barry writes in “The Great Influenza,” the laws also were used to keep information about the flu from scaring the public.

Wilson’s suppression was intended to lift the morale of people, and critics of the president were often prosecuted and jailed.

So rather than being informed about the disease and measures that could provide protection, Americans were kept ignorant, and even urged to engage in activities (such as parades and war bond rallies) that increased their risk.

The CDC says the flu pandemic killed at least 50 million people worldwide, including about 675,000 in the United States.

Medical authorities say it’s possible that another deadly pandemic could develop if an especially deadly and infectious virus takes hold.

But what’s much more likely is that we will be hit by a flu bug known to us, one we could guard against with a short, albeit painful, jab.