Two proposals related to the 2020 census could hasten the pace at which rural Kansas – and especially southwest Kansas – loses political clout at the state and federal levels.

The first comes from Kansas Secretary of State Scott Schwab. He wants the state to stop adjusting population figures to compensate for rural Kansans who leave home – perhaps temporarily – to serve in the military or attend college.

Schwab told lawmakers that the state could save more than $800,000 if it changed the Kansas Constitution, which requires the state to adjust population figures to account for residents who are away from home when the 10-year census is conducted because they are attending college or serving in the military.

Schwab said to comply with current law, the state must contact college students and military personnel that the nationwide census finds living in places such as Fort Riley, Lawrence and Wichita and ask them if they should be counted at their current location or their hometowns.

Schwab, in arguing for the change, said that starting in 2010, the adjustments favored urban areas, according to an article in the Topeka Capital-Journal.

I’m not sure what defines an urban area, but it’s hard to see how eliminating the population adjustment would help rural Kansas. The number of military bases and four-year colleges in rural Kansas – and in southwest Kansas in particular – makes it impossible for the math to work out as anything other than a loss, politically and population-wise.

Given the cost cited by Schwab, support for a change is understandable. But rural Kansans should understand that there also will be a cost in terms of lost political representation in Topeka and Washington.

Already, more than half of Kansans live within 60 miles of either Kansas City or Wichita. Population trends are sapping the political strength of rural Kansas. Laws such as this one will hurry things along.

The other census-related proposal that could slight rural Kansas is on the federal level.

Pushed by Republicans such as former Kansas secretary of state Kris Kobach, the administration of President Donald Trump plans to ask people about their citizenship status during the 2020 Census.

Given current anti-immigrant policies and rhetoric, many non-citizens will forego filling out census forms rather than provide that information to officials.

The proposal has prompted lawsuits based on the argument that including it would lead to inaccurate counts in certain cities, counties and states.

The U.S. Constitution, as written by the founding fathers, does not limit political representation based on citizenship.

Originally, the Constitution did discriminate against one group. Slaves counted only as three-fifths of a human being. That was a compromise between North and South states, one that boosted the political powers of Southern states with large numbers of slaves.

It’s also worth noting that when the Constitution was adopted, certain people – women, for example, – were prohibited from voting and denied equal rights. But these people, citizen and non-citizen, were counted in the census.

In Kansas today, many communities have relatively high percentages of non-citizen residents. It’s hard to get accurate counts, but one indicator might be the percentage of foreign-born people in a county.

In Kansas as a whole, the number of foreign-born residents is about 7 percent, according to U.S. Census estimates. But in the three largest counties in southwest Kansas – Seward, Ford and Finney – more than 20 percent of the population is foreign-born.

Not all people who are foreign-born are non-citizens. Many are naturalized citizens. But I think it’s reasonable to use the census numbers to indicate a relative number of likely non-citizens in a community.

Supporters of the citizenship question say it will give officials more accurate counts. But population analysts argue that won’t happen because so many people will be fearful of participating.

If they are correct, communities with relatively large non-citizen populations will be the losers.

Federal, state and local governments use census data to help determine everything from seats in the Legislature and Congress to funding for programs and services.

Rural Kansas, already sapped by population losses, will suffer more erosion of political and economic clout if the design of the census means non-citizens will be undercounted.

What people consider to be racist continues to change.

That’s not a bad thing, but it can be confusing. And it could keep some good people out of public posts.

I don’t pretend to be an expert on what should disqualify a person for public office. But as an observer of society and politics, and as a fan of U.S. history, I think it’s clear we are growing increasingly intolerant.

The mess that is Virginia politics is a case in point. There, the governor, the lieutenant governor and the attorney general are all accused of varying degrees of misbehavior.

The lieutenant governor faces the most serious accusations; at least two women say he sexually assaulted them. The governor and attorney general admit to instances in the 1980s in which they costumed themselves in blackface.

Painting one’s face to appear black is offensive. But that hasn’t always been the case. Blackface was common in the entertainment industry for more than a hundred years.

If you’re a fan of old movies, you likely have seen stars in blackface – Bing Crosby, Fred Astaire, Shirley Temple, Bob Hope and so on.

Apparently blackface was still common in some social circles in the 1980s, when Virginia’s Gov. Ralph Northam and Attorney General Mark Herring, both Democrats, painted themselves.

“That conduct clearly shows that, as a young man, I had a callous and inexcusable lack of awareness and insensitivity to the pain my behavior could inflict on others,” Herring is quoted as saying in a statement. “It was really a minimization of both people of color, and a minimization of a horrific history I knew well even then.”

Like lots of social standards, those regarding racism changed more slowly in some regions than in others. And you can still find a few people who insist that blackface is acceptable.

These are similar in number and logic with those who argue that calling black people the n-word is also acceptable because some black people do it.

For the huge majority, however, civility means respecting the rights and feelings of others.

Our history as a nation shows that progress requires us to change our minds, to acknowledge that behavior that demeans or oppresses others is not acceptable.

At the same time, we should be careful about applying current standards to actions and beliefs that are decades old.

This month we celebrate Presidents Day, honoring George Washington and Abraham Lincoln.

Washington was a slave owner, but an ambivalent one. He knew intellectually that slavery was wrong, but he continued to own and work slaves throughout his life.

His views and behavior were complex and contradictory. Some argue that because he owned slaves, Americans should deny him status as an American hero. But it’s worthwhile to consider what he accomplished during his 67 years, as well as the human flaws he did not overcome.

His achievements as a military commander and as the nation’s first president not only shaped this nation but changed the world. Those accomplishments are not diminished by his failure to be perfect.

The same could be said for Lincoln. Although he ended slavery, his views on race were far from what would be considered enlightened today.

Indeed, understanding that historic figures such as Washington and Lincoln were successful despite human failures and flaws is what makes them inspiring.

These were not men who touted their genius or proclaimed their superiority. These were leaders who strived daily to expand their knowledge. They routinely questioned their own abilities and worked diligently to improve themselves and their country.

Yes, in many ways they exemplified the biases and injustices that history now makes clear to us.

But in many other ways, they forged the path to change, making it possible for us to advance to a stage at which we can point out their flaws.

Progress is incremental. And while our standards should always be edging higher, they also should come with understanding and appreciation.

Some of our nation’s best leaders, presidents such as Lincoln and Washington, were shaped by the beliefs and biases common in their times of history. But they also dreamed and worked for a much better future.

Republicans in the Legislature have a plan to cut state income taxes for some businesses and people.

They say it’s an economic development issue.

It’s not.

They say it’s a fairness issue.

It’s not.

It is instead another effort to appease special interests by sacrificing fiscal stability.

Senate President Susan Wagle is so enthusiastic about the effort that she named a special committee to push through legislation, and then named herself to lead it.

The big rush to cut state revenue is happening even as Republicans insist that Democrat Gov. Laura Kelly needs to act prudently on spending issues. Many GOP leaders argue the state can’t afford to expand Medicaid or increase funding for education.

Concerns about Kansas’ finances are legitimate. The state can’t afford to increase spending without knowing with some certainty how it will pay for those increases.

Similarly, the state can’t afford to cut taxes without knowing how lawmakers will compensate for that loss.

Legislative leaders should have learned that from the crisis they helped create with their 2012 tax cuts.

At the urging of former Gov. Sam Brownback, the Legislature cut state income tax rates for most taxpayers and eliminated state income taxes entirely for hundreds of thousands of businesses.

The GOP promised its plan would produce an economic revival in the state. Instead, Kansas saw its economy falter, even as the national economy picked up steam.

It’s not that the tax cuts caused the state’s economic troubles. It’s that the tax cuts did nothing to buoy Kansas’ fortunes as the agriculture and energy sectors were sinking.

The cuts were ineffective as a means of boosting the economy. They did, however, blow a huge hole in the state’s budget.

The tax cuts did help create staffing crises at state prisons and state hospitals. They did lead K-12 schools to close early and to cut services and staff. They did make college less affordable. And they did prompt the delay or cancellation of highway safety projects.

Even after slashing programs and services, the state was unable to pay its bills. So it had to borrow more. Kansas increased its debt by 40 percent in four years, according to a recent article in the Topeka Capital-Journal.

Finally, in 2017, the Legislature changed course. It restored the state income tax, but at lower rates.

Kansas is still struggling to recover, which is why it’s puzzling that so many legislators are ready to blow up the budget yet again.

The companies and people who would benefit from the new tax breaks are those who most benefited from federal tax cuts that went into effect in 2018. They want Kansas to maximize their tax savings by syncing up state and federal tax laws.

Kansas isn’t the only state dealing with the issue. In Arizona, Republican Gov. Doug Ducey vetoed what supporters dubbed “windfall” legislation, calling it hasty and irresponsible.

But Kansas’ GOP leaders argue it’s a fairness issue.

“Giving the federal tax relief windfall back to Kansas taxpayers is a matter of fairness. It’s really the people’s money and legislators have no right to expand government even more on the backs of hard-working Kansans …” said Dan Hawkins, House majority leader, in one of several tweets defending GOP tax strategy.

If it’s fairness the GOP wants – and if the state can afford to cut taxes – then reduce sales taxes on groceries.

Kansas’ income tax burden on companies is pretty much in the middle of the pack. But the state has one of the highest taxes on groceries in the country.

Most states cut families a break on sales taxes on groceries. Not Kansas, and in 2015, the Legislature actually raised sales taxes even higher as it flailed about for ways fill that huge budget hole it created.

No tax hits harder for struggling Kansas families.

Sadly, Kansas can’t afford to eliminate the sales tax on food. It can’t reasonably reduce any taxes without finding replacement revenue from other sources, say taxes on online sales or sports gambling.

Lawmakers need to move with caution, both on the spending and the tax-cut fronts. It’s going to take years to restore fiscal stability to a state that sacrificed responsible governance for political gimmickry.

 

The federal government is back in business, at least until this temporary deal expires and the country’s top politicians drag us through another of their dramas.

During the shutdown, what parts of government remained open and what closed was determined by politics and special interests rather than legitimate consideration of “essential” personnel or activities.

For example, while many federal museums and parks closed, others remained open.

The results were not pretty: Dumpsters overflowing with garbage, gag-worthy bathrooms with overflowing toilets, blowing trash and piles of human feces along park roads.

Unpaid park workers, volunteers and private businesses tried to limit the harm, but in some parks that remained open, the damage will be long-lasting.

In Joshua Tree National Park in California, vandals cut down trees. And at Joshua Tree and Death Valley, visitors destroyed fragile desert environments by camping and driving in prohibited areas.

Elsewhere, illegal campers, poachers, thieves, drivers of off-road vehicles and vandals took a toll. Authorities may never know the extent to which criminals stole antiquities at unguarded parks.

Some of this illegal activity would happen anyway. Poaching and theft of antiquities are problems even when the parks are running smoothly, but the shutdown made the crimes even easier.

In contrast, hundreds of thousands of federal employees found their lives much harder.

Many public workers were forced to work without pay.

In some cases, officials in Washington ordered park workers to use entrance fees to keep parks open. States, local towns, nonprofit groups, volunteers and private businesses also pitched in to keep sites accessible.

Their intentions were good. And the political reasons for President Donald Trump’s patchwork use of shutdown rules are understandable.

During a 2013 government shutdown, all national park sites were closed. TV and newspapers carried stories of angry, disappointed tourists, including veterans who had limited access to war memorials in Washington, D.C. State and local officials in communities dependent on national park tourism complained bitterly.

The political cost of closing national parks was high, as conservatives trashed President Obama, accusing him of shutting down parks and memorials to gain political leverage.

There was some truth in that claim. Just as it’s true that the Trump administration used this shutdown to try to pry money out of Congress for a wall along the U.S. border with Mexico.

Trump insisted he wouldn’t sign any spending bill unless it contained billions of dollars to build his wall. He told reporters on Dec. 11 that he didn’t mind closing down the government over the issue.

When Trump agreed on Jan. 25 to a temporary spending agreement without funding for the wall, the president’s critics gleefully heckled his loss and triumphantly declared House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Democrats the winners.

But the real loser is not the president. Our federal workers and our public assets – including our parks – are the big losers.

The federal government treated our workers in ways that would be illegal if a private business used the same tactics.

And the decision to keep so many national park sites open constituted reckless negligence.

There is a reason that we have a National Park Service. After Congress established Yellowstone as the country’s first national park in 1872, it took about a decade for authorities to conclude that criminals and vandals would destroy the place in short order. By 1886, the U.S. Army had been ordered to keep the park intact and safe.

As the nation’s park system grew, so did the need for park management and law enforcement. The park service was formed in 1916. The move exemplifies the mission of much of the public workforce – to protect and manage national resources while also serving the people.

Specifically, the park service has been entrusted to preserve our natural treasures for the enjoyment of the public. Those are sometimes conflicting goals – to both preserve a natural resource and manage it for public recreation purposes.

Added to the complex mission is a shortage of cash, with a maintenance backlog standing at nearly $12 billion.

As Congress and the president hurtle toward another funding deadline, Americans can only watch to see if partisan ploys will again trump real governance.