(Syndicated to Kansas newspapers Feb. 22, 2016)
Every now and again you can watch the Legislature literally turn on its heels in debate.
An amendment pops up that old-time Legislature-watchers figure has no chance, and then, well, it’s suddenly very popular, if a dab out of character for the House or Senate.
Such surprising votes, one in the House and another in the Senate last week, were both spurred by Democratic amendments.
First surprise was the narrow adoption of an amendment to an otherwise pretty dull bill that would make “revenge porn” a crime. That’s when half of a broken-up couple distributes on the Internet sexy or obscene photos of the other.
That apparently happens a lot nowadays because those probably obscene or embarrassing photos stay on cell phones where they can be sent out by a rejected party in a broken relationship. This is a relatively new deal; we’ve heard nothing about “revenge porn faxes,” of course.
But the key: Rep. Sydney Carlin, D-Manhattan, offered up the amendment to make that porn a crime, and after a narrow start, it kept building and building, vote by vote until, by the end, there were 96 votes for her amendment.
That’s an example of most legislators—there were still 23 of those present who voted against the amendment—not wanting their names to show up on a list of House members who don’t mind revenge porn and voted against making it a crime. Wonder how that would look on a campaign leaflet? An incumbent is apparently OK with revenge porn? Even if there is a solid technical reason that a lawmaker might have to vote against the amendment, it’s probably going to take quite a bit of time to explain, isn’t it?
The second earthmover? Over in the Senate, where the chamber was reducing welfare benefits for the poor. The concept: Help the poor learn job skills and they’ll get jobs and off of welfare. Cut the length of time that the poor can receive those benefits, and they’ll be more interested in getting the training and education needed to get good jobs and not need welfare anymore.
That’s an idea popular with nearly everyone: Kansans supporting themselves with good jobs, earning enough money to take care of themselves and their kids. Who’s against that?
Well, the bill reduced from the current 36 to 24 months of financial support under the mostly federally funded Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. That’s the welfare program.
Sure, there were good arguments for and against the reduction in months. Republicans said the average length of time on TANF is 16 months, and the state can for good reasons extend the 24 months by another year if circumstances require. Democrats say the Legislature last year cut the lifetime eligibility from 48 months to 36 months, and this is just another chop at support for the poor.
Not hard to figure that in the Senate, where 32 members are Republicans, the bill was going to pass.
And then, up popped Sen. Laura Kelly, D-Topeka.
She said because the state is reducing the length of those TANF payments to poor Kansans, the state doesn’t really need all the federal funds that it receives for the program. She said Kansas gets $102 million a year for those programs, and over the years has built up a $61 million reserve in that fund, essentially federal money that Kansas can’t spend on anything else so there’s really no need for Kansas to hold onto that federal money. It can’t be spent on anything else, and it can’t be swept into the ailing State General Fund, anyway.
So, her amendment set a cap of $25 million on that warehoused money and sends any amount above that back to Washington.
Republicans were a dab stunned. Send money back to Washington?
But her amendment was adopted apparently unanimously.
Who’d have thought?