Each week during the 2024 Kansas legislative session, we will provide Johnson County lawmakers the opportunity to share their thoughts about what is happening in the state capitol.
Below is a submission from Republican Sen. Robert Olson, who represents Senate District 23, covering part of Olathe.
Democratic Rep. Cindy Neighbor of Shawnee submitted a column earlier this week. And Democratic Rep. Lindsay Vaughn of Overland Park has also been offered the chance to submit a column later this week.
The views expressed in each Capitol Update are solely those of the lawmaker.
I have three concerns that have been keeping me up nights:
- What is wrong with pursuing tax relief that is fair to all Kansans?
- Do you support unmanned shipping trucks barreling down our roads and highways with tons of freight?
- Do you support a 93% legislative compensation increase or the clandestine process that is driving it?
Tax Reduction Relief – “Fair to All Kansans”
I ask you the first question, what is wrong with pursuing tax relief that is fair to all Kansans?
I want to thank the hundreds of my friends and constituents that have stepped forward to thank me for standing up to special interests for tax relief that is fair to all Kansans.
It has been very gratifying to hear from so many who say, “Rob, we knew that if you were opposed to a tax reduction bill, something had to be very wrong with it.”
Years ago, I regrettably supported what has since has become infamously known as the “failed Brownback tax experiment.” At that time tax relief was definitely needed and versions of the bills had passed both chambers and referred to conference committee.
As the story goes, the bills that I supported were literally hijacked by special interests to reposition most of the benefits toward some very special interests.
During the 2023 session I asked my assistant to print off a copy of the conference committee report of the eventually vetoed tax reduction measures and also 20 copies of the K40 Kansas tax filing form.
This exercise established that the bill that I originally supported in concept was not what I considered to be tax relief that was fair to all Kansans. I voted against it and the bill eventually failed to override the governor’s veto.
The vetoed bill was heavily favored by certain special interests and the numbers run by Kansas Legislative Research indicated that the vetoed bill would require a future tax increase (FY28/FY29) long-term.
During the current session, I have worked with the governor and several other legislators to draft a measure that I can honestly say is genuine tax reduction that is fair to All Kansans.
A primary challenge during the drafting of the “Fair to All Kansans” bill was to take into account the already over $10 billion in annual tax exemptions that benefit somebody, but not necessarily those who suffer the most from inflation.
It is helpful to keep in mind that every dollar in tax exemptions has narrowed the tax base and considerably increased the tax burden to each Kansan.
Here are the components of the “Fair to All Kansans” bill:
Increasing the Kansas K40 Standard Deduction
- It cuts state property taxes for roughly 370,000 Kansas homeowners and gradually increases the exemption of residential property value from $40,000 to $90,000 and then eventually to $100,000.
- It eliminates state taxation of federal Social Security benefits by increasing exemptions of social security income.
- It doubles the child and dependent care tax credit, which will help employers attract better employees and ensures freedom to work or attend school.
- It takes the state sales food tax to zero.
- It also reduces income tax rates of ALL three bracket levels by and increases standard deduction levels for single Kansans from $3,500 to $5,000 and for those married couples filing jointly from $8,000 to $10,000.
Again, I have included each of the above components and would appreciate your feedback on the attached survey. Is this tax reduction plan Fair to All Kansans?
Concerns about driverless transport vehicles
My second question: are you ready for thousands of unmanned shipping trucks barreling down our roads and highways with tons of freight?
Many constituents have conveyed to me economic and safety concerns regarding the new age of driverless transport vehicles.
While special interests see significant savings in labor costs, many Kansans are concerned about the loss of Kansas jobs and tax revenues. But the almost universal concern centers around whether the technology is ready to go cold-turkey driverless.
I proposed an amendment to SB 142 this session to require driverless-capable vehicles to always have a person in the vehicle when in operation. The amendment failed on the Senate floor in a vote of 21-18.
This confirmed my suspicions despite pressures by special interests to move aggressively, that most Kansans might prefer to take this major step into the future more cautiously.
Transparency around lawmaker raises
My third question: do you support a 93% legislative compensation increase or the clandestine process that is driving it?
Most constituents have not heard of the Legislative Compensation Commission, did not know there is a 93% legislative compensation increase in the works UNLESS 24 out of 40 senators openly object to it.
Don’t look for whether your legislator voted for or against the measure, but whether your legislators fought for the chance to debate the measure on the Senate and House floors and be held accountable for their actions.
I have stated on the Kansas Senate floor that “I did not come to Topeka to make friends.” I do have a reputation for being a very productive legislator and committee chairman. But more than once during my nearly two decades as a legislator, I have been stripped of my committee chairmanships within minutes of voting your mind — voting for what I believe to be fair to all Kansans.
Each time, I find that I sleep better and consider such special interest sanctions a badge of honor.
