First, let us make clear that incumbents who are on our Varsity Squad roster are strong supporters of public education.
During election season, we often see Varsity Squad pro-public education incumbents attacked with distortions of their voting records. We have posted multiple Postcard Chronicles to report these. This year, we are seeing an increase of attacks on social media and other outlets, so we are introducing Social Media Chronicles.
Our first Social Media Chronicle is on the Trimmer amendment. We have seen criticisms of legislators for not voting for or not advocating strongly enough for the Trimmer amendments. So what were the Trimmer amendments? They were introduced in both 2017 and 2018 and would have increased funding and added inflation dollars to the school funding formulas being debated during those sessions. The argument being made in the attacks Is that anyone who didn’t vote for those amendments or didn’t strongly urge other legislators to vote for those amendments is not truly pro-education. This is wrong.
Game On did not support the Trimmer amendments. We did not urge legislators to vote for the Trimmer amendments. We urged legislators to vote for the funding bills in 2017 and 2018 even though they did not include the additional funding the Trimmer amendments would have provided. Is it because we are stealth ultracons? Is it because we don’t really care about funding our schools? Is it because we don’t like Rep. Trimmer? No-none of those is true. In 2017 the Trimmer amendment failed 47-75. It failed again in 2018 46-76. That is not a close vote. Education advocates believed that the funding packages in 2017 and 2018 were as high as those legislatures were going to get. Although better than in 2012-2016, the makeup of the legislatures contained too many legislators who would not vote for more money without a court order. Additionally, in 2017, the revenue picture was not as good as it is now, and the Trimmer amendment likely would have required additional tax revenue. There were too many legislators who opposed further tax increases at that time. In our view, it was better the legislature Initially get as close to what would be required by the court as they could and do so in a timely manner.
Some pro-education legislators voted for the Trimmer amendments, but others did not. (It’s also important to note that some pro-education legislators voted against the funding package that eventually passed. Although we supported passage of the funding bills, we understood that some legislators voted against them because they wanted higher funding. However, we are struck by the irony that legislators who in the end refused to vote for the funding our schools needed aren’t being attacked while the legislators who voted for that bill, but not the Trimmer amendment are being accused of not adequately supporting public schools.) Depending on a legislator’s district, there is definite risk in voting for additional spending, especially when that bill or amendment has no chance of passing. It becomes a political liability without the benefit of actually getting the additional funding. For those who remain skeptical, note that several moderate Republicans lost their primaries this August to more conservative opponents. The Democrats running in those districts face an uphill climb, so we may have just witnessed a shift to the right in the Kansas legislature and possibly the loss of the veto override. The solution to this situation isn’t calling out legislators for their votes on a bill or amendment that can’t pass, but changing the legislature. That change isn’t accomplished by replacing legislators who vote the way you want when it matters; it’s by replacing ultraconservatives with moderate Republicans or Democrats.
Originally posted on Facebook 10/19/18