For anyone who has ever taken an intro to economics class, the phrase supply side economics should be familiar. Supply side economics essentially argues that economic growth happens through capital investments and lowering the barriers of production. The idea behind supply side economics is that you can stimulate growth by encouraging capital investment and lowering the barriers to production. Supply-siders argue for lowering tax rates across the board to reduce the tax burden on businesses and high-earners in the hope that they invest more to boost the economy. It’s a conservative theory and it was largely implemented during the Reagan years (dubbed Reaganomics). Depending on who you ask, it was considered a success or a failure. But one state may have taken Reaganomics a little too far, and is now paying the price.

In 2011, Kansas Governor Sam Brownback attempted to fully embrace a supply side economic policy, on steroids. He has called it “a real live experiment” in conservative economic policy.

Since 2011, he has drastically reduced income taxes across the board. A fellow from the Show-Me Institute, a right-leaning think tank, called it “the biggest tax cut of any state, relative to the size of its economy, in recent history.” Brownback’s policies allowed for 300,000 businesses to become tax exempt, eliminated many deductions–including ones on child care–and significantly decreased public spending in all sectors. It got to the point where the Kansas supreme court ruled unanimously that public school spending was unconstitutionally low. While Brownback claimed these policies would stimulate economic growth and bring private sector jobs to the state, the budget did just the opposite. Kansas now has a $900 million dollar deficit and lags behind in job growth compared to the rest of the country.

Unfortunately for Brownback, this experiment seems to be coming to an end. Last week the Kansas state legislature overrode the governor’s veto in favor of a progressive tax increase across the state. What makes it even more surprising is that this occurred in a state where Republicans have a two-thirds majority in both the house and the senate. The measure will bring $1.2 billion in revenue over the next two years to combat the $900 million shortfall in the budget, and most of the tax revenue will go toward funding the vastly underfunded public schools. It will also reverse a policy that made over 300,000 businesses tax exempt.

According to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Kansas Center for Economic Growth, since the tax cuts were introduced in 2012, Kansas has significantly lagged behind in terms of GDP and personal income growth compared to neighboring states and the rest of the nation. Furthermore, job growth for private and non-farming jobs measures at approximately half the rate of their six state neighbors.

But what’s shocking is not just that the Kansas Republicans turned against their Republican governor, but that a Republican led legislature voted for an increase in taxes. Not raising taxes has been a staple among the GOP since the days of President Reagan and President George H.W. Bush. President George W. Bush implemented tax cuts during his presidency in 2001 and 2003, and every single GOP candidate for President during the 2016 election, except for Trump, signed the pledge promising to never raise taxes.

For Kansas Senate majority leader Jim Denning, who voted for the tax cuts back in 2012 hoping that they would bring a spike to economic growth, reality set in. He admitted that he couldn’t vote for more cuts that they weren’t working and worked with Democrats to find a solution. “I’ve always backed up and mopped up my mess. That’s what I’m doing now,”

Of course this one example does not prove that supply side economic theory or cutting taxes is harmful. Supporters of the governor’s tax plan argue that the plan wasn’t effective because it didn’t go far enough. But it will certainly be a point of interest to see if it’s an isolated incident or the beginning of a long trend against conservative economics–specifically the promise to never raise taxes under any circumstances.

James Levinson

James Levinson is an Editorial intern at Law Street Media and a native of the greater New York City Region. He is currently a rising junior at George Washington University where he is pursuing a B.A in Political Communications and Economics. Contact James at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Kansas Governor Sam Brownback’s Tax Pledge May Be Cracking appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Kansas Man Allegedly Shouted “Get Out of My Country” During Deadly Shooting

On Wednesday a white man opened fire in a bar in Olathe, Kansas, killing one man and injuring two others. The suspect, Adam W. Purinton, allegedly yelled “get out of my country” before firing at two men, both originally from India. Srinivas Kuchibhotla, 32, was killed and his friend Alok Madasani, 32, was injured. Ian Grillot, 24, intervened and tried to subdue Purinton until police arrived, but was shot in the hand and chest. Purinton fled on foot but was arrested in Missouri six hours later. The FBI has now joined the police investigation to try and determine if it will be classified as a hate crime. And some on social media have called Trump out for his silence, wondering why the president is quiet whenever crimes are perpetrated against immigrants.

Your daily reminder that no refugee from the 7 countries named in the Muslim ban has ever done something like this. https://t.co/t84s4gutwS

— Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) February 24, 2017

The two Indian men worked as engineers for Garmin. The father of the injured man urged his son to move back home. “The situation seems to be pretty bad after Trump took over as the U.S. President. I appeal to all the parents in India not to send their children to the U.S. in the present circumstances,” he told an Indian newspaper.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: February 24, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Why did Dan Quayle Visit Trump Tower?

Late Tuesday, people were speculating why former Vice President Dan Quayle would be visiting Trump Tower in Manhattan, walking side by side with Kellyanne Conway. He served during George H. W. Bush’s presidency, from 1989 to 1993. Reportedly, journalists didn’t recognize him as he walked in, until Republican Party spokesman Sean Spicer told them that it was the former VP. A bystander even took a selfie with Conway without acknowledging Quayle, who stood in the background.

Former Vice President Dan Quayle waits in Trump Tower lobby as @KellyannePolls obliges a selfie seeker. #2016 pic.twitter.com/7dUDSZb3vU

— David Nakamura (@DavidNakamura) November 29, 2016

After visiting Trump, Quayle told reporters that he only went to offer his well wishes in person. “Things are in good hands, he’s moving forward, and he’s going to make America great again,” Quayle said.

But his appearance had some fondly remembering the years of Bush and Quayle, when controversial events in politics were maybe a little less complicated:

remember when Dan Quayle misspelled ‘potato’ and because the American people held politicians to such high standards he never recovered?

— Matt Oswalt (@MattOswaltVA) November 29, 2016

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: November 30, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Chelsea Manning, the transgender whistleblower imprisoned for leaking classified government documents to Wikileaks, ended her hunger strike on Tuesday after the U.S. Army agreed to allow her to undergo gender transition surgery to treat her gender dysphoria.

According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Manning, who is a transgender woman, began the hunger strike on September 9 to demand the “medically necessary and recommended treatment” for her disorder.

“This is a monumental day for Chelsea, who can now enjoy some peace knowing that critically needed medical care is forthcoming,” said ACLU attorney Chase Strangio. “This medical care is absolutely vital for Chelsea as it is for so many transgender people–in and out of prison–who are systemically denied treatment solely because they are transgender.”

The former U.S. Army soldier is currently serving a 35-year prison sentence for espionage at Fort Leavenworth, an all-male Army prison in Kansas, after providing hundreds of thousands of documents to Wikileaks while working as an intelligence analyst in Iraq.

Her lawyers claim that while she’s been at Fort Leavenworth, army officials have subjected Manning to long stretches of solitary confinement and forced her to cut her hair to “male hair length standards”–which does not reflect her gender identity. Manning claims that the lack of care for her disorder contributed to her suicide attempt in July.

In 2014, Manning filed a lawsuit against the Department of Defense so she could grow her hair out, use cosmetics, and receive hormone treatment to in order to express her female gender. The Army eventually agreed to allow her to receive hormone therapy, but it refused to allow her to groom as a woman.

In April 2016, Manning’s psychologist recommended she undergo gender transition surgery as part of her treatment. The Army’s decision to proceed with Manning’s treatment will make her the first transgender inmate to undergo the surgery while in prison.

Manning gave the following statement to the ACLU:

I am unendingly relieved that the military is finally doing the right thing. I applaud them for that. This is all that I wanted–for them to let me be me. But it is hard not to wonder why it has taken so long. Also, why were such drastic measures needed? The surgery was recommended in April 2016. The recommendations for my hair length were back in 2014. In any case, I hope this sets a precedent for the thousands of trans people behind me hoping they will be given the treatment they need.

After news broke of the Army’s decision, social media critics came out in droves to condemn the use of  taxpayers’ money on the surgery.

Why exactly are tax payers footing the bill for Chelsea Manning’s surgery and temper tantrum?

— Tawnie (@Tawnie) September 14, 2016

How is it that “Chelsea Manning” gets a gender-change operation on the tax-payers dime? How is that appropriate use of tax-dollars?

— Greg Granger (@BattleCoachella) September 14, 2016

The Daily Beast, however, argues that if you’re ok with prisoners receiving antidepressants, you shouldn’t get worked up over Manning’s medical treatment. Both hormone treatment and gender reassignment surgery can be deemed medically necessary to treat individuals with gender dysphoria or gender identity disorder.

“Thankfully the government has recognized its constitutional obligation to provide Chelsea with the medical care that she needs and we hope that they will act without delay to ensure that her suffering does not needlessly continue,” said the ACLU.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Chelsea Manning Ends Hunger Strike to Receive Gender Transition Surgery appeared first on Law Street.

Oklahoma has done it again, ladies.

Oklahoma law does not criminalize someone who forces an intoxicated or unconscious person to engage in oral sex.

A Tulsa County judge dismissed a case in November involving two high school students after a 17-year-old boy reportedly offered a ride home to a 16-year-old girl. She had been heavily drinking and court documents show that her BAC was at 0.34, which would constitute alcohol poisoning. She was taken back to her grandmother’s house where she was completely unconscious and taken to the hospital. She later woke up to sexual assault testing and the boy’s DNA was found on her body.

He was initially charged with forcible sodomy and first-degree rape.

The boy claimed their encounter was consensual, but the girl claimed that she had no memory of it happening.

According to the court, “Forcible sodomy cannot occur where a victim is so intoxicated as to be completely unconscious at the time of the sexual act of oral copulation.”

The case was appealed, but the appeals court affirmed that the state could not prosecute the boy for his actions.

“The plain meaning of forcible oral sodomy, of using force, includes taking advantage of a victim who was too intoxicated to consent,” Benjamin Fu, the Tulsa County district attorney leading the case, told The Guardian. “I don’t believe that anybody, until that day, believed that the state of the law was that this kind of conduct was ambiguous, much less legal. And I don’t think the law was a loophole until the court decided it was.”

The defense attorney, Shannon McMurray, argued in the Oklahoma Watch that the court was right because intoxication cannot be substituted for force.

“There was absolutely no evidence of force or him doing anything to make this girl give him oral sex other than she was too intoxicated to consent” McMurray said.

This ruling has acted as a catalyst for the public to urge change to the law. Lawmakers as well are pushing to close this gap and make sure that this cannot be used in the future to dismiss a case.

One Oklahoma State Representative, Scott Biggs, R-Chickasha, said that he plans to amend the bill in order to include unconscious victims under the forcible sodomy law.

Oklahoma: it isnt rape if you’re drunk. So I can get drunk and rob people and it’ll be okay then? maybe steal a car?https://t.co/yM2YK4cW8z

— Lynsie Lee (@LynsieLee) April 28, 2016

WTF IS WRONG WITH OKLAHOMA???? OK court: oral sex is not rape if victim is unconscious from drinking https://t.co/AKf2vyKP7q#YesAllWomen

— Jeska Dzwigalski (@JeskaD) May 1, 2016

While the verdict shocked many, it wasn’t surprising to all.

“It’s not surprising, although unfortunate, that this is how it came down,” Rebecca O’Connor, the vice president for public policy of the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network told The New York Times. “It’s also not unique to Oklahoma. This sort of gray area of law can lead to unfortunate consequences.”

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Oklahoma Court: It Isn’t Rape if She is Too Intoxicated appeared first on Law Street.

Kansas Governor Sam Brownback consistently promised change throughout his two campaigns for the gubernatorial office. Elected with major Tea Party support, he promised to downsize the Kansas government. Change he made, too–and as promised one of the big changes he made was to the school budget system in Kansas. However the major school budget overhaul bill he just signed may be coming back to haunt him, as some Kansas school districts will have to wrap up classes early this year due to a lack of sufficient funds.

Since taking office, Brownback has slashed taxes left and right. While that may ostensibly seem like a good thing, it’s essential to keep in mind that any time taxes are lessened, the loss in revenue results in a direct loss of services from the government. All said and done, Brownback has lightened the state’s coffers by about one billion dollars. Much of that comes from major changes to the state’s income tax rules, that allow many business to avoid income taxes mostly or completely. Specifically regarding education, from 2008 to 2014, the state of Kansas has spent about $950 less per student. While obviously not all of that came from Brownback’s tenure–after all, he didn’t take office until 2011–it’s clear that he did nothing to turn around that trend either.

Not everyone has agreed with Brownback’s approach. In fact in 2013, a state court declared the amount of funding that the schools were receiving “unconstitutionally low” as they fell below a benchmark established by the court in a 2005 decision. The judges in the 2013 ruling stated about Brownback’s policies that it:

Seems completely illogical that the state can argue that a reduction in education funding was necessitated by the downturn in the economy and the state’s diminishing resources and at the same time cut taxes further. It appears to us the only certain result from the tax cut will be a further reduction of existing resources available and from a cause, unlike the ‘Great Recession’ which had a cause external to Kansas, that is homespun, hence, self-inflicted.

As a result of lack of funds, some Kansas school districts now have to cut their school years short. For example, the Concordia School District is going to have to close about a week early. Another school district, the Twin Valley District, will be closing a whole 12 days early.

The fact that these schools will be paying the price for the financial decisions of Brownback is certainly concerning, if only because those students may be at a disadvantage going into the next school year, or whatever they choose to do after their studies. While a week or so doesn’t seem like a lot, students do often lose some of their learning during the summer months. It’s estimated that students lose about two months of “grade level equivalency in mathematical computation skills over the summer months.” Prolonging summer vacation even more could lead to a bigger loss in those skills. Hopefully Kansas gets its budget snafu sorted out, so it doesn’t have to take money from its youngest citizens.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Early Summer Vacation for Some Kansas Students appeared first on Law Street.

Working out way across the country with our Dumbest Laws in the United States series, we’re now at smack dab in the middle of America’s Heartland. Let’s start with Nebraska, a state in which college football and corn are taken very seriously. Google search “Nebraska” and you’ll likely find that “football” pops up as the first result. Another thing taken very seriously there? Sexually transmitted diseases. In Nebraska, persons with gonorrhea may not marry.

Many truckers and road trippers drive through Nebraska en route to more modern locales. Those who drive through the state often note its flat terrain, which raises the question of why lawmakers there felt it necessary to warn mountain drivers specifically to use caution near the right hand edge of the highway.

Perhaps drunken pilots presented a problem in Nebraska in the past, as there is a law prohibiting flying a plane while drunk.

Many sites listed dumb laws in Nebraska for which they did not provide proper citation. Therefore, it may or may not be factual that sneezing or burping is illegal during a church service, and that barbers are prevented from eating onions after 7:00am. Even if they are not true, they are amusing to read.

Kansas gets off pretty easily here. Due to lack of proper citation, I can’t poke fun at its laws too much; however, the Wheat State doesn’t get off the hook completely as it does have many moronic city-specific laws. For example, in Derby, it is illegal to damage a vending machine or other coin-operated device. Even if a vending machine steals your money, you can’t beat the crap out of it, sorry! That city also enjoys quiet living–it is illegal to make screeching sounds with your tires, and you can’t use your trusty steed to commute because riding any animal down the road is illegal.

Topeka, Kansas is one of the stricter parts of of the state. There, spitting on the sidewalk is illegal. Like Derby, Topeka enjoys peace and quiet: residents may not engage in “yelling, shouting, hooting, whistling or singing on the public streets, particularly between the hours of 11:00pm and 7:00am, or at any time or place.”

Moving on to Iowa, another often under-appreciated state in good ol’ middle America. Lawmakers must have been as bored as kids often are driving through the state, as they made a law determining the exact size a box used for picking hops must be. The size of a box used for this purpose must be exactly 36 inches long, 18 inches wide, and 23.25 inches deep.

What’s with the Midwest and gonorrhea? Iowa, like Nebraska, actually has a law pertaining to the STI, saying that doctors who treat a person with gonorrhea must report this to the local board of health and include the disease’s “probable origin.”

Looking to get a closer parking space with a deceased person’s handicapped sticker? Sorry, but doing so in Iowa is strictly forbidden.

Ministers and other religious officials in Iowa are subject to a few more regulations than the average citizen. There, they must obtain a permit to carry liquor across state lines. On the liquor topic, liquor stores in Bettendorf, Iowa may not place advertisements for beer outside the store.

There is a vast number of stupid laws for Oklahoma listed on the Internet, but many, like one saying that dogs must have a permit signed by the mayor in order to congregate in groups of three or more on private property, do not have proper citation; however, one particular outrageous law for which there is citation says that in Oklahoma, “it is illegal for the owner of a bar to allow anyone inside to pretend to have sex with a buffalo.” Strict stuff! Oklahoma lawmakers must be very concerned about animals as there, one may not promote a horse-tripping or bear-wrestling event. PETA would be happy to know that!

Phew, those four states were a doozy!

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Dumbest Laws in the United States: America’s Heartland appeared first on Law Street.

If you’re looking for a weird political race to follow during the 2014 elections, I have a suggestion for you: Kansas. There are actually multiple weird political races to watch there, so get ready to keep your eyes focused on the Sunflower State come November.

It’s important to point out that Kansas is a solidly red state. So red in fact, that until fairly recently, it was pretty much assumed that a Republican was going to win both the gubernatorial and senatorial races. Let’s face it, the last Democratic Senator from Kansas was a man named George McGill, who stopped serving in 1939. But the assumed Republican domination isn’t looking so certain now.

Let’s start with the current Senate race, because there’s been a lot of news there in the last 24 hours. Up to this point in the race there have been three candidates: current Republican Senator Pat Roberts, Democratic challenger Chad Taylor, and Independent Greg Orman. Pat Roberts is pretty conservative — socially, economically, and diplomatically. He’s also not that popular. He’s been a Senator from Kansas for three terms now, and has been accused of being out of touch with the average voter. He doesn’t even have a residence in the state anymore. He narrowly defeated a primary challenge from a tea partier named Milton Wolf, and after that primary he had an approval rating of 27 percent. He also hasn’t been running a very good campaign, probably because he’s never really needed to before. In 2008, he beat his Democratic challenger by more than 20 points; in 2002 he had no Democrat challenger and won with 82 percent of the vote. Through his three terms in the Senate, and three in the House of Representatives, he’s never won an election by less than 60 percent.

But now, things are getting weird. Taylor has been faring surprisingly well. The real standout start though, is Orman. He’s a good candidate — moderate, pro-business, and he’s been running a solid campaign. He has a real shot to win this race. Taylor even announced yesterday that he was stepping down, which watchers assumed would up Orman’s chances even more, given that Democratic voters are way more likely to rally around him than Roberts.

Complicated and weird enough for you, yet? Well I hope not, because there’s more fun ahead. The Republican Secretary of State Kris Kobach has said that Taylor can’t remove himself from the ballot. He claimed that after reviewing Taylor’s request, his team had not found “sufficient evidence” to show that Taylor would be incapable of serving the duties of the office. This is good news for Roberts — now the liberal vote will remain split between Taylor and Orman.

So, the Democrats are suing the Republicans to get the Democrat off the ballot in order to give the Independent candidate a good chance. Yes, it’s as complicated as it sounds. And that right there is the state of politics in Kansas right now.

In comparison, Kansas’s weird gubernatorial race seems almost calm. Here’s a great in-depth look into what’s happening, but long story short, a Democrat named Paul Davis is doing pretty well against Tea Party-backed uber-conservative Sam Brownback. He’s wildly unpopular, and Davis is capitalizing on the Republican split between Tea Party and establishment. He’s received the endorsement of many prominent Republicans in the state who don’t want to see Brownback receive another term and damage the Republican reputation even more.

Only one thing is certain: Kansas will definitely be fun to watch this November.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Sean Ganann via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Kansas’ Topsy-Turvy Election Year appeared first on Law Street.

In an era when it seems like there’s constantly a story about a shooting on school grounds, we’re always looking for solutions to our school shooting epidemic. One long-discussed argument has been to arm teachers, and people across the country are taking action to do just that.

In many conservative-leaning states, the push to arm teachers is getting pretty serious. As of this year, in 28 different states, adults who own guns will be allowed to carry them into school buildings under certain parameters. Recently, legislation was passed in Alabama, Georgia, Kansas, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Texas related to arming teachers and staff members in public schools.

There’s also been some expansion of the way in which those who are armed in schools are trained. In some places, free classes are offered for staff members who want to carry guns into schools in an attempt to protect students. The Centennial Gun Club in Colorado is offering free classes to teachers who want to learn how to carry and operate guns. A former Colorado teacher named Tara who is thinking of returning to the classroom named explained her interest in the class, saying:

While I am a teacher, those kids, those students in my class are my kids, and my first responsibility is to protect them at all costs. When all the school shootings happened I realized that I wanted it more for my own personal protection and I thought that that idea of being prepared to protect translates very well to the classroom for teachers.

That’s all well and good, but what they don’t seem to be offering is classes that particularly relate to stopping armed intruders or using a gun under high-pressure circumstances.

In other places, the emphasis is on cutting the response time in case of an armed intruder by training designated staff members who have access to weapons. In some cases, teachers need to disclose information to superiors that they’re bringing a gun into the classroom, in other states the legislation doesn’t require that kind of step. While the laws are varied, one thing is pretty clear — bringing more guns into schools in an attempt to stop horrific tragedies like the Sandy Hook shooting has become a fairly popular mindset, without any whiff of consistency from state to state or even school district to school district.

Now, I’m very split here. On one hand I’m frustrated. Part me of thinks that we literally are so bad at finding solutions to our mass shooting problem that we’re just bringing more guns into schools as an answer. That is where we are. We so fundamentally can’t agree on how to deal with gun violence that we can’t even make the laws or required training consistent. Never mind the fact that arming people more to prevent shootings is a kind of miniature mutually assured destruction. Never mind that while shootings are occasionally stopped by bystanders, it’s relatively rare. Never mind that the ability to stop a shooting takes a blend of training, instinct, and temperament that requires way more than one class to learn. Never mind that in the last year, 100 children died in accidental shooting deaths in the United States. Never mind that by bringing guns into our classrooms, we are teaching our children that school is not a safe place, and that gun violence is a reasonable answer. That’s the obnoxious liberal in me talking.

But on the other hand, I have a side that I like to think is rational, and that side is also kind of frustrated. Now, I want to be clear, because I’ve learned from experience that this kind of disclaimer is needed: this is not an attack on the Second Amendment. This is an attack on the complete lack of common sense that we are now employing. If we sat down, as a nation, and truly determined that the best way to protect children is to arm their teachers, fine. We can do that, if we really think that will work. It’s a plan, at least, and as much as I don’t think it’s a good plan, I would be ecstatic to be proven wrong.

But what we have right now is such a fundamental disagreement on literally everything to do with this debate that we’re half-assing it. We’re passing laws that allow certain people to bring guns into schools under the guise of protection without necessarily creating corresponding legislation to make sure that the plan has the chance to be effective. We’re ignoring the possibly negative ramifications of these laws because it’s just easier that way. We are so far from being able to have a rational debate on this topic that any ability to be able to work together has been thrown out the window.

Every gun death is a tragedy, and the only way we’re going to be able to prevent situations like Sandy Hook, or Columbine, or UC-Santa Barbara from happening again is if we all grow up and talk about this in a rational way.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Wendy House via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Risky Idea Alert: Arming Teachers in School appeared first on Law Street.

“We aren’t in Kansas anymore.” That must be what Republican Kansas Governor Sam Brownback is thinking right now, after over 100 Republicans defected and offered their support to his Democratic challenger, Paul Davis. The defectors are mainly moderate Republicans that have been bullied by Brownback and the Tea Party movement. This major political defection is their way of striking back. In the continuing war between the Tea Party and the Republican establishment, this sends a powerful message–a centrist Democrat is closer to moderate Republican values than a Tea Partier is.

This defection comes partly as a form of political payback and partly from an actual belief that Paul Davis is the better choice for Kansas. Early in his governorship, Brownback led a charge to purge moderate Republicans from the state government. For example, Steve Morris, former president of the Kansas State Senate, was ousted by a primary challenger whose political beliefs fell further to the right. He has said that Brownback privately told him that he could have stopped the upset but chose not too, as Morris and Brownback often fought over policy. So it shouldn’t be surprising that Morris is now supporting Davis. In a recent interview, in reference to Brownback, Davis commented, “he essentially declared war with moderate Republicans during the last State Senate election. Many moderate Republicans saw that, and they are coming to support my campaign.”

Many of the other 100-odd defectors, including state legislators, mayors, and delegates to the Republican National Convention, broke from Brownback for ideological reasons. The list of reasons why is long, with many focusing on the consequences of Brownback’s extreme tax cuts. The tax cuts have caused an increase in deficit spending, massive cuts in education spending, a depletion of Kansas’s highway funds, and have offered none of the promised job creation. Other reasons for the defection include Brownback offering judgeships as political prizes and pushing extremely socially conservative legislation.

Even before this defection, Brownback faced a challenging reelection bid. Nate Silver’s  prediction on fivethirtyeight.com gave Brownback only a 60 percent chance of winning based on polling data. Though still favored, 60 percent was a relatively small margin for a state as red Kansas. Now with this defection, I have to imagine his chances have shrunken significantly.

In many ways this election is not a Republican versus a Democrat, nor is it an election where voters have to decide between traditional Republican or Democratic values. It is an election where voters have to choose between Tea Party values or very centrist values; a continuation of the war between moderate Republicans and the Tea Party.  Davis is setting himself up to win by opposing Brownback on hot issues such as taxes and spending on schools and highways, but has taken a more conservative view on issues that could rile up Brownback’s base–the religious right. For instance, Davis has said he would leave Kansas’ very strict abortion laws in place. This election is now about moderate Republicans striking back at the Tea Party, not a Democrat challenging a Republican.

Brownback would probably deny the moderate legitimacy of his challenger, saying voters do not know who Davis is, and that he is just an Obama-style Democrat. Brownback has said that voters will have to choose between a Reagan approach or an Obama approach to government. What Brownback may be failing to realize is that moderate Republicans would never abandon someone who governed like Reagan, but they may not fall in line with someone who governs like a Tea Partier.

As much as I would love to think that this will become a trend and we would see moderate Republicans defect across the country, that is probably not going to happen. Kansas had a perfect storm of conditions that led to this rebellion. One is that Kansas has a particularly inept governor that went out of his way to exile moderates and pass much-maligned laws. Another is that there was a very centrist Democratic candidate that already had a chance to win. This was important because it gave the Republican defection substance; it was not merely symbolic. It is unlikely that this would happen under any other conditions–we really shouldn’t expect moderates from either party to defect anywhere else, anytime soon. Which is unfortunate, because our country sure could use movement towards the center of the political spectrum like we are seeing in Kansas.

—

Matt DeWilde (@matt_dewilde25) is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [mar is sea Y via Flickr]

Matt DeWilde

Matt DeWilde is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Moderates Rebel Against Tea Party in Kansas appeared first on Law Street.