While it’s true on paper that all rates would go down under Brownback’s proposed tax overhaul, it’s certainly not true that all Kansans would be paying lower taxes. Because Brownback’s plan eliminates a variety of credits and deductions upon which lower and middle income taxpayers depend, it would actually increase taxes on low- and middle-income families, while still cutting them for Kansas’ richest one percent. According to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Police, under the plan:

– The poorest 20 percent of Kansas taxpayers would pay 2.2 percent more of their income in taxes each year, or an average increase of $242.

– The middle 20 percent of Kansas taxpayers would pay 0.3 percent more of their income in taxes each year, or an average increase of $146.

— Upper-income families, by contrast, reap the greatest benefit with the richest one percent of Kansans, those with an average income of over a million dollars, saving an average of $16,933 a year.

As ITEP put it, “Governor Brownback’s tax reform proposal would actually make the Kansas tax structure more unfair and ensure that low and middle income families pay more, while dramatically decreasing state taxes owed by the wealthiest Kansans.”

Kansas’ own Department of Treasury came to the same conclusions, finding that low-income Kansans would see their taxes go up under the plan, sending Brownback’s administration into damage control. And so far, state lawmakers aren’t lining up to lend the plan their support.

“It’s been Robin Hood in reverse,” said state Senate Minority Leader Anthony Hensley (D). “What we are doing is stealing from the poor to give to the rich.” “It’s a significant problem in the eyes of many legislators because it appears to be increasing taxes for the poor and decreasing taxes for the rich,” added state Sen. John Vratil (R).

Teenage Brownback Critic Emma Sullivan

Last night, Sullivan sent out another tweet — announcing that she will not obey her principal’s unconstitutional command to apologize to the thin-skinned governor:

Among other things, this incident highlights the incompetence of Brownback’s communications team. At the time of her first tweet, Sullivan had only a few dozen followers. Had the governor’s office simply ignored the tweet, it’s doubtful that more than a few people would have read it. Instead, they decided to intimidate the dissenting teenager by reporting her — and the incident blew up into a major national news story. As of this writing, Sullivan has more than 4,000 Twitter followers.

Team Brownback justifies its heavy-handed response by claiming that Sullivan’s original tweet — which said that Brownback “sucked” and ended with the hashtag “#heblowsalot” — wasn’t respectful.” Perhaps it wasn’t, but the First Amendment cares very little whether a persons’ speech is respectful or not. One of the Supreme Court’s seminal First Amendment cases held that the words “Fuck the Draft” are protected speech. And, while a public school student’s First Amendment rights are somewhat reduced, schools typically cannot discipline students for speaking out unless their speech is likely to disrupt the school’s learning environment.

Now that Sullivan has chosen to assert her First Amendment rights, the ball is in the school’s court. If they are smart, they will recognize that their attempt to punish Sullivan unambiguously violates the Constitution and save themselves from expensive potential litigation that they are exceedingly unlikely to win.

Emma Sullivan, a senior at Shawnee Mission East High School in Prairie Village, was in Topeka on Monday as part of Kansas Youth in Government, a program for students interested in politics and government.

During the session, in which Brownback addressed the group, Sullivan posted on her personal Twitter page: “Just made mean comments at gov brownback and told him he sucked, in person #heblowsalot”

On Tuesday, Sullivan was called to her principal’s office and told that the tweet had been flagged by someone on Brownback’s staff and reported to organizers of the Youth in Government program. [...]

Sullivan said the principal ordered her to write letters of apology to Brownback, the school’s Youth in Government sponsor, the district’s social studies coordinator and others.

It’s troubling that Brownback’s staff is so thin skinned that they felt the need to call down the government’s wrath on a high school student who had the audacity to criticize the governor. If nothing else, one would think a state governor’s office has better things to do than troll the internet looking for young dissenting voices they can intimidate.

Moreover, there’s no question that the high school principal violated Sullivan’s First Amendment rights. Although public school students’ right to free speech is not unlimited, schools are generally only allowed to discipline students for speech that is disruptive to the school’s learning environment. It is difficult to imagine how a single tweet criticizing a controversial politician during a field trip could have disrupted this high school’s ability to educate its students.

Moreover, because the school district violated Sullivan’s clearly established federal constitutional rights, she is likely entitled to have the district or the principal pay her attorney’s fees if she decides to bring a lawsuit challenging this unconstitutional disciplinary action. In other words, the district could be wise to settle this case immediately if Sullivan decides to bring them to court.

Gov. Brownback leads a prayer at Perry's "The Response."

Today, Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback (R) endorsed fellow conservative Gov. Rick Perry (TX) as the Republican nominee for president. The two are old friends, and Brownback was one of only two governors to appear at Perry’s prayer rally this summer. Perry has not directly addressed LGBT issues since he launched his campaign, but he has a history of opposing equality. Brownback’s endorsement shines further light on the kind of company Perry keeps, as Brownback has repeatedly reacted in petty and petulant ways to LGBT issues. Here are six examples of Brownback’s anti-gay record:

- BROWNBACK OPPOSED A JUDICIAL APPOINTMENT OVER LESBIAN COMMITMENT CEREMONY: As a senator, Brownback spent months blocking the nomination of Janet Neff to the U.S. District Court of western Michigan. The sole reason for his opposition? Neff had once presided over a lesbian commitment ceremony.

- BROWNBACK DEFENDED PROPONENTS OF HARMFUL EX-GAY THERAPY: In 2008, the anti-gay Focus on the Family and its founder James Dobson were inducted into the National Radio Hall of Fame, and groups like Truth Wins Out protested the “outrageous insult” to gays and lesbians. Brownback defended Dobson, calling for a Senate resolution honoring and congratulating Dobson and his radio program.

- BROWNBACK BANNED USE OF FLAGPOLES IN PRIDE PARADE: This summer, Brownback tried to limit an LGBT equality celebration at the Kansas state Capitol by banning participants from using any kind of flagpoles, including tiny hand-held flags, deeming them as “dangerous weapons.” He previously had no problem with the Knights of Columbus using both flags and swords at a capitol event.

- BROWNBACK SUPPORTED TAX CREDITS FOR “TRADITIONAL” MARRIAGE: Not only does Brownback oppose marriage equality, but he has even expressed support for tax incentives to encourage only straight couples to marry.

- BROWNBACK DEFENDED BELIEF THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS “IMMORAL”: In 2007, when Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Peter Pace said homosexuality is “immoral” and analogous to adultery, Brownback defended him, saying he was merely expressing “his personal moral views.”

- BROWNBACK HAS TIES TO ANTI-GAY DOMINIONIST, LOU ENGLE: Brownback has tried to downplay his ties to dominionist minister Lou Engle, who organizes anti-gay prayer rallies called “The Call.” But Brownback has shared a stage with Engle and also has real estate ties to him — they were roommates for seven months.

You know what’s getting me down in Western Ohio? The arts in public schools. Why? Because America is failing. China is on our ass, people. This isn’t the 1960s anymore, when jobs were plentiful…The arts are expensive, and we can’t afford it anymore…I will suspend all public school arts programs and reject all federal and state funding for the arts until every student reads at or above grade level.

Now, obviously a member of the House can’t turn down arts funding on behalf of their state. But otherwise? Economic and competitiveness insecurity? Check. Treatment of the arts as if they’re a luxury? Check. Folks responding to these kinds of attacks by whipping out arguments about the efficacy of the arts rather than their intrinsic worth? Cue Mr. Schue, who comes back at Sue with “The arts help kids do better in school. Kids in the arts record the lowest instance of substance abuse,” before retreating further by explaining that he really just needs job security because he wants to start a family with…a woman he hasn’t slept with yet. I mean, this is Glee. It would be too much to expect full-on emotional coherence.

But still, it’s Glee actually setting up a season-long arc that makes sense — for the first time since the first season, the Glee Club actually has an imperative to perform to survive, and the stakes are larger than simply disbanding the club. If they can stick with it longer than an episode, and come up with tactics more convincing than Will glittering Sue (if nothing else, the show should get credit for showing how silly glittering someone is as a way to make a point), the show will actually be contributing to an ongoing national debate about state and federal arts budgets. Which is rare for any show, much less one as schizophrenic as this.

Kansas Lt. Gov. Jeff Colyer (R)

Colyer held up a stack of papers written in 8-point font that he said are the preliminary rules and regulations accompanying the grant. [...] He also cited part of the rules that he said means the health care exchange would determine whether procedures for a person who could die are “inappropriate or too costly.” “That troubles me greatly,” he said.

Last month, Brownback and Coyler folded to political pressure and returned the $31 million they initially accepted from the law’s early innovator grant (designed to assist states with the technical aspects of establishing exchanges). Now, Coyer is going even further, misrepresenting the law by claiming that it says the opposite of what it actually says. The law specifically prohibits exchanges from determining which treatments are “necessary to prevent patients’ deaths“:

Certification.—
(1) In general.—An Exchange may certify a health plan as a qualified health plan if—

(A) such health plan meets the requirements for certification as promulgated by the Secretary under subsection (c)(1); and
(B) the Exchange determines that making available such health plan through such Exchange is in the interests of qualified individuals and qualified employers in the State or States in which such Exchange operates, except that the Exchange may not exclude a health plan—

(i) on the basis that such plan is a fee-for-service plan;
(ii) through the imposition of premium price controls; or
(iii) on the basis that the plan provides treatments necessary to prevent patients’ deaths in circumstances the Exchange determines are inappropriate or too costly.

Republican Insurance Commissioner Sandy Praeger dismissed Colyer’s criticism, saying, “I can guarantee you that there are no death panels in the federal law,” and Republican Sen. Pete Brungardt said the state passed on “a rather huge opportunity” in turning down the federal dollars. In fact, the alleged rationing provision is a new discovery for Colyer, who failed to mention it in explaining why the state sent back the dollars during a recent interview.

And the move badly disrespects the months of hard work by Kansas Insurance Commissioner Sandy Praeger and her team to have an online insurance marketplace for the state ready to go by January 2014, with help from the federal grant. Praeger wasn’t even told about the decision until late Monday evening. [...]

“We want this to be run by Kansans for Kansans,” Praeger said Monday in Topeka, before Brownback’s decision.

Praeger, a Republican and a national leader in helping shape health care reform in a way that served states’ interests, had tried and failed to persuade the GOP-led Legislature to take some actions to help set up the marketplace.

But even GOP lawmakers were caught off guard by Brownback’s decision, especially given that Brownback reportedly had signed letters enabling Praeger to accept the grant. “It was a surprise to me,” Senate President Steve Morris, R-Hugoton, told the Topeka Capital-Journal. “Having money to implement this was a good move on the federal government’s part.”

Indeed, Brownback’s decision will greatly complicate Praeger’s efforts in establishing a working state exchange and increase the likelihood of the federal government having to step in and build Kansas’ marketplace. And if that happens, Brownback’s Tea Party constituency will have something new to complain about.

In a statement released today, Brownback defended returning the money by saying the state needed to practice belt-tightening measures:

“Every state should be preparing for fewer federal resources, not more. To deal with that reality Kansas needs to maintain maximum flexibility. That requires freeing Kansas from the strings attached to the Early Innovator Grant.”

Ironically, Brownback will entangle Kansas in greater federal control by refusing the grant, which supports states as they develop the logistics needed to create their own health insurance exchanges. As Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has made clear, if states refuse to set up their own exchanges, HHS will do it for them, thereby ceding the governor’s “authority to the federal government.”

But the announcement also represents a 180-degree reversal for Brownback, who defended the state’s acceptance of the ACA dollars just last month against Tea Party opposition.

“What I thought we could do is use the innovator grant not to do Obamacare — I am not supportive of us doing Obamacare — but to use that to do an exchange that provides a market mechanism,” Brownback said. “It’s not required that we use it to comply with Obamacare.”

Apparently even that possibility is out of the question now as Kansas will return millions of dollars that could have been spent on improving its health care system for its residents, over a tenth of whom were without health insurance in 2009.

–Sarah Bufkin

(HT: The Bilerico Project and Queerty.)

Kansas Health Department inspectors began reviewing a Planned Parenthood clinic Wednesday “ahead of a decision by [the] health department on whether the state’s three abortion clinics will be allowed to continue operating” and receive licenses. Given the level of new requirements and the short time-period in which clinics have to comply, anti-choice advocates are confident that the clinics will close and Kansas will be “the first abortion-free state in the nation“:

“We have doubts that any of the abortion clinics can meet the safety requirements of the new law,” said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman. “If they cannot comply, all three abortion clinics would be forced to cease abortion operations, making Kansas the first abortion-free state in the nation.”

If Kansas’ law succeeds in shutting down the state’s abortion clinics, that would be nothing less than a direct attack on the Constitution. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Supreme Court held that states may enact some abortion regulations, but they may not “strike at the right itself” to terminate a pregnancy. A law specifically designed to make it impossible to operate abortion clinics is a direct attack on women’s constitutional right to choose.

Given the persistent anti-choice motivations of Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback (R) and the state Legislature, Planned Parenthood of Kansas fears “none of the three clinics will get licensed, forcing them to shut down July 1.” Kansas’ Aid for Women clinic administrator Jeff Pederson said the clinic “will be forced to spend $10,000 immediately on a new exit mandated by the law.” He also notes the law’s requirement that physicians at a clinic have privileges with a hospital within 30 miles is “problematic because anti-abortion groups pressure hospitals into revoking or not granting such privileges.”

As another state Republican who opposed the law pointed out, the law is also going to cost Kansas taxpayers an “absurd” amount of money: $67,000 a year to do six inspections at three clinics. “I’d like to know where I can apply for that job,” he quipped. Of course, anti-choice activists insist that any amount of taxpayer funds is appropriate to end a woman’s constitutional right, not protect it. As anti-choice activist Newman notes, that is his definitive goal. “We certainly believe there is no such thing as a ‘safe’ abortion clinic,” he said. “The best way to protect women is to close the abortion clinics.”

Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback has asked the U.S. Department of Agriculture to declare a drought disaster in an additional 25 counties. Brownback made his request Friday, his second to the USDA in seven weeks. The federal agency declared a disaster in 21 counties last month.

Kansas Drought Conditions, June 7, 2011

Unfortunately, Brownback is not taking action to reduce the fossil pollution that is turning Kansas into a dust bowl. Although Brownback said in 2007 that “we need to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere,” he has since embraced radical conspiracy theories about climate scientists. Brownback called Obama’s climate plan “one of the worst ideas to come along in a long time.”

As governor, Brownback’s primary action regarding his state’s energy future has been to make 11,000 square miles of Flint Hills tallgrass prairie off-limits to wind farms while promoting the Holcomb coal plant.

Brownback’s gubernatorial campaign was heavily supported by Kansas-based Koch Industries, the Kansas-based pollution conglomerate that directs right-wing global warming denial. Over his career, Brownback has received about $200,000 from the Koch brothers in campaign contributions. While the Kochs have contributed a tiny fraction of their wealth to protecting the Flint Hills prairie from windmills, that unique ecosystem, just like the state’s farmers, has no defense against the global warming pollution Koch Industries produces.

Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback vetoed the state legislature’s appropriations for the Kansas Arts Commission, enforcing an executive order he signed in February eliminating the commission—and all five commission members’ jobs. Brownback plans to replace the commission with a private foundation, but his actions, taken over the legislature’s objections, make Kansas the only state without an arts agency. As the National Assembly of State Arts Agencies noted, that $689,000 targeted in the veto was a whopping 0.005 percent of the state’s budget, and it’s not as if it’s trading off with other programs. The budget the legislature approved would have created a $50 million budget surplus next year before Brownback’s additional cuts.

What the veto does do is let Brownback say he’s leading the charge against state funding for the arts, something he intends to keep alive in the next budget cycle. He spared Kansas public broadcasters, stopping short of line-item vetoing their appropriations this year, while telling them to make alternative plans so they’ll be ready when he comes for their funding next year.

Florida Gov. Rick Scott didn’t wait until the next budget cycle. He vetoed the state’s $4.8 million appropriation for public broadcasting as part of $615 million he excised from the budget before signing it. The New York Times reports that at least one Florida public broadcaster has already sold itself, and another’s staying alive through a partnership.

I don’t think that arts and public broadcasting funding is going to be a top-level political issue in the 2012 cycle. But it does seem like it’s a way for Republican politicians on the make, like Brownback, Scott, and Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, to shore up their credentials as they cast their eyes towards the next level.

“I think there’s a combination of things that need to be looked at, but to me the tax that’s one of the most sensitive for economic growth is the state income tax,” Brownback said after an event in Lecompton. “To look at the total picture is what we want to do, with an eye toward getting the state income tax down.”

But cutting the state income tax would make Kansas’ already regressive tax system significantly worse. As the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy noted, Kansas’ tax system already requires the poorest 20 percent of residents to pay nearly 10 percent of their income in taxes, while the richest one percent of residents pay less than six percent.

In fact, the only tax in the state that requires the rich to pay more than the poor is the income tax, the one that Brownback is intently focused on lowering. As Citizens for Tax Justice pointed out, the effort Brownback has in mind will “reduce the equity and sustainability of Kansas’s tax system.”

Brownback is moving this plan forward even though Kansas’ state Senate isn’t very interested in going along. After all, the Kansas state House already passed a bill that would have eliminated the state’s income tax and cut the corporate tax rate in half, but that was too much for the Senate, as the cost of the tax cuts was $739.4 million over two years. That revenue would have been foregone at the same time that Kansas is cutting its public school funding by nearly six percent.

But Brownback is not giving up, saying that he wants a plan for an income tax cut in place by the end of the year. “That would be great if the governor would facilitate that,” said House Speaker Mike O’Neal (R). However, the state senate is still very much on the fence, with Senate President Steve Morris (R) saying, “I don’t think that we’re at that point…It was not exactly well received.”

Image used under a creative commons license courtesy Beige Alert.

If you’re stumbling across this blog for the first time, I can imagine you might wonder what a culture critic is doing at ThinkProgress. At the end of Stranger than Fiction, Emma Thompson’s character, Karen Eiffel, reflects back on the book she’s just finished. “Sometimes,” she muses, “when we lose ourselves in fear and despair, in routine and constancy, in hopelessness and tragedy, we can thank God for Bavarian sugar cookies. And…Fender Stratocasters, and maybe the occasional piece of fiction. And we must remember that all these things, the nuances, the anomalies, the subtleties, which we assume only accessorize our days, are effective for a much larger and nobler cause. They are here to save our lives.”

In a world where the average American watches more than 150 hours of television every month; where we’ve already purchased 438,113,677 tickets to the movies, adding up to a billion-odd hours in theaters; where in three months, people hit play almost 55 million times on a pop-science fiction liberation odyssey, these things that our lives consume an awful lot of them. Art might not always be here to save us (though it can), but our movies, books, television shows, music, and video games say a lot about how we want to spend our lives, what we’re willing to accept to escape from them for a while, and what we dream they might be like in the future. If we are what we love, to paraphrase Jenny Lewis and the Watson Twins, figuring out our pop culture—from action blockbusters to indie gems and from billboard-dominating hits to mixtapes—is an important part of figuring out who we are and what we value.

Public opinion may fluctuate on everything from American involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan to offshore drilling, but two of the top-grossing movies of 2010 were an explicitly environmentalist science fiction epic and a movie about government regulation of military technology. The top scripted show on television may be a banal procedural where the government always saves the day—but it’s also an ongoing exploration of America’s relationship with Israel. And the poor in America are as absent from our pop culture as they are from the political agenda. Americans’ political opinions may seem frustratingly impenetrable to pollsters and politicians, but our contradictory views on everything from gender equality to police brutality are front and center in the things we use to entertain ourselves.

And just as pop culture’s a bellwether for our attitudes, it’s also a great way to sell ideas, whether it’s Michael Bay’s love letters to the American military or James Cameron’s fierce heroines who see more clearly and shoot straighter than the men around them. Whether it’s getting romantic comedy heroines to work in industries other than fashion and PR; imagining science-fictional universes where environmentalism is a key value; or simply getting our movies and television shows to have demographics that match America’s, good culture can help sell good politics.

So that’s what I’ll be doing here: asking questions about what pop culture means and how it can work harder and better for a progressive future, as well as taking a look at cultural politics and policy from the National Endowment for the Arts “Our Town” program to Gov. Sam Brownback’s decision to dismantle the Kansas Arts Commission. Questions, comments, or requests? Just email AlyssaObserves (at) gmail (dot) com. I’m excited to be here.

In five states, Republican governors or legislatures have proposed either dismantling arts agencies or entirely eliminating some of their funding streams:

KANSAS: The most pitched battles are in Kansas, where in February, Gov. Sam Brownback signed an executive order dismantling the Kansas Arts Commission to make way for its replacement by a privately-funded group. That move meant Kansas will likely lose $778,200 from the National Endowment for the Arts and $437,767 in funding from the Mid-American Arts Alliance. Both organizations require states to support the arts before they’ll kick in funding. The Kansas legislature pushed back, overriding the executive order and approving $700,000 to fund the agency, but on May 10, Brownback told the entire staff of the Commission that their jobs would be eliminated in June. He has suggested he will veto the legislature’s appropriation when the budget arrives on his desk, a move that will have the same effect as the executive order.

Brownback may also line-item veto $1.5 million in state funding for public broadcasting, though the budget the legislature approved last Friday produces a $50 million surplus even with arts and broadcasting funding included.

SOUTH CAROLINA: Gov. Nikki Haley said in her State of the State address in January that “the role of South Carolina’s government in the year 2011 can no longer be to fund an Arts Commission that costs us $2.5 million. … When you release government from the things it should not be responsible for, you allow the private sector to be more creative and cost efficient.” State lawmakers essentially ignored her requests, moving forward budgets with a 6 percent funding cut and amendments that require the Commission to spend most of its funding to provide grants. Haley reaffirmed her desire to eliminate state funding for the Commission in April, raising the prospect that she will line-item veto funding for the Arts Commission and South Carolina’s educational television program, which she also targeted in her January address.

ARIZONA: Gov. Jan Brewer entirely eliminated funding for the Arizona Commission on the Arts’ general fund, though the agency still gets some money through its Trust Fund, which is supported by businesses filing fees in the state.

FLORIDA: Gov. Rick Scott initially proposed keeping the Division of Cultural Affairs alive, but declined to fund its grant programs; the state legislature sent him a budget with $2.5 million in grant funding. Scott’s still considering line-item vetoes to trim the budget further.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: The Republican-dominated House of Representatives moved to dissolve the state’s Department of Cultural Resources in March, but the Senate Finance Committee has stood behind the Department’s continued existence, though it has proposed $530,000 in cuts.

The National Assembly of State Arts Agencies, which has been tracking proposals to eliminate or reorganize the organizations it represents, is also following proposals in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin to cut state arts funding by between 30 and 80 percent.

And state-level public broadcasting also remains vulnerable:

VIRGINIA: Gov. Bob McDonnell used a line-item veto to eliminate $424,000 in funding for public broadcasters to develop educational materials for the state’s public schools, efforts he said were “not core services of government.”

MAINE: Last week, Gov. Paul LePage proposed cutting all state funding for the Main Public Broadcasting Network.

NEW JERSEY: In December, Gov. Chris Christie moved to privatize the formerly public New Jersey Network—WNET, another public television outlet, may acquire NJN.

The sums of money involved in these fights are minuscule: at $11 million, New Jersey’s subsidy to the New Jersey Network is the largest appropriation at stake. Cutting funds for arts agencies and public broadcasters won’t balance state budgets. But it does give Republicans an excuse to strike a blow in the culture wars that it will be very hard for arts organizations to recover from.