|
|
|
Related Stories
PITTSBURG —
Jake LaTurner
Party: Republican
Hometown: Pittsburg
Question 1: Gov. Brownback and the state Legislature passed significant tax cuts last session. How would you have voted on that bill, and what tweaks, if any, are necessary to it?
I would have supported the legislation. We must work towards a more competitive tax structure. Neighboring states are often winning when it comes to economic and population growth. The one thing I would have looked at is implementing the tax cuts over a longer period of time so that growth could keep up with losses in revenue.
Question 2: Four Southeast Kansas senators united to help create what is now called Project 17, an effort to address economic development and health conditions in the region. Would you continue those efforts, change their focus, or go in a new direction? Why?
I like the focus of the initiative. Improving the health and economic vitality of Southeast Kansas is my top priority, but the structure of the program will likely change. There are now new senate districts and there will be two new senators, so naturally the structure will change. I believe we must have more participation from local elected leaders so that it stays close to the people. We also must have complete transparency. I will work towards both of those goals.
Question 3: Years ago, voters approved gaming in Southeast Kansas. Legislators have tried, to no avail so far, to lower the requirements for Southeast Kansas casinos. What changes to the gaming legislation, if any, would you push, and why?
I supported the local county initiatives to allow gaming, and I believe that casinos could be a source of revenue for the area. However, we must stop looking at casinos as a replacement for good economic policy. I prefer to focus my attention on good competitive economic polices that will grow jobs and the economy. If I saw a clear pathway to lower the requirement I would do it, but I will not waste time shouting at the rain.
Gene Garman
Party: Democratic
Hometown: Pittsburg
Question 1: Gov. Brownback and the state Legislature passed significant tax cuts last session. How would you have voted on that bill, and what tweaks, if any, are necessary to it?
The way the bill is written, NO. The bill, with tax cuts occurring immediately, strains the revenue sources for the state. I am told the legislative conference committee had the tax cuts staggered in over a period of more than a few years. This would have allowed new businesses and industries, which may be attracted to Kansas, as a result of the tax cuts, to become established in Kansas, paying more taxes, providing more jobs, and allowing revenues to catch up with budget requirements. Minor cuts should have been utilized, at least during the first two years of the new tax bill.
Jake LaTurner
Party: Republican
Hometown: Pittsburg
Question 1: Gov. Brownback and the state Legislature passed significant tax cuts last session. How would you have voted on that bill, and what tweaks, if any, are necessary to it?
I would have supported the legislation. We must work towards a more competitive tax structure. Neighboring states are often winning when it comes to economic and population growth. The one thing I would have looked at is implementing the tax cuts over a longer period of time so that growth could keep up with losses in revenue.
Question 2: Four Southeast Kansas senators united to help create what is now called Project 17, an effort to address economic development and health conditions in the region. Would you continue those efforts, change their focus, or go in a new direction? Why?
I like the focus of the initiative. Improving the health and economic vitality of Southeast Kansas is my top priority, but the structure of the program will likely change. There are now new senate districts and there will be two new senators, so naturally the structure will change. I believe we must have more participation from local elected leaders so that it stays close to the people. We also must have complete transparency. I will work towards both of those goals.
Question 3: Years ago, voters approved gaming in Southeast Kansas. Legislators have tried, to no avail so far, to lower the requirements for Southeast Kansas casinos. What changes to the gaming legislation, if any, would you push, and why?
I supported the local county initiatives to allow gaming, and I believe that casinos could be a source of revenue for the area. However, we must stop looking at casinos as a replacement for good economic policy. I prefer to focus my attention on good competitive economic polices that will grow jobs and the economy. If I saw a clear pathway to lower the requirement I would do it, but I will not waste time shouting at the rain.
Gene Garman
Party: Democratic
Hometown: Pittsburg
Question 1: Gov. Brownback and the state Legislature passed significant tax cuts last session. How would you have voted on that bill, and what tweaks, if any, are necessary to it?
The way the bill is written, NO. The bill, with tax cuts occurring immediately, strains the revenue sources for the state. I am told the legislative conference committee had the tax cuts staggered in over a period of more than a few years. This would have allowed new businesses and industries, which may be attracted to Kansas, as a result of the tax cuts, to become established in Kansas, paying more taxes, providing more jobs, and allowing revenues to catch up with budget requirements. Minor cuts should have been utilized, at least during the first two years of the new tax bill.
Question 2: Four Southeast Kansas senators united to help create what is now called Project 17, an effort to address economic development and health conditions in the region. Would you continue those efforts, change their focus, or go in a new direction? Why?
YES. I am told this is a project and structure which has been put into place with the approval of the Governor and his cabinet. The project attempted to address major issues facing Southeast Kansas, including creating a leadership program dealing with health issues and work force development. It promoted the economic development of Southeast Kansas through a regional approach rather than a local or county approach to economic development and has already received three grants which assures the project has a better chance to succeed.
Question 3: Years ago, voters approved gaming in Southeast Kansas. Legislators have tried, to no avail so far, to lower the requirements for Southeast Kansas casinos. What changes to the gaming legislation, if any, would you push, and why?
In order to attract a Southeast Kansas casino investor, the initial investment must be lowered. For example, a $5.5 million “privilege” fee and a minimum investment of $50 million--the same minimum investment for the Dodge City casino. Also, increase the facility manager’s percentage of the slots income at race facilities, race tracks, from 40% to around 60%. This would be more apt to lure an investor to reopen the Camptown Race facility in Frontenac and the Woodlands track in Kansas City, KS. Opening Camptown and the Woodlands would increase the opportunity for Kansas breeders and trainers to stay in Kansas.
