"The Native claims to this part of Kansas would be tenuous at best."

I don't understand. Why would it be tenuous? Were British, french or Dutch immigrants somehow there first? Before the Native Americans, I mean? What would make such a claim "tenuous"?

Kevin, Michael A., Jason, thanks for the votes in advance. I'm not terribly picky where they come from.

Michael A., Topeka is the next step in my master plan.

Knut, it's something like this, and I hope I hit all the salient points: Though there were Native peoples in this part of Kansas before the Europeans, they were very nomadic. In the late 1810's or early 20's, the US Government forcibly moved several nations into eastern Kansas because they didn't expect much from the area. These included the Shawnee, Delaware, Munsee, Wyandot, and a few others, mostly originiating in Ohio and Indiana. Most of these tribes had been 'civilized' by that point and most had become Christian.

Anyway after the Civil War, by and large these tribes were moved again to Oklahaoma and the land opened to settlement. Those who did stay in the area were forced onto reservations,and these reervations are where the Indian Casinos are now. The nearest to here is about, oh, 60-90 minutes away, depending on who's driving.

By tenuous, I meant to say that native peoples were legally (as far as that went) were removed by treaty and those people really have no claim to the land around here. A gentleman across the river who claims Shawnee heritage was busted several times trying to sell tax-free cigarettes out of his house,invoking Native privilege. The courts weren't having any of that.

"By tenuous, I meant to say that native peoples were legally (as far as that went) were removed by treaty and those people really have no claim to the land around here."

Well ...

I am uncomfortable with the idea that their claim is "tenuous".

Now, clearly the Native Americans  were conquered by the US government (or settlers etc. depending on time period), and compelled to sign treaties. So by right of conquest (and only by right of conquest as Native American laws supposedly had no laws for such a transfer of ownership) , the land is legally US land.

Now, no nation (whether government or group) I know of recognizes themselves as losing any moral or hereditary claim to a piece of land just because they lost a fight and had to sign a treaty.

Their claim to the land may not be supported by a treaty, by the laws of the people who conquered them and the US government may choose to simply ignore it. The laws of the United States may bar them from reclaiming that land.

But that does not mean that they have no "moral" or "hereditary" claim to the land. It just means that the people who took the land from them wrote laws saying they couldn't get it back.  By Native American laws, the US government's claim to the land is preposterous, yet the US government can back their claim with superior military might. That's why they win.

They have no legal leg to stand on, but the claims they do have are hardly "tenuous". That makes it sound like they were a bunch of random squatters who had to be cleared out for the new owners to move in.

Getting it back on to the political track:

GM has paid back its $8.1 billion loans from the US and Canadian governments.  LINK.

All this money the government has given out in TARP and the auto industry loans are slowly but surely getting paid back.  And with TARP, they're getting loads of interest as well.

Jim,

Lucky guess, more than anything. I'm a little bit familiar with the area and wanted to get my bearings.

A couple of thoughts/suggestions on the process of planning your run.

Over the next little bit you should attend all the public meetings that you can. City Council, Planning Commission, any advisory Commissions like Parks and Recreation, et al. I'd also gather the agendas and minutes for the last six months to a year. Even if you've been following local events through the papers, there are a lot of issues that don't make it to the media. These should be available on the City website -- if not, there's a campaign issue for you: improving access to public information -- or via the City Clerk's office.

Get yourself a copy of the City's budget. They've likely got two different documents: the annual budget and the CAFR (Comprehensive Annual Financial Review). These documents will outline where the City is drawing its revenues and expending its funds. Sight unseen, I'd guess that at least 50 percent is going to public safety (police, fire, etc.)

Sit down and look at the demographics of your community. You live there, you know it, but take it apart to better understand it. I anticipate that as a bedroom suburb for Kansas, it's likely your tax base is geared more towards property tax and commercial/services. Again, sight unseen, my guess would be 50 percent property tax, 35 percent sales tax and the rest miscellaneous sources.

With that data you can start mapping out a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunity, threats) for your community. The key to long-term prosperity and stability is by strengthening the local economy (i.e. rather than feeding people to KC every day, have them work in Bonner Springs). You need to ask questions like what facilities and infrastructure currently exist? What's missing and/or needed? What are the elements that make Bonner Springs special and/or different from all the neighboring communities?

After assembling all that data, working it over, analysing it and understanding it, now comes the most important questions: Are you the man who can change things? Do you have the energy to run and take on the job? Is your family prepared for the sacrifice?

It sounds corny, but I advise at that point you sit down and make a list: the pros and cons of running. Life changes when you become a public figure, particularly in a small town. I always encourage people to consider public office, but I always impress upon them to go into it understanding the lay of the land and recognising the physical, emotional and intellectual cost.

A quicky off-the-top-of-my-head forum post is not the best way to map out a campaign. Please feel free to email me if you think I might be a reasonable sounding board or can offer any useful support and advice.

More on Obama's bid to have financial regulatory reform:  http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/36199.html

Hopefully the GOP won't just keep saying "no" to everything.

Jason,

When you've got complex legislation with a lot of moving parts like Healthcare and Financial Reform it takes time to put it together properly. Rushed legislation often leads to operational issues because it's concentrating on the "what" instead of the "how" and "who".

It's all well and good to want to do "X", but how is the program actually going to work? What are the administrative processes that need to be established and which authorities need to be granted? When you've got multi-jurisdictional elements involved, who is going to be the lead?

It's beneficial to address and answer these questions in the legislation so you have seemless implementation. Otherwise, you're almost immediately back to the legislature with amendments to correct the operational conflicts.