New Yorker’s Koch profile misses the point

by Bob Weeks on August 31, 2010

in Politics

There’s been much attention paid to a recent profile of Charles and David Koch that appeared in a recent edition of New Yorker magazine. It’s also been heavily criticized as biased and based on several false premises.

For example, the New Yorker article is critical of Charles and David Koch for funding organizations that are skeptical and questioning of the claims of global warming alarmists. A recent statement added to the Koch Industries website explains Koch’s position:

A free society and the scientific method require an open, honest airing of all sides, not demonizing and silencing those with whom you disagree. We’ve strived to encourage an intellectually honest debate on the scientific basis for claims of harm from greenhouse gases. Because it’s crucial to understand whether proposed initiatives to reduce greenhouse gases will achieve desired environmental goals and what effects they would likely have on the global economy, we have tried to help highlight the facts of the potential effectiveness and costs of policies proposed.

But the stance of the New Yorker article is that global warming is real, it is man made, and it is ruining the planet. Criticism of the Kochs on this matter makes sense only if you uncritically believe what the New Yorker and its left-wing readership believe.

Today, Daniel Fisher of Forbes Magazine takes a look at the New Yorker piece and finds that “lot of what she [author Jane Mayer] paints as nefarious activity is simple business sense.”

New Yorker’s Koch Profile Misses The Point

By Daniel Fisher

Jane Mayer’s much-discusssed New Yorker profile of the Koch brothers is a useful look at how money can buy an outsized voice in our democracy. But a lot of what she paints as nefarious activity is simple business sense. And anybody who’s spent time talking to Charles Koch, as I have, comes away with the conviction that with this man, business is personal and the personal is political. He’s the kind of guy who can fund the right-wing Cato Institute and hope that its mantra of lower taxes, inviolate property rights and personal responsibility will somehow reverse decades of increasing central-government power. (For the record, it hasn’t.)

For Midwestern entrepreneurs of his generation, there’s nothing wrong or even unusual about thinking the New Deal was a colossal mistake, and spending money in a futile effort to roll it back. Mayer quotes a purported friend of the Koch brothers saying they have “a distrust of the U.S. government, and seeing its expansion, beginning with the New Deal, as a tyrannical threat to freedom.” That’s straight out of Friedrick Hayek’s Road to Serfdom and while not to the taste of most New Yorker readers, barely qualifies as conservative compared to the Wisconsin farmers I encountered in my first newspaper job. They considered zoning to be the vanguard of the Communist revolution (I am not exaggerating).

Continue reading at Forbes.

{ 5 comments }

In Sunday’s Wichita Eagle, Wichita Mayor Carl Brewer penned a piece that states his belief in the importance of downtown and prepares the people of Wichita for the start of a prescriptive planning process, with accompanying subsidy to politically-favored developers willing to fulfill the plan.

The mayor used the word “vibrant” twice. Asking citizens question like “Would you like to have a vibrant downtown?” is meaningless. Who doesn’t? It’s only when the question is accompanied by context that citizens can start to understand how they should answer.

For example, in the mayor’s article, he mentions the use of special assessment financing that funded suburban infrastructure, and that this is not sufficient for downtown needs. This statement reveals a misunderstanding by the mayor about the various forms of financing that might be used to help development.

Special assessment financing means that the city spends money to build something, like the new street to serve a site where someone wants to build a house or a shopping center. The cost of this street, plus interest, is added to the property’s tax bill over a period of years. The property owner doesn’t get anything for free.

But in the forms of financing that the mayor and city hall planners favor for downtown, developers do get something for free. Under tax increment financing (TIF), developers get to use their property taxes to pay for the same infrastructure that everyone else has to pay for. That’s because in TIF, the increment in property taxes are used to pay off bonds that were issued for the exclusive benefit of a development. Or, as in the case with a new form of TIF called pay-as-you-go, the increment in property taxes are simply given back to the developer. (Which leads to the question: why even pay at all?)

Some deny that TIF does not directly enrich the developer. They’ll make arguments such as “it’s only used for infrastructure and eligible expenses” or “it’s not lending, it’s bonding” or “it wouldn’t happen but for TIF” or the biggest lie: TIF doesn’t have any cost. But despite these claims, TIF has a cost, and it does directly enrich the developer. That’s its entire purpose; its reason for being. If TIF didn’t enrich the developer, how does it change something that is claimed to be not economically feasible into something that is?

While city leaders say that public participation in the revitalization of downtown is to be limited, we should be cautious and skeptical. Goody Clancy planners have said that public participation will be limited to TIF. This is bad in its own right and should be opposed on its merits.

We need to be skeptical of the mayor and downtown planners because there isn’t enough TIF money available to do what they want to do. I fully expect a citywide sales tax, probably in the amount of one cent per dollar, to be proposed for the benefit of downtown subsidized developers. City leaders speak fondly of such a tax that Oklahoma City has used for many years.

City leaders have already shown themselves to be not averse to imposing additional sales taxes in Wichitans and our visitors, having granted several Community Improvement Districts the ability to charge up to an additional two cents per dollar sales tax. This means that when visitors check out of the Fairfield Inn in downtown Wichita, they’ll be faced with a sales tax rate of 9.3 percent. That’s in addition to the six percent guest tax, which in the case of this hotel is collected for the exclusive benefit of itself, rather than funding general government and tourism activities.

More community improvement districts are in the works. Wichita may soon be peppered with them.

No faith in free markets means no faith in people

The unwillingness of Wichita city leaders to let Wichitans freely decide where they live, and Wichita businesses freely decide where to locate, is a sign of lack of confidence in free markets and the people of Wichita. Because Wichitans do not choose to live and locate their business firms where politicians like Carl Brewer and Janet Miller — to name just two — and city hall bureaucrats like Wichita city manager Bob Layton and Wichita economic development director Allen Bell want them to, they deliver a slap in the face. It appears in the form of a vision backed up by planning, regulation, and the power to dish out favorable tax treatment, as outlined above.

Once formed, a vision is a powerful force. Randal O’Toole, author of The Best-Laid Plans: How Government Planning Harms Your Quality of Life, Your Pocketbook, and Your Future has written about visionaries and government planning:

The worst thing about having a vision is that it confers upon the visionary a moral absolutism: only highly prescriptive regulation can ensure that the vision overcomes an uncaring populace responding to a free market that planners do not really trust. But the more prescriptive the plan, the more likely it is that the plan will be wrong, and such errors will prove extremely costly for the city or region that tries to implement the plan.

An example of planning that many see as having gone wrong is the government planning that led to growth on the city’s fringes. An example that helped make this possible is the government’s decision to build the northeast expressway also known as K-96. Acts of government like this are claimed to have caused the demise of downtown, the very situation that planners now want to correct.

With government making “mistakes” (their claim, not mine) like this on a grand scale, why are we willing to trust that politicians and bureaucrats are making correct decisions now? Especially when you look at the campaign finance reports of most city council members and see the same names giving repeatedly to all council members, with these same names appearing repeatedly before the council asking for their subsidy. This is not a decision making process that gives citizens confidence.

It bears repeating: the existence of the downtown planning process tells Wichitans they’ve made a mistake in where they chose to buy a home or build a business. Not only will Wichitans have to pay for what they freely chose, they’re going to be asked to pay again so that those with purportedly superior vision can have their way.

{ 15 comments }

A Gallup poll finds that Americans overwhelmingly believe that teachers should be paid “on the basis of the quality of his/her work.” 72 percent of public school parents believe this.

A related question asked “How closely should a teacher’s salary he tied to his/her students’ academic achievement?” 75 percent of public school parents answered either “very” or “somewhat closely tied.”

Then, 78 percent of parents answered “yes” to this question: “Do you have trust and confidence in the men and women who are teaching children in the public schools?”

Taken together, the responses to these question indicated that Americans like the people who teach their children, but may have a problem with public school administration and unions. After all, it’s administrators and unions that are responsible for the way teachers are paid. The unions vigorously resist any attempt at starting merit pay programs.

President Barack Obama has said that merit pay is important, but doesn’t seem to push it very hard. In Kansas, Republican candidate for governor Sam Brownback has proposed a master teacher program, which is a very weak form of merit pay.

Democratic candidate Tom Holland doesn’t mention teacher merit pay on his website. It would be surprising if he supported any ideas that the education establishment in Kansas opposes.

Libertarian Andrew Gray promotes the Kansas Education Liberty Act. This does not specifically mention teacher merit pay, but it proposes an expansion of school choice in Kansas. This means more charter and private schools, where teachers are usually paid based on merit.

Merit pay is important. Why? Research is conclusive in showing that teacher effects are the most important factor in student achievement that is under the control of schools. The best teachers need to be rewarded, and the worst ushered out of the field or into improvement programs.

The education establishment in Kansas, however, does not believe in this. Their prescription is more of the same: more spending, more buildings, and basing pay on measures that have been shown to have little or no significance to quality teaching: longevity and education credentials gained.

As the Gallup poll shows, Americans like their teachers but believe they should be paid based on merit, just like almost all other workers. It’s the education establishment that stands in the way of meaningful reform. In Kansas the two most prominent faces of the education establishment and maintaining the failing status quo are the Kansas National Education Association (KNEA, the teachers union) and the Kansas Association of School Boards (KASB).

{ 1 comment }

The speaker at this Friday’s meeting (September 3rd) of the Wichita Pachyderm Club is candidate for the United States Congress from the fourth district of Kansas Mike Pompeo.

Pompeo, a Republican, is challenged by Reform party candidate Susan Ducey, Democrat Raj Goyle, and Libertarian David Moffett.

All are welcome to attend Wichita Pachyderm Club meetings. The program costs $10, which includes a delicious buffet lunch including salad, soup, two main dishes, and ice tea and coffee. The meeting starts at noon, although it’s recommended to arrive fifteen minutes early to get your lunch before the program starts.

The Wichita Petroleum Club is on the ninth floor of the Bank of America Building at 100 N. Broadway (north side of Douglas between Topeka and Broadway) in Wichita, Kansas (click for a map and directions). You may park in the garage (enter west side of Broadway between Douglas and First Streets) and use the sky walk to enter the Bank of America building. The Petroleum Club will stamp your parking ticket and the fee will be $1.00. Or, there is usually some metered and free street parking nearby.

{ 3 comments }

Last week’s release by the Kansas Department of Transportation of a study of the economic impact of Kansas airports caused quite a stir, with newspapers such as the Los Angeles Times (at least its online version) carrying the Associated Press coverage.

Perhaps the reason so many distant newspapers were interested in the story is the sensationally large economic impact figures reported. The number of jobs purported to airports is large, by any standard.

But there’s a problem with these numbers. They’re similar to sensational claims made a few years ago when the case for subsidizing airlines in Wichita was made. Those figures were bogus. So are these.

The staggeringly large figures come from two aspects of the study. First, the study counts the economic activity from businesses near the airport as attributable to the airport. In the case of the Wichita airport, this means that the employees of Cessna and Bombardier Learjet, and all the economic activity these companies produce, is credited as economic impact of the airport.

This economic sleight-of-hand allows the study to attribute 22,313 jobs to the Wichita airport. The total economic impact of the Wichita airport is reported as $4.7 billion.

All these employees don’t work for the airport. Almost all of them work at business firms located near the airport. But the study doesn’t really make that distinction. And when you do things like this, you can really pump up some inflated figures.

It is a convenient circumstance that these two manufacturers happen to be located near the airport. To credit the airport with the economic impact of these companies — as though the airport was involved in the actual manufacture of airplanes instead of providing an incidental (but important) service — is to grossly overstate the airport’s role and its economic importance.

A second problem is the study’s use of economic impact multipliers to pump up the figures. A multiplier reflects the fact that money spent at, say an airport, get spent again. Proponents of multipliers forget that money spent elsewhere get multiplied too. In fact, money that is saved and invested get multiplied, too.

These two factors inspired the Associated Press reporter to lead off a story with “Airports in Kansas support more than 47,000 jobs, generate $2.3 billion in payroll and have an annual economic impact of $10.4 billion …” With numbers so big, you can see why news editors in far-away cities might run the story.

There’s another problem: these studies usually assume that all the activity is the responsibility of the entity being promoted, that none of it would have happened without the celebrated entity, and that since (usually) the promoted entities are government-owned, all this is evidence of the goodness of government.

Another problem is that these economic impact figures get used several times to support various government subsidies to business. Here we have the airport claiming two aircraft manufacturing companies’ employees and their economic impact as the product of the airport.

But when these companies want corporate welfare from the Kansas state government, the economic impact of the companies and their employees will be cited as justification. Politicians, bureaucrats, and the public will believe their case.

Then, the same numbers might be cited again at Wichita city hall, and maybe before the Sedgwick County Commission as the company makes its case for industrial revenue bonds, tax abatements, forgivable loans, and other forms of local corporate welfare.

But this economic impact can’t be recycled like this. It exists only once. If the Wichita airport claims it, then it can’t be used again to justify some other program or request.

Another way the study leaps beyond credibility is its inclusion of the Beech Factory Airport in east Wichita. This is an airport without commercial air service. It exists solely for the convenience of Hawker Beechcraft, and is undoubtedly a necessary component of the capital plant needed to manufacture airplanes.

The study, however, mixes this airport in with all other Kansas airports, so this airport’s claimed $1.8 billion in economic impact is treated the same as any other Kansas airport. But regular people can’t catch a flight at this airport.

When government officials use stretched and inflated figures like these, they diminish their credibility. The Kansas Department of Transportation already snowed the Kansas public earlier this year with their claims of the need for huge spending on Kansas roads and highways.

Now they’re at it again, with claims that simply make no economic sense at all. The fact that news media laps up these figures without any skepticism or critical thought doesn’t help.

Does this mean that Kansas and its local government shouldn’t offer airports and businesses like aircraft manufacturers help from the public treasury? That’s a different question for a different day.

Today, however, we need to realize that accurate, reasonable, and believable information about Kansas airports and other transportation infrastructure isn’t available from the Kansas Department of Transportation.

{ 4 comments }

Friday night’s dinner at the Americans for Prosperity Foundation fourth annual Defending the American Dream summit featured Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist George Will as keynote speaker.

Will’s message was that while progress in limiting the growth of government has been reversed, this can be overcome, and he believes that a restoration of liberty and economic freedom will happen.

As the dinner was a tribute to former President Ronald Reagan, Will told the audience one of his favorite lines from Reagan during the 1980 campaign: “A recession is when your neighbor loses his job. A depression is when you lose your job. Recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his job.”

Continuing, he said that “Barack Obama is Jimmy Carter 2.0 and it is time to hit the delete button.”

Will told the audience that the “retreat of the state” that started with the election of Margaret Thatcher in 1979 and the election of Ronald Reagan has been reversed. This should be reversed again, he said.

On the federal stimulus, Will said that the downward revision of GDP from a bad number to an even worse number is evidence that the stimulus is not working.

There are two things that the administration is saying that are “funny,” Will said. One is that our current crisis was brought on because there was too little government regulation and administration. The second is that the problem with the stimulus is that Republicans made it too small. “The government is dangerously frugal at the moment,” he said to laughter from the audience.

But Will said that the government controls the money supply and interest rates, leading to control of home mortgages. He traced the edicts of government that increasing percentages of mortgages must be given to those with poor credit. These expansions of the federal government, along with the No Child Left Behind education law, happened under Republican administrations, evidence that not only Democrats are too blame.

Government is dominating the energy sector too. He said that matters because “no less of an authority of energy” than Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that “America should use more natural gas rather than fossil fuels.”

In health care, half of spending is already government money, and that will increase, as will the 138,000 pages of health care regulations.

As to the alleged dangerous frugality of the government, Will said we are “marching into the most predictable financial crisis the world has ever seen.” This crisis is self-inflicted, he said.

Illustrating the size of government, he said that at the time of the first world war, when federal government spending exploded, the richest man in American could have personally retired the federal debt. But today’s richest man could pay for only two month’s interest on the deficit.

The administration’s planned spending program will result in a situation ten years from now when federal entitlement programs (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid) plus the interest on the federal debt will consume 93 percent of federal revenue. The debt will be one hundred percent of GDP. This will crowd out private borrowing and investment. As a nation, he said we don’t save enough to fund both government and the investment needs of the private sector economy.

Will noted the remarkable progress of American medicine during his lifetime. But both presidential candidates campaigned against the pharmaceutical industry in 2008, which Will said was “shocking.” “It is time to quit stigmatizing those who create wealth, those who extend life, those who reduce pain. Get the government out of the way, and let them get on.”

The economy is fragile, Will said, and we need not burden it more with taxes. He referred to Congressman Paul Ryan, who said we have a nation with “too many takers and not enough makers.”

On education, he said we need an education system that “equips people to compete in a free society.” He criticized the short school year in the U.S., as compared to other countries. He told the audience that a major problem with schools is the teachers unions. The increased spending on schools has not worked. 90 percent of the difference between schools can be explained by characteristics of the students’ families, he said. “Don’t tell me the pupil-teacher ratio, tell me the parent-pupil ratio.”

Even with as many problems as there are, he said that an “aroused citizenry” like that in the room tonight can fix the problems. He’s not pessimistic, he said, because Obama has stimulated a “new clarity” from the American people.

There is a tension today between freedom and equality, two polar values. Liberals today stress equality of outcomes, and believe that the multiplication of entitlement programs to produce this equality serves the public good. But conservatives stress freedom, and that multiplication of entitlement programs is “subversive of the attitudes and aptitudes essential for a free society of self-reliant, far-sighted, thrifty and industrious people.”

The Obama presidency has passed its apogee, Will told the audience. Quoting Winston Churchill, he said that “The American people invariably do the right thing, after they have exhausted all the alternatives.” Will said he believes that Americans believe that “a benevolent government is not always a benefactor, capitalism doesn’t just make us better off, it makes us better.”

Will told the audience that “Americans for Prosperity exists on the principle that when you change the nation’s economy, you change the national character in the process.” Urging the citizen activists to get involved, he echoed a remark made by Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, who had spoken earlier: “You are the point of the lance. Go to work.”

Before his speech, Americans for Prosperity Foundation Chairman David H. Koch awarded Will the George Washington award. This is AFP’s highest award, given to Will for his work in defending and advancing economic freedom.

Koch also spoke about the goals of Americans for Prosperity Foundation, which he said are to advance economic freedom and prosperity by limiting government growth, spending, and taxation. It is a grassroots movement that holds political leaders of every party accountable. AFP advocates for the free market economy, which he said improves lives and created the greatest nation on the face of the Earth.

{ 0 comments }

Addressing the general session of Americans for Prosperity Foundation‘s fourth annual Defending the American Dream summit, author and Fox New contributor Dick Morris told an audience of 2,300 that “The recession is over. It is the cure to the recession that we’re experiencing.”

Morris said that when he worked with President Bill Clinton on cutting and balancing the budget, the spending cuts weren’t to balance budget. The budget was balanced by cutting taxes, which caused increased revenue to flow to the federal treasury. He said Clinton cut the capital gains tax, but Obama wants to increase it. He told the audience that when you raise taxes, you depress the economy.

Obama and the big spenders use the economic crisis as an excuse to increase government spending. Other “problems” are used as additional excuses to increase government control.

Morris said that he believes that Republicans will take control of both houses of Congress this year.

After, there will be two fundamental challenges that remain. First, we have to make sure the people we elect based on pledges to reduce spending keep their word.

Then, the states will come begging to Washington for a bailout. We need to say no, Morris told the audience. States should have a way to declare bankruptcy and get out from under public sector union contracts.

At this time next year, Morris said we’ll be here again keeping those we elected accountable to their promises.

{ 0 comments }

Americans for Prosperity summit starts today

by Bob Weeks on August 27, 2010

in Free markets

Today in Washington, Americans for Prosperity Foundation starts its fourth annual Defending the American Dream summit. The event is expected to be attended by 2,300 citizen grassroots activists from around the country.

AFP has recently been criticized by President Barack Obama, which many interpret as evidence of AFP’s growing influence and effectiveness.

AFP Foundation president Tim Phillips said “never before have grassroots Americans been so interested in the challenges facing our nation. We have a sharp lineup of speakers on the most pressing issues — energy, spending,net neutrality, to name a few — and we’re excited to give people information they can share with friends and neighbors as they examine these important policies being discussed in Congress right now.”

Speakers at this year’s event include Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist George Will, Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, author and Fox New contributor Dick Morris, Herman Cain, and AFP President Tim Phillips. Breakout sessions throughout the day will provide a variety of learning opportunities for citizens.

{ 0 comments }

Social Security: A good and moral deal?

by Bob Weeks on August 25, 2010

in Economics

Social Security and its future have been in the news lately. Supporters promote it as one of the best examples of successful government programs, and denigrate its critics as pessimists.

Locally in the campaign for United States Congress from the fourth district of Kansas, one candidate promises to defend the current system, while another has spoken approvingly of Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan and the reforms recommend in his Roadmap for America’s future.

Many of the arguments in favor of Social Security and strengthening the system revolve around the issue of fairness, even casting a moral tone. So what about the fairness of the Social Security system?

In Slaying Leviathan: The Moral Case for Tax Reform, author Leslie Carbone looks at the economic impact of Social Security and its payroll taxes on middle income people:

Payroll taxes actually have the bizarre effect of leaving families less able to ensure what they are specifically purported to provide — security in old age. According to The Heritage Foundation, Social Security’s inflation-adjusted rate of return is a paltry 1.2 percent for an average household of two 30-year-old earners, each making just under $26,000, with children. This family will pay about $320,000 in Social Security taxes (including their employers’ share) and can expect to receive about $450,000 back in payments (1997 dollars, before taxes, assuming that they begin collecting at age 67). Had this typical family allocated the same amount to conservative private investment vehicles, such as traditional retirement accounts, they could expect to enjoy a real rate of more than 5 percent per year before taxes, or $975,000 (1997 dollars). Social Security taxes of $320,000 cost this family $525,000.

Social Security is not a very good investment, as we now see. It’s even worse — cruel and unfair, we might say — when workers pay into the system for years and then die shortly after starting to receive benefits. If people owned their own retirement savings, they could pass these assets on to their heirs or anyone else they choose.

An argument often used against privatizing the Social Security system is that people will have to make investments in stocks and bonds. Securities markets sometimes go down, as they have recently, and sometimes do not perform very well for long periods. So the Social Security supporters ask: Do we want Americans’ retirement security dependent on such uncertain investments?

It’s true that markets go up and down. But over the long term, the direction has been up. Young workers do not need to be concerned about the performance of the market over the next few years. Their time horizon is measured in decades.

Furthermore, over long periods of time, the performance of securities markets is closely tied to the performance of the American and world economies. If markets do not perform well over time, it is almost certain that the economy is underperforming too. Such a poor economy makes it even more difficult for young workers to pay the taxes necessary to pay the Social Security benefits that retirees will demand. Those young workers will have to pay, as there is no Social Security trust fund that can be drawn upon, despite the claims of its backers.

It’s contrary to economic freedom and personal liberty for the government to force Americans to participate in a retirement program. Forcing us to participate in one that performs as poorly as Social Security is a tragedy, not a mark of kindness and moral superiority.

{ 3 comments }

AFP responds to Obama attack

by Bob Weeks on August 24, 2010

in Free markets

Attacks by President Barack Obama on Americans for Prosperity for its promotion of limited government and free markets are a signal that these principles are resonating with Americans.

Now AFP has formulated a video response to the president.

While some characterize the president’s remarks as a personal insult to each of AFP’s 1.2 million citizen members, I see it as evidence that AFP has grown to become “America’s leading conservative grassroots organization,” as described in a recent article penned by Richard Viguerie. Obama wouldn’t even bother to mention the name Americans for Prosperity if he wasn’t concerned about the group’s effectiveness.

In his remarks, the president attacked AFP for spending millions on television advertisements against Democratic Party candidates. The president didn’t note that every dollar given to AFP is a voluntary contribution.

This is in contrast to the way the Democrats operate. The Wall Street Journal has noted, for example, that the recent spending bill passed earlier this month is a boon for Democrat campaign funds: “The National Education Association and other unions will thus get as much as $100 million in additional dues from this bill, much of which will flow immediately to endangered Democratic candidates in competitive House and Senate races this year.”

This week AFP is holding its annual Defending the American Dream Summit in Washington. I’ll be there along with probably two thousand other citizen activists from across the country.

{ 3 comments }

Roberts endorses Mike Pompeo

by Bob Weeks on August 24, 2010

in Politics

This morning United States Senator Pat Roberts stopped by the Mike Pompeo campaign headquarters in east Wichita to endorse Pompeo in his campaign for United States Congress from the fourth district of Kansas.

In his endorsement, Roberts said that Pompeo knows the airplane manufacturing business and how to meet a payroll. Roberts said that the general aviation industry is in a fight almost every session of Congress, and that Pompeo’s knowledge of this industry will be a plus in Washington.

Roberts described Pompeo’s leading opponent — Democrat Raj Goyle — as having a “very liberal background.” Roberts described how some of his colleagues in the Senate on the other side of the aisle — meaning they are Democrats — would make conservative speeches in their home states, but vote the Democratic party line in Washington. He told the audience “We cannot afford to send anybody, no matter what they say in this campaign, to Washington when the first vote they will cast will be for Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.”

Roberts also said that Pompeo’s military background and experience means he understands the value of national security, which Roberts said is the first obligation of the federal government. He added that Pompeo would be a good match for the armed services committee.

Roberts characterized this election as a “crossroads,” although he recognized this word is overused. Bureaucratic agencies in Washington are planning to further the Obama agenda without Congress, creating what he called a “fourth branch of government.”

Their ultimate goal is to implement cap-and-trade energy regulation and taxation without the consent of Congress, Roberts told the audience. “Either we’re going to make decisions with the consent of the governed and send a message to Congress, or they’re going to make the decisions for us, and we’re going to have to live with it.”

In his remarks, Pompeo said this is a unique election, as “we stand as a nation in a place we have not been in my lifetime,” citing the recent large federal deficit spending. This, he said, was his primary reason for deciding to run for Congress. He said that Goyle, his opponent, thinks about the world “in a way that’s very different from most Kansans” and has an East Coast philosophy and experiences that represent the Obama/Pelosi agenda. That agenda is not right for Kansas, he added.

I asked about the upcoming lame duck session of Congress — the period after the November election and before newly-elected members take office: If there is a big win by Republicans, is there a danger that many just-defeated members will be voting on potentially important legislation?

Roberts answered that there should not be a lame duck session. Specific areas of concern during the session include card check, immigration, raising taxes in a recession, and other things that would further the Obama agenda.

He said that there are 125,000 more federal employees now than when Obama assumed office, and that their average salary is $125,000. These people are the fourth branch of government, he said, and they’re trying to get the Obama agenda passed despite — or around — Congress.

A lame duck session with partisan political goals is not in the best interest of America, and there is a danger of that, he said.

Besides Pompeo and Goyle other candidates in this race are Reform party candidate Susan Ducey and Libertarian David Moffett.

Additional coverage is available at the Wichita Eagle and at State of the State KS, which includes video.

{ 2 comments }

Last week near Emporia Sam Brownback, surrounded by Kansas educators and legislators, laid out the start of his plan for improving Kansas education if he is elected governor.

His opponents in the race for Kansas Governor are Reform Party candidate Ken Cannon, Libertarian Andrew Gray, and Democrat Tom Holland. Mark Parkinson, the incumbent, decided not to run.

In his remarks, Brownback said that education is “primary function of the state.” While Kansas has excellent schools, he said that more innovation is needed.

In the area of teachers, Brownback wants more mentoring opportunities available to young teachers. He supports a master teacher plan that offers higher salaries to teachers who “provide models of excellence within their schools.” He also called for alternative teacher certification programs that allow those who did not follow the traditional teacher education and certification path to become teachers.

On funding, Brownback said that Kansas school funding formula needs revision. He called for an end to school finance litigation, saying that school finance is the responsibility of the legislature, local school boards, and voters, but not the courts. A focus of a new funding formula will be on getting dollars into the classroom, he added.

One of the five key benchmarks in Brownback’s administration will be fourth grade reading achievement. He cited National Assessment of Educational Progress scores that indicate 28 percent of fourth-graders fail to achieve a “basic” score. “If you can’t read, your world starts closing in around you. But if you can read your world starts opening up,” he said. Fourth grade is a key time to measure reading, he added.

He also called for a refocused emphasis on career and technical education, citing a wind turbine program at Cloud County Community College. With innovative programs like this, he said it is unacceptable that any child would drop out of school.

Brownback said that it is crucial that we find ways to support our higher education system. He said he would highlight and support the work of community and technical colleges, stabilize funding for public universities, support the national cancer institute designation at KU, building the national bio and agri-defense facility at KSU, the Kansas Polymer Research Center at Pittsburg State University, and the National Center for Aviation Research at Wichita State University.

In response to a question, Brownback said he is not looking to redefine the state’s responsibility for funding education as mandated by the Kansas Constitution. He said he wants to get more money into the classroom. The disputes we’ve had should not be resolved by the courts, he added. The percentage has not been as high as he thinks it could be.

He added that if local taxpayers vote to spend more on local schools, he would support that and allow them to do that. Currently the local option budget formula places a limit on how much local districts can add to what the state allocates.

Continuing, Brownback said the problem with school funding is the Kansas formula. The money is not getting in the classroom, as there are too many “nooks and crannies” in the formula. He would focus on renovating the formula, he added.

Another question mentioned two reforms that some states are using and the Obama administration supports — charter schools and teacher merit pay — and noted that these reforms are absent from the plan presented today. Brownback replied that the master teacher program is a form of increased pay for highly qualified and gifted teachers. On charter schools, Brownback said that additional proposals may be rolled out, and that he didn’t want to lay out everything in one day.

The complete press release announcing the plan may be read at the Brownback campaign website.

Commentary

If we wonder why conservatives are not fully gung-ho for Sam Brownback, the education plan provides a few reasons why. The two missing reforms asked about (the questioner was me) — charter schools and teacher merit pay — are popular with conservatives, but vigorously opposed by the existing Kansas education establishment, especially the teachers union.

The master teacher pay plan proposed by Brownback is a long away from merit pay. Under a master teacher plan, it seems like a relatively small number of teachers would be rewarded. Merit pay usually means that all teachers are paid according to their effectiveness, as is the case with most workers, especially professionals.

I didn’t get a chance to ask another question about another reform battle that is being waged: teacher tenure reform. But it seems like the relatively meek reforms proposed by Brownback indicate a candidate who would not be willing to take on the teachers unions over the issue of tenure.

Brownback’s reliance on the NAEP scores as a measure of student achievement is refreshing, as the Kansas school establishment would like to ignore this test. The NAEP is a more rigorous test than the Kansas-administered tests. According to figures at the Kansas State Department of Education, in 2009 87.2 percent of Kansas fourth graders were reading at a level the department considers “at or above standard.” This number has been increasing at the same time the NAEP score are mostly flat. Brownback didn’t talk about this discrepancy, but if he is willing to advocate for an honest measurement of Kansas schoolchildren, that would be a big step.

Brownback’s advocacy for allowing local school districts to vote for more school spending is sure to be vigorously opposed unless the money is “equalized.” In the Kansas House this year, there was a proposal to let counties charge an additional sales tax to be given to the school districts in the county. A Johnson County — a large, wealthy county — legislator proposed the measure, which was vigorously opposed by counties without Johnson county’s wealth. If some of the money raised by a Johnson county sales tax was shipped to poorer counties through the equalization formula, the opposition would disappear, almost certainly.

An interesting commentary on the coverage of Brownback and Holland and their education proposals is at the Kansas Republican Assembly blog: Analyze this: Opinion masquerading as news.

More about Brownbacks plan from the Kansas Education: Public Policy in Kansas and Beyond blog is at Sen. Brownback offers weak tea of reforms.

{ 2 comments }

While Kansas ranks in the middle of the states in total tax burden, the state’s take is getting larger, compared to other states.

This finding is important as Kansas and its largest city are increasingly using favorable tax treatment to centrally plan and manage economic development. When the state allows a company’s employee withholding taxes to be used for its own exclusive benefit — as outgoing Governor Mark Parkinson recently granted to Wichita’s Bombardier Learjet — it increases the cost of government for everyone else.

The Kansas PEAK bill that the legislature passed this year allows this practice to be extended to more and smaller companies.

In cities like Wichita, the city council routinely grants tax abatements and other favorable tax treatment to companies that it believes are deserving.

The result of all this intervention is that the tax base is narrowed, and the high cost of government is born by a smaller group of taxpayers.

To top it off, the result of this centralized planning and management of economic development is: pretty much zero.

In 2008 the Kansas Legislative Division of Post Audit looked at the use of economic development incentives in Kansas, examining some $1.3 billion in spending over five years. In examining the literature, the auditors found: “Most studies of traditional economic development incentives suggest these incentives don’t have a significant impact on economic growth.”

It also found: “The majority of research concludes there is a lack of demonstrated impact from the typical types of economic development assistance, and that incentives aren’t cost-effective.” The audit can be read at Economic Development: Determining the Amounts the State Has Spent on Economic Development Programs and the Economic Impacts on Kansas Counties. The document has an executive summary.

The concentrating of the cost of government on a shrinking tax base spells trouble. One solution that I proposed to the Wichita city council is that when tax incentives are given, the city reduce its spending by the cost of the incentive: “The harmful effect of this tax abatement is this: When someone escapes paying taxes, someone else has to make up the difference. … As long as this body is willing to grant tax abatements and other special tax favors, I propose this simple pledge: that when the City of Wichita allows a company to escape paying taxes, that it reduce city spending by the same amount. By following this simple rule, the City can be reminded of the cost of granting special tax favors, and the rest of us won’t have to pay for them.”

Kansas tax burdens getting heavier, studies show

By Gene Meyer, Kansas Reporter

(KansasReporter) TOPEKA, Kan. – Kansans’ state and local sales taxes are now 12th highest in the nation, though their total tax burden is nearer the middle of the pack in 24th place, say two new reports released Thursday.

But, as investment companies always remind us when pitching their new products, your actual results may vary.

“Even within a state, it can be difficult to know what the average tax rate is when there can be hundreds of different jurisdictions charging different rates,” said Kail Padgitt, an economist at the Washington, D.C. based Tax Foundation, which calculates Kansas’ 7.95 percent average state and local sales taxes are 12th highest in the nation.

Within that average, though, actual local rates in some 790 different county, local and special tax districts across Kansas vary from 6.3 percent where only the basic state rate is charged to more than 10.5 percent in a few special taxing districts.

The ranking, one of the first nationally to include Kansas’ recently raised 6.3 percent statewide sales tax that became effective July 1, puts the 12th ranked Sunflower state higher than its neighbors in 15th ranked Missouri, 25th ranked Colorado and 29th ranked Nebraska. Only Oklahoma, where an average 8.33 percent sales tax burden clocks in at seventh highest in the nation, comes in higher.

Continue reading at Kansas Reporter

{ 0 comments }

Tomorrow the Wichita City Council will consider accepting petitions for the formation of another Community Improvement District. In this case the applicant is the Broadview Hotel in downtown Wichita.

This hotel is already the recipient of potentially $4.75 million in Kansas historic preservation tax credits. Despite the name of the program, the tax credits are in effect a grant of money to the developers.

Now the hotel seeks permission to charge extra sales tax for its own benefit.

The action the council may take tomorrow is on the consent agenda, as noticed by the Wichita Eagle’s Brent Wistrom. The consent agenda is usually reserved for non-controversial items. It’s likely that many more CIDs will be proposed, so many that accepting petitions requesting their formation is now considered a routine item of business.

Each CID, however, must have a public hearing. But already council members have indicated they are ready to approve all CIDs, and council members are not receptive to opposition, if a televised overheard whispered remark by one council member is any indication.

Separately a proposed downtown Wichita grocery store gets government assistance. Announced by the Kansas Department of Commerce, the Exchange Market & Deli in downtown Wichita can receive $2.5 million in government stimulus financing. The bonds are exempt from federal income taxes, and the federal government pays 45 percent of the interest. It’s part of President Obama’s stimulus program.

The project this grocery store is attached to — Exchange Place — is the beneficiary of over $10 million in Wichita tax increment financing. That is, if the developers, Real Development, can close on their financing of a nearby project. That financing has been delayed several times.

Each of these projects is another example of increasing government intervention in the future of downtown Wichita. Each represents a loss of economic freedom to Wichitans, as the city council uses taxes to override the decisions that thousands of Wichitans have made as to where to live and locate their business. Some of the city council members that consistently vote for these interventions describe themselves as conservative.

{ 6 comments }

Wasteful government spending must stop

by Bob Weeks on August 22, 2010

in Free markets

As part of its campaign against wasteful government spending, Americans for Prosperity Foundation has started a television advertising campaign and companion website to help Americans learn more about the harmful effects of the stimulus plan promoted by President Barack Obama, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

In just a handful of years, AFPF has grown to become “America’s leading conservative grassroots organization,” according to a recent article penned by Richard Viguerie. The recent attacks on AFPF by President Obama are evidence of this.

According to AFPF President Tim Phillips, “This first ad called ‘Hollywood’ details how the failed $862 billion Obama/Pelosi/Reid ‘Stimulus’ bill was wasted on pet political projects, how it cost every American family an average of $10,000 and how it in reality killed genuine private sector jobs.”

The companion website at SpendingCrisis.org has useful information that citizens can tap to learn more about the stimulus spending, as well as government spending in general. The site carries the headline “Washington, we’ve got a problem.”

In particular, an issues page gives some reasons as to why high government spending is bad for America.

As an example, under the heading “Government Spending is Inherently Wasteful,” we find “It’s regarded as a virtual truism that no one spends someone else’s money as well as they spend their own. The only people who seem to disagree are politicians.”

Other facts highlighted include:

  • This year, the federal government will borrow about $12,500 per household to pay for its spending.

  • Despite claiming that the $862 billion stimulus package would keep unemployment below 8 percent, it is hovering around 9.5 percent with few signs of improving.
  • Public employees earned more than $120,000 per year in salary and benefits on average, compared to about $60,000 in the private sector.
  • From anti-poverty spending programs to defense and education, the federal government now spends a record $30,543 per household.

{ 0 comments }

Wichita economic forecast to be presented

August 21, 2010

This Friday (August 27) the Wichita Pachyderm Club will feature a presentation titled “Economic Forecast for the Wichita Area.” The presenter will be Debra Franklin, Regional Labor Force Analyst at the Center for Economic Development and Business Research at Wichita State University.

Read the full article →

How does Kansas rank in economic freedom?

August 19, 2010

In measures of economic and personal freedom, Kansas ranks relatively well among the states, but lags behind some neighboring states. Recent actions by the Kansas legislature might drive its ranking down.

Read the full article →

Goyle’s social security protection pledge is a tax increase pledge

August 19, 2010

Raj Goyle, candidate for Congress, has pledged to protect social security. He didn’t mention the tax increase that will be required to fulfill this pledge.

Read the full article →

Federalism strikes back

August 19, 2010

Writing in the Washington Times, Kansas’ own Greg Schneider, a professor of history at Emporia State university and Kansas Policy Institute senior fellow, explains that respect for the tenth amendment and state sovereignty is good for the country. He also calls for a reaffirmation of federalism.

Read the full article →

Kansas primary election recap to be Pachyderm topic

August 18, 2010

At this week’s meeting of the Wichita Pachyderm Club, the presentation will be “Reflections on the Primary Election.” This will be a panel discussion with panelists Ken Ciboski, WSU Political Science Professor; Phillip Journey, District Court Judge; and Terry Bruce, Kansas Senator from Hutchinson.

Read the full article →

Wichita Eagle quality control could use improvement

August 18, 2010

When presented with evidence of errors in its stories, the Wichita Eagle, Kansas’ largest newspaper, is not being responsive in correcting its errors.

Read the full article →

Star Parker campaigns in Wichita

August 18, 2010

In a campaign stop yesterday in Wichita noted conservative figure Star Parker told an audience that she works for market-based solutions to fight poverty, and that the answer to poverty is freedom and personal responsibility, not a welfare state.

Read the full article →

Stimulus Pushers

August 16, 2010

If we needed more evidence of President Barack_Obama‘s inclination to shower public treasure on public sector unions, here it is. The Wall Street Journal details some of the ways that last week’s mini-stimulus bill is a gift to public sector unions at the cost of everyone else.

Read the full article →

For Raj Goyle, most money comes from outside Kansas

August 16, 2010

In the race for United States Congress from the fourth district of Kansas between Democrat Raj Goyle and Republican Mike Pompeo, there’s a distinct different in the nature and source of campaign contributions for the two candidates. So far, 70 percent of Goyle’s campaign contributions have come from donors outside Kansas, with Washington DC being the metropolitan area with the highest source of contributions.

Read the full article →

Anderson, former Congressional candidate, to host Wichita radio show

August 16, 2010

Today former candidate for United States Congress from the fourth district of Kansas Jim Anderson announces that he will host a weekly talk radio program in Wichita.

Read the full article →

Internet regulation, or net neutrality, would harm investment, says former official

August 13, 2010

At a luncheon event in Wichita, Bruce Mehlman of the Internet Innovation Alliance told an audience that increased regulation of the internet — the principle known as “net neutrality” — would harm capital investment in broadband internet service.

Read the full article →

Again, citizens are uninformed on school spending

August 13, 2010

As has been shown in the past in Kansas and across the country, citizens are grossly uninformed about the amount of money public schools spend.

Read the full article →

Kansas fourth Congressional district poll released

August 12, 2010

The first public poll covering the race for United States Congress from the Kansas fourth district shows a close race between the two leading contenders, with Republican Mike Pompeo edging Democrat Raj Goyle by 49 percent to 42 percent.

Read the full article →

Wichita Community Improvement District approvals signal increased interventionism

August 11, 2010

Yesterday’s action by the Wichita City Council in approving two Community Improvement Districts signals a new era in increased intervention in free markets by Wichita politicians and bureaucrats.

Read the full article →

School bailout about unions, not kids

August 11, 2010

The U.S. Congress is rushing to approve a spending bill to retain teacher jobs that are not in actual jeopardy, according to the Center for Education Reform.

Read the full article →

Kansas first Congressional district poll released

August 11, 2010

Although the primary is barely over and the general election is nearly three months away, a poll covering the race for United States Congress from the Kansas first district has already been released.

Read the full article →

President Obama job approval

August 10, 2010

As President Barack Obama develops a track record, and as people become familiar with his policies and their results, they realize don’t like this man and his policies.

Read the full article →

Private enterprise does it better

August 10, 2010

While some believe that government is the best provider of services, John Stossel, in the following article, shows us that this is not always the case. In fact, it is rare that government is able to do a better job at lower cost than the private sector.

Read the full article →

Kansas Senate could see shift

August 9, 2010

The recent primary election in Kansas, combined with the results of the November general election, could alter the composition of the Kansas Senate, even no members are standing for election.

Read the full article →

Kansas judicial selection needs reform, says law professor

August 9, 2010

Selecting lawmakers is important, says Kansas University Law Professor Stephen J. Ware, and that’s why Kansans should care about the method of judicial selection in Kansas.

Read the full article →

Activist training to be held in Wichita

August 8, 2010

Our nation was founded by ordinary citizen activists desiring a government that was accountable to the people. Today, ordinary citizens across our nation are tired of the status quo and ready to engage for the betterment of their communities.

American Majority is pleased to announce an Activist Training will be conducted on Saturday, August 21 in Wichita, KS, to provide citizens with the tools necessary to become effective activists.

Read the full article →

Investment strategies to be discussed in Wichita

August 8, 2010

This Friday (August 13) the Wichita Pachyderm Club features a program titled “Could any investment strategy be successful in today’s economic climate?” The presenter will be Dr. Malcolm Harris, who is Professor of Finance at Friends University. His blog is Mammon Among Friends.

Read the full article →

Kansas primary legislative elections 2010

August 6, 2010

Here’s a look at the August 3, 2010 Kansas primary election contests that had the possibility of changing the character of the Kansas House of Representatives, and in one case, the Kansas Senate.

Read the full article →

Kansas county spending benchmarks

August 5, 2010

In Kansas, revenue flowing to the state has declined. How can our state cope with a loss in revenue?

Read the full article →

Wichita event: The future of innovation and investment in broadband

August 5, 2010

The FCC has proposed reclassifying the Internet as a public utility to get total regulatory control. How can you help stop the FCC Internet takeover?

Read the full article →

Avoiding bad decisions in good times

August 5, 2010

An associate of mine once said, “Some of the worst decisions are made in the best of times.” His observation pertained to negotiating agreements with labor unions but I was reminded of it by a news report saying local governments may eliminate 500,000 jobs across the country if Congress doesn’t pony up more federal tax dollars. The story was based on a survey released by the National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties and United States Conference of Mayors.

Read the full article →