Kansas legislature

Taxes and state income growth

by Bob Weeks on May 23, 2013

If Kansas wants to experience growth in income, it’s important that the legislature finish the session without raising taxes. The paper The Robust Relationship between Taxes and U.S. State Income Growth by W. Robert Reed, published in National Tax Journal, establishes a link between high taxes and negative effects on income growth. The abstract of the research report explains:

I estimate the relationship between taxes and income growth using data from 1970 to 1999 and the forty-eight continental U.S. states. I find that taxes used to fund general expenditures are associated with significant, negative effects on income growth. This finding is generally robust across alternative variable specifications, alternative estimation procedures, alternative ways of dividing the data into “five-year” periods, and across different time periods and Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) regions, though state-specific estimates vary widely. I also provide an explanation for why previous research has had difficulty identifying this “robust” relationship.

As Kansas must produce a balanced budget each year, reducing taxes means reducing spending. Therefore, Kansas needs to get serious about reducing government spending. Some ideas may be found in the article In Kansas, there are ways to reduce the cost of government.

(Although the state must balance its budget each year, Kansas has managed to accumulate over $16 billion in debt, about $5,591 for each person. See Kansas Total Indebtedness Exceeds $16 Billion.)

The full article is on taxation and income growth is The Robust Relationship between Taxes and U.S. State Income Growth.

Tagged as: Kansas legislature, Kansas state government, Taxation

{ 0 comments }

What Kansas should do

by Bob Weeks on May 20, 2013

As the Kansas Legislature struggles to end its 2013 session, budgetary and taxation issues remain to be resolved. It’s important that the legislature resolve these issues in a way that positions Kansas for economic growth, rather than retaining the policies that have led to stagnation compared to other states.

Here’s what the Kansas Legislature needs to do:

Keep the current sales tax rate.
Eliminate sales tax on food.
Reduce individual income and corporate income tax rates.
Get serious about reducing spending.

The legislature should reduce Kansas income tax rates by an amount that would be revenue-neutral, so that state spending does not grow. This moves Kansas towards more of a “Fair Tax” model, which many economists agree is better than taxing income. Elimination of the sales tax on food removes much of the regressive nature of the sales tax.

To the extent that the legislature believes it needs other funds, take it from transportation funding. We’ve spent a lot on roads and highways in recent years. It’s enough for now.

Another important thing the legislature needs to do is get serious about reducing government spending. Kansas lost an important chance to save money — although a relatively small amount — when school choice programs failed to pass. These programs, across the country, save state and local governments money. Unfortunately, Kansas legislative leaders did not use this argument.

How to save

In 2011 the Kansas Legislature lost three opportunities to save money and improve the operations of state government. Three bills, each with this goal, were passed by the House of Representatives, but each failed to pass through the moderate-controlled Senate, or had its contents stripped and replaced with different legislation.

Each of these bills represented a lost opportunity for state government services to be streamlined, delivered more efficiently, or measured and managed. These goals, while always important, are now essential for the success of Kansas government and the state’s economy.

One bill was called the Kansas Streamlining Government Act, another would have created the Kansas Advisory Council on Privatization and Public-Private Partnerships, and another would have created performance measures for state agencies and report that information to the public. More information on these bills is at Kansas budget solution overlooked.

We have to wonder why these bills — or similar measures — were not introduced and advanced this year when the opposition in the Senate is weaker. These are the types of measures we need to take as a state.

Tagged as: Economic development, Government spending, Kansas legislature, Kansas state government, Privatization, School choice, Taxation

{ 0 comments }

Kansas freedom scorecard released

by Bob Weeks on May 20, 2013

To help Kansans understand how legislators vote, Kansas Policy Institute has produced the Kansas Freedom Index for 2013.

Legislative scorecards like this are important as they let citizens know how legislators have actually voted, which is sometimes different from their campaign rhetoric, and even different from their current proclamations. Generally, scorecards include a large sampling of votes, so that no single issue paints a member into a corner.

James Franko of Kansas Policy Institute joins Bob Weeks on the Joseph Ashby Show to discuss the Kansas Freedom Index. Then, Bob runs down the scores for Wichita-area legislators.

The Kansas Freedom Index, as produced by KPI this year, is important and significant because it focuses on issues of economic freedom along with education freedom, which was added this year. So far, 45 bills have been included in the scorecard, and as the legislature is still in session and has at least two important bills to pass, there may be additions to the scorecard.

This year’s index is a continuation of the construction of indexes for past years, many of which may be found at Kansas Economic Freedom Index.

In a press release KPI president Dave Trabert said “An informed citizenry is an essential element of maintaining a free society. Having a deeper understanding of how legislation impacts education freedom, economic freedom and the constitutional principles of individual liberty and limited government allows citizens to better understand the known and often unknown consequences of legislative issues.”

He added, “Our 2012 index made clear that support of economic freedom isn’t an issue of political affiliation — the highest and lowest score in the Senate were both held by Republicans. The 2013 results bear out the same as a wide range of scores exists within both parties. Too often votes come down to parochial or personal issues and the idea of freedom is left on the legislature’s cutting room floor. Hopefully, the Kansas Freedom Index can start to recalibrate citizens and legislators towards supporting the freedoms of everyday Kansans and not be driven by politics.”

The importance of economic freedom

Milton Friedman: Capitalism and Freedom

Why is economic freedom important? Here’s what Milton Friedman had to say in the opening chapter of his monumental work Capitalism and Freedom some 50 years ago:

The Relation between Economic Freedom and Political Freedom

It is widely believed that politics and economics are separate and largely unconnected; that individual freedom is a political problem and material welfare an economic problem; and that any kind of political arrangements can be combined with any kind of economic arrangements. The chief contemporary manifestation of this idea is the advocacy of “democratic socialism” by many who condemn out of hand the restrictions on individual freedom imposed by “totalitarian socialism” in Russia, and who are persuaded that it is possible for a country to adopt the essential features of Russian economic arrangements and yet to ensure individual freedom through political arrangements. The thesis of this chapter is that such a view is a delusion, that there is an intimate connection between economics and politics, that only certain arrangements are possible and that, in particular, a society which is socialist cannot also be democratic, in the sense of guaranteeing individual freedom.

Economic arrangements play a dual role in the promotion of a free society. On the one hand, freedom in economic arrangements is itself a component of freedom broadly understood, so economic freedom is an end in itself. In the second place, economic freedom is also an indispensable means toward the achievement of political freedom.

For more about Friedman and his thoughts on economic freedom, see Milton Friedman, the Father of Economic Freedom.

Economic freedom is the most important factor in determining the well-being of people across the world. Where economic freedom exists, countries become wealthy. In introducing the Economic Freedom of the World report, its authors write: “Economic freedom has been shown in numerous peer-reviewed studies to promote prosperity and other positive outcomes. It is a necessary condition for democratic development. It liberates people from dependence on government in a planned economy, and allows them to make their own economic and political choices.”

One of the authors of the Economic Freedom of the World report, Robert Lawson, expands on the importance of economic freedom: “The big question is: Do countries that exhibit greater degrees of economic freedom perform better than those that do not? Much scholarly research has been and continues to be done to see if the index [of economic freedom] correlates with various measures of the good society: higher incomes, economic growth, income equality, gender equality, life expectancy, and so on. While there is scholarly debate about the exact nature of these relationships, the results are uniform: measures of economic freedom relate positively with these factors.”

Tagged as: Capitalism, Economic freedom, Economics, Free markets, Joseph Ashby Show, Kansas Economic Freedom Index, Kansas legislature, Kansas Policy Institute, Kansas state government, Politics

{ 0 comments }

Kansas needs to focus on growth when wrapping up session

by Bob Weeks on May 8, 2013

As the Kansas Legislature prepares to end its 2013 session, budgetary and taxation issues remain to be resolved. It’s important that the legislature resolve these issues in a way that positions Kansas for economic growth, rather than retaining the policies that have led to stagnation compared to other states.

First, let’s stop talking about the need to “pay for tax cuts.” The only way in which tax cuts have a cost is if you believe that your income belongs first to government, and then to you. While that schema is preferred by Kansas Progressives, it’s contrary to freedom and destructive to jobs and prosperity. Kansas will be better off if Kansans are able to control more of their own spending, rather than having government spend it for them.

Second, we must remember that the projected “holes in the budget” or deficits have two moving parts: Income and spending. Any deficit or surplus is produced equally by both factors. A reduction in income to the government produces a deficit only if government chooses to keep spending.

Third, let’s stop talking about “irresponsible tax cuts” and how cutting taxes is an “experiment.” To proceed as Kansas has — that would be irresponsible, as we know that Kansas has been underperforming relative to other states. No experimentation is needed. We know that Kansas has not done well.

Fourth, we need to make sure that everyone is starting from the same set of facts. Here’s one example: While critics of the new Kansas tax policy focus on the elimination of state income taxes on certain forms of business organization, marginal tax rates were lowered for everyone. Additionally, the standard deduction was increased for everyone, meaning that zero tax is paid on a larger share of everyone’s income.

But one tax was raised. Kansas had a program that rebated sales tax paid on food. This was limited to those with modest incomes or over a certain age. It is generally recognized that the sales tax is a regressive tax, meaning that those with low incomes pay a larger share of their income in tax. Reducing this perceived inequity was the goal of the credit program.

In recognition of this, Kansas should eliminate the sales tax on food, especially if we keep the current high sales tax rate. This eliminates the clunky tax credit program and lets everyone save on food taxes every day, not just at tax filing time.

Critics also say that taxes were raised on some low income families. This argument is based on some tax credit programs that were eliminated, such as the tax credit for child and dependent care expenses, and another tax credit for child day care expenses. It’s important to remember that these programs were implemented as a tax credits, and they are properly categorized as welfare spending accomplished through the tax system. If we want to keep this welfare spending, let’s do it some other way. Spending through the tax system complicates the understanding of government finances.

What Kansas should do

Here’s what the Kansas Legislature needs to do: Keep the current sales tax rate, eliminate sales tax on food, and reduce individual income and corporate income tax rates. Reduce the income tax rates by an amount that would be revenue-neutral, so that state spending does not grow. This moves us towards more of a “Fair Tax” model, which many economists agree is better than taxing income. Elimination of the sales tax on food removes much of the regressivity of the sales tax.

To the extent that the legislature believes it needs other funds, take it from transportation funding. We’ve spent a lot on roads and highways in recent years. It’s enough for now.

More ways to save: In 2011 the Kansas Legislature lost three opportunities to save money and improve the operations of state government. Three bills, each with this goal, were passed by the House of Representatives, but each failed to pass through the moderate-controlled Senate, or had its contents stripped and replaced with different legislation.

Tagged as: Economic development, Government spending, Kansas legislature, Kansas state government, Privatization, Progressives, School choice, Taxation

{ 1 comment }

Sales tax increase isn’t necessary

by Guest Author on May 8, 2013

By Dave Trabert, Kansas Policy Institute.

What a difference a year makes. Last May, Governor Brownback signed historic tax reform legislation that would reduce state income taxes by roughly $800 million in its first full year. As the legislature returns this week, the debate is about how much of the last year’s tax reform will be wiped out. Instead of reducing the cost of government to implement tax reform this year, Governor Brownback and the Senate want to make the 6.3 percent sales tax permanent and eliminate the income tax deduction for home mortgage interest; they also propose 0.5 percent reduction in the income tax on the first $15,000 of taxable income in 2014 and a reduction in all marginal rates beginning in 2017 (after a billion dollar increase in sales taxes) with revenue growth above 4 percent being used to reduce rates thereafter and eventually eliminate income taxes.

The House plan isn’t perfect but it’s better. It allows the sales tax rate to drop to 5.7 percent as promised, proportionally reduces income tax deductions, has more spending reductions and a formula that gradually eliminates the income tax altogether, using annual revenue growth above 2 percent to buy down rates.

The goal of tax reform is to reduce the overall tax burden, not shift it. Consumption taxes are better than income taxes, but taxes will still be too high (and economic growth impaired) until we deal with the real problem of excess spending. But even some self-identified fiscal conservatives don’t want to reduce spending.

Part of their resistance is that many people equate spending less with service cuts, but that doesn’t have to be the case. Per-resident spending varies greatly across all fifty states. Yet, every state has schools, highways, social programs, etc.; some simply do so more efficiently. States with an income tax spend 44 percent more per-resident than those without an income tax. States that spend less, tax less (and grow more). Done well, states can spend less and actually deliver the same or better services.

In fact, Kansas would have spent $2.9 billion less last year if spending were at the same level as the average state without an income tax.

Our “Legislator’s Guide to Delivering Better Service at a Better Price” shows legislators how to use existing cash reserves to ‘buy time’ and implement thoughtful efficiency measures to reduce costs over time. It can be done and it can be done now.

The problem with implementing income tax reductions is one of politics, not economics. As Thomas Sowell says, “The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics.”

Here’s hoping legislators make taxpayer-focused decisions based on sound economics when they return to Topeka this week.

A version of this appeared in the Wichita Eagle.

photo credit: 401(K) 2013 via photopin cc

Tagged as: Economics, Kansas legislature, Kansas Policy Institute, Kansas state government, Sam Brownback, Taxation

{ 1 comment }

Kansas must reform KPERS

by Bob Weeks on May 6, 2013

New research from Kansas Policy Institute reinforces what some have known but many have discounted: The Kansas Public Employee Retirement System is in poor financial shape, and it’s going to cost Kansans a lot to fix it. It is urgent that we enact substantive and meaningful reforms now, rather than later. KPI writes the following in introducing its new study Preventing Bankruptcy in the Kansas Public Employees Retirement System.

It turns out that the $9.2 billion hole found in Kansas’ public pension program will balloon under new accounting standards used by governments across the country.

Under the current standards, Kansas’ pension system (KPERS) is funded at 59.2%, 80% is a generally accepted barometer of pension health. These numbers demonstrate that Kansas has one of the worst funded pension systems in the country.

Unfortunately, the new standards will only make things worse as our funding ratio will drop to 46.1 percent under the new standards.

Each person in Kansas will have to pay $3,285 to fill our KPERS hole under the old standards and things will only get worse.

The executive summary of the study follows.

Recent evidence reveals that the Kansas Public Employees Retirement System (KPERS) is one of the most underfunded pension plans in the country (59 percent funding ratio at the end of 2011) and that there is a high probability the plan will not have sufficient funds to meet pension obligations over the next decade. This funding ratio will deteriorate further under the new accounting standards discussed below. The solution to this funding crises is to bring pension benefits into line with the costs of pension plans for individual employees. A number of states have successfully enacted structural reforms in their state pension plans to accomplish this objective, including defined contribution and hybrid plans.

Unfortunately the recent reforms enacted in KPERS creating a cash balance plan for new employees fails to accomplish that objective. This study provides a roadmap for pension reform in Kansas, the major conclusions of the study are:

1. Use the New GASB Accounting Standard

The new GASB standards to be implemented in 2013 and 2014 will require realistic actuarial assumptions and reporting. It is time for Kansas and other states too incorporate this more realistic data in transparent and timely reporting and to use this data in policy formulation.

2. Enact Structural Reforms

Using more realistic actuarial assumptions, via new GASB standards, most states, including Kansas, will find that they face a funding crises in their state and local pension plans. Kansas legislators must follow the lead of state and local governments that have successfully replaced these defined benefit pension plans with defined contribution or hybrid plans.

3. Bring Public Sector Pension Benefits In Line with Private Pension Benefits

Public sector workers receive wages and salaries equal to or greater than comparable employees in the private sector. The pension and other post employment benefits received by public sector workers are significantly above that received by private sector workers. The outcome of recent pension reforms is to bring convergence of pension benefits in the public and private sector.

4. Legal Challenges to Public Sector Pension Reform

Structural reforms enacted to solve the funding crises in state and local pension plans have been and will continue to be subject to legal challenges, and Kansas is well positioned to meet these legal challenges.

5. Bankruptcy, Not Bailouts

In Kansas there will be tremendous pressure to bailout failed state and local pension systems to avoid bankruptcy. Bailouts of pension plans create all the wrong incentives. If state and local governments cannot manage their pension plans and other financial affairs bankruptcy forces them to address these issues.

6. Launch an Education Campaign

Successful pension reform in other states such as Utah and Rhode Island has required a bi-partisan effort in the legislature and support from all the stakeholders. Generating this support for pension reform in Kansas will require an education campaign. Kansas citizens must understand that the current defined benefit pension plan is not sustainable. Solving the funding crisis in KPERS will require burden sharing by all the stakeholders, including current employees, retirees and new employees.

The full study is at Preventing Bankruptcy in the Kansas Public Employees Retirement System.

Tagged as: Bailouts, Kansas legislature, Kansas Policy Institute, Kansas state government

{ 2 comments }

Kansas editorial writers aren’t helping

by Bob Weeks on April 11, 2013

Recently it has become fashionable for newspapers to carry editorials bemoaning the current state of affairs in Kansas, contrasting the current regime to a tradition of moderation in Kansas governance. In particular, Governor Sam Brownback is singled out for criticism.

Examples of such columns are Kansas 1861-2013 in the Hutchinson News, Kansas slipping away from its people in the Topeka Capital-Journal, and Which Kansas is that? in the Wichita Eagle.

The common thread in these articles is willing ignorance of the facts. I say willing ignorance because these writers ought to know facts. If they don’t know facts about the Kansas economy and schools, we have to wonder why they are writing editorials that will be read by thousands of Kansans?

Here’s a brief rundown of the state of Kansas:

Kansas population has been growing at a slower rate than the country. A chart is here.

Kansas has been growing jobs at a slower rate than many other states. Here’s a link to an interactive visualization of job growth in the states. You can compare Kansas to any other state or combination of states. Should we be satisfied with the performance of Kansas compared to other states over the past few decades? No, we shouldn’t be satisfied with our record during the period that these editorialists write about.

Kansas has been growing its private-sector gross domestic product at a rate slower than most states. An interactive visualization is here.

Kansas has lost ground in interstate migrants. Many more people leave Kansas for other states than move to Kansas, as can be seen here. In the 2012 United Van Lines migration study, Kansas is seen as “balanced.” But Atlas has more outbound shipments than inbound.

While Kansas newspaper editorial writers like to boast of outstanding public schools, a proper examination of NAEP scores finds that Kansas can’t do better than Texas, a state that we often compare with ourselves in a negative way. Comparing Kansas to national averages, Kansas performs well compared to other states in math and reading in grades four and eight, scoring better than the national average in all these cases. But if we look at the data separated by racial/ethnic subgroups, something different becomes apparent: Kansas lags behind the national average in some of these areas. A table of these figures is here.

Regarding Texas again: Editorial writers say that because Texas has no income tax, its property and sales taxes are higher. Perhaps. But overall, Texas collects less taxes from its citizens. In 2011 Kansas state government collected $2,378 in taxes for each person. Texas collected $1,682. Texas may have higher sales or property taxes than Kansas, but the total tax burden in Texas is lower.

Spending follows the same pattern. In 2011 Kansas state government spent $5,115 per person in total, with $1,974 in general fund spending and $130 in bond spending. For Texas the total was $3,718 spent per person in total, with $1,654 in general fund spending and $50 in bond spending. The lower level of spending means Texas has a less burdensome state government, which allows more money to remain in the productive private sector. In Kansas, we spend more on government.

The “sea of oil” and bountiful severance tax revenue that newspaper editorial writers say benefits Texas but not Kansas: In 2011 Kansas, which has a severance tax of its own, collected $42.54 in this form of tax for each person. Texas collected $104.29 per person in its severance tax. The difference between the two — $61.75 per person per year — is only a small portion of the difference between Kansas and Texas taxation.

I could go on. But the more facts one states, the more criticism one receives.

It’s not that what our governor is doing is perfect. It wasn’t the best course to single out certain forms of business organization to receive tax cuts. Everyone should have their taxes cut the same way.

Governor Brownback still meddles in the economy, supporting harmful policies like the renewable portfolio standard for electricity generation. The Hutchinson News editorial wrote of how “Kansas proved to be a state teeming with inventiveness, ingenuity, determination and a savvy sense of business” and mentioned iconic Kansas-founded companies like Cessna, Beech, Stearman, Coleman, Pizza Hut, and White Castle. But today our state is strangling entrepreneurs, expanding control over economic development under the Brownback regime. Kansas has expanded the realm of public-private partnerships to the detriment of entrepreneurship. Cities like Wichita implement new regulations over industries like parking lot striping, taxicab driving, and haunted house attractions.

Instead of moving to a modern pension system for state employees, we’re considering borrowing money to cover up the mistakes of the past, with no reform forthcoming and few lessons learned.

Most inexplicably, Governor Brownback was absent in this year’s debate over important school reform measures like charter schools and school choice. These are initiatives that are working in other states, but not in Kansas.

It isn’t supportive of our state (or county, city, or school district) to overlook facts in order to create a false impression of a prosperous state with successful schools. Yet that’s exactly what these newspaper editorials want us to do.

If we don’t learn the facts and if we don’t accept the facts, we don’t have a common base of understanding and a common starting point for debate. Even if the facts are uncomfortable — especially then — we must recognize where we’ve been and what is the actual condition of our state.

Hoping that Kansans won’t notice might be politically expedient. Both parties can be guilty of valuing political gain more than the health of Kansas. But it’s a severe loss to Kansas that these newspaper editorial writers will not recognize facts, and a shame that they prefer political attacks to reality.

Tagged as: Economic development, Entrepreneurship, Kansas Governor, Kansas legislature, Kansas news media, Kansas state government, Sam Brownback, School choice

{ 7 comments }

Bonding KPERS debt is not the solution

by Bob Weeks on April 1, 2013

Burden of debt, money

The Kansas House has passed, and now the Senate Ways and Means Committee will consider HB 2403, captioned “Issuing $1,500,000,000 of pension obligation bonds to finance a portion of the unfunded actuarial liability of KPERS.”

Borrowing money to shore up the Kansas state employee pension plan is about the worst idea that could come out of Topeka. Legislatures across the country, and counties and cities of all sizes, have shown that government is fundamentally unable to manage the responsibilities of a defined benefit pension plan.

For more about the problems with KPERS, see KPERS problems must be confronted. Newspapers are not helping Kansans grasp the gravity of the problem; see KPERS editorial a disservice to Kansans. Below is a helpful explanation written by Kansas Policy Institute Adjunct Fiscal Policy Fellow Barry Poulson, Ph.D.. He is also Emeritus Professor at the University of Colorado — Boulder.

Public officials in Kansas have proposed using pension obligation bonds to solve the funding crisis in the Kansas Public Employee Pension System (KPERS). In my view this is not a solution to the funding problem and I will discuss what I perceive to be flaws in this proposal.

The rationale for using pension obligation bonds to pay off unfunded liabilities in the pension plan assumes that the state can borrow funds at a low interest rate and then earn a higher rate of return on the proceeds deposited with the pension fund. The flaw in this rationale is the assumption that KPERS will earn a higher rate of return on bond proceeds deposited in the KPERS fund. KPERS assumes an 8 percent return on assets accumulated in the fund. For a number of years, economists and actuaries have questioned this assumed rate of return and the use of this assumed rate to discount liabilities in the plan. The Government Accounting Standards Board has issued new standards, 67 and 68, to be implemented over the next two years, requiring state and local governments to use a lower interest rate, the mortgage bond rate, to discount liabilities in their financial statements.

If we assume that a lower rate of interest, such as the municipal bond rate, is the interest rate relevant in discounting unfunded liabilities in the pension plan then it is not clear that issuing pension obligation bonds will generate returns above the interest cost on those bonds. If the returns fall below the interest cost on the bonds then this introduces an additional risk and could in fact exacerbate the funding problem in KPERS.

A major flaw in the proposed issuance of pension obligation bonds is the lack of nexus between the investment of the bond proceeds and payments for unfunded liabilities in the plan. The experience in other states is that sometimes bond proceeds are earmarked for other state expenditures. The most egregious example of this problem is the state of Illinois which issued $10 billion in pension obligation bonds and then used the proceeds to meet current expenditures rather than to pay off unfunded liabilities in the pension plan.

Even if the state of Kansas would not commit this form of fraud on the taxpayers the fungible nature of state funding makes it impossible to guarantee the nexus between bond proceeds and the payment for unfunded liabilities in the pension plan. If legislators see that additional funds are available to pay off unfunded liabilities in the pension plan they may choose to allocate less general fund money to meet these pension obligations. The state has not allocated the annual required contribution (ARC) to KPERS for several decades and is not projected to do so for the foreseeable future. Legislators continue to promise pension benefits without allocating the funds required to meet these obligations. We should expect this moral hazard to be even greater with the issuance of pension obligation bonds.

Even if the proceeds of pension obligation bonds could be set aside in a lock box and earmarked to pay off unfunded liabilities in the pension plan the state must still address the accumulation of unfunded liabilities in the defined benefit plan. Without fundamental structural change, including shifting public employees to some form of defined contribution pension plan, these unfunded liabilities will continue to accumulate. Legislators should not be diverted from this difficult task by non-reforms, such as the issuance of pension obligation bonds.

Shifting the cost of pension obligations from one generation of employees and taxpayers to the next generation is not a solution to the funding crisis in KPERS. The defined benefit plan offered by KPERS is not sustainable.

I analyze the sources of unfunded liabilities in the plan and explore alternative reforms to solve this problem in an upcoming paper with KPI.

Some of my other work for KPI on KPERS is here and a legal analysis of what can, and cannot, be changed in KPERS is here; the latter piece was done by another scholar.

Tagged as: Kansas legislature, Kansas Policy Institute, Kansas state government

{ 0 comments }

Personal income growth in the states

by Bob Weeks on March 31, 2013

As Kansas debates whether to move forward with a new vision, especially in tax policy, we should examine how we have fared under the policies of recent decades.

The visualization below starts in 1994, the year Bill Graves was elected governor. That started a 16 year period of governance by moderate Republicans and Democrats, a period now promoted as a golden area of common sense government that has led to prosperity in Kansas.

But in the visualization below, where does Kansas rank in relation to some of our surrounding states? The answer is: Not well.

To see how your state compares with others in personal income growth, use the interactive visualization below. Click the check boxes to add or remove states. Use the slider to adjust the range of years. Click on state names in the legend below the chart to highlight one or more states’ data (Ctrl+click highlights more than one state.)

You may use the visualization below, or click here to open it in a new window, which may work better for some people. Data is from U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA); visualization created by myself using Tableau Public.

Learn About Tableau

Tagged as: Economic development, Economics, Kansas legislature, Kansas state government, Visualizations

{ 0 comments }

Progress in Kansas

March 28, 2013

Do facts matter to Kansas progressives who want to maintain high levels of taxation and government spending? We first must ask if they are even aware of the facts. Sadly, I suspect they don’t want to know.

Tagged as: Government spending, Kansas legislature, Kansas state government, Progressives, Taxation

Kansas legislature

How to save

The importance of economic freedom

What Kansas should do

Most Recent Posts

What to Read

Important liberty sites

Resources

Kansas blogs

Miscellaneous

Categories

Archives

Search this site

Trending Topics

Recent Tweets

Kansas sites

Featured thoughts