Individual liberty, limited government, and free markets in Wichita and Kansas
Tax Fairness for All Wichitans has an information sheet available to help Wichitans learn more about the February 28th election regarding the Ambassador Hotel guest tax rebate.
You can download a printable pdf version of the information sheet by clicking on Tax Fairness for All Wichitans Information Sheet. Or, view the document below. (Hint: Click on “Fullscreen” at the bottom of the document for a larger view.)
Tax Fairness for All Wichitans Information Sheet
{ 0 comments }
Kansas school forum. Tomorrow (January 31st) Dave Trabert of Kansas Policy Institute and Mark Tallman of Kansas Association of School Boards will participate in a town hall meeting with the subject being Kansas schools. The meeting is at 7:00 pm at the Central Branch Wichita Public Library at 223 S. Main.
Ambassador Hotel to be subject of discussion. This Friday (February 3rd) the Wichita Pachyderm Club will host a forum or discussion on the February 28th election, which lets voters decide whether the Ambassador Hotel gets to keep 75 percent of its guest tax collections. I (Bob Weeks) will present for the “Vote No” side. Many invitations have been extended, but so far no one is willing to represent the “Vote Yes” side. If you know of anyone who would participate for the “Vote Yes” side, please contact John Todd at john@johntodd.net. The public is welcome and encouraged to attend Wichita Pachyderm meetings. For more information click on Wichita Pachyderm Club. Upcoming speakers: On February 10th: Debra Ary, P.E., Superintendent Production and Pumping, Wichita Water Utilities, speaking on “An overview of Wichita’s water plan for the future.” Then from 2:30 pm to 3:30 pm interested Pachyderm Club members and guests are invited to take a guided tour of the City of Wichita ASR (Aquifer Storage and Recovery) site. The address of the ASR plant is 11511 N. 119th St. W., Sedgwick, KS. Click here for a Google map. … On February 17th: Richard Ranzau, Sedgwick County Commissioner, 4th District, speaking on “The $1.5 million Regional Economic Area Partnership (REAP) HUD Sustainable Development Planning Grant. Economic Development or Economic Destruction?” … On February 24th: A Face-to-Face Forum with Kansas Congressional delegation staff members: Melvin “Mel” Thompson, State Agriculture Representative, Senator Pat Roberts; Mike Zamrzla, Deputy State Director, Senator Jerry Moran; Lea Stueve, District Director, Congressman Mike Pompeo. Topic: “Learn what is happening and likely to happen in the nation’s capitol.”
Capital gains tax rate. e21 has written an excellent explanation as to why the 15 percent tax on capital gains does not tell the entire story. Considering that capital gains are taxed twice, the true rate of taxation is 44.75 percent, which is much higher than the top income tax rate, and higher than the corporate tax rate. The full explanation is at Capital Gains Tax Rates Are Higher Than You Think, and Getting Higher.
Kan-ed audit. Kan-ed is a state-run network designed “to provide broadband Internet access and distance learning capabilities for schools, hospitals, and libraries.” Kansas Legislative Division of Post Audit has just released an audit of this program. Among the audit’s findings: “Although the Kan-ed network is connected to the Internet, it is a very slow and expensive way of providing Internet access. … Most connected members need commercial Internet access or no Internet connection at all. … Kan-ed could save up to $2 million a year by switching slightly more than half of members to commercial Internet and disconnecting others.” And finally, a conclusion that reminds us of why government spending is almost always wasteful: “Kan-ed has done a poor job of monitoring network connections to ensure members actually need them and has rarely disconnected unneeded connections.” The audit highlights are at Kansas Board of Regents: Evaluating the Effects of Eliminating the Kan-ed Program, and the full audit report is here.
Huelskamp and Sharpton. Last week U.S. Representative Tim Huelskamp, who is in his first term representing the Kansas first district, appeared on the MSNBC television program PoliticsNation. Huelskamp’s office writes: “Congressman Huelskamp engaged the Rev. Al Sharpton over the issue of current tax rates and whether or not it’s ‘fair’ that millionaires and billionaires are allegedly taxed at a lower rate than others. The Congressman argued that the top 1% pay the plurality of all taxes in America, and that the real issue is promoting opportunity and not class envy, citing that his constituents tend to care more about having the ability to find a job and make it on their own rather than what their neighbors’ incomes may or may not be.” I would say that Sharpton has a peculiar — and harmful — idea of what constitutes fairness. Video is at Promoting Opportunity, Not Class Envy.
Education reform blog started. The Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice has started a blog focusing on education reform, a subject the foundation has great experience in. A pres release announces: “As efforts to reform education and improve learning spring up across the nation, the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice announced a new on-line information hub for advocates, parents and concerned citizens: the Friedman Flyer. The Friedman Flyer, FriedmanFlyer.com, will advance Milton and Rose Friedman’s vision of school choice for all with daily updates on news and lively discussion centering on education reform and school choice.”
Super PACs. Are the new Super PACs a problem? No, write Nick Gillespie and Meredith Bragg of Reason. Here’s why: “Billionaires don’t need them to influence elections, Super PACS go negative — and that’s a good thing!, and Super PACS take power away from the parties.” More at 3 Reasons Not To Get Worked Up Over Super PACs.
{ 1 comment }
Those who oppose tax reform in Kansas say we can’t compare Kansas to states like Texas and Florida, two states which have no state income tax. They point to special advantages these states purportedly have, such as oil or tourism revenue. Kansas has nothing like this, they say.
But Kansas Policy Institute has released analysis indicating that there’s another reason why these states have zero income tax: they simply spend less.
According to the KPI analysis (a one-page document available at Controlling Spending is the Secret to Low Taxes), “The secret to having a low tax burden is to control spending, and that’s exactly what [no income tax] states do.”
Continuing, the study finds: “According to the National Association of State Budget Officers, the states with no income tax spent an average of $2,444 per resident (total state funds) in 2010; the rest of the country spent $3,572 per resident, or 46% more. Kansas spent $3,216 per resident, or 32% more than the states with no income tax.” In this context, “total state funds” excludes federal funds and expenditures from the sale of bonds.
These findings parallel my research, which examined state spending using a different measure — total state spending, including federal funds. I concluded “… states with low or no income tax generally spend much less than Kansas. Using figures I compiled for 2010, Kansas state spending per person is $4,923, which ranks it 35th among the states. Only 15 states spend more than Kansas, on a per person basis. Texas, with no income tax, spends $3,703 per person. Florida, another state with no income tax, spends $3,300 per person.” (See Kansas spending is the problem.)
Generally states that spend less tax less, and vice versa. Low state spending and taxing means that a state leaves more resources in the hands of the productive private sector, instead of burdening its citizens with an expensive and inefficient state government.
For this year, Kansas Governor Sam Brownback has proposed only a slight reduction in general fund spending. Last year the Kansas Legislature lost three opportunities to reduce the cost of state government. Three bills, each with this goal, were passed by the House of Representatives, but each failed to make through the Senate, or had its contents stripped and replaced with different legislation. See In Kansas Legislature this year, opportunities for saving were lost.
{ 1 comment }
The following argument in favor of the Fair Tax for Kansas is from Larry Halloran, who is Chairman of the Wichita — South Central KS 912 Group. Also included is a presentation by Earl Long of FairTaxKC. I particularly like his characterization of the Kansas statehouse as the “favor factory.”
By Larry Halloran
Why would the State of Kansas ignore the opportunity to generate a $2.1 billion surplus for fiscal year 2013 in the State General Fund (SGF)?
On Friday, January 20, a number of us attended the Senate Standing Assessment and Taxation Committee hearing in Topeka. It was both astonishing and obvious, from the questions that were not ask by the committee members, that they (individually or as a committee) had no real interest in considering any alternative to the Governor Sam Brownback’s tax reform proposal or plans they may have individually devoted time to crafting.
At the turn of the last century, the United States was essentially debt free. Then in 1913, we provided Congress, by constitutional amendment, the authority to tax our income. With the new taxing authority in place, federal lawmakers would no longer need our advice and consent and the march to socialism was on. It would take the better part of the next hundred years to make the million-dollar question obsolete but once government reached the billion dollar spending mark the leap to a trillion dollars occurred in a relative flash. Today, the accumulated annual deficit of the current administration alone exceeds the combined cumulative total deficit of all previous administrations. In less than a decade, we would learn to speak in billions although we really cannot comprehend the quantity.
Today, the million-dollar question equates to little more than pocket change lost in the couch cushions. Perhaps tomorrow, our children will be perplexed at our inability to comprehend such an insignificant amount as a trillion dollars.
Unfortunately, Kansas, like most other states, simply mimics the deficit spending habits and taxation policies of the federal government and now finds themselves in the dubious position of operating its own favor mill, selecting winners and losers each year for receipt of the state’s shrinking revenue — a fact easily witnessed by the parade of interest groups present and providing testimony in order to protect their share of the pie. With federal tentacles burrowed deep in their hide, our governor and state legislators lack the fortitude to make a clean break with the federal schemes of taxation.
Their plan does not mark an end to state sponsored charity but instead simply shifts state funds from one entitlement (the state earned income tax credit (EITC) for instance) to another (Medicaid) for the purpose of attracting more funds from the federal government. Drawn inextricably like a moth to a flame, our governor and legislators fail to appreciate that federal dollars are borrowed dollars that become a liability for future Kansas taxpayers. It is like paying the MasterCard bill with the Visa card. It provides only temporary relief for a chronic if not fatal problem.
The FairTaxKC Triple Zero + 6.3% plan offers the governor and state legislators the opportunity to cut the shackles and make a clean break with the federal government and from the federal schemes of taxation without cutting a single dime from their current projected expenditures.
The FairTaxKC Triple Zero + 6.3% plan would replace all current methods of taxing goods, personal and business income with a single rate consumption tax on services and new products at the Point of Sale only, with zero exceptions or exemptions.
The FairTaxKC Triple Zero + 6.3% plan would provide a prebate (prepayment) monthly to every legal citizen and resident on the registered tax rolls in Kansas for the consumption tax paid up to the poverty level.
The FairTaxKC Triple Zero + 6.3% plan projects a net positive reserve equal to roughly one third of the current SGF total planned expenditures in the first year, or $2.1 Billion, compounding annually. The governor’s tax proposal can only muster on paper about three quarters of the required statutory 7.5% general fund reserve or $350 Million.
In 1972, the total federal budget was approximately $230 billion. Today, the federal government will pay approximately $238 billion in interest payments alone this year. Historically, our state budget reflects the same trend in spending and debt (much of which is largely hidden from the public).
The only common thread in comments of the committee members and those testifying on behalf of their sacred cow was the apparent acknowledgment that significant change in Kansas tax policy was required (even if many hoped it would not affect them).
The only question remaining for us is: Will Kansas take the bold steps required that would allow the state to operate with billions of whole dollars in reserve?
Or will Kansas take a half-measured approach to modifying the federal schemes of taxation and leave the state operating on couch cushion change and a greater dependence on a bankrupt federal government?
Please take the opportunity now to contact the Governor and your legislators asking that they give the FairTaxKC Triple Zero + 6.3% plan fair treatment in their deliberations.
In Kansas, Triple Zero + 6.3% Fixes It
{ 0 comments }
While Kansas Governor Sam Brownback has some good ideas in his State of the State address and tax reform plan, there are two important points that need to be made.
First, the governor has said that tax reform is designed to be revenue neutral. That goal means that if one person pays less, someone else has to pay more. It also means that the state’s thirst for spending is not quenched. It is continued spending that prevents us from dramatically reducing or eliminating income tax rates in Kansas.
Critics of lowering income tax rates point to the advantages that states with no income tax have. Texas is often mentioned, where it is said that the state’s oil wealth and the taxes it generates make it possible for Texas to have no income tax.
There are two rebuttals to this argument. First, Kansas may have much new activity in oil and gas in the very near future. With the severance tax and taxes from other economic activity — as many as 25,000 jobs and $5 billion in investment over five years — new revenue may be flowing to the state. Brownback has called for limiting the growth of state spending to two percent annually, with revenue growth above that dedicated towards reducing income tax rates.
The second rebuttal is that states with low or no income tax generally spend much less than Kansas. Using figures I compiled for 2010, Kansas state spending per person is $4,923, which ranks it 35th among the states. Only 15 states spend more than Kansas, on a per person basis.
Texas, with no income tax, spends $3,703 per person. Florida, another state with no income tax, spends $3,300 per person.
Kansas Democrats have called for restoring school spending, and increasing it in the future. They have other plans for state spending, too. That’s why it is important that Kansas implement something that 47 states have, but Kansas does not. Unfortunately, the governor didn’t mention it in his address. That missing ingredient in the Kansas state financial plan is a rainy day fund.
Rainy day funds operate in different ways in the states that have them, but generally there are strict rules about spending the money in the fund. A rainy day fund would have helped Kansas whether a downturn in revenue without resorting to a tax increase. That’s vitally important, as once tax increases are in place, they are very difficult to remove. We have such an example of this now in Kansas: The increase in the statewide sales tax, promoted to last just three years, is now recommended to be permanent, according to the governor’s plan.
(Shifting sands: Kansas Senator Carolyn McGinn, who voted for the sales tax increase, now wants it ended a year earlier than originally planned. That was a transparent response to her having to face a conservative challenger in her primary election this year. But now she finds herself opposing the governor on this issue.)
Kansas has a requirement for a 7.5 percent ending balance in the general fund. That requirement is often waived by the legislature, as it has been for several years in a row. Rainy day fund legislation is often implemented in states’ constitutions, which can’t easily be waived or ignored by spending-happy legislature. The strict requirements as to how and when the fund balances can be spent is much different from a simple ending balance. Kansas Democrats, for example, are calling for spending the year’s ending balance.
{ 3 comments }
In response to a successful petition effort aimed at overturning a Wichita charter ordinance, the Wichita City Council last week considered an agenda item that gave the council two choices: Rescind the ordinance, or set a date for an election. The charter ordinance concerns rebating a portion of the Ambassador Hotel’s guest tax collections back to the hotel for its own use.
The most important issue to the council seemed to be holding the election on a date convenient to the hotel developers. The recommendation from Sedgwick County Election Commissioner Tabitha Lehman was that the election, if the council decides to hold it, should be on February 28, 2012.
During discussion, Council Member Pete Meitzner (district 2, east Wichita) wanted to move the election to an earlier date so as to “avoid community discourse and debate.”
Council Member Janet Miller (district 6, north central Wichita) asked a series of questions designed to produced a response that if the election were held earlier, and if that would make it more expensive, would the developer have to pay these extra costs? (The agreement with the city states hotel developers are responsible for the cost of the election, which has been estimated at $50,000.)
She also expressed concern over “dragging this out,” and said she wants to “get it over with as soon as we can so that we can move on.” She assumed that the developer would like to have the issue resolved as soon as possible.
Vice Mayor Lavonta Williams (district 1, northeast Wichita) asked the hotel developers if they would agree to pay extra to hold the election sooner. David Burk appeared on behalf of the hotel development team, and said he would like to see the election held as soon as possible, and would pay additional for that. He said it is “hard on our community,” and that “each day that goes by we’re casting a bad sign on future development in downtown, and in Wichita in general.”
Council Member Jeff Longwell (district 5, west and northwest Wichita) framed the issue as the election commissioner needing more time “beyond what is required by law.” He suggested that the item be delayed until later in the meeting and that the election commissioner be summoned to appear before the council. A motion was made to that effect, and it passed.
When the election item was continued later in the meeting, Longwell engaged Commissioner Lehman in a series of questions attempting to manage the election calender for her. Lehman explained the various reasons as to why February 28 is a reasonable date for the election. The Kansas Secretary of State’s office has agreed with this assessment, she added.
In his remarks, Mayor Carl Brewer said: “This is an issue that really — there’s a lot of things that are going on in the dynamics of this entire thing. And when we have a special election, I believe that this council and the community deserve the right to be able to have it — have an election as quickly as possible. By doing that, it eliminates a lot of turmoil inside the community, unrest. But trying to be fair and giving individuals a fair — coming and going — with a fair process, so that every citizen can be heard. And so the sooner you can actually do it, the better off that we are.”
The mayor made a motion to set the election date as February 28, and it passed with all members except Williams voting in favor.
This episode provided another example reinforcing the realization that Wichita has a city council — with the exception of one member, Michael O’Donnell (district 4, south and southwest Wichita) — that is entirely captured by special interests. In this case the special interests are a hotel development team consisting of partners who have made significant campaign contributions to many members of the Wichita city council.
An example: While city attorney Gary Rebenstorf explained to the council that one option was to rescind the ordinance, there was no discussion of that among council members.
Another example was the measures the council went through to try and get an early election date, something that many observers feel favors the hotel developers. In particular, it was disconcerting to see Longwell attempt to micromanage the Sedgwick County Election Commissioner. He has no business doing that, especially when his motive is so transparent.
And why would the council be so eager to please the hotel developers and their desired election date? Don’t the desires and concerns of the other side have any relevance? To this council, the answer is no.
Perhaps the worst impression to come out of this meeting is that many Wichita city council members simply don’t care much for what citizens think. It’s hard to pick the most telling example, but Meitzner’s concern that we need to “avoid community discourse and debate” ranks right at the top. To Meitzner, it seems that things like discussing and debating issues are harmful, if they would get in the way of satisfying his campaign contributors, or his vision for molding the future of Wichita from the top down.
The rest of the council members, with the exception of O’Donnell, deserve scorn as well.
Then there are the mayor’s remarks. He spoke of giving individuals a “fair process” so that they may be heard, but also that the election needs to be held quickly. These two goals contradict each other.
Mayor Brewer also repeated his practice of making vague criticisms of his opponents without being specific, this time referring to “lot of things that are going on in the dynamics of this entire thing.” Brewer — perhaps in an effort to maintain a sense of decorum or apparent integrity — usually does not mention the names of those he criticizes or specifics of the issues involved. This allows him to appear noble, but without being accountable to actual people — and on the specifics of actual issues — for the things he says.
{ 7 comments }
Today Sedgwick County Election Commissioner Tabitha Lehman said that organizers of a drive to overturn a Wichita charter ordinance submitted 2,719 valid signatures on their petition. The statutory target that had to be met is 2,528. The number of valid signatures may increase with additional examination of some signatures.
Now that a successful petition has been filed, here’s what happens, based on a reading of the Kansas Constitution, Article 12, Section 5.
The Kansas Constitution provides for two course of action. Under the usual course of affairs the Wichita City Council could do one of two things. One choice the council has is to rescind the ordinance, which would end the matter, and the guest tax ordinance would not take effect. The other choice the council can make is to call an election so that voters can decide whether the ordinance will take effect.
Since the petition was submitted on December 5, the city has 30 days from then to decide whether to have an election. The election must be held within 90 days of December 5, if the choice is to have an election. These two dates appear to be January 5, 2012, and March 5, 2012.
But: The agreement between the city and the hotel developers that was passed on September 13 reads: “If Developer requests a special election solely for the purpose of passing the charter ordinance in the event a sufficient protest petition is submitted, Developer shall reimburse the City for the actual out of pocket costs and expenses of conducting such election.”
It sounds as though the city has turned over decision-making authority regarding the election to the hotel developers. More about this is at Wichita turns taxation over to private interests.
(Bill Gale, the former Sedgwick County Election Commissioner, had estimated the cost of a special election at $50,000.)
There is another course of possible action. The hotel developers — or anyone, for that matter — could mount a legal challenge to the success of the petition. This could be done by challenging the form of the petition, or by challenging signatures that the election commissioner has already deemed valid, or by some other avenue.
{ 0 comments }
Remarks delivered to the Wichita City Council, December 6, 2011, regarding the formation of a new tax increment financing (TIF) district in south Wichita. The measure passed with all members except Michael O’Donnell (district 4, south and southwest Wichita) voting in favor of creating the TIF district.
Mayor, members of the council,
No matter how much spin is put on this by its supporters and this council, TIF turns over taxation to private interests. To the extent we must have taxation, it should be for public purposes, to pay for things that everyone benefits from.
What this council is considering today is turning over this public function to the benefit of one person. Some on this council believe that TIF is not really a benefit to the applicant, as they are going to pay property taxes in any case.
That’s true — so far. But to properly represent the interests of this city, we need to look farther. We need to look at “stage two,” or “what happens next.” And when we look, we see that under TIF, the vast majority of the taxes paid are redirected away from the public treasury and back to one person’s interest.
Some will bring up the “but-for” argument, which is to say that none of this will happen unless the TIF district is created. It’s easy to create scenarios that show government assistance is necessary. But we’ve seen examples lately where applicants stood before this council and told you that they must have some form of assistance, that it is impossible to proceed without it. But after being denied assistance, the projects proceeded. In fact, the current applicant made such a claim to this council regarding special property tax treatment through industrial revenue bonds. This council declined to offer the assistance, but the project moved ahead anyway.
Now if TIF provided a benefit, that would be one thing. But compelling research that no one on this council has controverted tells us two things.
First, one study concludes this: “We find evidence that the non-TIF areas of municipalities that use TIF grow no more rapidly, and perhaps more slowly, than similar municipalities that do not use TIF.” So if we are concerned about the level of development in the entire city, we should reject TIF.
Second, another tells of the impact of retail TIF districts on jobs. “TIF districts supporting retail development have a negative effect on municipal employment.” So if we are concerned about jobs for everyone, we should reject retail TIF districts.
We might also look to a state that is perhaps the leader in the application of TIF, although they’re called redevelopment districts there: California Governor Jerry Brown is working to eliminate the use of TIF districts and close down those that exist. His reason: The state can’t afford them.
We also need to look at the characteristics of this applicant. The Wichita Business Journal reported this regarding a company Mr. Maxwell owned: “Pixius proposes to repay, over a 10-year period, $1.3 million of a $6.4 million loan from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Rural Utilities Service, according to court documents. The loan was part of a 2002 Farm Bill pilot program that loaned more than $180 million to ISPs to expand Internet service to rural areas. ‘To my memory … Pixius is the only one (to receive a loan) that’s had to file bankruptcy to work out of its situation,’ says Claiborn Crain, USDA spokesman.”
I would also note that at least one member of this council has accepted campaign contributions from Mr. Maxwell and his wife. Some jurisdictions have “pay-to-play” laws, which prohibit officeholders who have accepted campaign contributions from voting on measures that would enrich the contributor. We don’t have these laws in Wichita, although I hope that we will. But there’s no reason that this council can’t act as through such laws are in place.
{ 0 comments }
Today, Americans for Prosperity and volunteers like me will turn in what they believe is enough signatures to meet the constitutional requirement for protesting a Wichita city charter ordinance. The ordinance in question would allow the Ambassador Hotel to retain 75 percent of the guest tax it collects.
Petition organizers plan to submit the petitions to the Wichita City Clerk at 3:30 pm on Monday. After that, the Sedgwick County Election Commissioner will determine if enough valid signatures were submitted. The timetable for this action is unknown.
The number of valid signatures required by the Kansas Constitution in this case is 2,528. Organizers set their goal to submit 3,500 signatures, as not all will be valid. That goal has been exceeded.
If enough valid signatures are submitted, under the usual course of affairs the Wichita City Council could do one of two things. One choice the council has is to rescind the ordinance, which would end the matter, and the guest tax ordinance would not take effect. The other choice the council can make is to call an election so that voters can decide whether the ordinance will take effect. A guess is that election would probably be held in February or March.
In the present case, however, the Wichita City Council has turned over the decision to the developers of the Ambassador Hotel. It will be their decision, and their expense — estimated at $50,000 — if they decide they want an election. It is not known if the city council will let the hotel developers decide on the date of the election.
Turning over a governmental decision like this to private interests is highly irregular, and is explained more in Wichita turns taxation over to private interests.
{ 0 comments }
Americans for Prosperity Kansas supports limited government and responsible tax and budget policies that force state government to live within its means. Click here to learn more.
Ballotpedia,
providing an interactive almanac of Kansas state politics, including the
Kansas Senate and the
Kansas House.
