The Kansas Meadowlark reports on the debut of Kanview, and wonders “Why did the Kansas press give this new information resource such little coverage?”
Read the excellent report at http://www.kansasmeadowlark.com/2008/03-02/index.htm.
Category: Kansas state government
Regulatory uncertainty weakens Kansas’ economy
In this article, Karl Peterjohn states that the professional staff at the Kansas Department of Health and Environment approved the permit for a new coal-burning electricity plant in Kansas, but the agency’s Secretary, Rod Bremby, overruled that staff. It seems as though he and Governor Kathleen Sebelius were trying to stake new political ground in America. Why they would want to do this is not clear to me and many other Kansans. China builds a new plant like the one proposed for Kansas every seven to ten days. India builds many, and so do some other countries. Since it’s not called global warming for nothing, it doesn’t matter where these plants are built. They all affect the global atmosphere, as far as carbon dioxide is concerned, in precisely the same way. So two Kansas politicians, cheered on by a few newspaper editorial writers, place the Kansas economy at great risk for what benefit? Perhaps in a few years, on a hot summer day when little wind is blowing, the chillers at the Wichita Eagle building on East Douglas will slow to a crawl, the editorialists’ computers switch to battery back up power with only a few minutes left to finish the day’s work, and no electricity is available to run the printing presses or the servers hosting the Eagle’s web site. But at least we in Kansas spewed only 0.01% as much carbon into the atmosphere as did the new Chinese coal plants.
Regulatory Uncertainty Weakens Kansas’ Economy
By Karl Peterjohn, Kansas Taxpayers Network, www.kansastaxpayers.comThe regulatory uncertainty created by Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) Secretary Ron Bremby’s decision to deny a permit to Sunflower Electric’s proposed power plant places the Kansas economy at risk and should be obvious to everyone. Sadly, this everyone does not include the Wichita Eagle’s editorial board’s February 27th editorial.
Electric utilities are already highly regulated by the state as well as federal rules and edicts. Sunflower Electric’s proposed coal fired electrical power plant expansion had been through numerous permits and regulatory requirements. The professional staff at KDHE had recommended approval based upon the criteria elected officials had placed in Kansas law.
Secretary Bremby decided that he would add new criteria that no federal or state elected officials had approved. Kansas became the first state to declare that carbon dioxide emissions are pollutants. That became his basis for denying a construction permit.
The Wichita Eagle was correct in pointing out that Bremby’s ruling was a first. Bremby’s edict was not only a first in Kansas, it was a first for the entire nation. Bremby’s decision became national news as Kansas became the only state where carbon dioxide emissions became a pollutant. Elected officials did not make this decision but a single bureaucrat, who last year filed for bankruptcy, and who ignored his professional staff in making his ruling. The rule of law has been replaced in Kansas in this important case by the rule of a bureaucrat.
Carbon dioxide is emitted by people, our cars, our machines, and even in our fireplaces. Since Mr. Bremby decided to make carbon dioxide a pollutant by regulatory edict, any and all other firms that emit carbon dioxide are now at regulatory risk. If carbon dioxide is a “pollutant,” let’s have our elected officials be the ones who change the law.
Will the Sunflower precedent be extended to non-utilities, like new or existing ethanol plants, that also emit CO2? Will this edict be placed on existing coal-fired power plants? Will this occur quickly or slowly? To large and small firms equally, or not? This is regulatory uncertainty. This is obvious to everyone who has run a business and met a payroll.
This also demonstrates how far we have moved in Kansas away from a free market system to one where the state controls the economy. When Mr. Bremby’s boss, Governor Sebelius, outlined her support for a smaller expansion of Sunflower, the state control of this economic decision making process was clear. This is state control that economists have warned against.
Nobel Laureate economist Milton Friedman warned over a quarter century ago, “Wherever the state undertakes to control in detail the economic activities of its citizens, wherever, that is, detailed central economic planning reigns, there ordinary citizens are in political fetters, have a low standard of living, and have little power to control their own destiny.” This type of government control is an excellent reason why the average income of Kansans lags well below the national average as well as our state’s overall economic growth.
This is a reason why the risk, uncertainty, and the probability of a lack of profits drives business expansions and entrepreneurs away from locating in a state where the rule of law has been replaced by unpredictable and delayed edicts from arbitrary bureaucrats.
Are you polluting Kansas?
Lost in the debate over the building of a coal-fired electricity plant in Kansas is the fact that China builds a plant like this every week to ten days, according to the New York Times. Nonetheless, newspaper editorial writers like Randy Scholfield of The Wichita Eagle want to saddle Kansans with higher utility bills and a stifling regulatory structure. There is no doubt that other forms of producing electricity are more expensive than coal. Mr. Scholfield’s newspaper is full of stories of woe about how people can’t pay their bills when the price of natural gas or gasoline goes up. Yet, he is willing to ask them to pay more for something of dubious value. At the same time, his position holds the real possibility of reducing economic growth in Kansas, which should lead to more tales of woe for the Wichita Eagle to report.
Even the New York Times recognizes that wind power can’t be our sole, or even major, source of power. As it reported on February 23, 2008: “Despite the attraction of wind as a nearly pollution-free power source, it does have limitations. Though the gap is closing, electricity from wind remains costlier than that generated from fossil fuels. Moreover, wind power is intermittent and unpredictable, and the hottest days, when electricity is needed most, are usually not windy.”
Thank you to Karl Peterjohn of the Kansas Taxpayers Network for the following explanation.
Are You Polluting Kansas?
By Karl Peterjohn, Kansas Taxpayers NetworkIt is a biological fact that every time Governor Sebelius breathes, she exhales carbon dioxide. Every editorial writer at the carbon dioxide phobic Wichita Eagle also exhales carbon dioxide with every breath.
Are they polluting? All mammals exhale carbon dioxide and the plants that inhale carbon dioxide (CO2) need this compound to grow. This is part of the photosynthesis that is the foundation for life on earth. This is basic biology. CO2 has never been made a pollutant by the action of either the state or federal elected officials. Now the advocates of man-made global warming claim that it is. That is now Governor Sebelius’ and her staff’s official position.
Governor Sebelius’ Secretary of Health and Environment, Rod Bremby, took the arbitrary and capricious action last year of declaring CO2 a pollutant. Bremby’s decision stopped the permit, that his professional and technical KDHE staff had approved. That would have allowed a major 1.4 megawatt expansion by Sunflower Electric in Holcomb, Kansas of the existing coal fired power plant that operates there. Bremby based his denial solely upon CO2 emissions.
Bremby’s highly controversial decision made the front page of major newspapers across the United States and will have a major negative economic impact on Kansas if it stands. Bremby’s decision dramatically raised the risk for anyone planning to put a new or expanded industrial business in Kansas.
Kansas consumers are at increased risk from higher electrical costs and less reliable service. Brian Moline, a former state utility regulator and Democratic legislator, warned the Wichita Pachyderm Club February 22 that Bremby’s ruling, “…will ultimately filter down to rate payers,” in the form of higher electrical bills.
Moline also warned that this issue goes well beyond Sunflower Electric’s permit and puts the entire due process and rule of law in Kansas at risk. Moline credited state senator Carolyn McGinn with the most vivid description of this bureaucratic mugging. McGinn compared it to a driver going through an intersection and then being stopped by a police officer for not stopping for the traffic light at the intersection.
The driver complains that there was no traffic light at the intersection and the police officer says, “Well there should be one there so I’m arresting you anyway.” Sunflower Electric is the woebegone driver being arrested by Officer Bremby. All Kansans are going to be financially hurt if Bremby’s CO2 edict stands.
By declaring CO2 to be a pollutant a variety of other plants that use carbon based energy are now at legal risk. These include existing chemical, industrial, as well as the new ethanol plants that are being built or have just been built here. Airplane and auto manufacturers in Kansas as well as oil refiners and chemical plants have to renew permits to emit CO2. These are now in increased jeopardy as are all of the other coal fired power plants. Bremby’s questionable judgment in this matter is certainly amplified by his bankruptcy filing last year.
If Bremby’s CO2 edict is allowed to stand other sources of CO2 are also at risk. CO2 emissions occur well beyond industrial activities. Much of the CO2 occurs naturally. Your gas or propane furnace also emits CO2. Wood burned in fireplaces emits CO2 as do automobiles. If Governor Sebelius and her administration’s CO2 edict stands we all become polluters. New restrictions, charges, and limits on everyone using carbon based energy will soon appear under this edict.
Testimony against taxpayer-funded lobbying
The following testimony from John Todd explains some of the harmful effects of taxpayer-funded lobbying. Isn’t it terrible that that interests of governmental bodies like the city and county you live in or your local school district are different from your interests? As John explains, local government has become a special interest group, and like other such groups, it must lobby for its own interests.
February 18, 2008
House Committee on Federal and State Affairs
Kansas Legislature
State Capitol
Topeka, Kansas 66612Subject: My testimony is presented in SUPPORT OF House Bill No. 2775 concerning governmental ethics; requiring the reporting of lobbying expenses by municipalities.
Mr. Chairman, and members of the House Committee on Federal and State Affairs, my name is John Todd and I live in Wichita, Kansas. Thank you for allowing me this opportunity to speak to you in Support of the passage of House Bill No. 2775 concerning governmental ethics; requiring the reporting of lobbying expenses by municipalities.
“Government lobbying is toxic to representative democracy,” says Goldwater Institute Chairman Tom Patterson. “It distorts the democratic process by pitting government interest against those of citizens. Letting government agents lobby with taxpayer funds … drowns out the voices of regular citizens, putting private citizens at a distinct disadvantage.” (See Goldwater Institute Policy Report No. 217, January 23, 2007 “Your Tax Dollars at Work: The Implications of Taxpayer-funded Lobbying” by Benjamin Barr at www.goldwaterinstitute.org)
I have personally witnessed this abuse over the last several years as a citizen appearing before a number of legislative committees. During the 2006 and 2007 legislative sessions government lobbyists and their associations opposed popular reform efforts in the area of eminent domain.
In previous legislative sessions government lobbyists were successful in blocking two attempts to obtain Municipal Court Reform that would have allowed the election of Municipal Court Judges by the people. A third attempt at Municipal Court reform was opposed by a lobbyist from the Kansas Supreme Court itself, resulting in this measure never making it out of committee.
Local government in Wichita and Sedgwick County has become “big business” with government spending for our city, county, and local school district at nearly $1.4 Billion. In addition to their taxpayer-funded associations like the League of Kansas Municipalities, the Kansas Association of Counties, and the Kansas Association of School Boards, these government entities employ their own taxpayer-funded lobbyists.
At a minimum, the passage of House Bill #2775 is a start towards making taxpayer-funded government lobbying more transparent and accountable to the people. I would request that you study the report “Your Tax Dollars at Work: The Implications of Taxpayer-funded Lobbying” by Benjamin Barr posted on the Goldwater Policy web page, as referenced above, to consider additional taxpayer-funded lobbying reform that is needed in Kansas.
New tax targets Kansas senior citizens
News Release: Kansas Taxpayers Network Opposes New Tax On Elderly
A proposal to raise a new “assessment” or tax on nursing home bound Kansas elderly will have its first hearing in front of the Kansas senate’s Ways and Means Committee February 14. The new charge on nursing home residents will total $1,733.75 a year or $4.75 a day if the proposed bill, S.B. 585, becomes state law. Nursing home operators would be required to collect this charge from nursing home residents who are not covered by Medicaid or are in a veterans home. This legislation is structured to turn the nursing homes into unpaid tax collectors for the state and make them the fall guys by having this new charge hidden in their current bills.
“The proposed ‘assessment’ is actually a new and well hidden tax on the most frail and weak Kansans who are nursing home bound and in the twilight of their lives. Many of this nursing home residents and their families are struggling to pay their current nursing home bills without this massive new charge being added,” said Karl Peterjohn, executive director of the Wichita based Kansas Taxpayers Network. Peterjohn will be testifying in opposition to this proposed new state charge. Peterjohn’s committee testimony is below.
The Kansas Taxpayers Network has been testifying against a variety of proposed new taxes, fees, and charges coming out of the 2008 legislature. KTN has opposed raising state excise taxes, against the new carbon tax that would dramatically raise Kansans utility bills, and worked for a proposal to limit property tax growth. “Normally proposals to raise Kansas taxes follow an election year. So it is quite unusual to see so many tax hikes and other so called “revenue enhancements” appear this year. There seems to be a consensus that Americans in general and Kansans in particular do not mind seeing new or higher taxes and fees placed upon them. KTN’s supporters across Kansas remain opposed to seeing more of their hard earned money grabbed by government at all levels,” said Peterjohn.
#####
KANSAS TAXPAYERS NETWORK
www.kansastaxpayers.com
P.O. Box 20050
Wichita, KS 67208
316-684-0082 fax 316-684-7527
Testimony Opposing S.B. 585By Karl Peterjohn, Executive Director
The legislation before you today would massively increase the cost of nursing care services to citizens who would need to come up with an additional $4.75 per day or $1,733.75 a year to reside in a Kansas nursing home. While this legislation is described as an assessment or fee, this actually appears to be much more like a tax on nursing home patients with their own private resources. Medicaid and certain other seniors would be exempt from this new tax.
There does not seem to be any visible benefit to the nursing home resident who will have to find the additional funds to pay for this new state imposed tax. Nursing home residents are by their very nature people who are in poor health and without the ability to generate additional income by going to work. In many cases their families are already struggling to pay the substantial bills that nursing home residency requires today. The additional revenue raised by this bill would be used to subsidize Medicaid recipients’ bills.
Adding an additional state charge while a loved one is struggling to regain or even maintain a level of life is a pernicious new burden to add to these elderly, sick, and the most frail Kansans. These are the weakest people who are facing a new cost that appears by this legislation to be largely hidden from them by the way it is going to be imposed under this bill.
S.B. 585 appears to hide this additional cost by forcing the nursing home operator to be the tax collector for this additional state charge. This is another new unfunded state mandate onto this residential industry in Kansas. The private sector in Kansas lacks the home rule powers that local units have that often allows the local governments to avoid or evade the state’s new mandates that are non uniform in Kansas law.
S.B 585 will make the nursing home industry serve as the tax collector for this new state tax burden. This is inappropriate too.
The creation of a new tax or all right, you can call it an assessment, is the worst type of way to show our responsible senior citizens who are in the twilight of their lives and see how they are treated in Kansas by our state government: badly.
Property rights should control Kansas smoking decisions
A system of absolute respect for private property rights is the best way to handle smoking. The owners of bars and restaurants have, and should continue to have, the absolute right to permit or deny smoking on their property.
Not everyone agrees with this simple truth. Some ask why is there no right to clean air when there is the right to smoke. The answer is that both breathing clean air and smoking are rights that people may enjoy, as they wish, on their own property. When on the property of others, you may enjoy the rights that the property owner has decided on.
It’s not like the supposed right to breathe clean air while dining or drinking on someone else’s property is being violated surreptitiously. Most people can quickly sense upon entering a bar or restaurant whether people are smoking. If people are smoking, and patrons decide to stay, we can only conclude that they made the choice to stay. The owners of bars and restaurants do not have the power to force people to stay and breathe smoke.
Employees may make the same decision. There are plenty of smoke-free places for people to work if they don’t want to be around smoke.
Some think that if they leave a restaurant or bar because it is smoky, then they have lost their “right” to be in that establishment. But no one has an absolute right to be on someone else’s private property, much less to be on that property under conditions that they — instead of the property owner — dictate.
Property rights, then, are the way to solve disputes over smoking vs. clean air in a way that respects freedom and liberty. Under property rights, bar and restaurant owners will decide to allow or prohibit smoking as they best see fit, to meet the needs of their current customers, or the customers they want to attract.
A property rights-based system is greatly preferable to government mandate. Without property rights, decision are made for spurious reasons. For example, debate often includes statements such as “I’m a non-smoker and I think that …” or “I’m a smoker and …” These statements presuppose that the personal habits or preferences of the speaker make their argument persuasive.
Decision-making based on personal characteristics, preferences, or group-membership happens often in politics. Lack of respect for property rights allows decisions to be made by people other than the owners of the property. In the case of a smoking ban, the decision can severely harm the value of property like bars or restaurants that caters to smokers. This matters little to smoking ban supporters, but as we have seen, they have little respect for private property.
By respecting property rights, we can have both smoking and non-smoking establishments. Property owners will decide what is in their own and their customers’ interests. Both groups, smokers and nonsmokers, can have what they want. With a government mandate or majority rule, one group wins at the expense of the rights of many others.
Testimony opposing Kansas smoking ban
Submitted by John Todd.
February 13, 2008
Senate Judiciary Committee
Kansas Legislature
State Capitol
Topeka, Kansas 66612Subject: My testimony presented in OPPOSITION to Senate Bill No. 493 concerning crimes and punishments relating to smoking.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, thank you for allowing me this opportunity to speak to you in Opposition to passage of Senate Bill No. 493 concerning crimes and punishments relating to smoking, aka the Kansas smoking prohibition act.
My name is John Todd. I am a self-employed real estate broker and land developer from Wichita. I currently serve on the Governmental Affairs Committee and the Board of Directors of Wichita Independent Business Association. I am the Wichita Area Volunteer Coordinator for Americans For Prosperity—Kansas. I have been working with the Wichita Business and Consumer Rights Coalition in an effort to stop a smoking ban ordinance currently being debated by the Wichita City Council. I appear before you today as a private citizen, speaking only for myself and not for any other group.
I do not smoke, but does that give me, or even the majority of non-smokers in our state the right to use state law to restrict the rights and freedoms of those people who choose to smoke? A Democracy is like two wolves and a sheep deciding where to go for lunch. The lone sheep would have to agree with De Toquiville who described that situation as the “tyranny of the majority.” The pledge of allegiance describes our country as a “republic.” Our founders established a republican form of government in order to protect the individual’s rights from the tyranny of the majority.
The sale and use of tobacco products is legal in our state. The sale of tobacco products produces tax revenue for our state, and government officials think that is positive. And, our Federal Government still subsidizes the growing of tobacco in tobacco growing states.
The passage of Senate Bill # 493 is not needed because the smoking problem has been solving itself, for several years on the local level, without government intervention by the natural and voluntary action of our free market economic system. Over the last two to three decades, restaurants, bars, and other businesses have been “voluntarily” regulating smoking and non-smoking in their businesses all over our state without the need for government mandated regulations, and without the need for government enforcement. This move to non-smoking establishments has been consumer driven, and businesses have voluntarily responded to this demand. Some businesses owners still choose to offer smoking for their customers since their customers demand the freedom to smoke. Freedom demands choice by business owner and customer. And, Private Property Rights are best preserved when property owners are free to use their property as they see fit. State government needs to stay out of the smoking debate.
Several cities in our state have adopted smoking ban ordinances while others have not. There are studies that show smoking bans cause economic harm to some businesses, and I have heard testimony from business owners in Wichita who have or will be impacted negatively by the passage of a proposed smoking ordinance by the City of Wichita. Like most regulations, the ordinance is complicated to the point of making it unenforceable. And, who is going to enforce the ordinance? Will additional city staff and the resultant bureaucracy be required for enforcement? What is enforcement going to cost? Will enforcement be selective or arbitrary? What economic impact will the ordinance have on business? Is the ordinance even necessary?
The proponents of the ordinance are voicing concerns about public health and public health costs associated with smoking. Will this same group be pushing for city ordinances dealing with obesity with mandated diet and exercise? What will the penalties for failure to comply? Who will decide the standards?
The proponents of the proposed city smoking ban ordinance appear to be the same group who want to direct the lives of other people since they know what is best for them. They have no problem supporting law that limits individual freedom of choice, and private property rights.
Milton Friedman says, “A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that…it gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.”
The “voluntary” and “market-driven” solution to the so-called smoking problem has been happening automatically all over Kansas without the need for additional state law that criminalizes and punishes people who are partaking in their freedom to enjoy a legal product and activity. Senate Bill #493 looks like another regulation on the backs of business and property owners with the potential for creating an enforcement process that will be impossible to police, but at the same time create another level of expensive bureaucracy for a non-existent problem. I ask you to oppose the passage of Senate Bill #493.
Related articles:
Thanks for picking up the tab, or, taxpayer-funded lobbying hurts
This article explains the prevalence of and the problems with taxpayer-funded lobbying. This type of lobbying is especially egregious, as it is using taxpayers’ own funds to harm them further. It’s bad enough that a governmental body — say the Wichita Public Schools — receives funds, increasing rapidly from year to year, from the local taxpayer. It then compounds the damage by using some of that money to persuade other governmental bodies to send them even more. Sometimes they use your own money to fund lawsuits to get even more of your money.
You may be thinking that these local governments have the best interests of their constituents as their goal, so it’s okay for them to lobby. But you’d be wrong. The League of Kansas Municipalities (how could an institution with a civic-minded name like that do anything wrong?) lobbies for the ability to take a person’s private property and give it to another through the process of eminent domain, all in the name of economic development. This is a serious violation of the right to be secure on your own property, and they are spending your tax money to support this lobbying effort.
Thanks for Picking up the Tab
By Alan Cobb, Americans For Prosperity Kansas State DirectorIt’s a common scene in Topeka — a lobbyist treating an elected official to lunch, giving a legislator a cigar, or picking up the tab at a local watering hole. Of course, there is talk. Talk about new programs, regulations, budget increases, and the like.
Who is paying for these perks?
You are.
Your tax dollars are used by school districts, city and county governments and other taxpayer funded organizations for direct lobbying efforts in Topeka.
Some local officials say it isn’t “lobbying” but rather “representing our town, county, or school district” before the Legislature. Your tax dollars are being used to influence legislators to voting a particular way. That’s lobbying.
It’s proper for private citizens and groups to petition their government, but should one government be “petitioning” another? Do you agree with the things they are lobbying for? Do you even know?
How prevalent is this? Well, it’s hard to say, and that’s part of the problem.
Over 70 individuals and organizations, paid by local governments, peddle their influence in the Kansas Statehouse. Their expenses are reported to the Governmental Ethics Commission.
Some of larger cities, counties and school districts have their own lobbyists. Others rely on their associations to do their lobbying for them.
But the amount of tax dollars that cities, counties and school districts are paying these folks — specifically for lobbying — is anybody’s guess.
In November, Americans for Prosperity sent an open records request to every city, county and school district in Kansas — over 1,000 government entities — asking them to disclose how much they spend to lobby.
The responses we’ve received are quite interesting. While most local governments complied with our request, few could say with any certainty how much money is actually spent on lobbying.
Many of those responses went something like this: “While the city/county/school district spends XX amount each year to join associations that lobby, we have no way of knowing how much of that goes toward lobbying.”
But shouldn’t someone know how much of our taxes go to lobbying in Topeka?
Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius scores low again
In the Cato Institute’s Fiscal Policy Report Card on America’s Governors for 2006, Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius earns the grade of “D.” She earned the same grade on their previous survey.
Fortunately, Kansas may not be in the bad condition that the low grade of our governor might indicate. That’s because the Cato methodology includes governors’ policy recommendations as well as actual results. Had all of Governor Sebelius’s recommendations and desires made it into law, we in Kansas would very well be in trouble.
How did Governor Sebelius fare so poorly? According to the report: “Governors who have cut taxes and spending the most receive the highest grades. Those who have increased spending and taxes the most receive the lowest grades.” What is unusual and good about this report is that it considers what governors recommended, as well as what actually happened.
This is important. Governor Sebelius takes credit for having no increases in taxes during her term. That’s not for trying, though. Her proposed tax increases were rejected by the legislature. The Cato study, however, sees through that, and grades her accordingly.
Why are low taxes important? From the study:
This report card emphasizes the importance of tax cuts in general because the evidence shows that states that reduce taxes improve their prospects for economic growth. For example, a 1996 study by Zsolt Besci of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta found that “relative marginal tax rates have a statistically significant negative relationship with relative state growth averaged for the period from 1961 to 1992.” The message of the study for state governments is that “lowering aggregate state and local marginal tax rates is likely to have a positive effect on longterm growth rates.” A study for the congressional Joint Economic Committee by Richard Vedder of Ohio University came to a similar conclusion. A study by Thomas Dye of Florida State University found that states with no income tax had higher personal income growth (and smaller government growth) than states that had an income tax.
Tax changes enacted in the states offer a useful laboratory for exploring the effects of tax policy. A comparison of the economic performance of the 10 states that increased taxes the most with the economic performance of the 10 states that cut taxes the most during 1990–2005 suggests that when states reduce taxes they improve their relative economic performance.
Kansas, as has been noted, has a relatively high tax burden, and had our governor had her way, our taxes would be higher now. As poor as our economic growth and job growth has been recently, it would undoubtedly have been worse had our governor been able to pass the tax increases she proposed.
But there’s something even more important than economic growth and jobs at stake. Collecting more tax revenue and spending more means Kansas government is getting larger, and that’s been happening even though there has not been a tax increase. Large and powerful governments, be they local or national, are the opposite of liberty and freedom. That’s why Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, with her only partially unfulfilled goal of higher taxes and larger government, personifies Ludwig von Mises’s admonition that “government is essentially the negation of liberty.”