Voice For Liberty

Category: Kansas state government

  • Is the teflon off the Sebelius administration?

    Is the Teflon Off the Sebelius Administration?
    By Karl Peterjohn, Kansas Taxpayers Network, www.kansastaxpayers.com

    Second terms are often difficult and contentious for Kansas governors. Bill Graves’ second term was filled with higher taxes, a record long legislative session and imbroglio oversoaring state spending, and a weakened Kansas economy in his last year, 2002.

    Now Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius may have run into some similar second term problems with a new utility issue over rates suddenly reappearing. This problem followed in the wake of the Sebelius administration’s health and environment secretary’s ruling that rejected a proposed power plant expansion in southwest Kansas. This utility rate issue flared into a front page problem when the state agency overseeing utility rate hikes raised questions about communications between the governor, utility officials, and the impact this might have on the state rate setters in the Kansas Corporation Commission.

    Governor Sebelius did not receive this type of inquisitive or extensive news coverage when she proposed to raise property, income, and sales taxes during her first term as governor. The highly irregular school finance lawsuit that resulted in a special legislative session and a plan to spend an additional $2000 per pupil in additional state spending on public schools did not receive this type of media scrutiny either.

    It is important for Kansans to note that newspapers like the Wichita Eagle that ignored Governor Sebelius’ trip to Turkey this year to give a closed-door speech to the Bilderberg group in Istanbul’s Ritz-Carlton Hotel at taxpayer expense initially began reporting this utility controversy on their front page. The Eagle as well as a number of other Kansas newspapers did not seem interested in this tax funded overseas trip and this abuse of the Kansas Open Meetings and Open Records statutes but are interested in utility rates.

    The controversy over setting electric rates for wind and other politically correct power generation forms raises some interesting questions about Kansas’ economy in this early part of the 21st century. In the past, Kansans have been happy to export wheat, cattle, aircraft, automobiles, and a variety of other products but now the idea of building an expansion on a coal fired power plant that might export some of its electricity has been rejected by the Sebelius administration. This rejection might destroy the feasibility of building wind power facilities too.

    Sebelius’ bankrupt secretary of health and environment Rod Bremby is in a difficult position of rejecting a power plant expansion because of carbon dioxide emissions while authorizing new ethanol plants that also emit CO2. This ruling is inconsistent and contradictory. Denying future permits because of carbon dioxide emissions will shut down a huge number of businesses in this state. These problems could expand much further since there are a huge number of firms emitting carbon dioxide. So the risk and uncertainty in operating a Kansas business will be a growing problem in this hostile business climate.

    In northern California an effort is underway to ban the use of fireplaces because of carbon dioxide pollution. Tractors and a host of other diesel or gasoline powered engines emit carbon dioxide too.

    The future of Kansas requires reliable electricity production but our state leaders focus lies elsewhere. The sizable hoopla in south central Kansas is now over a new state owned and operated casino to be located somewhere within the boundaries of Sumner County. It is interesting to note that the Kansas Supreme Court must define, “state owned and operated,” and that is being litigated while four firms are seeking the license for the casino in the south central part of Kansas to go with “state owned and operated,” casinos in the southeast and Kansas City areas.

    Kansas government should know that owning and operating casinos as well as government buildings will all require efficient and reliable sources of electricity.

  • The Kansas legislative buffet

    When Sen. Phil Journey, a legislator who is known as a conservative, uses the term “legislative buffet,” it reveals the wisdom and foresight of Bastiat, who long ago described the legislative process as this: “A share of the plunder for me, for me!”

    The Wichita Eagle article “Water, med school join priority list” (November 30, 2007) describes the battle Wichita-area legislators face: “work together to compete for state resources or lose out to other areas, primarily Johnson County.” As Kansas will spend some $12 billion this year — and probably much more the next — there’s a lot at stake. Whether Wichita gets its fair share of spending on local needs depends on how agile our local senators and representatives are at the buffet.

    What’s not often discussed is the absurdity of sending billions of local dollars to Topeka each year, hoping we are judged worthy enough to get some of it back. Or, perhaps we’re hoping to hit the jackpot: if we have very good legislators who can really “belly up” to the buffet, they might manage to get back more from Topeka than we sent. This pattern is not unique to Wichita; each city or region has its own needs and priorities. Why not just leave the money at home, letting each city or county decide how much and on what to spend?

    Even better: many, if not all, of the things we want the legislature to do could be done privately, without any government intervention. Then we could accomplish things through voluntary cooperation, instead of the coerced march of our dollars to Topeka, where we have to then fight to get them back. Conservative legislators like Sen. Journey should seek to end the “legislative buffet” instead of restocking it year after year.

    Your principle has placed these words above the entrance of the legislative chamber: “Whosoever acquires any influence here can obtain his share of legal plunder.” And what has been the result? All classes have flung themselves upon the doors of the chamber, crying: “A share of the plunder for me, for me!”

    — Frederic Bastiat, “Selected Essays on Political Economy” (1848)

  • The collectivism of Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius

    A few excerpts from Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius‘s inaugural address from January 2007:

    Yet our opportunities will be limited only if we fail to come together around a shared vision for our state. Only a failure to act as “One Kansas” can compromise our future and dash our hopes.

    We all recognize, in our hearts, that we are only as strong as the most vulnerable among us. It’s not enough to allow a few to reach the stars while others live a life of limited horizons. The promise of our state is best realized when all our citizens are able to achieve their highest potential.

    Therefore, we must embrace a new politics of true empowerment, understanding that diversity of thought, of belief, of opinion creates a vibrant, prosperous state. We must recognize that our differences make us stronger, yet those differences are never greater than our similarities.

    We can form a more perfect union, we can achieve greatness, and we can honor our birthright as a state only if we join hands and meet the future as one.

    Together, we’re humble enough … Together, we are a mighty chorus …

    In her speech the governor is telling us — although she does not say this explicitly — that the State of Kansas is more important than the people who live in Kansas. She tells me that if I do not subscribe to her shared vision for Kansas, it is I who will be responsible for its failure. Well, Madame Governor, there are very few areas where I agree with you and your vision for the future of our state.

    In case you don’t recognize it, the name for what the governor espouses is collectivism. Collectivism places the interests of the state above the interests of individuals. It says that man exists not for his own end, but instead exists to serve the state, and the state’s needs outweigh all others. If your goals are in harmony with the state’s goals, and if you are willing to condone a coercive state pursuing those goals through force, that’s good for you. The next election, however, may bring a different governor who has a vision that you don’t share, this time backed by an even-stronger state apparatus to enforce it.

    Collectivism is the enemy of freedom and liberty. When the Ludwig von Mises Institute commemorated F.A. Hayek, it summed up his main contribution to political economy as “Collectivism is Slavery.” His important book “The Road to Serfdom” illustrates how central planning for the common good — that would be the “shared vision” of the Sebelius-led “One Kansas” — leads to the loss of all individual economic and personal freedom.

    Collectivism is the opposite of individualism. Individualism does not mean that a person lives in isolation from others, although people certainly may do that if they wish. Instead, individualism means that people live their own lives as they best see fit. And I hope that most people don’t see themselves as a tool the state uses to serve the ends of others under the direction of Governor Sebelius. Instead, they live for themselves, seeking to improve their own situation and that of others around them, on a voluntary basis.

    That is the difference between liberty and what Governor Sebelius wants for Kansas. We can rely on voluntary arrangements made freely by consenting people. Or, we can have state mandates backed by electoral majorities or bureaucratic action, enforced by law. Done in the spirit of “One Kansas,” of course.

    In her speech, the governor promoted diversity of thought, but she opposes any move towards helping the citizens of Kansas escape the most conformist bureaucracy our state has: its public schools. Allowing parents to choose the school they send their children to, thereby releasing the forces of entrepreneurial creativity in schools, would dramatically increase the diversity of education in our state. As it is, most Kansas parents have no real choice but to send their children to the government schools, which, by their very nature, induce conformity and allegiance to the state. “One Kansas” is, thus, perpetuated.

  • Problem of low wages not easily solved

    Writing from New Orleans, Louisiana

    A group in Kansas has been pressing for raising our state’s minimum wage. Other groups in Kansas seek to impose a “living wage” that is higher than the federal minimum wage, which itself has been raised recently.

    The great appeal of a higher minimum wage mandated by an act of the legislature is that it seems like a wonderfully magical way to increase the wellbeing of low-wage workers. Those who were earning less than the new lawful wage and keep their jobs after the increase are happy. They are grateful to the lawmakers, labor leaders, newspaper editorialists, and others who pleaded for the higher minimum wage. News stories will report their good fortune.

    That’s the visible effect of raising the minimum wage. But to understand the entire issue, we must look for the unseen effects.

    The not-so-visible effect of the higher wage law is that demand for labor will be reduced. Those workers whose productivity, as measured by the give and take of supply and demand, lies below the new lawful wage rate are in danger of losing their jobs. The minimum wage law says if you hire someone you must pay them a certain amount. The law can’t compel you to hire someone, nor can it compel employers to keep workers on the payroll.

    The difficulty is that people with lose their jobs in dribs and drabs. A few workers here; a few there. They may not know who is to blame. The newspaper and television reporters will not seek these people, as they are largely invisible, especially so in the case of the people who are not hired because of the higher wage law.

    If we are truly concerned about the plight of low-wage workers we can face some harsh realities and deal with them openly. The simple fact is that some people are not able to produce output that our economy values very much. They are not very productive. Passing a law that requires employers to pay them more doesn’t change the fact that their productivity is low. But there are ways to increase productivity.

    One way to increase workers’ productivity is through education. Unfortunately, there is ample evidence that our public education system is failing badly.

    Capital — another way to increase wages — may be a dirty word to some. But as the economist Walter E. Williams says, ask yourself this question: who earns the higher wage: a man digging a ditch with a shovel, or a man digging a ditch using a power backhoe? The difference between the two is that the man with the backhoe is more productive. That productivity is provided by capital — the savings that someone accumulated (instead of spending on immediate consumption or taxes) and invested in a piece of equipment that increased the output of workers and our economy.

    Education and capital accumulation are the two best ways to increase the productivity and the wages of workers. Ironically, the people who are most vocal about raising wages through legislative fiat are also usually opposed to meaningful education reform and school choice, insisting on more resources being poured into the present system. They also usually support higher taxes on both individuals and business, which makes it harder to accumulate capital. These organizations should examine the effects of the policies they promote, as they are not in alignment with their stated goals.

  • Taxes in Kansas at an All-Time High

    Taxes in Kansas at an All-Time High
    By Dr. Barry Poulson

    At no other time in the state’s history have state and local governments imposed such a heavy tax burden on Kansas residents. This year, state and local taxes will capture 11.2 percent of the state’s income.

    The graduated income tax contributes to this all time high by creating a boom of revenue and spending during prosperous economic times. In periods of rapid growth, income tax revenue increases faster than income. Excited by these new funds, legislators increase state spending with new or expanded programs to match.

    With this boom often comes a bust. In a recession, income tax revenue falls more rapidly than income. Politicians offset the shortfall with “temporary” taxes, fees, and debt. That additional revenue is then built into permanent spending programs, and the “temporary” taxes, fees, and debt rarely disappear. With the exception of Nebraska, the state has raised individual and corporate income taxes more than any other state in the region.

    This boom and bust of revenue and spending was especially evident during recent economic cycles. Throughout the 1990’s, the economy grew and revenue increased more than 7 percent per year, outpacing the growth in income of only 5.2 percent. When recession hit in 2001, the state found itself with a shortfall. Most of it was due to declines in personal and corporate income tax revenue. As they had in prior recessions, politicians responded by increasing taxes and fees, and by issuing more debt.

    Paralleling the increased tax burden has been an unprecedented increase in the debt burden imposed by the state on its citizens. In 1992, Kansas’ government debt was around $424 million, a lower than average level for a state of similar size. By 2005, debt had swelled to $3.95 billion, an increase of nearly 832 %.

    The current budget is projected to incur a deficit of half a billion dollars. During the recent recession, state spending continued to grow despite the fall in revenue. Initially, spending from state general funds decreased as the recession hit, but they have since recovered. Even with a recovery from the recession, revenue growth will not be enough to fund current policies.

    In fact, the unconstrained growth of state spending has far outpaced the growth in personal income for the last three decades. Limiting our scope to the last three budget cycles, we find that General Fund spending increased 8.6%, 9.6%, and 8.6%. In the current budget, state General Fund spending is projected to increase an incredible 18%, far outstripping the growth in the state economy.

    In recent years, Kansas has been in a race to the bottom to become the most heavily taxed state in the region. While Kansas has been raising taxes and adding debt, surrounding states have pursued more prudent tax policies.

    The sharp increases in spending, taxes and debt have resulted in a decline in the state’s business climate. Throughout the last decade, Kansas has consistently ranked among the bottom group of states in business tax climate. Among the surrounding states, only Nebraska has a lower business tax climate ranking.

    Kansas has been an underachiever in economic growth during the past decade. The difference is exacerbated when compared to the more rapidly growing neighboring states like Colorado. At one time, Kansas had a larger population and higher Gross State Product than Colorado. As Colorado’s individual and corporate income taxes were reduced, their population and Gross State Product outgrew Kansas.

    A heavy tax burden is a major factor contributing to slower growth in some states, and Kansas in recent years has fallen into this category of one of the nation’s heavily taxed states.

    Dr. Barry Poulson is a professor of economics at the University of Colorado and a distinguished scholar with Americans for Prosperity.

  • The Perverse Kansas Gambling Law

    As humans, we have the right to gamble, as it is an activity that people may voluntarily take part in, and it causes no harm or violence to others.

    As such, we have to wonder why most forms of gambling have been illegal in Kansas for so long.

    More importantly, what has changed this year that would cause the state to allow us to gamble in casinos? What has happened that would cause this activity, formerly considered a vice by the state, to be allowed and even desired?

    The answer is simple: the anticipation of millions of dollars in new revenue for the state to spend. It is for that reason that the legislature and governor are willing to let the people gamble in casinos.

    They changed their mind cheaply, too. The amount of revenue it is estimated casinos would bring to the state is barely more than one percent of the state’s total spending. Subtract from that the extra spending that even casino supporters concede the state will need to fix the problems some gamblers will cause.

    It’s sad to realize the legislature and governor can be bought so cheaply.

    We as humans have the inherent right to gamble. The legislature should not have to pass a law allowing this right, we should not have to gain a majority vote in order to exercise this right, we should not have to suffer huge expansion of government regulation to tell us where and when and on how many of what type of machines we can exercise this right, and we shouldn’t have to pay the state a huge chunk of casino revenue in order to exercise this right.

    That’s what is perverse about gambling law in Kansas.

  • The Kansas Gambling Law I’d Vote For

    Here’s the one law concerning gambling in Wichita and Kansas that I would vote for: “All laws prohibiting and regulating gambling in Kansas are hereby repealed.”

    That’s the only law consistent with personal freedom and liberty.

    The law that has been passed, however, provides more power for the state and more opportunities to regulate our lives.

    Even casino supporters concede large social costs will accompany a casino. As we have government that stands willing to pay these costs, the taxpayer will suffer these costs.

    In the balance, the expansion of state bureaucracy, tax collection, and regulation, plus the social costs that the state believes it must shoulder; these considerations outweigh our freedom to gamble.

  • Disenfranchising and Dissing Kansans

    Disenfranchising and Dissing Kansans
    By Karl Peterjohn, Kansas Taxpayers Network

    “All political power is inherent in the people…,” begins one part of the Kansas Bill of Rights that is part of the Kansas Constitution. This is one important provision that has been eviscerated and destroyed by the Kansas Supreme Court with the quiet support of a large number of elected officials as well as much of the Kansas news media.

    When was the last time you got to vote on raising your property taxes for city, county, or other local services? How about a local bond issue that didn’t involve the government schools? This political power might be inherent but for most Kansans it is mainly invisible. In most other states these votes are routine and in several of our neighboring states these votes are mandatory.

    In Sedgwick County there is a political storm brewing with an upcoming countywide casino gambling referendum scheduled for August 7. The voters will be deciding if a “state owned and operated casino,” can be established here. This follows countywide votes in half a dozen other counties where there has been support for expanding gambling.

    This begs the question of the role of the people. Why do only Kansans in a few select counties get to cast these votes? Where in the Kansas Constitution is there a provision for countywide gambling votes? How did Kansas get into its current position on gambling expansion?

    In 1986 voters approved a measure that everyone on both sides of this issue saw as establishing a state lottery. No one on either side mentioned casinos back then. The lottery was created by this constitutional amendment (Article 15 Section 3c) after a wide majority of statewide voters approved this amendment in 1986.

    That vote has been transformed into a vote authorizing, “…state owned and operated casinos.” Who made this transformation? The Kansas casino situation looks like the judicial equivalent of Steven Spielberg’s latest Hollywood movie based upon the kid’s cartoon program from the 1980’s. It was the Kansas Supreme Legislature…..ooops, that’s the Kansas Supreme Court who ruled that casinos were legal based upon the lottery vote and created the current legal foundation that the legislature and governor used to authorize “state owned and operated,” casinos in Kansas.

    This will give Kansas the equivalent of being the very first state in this country with state owned and operated casinos. This ought to be interesting. I can’t wait to see the civil service exam for, “Pit boss grade I,” or “Cocktail Waitress grade II,”….oops we must be politically correct: “Cocktail Server grade II.”

    Or perhaps this is just a legal fig leaf that will be thrown away so a few state franchised monopoly casinos can be created. If this is the case, Kansas will then help make a few rich casino owners even richer. This unique legal mess demonstrates how the judicial elite are in control of this state but also that state ownership, i.e. socialism and a state monopoly is alive and well in Kansas.

    Our appointed judicial masters put us in this bizarre position and a majority of our legislature and Governor Sebelius sanctified this foundation with a “no legislative hearings” gambling bill this year. This also puts the state in the difficult position of regulating what it is also owning and operating. This conflict of interest will create perpetual legal problem for the state until this provision is changed.

    The Kansans living in close to 100 Kansas counties do not have a vote on establishing Kansas casinos. They are disenfranchised. The average Kansan has been dissed by the activist judges and won’t have a gambling vote. There is no other state in this country where statewide gambling would be created without all of the people deciding this issue. Only in Kansas could the judicial and “mainstream” political establishment be so arrogant and omnipotent.

  • Wasteful Kansas statehousesSpending

    Wasteful Statehouse Spending
    By Karl Peterjohn, Executive Director, Kansas Taxpayers Network

    Wasteful spending at the Kansas statehouse is nothing new. What is new is the wasteful spending on the Kansas statehouse. This building still has the ugly look of a construction site with a soaring price tag. In 2007 a bipartisan group of legislative moderates are intent on continuing this unlimited statehouse spending spree.

    When the legislature enacted SB 660 in 2000 authorizing $40 million in bond funding for the statehouse remodel that did not seem too terribly out of line. That had followed six figure appropriations for remodeling the legislative chambers that had started the remodeling process at the statehouse. There are just over 317,000 square feet in the Kansas statehouse. That means the initial cost of $126 per square foot is not out of line with new commercial or residential construction costs.

    What a difference a few years make. The statehouse remains disheveled with parts of the building closed off, a few areas completed, other untouched, and a final price tag that is nowhere to be found. Supposedly, three of the five phases of this remodeling project have been finished but the final result is still at least four years away.

    The price tag for the three phases is currently estimated at $175 million (or about $550 per square foot with lots of feet remaining to be remodeled) and might even top $300 million. The age and condition of the building is the excuse for the growing cost overruns in the mainstream press reports.

    During the budget debate in the 2007 legislature Sen. Tim Huelskamp, R-Fowler, proposed an amendment requiring the Department of Administration to prepare a report on the costs of the capitol renovation project as part of the budget bill debate. This idea was rejected on a 17-19 vote with prominent “moderates” including the legislative leadership of both parties in the senate opposing this effort at fiscal accountability. In Kansas “moderates” are spelled “l-i-b-e-r-a-l”.

    Psst. That’s a statehouse secret you aren’t authorized to know.

    An unsuccessful effort to have legislative post audit examine state house spending was made by Rep. Peggy Mast, R-Hamilton, and Sen. Chris Steineger, D-Kansas City, during this session. A number of legislators are justifiably nervous over the soaring costs since there are a limited number of improvements that are visible in the few areas that are finished with an already soaring bill for taxpayers.

    Other states that have faced old statehouse buildings have made a number of changes. Missouri has been through six statehouses in its 186 years as a state. In Florida a brand new statehouse is located near the old, historic statehouse in Tallahassee. Arkansas also has two statehouses. Kansans are grossly overspending and will only have a single remodeled statehouse to show for spending that could easily top $300 million by the time the remodeling is completed sometime in the next decade. We could have had a brand new and larger building at a fraction of what this remodel is costing.

    The total cost is now rapidly approaching $1,000 per square foot and this figure should alarm Kansans. Sen. Tim Huelskamp, R-Fowler, said, “The cost for this project is soaring.” He also warned taxpayers, “You can’t go over budget if you have no budget.”

    When state’s General Fund budget is growing 10.4% next year and topping $6 billion for the first time next year, when an activist Kansas Supreme Court orders a complacent majority of legislators and a compliant governor into an $850 million school spending spree that started a couple of years ago, what’s the big deal over a few hundred million for the statehouse remodel?

    Would you spend close somewhere between $500 to a $1,000 per square foot in building your business or home? Hey, it’s only your tax dollars. And there are several other state office buildings across the street from the statehouse that are now being prepared for remodeling once the statehouse work gets finished.