From the Wichita Pachyderm Club: Kris Kobach, Kansas Secretary of State and Candidate for Kansas Governor. This is part of a series in which all major Republican candidates will speak. Recorded May 11, 2018.
From the Wichita Pachyderm Club: Ken Selzer, Kansas Insurance Commissioner and candidate for Kansas Governor. This is part of a series in which all major Republican candidates will speak. Recorded May 4, 2018.
From the Wichita Pachyderm Club: Dr. Jim Barnett, candidate for Kansas Governor. This is part of a series in which all major Republican candidates will speak. Recorded April 20, 2018.
Showing monthly value and 12-month trailing moving average.
Source is Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages.
A column written by Wichita Mayor Jeff Longwell ignores the reality of Wichita’s economy.
This week Wichita Mayor Jeff Longwell contributed a column to the Wichita Eagle that seems to defy economic reality. 1
For example, he wrote how Wichita is a “thriving city in a brand new age of possibility.” Construction and change is everywhere, he said.
The problem is this: Even though there seems to be a lot of construction and change, Wichita isn’t thriving.
There are several ways to gauge the economic health of a city. Jobs are probably most important, especially to politicians, and jobs data is available on a frequent and timely basis. And when we look at Wichita’s growth in nonfarm jobs, we see Wichita lagging far behind the nation.
Wichita has done that many times — growing faster than the nation. But that hasn’t been the case recently. In fact, as the charts show, the ratio of Wichita to the nation is sinking. Wichita is falling farther behind.
But despite this evidence, the mayor wrote, “In the coming years, we’re going to continue our growth pattern, and we need passionate individuals supporting and expanding upon our efforts.”
I sincerely hope the mayor is not aware of the poor performance of the Wichita-area economy. Because if he is aware, and he promises to “continue our growth pattern,” we’re in for continued trouble. Did you know that the Wichita-area economy shrank from 2015 to 2016? That is, we produced fewer goods and services in 2016 than in 2015, after accounting for inflation. 2 Is this the growth pattern the mayor promises to continue?
Finally, the mayor issued this plea: “We can’t be complacent in our comfort. We must reconcile our vibrant history with a limitless future. Let’s shed the stigma of what we have been and embrace the vibrant mantle of what we’re becoming.”
First, anyone who’s complacently comfortable is uninformed or unbelieving of the statistics regarding the Wichita economy.
Second, “what we’re becoming” is a low-growth area, falling behind the rest of the country, with the gap growing. The opposite of “vibrant.”
Then, the “stigma of what we have been” describes Mayor Longwell and other long-time officeholders and bureaucrats. It is they who have taken responsibility for the development of the Wichita-area economy. It is their decisions and policies that have led to our slow growth. They are eager to take credit for the successes we do have. But as the mayor’s ill-informed article shows, they are not willing to accept responsibility for failure, much less to even acknowledge the truth.
For other measures of the Wichita economy, see:
—
Notes
“None of the Above” voting lets voters cast a meaningful vote, and that can start changing things.
As a voter, would you like to express your displeasure with the choices on your ballot? Are you tired of voting for the lesser of two evils? Would you like to have a reason to go to the polls even though it seems the contests are already settled?
If so, then NOTA, or “None of the Above,” may appeal to you. In this system, candidates for offices are listed on your ballot. Then, an additional choice is added: “None of the Above.” (Sometimes the language is like “None of these candidates.”)
Politicians don’t like “None of the Above.” Appearing on WichitaLiberty.TV recently, John Fund told of how a politician worried that he might lose to an empty chair, meaning that “None of the Above” received more votes. Fund retorted that would be true only if the chair was better.
What would we do if “None of the Above” won the election, having received more votes than any other candidate?
Would the second-place candidate be declared the winner and take office? This is the case in Nevada. In this case, the “None of the Above” vote’s role is advisory, indicating widespread dissatisfaction with the candidates. But that’s a powerful message.
Or, would the election be declared to have no winner? Then, would a new election be held? Could the same candidates run again, or would they be eliminated? This would be disruptive and have the cost of holding a new election. But this is better than electing someone who can’t earn more votes than “None of the Above.”
Why is voter turnout so low? One common reason given is that some people don’t like any of the candidates, so they don’t vote. But if a person doesn’t vote, what message do they send? What statement do they make? Apathy? Disgust? Adding a NOTA choice to ballots lets these dissatisfied voters cast a vote, and a meaningful vote. There is no confusion. It says to the parties: “I don’t like the choices you’ve given me. Try again.”
Other people regularly vote. Perhaps a person votes because they really like one or more candidates. These people are able to make satisfying votes. Or if they really dislike a candidate, they can cast a satisfying vote against that person. But: What if the other candidate (or candidates) are no better, or have other problems? Must a person vote for the “lesser of two evils” in order to make a statement? What statement is that? In election results, a vote for candidate A from someone who really likes him is indistinguishable from a vote for candidate A solely because the other candidates are worse.
On the choices we had in the 2016 presidential election, Zach Ruby wrote in The Federalist:
Our government’s legitimacy is based on the consent of the governed. But our elections are structured so that the only way to withhold consent is not to vote. Low turnout may signal our disinterest or disapproval, but one of the unqualified candidates will still become president. We need a way to withhold consent through voting. That means we need None of the Above (NOTA) to be on the ballot.
With “None of the Above,” voters can take a positive step that says, “we do not consent to these choices.”
(Ruby noted that there were candidates besides Hillary Clinton and Donald trump on most ballots. But votes for third-party candidates often feel like “wasted” votes. Ranked preference voting can help in this regard.)
A vote of protest is important. Often I’ve refrained from voting for any listed candidates because I felt none were worthy to hold office. Sometimes I’ve felt that there should not be an office (Insurance Commissioner comes to mind), so I did not cast a vote for that office. It’s my own little way of protesting. In election lingo this is called an “undervote.” It has little meaning, because people undervote for many reasons. But voting for “None of the Above” gives voters a meaningful choice in instances like this.
Voting for the lesser of two evils is a choice we often face as voters. In the recent Wichita school board election, there was one contest between a thoroughly despicable incumbent and a challenger whose ideology is distinctly Marxist. Who to vote for in this instance? “None of the Above” would be a satisfying — and correct — choice. Voting for “None of the Above” sends a message that neither candidate is acceptable.
Voters who really need a “None of the Above” choice are those in Alabama. Do you want to send a liberal Democrat to the United States Senate? If your answer is no, then your only choice — if you want to vote — is to vote for a candidate facing credible charges of child molestation. That’s a choice we shouldn’t have to make. “None of the Above” voting lets voters cast a meaningful vote that says “I do not consent to these choices,” and that can start changing things.
“None of the Above” voting has issues to resolve, but the current system has many problems.
As a voter, would you like to express your displeasure with the choices on your ballot? Are you tired of voting for the lesser of two evils? Would you like to have a reason to go to the polls even though it seems the contests are already settled?
If so, then NOTA, or “None of the Above,” may appeal to you. In this system, candidates for offices are listed on your ballot. Then, an additional choice is added: “None of the Above.”
Politicians don’t like “None of the Above.” Appearing on WichitaLiberty.TV recently, John Fund told of how a politician worried that he might lose to an empty chair, meaning that “None of the Above” received more votes. Fund retorted that would be true only if the chair was better.
But what would we do if “None of the Above” won the election, having received more votes than any other candidate?
Would the second-place candidate be declared the winner and take office? In this case, the “None of the Above” vote is reduced to an advisory, indicating widespread dissatisfaction with the candidates.
Or, would the election be declared to have no winner? Then, would a new election with different (or same) candidates ordered? This would be disruptive and have the cost of holding a new election. But this is better than electing someone who can’t garner more votes than “None of the Above.”
There is an organization promoting “None of the Above” as a choice for voters. As part of its argument, it states:
“None of the above” voters often decide to stay home instead of voting on election day. Others encourage this and suggest that it’s the way you show political disapproval in our country. This is both misguided and politically offensive. Non-voting happens for many reasons — political apathy, for example. But dissatisfaction is NOT apathy. It may in fact be the exact opposite. To suggest that dissatisfied voters should stay home and not vote hides the voice of protest. It is also tantamount to disenfranchisement.
Finally, adding a NOTA option to ballots can fill an important role in maintaining a peaceful political order. At the moment, dissatisfaction is forced out of the regular political process. It hides in the shadows, uncounted and unrecognized, masquerading as non-voting or as a vote for a “lesser of two evils” candidate. Or maybe it doesn’t hide at all. Instead it boils up in protest and the potential for violence. Providing a NOTA option can’t cure unrest, but it can provide official recognition for dissatisfaction. And when dissent has been made visible, the political establishment will be unable to deny its existence.
Voice of protest. That’s important. Often I’ve refrained from voting for any listed candidates because I felt none were worthy to hold office. It’s my own little way of protesting. In election lingo this is called an “undervote” and has little meaning, because people undervote for many reasons. But voting for “None of the above” gives voters a meaningful choice in instances like this.
Voting for the lesser of two evils is a choice we often face as voters. In the upcoming race for Wichita school board, there is one contest between a thoroughly despicable incumbent and a challenger whose ideology is distinctly Marxist. Who to vote for in this instance? “None of the above” would be a satisfying — and correct — choice. Voting for “None of the Above” sends a message that neither candidate is acceptable. Instead of conceding their votes to the listed candidates, voters have a meaningful choice.
On the same day Wichitans will select three city council members. There are two candidates in each district. In one district, only one candidate is actively campaigning. In the other two, there are large imbalances in fundraising. “None of the above” works in these cases, too.
Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach addressed members and guests of the Wichita Pachyderm Club on Friday June 9, 2017, the day after he announced his candidacy for Kansas Governor in 2018. Video of this event is on YouTube here.
By Karl Peterjohn
Kris Kobach’s gubernatorial campaign heralding conservative policy options for Kansas arrived at the Wichita Pachyderm Club luncheon June 9. Speaking to a packed house of Pachyderm Club members and guests, Kobach wasted little time in blasting the tax and spend climate at the Kansas statehouse that resulted in the largest tax hike in Kansas history, a $1.2 billion income tax hike that was approved this week over Governor Brownback’s veto.
The Kansas Secretary of State since 2010, Kobach began criticizing the “climate of corruption,” at the Kansas statehouse. He criticized Democrat legislative leader Senator Anthony Hensley who has been in the legislature, “since the Ford administration,” when Kobach was eight years old at that time, and today Kobach is 51 years old. Kobach said many of the legislators are well past their, “sell by date,” and used this example from the last century to call for term limits on all statewide elected officials as well as legislative term limits.
“We had an obscene tax increase,” Kobach said in criticizing the legislators who overrode Governor Brownback’s veto and approved a $1.2 billion tax hike. “Kansas does not have a revenue problem, Kansas has a spending problem.” Kobach repeatedly blasted tax and spending expansion advocates from both Republican and Democrat legislators override the gubernatorial veto.
“It’s so easy when spending other peoples’ money,” Kobach said.
Kobach blasted the retroactive tax hike feature along with raising taxes on supposedly “high income” families making only $60,000 or more, a year. He called for a rollback of this tax hike, and pointed out the failure of the conservative Republican’s Truth Caucus budget that would not have raised taxes and failed in the senate by only a couple of votes. When legislators say they had no choice (but raise taxes) they are lying.”
Besides ending the culture of corruption and the tax battle, Kobach’s third point in his campaign platform plank included immigration and ending benefits for illegal immigration, including the in-state tuition that treats out of state U.S. citizens worse than illegal immigrants who have broken U.S. law. He also wants to end “sanctuary cities/counties,” that have been adopted by some local governments in Kansas.
Kobach called for making Kansas number one for pro-life issues and praise the legislation enacted relating to abortion since 2011. A sportsman and outdoorsman, Kobach praised the excellent pro-2nd Amendment ranking Kansas has achieved but expressed a desire, if elected, to make Kansas number one in rankings related to pro-life, 2nd amendment, and fiscal issues.
The Secretary of State has just finished their ninth conviction for voter fraud and done this while his office budget has been reduced by 18 percent. Personnel costs were the major area for generating savings in the Kansas Secretary of State’s office according to Kobach. He said this was achieved by eliminating positions due to retirement or job changes, and not by any layoffs. Kobach wants to take this personnel policy and apply it as governor.
When Kobach was asked about his support for initiative and referendum for state issues, he said that while he was personally supporting this, he doubted that this could get through the legislature. He did commit to demanding that the legislature cut back benefits for illegal immigrants, and would force the legislature into acting if he is elected.
This could generate significant savings in state spending. Kobach criticized Kansas for being behind our neighboring states since Kansas spends $424 million in benefits paid for illegal immigrants. This is a net figure, that includes the $18 m paid in mostly sales taxes, paid by illegals Kobach said. 71% of illegal household receive public benefits.
In continuing his criticism of the legislature, and particularly long serving legislative leaders, Kobach called for a restriction on legislators leaving public office and immediately becoming lobbyists for their former colleagues. This is commonplace at the Kansas statehouse. Kobach wants a ban that would last several years.
Kobach expressed strong support for school choice. He said that competition is good and wanted to provide parents and students with the ability to choose the best schools that would meet their educational needs.
The success of the effort to lower income taxes in Kansas was seen by the expansion in corporate filings that demonstrate new business formation while he has been in office. Annual filings have grown to 15,000 a year, an increase of about 35 percent since 2012, the first year that this information was tracked by the secretary of state’s office.
Former Sedgwick County Republican Party chairman Bob Dool introduced Kobach at this event. Dool cited Kobach’s Kansas ties in returning to Kansas after earning degrees at Harvard; Oxford, England; and a law degree from Yale University. Kobach had also worked as a White House fellow for George W. Bush and went on to join the U.S. Justice Department where he was serving during and after the 9-11-2001 Islamic terrorist attacks. Dool will serve as the treasurer for Kobach campaign. Kobach is married with five children and has served on the Overland Park city council. Recently, President Trump appointed Kobach to help lead a federal panel to look at problems with our voting system, reduce voter fraud, and improve our elections.
Kobach has become the second announced gubernatorial candidate after Wichita businessman Wink Hartman who was the first Republican to announce his candidacy recently. Governor Sam Brownback is term limited and cannot run for re-election. While the self-described, “moderates,” do not have a GOP gubernatorial candidate in this contest as of today, it is clear that at least two conservatives, and possibly more, are going to enter the Kansas gubernatorial primary for the GOP nomination.
An interactive map of voting in the special congressional election in Kansas district 4, for Sedgwick County only.
Intensity of red indicates higher percentage of votes for Ron Estes. By using the interactive map (link below) you may zoom and pan. Click on a precinct to see details of its vote. Precinct sizes — in terms of the number of voters — vary widely. Precincts cast anywhere from one to 950 votes.
This is data for Sedgwick County only. (It’s the only data I have at the moment.) Sedgwick County cast 67.9 percent of the votes in the district.
Click here to access the interactive map. Built with Google Fusion tables.
