A group of citizens who don’t agree with Kansas Governor Mark Parkinson’s decision to sign the statewide smoking ban bill is planning a protest in Salina.
The governor will sign the smoking ban bill on Monday at 3:30 pm at the Salina Public Library. It’s a ceremonial signing, as the actual bill was signed earlier today.
In a column in the February 27, 2008 Wichita Eagle (“Smoking ban issue not one to negotiate”), columnist Mark McCormick quotes Charlie Claycomb, co-chair of Tobacco Free Wichita, as equating a smoking section in a restaurant with “a urinating section in a swimming pool.”
This is a ridiculous comparison. A person can’t tell upon entering a swimming pool if someone has urinated in it. But people can easily tell upon entering a restaurant or bar if people are smoking.
Besides this, Mr. McCormick’s article seeks to explain how markets aren’t able to solve the smoking problem, and that there is no negotiating room, no middle ground. There must be a smoking ban, he concludes.
As way of argument, McCormick claims, I think, that restaurants prepare food in sanitary kitchens only because of government regulation, not because of markets. We see, however, that food is still being prepared in unsanitary kitchens, and food recalls, even in meat processing plants where government inspectors are present every day, still manage to happen. So government regulation itself is not a failsafe measure.
Markets — that is, consumers — do exert powerful forces on businesses. If a restaurant like McDonald’s serves food that makes people ill, which do you think the restaurant management fears most: a government fine, or the negative publicity? Even small local restaurants live and die by word of mouth. Those that serve poor quality food or food that makes people ill will suffer losses, not as much from government regulation as from the workings of markets.
But I will grant that Mr. McCormick does have a small point here. Just by looking at food, you probably can’t tell if it’s going to make you ill to eat it. Someone’s probably going to need to get sick before the word gets out. But you easily can tell if someone’s smoking in the bar or restaurant you just entered. Or, if people are smoking but you can’t detect it, I would image that the danger to health from breathing secondhand smoke is either nonexistent or very small.
The problem with a smoking ban written into law rather than reliance on markets, is that everyone has to live by the same rules. Living by the same rules is good when the purpose is to keep people and their property safe from harm, as is the case with laws against theft and murder. But it’s different when we pass laws intended to keep people safe from harms that they themselves can easily avoid, just by staying out of those places where people are smoking. For the people who value being in the smoky place more than they dislike the negative effects of the smoke, they can make that decision.
This is not a middle-ground position. It is a position that respects the individual. It lets each person have what they individually prefer, rather than having a majority — no matter how lop-sided — make the same decision for everyone. Especially when that decision, as Mr. Claycomb stated in another Wichita Eagle article, will “tick off everybody.” Who benefits from a law that does that?
Other articles on this topic:
A repeat of a column from 2008. Mark McCormick no longer writes for the Wichita Eagle. Recently that newspaper concluded that because Wichita’s smoking ban caused no economic harm, it was a good thing to do. Let’s hope this regulatory zeal doesn’t spread to other areas.
In a column in the February 27, 2008 Wichita Eagle (“Smoking ban issue not one to negotiate”), columnist Mark McCormick quotes Charlie Claycomb, co-chair of Tobacco Free Wichita, equating a smoking section in a restaurant with “a urinating section in a swimming pool.”
This is a ridiculous comparison. A person can’t tell upon entering a swimming pool if someone has urinated in it. But people can easily tell upon entering a restaurant or bar if people are smoking.
Besides this, Mr. McCormick’s article seeks to explain how markets aren’t able to solve the smoking problem, and that there is no negotiating room, no middle ground. There must be a smoking ban, he concludes.
As way of argument, McCormick claims, I think, that restaurants prepare food in sanitary kitchens only because of government regulation, not because of markets. We see, however, that food is still being prepared in unsanitary kitchens, and food recalls, even in meat processing plants where government inspectors are present every day, still manage to happen. So government regulation itself is not a failsafe measure.
Despite the doubts of nanny-state regulators, markets — that is, consumers — exert powerful forces on businesses. If a restaurant serves food that makes people ill, which do you think the restaurant management fears most: a government fine, or the negative publicity? Restaurants live and die by their reputation. Those that serve poor quality food or food that makes people ill will suffer losses, not as much from government regulation as from the workings of markets.
But I will grant that McCormick does have a small point here. Just by looking at food, you probably can’t tell if it’s going to make you ill. Someone’s probably going to need to get sick before the word gets out.
But you easily can tell if someone’s smoking in the bar or restaurant you just entered.
The problem with a smoking ban written into law — rather than reliance on markets and individual choice — is that everyone has to live by the same rules. Living by the same rules is good when the purpose is to keep people and their property safe from harm, as is the case with laws against theft and murder. But it’s different when we pass laws intended to keep people safe from harms that they themselves can easily avoid, just by staying out of those places where people are smoking.
For the people who value being in the smoky place more than they dislike the negative effects of the smoke, they can make that decision. McCormick and Claycomb want to deny people that choice.
This is not a middle-ground position. It is a position that respects the individual. It lets each person have what they individually prefer, rather than having a majority — no matter how lop-sided — make the same decision for everyone. Especially when that decision, as Claycomb stated in another Wichita Eagle article, will “tick off everybody.” Who benefits from a law that does that?
Kansas legislature website. It’s getting better, and now has — by my recollection — all the functionality of the site it replaced. But there are still some issues. The search feature uses a Google site-specific search, which is good in many ways. But trying to find if there’s any legislation this year concerning sales tax? Not so easy. … The rosters of members are displayed in panels of 12 members of a time. For the House there are 11 such panels. I wonder on which panel I’ll find the member I’m looking for? … Too many documents are still being delivered in OpenOffice doc format, which many people will not be able to use.
Kansas smoking ban. The Hutchinson News has reported and editorialized on the statewide smoking ban. In Hutch club owner wants to see measure repealed, Sheila Martin expresses her concern for the small business owners who are being harmed by the smoking ban. The booklet Martin created that the article refers to may be read here Kansas Smoking Ban Booklet. Then the newspaper editorialized against the smoking ban, writing “Eight months since it took effect, the local jury is in on Kansas’ statewide smoking law. It has hurt sales at some drinking establishments — no doubt, in turn, hurting state and local sales tax receipts — and it was doubtful that it stopped anyone from smoking or saved many from exposure to secondhand smoke.”
Fighting government secrecy. Announcing a television show regarding government transparency, the Kansas Sunshine Coalition for Open Government writes: “Open government is essential to a democracy. But it’s often hard to find that vital government transparency — and to get public access to public records, even when the law is on your side. “What is your government hiding?” is the focus of a town hall panel set at 4:00 to 5:00 pm Saturday, March 12, at the First United Methodist Church, 330 N. Broadway, in downtown Wichita. The event will be taped and shown on KAKE-TV and affiliated stations around the state at 10 am Sunday, March 13, as part of the national celebration of Sunshine Week (March 13-19). … ‘The Mike and Mike Show’ will headline the meeting. Media attorney Mike Merriam of Topeka will join University of Kansas law professor Mike Kautsch in a interactive presentation on media law, as well as how citizens can use the Kansas Open Records Act and the Kansas Open Meetings Act. … The show also will feature a panel on the importance of open government led by the League of Women Voters of Wichita. The audience is invited to ask questions. Refreshments will be available at a reception afterward. …KPTS-TV, Channel 8 in Wichita, will rebroadcast the show at 7 pm, Thursday, March 24. Those interested are asked to arrive in time to be seated by 3:45 pm. The event is sponsored by the Kansas Sunshine Coalition, the LWV and the Elliott School of Communication at Wichita State University.
Kansas judicial selection. The Wall Street Journal takes notice of the need for judicial selection reform in Kansas, writing “Kansas is the only state that gives the members of its bar a majority on the judicial nominating commission. That commission also handles the nominations for state Supreme Court justices, and changing that would require a state constitutional amendment. The Sunflower State is nonetheless off to a good start at making judicial appointments more than a preserve of the lawyers guild.” … Kansas University Law Professor Stephen J. Ware is the foremost authority on the method of judicial selection in Kansas and the need for reform. His paper on this topic is Selection to the Kansas Supreme Court, which is published by the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies. Further reporting by me is at Kansas judicial selection needs reform, says law professor.
Kansas Education Liberty Act. A strong school choice measure has been introduced in the Kansas House of Representatives. The bill is HB 2367 and may be read at the Kansas Legislature website. The measure’s supporters have a website at supportkela.com. From the bill’s supporters: “This bill authorizes specific non-profit organizations to grant scholarships to students to attend a qualified private or public school of their parents’ choice. These scholarships are funded through tax-credit eligible contributions from individual Kansans and corporations. State taxpayers will spend significantly less on each scholarship than they currently spend per pupil in public schools. This bill reduces education related spending from the state’s general fund and reduces the budget deficit. In addition, public schools will still have access to the majority of the federal and local taxpayer funding; so with each student who chooses another educational setting, public schools will have more funding per remaining student. Perhaps even more significant, our children will enjoy improved education outcomes in both public and private education in the state of Kansas with increased parental and community involvement.” … While the Kansas education establishment fiddles with “reforms” such as whether to grant tenure in three or five years, actual reform measures like this are what is needed.
What … it’s not about the whales? “Environmental policy is not driven by tree-hugging activists, earnest liberal bloggers, or ecologically minded citizens. Instead, it flows from the lobbyists and executives of well-connected multinational corporations and built-for-subsidy startups that see profit in the loan guarantees, handouts, mandates, and tax credits Congress creates in the name of saving the planet.” Timothy P. Carney explains more in Meet the lobbyist who turns ‘green’ into greenbacks.
Wichita council candidates. Now that the city primary election is over and each district has two candidates for the April 5 general election, this week’s meeting (March 11) of the Wichita Pachyderm Club features Wichita City Council candidates. Invited are from district 2: Pete Meitzner and Charlie Stevens. From district 4: Joshua Blick and Michael O’Donnell. From district 5: Jeff Longwell and Lynda Tyler. The public is welcome and encouraged to attend Wichita Pachyderm meetings. For more information click on Wichita Pachyderm Club.
Common Sense — Revisited author in Wichita. Clyde Cleveland will visit Wichita to speak at the Holiday Inn at 549 S. Rock Road on Wednesday, March 16th at 7:00 pm. The event’s promotional poster reads: “Join Clyde Cleveland, the author of Common Sense — Revisited and 2002 libertarian candidate for Iowa Governor for an eye-opening presentation on our Government and how we can restore it to the Republic in its original form. Learn about Indigenous and Surrogate Powers, and how Americans have surrendered their ‘Sentient Power’. The good news is, we can peacefully, and lawfully, re-inhabit our Sovereign status and reclaim a bottom-up, ‘By, of, and For the People,’ Republic form of Government. … This is what was intended by our founding fathers, and for which many others have given their lives to protect. Following the presentation Clyde will discuss how we can participate in rebuilding our State and National Republics.” Cleveland’s website is Common Sense Revisited. He will also speak in Overland Park on March 17th.
Yesterday over 200 people packed a room at Wichita State University to attend a forum of Wichita-area Kansas state legislators. The meeting was chaired by Representative Steve Brunk, a Republican who represents Bel Aire and parts of far northeast Wichita.
One of the topics underlying much of the meeting was the subject of tax cuts to business. Proponents of government spending say the state has given up too much revenue by granting tax cuts.
Sometimes, in case of the business franchise tax, the state levies a tax simply for existing. This tax is being phased out over a five-year period starting in 2007. Government spending interests — including Governor Mark Parkinson — want to reinstate this tax, however.
There are sometimes disagreements as to what a “cut” means. In his opening remarks, Representative Jim Ward, a Democrat who represents parts of southeast Wichita and is also assistant minority leader, referred to a recent $95 million tax cut given to business, saying this is not a good thing to do when the state needs more tax revenue. Representative Brenda Landwehr, a Republican who represents parts of northwest Wichita, disagreed with Ward’s characterization.
The program referred to is an expansion of a program that lets companies keep their employees’ Kansas withholding taxes when new jobs are created. Proponents of these types of economic development incentives that are granted through the tax system argue that without the incentive, no jobs would be created, so there would be no new taxes to collect. Therefore, the program is without cost. They also often argue that the new jobs create other economic activity that is taxed, and this is a source of revenue for the state.
There is ample evidence, however, that these targeted economic development incentives often do not work as intended.
In answering one question, Landwehr referred to the Health Care Freedom Act. This possible amendment to the Kansas Constitution would allow Kansas to opt out of certain areas of possible federal health care legislation, such as the requirement that citizens purchase health insurance. Landwehr said that the issue goes back to what the Constitution and the Bill of Rights really say. Freedom and liberty are two key words, she said. “If government decides that they should be the one dictating to you what company your health issuance should be with, what benefits you should have or not have, we’re going to have less providers. … We need to be able to make these decisions ourselves.”
Addressing the number of uninsured in Kansas, Landwehr said that over half are the “invincibles” — young people 18 to 30 years old who choose not to purchase health insurance. Another segment are the underinsured.
On the recently-passed statewide smoking ban, Brunk read a question that asked “Why is smoking not bad for you in state-owned bars?” Brunk remarked that the questioner probably meant state-owned casinos, to the amusement of the audience. I thought to myself if the state can own casinos, why not bars? And if the state owned bars and taverns, would the smoking ban apply to them?
Rep. Landwehr criticized the smoking ban based on liberty, freedom, and property rights. She also mentioned problems with the bill regarding how the casino floor air — where smoking is allowed — would be kept separate from the air in the rest of the building. Representative Geraldine Flaharty, a Democrat who represents parts of south-central Wichita, said that the health issues of smoking overrode these issues.
Education, however, was the topic of interest to many in the audience.
Representative Joe McLeland, a Republican who represents parts of west Wichita and who is chairman of the House Education Budget Committee, said that education funding is a tough issue. He mentioned the large unencumbered fund balances in Kansas school districts, mentioning specifically that the Wichita school district has $252 million in its fund balances as of December. “Schools have a lot of money,” he said to disapproval of the large number of school spending advocates in the audience.
McLeland said that schools routinely transfer unspent money from the general fund — which can’t be carried forward to the next year — to other funds. These other funds generally fall into the category of restricted funds. Schools continually remind everyone that money in these restricted funds can’t be spent with the same degree of flexibility that money in unrestricted funds can. This is part of an effort by schools to treat restricted funds — which according to recent Wichita school district presentations are 59.5% of the district’s spending — as though they don’t exist and shouldn’t be counted as part of school spending.
McLeland said that this week he will introduce legislation that will reduce the number of funds from 27 to five and will prohibit transferring general fund dollars to restricted funds, including capital building funds.
McLeland also said that state law requires school districts to spend 65% of their budgets in the classroom. Since the state average is about 55%, McLeland said schools are not following this law.
Uniform accounting is a new law passed recently, McLeland said. With 293 school districts in the state, each reporting numbers differently, it is difficult to compare budgets.
McLeland also referred to the voluntary efficiency audits that school districts could participate in. The Derby school district is the only local school district that participated. The audit found that Derby instructional services spending was above average for its peers, but teacher salaries were below the peer average. McLeland said that the reason for this surprising finding couldn’t be determined due to the lack of standard accounting and reporting.
Representative Judy Loganbill, a Democrat who represents parts of east and southeast Wichita and who is also a Wichita school teacher, asked the rhetorical question “how often do you visit a school?” She mentioned the battle between unencumbered and encumbered funds. “Approximately 60 percent of a school’s budget must go to certain places. It has to. … What’s left over is where we get the unencumbered funds. … When you’re looking at your unencumbered funds, that’s where your salaries come from.”
She also mentioned the difficulty of determining what constitutes spending in the classroom. Things like transportation, utilities, books, materials — all are essential to schools, she said. She also mentioned the need to produce highly qualified and educated students to lead us into the next generation. She said that businesses don’t come into our state because of the employee withholding tax break discussed above, but because of quality of life issues like schools, good roads, and safe neighborhoods.
After a short break so that many of the legislators could leave to attend a funeral of a former legislator, Representative Kasha Kelley of Arkansas City gave an overview of the Kansas budget and the budget process.
A question to her referenced the large number of unemployed in Kansas. If tax breaks to business are such a good deal, why are there so many unemployed? Rep. Jim Ward expressed similar sentiment earlier. A proper answer to this question is that yes, there are large numbers of unemployed in Kansas at this time. Our unemployment rate is lower than the nation’s, however, and we should be grateful for that. Furthermore, we don’t know what our jobs situation would be if taxes on business had not been reduced. Since taxes in all forms are a drag on jobs creation, it is certain that there would be fewer jobs in Kansas if not for some tax reductions.
Also, some of the tax breaks given are quite small in relation to the state budget. In 2007, which is when the franchise tax reductions started, that tax brought in about $4.6 million. To place this number in some context, in February alone the state fell $71 million short of projected revenue.
Another questioner who identified himself as a former family business owner and a teacher for 12 years questioned the effectiveness of tax abatements and breaks on job creation.
One questioner criticized the state’s economic forecasts, calling for an honest assessment, perhaps by different company. It has been the case that over the past year or so, actual revenues have been significantly less than forecast. Brunk responded that the projections are developed by economists from state universities. It should be noted that economic forecasting is very difficult, and very few people foresaw the tremendous decline in the nation’s and state’s economies. If someone could forecast these things with certainty, they could make trades in financial markets that would generate very high returns.
Regarding the claim that business tax cuts are costing the state too much lost revenue: The problem with this analysis is that it presumes that the government has first claim on the income of businesses — and people too, for that matter. Those who believe in the principle of self-ownership, meaning that people own themselves and the things they produce, have a problem with this attitude.
I fully agree with the critics of targeted tax breaks. The state, as do all governments, has a poor record of being able to choose which companies or class of companies should benefit from special tax treatment and subsidy. A report by the Division of Legislative Post Audit from 2008 found that “it’s difficult to accurately assess the results of economic development expenditures.” Overall, the report was skeptical of the expenditures on economic development and its ability to produce jobs.
The school spending lobby, hungry for more tax dollars, refuses to acknowledge simple facts. The existence of the unspent fund balances is vigorously disputed, even though Kansas Deputy Education Commissioner Dale Dennis has said that schools can use these funds if they want. This is contrary to school spending advocate and Kansas school board member David Dennis in his flawed Wichita Eagle op-ed.
The schools also have no explanation for why the unspent balances in the funds grow rapidly, from $74 million to $94 million over the last four years for the Wichita school district. Instead, the schools would rather be left alone and unaccountable. Hopefully some initiatives in the legislature, such as the common accounting requirements, will lead to greater transparency and accountability.
The school spending lobby must also face the fact that the Kansas state achievement tests, which show large increases in school performance, are almost certainly fraudulent, as is the case in most states. The link between the huge increase in Kansas school spending and these test scores is used as an argument not to cut schools spending.
We also saw again the school spending lobby’s claim that restricted funds don’t count, as though schools are totally hamstrung when it comes to this money.
The contentiousness in the audience between the school spending lobby and the rest of the audience should lead us to question why we turn over such an important matter to government.
Education reform, downtown Wichita arena, Kansas smoking ban, downtown developers
Education’s Ground Zero (Nicholas D. Kristof in The New York Times) Describes the efforts of Washington D.C. public schools chancellor Michelle Rhee to reform the system. She’s fired one-third of the principals. Kristof reminds us of the importance of teachers: “The reform camp is driven partly by research suggesting that great teachers are far more important to student learning than class size, school resources or anything else. One study suggests that if black kids could get teachers from the profession’s most effective quartile for four years in a row, the achievement gap would disappear.” In Wichita, however, USD 259 is taking the opposite approach.
Intrust Bank Arena management contract unusual, but not necessarily bad (Bill Wilson in the Wichita Eagle) Explores the nature of the arrangement between Sedgwick County and SMG as compared to other arenas. “The bottom line for these officials: Sedgwick County has a good deal with SMG, but has a responsibility to closely monitor the arena’s performance for taxpayers who paid for the building with a sales tax increase.” More coverage of related issues is Wichita downtown arena contract seems to require Sedgwick County approval.
Details of Intrust Bank Arena contract with Thunder are a secret (Bill Wilson in the Wichita Eagle) This is an earlier story, interesting for the confusion it raises or exposes, I’m not sure which. Reported in the story: “The arena’s financial performance would be monitored by the county through what [Sedgwick County assistant manager Ron] Holt characterized as limited records access. But [Sedgwick County Commissioner Gwen] Welshimer said she didn’t know how the county would track the arena’s financial performance. ‘We don’t have any access to their books that I know of,’ she said.” Read the county’s contract with SMG, however, and you learn that SMG will maintain accounting records, have them audited, and give Sedgwick County access to them “upon reasonable advance notice.” Also, the county has the right to audit the records at any time.
Why state smoking ban seems inevitable Rhonda Holman in the Wichita Eagle Editorial Blog) In this post, Wichita Eagle editorialist Rhonda Holman makes explicit the connection between state-paid health care and the state’s interest in controlling behavior: “That’s [passing the statewide smoking ban] the only responsible action the Legislature can take, given the increasing cost burden of smoking-related illnesses on the state …” If the state (that includes the U.S. Federal government) starts taking responsibility for more health care, smoking bans are just the start of state meddling in behavior.
Minnesota Guys ready to start face-lifts of downtown Wichita buildings (Bill Wilson in Wichita Eagle) Real Development starts work on the improvement of facades of some of its buildings. In the article developer Michael Elzufon manages to use the word “iconic” twice. This article doesn’t tell how these improvements are paid for: a confusing arrangement where the city loans money and recoups it in special assessment taxes. A hefty development fee is being paid to the developers, which allows them to profit for fixing up their own buildings. But they’ll pay that back in the form of the special taxes — or will they? It’s hard to tell where the money is going in these agreements. This benefits developers like Elzufon and politicians on the Wichita city council, as if citizens knew what was really going on, they wouldn’t be happy.
Yesterday the Kansas Senate passed a sweeping state-wide smoking bill that prohibits smoking in nearly all indoor places in Kansas.
Except for casino gaming floors.
Why? The state hopes someday to generate a lot of revenue from gambling. Does the state realize that customers of some establishments may like to smoke while they’re there, and that banning smoking might be bad for business?
It’s outrageous that the state so desperately wants to earn as much as possible from gambling that it will tolerate smoking in casinos. It gives an unfair advantage to these casinos as compared to other places of business.
At one time Kansas prohibited its citizens from gambling because it was thought to be immoral. That attitude started to change when Kansas allowed a lottery. Now that the state owns casinos — that’s right, in Kansas the state owns the casinos that aren’t Indian casinos — thoughts of morality have been swept aside. Or, at least, we’ve decided that the potential revenue inflows to state coffers is more important than the moral health of Kansans.
Now that Kansas is in the business of gambling, it’s working to protect the monopoly it granted itself. In Wichita, entrepreneurs sought to get around gambling laws by offering a variation of poker that they argued was legal. A judge disagreed, and the game was shut down, preserving the monopoly of the state in gambling.
Having settled the question as to whether gambling is moral, we now see that this case is all about the money. The state doesn’t like competitors.
The state is willing to look the other way on smoking too, when it comes to the potential of earning more revenue from its casinos. Earlier this year the Kansas senate considered a state-wide smoking ban that allowed smoking in its casinos.
Is this another example of Kansas hypocrisy: smoking should not be allowed, except where it might reduce the state’s gambling revenue?