Search results for: “Key Construction”

  • Historic buildings bill on tap

    Historic buildings bill on tap

    A bill designed to protect two buildings in downtown Wichita has a legislative hearing this week.

    Last year a citizen group gathered signatures on a petition that would prevent the City of Wichita from disposing of two downtown buildings without an approving vote of a majority of citizens. Based on having the required number of valid signatures, the petition was certified as valid. But the city sued to have the petition thrown out, contending the petition went beyond what Kansas law allows as the subject of municipal petitions. A judge agreed with the city.

    Now the group has a bill in the legislature with a hearing this week. The bill is HB 2233, titled “Enacting the municipal historic building act.”

    The key provision of the bill is this: “No city shall be permitted to sell, destroy, demolish, dispose of or otherwise alienate any public building that is more than 80,000 square feet in size and has been placed on the national register of historic places without first obtaining the approval [of voters.]”

    At present, there are only two buildings that meet the criteria: Century II and the former Central Wichita Library.

    In a release, John Todd writes:

    House Bill No. 2233 is a bill initiated in the Kansas Legislature by the Wichita Save Century II citizens committee that is written to require a mandatory majority vote of Wichita qualified electors before municipally-owned buildings exceeding 80,000 square feet and on the National Register of Historic Places can be demolished or destroyed. We believe only two buildings in the state of Kansas meet this narrow definition: Century II and the former Wichita public library.

    A public hearing is being held on Wednesday, February 24, on House Bill No. 2233 titled the Municipal Historic Buildings Act at 9:00 a.m. in the House Local Government Committee at the statehouse in Topeka.

    Celeste Racette, Save Century II Committee Chair, Karl Peterjohn, Save Century II Committee Member, and I (also a Save Century II Committee Member) will be testifying in person at the committee hearing in Topeka.

  • Law Firm Bends in Face of Trump Demands

    One-sentence summary: Paul, Weiss law firm reached a deal with President Trump to avoid an executive order, agreeing to limit DEI policies, support Trump-aligned causes, and publicly distance itself from a former partner who once investigated Trump.

    President Donald Trump has rescinded an executive order targeting the prominent law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP after the firm agreed to a set of concessions in a deal negotiated directly with Trump. The agreement requires the firm to represent clients regardless of political affiliation, donate $40 million in legal services to initiatives favored by Trump, and conduct a hiring audit to ensure merit-based practices without using DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) policies. The firm will also support Trump’s efforts to aid veterans and combat antisemitism.

    This development is part of Trump’s broader retribution campaign against institutions he believes wronged him, particularly Democratic-leaning law firms. Legal experts expressed concern over the implications of the deal, which some view as capitulation to political pressure and potentially undermining legal independence. Paul, Weiss has long been known for its progressive values and has employed many prominent Democrats, including former Obama administration officials. The firm’s chairman, Brad Karp, met with Trump in person to negotiate the resolution and, according to the White House, acknowledged “wrongdoing” by former partner Mark F. Pomerantz. Pomerantz previously tried to build a criminal case against Trump while working for the Manhattan DA. He denied any wrongdoing.

    The deal only applies to Paul, Weiss and not to other firms facing similar executive orders. The broader legal community has expressed concern over the chilling effect such orders could have, especially given Trump’s previous actions against other law firms such as Covington & Burling and Perkins Coie. The latter had a restraining order issued against Trump’s executive action, which was found likely unconstitutional.

    Before agreeing to the deal, Paul, Weiss had considered suing Trump and had brought in Quinn Emanuel, a firm with past ties to Trump, to represent them. However, talks led to a negotiated resolution. Reports indicate that while a statement had been agreed upon, its wording changed before release, notably including a clause rejecting DEI policies – a shift that has not been publicly clarified by Paul, Weiss.

    This case joins a pattern of other Trump settlements, such as with Meta and ABC News, where he used legal pressure to extract concessions or funding for his presidential library. The developments highlight Trump’s growing influence over private institutions since returning to power.

    Schmidt, Michael S. “Law Firm Bends in Face of Trump Demands.” The New York Times, 21 Mar. 2025, www.nytimes.com/2025/03/20/us/politics/paul-weiss-deal-trump-executive-order-withdrawn.html.

    Key takeaways:

    • Paul, Weiss avoided an executive order by agreeing to Trump’s demands, including rejecting DEI policies and donating legal services to Trump-backed causes.
    • The deal follows a personal Oval Office meeting between Trump and the firm’s chairman, Brad Karp.
    • Trump used the deal to highlight supposed wrongdoing by former partner Mark Pomerantz, who denies any misconduct.
    • Legal experts fear the deal sets a precedent of law firms capitulating to political pressure.
    • Other Trump actions against media and tech companies also resulted in financial settlements benefitting his library or causes.
    • The firm considered legal action against Trump before opting to settle.

    Most important quotations:

    • “The president is agreeing to this action in light of a meeting with Paul, Weiss Chairman, Brad Karp, during which Mr. Karp acknowledged the wrongdoing of former Paul, Weiss partner, Mark Pomerantz…”
    • “I engaged in no wrongdoing by working as a prosecutor to uphold the rule of law,” – Mark Pomerantz
    • “The firm would represent clients no matter their political affiliations.”
    • “The firm agreed… not to adopt, use, or pursue any DEI policies.”

    Word count of summary: 674
    Word count of original article: 1,492

    Model: GPT-4-turbo
    Custom GPT: Summarizer 2

  • Kansas school finance reporting and opinion

    school-crayons-colored-pencils-168392There’s a range of opinion, that’s for sure.

    Republicans concede bill would let teachers be fired without cause (Wichita Eagle)
    “Statehouse Republicans are having to abandon a key talking point in their effort to defuse teacher anger over an anti-tenure bill the Legislature passed a week ago, conceding the bill would allow school districts to fire veteran teachers without having to give a reason why. If Gov. Sam Brownback signs the bill into law, teachers would essentially be at-will employees of their school districts and able to challenge termination only if they allege the firing violates their constitutional rights.” Click here to read.

    Kansas bill renews debate about how easy it should be to fire teachers (Kansas City Star)
    There is a diversity of opinion, much conflicting, it seems: “It’s not too damn hard to fire a teacher,” said Marcus Baltzell, the director of communications for the Kansas National Education Association. “It’s just that the teacher has a redress of due process, a hearing officer, (a chance to say) ‘Here’s my take. Here’s what we’ve done to address the area of concern, and I believe this is unfair.’” … “Lawmakers who backed the change — it becomes law if Gov. Sam Brownback signs it — argued that dumping dead weight from the faculty has become harder than it ought to be.” … “I don’t like tenure. I never have,” said Rep. Ward Cassidy, a Republican from northwest Kansas who worked as a high school principal for 20 years. “Good principals have a whole lot of other things to do besides going through all you need to fire a teacher.” Click here to read.

    In Wichita, Brownback neither praises nor criticizes measure stripping K-12 teacher tenure rights (Wichita Eagle)
    “… most questions he was asked after his short talk concerned a provision to strip veteran K-12 teachers of tenure rights in the recently passed public school financing bill, which he said he has not decided whether to sign. And while he didn’t criticize that provision, he didn’t endorse it either.” Click here to read.

    In Kansas, education is all about money and politics for UMEEA (Kansas Policy Institute)
    “Media reaction to the school finance legislation has been pretty predictable. It focuses almost exclusively on institutions and ignores the impact on students. As usual, it’s all about money and politics. Unions, media and their allies in the education establishment (UMEEA) oppose tax credit scholarships for low income students. They rail against taxpayer money going to private schools and how that might mean a little less money for public institutions but ignore the very real purpose and need for the program. (FYI, the scholarship program is capped at $10 million; schools are expected to spend almost $6 billion this year.) Achievement gaps for low income students are large and getting worse, despite the fact that At Risk funding intended to improve outcomes increased seven-fold over the last eight years. So predictably, a program to give an alternative to low income students in the 99 lowest-performing schools is attacked by UMEEA as being unfair to institutions. Media and their establishment friends don’t even make a token mention of the serious achievement problem. It’s all about money and politics.” Click here to read.

    Far-Right Kansas Legislature Sells Out Kansas Schools (Kansas Democratic Party)
    “But none of these stories could compete with what the Kansas Legislature did to Kansas public schools. Under the cover of night and with virtually no debate or hearings, the Kansas Legislature forced through an education “reform” bill that stripped teachers of due process rights, passed out even more tax breaks to corporations, and potentially widened the disparity between rich schools and poor schools. School districts say new school finance bill will widen disparities.” Click here to read.

    Opinion: Public education under attack (Lawrence Journal-World)
    “The inclusion of these so-called “policy” provisions in the school finance bill passed by the Legislature are a mistake and will actually harm the very schools that the Kansas Supreme Court sought to assist. This is just one more step in the Legislature’s assault on public K-12 education in Kansas.” Click here to read.

    Teachers are sacrificial lambs in school finance (Iola Register via High Plains Daily Leader and Southwest Daily Times)
    A confused editorial. The writer says that teachers are held accountable to, among others, school administrators, but usually it is claimed that teachers need defense from this accountability. “The defense of tenure is at its best when you consider a teacher is accountable to hundreds of ‘bosses’ — parents and school boards as well as administrators.” Click here to read.

    Selling education (Hutchinson News)
    “Two elements of the bill are particularly troubling. One creates a $10 million-a-year corporate welfare program in support of private education. It allows large companies to enjoy a 70-percent credit against their state tax liability if they offer scholarships to at-risk students who move to private schools. This has nothing at all to do with public education equity; rather it creates a mechanism to damage the finance structure for public schools. The second concerning component redefines “teacher” as a way to eliminate due process protections. And the concept of teacher tenure is a myth. The current due process for teachers simply ensures a written termination notice and the right to challenge the decision through review by a hearing officer. In fact the Kansas Association of School Boards reported that the state sees about 10 due process claims each year – hardly a number that indicates a systemic problem that requires legislative action. The measure is little more than a way to break the teachers’ union and silence those teachers who honestly educate and advocate for their students.” Click here to read.

    Richard Crowson: We Need Some Education (KMUW)
    “And that guy who was smiling and joking with me in the checkout line at the grocery last Saturday? He lit a firebomb, taped a tax credit for private school supporters on it, and flung it through the window of a first grade classroom in the wee hours of Sunday morning.” Click here to read.

    Rep. Rooker ‘heartsick’ over results of education finance bill (Prairie Village Post)
    Small steps towards Kansas education reform are “immoral” and make this representative “heartsick.” Click here to read.

    Shame, says Wichita Eagle editorial board (Voice for Liberty)
    The Wichita Eagle editorial board, under the byline of Rhonda Holman, issued a stern rebuke to the Kansas Legislature for its passage of HB 2506 over the weekend. Click here to read.

  • Taxpayer Bill Of Rights (TABOR) eviscerated

    By Karl Peterjohn

    Governor Bill Owens won a Pyrrhic victory in his campaign to eliminate the Taxpayers Bill Of Rights (TABOR) limits on government growth in Colorado. Owens’ short lived Proposition C victory will lead to a host of long term consequences that are mainly negative for Coloradans looking for a better economic future for themselves and their families. Passage of Proposition C is huge defeat for economic freedom across the country and a setback for fiscal responsibility.

    The passage of Proposition C will mark a key political and public policy turning point that ends Owens’ career as a fiscally conservative Republican. Owens is truly now a political lame-duck who will be known forever more as the individual primarily responsible for the demise of TABOR. Among fiscal conservatives nationwide he is now a political dead-duck. A couple of years ago National Review featured Owens as a potential presidential model for GOP conservatives. Now he is nothing more than another Republican office holder who “grew in office.”

    While it is certainly true that the entire Colorado Democrat Party, their mainstream media allies, and the usual leftie academic types also bear significant responsibility for the outcome of this vote, the face on the evisceration of the Taxpayers Bill of Rights will be, and should be, Governor Bill Owens. Now, TABOR is wounded but it not dead. Here’s what the Left will target next based on the Kansas model.

    The Left’s next step will be to figure out a similar evisceration of TABOR’s provisions affecting local governments spending in Colorado. Naturally, extending the time limit for TABOR’s evisceration at the state level will be needed, but that can wait for a couple of years until Democrats return to running all levers of power in state government in Colorado.

    Owens success November 1 in passing Proposition C and possibly (the preliminary vote indicates a very narrow defeat for Proposition D that a re-count may reverese) Proposition D will lead to a host of long term negative consequences for Colorado. In the short run the state will be free to go on a spending spree. They will.

    The state spending Bacchanalia will be certainly be followed by a fiscal hangover. The spending will be short run stimulative and long run drag on the state. This is not unexpected and in fact, there is a model for this pattern: California. Almost 20 years ago the Gann Amendement that limited state spending growth was a 1970’s (the Gann Amendment was enacted in the wake of Proposition 13) forefather of the Taxpayers Bill of Rights. The spending lobbies in California hated it and roughly a decade after passing it, they succeeded in eliminating Gann.

    California has fiscally struggled ever since this cap on government was terminated. Massive fiscal uncertainty was created and the California fiscal climate clouded up in the wake of this policy change. Next week a very pale imitation of a state spending limit will be voted upon in California as part of the four initiative package promoted there by Governor Schwarzennegger. A narrow, 52-48 percent Colorado majority has decided that California is the fiscal path to follow instead of the tried and true Taxpayers Bill of Rights.

    As the fiscal hangover appears following the Colorado state spending spree in a few years this is will help my state, Kansas, compete with Colorado. The model Governor Owens and his bipartisan spending coalition has adopted is very similar to the pattern of higher spending adopted by Kansas’ nominally Republican Governor Bill Graves and a bipartisan majority of the Kansas legislature during his second term here (1999-2003). Record spending leading to more taxes leading to more economic stagnation leading to more Kansans leaving for states with more fiscally prudent policies. Kansans number one destination state to move to today is Texas according to census figures. The most delicious irony of the anti-TABOR campaign is the fact that the leading TABOR critic touring Kansas these days is Carol Hedges. She is one of many Kansans who have moved to Colorado which has a large number of expatriate Kansans.

    These economic and demographic changes will take years and possibly even decades to fully play out. It is possible that a taxpayers bill of rights will eventually stage a comeback in Colorado, but that is unlikely for the rest of this decade. What is likely is resurrection of the Democratic Party as the Republicans fracture because of Owens’ fiscal apostasy in abandoning TABOR. The next governor of Colorado will be a Democrat.

    In the decade before Coloradan’s adopted the Taxpayers Bill of Rights in 1992 there wasn’t much difference in economic growth between my state of Kansas and Colorado. Both states grew below the national average. Colorado did slightly better than Kansas. That lethargic growth ended in 1992 in Colorado with TABOR’s passage. The growth in Colorado compared to Kansas in the 13 years of TABOR was dramatic and compelling. Soon it will be gone. TABOR will be a memory for Coloradans and that state’s economy will drift back into the tax ‘n spend lethargy that is Kansas today. What a shame.

  • Wichita Chamber calls for more cronyism

    Wichita Chamber calls for more cronyism

    By advocating for revival of the Export-Import Bank of the United States, the Wichita Metro Chamber of Commerce continues its advocacy for more business welfare, more taxes, more wasteful government spending, and more cronyism.

    Your chamber of commerce radio buttonsThat may be surprising to read. Most people probably think that local chambers of commerce — since their membership is mostly business firms — support pro-growth policies that embrace limited government and free markets. But that’s usually not the case. It’s certainly is not the case in Wichita, where the Chamber supports higher taxes,1 2 more government spending, more business welfare, more government planning and control, more cronyism — and less economic freedom. The predictable result is less prosperity, which has been the case in Wichita under the leadership of the Wichita Chamber, its policies, and the politicians and bureaucrats it supports.

    Email to Wichita Chamber of Commerce supporters (excerpt).
    Email to Wichita Chamber of Commerce supporters (excerpt).
    Now the Wichita Chamber is asking members to lobby Kansas representatives in support of the revival of the Export-Import Bank. In an email (read here), the Wichita Chamber speaks approvingly of a maneuver executed successfully in the United States House of Representatives that will force a vote on the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank. The method used, a discharge petition, was signed by well over a majority of House members, including perhaps 42 Republicans. If the petition signers vote the same way, the bill to reauthorize the Ex-Im Bank will pass the House. It will then move to the Senate for consideration.

    No members of the House of Representatives from Kansas signed the discharge petition. In July a vote on an amendment in favor of the Ex-Im Bank passed with 67 votes, including votes from both Kansas Senators Pat Roberts and Jerry Moran.

    Wichita governmental agencies favor the Export-Import Bank.
    Wichita governmental agencies favor the Export-Import Bank.
    Business groups and government agencies usually favor Ex-Im. Business groups — as distinguished from capitalism. Free-market and capitalism advocacy groups are almost universally opposed.

    In testimony to Congress on this matter, The Cato Institute providwed this:

    The Export-Import Bank’s main functions of providing loan guarantees, insurance, and direct loans that benefit U.S. exporters are typically justified by Ex-Im Bank’s mission of providing that support when there are instances of “market failure” — i.e., when the private market does not provide those services on its own — or subsidized export finance that benefits foreign competitors. I hope to show that in neither instance is the Ex-Im Bank’s support called for.

    Proponents of continued funding for the Ex-Im Bank often cite figures of export-related jobs created by Ex-Im’s finance to claim that the agency benefits the U.S. economy. The opportunity costs, or costs to the rest of the economy, of funding Ex-Im Bank’s activities are, however, never cited. By this logic, we are led to believe that the government export program is virtually cost-free or even provides a net economic gain.

    The reality is much different, particularly since the market is a far more efficient allocator of resources than government. While it may be true that the export agency helps a few businesses — only about 2 percent of all U.S. goods and services exports are backed by the Ex-Im Bank — it is highly doubtful that the agency helps the U.S. economy. Indeed, as one Congressional Research Service study noted, “Most economists doubt … that a nation can improve its welfare over the long run by subsidizing exports. Internal economic policies ultimately determine the overall level of a nation’s exports… . By providing financing or insurance for exporters, Ex-Im Bank’s activities draw from the financial resources within the economy that would be available for other uses. Such opportunity costs, while impossible to estimate, potentially could be significant.”

    Put another way, the Export-Import Bank is an example of corporate welfare. It benefits a small number of private businesses at the expense of other businesses and taxpaying citizens. That is true even if the agency does not lose money. …

    Conclusion

    The Export-Import Bank is a New Deal era agency with no relevance in a liberal global economy. It has not helped cause U.S. prosperity, but has certainly imposed opportunity costs larger than any alleged benefits; it has not corrected so-called market failures, but has rewarded foreign countries for failing to adopt market-oriented policies and institutions; and it affects such a small percentage of U.S. exports that even in the face of foreign nations’ wrong-headed, export-finance programs, the “playing field” already seems to favor U.S. businesses. The most important reason, however, that the Export-Import Bank’s charter should not be reauthorized is that it is neither morally correct nor constitutional for the federal government to use general taxpayer money to promote the economic welfare of specific groups.

    A statement from Americans for Prosperity read:

    Members are right to be frustrated with this attempt to sidestep regular order, especially to revive a defunct institution that represents the worst of Beltway crony capitalism. It’s unfortunate that some are determined not to take even a modest step toward restoring free markets or getting out of the business of special interest deals. Signing this discharge petition is an attempt to bring an inherently corrupt institution back from the dead, and it means siding with corporate lobbyists over taxpayers. Abandoning free-market principles is wrong, but trying to do it with a procedural gimmick just adds insult to injury.

    FreedomWorks issued this:

    This July, an 80-year-old corporate welfare program known as the U.S. Export-Import Bank was allowed to expire for the first time since its inception. Created by FDR as part of his New Deal, the bank offers taxpayer-backed loan guarantees to companies unable to secure independent financing — in other words, loans too risky for private investors to be willing to finance.

    It’s a ridiculous and obsolete program, and while its cost is small in the grand scheme of government spending — $2 billion over years — the difficulty with which it was finally defunded shows the extreme disproportionate influence of special interests in Washington. When conservatives finally succeeded in stopping the Bank’s funding, it was regarded as a huge victory for the opponents of corporate cronyism, proof of the concept that we can stop, or at least roll back, the leviathan if we could only muster the political will. …

    It’s cynical in the extreme for politicians to try to sneak this corporate handout past the voters, and anyone who supports the reauthorization should be ashamed of themselves. FreedomWorks has preemptively issued a Key Vote NO on any bill to reauthorize the Ex-Im Bank, and will count those votes on our legislative scorecard.

    Heritage Foundation has an excellent discussion of the issues at Export–Import Bank: Propaganda versus the Facts.

    1. Weeks, B. (2015). Wichita Chamber speaks on county spending and taxes. Voice For Liberty in Wichita. Available at: wichitaliberty.org/sedgwick-county-government/wichita-chamber-speaks-on-county-spending-and-taxes
    2. Weeks, B. (2014). For Wichita Chamber of Commerce chair, it’s sales tax for you, but not for me. Voice For Liberty in Wichita. Available at: wichitaliberty.org/wichita-government/wichita-chamber-commerce-chair-sales-tax
  • Daily Signal launched today

    Daily Signal launched today

    Daily Signal logo
    Today The Heritage Foundation launches The Daily Signal. It’s a news, analysis, and commentary outlet. Since today is its first day, I’ll let The Daily Signal describe itself:

    We know you’re busy. And we’re quite certain you care deeply about the future of our country.

    We care, too. We care about your communities, your families, and how Washington’s decisions are going to impact you.

    Daily Signal screen exampleMore and more people are grabbing bites of news from mobile devices on the go — and they need a place where they can find digestible, trusted news on the most important policy debate of the day.

    That’s why the Heritage Foundation team created a digital-first, multimedia news platform called The Daily Signal.

    The Daily Signal provides policy and political news as well as conservative commentary and policy analysis — in a fresh, visually rich, readable format for your desktop, tablet or phone.

    We are committed to news coverage that is accurate, fair and trustworthy. As we surveyed the media landscape, it became clear to us that the need for honest, thorough, responsible reporting has never been more critical. That’s a challenge in today’s fast-moving world. And it’s a challenge we’re willing to accept.

    We are dedicated to developing a news outlet that cuts straight to the heart of key political and policy arguments — not spin reported as news.

    The Daily Signal is supported by the resources and intellectual firepower of The Heritage Foundation — a dedicated team of experienced journalists to cover the news and more than 100 policy experts who can quickly help put issues in perspective. We believe this combination of news, commentary and policy analysis will establish The Daily Signal as a trusted source on America’s most important issues.

    We believe that high-quality, credible news reporting on political and policy issues is of paramount importance to an informed and free society. This is a reflection of that Jeffersonian notion that the greatest defense of liberty is an informed citizenry.

  • Proceed with the presidential transition

    Proceed with the presidential transition

    Further delay in starting the transition to the Biden administration harms Americans. Kansas Republican leaders, please get started.

    I sincerely hope that the Republican federal officeholders who represent me, or who will soon represent me and my state, recognize that the presidential election is over, that Joe Biden won, and they encourage and help with a peaceful and effective transition to the new presidential administration.

    While none of these leaders — Senator Pat Roberts, Senator Jerry Moran, Representative Ron Estes, Representative Roger Marshall, Representative-elect Jake LaTurner, and Representative-elect Tracey Mann — have the power to compel the transition to start, they can add their names to the small list of Republicans urging my president Donald J. Trump to get along with the nation’s business. Their leadership can convince other Republicans to follow.

    If by some chance it turns out that my president Donald J. Trump won the election, we can simply stop the transition in its track. No permanent harm will have been done. But needlessly delaying the transition is harming national security and the health of Americans.

    We now have a COVID-19 vaccine that will likely be approved for use. Its distribution involves overcoming large obstacles, both technical and human. The Biden administration must be ready to continue the efforts of the Trump administration with no delay or problems. Start the transition, please.

    National security is at stake. The 9/11 Commission Report noted that the disputed presidential election of 2000 and the resultant short transition period was a problem:

    “The dispute over the election and the 36-day delay cut in half the normal transition period. Given that a presidential election in the United States brings wholesale change in personnel, this loss of time hampered the new administration in identifying, recruiting, clearing, and obtaining Senate confirmation of key appointees.”

    In its recommendations, the committee concluded this:

    “Improve the Transitions between Administrations

    “In chapter 6, we described the transition of 2000—2001. Beyond the policy issues we described, the new administration did not have its deputy cabinet officers in place until the spring of 2001, and the critical subcabinet officials were not confirmed until the summer—if then. In other words, the new administration—like others before it—did not have its team on the job until at least six months after it took office.

    “Recommendation: Since a catastrophic attack could occur with little or no notice, we should minimize as much as possible the disruption of national security policymaking during the change of administrations by accelerating the process for national security appointments. We think the process could be improved significantly so transitions can work more effectively and allow new officials to assume their new responsibilities as quickly as possible.”

    The Biden administration needs to be ready to seamlessly assume the duty of keeping us safe. Start the transition, please.

  • Why Populism and Authoritarianism Go Hand in Hand

    One-Sentence Summary: The article argues that populism, despite its democratic facade, inherently leads to authoritarianism by undermining liberal democratic institutions and promoting strongman rule.

    Shikha Dalmia contends that populism and authoritarianism, though seemingly opposite — populism representing the rule of many and authoritarianism the rule of one — are closely linked. In established democracies, populist movements arise when a dominant majority perceives the existing establishment as corrupt or unresponsive to its needs. These movements frame politics as a battle between the virtuous “people” and a corrupt elite, fostering an “Us vs. Them” mentality. This antagonistic approach leads to illiberal practices that erode checks and balances, freedom of the press, and other constraints on centralized power. Consequently, populism paves the way for strongman politics, where leaders claim to embody the will of the people, sidelining democratic institutions and minority rights. Examples from Latin America, such as Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela and Nayib Bukele in El Salvador, illustrate how populist leaders can transition to authoritarian rule. Therefore, while populism purports to enhance democracy by empowering the majority, it often results in the concentration of power and the erosion of liberal democratic principles.

    Dalmia, Shikha. “Why Populism and Authoritarianism Go Hand in Hand.” The UnPopulist, 8 Aug. 2024, www.theunpopulist.net/p/why-populism-and-authoritarianism.

    Key Takeaways:

    • Populism arises in democracies where the majority feels the establishment is corrupt or unresponsive.
    • It creates a divisive “Us vs. Them” dynamic between the people and elites.
    • This mentality leads to illiberal practices that weaken democratic institutions.
    • Populist movements often result in strongman politics and authoritarian rule.
    • Despite claiming to empower the majority, populism can erode liberal democratic principles.

    Important Quotations:

    • “Populism, the rule of many, and authoritarianism, the rule of one, might seem like antipoles. But they are intimately related because wherever populism appears, so do various forms of illiberalism…”
    • “Populist movements… are a pathology specifically of established democracies where the people already have self-rule.”

    Word Count:
    – Generated summary: 267 words
    – Supplied input: 1,100 words

    Model Version and Generation Details:
    – Model Version: GPT-4
    – Custom GPT Name: Summarizer 2

  • Kansas economic growth policy should embrace dynamism

    A dynamic market where many new business startups attempt to succeed and thrive while letting old, unproductive firms die is what contributes to productivity and economic growth. But most economic development policies, including those of Kansas and Wichita, do not encourage this dynamism, and in fact, work against it.

    That’s the message of Dr. Art Hall, who spoke to the Wichita Pachyderm Club on the topic “Business Dynamics and Economic Development in Kansas.” Hall is Director of the Center for Applied Economics at the Kansas University School of Business.

    At the start of his talk, Hall said that economic development has become an industry of its own, a public industry sometimes implemented as public-private partnerships. But its agenda is often not genuine economic development, he said.

    In a short history lesson, Hall described how Walter Beech came to Wichita from North Carolina simply because Clyde Cessna was in Wichita. Sprint began in Abilene in 1899. Fred Koch, who founded the company that became Koch Industries, came to Wichita because Lewis Winkler was here. “Serendipity — that’s the theme.”

    Hall displayed a map of taxpayer migration. There is a huge and wide swath of deep blue — representing the highest rate of out-migration — stretching north to south through the Great Plains, including much of Kansas. The Plains are urbanizing, Hall said. Pockets are doing well, but generally the rural areas are losing population. Economic development strategies must realize this long-term trend, he said.

    A chart showed the geographic distribution of income earned in Kansas. In 1970, 55 percent of income was earned outside the state’s two major urban areas: Wichita and the Kansas City and Lawrence areas. In 2008, that number had declined to 38 percent. The cause of this is people moving to cities from small towns and rural areas.

    On a map of Kansas counties, Hall showed how jobs are moving — concentrating — to a few areas of the state. “I think this is a positive development, because density tends to be a precursor to productivity, and productivity — meaning the value of output per worker — is one of the core fundamental definitions of economic growth.” It’s the reason, generally speaking, as to why cities are prosperous.

    Hall said that we should care about our rural communities, but if we slow down the process of densification, we may be losing out on productivity growth and its benefit to economic development.

    Continuing on this important theme, Hall said that the key to real and sustainable economic development is productivity growth: “Productivity growth happens on the front lines of individual businesses. You cannot will productivity growth. You cannot legislate productivity growth. You must create the conditions under which individual businesspeople, slogging it out on the front lines every day, create prosperity and productivity by trying new things and working hard. That requires a climate in which they feel optimistic enough to try new things, are rewarded for their efforts, and are willing to test new ideas.”

    Dynamism is one of the most underappreciated aspects of the U.S. economy among those working in economic development, Hall told the audience. There is a high correlation between the average size of a business and economic growth, and particularly employment growth. In other words, small companies tend to grow faster than large companies. In the chart Hall displayed, there is a clear demarcation at companies with about 20 employees.

    But most of our economic development policies have a bias towards big business. Hall said this is understandable. Further, he said that Wichita is a big business town, meaning that statistically, it is not poised to be a fast-growing area. Hall said we should create an atmosphere where we have lots of small businesses, where there is lots of experimentation. “If our economic development policies are biased against that, that is not helpful.”

    A chart showed that each year many business firms die or contract, and many others are born or expand. These numbers are large, relatively speaking: in most years, around 150,000 jobs are created through new firms or expansion of existing firms, and about the same number are lost. Given that Kansas has about one million jobs, each year about 30 percent of Kansas jobs are in in play, just as a result of business dynamics.

    Hall said that when the Kansas Department of Commerce announces the creation of 80 new jobs in Kansas, we need to remember that the marketplace swamps anything that individual economic development agencies can do. Hall called for policies that can handle a large volume of businesses — 15,000 to 25,000 — in growth mode each year. Our state’s economic development policies can not handle this level of volume, he said.

    Another chart of the states illustrated the relationship between job reallocation rate — the “churn” of jobs — and the economic growth rate in a state. States with high growth rates have high turnover rates in jobs. Kansas ranks relatively low in economic growth.

    Economic development policy should encourage new business startups, Hall said, although there is a high correlation between newness and death of businesses. “What you’re trying to do is have enough experimentation that enough good experiments take hold, and they grow.” This concept of experimentation is related to serendipity, or “making desirable discoveries by accident” that Hall mentioned earlier.

    But much economic development policy focuses on retaining jobs. Hall said that if what we mean by job retention is saving jobs in companies that ought to die, the policy is not productive. Instead, job retainment policies should create a climate where people can find new jobs quickly here in Kansas. Job retention should not mean bailouts, he added.

    Hall emphasized that while there is a high correlation between new businesses and being small, he said it is new businesses that are most important to driving economic growth.

    Newness of business firms is vitally important, Hall said. Summarizing a chart of Kansas job creating by age of the firm, he told the audience: “Without year-zero businesses [meaning the newest firms], the entire state of Kansas is almost always losing jobs. It’s the same for the United States. It’s the newness that matters. We want new businesses, but new businesses create churn, as there’s a high correlation between birth and death.”

    Hall said this is a complicated process, and that most discussions of economic development do not recognize this complexity.

    Hall explained that the state, in conducting economic development activity, often acts as an investor in a company. Specifically, he said that the state acts as an “active manager” similar to an actively managed stock mutual fund. The other type of investor or mutual fund is the passively-managed index fund, where the fund invests in all stocks, usually weighted by the size of the firms. Which approach works best: active management, or investing in all companies. This historical record shows that very few actively-managed funds beat index funds, only 2.4 percent from 1994 to 2004.

    Hall said the data shows it is very difficult to predict which are the right firms to pick to come to Kansas. Therefore, we need policies that benefit all companies in order to have a dynamic market in new business firms. “Everyone gets the same deal,” he said.

    Hall recommended three specific policies: First, universal expensing of all new capital investment made in Kansas, which means that companies can deduct new investment immediately. Second, eliminate the tax on capital gains. Third, automatic property tax abatements for new or improved business investment for a period of five years.

    Hall’s talk was based on his paper from earlier this year titled Embracing Dynamism: The Next Phase in Kansas Economic Development Policy. That paper contains the charts referred to, and also more detail, additional information, and policy recommendations.