Voice For Liberty

Search results for: “Key Construction”

  • The Kansas Productivity Puzzle

    The Kansas Productivity Puzzle

    Lance Kinzer
    Kansas State Representative, Dist. 14
    http://www.lancekinzer.com

    Among the many interesting things that occurred during the first week of the legislative session perhaps the most compelling involved a presentation to the House Tax Committee by Professor Arthur Hall of the Center for Applied Economics at The University of Kansas. Dr. Hall’s presentation was focused on something he calls The Kansas Productivity Puzzle. Simply put, Kansas lags behind both the national average and other states in our region in the crucial economic category of productivity growth.

    In economic terms productivity is the value of goods and services per worker. Kansas falls short with respect to productivity growth in every sector of our economy except durable goods manufacture. This is true not merely when the comparison is made against the nation as a whole, but also when the comparison is made against other agricultural states in our region. To understand why this matters it is important to recognize that productivity growth is a key factor in determining wages. It is also a crucial determinant in overall economic growth. If Kansas had enjoyed merely average productivity growth over the past 25 years our state economy would be some $18 billion dollars larger than it is at the current time. Furthermore, wages in Kansas lag some $5,000.00 per worker behind the national average for similarly educated workers.

    The impact of sub-par productivity growth also has a negative impact on unit labor costs for Kansas businesses. This is merely a fancy way to say that businesses in Kansas get less bang for their buck than elsewhere in the country. Indeed, Dr. Hall reports that Kansas has the 3rd worst unit labor cost growth rate in the country. The data suggests that this ‘productivity puzzle” is both long term and systemic. Understanding all of the various factors that contribute to our productivity lag is a complicated question. That having been said, Dr. Hall’s current hypothesis is that there is an important relationship between the size of government in Kansas and our low productivity growth.

    In particular, Dr. Hall points out that Kansas has the 4th highest number of local government employees per capita in the nation. Furthermore, the number of local government employees in Kansas is growing at the 4th highest per capita rate in the country. Part of this problem may result form the relatively large number of local government units that exist in Kansas. For a state of our size we have a large number of counties and school districts, and employment in these sectors of government is growing at a rapid rate.

    Taking school districts as an example, during the 30 year period between 1972 and 2002 the total K-12 student population in Kansas decreased by 1%, yet the number of teachers and administrators employed by our schools have roughly doubled. Indeed, if the school district employee to student ratio in Kansas were the same today as it was when I was in high school about 15 years ago the cost savings would be approximately $400 million dollars per year. Looking at non-K-12 local government employees in the same way the cost savings would be more than $315 million dollars per year if local government worker per citizen numbers returned to their 1987 level.

    The issues of slow productivity growth and fast government sector growth brought to light by Dr. Hall have serious implications that all Kansas citizens and policy makers should consider. While seemingly abstract economic categories like productivity growth may appear detached from everyday life, they have important real world implications. In sorting through how best to address the Kansas Productivity Puzzle it is important to remember that the only way to increase overall productivity is by helping individual Kansas businesses to improve their productivity. This involves enacting polices that provide grater access to the capital, both financial and intellectual, that leads to innovation and in turn growth. It is also crucial that we keep in mind the negative impact an ever growing government sector can have on productivity growth.

    The solution to this complex problem may not then be so obscure after all. Policies that limit the size and growth of government and a tax and regulator structure that encourage business growth appear the best available solutions to addressing the Kansas Productivity Puzzle.

  • Kauffman paper on local business incentive programs

    Do Local Business Incentive Programs Really Create Jobs? Better Data Needed to Know for Sure, Says New Kauffman Paper

    Kansas City, Mo. (PRWEB) April 17, 2014

    Financial incentives are a key strategy for nearly every U.S. city and state to attract firms, and jobs, to their area. But while incentives can be credited with attracting firms to one region or another, how can we be sure they are generating the promised returns in terms of job creation?

    The paper “Evaluating Firm-Specific Location Incentives: An Application to the Kansas PEAK Program,” released today by the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation introduces a proposed evaluation method and applies it to Promoting Employment Across Kansas (PEAK), one of that state’s primary incentive programs.

    In the paper, researcher Nathan Jensen, associate professor of political science at Washington University in St. Louis, identifies a need for more comprehensive data to determine the effectiveness of incentive programs in creating jobs. Currently, states and cities provide limited data about companies receiving incentives, and many don’t keep information about firms that apply for incentives but don’t receive them.

    “The data most often used to evaluate incentive programs tells only one part of one side of the story,” Jensen said. “To understand how much job creation can be directly attributed to incentives, and how much would have happened anyway, we need to pursue more granular data that provides better context.”

    The proposed evaluation model, as applied to the PEAK program, uses National Establishment Time Series (NETS) data to capture employment and sales data for PEAK and non-PEAK firms in Kansas. To accurately assess results, the identified PEAK firms are compared to a control group of five “nearest neighbors,” firms similar in structure and sector to the PEAK firms.

    Jensen cautioned that better access to more detailed data is necessary to make conclusive evaluations, but said the model highlights the need to reform the collection, management and sharing of data about incentive programs and recipients.

    “Greater transparency and public sharing of data will allow much more sophisticated analysis of these programs’ value,” said Dane Stangler, Kauffman Foundation vice president of Research and Policy. “Understanding what types of incentives work, and how well they work, will help our cities and states make smart investments in programs that create jobs and drive economic growth.”

    About the Kauffman Foundation

    The Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation is a private, nonpartisan foundation that aims to foster economic independence by advancing educational achievement and entrepreneurial success. Founded by late entrepreneur and philanthropist Ewing Marion Kauffman, the Foundation is based in Kansas City, Mo., and has approximately $2 billion in assets. For more information, visit www.kauffman.org, and follow the Foundation on www.twitter.com/kauffmanfdn and www.facebook.com/kauffmanfdn.

  • Kansas small business will be harmed by targeted tax increases

    In the following op-ed, Philip Bradley explains the harm that targeted tax increases will bring on small businesses in Kansas. Bradley is a lobbyist — a member of a group of people widely criticized for obtaining special governmental favor for their clients. After spending quite a bit of time in Topeka this legislative session, I’ve realized that many lobbyists are simply trying to prevent their clients and their businesses and industries from being harmed by excessive taxation or harmful regulation. That’s certainly the case described below.

    For so many small business owners in Kansas, it has been nearly a two years since we started experiencing the toughest economic times ever. So many customers have quit coming into our establishments and those who have come will spend much less. Some small business owners have had to cut back employees and many more have reduced employee hours. And, worst of all, the personal investment portfolios built up for our futures have been cut in half.

    These crippling economic times do not bode well for this state where 70% of employees work for the small business owner. But for those of us who have owned our own shops for many years, 2008-2010 have not been the only years of tough times. Often, simply making the weekly payroll is a tough proposition regardless of how the rest of the economy is doing. That is why I believe the small business owners of Kansas will get through these rough times.

    Unlike many others, we do not ask for a “bail-out” or “stimulus package” from Washington or Topeka. We simply want to be treated fairly and be allowed to operate our businesses with the full rights of private property owners. We have been fortunate in Kansas that state and local government has not often dealt us a untenable heavy hand either with taxation or overregulation.

    But right now in Topeka, there is a threat on the horizon that could make it even tougher for some small business owners to make ends meet during this recession.

    As a representative of the Kansas Licensed Beverage Association, I encourage all owners of bars and taverns throughout our state to urge members of the Kansas Legislature to especially forget raising targeted taxes. How could any elected official who has met with any business owner in his district or any of the thousands of people who are laid off — even give any new taxes one thought?

    And why do the owners of bars and taverns care about new targeted taxes? It’s simple. On any given night, up to 50% of bar patrons are fixed or limited incomes. And many of them are blue collar workers or lower income retirees. If the Kansas Legislature nearly doubles the rate with new taxes targeted at specific businesses to solve the whole states spending shortfall as proposed, it will be another financial jab at some of our best customers. If our best customers have less to spend, then that really impacts hospitality venues even more and the already large tax burden we have.

    Legislators are being pushed by professional advocates with a tax spending agenda, regardless of the consequences to businesses and despite making the rough economic climate rougher. I hope legislators will listen to the taxpayers and not these lobbyists. We are not against education, schools, social programs or government. We are the first and usually the last folks that those groups come to for assistance in our local communities. And we give and help! We have and we will in the future, for we are not battling each other but working together to help our state weather this, just another storm.

    So, if new taxes are voted in, it means that state government has made a key contribution to worsening the personal and business situation of our members. And that is something that state government should not do to small business or any business in Kansas. Instead we all should and will create jobs, build communities and climb out and upward!

    I want to encourage all our bar, restaurant and tavern owners to quickly contact their members of the legislature and urge them to vote against all new targeted taxes that would punish selected businesses and reward others. Also, urge your customers to do the same. Right now, legislators are under a lot of pressure from tax receiving group’s lobbyists. Don’t let them shout you down!

    Philip Bradley, pbc consulting
    Representing Kansas Licensed Beverage Association, Kansas Viticulture & Farm Winery Association, Craft Brewers Guild of Kansas and Equal Entertainment Group.

  • Opinion | Trump Won’t Win a War Against the Courts

    (Unlocked gift link included)

    One-sentence summary:
    Former federal judge J. Michael Luttig argues that President Trump’s escalating attacks on the judiciary threaten constitutional democracy and will ultimately be rebuffed by the courts, which remain the final arbiters of the law.

    In this opinion piece, J. Michael Luttig, a former federal appeals court judge, warns that President Donald Trump’s ongoing assault on the federal judiciary poses a grave constitutional threat and risks plunging the nation into a deeper crisis. Luttig details how Trump, having regained the presidency, has resumed and intensified his long-standing hostility toward the rule of law, the legal profession, and the courts. Trump views the justice system as a partisan instrument used against him, particularly due to his prior prosecutions for attempting to overturn the 2020 election and mishandling classified documents-charges that stalled upon his re-election.

    Luttig outlines Trump’s pattern of behavior, including attacks on judges, disregard for judicial rulings, and threats to impeach judges who rule against his administration. Most recently, Trump demanded the impeachment of Judge James E. Boasberg for pausing the deportation of over 200 Venezuelan migrants under the Alien Enemies Act without first holding hearings. The judge sought to ensure due process, prompting Trump to lash out with personal attacks and constitutional overreach.

    Chief Justice John Roberts responded with a rare public statement affirming that impeachment is not a valid response to judicial disagreement, reinforcing the judiciary’s constitutional role. Luttig underscores that Trump’s efforts to undermine judicial independence mirror the tyranny Americans rejected during the Revolutionary War. He stresses that courts-not presidents-determine the law, citing Chief Justice John Marshall’s landmark assertion in Marbury v. Madison.

    The piece concludes that should Trump persist in his efforts to override judicial authority, the Supreme Court and the American people must step in to defend constitutional governance. Luttig suggests that Trump’s war on the judiciary, if continued, could severely damage his presidency and legacy.

    Luttig, J. Michael. “Opinion | Trump Won’t Win a War Against the Courts.” The New York Times, 23 Mar. 2025. www.nytimes.com/2025/03/23/opinion/trump-judge-venezuela-deportation.html.

    Unlocked gift link:
    https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/23/opinion/trump-judge-venezuela-deportation.html?unlocked_article_code=1.6E4.zX7_.mKNaMjQ4fCr2&smid=url-share

    Key takeaways:

    • Trump is escalating attacks on the federal judiciary, threatening constitutional stability.
    • He has attempted to punish judges and legal actors who oppose him, including calling for the impeachment of Judge Boasberg.
    • The judiciary, led by Chief Justice Roberts, has pushed back against Trump’s constitutional overreach.
    • Luttig draws parallels between Trump’s behavior and monarchical tyranny rejected by the Founders.
    • The courts retain the final constitutional authority and will resist executive encroachment.
    • Trump’s continued defiance could cripple his presidency and further erode democratic norms.

    Important quotations:

    • “He has provoked a constitutional crisis with his stunning frontal assault on the third branch of government.”
    • “Impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision.” – Chief Justice John Roberts
    • “The president wants to assume the role of judge.”
    • “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” – Chief Justice John Marshall
    • “In America the law is king.” – Thomas Paine, Common Sense
    • “A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.” – Declaration of Independence

    Word count of summary: 603
    Word count of original article: 1,545

    Model version: GPT-4
    Custom GPT name: Summarizer 2

  • Karl Peterjohn Takes Oath of Office in Sedgwick County

    Karl Peterjohn takes oath of office for Sedgwick County Commission, January 11, 2009

    Today, Karl Peterjohn took the oath of office for the Board of Sedgwick County Commissioners. The ceremony took place in front of a standing-room only crowd. Following are Karl’s remarks:

    I want to begin by thanking my family. I want to thank my wife Marilyn, and my children Christina and Alex. They worked so hard throughout the entire 2008 election campaign to help put me behind this podium today.

    In the last week I have started and had to re-start writing my first remarks as a Sedgwick County Commissioner. The news keeps changing that quickly.

    In each of the last three days I have heard in public meetings one or more elected officials as well as on one day, a key Kansas legislative staffer, report a series of increasingly grim and distressing information concerning the economic and fiscal problems we face.

    Today there were a series of articles in the Wichita Eagle with more articles about our current economic problems. The state of Kansas is facing a major fiscal crisis. The size of this crisis is growing.

    Let me remind you that crises are nothing new.

    Please remember the Kansas state motto. It is, “Ad astra per Aspera,” that is, “To the stars through difficulties.” We as a nation, as a state, and as a county have always faced challenges and controversies.

    Our state was born in a cauldron of problems and disputes that were much worse than anything we face in Sedgwick County today. Our county is named after Major General John Sedgwick who gave his life fighting for our country through the largest problems we have ever faced during the Civil War.

    A decade ago the head of the Federal Reserve bank, Alan Greenspan, warned against irrational exuberance in our economy. Today I urge all of us to avoid irrational pessimism.

    Remember that the challenge of our state’s motto is unchanged: to the stars through difficulties.

    I look forward to rolling up my sleeves and joining with my fellow commissioners, my fellow elected officials inside the courthouse as well as outside, my fellow county employees, and most importantly my fellow citizens in solving the problems facing us in Sedgwick County.

    Thank you and God bless America.

  • Debunking CBPP on tax reform and school funding — Part 4

    From Kansas Policy Institute.

    Debunking CBPP on tax reform and school funding — Part 4

    By Dave Trabert

    kansas-policy-institute-logoWe continue our debunking of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) latest report entitled “Lessons for Other States from Kansas’ Massive Tax Cuts.” Part 1 dealt with state revenues. Part 2 covered state spending in general and school funding in particular. Part 3 addressed claims that that tax reform hasn’t boosted the economy. Today we tackle their assertion that tax cuts won’t lead to economic growth.

    CBPP claim #4 — Little Evidence to Suggest That Tax Cuts Will Improve Kansas’ Economy in the Future

    Actually, there is a lot of evidence; CBPP just conveniently avoids it. Instead, they substitute their opinion and employ their standard tactic of making claims without disclosing supporting data; they also reference predictions that Kansas will trail the nation next year in some economic indicators.

    We’ll start the debunking with a brief history lesson. Private sector job growth in Kansas trailed the national average in ten of the last fifteen years (1998-2013). Kansas’ private sector gross domestic product trailed eight times (1997-2012) and personal income trailed eleven of the last fifteen years (1998-2013). Indeed, Kansas’ history of economic stagnation was the impetus for tax reform. As we explained in Part 3, the full economic impact of tax reform will take years to unfold. It’s intellectually dishonest of CBPP to imply that tax reform isn’t working because a long term negative trend hasn’t suddenly created tremendous gains.

    Now let’s look at the evidence. The adjacent table compares the performance of the ten states with the lowest state and local tax burdens with the ten states with the highest burdens, based on the most recent rankings from the Tax Foundation. The low-burden states are Wyoming, Alaska, South Dakota, Texas, Louisiana, Tennessee, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina and Alabama. The high-burden states are New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, California, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Maryland, Rhode Island, Vermont and Pennsylvania.

    The low-burden states increased jobs at twice the rate of high-burden states. Low-burden states have superior growth in Wages and Salaries and Private Sector Gross Domestic Product. Low-burden states have positive domestic migration while high-burden states have negative domestic migration. In other words, US residents are choosing to move to low-burden states and choosing to leave high-burden states.

    Tax reform critics like to attribute the superior economic performance of low-burden states to weather and access to ports and natural resources. But you’ll notice that both groups have states with good weather, bad weather, coastal, land-locked and natural resources. But there is one category which really separates the two groups of states — spending. High-burden states spend 40 percent more per resident to provide the same basket of essential services. States with an income tax spend 49 percent more than those without an income tax.

    The key to having low taxes is to keep spending under control by providing services at a better price. A state could be awash in oil revenue and still have a high tax burden if it spent more. Texas, by the way, gets less than 3 percent of revenue from oil; they have a low tax burden because they only spent $2,293 per resident to provide the same basic basket of services on which Kansas spent $3,409 (2012 actual per NASBO).

    The moral of the story is pretty clear: states that spend less, tax less — and grow more.

  • The Trump Administration Accidentally Texted Me Its War Plans

    (Unlocked gift link included)

    One-sentence summary: Journalist Jeffrey Goldberg was inadvertently added to a Signal group chat where senior Trump administration officials discussed, coordinated, and revealed detailed war plans against the Houthis in Yemen.

    In an extraordinary breach of security, The Atlantic’s editor in chief Jeffrey Goldberg was mistakenly included in a Signal group chat used by senior Trump administration officials-including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and National Security Adviser Michael Waltz-to plan U.S. airstrikes on Houthi targets in Yemen. The chat began days before the March 15 attacks and included real-time deliberations, internal disagreements, and sensitive operational details about the strike, including timing, targets, and weapons.

    Although initially skeptical of the group’s authenticity, Goldberg became convinced it was real after the chat’s predicted strike timing aligned with actual explosions in Yemen. The officials appeared unaware of his presence and never questioned his participation. National Security Council spokesman Brian Hughes later confirmed the Signal chat was genuine and claimed no threat to U.S. forces occurred. However, legal experts said the use of an unsecured app like Signal for classified information potentially violated the Espionage Act and federal records laws. The messages were also set to disappear, raising concerns about illegal destruction of government records.

    While former officials acknowledged using Signal for logistics or unclassified matters, sharing sensitive war planning on the platform was considered dangerously irresponsible. Goldberg noted the irony of such behavior, especially given Donald Trump’s past criticism of Hillary Clinton for similar practices. Despite the administration’s insistence on strong coordination and successful outcomes, the accidental inclusion of a journalist underscored profound lapses in operational security.

    Goldberg, Jeffrey. “The Trump Administration Accidentally Texted Me Its War Plans.” The Atlantic, 24 Mar. 2025, www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/03/trump-administration-accidentally-texted-me-its-war-plans/682151.

    Unlocked gift link:
    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/03/trump-administration-accidentally-texted-me-its-war-plans/682151/?gift=-RYyyhoVwMCBPkXbjlfICmG08_9s6D0ypYcy26msA3M&utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share

    Key takeaways:

    • Jeffrey Goldberg received detailed U.S. military plans via Signal from Trump officials by mistake.
    • The Signal chat included top Trump Cabinet members and was used for war planning.
    • Sensitive information about upcoming airstrikes on Yemen was discussed openly.
    • Legal experts say use of Signal for such matters may violate national security laws.
    • The administration confirmed the messages were authentic but downplayed the security risk.
    • No one in the group noticed Goldberg’s presence, highlighting poor operations security.

    Important quotations:

    • “This appears to be an authentic message chain, and we are reviewing how an inadvertent number was added to the chain.” – Brian Hughes, National Security Council spokesman
    • “We are currently clean on OPSEC.” – Pete Hegseth, in the Signal group, unaware Goldberg was present
    • “This was an overwhelming response that actually targeted multiple Houthi leaders and took them out.” – Michael Waltz, on ABC’s This Week
    • “I have never seen a breach quite like this.” – Jeffrey Goldberg
    • “Intentional violations of these requirements are a basis for disciplinary action.” – Jason R. Baron, University of Maryland

    Word count of summary: 491
    Word count of input: 3,832

    Model: GPT-4
    Custom GPT: Summarizer 2

  • Kansas and Wichita quick takes: Monday November 22, 2010

    Wichita city council this week. This week is workshop only, meaning that legislative action is limited to consent items. These items are voted on in bulk, unless a council member wants to “pull” an item for separate discussion and voting. Generally consent items are thought to be non-controversial, at least by the person who creates the agenda. This week one consent item may cause a bar to lose its license, as Hurst Laviana reports in the Wichita Eagle. Start time is 9:30 am instead of the usual 9:00 am.

    Workshop to discuss Wichita trash. Tuesday’s Wichita city council meeting will have a workshop discussing a plan for a Wichita trash haulers’ cooperative and for a recycling plan. Brent Wistrom and Deb Gruver report in the Wichita Eagle. Conservatives on the council who favor big government — Jeff Longwell, Jim Skelton, and Sue Schlapp — seem to favor the proposal. I guess it is inevitable. But I worry that if we start relying on government to manage a simple thing like trash for us, the danger is that government will want to expand its realm of responsibility to providing things like water, jobs and economic development, employee training for business, housing for low-income people, golf courses, art museums and culture, transit, ice skating rinks, airports, dances for seniors, planning services, education, retirement plans, and health care.

    Candidate for Wichita mayor noticed. Bob Nelson describes himself this way: “I am a 36 year old lawyer, technical consultant, and aviation industry professional. I am a long time Republican and conservative.” His website –maybe still in developmental state, but nonetheless visible to the world — is Bob Nelson for Mayor.

    Former Wichita school chief in news. Former USD 259, the Wichita public school district superintendent Winston Brooks, now head of Albuquerque public schools, is in the news. An administrator alleges a hostile work environment and has been placed on leave with pay. It’s not the first time highly-paid administrators have been placed on paid leave for long periods since Brooks took over. The meaning of this to Wichita? Many of the current members of the Wichita school board loved Brooks and were sorry to see him leave Wichita.

    Charter school studies examined. Carl Bialik, in a “The Numbers Guy” article in the Wall Street Journal, writes about the “confusing report cards” that charter schools have received in various studies. Some studies report glowing results for charters, and other report poor results as compared to regular public schools. Bailik does report one finding: “There is some consensus among these studies. Researchers generally have found that charter schools in low-income, urban areas boost test scores, while suburban charter schools in wealthier areas don’t.” Mentioned by one source quoted in the article is one of the best attributes of charter schools: they can’t force students to attend, so poor ones close down, unlike poor public schools.

    Rasmussen polls from last week. “Talk about low expectations” was the start of the email message from Rasmussen Reports. Examples: “Just 26% of voters now think the country is heading in the right direction. This finding continues to fall since Election Day and is the lowest reading since mid-March, largely because Democrats are down but sentiments among Republicans and unaffiliated voters haven’t moved.” (Right Direction or Wrong Track) … “A plurality (47%) of voters believes America’s best days have come and gone, a number that has remained fairly constant since the beginning of the year.” … “Thirty percent (30%) of homeowners say the value of their home is less than what they still own on their mortgage.” … “Belief that a home is a good buy for a family remains at an 18-month low.” It’s all at What They Told Us: Reviewing Last Week’s Key Polls .

  • Federal spending on autopilot

    Federal spending trends

    Many people know that a large portion of the federal budget is effectively out of lawmakers’ hands. Together Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and interest on the debt presently consume about 48 percent of federal spending. But if nothing changes, these programs will grow to consume 90 percent of federal spending by 2084.

    This is the conclusion of Mercatus Center Senior Research Fellow Veronique de Rugy. Her analysis is based on data from the Congressional Budget Office, which makes forecasts in its Long-Term Budget and Economic Outlook. Her report is Defense and Non-Defense Spending Programs Squeezed as Autopilot Programs and Debt Interest Explode.

    The key is this is a forecast if nothing changes. The spending on entitlement programs that drive this forecast are under federal legislators’ control. They can act to make changes over the long term, if they wish to.

    But before last year’s elections, few politicians, even Republicans, were willing to confront the problem head-on. One of the few officeholders willing to do so is Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan, who is now chair of the House Budget Committee. His Roadmap for America’s future is a plan that recognizes the seriousness of the current situation, not only with Social Security, but in other areas of the federal budget.

    His recommendations, specific as they are, cause consternation among some Republicans who would rather talk about problems in general terms rather than specifics. A recent Washington Post profile of Ryan referred to “… many Republican colleagues, who, even as they praise Ryan for his doggedness, privately consider the Roadmap a path to electoral disaster. Unlike most politicians of either party, he doesn’t speak generically about reducing spending, but he does acknowledge the very real cuts in popular programs that will be required to bring down the debt.”

    Many of the new members of Congress are eager to take on the long-term problem illustrated in de Rugy’s chart. Let’s hope they have success.

More posts