Voice For Liberty

Tag: Elections

  • Jeff Longwell out-of-town campaign contributions

    In a story filed at the Wichita Eagle online site, Wichita City Council Member Jeff Longwell stated “We often get contributions from a wide variety of sources, including out-of-town people.” (Sedgwick County Commissioner Karl Peterjohn questions out-of-state contributions to challenger Jeff Longwell, viewable at http://www.kansas.com/2012/08/01/2431332/sedgwick-county-commissioner-karl.html)

    Peterjohn had called attention to $3,250 in contributions received by Longwell from executives and family associated with Walbridge, a Michigan construction company. These contributions were received immediately before and after Longwell voted in favor of Walbridge and its local partner in a contract dispute.

    More information is at Michigan company involved in disputed Wichita airport contract contributes to Jeff Longwell and Wichita City Council can’t judge airport contract.

    Analysis of Longwell’s July 30, 2012 campaign finance report shows that the only contributions received from addresses outside Kansas are the Walbridge contributions from Michigan, which contradicts Longwell’s claim.

    Additionally, analysis of ten recent campaign finance reports filed by Longwell going back to 2007 found three contributions totaling $1,500 from California addresses.

  • From Michigan to Wichita’s Jeff Longwell: The campaign contributions

    Two weeks ago the Wichita Eagle editorialized that “appearance matters” on city contracts: “There will be an elephant in the Wichita City Council chambers today as Mayor Carl Brewer and the rest of the council formally consider Dondlinger and Sons’ long-shot final appeal of its loss of the contract to build the new airport terminal — the close ties of Brewer and other City Council members to Key Construction, including a letter Brewer wrote last year recommending Key to build the Cabela’s store in northeast Wichita.” (Eagle editorial: Appearance matters on city contracts, July 17, 2012)

    The Eagle probably didn’t know at that time what we learned this week: There was unusual interest in Michigan about the airport contract decision, and the campaign bank account of Wichita City Council Member Jeff Longwell benefited financially.

    On July 16 — the day before the Wichita City Council heard the appeal that resulted in Key Construction apparently winning the airport contract — John Rakolta, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Walbridge and his wife contributed $1,000 to Longwell’s campaign for Sedgwick county commissioner. Walbridge is a Michigan-based construction company that is partnering with Key Construction on the airport job. The contract is worth about $100 million.

    Then on July 20, three days after the council’s decision in favor of Key/Walbridge, other Walbridge executives contributed $2,250 to Longwell’s campaign. Key Construction and its executives contributed $6,500 to Longwell’s county commission campaign, and they’ve also been heavy contributors to Longwell’s other campaigns.

    It is wrong to accept thousands in contributions from those who benefit directly from your vote. In many states it is illegal. But not in Kansas.

    This is not the first time Jeff Longwell has placed the interests of his campaign contributors ahead of taxpayers. Last August the council, with Longwell’s vote, decided to award Key a no-bid contract to build the parking garage that is part of the Ambassador Hotel project. The no-bid cost of the garage was to be $6 million, according to a letter of intent. Later the city decided to place the contract for competitive bid. Key Construction won the bidding, but for a price $1.3 million less.

    What citizens need to know is that the Wichita City Council, including Longwell, was willing to spend an extra $1.3 million of taxpayer funds to reward a politically-connected construction firm that makes heavy campaign contributions to Longwell and other council members. Only one council member voted against this no-bid contract.

    Later that year when citizens exercised their constitutional right to challenge a taxpayer-funded giveaway to the special interests that fund his campaigns, Jeff Longwell said it was “disappointing,” and a “stunt.” He said that using this fundamental aspect of democracy causes citizens to “lose credibility.” (Wichita Eagle, September 14, 2011)

    After Wichita voters rejected this special tax deal, the Wall Street Journal in a column titled “A Wichita Shocker: You can beat city hall” wrote: “Local politicians like to get in bed with local business, and taxpayers are usually the losers. So three cheers for a voter revolt in Wichita, Kansas last week that shows such sweetheart deals can be defeated.” (Review & Outlook, March 6, 2012)

    It’s no wonder Longwell was disappointed when citizens petitioned their government. Voters soundly rejected the political cronyism and sweetheart deals that are Longwell’s legacy.

    It’s all part of Longwell’s disregard for citizens in favor of his campaign contributors. In 2008 the city council, with Longwell approving, made a $6 million no-interest and low-interest loan to movie theater owner Bill Warren. The contracts were not made available until just hours before the meeting where the loan was voted on. When a reporter asked about journalist and citizen access to these documents in a timely fashion, the reporter wrote “It’s unlikely many residents would read the full contract even if it had been made public earlier, Longwell said.” (Little time to review Warren loan terms, July 1, 2008 Wichita Eagle)

    Companies Bill Warren controls contributed at least $7,500 to Longwell’s current campaign.

    In 2011, when discussing signage policy at merchants that charge an extra community improvement district sales tax, Longwell said that including the specific add-on tax rate would be confusing to shoppers, because different CIDs may charge different add-on rates. Again, disregard for citizens.

    Jeff Longwell defends these giveaways by saying they create jobs. But Wichita economic development is failing. Our city is not doing well. We won’t create prosperity and jobs by over-spending on no-bid city contracts that provide out-size profits for Longwell’s political sponsors.

    Additionally, when it is apparent that a “pay-to-play” environment exists at Wichita City Hall, it creates a toxic and corrosive political and business environment. Companies are reluctant to expand into areas where they don’t have confidence in the integrity of local government. Will I find my company bidding against a company that made bigger campaign contributions than I did? If I don’t make the right campaign contributions, will I get my zoning approved? Will my building permits be slow-walked through the approval process? Will my projects face unwarranted and harsh inspections?

    Wichita and Kansas need pay-to-play laws to reign in the practices of Jeff Longwell, Carl Brewer, and other city council members. For the good of our city and state, we must end the “pay-to-play” system of votes for political campaign contributions.

  • Kansas traditional: the platform

    Will “traditional,” “reasonable,” “moderate” Kansan Republicans be defeated in the August 7, 2012 Kansas primary? Would that defeat be good or bad for Kansas?

    Kansas newspapers have featured an op-ed by H. Edward Flentje of the Hugo Wall School of Urban and Public Affairs at Wichita State University. (A referendum on Brownback, July 27 Winfield Courier.) His tone, as is that of many newspaper editorials appearing through the state, is that it is vital to preserve the “traditional” moderate Republican approach to Kansas government, as it is those who “believe government has a more affirmative role in assuring a high quality of life for Kansans.” The implication, made explicit later on, is that the rise of a conservative majority in the Kansas Senate would be bad.

    Here’s one area in which Flentje is incorrect. He characterizes the moderates as “Republican legislators who may exercise independent judgment on alliance issues.” He and others use the phrase “march in lockstep with [Kansas Governor Sam] Brownback” as criticism of conservative challengers, who they say will be merely puppets of Brownback, incapable of independent thought.

    But when we look at the record of “moderate Republican” legislators, we usually see them “marching in lockstep” with the Kansas National Education Association, labor unions — especially public employee unions, trial lawyers, and other assorted special interest groups.

    Following are the areas in which Flentje says Brownback wants legislators to “march in lockstep” and whether it would be good to maintain these policies that Flentje prefers.

    “Eliminating state income taxes and seeking higher sales and property taxes to address state obligations, consequently shifting the state tax burden to lower-income residents.” I’m not aware that conservatives are pressing for higher sales and property taxes. There has been some difference of opinion over ending the temporary statewide sales tax increase, and that may play out in the next legislative session. The best way we can address state spending — living up to the obligations Flentje alludes to — is to streamline Kansas government. But moderates oppose this. See Kansas reasonable: Government reform.

    The best way to pay for government services is to grow the economy and create jobs. But Kansas has performed poorly during the past decade under the reign of “traditional” moderate Republicans (and their coalition with Democrats) in the House and Senate. Just a few years ago, after a decade of moderate policies, Kansas was the only state to have a loss in private sector jobs over the past year.

    “Restraining state spending on public schools and shifting school funding to property taxes at the local level.” Moderates oppose one way we can save on schools: school choice through charter schools, vouchers, or scholarship tax credits. All these programs reduce the burden of school spending on both the state and school districts. Other than this, moderates “march in lockstep” with those who constantly call for more school spending, even to the point of suing the state’s taxpayers for more money. They join with the special interests who fight against accountability measures. They also fight against an honest assessment of the condition of public schools in Kansas, and when you look under the covers, it’s not the pretty picture that education bureaucrats paint. See Kansas reasonable: The education candidates.

    “Cutting funding for the arts and public broadcasting.” Those who seek money from government for arts are a special interest group. They make an economic case that government spending on the arts is good for the economy, but there’s no evidence that this form of government spending is different from any other. Instead, it takes tax money from people and forces them to spend it on things they may not want. Instead, government bureaucrats — listening to narrow special interest groups — decide how to spend money.

    “Shifting the funding of state universities to students and their families through higher tuition and fees.” What a novel idea! Expecting those who use a service to pay for it!

    “Challenging judicial independence and enacting measures that make state judges more susceptible to outside political influence.” Kansas judicial selection is highly politicized and undemocratic, with out-sized power concentrated in a special interest group: lawyers. Among the fifty states, Kansas is at the undemocratic extreme in the way we select judges, and moderates support this. See Kansas reasonable: Judicial selection.

    “Placing out-of-state, for-profit insurance companies in charge of managing aid to elderly, disabled and vulnerable residents.” Outsourcing is one way that governments can increase quality of service and reduce cost. There’s no reason to think that just because a service is presently provided by the state, that is the best way to provide it. In fact, waste and inefficiency are characteristic of government. Far from being a rip-off or waste of taxpayer monies, the profit motive — found only in the private sector — is a reliable motivator. The challenge of the state will be to make sure that companies profit when they provide good service, efficiently.

    “Spending more time finding ways to limit a woman’s access to abortion and targeting with legal action any group that supports such access.” My focus is primarily on issues of economic freedom. Others will have to weigh in on this issue.

    “Punishing party members who dare to cooperate with Democrats on legislation.” Both parties do this. Ask Senator Chris Steineger how the Kansas Democratic Party feels about those who don’t toe the party line.

    Whether the election is or is not a referendum on Kansas Governor Sam Brownback, Kansans need to reflect on the legacy of traditional Republican leadership and governance and realize this has not been the path to jobs and prosperity.

  • Kansas reasonable: Government reform

    What is the record of the Kansas moderate Republicans who promote a “reasonable,” “balanced,” and “responsible” approach to Kansas government? Regarding government reform, prominent members of the moderate coalition have blocked important bills that could reform Kansas government for the betterment of everyone.

    Recently-passed tax reform in Kansas has lead to fear-mongering that the state will suffer large deficits in upcoming years and will have to cut services like education and social services. There are many ways, however, that Kansas government can save money and still provide the essential services that Kansans rely on.

    But moderate, “reasonable,” “traditional” Republicans have blocked efforts to improve the operations and reduce the cost of Kansas state government. In 2011 the Kansas Legislature lost three opportunities to do just this. Three bills, each with this goal, were passed by the House of Representatives, but each failed to pass through the moderate-controlled Senate, or had its contents stripped and replaced with different legislation.

    Each of these bills represents a lost opportunity for state government services to be streamlined, delivered more efficiently, or measured and managed. These goals, while always important, are now essential for the success of Kansas government and the state’s economy. But moderate, “reasonable,” “traditional” Republicans had a role in each of these defeats.

    Kansas Streamlining Government Act

    HB 2120, according to its supplemental note, “would establish the Kansas Streamlining Government Act, which would have the purpose of improving the performance, efficiency, and operations of state government by reviewing certain state agencies, programs, boards, and commissions.” Fee-funded agencies — examples include Kansas dental board and Kansas real estate commission — would be exempt from this bill.

    In more detail, the text of the bill explains: “The purposes of the Kansas streamlining government act are to improve the performance, streamline the operations, improve the effectiveness and efficiency, and reduce the operating costs of the executive branch of state government by reviewing state programs, policies, processes, original positions, staffing levels, agencies, boards and commissions, identifying those that should be eliminated, combined, reorganized, downsized or otherwise altered, and recommending proposed executive reorganization orders, executive orders, legislation, rules and regulations, or other actions to accomplish such changes and achieve such results.”

    In testimony in support of this legislation, Dave Trabert, President of Kansas Policy Institute offered testimony that echoed findings of the public choice school of economics and politics: “Some people may view a particular expenditure as unnecessary to the fulfillment of a program’s or an agency’s primary mission while others may see it as essential. Absent an independent review, we are expecting government employees to put their own self-interests aside and make completely unbiased decisions on how best to spend taxpayer funds. It’s not that government employees are intentionally wasteful; it’s that they are human beings and setting self-interests aside is challenge we all face.”

    The bill passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 79 to 40. It was referred to the Senate Committee on Federal and State Affairs, where it did not advance. HB 2120 died in a senate committee chaired by Pete Brungardt, a member of the moderate coalition.

    Privatization and public-private partnerships

    Another bill that did not advance was HB 2194, which in its original form would have created the Kansas Advisory Council on Privatization and Public-Private Partnerships.

    According to the supplemental note for the bill, “The purpose of the Council would be to ensure that certain state agencies, including the Board of Regents and postsecondary educational institutions, would: 1) focus on the core mission and provide goods and services efficiently and effectively; 2) develop a process to analyze opportunities to improve efficiency, cost-effectiveness and provide quality services, operations, functions, and activities; and 3) evaluate for feasibility, cost-effectiveness, and efficiency opportunities that could be outsourced. Excluded from the state agencies covered by the bill would be any entity not receiving State General Fund or federal funds appropriation.”

    This bill passed by a vote of 68 to 51 in the House of Representatives. It did not advance in the Senate, falling victim to a “gut-and-go” maneuver where its contents were replaced with legislation on an entirely different topic. Steve Morris, president of the Kansas Senate and a member of the moderate coalition, chaired the committee that killed this legislation.

    Performance measures

    Another bill that didn’t pass the entire legislature was HB 2158, which would have created performance measures for state agencies and reported that information to the public. The supplemental note says that the bill “as amended, would institute a new process for modifying current performance measures and establishing new standardized performance measures to be used by all state agencies in support of the annual budget requests. State agencies would be required to consult with representatives of the Director of the Budget and the Legislative Research Department to modify each agency’s current performance measures, to standardize such performance measures, and to utilize best practices in all state agencies.” Results of the performance measures would be posted on a public website.

    This bill passed the House of Representatives by a nearly unanimous vote of 119 to 2, with Wichita’s Nile Dillmore and Geraldine Flaharty the two nay votes.

    Opposition to these bills from Democrats often included remarks on the irony of those who were recently elected on the promise of shrinking government now proposing to enlarge government through the creation of these commissions and councils. These bills, however, proposed to spend modest amounts increasing the manageability of government, not the actual range and scope of government itself. As it turns out, many in the legislature — this includes Senate Republicans who initiated or went along with the legislative maneuvers that killed these bills — are happy with the operations of state government remaining in the shadows.

    HB 2158 was victim of a “gut-and-go” maneuver in a committee chaired by Carolyn McGinn, another member of the moderate coalition.

  • Sedgwick County voter registration changes: Impact on senate races

    During the Kansas primary election season, there have been efforts to recruit Democratic party voters to change their voter registration to Republican in order to participate in Republican party primary races. Kansas National Education Association (KNEA) has asked teachers union members to switch their voter registration in order to vote in Republican primaries. KNEA has asked this on its website and in an email that has received widespread attention.

    Former Wichita Mayor Elma Broadfoot has recorded telephone calls urging Democrats to switch party registration so they may vote for moderate Republicans, reports the Wichita Eagle.

    Whether this effort will be successful is unknown. But we now know, for Sedgwick County, how many people have changed their voter registration to Republican in recent months.

    I took a Sedgwick County voter file obtained in May and compared it to one current as of Friday, which is after the deadline for changing voter registration. In the accompanying table, I counted voters who switched to Republican registration from some other party. I grouped the data by Kansas Senate district, as this is where much of the focus has been. I also present totals for Sedgwick County, as some county-wide races may also be impacted.

    Voter registration party changes in Sedgwick County

    It’s important to remember that some of these senate districts are not totally within Sedgwick County, and this table includes only Sedgwick County voters. Districts 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, and 30 are entirely within the county, and all voters in these districts are represented in the table.

    Numbers in context

    Now that we know the number of voters who switched to Republican registration, are these numbers large enough to affect any races? The answer is we simply don’t know. We don’t know why these voters switched to Republican registration. Their motive may be to vote for the moderate candidate, but there could be other reasons, too.

    To place these numbers in context, consider the race for senate district 25, which pits incumbent Jean Schodorf against Wichita City Council Member Michael O’Donnell. In this district, 230 voters switched to Republican registration.

    In the 2008 primary, 2,435 people voted for Schodorf, but there was no opponent. About 4,000 voted for Les Donovan in his primary, and about the same for Susan Wagle in her district, but again these races were uncontested. In the 2008 general election, 16,016 voted for Schodorf over 9,530 cast for her opponent, for a total of 25,546 votes cast, plus a few write-ins. But general elections, by their nature, have a much higher turnout than primaries.

    A better election to compare is the 2004 Republican primary for senate district 30 in east Wichita, when former Wichita Mayor Bob Knight challenged incumbent Susan Wagle in a race that received much attention. Knight received 3,140 votes to Wagle’s 5,624, for a total of 8,764 votes cast.

    230 voters switching registration out of a potential vote total of 8,764 is 2.6 percent. Many races are decided by less than that margin. But again, we don’t know the intent of these 230 voters, and while these voters are probably more motivated than most, some may not vote.

    We should also note that district 27 had 223 voters switch to Republican affiliation during the same period. Incumbent Les Donovan has no primary opponent. He will face a Democrat in the general election, but party registration doesn’t matter at that time. In district 30, 160 voters switched to Republican registration. Incumbent Susan Wagle has no primary opponent.

    It’s also noteworthy that switching to Republican registration is not the only action I observed. For example, in District 25, while 230 voters switched to Republican, 51 Democratic voters switched to Unaffiliated registration, 42 Republicans switched to Unaffiliated, and seven voters became Libertarian party voters. On election day Unaffiliated voters can switch their registration to Republican and vote in the primary.

    Finally, there are new voters of all parties, including Republican. The analysis above counts only voters who changed party registration to Republican.

    Overall, 2,001 voters in Sedgwick County switched party registration during this two-month period, with 1,126 switching to Republican.

  • Wichita Eagle voter guide available

    For the voter guide for the November 2012 elections, click here.

    The Wichita Eagle voter guide is now available online.

    This guide may be used in two ways: you can enter your address, and the system will show you information about the candidates that will appear on your ballot. Or, you can browse all the races and candidates.

    The information in this guide is provided by the candidates (except for a brief description of each office), and there is no editorial comment. Some of this information will probably appear in a printed version of the newspaper, but not for contests like precinct committeeman and committeewoman.

    Access the voter guide by clicking on Wichita Eagle voter guide.

  • Skelton, Sedgwick County Commissioner, censured by party

    Yesterday evening the Sedgwick County Republican Party censured a Sedgwick County Commissioner for supporting a Democrat in an upcoming election.

    Treatha Brown-Foster, who is chair of Kansas Black Republican Council, offered a resolution critical of Jim Skelton.

    The resolution read: “Whereas, Jim Skelton, an elected Republican official in Sedgwick County, who has benefited from the support of the Sedgwick County Republican Party, has publicly supported a Democratic candidate over a Republican candidate for election to the Sedgwick County Commission. Be it resolved that Jim Skelton be censured for this action.”

    The resolution was met with applause. The motion was seconded and the vote to approve it was unanimous.

    In June Skelton expressed his support in a Wichita Eagle article for incumbent Tim Norton over challenger Ben Sauceda. Norton is a Democrat; Sauceda is a Republican. The two face no primary challenges, and will meet in the November 6th general election.

    In January Skelton joined with fellow Republican Commissioner Dave Unruh to elect Norton as commission chair. Despite Republicans holding a four to one majority, the commission is chaired by a Democrat.

  • In Kansas, political signs are okay, despite covenants

    It’s common for neighborhoods to have restrictive covenants that prohibit homeowners from placing any signs in their yard, except for signs advertising homes for sale. But a 2008 Kansas law overrides these restrictive covenants to allow for the placement of small political yard signs starting 45 days before an election. Still, residents of covenant neighborhoods may want to observe their neighborhood’s restrictions, even though they are not valid under the law.

    The bill was the product of then-Senator Phil Journey of Haysville. The bill passed unanimously in both the Kansas House and Senate.

    According to the First Amendment Center, some 50 million people live in neighborhoods with homeowners associations. And laws like the 2008 Kansas law are not without controversy, despite the unanimous vote in the Kansas Legislature.

    While the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that governmental entities like cities can’t stop homeowners from displaying political yard signs, a homeowners association is not government. Instead, it is a group that people voluntarily enter.

    Generally, when prospective homeowners purchase a home in a neighborhood with restrictive covenants, they are asked to sign a document pledging to comply with the provisions in the covenants. If those covenants prohibit political yard signs, but a Kansas law says these covenants do not apply, what should a homeowner do?

    Practically: Should you display signs in your yard?

    While Kansas law makes it legal for those living in communities with covenants that prohibit political yard signs, residents may want to observe these convents. Here’s why: If neighbors are not aware of this new Kansas law and therefore still believe that the yard signs are not allowed in your neighborhood, they may think residents with signs in their yards are violating the covenants. By extension, this could reflect poorly on the candidates that are being promoted.

    The people who believe the covenants against yard signs are valid are misinformed, but they may vote. Whether to display yard signs in a covenant neighborhood is a judgment that each person will have to make for themselves.

    The Kansas statute

    K.S.A. 58-3820. Restrictive covenants; political yard signs; limitations. (a) On and after the effective date of this act, any provision of a restrictive covenant which prohibits the display of political yard signs, which are less than six square feet, during a period commencing 45 days before an election and ending two days after the election is hereby declared to be against public policy and such provision shall be void and unenforceable.

    (b) The provisions of this section shall apply to any restrictive covenant in existence on the effective date of this act.

    Or, as described in the 2008 Summary of Legislation: “The bill invalidates any provision of a restrictive covenant prohibiting the display of political yard signs, which are less than six square feet, 45 days before an election or two days after the election.”

  • Pickens’ NATGAS act sponsor defeated

    A congressional primary election served as a barometer of public sentiment on energy policy and government interventionism into free markets.

    In yesterday’s Oklahoma primary elections, Jim Bridenstine defeated 10-year incumbent John Sullivan in a Republican primary for U.S. House of Representatives, first district.

    The difference between the two candidates, as reported by the Tulsa World, boiled down to supporting or opposing H.R. 1380: New Alternative Transportation to Give Americans Solutions Act of 2011, or NAT GAS act. The bill provides a variety of subsidies, implemented through tax credits, to producers and users of natural gas. The legislation’s purpose is to promote the use of natural gas as the fuel the nation uses for transportation by converting over-the-road trucks to run on natural gas. From the story Republicans vying for 1st District seat square off civilly at event:

    On only one issue, energy policy, did Sullivan and Bridenstine substantially disagree. Sullivan touted his bill to promote natural gas vehicle fuels, while Bridenstine supports an alternative proposal.

    “Let’s get cars, trucks and buses running on natural gas,” Sullivan said. “We have an abundance of it here in the United States. It’s cheap and abundant and … it also addresses a national security issue by lessening our dependence on foreign oil.”

    Bridenstine calls Sullivan’s NatGas Act a “big-government” boondoggle because it creates a short-term subsidy to convert vehicles to natural gas.

    “We ought not let Washington, D.C., control free markets with tax subsidies,” he said.

    It wasn’t just that Sullivan supported the NATGAS bill — he was the lead sponsor. Now Oklahoma Republicans have rejected the sponsor of a large dose of harmful crony capitalism. Thank you, Oklahoma.

    Another supporter of this bill — perhaps the leading promoter — is T. Boone Pickens. He promotes this bill as a way to convert trucks to run on natural gas at no cost to the taxpayer. Except for two things: Tax credits are equivalent to spending. But they mix spending with taxation in a way that lets politicians and handout-seekers like Pickens to wrongly claim that tax credits are not cash handouts. Fortunately, not everyone falls for this seductive trap. In an excellent article on the topic that appeared in Cato Institute’s Regulation magazine, Edward D. Kleinbard explains:

    Specialists term these synthetic government spending programs “tax expenditures.” Tax expenditures are really spending programs, not tax rollbacks, because the missing tax revenues must be financed by more taxes on somebody else. Like any other form of deficit spending, a targeted tax break without a revenue offset simply means more deficits (and ultimately more taxes); a targeted tax break coupled with a specific revenue “payfor” means that one group of Americans is required to pay (in the form of higher taxes) for a subsidy to be delivered to others through the mechanism of the tax system. … Tax expenditures dissolve the boundaries between government revenues and government spending. They reduce both the coherence of the tax law and our ability to conceptualize the very size and activities of our government. (The Hidden Hand of Government Spending, Fall 2010)

    The other thing is that the NATGAS bill would likely be very expensive, much more so than claimed. The Wall Street Journal has reported on its cost: “Proponents put the cost at about $5 billion over five years, but many energy experts believe it would be multiples higher. Eight million trucks are on the road today, and if each got a $15,000 average tax credit, the price tag grows to over $100 billion.”

    Pickens appeared this Sunday on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace to promote NATGAS in this excerpt.

    WALLACE: All right. Let’s focus on the natural gas, though, which you’re saying cheaper. It’s cleaner. And we don’t have to ship trillions of dollars over to OPEC, to our enemies.

    Your idea is to convert this nation’s 8 million heavy duty trucks, the 18-wheelers, to natural gas.

    What does that mean for pollution? And what does that mean in terms of our dependence on foreign oil?

    PICKENS: The independence on foreign oil first. There are 250 million vehicles in America. I just want 8 million. Give me the 8 million.

    What can I do for us? If I had 8 million, that would be 3 million barrels of oil a day. We import 4.4 million barrels a day from OPEC. So, we would cut OPEC by 20 — by, we could cut them about —

    WALLACE: Sixty percent.

    PICKENS: More than 60 percent, close to 70 percent we could cut. With just 8 million, that’s it. I mean, it’s like a freebie. And it truly is.

    Pickens promotes the program as a “freebie,” despite the Journal’s reporting that it could cost over $100 billion and the fact that tax credits are real government spending.

    Troubling also is Pickens’ focus on himself: “I just want 8 million. Give me the 8 million.”

    In March an amendment to a Senate highway bill that would have implemented a version of the NATGAS act was defeated. That, coupled with the message Oklahoma voters sent, ought to put an end to NATGAS and let energy markets and consumers decide energy policy.