Voice For Liberty

Tag: Interventionism

  • Wichita Mayor Carl Brewer on role of government

    When President Barack Obama told business owners “You didn’t build that,” it set off a bit of a revolt. Those who worked hard to build businesses didn’t like to hear the president dismiss their efforts.

    Underlying this episode is a serious question: What should be the role of government in the economy? Should government’s role be strictly limited, according to the Constitution? Or should government take an activist role in managing, regulating, subsidizing, and penalizing in order to get the results politicians and bureaucrats desire?

    Historian Burton W. Folsom has concluded that it is the private sector — free people, not government — that drives innovation: “Time and again, experience has shown that while private enterprise, carried on in an environment of open competition, delivers the best products and services at the best price, government intervention stifles initiative, subsidizes inefficiency, and raises costs.”

    But some don’t agree. They promote government management and intervention into the economy. Whatever their motivation might be, however it was they formed their belief, they believe that without government oversight of the economy, things won’t happen.

    But in Wichita, it’s even worse. Without government, it is claimed that not only would we stop growing, economic progress would revert to a previous century.

    Mayor Carl Brewer made these claims in a 2008 meeting of the Wichita City Council.

    In his remarks (transcript and video below), Brewer said “if government had not played some kind of role in guiding and identifying how the city was going to grow, how any city was going to grow, I’d be afraid of what that would be. Because we would still be in covered wagons and horses. There would be no change.”

    When I heard him say that, I thought he’s just using rhetorical flair to emphasize a point. But later on he said this about those who advocate for economic freedom instead of government planning and control: “… then tomorrow we’ll be saying we don’t want more technology, and then the following day we’ll be saying we don’t want public safety, and it won’t take us very long to get back to where we were at back when the city first settled.”

    Brewer’s remarks are worse than “You didn’t build that.” The mayor of Wichita is telling us you can’t build that — not without government guidance and intervention, anyway.

    Many people in Wichita, including the mayor and most on the city council and county commission, believe that the public-private partnership is the way to drive innovation and get things done. It’s really a shame that this attitude is taking hold in Wichita, a city which has such a proud tradition of entrepreneurship. The names that Wichitans are rightly proud of — Lloyd Stearman, Walter Beech, Clyde Cessna, W.C. Coleman, Albert Alexander Hyde, Dan and Frank Carney, and Fred C. Koch — these people worked and built businesses without the benefit of public-private partnerships and government subsidy.

    This tradition of entrepreneurship is disappearing, replaced by the public-private partnership and programs like Visioneering Wichita, sustainable communities, Greater Wichita Economic Development Coalition, Regional Economic Area Partnership (REAP), and rampant cronyism. Although when given a chance, voters are rejecting cronyism.

    We don’t have long before the entrepreneurial spirit in Wichita is totally subservient to government. What can we do to return power to the people instead of surrendering it to government?

    Wichita Mayor Carl Brewer, August 12, 2008: You know, I think that a lot of individuals have a lot of views and opinions about philosophy as to, whether or not, what role the city government should play inside of a community or city. But it’s always interesting to hear various different individuals’ philosophy or their view as to what that role is, and whether or not government or policy makers should have any type of input whatsoever.

    I would be afraid, because I’ve had an opportunity to hear some of the views, and under the models of what individuals’ logic and thinking is, if government had not played some kind of role in guiding and identifying how the city was going to grow, how any city was going to grow, I’d be afraid of what that would be. Because we would still be in covered wagons and horses. There would be no change.

    Because the stance is let’s not do anything. Just don’t do anything. Hands off. Just let it happen. So if society, if technology, and everything just goes off and leaves you behind, that’s okay. Just don’t do anything. I just thank God we have individuals that have enough gumption to step forward and say I’m willing to make a change, I’m willing to make a difference, I’m willing to improve the community. Because they don’t want to acknowledge the fact that improving the quality of life, improving the various different things, improving bringing in businesses, cleaning up street, cleaning up neighborhoods, doing those things, helping individuals feel good about themselves: they don’t want to acknowledge that those types of things are important, and those types of things, there’s no way you can assess or put a a dollar amount to it.

    Not everyone has the luxury to live around a lake, or be able to walk out in their backyard or have someone come over and manicure their yard for them, not everyone has that opportunity. Most have to do that themselves.

    But they want an environment, sometimes you have to have individuals to come in and to help you, and I think that this is one of those things that going to provide that.

    This community was a healthy thriving community when I was a kid in high school. I used to go in and eat pizza after football games, and all the high school students would go and celebrate.

    But, just like anything else, things become old, individuals move on, they’re forgotten in time, maybe the city didn’t make the investments that they should have back then, and they walk off and leave it.

    But new we have someone whose interested in trying to revive it. In trying to do something a little different. In trying to instill pride in the neighborhood, trying to create an environment where it’s enticing for individuals to want to come back there, or enticing for individuals to want to live there.

    So I must commend those individuals for doing that. But if we say we start today and say that we don’t want to start taking care of communities, then tomorrow we’ll be saying we don’t want more technology, and then the following day we’ll be saying we don’t want public safety, and it won’t take us very long to get back to where we were at back when the city first settled.

    So I think this is something that’s a good venture, it’s a good thing for the community, we’ve heard from the community, we’ve seen the actions of the community, we saw it on the news what these communities are doing because they know there’s that light at the end of the tunnel. We’ve seen it on the news. They’ve been reporting it in the media, what this particular community has been doing, and what others around it.

    And you know what? The city partnered with them, to help them generate this kind of energy and this type of excitement and this type of pride.

    So I think this is something that’s good. And I know that there’s always going to be people who are naysayers, that they’re just not going to be happy. And I don’t want you to let let this to discourage you, and I don’t want the comments that have been heard today to discourage the citizens of those neighborhoods. And to continue to doing the great work that they’re doing, and to continue to have faith, and to continue that there is light at the end of the tunnel, and that there is a value that just can’t be measured of having pride in your community and pride in your neighborhood, and yes we do have a role to be able to help those individuals trying to help themselves.

  • Crony Chronicles: I Want To Be A Crony

    Cronyism? “It’s like having a best friend who gives you other peoples’ stuff,” says the young girl to the approval of her friend.

    We in Wichita know just how this works, and when given a chance, voters reject it.

    The video is a project of Crony Chronicles, which has developed into a top-notch resource for information on this harmful disease.

  • Wichita fluoridation debate reveals attitudes of government

    Is community water fluoridation like iodized salt? According to Wichita City Council Member and Vice Mayor Janet Miller (district 6, north central Wichita), we didn’t vote on whether to put iodine in table salt, so Wichitans don’t need to vote on whether to add fluoride to drinking water.

    There’s a distinguishing factor, however, that somehow Miller didn’t realize: Consumption of iodized salt is a voluntary act. Not so with fluoridated water.

    At the August 21, 2012 meeting of the Wichita City Council, Miller went on to name other substances added to our food supply that she said are beneficial to health. We didn’t vote on these either, but again, consumption of these foods and the added substances is voluntary.

    In her discussion, Council Member Lavonta Williams (district 1, northeast Wichita) said “Did you like the art that went down to WaterWalk? Maybe you didn’t. But you don’t have to go there.”

    She also said we don’t have to go to the apartments that were built at WaterWalk, and we don’t have to stay at the Ambassador Hotel.

    True, we can avoid these government-sponsored and subsidized places if we want to. But what Williams may have forgotten is that we can’t avoid being forced to pay for them.

    Besides that, what does it say about a government where if we disagree with its actions, we’re told “you don’t have to go there”?

    This confusion of government and voluntary action is troubling for the future of Wichita, and more broadly, our country.

  • Wichita flight options decrease, despite subsidies

    Supporters of the Kansas Affordable Airfares Program are proud of the program’s success. But looking at the statistics uncovers a troubling trend that is obscured by the facts used to promote the program: The number of flights available from Wichita is declining. Today, we learn that Frontier Airlines is quitting its Wichita service, so the number of flight options may decline farther. (Wichita Eagle, Frontier Airlines to end flights from Wichita to Denver.)

    The program provides taxpayer-funded grants to airlines so that they will provide low-cost service to cities in Kansas. The thought is that by propping up a discount carrier, other airlines will be forced to reduce their fares. By far the largest consumer of these subsidies is Airtran Airways in Wichita. For this goal, the program has worked, probably. We have to say “probably” because we can never know what would have happened in the absence of this program. But it is quite likely that fares are at least somewhat lower than would they would be otherwise.

    But lower fares is not the only measure of success. The number of available flights is a measure, too, and a very important one for many people.

    The problem is that subsidy boosters state that the number of flights has increased. For example, on a page that is part of the Sedgwick County official website, the claim is made that the affordable airfares program “offers more flights to both east and west coasts.”

    In the agenda packet for a meeting of the Regional Economic Area Partnership of South Central Kansas — that’s the body that administers the affordable airfares program — board members were presented this information: “In presenting its proposal Sedgwick County provided evidence documenting that low-fare air service to eastern and western U.S. destinations through Wichita Mid-Continent Airport had been successful in providing more air flight options, more competition for air travel, and affordable air fares for Kansas.”

    Later that document describes selection criteria for deciding which airlines will receive grants. The first goal listed is “more air flight options,” which is further described as the number of scheduled, daily nonstop and one-stop flights.

    Certainly enticing a new airline carrier to town by paying them a subsidy increases the number of flights that carrier will offer, as before the subsidy, they offered none. But the experience of Wichita shows that the affordable airfares program is causing an overall loss of flight options in Wichita.

    It’s true that when the airline subsidy started, funded at first only by the City of Wichita, the number of flights departing from Wichita increased. That’s not remarkable. That was the stated goal of the program, and if we paid AirTran a subsidy and they didn’t provide flights, that would have been a problem.

    But the history of flights before the subsidy program is not the only important measure, although supporters of the program like the Wichita Eagle’s Rhonda Holman make use of it when she recently wrote this about the program and an audit of it conducted by Kansas Legislative Division of Post Audit: “Even so, the audit put the return on the state’s investment at $2.32-to-$1, cited 38 percent growth in passenger counts between 2000 and 2009, and said ‘fares have decreased, while the number of passengers and the number of available flights have increased.’”

    Yes, the number of available flights increased upon the arrival of AirTran and the start of the subsidy payments. But the trend since 2005 — about the time the state got involved in the funding and the program matured — is not encouraging. As shown in the accompanying charts, that trend is continually on a downward trajectory. (The charts show two different sets of data for the number of departures from Wichita.)

    The decline in the number of available flights is important, because for some travelers, particularly business travelers, the availability of a seat on an airplane at any price is more important than being able to book a cheap flight a month in advance.

    People may disagree about the wisdom of the airline subsidy program. But we need to recognize that the availability of flights to and from Wichita is declining, and has been declining for a number of years.

    We often hear of the unintended consequences of government intervention. This is such an example. Compounding the problem is the refusal of the program’s supporters — both within and outside of government — to recognize it, at least publicly.

    Monthly departures from WichitaMonthly departures from the Wichita airport
    Number of daily departures from the Wichita airport by air carriers (excluding weekends)Number of daily departures from the Wichita airport by air carriers (excluding weekends)

  • 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.

  • Farm bill contains energy spending

    The Obama Administration’s politically-driven energy spending (think Solyndra) has illustrated for Americans that government should not be in the business of selecting and subsidizing energy sources. But the farm bill currently under consideration contains more of this wasteful spending. The bill has advanced from a Senate committee.

    According to the Congressional Budget Office, the “Energy Title” (the section of the bill that addresses energy) will result in additional spending of $780 million over the next ten years, with $550 million of that in the first five years. This additional spending is over the “baseline” spending. Total spending on energy in the farm bill would be $1.5 billion over ten years.

    One of the programs in the farm bill is Biomass Crop Assistance Program (BCAP), which, according to the USDA, “provides financial assistance to owners and operators of agricultural and non-industrial private forest land who wish to establish, produce, and deliver biomass feedstocks.” In other words, it pays farmers to grow and deliver crops. This program was cited by the USDA Inspector General for problems including improper payments and administration problems.

    Another energy-related program in the farm bill is Biorefinery Assistance Program (BAP). This program has had its share of failures along the lines of Solyndra. Range Fuels, for example, was formed to produce cellulosic ethanol. It received a $76 million grant from the Department of Energy (during the Bush Administration), and later a $80 million loan under BAP during the Obama Administration. The plant produced one batch of methanol — not the type of alcohol that cars use as fuel — and then shut down. For more, see the Wall Street Journal The Range Fuels Fiasco: A case study in the folly of politically directed investment.

    There’s also the Rural Energy for America Program, which provides loan guarantees and grants for rural America to install renewable energy systems such as wind and solar power, as well as more exotic technologies like geothermal.

    There’s other energy-related spending in the bill, but you get the idea. Some of this spending is government choosing winners and losers in the energy marketplace, rather than letting markets work out which technologies are worthwhile investment subjects. Some of it is simply welfare spending on special interest groups. This energy-related spending is happening where you might not think to look for it: the farm bill. (The total cost of the farm bill over ten years is estimated by the CBO to be $969 billion.)

    There’s other spending on biofuels that’s not in the farm bill. Last year a cellulosic ethanol plant in western Kansas received a $132 million loan guarantee. All this spending is in spite of the fact that there has been no commercial-scale cellulosic ethanol production.

    Spending on these rural energy programs provides an opportunity for politicians to engage in what U.S. Representative Mike Pompeo has termed “photo-op economics.” Those who have fought for these spending programs get to participate in groundbreaking ceremonies and other highly visible new events. The lobbyists who fight for them earn large fees. But this type of spending represents cronyism at its fullest, where the public at large is taxed to provide benefits for the few. We need to end this type of spending, whether it be hidden in the farm bill or elsewhere.

  • Tax costs block progress in Kansas

    If we in Kansas and Wichita wonder why our economic growth is slow and our economic development programs don’t seem to be producing results, there is now data to answer the question why: Our tax costs are high — way too high.

    Recently the Tax Foundation released a report that examines the tax costs on business in the states and in selected cities in each state. The news for Kansas is worse than merely bad, as our state couldn’t have performed much worse: Kansas ranks 47th among the states for tax costs for mature business firms, and 48th for new firms.

    The report is Location Matters: A Comparative Analysis of State Tax Costs on Business.

    The study is unusual in that it looks at the impact of states’ tax burden on mature and new firms. This, according to report authors, “allows us to understand the effects of state tax incentives compared to a state’s core tax system.” In further explanation, the authors write: “The second measure is for the tax burden faced by newly established operations, those that have been in operation less than three years. This represents a state’s competitiveness after we have taken into account the various tax incentive programs it makes available to new investments.”

    The report also looks at the tax costs for specific types of business firms. For Kansas, some individual results are better than overall, but still not good. For a mature corporate headquarters, Kansas ranks 30th. For locating a new corporate headquarters — one that would benefit from tax incentive programs — Kansas ranked 42nd. For a mature research and development facility, 46th; while new is ranked 49th. For a mature retail store, 38th, while new is ranked 45th.

    There are more categories. Kansas ranks well in none.

    The report also looked at two cities in each state, a major city and a mid-size city. For Kansas, the two cities are Wichita and Topeka.

    Among the 50 cities chosen, Wichita ranks 30th for a mature corporate headquarters, but 42nd for a new corporate headquarters.

    For a mature research and development facility, Wichita ranks 46th, and 49th for a new facility.

    For a mature and new retail store, Wichita ranks 38th and 45th, respectively.

    For a mature and new call center, Wichita ranks 43rd and 47th, respectively.

    In its summary for Kansas, the authors note the fecklessness of Kansas economic development incentives: “Kansas offers among the most generous property tax abatements and investment tax credits across most firm types, yet these incentives seem to have little impact on the state’s rankings for new operations.”

    Kansas tax cost compared to neighbors. Click here for a larger version.

    It’s also useful to compare Kansas to our neighbors. The comparison is not favorable for Kansas.

    More evidence of failure

    Recently the Greater Wichita Economic Development Coalition issued its annual report on its economic development activities for the year. This report shows us that power of government to influence economic development is weak. In its recent press release, the organization claimed to have created 1,509 jobs in Sedgwick County during 2011. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the labor force in Sedgwick County in 2011 was 253,940 persons. So the jobs created by GWEDC’s actions amounted to 0.59 percent of the labor force. This is a very small fraction, and other economic events are likely to overwhelm these efforts.

    In his 2012 State of the City address, Wichita Mayor Carl Brewer took credit for creating a similar percentage of jobs in Wichita.

    The report by the Tax Foundation helps us understand why the economic development efforts of GWEDC, Sedgwick County, and Wichita are not working well: Our tax costs are too high.

    While economic development incentives can help reduce the cost of taxes for selected firms, incentives don’t help the many firms that don’t receive them. In fact, the cost of these incentives is harmful to other firms. The Tax Foundation report points to this harm: “While many state officials view tax incentives as a necessary tool in their state’s ability to be competitive, others are beginning to question the cost-benefit of incentives and whether they are fair to mature firms that are paying full freight. Indeed, there is growing animosity among many business owners and executives to the generous tax incentives enjoyed by some of their direct competitors.”

    But there is one incentive that can be offered to all firms: Reduce tax costs for everyone. The policy of reducing tax costs for the selected few is not working. This “active investor” approach to economic development is what has led companies in Wichita and Kansas escaping hundreds of millions in taxes — taxes that others have to pay. That has a harmful effect on other business, both existing and those that wish to form.

    Professor Art Hall of the Center for Applied Economics at the Kansas University School of Business is critical of this approach to economic development. In his paper Embracing Dynamism: The Next Phase in Kansas Economic Development Policy, Hall quotes Alan Peters and Peter Fisher: “The most fundamental problem is that many public officials appear to believe that they can influence the course of their state and local economies through incentives and subsidies to a degree far beyond anything supported by even the most optimistic evidence. We need to begin by lowering expectations about their ability to micro-manage economic growth and making the case for a more sensible view of the role of government — providing foundations for growth through sound fiscal practices, quality public infrastructure, and good education systems — and then letting the economy take care of itself.”

    In the same paper, Hall writes this regarding “benchmarking” — the bidding wars for large employers that Wichita and Kansas has been pursuing and which Wichita’s Brewer wants to step up: “Kansas can break out of the benchmarking race by developing a strategy built on embracing dynamism. Such a strategy, far from losing opportunity, can distinguish itself by building unique capabilities that create a different mix of value that can enhance the probability of long-term economic success through enhanced opportunity. Embracing dynamism can change how Kansas plays the game.”

    In making his argument, Hall cites research on the futility of chasing large employers as an economic development strategy: “Large-employer businesses have no measurable net economic effect on local economies when properly measured. To quote from the most comprehensive study: ‘The primary finding is that the location of a large firm has no measurable net economic effect on local economies when the entire dynamic of location effects is taken into account. Thus, the siting of large firms that are the target of aggressive recruitment efforts fails to create positive private sector gains and likely does not generate significant public revenue gains either.’”

    There is also substantial research that is it young firms — distinguished from small business in general — that are the engine of economic growth for the future. We can’t detect which of the young firms will blossom into major success — or even small-scale successes. The only way to nurture them is through economic policies that all companies can benefit from. Reducing tax rates is an example of such a policy. Abating taxes for specific companies through programs like IRBs is an example of precisely the wrong policy.

    We need to move away from economic development based on this active investor approach. We need to advocate for policies — at Wichita City Hall, at the Sedgwick County Commission, and at the Kansas Statehouse — that lead to sustainable economic development. We need political leaders who have the wisdom to realize this, and the courage to act appropriately. Which is to say, to not act in most circumstances, except to reduce the cost of government for everyone.

  • In Kansas, STAR bonds vote uplifted cronyism over capitalism

    Recently both chambers of the Kansas Legislature passed similar bills authorizing a five year extension of the Kansas STAR bonds program. In the House the bill passed 92 to 31. In the Senate the vote was 27 to 13.

    The STAR bonds program provides a way to redirect sales taxes to project developers instead of the state treasury, which is where most people think taxes go — or should go.

    Not so with STAR bonds. In the words of the Kansas Department of Commerce, the program offers “municipalities the opportunity to issue bonds to finance the development of major commercial, entertainment and tourism areas and use the sales tax revenue generated by the development to pay off the bonds.” This description, while generally true, is not accurate. A proposed STAR bond district in Wichita includes much area beyond the borders of the proposed development, including a Super Target store, a new Cabela’s store, and much vacant ground that will probably be developed as retail. The increment in sales taxes from these stores — present and future — goes to the STAR bond developer.

    I asked a number of members of the Kansas House and Senate to explain their votes in favor of extending the STAR bonds program. It was difficult to extract answers, but I finally a received a few.

    One member explained to me that some votes are “ugly.” Yes, indeed I would say, including this member’s. But that’s no reason not to vote correctly in favor of limited government, capitalism, and free markets. Sometimes members have to vote according to their campaign promises.

    One member explained to me that the bonds that will be sold are bought by private investors, and there’s nothing wrong with that. That’s true, but stopping the thought process there is naive. How are payments on these bonds to be made, we have to ask. The answer is payments are made, at least partially, from the captured sales tax revenue. That’s revenue not earned by the developers. Instead, it is revenue collected by government in the form of taxes that consumers have no choice but to pay. From the developers’ viewpoint (and pocketbook) it is a gift from government that others in similar situations are not able to receive. These gifts of money from government to business are known as cronyism. It is Kansas being business-friendly, which is not the same as capitalism-friendly, and it makes our state poorer and less able to compete.

    Some made the argument that STAR bond proceeds can be used only for certain allowable expenses such as “horizontal” expenses. Arguments such as these are commonly made to support government subsidy programs. Supporters argue that since the use of the funds is restricted, this somehow makes it allowable, even benign. But this is nonsense. If I gave you $100 with the stipulation that you could spend it only on Mondays, would anyone deny that you are wealthier by $100? That is, of course, if you were planning to spend money on Mondays. And if you weren’t, couldn’t you shift some of your spending to Mondays?

    This is the nonsensical nature of these arguments. Still, many purportedly fiscal conservatives are persuaded.

    Simply put, the STAR bonds program turns over taxation to private parties for their own benefit. When we are willing to turn over taxation to the benefit of private interests, we have to wonder a few things:

    First, why do we need taxation at all, if we can simply excuse some from participating in the system?

    Second: Can something be moral if it is not applied equally to everyone?

    Third: Sometimes it is claimed that without the government subsidy, a project is not economically feasible. Developers have lots of ways to make a project appears that it needs government help, and they have multimillion dollar motives to do so. But when something is truly not economically feasible, that means that the judgment of the marketplace is that the product or service is not desired — at least not at a price necessary to make the project profitable. But not to worry — our fearless government leaders will override the judgment of free people trading freely in markets. They will enact a forced transfer of wealth from taxpayers to the developers whose ideas can’t make it in the market. These leaders include Kansas Governor Sam Brownback, Secretary of Commerce Pat George, the Speaker of the House and President of the Senate, and chairs of key committees, except (surprisingly) Les Donovan, chair of the senate tax committee.

    For more on the harm to capitalism of the STAR bonds program, see Kansas STAR bonds vote a test for capitalism.

    In the House of Representatives, there were two explanations as to why some members voted no. The first one reads: “I vote NO on HB 2561. Star Bonds are a form of failed economic policy that Kansas should distance itself from. It is time for government to stop picking winners and losers and instead promote economic policies and a lower tax structure that all Kansans can benefit from. Star bonds are a form of centralized planning that favors a few at the expense of other taxpayers and businesses. These bonds divert needed money from police, fire, roads, and other core functions of government for 10, 20, and even 30 years. Mr. Speaker, I vote NO, choosing to support the taxpayers who voted me in office.” This was in the names of Pete DeGraaf, Virgil Peck, Jr, Randy Garber, Charlotte O’Hara, Owen Donohoe, and Connie O’Brien.

    A second statement read: “HB 2561 goes against my principles of free enterprise and limited government. By redirecting tax revenue to a particular business, STAR bonds create an unequal playing field. STAR bonds favor a few at the expense of other taxpayers and businesses. These bonds divert money needed for core functions of government for decades into the future. It is time for government to stop picking winners and losers and instead promote economic policies and a lower tax structure from which all Kansans can benefit. Mr. Speaker, I stand with the voters that elected me. I vote NO on HB2561.” This was in the names of Jim Howell, Dennis Hedke, TerriLois Gregory, Brett Hildabrand, Greg Smith, Kelly Meigs, Amanda Grosserode, Jana Goodman, Lance Y. Kinzer, Mitch Holmes, Marc Rhoades, Kasha Kelley, Dan Collins, and Tom Arpke.

    In the House, there were a number of members who voted in favor of the STAR bonds program in spite of proclamations of fiscal conservatism. Many of these members are looking for ways to reduce the growth of Kansas government and taxes. Some are in high leadership positions. Yet, somehow they didn’t see the harm in voting for the STAR bonds program. This list includes Steve Brunk of Wichita; Richard Carlson of St. Marys and Chair of the House Taxation Committee; Mario Goico of Wichita; Phil Hermanson of Wichita; Kyle Hoffman of Coldwater; Steve Huebert of Valley Center; Dan Kerschen of Garden Plain; Mike Kiegerl of Olathe; Marvin Kleeb of Overland Park and vice-chair of House Taxation Committee; Brenda Landwehr of Wichita; Peggy Mast of Emporia, who is Assistant Majority Leader; Mike O’Neal of Hutchinson, who is Speaker of the House; Les Osterman of Wichita; Joe Patton of Topeka; Scott Schwab of Olathe; Arlen Siegfreid of Olathe, who is Majority Leader; Gene Suellentrop of Wichita; and Brian Weber of Dodge City.

    In the Senate, these votes came from Terry Bruce of Hutchinson; Dick Kelsey of Goddard, Jeff King of Independence; Garrett Love of Montezuma; and Susan Wagle of Wichita.

  • Raising minimum wage not the solution

    As calls mount to raise the federal minimum wage, we need to remember that this law — as well-intentioned as it may be — is not the solution to unemployment or raising the standard of living of workers.

    The great appeal of a higher minimum wage mandated by an act of Congress is that it seems like a wonderfully magical way to increase the wellbeing of low-wage workers. Those who were earning less than the new lawful wage and keep their jobs after the increase are happy. They are grateful to the lawmakers, labor leaders, newspaper editorialists, and others who pleaded for the higher minimum wage. News stories will report their good fortune.

    That’s the visible effect of raising the minimum wage. But to understand the entire issue, we must look for the unseen effects. Milton Friedman explained in Capitalism and Freedom:

    Minimum wage laws are about as clear a case as one can find of a measure the effects of which are precisely the opposite of those intended by the men of good will who support it. Many proponents of minimum wage laws quite properly deplore extremely low rates; they regard them as a sign of poverty; and they hope, by outlawing wage rates below some specified level, to reduce poverty. In fact, insofar as minimum wage laws have any effect at all, their effect is clearly to increase poverty. The state can legislate a minimum wage rate. It can hardly require employers to hire at that minimum all who were formerly employed at wages below the minimum. … The effect of the minimum wage is therefore to make unemployment higher than it otherwise would be.

    The not-so-visible effect of the higher wage law is that demand for labor will be reduced. Those workers whose productivity, as measured by the give and take of supply and demand, lies below the new lawful wage rate are in danger of losing their jobs. The minimum wage law says if you hire someone you must pay them a certain minimum amount. The law can’t compel you to hire someone, nor can it force employers to keep workers on the payroll.

    The problem is that people lose their jobs in a dispersed manner. A few workers here; a few there. They may not know who is to blame for their situation. Newspaper and television reporters will not seek these people, as they are largely invisible, especially so in the case of the people who are not hired because of the higher minimum wage level.

    If we are truly concerned about the plight of low-wage and low-skilled workers we can face some realities and deal with them openly. The primary reality is that some people are not able to produce output that our economy values highly. These workers are not very productive. Passing a law that requires employers to pay them more doesn’t change the fact that their productivity is low. But there are ways to increase productivity.

    One way to increase workers’ productivity is through education. Unfortunately, there is ample evidence that our public education system is not producing graduates with the skills needed for well-paying jobs. But this is a problem that can be fixed.

    Another way to increase wages is to encourage more capital investment. But capital is a dirty word to liberals, as it conjures up images of rich people. But as the economist Walter E. Williams says, ask yourself this question: who earns the higher wage: a man digging a ditch with a shovel, or a man digging a ditch using a power backhoe? The difference between the two is that the man using the backhoe is more productive, although the worker using the shovel is undoubtedly working harder. But it is productivity that is valued. That productivity is provided by capital — the savings that someone accumulated (instead of spending on immediate consumption or taxes) and invested in a way that increased the output of workers and our economy.

    These savers and investors are not necessarily wealthy people. Anyone who defers current consumption in order to save and invest — no matter how small the amount — provides capital to industry.

    Education and capital accumulation are the two best ways to increase the productivity and the wages of workers. Ironically, the people who are most vocal about raising wages through legislative fiat are also usually opposed to meaningful education reform and school choice, insisting on more resources being poured into the present system. They also usually support higher taxes on both individuals and business, which makes it harder to accumulate capital. These people and organizations should examine the effects of the policies they promote, as they are not in alignment with their stated goals.