Voice For Liberty

Tag: Interventionism

  • The role of speculators

    As gasoline prices rise, we hear the call for regulation of speculators, with Fox News populist Bill O’Reilly a leading voice. Part of the complaint is true: Speculators are selfish people, acting only to make as much profit as possible for themselves. But by doing so, they provide a valuable public service.

    That’s not what we hear when oil and gasoline prices — to take a recent example — go up. News commentators from across the political spectrum condemn speculators, blaming them for rising gasoline prices.

    The mechanism of the speculator is to buy something like oil when prices are low, then to sell it when prices are high. By doing so he earns a profit. (An alternative is to sell things he does not yet own when prices are high, and then buy to fulfill his obligation when prices are low.)

    The speculator, in this definition, does not hope to profit by processing and distributing the commodity he is buying and selling, as does an oil refiner or flour miller. He simply hopes to make a profit based on the changing prices — up or down — of oil or wheat.

    It is said that speculators are buying oil now and therefore driving up the price. That’s probably true, and it illustrates one of the beneficial services that speculators provide: they reduce volatility in prices. If speculators are correct and the price of oil spikes sometime soon, the present buying by speculators makes the spike less steep. It also induces consumers to conserve.

    Writing about speculation in food markets, Walter Block explains the beneficial effects:

    First, the speculator lessens the effects of famine by storing food in times of plenty, through a motive of personal profit. He buys and stores food against the day when it might be scarce, enabling him to sell at a higher price. The consequences of his activity are far-reaching. They act as a signal to other people in the society, who are encouraged by the speculator’s activity to do likewise. Consumers are encouraged to eat less and save more, importers to import more, farmers to improve their crop yields, builders to erect more storage facilities, and merchants to store more food. Thus, fulfilling the doctrine of the “invisible hand,” the speculator, by his profit-seeking activity, causes more food to be stored during years of plenty than otherwise would have been the case, thereby lessening the effects of the lean years to come.

    If the spike in prices does occur, what will speculators do? They will sell their oil, and that action will drive down prices, making the spike less steep. Here the speculator makes a profit by providing the service of making the oil shortage less severe. His hoarding of oil, bought when prices were low, makes it available in times of need, and less expensive, too. The speculator is rarely given credit for that in public, although this is how the speculator earns a profit.

    More evidence of how speculators reduce price volatility is found in Oil Speculators Are Your Friends, by Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren of the Cato Institute:

    Questions of cause and effect aside, economists Robert Kolb and James Overdahl reviewed the literature to ascertain whether physical prices exhibited more or less volatility after futures markets were introduced. They found 26 published studies examining various agricultural, energy, and financial markets but noted that only two of those studies (pertaining to cattle and mortgages) found that prices were more volatile after futures markets were established. Fourteen studies, on the other hand, found that cash market volatility decreased after futures markets were introduced (the remainder found no effect).

    The upshot is that futures markets — and the speculation that occurs therein — provide a public service. Regulating, restricting, or eliminating those markets would not bring prices down or make them more predictable. All it would do is prevent these agents for social good from doing their job, which is to tell us the truth — as best they see — about the future cost of crude and to offer a means by which we can insure ourselves against the impact of increasing or declining crude oil prices.

    It is possible for speculators to do harm, however. If the speculator buys, he drives up prices. Then suppose the price of oil falls, and the speculator is forced to sell. His actions have increased the volatility of oil prices and have sent false price signals to the market. Citing again Block’s food example: “What if he is wrong? What if he predicts years of plenty — and by selling, encourages others to do likewise — and lean years follow? In this case, wouldn’t he be responsible for increasing the severity of the famine? Yes. If the speculator is wrong, he would be responsible for a great deal of harm.”

    In these cases, the speculator has suffered financial losses. These loses are a powerful market force that drives “bad” speculators — meaning those who guess wrong about future prices — out of the market.

    The real danger we face is when government attempts to speculate. That’s a possibility at the current moment, as many are recommending that the U.S. government sell oil from the strategic petroleum reserve in an effort to lower the cost of oil. That’s speculation — the oil was bought at a time when the price was lower, and is now contemplated being sold at a higher price.

    The problem with government speculation is that government does not face the market discipline that private-sector speculators face. When private-sector speculators are wrong, they lose their capital. They go out of business. But government faces no such discipline. When government is wrong, it goes on. Taxpayers and consumers, however, have to pay for the mistakes of politicians and bureaucrats.

    Government attempts at regulating speculators are certain to fail, too. Almost any such regulation will seek to reduce the profit potential of speculation. But the potential of profits is what motivates speculators and makes the system work. Without the potential for profits, speculators will not take the risk of losses, and they will not perform their beneficial function.

  • Does government spending create economic growth?

    Does government have the ability to create jobs?

    In the following video presentation, Professor Antony Davies of Duquesne University says yes, government spending creates some jobs, but taxation destroys other jobs. “At the end of the day, the government isn’t creating jobs, it’s moving jobs.”

    In his presentation, Davies presents charts comparing government spending and economic growth. The only relationship that emerges is that as government spending grows, the economy contracts. Meaning: government spending is a negative factor for economic growth.

    Davies says that the fallacy of stimulus spending is that we look at only half the picture, and ignore the taxation that raises the money that is spent.

    The private sector — that is, free people making decisions in their own best interest — is the best way to generate economic growth, wealth, and importantly, jobs. The best way for government to foster this process is to get out of the way, Davies says.

  • Kansas and Wichita lag the nation in tax costs

    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 rates are high — way too high.

    This week 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.

  • Mike Pompeo: We need capitalism, not cronyism

    In a guest column written for Americans for Prosperity, Kansas, U.S. Representative Mike Pompeo of Wichita explains why political cronyism, sometimes called crony capitalism, is wrong for our country. Pompeo coins a useful new term: “photo-op economics” to describe why some politicians support wasteful federal spending projects — as long as the spending is wasted in their districts. Then logrolling — the trading of legislative favors — applies, and those legislators who received votes from others to support wasteful spending must now reciprocate and support other wasteful spending.

    Pompeo touches on an important aspect of public policy that is not often mentioned: “Moreover, what about the jobs lost because everyone else’s taxes went up to pay for the subsidy and to pay for the high utility bills from wind-powered energy? There will be no ribbon-cuttings for those out-of-work families.” This describes the problem of the seen and unseen, as explained by Frederic Bastiat and Henry Hazlitt in the famous parable of the broken window.

    We Need Capitalism, not Cronyism

    By U.S. Representative Mike Pompeo

    The word “conservative” brings to mind family values, lower taxes, fiscal responsibility — and limited government. Limited government means a government limited in size, in its claim on national wealth, and — importantly — limited in the ends to which government’s power is used. It also means federal elected officials must act in the nation’s best interest and not allow their own parochial concerns to dominate their decision making. A big obstacle on the path to restoring limited government in America is cronyism.

    We all know the story. A flawed system has created incentives that make it easier for some companies to succeed by hiring a lobbyist rather than improving productivity or satisfying customers. Lobbyists for these businesses and the politicians who support them want the federal government picking winners and losers across our economy — so long as they are selected as “winners.” In my first term in Congress, we have eliminated earmarks that rewarded politically connected, rent-seeking advocates for federal largesse by tucking provisions into bills without adequate vetting or thorough review. But ever clever politicians have another tool — the tax code — to accomplish much the same outcome. This form of cronyism must stop too.

    “Tax earmarks” — be they deductions or credits — provide certain industries and businesses a means to gain financial advantage. Tax earmarks distort our free choices, waste tax dollars, and raise prices to provide goods and services that free markets provide more abundantly and more cheaply. They also force federal tax rates up, penalizing those who don’t receive them, because higher rates are required to capture the same revenue given all of the special interest tax earmarks now in effect. And, unlike standard earmarks, tax earmarks tend to be renewed year after year after year.

    One current fight against the insidious political tool of tax earmarks involves the energy sector. I am leading the charge to eliminate over two dozen energy tax credits tucked into the Internal Revenue Code. My proposed legislation would get rid of every single tax credit related to energy — ending tax favoritism that today goes to wind and solar, algae and electric vehicles and tax credits that go to the oil and gas industry as well. Tax subsidies miscast the role of the federal government. Energy sources are either viable without subsidies or else they do not make economic sense for taxpayers.

    Subsidies and giveaways redistribute wealth from productive, self-sustaining enterprises to unproductive, less efficient, albeit politically connected, ones. Although subsidies may have positive local effects, they penalize successful businesses — leading to less innovation, decreased productivity, fewer jobs, and higher prices for consumers. Cronyism also mistreats unsubsidized competitors, who wind up subsidizing their own competition to the detriment of their employees, consumers, and free-market competition.

    Together with tried-and-true conservative leaders like House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (WI), and Tea Party leaders like Sen. Jim DeMint (SC), and Sen. Mike Lee (UT), I am fighting to end this form of cronyism. Conservative groups including Americans for Prosperity, Americans for Tax Reform, Club for Growth, Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, Freedom Action, Heritage Action, National Taxpayers Union, and Taxpayers for Common Sense have all rallied to the side of limited government on this issue. They understand that picking winners and losers in the energy marketplace does not create long-term economic growth, and it harms our economic and political systems.

    One example of a tax earmark that should be eliminated is the Production Tax Credit (PTC) that goes to the wind industry. Yet, some Republican and Democrat members of Congress, not surprisingly from “wind states,” are pushing for yet another multi-year extension of the PTC, a multi-billion dollar handout to Big Wind. The PTC manipulates the energy market, drives up electricity bills for consumers and businesses, and creates a dangerous economic bubble. The PTC is a huge subsidy. Applied to oil companies, it would be the equivalent of giving $30 for every barrel of oil produced, according to the Heritage Foundation. The PTC has existed for the past 20 years, but it has not succeeded yet in making unsubsidized wind competitive. Politicians who pretend that a few more years of the PTC will make wind competitive could be right, but that is not a responsible bet to make with taxpayer dollars.

    Supporters of Big Wind, like President Obama, defend these enormous, multi-decade subsidies by saying they are fighting for jobs, but the facts tell a different story. Can you say “stimulus”? The PTC’s logic is almost identical to the President’s failed stimulus spending of $750 billion — redistribute wealth from hard-working taxpayers to politically favored industries and then visit the site and tell the employees that “without me as your elected leader funneling taxpayer dollars to your company, you’d be out of work.” I call this “photo-op economics.” We know better. If the industry is viable, those jobs would likely be there even without the handout. Moreover, what about the jobs lost because everyone else’s taxes went up to pay for the subsidy and to pay for the high utility bills from wind-powered energy? There will be no ribbon-cuttings for those out-of-work families.

    Here’s the data. The “green energy” 1603 grant program has given away $4.3 billion to 36 wind farms just since 2008. All together, these farms now employ 300 people. That’s $14 million per job. This is an unconscionable return on investment, especially for your tax dollars. Given that consumers also pay higher energy prices for electricity generated from wind, one has to wonder why some in Washington continue to push for Big Wind subsidies. Often the answer is that politicians care more about making good political investments than they do about making bad financial investments.

    In this respect, the PTC handout is virtually indistinguishable from the program that led to the Solyndra debacle. The Obama Administration gave 500 million taxpayer dollars to a private solar panel company to prop up a failed business model. As soon as government money ran out, the company folded. Solyndra could not attract sufficient private capital for financing because its solar panels could not compete in the consumer market. So it turned to its lobbyists in Washington and friends in the Obama Administration for its financing. The result was a skewed consumer marketplace and the waste of taxpayer dollars. Like the earmark for the Bridge to Nowhere, political allocation of your taxpayer dollars is failed policy.

    I get the game. Elected officials in Michigan want your money for electric cars. Those from California want your money for solar panels. And those from the Midwest want your money for wind turbines. In a country that has a $15 trillion national debt, annual deficits of over $1 trillion as far as the eye can see, and a $100 trillion unfunded liability in entitlement programs, this must stop.

    I believe that American ingenuity will eventually bring new energy sources to market successfully. It may be wind or algae, it may be biomass or solar. It may be the enormous natural gas and oil reservoirs that can now be reached affordably right here in North America. I also believe that American families making good choices for themselves will lead the way in deciding which new energy source or technology succeeds. Trying to pick that next great source from Washington, D.C. — and with your money — just leads to more cronyism, more debt, more bad decisions, more dependence on the Middle East and a much less limited federal government — outcomes that none of us can afford.

    Congressman Mike Pompeo represents Kansas’ 4th Congressional District.

  • In Wichita, pushing back against political cronyism

    A message from Bob Weeks, campaign chair of Tax Fairness for All Wichitans, upon the campaign’s victory of 62 percent to 38 percent in an election regarding a tax rebate to the Ambassador Hotel:

    First, I’d like to thank my campaign leadership team and all the volunteers. Many started working in October by carrying the petition and gathering signatures, sometimes in cold and windy winter weather. My job as campaign chair was made much easier through the efforts of dedicated people like Susan Estes, John Todd, Derrick Sontag, and the many others who helped.

    Usually, winning an election is a happy time. In most elections the winning side is happy because they elected a candidate to office who they feel has the better ideas.

    I’m glad we won. But my happiness is tempered by the realization that we simply prevented something bad from happening in Wichita.

    I’m proud that the electorate responded positively to our accurate and truthful campaign. When citizens have the facts, they make the right decision.

    Going forward, I’d like to remind Wichitans that the Ambassador Hotel is receiving assistance from eight taxpayer-funded government programs with costs of $15.4 million up-front and several hundred thousand annually. None of these were affected by the election. Wichita city hall and its allies are ready, willing, and able to use these incentive programs in the future for other hotels and businesses.

    So to the extent that these economic development programs actually help Wichita, they are still available, and will likely be used.

    But we feel these programs are not wise. Often, we’ve found that they’re not needed. And when used, they direct public investment to where politicians and bureaucrats want it, not where people want it.

    The best way to create jobs is to get government out of the way. Instead of entrepreneurs spending resources applying for grants, finding government programs and taking handouts, we would be much better off if they could directly invest those resources in job creation. That is what the voters said tonight.

    We need to reform our economic development efforts. Our present methods, which are just about the same as most other cities, are not working. We need to realize that there are several long-serving politicians and bureaucrats that have presided over this failure.

    These people have presided over the system of political cronyism that passes for economic development in Wichita. Politicians like Mayor Carl Brewer and most members of the Wichita City Council pocket thousands in campaign contributions from opportunists like David Burk and David Wells, who are partners in the Ambassador Hotel project. These people make contributions to those they know are in a position to vote to give them money.

    This is such a foul system that we need pay-to-play laws to reform it. I’m suggesting that Kansas pass such a law, and name it “Davids’ Law.”

    I hope that Wichita City Hall, the economic development machinery in our city, and the Wichita Eagle editorial board will be more receptive to the message of economic freedom, free markets, and limited government that was expressed in the results of this election.

  • Wichita economic development isn’t working

    Recently the Greater Wichita Economic Development Coalition issued its annual report on its economic development activities for the year. That report, along with a Wichita Eagle article from January, tells us that the traditional methods of economic development used in the Wichita area isn’t working very well.

    In the Eagle article, (Why isn’t Wichita winning projects?, January 22, 2012 Wichita Eagle), after listing four items economic development professionals say Wichita needs but lacks, the reporter wrote “The missing pieces have been obvious for years, but haven’t materialized for one reason or another.”

    If these pieces are truly needed and have been obviously missing for years: Isn’t that a startling assessment of failure of Wichita’s economic development regime?

    While Wichita Mayor Carl Brewer was quoted in the article as saying “You hear a lot from the loud minority,” the fact is that the minority rarely wins. Six of seven members of the Wichita City Council will vote for almost any giveaway to any company, no matter how unnecessary or unwise the subsidy program is.

    With two of its five members having a realistic view of government’s power to influence economic development, it’s a little tougher to push programs through the Sedgwick County Commission. But most programs make it through or don’t need the county’s participation.

    The GWEDC report also 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, Brewer took credit for creating a similar percentage of jobs in Wichita.

    Not mentioned are the costs of creating these jobs. These costs have a negative economic impact on those who pay these costs. This means that economic activity and jobs are lost somewhere else in order to pay for the incentives.

    Also, at least some of these jobs would have been created without the efforts of GWEDC. All GWEDC should take credit for is the marginal activity that it purportedly created. Government usually claims credit for all that is good, however.

    GWEDC website stale and out-of-date

    If GWEDC is looking for ways to improve its efforts in marketing Wichita, it might start with its own website. While the site features a high level of design sophistication, examining its contents reveals a lack of attention being paid to the site.

    For example, on a GWEDC page titled Recent Relocations Highlights, the most recent item is from 2009.

    The “News” page holds as its most current story one encouraging attendance at a conference that took place in 2010. The second and final story on this page notifies us that someday in the future there will be an Intrust Bank Arena in downtown Wichita. That arena has now been open for two years.

    The site also promotes an RFP (request for proposal) with a deadline in 2009 — three years ago.

    Anyone who comes across the GWEDC site would conclude from this negligence that this is an organization — and by extension, a city — that simply doesn’t care about its online presence.

    Going forward

    The danger we in Kansas, and specifically the Wichita area, face is the overwhelming urge of politicians to be seen doing something. For example, in response to the departure of Boeing, Wichita Mayor Carl Brewer called for the community to “launch an aggressive campaign of job recruitment and retention.”

    It is likely that we will become susceptible to large-scale government interventions in an attempt to gain new jobs. Our best course would be to take steps to make Kansas and Wichita an inviting place for all firms to do business. The instinct of politicians such as Brewer, however, is to take action, usually in the form of targeted incentives as a way to spur economic development. GWEDC is the agency responsible for this.

    We’ve seen the disappointing results — not only with Boeing, but also in a report showing that Wichita has declined in economic performance compared to other areas.

    These targeted economic development efforts fail for several reasons. First is the knowledge problem, in that government simply does not know which companies are worthy of public investment. This, however, does not stop governments from creating policies for the awarding of incentives. It also doesn’t stop the awarding of incentives willy-nilly without a policy, as the Wichita City Council has done for a hotel.

    This “active investor” approach to economic development is what has led to Boeing and other companies 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 is sure to undertake in response to the loss of Boeing: “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.

  • Ambassador Hotel discussed on This Week in Kansas

    On Sunday Bob Weeks, chair of Tax Fairness for All Wichitans, discussed the Wichita Ambassador Hotel election on the KAKE Television public affairs program This Week in Kansas.

  • Kansas Senator Jerry Moran wants to pick losers in the market: His choice is big wind

    In Kansas, we have a lot of wind — no doubt about that. But the economics of wind as a source of electricity generation is another matter. There’s a split in Kansas over this. On one side are Kansas Governor Sam Brownback, who has been vocal in his support of wind power, along with Wichita Mayor Carl Brewer, who has been busy promoting Wichita as a site for wind energy-related industry. Now we see Kansas’ newest U.S. Senator Jerry Moran jumping in to promote the wind power subsidy program. Contrast this with U.S. Representative Mike Pompeo of Wichita, who has introduced legislation to end all tax credits related to energy production. It’s important to remember that the government subsidy program for wind power is in the form of tax credits, which are equivalent to grants by the government. The term “tax expenditures” is starting to see widespread usage to accurately describe the economic effect of tax credits.

    Senator Jerry Moran wants to pick losers in the market: His choice is big wind

    By Daniel Horowitz

    If I were pressed to offer one anecdote exemplifying our failure to elect consistent conservatives to Congress last November, the story of Senator Jerry Moran and Big Wind would be at the top of the list.

    In 2010, then-Congressman Jerry Moran beat former Congressman Todd Tiahrt for the Republican nomination for Senate in Kansas running as a red meat conservative. He easily won the seat in this solid Republican state and summarily joined the ‘Tea Party Caucus’ in the Senate. Nothing emblematizes the convictions of the Tea Party more than its fervent opposition to special interest handouts and government interventions in the private sector as a way of picking winners and losers. Yet, Senator Moran let the cat out of the bag last week that he has absolutely no compunction about picking winners and losers, or in the case of Big Wind, big losers.

    Last week, Senator Moran announced that he is submitting an amendment to the terrible Senate highway bill (S.1813) that would extend the 2.2 cent/ per kilowatt-hour Production Tax Credit (PTC) for another 4 years. This special interest handout to Solar and Wind is slated to expire at the end of the year. What happened to Moran’s Tea Party views? Well, he unabashedly threw them under the solar-powered bus:

    Asked about opposition to extending the credit expressed by Rep. Mike Pompeo of Wichita, Moran said: “There are members of Congress who feel we ought not to pick winners and losers, to let the markets decided. I believe it’s better to get this industry up and running, then let the country decide … rather than pull the rug out overnight.”

    Wow! At least he’s honest. I wish we had known that before the election.

    The PTC is the corporate version of the Earned Income Credit for green energy. It is among 51 ‘tax extenders’ that have either expired last December or are slated to expire this December. The PTC offers a 2.2 cent/per kilowatt-hour refundable credit for wind, solar, or geothermal. According to the Heritage Foundation, if the oil industry received a commensurate subsidy, they would get a $30 check for every barrel produced.

    Headed into the November elections, one of our most potent and popular arguments we have is to paint the Democrats with the Solyndra economy — an economy where the government intervenes to pick winners and losers, at the detriment of consumers and taxpayers. How can we effectively articulate an alternative free-market vision when we have a member of “the Tea Party Caucus” supporting Obama’s policy of picking losers in the energy sector? Talk about pale pastels!

    Folks, this is not how we win elections. Moreover, this type of special interest peddling — from energy subsidies to farm welfare — creates dependency in some of the reddest states. This is not a winning message for the future of conservatism, especially when it emanates from such a Republican state.

    There is a better way. Congressman Mike Pompeo (R-KS) introduced legislation (HR 3308) to sunset all targeted energy tax credits and grants, including those for fossil fuels and nuclear power. The bill would use the savings from the repeal of these credits (roughly $90 billion over ten years) to lower the corporate tax rate on everyone. Senator DeMint has introduced a companion bill in the Senate (S.2064).

    Every member of Congress who seeks a clean break from a centrally-planned Solyndra economy must cosponsor this bill. Additionally, as we look for more congressional candidates to endorse, it is these issues — energy and farm subsidies — that will separate the men from the boys. We must fight this election by offering voters a choice, not an echo.

    Cross-posted from The Madison Project

  • The effect of government grants

    Trackside is a column written occasionally by John D’Aloia Jr. He lives in St. Marys, Kansas.

    TRACKSIDE © by John D’Aloia Jr.
    February 5, 2012 AD

    How do you view government grants? Are they “free” money handed out by a caring and beneficent government? My view is that government grants are funded by a forced redistribution of the resources from many people for the benefit of a few. Such grants are a means by which the grantor achieves control over the grantee. Such grants are morally and politically unacceptable.

    “The Eighth Commandment does not say ‘Thou shalt not steal … except by a majority vote or unless it’s for a park swing set.’” (A paraphrase of a line from Mark Hendrickson’s article “Our National Blind Spot,” American Thinker, 6 February 2010.) Those who accept government grants for projects that they cannot fund from local tax sources are stealing resources from others, and in so-doing, are no better than the Occupy Wall Street gang which wants government to extract dollars from everyone else to give them what they want. (I am conflicted on grants that fund what would otherwise be an unfunded federal mandate — if the feds mandate X, then the feds should provide the dollars and take the budget hit, not the government unit needing the dollars to comply — but what if only some governments get a grant to pay for X, setting up an environment for favoritism? or the feds give a grant only to the governments that accept all the attached strings? As I said, conflicted.)

    The only real beneficiaries of this government-forced redistribution of resources are the politicians who buy “good” press by making the grants available (look what we are doing for you), crowing that they have “brought-home-the-bacon” for their constituents, the Clerks in the myriad agencies who administer the grants, and those companies to which some of the dollars ultimately trickle down.

    The willing accomplices in the grant process ignore Frederic Bastiat’s concern for the unforeseen consequences, particularly the impact of grants on the national fiscal mess, the inability of the citizens whose resources have been taken (higher taxes, inflation) to use those resources for their own benefit, and the impact of grants on future tax demands. Grants do put a long term tax burden on communities. In their report titled “Do Intergovernmental Grants Create Ratchets in State and Local Taxes — Testing the Friedman-Sanford Hypothesis,” Russell Sobel and George Crowley wrote: “Our findings confirm that grants indeed result in future state and local tax increases of roughly 40 cents for every dollar in grant money received in prior years.” The report is cited as Mercatus Center Working Paper No. 10-51, West Virginia University, August 2010.

    For immediate satisfaction, grantees are placing the financial burden on others and on future generations. Grant dollars come from three sources: taxpayers at large, deficit spending (insane, obscene borrowing), and the Fed’s printing presses creating phony money out of thin air (inflation). All three sources extract resources in one way or the other from citizens who cannot, will not, benefit from the grant, nor even ever receive a thank-you note.

    Bastiat said that “Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.” In The Law, published in 1850, (which should be mandatory reading for all legislators and voters), Bastiat used the term “plunder” to describe the “legal” appropriation of the fruits of one person’s labor for the benefit of another. If he were alive today, he would be applying it to grants, recognizing that specific organizations and local governments are using the grant process to obtain the resources of others for their specific benefit and enjoyment.

    Grants are not an economic development plus — at best neutral (dollars not spent by X are spent by Y) — but most likely they have a negative economic impact, directly because the grantor government agencies extract a “shipping and handling fee” out of the economy to keep themselves employed, and indirectly because grants provide an impetus for a sprawling, out-of-control Leviathan.

    Accepting grants also place the grantee under the thumb of the grantor, as grants impose requirements that detract from the authority and sovereignty of the grantee. People look in glee at the line in the grant contract that has a dollar sign and a bunch of numbers after it but neglect to read the fine print that requires them to do this and that for eternity. The federal government uses grants to bribe states to pass laws that the feds want but don’t have the authority to impose. In all too many situations, federal grants are unconstitutional in that they are for purposes that are not within the enumerated powers given to Congress by the Constitution.

    The ends (accomplishment of a project that local groups want but will not fund locally) do not justify the means (stealing now, and in the future, from all citizens).

    See you Trackside.