Voice For Liberty

Tag: Kansas Republicans

  • How would higher Kansas taxes help?

    How would higher Kansas taxes help?

    Candidates in Kansas who promise more spending ought to explain just how higher taxes will — purportedly — help the Kansas economy.

    Are low taxes important to an economy, especially a state economy? When the Tax Foundation looked at the issue, it concluded this: “In this review of the literature, I find twenty-six such studies going back to 1983, and all but three of those studies, and every study in the last fifteen years, find a negative effect of taxes on growth.”1

    Per-capita tax collections, Kansas and nearby states. Click for larger.
    Per-capita tax collections, Kansas and nearby states. Click for larger.
    Many of these studies concerned the national economy and taxes, but some looked at state taxes. When we look at Kansas, we see that Kansas already taxes and spends quite a lot, compared to other states. Nearby is a chart showing per-capita state tax collections in Kansas and Colorado.2

    State and Local Government Employee and Payroll. Click for larger.
    State and Local Government Employee and Payroll. Click for larger.
    Looking at other data, I found that considering all state and local government employees in proportion to population, Kansas has many, compared to other states, and especially so in education.3

    State and local government employment and costs, selected states. Click for larger.
    State and local government employment and costs, selected states. Click for larger.
    From another source of data, I found this: “In the visualization, you can see that Kansas spends quite a bit more than nearby states. Of special interest is Minnesota, which is often used as an example of a high-tax state, and a state with excellent schools and services. But Minnesota spends barely more than Kansas, on a per-person basis. What about Colorado? It seems that Kansans often look to Colorado as a state full of bounty. But Kansas outspends Colorado. Same for New Mexico, Wisconsin, Texas, and — especially — Missouri.”4

    Please don’t argue that the economic health of a state is determined by its budget, that is, whether it is balanced or not. And if you want to argue that Kansas has borrowed money through the highway fund and spent it in the general fund: That’s true, and we should not do that. But that action allowed Kansas to keep spending, much like borrowing allows the federal government to keep spending more that it raises through taxes.

    Some argue that if the state taxes more, it can spend more, and therefore the economy expands. But: The money taken from Kansans is money that they can’t spend. And if one wants to argue that government spends more carefully and efficiently than do private individuals spending their own money — well, give it a try. Empirically, not many people believe this.

    And isn’t government spending the purpose of taxation? Nearby are figures showing Kansas general fund spending. You can see that for two years Kansas spent much more than it collected in revenue, using a large ending balance as the source of funds. If one believes in the Keynesian theory of fiscal effects — which most liberals and progressives do — this “deficit” spending spared spending cuts and therefore boosted the Kansas economy.

    Kansas General Fund spending, showing large deficits of revenue compared to spending in 2014 and 2015.
    Kansas General Fund spending, showing large deficits of revenue compared to spending in 2014 and 2015.

    Regarding the spending cuts that some claim: Have there been severe spending cuts in Kansas? While some programs have been trimmed, overall state spending continues on a largely upward trend (for all funds spending) or remains mostly flat (for general fund spending), after accounting for population and inflation.5

    kansas-per-capita-spending-adjusted-for-cpi-2016-10

    Kansas revenue estimate errors. Click for larger.
    Kansas revenue estimate errors. Click for larger.
    We also hear that the Kansas economy is in bad shape because tax revenue has fallen short of estimates. This is not a good indicator of economic health. Instead, it illustrates the difficulty of economic forecasting. Moreover, the negative estimate variances — revenue shortfalls, in other words — in 2002 to 2003 and 2009 to 2010 were generally much larger in magnitude than those of recent years.6 Remember how the Obama administration told us that without the 2009 stimulus package unemployment would rise to a certain level? Well, the stimulus bill passed, we spent the money, and unemployment was higher than what the administration said it would be without the stimulus. And for a long time, too.7

    We also hear that transfers from KDOT — the highway fund — have hurt Kansas, especially in construction jobs. Our state’s two largest newspapers recently editorialized on this matter.8 They correctly reported that Kansas construction jobs were down. But it wasn’t highway construction jobs that caused the loss of jobs, except for a very small portion.

    KDOT spending on major road programs. Click for larger version.
    KDOT spending on major road programs. Click for larger version.
    Furthermore, the state has continued to spend on highway programs, without regard to transfers from the highway fund. When we look at actual spending on roads, we see something different from what is often told. KDOT’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report shows spending in the categories “Preservation” and “Expansion and Enhancement” has grown rapidly over the past five years. Spending in the category “Maintenance” has been level, while spending on “Modernization” has declined. For these four categories — which represent the major share of KDOT spending on roads — spending in fiscal 2015 totaled $932,666 million, up from a low of $698,770 in fiscal 2010.

    We should not borrow money, place it in the highway fund, and then transfer the funds to the general fund, as the state has done for many years. But actual spending on highways has risen, nonetheless.

    So: Just how will higher taxes help the Kansas economy?

    —
    Notes

    1. McBride, William. What Is the Evidence on Taxes and Growth? Tax Foundation, 2012. http://taxfoundation.org/article/what-evidence-taxes-and-growth. ↩
    2. Weeks, Bob. Tax collections by the states. Interactive visualization. http://wichitaliberty.org/economics/tax-collections-states-2/. ↩
    3. Weeks, Bob. State and local government employee and payroll. Interactive visualization. http://wichitaliberty.org/economics/state-local-government-employee-payroll/. ↩
    4. Weeks, Bob. Kansas, a frugal state? Interactive visualization. http://wichitaliberty.org/economics/kansas-frugal-state/ ↩
    5. Weeks, Bob. Kansas government spending. http://wichitaliberty.org/kansas-government/kansas-government-spending-2/. ↩
    6. Weeks, Bob. Kansas revenue estimates. http://wichitaliberty.org/kansas-government/kansas-revenue-estimates/. ↩
    7. Weeks, Bob. Brownback and Obama stimulus plans. http://wichitaliberty.org/economics/brownback-and-obama-stimulus-plans/. ↩
    8. Weeks, Bob. Topeka Capital-Journal falls for a story. http://wichitaliberty.org/kansas-news-media/topeka-capital-journal-falls-story/. ↩
  • Roger Marshall campaign setting new standards

    Roger Marshall campaign setting new standards

    Attacks on Tim Huelskamp reveal the worst in political campaigning.

    When the campaign of Roger Marshall accuses Tim Huelskamp of being in favor of abortion, you know his campaign is spiraling out of control. Either that, or the Marshall campaign is deliberately lying about a politician’s record.

    Beyond this issue, the Marshall campaign and its surrogates are making arguments that simply have no basis in reality. An example is one radio ad, placed by an independent spending group, that uses the term “Washing-Tim.” The ad tries to persuade voters that Huelskamp has sold out to the Washington establishment. That is a true whopper, as Huelskamp has been anything but an establishment crony.

    As an example, Huelskamp opposed the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank last year. This is an issue that draws a bright line, with progressive Democrats and left-wing Republicans on one side, and free-market, limited government conservatives on the other. The issue truly and precisely sorts politicians into two groups, and Huelskamp is on the right side of this issue. Which is to say, the non-establishment side. Yet, we get “Washing-Tim” from Marshall supporters.

    Part of the problem is that officeholders in legislatures, both state and federal, must often vote on bills that contain hundreds of provisions. This bundling of so many often disparate issues into one vote allows unscrupulous campaigns to label someone as a supporter of an issue. That’s what the Marshall campaign and its surrogates are doing.

    Mark Holden, a top leader of groups that support free-market causes including Americans for Prosperity, told The Hill this:

    I don’t know who is behind [the ESAFund], I’ve heard different rumors about it, but Mr. Singer and the Ricketts family have been good partners of ours in the past and in the present as well. I totally am mystified by Ending Spending and their point of view. I just wonder who could be better [than Huelskamp] on the issues that a group like Ending Spending, I mean their whole name … who could be better on these issues than Tim Huelskamp? If you believe in fiscal responsibility, fiscal conservatism, the proper role of government, particularly on these economic issues that I’m talking about and that our network is focused on; we don’t know of anyone who’s better than Tim Huelskamp.

    Huelskamp’s free-market bona fides are buttressed by his lifetime ratings with groups that focus on fiscal conservatism. Club for Growth rates Huelskamp at 100 percent lifetime. Americans for Prosperity scores him at 98 percent.

    During election season, especially in close campaigns, we’re accustomed to seeing campaigns paint opponents in unflattering light. The Roger Marshall campaign and its surrogates, however, may be establishing a new standard for deceptive behavior and outright lies.

  • Say no to Kansas taxpayer-funded campaigning

    Say no to Kansas taxpayer-funded campaigning

    Kansas taxpayers should know their tax dollars are helping staff campaigns for political office.

    As reported by the Wichita Eagle, it is perfectly allowable for some Kansas state government employees to work on political campaigns.1

    Can you spot the taxpayer-paid state employees on the campaign trail? The Wichita Eagle says there are two. (Click for larger)
    Can you spot the taxpayer-paid state employees on the campaign trail? The Wichita Eagle says there are two. (Click for larger)
    Not all Kansas state government employees can work on campaigns while being paid by taxpayers. Only personal staff members of elected officials can. But this can be quite a large number of people. The Eagle reports that Governor Sam Brownback has 21 personal staff members.

    It’s not only the governor that has taxpayer-paid employees on the campaign trail. The Eagle also reports that a member of Senate President Susan Wagle‘s office has been on the campaign trail.

    That senate employee, along with an employee of the governor’s office, were spotted campaigning for Gene Suellentrop. His Facebook page seemed pleased with their participation, again according to Eagle reporting:

    Rep. Gene Suellentrop, R-Wichita, who is seeking the vacant seat in Senate District 27, posted a photo of himself and 10 campaign door walkers on Facebook last month with a message saying, “The Suellentrop for Senate crew! Coming soon to your door step.”

    The photo, posted on June 14, a Tuesday, includes Ashley Moretti, a member of Brownback’s staff, and Eric Turek, who works for Senate President Susan Wagle, R-Wichita.

    “Those two showed up late that afternoon on their own, I have not requested any help from any leadership,” Suellentrop said in an e-mail. “They were sure happy to get into a picture of our winning campaign.”

    The first question the taxpayers of Kansas ought to ask is this: If these taxpayer-paid staff members have time to work on political campaigns, who is doing the work of the people of Kansas in their absence? What tasks are postponed so that these staff members can work on campaigns?

    The answer to this question, I’m afraid, is that there are too many staff members.

    The second question we should ask is this: Why is this practice allowed? There is a ruling from the ethics commission that allows this use of personal staff. Which leads to the third question: Why hasn’t the legislature passed a law to prohibit this practice?

    The answer to that last question, I’m afraid, is that the ruling class protects its own. For example, there is an organization known as the National Republican Senatorial Committee. Its job is to re-elect Republican senate incumbents. It doesn’t say this, but that is what it does. This is representative of the attitude of the political class. Once most officeholders have been in office a few years, they comfortably transition to the political class. Thereafter, their most important job is their re-election campaign, followed closely by the campaigns of their cronies.

    This is why you see Brownback and Wagle lending taxpayer-funded staff to the Suellentrop campaign. Should he be elected to the Kansas Senate, well, how can’t he be grateful?

    Here’s what needs to happen.

    First, this process must stop. Even though it is allowable, it is not right. We need leaders that recognize this. (Both Republicans and Democrats are guilty.)

    Second. The trio of Suellentrop, Brownback, and Wagle need to reimburse Kansas taxpayers for the salaries of these staff for the time spent working on campaigns. (We should not blame the staff members. It’s the bosses and rule makers that are the problem.)

    Third. Brownback and Wagle need to send staff to work for Suellentrop’s Republican challenger to the same degree they worked on the Suellentrop campaign. Either that, or make a contribution of the same value of the campaign services these taxpayer-funded Kansas state government workers supplied. Any other candidate in a similar situation — that of having taxpayer funds used to campaign against them — should receive the same compensation.

    Now, some may be wondering how is this different from the governor endorsing senate candidates in 2012. It’s one matter for an officeholder to endorse a candidate. It’s an entirely different matter to send taxpayer-paid staff to work on campaigns. I hope that didn’t happen in 2012.

    Fourth. Apologies to Kansas taxpayers are in order, as is a quick legislative fix. And, a reduction in personal staff members, as — obviously — there are too many.

    Finally, thanks to the Eagle’s Bryan Lowry for this reporting.

    —
    Notes

    1. Lowry, Bryan. Taxpayer-funded campaign staff can knock at Kansans’ doors. Wichita Eagle, July 17, 2016. Available at www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/election/article90179637.html. ↩
  • From Pachyderm: Kansas Senate Candidates

    From Pachyderm: Kansas Senate Candidates

    From the Wichita Pachyderm Club this week: Republican primary candidates for Kansas Senate were invited to participate in a forum. Candidates invited were:

    • In Kansas Senate District 25: William Eveland and Jim Price. (map)
    • In Kansas Senate District 26: Byron C. Dunlavy and Dan Kerschen. Dunlavy did not attend. (map)
    • In Kansas Senate District 28: Jo L. Hillman and Mike Petersen. Hillman did not attend. (map)

    This is an audio presentation recorded on July 15, 2016.

  • WichitaLiberty.TV: News media, hollow Kansas government, ideology vs. pragmatism

    WichitaLiberty.TV: News media, hollow Kansas government, ideology vs. pragmatism

    In this episode of WichitaLiberty.TV: New outlets for news, and criticism of the existing. Is Kansas government “hollowed out?” Ideology and pragmatism. View below, or click here to view at YouTube. Episode 124, broadcast July 17, 2016.

    Shownotes

  • Candidate forum: Kansas Senate and Sedgwick County Commission

    Candidate forum: Kansas Senate and Sedgwick County Commission

    The Sedgwick County Republican Party held a candidate forum. Invited were candidates for Kansas Senate, district 27, and Sedgwick County Commission, district 3. Candidates are:

    • In Senate district 27: Lori Graham and Gene Suellentrop
    • In Sedgwick County Commission district 3: David Dennis and Karl Peterjohn.

    This is an audio presentation recorded on July 14, 2016.

  • From Pachyderm: Judicial candidates

    From Pachyderm: Judicial candidates

    Voice for Liberty radio logo square 02 155x116From the Wichita Pachyderm Club this week: Republican primary candidates participated in an 18th Judicial District Candidates’ Forum. This is an audio presentation recorded on June 24, 2016. Candidates included:

    Division 3: Gregory D. Keith, Carl Maughan

    Division 14: Linda Kirby, Patrick Walters

    Division 21: Jeff Dewey, Robert A. Holubec, Quentin Pittman

    Division 24: Shawn Elliott, Timothy H. Henderson, Tyler J. Roush

    (For these offices, the divisions do not represent a geographical area. Everyone in Sedgwick County is able to vote for all judicial divisions.)

  • From Wichita Pachyderm: Kansas House candidates

    From Wichita Pachyderm: Kansas House candidates

    Voice for Liberty radio logo square 02 155x116From the Wichita Pachyderm Club this week: Republican candidates for the Kansas House of Representatives participated in a candidate forum. This is an audio presentation recorded on June 17, 2016.

    Participating candidates:

    In Kansas House District 87: Jeremy Alessi and Roger Elliott (district map)

    In Kansas House District 91: Greg Lakin and J.C. Moore (district map)

    In Kansas House District 94: Scott Anderson and Leo Delperdang (district map)

  • From Pachyderm: Sedgwick County Commission candidates

    From Pachyderm: Sedgwick County Commission candidates

    Voice for Liberty radio logo square 02 155x116From the Wichita Pachyderm Club this week: A forum featuring Republican primary election candidates for Board of Sedgwick County Commissioners. This is an audio recording made on June 10, 2016.

    In District 2 the candidate is Michael O’Donnell. In District 3 the candidates are Karl Peterjohn and David Dennis.