Articles about Kansas, its government, and public policy in Kansas.
Paul Chesser of Climate Strategies Watch has done some investigative work looking into the background and affiliations of the Center for Climate Strategies. This is important because CCS is the radical environmentalist group that Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius is using to run the activities of the Kansas Energy and Environmental Policy Advisory Group, or KEEP.
The blog post announcing this work is Center for Climate Strategies in Black & White. The work is ongoing.
Paul Chesser of Climate Strategies Watch writes about the budget transparency of the Kansas Energy and Environmental Policy Advisory Group, or KEEP.
Kansas government often has troubles with transparency. One of the main problems with KEEP is that policy is being formulated under the guidance of an outside radical environmentalist group, instead of in the legislature by Kansans, where it belongs.
Climate Strategies Watch is a great place to learn more about the Center for Climate Strategies. For example: “CCS portrays itself as a technical advisory service organization that does not advocate for specific policies that will affect climate change. However, certain facts about CCS belie this claim and prove the group is controlled by global warming alarmists who seek solutions that will dramatically increase energy costs and raise taxes, in addition to infringing upon freedom and property rights.”
As the Kansas Energy and Environmental Policy Advisory Group deliberates over the future of the environment in Kansas, we ought to examine the quality of the work product that the Center for Climate Strategies has produced in other states.
The Beacon Hill Institute has performed an analysis of some of the work CCS has performed, and the results are troubling. This press release contains a link to the study document. This study is short at six pages, and I would encourage you to read the entire document.
One of the things CCS does is to claim that reducing greenhouse gas emissions is actually good economic strategy, using cost-benefit analysis. The Beacon Hiss Institute report, however, finds three serious flaws with the methodology CCS used in its Arizona work. Specifically, CCS fails to quantify benefits meaningfully, misinterprets costs to be benefits, and its estimates of costs leave out important factors.
To me, the misinterpretation of costs as being benefits is a common mistake that these studies make. They often point to the jobs that will be created, as though that in itself is a good. But workers need to be paid, and often the source of that pay is not considered.
This week, Kansas Liberty has a very fine editorial titled The KC Chamber: Enemy of Life, Enemy of Business. Prominent is the mention of the work of my friend the Kansas Meadowlark in revealing the funding of the The Greater Kansas City Chamber of Commerce. See Greater Kansas City Chamber PAC, Awash With Cash, Forms New PACs to “Buy” Kansas Elections for the Meadowlark’s original reporting.
I won’t reveal the entire content of the Kansas Liberty piece, as I urge you to read it in its entirety. But here’s a sample: “Through its well-funded political action committees, the best funded in the area, the Chamber is working to create a high tax environment that is indifferent to small business and the free market and downright hostile to the culture of life.”
This reminded me of an article from last year. Here’s something from Stephen Moore in the article “Tax Chambers” published in The Wall Street Journal on February 10, 2007:
The Chamber of Commerce, long a supporter of limited government and low taxes, was part of the coalition backing the Reagan revolution in the 1980s. On the national level, the organization still follows a pro-growth agenda — but thanks to an astonishing political transformation, many chambers of commerce on the state and local level have been abandoning these goals. They’re becoming, in effect, lobbyists for big government.
…
In as many as half the states, state taxpayer organizations, free market think tanks and small business leaders now complain bitterly that, on a wide range of issues, chambers of commerce deploy their financial resources and lobbying clout to expand the taxing, spending and regulatory authorities of government. This behavior, they note, erodes the very pro-growth climate necessary for businesses — at least those not connected at the hip with government — to prosper. Journalist Tim Carney agrees: All too often, he notes in his recent book, “Rip-Off,” “state and local chambers have become corrupted by the lure of big dollar corporate welfare schemes.”
…
“I used to think that public employee unions like the NEA were the main enemy in the struggle for limited government, competition and private sector solutions,” says Mr. Caldera of the Independence Institute. “I was wrong. Our biggest adversary is the special interest business cartel that labels itself ‘the business community’ and its political machine run by chambers and other industry associations.”
A Lawrence Journal-World editorial wonders why, at a time the Kansas Legislature is asked to reduce its administrative spending, a committee is studying why gasoline prices are high: Political fuel: An interim study of gasoline prices in Kansas looks more political than practical.
Kansas Liberty reports on the wide variance in conclusions drawn by two studies on the effect of climate change in Kansas in the post Will climate change impact Kansas? The fact that such variation exists tells me that we should proceed cautiously before committing Kansas to a costly process that, in the end, makes no difference to our climate.
Sometimes I read about the things Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius says and I wonder how does she arrive at such outlandish conclusions.
An example is in the article Gov. Sebelius gives interview to Grist about KS coal controversy, where our governor says this regarding a proposed coal-fired power plant expansion in Kansas: “Very little of the power that was scheduled to be produced was for Kansas. It actually was electricity that would be exported to Colorado and Texas, yet we would own the carbon. ”
What does it mean to “own the carbon”? I thought it was called global warming, and that the source of the carbon doesn’t matter. It affects the entire globe. That’s why environmentalists in America are concerned about the rapid growth of coal-fired power plants in China. That Chinese carbon — if in fact it affects the global climate — is just as harmful as that produced in Kansas.
So what does it mean to Kansans that “we would own the carbon”?
Then, doesn’t Kansas benefit from exporting things that people in other states want to buy? Perhaps we should stop growing all the excess wheat that Kansans can’t consume themselves and let our wheat fields regress to their native, unplowed state. Perhaps the ancient buffalo habitat around Wichita, now covered with aircraft plants producing airplanes primarily for export out of Kansas, should be restored.
According to Americans for Tax Reform today, July 16, 2008, marks national Cost of Government Day:
On July 16, Americans mark the national Cost of Government Day (COGD), the date on the calendar year when the average American finishes paying off his or her share of federal, state and local spending, and the regulatory burden. Cost of Government Day falling on July 16 means that you had to work 197 days out of the year just to meet all the costs imposed by government. In other words, the total cost of government – far more than taxation alone – consumes 53.9 percent of national income.
Americans for Tax Reform also calculates Cost of Government Day by State. For each state, the number of days worked for the government is shown, ranging from 172 days for Alaska to 212 days for Connecticut. Kansas is state number 25 in these rankings, right in the middle. We work 192 days for government, meaning our freedom day was July 11, a few days ago.
Earlier this year, Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius created the Kansas Energy and Environmental Policy Advisory Group (KEEP) and appointed Cessna Aircraft Company chairman, president and chief executive officer Jack Pelton as its leader.
This was a smart political move by Governor Sebelius. She appears to have put the planning for our state’s energy future in the hands of an independent, skeptical businessman, someone who will be concerned about the bottom line. Someone who won’t be overly influenced by the emotional appeals of environmentalists.
Kansans need to understand, however, that Jack Pelton may not want to, or be able to, exhibit the independence necessary to formulate sound energy and environmental policy in Kansas.
In a Wichita Eagle editorial on May 18, 2008, Pelton said he believes that carbon dioxide emissions must be reduced: “We are tasked with helping develop a plan to ensure Kansas energy needs are met now and in the future through policies and technologies that reduce the state’s carbon footprint.” To me, this sounds as though he’s already formed a conclusion — and one that happens to agree with our governor’s.
That agreement with Governor Sebelius may not be a coincidence. Other motives may be a factor. That’s because earlier this year, the State of Kansas approved $33 million in incentives for Cessna, with Wichita and Sedgwick County adding another $10 million. The governor signed the legislation in a televised ceremony at Cessna’s facilities in Wichita. This award to Cessna is part of $150 million in aircraft incentives the state authorized.
(As is often the case with economic development incentives, the state won’t directly give Cessna the money. Instead, it will issue bonds that Cessna will repay with its employee withholding taxes. Confusing maneuvers like this allow governments to say they aren’t actually giving money to companies. Instead, they’re merely issuing bonds which will be repaid, never mind what they’re being repaid with.)
His company having received a gift like that, how could Pelton turn down the governor’s request to lead KEEP? Given Kathleen Sebelius’ national political ambitions based on her green environmentalist credentials, how can he be expected to do anything that would ruffle her feathers?
When you combine these factors with the fact that KEEP is being facilitated by The Center for Climate Strategies, Kansans should be very skeptical of the conclusions and recommendations that will emerge from this process.