Voice For Liberty

Tag: Politics

  • Tweets from RightOnline 2011

    Some of my favorite tweets I sent during the RightOnline 2011 (#ro11) conference in Minneapolis, a project of Americans for Prosperity Foundation:

    It’s great to have 52 Kansans here at RightOnline 2011. #ro11

    Michelle Malkin: They stifle us through the criminalization of conservative thought. #ro11

    Erick Ericson: The bad economist, like the liberal, sees only the immediate effects, not the unseen. #ro11

    S.E. Cupp: New York is all Weiner, all the time. It’s too much Weiner. #ro11

    Tim Huelskamp, first member of Congress to bring an Ipad to the speaker’s podium. #ro11

    Huelskamp: It is a spending problem, a power problem. It is Washington telling us what to do with our own money. #ro11

    Michele Bachmann: At the debate, I was worried they might ask “boxers or briefs?” #ro11

    Michele Bachmann: Barack Obama will be a one-term president! (The audience chants along) Her tagline, it seems. #ro11

    Michele Bachmann: Barack Obama, as a senator, voted against raising the debt ceiling, calling the need a failure of leadership. #ro11

    Michele Bachmann: I introduced the Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act. #ro11

    Whew! Finished with my two presentations at RightOnline! #ro11

    Ken Cucinelli is suing my state’s former governor. #ro11

    Minnesota is not a right to work state. I’m sorry I’m here now. #ro11

    Obama should reject reject teleprompters so as to employ cue card holders. #ro11

  • Kansas and Wichita quick takes: Wednesday June 22, 2011

    RightOnline, Netroots Nation. The past weekend featured two conferences for online activists: Americans for Prosperity Foundation’s RightOnline and Netroots Nation, sponsored by labor unions. I attended and made two presentations at RightOnline, the conference for those in favor of liberty and economic freedom. 1,655 people attended, according to AFP. I saw some events of the Netroots conference on C-SPAN, including a session with President Barack Obama’s White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer. In the session, Obama was criticized many times, and at one point the audience booed. More coverage is at A tale of two political conferences, PICKET: Right Online and Netroots conferences wrap up with few run-ins, Digital Conferences, Blue and Red, in Minneapolis

    The Atlantic Magazine’s Lies: Of Breitbarts, Kochs, and RightOnLine. Warner Todd Huston of Publius’ Forum examines a piece in The Atlantic that covered the recent RightOnline conference in Minneapolis and found it to be lacking. He found: “Unfortunately, the whole thing was filled with opinions stated as fact, misconstructions of facts, and outright lies. Sadly, along with the rest of the Old Media, it seems as if the veracity of The Atlantic has taken a hit in this bad Obama economy. … Now, what would have made Dupuy’s piece actually informative would have been a discussion of the real differences between the Nutrooters and RightOnLine. And there are quite a few. Netroots Nation is chock full of some very wonky programs. The lefties drill down to the deepest Internet facts, figures, and capabilities. On the other hand, RightOnLine has since day one sufficed with Twitter 101, blogging 101, and other beginner’s programs meant to help their local activists learn how to use the Internet to further conservative ideas. RightOnLine has not made arcane wonkiness a part of its programs like Netroots Nation has. The fact is the two conferences are very different in character in this respect.” More at The Atlantic Magazine’s Lies: Of Breitbarts, Kochs, and RightOnLine.

    Fed downgrades economic outlook. Wall Street Journal: “Federal Reserve officials downgraded their assessment of the U.S. economy’s performance Wednesday, but gave no indication they intend to take new steps to boost growth and jobs. … The recovery is continuing at a moderate pace, though ‘somewhat more slowly’ than previously expected, officials said in a statement following the Federal Open Market Committee meeting, echoing remarks made by Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke in a speech earlier this month.” Further: “Though the Fed is less comfortable with the economic outlook, it has less leeway to take new steps to fix it. That’s because underlying inflation also has crept up, making the central bank leery of injecting more money into the financial system.”

    Tax the rich. Burton Folsom: “Economist Alan Reynolds has recently called attention to the latest pronouncement from Robert Reich, the former Secretary of Labor. ‘A 70 percent marginal tax rate on the rich’ is Reich’s solution for the cash crunch in the federal government today. Let the rich pick up the tab. That assumes, of course, that the rich will continue to work hard if they have to send almost three-fourths of their earnings to Uncle Sam. They won’t. They never have. And you wouldn’t either.” … Reynolds’ article in the Wall Street Journal is Why 70% Tax Rates Won’t Work. In it, Reynolds writes: “All this nostalgia about the good old days of 70% tax rates makes it sound as though only the highest incomes would face higher tax rates. In reality, there were a dozen tax rates between 48% and 70% during the 1970s. Moreover — and this is what Mr. Reich and his friends always fail to mention — the individual income tax actually brought in less revenue when the highest tax rate was 70% to 91% than it did when the highest tax rate was 28%.”

    Wichita speaker list announced. The Wichita Pachyderm Club has announced its lineup of speakers for July. The club, which is a Republican club, seeks to provide programs that are informative and that provide members with a variety of viewpoints on important contemporary issues, and historical issues, too. Sometimes this leads to controversy, as there are those who believe that only Republicans and those who parrot the “official” party line should speak at Pachyderm. Although I am not a Pachyderm officer or board member, this month features a speaker, Dr. Jon Hauxwell, who is speaking based on my recommendation and invitation, and whose topic is likely to generate controversy again. The speakers for July: On July 8, Dave Trabert, President, Kansas Policy Institute, on “Stabilizing the Kansas Budget.” On July 15, Jon Hauxwell, MD, speaking on “Medicinal Cannabis.” On July 22, U.S. Representative Mike Pompeo of Wichita on “An update from Washington.” On July 29, Dennis Taylor, Secretary, Kansas Department of Administration and “The Repealer” on “An Overview of the Office of the Repealer.” The public is welcome and encouraged to attend Wichita Pachyderm meetings. For more information click on Wichita Pachyderm Club.

    FairTax meeting in Wichita. This Thursday (June 23) supporters of FairTax will meet in Wichita. According to event organizers, attendees will hear “new information about the status of the FairTax movement at the national level and how it might affect the Presidential race in 2012.” More from organizers: “The FairTax is a unique solution to the urgent need to create jobs and grow the economy. America now has 35 million Americans under employed or unemployed. The economic disaster was unnecessary and can be reversed by completely repealing our horrible and destructive tax system and replace it with the FairTax.” … While I am sympathetic with their cause, I am not enthusiastic about the FairTax — a national sales tax — for one important reason: it doesn’t address the real problem of a government that is too large and collects too much tax revenue. One of the main platforms of Fairtax is that it would collect the same revenue as the existing tax regime: “dollar-for-dollar federal revenue neutrality.” I quote Murray N. Rothbard on this: “But the libertarian must never support any new tax or tax increase. For example, he must not, while advocating a large cut in income taxes, also call for its replacement by a sales or other form of tax. The reduction or, better, the abolition of a tax is always a noncontradictory reduction of State power and a significant step toward liberty; but its replacement by a new or increased tax elsewhere does just the opposite, for it signifies a new and additional imposition of the State on some other front. The imposition of a new or higher tax flatly contradicts and undercuts the libertarian goal itself.” … The meeting is at 7:00 pm Thursday at the Lionel D. Alford Library located at 3447 S. Meridian in Wichita. The library is just north of the I-235 exit on Meridian. The event’s sponsor is FairTaxKC.org.

    Obama: Technology seen as job killer. “The story goes that Milton Friedman was once taken to see a massive government project somewhere in Asia. Thousands of workers using shovels were building a canal. Friedman was puzzled. Why weren’t there any excavators or any mechanized earth-moving equipment? A government official explained that using shovels created more jobs. Friedman’s response: ‘Then why not use spoons instead of shovels?’ That story came to mind last week when President Obama linked technology to job losses. ‘There are some structural issues with our economy where a lot of businesses have learned to become much more efficient with a lot fewer workers,’ he said. ‘You see it when you go to a bank and you use an ATM, you don’t go to a bank teller, or you go to the airport and you’re using a kiosk instead of checking in at the gate.’ The president calls this a structural issue — we usually call it progress.” … Russell Roberts goes on to explain that productivity — doing more with less, including less labor — leads to lower costs to business. The Left, of course, says this simply means more profits for business. But in competitive markets, businesses will find they must lower their costs, and that means a higher standard of living for consumers. New jobs get created as people now have more money to spend on new products and services that didn’t exist before, or were so expensive that only the rich could afford them. More at Obama vs. ATMs: Why Technology Doesn’t Destroy Jobs.

    Even quicker. Rasmussen: Just 8% Approve of Job Congress Is Doing: “Voter approval of Congress’ job performance has now fallen to a near five-year low.” … How to Run Public Schools in the 21st Century: Our current models are bad for taxpayers — and calamitous for kids. … The dignity of personal choice: Choosing lifesaving care — or not — shouldn’t be left to bureaucrats. … The Fiscal Pledge We Need: Cut, Cap, Balance: Congress has never failed to increase the debt limit. This makes having a debt limit functionally useless. … Initiative and Referendum under attack, says John Fund: “Politicians always claim to support democracy, but they often come up with creative ways to limit the influence of pesky voters. Now members of the political class in several states are going after voters’ most powerful tool.” See Fund: Power to the People? How Déclassé. … A Shovel-Ready Punch Line: “This is a staggering indictment of the president, the team he assembled, and the journalists who accepted this administration’s arrogant assertions that they knew exactly what to do, how to do it, and what would happen as a result.”

  • Wichita forgivable loan action raises and illustrates issues

    Today the Wichita City Council decided to grant a forgivable loan of $48,000 to The Golf Warehouse. This subsidy was promoted by the city as necessary to properly incentivize the applicant company to expand its operations in Wichita rather than Indiana, where the company has other operations and had also received an offer of subsidy. For more information, see Forgivable loan a test for new Wichita City Council members.

    In presenting the item to the council, Allen Bell, Wichita’s Director of Urban Development said the forgivable loan was a “deal-closing” device intended to “win a competition with other locations.”

    Further discussion brought out the fact that companies often “test the waters,” asking for incentives from cities like Wichita as a location they might consider moving to, only to us that as leverage for getting more incentives back home. (Wichita has suffered at the hands of this ruse, most recently granting a large forgivable loan to a company when the city used as leverage says they did not have discussions with the company.)

    Council Member Michael O’Donnell asked if there was another form of economic development that The Golf Warehouse could have received. Bell said that in this case there wasn’t, that IRB financing with accompanying tax abatements wasn’t available for this project. As he has in the past, Bell pointed to the lack of tools in the toolbox, or “arrows in our quiver” he said today.

    When the CEO of the applicant company spoke to the council, it was easy to get the impression that this company — like the many other companies that plead for incentives and subsidy — feel that because of their past and pending investment in Wichita, they are entitled some form of incentive. When the company’s outside site selection consultant spoke, this sense of entitlement became explicit. She told how the company has made “significant investment and has employed a lot of people and kept a lot of families employed.” She said that instead of forgivable loan, this should be called an “act of goodwill.” She said the company has made a huge investment, never asking for incentives, and that the loan allows the company to continue making investment into the community.

    She also said that the offer made by Indiana amounted to twice Wichita’s offer, on a per-job basis.

    Citizens spoke against the forgivable loan. John Todd asked if this is the economic formula that has blessed our city and county with the wealth and prosperity we enjoy today.

    Clinton Coen told the council that these incentives are a bargaining tool, allowing cities to blackmail each other.

    Susan Estes asked a question that built on O’Donnell’s earlier remarks: Why would we see this forgivable loan as egregious? On the surface, we see jobs, which is good, she said. But the money to pay for this loan comes from other taxpayers, she said, and there are many companies that need help, citing the number of companies filing for bankruptcy and having tax liens filed against them. “Why I find it egregious is that we’re doing something that helps one company at a time. We really need to take an overall look at our tax policy and address the tax issue. We have one of the highest tax rates on the Plains, and that’s why we get in these situations where we have to compete. If we had a better competitive tax rate we could spare all of this.”

    Of interest for the political theater was the vote of three new council members, based on statements they made regarding forgivable loans on the campaign trail (see Forgivable loan a test for new Wichita City Council members). In making the motion to accept staff recommendation of the forgivable loan, council member Pete Meitzner said of the loan: “It is an investment, incentive, whatever you want to call it. It is not a give-away.”

    Meitzner and James Clendenin voted with all the veteran council members to approve the forgivable loan. Only O’Donnell voted consistent with how he campaigned.

    Analysis

    This item before the Wichita City Council today requires analysis from two levels.

    First, the economics and public policy aspects of granting the forgivable loan are this: It is impossible to tell whether The Golf Warehouse would not expand in Wichita if the forgivable loan was not granted. The companies that apply for these subsidies and that cite competitive offers from other states and cities have, in some cases, multi-million dollar motives to make Wichita think they will move away, or not invest any more in Wichita. Most politicians are scared to death of being labeled “anti-job,” and therefore will vote for any measure that has the appearance of creating or saving jobs.

    Particularly inappropriate is the attitude of many of these companies in that they deserve some sort of reward for investing in Wichita and creating jobs. First, companies that make investments do, in fact, deserve a reward. That reward is called profit, but it has to be earned in the marketplace, not granted by government fiat. When a company earns profits in free markets, we have convincing evidence that wealth is being created and capital has been wisely invested. Everyone — the investors certainly but also the customers and employees — is better off when companies profit through competition in free markets.

    But when government steps in with free capital, as was the case today, markets are no longer free. The benefits of capitalism are no longer available and working for us. The distortion that government introduces interferes with market processes, and we can’t be sure if the profit and loss system that is so important is working. Companies, as we saw today, increasingly revert to what economists call rent seeking — profiting through government rather than by pleasing customers in market competition.

    Entrepreneurship, of which Wichita has a proud tradition, is replaced by a check from city hall.

    Wichita’s own Charles Koch explained the harm of government interventionism in his recent recent Wall Street Journal op-ed: “Government spending on business only aggravates the problem. Too many businesses have successfully lobbied for special favors and treatment by seeking mandates for their products, subsidies (in the form of cash payments from the government), and regulations or tariffs to keep more efficient competitors at bay. Crony capitalism is much easier than competing in an open market. But it erodes our overall standard of living and stifles entrepreneurs by rewarding the politically favored rather than those who provide what consumers want.”

    A forgivable loan — despite Council Member Meitzner’s claim to the contrary — is a cash payment to business, which Mr. Koch warns against.

    The focus on job creation is also a confounding factor that obscures the path to true wealth and prosperity for Wichita. When companies ask the city, county, and state for subsidy and incentive, they tout the number of jobs and the payroll that will be created. But jobs are a cost, not a benefit, to business and most firms do all they can to minimize their labor costs just as they seek to minimize all costs. For Wichita to prosper, we need to focus on productivity and wealth creation, not merely employment.

    The actions of the city council today keep Wichita on its path of piecemeal economic development and growth. Movement to a system that embraces economic dynamism, as advocated by Dr. Art Hall and as part of Governor Sam Brownback’s economic development plan for Kansas, is delayed. Economic development in Wichita keeps its present status as a sort of public utility, subject to policy review from time to time, as was mentioned today by the city manager.

    Politically, Wichitans learned today the value of promises or statements made by most candidates while campaigning. Most candidates’ promises along with $3.75 will get you a small cappuccino at Starbucks — if you don’t ask for whipped cream.

    Particularly interesting is the inability of politicians to admit they were wrong, or that they made a mistake, or that they were simply uninformed or misinformed when they made a campaign promise or statement. It was refreshing to hear Republican presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty, when he was in Wichita a few weeks ago, forthrightly admit that he was wrong about his initial position on cap-and-trade energy policies. City council members Clendenin and Meitzner could not bring themselves to admit that their votes today were at odds with their statements made while campaigning. This lack of honesty is one of the reasons that citizens tune out politics, why they have such a cynical attitude towards politicians, and perhaps why voter turnout in city elections is so low.

    As one young Wichitan said on her Facebook page after sharing video of the three new council members today, obviously referring to city council district 2’s Pete Meitzner: “How to use your mouth: 1. Campaign under the guise that you are a fiscal conservative. 2. Insert foot.”

  • Kansas and Wichita quick takes: Monday May 2, 2011

    Shale gas to be topic in Wichita. This Friday (May 6) the Wichita Pachyderm Club features Malcolm C. Harris, Sr., Ph.D., Professor of Finance, Division of Business and Information Technology, Friends University, speaking on the topic: “Shale gas: Our energy future?” Harris also blogs at Mammon Among Friends. … “Shale gas” refers to a relatively new method of extracting natural gas, as reported in the Wall Street Journal: “We’ve always known the potential of shale; we just didn’t have the technology to get to it at a low enough cost. Now new techniques have driven down the price tag — and set the stage for shale gas to become what will be the game-changing resource of the decade. I have been studying the energy markets for 30 years, and I am convinced that shale gas will revolutionize the industry — and change the world — in the coming decades. It will prevent the rise of any new cartels. It will alter geopolitics. And it will slow the transition to renewable energy.” … Critics like the Center for American Progress warn of the dangers: “The process, which involves injecting huge volumes of water mixed with sand and chemicals deep underground to fracture rock formations and release trapped gas, is becoming increasingly controversial, with concerns about possible contamination of underground drinking water supplies alongside revelations of surface water contamination by the wastewater that is a byproduct of drilling.” … Upcoming speakers: On May 13, Craig Burns and Glenn Edwards of Security 1st Title Co. on the topic “Real Estate Transactions, Ownership, Title, and Tales From the Trenches.” On May 20, Rob Siedleckie, Secretary, Kansas Social Rehabilitation Services (SRS) on the topic “The SRS and Initiatives.” On May 27, Todd Tiahrt, Former 4th District Congressman on the topic “Outsourcing our National Security — How the Pentagon is Working Against Us”.

    Wichita City Council this week. On Tuesday the Wichita City Council will decide whether to spend $316,000 on capital improvements to the Wichita Ice Center. Improvements will include “HVAC system upgrades, new flooring, signage, interior and exterior painting, upgrades to the locker room facilities, ice skates, and a new point of sale system that will track program revenues and attendance.” This spending was already agreed to in a contract with the new managers of the facility, so approval seems certain. … On the consent agendas one item proposes to spend $36,087 on study, design and bid services to replace the passenger loading bridges at the Wichita airport. In 2003 the city budgeted $4 million for this project, but it was put on hold due to plans for a new terminal building. Now the city wants to go ahead and replace the existing bridges. Being on a consent agenda, this item will receive no discussion unless a council members wants to “pull” it for individual discussion.

    Williams on the role of race in economics. Thomas Sowell reviewing a new book by Walter E. Williams, Race and Economics: How Much Can Be Blamed on Discrimination?: “Walter Williams fans are in for a treat — and people who are not Walter Williams fans are in for a shock – when they read his latest book, Race and Economics. It is a demolition derby on paper, as Professor Williams destroys one after another of the popular fallacies about the role of race in the American economy. … In recent times, we have gotten so used to young blacks having sky-high unemployment rates that it will be a shock to many readers of Walter Williams’ Race and Economics to discover that the unemployment rate of young blacks was once only a fraction of what it has been in recent decades. And, in earlier times, it was not very different from the unemployment rate of young whites. The factors that cause the most noise in the media are not the ones that have the most impact on minorities. This book will be eye-opening for those who want their eyes opened. But those with the liberal vision of the world are unlikely to read it at all.” … An interview with the author is available at Lew Rockwell interviews Walter Williams on his two new books.

    Spending cuts preferred to taxes. A survey of Kansas voters conducted on behalf of the Kansas Chamber of Commerce found widespread support for cutting spending rather than raising taxes as the way to balance the Kansas budget. Support was also found for cutting state worker salaries, or reducing the number of state employees. See Kansas Chamber finds voters favor cuts, not tax increases to balance budget.

    Except some prefer taxes. A coalition of groups is advocating for more revenue so that Kansas government can spend more. Some of the groups in the coalition advocate for those who truly can’t help themselves. But it’s no coincidence that the spokesman for the group is Mark Desetti, who is the lobbyist for Kansas National Education Association (KNEA), the state’s teachers union. Other school spending advocacy groups are prominent members of this coalition. Fortunately, many are starting to realize that the aims of school spending advocates like the teachers unions are not in the best interest of students, as shown below.

    Teacher evaluation systems. Brookings Institution: “Of all the things that are under the control of policymakers and schools, teacher quality is at the top of the list in terms of impact on student achievement, and so there is a great interest in evaluating teacher performance.” Says Russ Whitehurst, director of the Brown Center on Education Policy: “If you’re unlucky enough to get a bad teacher three years in a row, you’re basically ruined — that’s 30 percentile points, it’s hard to recover from that. So we know that teachers are important, and we know that for the first time for reasons other than intuition.” Brookings is working on systems to evaluate the systems that school districts use to evaluate teachers, so that state and federal money can be distributed fairly, as a way to incentivize good teacher evaluation systems. … According to National Council on Teacher Quality, Kansas ranks very low among the states in policies relating to teacher effectiveness. For example, the report states: “Fails to make evidence of student learning the preponderant criterion in teacher evaluations.” … The prospects for reform in teacher evaluation and quality in Kansas are not good. Proposals that would improve Kansas in this regard have not been discussed — at least meaningfully — in this year’s session of the Kansas legislature. For example, this year the Legislature spent quite a bit of time on a policy where the period before teachers are awarded tenure could be increased from three to five years in certain circumstances. This is what qualifies as “school reform” in Kansas. Remember, Kansas ranks very low in policies that promote teacher quality. Tinkering with the policy on teacher tenure is not going to improve our teacher quality, as tenure is a system that ought to be eliminated. In Kansas the teachers union is Kansas National Education Association (KNEA), and it works overtime to block meaningful reform of our state’s schools.

    Misguided efforts to improve capitalism. From Eamonn Butler: Ludwig von Mises — A Primer on how efforts by government to intervene in markets fail: Indeed, our efforts to manipulate the market economy, and make it conform to a particular vision, are invariably damaging. Capitalism is superbly good at boosting the general standard of living by encouraging people to specialise and build up the capital goods that raise the productivity of human effort. But when we tax or regulate this system, and make it less worthwhile to invest in and own capital goods, then capitalism can falter. But that is not a “crisis of capitalism,” explains Mises. It is a crisis of interventionism: a failure of policies that are intended to “improve” capitalism but in fact strangle it. One common political ideal, for example, is “economic democracy” — the idea that everyone should count in the production and allocation of economic goods, not just a few capitalist producers. But according to Mises, we already have economic democracy. In competitive markets, producers are necessarily ruled by the wishes of consumers. Unless they satisfy the demands of consumers, they will lose trade and go out of business. If we interfere in this popular choice, we will end up satisfying only the agenda of some particular political group. A more modest notion is that producers’ profits should be taxed so that they can be distributed more widely throughout the population. But while this shares out the rewards of success, says Mises, it leaves business burdened with the whole cost of failure. That is an imbalance that can only depress people’s willingness to take business risks and must thereby depress economic life itself.

  • Kansas Bioscience Authority, protected

    This year the Kansas Bioscience Authority has come under scrutiny for a variety of reasons, including salaries, bonuses, and expenses paid by the authority. Especially troubling is revelation that money we all thought would be invested in Kansas businesses had no such requirement, as can be seen in this video of CEO Tom Thornton. Dion Lefler of the Wichita Eagle has other reporting on the KBA.

    The problem with public-private partnerships like the KBA is that they are, in one sense, expected to operate like a private business, but they don’t have the freedom to operate as such. They also don’t have the same motivations and incentives that guide true private enterprise, namely profit and loss. Instead, we see agencies like KBA reporting their impact in terms of “return on investment.” For example, KBA claims: “Including estimated wages of jobs, that represents a $9.41 return to the state’s economy for each $1 invested by the KBA!” This “investment” by the KBA is nothing like the investments that business and individuals make.

    There’s also the issue of covering for the KBA by leadership of the Kansas Senate, specifically Steve Morris and John Vratil, as Alan Cobb details below.

    Kansas Senate Leadership needs to answer for KBA protection

    By Alan Cobb, Americans for Prosperity

    First the good news.

    Kansas Bioscience Authority (KBA) CEO Tom Thornton resigned under pressure today.

    Much credit goes to Gov. Sam Brownback and especially Sen. Susan Wagle who brought to public attention a slew of conflict of interest and other inappropriate behavior by Thornton and others at the KBA.

    It is of little surprise the Johnson County District Attorney’s office is investigating the KBA. Wagle is totally vindicated and Kansas taxpayers owe her a big debt of gratitude.

    Now the bad news.

    From what we know so far, what’s happened at the KBA is a textbook case of what not to do at a public agency.

    Thornton’s wife was receiving a $107,000 salary as an administrative assistant. The state of Kansas paid for a $1 million life insurance policy for Thornton’s ex-wife. The KBA invested $50 million to venture firms out of state with little oversight. The KBA invested in companies whose executives couldn’t be located by state officials. Many people in the know said an investigation of KBA and Thornton was “long overdue” and the KBA offices in Olathe were a “shrine” to Thornton.

    And this is someone being praised and protected key members of Senate Leadership, President Steve Morris and John Vratil? Just last month Morris said he was 100 percent behind the ousted KBA leader. Morris recently said that the KBA was an “icon for the state.”

    What planet do these guys live on?

    Vratil and Morris sat in the hearings conducted by Wagle, certainly as a show of support for Thornton and for disdain for Wagle and much-needed oversight of KBA.

    The protection given Thornton by Senate leadership even after his resignation today is astonishing.

    The question is what else is being hidden and why are Morris and Vratil so willing to fall on their swords for Thornton and his corrupt behavior?

    That’s the 800-pound rat in the middle of the room that’s eaten some bad Danish cheese.

    Kansans are waiting are waiting for answers.

  • Political contributions disclosure said to be harmful

    An interesting commentary appeared in the Wall Street Journal titled How Donor Disclosure Hurts Democracy: As a candidate, I learned how much potential campaign contributors fear incumbent retribution.

    The author, James L. Huffman, was a candidate for U.S. Senate from Oregon last year. His thesis is that disclosure of the identity of donors to political campaigns discourages people from contributing to challengers, and thereby increases the power of incumbents. So many people or business firms, he argues, have relationships with some government agency, and they don’t want to risk retribution from incumbents who learn contributions have been made to their challengers.

    I agree. It’s a problem not only at the federal level, which is I believe what Huffman’s article focuses on, but also at the state and local level.

    But what about government transparency? A comment left to the article stated “This is the most ridiculous argument against government transparency I have ever heard.” But contributions made to political candidates are not government action. Contributions are made by individuals (or corporations, or unions, etc.) and these are not the acts of government. Transparency is not an issue in this regard.

    One comment included a novel solution: “The solution is to require that all political donations be anonymous. A candidate can not sell influence if he does not know who is buying.” Here the argument is made that the candidate should not know the identity of donors, there presumably being some sort of clearinghouse between the donors and candidates. Donors, of course, could still communicate to the candidate that they made a contribution. And, of course, anyone could falsely claim to have contributed to any politician they wanted to influence.

    For me, political contributions are a form of speech. I see no need for rules that require people to identify themselves in order to exercise their right to speech. Of course, no one is required to listen.

    In the end, the best solution is government — at all levels — without the power to dispense favors and punishment, thereby eliminating the reason why many political contributions are made. A government without this power is likely to be a limited government, run on principle rather than opportunism and expediency.

    How Donor Disclosure Hurts Democracy

    As a candidate, I learned how much potential campaign contributors fear incumbent retribution.
    By James L. Huffman

    In the debates about campaign-finance regulation and the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision of last year, there seems to be widespread agreement on one thing: Public disclosure of political contributions is a good thing. That was my view as well, until I campaigned as the Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate seat in Oregon in 2010.

    The reality is that public disclosure serves the interests of incumbents running for re-election by discouraging support for challengers. Here’s how it works.

    A challenger seeks a contribution from a person known to support candidates of the challenger’s party. The potential supporter responds: “I’m glad you’re running. I agree with you on almost everything. But I can’t support you because I cannot risk getting my business crosswise with the incumbent who is likely to be re-elected.”

    Continue reading at The Wall Street Journal (requires subscription) or at the Hoover Institution (no login required).

  • Latest public pension fund data show taxpayers still on hook for trillions

    By Frank Keegan

    Despite pension fund investment gains in 2010, taxpayers still owe state and municipal workers trillions of dollars for promised benefits no matter how much funds earn during the next 30 years.

    According to data for the 4th Quarter released Thursday by the U.S. Census, cash and security holdings of the top 100 public pension plans gained 7.6 percent in 2009, the fifth consecutive quarterly year-over-year increase.

    Census reported the funds reached “the highest level since the second quarter of 2008.”

    Unfortunately, pension fund managers promise taxpayers and workers they will earn about 8 percent a year every year forever, and a loss of about 28 percent at the bottom of the recession would require a 62.5 percent gain the next year to fulfill their promise.

    Spread across 20 to 30 years, funds would have to gain 9 percent to 11 percent every year to achieve their goal. That means no investment market ever could have another downturn for decades. It would require risk-free investments with the highest returns in history. Good luck.

    Even if fund managers could achieve that, taxpayers during intervening years would have to come up with about $1 trillion to $1.5 trillion every year to fill intermittent funding gaps.

    This Census survey “comprised 89.4 percent of financial activity among such entities.”

    On that basis, the total immediate investment cash and security holdings shortfall is more than $1 trillion just for pensions, which will compound to $16 trillion to $34 trillion in additional hits to taxpayers during 20 to 30 years even if fund investments realize unprecedented gains.

    Guaranteed pension costs continue to grow, and government must put taxpayer money into them every year whether investments produce promised returns or not.

    Politicians’ false promise of retiree health care benefits adds more than $530 billion to the debt as of 2008, according to the Government Accountability Office, because “most of these governments do not have any assets set aside to fund them.”

    Other estimates of the total retirement promise gap range from $1 trillion using old data and official assumptions from the Pew Center on the States, to $3 trillion to $5 trillion based on other accounting standards.

    An update of the Pew study that includes data from the beginning of the recession is due out next week. No matter what the actual number is, experts agree it will continue to grow and require more contributions from spending cuts and tax increases now.

    A report released Thursday by Standard & Poor’s confirms that despite recent gains, “The funded ratios of U.S. states’ pension funds continue decline ….”

    Credit analyst Gabriel Petek wrote in “U.S. States’ Pension Funded Ratios Drift Downward” that “Without exception, reduced pension asset values relative to estimated liabilities is placing upward pressure on the annual required contributions of state governments, compounding what is already a difficult budget cycle for most states.”

    S&P focuses on whether states will be able to pay their debts, not whether taxpayers can bleed more for the hidden tab politicians have run up. The report says:

    • Pension liabilities and current contributions are not presently jeopardizing any state’s capacity to meet its debt service obligations;
    • There is general upward pressure on recommended contributions (actuarially determined) to pension funds due to the phasing-in of market losses in 2008;
    • Pension reform efforts could help contain the rate at which some estimated long-term pension liabilities are growing. The significance of near-term fiscal relief generated from these reforms in most cases remains to be seen; and,
    • Early indications in 2011 suggest that deteriorating pension funded ratios — when coupled with a lack of full actuarial contributions — could serve as a source of potential credit pressure for some states.”

    That all adds up to major service cuts and tax increases now to make sure public workers get their pension benefits and bondholders get their principal and interest payments.

    With states facing billions in operating deficits despite revenue higher than pre-recession levels, coming up with the money they must invest now to avoid certain catastrophe in the future is going to be tough.

    Especially on beleaguered taxpayers who now know state government puts them last on the priority list behind public workers and bondholders.

    Frank Keegan is a national editor for The Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity, watchdog.org and statehousenewsonline.com. Any disgusted public employee, journalist, activist organization or citizen watchdog who wants help exposing government waste, fraud and abuse may contact him at: frank.keegan@franklincenterhq.org.

  • Kansas and Wichita quick takes: Tuesday March 29, 2011

    Follow-up to Koch profile. A few pieces have provided amplification and commentary on the Weekly Standard profile of Charles and David Koch, notably Politico and Jennifer Rubin in The Washington Post. … Has a secret conspiracy been uncovered by Politico? Groups identified as lined up against the Kochs include a non-profit group titled Brave New Films, Greenpeace, Public Citizen, Common Cause, Ruckus Society, AFSCME (an arm of AFL-CIO), Service Employees International Union, and Center for American Progress with its attack blog ThinkProgress. Asks Post’s Rubin: “[a conspiracy] not of the Kochs but of the left-leaning groups that have mounted a campaign against them. … In other words, groups that purport to be nonpartisan are actually involved in a coordinated effort to smear the Kochs.” … Rubin notes the commonality shared between many of these groups: they receive millions from “foundations controlled by or linked to Soros,” referring to left-wing cause financier and anti-capitalist George Soros. … And are the Koch donations overly generous? Writes Rubin: “Left unsaid in all of this is the degree to which the Kochs’ political giving has been exaggerated. How much do they give? Over the last 20 years, about $11 million. Not chump change for you and me, but kind of stingy actually for billionaires whom the left would have us believe are taking over the American political system. By way of comparison, Duke Energy — the third-largest nuclear power plant operator — has been a major donor to Democrats, including the president. That would be the same Duke Energy that just forked over a $10 million line of credit for a single purpose — the 2101 Democratic Convention. Just the sort of thing Common Cause would be concerned about. After the next conference call with the other members of the Soros gang, I’m sure it’ll get right on it.” … Both articles are worth reading.

    The decline of Detroit: a lesson for Wichita? William McGurn in The Wall Street Journal: “Most Americans did not need to be told that Detroit is in a bad way, and has been for some time. Americans know all about white flight, greedy unions and arrogant auto executives. The recent census numbers, however, put an exclamation mark on a cold fact: A once-great American city today repels people of talent and ambition.” How did this happen? McGurn quotes Rev. Robert A. Sirico: “Detroit is a classic example of how a culture that was legendary for enterprise and innovation was slowly eroded by toxic politicization from the 1960s on.” … Later McGurn asks “What happened to this Detroit? In many ways the answer is liberal politics and expanding government.” … Could this happen to Wichita? Our population is not declining. But Wichita has been said to be more dependent on one industry (aircraft manufacturing) than Detroit was on automobile manufacturing. And Wichita government is becoming more liberal — notwithstanding the protests of several self-styled conservative city council members who will soon be leaving office. Increasingly business looks to city hall rather than markets for inspiration and financing. Our mayor, city council members, and bureaucrats want more “tools in the toolbox” for intervening in the economy. … Yes, the devastation seen in Detroit could happen here.

    Moran to vote “no” on debt ceiling. United States Senator Jerry Moran, a newly-elected Kansas Republican, has informed President Obama that he won’t vote for an increase in the national debt ceiling. Wrote Moran: “Americans are looking for leadership in Washington to confront the problems of today, not push them off on future generations. To date, you have provided little or no leadership on what I believe to be the most important issue facing our nation — our national debt. With no indication that your willingness to lead will change, I want to inform you I will vote “no” on your request to raise the debt ceiling.” The entire letter from Moran is at I will vote “No.”

    Golden geese on the move. Thomas Sowell: “The latest published data from the 2010 census show how people are moving from place to place within the United States. In general, people are voting with their feet against places where the liberal, welfare-state policies favored by the intelligentsia are most deeply entrenched.” Sowell notes that blacks, especially those young and educated, are moving to the South and suburbs. “Among blacks who moved, the proportions who were in their prime — from 20 to 40 years of age — were greater than in the black population at large, and college degrees were more common among them than in the black population at large. In short, with blacks, as with other racial or ethnic groups, those with better prospects are leaving the states that are repelling their most productive citizens in general with liberal policies.” Detroit, he writes is “the most striking example of a once-thriving city ruined by years of liberal social policies.” Finally, a lesson for all states, including Kansas: “Treating businesses and affluent people as prey, rather than assets, often pays off politically in the short run — and elections are held in the short run. Killing the goose that lays the golden egg is a viable political strategy.” (Mass Migration Of America’s Golden Geese.) The migration statistics concerning Kansas are not favorable, although some are trending in a better direction.

    Legislators will have more access to SRS case files. Kansas Health Institute News Service reports” “Parents whose children have become state wards now have the option of signing a one-page form that gives state legislators unrestricted access to information in their family’s case file.” Previously legislators had access to the information, but “social workers decided what information from the file would be shared. And legislators were not given documents or copies from the files but verbal briefings.” Some are concerned that information harmful to children will be made public.

    Wichita unemployment rate improving. Writes Friends University finance professor and Mammon Among Friends blogger, Malcolm Harris, as saying, “‘We’re seeing a trend, and that trend is in the right direction’…But, he cautioned, ‘we’ve got a long way to go.’” More at Wichita’s Unemployment Rate Falls Compared to Last Year.

    Government planners vs. individuals. Another reading from Economics for Real People: An Introduction to the Austrian School by Gene Callahan. The topic is individuals acting in markets vs. government planning: Economics does not hold that the desires of the consumers are pure or virtuous. It does illustrate that the market process is the only way to approximately gauge those desires. All other systems must attempt to impose the rulers’ values on the ruled. Those who plan on doing the imposing have a very high regard for their own judgment, and a very low regard for that of the rest of us. To paraphrase the economist G.L.S. Shackle, the man who would plan for others is something more than human; the planned man, something less. … [Ludwig von] Mises describes those who would coercively replace the value judgments of their fellow men by their own value judgments: [They] are driven by the dictatorial complex. They want to deal with their fellow men in the way an engineer deals with the materials out of which he builds houses, bridges, and machines. They want to substitute “social engineering” for the actions of their fellow citizens and their own unique all-comprehensive plan for the plans of all other people. They see themselves in the role of the dictator — the duce, the Führer, the production tsar — in whose hands all other specimens of mankind are merely pawns. If they refer to society as an acting agent, they mean themselves. If they say that conscious action of society is to be substituted for the prevailing anarchy of individualism, they mean their own consciousness alone and not that of anybody else. (The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science)

  • Weekly Standard: The left’s obsession with the Koch brothers

    Matthew Continetti of the Weekly Standard has written a profile of Charles and David Koch and Koch Industries, focusing on politics and the attacks by the political Left.

    A key passage in the story explains what those who believe in economic freedom have known all along: If Charles and David Koch really wanted to make a lot of money for themselves, they would act like most corporations: seek fortune through government intervention, not through competition in free markets:

    The second charge was that the Kochs’ talk about free markets was merely cover for economic self-interest. But if that were true, why doesn’t every major corporation full-throatedly support limited government? Are we really to believe that Koch Industries is the only self-interested corporation in America? The reality, of course, is that an easier way to advance corporate self-interest is the one taken by most giant companies: securing monopolies, bailouts, tariffs, subsidies — the opposite of free enterprise. “It’d be much safer economically to sit on the sidelines or curry favor with the Obama administration,” said Richard Fink.

    It was impossible for the liberal activists to acknowledge that libertarians might actually operate from conviction. Charles and David believed in low taxes, less spending, and limited regulation not because those policies helped them but because they helped everybody. “If I wanted to enhance my riches,” said David, “why do I give away almost all my money?”

    We’ve just seen the results of how an “aggressive strategy that mixes fierce lobbying for tax breaks and innovative accounting” can succeed, as we’ve learned that General Electric has been successful in avoiding income tax liability. GE, whose chief executive is said to be close to President Obama, also invests in industries like wind power that receive government subsidy, without regard for the underlying economic benefit of these investments.

    But Charles and David Koch believe that economic freedom and free markets are the best way to generate prosperity for everyone, and the Weekly Standard article shows they have worked for decades to promote this message.

    What may really gall liberals is that while believing that a powerful and expansive government is good for the country, they have created a complicated machine that a politically-favored company like GE can exploit for huge profits, all without creating anything that consumers value. Charles Koch calls for an end to this, as he recently wrote in the Wall Street Journal: “Government spending on business only aggravates the problem. Too many businesses have successfully lobbied for special favors and treatment by seeking mandates for their products, subsidies (in the form of cash payments from the government), and regulations or tariffs to keep more efficient competitors at bay. Crony capitalism is much easier than competing in an open market. But it erodes our overall standard of living and stifles entrepreneurs by rewarding the politically favored rather than those who provide what consumers want.”

    The political Left just can’t believe that anyone would write that and really mean it.

    The Paranoid Style in Liberal Politics

    The left’s obsession with the Koch brothers
    By Matthew Continetti

    … For decades David and Charles have run Koch Industries, an energy and manufacturing conglomerate that employs around 50,000 people in the United States and another 20,000 in 59 other countries. Depending on the year, Koch Industries is either the first- or second-largest privately held company in America — it alternates in the top spot with Cargill, the agricultural giant — with about $100 billion in revenues. David and Charles are worth around $22 billion each. Combine their wealth and you have the third-largest fortune in America after Bill Gates and Warren Buffett. Like most billionaires, the brothers spend a lot of time giving their money away: to medical and scientific research, to educational programs, to cultural institutions, and to public policy research and activism.

    That last part has caught the attention of the left’s scouring eye. For unlike many billionaires, the Koch brothers espouse classical liberal economics: They advocate lower taxes, less government spending, fewer regulations, and limited government. “Society as a whole benefits from greater economic freedom,” Charles wrote in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed. Judging by the results of the 2010 elections, there are millions of Americans who agree with him.

    Over the years the Kochs have flown beneath the radar, not seeking publicity and receiving little. But then the crash of 2008 arrived, and the bailouts, and the election of Barack Obama, and pretty soon the whole country was engaged in one loud, colossal, rollicking, emotional argument over the size, scope, and solvency of the federal government. Without warning, folks were springing up, dressing in colonial garb, talking about the Constitution, calling for a Tea Party. Some of them even joined a group called Americans for Prosperity — which the Kochs helped found and partly fund.

    Continue reading at the Weekly Standard.