Voice For Liberty

Tag: Subsidy

  • What’s Good for Gander Not Good For Goose

    The July, 2006 issue of Budget & Tax News reports that Gander Mountain is opposing the giving of tax breaks to its competitors. A quote from the article:

    Fairness Is Questioned

    However, Gander Mountain and its developer, Oppidan Investment Co., argue granting special favors to any one retailer leads down a slippery slope. “If you give [a tax break] to a Wal-Mart, should you give it to Target? If you give it to Home Depot, then should you give it to Lowe’s? And if you give it to Bass Pro, shouldn’t you give it to Cabela’s and Gander Mountain? How about we just don’t give it to anybody?” Oppidan CEO Mike Ayers said to the Toledo Blade for a March 22 article.

    When the CEO of Gander Mountain was asked why the company doesn’t take subsidies he replied:

    We believe in the American system of free enterprise and consider these demands to be anti-competitive and fundamentally inappropriate. We cannot in good conscience go down that road and maintain our integrity as a good corporate citizen. We think it’s wrong. So we are unwilling to accept the “everyone is doing it” argument and become part of the problem./blockquote>

    More from the Gander Mountain CEO:

    Resources that could be used for education or true economic development are being wasted on private retail developments. Communities have been paying big money to bring in low-paying retail jobs. Buda, Texas, for instance, gave Cabela’s subsidies worth $61 million, or about $271,000 for every full-time job, according to our estimates. Reno, Nevada spent $54 million, or $208,000 for every job. It also should be noted that incentives to lure retail into a community often do harm to businesses already located in the area. Local stores and other national firms like Gander Mountain, who don’t seek subsidies, are placed at a competitive disadvantage by this practice. Studies have also demonstrated that the promises of increased revenue, jobs, and economic growth are seldom fulfilled.

    I was quite astonished to read these articles, as Gander Mountain certainly received a lot of aid from Wichita. To be precise, I believe the aid that Wichita gave to Gander Mountain was not in the form of a tax break. Nor was it a subsidy, if by subsidy we mean an ongoing series of payments.

    Instead, Gander Mountain received an outright gift from our city and a sweetheart lease. Now that this company has apparently changed its mind about receiving government handouts, should Wichita ask for its money back?

    Update, July 8, 2006

    I received a communication from a representative of Gander Mountain seeking to correct a mistake I made in this article. It was the developers of WaterWalk, not Gander Mountain directly, that received the subsidy from the City of Wichita. That subsidy undoubtedly let the developers offer Gander Mountain an “attractive lease rate,” as the Gander Mountain representative wrote.

    I apologize for this mistake. It is, in my opinion, a distinction without a difference. Giving money to one party so that they can give it to another is still a subsidy, and the introduction of a middleman probably added to what the city had to pay.

    Also, the City of Wichita built a parking garage for the use of Gander Mountain customers, as well as customers of other businesses, should any appear. This was reported to cost $2.1 million.

  • What to do with others’ money

    Writing from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

    In a June 20, 2006 Wichita Eagle editorial, Rhonda Holman writes about the WaterWalk project in Wichita.

    Evidently there is controversy over the public not knowing the name of the “destination restaurant” that is being courted and favored with a gift of $1 million. To me, the controversy is not the identify of the restaurant or when and how the city should conduct its negotiations, but that we are paying for a restaurant to be built.

    We are not lacking for fine restaurants in Wichita. On both the east and west sides of town (and other parts, too), many excellent restaurants have been opened recently, and more are being built as I write. The Eagle has even reported on their astonishment at how many there are.

    The problem is, I believe, that these restaurants were not built where Ms. Holman and our local government leaders feel they should have been built. But that’s not a problem, except to her and them.

    The people who built these restaurants did so by investing their own money, or the money that others entrusted to them. These people did so voluntarily. They presumably built their restaurants where they thought they could earn the best return on their investment. And having invested several million dollars of their own money in the restaurant, they have a strong incentive to make the restaurant a success.

    But that’s not good enough for Ms. Holman. Evidently she does not appreciate the sacrifice that people have made in order to accumulate the funds needed to make these spectacular investments. She may not be aware of — or maybe she does not respect or value — the tremendous effort and work it takes to run a successful restaurant.

    Just because these people did not build their restaurants where she (and our local government leaders) thought they should have been built, she wants to tax them — and the rest of us, too — and give the proceeds of that tax to a new competitor.

    Is this the type of behavior by our local government and our town’s leading newspaper that is likely to lead to other new private investment?

    Ms. Holman’s editorial stance, along with the actions of our local government leaders, constitute a slap in the fact for those who have been foolish enough (we can now conclude this) to invest money in any industry in which the government is likely to set up their competitor.

    This harmful attitude is summarized in this plea to get the WaterWalk project moving faster, “… so that citizens not only can see where their money is going but also soon start enjoying more of their investment.”

    Making an investment, I might remind Ms. Holman, is something that people do voluntarily because they believe it is in their interest.

    The WaterWalk project and the new downtown restaurant are being paid for by taxes. The expenditure is being made to serve the interests of politicians, subsidized developers, and people like Ms. Holman who believe they know best what to do with others’ money. There is a tremendous difference between the two.

  • The AirTran subsidy and its unseen effects

    Writing from Natchez, Mississippi

    In a June 16, 2006 column, Wichita Eagle editorial writer Rhonda Holman again congratulates local and state government for its success in renewing the AirTran subsidy, and for getting the entire state of Kansas to help for it.

    We should take a moment to understand, however, that while the allure of the subsidy is undeniable, it may eventually extract a high price on Wichita. Currently, the legacy airlines provide service to Wichita and other small markets partly because they feel a duty to provide comprehensive, nationwide service. But that may be changing. In an article titled “Major Airlines Fuel a Recovery By Grounding Unprofitable Flights” from the June 5, 2006 Wall Street Journal, we learn that this may change:

    The big carriers, which for decades have doggedly pursued market share at any cost, now are focusing just as aggressively on the profitability of each route and flight.

    The so-called legacy carriers — those like American Airlines and Delta Air Lines, with big pension and other obligations that predate the industry’s deregulation in 1978 — have abandoned many of the tactics that have led to their cyclical weakness. They are increasingly unwilling to fly half-empty aircraft to stay competitive on a given route just for the sake of feeding their nationwide networks.

    As I have written before, if AirTran — one of the newer airlines without the baggage of high costs that plague the legacy airlines — can’t earn a profit on its service to Wichita, it may be that other airlines are not, either. This article tells us that we may be in danger of losing the service of the legacy airlines. And, as I have written earlier, there are a great many destinations you can’t get to on AirTran.

    (The same article also tells us that during much of the time of the subsidy, airfares were falling nationwide anyway: “… the Air Travel Price Index, a quarterly measure of changes in airfares, rose 9.1% in the fourth quarter of last year from a five-year low a year earlier.” So we might have had lower fares even without the subsidy. Of course, we can’t know that, just as subsidy advocates can’t know how much we’ve saved from the subsidy, no matter what they may say.)

    Our local government leaders simply do not have the knowledge needed to successfully run a planned economy, which, in essence, is what they are doing when they apply price controls to the airfare market in Wichita. That’s right. The subsidy is a form of price controls. After all, if the subsidy didn’t serve to reduce the price of airfare, what would be its reason for existence?

    No government has ever been able successfully impose price controls without the people suffering harmful consequences. As economist Thomas Sowell wrote in a 2005 column:

    Prices are perhaps the most misunderstood thing in economics. Whenever prices are “too high” — whether these are prices of medicines or of gasoline or all sorts of other things — many people think the answer is for the government to force those prices down.

    It so happens there is a history of price controls and their consequences in countries around the world, going back literally thousands of years. But most people who advocate price controls are as unaware of, and uninterested in, that history as I was in the law of gravity.

    Prices are not just arbitrary numbers plucked out of the air or numbers dependent on whether sellers are “greedy” or not. In the competition of the marketplace, prices are signals that convey underlying realities about relative scarcities and relative costs of production.

    Those underlying realities are not changed in the slightest by price controls. You might as well try to deal with someone’s fever by putting the thermometer in cold water to lower the reading.

    Municipal transit used to be privately owned in many cities, until local politicians’ control of fares kept those fares too low to buy and maintain buses and trolleys, and replace them as they wore out. The costs of doing these things were not reduced in the slightest by refusing to let the fares cover those costs.

    All that happened was that municipal transit services deteriorated and taxpayers ended up paying through the nose as city governments took over from transit companies that they had driven out of business — and government usually did a worse job.

    The immediate effect of the subsidy is a drop in airfares. The long-term effects, the effects that we can’t really see right now (even though the number of daily flights to and from Wichita has decreased in the last year) are unknown, but are likely to be quite bad for our town. These unseen effects of a policy are important, and, being unseen, are hard to spot, even if you’re looking. Frederic Bastiat, in his pamphlet titled “That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen” http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html said this:

    Between a good and a bad economist this cons
    titutes the whole difference — the one takes account of the visible effect; the other takes account both of the effects which are seen, and also of those which it is necessary to foresee. Now this difference is enormous, for it almost always happens that when the immediate consequence is favourable, the ultimate consequences are fatal, and the converse. Hence it follows that the bad economist pursues a small present good, which will be followed by a great evil to come, while the true economist pursues a great good to come, — at the risk of a small present evil.

    Henry Hazlitt writes of the fallacy of unseen effects, but realizes they are often obfuscated by “the special pleading of selfish interests.”

    Economics is haunted by more fallacies than any other study known to man. This is no accident. The inherent difficulties of the subject would be great enough in any case, but they are multiplied a thousandfold by a factor that is insignificant in, say, physics, mathematics or medicine — the special pleading of selfish interests. While every group has certain economic interests identical with those of all groups, every group has also, as we shall see, interests antagonistic to those of all other groups. While certain public policies would in the long run benefit everybody, other policies would benefit one group only at the expense of all other groups. The group that would benefit by such policies, having such a direct interest in them, will argue for then plausibly and persistently. It will hire the best buyable minds to devote their whole time to presenting its case. And it will finally either convince the general public that its case is sound, or so befuddle it that clear thinking on the subject becomes next to impossible.

    In addition to these endless pleadings of self-interest, there is a second main factor that spawns new economic fallacies every day. This is the persistent tendency of men to see only the immediate effects of a given policy, or its effects only on a special group, and to neglect to inquire what the long-run effects of that policy will be not only on that special group but on all groups. It is the fallacy of overlooking secondary consequences.

    We must hope that the legacy airlines choose to continue their service to and from Wichita, in spite of our government’s action.

  • Arts funding in Wichita produces controversy

    As local government tries to decide which arts and cultural institutions are to receive government funds, controversy arises. A June 8, 2006 Wichita Eagle article titled “Arts panel biases alleged” tells how some funding applicants are upset that some of the members of the funding committee have ties to organizations that also applied for funds. In an editorial titled “Let Arts Funding Work” published in the June 10, 2006 Wichita Eagle, Rhonda Holman writes “The process may not be perfect, but it’s a precious opportunity for public dollars to be invested in the arts and attractions in a merit-based way that’s fair, open and accountable.”

    Later Ms. Holman makes the case that it is desirable to have experts decide how to allocate taxpayer funds amongst the various organizations that have applied. The old method, she writes, had no “scrutiny or oversight.” She pleads for the public not to lose faith in this new system of deciding who gets what.

    As I wrote in the past (Let Markets Fund Arts and Culture, How to Decide Arts Funding) there is a very simple way to decide which arts and cultural organizations are worthy of receiving funds: simply stop government funding. Let the people freely decide, though the mechanism of markets rather than government decree, which organizations they prefer.

    When people spend their own money on arts and culture there is no controversy. There can be no allegations of bias. But government spending always creates controversy. Someone is upset that they didn’t get as much as someone else. People who don’t or can’t use what the government-supported organizations provide are upset they have to pay for it. Much misguided effort goes into making the funding decisions. Instead of working to create and refine their product, arts organizations have to lobby politicians and commissions for funds.

    In the end, the public gets what the commission decrees, instead of what they really want.

    If arts and cultural organizations forgo government funding, they will learn very quickly if they are producing a product the public really wants. If they aren’t, they will have a powerful motivating factor to change.

    It may turn out that what people really want for arts and culture, as expressed by their selections made in a free market, might be different from what a commission decides we should have. That freedom to choose, it seems to me, is something that our Wichita City Council, Arts Council, and Wichita Eagle editorial writers believe the public isn’t informed or responsible enough to enjoy.

  • As expected, price controls harm Wichita travelers

    Writing from Tallahassee, Florida

    As reported in the Wichita Business Journal on May 12, 2005: “The average number of daily departures dropped to 45 in March 2006 from 54 in March 2005.”

    The effect of the AirTran subsidy is to reduce the price of airfare to and from Wichita. That is its stated goal. If the subsidy did not work to reduce prices, we would be wasting our money. The fact is that the subsidy does work to reduce airfares to and from Wichita. It also does what any economist could predict: it reduces the supply of air transport to and from Wichita. I think that’s why economics is called the “dismal science.” There really is no free lunch.

    The same article also reports this:

    Sam Williams, chairman of the Wichita Fair Fares campaign, believes that the airlines will see there is enough passenger growth to justify reinstating the lost destinations.

    “The numbers always showed that we had the ability in our catchment area to, over time, make this airport very successful,” Williams says. “Nothing has dampened my enthusiasm that that’s still going to happen.”

    I have a picture in my mind of a group of planners for, say, American or United or Northwest, planning whether to increase capacity to and from Wichita, or even if to stay in the Wichita market at all. If AirTran — a “new” airline with low labor costs — can’t earn a profit on its Wichita route at the fares it charges, how can the “legacy” airlines be expected to do so? And if they can’t earn a profit, how can we expect them to continue providing service in Wichita?

    The answer is this: we can’t expect the legacy airlines to continue their present levels of service in Wichita as long as we continue to apply price controls.

    For all the gushing over AirTran, try using it to get to some of the destinations I regularly fly to: Lexington, Jackson, Cincinnati, and Tallahassee. But I can get to these cities on most of the legacy airlines — the very airlines that we are punishing. If we lose the service of the legacy airlines, we will be in deep trouble.

    If we want to allow Mr. Williams’s dream of a successful Wichita airport to come true, we need to let market forces set fares. Any other solution will cause — and has already caused — our city harm.

  • AirTran subsidy is harmful

    (This is a longer version of my opinion piece that appeared in The Wichita Eagle last week.)

    From the beginning, we in the Wichita area have been told each year that the AirTran subsidy was intended as a temporary measure, that soon AirTran would be able to stand on its own, and there will be no need to continue the subsidy. Mayor Mayans said as much last year, and so did City Manager Kolb this year.

    But State Senator Carolyn McGinn, R-Sedgwick, on a recent television program, may have made a revealing slip when she referred to the AirTran subsidy as a “pilot program.” Now that the subsidy appears to be a permanent requirement, funded locally and perhaps statewide, we should ask ourselves if this subsidy is in our best interests.

    The benefits of the subsidy are regularly overstated — and sometimes by huge amounts. In 2004, the Chairman of Fair Fares claimed that the Fair Fares program was worth $4.8 billion in economic benefit to the state. No reasonable analysis could make a conclusion that the benefit is as large as this.

    Last year, the present Chairman of Fair Fares spoke before the Wichita City Council and equated what Wichita is doing to pricing in the airline industry with the role that Kansas played in the years before the Civil War. It hardly seems worth noting that one struggle was against the immoral institution of slavery; the other is a taxpayer-funded effort to override the natural workings of free markets.

    Yes, it is undeniable. Low airfares are preferred over high airfares, and it is probably true that airfares are lower than what they would be without the subsidy. But the airline industry is changing. As an example, carriers tell us they have eliminated or reduced the very high fares for walkup ticket purchases. We simply do not know what airfares would be in Wichita if there had not been the subsidy, so any estimate of how much has been saved is merely a guess.

    The harm the subsidy causes reveals itself in several ways. We may have less air service in Wichita due to the subsidy. Last year Delta canceled seven important daily flights. Was this in retaliation for Wichita’s decision to not subsidize Delta, as some claim? Or was it the law of supply and demand expressing itself: that when the price of something is lowered (lowering prices is the desired effect of the subsidy), less is supplied. There are fewer daily flights supplied to and from Wichita, from 56 last year to 42 today. As the subsidy lowers the price that airlines may charge for tickets but doesn’t do anything to reduce the costs of providing service, we should not be surprised to see more reductions in service.

    Backers of the subsidy claim it is necessary to keep businesses from leaving and to attract new businesses to our area. We should consider the converse: have businesses considered Wichita, and seeing a meddlesome local government, one that picks and chooses winners and losers, decided not to locate here?

    Local lawmakers abandon their principles to back the subsidy. Last year a Sedgwick County Commissioner assured me that he was a “free market” thinker, but was backing the subsidy nonetheless. Local business leaders, some who consider themselves believers in free markets, back the subsidy and have even formed private fundraising efforts to augment the subsidy.

    Consider this: if a subsidy is good for economic development, why shouldn’t we try the subsidy approach with other businesses? If we feel that, say, advertising rates in Wichita are too high, why doesn’t the city select one local television station and subsidize its operations, thereby compelling other stations to match the subsidized price? Or to help people with something that really hits home, why not grant a subsidy to one chain of grocery stores so that other stores have to lower their prices? Or in the case of a monopoly such as a local daily newspaper, why doesn’t the city or county fund a startup to supply competition? I think most Wichitans would consider these measures extreme and contrary to fairness. I find it difficult, though, to differentiate these actions from the AirTran subsidy.

    Whether to continue funding the AirTran subsidy is a bright line that we can choose to cross or not. On one side we see low airfares, and those airfares are highly visible. What we may not see as easily is the cost of a permanent expansion of government, government that intrudes increasingly on our lives and liberties. We also may not notice the loss of valuable information that prices in a free market supply, and without those price cues, we will not recognize the misallocation of capital and resources that follows.

    On the other side of the line is the harsh realization that Wichita has factors such as low population that work against low airfares. On this side, however, we will find liberty and free markets. You will find me on this side, lonely though it is.

  • The Mississippi beef plant has a lesson for us

    Writing from Jackson, Miss.

    Jackson, Mississippi has a lively talk radio station, WJNT, featuring both local shows and national shows. The hot topic of discussion on my trip to this city was what to do with the MCI settlement money, as the state had just negotiated a settlement with MCI of $100 million, for taxes MCI owed.

    Some callers (and perhaps the host) suggested that the state use this money to pay for the “beef plant.” I was curious as to what this meant. Why, I wondered, would Mississippi be paying for a beef packing plant? After a little research I learned that Mississippi had guaranteed loans to develop a beef processing plant, in the name of economic development. The plant operated for just a few months before closing, leaving the taxpayers of Mississippi liable for the loans. The cost to the taxpayers was given as $54 million.

    I am writing about this because I feel we need to be more watchful of economic development efforts that the state and local governments undertake using taxpayer money. It is easy to develop grandiose plans for endeavors that will employ many people and generate all sorts of economic benefits. But business is risky. Things don’t — strike that — rarely follow even the best plans. Often, it is the public treasury that bears the risk for a project, not the owners or direct stakeholders. If these people have the risk of the business underwritten by the public, rather than having their own funds at risk, they behave differently. We have ample evidence from recent news reports in Wichita that public officials don’t monitor the progress of both public and public/private projects as they should.

    Proponents of issuing bonds, often in the form of industrial revenue bonds or IRBs make the point that the government is not giving the business the money. That’s true, and also a great relief, as Onex has asked for one billion dollars in bonds. But the government is guaranteeing the bonds, so that if the business fails, the government, meaning the taxpayers, have to pay.

    How often does the government have to step in and pay for the bonds issued to a failing or underperforming business? We learn of the spectacular failures like the Mississippi beef plant. How many small failures does the government pay for that don’t make the news?

    Following is an article from the Jackson Clarion-Ledger from May 1, 2005.

    Is there still a beef plant in our future?
    Legislature can easily fall back into its old ways

    By Charlie Mitchell
    Special to The Clarion-Ledger

    VICKSBURG — Three questions regarding Mississippi Beef Processors:

    How did Mississippi officials risk blowing $54 million in taxpayer money in this boondoggle?

    Will anyone be going to jail?

    Can it happen again?

    Three answers:

    Too few, intentionally or otherwise, knew anything about it.

    That remains to be seen.

    Yes, but not until the (heifer) dust settles.

    The basics are clear. A few years ago, under the guise of industrial development, also known as “job creation,” state executive agencies, including the Mississippi Land, Water and Timber Board, partnered with legislative leaders to underwrite startup costs of the beef plant near Oakland in north central Mississippi.

    Studies (ignored) showed there was little demand for such a plant and, sure enough, it shut down in November 2004, having operated only a short time for few customers. Officially, a need for $5 million more of the people’s dollars for “equipment repairs” was cited. That wasn’t provided, and the plant is now defunct, in default and the state of Mississippi has to sell it, perhaps for pennies on the dollar, or pay up in full.

    Here’s a point to remember: Mississippi Beef Processors was not an abnormal act of the Legislature. It was, in fact, business as usual.

    When such proposals show up, usually in the form of bond bills, they are, by coincidence, like cattle, run through the line. Few lawmakers ever ask the purpose for hundreds of millions of dollars being allocated in the public’s name — perhaps because they don’t want projects in their own communities questioned.

    Anyway, now that the Oakland project is officially in the dumper, attention turns to who, if anyone, will be held accountable.

    Recently, State Auditor Phil Bryant chose his words carefully in updating the state’s press about the work of an investigative task force composed of members of his staff, the attorney general’s staff and a few representatives of the FBI.

    Bryant termed the investigation “very active,” but added there is no timetable, no deadline for completion of the review.

    But then Bryant turned his remarks to something that could be more important — residual effects of the fiasco.

    A specific example, he said, is that during the regular session after a bond bill proposing $500,000 for something called M-Quality was passed well below the radar of the state press, nine House members did ask Bryant for a background check.

    M-Quality made headlines for a few days. Day One was a story about the House approval. Day Two was a report that M-Quality existed only on paper, and in very sketchy terms. Details didn’t matter, as it turned out, because on Day Three incorporators of M-Quality withdrew their request. The issue went away.

    Bryant indicated respect for the Legislature in this matter, especially since nine (of 174 lawmakers) at least made an inquiry.

    More significantly, in the one major initiative to which public funds were pledged this year — a SteelCorr plant near Columbus — extensive background reports were made conditional to the planned allocation of $25 million in state dollars plus up to $85 million more in years to come.

    To get the money, SteelCorr had to agree to submit a business plan, officers have had to undergo background checks and credit checks, company financials had to be submitted and a market analysis for its product must be performed under the auspices of the state Institutions of Higher Learning.

    Bryant says that’s the way it should be, and was pleased to report that portions of the allocation will also be reserved to pay for state audits of the company’s ongoing performance. Clearly a step in the right direction.

    But is any of this law? Must all future gifts be vetted? Nope. Nothing official has been changed in how lawmakers operate, meaning there could easily be another Mississippi Beef Processors fiasco. Officials may feel spanked for now — but the sting will fade.

    http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050501/OPINION/505010476/1200/OPINION02

  • Wichita City Council Meeting, April 19, 2005

    Some quotes and my remarks from the April 19, 2005 meeting of the Wichita City Council, where the AirTran subsidy was considered. Representatives from Delta attended and spoke.

    Allen Bell, Economic Development Director for the City of Wichita:

    Previous contracts had a dollar amount cap on them. The new contact, we refer to it as a no-cap contract. There is not, in the terms of the agreement, a specific dollar amount that is the not-to-exceed amount. In place of that there is a termination clause that allows the City to terminate its contract with 75 days notice for whatever reason. And the reason, of course, the major reason, would be that we know that within that 75 days, we will deplete the funds that the City believes is appropriate to spend on this.

    I was startled to hear this information, that the new contract has no dollar cap, as this has not been, in my memory, reported. It has been reported that AirTran sought a no-cap contract, but that Wichita would not agree to that. But it turns out that the city has agreed to what, in effect, is a no-cap contract. Yes, I believe Mr. Bell when he says that Wichita can cancel the contract, with notice, if the city believes it will spend more than the $2.5 million it has committed to. I would submit, however, that if the City spends the $2.5 million and realizes it needs to spend more to keep AirTran in town, the City Council would vote to do so. Therefore, the no-cap contract is in effect.

    Councilmember Schlapp extracted an admission from the Delta representative that Delta is not profitable on the Wichita route now, but they believe they will be soon. Ms. Schlapp concluded that there is no need, then, for a subsidy to Delta.

    Mayor Mayans said we have been discriminated against, rate-wise.

    Mayor Mayans: “Many of us, actually, are opposed philosophically to government interventions, because we feel that sometimes tilts the playing field.” The Mayor says one thing, but acts in a different way. What good is it to have a philosophical belief if it doesn’t guide your actions?

    Mayor Mayans and the Delta representative disagreed on who made telephone calls to whom and at what time. (Mayor Mayans: “So you didn’t call me back!” “Communications is a two way street!” Delta: “My recollection of it differs slightly from yours.” “I don’t recall it was my responsibility to get back to you.”) It is disheartening to realize that major public policy decisions may be made based on incomplete information, because someone didn’t get a telephone message.

    Councilmember Martz:

    “I guess to me, when I look at competition, if you’re losing money, then you ought to raise your rates enough so that you’re not losing money.”

    “I’m a firm believer in competition.”

    “I would prefer not having any financial help from the city, but rather through pure competition, all carriers reduce their rates to a level that they number one, can make a profit, at the same time make it economical for the citizens of the whole state of Kansas to be able to fly in and out of Wichita …”

    Like the mayor, Mr. Martz says one thing but acts in a different manner. His advice to airlines on how to set their fares is misplaced. We have to assume that businesses act in their best interests, and let it go at that.

    Sam Williams, Chairman of Fair Fares, who evidently is so well-known to Council members that he doesn’t introduce himself when he started to speak:

    “You know, Kansas in 1861 became a very important state in the history of this country, just before we went into the great dark area of the civil war. You know, we were a key state. What we did at that time had a lot to do with what happened and where we went from there. I would submit that little old Wichita, Kansas is doing that to the airline industry right now. Because of your vision, you are looking at different ways to bring fair pricing in an industry that is kind of broken, in getting them to look at themselves, us to look at ourselves, and how can we partner together to do this. Kansas again is a key, integral part of a change in this country.”

    First, to equate our state’s role in the civil war with subsidizing an airline is ludicrous. Second, I feel very sad that Kansas may become the leader in subsidies, and that business leaders applaud this. Mr. Williams, I would ask you if you would welcome a governmental body deciding whether the rates that your business charges are fair, and if not fair, subsidizing your competitor?

  • Wichita Eagle Says “AirTran Subsidies Foster Competition”

    In an editorial in The Wichita Eagle published on April 19, 2005, Randy Scholfield writes: “Wichita should stick to its subsidies. They’re fostering competition, not stifling it, and paying off big-time for the community by lowering airfares and boosting economic development.”

    Competition, if it is to be meaningful, needs to be fair. It is not fair when one participant has a huge head start in the form of a government subsidy. The Eagle recognizes this when it suits their purpose. When endorsing Sam Brownback for reelection, this newspaper said “He includes in the former his stepped-up fight against the European subsidies of Airbus that have put Boeing and its workers in Wichita at competitive disadvantage.”

    Competition occurs when independent decision-makers, looking at the array of choices available to them, freely make their own decisions. With the AirTran subsidy, we have the City of Wichita (and now apparently Sedgwick County), by using their power to tax, making a decision for us in favor of AirTran. This is not competition.

    Mr. Scholfield, the one subsidy I might support is one that would provide an alternative to the Wichita Eagle! Would you consider that to foster competition in the market for daily newspapers in Wichita?