Voice For Liberty

Tag: Tim Norton

  • Kansas and Wichita quick takes: Friday July 1, 2011

    This Week in Kansas. On this week’s edition of the KAKE Television public affairs program This Week in Kansas, Ken Ciboski (Associate Professor of Political Science at Wichita State University), John D’Angelo (Arts & Cultural Services Manager for the City of Wichita), and myself join host Tim Brown for a discussion of arts and government funding in Kansas. This Week in Kansas airs in Wichita and western Kansas at 9:00 am Sundays on KAKE channel 10.

    Kansas taxes. A short report produced by Americans for Prosperity, Kansas shows some of the reasons why economic growth in Kansas has been sluggish: “Kansas’ state and local tax burden continues to be amongst the highest in the region.” Kansas has fewer private sector jobs than it did ten years ago. And in what should be a grave cause for alarm, Kansas was the only state to have a net loss of private sector jobs over the last year. … A table of figures illustrates that although Oklahoma kept its sales tax rate low and constant while Kansas increased its rate, tax revenue increased much more in Oklahoma. Download the report at AFP-Kansas Income Tax Policy Primer.

    Wichita sales tax. Speaking of sales tax and its harmful effect, Wichita seems to want to raise its rate. Proposals have been floated for a sales tax for economic development in general, for increased transit (bus) service, for drainage projects, and for downtown projects. Boosters cite the Intrust Bank Arena as an example of a successful project paid for by a sales tax that disappeared as promised. That’s despite the dreams of Sedgwick County Commissioner Tim Norton: “Then, as that tax was nearing its end, Norton ‘wondered … whether a 1 percent sales tax could help the county raise revenue.’ (‘Norton floats idea of 1 percent county sales tax,’ Wichita Eagle, April 4, 2007)” … Boosters of the arena promote it as a financial success, and there was the presentation to the county of a check for $1,116,442 as its share of the arena’s earnings. This figure, however, does not represent any sort of “profit” or “earnings” in the usual sense. In fact, the introductory letter that accompanies these calculations warns readers that these are “special-purpose financial statements” and “are not intended to be a presentation in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.” In particular, Commissioner Karl Peterjohn has warned that these figures — and the monthly “profit” figures presented to commissioners — do not include depreciation expense. That expense is a method of recognizing and accounting for the large capital cost of the arena. In April the County released that number, and I believe it has not been reported by any news media. That may be because the number is pretty big — $4.4 million, some four times the purported “earnings” of the arena. … Without honest discussion of numbers like these, we make decisions based on incomplete and false information. Don’t look for many local government leaders and officials to talk about this number, and certainly not the Wichita Eagle editorial page.

    Koch criticism backfires — again. For those who follow the issue, it’s no surprise that Lee Fang, a reporter for the liberal think tank Canter for American Progress has come out with another attack on Charles and David Koch. Mark Hemingway of the Weekly Standard reports on this effort: “Think Progress reporter Lee Fang has a long history of being spectacularly wrong. However, there’s a seemingly unending thirst for his breathless demonization of the Koch brothers and other rants about corporate greed among the low IQ end of the liberal spectrum.” Fang disagrees with a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, and he lambasts the litigators who brought the suit as “heavily financed by right-wing corporate money, particularly from Koch Industries and Walmart.” He also criticizes organizations for not dislosing their donors. Hemingway notes this: “In the case of the Koch brothers, they have been outspoken philosophical libertarians for decades. Their support of free speech over onerous campaign laws is entirely consistent and should not be surprising. However, in the case of Wal-Mart Fang is also astoundingly hypocritical. Because you know who else is a ‘Walton-Funded Group’? Lee Fang’s employer.” And the secret donations that Fang rails against so passionately? Hemingway again: “You know who else accepts ‘secret donations from individuals and corporations’? That’s right — the Center for American Progress.” … For another example of Fang’s reporting, see ThinkProgress and Lee Fang: wrong again.

    Tension on debt ceiling issue. In The Wall Street Journal Kimberly Strassel writes that the current debt and spending crisis may lead to an end to farm subsidies, something she described as a “sacred federal spending cow:” “For decades, the House and Senate agriculture committees have been the last redoubts of congressional bipartisanship, liberals and conservatives united in beating back any outside attempts to cut off tens of billions annually for price supports, crop insurance, weather assistance, conservation handouts and nutrition programs. The last real stab at reform was the mid-1990s Freedom to Farm bill. Most of the changes were obliterated by subsequent bailouts and new spending.” … She describes how Arizona Congressman Jeff Flake got a limit of farm subsidies through the Appropriations Committee, but House Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas used a maneuver to block Flake’s proposal. So much for that effort at reform, blocked by a Republican. Lucas’ website promotes a conservative message, with one post criticizing bailouts. But not for farmers, it seems. … Wichita’s Mike Pompeo is mentioned: “Mr. Pompeo is waiting to see what debt package emerges and says his vote will depend on whether it contains real ‘structural’ reform. But he also tells me he doesn’t intend to let parochial interests cloud his decision. ‘I came here to be a small-government guy every day, and not just when it is spending cuts in somebody else’s district,’ he says.” … Although not mentioned in this article, Tim Huelskamp, who represents the Kansas first district, has been upfront in discussing the need to reduce or eliminate farm subsides, and so far, many farmers seem to be accepting of that. Huelskamp’s district, which covers all of western Kansas (and more), is usually second on the list of congressional districts in terms of total farm subsidies received. For 2009, that figure was $369 million.

    Stossel: The Money Hole. A recent episode of John Stossel’s television program is now available on the free hulu service by clicking on The Money Hole. Writes Stossel in his introduction to the show: “We will soon spend ourselves into oblivion. But finally … movement! Budget slashing proposals from Paul Ryan, the Republican Study Committee, Ron Paul, Rand Paul and even Tim Pawlenty! But politicians and real people across the spectrum still resist change. What should government do? What’s its role? What have other countries done? The Money Hole tackles that.”

  • In Wichita, start of a solution to federal spending

    At the Sedgwick County Commission, newly-elected commissioner Richard Ranzau voted three times against the county applying for grants of federal funds, showing a possible way that federal spending might be brought under control.

    During the meeting, Ranzau asked staff questions about where the funding for the grant programs was coming from, which, of course, is the federal government, sometimes routed through the Kansas Department of Commerce. Sometimes local spending is required by these grants.

    In opposing the programs, Ranzau said that federal government spending is too high. Also, our level of debt is too high, and that the cost of these spending programs is passed on to future generations. He also didn’t see where the U.S. Constitution authorizes activity like the commission — in partnership with the federal government — is considering undertaking.

    Ranzau offered an alternative: if the commission believes these projects are important to us as a community, we could pay for them ourselves and pay for them now.

    Commissioner Jim Skelton argued that if we don’t apply for and receive this money, the federal government will spend it anyway, and someone else will receive it. “I think we can end up screwing our constituency by opposing this on the philosophy that our government is too big.”

    He said he doesn’t agree with the “rampant spending of stimulus money” and would like to see it end, but he didn’t see how refusing this money would make a difference.

    Constitutional basis questioned

    During discussion, Skelton asked county counselor Richard Euson a question: “Can you tell me about the constitutionality of this issue? How on earth can this happen if it’s not constitutional?”

    Euson was flummoxed by the question, and admitted that he was not prepared to answer the question. This is not to be held against the county’s attorney, as questions like this are rarely asked — an indication of the novelty of Ranzau’s position and how infrequently elected officials and staff consider questions such as the fundamental role of government and its level of involvement.

    The job of a commissioner, according to Norton

    In discussion about one grant program, Commissioner Tim Norton asked a question designed to make sure that Ranzau knew that the project was located in his district. On a grant for a transportation plan, Norton again asked a question designed to make sure that Ranzau knew whose district this plan would serve, referring to former commissioner Kelly Parks’ support of the program.

    These questions by Norton highlight the problem with district-based representation, where representatives of districts are expected to bring as much government largess as possible back to their districts. At the federal level this problem is illustrated by the earmarking process. Locally, we see that Sedgwick County Commissioners are assumed to be in favor of any project that benefits their districts, regardless of the overall worth of the project or its cost.

    A bottom-up solution to federal spending?

    At a town hall meeting on Saturday, I asked Kansas fourth district Congressman Mike Pompeo, who represents all of Sedgwick County, about his opinion of ground-up opposition to federal spending and debt, rather than waiting for Congress and the President to solve the problem from the top down.

    Pompeo didn’t answer the question directly, but said that from now on, each law passed by Congress will have a section that states the constitutional authority for the legislation. He also said that the federal government is involved in many areas that it should not be involved in, adding “So many times the question is ‘should we reduce this agency’s budget by three percent,’ and the proper question is ‘why does this agency exist?’”

    While the new U.S. House of Representatives is full of enthusiasm for cutting spending, here we see an example of just how difficult cutting spending will be. Local governments are addicted to grants like the three discussed above. A congressman who voted to cut programs like these will hear from the affected constituents, and would also likely hear from the Sedgwick County staff who are advocates for these projects and spending. If more elected officials would vote against these programs, that would make it easier for Congress to cut off the flow of spending.

    We should also remember that Ranzau offered an alternative: fund the programs ourselves. The problem is that we are funding them ourselves, through the roundabout trip of tax dollars going to Washington, which then sends them back, in this case in the form of grants with many conditions and restrictions on the way the money can be spent. So Skelton is correct: the federal government will spend the money anyway. But to go along means that the hole is dug deeper. More crudely, the federal government says: implement this program in our way, because you’ve already paid for it, and you don’t want to piss away your taxes somewhere else.

    Perhaps a coalition of forward-thinking local government officeholders like Ranzau and U.S. Congressmen like Pompeo can join together to bring the spending under control. It will take courage, especially from the local officeholders.

  • Peterjohn presses taxpayer protection platform through Sedgwick County Commission

    At today’s meeting of the Sedgwick County Commission, commissioners revised the county’s 2010 legislative platform, adding important and groundbreaking taxpayer protection to the platform. The split vote lets voters know without a doubt where commissioners stand on taxpayer protection issues.

    The legislative platform is Sedgwick County’s “wish list” for the legislature. The items in the platform are not laws, but instead indicate the desires of the county commission.

    Commissioner Karl Peterjohn proposed new language to add to the legislative platform: “All local sales tax increases must be approved by voters under Kansas law. All property tax increases that raise the mill levy should also be required to receive voter approval.”

    Kansas has no such provision, and this is a defect, Peterjohn said. Kansas is one of the few states that have property taxes at the city, county, school district, and state levels. Most states did away with state-wide property taxes in the 1930s, he said, but Kansas did not.

    Peterjohn made a motion that this language be included in the legislative platform, and Chairman Kelly Parks seconded.

    Peterjohn noted that three of the four states surrounding Kansas have such limitations.

    Commissioner Tim Norton asked a question that revealed that cities have more authority than counties to raise sales tax. He said this is an issue of equity, of rebalancing the ways that counties can fund their government. “Counties don’t have the ability to have more tools in their toolbox other than just property tax. … We’re very restricted.” He added that he doesn’t like the idea of artificial ceilings being placed on the county.

    Commissioner Dave Unruh agreed with Norton, saying local officials are elected to carry out the responsibility of making responsible budget decisions. A limitation from the state makes no sense, he said.

    Norton made the point that the state can place a lid on the ability of counties to raise funds through taxation, and may still place mandates on what counties must do. This compresses the decisions that the commission gets to make, and goes against representative government.

    Peterjohn’s motion passed three to two, with Commissioner Gwen Welshimer and Parks joining Peterjohn in the majority, with Unruh and Norton in the minority.

    After the meeting, Peterjohn said this platform language represents a major change in the county’s position, a reversal of the county’s historic position on property tax policy. This action is also at odds with the Kansas Association of Counties. It’s a major change, he said.

    “Traditionally the local government lobby has been in lockstep opposition to any requirement that property tax hikes get voter approval. Sedgwick County’s shift today is extremely significant for the second-most populous county in the state, the county that contains the largest city in the state, to support voter approval for any increase in property taxes.”

    Analysis

    Requiring voter approval of tax increases was one the “Five Reasons to Back Karl Peterjohn” that Peterjohn used in his successful campaign for the county commission last year. His action today represents a move towards fulfilling that pledge.

    It’s important to remember what the commission passed was simply their desire — and a split decision at that — for the legislature to pass a law requiring voter approval of tax increases. Whether the legislature acts on this request is anyone’s guess. For such a law to have any chance, it will take a determined advocate to press for it. The commission’s action today created no such advocate. As it stands now, the county will not have a lobbyist in Topeka next year, as the budget passed in August provided no funding for a lobbyist.

    Officeholders who are in favor of more government spending are generally opposed to giving voters the right approve or refuse tax rate increases, for the simple reason that voters often refuse to approve the tax hikes. Often the argument is given that the elections that are now necessary are expensive, and there may be emergencies that require the rapid raising of funds. There may be small amounts of validity in these arguments. But tax revenues, through the natural forces of economic growth and rising property tax appraisals, rise on their own without any help from officeholders. Anything that restrains the growth of tax rates, which is what today’s proposal does, is welcome relief as a restraint on the runaway growth of government.

  • Wichita sales tax likely to be proposed

    Two recent events have led me to suspect that as part of the plan for the revitalization of downtown Wichita, we’re going to see a sales tax proposed.

    The first is Phillip Brownlee’s editorial in last Friday’s Wichita Eagle, which carried the title Taxes are lower than many think. While this editorial focused on property taxes, it’s easy to see this as an argument that Wichitans can bear the burden of more taxation. Softening up the electorate, so to speak.

    Then, there’s this email sent to the Wichita city council and Sedgwick county commission members:

    I recently received the attached information on Oklahoma City’s next plan for their downtown area. This is their MAPS program that spurred their downtown developed. I thought you might find this of interest.

    http://www.okc.gov/maps3/

    Sincerely,

    John Rolfe
    President and CEO
    Go Wichita Convention & Visitors Bureau

    MAPS — that’s the program that funded Oklahoma City’s downtown improvements through a sales tax, with a second version funding school projects — will be voted on in December. If approved, a 1% sales tax will raise funds for more downtown projects. This email, without saying so directly, endorses the idea of a sales tax for downtown development.

    What’s the sales tax in Oklahoma City, you may be wondering? It’s 8.375%. It won’t change if the new MAPS plan is approved by the voters, as a current 1% tax will expire.

    That sales tax was billed as “temporary,” and it does appear that it will expire as planned. But, city leaders are recommending approval of the new sales tax. This is similar to the sales tax for the downtown Wichita arena, when as that tax was nearing its end, Sedgwick County Commissioner Tim Norton “wondered … whether a 1 percent sales tax could help the county raise revenue.” (“Norton floats idea of 1 percent county sales tax,” Wichita Eagle, April 4, 2007)

    The sales tax for Wichita is 6.3%.

    City leaders are likely to use the the Intrust Bank Arena in downtown Wichita as an example of a successful project funded through a sales tax. But any assessment of the success of this project is about two years away. The fact that the arena exists is evidence of a minimum level of competence. It will be some time before we know whether the arena can support itself without being a drain on taxpayers, despite the provisions of the SMG management contract.

    In Wichita, we’re going to have to be watchful. The drumbeats of new taxation have started.

  • Lack of information clouds Sedgwick County industrial park plans

    At yesterday’s meeting of the Board of Sedgwick County Commissioners, questions about a proposed industrial park development reveal that there’s still a long way to go before all issues are uncovered, much less understood.

    At the meeting, Chris Chronis, Chief Financial Officer for Sedgwick County, presented information and responded to questions. While Mr. Chronis was thorough in some areas, even some basic information and understanding is missing.

    For example, questioning by Board Chairman Kelly Parks revealed that it is unknown at this time who owns the mineral rights to the property.

    Commissioner Karl Peterjohn asked Chronis about the relationship between the county and the city of Bel Aire, if the land is not deannexed from that city. Chronis said there is a “complete understanding” about the role each governmental unit would play. Peterjohn then asked if that agreement was in writing. Chronis replied no.

    Peterjohn asked about the costs of other things besides land acquisition, citing a figure of $.50 to $2.00 per square foot for specific streets, landscaping, telephone and communications lines, natural gas, and other items. This could amount, Peterjohn said, to $9 to $35 million in costs that aren’t included at this point.

    Chronis said “It has not been our plan, nor our intent, to do any infrastructure development within this industrial park. What we are committed to do is to provide site-ready land, build-ready land, to the industrial prospects. They have to make that land serve their purposes.”

    Chronis also said it’s not his plan to spend any money on the interior of this land for these things. But sources in the real estate industry tell me that prospective tenants will expect these things to be done. Somehow government will have to provide incentives to cover these costs, and these costs are not being recognized by the county at this time.

    The deannexation of the land from Bel Aire is an issue that may be difficult to resolve. Remarks by Commissioner Tim Norton brought up the scenario that platting the land, if it remains in Bel Aire, would go through that city’s planning commission. That could be problematic, said Norton, if that commission wouldn’t allow the types of things the county wants to do.

    The commissioners voted unanimously to defer this matter for 30 days and to have a public workshop on this issue. The date for the workshop was not set.

  • Wichita downtown arena open records failure

    Yesterday, the company that manages the Intrust Bank Arena (the downtown Wichita arena) announced a lease with the arena’s flagship tenant, the Wichita Thunder hockey team. But we don’t know the details of the lease. Unbelievably, some Sedgwick County Commissioners and managers are okay with that.

    The Wichita Eagle article Details of Intrust Bank Arena contract with Thunder are a secret reports the details.

    I believe that the Eagle will be successful in pursuing a copy of the lease agreement from SMG (the company managing the arena for Sedgwick County) under the Kansas Open Records Act. Here’s why:

    The KORA states that “‘Public agency’ means the state or any political or taxing subdivision of the state or any office, officer, agency or instrumentality thereof, or any other entity receiving or expending and supported in whole or in part by the public funds appropriated by the state or by public funds of any political or taxing subdivision of the state.”

    Although immediately next comes an exception, excluding “Any entity solely by reason of payment from public funds for property, goods or services of such entity.”

    I believe the exception is meant to prevent a company who, say, sells pencils to the county from being subject to KORA.

    But the relationship between SMG and the county is different. Sedgwick County has outsourced the management of the arena to SMG. The county is paying SMG, too. According to the contract, $8,000 per month at this time.

    The county and SMG have a broad nondisclosure agreement in their contract, although this can’t override the KORA.

    Besides the legalities of this, SMG and Sedgwick County need to find a way where this lease agreement can be made available to the public. I recently obtained a copy of the existing lease agreement between the Thunder and the county in anticipation of comparing it with the new agreement, the one shrouded in secrecy.

    If SMG decides to keep this contract secret, it will be a public relations disaster for them.

    It’s also a strike against the Sedgwick County managers who negotiated the contract with SMG that contains this provision, and against the commissioners who voted for it. Sedgwick County Commissioner Tim Norton seems to be the prime apologist for the secret contract.

    Let’s hope that SMG changes their mind soon and releases the contract.

  • Sedgwick County Commission fails citizens

    At yesterday’s meeting of the Sedgwick County Commission, Commissioners Tom Winters, Tim Norton, and Dave Unruh failed to take an opportunity to stand up for good government.

    By ratifying the City of Wichita’s defective public hearing, notice is given that it’s open season on citizens. Their concerns are shoved aside. Commissioners say they were constrained by a very narrow range of action permitted by law. The reasons they voted against this TIF district in August are still there, though present in smaller measure.

    The problem is that these politicians want something so badly that they’re willing to overlook major problems in procedures that are designed to give citizens a voice. Newspaper editorial writers aren’t helping. They’re usually at the forefront of “good government” efforts. But not the Wichita Eagle’s Rhonda Holman, who wrote this in today’s lead editorial: “Yes, as some argue, the city should have done a better job of allowing public input on the arena TIF district. The late changes to the Dec. 2 City Council agenda left the public and at least one council member unfamiliar with the plan to add $10 million for future parking needs, arming critics and fueling public distrust of local government generally.” But, she’ll go along with this action anyway.

    Nothing that this TIF district can build is as important as destroying citizen confidence and procedures designed to give them a voice.

    Thank you to Commissioners Gwen Welshimer and Kelly Parks for voting for the interests of citizens instead of those of Wichita’s political entrepreneurs.