Voice For Liberty

Tag: Wichita Eagle opinion watch

  • Kansas Budget Problems Threaten School Bond Aid

    Oops. When I wrote this article, I proceeded as though it was Rhonda Holman who penned the Wichita Eagle editorial I refer to. But the author is Phillip Brownlee. It just seemed like a Rhonda Holman editorial.

    Because the State of Kansas is short on money this year and the next few years, lawmakers are looking for ways to save. School bond issues now appear on the radar screen.

    Last year, USD 259, the Wichita public school district, used the fact that the state would pay 25% of the cost of repaying bonds as a key issue in their “informational and educational” campaign to persuade Wichita voters to pass a $370 million bond issue. Here’s some background on the law and how it works.

    The statute that governs the amount that the state pays school districts for bond issues is KSA 75-2319. The statute describes a process whereby the state board of education computes the assessed valuation per pupil (AVPP) of each school district in the state. Then, each district is assigned a state aid percentage. The less AVPP, the higher the percentage. The opposite is true as well. In fact, some school districts receive no state aid at all.

    This calculation is performed each year. Because the formula is based on the relationship between the characteristics of any single school district and the state as a whole, the state aid percentage might change. The 25% that the Wichita school district used in their campaign for the bond issue is not guaranteed to be true for years in the future. It could increase, or it could go down.

    In today’s Wichita Eagle, editorialist Phillip Brownlee (Don’t break contract on bond aid) writes that “the state is committed to pay 25 percent.” Voters went to the polls “understanding that the state would and was obligated to help pay.”

    But as we see, the promise claimed by USD 259 is merely a state statute, subject to the whims of the legislature and governor, not to mention the ability of the state to pay. Further, the 25% could change, too. This information was evidently judged not relevant by the Wichita school district.

    So what is likely to happen? According to reporting on KAKE television, USD 259 chief financial officer Linda Jones says the projects would go on, and local taxpayers would pay the difference. Brownlee echoes this: “If lawmakers now renege on this contract, local taxpayers will see their taxes go higher than the amount they counted on when they approved the bond issues.” (Here again Brownlee refers to a non-existent contract.)

    There are, however, a few other courses that neither of these two mention.

    One is to wait. The bill, in it current form, says that payments to school districts would resume after June 30, 2011.

    Another course — citizen activist Charlotte Foster asked me if this is possible — is to reduce the amount the Wichita school district borrows and spends. If the district would not spend the entire $370 million, it could keep its promise to local taxpayers that the mill levy would rise by a specific amount. That’s a promise Brownlee doesn’t mention in his editorial.

    Is it possible for the Wichita school district to spend less than $370 million on this bond issue? The resolution voted on authorizes the district to issue bonds “in an amount not to exceed $370,000,000.” It doesn’t say the district is required to spend that much. Further, no time limit is specified. Either of these two courses are permissible.

    Mr. Brownlee claims that reducing the state aid for school bonds would be unfair, as if taxation is ever fair. Certainly the 49% of the voters who voted against this bond issue didn’t agree with the need to spend $370 million. I don’t think they’d mind if the Wichita school district, in recognition of fiscal realities, decides to spend less than authorized.

    Background:

    Jay Emler, Republican from Lindsborg introduced Senate bill 20, which says, in part: “On and after January 1, 2009, through June 30, 2011, school districts are not entitled to receive payments from the school district capital improvements fund for any general obligation bonds issued on and after January 1, 2009, through June 30, 2011.”

    Kansas Votes will cover this bill here.

  • Tax Collections Rise Without Taxes Rising

    A letter printed in the January 1, 2009 Wichita Eagle, written by a Christopher Brooks of Wichita, argues that political advocacy groups that ask legislators to sign a pledge to not raise taxes are engaging in “economic blackmail.” This process, Mr. Brooks writes, is “unfair to those who have a different viewpoint on spending but also tantamount to having a legislator on a string.”

    Mentioned by this author as groups that ask legislators to sign these purportedly harmful pledges are Kansas Taxpayers Network and Americans for Prosperity — Kansas. These two groups are merging.

    I think this author may not realize that by simply doing nothing, tax revenues rise. Naturally, government spending rises in response.

    Government doesn’t have to “raise taxes” in order to generate more revenue. Many taxes are based on a tax rate multiplied by some level of economic activity. That’s the case with the sales tax. As people spend more — either because their wealth is increasing and they desire to consume more, or maybe simply because inflation has caused prices to rise — sales tax receipts rise. The same goes for income taxes, although with this tax there’s the additional danger that as your income rises, you may move into a higher tax bracket, where the additional money you earn beyond some level is taxed at a higher rate.

    Property taxes are different, as the simple act of owning property is sufficient to attract the attention of the tax collector. These taxes rise pretty much automatically too, when the appraiser decides that your property is worth more.

    This is important to understand: tax revenues rise without the government raising taxes. When running for Sedgwick County Commissioner last year, Karl Peterjohn campaigned on a platform that included the requirement of voter approval for tax increases. His opponent asked if we wanted to hold expensive special elections whenever the county government needed more revenue, implying that these elections would need to be held frequently. But as I’ve shown, revenue rises without tax increases.

    Mr. Brooks also writes that some people may “have a different viewpoint on spending.” That’s one of the biggest problems with government: Many people and legislators are full of ideas of how to spend someone else’s money.

  • The Process Should Be Most Important

    Rhonda Holman’s editorial from yesterday’s Wichita Eagle (Parking plan finally coming together) contains this paragraph:

    A confusing move last week by the Wichita City Council didn’t help build public trust, unfortunately. Without time for public consideration, city leaders added up to $10 million for parking structures to the proposed tax-increment financing plan for the 16-block area around the arena; the council unanimously approved the plan Tuesday. There are good reasons for the council’s action, which simply puts parking in the mix of things that up to $10 million in TIF money can fund in the future along with street improvements, sidewalks, lighting, signage and other basics. But the last-minute handling left much of the public out of the public hearing, raising suspicions that the council sought to slide in the parking dollars under the radar.

    Look at the language here: “confusing move … didn’t help build public trust, unfortunately.” “left much of the public out of the public hearing,” “raising suspicions,” “under the radar.”

    This type of action is corrosive to the democratic process. I think that Ms. Holman realizes that, but she won’t call for the city council to take the proper action, which would be to hold a proper public hearing. No parking facility — indeed, nothing the city could ever build — is so important that it should be approved through this type of process.

  • Just Say It: We Need to Raise Taxes in Kansas

    Rhonda Holman’s Wichita Eagle editorial today (State budget pain must be shared) makes the case for raising Kansas taxes without directly saying so. It’s actually quite artful the way she dodges actually saying what she wants Kansas legislators to do.

    Using language like “Nobody ever wants to raise taxes …” and “Lawmakers also must not forget that they played a role in bringing Kansas to this point … without adding new revenue and by cutting taxes” she makes the case for tax hikes without actually saying the word. She did say this: “But cuts won’t be enough.” That’s pretty close, I guess.

    My question is this: Rhonda, why won’t you just say in plain language that you believe we need to raise taxes in Kansas? Just say it, if you believe it.

  • Bryan Derreberry and the Chamber’s goals for Wichita

    When the head of a chamber of commerce speaks or writes, it pays to listen or read carefully. While chambers are nominally pro-business, that’s a long way from saying they’re pro-liberty. Instead, they increasingly exist to serve a narrow interest. Using words and language like “pride,” “community,” “investment,” and “economic development” — all words that people can agree with, their flowery messages hide their real agenda.

    Here’s an example. In the Wichita Eagle on May 12, 2006, president and CEO of the Wichita Metro Chamber of Commerce Bryan Derreberry wrote as follows:

    If we are serious about advancing our community, then we have to invest in it and take pride in who we are. The Sedgwick County arena can boost excitement and economic development in Wichita, Sedgwick County and the region.

    The arena initiative was a broad-based decision-making effort that offered everyone an opportunity to weigh in with a vote. Sedgwick County is now carrying out what the voters approved with an open and thoughtful process, allowing much input along the way.

    There will always be those who resist change and look for ways to impede progress. But we have an obligation to take care of the community we live in today and make it better for those who come after us.

    First, Mr. Derreberry is confused about the meaning of the word “investment.” In a recent article, Chris Brown tells us the true meaning of investment: “Investment signifies an accumulation of savings through lower present consumption, which will then be used to achieve (potential) profitable returns in the future.” None of this applies to the downtown Wichita arena. It was funded by transferring money from taxpayers to the government. Then, government has no ability to measure profitability, as it is not subject to the profit and loss system that private business must live by. Besides, how does government generate revenue? Through taxation, of course.

    Then, the “broad-based decision-making effort” is certainly a misnomer. The arena passed with 52% of the vote. That’s hardly a mandate. Many people, seeing how the process has been handled since the election, have said they’d change their “yes” vote to “no.”

    Finally, Mr. Derreberry slams those who say “no” to what he wants. That’s a mistake arising from the arrogance of those who believe that they know best how people should spend their money. By saying “no” to these government projects we are saying “yes” to entrepreneurship, limited government, and liberty. These goals, evidently, are not valued by Mr. Derreberry and his organization.

  • On the Wichita Eagle editorial board, partisanship reigns

    The Wichita Eagle’s Rhonda Holman, writing for the editorial board in today’s lead editorial (Where do city, county stand on bond?) makes a few points that illustrate the highly partisan nature of this board.

    Here’s the first example. She complains about lack of transparency in knowing who is contributing to the campaigns for the Wichita school bond issue, writing “It’s frustrating that USD 259 voters must make a decision on the bond issue without knowing who funded the pro- and anti-campaigns. The three groups behind the campaigns could release their donor lists and amounts on their own prior to Election Day …”

    As reported recently by this writer in the post Wichita Eagle Political Contributions: This Year? the Eagle contributed to the pro-bond campaign in the year 2000, and never disclosed that fact to its readers.

    If Rhoda Holman is really interested in promoting transparency of campaign funding, her newspaper could start by stating whether it has made a contribution this year. She could reveal her own personal contribution too, or state that she hasn’t contributed.

    Then, Ms. Holman complains that a candidate for local office benefits from a campaign mailer mailed on the candidate’s behalf by a third party. She doesn’t like the fact that the organization that sent the mailing won’t have to disclose who paid for it, because it’s an educational effort, not an endorsement.

    The reason why it’s an educational effort is because it stops short of saying “vote for ____.” But if the voters get that message anyway, Ms. Holman says “mission accomplished.”

    Now if this situation sounds familiar, it should. This is very much the situation with the campaign surrounding the proposed Wichita school bond. In this case, USD 259 (the Wichita school district) undertakes an educational effort that has precisely the same characteristics of the effort that Ms. Holman complains about. But she conveniently overlooks this.

    There’s one difference, however. We know exactly who is funding the poorly-disguised campaign on behalf of the Wichita school district: taxpayers.

  • Wichita Eagle’s Bob Lutz and the Wichita School Bond Issue

    In his column Cochran has succeeded in spreading anti-bond message, Wichita Eagle sports columnist Bob Lutz argues for the passage of the Wichita school bond issue. This is the same Bob Lutz who, on learning that the Wichita school board might cut some spending on athletic facilities from the bond issue, became “flustered now about how to vote.” (Will Bob Lutz Follow Jeff Davis on the Wichita School Bond Issue?)

    Here’s a huge leap in faith and logic that Lutz makes in his column:

    When I am hit up to pay more taxes, the first question I ask myself is this: Will this better my community.

    To that end, this is a no-brainer. Nothing is more important than our schools.

    What he says that’s true is that schools are important. But they don’t necessarily have to be our schools — that is, schools owned and operated by USD 259, the Wichita school district, and its current board and administration. There are many successful alternatives, which as illustrated in the screening of Flunked the Movie, often cost much less than current public school spending. These alternatives such as charter schools are popular in many places across the country. They’re generally not available so that Kansas schoolchildren may benefit, as our state’s charter school law is so weak and so stacked in favor of those who oppose choice that charter schools are rarely proposed.

    But the biggest leap Lutz makes is the unquestioned and unfounded assumption that more investment in the USD 259 monopoly is what’s best for our community.

    Cochran’s group paid a lot of money to host the screening of Flunked. It paid for Steven Maggi, the producer of the movie, to be in Wichita. I don’t know if Cochran personally invited Lutz to see the movie, but it was advertised and promoted in Lutz’s newspaper. Why, Mr. Lutz, didn’t you attend this movie?

    It’s a good thing that Lutz views the school bond issue decision as a “no-brainer.” Considering his unfounded leaps of logic and unwillingness to look outside the existing education orthodoxy for solutions, it’s a type of decision he’s certainly qualified to make.

  • Wichita Eagle Political Contributions: This Year?

    A Wichita Eagle editorial argues for voluntary disclosure of ballot issue campaign donations, stating: “The groups on both sides of USD 259’s bond election should voluntarily disclose their donations before Nov. 4, rather than hide behind the state’s ridiculous disclosure laws applying to ballot questions.” (“Bond groups should declare donors,” August 28, 2008.)

    If the Eagle’s really interested in openness and transparency regarding political campaign contributions, they could start by revealing their own. In 2000, as part of the campaign for the Wichita school bond, the Wichita Eagle donated $1,000 to Citizens Alliance for Responsible Education, or CARE. That’s the same group that’s backing the bond issue this year.

    That contribution, made on March 6, 2000, wasn’t disclosed in campaign finance reports until November 21, 2000. No one I’ve talked to remembers the Eagle voluntarily disclosing this contribution in either news coverage or editorials.

    A few things have changed at the Eagle since then. There’s a different publisher in charge. There’s even a different owner, as at the time of this contribution the Wichita Eagle was owned by Knight-Ridder. Here’s a sentence from the Knight-Ridder Code of Business Ethics, dated May 2002: “But it is very important to avoid situations that might raise a perception of bias in the context of newspapers’ or other news-gathering units’ responsibilities to report and comment upon such activities.” (You can read the full code at American Society of Newspaper Editors.)

    Whether this contribution had an effect on the Eagle’s news coverage and editorials is unknown. That’s why codes of ethics mention the perception of bias. When a business makes a substantial monetary contribution to a cause and then editorializes about that same cause, that creates a very real possibility of bias. Many would say there’s more than the perception of bias — there’s actual bias.

    This is reinforced by what the ethics code of the Society of Professional Journalists has to say under the heading “Act Independently:”

    Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived.

    Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.

    Under the heading “Be Accountable:”

    Abide by the same high standards to which they hold others.

    Given the Eagle’s past history, here’s what we need to know this year: Has the Wichita Eagle made contributions to any political campaigns, especially to the group supporting the Wichita school bond issue?

    If the Eagle would disclose this, they’d be following their own editorial advice. They’d be holding themselves to the same standards they want others to follow.

  • The Facts the Wichita Eagle’s Mark McCormick Overlooks — Or Twists

    In a recent column (Facts hurt bond issue opponents’ arguments), the Wichita Eagle’s Mark McCormick shows that he’s as adept at overlooking facts and reason and twisting an argument as is anyone.

    For example, McCormick takes some bond opponents to task because they admitted they haven’t been to schools to observe overcrowding. But if opponents don’t disagree that some schools are overcrowded, why should this matter? This is an example of McCormick using an ad hominem attack, meaning he’s attacking the messenger rather than the message and the facts.

    Then, McCormick makes the case that bond issue opponents don’t care enough about Wichita’s schoolchildren to spend an “estimated $1 a week on them.” This argument, derived from the school district’s estimate that the bond issue will cost the owner of a $100,000 home about $42.55 per year, is disingenuous. Bond issue supporters treat this as though it was the total cost of the bond issue, but it leaves out huge costs that someone will pay. A better realization of the cost of the bond issue is to take the annual cost to retire the bond (some $30,000,000, and rising as long-term interest rates rise) and divide it by the number of people living in USD 259. The result — about $95 — represents the true cost of the bond issue. It captures all the increased taxes that businesses and utilities will ask their customers to pay. For a family of four living in that $100,000 house, it’s $380 per year in increased tax burden.

    McCormick also doesn’t want to mention the tremendous resources that USD 259 already has at its disposal. It’s likely that per-student spending this year will exceed $13,000. Spending by USD 259 amounts to $1,927 per year for each person living in the district. That much has to be raised each year in taxation — federal, state, and local — to pay for USD 259’s spending.

    It’s also disingenuous — in fact, it’s a lie — for McCormick to claim that bond opponent don’t care about kids. Just because we may not subscribe to McCormick’s belief that a government monopoly is the best way to educate children, and just because we don’t go along with everything that USD 259 wants, that doesn’t mean that we don’t value education and that we don’t value Wichita’s schoolchildren and their future.

    If McCormick had attended the showing of Flunked the Movie, he would have seen examples of how small reforms in the way schools do things can make big differences. These schools that are successfully teaching children that the public schools failed are not shiny and new. Their classrooms are crowded in some cases. One school doesn’t even have computers for the students.

    But these schools don’t subscribe to the educationist orthodoxy that rules the Wichita school district, and apparently, the thinking of Mark McCormick and the rest of the Wichita Eagle editorial board. It is this thinking and mindset that is the greatest danger to the future of schoolchildren in Wichita.