Author: Bob Weeks

  • What does Success Mean for President Obama?

    Today’s Wichita Eagle editorial is typical of many that wish our new president success — for the good of the nation, of course.

    What, however, does success for President Obama mean? There are two (or more) ways that success might be realized.

    One definition of success is that President Obama is able to lead our nation into a long period of peace and prosperity.

    A second definition is that he is able to implement the items and programs on his agenda. This agenda includes things like quick implementation of an economic stimulus program, but also longer-term goals such as nationalization of health care and cap-and-trade to reduce carbon emissions. The problem is that these things, I believe, will be harmful to our country.

    So how can we wish President Obama success in implementing harmful programs?

  • Wichita School Board Races Need Candidates

    Here’s a letter from citizen activist John Todd, encouraging residents of USD 259, the Wichita school district, to consider running for and serving on its board. As of this morning, one incumbent and one other person have filed.

    With the passage of the $370 million dollar bond and with USD 259’s budget in excess of $600 million dollars, I believe there is a need to elect school board members that will create an academic climate that will provide the educational environment necessary for our young people to prepare themselves for the modern world. At the same time we need to elect people that will provide the accountability and stewardship needed to protect taxpayer dollars.

    Four seats on the USD 259 school board are up for election. The filing deadline is January 27, 2009 at 12:00 noon. The primary election for school board candidates is March 3, 2009 with the general election on April 7, 2009. The filing fee for a candidate is $5.00 plus a $35.00 report fee.

    Sometimes I think we fail to realize the size of our local school district USD 259 when compared to other local governmental units. The city of Wichita’s budget is $495 million and Sedgwick County’s budget is $400 million. With a $600 million budget, it is imperative that we elect people that not only posses the necessary skills to effectively educate our children, but at the same time possess the skills needed to effectively manage the huge amount of taxpayer resources under their trust.

  • GPACE “Sunflower” Questions Misleading

    The website of the Great Plains Alliance for Clean Energy contains a list of ten questions for Sunflower supporters.

    (It seems if you’re an environmentalist, the term “Sunflower” is enough to let you know what these questions are about. For normal Kansans, though, they’ll need a little more information. These questions refer to Sunflower Electric Power Corporation and its proposed expansion of the Holcomb Station coal-fired power plant. Or, simply, “the coal plant.”)

    When I read these questions, they reminded me of questions used in push polls. These questions — not really questions at all — are designed to produce a change in the views of the respondent. They are often based on a false premise, but sound reasonable or tenable. That’s the case with many of these ten questions.

    For example, here’s the first question: “How is the use of our scarce (and hard earned) water resource to produce electricity for Colorado good economic policy for western Kansas?”

    Now if you didn’t know much about this issue, you might conclude these things from this question: That the plant will use a lot of additional water that Kansas can’t spare, that western Kansas exists only to serve the selfish interests of Colorado, and that exporting electricity to Colorado isn’t a benefit to Kansas.

    Here’s some of the things wrong with this question: First, the premise that the power plant will use a lot of water is false. That’s because the plant has to purchase water rights for the water it will use. If the power plant didn’t use this water, it would likely be used in agriculture, probably irrigating corn to be fed to cattle or turned into ethanol.

    Besides, the water usage of the plant is very small compared to the use of water in Kansas agriculture. My post Holcomb, Kansas Coal Plant Water Usage in Perspective explains.

    Then, what’s bad about exporting power to Colorado or other states? Don’t we in Kansas spend a lot of effort producing oil, natural gas, wheat, beef, and airplanes just for export to other states? How is electricity different? Has Kansas started a trade war with Colorado?

    It’s true that the Wichita Eagle’s Rhonda Holman complained that the plant would export power “while leaving Kansas with 100 percent of the carbon dioxide.” (See Untruths About Carbon and its Regulation at the Wichita Eagle) Her complaint is based on a false premise. I know of no authority — not even Al Gore — that believes that carbon dioxide pollution is a problem in the local vicinity of a power plant. To the extent that carbon emissions are a problem — and that’s a mighty big “if” — it’s a problem on a global scale.

    Some of the other questions posed by GPACE have similar problems. This technique of pushing questions based on false premises does nothing to promote reasoned discussion of issues in Kansas.

  • Analysis: The Sebelius Court

    Somehow, notice of a few things slipped by.

    First is the excellent Kansas Supreme Court Blog. I don’t know who is writing this blog, but it contains a great deal of information about its narrow topic.

    Second: From this blog I learned that the lawyer that Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius recently appointed to the Kansas Supreme Court was the “architect of the Montoy case.” That case is often referred to simply as the Kansas school finance lawsuit.

    Third, I also learned from this blog that “for the first time in its history a majority of the Justices of the Supreme Court will have been appointed by one Governor.”

    Read all about it in the post Analysis: The Sebelius Court.

  • Wind power: look at costs of “boom”

    There’s been a lot of investment in Nolan County, Texas. Things are booming.

    That’s pretty much the entire point of an op-ed piece in the Wichita Eagle by Scott Allegrucci. (Money Blowing in the Wind in Texas, January 16, 2009)

    He’s the director of the Great Plains Alliance for Clean Energy, based in Topeka. This organization’s website states that “GPACE seeks to correct an imbalance in the information citizens and their elected representatives have received regarding the critical and complex energy policy decisions facing our state.”

    If that’s really GPACE’s goal, Mr. Allegrucci didn’t advance it in this piece. That’s because he promotes the benefits of spending on wind energy without considering the true cost of wind energy. Further, he ignores the tremendous subsidy poured into wind energy production.

    Last year the Texas Public Policy Foundation released a report titled Texas Wind Energy: Past, Present, and Future. This report contains information about the realities of wind power. It provides the balance that GPACE says it seeks to provide but fails to deliver in Mr. Allegrucci’s op-ed.

    For example, did you know that every bit of wind power that’s produced receives a subsidy? Last year, as the subsidy was about to expire, wind power advocates warned that without the subsidy, wind power production would cease. No new plants would be built. It’s these subsidies that have created the growth in Nolan County that Allegrucci writes about. These subsidies produce some peculiar incentives. From page 25 of TPPF’s report:

    The financial handouts available to wind developers are so generous that, in Texas, many wind-energy producers “will offer wind power at no cost or even pay to have their electricity moved on the grid, a response commonly referred to as ‘negative pricing.’ Wind providers have an incentive to sell power even at negative prices because they still receive the federal production tax (PTC) credit and renewable energy credits.”

    Directing subsidies of any type into a concentrated area produces the results described by Allegrucci in this county. There’s nothing remarkable about that. But what about the rest of Texas? From the executive summary of the TPPF report:

    The distinction between wind and wind energy is critical. The wind itself is free, but wind energy is anything but. Cost estimates for wind-energy generation typically include only turbine construction and maintenance. Left out are many of wind energy’s costs — transmission, grid connection and management, and backup generation — that ultimately will be borne by Texas’ electric ratepayers. Direct subsidies, tax breaks, and increased production and ancillary costs associated with wind energy could cost Texas more than $4 billion per year and at least $60 billion through 2025.

    It’s a common error, assuming that since no one owns the wind, wind power is free once the turbines are built. That’s far from the case, though. Page 23 tells us this:

    The true cost of electricity from wind is much higher than wind advocates admit. Wind energy advocates ignore key elements of the true cost of electricity from wind, including: (i) The cost of tax breaks and subsidies which shift tax burden and costs from “wind farm” owners to ordinary taxpayers and electricity customers. (ii) The cost of providing backup power to balance the intermittent and volatile output from wind turbines. (iii) The full, true cost of transmitting electricity from “wind farms” to electricity customers and the extra burden on grid management.

    The reality is that the boom in Nolan County is being paid for by electricity customers throughout Texas. Not by their choice, too.

    When considering wind power, balance requires us to consider these factors. The illustration that a concentrated area experiences a boom from a subsidized, expensive, and unreliable source of power doesn’t paint a picture of sound public policy.

  • Meet Ken Thomas, Wichita City Council Candidate

    I received this invitation to meet Wichita city council candidate Ken Thomas this Saturday. If other candidates for this office (or other offices) have events they’d like to publicize, please notify me. My contact page is here.

    Ken Thomas for City Council
    Vote to get Wichita Working Again

    It takes all of us to make beneficial changes in our City. You can begin by joining us in a show of support for our candidate Ken Thomas for City Council.

    We would like to invite you and your friends to come by to meet Ken Thomas for City Council.

    Saturday, January 24, 11:00 am.
    Broadview Hotel
    400 W. Douglas, Wichita Kansas
    (316) 409-5330

    Ken believes that. . .
    Our streets, roads and bridges need repair.
    We are losing jobs to other cities due to failed economic incentives.
    Increasing tax dollars are being spent on inefficient plans and duplicated efforts.
    For a true “people’s court,” Municipal Court judges should be elected by and accountable to the people, not city officials.
    Opposes the use of eminent domain to take our property and giving it to a private developer.

  • Minimum Wage: Helpful? Or Not?

    What’s one of the barriers to advancement by minorities in the workplace? We’re told that the minimum wage law is a guarantee that workers will not be exploited by greedy employers. But does it really work that way? Art Carden writes this in his article The Minimum Wage, Discrimination, and Inequality:

    Milton Friedman openly argued that minimum-wage laws are racist in effect if not intent; in the early 1960s, he pointed out that, as a result of higher minimum wages, black teenage unemployment was much higher than it would otherwise be. Denied the opportunity to earn incomes and to acquire valuable skills, those adversely affected by the minimum wage were not allowed to share in the general prosperity that a market economy produces. Empirical evidence reported by economists David Neumark and William Wascher suggests that among the long-run effects of minimum wages are lower degrees of educational attainment, less on-the-job training, and lower lifetime earnings.

    Minimum wage laws are one of the many examples of how well-intentioned policies meant to help people actually hurt them.

    More coverage of this issue on the Voice For Liberty in Wichita may be found in these articles:
    Unintended But Foreseeable Harms of the Minimum Wage
    Problem of Low Wages Not Easily Solved
    The Descent of The Good Column
    In Central-Northeast Wichita, Government is Cause of Problem, Not Solution

  • Leave the New Deal in the history books

    Saturday’s Wall Street Journal contains an editorial (Leave the New Deal in the History Books) that contains a summary of the effect of the New Deal:

    President Roosevelt came to office much as Barack Obama will, shouldering an economic crisis that began under his predecessor. In 1933, Roosevelt’s first year, unemployment hit nearly 25%, as people lost jobs and homes in towns across the country. Believing that government played a key role in restarting growth, FDR, within his first 100 days as president, created an alphabet soup of new agencies that mandated actions or controlled public spending and impacted private capital flow within the U.S. economy.

    At first, it seemed to be working. After four years of FDR’s policies, joblessness declined to 14.3% — still very high but heading in the right direction. Then things turned for worse again: By the fall of 1937, the U.S. entered a secondary depression and unemployment began to rise, reaching 19% in 1938.

    By 1939 Roosevelt’s own Treasury secretary, Henry Morgenthau, had realized that the New Deal economic policies had failed. “We have tried spending money,” Morgenthau wrote in his diary. “We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. … After eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. … And an enormous debt to boot!”

    Mark Levey, the author of this editorial, argues that New Deal spending programs and higher taxes prolonged the Great Depression. Government “work” programs don’t work.

    What should we do? Mr. Levey says: “The quickest way to strengthen the credit system and begin the end of this crisis is to get money into the economy for true job creation, and not into government work programs. The way to do this is to slash taxes. … Capital flows would be in the hands of those who are driven to build businesses and permanent jobs efficiently instead of pushing that capital through a government pipeline with endless amounts of friction.”

  • Kansas Has Too Much Local Government

    Following is a press release from the Flint Hills Center for Public Policy regarding the high number of government employees in Kansas. This problem has been known for some time. In 2005, Alan Cobb of Americans For Prosperity noted that in the past five years “Kansas has lost 16,700 private sector jobs while the government sector actually added 15,000 jobs.”

    Kansas Has Too Much Local Government
    State Ranks 49th for Residents-Per-Government Efficiency

    (Wichita) — Newly elected Speaker of the House Mike O’Neal is calling for consolidation of local government services in Kansas, based on a lack of efficiency and high costs to taxpayers. The Flint Hills Center for Public Policy agrees with his suggestion.

    While Kansas’ population has increased at 17.4% since the 1980 census, local government employment has increased by 65%. According to Flint Hills Center President Dave Trabert, “If local government employment had grown proportionally to population, taxpayers would be spending $2.2 billion less per year on pay and benefits.” The Bureau of Economic Analysis says Kansas had 184,280 local government employees in 2007, compared to 111,660 employees in 1980. If local government employment growth had matched the population growth of 17.4%, we would have had 131,138 employees in 2007, or 53,142 fewer employees.

    According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Kansas has 2,084 general-purpose governments (cities, townships and counties) serving 2,775,997 residents. That’s an average of 1,332 residents per government, compared to a national average of 7,725. That ranks Kansas 49th in the nation (including the District of Columbia). Only North Dakota and South Dakota rank lower than Kansas.

    Speaker O’Neal is right on target. As the economy continues to suffer a downturn and state funding remains tight, now is the time to enact reforms that increase efficiency, decrease costs and reduce the burden on taxpayers.