Voice For Liberty

Category: Kansas state government

  • Wichita legislative forum highlights differences in approach to government spending

    Yesterday over 200 people packed a room at Wichita State University to attend a forum of Wichita-area Kansas state legislators. The meeting was chaired by Representative Steve Brunk, a Republican who represents Bel Aire and parts of far northeast Wichita.

    One of the topics underlying much of the meeting was the subject of tax cuts to business. Proponents of government spending say the state has given up too much revenue by granting tax cuts.

    Sometimes, in case of the business franchise tax, the state levies a tax simply for existing. This tax is being phased out over a five-year period starting in 2007. Government spending interests — including Governor Mark Parkinson — want to reinstate this tax, however.

    There are sometimes disagreements as to what a “cut” means. In his opening remarks, Representative Jim Ward, a Democrat who represents parts of southeast Wichita and is also assistant minority leader, referred to a recent $95 million tax cut given to business, saying this is not a good thing to do when the state needs more tax revenue. Representative Brenda Landwehr, a Republican who represents parts of northwest Wichita, disagreed with Ward’s characterization.

    The program referred to is an expansion of a program that lets companies keep their employees’ Kansas withholding taxes when new jobs are created. Proponents of these types of economic development incentives that are granted through the tax system argue that without the incentive, no jobs would be created, so there would be no new taxes to collect. Therefore, the program is without cost. They also often argue that the new jobs create other economic activity that is taxed, and this is a source of revenue for the state.

    There is ample evidence, however, that these targeted economic development incentives often do not work as intended.

    In answering one question, Landwehr referred to the Health Care Freedom Act. This possible amendment to the Kansas Constitution would allow Kansas to opt out of certain areas of possible federal health care legislation, such as the requirement that citizens purchase health insurance. Landwehr said that the issue goes back to what the Constitution and the Bill of Rights really say. Freedom and liberty are two key words, she said. “If government decides that they should be the one dictating to you what company your health issuance should be with, what benefits you should have or not have, we’re going to have less providers. … We need to be able to make these decisions ourselves.”

    Addressing the number of uninsured in Kansas, Landwehr said that over half are the “invincibles” — young people 18 to 30 years old who choose not to purchase health insurance. Another segment are the underinsured.

    On the recently-passed statewide smoking ban, Brunk read a question that asked “Why is smoking not bad for you in state-owned bars?” Brunk remarked that the questioner probably meant state-owned casinos, to the amusement of the audience. I thought to myself if the state can own casinos, why not bars? And if the state owned bars and taverns, would the smoking ban apply to them?

    Rep. Landwehr criticized the smoking ban based on liberty, freedom, and property rights. She also mentioned problems with the bill regarding how the casino floor air — where smoking is allowed — would be kept separate from the air in the rest of the building. Representative Geraldine Flaharty, a Democrat who represents parts of south-central Wichita, said that the health issues of smoking overrode these issues.

    Education, however, was the topic of interest to many in the audience.

    Representative Joe McLeland, a Republican who represents parts of west Wichita and who is chairman of the House Education Budget Committee, said that education funding is a tough issue. He mentioned the large unencumbered fund balances in Kansas school districts, mentioning specifically that the Wichita school district has $252 million in its fund balances as of December. “Schools have a lot of money,” he said to disapproval of the large number of school spending advocates in the audience.

    McLeland said that schools routinely transfer unspent money from the general fund — which can’t be carried forward to the next year — to other funds. These other funds generally fall into the category of restricted funds. Schools continually remind everyone that money in these restricted funds can’t be spent with the same degree of flexibility that money in unrestricted funds can. This is part of an effort by schools to treat restricted funds — which according to recent Wichita school district presentations are 59.5% of the district’s spending — as though they don’t exist and shouldn’t be counted as part of school spending.

    McLeland said that this week he will introduce legislation that will reduce the number of funds from 27 to five and will prohibit transferring general fund dollars to restricted funds, including capital building funds.

    McLeland also said that state law requires school districts to spend 65% of their budgets in the classroom. Since the state average is about 55%, McLeland said schools are not following this law.

    Uniform accounting is a new law passed recently, McLeland said. With 293 school districts in the state, each reporting numbers differently, it is difficult to compare budgets.

    McLeland also referred to the voluntary efficiency audits that school districts could participate in. The Derby school district is the only local school district that participated. The audit found that Derby instructional services spending was above average for its peers, but teacher salaries were below the peer average. McLeland said that the reason for this surprising finding couldn’t be determined due to the lack of standard accounting and reporting.

    Representative Judy Loganbill, a Democrat who represents parts of east and southeast Wichita and who is also a Wichita school teacher, asked the rhetorical question “how often do you visit a school?” She mentioned the battle between unencumbered and encumbered funds. “Approximately 60 percent of a school’s budget must go to certain places. It has to. … What’s left over is where we get the unencumbered funds. … When you’re looking at your unencumbered funds, that’s where your salaries come from.”

    She also mentioned the difficulty of determining what constitutes spending in the classroom. Things like transportation, utilities, books, materials — all are essential to schools, she said. She also mentioned the need to produce highly qualified and educated students to lead us into the next generation. She said that businesses don’t come into our state because of the employee withholding tax break discussed above, but because of quality of life issues like schools, good roads, and safe neighborhoods.

    After a short break so that many of the legislators could leave to attend a funeral of a former legislator, Representative Kasha Kelley of Arkansas City gave an overview of the Kansas budget and the budget process.

    A question to her referenced the large number of unemployed in Kansas. If tax breaks to business are such a good deal, why are there so many unemployed? Rep. Jim Ward expressed similar sentiment earlier. A proper answer to this question is that yes, there are large numbers of unemployed in Kansas at this time. Our unemployment rate is lower than the nation’s, however, and we should be grateful for that. Furthermore, we don’t know what our jobs situation would be if taxes on business had not been reduced. Since taxes in all forms are a drag on jobs creation, it is certain that there would be fewer jobs in Kansas if not for some tax reductions.

    Also, some of the tax breaks given are quite small in relation to the state budget. In 2007, which is when the franchise tax reductions started, that tax brought in about $4.6 million. To place this number in some context, in February alone the state fell $71 million short of projected revenue.

    Another questioner who identified himself as a former family business owner and a teacher for 12 years questioned the effectiveness of tax abatements and breaks on job creation.

    One questioner criticized the state’s economic forecasts, calling for an honest assessment, perhaps by different company. It has been the case that over the past year or so, actual revenues have been significantly less than forecast. Brunk responded that the projections are developed by economists from state universities. It should be noted that economic forecasting is very difficult, and very few people foresaw the tremendous decline in the nation’s and state’s economies. If someone could forecast these things with certainty, they could make trades in financial markets that would generate very high returns.

    Analysis

    Regarding the claim that business tax cuts are costing the state too much lost revenue: The problem with this analysis is that it presumes that the government has first claim on the income of businesses — and people too, for that matter. Those who believe in the principle of self-ownership, meaning that people own themselves and the things they produce, have a problem with this attitude.

    I fully agree with the critics of targeted tax breaks. The state, as do all governments, has a poor record of being able to choose which companies or class of companies should benefit from special tax treatment and subsidy. A report by the Division of Legislative Post Audit from 2008 found that “it’s difficult to accurately assess the results of economic development expenditures.” Overall, the report was skeptical of the expenditures on economic development and its ability to produce jobs.

    The school spending lobby, hungry for more tax dollars, refuses to acknowledge simple facts. The existence of the unspent fund balances is vigorously disputed, even though Kansas Deputy Education Commissioner Dale Dennis has said that schools can use these funds if they want. This is contrary to school spending advocate and Kansas school board member David Dennis in his flawed Wichita Eagle op-ed.

    The schools also have no explanation for why the unspent balances in the funds grow rapidly, from $74 million to $94 million over the last four years for the Wichita school district. Instead, the schools would rather be left alone and unaccountable. Hopefully some initiatives in the legislature, such as the common accounting requirements, will lead to greater transparency and accountability.

    The school spending lobby must also face the fact that the Kansas state achievement tests, which show large increases in school performance, are almost certainly fraudulent, as is the case in most states. The link between the huge increase in Kansas school spending and these test scores is used as an argument not to cut schools spending.

    We also saw again the school spending lobby’s claim that restricted funds don’t count, as though schools are totally hamstrung when it comes to this money.

    The contentiousness in the audience between the school spending lobby and the rest of the audience should lead us to question why we turn over such an important matter to government.

  • Kansas historic preservation tax credits: the hearing

    On Wednesday, the Taxation Committee of the Kansas House of Representatives heard testimony on HB 2496, which would expand the historic preservation tax credit program. This program provides tax credits to qualified historic preservation projects. I testified at the hearing, and my written testimony is at Kansas historic preservation tax credits should not be expanded.

    The idea of tax credits confuses some people. Some may confuse credits with a tax deduction. Some may believe that tax credits are given out at no cost to the state. But in fact, the tax credits are quite costly. As I told the committee members, if the state grants a tax credit, and then does not reduce state spending by the amount of the tax credit, other taxpayers in Kansas have to make up the difference.

    That’s one of my core reasons for opposing the tax credits. Since the state does not — and is not likely to — reduce spending by the amount of credits granted, the result is a transfer of money from Kansas taxpayers to the recipients of the credits. But even if the state did reduce its spending, the result would still be a implied decision by the state that it can better decide how to spend money than its citizens can.

    Besides this, the arguments of those in favor of the historic preservation tax credits are self-serving and in some cases misleading. Some of the conferees are involved in projects that were to receive tax credits. They are not happy now that they may not get them.

    Other conferees were local units of government such as Dale Goter, lobbyist for the City of Wichita. Wichita has a big stake in the tax credits, as the renovation of the Broadview Hotel is on hold because the developers may not receive the tax credits. The developers and the city claim that the project is not economically feasible without the tax credits. We don’t really know whether this is true. When government subsidy is available, people have a way of designing project budgets in a way the requires the subsidy. Why would someone turn down free money?

    It should also be noted that the tax credits the Broadview developers are seeking — perhaps $3 million to $4 million — are on top of many millions in subsidy the city has already approved.

    The arguments of other conferees must be questioned. Brenda Spencer of Wamego, who owns a preservation consulting business, told of a project in Leavenworth that will house a company employing 400 people. This results, she said, in an annual payroll of $26 million, with resultant tax dollars flowing to the state and local government.

    The problems with this illustration of the purported success of the historic preservation tax credit program are these: Would the jobs not have been created unless there was a historic property to house the workers? Could the workers work somewhere that wouldn’t require tax credits? These jobs: are they new jobs? Were the workers formerly unemployed, or did they leave other jobs to work in the historic building? To the extent that happened, the jobs, with their tax payments to the state, can’t be counted as new.

    Christy Davis, owner of another preservation consulting firm, testified that since 2001, the tax credit program has leveraged $264 million in private dollars, which she said is a 400% return on investment for the state. The problem with this analysis (it was made by others, too) is that it assumes that none of the projects would have proceeded if not for the tax credits. It credits the program as being the only reason why this activity took place. This is undoubtedly false.

    Further, this analysis treats the state as though it were the owner of these properties. That isn’t true, either.

    Davis also testified that since work on historic buildings is 50% more labor intensive than new construction, the tax credit program has the effect of a jobs creation program. I doubt that the developers of historic preservation projects see creating a lot of jobs as a benefit. To business, workers are a cost to be controlled, not a benefit to be expanded. If the state wants to view historic preservation as a jobs creation program — meaning that more jobs are better than fewer jobs — let the state mandate that, say, power tools can’t be used on these projects. Then even more workers will be needed.

    Can we also agree that owners of firms that profit from a government program qualify as a special interest?

    Goter, Wichita’s lobbyist, also stated in his written testimony: “The return on investment for the public dollar spent on historic renovation is totally recovered in a 10 year span from increased property taxes alone. That return is shared by local and state governments through their respective mill levies.”

    This statement reveals the flaw in the reckoning used by government in making economic development calculations. To government, the return is in the form of increased tax revenue. Many citizens don’t view things the same way. For government to make an investment of taxpayer funds just so it can receive even more tax revenue is appealing to government bureaucrats and politicians who want to expand their sphere of influence and control. But not so much for everyone else.

    For me a lesson I learned from the hearing is how easily those who consider themselves fiscal conservatives can become derailed by programs like this. Olathe Representative Arlen Siegfreid, a member of the Taxation Committee as well as Speaker Pro Tem of the Kansas House of Representatives, offered written and oral testimony in favor of this bill.

    Support of this bill is at odds with his stated positions. On his personal website, under the heading “Fiscal Responsibility” appears this sentence: “However, particularly in times of economic peril, sometimes the ‘wants’ we’ve fertilized with ample resources grow to become ‘needs’ and our well intentioned investments in promising ideas and programs become the dangerous government growth that each candidate swears to defend against at all costs on the campaign trail.”

    The historic preservation tax credit program, as reported in an audit recently completed by the Legislative Division of Post Audit, has grown tremendously from its initial cost. The audit, titled Kansas Tax Revenues, Part I: Reviewing Tax Credits, identifies the historic preservation tax credit as a program that the legislature may want to re-evaluate, as the program is significantly more expensive than originally planned. The fiscal note that accompanied the tax credit legislation when passed in 2001 and revised in 2002 reported an estimated annual cost of $1 million. In 2007, the actual cost was $8.5 million.

    This is an example of a government spending program growing out of control — the type of “dangerous government growth” Siegfreid mentioned above.

    Siegfreid’s website also states: “My subsequent re-elections affirm that notion, and I’m now more committed than ever to reducing the strain government and it’s [sic] failed policies are placing on individual taxpayers — and our local businesses.”

    As mentioned above, when the state grants tax credits, other Kansas taxpayers have to pay more taxes to make up the shortfall in revenue. This is an example of the type of strain Siegfreid says he is against.

    Finally, Siegfreid has authored a tax simplification bill, stating that “Kansas tax policy is too complicated.” Tax credits are an example of increasing complexity of the state’s tax code.

  • Kansas historic preservation tax credits should not be expanded

    Testimony to be delivered to the Kansas House Taxation Committee.

    The Kansas historic preservation tax credit system should not be expanded beyond its current limit.

    We must recognize that a tax credit is an appropriation of Kansans’ money made through the tax system. If the legislature is not comfortable with writing a developer a check for over $1,000,000 — as in the case with one Wichita developer — it should not make a roundabout contribution through the tax system that has the same economic impact on the state’s finances.

    While I would not recommend writing checks to developers, this practice would be more efficient than the current system of subsidy through the tax system. Last month the Legislative Division of Post Audit (audit 10PA03.1) found that the system is not efficient: “Our review showed that, on average, when Historic Preservation Credits were transferred to generate money for a project, they only generated 85 cents for the project for every dollar of potential tax revenue the State gave up.”

    Furthermore, the Department of Revenue has not been tracking the tax credits accurately, significantly under-reporting the cost of the program to the legislature. The audit found that “Finding problems like these in a relatively small sample raises questions about the integrity of the Department’s tax credit information.”

    The confusing nature of tax credits leads citizens to believe that they have no cost to the state. A leader of an economic development group in Wichita recently asked questions of me that lead me to conclude that he did not understand the economic effect of tax credits.

    The program often ends up being welfare for the wealthy. In Wichita the tax credits have been used to renovate a building with condos selling for $300,000 to $950,000. A current case would have a developer in Wichita receive over $1,000,000 for rehabbing apartments that will rent for $1,000 to $2,000. Perhaps $3 million to $4 million will go to the developer of a hotel in downtown Wichita.

    We should recognize that living or working in a historic building is a premium amenity that one chooses, just like one might choose granite countertops in their kitchen. We shouldn’t expect others to pay for these voluntary choices.

    In Wichita, many of the projects where historic preservation tax credits are sought are already receiving other forms of subsidy, such as TIF financing and property tax abatements.

    Some have said that the tax credits put people to work on projects. I would suggest that when Kansans keep their own money — instead of subsidizing wealthy developers — they spend or invest it in ways that they feel best advances their position in life. This too is economic activity that creates jobs.

    I have more material about this issue at my website “Voice For Liberty in Wichita” at WichitaLiberty.org. Along the top, click on “Search” and search for historic tax credits for more information. Or, please contact me by email or telephone and I will send you articles.

  • Strange happenings in Kansas at Washington Days

    As reported by Martin Hawver in Hawver’s Capitol Flash:

    Lobbyists were talking about one of the stranger receptions that they’ve attended in recent memory: one organized by [Kansas Governor Mark] Parkinson to introduced lobbyists and political operatives to Tom Holland, D-Baldwin City, who is seeking the governorship.

    Strange: Lobbyists weren’t asked for checks, weren’t pressured, just given a chance, for free, to talk to Holland and learn more about him. That isn’t often done in Kansas.

  • Kansas long-term debt on the rise

    On Saturday in Arkansas City, Kansas House Member Kasha Kelley gave an overview of the Kansas budget. One of the topics she presented was the rise in long-term debt issued by the state.

    I investigated, and found these figures from the Kansas Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for 2009. As you can see, the debt in Kansas has been rising.

    Kansas long-term debt per person

  • AFP-Kansas launches website about tobacco taxes

    Following is a press release from Americans for Prosperity, Kansas chapter.

    TOPEKA, KAN. – The Kansas chapter of the grassroots group Americans for Prosperity is working to educate Kansans on the effects of tobacco tax increases on Kansas businesses by creating a new Web site, StopTheWarOnSmokers.Com.

    Gov. Mark Parkinson last month proposed a cigarette tax increase of 55 cents per pack, raising the rate from its current 79 cents per pack to $1.34 per pack.

    “History has shown us that raising the cigarette tax has not increased the revenues coming into the state over the long run,” said AFP-Kansas state director Derrick Sontag. “There may be an initial boost, but with nearby states like Missouri only adding a 17-cent tax per pack, more Kansas smokers are likely to cross the state line to purchase cigarettes.

    “This means Kansas retailers are losing out on those sales, as well as the sales of other items smokers may purchase when buying tobacco products.”

    Economist Patrick Fleenor of Fiscal Economics has prepared a study, “Masters of Tax Avoidance: Kansans and the Cigarette Excise, 1927-2009,” which outlines the state’s history of taxes on tobacco. It illustrates the problems the state runs into when taxes are raised too high on items such as cigarettes, and the lengths to which citizens will go to avoid paying that additional tax.

    “In looking at our state’s history with cigarette taxes, it is apparent raising these taxes does not serve as a deterrent from smoking,” Sontag said. “It also makes little sense to try to raise revenues from cigarettes when just yesterday the Kansas Legislature approved a ban on smoking in public places.

    “Additionally, we know the revenues have dwindled not long after the cigarette taxes increased in the past, so it’s simply unwise for our state government to depend on such an unreliable revenue stream.”

    For more information on Kansas cigarette/tobacco taxes, or to read Fleenor’s study, visit www.stopthewaronsmokers.com.

  • Your Kansas Tax Dollars: Efficient, Effective & Targeted?

    Following is a press release concerning an event of interest this Saturday in Arkansas City.

    Arkansas City (February 16, 2010) – “In any economy, but especially our current economy, the use of tax dollars is an issue every Kansas taxpayer should be interested and involved in. As we visit with citizens, we’re finding they do not truly understand how their state tax dollars are spent. Unfortunately this makes it difficult for them to participate in the discussion over how to solve our state’s fiscal crisis, and we certainly want and need their input. We are excited about the opportunity to have a broad public dialogue regarding use of tax dollars,” said Steve Abrams and Kasha Kelley, 32nd District Senator and 79th District Representative respectively.
    (more…)

  • Kansas sales tax exemptions don’t hold all the advertised allure

    Advocates of eliminating sales tax exemptions in Kansas point to the great amount of revenue that could be raised if Kansas eliminated these exemptions, estimated at some $4.2 billion per year. Analysis of the nature of the exemptions and the amounts of money involved, however, leads us to realize that the additional tax revenue that could be raised is much less than spending advocates claim, unless Kansas was to adopt a severely uncompetitive, and in some cases, unproductive tax policy.

    Tax exemption policy is an important economic policy matter. A recently-released study by the Kansas Legislative Division of Post Audit is titled Kansas Tax Revenues, Part II: Reviewing Sales Tax Exemptions. In its background discussion, the report noted “the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion that tax exemptions and tax deductibility are a form of subsidy that is administered through the tax system. A tax exemption has much the same effect as a cash grant to the organization of the amount of tax it would have to pay on its income.”

    Sometimes these tax exemptions are issued to specific organizations. Others are issued to organizations that fall within certain categories. In this case, the exemption is like an entitlement, granted to any organization that falls within the scope of definition of the exemption. Some exemptions are for categories of business activity that shouldn’t be taxed.

    It’s this last category that is important, because of the large amount of economic activity that falls within its scope. An example is exemption 79-3606 (m), described as “Ingredient/Component parts: Of items manufactured or produced for sale at retail.” The audit report estimates that for 2009, this exemption cost the state $2,248.1 million in lost sales tax revenue.

    But this exemption isn’t really an “exemption,” at least if the sales tax is a retail sales tax designed to be levied as the final tax on consumption. That’s because these goods aren’t being sold at retail. They’re sold to manufacturers who use them as inputs to products that, when finished, will be sold at retail. Most states don’t tax this type of sales. If Kansas decided to tax these transactions, it would place our state’s manufacturers at a severe disadvantage compared to almost all other states.

    There are two other exemptions that fall in this category of inputs to production processes, totaling an estimated $461 million in lost revenue.

    Another big-dollar exemption is “items already taxed” such as motor fuel. This is an estimated $232.5 loss in revenue. Two other categories of exemptions are purchases made by government, or purchase made by contractors on behalf of government. Together these account for an estimated $449.9 million in lost revenue. If these two exemptions were eliminated, the government would be taxing itself.

    All told, these six exemptions account for $3,391.5 million of the total $4,234.2 million in exemptions for 2009. That’s about 80%.

    So $4.2 billion has shrunk to $842.7 million. That’s still a lot of money, but not near as much as spending advocates would like to have Kansans believe is lying in wait just for the taking.

  • Smoking ban advocate says some claims just smoke

    In Kansas, accurate information is sometimes in short supply when talking about smoking bans. From Kansas Watchdog:

    Opponents to a statewide total smoking ban say anti-tobacco advocates are playing a little loose with their facts.

    They have an unlikely ally in Michael Siegel, a medical doctor and professor of community health sciences at Boston University’s School of Public Health. He’s a long-standing anti-tobacco advocate, a proponent of smoking bans and a strong critic of bad science.

    In a story published Feb. 18 on his weblog, “The rest of the Story: Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary,” Seigel wrote, “It is irresponsible to disseminate conclusions that are not supported by any scientific evidence, especially if that information will be used to infringe upon the freedom, autonomy, and rights of individuals.”

    Read the entire story at Smoking Ban Advocate Says Some Claims Just Smoke.

    Additional coverage of recent legislative testimony on this issue is at Fuzzy “Facts” vs Freedom in Smoking Ban Debate and Smoking Ban Bill Causes Controversy in House Committee.