Voice For Liberty

Category: Kansas state government

  • Kansas Smoking Ban Conflicts Wichita’s

    Here’s a letter the Wichita Eagle printed from Wichita businessman Craig Gabel.

    There are many reasons to oppose more smoking bans. The posts Testimony Opposing Kansas Smoking Ban, Haze Surrounds Wichita Smoking Ban, Property Rights Should Control Kansas Smoking Decisions, and It’s Not the Same as Pee In the Swimming Pool supply some background.

    The issue that Craig mentions is important. Just last year some establishments such as his spent a great deal of money to install the equipment necessary to conform to the smoking ban that Wichita passes. Now, if a comprehensive ban passes at the state level, this investment is lost. There needs to be some provision for these businesses to be exempted or compensated.

    By the way, did you know that the state exempted itself from the smoking ban when it appeared that it might hurt the state’s pocketbook? See Kansas Exempts Itself from Onerous Regulation.

    Charlie Claycomb has compared a smoking section in a restaurant to a urination section in a swimming pool. Claycomb needs to come and speak with those of us who have spent thousands of dollars remodeling our restaurants this past year to comply with the city of Wichita’s smoking ordinance.

    If lawmakers don’t want smoking, they should have the guts to outlaw smoking everywhere, as well as the sale of cigarettes. They know that if they did, their tenure in office would be limited to the next election. We don’t need any more liberal politicians pushing special-interest agendas and eating away at our personal freedoms “for our own good.”

    CRAIG GABEL
    Wichita

  • Legislative forum tomorrow

    Here’s a post by the Wichita Eagle’s Deb Gruver about a legislative forum to be held tomorrow. In my experience, these can be useful meetings for citizens to attend. To find the Marcus Center, click here to view WSU’s page for it and a map.

    Members of the south-central Kansas area legislative delegation will be available for questions at a forum Saturday.

    The forum will be from 9 a.m. to 11 a.m. Saturday at the Marcus Welcome Center at Wichita State University.

    Legislators will answer questions from the public and discuss the current session in Topeka. The forum is free and open to the public.

  • We really don’t know what Kansas taxes should be — except lower

    Today’s edition of the Kansas Jackass blog has a post written by Jason Croucher that criticizes Americans For Prosperity because the group doesn’t like taxes.

    That’s not quite accurate, as Croucher himself says he doesn’t like paying taxes. Instead, the post seems to argue that we have to pay taxes because they’re there, and we don’t know whether they’re too high, and anyway, we can’t identify and agree on what is waste, so let’s just pay. Something like this, anyway. But there are a few problems with this post that deserve discussion.

    He likens paying his cable television bill to paying taxes. This analogy is false on several levels.

    First, subscribing to cable television is a voluntary act. A company offers a service, a person decides to buy, and therefore becomes a customer. The customer — and the company, too — can decide to sever the relationship whenever and for whatever reason the parties have agreed to.

    That’s not the way taxes work. There’s nothing voluntary about the relationship between state and taxpayer.

    Then he says that he doesn’t know whether his cable bill and taxes are too high — his emotions make him feel like they are — and how there’s no rational reason for thinking they should or could cost less.

    As it turns out, there is a rational reason why a cable bill is what it is: competition provided through markets. It hasn’t been this way until recently, but now you can get television service in several ways besides free over-the-air broadcasts: cable TV, satellite TV, and in many areas, TV provided by the telephone company. These three service providers compete with each other on the basis of price and service. (This doesn’t include services like hulu that show television programs over the Internet.)

    For most of the things that government does and taxes us to pay for, government is the sole source. Even for areas where there are alternatives, such as private schools, many people can’t afford to pay their taxes and private school tuition at the same time, so government is almost like the sole source. And even if a family decides not to use the government schools, they still have to pay the same taxes just as through they used them. Companies operating in markets can’t compel their customers to do that.

    Furthermore, competition provides a built-in incentive to control waste, something that Croucher seems to think is desirable to control in government, if we could come to agreement as to the definition of waste.

    In private industry, the profit and loss system provides a powerful incentive to control waste. At the minimum, being efficient while satisfying customer needs leads to greater profits. Its strongest incentive, however, is survival: those firms that are wasteful die.

    What happens to wasteful government programs? President Obama campaigned on ending wasteful earmarks, but signed a bill containing 8,500 such earmarks. He did say this is the “end to the old way of doing business,” but I don’t think anyone believes him. Or ask George Will about the mohair subsidy.

    The automatic pruning of inefficient or wasteful companies through markets and the profit and loss system saves consumers from having to do with a grocery store what Croucher wants us to do with Kansas government: come up with a list of “waste.”

    So government, as we see, is largely immune from the pressures of a marketplace. So Croucher is correct on one respect: we don’t know what our taxes should be.

    But we can be positive that they’re too high.

  • More support for Proposition K in Kansas

    About the only people who don’t like Proposition K are people dependent on government for their revenues. Here, a press release from the Flint Hills Center for Public Policy tells of two organizations who have endorsed Proposition K. There may be some who note that these two organizations, being involved in the real estate business, benefit from lower property taxes. Two things: First Proposition K doesn’t necessarily mean lower property taxes. Instead, it means more predicable taxes, with decisions to increase the tax rate being made in the open and with public input. Presently, property taxes increase by stealth, as the appraiser drives by and decides your property is worth more.

    Second, many businesses, especially commercial landlords, are able to pass on increased property taxes directly to their tenants, which increases their costs and the prices they must charge consumers.

    Wichita Associations Endorse Proposition K

    (WICHITA) — Proposition K, the initiative to replace the Kansas system for assessing property taxes on real estate, continues to gain momentum as it is being studied by the Legislature. The Wichita Area Builders Association (WABA) and the Kansas chapter of Certified Commercial Investment Members (CCIM) have formally endorsed the proposed legislation.

    “The proposed Prop K legislation is long overdue,” according to Wess Galyon, President/CEO of WABA, “and should be supported by anyone who has a desire to see a methodology put in place that promotes predictability in terms of what a person can expect their property taxes to be in subsequent years, greater transparency and elected official accountability in relation to decisions made to increase taxes beyond the annual 2% that would be allowed by the legislation, and can provide a benchmark in relation to efforts to curb excessive and wasteful government spending.”

    Brent Stewart, President of the Kansas CCIM chapter, also cites serious problems with the current system. “We have long recognized the inequities in our present system of property taxation. Proposition K is a serious attempt to correct the problems of our present system and establish a system that is both predictable and provides that political leadership be more accountable to the voters when raising property taxes.”

    Proposition K, introduced this legislative session by Rep. Steve Brunk (R-Bel Aire) seeks to stabilize property taxes in Kansas and make local government budgeting more transparent for taxpayers. Yet Proposition K places no limits on the ability of elected officials to raise revenue or balance budgets.

    Dave Trabert, President of Flint Hills Center for Public Policy, a leading proponent of Proposition K, is “very pleased with the growing public support for Proposition K, not only from organizations like the Wichita Area Builders and Kansas CCIM but also from individuals who are visiting www.PropositionK.org and attending public forums. Most taxpayers want more predictability and transparency in their property tax system and we will continue our grassroots education efforts to explain how Proposition K can satisfy their demands.”

    Over the last 10 years (1997 to 2007), property taxes statewide have increased 83%. Residential property taxes are even worse, with a 119% increase in total collections. There simply is no good reason for these outrageous increases. It’s not driven by a need to serve more people; Kansas’ population has only grown 7% over that same period. It’s not inflation; the Consumer Price Index increased about 2.5% per year. It’s the appraisal process.

    The statewide average mill rate has increased 10% over the last ten years, but appraised values (on all property) have jumped 66%. These two moving parts of the current system have generated an 83% tax increase. Proposition K offers a viable alternative to the appraisal process that drives unpredictable property taxes.

    It’s a simple plan that will apply to all classes of real estate except agricultural land, which has its own set of rules under the Kansas Constitution. “Proposition K: A Better Property Tax System for Kansans” is the subject of a study conducted by Dr. Art Hall, Executive Director of the Center for Applied Economics at the University of Kansas and is published by the Flint Hills Center for Public Policy at www.flinthills.org. Proposition K is supported by the Kansas Building Industry Association, Kansas CCIM (commercial realtors), Wichita Area Builders Association, and Americans for Prosperity; several other organizations are expected to join the coalition in the near future.

    Proposition K uses 3 key elements to replace the tax-related appraisal system on real estate:

    1. On a specific date (January 1, 2010 in the legislation) current property values become fixed as the so-called “baseline value.” (Property owners will always have the ability to appeal.)
    2. Each property’s baseline value increases by 2% each year. Properties never revalue for tax purposes unless substantially improved or altered. Upon sale, the new owner inherits the annually-adjusted baseline value of the property.
    3. To preserve fairness and promote simplicity, the plan applies to new construction, substantial alterations to existing structural improvements and re-classified land the average per-square-foot annually-adjusted baseline values of nearby properties.

    A new web site at www.PropositionK.org explains the plan, provides downloads of Dr. Hall’s study and other information, offers a forum for citizen comments and includes a means for individuals to indicate whether Proposition K should be adopted.

  • Kansas Fed-Up with High Taxes

    Here’s a press release from the Kansas chapter of Americans For Prosperity reporting on the results of a poll about taxes and spending in Kansas.

    Interestingly, the poll found that a majority of lower-income Kansans are opposed to higher taxes on high income earners. This goes against the theme of some authors, including Thomas Frank, the author of the book “What’s the Matter with Kansas,” who argue that working-class people should vote their pocketbooks. Meaning, of course, soak the rich.

    Study Finds Kansas Fed-Up with High Taxes and Wasteful State Spending

    Lower-Income Residents Oppose Tax Hikes, Even if They Don’t Pay

    TOPEKA — A new survey by the free-market grassroots group Americans for Prosperity finds that 57 percent of Kansans believe the state’s taxes are too high, with 51 percent disapproving of the way the state legislature handles budget and tax issues. When asked to identify the most important issue in state budgeting, 43 percent identified wasteful spending on programs that do not work.

    “Kansas taxpayers have simply had enough,” said Derrick Sontag, state director of the Kansas chapter of Americans for Prosperity. “Legislators must work to address wasteful government spending before they even consider raising taxes on Kansas families and businesses.”

    The survey also finds that lower-income Kansans oppose higher taxes, even if they are not forced to pay them. A solid 60.3 percent of respondents earning under $30,000 rejected the idea of raising taxes on others.

    Respondents also rejected the idea of taxes that are paid for by working poor and lower income groups, with a decisive 91 percent opposing the taxes.

    The survey was conducted by Voter/Consumer Research, and is based on the responses of 613 registered voters across the state, conducted by telephone Jan. 28- Feb. 2 of this year. The margin of error is +/- 4 percent.

    The complete national and state results can be viewed at www.americansforprosperity.org/tax-survey.

  • AFP Day at the Capitol, 2009 edition

    AFP Day at the Capitol, March 9, 2009

    Yesterday about 125 citizen activists gathered in Topeka for Americans For Prosperity Day in Topeka. About 45 left from Wichita on a bus at 6:00 am.

    The morning and early afternoon sessions included speakers such as Congresswoman Lynn Jenkins, Earl Watkins, President & CEO of Sunflower Electric Power, Ray Merrick, Kansas House Majority Leader, Dr. Art Hall, Executive Director of the Center for Applied Economics at the University of Kansas, and Senator Tim Huelskamp.

    The afternoon rally in on the capitol’s south lawn started just as the rain did. (Click here for photos, or here for an automatic sideshow.) The rain didn’t dampen the spirits of the protesters. Even Jason Croucher of the Kansas Jackass blog attended.

  • You picked a fine time to leave us Kathleen

    Musical commentary about Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, recently nominated by President Obama to become Secretary of Health and Human Services. Kansas Representative Bill Otto performs.

  • Another inept Kansas smoking analogy

    In today’s Wichita Eagle, Wichita busybody Charlie Claycomb makes another inept analogy in an attempt to press his anti-smoking agenda statewide.

    A while back he tried to compare a smoking section in a restaurant with a urinating section in a swimming pool. This is ridiculous to the extreme, as I show in the post It’s Not the Same as Pee In the Swimming Pool.

    Now in today’s letter in the Eagle, Claycomb says that although the United States Constitution gives us the right to bear arms, since that right is heavily regulated, government has license to regulate smoking, as smoking isn’t mentioned at all in the Constitution.

    Here’s why this is another ridiculous analogy (without conceding the regulations on arms are justified or effective): A person in, say, a bar that’s carrying a gun can’t be detected as you enter the bar. You just can’t tell upon entering an establishment whether someone has a concealed gun and intends to cause harm to patrons. This is the case even if there’s a law prohibiting carrying guns into bars, and even if the bar has a “no guns” sign.

    But you sure can tell if people are smoking.

    Smoking ban supporters might argue that since there may be smoking in some establishments, my rights are being infringed since I can’t patronize those places without exposing myself to harmful smoke.

    That’s true. But there’s definitely no right in the Constitution to be able to go everywhere you want on your own terms.

    By the way, did you know that Claycomb is treasurer for Wichita city council candidate Janet Miller? Expect more nonsense like this if she is elected.

    “Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest.” — John Stuart Mill

    “Whenever we depart from voluntary cooperation and try to do good by using force, the bad moral value of force triumphs over good intentions.” — Milton Friedman

  • Kathleen Sebelius: taxation and contributions

    Here’s summaries of some information about Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, recently nominated by President Obama to become Secretary of Health and Human Services:

    Michelle Malkin’s blog has a summary of Sebelius’ tax increase proposals over the years. Click on Meet new HHS nominee Kathleen Sebelius — or rather, Kathleen Taxelius.

    At the Kansas Meadowlark, read about Sebelius’ connection to a late-term abortion provider. Click on Summary of Gov. Sebelius, Dr. George Tiller, ProKanDo PAC information.

    From the Voice For Liberty in Wichita, coverage of the Cato Institute‘s ranking of Sebelius compared to governors of other states. Click on Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius Scores Low Again. “In the Cato Institute’s Fiscal Policy Report Card on America’s Governors for 2006, Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius earns the grade of “D.” She earned the same grade on their previous survey.”