Voice For Liberty

Category: Wichita and Kansas schools

  • Gambling for education

    In a free society dedicated to personal liberty, people should be able to gamble.

    With gambling, though, there are fairly predictable costs that arise. Because of the variety of social services that our government provides, many of these costs are borne by the public as a whole. In other words, allowing people the freedom to gamble also means that many others must pay to clean up the mess that some will make of their lives. This cost outweighs the benefit of the freedom to gamble. If we could isolate the harm that problem gamblers cause so that everyone else wouldn’t have to pay to fix it, that would be a different matter.

    Even if we could isolate the harm from gambling to those who choose to gamble, innocent victims are harmed — the children of pathological gamblers, for example.

    Those who wish to gamble should be able to do so, then, if the harm the problem gamblers cause can be contained. But our state provides so many social services that containing the cost is likely impossible.

    If we are to allow gambling in Kansas, we should not tax it in the way being proposed. Why? If casinos in Kansas are successful, they will generate a lot of tax revenue. The government becomes dependent on that tax revenue, and thereby forms a de facto partnership with the casinos. It will be in the state’s interest to have more gambling. The state will likely advertise and promote the casinos, just as it advertises and promotes the Kansas lottery.

    We should also keep in mind that the amount it seems like casinos might generate ($150 million per year is a figure I often hear) is a relatively small amount. Kansas tax revenue for fiscal 2005 was $4,632.5 million, so revenue from casino taxes might be about 3.2% of total Kansas tax revenue. But the real percentage is even less, as total spending by the state that year was over $10,813 million, so the amount raised from gambling is less than 1.4% of Kansas total spending. The incremental gain — what really matters — is even less, as much if not all of the money spent gambling is money that would have been spent elsewhere, likely generating tax revenue for the state there.

    Of course, this money is for the children, as casino advocates say. We must have casino gambling so that our children can be properly educated, they say. But money is fungible. To say that money arising from a specific source only benefits a given cause is illusory. It makes as much sense as saying the money I earn on Monday and Tuesday goes to the mortgage payment, the money earned on Wednesday for food, Thursday for retirement, etc.

    So the real question, then, is do we want to unleash on this state the problems of casino gambling for the vanishingly small benefits it may bring? That is, if we can somehow control and contain its social costs? For me, the answer is “no.”

    Some Research on Gambling

    If you are interested, a good article to read is an excerpt from The Business-Economic Impacts of Licensed Casino Gambling in West Virginia: Short-Term Gain but Long-Term Pain. Some quotes:

    From a business-economic perspective, the main issue involved in legalizing various forms of gambling is whether gambling activities constitute a valid strategy for economic development. While the dollars invested in various legalized gambling projects and the jobs initially created are evident, the industry has been criticized for inflating the positive economic impacts and trivializing or ignoring the negative impacts (Goodman 1994). The industry’s tendency to focus on specialized factors provides a distorted view of the localized economic positives, while ignoring the strategic business-economic costs to the state as a whole (such as West Virginia) and to different regions of the United States (California Governor’s Office 1992, Kindt 1995). In 1994, all of the various experts who testified before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Small Business criticized the impacts that casino-style gambling activities inflict upon the criminal justice system, the social welfare, system, small businesses, and the economy (Congressional Hearing 1994). Utilizing legalized gambling activities as a strategy for economic development was thoroughly discredited during the hearing.

    In recent economic history, legalized gambling activities have been directly and indirectly subsidized by the taxpayers. The field research throughout the nation indicates that for every dollar the legalized gambling interests indicate is being contributed in taxes, it usually costs the taxpayers at least 3 dollars– and higher numbers have been calculated (Politzer, Morrow and Leavey 1981; Better Government Association 1992; Florida Budget Office 1994). These costs to taxpayers are reflected in: (1) infrastructure costs, (2) relatively high regulatory costs, (3) expenses to the criminal justice system, and (4) large social-welfare costs (Illinois Governor’s Office 1992). Accordingly, several state legislators (e.g., in South Dakota) have called for at least partially internalizing these external costs by taxing all legalized gambling activities at a straight 50 percent tax rate.

    Specifically regarding education, which is a driving force for considering gambling at this moment.

    Gambling activities and the gambling philosophy are directly opposed to sound business principles and economic development. Legalized gambling activities also negatively affect education– both philosophically and fiscally (Better Government Association 1992; Clotfelter and Cook 1989). Adherence to a philosophy of making a living via gambling activities not only abrogates the perceived need for an education, but also reinforces economically unproductive activities (and is statistically impossible since the “house” always wins eventually). In states with legalized gambling activities which were initiated allegedly to bolster tax revenues to “education,” the funding in “real dollars” has almost uniformly decreased.

    From the conclusion:

    Increasingly, taxpayers and businesses are beginning to realize that, as Professor Jack Van Der Slik has summarized for much of the academic community, state-sponsored gambling “produces no product, no new wealth, and so it makes no genuine contribution to economic development” (Van Der Slik 1990). Business-economic history supports this proposition. The recriminalization of gambling activities occurred 100 years ago after a brief gambling boom following the Civil War. Most state legislatures utilized constitutional provisions to recriminalize gambling, because lawmakers wanted to make it as difficult as possible for future generations to experiment with the classic “boom and bust” cycles and the concomitant socioeconomic negatives occasioned by legalized gambling activities. To paraphrase Georg Hegel’s common quote, “those who forget the lessons of economic history are condemned to relive them” (Bartlett 1968).

    Even the supporters of gambling concede there are social costs. In a report prepared for the Wichita Downtown Development Corporation and avaible to read by clicking here, we read: “At a cost of $13,586 in social costs for each [pathological gambler], the annual burden on the community could range between $71 and $106 million.” Of course, these costs are offset by benefits, the study says. These costs are not just dollar costs, however. They are human costs paid in suffering, often by innocent family members of the problem gamblers.

    Politicians’ Confusing Attitudes Towards Gambling

    The attitude of some politicians is quite confusing. For example, as reported in The Wichita Eagle on June 16, 2005, regarding Senator Donald Betts:

    Sen. Donald Betts, a Wichita Democrat, said he is aware of gambling’s social impact, having grown up in Las Vegas.

    “Beyond the neon, there was a grim reality of what gambling does to a community,” he said.

    Still, he said, he likely would support a gambling bill if it is brought up next week.

    “In my district, I believe it’s a lot better choice than increasing taxes,” Betts said. “My constituents are calling me and asking me, when are we going to get the casinos?”

    (If I were as clever as Rush Limbaugh, I suppose I might make some crack about what a guy named Betts thinks about gambling.)

    There are other examples of politicians saying they know there is a downside to gambling, but we’re going to have it anyway, they say.

  • How children lose in the Kansas Legislature’s special session

    USD 259 (Wichita) public schools superintendent Winston Brooks plans to use the majority of the anticipated increase in school funding to reduce class size. Evidence cited in other articles on this website show that smaller class sizes don’t produce better educational outcomes for students.

    Because the conventional wisdom is that smaller class sizes are good for students, the extra money and smaller class sizes will be saluted as a victory for the children. Editorial writers, school administrators, teachers, and those who don’t care to confront facts will thank the Kansas Supreme Court and Kansas Legislature for saving the children.

    The sad fact is that this seeming victory, a victory which does nothing to help children, will delay desperately needed reform for another year. In all likelihood reform will be delayed even longer, as if the legislature accedes to the court’s demand this year, it may also do so next year, when the court has called for even more spending.

    Who benefits from smaller class size? The teachers unions do. Smaller class sizes mean a lighter workload for current teachers. More teachers (paying more union dues) need to be hired, as is the plan in Wichita.

    But as mentioned earlier, smaller class size doesn’t help the students. That’s the danger in spending more on schools. It seems like the additional money should help the schools, and those who procure the money are treated as heroes. This illusion of a solution delays the reform that is badly needed.

    What would truly help children? Overwhelming evidence points to school choice. As Harvard economist and researcher Caroline M. Hoxby said about the school voucher program in Milwaukee:

    From 1998-1999 onwards, the schools that faced the most competition from the vouchers improved student achievement radically–by about 0.6 of a standard deviation each year. That is an enormous, almost unheard-of, improvement. Keep in mind the schools in question had had a long history of low achievement. Yet they were able to get their act together quickly. The most threatened schools improved the most, not only compared to other schools in Milwaukee but also compared to other schools in the state of Wisconsin that served poor, urban students.

    Milwaukee shows what public school administrators can tell you: Schools can improve if they are under serious competition.

    Why, then, don’t we have school choice in Wichita? The teachers unions and education establishment are against it. They don’t want to face the same type of free market forces that the rest of us face. They are in charge of educating children, they tell us they are doing the best they can, that everything they do is for the children and only the children, but they oppose desperately needed reform.

  • Kansas Attorney General Has it Right

    TOPEKA — Alan Cobb, director of the Kansas chapter of the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, today released the following statement in response to the briefs filed in the State vs. Montoy case currently before the Kansas Supreme Court:

    “As questions and concerns swirl about whether or not the Kansas Supreme Court can order a statewide tax increase, we applaud Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline for putting this issue to rest.

    In a brief filed yesterday with the court and in response to questions from reporters, AG Kline said clearly that the Kansas Supreme Court does not have the authority to impose taxes or raises the current level of taxation.

    From the summary of the brief filed by the Attorney General:

    “The Kansas Constitution Prohibits the Supreme Court from Raising Taxes and Prohibits any Expenditure from the State General Fund from Occurring Unless Authorized by Laws Passed by the Legislature.” (emphasis added)

    The bottom line is that the Legislature has the responsibility to tax and to fund schools appropriately. They’ve met that burden.

    The Kansas Legislature and the Attorney General understand that our state’s taxpayers suffer the 15th worst state and local tax burden in the nation as a percentage of income. That’s an even heavier tax burden than citizens in the notoriously high-tax states of California and Massachusetts must carry! Also, our ranking this year is twice as bad as it was 20 years ago, when we ranked a much better 31st.

    “The short-term solution to over-taxation in Kansas is for the legislature to continue rejecting any and all proposed tax increases, and the long-term solution is the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights. If Kansas had implemented a Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights in 1992, taxpayers would have received $1.1 billion in tax rebates and reductions and we would have squirreled away $1.4 billion in Rainy Day funds that would have offset the budget shortfalls that occurred during the recent economic downturn. And Kansas taxpayers would have a little more money in their pockets as they file their taxes this week.”

  • Tax funds finance Kansas school finance lawsuit

    Contributed by Kansas Taxpayers Network

    By Karl Peterjohn

    There might not be funds for public school classrooms but for 15 Kansas school districts there is money for financing lawsuits. Since the 1998-99 school year, $2,095,020 has been spent in public funds to pay for the school finance litigation and lawsuit.

    This outrage is a classic case of the school districts biting the state’s hand that fed the 300 Kansas school districts with over $2.7 billion in state funds. Of course, the state does not have any money that it has not taken from taxpayers so you and I pay our taxes to the schools and to the state paying for both the plaintiffs and defendants in this legal battle.

    A portion of that money is taken by these school districts and then used to sue for more spending that will require higher taxes. Sadly, Kansas already has the highest property taxes on business in our five state region as well as the second highest taxes on homeowners too so this litigation worsens our tax climate.

    This is not a new event. The school finance lawsuits stretch back into the late 1980’s. The lead attorney on the most recent lawsuit, Alan Rupe, has been involved in all of these cases going back to the 1980’s. The 15 school districts misusing their tax funds to finance these lawsuits are led by the Salina and Dodge City public schools. The other school districts financing this litigation are: Arkansas City, Augusta, Derby, El Dorado, Emporia, Fort Scott, Great Bend, Hays, Independence, Leavenworth, Manhattan, Newton, and Winfield (For a listing of the tax dollars spent for these lawsuits between 1998-to-2005 see www.kansastaxpayers.com).

    If the legislative conservatives were serious about addressing the litigation crisis in Kansas public schools these expenditures would be stopped. This misuse of tax funds for trial attorneys should stop immediately. Any school finance legislation passed by the Kansas legislature that does not address this abuse of taxpayer funds is a disgrace.

    Last year the Topeka public schools faced a financial scandal when it was revealed that roughly $1/2 million had been paid to pay fraudulent checks in central Asia. The schools had such lax financial controls that numerous bogus checks got paid. The schools continued to operate despite this long distance financial flim-flam. Sadly, the mainstream Kansas press outside of Topeka has largely ignored this scandal and treated it as an isolated event.

    This is another indication that there are plenty of funds available for financing Kansas public schools. The latest federal data indicate that Kansans, despite having lower than average incomes, are paying substantially more than the national average for our public schools. Kansans are paying more per pupil than for public schools in our neighboring states too. Higher expenditures mean higher taxes. Being a high tax state is one of the reasons that Kansas has suffered the largest reduction in private sector jobs during this century according to federal data.

    If the school districts can continue to litigate their way to higher taxes and spending by misusing tax dollars, the future of this state will be grim. Lawsuits promoting higher government spending and higher taxes will drive jobs and businesses to taxpayer friendlier states.

  • Frisky Flunkies in Atchison County

    From Karl Peterjohn, Kansas Taxpayers Network

    The Wall Street Journal’s “Tony & Tacky” section mentioned one Kansas school district on the day the Kansas senate was debating the largest one-year state spending hike for public schools in this century and according to one legislator, in state history. The $127 million increase in state spending would be in addition to the current $2.7 billion the state is already spending. School districts in Kansas are already spending millions of dollars to lobby the legislature, promote student and school employee contacts to try and influence legislators, and sue the state over school finance. School superintendents, like Wichita’s tax ‘n spend Winston Brooks, have been busy at speaking appearances promoting public school spending growth in excess of $1.4 billion.

    In the 1980’s the Kansas City, Missouri schools spent well over a $1 billion proving that throwing tax money at the public schools did not improve student achievement or educational quality. This school district, which has an pupil enrollment similar to Wichita’s, spent all this money and still saw student test scores dropped.

    A wise philosopher warned, “Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Kansas is continuing to try and emulate the Kansas City, Missouri public schools spending policy.

    Kansas spending for public schools that includes all state, local, and federal tax funds has far exceeded inflation during the last dozen years and now tops $4 billion (KTN has posted at www.kanstaxpayers.com school KS Department of Education finance data on all Kansas public schools from the late 1980’s through the 2003-04 school year). There are slightly less than 445,000 public school students in Kansas. The brief article cited below from today’s Wall Street Journal provides some clues as to more important educational problems than simply throwing taxpayers’ money at the schools and hoping that some of it sticks. Let’s hope that Kansas follows Atchison High School’s policy instead of Atchison County’s D- plan.

    The Wall Street Journal said:

    Tony & Tacky

    Friday, March 25, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST
    FRISKY FLUNKIES: Right now, students in Atchison County, Kan., need a C average in order to participate in extracurricular activities. As of next year, however, even a D-minus average will be good enough. A district school board in northeastern Kansas voted last week to lower its threshold after asserting that efforts to determine eligibility under the C rule were distracting teachers from their job of helping pupils learn. Not everyone is buying that argument. Terrance Jordan, the principal and sports director of Atchison High School–which, despite its name, is in a different district–told the March 16 Atchison Daily Globe that his school is considering stricter guidelines: “We’re here to educate kids; extracurricular activities are a bonus. . . . Kids have to be able to do what they’re asked to do before they can play.”

  • KNEA Tax Plan Would Hurt Kansas

    From our friends at the Kansas Taxpayers Network.

    KANSAS TAXPAYERS NETWORK
    P.O. Box 20050
    Wichita, KS 67208
    316-684-0082
    FAX 316-684-7527
    www.kansastaxpayers.com

    March 1, 2005
    Editorial For Immediate Release

    KNEA TAX PLAN WOULD HURT KANSAS

    By Karl Peterjohn

    The powerful and left-wing National Education Association’s Kansas affiliate is working hard to raise your taxes. In a February Olathe News article Terry Forsyth, one of the Kansas National Education Association’s (KNEA) lobbyists, is quoted claiming that there is no correlation between taxes and job growth.

    Obviously Mr. Forsyth seems unfamiliar with high tax and high spending states like New York that have lost jobs and population as people have repeatedly voted with their feet and moved to states with lower taxes and limits on tax growth. Colorado has enjoyed massive economic and population growth since their lid on higher state and local taxes was enacted roughly 15 years ago. The Colorado Taxpayer Bill Of Rights (TABOR) has been a critical factor in helping that state succeed economically and allowed income to grow faster than taxes there.

    This KNEA lobbyist claims that job losses in the private sector would be more than offset by roughly doubling the number of jobs working for government. That’s a paradigm for inefficiency and another excuse for government “make work” programs. That didn’t work in the 1930’s during the Great Depression in this country and it didn’t work as an engine for economic growth in the old Soviet Union either.

    The Wichita based Flint Hills Center for Public Policy’s econometric model estimated that income and sales tax hikes proposed in 2004 by Governor Sebelius would cost this state at least 4,500 private sector jobs. Sadly, this model could not factor in the additional job losses proposed by the governor’s plan to raise the state’s property tax by 10 percent. Governor Sebelius continues to push for higher Kansas taxes at the statehouse.

    Governor Sebelius’ proposed hike in state property taxes is occurring at a time of soaring appraisals as well as millage increases. Property tax hike proponents are hurting this state’s economy daily, and this problem is getting worse with the automatic property tax hikes caused every spring. In addition, Kansans’ average income already lags well below the national average but our per pupil school spending is well above both the national and the amounts spent in neighboring states. In the 2004-05 school year, the average public school student will cost taxpayers $10,162 according to the most recent Kansas Department of Education budget figures. This is a large increase over the 2003-04 spending of $9,235 and the first time the statewide average went into five figures.

    The KNEA lobbyist took the position that all taxes should be raised to meet the Kansas Supreme Court’s mandate on school finance. This is a blatant attempt to mislead Kansans since the court did not issue any such requirement to raise taxes. It’s not there. The court’s decision is less than five pages long and can be found at: www.kscourts.org/ kscases/supct/2005/20050103/92032.htm. You should go on line and make up your own mind by reading this court’s edict.

    Governor Sebelius wants to raise Kansas taxes to help the various spending lobbies in Kansas. Kansas government is too large today. Any tax increase to expand Kansas government is like taking your 400 pound friend out to your local donut shop. Kansas cannot tax itself wealthy or spend ourselves rich.

    ######

    Karl Peterjohn is a former journalist, California state budget analyst, and executive director of the Kansas Taxpayers Network.

  • Court Sets Trap for Legislature

    I received the following, which I thought was interesting, so I present it. I do not entirely understand the author’s argument, so if anyone can help me understand, I would appreciate it.

    Kansas Legislative Education And Research
    827 SW TOPEKA BLVD TOPEKA, KS 66612
    PHONE: 785 233 8765 EMAIL: ks klear@swbell.net

    Contact: Bob L. Corkins

    Court sets Trap for Legislature

    The Bait:

    “The Kansas Constitution thus imposes a mandate that our educational system cannot be static or regressive…

    “…there is substantial competent evidence, including the Augenblick & Myers study, establishing that a suitable education, as that term is defined by the legislature, is not being provided.”

    “…we need look no further than the legislature’s own definition of suitable education to determine that the standard is not being met under the current financing formula.”

    “…the legislature has failed to “make suitable provision for finance” of the public school system as required by Article 6 § 6 of the Kansas Constitution.”

    “It is clear increased funding will be required…”

    The Snare:

    The Supreme Court requires additional funding and implies that the legislature must do so because constitutional standard of “suitable education” has not been achieved. Increasing funding for this reason would be like walking into a trap.

    Did the Supreme Court say the constitution requires “suitable education”?

    *No*

    The Court said the constitution requires “improvement’ and that the legislature has interpreted this to mean
    “suitable education”.

    The Court merely asserts that Article 6 refers to an improving educational system.

    The Court itself is not making the connection, it’s just claiming that the legislature has interpreted “improvement’ ‘to mean “suitable education”.

    The Court does not even explicitly say it agrees with the legislature’s alleged interpretation.

    Is there anything in the Kansas Constitution that requires a minimally acceptable level of education quality?

    No

    All the Court’s references to minimum quality standards are to those now set (or may have at one time been set) by the legislature, not by the constitution.

    The Court repeatedly states that the legislature failed to satisfy its own standards, not that the legislature failed to satisfy any constitutional standard.

    A statutory standard does not equate to a constitutional entitlement.

    The constitution’s mandate for “improvement” logically refers to students’ opportunity for personal self ‘improvement as compared to their ability to do so in the absence of public schools.

    Suitable education indeed, even uniformly excellent education is a worthy and legitimate public policy goal even if it is not compelled by the state constitution.

    To Avoid the Trap:

    Financing must be increased, but do not do so because current funding violates any constitutional “suitable education” standard.

    All current, and all future, statutory definitions of “suitable education” must make abundantly clear that the legislature is not defining the term as the result of a constitutional mandate, and that “suitable education” is distinct from the true constitutional mandate of “suitable provision for finance”.

  • Latest Federal School Finance Spending Revealed

    Here is an article from the Kansas Taxpayers Network that reports on school spending: http://www.kansastaxpayers.com/editorial_fedschool.html.

    On Saturday February 12, 2005 I attended a meeting of the South Central Kansas Legislative Delegation. Lynn Rogers, USD 259 School Board President, and Connie Dietz, Vice-President of the same body, attended. There has been a proposal to spend an additional $415 million over the next three years on schools. Asked if this would be enough to meet their needs, the Wichita school board members replied, “No.”