Voice For Liberty

Tag: Economics

  • Wichita HOME program has negative consequences

    Tomorrow the Wichita City Council will consider a program designed to boost the sale of newly-constructed homes. While this program was undoubtedly developed with good intentions, government intervention almost always has many other effects other than the desired effect. Unfortunately, many of these unintended consequences have a negative impact, often far exceeding the good that the program might create.

    In this case, the City of Wichita has developed a program called New HOME (New Home Ownership Made Easy). The crux of the program is to rebate Wichita city property taxes for five years to those who buy newly-built homes.

    The program would run from March 1, 2012 through December 31, 2013, and would be limited to the first 1,000 new home buyers. There are some qualifications, most notable being the requirement that special assessment and general taxes must be current. On a new home valued at $200,000, with the city mill levy at approximately 32, the city property taxes — and therefore the rebate — would be about $736 per year. City documents estimate the value of the rebate to a homeowner, over five years on a $200,000 home, to be $3,873.

    Unintended consequences

    This program has several negative consequences that should lead the Wichita City Council to reject this program.

    First, by making qualifying newly-built homes more attractive, existing homes are devalued, and will be more difficult to sell. This is an unfair burden placed on existing homeowners who may want to — or need to, in the case of many Boeing employees — sell their houses.

    Second, there is the “Cash for Clunkers” effect. That program, in which the federal government offered incentives to buyers of new cars, is widely recognized as a failure. There were very few new sales. All people did was time their already-planned purchases of new cars to fall within the time frame of the government program. It is likely that a similar effect will happen in Wichita.

    Related to this is the question as to how much new activity this program will induce. Often government takes credit for all economic activity that takes place. This ignores the economic activity that was going to take place naturally — in this case, new homes that are going to be built even without this subsidy program. According to data compiled by Wichita Area Builders Association and the WSU Center for Economic Development and Business Research, in 2011 462 new homes were started in the City of Wichita. The HOME program contemplates subsidizing 1,000 homes in a period of 22 months. That’s a rate of 545 homes per year — not much more than the present rate of 462 per year. But, the city has to give up collecting property tax on all these homes — even the ones that would be built anyway.

    What we’re talking about is possibly inducing a very small amount of additional activity over what would happen naturally and organically. But we have to subsidize a very large number of houses in order to achieve that. We need to recognize the costs of this program based on the marginal activity it may induce, not all activity.

    Third, government intervention into the housing market is widely recognized as one of the major factors leading to the present financial crisis and recession. While the proposed program in Wichita is not on the same scale, it still presents the same hazards: People induced to buy a more expensive home than they can really afford. Eventually, reality catches up, with disastrous effects.

    Also, this program has a very real cost. City documents say the program will not have a “direct cost” to the city, but recognizes an opportunity cost in the form of lost future tax receipts. I welcome the city’s use of the term “opportunity cost,” as it is an important concept in economics. This is the first time I recall the city explicitly recognizing this concept.

    In this case, consider the new homes that will be built but not contribute property tax to the city: Will these homes ever require police or fire protection? Will they ever ask for any other city services? Providing these services is indeed a direct cost, and one for which the city is not collecting property taxes as payment.

    If you want to argue that this program is in fact without direct cost to the city, why not offer this benefit to anyone who buys a home in Wichita, new or existing? If the city were to consider reducing its spending specifically in response to the costs of this program, that would be a positive factor. But government spending almost always rises, despite claims by city officials that budgets have been cut. Wichita city government spending will undoubtedly rise during the period of this property tax rebate program.

    Finally, a principle of taxation is that everyone pays equally. Tax policy should be applied uniformly to all citizens. But this program creates a special class of homeowners who do not have to bear their full share of the cost of city government.

    The negative consequences of this program, when balanced against the likely very small positive effect, should lead the Wichita City Council to reject this program.

  • Modern-day students and attitudes towards government

    Recently Economics Professor Jack Chambless of Valencia College in Orlando asked his college students to write an essay “explaining their definition of the American Dream and what they expected the federal government to do to help them achieve their version of this dream.”

    The results are shocking, to say the least. Here’s what Chambless explained during an appearance on Fox New Channel (video here or below).

    “About 10% of the students said they wanted the government to leave them alone and not tax them too much and let them regulate their own lives. But over 80% of the students said that the American dream to them meant a house, and a job, and plenty of money for retirement and vacations and things like this. When it came to the part about the federal government, eight out of ten students said they wanted free health care, they wanted the government to pay for their tuition, they wanted the government to pay for the down payment on their house, they expected the government to ‘give them a job.’ Many of them said they wanted the government to tax wealthier individuals so that they would have an opportunity to have a better life.”

    On his website, Chambless wrote: “One student who thought her American Dream could be best achieved with more government regulations went so far as to say, ‘We all know that there are many bad side effects when regulations take place, but as human beings, we are not really responsible for our own acts, and so we need government to control those who don’t care about others. It makes sense that our freedom is reduced every day with the new regulations.’”

    Chambless blames the public schools, in large part, for failing to teach principles of the right to “life, liberty, and property,” but also that the government doesn’t have the responsibility for providing that.

    Chambless also said that 44 percent of Americans are receiving some form of government benefit, as compared to 29 percent in the early 1980s.

  • Kansas and Wichita quick takes: Wednesday January 11, 2012

    A legislator would do this? In his At The Rail column, Kansas statehouse reporter Martin Hawver speculates that even routine procedural votes, as well as votes in committee, may be material for campaign ads and mailers in this election year. “You’ve seen the mailings in election years, you know, the ones with a photo of a few lines apparently ripped from the official journal of the House or Senate. The scrap is always tilted a bit to make it more visually interesting. And, by gosh, that bit of an official document almost always shows — usually with a swipe of yellow highlighter — that a candidate voted for or against something that the rest of the brochure deems politically or fiscally or culturally important. … So, we’re going to be watching closely, to see whether a vote in a committee on something relatively unimportant becomes the theme of a campaign or two out there, and whether the public will be much moved by a vote even when it is dramatically presented as a fact ‘ripped from the official record’ of some committee or another. Key might be that it’s the final votes, not necessarily some little acting-out behavior in a committee, that is the real indication of just where a legislator is on legislation that you care about.” … I should tell you this: I’m more than a little shocked to learn this goes on in Topeka.

    Where to see, listen to State of State Address. Tonight’s 6:30 pm address by Kansas Governor Sam Brownback can see seen on television by tuning in to KTPS (Wichita), KTWU (Topeka), or Smoky Hills Public Television. Radio coverage is on Kansas Information Network, KSAL-Salina 1150 AM, KANU-Lawrence/Topeka/Kansas City FM 91.5, KANH-Emporia FM 89.7, KANV-Olsburg/Junction City FM 91.3 and in Manhattan on FM 99.5, KANZ- Garden City FM 91.1, KZNA-Hill City FM 90.5, KHCC-Hutchinson/Wichita FM 90.1, KHCD-Salina/Manhattan FM 89.5, KHCT-Great Bend/Hays FM 90.9, KMUW-Wichita FM 89.1, KRPS-Pittsburg KS FM 89.9, KCUR-Kansas City Missouri FM 89.3, and online at www.KWCH.com, kslegislature.org, www.khi.org, and www.am580wibw.com.

    Kansas Policy Institute launches blog. In its newsletter, the Kansas Policy Institute announces the start of a blog: “We believe this will be a venue to have an open discussion on the challenges facing our state and advancing liberty and freedom. Of course, we will continue the work we’ve been doing, but this is an opportunity to provide more real time analysis, share videos and stories from around the web, and allow concerned Kansans can debate the issues of the day.” The blog is located at KPI Blog. … KPI’s primary communications with Kansans have been through policy analysis and reports, and through newspaper op-ed columns. The blog should make KPI a more familiar source of news and information.

    Kansas House Speaker criticized. “Continuous abuse of power and nepotism” along with his role in a lawsuit against the State of Kansas are the charges leveled against Speaker of the Kansas House of Representatives Mike O’Neal. The writer of the letter with the charges is Kansas Representative Owen Donohoe of the 39th district, which covers parts of Johnson, Leavenworth, and Wyandotte counties. … In 2010 O’Neal faced an legislative ethics panel investigation into his role as attorney for clients suing the state. The panel decided that O’Neal broke no rules, but that the legislature’s ethics rules should prohibit what O’Neal was doing, citing the “appearance of impropriety” such actions create. … In 2009, O’Neal faced a complaint relating to nepotism, and a panel found there was insufficient evidence to support the charges. … Last year O’Neal made several committee reassignments that were seen as motivated by a desire to silence critics of policies that O’Neal supported. These included Rep. Charlotte O’Hara for her position on health care issues, Rep. Kasha Kelly for her position on state spending, and Donohoe himself. Coverage is at More trouble brewing for House Speaker O’Neal and Kansas Republican legislator blasts House Speaker Mike O’Neal. … The public policy issue is this: Does legislative leadership — Speaker of the House, Senate President, Committee Chairs — have too much power? From my observation of the Kansas Legislature over the past few years, my answer is: Yes.

    Kansas presidential caucus. Kansas Republicans will hold their presidential nominating caucus on Saturday, March 10th. Participants must be registered as Republicans to participate, and the last day to register as such is February 17th. Photo ID will be required for admission.

    Democrats urged to help Republicans. In an email, Kansas National Education Association (KNEA), the teachers union, urges Kansas Democrats to help Republican select their nominees in the August primary elections. Writes the union to its minions: “Given the registration advantage that Republicans have over Democrats in Kansas, it is not surprising that many elections are decided in the August primaries. In many districts the Republican nominee will likely win. This means that unaffiliated and Democratic voters are very limited in the influence they can have on who will be their Representative or Senator. The reality is that, while it might feel good to register your disgust with both parties by registering as an unaffiliated voter, it dramatically reduces the influence of your vote in the election. … If you want your vote to have a greater influence this year, then we would urge you to consider your registration and participation in the primary election in August. If you live in a district that will likely elect a Republican in the general election, wouldn’t it be nice to have a say in which Republican that will be? If you want that voice, you will need to be a registered Republican by July 16, 2012.”

    Kansas health issues. The Kansas Health Institute News Service has identified the issues related to health that are important in this year’s legislative session. Medicaid reform and health care exchanges are the first two mentioned, with Medicaid reform a very large and important issue. The article is Health issues facing the 2012 Legislature.

    Separation of art and state. Kansas Governor Sam Brownback may be wavering on his opposition to state funding for the arts in Kansas, according to Lawrence Journal-World reporting. I recently urged legislators — borrowing a term from David Boaz — to respect the separation of art and state. In his book The Politics of Freedom: Taking on The Left, The Right and Threats to Our Liberties, Boaz explained why this is important: “It is precisely because art has power, because it deals with basic human truths, that it must be kept separate from government. Government, as I noted earlier, involves the organization of coercion. In a free society coercion should be reserved only for such essential functions of government as protecting rights and punishing criminals. People should not be forced to contribute money to artistic endeavors that they may not approve, nor should artists be forced to trim their sails to meet government standards. Government funding of anything involves government control.”

    Numbers trouble Americans. “Many Americans have strong opinions about policy issues shaping the presidential campaign, from immigration to Social Security. But their grasp of numbers that underlie those issues can be tenuous.” The Wall Street Journal article Americans Stumble on Math of Big Issues covers this topic. “‘It’s pretty apparent that Americans routinely don’t know objective facts about the government,’ says Joshua Clinton, a political scientist at Vanderbilt University. Americans’ numerical misapprehension can be traced to a range of factors, including where they live, the news they consume, the political rhetoric they hear and even the challenges of numbers themselves. And it isn’t even clear how much this matters: Telling people the right numbers often doesn’t change their views.”

    Capitalism. “The Occupy Wall Street movement expresses valid frustrations, but do the protesters aim their accusations in the wrong direction? Economics Professor Chris Coyne draws the distinction between crony capitalism and legitimate capitalism. Crony capitalism is government favoritism fueled by handouts and is responsible for the plight of the 99%. Legitimate capitalism, on the other hand, uses competition to align consumer and producer interests and serves to improve everyone’s standard of living. … Coyne says: “What we need is constraints on government … The minute you open the floodgates of government handouts, people are going to start lining up to grab them. And the people that are going to tend to get those handout are those that have money and political connections. So the solution to this is simple. Instead of spreading out losses, we need to do is to allow people to earn profits when they produce things that people value, and suffer losses when the fail to do so. When you have that type of system, the only way to earn wealth is to improve peoples’ standards of living.”… This video is from LearnLiberty.org, a project of Institute for Humane Studies, and many other informative videos are available.

  • In Wichita, Southfork TIF is politics, and therefore should be rejected

    Last month the Wichita City Council approved the formation of a TIF district in south Wichita. Known as the Southfork TIF District, the developer is Wichitan Jay Maxwell. This week the matter will appear before the Sedgwick County Commission, as it may, under law, decide to veto the formation of the district.

    Maxwell himself rarely appears at meetings of governmental agencies, sending his agent Tim Austin of Poe & Associates, Inc. instead.

    The role of politics

    Maxwell and Austin have some queer ideas regarding the nature of markets and politics. In an email message to supporters of the Southfork TIF, Austin wrote: “There are many underlying political winds working against the Southfork TIF.” In another email message, he wrote: “As I mentioned previously, there are underlying political interests at play that appear to be making this a political matter as opposed to a vote the merits of the TIF, the project, and South Wichita.”

    Austin has it exactly backwards. It is he who is arguing for using the political process to enrich himself and Maxwell. Those such as myself and Americans for Prosperity who oppose government interventions such as this are arguing against using the political process — against making this a political matter, that is.

    The supporters of government intervention such as TIF often make claims of “market failure.” They claim that the free market system has failed to deliver what they want, so they make appeals to government to intervene. This, of course, moves society away from markets and civil society and toward the politics that Austin seems to disdain.

    In reality, markets do quite well in allocating the resources of our economy, despite the claims of many, including historians who should know better. There are those who may feel they’re not getting everything they deserve through the market process, but that’s no reason to introduce the tremendous inefficiencies and distortions that the political process brings with it. In his book How Capitalism Saved America: The Untold History of Our Country, From the Pilgrims to the Present, Thomas J. DiLorenzo explained:

    Most historians also uncritically repeat the claim that government subsidies were necessary to building America’s transcontinental railroad industry, steamship industry, steel industry, and other industries. But while clinging to this “market failure” argument, they ignore (or at least are unaware of) the fact that market entrepreneurs performed quite well without government subsidies. They also ignore the fact that the subsidies themselves were a great source of inefficiency and business failure, even though they enriched the direct recipients of the subsidies and advanced the political careers of those who dished them out.

    Political entrepreneurs and their governmental patrons are the real villains of American business history and should be portrayed as such. They are the real robber barons.

    The idea of “market failure” is used by the promoters of this TIF district — as do supporters of TIF districts. They claim that only government — that is, politics — can make things right, at least according to their vision.

    The idea that there are two classes of entrepreneurs — market and political — is explained by Helen Cochran in her book review of The Myth of the Robber Barons: A New Look at the Rise of Big Business in America by Burton Folsom. Cochran wrote:

    According to Folsom, “political entrepreneurs” are those that seek government/taxpayer subsidy, public private partnerships, protective tariffs, special privileges, etc. Folsom makes a sound case that economic development fueled by political intervention invariably fails and undermines the very ideology it purports to serve.

    On the other hand “market entrepreneurs” are those that obtain their successes by producing a product that is better and of more value to the consumer, unbridled by the government controls and restrictions that come with subsidy. No one can argue that it is the market entrepreneurs that create the wealth in this country.

    The essence of political entrepreneurship is that Austin and Maxwell find it easier to convince a majority of the Wichita City Council, and now the Sedgwick County Commission, of the superiority of their plans than it is to convince others through the market process. They want to replace the collective knowledge of free people trading voluntarily in markets with the political process — that is, with the judgments of bureaucrats and politicians.

    Do TIF districts work?

    In deciding whether TIF districts “work” we must come to an agreement of what “work” means. Generally, most supporters of TIF — besides the obvious motivations of the developers who are directly enriched by them — claim increased development and jobs.

    But there’s plenty of evidence to the contrary.

    As far as increased development: Yes, that generally happens within the TIF district. But what about the overall city? The answer is that TIF is harmful.

    Regarding the effect of tax increment financing (TIF) districts on economic development, economists Richard F. Dye and David F. Merriman have studied the issue extensively. Their paper The Effects of Tax Increment Financing on Economic Development bluntly states the overall impact of TIF: “We find clear and consistent evidence that municipalities that adopt TIF grow more slowly after adoption than those that do not.”

    Later in the same paper the authors conclude: “These findings suggest that TIF trades off higher growth in the TIF district for lower growth elsewhere. This hypothesis is bolstered by other empirical findings.” More on their work is at Tax increment financing (TIF) and economic growth.

    Others may support TIF for its purported positive impact on employment. Sure, it’s easy to drive by a TIF district and see people at work. But that doesn’t tell the whole story.

    One person who looked at the effect of TIF on employment in the entire city is economist Paul F. Byrne. He concluded this: “Results find no general impact of TIF use on employment. However, findings suggest that TIF districts supporting industrial development may have a positive effect on municipal employment, whereas TIF districts supporting retail development have a negative effect on municipal employment.”

    More on his work is at Does tax increment financing (TIF) deliver on its promise of jobs?

    So considering the high-minded goals of politicians and bureaucrats, we must conclude that TIF does not meet the goals of increased development and/or jobs, if we consider the impact on everyone. What we’re left with is the well-known problem that public choice economics — the economics of politics — has described: Concentrated benefits and dispersed costs. It’s the reason why those who seek enrichment at Wichita City Hall and other governments make so many political campaign contributions.

    This particular TIF district

    In a document prepared for Sedgwick County Commissioners by the county’s Finance Division, this TIF district is analyzed.

    One startling conclusion: “The Southfork area qualifies for TIF funding because most of the land is in a flood plain, and while action is being taken to reduce the magnitude of this problem most of the land will remain in a flood plain after those actions are completed.” (emphasis added)

    In other words, one of the “noble” actions of the developer — fixing a flooded area — is exposed for what it is.

    Another conclusion of the analysis is that the “Proposed project is economically feasible without county funding support.” In other words, the TIF district is not financially necessary.

    Then: “Proposed private equity funding is insufficient to effect default risk.”

    Finally: “Costs to county government are greater than benefits to county government. If, as appears possible based on the financial projections provided for county review, the project is financially feasible without TIF funding, then a substantial cost to county government is the property tax revenue diverted unnecessarily to the project.”

    This directly contradicts the claims that most TIF supporters make: That TIF is without cost. Randal O’Toole and others have shown the many ways in which TIF does have a great cost. His essay “TIF is not free money” may be read as part of my article Tax increment financing: TIF has a cost.

    This particular applicant

    We also need to look at the characteristics of this applicant. The Wichita Business Journal reported this regarding a company Mr. Maxwell owned:

    Pixius proposes to repay, over a 10-year period, $1.3 million of a $6.4 million loan from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Rural Utilities Service, according to court documents. The loan was part of a 2002 Farm Bill pilot program that loaned more than $180 million to ISPs to expand Internet service to rural areas.

    “To my memory … Pixius is the only one (to receive a loan) that’s had to file bankruptcy to work out of its situation,” says Claiborn Crain, USDA spokesman.

    When the government helped out Maxwell in the past, it cost taxpayers $5.1 million. His company is set apart from other similar companies in that, according to the USDA spokesman, only Maxwell’s declared bankruptcy.

    I suggest that Maxwell has had his turn at the government funding trough. Taxpayers can’t afford to give him another.

  • Kansas and Wichita quick takes: Friday December 30, 2011

    Year in review, Wichita Liberty-style. Here it is: A selection of stories that appeared on Voice for Liberty in 2011. Was it a good or bad year for the causes of economic freedom, individual liberty, limited government, free markets, and civil society?

    Patriots New Years Eve. Larry Halloran of Wichita — South Central KS 912 Group is sponsoring for the second time a “Patriots New Years Eve”: Taking time to relax in the company of Patriots as we dedicate ourselves to the important work ahead in 2012. This event is New Year’s Eve from 6:00 pm to 11:00 pm at the Hawthorn Suites located at 2405 N. Ridge Road, Wichita, KS 67205, telephone (316) 729-5700. The potluck dinner starts just after 6:00 pm, followed by guest speaker Bob Weeks at 8:00 pm. This is a family-friendly event, and no alcohol is served or allowed. Despite that, I still plan to attend. RSVP to LarryHalloran@aol.com.

    Legislators to hear from citizens. The South-Central Kansas Legislative Delegation will be taking public comments Tuesday January 3rd at 7:00 pm in the Jury Room of the Sedgwick County Courthouse, 525 N. Main in Wichita. (Use the north entrance to the courthouse). This is your opportunity to let local legislators know your wishes on issues that will be considered during the 2012 legislative session. In the past, each person wishing to talk has been limited to between three and five minutes depending on the number of people wishing to speak. There is usually the requirement to sign up as you enter if you want to speak.

    California’s redevelopment nightmare to end. In Kansas, they’re called tax increment financing districts, and in California, they’re about to end. A press release from the Institute of Justice notes: “In a landmark victory for private property owners in the Golden State, the California Supreme Court today upheld a statute abolishing the nearly 400 redevelopment agencies across the state. The court also struck down a law that would have allowed these agencies to buy their way back into existence. The final outcome of the case is that, in 2012, California’s decades-long redevelopment nightmare will finally come to an end. California redevelopment agencies have been some of the worst abusers of eminent domain for decades, violating the private property rights of tens of thousands of home, business, church and farm owners.” Besides eminent domain abuse, the high cost of the redevelopment agencies was a factor, with 12 percent of California property taxes being diverted to what are know as TIF districts in Kansas. … The City of Wichita still views tax increment financing as a wise investment, with one such district authorized for creation this month.

    Growth will heal nation’s economy. From Kansas Watchdog: While most economists are predicting something between a long, slow recovery and the impossibility of repairing an economy buried in debt, entrepreneur Louis Woodhill believes the U.S. can come roaring back in just one or two years — with the right actions. “We probably need 25 million new jobs to get to full employment from here,” he said. “But basically it could be done in a year or two at the outside if you did everything right.” His recovery formula focuses on growing the gross domestic product. “If Vince Lombardy had been an economist instead of a football coach, he would have said economic growth is not the most important thing, it’s the only thing,” Woodhill said. … The full story is at Louis Woodhill: Prescription for Growth Will Heal Nation’s Economy.

    Assumptions about capitalism. Burton W. Folsom in The Myth of the Robber Barons: “This shallow conclusion dovetails with another set of assumptions: First, that the free market, with its economic uncertainty, competitive stress, and constant potential for failure, needs the steadying hand of government regulation; second, that businessmen tend to be unscrupulous, reflecting the classic cliché image of the ‘robber baron,’ eager to seize any opportunity to steal from the public; and third, that because government can mobilize a wide array of forces across the political and business landscape, government programs therefore can move the economy more effectively than can the varied and often conflicting efforts of private enterprise. But the closer we look at public-sector economic initiatives, the more difficult it becomes to defend government as a wellspring of progress. Indeed, an honest examination of our economic history — going back long before the twentieth century — reveals that, more often than not, when government programs and individual enterprise have gone head to head, the private sector has achieved more progress at less cost with greater benefit to consumers and the economy at large.” … Folsom goes on to give examples from the history of steamships, railroads, and the steel and oil industries that show how our true economic history has been distorted. Concluding, he writes: “Time and again, experience has shown that while private enterprise, carried on in an environment of open competition, delivers the best products and services at the best price, government intervention stifles initiative, subsidizes inefficiency, and raises costs. But if we have difficulty learning from history, it is often because our true economic history is largely hidden from us. We would be hard pressed to find anything about Vanderbilt’s success or Collins’s government-backed failure in the steamship business by examining the conventional history textbooks or taking a history course at most colleges or universities. The information simply isn’t included.” … Folsom’s book on this topic is The Myth of the Robber Barons: A New Look at the Rise of Big Business in America.

    Resources on Austrian economics. The prolific and best-selling author Thomas E. Woods, Jr. has compiled a very useful collection of resources regarding Austrian economics. In an essay by Lew Rockwell that Woods refers to, we can learn the essence of the Austrian way: “It is not a field within economics, but an alternative way of looking at the entire science. Whereas other schools rely primarily on idealized mathematical models of the economy, and suggest ways the government can make the world conform, Austrian theory is more realistic and thus more socially scientific. Austrians view economics as a tool for understanding how people both cooperate and compete in the process of meeting needs, allocating resources, and discovering ways of building a prosperous social order. Austrians view entrepreneurship as a critical force in economic development, private property as essential to an efficient use of resources, and government intervention in the market process as always and everywhere destructive.” Concluding his essay, Rockwell wrote: “The future of Austrian economics is bright, which bodes well for the future of liberty itself. For if we are to reverse the trends of statism in this century, and reestablish a free market, the intellectual foundation must be the Austrian School.” … Woods’ collection is at Learn Austrian Economics.

    Cato University. One of the highlights of my year was attending Cato University, a summer seminar on political economy. Besides attending many very informative lectures and meeting lovers of liberty from across the world, I became aware of several brilliant Cato scholars and executives whom I had not paid much attention to. One in particular is Tom G. Palmer, who is Senior Fellow and Director of Cato University, besides holding the position of Vice President for International Programs at Atlas Economic Research Foundation. He delivered many of our lectures and is the author of Realizing Freedom: Libertarian Theory, History, and Practice. An important chapter from this book is Twenty Myths about Markets. In this video he discusses being effective in bringing about change.

  • Wichita falls in economic performance ranking

    Recently the Milken Institute released a report examining the economic performance of metropolitan areas in the United States. The report, titled Best-Performing Cities 2011, describes itself as “The annual Best-Performing Cities index provides an objective, comprehensive measure of economic performance across metropolitan areas of the country.”

    Specifically, this report “measures growth in jobs, wages and salaries, and technology output over a five-year span (2005–2010 for jobs and technology output and 2004-2009 for wages and salaries) to adjust for extreme variations in business cycles.”

    On the composition of the index, the report states: “Employment growth is weighted most heavily in the index because of its critical importance to community vitality. Wage and salary growth measures the quality of the jobs being created and sustained. Technology output growth is another key element of economic vibrancy.”

    Among the top 200 metropolitan areas, Wichita ranked 104th in overall performance this year, down from 72nd the year before.

    In the category of one-year job growth from 2009 to 2010, Wichita ranked 199th out of the 200 largest metropolitan areas. For five-year job growth Wichita did better, ranking 63rd of 200.

    Interestingly, Wichita ranks high — ninth out of 200 — in a measure of high-technology industry concentration. The description of this measure in which Wichita ranks highly is: “High-tech location quotients (LQs), which measure the concentration of the technology industry in a particular metro relative to the national average, are included to indicate a metro’s participation in the knowledge-based economy.”

    Reports such as these can be useful, but can also be misunderstood or misapplied — or sometimes incorrect. For example, Wichita isn’t usually thought of as a center of concentration in high-tech industry. In a 2011 ranking of the best cities for high tech jobs produced by Joel Kotkin, Wichita didn’t make the list, which included 51 cities. That list was based on “Employment in 45 high technology manufacturing, services, and software industry sectors.”

    Some will dismiss Wichita’s fall in rankings because of our heavy reliance on aviation, particularly business aviation, which was hit very hard by the recession.

    Wichita — and Kansas — can take note, however, of the high performance by cities in Texas. Four of the top five are in Texas, as are nine of the top 25. There is a movement in Kansas to reduce the state’s income tax rates to make Kansas more attractive to business. Texas has no state income tax.

    We should also note that Wichita’s ranking fell at a time of vigorous economic development efforts by Wichita and Sedgwick County, the major components of the Wichita metropolitan area. In his State of the City address this year, Wichita Mayor Carl Brewer spoke about Wichita’s economic development efforts. The mayor said that the city’s efforts saved 745 jobs and created 435 jobs, for a total impact of 1,180 jobs. To place those numbers in context, we note that American Community Survey data from the U.S. Census Bureau indicates the labor force in Wichita is 191,760 persons. This means that the economic development efforts of the City of Wichita affected a number of jobs equivalent to 0.6 percent of the city workforce.

    This small number of jobs impacted by the city’s economic development initiatives is dwarfed by other economic events. Additionally, these efforts by the city are counterproductive — if our interest is creating a dynamic economy in Wichita. Analysis by the Kauffman Foundation finds that it is new firms — young firms, in other words — that are the primary drivers of job creation. But the economic development policies of cities like Wichita are definitely biased toward older, established firms. The cost of these economic development efforts, which are paid for by everyone — including young businesses firms struggling to grow — means that we prop up unproductive companies at the expense of the type of firms we need to really grow the Wichita economy.

    Wichita is not the only component of the Wichita metropolitan area, but is certainly the driving force in the region’s economy.

    Reports such as these are evidence that the economic development policies of Wichita and Sedgwick County are not working well. We need to distinguish ourselves somehow and produce greater economic growth. Kansas Governor Sam Brownback released an economic development plan that sounded some of the right notes, but in practice his administration is relying on more of the same targeted subsidies that most states and cities use.

    Professor Art Hall of the Center for Applied Economics at the Kansas University School of Business has made a convincing case that Kansas needs to move away from the “active investor” approach to economic development. This is where government decides which companies will receive special treatment, be it in the form of tax abatements, tax credits, grants, tax increment financing, community improvement district special taxes, and other forms of subsidy. Being an “active investor” is the approach of the City of Wichita.

    In his paper Embracing Dynamism: The Next Phase in Kansas Economic Development Policy, Hall quotes Alan Peters and Peter Fisher: “The most fundamental problem is that many public officials appear to believe that they can influence the course of their state and local economies through incentives and subsidies to a degree far beyond anything supported by even the most optimistic evidence. We need to begin by lowering expectations about their ability to micro-manage economic growth and making the case for a more sensible view of the role of government — providing foundations for growth through sound fiscal practices, quality public infrastructure, and good education systems — and then letting the economy take care of itself.”

    Later, Hall writes this regarding “benchmarking” — the bidding wars for large employers that Wichita and Kansas rely on for economic development: “Kansas can break out of the benchmarking race by developing a strategy built on embracing dynamism. Such a strategy, far from losing opportunity, can distinguish itself by building unique capabilities that create a different mix of value that can enhance the probability of long-term economic success through enhanced opportunity. Embracing dynamism can change how Kansas plays the game.”

    We need business and political leaders in Wichita and Kansas who can see beyond the simple imagery of a groundbreaking ceremony and can assess the effect of our failing economic development policies on the entire community. Unfortunately, we don’t have many of these.

  • The true size of the Obama stimulus

    When we think of the “Obama stimulus,” most people are referring to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. This legislation called for a variety of fiscal stimulus measures estimated to cost $787 billion at the time the law was passed.

    The reasoning behind the stimulus comes from a school of thinking known as Keynesian economics, which holds that government should actively and aggressively manage the economy, most importantly by stepping up spending when demand is low. Through this deficit spending, it is said that government action can increase employment. This government spending purportedly accomplishes this through a multiplier effect, as dollars are spent again and again.

    What’s often lost in the discussion is that all deficit spending ought to be included in the amount of stimulus the economy has received. When President Obama took office, the national debt — the accumulation of all deficits — was $10.626 trillion, according to CBS News.

    Just recently this figure passed $15 trillion, meaning that there has been over $4 trillion dollars of deficit spending under President Obama. That’s $4,000 billion in deficit stimulus spending, or about five times the “official stimulus” amount.

    Now, we’re starting to understand why Keynesian economics doesn’t work. Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Stanford economist Michael J. Boskin summarizes recent research that finds that the spending multiplier that Keynesian economists rely on is small, and actually turns negative by the start of the second year. Furthermore, the government spending crowds out private sector spending. The effect of Obama’s 2009 stimulus bill is estimated at 0.2 percent of GDP, an amount described as “puny.”

    Tax cuts, however, are estimated to have a multiplier of 3.0, with “substantial tax cuts” having a multiplier of up to 5.0.

    In context, Obama’s economic advisers, at the time he took office, estimated that the spending multiplier for government purchases was 1.57, while the multiplier for tax cuts was 0.99.

    Of the new studies finding a small spending multiplier, Boskin writes: “These empirical studies leave many leading economists dubious about the ability of government spending to boost the economy in the short run. Worse, the large long-term costs of debt-financed spending are ignored in most studies of short-run fiscal stimulus and even more so in the political debate.”

    In conclusion, he writes: “The complexity of a dynamic market economy is not easily captured even by sophisticated modeling (an idea stressed by Friedrich Hayek and Robert Solow). But based on the best economic evidence, we should reject increased spending and increased taxes.” He calls for reductions in personal and corporate marginal tax rates and an “enforceable gradual phase-down of the spending explosion of recent years.”

    We should note that Obama and many of those in government are easily seduced by the allure of Keynesian deficit spending. It’s government, after all, that gets to spend the money. Republicans, even those who consider themselves conservative, have been seduced in this way, too.

    Tax cuts, on the other hand, leave money and spending decisions in the private sector.

    Why the Spending Stimulus Failed

    New economic research shows why lower tax rates do far more to spur growth.

    By Michael J. Boskin

    President Obama and congressional leaders meeting yesterday confronted calls for four key fiscal decisions: short-run fiscal stimulus, medium-term fiscal consolidation, and long-run tax and entitlement reform. Mr. Obama wants more spending, especially on infrastructure, and higher tax rates on income, capital gains and dividends (by allowing the lower Bush rates to expire). The intellectual and political left argues that the failed $814 billion stimulus in 2009 wasn’t big enough, and that spending control any time soon will derail the economy.

    But economic theory, history and statistical studies reveal that more taxes and spending are more likely to harm than help the economy. Those who demand spending control and oppose tax hikes hold the intellectual high ground.

    Continue reading at the Wall Street Journal (subscription not required)

  • Bombardier Learjet should pay just a little

    In a presentation made to economic development officials, aviation manufacturer Bombardier LearJet speaks with pride of its investment in Kansas. But for the present project before the Sedgwick County Commission today, it appears that the company is planning to make no investment at all.

    Bombardier LearJet financing plan. Later the document states “Requesting State of Kansas support to help find gap of $16M.”

    Taking the total project cost of $52.7 million and subtracting the government funding already secured, there is a gap of $16.1 million. Instead of being grateful for the $36.6 million in subsidy already (or about to be) secured, the company is asking for more: Bombardier LearJet is asking the State of Kansas to fund this gap.

    What happened to capitalism?

    What happened to companies funding even a portion of their capital requirements?

    The proponents of economic development incentives often make their case that the incentives are just a “sweetener” to secure the deal. But in the present case with Bombardier LearJet, local governments — the City of Wichita, Sedgwick County, and the State of Kansas — are being asked to pay for the entire meal.

    We in Kansas and Sedgwick County are already doing much for Bombardier LearJet. It is likely that we will agree to let LearJet forgo paying any property tax at all — the same property taxes that other business struggle to pay. These businesses compete with LearJet for labor and other things they need.

    The State of Kansas is allowing the income taxes of Lear Jet employees to be used for the exclusive benefit of that company.

    Both of these actions call into question the fundamental question of fairness in taxation: that all pay their fair share. When companies like the applicant company ask to be excused from the burden of taxation, others have to pay.

    If you are not persuaded by this appeal to principle, there is evidence that chasing the big catch is often counterproductive, and that the net economic effect of these deals is overestimated. One study finds: “Large-employer businesses have no measurable net economic effect on local economies when properly measured.”

    Perhaps the worst thing we take away from this episode is that our state is making no progress towards a concept developed by Professor Art Hall of the Center for Applied Economics at the Kansas University School of Business. He has made a convincing case that Kansas needs to move away from the “active investor” approach to economic development. This is where government decides which companies will receive special treatment, be it in the form of tax abatements, tax credits, grants, and other forms of subsidy. This is what we are doing with the present applicant, Bombardier LearJet.

    In his paper Embracing Dynamism: The Next Phase in Kansas Economic Development Policy, Hall quotes Alan Peters and Peter Fisher: “The most fundamental problem is that many public officials appear to believe that they can influence the course of their state and local economies through incentives and subsidies to a degree far beyond anything supported by even the most optimistic evidence. We need to begin by lowering expectations about their ability to micro-manage economic growth and making the case for a more sensible view of the role of government — providing foundations for growth through sound fiscal practices, quality public infrastructure, and good education systems — and then letting the economy take care of itself.”

    Later, Hall writes this regarding “benchmarking” — the bidding wars for large employers we are considering today: “Kansas can break out of the benchmarking race by developing a strategy built on embracing dynamism. Such a strategy, far from losing opportunity, can distinguish itself by building unique capabilities that create a different mix of value that can enhance the probability of long-term economic success through enhanced opportunity. Embracing dynamism can change how Kansas plays the game.”

    We need to move away from economic development based on this active investor approach. This commission needs to advocate for policies — in this chamber, at Wichita City Hall, and at the Kansas Statehouse — that lead to sustainable economic development. What we’re doing today is not sustainable.

    A small and reasonable step towards this goal is to ask Bombardier LearJet to consider paying just $1 million themselves on a project with a cost of $52.7 million.

  • TIF and other subsidies harm Wichita

    Everyone who cares about Wichita — the entire city, not just special interests — ought to be opposed to the continued use of tax increment financing (TIF) districts and other forms of subsidy that direct benefits to a small group at the expense of everyone else.

    Proponents of these programs such as Wichita Eagle editorial writer Rhonda Holman, most elected officials, and nearly all bureaucrats, need to justify these incentives. They make their case, of course, but the case is shallow. We need to look at research that studies these programs. We need to consider the effect of these programs on the city as a whole, and on the civic attitudes of Wichitans. When we do, we find that these programs just don’t deliver what they promise, unless you focus only on the special interest groups that feed off these programs. We also see that these programs contribute to the cynicism that is destructive to a civil society where people exist and trade harmoniously.

    What is the purpose? Development? Jobs?

    Some people want TIF because it promises development that otherwise would not happen. Others want the jobs that they see TIF create.

    The problem is that both promises are false — if you are able to look beyond stage one. There’s no doubt that things happen in TIF districts, usually. Buildings are built or renovated. Businesses open. People go to work.

    This simple analysis appeals to elected officials and newspaper editorial writers. But if we are concerned about the overall prosperity of our city, we need to look beyond the borders of the TIF district. When we do that, we come to a different assessment.

    Regarding the effect of TIF on overall development, economists Richard F. Dye and David F. Merriman have studied tax increment financing extensively. Their article Tax Increment Financing: A Tool for Local Economic Development states in its conclusion:

    TIF districts grow much faster than other areas in their host municipalities. TIF boosters or naive analysts might point to this as evidence of the success of tax increment financing, but they would be wrong. Observing high growth in an area targeted for development is unremarkable.

    So TIFs are good for the favored development that receives the subsidy — not a surprising finding. It’s what self-serving elected officials, bureaucrats, and newspaper editorial writers can see and focus on. But what about the rest of the city? Continuing from the same study:

    If the use of tax increment financing stimulates economic development, there should be a positive relationship between TIF adoption and overall growth in municipalities. This did not occur. If, on the other hand, TIF merely moves capital around within a municipality, there should be no relationship between TIF adoption and growth. What we find, however, is a negative relationship. Municipalities that use TIF do worse.

    We find evidence that the non-TIF areas of municipalities that use TIF grow no more rapidly, and perhaps more slowly, than similar municipalities that do not use TIF. (emphasis added)

    So if we are concerned about overall growth in Wichita, we need to realize that TIF simply shifts development from one place to another. The overall impact, according to uncontroverted research, is negative: less growth, not more.

    What about jobs? Paul F. Byrne of Washburn University authored a recent report titled Does Tax Increment Financing Deliver on Its Promise of Jobs? The Impact of Tax Increment Financing on Municipal Employment Growth. In its abstract we find this conclusion regarding the impact of TIF on jobs:

    Increasingly, municipal leaders justify their use of tax increment financing (TIF) by touting its role in improving municipal employment. However, empirical studies on TIF have primarily examined TIF’s impact on property values, ignoring the claim that serves as the primary justification for its use. This article addresses the claim by examining the impact of TIF adoption on municipal employment growth in Illinois, looking for both general impact and impact specific to the type of development supported. Results find no general impact of TIF use on employment. However, findings suggest that TIF districts supporting industrial development may have a positive effect on municipal employment, whereas TIF districts supporting retail development have a negative effect on municipal employment. These results are consistent with industrial TIF districts capturing employment that would have otherwise occurred outside of the adopting municipality and retail TIF districts shifting employment within the municipality to more labor-efficient retailers within the TIF district. (emphasis added)

    While this research might be used to support a TIF district for industrial development, TIF in Wichita is primarily used for retail development. And, when looking at the entire picture, the effect on employment is negative.

    Verge of corruption

    The ability and willingness of local elected officials to dish out TIF and other forms of subsidy places them, as Randal O’Toole has written, “on the verge of corruption.” In Wichita, David Burk and the principals of Key Construction make extensive use of political campaign contributions, and have benefited handsomely from TIF and other forms of subsidy. A recent analysis of campaign contributions by these parties to Wichita City Council members showed just how prevalent are these contributions.

    In Wichita city elections, individuals may contribute up to $500 to candidates, once during the primary election and again during the general election. As you can see in this table complied from Wichita City Council campaign finance reports, spouses often contribute as well. So it’s not uncommon to see the David and DJ Burk family contribute $2,000 to a candidate for their primary and general election campaigns. That’s a significant sum for a city council district election campaign cycle. Click here for a compilation of campaign contributions made by those associated with the Douglas Place project, a recent collaboration between Burk, Key Construction, and others.

    Council Member Jeff Longwell (district 5, west and northwest Wichita), in his second term as council member and with his heart set on becoming the next mayor, leads the pack in accepting campaign contributions from parties associated with the Douglas Place project. For his most recent election, he received $4,000 from parties associated with Key Construction, and $2,000 from David Burk and his wife. Total from parties associated with the Douglas Place project: $6,000.

    Lavonta Williams, (district 1, northeast Wichita), who is also vice mayor, received $5,000 from parties associated with Douglas Place: $4,000 from parties associated with Key Construction, and $2,000 from David Burk and his wife.

    Mayor Carl Brewer received $4,000 from parties associated with Douglas Place: $3,500 from parties associated with Key Construction, and $500 DJ Burk, David Burk’s wife.

    Council Member Janet Miller (district 6, north central Wichita) received $3,500 during her 2009 election campaign from parties associated with Douglas Place: $1,500 from parties associated with Key Construction, and $2,000 from David Burk and his wife.

    For his 2011 election campaign, newly-elected Council Member Pete Meitzner (district 2, east Wichita) received $2,500 from parties associated with Douglas Place: $1,500 from parties associated with Key Construction, and $1,000 from David Burk and his wife.

    The people who make these contributions and the officeholders who receive them deny that they make any difference. That’s hard to believe. These donors don’t often contribute to candidates for the Kansas Legislature or U.S. Congress. That’s because these bodies don’t have the power to dish out the subsidies that the Wichita City Council does. I’d say these donors are acting rationally, in their self-interest.

    If you’re still not convinced, consider the case of Reverend Kevass Harding, who wanted to redevelop the Ken-Mar shopping center, and Wichita City Council member Lavonta Williams, (district 1, northeast Wichita), who is presently serving as vice mayor.

    As reported in 2009, Harding and his wife made campaign contributions to Williams. These campaign contributions, made in the maximum amount allowable, were out of character for the Hardings. They had made very few contributions to political candidates, and they appear not to have made many since then.

    But in June 2008, just before the Ken-Mar TIF district was to be considered for approval, the Hardings made contributions in the maximum allowable amount to Williams, who represents Ken-Mar’s district. Harding would not explain why he made the contributions. Williams offered a vague and general explanation that had no substantive meaning.

    The close linkage between these political contributions the awarding of money illustrates the need for pay-to-play laws in Wichita and Kansas. These laws impose various restrictions on the activities of elected officials and the awarding of contracts or other largesse to those who have made political contributions.

    Citizens become cynical when they feel there is a group of insiders — commonly called the “good ol’ boy network” — who get whatever they want from city hall at the expense of taxpayers. It’s surprising that the Wichita Eagle editorial board is either not aware of this, or doesn’t see it as a problem. In the meantime, our newspaper, along with those in the network of city hall insiders, continue to contribute to the destruction of civil society in Wichita.

    Additional Reading:

    • Wichita property taxes are high, leading to other problems: “An ongoing study by the Minnesota Taxpayers Association tells us that Wichita has high business property taxes. This may be a reason why the Wichita City Council feels it is necessary to offer relief from these taxes, but it is not an effective economic development strategy.”
    • Tax increment financing: The right tool for Wichita jobs?: “Tax Increment Financing (TIF) is an economic development tool that uses the expected growth (or increment) in property tax revenues from a designated geographic area of a municipality to finance bonds used to pay for goods and services calculated to spur growth in the TIF district. The analysis performed for this study found TIF does not tend to produce a net increase in economic activity; favors large businesses over small businesses; often excludes local businesses and residents from the planning process; and operates in a manner that contradicts conventional notions of justice and fairness. We recommend seeking alternatives to TIF and reforms to TIF that make the process more democratic and the distribution of benefits more fair to residents of TIF districts.”
    • Giving away the store to get a store: “Largely because it promises something for nothing — an economic stimulus in exchange for tax revenue that otherwise would not materialize — this tool is becoming increasingly popular across the country. Originally used to help revive blighted or depressed areas, TIFs now appear in affluent neighborhoods, subsidizing high-end housing developments, big-box retailers, and shopping malls. And since most cities are using TIFs, businesses such as Cabela’s can play them off against each other to boost the handouts they receive simply to operate profit-making enterprises.”
    • Wichita’s economic development strategy: rent seeking: “It is wealth, after all, that defines prosperity. Our goal ought to be to create an environment where everyone lives in an environment conducive to creating prosperity and wealth. But in a misguided effort, our city leaders, week after week, take actions that produce just the opposite.”
    • Wichita economic development: And then what will happen?: “Critics of the economic development policies in use by the City of Wichita are often portrayed as not being able to see and appreciate the good things these policies are producing, even though they are unfolding right before our very eyes. The difference is that some look beyond the immediate — what is seen — and ask “And then what will happen?” — looking for the unseen.
    • Wichita and its political class: “Discussion at a Wichita City Council meeting provided an opportunity for citizens to discover the difference in the thinking of the political class and those who value limited government and capitalism.”
    • Wichita on corporate welfare, again: “An award of $2.5 million by the City of Wichita to aircraft manufacturer Hawker Beechcraft to ward off a threatened move to Louisiana stands out as an example of corporate welfare given for its own sake, and not in response to any real threat.”
    • Wichitans mislead on Warren IMAX incentives: “With the possibility of another IMAX theater being built not too far from Wichita, we now know that Wichitans were mislead in awarding economic development incentives.”
    • Wichita again to bet on corporate welfare as economic development: “The Wichita City Council may take action that promotes corporate welfare and the city’s economic development policy.”
    • In Wichita and Kansas, economic development is not working: “The effort of Wichita and Kansas to retain Hawker Beechcraft, one of our leading employers and a Wichita institution, provides a lesson in the futility of corporate welfare as an economic development policy: Someone is usually willing to pay more. We would be much better off if we start transforming Kansas to a state where all companies are nurtured, not by bureaucratic and political oversight and handouts, but by a low taxing and spending environment, and a reasonable regulatory regime.”
    • Tax increment financing is not free money: “Cato Institute Senior Fellow Randal O’Toole has written extensively on the subject of urban planning, development, and tax increment financing (TIF) districts. The following article contains many points that the Wichita City Council may wish to consider as it considers expansion of a downtown Wichita TIF district at tomorrow’s council meeting.”