Voice For Liberty

Tag: Economics

  • Leading index for Kansas economy improves

    An indicator of future economic growth in Kansas has improved, not only in comparison to past values, but also compared to the national value and values for surrounding states.

    Kansas leading economic indicatorKansas leading economic index.

    KSSLIND is the leading index for Kansas, which predicts the six-month growth rate of the state’s coincident index. According to its creator, the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, in addition to the coincident index, “the models include other variables that lead the economy: state-level housing permits (1 to 4 units), state initial unemployment insurance claims, delivery times from the Institute for Supply Management (ISM) manufacturing survey, and the interest rate spread between the 10-year Treasury bond and the 3-month Treasury bill.”

    The coincident index includes four indicators, according to its creators: nonfarm payroll employment, the unemployment rate, average hours worked in manufacturing, and wages and salaries.

    This index, which is again a leading indicator with a six-month time lag, been improving. In April, when I last looked at this series, the average value for the index for the previous six months had been 0.04. Now, the value for the previous six months is 0.69. Data is available through June, 2011.

    Comparing the value for Kansas to that for the nation as a whole and surrounding states plus Iowa, we see some improvement. The value for Kansas, shown in the bold black line, had been right in the middle of the values for these other entities. But about a year ago the value for Kansas began to be lower than these peer values. When assessing this data in April, I wrote “While generally following the same trend, the fact that Kansas’ value is lower than the others means that the near-term economic outlook for our state — while improving — is not as good as for the other states that appear on the chart, and for the nation as a whole.”

    Now in recent months the value for Kansas has been above that of Colorado, Iowa, and Missouri.

    Kansas leading economic indicator compared to othersKansas leading economic index compared to others.

  • Kansas and Wichita quick takes: Friday August 5, 2011

    More jobs, but … Today’s jobs reports shows more jobs created than the small number many feared would be reported. Commenting on this is Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson: “Today the Labor Department’s announcement of the unemployment report showing 117,000 new jobs created is a testimony to America’s job creators who are fighting hard against the economic headwinds created by Obama’s bullheaded adherence to a failed 1930s economic philosophy. … The drop in the unemployment rate to 9.1 percent though is a false signal as the drop is largely attributable to even more Americans giving up hope of getting a job and dropping out of the workforce. Since Obama has become president, Americans have been leaving the workforce in droves. For them, and the almost 14 million unemployed, Obama’s change has robbed them of hope.”

    Sedgwick County budget. Wednesday’s meeting of the Sedgwick County Commission featured some actual legislative action as two fiscally conservative commissioners sought to reign in some county spending as the commissioners considered the 2012 budget. Commissioner Karl Peterjohn offered an amendment that would have reduced county spending by almost $500,000 in net spending reduction by eliminating one county center in health data, eliminating the new county lobbyist position, cutting $125,000 in airline subsidies as well as other business incentive spending, and several smaller categories of county spending. This amendment failed with only Commissioner Richard Ranzau voting with Peterjohn. A second amendment by Peterjohn deleted the new county lobbyist position to save $83,546. This amendment failed by the same vote as the first.

    There are emergencies, and then there aren’t. KAKE Television reports that during Wednesday evening’s storm, about 65 percent of the calls handled by the 911 system operators were for non-emergency reasons. “A majority of the calls from the storm were people requesting to be transferred to the electric company,” the station reports. Story and video at Majority Of Emergency Calls Were Non-Emergencies .

    Debt ceiling bill seen as feckless. The Cato Institute’s Jagadeesh Gokhale sums it up quite colorfully: “It’s been a frustrating two months watching politicians alternately squirm and spin only to achieve a damp squib of a deal.” He also writes that “The President and leaders in Congress have basically thrown in the towel.” The problems, he writes are “far too little by way of spending cuts, keeps open the possibility of new taxes, and hikes the debt ceiling substantially.” The major problems of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security were not addressed, he adds. More from Gokhale at The Debt Deal: Failures of Leadership and Resolve. … His colleague Daniel J. Mitchell notes the path American is taking: “America is on a path to becoming a Greek-style welfare state. Thanks to the Bush-Obama spending binge, the burden of federal spending has climbed to about 25% of national economic output, up from only 18.2% of GDP when Bill Clinton left office.” Of the spending cuts, he writes “federal spending will actually be higher every year and that the cuts were based on Washington math (a spending increase becomes a spending cut if outlays don’t climb as fast as some artificial benchmark).” It is thought that spending cuts amount to only $22 billion next year. Out of likely $3.6 trillion budget, that’s 0.6 percent. Mitchell concludes: “One group of people, however, unambiguously got the short end of the stick in this budget deal. Ordinary Americans are caught in the middle. They’re not poor enough to benefit from the federal government’s plethora of income-redistribution programs. But they’re not rich enough to have the clever lobbyists and insider connections needed to benefit from the high-dollar handouts like ethanol subsidies and bank bailouts. Instead, middle-class Americans play by the rules, pay ever-higher taxes, and struggle to make ends meet while the establishment of both parties engages in posturing as America slowly drifts toward a Greek-style fiscal meltdown.” More from Mitchell at Debt Deal: Politicians Win, Middle Class Loses.

    Higher fuel standards mean higher death toll. It’s simple physics, writes the Washington Examiner. Weight is the main enemy of fuel economy, so higher fuel economy standards from the government mean lighter cars. This lighter weight translates directly into highway deaths: “In 2003, for example, a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration study estimated that for every 100 pounds of weight taken out of a car weighing under 3,000 pounds, the death rate goes up more than 5 percent; the increase is slightly less than 5 percent for those weighing more than 3,000 pounds. Two years before that, a National Academy of Sciences study estimated that the lighter vehicles required to satisfy CAFE were responsible for as many as 2,600 highway deaths in one year alone. And in 1999, a comprehensive multiple regression analysis by USA Today of the government’s Fatality Analysis Reporting System data concluded that 7,700 people died for every one additional mpg attributable to CAFE regulation.” … Thomas Sowell warned us of this in 2005 when he wrote “Many of the same people who cry ‘No blood for oil!’ also want higher gas mileage standards for cars. But higher mileage standards have meant lighter and more flimsy cars, leading to more injuries and deaths in accidents — in other words, trading blood for oil.” … This is another example of the unintended consequences of regulation, although many times the consequences are intended.

    Myths about markets. Tom G. Palmer has a wonderful paper that tackles the criticisms of free markets that have evolved into myths. For example, the first myth is that markets are immoral or amoral. Palmer states the myth: Markets make people think only about the calculation of advantage, pure and simple. There’s no morality in market exchange, no commitment to what makes us distinct as humans: our ability to think not only about what’s advantageous to us, but about what is right and what is wrong, what is moral and what is immoral. His destruction of the myth: “A more false claim would be hard to imagine. For there to be exchange there has to be respect for justice. People who exchange differ from people who merely take; exchangers show respect for the rightful claims of other people. The reason that people engage in exchange in the first place is that they want what others have but are constrained by morality and law from simply taking it. An exchange is a change from one allocation of resources to another; that means that any exchange is measured against a baseline, such that if no exchange takes place, the parties keep what they already have. The framework for exchange requires a sound foundation in justice. Without such moral and legal foundations, there can be no exchange. Markets are not merely founded on respect for justice, however. They are also founded on the ability of humans to take into account, not only their own desires, but the desires of others, to put themselves in the places of others. A restaurateur who didn’t care what his diners wanted would not be in business long. If the guests are made sick by the food, they won’t come back. If the food fails to please them, they won’t come back. He will be out of business. Markets provide incentives for participants to put themselves in the position of others, to consider what their desires are, and to try to see things as they see them. Markets are the alternative to violence. Markets make us social. Markets remind us that other people matter, too.” … The entire paper is at Twenty Myths about Markets.

    What are rights? “Individuals have rights. But are they natural? And how do they compare and contrast with legal or constitutional rights? Are legal or constitutional rights similar to those inalienable rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence? Professor Aeon Skoble distinguishes such constitutional rights, such as the right to vote, from the rights protected by governments and constitutions — natural rights not actually granted by governments themselves. He concludes that legal systems should create rights that are compatible with natural rights.” This video is from LearnLiberty.org, a project of Institute for Humane Studies, and many other informative videos are available.

  • Balanced budget amendment is needed

    Despite claims made in a Wichita Eagle op-ed by its former editor Davis Merritt, we desperately need a balanced budget amendment to the United States Constitution. (Balanced-budget amendment is unworkable, August 2, 2001)

    Merritt calls the promise of a balanced budget amendment a “cruel deception” that “limits imagination and progress.” He gives three reasons as to why we should not adopt such an amendment:

    First: “It would need to define exactly and in detail what constitutes a balanced budget, and that’s unwieldy and impossible.” He cites the gimmickry that is often used to hide the reality of what’s in a budget. This, no doubt, would be a difficult problem to solve — but it’s not a reason to fail to try. Some things we could do would be to reduce the complexity of the budget so that we actually understand how much and on what we’re spending. Requiring a high hurdle for the treasury to borrow funds would also be a signal that spending is being hidden in the budget.

    Second: “It would destroy the constitutional tripartite balance of powers, the core of our system, and would strip citizens of their only leverage, their votes.” Here Davis raises problems with enforcement of such an amendment, noting the delay in bringing court cases and giving judges too much power to decide how to balance the budget. But cases can be fast-tracked to the Supreme Court, and a judicial remedy could be to simply refuse to let the government spend any money until Congress and the president produce a balanced budget.

    Third: “It would leave the most crucial fiscal decisions in the hands of congressional minorities, a profoundly undemocratic idea.” Davis mentions the need to spend for national emergencies like Hurricane Katrina. Also: “… less than 15 percent of the House of Representatives paralyzed that body while the nation hurtled toward default and collapse.” I would counter that our nation is hurtling towards collapse precisely because of spending and resultant debt that politicians of both parties have approved for decades. Without the opposition of this small group, it would have likely been business as usual, and that business has been harmful.

    (At least Davis didn’t mention war as justification for deficit spending. Forcing politicians to pay for wars now rather than later might help keep peace.)

    As for national emergencies, a few thoughts: First, people might decide to take care of themselves through advance planning and the purchase of insurance. Second, along with a balanced budget the government could establish “rainy day” or contingency funds for these types of disasters, should the federal government decide to still have a role in these matters. Or, the federal government might buy insurance to cover its costs for handling these disasters. Then, that expense becomes an annual budget item that is known in advance.

    Davis also mentioned a recession cutting into revenues. Again, a rainy day fund can help. While not Davis’ argument, many opponents of a balanced budget amendment cite the need for the federal government to engage in counter-cyclical spending to manage the economy. This, of course, is the Keynesian formula that has been proven many times to be a failure. A policy that prevents our government from engaging in Keynesianism is a plus, not a minus.

    Unless restrained by constitutional rules, legislators will run budget deficits and spend excessively

    One of the best arguments for a balanced budget amendment is found in the book Common Sense Economics: What Everyone Should Know About Wealth and Prosperity by James D. Gwartney, Richard L. Stroup, Dwight R. Lee, and Tawni H. Ferrarini, in a section titled “Unless restrained by constitutional rules, legislators will run budget deficits and spend excessively.” That title says it all, and it is exactly what has been happening. Despite the debt ceiling deal reached this week — a deal denounced by liberals as one that will ruin the country and its economy — huge deficits will still happen, and debt will increase.

    Before 1960, the authors tell us, there was “widespread implicit agreement” that the budget should be balanced, except in times of war. And, the deficits and surpluses that did occur were small relative to the economy. But enter Keynes:

    The Keynesian revolution changed all of this. Keynesians — those accepting the views of English economist John Maynard Keynes — believed that changes in government spending and budget deficits could help promote a more stable economy. They argued that, rather than balancing the budget, the government should run a budget deficit during periods of recession and shift toward a budget surplus when there was concern about inflation. In short, the Keynesian revolution released political decision makers from the discipline imposed by a balanced budget. Freed from this constraint, politicians consistently spent more than they were willing to tax.

    Imagine if Lord Keynes had called upon politicians to fix the economy by doing something other than what they like to do: He would be merely a curiosity of economic history. But Keynes calls for government deficit spending to fix the economy, and spending is what nearly all politicians and bureaucrats like to do. They just don’t like to pay for it, as Common Sense Economics explains:

    The political attractiveness of spending financed by borrowing rather than taxation is not surprising. It reflects what economists call the short-sightedness effect: the tendency of elected political officials to favor projects that generate immediate, highly visible benefits at the expense of costs that can be cast into the future and are difficult to identify. Legislators have a strong incentive to spend money on programs that benefit the voters in their district and special-interest groups that will help them win reelection. They do not like to tax, since taxes impose a visible cost on voters. Debt is an alternative to current taxes; it pushes the visible cost of government into the future. Budget deficits and borrowing allow politicians to supply voters with immediate benefits without having to impose a parallel visible cost in the form of higher taxes. Thus, deficits are a natural outgrowth of unrestrained democratic politics.

    Then, the realities of public choice economics are cited: the well-known problem of concentrated benefits and dispersed costs:

    The unconstrained political process plays into the hands of well-organized interest groups and encourages government spending to gain rich patronage benefits for a few at the expense of many. Each representative has a strong incentive to fight hard for expenditures beneficial to his or her constituents and has little incentive to oppose spending by others. In contrast, there is little incentive for a legislator to be a spending “watchdog.” A legislative watchdog would incur the wrath of colleagues who find it more difficult to deliver special programs for their districts and retaliate by providing little support for spending in the watchdog’s district. More important, the benefits of spending cuts and deficit reductions that the watchdog is trying to attain (for example, lower taxes and lower interest rates) will be spread so thinly among all voters that the legislator’s constituents will reap only a small part of these benefits.

    This is another reason why earmark spending, while a small part of the total federal budget, is harmful. We need to watch to make sure the promised earmark reform is meaningful and lasts.

    A numerical example helps illustrate what happens when there’s a disconnect between receiving something and paying for it in a collective manner:

    Perhaps the following illustration will help explain why it is so difficult for the 415 representatives and 100 senators to bring federal spending and the budget deficit under control. Suppose these 535 individuals go out to dinner knowing that after the meal each will receive a bill for l/535th of the cost. No one feels compelled to order less because his or her restraint will exert little impact on the total bill. Why not order shrimp for an appetizer, entrees of steak and lobster, and a large piece of cheesecake for dessert? After all, the extra spending will add only a few pennies to each person’s share of the total bill. For example, if one member of the dinner party orders expensive items that push up the total bill by $10, his share of the cost will be less than 2 cents. What a bargain! Of course, he will have to pay extra for the extravagant orders of the other 534 diners. But that’s true no matter what he orders. The result is that everyone ends up ordering extravagantly and paying more for extras that provide little value relative to cost.

    The section goes on to explain how large debt leads to higher borrowing costs, which make it even more difficult to control spending. Eventually the result is a financial crisis.

    The authors conclude that spending must be controlled, and that rule changes are needed: “It is vitally important for the federal government to control its spending and borrowing in the years ahead. This is unlikely to happen without a change in the political rules. The rules need to be changed so it will be more difficult for politicians to spend more than they are willing to tax.”

    As for rule changes that would work, the authors mention a balanced budget amendment or requirement for supermajorities for spending proposals and increases in the debt ceiling.

    While I’m encouraged about some of the new members elected to Congress last year, there are still many members — and their constituents — who believe more spending and more debt is the way to go. Relying on people to do the right thing is different from relying on systems to be correct. This is why we must have a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Consitution.

  • Kansas and Wichita quick takes: Wednesday August 3, 2011

    Debt ceiling. What is the real value of the debt ceiling? Has it ever constrained the growth of government debt, until now? Thomas Sowell in Debt-Ceiling Chicken: “Some people may have been shocked when the credit-rating firm Moody’s recently suggested that the debt-ceiling law be repealed, in order to avoid fiscal crises which can throw world financial markets into turmoil that can injure countries around the world. Anyone who wants to show that Moody’s is wrong should be prepared to show the actual benefits of the debt-ceiling, not its goals or hopes. That will not be easy, if possible at all. … The national debt-ceiling law should be judged by what it actually does, not by how good an idea it seems to be. The one thing that the national debt-ceiling has never done is to put a ceiling on the rising national debt. Time and time again, for years on end, the national debt-ceiling has been raised whenever the national debt gets near whatever the current ceiling might be. Regardless of what it is supposed to do, what the national debt-ceiling actually does is enable any administration to get all the political benefits of runaway spending for the benefit of their favorite constituencies — and then invite the opposition party to share the blame, by either raising the national debt ceiling, or by voting for unpopular cutbacks in spending or increases in taxes.”

    Was August 2nd a deadline? All through the debate over raising the federal debt ceiling it was taken as granted that the deadline — the day the U.S. Treasury would run out of money — was August second. U.S. Representative Tim Huelskamp, who is in his first term representing the Kansas first district, has released data that shows otherwise. A chart on his website shows a declining balance in the treasury, but projections show a positive balance far past August second.

    Despite drag of government health care, Canada thrives. The unemployment rate in Canada has fallen, GDP growth is healthy, and there were no bank bailouts. It has been able to reduce the size of its government relative to its economy, writes Jason Clemens in Why Canada Is Beating America: It shrank government, and now unemployment and debt are declining: “Total government spending as a share of the economy peaked at a little over 53% in 1993. Through a combination of spending cuts in the 1990s and spending restraint during the 2000s, it declined to a little under 40% of GDP by 2008.” … For 2010, government spending at all levels in the U.S. amounted to 36.22 percent of GDP, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. While that compares favorably with Canada’s level, the trend in the U.S. is for spending to increase, having risen from 30.82 percent in 2004. … According to Clemens, the success of Canada’s economy is in spite of its government health care, not because of it: “The unavoidable challenge is the country’s health-care system. … Canada devotes a relatively high share of its economy to health care without enjoying commensurate outcomes. Of the 28 countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) that have universal access, Canada has the sixth-highest rate of health spending as a share of its economy.” It would be one matter if Canadians enjoyed good results from all this health care spending. “But Canadians’ access to care is poor, despite high spending. The country ranks 20th of 22 OECD countries for access to physicians. … Waiting times for treatment continue to worsen.” … Liberals in the U.S. point to Canada as a model for government health care, but the actual situation is not one that we should aspire to.

    Kansas government website revamped. Kansas has remodeled its main website, kansas.gov. Besides a new look, I think a useful feature will be the use of a Google site-specific search feature. These generally work very well, applying the power of the popular and effective search engine to a specific website. Time will tell as to whether the design is useful. The state does not have a good record in recent times of website redesigns, as the effort to replace the legislature’s website right as the session started was a disaster. The press release with other details is at New State Web Portal Provides Better Experience, Mobility.

    Demand is not the problem. A recent letter to the Wichita Eagle started with “The only thing that creates jobs is demand for product.” This idea of economic wealth deriving from consumer demand is a Keynesian concept, and we’ve seen over and over the wreckage that Keynesian economics leaves on countries — starting with our own efforts to cure the Great Depression to the failing economic policies of President Barack Obama. It’s also curious to blame economic stagnation on the absence of desire of people for more stuff. People want more stuff — that’s human nature. It is by producing more that we create the wealth necessary to satisfy our demands. Production benefits from capital formation, and the policies of the United States are not favorable for this. … The author also promotes increasing exports while at the same time urging Americans to buy only U.S.-made products. This ignores the fact that trade — no matter who the trading partner — is a source of wealth. Both parties are made better-off through trade; otherwise the transaction would not take place.

    Debt ceiling bill. A budget cut only by Washington standards. “Throwing in the towel.” All the angst over the past month seems to have produced very little in the way of meaningful reform. Here several Cato Institute policy experts comment on this week’s lawmaking. “This week’s bipartisan deal to raise the debt limit and achieve some spending reductions will do little in the way of actual spending cuts, defers all the tough decisions on spending and debt to a “SuperCongress” committee and will do little to protect the United States credit rating. Cato Institute Senior Fellows Dan Mitchell and Jagadeesh Gokhale and Director of Tax Policy Studies Chris Edwards comment on the debt deal.”

  • U.S. receipts and expenditures

    A recent op-ed by Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont in the Wall Street Journal (Why Americans Are So Angry: Republicans want the entire burden of deficit reduction to be carried by the elderly, the sick, children and working families), besides holding faulty reasoning in every paragraph, hold a few factual errors that deserve discussion.

    Raise tax rates to raise revenue

    For example, Sanders writes regarding the rich: “Their effective tax rate, in recent years, has been reduced to the lowest in modern history.” He’s arguing for tax increases on the rich as a way of balancing the budget. (Really, he just wants more money to spend. He’s not serious about closing the deficit.)

    There are many like Sanders and President Barack Obama who call for raising taxes, especially on the rich, as a way to generate more revenue and balance the budget. But try as we might, raising tax rates won’t generate higher revenues (as a percentage of gross domestic product), due to Hauser’s law. W. Kurt Hauser explained in The Wall Street Journal: “Even amoebas learn by trial and error, but some economists and politicians do not. The Obama administration’s budget projections claim that raising taxes on the top 2% of taxpayers, those individuals earning more than $200,000 and couples earning $250,000 or more, will increase revenues to the U.S. Treasury. The empirical evidence suggests otherwise. None of the personal income tax or capital gains tax increases enacted in the post-World War II period has raised the projected tax revenues. Over the past six decades, tax revenues as a percentage of GDP have averaged just under 19% regardless of the top marginal personal income tax rate. The top marginal rate has been as high as 92% (1952-53) and as low as 28% (1988-90). This observation was first reported in an op-ed I wrote for this newspaper in March 1993. A wit later dubbed this ‘Hauser’s Law.’”

    So tax rates may be low, or they may be high, but tax revenue, as a percent of GDP, remains nearly constant.

    Hauser's LawHauser’s Law illustrated. No matter what the top marginal tax rate, taxes collected remain an almost constant percentage of GDP.

    Tax revenue is down

    Sanders also wrote “The sum of all the revenue collected by the Treasury today totals just 14.8% of our gross domestic product, the lowest in about 50 years.” Sanders is incorrect here. In 2010 receipts to the federal government as a percent of GDP was 16.73 percent, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. For the first quarter of 2011, the figure is 16.97 percent. These numbers are much higher than what Sanders claims. He didn’t mention where he got his figures.

    From 1960 to 2010 — the 50 year period Sanders mentions — the average revenue collected was 18.32 percent of GDP. The current figure is lower than that, so Sanders is correct that current revenue collections are lower than recent history, and that may be what has Sanders worried.

    A look back at the history of federal receipts and expenditures is useful. A chart is below.

    While President Ronald Reagan was able to cut tax rates, he couldn’t control spending as easily, and that led to large deficits. As a percent of the economy, spending rose during his term, although by the time he left office it was at the same level of GDP as when he took office. The message of Reagan’s presidency is that it’s easier to cut taxes than to cut spending. But we must always be in favor of cutting taxes, and hope that politicians have the fortitude to cut spending to match.

    It’s doctrinaire among liberals today to cite President Bill Clinton and his tax increase as the cause of the prosperity of the late 1990s and the accompanying budget surpluses for several years. But his tax increase was not the only thing going on in those years that contributed to a budget surplus. The peace dividend, as defense spending fell during his term, helped. Clinton had nothing to do with the end of Cold War; he was just lucky to be in place to benefit from its end.

    If cutting spending relative to the size of the economy was Clinton’s goal — and I don’t think it really was — he was lucky to have a Republican Congress starting in 1995 to help him accomplish this goal. With a Democratically-controlled Congress, it’s unlikely that spending would have been restrained, and with that, no budget surplus. While many bemoan gridlock in Washington because nothing gets done, the gridlock of the Clinton years led to less spending — and that’s good.

    We should also remember that in 1997 the capital gains tax rate fell from 28 percent to 20 percent. Capital gains taxes collected soared. That was a Republican initiative, and it contributed to increased tax revenue during the Clinton surplus years.

    The Clinton years were good for controlling spending, starting in 1993 with spending at 22.56 percent of GDP, and exiting in 2000 with spending at 18.81 percent. As to the prosperity of the Clinton years, many seem to forget that much of it was based on a bubble that couldn’t be sustained — the dot-com bubble. While not as large as the housing bubble, it was prosperity that very suddenly evaporated.

    Then President George W. Bush took office. In 2001 spending as a percent of GDP was 19.25 percent, and it rose slowly during his term, reaching 21.80 percent in 2008. Then it exploded to 24.75 percent in 2009 and slightly less in 2010. For the second quarter of 2011, the trend is upwards, as spending reached 25.50 percent of GDP.

    From the end of World War II to the start of Reagan’s presidency, spending steadily rose, relative to the size of the economy. From Reagan to Clinton we did a good job reversing this trend. But starting with the second Bush, and rapidly accelerating with Obama, spending is rising off the chart. It will be difficult to reverse this trend, but we must. Even though tax revenue has declined, we must remember what Milton Friedman taught us: the true measure of the size of government is spending, as spending not paid for today is taxation put off to the future.

    Federal receipts and expenditures as percentage of gross domestic productFederal receipts and expenditures as percentage of gross domestic product.

  • In Kansas, P.J. O’Rourke promotes free markets

    From May, 2010.

    Last month Americans for Prosperity-Kansas hosted a summit in Topeka where 400 citizens gathered to learn more about free markets and Kansas politics. It wasn’t all instruction, however, as political satirist P.J. O’Rourke was on hand to entertain the audience while also providing insights into politics and economics.

    O’Rourke is the best-selling author of 12 books and contributor to many magazines. He is H.L. Mencken Research Fellow at the Cato Institute.

    An Easterner, he told the audience that people on the east coast are skeptical of the Midwest, saying it’s awful flat out there. “That’s so we can see you coming,” he said.

    The free market, he said, is the greatest repository of our freedoms. He told the audience that “economic freedom is the freedom that we exercise most often and to the greatest extent.” Freedom of speech is important — if you have anything to say.

    The free market is a measurement, he said. It tells us “what people are willing to pay for a given thing at a given moment.” While people may not always like the results the free market produce, it isn’t possible to legislate perfect results.

    He said that while we may not understand the causes of the recent economic crisis, we do understand business investment, “something the Obama Administration seems to be doing everything it can to prevent.” Business investment defines humanity and civilization.

    While O’Rourke heaped criticism on Democrats, he said that Republicans deserve criticism too. “Republicans are the party that says government doesn’t work, and then they get elected and prove it.”

    Bush policies such as No Child Left Behind, immigration reform, and social security reform are examples of failed programs or proposals that didn’t make it into law. “Bush said if illegal immigrants wanted citizenship, they’d have to do three things: pay taxes, learn English, and work at a meaningful job. Bush didn’t meet two out of those three qualifications.”

    While the Bush Administration disappointed, he said the Obama Administration has just began to disappoint.

    Speaking on the role of politics and government in society, O’Rourke said that we keep blaming political problem on politicians. People believe that only if we had better politicians, the world would be better. He countered: “The problem isn’t politicians. The problem is politics.”

    O’Rourke told the audience that all society’s ills can’t be cured through politics. “Politicians lie to us, but it’s not like they’ve got much choice. Think about what the truth would sound like on the campaign stump. Even a little, bitty bit of truth. Imagine the politician who said to the voters ‘No, I can’t fix public education. The problem isn’t funding, or overcrowding, or teachers unions, or lack of computer equipment in the classroom. The problem is your damn kids.‘”

    He said that after 40 years making fun of politicians, he realized he hates politics — all politics. We use the word “politics” in ways that reveal our true attitude, he said: “office politics,” “plays politics,” someone is a “real politician” — all these have negative connotations. True conservatism, he said, is a room deodorizer, trying to get the bad smell of politics out of our lives.

    While partisan political bickering is often viewed as a block to accomplishment, O’Rourke said “We want them to bicker. The two most frightening words in Washington — and right here in Topeka too — are ‘bipartisan consensus.’”

    There is a desire by many to stop worrying about politics, but that’s not possible, as we rely on politics for so much. Politicians of both parties want government to solve all our problems. But O’Rourke mentioned government’s poor record of accomplishment: “Government has trouble figuring out where mail goes, and mail has our address right on the front of it.”

    O’Rourke told the audience that corruption is ingrained in politics. “When buying and selling are controlled by voting, the first things that get bought and sold are votes.” Politicians understand this, he added.

    On the role of lawyers in politics, he quipped “Letting lawyers write laws is like letting pharmaceutical companies invent diseases.”

    On economics, O’Rourke said that “wealth is not a pizza, where if I have too many slices you have to eat the Domino’s box.” Wealth is not a zero-sum gain. In a free market there are no losers when someone gets rich, he added.

    The political quest for equality leads to fear and envy of the rich. The Biblical commandment to not covet your neighbor’s things needs to be applied to the nation: “don’t whine about what others have — go get your own.”

    In an interview after his talk, I was able to ask a few questions. Since much of his talk to the audience was on economic freedom, I asked why isn’t economic freedom more popular?

    He said that psychologically, freedom requires taking responsibility. The zero-sum idea — that when someone makes money, they’re somehow taking it from me — is hard to shake. It’s a relatively new idea in human history, and we have not adjusted, psychologically or politically. Also, he said that children today spend a long time in “socialist dependence” in the family setting. Although children are instinctively in favor of private property, they are brought up in a collectivist settings like families, churches, schools, scout groups, and universities.

    So have we as conservatives or libertarians not done a good job explaining wealth creation through voluntary transactions?

    He said no, this is not taught well at all. The moral aspect of economics is not taught. Economics doesn’t fit into the typical secondary school curriculum, he said, and so students usually don’t received much instruction. There is an element in the education establishment that either doesn’t understand the moral aspects of the free market, or they disagree.

    Responding about a question about the push for tax increases in Kansas, O’Rourke said that government spending advocates assume as a given that the spending needs to be done. He said that an adequate amount is being spent on education, but we’re not getting results.

    Since many of the people in the audience are activists, I asked what advice he had to start reducing the amount of government we have.

    He noted that the paradox is that political involvement is necessary to diminish the role of politics in people’s lives. Moving political power to the local or state level is one way. This requires people to become more politically active. More people need to be more engaged in the decisions that are now being made in Washington. But it’s easy to slough off problems to Washington, O’Rourke said, and this is one of the reasons why government has grown.

    I asked about the state sovereignty and tenth amendment movements: Do we risk replacing a tyrannical federal government with tyrannical state governments? He said the idea of sovereignty may apply to the health care issue, as all states are already involved in this area. But states can be just as oppressive as the federal government, referring to the new Arizona illegal alien law.

    On climate change and global warming alarmism, O’Rourke said this is a tool people use to increase political power. There is a desire to increase the scope of political power, and “any excuse will do,” he said. Using an observation made by Milton Friedman, he added that solving problems through increasing political power relies on the “absurd assumption that we can somehow find honest and unselfish men to put in control of dishonest and selfish men.” There is a qualitative division between the type of people who go into politics and everyone else, he added.

    I asked about those who work for greater government power at the expense of economic freedom: Have they never been exposed to the ideas of free markets, or have they been exposed to these ideas and don’t believe them, or are they simply venal?

    O’Rourke said that — putting the best possible face on it, he said — many politicians regard politics as a “counterweight to what they think of as market failures.”

    He said that the small “l” left believes that man is good, but that the systems of power in the world are inherently bad. And for most of history, the systems of power have been bad. If the power structures of the world can be changed, the “goodness of people will shine through.” O’Rourke said that this idea is wrong: People are not not good, but they’re not evil; they have a capacity for both. The free market is a method to move power away from the political elite and aristocracy and toward ordinary people.

    This represents two different views of the world and human nature. He said that his point of view requires less interference in people’s lives, making it better — or at least less annoying.

    He told of a conversation with Cato Institute’s David Boaz, telling him that he is as over-certain in his libertarianism as anyone on the left is in their beliefs. Boaz replied “Yes, but I’m not prescriptive in my over-certainness.”

  • Public-private partnerships: the problems

    As the City of Wichita undertakes the revitalization of downtown Wichita, we need to make sure we understand the many problems inherent in the “public-private partnership.” The following commentary by Fred L. Smith, Jr. President of the Competitive Enterprise Institute originally appeared on OpenMarket.org, and it does an excellent job explaining these problems. Some of these I and others have brought to the attention of the Wichita City Council.

    The Problem With Public-Private Partnerships

    by Fred Smith

    In our half-political, half-private world, there are a growing number of public-private partnerships. Almost nothing in the current world can be done without implicit or explicit permission by local, state, federal or (increasingly) global regulators. But the term, public-private is normally used to denote the joint funding and, sometimes, joint management of some “public” facility — streets, water systems, and so forth.

    The rationale for “public” investments is that they are “public” goods, whose benefits are not adequately captured by the provider. There are many problems with this concept — in practice, it means that someone wants something and nobody seems to be providing it. Note, from a Coasian/Schumpeterian free market perspective, these are exactly the “lures” that lead mankind to pursue the unexplored entrepreneurial paths to the future. Rushing in with government assistance distorts and preempts those creative forces.

    Sometimes, public-private partnerships can be a transitional step toward privatization. The concept of “corporatization” that is, reorganizing an activity now performed by some political agency so that its inherent economic realities become more understandable and transparent, may be a useful step in privatizing the activity.

    In most cases, however, public-private partnerships are simply a means of using tax breaks, regulatory easing, taxpayer support and so forth to subsidize some private activity: stadia, light and heavy rail — mass transit generally, sometimes (for God’s sake) hotels and malls, downtown development districts. Where I live in Washington, D.C., businesses are allowed to add a “special tax” to pay for services the city supposedly pays for with normal tax revenues. Such public-private partnerships suffer from the full array of government failures:

    • Log-rolling and pork-barrel politics: I’ll vote for your PPP if you vote for my PPP.
    • Weakened market tests: resources are devoted to a project not because it benefits the citizenry but rather because it benefits a powerful interest group and/or because a creative referendum entices a majority of voters to support their special interests.
    • Weaker Management: Absent market tests, managers are less motivated to find that mix of services and creative array of financing tools to ensure that it proves “profitable” (that is, a rational allocation of capital). Roads, even charter schools, etc all have suffered here immensely.
    • Lack of innovation: No institution in the private world can allow itself to stagnate – the creative forces of destruction will soon make it obsolete. PPP managers face much weaker innovative forces — if things go wrong, they can always appeal to their “public” nature for taxpayer bailouts.
    • Corruption: Crony capitalism abounds in the PPP world.
    • Faddism: Markets sometimes go on kicks — the tech boom, for example — but these soon collapse. Governments go on kicks for many decades — “renewable energy” and “mass transit” being perhaps the best examples but “magnet” investments in downtown malls, stadia and convention centers are perhaps even more persistent ones. Before Walmart became a PPP, it did more for consumers than all the PPP malls in the world.
    • Crowding Out: Capitalism plays a critical role in allocating capital — planting the seeds for our future. That is a very difficult task, one made much more difficult by the existence of PPPs. Government already seizes a disproportionate amount of our wealth and the PPP concept allows it to further distort the allocation by market forces. I’ve argued that the genius of the Progressives in the late 19th century was to preempt or push large sectors of the emerging future (the environment, schools, electromagnetic spectrum, infrastructure, welfare, the medical world) into the political world. The PPP concept simply exacerbates this tendency.

    Our challenge is to find ways to expand the private sector and only very rarely does the PPP concept do that. It allows people to be sloppy — “That would never pay for itself but it obviously has value, thus, we need some government help. Let’s not make it an honest government function, let’s make it a Public-Private partnership and get the best of all possible outcomes!!”

    This Mixed Economy model is less honest than true socialism (government acting directly) for many reasons. If as is often the case, things go wrong, it will be capitalism — not government — that will be blamed. PPP activities are less subject to consumer sovereignty (look at airports or schools). The true costs of the activity don’t appear on government budgets — making it appear that PPP arrangements are “bargains.”

  • Kansas Capitol renovations

    The restoration of the Kansas Statehouse was featured last fall on an episode of the television program Sunflower Journeys. While providing an interesting look at the history of the stonecarvings on the building’s exterior, the show made a mistaken argument about the economics of the project.

    During the 2011 legislative session, the Republican-controlled Kansas Legislature decided to borrow an additional $34 million for the renovation of the Kansas Capitol building. Add this to the already-established cost of $285 million, and the total cost now pushes well above $300 million. There’s no guarantee this is all that will be spent.

    During the episode Vance Kelley, a project manager for Treanor Architects, promoted the economic development aspects of the capitol building’s restoration. Since the workers are local, he said that utilizing local labor forces means that tax dollars get passed along to local merchants: “Actually we’re generating, I think it’s been estimated between six and seven times the amount of money within the local economy. Preservation actually creates jobs. It is economic development in itself.”

    This argument — that government spending of this type creates jobs — is commonly heard from advocates of more government spending. It’s a popular argument among historic preservationists, too, as they seek to justify why their work is so expensive, and why public money should be expended on it.

    Does government spending create jobs? The short answer is no. The primary reason is that government can only spend what it takes from someone else. It might do the taking now in the form of taxation. Or it might borrow, which delays taxation to the future. Either way, many people have less money to spend, save, and invest because of the taxation.

    Kelley’s argument does have a ring of truth to it. Local merchants — Topeka, he means — are benefiting. Taxpayers across the state are taxed to send money to be spent largely in Topeka. This benefit, however, comes at the expense of spending — and related jobs — in other parts of Kansas. This is a selfish argument.

    Kelley may not be aware of the seen and unseen fallacy that pervades popular thinking. When we go to Topeka — or watch taxpayer-funded public television — we can see the glory and magnificence of the government spending on the Kansas Capitol. Finding the harm caused by the taxation necessary to pay for this, however, is disbursed across the state and very difficult to find. But it exists.

    Kelley also referenced the multiplier. That’s the observation that money spent gets spent again, and again, and again. That’s true. But advocates of government spending like Kelley think that only government spending is magically multiplied. The truth is that any spending is multiplied in this way. It’s a natural phenomenon of economics.

    Some people make the argument that people may not spend their money during uncertain times. Instead, they may save it. But where do savings go? Many people put their money in a bank, which then lends it to people who want to spend it. Other people buy stocks or bonds, or pay down debt. Either action provides funds for others to spend. It’s only when people save money by stuffing it in their mattresses that this argument — that government must spend — applies. And very few people do this.

    The further truth is that when spending their own money, people are usually careful. Government? Not so much. Evidence of this is the ornate decorative carvings illustrated in the Sunflower Journeys episode. Few private buildings are built to this standard, because people — even wealthy people — spending their own money don’t value this frivolity very highly.

    Instead, it is government, spending taxpayers’ money, that builds elaborate monuments to itself.

    There are some cases where we might argue that government spending creates wealth, such as in the building of needed highways. It does not follow, however, that only government is capable of making this investment. Further, streets and highways are far removed from ornate stonecarvings on a government monument.

  • Tax expenditures, or loopholes

    While most critics of government spending focus on entitlements, regular appropriations, and earmarks, there is a category of spending that not many have paid much attention. This spending is called “tax expenditures.” This year as part of the debate or controversy over raising the federal debt ceiling, attention is being paid to the cost of these tax expenditures, although the term commonly used is “loophole.”

    It’s a big issue. As economist Martin Feldstein wrote in the Wall Street Journal, tax expenditures were thought to increase the federal budget deficit by $1 trillion in 2010.

    We know where President Barack Obama stands. He is firm in wanting to increase tax revenue by eliminating tax expenditures. He focuses on those that apply to the rich, although there are plenty of tax expenditures that apply to the working poor and middle class, such as the earned income tax credit and child care credit.

    To speak of these tax expenditures or loopholes having a “cost” makes sense only if you adopt a certain view of the world. It has to do with who owns what — you or government. George Reisman recently explained: “The underlying assumption of those who hold this view is that the government already owns the funds in question whether it has collected them in taxes or not. The government is the alleged owner of funds that belong to the taxpayer and which it abstains from taking. It allegedly spends these funds in allowing the taxpayers to keep them.”

    Reisman further explained that eliminating tax expenditures is a tax increase, pure and simple, and must not be embraced: “The notion of tax expenditures provides the pretext for massive tax increases in the name of reducing government spending. This notion must be cast aside, so that the target of tax reform will be reductions in actual government spending, which then must be followed by reductions in taxes.”

    Other economists agree. Thomas J. DiLorenzo, in his essay More Loophole Lobbyists, Please warns of the “oldest trick in the book,” which he says is “Give up your deductions, and we will reduce your income tax rate.”

    I agree with their arguments. Increasing tax revenue to the state by eliminating tax expenditures is not a good thing. At the same time, the tax expenditures are a problem. Their very existence, and the continual effort to expand them or prevent their closing, is harmful to the economy, too. Spending through the tax system is a major way of implementing crony capitalism, that is, political entrepreneurship instead of market entrepreneurship, as explained by Charles G. Koch in The Wall Street Journal: “Crony capitalism is much easier than competing in an open market. But it erodes our overall standard of living and stifles entrepreneurs by rewarding the politically favored rather than those who provide what consumers want.”

    Koch went on to explain that “Our elected officials would do well to remember that the most prosperous countries are those that allow consumers — not governments — to direct the use of resources. Allowing the government to pick winners and losers hurts almost everyone, especially our poorest citizens.”

    I agree with that, too. This is why this is a difficult issue.

    Tax expenditures are implemented through the tax system. It’s usually the income tax system, especially at the federal level, but also at the state level.

    Some of the tax expenditures consist of deductions: The government deciding not to collect tax on income that is spent for a specific purpose. An example is the deduction for home mortgage interest. For 2010, this is estimated to “cost” the federal government $103.7 billion in taxes that it would otherwise collect, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation.

    The tax expenditures that really “cost” the government — and by extension, other taxpayers that must pay unless spending is also reduced — are tax credits. These reduce the tax that must be paid dollar for dollar. An example is the “credit for alcohol fuels,” which is to say ethanol. The cost of this tax credit program for 2010 is given as $10.1 billion. Many credits are refundable, meaning that if the taxpayer has no tax liability, the government will send the recipient a check.

    Other examples of tax credits cited by Feldstein include “$500 million annual subsidy for the rehabilitation of historic structures and a $4 billion annual subsidy of employer-paid transportation benefits.”

    While supporters of many of these programs portray them as not costing the government anything, Feldstein writes that they do: “These tax rules — because they result in the loss of revenue that would otherwise be collected by the government — are equivalent to direct government expenditures.”

    I argued this in testimony I presented to a committee in the Kansas Legislature last year, when it was considering restoring and expanding the Kansas historic preservation tax credit program. I told committee members: “We must recognize that a tax credit is an appropriation of Kansans’ money made through the tax system. If the legislature is not comfortable with writing a real estate developer a check for over $1,000,000 — as in the case with one Wichita developer — it should not make a roundabout contribution through the tax system that has the same economic impact on the state’s finances.”

    In that committee, not one member voted against this program, even though the committee has some members who consider themselves very fiscally conservative and hawks on spending.

    In Wichita, the city council regularly steers spending to certain companies through the tax system by granting property tax exemptions and tax increment financing.

    Feldstein describes problems with spending implemented through the tax system:

    • Politicians use tax expenditures to grow the welfare state. While proposing a freeze on discretionary spending, President Obama at the same time proposed an expansion of a tax credit program for child or elderly care.
    • Once enshrined in the tax law, these appropriations don’t have to be reauthorized each year. They’re on auto-pilot, so to speak.
    • Eliminating tax expenditures is looked on by Republicans as a tax increase, so they are reluctant to support their elimination. Felstein counters: “But eliminating tax expenditures does not increase marginal tax rates or reduce the reward for saving, investment or risk-taking.”
    • Tax expenditures distort the economy in harmful ways: “[Eliminating tax expenditures] would also increase overall economic efficiency by removing incentives that distort private spending decisions.”

    Feldstein concludes: “Cutting tax expenditures is really the best way to reduce government spending. And to be politically acceptable, the cuts in tax expenditures must be widespread, requiring most taxpayers to give up something so that the fiscal deficits can decline.”

    The ‘Tax Expenditure’ Solution for Our National Debt

    The credits and subsidies that make the tax code so complicated cost big bucks. Reduce them by third and the debt will be 72% of GDP in 2020 instead of 90%.

    By Martin Feldstein

    When it comes to spending cuts, Congress is looking in the wrong place. Most federal nondefense spending, other than Social Security and Medicare, is now done through special tax rules rather than by direct cash outlays. The rules are used to subsidize a wide range of spending including education, child care, health insurance, and a myriad of other congressional favorites.

    These tax rules — because they result in the loss of revenue that would otherwise be collected by the government — are equivalent to direct government expenditures. That’s why tax and budget experts refer to them as “tax expenditures.” This year tax expenditures will raise the federal deficit by about $1 trillion, according to estimates by the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation. If Congress is serious about cutting government spending, it has to go after many of them.

    Continue reading at the Wall Street Journal (subscription required)