Voice For Liberty

Tag: Economics

  • Kansas airports’ economic impact

    Last year the Kansas Department of Transportation released a study of the economic impact of Kansas airports. The accompanying news release is Kansas airports generate billions in economic impact.

    The report caused quite a stir, with newspapers such as the Los Angeles Times (at least its online version) carrying the Associated Press coverage. Perhaps the reason distant newspapers were interested in the story is the sensationally large economic impact figures reported. The number of jobs attributed to airports is large, by any standard.

    But there’s a problem with these numbers. They’re similar to sensational claims made a few years ago when the case for subsidizing airlines in Wichita was made. Those figures were bogus. So are these.

    The staggeringly large figures come from two aspects of the study. First, the study counts the economic activity from businesses near the airport as attributable to the airport. In the case of the Wichita airport, this means that the employees of Cessna and Bombardier Learjet, and all the economic activity these companies produce, is credited as economic impact of the airport.

    This economic sleight-of-hand allows the study to attribute 22,313 jobs to the Wichita airport. The total economic impact of the Wichita airport is reported as $4.7 billion.

    All these employees don’t work for the airport. Almost all of them work at business firms located near the airport. But the study doesn’t really make that distinction. And when you do things like this, you can really pump up some inflated figures.

    It is a convenient circumstance that these two manufacturers happen to be located near the airport. To credit the airport with the economic impact of these companies — as though the airport was involved in the actual manufacture of airplanes instead of providing an incidental (but important) service — is to grossly overstate the airport’s role and its economic importance.

    A second problem is the study’s use of economic impact multipliers to pump up the figures. A multiplier reflects the fact that money spent at, say an airport, get spent again. Proponents of multipliers forget that money spent elsewhere get multiplied too. In fact, money that is saved and invested get multiplied, too.

    These two factors inspired the Associated Press reporter to lead off a story with “Airports in Kansas support more than 47,000 jobs, generate $2.3 billion in payroll and have an annual economic impact of $10.4 billion …” With numbers so big, you can see why news editors in far-away cities might run the story.

    There’s another problem: these studies usually assume that all the activity is the responsibility of the entity being promoted, that none of it would have happened without the celebrated entity, and that since (usually) the promoted entities are government-owned, all this is evidence of the goodness of government.

    Another problem is that these economic impact figures get used several times to support various government subsidies to business. Here we have the airport claiming two aircraft manufacturing companies’ employees and their economic impact as the product of the airport.

    But when these companies want corporate welfare from the Kansas state government, the economic impact of the companies and their employees will be cited as justification. Politicians, bureaucrats, and the public will believe their case.

    Then, the same numbers might be cited again at Wichita city hall, and maybe before the Sedgwick County Commission as the company makes its case for industrial revenue bonds, tax abatements, forgivable loans, and other forms of local corporate welfare.

    But this economic impact can’t be recycled like this. It exists only once. If the Wichita airport claims it, then it can’t be used again to justify some other program or request.

    Another way the study leaps beyond credibility is its inclusion of the Beech Factory Airport in east Wichita. This is an airport without commercial air service. It exists solely for the convenience of Hawker Beechcraft, and is undoubtedly a necessary component of the capital plant needed to manufacture airplanes.

    The study, however, mixes this airport in with all other Kansas airports, so this airport’s claimed $1.8 billion in economic impact is treated the same as any other Kansas airport. But regular people can’t catch a flight at this airport.

    When government officials use stretched and inflated figures like these, they diminish their credibility. The Kansas Department of Transportation already snowed the Kansas public earlier last year with their claims of the need for huge spending on Kansas roads and highways.

    Here they’ve done it again, with claims that simply make no economic sense at all. The fact that news media laps up these figures without any skepticism or critical thought doesn’t help.

    Does this mean that Kansas and its local government shouldn’t offer airports and businesses like aircraft manufacturers help from the public treasury? That’s a different question for a different day.

    Today, however, we need to realize that accurate, reasonable, and believable information about Kansas airports and other transportation infrastructure isn’t available from the Kansas Department of Transportation.

  • Clusters as economic development in Kansas

    Is the promotion by Kansas government of industry clusters as economic development good for the future of Kansas?

    The formula for creating these clusters is always the same: Pick a hot industry, build a technology park next to a research university, provide incentives for businesses to relocate, add some venture capital and then watch the magic happen. But, as I have noted before, the magic never happens. Most of the top-down cluster-development projects in the United States and around the world have died a slow death in relative obscurity. Politicians who held the press conferences to claim credit for advancing science and technology are long gone. Management consultants have cashed in their big checks. Real estate barons have reaped fortunes, and taxpayers are left holding the bag.

    The author is Vivek Wadhwa, writing in the Washington Post article Industry clusters: The modern-day snake oil.

    Wadwha is criticizing Harvard professor Michael Porter’s cluster theory, which he says has to do with how “geographic concentrations of interconnected companies, specialized suppliers, and service providers gave certain industries a productivity and cost advantage.” Wardwha describes the magical potential: “[Porter’s] legions of followers postulated that by bringing these ingredients together into a ‘cluster,’ regions could artificially ferment innovation. They just needed to build the right infrastructure and bring together chosen industries.”

    It’s something that Wichita and Kansas has embraced. We hear — continually — about the importance of the aviation cluster in south-central Kansas and its importance to our state’s economy. Talk of this becomes particularly intense each time the major aviation companies and their suppliers approach local governments for handouts in the form of economic development incentives.

    Wichita Mayor Carl Brewer wants to create a cluster of wind energy companies in and around Wichita, and he has traveled as far as Germany in this quest.

    Kansas Governor Sam Brownback has embraced the cluster concept. In June, Governor Brownback promoted one such cluster, saying “As a state, we must formulate strategies to achieve a successful economic cluster around the animal health sector.”

    Other clusters the state wants to promote include life sciences, tourism, and, as aleady mentioned, aviation. Brownback has held summits on most of these topics. A presentation titled Kansas Competitiveness: State and Cluster Economic Performance, billed as “Prepared for Governor Sam Brownback” in February by Harvard’s Porter analyzes Kansas and its business clusters.

    Evidence that backs up Wardwha’s criticism of clusters is found in the recent paper When local interaction does not suffice: Sources of firm innovation in urban Norway (Rune Dahl Fitjar and Andrés Rodríguez-Pose). Summarizing it, Wardwha wrote: “The study found that regional and national clusters are ‘irrelevant for innovation.’”

    In particular, the paper states in its introduction: “The results indicate that firm innovation in urban Norway is mainly driven by global pipelines, rather than local interaction. The most innovative — both in terms of basic product innovation and radical product and process innovation — firms are those with a greater diversity of international partners. Local and even national interaction seems to be irrelevant for innovation.”

    And from the conclusion: “Recent analyses of clusters and agglomeration have looked for the sources of innovation of firms in the combination of the multiple interactions of firms within the region and in the connections of certain firms in the region with the outside world. The story emerging was one of complementarity. Local interaction took place without much effort through frequent face-to-face interaction in high trust environments, while global pipelines implied a conscious and often costly attempt by individual firms to engage with external actors in order to generate greater innovation and reap economic benefits. … There is a dearth of analyses that have systematically addressed whether the complementarity of these two types of interaction holds across a large number of firms. This has been the main aim of this paper, which has looked at the sources of innovation of 1604 firms across the five main urban agglomerations in Norway. The picture which emerges from the analysis does not conform to that generally stemming from the theoretical literature and from case-studies.”

    Is the promotion and pursuit of business and industry clusters a misguided effort by Kansas politicians like Brewer and Brownback and the state’s economic development officials? To the extent that promotion of certain industries means the state is using a top-down, “active investor” approach to economic development — rather than being the caretaker of a competitive platform that encourages as much business experimentation as possible — yes, it is misguided. We run the risk of all the problems described in the opening quotation appearing in this article.

  • Kansas and Wichita quick takes: Wednesday July 20, 2011

    Kansas budget director to be in Wichita. This Friday’s meeting (July 22) of the Wichita Pachyderm Club features Steve Anderson, Director of the Budget for Kansas. The public is welcome and encouraged to attend Wichita Pachyderm meetings. For more information click on Wichita Pachyderm Club. … Upcoming speakers: On July 29, Dennis Taylor, Secretary, Kansas Department of Administration and “The Repealer” on “An Overview of the Office of the Repealer.” … On August 5, the three newest members of the Wichita City Council will appear: Pete Meitzner (district 2, east Wichita), James Clendenin (district 3, south and southeast Wichita), and Michael O’Donnell (district 4, south and southwest Wichita). Their topic will be “What it’s like to be a new member of the Wichita City Council?” … On August 12 Kansas Representative Marc Rhoades, Chair of the Kansas House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations, will speak on “The impact of the freshman legislators on the 2011 House budgetary process.” … On August 19, Jay M. Price, Ph.D., Associate Professor and Director of the public history program at Wichita State University, speaking on “Clashes of Values in Kansas History.” His recent Wichita Eagle op-ed was Kansas a stage for “values showdowns.” … On August 26, Kansas State Representatives Jim Howell and Joseph Scapa speaking on “Our freshmen year in the Kansas Legislature.” … On September 2 the Petroleum Club is closed for the holiday, so there will be no meeting. … On September 9, Mark Masterson, Director, Sedgwick County Department of Corrections, on the topic “Juvenile Justice System in Sedgwick County.” Following, from 2:00 pm to 3:00 pm, Pachyderm Club members and guests are invited to tour the Sedgwick County Juvenile Detention Center located at 700 South Hydraulic, Wichita, Kansas. … On September 16, Merrill Eisenhower Atwater, great grandson of President Dwight D. Eisenhower, will present a program with the topic to be determined. … On September 23, Dave Trabert, President of Kansas Policy Institute, speaking on the topic Why Not Kansas,” an initiative to provide information about school choice. … On September 30, U.S. Representative Mike Pompeo of Wichita on “An update from Washington.”

    All Kansans voted for “Cut, Cap, and Balance.” From Americans for Prosperity, Kansas: “Americans for Prosperity Kansas applauds Representatives Lynn Jenkins, Tim Huelskamp, Kevin Yoder, and Mike Pompeo for standing up to solve America’s debt crisis by voting ‘Yes’ on H.R. 2560, the Cut, Cap and Balance Act. The Cut, Cap, Balance Act directly addresses the nation’s staggering $14.3 trillion debt by immediately cutting spending, capping the federal budget and sending a strong balanced budget amendment to the states for ratification. … ‘Runaway spending has buried the United States Government in debt, causing us to hit our statutory ceiling at $14.3 trillion,’ said James Valvo, Americans for Prosperity Director of Government Affairs. ‘It is time for Washington to rein it its out-of-control spending and implement real spending reforms. The Cut, Cap, Balance Act provides necessary fiscal restraint that would get America back on the path to prosperity.’ … ‘Families and businesses alike in Kansas are tightening their belts and making tough choices to make ends meet, while Washington has continued to spend with no end in sight as if there are no limits,’ said Derrick Sontag, Americans For Prosperity Kansas State Director. ‘I thank the Kansas Representatives for safeguarding the future of America and demanding Washington tighten its belt.’”

    Foreclosed homes: the maps. We hear about the large number of foreclosed homes, but until you see them on a map, it’s sometimes difficult to comprehend the scope of the problem. For a tour of satellite photographs with indications of foreclosed homes, click on Satellite view of U.S. Foreclosures.

    Kansas certificates of indebtedness. Kansas Watchdog: “Without the state’s most recent internal borrowing, a $600 million certificate of indebtedness (COI) issued June 30, the state general fund (SGF) would have been out of money on July 5, just five days into the new fiscal year, and wouldn’t have a positive balance again until June 21, 2012.” Reporter Paul Soutar goes on to explain how these certificates — a loan to the state to be repaid with funds collected later in the fiscal year — are commonly used year after year. But this is just the start of the state’s problems, writes Soutar: “That’s just the tip of an off-balance iceberg according to the Institute for Truth in Accounting, an advocate for more open and honest accounting for government finance. If all financial obligations, including promised pension payments and health care benefits for retirees, are added up the Kansas state budget was actually $5.2 billion out of balance by FY2011 according to Truth in Accounting.” State accounting practices mask the true magnitude of the problem, too: “Accountants familiar with government and private accounting standards told KansasWatchdog the practice is called double counting and would not be allowed in a private business because it represents a fraud intended to deceive whoever reads the financial report. The double counting approved by the Legislature and Sebelius in 2003 continues in Kansas.” … The full article, well worth reading and understanding, is Certificates of Indebtedness Symptom of Bad Budget Choices.

    Why more regulation is not the answer. Brad Raple of the adverse possessor explains: “Many people associate pure free-market capitalism with a complete lack of regulation. This is not the case. Regulation is the primary reason free-market capitalism works so well. But in a capitalist system, the regulations are market-based instead of based on politically motivated bureaucrats telling people what they can and can’t do. … Bailouts, government guarantees, subsidies, and all other methods of socializing private risk undermine the regulation imposed by free-market forces. … The FDIC is even a huge example of moral hazard. For example, people pay practically no attention to the financial condition or solvency of their banks. After all, why would they? They’re FDIC insured! In other words, no one cares if their deposits are in a bank that is over-leveraged because if it fails, the FDIC will bail out the depositors. Without the FDIC, people might pay a little more attention to the financial condition of their banks. Banks would probably compete based on financial security, as opposed to free toasters, interest rates, and how quickly they can rubber stamp a home equity loan to finance a boat.” … More at Why more regulation is not the answer.

    Myths of the Great Depression. “Historian Stephen Davies names three persistent myths about the Great Depression. Myth #1: Herbert Hoover was a laissez-faire president, and it was his lack of action that lead to an economic collapse. Davies argues that in fact, Hoover was a very interventionist president, and it was his intervening in the economy that made matters worse. Myth #2: The New Deal ended the Great Depression. Davies argues that the New Deal actually made matters worse. In other countries, the Great Depression ended much sooner and more quickly than it did in the United States. Myth #3: World War II ended the Great Depression. Davies explains that military production is not real wealth; wars destroy wealth, they do not create wealth. In fact, examination of the historical data reveals that the U.S. economy did not really start to recover until after WWII was over.” This video is from LearnLiberty.org, a project of Institute for Humane Studies, and many other informative videos are available.

  • Pickens: It’s all about me, and MSNBC doesn’t notice

    Appearing on the MSNBC morning program Morning Joe, energy investor T. Boone Pickens let us know that despite his no-nonsense business-like approach to supporting what he believes to be in America’s best interests, it’s really all about him and what profits him. But program hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski didn’t catch that.

    Pickens appeared on the program to gain support for legislation he is seeking to pass through Congress. His bill is H.R. 1380: New Alternative Transportation to Give Americans Solutions Act of 2011, commonly referred to as the NAT GAS act. The bill would provide payments in the form of tax credits to encourage the use of natural gas as a transportation fuel.

    Host Scarborough said “It makes so much sense.” At the end of the segment, Brzezinski pleaded “Do us a favor. Please don’t give up.”

    Never once did either host bring up the facts that Daniel Indiviglio cites in his coverage for The Atlantic. Mike Barnicle was on the show but wasn’t helpful in this regard, either.

    The problem is this, according to Indiviglio: “At no point during the nine-minute interview on MSNBC did Pickens mention that he stands to make a significant financial gain if the bill he’s promoting succeeds and natural gas usage expands.”

    Pickens knows how to present his case in the best possible light, picking and choosing which fact to present, and which to stretch or ignore. He criticizes Koch Industries for its opposition to the bill. Koch has explained its opposition to subsidies for natural gas as a transportation fuel, just as it opposes all subsidies. In a statement on its Viewpoint website, Dr. Richard Fink, Executive Vice President of Koch Industries, explained the harm of government intervention, writing “Koch has consistently opposed subsidies that distort markets. We maintain that the marketplace, while not perfect, is the best mechanism for allocating resources to consumers. People deciding what fuels to purchase, instead of the government, is best for consumers and our country. Likewise, if natural gas vehicles are truly advantageous and economically efficient, then consumers will demand that they be developed without political mandates that exhaust more taxpayer dollars.”

    Pickens went on to criticize Koch for accepting subsides for ethanol production. Koch Industries, as a refiner of oil, blends ethanol with gasoline it produces in order to meet federal mandates on ethanol usage. Even though Koch opposes subsidies for ethanol, Koch accepts the subsidies. A company newsletter explains: “Once a law is enacted, we are not going to place our company and our employees at a competitive disadvantage by not participating in programs that are available to our competitors.”

    So the criticism of Koch by Pickens is unfounded. Now I wouldn’t really expect the program hosts to be aware of this, but they must have been aware that Pickens will profit, probably handsomely, if the NAT GAS act passes.

    In his coverage Indiviglio writes: “Essentially, Pickens criticizes Koch for preferring government subsidies to benefit Koch Industries. But is Pickens’ motivation for natural gas subsidies really any different?”

    It is different in an important way. Koch, as explained above, participates in a subsidy program that is available to all similarly situated companies. At the same time the company calls for its end for reasons of principle that the company and its owners have supported for many years. Pickens, on the other hand, wants to create a new program with new subsidies and new expansion of government intervention into free markets.

    Besides this, when you listen to Pickens, you realize it’s all about him and what he wants. “We have 250 million vehicles in America. So I’m going to take eight million heavy duty trucks — that’s it — and that will do it.” And then “I want a billion dollars a year for five years.”

    Large decisions about our country’s energy future shouldn’t be made by one person, or even by Congress and the president. We need to let the dynamic discovery process of markets harness and organize the tremendous diverse power of the human mind and reveal to us the best energy solutions.

  • Despite subsidy program, Wichita flights are declining

    Supporters of the Kansas Affordable Airfares Program are proud of the program’s success. But looking at the statistics uncovers a troubling trend that is obscured by the facts used to promote the program.

    The program provides taxpayer-funded grants to airlines so that they will provide low-cost service to cities in Kansas. The thought is that by propping up a discount carrier, other airlines will be forced to reduce their fares. By far the largest consumer of these subsidies is Airtran Airways in Wichita. For this goal, the program has worked, probably. We have to say “probably” because we can never know what would have happened in the absence of this program. But it is quite likely that fares are at least somewhat lower than would they would be otherwise.

    But lower fares is not the only measure of success. The number of available flights is a measure, too, and a very important one for many people.

    The problem is that subsidy boosters state that the number of flights has increased. For example, on a page that is part of the Sedgwick County official website, the claim is made that the affordable airfares program “offers more flights to both east and west coasts.”

    In the agenda packet for the July meeting of the Regional Economic Area Partnership of South Central Kansas — that’s the body that administers the affordable airfares program — board members were presented this information: “In presenting its proposal Sedgwick County provided evidence documenting that low-fare air service to eastern and western U.S. destinations through Wichita Mid-Continent Airport had been successful in providing more air flight options, more competition for air travel, and affordable air fares for Kansas.”

    Later that document describes selection criteria for deciding which airlines will receive grants. The first goal listed is “more air flight options,” which is further described as the number of scheduled, daily nonstop and one-stop flights.

    Certainly enticing a new airline carrier to town by paying them a subsidy increases the number of flights that carrier will offer, as before the subsidy, they offered none. But the experience of Wichita shows that the affordable airfares program is causing an overall loss of flight options in Wichita.

    It’s true that when the airline subsidy started, funded at first only by the City of Wichita, the number of flights departing from Wichita increased. That’s not remarkable. That was the stated goal of the program, and if we paid AirTran a subsidy and they didn’t provide flights, that would have been a problem.

    But the history of flights before the subsidy program is not the only important measure, although supporters of the program like the Wichita Eagle’s Rhonda Holman make use of it when she recently wrote this about the program and an audit of it conducted by Kansas Legislative Division of Post Audit: “Even so, the audit put the return on the state’s investment at $2.32-to-$1, cited 38 percent growth in passenger counts between 2000 and 2009, and said ‘fares have decreased, while the number of passengers and the number of available flights have increased.’”

    Yes, the number of available flights increased upon the arrival of AirTran and the start of the subsidy payments. But the trend since 2005 — about the time the state got involved in the funding and the program matured — is not encouraging. As shown in the accompanying charts, that trend is continually on a downward trajectory. (The charts show two different sets of data for the number of departures from Wichita.)

    The decline in the number of available flights is important, because for some travelers, particularly business travelers, the availability of a seat on an airplane at any price is more important than being able to book a cheap flight a month in advance.

    People may disagree about the wisdom of the airline subsidy program. But we need to recognize that the availability of flights to and from Wichita is declining, and has been declining for a number of years.

    We often hear of the unintended consequences of government intervention. This is such an example. Compounding the problem is the refusal of the program’s supporters — both within and outside of government — to recognize it, at least publicly.

    Monthly departures from WichitaMonthly departures from the Wichita airport
    Number of daily departures from the Wichita airport by air carriers (excluding weekends)Number of daily departures from the Wichita airport by air carriers (excluding weekends)

  • Sedgwick County considers a federal grant

    Remarks delivered to the Sedgwick County Commission as it considered accepting a federal grant. The terms of this grant required that the commission hold a public hearing.

    Commissioners: With regard to the wisdom of accepting this grant.

    Milton Friedman said: “Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program.”

    Is this true? Or is it just rhetoric and speculation by the brilliant and freedom-loving economist?

    If we ask the question: Do federal grants cause state and/or local tax increases in the future after the government grant ends? We now have an answer.

    Economists Russell S. Sobel and George R. Crowley have examined the evidence, and they find the answer is yes.

    Their research paper is titled Do Intergovernmental Grants Create Ratchets in State and Local Taxes? Testing the Friedman-Sanford Hypothesis.

    The difference between this research and most is that Sobel and Crowley look at the impact of federal grants on state and local tax policy in future periods, not just the present period.

    This is important because, in their words, “Federal grants often result in states creating new programs and hiring new employees, and when the federal funding for that specific purpose is discontinued, these new state programs must either be discontinued or financed through increases in state own source taxes.”

    The same remarks apply to local governments like counties and cities.

    The authors caution: “Far from always being an unintended consequence, some federal grants are made with the intention that states will pick up funding the program in the future.”

    I realize that much of what is planned for the grant funds is one-time purchases of equipment. But one planned use is to hire a toxicologist to support what is described in the application as “timely investigation of criminal activity.” What will happen after the grant funds expire? Will we be unwilling to go back to the untimely investigation of criminal activity, if in fact that describes the present situation?

    And if that does not describe the present situation, why do we need the grant?

    From the conclusion to the research findings:

    Our results clearly demonstrate that grant funding to state and local governments results in higher own source revenue and taxes in the future to support the programs initiated with the federal grant monies. Our results are consistent with Friedman’s quote regarding the permanence of temporary government programs started through grant funding.

    …

    Our results suggest that the recent large increase in federal grants to state and local governments that has occurred as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) will have significant future tax implications at the state and local level as these governments raise revenue to continue these newly funded programs into the future.

    …

    Based on our estimates, future state taxes will rise by between 33 and 42 cents for every dollar in federal grants states received today, while local revenues will rise by between 23 and 46 cents for every dollar in federal (or state) grants received today.

    I realize that some have criticized arguments that I and others have made as being only theoretical, and that as commissioners you must deal with the real world.

    But what I have presented today is not just a quaint theory. It is empirical research. It’s what has actually happened. It describes the real world.

    Not only are we taxed to pay for the cost of funding federal and state grants, the units of government that receive grants are very likely to raise their own levels of taxation in response to the receipt of the grants. This is a cycle of ever-expanding government that needs to end, and right now.

    Gentlemen, we can do better. While most people think the problem of government over-spending requires a top-down solution starting in Washington, we have to do better than waiting for Washington to act.

    Right here, right now, in Sedgwick County, home to what the Weather Channel calls the fourth-hottest city in the country, we can show the rest of the country the way. We can show the country that there is a bottom-up solution to the problem of federal spending.

  • Obama’s tax hikes must be resisted

    As our nation’s leaders consider the possibility of raising income tax rates, we need to be aware of the negative impact of higher marginal tax rates on the economy and make sure we resist the lure of higher taxes. This is especially important even if the new higher tax rates are confined to to the rich.

    The concept of marginal tax rates is important to understand, as it holds the key to understanding how we can drive economic growth, and how we can kill it, too. President Barack Obama believes he has already cut taxes in the name of economic growth. These tax “cuts” — I use quotes deliberately — are part of the stimulus bill passed in February 2009.

    So what are the Obama tax cuts? There was one program that qualified — sort of — as a “cut,” and several tax credit programs. The largest item that benefited most people is the Making Work Pay Tax Credit, a two-year program that rebates $400 per year to individual taxpayers, or $800 per year for married couples.

    It’s important to note that this is not a reduction in marginal tax rates, which is the tax rate that people pay on the next dollar they earn. That’s what people focus on. The program will, however, reduce the average tax rate that people pay.

    This bears repeating: People can’t control the tax on income they’ve already earned. But they can decide whether to submit themselves to the marginal tax rate: The tax rate the government charges on the next dollar they may — or may not — earn.

    So why isn’t Obama’s Making Work Pay Tax Credit a stimulus boon to the economy? It’s not associated with any positive effort or activity by the recipients other than doing what they already do. (This applies to the Bush tax rebate in 2008, too.)

    For tax cuts to be productive in growing the economy, they have to be associated with something positive, namely with work, saving, or investment. What many people positively respond to is a reduction in marginal tax rates, that is, the tax that must be paid on the next dollar earned.

    Programs that reduce the average tax rate like Obama’s Making Work Pay Tax Credit and the Bush tax rebates of 2008 aren’t effective because they don’t affect the marginal rate — the rate paid on the next dollar earned. This is not to say that I am not in favor of these programs. Anything that reduces the burden of taxes is welcome. But they are not the type of tax cuts that spur economic growth.

    Why are low marginal tax rates important to economic growth? First, high marginal tax rates discourage people from producing. As people get to keep less and less of what they produce after they pay higher tax rates, many decide to produce less. Some stop producing anything.

    Second, high marginal tax rates encourage people to invest in economically unproductive investments like tax shelters simply to avoid tax, without regard to the underlying wisdom of the investment. Or, people decide that since government takes so much of the money they earn, they might as well spend it on tax-deductible expenses that they might not buy otherwise. A company might hold an engineering conference at an expensive luxury resort instead of a modestly-priced facility — or instead of holding it electronically.

    Who responds most positively to reductions in marginal tax rates? First, with about half of American households paying no federal income tax at all — although they do pay payroll taxes — the idea of marginal tax rates doesn’t apply to them. That leaves high-income workers, or as Jeffrey A. Miron explains, the most economically productive members of society that are positively affected by marginal income tax rates:

    The Bush cuts provided lower taxes on ordinary income, especially for taxpayers at the high end of the income distribution. These are some of the most energetic and productive people in society; raising tax rates would discourage their effort and entrepreneurship. High-income taxpayers also have multiple ways of avoiding high tax rates, so any revenue gain from raising rates would be modest. The Bush cuts also lowered taxes on dividend and capital gains income; maintaining these lower rates is even more important for economic performance. Capital is mobile: when it is taxed heavily here, it flees somewhere else, meaning lower investment and employment in the United States. And because capital income taxes discourage investment or drive it overseas, they generate little if any tax revenue. (Jeffrey A. Miron, “Why the Bush Tax Cuts Worked”)

    It is these “energetic and productive” people that are responsible for a great deal of economic activity and job creation. When these people take steps to avoid taxes it means less productive economic activity and more unproductive tax shelters.

    In Slaying Leviathan: The Moral Case for Tax Reform, author Leslie Carbone explains the harm of high marginal taxes, especially progressive taxes, where rates become higher as more income is earned:

    The discouragement of earning money by working, saving, or investing inherent in any income tax is exacerbated by progressivity. While any high tax rates are economically destructive, high marginal rates are even worse, because high marginal rates particularly discourage productivity and inhibit economic growth. … By lowering potential pay off, high investment taxes especially discourage risky investment. Discouragement of risky investment squelches technological advancement, because new technologies are the most risky. This means our progressive tax system actually reduces progress and inhibits improve quality of life.”

    If the goal of the Obama Administration is to create private sector economic growth instead of growth in government, it needs to keep the Bush tax cuts in place and avoid increases in marginal tax rates for everyone, especially the most productive members of society. A better strategy would be to reduce these tax rates farther to create even more economic growth.

  • Kansas and Wichita quick takes: Monday July 11, 2011

    TIF in Louisiana. Randal O’Toole recently examined the use of tax increment financing in Louisiana. He finds this: “Property tax TIFs are limited to that portion of property taxes that are not already obligated to some specific purpose — and most property taxes are so obligated, so most if not all Louisiana TIFs rely on sales and hotel taxes instead.” This is different from Kansas, where all the property tax, except for the usually small base, benefits the TIF district exclusively. … He describes sales-tax TIFs, which we in Kansas call community improvement districts or CID. While describing them as the least objectionable form of TIF, he notes problems: Why don’t stores just raise their prices? Stores that charge extra sales tax don’t have warning signage. And: “In the end, TIF is still just a way for elected officials to hand out favors to selected developers and other special interests. There is no reason to think that cities in Louisiana that use TIF grow any faster than ones that do not. Instead, all the TIFs do is shuffle new developments around, favoring certain property owners in the TIF districts over owners outside of the TIF districts. TIF may even reduce growth as developers who don’t get TIF subsidies may decide to build elsewhere where they won’t have to compete against subsidized developments.” … All these warnings have been raised before the Wichita City Council. … California has new legislation designed to kill redevelopment districts there, which are like TID districts in Kansas. … The full article is A Different Kind of TIF.

    Overland Park may see tax hike. Ben Hodge reports that Overland Park, the second largest city in Kansas and the largest in Johnson County, may increase its property tax rates. Hodge quotes a Kansas City Star editorial: “One plan from [Overland Park City Manager Bill] Ebel would boost the city’s mill levy by 46 percent and bring in more than $10 million a year in new revenue. The other option, a 41 percent increase, would create an extra $9 million annually.” To which Hodge replies: “So, those are the innovative ideas of today’s Overland Park Council: either a 41% increase, or else a 46% tax increase.” … The Overland Park Chamber of Commerce supports the proposal, which is simply more evidence of the decline of local chambers of commerce. … Hodge’s article is Between a Rock and a Tax Hike.

    Medicinal cannibis to be topic. This Friday’s (July 15th) meeting of the Wichita Pachyderm Club features Dr. Jon Hauxwell, a physician from Hays, speaking on “Medicinal Cannabis.” The public is welcome and encouraged to attend Wichita Pachyderm meetings. For more information click on Wichita Pachyderm Club. Upcoming speakers: On July 22, Steve Anderson, Director of the Budget for Kansas. On July 29, Dennis Taylor, Secretary, Kansas Department of Administration and “The Repealer” on “An Overview of the Office of the Repealer.”

    Employment on a long slow, slide. Wichita’s Malcolm Harris takes a look at the dismal employment numbers from last week. But, there is some better news for Wichita regarding airplane orders.

    We already know it’s hot in Wichita. But now here’s proof. The Weather Channel ranks Wichita as fourth hottest city in the nation — and that’s based on weather, not economic growth or something really desirable. Wichita is also ranked as “Midwest” hottest city.

    Pursuing happiness, not politics. That’s the title of the prologue to the recently-published book The Declaration of Independents: How Libertarian Politics Can Fix What’s Wrong with America by Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch, both of Reason, the libertarian magazine of “Free Minds and Free Markets.” So far, the prologue is all I’ve read, but I can tell — okay, I already knew — that these guys get it. Here’s what I mean: “In 2011, we do not equate happiness with politics; the mere juxtaposition of the words feels obscene. And for good reason: Politics, John Adams’s great-grandson Henry famously observed, ‘has always been the systematic organization of hatreds.’ Every election cycle — and we are always in an election cycle — we are urged to remember that deep down inside we really despise the opposing gang of crooks. We hate their elite (or Podunk) ways, their socialist (or fascist) economics, their reliance on shadowy billionaires with suspect agendas. In a world where mutual gains from trade have lifted a half billion people out of poverty in just the past half decade, politics is one of the last remaining zero-sum games of I win, you lose, where the victor gets to spend everyone else’s money in ways that appall the vanquished, until they switch places again after the next election. We instinctively know that our tax dollars aren’t being spent efficiently; the proof is in the post office, or the permitting offices at city hall, or the neighborhood school. We roll our eyes when President Barack Obama announces a new national competitiveness initiative in his State of the Union address just five years after George W. Bush announced a new American Competitiveness Initiative in his, or when each and every president since Richard Milhous Nixon swears chat this time we’re gonna kick that foreign-oil habit once and for all. And yet, the political status quo keeps steering the Winnebago of state further and further into the ditch.”

    More ‘Economics in One Lesson.’ Tonight (Monday July 11th) Americans For Prosperity Foundation is sponsoring a continuation of the DVD presentation of videos based on Henry Hazlitt’s classic work Economics in One Lesson. The event is Monday from 7:00 pm to 8:30 pm at the Lionel D. Alford Library located at 3447 S. Meridian in Wichita. The library is just north of the I-235 exit on Meridian. The event’s sponsor is Americans for Prosperity, Kansas. For more information on this event contact John Todd at john@johntodd.net or 316-312-7335, or Susan Estes, AFP Field Director at sestes@afphq.org or 316-681-4415.

  • Local chambers of commerce: tax machines in disguise

    The fact that the Overland Park Chamber of Commerce supports a tax increase reminded me of a piece in the Wall Street Journal by Stephen Moore that shows how very often, local chambers of commerce support principles of crony capitalism instead of pro-growth policies that support free enterprise and genuine capitalism.

    We may soon have a test of this in Wichita, where business leaders are tossing about ideas for various forms of tax increases. Again, I distinguish between “business leaders” and “capitalists.”

    Fortunately, the Kansas Chamber of Commerce is generally unwavering in its support of pro-growth, limited government principles. But that’s not the case for most local chambers. Bernie Koch, a booster of local chambers and their big-government policies, recently wrote an op-ed in which he defended the high-tax corporate welfare state model for Kansas.

    Most people probably think that local chambers of commerce, since their membership is mostly business firms, support pro-growth policies that embrace limited government and free markets. But that’s not always the case. Here, in an excerpt from his article “Tax Chambers” Moore explains:

    The Chamber of Commerce, long a supporter of limited government and low taxes, was part of the coalition backing the Reagan revolution in the 1980s. On the national level, the organization still follows a pro-growth agenda — but thanks to an astonishing political transformation, many chambers of commerce on the state and local level have been abandoning these goals. They’re becoming, in effect, lobbyists for big government.

    …

    In as many as half the states, state taxpayer organizations, free market think tanks and small business leaders now complain bitterly that, on a wide range of issues, chambers of commerce deploy their financial resources and lobbying clout to expand the taxing, spending and regulatory authorities of government. This behavior, they note, erodes the very pro-growth climate necessary for businesses — at least those not connected at the hip with government — to prosper. Journalist Tim Carney agrees: All too often, he notes in his recent book, “Rip-Off,” “state and local chambers have become corrupted by the lure of big dollar corporate welfare schemes.”

    …

    “I used to think that public employee unions like the NEA were the main enemy in the struggle for limited government, competition and private sector solutions,” says Mr. Caldera of the Independence Institute. “I was wrong. Our biggest adversary is the special interest business cartel that labels itself ‘the business community’ and its political machine run by chambers and other industry associations.”

    From Stephen Moore in the article “Tax Chambers” published in The Wall Street Journal February 10, 2007. The full article can be found at Liberalism’s Echo Chambers.