Tag: Featured

  • Wichita Eagle editorial board on county budget

    Wichita Eagle editorial board on county budget

    When someone invokes “ideology” in their criticism of you, you know that they’ve either run short of actual arguments based on fact, or they don’t know what ideological means.

    In its op-ed this Sunday, the Wichita Eagle editorial board blasts the Sedgwick County Commission for cuts to various programs, mentioning “Sedgwick County Zoo, Exploration Place, the Arts Council and Greater Wichita Economic Development Coalition” specifically.

    I might invite the Eagle editorialists to revisit the county’s recommended budget for 2013, prepared under the leadership of then-chairman Tim Norton, the body’s sole Democrat, both then and now. According to county documents, Norton’s recommended budget made these cuts:

    Zoo: $255,889
    Exploration Place: $112,405
    Arts Council: $0
    GWEDC: $0

    So this is not the first time the zoo and Exploration Place have been cut.

    Additionally, Norton’s recommended budget cut 113.80 employees from the county payroll. Of these, 60.75 were from the closure of the Judge Riddel Boys Ranch Juvenile Detention Program, leaving 53.05 in cuts from other county programs. The 2016 recommended budget calls for cuts of 10.00 employees.

    I wonder: Did the Eagle editorial writers rail against commissioners Norton, Unruh, and Skelton for the cuts in the 2013 recommended budget? Yes, there was criticism of budget cuts then, but no ideological bashing.

    This year the Eagle editorial board also criticizes the commission majority for its plan to eliminate routing borrowing for county roads and bridges. Last year the Eagle recommended Wichitans vote in favor of a sales tax. One of its components, viewed favorably by the city and the Eagle, was the avoidance of borrowing for a large public works project.

    But now that conservatives on the county commission propose avoiding debt — some debt, not all debt — the Eagle is opposed.

    The shifting sands underlying the Eagle editorial board’s criticism is evidence of an ideology, and a rather shallow one. Cuts made by conservatives? Bad. There will be damage, says the headline.

    Much larger cuts made by progressives? The editorial board acknowledges “the county needs to tighten its belt and prioritize its services.”

    That’s quite a contrast.

    Here are excerpts from the 2013 and 2016 Sedgwick County recommended budgets showing recommended cuts.

  • WichitaLiberty.TV: Sedgwick County Commissioners Karl Peterjohn and Richard Ranzau

    WichitaLiberty.TV: Sedgwick County Commissioners Karl Peterjohn and Richard Ranzau

    In this episode of WichitaLiberty.TV: It’s budget season for local governments. Sedgwick County Commissioners Karl Peterjohn and Richard Ranzau visit the WichitaLiberty.TV studios to explain the county budget for 2016. View below, or click here to view at YouTube. Episode 89, broadcast July 26, 2015.

    Sedgwick County’s page for the 2016 budget is here.

  • Government creates obstacles to progress

    Government creates obstacles to progress

    “Overcoming obstacles can be a difficult challenge even on a level playing field. We need to change the rigged system that favors the politically connected over the hardworking, honest citizen,” writes Charles Koch in a recent edition of Perspectives.

    Overcoming Obstacles

    By Charles Koch
    July 13, 2015

    America’s founding fathers had a unique vision for the United States. As the Declaration of Independence famously put it, this country was conceived as a place where people could enjoy “unalienable Rights,” including “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

    These concepts are much more than just words to me. I believe the greatest gift we can receive or pass on is the opportunity to find and pursue our passion, and, in doing so, make a difference by helping others improve their lives.

    It seems to me we’re now losing much of the vision our founders fought so hard to establish. Time and time again, government policies have made it tougher for people to realize their potential.

    This change creates some serious consequences, especially for the least-advantaged Americans, who now face more obstacles than ever in their struggle to develop and apply their unique talents and abilities.

    To remove these obstacles, we need to revise poverty-creating regulations and abolish corporate welfare, reform our approach to education and enact criminal justice reform.

    OVERCOMING OBSTACLES

    Consider the challenges of starting a small business. Most would be entrepreneurs have very little capital. To raise money, many will pledge or mortgage whatever assets they have; others will ask for a small business loan.

    In the past, community banks usually made such loans. But the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, signed into law in 2010, put a particular burden on local lenders.

    Community banks now face higher compliance costs, more complicated regulations and some strong disincentives to make traditional loans. As Forbes bluntly put it: “Dodd-Frank is killing community banks.”

    When small borrowers have no local options, they are forced to turn to bigger banks for help, where they have even less of a chance of getting a loan.

    Regressive and anti-competitive regulations are also stalling progress. In particular, licensure requirements (especially at the state and local level) have become a huge obstacle.

    Millions are now denied jobs in more than 100 lower-income occupations because of unnecessary licensing requirements, months of mandated training and unaffordable fees.

    At the corporate level, excessive permitting requirements (such as a decade-long approval process for a new facility) are very anticompetitive. Such requirements not only prevent the creation of jobs, they protect existing businesses from competition and keep out new entrants, which is a form of corporate welfare.

    CORPORATE WELFARE

    Even as the little guy is getting stiff-armed, the government has opened its arms to corporate cronyism by subsidizing big banks and corporations through the tax code, mandates, protective tariffs and so on.

    I believe this corporate welfare has created a two-tier system with far more “have-nots” than “haves.”

    Too many CEOs owe their profits to government “gimmes” rather than the creation of real value by helping others improve their lives. This is the major cause of so much profit being bad rather than good (the subject of my upcoming book).

    Speaking of books, another troubling area is education, which should be a path for overcoming obstacles.

    Having an effective education that imparts the skills and values needed to make a contribution in society is essential for success.

    But that doesn’t mean we should try to push almost all high school graduates into a four-year liberal arts program where they may collect a lot of debt without getting any usable skills.

    Educational choices should reflect aptitude. Many kids with mechanical aptitudes will be much more successful by learning a skilled trade or craft.

    RENEWED VISION

    America should be a place that encourages and enables people to find opportunities to contribute and succeed, and have meaning and fulfillment in their lives.

    Instead, it appears that America has become a two-tiered system, in which those with political connections get favors while obstacles are placed in front of those who are left behind.

    A great nation does not treat people according to some group classification, whether it be race, religion, gender or age, instead of on their individual merits.

    We need to reform our legal and regulatory system so that it treats everyone equally and doesn’t discriminate against the least-advantaged in our society.

    Overcoming obstacles can be a difficult challenge even on a level playing field. We need to change the rigged system that favors the politically connected over the hardworking, honest citizen.

  • Friedman: Laws that do harm

    Friedman: Laws that do harm

    As we approach another birthday of Milton Friedman, here’s his column from Newsweek in 1982 that explains that despite good intentions, the result of government intervention often harms those it is intended to help.

    There is a sure-fire way to predict the consequences of a government social program adopted to achieve worthy ends. Find out what the well-meaning, public-interested persons who advocated its adoption expected it to accomplish. Then reverse those expectations. You will have an accurate prediction of actual results.

    To illustrate on the broadest level, idealists from Marx to Lenin and the subsequent fellow travelers claimed that communism would enhance both freedom and prosperity and lead to the “withering away of the state.” We all know the results in the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China: misery, slavery and a more powerful and all-encompassing government than the world had ever seen.

    (more…)

  • Pompeo: Disclose complete Iran nuclear deal

    Pompeo: Disclose complete Iran nuclear deal

    U.S. Representative Mike Pompeo, a Republican who represents the Kansas fourth district and Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton recently traveled to Vienna to meet with officials of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). They have revealed the existence of two side deals between Iran and IDEA that are important and relevant to the deal negotiated by Secretary of State John Kerry and promoted by President Barack Obama. According to a Pompeo spokesperson, the existence of these side deals was not a secret, having been mentioned in an IDEA press release from July 14. But the content of the agreements is secret, and their significance unknown.

    Following, two press releases from July 21 and 22 from Pompeo’s office.

    July 21, 2015

    Pompeo, Cotton Urge Disclosure of Complete Iran Nuclear Deal

    IAEA tells the lawmakers that two inspections arrangements regarding Iran’s past military work will remain secret

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — Congressman Mike Pompeo (KS-04) and Senator Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas) on Friday had a meeting in Vienna with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), during which the agency conveyed to the lawmakers that two side deals made between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the IAEA as part of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) will remain secret and will not be shared with other nations, with Congress, or with the public. One agreement covers the inspection of the Parchin military complex, and the second details how the IAEA and Iran will resolve outstanding issues on possible military dimensions of Iran’s nuclear program.

    According to the IAEA, the Iran agreement negotiators, including the Obama administration, agreed that the IAEA and Iran would forge separate arrangements to govern the inspection of the Parchin military complex — one of the most secretive military facilities in Iran — and how Iran would satisfy the IAEA’s outstanding questions regarding past weaponization work. Both arrangements will not be vetted by any organization other than Iran and the IAEA, and will not be released even to the nations that negotiated the JCPOA. This means that the secret arrangements have not been released for public scrutiny and have not been submitted to Congress as part of its legislatively mandated review of the Iran deal.

    IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano and Vice President of the Islamic Republic of Iran Ali Akhbar Salehi signing a roadmap for the clarification of past and present issues regarding Iran’s nuclear program in Vienna.
    IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano and Vice President of the Islamic Republic of Iran Ali Akhbar Salehi signing a roadmap for the clarification of past and present issues regarding Iran’s nuclear program in Vienna.
    Parchin is a critical linchpin in the Iranian nuclear program that has long-been suspected of both long-range ballistic missile and nuclear weapons development. In 2011, the IAEA suspected that the facility was used to conduct high-explosive experiments as part of an effort to build nuclear weapons.

    Even under the woefully inadequate Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, the Obama administration is required to provide the U.S. Congress with all nuclear agreement documents, including all “annexes, appendices, codicils, side agreements, implementing materials, documents, and guidance, technical or other understandings and any related agreements, whether entered into or implemented prior to the agreement or to be entered into or implemented in the future.”

    Pompeo said: “This agreement is the worst of backroom deals. In addition to allowing Iran to keep its nuclear program, missile program, American hostages, and terrorist network, the Obama administration has failed to make public separate side deals that have been struck for the ‘inspection’ of one of the most important nuclear sites—the Parchin military complex. Not only does this violate the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, it is asking Congress to agree to a deal that it cannot review.

    “The failure to disclose the content of these side agreements begs the question, ‘What is the Obama administration hiding?’ Even members of Congress who are sympathetic to this deal cannot and must not accept a deal we aren’t even aware of. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand up and demand to see the complete deal.”

    Cotton said: “In failing to secure the disclosure of these secret side deals, the Obama administration is asking Congress and the American people to trust, but not verify. What we cannot do is trust the terror-sponsoring, anti-American, outlaw regime that governs Iran and that has been deceiving the world on its nuclear weapons work for years. Congress’s evaluation of this deal must be based on hard facts and full information. That we are only now discovering that parts of this dangerous agreement are being kept secret begs the question of what other elements may also be secret and entirely free from public scrutiny.”

    July 22, 2015

    Pompeo, Cotton, Boehner and McConnell Request President Obama Disclose Secret Side Agreements to Iran Nuclear Deal

    Washington, D.C. — Congressman Mike Pompeo (R-KS) and Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) today joined House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell in sending a letter to President Obama requesting two side agreements between the IAEA and Iran be provided to Congress.

    The letter reads, in part:

    The purpose of the Iran Nuclear Agreement review Act is to ensure Congress has a fully informed understanding of the JCPOA.  Failure to produce these two side agreements leaves Congress blind on critical information regarding Iran’s potential path to being a nuclear power and will have detrimental consequences for the ability of members to assess the JCPOA.  We request you transmit these two side agreements to Congress immediately so we may perform our duty to assess the many important questions related to the JCPOA. 

    The Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act was passed before the end of negotiations and the Obama Administration was well aware of its responsibility to submit all related agreements and documents to Congress.  It is therefore incumbent on the Administration to secure those side agreements and submit them to Congress for review.

    The letter comes after a recent meeting between Congressman Mike Pompeo and Senator Tom Cotton and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna, during which the agency conveyed that two side deals made between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the IAEA as part of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) will remain secret and will not be shared with other nations, with Congress, or with the public. The first agreement covers the inspection of the Parchin military complex, and the second details how the IAEA and Iran will resolve outstanding issues on possible military dimensions of Iran’s nuclear program.

    The full text of the letter can be found here.

  • Westar: First, control blatant waste

    Westar: First, control blatant waste

    As our electric utility asks for a rate increase, let’s first ask that it stop blatant waste.

    Westar, our state-regulated electric utility, is asking for a rate increase. As part of any increase, we ought to insist that the utility do a better job of controlling blatant waste.

    Downtown Wichita, July 17, 2015, 11:18 am.
    Downtown Wichita, July 17, 2015, 11:18 am.
    Streetlights burning unnecessarily in the middle day in downtown Wichita is an ongoing problem. See In Wichita, wasting electricity a chronic problem and Waste in Wichita, the seen and probably unseen for examples.

    The problem may not be solved soon. No one has much motivation to solve the problem. The city pays Westar a fixed fee for each streetlight. The use of electricity is not metered, at least as far as the city’s bill is concerned. So if the city notices the lights wasting electricity during the middle of the day, well, it’s of no cost to the city. The city is concerned that working with Westar to turn off street lights during the day may not be cost-effective, according to Ken Evans, the city’s director of strategic communications. That’s the attitude he expressed in a recent City of Wichita Facebook dialog with citizens. But the city has run a campaign asking people to turn off appliances like microwave ovens and alarm clocks when not in use. This saves a vanishingly small amount of electricity, and at a large cost in convenience.

    Downtown Wichita, July 17, 2015, 11:18 am. At least five burning street lights can be seen.
    Downtown Wichita, July 17, 2015, 11:18 am. At least five burning street lights can be seen.
    Westar, on the other hand, is a highly-regulated utility that operates much like a governmental agency. How strong is the profit motive to Westar? Not strong, it seems. Most individuals or private business firms would seek to reduce the waste that Westar seems unconcerned about.

    But before granting Westar a rate increase, its regulators ought to insist that the utility work to control blatant waste. This may be the only way to get attention to this problem.

  • Friedman: The fallacy of the welfare state

    Friedman: The fallacy of the welfare state

    As we approach another birthday of Milton Friedman, here’s an insightful passage from the book he wrote with his wife Rose: Free to Choose: A Personal Statement. It explains why government spending is wasteful, how it leads to corruption, how it often does not benefit the people it was intended, and how the pressure for more spending is always present.

    A simple classification of spending shows why that process leads to undesirable results. When you spend, you may spend your own money or someone else’s; and you may spend for the benefit of yourself or someone else. Combining these two pairs of alternatives gives four possibilities summarized in the following simple table:

    friedman-spending-categories-2013-07

    Category I in the table refers to your spending your own money on yourself. You shop in a supermarket, for example. You clearly have a strong incentive both to economize and to get as much value as you can for each dollar you do spend.

    Category II refers to your spending your own money on someone else. You shop for Christmas or birthday presents. You have the same incentive to economize as in Category I but not the same incentive to get full value for your money, at least as judged by the tastes of the recipient. You will, of course, want to get something the recipient will like — provided that it also makes the right impression and does not take too much time and effort. (If, indeed, your main objective were to enable the recipient to get as much value as possible per dollar, you would give him cash, converting your Category II spending to Category I spending by him.)

    Category III refers to your spending someone else’s money on yourself — lunching on an expense account, for instance. You have no strong incentive to keep down the cost of the lunch, but you do have a strong incentive to get your money’s worth.

    Category IV refers to your spending someone else’s money on still another person. You are paying for someone else’s lunch out of an expense account. You have little incentive either to economize or to try to get your guest the lunch that he will value most highly. However, if you are having lunch with him, so that the lunch is a mixture of Category III and Category IV, you do have a strong incentive to satisfy your own tastes at the sacrifice of his, if necessary.

    All welfare programs fall into either Category III — for example, Social Security which involves cash payments that the recipient is free to spend as he may wish; or Category IV — for example, public housing; except that even Category IV programs share one feature of Category III, namely, that the bureaucrats administering the program partake of the lunch; and all Category III programs have bureaucrats among their recipients.

    In our opinion these characteristics of welfare spending are the main source of their defects.

    (more…)

  • Wichita airport spends $180K on ads

    Wichita airport spends $180K on ads

    The Wichita airport spends to produce and broadcast a television advertisement, and taxpayers didn’t have to pay. Sort of.

    Shortly after the opening of the new terminal at Wichita Dwight D. Eisenhower National Airport, television ads began appearing. Citizens viewing the ads might wonder why a government-owned facility that has a monopoly on service needs to advertise, especially when the purpose of the ad is to generate an emotional response. (Curiously, the ad can’t be found on the airport’s website, but it is available on the Wichita City Channel 7 site, where it’s labeled as a public service announcement.)

    Inquiry to the city about the cost of the ads resulted in these figures:

    Production costs for TV: $83,308.73 (includes talent fees)
    Media buy: $97,522
    Total: $180,830.73

    Apart from the necessity or wisdom of this advertisement, there is another consideration that has important implications for public policy. When I was supplied these figures, I was admonished that these are not tax dollars being spent. Instead, it’s airport revenue. The city also says the same about the cost of the new terminal — no tax dollars were spent. How is this possible?

    The airport has a monopoly on regularly scheduled commercial air service in Wichita. If you want to travel on a major airline, you must use the Wichita airport or drive several hours to another airport. The airport functions as a branch of government. The fees it collects — the so-called “airport revenue” or “airport funds” — are mandatory. The rates are set by government. They fees are collected by government and spent by government.

    Officials say the user fees the airport collects are not taxes because they are voluntary. You don’t pay the Wichita airport passenger fee (it’s included in ticket prices) unless you actually use the airport. Arguments like these are used by government officials to distinguish user fees from taxes. They say that the airport is operating like a business, charging only those who use its service.

    There’s a small grain of truth in that. But when the airport has a monopoly on commercial air service in a large area, are the fees really voluntary? Of course not.

    This principle of user fees being preferred to taxes is quickly abandoned when it suits the need of government spenders. For example, the state, county, and city tax everyone to pay Southwest Airlines to provide service in Wichita. Why not collect the subsidy funds only from airport users? It would be just another user fee.

    The justification used by the city leads citizens to believe that government can spend money at no one’s cost. That’s false, but politicians believe it. Or so they say.

  • Wichita schools could increase engagement at no cost

    Wichita schools could increase engagement at no cost

    The Wichita public school district could boost its engagement with citizens with a simple step that would add no cost.

    If you’d like to watch a meeting of the board of USD 259, the Wichita public school district, your options are few. You can attend the meetings in person. Or, if you subscribe to certain cable television systems, you can view delayed repeats of the meetings. But that’s it.

    Live and archived video of governmental meetings is commonplace, except for the Wichita public schools. Citizens must either attend the meetings, or view delayed broadcasts on cable TV.

    There’s a simple way to fix this. It’s called YouTube.

    When the Sedgwick County Commission was faced with an aging web infrastructure for its archived broadcasts, it did the sensible thing. It created a YouTube channel and uploads video of its meetings. Now citizens can view commission meetings at any time on desktop PCs, tablets, and smartphones. This was an improvement over the old system, which was difficult to use and required special browser plug-ins. I could never get the video to play on my Iphone.

    The Wichita school district could do the same. In fact, the district already has a YouTube channel. Yes, it takes a long time to upload two or three hours of video to YouTube, but once started the process runs in the background without intervention. No one has to sit and watch the process.

    Earlier this year I asked why the district does not make video of its meetings available archived online. The district responded that it “has a long-standing commitment to the USD 259 community of showing unabridged recordings of regular Board of Education meetings on Cox Cable Channel 20 and more recently AT&T U-verse Channel 99.” The meetings are broadcast seven times starting the day after each meeting. Two of the broadcasts start at 1:00 am.

    I was also told “The district does not archive complete Board meetings on the Web site because of file size and bandwidth.” YouTube takes care of that problem at no cost. As it turns out, the district does have some material from board meetings available on its website. This is welcome. But not complete meetings, and what’s there is supplied in a non-streaming format.

    Showing meetings delayed on cable TV is good. It was innovative at one time. But why aren’t meetings live? What if you can’t watch the meeting before it disappears from the schedule after a week? What if you don’t have Cox or AT&T U-verse? What if you want to watch meetings on your computer, tablet, or smartphone? I don’t think the fact that meetings are on cable TV means they can’t also be on YouTube.

    It’s just an idea.