Voice For Liberty

Tag: Free markets

  • In Kansas, STAR bonds vote uplifted cronyism over capitalism

    Recently both chambers of the Kansas Legislature passed similar bills authorizing a five year extension of the Kansas STAR bonds program. In the House the bill passed 92 to 31. In the Senate the vote was 27 to 13.

    The STAR bonds program provides a way to redirect sales taxes to project developers instead of the state treasury, which is where most people think taxes go — or should go.

    Not so with STAR bonds. In the words of the Kansas Department of Commerce, the program offers “municipalities the opportunity to issue bonds to finance the development of major commercial, entertainment and tourism areas and use the sales tax revenue generated by the development to pay off the bonds.” This description, while generally true, is not accurate. A proposed STAR bond district in Wichita includes much area beyond the borders of the proposed development, including a Super Target store, a new Cabela’s store, and much vacant ground that will probably be developed as retail. The increment in sales taxes from these stores — present and future — goes to the STAR bond developer.

    I asked a number of members of the Kansas House and Senate to explain their votes in favor of extending the STAR bonds program. It was difficult to extract answers, but I finally a received a few.

    One member explained to me that some votes are “ugly.” Yes, indeed I would say, including this member’s. But that’s no reason not to vote correctly in favor of limited government, capitalism, and free markets. Sometimes members have to vote according to their campaign promises.

    One member explained to me that the bonds that will be sold are bought by private investors, and there’s nothing wrong with that. That’s true, but stopping the thought process there is naive. How are payments on these bonds to be made, we have to ask. The answer is payments are made, at least partially, from the captured sales tax revenue. That’s revenue not earned by the developers. Instead, it is revenue collected by government in the form of taxes that consumers have no choice but to pay. From the developers’ viewpoint (and pocketbook) it is a gift from government that others in similar situations are not able to receive. These gifts of money from government to business are known as cronyism. It is Kansas being business-friendly, which is not the same as capitalism-friendly, and it makes our state poorer and less able to compete.

    Some made the argument that STAR bond proceeds can be used only for certain allowable expenses such as “horizontal” expenses. Arguments such as these are commonly made to support government subsidy programs. Supporters argue that since the use of the funds is restricted, this somehow makes it allowable, even benign. But this is nonsense. If I gave you $100 with the stipulation that you could spend it only on Mondays, would anyone deny that you are wealthier by $100? That is, of course, if you were planning to spend money on Mondays. And if you weren’t, couldn’t you shift some of your spending to Mondays?

    This is the nonsensical nature of these arguments. Still, many purportedly fiscal conservatives are persuaded.

    Simply put, the STAR bonds program turns over taxation to private parties for their own benefit. When we are willing to turn over taxation to the benefit of private interests, we have to wonder a few things:

    First, why do we need taxation at all, if we can simply excuse some from participating in the system?

    Second: Can something be moral if it is not applied equally to everyone?

    Third: Sometimes it is claimed that without the government subsidy, a project is not economically feasible. Developers have lots of ways to make a project appears that it needs government help, and they have multimillion dollar motives to do so. But when something is truly not economically feasible, that means that the judgment of the marketplace is that the product or service is not desired — at least not at a price necessary to make the project profitable. But not to worry — our fearless government leaders will override the judgment of free people trading freely in markets. They will enact a forced transfer of wealth from taxpayers to the developers whose ideas can’t make it in the market. These leaders include Kansas Governor Sam Brownback, Secretary of Commerce Pat George, the Speaker of the House and President of the Senate, and chairs of key committees, except (surprisingly) Les Donovan, chair of the senate tax committee.

    For more on the harm to capitalism of the STAR bonds program, see Kansas STAR bonds vote a test for capitalism.

    In the House of Representatives, there were two explanations as to why some members voted no. The first one reads: “I vote NO on HB 2561. Star Bonds are a form of failed economic policy that Kansas should distance itself from. It is time for government to stop picking winners and losers and instead promote economic policies and a lower tax structure that all Kansans can benefit from. Star bonds are a form of centralized planning that favors a few at the expense of other taxpayers and businesses. These bonds divert needed money from police, fire, roads, and other core functions of government for 10, 20, and even 30 years. Mr. Speaker, I vote NO, choosing to support the taxpayers who voted me in office.” This was in the names of Pete DeGraaf, Virgil Peck, Jr, Randy Garber, Charlotte O’Hara, Owen Donohoe, and Connie O’Brien.

    A second statement read: “HB 2561 goes against my principles of free enterprise and limited government. By redirecting tax revenue to a particular business, STAR bonds create an unequal playing field. STAR bonds favor a few at the expense of other taxpayers and businesses. These bonds divert money needed for core functions of government for decades into the future. It is time for government to stop picking winners and losers and instead promote economic policies and a lower tax structure from which all Kansans can benefit. Mr. Speaker, I stand with the voters that elected me. I vote NO on HB2561.” This was in the names of Jim Howell, Dennis Hedke, TerriLois Gregory, Brett Hildabrand, Greg Smith, Kelly Meigs, Amanda Grosserode, Jana Goodman, Lance Y. Kinzer, Mitch Holmes, Marc Rhoades, Kasha Kelley, Dan Collins, and Tom Arpke.

    In the House, there were a number of members who voted in favor of the STAR bonds program in spite of proclamations of fiscal conservatism. Many of these members are looking for ways to reduce the growth of Kansas government and taxes. Some are in high leadership positions. Yet, somehow they didn’t see the harm in voting for the STAR bonds program. This list includes Steve Brunk of Wichita; Richard Carlson of St. Marys and Chair of the House Taxation Committee; Mario Goico of Wichita; Phil Hermanson of Wichita; Kyle Hoffman of Coldwater; Steve Huebert of Valley Center; Dan Kerschen of Garden Plain; Mike Kiegerl of Olathe; Marvin Kleeb of Overland Park and vice-chair of House Taxation Committee; Brenda Landwehr of Wichita; Peggy Mast of Emporia, who is Assistant Majority Leader; Mike O’Neal of Hutchinson, who is Speaker of the House; Les Osterman of Wichita; Joe Patton of Topeka; Scott Schwab of Olathe; Arlen Siegfreid of Olathe, who is Majority Leader; Gene Suellentrop of Wichita; and Brian Weber of Dodge City.

    In the Senate, these votes came from Terry Bruce of Hutchinson; Dick Kelsey of Goddard, Jeff King of Independence; Garrett Love of Montezuma; and Susan Wagle of Wichita.

  • Intentions and results

    From a video produced by LearnLiberty.org, a project of Institute for Humane Studies: “Prof. Don Boudreaux explains what economists mean when they talk about unintended consequences. Essentially, unintended consequences are the large outcomes that emerge from the actions made by many individuals. These outcomes can be good or bad. Therefore, when analyzing various polices, we must be extremely careful to distinguish between intentions and results.”

    Boudreaux concludes the video with this: “We live in this incredibly complex world. When we take any action, we know that the consequences of those actions are going to extend out very far. We can see those consequences only a little bit in front of us. We can’t trace them out fully. And it applies whether or not you believe in big government, tiny government, and medium-sized government. Yes, it’s difficult in many cases to trace out how the incentives will have real-world effects. But that difficulty does not excuse us from the task of pursuing it. We can’t just simply say, oh the intentions of the policymakers are good, therefore we can be assured that the results will be good. That’s cheating. We just can’t do that. That’s very bad public policy.”

    Understanding this is especially important as we in Wichita and the surrounding area prepare to undertake a comprehensive government plan for sustainable communities.

    The video’s page is Unintended Consequences, or click below to view at YouTube.

  • Myth: Markets are immoral or amoral

    When thinking about the difference between government action and action taken by free people trading freely in markets, many myths abound. Tom G. Palmer has written an important paper that confronts these myths about markets. The first myth and Palmer’s refutation is below. The complete series of myths and responses is at Twenty Myths about Markets.

    Palmer is editor of the recent book The Morality of Capitalism. He will be in Overland Park and Wichita in May speaking on the moral case for capitalism. For more information and to register for these events see The Morality of Capitalism.

    Myth: Markets are immoral or amoral

    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.

    Tom G. Palmer: 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.

  • Attacks on ALEC hypocritical and unfair

    By Steven Greenhut

    SACRAMENTO — A cadre of liberal groups has decided the scourge of the nation is a little-known conservative organization that provides model legislation to state legislators across the country.

    Overheated criticisms of the American Legislative Exchange Council have been echoed throughout the media following the Trayvon Martin shooting in Sanford, Fla., because ALEC had advocated the “Stand Your Ground” laws that anti-gun-rights activists blame for the tragic shooting.

    The public rap against ALEC is that, as the Atlantic magazine recently explained, “[I]t’s a shadowy back-room arrangement where corporations pay good money to get friendly legislators to introduce pre-packaged bills in state houses across the country.”

    Atlantic highlights ALEC Exposed, a group run by a former Justice Department official who created a wiki site spotlighting more than 800 bills that emanated from the supposed ALEC star chamber. Other groups, including a conspiracy-minded outfit that claims ALEC’s efforts to battle voter fraud are designed to keep black people from voting, have been strong-arming corporate sponsors into abandoning ALEC. Given the backbone-challenged nature of corporate America when it comes to political matters, it’s no surprise the scare tactics are working.

    Even ALEC this week announced it is backing away from gun rights and social issues and focusing entirely on free-market economic and business issues. I agree with that decision and personally find “Stand Your Ground” laws to be misguided despite my strong support for gun rights, but it’s too bad these reasonable changes — ones that will bolster the organization in the long run — came across as capitulation. That will only embolden ALEC’s enemies. And those enemies have few good arguments, which is why they spin their conspiratorial yarns and try to make it seem as if ALEC is doing something unethical or unconventional. These leftist critics don’t like ALEC simply because ALEC advocates policies they oppose.

    ALEC’s structure isn’t that different from the one taken by “mainstream” organizations such as the National Conference of State Legislatures, whose foundation includes donors of at least $25,000 that’s a who’s who of corporate America: AT&T, Walmart, Visa, Time Warner Cable, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals. These donors include the National Education Association, which is a prominent labor union.

    Even worse, NCSL uses taxpayer dollars to fund many of its activities, which is something ALEC most definitely does not use. NCSL takes positions on issues. It champions itself as a nonpartisan forum for legislators to debate issues, but many critics recognize its left-of-center tilt.

    “A number of Utah lawmakers are so upset at the liberal tendencies of the National Conference of State Legislatures they are thinking of picking up their marbles and going home,” wrote the Salt-Lake Tribune’s Paul Rolly in a 2009 column. Delegations from other states expressed similar concerns.

    “Between the Senate and the House, the Utah Legislature pays about $100,000 in dues annually to the NCSL,” Rolly added. “Some lawmakers now are saying that money could be better spent. They’re also taking a harder look at the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), as an alternative national association for legislators who traditionally takes conservative and pro-business stands on most issues.”

    ALEC clearly has grown as an alternative to this group. As is often the case, so-called mainstream trade associations and organizations almost always tilt in a liberal direction, even while claiming to be fair-minded and nonpartisan. It’s not surprising that government-funded organizations end up promoting more government funding and rarely push for reforms to roll back the size of government.

    I find this so often in so many spheres. The National League of Cities and its state chapters instantly jump to mind. They dominate the urban-related agenda in most capitols, but that group’s priorities are skewed hard to the left, as the group favors bigger government, controversial urban redevelopment policies and allowed the massive pension increases of the past decade to explode without complaint. I know of more conservative city officials who have talked about coming up with an alternative that researches and advances free-market-friendly issues rather than jumping on board the big-government status quo. What’s wrong with that? Isn’t that how our system is designed to operate?

    Since when is it awful to create a privately funded organization that advances constructive policy ideas? It’s far better to have corporate sponsors voluntarily pay for the group than to force the rest of us to pay for it through our tax dollars, which is how NCSL and many other organizations operate. Why aren’t activists targeting agenda-driven groups that live off of taxpayer dollars? We know the answer — they agree with those groups’ agenda and disagree with the agenda of conservative alternative organizations such as ALEC.

    By the way, Atlantic and other critics can complain about “pre-packaged conservative legislation,” but interest groups from the left and right often promote model legislation. It’s a good way to get policy preferences in play. This isn’t nefarious. Consider also that lobbyists often write bills on behalf of legislators. We know that members of Congress rarely read the bills they vote upon, even on hugely significant matters such as national health-care policy. What ALEC does is far less nefarious than the standard operating procedure in the U.S. Capitol and state capitols.

    Leftists don’t like the policies ALEC promotes, so they are using intimidation tactics to shut it down. It’s that simple. They are within their rights to do this, but let’s at least recognize that it flows not from any problem with how ALEC operates, but from the most transparent political motives.

    Steven Greenhut is vice president of journalism at the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity. He is based in Sacramento, Calif.

  • Wichita decides to join sustainable communities planning

    At yesterday’s Wichita City Council meeting, the council took up the issue as to whether the city would participate in the REAP sustainable communities planning process. All council members except Wichita City Council Member Michael O’Donnell (district 4, south and southwest Wichita) voted in favor of participation.

    Critics of government planing processes such as this are worried that the planning process would subject us to additional control by the federal government. These are the so-called strings that are thought to accompany federal grants.

    (For those who are interested in what strings look like, here’s an example of one that is relatively innocuous. A HUD document titled Program Policy Guidance OSHC-2012-01 explains “Applicants that reach a certain qualifying score under the Regional Planning Grant Program or the Community Challenge Grant Program will receive PSS designation. PSS designation provides your entity access to bonus points for selected other HUD grant programs, technical assistance, and other capacity building opportunities that will strengthen future efforts to apply to the program.” REAP has been awarded this status, as it complied with this “string.”)

    James Clendenin (district 3, southeast and south Wichita), asked a series of questions of Joe Yager, chief executive officer of REAP, as to whether these concerns were true. Yager said no, there are no strings accompanying the grant. But what about after the planning process is over in three years? Will the plan be forced upon us, Clendenin asked?

    Yager answered no, that local governing bodies would have to vote to implement any of the ideas or programs that resulted from the plan. Nothing will be forced upon us, nothing is mandated, he said. We wold simply have a “toolkit” of things to use.

    This view or attitude — that local elected officials will protect us from the harmful elements that will emerge from the plan — is dangerously naive. First, in his short time in office, Clendenin has regularly voted for expansions of government planning, power, and spending. He doesn’t stand out from most other council members, not even the Republican members (except for one), as they also regularly vote for these things.

    Second, we know that after the plan is complete there will be the argument that since we have the plan, that since we spent three years and $2.2 million on the process, we might as well go ahead and implement it.

    Then, there will be the future grants and undoubtedly increased local spending required to implement the plan.

    It’s also naive of Clendenin to ask a professional planner like Yager questions about the desirability of planning. What answer does he think he will get? It’s not that the planners are not honest people. But they have a vested economic and professional interest in seeing that we have more government planning, not less.

    One of the things Wichita has agreed to do is to provide in-kind services to the planning consortium in the form of staff time. Wichita City Council Member Michael O’Donnell (district 4, south and southwest Wichita) asked a series of questions determining whether some work might go unperformed as staff members devote time to the planning process.

    John Schlegel, Wichita director of planning, assured him no, that no work would go undone as a result of staff members taking on new responsibilities as part of the city’s in-kind contribution.

    Two years ago a similar issue arose in Sedgwick County, where staff time was devoted to the oversight of the Intrust Bank Arena. At the time I reported this: “Sedgwick County Commissioner Dave Unruh told the Wichita Eagle that the county did not hire any new staff to perform work that has an estimated value of $2.6 million. My question is this: Is this evidence that there was $2.6 million of slack time in county employee’s schedules? How were they able to get this vast amount of work accomplished? Perhaps after the arena work that has occupied $2.6 million of staff time is complete, we could hire out this staff to earn revenue for the county, as it seems they will have time on their hands.”

  • ALEC should resist liberal pressure groups

    Today’s Wall Street Journal explains how left-wing activists are using fear of the racism label to shut down free speech and debate. The target of their current smear campaign is American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC.

    Liberals can’t stand ALEC because it is a strong and influential advocate for free market and limited government principals in state legislatures. Liberals accuse ALEC of supplying model legislation which may influence the writing of actual state law, or even become state law in some cases. Of course, liberal advocacy groups do this too, but they don’t let that get in the way of their criticism of ALEC.

    The reality is that all sorts of people and special interest groups seek to influence the writing of laws. But for laws to take effect — no matter who proposes them — they must be passed by legislatures and signed by the chief executive (or a veto must be overturned).

    The false charges of racism are particularly troubling, as no one wants to be labeled as such. That’s why scoundrels demonize their opponents with charges of racism, writes the Journal, and it’s become a powerful weapon for left-wing activists: “The ugly, race-baiting anti-ALEC campaign is typical of today’s liberal activism. It’s akin to the campaigns to smear libertarian donors Charles and David Koch and to exploit shareholder proxies to stop companies from giving to political campaigns or even the Chamber of Commerce. The left these days isn’t content merely to fight on the merits in legislatures or during elections. If they lose, they resort to demonizing opponents and trying to shut them down. The business community had better understand that ALEC won’t be the last target.”

    As it turns out, the motivations of some contributors to ALEC are quite narrow. Coca-Cola wanted help from ALEC only in the opposition to soft drink taxes: “So Coke executives are happy to get ALEC’s help in their self-interest but head for the tall grass when ALEC needs a friend.”

    Liberals accuse ALEC of being a front group for corporations, promoting only legislation that advances the interests of corporations or business at the expense of others. When you examine specific examples of these charges, the proposals being criticized often reduce taxes for everyone or reduce harmful and unnecessary regulations. If ALEC does promote legislation that caters to special interest groups, it should stop doing so.

    Besides services to legislators, ALEC provides a valuable service to the public: The Rich States, Poor States publication that examines why some states perform better in economic growth and opportunity than others. The fifth edition was released last week.

    Recently a city council member from a small town asked me if there were resources to help city council or county commission members understand and apply the principals of free markets and limited government to city and county governments. I looked and asked a few people. The answer is no, there appears to be no such resource. This seems like a growth opportunity for ALEC or a new organization. There are several well-known organizations that strive to advance the size and scope of city and county governments, and these need a counter-balance.

    Shutting Down ALEC

    Playing the race card to silence a free-market policy voice

    Is it suddenly disreputable to advocate free-market policies? That’s the question raised by a remarkable political assault on the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which promotes reform in the 50 states. Led by former White House aide Van Jones, various left-wing activists and media are bullying big business to cut off ALEC’s funding. So much for free and open debate.

    Founded in 1973, ALEC is a group of state lawmakers who meet to share and spread conservative policy ideas. ALEC’s main focus is fiscal and economic policy, notably at the moment pension and lawsuit reform, tax and spending limitation, and school choice. For years it labored in obscurity, its influence rising or falling with the public mood. But after conservatives made record gains in state legislatures in 2010, the left began to target ALEC for destruction.

    Continue reading at the Wall Street Journal (no subscription required)

  • Kansas should improve economic climate, rely less on incentives

    By Maurice McTigue, Vice President and Distinguished Visiting Scholar, Mercatus Center at George Mason University. He participated in the forum produced by Kansas Policy Institute this week.

    Kansas policymakers left for recess on the heels of a very disappointing jobs report last week. According to the latest jobs report, the state ranked fourth in terms of jobs lost with a 5,700 decrease in employment. As legislators prepare to return in a couple weeks, they should consider what’s best for the Kansas economy. That is, pursue goals that make Kansas a better place to do business than any other state.

    Kansas has a history of giving incentives to attract business. Despite this, businesses are leaving, and taking jobs and revenue with them. Legislators should look at all the hoops businesses must go through in Kansas and decide what hurdles can be removed to eliminate uncertainty and make the state more attractive for investment. Instead of asking what subsidy Kansas can give firms to get them to do business here, policymakers should ask existing business what it needs to operate more efficiently and effectively.

    Certainty is a key component to sound economic development because it allows businesses to make permanent plans and decisions.

    If Kansas had an economic climate that made it the best place to do business, regardless of outside contracts, defense restructuring, or inside subsidies, Boeing might not be leaving in 2013. If businesses understand the tax and regulatory landscape, and can count on it to be permanent, they can make good decisions. Outside factors are offset by a predictable and stable economic climate that allows them to be profitable. Certainty keeps jobs in Kansas creating revenue, not incentives.

    The problem with incentives is that they are not free, and result in a cost to someone else since they come from tax revenue. The referendum on the Ambassador Hotel tax exemption in Wichita illustrates this lose-lose situation. If the hotel needs a tax credit to do business, it was likely not competitive in the first place. Businesses and taxpayers naturally oppose unfair advantages, and once subsidies are gone, the business may fail anyway.

    To compete, Kansas should first think about businesses and people trading in the local economy and what permanent changes it would take to expand those businesses, instead of offering subsides. For sustainable economic growth, it is better to have 1,000 local businesses hire one extra person than use an incentive to bring in one business that may hire 1,000. Those jobs stay because of the permanent and positive business climate generating revenue, as opposed to jobs resulting from incentives that may leave and cost revenue dollars.

    Once achieved, economic competitiveness is not something that can then be forgotten. A major role for any economic development agency should be vigilance in seeking competitive improvements. This includes monitoring processes and procedures that make the state unproductive and advocate for their removal or reform.

    Key battles on taxes and the budget lie ahead; jobs and Kansas’s future are at stake. Let’s hope decision makers see fit to avoid merely doing things as they have always been done. Most incentives or subsidies are payments to compensate for things in the economy that need to be fixed, but nobody wants to make the necessary changes. A better economic development program is cultivating a climate where it is unnecessary to offer any special incentives to encourage business and investors to come to your state.

  • Kansas and Wichita quick takes: Tuesday April 3, 2012

    Arts funding. For a view of government arts funding from an actual artist, please read The Government, art funding and Sam Brownback in KS by Christopher Allen. He makes an important point: “The government not paying for you to make something is NOT censorship.” I haven’t heard government arts funding advocates use the “censorship” word yet, but you can tell it’s on the minds of those who feel they should be receiving taxpayer money to support their work. … Allen also draws attention the incredible freedoms we in America and the free world enjoy regarding art: “If you want to make art, nobody’s stopping you. In some countries of the world, you get beheaded for making art that others disapprove of.”

    Arts censorship. I thought that no one in Kansas had used the “Censorship” word regarding government funding of arts, but I now realize I spoke too soon. Reporting on a recent visit by Rocco Landesman, National Endowment for the Arts Chairman, the Lawrence Journal-World reported: “Kevin Willmott, a KU film professor, asked Landesman if he was concerned about what Willmott called ‘corporate censorship’ of the arts, saying if a movie he created wasn’t perceived as being able to make money it wouldn’t get seen. Landesman replied with a line that drew applause from the audience. ‘The reason we have public funding of the arts, and the reason we have the NEA at all, is so the marketplace is not the sole determinant of what is seen and what is excellent,’ he said.” … I think Wilmott ought to be more concerned that the people of Kansas will continue to fund university film departments at the same time our universities are having trouble producing graduates equipped for a modern economy.

    Comparison of state comparisons. There are a number of studies that have ranked the states based on economic competitiveness. Emily Washington of the has looked at three reports produced by organizations that favor free markets and reports on the differences. Included are State Business Tax Climate Index by Kail M. Padgitt of The Tax Foundation, Rich States, Poor States: ALEC-Laffer State Economic Competitiveness Index from American Legislative Exchange Council, and Freedom in the Fifty States: An Index of Personal and Economic Freedom from Mercatus Center at George Mason University. Washington’s report is at A Comparison of Indices that Rank State Economic Competitiveness.

    Ryan tax plan. Cato Institute’s Chris Edwards comments: “The goal is to simplify the tax code and spur economic growth, and you can do that without changing the total revenue raised or who it is raised from. Ryan’s strategy is to eliminate tax deductions and credits while replacing the current six-rate income tax structure with two rates of 10 and 25 percent. The result would be less tax paperwork, more jobs and more investment, which would be good for everybody. Liberals rail against the idea of cutting the top income tax rate from the current 35 percent, but Ryan’s lower 25 percent rate was not picked out of thin air. IRS data show that taxpayers with the highest incomes currently pay an average of about 25 percent of their income in income taxes. At the same time, middle-income taxpayers pay an average of roughly 10 percent. That is why Ryan’s two-rate tax structure of 10 and 25 percent would collect about the same amount of money from the same income groups as the current code if we got rid of the deductions and credits.” See The Truth about Paul Ryan’s Tax Plan.

    Are earmarks returning? “After just 14 months at the levers of power of the House, it appears that some House Republicans are ready to admit that they have been unsuccessful in kicking their spending addictions. Rep. Mike Rogers (R-AL) is suggesting to House Republicans that the ban on earmarking be lifted so that members of Congress could ‘grease the wheels’ of legislation in an effort to pass bills faster. The ban was put in place shortly after Republicans, backed heavily by Tea Party conservatives calling for more fiscal responsibility in Congress, won the majority in the House during the Fall 2010 midterm elections. The ban is set to automatically expire at the end of this session of Congress at the end of the year. Bill Wilson, President of Americans for Limited Government, said, ‘This is an open acknowledgement that earmarks are nothing more than legislative bribery to buy votes. But what it represents is a further repudiation by leadership of the principles that got them in power in the first place. In 2010, Republicans pledged to ‘put us on a path to balance the budget and pay down the debt.’” See Are earmarks returning?

  • Kansas and Wichita quick takes: Monday April 2, 2012

    Action on sustainability. This Wednesday (April 4th) the Sedgwick County Commission takes up the issue of whether to participate in a HUD Sustainable Communities Regional Planning Grant. Coverage of the last discussion the commission had on this matter is at Sedgwick County considers a planning grant. So that citizens may be informed on this issue, Americans for Prosperity, Kansas is holding an informational event tonight (April 2nd), from 7:00 pm to 8:30 pm at Spangles Restaurant, corner of Kellogg and Broadway. (Even though the Kansas Jayhawks are playing tonight in the NCAA men’s basketball title game, the television broadcast doesn’t start until 8:00 pm, with tip off at 8:23 pm.) The meeting is described as follows: “On April 4, 2012 at 9:00 am on the 3rd floor of the Sedgwick County Courthouse, the Sedgwick County Commission will be holding a public hearing to consider approval of Sedgwick County’s participation as the fiscal agent on behalf of the Regional Economic Area Partnership (REAP) Consortium with an ‘in-kind’ commitment of $120,707 to implement a Regional Plan for Sustainable Communities Grant for South Central Kansas. Public comment will be invited. Learn about the Sustainable Communities Plan for South Central Kansas. Find out how you can get involved in this issue as a citizen. Consider testifying before the County Commission. Consider attending the Commission meeting as an interested citizen.” … 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.

    Economic development through competitiveness. Next week (Wednesday, April 11th) Kansas Policy Institute will host an educational event focusing on local economic development. This event is vitally important as it is becoming apparent that Wichita’s traditional process of economic development is not working very well. Also, we’ve recently learned that in both Kansas and Wichita, business tax costs are very high, with only a handful of states ranking worse. The full agenda for this event, which is open to the public and which KPI is generously hosting at no charge to attendees, is A true path to economic growth and prosperity. A link to registration is there, or call 316-634-0218.

    Those populist Pachyderms. This Friday (April 6th) the Wichita Pachyderm Club features Jordan A. Poland, who will discuss his Master of Arts thesis in Public History at Wichita State University, titled “A case study of Populism in Kansas. The election of Populist Governor Lorenzo Lewelling from Wichita, and the Legislative War of 1893.” Lewelling — wasn’t he the last governor from Wichita? … The public is welcome and encouraged to attend Wichita Pachyderm meetings. For more information click on Wichita Pachyderm Club. … The club has an exceptional lineup of future speakers as follows: On April 13th: Alvin Sarachek, Ph.D., Geneticist, Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Natural Sciences at Wichita State University, speaking on “Human Genetic Individuality and Confused Public Policy Making.” … On April 20th: Senator Steve Morris, President of the Kansas Senate, speaking on “Legislative update.” … On April 27th: Dr. Malcolm C. Harris, Sr., Professor of Finance, Friends University, speaking on “The Open Minded Roots of American Exceptionalism, and the Decline of America’s Greatness.”

    We just don’t understand, they say. “Reeling from the possibility the Supreme Court might undermine ObamaCare, two members in good standing of the liberal media elite, both with the New York Times, took to the Sunday shows to lament the lack of public recognition for the great benefits of the law. ‘On health care,’ columnist Tom Friedman rationalized on NBC’s Meet the Press, ‘that’s partly a failure of communication.’ A befuddled Friedman advanced the liberal narrative that blames communication, not facts, as he wondered: ‘How do you go a year and a half where so many Americans don’t even understand the benefits of this legislation when they apply to them? And that gets to this administration, which I think has been abysmal at communicating some of its most important agenda items.’ That framework would make a lot more sense if applied to a conservative President facing a media hostile to his policies. That’s certainly not the case with this administration where the media have been consistently promoting Obamacare.” (Brent Baker, writing at Media Research Center in Sunday Guests Fret Public Naivete on ObamaCare Benefits as Friedman Blames Poor Communication. … I would say the problem is that people are starting to understand the impact of PPACA, or Obamacare. We find that the more people learn, the less they like it.

    Colleges indoctrinate students. The report studied only the California university system, but it applies nationwide, writes Peter Berkowitz in the Wall Street Journal (available at the Hoover Institution at How California’s Colleges Indoctrinate Students.) He quotes the study A Crisis of Competence: The Corrupting Effect of Political Activism in the University of California: “The politicization of higher education by activist professors and compliant university administrators deprives students of the opportunity to acquire knowledge and refine their minds. It also erodes the nation’s civic cohesion and its ability to preserve the institutions that undergird democracy in America.” … He goes on to explain: “The analysis begins from a nonpolitical fact: Numerous studies of both the UC system and of higher education nationwide demonstrate that students who graduate from college are increasingly ignorant of history and literature. They are unfamiliar with the principles of American constitutional government. And they are bereft of the skills necessary to comprehend serious books and effectively marshal evidence and argument in written work. … This decline in the quality of education coincides with a profound transformation of the college curriculum. None of the nine general campuses in the UC system requires students to study the history and institutions of the United States. None requires students to study Western civilization, and on seven of the nine UC campuses, including Berkeley, a survey course in Western civilization is not even offered.” … We should note that at the same time this has happened, the cost of college has exploded, and students are laden with debt.

    Job creation. Governments often fall prey to the job creation trap — that the goal of economic development is to create jobs. We see this in Wichita where the campaign for subsidy to hotel developers was presented as a jobs program. To most of our political and bureaucratic leaders, the more jobs created, the better — without regard to the underlying economics and how much these jobs actually cost. These costs destroy other jobs. Many of our business leaders don’t do any better understanding the difference between capitalism and business. In his introduction to the recently-published book The Morality of Capitalism, Tom G. Palmer writes: “Capitalism is not just about building stuff, in the way that socialist dictators used to exhort their slaves to ‘Build the Future!’ Capitalism is about creating value, not merely working hard or making sacrifices or being busy. Those who fail to understand capitalism are quick to support ‘job creation’ programs to create work. They have misunderstood the point of work, much less the point of capitalism. In a much-quoted story, the economist Milton Friedman was shown the construction on a massive new canal in Asia. When he noted that it was odd that the workers were moving huge amounts of earth and rock with small shovels, rather than earth moving equipment, he was told ‘You don’t understand; this is a jobs program.’ His response: ‘Oh, I thought you were trying to build a canal. If you’re seeking to create jobs, why didn’t you issue them spoons, rather than shovels?” … After describing crony capitalism — the type practiced in Wichita, Sedgwick County, and Kansas, with deals like the Ambassador Hotel — Palmer explains: “Such corrupt cronyism shouldn’t be confused with ‘free-market capitalism,’ which refers to a system of production and exchange that is based on the rule of law, on equality of rights for all, on the freedom to choose, on the freedom to trade, on the freedom to innovate, on the guiding discipline of profits and losses, and on the right to enjoy the fruits of one’s labors, of one’s savings, of one’s investments, without fearing confiscation or restriction from those who have invested, not in production of wealth, but in political power.”

    Markets: exploitation or empowerment? Do markets lead to a centralization of political and economic power, or do markets decentralize and disseminate wealth? In an eight-minute video from LearnLiberty.org, a project of Institute for Humane Studies, Antony Davies presents evidence and concludes that markets and free trade empower individuals rather than exploit them.