Voice For Liberty

Tag: Government spending

  • For Kansas, spending is the other part of the equation

    Those who oppose tax reform in Kansas say we can’t compare Kansas to states like Texas and Florida, two states which have no state income tax. They point to special advantages these states purportedly have, such as oil or tourism revenue. Kansas has nothing like this, they say.

    But Kansas Policy Institute has released analysis indicating that there’s another reason why these states have zero income tax: they simply spend less.

    According to the KPI analysis (a one-page document available at Controlling Spending is the Secret to Low Taxes), “The secret to having a low tax burden is to control spending, and that’s exactly what [no income tax] states do.”

    Continuing, the study finds: “According to the National Association of State Budget Officers, the states with no income tax spent an average of $2,444 per resident (total state funds) in 2010; the rest of the country spent $3,572 per resident, or 46% more. Kansas spent $3,216 per resident, or 32% more than the states with no income tax.” In this context, “total state funds” excludes federal funds and expenditures from the sale of bonds.

    These findings parallel my research, which examined state spending using a different measure — total state spending, including federal funds. I concluded “… states with low or no income tax generally spend much less than Kansas. Using figures I compiled for 2010, Kansas state spending per person is $4,923, which ranks it 35th among the states. Only 15 states spend more than Kansas, on a per person basis. Texas, with no income tax, spends $3,703 per person. Florida, another state with no income tax, spends $3,300 per person.” (See Kansas spending is the problem.)

    Generally states that spend less tax less, and vice versa. Low state spending and taxing means that a state leaves more resources in the hands of the productive private sector, instead of burdening its citizens with an expensive and inefficient state government.

    For this year, Kansas Governor Sam Brownback has proposed only a slight reduction in general fund spending. Last year the Kansas Legislature lost three opportunities to reduce the cost of state government. Three bills, each with this goal, were passed by the House of Representatives, but each failed to make through the Senate, or had its contents stripped and replaced with different legislation. See In Kansas Legislature this year, opportunities for saving were lost.

  • Kansas Bioscience Authority

    The release of a forensics audit of the Kansas Bioscience Authority coupled with two days of joint committee hearings revealed an independent government agency out of control, an audit that draws conclusions described as sanitized of important details, and an agency and legislative supporters who believe that now, all is well at the KBA.

    Defenders and supporters of KBA rely on two facts: First, the source of many problems — former CEO Tom Thornton — is no longer at KBA. He has been criticized for overspending and his managerial style, and the audit found that he deliberately deleted and scrubbed data from his personal laptop computer. Data is also missing from a protected section of a KBA server.

    Second, the audit finds no major problems with KBA’s board of directors or its business policies, procedures, and controls.

    Regarding Thornton, Kansas Secretary of Agriculture Dale A. Rodman, who oversaw the audit process on behalf of the Brownback Administration, was strongly critical of the KBA board’s oversight of Thornton. He told a joint committee that the KBA board had not done its job, and that a “golden opportunity” for Kansas has been lost.

    As to policies and practices, it is apparent that the KBA board violated a Kansas statute governing the KBA that covers conflicts of interest and board members receiving financial benefits on behalf of companies they have ownership interests in. The audit, many times, says that board members may resolve a conflict of interest by disclosure and not voting.

    But the case of KBA board member Bill Sanford is an example to the contrary. Rodman said that a company he partly owns received KBA grants totaling $674,996. There appear to be many similar examples involving other KBA personnel and companies.

    These facts stand in contrast to conclusions drawn in the audit, which was conducted by BKD, LLP Forensics and Valuation Services on behalf of the KBA, although the Brownback administration, through Rodman, had some oversight. Senate Commerce Committee Chair Susan Wagle, a Wichita Republican who has been at the forefront of the KBA issue, has repeatedly described the audit’s conclusions as “sanitized.” I agree.

    Rodman, in his testimony, revealed a troubling attitude towards ethics that we often see in Kansas. He told the committee that former Governor John Carlin told him that KBA could not do business in Kansas with strict ethic rules because everyone in Kansas knows each other. And last year Carlin, as chairman of the board of KBA, appeared before a Senate committee to give a strong defense of CEO Thornton.

    Now we know differently. But Carlin — defender of Thornton, who is now widely recognized as a “bad apple” — still serves on the KBA board. The fact that there has been little turnover in the composition of the KBA board reveals that the board, along with KBA’s supporters, believe that little is left to be fixed, now that Thornton has left the building.

    Kansans deserve something better, however. If KBA is to continue, all board members should resign, and immediately.

    The audit and committee testimony also uncovered troubling facts about the performance of KBA in creating jobs. If we take away KBA’s largest success story, which accounts for half or more of the jobs KBA claims to be responsible for creating and which cost a small amount of KBA funds, we are left with the realization that the other jobs KBA created cost over $700,000 each.

    KBA defends itself by noting that it focuses on long-term nurturing of the bioscience industry in Kansas, and less on creating jobs in the near term. Long-term goals, however, are not the forte of government, and that may be why KBA was created as an independent agency with its own revenue stream not subject to annual legislative or executive branch appropriations.

    But that leads to another problem: Arrogance and indomitability. That is much in evidence at KBA. Furthermore, we can’t really say that KBA “invests,” as it is not subject to the same constraints that govern when businesses or individuals invest. These private actors can’t conscript their capital from the people of Kansas, as does KBA. Neither does KBA have to accept responsibility for losses.

    It would not be surprising to see legislation emerge to provide legislative or executive branch oversight and control over KBA. While that may improve KBA, we will still be left with the issue of the incompatible roles of government and private sector.

  • Kansas committee asks if KBA audit did enough to expose problems

    By Bob Weeks, Special to KansasWatchdog.org

    Members of the joint Commerce and Economic Development Committees expressed concern that a forensic audit of the Kansas Bioscience Authority was not broad enough and that deliberate deletion of data from a KBA computer left questions unanswered.

    On Wedesday James Snyder, managing partner for BKD’s Forensics and Valuation Services, told the committee that while his firm was hired and paid by KBA, Kansas Governor Sam Brownback’s administration was heavily involved. Secretary of Agriculture Dale Rodman served as the main contact for the Brownback Administration, although Caleb Stegall, the governor’s chief lawyer, and Steve Anderson, the Budget Director, also participated.

    Snyder told the committee the audit process was designed to avoid a situation where after the final report was released, people would ask why certain facts were not considered or covered. “This process was specifically designed to avoid that, and it worked pretty well,” he said.

    The Kansas Legislature created the KBA in 2004 and gave it $581 million to bring bioscience research and jobs to Kansas. KBA has been under fire for expenses and salaries paid to top executives and for giving grants to fund projects out of state.

    Any disputes about the report’s contents were ironed out by January, but on Sunday, the day before the report was to be released, Rodman raised a difference of opinion over a possible conflict of interest involving former KBA board member Angela Kreps. Snyder characterized this as the only difference of opinion, and that it was a narrow and minor one.

    Committee chair, Sen. Susan Wagle, a Wichita Republican, recognized that BKD’s position was “difficult,” as the firm was hired and paid by KBA, but it was also in frequent communication with the Brownback Administration. Snyder said the administration was involved in an oversight role, and also in defining the scope of the audit.

    Senator Ty Masterson, an Andover Republican, expressed concern over possible deletion of computer files and that BKD could only “dive into that which you had, that you were provided.” BKD’s timeline of the audit showed that KBA leadership was apprised of an audit on March 10th, 2011. The next day CEO Tom Thornton accessed a computer hard drive on KBA’s network. The drive was accessible to only four people and held personnel records and confidential company information.

    BKD was hired on April 11th, a fact Masterson said he found “fascinating” because KBA used a 30-day rolling backup scheme that would not have retained files deleted on or before March 10. The time lag from March 11th to April 11th means that if information was deleted from the J-Drive, it was not available to the BKD audit team.

    The timing of this is “highly suspect,” Masterson said.

    Snyder said the audit team had access to much information and that BKD received everything they asked for, but Masterson pointed out that we don’t know what might have been missing. Thornton’s personal laptop computer was erased or “wiped” days after the audit was called for in a way that made it impossible for the computer forensic team to recover the deleted data.

    Snyder said that the committee should have high confidence in the audit’s findings and that the number of people and computers the team had access to was in many cases “extraordinary.” He also said that core KBA business records had integrity and there was no reason to suspect these systems had been compromised.

    Masterson quoted from page 133 of the audit report: “Our analysis found 301 payments without a contract, including 102 payments that violated KBA’s Contract Policy. The total contract cost involved totaled $1,219,271.81 in payments without a contract, including $571,828.20 in payments which violated Contract Policy.”

    Masterson noted that there’s no indication anything was technically illegal, but that the purview of the committee went beyond that. “Why do we put policies in place? It’s so that we can show best practice, best stewardship. You have shown over 300 violations of policy … I don’t know how we can paint this in the light that this is instilling confidence, and that it is clearing the air.”

    Masterson also said that the best case seems to be that there was unethical management combined with inadequate oversight. He said there is the possibility of a coordinated cover up of behavior that could potentially be illegal.

    Snyder answered that over time they observed “increasing sophistication” of board participation and compliance with procedures and that there had also been changes initiated by the board that offered protection.

    Wagle said she received faxes from KBA employees expressing concern that the Senate Commerce Committee received altered documents. “It became very apparent that we could not rely on the information we were receiving,” she said. She asked Snyder if it was possible that documents were altered or erased so BKD did not see them.

    Snyder said that although one expense report was altered, there was no indication of a “systematic issue” of alterations or erasures.

    Wagle and Snyder disagreed over the extent of BKD’s contact with Wagle contending that it did not constitute an “interview” as claimed in the audit report.

    Democratic Senator Tom Holland asked Snyder two questions relating to whether KBA has business policies and procedures in place to effectively run the organization, and has KBA consistently followed these? Snyder answered yes, with very few exceptions. “We found a very high level of compliance.”

    Republican Senator Chris Steineger of Kansas City asked a series of questions regarding the mission of the KBA, which is, according to KBA “advancing Kansas’ leadership in bioscience” as well as creating investment and jobs in Kansas. Steineger expressed concern that much of KBA’s funding is spent on overhead, such as lawyers, architects, office buildings, travel, and dining.

    Steineger distributed a series of calculations based on KBA data in the audit that he said reveals that KBA made $265 million in commitments resulting in 1,347 jobs for a cost of $196,808 per job created.

    Steineger showed that removing the largest company from the mix — Quintiles, which created 1,000 jobs for a KBA contribution of $3.5 million — the remaining jobs cost more than $750,000 each.

    Senator Jeff Longbine, an Emporia Republican, mentioned that there had been criticism of the KBA for insider activities among board members, conflicts of interest, cronyism, and fraud and asked Snyder if these accusations were true. Snyder said these generalized accusations were not true, although there was one instance where there was “some technical violation of a conflict of interest rule.” He said that KBA is not “fraught with fraud or self-dealing.”

    The audit report also noted that KBA made regular use of executive sessions not open to the public and that, “No notes or recordings are made of Executive Sessions. This is a common business practice. Therefore, information discussed in Executive Session was not available for BKD’s review and could not be considered with regard to the findings of this report.”

    In response to another question, Snyder said that no changes were recommended to the Kansas Economic Growth Act, the legislation that created the KBA. There were some recommendations to KBA board policies and procedures.

    Wagle also noted that conflict of interest rules don’t really resolve conflicts. Generally, if KBA board members disclose that they have a conflict of interest — such as a company they have financial ties to getting a grant — they can refrain from voting to satisfy the rules. “To me, I don’t know if it’s okay with the people of Kansas,” Wagle said.

    The joint hearing will continue tomorrow with a presentation from Rodman.

    This article originally appeared on Kansas Watchdog.

  • End the Economic Development Administration — Now

    Following in an article from U.S. Representative Mike Pompeo, a Republican who represents the Kansas fourth district, including the Wichita metropolitan area. It provides an example of how hard it is to reduce the size of government. The legislation that is mentioned in the article is H.R. 3090: EDA Elimination Act of 2011, which would shut down the Economic Development Administration.

    End the Economic Development Administration — Now

    By U.S. Representative Mike Pompeo
    As part of my efforts to reduce the size of government, I have proposed to eliminate the Economic Development Administration (EDA), a politically motivated federal wealth redistribution agency. Unsurprisingly, the current leader of that agency, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Economic Development John Fernandez, has taken acute personal interest in my bill to shutter his agency.

    Last week, Secretary Fernandez invited himself to Wichita at taxpayer expense and met with the Wichita Eagle’s editorial board. Afterwards, the paper accurately noted I am advocating eliminating the EDA even though that agency occasionally awards grant money to projects in South Central Kansas. They just don’t get it. Thanks to decades of this flawed “You take yours, I’ll take mine” Washington logic, our nation now faces a crippling $16 trillion national debt.

    I first learned about the EDA when Secretary Fernandez testified in front of my subcommittee that the benefits of EDA projects exceed the costs and cited the absurd example of a $1.4 million award for “infrastructure” that allegedly helped a Minnesota town secure a new $1.6 billion steel mill. As a former CEO, I knew there is no way that a taxpayer subsidy equal to less than one-tenth of one percent (0.1%) of the total capital needed made a difference in launching the project. That mill was getting built whether EDA’s grant came through or not. So, I decided to dig further.

    I discovered that the EDA is a federal agency we can do without. Similar to earmarks that gave us the infamous “Bridge to Nowhere” or the Department of Energy loan guarantee scandal that produced Solyndra, the EDA advances local projects that narrowly benefit a particular company or community. To be sure, the EDA occasionally supports a local project here in Kansas. But it takes our tax money every year for projects in 400-plus other congressional districts, many if not most of which are boondoggles. For example: EDA gave $2 million to help construct UNLV’s Harry Reid Research and Technology Park; $2 million for a “culinary amphitheater,” tasting room, and gift shop at a Washington state winery; and $500,000 to construct (never-completed) replicas of the Great Pyramids in rural Indiana.

    Several times in recent decades, the Government Accountability Office has questioned the value and efficacy of the EDA. Good-government groups like Citizens Against Government Waste have called for dismantling the agency. In addition, eliminating the EDA was listed among the recommendations of President Obama’s own bipartisan Simpson-Bowles Deficit Reduction Commission.

    So why hasn’t it been shut down already? Politics. The EDA spreads taxpayer-funded project money far and wide and attacks congressmen who fail to support EDA grants. Soon after that initial hearing, Secretary Fernandez flew in his regional director — again at taxpayer expense — to show me “all the great things we are doing in your home district” and handed me a list of recent and pending local grants. Hint, hint. You can’t say I wasn’t warned to back off. Indeed, Eagle editors missed the real story here: Secretary Fernandez flew to Wichita because he is a bureaucrat trying to save his high-paying gig. The bureaucracy strikes back when conservatives take on bloated, out-of-control, public spending, so I guess I’m making progress.

    Please don’t misunderstand. I am not faulting cities, universities, or companies for having sought “free” federal money from the EDA. The fault lies squarely with a Washington culture that insists every program is sacred and there is no spending left to cut.

    A federal agency run at the Assistant Secretary level has not been eliminated in decades. Now is the time. My bill to eliminate the EDA (HR 3090) would take one small step toward restoring fiscal sanity and constitutional government.

  • Kansas and Wichita quick takes: Monday January 16, 2012

    Tax cuts = extra income? Commenting on Kansas tax reform, Wichita Business Journal editor Bill Roy said “Certainly for business people, it’s the elimination of the income tax on business income. … They’ll appreciate having that extra income that they can use on other things in their business.” I don’t know how much thought Roy gave to these remarks, but his easy likening of lower taxes to extra income is symptomatic of the problem: We have become accustomed to government having a claim on our income. In the rare instances where government gives up part of that claim, we taxpayers are supposed to view it as a gift, as something extra. Roy’s remarks were broadcast on the KPTS television program Impact while discussing Kansas Governor Sam Brownback’s tax reform plan. … Similar lines of thinking are revealed whenever it is said that tax cuts “cost” the government. The proper way of thinking is that government is a cost to the people, and whenever the cost of government is reduced, we experience a benefit. That is, we the people, as contrasted to the political class. If the government cuts taxes, the government gives us nothing. It simply takes less of what is ours in the first place. … I’m also reminded of former Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, who when commenting on a reduction of the Kansas business machinery tax, said “We’re not giving away money for the sake of giving it away.”

    Revenue-neutral tax reform. If Kansas tax reform is to be revenue-neutral, that — by definition — means that if one person pays less, someone else has to make up the difference. Peter Hancock of Kansas Education Policy Report has such an example in his post Winners and Losers in Brownback’s Tax Plan. A low-income family would experience a tax increase of $442 (mostly through loss of the Earned Income Tax Credit), while a middle class family with business income would save about $300. These examples were released by Kansas Democrats. … Hancock also reports that the Brownback administration’s projections assume 5.9 percent annual growth, instead of the standard 4 percent used by the Consensus Estimating Group. A common criticism of President Barack Obama’s administration is that its projections are based on an overly-optimistic rate of future economic growth. We shouldn’t do the same in Kansas.

    Peterjohn to speak. This Friday (January 20th) the Wichita Pachyderm Club features Sedgwick County Commissioner Karl Peterjohn. He says he will speak on “critical national problems we are facing with a historical perspective.” The public is welcome and encouraged to attend Wichita Pachyderm meetings. For more information click on Wichita Pachyderm Club. Upcoming speakers: On January 27, 2012: The Honorable Jennifer Jones, Administrative Judge, Wichita Municipal Court, speaking on “An overview of the Wichita Municipal Court.”

    Southwest to fly to Wichita. Since it gobbled up AirTran, the question has been: Will Southwest Airlines provide service in Wichita? Now we know the answer is yes. While the airline has recently started service in some markets without the large, ongoing subsidies that Wichita and the state provide, that won’t be the case in Wichita, according to news reports. … Last year I reported on Southwest starting service in Charleston, South Carolina, whose metropolitan area population is similar to that of Wichita: “In the Charleston situation, there evidently won’t be the massive state-supplied subsidy as we have in Kansas. But Southwest will still get a leg up: A USA Today story quotes a Charleston airport official saying ‘Southwest didn’t want a state subsidy, but was interested in the airport’s incentives a temporary waiver of landing fees, up to $10,000 to market new flights, and up to $150,000 for other start-up costs.’” That’s a lot less than what Wichita and Kansas offer. .. Will the need for subsidies last? About this time last year, Wichita City Manager Robert Layton said “The Southwest business model doesn’t require subsidies over a long period of time.” Of course, we were told that the subsidy for AirTran would be required for only a short period, but the program grew and grew until it is now considered part of our state’s transportation infrastructure.

    Kansas economic development incentives. In an Insight Kansas column, Professor Chapman Rackaway of Fort Hays State University concludes: “No state will abandon the tax-incentive recruitment strategy for fear of being the only business suitor with nothing to offer. But the tax-incentive strategy remains a risky one, and perhaps it is time for Kansas and other governments to re-evaluate the practice.” … Earlier in the article he cites the lack of oversight among the states: “States and localities are regularly in competition with one another for scarce jobs. However, a 2001 article in Economic Development Quarterly reported that, despite the billions distributed annually as incentives, states were doing little evaluation of incentives’ effectiveness or their return on investment.” (Kansas has done a little of this; see here. A quote from the Kansas audit: “Most studies of economic development incentives suggest these incentives don’t have a significant impact on economic growth. The literature we reviewed concluded that, thus far, negative and inconclusive findings are far more numerous than positive findings. Most reviews of economic development assistance find few results are achieved — a theme that audits in Kansas and other states commonly find, as well. Findings of ineffectiveness include promised jobs weren’t created, return on investment is low or negative, and incentives offered weren’t a determining factor.” But also: “The literature also suggests that economic development incentives must be offered to remain competitive with other states.”) … But I think there is a way out. In his paper Embracing Dynamism: The Next Phase in Kansas Economic Development Policy, Professor Art Hall of the Center for Applied Economics at the Kansas University School of Business wrote this regarding “benchmarking” — the bidding wars for large employers that are the subject of Rackaway’s article: “Kansas can break out of the benchmarking race by developing a strategy built on embracing dynamism. Such a strategy, far from losing opportunity, can distinguish itself by building unique capabilities that create a different mix of value that can enhance the probability of long-term economic success through enhanced opportunity. Embracing dynamism can change how Kansas plays the game.”

    Story is broken. “Prof. Art Carden responds to ‘The Story of Broke,’ a recent video by the creators of ‘The Story of Stuff.’ In ‘The Story of Broke,’ Annie Leonard claims that the government isn’t actually broke. Rather, the government just wastes resources on the wrong things like subsidies to the dinosaur economy and war. She claims that the government should change its ways, and instead, subsidize firms that will bring us the future we really want. Art Carden agrees with Leonard that war and subsidies are wasteful, but is skeptical of notion that there is one unified vision for the future. To Carden, everyone has a different vision for the future. Our path to the future, he argues, is determined by the interactions of billions of unique individuals pursuing their own objectives. … Carden concludes that government spending won’t buy a brighter future. A brighter future will emerge when people are allowed to spend money on things they care about. Put another way, positive change will come from billions of people cooperating freely and voluntarily with one another, not from pushing trillions of dollars through a broken political process.” This video is from LearnLiberty.org, a project of Institute for Humane Studies, and many other informative videos are available.

  • Kansas spending is the problem

    While Kansas Governor Sam Brownback has some good ideas in his State of the State address and tax reform plan, there are two important points that need to be made.

    First, the governor has said that tax reform is designed to be revenue neutral. That goal means that if one person pays less, someone else has to pay more. It also means that the state’s thirst for spending is not quenched. It is continued spending that prevents us from dramatically reducing or eliminating income tax rates in Kansas.

    Critics of lowering income tax rates point to the advantages that states with no income tax have. Texas is often mentioned, where it is said that the state’s oil wealth and the taxes it generates make it possible for Texas to have no income tax.

    There are two rebuttals to this argument. First, Kansas may have much new activity in oil and gas in the very near future. With the severance tax and taxes from other economic activity — as many as 25,000 jobs and $5 billion in investment over five years — new revenue may be flowing to the state. Brownback has called for limiting the growth of state spending to two percent annually, with revenue growth above that dedicated towards reducing income tax rates.

    The second rebuttal is that states with low or no income tax generally spend much less than Kansas. Using figures I compiled for 2010, Kansas state spending per person is $4,923, which ranks it 35th among the states. Only 15 states spend more than Kansas, on a per person basis.

    Texas, with no income tax, spends $3,703 per person. Florida, another state with no income tax, spends $3,300 per person.

    Kansas Democrats have called for restoring school spending, and increasing it in the future. They have other plans for state spending, too. That’s why it is important that Kansas implement something that 47 states have, but Kansas does not. Unfortunately, the governor didn’t mention it in his address. That missing ingredient in the Kansas state financial plan is a rainy day fund.

    Rainy day funds operate in different ways in the states that have them, but generally there are strict rules about spending the money in the fund. A rainy day fund would have helped Kansas whether a downturn in revenue without resorting to a tax increase. That’s vitally important, as once tax increases are in place, they are very difficult to remove. We have such an example of this now in Kansas: The increase in the statewide sales tax, promoted to last just three years, is now recommended to be permanent, according to the governor’s plan.

    (Shifting sands: Kansas Senator Carolyn McGinn, who voted for the sales tax increase, now wants it ended a year earlier than originally planned. That was a transparent response to her having to face a conservative challenger in her primary election this year. But now she finds herself opposing the governor on this issue.)

    Kansas has a requirement for a 7.5 percent ending balance in the general fund. That requirement is often waived by the legislature, as it has been for several years in a row. Rainy day fund legislation is often implemented in states’ constitutions, which can’t easily be waived or ignored by spending-happy legislature. The strict requirements as to how and when the fund balances can be spent is much different from a simple ending balance. Kansas Democrats, for example, are calling for spending the year’s ending balance.

  • Pentagon strategy blamed for Boeing Wichita closure

    The fact that price was the key determinant in the decision to award Boeing the air force refueling tanker contract led Boeing to close its underutilized, and therefore expensive, Wichita plant.

    This is the conclusion of Loren B. Thompson, Ph.D., who is chief operating officer of the Arlington, Va.-based nonprofit Lexington Institute and chief executive officer of Source Associates. His article Viewpoint: Why Boeing’s Not in Kansas Anymore appears in Industry Week.

    Thompson writes: “The acquisition strategy that the Obama administration put together to finally break the impasse over purchase of a new tanker was what people in the defense business call a ‘price shootout.’ In other words, price was the key determinant of who won, because both bidders met all the other criteria for selection.”

    Thompson writes that because Airbus, Boeing’s competitor, is heavily subsidized, Boeing had to bid aggressively if it was to have a chance to win the contract.

    The result, Thomson concludes: “Pentagon acquisition officials were able to brag that they had secured a new generation of aerial-refueling tankers for less money than anyone thought possible. But here’s the downside: Boeing ended up having to cut costs everywhere it could to avoid losing money on the tanker program, including Wichita. Keeping an underutilized, high-cost facility in the production mix would have eroded the program’s already razor-thin profit margin. With Boeing’s resources overstretched trying to match Airbus’s heavily subsidized development efforts on the commercial side, Wichita had to go.”

    It may not be much consolation to Wichita and the Boeing employees who are losing their jobs there, but a cheaper tanker is preferred over an expensive tanker. We need to cut government spending whenever and wherever we can, and obtaining military weapons systems as inexpensively as possible is important.

    In 2008, when the tanker contract was awarded to Airbus (Boeing successfully appealed this decision), the Wall Street Journal accurately diagnosed the politics: “What’s really going on is a familiar scrum for federal cash, with politicians from Washington and Kansas using nationalism as cover for their pork-barreling.”

    The Journal correctly stated what should be the goal of the contract: “The Pentagon’s job is to defend the country, which means letting contracts that best serve American soldiers and taxpayers, not certain companies.”

    We also need to note that Boeing has been heavily subsidized by government in Wichita, too. My article Boeing departure presents challenge for Wichita and Kansas presents some figures, including $658 million in property tax forgiveness over a period of 28 years.

  • The true size of the Obama stimulus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Why the Spending Stimulus Failed

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

    By Michael J. Boskin

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

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

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

  • Wichita turns taxation over to private interests

    In a free society with a limited government, taxation should be restricted to being a way for government to raise funds to pay for services that all people benefit from. But in the city of Wichita, taxation for private gain is overtaking our city.

    The Ambassador Hotel, part of a project known as Douglas Place, makes use of several of these private tax policy strategies. By private tax policy, I mean that the proceeds of a tax are used for the exclusive benefit of one person (or business firm), instead of used for the benefit of all. In one example related to this hotel, the Wichita City Council is allowing private parties to determine the city’s tax policy at their discretion, not the city’s.

    The tax in question is Wichita’s hotel guest tax. According to a description of the Tourism and Convention Fund in the city’s budget document, the goal of the guest tax is to “support tourism and convention, infrastructure, and promotion of the City.” Its priorities are to be “Fund priorities are: 1) debt service for tourism and convention facilities, 2) operational deficit subsidies and 3) care and maintenance of Century II.”

    But in the case of the Ambassador Hotel project, the city passed a charter ordinance that would route 75 percent of this tax directly back to the hotel owners for their own use. That’s not the proclaimed purpose of the guest tax.

    Instead, this is public taxation for private enrichment.

    Those who benefit from things like this and tax increment financing (TIF) districts say they aren’t really benefiting, as they are, in fact, paying taxes.

    But when taxes you must pay are routed back to you for your own exclusive use, what else can you call it except capture of a public function for your own personal use?

    Failure of Wichita city leadership

    If you need further evidence that Wichita is turning over taxation to private hands, consider this: The charter ordinance is subject to a protest petition. In the normal case, if sufficient signatures are gathered, the city council would have to either a) overturn the ordinance, or b) hold an election to let voters decide whether the ordinance takes effect. An effort that I have been involved with expects to turn in enough signatures this week to force this decision.

    Now, if this tax policy regarding the Ambassador Hotel is truly in the public interest, we would expect that the city council would decide whether to hold such an election and bear its costs itself. But that’s not the case. In the agreement between the city and the Douglas Place developers, we see this: “If Developer requests a special election solely for the purpose of passing the charter ordinance in the event a sufficient protest petition is submitted, Developer shall reimburse the City for the actual out of pocket costs and expenses of conducting such election.”

    In other words, the city is turning over to private interests the decision as to whether to have such an election, and also the responsibility for paying for it. This is a failure of Wichita city leadership to do the things that government, not private interests, should do.

    Private taxation funds political entrepreneurship

    In Wichita, especially in downtown, we see the rise of private tax policy, that is, the taxing power of government being used for private purposes. The above example is just one example. This private tax policy is pushed by Wichita’s political entrepreneurs. These are the people who would rather compete in the realm of politics rather than in the market.

    Examples of Wichita’s political entrepreneurs include the developers the Ambassador Hotel: David Burk of Marketplace Properties, and the principals of Key Construction.

    Competing in the political arena is easier than competing in the market. To win in the political arena, you only have to convince a majority of the legislative body that controls your situation. Once you’ve convinced them the power of government takes over, and the people at large are forced to transfer money to the political entrepreneurs. In other words, they must engage in transactions they would not elect to perform, if left to their own free will.

    In the free marketplace, however, entrepreneurs have to compete by offering products or services that people are willing to buy, free of coercion. That’s hard to do. But it’s the only way to gauge whether people really want what the entrepreneurs are selling. It’s also the way that wealth and prosperity are created. Government spending on business does not have this effect.

    One of the ways that political entrepreneurs compete is by making campaign contributions, and the developers of Douglas Place have mastered this technique. Key Construction principles contributed $13,500 to Mayor Carl Brewer and four city council members during their most recent campaigns. Council Member Jeff Longwell alone received $4,000 of that sum, and he also accepted another $2,000 from managing member David Burk and his wife.

    All told, Burk and his wife contributed at least $7,500 to city council candidates who will be voting whether to give Burk money. Burk and others routinely make the maximum contribution to all — or nearly all — candidates, even those with widely varying political stances. How can someone explain Burk’s (and his wife’s) contributions to liberals like Miller and Williams, and also to conservatives like Longwell, Meitzner, and former council member Sue Schlapp?

    The answer is: Burk will be asking these people for money.

    Wichitans need to rise against these political entrepreneurs and their usurpation of a public function — taxation — for their own benefit. The politicians and bureaucrats who enable this should realize they should be serving the public interest, not the narrow and private enrichment of the few at the cost of many.