Voice For Liberty

Tag: Government spending

  • Sedgwick County budget: there are ways to save

    Remarks delivered to a budget hearing before the Sedgwick County Commission.

    Listening to the budget hearings two weeks ago, I was struck by the reach of government into people’s lives, and to the extent that the recipients of services expect the general taxpayer to pay.

    It’s one thing when we help people who are truly not able to care for themselves. While I do not believe government is the best agent for that, it’s the system we have in place for now.

    For example: the g2goutside program, which offers recreational programs in the great outdoors. Is this a worthy goal? Sure, but this should not be a government program. It is recreation. Government should not be involved.

    Then, a farmer said a farm bureau program helps him plan his crops and their management. Commissioners, a farm is a business. If it has need for information and management consulting advice, it should pay for its own needs, just like we expect other business firms to do.

    I’m almost reluctant to say this, as these people seem to be well-meaning. But these two examples and other testimony presented that day remind me of Henry Hazlitt and what he termed the “special pleading of selfish interests.” In his book Economics in one lesson, he wrote:

    While every group has certain economic interests identical with those of all groups, every group has also, as we shall see, interests antagonistic to those of all other groups. While certain public policies would in the long run benefit everybody, other policies would benefit one group only at the expense of all other groups. The group that would benefit by such policies, having such a direct interest in them, will argue for then plausibly and persistently.

    Looking through the budget, it seems like Sedgwick County makes very little use of outsourcing. In fact, in 769 pages the word “outsource” or its variant is used only once. I would ask that the commissioners take notice of the city of Sandy Springs, Georgia, which outsources nearly everything the city does. It would take me a while to read the list of functions that the city outsources. This is not a small town; its population is over 90,000. We in Sedgwick County can do more with outsourcing as a way to improve service delivery at lower cost.

    I also see no reason as to why the county should be supporting Wichita State University.

    Regarding our economic development efforts: According to the recent report by the Greater Wichita Economic Development Coalition, 517 jobs were created through the combined economic development efforts in Sedgwick County. That’s an annual rate of 1,034 jobs. That sounds like a lot, but place this number in context. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, the labor force in Sedgwick County averaged 253,045 people in 2010. That means the number of jobs created by our economic development efforts amounted to 0.4 percent of the county’s labor force.

    I would suggest that this amounts to mere statistical noise; a vanishingly small number which is overwhelmed by other events.

    Furthermore, we find that despite the economic development incentives we’ve granted are often not really needed. We have two examples — one here and one at Wichita City Hall — where developers told this body that without incentives, their projects could not go forward. The Wichita example is relevant because it involved the city granting forgiveness of taxes that the country would otherwise collect.

    In these cases, despite the insistence of developers that welfare was required for their projects, the projects went ahead without it.

    Tomorrow I believe you will be dealing with another example of developer welfare given to someone at great cost to taxpayers, but now is not needed after all.

    The statistics cited above, along with these three examples, show that money can be saved on our economic development efforts.

  • Kansas Capitol renovations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Tax expenditures, or loopholes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Feldstein describes problems with spending implemented through the tax system:

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

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

    The ‘Tax Expenditure’ Solution for Our National Debt

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

    By Martin Feldstein

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

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

    Continue reading at the Wall Street Journal (subscription required)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Wichita school district able to maintain employment ratios

    Despite the claims that schools have made drastic cuts, evidence shows that USD 259, the Wichita public school district, has been able to maintain student-employee ratios.

    During the years of rapid increases in school spending, the ratio of students to teachers and students to employees both fell. Both reached their lowest levels in 2009 — lowest meaning a high number of teachers and employees as compared to students.

    In 2009, the ratio of students per teacher was 12.9, having declined from 14.6 in 2005. For 2011 the ratio increased slightly to 13.1.

    Also in 2009, the ratio of students per employee was 7.0, having declined from 8.0 in 2005. For 2011 this ratio is 7.2.

    These only very slight increases in the ratio of students to teachers and other employees shows that the Wichita school district has been able to maintain employment ratios — despite the claims of large budget cuts and other proclamations of doom.

    Wichita school district employment levels

  • Wichita school district discusses unspent fund balances

    Last week the board of USD 259, the Wichita public school district provided another example of the attitude of the board towards those who have opinions that are not aligned with the policies of the district and public school spending advocates.

    In this example it was Dave Trabert who appeared to speak to the board. Trabert is president of Kansas Policy Institute. His purpose was to present to the board some options the district has, based on a new state law, for managing its finances so that it could proceed without laying off teachers or eliminating programs.

    Board president Connie Dietz made sure the speakers were aware there is a three minute time limit — now there is a timer on the display screens — and that the speakers would be excused after that time.

    Trabert told the board that based on new state law, the Wichita school district has $16.4 million available for it to use without restriction. These are funds that the district has in accounts, but did not spend in previous years. “The district can, if it chooses, use this option to avoid teacher layoffs and other program cuts,” Trabert said.

    Trabert recognized that the district needs some balances to help manage cash flow. He also mentioned the fact that school districts and school spending supporters don’t address: “The fact that these balances have increased significantly over the years, as some revenues were not spent, shows that the district has the ability to use this option if it chooses, and still have a lot of cash left over.”

    He also told the board that many school districts in Kansas are able to operate with lower ratios of cash balances, relative to their operating expenses, than the Wichita district does.

    Board member Lynn Rogers questioned Trabert, asking him how he felt about the federal government spending Social Security trust funds on things other than Social Security benefits. Trabert asked how that applied to the issue at hand.

    Rogers said the district’s fund balances are a similar concept, and that if the district spends fund balances on something other than originally intended, it’s like the government misapplying Social Security trust funds. But the two concepts are distinguishable.

    The idea behind the Social Security Trust Fund is that payroll taxes are collected from workers, and are then invested to earn interest over a long period of time in order to pay future benefits to retirees.

    The district’s funds, with the possible exception of a fund like capital improvement or textbooks, are not intended as long-term investment vehicles. Rather, they are designed to meet short-term needs and to manage cash flow.

    Despite the huge difference in the nature of the school funds and the Social Security Trust Fund, Rogers pressed Trabert to answer his question, trying to draw a comparison between the district’s health care fund and Social Security. But again, the comparison is not valid. The district’s self-insurance health care fund is for the anticipated costs of health care for the current year. It is not a long-term savings plan, as Social Security is intended to be.

    We saw recently how the Wichita school district treated someone who made a proposal that lied outside the school spending orthodoxy. Here again we see similar treatment: First, the speaker is sternly reminded of the short time limit. This is, remember, at school board meetings where vast expanses of time are wasted on “feel-good” measures that do nothing to advance public policy, or education, for that matter.

    After the speaker finishes, board members may then lecture the speaker, often in an attempt to divert attention away from the issues the speaker raised. At least in this meeting the board member gave the speaker a chance to respond. That may not happen again, as Rogers made nonsensical arguments in his attempt to back the speaker into a corner and avoid addressing the substance of the issue at hand.

    The issue of the fund balances, while important, is not the most serious issue facing Wichita and Kansas schools. Most people would be surprised — and shocked — to learn that only 26 percent of Kansas students that take the ACT test are ready for college-level coursework in all four areas that ACT considers. (See Most Kansas students not ready for college.) While this result was slightly better than the national average, it means that three-fourths of Kansas high school graduates need to take one or more remedial college courses.

    It is important that citizens understand the issue of the unspent fund balances. It’s also important that they are aware of the refusal of school districts and school spending advocates to deal forthrightly with the public on this issue. It provides insight into the nature of our public schools, and why reform is so difficult.

    The written material that Trabert presented to the board may be found at Unencumbered Carryover Cash Balance Facts (According to the Kansas Dept. of Education, school district budget documents, Kansas Legislative Research Department and basic accounting principles). For more articles on the fund balances, click on Kansas school fund balances.

  • Pompeo: No debt ceiling hike without structural changes

    In a press conference held yesterday, U.S. Representative Mike Pompeo, a Wichita Republican, said the country can’t risk continuing to spend at the present rate. There should be no agreement to raise the debt ceiling absent structural changes, he added.

    He called for “real short term savings” in 2012 and spending limitations. He also said he supported an amendment to the Constitution requiring a balanced budget.

    On federal spending, Pompeo said “I’ve been here six months now. If there’s one thing that’s become very clear, this town is a place that is addicted to spending.” He described the direction of spending as a “one-way ratchet,” saying the trend has accelerated in the last 24 months. The federal government should do what every state must do, which is to live on a balanced budget. The balanced budget amendment, Pompeo said, would require this.

    He criticized President Barack Obama for his “class warfare argument” against the corporate jet industry. Pompeo said the airplanes built in Wichita are business tools used by businesses all over the world. Two-thirds are sold outside of North America, he added.

    Pompeo characterized the president’s criticisms as a political statement. The tax provisions Obama criticizes have a cost of two to three billion dollars over ten years. Pompeo compared this to the current deficit for this year and for future years according to the president’s budget, which he said is $1.5 trillion each year.

    Pompeo said he sent the president a letter (text of the letter is here) inviting him to Kansas to see our aircraft manufacturing industry, noting that many of the workers are union workers. He added that if the president continues to talk down the industry, “making it politically incorrect to fly in a Kansas-built airplane, we’ll sell fewer all over the world, and we’ll build fewer in America.”

    On the possibility of Social Security checks not being sent if the debt ceiling is not raised, Pompeo said that there is money to pay the benefits, and the president has authority to pay. Obama is trying to scare seniors and Americans as a tactic to get the debt ceiling raised, he said.

    On the failure of H.R. 2417: Better Use of Light Bulbs Act to pass, Pompeo said he hopes this measure will come back in a form that requires only a simple majority to pass. This bill, which would overturn legislation that essentially outlaws ordinary incandescent light bulbs, was brought to the floor under suspension of the rules, and therefore required a two-thirds majority to pass. The bill received a simple majority, but failed to reach the two-thirds level.

  • Sedgwick County considers a federal grant

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    From the conclusion to the research findings:

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

    …

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

    …

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Federal grants seen to raise future local spending

    “Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program.” — Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman

    Is this true? Do federal grants cause state and/or local tax increases in the future after the government grant ends? Economists Russell S. Sobel and George R. Crowley have examined the evidence, and they find the answer is yes.

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

    The difference between this research and most is that Sobel and Crowley look at the impact of federal grants on state and local tax policy in future periods.

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

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

    The conclusion to their research paper states:

    Our results clearly demonstrate that grant funding to state and local governments results in higher own source revenue and taxes in the future to support the programs initiated with the federal grant monies. Our results are consistent with Friedman’s quote regarding the permanence of temporary government programs started through grant funding, as well as South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford’s reasoning for trying to deny some federal stimulus monies for his state due to the future tax implications. Most importantly, our results suggest that the recent large increase in federal grants to state and local governments that has occurred as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) will have significant future tax implications at the state and local level as these governments raise revenue to continue these newly funded programs into the future. Federal grants to state and local governments have risen from $461 billion in 2008 to $654 billion in 2010. Based on our estimates, future state taxes will rise by between 33 and 42 cents for every dollar in federal grants states received today, while local revenues will rise by between 23 and 46 cents for every dollar in federal (or state) grants received today. Using our estimates, this increase of $200 billion in federal grants will eventually result in roughly $80 billion in future state and local tax and own source revenue increases. This suggests the true cost of fiscal stimulus is underestimated when the costs of future state and local tax increases are overlooked.

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

    An introduction to the paper is Do Intergovernmental Grants Create Ratchets in State and Local Taxes?.