The Kansas Meadowlark wonders about construction equipment moved into place apparently just for effect: Tax dollars for props for Biden’s visit to Overland Park? Wasteful spending for Biden to avoid?
By the way, why was it necessary for our former governor Kathleen Sebelius, now Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, to travel to Kansas for this event? Doesn’t she have national health care to plan for, or at least swine flu to stomp out?
The Kansas National Education Association — that’s the teachers union — shows again that it has little respect for Kansas taxpayers.
The issue of Under the Dome for April 17, 2009 reveals this organization’s appetite for tax revenue is large, and they’re always on the prowl for more.
After last week’s bad news about Kansas revenues, Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius reminded legislators they had “left a significant amount of money on the table by not considering revenue adjustments that she had proposed in her budgets.”
Just look at the perspective of Sebelius and the KNEA. They can’t bring themselves to use the phrases “tax hikes” or “delay tax cuts already signed into law.” Instead, they use the euphemism “revenue adjustments.”
Also, by not increasing taxes they “leave money on the table.” They don’t view money as belonging to the people of Kansas. They view it as theirs, and they’re being short-sighted when they don’t rake it in.
KNEA and Sebelius also want Kansas to “decouple” from the federal tax code. That’s because when the federal government cuts taxes, Kansas taxes get cut too because of the coupling. The KNEA reminds us that if Kansas had decoupled, it could have saved $80 million from the effects of last year’s federal stimulus bill.
There it is again — the attitude the state has first claim on your money. If the state was able to avoid giving its citizens tax cuts, it’s called “saving” by the KNEA.
KNEA likes to hide behind a unimpeachable motto like “Making Public Schools Great for Every Child.” We need to realize, however, that this teachers union works to keep the public school monopoly on the use of taxpayer funds in education, and they always want more.
Wichita TIF development, Kansas coal, Carl Brewer on downtown, Dick Coe on crash and recovery, Fox’s Glenn Beck
Parkstone hits milestone: Building almost complete on four townhouses (Wichita Eagle) Describes progress and plans for a Wichita real estate development project. Let’s hope this project sells well and quickly, as the taxpayers of Wichita are on the hook, due to this project’s use of tax increment financing.
Parkinson firm against coal (Tim Carpenter in the Topeka Capital-Journal) Kansas Lieutenant Governor Mark Parkinson has promised to veto a bill that authorizes a coal-fired power plant if he is governor. The Speaker of the Kansas House of Representatives says he has enough votes to override a veto by either Parkinson or present governor Kathleen Sebelius. Sources in the House and Senate tell me that few members — Democrats or Republicans — trust Parkinson.
Mayor asks Wichitans to dream about downtown’s future (Bill Wilson in the Wichita Eagle) Says Wichita Mayor Carl Brewer: “I want to provide everything you want to possibly imagine.” More evidence of local government’s desire to plan everything for us. I’m really surprised that young people are in favor of this.
J. Richard Coe: U.S. Paying Price for Overindulging (Wichita Eagle) The head of a Wichita financial services firm provides analysis of how the United States got in its current mess, and what must happen to recover. What happened? “Largely as a result of the Federal Reserve keeping interest rates too low for too long, there was a huge increase in borrowing (credit). Individuals, businesses and governments responded to an incentive to borrow, but the incentive was a temporary illusion.” Coe sees problems with the measures the administration is taking: “Massive government spending and increased regulation will make it more difficult for the private sector to recover.” He gives free markets their due: “Markets are more reliable than governments, and markets are in the process of correcting for government-incentivized excessive borrowing.”
Fox News’s Mad, Apocalyptic, Tearful Rising Star (New York Times) A profile of new Fox News television show host Glenn Beck. “Mr. Beck presents himself as a revivalist in a troubled land.” Some see “sinister meanings in his commentaries” and say he’s “stirring up a revolution.” “Let me be clear,” Mr. Beck said. “If someone tries to harm another person in the name of the Constitution or the ‘truth’ behind 9/11 or anything else, they are just as dangerous and crazy as those we don’t seem to recognize anymore, who kill in the name of Allah.”
Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, now nominated to be Secretary of Health and Human Services, released a statement yesterday, which reads in part:
“As a result of these amendments to our 2005, 2006 and 2007 returns, we paid a total of $7,040 in additional tax and $878 in interest.”
A few thoughts, resisting the obvious cheap shots:
1. The federal tax code is way too complex. Politicians simply can’t resist using tax law for social engineering and to reward and punish. Simplification is essential.
2. I think the governor gave in too easily. But that’s understandable in today’s political climate where tax problems have derailed other nominations and careers. For example, she couldn’t locate the acknowledgement letter for some charitable donations she made. So she eliminated these deductions. Me, I would have asked the charity to reissue the letter. But, there’s probably a rule against that.
3. Hiring a CPA as Sebelius did to review three years of tax returns is probably expensive. That’s on top of what they may have spent to have the returns prepared in the first place.
4. The cost of complying with the federal tax system is huge. In 2005, the Tax Foundation estimated that individuals, businesses, and nonprofits spent $265.1 billion complying with the tax code. That cost represented 22% of the amount of tax collected.
5. In Kansas for 2005, compliance costs for the state income tax were estimated at 27.1% of the tax collected. That’s $877 per person. Compared to other states, Kansas ranks about in the middle on these measures.
6. The cost of complying with the federal tax code is highly regressive. Those earning less than $20,000 spent nearly 6% of their income on compliance. Those earning $200,000 and over — that’s the Sebelius family neighborhood — spent about 0.5%.
American Legislative Exchange Council has released a report titled Rich States, Poor States: ALEC-Laffer State Economic Competitiveness Index.
In this report, states are ranked on 15 policy factors that influence economic growth and competitiveness. The difference between the good and bad states is shocking in some cases. For example, over the past ten years the ten highest-ranked states had population growth of 20.4%. The ten lowest-ranked states grew by 4.4%.
In a table titled “ALEC-Laffer State Economic Performance Index: 1997-2007” Kansas ranks 42nd. It’s a historical measure, taking into account what’s happened in the past.
Fortunately for Kansas, things are looking better. Our state’s “Economic Outlook Rank” is 24. That’s an increase from 29 the year before.
Some of the factors that produced this relatively favorable rating include “remaining tax burden,” which seems to be the taxes to pay other than personal income tax, corporate income tax, property tax, and sales tax. Kansas ranks about average or worse than average on these factors, but well compared to other states on the remaining taxes.
Also, “recently legislated tax changes” is a good measure for Kansas. This undoubtedly refers to some of the business taxes that are being phased out in Kansas. Spending lobbies such as the Kansas National Education Association want to eliminate or roll back these tax cuts, however.
A measure where Kansas ranks very poorly is “public employees per 10,000 population.” Kansas ranks 48 among the states in this measure. We’ve known that during the Kathleen Sebelius administration that Kansas job growth has been greatest in the government sector, and here’s evidence of that.
Besides the rankings, the report contains a useful section titled “The 10 Principles of Effective Taxation.”
The report may be viewed by clicking on Rich States, Poor States:ALEC-Laffer State Economic Competitiveness Index. A press release announcing the report is at New Report Shows Path to Economic Recovery for States.
In their Washington Times article Lessons from Europe, Iain Murray, Gabriel Calzada, and Carlo Stagnaro warn us in the United States about “green” energy policies that have been implemented in Europe. These harmful policies are just like the ones we are considering here.
The cap-and-trade system that’s been in place in Europe has done little to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. “The scheme has been repeatedly gamed and manipulated by industry and governments so that emissions have actually increased faster than the those of the United States, with none of the big reductions promised materializing.”
Meanwhile, electricity bills are going up, and Europe has become more dependent on natural gas imports from Russia.
Spain has gained experience with the costs of green jobs. Large government incentives meant that the renewable energy sector in Spain grew rapidly — at a large cost that taxpayers and consumers will continue to pay for a long time.
Furthermore, it turns out that green jobs are expensive. Here’s what Bloomberg reported about a study released by one of the authors of the Times article:
The premiums paid for solar, biomass, wave and wind power – – which are charged to consumers in their bills — translated into a $774,000 cost for each Spanish “green job” created since 2000, said Gabriel Calzada, an economics professor at the university and author of the report.
“The loss of jobs could be greater if you account for the amount of lost industry that moves out of the country due to higher energy prices,” he said in an interview.
The Times article notes that “most of these ‘green jobs’ were transitory, anyhow, mostly connected with construction, not operation.” This is a common criticism made of the proposal to build a coal-fired power plant in Kansas. Yes, thousands of jobs will be created, but only for a year or two, say the critics. It turns out that green jobs have the same life cycle.
It turns out that cap-and-trade has not worked out well for Europe. Neither has heavy government subsidy worked to create jobs at a cost that we can afford.
We have to wonder, then, why President Obama is so committed to cap-and-trade in the United States.
Furthermore, have outgoing Kansas governor Kathleen Sebelius and soon-to-be governor Mark Parkinson thought of things like this?
The Kansas Meadowlark has a post holding links to “articles written from Jan. 2005 through March 2009 about how Gov. Sebelius helped her political friends, appointed her donors to state boards, judicial nominating commissions, district courts, and even the Kansas Supreme Court.”
It’s okay for an elected official to appoint friends, but with friends like hers, freedom-loving Kansans have plenty of enemies.
Read the entire story by clicking on Sebelius’ Cronyism.
Larry Sabato of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia has a great website and accompanying email newsletter. In its own words: “Larry J. Sabato’s Crystal Ball features analyses of presidential elections, Senate, House and gubernatorial races.” Here’s what he has to say about the gubernatorial race in Kansas next year:
KANSAS — Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D-KS), to be succeeded shortly by Lt. Gov. Mark Parkinson (D-KS): PROBABLE OPEN SEAT. This contest is in flux on the Democratic side, which in this case helps the GOP. Two-term Governor Sebelius has been popular but had to retire after she reached the two-term limit in 2010. She might have run for the Senate seat of retiring U.S. Sen. Sam Brownback (R)–who is leaving to run for Governor. But Sebelius recently accepted the nomination of President Obama to be his Secretary of Health and Human Services. As her successor as Governor, Sebelius had wanted to help her lieutenant governor, Mark Parkinson, who switched from the Republican party to run with her as a Democrat in 2006. But Parkinson earlier decided not to run for Governor, leaving state Treasurer Dennis McKinney (D) as the possible nominee. Now Parkinson will become Governor, and he is under renewed pressure to run for the Democrats in 2010. Surprisingly, Parkinson still says he won’t run, and one suspects it is because he knows how difficult it will be for any Democrat to defeat Brownback. Brownback easily won his 1996, 1998, and 2004 contests for Senate, though he has a primary challenge from Secretary of State Ron Thornburgh (R). The critical unknown is the identity of the new Democratic lieutenant governor, to be appointed by Gov. Parkinson. He or she could end up being the Democratic candidate for Governor in 2010. LEANS REPUBLICAN TURNOVER.
Global warming alarmists often argue that transforming our economy to reliance on “green” sources of energy is good because millions of jobs will be created. These new green jobs, it is claimed, will drive our economy forward and create wealth.
In Kansas, our governor believes in green jobs. She was a keynote speaker at a recent “Good jobs, green jobs” conference. Our likely incoming governor Mark Parkinson speaks the same language.
A just-released study from the University of Illinois adds to the critical body of evidence that shows that many of the claims made about green jobs aren’t true. From the press release announcing this study:
While acknowledging the importance of energy conservation and ongoing research and investment into new technologies, the authors set out to evaluate the fundamental soundness of green job claims. In aggregate, the academic team’s study concludes that a lack of sound research methods, erroneous economic assumptions and technological omissions have routinely been utilized to lend support, rather than provide legitimate analysis, to major public policies and government spending initiatives. Furthermore, the reports that were reviewed have been issued without the benefit of peer-reviewed analysis or transparency of their models and calculations. (emphasis added)
Furthermore:
Key findings of the study show that no definition for green jobs exists causing great discrepancy in how numbers are counted; that green job estimates often include huge numbers of clerical, bureaucratic and administrative positions that do not produce goods or services for consumption; and that problematic assumptions are made about economic predictions, prices and technology advancements leading some to ultimately favor mandates over free market realities. These serious flaws, as well as the failure to include technical data, render the prevailing green job estimates virtually unreliable.
These are the myths identified by the authors:
The study comes out of the University of Illinois College of Law. An article about the study with an easy-to-read (short) summary of the myths may be read by clicking on 7 Myths About Green Jobs. The full study is at Green Jobs Myths.