Voice For Liberty

Tag: Sam Brownback

  • Wind energy split in Kansas

    Despite the promise as a temporary subsidy when it started twenty years ago, wind energy is reliant on government handouts. Today’s Wall Street Journal brings this into focus, writing: “The truth is that those giant wind turbines from Maine to California won’t turn without burning through billions upon billions of taxpayer dollars. In 2010 the industry received some $5 billion in subsidies for nearly every stage of wind production.” (See Republicans Blow With the Wind: Another industry wants to keep its taxpayer subsidies..)

    The piece also properly refutes the argument that oil and gas receives the same type of tax credits as does wind and other renewable energy forms. “The most dishonest claim is that wind and solar deserve to be wards of the state because the oil and gas industry has also received federal support. That’s the $4 billion a year in tax breaks for oil and gas (which all manufacturers receive), but the oil and gas industry still pays tens of billions in federal taxes every year.” There’s a difference between tax deductions, which reduce taxable income, and tax credits, which are government spending programs in disguise.

    Despite this: Senator Jerry Moran of Kansas has joined with five other senators in urging the Senate to pass an extension of the subsidy program for wind power. Kansas, it should be noted, has a lot of wind. Our former governors Sebelius and Parkinson bought into the green energy fantasy, and current governor Kansas Governor Sam Brownback agrees, having penned op-eds in support of wind energy subsidy programs and usage mandates. Wichita Mayor Carl Brewer has been busy promoting Wichita as a site for wind energy-related industry, despite its failing economics based on government handouts.

    (By the way, it’s not only wind that is receiving subsidy on Kansas. Recently the Department of Energy announced the award of a $132.4 million loan guarantee to a cellulosic ethanol plant in southwest Kansas. At the time of the award, no commercial cellulosic ethanol had been produced in America. See Kansas and its own Solyndra.)

    Contrast this with U.S. Representative Mike Pompeo of Wichita, who has introduced legislation to end all tax credits related to energy production. Writes the Journal: “Here’s a better idea. Kill all energy subsidies– renewable and nonrenewable, starting with the wind tax credit, and use the savings to shave two or three percentage points off America’s corporate income tax. Kansas Congressman Mike Pompeo has a bill to do so. This would do more to create jobs than attempting to pick energy winners and losers. Mandating that American families and businesses use expensive electricity doesn’t create jobs. It destroys them.”

    Republicans Blow With the Wind

    Another industry wants to keep its taxpayer subsidies.

    Congress finally ended decades of tax credits for ethanol in December, a small triumph for taxpayers. Now comes another test as the wind-power industry lobbies for a $7 billion renewal of its production tax credit.

    The renewable energy tax credit — mostly for wind and solar power — started in 1992 as a “temporary” benefit for an infant industry. Twenty years later, the industry wants another four years on the dole, and Senator Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico has introduced a national renewable-energy mandate so consumers will be required to buy wind and solar power no matter how high the cost.

    The truth is that those giant wind turbines from Maine to California won’t turn without burning through billions upon billions of taxpayer dollars. In 2010 the industry received some $5 billon in subsidies for nearly every stage of wind production.

    Continue reading at the Wall Street Journal (subscription required)

  • Kansas Senator Jerry Moran wants to pick losers in the market: His choice is big wind

    In Kansas, we have a lot of wind — no doubt about that. But the economics of wind as a source of electricity generation is another matter. There’s a split in Kansas over this. On one side are Kansas Governor Sam Brownback, who has been vocal in his support of wind power, along with Wichita Mayor Carl Brewer, who has been busy promoting Wichita as a site for wind energy-related industry. Now we see Kansas’ newest U.S. Senator Jerry Moran jumping in to promote the wind power subsidy program. Contrast this with U.S. Representative Mike Pompeo of Wichita, who has introduced legislation to end all tax credits related to energy production. It’s important to remember that the government subsidy program for wind power is in the form of tax credits, which are equivalent to grants by the government. The term “tax expenditures” is starting to see widespread usage to accurately describe the economic effect of tax credits.

    Senator Jerry Moran wants to pick losers in the market: His choice is big wind

    By Daniel Horowitz

    If I were pressed to offer one anecdote exemplifying our failure to elect consistent conservatives to Congress last November, the story of Senator Jerry Moran and Big Wind would be at the top of the list.

    In 2010, then-Congressman Jerry Moran beat former Congressman Todd Tiahrt for the Republican nomination for Senate in Kansas running as a red meat conservative. He easily won the seat in this solid Republican state and summarily joined the ‘Tea Party Caucus’ in the Senate. Nothing emblematizes the convictions of the Tea Party more than its fervent opposition to special interest handouts and government interventions in the private sector as a way of picking winners and losers. Yet, Senator Moran let the cat out of the bag last week that he has absolutely no compunction about picking winners and losers, or in the case of Big Wind, big losers.

    Last week, Senator Moran announced that he is submitting an amendment to the terrible Senate highway bill (S.1813) that would extend the 2.2 cent/ per kilowatt-hour Production Tax Credit (PTC) for another 4 years. This special interest handout to Solar and Wind is slated to expire at the end of the year. What happened to Moran’s Tea Party views? Well, he unabashedly threw them under the solar-powered bus:

    Asked about opposition to extending the credit expressed by Rep. Mike Pompeo of Wichita, Moran said: “There are members of Congress who feel we ought not to pick winners and losers, to let the markets decided. I believe it’s better to get this industry up and running, then let the country decide … rather than pull the rug out overnight.”

    Wow! At least he’s honest. I wish we had known that before the election.

    The PTC is the corporate version of the Earned Income Credit for green energy. It is among 51 ‘tax extenders’ that have either expired last December or are slated to expire this December. The PTC offers a 2.2 cent/per kilowatt-hour refundable credit for wind, solar, or geothermal. According to the Heritage Foundation, if the oil industry received a commensurate subsidy, they would get a $30 check for every barrel produced.

    Headed into the November elections, one of our most potent and popular arguments we have is to paint the Democrats with the Solyndra economy — an economy where the government intervenes to pick winners and losers, at the detriment of consumers and taxpayers. How can we effectively articulate an alternative free-market vision when we have a member of “the Tea Party Caucus” supporting Obama’s policy of picking losers in the energy sector? Talk about pale pastels!

    Folks, this is not how we win elections. Moreover, this type of special interest peddling — from energy subsidies to farm welfare — creates dependency in some of the reddest states. This is not a winning message for the future of conservatism, especially when it emanates from such a Republican state.

    There is a better way. Congressman Mike Pompeo (R-KS) introduced legislation (HR 3308) to sunset all targeted energy tax credits and grants, including those for fossil fuels and nuclear power. The bill would use the savings from the repeal of these credits (roughly $90 billion over ten years) to lower the corporate tax rate on everyone. Senator DeMint has introduced a companion bill in the Senate (S.2064).

    Every member of Congress who seeks a clean break from a centrally-planned Solyndra economy must cosponsor this bill. Additionally, as we look for more congressional candidates to endorse, it is these issues — energy and farm subsidies — that will separate the men from the boys. We must fight this election by offering voters a choice, not an echo.

    Cross-posted from The Madison Project

  • An ill wind blows in Kansas: The politics of renewable energy

    Kansas Representative Charlotte O’Hara, who represents Kansas House District 27 in southern Johnson County, offers a look at the politics surrounding wind power in Kansas. Besides O’Neal, other prominent supporters of renewable energy in Kansas include Kansas Governor Sam Brownback, who has been vocal in his support of wind power. So too has been Wichita Mayor Carl Brewer, who has been busy promoting Wichita as a site for wind energy-related industry. Contrast this with U.S. Representative Mike Pompeo of Wichita, who has introduced legislation to end all tax credits related to energy production.

    An ill wind blows in Kansas: The politics of renewable energy

    By Kansas Representative Charlotte O’Hara

    The world of Topeka politics continue to amaze, frustrate, entertain and humor me in my second year of representing the 27th District. Case in point:

    On Tuesday of this week during the Republican Caucus discussion of HB 2446 (concerning the expansion of definition of alternative energy to include storage facilities/devices) this fact came to light: The Kansas Legislature, in 2009, passed the Renewable Energy Standards Act (KSA 66-1258), which requires 10 percent of our power companies’ capacity to be from renewable energy sources by 2011, 15 percent in 2016 and 20 percent in 2020.

    So, being the conservative that I am, I suggested an amendment that would freeze renewable energy standards to the current 10 percent. Rep. Dennis Hedke carried the amendment on the floor. The amendment received 43 votes.

    Only 43 out of 125 representatives voted to stop strangling the Kansas economy and burdening consumers with high energy costs of these draconian requirements. According to the Heritage Foundation, just a 15% renewable energy mandate would increase electricity prices for consumers by as much as 11.3 percent!

    After the defeat of the amendment, Rep. Forrest Knox introduced an amendment that would tie the freeze to licensing of the Holcomb Power Plant, which currently has been stopped by federal court and another environmental impact study has been ordered. The Knox amendment received 65 votes, a majority. However Speaker of the House Mike O’Neal (who voted against both amendments) interceded and referred the amended bill, HB 2446, back to committee (with the approval of the House members) and removing it from final action.

    So, why would Speaker O’Neal oppose a freeze at the current 10% on the Kansas Renewable Standard Act? Well, let’s see. Could it possibly be that these required increased standards in Kansas law is why Siemens chose Hutchinson (O’Neal’s district) in 2009 to locate a $35 million wind turbine plant? Is this the type of crony capitalism we want to build our economic future on in Kansas?

    Another wrinkle in the future of renewable energy is that extension of federal tax credits is in doubt. Those credits currently subsidize renewables by 2.1 cents per kw. Without the federal, state and local tax incentives, abatements and exemptions, the economics of renewable energy collapses.

    Here is a link to Heritage Foundation on this issue of renewable energy subsidies: No More Energy Subsidies: Prevent the New, Repeal the Old.

    It always puzzles me why after the fall of the Soviet Union, government mandated / subsidized / incentivized industries continue to flourish in the U.S. and, in particular, here in our own Kansas backyard.

    So, if you would like to register your concerns about the Speaker’s action to circumvent final action on HB 2446, which as amended would freeze Kansas Renewable Energy Act requirement at 10 percent and stop it from going to 20 percent, call his office: 785-296-2302 or e-mail at Mike.ONeal@house.ks.gov

  • Kansas Bioscience Authority hearings, day 2

    At the second day of testimony (January 26, 2012) regarding a forensic audit of the Kansas Bioscience Authority, a representative of Kansas Governor Sam Brownback was strongly critical of the audit itself, and also of the Board of Directors of KBA. Kansas Secretary of Agriculture Dale A. Rodman, who oversaw the audit process on behalf of the Brownback Administration, also said that legislators who voted to form the KBA should “feel outraged that a golden opportunity that you helped create was taken away from your efforts.”

    Rodman urged the committee to step back and look at the situation from a distance, saying that many of the issues are “deep and buried.” To him, he said the important issues are first, is the KBA obtaining the performance expected, and second, is the KBA worthy stewards of Kansans’ money?

    Based on his investigation, Rodman listed several measures that troubled him, specifically: “The KBA spent $200,000 per job before Tom Thornton and $700,000 per job after he became the CEO of the KBA.” Thornton is the former CEO who resigned shortly after the audit process started. At yesterday’s hearing, Senator Chris Steineger, a Kansas City Republican, presented figures that estimated a cost of $750,000 per job created, using a slightly different set of data.

    A second troubling measure, Rodman said, is that KBA spent “nearly 40 cents of every dollar invested on overhead expenses.” He said the KBA board must be responsible for these results.

    In a separate letter sent to KBA Board Chairman Dan Watkins, Rodman listed more detailed concerns, including that only 347 jobs are shown by KBA as having been created since 2007. Another concern, he said, is that there appear to be many instances of double counting of invested funds. He said that certain companies were not reporting as required, and some numbers were being “filled in.”

    Rodman said the expenditure of over $18 million for KBA headquarters was excessive, a concern shared by many legislators.

    What amazed Rodman, he said, was when acting KBA CEO David Vranicar told Rodman he was not there to create jobs. This, along with the earlier evidence he cited, showed him that KBA was not fulfilling the mission of the Kansas Economic Growth Act, the legislation that created KBA.

    In follow-up correspondence from KBA, Watkins cited the larger mission statement of KNA, and also that “the longer-term mission is more robust: to build a bioscience infrastructure that will generate high-paying bioscience jobs today and for future generations of Kansans.” Near-term job creation is not the sole focus, the letter added.

    Rodman also spoke about the conflict of interest issues, which were prominent in Wednesday’s hearings. BKD auditors said that KBA board followed policy by disclosing that they had a financial interest in a potential KBA investment or grant, and refraining from voting. But Rodman said that is not enough: “Whether or not it is legal is not the issue. It does not pass the smell test. If it smells bad, it is bad, and you should not do it.”

    Rodman cited the governing Kansas statute, which reads “No part of the funds of the authority shall inure to the benefit of, or be distributed to, its employees, officers or members of the board.” The statute has exceptions which do not apply in this case.

    Rodman, both in his verbal and written testimony, cited the case of KBA board member Bill Sanford. Quoting from the KBA audit, Rodman said “Bill Sanford is the COB and 14% owner of NanoScale, a bioscience company that received four grants totaling $674,996 from KBA.”

    Relating a discussion he had with Sanford, Rodman told the committee: ‘Director Sanford looked at me and said ” If you want to get something done, you have to hire someone like Thornton. If we had hired a laid-back Kansan we would not be where we are at today.’ You know, I have to agree with him, we would not be in this room today. With a good Kansan in charge we would not be having this meeting.”

    The issue of Thorton’s unethical behavior is at the center of this affair, with a related issue being whether Thornton’s departure solves all problems with the KBA, or if there is a deeper problem.

    Also highlighted by Rodman was the issue of missing intellectual property. This refers to the loss of data, along with backups of that data, on the so-called “J-Drive,” a shared and restricted storage location on KBA’s network. Thornton also erased and digitally scrubbed data from his personal laptop computer. Computer forensics experts were not able to recover any of this missing data.

    Rodman told the committee that the KBA board, immediately after learning that Thornton quit to go work for a competing firm (Cleveland Clinic Innovations), should have issued a “cease and desist” order, saying “This will inform the competitor that knowledge the employee has belongs to the former employer, and use of that information will result in legal action.” As he believes the KBA board did not do this, Rodman said he concludes “Kansas has lost intellectual property.”

    Summarizing, Rodman said that “Thornton was a mistake,” and that the KBA board should have recognized this. He urged the committee to fix the problem, as Kansas needs growth in the bioscience industry.

    Senator Susan Wagle, a Wichita Republican who chaired the meeting, noted the statute that Rodman cited regarding conflicts of interest, saying that it prevents board members or employees from receiving a financial benefit based on their position. The BKD audit, she said, cites many such instances of financial benefits, and in every instance the audit concludes that since board members disclosed their conflict was resolved, and that procedures are in place to prevent conflicts of interest.

    Of the BKD audit generally, Rodman said the document is complex, and “probably deliberately so.” Wagle, who has been concerned that the audit is “sanitized” and doesn’t present the full scope of issues and problems, asked “Could that be sanitizing conclusions?” Rodman demurred, answering “There was a lot of work on the report.”

    Senator Ty Masterson, a Republican from Andover, asked Rodman what needed to be changed at the KBA. Rodman said he wasn’t ready to answer that now, despite having thought about it. He did say there had to be some dramatic changes in the system.

    Masterson also asked about the costs of the audit: Did Thornton’s action in deleting data increase the cost of the BKD audit? Rodman said we should go after Thornton for possible increased costs of the audit.

    A question from Representative Les Osterman, a Wichita Republican, framed the issue this way: Do we need different or better rules and laws, or does the problem lie with the composition of the KBA board? Rodman answered that If the KBA board had done their job, we wouldn’t be here today. He repeated that there is a statute to take care of conflicts of interest, but there is a problem with the governance of the KBA board.

    Follow-up by Republican Senator Ray Merrick expressed concern that since Thornton, who he labeled a “bad apple,” is gone, the problem is over. But the same board is in place, the same people are in charge, and that he was not satisfied going forward.

    But not all members of the committee shared these concerns. Tom Holland, a Democratic Senator from Baldwin City, pressed Rodman as to whether intellectual property had actually been stolen from KBA due to the loss of data from the J-Drive and Thornton’s computer, or was there only the potential for that? Rodman said yes, intellectual property was taken, although that was not stated in the audit.

    Holland repeated his questions from yesterday: Does KBA have appropriate management procedures, policies, and controls in place? And does KBA follow these consistently? Snyder, the BKD auditor, had answered yes to both of these questions, although with one exception. Today, Holland pressed Rodman if he took “ownership” of the BKD audit. Eventually Rodman said he did. Holland then asked if the audit was “an accurate summary of life at the KBA.” Rodman said yes, but with qualifications, and Wagle expressed her concern, also.

    There is a factor not brought up in testimony, nor in my reading of the BKD audit report, that complicates the KBA governance and may be a source of problems. The KBA has an independent source of revenue that is not dependent on appropriations from the legislature. This source is the incremental growth in tax withholding from employees of Kansas bioscience companies and research institutions. I asked both Wagle and a spokesperson for Governor Brownback if this was a factor or a problem. Both said this is a question for the KBA.

  • 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 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.

  • In Kansas, the billion-dollar question

    The following argument in favor of the Fair Tax for Kansas is from Larry Halloran, who is Chairman of the Wichita — South Central KS 912 Group. Also included is a presentation by Earl Long of FairTaxKC. I particularly like his characterization of the Kansas statehouse as the “favor factory.”

    The Billion-Dollar Question

    By Larry Halloran
    Why would the State of Kansas ignore the opportunity to generate a $2.1 billion surplus for fiscal year 2013 in the State General Fund (SGF)?

    On Friday, January 20, a number of us attended the Senate Standing Assessment and Taxation Committee hearing in Topeka. It was both astonishing and obvious, from the questions that were not ask by the committee members, that they (individually or as a committee) had no real interest in considering any alternative to the Governor Sam Brownback’s tax reform proposal or plans they may have individually devoted time to crafting.

    At the turn of the last century, the United States was essentially debt free. Then in 1913, we provided Congress, by constitutional amendment, the authority to tax our income. With the new taxing authority in place, federal lawmakers would no longer need our advice and consent and the march to socialism was on. It would take the better part of the next hundred years to make the million-dollar question obsolete but once government reached the billion dollar spending mark the leap to a trillion dollars occurred in a relative flash. Today, the accumulated annual deficit of the current administration alone exceeds the combined cumulative total deficit of all previous administrations. In less than a decade, we would learn to speak in billions although we really cannot comprehend the quantity.

    Today, the million-dollar question equates to little more than pocket change lost in the couch cushions. Perhaps tomorrow, our children will be perplexed at our inability to comprehend such an insignificant amount as a trillion dollars.

    Unfortunately, Kansas, like most other states, simply mimics the deficit spending habits and taxation policies of the federal government and now finds themselves in the dubious position of operating its own favor mill, selecting winners and losers each year for receipt of the state’s shrinking revenue — a fact easily witnessed by the parade of interest groups present and providing testimony in order to protect their share of the pie. With federal tentacles burrowed deep in their hide, our governor and state legislators lack the fortitude to make a clean break with the federal schemes of taxation.

    Their plan does not mark an end to state sponsored charity but instead simply shifts state funds from one entitlement (the state earned income tax credit (EITC) for instance) to another (Medicaid) for the purpose of attracting more funds from the federal government. Drawn inextricably like a moth to a flame, our governor and legislators fail to appreciate that federal dollars are borrowed dollars that become a liability for future Kansas taxpayers. It is like paying the MasterCard bill with the Visa card. It provides only temporary relief for a chronic if not fatal problem.

    The FairTaxKC Triple Zero + 6.3% plan offers the governor and state legislators the opportunity to cut the shackles and make a clean break with the federal government and from the federal schemes of taxation without cutting a single dime from their current projected expenditures.

    The FairTaxKC Triple Zero + 6.3% plan would replace all current methods of taxing goods, personal and business income with a single rate consumption tax on services and new products at the Point of Sale only, with zero exceptions or exemptions.

    The FairTaxKC Triple Zero + 6.3% plan would provide a prebate (prepayment) monthly to every legal citizen and resident on the registered tax rolls in Kansas for the consumption tax paid up to the poverty level.

    The FairTaxKC Triple Zero + 6.3% plan projects a net positive reserve equal to roughly one third of the current SGF total planned expenditures in the first year, or $2.1 Billion, compounding annually. The governor’s tax proposal can only muster on paper about three quarters of the required statutory 7.5% general fund reserve or $350 Million.

    In 1972, the total federal budget was approximately $230 billion. Today, the federal government will pay approximately $238 billion in interest payments alone this year. Historically, our state budget reflects the same trend in spending and debt (much of which is largely hidden from the public).

    The only common thread in comments of the committee members and those testifying on behalf of their sacred cow was the apparent acknowledgment that significant change in Kansas tax policy was required (even if many hoped it would not affect them).

    The only question remaining for us is: Will Kansas take the bold steps required that would allow the state to operate with billions of whole dollars in reserve?

    Or will Kansas take a half-measured approach to modifying the federal schemes of taxation and leave the state operating on couch cushion change and a greater dependence on a bankrupt federal government?

    Please take the opportunity now to contact the Governor and your legislators asking that they give the FairTaxKC Triple Zero + 6.3% plan fair treatment in their deliberations.

    In Kansas, Triple Zero + 6.3% Fixes It

  • 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.