Voice For Liberty

Tag: Sam Brownback

  • Kansas and Wichita quick takes: Monday January 31, 2011

    Some downtown Wichita properties plummet in value. A strategy of Real Development — the “Minnesota Guys” — in Wichita has been to develop and sell floors of downtown office buildings as condominiums. Some of these floors have been foreclosed upon and have come back on the market. Some once carried mortgages of $400,000 or more, meaning that at one point a bank thought they were worth at least that much. But now four floors in the Broadway Plaza Building, three floors of the Petroleum Building, two floors of Sutton Place, and one floor of the Orpheum Office Center are available for sale at prices not much over $100,000, ranging from $14 to $25 per square foot. Other downtown office buildings — very plain properties — are listed at much higher prices. For example, one downtown property is listed at $82 per square foot. … Some of these floors have had declining appraisals. According to the Sedgwick County Treasurer, the fifth floor of Sutton Place, which is listed for sale at $135,000, was appraised in 2008 for $530,900. In 2009 the appraised value dropped to $215,000.

    Kansas Days. The primary news made at this year’s Kansas Days gathering was the election of Todd Tiahrt to replace Mike Pompeo as national committeeman. Otherwise, there was a large turnout in Topeka with many receptions and meals that provided opportunities to meet officeholders and new friends, and to reacquaint with old friends from across the state. Plus, I got to sample the “Brownback” beer. It’s pretty good.

    Williams named to national economic development committee. From Wichita Business Journal: “Wichita City Council member Lavonta Williams has been named to a National League of Cities steering committee on Community and Economic Development Policy and Advocacy.” Undoubtedly for her unfailing support of any form of corporate welfare that comes before the Wichita City Council.

    Mises University this summer. If you’re a college student and would like to receive instruction in Austrian Economics — “a rigorous and logical approach to economics that gives free markets their due and takes full account of the reality of human choice” — I suggest applying to the Ludwig von Mises Institute to attend Mises University this summer. I attended as a member observer in 2007, and it was a wonderful and very intense week. For more information, click on Mises University 2011. Scholarships are available.

    A Rosa Parks moment for education. Kevin Huffman in the Washington Post: “Last week, 40-year-old Ohio mother Kelley Williams-Bolar was released after serving nine days in jail on a felony conviction for tampering with records. Williams-Bolar’s offense? Lying about her address so her two daughters, zoned to the lousy Akron city schools, could attend better schools in the neighboring Copley-Fairlawn district. … In this country, if you are middle or upper class, you have school choice. You can, and probably do, choose your home based on the quality of local schools. Or you can opt out of the system by scraping together the funds for a parochial school. But if you are poor, you’re out of luck, subject to the generally anti-choice bureaucracy.” Kansas has no school choice programs to speak of, and so far Kansas Governor Sam Brownback has not expressed advocacy for school choice.

    The state against blacks. The Wall Street Journal’s Jason L. Riley interviews economist Walter E. Williams on the occasion of the publication of his most recent book Up from the Projects: An Autobiography. The reason for the article’s title: “‘The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery couldn’t do, what Jim Crow couldn’t do, what the harshest racism couldn’t do,’ Mr. Williams says. ‘And that is to destroy the black family.’” … On economics and why it is important, Riley writes: “Over the decades, Mr. Williams’s writings have sought to highlight ‘the moral superiority of individual liberty and free markets,’ as he puts it. ‘I try to write so that economics is understandable to the ordinary person without an economics background.’ His motivation? ‘I think it’s important for people to understand the ideas of scarcity and decision-making in everyday life so that they won’t be ripped off by politicians,’ he says. ‘Politicians exploit economic illiteracy.’” … On the current state of politics: “Mr. Williams says he hopes that the tea party has staying power, but ‘liberty and limited government is the unusual state of human affairs. The normal state throughout mankind’s history is for him to be subject to arbitrary abuse and control by government..”

    Professor Cornpone. From The Wall Street Journal Review & Outlook: “The last time these columns were lambasted by a presidential candidate in Iowa, he was Democrat Richard Gephardt and the year was 1988. The Missouri populist won the state caucuses in part on the rallying cry that ‘we’ve got to stop listening to the editorial writers and the establishment,’ especially about ethanol and trade. Imagine our amusement to find Republican Newt Gingrich joining such company. The former Speaker blew through Des Moines last Tuesday for the Renewable Fuels Association summit, and his keynote speech to the ethanol lobby was as pious a tribute to the fuel made from corn and tax dollars as we’ve ever heard. Mr. Gingrich explained that ‘the big-city attacks’ on ethanol subsidies are really attempts to deny prosperity to rural America … Yet today this now-mature industry enjoys far more than cash handouts, including tariffs on foreign competitors and a mandate to buy its product. Supporters are always inventing new reasons for these dispensations, like carbon benefits (nonexistent, according to the greens and most scientific evidence) and replacing foreign oil (imports are up). … Given that Mr. Gingrich aspires to be President, his ethanol lobbying raises larger questions about his convictions and judgment.” Another advocate for the ethanol boondoggle, and perhaps again a presidential candidate, is Kansas Governor Sam Brownback.

    Politics and city managers to be topic. This Friday (February 4) the Wichita Pachyderm Club features as its speaker H. Edward Flentje, Professor at the Hugo Wall School of Urban and Public Affairs, Wichita State University. His topic will be “The Political Roots of City Managers in Kansas.” The public is welcome and encouraged to attend Wichita Pachyderm meetings. For more information click on Wichita Pachyderm Club.

    Wednesdays in Wiedemann this week. Wednesday (February 2) Wichita State University’s Lynne Davis presents an organ recital as part of the “Wednesdays in Wiedemann” series. These recitals, which have no admission charge, start at 5:30 pm and last about 30 minutes. The location is Wiedemann Recital Hall (map) on the campus of Wichita State University. For more about Davis and WSU’s Great Marcussen Organ, see my story from earlier this year.

    Government bird chirping. American Majority’s Beka Romm wonders about the wisdom of a mayor’s plan to broadcast bird songs on the city’s streets, and how we can decide whether government should be doing things like this.

  • Prospects for successful deregulation in Kansas

    In the following short piece from the Wall Street Journal, Paul Rubin tells how difficult it was to battle regulation during the Reagan Administration, and therefore offers little hope that President Obama’s recent initiative to curb regulation will have any success.

    In Kansas, Governor Brownback has created the “Office of the Repealer” and has appointed Secretary of Administration Dennis Taylor to serve as the “Repealer.” Will this initiative be successful in Kansas? Based on Rubin’s experience in the Reagan Administration, I will be pleasantly surprised if any meaningful repeal or reform of regulation is achieved.

    Can Deregulation Work?

    It was hard under Ronald Reagan. It will be impossible under Barack Obama.

    By Paul H. Rubin

    How successful is the president’s recently announced deregulatory initiative likely to be? Based on my experience at two regulatory agencies (the Federal Trade Commission and the Consumer Product Safety Commission) during the Reagan years, I am not optimistic.

    President Reagan was serious about deregulation and appointed agency heads — Jim Miller at the FTC, Terry Scanlon at the CPSC — who were also serious. In turn they appointed determined managers like me, and they backed us up.

    We did some good, but it was not easy. The permanent staffs of the agencies were always interested in more regulation, either because of self-selection or because promotions and power increase in a larger agency. It also helped that we deregulators (generally economists) were not usually interested in permanent government positions, because reducing the power of the agency is a sure way to make enemies.

    Although my mandate was to cut back, I spent more time fighting new proposals than getting rid of old ones. The staffs wanted more, not less. Whenever I met acquaintances from other agencies the invariable comment was “You won’t believe what they want to do now.” (“They” were the permanent staffs.)

    The current regulatory agencies are not going to hire or promote people like me. Without managers with a strong interest in deregulation and with the backing of senior administrators, there will be no serious power to buck the staffs. The current executive order seems to impose cost-benefit analysis, but it has enough loopholes (“equity, human dignity, fairness”) so that agencies will be able to do whatever they want.

    Deregulation was hard even under Reagan. I am afraid it will be impossible under Mr. Obama.

    Mr. Rubin is a professor of economics at Emory University.

  • Arts funding in Kansas

    Arts funding by the State of Kansas has been in the news recently, as Governor Sam Brownback has proposed that the state stop funding the Kansas Arts Commission. This is a good move, as Kansas would be better off without state-funded art for two reasons: economic and artistic.

    The economic case for government art funding

    Supporters of government art funding make the case that government-funded art is good for business and the economy. They have an impressive-looking study titled Arts & Economic Prosperity III: The Economic Impact of the Nonprofit Arts and Culture Industry in the State of Kansas, which makes the case that “communities that invest in the arts reap the additional benefit of jobs, economic growth, and a quality of life that positions those communities to compete in our 21st century creative economy.”

    I read this report in 2007 when it was first used to promote government funding of arts in Wichita. Its single greatest defect is that it selectively ignores the secondary effects of government spending on the arts.

    As an example, the report concludes that the return on dollars spent on the arts is “a spectacular 7-to-1 return on investment that would even thrill Wall Street veterans.” It hardly merits mention that there aren’t legitimate investments that generate this type of return in any short time frame. If these returns were in fact true and valid, we should invest more — not less — in the arts. But as we shall see, these returns are not valid in any meaningful economic sense.

    Where do these fabulous returns come from? Here’s a passage from the report that government art spending promoters rely on:

    A theater company purchases a gallon of paint from the local hardware store for $20, generating the direct economic impact of the expenditure. The hardware store then uses a portion of the aforementioned $20 to pay the sales clerk’s salary; the sales clerk respends some of the money for groceries; the grocery store uses some of the money to pay its cashier; the cashier then spends some for the utility bill; and so on. The subsequent rounds of spending are the indirect economic impacts.

    Thus, the initial expenditure by the theater company was followed by four additional rounds of spending (by the hardware store, sales clerk, grocery store, and the cashier). The effect of the theater company’s initial expenditure is the direct economic impact. The subsequent rounds of spending are all of the indirect impacts. The total impact is the sum of the direct and indirect impacts.

    The fabulous returns erroneously attributed to spending on the arts derive from this chain of spending starting at the hardware store. But there’s a problem with this reasoning. It ignores the secondary effects of economic action. What the authors of this study fail to see is that anyone who buys a gallon of paint for any reason sets off the same chain of economic activity. There is no difference — except that a homeowner buying the paint is doing so voluntarily, while an arts organization using taxpayer-supplied money to buy the paint is using someone else’s money. Money, we might add, that is taken through the government’s power to tax.

    The study also pumps up the return on government spending on arts by noting all the other spending that arts patrons do on things like dinner before and desert after arts events. But if people kept their own money instead of being taxed to support the arts, they would spend this money on other things, and those things might include restaurant meals, too.

    This report — like most of its type that attempt to justify and promote government “investment” in someone’s pet program — focuses only on the benefits without considering secondary consequences or how these benefits are paid for. Henry Hazlitt, in his masterful book Economics in One Lesson explains:

    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 them plausibly and persistently. It will hire the best buyable minds to devote their whole time to presenting its case. And it will finally either convince the general public that its case is sound, or so befuddle it that clear thinking on the subject becomes next to impossible.

    It is, as Hazlitt terms it, “the special pleading of selfish interests” that drive much of the desire for government spending on the arts. Government-funded arts advocates can promote their case with economic fallacies all they want, but in the end that’s what their case relies on: “the special pleading of selfish interests.” You can see an example of this type of campaign by visiting the Kansas Arts Commission.

    No government art means better art

    Arts organizations need to survive on their own merits. They need to produce a product or service that satisfies their customers and patrons just as any other business or human endeavor must. This is especially true and important with something so personal as art. David Boaz, in his book The Politics of Freedom: Taking on The Left, The Right and Threats to Our Liberties writes this in a chapter titled “The Separation of Art and State”:

    It is precisely because art has power, because it deals with basic human truths, that it must be kept separate from government. Government, as I noted earlier, involves the organization of coercion. In a free society coercion should be reserved only for such essential functions of government as protecting rights and punishing criminals. People should not be forced to contribute money to artistic endeavors that they may not approve, nor should artists be forced to trim their sails to meet government standards.

    Government funding of anything involves government control. That insight, of course, is part of our folk wisdom: “He who pays the piper calls the tune.” “Who takes the king’s shilling sings the king’s song.”

    Government art. Is this not a sterling example of an oxymoron? Must government weasel its way into every aspect of our lives? And the fact that government arts funding means tax dollars taken through coercion — don’t the government arts promoters realize this? How better to crush the human spirit — the same spirit that the arts are meant to uplift and enrich.

    Government arts funding means that artists and arts organizations are distanced from their customers. Instead of having to continuously meet the test of the market, they must please government bureaucrats and politicians to get their funding. Instead of producing what the great unwashed mass of people want, they produce what they think will get government funding.

    Without government funding, organizations that provide culture and art will have to satisfy their customers by providing products that people really want. That is, products that people are willing to pay for themselves, not what people say they want when someone else is paying the bill. With government funding, these organizations don’t have to face the discipline of the market. They can largely ignore what their customers really want. They can provide what they think their customers want, or, as I suspect is the case, what they believe the people of Kansas should want, if only we were as enlightened as the elitists that staff arts commissions.

    Without the discipline of the market, arts organizations will never know how their customers truly value their product. The safety net of government funding allows them to escape this reality. We have seen this many times in Wichita and Sedgwick County, as organizations fail to generate enough revenue to cover their costs, only to be bailed out by the government. Other businesses learn very quickly what their customers really want — that is, what their customers are willing to pay for — or they go out of business. That’s the profit and loss system. It provides all the feedback we need to determine whether an organization is meeting its customers’ desires. The arts are no different.

    Some say that without government support there wouldn’t be any arts or museums. They say that art shouldn’t be subject to the harsh discipline of markets. Personally, I believe there is little doubt that art improves our lives. If we had more art and music, I feel we would have a better state. But asking government commissions to judge how much art and which art we should have is not the way to provide it. Instead, let the people tell us, through the mechanism of markets, what art and culture they really want.

    It might turn out that what people want is different than from what government arts commission members believe the people should want. Would that be a surprise? Not to me. In the name of the people, we should disband government arts councils and government funding and let people decide on their own — without government intervention — how to spend their personal arts budgets on what they really value.

    (The material by David Boaz is from a speech which may be read here: The Separation of Art and State.)

  • Stossel on politicians’ promises

    Recently John Stossel produced a television show titled Politicians’ Top 10 Promises Gone Wrong. The show features segments on government programs and why they’ve gone wrong, with a focus on the unintended consequences of the programs. Particularly illuminating are the attempts by programs’ supporters to justify their worth.

    Now the program is available to view on the free hulu service by clicking on Politicians’ Top 10 Promises Gone Wrong.

    One of the segments on the show explained the harm of Cash for Clunkers, in which serviceable cars were destroyed so that new cars could be sold. The program simply stole sales from the months before and after the program. The mistaken idea that destruction can be a way to create new wealth is held by many who should know better, and Stossel reminds us of the New York Times’ Paul Krugman, who wrote that the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 “could even do some economic good” as rebuilding will increase business spending. It’s the seen vs. unseen problem, Stossel and David Boaz of the Cato Institute explain. It’s easy to see people buying new cars. It was reported on television. But it’s more difficult to see all the dispersed economic activity that didn’t take place because of the programs.

    “Living wage” laws, in which people would be paid enough to live on — whatever that means — is next. While increasing wages of low-paid workers is a noble goal, increasing the cost of labor results in an entirely predictable result: less labor is demanded. Fewer people will have jobs. The Grand Canyon National Park, for example, switched to automated ticket machines. Christian Dorsey of the Economic Policy Institute, said that elimination of minimum wage laws would leave employers free to drive down wages as low as possible. But Stossel noted businesses hire employees in a competitive market, and it is that market that sets wages. Only about five percent of workers earn the minimum wage. Why do the others earn more than that? Competitive markets force employers to pay more, not laws.

    A segment on “fancy stadiums” boosting the economy holds a lesson for Wichita and the Intrust Bank Arena in its downtown. The claimed benefits of these venues rarely appear, and the unseen costs are large — “at the local bar there’s one less bartender, there was one less waitress hired at a restaurant, a movie theater that had one less theaterfull. It’s handing money from your right hand to your left and declaring I’m rich.” While Wichita’s arena seems to be doing well, it’s still well within its honeymoon period. Even then, there was a month where no events took place at the arena.

    A segment on the new credit card regulations, intended to protect consumers, shows that the regulations resulted in fewer people being able to get credit cards. Now these people have to go to payday lenders or pawn shops, which are much more expensive than credit cards. Arkansas once capped credit card interest at ten percent. The result was that few people in Arkansas could get a credit card, and the state became known as the pawn shop capital of America.

    Ethanol is the topic of a segment. Promised as a way to solve our energy problem, many politicians of both parties support ethanol. But we’ve come to realize the problems with government support of ethanol: rising price of food, excessive use of fertilizer and fuel to produce corn, and an awareness that ethanol is more harmful to the environment than gasoline. “But it makes us feel good,” Stossel says. In Kansas, Governor Sam Brownback is firmly in favor of government support of ethanol, which Boaz called “pound-for-pound, the dumbest program ever.”

    On the role of government in causing the housing bubble, Howard Husock said “Government exaggerates, rather than minimizes, the age-old impulse to greed. The government made it harder for bankers who wanted to do the right thing.” Stossel explained that bankers who wanted to stay with safe home loans lost out on profits they could earn selling high risk loans to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored agencies.

    At the end, Stossel said: “And that’s the number one promise gone wrong. These guys say they’ll be fiscally responsible. And then we elect them, and they spend more. They’re spending us into bankruptcy. There must be 10,000 harmful programs, and yet they keep creating more. Why can’t we cut them?” Boaz explained: “Every one of those 10,000 programs has a lobbyist in Washington. … They always know when the bill is up before Congress, and they send political contributions, they send people to Washington to lobby. The rest of us don’t do that. … People should be more engaged, people should be better citizens. But the fact is we have lives, and there’s no way that any normal person can know about the 10,000 programs that make up the $3.5 trillion federal budget.”

    And so the programs keep growing, Stossel said, and we must pay their costs and unintended consequences forever — “Unless, there’s a new wind blowing in America. A new attitude, a new expectation that maybe Washington should do less. I hear there is. I sure hope so.”

  • Kansas and Wichita quick takes: Saturday January 8, 2011

    This Week in Kansas. This Sunday on This Week in Kansas, host Tim Brown produces a double-length show. The first 30 minutes will be an interview with outgoing Kansas Governor Mark Parkinson, and then a second show immediately following will feature incoming Kansas Governor Sam Brownback. This Week in Kansas airs on KAKE TV channel 10, Sunday morning at 9:00 am.

    Tax cuts are not a cost to government. In an article in the Lawrence Journal-World discussing the possibility of repealing the Kansas statewide sales tax increase, reporter Scott Rothschild makes the same error that most media outlets do: he says that cutting taxes is a cost to government: “Repeal of the levy would cost state government another $300 million per year.” The only way tax cuts constitute a cost to government is if you believe that our property — all of it — belongs first to government. Instead, taxes are a cost that people and business pay, and reducing them is a savings for the parties that really matter. How about writing this instead: “Repeal of the levy would reduce revenues to the state by an estimated $300 million.” And if the Journal-World wanted to be accurate, it could add “This action would leave those funds in the productive private sector rather than transferring them to the wasteful and inefficient public sector.”

    Sedgwick County officeholders to be sworn in. On Sunday January 9, three Sedgwick County Commissioners and a new county treasurer will be sworn in. New commissioners Jim Skelton and Richard Ranzau and returning commissioner Dave Unruh will participate. New treasurer Linda Kizzire will also be sworn in. The time is 2:00 pm, in the jury room of the courthouse. Enter on the north side.

  • Kansas: business-friendly or capitalism-friendly?

    Plans for the Kansas Republican Party to make Kansas government more friendly to business run the risk of creating false, or crony capitalism instead of an environment of genuine growth opportunity for all business.

    An example is the almost universally-praised deal to keep Hawker Beechcraft in Kansas. This deal follows the template of several other deals Kansas struck over the past few years, and outgoing Governor Mark Parkinson is proud of them. Incoming Governor Sam Brownback approved of the Hawker deal, and probably would have approved of the others.

    Locally, the City of Wichita uses heavy-handed intervention in the economy as its primary economic development tool, with several leaders complaining that we don’t have enough “tools in the toolbox” to intervene in even stronger ways.

    The problem is that these deals, along with many of the economic development initiatives at the state and local level in Kansas, create an environment where the benefits of free market capitalism, as well as the discipline of a market-based profit-and-loss system, no longer apply as strongly as they have. John Stossel explains:

    The word “capitalism” is used in two contradictory ways. Sometimes it’s used to mean the free market, or laissez faire. Other times it’s used to mean today’s government-guided economy. Logically, “capitalism” can’t be both things. Either markets are free or government controls them. We can’t have it both ways.

    The truth is that we don’t have a free market — government regulation and management are pervasive — so it’s misleading to say that “capitalism” caused today’s problems. The free market is innocent.

    But it’s fair to say that crony capitalism created the economic mess.

    But wait, you may say: Isn’t business and free-market capitalism the same thing? Here’s what Milton Friedman had to say: “There’s a widespread belief and common conception that somehow or other business and economics are the same, that those people who are in favor of a free market are also in favor of everything that big business does. And those of us who have defended a free market have, over a long period of time, become accustomed to being called apologists for big business. But nothing could be farther from the truth. There’s a real distinction between being in favor of free markets and being in favor of whatever business does.” (emphasis added.)

    Friedman also knew very well of the discipline of free markets and how business will try to avoid it: “The great virtue of free enterprise is that it forces existing businesses to meet the test of the market continuously, to produce products that meet consumer demands at lowest cost, or else be driven from the market. It is a profit-and-loss system. Naturally, existing businesses generally prefer to keep out competitors in other ways. That is why the business community, despite its rhetoric, has so often been a major enemy of truly free enterprise.”

    The danger of Kansas government having a friendly relationship with Kansas business leaders is that these relationships will be used to circumvent free markets and promote crony, or false, capitalism in Kansas. It’s something that we need to be on the watch for, as the relationship between business and government is often not healthy. Appearing on an episode of Stossel Denis Calabrese, who served as Chief of Staff for Majority Leader of the U.S. House of Representatives Congressman Richard Armey, spoke about crony capitalism and its dangers:

    “The American public, I guess, thinks that Congress goes and deliberates serious issues all day and works on major philosophical problems. Really a typical day in Congress is people from the private sector coming and pleading their cases for help. It may be help for a specific company like the [window manufacturing company] example, it may be help for an entire industry, it may be help for United States companies vs. overseas companies.”

    He went on to explain that it is wrong — corrupt, he said — for Congress to pick winners and losers in the free enterprise system. Congress wants us to believe that free enterprise will be more successful when government gets involved, but the reverse is true. Then, the failures are used as a basis for criticism of capitalism. “This is an unholy alliance,” he said, and the losers are taxpayers, voters, and stockholders of companies.

    Later in the show Tim Carney said that “A good connection to government is the best asset a company can have, increasingly as government plays a larger role in the economy.”

    Host John Stossel challenged Calabrese, wondering if he was part of the problem — the revolving door between government, lobbyists, and business. Calabrese said that “Every time you see a victim of crony capitalism you’re looking at a potential client of mine, because there’s somebody on the other side of all these abuses. When Congress tries to pick a winner, there are losers, and losers need representation to go tell their story.” He added that he lobbies the American people by telling them the truth, hoping that they apply pressure on Congress to do the right thing.

    He also added that it is nearly impossible to find a single area of the free enterprise system that Congress is not involved in picking winners and losers.

    While the speakers were referring to the U.S. federal government, the same thing happens in statehouses, county courthouses, and city halls across the country — wherever there are politicians and bureaucrats chasing economic development with government as the tool.

    It is difficult to blame businessmen for seeking subsidy and other forms of government largesse. They see their competitors do it. They have a responsibility to shareholders. As Stossel noted in the show, many companies have to hire lobbyists to protect them from harm by the government — defensive lobbying. But as Carney noted, once started, they see how lobbying can be used to their advantage by gaining favors from government.

    The danger that Kansas faces is that under the cover of a conservative governor and legislature, crony capitalism will continue to thrive — even expand — and the people will not notice. The benefits of a dynamic Kansas economy as shown by Dr. Art Hall in his paper Embracing Dynamism: The Next Phase in Kansas Economic Development Policy may never be achieved unless Kansas government — at all levels — commits to the principles of free market capitalism.

  • Kansas and Wichita quick takes: Thursday December 30, 2010

    Kansas Meadowlark blog recast. Earl Glynn of Overland Park has reformed his Kansas Meadowlark site from a blog to a news site along the lines of the Drudge Report. Glynn’s full-time job is working for Kansas Watchdog.

    Longwell site noted. A website supporting the candidacy of Wichita Vice Mayor Jeff Longwell for re-election to his current position has been spotted. Title: Vote for Jeff Longwell.

    Kansas legislative issues to watch. Fort Hays State University political science professor Chapman Rackaway lists the things to watch for in the upcoming session of the Kansas Legislature, which opens on January 10. Here’s his list: The budget, K-12 education funding, economic growth, higher education, entitlements, a balancing act between the “interests of the center-right and polar-alliance wings of the party,” and redistricting. The full article is in the Wichita Eagle at Seven legislative issues to watch in 2011.

    Local governments are a model. H. Edward Flentje, public affairs professor at Wichita State University, explains the difference between the finances of local governments — cities and counties — as compared to states and the federal government: “So, why aren’t our cities and counties wallowing in red ink? For the most part, they do the basics right. They keep revenues and spending in balance. When times are tough, they tighten the belt. In good times, they pay off debt or pay for projects that might otherwise require debt. They maintain reasonable fund balances that buffer economic downturns and avoid unnecessary tax increases or draconian cuts in services. They use debt sparingly but never for ongoing obligations.” He also mentions the role of professional managers in local government, something that Kansas has a long tradition of using. Flentje plays a role in educating and training these managers, and served a stint as interim city manager for Wichita a few years ago. The full article is at State of the State KS at Insight Kansas Editorial: Local Clues for Stemming the Flow of Red Ink.

    Truce in culture wars? Michael Barone in the Washington Examiner: “The fact is that there is an ongoing truce on the social issues, because for most Americans they have been overshadowed by concerns raised by the weak economy and the Obama Democrats’ vast increase in the size and scope of government.” Somehow I don’t think this message has made it to Kansas. As reported by Fred Mann in today’s Wichita Eagle: “Before Kansas lawmakers consider such a bill, Kinzer said, they will take up a host of previous abortion measures that were vetoed by former Govs. Kathleen Sebelius and Mark Parkinson, and that are more likely to be approved by incoming Gov. Sam Brownback.” Lance Kinzer is a member of the Kansas House of Representatives from Olathe and a member of Governor-Elect Sam Brownback’s transition team. Barone, in the article mentioned above, writes “Abortion remains controversial. But we are not going to see abortion criminalized, not in a country where the Supreme Court has been ruling for 37 years that it’s a right. At the same time, we are seeing abortion disfavored and restricted by state laws that are widely popular and have at least in some cases been upheld by the courts.” In Kansas, though, anti-abortion forces are preparing a number of laws that concern, according to Mann, “tightened reporting requirements for late-term abortions, remedies against doctors who violate the laws, and provisions allowing a woman, her husband or parents to sue a doctor if they thought a late-term abortion was performed illegally.” The biggest danger is the culture war in Kansas will take our focus off the state’s economy and the need to get it on track. Chapman Rackaway, in his piece mentioned above, wrote: “If Brownback can successfully balance pragmatism and the interests of the center-right and polar-alliance wings of the party, he can be a rousing success as governor. If open warfare breaks out between wings of the party, all could be lost.”

    Wind power: the transmission subsidy. From The Wall Street Journal column The Midwest Wind Surtax: The latest scheme to socialize the costs of renewable energy: “You’d think poor Michigan has enough economic troubles without the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission placing a $300 million to $500 million annual surtax on the state’s electric utility bills. But on December 16 FERC Chairman Jon Wellinghoff announced new rules that would essentially socialize the cost of transmission lines across 13 states in the Midwest. … This is another discriminatory subsidy for wind energy that will raise electricity prices on everyone, notably on those who don’t rely on wind for electric power. … Let’s be very clear on what’s happening here: Mr. Wellinghoff and FERC are trying to establish by regulatory fiat a national energy policy that Congress has refused to endorse. Last summer Congress rejected the Obama Administration’s renewable energy standard law because it would have inflated power costs.” In Kansas, outgoing Governor Mark Parkinson is proud of his accomplishments in forcing more wind power mandates on Kansans.

  • Wind power again reaps subsidy

    The editorial page of the Wall Street Journal is at the forefront of letting Americans know just how bad an investment our country is making in wind power, as well as other forms of renewable energy. A recent Review and Outlook piece titled The Wind Subsidy Bubble: Green pork should be a GOP budget target holds these facts:

    • The recent tax bill has a $3 billion grant for wind projects.
    • The 2009 stimulus bill had $30 billion for wind.
    • Wind power installations are way down from recent years.
    • The 2008 stimulus bill forces taxpayers to pay 30% of a renewable energy project’s costs. Wind energy also get a tax credit for each unit of power produced.
    • “Subsidies for renewable energy cost taxpayers about $475,000 for every job generated.”
    • “The wind industry claims to employ 85,000 Americans. That’s almost certainly an exaggeration, but if it is true it compares with roughly 140,000 miners and others directly employed by the coal industry. Wind accounts for a little more than 1% of electricity generation and coal almost 50%. So it takes at least 25 times more workers to produce a kilowatt of electricity from wind as from coal.”

    This information is timely as Kansas Governor Mark Parkinson recently released a list of his “achievements,” three of which involve increasing wind power in Kansas.

    Incoming Kansas governor Sam Brownback is in favor of wind energy too, and he also supports federal subsidies and mandates for ethanol production and use. In endorsing Brownback the Kansas Association of Ethanol Producers said “… no other public official has done more to promote the merits of ethanol than Sam Brownback. Whereas ethanol is the future of America’s fuel supply, Sam Brownback is the future of Kansas.”

    The Wall Street Journal has also long been opposed to this intervention in the market for ethanol, recently quoting a report by a group of U.S. Senators: “Historically our government has helped a product compete in one of three ways: subsidize it, protect it from competition, or require its use. We understand that ethanol may be the only product receiving all three forms of support from the U.S. government at this time.”

  • Kansas and Wichita quick takes: Tuesday December 28, 2010

    Hawker Beechcraft deal breaks new ground. When asked by KAKE Television’s This Week in Kansas host Tim Brown if the Hawker Beechcraft deal was good for Kansas, Wichita State University professor H. Edward Flentje said that while the deal was “great news” in the short term, it raised policy questions in the long term. He said he didn’t think the state has invested in a company that is downsizing, with Hawker shrinking by one-third over the past few years. He added that he believed this is the first time the state has a provision of state law to retain jobs, rather than recruit new jobs. Flentje said that other aircraft companies and other businesses will be looking at this. He didn’t use the word “precedent,” but setting one is what has happened. Flentje has issued similar warnings before when he was interim city manager for Wichita. When Bill Warren, a theater owner, asked the city to make an interest-free loan to him, Flentje warned: “There are in this community much larger businesses with much larger employment who may see this opening as something that will open a door for those businesses to come and say, ‘You’ve done it before, you can do it for us.’”

    TSA as fine literature. He grasped me firmly but gently just above my elbow and guided me into a room, his room. Then he quietly shut the door and we were alone. He approached me soundlessly, from behind, and spoke in a low, reassuring voice close to my ear. “Just relax.” Without warning, he reached down and I felt his strong, callused hands start at my ankles, gently probing, and moving upward along my calves slowly but steadily. My breath caught in my throat. I knew I should be afraid, but somehow I didn’t care. His touch was so experienced, so sure. When his hands moved up onto my thighs, I gave a slight shudder, and partly closed my eyes. My pulse was pounding. I felt his knowing fingers caress my abdomen, my ribcage. And then, as he cupped my firm, full breasts in his hands, I inhaled sharply. Probing, searching, knowing what he wanted, he brought his hands to my shoulders, slid them down my tingling spine and into my private area. … Although I knew nothing about this man, I felt oddly trusting and expectant. This is a man, I thought. A man used to taking charge. A man not used to taking “no” for an answer. A man who would tell me what he wanted. A man who would look into my soul and say … “Okay, ma’am,” said a voice. “All done.” My eyes snapped open and he was standing in front of me, smiling, holding out my purse. “You can board your flight now.” (Source unknown, but obviously a brilliant person.)

    Love, not yet seated in House, moves to Senate. In what must be one of the most rapid political promotions in history, Garrett Love, who just won a position in the Kansas House of Representatives, is selected to fill a vacancy in the Kansas Senate. The Hutchinson News reports. Love defeated incumbent Melvin Neufeld in the August primary election. Neufeld campaigned for the Senate seat, but lost to Love by a vote of 101 to 38. It would have been — unseemly? — for Neufeld to have lost to Love in an election, but yet be promoted instead of Love to what most would consider to be a better position in the legislature. … This action leaves the House position that Love won but never filled vacant. Will Neufeld attempt to win this seat, the one he lost? The precinct committeemen and committeewomen of that district will decide. Kansas House District 115 includes Dodge City and counties to the south and west.

    Wichita historic preservation board. A governmental entity that few may know much about is the Wichita historic preservation board. The agenda for an upcoming meeting is here. On the agenda, there are many items like this: “HPC2010-00350 415 N Poplar Re-roof on commercial. ENV Johnson Drug Store.” In this case someone wants to put a new roof on their building. But, it is located within the “environs” of a property that is listed either on the National Register of Historic Places or the Register of Historic Kansas Places, so they need the permission of this board. For properties within a city, the “environs” is any property within a distance of 500 feet of the listed historic property. If you want to do much of anything to your property, you’ve got to get the permission of this board if it’s within a stone’s throw of a historic property.

    Bureaucrats will do what Congress doesn’t. Promises from Congress mean little when the bureaucratic state simply does what it wishes — or what the President wants it to do. Thomas Sowell explains: “The Constitution of the United States begins with the words ‘We the people.’ But neither the Constitution nor ‘we the people’ will mean anything if politicians and judges can continue to do end runs around both. Bills passed too fast for anyone to read them are blatant examples of these end runs. But last week, another of these end runs appeared in a different institution when the medical ‘end of life consultations’ rejected by Congress were quietly enacted through bureaucratic fiat by administrators of Medicare.” Portland Progressive Examiner has more: “Oregon Representative Earl Blumenauer, Democrat, is celebrating a quiet victory: Under new health regulations recently issued by the Obama administration, Medicare recipients will be offered voluntary end-of-life planning, and an opportunity to issue advance health care directives.” The New York Times is blunt, starting its story this way: “When a proposal to encourage end-of-life planning touched off a political storm over ‘death panels,’ Democrats dropped it from legislation to overhaul the health care system. But the Obama administration will achieve the same goal by regulation, starting Jan. 1.”

    Brownback to focus on core. Incoming Kansas Governor Sam Brownback says his budget priorities the “core functions of state government,” specifically “Medicaid, K-12 education, higher education and public safety at the top, in that order.” In an interview with Kansas Reporter’s Gene Meyer and Rachel Whitten, Brownback also said consolidation of agencies may be in order, and that repeal of the one cent sales tax that started this year is “not an option.” He also said he wants to defend the school finance lawsuit more aggressively than the last suit.

    Schools sue again, and again. Parents in Johnson County have sued the state asking that the local option budget cap be lifted. Essentially, the plaintiffs are asking for permission to raise their local property taxes so that more money can be raised for schools. But now Schools for Fair Funding, the coalition of school districts that are suing the state for more money, has intervened in that suit, saying it wouldn’t be fair to let the wealthy school districts raise this tax money. Kansas Reporter has coverage.