Once again, it doesn't seem unreasonable to call this unsustainable: 

While Kansas government spending rose 47% private sector GDP per capita only grew 8.9% over the same period.

From Nick Kasprak at the Tax Foundation.

The map doesn’t specify what type of spending this represents but the Tax Foundation blog says it is Direct Spending, which Census defines as Total Expenditures (for this purpose, Expenditure does not include a government's payment of its debt, or purchases of investment securities, loans it has granted, agency or private trust transactions, nor correcting transactions) less Intergovernmental Expenditures.  Direct expenditures therefore would be somewhat less than the All Funds Budget.   For 2010, Census lists Kansas’ Direct Expenditures at $12.4 billion.

Notes:

The data behind my private sector calculation comes from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (Real GDP Private Industry, Kansas) and population data from the Census Bureau.

Here's the math:

2000: ($83,338,000,000)/(2,688,925) = $30,993.05

2010: ($96,334,000,000)/(2,853,118) = $33,764.46

($33,764.46 - $30,993.05)/($30,993.05) = 8.9%

Government subsidies of one form or another have become as American as apple pie. Everyone goes to Washington with their hand out and politicians looking for votes are more than happy to oblige with other people’s money.

Too often, this practice becomes so entrenched that Americans can hardly be blamed for thinking this is the only way to do things. Can you imagine life without Social Security or the mortgage interest tax deduction? Probably not.

It should come as no surprise, then, that farmers throughout the U.S.  can’t get their mind around operating without federal farm subsidies. As the U.S. Congress debates a new “farm bill” – an all-encompassing legislative package they pass every five years dealing with agriculture and food policy – the debate will be less about whether rural America can exist without federal subsidies and more about how much Washington can throw at favored programs. In fact, the term “farm bill” is probably misleading because 80% of the funding cover in the bill went to things not ag related last year. The lion’s share of the bill is spent on food stamps and other non-ag programs.

With federal spending and deficits driving the discussion in D.C., the Senate version is being hailed for "saving" $23 billion, compared to current policy. That may sound like a lot at first glance, but it pales in comparison to the projected federal deficit of $1.3 trillion or the total cost of the bill itself, $969 billion over ten years.

Pending any last minute amendments, it spends $193 million for farmers to grow crops for biofuels, extending a program that was previously cited by the USDA’s inspector general for extending unequal and improper benefits to farmers, and over $200 million to retro-fit refineries to produce biofuels. Biofuels are but one of numerous examples.

As currently written, this bill does little to help America tackle our budget deficits and does less in freeing Kansas farmers to capture the entrepreneurial and risk-taking heritage that saw our state  turn into the “World’s Breadbasket.” Fortunately, a modern example exists which shows what a subsidy-free agricultural sector can look like.

From the Cato Institute during the 2002 farm bill debate:

So, what does New Zealand’s agriculture sector look like nearly 20 years after they stopped subsidizing it? In a word, bountiful. According to the World Bank, in 1980 New Zealand’s ag sector produced $2.3 billion in value-added product. By 2009, that same number was $4.9 billion – a 111% increase (all numbers in 2000 dollars and are most recent available). Over the same time frame, the World Bank’s production indexes for both livestock and food have also showed tremendous gains in New Zealand. Maurice McTigue, a farmer by trade and member of the New Zealand Parliament when subsidies were kiboshed, has this to say about things in NZ...McTigue is also the vice president of the Mercatus Center at George Mason University in Virginia...

"In 1985 the [NZ]  government removed all subsidies form agriculture whether they were price support, subsidized insurance, input subsidies or production controls. This was a tough love approach with all the subsidies disappearing over the succeeding 9 months...[we] can look back on the last 25 years as probably the best in the history of New Zealand farming.

"Why would this be so? The major effect of subsidies is that they kill off or water down innovation...An example of this unfettered innovation is that the dairy industry in New Zealand in 1985 produced 35 products from milk by 2005 the dairy industry was producing 2200 products from milk and the dairy industry is the boom industry of New Zealand farming. The conclusion, subsidies keep farmers poor."

While the Kiwi’s were busy not subsidizing farmers their rural population grew by 11.6% (1980-2011), here at home our rural population decreased by 8.4%, once again from the World Bank. Certainly, more was at play than subsidies, but you get the point – the rural populations can thrive without government handouts.

The Federated Farmers of New Zealand (picture our National Farmers Union) might have said it best in that New Zealand has "thoroughly debunked the myth that the farming sector cannot prosper without government subsidies."

The 2012 farm bill, as currently written, is only the most recent example of someone in Washington saying one thing and doing something completely different. You’ll hear talk about helping family farms and supporting rural America, but the key thing to remember is that the farm bill is little more than a bunch handouts to politically connected industries (hello biofuels!) and an extension of federal food stamps. It isn’t about an individual farmer in Finney County and certainly isn’t about less government spending or intrusion in the market.

Listen to a good George Strait song as he extolls the virtues of the Heartland and hard work.  The people he is singing too aren’t asking for a government handout, but Washington has distorted the market for so long that it is hard to imagine farm life without subsidies and mandates. Farm profits continue to grow in spite of government manipulation - not because of it.

Pull off I-70 on your way to your next trip to Breckenridge or Estes Park and ask a farmer or rancher if they want more government involvement in their operation. The answer will almost certainly be no. Hopefully, someone in Washington is listening, but if the bipartisan comments following today’s Senate vote are any indication, I’m not holding my breath.

Schools for Fair Funding, the coalition of schools suing Kansas tax payers, has spent nearly $1.3 million in 2010 and 2011 according to their 990s, posted on GuideStar.org. That amount is likely much higher now that the trial has begun.  

What do you think? Should local school boards spend taxpayer money to sue taxpayers for more money?

It doesn't seem unreasonable to call this unsustainable. 

From Matt Mitchell at the Mercatus Center:

Wichita’s hotel developments are beginning to follow the same path that many government induced supply surges took before them.  From the Wichita Eagle today:

If that’s not enough taxpayer funded rooms for your upcoming family reunion, you are in for a treat when the new 117 room, taxpayer supported Ambassador Hotel opens in December.  All of this on-top of the 303 room, city-owned Hyatt Regency.  With occupancy rates hovering around 50% it’s only a matter of time before hotels begin closing up shop.

This is an all too common story of government incentives.

Homeownership enjoys an indulgence of government incentives at the Federal, state, and local levels.  These incentives helped boost housing supply to bubble proportions.  When the glut of housing was realized the bubble popped and we are still reeling from The Great Recession.

The student loan crisis is following this very same path.  Government induced the supply of college education with tax credits and cheap loans; the excess supply caused the value of degrees to drop; the bubble is bursting, (but the debt stays) and many of those with debt can’t find work to earn wages and pay down their loans because the economy continues to tumble.

Kansas STAR bonds program forced taxpayers to subsidize a massive outdoor shopping mall, which merely steals economic activity from other non-subsidized retailers, leading the less fortunate to closure.

Those calling for big empty office and manufacturing buildings should pay attention.  The economic fundamentals are simple, incentives lead to supply increases not matched by consumer demand.  The oversaturated market then leads to the shuttering of homes, shops, and hotels while taxpayers are left holding the bag.

The CJ argued that the Wyandotte County boom would have taken place in Missouri if it weren’t for the fat loans.  Granted, the closer you get to a border the more effective the STAR bonds will be at stealing business from a neighbor. That would be A-OK if Missouri were the only neighbor losing business.

Growing up I often spent my Friday night at the West Glen 18 Movie Theatre at 435 and Midland. After the Legends Shopping Center was built I started going to the fancier Legends 14.  Is this new economic activity or just shifting my purchase at the expense of the sales tax paying West Glen theatres?  Would West Glen have installed Tempur-Pedic seat cushions if the Legends weren’t built, I don’t know, but any expansion by West Glen would have been futile in the face of the legendary STAR bond development to the north.

Another activity I enjoyed growing up was taking a stroll down Mass Street, in Lawrence, to buy sweet new jeans. However, shortly after the Legends Shopping Center was up and running, Mass Street was old news and my friends and I would travel to Village West instead.  Again, did we create new economic activity at the Legends, or just shift purchases from the sales tax paying businesses on Mass Street to the posh stores at the Legends?

Jay P Greene’s Global Report Card has outlined some strong evidence in support of charter schools:

Greene did acknowledge that this correlation does not prove causality, and argued a series of academic studies that use 'randomized control trials' – the method used in medical experiments – more rigorously prove the efficacy of charter schools.

Here's a run down of the studies:

From Boston:

From Stanford for the National Bureau of Economic Research:

The same Stanford researcher also studied Chicago schools:

And lastly Greene summarized a study conducted Mathematica for the US Department of Education:

For more on what it is that makes charter schools effective check out what the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools has to say.