Cutting the payroll tax puts more money in the pockets of wage-earners which stimulates the economy. Right? In theory, yes; in practice the verdict is not yet in, but doubts abound.
In an insightful column in Tuesday’s New York Times, economist Bruce Bartlett throws cold water on extending the tax cut for these reasons:
— There is no evidence that cutting the tax from about 6 percent to about 4 percent of a worker’s earnings has done much to stimulate spending. “First,” Bartlett writes, “the tax cut only helps those with jobs. While many have low wages and undoubtedly spend all their additional cash flow, those with the greatest need and most likely to spend any additional income are the unemployed.
“Second, the payroll tax cut helps many workers who have no need for it and will only pocket the tax saving.
“Third, economic theory and the experience with tax rebates in 2001 and 2008, tell us that people are strongly inclined to save temporary increases in income. People only increase their spending when they perceive an increase in their permanent income.
“Fourth, even if one assumes that the cost of employment has declined and employers can somehow capture some of the payroll tax cut, there’s little sign that the cost of labor is the principal factor holding back hiring. The main one is lack of sales, as monthly surveys by the National Federation of Independent Businesses document. In the latest survey, 23 percent of businesses said poor sales were their number one problem and only 4 percent cited the cost of labor.”
Bartlett, a conservative who worked for the Reagan and H.W. Bush administrations and served on the congressional staffs of Jack Kemp and Ron Paul, then goes ahead to make the case that many workers don’t consider the payroll deduction for Social Security to be a tax at all, but consider it an investment they can cash in when they retire.
The Social Security and Medicare programs are seen by many workers as forced investments they make for their own future. In this view, the payroll tax becomes an incentive to work and is viewed as an opportunity rather than a burden.
Noted economists such as Joseph Stiglitz, Peter Orszag and Richard Disney support this argument and conclude that most workers do not resent the payroll tax but consider Social Security and Medicare benefits as providing additional long term security to themselves and their families. There is, in short, little political benefit to cutting the payroll tax and, in fact, the opposite may be the case if workers fear that cutting the tax will have the long run effect of weakening those support programs.

BARTLETT AGREES that additional economic stimulus is greatly needed, but favors a different approach:
“In my view,” he wrote, “the $110 billion cost of the one-year Social Security tax cut would have been far better spent on measures that would actively raise spending in the economy. Public works would be the best way of doing that. Under current economic conditions, all tax cuts are essentially passive and do almost nothing to increase aggregate demand or economic output.”

In what many had thought would be a night to finally wrestle the city budget, Tuesday night city council members instead took down one of their own — City Administrator Judy Brigham.
Oh, yes, they passed the tardy budget — in about two seconds — after weeks of questioning Brigham and her staff about their “shady numbers.” Seems they weren’t that concerned with the accounting after all, but more about painting Brigham in a bad light.
Trustees spent almost 90 minutes of executive sessions to discuss Brigham’s seemingly questionable service. After all, she’s been with the city only 32 years.
With just 12 work days shy of qualifying for full benefits, Brigham was given the boot.
Who does such things?
Was she an immediate threat to the city’s security? Did they discover some hidden plot?
What on earth — after three decades within City Hall — could commissioners have discovered that warranted her immediate dismissal?
Come Sept. 16, Brigham was due to retire. Since the hiring of Carl Slaugh, her replacement, the two administrators have been joined at the hip as Brigham has been walking him through the many duties of the post.
Who could blame him if he now has second thoughts about accepting the position.
As is typical of Judy, she gave Slaugh her spacious office upon his July 25 arrival. Since then she has willingly played second fiddle. Her “new” desk was tucked away in a corner behind receptionist Kara Godfrey.

GOOD BUSINESS practices include alerting people if they are failing at their jobs. You record mistakes and follow-up conversations with the employee. You give ample time for improvement. Then, if still not satisfied, a two-week notice of their dismissal is in line, or at least a two-week severance pay.
Brigham got nothing.
No warning, no proof of dissatisfaction, no “package.”
In fact, because of the terminology of her dismissal, Brigham will be losing about $40,000 in benefits had she been able to fulfill her contract within the Kansas Public Employees Retirement System.

IOLANS deserve to know why someone who has dedicated their career to the good of the city, was treated so poorly.
— Susan Lynn

Dear editor,
This continuous sniping over the ambulance service is pathetic. Whoever is behind it if you think you’re gaining anything from it you are one petulant and delusional little popinjay!
Joplin lost one hospital, multiple schools, and a major part of its tax base with the path of destruction that was carved by that monster that went ripping through there. Since May 22 they’ve started school on time, their new hospital — a nearly $1 billion project— already has a site with ground breaking beginning in January and completion slated for 2014 with a northeast campus. If you remember C.J. Huff promised the parents of Joplin too after the storm school would start on time. 
Do you realize he accomplished more in two days than a whole committee accomplished in preparation for the tax vote last November here in Allen County?
Here in Allen County we have a $30 million project and almost a year after the tax vote passed with over 60 percent approval we don’t know for sure where the hospital will be located, when the ground breaking will take place, and when it will be finished. 
Down in Joplin you have a city of over 40,000 and a bedroom community, Duquesne, two counties, major reconstruction to take place in several areas, homeless to look after and nobody is fighting over who is in charge or if rebuilding is done within city limits or not.
Here in Allen County it appears we have a contest of the petulant and ignorant arguing over who is going to be in charge of an ambulance project that volunteers in Joplin settled before the winds quit blowing and the federal, state, and city government showed up. This after they promised not to talk about it for five years.
Surely, it’s time certain municipal and county officials in Allen County quit boring everybody with their sense of self-importance and lack of common sense. Surely, we’d be better off if we’d declare a moratorium on all the talk and study what Joplin, Duquesne, and Jasper and Newton counties are doing right. 
Surely we can do better than we’ve been subjected to thus far!

Sincerely,
Bill LaPorte
Moran, Kan.

Dear editor,
In the majority of families with pets the pets are part of the family. Exercise and socialization are important health and happiness factors. This writing doesn’t pertain to cats. Cats have their own ideas when it comes to exercise and socialization. The tail-waggers are cause for a differing tale.
The majority of pet owners are responsible people but responsibility comes in different shades. Some people take their dogs out for a walk for exercise but don’t think to take plastic bags with them. It would help all of us if they would remember those bags for proper disposal of waste. Plus a walk on leash is only adequate for small dogs. Anything past small needs to be able to run: larger dogs for miles. And the socialization benefit isn’t available to pets on a leash.
We have three dogs, 25, 35 and 45 pounds. Their desire to play with others of their kind is almost unlimited when on neutral territory. Off leash parks work well. The amount of distance they can run to get the exercise needed varies with size and age. Two miles may satisfy the 25-pound dog but our 45-pounder would run five miles if she could.
Cities across the nation realized the need for people-parks where people could sit themselves comfortably under a shade tree and watch their dogs run and play. Some of these people have young children that love to run and play with their pets. This is among the reasons why four of seven young couples who visited with Thrive about the possibility of moving to Iola asked about the availability of a dog park. It could have something to do with hearing that two families in Garnett often make trips to Topeka, Lawrence or Overland Park to visit these parks. Why not make Iola parks a more attractive destination for visitors? Tourists look for these places.
I’ve been told that people can always take their dogs to the country and let them run. This is not a good idea. Dogs will likely come home with sand burrs, stick tights, ticks and other types of pestilence. And in the case of dogs with hunting breed backgrounds, they may put their nose to the wind and run until exhausted. Even hunters with trained dogs have this problem. Lost dogs are hard to find in the country. Some are shot, others starve to death. Families don’t want to chance this fate to their members. They deserve a solution in Iola.
When it comes to cost we should recognize that these parks are in city park land that has to be mowed with frequency dependent on usage. And the small cost for development results in a low user vs. cost factor per user. Probably higher than a soccer field, much lower than a swimming pool, but we need them all for people. Happy makes healthy.

Ray Shannon
Iola, Kan.

Devastating floods still swirl through cities and towns all along the Atlantic coast. Hurricane Irene continues to dwindle, but the heavy rains that came with her have sent creeks and rivers boiling out of their banks. The already soaked land sends every drop of new rain into the mounting waters.
There have been drownings. A 20-year-old woman in southern New Jersey on her way to her boyfriend’s house drowned in her car when it was swept off the road. A postal inspector died trying to get to his office building when he stepped unaware into a drainage ditch. A girl in Vermont was watching the flood waters rise with her boyfriend and somehow was caught by fast-flowing water.
The deaths are tragic, but few.
The major consequence of the widespread flooding will be enormous loss of property. Houses destroyed, power lines taken down by falling trees and high winds, furniture and clothing lost in flooded homes, farm land ravaged, highways and bridges ripped apart.
Because Irene lasted so long and dumped so much water on such a wide area, it may rack up the largest hurricane damage total the nation has recorded since New Orleans was devastated by Katrina.

AND JUST as the nation did in 2005, President Obama and Congress will send billions in aid to the victims of the flooding. The stricken cities will get billions to help them rebuild, get their schools repaired, ruined textbooks replaced, etc., etc., etc. The states will do what they can, as well.
To put it in a nutshell, Hurricane Irene will become the mother of a regional stimulus program that will create tens of thousands of temporary jobs in all of the affected states.
There will be more people put to work picking up after Irene than lost their jobs because of the storm damage. The unemployment rate will drop. Consumer spending will rise as families replace clothing and furniture ruined by the flood waters.
This is not an effort to find something good about Irene and all the misery she is causing, but to observe that our federal budget squeeze will not — and certainly should not — stand in the way of rushing to the aid of the victims of a disaster. Of course it will be necessary to borrow the money Washington will spend to help. Of course Congress will agree to do that.
For all of the reasons that our government should help its citizens recover from a natural disaster, it should also do what economists agree can and should be done to jump-start the economy. The stubborn recession is doing damage in every state; damage that is costing far more in lost income for many millions more Americans than did those sister hurricanes.
With Irene and Katrina as models, Washington should be just as willing to take quick, effective action to end the recession and put the country back on the path to prosperity.

— Emerson Lynn, jr.