There's an old saying: If you do more of what you've been doing ----- you will get more of what you've got.

Think about what the economy was like before the recession, the economy had tanked everywhere outside of Johnson county, with net per capita income down. That situation was created in part by the flawed policies adopted by the state government in years past.

There are two flaws that need to be avoided: 1) don't focus just on one group, and 2) look at all the consequences.

Looking at the question before us, certainly it is the proper role of government to build roads. If the plan before us was merely an engineers plan and not one based on politics, I would have no problem with it. I suspect this is a political plan because it guarantees $8 million or so to every county. What are the chances that all counties have the same needs?

Let me address the cute buttons you see in the hallway that say "highway taxes create jobs".   That's true insofar as it goes but if you were going to tell the entire story the cute little button would read "highway taxes create jobs in one section with a net loss of jobs in another." I suppose if you put the entire story on the button, it wouldn't be so cute.

I read an illustration that I would like to share that might give us some insight.

Imagine a shopkeeper on Main Street, doing well and he/she has an extra $500.00. A hoodlum runs by and throws a brick through the front window. The shopkeeper comes out very upset and a crowd develops. Now the shopkeeper has to hire a window company to come out and fix the window at a cost of $500. The crowd becomes philosophical and begins to think there is a bright side about the transaction thinking.... well without the hoodlum breaking the window the window company would not have the extra $500, so the hoodlum actually helps the economy. So perhaps we should actually encourage him to break more windows.

The flaw in the logic lies in the fact that they failed to look at all the groups involved and all the consequences. You see the shopkeeper was going to take the $500 and by a new suit, a net gain, but now he cannot. Before the incident he could take the $500 and buy some suits or maybe he would use this and hire some help and create a job, not now. Before the incident the tailor would benefit and would be able to hire help and create a job. Before the incident the shopkeeper had $500 and a good window. Now he only has a good window, a net loss.

When the crowd decided the hoodlum helped the economy they were only looking at the shopkeeper and window company. The forgotten man was the tailor.

The forgotten person in the transaction before us today is the taxpayer.

Let's look at another illustration. Suppose a thief just came along and took the $500 from the shopkeeper. Well the thief would have the money and no doubt he would spend it, say at a bar or nightclub. If you only looked at that part of the transaction, you would say the thief is creating jobs by supporting the entertainment industry. So if that's all we would look at, the conclusion is we should support thievery.  But everyone recognizes that when the thief comes and takes the $500 it's a net loss.

In this illustration substitute the government, and let's say the state comes in and takes the $500, we get the same result. The shop keeper is not going use the extra money to hire help, or not going to use it to buy a new suit. The tailor is not going to make the suit with a resulting job loss.

The fact of the matter is this: if you take $8 million from the first sector to create jobs, you gain $8 million in the second sector and lose $8 million worth of jobs in the first sector.

There is no funny money tree, whether we borrow or raise taxes, the taxpayers have to pay.

We have to rethink our approach and use policies that create prosperity so we have the surplus with which to build roads, fund education, and social services or whatever you want.