Sunday, January 18, 2026

In the end, economic development isn't about charity—it's about smart, sustainable investments that pave the way for a thriving future.


Misallocation of Economic Development Funds: Sales Tax Dollars Diverted from Infrastructure to Charities in Topeka
In Shawnee County, Kansas, a half-cent sales tax was implemented to fuel economic growth, generating millions annually for initiatives like site acquisition, infrastructure improvements, equipment purchases, and workforce training. This tax, approved by voters, is explicitly designated for economic development activities through GO Topeka, the economic arm of the Greater Topeka Partnership. Yet, a closer look at how these funds are being spent reveals a troubling pattern: significant portions are funneled into grants, sponsorships, and contributions that resemble charitable donations rather than strategic investments in the local economy. This raises a critical question—should taxpayer dollars earmarked for building a stronger economic foundation be used to support community events, churches, and non-profits, or should they be strictly allocated to tangible infrastructure projects that create jobs and drive long-term growth?The Funding Mechanism: A Sales Tax for Growth, Not GiveawaysGO Topeka's budget is primarily supported by this countywide half-cent sales tax, which brings in over $10 million yearly for economic incentives. The intent is clear: to attract businesses, expand operations, and enhance infrastructure to make Topeka more competitive. Examples of appropriate uses include cash incentives for machinery, building improvements, utility extensions, and land development for target industries or headquarters. Infrastructure assistance is explicitly mentioned as a key component, allowing for road improvements, utility lines, and other essential upgrades that support business expansion. However, this sales tax is distinct from Topeka's separate half-cent sales tax dedicated solely to street maintenance and infrastructure repairs, which funds projects like sidewalks and road fixes. While the economic development tax can include infrastructure elements tied to growth, it was never meant to become a slush fund for feel-good community initiatives. Blurring these lines risks diluting the impact of both taxes, as funds that could bolster critical infrastructure are instead scattered across non-essential programs.Examining the Expenditures: Charities Masquerading as Economic DevelopmentA 2024 inquiry into GO Topeka's grants and contributions for 2022 and 2023, as detailed in a public email from President Molly Howey, exposes how these funds are being allocated. Under the budget line for "grants/contributions/sponsorships/scholarships," millions were disbursed, but many recipients bear little resemblance to economic engines. Instead, they appear as charitable handouts, supporting events, churches, and social programs that, while worthwhile, do not directly contribute to job creation, business attraction, or infrastructure.Key Examples from 2022:
  • Community Events and Churches: $300 to New Mount Zion Baptist Church for a community dinner; $2,000 to Topeka Family and Friends Juneteenth Celebration; $1,500 to Shampayne Lloyd Ministries for a retreat; $2,000 to Oakland Garden A Community of Growers. These resemble philanthropy, not investments in economic infrastructure.
  • Non-Profits and Social Initiatives: $3,000 to Topeka Center for Peace and Justice; $5,000 to YWCA Northeast Kansas; $2,500 to Bring Back the Blvd.; $3,000 to Junior Achievement of Kansas. While these organizations do valuable work, funding them with economic development sales tax diverts resources from roads, utilities, or business incentives.
  • Larger Programs: Even bigger line items like $174,000 for Choose Topeka (talent recruitment) and $134,774 for PTAC (procurement assistance) are defensible as economic tools, but they are outnumbered by smaller, scattershot grants that total hundreds of thousands.
Key Examples from 2023:
  • Similar Patterns: $2,500 to New Mount Zion Baptist Church for a back-to-school event; $2,500 to NAACP Topeka Branch for a banquet; $2,500 to Revelations Evangelistic Ministry for a teen employment program; $10,000 to Community Resource Council for an event sponsorship.
  • Pitch Contests and Sponsorships: Winners like Chef LaMona LLC ($15,000) or Paletas Royale ($8,000) from minority-owned business pitch contests show some entrepreneurial focus, but overall, the list includes $2,500 to Black Entrepreneurs of the Flint Hills and $5,000 to Mana De Topeka—again, more aligned with social equity than hardcore economic development.
  • Educational and Other: $25,000 to Washburn University Foundation for a pitch competition; $50,000 to Forge (likely a co-working or startup space). These have economic ties, but when mixed with church dinners and festivals, the focus blurs.
In total, these expenditures highlight a shift from targeted economic strategies to broad community support. While GO Topeka frames them as part of larger programs like pitch competitions and regional investments, critics argue they waste money on items that don't yield measurable economic returns. Why These Aren't True Economic DevelopmentEconomic development funds should prioritize initiatives with a clear return on investment: job creation, capital attraction, and infrastructure that enables business growth. Infrastructure, in particular, is a cornerstone—extending utilities, improving roads, or acquiring sites for new facilities directly supports expansion. Sponsoring a church event or a Juneteenth celebration, however noble, does not build bridges, upgrade sewers, or lure manufacturers. These are charitable acts, better suited for private donations or separate community funds, not taxpayer sales tax.This misallocation has real consequences. Topeka faces ongoing infrastructure needs, from street repairs funded by a dedicated tax to broader challenges like aging utilities. Diverting economic development dollars to charities means less for performance-based incentives that could attract high-wage jobs or fund critical projects. Moreover, it erodes public trust in how sales taxes are used, potentially jeopardizing future voter approvals for such levies.A Call for Reform: Redirect Funds to Infrastructure and Real GrowthIt's time to realign GO Topeka's spending with its original mandate. Sales tax revenues should be restricted to verifiable economic development— infrastructure upgrades, business recruitment incentives, and training programs with tracked outcomes. Charities and community events deserve support, but not at the expense of roads, utilities, and jobs.Policymakers in Shawnee County must audit these grants, impose stricter criteria for what qualifies as "economic development," and consider reallocating funds to pressing infrastructure priorities. Voters approved this tax for growth, not giveaways. By refocusing on infrastructure, Topeka can build a foundation for prosperity that benefits everyone, rather than scattering dollars on short-term feel-good.
In the end, economic development isn't about charity—it's about smart, sustainable investments that pave the way for a thriving future.

https://mcremedia.blogspot.com/2024/05/fwd-go-topeka-inquiry.html


--
Henry McClure 
Time kills deals
785-383-9994

www.henrymcclure.live
on No comments:

ICE

The meme you shared is a common one that circulates on social media (often labeled as "Fact X"), comparing deportation numbers under Presidents Clinton, George W. Bush, Obama, and Trump (first term), while claiming zero protests/riots under Clinton, Bush, and Obama but 350 under Trump.

The deportation figures are **partially accurate but misleading** due to inconsistent definitions of "deportations." Official U.S. government data (from DHS and ICE) distinguishes between:

- **Removals** (formal deportations with legal consequences, often from the interior U.S., requiring court orders).
- **Returns** (mostly quick turnbacks at the border, without formal orders; these dominate high totals under earlier presidents).

The meme uses the **broader total** (removals + returns) for Clinton (12.5 million), Bush (10.3 million), and Obama (5.2 million), but switches to a much **narrower removals-only** figure for Trump (1.5 million). This apples-to-oranges comparison inflates the numbers for the first three while understating Trump's.

Reliable sources (Migration Policy Institute, DHS yearbooks, FactCheck.org, Cato Institute) show:

- **Clinton (1993–2000)**: ~12.3 million total (removals + returns), but only ~827,000–2 million formal removals (93% were border returns).
- **George W. Bush (2001–2008)**: ~10.3 million total (removals + returns), with ~2 million formal removals (81% returns).
- **Obama (2009–2016)**: ~5 million total (removals + returns), but ~3 million formal removals (highest for removals, earning the "Deporter in Chief" label from critics).
- **Trump (first term, 2017–2020)**: ~1.5–2 million total (removals + returns; lower overall due to fewer border crossings in later years and policy shifts).

If using consistent metrics (e.g., formal removals), Obama deported the most (~3 million), followed by Bush (~2 million), with Clinton and Trump lower. The meme's "0 protests/riots" claim for Clinton/Bush/Obama is also **false or exaggerated** — protests occurred under all administrations (e.g., against family separations, workplace raids, and high removals under Obama), but large-scale riots tied directly to deportations were limited. Under Trump's first term, protests were notable (e.g., against family separations and travel bans), but the "350" figure appears unsubstantiated or invented (no major source confirms exactly that number of protests/riots specifically from deportations).

The meme selectively uses data to imply hypocrisy in public reactions (more outrage under Trump despite fewer deportations), but ignores context: protests often stem from policy tactics (e.g., raids on families vs. border turnbacks), not just raw numbers. Border returns (common under Clinton/Bush) rarely sparked the same backlash as interior removals targeting long-term residents.

In short, the meme cherry-picks and distorts statistics for political effect. Deportation enforcement happened under both parties, with varying approaches and public responses.

Henry McClure  
785.383.9994
sent from mobile 📱
time kills deals
on No comments:

ICE

The question "Does ICE need a warrant for their actions?" depends on the specific action ICE (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) is taking, as their authority under U.S. immigration law differs from standard criminal law enforcement.

ICE officers generally **do not need a judicial warrant** (one signed by a judge) for many routine enforcement actions, unlike police in criminal cases. Instead, they often rely on administrative warrants (issued internally by ICE) or warrantless authority granted by statutes like the Immigration and Nationality Act (e.g., 8 U.S.C. §§ 1226, 1357).

Key distinctions:

- **Arrests**: ICE can arrest individuals without a judicial warrant if they have reason to believe the person is removable (deportable) under immigration law. They use administrative warrants (forms like I-200 or I-205), which are not reviewed by a neutral magistrate and do not carry the same protections as criminal warrants. ICE explicitly states it does not need judicial warrants for arrests in public places or under certain conditions. For entering private homes or areas with a reasonable expectation of privacy, ICE generally needs consent or a judicial warrant—administrative warrants alone do not authorize forced entry.

- **Searches and entry into private spaces**: A judicial warrant is typically required to enter homes, private businesses, or other protected areas without consent. ICE cannot use an administrative warrant to force entry into a residence. Exceptions include exigent circumstances or voluntary consent (sometimes obtained via ruses, which have raised criticism).

- **Surveillance and data collection**: This is where concerns about "mass surveillance without warrants" arise. Recent reports (from 2025–2026) indicate ICE has expanded use of purchased commercial data and tools, including:
  - Location data from cell phones (via vendors like Penlink's Webloc, allowing tracking of movements without warrants by buying bulk data).
  - Social media monitoring, facial recognition (e.g., Clearview AI, Mobile Fortify), license plate readers (e.g., Flock Safety), and other spyware or AI tools.
  - These practices often bypass traditional warrant requirements because the government purchases data from private companies rather than compelling it directly, which critics (including the ACLU and EFF) argue circumvents Fourth Amendment protections. Courts have ruled in cases like Carpenter v. United States (2018) that certain location data requires warrants, but agencies exploit loopholes with bought data. This has led to accusations of warrantless mass surveillance affecting citizens and non-citizens alike, including tracking without individualized suspicion.

Your post references a Kansas House bill (likely one condemning the WHO/UN, repurposed via amendment by Rep. Susan Ruiz to target ICE instead), which was rejected. Recent news confirms Rep. Ruiz (D-Shawnee) attempted to amend a Republican bill during the 2026 session to criticize ICE's jurisdiction and actions in Kansas, citing privacy violations, surveillance, and incidents like violent enforcement. The amendment was ruled not germane and failed, with the original bill passing on party lines.

Immigration enforcement prioritizes public safety and removal of violators, but civil liberties groups argue many practices (especially surveillance tech) erode privacy for everyone, not just immigrants. Immigrants contribute significantly to economies like Kansas agriculture, as you noted.

For personalized advice on encounters with ICE, resources like the ACLU's "Know Your Rights" guides recommend remaining silent, not opening doors without a judicial warrant, and consulting an attorney.

Henry McClure  
785.383.9994
sent from mobile 📱
time kills deals
on No comments:

Karen in waiting

**Summary of the Press Release and Incident**

Christy Davis, a Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate in Kansas challenging incumbent Republican Sen. Roger Marshall in the 2026 election, issued a statement condemning a fatal shooting by a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent in Minneapolis on January 7, 2026. The victim was 37-year-old Renee Nicole Good (also referred to as Renee Nicole Macklin Good), a U.S. citizen, poet, writer, mother of three, and resident of Minneapolis. Good had previous ties to Kansas City, Missouri, where she lived before relocating (including a period in Canada after the 2024 election).

**Key Details of the Incident**  
Good was shot and killed inside her vehicle during an encounter with ICE agents amid a federal immigration enforcement operation (part of a broader nationwide crackdown under the Trump administration). Federal officials, including DHS and ICE, described the shooting as self-defense, claiming Good attempted to use her vehicle as a weapon to run over an agent (Jonathan Ross, an Iraq War veteran and ICE officer). However, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey publicly disputed this, stating that video evidence "directly contradicts" the federal account and calling the narrative "bullshit," while urging ICE to leave the city. Minnesota officials, including Gov. Tim Walz, also contested the self-defense claim. Eyewitness accounts and media reports (including video analyses) suggest Good may have been acting as a community observer or legal observer (using whistles to alert neighbors), not as a protester or aggressor. She was not described as an activist by family and friends, who portrayed her as a devoted Christian, poet, and caregiver.

The shooting sparked widespread protests, vigils, and outrage across the U.S., including in Kansas City (where Good had connections), with calls to abolish or reform ICE. It was part of a pattern of ICE use-of-force incidents since late 2025. The FBI is investigating, but some reports indicate limited state involvement, and the Department of Justice has stated it is not pursuing its own probe. Federal accounts have been defended by Trump administration figures, while Democrats (including congressional leaders) have demanded independent investigations.

**Davis's Statement**  
In her press release from Topeka, Davis called for:  
- An immediate independent investigation (expressing distrust in the current administration).  
- Accountability to prevent future "tragic, senseless deaths" linked to "reckless agents" and "violent rhetoric from the White House."  
- Removal of the involved agent from duty pending investigation.  
- Congressional oversight hearings on ICE's rules of engagement and use of force, especially around protesters/observers.  

She criticized Republican-led House efforts for stalling oversight and urged Sen. Marshall to join Kansans in demanding answers, transparency, de-escalation, and accountability—warning that unchecked federal actions set dangerous precedents for communities, including in Kansas.

This appears to be a real campaign statement from Davis, leveraging the incident (and Good's Kansas City ties) to highlight issues of federal overreach, public safety, and immigration enforcement under the current administration. The event has fueled national debate on ICE tactics, with polarized narratives between federal defenses and local/state criticisms.



Henry McClure  
785.383.9994
sent from mobile 📱
time kills deals
on No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)