Posted on 07/08/2014 11:31:07 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
In 2012, Kansas governor Sam Brownback signed a massive tax cut into law, arguing that it would boost the state's economy. Eventually, he hoped to eliminate individual income taxes entirely. "Our place, Kansas, will show the path, the difficult path, for America to go in these troubled times," he said.
National conservative activists raved. Patrick Gleason of Americans for Tax Reform said Kansas was "the story of the next decade." The Cato Institute praised Brownback's "impressive" tax cuts and gave him an "A" on fiscal policy. And the Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol said that, if reelected, Brownback would be "a formidable presidential possibility."
Yet though Brownback is running for reelection this fall in a deep red state, he's trailed his Democratic challenger in 3 of the 4 most recent polls — and his marquee tax cut appears to be the main reason. Kansas is now hundreds of millions of dollars short in revenue collection, its job growth has lagged the rest of the nation, and Moody's has cut the state's bond rating. "Governor Brownback came in here with an agenda to reduce the size of government, reduce taxes, and create a great economic boom," says University of Kansas professor Burdett Loomis. "Now there's been a dramatic decline in revenues, no great increase in economic activity, and we've got red ink until the cows come home."
(Excerpt) Read more at vox.com ...
Yeah, he forgot that when you cut taxes you have to trim the budget too. Cannot keep spending when your income goes down. Stupid.
Don’t worry... we still have Detroit and Flint is “hotting up” according to latest headlines.
I was getting ready to ask if they kept spending the same...
All your money are belong to us
Wasn’t it Arthur Laffer who argued that increased economic growth due to tax cuts would deliver more revenue that would help cushion the impact of reduced revenue collection?
I don’t see any deficits.
whats actual tax revenue. the surplus information don’t prove or disprove tax cut is the cause of the bankruptcy. It could be overspending
I think they’re PROJECTING deficits by looking at the trend.
Same here; I still see a surplus. What’s the problem? How can they not “pay their bills” and still have a surplus?
Cheerleading from liberal groups like Amer for Tax Reform (pro Amnesty, pro Islamic Terrorist), CATO (Amnesty Liberal, Open Borders Liberal, One World Liberal), and Bill Kristol (all liberal)....doesn’t help the Conservative pedigree
Surprised Chamber of Communists hasn’t chimed in
So, the budget surplus is declining, but still there.....
Why exactly is that a bad thing...the more excess revenue, the more wasteful spending.
If the government is taking in more than it’s spending, it should not only cut taxes to trim the surplus for the next year, it should rebate the excess to prevent its’ waste.
And yes...merely voicing that point of view makes me an extremist.
I second what others have said. A true conservative cuts spending in addition to taxes. If he cut taxes and kept spending like a George Bush-type Compassionate Conservative, then he is a failure.
He said it would in certain circumstances, in certain amounts - that's why his theory on this is called "the Laffer Curve" - perhaps Kansas over shot, or perhaps there are other things to consider…..spending, etc...
Why should any State run a surplus? If a State does run a surplus, invest the money and reinvest the gain. Save the money and interest proceeds for a downturn. Don’t spend the principle. That’s what real people do.
Doesn’t the legislature that cut the taxes also control the spending?
Very few governments will rebate overtaxed citizens, preferring instead to spend the money on pet projects.
Government spending should be a break even process, with revenue from taxes and fees matching outgoing expenses, just like everybody who has to balance a checkbook. Allow a small surplus to cover for contingencies, otherwise I see no reason to run a huge surplus (i.e. your tax dollars being tied up by the government).
One thing that needs to be pointed out is the huge amount of capital gains were realized in 2012 before the law changed and the tax went up. They knew it would result in lower revenue in subsequent years.
Nationally that’s what happened in the early 2000s. The revenue increased with lower taxes. But they kept spending more while keeping it under 20% of GDP.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.