Is kansas really benefiting from governor Sam Brownback leadership?

[Unitedwestand13]

the intro of this article lays out his credentials, and initially appearances are that he is an ideal conservative governor.

Sam Brownback has been a Tea Partier since before the Tea Party was born. When he became governor of Kansas in 2011, he set about making the state a testing ground for conservative principles, including cutting funding for some public education and the eventual elimination of the state’s income tax. “Our new pro-growth tax policy will be like a shot of adrenaline into the heart of the Kansas economy,” he wrote in a 2012 op-ed. He predicted cutting taxes would “pave the way to the creation of tens of thousands of new jobs, bring tens of thousands of people to Kansas, and help make our state the best place in America to start and grow a small business.”

The Kansas experiment attracted the attention of both conservatives and liberals around the country, who saw it as an acid test for the Tea Party agenda. Brownback, a former U.S. senator who briefly ran for president in 2007, crept up the long list of dark horse candidates for the 2016 Republican nomination.

The state income tax cut that Brownback signed in 2012 was the nation’s biggest, in percentage terms, since the 1990s. That was a very different era, when states were able to cut taxes steeply because boom times had left their coffers overflowing. Brownback made his cuts in the face of economic weakness, not strength. The first phase reduced the top rate from 6.45 percent to 4.9 percent while immediately eliminating income tax on business profits from partnerships and limited liability corporations that are passed through to individuals. A 2013 measure put the income tax top rate on track to decline to 3.9 percent by 2018.

The most authoritative study of the effect of these measures is a January report by the Kansas Legislative Research Department, a nonpartisan arm of the legislature. It found that revenue isn’t keeping up with expenses even after cuts in spending on K-12 schools, colleges, libraries, local health departments, courts, and welfare. If nothing changed, the research department’s numbers show, the state’s general fund would have a shortfall of about $900 million by fiscal year 2019, or 14 percent of expenses that year. The state’s constitution requires a balanced budget, so either taxes will have to go back up or spending will have to come down even more. “The tax cuts don’t pay for themselves,” says Duane Goossen, who served as state budget director under both Republican and Democratic governors. “That just is not happening.”

ouch.

maybe some one can explain what has gone wrong? because it looks like a conservative governor has not been good for kansas so far.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-04-17/kansas-governor-brownbacks-lab-for-steep-tax-and-budget-cuts

 

[Renae]

the intro of this article lays out his credentials, and initially appearances are that he is an ideal conservative governor.






ouch.

maybe some one can explain what has gone wrong? because it looks like a conservative governor has not been good for kansas so far.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-04-17/kansas-governor-brownbacks-lab-for-steep-tax-and-budget-cuts

All conservatives are ****ing idiots, don't they know they need to tax the **** out of everyone and run up huge deficits while handing out huge benefit packages to people who are the victims of white power?

 

[AJiveMan]

the intro of this article lays out his credentials, and initially appearances are that he is an ideal conservative governor.






ouch.

maybe some one can explain what has gone wrong? because it looks like a conservative governor has not been good for kansas so far.

Kansas: Governor Brownback's Lab for Steep Tax and Budget Cuts - Businessweek

Dang, did that gov take a page out of Walker's playbook too?

 

[AlbqOwl]

It is too soon to tell. Because it takes some time for commerce and industry to readjust, regroup, and make new deals following a tax policy change, it is usually two to four years before we can make any kind of realistic assessment of the results of the policy. So yes, a tax cut will almost always result in an initial dip in tax revenues many months before we can expect the net benefits, if any, of that tax cut to start showing up.

. . . .(the 2001 and 2003) Bush tax cuts did not explode the deficit, as Obama and his echo chamber have alleged. By 2007, the deficit was down to $160 billion, less than 15% of Obama’s deficits today. Total federal revenues soared from $793.7 billion in 2003, when the last of the Bush tax cuts were enacted, to $1.16 trillion in 2007, a 47% increase. Capital gains revenues had doubled by 2005, despite the 25% capital gains rate cut adopted in 2003. Federal revenues rose to 18.5% of GDP by 2007, above the long term, postwar, historical average over the prior 60 years. CBO was projecting surpluses to return indefinitely in 2012 through the end of its projection period in 2018. . .
Why America Is Going To Miss The Bush Tax Cuts - Forbes​

Had the housing bubble crash not happened in 2008 and Congress had not enacted an $800+ billion TARP bailout that was over and above the 2008 and 2009 budgets, the deficit in 2008 would have been under $100 billion. If there had been no housing bubble crash and the Bush economy had continued as it had been rocking along, it is reasonable to believe the deficit would have been eliminated within another year or two despite two wars still in progress.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

It is too soon to tell. Because it takes some time for commerce and industry to readjust, regroup, and make new deals following a tax policy change, it is usually two to four years before we can make any kind of realistic assessment of the results of the policy. So yes, a tax cut will almost always result in an initial dip in tax revenues many months before we can expect the net benefits, if any, of that tax cut to start showing up.

. . . .(the 2001 and 2003) Bush tax cuts did not explode the deficit, as Obama and his echo chamber have alleged. By 2007, the deficit was down to $160 billion, less than 15% of Obama’s deficits today. Total federal revenues soared from $793.7 billion in 2003, when the last of the Bush tax cuts were enacted, to $1.16 trillion in 2007, a 47% increase. Capital gains revenues had doubled by 2005, despite the 25% capital gains rate cut adopted in 2003. Federal revenues rose to 18.5% of GDP by 2007, above the long term, postwar, historical average over the prior 60 years. CBO was projecting surpluses to return indefinitely in 2012 through the end of its projection period in 2018. . .
Why America Is Going To Miss The Bush Tax Cuts - Forbes​

Had the housing bubble crash not happened in 2008 and Congress had not enacted an $800+ billion TARP bailout that was over and above the 2008 and 2009 budgets, the deficit in 2008 would have been under $100 billion. If there had been no housing bubble crash and the Bush economy had continued as it had been rocking along, it is reasonable to believe the deficit would have been eliminated within another year or two despite two wars still in progress.

two wars that were not offically paid for. tax cuts that were not paid for.

 

[sangha]

By 2007, the deficit was down to $160 billion, less than 15% of Obama’s deficits today.

Yeah, down to $160B from $0B

 

[AlbqOwl]

two wars that were not offically paid for. tax cuts that were not paid for.

Try to focus please. The tax cuts were generating major revenues in spite of the wars. You don't 'pay for' tax cuts that are engineered to stimulate the economy. The increased economic activity and the additional tax revenues it generates takes care of that.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Yeah, down to $160B from $0B

$0B that was accomplished via strategic TAX CUTS in the Clinton administration--wiped out by a mild recession that was hugely deepened by 9/11 and the recovery hindered by Katrina. And evenso, we were easily headed back to a balanced budget and surplus had the housing bubble not burst when it did.

. . . .The effects of increasing taxes on Treasury receipts can be seen in the Clinton and Democrat-controlled congressional tax increase of 1993, one of the largest in history. Despite a more robust job market following a recession, the 1993 tax increase didn't accomplish what Democrats expected. The tax increases added very little to treasury receipts despite their magnitude. Reports from the Congressional Budget Office, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Internal Revenue Service all agree.

In fact, the balanced budgets of the Clinton years didn't occur until after a Republican Congress passed and the president reluctantly signed a 1997 tax bill that lowered the capital gains rate from 28% to 20%, added a child tax credit, and established higher limits on tax exclusion for IRAs and estates. . . .
Articles: The successful Clinton economy was based on tax cuts. No, really...​

 

[sangha]

$0B that was accomplished via strategic TAX CUTS in the Clinton administration

Going from a $0B deficit to a $160B deficit is *not* a decrease in the deficit

 

[AlbqOwl]

Going from a $0B deficit to a $160B deficit is *not* a decrease in the deficit

Another point sailing right over the head of one who seems to not read the information offered.

 

[sangha]

Another point sailing right over the head of one who seems to not read the information offered.

Yes, my inability to see how Clinton's tax cuts made a $0B deficit greater than a $160B proves that I'm very dense

 

[AlbqOwl]

Yes, my inability to see how Clinton's tax cuts made a $0B deficit greater than a $160B proves that I'm very dense

Thanks for understanding. I knew you'd come around.

 

[Bob N]

It is too soon to tell. Because it takes some time for commerce and industry to readjust, regroup, and make new deals following a tax policy change, it is usually two to four years before we can make any kind of realistic assessment of the results of the policy. So yes, a tax cut will almost always result in an initial dip in tax revenues many months before we can expect the net benefits, if any, of that tax cut to start showing up.

Two to four years? Try this out:

• Kansas’ tax cuts haven’t boosted its economy. Since the tax cuts took effect at the beginning of 2013, Kansas has added jobs at a pace modestly slower than the country as a whole. The earnings and incomes of Kansans have performed slightly worse than the U.S. as a whole as well. (An exception is farmers, whose incomes improved as the state recovered from a drought.) And so far there’s no evidence that Kansas is enjoying exceptional business growth: the number of registered business grew more slowly last year than in 2012, and the state’s share of all U.S. business establishments fell over the first three quarters of last year, the latest data available.
• There’s little evidence to suggest that Kansas’ tax cuts will improve its economy in the future. No one knows for certain how Kansas’ economy will perform in the years ahead, but it isn’t likely to stand out from other states. The latest official state revenue forecast, from November 2013, projects Kansas personal income will grow more slowly than total national personal income in 2014 and 2015.

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

 

[AlbqOwl]

Two to four years? Try this out:

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Well we aren't two to four years down the road yet are we? I believe the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities also predicted the same dismal prognosis for the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, but then the CBPP never met a conservative or right wing policy that it would endorse and even the most leftwing media admits the CBPP is pretty far left of center..

So I think I'll wait for the actual evidence instead of the doom and gloom prophecies from those who generally do not seem to want any modern American conservative initiatives to gain any legs or credibility.

 

[Bob N]

Well we aren't two to four years down the road yet are we? I believe the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities also predicted the same dismal prognosis for the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, but then the CBPP never met a conservative or right wing policy that it would endorse and even the most leftwing media admits the CBPP is pretty far left of center..

So I think I'll wait for the actual evidence instead of the doom and gloom prophecies from those who generally do not seem to want any modern American conservative initiatives to gain any legs or credibility.

Kansas has added jobs at a pace modestly slower than the country as a whole? And for a state that has the lowest taxes for business than others is not exactly anything for conservatives to wave like a banner with pride. :shrug:

 

[AlbqOwl]

Kansas has added jobs at a pace modestly slower than the country as a whole? And for a state that has the lowest taxes for business than others is not exactly anything for conservatives to wave like a banner with pride. :shrug:

It is too soon to know how Brownback's tax policy will affect the Kansas economy.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

but then the CBPP never met a conservative or right wing policy that it would endorse and even the most leftwing media admits the CBPP is pretty far left of center..

A new forecast from Kansas’s budget officials projects that “personal income in Kansas will grow more slowly than U.S. personal income in 2014 and 2015,” the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) writes. The projections come from Brownback’s own Division of the Budget, which expects personal income growth of 3.8 percent this year and 4.2 percent next year. The state’s overall economic growth is now projected to fall behind the nation’s after two decades of keeping pace, the think tank adds.

After Huge Tax Cuts For The Rich, Kansas's Economy Is Foundering

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Try to focus please. The tax cuts were generating major revenues in spite of the wars. You don't 'pay for' tax cuts that are engineered to stimulate the economy. The increased economic activity and the additional tax revenues it generates takes care of that.

It is too soon to know how Brownback's tax policy will affect the Kansas economy.

TOPEKA — Tax revenue in April dropped 45 percent from a year ago, the Kansas Department of Revenue announced Wednesday.
The state’s revenue for the year is $92.9 million less than projected earlier this month.

The unexpected news weighed heavily on a joint committee of senators and House members who worked late into the night, trying to hammer out a budget in a wrap-up session that started Wednesday.

“It’s certainly impacting decisions. I mean any decision that would have included more spending is out the window obviously,” said Sen. Ty Masterson, R-Andover.

The state has taken in $480 million less overall than it had by this point in the last fiscal year.

The governor and other Republican leaders attributed the April drop to federal tax changes. Democrats called that claim ridiculous and said the revenue numbers showed the governor’s tax cuts are unsustainable.

Kansas tax revenue off $92 million in April | Wichita Eagle

 

[Bob N]

It is too soon to know how Brownback's tax policy will affect the Kansas economy.

:shrug: So far it doesn't look good. I don't know why businesses wouldn't be taking advantage of such good deals from Kansas.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

:shrug: So far it doesn't look good. I don't know why businesses wouldn't be taking advantage of such good deals from Kansas.

The reason they won't is because cuts to education do not attract long term business investment......nor does lowered credit ratings from Moody's.

Moody’s downgrades Kansas’ credit rating, citing sluggish recovery, tax plan | Wichita Eagle

 

[Bob N]

The reason they won't is because cuts to education do not attract long term business investment......nor does lowered credit ratings from Moody's.

Moody’s downgrades Kansas’ credit rating, citing sluggish recovery, tax plan | Wichita Eagle

Yeah, I guess if people aren't educated in the long run it would be a bad place to put roots down for a business, huh. :lol:

 

[Gimmesometruth]

It is too soon to know how Brownback's tax policy will affect the Kansas economy.

:shrug: So far it doesn't look good. I don't know why businesses wouldn't be taking advantage of such good deals from Kansas.

The reason they won't is because cuts to education do not attract long term business investment......nor does lowered credit ratings from Moody's.

Moody’s downgrades Kansas’ credit rating, citing sluggish recovery, tax plan | Wichita Eagle

Yeah, I guess if people aren't educated in the long run it would be a bad place to put roots down for a business, huh. :lol:

Oh, who gives a hoot!