Archive for Friday, November 5, 2010

Governor-elect Brownback says he’s seeking bold action on tax reductions, will protect education funding

November 5, 2010, 3:42 p.m. Updated November 5, 2010, 4:27 p.m.


Kansas Gov.-elect Sam Brownback said Friday he’s looking for bold action on taxes next year and sees lowering the state’s individual income taxes as crucial for economic growth.

In an interview with The Associated Press, the incoming Republican governor said he’s convinced the state’s income tax rates impede job creation and discourage people from moving to Kansas.

“The individual income tax is, probably of any thing, the most sensitive area to growth,” Brownback said. “What I’m interested in is reducing those taxes that hinder growth in Kansas, and not all tax cuts are created equal when it comes to growth policies.”

He said while Kansas draws people from states with higher income rates, it loses far more, and he wants to reverse the trend, “to attract people and their capital and the chance at creating jobs.”

“I think we need to be pretty aggressive and bold on tax policy. That’s the piece the state can do, is create the environment that is growth oriented,” he said, adding that the state still must collect enough revenue “to keep the machinery running of the state.”

Brownback’s new administration faces a potential budget shortfall of nearly $500 million, with more than 100,000 Kansans out of work. He will have a strong Republican majority in both chambers of the Legislature to push his agenda, which he said includes protecting funding for public education. Republicans will hold a 31-9 margin in the Senate and 92 of the 125 House seats come January.

“I do think it is an extraordinary moment. The key in my estimation is to do wise things that make sense on a long-term basis and not to do things that are an overreach or the people don’t overall support,” Brownback said.

Part of the tax strategy includes creating rural enterprise zones aimed at revitalizing counties losing population. He proposes to give people moving to rural counties an income tax break for the chance to move back home and create jobs.

Brownback said he would prefer not to use the government accounting moves governors and legislators have routinely used for the better part of a decade. Rather than shifting excess funds in agencies or money dedicated to highways, he wants to restore stability with a healthy revenue cushion in the bank.

“I would like to get us back to the point where we’re not sweeping funds,” he said, acknowledging such conditions may be two or three years away.

Brownback said he would like to tweak the state’s school finance formula in the short term to give districts more flexibility to use reserve funds to pay operational expenses. Doing so would help offset some of the losses in federal funds coming in 2012 when stimulus dollars dry up. But he said he wouldn’t suggest local districts be required to raise more revenue through local property taxes to cover the shortfalls.

Brownback also wants to look at new ways for administering Medicaid programs in Kansas. He suggested that the state could contract with community or county health clinics to provide basic services, including preventive care such as monitoring diabetes, nutrition and high blood pressure.

The goal would be to reduce the state’s Medicaid costs in check as the federal government prepares to reduce spending.


jafs 4 years, 7 months ago

If he's going to cut taxes, but not lower spending on education and social services, what spending is he going to cut?

ksjayhawk74 4 years, 7 months ago

"The key in my estimation is to do wise things that make sense on a long-term basis and not to do things that are an overreach or the people don't overall support"

He's cutting education, but it won't be an "overreach"... Comforting, isn't it?.

geekyhost 4 years, 6 months ago

He's shifting education funding to local districts, so THEY have to raise taxes in order to maintain standards. That way he can claim he lowered everyone's taxes.

4getabouit 4 years, 7 months ago

"Hey Rocky! Watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat."

ksjayhawk74 4 years, 7 months ago

How will the State afford these tax cuts?

He's found all sorts of money that we're wasting on Education!!! Too bad previous Governors didn't figure out that money is wasted on education a long time ago (Kathleen Sebelius).

Anyone who goes to a public school and looks around will quickly see that the place is way too nice. The method of teaching and materials available to students is a bit out-dated right now but I'm sure they can still get it done for less.

Have you seen how well those kids eat? Most kids will tell you that school lunches are the best food they have ever eaten, so much so that school lunch is something most kids look forward to in their school day. So, we can probably scale back a little there too.

Three preemptive cheers to Governor Brownback for hooking us up with tax cuts by stopping the flood of money wasted on educating our children.

Josh Brumm 4 years, 7 months ago

The problem with "cutting the fat, fraud, waste and abuse" is that we've been doing that as a nation since the first Bush administration, on both the state and federal levels. That's why NASA keeps scrapping projects, why cases of Medicare fraud are few and far between, why the Public Defender's office is overburdened so much some are now refusing new cases, and why the schools of the state banded together and sued Topeka to get the funding they were supposed to have. The only fat, fraud, waste and abuse that's left is in the Defense budget (2 different types of engine for a plane that only needs one, ordering more high ticket items that the Pentagon doesn't want or need and puts into deep storage upon delivery, researching dead end weapons technologies that are based on a fundamentally flawed understanding of physics), but no one dares to even cut what the Pentagon says they don't want!

What actually would stimulate the local economy is targeted long term incentives in areas that need it. Tax rebates for property owners of all types to make their buildings more energy efficient. Investments to strengthen and secure our aging power grid. Beautification projects to draw new businesses & shoppers to areas with empty storefronts. That would make sense.

What I fail to see would help the economy, though, is a $200 reduction of my state income tax that I only pay one time a year. Wooo.

Bob_Keeshan 4 years, 7 months ago

"Except for defense..."

Good lord, you are dumber than you were before the election. Amazing.

Shardwurm 4 years, 7 months ago

Holy cow a kindred spirit!!!!!

I've been posting this mantra over-and-over and usually get blasted!

THANK YOU...someone else out there is sane!!!!

geekyhost 4 years, 6 months ago

Lord knows there's absolutely no fraud, waste, and abuse in the private sector.

yourworstnightmare 4 years, 7 months ago

This strategy of cutting taxes and increasing spending has gotten republicans elected for 30 years.

It also resulted in our current deficit and economic troubles.

More of the same from Same ol' Brownback.

Bob_Keeshan 4 years, 7 months ago

Is this really a surprise to anyone? He wants to cut taxes and increase spending. Well, duh.

Remember, Sam was elected in 1994 on a promise to cut federal spending. Instead, while serving in the majority in the House and then in the Senate he was part of a massive increase in federal spending, the ballooning of the debt, and creating deficits into perpetuity.

Something for Kansas to look forward to. I hope we also get flying cars.

neo_star 4 years, 7 months ago

This is just payback to the Koch family. A Governorship in return for lower taxes on their Koch Industries income sourced to Kansas. Gee, why not just reduce the sales tax increase? Because the little people pay it, not David or Charles; they hang out on the East Coast.

average 4 years, 7 months ago

Yeah.. the tax cut to reverse rural outflows. Right.

The median county in the state (by population) is Clay. As good an example of outflow as any.

The 90th percentile of household income in Clay County is $75,000. About where that falls in most of rural Kansas.

A married couple making $75k and taking only standard deductions would be paying $3250 a year in state income tax. In reality, likely less than that if they had kid deductions, pre-tax health insurance, pre-tax retirement savings, etc. The median household in Clay pays around $1000 a year in state income tax.

Even if he totally refunded every cent of income tax to this proposed couple, $1000-$3000 a year isn't exactly much incentive in choosing between Clay (median HHI $41k) and Johnson (median HHI $74k).

geekyhost 4 years, 6 months ago

Exactly. I'm one of many people that chose to move from a less populated area of the state to a more populated area. Income was one reason, but also access to resources and other living conveniences only available with the population increase. Is he going to build an airport, museums, dining experiences, broadband, more educational resources, and partridge in a pair tree in rural areas, too?

Oh right, it will all spring forth full-formed from the head of Zeus when we cleave it with the magical axe of tax cuts.

notajayhawk 4 years, 6 months ago

Some people choose to live in rural areas precisely because they don't have airports, museums, and 'dining experiences' - along with the crowd they attract.

geekyhost 4 years, 6 months ago

True, but it's not a popular choice. Otherwise, all areas would have equal population distribution.

sciencegeek 4 years, 7 months ago

These kinds of statements are easy to say, totally uninformed, and just ludicrous.

Having worked for the state for some time, I actually KNOW what happens. In most cases, the fat has been cut, the muscle is largely gone, and the bones are showing. Where I work, the response was to privatize--which resulted in higher overall cost and poorer service. At least they didn't continue down that path. The requests for work keep increasing, and the staff is reduced. The amount of overtime was getting ridiculous, so what did they do?--reclassified people so they were no longer eligible for overtime! Marriages have been threatened, physical injuries have increased, and productivity is going down--exhausted people just can't produce as much. And guess what--our work doesn't even involve paper shuffling!

There are only two areas of state government that seem to mange, regents and the Legislature. As long as our elected legislature awards themselves $1800 desks, new computers, underground parking, free food from lobbyists -- and repeatedly get re-elected for screwing the electorate--nothing will change.

whats_going_on 4 years, 7 months ago

"He proposes to give people moving to rural counties an income tax break for the chance to move back home and create jobs."

That all sounds nice and well, but

  1. individual rural farmers arent common anymore since big business is taking over (Tyson), so there isn't a huge work force to fill.


  1. Is there an income cap on these taxes? I've seen plenty of multi-million dollar homes between here and Olathe, Ottawa, etc. They would be considered rural, but they definitely aren't bringing more jobs.

Success 4 years, 7 months ago

"Part of the tax strategy includes creating rural enterprise zones aimed at revitalizing counties losing population. He proposes to give people moving to rural counties an income tax break for the chance to move back home and create jobs."

How does this fit in with the bio-science initiatives?

Some counties have in migration and have become enterprise zones. Think economic refugees from Central America to work in meat packing plant and other agribusinesses. How do support these new Kansans and not frighten them away with rhetoric about voter fraud....

Set aside that such rhetoric does not indicate a willingness to invest in people who already have moved to rural areas in order to be exploited by such industries so that their profits can leave rural Kansas for urban areas. More than 80% of the children of these economic refugees are U.S. Citizens.

I'm not sure that the knowlege workers of the future bio-science industries will be too keen to "move back home". Oh, that's right we don't want any of those "elitist liberals' destroying our chances for a revitalization of rual life anyway.

"...The key in my estimation is to do wise things that make sense on a long-term basis and not to do things that are an overreach or the people don't overall support," Brownback said.

Set aside the laughable proposition that the new Gov will manage to introduce a plan that will at the same time reduce taxes and maintain or increase funding for education. I assume that by "education" the Gov elect means K-12. Where's the money going to come from, if not from taxes. I am concerned that reducing state funding for human services will eventually erode the capacity of schools to effectively provide a suitable education.

I'm speaking hear about the investments KS has made in early childhood over the past 10 years. In many respects, KS is the envy of other states with respect to the systems that prepare children 0-6 years of age to enter schoool ready to learn. The return on these investments has been shown over and over again. These returns accrue to our public education system in the form of lower costs for remediation, challenging behaviors, special education, etc. Kansas has come far and has miles to go before we can rest in this regard. I sincerely hope that wisdom will prevail!!

notajayhawk 4 years, 7 months ago

'But ... but ... but ... how is he going to cut taxes without cutting spending????????'

Well, for a start, income tax revenues are not correlated with income tax rates, but with income tax base. Cuts to the tax rate which grow the tax base do not decrease revenues. Which, if you had read the story, is exactly what the rate cuts are targeted at doing.

And you guys in Lawrence are supposed to be the smart ones.

Jimo 4 years, 7 months ago


Do another another trick! Please!! Maybe something involving feeding a multitude with seven loaves of bread and a few fishes.


Some people so very much want to believe, Agent Mulder, but Economist Scully cries b/s.

notajayhawk 4 years, 7 months ago

Awww, da widdle boy is sooo easiwy amused.

Show me where tax revenues are correlated with tax rates, Jimo.

Oh, that's right, you can't, and as usual, you're just laughing out of your posterior.

Tell ya' what, skippy, let's see if - for once - you can answer a very simple question. Not a long diatribe of what your economics 'experts' say would have happened, not your usual twists and spins and distractions and evasions, not your usual lies, just answer a very simple question:

After the Bush tax cuts, did federal revenues increase or decrease?

Jimo 4 years, 7 months ago

The Bush tax cuts lead to the great economic collapse in living memory destroying a dozen trillion dollars of wealth and leading to massive shortfalls in tax revenue at every governmental level, a stock market that failed to increase value in a decade and a middle class demonstrably poorer than when Turd-Blossom took office.

This in contrast to the consequences of the Clinton tax increases, which produced so much revenue that not only was the budget balanced but government at every level began paying down past debts.

As one prominent GOP economist put it just this week: " It turns out that there was no miracle of economic growth, productivity and prosperity over the last several decades -- even if Wall Street stock peddlers and Republican orators still cling to that illusion. What we had, instead, was serial bubble after bubble -- fueled by a tsunami of public and private debt and printing-press money."

notajayhawk 4 years, 7 months ago


How did I know you couldn't answer a simple question?

Let's try again: "After the Bush tax cuts, did federal revenues increase or decrease?"

If this is simpler for you, let's try this one: Which is higher, the $1,783B in federal revenues in 2003, or the $1,880B in 2004? Or the $2,154B in 2005? Or the $2,407 in 2006?

Instead of repeating the blather of a bunch of economic "experts" who tell you what those revenues 'otherwise would have been', please try answering the question I asked, which is what actually happened? In this particular instance, I made no claim, nor do I particularly care, whether the cuts were responsible for the increase. And in this particular case, I made no claim, nor do I particularly care, as to whether revenues would have been higher or lower without the cuts. Because the only claim I made here, little one, is that revenues were higher. The hand-wringers above (and, apparently, yourself) are all crying that if the income tax rates are cut, education (among other things) can not possibly be funded at current levels. This is the only point I was addressing and it is patently untrue. And the historical evidence - not the theories of those who offer opinions as to what might have happened - demonstrates that it is entirely possible for tax rates to be cut without revenues falling by a single dollar.

When I ask you whether it's night-time or daytime, jimmie-boy, I don't need an explanation from whatever astrophysics expert you read in school last week explaining the principles behind why the earth rotates on its axis. But you are one of those pseudo-intellectuals who, if that book had told you it should be night, would look up at the sun and say it must be night-time.

wildcat88 4 years, 6 months ago

These are great numbers but it does not tell any thing to anyone except those of you with an agenda. How does the numbers look in the years in which the tax rate increased? The answer... the numbers went up every year during the Clinton administration without any tax breaks. You can call people names all you want but your numbers are a tiny snapshot. Look at the numbers for the final year of Bush, tax cuts were in place and the economy was already tanking. If tax cuts were the answer then we should eliminate them altogether. See what the does to government revenue and government serves. CUT CUT CUT. broken record. I believe we called it trick down in Reagan time and it did not work then either. Your reply is short sighted and limited at best. Review the complete picture or none at all.

notajayhawk 4 years, 6 months ago

"How does the numbers look in the years in which the tax rate increased?"

A question - did the tax base also increase every year during the Clinton presidency? Because that was the claim I made, wasn't it? That tax revenues are correlated with tax base, not tax rate?

But thank you for that additional information - which proved my point.

Okay, read slowly and see if you can follow along.

See, wildcat, first, in the years immediately following the Bush tax cuts, the tax rate went down, and the tax base increased. Revenues also increased - so which of the two variables is correlated with revenues?

As you pointed out, revenues increased when Clinton raised the tax rates. They also increased when Bush lowered the tax rates. So, um, if revenues increased when the rates went up, and also increased when the rates went down, how, again, are revenues correlated with tax rates?

Perhaps this little passage - from the post immediately preceding yours, which presumably you were attempting to respond to - will help:

"In this particular instance, I made no claim, nor do I particularly care, whether the cuts were responsible for the increase. And in this particular case, I made no claim, nor do I particularly care, as to whether revenues would have been higher or lower without the cuts."

The only 2 claims I made in my original post were that 1) tax revenues are correlated with tax base, not tax rate - which you just proved; and 2) that it is entirely possible to cut the tax rates without revenues decreasing by a single dollar below current levels.

Please do try to read the posts before replying.

(Oh, BTW - those who claim the Bush tax cuts cost us money we would have otherwise had are spouting nothing more than untestable theory, and don't tell us anything except to those of you with an agenda.)

jafs 4 years, 7 months ago

Actually, mathematically there is a point.

If you increase the taxable revenue by a certain amount, and decrease the tax rate, you will at some point break even. 10% of $100=5% of $200.

But, given a potential shortfall of $500 million, and the fact that the state is not funding education at the level it's supposed to right now, revenue would have to skyrocket to achieve a balanced budget without any cuts.

"Protecting" education will undoubtedly not translate into funding education at the level established as "adequate" by the legislature and the Supreme Court.

I'll wait and see, but I'll be very surprised if he doesn't wind up cutting education and social service funding.

Jimo 4 years, 7 months ago

As you have so often demonstrated, you are unable to name a single reputable economist who can support your faith-based accounting.

Sir, you're free to your religious beliefs but when you show up on my doorstep seeking to push your voodooism on me as fact, that's when I call my Doberman named "Peacemaker" and tell him to chase your Moonie ass off my property.

notajayhawk 4 years, 7 months ago

"faith n. 1. strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence"

Let's see - I gave you the numbers, reported by the treasury, of what actually happened. You prefer to believe what someone tells you would have happened, based on theory that can not be tested, let alone proven.

And I'm the one using "faith-based accounting".




Jimo 4 years, 6 months ago

What? You gave numbers showing tax receipts from the bottom of an economic trough to the top and then (A) claimed voodoo was the cause and (B) ignored the drop off the cliff that followed.

You also ignored the far - FAR - larger increase in revenues that followed the Clinton tax increases (for the obvious reason that it contradicts your religion). At the risk of quoting a communist - it matters not (to me) whether the cat is black or white but whether it catches mice. Your cat not only doesn't catch mice, your cat is dead and already half decayed.

Oh, and your discussion of the tax base only proves you don't even understand how taxes work. The statement: "income tax revenues are not correlated with income tax rates" is about the most stupid thing anyone including yourself has said in a long time. It is self-evidently false. Schoolchildren laugh at you more loudly than at that Nevada nitwit claiming she was an Asian legislator. What you meant to say - or more likely what the person you're plagiarizing was saying - is that tax revenues can increase despite tax rate decreases if you broaden the tax base a lot. True enough - but beside the point. That doesn't mean that there isn't a correlation, and one that a high school calculus student could calculate with ease. Heck, the Laffer Curve is premised on the truth that there -- IS -- a close correlation between tax rates and tax revenues. ROFL!! Just blew coffee out my nose You can't even plagiarize competently.

Sorry, but you keep saying things that reveal that you don't even understand the question. But then again, how would some low level logistics or purchasing clerk know otherwise especially when approaching the topic with a closed mind and a fear of "experts"? Everyone knows that the crowing of the rooster causes the rising of the sun! Just watch!!

notajayhawk 4 years, 6 months ago

It was my question, skippy. That's rich - you give convoluted answers having to do with the history of electricity and the discovery of the electron when someone asks you if the lights are on, and I'M the one that doesn't "even understand the question".




"The statement: "income tax revenues are not correlated with income tax rates" is about the most stupid thing anyone including yourself has said in a long time."

As you pointed out yourself in one such previous exchange, skippy, tax revenues have remained fairly constant over time as a percentage of GDP. Um - how come they weren't significantly higher when the tax rates were up to 90%? And, um, skippy? How do you reconcile the statement above with your previous statement that I "gave numbers showing tax receipts from the bottom of an economic trough to the top"? Hmmm - so, when it's convenient to you, the increase in revenues was due to an increase in the tax base, but when it's not, it's because of the tax rate. Oh, BTW, skip - did the tax base also increase during the time revenues increased during Clinton's presidency?

"then (A) claimed voodoo was the cause"

You really should get some help reading the posts before trying to respond to them, skip. Which part of "In this particular instance, I made no claim, nor do I particularly care, whether the cuts were responsible for the increase" did you have trouble with?

I asked a simple question, little one. One that anyone - except obviously you - could have given a simple answer to. So just keep sputtering away, just keep telling yourself how gosh-dang smart you are because the question you couldn't answer must not have been understood by the questioner. Maybe your imaginary friends will all PM you and tell you how smart you are.

SnakeFist 4 years, 6 months ago

If cutting tax rates increases tax revenues, then a tax rate of zero should maximize revenues. Sounds simple, why hasn't anyone else thought of this?

Thats_messed_up 4 years, 7 months ago

If He cuts education, does that mean He's closing the new limestone stadiums at Free State and Lawrence High?? Ooohhhh please nooooo! The poor kiddies!

wildcat88 4 years, 6 months ago

Those were locally funded, not State funded. I would assume that they voted for a bond to approve that money. The State provided the daily operating expenses and those have been cut substantially over the last three years.

slowplay 4 years, 7 months ago

I think he's regurgitating the standard "Now that I'm in office I will change the world" speech. Most of the fat has already been trimmed so something has got to give. He's never been a real proponent of education so I doubt we will see anything drastic (other than more cuts) in that area. If he reduces taxes something has got to go. I don't think he even knows what that will be at this point.

notajayhawk 4 years, 7 months ago

"I think he's regurgitating the standard "Now that I'm in office I will change the world" speech."

Like 'Hope and Change', you mean?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years, 7 months ago

If he does cut income taxes, one thing we will not see in a few years is how or whether that actually had any effect on job creation or any stimulation of the economy.

Whether the economy continues to tank or whether it rebounds, no matter how much taxes are cut in the incoming session, Brownback and the Republicans will still be clamoring for more tax cuts (for the wealthy anyway) while cutting back services for the most vulnerable, and the least politically well-connected (ie, those who aren't the Koch brothers.)

Republican politicians love beating other people's heads against the wall.

notajayhawk 4 years, 7 months ago

"People don't want to live that far away from culture, shopping, etc."

I dunno. You live in Lawrence, don't you?

phoggyjay 4 years, 7 months ago

Just wondering... do you actually live in Lawrence, or Kansas for that matter? Since you are not a jayhawk, why do you even care what goes on in this city? Do you comment on any Connecticut newspaper sites or just busy yourself with our affairs. It seems all you do is cut people down for your own pleasure.

notajayhawk 4 years, 7 months ago

No, and yes. Because I love messing with the people that think Lawrence is such a hotbed of intellectualism and culture, and that everyone outside the hallowed city limits must be lacking in those qualities - I hate to break it to people like eddie, but Lawrence is a lot closer to Eudora than, say, New York, in a lot more ways than mileage.

ralphralph 4 years, 7 months ago

Are we still paying Rod Bremby?

That would be a good place to start the cuts.

timetospeakup 4 years, 6 months ago

Huge swaths of the dept of commerce are a total waste of resources too.

Jimo 4 years, 7 months ago

So, to summarize:

The State is in the hole half a BILLION dollars and the new Gov's #1 priority is how to reduce revenues.

And reduce revenues from the one tax LEAST likely to matter to the typical Kansan!

All under some cockamamie theory that someone from a high-tax place like Boston or San Francisco will move to some place like Gove County, Kansas, to soak up the vast cultural offerings that a low-tax state like Kansas offers.

Isn't this a movie? Eat Pray Gove?

ralphralph 4 years, 7 months ago

Funny you would mention the "G-word". Gove is getting a new 17-mile "highway-to-nowhere" as part of the stimulus. Really. Out of all the possible infrastructure needs that might promote economic growth and activity (which would generate tax revenue ... the end-all, after all), our Gub'munt chose that critical K-18 trade corridor from Gove to the Lane county line. Stimulus in a vacuum.

I'm guessing the new, stimulated K-18 may generate traffic counts that exceed even those of the soon-to-be-built (with Stimulus funds) "pedestrian bridge to nowhere" on US75 north of Lyndon, which will impede commerce and increase risk to death to motorists in order to provide safe overhead transit to non-existent travelers on the rail-trail from nowhere to nowhere else --- apparently these travelers are capable of hiking 117 miles, but not capable of crossing a road. What a squanderfest!

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years, 7 months ago

Make sure your local congressperson knows that in future all stimulus spending should be spent only on projects that directly benefit you.

Jimo 4 years, 7 months ago

Did you have a comment about my comment? Or do you just randomly put your foot in your mouth about highways you've misplaced by 50 miles? K-18 begins somewhat east (and north) of Gove and runs east.

Perhaps you're thinking of K-23 - the K-23 that was one of the most dangerous, limited roads in the state despite the fact that it carries 40,000 trucks hauling several hundred million dollars of agricultural produce every year.

Excellent project. $7 million well spent. Food on the table for needy workers and we get upgrade a 1930s road. We need many, many more like it.

Maybe you'd be happier in a third-world country where there are no roads and farmers can't get their product to market. Are you sure you're in the right country?

Richard Heckler 4 years, 7 months ago

Privatized schools eh?

How will that save money and produce a respectable education?

Richard Heckler 4 years, 7 months ago

If tax cuts produced jobs and new industry then Kansas and the USA would be in job overflow.

This tax cuts produce jobs and new industry line has no foundation aka where is the hard evidence?

Brownback is still on the campaign trail.

Richard Heckler 4 years, 7 months ago

These three items also give me pause as to why the conservatives are expected to prove themselves as economic whiz kids:

  1. The Reagan/ Bush Savings and Loan Heist( millions out of work)

"There are several ways in which the Bush family plays into the Savings and Loan scandal, which involves not only many members of the Bush family but also many other politicians that are still in office and were part of the Bush Jr. administration.

Jeb Bush, George Bush Sr., and his son Neil Bush have all been implicated in the Savings and Loan Scandal, which cost American tax payers over $1.4 TRILLION dollars (note that this was about one quarter of our national debt").

The Reagan/Bush savings and loan heist was considered the largest theft in history at the time. George Herbert Walker Bush then took $1.4 trillion of taxpayers money to cover the theft.

  1. The Bush/Cheney Wall Street Bank Fraud on Consumers(millions out of work)

Yes, substantial fraud was involved. For example, mortgage companies and banks used deceit to get people to take on mortgages when there was no possibility that the borrowers would be able to meet the payments. Not only was this fraud, but this fraud depended on government authorities(Bush admin) ignoring their regulatory responsibilities."

  1. Only 3 major Financial Institutions were at risk in spite of what we’re told ?

"There were just a handful of institutions that were terribly weakened. AIG the insurer, Bank of America and Citigroup, Those three were clearly in very weakened form. Many of the other big banks simply were not.

Flap Doodle 4 years, 6 months ago

Again and again and again with the same old stuff.

kernal 4 years, 7 months ago

By all means, let's get those tax reductions rolling again. They are sooo large and mean sooo much to us, the Middle Class. Why, I can buy a Snickers bar when I get mine! Woohoo!

guavablues 4 years, 7 months ago

The shortfall will raise our property taxes to keep schools functioning. Great logic.

Cait McKnelly 4 years, 6 months ago

“The individual income tax is, probably of any thing, the most sensitive area to growth,” Brownback said. “What I’m interested in is reducing those taxes that hinder growth in Kansas, and not all tax cuts are created equal when it comes to growth policies.”

In other words, unless you make more than 250k/year or have "Inc" after your name, your screwed.

zzgoeb 4 years, 6 months ago

Ah yes, more "magical thinking" from Republicans!!! We'll cut taxes, cut services, lower the deficit, but NOT cut defense spending, or Social Security or what a load!!! Sam is on the right track; eliminate income tax on working class people, make millionaires and corporations pay the same rate as the middle class(18-33%), and any new big businesses that can improve the infrastructure, create quality permanent jobs, after 5 years get a big break.

trinity 4 years, 6 months ago

good to see somebody else knows a bit of the brownbozo backstory. wonder how big of a rock he's going to need to keep his stupid drunken brother out of trouble/the spotlight...

Stu Clark 4 years, 6 months ago

Good luck, Kansans. The cutting taxes while fixing education claim didn't fly too well in CA. We'll be watching you to show us how it's done.

Centerville 4 years, 6 months ago

What is it with liberals and taxes? And what's with all the hand-wringing about keeping the government in velvet? What's so appealing to liberals about making everyone else give more and more of their lives to a growing gang of petty bureaucrats. Weird. Creepy.

Jaminrawk 4 years, 6 months ago

No, let's just give our lives to the richest 1% that failed under Bush when they were getting all of those tax cuts and the actual tax burden fell on the middle and lower classes. It's only been 2 years, let's let them have another crack at it.

notajayhawk 4 years, 6 months ago

Well, let's see - other than the fact that the Bush tax cuts gave three times as much to the non-rich as to the rich, and that the income tax burden actually shifted more heavily to the top wage earners following the cuts, that was g good comment.

SnakeFist 4 years, 6 months ago

I'm sure the only thing keeping people from moving to Kansas are the tax rates.

One good thing about the recent election is that republicans are in absolute control of Kansas - which means they have no one to blame if (when) they fail.

jafs 4 years, 6 months ago

It will be interesting to see whether any Republicans will be willing to accept that.

Personally, I'm interested more in outcomes than partisan rhetoric, so if their policies work, that will be great.

But, if they don't, will they be able to acknowledge that?

Jaminrawk 4 years, 6 months ago

Is there any doubt in Kansas that all it takes to get elected is promoting the 2nd Amendment, a pro-life stance and publically rallying against the "Obama agenda" and Nancy Pelosi? But seriously, what ACTUAL solutions for the state of Kansas have we heard? It seems like a majority of the conservative voters in Kansas are really only voting on a couple of issues that have very little to do with budget shortfalls, unemployment and education (AKA the most important investment in this country's future).

wildcat88 4 years, 6 months ago

I am sorry but I do not choose where to live based on the income tax rate. If fact, I am more likely to take a $80K job at 50% tax than a $60K job at 33% even though my income remains the same after tax. I do not see how this helps to draw employment.

Read between the lines. "More flexibility to use reserve funds to pay operational expenses" means that he is going to cut State funding and require districts to use their emergency reserves. The problem with that strategy is once the districts use the emergency reserves, there is nothing left and the problem returns one year later. This is the definition of short sighted.

deec 4 years, 6 months ago

Oh, come on. We all know them conservatives only care about them babies until they get borned.

8muddyboots 4 years, 6 months ago

Now I been travelin' all around, And I heard troubles come to your town. I've got a little something, Guaranteed to soothe your mind.

'S called Snake Oil y'all It's been around for a long long time.

yourworstnightmare 4 years, 6 months ago

The GOP election strategy panders to the worst in people.

For 30 years the GOP have promised to cut taxes and to reduce spending, but they never seem to get around to the cutting spending part. That would make people who receive entitlements very angry and they would not vote GOP.

So, the GOP asks nothing of people in return for all sorts of goodies like roads and social security and medicare and wars. Sweet deal. Its been a 30 year joy ride for the GOP, and has also resulted in a huge budget deficit.

That old magic still works, apparently, as the GOP promised tax cuts and spending cuts again and were successful in the election.

Tom McCune 4 years, 6 months ago

... and I can name that tune in no notes! Why do people listed to this stuff?

Commenting has been disabled for this item.