Advertisement

Archive for Monday, September 10, 2012

Brownback defends tax cuts as necessary to grow the economy

Jean Shepherd, of Lawrence, holds a sign asking “Who would Jesus tax?” as people file into the Lied Center to hear Gov. Sam Brownback speak Monday.

Jean Shepherd, of Lawrence, holds a sign asking “Who would Jesus tax?” as people file into the Lied Center to hear Gov. Sam Brownback speak Monday.

September 10, 2012

Advertisement

Gov. Sam Brownback on Monday told approximately 1,200 people at the Lied Center that population and job growth were his primary goals in signing into law massive tax cuts.

Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback speaks to an audience about Kansas’ population growth Monday at the Lied Center. The talk, which was part of the Anderson Chandler Lecture Series, focused on economic growth and tax policy in Kansas.

Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback speaks to an audience about Kansas’ population growth Monday at the Lied Center. The talk, which was part of the Anderson Chandler Lecture Series, focused on economic growth and tax policy in Kansas.

“I want to win our league,” Brownback said at the Kansas University School of Business Anderson Chandler Lecture Series.

“We are trying to create a pro-growth environment,” said Brownback, a Republican who took office in January 2011.

Outside, a group of about 15 people from the Douglas County Democratic Party held signs that said, “Who Would Jesus Tax?” and “I’d Like a Koch To Buy the World,” a reference to the Koch brothers, leaders of the Wichita-based Koch Industries and financial backers of groups that espouse tax cuts.

Margie Wakefield, vice chair of the Douglas County Democrats, said Brownback’s tax cut “takes from the poor and gives to the rich.”

“The middle class shouldn’t have to pay for tax cuts for the millionaires and billionaires,” protester Patricia Brooks said.

Earlier this year, Brownback signed into law sweeping tax cuts that will reduce state individual income tax rates and exempt the owners of nearly 200,000 partnerships, sole proprietorships and other businesses from income taxes.

Brownback says the tax cuts will stimulate the economy and create jobs, but critics say the cuts are reckless and unfair, and will result in cuts to schools and other government functions. Legislative researchers say the cuts will produce a cumulative budget shortfall of $2.5 billion over the next six years.

On Monday, Brownback defended the cuts, using charts and graphs.

He said Kansas has been falling behind the region and the rest of the country in population and private sector jobs.

He said more government spending was not the answer.

“I think we have tried that, and it hasn’t worked,” Brownback said.

Brownback said when he took office, the state was facing a projected $500 million shortfall, and now state coffers have rebounded to create a $500 million ending balance. “We did it without raising taxes,” he said. Brownback did not mention the one-cent temporary state sales tax increase that his predecessor Gov. Mark Parkinson, a Democrat, pushed through that helped the rebound.

During a question and answer session, an audience member asked Brownback what cuts would have to be made to make up for the lost tax revenue.

Brownback promised to protect “core services,” which he said were public schools, Medicaid and prisons.

He said the tax cuts will produce 23,000 new jobs, give Kansans $2 billion more in disposable income and add 35,000 in population. If a downturn in the economy occurs, Brownback said he and the Legislature will deal with it, just as has been done in the past.

“We will take it as it comes, as we already have,” he said.

Michael Johnson, 54, prefaced his question with a long list of criticisms of actions by Brownback. Brownback said he understood that some don’t agree with his policies but said the best thing to do for people in need is give them an opportunity to get a job.

Comments

deec 2 years, 3 months ago

"I want to win our league," Brownback said at the Kansas University School of Business Anderson Chandler Lecture Series. "

Really? Really? So what, the state of Kansas is like a football team or something? Which league is Kansas in, anyway?

fu7il3 2 years, 3 months ago

It was actually a comment referring to a comment someone had about competition between states for residents and jobs, referring to states in the area (Missouri, Colorado, Nebraska). It was actually a sort of clever line. I had to give it to him on that one, and I'm not even a republican. The article takes it way out of context and doesn't really do it justice.

1southernjayhawk 2 years, 3 months ago

exactly. LJW, can't you do better than Rothschild? Everyone knows how biased he is.

Katara 2 years, 3 months ago

Kansas is in the...

wait for it... wait for it... wait for it...

THE FARM LEAGUE!

/you know it's true

bad_dog 2 years, 3 months ago

Soon to be "a league of their own"...

question4u 2 years, 3 months ago

"If a downturn in the economy occurs, Brownback said he and the Legislature will deal with it, just as has been done in the past."

In other words slash and burn, only this time the cuts will have to be enormous. A multi-billion-dollar deficit is projected even without a downturn in the economy.

But we can trust Brownback. After all, he predicted that horseback tourism was about to "pop" in the Flint Hills. It's been great seeing all of those horse trailers with California license plates. He also predicted that other states would follow as soon as Kansas eliminated the Arts Commission. That's probably going to happen any day now. He endorsed Rick Perry in the primaries. Rick will definitely be in the oval office next year...oops. Yes, Brownback has an excellent record of predicting the future.

tomatogrower 2 years, 3 months ago

And he invited Gotts to move to Kansas and run for office. And he hired someone whose degree was from a phony university.

Richard Heckler 2 years, 3 months ago

Does anyone remember when Ronald Reagan was running about the country ranting…

Are you better off now, than you were 4 years ago??

Reagan asked that question, the won and by the time he and GHW Bush were finished millions upon millions were out of jobs and many had to come out of retirement because the Savings and Loan scam put their retirement money up in smoke. A lot of people lost their homes about this time. People in their 60's and older don't get hired easily.

GW Bush and Cheney pulled off a repeat performance. ......

And republicans have the gall to put forth this question? Excuse me....

How many republicans and democrats can afford another hit on real estate values or lose another job if one has been lucky enough to become employed once again?

Can anyone on the planet afford this gang of repeat offenders?

This THEFT ENTITLEMENT – Bailing out The Reagan/Bush Savings and Loan Heist aka home loan scandal sent the economy out the window costing taxpayers many many $$ trillions (Cost taxpayers $1.4 trillion), Plus millions of jobs, loss of retirement plans and loss of medical insurance. http://rationalrevolution0.tripod.com/war/bush_family_and_the_s.htm

This THEFT ENTITLEMENT - BROWNBACK was there!!!!! Bailing out the Bush/Cheney Home Loan Wall Street Bank Fraud cost consumers trillions of $$$, millions of jobs, loss of retirement plans and loss of medical insurance. Exactly like the Reagan/Bush home loan scam. Déjà vu can we say. Yep seems to be a pattern. http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2009/0709macewan.html

This THEFT ENTITLEMENT Bush/Cheney implied many financial institutions were at risk instead of only 3? One of the biggest lies perpetrated to American citizens. Where did this money go? Why were some banks forced to take bail out money? http://www.democracynow.org/2009/9/10/good_billions_after_bad_one_year

1southernjayhawk 2 years, 3 months ago

merrill, not even close to an accurate accounting of the reagan or bush years.

Richard Heckler 2 years, 3 months ago

Brownback is preaching Reaganomics aka Wrecknomics! It has never worked and Brownback blows tax dollars big time. He is the epitome of reckless spending.

Brownback thinks putting people out of work grows the economy = dumb economics

Brownback is only looking out for himself. He is a selfish man.

And he is dangerous because he wants a one party government just like Hitler.

Richard Heckler 2 years, 3 months ago

"Earlier this year, Brownback signed into law sweeping tax cuts that will reduce state individual income tax rates and exempt the owners of nearly 200,000 partnerships, sole proprietorships and other businesses from income taxes.

Brownback says the tax cuts will stimulate the economy and create jobs, but critics say the cuts are reckless and unfair, and will result in cuts to schools and other government functions. Legislative researchers say the cuts will produce a cumulative budget shortfall of $2.5 billion over the next six years."

Brownback just wants to give more of OUR tax dollars to Corporate America the most reliable source of fraud.

Gareth Skarka 2 years, 3 months ago

We've been running on Reaganomics for 30 years, Brownie. Taxes are lower now than they've been in 50 YEARS -- so why isn't the economy growing, genius?

If only this guy knew as much about governance and economics as he does about Opus Dei Ritual and doing whatever the Koch Brothers tell him to do....

chootspa 2 years, 3 months ago

But he hired Art Laffer and everything! Oh, and he has charts. Charts are very important.

chootspa 2 years, 3 months ago

His chart should have looked like this one. I like pie. I do not like lying liars who lie.

tomatogrower 2 years, 3 months ago

And can someone tell me how to get the photo to appear, instead of a link to the photo?

Katara 2 years, 3 months ago

When you hit reply to the post you want to reply to, there is in the bottom left hand corner "Add photo". Click on that. Click the box (not the tab) that says "browse" and it will allow you to go through photos you have saved on your computer. Then hit submit in the lower left hand corner of that photo box & then post reply.

bad_dog 2 years, 3 months ago

Don't forget he had graphs too. Graphs are so...graphic!

Steve Jacob 2 years, 3 months ago

Remember, just because business get more money due to tax cuts, it does not mean they will hire more people. You own a business to make as much money as you can, not how many people can I employ.

jafs 2 years, 3 months ago

I suspect sometimes that they're deliberately stalling the economy to help get a R elected.

verity 2 years, 3 months ago

I also suspect they're deliberately trying to get rid of the middle class. If you're spending all your time and energy just trying to survive and you're not well educated, you're much easier to control. Until you're pushed too far---

The problem with that is even the very wealthy depend on a vibrant middle class that has enough money to buy stuff. If people don't buy stuff, the economy fails. Seems kind of simple, really.

tbaker 2 years, 3 months ago

Yeah. I see signs of alien probing trauma all over this blog.

jafs 2 years, 3 months ago

If you continue in that fashion, I'll ask you to stop responding to my comments, and stop discussing things with you.

Your choice.

headdoctor 2 years, 3 months ago

Surprise, surprise. Of course he was going to defend his plans. He wasn't going to get up in front of people and declare that he is a religious, Neoliberal nut job and that his plans for Kansas suck.

chootspa 2 years, 3 months ago

Though it would have been a refreshing change if he had. Might have been the first honest words out of his mouth.

chootspa 2 years, 3 months ago

I'm disappointed to hear there were no butt monkeys at this presentation.

chootspa 2 years, 3 months ago

Although they are more likely to create jobs than the governor, they do not qualify.

In an earlier thread, when someone insisted that we must listen to what the governor had to say about his plan before condemning it as foolish and unworkable, I said that it would be entirely possible for job-creating monkeys to fly out of his butt during the presentation. The job monkeys made no appearance, but it seems the governor provided plenty of alternative fiction for our entertainment.

Phillbert 2 years, 3 months ago

He may not have supported Romney, but he's using the same insane math as his party's nominee. You can't protect "core services" and cover a $2.5 billion shortfall. The math simply does not add up.

Dan Eyler 2 years, 3 months ago

Outstanding news coming from the governor. Jobs, we need jobs and we need to create a mood that brings jobs to Kansas. Most of us want to work and we don't want to be another statistic of food stamps, and Medicaid. I am part of the middle class and the only thing that matters to me is lower taxes and opportunity to do better. So many in this state think the middle class is what you deserve. If you're not willing to work for it you somehow still want those who work hard to provide that it to you. Get a job.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 3 months ago

Translation-- "When my governor tells me to hear no evil, see no evil and speak no evil, I just pull out my pom pons and jump around as spastically as I know how."

mom_of_three 2 years, 3 months ago

"If you're not willing to work for it you somehow still want those who work hard to provide that it to you." I think you are off on that, and that is the problem from republicans is that attitude that people want you to provide FOR them. They just want the chance to get it themselves, but sometimes need some assistance getting there in the meantime. This country has always helped those who needed it. But now we begrudge it.

Trumbull 2 years, 3 months ago

I cannot even understand the sentence to begin with.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 3 months ago

Umm, does a $2.5 billion (with a B) budget shortfall mean anything to you?

And get real, the largest portion of this tax cut does not go to middle-class small business owners. The relatively small tax cuts they'll get won't be used to hire new employees. They'll be used to pay the higher local taxes that will be one of the real primary results of this gift to the Koch Bros., et al.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 3 months ago

Actually, these tax cuts will benefit me. But the personal benefits to me will be completely eclipsed by the massive damage it will do to the quality of life for the great majority of Kansans, likely even including you.

tbaker 2 years, 3 months ago

Tax cuts do not create budget shortfalls. Planning to spend money the state doesn't have creates budget shortfalls. Cut back on the spending, budget shortfall problem solved, but thats small potatoes. There is more to this.

Of course let the wailing begin about this or that program people will no longer get. Instead of being sad or angry X or Y group will no longer receive or benefit from some hand-out from the state, ask what is the state doing to help set the most favorable conditions possible for everyone of it’s citizens to find gainful employment, to earn a living, to pay their bills and prosper in life as independent beings without need of government largess.

Cutting taxes (aka; letting the people who worked for it keep more of what they earned) is all well and good, but so far that’s the only club in the bag I’ve heard about. I want to know what else the Government of Kansas can do to enhance everyone’s ability to take care of themselves. Ending the spending and stopping the handouts is just the beginning. Many of those receiving the hand-outs have known nothing but the government teat. How will they be put on the path to self-sufficiency after generations of being handed everything? There is way more to it than just cutting taxes.

If you want to fault the governor for something, lay that one at his feet. Ask how many people are made dependent on the government because of the government.

chootspa 2 years, 3 months ago

"....ask what is the state doing to help set the most favorable conditions possible for everyone of it’s citizens to find gainful employment, to earn a living, to pay their bills and prosper in life as independent beings without need of government largess."

Well, they sent the school kids off to go work in the fabric mill, and then they put a mop on granny's walker and told her to start scrubbing. She'll get her medicine when the floor is clean. No government teats. It's the Christian way.

travbo24 2 years, 3 months ago

23,000 new jobs and 35,000 new residents = 12,000 more unemployed people by my math every time!! Can we get rid of this guy?

Topple 2 years, 3 months ago

Didn't catch that...wish someone had pointed that out at the meeting.

bad_dog 2 years, 3 months ago

35,000 new residents doesn't necessarily equate to they are all of legal working age.

Nevertheless they should all get off their butts and get a job.

sarcasm

tbaker 2 years, 3 months ago

You are a great example of the kind of intellect produced by government schools. Classic example of the Post Hoc Fallacy.

jafs 2 years, 3 months ago

I hope people aren't fooled by his promises to "protect core services", since he made those same promises while campaigning, and has already cut both education and social service funding.

In addition, he is in the process of privatizing Medicaid, which is extremely likely to wind up reducing services, and not saving the state any money, while funneling tons of money into private insurance companies.

While doing this, the state has said to those in the DD field that clients can retain their case management when the transition occurs, but now says they have no idea what the companies will do in that regard.

Since the state has the money, and is employing the companies to manage Medicaid, they could certainly include language in the contracts specifying that - apparently they aren't interested in doing so.

No other state has included DD services in their privatized Medicaid experiments - there must be a reason for that.

seriouscat 2 years, 3 months ago

There is also the problem of services already being so bad that the Feds have had to come in and investigate. Disabled people around this state languish on waiting lists for YEARS.

tbaker 2 years, 3 months ago

Come now Jafs, just because funding for something has been reduced does not mean the government function has ceased. List for me exactly what will no longer be done as a result of the funding reductions and then we can discuss whether or not they fall into the "core services" category.

The State Constitution is the master list of core saervices in my view. Tell me what state function - mandated by the state constitution - has / will stop happening as a result of funding reductions?

jafs 2 years, 3 months ago

In what universe are the words "protect" synonymous with cutting funding? When somebody campaigns on a promise to "protect" education and social services, and then almost immediately cuts funding for both of those once elected, I'd say they have a lack of integrity.

Education will not cease, but it will suffer, and become worse - the state has a constitutional responsibility to fund education at a "suitable" level, and as determined by their own studies on the matter, they are failing to do that. Hence the judgement of a court that they are not living up to their responsibilities.

I note you fail to respond to most of my post.

If I have time/energy, I'll look up the state constitution - in the meantime, as I've mentioned, privatizing Medicaid will almost certainly decrease services, and/or the quality of those.

jafs 2 years, 3 months ago

In my dictionary, the word protect means to prevent injury, not just death.

If I promise to protect you, and then break your arm, I can't claim to have protected you simply because you're still alive.

By cutting funding, Brownback (and the legislature) are harming education, which is the opposite of protecting it. And, I predict, sadly, that privatizing Medicaid will also harm that program, as it has in other states. Services will suffer, private companies will make large profits, and the state will not actually save money.

tbaker 2 years, 3 months ago

In the context of budgets, “protect” means to make sure the government keeps doing something, but does it more efficiently resulting in necessary cost savings because the amount of money being spent on the service has been reduced.

As I said: What government service will cease to function? If you cannot list the things the spending reductions will cause to stop happening, then your objection to the spending reductions is nothing more than the customary knee-jerk reaction people of your political world view tend to demonstrate when elected officials reduce spending.

Having ideologically-based discussions with you however, is like wrestling with a pig; you get hot, tired, and muddy and the pig enjoys it. Lets instead have a substantive discussion about whether or not a government service is a “core function” with a solid constitutional basis.

By the way, you have to define "suffer." What does that mean? How many teachers will be laid off? How many schools will close? Will it cause the student to teacher ratio to increase? By how much? Will it result in some pending new-hire to not happen? Will the number of light bulbs have to be reduced in the classroom? Can we tie these funding reductions to lower test scores? Higher drop-out rate? Lower graduation rate? Is there a relationbship that can be conclusively demonstrated? See what I mean?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 3 months ago

" What government service will cease to function?"

That's easy-- the ones that don't benefit the Koch Bros., et al.

"By the way, you have to define "suffer." "

Give me a break. You couldn't care less, as all you care about is your precious ideology.

jafs 2 years, 3 months ago

I'm going to tell you again - if you keep on this path of insults, I'll stop talking with you.

That's not what most people would understand that word to mean, and even people who voted for Brownback are unhappy with these actions.

My objection is partly due to his lack of integrity, and partly due to my support of public education and services for the developmentally disabled, etc.

I mentioned education twice, and pointed out that a court has ruled that the legislature is failing to live up to it's constitutional obligation to fund education at a "suitable" level as determined by their own studies on the matter.

That's pretty much a "core function" with a solid constitutional basis, as far as I can tell.

In other states that have privatized Medicaid services, the quality of those has declined as well.

I also note again that this administration first said to those working with the developmentally disabled that their clients would be able to retain their current case management after the transition, and is now saying they have no idea what the companies will do in that regard.

Again, a lack of integrity, as well as a lack of interest in including some criteria in the contract, which is obviously within their power to do.

tbaker 2 years, 3 months ago

Point out the insult Jafs. Was it the pig wrestling reference? That was intended to be humorous. Don’t get thin-skinned on me. You no longer replying to me just mean my retorts to what you write will go unanswered.

You didn’t quantify anything, which means this is an ideological (vice substantive) discussion. I’m not going to change your ideology, and you are not going to change mine, that’s why I wanted to talk about substance. Objecting to the spending reductions is just ideological. It is no more valid than my supporting spending reductions on the same basis.

Speaking of, I would urge you to do some fact checking and support the belief that people (like me) who tend to prefer economic decisions be made by free people making their own choices in the market are somehow not as compassionate as people who prefer that those decisions be made by politicians. I strongly believe that government should help people who have been overcome by unforeseeable misfortune in life. This is fundamentally different than the scenario where government hand-outs have led to dependency and turned into a way of life for a person. Wining votes among the gullible / vulnerable is morally repugnant, but of course that is the bottom line for welfare state politicians.

What if it can be demonstrated that spending tax money on a government program really isn’t making the problem better? I would be curious to know how successful to date the programs that will have to be stopped / diminished by the funding reductions have been. If history is any teacher there is nothing quite so permanent as a government program. This would be a good time to weed the garden and get rid of failed government spending. If it is not achieving what it was designed to achieve, why keep spending money on it?

Maybe we re-direct the money and reinforce success? Lets say the same audit reveals some programs that are working. For example, recent research shows that the most effective way to prevent / reduce child poverty is….not some government program. It’s marriage. Lets measure the rate of single parent households and lets assume they have increased or stayed the same in spite of the spending on this social ill. What if we re-directed all the tax money currently spent on programs for single parents into a big tax credit for married people with kids? What if we jacked up the deduction for kids and did things with tax policy that encouraged marriage and let people keep more of what they earn and decided how to use that money themselves? Instead of incentivizing single-parenthood with a permanent dependency on hand-outs that have been shown to be ineffective, how about we limit how long someone can draw the hand-out and make it financially attractive to find a spouse and become self-sufficient? Isn’t self-sufficiency the ultimate goal? Aren’t a job and a paycheck the best kind of social program? Isn’t “successful” government spending something we should be paying attention to?

Bob_Keeshan 2 years, 3 months ago

Note that Brownback is attempting to blame the inevitable budget shortfalls on a downturn in the economy.

The most optimistic budget projections, which rely on steady economic growth, project a $2.5 billion shortfall. The governor and the legislature aren't going to slash budgets because of a poor economy, they are going to have to slash budgets during a good economy because of their own poor choices.

Why can't Brownback own ALL of his tax plan? He only wants to own the tax cuts, he wants to blame the spending cuts on someone else.

Armen Kurdian 2 years, 3 months ago

States with high tax rates are nearing bankrupcy, especially California. States with low tax rates are doing much better than they were, like Ohio & New Jersey. The Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 helped to create millions of new jobs. That is an absolute and undisuptible fact. Reagan's tax cuts and tax reform helped create millions of new jobs as well. These were jobs above and beyond what would normally be expected from a recovery. You CANNOT tax and spend yourself into prosperity. It is fundamentally impossible. After the recession of 2001 ended and the 9/11 attacks, we started created jobs at the rate of several hundred thousand per month, reaching peaks of nearly 500K per month, and a peak GDP annualized growth rate of 8.8%. Then the housing bubble burst (for which EVERYONE is to blame, including both parties, banks, lenders, appraisers, all the way down to the guy who took out the loan he had no business applying for), and that caused massive job losses in GW Bush's last year. Those job losses had ZERO to do with the tax cuts.

Honest to goodness, you lefties really, really need to understand history. Economic success is not a first order equation of higher taxes --> higher spending --> more growth.

chootspa 2 years, 3 months ago

California can't raise it's own taxes without a 60% majority thanks to prop 13, which was passed in 1978. They've been treading water with deficit spending ever since --- without the power to print their own currency. Their fall has been inevitable and is not due to high taxes. Quite the opposite in fact. Now get back to me when you understand history. And math.

Peacemaker452 2 years, 3 months ago

Prop 13 did not contain any mandatory spending measures so how is it causing deficit spending? You do understand that the “power to print their own currency” would not improve their finances, don’t you?

chootspa 2 years, 3 months ago

True. California could have made due by refusing federal education funds and the regulations that come with it. Because those often do mandate spending. As do state programs for poverty relief and food assistance. The feds chip in some of the money, but the state has to do the rest. They could have told hospitals to get lost unless they were located in an area with enough high income or insured population to fund the continued operation. They could have let the roads and infrastructure crumble, or made a ton of other tough and unpopular choices instead of paying for services they were actually using. The Governator got through a recall election over funding and chose instead to borrow even more and actually cut taxes. Did it work?

And yes, the ability of a sovereign nation to print their own money does change the math. California should never have been allowed to go into deficit spending. I suspect the lack of wiggle room would have forced them to make those hard choices between infrastructure and taxes a lot sooner.

Peacemaker452 2 years, 3 months ago

Of course, you are ignoring the fact that the people of California already made the choice. They passed Prop 13 and have not repealed it.

I would agree that states (and the feds, in my opinion) should not be allowed to go into deficit spending.

I guess I don’t understand your point about printing money. Printing money doesn’t fix deficit spending, it creates inflation.

chootspa 2 years, 3 months ago

Printing money creates inflation, yes, but it's also part of the reason nations can run a continual deficit without going bankrupt. It's a side issue, really. The original comment contended that California's funding woes were due to their "high taxes." Not at all true. I suspect that California would have repealed prop 13 or suddenly found the political will to get a 60% tax raise vote if they had to live with the full consequences of their budet shortfalls every year instead of kicking that particular can down the road with deficit spending.

Peacemaker452 2 years, 3 months ago

Well, as I have previously stated, I support lower taxes and spending but I will certainly agree that it would be preferable for the current citizens of the state to pay the bill for the government they voted in instead of passing the buck to the future. They would at least be forced to make the choice for higher taxes or lower spending and would have to live with the consequences.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 3 months ago

Is this the New Jersey you're talking about?

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/08/28/760501/christie-rnc-keynote/

"– New Jersey ranked 47th in the nation in GDP growth in 2011. [Bureau of Economic Analysis] – The Garden state’s unemployment rate of 9.8 percent is fourth highest in the nation, trailing only Nevada, California, and Rhode Island. [Bureau of Labor Statistics] – New Jersey lost 12,000 jobs last month, the most in the country. [Bureau of Labor Statistics] – The state ranked 44th in personal income growth in 2011. [Bureau of Economic Analysis]"

Sam Constance 2 years, 3 months ago

LOL. The idea that tax cuts = job growth is a fundamental economic truth is hilarious to me.

Job growth comes from expanded service/product offering by a business. Tax cuts don't directly affect a business' ability to expand their coverage. They influence that ability, by the fact that they provide some cash surplus, but any good business is going to make the decision to expand based on expanded DEMAND, not just having some surplus cash that may or may not be there next year depending on who is calling the shots in the government.

progressive_thinker 2 years, 3 months ago

"States with high tax rates are nearing bankrupcy, especially California. States with low tax rates are doing much better than they were, like Ohio & New Jersey."

New Jersey has a higher effective tax rate than California. Ohio's is almost the same as California. [Source: Tax foundation]

As to the Bush tax cuts, per the department of labor, June 2001: 132,047,000 people employed; January 2008: 137,996,000 people employed which gives a net increase of 5,949,000 or roughly 76,000 per month. It takes 100,000 per month just to keep up with population growth, so no, the Bush tax cuts were not a success.

chootspa 2 years, 3 months ago

But businesses don't hire new employees just because they have more cash. They hire more employees when they cannot meet consumer demand with their existing workforce.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 3 months ago

But every independent analysis has shown that these tax cuts go primarily to the wealthy, no matter that you want to spin it otherwise. And the lower end of the economic scale will see tax increases-- especially after local, more regressive taxes must be increased to pick up the slack.

Randall Uhrich 2 years, 3 months ago

BS!!! Wronggg!!! There is no evidence that tax cuts create jobs, Never have, never will.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 3 months ago

This can only mean that there is considerable, unmet demand for whatever it is you produce.

I suspect such is not the case.

tomatogrower 2 years, 3 months ago

Even if you don't have the customers, LarryNative? Why expand if the customer base is not there?

Sam Constance 2 years, 3 months ago

Sounds like you aren't a very smart business owner if your decision to expand is based on your revenue.

Seems like you might want to pick up an economics book.

verity 2 years, 3 months ago

Haven't they said it enough times yet for it to be true?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 3 months ago

"All it would have taken is a swoosh of his pen and those tax cuts would have been history."

You really have no idea how it works in Washington, do you?

hellomynameis 2 years, 3 months ago

Jesus would tax Lucifer the very first radical in history according to Borak Obama's mentor Saul Alinsky! Way to go Judge following the Alinsky rule!

chootspa 2 years, 3 months ago

More money spent in the right way is part of the answer. If I put a kid next to $50 and said, "Here, learn something." I could argue that by not instantly learning something on the spot, I had proven that "money isn't the answer." I could take that same $50 and buy a couple hours of tutoring on a topic. In that case, money was the answer.

So, the long and short is that we need to spend more money, but we need to spend it on the right things. Instead of piddling it away on administrative costs associated with NCLB and all the pre and post testing, we could be using the money on programs that would directly benefit students. Simply offering all students quality preschool would raise scores by itself. We could also work on shorter summer vacations, parent-child tutoring sessions, lower k-5 student ratios, librarians at every school, etc, etc.

Centerville 2 years, 3 months ago

To paraphrase James I: No God, no Jesus. Can't have it both ways.

headdoctor 2 years, 3 months ago

Supply-side economics/trickle down economics is a sound theory and will work....In a perfect world. The harsh reality is we do not live in a perfect world. If one telling example of insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results then the Government at all levels is insane. This BS has been going on at least since Reagon and even though the economy on the surface improved at times it wasn't because of trickle down. Job creation estimates are nothing more than computer generated guesses. Garbage in, garbage out. Trickle down and tax cuts have yet to really create any real jobs but has expanded our national debt to a ridiculous level.This ongoing thought of I want, I want, but I don't want to pay for it is the ultimate crock of bat guano.

ProfessorSeamus 2 years, 3 months ago

There are two problems with this "bold experiment" designed to be a "shot of adrenaline to the heart" of the Kansas economy.

First, targeted tax breaks for business in geographic areas have been tried before, and failed. "Enterprise zones" were all the rage in economic development circles in the seventies and eighties, starting in Great Britain before migrating here. The idea sounds great - pick an area and drastically reduce business taxes. This will free pent up entrepreneurial spirit and people will start opening businesses in these targeted areas. Unfortunately, the idea was a total failure (which is why you don’t hear about enterprise zones anymore). Business owners have multiple concerns to deal with – what to sell, how much to charge, health insurance, rent, etc. Taxes on profits are way down on the list. Reducing those taxes on profits has almost no measurable impact on business.

Second, employers (like LLC’s and S corps) do not pay taxes on wages – those are deductions. So, there is no reason to think a 3.5% tax reduction will increase employment - those costs were already tax free. If I own an LLC I deduct expenses, including wages paid, before I calculate my tax obligation. Since wages are already free of income tax for the employer, why do we think a tax break will cause the business to hire more employees? Those wages already were a tax break.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 3 months ago

Good post, Professor.

I've been pointing out for some time that "job creation" has pretty much always been tax deductible.

Which leads to the inescapable conclusion that these tax cuts will have exactly the result you describe so well-- a transfer of wealth to the already wealthy, and a crippled state government-- just as Grover Norquist demands.

msezdsit 2 years, 3 months ago

"Those who think that demand only creates job do not understand ......."

I think this is correct for those who think that demand is the "only" or "major" contributor to job creation. However, demand is a big player in expansion and or creation of business. Steve Jobs proved fairly overwhelmingly that business can create demand and then that demand can inturn create more business and jobs.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 3 months ago

As much as I admire what Steve Jobs and Apple have been able to accomplish from a technical standpoint, the fact is that the majority of job creation that Apple has accomplished is in Chinese sweatshops, and the Apple storefronts are really little more than a variation on the Wal Mart model.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 3 months ago

Or you can just pocket it, which is what will happen with a large percentage of these tax reductions. And regardless of what you or anyone else does with it, one thing's for certain-- the Kansas budget will have at least a $2.5 billion hole in it within a couple of years.

But what you outline isn't what Republicans had in mind. If they did, they could have offered up tax credits for actual job creation (in Kansas,) and not just a carte blanche tax cut. But accountability has never been a Republican strong suit.

msezdsit 2 years, 3 months ago

Regardless of how many ways it can be explained how brownbacks policy can create whatever, bozo is dead on and no more proof is necessary than the 30 years of absolute miserable failure of trickle down e"con"nomics. The failure of Tarp to produce loans that inturn would produce stimulus was also a colossal failure as well as just downright criminal

chootspa 2 years, 3 months ago

Doesn't matter if he pockets it or uses it to leverage an expansion out of state. He's taking the money out of state circulation either way. It isn't growing anything here.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 3 months ago

BTW, if you're paying $20,000 in state income tax, you are NOT middle-class.

Just sayin.

Trumbull 2 years, 3 months ago

Good job on your entrepreneural success, seriosly.

Did you know that Republicans have tried to do away with the Small Business Administration (SBA)? It seems that this has helped your small businesses. Just recently, there have been several blogs about how Obama is hostile to small business.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 3 months ago

The irony of Larrynative's post is similar to the Tea Party signs that said "Keep the governments' hands off my Medicare."

ProfessorSeamus 2 years, 3 months ago

First, you are wrong. At least about me. I am a business owner. I own and operate an LLC here in Kansas. The tax cut will help me. That doesn'e mean I think it is good policy. It will not achieve its stated aims of creating jobs. Empirical evidence from the enterprise zone experiments confirms this.

Second, you "reality" strains credibility. Kansas income tax caps out at around 5%. To save $20,000 in taxes you must ahve annual income of $400,000. It is your contention that the only way you can get the opportunity to get the loan is if you save these tax dollars. I would think someonw with $400,000 in annual income would not need a transfer payment from the Kansas taxpayers to grow their business. In fact, if this is a good investment, it would seem you would want to make it regardless of your tax situation.

Finally, I do hope you carefully consider your real world example to see if it justifies your argument for these tax cuts. According to your example, you are going to take this tax subsidy from Kansas tax payers, use it to leverage a federally backed loan, which you will use to expand your business in another state. Kansas taxpayers get nothing from this exchange. You get a state transfer payment and take advantage of a federal loan guarantee. Why would Kansas want to do this again?

Sam Constance 2 years, 3 months ago

"In fact, if this is a good investment, it would seem you would want to make it regardless of your tax situation. "


We have a winner.

This is the same argument I always raise when it comes to things like the TIF garbage that was given to the developers of the Oread Hotel. If a given investment needs tax incentives to be profitable, then it is not profitable, plain and simple.

Now, there are still uses for things like TIF, because some projects are worth pursuing due to the overall benefit to the community they bring, in spite of a potential lack of economic feasibility. I suppose that rationale applied to The Oread, although I tend to think of a private enterprise--even one like a hotel that provides a college town like Lawrence much-needed hotel and convention space--as not quite the intended use for TIF.

But I digress--as it applies here, if LarryNative's business expansion is only feasible with the tax cut, then I would argue that it isn't feasible.

Your point about taking the money from Kansas taxpayers and either pocketing it or taking it to an out-of-state investment is also great. Too often, people get bogged down in the raw information and forget to look at the context and "spirit" of a given situation.

Whether or not you agree with Brownback's specious "tax cuts create jobs" reasoning, his stated goal of the tax cuts is to stimulate economic growth... presumably for Kansas and it's citizens, seeing as how he's a state governor. It's just so entertaining to then read a "real life" defense of the faulty reasoning (tax cuts create jobs) that completely defies the underlying goal of the cut--to help the Kansas economy.

But then, that's the Republican Party in a nutshell these days. Defend the words, not the meaning behind them.

Peacemaker452 2 years, 3 months ago

Using the phrases “transfer payment” and “tax subsidy from Kansas tax payers” really gives an insight into your thought process; it implies that the money already belongs to the government. Taking less of someone’s income in taxes is not a payment or a subsidy.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 3 months ago

And your post clearly indicates that your taste in utopia leans towards plutocracy.

Peacemaker452 2 years, 3 months ago

And your post clearly indicates that you have a reading comprehension problem and don’t understand the term “plutocracy”.

Not supporting the excessive taking of people’s earnings is not plutocracy, but you can’t see that past your blind adherence to the dogma of the redistributionalist.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 3 months ago

But opposing any fair form of taxation (as in a progressive income tax) by calling it "taking" or "theft," and then gutting the state budget, will lead directly to plutocracy. Full Stop. And that's exactly what Brownback and the Kochs, and apparently you, aspire to.

Peacemaker452 2 years, 3 months ago

Taxation is taking, no matter how you spin it.

As far as opposing fair taxation, you seem to projecting, because I never stated or implied that I oppose fair taxation. I may oppose the current form since the supposed progressive income tax is far from progressive or fair, and I may oppose the amount, since it is excessive, but I don’t oppose fair taxation.

The state budget could use some serious trimming but I did not write the current state budget, or even get asked to provide input, so don’t try to project it onto me. If you use “gutted” as your hyperbole of choice that is your problem, not mine.

I would choose to return the state, and the nation, to a constitutional republic. Full stop.

Apparently, you would prefer to continue the current path of destruction, since in the big picture, the differences between your plan and Brownback’s plan are minimal.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 3 months ago

Any bill you get for anything could be described as a "taking."

"I may oppose the current form since the supposed progressive income tax is far from progressive or fair,"

That's because you support a system of taxation that favors plutocracy.

"If you use “gutted” as your hyperbole of choice that is your problem, not mine."

A $2.5 billion hole shot in the budget is indeed gutting the state budget.

"The state budget could use some serious trimming "

And is suspect that your "trimming" would favor the plutocrats, and pretty much no one else.

chootspa 2 years, 3 months ago

Not supporting the "excessive" taking of people's earnings? More than zero = excessive?

Peacemaker452 2 years, 3 months ago

No, I do not advocate zero taxes.

I do advocate significantly lower taxes and I would not use the current system of punishment we call a progressive tax.

I don’t understand why so many people on here think they know the minds of others.

chootspa 2 years, 3 months ago

The tax in question was reduced to zero.

I find your last statement particularly ironic, given that you claimed to know the mind of someone else or at least have "insight" into their "thought process." Have I introduced you to kettle yet?

Peacemaker452 2 years, 3 months ago

“The tax in question was reduced to zero.” That may be, but all taxes were not reduced to zero.

As for the other statement, your reply equated my use of “excessive” as more that zero. You were making an (false) inference that you were stating as a fact.

I purposely used the words “insight” and “implies” to convey the thought as my opinion, my apologies if I did not properly do so.

And yes, I have met kettle, he probably appears on these message boards more than any other person.

chootspa 2 years, 3 months ago

The conversation is around a tax reduced to zero, and yet you seemed to still be jumping in with knee-jerk ideology about "excessive taxes." The question about whether or not you considered any tax over zero to be "excessive" was entirely relevant in that particular context. Also note that a question is not a statement of fact. It is an attempt to illicit information.

I do believe that this particular horse died a brutal death hours ago, but you're welcome to keep swinging that bat. Goodnight.

Sam Constance 2 years, 3 months ago

Expanding into an area where a given good/service is not provided may tap into latent demand, but the demand is already there. It's absurd to suggest that you "create" demand by opening a new location. At least, when talking about the core demand that will sustain that new location.

Opening a location will ultimately generate demand at the margins, due to the fact that tapping into that latent demand may beget more word of mouth and also provide the opportunity for some people to sample the good/service to discover that they have a desire for it where they didn't realize it before. But this demand at the margins is not the bulk of what supports a new location.

The_Twelve 2 years, 3 months ago

The fact is that Brownback could not defend his policy and had no research that said that lower taxes were THE deciding factor in changing either in- or outmigration or positive job creation. He, in fact, admitted that there are many factors involved. He has thus created policy on fuzzy facts that will permit him to claim success no matter how growth changes. Nor could he defend his policy on the grounds that he was doing something to help the unemployed or underemployed. His record of "compassion" and ongoing dialogue with these groups proves otherwise.

chootspa 2 years, 3 months ago

Well, he has been the deciding factor in out-migration. At least in my case. I updated my resume the day he signed the deal, and now I'm getting my house ready for the market.

Dick Sengpiehl 2 years, 3 months ago

This series by the KU Business School is ridiculous. Couple of years ago they even had Ann Coulter speak The donor for the lecture must be an extreme rightie. As the Koch brothers will attest, Kansas has the best government that money can buy.

fu7il3 2 years, 3 months ago

If you had bothered to look in to it, you would know that Ann Coulter and Sam Brownback came to KU in two totally different lecture series. They had different donors.

http://www.business.ku.edu/events/lecture/

Lots of people speak at KU, even the ones you don't like.

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 3 months ago

Let's see. It's been about ten years since the Bush Tax cuts. Still waiting for the jobs to show up. Still waiting. Still waiting........

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 3 months ago

Obama has called for the extension of the tax cuts for the middle class, not the super wealthy.

jayhawklawrence 2 years, 3 months ago

The two best Presidents for the budget in recent memory were George HW Bush and Bill Clinton. The Republican Party hated both but they had the best impact on our economy.

Budget during the Clinton years.

Budget during the Clinton years. by jayhawklawrence

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/

The right wing is so ideologically driven that they don't realize when their views are faith based and not fact based.

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 3 months ago

Interesting to note that GHWB despises Romney as much as Romney despises him.

JackMcKee 2 years, 3 months ago

Sam is a true politician. Pass a high risk, low reward tax law then start immediately covering your bases in the likely case that it fails miserably. Sorry, Sam, this one is all on your shoulders and we're not going to let you slink away from it by blaming a "poor economy".

chootspa 2 years, 3 months ago

A poor, highly localized economy that seems to be centered in Wichita. How prescient for him to know it was coming.

tbaker 2 years, 3 months ago

Vote against him next time and see how many folks share your beliefs.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 3 months ago

I expect the way the vote goes will depend mostly on how much of the $2.5 billion budget hole happens before the next election, don't you?

jafs 2 years, 3 months ago

And/or how many people vote.

Low turnouts favor conservatives.

jafs 2 years, 3 months ago

Getting a loan and opening another location for one's business is a risk, and I imagine that businesspeople (and banks) who do such things are pretty sure there will be enough demand for the goods/services, otherwise they wouldn't do them.

Of course, it's hard to predict such things.

Simply opening another location doesn't "create" any demand.

One way in which businesses do in fact manipulate demand is through advertising, which is extremely effective, unfortunately.

But, at the end of the day, demand is what drives business success/expansion/etc. whether it's been manipulated or not. No business can succeed if there's not enough demand for their products/services.

tbaker 2 years, 3 months ago

I would rather be living in a city crawling in entrepreneurs than one crawling in welfare recipients.

chootspa 2 years, 3 months ago

Yes, because that's the only choice we have.

jafs 2 years, 3 months ago

That's what I thought.

Also, I don't like creepy crawlies of any sort - they give me the creeps.

hellomynameis 2 years, 3 months ago

Who would Jesus tax? He would tax Lucifer the very first radical according to Obama's mentor Saul Alinsky. Way to go Judge following the Alinsky rule!

Sam Constance 2 years, 3 months ago

"If someone chooses a clown as their avatar--even as a way to poke fun at someone else--they are a clown" - Ancient Chinese Proverb

Katara 2 years, 3 months ago

Who is supposed to have the appearance of a clown...

Honestly, if you are going to try to adapt a comic book character in a lame attempt to insult the President, you should really have a better idea of what that comic book character is supposed to be.

Richard Heckler 2 years, 3 months ago

"Brownback defends tax cuts as necessary to grow the economy"

Brownback has no clue what he is talking about. This has not worked in 32 years. This is warmed over Ronald Reagan chit chat. Also known as Reaganomics the most famous failure in the world of economics.

Brownback and his friends have sponsored massive financial failures since 1980. The war for oil is among them.

Fire Sam Brownback!!! and his "cabinet"ASAP.

Richard Heckler 2 years, 3 months ago

Brownback promised to protect “core services,” which he said were public schools, Medicaid and prisons.

Prisons are a core service? This man is nuts!

He wants to shut down public schools and five more of Medicaid money to the reckless and criminal insurance industry.

native_daughter 2 years, 3 months ago

Talk to a small business owner and ask them if they are going to hire more people, expand their market, or buy/sell more product because of the tax cuts. I have been asking and the answer has been a resounding "No. No. And no." Their response has been that they will be putting the money in savings because they had to spend so much of their reserves to stay afloat during the downturn.

Richard Heckler 2 years, 3 months ago

"Brownback defends tax cuts as necessary to grow the economy"

After 32 years of this nonsense one would think all in the USA would have two well paying jobs with health insurance at no additional cost.

Instead Brownback and his anti american pals bring this instead.

Sexual Fundies

Yes we are talking Gingrich,Santorum,Romney,Cain and just about every candidate the GOP has put forth. GW Bush is one. Jeb Bush also. Which provides an absolute perfect plan for the sexual fundamentalists to always win the nomination.

They talk economy,jobs, environment and new industry however these matters are irrelevant in real life to these sexual fundamentalists. In real life this powerful minority believe sex is evil and is somehow ruining the USA.

Their opposition to abortion is their backdoor approach to anti sex agenda. Which explains why they are anti contraception in spite of the fact that contraception will and does reduce abortions year after year.

Beware!

http://www.truth-out.org/its-sex-stupid/1328651002

Richard Heckler 2 years, 3 months ago

Sam Brownabck is one of the most deceptive people on the planet. This places him among the evil. He cannot be trusted.

Richard Heckler 2 years, 3 months ago

"Brownback says the tax cuts will stimulate the economy and create jobs," Joke of the century. USA jobs in Communist China,Viet Nam,India and other slave wage countries come with a special USA tax break. Now isn't that just Mom and apple pie.

"Brownback says the tax cuts will stimulate the economy and create jobs," After 32 years and still reeling from two republican financial scams this is a lie.

Think about this.... Sam Brownback was there....

In the end big debt and super duper bailouts HAVE BEEN the results which does not seem to bother Republicans, as long as they are in power.

In fact, by the time the second Bush left office, the national debt had grown to $12.1 trillion:

This ENTITLEMENT - Over half of that amount had been created by Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy.

This ENTITLEMENT - Another 30% of the national debt had been created by the tax cuts for the wealthy under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

This ENTITLEMENT - Fully 81% of the national debt was created by just these three Republican Presidents. http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2010/0111orr.html

lunacydetector 2 years, 3 months ago

who would Jesus tax? seriously? coming from a democratic party that doesn't want God involved?

case in point: losing my religion democratic national convention

Richard Heckler 2 years, 3 months ago

RECKLESS Tax cuts = THE ENTITLEMENT program for the wealthy which do nothing to make an economy strong or produce jobs. Tax cuts are a tax increase to others in order to make up the loss in revenue = duped again.

Bush Tax Cuts aka THE ENTITLEMENT program for the wealthy at the expense of the middle class = duped one more time. http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2001/0301miller.html

Richard Heckler 2 years, 3 months ago

RECKLESS Tax cuts = THE ENTITLEMENT program for the wealthy which do nothing to make an economy strong or produce jobs. Tax cuts are a tax increase to others in order to make up the loss in revenue = duped again.

Bush Tax Cuts aka THE ENTITLEMENT program for the wealthy at the expense of the middle class = duped one more time. http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2001/0301miller.html

We said we didn't want it. Most people didn't even vote for it. In survey after survey, public opinion polls rank a large tax cut as one the least desirable uses of the federal budget surplus. And Republican and Democratic leaders alike have warned the President-select that his tax cut package will never emerge whole from Congress.

But all to no avail. George W. Bush has yet to back off from the monstrous, surplus-draining tax cut proposal that was the cornerstone of his campaign. Now he's even telling us that it's for our own good: His tax cut will cure our softening economy and stave off the threat of recession by "encouraging capital formation, economic growth, and job creation." Even Alan Greenspan, chair of the Federal Reserve Board and a debt-reduction hawk, is prepared to accommodate the Bush plan.

At least one group is happy to swallow the Bush tax cut medicine—"the haves and the haves-more," as Bush referred to his supporters during a fundraiser last year. After all, it is their taxes he will cut. Together, lower income tax rates (with the biggest drop at the top) and the repeal of the estate tax account for nearly three-quarters of the Bush tax cut.

Nearly three-fifths of the total benefits of the tax cut package will go to the richest 10% of all taxpayers, and some 43% will go just to the top 1%, those who make more than $319,000 a year and showed average income of $915,000 in 1999.

But no matter what Bush says, his tax giveaway to the wealthy will not inoculate us against recession. Nor are well-to-do taxpayers suffering from over-taxation, as the Bush team insists. One thing is sure. If the Bush tax cut goes through, social programs that have already been neglected for more than two decades will continue to suffer.

Defending the Indefensible The editors of the Wall Street Journal never met a pro-rich tax cut they didn't like. And the Bush tax cut is much to their liking. Last December, they argued the case for a massive tax cut on three grounds:

http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2001/0301miller.html

Jimo 2 years, 3 months ago

In other news, Brownback defends hole in the head as necessary to expand mental capacity.

JHOK32 2 years, 3 months ago

Yes, that's what we need, less regulations & give more money to the millionaires. We don't need regulations? Really?? De-regulating the banks is what caused the second Great Depression! Repealing the Glass-Steagal Act (& similar de-regulation) is why the handful of banks that already own all of this country's wealth were allowed to bundle millions of worthless sub-prime mortgages & sell this crap on Wall Street where their buddies gave them a 4 star rating & they made $Trillions of dollars (yes that's with a "T"). Millions of good Americans have lost their jobs, homes, retirements, & savings, so these millionaire jerks were allowed to take more money away from the working class. Millions of good hard working Americans have paid with blood so these people can get even richer. They might as well just stole the money right out of the bank accounts of the middle class & deposited it in the accounts of the Wall Street millionaires because that's where it all ended up at.

Why is it that everyone blames Obama for bailing out the big banks? Do people's brains really only go back to 2009? Anyone who doesn't remember G.W.Bush getting on national TV in 2008 & pleading to Congress & the American people that we had no choice but to bail out the "Too big to fail" banks - I have a CD copy of it I'll be happy to loan to you - or you can simply google it, believe me it was Bush who signed the first $700 Billion dollar bail out bill (& the banks didn't even have to tell us - the people who paid for it - what they spent the money on! What a deal! That's really punishing them for screwing the entire national economy to the tune of $Trillions of dollars! You really showed those guys Georgie! And where were them thar darn guvment reggerlaters at to ensure that these things don't happen? Where was the SEC regulators? How many of Bush's foxes were guarding the hen houses for multiple years while all this went down? Upvote0

.

.

Reply

JayhawkFan1985 2 years, 3 months ago

Check out this from a ks dept of commerce website...

http://emporiarda.org/pdf/Forbes%20rankings%20--%20News%20Release.pdf

According to this, Kansas was a great place for business BEFORE Brownback...I wonder if it will be AFTER Brownback gets done cutting taxes for his cronies and slashing services for the middle class...

Commenting has been disabled for this item.