In last month’s column, I took policymakers to task for forgetting former Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback’s tax-cutting experiment, which cratered state revenues. School funding cuts landed the state in court. Kansas also borrowed over $1 billion from the state highway fund (the “Bank of KDOT”), fell out of compliance with federal regulations regarding the minimum staffing at mental hospitals, and witnessed a prison riot in overcrowded conditions. Yet last year, the Kansas Legislature passed a new “glide path”– this one to a flat rate income tax. Meanwhile, Missouri’s governor has proposed an income tax phaseout similar to Brownback’s.

My critics on X suggested that these budget cuts were actually the responsibility of former Kansas Govs. Kathleen Sebelius and Mark Parkinson. Meanwhile, Patrick Tuohey of the Better Cities Project published a reply in the Topeka Capital-Journal, arguing that the economic troubles during the Brownback years were actually caused by problems in the farm economy, that Kansas’ real problem was too much spending, and that Missouri’s plan has better safeguards.

In fact, the second term of the Sebelius-Parkinson administration coincided with the bursting of the housing bubble in 2008-9, which triggered the Great Recession and slashed state tax collections. Governors and legislators responded with deep spending cuts to keep the state budget in balance. Sebelius and Parkinson also fought to keep the state in compliance on school funding. Sebelius even called a special session of the Kansas Legislature for this purpose. They also sought to leverage federal matching funds. Kansas revenues had largely recovered by fiscal year 2013, then dipped dramatically after Brownback’s tax cut. Sebelius and Parkinson made clear that their solutions were both painful and temporary, while Brownback’s “glide path” made these budget cuts permanent, with no end in sight, until they were repealed in 2017.

Former Kansas Budget Director Duane Goossen considered the farm economy. He compared Kansas to Oklahoma, Nebraska, Missouri, and Colorado, finding that Kansas had the slowest population growth during the Brownback years. Also, the other states did not experience fiscal crises then. The farm economy is important throughout this region, yet only Kansas experienced a fiscal crisis.

My critics suggest that Kansas failed to cut spending. Yet I already discussed the deep cuts in spending made to cope with this manmade budget catastrophe, which shorted social services and landed the state in court over school funding. These are the largest items in the state budget.

Tuohey ends his column by writing, “In short, Brownback never had a plan to balance the budget. Missouri does.” While vague, he may be referencing the revenue triggers included both in the 2025 Kansas income tax cut, and in the Missouri proposal. No income tax cuts occurred this year in Kansas, because the revenue thresholds were not reached.

The triggers provide some relief, but are they the right priorities? For example, once again, Kansas appears on track to short the funding for special education programs. Without the tax cuts, the revenue from economic growth could fund this in the future. Should it instead be diverted to a flat tax, which overwhelmingly benefits the wealthy?

I commend my critics for engaging with a civil tone. Yet one thing remains clear: fourteen years after the “Glide Path to Zero,” voters need to remind policymakers just how costly these policies really were.

— Michael Smith is a professor of political science at Emporia State University.