Give GOP gubernatorial hopeful Sen. Jim Barnett, R-Emporia (in photo), and his running mate, Sen. Susan Wagle, R-Wichita, credit for being bold. Thursday they announced their “prescription for growth,” which includes new tax exemptions, tax credits, tax reductions and even a tax elimination (on estates). They also are budgeting for increased spending in education and Medicaid, which total more than three-fourths of the state budget. They want to pay for some of this spending and tax-cutting by delaying highway projects. But would their budget math really add up?
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- Regular on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- Phantom on Open thread 11/24
- sursum on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
34 Comments
For the love of Pete. Politicians say they want to balance the budget without being specific the Eagle criticizes. “Where’s the leadership?” they moan. So Barrett/Wagle offer specifics and are they praised for their political courage in tackling what are CLEARLY the biggest problems in the state budget? No. Gee, not sure those numbers add up. Politicians may not be the smartest people on earth, but they can read. What do you get in this state in the press for being fiscally responsible? Nothin’.
The idea of having fewer orange barrels to slow down and manuever around sounds very appealing!!
Blow, do you have an answer to the question? Does the math add up?
Do those tax cuts add up to more than the spending cuts? Did anyone say where in the budget those spending cuts are going to be made?
Will their proposal balance the Ks budget? Or is this just more smoke and mirrors that will raise our state debt level again? Will it make our state debt ranking jump again from 43 to 14 or worse? Will it improve the state’s credit rating, which, the last time I checked, was only one step above California’s?
One or two specifics do not an explanation make, Blow. Sounds like a copy of the federal budget plan. Cut taxes, make noise about spending, declare everything hunky-dory. What is their plan to make the pie bigger, or is this just a way to fight over who gets the biggest slice?
Most of the increase in state debt took place during the smoke-and-mirrors Graves administration and his ‘high-and-tight’ silliness. These guys promise more of the same.
Want to balance the budget? You can cut spending, raise taxes, or increase revenue.
By far the best choice is to raise revenue. The state can’t do that though. What they can do is create a climate that encourages growth by attracting new businesses and growing existing business, in turn creating new jobs to be filled by more employees paying taxes.
Be bold. Turn the entire state into an economic development zone. Eliminate all taxes and fees on businesses. After all the businesses just pass the tax cost on in the price of their product or service. The retail buyer pays all the taxes any way. This will create incredible growth in businesses locating in Kansas. Jobs follow, revenue goes up.
Now this may produce a short term reduction in revenue until that growth takes place but a few years down the road we should be rolling in revenue.
Does anyone know what percent of current revenue comes from business taxes?
To all you naysayers- it works every place it is tried!!
There are only two words you need to know to decide if this is a good plan or not:
Susan Wagle.
This is the nutcase that tried to shut down an old geezer’s sex ed. course that filled every semester by popular demand. The poor guy tried to retire and KU begged him to stay on.
Conservative nutcase.
Heckler–
You’re right! If only Iraq would cut taxes and business fees, corporations would flock there.
Uh . . . maybe not.
ProudLib
What’s your solution? Oh thats right, raise taxes on the evil rich corporations and evil rich people.
As for Iraq, I don’t know what kind tax structure they will end up with, but people have in fact flocked over there to start businesses. From what I hear the economy is humming along quite nicely.
Heck, where are those places where exactly what has been tried?
Running up debt? Lowering taxes by more than they lower spending? Providing inadequate education funding for the workforce? I guess you missed the adult discussion we had a while back about economic development.
I will try to forward the action here for you dumbasses who think there is some mythical pool of companies “out there” waiting to relocate, and all we have to do is let them know about our great state and roll out the red carpet and they will come here.
ROFLMAO. How the hell has that model of economic development been working for Kansas over the last 40 years? In successful states, that model went out of existance, oh, about twenty years ago, so no wonder Kansas is still trying to do it that way.
Heck, do you have a g.d. clue about why businesses locate where they do? Do you know there is a whole field of study on the subject? Do you think businesses have some chart on the wall that tells where state taxes are lowest, and that is where they locate? Oy.
Sounds like you must have been bush’s classmate in the Harvard MBA school. Or did you just study economics at the Grover Norquist Correspondence Academy financed by a scholarship from Koch?
What really scares me about voters like you is that the lite gov has traditionally been in charge of the Ks Dept of Commerce, the chief business development arm of the state. I cant wait to see your Susan in that position. That oughtta bring the companies and tourists to Kansas in droves.
I bet the economy is humming. It has all the essential elements with spotty electrical service, water and sewage problems, constant suicide bombing, highways destroyed and workers living in constant fear. That would be my prescription for economic health. I think the only economy humming is the one contracted out to Haliburton and KBR.
Could you give us some examples of people who “flocked over there” to start companies?
http://www.iraqdirectory.com/en/default.asp
Heck–I don’t think rich people or rich corporations are evil. That’s a straw man you right-wingers construct so you don’t have to deal with real argument.
I think rich people and rich corporations are like just about every body else–they’re A-moral.
They look out for their best interests as they see them from their limited experience and they maintain structures that keep those interests operational.
The “answer” is for government to channel the short-term profit outlook and the a-morality of business into goals that benefit society in the long run.
That means things like taxes for schools to provide workers that can read and analyse, roads and infrastructure, and pure research.
It also means things like environmental protection and regulation so that planes with passengers fly instead of nose-diving into the ground, so that toxic chemicals aren’t released into your drinking water, so that food and drugs are safe.
You’re right that too high levels of taxation would stifle business. But too low levels of taxation would also have very negative effects.
How would you like a hog farm next to your place of residence? Saying that “it really benefits the hog farm” doesn’t do much for your quality of life or property values, does it?
You “lower taxes” people and “no regulations” people have a simple WRONG answer for every complex situation.
ksfarmgrrl
You call me a dumbass and scrolled off a nice line of rhetoric but I noticed 2 things. You offered no supporting evidence for any of it, and you offered no alternative. Kind of typical of you liberals around here.
Farmgirl: Alan Conroy of the non-partisan Kansas Legislative Research Dept. put together the numbers showing the budget would balance. He’s a PhD. economist. But I guess you and Brownlee would know better.Wanna keep playing or have you had enough?
Democrats criticize GOP candidate for relying on legislative staffJOHN HANNAAssociated PressTOPEKA, Kan. – Gov. Kathleen Sebelius and a fellow Democratic leader on Thursday questioned Republican Sen. Jim Barnett’s use of the Legislature’s research staff to prepare a document for his gubernatorial campaign.Barnett, of Emporia, and his running mate, Sen. Susan Wagle, of Wichita, relied on the spreadsheet to show that their proposals to cut taxes and increase spending on education wouldn’t cause future budget problems.The document became public when the Legislative Research Department released it at Wagle’s request. The one-page spreadsheet notes it was “Prepared at the Request and Direction of Sen. Jim Barnett.”Senate Minority Leader Anthony Hensley, D-Topeka, said he took issue with Barnett using state resources to produce a campaign proposal.”I think it’s inappropriate,” Hensley, D-Topeka, said during an interview.Sebelius said she won’t have state employees preparing campaign-related documents. If Barnett wins the GOP nomination in August, he’ll face Sebelius in the November general election.”I believe strongly in following the law of a separation between campaign and office,” Sebelius said. “I hope we all can maintain the law.”Barnett said the research department prepared the document after he had it examine his proposals to make sure they wouldn’t create a budget crisis. It would have been irresponsible to float a plan without checking with budget experts, he said.Responding to the criticism, Barnett said, “Today is about my vision for Kansas. All the governor can do is send out people to attack me.”State law prohibits most state employees from using their time or state resources for campaigns.However, elected officials have some leeway. They are allowed to designate such staffers as secretaries, schedulers, assistants and spokesmen to handle both official and campaign-related duties, provided the elected official notifies the Governmental Ethics Commission.Carol Williams, the commission’s executive director, said officials who rely on state-paid researchers to help draft campaign-related documents also could argue they’d use the information in their official duties, such as developing legislative proposals or gathering information about an issue.When asked at a Statehouse news conference about using legislative researchers to prepare a campaign document, Barnett said, “This is Jim Barnett, the senator, speaking just as much as Jim Barnett, anyone else.”Senate Majority Leader Derek Schmidt, R-Independence, dismissed the controversy as “smoke and noise.”"I think that Sen. Barnett should stop using Legislative Research to do his policy work just as soon as the governor stops taking political credit for the policy debates we’ve had over the last four years,” Schmidt said.Democrats also criticized Barnett because as chairman of the Senate Public Health and Welfare Committee, he hadn’t called a meeting in the session’s first 11 days.”When you talk about leadership, why don’t you fulfill your legislative responsibilities first, instead of running around the state, running for governor?” Hensley said.Barnett said he hadn’t scheduled a meeting because no bills have been assigned this year and because he’s had few requests to sponsor legislation.”This is clearly politics on the part of the governor,” Barnett said.
Heck, what do you want me to provide evidence for? That the way we do economic development in Kansas isnt working? Look around dude. Evidence that businesses make their decisions based on more than taxes? Well, you probably wont read the liberal Richard Florida, but you might try “The Rise of the Creative Class” or you could check out the Nebraska Center for Rural Development website. They have done lots of research on what businesses need to encourage growth. Check out the book “Good to Great” to find out what makes businesses go from good to great.
I dont know how to provide evidence of the mythical group of companies wanting to relocate. Can you tell me where to find that group if it does exist?
I asked “Heck, where are those places where exactly what has been tried?”
Can you tell us where and what “has been successful everywhere it has been tried”? I sure want to know where those places are and what they did.
Gosh Joe, if you ever read my posts, you would know I am no fan of Sebelius, so I dont even know why you are bringing that up to me. Must have been in your talking points today. Yes, that is typical of Governor Leadership to offer nothing of substance and then get Anthony to defend her.
You said “Alan Conroy of the non-partisan Kansas Legislative Research Dept. put together the numbers showing the budget would balance. He’s a PhD. economist.But I guess you and Brownlee would know better.”
You have no idea what my qualifications are, and I feel no need to publish them here. I have great respect for Alan and all of legislative research, even though they are indeed directed by the non-partisan legislature. I guess you will be supporting their school funding study too.
“Wanna keep playing or have you had enough?” Bring it on Joe.
Joe, did Alan actually say that Barnett’s budget would balance? Can you show me that? I think you didnt answer my questions, because to believe Barnett can make it work, you have to agree with certain assumptions.
Assumptions like this (from AP) “To make his (Barnett’s) plan work, he would spread out spending under the state’s 10-year comprehensive highway improvement program an additional two years and freeze spending on programs not related to education or social services. He also believes the tax relief will stimulate economic growth.”
There’s your voodoo economics. The freakin’ budget doesnt balance unless the debt load increases. Isnt that like the budget balancing that goes on in Washington? And dont they use that “tax relief will stimulate economic growth” assumption also known as TRICKLE DOWN ECONOMICS?
The AP report also give another clue about how this proposal would balance the budget. “His plan assumes state revenues will grow 5.5 percent a year through 2011. Legislative researchers and state budget officials typically assume 4 percent growth. The current state budget has 6.6 percent growth.” The gospel according to John Hanna.
Lets see, if the current state budget has a 6.6 percent growth, (mostly due to things like medicaid and education, which are exempted from Barnett’s spending freeze), and Barnett is projecting 5.5 percent revenue increases under his plan…um…doesn’t that leave a budget gap even if you stretch out the years?
And if that non-partisan legislative research usually uses 4 percent revenue growth for budgeting purposes…um…could you show me why “Alan” used 5.5 percent here? Could it be because the person requesting the study set the parameters and asked that the 5.5 figure be used? Based on all that tax cut generated revenue?
Like I said joe, bring it on.
Heckler claiming that “libs don’t provide evidence.” How funny is that?
Check this line from Heck–
“To all you naysayers- it (no taxes and regs) works every place it is tried!!”
Remember the Great Depression? It happened in a business climate of extrememly low taxation (no income taxes, for instance) and very little regulation.
So that’s what you want to go back to?
Williams, I cant open this link. Can you tell us what it says?
He still hasnt given us any examples PL. I guess he is waiting on the afternoon talking points.
estate taxes?
Now there is a great economic development tool.
Yes, folks… when in doubt cut the taxes for the wealthy. Don’t try to hand the bs about that it is good for the small family farm and small business owner as those arguments have been debunked!
Come up with some new argument as to why a tax cut for the rich will be good for Kansas.
Heck, I do have some alternatives to traditional economic development activities. They are being implemented in one of the counties I work with out here, and it is working. I wont be sharing the details for our competitors to copy, but it involves bringing PEOPLE to the community.
And how is it working? Well…before I got fired for being gay :) the county that implemented this plan led all of the 18 counties of northwest Kansas in population growth in 2004, the last year figures were available. And currently, in the largest town of 1800 people, there are only two rental units vacant. Down from 50 two years ago.
And guess what else? We did it with no tax incentives.
If you bother to read the Florida book, you will note that traditional e.d. focuses on recruiting businesses on the thinking that people follow. But Florida proves that businesses these days actually follow people.
If your e.d. methods dont involve bringing more people to your community (or state!) you are just doing the same old things harder and faster with the same results.
If you really want existing biz to hire more people, and if you want more new start-up biz, then do something about health care costs and the expense of health insurance. I know a bunch of wanna be entrepreneurs, but they cant quit their day jobs because they need the health insurance.
Wouldnt it be funny if universal access or “socialized medicine” ended up being the capitalist’s best friend? Kinda like Karl Marx meets the Robber Barons? I bet your head is exploding at the thought, Heck.
Farm: My initial point was that the press whines and moans about how no one ever has any specifics. So Barnett and Wagle offer specifics. Any praise for doing so? Any at all? No. None. Then the Eagle (and others) wonder why more politicians don’t tackle this problem. Now, if you’re as honest as you claim, you’ll agree with me. I’d say the same for Sebelius, except she offers nothing. But for crying out loud, you give me a set of assumptions, I’ll make any kinds of projection you want! Projections mean nothing. Fact is, when you cut taxes (generally) you generate more economic activity, thus, more revenue. Barnett and Wagle, while maybe not perfect, are on the right track. They’re far from making up numbers out of thin air as Brownlee and others implied.
Hmmm,
Reminds me of the Dilbert strip where the dimwitted boss is looking at a graph showing corporate profits increasing as the number of employees decreases. He assimilates the data and comes to the conclusion, based on the small amount of data he sees, that profits would be astronomical if every employee were let go.
Unfortunately, “linear response” is the exception in the real world. Most things are so interconnected with other things that deconvoluting the mess to try to understand how one thing affects another is almost impossible.
It’s the same with tax policy…Reducing taxes may stimulate economic growth so that more tax revenue is generated in spite of the fact that tax rates have been reduced. But the fact of the matter is, if tax rates are made zero, and economic activity booms, taxes are zero. So, the economic stimulus/tax rate curve has a maximum in it…and that maximum will occur at a finite tax rate. That implies that there is a point where decreasing taxes hurts revenues.
Sorry, that should read…
So, the government revenue/tax rate curve…
rather than
So, the economic stimulus/tax rate curve..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IS/LM_model
Nice thinking, Brian. It was proven more than 70 years ago that tax revenues plotted over tax rates describes an inverted parabola.
Conservatives get away with an awful lot of lousy economics these days; stating that cutting tax rates are inversely proportional to tax revenues – over the entire range of rates, from zip to 100% – is a prime example.
Another: implying that businesses can always, always, always merely pass on costs to their customers.
Nice post.
It is called the Laffer curve. As flike mentioned, it is an upside-down parabola. The so-called “supply-side conservatives” incorrectly claim it is a hyperbola and that at 0% tax revenues would be infinite. The fatc is that the curve indicates that there is an optimum tax rate that maximizes revenue just as there is with product pricing. Too high and elasticity kills you and too low and small returns kill you.
ECON 101.
Brian, flike, Ben, thank you. Is this the same joe blow that wanted a constitutional law ass whoopin’ yesterday? Looks like he got another one on economics today.
Thank you, ksfarmgirl, Ben, and flike
I never knew that the name of the curve was the Laffer curve…live and learn!
I’ve never taken an economics course (wish I had..maybe I will!!) but I have taken a lot of mathematics. What you all have said only makes sense if you just think about it a bit.
Find where I, or any conservative, argued to take tax rates to zero. Knocked down a heck of a straw man there. Way to go!!!
Hey, Joe, find where any fiscal conservative has argued that taxes should be increased in order to increase tax revenues (supporters of President Bush do not qualify, obviously).
Good luck.
No, JoeJob, whenever people ask “how low should taxes go?” you conservatives just say “lower.”