State Budget Director Duane Goossen asked state agencies last week to look for an additional $250 million in future budget cuts. Some GOP lawmakers think the deficit next fiscal year could be twice that size. Either way, it will be difficult to trim that much out of the state budget when many programs and services already have been cut. And if everything is really on the table, as officials often say, then lawmakers also should consider revenue options, such as delaying the phase-in of tax cuts and eliminating some sales-tax exemptions.
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
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/24
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/24
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/24
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/24
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/24
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
81 Comments
So many services have already been cut? Really?
-What budget cuts have impacted YOU? (Specifically)
-Or, didn’t any budget cuts impact YOU?
I would bet most working people didn’t notice.
All government spending must go on the budget table. Obviously every department thinks their programs are superior to all the others. So spending must be curbed by the legislators who are elected by the people to oversee the bureaucracy.
Is it any wonder cuts have to take place. Governments like to spend every dime they can get their hands on in the good times, and of course when there are the inevitable economic slowdowns there isn’t enough to continue spending at those levels.
This is nothing new, what was that song…..”when will they ever learn”.
“So many services have already been cut? Really?
“-What budget cuts have impacted YOU? (Specifically)
“-Or, didn’t any budget cuts impact YOU?
“I would bet most working people didn’t notice.”
Nonsense. Anyone who goes to or works in a public school or university are feeling the effects of the budget cuts. So are most people living with or working in human services, particularly for people with mental health, physical, and/or developmental disabilities. Road work projects are being delayed or deferred, and the work on them is going to take longer. Maintenance at state parks, never great, has taken a hit.
Just because people don’t immediately seperate out and attribute things to budget cuts doesn’t mean that they don’t feel the effects of them. The fact is, cuts, substantial cuts, have been made, and they were for the most part necessary. It is simply irresponsible, however, to continue to make budget cuts when some of these cuts are being made to the bone without even considering deferring phased in tax cuts.
And once again, we see what distinguishes a faux fiscal conservative from the real deal. The real deals realize that cuts need to be made, and indeed may be suspicious of any government program, but they also understand at some point, it is irresponsible to needlessly cut existing revenues when budgets are extremely tight. The faux fiscal conservatives simply complain about taxes even while they are breaking the bank.
What, university tuition has gone up? It does every year.
What’s the impact in the public school, EXACTLY?
What’s the impact in Human services, SPECIFICALLY? (Can’t answer, can you?)
Road construction? Gee, that doesn’t get delayed every year? BFD, it took you the same time to get to work (ha!) today as it did a year ago.
Cuts are being made to the bone, yet nobody can say SPECIFICALLY what the impact has been to THEMSELF!
Terrible cuts, just terrible.
What budget cuts have impacted YOU? (Specifically)
(No, not what impacted SOMEBODY ELSE, what impacted YOU!)
“Obviously every department thinks their programs are superior to all the others.”
Actually, it’s not so much that as it is that every department advocates for the resources that they need to do their jobs and perform their missions. And if one department does not advocate for what they need, then the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Everyone SHOULD be clamoring to hold onto the resources that they need, and the task of the legislators is, as you say, to evaluate which of those needs are actually the most critical. It is to make the hard choices.
“So spending must be curbed by the legislators who are elected by the people to oversee the bureaucracy.”
I would have more confidence in them, J. Wink, if more of our current legislators actually seemed to be interested in evaluating the impact of budget cuts and in making difficult choices, rather than just retreating into easy to spout ideological talking points (no delaying tax cuts of questionable necessity or proposing across the board spending cuts-the lazy way out because the fact of the matter is, some cuts to some departments ARE more severe than others). We used to have such legislators (and they were certainly conservative) who nevertheless demonstrated the ability to listen and to consider the consequences of their actions. Now, in too many cases what we have are grand standing ideologues who adopt what they consider the “conservative” position and show no interest in evaluating the consequences of their position.
“What budget cuts have impacted YOU? (Specifically)
“(No, not what impacted SOMEBODY ELSE, what impacted YOU!)”
Your question is a red herring, particularly when you ask me to individualize it. It is also revealing of your mindset (i.e., I shouldn’t care if it doesn’t impact ME).
I am in some of the populations I listed in my previous post (so are most people in this state). Thus, I have been directly impacted by the budget cuts.
And that’s all I need to say to defend my point. The rest is fishing for red herrings.
Boxlock20
Posted August 24, 2009 at 7:46 am | Permalink
Is it any wonder cuts have to take place. Governments like to spend every dime they can get their hands on in the good times, and of course when there are the inevitable economic slowdowns there isn’t enough to continue spending at those levels.
This is nothing new, what was that song…..”when will they ever learn”.
–
Boxie – you must not have heard the news report about the Flint Policy group finding billions of dollars that have NOT been used in the state budget and is just sitting somewhere.
Government spending every dime? Pardon me, but isn’t billions of dollars more than a dime?
BTW – I’m sure Boxie gets more than his fair share at the government trough.
Can we say ‘here comes the piggie, again’
I know of one huge change that be made – stop letting these churches keep their tax-free status.
It’s about time these phoney Evangelical Christians start paying their own fair share.
After all, these phoney Christians are always ranting and raving about there is no separation of church and state. If they truly believe theat, then we should start treating them that way.
Now, let’s see how long before someone on this blog calls me a Jesus hater.
3…2…1….blow!!!
Now, let’s see how long before someone on this blog calls me a Jesus hater.
=======================================
Well,
I won’t call you a Jesus hater, but I will call you a mindless dipschitt.
Hey Totoinks-
How about Planned Parenthood or the Sierra club. Or the Arts? and on and on. But damn time the treehuggers paid their fair share. Don’t ya think?
I don;t mind, if you don;t. Let’s remove the nonprofit status of every nonprofit group, and let them pay income taxes on their income, sales tax on their purchases, etc. I bet we could raise lots of money. Again, I don’t mind if you don’t
“ANTI” explains –
“I will call you a mindless dipschitt.”
Well, that’s a rational approach to budgetary debate.
I consider my self a conservative, and hate taxes, and pay at least my share, and considering that many don;t pay any,or very little, I probably pay more than my share. However, I am also a realist
In difficult times, in unusual circumstances, different rules must apply. While we should cut the fat out of government budgets, and maybe eliminate some programs altogether, it is not wise to do so all at once. There has to be a transition period, in order to allow people and programs to adjust. In the meanwhile, if tax cuts are scheduled to come into play, and worsen the deficit, they should be temporarily set aside. Not as a matter of principle, but of practicality. REdducing deficit spending is also a conservative position. The tax cuts should wait.
Considering all the unemployment in the state with massive layouts, budget cuts will become a requirement not an option.
But Reg, Budget cuts could INCREASE the unemployment levels even more!! LOL
Monkeyhawk
Posted August 24, 2009 at 8:54 am | Permalink
“ANTI” explains –
“I will call you a mindless dipschitt.”
Well, that’s a rational approach to budgetary debate.
=====================================
Monkeyhawk,
littlejohn made the point. I just chose not to entertain totoinks with reason, as he wouldn’t “get it”.
Sorry my post upset you so.
Every program must obey the Law of Unintended Consequences. Therefore, each should be reviewed.
Patsy Roberts is a big champion of fagrm subsidies. But instead of protecting the family farmer, the lions’ share of the money goes to Monsanto and ADM and fat-cat cotton farmers who hire illegal workers.
Someone posted last week about how his chiropractor was being investigated for writing too many Medicare approvals for those electric scooter wheelchairs advertised on late-nite TV that you can get one “…at no cost to you!”
The F-22 Raptor is a state-of-the-art (for 1981) fighter jet the Pentagon never wanted and has never used because it was built during the Cold War. Which is over. Might as well still be funding the Sopwith Camel.
But when CONs think about putting “everything on the budget table,” all they have in mind is taking away cheese sandwiches from kids who happened to choose the wrong parents. They don’t think of how that cheese got there in the first place; through agriculture subsides given out to dairy farmers.
A wise politician once told me, “You can’t remove fraud and abuse from a budget because fraud and abuse aren’t budget items.”
But no.
As a taxpaying citizen I want my money to be spent as efficiently and fairly as possible. In the strongest and wealthiest nation in the world, the strongest and wealthiest seem to be getting first dibs.
Thanks to government spending, Dick Cheney’s personal share of Halliburton increased more than 4000%. Perhaps that should be “put on the budget table.”
But helping an asthmatic kid get an emergency inhaler? No, that’s SOCIALISM!!!!”
“ANTI” –
Apparently all I need to say to win this discussion is –
“I will call you a mindless dipschitt.”
Go skulk away in defeat.
But when CONs think about putting “everything on the budget table,” all they have in mind is taking away cheese sandwiches from kids who happened to choose the wrong parents.
———
Thanks Monkey. I was looking for an example of “Pure, mindless BS”.
“BTW – I’m sure Boxie gets more than his fair share at the government trough.—totoinks, the “mindless dipschitt”–thanks ANTI, well put, and spot on accurate.
I get NO money or any other benefit from the government trough that’s not public as in roads, defense, etc.—nothing. All I do is pay.
You take no deductions on your income tax returns, “Boxlock20?”
Well thank godamighty.
I had no idea you were such a patriot.
Well Chas, considering the budget receipts largest piece of the pie is Individual Income Tax and Sales & Use tax at almost 85 percent, there has to be cuts when the receipt pie is smaller.
Cutting nice to have programs, but not necessary programs will be required.
I suggest the total gutting or elimination of:
– Governor’s Teaching Excellence Awards
– Association Memberships, especially for Education, this should come under the local budgets
– Kansas Arts Commission
– Absolutely no longevity bonus raises.
– Indigent Defense Services
– Kansas Racing & Gaming Commission
– Department of Credit Unions
– Judicial Council
– Vehicle Replacement
– Parole Board
– Kansas State Fair
That would be a good start.
Kerry Ad Falsely Accuses Cheney on Halliburton
September 30, 2004
Contrary to this ad’s message, Cheney doesn’t gain financially from the contracts given to the company he once headed.
Summary
A Kerry ad implies Cheney has a financial interest in Halliburton and is profiting from the company’s contracts in Iraq. The fact is, Cheney doesn’t gain a penny from Halliburton’s contracts, and almost certainly won’t lose even if Halliburton goes bankrupt.
The ad claims Cheney got $2 million from Halliburton “as vice president,” which is false. Actually, nearly $1.6 million of that was paid before Cheney took office. More importantly, all of it was earned before he was a candidate, when he was the company’s chief executive.
http://www.factcheck.org/kerry_ad_falsely_accuses_cheney_on_halliburton.html
————–
MH you really should fact check before you post. Cheney sold Haliburton stock before taking office. He had a retirement plan which included deferred compensation as this article shows.
Don’t you have to own stock to profit?
Yeah, “Regular?” –
What if I were to propose we cut the budget on questionable veteran “disability” payments?
You’d strip “Indigent Defense Services,” after all. That whole Miranda warning thing about, “If you cannot afford an attorney…” stuff would be right out the door.
Fair’s fair.
Just a week or so ago I remember Mark Gietzen crying about budget cuts in the paper, at the same time his name is in the Delinquent property tax list
Monkeyhawk
Posted August 24, 2009 at 9:53 am | Permalink
Yeah, “Regular?” –
What if I were to propose we cut the budget on questionable veteran “disability” payments?
You’d strip “Indigent Defense Services,” after all. That whole Miranda warning thing about, “If you cannot afford an attorney…” stuff would be right out the door.
Fair’s fair
——————–
Veteran’s disability is federal.
Indigent legal services are state funded.
You lose.
The topic is Kansas State budget, not anyone elses.
Stripping Indigent Defenses Services would just mean letting a alot of probable guilty people out on the streets, especially galling in capital cases. But then the expense of capital cases is why Sen. McGinn wanted to get rid of the Death Penalty
The State could save a easy 5 Million getting rid of the Airtran handout, but for some reason that is viewed as sacrosanct
#
TomPaine
Posted August 24, 2009 at 10:00 am | Permalink
Stripping Indigent Defenses Services would just mean letting a alot of probable guilty people out on the streets, especially galling in capital cases. But then the expense of capital cases is why Sen. McGinn wanted to get rid of the Death Penalty
————————-
There is always Pro Bono work, which is already controlled and outlined with procedures by the ABA.
When organizations like Kansas Legal Defense fund for indigents start arguing about salary parity for Senior attorneys, it’s time to cut them off at the knees as a wasteful spending organization.
“okobserver” –
Cheney put his stock into a “blind” trust.
He didn’t sell it.
Except, of course, to himself in a different “blind” account.
And he didn’t sell his stock options at all.
How’s Halliburton stock done since 2001?
Do your own damned homework, “okobserver.”
a lawyer might do a DUI case Pro Bono but you wont find one to do a capital case, or even a regular murder or serious felony charge
#
TomPaine
Posted August 24, 2009 at 10:19 am | Permalink
a lawyer might do a DUI case Pro Bono but you wont find one to do a capital case, or even a regular murder or serious felony charge
============================
I’ve not heard of Pro Bono work in DUI cases, but I don’t hang around court houses. If my opinion, if one gets caught DUI, you need to pay the piper as the act is indefensible and with modern lab tests with law enforcement eyewitnesses the case is all but closed anyway.
Yes, I would expect Pro Bono work in capital cases to be the rule, not the exception.
Agnatha
Posted August 24, 2009 at 8:31 am | Permalink
“What budget cuts have impacted YOU? (Specifically)
“(No, not what impacted SOMEBODY ELSE, what impacted YOU!)”
Your question is a red herring, particularly when you ask me to individualize it. It is also revealing of your mindset (i.e., I shouldn’t care if it doesn’t impact ME).
+++++++++++
Wrong, you can’t individualize the impact because there is little or no impact to you. I shouldn’t care because the impact is little or none to most people. Tough times call for sacrifices, even Obama says so. What have YOU sacrificed?
—————————————-
I am in some of the populations I listed in my previous post (so are most people in this state). Thus, I have been directly impacted by the budget cuts.
+++++++++
Really the majority are impacted? Prove it.
——————————————-
And that’s all I need to say to defend my point. The rest is fishing for red herrings.
+++++++++++
That’s all you can say. And there is no red herring in saying that most people are not signifcantly impacted by the budget cuts made so far.
littlejohn
Posted August 24, 2009 at 8:55 am | Permalink
I consider my self a conservative, and hate taxes, and pay at least my share, and considering that many don;t pay any,or very little, I probably pay more than my share. However, I am also a realist
In difficult times, in unusual circumstances, different rules must apply. While we should cut the fat out of government budgets, and maybe eliminate some programs altogether, it is not wise to do so all at once. There has to be a transition period, in order to allow people and programs to adjust.
—————————
Ok, allowing a transition time for those programs and people impacted by budget cuts is fair – as long as you also allow a transistion time for those people impacted by tax increases, so that they can adjust.
Many people adjust to less income (from tax hikes) by getting a 2nd job, cutting back on personal expenses (gasp!), or some cut back on income by working fewer hours.
Yes, I’ve had several people over the years come to me to go from full-time to part-time, because they were earning too much money to qualify for Section 8 housing and other welfare benefits.
“You take no deductions on your income tax returns, “Boxlock20?””—the Monkey
Come on Monkey, taking lawful and rightful deductions that are open to anyone who qualifies, like mortgage interest with I can’t as I paid off my home early, is not feeding at the public trough.
Here, with things the way they are is raising taxes what you suggest.
http://patriotpost.us/images/editions/09-34b-cartoon.jpg
‘
with‘ = ‘which’“I get NO money or any other benefit from the government trough that’s not public as in roads, defense, etc.—nothing. All I do is pay.”
Aren’t you in the medical equipment business? You mean to say that you make no sales that ultimately go to people on Medicaid or Medicare? Do you mean to say that all of your customers are only paid in private dollars?
Big Cuts in Education???
After 10 years of Education Increases at TWICE the Rate of Inflation, what’s the BFD?
Big sacrifice?
Year Inflation $ Per Pupil Increase $ Per Pupil
1998 — 1.55% ——- 4.16% ——- $6,828
1999 — 2.19% ——- 5.79% ——- $7,223
2000 — 3.38% ——- 5.01% ——- $7,585
2001 — 2.83% ——- 5.79% ——- $8,024
2002 — 1.59% ——- 5.78% ——- $8,488
2003 — 2.27% ——- 4.78% ——- $8,894
2004 — 2.68% ——- 3.83% ——- $9,235
2005 — 3.39% ——- 5.11% ——- $9,707
2006 — 3.24% ——- 9.16% ——- $10,596
2007 — 2.85% ——- 9.08% ——- $11,558
2008 — 3.85% ——- 5.45% ——- $12,188
2009 Negative - -2.75% ——-
http://www.ksde.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=HRH%2feTbKXhM%3d&tabid=1810
“REdducing deficit spending is also a conservative position. The tax cuts should wait.”
Well said.
Why is Publik Edukation FAILING to teach what is spent on Publik Edukation?
I dare someone to pull out the overall budget increases for the last 10 years and compare that to inflation. (The education budget is above)
To the Libs, the State can never spend too much money.
So of course, there is nowhere to cut the budget without cutting the most visible services like police, fire, and pothole repair FIRST.
The poor children, how will they be able to learn with just $12,000 per year being spent on each and every one of them?
“Wrong, you can’t individualize the impact because there is little or no impact to you. I shouldn’t care because the impact is little or none to most people. Tough times call for sacrifices, even Obama says so. What have YOU sacrificed?”
Sighhhh. When you deal with an ideologue, you deal with someone who seems to miss the point.
1)If I were to itemize how the budget cuts effected me, you would try to make me an exception to the rule (and yes, I have been PERSONALLY impacted by budget cuts, and if you pay attention to my body of posts you can even come up with a reasonable hypothesis as to how). Like I said, your question is a red herring. Besides which, my personal issues are none of your business.
Furthermore, contrary to your position, not all impacts are easily noticed. You seem to be one of those people who believes that it is easy to separate the private and public sectors, and who only thinks about how the public sector impacts the private sector in specific ways (such as how tax increases might impact the spending habits of your employees) and yet seems to entirely miss the other aspect public sector impacts (such as, the public sector is an employer, and if the public sector that employs a large number of people slows down, so does the rest of the economy).
2) You also seem to have missed the fact that earlier in this thread I characterized the budget cuts as by and large appropriate. Also, I am indeed arguing for at the least deferring scheduled tax cuts, and not having any additional tax cuts. Personally, at this juncture I would support my own taxes being increased. I agree that tough times call for sacrifices. From everyone, including taxpayers.
The ‘jawless fish’ perches upon the soapbox of public oratory with watery shoes.
Agnatha
Posted August 24, 2009 at 12:15 pm | Permalink
Furthermore, contrary to your position, not all impacts are easily noticed.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
In fact, hardly any ARE noticed.
=================================
You seem to be one of those people who believes that it is easy to separate the private and public sectors, and who only thinks about how the public sector impacts the private sector in specific ways (such as how tax increases might impact the spending habits of your employees) and yet seems to entirely miss the other aspect public sector impacts (such as, the public sector is an employer, and if the public sector that employs a large number of people slows down, so does the rest of the economy).
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Oh, so the purpose of Government is to put people on the public payroll!!!
Obama should then spend even more Government money to make sure all 9.4% of unemployed Americans are given a Government job.
There is no room to cut Government ever, in any way, because very important critical jobs like paper clip counting, might be lost.
Therefore, Government spending should NEVER decrease.
Agnatha, the jawless fish is looking pretty foolish with wet trousers and shoes, I get NO money directly from Medicare. All my income is EARNED from private business. So stuff it dumb-ass.
“Regular” crows that he –
“…donated my Kansas Income Tax to the relief of Military in Kansas.
And many other donations, I’m too modest to place here.”
So you’re not really oppressed by high taxes, then.
Typical CON.
Jim,
What I so dislike about brain-dead libs like the jawless fish is they contribute nothing, they simply take up valuable space and oxygen and get in the way.
Monkeyhawk
Posted August 24, 2009 at 12:29 pm | Permalink
“Regular” crows that he –
“…donated my Kansas Income Tax to the relief of Military in Kansas.
And many other donations, I’m too modest to place here.”
So you’re not really oppressed by high taxes, then.
Typical CON.
===========================
MonkeyBrain won’t be happy until Regular’s last spare DIME is taken away.
How totally irresponsible bushie mentality, when expenditures are increasing continue cutting taxes and revenue.
Repubs are such morons, but hey, it’s your money, and any deficit should be returned to you!
“Boxlock20″ defends his place at the trough –
“…taking lawful and rightful deductions that are open to anyone who qualifies, like mortgage interest with I can’t as I paid off my home early, is not feeding at the public trough.”
But someone using S-CHIP to provide his kid health insurance is?
Get your lies straight, CONs.
Boxlock20
Posted August 24, 2009 at 12:29 pm | Permalink
Jim,
What I so dislike about brain-dead libs like the jawless fish is they contribute nothing, they simply take up valuable space and oxygen and get in the way.
—————————————
They truly believe the role of Government is to create public jobs for them.
Thus, the more Government, the better!
Phantom
Posted August 24, 2009 at 12:32 pm | Permalink
How totally irresponsible bushie mentality, when expenditures are increasing continue cutting taxes and revenue.
————————–
You notice how Federal Revenue INCREASED after the Bush tax cuts?
And after the Reagan tax cuts?
And after the Kennedy tax cuts?
There’s more but this should give you some idea what a load you’re trying to push:
“Claim That Tax Cuts “Pay For Themselves” Is Too Good To Be True
Data Show No “Free Lunch” Here
PDF of this report (7pp.)
By Aviva Aron-Dine and Richard Kogan
Revised July 26, 2006
Key Findings
?Despite recent statements by the President, Vice President, and certain Congressional leaders that tax cuts pay for themselves, economists from across the political spectrum — including the Administration’s current and former chief economists — reject this notion. Further, the Treasury Department’s own analysis of the President’s tax cuts confirms common sense and conventional wisdom; it concludes that, even under favorable assumptions, the tax cuts would generate added growth that would offset no more than 10 percent of their long-term costs.
?During the current business cycle, both revenues and the economy have been weaker than in the typical post-World War II business cycle. Even taking into account the stronger revenue growth OMB now projects for 2006, real per-capita revenues have simply returned to the level they reached more than five years ago when the current business cycle began in March 2001. In previous post-World War II business cycles, real per-capita revenues have grown by an average of about 10 percent over the first 5 ½ years of the cycle.
?Revenues grew much more quickly in the 1990s, when taxes were raised, than in the 1980s, when taxes were cut. Revenues in the current decade, with its large tax cuts, are also expected to grow much more slowly. Based on the Administration’s own projections of revenue growth through the end of the decade, revenues in the current decade will grow at less than one fourth their growth rate in the 1990s.
Related
?Report: A Smoking Gun: President’s Claim That Tax Cuts Pay for Themselves Refuted By Administration’s Own Analysis
Related Areas of Research
Tax — Federal
2001/2003 Tax Cuts
Individuals and Families
Taxes and the Economy
In recent statements, the President, the Vice President, and key Congressional leaders have asserted that the increase in revenues in 2005 and the increase now projected for 2006 prove that tax cuts “pay for themselves.” In other words, the economy expands so much as a result of tax cuts that it produces the same level of revenue as it would have without the tax cuts.
President Bush, for example, commented on July 11, “Some in Washington say we had to choose between cutting taxes and cutting the deficit…. that was a false choice. The economic growth fueled by tax relief has helped send our tax revenues soaring.”[1] Earlier, in a February speech the President stated, “You cut taxes and the tax revenues increase.”[2] Similarly, Vice President Cheney has claimed, “it’s time for everyone to admit that sensible tax cuts increase economic growth and add to the federal treasury.” [3] And Majority Leader Frist has written that recent experience demonstrates, “when done right, [tax cuts] actually result in more money for government.”[4]
In fact, however, the evidence tells a very different story: the tax cuts have not paid for themselves, and economic growth and revenue growth over the course of the recovery have not been particularly strong.
?Even taking into account the stronger revenue growth now projected for fiscal year 2006, real per-capita revenues have simply returned to the level they reached more than five years ago, when the current business cycle began in March 2001. (March 2001 was the peak and thus the end of the previous business cycle, and hence also the start of the current business cycle.) In contrast, in previous post-World War II business cycles, real per-capita revenues have grown an average of about 10 percent over the five and a half years following the previous business-cycle peak.[5] By this stage in the 1990s business cycle, real per-capita revenues had increased by 11 percent.
?Overall, this economic recovery has been slightly weaker than the average post-World War II recovery. In particular, GDP growth and investment growth have been below the historical average, despite recent tax cuts specifically targeted at increasing investment.
Those who claim that tax cuts pay for themselves might argue that stronger revenue growth in 2005 and 2006 represents the beginning of a new trend, and that the tax cuts could pay for themselves over the longer term. Neither the historical record nor current revenue projections support this argument.
?In 1981, Congress approved very large supply-side tax cuts, dramatically lowering marginal income-tax rates. In 1990 and 1993, by contrast, Congress raised marginal income-tax rates on the well off. Despite the very different tax policies followed during these two decades, there was virtually no difference in real per-person economic growth in the 1980s and 1990s. Real per-person revenues, however, grew about twice as quickly in the 1990s, when taxes were increased, as in the 1980s, when taxes were cut. (See Figure 1.)
?Even the Administration does not project that revenues will continue to grow at their recent rates or that the tax cuts will pay for themselves. Under the revenue assumptions in the Office of Management and Budget’s Mid-Session Review, real per-person revenues will grow at an annual average rate of just 0.8 percent between 2000 and 2011, only about half the growth rate during the 1980s and less than one-fourth the growth rate during the 1990s.
?Studies by the Congressional Budget Office, the Joint Committee on Taxation, and the Administration itself show that tax cuts do not come anywhere close to paying for themselves over the long term. CBO and Joint Tax Committee studies find that, if financed by government borrowing, tax cuts are more likely to harm than to help the economy over the long run, and consequently would cost more than conventional estimates indicate, rather than less. Moreover, in its recent “dynamic analysis” of the impact of making the President’s tax cuts permanent, the Treasury Department reported that even under favorable assumptions, extending the tax cuts would have only a small effect on economic output. That small positive economic impact would offset no more than 10 percent of the tax cuts’ cost. (See box below.)
In addition, economists from across the political spectrum — including economists who have held top positions in the current Administration — reject the argument that tax cuts pay for themselves (see the discussion of this issue on page five). In tax policy, as in other aspects of policymaking, there is no “free lunch.”
Have the Tax Cuts Increased Revenues?
After adjusting for inflation and population growth, this year and last year’s strong growth in revenues have barely made up for the deep revenue losses in 2001, 2002, and 2003. Measured since the current business cycle began in March 2001, total per-capita revenue growth, adjusted for inflation, has been near zero. Based on OMB’s latest revenue estimates, real per-capita revenues in 2006 will be only 0.2 percent above the level they attained more than five years ago at the start of the business cycle. In other words, the current revenue “surge” is merely restoring revenues to where they were half a decade ago.
By contrast, five and a half years after the peak of previous post-World War II business cycles, real per-capita revenues had increased by an average of 10 percent. And at this point in the 1990s business cycle, real per-capita revenues were 11 percent higher than their level at the end of the previous business cycle.[6]
Furthermore, the performance of the economy during the current business cycle has been slightly weaker overall than the economy’s average performance over the comparable period of other business cycles since the end of World War II. Investment growth during the current business cycle has been below the historical average, even though some of the Bush administration’s tax cuts have been specifically targeted at investment. Employment and wage and salary growth have been especially weak during the current business cycle.[7] If tax cuts are crucial to economic growth, then the current business cycle — with its large tax cuts — should strongly outperform previous business cycles. Instead, it has performed more poorly than average.
Treasury Department Study Finds the Bush Tax Cuts Will Pay For Less Than 10 Percent of Their Cost
According to CBO’s official cost estimate, the Administration’s proposal to make the tax cuts enacted since 2001 permanent would cost 1.4 percent of GDP annually. (This does not include the AMT relief that the Administration proposes on an annual basis, which would bring the total cost to 2 percent of GDP.)
I said: “Furthermore, contrary to your position, not all impacts are easily noticed.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
JJ responds: “In fact, hardly any ARE noticed.”
—————————————————
They are doubtlessly noticed, but not attributed by those who experience them to state budget cuts.
””””””””””””””””””””””””’
Me: “You seem to be one of those people who believes that it is easy to separate the private and public sectors, and who only thinks about how the public sector impacts the private sector in specific ways (such as how tax increases might impact the spending habits of your employees) and yet seems to entirely miss the other aspect public sector impacts (such as, the public sector is an employer, and if the public sector that employs a large number of people slows down, so does the rest of the economy).”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The Spam Troll trolls: “Oh, so the purpose of Government is to put people on the public payroll!!!”
———————————————–
I didn’t say that.
””””””””””””””””””””””””’
More Spam Trolling: “Obama should then spend even more Government money to make sure all 9.4% of unemployed Americans are given a Government job.”
————————————————-
Running with the straw man. The fact of the matter is, a large number of people are employed by the public sector, and even more are paid by companies that contract with the public sector. That’s reality.
”””””””””””””””””””””””’
The Spam Troll trolls on: “There is no room to cut Government ever, in any way, because very important critical jobs like paper clip counting, might be lost.”
————————————————–
Of course, I said nothing even close to that.
”””””””””””””””””””””””””
The Spam trolling ends with: “Therefore, Government spending should NEVER decrease.”
————————————————–
You should have stopped with the first sentence, it at least was on topic. The rest was trolling and turther attempts at such nonsense will be ignored.
The ‘jawless fish’ delineates his comments with many lines indicating that he must need the assistance of fingers while reading.
Not that I expect any actual rational discussion from the flame troll, but there were kernals of on-topic discussion between the frothing flames.
“Agnatha, the jawless fish is looking pretty foolish with wet trousers and shoes,”
DNFTFT
“I get NO money directly from Medicare.”
OK.
“All my income is EARNED from private business.”
And you know for a fact that these private businesses are ONLY paid through private dollars? What this would mean is:
None of the private businesses take public insurance, such as Medicaid.
None of the private businesses provide long term care paid for by Medicaid.
None of the private businesses provide healthcare to teachers, law enforcement officers, fire fighters, social workers, highway workers, case managers, home healthcare workers, etc., all of whom are paid by public dollars.
If your business exists in such a vacuum, it is the only one that does.
“So stuff it dumb-ass.”
DNFTFT
And with that, the jawless fish dives back down to the bottom, to suck up whatever he can find there….
As for the budget discussion, anyone happen to know what the increases in the budget have been for the last 10 years in relation to the overall inflation rate?
Ya think that years of OVERSPENDING by State Government might have led to the current little budget crisis?
Year GDP-KS Total Spending-total State Spending
$ billion $ billion % Increase Inflation % of GDP
1999 —- 78.664 —- 13.37 —- —- —- 17.00%
2000 —- 82.812 —- 14.42 —- 7.85% —- 3.38% —- 17.41%
2001 —- 86.43 —- 15.57 —- 7.98% —- 2.83% —- 18.01%
2002 —- 89.573 —- 16.71 —- 7.32% —- 1.59% —- 18.66%
2003 —- 93.56 —- 17.54 —- 4.97% —- 2.27% —- 18.75%
2004 —- 98.426 —- 18.36 —- 4.68% —- 2.68% —- 18.65%
2005 —- 103.305 —- 18.95 —- 3.21% —- 3.39% —- 18.34%
2006 —- 110.645 —- 20.29 —- 7.07% —- 3.24% —- 18.34%
2007 —- 117.305 —- 21.58 —- 6.36% —- 2.85% —- 18.40%
2008 —- 121.188 —- 22.96 —- 6.39% —- 3.85% —- 18.95%
2009 —- 120.981 —- 24.44 —- 6.45% —- —- 20.20%
Since 1999, the Kansas Budget grew at an average rate of 6.23% while inflation averaged 2.90%.
The Kansas Budget as a percentage of State GDP grew from 17.0% to 20.2%.
State Spending has grown at TWICE the rate of inflation.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=1999_2019&view=1&expand=&units=b&fy=fy10&chart=F0-total&bar=1&stack=1&size=m&title=Gross%20Public%20Debt&state=KS&color=c&local=Gross%20Public%20Debt#copypaste
“And with that, the jawless fish dives back down to the bottom, to suck up whatever he can find there….”
DNFTST
“As for the budget discussion, anyone happen to know what the increases in the budget have been for the last 10 years in relation to the overall inflation rate?”
On the other hand, when JJ posts serious discussion, it deserves comment.
It’s not just the inflation rate, of course. It is also growth in population (particularly of those eligible for Medicaid), infrastructure (including technological infrastructure), and mandates (some of which are put upon states by the federal government without funding, like the recent big one, No Child Left Behind). And in Kansas, mid sized and large school disricts convinced the Kansas Supreme Court that the school funding formula was unfair, so they weere underfunded. Finally, contrary to what you have been saying JJ, government spending, particular in one’s backyard, IS popular with the voters. It IS noticed.
“Ya think that years of OVERSPENDING by State Government might have led to the current little budget crisis?”
Probably, particularly in good years. Of course, during good years the state government also decided to increase the tax breaks and even cut some taxes.
Fiscal responsibility means not spending more and cutting revenues when times are good. Unfortunately, legislators and governors love to do both because such actions are popular with the public.
I know you like to KISS JJ, but it’s not always, or even usually, so simple. Sort of like when you try to connect revenue collected by percentage of income earned. There really isn’t a direct connection between the two.
“And with that, the jawless fish dives back down to the bottom, to suck up whatever he can find there….”
DNFTST
“As for the budget discussion, anyone happen to know what the increases in the budget have been for the last 10 years in relation to the overall inflation rate?”
On the other hand, when JJ posts serious discussion, it deserves comment.
It’s not just the inflation rate, of course. It is also growth in population (particularly of those eligible for Medicaid), infrastructure (including technological infrastructure), and mandates (some of which are put upon states by the federal government without funding, like the recent big one, No Child Left Behind). And in Kansas, mid sized and large school disricts convinced the Kansas Supreme Court that the school funding formula was unfair, so they weere underfunded. Finally, contrary to what you have been saying JJ, government spending, particular in one’s backyard, IS popular with the voters. It IS noticed.
“Ya think that years of OVERSPENDING by State Government might have led to the current little budget crisis?”
Probably, particularly in good years. Of course, during good years the state government also decided to increase the tax breaks and even cut some taxes.
Fiscal responsibility means not spending more and cutting revenues when times are good. Unfortunately, legislators and governors love to do both because such actions are popular with the public.
I know you like to KISS JJ, but it’s not always, or even usually, so simple. Sort of like when you try to connect revenue collected by percentage of income earned. There really isn’t a direct connection between the two.
“And with that, the jawless fish dives back down to the bottom, to suck up whatever he can find there….”
DNFTST
“As for the budget discussion, anyone happen to know what the increases in the budget have been for the last 10 years in relation to the overall inflation rate?”
On the other hand, when JJ posts serious discussion, it deserves comment.
It’s not just the inflation rate, of course. It is also growth in population (particularly of those eligible for Medicaid), infrastructure (including technological infrastructure), and mandates (some of which are put upon states by the federal government without funding, like the recent big one, No Child Left Behind). And in Kansas, mid sized and large school disricts convinced the Kansas Supreme Court that the school funding formula was unfair, so they weere underfunded. Finally, contrary to what you have been saying JJ, government spending, particular in one’s backyard, IS popular with the voters. It IS noticed.
“Ya think that years of OVERSPENDING by State Government might have led to the current little budget crisis?”
Probably, particularly in good years. Of course, during good years the state government also decided to increase the tax breaks and even cut some taxes.
Fiscal responsibility means not spending more and not cutting revenues when times are good. Unfortunately, legislators and governors love to do both because such actions are popular with the public.
I know you like to KISS JJ, but it’s not always, or even usually, so simple. Sort of like when you try to connect revenue collected by percentage of income earned. There really isn’t a direct connection between the two.
Dang. Sorry about the triple post.
Triple Posting! Three times!
“But someone using S-CHIP to provide his kid health insurance is?”—the Chimp
That’s right Chimp, I take care of my own with what I earn and pay my rightful taxes.
I don’t fault BlowJ for utilizing those services for his kid, I would if he didn’t. I fault him because he is too proud to work for ‘the man’ as he puts it but not to proud to take from those that will work for ‘the man’.
He is an arrogant and lazy hypocrite.
Agnatha almost admits that Government spending increasing at twice the rate of inflation is a good thing.
But it is much more complicated then that.
I agree it takes a long-winded load of bul carp to convince most of the public to allow government to put the real screws to themselves, and enjoy it at the same time. Agnatha has this down to a science.
Or perhaps they just need to be honest and say “hey, Kansans, we need some dough and we need to raise everyone’s taxes to cover it by a few bucks a month.”
“hey, Kansans, we need some dough and we need to raise everyone’s taxes to cover it”
Seems like that’s all the DimLib simpletons can ever come up with. After awhile it has to stop or the result is a revolution, why not come up with a better idea before that point.
After awhile you run out of other peoples money.
EXCEPT in answering other posters using the term, I have NEVER used the term “the man”.
I’m younger than most of you people and I have far more imaginative terms for the entity you refer to as “the man”.
“Agnatha almost admits that Government spending increasing at twice the rate of inflation is a good thing.”
Not what I said. What I said was that there are all sorts of reasons why government spending might and undoubtably does increase greater than the “rate of inflation”. One example, Medicaid. As the state population ages, particularly in rural areas, Medicaid spending increases. Another example, infrastructure. The growth in the northeast I-70 corridor, particularly around Johnson County, and even around Wichtiam adds infrastructure, but declines in population elsewhere do not result in matching declines of infrastructure maintenance.
“I agree it takes a long-winded load of bul carp to convince most of the public to allow government to put the real screws to themselves, and enjoy it at the same time. Agnatha has this down to a science.”
DNFTST
“You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.”
Ten Secrets for a Successful Family—Adrian Pierce Rogers
“You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the industrious out of it. You don’t multiply wealth by dividing it. Government cannot give anything to anybody that it doesn’t first take from somebody else. Whenever somebody receives something without working for it, somebody else has to work for it without receiving. The worst thing that can happen to a nation is for half of the people to get the idea they don’t have to work because somebody else will work for them, and the other half to get the idea that it does no good to work because they don’t get to enjoy the fruit of their labor.”
Too stupid or too motivated by envy and your own lazy self-interest to understand or accept that, right?
And you can’t have a truly free society when many must answer to few for their very survival.
You are where you are by choice. Sad thing is it is exactly where you will stay as that is also your choice.
That’s right. I choose freedom and dignity. It is unfortunate that our society has come to discourage that.
And the cons are trying to drown their own government in a bathtub. Mexico here we come!
“That’s right. I choose freedom and dignity. It is unfortunate that our society has come to discourage that.”
And where would society be if everyone chose to live like you….flat on it’s ass like a third world country.
You haven’t chosen freedom and dignity, you have chosen to be a slave to your own lazy character, lack of work ethic and honesty with yourself.
You’re sad and disgusting.
Have a good night, although I can’t see how, knowing you will be in the same depressing situation tomorrow and all the rest as well.