Republican policy failure #1: supply side economics fails

[RandomGuy]

We all have to make, in our minds, models of reality.

We have to imagine what the universe is like, and how it works. That is just the way the human brain works, has to work.

This becomes a problem though, when your internal model of reality is inaccurate.

Take the people who don't take their kids to the doctor and medical science, because they are convinced that prayer or some sort, or magic crystals, or whathaveyou is all that's needed. Then that inaccurate model can hurt others. We can test our models of reality by using "if this, then that". "If I pray for my kid, then he will get better".

In the case of so many favored Republican policy solutions that turn out to be based on flawed models of reality, that can hurt us all.

Let's take a first, prime example of what happens when Republicans are really, truly allowed to have their favored policies. Does it work?

Ask Sam Brownback about his state's budget.

In this case, the model is "if we cut taxes, then we will always grow the economy so much that we will end up with more money in our coffers"

What happened? Forbes did a piece on it with some specifics:


The tax cuts in Kansas have been breathtaking. In 2012, at Brownback’s urging, the legislature cut individual tax rates by 25 percent and repealed the tax on sole proprietorships and other “pass-through” businesses. It also increased the standard deduction (though it eliminated some individual credits as well).

In 2013, the legislature cut taxes again. It passed a measure to gradually lower rates even more over five years. By 2018, the top rate, which was 6.45 percent in 2012, will fall to 3.9 percent. It also partially restored some of the credits it eliminated in 2012. This time, it did raise some offsetting revenue for the first few years but far less than the statutory tax cuts. The Center on Budget & Policy Priorities wrote up a nice summary of all the tax changes.

So what happened after all those tax cuts? Revenues collapsed.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2014/07/15/whats-the-matter-with-kansas-and-its-tax-cuts-it-cant-do-math/


Not only did they collapse, they are projected to get worse.

So bad, that Gov. Brownback has had to postpone some of the cuts. He just can't make his model work.

Of course, the obvious solution to make this model work, is "if government gets smaller, then growth will follow". So cuts to education, transportation, and health care are proposed:


Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback says he will cut funding for public schools and universities in a bid to keep the state solvent through June after aggressive tax cuts left gaping budget shortfalls.

Kansas public schools will lose 1.5 percent across the board, while the state's regents universities will see budgets trimmed by 2 percent. The estimated savings of $44.5 million would be used to help prop up the state's finances. The move, combined by a budget-balancing bill approved by the GOP-controlled legislature, would fall just short of eliminating a $344 million deficit. Even so, a $600 million shortfall is projected for the next fiscal year, which begins July 1.

"The dramatic increase in state education funding that has occurred over the last four years is unsustainable," Brownback said in a statement released Thursday. "School districts are estimated to have approximately $381 million in reserve fund balances to help them offset the smaller than expected increase in state funding. The Kansas Department of Education should work with school districts to help them with any cash flow challenges that may arise."
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/02/06/384278249/kansas-will-cut-education-funding-to-help-close-budget-gap


"Just wait" we are told, "the growth will come" and solve everything. "Let's use our rainy day funds to hold on until the growth happens".

Except that isn't what is going to happen even in the best case scenario. Kansas' population is growing. You can't shrink your education budget, and grow your population indefinitely, without some profound impacts.

As noted the projected shortfall is almost $600M in the next year.

Politicians and party faithful might deny reality, but reality will intercede:

S&P downgrades Kansas bond rating
http://www.kansas.com/news/article1158214.html


Standard & Poor’s lowered Kansas’ bond rating to AA from AA+, citing the state’s unbalanced budget caused by income tax cuts signed into law in 2012.

"The downgrades reflect our view of a structurally unbalanced budget, following state income tax cuts that have not been matched with offsetting ongoing expenditure cuts in the fiscal 2015 budget," said Standard & Poor's credit analyst David Hitchcock in a release.

S & P also downgraded the state’s appropriation-secured debt to AA- from AA.

The rating agency gave the state a “negative” outlook on both ratings and projects that the state will face serious budget woes by the end of fiscal year 2015.

"The negative outlook reflects our belief that there will be additional budget pressure as income tax cuts scheduled in future years go into effect, or if midyear revenue shortfalls resume,” Hitchcock said

Read more here: http://www.kansas.com/news/article1158214.html#storylink=cpy

The problem is that the rank and file aren't being told about this problem.

You won't find it on Fox "news". The negative feedback isn't getting into the information bubble.

Search for "kansas budget" on Fox news. I'll wait.
http://www.foxnews.com/search-results/search?q=kansas+budget&submit=Search&ss=fn

I wonder if the GOP will moderate their views on this idea, and maybe adjust it somewhat based on the data and feedback they are getting out of the laboratory that Kansas voters gave them.

Somehow I doubt it.

[boutons_deux]

In Kansas, Brownback tried a red-state ‘experiment.’ Now he may be paying a political pricehttp://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/in-kansas-gov-brownbacks-reelection-race-is-case-study-in-republican-party-shift/2014/07/30/3192d86c-1420-11e4-8936-26932bcfd6ed_story.html

Kock Bros pumped enough $Ms into to KS to get yet another of their Kockenstein monsters re-elected.

[boutons_deux]

another one

How Bobby Jindal’s Budget Mess Will Impact Louisiana Voters (http://thinkprogress.org/election/2015/02/13/3621989/bobby-jindals-budget-mess-will-impact-louisiana-voters/)

http://thinkprogress.org/election/2015/02/13/3621989/bobby-jindals-budget-mess-will-impact-louisiana-voters/

[boutons_deux]

another one

Oklahoma faces 8.3 percent revenue shortfall as energy sector slumps

Critics charge Fallin has advanced a series of tax cuts while not doing enough to fix state agencies for education and public health they say are severely underfunded and rank near the bottom nationally in several categories.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/17/usa-oklahoma-budget-idUSKBN0LL25D20150217?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews

[boutons_deux]

Liberal States Outperform Conservative Ones as Republicans Push More Trickle Down

Despite overwhelming empirical data proving that the Kansas and Bush economic agenda is the quickest path to decimate an economy and kill jobs, House Republicans passed Paul Ryan’s Path to Prosperity (for the wealthy elite) budget that makes Brownback’s budget disaster look tame in comparison.

In fact, Ryan’s budget is far worse for the economy, jobs, and debt and deficit than anything Bush or Brownback could possible impose and yet Republicans claim it is a job-creation, economy-growing, poverty halting, and deficit reducing bonanza despite projections it will increase the deficit and bring economic growth to a screeching halt.

Still, Republicans could not help themselves from recently passing two permanent and unfunded tax cuts for the rich and corporations that add to the deficit and create no jobs.

Republicans are not experimenting any longer because they know precisely what their “pro-business” tax cutting agenda will produce; more wealth for the one percent, higher debt and deficit, and annual budget shortfalls for the nation’s economy.

http://www.politicususa.com/2014/05/14/study-finds-al.html

god/guns/gays/abortion/immigrants get Repugs elected, then they fuck their ignorant, "faith-based" voters.

[RandomGuy]

In Kansas, Brownback tried a red-state ‘experiment.’ Now he may be paying a political pricehttp://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/in-kansas-gov-brownbacks-reelection-race-is-case-study-in-republican-party-shift/2014/07/30/3192d86c-1420-11e4-8936-26932bcfd6ed_story.html

Kock Bros pumped enough $Ms into to KS to get yet another of their Kockenstein monsters re-elected.



Yet he still won.
http://www.politico.com/2014-election/results/kansas/#.VOTpk_nF8-o

Really wonder if there are enough moderates left in the GOP to actually fight the dumbest of the GOP policy failures. I hope so.

[boutons_deux]

Okies pray to St Ronnie the Diseased, patron saint of laffer curves and trickle-down voodoo economics

Reagan Speeches Are Required Reading in Oklahoma Bill to Replace AP U.S. History

http://www.alternet.org/education/reagan-speeches-are-required-reading-oklahoma-bill-replace-ap-us-history?akid=12808.187590.1oTfAf&rd=1&src=newsletter1032093&t=17

holy shit, red states embarrassing, outdoing The Onion :lol

[tlongII]

So what happened to California?

[DarrinS]

Take the people who don't take their kids to the doctor and medical science, because they are convinced that prayer or some sort, or magic crystals, or whathaveyou is all that's needed. Then that inaccurate model can hurt others. We can test our models of reality by using "if this, then that". "If I pray for my kid, then he will get better".

In the case of so many favored Republican policy solutions that turn out to be based on flawed models of reality, that can hurt us all.



You really won me over when you compared Republicans to anti-vaxers.

[RandomGuy]

You really won me over when you compared Republicans to anti-vaxers.


:lmao

[RandomGuy]

So what happened to California?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California

Didn't go anywhere as far as I know.

Respectfully:
If you want to make a point, you might want to flesh it out a bit.

[RandomGuy]

You really won me over when you compared Republicans to anti-vaxers.

Better yet, I would point out that the mechanisms for faulty reasoning are not entirely dissimilar. Faulty reasoning is faulty reasoning, whether it is ineffective and harmful tax policy, or "vaccines cause autism".


Your Brain Is Primed To Reach False Conclusions
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/your-brain-is-primed-to-reach-false-conclusions/

I will not only stand by it, I will double down, and provide the evidence to support the analogy.

If you weren't so damned lazy, you might be able to find your way out of the inaccurate beliefs you hold.

Doesn't it bother you that you can't take personal responsibility for your bad thinking and improve your critical thinking skills?

[tlongII]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California

Didn't go anywhere as far as I know.

Respectfully:
If you want to make a point, you might want to flesh it out a bit.

I think you know what I'm talking about.

http://cacs.org/research/unsustainable-california-the-top-10-issues-facing-the-golden-state-wall-of-debt/

[Th'Pusher]

I think you know what I'm talking about.

http://cacs.org/research/unsustainable-california-the-top-10-issues-facing-the-golden-state-wall-of-debt/
What in the name of reason does that have to do with supply side economics being a quantifiable policy failure?

[tlongII]

What in the name of reason does that have to do with supply side economics being a quantifiable policy failure?

It means that the liberal ideas are at least as stupid.

[ElNono]

I think it should be noted that, unlike the Federal government, states cannot create their own money. As such, they do closely resemble a household economy (one with a rich uncle).

[Th'Pusher]

It means that the liberal ideas are at least as stupid.

So you concede supply side economics is a policy failure and your response is a red herring. Nice debating skills. :tu

[Th'Pusher]

I think it should be noted that, unlike the Federal government, states cannot create their own money. As such, they do closely resemble a household economy (one with a rich uncle).

Are you suggesting supply side economics works at the national level because the federal government can create its own money?

[ElNono]

Are you suggesting supply side economics works at the national level because the federal government can create its own money?

Supply-side economics do work *IF* you have established that there's a high barrier to entry to providing goods and services. It isn't just centered on taxation, but any and all barriers. It's a solution to a well established problem. High taxation can be a barrier, but in order to establish that, you would have to look at the Laffer curve or similar (the Laffer curve is actually pretty basic, but you can get a ballpark idea). What you see in the OP is a typical case of irresponsible lack of research in economic policy. If you have not established what your problem is, just slashing taxes for the sake of it is just irresponsible and does not address whatever the actual problem is.

This is doubly stupid for States (which is what I was pointing out). The Federal government controls the money supply, and thus inflation. It has an intrinsic handle on deficits. States have no such ability. They rely strictly on income, expenses and debt.

[tlongII]

How is Texas doing?

[Th'Pusher]

Supply-side economics do work *IF* you have established that there's a high barrier to entry to providing goods and services. It isn't just centered on taxation, but any and all barriers. It's a solution to a well established problem. High taxation can be a barrier, but in order to establish that, you would have to look at the Laffer curve or similar (the Laffer curve is actually pretty basic, but you can get a ballpark idea). What you see in the OP is a typical case of irresponsible lack of research in economic policy. If you have not established what your problem is, just slashing taxes for the sake of it is just irresponsible and does not address whatever the actual problem is.

This is doubly stupid for States (which is what I was pointing out). The Federal government controls the money supply, and thus inflation. It has an intrinsic handle on deficits. States have no such ability. They rely strictly on income, expenses and debt.
Confused. Low barriers to providing goods to the market is a fundamental principle of supply side, no?

[boutons_deux]

"high barrier to entry to providing goods and services."

examples of in an industrial economy?

[Th'Pusher]

Supply side is based on the principle that consumers benefit when many people can provide goods and services. Someone is going to have to explain this high barrier to entry augment.

[spurraider21]

Supply-side economics do work *IF* you have established that there's a high barrier to entry to providing goods and services. It isn't just centered on taxation, but any and all barriers. It's a solution to a well established problem. High taxation can be a barrier, but in order to establish that, you would have to look at the Laffer curve or similar (the Laffer curve is actually pretty basic, but you can get a ballpark idea). What you see in the OP is a typical case of irresponsible lack of research in economic policy. If you have not established what your problem is, just slashing taxes for the sake of it is just irresponsible and does not address whatever the actual problem is.

This is doubly stupid for States (which is what I was pointing out). The Federal government controls the money supply, and thus inflation. It has an intrinsic handle on deficits. States have no such ability. They rely strictly on income, expenses and debt.
:tu

Confused. Low barriers to providing goods to the market is a fundamental principle of supply side, no?
he's saying you should resort to supply side economics in cases where you have established that the barrier is too high. if you have not established that the barrier is too high, then cutting taxes isn't helping anybody (except the folks making money)

[boutons_deux]

Supply side is based on the principle that consumers benefit when many people can provide goods and services. Someone is going to have to explain this high barrier to entry augment.

Supply side isn't possible, and never will be, in USA in many major sectors where untouchable cartels, oligarchies, monopolies dominate.

So s-s is economic theoretical bullshit. And the Repugs, conservatives who push s-s know it.

[Th'Pusher]

:tu

he's saying you should resort to supply side economics in cases where you have established that the barrier is too high. if you have not established that the barrier is too high, then cutting taxes isn't helping anybody (except the folks making money)
Thanks. Was completely reading that wrong.

[ElNono]

Confused. Low barriers to providing goods to the market is a fundamental principle of supply side, no?


"high barrier to entry to providing goods and services."

examples of in an industrial economy?


Supply side is based on the principle that consumers benefit when many people can provide goods and services. Someone is going to have to explain this high barrier to entry augment.

I'll provide an current example: Due to the cheap gas prices, some State with a vibrant economy might be tempted to institute (or raise, if they already have it) a gas tax, in order to increase revenues. Now, six months from now, gas spikes back up to $3.50/gallon or whatever, and the local economy is showing signs of stagnation due to, among other things, transportation costs. The way to know if that's primarily the issue, is to look at the efficiency of revenues coming in from that tax. In theory, if the tax is, at a given point, too punitive, you will have diminishing revenue: people will simply drive less and try to cut corners to avoid the tax. That's what the Laffer curve attempts to illustrate: there's a point in the curve where the tax rate provides the maximum efficiency, revenue-wise. That point isn't a fixed point, it's moving target that relies on variables at a given point in time (ie: cheap gas vs expensive gas). When you've established that you're on the wrong side of the curve, the supply-side solution is to reduce the rate until you're closer to the "efficient" range (or roll back the tax altogether).

Now, that's a taxing example, but supply-side includes other barriers to entry. For example, Google has found that there's a lot of bureaucracy (for good or bad) when it comes to installing fiber to home on different cities, from permits, to access to posts. That's a barrier to entry, and something that supply-side economics recommends getting rid of. (IOW: over-regulation is as bad as lack of regulation).

[Th'Pusher]

I'll provide an current example: Due to the cheap gas prices, some State with a vibrant economy might be tempted to institute (or raise, if they already have it) a gas tax, in order to increase revenues. Now, six months from now, gas spikes back up to $3.50/gallon or whatever, and the local economy is showing signs of stagnation due to, among other things, transportation costs. The way to know if that's primarily the issue, is to look at the efficiency of revenues coming in from that tax. In theory, if the tax is, at a given point, too punitive, you will have diminishing revenue: people will simply drive less and try to cut corners to avoid the tax. That's what the Laffer curve attempts to illustrate: there's a point in the curve where the tax rate provides the maximum efficiency, revenue-wise. That point isn't a fixed point, it's moving target that relies on variables at a given point in time (ie: cheap gas vs expensive gas). When you've established that you're on the wrong side of the curve, the supply-side solution is to reduce the rate until you're closer to the "efficient" range (or roll back the tax altogether).

Now, that's a taxing example, but supply-side includes other barriers to entry. For example, Google has found that there's a lot of bureaucracy (for good or bad) when it comes to installing fiber to home on different cities, from permits, to access to posts. That's a barrier to entry, and something that supply-side economics recommends getting rid of. (IOW: over-regulation is as bad as lack of regulation).
Got it. The way I read your original post was that a high barrier to entry is required for supply side to work, whereas you were suggesting SS requires the barrier be removed.

[spurraider21]

Got it. The way I read your original post was that a high barrier to entry is required for supply side to work, whereas you were suggesting SS requires the barrier be removed.
well yeah. supply side works when you have a high barrier to entry... the aim of ss is to decrease or remove the barrier

[RandomGuy]

I think you know what I'm talking about.

http://cacs.org/research/unsustainable-california-the-top-10-issues-facing-the-golden-state-wall-of-debt/

Sorry don't live in california, and don't study its debt.

After reading your link, I don't feel any enlightened. Article is rather poorly written, and even with the cites at the bottom not really overly clear about the support for the statements it makes. A bit hard to evaluate.

Again, you will have to flesh it out. Not sure how the link you posted is relevant to the failure of supply-side economics to deliver growth after massive tax cuts.

I'm smart, but I'm not a mind reader, sorry.

[DarrinS]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEdXrfIMdiU

[ElNono]

^ As I said earlier, that stuff happens a lot more at the Federal level. Didn't Barry extend the Bush tax cuts for a long ass time?

But at the State level, it's a completely different ball game, especially if you don't deal with the obvious revenue shortfall.

The lesson that should be learned here is that you can't issue economic policy on faith alone. You have to do your research, or you're going to end up looking like an idiot.

[boutons_deux]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEdXrfIMdiU

boy born with silver spoon in mouth cuts taxes on his own class of 1%ers

[boutons_deux]

^ As I said earlier, that stuff happens a lot more at the Federal level. Didn't Barry extend the Bush tax cuts for a long ass time?

But at the State level, it's a completely different ball game, especially if you don't deal with the obvious revenue shortfall.

The lesson that should be learned here is that you can't issue economic policy on faith alone. You have to do your research, or you're going to end up looking like an idiot.

the madness of the GOP means they deny all facts from research (eg, "trickle down" is a bad joke )

[DarrinS]

^ As I said earlier, that stuff happens a lot more at the Federal level. Didn't Barry extend the Bush tax cuts for a long ass time?

But at the State level, it's a completely different ball game, especially if you don't deal with the obvious revenue shortfall.

The lesson that should be learned here is that you can't issue economic policy on faith alone. You have to do your research, or you're going to end up looking like an idiot.


I don't disagree with that.

[DarrinS]

the madness of the GOP means they deny all facts from research (eg, "trickle down" is a bad joke )

A rising tide lifts all boats.

[boutons_deux]

A rising tide lifts all boats.

yes, that's another lie. it lifts all super-yachts.

[DarrinS]

yes, that's another lie. it lifts all super-yachts.


Some of us have great stories, pretty stories that take place at lakes, with boats, and friends, and noodle salad. Just no one in this car. But, a lot of people, that's their story; good times, noodle salad. What makes it so hard is not that you had it bad, but that you're that pissed that so many others had it good.

[TeyshaBlue]

Noodle salad cannot conceivably be good.

[boutons_deux]

not that you had it bad, but that you're that pissed that so many others had it good.

You Lie

[tlongII]

Sorry don't live in california, and don't study its debt.

After reading your link, I don't feel any enlightened. Article is rather poorly written, and even with the cites at the bottom not really overly clear about the support for the statements it makes. A bit hard to evaluate.

Again, you will have to flesh it out. Not sure how the link you posted is relevant to the failure of supply-side economics to deliver growth after massive tax cuts.

I'm smart, but I'm not a mind reader, sorry.

It's really meant to show you that bigger government DOES NOT WORK. That is all. The typical liberal position is to provide more government assistance. Thus requiring more taxes. It doesn't work. It never has.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The lesson here is that policy cannot be reduced to memes and cliche. Oh and negative reinforcement works.

[tlongII]

The lesson here is that policy cannot be reduced to memes and cliche. Oh and negative reinforcement works.

This is true.

[ElNono]

It's really meant to show you that bigger government DOES NOT WORK. That is all. The typical liberal position is to provide more government assistance. Thus requiring more taxes. It doesn't work. It never has.

Talking about memes and clichés...

[RandomGuy]

It's really meant to show you that bigger government DOES NOT WORK. That is all. The typical liberal position is to provide more government assistance. Thus requiring more taxes. It doesn't work. It never has.

The link you posted doesn't really say that. It says that one state is, according to the author, not accounting for their overall debts properly, most likely because it isn't really reflective of actuarial shortfalls in pension funding for public sector employees.

I would agree on that point. Most states don't really account properly, in my opinion such things, including, I might add, Texas, and I have read the ERS annual report for years, front to back. Frankly, if you live in Texas, you should be a bit appalled at the amount of risk the managers are taking with their investments, but that is a different topic altogether.

As for "big government" not working, I will call bullshit. Big government does work, and does what it is supposed to do. Without that big bad federal government, the US of A would be a squabbling bunch of ninny-states, not unlike Europe.

Having a mostly unified legal and tax framework for 50 states allows businesses and individuals to move from place to place, and expand. That government is the framework and bones on which the meat of our economy is hung.

A growing population, with a diverse, specialized economy, as ours is, will always require "more taxes", even if you hold the relative size of government static to the population.

If you want to say how exactly it doesn't work, and provide evidence that is fine, but big government "never" working is not really a workable theory, and easy to reject.

That is which asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

[RandomGuy]

A rising tide lifts all boats.

Vacuous platitudes are vacuous.

[RandomGuy]

I'll provide an current example: Due to the cheap gas prices, some State with a vibrant economy might be tempted to institute (or raise, if they already have it) a gas tax, in order to increase revenues. Now, six months from now, gas spikes back up to $3.50/gallon or whatever, and the local economy is showing signs of stagnation due to, among other things, transportation costs. The way to know if that's primarily the issue, is to look at the efficiency of revenues coming in from that tax. In theory, if the tax is, at a given point, too punitive, you will have diminishing revenue: people will simply drive less and try to cut corners to avoid the tax. That's what the Laffer curve attempts to illustrate: there's a point in the curve where the tax rate provides the maximum efficiency, revenue-wise. That point isn't a fixed point, it's moving target that relies on variables at a given point in time (ie: cheap gas vs expensive gas). When you've established that you're on the wrong side of the curve, the supply-side solution is to reduce the rate until you're closer to the "efficient" range (or roll back the tax altogether).

Now, that's a taxing example, but supply-side includes other barriers to entry. For example, Google has found that there's a lot of bureaucracy (for good or bad) when it comes to installing fiber to home on different cities, from permits, to access to posts. That's a barrier to entry, and something that supply-side economics recommends getting rid of. (IOW: over-regulation is as bad as lack of regulation).

That effectively illustrates the theory, including the Laffer curve.

The problem though, is that most people in the right wing of this country seem to think we are much, much farther along that curve that the evidence says we actually are.

When they act on the theory that we are on the other side of the curve that diminishes government revenue, they are, invariably, wrong, as Sam Brownback is discovering, much to the chagrin of his presidential ambitions, and GOP wonks everywhere.

[Winehole23]

A rising tide lifts all boats.


Between 2003 and 2012, the companies that make up the S&P 500 spent an astounding 54 percent of profits (https://hbr.org/2014/09/profits-without-prosperity) on stock buybacks. Last year alone, U.S. corporations spent about $700 billion, roughly 4 percent of GDP, simply propping up their share prices by repurchasing their own stock. And much of the rest of these profits has been paid to shareholders in the form of dividends.


Over the past 10 years, according to data compiled from its public filings, Wal-Mart has spent more than $65.4 billion on stock buybacks — about 47 percent of its profits. That’s an average of more than $6.5 billion a year in stock buybacks, enough to give each of its 1.4 million U.S. workers a $4,670-a-year raise.


In the past, this money flowed through the broader economy in the form of higher wages or increased investments in plants and equipment or in public investment. But today, trillions of dollars of windfall profits are being sucked out of the real economy and into a paper asset bubble, inflating share prices while producing nothing of tangible value.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/biggest-scam-bankrupting-business-middle-class/

[RandomGuy]

and the failure continues...

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/kansass-failed-experiment/389874/

Brownback is trying to walk some of it back, without admitted he royally fucked up. Shocker, there is less money in the coffers than they thought there was.

$600M in the hole for this year alone and still no end in sight.


Kansas's budget has for months resembled a wallet with a hole in it—every time the state's bookkeepers peek inside, they find less money than the government thought would be there. Just a few days after the November election, the Kansas budget office revealed that revenue projections were off by more than $200 million, bringing the budget gap facing Brownback to $600 million in all.

The yawning deficit is widely blamed on the deep income tax cuts that Brownback, along with a Republican legislature, enacted during his first two years in office. They not only slashed rates, but more importantly, they created a huge exemption for business owners who file their taxes as individuals. By Brownback's own description, the tax plan was a "real live experiment" in supply-side economics, with the idea being that lower taxes would spur investment, create jobs, and refill Kansas's coffers through faster growth. Yet even under the most charitable analysis, revenue has plummeted much faster than the economy has expanded.

[boutons_deux]

but stupid fuckin redneck and Christian Taliban just re-elected Brownback

[101A]

and the failure continues...

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/kansass-failed-experiment/389874/

Brownback is trying to walk some of it back, without admitted he royally fucked up. Shocker, there is less money in the coffers than they thought there was.

$600M in the hole for this year alone and still no end in sight.

OK, I'm convinced. Kansas cut taxes too deeply.

We've already repealed the Bush tax cuts (well, the ones on the high earners). That didn't really help that much at the Federal level. Should we raise taxes more? Do you honestly think that will help? The problem is not how much we tax people with high incomes. The problem is the concentration of power, influence and money on Wal-Street. Those people, for all intent and purpose own our government; elected officials on both sides of the aisle have had enough power over the past couple of decades to affect this; none have chosen to do so. Both parties, seemingly do things that, ultimately, result in those people gaining MORE influence and control. They stack the Fed; they stack the FTC, they own treasury and they buy congressmen and select our presidents.

If we raise the income tax, we will simply send more of the rest of the country's income to the Federal government where those in real power will be able to usurp it to their own ends. The truly powerful are not concerned about income taxes, or probably even capital gains taxes anymore. I don't know that they fear anything - or have anything TO FEAR until Marx is proven right.

We need Teddy Roosevelt. We need Abraham Lincoln. We need FDR or Ronald Reagan (not talking about specific poly beliefs I'm talking about personality, determination and the ability to get things done - despite entrenched opposition). We need a President with a vision to recognize what the real problem is, put a voice to it - and coalesce people around those ideas and that vision. None of the people currently slated to run for president fit that mold (certainly not the presumptive favorites - Bush and Clinton - seriously?!) The big banks have to be broken up - at the very least be allowed to crumble when their next untenable scheme comes crashing down; that event COULD jump start the solution (and should have been allowed to in '08 - but BOTH parties - a president from each - are fully culpable in that.)

Power needs to be spread out, not concentrated. Neither party has that as their true agenda. As long as the rest of us are willing pawns in their scheme, we're part of the problem.

Boutons has the most consistent, accurate message on the board "Fucked and unfuckable". Until something changes, he's right.

[boutons_deux]

We've already repealed the Bush tax cuts (well, the ones on the high earners)

bullshit, the estate taxes remain untouched

http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms/6-5-06tax-f11.jpg


Actuaries Estimate Estate Tax at 2009 Levels Could Cover One Quarter of Social Security Shortfall
http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms/6-5-06tax-f21.jpg

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=455

and as the hyper-wealthy have and increase by $Ts in estate values, the tax loss will continue to mount

[101A]

We've already repealed the Bush tax cuts (well, the ones on the high earners)

bullshit, the estate taxes remain untouched

http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms/6-5-06tax-f11.jpg


Actuaries Estimate Estate Tax at 2009 Levels Could Cover One Quarter of Social Security Shortfall
http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms/6-5-06tax-f21.jpg

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=455

and as the hyper-wealthy have and increase by $Ts in estate values, the tax loss will continue to mount


Yeah, great point; I mean, the Kennedys lost their entire fortune as generation after generation paid those taxes before they were raised! It used to be that rich people didn't figure out ways to NOT pay estate taxes! Besides, if you are "Hyper Rich", the low millions exemption doesn't mean that much. The estate tax exemption protects small businesses (my small business, included). Lowering the exemption just enriches the life insurance companies.

[101A]

Also, 120 billion? Over 10 years? I thought we were talking real money. Gates and Buffet ALONE, if the estate tax were what you portend it to be, would be more than that.

[boutons_deux]

Also, 120 billion? Over 10 years? I thought we were talking real money. Gates and Buffet ALONE, if the estate tax were what you portend it to be, would be more than that.

there are ways to avoid probate and estate taxes, and the hyper-wealthy have the fancy tax lawyers and accountants working full time on screwing America.

so it's about $1T "tax expenditure" per 10 years

[101A]

there are ways to avoid probate and estate taxes, and the hyper-wealthy have the fancy tax lawyers and accountants working full time on screwing America.

so it's about $1T "tax expenditure" per 10 years

I believe your chart is accumulating; ~100 Billion per year.

[boutons_deux]

GOP’s estate tax swindle: Carving out a bonus for millionaire heirs while hiding behind farmers

But with the estate tax, Republicans will never come right out and say that they want Chip Von Whiffersnort IV to pocket a greater share (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/14/republicans-push-269-bill_n_7061458.html) of Grandpa Whiffersnort’s estate. Instead, they promote the estate tax repeal as part of a noble crusade to save family farms and small businesses from crushing double taxation. “This tax doesn’t just hit the big guy. It hits the little guy – like the small business and the family farm. :lol It is both unwise and unfair, and it needs to go,”

That’s all lies. “In the entire country, only 120 small businesses and farms (100 of them large farms) were hit by the estate tax in 2013,” writes Dana Milbank (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/republicans-push-for-a-permanent-aristocracy/2015/04/14/aa434f82-e2e5-11e4-81ea-0649268f729e_story.html) in today’s Washington Post.

“And for that tiny number affected, there are all sorts of provisions already in place to soften the blow: low valuation rules, delayed tax payments and other breaks and discounts.”

All told, just 0.18 percent of estates (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2015/04/14/the-facts-about-the-estate-tax-and-farmers/) were hit with the estate tax in 2013. It’s a policy that targets “the big guy” only – all this weeping on behalf of threatened small businesses and farms is purely theatrical, and it’s been going on for years (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/10/politics/10tax.html?_r=0).

http://www.salon.com/2015/04/15/gops_estate_tax_swindle_carving_out_a_bonus_for_mi llionaire_heirs_while_hiding_behind_farmers/

[angrydude]

This may shock you but rich people PLAN their estates specifically so they don't get hit by it even if it was lower than the current 10.8 million for married couples. You just make a plan. It's not that hard. You set up a couple irrevocable trusts, maybe an ILIT (to pay for whatever estate you may have to pay) set up some charities and donate your shit (for tax credits of course), and voila, no estate tax.

People who are asset rich and cash poor don't think they need to hire an estate planner to set this all up for them.

[Winehole23]

plausibly less than half of the US invests in stocks any more.

think of that. financial institutions and banks and broker dealers quantitative desks squeezed out the little guy.

[Wild Cobra]

Any solid information on this by unbiased sources rather than pundits?

I looked for trends and graphs, so few up to date. The only up to date ones I see have the general fund relatively flat after the cuts took effect, and falling before that.

Again, any solid information?

[boutons_deux]

I see estimates that killing the estate tax will be a "tax expenditure" of nearly $300B over next 10 years (while Repugs plan to gut the social safety net)

[RandomGuy]

Any solid information on this by unbiased sources rather than pundits?

I looked for trends and graphs, so few up to date. The only up to date ones I see have the general fund relatively flat after the cuts took effect, and falling before that.

Again, any solid information?

IF you want data, you will have to specify what you are seeking.
http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/yael-t-abouhalkah/article13983977.html

A little bit of legwork will get you there, several studies are available and linked there.

https://klic.dol.ks.gov/gsipub/index.asp?docid=472
^^ being one of them.

Dipshits with agendas point out that jobs grew faster than expected in Kansas... then leave out that Kansas trailed the US in job growth...


Stop the talk about Kansas having a spending problem. It’s not true, and our lawmakers have just shown how false that claim is.

The Senate Ways and Means Committee has passed a FY 2016 general fund budget with expenditures set at $6.478 billion and the full Senate adopted that budget. Although the House has not voted on a budget yet, the House Appropriations Committee budget position sets spending at $6.477 billion.

Compare the spending in the Senate budget — $6.478 billion — to the FY 2016 official revenue estimate — $5.811 billion. That’s a gap of $667 million. Wow! If Kansas has a spending problem, why did the Kansas Senate, currently a very conservative body, vote to spend $667 million more than they expect to receive?

The Senate-passed budget is not lavish. A clear goal of Senate lawmakers was to crank down expenditures to the lowest possible level. Yet, they still propose spending $667 million more than they take in. The budget puts schools on a block grant, an approach that means cuts and problems for many school districts. University funding goes down. State employees who have foregone salary increases in recent years get nothing again.

If spending is the problem, lawmakers have another $667 million to cut out of the budget in FY 2016. Good luck.

http://www.kansasbudget.com/

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-uy80H7xmlEQ/VTJcjZeDTXI/AAAAAAAAAW8/UP5RR74o6e4/s1600/sgf.png

10% shortfalls for the forseeable future.

[RandomGuy]

... and the ongoing failure continues.

Doubts grow about tax plan passing to fix Kansas budget


TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) -- Doubts grew among Kansas legislators Tuesday about whether they can approve tax increases necessary to balance the state budget without deep spending cuts that could lead to more-crowded classrooms and even layoffs of prison guards.

Three Senate and three House negotiators canceled a second consecutive day of public talks on tax issues. The Republican-dominated Senate approved a bill Sunday that would raise sales and cigarette taxes to help raise $423 million during the fiscal year beginning July 1, but members of the GOP-controlled House doubt it can pass their chamber.
http://news.yahoo.com/doubts-grow-tax-plan-passing-021951276.html

One can only hope that the sensible people in Kansas will take the keys from these idiots before they do any more damage.

[CosmicCowboy]

deep spending cuts that could lead to more-crowded classrooms and even layoffs of prison guards.

the classic budget cliche.

Kind of like Obama "shutting down" the Washington monuments and then hiring extra guards to make a scene of keeping people out.

[boutons_deux]

the classic budget cliche.

Kind of like Obama "shutting down" the Washington monuments and then hiring extra guards to make a scene of keeping people out.

not FUD. KS schools closed 12 days early last month for want of funds.

[CosmicCowboy]

not FUD. KS schools closed 12 days early last month for want of funds.

Looks like an 8% budget shortfall. My guess is they could have found that 8% of waste without shutting down the schools if they had wanted to. They just didn't want to.

[ElNono]

Looks like an 8% budget shortfall. My guess is they could have found that 8% of waste without shutting down the schools if they had wanted to. They just didn't want to.

So what's the "cliché" on that?

[CosmicCowboy]

So what's the "cliché" on that?

seriously?

any time the people want to cut back a bloated bureaucracy the bureaucracy responds by claiming they have to cut back on kids and public safety.

[ElNono]

seriously?

any time the people want to cut back a bloated bureaucracy the bureaucracy responds by claiming they have to cut back on kids and public safety.

The schools did shut down early. That happened, it wasn't a cliché.

Plus, how is the "bloated bureaucracy" fault that the legislature that caused the budget shortfall in the first place now don't want to find waste to cut without shutting down schools?

[boutons_deux]

watch for it: "inefficiency" is the Repug bullshit slime they hide behind for "starving the beast", for brutal austerity while cutting taxes on wealthy and BigCorp.

[ElNono]

This is the Budget Director telling the legislators that the Governor will make those cuts unless they come up with different cuts to make up the difference. They're all from the same party here, AFAIK.

[tlongII]

seriously?

any time the people want to cut back a bloated bureaucracy the bureaucracy responds by claiming they have to cut back on kids and public safety.

Exactly. They cut areas that cause the most uproar. How about cutting government employee pension benefits? Or administrator salaries? It's ridiculous. Public employees make more money than private employees these days.

[ElNono]

Exactly. They cut areas that cause the most uproar. How about cutting government employee pension benefits? Or administrator salaries? It's ridiculous. Public employees make more money than private employees these days.

Who are "they"?

[tlongII]

Who are "they"?

State govt.

[ElNono]

:lol so let me get this straight, the same guys you were lauding for cutting income taxes are now to be vilified because they're unwilling to make more spending cuts to make ends meet?

pick a lane, tbh...

[angrydude]

Some of you guys really need to update your rhetoric from the 80s

[CosmicCowboy]

:lol so let me get this straight, the same guys you were lauding for cutting income taxes are now to be vilified because they're unwilling to make more spending cuts to make ends meet?

pick a lane, tbh...

You have politicians elected by the people with the mandate to reduce government expenses and you have entrenched unelected bureaucrats determined to expand their empire to justify increased budgets and pay. I do business with local, school, county, state and federal employees and they all have their budget cycles where they suddenly have to spend money (whether they need to or not) so their next year budget doesn't get cut or to justify budget increases. I have seen them blow hundreds of thousands of dollars in a whack replacing perfectly good equipment with new equipment just because they "needed" to spend money. If you guys think that's just an 80's phenomenon you are very gullible. Over the years I have literally made millions off of this very issue. I re-selll perfectly good equipment for tens of thousands of dollars to private companies that I was paid to take out and "dispose of" by government entities.

[boutons_deux]

"You have politicians elected by the people with the mandate to reduce government expenses and you have entrenched unelected bureaucrats determined to expand their empire to justify increased budgets and pay"

people elect politicians to destroy public schools, let infrastructure decay?

What %age of KS state, local govt spending is in employee compensation that you think employees are so vehemently trying to protect?

Repug, VRWC foment anger and resentment among private sector employees, who have been divided into conquerable individuals with no collective power, against public employees who have secure jobs and good retirement plans.


Private sector employees, fucked over for decades by private employers into poverty and near-poverty, aka The War on Employees, and at best stagnant real income, RESENT public employees (and in general, the govt "beast to be starved" so the private BigCorp have no countervailing limitations on it power) and want to tear them down to the insecure, no-future status of the private sector employees. Rather than private sector employees fighting to raise their own status up to that of public sector employees.

Reminds of what the English told me a long time ago about the difference between an Englishman and an American:

"An Englishman sees a rich person driving a Rolls Royce and says "I want to tear tha person down", while an American say sees a rich person driving a Rolls Royce and says "I will work hard so I can drive a Rolls Royce"

CC is nothing but a shill for the VRWC, spouting its America-destroying propaganda.


Guess what? The American has been turned into the Englishman. and of course you can believe The American Dream only if you're asleep.

[101A]

You have politicians elected by the people with the mandate to reduce government expenses and you have entrenched unelected bureaucrats determined to expand their empire to justify increased budgets and pay. I do business with local, school, county, state and federal employees and they all have their budget cycles where they suddenly have to spend money (whether they need to or not) so their next year budget doesn't get cut or to justify budget increases. I have seen them blow hundreds of thousands of dollars in a whack replacing perfectly good equipment with new equipment just because they "needed" to spend money. If you guys think that's just an 80's phenomenon you are very gullible. Over the years I have literally made millions off of this very issue. I re-selll perfectly good equipment for tens of thousands of dollars to private companies that I was paid to take out and "dispose of" by government entities.

Back in the stone ages (1991) I sold typewriters for IBM. I delivered 100 $900.00 typewriters to a closet in a Huntsville prison at the end of a budget cycle. I know two years later only a dozen were in service - the rest still in boxes in that closet. Typewriters were boat anchors within a few years - I always wondered what happened to those...every couple of years I could use a good typewriter.

I realize it is just a single anecdote, but there is truth to what CC is saying. A couple years after IBM I was IT at the College of Vet Medicine at A&M; what was obvious being there was that the school was run not for the students, or even the faculty; the permanent fixtures were in the Dean's office.

Another anecdote: A powerful state senator lost his re-election bid in '92. Brought in as Sr. Faculty (dude was in the early 40's; given a HUGE office at the top of the large animal bldg. We were told to set him up with any system he wanted (he bought a Dell box that cost over 7 grand at the time - multiple monitors - to run Word Perfect Office on Windows 3.1). He didn't teach classes, was rarely at the school; but he was royalty and a f*&^ing prima donna. Was naive at the time, but finally figured out the Dean's office bought themselves their very own lobbyist - paid for by the government he was lobbying.

I understand that much of conservative economic ideology is rooted in belief and myth, and that it doesn't pan out as advertised, but I KNOW that big-government is good ONLY for a few, a drain on creativity and mobility for most - and has unstoppable momentum. Massive, controlling, greedy, powerful, self-perpetuating bureaucracy sucks the life out of society. It comes in the form of government, but also business - and those are as big and pervasive as ever. And NOW there is a symbiosis between the government and business monsters that is unprecedented. THAT is the vampire squid we must all fight, but instead we argue about individual tax rates, sales taxes & estate taxes; none of which, ultimately, matters. Breaking up the TBTF and reigning in government power...

[boutons_deux]

"I KNOW that big-government is good ONLY for a few, a drain on creativity and mobility for most"

That's because govt has been captured, COMPROMISED BigCorp, VRWC, 1%. Politicians run for office to get (more) wealthy (esp lobbying and jobs later with BigCorp), not to serve the common good.

The VRWC propaganda works great: VRWC fucks up govt for the 99% to enrich the VRWC, propagandizes/trashes govt so the 99% hate govt the VRWC fucked up.

You people don't have any anecdotes about MIC, PIC, health care waste and corruption? LOL

All y'all rightwinguts whine and bitch about about govt while BigCorp robs you into poverty.

[101A]

"You have politicians elected by the people with the mandate to reduce government expenses and you have entrenched unelected bureaucrats determined to expand their empire to justify increased budgets and pay"

people elect politicians to destroy public schools, let infrastructure decay?

What %age of KS state, local govt spending is in employee compensation that you think employees are so vehemently trying to protect?

Repug, VRWC foment anger and resentment among private sector employees, who have been divided into conquerable individuals with no collective power, against public employees who have secure jobs and good retirement plans.


Private sector employees, fucked over for decades by private employers into poverty and near-poverty, aka The War on Employees, and at best stagnant real income, RESENT public employees (and in general, the govt "beast to be starved" so the private BigCorp have no countervailing limitations on it power) and want to tear them down to the insecure, no-future status of the private sector employees. Rather than private sector employees fighting to raise their own status up to that of public sector employees.

Reminds of what the English told me a long time ago about the difference between an Englishman and an American:

"An Englishman sees a rich person driving a Rolls Royce and says "I want to tear tha person down", while an American say sees a rich person driving a Rolls Royce and says "I will work hard so I can drive a Rolls Royce"

CC is nothing but a shill for the VRWC, spouting its America-destroying propaganda.


Guess what? The American has been turned into the Englishman. and of course you can believe The American Dream only if you're asleep.






In the 50's when this country built infrastructure at a pace that we cuoldn't imagine today, the government took far less money than it does now. Sure, the marginal rates were extreme, but so were the loopholes; government was SMALLER, however. Yet, there was plenty for infrastructure; building schools for the boomers; no problem. Interstate; no problem - fought the Korean war, began the Space Race, plenty of R&D for the arms race. Now there is FAR MORE money going to government, but we aren't in an arms race, aren't in a shooting war (allegedly) - Don't have to build a new interstate, population is not growing at the same pace - AND we have spent Trillions of dollars we don't have on credit - and yet we cannot keep up.

It's not about government vs. non-government; it's about the power being centralized, where it's easy for the powerful to control, through whatever means is the most expedient. They've made it VERY efficient in this country; two sides: Republican or Democrat, Conservative or Liberal, Red or Blue - the message only needs to be tailored one way or the other to manipulate the sides. Tribalism, us against them.

[101A]

"I KNOW that big-government is good ONLY for a few, a drain on creativity and mobility for most"

That's because govt has been captured, COMPROMISED BigCorp, VRWC, 1%. Politicians run for office to get (more) wealthy (esp lobbying and jobs later with BigCorp), not to serve the common good.

The VRWC propaganda works great: VRWC fucks up govt for the 99% to enrich the VRWC, propagandizes/trashes govt so the 99% hate govt the VRWC fucked up.

You people don't have any anecdotes about MIC, PIC, health care waste and corruption? LOL

All y'all rightwinguts whine and bitch about about govt while BigCorp robs you into poverty.



Did you read the rest of the post, B?

[boutons_deux]

here's some corruption the PIC, having convinced govt that out-sourcing prison is "cheaper"

Study finds private prisons keep inmates longer, without reducing future crimehttp://scienceblog.com/78787/study-finds-private-prisons-inmates-longer-reducing-future-crime/#PqEp18tl0xGhuIJc.99

btw, the unConstitutional torture known as prison "isolation cell" costs $50K/month vs $30K/month for non-isolation. Yet another way PIC screws both the prisoners and taxpayers.

[boutons_deux]

Did you read the rest of the post, B?

yes, it wasn't corrected for inflation about "govt revenue".

and in the 1950s, the top marginal rate was 90%, until JFK cut the rate (on himself, of course), and rates were higher. In return, govt spending, not yet captured by BigCorp, increased the general welfare with huge infrastructure investments that are STILL returning benefits.

Inequality was much less, EVERYBODY had revenue, paid tax on it, had enough to save (govt bonds), spent the rest, pumping up the economy.

[101A]

yes, it wasn't corrected for inflation about "govt revenue".

and in the 1950s, the top marginal rate was 90%, until JFK cut the rate (on himself, of course), and rates were higher. In return, govt spending, not yet captured by BigCorp, increased the general welfare with huge infrastructure investments that are STILL returning benefits.

Inequality was much less, EVERYBODY had revenue, paid tax on it, had enough to save (govt bonds), spent the rest, pumping up the economy.


http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

Look at the constant dollars column. We are spending SIX OR SEVEN TIMES what we did in the fifties - when we built all the infrastructure that continues to pay dividends, but that we now can't afford to maintain.

[boutons_deux]

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

Look at the constant dollars column. We are spending SIX OR SEVEN TIMES what we did in the fifties - when we built all the infrastructure that continues to pay dividends, but that we now can't afford to maintain.

USA population

1950 150M

2015 320M

so real spending PER CAPITA, not absolute spending.

the BigHealth wealth-sucking racket has increased Medicare/Medicaid (which didn't exist in the 1950s), plus the explosion of MIC spending:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/08/csbachartmon.png

Tell us where to cut govt spending? taking another $B off IRS, kill EPA, DoE, FDA, USDA? kill medicare/medicaid?

[ElNono]

You have politicians elected by the people with the mandate to reduce government expenses and you have entrenched unelected bureaucrats determined to expand their empire to justify increased budgets and pay. I do business with local, school, county, state and federal employees and they all have their budget cycles where they suddenly have to spend money (whether they need to or not) so their next year budget doesn't get cut or to justify budget increases. I have seen them blow hundreds of thousands of dollars in a whack replacing perfectly good equipment with new equipment just because they "needed" to spend money. If you guys think that's just an 80's phenomenon you are very gullible. Over the years I have literally made millions off of this very issue. I re-selll perfectly good equipment for tens of thousands of dollars to private companies that I was paid to take out and "dispose of" by government entities.

Cool story, but what does any of that has to do with the current situation? It's not the "entrenched unelected bureaucrats" complaining about the cuts, this is strictly a problem between the elected governor and the elected legislature. Both of which were quite happy to cut income taxes but never planned for the revenue shortfall that would follow because their dogma taught them that the economy would magically grow (it didn't).

Now they have to abide by the Kansas constitution that mandates a balanced budget, and on one side you have the governor threatening the legislators, and the legislators feuding with the governor. I don't disagree that making cuts is one solution. The other, which some legislators have taken up, is jacking up taxes again, including some of the income taxes they slashed in the first place.

Everybody wants smaller government until they start hearing what the cuts are going to be, then smaller government stops being so appealing. This is as old as the mandate for smaller government itself.

[ElNono]

Back in the stone ages (1991) I sold typewriters for IBM. I delivered 100 $900.00 typewriters to a closet in a Huntsville prison at the end of a budget cycle. I know two years later only a dozen were in service - the rest still in boxes in that closet. Typewriters were boat anchors within a few years - I always wondered what happened to those...every couple of years I could use a good typewriter.

I realize it is just a single anecdote, but there is truth to what CC is saying. A couple years after IBM I was IT at the College of Vet Medicine at A&M; what was obvious being there was that the school was run not for the students, or even the faculty; the permanent fixtures were in the Dean's office.

Another anecdote: A powerful state senator lost his re-election bid in '92. Brought in as Sr. Faculty (dude was in the early 40's; given a HUGE office at the top of the large animal bldg. We were told to set him up with any system he wanted (he bought a Dell box that cost over 7 grand at the time - multiple monitors - to run Word Perfect Office on Windows 3.1). He didn't teach classes, was rarely at the school; but he was royalty and a f*&^ing prima donna. Was naive at the time, but finally figured out the Dean's office bought themselves their very own lobbyist - paid for by the government he was lobbying.

I understand that much of conservative economic ideology is rooted in belief and myth, and that it doesn't pan out as advertised, but I KNOW that big-government is good ONLY for a few, a drain on creativity and mobility for most - and has unstoppable momentum. Massive, controlling, greedy, powerful, self-perpetuating bureaucracy sucks the life out of society. It comes in the form of government, but also business - and those are as big and pervasive as ever. And NOW there is a symbiosis between the government and business monsters that is unprecedented. THAT is the vampire squid we must all fight, but instead we argue about individual tax rates, sales taxes & estate taxes; none of which, ultimately, matters. Breaking up the TBTF and reigning in government power...

I don't disagree, but I think the only way to attack that problem is to be upfront about it, get the votes to back it up and have support from all parts of the legislature to get it done. Otherwise, you get in situations like this one where the campaign was for slashing taxes, and now you have the legislators balking at what to cut. You also have to have an electorate that wants to get it done: elections have been lost over "don't touch my medicare" or "don't touch my social security"...

[RandomGuy]

the classic budget cliche.

Kind of like Obama "shutting down" the Washington monuments and then hiring extra guards to make a scene of keeping people out.

It might be a cliche, but that is the kind of result that comes from cutting budgets. Cause/effect.

Unless you can magic up volunteer teachers or guards?

I would also point out that this is a problem that a Republican governor is having with the Republican house, and Republican Senate of his state.

Kind of hard to blame the Democrats for this fuck up, even a little.

That is what makes it a VERY pure Republican policy failure.

The morons in the tea-party that have been pushing the myth of supply-side got what EXACTLY they wanted, and now hate to have their noses rubbed in the pile of shit that they left on the floor.

[Winehole23]

spending for health and education is investment in the future. skimping on the spending is skimping on the future, despite all waste and fraud. Texans are getting fucked by irresponsible pols right now.

[boutons_deux]

"spending for health and education is investment in the future"

paying some of the cost of rip-off health care for the needy is humanitarian AND cost-saving. Not done, the cost of paying for the needy's health care is always a lot higher. Same with housing the 600K homeless. MUCH cheaper to provide them housing than to force them onto the streets. But this is America, life is punishingly inhuman, brutal. dog-eat-dog.

[RandomGuy]

http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/yael-t-abouhalkah/article24965164.html


That giant sucking sound Kansans hear in May was the loss of a whopping 3,800 jobs from the Sunflower State economy.

The monthly employment report released Friday brought especially grim news to Gov. Sam Brownback and all the sycophants who believe in the trickle-down theory.

The news could hardly have been worse for the governor or for Kansans. It came right on the heels of the just-concluded, 113-day legislative session in which the governor claimed his 2012 tax cuts for business owners were bringing more employment to Kansas.

Brownback bullied the Legislature into keeping the income tax reductions, even though some of his Republican colleagues were questioning how well they were working and whether it was fair that some business owners paid no taxes to the state.

And this all occurred in a session where the Legislature — with Brownback’s ardent support — hiked the regressive state sales tax from 6.15 percent to 6.5 percent.



Who is going to want to invest in a business in state that can't find its ass with both hands?

[boutons_deux]

The Kansas Economic Databook (http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2015/06/the-kansas-economic-databook/)

BAD!

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2015/06/the-kansas-economic-databook/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheBigPicture+%28The+Big+Pict ure%29

Repug MISgovernance.

[boutons_deux]

Kansas Issues $840 Million Debt Certificate To Cover Brownback’s Trickle Down Catastrophe

after a record-setting tax hike on the poor and middle class and truly Draconian social service cuts, the state is so broke that Brownback and Republicans had to resort to issuing a certificate of indebtedness to prevent the state from complete financial demise.

It is the second year in a row that Brownback’s disastrous trickle down experiment resulted in going in debt to keep the state solvent while the rest of the nation not under Republican control is experiencing economic growth.

A certificate of indebtedness (http://thelawdictionary.org/certificate-of-indebtedness/) is a form of monetary obligation that is sometimes issued by a public entity or private corporations that are, for all intents and purposes, like a bond; except they are not secured.

A certificate of indebtedness is, then, effectively what a normal American would consider an I.O.U., and depending on the person or entity issuing it, likely worthless as far as having any legitimacy for making purchases or paying debts.

One thing is certain; in the real world Republicans perpetually cite, no American family would even consider walking into a grocery store, or schedule their car to be serviced, and expect them to provide a product or service in return for an IOU.

In fact, it is highly likely that no American would consider trying to make a purchase or schedule a service without having access to the available funds.

Instead, they would seek a means, likely by taking a second job, to bring in enough revenue to pay their bills and buy their groceries.

This week, after yet another year of crushing debt due to severe revenue shortfalls borne of “fiscally-responsible” trickle down tax cuts for the rich and corporations, Kansas Republicans and Governor Sam “fetus” Brownback signed off on the state’s largest tax increase on the poor and middle class and issued a record $840 million certificate of indebtedness for the upcoming fiscal year.

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/06/30/kansas-issues-840-debt-certificate-cover-brownbacks-trickle-catastrophe.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Politi cus+USA+%29

Repug governance! :lol

Will Brownback be re-elected? probably.