State of Kansas Finances

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

@Aargh:, after all Khan's misdirection, thanks for at least trying to address my comments specifically.

Am I right that Brownback had no control over the 2011 budget? Did he have as much control over 2012 as more recent years? Was 2012 partially set and he only had partial control? Am I totally wrong about all of this and there is something I'm missing? I'd love to know more if anyone else does.

With that said, assuming he had no say in 2011 and full say starting in 2012, sure, 2012 was a big jump. Very true. However, 2011 to 2015 was a change from $5.88 bil to $5.97 bil. If the criticism is that he overspent in 2012, then the tag along must be that he has significantly corrected and spending has barely risen in total. 5.88 to 5.97 is less than 1/2% growth per year for the 4 years as a whole. Once again, if someone has better numbers, please do tell. I'm simply working with what I found so far.

The decreases in years 2, 3, and 4 don't offset the massive increase in year 1 that was the most bloated budget in the history of the State.

Correct. Based on these numbers, the cuts don't fully eliminate all of the increases of 2012. However, they do clearly result in a very reduced rate of growth over 4 years. 1/2% per year is tiny, relatively speaking. Overall, yes, spending has not been cut, merely the rate of growth slowed. In individual areas, actual cuts have occurred, and I have yet to hear of any area that Brownback has increased the rate of growth. The combination of cuts in some areas with very small growth overall is extremely rare in American politics today. Brownback may be doing it in the worst ways possible (that's a much tougher debate to settle), but just the mere fact he is doing it at all is intriguing.

[shocka khan]

@shocka khan:, you are making this way too complicated. You keep trying to refute my one simple point with facts, data, and analysis that are tangential at best. Why all this roundabout sideshow?

JH4P: Whatever you think of Brownback's policies and motivations (good, bad, evil, etc.), he has slowed government growth and in certain cases actually implemented cuts.
JH4P: Maybe he has done it in the worst ways possible, but it is indisputable that it has happened.
Aargh: Brownback hasn't actually slowed government growth. He cut taxes, but he spends the same.

Aargh's and my contention is that you can't prove that. You post numbers from the general fund levels, which don't tell us anything, and then make a bold statement that this actually shows he cut spending (hat tip to Aargh for pointing out that Brownback's Y1 budget was the most bloated in Ks. History.

[/QUOTE]JH4P: Really? How do you reach that conclusion? Here are some numbers showing Brownback has cut general fund spending each year.
Khan: Those numbers say nothing.
JH4P: What? They clearly show reductions 3 years in a row.
[/QUOTE]

What they showed and what was pointed out to you is that Brownback's Y1 general fund budget was akin to a bloated pig.

[/QUOTE] JH4P: That's my whole point. He's made a lot of cuts. Some maybe even have gone too far. He has cut stuff in a lot of areas.[/QUOTE]
I don't believe that this was your point in making the general fund comparisons. You didn't say that. And you can't look at the general fund and unequivocally state he has cut spending. You actually appear to
[/QUOTE]
JH4P: I'm not arguing motives or advanced planning. Brownback has made cuts and/or slowed growth. Good or bad, it has happened. Why do you admit it in one breath, then deny it the next?[/QUOTE]
Untrue. He was going to cut spending until Medicare/Medicaid, but the federal government had other ideas. They thought the cuts were too deep and threatened to cut Kansas out of the program. I do not know what the ultimate resolution was.

As for the KPERS contribution and the IOU, deferring an expense makes it a liability. Just because you defer something does not mean that you avoid making a payment. For instance, you might be able to talk to your bank and skip one payment without it impacting your credit, but if you do it again and again, it drops your credit rating, which makes it harder and more expensiv to borrow.
[/QUOTE]Khan: Clearly you aren't cut out to be a financial analyst. Here, let me present some really high level analysis that fails to address your very simple main point.
JH4P: Good grief man![/QUOTE]
I'm still saying you have little or no financial training. Moody's is saying the same things I am and I don't really think it is clear whether he has cut the budget that much (as opposed to shifting expenses around). It is precisely the deferral of expenses and the shifting of funds that has Moody's nervous. You can't get a true picture of the financials that are meaningful, as the data analytics Moody's uses might be obscured by the shifting of funds and the deferrals.

I'd be more persuadable if you could show total spending before Brownback was elected, total spending each year since he was elected and the amount of change. I don't believe anyone has put that together. All I've seen are bits and pieces and not the whole picture.

I would also consider it a plus if you (or someone) had revenues so we can look at the data and determine whether Brownback had a plan to cut the budget before he cut the taxes (hint, he did not, IMO).

[RoyalShock]

My question is, had the revenues from the tax cuts not come in so far below expectations, would spending have decreased? I have my doubts.

I can't give Brownback or the current legislature credit for numbers that, in my view, came about because it was the only way to keep the state afloat after tax cuts they still refuse to admit were a mistake.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

@RoyalShock:, I can agree with that to an extent. I question Brownback's competency and how much he has done "by design" vs "reacting on the fly". I'm just fascinated by those claiming he hasn't really cut anything, as prior to this thread, I thought everyone on both sides of the aisle agreed that cuts had happened, good or bad.

[Aargh]

I agree that Brownback has made cuts, but that needs to be put into context.

1) A lot of his cuts were out of sheer desperation because there wasn't enough money in the bank to pay the bills that the legislature has authorized. Cutting expenses is a good thing, but doing it because you've run out of money - not so good.

2) It's considerably less difficult to cut expenses after enacting one of the largest spending increases in State history. Brownback's total cuts have not yet equalled the amount of his massive year 1 increase.

Brownback has cut spending 3 years in a row, but to do that he lowered the bar by a massive year 1 spending increase. I suspect he may have intentionally set the huge year 1 budget for the sole purpose of showing how he was consistently cutting state spending in the ensuing years. JH4P, it seems you have taken that bait.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Brownback has cut spending 3 years in a row, but to do that he lowered the bar by a massive year 1 spending increase. I suspect he may have intentionally set the huge year 1 budget for the sole purpose of showing how he was consistently cutting state spending in the ensuing years. JH4P, it seems you have taken that bait.

The total spent in the last 4 years is less than what trend lines would have shown based on the prior decade.
2015 was the lowest of the last 4 years, making it extremely likely that 2016 will also fall below any pre-Brownback trend lines.
Yes, 2012 was a spike. Yes, it is possible that it was intentional in order to give Brownback a talking point about cutting 3 years in a row since.

None of that takes away from the fact that Brownback's total spending has most definitely been less than what trend lines would have predicted for generic "Governor X" from 2012 through today.

[shockmonster]

I agree that Brownback has made cuts, but that needs to be put into context.

1) A lot of his cuts were out of sheer desperation because there wasn't enough money in the bank to pay the bills that the legislature has authorized. Cutting expenses is a good thing, but doing it because you've run out of money - not so good.

It's a good thing that we've had zero inflation in Kansas.

Aargh
Since you seem to currently be on the Gov. Bandwagon, answer me this question.
-you seem to be saying that the Governors goal was to make government smaller. He said that his goal was to unleash the burdens placed on business and create jobs. If you are right, then he lied?

[shocka khan]

For those that like to read, here's a couple of articles.

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

Brownback is a big proponent of supply-side economics, an economic theory that has yet to be proven. The gist of supply-side economics is that if taxes are cut for the wealthy, they will spend money and the money that they are spending will "trickle down" to the middle class.

I think Laffer was right when Reagan was president. The highest marginal tax rate at that time was quite large (something over 60%). Laffer encouraged Reagan to cut taxes, which he did, and the result was that incomes increased across the board.

The reason I'm adding all these qualifiers is that I think that the benefit from the Reagan tax cuts occurred primarily because the marginal tax rate was so high (and also the world wasn't as globalized). When Bush also cut taxes using the same logic, the highest marginal tax rate was much lower and the economic benefits were much less than what was expected.

Laffer did have a point in that if the highest marginal tax rate is very high (and people keep their money at home), there is much more benefit in lowering those taxes. Where he got it wrong was he did not recognize the effect of diminishing marginal returns (and globalization) on tax rates. Lowering taxes that have been already lowered (Bush) substantially produces less benefit than the original cuts (Reagan).

Not only that, the economy has become much more globalized than it was when Reagan was president.

It is also a provable economic law that capital flows to the point where it can work the most efficiently. Because there are few artificial borders preventing (or restricting) where that capital flows, ROI for projects in VietNam, China and India tend to produce much greater returns than ROI for projects in the United States. That means when we cut taxes (or allow a tax holiday for repatriation of stranded profits) the capital does not stay in the United States, instead it flows to 3rd world countries and is invested there. The last time a tax holiday was allowed so that large multi-nationals could repatriate profits, the claim was made that it would create American jobs. It did not. It actually accelerated business process outsourcing. If anyone cares, I can share the link with them.

I would call Laffer's 'theories' more of a phenomenon and less of a 'theory'. Here's a link to a site that debunks Laffer's work (there has been a lot written on this subject)

http://www.itep.org/debunkinglaffer/

Laffer is also linked to the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a conservative lobbying group who writes legislation:

http://www.khi.org/news/article/brownback-and-alec-tax-policies-criticized-liberal

Here is more information on Laffer's views. Brownback paid him $75,000 in 'consulting' fees.

http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/steve-rose/article7024256.html

I think the citizens of the state of Kansas should claim he obtained money under false pretenses and have him put in jail.

[Aargh]

I can reduce Laffer's economic policy to five simple words, "Poor people don't hire consultants".

[wufan]

For those that like to read, here's a couple of articles.

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

Brownback is a big proponent of supply-side economics, an economic theory that has yet to be proven. The gist of supply-side economics is that if taxes are cut for the wealthy, they will spend money and the money that they are spending will "trickle down" to the middle class.

I think Laffer was right when Reagan was president. The highest marginal tax rate at that time was quite large (something over 60%). Laffer encouraged Reagan to cut taxes, which he did, and the result was that incomes increased across the board.

The reason I'm adding all these qualifiers is that I think that the benefit from the Reagan tax cuts occurred primarily because the marginal tax rate was so high (and also the world wasn't as globalized). When Bush also cut taxes using the same logic, the highest marginal tax rate was much lower and the economic benefits were much less than what was expected.

Laffer did have a point in that if the highest marginal tax rate is very high (and people keep their money at home), there is much more benefit in lowering those taxes. Where he got it wrong was he did not recognize the effect of diminishing marginal returns (and globalization) on tax rates. Lowering taxes that have been already lowered (Bush) substantially produces less benefit than the original cuts (Reagan).

Not only that, the economy has become much more globalized than it was when Reagan was president.

It is also a provable economic law that capital flows to the point where it can work the most efficiently. Because there are few artificial borders preventing (or restricting) where that capital flows, ROI for projects in VietNam, China and India tend to produce much greater returns than ROI for projects in the United States. That means when we cut taxes (or allow a tax holiday for repatriation of stranded profits) the capital does not stay in the United States, instead it flows to 3rd world countries and is invested there. The last time a tax holiday was allowed so that large multi-nationals could repatriate profits, the claim was made that it would create American jobs. It did not. It actually accelerated business process outsourcing. If anyone cares, I can share the link with them.

I would call Laffer's 'theories' more of a phenomenon and less of a 'theory'. Here's a link to a site that debunks Laffer's work (there has been a lot written on this subject)

http://www.itep.org/debunkinglaffer/

Laffer is also linked to the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a conservative lobbying group who writes legislation:

http://www.khi.org/news/article/brownback-and-alec-tax-policies-criticized-liberal

Here is more information on Laffer's views. Brownback paid him $75,000 in 'consulting' fees.

http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/steve-rose/article7024256.html

I think the citizens of the state of Kansas should claim he obtained money under false pretenses and have him put in jail.

Good read. Thanks!

[shockmonster]

For those that like to read, here's a couple of articles.

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

Brownback is a big proponent of supply-side economics, an economic theory that has yet to be proven. The gist of supply-side economics is that if taxes are cut for the wealthy, they will spend money and the money that they are spending will "trickle down" to the middle class.

I think Laffer was right when Reagan was president. The highest marginal tax rate at that time was quite large (something over 60%). Laffer encouraged Reagan to cut taxes, which he did, and the result was that incomes increased across the board.

The reason I'm adding all these qualifiers is that I think that the benefit from the Reagan tax cuts occurred primarily because the marginal tax rate was so high (and also the world wasn't as globalized). When Bush also cut taxes using the same logic, the highest marginal tax rate was much lower and the economic benefits were much less than what was expected.

Laffer did have a point in that if the highest marginal tax rate is very high (and people keep their money at home), there is much more benefit in lowering those taxes. Where he got it wrong was he did not recognize the effect of diminishing marginal returns (and globalization) on tax rates. Lowering taxes that have been already lowered (Bush) substantially produces less benefit than the original cuts (Reagan).

Not only that, the economy has become much more globalized than it was when Reagan was president.

It is also a provable economic law that capital flows to the point where it can work the most efficiently. Because there are few artificial borders preventing (or restricting) where that capital flows, ROI for projects in VietNam, China and India tend to produce much greater returns than ROI for projects in the United States. That means when we cut taxes (or allow a tax holiday for repatriation of stranded profits) the capital does not stay in the United States, instead it flows to 3rd world countries and is invested there. The last time a tax holiday was allowed so that large multi-nationals could repatriate profits, the claim was made that it would create American jobs. It did not. It actually accelerated business process outsourcing. If anyone cares, I can share the link with them.

I would call Laffer's 'theories' more of a phenomenon and less of a 'theory'. Here's a link to a site that debunks Laffer's work (there has been a lot written on this subject)

http://www.itep.org/debunkinglaffer/

Laffer is also linked to the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a conservative lobbying group who writes legislation:

http://www.khi.org/news/article/brownback-and-alec-tax-policies-criticized-liberal

Here is more information on Laffer's views. Brownback paid him $75,000 in 'consulting' fees.

http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/steve-rose/article7024256.html

I think the citizens of the state of Kansas should claim he obtained money under false pretenses and have him put in jail.

Here is an analysis of the theories you talked about, how Brownback implemented them, and the RNC lastw week.

http://www.kansas.com/opinion/editorials/article92244652.html

[shocka khan]

Here is an analysis of the theories you talked about, how Brownback implemented them, and the RNC lastw week.

http://www.kansas.com/opinion/editor...e92244652.html

Shocka's definition of trickle-down
Trickle-down is when someone pees on your leg and tells you it's raining.

Shocka's definition of Brownback
The brown stain on the back of your underpants. I.E. I could not make it to the bathroom on time, so until I get home, my underwear has a Brownback.

Thanks for the editorial. If the R's in Kansas are dumb enough to nominate Brownback again, I hope they have to suffer through another D (I know most of you hate Sebelius, but at least her fiscal policies were not a disaster). And if the people in the state vote for Brownback-ed candidates, I hope they suffer the same fate. Kansas deserves better than this, I'm sure there are republicans out there who can manage the state much better than Brownback can.

15% favorable rating? Are you kidding me? Looks like he's going to have to pay people to vote for him if he runs again.

Thanks for posting this, Shockmonster.

[RoyalShock]

I think the primary race between the current Senate majority leader and Brownback sycophant Terry Bruce, and former Hutchinson Community College dean and president Ed Berger, will tell us exactly where Kansans are in their support of Brownback. Thankfully, I get to vote in that primary and will be casting mine for Berger.

I am tired of getting 2-4 PAC flyers everyday in the mail, though. At least I recycle.

[RoyalShock]

And here's an Eagle article on one of those PACs sending misleading mailers that are, frankly, an insult to the intelligence of most reasonable, thinking adults.

Edit: I forgot to include the link.

http://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/election/article92085212.html

[shockmonster]

I think the primary race between the current Senate majority leader and Brownback sycophant Terry Bruce, and former Hutchinson Community College dean and president Ed Berger, will tell us exactly where Kansans are in their support of Brownback. Thankfully, I get to vote in that primary and will be casting mine for Berger.

I am tired of getting 2-4 PAC flyers everyday in the mail, though. At least I recycle.

Yes. Berger sounds like a good candidate. The problem with reading too much into elections are that the incumbents have so many built in advantages (they pass laws to make it so). I still tend to be firmly Republican, but am anti-incumbent. Imo, corruption tends to be a result,especially for incumbents voted in multiple times.