Lately certain folks have been writing a lot about the state of Kansas. The narrative seems to go like this: Republican Governor Sam Brownback, elected in 2010, pushed through a conservative agenda, of which sizable tax cuts were the centerpiece. The results of these policies, and the tax cuts most particularly, have been characterized as “dismal”, “disastrous”, “catastrophic”, and so forth. This demonstrated beyond any doubt that the Republicans and their tax-cutting ways are totally hopeless. The results were so clear that even in the bright red state of Kansas, Brownback lost his governor’s race to a Democratic challenger.
That’s how it was supposed to go, anyway. In reality the voters of Kansas re-elected Brownback by a comfortable margin. And now the pundits are scratching their heads, wondering why the voters would do that.
What they fail to mention is that, at least from an economic perspective, Kansas has been doing very well since the tax cuts went into effect. Unemployment is well below the national average. Economic growth is above the national average. The poverty rate is below the national average. Income inequality is below the national average. Brownback’s critics often mention that during his tenure, the state government’s bond ratings have fallen. In fact Kansas remains far from the worst on bond ratings. So the voters of Kansas have every reason to be happy with the economic conditions in their state.
And yet some people continue to feel that the Kansas voters make a bad decision. Why? Well, it seems that tax income for the state’s government has fallen, thus forcing some spending cuts. And apparently some people can’t understand why the voters would respond to this by turning away from Brownback and electing a Democrat to replace him.
To me it seems fairly straightforward. People don’t vote based on what’s best for the state government’s bottom line. They vote based on what’s best for themselves, their families, and those close to them, for the most part. When a tax cut is passed, it benefits taxpayers because they’re allowed to keep more of the money that they earned. It benefits them even more by boosting the economy as a whole, creating more opportunities to earn money. If it leads to cuts in government spending, most people don’t mind that; some might even view it as a plus.
Of course for someone as rich as Paul Krugman, it may be difficult to understand the pocketbook issues of ordinary voters. It may be hard to grasp the fact that for many people, being allowed to keep one percent more of one’s money means better food and clothing, a better home, a better car, and other improvements to one’s standard of living. But the voters of Kansas seem to understand.