What isn't the matter with Kansas?

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.

If we reduced the funding to quite a few government programs to there wouldn’t be a problem, for awhile.

At some point, the state’s economy will have trouble for likely a whole bunch of reasons and voters will presumably vote Brownback or those associated with him out (albeit, not necessarily for Democrats). The bulk of people voting based in part on their personal economic situations without consideration for long-term economic trends or the problems of small groups is nothing new. Judging the overall health of the economy needs a patient history, not a thermometer.

I don’t know enough about Kansas to judge whether Brownback’s policies have done good or if this is just summertime in Kansas’ Grasshopper and Ant story, but I’m sure plenty of people here will argue about. As a more fiscally liberal person, Kansas’ election results by themselves don’t tell me very much one way or the other.

The “narrative”, huh? The generally conservative Wall Street Journal is complicit in this narrative:

To me, it does, in fact, look like a failed experiment: cut taxes, lose revenue, run a deficit to mask the economic damage for as long as possible. Ronald Reagan tried the same thing in the 1980s with similar results. Unlike Reagan, Brownback did pay a price at the polls though, just not a big enough price to remove him from office in a ruby red state.

Krugman cites an article that says this:

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/editorials/article354260/Under-Gov.-Sam-Brownback-Kansas-lags-neighboring-states-and-the-nation-in-job-growth.html#storylink=cpy

How do you respond to those numbers showing that Kansas under performs its neighbors an the nation at large in job growth?

That’s one area in which Kansas trails most other states. As I noted in my OP, there are plenty of measures by which Kansas is ahead of most other states.

Imagine this thread was about how Obama is handling the US economy. Democrats can point out myriad ways in which the U.S. is better than gobs of other countries. Would you take that as evidence that Obama is doing a good job?

But why should we be comparing Kansas to most other states? Kansas is in a different situation than Pennsylvania or Florida or Washington. If we are looking at the effect of the Kansas’ new policies, we should look at their peers. States like Nebraska, Iowa, or Oklahoma. So, for example, GDP Growth. Nebraska is at 3 while Kansas is at 1.9. In my mind, those states are essentially the same. How do you explain the discrepancy.

I’m a Republican that’s relatively centrist economically (regulation, taxes, and spending should address areas such as externalities, natural monopolies, and public goods where the market supplies inefficient results IMO) That last piece throws a HUGGGEEE red flag. Bond ratings dropping shows a lack of confidence in the market for debt issued by the state. It would take a closer look but that piece warrants it if you’re a Kansas resident.

Incidentally after his big tax cuts early Reagan generally raised taxes in small steps. He had programs to pay for. He still left a major budgetary crisis for Bush.

Comparing Kansas with the states that surround it is a far better metric than America and ‘gobs of other countries’.

Much later I see you were talking to IRC, so nevermind.

Small steps? Reagan’s 1982 tax increase was, in constant dollars, the largest in US history.

He also raised taxes 10 more times, IIRC.

And there’s no doubt that Kansas’ economy is in the dumper, spin attempt notwithstanding.

I live in Kansas. I’m solidly middle-income.

My taxes didn’t go down. For people in my income bracket, practically nobody I know saw taxes go down. At our income level, minute decreases in the state income tax were more than offset by increases in sales taxes, property taxes, and state fees. (Brownback cancelled a scheduled reduction in the state sales tax, e.g., while the school district raised the mill levy to make up for reduced state funding.) When do we get to “keep one percent more”? It sure hasn’t happened yet.

For upper-income Kansans, it has happened: Brownback eliminated all income taxes derived from businesses organized as LLCs, so lots of doctors, lawyers, landlords, and other so-called small businesses got to keep more of their money. Meanwhile, for the poorest Kansans, Brownback eliminated the refund on food sales taxes.

What led to Brownback’s victory was FEAR. His campaign advertising in the late stages focused on just a handful of themes: Obama, the Carr brothers, and topless bars. Brownback spent enormous amounts of time and advertising linking his opponent with Obama: “Paul Davis was an early supporter of Barack Obama.” “Paul Davis supported Obamacare.” “Paul Davis supports Obama-style policies.” In a state where the president remains deeply unpopular, this sells.

The Carr brothers are a notorious pair of murderers from Wichita. Earlier this year, the Kansas Supreme Court vacated some of their death sentences and remanded for new sentencing hearings. Brownback made a big pitch that Davis would appoint more “liberal” judges who would favor criminals like the Carrs.

Brownback also made a big deal of the fact that Davis was caught up in a raid at a topless bar (he sort of neglected to mention it was nearly twenty years ago, and Davis was not arrested or charged with any wrongdoing). I saw one advertising circular that used imagery to try to imply Davis would support kids being near or even involved in the sex trade.

From the AP, today:

http://ksn.com/2014/11/10/kansas-faces-279-million-budget-shortfall-by-summer/

Kansas is in the dumper AND GETTING WORSE.

Shoring up a half-billion budget shortfall is nothing. Is the federal government IN THE DUMPSTER AND GETTING WORSE because they had half-trillion shortfalls?

The federal shortfalls are getting smaller, not larger, and the federal tax base is much MUCH larger.

Moreover, Kansas can’t run a deficit; the feds can, but Kansas constitutionally must balance the budget. Within the context of the Kansas economy, this is very bad news. Previous budget shortfalls have meant things like the Kansas Highway Patrol having to keep most of their cars parked because there wasn’t enough in the budget for gas; I don’t seem to recall any similar situation with the U.S. Army.

In other Stringbean news: federal government budgeting exactly like small business budgeting. :rolleyes:

Five years ago, the deficit was 1.4 trillion. Now it’s 492 billion.

Is that better, or worse? Wait, I’ll clarify. It is now lower - cut by approximately 2/3. Is that better, or worse?

Why? I took economics classes in college, but I don’t recall any analytic principle that geography played a major role in comparing unemployment, fiscal policies, growth, etc.

Aside to the OP- what is ITR and why are you the champion?

I think we overthink the relationship between politics and economics. Economies expand and contract due to many factors, government polices being one but probably not the most significant. As much as I support Mr. Obama, I don’t credit him with job growth that has happened under his watch nor would I blame him if jobs are lost. So Kansas eliminates taxes for a bunch of rich people and increases them on poor people. In my book, that would be a factor for job reduction, taking money from people who would spend it and giving it to people who will hoard it.

What Kansas is going to do is show us the folly of Teapartyism. Eventually the state government is going to have to give, essential services will be cut, and the people will demand change and taxes will be raised. Then Kansans will continue their practice of voting for a wet dog turd as long as it’s red and in the form of an “R”.