Lived in Kansas in the early 2000's.. was always headed into a backwards ghost town of a state. Too many high forehead, jaded politicians surrounded by yes men with no resistance. All the bright kids who went to college, or came from out of state, were mainly motivated by moving out. Nebraska is the same. Sad because the midwest really is a pretty place.
Actually you're the one getting Brownbacked my boy. (Note, for the purposes of this post, I'm going to ignore your implication that Kansas relatively low unemployment rate is not the product of backwards time travel effects of Brownbackism that you seem to prefer. Too dumb...) The rate of job creation in the 24 or so months that have followed this strategy for Kansas has not only been the worst among its peer states, which New York and California surely are not, but among the very worst in the United States of America. This is true by any metric. Total, per capita, % of working age population or labor force, whatever. This directly cotravenes the promise of Brownbackism to which you and your peer Space Ghost have hitched your wagons to. AS for what I'd rather have, my answer is a government that's not in the red due to discredited promises based on pseudo economics and able to deliver basic services, and one that doesn't dig itself hole deeper based on the economic equivalent of a seance conducted by a 19th century brothel owner from Topeka. Tl;Dr version- don't be stuck on stupid Good way for you to prove me wrong: move to Kansas
No I don't see it. Please help. My problem with the economics in this forum is that it's basically regurgitating anything Krugman says. He's not the only liberal economist, guys. And no, what he says isn't consensus among liberals either.
There are a ton of them, but here are a few: 1. Combining federal and state tax rates included the Obama tax changes in 2013 into his calculations. That's irrelevant when looking at state-specific results. Every state has a higher top marginal income tax than 2012 if you include federal rates. 2. The highest marginal tax rate is not terribly relevant. It ignores all the changes to other tax brackets, changes to taxes other than income taxes, and changes to the actual amounts being taxed. All of these things were changed in Kansas, yet not a single one of them is considered in his "analysis". Given these two things, everything in that article is irrelevant. Trying to turn a state that everyone - left and right - universally acknowledge as implementing the dream policies of conservatives and claiming its a "liberal utopia" is absurd. There can be a debate on the effects of those policies, but no one questions that was the right's economic to-do list. Trying to turn the biggest across-the-board tax cut in any state into "an income tax higher than in 2012" should flash huge warning signals about the guy's credibility. Nothing about this thread has to do with Krugman or anything he thinks. I'm one of those people who generally disagress with him. When you complain about the quality of economic analysis on this board and then post a partisan hitpiece that's completely non-factual, it's your own credibility that should be questioned. The problem is not the quality of analysis here. Kansas' policies are pretty universally regarded as not going as expected. It led to a revolt within the GOP of the state, and has led conservative legislatures in neighboring states to reconsider some similar economic plans. This isn't just some crazy leftist criticism.
I don't remember reading any economist saying a state income tax cut was going to boost Kansas performance so much that it would make up for its other failings like high spending and an income tax. So expected by who, exactly? And politicians don't count. They are trying to get elected. As mentioned in the links I gave (they weren't political hit pieces. There is enough criticism of the right in that blog) Kansas is in the upper level of spending. And the fact that it has an income tax makes it a non-conservative dream state. There are better examples of conservative dream states. Its just weird that liberals are saying it's conservatives dream and claiming some sort of victory when I don't ever recall conservative economists claiming that.
The Tax Foundation ranked Kansas 22nd. http://www.wsj.com/articles/states-of-taxation-1414451028?autologin=y If you want to argue that Brownback sucks? Fine. But I can't agree that Kansas is a conservative economic state.
In this case we're regurgitating what Sam Brownback said and what the BLS as well as Kansas state Treasurer said after a few years of Brownbackism The results speak for themselves - no Krugman needed. Nor do we require the bland ruminations of a Texas Tech econ minor who once shared a divider free urinal with Dick Armey once back in 1987.
I really don't give two craps about Brownback. And Fatty Fat b*stard is banned. He cared more about chili anyway.
Obviously you do, you came in here to tell us that despit every empirical bit of evidence to the contrary, Brownbackism is not what it appears to be and the lack of delta is the result of Kansas secret communist economy. Basically you and your brodog Steve Francis rules are the first known Brownback Truthers. Vive LA difference. #gunsup
Brownback To Propose Tax Revenue Increase To Help Fill Budget Gap http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/brownback-tax-revenue-increase-budget "Revenue didn’t come in quite as was projected," he told the Eagle.
Nothing like making poor people pay ATM fees to private companies for no reason at all. Seems like a brilliant use of government money. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/04/kansas-welfare_n_7001116.html Kansas welfare recipients will be unable to get more than $25 per day in benefits under a new law sent this week to Republican Gov. Sam Brownback's desk by the state legislature. The bill also prohibits welfare recipients from spending their benefits at certain types of businesses, including liquor stores, fortune tellers, swimming pools and cruise ships. "We're trying to make sure those benefits are used the way they were intended," state Rep. Michael O'Donnell (R) said, according to the Topeka Capital-Journal. "This is about prosperity. This is about having a great life." Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, often known as "welfare," is one of several federal programs administered by states at the ground level. The Kansas TANF program, known locally as the Successful Families Program, offers a family of three as much as $429 per month in cash benefits. Kansas is one of at least 37 states that distributes benefits on government-issued debit cards, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Under the new rule, a three-person family receiving the maximum benefit would have to go to the ATM more than a dozen times to get the full benefit, which would be whittled away by an 85 cent fee for each withdrawal after the first one. And the local cruise liner ATM will no longer be an option. The federal welfare reform law of 1996 gave states significant leeway to design their own programs, and for the past five years, state Republicans have been busy pursuing changes to TANF, food stamps and unemployment insurance, with varying degrees of success. Missouri Republicans, for instance, are considering a bill to forbid food stamps from being spent on steak or seafood. But national welfare advocates were taken aback by the $25 daily limit in Kansas, something that has not been implemented in any other state. "This provision makes it nearly impossible for a recipient who does not have a checking account to pay rent," Liz Schott of the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities said in an email. "Moreover, it actually takes money from the pockets of poor families since they will need to pay 85 cents for each additional withdrawal after the first one in a month, and often more with ATM transaction fees." The provision originally would have limited daily benefits to $60, but state Sen. Caryn Tyson (R) reduced the amount through an amendment. Neither Tyson nor O'Donnell responded to interview requests from HuffPost. Shannon Cotsoradis, director of Kansas Action for Children, said changes by the Brownback administration, such as shorter time limits, have already reduced TANF enrollment significantly. The number of Kansans receiving benefits has declined from 38,000 in 2011 to 15,000 last year, state data show. Cotsoradis said she didn't know whether the dollar limit would further reduce enrollment, but suggested it probably wouldn't help families escape poverty. "It adds stress to families already experiencing toxic levels of stress," Cotsoradis said an interview.
that was one of the more outrageous things i have read in a while. republicans should be proud. although i like the no steak or seafood exception.
More Kansas Schools To Close Early For Lack Of Funds I can't imagine the folks living in Kansas are too optimistic about the direction their public education is headed.
In a wingnut utopia, there is no public education. This is painful but necessary progress. Gotta break some eggs to make an omelette.
Yeah but at least it has low unemployment Spoiler because young people of working age flee ithe as fast as possible ... so there's reason for hope.
The latest: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...hreatens_to_defund_judiciary_if_it_rules.html Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback Threatens to Defund Judiciary if It Rules Against Him On Thursday, Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback signed a bill that threatens the entire state's judiciary with destruction if it rules against a law he favors. Brownback has spent much of his tenure attempting to curb the state supreme court and consolidate power in the executive branch. Thursday's startling maneuver suggests the deeply conservative governor has no compunction about simply obliterating separation of powers when another branch of government gets in his way. The Kansas trouble started in 2014, when the state supreme court ruled that the disparity between school funding in rich and poor districts violated the state constitution. The justices ordered the legislature to fix the problem. Soon after, the legislature passed an administrative law that stripped the supreme court of its authority to appoint local chief judges and set district court budgets. (Instead, district court judges—who are often quite conservative—were allowed to elect their own chief judge.) Arriving shortly after the school funding ruling, this law was widely seen as a retaliation against the court—and a warning. In their first ruling, the justices stopped short of declaring that the school system as a whole was constitutionally underfunded. But the court acknowledged that it would one day answer that question. And if the justices mandate more school funding, the legislature will have to raise taxes, a step few legislators are eager to take. The administrative law, then, was likely an effort to scare the court out of issuing a dramatic ruling in favor of greater school funding. Just in case the court didn't get the message, Brownback and the legislature have also threatened the justices with blatantly political reforms, like subjecting them to recall elections, splitting the court in two, lowering the retirement age, and introducing partisan elections. (Currently, a nominating commission creates a pool of candidates, and the governor selects from that bunch.) Now the court has an opportunity to strike down the administrative law, which probably violates the state constitution. And that's where Brownback's insane new law comes in. The law declares that if the supreme court strikes down the administrative law, the entire state judiciary will lose its funding. Brownback and the legislature are essentially bullying the judiciary: Uphold our law or cease to exist. This scheme is rather bonkers. It's also par for the course for Kansas Republicans, who turned their state into a failed Tea Party experiment and are now terrified of paying the price. The state supreme court is simply pushing the legislature and the governor to uphold their basic constitutional duties. In response, the legislature and the governor are trying to destroy the court. That's not democracy. It's just extortion.
