Kansas: revolution in a cornfield, failed experiment

[wayfriend]

Sam Brownback tried to create a conservative utopia. He created a conservative hell instead.

The midterm elections of 2010 were good for Republicans nearly everywhere, but amid the national Tea Party insurgency, it was easy to overlook the revolution that was brewing in Kansas. That year, the GOP won every federal and statewide office. Sam Brownback, a genial U.S. senator best known for his ardent social conservatism, captured the governor’s mansion with nearly double the votes of his Democratic opponent. And having conquered Kansas so convincingly, he was determined not to squander the opportunity. His administration, he declared, would be a “real live experiment” that would prove, once and for all, that the way to achieve prosperity was by eliminating government from economic life.

[...] By June of 2014, the results of Brownback’s economic reforms began to come in, and they weren’t pretty. During the first fiscal year that his plan was in operation, which ended in June, the tax cuts had produced a staggering loss in revenue—$687.9 million, or 10.84 percent. According to the nonpartisan Kansas Legislative Research Department, the state risks running deficits through fiscal year 2019. Moody’s downgraded the state’s credit rating from AA1 to AA2; Standard & Poor’s followed suit, which will increase the state’s borrowing costs and further enlarge its deficit.

Brownback had also promised that his tax cuts would vault Kansas ahead of its higher-taxed neighbors in job growth, but that, too, failed to happen. In Kansas, jobs increased by 1.1 percent over the last year, compared with 3.3 percent in neighboring Colorado and 1.5 percent in Missouri. From November to May, Kansas had actually lost jobs, and the labor participation rate was lower than when Brownback took office. The cuts did not necessarily slow job growth, but they clearly did not accelerate it. And the effects of Brownback’s education cuts were also glaring—larger class sizes, rising fees for kindergarten, the elimination of arts programs, and laid-off janitors and librarians. [link]

Discuss.

[Vraith]

No comment yet, but I'll probably come back, just some additional information.
When he took office, the state was damn high on "independence from federal spending" scales.

Still better than most, but it has been on an increasing dependence trend since the end of his first year.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

This is what happens when people listen to, believe in, and vote for the fringe. It is also a case study in how good ideas can be taken too far and result in disaster. It seems ridiculous that people are still willing to sacrifice the bottom 99% in order to enact policies which benefit only the top 1% but I guess it has been long enough since the heyday of 1980s supply-side economics that people have forgotten. Yes, trim budgets, but Kansas, like most States, needs to preserve money going towards education and infrastructure. Where was most of the money the wealthy were saving with those tax breaks being invested? I'll wager that it wasn't in Kansas, at least not directly.

Kansas has lots of relatively flat land used for agriculture. They should be putting wind farms on that land around the crops and cattle like people are doing in West Texas, where a clean energy boom is taking place.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

Everything implodes when carried to an extreme.

[sgt.null]

Kansas vs. Detroit. both failures.

maybe we need better solutions than republicans vs. democrats.

[Zarathustra]

I think there's a little bit of truth to Brownback's rebuttal that a year and a half (since the tax cuts took effect) is a fairly short time period to determine whether or not a specific policy is working. [What was that we were being chided for in another thread? Capitalism's fallacy of short-term thinking?] After all, a year and a half into Obama's term, people were more than willing to give his policies the benefit of the doubt when they didn't turn the economy around.

However, a state budget is a different beast than a federal budget. States don't have a fiat currency. Budget deficits actually matter; they are real. It looks like Brownback cut too much, too fast, without a corresponding cut in spending:

“In our opinion,” S&P’s analysts wrote with lethal understatement, “there is reason to believe the budget is not structurally aligned.”

Yes, well, that is bound to happen when a state hacks personal income taxes, corporate taxes and sales taxes all at once without tapping an alternate source of revenue, or making commensurate cuts in spending.

link

There are other states that have cut taxes, like Texas, and have growing economies.

[Fist and Faith]

During the first fiscal year that his plan was in operation, which ended in June, the tax cuts had produced a staggering loss in revenue—$687.9 million, or 10.84 percent. According to the nonpartisan Kansas Legislative Research Department, the state risks running deficits through fiscal year 2019.

I can't stress enough how little I know about much of anything regarding economics, so this question may not make much sense. OTOH, the state of the nation doesn't make much sense, so I'm in good, or bad, company. Anyway, I assume the way it works is, the state risks running deficits because it no longer takes in as much as it needs to in order to support the state's spending. When it cut $687.9 million in revenue, did it not make any cuts in spending? I would think somewhere in the neighborhood of $687.9 million would have been a good plan.

EDIT: OK, I see Z just brought up the same thing.

[Vraith]

When it cut $687.9 million in revenue, did it not make any cuts in spending?

I've been looking for exact details, but they're eluding me. Apparently there were serious spending cuts. The one solid number for the state was an education funding cut of almost 15%...now actual total spending has increased, with 2 buts:
BUT at less then the rate of inflation.
BUT the total rise is solely because of increases in Federal funds
[more dependence as I pointed at previously]
and serious increases in county and school district property taxes.

They massively under-calculated the revenue loss, and also the supposed benefits from helping the "job-creators."

And the deficit might actually end up being nearly double the cited number...because Kansas Supreme court ruled much of the education cutting was unconstitutional. It is being appealed, and the legislature is apparently trying to remove court jurisdiction over issues like this.

And apparently they also made major cuts to nearly all social programs.
General funding has stayed the same for the same reason it did in education: more Federal money. No reliable place I found had data/numbers.
EDITED to put in a missing word.

[wayfriend]

Kansas “Experiment” is Dismal Failure. ... Or is it?

[...] Would it surprise you if I told you this is not only what Brownback may have anticipated, but this was his goal all along? Don’t be surprised. We’re seeing this played out in Republican governed states across the nation, as well as at the federal level. While the view of those on the left is that government should protect the rights of all Americans and support its vulnerable, it is perceived by the right as taking away their rights to believe as they choose, and to make dependent on government those who cannot care for themselves financially or medically. What liberals see as a failure of the system to provide safe water, air, food, and medicine; legal protections under the law; and opportunity; conservatives see as success in ridding themselves from regulations and making our vulnerable responsible for themselves. Little bit of difference in perspective, isn’t it?

What if all of the tax cuts, which were supposedly meant to stimulate job creation and enhance the financial status of the nation, were really to begin the slow decimation of government oversight and reach? With people like Sam Brownback, long an advocate of smaller government, making drastic cuts to state programs, severely reducing tax revenues through inappropriate tax cuts at the top, and denying basic protections of the government to our vulnerable, they are actually getting exactly what they want. Fewer people in the state are receiving assistance. Tax loads on businesses are negligible. Morals are being legislated by restricting the reproductive rights of women (or so they think!), and reduced funding levels for public education are paving the road for vouchers. He’s just signed a law taking away due process for new teachers, and funneling federal Medicare dollars through his office and control. How could any of that possibly go wrong?!?

Those of us on the left, or at least more centered leaning than most Republicans these days, see a failure when the tax revenues necessary to support the state and its residents are short. They see a reduced tax burden, and more money in their bank accounts. We see a failure of the state to help provide life saving care to our seniors, our disabled, and our children in need. They see parasites on the system that they are paying for. We see loss of personal freedoms that come from prostituting the Constitutions of the state and the nation. They see the reach and role of government protecting their self interests only. We see a failure to fully fund public education and give our children their best chance of success in the world as adults. They see the opportunity to have taxpayers fund their right to teach children dinosaurs walked with Jesus. We want government to protect the rights of workers, who make money for the corporate and monied interests through safe workplaces, decent benefits, and a living wage. They want the right as employers to demand anything of workers, and pay as little as possible.

What we see as success, they see as failure. What we see as failure, they see as success. As long as that mindset is dominant with that political party, we will not see a Republican governor or member of Congress do anything to turn the tide of Republican policies. They will continue to vote, and make things as difficult for the people in this nation and in each state in their efforts to destroy government as we know it. [link]

[Zarathustra]

Yeah, and there are some conspiracy nuts who think Obma is a Manchurian Candidate secret Muslim who is trying to crash our system, destroy our military, destroy our border, destroy our economy, put everyone into government dependency, etc.

I've defended Obama against such charges, both here and in my private life, because it's nuts. So are the charges above from the ProgressiveViewFromTheMiddle.com post.

[Vraith]

Yeah, and there are some conspiracy nuts who think Obma is a Manchurian Candidate secret Muslim who is trying to crash our system, destroy our military, destroy our border, destroy our economy, put everyone into government dependency, etc.

I've defended Obama against such charges, both here and in my private life, because it's nuts. So are the charges above from the ProgressiveViewFromTheMiddle.com post.

I can, in ways, get behind the implications of that.
There are a fair number of people far to the right that I think
honestly believe their ideas are/will be better for everyone as a natural result...whether or not the intention is to be "better for everyone" explicitly. [which would be elitist/authoritarian/socialist]
[[also, some that don't give a damn about being right for all...as
long as it advantages themselves. And there is, of course, a similar split in the middle, and on the far left]].
The problem is: how do they react when the ideas are shown to be wrong?
If they double down/refuse to alter...that is deadly [unless they lose power].
And many of the Tea Party/Far Right ideas [not all] have been demonstrated to be false.
Many [not all] of their ideological/causal theories that generate specific policies are, in fact, "bad explanations."
But they refuse to give them up.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

How does the hard left react when it's ideas fail? 'Never been truly tried in the real world yet.' 'The USSR was a failure of state capitalism.' Etc. Cognitive dissonance + circular reasoning is basically bulletproof as a method of rationalization.

[Vraith]

How does the hard left react when it's ideas fail? 'Never been truly tried in the real world yet.' 'The USSR was a failure of state capitalism.' Etc. Cognitive dissonance + circular reasoning is basically bulletproof as a method of rationalization.

Oh, piss off. I tried to make clear I wasn't exempting the left.
Even if I HAD been, I'd have been justified, on a practical level, cuz there
really are very few Lefties that think what you claim they think, [once upon a time, some did] and near ZERO with any authority/power. [unlike the right].

And [incorrectly] stating the thought processes of people, then globalizing them, is worth a chuckle when they come from someone who made the foundationless assertion

the universe cannot be rationalized by an intellect whose existence is itself the object of a larger nature. While that should be axiomatic

[Hashi Lebwohl]

How does the hard left react when it's ideas fail?

They file for bankruptcy like they did in Detroit and hope for Federal bailouts.

It doesn't require bloated budgets or throwing money at schools to educate children; rather, it takes parents who instill in their children the desire to learn so that they may make a good life for themselves as adults. When we were in school and we wanted access to information we hit the library; kids these days have always-on Internet connections, which puts even more valuable information at their fingertips. I am not a big proponent of home-schooling but I wager that I could take a dozen kids and teach them at home and at then end of every school year my group would outperform the public school kids academically. It really isn't that difficult so why do so many school districts have problems with it?

We cannot simply do away with social safety nets overnight because that sort of system shock would be catastrophic. However, the very existence of safety nets lulls people into irresponsible behavior--"I don't have to get the best-paying job I can get while I am working and I don't have to save up money for the future because I know the government will give me money when I retire". This is a recipe for disaster--although it will likely be here, how do you know that the Federal Government will exist, as it exists now, in 30 years? You don't. Study gambling strategy or game strategy from mathematics--there is no such thing as a sure bet, and this includes banking on the "fact" that the government will be there for you. Retirement age is still listed as 65 but people live longer now than they did in my grandparents' generation--if you live to be 90 you will be retired almost as long as you worked as an adult; that time frame is longer than people think it is.

maybe we need better solutions than republicans vs. democrats.

I second this.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

How does the hard left react when it's ideas fail? 'Never been truly tried in the real world yet.' 'The USSR was a failure of state capitalism.' Etc. Cognitive dissonance + circular reasoning is basically bulletproof as a method of rationalization.

Oh, piss off. I tried to make clear I wasn't exempting the left.
Even if I HAD been, I'd have been justified, on a practical level, cuz there
really are very few Lefties that think what you claim they think, [once upon a time, some did] and near ZERO with any authority/power. [unlike the right].

And [incorrectly] stating the thought processes of people, then globalizing them, is worth a chuckle when they come from someone who made the foundationless assertion

the universe cannot be rationalized by an intellect whose existence is itself the object of a larger nature. While that should be axiomatic

Vraith, you're the one asserting that there is something unique about the way the right rationalizes its failure, not I. I think that both sides are fucked, but I do get tired of the arch and pretentious moral authority the left has staked out as its own, as if the right to comment on the depravity of others is the exclusive province of the left, and how it is an outrage when anyone dares to question their motives.

I'll break it down for you even more succinctly, though I doubt you'll bite: eschatological dualism. Find that, and you've found the problem, and it resides both to the left and to the right.

As to whatever point you're trying to make with my earlier assertion, why don't you go ahead and make it, if you can.

[Vraith]

Vraith, you're the one asserting that there is something unique about the way the right rationalizes its failure, not I.

Except for the fact that I didn't assert any such thing,
I acknowledged that that left has its issues.
And then I told you I wasn't asserting such a thing,
and mentioned the acknowledgement cuz apparently you
missed it.
Now, apparently, you missed it again.
The difference is in the power differential.
IF there was a left-side sub-group that had the controls/positions that the
far right does now, and IF those lefties were insisting that we
follow some Soviet-esque model [fully, or with some minor tweaks], I'd be voting for Republicans.

On your quote that I quoted...it gave me some interesting trains to follow, so I kept it handy, but the point here is: the universe CAN be rationalized [though that's a bad word for it, given the connotations] by beings subject to/within it. Not only that, universes other than/outside the ones they exist in can be rationalized.
I love the old Browning line and implications of:
"Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp..."
But the truth is both our reach AND grasp can exceed
the box of our universe, in time.
The truth is we definitely don't, and probably won't, [and that's good...otherwise everything is boring] understand ALL the boxes...but that in no way means we're stuck with, and can't ever fully comprehend, the little one we live in.

EDITED cuz I forgot to be mood indigo.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

Vraith, perhaps you didn't intend it, but despite your usual morass of qualifications, you seem to have bifurcated your remarks into pre- and post- Tea Party. There is nothing very unusual or highly menacing about the Tea Party despite the carnival barker hyperbole of the liberal bogey-man factory. They are kind of a mishmash of genuine fiscal concern with reactionary (Cold War) ideology that lacks nuance. Yeah, they take the laissez-faire unseen hand as an article of faith, and believe stridently in conservative principles such as individual responsibility and individual dignity. But I'd say the body count and the stubborn-ness of their movement are at a quite distant remove from the evident ability of the hard left to rationalize anything in accordance with their allegedly unsullied intentions. Yet these unsullied intentions are all too often manifested in some altruistic tyrant, who is eager to perfect in the mausoleum that which cannot be perfected in life. So let's not pretend that the Tea Party is but the latest and most virulent incarnation of the adversary of all that is good and righteous.

You did mention something that suggests a way out of the usual idiocy of ideologues: reality. When ideology fails over a period of time, it becomes discredited. Hopefully this becomes part of a political dialectic where the best is preserved and recombined with what has worked before. That is worth hoping for anyway. And to the extent that the Tea Party cannot cope with disillusionment, it will cease to be either credible or relevant.

As far as my earlier statement, well I disagree. The universe itself, considered both as a phenomenon and as a totality, cannot be rationalized by a subordinate intellect. However it is true that certain aspects of any phenomenon can be rationalized, depending on the heuristic postulations that are first accepted by the rationalizer.

[Vraith]

but despite your usual morass of qualifications,
As far as my earlier statement, well I disagree.

The universe itself, considered both as a phenomenon and as a totality, cannot be rationalized by a subordinate intellect.

On the first, you can call it a morass if you like. But most things really are pretty complicated, and they require qualifications.
I abhor the KISS principle. Nearly everything generated by/through it is
simplistic, stupid, and wrong.
There are a lot of sloppy smooches in the Communist and related assumptions/reasoning.
The same is true on the far-right.
And much of the problem is from mistaken assumptions, and excluded/absent knowledge/information from the real. [often WILLFULLY excluded, because including it would hurt the pretty structure]

On the second, I don't see any good reason to believe that.
I'd say that a necessary part of intellect is precisely to see/comprehend both the fundamental underpinnings of the ground you stand on AND project/shift your perspective beyond the local.
Thought/intelligence IS the ability to open the box from the inside, and find what else there is. And, if there is no there there, the next step is to MAKE it.

[ussusimiel]

However, a state budget is a different beast than a federal budget. States don't have a fiat currency. Budget deficits actually matter; they are real. It looks like Brownback cut too much, too fast, without a corresponding cut in spending...

There are other states that have cut taxes, like Texas, and have growing economies.

He does seemed to have rushed the tax cuts. It's fairly basic maths (as F&F pointed out above) to make spending cuts in line with your reduced tax intake. It takes time for businesses to respond to a new situation. You can't just move your operation to the state next door overnight. It also takes time to set up a new business and get it growing. I would reckon that 10-15 years is a reasonable timespan within which to makes changes like these and judge the effects.

What was his rush? Did he want to enact the changes while he has legislative majorities? Not much point in that if your policy changes mean that you're out of power after the next election. Did he expect the 'magic' of the market to create a 'utopia' overnight? Someone should tell him that the market is made up of people, and buildings, and plant and machinery etc., given time all that can do some amazing things, but in the end it is the effort and work of human beings not some kind of fairydust that can be sprinkled on a place to make it instantly hyper-productive.

u.

[wayfriend]

What was his rush? Did he want to enact the changes while he has legislative majorities? Not much point in that if your policy changes mean that you're out of power after the next election.

In the US, you can cut taxes, but never raise them. If you get a chance to cut, you cut, because it's forever.

Did he expect the 'magic' of the market to create a 'utopia' overnight? Someone should tell him that the market is made up of people, and buildings, and plant and machinery etc., given time all that can do some amazing things, but in the end it is the effort and work of human beings not some kind of fairydust that can be sprinkled on a place to make it instantly hyper-productive.

This is what gets me.

Consider schools. You enact a massive budget cut on the schools, it's not like you don't KNOW what will happen. Schools will be underfunded, class sizes will grow, non-essential classes will be cut, teacher pay will shrink. Since I cannot believe that Brownback and his fellows have heads full of noodles, I can only think they WANTED that to happen. Can anyone see another angle I am missing here?

Tax Cuts Leading to Deficits is the same deal. You KNOW what will happen: deficits, loans, and downgrades. Again, I can only think they WANTED it to happen.

If you want government to be ineffective, this is exactly how to go about and make that happen. Take away it's revenue, make sure it never gets it back.

If you were to make a list of every aspect of government that rich people think that they don't need, that list looks unsurprisingly like the things that the GOP has been out to destroy. Public schools, public assistance, regulation, oversight of regulatory compliance, etc. Brownback's Kansas is that made manifest in reality.