http://www.vox.com/2014/7/8/5868717/sam-brownback-kansas-tax-cut So what's this article leaving out? Why is this article wrong to assume tax cuts are the problem?
I wonder what the tagline will be when Hilary becomes president. Fucking Hilary? That doesn't seem derogatory because nobody would Fuck Hilary. Not even bill.
McCain banged her in Estonia a few years back. http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/NYT_Senators_Clinton_McCain_held_vodkadrinking_0728.html
Apparently Republicans didn't put their money where their mouths were. I'd say bummer for Kansas, but hey, "elections have consequences". barfo
KC newspaper tells a different story. http://www.kansascity.com/news/government-politics/article673701.html According to documents provided by his Department of Revenue, Brownback was actually told on “day one” that he faced a deficit of just $60 million in six months. A $492 million deficit was predicted for 18 months later — June 30, 2012, the end of the 2012 fiscal year. The end of the federal stimulus program caused a cash crunch in Kansas and most other states. On July 2, Brownback clarified his statement in an email to The Star. “After taking office in January 2011, I was presented with an FY 2012 budget which … had a projected deficit of $500 million if the administration took no action,” he said, a much clearer description of what actually happened. (Lots more at the link, including how he raised sales tax, property taxes by more than $300M, the state had $500M in the bank in May 2013, spending increased from $5B to $6B, etc.)
Reagan did the same. Cut taxes for the rich, but not spending, bingo bango, catastrophic deficits. Laffer and trickledown economics were disproven. The article says Laffer approves what Brownback did. As a senator, Brownback sucked on the NASA committee, too.
Reagan cut taxes for the middle class and lower class. The bottom 6,000,000 earners paid no income tax at all when he was done. He raised taxes on the rich by eliminating their favorite tax loopholes. Is it scientific to rewrite history in a way it didn't happen?
And you are the bozo of scientists. This site says bottom 4M. I stand corrected. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2001/03/the-real-reagan-economic-record The proportion of total income taxes paid by the top 1 percent rose sharply under President Reagan, from 18 percent in 1981 to 28 percent in 1988.14 Average effective income tax rates were cut even more for lower-income groups than for higher-income groups. While the average effective tax rate for the top 1 percent fell by 30 percent between 1980 and 1992, and by 35 percent for the top 20 percent of income earners, it fell by 44 percent for the second-highest quintile, 46 percent for the middle quintile, 64 percent for the second-lowest quintile, and 263 percent for the bottom quintile.15 These reductions for the lowest-income groups were so large because President Reagan doubled the personal exemption, increased the standard deduction, and tripled the earned income tax credit (EITC), which provides net cash for single-parent families with children at the lowest income levels. These changes eliminated income tax liability altogether for over 4 million lower-income families.16
I fixed your embarrassing misinformation for you. You should probably have some cognitive tests done.
So wait, this Republican In Name Only raised taxes? But when the Federal spending from Obama ran out, the state was in trouble? I'm confused.
What good is a tax deduction if you pay $0 tax? Tell me more about these cognitive tests. You should be the expert on those.
