I thought the article did a good job of suggesting the tax cuts hurt the state. Perhaps I'm a poor reader and missed the counter point. Here I was hoping for some good arguments why it's wrong. Instead I get your snarky, sarcastic shit?
I think what the point of the article was was that submitting a bill that cuts x in tax revenue and x in services, then saying that you're not actually cutting the x in services, can lead to poor performance of the bill. Not saying it's a D or R thing, because whoever the genii were that changed the bill before voting "yes" didn't help matters at all.
I think the point was to distort the situation for political gain. The KC news article and many others said he inherited a mess that would be $500M deficit in 18 months. The state's bank account grew by $350M in that time, instead. If the state's deficit is $10M, blame the tax cuts, never mind that without them that $10M would have been $350M+. Income tax revenues are down. OMG. Property taxes revenues are up $300M. From what I read, a big chunk of spending cuts were reversed by the courts.
I'm not a fan of Brownback by any means. I am in favor of cutting taxes and spending at every opportunity.
