Refute the facts then. Here's a biased source as well, I suppose. http://www.forbes.com/sites/rexsinq...x-cuts-making-kansas-a-more-prosperous-state/ Early Results Show Income Tax Cuts Making Kansas A More Prosperous State
your are not refuting the $461 million budget shortfall ,the fact stated the the huff piece by posting the forbes link. the fact is Kansas needs more money after slashing taxes to provide services.
Here you go. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_state_budget_(2008–09) Kansas, like many other states, is facing a $186 million gap for fiscal year 2009 and according to early estimates approximately $1 billion deficit for fiscal year 2010.[1][2] However, more recent estimates place FY 2010's shortfall at $654 million.[3] Governor Kathleen Sebelius recommended $600 million in budget cuts for FY 2010 which includes eliminating programs, closing facilities, freezing new hires, and reducing spending. However, in light of the federal economic stimulus package Sebelius amended her recommended budget to "prevent harm" to the state. "Budget cuts deeper than what I have already recommended are not necessary, and would in fact do great harm to our state’s economy and employment levels," said Sebelius.[4][5] However state officials said their target for reductions in fiscal 2010 is greater than the Governor's recommendations - $625 million. According to the Governor's recommended budget, the proposed cuts could reduce the projected FY2010 shortfall $103 million, however that estimate depends on $57 million in revenue from state-owned casinos that haven’t yet been built.[3] However, Sebelius' 2009 appointment by President Barack Obama as United States Secretary of Health and Human Services had some state legislators that the nomination is a "distraction" from the state's budget crisis. "The state budget remains substantially out of balance, and she will leave behind no consensus on how to balance it," said Senate majority leader Derek Schmidt. House minority leader Paul Davis said that he expected nothing but a smooth transition when Sebelius left office. Lieutenant Governor Former Republican Party leader turned Democrat Mark Parkinsonassumed Sebelius' role as Governor.[6][7]
I would argue that the economy of the entire nation and the laissez faire business policies of the bush administration were the source of those shortfalls.
Actually, Pelosi/Reid crashed the bus. They took over in 2006, remember? http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...rats-were-wrong-on-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac Democrats Were Wrong on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Seventeen. That's how many times, according to this White House statement (hat tip Gateway Pundit), that the Bush administration has called for tighter regulation of the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Congress has cooperated only once. In spring 2007, as House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank likes to point out, the House did pass a bill in response. The Senate did not act until 2008; Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd spent most of 2007 camped out in Iowa running for president. The legislation passed by Congress in 2008 enabled Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson to put Fannie and Freddie into federal conservatorship this summer when they failed. But it didn't prevent them from spewing a huge amount of toxic waste, in the form of subprime and Alt-A mortgages, into our financial institutions from 2004 to 2007.
There's more to that story. John McCain. He ran against Obama, remember? Much if not all of that could have been prevented by a bill cosponsored by John McCain and supported by all the Republicans and opposed by all the Democrats in the Senate Banking Committee in 2005. That bill, which the Democrats stopped from passing, would have prohibited the GSEs from speculating on the mortgage-based securities they packaged. The GSEs' mission allegedly justifying their quasi-governmental status was to package or securitize such mortgages, but the lion's share of their profits—which determined top executives' bonuses—came from speculation.
you originally challenged a fact by attacking the source yet you now challenge it with an opinion piece? some hypocrisy right there I'm telling you.
That's no opinion piece. It's documented fact that both Bush and McCain offered legislation to add regulation to Fannie and Freddie and were opposed by Democrats. If you think the fact there was a bill is not a fact, feel free to find some evidence of that. It kind of flies in the face of your "lessez-faire business policies" claim.
How about a liberal source? http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/b...ed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae By STEPHEN LABATON Published: September 11, 2003 WASHINGTON, Sept. 10— The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago. Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry. The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios. The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.
this entire piece is from the OPINION section of the usnews site. editorialized and cherry picked "facts" are allowed in this section . this is not a journalistic article but a column. the fact remains that Kansas tax cuts have a $461 million dollar budgetary shortfall or DEFICET that will need tax increases to offset
The fact remains the deficit in Kansas has been cut by roughly $600M. And under Democrats it was $1B. I'm not at all opposed to some taxes. The sales tax the republican suggested is a consumption tax. Supply side economics is fine with some taxes, just not income taxes. All you've proven is that your sources are indeed biased. They deliberately leave out the $1B deficit inherited and that it's been cut by over 1/2.
the fact that as reported is that there will be a deficit that needs rectifying, and the most likely solution will be a tax increase . there is no bias in the reporting.
The deficit does not exist because of lack of taxes. The spending is too large. Even the Democrat who joined the Obama administration was looking at cutting ~$650M in spending.
In all fairness it was completely on accident. I found this article on another web site and thought, man this will fire denny up!. This plan might actually work in the long term, but such a drastic change in the short term is bound to cause a lot of problems. my issues are generally where some are proposing to make it up at. Cutting schools and raising sales taxes are bad ideas. But its all still being debated so we will see.
Consumption tax is great. The rich guy spends $100, pays $10. The poor guy spends $10, pays $1. Tax the rich to pay for the bloat.
Consumption tax hits the poors spending power much harder and is actually less fair. In essense they are lowering taxes on the rich and raising them on the poor.
