Posted on 05/18/2015 9:09:02 AM PDT by Citizen Zed
So how goes the Great Kansas Supply-Side Tax Cut Experiment? It has been much criticized by liberals and the national media over the past three years. In the new National Review, Henry Olson also argues the growth impact of the tax cuts — the top personal income tax rate was reduced to 4.9% from 6.45% and eliminated for small business owners who file as individuals — has been iffy at best, the deficit impact great: “Fiscally, Kansas’s supply-side experiment has been lots of pain with little or no gain.” (Olsen prefers the more middle-class-centric approach of Gov. Scott Walker in Wisconsin.)
But over the weekend, the Wall Street Journal published a note from Andrew Wilson of the St. Louis-based Show-Me Institute that presented a differed take. While Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback said the state’s “new pro-growth tax policy” would be “like a shot of adrenaline into the heart of the Kansas economy,” Wilson offers a positive, though subdued, conclusion, “… if Kansas hasn’t exactly catapulted into the front ranks in economic growth and employment, then it has at least moved a long way from the stagnation of recent decades.”
He points out, for instance, that from 1998-2012, “Kansas ranked 38th in private-sector job growth, according Bureau of Labor Statistics data crunched by the Kansas Policy Institute. In 2013—the first year after the tax reform—the state climbed to 27th place, and in 2014 it moved to 21st, placing it in the top half of states.” Also: ” In the second half of 2014, hourly wages in Kansas grew 3.5%, according to BLS data, far faster than the national average of 1.9%.”
Some good things to do seem to be starting to happen in Kansas. Faster private job growth, faster income growth. But overall is Kansas’s economic performance really so distinctive? What economist Scott Sumner said last summer about Kansas has really stuck with me: “I consider myself a moderate supply-sider, but I certainly wouldn’t expect such a tiny tax cut to significantly affect behavior. And any effects that did occur would happen very gradually, over a period of many years.”
For instance: While its jobless rate fell 1.2 percentage points from March 2013 to March 2015, the national jobless rate fell by 2.0 percentage points. And among its four neighboring states, the jobless rate fell by an average of 1.6 points. And although Kansas’s employment rate — the number of non-military, non-jailed adults with jobs — rose by 0.9 percentage point over that two-year span, it rose by nearly as much, 0.8 percentage point, among its neighbors and America overall. On the other hand, the Kansas labor force participation rate is stable, while the Group of Four has declined as has that of the national economy. Of course, momentum could be building as longer-term, supply-side incentives have changed. Maybe another two or three years on, the differences will be more dramatic.
Oh, but then there is the deficit issue, which Wilson doesn’t really counter: “Critics contend that Mr. Brownback’s tax cuts have blown a hole in the state budget—$344 million in the 2015 fiscal year and $600 million in the next. The governor is filling those gaps by moving money from highway projects and delaying some public pension contributions. He has also proposed raising cigarette and alcohol taxes and pausing some of the tax cuts still scheduled to take effect.”
So in microcosm, the Kansas experiment tends to reinforce some basic notions about tax cuts: (a) they certainly can be growth positive, (b) supply-side impacts take longer to play out, and (c) they are unlikely to be self financing. So cut with caution and purpose. Watch the budget. And keep expectations modest over the near term.
Micro tax cuts have micro results.
All this really proves is the theory that tax cuts compel spending cuts doesn’t work without a mandatory balanced budget. If the legislature can just borrow the money and stick their grandchildren with the bill that is what they will always do.
Right. Spending cuts and shrinking the number of government workers, departments and regulations also is necessary. Simply cutting taxes with no corresponding cut in government is a mixed proposition and may not result in self-funding tax cuts.
“... the national jobless rate fell by 2.0 percentage points”
My a$$.
The referenced article completely overlooks that a bunch of Kansas state revenues are being stolen by the corrupt federal government in the form of unconstitutional federal taxes.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
Getting back to 17A, the problem with Kansas and all other states is that federal senators are not doing their job to protect their states by killing bills which not only steal 10th Amendment-protected state powers, but also state revenues associated with those powers.
The 17th Amendment needs to disappear, and a bunch of corrupt senators along with it.
A $200 M shortfall on a $6 B budget is a 3 percent shortfall. This is not nothing but it’s not a catastrophe either. With a big chunk of the budget (Education) already passed, they’ll make what savings they can in the parts of the budget that have been passed, delay some of the scheduled tax cuts, raise some excise taxes and fees, delay some projects, and look for some opportunities for creative accounting. Over the next two or three years, a reduced case load for welfare and medicaid combined with continued economic growth with enable the state to cover its ordinary expenses with its tax structure. The economy is going in the right direction in Kansas, from a below average economy, to an above average economy.
Let’s remember that the Reagan I tax cuts were phased in over several years during which period we went through a pretty nasty recession. Then, when the smoke cleared, it was Morning in America. None of the current six years of sluggishness that characterizes our current walking pneumonia recovery. Reagan II wasn’t even a tax cut, but a flattening of the code that was revenue-neutral under the assumption of a static economy. Even so, Reagan II helped the economy to continue to grow strongly.
I meant to say, cut where they can in the parts of the budget not yet passed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.