Posted on 11/11/2014 8:41:14 AM PST by SoFloFreeper
If a $205 million decrease can result in a #278 million deficit, then they were already well under water. Sounds like typical political shenanigans.
SoSloFreeper?
On a federal level, every single time federal income taxes were lowered, revenues actually increased to the Treasury as a result of all of the economic activity the tax cuts stimulated.
Some perspective:
Kansas: population 2.9 million. Budget $6 billion
Connecticut: population 3.5 million. Budget $20 billion.
Pennsylvannia: population 12.8 million. Budget $30 billion.
Maryland: population 5.9 million. Budget $37 billion.
Kansas at baseline is relatively sensible when compared to the Blue States, which are out of control.
Starve the beast. If the locals want to spend more money on schools they can vote yes and damn well pay for it.
No they can't. Kansas funds their schools funny. Individual school districts are limited as to the amount of money they can provide through local taxes. Most money comes from the state; it's supposed to be fairer to the rural districts I think.
They were already forecasting a $70 million shortfall back in April. This is on top of that.
Shhh....you’re being too reasonable.
Adding to your point, here is a graph of recent years and their budgets:
http://www.khi.org/photos/2013/nov/07/2647/
By my math, this huge shortfall will leave us with $6 billion to spend...or 12.5% more than the %5.25 billion we spent in 2010....or 23% more than the $4.6 billion we spent in 2005....in an era with near zero inflation and flat population growth.
Sam deserves a pat on the back...oh, we just gave him one last week :)
The government will be taking less of the people’s money?
How is this a bad thing?
This is good news. Start cutting. A good place to start is government head count, inflated government employee pay rates, and pension benefits for public employees.
Any function that a private contractor can perform should be contracted out. This includes giving parents a choice of sending their kids to private schools with partial tax subsidy.
I am in California and our Socialistic leaders would never do these things. We needs conservative states like Kansas to be an incubator for these ideas to prove to the world what can happen with common sense and principled leadership.
How is this a bad thing?
It is not but go read the comments at the link below and you'd think Kansas is full of liberal crazies. From the results of the last election, it is not. I have no doubt it is part of a coordinated effort of the local liberal medias to try to influence public opinion here. They sure tried their best during the last election but failed. Looks like they are continuing down the same path but the people of Kansas have wised up to them.
I personally boycott the advertisers of said local medias that deceive for political gain. Many of these local medias ignored or barely reported the negative stories about Greg Orman and pushed the state is in bad shape because of Brownback meme. I'm glad they all lost big-time but they continue down the path of deception to try to further their libtard agenda. The funny thing is they don't get that is what the American people rejected last week.
http://www.kake.com/home/headlines/Kansas-faces-279-million-budget-gap-by-July-282216831.html
CGato
So the state is running a deficit and you want to make it worse by subsidizing private school tuition?
Average gov't school per-pupil expenditures are about $10k nationwide. Under a typical voucher program, parents are given vouchers worth half of that, or $5k/child.
Vouchers save the taxpayers money, but cost the teacher unions jobs.
A couple of problems with that. Kansas is a rural state, and the overwhelming majority of the school districts are rural districts with no private school alternatives available. Second problem, do you know what kind of income a couple has to have to result in a $5000 state income tax bill? Depending on deductions it's well over $110,000. So again, when the state is facing a deficit why would you subsidize private school tuition?
Taxpayers NOW pay $10k/child in government schools.
Give that same parent $5k to use for a nongovernment school.
Savings to taxpayers: $5k/child.
Fixed costs complicate the issue, but the voucher can always be adjusted to result in a savings to taxpayers.
Regarding distance to schools, existing government schools could be sub-divided into government and nongovernmental schools. Schools could open in storefronts. Students could learn on-line.
Use your imagination. Yours are the arguments of the NEA.
So, he had been prepared to waste $100 million?
So the state is running a deficit and you want to make it worse by subsidizing private school tuition?
The amount of the subsidy would be less than the government entities are currently spending on the public system. This would create a net savings to taxpayers, make some taxpayer/parents happier, and put pressure on public schools and teacher unions to improve in a more competitive environment. Everyone wins.
I like what Reagan once said, “not more taxes but more taxpayers’. Get Bammy outta there and see some growth bring in more state revenues.
The last thing we need is more money to government. I abhor Reagan’s mantra about tax cuts bringing in more revenue as a way to cut the deficit. Cut spending, cut government. Government is the problem and no amount of money will change that.
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.