Utter failure of supply-side economics in Kansas shocks nobody
Wealthy job creators and large corporations get huge tax cuts. They plow that money back into the economy and, Bango! Your government is sitting on big budget surpluses. That’s what was supposed to happen. It never worked, and it was complete horseshit from the get go. However, supply-side die hards claimed that it had never been fully implemented because pesky liberal Keynesians kept the government from cutting taxes as deeply as they needed to be cut in order to unleash this economic marvel. This time it would be different. This time Kansas would lead the way and prove the ability of tax cuts alone to drive an economic revival. This time the Keynes lovers will be shut up, but good.
Two weeks after the utterly delusional Gov. Sam Brownback proclaimed in a radio interview that Kansas’ experiment in supply-side economics was “working,” the latest batch of numbers from the Sunflower State further put the lie to the utterly delusional governor’s assertion.
State figures released Tuesday showed that tax revenue came in $11.2 million below expectations in March, the latest in a string of lower-than-expected tax receipts.
Lawmakers must fill a $344 million revenue shortfall by June, and Brownback has moved to plug Kansas’ fiscal hole by slashing education funding, gutting the state’s pension fund, and cutting infrastructure. Additionally, the governor has proposed new sales taxes, which disproportionately impact the poor, in order to proceed full steam ahead with his income tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy.
While personal income tax revenue was above expectations last month, the Topeka Capital-Journal reports that revenues from oil and gas, sales, and corporate income taxes were well short of what analysts had projected, largely owing to a state economy whose performance is less robust than the Brownback administration had predicted. Given that Brownback aims to eventually eliminate income taxes, the state will depend on those other sources of revenue in the years to come.
Supply side and Keynesian Econ work off the same underlying mechanism; that artificial stimulation, whether through supply side mercantile policies or government spending, grows the economy. The issue with both is they dont recognize the human valuation approach which differentiates want from need. That along with the suppression of the pricing mechanism breeds malinvestment in the long term.
Lots of cool words from general theory books that makes no real argument – but I’m sure your undergrad professor was duly impressed. So both capitalistic approaches are shitty in the same way, is that it?
So which economy theory recognizes the human valuation approach (does one exist?) and why does understanding the difference between want and need impact the effectiveness of both supply side and Keynesian applications?
Could you give examples of poorly allocated investments for each approach? I’m interested in how you could make a declarative statement about misappropriated investment? How is this measured exactly given that the options are more or less unlimited?
“Malinvestment”? New term for me but Military Spending comes to mind. As for Trickle Down it has never worked, it never will work. Hats off to Brownback The Magnificent for achieving a new level of failure for this accursed fraud. And a hale and hearty Tough Luck, You Did It To Yourselves to Kansas.
But he said it’s working. So it is. End of story. That’s all it takes these days. And did anyone ask what he meant by working? By working I’d assume he means that money for the wealthy isn’t being taxed as much (or double taxed on their capital investments) and is finally flowing back to the people that worked for it.
Just because the government is collapsing around him, doesn’t mean that the supply side isn’t working the way it was intended.
The right wing faux religious hateful morons would vote for him if the whole economy collapsed. Christians my ass