Kansas versus Maryland

[techs]

http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/state-tax-cuts-state-tax-increases-kansas-v-maryland

Gov. Martin O'Malley of Maryland, the chairman of the Democratic Governors Association:

"Without any anger, and without any meanness, and without any fear, let's ask one another in these critical months ahead and years ahead: how much less do we think would be good for our state?" Mr. O'Malley asked. "How much less do we think would be good for our country? How much less education would be good for our children? How many fewer college degrees would make our state or our country more competitive?

"How much less research and development would be good for the innovation economy that we have an obligation and a responsibility, a duty and an imperative, to embrace? How many fewer hungry Maryland kids can we afford to feed? Progress is a choice: we can decide whether to make the tough choices necessary to invest in our shared future and move forward together. Or we can be the first generation of Marylanders to give our children a lesser quality of life with fewer opportunities."


Governor Sam Brownback of Kansas:

Gov. Sam Brownback of Kansas, who sought the Republican nomination for president four years ago, said he was persuaded that his state needed to cut its income taxes and taxes on small businesses significantly when he studied data from the Internal Revenue Service that showed that Kansas was losing residents to states with lower taxes.
"My viewpoint, and the viewpoint of the majority of the Legislature, was we've got to change our tax policy to attract more people and attract more businesses," Mr. Brownback said in a telephone interview. "We're just tired of losing in our league -- I consider the surrounding states as our league -- and we want to start gaining."



This should be interesting. Kansas is exactly in the middle of median household income at 50k and Marlyand is first at 69k.
Kansas just slashed taxes and spending. The plan was to make up for some of the tax cuts by closing some loopholes, but the legislature squashed that. Kansas now has to cut its budget by 13 percent, which is a staggering number.
Maryland, on the other hand plans to use increasing revenues from the recovery to restore some of the spending cuts it made during the recession.

Kansas already had revenue shortfalls resulting from lower than expected tax collections and slower growth in personal income following a 1998 permanent tax reduction has contributed to the substantial growth in the state's debt level as bonded debt increased from $1.16 billion in 1998 to $3.83 billion in 2006. Some increase in debt was expected as the state continues with its 10-year Comprehensive Transportation Program enacted in 1999

Which plan will work better? Kansas or Marylands?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Cripple the implementation and there can be no valid comparison.

 

[cubby1223]

Is there a point to this thread other than "I don't like Republicans"?

Can I compare Kansas to my home state of Illinois? With our fully Democrat controlled state government, recently increased taxes, and a mere $140 billion debt and $22b annual deficit? I mean, we have a vastly higher deficit than Kansas has debt...

 

[glenn1]

Which plan will work better? Kansas or Marylands?

Depends on who you ask; different citizens have different preferences. For me as someone who is considering a professional move back to the East Coast, I have limited interest in positions in the Maryland areas around DC (e.g. Montgomery County) and taxation is a major factor in that, along with sprawl and cost of living in general. For me there's really no advantage that Maryland provides that's worth the large tax hit that would be involved, where others might be all ga-ga over some of social services available in Montgomery county and similar locales.

 

[Elfear]

Depends on who you ask; different citizens have different preferences. For me as someone who is considering a professional move back to the East Coast, I have limited interest in positions in the Maryland areas around DC (e.g. Montgomery County) and taxation is a major factor in that, along with sprawl and cost of living in general. For me there's really no advantage that Maryland provides that's worth the large tax hit that would be involved, where others might be all ga-ga over some of social services available in Montgomery county and similar locales.

+1

I live in Kansas and even knowing that the east coast offers higher-paying jobs I don't want to live there because of higher taxes and higher cost of living in general.

What Gov. Brownback stated holds true for me. The difference in tax rates between Missouri and Kansas had me thinking I might move but if my effective tax rate can be reduced it would be a big incentive to stay.

 

[Wreckem]

You point out Illinois. Why don't I point out Texas.

Texas ranks 50th in per capita spending.

Texas ranks last to next to last in most categories, not surprisingly because of the amount spent per capita.

Texas didn't fund Medicad payments in the last budget cycle. So a $4-6billion(this number fluctuates, originally it was expected to be $3-3.5, nows its being projected much higher) bill will be due at the end of the the next fiscal year(little after mid 2013). Say BYE BYE to most of the remaining part of the rainy day fund.

Texas is also facing ANOTHER $10billion shortfall for its next biennial budget.

While Texas has the second lowest state debt level, only Tennesse has less, it ranks 3rd, only behind New York and Washington D.C. in local debt level, with a staggering $330billion in local debt.

So what are Republicans already sounding the call for? More spending cuts to an already cut to the bone budget. Dumbfucks in Austin don't want to face the fact that Texas has a massive structural deficit problem. But what do they do? Call for cuts to spending and then at the same time increase the amount of tax credits/rebates/etc given to corporations.

Which leads to my final statistics. Texas has had a higher percentage of debt growth when compared to the federal govt over the last decade. Perry went on and on about federal spending. Under his tenure, debt growth in Texas outpaced the Federal debt growth.

 

[cubby1223]

You point out Illinois. Why don't I point out Texas.

Go right ahead.

My point was cherry-picking states does not make for a valid comparison of party philosophies. Not to mention, not everyone who runs under a party's label are clones of each other.

I think I should create a thread highlighting Illinois versus Wyoming, thus proving once and for all that Democrats are the political party of failure!

(oh, and please, those puny "issues" you list of Texas, still doesn't come close to matching the problems Illinois has)

 

[Wreckem]

Go right ahead.

My point was cherry-picking states does not make for a valid comparison of party philosophies. Not to mention, not everyone who runs under a party's label are clones of each other.

I think I should create a thread highlighting Illinois versus Wyoming, thus proving once and for all that Democrats are the political party of failure!

(oh, and please, those puny "issues" you list of Texas, still doesn't come close to matching the problems Illinois has)

The policy of slashing budgets to well below baseline levels is a failed policy. The only people that do that are Republicans.

Texas public education system is going to be ~$5billion under baseline funding(baseline merely keeping up with population growth) when the next budget is passed.

As for your last statement about puny issues. Texas debt per capita is not that far below Illinois. Texas has a substantially higher amount of total debt. And Texas has very little to actually show for any of it.

I can't wait to leave because the issues is only going to be compounded as the years pass by with Republicans doing what they always do.

 

[cubby1223]

The policy of slashing budgets to well below baseline levels is a failed policy. The only people that do that are Republicans.

And the budget policies of Illinois are also failed policy, a state that has been largely dominated by Democrats.

You are in here to seemingly prove that Republicans are the problem in America, and I am here to say that politicians in general are the problem, along with a population amongst everyone, who wants to take from government without giving. Trying to blame one side instead of the other is what I believe is a major factor in the perpetuation of our problems.

Like take for example the stereotypical Republican might say "Everyone's taxes are too high" while the stereotypical Democrat might say "My taxes are too high, everyone else's taxes are too low (not paying their fair share)." Then it is like, okay Democrat, why do you feel your views are "better" in this situation? What about your unwillingness to pay more in taxes, makes you feel like you have the superior philosophy? We all are a part of the problem.

 

[PokerGuy]

The policy of slashing budgets to well below baseline levels is a failed policy. The only people that do that are Republicans.

Yeah, only those nutty republicans would have such a crazy idea to think that one could spend within one's means. I know, it's just radical!

 

[fskimospy]

Is there a point to this thread other than "I don't like Republicans"?

Can I compare Kansas to my home state of Illinois? With our fully Democrat controlled state government, recently increased taxes, and a mere $140 billion debt and $22b annual deficit? I mean, we have a vastly higher deficit than Kansas has debt...

This seems like a perfectly valid thread. The two states have undertaken drastically different responses to economic crisis. The answer of which approach is better won't be if Kansas overtakes Maryland, but if Kansas improves its GDP per capita/quality of life/etc etc better than Maryland does. It's the rate of improvement, not the absolute level they end up at that matters.

 

[PokerGuy]

This seems like a perfectly valid thread. The two states have undertaken drastically different responses to economic crisis.

They are also vastly different states with vastly different economies and factors that drive them. How much do you suppose a drought might affect MD versus KS? Cherry picking two states to compare and spout of useless drivel conclusions is typical fare for the techs of the world.

 

[Phokus]

You point out Illinois. Why don't I point out Texas.

Texas ranks 50th in per capita spending.

Texas ranks last to next to last in most categories, not surprisingly because of the amount spent per capita.

Texas didn't fund Medicad payments in the last budget cycle. So a $4-6billion(this number fluctuates, originally it was expected to be $3-3.5, nows its being projected much higher) bill will be due at the end of the the next fiscal year(little after mid 2013). Say BYE BYE to most of the remaining part of the rainy day fund.

Texas is also facing ANOTHER $10billion shortfall for its next biennial budget.

While Texas has the second lowest state debt level, only Tennesse has less, it ranks 3rd, only behind New York and Washington D.C. in local debt level, with a staggering $330billion in local debt.

So what are Republicans already sounding the call for? More spending cuts to an already cut to the bone budget. Dumbfucks in Austin don't want to face the fact that Texas has a massive structural deficit problem. But what do they do? Call for cuts to spending and then at the same time increase the amount of tax credits/rebates/etc given to corporations.

Which leads to my final statistics. Texas has had a higher percentage of debt growth when compared to the federal govt over the last decade. Perry went on and on about federal spending. Under his tenure, debt growth in Texas outpaced the Federal debt growth.

Heh, kind of makes you wonder how even more in the hole Texas would be if it wasn't for their energy sector.

 

[fskimospy]

They are also vastly different states with vastly different economies and factors that drive them. How much do you suppose a drought might affect MD versus KS? Cherry picking two states to compare and spout of useless drivel conclusions is typical fare for the techs of the world.

It's a natural experiment, genius. No natural experiment is perfect.

You're just worried that it will show the continuing failure of conservative economics just as it has failed elsewhere. Don't worry, I'm sure you will have plenty of reasons to convince yourself that it's not their fault.

Conservatism never fails after all, it is only failed, right?

 

[trenchfoot]

The premise of the OP should be expanded to include all 50 states and see where, after the proper adjustments are made, each state stands economically from the previous year(s) given whatever direct political influences (party control?) are there.

As has been mentioned in this thread, austerity vs. stimulus spending is an excellent comparison point in the effect of opposing ideologies.

One thing is certain though, the Repub drive for austerity directly benefits the rich and disadvantages the middle class, the poor and minorities as austerity measures without fail go after gov't policies that benefit the "lower classes", including, but not limited to, support programs and regulations that protect the public from predatory business practices.

 

[fskimospy]

The premise of the OP should be expanded to include all 50 states and see where, after the proper adjustments are made, each state stands economically from the previous year(s) given whatever direct political influences (party control?) are there.

As has been mentioned in this thread, austerity vs. stimulus spending is an excellent comparison point in the effect of opposing ideologies.

One thing is certain though, the Repub drive for austerity directly benefits the rich and disadvantages the middle class, the poor and minorities as austerity measures without fail go after gov't policies that benefit the "lower classes", including, but not limited to, support programs and regulations that protect the public from predatory business practices.

That's a pretty impossible experiment to make. It's too wide ranging and there are too many factors to take into account. The reason these two states are being singled out is that their policy divergence is particularly large so it's easier to look for an effect. Natural experiments are always 'noisy', so people look for extreme examples like this.

 

[PokerGuy]

It's a natural experiment, genius. No natural experiment is perfect.

Actually, not only is it "not perfect", it's so far from being perfect (where all the variables are properly controlled or accounted for) that it's a worthless comparison. In other words, useless drivel only a political hack would believe.

You're just worried that it will show the continuing failure of conservative economics just as it has failed elsewhere.

I have no idea what you're driveling on about (and neither do you apparently!). Failure of conservative economics? There hasn't been any such thing in decades. Real fiscal conservatives would have never let spending get out of control, regardless of which state we're talking about. Instead, we're just arguing about various degrees of fail we see.

Conservatism never fails after all, it is only failed, right?

Correct.

 

[PokerGuy]

One thing is certain though, the Repub drive for austerity directly benefits the rich and disadvantages the middle class

Funny thing though: the rich have gotten a lot richer and increased their relative holding of wealth significantly more without any austerity. What evidence could you have that austerity would disparately benefit the rich if there has never really been austerity?

 

[Jaskalas]

Maryland... doesn't that become directly stimulated by the largess of the federal government right next door?

 

[glenn1]

Maryland... doesn't that become directly stimulated by the largess of the federal government right next door?

True, but this is counter-balanced by other factors also. Probably the biggest is that Maryland has comparatively lower tax Virginia right next door, which provides an attractive alternative to which citizens can move vs Kansas which is surrounded by states with similar political climates. Maryland also has two very large urban areas and a far greater minority demographic, which theoretically should mean more social cohesion for Kansas. All told, not perfect states for comparison but not completely mismatched either.

 

[Wreckem]

Yeah, only those nutty republicans would have such a crazy idea to think that one could spend within one's means. I know, it's just radical!

No its called raise revenue. Instead of being morons who continually shout no new taxes and force EVERYTHING upon local entities. There is a time and place for tax hikes.

Texas is a prime example. Education in Texas is shit. Roads in Texas are shit. Almost everything in Texas is shit.

Texas has regressed TREMENDOUSLY under Perry. Cutting below baseline levels is stupid when you have some of the least taxed populace in the nation. Texas is ranked close to last in revenue per capita. Instead Texas Republicans won't face reality that we have a massive structural deficit and want to continue to destroy Texas. Texas NEEDS massive tax and revenue reform ASAP. Texas brags about the net influx of people moving to Texas but refuses to keep spending at baseline levels. IE: They want the population, they don't want to provide for them. This is why everything from roads to education and everything else has gone done hill. If you fail to fund at baseline levels to keep up with population growth, the systems become overburdened and start deteriorating.

Only people like you and republicans think the mantra of no taxes increases, cut everything to the bone is sustainable. That is NOT FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY. That is FISCAL ABSURDITY. Texas is in a much more precarious state than most believe. The way Texas is going its going to be dead last(it is pretty much there) in everything that matters to citizens by the end of the decade, and will never come close to recovering. Even more so when local debt continues to skyrocket. That is another thing that needs reformed.

 

[fskimospy]

Actually, not only is it "not perfect", it's so far from being perfect (where all the variables are properly controlled or accounted for) that it's a worthless comparison. In other words, useless drivel only a political hack would believe.

A judgment that you have formed after closely examining the issue I'm sure. /facepalm.

Correct.

This is no surprise to me whatsoever. Your economics are an article of religious faith to you, meaning no amount of evidence can ever shake your belief in them. Sadly, you are not alone. The complete divorce of policy positions from empirical reality is one of the primary problems in conservatism today.

 

[SP33Demon]

You can't really compare the two states unless you include what drives their economy, and many other variables as well. For all intents and purposes, only a few very rich counties are propping up the average income of MD which is sucking on the teet of federal DC metro money. It's not a geographical coincidence that 4 of the richest counties (Montgomery MD, Fairfax VA, Arlington VA, Loudoun VA) in the country are within spitting distance of each other.

However, federal money aside, MD is becoming more and more like a giant welfare state. Their taxing is getting worse every year and they're ruthless in generating revenue (automated speed/red light cams, outrageous DMV fees) to support welfare (check out how long you can get unemployment for). Most of the sane upper middle class moves to VA if they can.

Kansas has a much different economy complete with different issues that drive their declining population. They don't have the advantages of the federal microcosm of sucking the DC teet (and lowest unemployment in the country) like MD's DC metro region. So to pose "which system is better" is really comparing apples to oranges.

I think if MD state gov tried to implement its BS tactics in a region more in line with normal national unemployment (8.2~%) and didn't have the best federal economic region in the country to fund it, it'd be screwed. Also keep in mind that even though KS's economy is tied to crop exports (i.e. the weather), they still have a lower statewide unemployment average than MD (6.1% vs 6.8%). That gives a little clue, but not definitive unless you are willing to analyze all of the variables (e.g. how much does Baltimore play into MD's 6.8%?, or how much do federal farm subsidies play into KS's 6.1%)? What you are asking is something that only an advanced economist could begin to answer.

 

[PokerGuy]

No its called raise revenue.Instead of being morons who continually shout no new taxes and force EVERYTHING upon local entities. There is a time and place for tax hikes.

Yeah, that time and place is "as soon as spending has been brought under control". It hasn't. Once it has, then we can talk about raising taxes. Having idiots at all level of government spending like drunken sailors and then wanting to raise taxes to pay for it is not acceptable to me, and I'll not vote for any politician that intends to do it.

Only people like you and republicans think the mantra of no taxes increases, cut everything to the bone is sustainable.

Sure thing, just spend spend spend some more borrowed money, that'll fix everything! You're a prime example of why idiots get in trouble with credit cards.

 

[PokerGuy]

A judgment that you have formed after closely examining the issue I'm sure. /facepalm.

Yep.

Sadly, you are not alone. The complete divorce of policy positions from empirical reality is one of the primary problems in conservatism today.

No, sadly there are not enough rational thinkers around, or we would have never even been in this mess to begin with. Spend spend spend into oblivion is how we got here. Spending more won't get us out. You have religious faith in more spending as the cure, while all logic says otherwise.