Hensley spouted the party line in a Kansas City Star article yesterday. Don't you know the budget problem has been caused by the state not getting enough of the money it's owed rather than legislators like Hensley spending too much?
Hensley told the paper that the Legislature has approved $6.7 billion in tax cuts to businesses from 1995 to 2005. Funny, that sounds a lot like the numbers cited by Steve Rose. Are they talking about the same study? Who knows.
Either way they both have the same problem. Did the study also look at tax increases during the same period? I seriously doubt it. During that same period, sales taxes were increased, property taxes went up, cigarette taxes increased, income taxes increased. The list goes on and on.
And just for good measure, Hensley says that unemployment taxes went down too, so that means businesses shouldn't have a problem giving more money to the government to waste. Sure, that makes sense. After all, if the state had collected more unemployment insurance premiums, that money could be used for... oh... wait. It could be used for unemployment benefits. That's it. So what's the point again???
Hensley believes that the government is entitled to your money before you are, plain and simple. Apparently the Star believes that as well.
The federal government has accelerated depreciation to encourage businesses to buy equipment. The state currently uses the federal depreciation formula for state taxes. By not going to an accelerated depreciation schedule, the state could save about $40 million.Gee, I didn't realize that by hiking taxes on businesses the state could save money. It seems to me that by hiking taxes the state could take more money. But save? No, the state could save more money by spending less money. That's how you save. Savings, by definition, is not taking more money from the people.
Hensley and Democrats just have a completely different thought process. The government is entitled to whatever you have before you are. It's just that simple.