First Kansas, now Arizona , Oklahoma and W. Virginia - all deep red states. And there are reports that say we are about to hit the biggest boom in stock buy-backs in history with those generous corporate tax cuts.

Graphs from vox.com

Where do you get the insane idea that education funding is always supposed to increase?

Spending more money on ed doesn't actually translate to better results. Very often the places that spend the most have some of the worst results.

Supply-side economics is working great for Wisconsin - funny you didn't mention that...

Also, people who have less income SHOULD see a greater portion of it going to necessities (taxes, housing, etc) than people who have more - unless you want to abolish sales & property taxes, and rely 100% on a flat-rate income tax, that is what is going to happen.

I never said education funding was supposed to always increase - where did you read that in my post? I'm merely pointing out that the residents of those states, particularly teachers, are the ones complaining and marching in the streets in those deep red states. My argument, at its core, is there is no evidence that supply-side economics works and its based on a theory some guy drew on the back of a napkin.
It's been tried and yields no, very bad, or mediocre results so that policies usually have to be reversed because people want to keep important services. It does not mean that wasteful spending, tax cuts or not, cannot be removed but that cutting deeply to certain services usually results in more bad outcomes than good ones and sometimes, in the case of Kansas ( a pure supply-side experiment), really bad outcomes. I didn't mention Wisconsin because I haven't read anything that says Wisconsin is outperfoming other states due to tax cuts and economic policies under Scott Walker. Really wealthy people know and agree they should be paying a higher percent of their income to the state based on state (or Federal) policy and/or incomes have to rise for more people in the middle and bottom.


I also don't believe the top 1%-2% should get 83% of the benefits of tax cuts nor should tax cuts always be the core goal of government economic policy. I also don't believe companies should behave as if stock price increases forever and ever are a sustainable outcome. And I don't believe governments can spend into oblivion. Just in case you wanted to read something into my post that isn't there. I can't wait to see how this president manages to give everyone affordable healthcare, build a wall and make Mexico pay for it, get a $1 trillion infrastructure bill and not touch SS and Medicare as he promised. The GOP can't figure it out either and are struggling to figure out if they can get ANY other legislation passed before the November elections because otherwise, you are likely to hear more about Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama than you will about tax cuts or any other "accomplishments".