Originally published at Kansas Policy Institute.

From Topeka to Washington, too many politicians are combining tax relief with bloated budgets—and it’s putting future prosperity at riskKansas’s recent fiscal trajectory offers a cautionary tale for federal policymakers.

While tax relief is essential for economic growth, pairing it with unchecked spending can lead to fiscal instability. The state’s experience underscores the importance of coupling tax reforms with disciplined budgeting—a lesson Washington should heed as it considers the so-called “One Big, Beautiful Bill” (OBBB).

Kansas: The Perils of Overspending

Over the past decade, Kansas has seen both the promise and the peril of bold tax reform. In the early 2010s, the state attempted a major tax overhaul under then-Governor Sam Brownback, slashing income tax rates in hopes of spurring growth. However, the tax cuts were not paired with corresponding reductions in spending. Instead, state budgets continued to expand, and the resulting deficits sparked political backlash and fiscal instability.

Fast-forward to 2025, and Kansas again finds itself in a precarious fiscal position. The Legislature recently passed another tax relief package aimed at flattening income tax rates and reducing the property tax burden—moves that are pro-growth in theory. However, these reforms come alongside a surge in state spending. Our research at KPI shows that, for 2025 alone, the state budget is $8.7 billion larger than if spending had followed a responsible limit based on population growth plus inflation since 2005.

Spending per resident has soared to unsustainable levels, outpacing economic growth and increasing the burden on Kansas taxpayers. Kansas’s state government spending per resident was $5,428, placing it 23rd highest among the states. State and local tax collections per capita stood at $6,326 in 2022, ranking Kansas 24th nationally, well above no-income-tax states like Florida and Texas. This high tax burden helps explain why Kansas has seen a net outmigration of nearly 198,000 residents since 2000.

Forecasts show Kansas facing a $741 million deficit within four years. Assuming these projections are accurate, it is not because of the tax cuts but because of unsustainable spending growth. A decade after the first tax reform attempt, Kansas still grapples with the consequences of failing to control government expansion. The lesson is clear: even the best tax reforms can falter without fiscal discipline.

The Responsible Kansas Budget: A Blueprint for Reform

To address these challenges, Kansas needs to adopt KPI’s Responsible Kansas Budget (RKB). This simple yet powerful framework starts by demanding real cuts to inflated spending now—not just limiting future growth. Only then can state and local spending growth be effectively capped to population growth plus inflation, a measure of what taxpayers can sustainably afford.

By taking this two-step approach—cutting first, capping second—Kansas can reduce the government’s burden, avoid deficits, and create room for meaningful tax relief. This framework is a prerequisite for long-term stability.

The RKB also demands a shift toward performance-based budgeting. That means funding decisions should be based on outcomes, not historical inertia. Dedicated funds and earmarked programs currently dominate the Kansas budget, limiting lawmakers’ flexibility and reducing transparency. These automatic appropriations are a recipe for bloat and inefficiency.

A responsible budget should reflect real priorities, not legacy carveouts or special interests. And it should reject the fallacy of burden-shifting—replacing one tax with another—without actually reducing the total tax load on Kansans.

With a responsible budget and sound tax policy, Kansas could join the growing number of states advancing toward flatter and simpler tax systems. Over a dozen states have already adopted or are moving toward flat income taxes, and several—including Florida, Tennessee, and Texas—have eliminated income taxes entirely in favor of consumption-based models that encourage savings, investment, and growth.

Washington’s “One Big, Beautiful Bill”: Echoes of Kansas

At the federal level, the “One Big, Beautiful Bill” (OBBB) mirrors Kansas’s approach in its ambition and flaws. The bill includes several encouraging provisions:

• Extending the expiring 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) provisions,
• Eliminating federal taxes on tips and overtime pay,
• Making some Social Security income tax-free,
• Rolling back Biden-era green energy subsidies,
• Adding modest reforms to Medicaid and SNAP.

These are meaningful steps toward a more growth-oriented economy. However, the bill’s excessive spending without immediate cuts, numerous carveouts in the tax code, and a massive $4 trillion increase in the federal debt ceiling undermine the positives. Rather than pursue a broad-based, neutral tax system, OBBB introduces more tax carveouts—targeted benefits for politically favored groups. This kind of special treatment is anti-growth, distorting economic decisions, and reducing fairness. Worse, the bill does little to reform the largest drivers of federal deficits: “entitlements.”

Medicaid Reforms: Necessary but Potentially Disruptive

Among the most important components of OBBB are the long-overdue reforms to Medicaid. These changes aim to rein in ballooning entitlement costs and require work among capable adults. For Kansas, however, this could initially create budgetary pressure if federal matching funds are reduced or enrollment drops more quickly than anticipated. However, short-term stress should not deter long-term reform. Kansas must begin to wean itself off the federal budget, in Medicaid and elsewhere, especially in programs where dependency has grown far beyond the original intent. Taxpayers in Kansas are being overtaxed to support an unsustainable federal system. Rather than fearing change, Kansas should seize the opportunity to modernize its Medicaid program, cut costs, and move toward a more state-driven and fiscally responsible healthcare model.

Tax Carveouts vs. Tax Reform

Whether in Topeka or D.C., the distinction between tax carveouts and true tax reform is critical. Carveouts are a form of cronyism: they reward lobbyists and special interests, not families and small businesses. They complicate the tax code, reduce transparency, and make it harder to achieve long-term economic growth. By contrast, real tax reform broadens the base and lowers the rate for all taxpayers. It removes distortions, encourages work and productivity, and treats taxpayers equitably. The federal government should follow the lead of states like Kansas (when done right), Arizona, and Iowa by simplifying the tax code and moving toward a broad-based consumption model, not patchwork exemptions. Simply shifting the burden from income to consumption taxes isn’t enough—real reform must actually reduce the total burden on taxpayers.

Why Spending Discipline Matters

No tax policy can succeed in the long run without spending control. When spending outpaces economic growth, the gap must be filled with higher taxes, borrowing, or inflation—all of which harm the private economy. We’ve seen this nationally, as federal spending exploded during COVID-19 and remained high even after the emergency passed. And let’s not ignore federal borrowing. With debt levels now nearing $37 trillion, future generations will bear the burden of today’s excesses. Every trillion in new debt erodes trust, crowds out private investment, and raises the specter of inflation.

In Kansas, the failure to reduce spending has led to budget shortfalls even in times of economic growth. That’s because the state government has locked itself into long-term obligations and special funds that leave little room for discretion. Every dollar funneled into a dedicated account is one less that can be used for tax relief or urgent needs. In Washington, the same problem plays out in the form of entitlement autopilot and defense contractor guarantees. Unless both levels of government prioritize spending restraint, tax relief will be short-lived and economic growth will stall.

As states and the federal government consider long-term reform, one of the most promising directions is a shift from taxing income to taxing consumption. Income taxes penalize productivity, savings, and investment—the very engines of economic growth. Consumption taxes, by contrast, are less distortionary and more transparent. A flat consumption tax, such as a final sales tax, aligns incentives and simplifies compliance. Texas and Florida have demonstrated the viability of no-income-tax models, relying instead on consumption-based revenue systems. Kansas should explore similar reforms by reducing reliance on income taxes and eliminating carve-outs that clutter the code. At the federal level, replacing income and payroll taxes with a broad-based consumption tax could boost growth, improve compliance, and reduce the tax gap. But that can only happen if spending is first brought under control to avoid just shifting the burden.

A Time for Courageous Leadership

The opportunity is clear: Kansas and Washington can implement sustainable, pro-growth tax reform. But doing so requires real courage. It means cutting unnecessary programs, resisting special interests, and saying no to budget gimmicks. It means adopting a responsible budget cap—like the RKB—and sticking to it. In Kansas, that starts with ending the use of dedicated funds to circumvent scrutiny. It means evaluating programs on performance and eliminating those that fail to deliver value. It means using surpluses for tax relief or debt reduction, not new spending obligations. It means getting Kelly Era spending surges under control. In Washington, it means pairing tax relief with real entitlement reform. It means capping spending growth and ending the practice of raising the debt ceiling without structural change.

Conclusion: The Path to Prosperity

Tax relief is not enough. Without spending discipline, it leads to deficits, debt, and future tax hikes. Kansas has seen this firsthand and must not repeat the mistakes of a decade ago. Washington is at risk of making the same errors now. The path to prosperity lies in cutting inflated spending now, capping future growth, enacting broad-based tax reform, and shrinking the government’s footprint. Only then can we ensure a truly free and prosperous future. Washington would be wise to follow.

Originally posted at Kansas Policy Institute.

Kansas’s recent fiscal trajectory offers a cautionary tale for federal policymakers. While tax relief is essential for economic growth, pairing it with unchecked spending can lead to fiscal instability. The state’s experience underscores the importance of coupling tax reforms with disciplined budgeting—a lesson Washington should heed as it considers the so-called “One Big, Beautiful Bill” (OBBB).

Kansas: The Perils of Overspending
Over the past decade, Kansas has seen both the promise and the peril of bold tax reform. In the early 2010s, the state attempted a major tax overhaul under then-Governor Sam Brownback, slashing income tax rates in hopes of spurring growth. However, the tax cuts were not paired with corresponding reductions in spending. Instead, state budgets continued to expand, and the resulting deficits sparked political backlash and fiscal instability.

Fast-forward to 2025, and Kansas again finds itself in a precarious fiscal position. The Legislature recently passed another tax relief package aimed at flattening income tax rates and reducing the property tax burden—moves that are pro-growth in theory. However, these reforms come alongside a surge in state spending. Our research at KPI shows that, for 2025 alone, the state budget is $8.7 billion larger than if spending had followed a responsible limit based on population growth plus inflation since 2005.

Spending per resident has soared to unsustainable levels, outpacing economic growth and increasing the burden on Kansas taxpayers. Kansas’s state government spending per resident was $5,428, placing it 23rd highest among the states. State and local tax collections per capita stood at $6,326 in 2022, ranking Kansas 24th nationally, well above no-income-tax states like Florida and Texas. This high tax burden helps explain why Kansas has seen a net outmigration of nearly 198,000 residents since 2000.

Forecasts show Kansas facing a $741 million deficit within four years. Assuming these projections are accurate, it is not because of the tax cuts but because of unsustainable spending growth. A decade after the first tax reform attempt, Kansas still grapples with the consequences of failing to control government expansion. The lesson is clear: even the best tax reforms can falter without fiscal discipline.

The Responsible Kansas Budget: A Blueprint for Reform
To address these challenges, Kansas needs to adopt KPI’s Responsible Kansas Budget (RKB). This simple yet powerful framework starts by demanding real cuts to inflated spending now—not just limiting future growth. Only then can state and local spending growth be effectively capped to population growth plus inflation, a measure of what taxpayers can sustainably afford.

By taking this two-step approach—cutting first, capping second—Kansas can reduce the government’s burden, avoid deficits, and create room for meaningful tax relief. This framework is a prerequisite for long-term stability.

The RKB also demands a shift toward performance-based budgeting. That means funding decisions should be based on outcomes, not historical inertia. Dedicated funds and earmarked programs currently dominate the Kansas budget, limiting lawmakers’ flexibility and reducing transparency. These automatic appropriations are a recipe for bloat and inefficiency.

A responsible budget should reflect real priorities, not legacy carveouts or special interests. And it should reject the fallacy of burden-shifting—replacing one tax with another—without actually reducing the total tax load on Kansans.

With a responsible budget and sound tax policy, Kansas could join the growing number of states advancing toward flatter and simpler tax systems. Over a dozen states have already adopted or are moving toward flat income taxes, and several—including Florida, Tennessee, and Texas—have eliminated income taxes entirely in favor of consumption-based models that encourage savings, investment, and growth.

Washington’s “One Big, Beautiful Bill”: Echoes of Kansas
At the federal level, the “One Big, Beautiful Bill” (OBBB) mirrors Kansas’s approach in its ambition and flaws. The bill includes several encouraging provisions:

Extending the expiring 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) provisions,

• Eliminating federal taxes on tips and overtime pay,
• Making some Social Security income tax-free,
• Rolling back Biden-era green energy subsidies,
• Adding modest reforms to Medicaid and SNAP.

These are meaningful steps toward a more growth-oriented economy. However, the bill’s excessive spending without immediate cuts, numerous carveouts in the tax code, and a massive $4 trillion increase in the federal debt ceiling undermine the positives. Rather than pursue a broad-based, neutral tax system, OBBB introduces more tax carveouts—targeted benefits for politically favored groups. This kind of special treatment is anti-growth, distorting economic decisions, and reducing fairness. Worse, the bill does little to reform the largest drivers of federal deficits: “entitlements.”

Medicaid Reforms: Necessary but Potentially Disruptive
Among the most important components of OBBB are the long-overdue reforms to Medicaid. These changes aim to rein in ballooning entitlement costs and require work among capable adults. For Kansas, however, this could initially create budgetary pressure if federal matching funds are reduced or enrollment drops more quickly than anticipated. However, short-term stress should not deter long-term reform. Kansas must begin to wean itself off the federal budget, in Medicaid and elsewhere, especially in programs where dependency has grown far beyond the original intent. Taxpayers in Kansas are being overtaxed to support an unsustainable federal system. Rather than fearing change, Kansas should seize the opportunity to modernize its Medicaid program, cut costs, and move toward a more state-driven and fiscally responsible healthcare model.

Tax Carveouts vs. Tax Reform
Whether in Topeka or D.C., the distinction between tax carveouts and true tax reform is critical. Carveouts are a form of cronyism: they reward lobbyists and special interests, not families and small businesses. They complicate the tax code, reduce transparency, and make it harder to achieve long-term economic growth. By contrast, real tax reform broadens the base and lowers the rate for all taxpayers. It removes distortions, encourages work and productivity, and treats taxpayers equitably. The federal government should follow the lead of states like Kansas (when done right), Arizona, and Iowa by simplifying the tax code and moving toward a broad-based consumption model, not patchwork exemptions. Simply shifting the burden from income to consumption taxes isn’t enough—real reform must actually reduce the total burden on taxpayers.

Why Spending Discipline Matters
No tax policy can succeed in the long run without spending control. When spending outpaces economic growth, the gap must be filled with higher taxes, borrowing, or inflation—all of which harm the private economy. We’ve seen this nationally, as federal spending exploded during COVID-19 and remained high even after the emergency passed. And let’s not ignore federal borrowing. With debt levels now nearing $37 trillion, future generations will bear the burden of today’s excesses. Every trillion in new debt erodes trust, crowds out private investment, and raises the specter of inflation.

In Kansas, the failure to reduce spending has led to budget shortfalls even in times of economic growth. That’s because the state government has locked itself into long-term obligations and special funds that leave little room for discretion. Every dollar funneled into a dedicated account is one less that can be used for tax relief or urgent needs. In Washington, the same problem plays out in the form of entitlement autopilot and defense contractor guarantees. Unless both levels of government prioritize spending restraint, tax relief will be short-lived and economic growth will stall.

As states and the federal government consider long-term reform, one of the most promising directions is a shift from taxing income to taxing consumption. Income taxes penalize productivity, savings, and investment—the very engines of economic growth. Consumption taxes, by contrast, are less distortionary and more transparent. A flat consumption tax, such as a final sales tax, aligns incentives and simplifies compliance. Texas and Florida have demonstrated the viability of no-income-tax models, relying instead on consumption-based revenue systems. Kansas should explore similar reforms by reducing reliance on income taxes and eliminating carve-outs that clutter the code. At the federal level, replacing income and payroll taxes with a broad-based consumption tax could boost growth, improve compliance, and reduce the tax gap. But that can only happen if spending is first brought under control to avoid just shifting the burden.

A Time for Courageous Leadership
The opportunity is clear: Kansas and Washington can implement sustainable, pro-growth tax reform. But doing so requires real courage. It means cutting unnecessary programs, resisting special interests, and saying no to budget gimmicks. It means adopting a responsible budget cap—like the RKB—and sticking to it. In Kansas, that starts with ending the use of dedicated funds to circumvent scrutiny. It means evaluating programs on performance and eliminating those that fail to deliver value. It means using surpluses for tax relief or debt reduction, not new spending obligations. It means getting Kelly Era spending surges under control. In Washington, it means pairing tax relief with real entitlement reform. It means capping spending growth and ending the practice of raising the debt ceiling without structural change.

Conclusion: The Path to Prosperity
Tax relief is not enough. Without spending discipline, it leads to deficits, debt, and future tax hikes. Kansas has seen this firsthand and must not repeat the mistakes of a decade ago. Washington is at risk of making the same errors now. The path to prosperity lies in cutting inflated spending now, capping future growth, enacting broad-based tax reform, and shrinking the government’s footprint. Only then can we ensure a truly free and prosperous future. Washington would be wise to follow.

Originally published to Kansas Policy Institute. 

While Kansans work hard to earn a living and keep up with rising prices, their state government is quietly running a massive chunk of the budget on autopilot. 

At the heart of this problem is the state’s overuse of dedicated funds—special-purpose accounts that earmark money for specific programs, regardless of performance or current needs. For FY 2026, Kansas will spend $25.6 billion, but more than $220 million of that will be funneled through just a handful of dedicated state funds that reduce legislative discretion and tie up dollars in ways that prevent better budgeting. Here’s a look at some of the largest earmarked funds:

Dedicated Funds to FY 2026 Appropriation (Millions)

State Water Plan Fund (SWPF): $46.6
Economic Development Initiatives Fund (EDIF): $41.4
Children’s Initiatives Fund (CIF): $54.3
Building Funds (State Institutions and Educational Buildings): $81.9

Total: $224.2 million
​(Source: Kansas FY 2026 Budget Bill – SB 125)

These dedicated funds are not part of the State General Fund, which lawmakers can actually prioritize and adjust. Nor are they federal funds with external mandates. They are Kansas-created carveouts that now manipulate budgeting decisions. 

The earmarks are often politically motivated and resistant to change. Their original intent may have made sense decades ago, but today, they function more as permanent spending entitlements than budget tools. Even when outcomes are poor or priorities shift, these funds remain walled off from scrutiny. Consider the EDIF which has not worked a as intended as it has distorted markets, not helped with permanent jobs, and has hurt taxpayers with higher taxes.

This kind of fiscal inertia allows the government to grow unchecked while taxpayers shoulder the burden. What’s more, as with the Ogallala Aquifer, an issue may still warrant attention but the idea of dedicated funding walled-off from other government priorities or a discussion of trade-offs ultimately undermines both fiscal discipline and attempts to address what could be a real issue. 

Why This Is a Problem

1. Loss of Flexibility – Lawmakers cannot reallocate these funds to more urgent or effective uses, even if higher-priority needs arise elsewhere in the budget.
2. Weakened Oversight – Dedicated funds escape the kind of rigorous review that performance-based budgeting demands. In many cases, legislators simply rubber-stamp funding because it’s “already spoken for.”
3. Crowded-Out Tax Relief – These funds consume budget capacity that could otherwise support property tax relief, income tax cuts, or paying down state debt—all of which would better serve Kansans long term.
4. Perpetuation of Waste – When dollars are guaranteed by statute, there’s no incentive for agencies to prove value or efficiency. This creates a culture of entitlement within the state government.
   
   

Redirecting Earmarked Dollars to Prosperity

Just by consolidating or repurposing the $224 million from these earmarked funds, Kansas could:

• Provide broad-based tax relief—enough to reduce income taxes.
• Shift toward a single, accountable fund—the State General Fund—where every program competes on merit.
• Reinforce performance-based budgeting by eliminating set-asides that dodge scrutiny.
  
  

And that’s just the start. This figure doesn’t even include hundreds of smaller special revenue funds that dot the budget and further constrain flexibility. If those were included, the total could approach $1 billion or more in spending that lawmakers can’t easily touch, despite being responsible for it.

Time to Restore Legislative Control

A better budgeting process starts by restoring discretion to the legislature. If a program is truly a priority, it should compete for funding from the General Fund like everything else. No more sacred cows. No more autopilot spending.

Sunsetting, consolidating, or outright repealing dedicated funds would give lawmakers the tools they need to govern responsibly and give taxpayers the relief they deserve.

Kansas doesn’t need more gimmicks. Freedom, transparency, and accountability are necessary for how every dollar is spent. The state’s budget should serve people, not bureaucracy. Let’s end the earmark era and get Kansas back on track.

Originally posted to Kansas Policy Institute.

Kansas has potential — everyone knows it. Strong communities, a central location, and good, hard-working people.

However, when it comes to economic growth, job creation, and opportunities, the state is improving but there’s more work to do. And now that the 2025 legislative session is over, the real question is: Did lawmakers do enough to help Kansas grow — or did they play it too safe again?

Let’s start with what’s at stake.

In the past year, Kansas added only 900 net new jobs, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That’s nearly flat in a state with a workforce of 1.6 million. The unemployment rate rose to 3.8%, up from 3.3% the previous year. It’s still below the national average, but it’s trending in the wrong direction, highlighting just how sluggish the labor market has become.

Additionally, Kansas’s economy grew by only 1.0% in 2024, compared to the national economy’s 2.8% growth, as reported in the latest GDP data. Personal income rose 4.6% in the fourth quarter — but that barely keeps up with inflation, and it doesn’t help much when job growth is this weak.

So what did lawmakers do about it this year?

They passed some good bills. But not nearly enough.

To their credit, the Kansas Legislature overrode the governor’s veto of Senate Bill 269, a major step toward continued tax reform. The bill establishes a responsible framework to lower the state income tax to a flat 4%, provided certain conditions are met, including strong revenue growth and a healthy Budget Stabilization Fund. It’s a brilliant idea: tying tax cuts to budget discipline is a far better approach than tax giveaways based on guesses.

Governor Laura Kelly vetoed the bill, calling it risky. But the Legislature did the right thing by overriding her. Kansans deserve a flatter, simpler, more competitive tax code — and SB 269 gets us one step closer.

But here’s the problem: lawmakers stopped short of what’s needed.

There was no serious push for a universal school choice program — not even a modest Education Savings Accounts (ESAs) or a tax credit program like our southern neighbors. At a time when other states are giving parents more control over their children’s education, Kansas is standing still. Families in Wichita, Topeka, Garden City, and across the Sunflower State are still confined to government-assigned schools, regardless of their performance or suitability.

There was no real action to limit government spending, despite spending having grown far faster than Kansans’ ability to pay for it for years. Over the last decade, Kansas has spent approximately $20 billion more in state funds than it would have if it had maintained growth in line with population plus inflation. That’s money that could’ve been used for deeper tax cuts or to pay down debt (we’re looking at your state pension systems).

What the Legislature did pass was a mix of narrow reforms and targeted incentives. A few examples:

• SB 98 gives a 20-year sales tax exemption to data centers that invest $250 million or more. It may attract some large employers, but it is a costly incentive package that offers no benefit to most small businesses or local entrepreneurs trying to compete at a high cost to taxpayers. 
  
  
• HB 2125 reauthorized the 20-mill statewide school property tax levy, maintaining the existing formula without addressing the urgent need for school finance reform. 
  
  
• Several bills updated criminal statutes, AI regulations, and allowed some counties to request voter approval for local sales tax increases. 
  
  

These don’t address the real issues holding back Kansas: a tax system that discourages work and investment, runaway spending, and an education system that lacks competition.

If Kansas is serious about competing — not just with neighboring states like Missouri and Oklahoma, but with places like Florida, Texas, and Arizona — then lawmakers need to think bigger and act bolder.

That means:

• Flattening and reducing the income tax to zero quickly. 
  
  
• Limiting budget growth through a strong spending cap tied to population plus inflation. 
  
  
• Expanding universal school choice, so parents, not the state, decide where kids go to school.
   
• Ending corporate welfare, including long-term tax breaks that only benefit a few. 
  
  
• Cutting red tape to make it easier to start and grow a business anywhere in the state. 
  
  

The truth is, Kansas has the people, the values, and the work ethic to succeed. However, too many in Topeka aren’t taking bold action. Good intentions aren’t enough. Kansans need results. The override of SB 269 was a good start. But unless lawmakers take that momentum and run with it, it will go to waste.

There’s too much at stake to let another session come and go without real reform.

Originally posted at the Kansas Policy Institute.

When Congress passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) in 2017, it sparked a wave of economic growth across the country, and Kansas was no exception. This wasn’t just about adjusting tax brackets or corporate rates. It was about helping working families, small business owners, and entire communities thrive.

With major parts of the TCJA set to expire after 2025, that progress is at risk. If Congress fails to act, Kansas families could see their taxes rise, local businesses may face tighter margins, and the state could lose momentum at a time when stability is desperately needed.

According to Americans for Tax Reform, the TCJA provided broad-based relief to Kansans of all walks of life:

• 225,780 Kansas households benefited from the doubled child tax credit.
• 982,930 households took advantage of the doubled standard deduction, making tax filing easier and reducing taxable income.
• 40,480 households were no longer subject to the Obamacare individual mandate penalty, a tax often hitting low-income earners the hardest.

These weren’t just numbers on a ledger. They were meals on the table, car payments made on time, and extra breathing room in a family’s budget. For a single parent receiving an average $1,300 annual tax cut, or a typical family of four saving $2,000, it meant greater security and freedom.

Local businesses saw the difference, too. Ferroloy in Wichita, a small foundry, was struggling to stay afloat. But after the TCJA passed, the company doubled its workforce and began a $12,000 square foot expansion. President Mark Soucie credited the tax reform for enabling his small business to compete and grow:

“If you want small businesses to grow and prosper in this country, we need laws, like tax reform, that can drive economic growth.”

Lawrence Paper Company invested $5 million into its facilities and gave out $500 bonuses to 300 employees. Workers immediately put the money toward household needs—paying off bills, managing holiday expenses, and investing in their communities.

Heartland Seating in Shawnee expanded into new markets, hired new staff, and boosted wages thanks to savings from the TCJA. These are real people—your neighbors—benefiting from smart, pro-growth tax policy.

The benefits even extended to Kansans’ utility bills. Companies like Kansas Gas Service and Black Hills Energy passed on tax savings to customers, resulting in millions in utility bill reductions. When the corporate tax rate fell from 35% to 21%, those savings didn’t just sit in boardrooms—they reached homes across the state.

This progress is now threatened if not extended by the end of 2025. This should be paired with federal spending restraint because excessive spending drives high deficits. Simply stated, the federal government is broke. Taxpayers are $36 trillion in the hole, and that number has grown from $23 trillion since 2019. Without systemic reform and real, actual spending restraint, things will go from bad to worse.

Meanwhile, unless Congress makes the TCJA permanent and reins in excessive federal spending, Kansans could face higher taxes, more complicated filings, and reduced business investments. That would mean fewer job openings, slower wage growth, and more pressure on working families who are already battling inflation.

But this isn’t just a federal issue. Kansas lawmakers should also act now to strengthen the state’s economy by pursuing sustainable budgeting—limiting spending growth to population plus inflation—and ensuring that tax relief is long-lasting and responsible.

The TCJA worked. It trusted people—not government—with their money. It gave families a shot at financial stability and empowered businesses to hire, invest, and grow. Kansas should lead the charge in defending that success, not watch it slip away.