It's hard not to get enthusiastic about a candidate for the Kansas Legislature who promises to cut your taxes. It's an adult concept -- well actually it's another adult concept called "enlightened self-interest."

Lower state taxes -- remember, that's all legislative candidates can effect -- sounds like a winner at first glance. Cut my taxes, and you're on my team.

But you might want to spend a minute considering just what goes into cutting taxes.

It's probably reasonable for you to know that the state usually spends virtually all the money that it receives from taxes. However, when the economy was roaring, Kansas took in more than it spent. But during the last two years, the state spent more each year than it took in from taxes -- by using balances left over from the roaring years.

For this year, brand-spanking new fiscal year 2009, the Legislature approved spending $6.4 billion but receipts are expected to be less than that. The Legislature approved spending $413 million more this year than the state expects to receive in taxes, fees and all other sources of income.

That doesn't sound good, does it? And the projection for next year's Legislature -- if it doesn't come up with any new programs, nothing new at all, really, just pays the bills for the spending that was approved in this year -- is that it will wind up spending $188 million more than the state is expected to have. The balances built up in the past couple years are gone.

So, it's probably worthwhile for you to ask that candidate who is handing you a brochure with his/her picture, maybe a picture of the family on the back, and probably an American flag or at least some stars, just how he/she intends to cut taxes.

This doesn't have to be a major confrontation, just a question that you look like you want answered right then.

This turns into a little test. If the candidate is brand new, never having held office before, basically a civilian who wants somehow to make a difference, well, you know how that goes. He/she won't have a breakdown of the budget and won't be very explicit, but you can see if the candidate at least tries to offer something that sounds reasonable.

Reduce state aid to elementary and secondary schools? Probably not a good idea, because you are smart enough to know that if state funding drops, local property taxes will go up. That's how that one works.

Reduce state pay? Who's going to do the work?

Reduce welfare? Cut payments to hospitals for caring for the poor, to nursing homes for caring for the old and infirm? Sounds a little heartless.

Cut spending on people who aren't U.S. citizens? There's talk about that, but nobody knows how much the state is spending on those people now. But, as an example, the state spent hundreds of thousands of dollars last year to figure out that one person had received medical benefits who probably should not have received them. All-told, it's probably good to know that the state isn't spending money on people who aren't in life-threatening situations and who shouldn't be here anyway, but that's probably not a big money-saver.

If there's a point here, it's probably that whoever promises to cut your taxes ought to have at least one -- two is better -- idea that at least sounds plausible. Figure the stuff that state government spends money on that you like -- maybe schools -- and figure that nearly all the money that the state spends is because someone liked it.

Cut spending? Cut taxes? Sure. They're great ideas. But before you decide whether the candidate has won your heart or at least your vote, what you would be willing to do without in the way of state services?

Good luck with that.

Syndicated by Hawver News Co. of Topeka, Martin Hawver is publisher of Hawver's Capitol Report. To learn more about this statewide political news service, visit the Web site at www.hawvernews.com.