Their current advice, in favor of tax hikes rather than spending cuts, fills the bill nicely:
In particular, the government spending that would be reduced if direct spending programs are cut is often concentrated among local businesses…. By contrast, the spending by individuals and businesses that would be affected by tax increases often is less concentrated among local producers — since part of the decline in purchases that would occur if taxes were raised would be a decline in the purchase of goods produced out of state. Thus, more of the reduction in purchases that results from tax increases than from government budget cuts falls on out-of-state goods (relative to in-state goods), lessening the adverse impact of a tax increase on the state economy. Reductions in direct government spending consequently could have a larger adverse impact on a state's economy than tax increases, which have a stronger adverse impact on out-of-state goods and services.
This is complete nonsense, but expect to hear something much like it very soon from the tax-and-spend crowd in Frankfort.
The truth is that taxation can't benefit an economy as much as leaving money in the economy where it was produced because the bureaucracy that has nothing to do with the production of wealth has to take its cut before any of the money gets re-distributed and re-circulated.
Common sense.
