Those charts are faulty because goods and services cost more than what in 1983 then why they do in 2016. Households also make more money then what they did in 1983.
Yes, that's called inflation, which I already addressed but I'd be happy to do so more explicitly. From what I could find, inflation from 1983 to 2016 is something like an average of 3% a year or 191% total. Add in the original amount and you're looking at essentially tripling the 1983 amount to achieve a rough equivalence with the 2016 amount. So if state revenue per person were $1,673.88 in 1983 then in 2016 you'd expect it to be something like $5,021.64.
Instead we see $7,912.32. But even if all the increase were straight inflation and not actual increase in government budget, I'm still not seeing the "cut, cut, cut" when it comes either to taxation or to spending, which was - if I'm not misunderstanding you - your original claim that Republicans and "their funding sources" were pushing to the presumed detriment of your state.
I wish they wouldn't cut taxes because a tax cut in one area, is usually a bigger tax increase in another. Cut property taxes and there is a local sales tax increase to pay for what property taxes paid for, etc.
Which is it? You don't want the government to cut taxes at all because you want higher taxes to pay for more services (reference your "cut, cut, cut" statement), or you don't want them to play the stupid shell game where they change where they're taxing you because they end up taxing you more? Those positions seem to be at odds with each other.
Iowa also has 3.1 million people, not a huge tax base so one should expect taxes to be higher than a smaller sized state with more residents.
That's an interesting story, and maybe there is even some truth in it somewhere, but I don't think population (or population density, or whatever it was you were implying) is the defining factor for the overall cost of government per person. I pulled the stats for the largest state, the smallest state, and all the ones around Iowa and put them below if you are curious to put numbers to your idea. I'm not seeing any indication of any sort of clear relationship there.
I've seen you push the "Our state government is too small and it is wrong for the Republicans to cut taxes!" line a number of times before, and while I do appreciate you challenging the baseline on this forum, upon actually looking at the numbers it seems to me that you are arguing from false ideological assumptions instead of facts.
Population vs taxation per person.
State | Population | Total tax revenue per person | State and local tax revenue per person |
California | 39,512,223 | $18,366.02 | $11,499.58 |
Connecticut | 3,565,287 | $24,789.57 | $9,817.97 |
Utah | 3,205,958 | $12,037.01 | $6,810.39 |
Iowa | 3,155,070 | $15,776.97 | $8,848.79 |
Nevada | 3,080,156 | $15,282.68 | $7,906.74 |
Arkansas | 3,017,825 | $13,259.35 | $6,840.93 |
Wyoming | 578,759 | $18,504.61 | $10,230.39 |