Earlier this summer, the Post asked our readers what issues you wanted to hear candidates in federal, state and local races address leading up to the Nov. 3 election.

Based on that feedback, we developed a five-item questionnaire centering the issues most important to residents across Johnson County.

Each day this week, we’ll publish the candidates’ responses to one question. So far, we’ve published responses on property taxes, special education funding and Medicaid and federal cuts.

Today, we’re publishing candidates’ responses to the following question:

Readers worry that tax cuts, the Chiefs STAR bond deal and federal cuts together will squeeze the state budget. Several asked what spending candidates would give up to pay for what they promised. If revenue falls short of your plans, what comes first: spending cuts, tax increases or drawing down reserves? Name one program you would protect no matter what.

Below are the answers the Post received from candidates on the issue:

Ty Masterson / Jeffrey Klemp (Republican)

Kansas families set priorities and live within their means, and state government must do the same. Under my leadership, Kansas lowered and simplified income taxes, but we still trail our neighbors in being tax-friendly, and that contributes to Kansans leaving the state. Keeping Kansas competitive grows the economy, and a growing economy grows revenue.

If revenue falls short, I will look first to eliminating waste and demanding better results for the dollars we already spend, not raising taxes on Kansas families.

Cindy Holscher / KC Ohaebosim (Democratic)

We can ease the squeeze on our budget by shifting our tax system to ensure larger corporations pay their fair share in our state, while doing more to support small businesses and the working class. This will increase funding for education, broaden the tax base to support our government, and address the property tax and affordability crises. While pursuing these policy goals, I intend to ensure our education system is always funded; future generations should not have to pay for the financial issues we are tackling today.

Coming up:

Tomorrow, we will publish the candidates’ responses to the following question:

This year the Legislature overrode Gov. Kelly’s veto of a bill that lets sheriffs sign 287(g) agreements with ICE without county commission approval. The same law created a 25-foot buffer around first responders, including federal agents — something ICE agents invoked during immigration enforcement operations in Olathe earlier this year. Would you keep this law as is, change it or seek to repeal it? Why?