Archive for Thursday, February 12, 2009

Stimulus funding to flow to Kansas

February 12, 2009

Advertisement

— As state lawmakers voted Thursday to cut the budget, Congress had agreed to a federal stimulus plan that could pump more than $1 billion into Kansas coffers.

While Gov. Kathleen Sebelius’ office had not figured out yet how much Kansas would receive under the $789 billion federal package, estimates of earlier bills ranged to upward of $1.7 billion.

Under the measure agreed to by U.S. House and Senate negotiators, the Kansas Health Policy Authority said it would receive approximately $450 million through Dec. 10, 2010, in the form of a temporary increase in the federal match for Medicaid, which provides health for low-income residents.

The Kansas Department of Transportation said it would receive between $317 million and $401 million for transportation projects.

More funds will flow through existing programs.

For example, the federal bill includes $44.5 billion in aid to local schools, building repairs and special education.

It also includes $8.8 billion in aid to states to defray budget cuts, but it was unknown how much Kansas would receive of that amount.

In Kansas, lawmakers are facing an immediate budget shortfall of $200 million. The deficit could grow to $1 billion by July 1.

Comments

spankyandcranky 6 years, 4 months ago

I'm interested to see how this all plays out -- specifically in Kansas. I'm also wondering how the federal government plans on getting their money back? It's great that they want to stimulate the economy, but aren't they creating their own deficit at the same time?

Danimal 6 years, 4 months ago

Awesome, we have about 1% of the population in our state and we get .001% of the bailout. Everyone thank California, New York, Michigan, and Florida for helping themselves to free money and letting the rest of us (or our great grandchildren) pay for it.

LiberalDude 6 years, 4 months ago

spankyandcranky- the amount that this bill is increasing the deficit is nothing compared to the amount that Bush increased it on his war spending. Obama has said that we need to increase it now and that hopefully he will be able to decrease the deficit near the end of his term.

Sigmund 6 years, 4 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

Godot 6 years, 4 months ago

I read somewhere that the states have to match what they receive. Double the taxation, double the fun.

Godot 6 years, 4 months ago

When Kansas accepts this "gift" from the Ever Generous, Omnipotent Obama, Kansas will be beholden. Kansas will relinquish her States' rights.

Sharon Aikins 6 years, 4 months ago

Heck, it's only Monopoly money anyway. Anyone wanna buy Park Place? Can give you a real deal on it, along with the funds and labor to fix it up before the poor mortgage brokers foreclose and your car's repossessed.

LiberalDude 6 years, 4 months ago

Where were all of you small government conservatives when your President Bush was giving ridiculous money to any defense contractors that asked for it with no strings attached??? It's going to take generations for us to recover from the amount the conservatives increased the deficit during the Bush years.

nobody1793 6 years, 4 months ago

Sigmund (Anonymous) says… "Nobody has to pay for it!"

Oh son of a [&!#@%]!

jombi 6 years, 4 months ago

Actually, Danimal, Kansas will receive 1/789 = .1% (not .001%) of the stimulus whereas our population is 1% of the total in the US....put your point is still taken :)

Eidolon 6 years, 4 months ago

Actually, jombi, Kansas population is 0.91% of the total in the US. But your point is still taken. ; >

jombi 6 years, 4 months ago

Thanks Eidolon......we should all be more precise in our statements.

igby 6 years, 4 months ago

This is new money from the fed back by it's broke-a$$ tax payers. For every dollar Kansas gets the tax payer will have to pay back $3.00.

Danimal 6 years, 4 months ago

Yeah, pretty much anyway you cut it Kansas and other states that have stayed within their means (like Nebraska and Iowa) are getting screwed while states that have run up huge deficits on frivolous programs are getting bailed out. You're welcome east and west coasts, have fun with our money.

Oh and LiberalDude, the war in Iraq has cost us $500 billion and some change. But when you think about how much war we've gotten for our dollars it's kind of amazing how far they made that money go. To put it in perspective WWII only cost $288 billion (1-1.5 trillion in today's dollars depending on who you ask).

Greg Reno 6 years, 4 months ago

Maybe they can use that Dept of Transportation money, to finish the SLT!

The_Bends 6 years, 4 months ago

We wouldn't be in this mess if older generations spent less time during the past 3 decades arguing about divisive social issues and more time focusing on real problems that can actually be fixed like: health care, social security, defense spending, tax reform, etc.

Unfortunately, generations like the baby boomers devoted their political capital to ideologically-driven policies without any regard for their consequences. The Republican-this, Democrat-that posts on this board are proof of the partisan, overly-ideological, attitudes that are in part to blame for this entire mess. Over the past 3 decades Republicans and Democrats believed they could have their cake and eat it too. Not surprisingly, they now they leave the consequences for their children. Thanks!

Chris Ogle 6 years, 4 months ago

Flow my butt.... just another leak. Don't fix the leak, just keep bailing.

Sigmund 6 years, 4 months ago

The_Bends (Anonymous) says… "We wouldn't be in this mess if older generations spent less time during the past 3 decades arguing about divisive social issues and more time focusing on real problems that can actually be fixed like: health care, social security, defense spending, tax reform, etc."

Health care, social security, defense spending, and tax reform can not be "fixed" and there are no magic bullet solutions. Every single simple "solution" has trade off. I can "fix" health care and social security for older Americans by confiscating the wealth of the young and healthy although some under 30 might have a problem with this "fix." I can reduce taxes on working families by heartlessly removing social programs from those that refuse to work. Some might have a problem with that.

You do both sides a disservice when you over simplify the issues and suggest that some kind of simple bipartisan effort is all that is needed. TARP One was bipartisan and it was overwhelmingly opposed by both democrats and republican citizens (as opposed to the politicians).

Trobs 6 years, 4 months ago

The government spent us deeper into a depression in the 1930s, it's coming again.

feeble 6 years, 4 months ago

over the next 25 years, the POTUS and congress will be forced to increment taxes back to 1960's era levels, to pay for not just this latest spending spree, but to bankroll Social Security, Medicare and all other social services currently underfunded.

The_Bends 6 years, 4 months ago

Sigmund,

I'm not suggesting that there is a simple solution to these problems. In fact, I believe the opposite is true--solutions (in a world of scarcity) require trade-offs. The problem is that both Democrats and Republicans prefer politically-expedient solutions to the real solutions that require trade-offs.

Your response highlights my point: the generations that held political power for the past 3 decades have refused to make any meaningful trade-offs in these areas. While I agree that solutions to any of these problems require trade-offs, some trade-offs come with increased efficiency thereby decreasing the net cost of reform. For instance, reform of the health care system would require more government spending, but this increase in spending can be partially offset by economies of scale, the law of large numbers, decreased employer health expenses, etc. Thus, my point is that you cannot have everything but if you make the smart trade-offs you can diminish the net cost of reform. Neither Republicans nor Democrats want such reform because the strength of either party depends on maintaining the status quo, which is perhaps why both parties supported TARP.

Also, I do not think that the answer is merely bipartisanship. Rather, the solution is pluralism, both inside government and on main street. America's ongoing culture war suggests that such pluralism is deeply lacking.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.