Advertisement

Archive for Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Sebelius promises to veto GOP proposal to cut $300 million from state budget

January 27, 2009, 3:09 p.m. Updated January 27, 2009, 4:56 p.m.

Advertisement

— Gov. Kathleen Sebelius promised Tuesday to veto a plan drafted by Senate Republicans for eliminating a deficit in the current state budget after calling their proposed cuts “draconian.”

Asked about a veto of the GOP deficit plan during a Statehouse news conference, the Democratic governor responded: “If it comes to me in this fashion, absolutely.”

The Senate is scheduled to debate the plan at 10:30 a.m. Wednesday. It makes $302 million worth of adjustments, mostly by cutting spending, and public schools would lose about $100 million of the state aid they had been promised for the current fiscal year, which ends June 30.

Legislative researchers project the deficit at $186 million, but Republican leaders expect tax revenues to continue to fall short of expectations in the next few months, causing the shortfall to grow.

GOP leaders weren’t impressed by Sebelius’ veto threat. Senate Majority Leader Derek Schmidt, an Independence Republican, said the debate would go ahead as scheduled.

Senate Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jay Emler, who drafted the plan up for debate, said, “It doesn’t change anything.”

“We’re doing what we think is right,” said Emler, a Lindsborg Republican. “Her plan simply does not balance.”

Sebelius proposed a grab-bag of targeted spending cuts and accounting changes worth up to $253 million. Her plan avoids a cut in the state’s total aid to public schools and protects most social service programs.

“I was hoping we would have a collaborative process,” Sebelius said. “What I’d rather have is a bill I can sign.”

Republicans hold a 31-9 majority in the Senate and a 76-49 majority in the House. GOP leaders in both chambers generally favor across-the-board spending cuts, an approach Sebelius opposes.

Overriding a veto would require two-thirds majorities in both chambers. That would be possible in the Senate, if the GOP is fairly united. But, without Democrats, Republicans would be eight votes short in the House.

Emler’s plan, endorsed by most of the Republicans on his committee, rejects most of the accounting changes Sebelius proposed but accepts most of her targeted spending cuts. It then adds an across-the-board cut of 3.4 percent in spending financed by the state’s general tax revenues.

It would cut the current budgets of social services agencies by about $49 million more than Sebelius had proposed. But it includes language requiring agencies to seek administrative savings first and not end existing programs.

Democrats on the Senate Ways and Means Committee proposed their own plan, also worth about $300 million, building on Sebelius’ plan. It added accounting changes she had not sought, and Republicans quickly dismissed it as something that would push the state’s problems into the future, instead of solving them.

Sebelius said the Senate GOP proposal would hurt vulnerable Kansans, and she attacked Emler’s plan over its proposed cuts in aid to public schools.

Over the past four years, the state phased in an $892 million increase in aid to public schools to comply with Kansas Supreme Court orders in a 1999 lawsuit.

Sebelius said the education funding cuts proposed by Senate Republicans would be a “golden ticket” back to the Supreme Court.

Most Republicans argue such cuts can’t be avoided because aid to schools consumes half of the state’s general tax revenues.

They’ve also accused Sebelius of not giving the state’s budget problems enough attention and not acting aggressively enough to deal with them. Schmidt said her veto threat means she is “actually now engaged.”

Meanwhile, the House Appropriations Committee continued hearings on budget issues Tuesday. Chairman Kevin Yoder, an Overland Park Republican, said it would vote Thursday or Friday on a deficit-elimination bill.

Yoder also dismissed Sebelius’ veto threat.

“It is common knowledge in the building that the governor’s budget does not balance, and we are hopeful and are waiting for an opportunity for the governor to present additional ideas,” Yoder said. “Until such time happens, we’re going to continue to come up with constructive ways to solve the budget crisis in a realistic manner.”

Comments

1029 5 years, 11 months ago

Looks like Kathy S. is practicing partisan politics again. The only reason that she is going to veto this is because she is afraid that the less education a person receives, the more likely that person is to grow up and vote Republican. She is only protecting her political future and she knows that education is the great enemy of the GOP. I think we should get to vote on what our tax dollars are used for. I don't want a penny of my hard-earned money going to education, empty busses, or disabled people. Let's start using our money wisely and put it into the military so we can conquer new lands and get control of the resources so that future generations don't suffer high gas prices. Come on, people. Let's vote Kathy S. out of office this November and show the rest of Kansas that Lawrence agrees that Kansas belongs to the GOP!

yourworstnightmare 5 years, 11 months ago

Notice how gleefully the GOP representatives and senators talk about budget cuts? They love it. Like pigs in 5h!t.

fearsadness14 5 years, 11 months ago

i dont even know how to respond to 1029...

Kryptenx 5 years, 11 months ago

1029: You sir, are brilliant. What the hell are those crazy Dems thinking? Where are all of us rednecks going to go?

d_prowess 5 years, 11 months ago

Can someone explain how the legislature (Dem. or Rep.) can cut the education budget when the KS Supreme Court has already ruled that it must be funded at its current levels? I don't understand how that can even be on the table given the ruling?

HE123 5 years, 11 months ago

1029 you are just plain stupid. If we cut more funding from our education more people will lose their jobs and our kids are going to learn even less than what you did in school which I have to say couldn't have been much. We need to stop bailing out these greedy companies and start investing money in our future which is our kids and education programs. After all with out education all this country will be known for is our lousy McDonalds workers.

situveux1 5 years, 11 months ago

Sounds like Chatty Kathy wants a tax increase. Just say it already, we'll all respect you a lot more if you're just honest.

DonnieDarko 5 years, 11 months ago

Madmike: If 1029 moves his "leftist ass" to California, will you promise to move your cowardly far-right wingnut ass to northern Idaho? Preferably some ultra-outpost with no internet access so that we don't have to endure your small-minded drivel anymore.

Kryptenx 5 years, 11 months ago

That's it, I'm taking my leftist/socialist ass to Cuba! On second thought, I'm not. I think I'll stay right here in Kansas for a little while longer and vote as far left as possible. Instead of trying to run people out of the state when they don't agree with your views, you conservative Bible huggers need to figure out how to win elections. Telling someone who supports our democratically elected governor to move to another state is asinine. Until your party fixes its major issues you should expect to see Democrats in leadership positions, even in Kansas.

notajayhawk 5 years, 11 months ago

1029 (Anonymous) says… "Let's vote Kathy S. out of office this November and show the rest of Kansas that Lawrence agrees that Kansas belongs to the GOP!"Um, 1029 - Kathy doesn't need to be voted out of office (in 2010, btw - there is no governor's race this November). She can't run again."I don't want a penny of my hard-earned money going to ... empty busses ..."Sooo - are you saying we should pay for "empty busses?""Let's start using our money wisely and put it into the military so we can conquer new lands and get control of the resources so that future generations don't suffer high gas prices."[sigh] As I had to explain to a similar maroon on another thread, this story is about the Kansas state budget. Now, I fully realize that you children can't enter into a discussion of a local dog catcher's election without exercising an opportunity to rant against the previous president. But please, do tell me - approximately how much of the Kansas state budget's shortfall is due to the Kansas legislature's budgeting too much for conquering foreign countries? (Musta' missed that particular line item.)"The only reason that she is going to veto this is because she is afraid that the less education a person receives, the more likely that person is to grow up and vote Republican."While in principle I am in favor of adequately funding education, if you're an example of one of those fine folks too educated to be a Republican, we deserve a lot of our money back.

ralphralph 5 years, 11 months ago

Money-saving Ideas:#1 - Sell the governor's private plane.#2 - Sell the governor's mansion.

yourworstnightmare 5 years, 11 months ago

Sebelius is not foolish enough to suggest raising taxes. She is going to make rabid anti-tax republicans in the legislature do it. She will rub their little piggy noses in it. It is a waiting game.In the meantime, there is plenty of waste in rural school districts that can be cut. Consolidation should occur, and those anti-tax western Kansas GOPers can drive their kids to school 40 miles each direction.

notajayhawk 5 years, 11 months ago

d_prowess (Anonymous) says… "Can someone explain how the legislature (Dem. or Rep.) can cut the education budget when the KS Supreme Court has already ruled that it must be funded at its current levels? I don't understand how that can even be on the table given the ruling?"Because, despite what many folks around here seem to think, the judicial branch does not write the law. They ruled that a previous budget inadequately funded education, and the amount was raised. Subsequent budgets could, if the legislature wished to, reduce that amount again or omit education spending entirely. Now, this will almost certainly generate a new lawsuit, and unless the make-up of the court has changed significantly, they will likely rule the same way again. But they must do so on each individual budget written by the legislature, they can't simply write their own.*******Windlass (Anonymous) says… "Hey dumb-A's on this board, you can thank him later."The cost of airfare on a common carrier to replace those that would have been provided by that jet (even without taking into account the lost productivity) will likely approach or even exceed the cost of the jet. It is a meaningless, symbolic gesture that apparently has already impressed some dumb-A's.

Shardwurm 5 years, 11 months ago

Wow...a lot of hate here. But that's ok....Kansas is a microcosm of what Uncle Barry is going to face in DC. There is no money to continue the socialization of this country.You've broken the backs of the Middle Class with $250/credit hour tuition and multi-million dollar school bonds.I know this is going to hurt....but you have to spend within your means. As painful as it sounds $80,000 a year for high school teachers isn't happening any time soon.

Mixolydian 5 years, 11 months ago

I haven't supported Sibelius on much, but she's 100% correct on this one. The across the board crowd is taking the easy and cowardly way out...not to mention just wrongNo one is disputing the amount that needs cut, just the method. An across the board cut punishes lean and efficient agencies, while giving a break to the bloated (SRS, KDOT) Obviously the legislature is smarting from the judicial smack down last year on education and rather than specifically cutting any waste from education where it needs cut, they'd rather do the across the board cut. That spares their name from being tied to a direct education cut. Cowards.

Godot 5 years, 11 months ago

Sebelius is counting on the Big O to bail her out, as is the governor of every other state that has been spending money like there is no end.Kansas is slotted for $4.5 billion in the new stimulus plan. Earth to O: throwing money into the black hole of state entitlements is the antithesis of "stimulus."

JHOK32 5 years, 11 months ago

I knows...we can send W to Topeka! $300 Million is nuthin fer him! He spent $2 TRILLION in just 8 years! He can save us all from them thar taxes juss like he done in DC! Then we can all move to a new $2 Million dollar house juss like he dun!

Godot 5 years, 11 months ago

Obama is set to spend $2Trillion in 2009. Yes, he can!

Shardwurm 5 years, 11 months ago

Hey! JHOK32! The election is over. Both you and Obama need to understand that. Get over it.

Godot 5 years, 11 months ago

Shardwurm, the election campaign will never end. After all, running a campaign is the only job at which Obama has any experience.

notajayhawk 5 years, 11 months ago

Mixolydian (Anonymous) says… "No one is disputing the amount that needs cut, just the method. An across the board cut punishes lean and efficient agencies, while giving a break to the bloated (srs, kdot)"Thank you. While it obviously wasn't your intention, you have just illustrated exactly why across-the-board cuts are the only possible way to go.While some may agree with you that SRS should be cut, I guarantee you that they're bulletproof. While legislators are debating which agency the cuts have to come from, who's going to stand up and attack the agency administering the entitlement programs for the poor, the disabled, the children? Be serious. (Read the associated stories about the proposed cuts if you doubt this - the heartstrings are already being plucked.)When it comes to KDOT, again, whether or not they should or even could be cut, their argument will be that cuts to the transportation budget will cost the state billions in federal matching funds about to be handed out in the new New Deal.The point is, every agency, every department, every office will have an argument on why they shouldn't lose their funding. Each of them will have some evidence of token cuts they've already made, each will parade before the press some kind of sob story about this group or that group who will be irreparably harmed if they lose another dime. And each will have a legislator who has a constituency that will suffer from any proposed cuts, a constituency they need to get re-elected. The bickering will last into next year's budget and nothing whatsoever will get done.The point is that no matter which department or agency you pick, there will be large interest groups and legislators beholden to them that say just what you said - of course cuts are necessary, but OMG, not those cuts! We'll have a state-wide legislative version of NIMBY. It will never be decided based on who is already operating efficiently and who's been wasting money. The cuts won't be applied based on what makes sense or what programs are really needed. That's not how government works, in case you hadn't noticed. It will end up being decided by who has the most and the least political clout.Across-the-board cuts is the only way to go.

Bladerunner 5 years, 11 months ago

Spend spend spend...what an idiot! Is she even aware of whats going on around her? gah!

budwhysir 5 years, 11 months ago

I believe the problem to be the fact that a million dollars aint worth squat anymore. Saying we are going to cut a million dollars is like saying we are cutting $100.00 How easy is it to cut a million dollars out of the budget??postpone the building of 1/2 of a bridge. Postpone painting a few rooms in the state house?? postpone the redecorating of an officails office. (sorry had to throw that in) Stop funding the purchases of luxury jets(oops did it again) Cutting the budget means nothing, this is just a mathmatical exercise of moving numbers around on paper and changing the titles on letterhead. Lets run the government like the middle class people have to run thier personal homes. One day at a time

Mixolydian 5 years, 11 months ago

Like I said, the GOP are being lazy cowards. The halls of the Capital are already swarming with special interest groups and lobbiers over the across the board cut.It was heartening to hear the Republicans intially talk about how this situation, while bad for the state, is an opportunity to take a critical look at state operations and agencies and surgically cut what wasn't really necessary. I'd go with the Governor's plan for the 5 months left of this fiscal year and use the time to take that critical look at what's really necessary in the government for FY10.

notajayhawk 5 years, 11 months ago

Mixolydian (Anonymous) says… "Like I said, the GOP are being lazy cowards. The halls of the Capital are already swarming with special interest groups and lobbiers over the across the board cut."You do realize that every time you post, you strengthen the case FOR across-the-board cuts?If the cuts are across the board, then lobbyists and special interests have no say in the matter. They would be out in force for decisions on cuts department by department, all screaming "Go ahead and cut, but don't cut THAT!"I realize that the viral BDS infecting Looneyville, deprived of it's favorite outlet (although several posters are blaming this on Bush), compels you to attack the Republicans here, but do try to use just a smidgeon of common sense. It would have been amusing to watch all of you defending across the board cuts if it had been the governor or the Democrats proposing them.

pistachio 5 years, 11 months ago

Mixo, I agree with you 100%.Yesterday, it was revealed that this across-the-board cut would mean that the prison system would have to close two prisons and STOP all parole supervision. That means some prisoners would probably have to be let out and NO parolees would be monitored at all. And that means more crime and more victimization.Notajayhawk will tell you that lobbyists for every agency will fight cuts so it's fair to make all agencies shoulder the same burden, but how can anyone suggest that letting parolees run wild is an acceptable cost in the interest of fairness? Now's the time to fund essential services only, and I'd say monitoring parolees is essential.

Bob_Keeshan 5 years, 11 months ago

notajayhawk is really just trying to make everyone understand she has no idea how the budget for the State of Kansas works.She is doing an excellent job. As a side benefit, she continues to make the Governor's arguments about directed spending cuts.

notajayhawk 5 years, 11 months ago

And the liberals say it's the Republicans who are the fear mongers.pistachio, if you really believe that a 3.4% cut spread over nearly half the budget year would require the closing of two prisons and a complete end to parole monitoring, I have some beachfront property in Arizona I'd like you to look at.But once again, thanks for helping me make my point. The DOC is an 'essential' service. So is public safety, education, social services, etc. etc. etc. EVERY department is going to be spreading these horror stories in the press (gee, wish I'd predicted that - oh wait, I did), every department is going to be convincing the public (and folks like you are eating it up) that while cuts are necessary, it can't be to THEIR department. It would be better to have every service in the state funded at 96.6% of their budget than to gut any service the state provides. Why? Because if ANY of them aren't considered 'essential services,' then why the heck are they taxing us to provide them?

notajayhawk 5 years, 11 months ago

I believe, bowhunter, there's been mention of "accounting changes" by Sebelius and the Dems. In other words, we're going to keep spending, but not record the loss until next year. It's smoke and mirrors. It begins the next budget cycle already in the hole, and it's the same kind of accounting maneuvers that ended up getting some of these companies receiving bailout money in trouble. But hey, like I said before, as long as it's a Democrat proposing it, it's okay. (Can you imagine the posts here if the Republicans had suggested 'accounting changes?')

Bob_Keeshan 5 years, 11 months ago

I would recommend you visit the Division of Budget's website for a breakdown of the Governor's proposals for FY 2009 and FY 2010.The Governor is proposing a straight cut of almost $600 million over the next two fiscal years. Add in additional cuts such as the elimination of programs and cuts to fee-funded agencies and you have almost $900 million worth of cuts.These are not "accounting changes," they are cuts to non State General Fund areas of state government.The reason you have "yet to hear" is because you have "yet to listen."

aequitas 5 years, 11 months ago

Common sense over partisanship. This is a critical time where both parties have to compromise on their "party values" and reach an agreement. I do not believe that state funding for K - 12 education cannot be touched, nor do I believe that a blind across the board cut should be enforced. None of us have the privilege of seeing a detailed version of the Governor's or senate's bill and consequentially do not know what services are being cut or the ramification of such. All we have to argue over is ideology. I believe everyone can take a budget cut, not just the same 3.4%. To say this would open the flood gates of hearing after hearing from state agencies and lobbyist about how much should or shouldn't be cut is to not putting faith in the intelligence of our elected officials which is a reflection of the public who voted for them.I read a quote from an earlier post and I will graciously reuse it because of it's practical application in this situation.“There is no greater inequality than the equal treatment of unequals." - Oliver Wendell Holmes

billbodiggens 5 years, 11 months ago

Senators have longer terms of office because for the most part it takes them longer to understand things if they ever understand. Let's across the board cut the budget the consequences be darned, but, oh yes, by all means the corp of responsible people who are prosecutors must be allowed to carry concealed weapons. Just another wild card in the courtroom is all that is needed. But, what the heck, it sounded like a good idea to the senate, which should immediately tell you that it is not. After all it takes them a long time to understand anything if ever. The line of pontificating and limited mental ability senators is unending.

billbodiggens 5 years, 11 months ago

What? You mean that all voters are intelligent? I don't think that is a qualification for voting. Or do you mean that the voters had something to do with who puts their name up for nomination? If that is the case, I not certain where that came from. Or, do you mean that in every race the voters had a choice between intelligent and unintelligent candidates? Nope, that's not right either.Overall, the overriding qualification of a member of the legislature is stupidity. It really does not matter how they got there.

notajayhawk 5 years, 11 months ago

Bob_Keeshan (Anonymous) says… "These are not “accounting changes,” ...Having taken the good Captain's advice, here is an excerpt from the Governor's proposals:"In addition, State General Fund debt has been restructured, a 9-month moratorium proposed on payments into the KPERS Death and Disability Fund, as well as a 7-pay period moratorium on payments to the state employees’ health fund."Yes, Captain, restructuring debt and deferring payments are accounting changes. And all they accomplish is to add to the amount that has to be raised later. As I said, smoke and mirrors.

Bob_Keeshan 5 years, 11 months ago

Madam, you are making a generalization and it is that generalization I am addressing. You pick something and then apply that to the whole, an unfair characterization.In addition, you are citing two proposal from the FY2010 budget.The question at hand is the FY 2009 budget.Try to keep up.Regardless, the characterization of the Governor's proposals as all "accounting changes" is false. It represents a responsible mix and the many of the so-called "accounting changes" are nothing of the sort. The Governor has proposed cuts of close to $600 million, more than any other Governor or Legislature in the history of the state.

notajayhawk 5 years, 11 months ago

Gee, Kangaroo, speaking of unfair characterizations, where did you get the "Madam?" Kinda' sexist there, dontcha' think assuming that because someone (in your perception) doesn't understand then they must be female? Classy guy, Bob.If you look at page 3 of volume 1 of the Governor's budget, you'll see such line items as Stop Highway Fund Loan Repayment, Stop Other Fund Loan Repayments, and Suspend Transfers to SCCHF, SWPF, Health Care Stab - in 2009 and 2010. What budget were you reading?And little tricks such as cutting the budget in fee-based agencies and transferring that money to the SGF is an accounting trick, Captain. It's the equivalent of, say, the city of Lawrence taking some of the money collected from this new sales taxes for the T and using it to make up shortfalls in city employee payrolls. And it leaves the services that were already paid for by the people who use those services unfunded.Perhaps you could point out where I used the word "all" in my characterization of the changes. I did no such thing. In any event, my characterization was more accurate than your claim that there were no accounting changes at all. I have read the budget proposal, Captain, but unlike you, I can understand what it says.Try to keep up, Captain? The only reason you think you're in the lead is you're about to be lapped. By all means keep trying to sound authoritative and try to impress everyone with the notion that you understand the state's budget process. Apparently you can't even read the budget.

Bob_Keeshan 5 years, 11 months ago

Impossible to reply to your ranting when you continuously alter your arguments.Perhaps you are really taking issues with the voices in your head? Hard to say.

notajayhawk 5 years, 11 months ago

Nice comeback, Bob. Hey, here's a thought - why don't you stop trying to make yourself look knowledgeable, admit what a poser you are, and call it a day?Since you obviously know nothing more about accounting than anything else related to budgeting, Bobby, deferring loan payments is 'debt restructuring.' Maybe that's what you thought was a change? I haven't changed one bit of my argument, Bob. You're the one attempting spin here. You claimed I said all the Governor's cuts were accounting changes. I said no such thing. I pointed out that there were some, which you denied (again, you were wrong). You suggested people read the budget proposals, apparently in the hope that they wouldn't, since you obviously hadn't read them (or at least you hadn't understood them) yourself. Your own 'expertise' in the state's budget process comes from where, Bob? What can we figure out from someone who takes the name of Captain Kangaroo as his screen persona? You fancy yourself an educator who of course thinks the state's education budget should be sacrosanct. Maybe you work for the DOE, Bob? Maybe someone facing the axe if the budget gets cut, or are you just one who worked their way up to an administrative position through seniority?For the record, Bob, and I'm only saying this so people don't put too much stock in your BS, I'm a middle-aged male with two degrees, one in business. I've served as the business manager of several companies and before leaving the east coast I was the director of operations for a holding corporation. I've worked for the state government in an adjoining state and for the federal government in the Treasury Department. I understand the budgeting process, Bob. You should do a little studying on it yourself.

Bob_Keeshan 5 years, 11 months ago

You obviously have a lot to say, but none of it has been true so far.

MyName 5 years, 11 months ago

@notajayhawk:>I'm a middle-aged male with two degrees, one in business.And yet you obviously need to educate yourself about politics. This entire budget argument is a political stunt. The real budget isn't even going to be up for a vote for a couple more weeks.The Republicans (who are the only ones who can pass a budget) are running scared and are trying to pass the buck so they don't get blamed for tossing out the widows and orphans in the next election. So they're quickly passing something they know will get vetoed. That way they can claim the budget they wanted "didn't get passed" and can blame the Governor. It's the same thing that happens with abortion and other political issues that come up every year in this state.And to be honest, if "accounting tricks" will help us get through this next fiscal year with less pain then I think that's what we should be doing. It's ridiculous to act like a government facing one of the biggest financial shortfalls in its history is above juggling bills when that's what many Kansans are forced to do every month in this climate.

notajayhawk 5 years, 11 months ago

MyName (Anonymous) says… "The Republicans (who are the only ones who can pass a budget) are running scared and are trying to pass the buck so they don't get blamed for tossing out the widows and orphans in the next election."And one more time, for the slow folks - that is precisely why across-the-board cuts are necessary. Nobody will stick their neck out to cut entitlement programs. Nobody will advocate for cutting education. Or public safety. Or anything else that will cost them votes. The only way they're going to be able to cut anything is to cut everything.

notajayhawk 5 years, 11 months ago

Bob_Keeshan (Anonymous) says… "You obviously have a lot to say, but none of it has been true so far."Not true, Bobby? I notice you uge folks to read the bill and the budget proposal, but forgot to include the links. Let me correct that little oversight for you.http://budget.ks.gov/publications/FY2010/FY2010_GBR_Volume1--Update_1-13-2009.pdfhttp://www.kslegislature.org/bills/2010/23.pdfGetting back to the basics, Bobby, the Senate bill does reduce each appropriation item by a set amount - that's the obly way you can do it. And it says the agencies should reduce personnel and operating expenses before programs, and that no single program should be eliminated, the cuts should be spread around. Gee, how horrid of them to push for service delivery first instead of protecting some state employees' jobs.For example, of the $441,040 appropriated for technology equipment at community colleges and Washburn university, they're taking back $13,653. The DOE can not just close one campus's computer lab, or eliminate a training program. They do have choices including cutting a couple of FT employees to 3/4 time, or maybe closing earlier on Mondays & Tuesdays, or maybe eliminating the free CD's full of software distributed to the students. That's not exactly tying their hands, Bob.You're correct about one thing, Bob. One of us is lying. (The other one backs it up with documentation.)

Bob_Keeshan 5 years, 11 months ago

As usual, you're not making any sense and your post lacks any sense of fact or reality.

JHOK32 5 years, 11 months ago

Across the board cuts sound fair on the surface. However, if we dig a little deeper we find that it penalizes the most efficient of our many local and state departments and agencies. Those department heads wise to this approach will have already “padded” their budgets to withstand these types of cuts. Those departments who are already operating in an efficient manner(i.e. do not have any “fat”) will be punished for their good work and hurt the most. The end result is that it does exactly opposite what taxpayers would like to see…..an efficiently ran government. The message to department heads will be clear: next time “pad” your budget to anticipate this kind of unfair across-the-board budget-cutting tactic. So in the end, we end up with all departments & agencies operating with “padded” budgets, and therefore, we inadvertently encourage wasteful government. Is this what we want to foster? Think about it

Mixolydian 5 years, 11 months ago

notajayhawk (Anonymous) commenting on my earlier post says… ...I realize that the viral BDS infecting Looneyville, deprived of it's favorite outlet (although several posters are blaming this on Bush), compels you to attack the Republicans here, but do try to use just a smidgeon of common sense. It would have been amusing to watch all of you defending across the board cuts if it had been the governor or the Democrats proposing them.=======================Ummm, I already stated that I am not a Sibelius fan and I voted for W twice, although I have no idea how he got brought into a state budget article.It's hard work making selective cuts, but it's the right thing to do. It's what I want my representatives and senator to do. I don't particularly like being represented by lazy cowards...my party or not.Thumbs down for the state GOP for ducking and cowering.Thumbs up for the national GOP for voting against the 8 billion dollar deficit addition.

notajayhawk 5 years, 11 months ago

Bob_Keeshan (Anonymous) says… "As usual, you're not making any sense and your post lacks any sense of fact or reality."As usual, Bobby, your posts are completely devoid of truth. While anyone can make a mistake, your continued sputtering makes it plain this is deliberate on your part.I posted the links so anyone can read the governor's proposals and the Senate's bill. And you got what, Bob? Oh, yeah - nothing.Not that you'd recognize a 'fact,' Bob, but here's an interesting one. For all those who think the legislature is being "lazy" by making across-the-board cuts, read the bill (it's 61 pages long). While each department may be facing 3.4% cuts, the individual accounts within those departments were adjusted individually. For example:Within the Dept of SRSOperating expenditures for Larned State Hospital$422,086 cut from $28,783,932 appropriation (1.47%)Operating expenditures for Osawatomie State Hospital$1,638,118 cut from $16,629,385 (9.85%)Operating expenditures for Rainbow Mental Health$53,965 cut from $5,107,986 (1.06%)Etc. etc. etc.For the most part, capital outlays were left intact. So were contractually obligated loan payments and payments to KPERS. See, Bob, these are "facts." As for 'reality,' I can only be eternally grateful that my posts do not match up with what passes for reality in your head.

Bob_Keeshan 5 years, 11 months ago

Your lack of basic understanding here is truly breathtaking. And your posting style would make an interesting case study for a Psych major.Please, seek help.

notajayhawk 5 years, 11 months ago

Oh, and Bobby comes back yet again with "Uh uh!" Good one, Bob. Ya' know Bob, pompous trolls like yourself are such a blight on these boards. You try to make people believe you know what you're talking about, and when you get called on it, you sit there in mommy's basement holding your hands over your ears saying "Uh uh - you're wrong - not listening." You dispute the facts without offering anything of your own (hardly surprising, since you can't). I anxiously look forward to your next in-depth argument - how many ways can you come up with to say "Uh uh," Bobby?Amusing that you bring up psych issues, Bobby. Guess I shoulda' mentioned what my other degree was in. I'm currently a licensed mental health professional, Bobby. If it's even humanly possible, do you want to embarass yourself even further on that topic?

Bob_Keeshan 5 years, 11 months ago

What a terribly conflicted soul you are. No wonder the information you spewed on this thread is so misinformed.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.