Archive for Thursday, September 23, 2010

Holland blasts Brownback over plan for education financing

September 23, 2010

Advertisement

— Democratic gubernatorial candidate Tom Holland on Thursday said he will oppose further cuts to schools, and he accused his Republican opponent, Sam Brownback, of supporting a plan that would require local property tax increases for education.

But Brownback’s campaign said their candidate wants to help develop a school funding formula that is “fair, understandable to the public, provides for equalization, and that promotes excellence.”

At a news conference, Holland said he supports allowing local communities to raise their taxes for schools, but, he said, Brownback’s plan would require a tax increase.

“That’s where my opponent and I differ -- he wants the state to abandon its responsibilities and force communities to pay more.

“I want the state to pay its fair share, provide for equal opportunities and then get out of the way of those communities who want to go above and beyond,” he said.

Brownback has said he thinks the school finance formula needs to be overhauled, but he has refused to say in what manner.

Democrats accused Brownback of supporting a plan by Rep. Arlen Siegfreid, R-Olathe, which would eliminate limitations on how much school districts could raise locally in property taxes.

It also would eliminate "pupil weightings," which provide additional state funds for certain kinds of students, such as those not doing well in school, and for certain situations, such as districts that have high transportation costs. And it would also require districts to apply for grants to receive funding for at-risk and bilingual students and vocational education programs.

The Brownback campaign, however, declined to say whether it supported Siegfreid’s plan.

Instead, campaign spokeswoman Sherriene Jones-Sontag issued a statement that said Brownback will work with all stakeholders to work with the Legislature on a new school finance formula. She said Brownback is eager to hear about all school finance proposals.

Holland said the current formula is fine. Schools, he noted, have been hit hard by recent budget cuts, and he said he would invest new dollars into schools as the economy improves.

Comments

akuna 4 years, 11 months ago

Wow lawrenceguy40. Telling someone to shut up is very mature. I don't know the different stances on how to fund education in the state, but I do know that we need good ideas no matter who they come from.

BTW - here is an informative analysis of actual wealth distribution in the USA vs. the perceived wealth distribution. http://paul.kedrosky.com/archives/2010/09/americans_have.html . Essentially, across all demographics people think wealth distribution is much more equal than it actually is.

akuna 4 years, 11 months ago

Oh and by the way, 95% of Americans paid less in taxes this year through less taxation thanks to President Obama and the Democrats. Unfortunately, it didn't come in the form of a refund check. The savings trickled in throughout the year, which is good because people tend to save refund checks, but they spend a modest increase in their take home pay.

Democrats aren't the party of taxation, they are the part of fiscal responsibility. They believe in paying for their programs. The Republicans of the last 40 years want their cake and to eat it too so they borrow heavily from foreign governments to fund their programs. Before Reagan took office the national debt was $1.1 trillion. Over the course of the next 40 years, Republicans raised the debt to $11 trillion thanks to their "borrow and spend" policies. (President Clinton was the only Democratic President in that time frame and he had a balanced budget thanks in large part to PAYGO.)

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

Yeah, that $5/week really had a huge impact on the economy. Why, just look how it helped unemployment!

akuna 4 years, 11 months ago

Seems good to me. In theory $5/week multiplied by 300,000,000 (the population of the US) = $1.5Billion a week. Not too shabby. It's no dot com boom, but I'd take $1.5B/week.

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

Of course it sounds good to you. Have another glass of kool-aid.

Um - there aren't 300,000,000 people working. About half that. Oh, minus of course the 10% of those who aren't working. Oh, and minus the ones who were deemed to be making too much to qualify - it got phased out for those over $75K. Oh, and the $5/week was just the figure being thrown around - it was actually 6.2% (annually) of earned income, so a single person making $20K got less than half that. In reality, the cost to the fed is estimated at about $600 billion over ten years - which is about 2.5% of what the fed takes in. It's also only about one quarter as much as the Bush tax cuts gave to the non-"rich".

And my, oh my, just look at the results! Why, look at what it did for, say, putting that 10%, who unfortunately don't get the $5 because they lost their jobs, back to work! Oh, wait ...

akuna 4 years, 11 months ago

I was obviously using rough numbers much like your $5/week. Forgive me for following you down the rabbit hole.

Your tone in your responses makes you sound very arrogant and immature. Just thought you'd like to know.

Jeff Kilgore 4 years, 11 months ago

akuna, I'm sick of people like you using facts to make your point. It's just easier to not have to think and believe that Democrats are socialists and Republicans are capitalists! Please stop using facts to make your point. If you tell me something differently than what I hear on Fox News, my head might explode!

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

Oh, yeah, he's just full of facts. Such as that fact about 40 years of Republicans running up the debt since Reagan was elected. Oh, except - that was 30 years ago. Oh, and ten years of it was Democrats.

Oh, and Clinton didn't have a balanced budget. He only reduced the public debt by 'borrowing' the money from other government accounts, like Social Security, which also has to be paid back. The overall national debt increased under Clinton, too.

But that's okay - go back to listening to your Rachel Madkow versions of the "facts". And enjoy another refreshing glass of kool-aid.

HMcMellon 4 years, 11 months ago

Those who saw their IRAs drop in half, those who lost their jobs, those whose mortgages are now bigger than their home values, and all who have suffered from other economic turmoil that Brownback helped caused will not be voting for Brownback.

Like others responsible for the worst economic conditions since 1929, Brownback is a sycophant for the wealthiest and most powerful corporations in the world, many of which are not even owned by Americas. Brownback funneled billions to them. It is these big corporate interests that now are pouring millions into his Brownback's campaign ads, which seem to outnumber his competition by at least 100 to 1.

Brownback has proved himself to be an irresponsible fiscal liberal who supported borrowing more than $4 trillion dollars during the Bush years, mostly from China and Saudi Arabia. Most of that borrowed money ended up in the pockets of Brownback's corporate supporters. If elected Governor, Brownback would bring with him his irresponsible fiscal liberalism and his unwavering loyalty to the multi-national corporation that own him.

Even worse than his record of not representing the interest of the majority of Kansans while in the Senate, Brownback's theocratic tendencies would no doubt result in a significant expansion of Kansas government into our personal and private lives. I would vote for anyone to prevent Brownback from destroying our State. Fortunately, from what I have seen, Holland is a level-headed fellow, who supports small business and Main Street over Brownback's history of giving subsidies, no-bid contracts and other payoffs to Wall Street and to foreign multi-national corporations.

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

"Even worse than his record of not representing the interest of the majority of Kansans while in the Senate"

The fact that they elected him to the Senate and are about to make him the Governor suggests he was representing our interests. Maybe not yours, which suggests that your interests and "the interest of the majority of Kansans" are not quite the same.

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

Um, no, little one.

You might have had some kind of point of if Brownback had appeared out of thin air one day in 1996 behind a desk in the Capitol building. He was elected. See, geek, in what's called a "representative" form of government, people choose a candidate they believe represents their interests.

HMcMellon 4 years, 11 months ago

You are right. I sometimes forget that I am one of the few remaining old fashioned Republicans who still believes in small business, limited government, privacy and fiscal responsibility. Thanks to you, I now realize that most Kansans disagree with me and have no problem with working hard to earn as much money as possible to send to China for their slave-labor goods and for interest on the money Brownback borrowed. I am sure most Kansans want the Chinese Communists to have more and more control over our government and our lives. I am sure most Kansans are thankful that Brownback supports modeling our State and Federal governments after China . After all, Brownback has often stated his desire to increase government control over our personal and private lives, including the government's rights to own and control our bodies. On behalf of "modern" Republicans, thank you, Senator Brownback, for representing the interests of the majority of people in our State by making China stronger and the United States weaker. I know the majority of Kansans thank you for working so hard to limit personal freedoms, liberty and privacy. On behalf of totalitarians everywhere, I am sure they all thank you for your service.

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

"I am sure most Kansans want the Chinese Communists to have more and more control over our government and our lives."

"the Chinese Communists"

Really?

The ChiComs?

Really?

I hate to burst your bubble, but if the Chinese were true Marxists (or even Mao-ists), they wouldn't be loaning us money, would they?

HMcMellon 4 years, 11 months ago

I was surprised that you would agree that China is no longer our enemy but is now Brownback's model for efficient government. I am sure both you and Brownback are also proud that Brownback helped make China the main source of manufactured items that we used to make here in America.

But I still wonder if it was such a good idea to give subsidies to big corporations to do business in China and to give China one-sided trade agreements in return for China using essentially slave labor to kill American jobs and run Mom and Pop stores in Kansas out of business.

Was it really such a good idea to give away so much of our tax dollars in subsidies and tax credits to big corporations so they could invest in China and put American manufacturers out of business?

I also still wonder if sending American Jobs to China and then borrowing trillons back from them on the profits they made was such a good idea. As interest rates increase, paying China interest on what we owe them will end up being more than China spends on its military. Are we sure they are such "good friends" as Brownback insists?

I just cannot help but believe that many who voted for Brownback are like me and now question our earlier votes. I imagine many are like me and are very unhappy with the role Brownback played in the Senate, when he and others like him caused the loss of our retirement funds, our jobs and the drop in our home values. Was voting for Brownback a good idea now that we know about his fiscal liberalism, his support of unregulated risky derivatives, and his loyalty to foreign corporations over Kansas companies?

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

"I just cannot help but believe that many who voted for Brownback are like me and now question our earlier votes."

Well, ya' won't have to wonder long. In just a few weeks you'll find out he still has the vote of a lot of folks who don't share your opinion of his performance.

HMcMellon 4 years, 11 months ago

Get real! If Brownback wins, it would have nothing to do with "performance" and everything to do with having unlimited money to run one content-empty campaign ad after another will have nothing to do with his win. Curiously, if you are so confident, why you are putting so much energy into a creating such a smokescreen?

Certainly, I agree with you that uninformed suckers will vote for Brownback based on the sheer number of his campaign ads and the fact that he is outspending his opponent 100 to 1, but any Kansan who has actually followed Brownback's career knows that his "performance" resulted in our current economic mess. His "performance" is why my IRA dropped to half what it was before he allowed the banks to gamble with my money. His "performance" is why our home values have decreased. His "performance" is why so many people in our country are looking for work. His "performance" was a perverted fiscal liberalism where he went along with borrowing $13 trillion dollars from China and other sources to give out to his corporate sponsors as subsidies and no-bid contracts, while somehow seeing his own personal wealth increased 50 times what it was before he became a Senator..

Brownback's "performance" has been good for his own bottom line, for the multi-nationals and for China, but it has hurt everyone in Kansas, except for the Koch brothers and a few others (like you?) who depend on screwing the Middle Class out of our jobs, equity and purchasing power.

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

"Get real! If Brownback wins, it would have nothing to do with "performance" and everything to do with having unlimited money to run one content-empty campaign ad after another will have nothing to do with his win. "

Isn't that why Obama got elected, Melon? By outspending his opponent and running an infinite number of content-empty ads?

(Countdown to the liberal-Democrat mantra: "But ... but ... but ... but that's different!!!")

HMcMellon 4 years, 11 months ago

I am not sure that is a fair comparison since Obama got his money from $10 contributions from millions of people and Brownback got his money from million dollar contributions from a couple of multi-national corporations that own him.

But anyway, as a Conservative Republican, I simply do not agree with Brownback's liberal spending policies, his increasing the size of government, his loyalty to China over the United States, his getting kickbacks from his corporate sponsors, his disastrous fiscal policies that caused the recession, his plan to use government to control private behavior...the list goes on and on.

Bringing up Obama instead of responding to these very accurate charges is an obvious obfuscation on your part, but it is very understandable why you needed to change the subject.

Ralph Reed 4 years, 11 months ago

@ notajayhawk.

Brownback was appointed by a Rep Governor to fill Senator Dole's seat when he resigned to run for President. He then got re-elected by voters who saw the (R) after his name and little else; that's how most people in this state vote. He was not "elected" to the Senate as you said.

He also didn't come back to KS on a regular basis until he ran for President this last time. Now, he's running for Governor and unfortunately will probably win. This is the most he's been back here in a long time. His reason for the long absences was that, "I have important votes in Washington." (Yeah, right. On what, to see who mows "The Family's" yard this week?) He is a standard of obstructionism in the Senate and seems to be rather proud of that fact. He'll be that way here.

I do not trust him, even less that I trust most politicians. Now, some food for thought. How did he go to WA with $500K in the bank and now has $10+ mil in the bank. Surely not on his salary - wonder where it came from?

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

"Brownback was appointed by a Rep Governor to fill Senator Dole's seat when he resigned to run for President. He then got re-elected by voters who saw the (R) after his name and little else; that's how most people in this state vote. He was not "elected" to the Senate as you said."

Want to try again? Sheila Frahm, the Lt. Governor, was appointed to Dole's seat. Brownback defeated her in the primaries and Jill Docking in the election to finish the unexpired term. He was then re-"elected" - twice. You could at least make a small attempt to get your facts straight.

"He then got re-elected" "He was not "elected""

Seriously - did that even make any sense to you when you wrote it? Even if what you said about his being appointed had turned out to be true, incumbents don't get "elected"? So, the 780,863 voters who cast their ballots for Sam Brownback in the 2004 election (69.1% of those who cast votes, incidentally) didn't "elect" him? Then why do we have an "election"? You'd better notify the Secretary of State's office immediately, THEY seem to think he was elected.

"He then got re-elected by voters who saw the (R) after his name and little else; that's how most people in this state vote."

Yeah. Kind of my point, genius. It always amuses me that the people in Larryville really think THEIR views represent the best interests of Kansans - despite the overwhelming smackdowns those opinions get in every election. Yes, most of the people in Kansas identify more with the platform and values of the Republican party - that would pretty much be why they elect a Republican candidate to go to Washington to represent their interests.

"He is a standard of obstructionism in the Senate and seems to be rather proud of that fact."

And so are most of the rest of us. The garbage the Democrats in Washington are trying to foist on the country is in dire need of obstruction.

thinkb4utype 4 years, 11 months ago

this is a great attack from the only candidate in this race who has voted to raise property taxes and voted to raise the state sales tax.... Holland says you need to look at their records - well, his records shows he will raise my taxes....not Sam Brownback

Sparko 4 years, 11 months ago

Good story, some great commentary, save for the first--thanks for presenting some solid information, LJW.

Dan Thalmann 4 years, 11 months ago

I'm impressed with many of the commenters in these LJW comment section. This is like the only place left in America where Democrats aren't embarrassed as hell of their Party and President. Election day can't come fast enough, and I can't wait to see all these proud commenters try to make excuses for why voters evacuated the Democrat party so fully in just two years under a sweet-talking president. Even in Kansas, where Democrats held so many state-wide offices, they'll be down to what? One? Two at the most? Sorry folks, you had your year or two in the sun. Go back into hiding please.

grammaddy 4 years, 11 months ago

It's scary to me to think of what Brownback and his buddies, the Koch brothers will do to the state of Kansas.

Richard Heckler 4 years, 11 months ago

"But Brownback’s campaign said their candidate wants to help develop a school funding formula that is “fair, understandable to the public, provides for equalization, and that promotes excellence.” ( a lot of buzz words and no substance)

  1. How is the current system NOT fair?

  2. How is the current system not understandable to the public?

  3. How does the current system NOT provide for equalization? Equalization - what exactly does Brownback mean?

  4. How does the current system NOT promote excellence? The Bush system aka No Child Left Behind promotes excellence the question is how? We can assume Brownback supported NCLB without funding I believe.

  5. Sam Brownback does not want to provide funding for Vocational - Technical programs? This deserves a great deal of explanation. In today's market vo tech training might be a good partner with any 4 year agree.

Another thing. For a man who claims much disdain for government why has he spent 16 years living off the government which as a result will allow him to live off the government for the rest of his life? Now he wants MORE big government tax dollars only from Kansas.

Sam Brownback is a liar... he loves big government tax dollars.

Richard Heckler 4 years, 11 months ago

"this is a great attack from the only candidate in this race who has voted to raise property taxes and voted to raise the state sales tax.... Holland says you need to look at their records - well, his records shows he will raise my taxes....not Sam Brownback"

Tax breaks = tax increases so yes Sam did raise taxes while he was away at a cost of $700 billion.

Republican New World Order global economy plan has promoted communist China by way of losing millions upon millions upon millions of USA white collar and blue collar jobs = lost industry = lost USA wealth.

Jobs went to the Chinese Communist government.

The Reagan/Bush savings and loan heist was considered the largest theft in history at the time.

This Savings and Loan theft ripped off tons of retirement programs tied to the savings and loan institutions in which retirees never got one penny back. A large number of these retirees were forced back into the job market to supplement their Social Security. White collar criminals are a huge threat to the USA economy.

Bush/Cheney admin basically did a repeat performance of what Reagan and Daddy Bush pulled off.

Richard Heckler 4 years, 11 months ago

The Global Economy and Reagnomics are absolute failures for the USA!!! Why would Brownback support such reckless economics?

And this....

  1. The Reagan/ Bush Savings and Loan Heist "There are several ways in which the Bush family plays into the Savings and Loan scandal, which involves not only many members of the Bush family but also many other politicians that are still in office and were part of the Bush Jr. administration.

Jeb Bush, George Bush Sr., and his son Neil Bush have all been implicated in the Savings and Loan Scandal, which cost American tax payers over $1.4 TRILLION dollars (note that this was about one quarter of our national debt").

The Reagan/Bush savings and loan heist was considered the largest theft in history at the time. George Herbert Walker Bush then took $1.4 trillion of taxpayers money to cover the theft. http://rationalrevolution0.tripod.com/war/bush_family_and_the_s.htm

  1. The Bush/Cheney Wall Street Bank Fraud on Consumers Yes, substantial fraud was involved. For example, mortgage companies and banks used deceit to get people to take on mortgages when there was no possibility that the borrowers would be able to meet the payments. Not only was this fraud, but this fraud depended on government authorities ignoring their regulatory responsibilities." http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2009/0709macewan.html

  2. Only 3 major Financial Institutions were at risk in spite of what we’re told ? "There were just a handful of institutions that were terribly weakened. AIG the insurer, Bank of America and Citigroup, Those three were clearly in very weakened form. Many of the other big banks simply were not. http://www.democracynow.org/2009/9/10/good_billions_after_bad_one_year

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

"“That’s where my opponent and I differ -- he wants the state to abandon its responsibilities and force communities to pay more."

"“I want the state to pay its fair share, provide for equal opportunities and then get out of the way of those communities who want to go above and beyond,” he said."

Where does Mr. Holland think the state's money comes from?

Whether a school district's money is coming from local property taxes or from state revenues, hey, guess what, Tom: It still comes out of the pockets of Kansan's in those communities.

jafs 4 years, 11 months ago

Yes.

But I think the difference is if the state funds education, it's collecting money from the whole state and distributing it evenly, whereas if we simply have local communities funding education, it's not even.

Thus kids in poor districts are likely to get a lower quality education than those in rich ones.

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

Which might be true if school funding correlated with performance, which it doesn't.

whynaut 4 years, 11 months ago

Well, some funding does actually. National funding, like NCLB does explicitly, and Brownback supports it: http://brownback.senate.gov/public/legissues/education_nochild.cfm.

(Which is interesting, since he is a card carrying Republican, and NCLB is a decidedly large, government regulation. But I digress...)

Bottom line is if more funding comes from local property taxes, then the rich districts will get richer, and the poor districts will get poorer. Pretty easy concept to grasp.

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

Targeted funding, tied to a specific initiative, correlates with improvement on that initiative. Global budget levels do not correlate with overall performance.

whynaut 4 years, 11 months ago

but performance IS the initiative.

Computer, books, quality teachers and administrators, quality facilities. All of these things cost money, and all of them contribute to a higher quality of education for kids. Yes.... they really do.

Bottom line (see above)

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

Um, no, once again. Money targeted at, say, special ed improves performance in special ed students. Money targeted at math or science improves performance in math or science. Globally expanding the school districts budget does not improve overall performance.

If you don't understand my posts, you should really stop trying to reply to them.

whynaut 4 years, 11 months ago

Oh, I see. So your saying that if you increase a district's budget but the district does not spend any of the money on actually improving performance, then performance may not improve.

Excellent point.

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

If it was such a simple point, naught, why did it take you three tries to get it?

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

Hey, anybody read merrill's posts today?

Just curious if he had anything new to say or if they're the usual cut-and-paste rants before I wasted a second or two reading them.

thinkb4utype 4 years, 11 months ago

for the few of you who would like the rest of the story...like Speaker Pro Tem Siegfreid's response to the Democrats/Holland's claims that his plan is really Brownback's plan:

http://www.wibw.com/localnews/headlines/103681884.html

kugrad 4 years, 11 months ago

The problem with the Siegfreid/Brownback plan is really quite simple: It is illegal.

The courts have already ruled that letting local districts raise additional monies based on the ability of localities to tax their residents violates the principles of equity in educational funding laws and the constitution of the State (as well as the Federal Constitution). This creates inequality in educational opportunity across the state based on socio-economic status. Property in poorer districts is worth less in the first place, so, even if taxed at a higher rate it won't bring in as much money as valuable property taxed at a low rate. This type of system is unjust to the kids of Kansas and it has already been decided in court cases from the early 90's. When politicians suggest remedies the courts have already rejected, they show they are truly not fit to govern, ignorant of the realities of school finance, and just poorly informed.

Holland is 100% right to criticize this extremely poor plan.

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

Then do away with local taxes for education entirely, have the state collect the money and distribute it completely equally.

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

I'm not in favor of the state collecting and distributing the money at all. But if that's what you're going to do, then do it. Saying that the state will give everyone money and the localities are still raising money of their own (even when it's under the guise of that nonsensical farce purporting there to be a difference between operating and capital budgets), and you still have inequities in funding. So what's the point, other than having a Republican state government to whine and complain about?

whynaut 4 years, 11 months ago

http://www.kslib.info/constitution/art6.html

I know, I know, you're probably wondering how that pesky piece of socialist crap made it into our state constitution.

And I know it must be hard to reconcile the inconsistency you must feel when you typically favor a strict interpretation of a document you've never read, and then find out it says something you don't really agree with.

But hang in there. Brownback will surely be elected and I'm sure he'll try to reduce state funding of education as much and as cluelessly as possible.

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

No, I've read it. What I was actually wondering about was how that applies to anything I said. But keep trying, you might stumble upon a point eventually.

whynaut 4 years, 11 months ago

Oh sorry. Let me explain.

Staunch conservatives usually favor a strict interpretation of the constitution.

The constitution says that the state must fund public schools, and may do so through taxes.

You said you would prefer if the state did not fund public schools through taxes at all.

Thus you cannot possibly favor a strict interpretation of the constitution, because you are expressing your desire to ignore one of its articles.

But you seem to be a staunch conservative, so I assume that you do favor a strict interpretation of the constitution.

If so, then there is a contradiction there.

That is my point. Do you understand it now?

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

Oh, I understood you pretty well before, naught. I just wanted to get a laugh out of you trying to put it into words.

So, to reiterate: You assumed what it is that I should "favor", based on your judgment of how I "seem", and when my posts differ from what you think I should have said, it's MY problem.

Or let me put it another way: Reality doesn't match up too well with your rather distorted imagination, and it's reality's fault.

That about it, naught?

whynaut 4 years, 11 months ago

so.... my assumption that you are staunchly conservative was incorrect?

my assumption that you normally favor a strict interpretation of the constitution was incorrect?

if i'm incorrect, then I'd love to hear your non-conservative views about how flexible the constitution should be.

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

Ah, I see you're continuing in the vein of faulty assumptions: You seem to be laboring under the extreme misconception that you're someone whose opinion I give two - somethings - about. If you'd "love" to see how I feel about a) the laws of the state of Kansas related to educational funding or b) the nature of or necessity for literal interpretation of a Constitution, I have quite a few posts related to those issues among the approximately 6300 posts made to these message boards, feel free to browse them at your leisure.

But if you want the short version: A Constitution, whether for a state or a country, is a document written by men. It is not a carved stone tablet bestowed upon someone standing at the top of a mountain by the hand of god. The men who wrote and adopted those documents built in a mechanism by which that document can be altered. They did this, because in their foresight, they realized (at least) three things:

1) They were not omniscient or even prescient, and could not possibly anticipate every situation and circumstance that might arise in the future.

2) They were not infallible, and they may have made mistakes, or at least may not have been capable of creating a perfect document that would cover every eventuality.

3) They were not tyrants, and they were devising a framework for a legal system that served their purposes, which did not necessarily mean they had the right to impose that system on future generations of men just like themselves, who after all had the right to make decisions for themselves.

On top of those, there is the small detail that Constitutions in general are - well, general. They tend to be more guidelines than specific instructions. That's why we have courts to interpret their meaning, courts that do not always agree with one another and sometimes not even among themselves. The people that wrote the state's Constitution did not define the word "suitable" in regards to education. It would be equally inaccurate to keep perpetuating the myth that the definition of "suitable" applied in the Montoy case was a creation of the legislature - it wasn't even exclusively the creation of the people of Kansas.

Well, I really hope I satisfied your yearning curiosity, whynaut. But to be frank, I really don't care whether I did or not.

yourworstnightmare 4 years, 11 months ago

Is that a direct quote, or are you just fantasizing?

bd 4 years, 11 months ago

Holland will be growing tulips after he is buried in the election!!!!

Tea anyone???

yourworstnightmare 4 years, 11 months ago

Shame on Holland for challenging Brownback's empty statements on school reform.

How dare Brownback be expected to provide details of how he will pay for his ideas.

Ricky_Vaughn 4 years, 11 months ago

Brownback can take that property tax increase and shove it.

Stephen Roberts 4 years, 11 months ago

I am curious, Does Holland have a plan????

I know the startegy of "I am not that guy"worked but I do not think it will this time.

Also, I think if you hold one political office and want to run for another, you should have to resign the current one you hold.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.