Archive for Friday, April 1, 2011

Group says Speaker of Kansas House holding resolution hostage

April 1, 2011


— A Republican Hispanic organization says that House Speaker Mike O’Neal, R-Hutchinson, is preventing legislative action on a resolution sought by Hispanics in the Legislature.

Arizona-based Somos Republicans said O’Neal is holding the resolution hostage until the House re-considers a bill that would impose Arizona-like anti-illegal immigration rules. O’Neal denied the charge.

That bill has been tabled in committee, and a procedure to bring it to the full House failed.

Earlier this week, Kansas’ four Hispanic legislators filed a resolution similar to the Utah Compact, which calls for the federal government — not the states — to work on immigration and specifies that any reforms should be humane, fair and just.

But the resolution didn’t move through the committee process.

O’Neal said Friday that he felt like work on measures dealing with immigration were over for the session. “We have bigger fish to fry,” he said.

Asked about the charge from Somos Republicans, he said there was no truth to it.

The Legislature adjourned Friday to take a break until the start of the wrap-up session on April 27.

Last month, Kansas attracted national attention when Rep. Virgil Peck, R-Tyro, said perhaps the state should consider shooting illegal immigrants from helicopters.

Peck said he was joking when he made the comment following a committee discussion about a program that controls feral hogs using gunmen in helicopters. He initially refused to apologize but then issued a two-sentence apology after Republican leaders applied pressure.

Somos Republicans issued a statement, saying it was disappointed in O’Neal “for holding a reasonable resolution hostage after his representative made a violent remark.”


jhawkinsf 7 years, 1 month ago

Immigration reform, right, April Fools.

kujayhawk7476 7 years, 1 month ago

Speaker O'Neal is a right-wing wacko and an idiot, like the governor and so many of the current Kansas House and Senate. I'm a Republican, so I'm able to make these assessments. The speaker said, "We have bigger fish to fry." He must mean cutting education funds to levels of 11 years ago, against the order of the court. Here's hoping the judge gets pissed and lowers the boom on the legislature and the Speaker!

BigPrune 7 years, 1 month ago

As a registered democrat I realize money requested for education is a never ending pit. It is NEVER enough, no matter how much is given to education.

weeslicket 7 years, 1 month ago

augenblick and myers

(not that you should let facts in evidence persuade you to abandon your flawed beliefs)

Jimo 7 years, 1 month ago

Indeed. How "Republican" of you - focused on a dollar figure but without any study or facts or evidence that (a) documents better approaches over worse or (b) substantiates vague, abstract, yet unconstrained statements like "it is never enough, no matter how much is given to education."

Democrats have done their homework (and the Republican wing of the Republican Party). The Dixie-Publicans have avoided it like a hog avoids a cauldron of boiling water (hmmm...I wonder why?). Avoided this even though it is the only way under the Kansas Constitution to win.

Design your system, back it up by actual evidence, and then let the spending "chips" fall where they may. It's much like Obama's offer on health care: design you own system that covers everyone and achieves the end goals and you can have any system you want. In short, put up or shut up.

Seriously, who gives a damn whether education spending is high or low, so long as it produces results? Who, that is, besides those who approach the subject with dishonest intent having a different agenda? "Spend less" (so we can put millionaires on welfare) is not a plan.

jhawkinsf 7 years, 1 month ago

Pick a government program, any government program, and what you will have is a bureaucracy that eats at the dollars intended for that program. That's true whether you're talking about the Defense Dept., or your local Park and Rec. The longer a program exists and the bigger the program is, the larger the bureaucracy gets. Many Americans support the concept outlined in the program but become dismayed as they see the bulging bureaucracy. I support education, defense, park & rec., senior services, etc. But the levels of government need to be capped at some point or else it chokes other parts of the economy. I have yet to see a problem solved simply by throwing money at it. If there was a chance of success, my first choice of throwing money at a problem would be at education. Still, there is the perception that waste and government go hand in hand. Until people believe they are getting a decent bang for the buck, they will continue the to question the need and efficacy of government run programs.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 7 years, 1 month ago

You speak of bureaucracies as if they serve no purpose. But they do, of course. Society couldn't function without them.

And bureaucracies are hardly limited to government-- neither are the aggravations that can and do come from them.

jhawkinsf 7 years, 1 month ago

You're correct in saying that bureaucracies exist outside government. However, precisely because bureaucracy does not serve the function of what is intended (the government program or, in business, the nature of the business), there should be an attempt to limit the bureaucracy. In business, bureaucracy cuts into the bottom line and therefore, business tends to try to limit it's negative effect on that bottom line. And precisely because government does not care about a bottom line, they do not have the same incentive to curb the bureaucracy. As I said, the programs are fine, it's just trying to get a bigger bang for our buck.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 7 years, 1 month ago

This is nothing but argument by assertion.

Government bureaucracies by and large perform the tasks to which they have been assigned. Does that mean they do so perfectly efficiently and effectively? No, they are made up of humans, so they often fall short.

Government bureaucracies get both their funding and their marching orders from elected officials, who in turn get the vast majority of their marching orders from vested private/corporate/business interests. Very few government bureaucracies have enough clout to lobby for funding on their own, and are generally prohibited from direct lobbying, anyway.

But private bureaucracies have no such restrictions. While they certainly are limited by the profit motive of the corporations that own them, I would assert that they are actually much freer to expand their purview (and cash flow) than are government bureaucracies.

That said, keeping bureaucracies on task, and efficient, requires constant vigilance and maintenance, just as most things in life, including the private side of things, especially when it becomes large and corporate, but somehow, certain segments of the populous want to excuse the latter from such due diligence.

jhawkinsf 7 years, 1 month ago

Just for the sake of clarity, let me run by you what I mean by bureaucracy. Suppose a large government program and a private corporation that provides some goods (whatever), they both need office supplies to function. They both need desks, computers, paper clips, etc. The private sector has a strong incentive to hold down costs and they will seek the best deal for these necessities. The government program in contrast has no such incentive. In fact, they may need to seek their desks not from cheapest place, but may need to comply with many regulations, like proportional purchases from minority sub-contractors, etc. What happens is that the private sector will wind up getting desks cheaper than the government. That's what I mean by bureaucracy. Now I never mentioned what government program nor did I state what corporate interest, because I mean to highlight that the money spent for office supplies reduces the flow of money to it's intended purpose. I'm sure they all need desks and such, but it's the price we pay.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 7 years, 1 month ago

You're making lots of unsupported assertions here.

Government bureaucracies have very specific and tight budget constraints under which they must operate. And when they make purchases of desks, or whatever, they pretty much have to buy from the lowest bidder.

While purchases from minority contractors may occasionally drive up costs (although they rarely result in significantly higher costs,) a much more typical way that costs get driven up is purchases from contractors who are politically very well-conncected-- major transportation construction projects and defense spending are the two biggest culprits here.

And your generalized statements about how all businesses operate are mostly worthless. Some businesses are very frugal and efficient, and others aren't. Some need to be frugal in order to stay competitive, while others do not.

jhawkinsf 7 years, 1 month ago

As to your second point, businesses are either frugal or they're not... I don't care, it's not my money, it's theirs. As to the government being or not being efficient, hey, I've been around a long time. I've heard all the $600 wrench or $2,000 toilet stories. If you think government is efficient, well, I just couldn't disagree with you more. Let's not forget that my statement earlier mentioned not a single program. Sure, I want services to seniors, I want education, I want all those things government provides. I lived in California for two decades. Shortly after the 1989 earthquake, it was determined that the Bay Bridge needed replacing. It is now 22 years later and billions over budget. And it's still years away from completion. Sure, I know government has to build it. Sure, I know the private sector won't build it. Sure, it's needed. But the cost, my gosh, and 22 years and counting. Come on. That's government. Joke - What the definition of a bureaucracy? Ten people doing the work of one.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 7 years, 1 month ago

As a registered Republican, I'd say you're as much a DINO and I am a RINO.

JayhawkerFan 7 years, 1 month ago

Rep Mike O'Neil is lying. All one has to do is talk to Rep. Pat Colloton for the truth.

lucky_guy 7 years, 1 month ago

medicare....... 3% overhead vs 30% for private insurance. Military expenditures go up directly proportion to the number of private contractors involved. Just saying.

jhawkinsf 7 years, 1 month ago

Just saying, medicare expenditures are roughly 20 times what the Congressional Budget Office projected they would be by this time. I was listening to an interview on the radio about 6 months back with a Senator. He said no way would Congress have passed the bill to fund the program had they known the numbers would be what they are now.

jhawkinsf 7 years, 1 month ago

As I said, I was listening to an interview on the radio (NPR) of a Senator, which one I don't remember. Do you think it's inaccurate?

yourworstnightmare 7 years, 1 month ago

O'Neal is right. Feral hogs can be ignored by the dynamo Kansas legislature.

Centerville 7 years, 1 month ago

So, four legislators sponsor a resolution (big deal, right?). They don't even bother to draft a bill because they know they wouldn't get any more sponsors, except, maybe, the "by request" types who owe them favors. The resolution doesn't go anywhere. Do they work with their colleagues to get it moving? No, they go whine to the Democrats' favorite stenographer. Proving that they aren't serious about it and they just want a cheap headline.

pace 7 years, 1 month ago

There are not bigger fish to fry than to resolve the mess caused by federal inaction and complete mishandling of immigration issues. It leaves our borders porous, the work place at risk, Oneal is a lying tool

pace 7 years, 1 month ago

The solution is to quit tolerating corporations, industries that hire illegally. If an industry such as agriculture need temporary immigrant workers they should have to use legal temporary workers, which mean the US gov. has to develop a legal temporary visa program that works. Blaming this on the immigrants and chasing them across a turnstile border is a solution that hasn't worked and won't suddenly work if we just do it in an abusive manner. Stop the illegal jobs. Illegal jobs put the legal workers out and destroys safe work place regulation. Get real, ONeal, follow the money. Everyone but the corporations and industries using illegal jobs for the fast buck, everyone else pays.

pace 7 years, 1 month ago

lol Then you have no problem. Koch will supply the money for the teapots and since no democrats work they won't fund, oh darm, since the democrats are the real work force of this country , oh darn, could it be, you just argue nonsense.

pace 7 years, 1 month ago

It looks like I was wrong. The bill is one that concentrates on the illegal immigrants rather than illegal hiring. I was wrong.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.