Arcadia — Gov. Sam Brownback on Wednesday said local taxpayers footing the bill to keep the Lawrence welfare office open was “a workable solution.”
But Brownback declined to comment on whether the state would pick up the tab down the road.
“I can’t speak to that,” he said.
Brownback said the state still faces tough budget decisions and his administration would continue looking for efficiencies and savings.
“We have to look at all the dimes and nickels,” he said.
Brownback’s administration stunned Lawrence on July 1 when it announced plans to close the Lawrence office of the Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services, along with eight others.
The Lawrence office was by far the largest of those set for closure, serving thousands of people. Brownback and SRS Secretary Robert Siedlecki Jr. said clients using SRS services could access them on the internet or travel to other SRS offices in nearby cities.
Local advocates said that wasn’t possible because to get many SRS services requires face-to-face meetings, and many clients don’t have transportation.
After a public outcry over the decision, the Lawrence City Commission and Douglas County Commission agreed to pay $450,000 to keep the office open for two years. The payment satisfied SRS’ demand to cut costs and Siedlecki said the agency would make a good faith effort to seek adequate funding in subsequent years to keep the office open.
Brownback said the state needed to be as efficient as possible in order to have revenue to provide services.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
XEPCT (anonymous) says…
sigh.... Brownback you stink
somebodynew (anonymous) says…
Get ready Commissioners. You didn't get a signed deal (probably wouldn't have mattered if you did with this group) so as long as they are in power you are going to have to pony up the money since you did it once. I would hope you are having some real 'heart-to-heart' talks with that landlord since you all have done him plenty of favors over the years.
lionheart72661 (anonymous) says…
Yep, just like the government! Local taxpayers bailing out the state. Here's an idea! Why don't you rich city leaders dig down deep in your grubby pockets and pay for it yourself. Here is what I think is funny. I was at a local c-store and saw a guy pay for fountain drinks with a vision card then get into a brand new car! Another time i saw a woman buying candy, pulled out 2 wads of money. as I watched her go through the wads of $100 bills (that's right one hundred dollar bills) I thought she was looking for a smaller bill! NOPE! She was looking for her vision card and paid with that. OUR taxpayer money. Since we as taxpayers are paying to keep the office open I think they need to go through their files and get some of these deadbeats off welfare! Oh, I could go on with more stories. here is a sad one for you. I know a woman that was getting $345 a month in food stamps due to her disability and SRS sent her some forms about her income which she filled out truthfully but dropped to $125 a month because the question asked was this : "Did you income increase by more than $1,145 a month"? The answer was no. yes she started receiving child support but it didn't come close to that. She no longer gets child support and her daughter has been unsuccessful at finding a job. So tell me this ALL you big wigs out there playing with our money, How in the world can even 1 person survive on $125 worth of food a month when you have deadbeats buying candy and soda with their vision cards and driving new cars? The SRS system sucks and THEY know it!
debengstrom (Deb Engstrom) replies…
There are both cash and food assistance on a vision card. You can't buy candy and soda with the food assistance but you certainly can with the cash -- just like using a credit card. Also, those "wads of $100" bills could have been all of her money for a month and probably going to pay her rent and utilities. There's always another side.
lmb (anonymous) replies…
Thank you, Deb. You're right--many people only use cash.
lionheart-- You ask how can she survive on $125 when other people don't? They don't have anything to do with each other. The answer is, she can make smart decisions about how she spends her $125 and ignore the people that make bad decisions. I don't get assistance but I certainly spend less than $200 a month for 2 people. A bag of dried beans or rice each cost less than $1. Pasta is often on sale for $1. Properly portioning a $3 box of cereal and gallon of milk will make it last 2 weeks. A loaf of bread, peanut butter, and jelly costs $5 and provides lunch for 10 days.
deec (anonymous) replies…
Actually any food that is not ready to eat can be bought with food assistance. So a fountain drink would not be covered, but bottled soda wouldt. And so what if they did buy junk food? Poor folks aren't allowed to have treats? I doubt Reagan's welfare queen cited above even happened. He/she is just repeating the myth that everyone on welfare is living high on the hog. Of course if you're governor and still drawing farm subsidies and using that money however you want, that's okay. Wouldn't Brownie also be drawing his federal congressional retirement at this point? So he's triple dipping to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. But god forbid a poor person eats a candy bar. "Judge not..."
jafs (anonymous) replies…
I think the quality of food that people buy on government assistance programs is a valid issue to consider.
Don't we want those folks to have a healthy diet?
Obesity is dramatically on the rise, especially in population like that one, and is a serious health concern.
deec (anonymous) replies…
So change the rules. In the meantime, they have just as much right to eat junk food as anyone else. If you want to combat obesity in all populations, put a sin tax on high fructose corn syrup and carbonated beverages. People on assistance, like all humans like sweet and salty flavors. They are just as susceptible to the blandishments of the advertising industry as everyone else. Why do we think we have a right to tell poor people what to eat, but farm subsidy recipients, for example, get a pass? They can pretty much do whatever they like with their free government money. Oh, if they get corn subsidies, they have to put some corn in the ground. Any money left over after planting, is theirs to do with what they like. The main reasons food assistance programs even exist is to shore up agriculture. The fact that it helps with hunger is a nice side effect.
jafs (anonymous) replies…
I would change the rules.
I would also eliminate those sorts of subsidies, so that wouldn't be an issue.
George_Braziller (anonymous) replies…
Unfortunately you can. I've been working as an attendant for a 73 year old woman who receives $16.00 a month on her Vision card.
I take her shopping every month and she uses all of it to buy a case of Coke, peanut butter cheese crackers, and Milk Duds. It always runs through as "food." That's her version of "food" and pretty much all she eats. But at least she's eating something.
I cook for her twice a week and leave left-overs in the fridge but usually end up throwing them away. Coke, peanut butter crackers, and Milk Duds is what she lives on by choice.
And no it's not my cooking. One time she wanted pizza so we went out to get one. A week later half of a pizza was still in the fridge. It was "too much work" to get it out.
Munch, munch, munch on peanut butter cheese crackers.
TedKihm (anonymous) replies…
Thanks Deb, excellent response! People see what they want to see. Glad to see the encouragement to open our perception.
lionheart72661 (anonymous) says…
jhawkinsf I agree, but you can tell by the persons name they don't like Christians anyway!
merrill (anonymous) says…
"Gov. Sam Brownback on Wednesday said local taxpayers footing the bill to keep the Lawrence welfare office open was “a workable solution.”
What the hell is the man talking about? All tax dollar sources are from local taxpayers including the ones he recklessly turns away or recklessly spends on " new administrators".
monkeywrench1969 (anonymous) replies…
The locals want to keep it open so maybe they should foot the bill. I see it as a solution otherwise it gets closed. personally I think they should close the wet homelss shelter. We had fewer people hanging out in front of Salvation Army for a free meal when it was the only place in town and they did not allow people who were drinking in to stay the night..
moxibustion (anonymous) says…
“We have to look at all the dimes and nickels,” he said.
Let's look at the ones you are taking from taxpayers to fund your cronies' salaries all the while reducing the services for people who need them.
chootspa (anonymous) replies…
Let's also look at the federal dimes and nickels you turn away in the process.
Did_I_say_that (DIST) says…
A dangerous precedent has been set. About 33 other offices ought to prepare to be closed. Perhaps their local governments will pick-up the rent also.
To the point, however. Regardless of who is paying the rent for the local SRS office, the main issue is that the rent is too damned high: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4o-Te...
Did_I_say_that (DIST) replies…
"rent is too damn high"
bhall87 (anonymous) says…
The state is required to pay for it. If there was no money for USD 497 and we had to consolidate with Topeka, Johnson County and other districts would we be expected to foot the bill if we wanted to keep USD 497? If Lawrence taxpayers pay for this one thing, then this administration may attempt to close other offices that the state is required to pay for. This sets a bad precedent and I think sets Lawrence up further for more "budget cutting" because if we don't like it we'll just pay for it ourselves.
none2 (anonymous) says…
Well considering how the city and the county love spend money, I expect more of the same. Maybe if local government would get its act together, it wouldn't get in this mess.
jafs (anonymous) replies…
How on earth can you blame the local, rather than the state, government for this?
none2 (anonymous) replies…
Because their extravagance has earned Douglas County and Lawrence a reputation of affluence. No wonder Brownback in his weird way knew that he could pull this stunt and if anybody complained, Lawrence would go ahead and foot the bill.
Divorce yourself from this particular event and see it in more general terms. If you live in a community where someone was known for having a lot of money to spend. If you had a fund raiser for something specific, wouldn't you be more likely to anticipate that the big spender would be more likely have money to contribute to your cause? The state & local governments need to stop spending premium prices, then our rich stereotype might eventually go away.
jafs (anonymous) replies…
Johnson County is more affluent than Douglas County, as far as I know.
The blame for this lies squarely on the state in my view.
It's their responsibility to fund these services, and closing the office wasn't even saving any money at the state level, given the new administrative positions.
Trying to pass state responsibilities to local levels is reprehensible, and I'm not even sure that's what they intended - it's entirely possible they don't care at all whether the local office stays open or not.
tange (anonymous) says…
Variants of "efficient" are attributed to Brownback twice in the article.
Efficiency implies a favorable balance of *benefit* and cost.
Brownback's teeter-totter sits at a sharp angle but doesn't rise above the plane of its fulcrum.
ENGWOOD (anonymous) says…
"rent is too damn high" Right, Unless you are the landlord and property taxes are $30,000.00,
Utilities are $20,000.00, Maintenance is $5000.00 per year and on and on and everyone wants a handout. We get a minimum of 10 calls a week from organizations seeking donations.
and you think rent is to damn high!!!
Did_I_say_that (DIST) replies…
$331,875 is too damn high. Not sure what utilities the landlord is claiming; but, SRS claims they pay the utilities: http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2011/jul...
jafs (anonymous) replies…
It does seem high.
But the time to negotiate that is before you sign the lease, not while you're in the middle of one.
thuja (anonymous) says…
Isn't it weird that Lawrence can afford this, but somehow the State can't?
What else can we take over control of? Go Lawrence!
Phillbert (anonymous) says…
"Brownback said the state needed to be as efficient as possible in order to have revenue to provide services."
....or to hire a new bunch of new top-level SRS administrators, mostly from Florida, that cost more than the savings shutting down the Lawrence office would bring.
CJScafe (anonymous) says…
“We have to look at all the dimes and nickels,” Brownback said.
With the millions he's turned away, I'd say he is penny wise and pound foolish.
You've done a heckuva job, Brownie!
Stain (anonymous) replies…
Brownback is dishonest. Since half the money was federal money there was no way the state was going to save $400k by closing the office.
Brownback is happy to waste my taxpayer money on private lawyers to defend his illegal attempts to circumvent settled law.
Stain (anonymous) says…
Worst governor that ever afflicted Kansas. Bar none.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
"The payment satisfied SRS’ demand to cut costs and Siedlecki said the agency would make a good faith effort to seek adequate funding in subsequent years to keep the office open."
If anything is clear at this point in this administration, "good-faith efforts" are few and far between.
jafs (anonymous) replies…
And, of course, the funding was there for the office, but they chose to spend it on new administrative positions instead.
larrytowngirl (anonymous) says…
Brownback's ideology is a huge FARCE!
catiefan (anonymous) says…
I think Brownback is royally ticked off. There he was, patting himself on the back, thinking that he'd successfully punished Lawrence and Douglas County for not supporting him in the election, and then Lawrence and Douglas County once again outsmart him--and he can't do anything about it. You sure picked the wrong community to mess with, Sammy, dintcha?
tbaker (anonymous) says…
I really like the idea of local tax dollars funding the operation of the SRS office. The more local government is, the more responsive it is to the needs of the people it serves. If the people of Lawrence / Douglas County want to pay for this kind of thing, then put it on the ballot. Leave it to the voters in a local election to decide what to do in their own town and county.
thebigspoon (anonymous) replies…
Great thinking, tb! By your reasoning, I can see a multitude of things that should be taken away from the state's funding coffers: streets/roads (they're used by locals, after all) , schools (definitely don't serve anyone outside their boundaries!), and while we're at it, let's return and refuse any federal funds because they aren't produced by our in-state citizens.
Are you the original vacuum or did you just become one aut of practice?
bklonnie (anonymous) says…
Everyone get ready for Brownback/Siedlecki to spend even more money that "we don't have" on the implementation of One Church, One Child in Kansas. It's not about balancing the budget; it's about these fools doing away with what they don't agree with, and spending the money "we don't have" on things to support their theocratic goals.