Advertisement

Moderate

Follow

Comment history

Developers seek new zoning to lure retailers next to Rock Chalk Park; new Douglas County income numbers and the pocket of poverty

Wow! We are almost the poverty capital of Kansas but we have almost the highest taxes in the state. We certainly have leadership elites that see nothing but more government expenditures in our future - expenditures such as a new police station, new jail, more trails, an art district and so on.

Is the middle class opting out of settling here because of costs; are we attracting a lot of lower income, government benefits dependent population because we are so generous; or is the data, like so much data lately, just plain wrong???? After all there was a lot of data from Dr. Gruber but it now seems that much of it may have been disingenuous!

November 21, 2014 at 3:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Opinion: Climate change as a moral issue

I really think we are past denying the matter. What complicates resolution is the inevitable issue of how much and by whom. When close to 60% of us believe our system no longer works for us and an even larger number are at best marching in place clarity on the penalties to be imposed is essential if you want more than we are already doing. After all we have reduced our foot print and have many policies in place/planned to reduce it further. How much is enough?? Should we not be honest with our populace and tell them that answer or does Dr. Gruber’ notions apply?

It would help if our leadership elite, mostly unaffected by these changes, would back away from the notion that we owe more than anybody else in terms of reductions in carbon. A more sophisticated approach that took into consideration our contributions to the world – contributions that do generate carbon – might clarify for all where we really are. Our elites simply accepting the large income transfer component wrapped up in international demands levied against us is just one more item in the growing distrust by the body politic!

November 21, 2014 at 3:04 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Prejudice

Try this one

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/opi...

October 28, 2014 at 2:37 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Editorial: Judging judges

I count 14 states with the Missouri "plan" I can not determine how the commissions work in those or the other states with commissions. My challenge was not partisanship but accountability. You ducked that issue

I DO NOT AGREE WITH Governor Brownback. I do know there is a model where a commission reviews the candidates nominated by the executive to determine qualification before approval by the legislature. That insures quality while providing for accountability

The notion that members of the BAR are less politically motivate than the electorate at large is suspect. The danger in our system is if political motives creep into the actions of the BAR the system breaks down.

There is an argument that our courts have become more activist and are intruding on the responsibilities of the other two branches. .Our system makes redressing such a situation , i accurate, very difficult.

Our supreme court has become more activist.. If one takes the ruling on school finance to the logical conclusion we will have an unelected body setting our taxes. I really doubt the founders had that in mind whatever system is used to select members of the judiciary. It is noteworthy that it tool a hundred yeas for a court to decide that the constitution sets a specific amount required for education. Having done some accounting the amount appropriated today is not so outlandish given historic appropriations.

October 25, 2014 at 7:12 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Editorial: Judging judges

Another classics example of a false premise! Is the Kansas system for choosing judges the only way to prevent politics and insure quality in their selection? Of course not! There are a number of differing processes employed by the various states to insure that judges are qualified.

Now perhaps someone could explain how using an appointed committee does a better job of eliminating politics than several of those other alternatives. The assumption that because the electorate is un-tutored in the law that unaccountable “experts” should bound the choices available for selection is the singular answer.

We do not just consider an individual’s command of the law when selecting jurists. Factors such as intelligence, integrity and temperament among others are factors in selection. Are elite committees uniquely qualified in judging such?

If so than why have election for anything. Let’s face it the body politics is un-tutored in almost everything. if we truly believe that only a "knowledged" based decision processes should be the foundation for selection of our leaders perhaps it is time to move to an Oligarchy composed of such elites and eliminate elections altogether??

October 24, 2014 at 5:47 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: End gridlock

How are we ever going to encourage the parties to compromise if we the electorate will not compromise.

About poison pills. One house adds them and the other can remove them - compromise!!

Legislation that passes with no votes from the opposition hardly smacks of compromise

The "Tea Party" shot JFK - right?? Creating "boogie" men does not engender compromise

October 14, 2014 at 10:37 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Issue not settled

As I have written over and over again - I believe we need to do responsible things to address the carbon we are spewing into our atmosphere. I posted a program to do that.

But - big but - we need to pursue the science to get a better handle on what we are doing to the planet. Whatever we do here in the US to cut emissions - and we have done a lot - will really have little impact on the rest of the planet. WE are going to go places we do not really want to go and we need to be better prepared to deal with that!!!!

There fore I am willing to spend more money on understanding the problem and consequences while muddling through ( as faulty human beings do) with making changes to try to deal with the inevitable.

Zealots do not help me

July 13, 2014 at 4:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Issue not settled

Chris I have a BSEE and an MSAero (Guidance and Control). I also have years of experience in government research and development. A lot of our money has passed through my claws. I have been had by experts. I am therefore cautious - very cautious with OPM (other peoples' money)

July 13, 2014 at 4:12 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Issue not settled

I did not read it that way!!! He was IMHO taking issue with a political statement about scientific matters - a political statement that might be read by the uninitiated as essentially a "trust me" card?

In a sense he was arguing for more research where if I accepted your argument we don't need any as we have settled the science!!

Could we all be a bit spring loaded on this topic?

July 13, 2014 at 4:07 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Editorial: Let’s be clear

Now these type activities are called tax expenditures. Somebody for some reason does not have to pay taxes that others do. The rest of us pick up the short fall. The logic being that in the long haul we will get back more (future taxes/employee taxes/other considerations) than we forgave.

Sometimes these expenditures actually return something to all of us. Sometimes they do not. Perhaps someone out there knows how we are doing across all of the many such tax expenditures we have made here in Lawrence?

In the absence of an accounting I can only speculate as to whether this and the many others we have granted are just more examples of public funds being given away to favored groups? I know we calculate going in but do we ever check to see what really happened?

I have always felt that subsidies such as this entitle the tax payers to a return on investment from business profits as we are essentially providing venture capital to support development?

July 13, 2014 at 4:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Previous