Advertisement

Phillbert

Follow

Comment history

KU outlines significant cuts if Legislature cuts higher education funding

Sure. And can we put you down for covering the legal bills when the donors sue as a result? And the $18 million when KU loses that lawsuit?

Donors donate money for things they're interested in, not so they can have their money backfill state cuts.

April 18, 2013 at 12:21 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

KU chancellor writes that possible state budget cuts would mean loss of at least 38 faculty jobs

Donations to the institute are tax deductible, meaning the donors shift the cost to the rest of us taxpayers. Which pretty much matches with the policies they advocate.

April 11, 2013 at 6:46 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Simons' Saturday Column: Kansas should work to repeat early KBA successes

It's a shame that the Governor and Republican legislators that Mr. Simons so wholeheartedly endorses have done everything they can to defund and sideline the KBA.

April 6, 2013 at 10:56 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Skipping class costs KU students as much as $70 each time

You don't have the right numbers. It's 5th highest and only $25 a semester. http://studentsenate.ku.edu/funding/f...

It's approved by the students, so if you don't like it complain to them to get rid of it.

March 6, 2013 at 7:39 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Legislature considering delays in renewable energy standards

Let's say climate change isn't real. That's a statement completely contradicted by all respected (i.e. non-oil and coal industry funded) science, but for insane argument's sake, let's say that.

You're still not going to have any water to run your coal-fired power plants given what's happening to the aquifer:

Aquifer sees 2nd largest decline on record in 2012
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2013/feb...

We have lots of wind and sun in Kansas. We don't have lots of coal or water. Which does it make long-term economic sense to use?

February 5, 2013 at 7:14 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Editorial: Kansas aspirations

As someone who often criticizes LJW editorials, I want to praise this one, particularly for its use of specific, provable facts to back up its thesis.

February 3, 2013 at 9:43 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Editorial: Tax balance

If you're making $100,000 in Kansas, you're making twice the median household income and don't need a tax cut or a mortgage deduction. It's the sales tax and the Republicans' elimination of deductions claimed by the poor that are the real shot at middle and lower income families, not to mention the property tax hikes that will trickle down as the state cuts back.

January 23, 2013 at 7:29 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Opinion: Secretary defends programs for needy

It will never be overcome if children are punished for the sins of their parents.

January 21, 2013 at 11:13 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Opinion: Secretary defends programs for needy

I recommend people read this article on the effects of the secretary's actions on poor Kansas families and children: http://www.kansascity.com/2013/01/05/...

It contains this gem regarding the secretary's claims that people who aren't receiving benefits anymore have gotten jobs: "Gilmore says that although officials do not have the data to back up their claim, they feel it’s a natural assumption."

Plus, the only example the agency gives to back up their "assumption" is of a worker who was moved off of welfare and onto the agency's own payroll! Apparently Republicans think government jobs are sometimes ok after all.

Kudos for the LJW standing up to the administration of the candidate it endorsed. The poor have few other advocates.

January 21, 2013 at 7:20 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Simons' Saturday Column: Focus on sports, athletes has gotten out of whack

This from the man whose newspaper sends more people to cover a basketball game in Texas than it sends to cover the Legislature in Topeka. Cry me a river.

January 19, 2013 at 8:57 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Previous