Advertisement

acornwebworks (Kendall Simmons)

Follow

Comment history

Kobach urges passage of bill that would exclude Lesser Prairie Chicken from federal protection

Except that we already have 2 mammals, 2 fish, 1 invertebrate *and* 4 *OTHER* birds on the federal endangered species list here in Kansas...and it hasn't been "devastating to all" yet!

Indeed, we've heard the same "the sky is falling"argument before. So how come the sky hasn't fallen?

I also notice how you list that the organization we should listen to as the KNRC...which most people who pay attention to natural resources could reasonably be expected to assume to be the Kansas Natural Resource Council...a highly respected, responsible organization that's been around for over 30 years.

But nooooooo. *You* are referring to something called the Kansas Natural Resource Coalition. Which is supposedly a coalition of counties who think they are against this because of what they're being told. But who are the biggest funders? Power companies. Gee. What a surprise.

January 26, 2014 at 6:05 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Brownback: Legislature, not courts, should decide school funding

Uh..."people living off government assistance dont pay sales tax on their purchases"??? Where on earth did you get *that* idea?

January 16, 2014 at 11:37 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Brownback: Legislature, not courts, should decide school funding

It doesn't make "since" to us because you're making a lot of assumptions. Never mind your assumption that "new business" is moving to Kansas because of Brownback's tax changes. Others have already responded to that.

But you're apparently assuming (albeit not necessarily consciously) that the impact of sales taxes on people is the same at all income levels.

You see a flat percentage. Period. I mean, to you, apparently, 6.15% is 6.15% and there's nothing more to consider. (And this ignores the higher sales taxes paid in certain cities/special districts, currently up to as high as 9.775%.)

But if Family A has $300 a month available to spend on food and necessities for his/her family (Kansas being one of those very few foolish states that disgustingly charge sales tax on food), while Family B has $3,000 a month available to spend on food and necessities, surely you don't think that B is going to spend 10 times as much on food and necessities, do you? Or even spend all $3,000...period? Or only on sales taxable items in Kansas?

What you need to do is think about the effect of that 6.15%.

It's $18.45 for Family A with only $300 a month to spend on food and necessities. Think about how much food could be bought with $18.45. How many meals could be prepared. But, instead, that money is unavailable. That food can't be bought. Those meals can't be cooked. Because there is no additional money. While Family B, in the meantime, doesn't notice the sales tax at all because there *is* additional money. It does NOT prevent them from buying food.

Unless Kansas removes the sales tax on at least food, then your sales tax is a REGRESSIVE tax. In real life, it far more negatively impacts low income people than high income people. And that's selfish and unnecessary.

January 16, 2014 at 11:35 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: No free care

Contrary to "popular opinion" here, this letter (and the man's argument) is pretty silly...as well as awfully petty.

So Melinda Henderson should have written "free of charge". Or "free to consumers". Big whoop.

EVERYTHING has a cost...even our air (because, remember, we force companies to pay money to reduce pollution so that the air we breathe is relatively clean).

But, if Henderson shouldn't be allowed to say "free", then it should, for example, be just as wrong...and "fallacious"...for stores, say, to advertise "buy one, get one free" because, obviously, that second "one" is NOT free. I wonder if Kelly rails against that type of claim, too. Or is this, perhaps, just an "I hate the ACA" issue.

My gosh, when writing about getting charity care, Kelly declares "Even then, there is a cost for the transportation of the patient to the charity care facility or the charity care provider to the patient". You want to talk about "fallacious"? (A word he apparently enjoys throwing around.) What "transportation of the patient" cost is there for WALKING to the darn facility, as so many people actually do...both here in Lawrence and elsewhere?

Sorry, but I found this to be an incredibly petty letter.

January 11, 2014 at 11:55 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Opinion: Regents’ policy has a silver lining

I just wish that Mike had re-read his column. As it is, I found it incredibly difficult to follow.

Yeah...I could guess.

But, jeez Louise, could he not have realized the communication problems *he* was responsible for with statements like "It has been obvious from the beginning that the policy was adopted in response not only to the Guth cause célébre earlier this year and the extreme reactions of several Kansas legislators who have threatened to defund KU for not firing Professor Guth".

I mean...if he's going to say "not only"...don't you think he could have included his "but also"??

And I'd certainly like to know what *HE* was referring to when he wrote "...and of the 1970s protests over an issue that really needn’t have caused such a fuss."

Oh well.

January 8, 2014 at 11:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Kansas Chamber poll: Taxes, school administration spending too high

Good grief!!

What part of "But according to the Kansas Department of Education, 61.92 percent of school operating expenditures is spent on instruction, as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau, and that doesn't include librarians, counselors, speech therapists and other supports" did you miss???

January 8, 2014 at 10:56 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Opinion: Opportunity offsets income inequality

Cal made $25,000 in 1979. In 2013, a person would have to be be making over $80,000 to have the same spending power that Cal had in 1979.

Frankly, I'm sure most people making $25,000 a year today would be ecstatic if they made $80,000 instead. But, hey...if $25,000 a year was good enough for Cal Thomas 34 years ago, then it ought to be good enough for other people today.

And, if they don't like it, they just need to "apply themselves and embrace the values held by successful people". Like Cal's values of ignorance and condescension?

December 16, 2013 at 8:56 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Editorial: Inspection bumps

Out of curiosity, is there "any paper trail on the books detailing" that "some landlords have been providing misinformation so I've heard"?

Or "any paper trail on the books detailing" that "the city provides quite sufficient notice perhaps 2-3 weeks or more"? (Did you truly not read the article? That said "the memo also noted that the city gives, and would continue to give, landlords several days notice for all inspections so tenants would have ample time to prepare for the visit"??? )

And what on earth do you think the proposed city inspection program has to do with "large parties making noise"??? My gosh. You can't seriously be arguing that the proposed city inspection program is going to deal with *THAT* problem.

December 8, 2013 at 10:37 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Kansas looking at Missouri River to help irrigate western Kansas

And if you have a question about ethanol, perhaps you ought to ask a moonshiner :-)(After all, "ethanol" is just another name for "grain alcohol". )

The fact is that corn is *NOT* required to produce ethanol.

There are tons of other things can be...and ARE...used to produce ethanol. Things like cheese whey, barley, potato waste, beverage waste, and brewery and beer waste. Like agricultural waste (including corn cobs and stalks), yard waste, sawdust and paper. Like wood chips and stalks and switchgrass. Even human waste!

And how about the fact that it's a lot easier and cheaper (and takes half the energy) to turn sugar (like sugarcane, sugar beets, molasses), rather than corn, into ethanol? And states like Florida, Louisiana, Hawaii, California, and Texas are primed for this.

In other words, contrary to what many people apparently blieve, corn is *not* necessary for ethanol. Never has been. Never will be. So, instead of our wasting a gazillion dollars on getting water to western Kansas from the Missouri River simply to keep growing corn for ethanol...which is already in the process of being replaced...why don't we accept the truth? There are actually better, cheaper things from which we can create ethanol.

November 21, 2013 at 1:32 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Local accident victims advocate against texting while driving

He was following the law. Regardless of whether or not he thought she was cute.

August 19, 2013 at 7:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal )