Senate approves bill banning use of tax dollars to advocate for gun control

So, wouldn't that make the keeping of databases of persons convicted of DUIs to be used for determining whether they can legally operate an automobile "car control", limiting my natural right to freedom of movement?

May 19, 2013 at 11:28 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Senate approves bill banning use of tax dollars to advocate for gun control

Why shouldn't our legislators get to hear from the representatives of cities, counties, and school districts when legislating on any of these issues?

The dividing line of "legal" is absurd. Our legislators and schools and cities and counties deal with defining what is "legal" and what is "illegal" on a daily basis.

But now the legislature is saying that representatives from local governments, school districts, and universities can't testify on behalf of whether something should be legal or illegal?

May 19, 2013 at 11:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Senate approves bill banning use of tax dollars to advocate for gun control

Yeah. Say, "We pay cops to peek in car doors for seat belt violations" to the families of all of the police officers who die every year from gun violence when they are working to defend the public.

May 19, 2013 at 11:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Senate approves bill banning use of tax dollars to advocate for gun control

Aren't all those ads about how you have to be 21 to buy alcohol promoting alcohol control?

What about those ads promoting not drinking and driving?

Alcohol. Control.

May 19, 2013 at 11:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Kansas Action for Children files lawsuit against Attorney General Derek Schmidt over settlement records

Way to go Kansas Action for Children!

The tobacco settlement money should be used for children's programs.

Any excess funding the state gets from the tobacco settlement funding shouldn't be used as a slush fund to help the Governor pay for his tax cuts for the wealthiest Kansans.

Of course, the Governor could have passed a tax cut that would have benefited the wealthy, the middle class, and the poor more equitably.

But instead he chose to pass a tax cut plan that gave many wealthy Kansans enough to pay for a luxury vacation, and in order to pay for it, he's robbing funds that should be dedicated to the children's fund to pay for general state expenditures.

It's not too surprising that big tobacco would try to re-negotiate the terms of the penalties levied against them for marketing their products to children.

It's disappointing that our government would try to re-negotiate that funding away from the children it was intended for.

May 12, 2013 at 5:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Kansas Action for Children files lawsuit against Attorney General Derek Schmidt over settlement records

Without passing judgment on your very tenuous association between George Soros and Kansas Action for Children, there is a key difference between George Soros and the Kochs that you probably are unable to discern.

That is, George Soros' foundations spend money on a variety of initiatives that don't necessarily lead to a financial windfall for George Soros himself.

The Kochs on the other hand seem to be keenly interested in advocating for tax and budget policies that help their bottom line. In particular, some of their strongest advocacy is on behalf of tax cuts for Americans who have benefited the most from the American system (i.e. them) and environmental deregulation (which helps their fossil fuels and paper businesses).

How a group in Kansas that fights on behalf of tobacco settlement funding for children's programs is a conflict of personal interest for George Soros is difficult for me to grasp.

May 12, 2013 at 5:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Editorial: Shirking state

Do you think providing some kind of funding to promote scientific and technological industries is a legitimate function of government?

Do you think that scientific and technological industries are apt to thrive without arts and culture?

Governments all over the world have funded arts, including in some of the most economically successful eras of human history (the Renaissance, Elizabethan England, Enlightenment Europe, the great World Fairs of the 19th and 20th Century). Not to mention government financing for athletic initiatives and activities, which I think most people would consider of equal value to artistic activities.

I agree that the bulk of spending on the arts should come from private sources, but the state of Kansas was already spending a scintilla of its budget on the arts before the Governor decided to cut what little the state of Kansas was contributing.

May 12, 2013 at 5:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Editorial: Shirking state

Why should we have a state if all decisions should be made by local governments? Especially on matters of public health, which do not know city limits or county lines, it's important to have a more encompassing policy.

The person who catches an STD in Kansas City on the weekend could have a wife and kids in Dodge City or Salina.

Yet we should only have testing in some communities of the state but not others?

I agree that there should be local discretion. But on the big issues (and I think stopping the spread of STDs is one), we probably should have a statewide plan.

May 12, 2013 at 4:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Editorial: Shirking state

As others have pointed out, the spread of STDs eventually ends up hurting a lot of "low-risk" people. So, while it is true that people have to be responsible for their decisions, we can encourage responsibility by making it simple and cheap for people to find out if they are carrying an STD.

That way they might seek treatment or change their behavior before they engage in more risky behavior that can end up hurting their current and future partners and/or families.

May 12, 2013 at 4:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Editorial: Shirking state

True. On a budgeting decision like this, we do have to deal with the government the people of the state of Kansas chose.

Still, I wish the people of the state of Kansas would have a more longterm outlook. Letting STDs go undetected in the population eventually end up hurting a lot of people who are not "high-risk".

May 12, 2013 at 4:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )