Simons' Saturday Column: Lawrence has lost growth, economic momentum

The cause of the current downturn in Lawrence's fortunes is utterly obvious. Our most substantial employer and generator of economic activity is the University of Kansas. For more than a decade, the University of Kansas' budget and enrollment has been shrinking, bringing (a) fewer dollars into the city as a result of faculty and staff salaries, cutting faculty lines, replacing high-earning senior faculty with low-earning junior faculty and adjuncts, etc. and (b) bringing fewer students, and their spending to the city.

If the city wants to improve its fortunes, it needs to improve and to advocate for investment in the University of Kansas. Period.

May 4, 2013 at 12:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Proposed Kansas science standards criticized for lack of depth

"Depth" is the wrong word here. The complaint is about a lack of "breadth".

April 17, 2013 at 10:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Legislation seeks to block federal gun laws on Kansas firearms

"This bill would NOT negate all federal gun laws. I would negate any new laws deemed unconstitutional."

Not sure where you learned to read: "any personal firearm, accessory or ammunition that is owned or manufactured in Kansas and that remains in the state is not subject to federal law. Federal authorities trying to enforce any kind of rule on such a firearm would face possible prison time."

This is a straightforward violation of the Supremacy clause, and as such is strictly unconstitutional. Kobach knows this. This is political theatre designed to advance his own political ambitions.

February 19, 2013 at 1:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Group says a number of Kansas Republicans support legislation authorizing the arrest of federal officials who implement Obamacare

Someone should tell Kansas State Rep. Jim Howell, R-Derby that he has no power whatsoever to block any Federal legislation from taking effect in Kansas or anywhere else. Supremacy clause anyone?

November 16, 2012 at 1:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Obama shows hostility to business

Not sure why "is" is at issue here; that word didn't appear in Obama's sentence. Really, as we all know, the meaning of any sentence with two or more pronouns (such as "you" and "that") cannot be known without knowing the antecedents of those pronouns. And the antecedents of pronouns can only be known by the context in which the sentence appears. (Do I really have to explain this?) Anyway, it's clear from the context of the quoted sentence that the President was referring to public works and infrastructure, education and a trained work force. Is this in dispute? I feel like people who are concerned about business-related should be happy to have it clarified. What businessperson wouldn't prefer to have smooth-functiong roads so that her goods can be shipped from A to B, or so customers can come to her storefront? Or a workforce well educated?

September 2, 2012 at 5:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Obama shows hostility to business

"Are these the kind of people Barack Obama had in mind when he unleashed his “You didn’t build that” diatribe? It wasn’t a gaffe. It was a passionate, spontaneous expression of his scorn for free enterprise and individual initiative."

You're correct that the President said the words: "you didn't build that". And you're also correct to say that it wasn't a gaffe. But the question, of course, is: what did he mean?

In determining what he meant, it is important to understand to whom he was referring by "you" and to what he was referring by "that". As you understand it, "you" refers to "business owners" and "that" refers to "your business".

But from the context of the President's discussion, it's actually quite clear that "you" is intended to refer to any private citizen, and "that" is intended to refer to the general infrastructure that makes business possible, such as roads, bridges, public education and universities to train employees, and a hundred other things that we do not as private citizens, but as members of a wider community to facilitate business.

So it's clear that this claim isn't anti-business. Instead, he's plumping for greater funding for those things that make business and enterprise possible. Which, it seems to me, shows the greatest respect for business. I think we have just a simple misunderstanding.

September 2, 2012 at 9:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Heard on the Hill: Academics' role in conference shifting questioned; New York Times columnist to deliver lecture at KU; researcher finds people typically see themselves in their friends

'Professor' has one 'f', two 's's.

September 23, 2011 at 12:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

GOP budget plan cuts more than $4 trillion

"[C]utting spending would be a huge boost to the private economy." Utterly false, and, like, bizarre. This would be true were it the case that government spending is crowding out private spending. But it absolutely isn't, and, in fact, it's nowhere close to doing that. "drastically lowering unemployment caused by all the government spending." Again, strange. How is it that government spending increases unemployment? (Actually, in Kansas, it decreases it, as private employers are cutting jobs, and only the public sector has been adding jobs. Here government expenditures increase employment.) Actually, I'd like to see this. I'd like to see you explain, in clear detail, how government spending reduces jobs. Of course, you won't be able to, because it's an utter myth, dreamt up by those who spout about economics but can't be bothered to understand what they're talking about.

"Haven't you noticed that interest rates are rising?" Interest rates are at historic lows. But this is actually beside the point. Even if the personal interest rate is rising, this doesn't say anything about the bond yield, which, if you look at the historic yield of a 10-year T-bill, are at their lowest point since 1960. This means that investors are lending money to the US government at historically low rates. The debt is a non-issue, and concern for the debt is simply a masked interest in eliminating all government programs.

April 5, 2011 at 12:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

GOP budget plan cuts more than $4 trillion

This is false. The US has a lot of debt in real dollar amounts, but comparatively little debt when it comes to percentage of GDP. Furthermore, even if the debt were a problem, which it isn't, it wouldn't make sense to cut spending and leave a monetary gap in the economy. If and when employment begins anew, and the GDP begins growing at a faster rate, that's when you tax and cut spending.

April 4, 2011 at 5:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Has Stimulus Failed? Take Two

So then you're not advocating the policy you note above?

July 18, 2010 at 4:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )