Comment history

Rasmussen responds to concerns about out-of-town donations

The headline is wrong. It should read: "Rasmussen condescendingly dismisses concerns about out-of-state funding", and perhaps a sub-line of "Candidate apparently believes voters are idiots."

March 28, 2015 at 10:54 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Plaintiffs seek to block new Kansas school funding plan

The judges should hold Brownback and every "yes" voting legislator in contempt of court.

The initial ruling, which has not to my knowledge been suspended, specifically directed the legislative and executive branches to NOT engage in any altering of the funding formula, etc., as a means of avoiding the court ruling. "Avoidance is not an option", I believe was the exact wording.

This block grant law is clearly a deliberate violation of that order.

March 26, 2015 at 3:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Kansas closer to allowing concealed carry with no permit

The words "well-regulated militia" are included as rationale for the actual operative statement. The phrase imposes no requirement whatsoever. People who claim otherwise are making stuff up. It's not there.

March 18, 2015 at 1:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Court threatens to block new school funding plan

This bill defies direct court orders regarding equity, adequacy, and not employing smoke & mirrors accounting tricks to weasel out of funding public schools.

I'd love to see every wingnut who voted for this, and the governor when he signs it, tossed in jail for contempt of court.

March 13, 2015 at 4:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Editorial: Finance exam

I stand by every word I said, including my prediction of your ridiculous smoke-and-mirrors spin response.

School districts expected to get EXACTLY what they were entitled to get under state law and under orders from the state supreme court that the law actually be funded.

And you know it.

March 13, 2015 at 9:30 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Editorial: Finance exam

The idiocy of the "it's not a cut, it's a reduction to the increase" spin (and how the spinners can sleep at night) never ceases to amaze me.

Mr.Trabert, let's say you have a job working for, oh, I dunno....Koch Industries or something. And hypothetically let's say you are given a raise at the beginning of a contract year with that company. Then, you operate as anyone would: you assume that your employer is operating in good faith and will make good on what they've said they will pay you.

So, based on what you've been told you will earn that year, you manage your own finances. Maybe go out and buy a car. Maybe a new house. Or you sign on with a contractor to renovate your home. In any case, you commit to spending money based on what you've been told you will receive.

Then, halfway through the year, your employer says "Never mind what we told you. We're actually only going to pay you $xyz instead." Naturally, you cry foul about having your salary cut. Then your employer says "Oh, no. We aren't cutting your salary. We're just making a reduction to the increase."

You would call BS on that, and you know it. However, I fully expect you to say otherwise here because that's what you're paid to do. Seriously, how do you sleep at night?

March 12, 2015 at 10:06 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Kansas public unions oppose collective bargaining bill

Your distinction between "government employees" and "taxpayers" is a false dichotomy. In fact, the entire "public sector" vs "private sector" argument is false.

I pay taxes. And, apparently, my money is just as good as anyone else's money. I've never walked into a gas station, grocery store, or gun shop and been told my money wasn't any good because it came to me via a public-sector job.

I look at all the new construction at schools around Lawrence, and I don't recall any construction contractors passing up the chance to bid on the work because "no, that's not real money - just school district money. We won't work for that."

Doesn't happen.

March 12, 2015 at 7:55 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Kansas public unions oppose collective bargaining bill

“The most common way people give up their power is by thinking they don’t have any.”
- Alice Walker

March 11, 2015 at 5:58 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Kansas public unions oppose collective bargaining bill

No. Nobody who isn't a union member has to pay dues in Kansas or any other state.

This bill - ironically from the "small government, local control" folks - dictates what local agencies and their employees can mutually agree to do as far as payroll deduction options. As of today, union members can - IF THEY SO CHOOSE - have their dues withheld from their paychecks, and then remitted to the union in a single payment for all who choose this option.

Keep in mind a couple things: this is 100% voluntary for all parties; in the age of electronic transfers this costs school districts and other public agencies exactly ZERO dollars. Yet, the party of small government and local control sees fit to interject themselves between employees and employers to prohibit a practice that has worked just fine for decades.


Because it will make union staff and union employees have to put out THIS brush fire (the butchering of their established financial workings); thus making it that much harder for unions to address other issues such as the idiocy of school finance block grants and such.

All part of the master plan.

March 11, 2015 at 5:56 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Kansas House panel approves GOP leaders’ school funding plan; bill now goes to full House

They'll cut $600 million in school funding.

March 10, 2015 at 5:34 p.m. ( | suggest removal )