Quick impressions from last night's Traveler forum for city commission candidates. Read the story today for full scoop.
1) Lots of experience and smarts as group of candidates. Voters have good choices.
2) Big Box proposal won't go away
3) Running against Kuhn. Mayor Mell Kuhn was not there but it seems clear that Snell, Warren and McDonald are running, in part, against his leadership.(Which will of course end next month)
4) Friendly group. There are some deep divisions but the candidates remained diplomatic last night. Even when tempted by a 3 amigos questions, they all remained pretty diplomatic. Scott Margolius was the only one who didn't tip toe around it, but he was not defensive. Jean Snell did say he thought the current majority was too controlling and had recruited candidates to maintain control.
4a) Voting records show unity - Margolius had a vote break down of he and McDonald that showed he actually voted less often with Mell and Dotty Smith than McDonald did. That said, the big box vote was worth about a hundred votes. And, after thinking about it, Doug Russell's departure divide the commission. He was hired by McDonald and Hockenbury, and left after the "amigos" came aboard.
4) Jay Warren struggled at the podium. He's new to this. He did say he's running to restore integrity and common sense to the commission, which is a pretty strong slogan and I thought a direct reference to Kuhn's antics.
5) Gordon Fry, Mathews and Snell were impressive in their experience and knowledge.
6) Margolius was the most articulate speaker.
7) Pat McDonald was the most emotional and passionate
8) Fry's license plate – one question we didn't ask last night from the audience was why does Fry's license plate still have Montgomery County on it. I asked him after the forum and he said that he's been told by the tag office that Montgomery County would have to reissue the plate because it specialized. He said he moved back to Ark City three years ago.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
drug testing editorial
Welfare drug testing not needed (3-21-09)
Drug testing welfare recipients may sound like a good idea, but it's not worth the costs, nor the fight.
State Rep. Kasha Kelley, R-Arkansas City, has introduced legislation that would require drug tests of people who receive Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (federal welfare), General Assistance and Grandparents as Caregivers Assistance.
The bill recently passed the Kansas House Health and Human Services Committee.
The Department of Social and Rehabilitative Services estimates the plan would cost about $1.4 million by 2011.
That's a lot of money for little gain. There's no evidence that welfare recipients use illegal drugs more than the general population. The state already assesses adults receiving welfare for drug and alcohol abuse.
Most people receiving assistance already feel the shame of it. This would add more stigma (especially to grandparents who need help raising their grandchildren).
Kelley is normally loath to increase spending; we think those instincts should prevail here.
She is also strong on individual rights; we think those instincts also should prevail here.
A federal appeals court a few years ago struck down similar efforts in Michigan as unconstitutional. And federal law prohibits testing people who receive food stamps and Medicaid.
People who get cash "handouts" from the government are easy targets, especially during hard times.
But demonizing welfare recipients makes much less sense after the 1996 Welfare Reform that required recipients to work and cut them off after five years.
Let's leave it at that.
Drug testing welfare recipients may sound like a good idea, but it's not worth the costs, nor the fight.
State Rep. Kasha Kelley, R-Arkansas City, has introduced legislation that would require drug tests of people who receive Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (federal welfare), General Assistance and Grandparents as Caregivers Assistance.
The bill recently passed the Kansas House Health and Human Services Committee.
The Department of Social and Rehabilitative Services estimates the plan would cost about $1.4 million by 2011.
That's a lot of money for little gain. There's no evidence that welfare recipients use illegal drugs more than the general population. The state already assesses adults receiving welfare for drug and alcohol abuse.
Most people receiving assistance already feel the shame of it. This would add more stigma (especially to grandparents who need help raising their grandchildren).
Kelley is normally loath to increase spending; we think those instincts should prevail here.
She is also strong on individual rights; we think those instincts also should prevail here.
A federal appeals court a few years ago struck down similar efforts in Michigan as unconstitutional. And federal law prohibits testing people who receive food stamps and Medicaid.
People who get cash "handouts" from the government are easy targets, especially during hard times.
But demonizing welfare recipients makes much less sense after the 1996 Welfare Reform that required recipients to work and cut them off after five years.
Let's leave it at that.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Welfare drug testing
Here's James' column from Saturday. and story today in which Kasha explains the bill
I'll post my editorial from Saturday tomorrow at work when I can get it off the server
I'll post my editorial from Saturday tomorrow at work when I can get it off the server
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Odd priorities
Kasha is for spending $800,000 on drug testing of welfare recipients but against spending 1.2 million in Kansas to leverage millions more in federal dollars to expand health insurance coverage for Kansas children.
From the Haver Political Report:
The committee rejected $1.2 million in spending to qualify for millions of federal dollars for a youth health insurance program. Rep. Kasha Kelley, R-Arkansas City, said the 250% of federal poverty cap on eligibility for the government-assisted insurance for children was too rich. She said a family of four could have up to $55,000 a year in income to qualify for the government insurance assistance—too high, she said. She said at that income level, even families that tithe to a church should be able to afford health insurance for their children.
So if you tithe at 10 percent, that's $5,500. If your premium is about $5,000 (like mine) and then you spend $2,500 to $5,000 a year in out of pocket, your gross income is left at $40,500 to $43,000 a year for a family of four. Good luck owning a decent house, car(s) and sending your kids to college on that ... And that's the richest of qualifiers.
Over the last decade or more, health care costs have increased dramatically while incomes have increases only slightly. Something's gotta give.
From the Haver Political Report:
The committee rejected $1.2 million in spending to qualify for millions of federal dollars for a youth health insurance program. Rep. Kasha Kelley, R-Arkansas City, said the 250% of federal poverty cap on eligibility for the government-assisted insurance for children was too rich. She said a family of four could have up to $55,000 a year in income to qualify for the government insurance assistance—too high, she said. She said at that income level, even families that tithe to a church should be able to afford health insurance for their children.
So if you tithe at 10 percent, that's $5,500. If your premium is about $5,000 (like mine) and then you spend $2,500 to $5,000 a year in out of pocket, your gross income is left at $40,500 to $43,000 a year for a family of four. Good luck owning a decent house, car(s) and sending your kids to college on that ... And that's the richest of qualifiers.
Over the last decade or more, health care costs have increased dramatically while incomes have increases only slightly. Something's gotta give.
Phony outrage
In press release below, Tiahrt pushes GOP talking points for the day and blames AIG bonuses on Democrats for passing a bill that had no cap on existing pay contracts for heads of businesses receiving bailout money. But had there been no bill there would be no cap on existing contracts NOR future contracts/compensation (which the bill does cap) Tiahrt and the GOPers voted AGAINST the stimulus bill, which in Tiahrt's logic means they are for unchecked, lavish executive pay to businesses getting taxpayer bailout money.
Please...
Here's the release
Tiahrt: Democrat’s $165 Million AIG Executive Bonus Scandal an Outrage
Votes to recover 100 percent of AIG bonus pay
WASHINGTON—U.S. Congressman Todd Tiahrt (R-Goddard) today issued the following statement following votes in the House of Representatives responding to bonuses paid to AIG insurance company executives totaling $165 million. Tiahrt harshly criticized the Democrat’s legislative cover-up attempt today and highlighted how Democrat’s response to their scandal is to pass a 90-percent tax.
Last month Democrats inserted a provision into the so-called stimulus bill that allowed AIG to give its executives lavish bonuses. President Obama urged Congress to pass the bill quickly and signed it into law Feb. 17. This occurred after AIG had received $150 billion in taxpayer-funded bailouts.
"Americans are rightly outraged at the way the Obama Administration and Democrat leaders have allowed AIG to give its corporate executives $165 million in lavish bonuses this year," said Tiahrt. "After taxpayers took on enormous debt to bailout AIG with $150 billion, Democrat leaders and this Administration said it was fine for AIG executives to get millions in bonuses.
"Now that the million-dollar bonuses have been paid to AIG executives, Democrats are trying to pass a legislative cover-up. In February Democrats voted to allow the bonuses; today they voted to institute a 90-percent tax on the recipients of the bonuses. Instead of recovering 100 percent of the bonus pay like Republicans proposed, the Democrat’s response is to institute a 90-percent tax on the very same executives they permitted to receive the bonuses.
"This scandal involving Democrats, the Obama Administration and multi-million dollar AIG executive bonuses is an outrage. The American people deserve to know why this was permitted, who knew it was going to happen, and who did nothing to prevent it. Instead of passing a legislative cover-up, Democrats should embrace our plan to recover 100 percent of the AIG corporate executive bonus pay."
On Thursday Tiahrt voted in favor of a Republican proposal that would direct the Treasury Secretary to implement a plan within the next two weeks to recoup or stay 100 percent of the AIG bonuses and block any further federal assistance until the bonuses were paid back. The bill would also require approval by the Treasury for any future bonus payments, of any kind, made by TARP fund recipients (bailout recipients). Finally, the Republican’s plan requires that the Treasury approve in advance any future contractual obligations entered into by TARP fund recipients that involve bonus payments.
Please...
Here's the release
Tiahrt: Democrat’s $165 Million AIG Executive Bonus Scandal an Outrage
Votes to recover 100 percent of AIG bonus pay
WASHINGTON—U.S. Congressman Todd Tiahrt (R-Goddard) today issued the following statement following votes in the House of Representatives responding to bonuses paid to AIG insurance company executives totaling $165 million. Tiahrt harshly criticized the Democrat’s legislative cover-up attempt today and highlighted how Democrat’s response to their scandal is to pass a 90-percent tax.
Last month Democrats inserted a provision into the so-called stimulus bill that allowed AIG to give its executives lavish bonuses. President Obama urged Congress to pass the bill quickly and signed it into law Feb. 17. This occurred after AIG had received $150 billion in taxpayer-funded bailouts.
"Americans are rightly outraged at the way the Obama Administration and Democrat leaders have allowed AIG to give its corporate executives $165 million in lavish bonuses this year," said Tiahrt. "After taxpayers took on enormous debt to bailout AIG with $150 billion, Democrat leaders and this Administration said it was fine for AIG executives to get millions in bonuses.
"Now that the million-dollar bonuses have been paid to AIG executives, Democrats are trying to pass a legislative cover-up. In February Democrats voted to allow the bonuses; today they voted to institute a 90-percent tax on the recipients of the bonuses. Instead of recovering 100 percent of the bonus pay like Republicans proposed, the Democrat’s response is to institute a 90-percent tax on the very same executives they permitted to receive the bonuses.
"This scandal involving Democrats, the Obama Administration and multi-million dollar AIG executive bonuses is an outrage. The American people deserve to know why this was permitted, who knew it was going to happen, and who did nothing to prevent it. Instead of passing a legislative cover-up, Democrats should embrace our plan to recover 100 percent of the AIG corporate executive bonus pay."
On Thursday Tiahrt voted in favor of a Republican proposal that would direct the Treasury Secretary to implement a plan within the next two weeks to recoup or stay 100 percent of the AIG bonuses and block any further federal assistance until the bonuses were paid back. The bill would also require approval by the Treasury for any future bonus payments, of any kind, made by TARP fund recipients (bailout recipients). Finally, the Republican’s plan requires that the Treasury approve in advance any future contractual obligations entered into by TARP fund recipients that involve bonus payments.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Kuhn response
Mayor Mell Kuhn
In response to the March 14 Traveler editorial, "Grow Up, Mr. Mayor:"
The kindergarten I attended tried to instill work ethics and responsibility, claiming that these would carry the day.
Flash-forward 50-plus years and here I am. Frankly, there is no doubt I could have and should have done better. The only things I can rest on is that I'm right with God and living in the greatest county on earth in the city of my choosing with a great family and many friends.
I have never gone around saying everything I think; that would be impossible. However, the delivery of my thoughts may leave a little to desire, but the contexts are what they are. I do try to speak the truth, as I know it; being so, you are free to call that crude if you so desire.
As for as a new hospital, I support and continue to support the company that will do the best for us. The design-build concept is not a bid - it's an evolution.
I hang my hat on this: "If it's good for the city, my family and my friends, then it's great for me."
In response to the March 14 Traveler editorial, "Grow Up, Mr. Mayor:"
The kindergarten I attended tried to instill work ethics and responsibility, claiming that these would carry the day.
Flash-forward 50-plus years and here I am. Frankly, there is no doubt I could have and should have done better. The only things I can rest on is that I'm right with God and living in the greatest county on earth in the city of my choosing with a great family and many friends.
I have never gone around saying everything I think; that would be impossible. However, the delivery of my thoughts may leave a little to desire, but the contexts are what they are. I do try to speak the truth, as I know it; being so, you are free to call that crude if you so desire.
As for as a new hospital, I support and continue to support the company that will do the best for us. The design-build concept is not a bid - it's an evolution.
I hang my hat on this: "If it's good for the city, my family and my friends, then it's great for me."
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Grow up, Mr. Mayor
Traveler editorial from Saturday (I wrote it)Kuhn's letter to editor response will follow ....
Grow up, Mr. Mayor
A story in last week's Traveler indicated that Mayor Mell Kuhn's business dealings with the city are legal and above board.
But the story highlighted Kuhn's problem.
His vulgar and impulsive manner have bred resentment and suspicion.
Mell likes to say that he'll tell you exactly what he thinks.
Bluntness has its place. But imagine if we all went around saying exactly what we thought.
We were warned against this type of behavior in kindergarten.
Mell's latest whopper is characterizing his critics as "while elitists" who have been running Ark City for years.
Now, he's openly supporting a contractor for the new hospital way before the bidding process is over.
This town has enough image problems without Kuhn reinforcing them.
Mell could do himself, and the city, a world of good by simply cleaning up act.
Grow up, Mr. Mayor
A story in last week's Traveler indicated that Mayor Mell Kuhn's business dealings with the city are legal and above board.
But the story highlighted Kuhn's problem.
His vulgar and impulsive manner have bred resentment and suspicion.
Mell likes to say that he'll tell you exactly what he thinks.
Bluntness has its place. But imagine if we all went around saying exactly what we thought.
We were warned against this type of behavior in kindergarten.
Mell's latest whopper is characterizing his critics as "while elitists" who have been running Ark City for years.
Now, he's openly supporting a contractor for the new hospital way before the bidding process is over.
This town has enough image problems without Kuhn reinforcing them.
Mell could do himself, and the city, a world of good by simply cleaning up act.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
