1 2 3 >  Last ›
1 of 4
Why?
Posted: 13 April 2013 05:12 AM   [ Ignore ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  796
Joined  2012-10-10

Why do the Kansas Congressmen praise the President’s budget for funding NBAF, saying, “It’s great for Kansas!”, then not vote for that budget because it doesn’t cut spending? 

Why do the Kansas Congressmen suggest spending billions for Ag health is great, yet spending to give Americans access to health care is “socialized medicine” and will be the downfall of our Nation?

Why do the Kansas Congressmen suggest spending billions for NBAF is the correct thing to do, yet vote to withhold money from the victims of an East Coast hurricane?

Why do the Kansas Congressmen suggest spending billions for NBAF is great, yet support a Governor who wants to cut funds for educating our children?

Why do local elected officials applaud spending billions for researhing animal health, yet suggest we cannot afford to support our own social service programs? 

Why do Kansas Congressmen vote to give billions of dollars to overseas nations that would kill every American, if given the chance, then tried to cut college tuition programs for our active duty military?

Why do Kansas Congressmen vote to give billions to support agriculture, yet condemn the regulatory agency that works to keep manure, fertilizer, atrizine, etc. from polluting our drinking water?

Why?????

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 April 2013 10:29 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  71
Joined  2012-10-11

My guess is it’s the same reason the CORPS of Engineers want to spend 20 Mil on a flood dike that will not protect those that were flooded out last time they opted to have a “man made flood”.
STUPID comes to mind and is more in line with how this government has worked for the last 20 to 30 years.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 April 2013 04:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  100
Joined  2011-07-25

Why do local elected officials applaud spending billions for researhing animal health, yet suggest we cannot afford to support our own social service programs?

why the canard?  the ‘13 budget has $350k for social services.  no one i’m aware of has seriously suggested taking the budget to zero, although the fabrication was an effective ploy used for getting liberals elected to the city commission this go around.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 April 2013 01:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  141
Joined  2012-10-21

Wait, so you’re saying the “paradigm shift to private funding” and “everything’s on the table” weren’t serious comments?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 April 2013 11:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  479
Joined  2012-10-10

Here are the files on the Paradigm shift idea, water bill donations etc.  Those were serious comments.  But the point is the shift idea was not all the way to zero.  It was from 10 agencies to 5 or 6.  And yes everything is always on the table.  Last year the Social Services budget was cut 5%, along with everything else.  It was not a case of social services only being cut or targeted.  The goal was zero mil levy increase, it failed on a 3-2 vote.  That will be the goal again this year.  If it can be achieved without cutting certain things then fine.  But with the water bill donation program, social services should never be lacking in funds, but that assumes that the community truly cares (but it appears to be the lips and feet thing - much talk little action). 
http://ourmanhattan.org/manhattancitycommission/socialservicesandtaxes.html

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 April 2013 07:36 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  141
Joined  2012-10-21

Mercury article Nov. 8, 2011:
“He [Butler] said Tuesday he still feels that social service agencies should be privately funded, and Butler said he wants to see a ‘paradigm shift.’  . . . . Matta said it is actually individuals’ responsibility to do so [fund social services].  He said forcing people to pay taxes, which the city puts into social services, isn’t charity.  ‘Government is to protect life, liberty and property, but it’s not to give life, liberty and property,’ Matta said.”

Mercury article May 13, 2012:
“‘Let’s get all the good-hearted people of Manhattan to understand we need social agencies, they need to be funded, they need to be funded through private mechanisms and please donate,’ he [Butler] said.”

I thought the idea was to continually reduce tax dollar funding over a period of a few years with the goal of reaching zero tax dollar funding, and when that idea seemed to be unpopular with the community and there wasn’t going to be enough votes for it on the commission, then the idea shifted to reducing funding by a percentage and also reducing the number of agencies to be funded, i.e. a fallback position was developed.

It’s silly to assume the only mechanism for citizens to contribute to social service agencies is through the water bill program.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 April 2013 08:05 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  100
Joined  2011-07-25

“it failed on a 3-2 vote.”  lol.  get used to it, mayor pro tem butler.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 April 2013 08:13 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  796
Joined  2012-10-10

Manhattan has some extremely “interesting” discussions on the horizon.  The Riley County pendelum swung hard right.  We now have a local businessman appealing to that Commission that his taxes are too high.  The irony is that this particular businessman has contributed to over-taxing the citizens through high gas prices, but that gets forgotten in the discussion.  The County will probably begin chopping services.  OTOH, the City has seemed to swing back to the side of spend, spend, spend.  With Jankovich as the swing vote, I don’t see him resisiting the Chamber’s puppet strings.  If I were guessing, I’d say we will see the City move forward with the Library expansion, commit millions to construction of new Parks & Rec facilities, make long-term commitments to ATA, and jump into the middle of funding the “Fieldhouse” project.  We will see City property taxes take double digit increases over the next 5 to 6 years. 

There is talk of looking hard at some consolidation.  I firmly believe there is entirely too much “family” loyalty in both houses of local government to consolidate anything.  A cursory look will be accomplished, but if it comes to letting long term staff go at either branch of government, it won’t happen.  County staff and City staff carry big sticks with the elected bodies. 

There will be limited discussion from Matta and Butler re funding social services during the budget cycle.  The other three will, probably, increase that area of spending and they have the three votes required to do it.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 April 2013 08:20 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  100
Joined  2011-07-25

wrote as much in my ‘free press’ editorial last week, larry.  although there may be a glimmer of hope on consolidation.  the chamber guys and gals understand, and they are by far the most powerful interest group in town, even beyond government employees.  and i personally know many respected officials both inside and out of government who support the concept of studying unification.  glasscock wrote a niece piece about it last week.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 April 2013 10:37 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  94
Joined  2011-07-25

With the City looking for a new director for Parks & Rec, now would be the time to discuss consolidating the city and county parks and rec departments.  Consolidation is the only discussion item on today’s joint city/county meeting.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 April 2013 10:50 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  100
Joined  2011-07-25

you should go, debbie, and make the case.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 April 2013 01:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  479
Joined  2012-10-10

Kathy;  It is also silly to assume that the only way to support social service agencies is through tax dollars.  The information I provided indicates a combination of government and private support and targets selected agencies for support.  It does not assume that the water bill program is the solution, it is just a component.  The idea is to balance the budget, not to keep figuring out ways to raise taxes.  If the goal is tax support of all agencies then we need to add a couple, like the Mercy Free Clinic, the Flint Hills Breadbasket, the Fisher house and the wounded warrior project,

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 April 2013 01:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  100
Joined  2011-07-25

wynn, kindly report back on how the consolidation discussion goes this afternoon with the county.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 April 2013 05:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  94
Joined  2011-07-25

Wynn, all the agencies you mention can apply for city funding through SSAB.  There’s nothing that prevents any non-profit social service agency from applying.  In fact, the Breadbasket was a past recipient of city funding so they were in the mix at one point.  I also heard that the Breadbasket may have applied for funding this cycle.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 April 2013 02:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  479
Joined  2012-10-10

I realize that every agency under the sun can request funds.  That is the point.  We cannot afford to fund them all.  The second point is why do some agencies not require tax support?  If they can figure out how to fund raise without going to the tax payer well – then maybe the other agencies need to do some benchmarking and improve their process.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 April 2013 06:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  94
Joined  2011-07-25

There are a variety of factors at play in terms of whether an agency wants or needs public tax dollar support and individual agencies have varying capacities to raise funds.  Those are things that SSAB evaluates when it considers applications and makes their recommendations.  Their evaluations are very thorough and their performance expectations are high - higher, I would argue, than what is expected of companies that receive economic development incentives.

Profile
 
 
   
 1 2 3 >  Last ›
1 of 4
 

Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | The Manhattan Mercury, 318 North 5th Street, Manhattan, Kansas, 66502

Reproduction of any kind is prohibited without written consent.