BUDGET FOR FY 2012 STATE OF KANSAS, What it means to you...
The 2011 legislative session adjourned about dawn last Friday morning after both houses passed the budget
compromise bill. The budget leaves an estimated ending balance of $72 million in the state’s checking
account - including the $21 to 22 million in one-time revenue that came into the state coffers in April. The
ending balance for the current fiscal year (ending June 30, 2011) is $76.2 million.
The compromise budget bill calls for approximately $20M cut to SRS in FY 2012. While it was our
understanding last Friday that these deep cuts would only impact SRS operations, further conversations with
SRS staff indicate that the language protecting SRS programs will only apply to SRS caseloads and Medicaid
home and Community based services. Thus, all other state general funds monies are at risk. SRS is to
convene a group of stakeholders sometime after Memorial Day to discuss
As you may have already heard, HB 2336 – The Employment First Initiative – passed on a ‘Motion to Concur’
in the House of Representatives at approx. 10:45 pm last Thursday evening.
Employment 1st enjoyed the bi-partisan support from so many legislators… Sen. John Vratil (Leawood)
helped Employment 1st get through the Senate. Of course Rep. Bob Bethell (Alden), who is a perennial
supporter of the disability community. Rep. Mike Slattery (Mission), Rep. Annie Teitze (Topeka), and Rep Dan
Kerschen (Garden Plain) really helped by both voicing their support and working to assist with a strategy and
navigate the complicated rules of the legislature. We also owe a great deal of thanks, as always, to the entire
Democratic Caucus of both Houses, for never wavering in their support of Employment 1st and because they
all voted for our bill at every step. Nick Wood of DRC did an excellent job of keeping this bill alive ensuring
movement throughout the process.
How can the ACLU help disabled Kansans... They can't!
In a letter written to the acting Director of the ACLU of Kansas/Western Missouri, I asked the question. The
answer I received from an attorney at ACLU was swift and downright rude. An excerpt from the letter...
"This case is a clear-cut violation of the Kansas Constitution and affects more than 18% of the poplulation. The
media has already asked me about getting the ACLU and involved in the case and now I have to report to them
that you're not interested.
I've done extensive research on this issue, but I've also done the same amount of research on the ACLU and
the cases you take, versus the ones you don't. What pains me is that I can be sued by the ACLU over just about
anything that infringes on someone else's rights, but I can't get your organization to defend the most basic
rights of disabled Kansans by the state that governs them.
If I can't get my state legislators to do something about it and I can't ask for your help, then who should I turn to?
Seriously, please offer me some guidance and show me where, or whom I should turn to. I've already talked to
the Kansas Human Rights Commission, the Center for Disability Rights, The Whole Person and various other
organizations. They all told me the same thing... “Go to the ACLU!”
I find it amazing that if I choose to sing Christmas caroles with friends, and if I do it in the wrong place at the
wrong time, I could be charged with infringing on the civil rights of someone. But I can't get this same group, the
defenders of civil rights, to assist me in a case that involves an estimated 18% of disabled Kansans.
Yes Bob - What is this world coming to!
Buddie's Buddies Adaptive Golf Clinics
For the rest of the month of April and well into May, I'll be researching funding for the 501 C-3 charitable group
Buddie's Buddies, with which I have been a member since its inception in 2004, even before I became
disabled. Buddie's offers FREE Adaptive Golf Program for mentally and/or physically challenged children,
adults and veterans at the Overland Park Golf Club. Every other Wednesday you will either find groups of
children and adults, or the following Wednesday our veterans group - Buddie's Veterans Adaptive Golf.
The reason I signed on with founder Buddie Butterfield is simple, I've always felt a need to give back to those
less fortunate. The really great thing about this organization is how it affects it's participants. Not only do the
golfers receive great instruction from our many volunteers, they get to spend a day outside... Which is very
important, especially if you're in a clinical setting. The friendships that have come from the participants and the
volunteers is irreplaceable.
I have the unique ability to affect the outcome of this organization and over the next few weeks I'll be sharing
the links I've found to Grant opportunities and organizations that work with Buddie and the charity. Money is
available - All I have to do is find it!
If you would like to help, or if you know someone that could benefit from the programs we offer... Please take a
few moments to visit our website. We're always in need of volunteers to help out with events throughout the year
and your support will allow us to serve the people that need it the most. www.buddiesbuddies.org
A Call to Action!
I received three reports from my good friend Barney Mayse at The Whole Person, an advocacy group for the
disabled located in Kansas City, Mo. I have printed out these reports below for your review... What you will find
is that HCBS (Home & Community Based Services) SAVE the state money, though many politicians believe
otherwise.
It's up to us as individuals and citizens of the state in which we preside and the country in which we love, to take
a hold of the situation and make it an issue to be dealt with... Not ignored. We as a people need to educate our
state legislators (in all 50 states) as to the cost savings of HCBS versus nursing home care.
Feel free to copy and paste the information below and let your Representative know that you have the answer
to "saving the state money" over the long run and that budget cuts are not needed for those of us who are
disabled and/or rely on HCBS.
The Historical Background of Home and Community Based Services
By the mid-1970’s, SRS was paying for approximately 14,000 persons in nursing homes. At that time there
was a serious move to look at alternatives which would be beneficial to the consumer and cost effective to
SRS. Beginning in the 1980’s, Health and Human Services (HHS) started giving waiver options to the states.
An option was Home and Community Based Services(HCBS). SRS began with a modest pilot program
affecting several hundred persons with physical disabilities and frail elderly persons. The result of that early
effort means, in our state where the elderly population continues to grow and there is an ever-increasing need
to meet the current needs of persons with disabilities, the nursing home population is going down. The nursing
home population of persons being paid for by the State continues in the range of 10,000 persons. At the close
of FY 2010 there were 6964 persons with physical disabilities and 5813 elderly persons were receiving HCBS
services. These are all persons who have met the medical and financial qualifications to be in a nursing home
and quite likely many, if not all, of these persons would be in nursing homes if it were not for Home and
Community Based Services. If these persons had no other alternative than a nursing home, the State would be
in clear violation of the provisions of the U.S. Supreme Court Olmstead Decision. One of the main provisions of
the Olmstead Decision is that persons needing services should be able to choose and secure that service in
the least restrictive environment. Home and Community Based Services provides that opportunity. The nursing
home setting does not.
To get an idea of the effectiveness of Home and Community Services consider the following information
derived from the end of FY 2010. 10,561 persons in nursing homes at an annual cost of $358.5M means an
annual per person cost of $33,973. For the purpose of illustration, assume the 6964 persons with disabilities
and the 5813 frail elderly persons all needed to move into a nursing home, the cost would be 6964 plus 5813
persons = 12,777 persons X $33,973. (the annual cost of a person in a nursing home) = $434.M.
If the reliance was on nursing home care the total cost would have been $792.5M. That is a difference of $218.8
M, due to the utilization of HCBS.
Additionally, persons with disabilities in KS are in the job market and employed at twice the national rate. All of
these positive results don’t happen by chance. There are a number of people across the State working to
insure that persons with disabilities and frail elderly persons are having a good and fruitful life. They are living
by their choice in a place pleasing to them and being afforded maximum independence. This kind of living
arrangement needs to be a part of the 21st century Medicaid equation.
Attacking Medicaid - Myths and Some Realities.
Information Bulletin # 320 (4/2011)
There have been a lot of articles and speeches attacking Medicaid: "GOP Governors Seek Leeway to Cut
Medicaid," "Fiscal Health Hinges on Containing Costs of Care."
Now comes Rep. Ron Paul plan to change Medicaid.....
From article to article to political speech, the drum beat is the same:"Block Grant" Medicaid so states can set
their own rules and achieve, hear the drum roll, "flexibility."
Block grants are allocate federal funds based on the total number of people or the number of low-income
people, or some other criteria. Under block grants, States would decide who will be eligible and which
"medically necessary" conditions to cover. States would receive a dollar grant to spend as they wish. If you
think politicians, lobbyists, and pressure groups are active now, just wait if there are block grants and no
federal standards or requirements.
There are a number of reasons for the current activity.
First and probably the most important reason, this is a backdoor attack against the 2010 Health Care Reform
Act. Last year, Congress, for the first time in our history, enacted that all low-income people - below 133% of
the poverty level - will be eligible for Medicaid in 2014. That's an addition 16 million low-income Americans.
In the past, Medicaid eligibility was federally based primarily on categories, so that two people with the same
income but different sources of income were treated differently. The Health Care Reform Act ensures that two
people in the same or different states with the same income and same impairments will not be treated
differently.
When you hear Medicaid Block Grants, think "eligibility." As David Wessel wrote in the Wall Street Journal,
"The argument is that with flexibility,' states can do more with less. But the biggest flexibility' that states now
lack - given that many already rely heavily on managed care and low provider fees - is the authority to reduce
the rolls. That leaves them to do less with less."
What's fascinating about this conservative attack is that they do not articulate who currently on Medicaid does
not need or does not "deserve" to receive health care. What's at stake is the answer to the question "If a low-
income American needs health care, should they receive it?"
Second, States presently have a lot of authority to control their Medicaid costs. Medicaid costs can be
contained under the present system, but it does take some political backbone. Despite the drum roll of "out of
control" Medicaid costs, these costs can be and have been in some instances controlled.
For example, between 2000 and 2005, Medicaid reimbursements for drugs increased by 95.9%. To counter
that, States took control and by 2009, reduced Medicaid's drugs expenditures by 44%.
Another example of States controlling Medicaid costs should focus on why 17.4% of all Medicaid nationally in
FY 2009 went to keep people with disabilities institutionalized. States control this. Yes, States throughout the
country spent more on nursing homes and institutions for persons with development disabilities than they spent
on in-patient hospitalization and drugs! The federal government did not make States do this. Medicaid did not
make the States do this! Moreover, many of these institutions provide at most custodial care; they're the 21st
century's poorhouses and homeless shelters paid for by Medicaid.
Again, as David Wessel wrote in another column, regarding "often overlooked facts.... Medicaid pays 43% of
America's long-term care bill, including bills for about 60% of nursing-home residents." He correctly points out
that right now, without any changes in Medicaid, States could "keep the elderly and disabled out of nursing
homes by helping them pay for home or community-based care... It's cheaper and often preferred by the
individual. That push has been under way for years. It's now at risk as states scramble to save money, and eye
cuts to home and community-based care."
Cheaper, preferred? Why is it not happening? States control this and have decided to buckle under to the
nursing home lobby! Ask your State's nursing home lobby how much they contributed to your Governor's
campaign. It's not the present Medicaid statute.
Third, presently States pay with State general revenue funds at most 50% of Medicaid costs, and the federal
government matches States expenditures. About 36 states receive more than 50% from the federal
government depending on the state's per capita income. The poorer the State the more federal match. Don't
be fooled that the push for "Block Grants" is to help States financial situation. The feds pay an enormous share
of Medicaid.
Right now, the Medicaid standard is that only "medically necessary" services and treatment are required. Let
the Block Grant proponents identify and list which specific "medically necessary" services should not be paid
for. It's critical that advocates for disabled older and younger Americans get into the fray. Our lives and the
lives of brothers, sisters, neighbors, friends and all low-income people depend on it.
Steve Gold, The Disability Odyssey
In a recession there is less of everything to go around.
Yet, the prices of food, utilities, gasoline and other commodities continue upwards. The prices for medical
care continue upwards, the prices for prescription drugs continue upwards. In this era everyone wants more:
more tax cuts, more recissions to existing laws so that businesses run with less regulation (which means more
profits but not necessarily benefits to the consumers or employees). There is no employee working who wants
to work for less, they want more.
When everyone wants more from a shrinking pie how is it possible to meet all of those needs? If everyone
wants more who will be willing to take less? Would it be those who do not have lobbyists roaming the halls of
the Capitol every day of the legislative session? Would it be those whose stories do not get heard? Would it
be the educational system that is a seemingly endless source of need?
How is it that those who have little will be expected to do with less? In order to receive Medicaid in the state of
Kansas your income cannot exceed $767 per month. You cannot have more that $2,000 in liquid assets. You
are expected to live below the Federal governments established poverty levels while the costs of your food,
utilities, co-pays for drugs continue to rise. You are expected to find affordable housing, transportation and if
you desire to work, employment while struggling to meet your daily necessities. If you are on Medicaid you
look for doctors from a list that shrinks as doctors are unwilling to accept Medicaid payments. If you are
disabled you balance your daily needs with all of the above.
The sacrosanct approach to budgeting that says “thou shalt not raise taxes” but “thou shalt balance the
budget." Without the revenue to support existing programs there seems to be only two schools of thought: do
not under any circumstances raise taxes, they are already too high or raise taxes so we can continue to spend
beyond our means. Does either approach actually work without creating hardships on the constituents that the
legislature is tasked with serving? Is smaller government the solution?
Arriving at the current point in time where cutting everything makes sense, really makes no sense. If the
legislature is mandated to arrive at a balanced budget each year, how can this situation even exist? Shrinking
revenues in previous years were not addressed, surpluses were spent without proper accountability. If the
current thinking is “less is more” we have arrived at a moment in time when things are upside down. If the
current thinking to controlling Medicaid is to do more with less, please explain that theory in detail. Controlling
health care costs can only come from a proactive approach to medicine rather than the current reactive model.
Prevention has merits that have never been fully explored.
There is an argument that fewer taxes on business will fuel economic growth. I wonder if that is like the trickle
down theory postulated in the 80’s which has never trickled down? Businesses complain that taxes are too
high, they are too highly regulated and yet, businesses seem to survive. Job creation is on the list of priorities
but there is still a dearth of good paying jobs. Current revenues will not support the government so the
government cuts services. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to determine the services that government
must deliver in order to provide a framework in which every individual has the opportunity to live a life with the
liberty to make their own decisions and the real opportunity to pursue happiness in this life. That is a debate
worthy of having.
To cut budgets, staff and services without discussing what is essential is irrational. Has that discussion ever
truly occurred?
The 2011 legislative session adjourned about dawn last Friday morning after both houses passed the budget
compromise bill. The budget leaves an estimated ending balance of $72 million in the state’s checking
account - including the $21 to 22 million in one-time revenue that came into the state coffers in April. The
ending balance for the current fiscal year (ending June 30, 2011) is $76.2 million.
The compromise budget bill calls for approximately $20M cut to SRS in FY 2012. While it was our
understanding last Friday that these deep cuts would only impact SRS operations, further conversations with
SRS staff indicate that the language protecting SRS programs will only apply to SRS caseloads and Medicaid
home and Community based services. Thus, all other state general funds monies are at risk. SRS is to
convene a group of stakeholders sometime after Memorial Day to discuss
As you may have already heard, HB 2336 – The Employment First Initiative – passed on a ‘Motion to Concur’
in the House of Representatives at approx. 10:45 pm last Thursday evening.
Employment 1st enjoyed the bi-partisan support from so many legislators… Sen. John Vratil (Leawood)
helped Employment 1st get through the Senate. Of course Rep. Bob Bethell (Alden), who is a perennial
supporter of the disability community. Rep. Mike Slattery (Mission), Rep. Annie Teitze (Topeka), and Rep Dan
Kerschen (Garden Plain) really helped by both voicing their support and working to assist with a strategy and
navigate the complicated rules of the legislature. We also owe a great deal of thanks, as always, to the entire
Democratic Caucus of both Houses, for never wavering in their support of Employment 1st and because they
all voted for our bill at every step. Nick Wood of DRC did an excellent job of keeping this bill alive ensuring
movement throughout the process.
How can the ACLU help disabled Kansans... They can't!
In a letter written to the acting Director of the ACLU of Kansas/Western Missouri, I asked the question. The
answer I received from an attorney at ACLU was swift and downright rude. An excerpt from the letter...
"This case is a clear-cut violation of the Kansas Constitution and affects more than 18% of the poplulation. The
media has already asked me about getting the ACLU and involved in the case and now I have to report to them
that you're not interested.
I've done extensive research on this issue, but I've also done the same amount of research on the ACLU and
the cases you take, versus the ones you don't. What pains me is that I can be sued by the ACLU over just about
anything that infringes on someone else's rights, but I can't get your organization to defend the most basic
rights of disabled Kansans by the state that governs them.
If I can't get my state legislators to do something about it and I can't ask for your help, then who should I turn to?
Seriously, please offer me some guidance and show me where, or whom I should turn to. I've already talked to
the Kansas Human Rights Commission, the Center for Disability Rights, The Whole Person and various other
organizations. They all told me the same thing... “Go to the ACLU!”
I find it amazing that if I choose to sing Christmas caroles with friends, and if I do it in the wrong place at the
wrong time, I could be charged with infringing on the civil rights of someone. But I can't get this same group, the
defenders of civil rights, to assist me in a case that involves an estimated 18% of disabled Kansans.
Yes Bob - What is this world coming to!
Buddie's Buddies Adaptive Golf Clinics
For the rest of the month of April and well into May, I'll be researching funding for the 501 C-3 charitable group
Buddie's Buddies, with which I have been a member since its inception in 2004, even before I became
disabled. Buddie's offers FREE Adaptive Golf Program for mentally and/or physically challenged children,
adults and veterans at the Overland Park Golf Club. Every other Wednesday you will either find groups of
children and adults, or the following Wednesday our veterans group - Buddie's Veterans Adaptive Golf.
The reason I signed on with founder Buddie Butterfield is simple, I've always felt a need to give back to those
less fortunate. The really great thing about this organization is how it affects it's participants. Not only do the
golfers receive great instruction from our many volunteers, they get to spend a day outside... Which is very
important, especially if you're in a clinical setting. The friendships that have come from the participants and the
volunteers is irreplaceable.
I have the unique ability to affect the outcome of this organization and over the next few weeks I'll be sharing
the links I've found to Grant opportunities and organizations that work with Buddie and the charity. Money is
available - All I have to do is find it!
If you would like to help, or if you know someone that could benefit from the programs we offer... Please take a
few moments to visit our website. We're always in need of volunteers to help out with events throughout the year
and your support will allow us to serve the people that need it the most. www.buddiesbuddies.org
A Call to Action!
I received three reports from my good friend Barney Mayse at The Whole Person, an advocacy group for the
disabled located in Kansas City, Mo. I have printed out these reports below for your review... What you will find
is that HCBS (Home & Community Based Services) SAVE the state money, though many politicians believe
otherwise.
It's up to us as individuals and citizens of the state in which we preside and the country in which we love, to take
a hold of the situation and make it an issue to be dealt with... Not ignored. We as a people need to educate our
state legislators (in all 50 states) as to the cost savings of HCBS versus nursing home care.
Feel free to copy and paste the information below and let your Representative know that you have the answer
to "saving the state money" over the long run and that budget cuts are not needed for those of us who are
disabled and/or rely on HCBS.
The Historical Background of Home and Community Based Services
By the mid-1970’s, SRS was paying for approximately 14,000 persons in nursing homes. At that time there
was a serious move to look at alternatives which would be beneficial to the consumer and cost effective to
SRS. Beginning in the 1980’s, Health and Human Services (HHS) started giving waiver options to the states.
An option was Home and Community Based Services(HCBS). SRS began with a modest pilot program
affecting several hundred persons with physical disabilities and frail elderly persons. The result of that early
effort means, in our state where the elderly population continues to grow and there is an ever-increasing need
to meet the current needs of persons with disabilities, the nursing home population is going down. The nursing
home population of persons being paid for by the State continues in the range of 10,000 persons. At the close
of FY 2010 there were 6964 persons with physical disabilities and 5813 elderly persons were receiving HCBS
services. These are all persons who have met the medical and financial qualifications to be in a nursing home
and quite likely many, if not all, of these persons would be in nursing homes if it were not for Home and
Community Based Services. If these persons had no other alternative than a nursing home, the State would be
in clear violation of the provisions of the U.S. Supreme Court Olmstead Decision. One of the main provisions of
the Olmstead Decision is that persons needing services should be able to choose and secure that service in
the least restrictive environment. Home and Community Based Services provides that opportunity. The nursing
home setting does not.
To get an idea of the effectiveness of Home and Community Services consider the following information
derived from the end of FY 2010. 10,561 persons in nursing homes at an annual cost of $358.5M means an
annual per person cost of $33,973. For the purpose of illustration, assume the 6964 persons with disabilities
and the 5813 frail elderly persons all needed to move into a nursing home, the cost would be 6964 plus 5813
persons = 12,777 persons X $33,973. (the annual cost of a person in a nursing home) = $434.M.
If the reliance was on nursing home care the total cost would have been $792.5M. That is a difference of $218.8
M, due to the utilization of HCBS.
Additionally, persons with disabilities in KS are in the job market and employed at twice the national rate. All of
these positive results don’t happen by chance. There are a number of people across the State working to
insure that persons with disabilities and frail elderly persons are having a good and fruitful life. They are living
by their choice in a place pleasing to them and being afforded maximum independence. This kind of living
arrangement needs to be a part of the 21st century Medicaid equation.
Attacking Medicaid - Myths and Some Realities.
Information Bulletin # 320 (4/2011)
There have been a lot of articles and speeches attacking Medicaid: "GOP Governors Seek Leeway to Cut
Medicaid," "Fiscal Health Hinges on Containing Costs of Care."
Now comes Rep. Ron Paul plan to change Medicaid.....
From article to article to political speech, the drum beat is the same:"Block Grant" Medicaid so states can set
their own rules and achieve, hear the drum roll, "flexibility."
Block grants are allocate federal funds based on the total number of people or the number of low-income
people, or some other criteria. Under block grants, States would decide who will be eligible and which
"medically necessary" conditions to cover. States would receive a dollar grant to spend as they wish. If you
think politicians, lobbyists, and pressure groups are active now, just wait if there are block grants and no
federal standards or requirements.
There are a number of reasons for the current activity.
First and probably the most important reason, this is a backdoor attack against the 2010 Health Care Reform
Act. Last year, Congress, for the first time in our history, enacted that all low-income people - below 133% of
the poverty level - will be eligible for Medicaid in 2014. That's an addition 16 million low-income Americans.
In the past, Medicaid eligibility was federally based primarily on categories, so that two people with the same
income but different sources of income were treated differently. The Health Care Reform Act ensures that two
people in the same or different states with the same income and same impairments will not be treated
differently.
When you hear Medicaid Block Grants, think "eligibility." As David Wessel wrote in the Wall Street Journal,
"The argument is that with flexibility,' states can do more with less. But the biggest flexibility' that states now
lack - given that many already rely heavily on managed care and low provider fees - is the authority to reduce
the rolls. That leaves them to do less with less."
What's fascinating about this conservative attack is that they do not articulate who currently on Medicaid does
not need or does not "deserve" to receive health care. What's at stake is the answer to the question "If a low-
income American needs health care, should they receive it?"
Second, States presently have a lot of authority to control their Medicaid costs. Medicaid costs can be
contained under the present system, but it does take some political backbone. Despite the drum roll of "out of
control" Medicaid costs, these costs can be and have been in some instances controlled.
For example, between 2000 and 2005, Medicaid reimbursements for drugs increased by 95.9%. To counter
that, States took control and by 2009, reduced Medicaid's drugs expenditures by 44%.
Another example of States controlling Medicaid costs should focus on why 17.4% of all Medicaid nationally in
FY 2009 went to keep people with disabilities institutionalized. States control this. Yes, States throughout the
country spent more on nursing homes and institutions for persons with development disabilities than they spent
on in-patient hospitalization and drugs! The federal government did not make States do this. Medicaid did not
make the States do this! Moreover, many of these institutions provide at most custodial care; they're the 21st
century's poorhouses and homeless shelters paid for by Medicaid.
Again, as David Wessel wrote in another column, regarding "often overlooked facts.... Medicaid pays 43% of
America's long-term care bill, including bills for about 60% of nursing-home residents." He correctly points out
that right now, without any changes in Medicaid, States could "keep the elderly and disabled out of nursing
homes by helping them pay for home or community-based care... It's cheaper and often preferred by the
individual. That push has been under way for years. It's now at risk as states scramble to save money, and eye
cuts to home and community-based care."
Cheaper, preferred? Why is it not happening? States control this and have decided to buckle under to the
nursing home lobby! Ask your State's nursing home lobby how much they contributed to your Governor's
campaign. It's not the present Medicaid statute.
Third, presently States pay with State general revenue funds at most 50% of Medicaid costs, and the federal
government matches States expenditures. About 36 states receive more than 50% from the federal
government depending on the state's per capita income. The poorer the State the more federal match. Don't
be fooled that the push for "Block Grants" is to help States financial situation. The feds pay an enormous share
of Medicaid.
Right now, the Medicaid standard is that only "medically necessary" services and treatment are required. Let
the Block Grant proponents identify and list which specific "medically necessary" services should not be paid
for. It's critical that advocates for disabled older and younger Americans get into the fray. Our lives and the
lives of brothers, sisters, neighbors, friends and all low-income people depend on it.
Steve Gold, The Disability Odyssey
In a recession there is less of everything to go around.
Yet, the prices of food, utilities, gasoline and other commodities continue upwards. The prices for medical
care continue upwards, the prices for prescription drugs continue upwards. In this era everyone wants more:
more tax cuts, more recissions to existing laws so that businesses run with less regulation (which means more
profits but not necessarily benefits to the consumers or employees). There is no employee working who wants
to work for less, they want more.
When everyone wants more from a shrinking pie how is it possible to meet all of those needs? If everyone
wants more who will be willing to take less? Would it be those who do not have lobbyists roaming the halls of
the Capitol every day of the legislative session? Would it be those whose stories do not get heard? Would it
be the educational system that is a seemingly endless source of need?
How is it that those who have little will be expected to do with less? In order to receive Medicaid in the state of
Kansas your income cannot exceed $767 per month. You cannot have more that $2,000 in liquid assets. You
are expected to live below the Federal governments established poverty levels while the costs of your food,
utilities, co-pays for drugs continue to rise. You are expected to find affordable housing, transportation and if
you desire to work, employment while struggling to meet your daily necessities. If you are on Medicaid you
look for doctors from a list that shrinks as doctors are unwilling to accept Medicaid payments. If you are
disabled you balance your daily needs with all of the above.
The sacrosanct approach to budgeting that says “thou shalt not raise taxes” but “thou shalt balance the
budget." Without the revenue to support existing programs there seems to be only two schools of thought: do
not under any circumstances raise taxes, they are already too high or raise taxes so we can continue to spend
beyond our means. Does either approach actually work without creating hardships on the constituents that the
legislature is tasked with serving? Is smaller government the solution?
Arriving at the current point in time where cutting everything makes sense, really makes no sense. If the
legislature is mandated to arrive at a balanced budget each year, how can this situation even exist? Shrinking
revenues in previous years were not addressed, surpluses were spent without proper accountability. If the
current thinking is “less is more” we have arrived at a moment in time when things are upside down. If the
current thinking to controlling Medicaid is to do more with less, please explain that theory in detail. Controlling
health care costs can only come from a proactive approach to medicine rather than the current reactive model.
Prevention has merits that have never been fully explored.
There is an argument that fewer taxes on business will fuel economic growth. I wonder if that is like the trickle
down theory postulated in the 80’s which has never trickled down? Businesses complain that taxes are too
high, they are too highly regulated and yet, businesses seem to survive. Job creation is on the list of priorities
but there is still a dearth of good paying jobs. Current revenues will not support the government so the
government cuts services. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to determine the services that government
must deliver in order to provide a framework in which every individual has the opportunity to live a life with the
liberty to make their own decisions and the real opportunity to pursue happiness in this life. That is a debate
worthy of having.
To cut budgets, staff and services without discussing what is essential is irrational. Has that discussion ever
truly occurred?
| BEST IF VIEWED IN IE8 |
