Letters to the editor on Brownback numbers, conceal-carry, in-home care, drug testing, global warming
02/20/2013 5:03 PM
02/20/2013 5:03 PM
Read between lines with Brownback
Thanks to The Eagle and reporter Dion Lefler for the great article about Gov. Sam Brownback and company cooking the books (“Governor’s numbers come under question,” Feb. 17 Eagle). I have been telling people to read between the lines when the governor explains his programs and to ask lots of questions and not to believe everything they are told. This article simply reinforced my suspicions.
I wonder what school the people in the governor’s administration attended, because we teach math – adding and subtracting – in our public schools.
JEAN KURTIS SCHODORF
Regarding “Lawmakers to reconsider concealed-carry on campus” (Feb. 18 Eagle): With all due respect to Capt. Don Stubbings of the Kansas State University police force, having been in law enforcement for 33 years I can tell you that police are, in the main, reactionary. His comments about concealed-carry holders being part of the problem when his officers respond to an active shooter were a little off base. His officers will be responding to the active shooter, but chances are that a concealed-carry holder will be with the active shooter.
Instead of dismissing concealed-carry as part of the problem, why doesn’t his department, as well as others, offer training for permit holders on what to do in active shooter situations and how to act when the police arrive on scene? Most of the people I know who are carry-concealed permit holders would welcome any additional training.
I have taken care of a man for 12 years who has developmental and physical disabilities. I have always been responsible and vigilant when it comes to the services he receives. So far I’ve been able to keep him out of long-term care facilities, and he has remained independent in the community, which is less expensive for the taxpayers.
But that is becoming harder now, because his in-home services have been reduced and he has larger co-pays. With the small disability check he receives each month, it’s becoming more difficult to cover his basic expenses. There may come a time when I’ll have to make the choice to put him in a nursing home because he no longer can afford to live independently. This will cost the state more than if he were able to maintain his independence and receive his services at home.
It seems the state is cutting off its nose to spite its face with the changes, and the taxpayers are holding the bag.
Drug tests costly
I oppose a bill that seeks to drug test applicants or recipients of cash assistance or unemployment benefits.
Senate Bill 149 stipulates that the secretary of the Kansas Department for Children and Families may request a drug screening of an applicant or recipient at any time if reasonable suspicion exists. If an individual receiving cash assistance missed a meeting, the secretary could deem the behavior as “suspicious” and require the individual to submit a drug test. Who pays for the drug test? The state of Kansas.
Similar legislation passed in Florida in 2011 and has proved very costly. In more than 4,000 drug screenings over a four-month period, only about 100 tested positive. The Florida law calls for individuals who test negative to be reimbursed an average of $30 per drug test, which totaled about $118,000 during the period. This is more than the state would have paid out in benefits.
The state of Florida also has incurred more than $90,000 in legal fees from ongoing challenges of the constitutionality of the law, which have resulted in a judge-ordered injunction that stopped further drug testing.
Given how many heads of households are women, I think the Kansas bill is just another piece of legislation that targets women. Additionally, it allows for profiling of individuals and could cost the state more money than it would save. I don’t believe it is what’s best for Kansas.
Sen. OLETHA FAUST-GOUDEAU
Global warming is the biggest hoax in the history of mankind. It is not science. It is liberal politics. It is an excuse for raising taxes.
The theory goes that man-made carbon-dioxide emissions are responsible for catastrophic warming of the planet. However, man-made CO2 accounts for only 3 percent of total CO2 in the atmosphere. The other 97 percent comes from natural sources over which we have no control.
There is no scientific proof that cataclysmic floods, hurricanes or other “weird” weather events occur as a result of human activity.
A consensus of scientists believe man-made CO2 emissions are causing these events. But consensus works for politics, not science. It is a method for ending debate on a subject. Removing skepticism and muting debate are the opposite of scientific inquiry. And remember that at one time, a consensus of scientists believed the sun revolved around the Earth.
If a theory is not testable or provable by scientific methods, it is not science. It is science fiction.
JOHN T. BRYAN
Letters to the editor about the Feb. 26 election must be received at The Eagle by 3 p.m. Thursday in order to be considered for publication.