Letters to the editor on expanding sexual-predator program, expanding Medicaid, Obamacare facts, River Vista deal
09/27/2013 12:00 AM
09/26/2013 5:39 PM
Stop babying sexual predators
Regarding “Programs for sex offenders scrutinized” (Sept. 17 Eagle): I worked for the sexual predator treatment program from 1995 until 2004, when I retired. These predators are incapable of being corrected or reformed. So why are we spending the money to rehabilitate them? The treatment program has not worked and is currently not working.
These predators are experts at manipulation. I can tell stories about these guys that would curl your ears – terrible things they have done to children, unspeakable things. They laugh at the system every day – a system they have manipulated to fit their needs.
These guys belong in prison, just like serial killers. Quit babying them and treat them the way they should be treated. Prison is even too good for these guys.
Kansas should save itself millions of dollars by eliminating the sexual predator treatment program.
DONNA J. VANHORN
Fails sense test
Fact No. 1: Kansans pay federal income tax.
Fact No. 2: Federal income-tax revenue covers the cost of Medicaid for residents in all states.
Fact No. 3: Kansans are paying for expanded Medicaid coverage in about 30 other states, but not for tens of thousands of our own fellow citizens in need.
Fact No. 4: The failure to expand Medicaid coverage inhibits the opportunity to provide increased employment and improve the economic status of health care providers.
This deliberate inaction on the part of the state government does not meet the “sense test” – political, economic or common.
Check the facts
I recently received a robocall regarding the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). I suggest that if you receive one of these calls, you check the facts carefully before taking what they say as fact.
A simple question deserving a simple answer: If the city of Wichita sells west bank property assessed at $600,000 to the developers of the River Vista apartment project for the reduced price of $100,000 (Aug. 7 Eagle), does the property valuation automatically fall to the $100,000 sale price? If not, can the purchasers then secure financing based on the $600,000 figure? It seems like not only a sweetheart deal for the purchasers, but a potential sub-rosa taxpayer-financing bonus.