A page one Joplin Globe story Sunday dealt with Ignite Church in Joplin's decision to have a giveaway of AR-15 rifles in an effort to bring people to the church. This morning on KZRG, the church's pastor Heath Mooneyham explained the giveaway and answered its critics.
Tuesday, June 24, 2014
Nixon: Study shows legislature inaction on Medicaid costing money, jobs
(From Gov. Jay Nixon)
Gov. Jay Nixon today issued a statement regarding a report from the Missouri Economic Research and Information Center (MERIC) showing health care job growth in Missouri is falling behind its peer states that have moved forward on Medicaid. According to MERIC, health care job growth in Missouri has slowed to half what it was in 2011 and 2012. In addition, since January the average health care job growth rate in peer states that expanded Medicaid was more than double that of Missouri’s.
“As health care job losses continue to impact communities across the state, today’s report provides more stark and troubling evidence that Missouri’s economy is already suffering the consequences of the legislature’s irresponsible inaction on Medicaid,” Gov. Nixon said. “Health care should be the fastest growing sector of our economy, but because of the legislature’s refusal to bring Missourians’ tax dollars home, this important industry is losing steam.”
Tim Jones on Nixon vetoes: The governor is back to his old tricks
Missouri House Speaker Tim Jones issued the following statement in response to the governor’s decision to veto and withhold nearly $800 million in state funding.
“The governor is back to his same tricks, once again, as he engages in his annual political game of holding our system of public education hostage. This is a governor who tells the public he wants to invest in our young people, but then is all too willing to make school funding his first target and show that public education is his lowest priority when he does not get his way. In this case he is withholding public education funding as leverage to stifle the legislature’s efforts to create jobs, reduce taxes and rein in his administration’s constant attempts to over-tax Missourians and Missouri businesses. The people of this state should not stand for a governor who provides no leadership on issues that would grow our economy while also serving as a roadblock to our efforts to increase funding to education.”
Nixon vetoes $144.6 million in spending, restricts additional $641.6 million
(From Gov. Jay Nixon)
To put the Fiscal Year 2015 budget back into balance and maintain Missouri’s fiscal stability, Gov. Jay Nixon today vetoed $144.6 million general revenue spending and restricted $641.6 million in general revenue expenditures. Missouri’s Constitution authorizes Governors to control and reduce spending to ensure it does not exceed available revenue.
“As Governor, it’s my responsibility under the Missouri Constitution to keep the budget in balance by ensuring the spending authorized by the General Assembly does not exceed available revenue,” Gov. Nixon said. “These actions are not easy, but they are absolutely essential to putting the budget back in balance and keeping the state on a fiscally responsible path.”
The Governor cited several reasons for why the budget sent to him by the General Assembly was more than $786 million out of balance:
- The General Assembly did not account for the revenue reductions resulting from Senate Bills 693, 584, 612, 860, 727, 662 and 829, and House Bills 1865, 1296 and 1455, which contain more than a dozen special breaks for a variety of industries. If these bills were to become law, they are projected to reduce state revenue by up to $425 million annually and local revenue by up to $351 million annually, starting in the fiscal year that begins on July 1.
- The General Assembly’s budget depended on tobacco settlement payments that will not be available and tax amnesty legislation that they failed to pass. Taken together, this creates a $101.8 million budget shortfall.
- The economic uncertainty faced by all states is exacerbated in Missouri by the General Assembly’s inaction on Medicaid. On Monday, the Missouri Economic Research and Information Center reported that the average health care job growth rate in states that expanded Medicaid was more than double that of Missouri’s.
- The General Assembly added funding for new programs and government buildings in the budget it passed. In total, the General Assembly added funding above the Governor’s budget recommendations for more than 100 spending items.
“While eroding our tax base with new loopholes for special interests, the legislature simultaneously littered the budget with earmarks and new government programs, demonstrating misplaced priorities and a stunning lack of fiscal restraint,” Gov. Nixon said. “It’s one of the most basic principles of responsible fiscal management: you can’t spend more than you take in. Deficit spending might be the norm out in Washington, D.C., but it is not how we operate here in Missouri.”
Gov. Nixon’s full veto messages can be found here.
Nixon vetoes school transfer bill, would open door to vouchers
(From Gov. Jay Nixon)
Gov. Jay Nixon today vetoed Senate Bill 493, which would have diverted public, taxpayer dollars to private schools and exacerbated the hardships faced by students in struggling districts and their families. The Governor called on school districts in the region to support the state’s plan to improve the financial stability and academic performance of troubled schools.
“Senate Bill 493 would make a difficult situation even worse by diverting public funds to private schools and imposing new financial hardships on students and families,” Gov. Nixon said. “Not only does Senate Bill 493 fail to solve the school transfer problems it was intended to address, it would create new problems and exacerbate the hardships faced by children who attend unaccredited schools. Senate Bill 493 would undermine our schools, shortchange students, and impose new financial hardships on families. It cannot become law.”
The Governor’s veto was supported by civil rights advocates and groups representing teachers, faith leaders and schools, including the Missouri State NAACP Conference of Branches, AFT St. Louis, Lutheran Family and Children’s Services of Missouri and the Cooperating School Districts of Great Kansas City.
Gov. Nixon was joined today by state Rep. Tommie Pierson (D-St. Louis), chairman of the Missouri Legislative Black Caucus.
“Citizens rightfully expect that the taxes they pay to support public education will be spent on public education,” Rep. Pierson said. “This bill would create more problems than it attempts to solve, and the Governor is right to veto it. Now, we must commit our shared efforts to ensuring a common sense path forward for our students and community.”
In his veto message, the Governor cited three reasons for his action on Senate Bill 493:
· Senate Bill 493’s use of public funds to pay for private school tuition represents a “clear violation” of Article III, Section 38(a) of the Missouri Constitution and allows taxpayer dollars to be expended without appropriate accountability.
· Senate Bill 493 would eliminate the current requirement that unaccredited districts pay for the transportation costs of transfers. The Governor said such a policy “would be grossly unfair to the hundreds of families whose children transferred to accredited districts during the current year with the understanding that their future transportation costs would be paid by the unaccredited, sending district.”
· Senate Bill 493 would allow receiving districts to discount the tuition paid for transfers in exchange for not having to consider those students’ performance data for accountability purposes for up to five years.
“This bill would have taken our schools backward – but that does not mean we can stand still,” Gov. Nixon said. “That’s why, given the legislature’s inability to address this issue in a responsible way, the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education and the State Board of Education have stepped in – and with the help of teachers, parents, administrators and community leaders – charted a reasonable and workable path forward.”
The Governor also expressed his disappointment in the recent decision by the Francis Howell School District to deny students it had previously enrolled from the Normandy School District.
“To overcome the complex problems affecting struggling school districts, we all need to be part of the solution. I believe it was wrong for the Francis Howell district to turn its back on the 350 students they accepted last year,” Gov. Nixon said. “We may be comprised of many communities, but we are one state whose promise rests within in the success of every student. To turn our back on a single child is to turn our back on our own future.”
Cynthia Davis: Families should find their own solutions to starvation
This month marks five years since I was propelled to national fame for promoting the concept that parents should feed their children. Looking back, I wouldn't have understood the vitriolic nature of those pushing socialism on our country without having gone through this experience. Thousands of small-minded individuals flooded the phone lines, e-mail boxes, voice mail boxes trying to harass and belittle anyone who would criticize their program. Yet, truth is still the mightiest sword of all and the experience proved to be educational. Instead of backing down, I became more convinced than ever that there is something very ungodly about what they are doing to destroy families.
We all understand that children need to have food and water among other things. Parents perform these functions and in most cases this plan works reasonably well. Many baby pictures prove that parents enjoy feeding their children just as much as children enjoy being fed. It becomes a time of bonding, building trust and a time to talk and transmit values.
Most people like children. Social engineers have found ways to raise money or taxes based upon the population supporting whatever is politically popular---especially the "children" trump card. Because Americans are more compassionate and generous than any other nation, we tend to support anything if it is "for the children".
It is good when people donate, but we should find it troubling when children are used to leverage money out of innocent donors for the purpose of fabricating social programs that displace parents.
To understand the issue properly, we need to consider a few points:
1.) All children have parents or guardians who are responsible for taking care of them. If the parents are inept, our current system grants the power to the state to remove those children from their homes and put them in foster care. If the parents are really bad, the state has the power to terminate parental rights. Therefore, all children are being fed. If they truly are not being fed, they will be removed and fed.
2.) Obesity is a far greater problem in our country than starvation. Far more people die each year from problems related to over eating rather than under eating. Of course, the idea of someone not having basic necessities elicits in most people a desire to meet those needs, but in America, we have already made it possible for those who are truly needy to buy anything they want to eat through our food stamp program. On top of this, there are food pantries for those who want even more than what they can buy with their food stamps. These programs are in place in addition to the natural safety net, which is the family.
3.) The social engineers have navigated around the fact that we are not dying of starvation by fabricating a new term called, "Food Insecurity". Anyone is considered insecure if he does not know from where his next meal comes. All children would fall into this category because all children are dependent on others to provide for them. Children are in a state of rapid growth which means that being frequently hungry is a normal phenomenon. It's not pathological or harmful to feel hungry on occasion. It's part of being a child. It's actually unhealthy to eat so much that we never feel hungry.
Obviously, the term, "food insecurity" is intended to be emotionally manipulative and pull on our heart strings. If a tragedy were to strike, anyone of us could lose our jobs, homes, cars or all our material possessions in a moment. The government cannot protect us from everything or anything bad that can possibly happen. Government is not the "be all" "end all" guarantor of all security. Those supportive of Socialism use this tactic to take over everything.
4.) When we support programs that wrench children out of families, we participate in the destruction of the family structure. Summer feeding programs teach children to rely on government for all they need. The children also learn that they cannot trust their parents to provide their most basic needs. While some people might not take such a condescending view, the underpinning and funding mechanisms are predicated upon this philosophy. It is remarkable how many people I have talked with who assume most parents are doing a horrible job of raising their children. Our societal arrogance is driving this program.
5.) If there is a problem with the family, the right approach is to help the parents. If the children are actually starving, the parents are also starving. Why should we try to help only the children and not the entire family? Sometimes parents who fail to take care of their children are on drugs. When government steps in, it makes itself a codependent and an enabler to the problem, which doesn't solve the problem and usually makes it worse. We make it harder for parents to take responsibility when the government keeps stepping in and trying to prove that children don't need moms and dads.
6.) Do you know who is administrating this program? It appears to be an organization riddled with waste and fraud. Most of us can agree that we should help poor people, but it's hard to see agencies take in donations on the basis or their promised mission, only to find out later that "we were had". The expansion of welfare has not purified the process, nor assured us that the money is going to its intended purpose.
7.) Many are afraid to talk about this for fear that they will be labeled as being "uncompassionate", yet being good stewards means doing some research. Concentrating problems into one spot may appear to be efficient, but we are creating a cesspool---an entire generation who will be incapable of knowing how to take care of themselves. Is that compassion?
8.) We must stop behaving like the parents are invisible or bear no responsibility. When government steps in to fill a void, it makes the void all the greater. We should either allow parents, extended families, neighbors, churches and communities to find their own solutions or be forced to acknowledge our government is setting up a public orphanage and Americans are now incapable of doing the most basic instinctual functions. If we don't want that, why are we moving in that direction? There is now a push to absorb children into the public school system at 3 years old, or even birth. Where will it end?
Monday, June 23, 2014
Reader: Bright Futures is not a scam
(I received these comments in response to my post about the $148,000 that Bright Futures USA spent over what it earned between January 1, 2012, and June 30, 2013.)
Bright Futures Joplin and Bright Futures USA are separate entirely. Joplin operates under the authority of the Joplin School district, but is funded by donors. USA is it's own 501C3. Neither of the Bright Futures are funded by Joplin Schools in any way. Even the BF Joplin staff (which is only 2 people) is paid by donors (not school funds).
It is not uncommon for a new non-profit that is building capacity to operate on a deficit budget as they are building a support base. It's much like a new business that takes out a loan to get started. Many times, a new non-profit has an initial investor(s) and then spends 2-3 years even getting to a place of self-sustainability.
Bright Futures Joplin and Bright Futures USA are separate entirely. Joplin operates under the authority of the Joplin School district, but is funded by donors. USA is it's own 501C3. Neither of the Bright Futures are funded by Joplin Schools in any way. Even the BF Joplin staff (which is only 2 people) is paid by donors (not school funds).
It is not uncommon for a new non-profit that is building capacity to operate on a deficit budget as they are building a support base. It's much like a new business that takes out a loan to get started. Many times, a new non-profit has an initial investor(s) and then spends 2-3 years even getting to a place of self-sustainability.
Joplin teachers, staff will get their salary schedule steps
Ignore the budget message, CFO Paul Barr told the Joplin R-8 Board of Education a few moments ago- it is no longer operational.
Instead of teachers and staff receiving only a $200 to $300 total raise for the entire year, amounting to only $1 to $3 per week after increased health insurance costs, the teachers will also receive their steps on the salary schedule.
The changes were made during a meeting this morning of the Board's Finance Committee. Barr indicated the money for the pay increases came by eliminating some expenses.
Superintendent C. J. Huff told the board that a committee is going to be put together, headed by COO Tina Smith, to make sure that district salaries will become more competitive.
Huff failed to mention that before he arrived, they were competitive.
Instead of teachers and staff receiving only a $200 to $300 total raise for the entire year, amounting to only $1 to $3 per week after increased health insurance costs, the teachers will also receive their steps on the salary schedule.
The changes were made during a meeting this morning of the Board's Finance Committee. Barr indicated the money for the pay increases came by eliminating some expenses.
Superintendent C. J. Huff told the board that a committee is going to be put together, headed by COO Tina Smith, to make sure that district salaries will become more competitive.
Huff failed to mention that before he arrived, they were competitive.
C. J. Huff to Board: Audit could take more than a year
It could be a long, long time before we find out what condition the Joplin R-8 School District is in.
Superintendent C. J. Huff told the Board of Education moments ago that the audit could take more than a year since the Joplin School District poses different challenges for the auditors with all of the donations that came into the district after the May 22, 2011.
Two members of the auditing team visited Joplin today for a preliminary discussion with Huff and board members Annie Sharp and Michael Landis. Auditors will likely begin their work next month and will be at the July Board of Education meeting to explain the process to the board and to the public.
The audit team will be here four days a week, 10 hours a day, Huff said.
While the board has an annual audit, CFO Paul Barr noted, that audit is more of a financial nature, while the state team will be doing an "operational" audit to see if the school district is being run correctly.
Superintendent C. J. Huff told the Board of Education moments ago that the audit could take more than a year since the Joplin School District poses different challenges for the auditors with all of the donations that came into the district after the May 22, 2011.
Two members of the auditing team visited Joplin today for a preliminary discussion with Huff and board members Annie Sharp and Michael Landis. Auditors will likely begin their work next month and will be at the July Board of Education meeting to explain the process to the board and to the public.
The audit team will be here four days a week, 10 hours a day, Huff said.
While the board has an annual audit, CFO Paul Barr noted, that audit is more of a financial nature, while the state team will be doing an "operational" audit to see if the school district is being run correctly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)