Log in ·
Because retired people on fixed incomes -- and their family members -- are immune from mental health issues? We're all in this together.
Posted 18 December 2017, 9:18 a.m.
He's just drawing on his experience in Iowa in his former position, not advocating for providing services for out of area people.
But, no, we should not impose some strict residency requirement for use of the facility. What a cruel thought.
Posted 18 December 2017, 9:15 a.m.
Posted 12 December 2017, 9:28 p.m.
As far as I know, the tax bill doesn't propose taxing need- or merit-based scholarships. So, it would seem the simple solution is to de-couple graduate student employment from "tuition waivers", aka merit scholarship. Instead of universities offering an inseverable package of salary for work and tuition waiver -- both arguably income under the tax bill, graduate students would be offered a merit scholarship and an offer to work for pay, and acceptance of the former would not require acceptance of the latter. Of course, this would shift the bargaining power to graduate students, who might just decide to forgo the pittance they make in exchange for grading, TAing, RAing, etc. and instead focus on their own scholarship. Overall, the effect might be to increase the welfare of graduate students, who would enjoy the freedom to say "no thanks" to what some might view as coercive employment or be paid more and more equitably for it when they choose to say "yes."
Posted 27 November 2017, 7:14 a.m.
RIP, city's largest plastic cutting board. Put it on eBay and see if anyone anywhere will pay anything for it.
Posted 24 November 2017, 3:44 p.m.
Posted 23 November 2017, 8:07 a.m.
Oh, why is this so hard?
Billy Mills Middle School.
Posted 14 November 2017, 5:23 p.m.
Keegan's prediction of Zenger's impending demise is his most-divorced-from-reality prediction since he said that Jim Harbaugh -- coming off a 12-4 season and NFC title game appearance as head coach of the 49ers -- would be heading to KU as head coach.
What are you smoking, Tom?
Posted 16 October 2017, 3:50 p.m.
I am just starting to get informed on this issue, but this essay raises more questions for me than it does answers.
Foremost, it seems highly unlikely that this sales tax commitment will "largely solve the severe, systemic shortage of affordable housing in our community." Address, help, reduce the shortage -- perhaps yes, but "largely solve"? Not likely.
Note that if every Lawrence household paid the seemingly trivial $6.50 per year in extra tax on their groceries that would generate only $32.50 per year to give back to each of the "one in five households ... that pay 50% or more of their income for housing." Ratchet that annual grocery bill up to the median household income for Lawrence and assume it's all spent on taxable transactions and it still would add up to less than $125/year for the one-in-five housing-cost-stressed households. Target just the worst off 10% of households, and that still sums to $250/year. How could such an amount "largely solve" anything?
My mind is not made up on this issue. But this essay did not persuade me. Instead, it made me more sympathetic to the view expressed in the earlier LJW editorial which suggested that this tax is not yet connected to a clear strategy.
Posted 26 September 2017, 11:21 a.m.
Congratulations, Mr. Strecker!
Posted 17 May 2017, 4:25 a.m.
Full LJWorld.com site
© 2018 LJWorld.com