Latest news with #TimCarpenter
Yahoo
22-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Budgeting into the unknown
Oregon's economic forecast could set the tone not just for the remainder of the legislative session but for the campaign season to come, commentator Randy Stapilus writes. (Tim Carpenter/Kansas Reflector) The switch has flipped on the last stretch of this year's Oregon legislative session and the central dynamic for the last and busiest phase ahead has been set. So, possibly, has the campaign dynamic for next year's legislative elections. Part of it involves a raucous economic debate over the administration of Donald Trump. Most of the rest concerns how little predictability exists for conditions going forward. The kickoff was a standard trigger of the Oregon legislative schedule, the release of the May Economic and Revenue Forecast from the Office of Economic Analysis. The last such report during this year's session, it will form the basis for the legislature's decisions on how much to spend and how much income should be brought in — through existing or new taxes. Normally, it can provide a clear direction for inking in policies and budgeting plans evolving up to this point. The headline from this new report does say that less money is likely to be wrung out of existing state taxes than had been expected in previous estimates — a decrease not in revenue but in what was previously expected. But it also emphasized a deep well of unknowns. The report's summary said it 'comes at a time of exceptionally heightened uncertainty. Not only is it too soon to understand how the economy is responding to actions already taken — but, more broadly, the ultimate scope of critical policy decisions remains unknown. For example, even preliminary economic impacts from tariffs are unlikely to materialize in vital statistics such as employment or consumer prices for another month or two. Further, final details on tax reforms and budget reductions are only vaguely coming into view, and the eventual effective tariff rate will depend on the success of negotiations which have not yet occurred.' The report did not specifically say a recession is likely — it even included a number of reasons it may not happen — but figured chances of a downturn at 25%, a possibility higher than usual. The uncertainty is key. One forecaster said, 'I can't remember more tumultuous circumstances just going into producing this particular forecast.' Government budgeters typically respond to uncertainty by budgeting lower amounts, to protect against revenue shortfalls. Here is how the Hillsboro School District described the fallout: 'What this means is that the Legislature has less discretionary revenue with which to make new investments in the 2025-27 biennium. That, coupled with ongoing uncertainty about federal funding to states for a variety of initiatives and programs, will likely limit additional support being directed to K-12 education.' Coming weeks will be a budgeting session for gamblers: How confident are you of what conditions will apply at the end of this year and a year from now? Do you cut state spending, or raise taxes, when one or both may not be necessary? Those concerns may come against a background in which the state may be called on to help backfill long-expected federal help which is being withdrawn. The Republican take on the budget appears to position this year's budgeting cycle essentially like any other, with problems a function of the majority party's inability to budget well enough. Senator Bruce Starr, R-Dundee, said for example, 'This should be a wake-up call. With a half-billion-dollar shortfall, lawmakers must focus on core services and cut the waste.' Representative E. Werner Reschke, R-Malin, said in a constituent newsletter, 'Democrats need a doom and gloom message so that they can justify their plans for tax increases. If the headlines had been 'State to receive record revenues for upcoming biennium' do you think their new taxes message would be accepted by Oregonians? Of course not.' The problem with those approaches is the unusual level of uncertainty in the latest estimates, something sharply different from past cycles. But they are likely to emerge in next year's campaigns. Democrats argued the circumstances are unusual, pointing to the Trump Administration, and especially its tariffs and spending actions, as the prime mover of uncertainty. House Speaker Julie Fahey, for example, said, 'today's revenue forecast confirms what economists have been telling us: the Trump administration's reckless decisions are damaging our economy. … Oregon is particularly sensitive to the fallout from federal trade policies that have been changing on a whim since Trump's inauguration.' Look for the remaining month-plus of the legislative session to turn into a debate over the effect the Trump administration is having on Oregon. The contours of that discussion will likely shape politics in Oregon and beyond all the way to next November. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
16-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Kansas lawmakers agree to resolve family-leave retaliation lawsuit for $45,000
The State Finance Council in Kansas, comprised of the governor and House and Senate leadership, voted to approve a $45,000 payment to settle a lawsuit filed by a former employee of the Kansas Department for Children and Families who was fired and alleged retaliation by DCF when he sought to make use of the Family and Medical Leave Act. (Tim Carpenter/Kansas Reflector) TOPEKA — Gov. Laura Kelly and leaders of the Kansas Legislature approved the $45,000 settlement of a lawsuit filed by a former employee of the Kansas Department for Children and Families who was fired after requesting expansion of medical leave to care for a relative. Former DCF employee Shayne Watson filed suit in U.S. District Court alleging the state agency interfered with his rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act and was terminated in retaliation for insisting on altering his leave from intermittent to continuous. Watson had been granted intermittent leave by DCF to care for a relative with dementia from 2019 to 2022, but was fired within two weeks of requesting his FMLA status be changed to continuous. Court documents show DCF attorney Marc Altenbernt argued the agency didn't retaliate against Watson and had immunity from the lawsuit. The record also indicated DCF asserted Watson's work performance was lackluster and that he deviated from a telework agreement. In addition, documents show DCF claimed Watson was combative during a personnel meeting prior to the firing. Watson was terminated by the state agency in September 2022. He filed a federal lawsuit seeking in excess of $75,000. In January, U.S. District Court Judge Holly Teeter granted summary judgment to DCF on Watson's claim the agency interfered with his family-leave rights, but the judge allowed the retaliation claim to move forward. In February, a trial date was set on the retaliation portion of the complaint. In April, the case was closed following negotiations on a settlement between attorneys representing DCF and Watson. The State Finance Council, which includes the governor as well as Republican and Democratic leaders of the House and Senate, voted 7-0 to resolve the case with the $45,000 payment to Watson. Watson was hired by DCF in 2018 and worked as a career navigator assigned the help adults without dependent children obtain employment while receiving government benefits. Meanwhile, the State Finance Council voted to reject a proposed settlement in the case of Link v. State of Kansas. Neither details of the lawsuit nor the settlement amount recommended by the Kansas attorney general's office were revealed by council members during the public portion of this week's meeting. When council members emerged from executive session, the governor requested a motion to accept the settlement. None of the council members present said anything until Senate President Ty Masterson of Andover said the silence reflected opposition to the deal. 'I think you're finding nobody wants to make the motion,' Masterson said. 'Well,' Kelly said, 'we could make the motion and vote it down if that is what everybody is feeling.' Masterson made the motion to consider the settlement and voted for approval along with House Minority Leader Chris Croft, R-Overland Park. The governor and the remainder of Republicans and Democrats on the council present at the meeting voted against the deal.
Yahoo
29-04-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Kansas Medicaid advocates share dire forecast of potential congressional funding cuts
REACH Healthcare Foundation and United Methodist Health Ministry Fund, health-related philanthropies serving Kansans, said potential cuts in federal spending on Medicaid could slash health coverage of low-income Kansans and threaten financially struggling hospitals. (Tim Carpenter/Kansas Reflector) TOPEKA — Analysis of potential congressional cuts to Medicaid indicated Kansas' loss of nearly $350 million in the first year and more than $3 billion over 10 years could shrink coverage for vulnerable populations, escalate family medical debt and raise the risk of hospital closures. Reductions in federal financing of Medicaid could lead to downsizing by 5% to 15% the number of Medicaid enrollees in Kansas and trigger a decline of 22% in Medicaid funding to hospitals in the state. Kansas has two-dozen rural hospitals at risk of immediate closure. Shrinking federal funding to Medicaid could add to the burden of uncompensated patient care and threaten hospitals operating on narrow margins. The findings were in a report released Tuesday by REACH Healthcare Foundation and United Methodist Health Ministry Fund, both health-related philanthropies serving Kansans. The report incorporated analysis from Manatt Health, which provides strategic, policy and legal advisory services in the health care industry. Impetus for the projections was upcoming debate in Congress on a goal of cutting $880 billion in federal spending on Medicaid in the next decade. 'The data is clear and deeply concerning,' said David Jordan, president and CEO of United Methodist Health Ministry Fund. 'We will all pay the price – higher costs, increases in local taxes and less access to care – to offset these cuts. It's critical that lawmakers, health care providers, advocates and the people of Kansas recognize the consequences before it's too late.' United Methodist Health Ministry Fund is a statewide foundation that has worked since 1986 to improve the health of Kansans. Medicaid is a joint federal and state program offering health coverage to lower-income Kansas children, seniors, people with disabilities and pregnant women. Medicaid enrolls 366,000 Kansans, including 31% of the state's children. Medicaid supports four of seven nursing home residents in Kansas as well as one in four working-age adults in the state who have a disability, the report said. There is interest among congressional Republicans in adopting a national work requirement for recipients of Medicaid. The Kansas Medicaid program, known as KanCare, doesn't extend coverage to working-age adults regardless of income unless the recipient was a parent, caregiver or a person with a disability. 'Medicaid is the largest source of federal funds in Kansas and any cuts to the program will have severe economic and health impacts felt in every corner of the state,' said Brenda Sharpe, president and CEO of REACH Healthcare Foundation. REACH is a charitable organization striving to improve access to quality, affordable care for uninsured and medically underserved residents of Johnson, Wyandotte and Allen counties in Kansas and Jackson, Cass and Lafayette counties in Missouri. Manatt Health relied on computer modeling to produce one-year and 10-year projections for Medicaid based on the idea of reducing federal expenditures by $880 billion within a decade. The work by Manatt Health was released before Congress completed work on spending adjustments, but the assessment aligned with policy parameters, options and effective dates outlined by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
Yahoo
04-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Recent news discourages college students from taking intellectual risks. They didn't need the nudge.
College students already shy away from expressing controversial viewpoints, writes Eric Thomas. The new political climate makes it even less likely that they speak up. (Tim Carpenter/Kansas Reflector) Separated by six states and a time zone, students at two universities got opposite lessons about free speech last week. In Somerville, Massachusetts, immigration officials detained a Turkish graduate student at Tufts University. It's not certain why she was taken into custody, in full view of security cameras. However, in her university's student newspaper last year she co-signed an op-ed that condemned her university's investments because of links to Israel, among other critiques. When contacted by multiple publications, the federal government fueled the suspicion that the editorial led to her detainment by refusing comment. Her friends wondered what other reason could there be, especially knowing that a pro-Israel website had spilled her private information onto the internet — an obvious intimidation effort before she was arrested by masked, plainclothes officials in unmarked cars. The implicit message from the government: The First Amendment offers flimsy protection for international college students right now. On that same day — more than 1,400 miles away in my lecture hall at the University of Kansas — I asked my students to take a First Amendment risk. Actually, asked isn't a strong enough word. I needled and begged students to propose something risky. I coached them on how to recognize something truly risky. I celebrated the best risky ideas with applause and fist bumps. In that introductory journalism class, we were proposing newsworthy journalistic story ideas. After years of teaching this skill, I know that if today's students aren't prodded, they overwhelmingly suggest predictable and safe story ideas. They say, There is a new coffee shop near campus. Or, The football stadium is under construction. Each story has been covered before. Why would the students propose them? These topics are risk-free. Easy. Simple. Blandness is their allure. Students routinely stash away the realities of college life — and they need encouragement to voice them. One student raised her hand and said, What about my roommate who got a zero on a paper for using AI, even though she didn't? Another says, What about a story about college cocaine use? From the left side of the lecture hall: I know some people who sell their driver's licenses on Instagram for other college kids to use as fake IDs. At that moment, they discovered the thrill of risky ideas. They laughed nervously at the off-limits ideas as they flowed from one group, then another. Over a few class periods, we spent more than 120 minutes developing these stories, providing feedback and cajoling courage. This is the coaching that today's university students need. Long revered as places that liberate young people's thinking, colleges have become more and more intellectually safe. You don't need to trust my personal anecdotes. After all, I am comparing memories of my undergraduate campus during the 1990s to my teaching years during the 2010s and 2020s. Just because I remember daily verbal sparring in the speaker's circle at the University of Missouri doesn't mean it's true. Instead, check out the results of the Knight Foundation's annual study. The most recent poll relied on 'a representative sample of 1,678 currently enrolled college students.' 'Discomfort with the speech environment on campus is rising, and 7 in 10 students say speech can be as damaging as physical violence.' 'Two in 3 students say self-censorship limits educationally valuable conversations on campus, and 2 in 3 report self-censoring on some topics during classroom discussions.' 'While 9 in 10 college students continue to feel that citizens' free speech rights are very important to them, fewer students believe their freedom of speech is secure in 2024, down 30 percentage points from 2016.' Who are the students who feel that it's 'becoming harder to express themselves'? Black students have had the lowest confidence of any segment each year, and they find free speech increasingly difficult. For their part, Republicans respond that it is more difficult for them than Democrats, but that gap has narrowed. Every segment of the college population sees free speech rights declining or, at best, holding steady. If you need more, read this year's report from the Foundation of Individual Rights and Expressions. While it doesn't provide a nationwide portrait of free speech on U.S. campuses, it ranks the schools. Kansas State ranked 18 while KU ranked 203 of 251 universities. The study's five-year run and increased scope this year point to the national interest in student speech at this political moment. Back in my classroom, I called on a final student, asking what risky topic she imagined: the conflict in the Middle East. Here, I paused. Amid my lectures about being bold and taking intellectual risks, what should I tell international students about taking a risk and writing about the Middle East? The Trump administration has zip-tied a blinking, neon asterisk onto the topic. It says, *Speak out and find out. The Tufts student, Rumeysa Ozturk, is not alone in suffering consequences for pro-Palestinian activism and speech. According to the New York Times, another international student from Iran has been detained under unclear legal pretenses while a permanent resident of the United States was removed from Columbia University's student housing after being involved in demonstrations against Israel. Free speech about this narrow topic might cost students their personal freedom. Reasonable minds may disagree about the conclusions in the commentary that Ozturk wrote. You might believe that universities should divest, that they should stand by Israel or that they should not make political statements at all. Regardless, it's difficult to find radical language in the legislative actions that Ozturk and her fellow authors proposed. The arrest of Ozturk redefines risk in university classrooms from the East Coast to the heartland, which seems to be the Trump administration's objective. Why not inject free speech anxiety into campuses already hobbled by funding cuts and right-wing suspicion? Chilling anti-Israel speech on college campuses further muzzles our already timid students. In the past decade, they've been cowed by a toxic cultural cocktail. Political polarization made them nervous both on social media and their high school classrooms. The murder of George Floyd supercharged discussions about racial injustice. Pandemic-era lockdowns sheltered students from tough in-person debates. Even high school hallway fights disappeared during the lockdown. Many students can simply no longer argue. Add to that, many students report being nervous that their authentic classroom curiosities will be recorded and posted online, leaving them 'canceled.' A contentious classroom is high-stakes, unfamiliar terrain. The ruthlessness of these arrests, therefore, is two-fold. First, university students sit in Louisiana detention centers awaiting hearings and possible detentions. That human reality bites hard. Second, a few scattered arrests at distant universities might temper students' courage — first about Israel, and perhaps about more to come. Will this news restrain my students in Kansas from saying what they think? *Speak out and find out. These arrests have changed my calculus as a teacher and mentor about how I would advise international students who want to express themselves. Be careful, I would say. Even with summer approaching, it's getting chilly on campus. Let's hope that my advice, like the weather, is temporary. But I suspect it's the climate. Eric Thomas teaches visual journalism and photojournalism at the William Allen White School of Journalism and Mass Communication at the University of Kansas in Lawrence. Through its opinion section, Kansas Reflector works to amplify the voices of people who are affected by public policies or excluded from public debate. Find information, including how to submit your own commentary, here.
Yahoo
27-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
‘You're going to need a bigger frame': Demands for state help likely to grow after federal cuts
Oregon's budget isn't prepared to fill federal holes, but Oregonians will push for it to do so. (Photo by Tim Carpenter/Kansas Reflector) Oregon's legislative budgeters released a framework last week for state spending for the next two years. It brought to mind a famous response in the movie 'Jaws' to the appearance of the giant shark: You're going to need a bigger frame. By conventional standards the budget proposal, released by Joint Ways and Means Committee Co-Chairs Sen. Kate Lieber, D-Beaverton, and Rep. Tawna Sanchez, D-Portland, was, well, conventional, and their calling it 'prudent' made sense. Along with some increases for education and human services, there were limitations and even cuts in safety, transportation and other areas. It's worth noting that the process is still in early stages. Budget work is likely to take two months or more, and much of the picture ordinarily does not settle until after the May revenue forecast. But the real, big-storm impact that could come from federal cuts or policy adjustments could make a hash of many current assumptions. Legislators should be prepared for Oregonians looking to the state as a provider and protector of last resort if Trump administration cuts and policy changes, some not yet in place or in uncertain status but strongly hinted at, come to fruition. Almost a third of Oregon's state budget, and large chunks of local government budgets, come from federal agencies. The Trump administration appears intent on slashing large parts of that pass-through money. In some cases, that could mean putting off or abandoning planned-for projects. In others, it can mean an inability to pay for what long have been considered basic services. The federal developments did not escape notice in Salem, and budgeters already have been considering them — to a point. 'Oregon's budget is not designed to plug federal holes,' Lieber said. 'If the federal government cuts programs, they are inevitably going to hurt Oregonians.' There has nonetheless been reaction at the statehouse already. One very visible piece of extra state activity has come in Attorney General Dan Rayfield's office, which has initiated or participated in a long list of lawsuits against the Trump Administration. That extra activity, not really planned for a year or two ago, is not likely to slow. On Jan. 29, the White House Office of Management and Budget issued a statement that 'Federal agencies must temporarily pause all activities related to obligation or disbursement of all federal financial assistance.' Oregon State Treasurer Elizabeth Steiner responded, 'Through the state's responsible fiscal management, the state treasury has an adequate balance of funds to sustain vital federally funded programs in the short term. Oregonians depend on federal funds to ensure public safety, keep early learning programs and schools open, deliver health care, support farms and small businesses, maintain roads, care for seniors and other vulnerable people, fight wildfires and more. These funds support thousands of jobs in Oregon.' All of that and more soon will be dumped in the lap of the Legislature. Small amounts — tiny in the context of the federal budget, but sometimes large and critical locally — are implicated for museums and libraries, and a long list of other organizations. Cuts at the National Weather Service can affect the whole country, of course, but reported cuts among weather watchers on the Oregon coast can have drastic impacts locally. Like many other states, Oregon state government spends much of its revenue on education. In the 2024 fiscal year, federal agencies gave the Oregon Department of Education $1.8 billion, and about 95% of it went to school districts. There's no telling what that amount will look like now, especially with the projected demolition of the Department of Education. Funding for the University of Oregon and Portland State University has been threatened. The Trump administration is likely to press for local law enforcement agencies to work on immigration issues. Oregon state law argues the other way. What happens to federal funding when the two conflict? Local governments have been scrambling to find out if federal funds which had been expected for streets, water and sewer systems and more will actually materialize. Many of these areas of federal fallout are well within the normal scope of state government activities. The Trump administration has proven so unpredictable that no one realistically can say what the federal funding picture will look like in three or four months. But if it resembles the administration's impulses, there will be calls for Oregon's government to do more to fill in gaps. Maybe much more. This session is likely to get more difficult as it goes — and may become very difficult toward the end. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
