Health, Mental Health budgets face veto (MO Rat Guv Calls Special Session For TAX INCREASE!)

St. Louis Post-Disgrace ^ | 5/19/03 | Virginia Young

[Recovering_Democrat]

JEFFERSON CITY - Gov. Bob Holden said Monday that he would veto the Legislature's proposed $1.38 billion budget for health and mental health because the plan "cuts services for those most in need."

He made the announcement in his Capitol office, surrounded by mentally disabled children and their families. The families said that if the budget cuts go through, their children would lose critical services, such as speech therapy and respite care.

[Recovering_Democrat]

Just like Democrats...look to soak the people for their social programs. One BIG reason I'm a
Recovering_Democrat.

[KC_Conspirator]

The Mental Haelth lobby made it clear to one term Bob that they were very angry last year for getting cuts in their budgets last year. They just did not have enough votes as the union run Transportation Dept.

[SAJ]

We're talking about cutting vital services to these children.

Gee, how come these 'services' weren't 'vital'...in fact, most didn't exist...prior to the advent of Taxman Carnahan? State spending has more than doubled (2.7x) since 1992's budget, and enough is freaking E-NOUGH!

Not a nickle, not a dime. NO BUDGET this year -- let that moronic One Term Bob sweat in his own juices. (But, sadly, the Pubbies in the G.A. are mostly RINO...sigh)

[Drammach]

Let's face it..

"Vital" services won't be cut because of the budget.
Some "non-vital" services and perks may be cut, but not for those seriously in need.
They may have to cut back on the Ritalin they're feeding our kids in school.
They may have to tell some parents that they are going to have to start providing discipline and direction for their kids on their own.

They'll be cut because of the bureaucrats.
Not one of them will suggest cutting their fat salaries to provide care for even the worst off of these children.

[Fishing-guy]

I would agree with you if there were a across the board cut in all services in all areas.

However, it appears that the article suggests that the public health sector is selectively hard hit in cuts. Of course, children and mentally ill people don't vote.

[listenhillary]

Excerpts from http://www.mochamber.org/pr010124.htm Study of Missouri State Government Spending

Missouri state government increased spending an average of $896 million dollars per year from fiscal year 1992 to fiscal year 2000. State spending has increased from $8.9 billion in 1992 to $16 billion in 2000, and $17 billion has been appropriated for 2001. The largest growth in state spending occurred in fiscal years 1995, 1998, 1999, and 2000. Over $1 billion in additional budget expenses have been appropriated for fiscal year 2001 over the amount spent in fiscal year 2000.

State spending totaled $16 billion for Fiscal Year 2000. If the budget had only grown at the rate of inflation since 1986, state spending would have been $9.3 billion – a potential savings to taxpayers of $6.6 billion.

[SAJ]

Breakin' mah heart.

I write software (as a very independent contractor, thank you) for 3 different departments of the Missouri's (alleged) government. Not one of these actually gets more than 35-40% of value per dollar applied to their (haha) duties and mandates.

Hell's bells, I've said this, AND demonstrated it with hard dollar figures directly to assorted committees of the G.A. Fact of the matter is, and no matter whether 'Rats or Pubbies are in command of the G.A., they flat-ass DO NOT care.

In short, let's by all means HAVE an across-the-board cut...20% would work just fine for starters...in ALL departments. And, in the interest of efficiency, let's start with a 25% elimination of the desk jockeys. There are more morons answering sundry telephones than at which you can shake a stick (want some 'informational' numbers, whereby citizens can (allegedly) obtain information?). How about, say, 30, or 100? My pleasure, on the single condition that you enumerate, publicly, right here on FR, all the questions you ask and ALL the answers you receive, not counting yawners such as the hours their respective offices are open -- don't hold your breath on the state chimps getting more than 3 or 4 of 100 answers right, btw).

Oh, and one other thing. Children and the mentally ill don't vote? True. Children and the mentally ill don't (for the most part) WORK, either. Do you imply by your comment that I, as a working person, am somehow condemned to be their slave in perpetuity?; that I must perforce, under threat of fine and/or imprisonment, contribute forever, and in ever-increasing amounts to the mentally unfortunate and to every other citizen's children?

Whatcha smokin', fishy? If you actually believe that proposition, mate (and, that's exactly the fate to which you would consign me), then, how about you go straight to hell!

[SAJ]

Useful info, and thanks. Btw, my 2.7x 1992 figures INCLUDED the contingent liabilities that the state government has assumed, mostly loan guarantees, which, of course, never appear on a balance sheet.

The state budget (if it may so laughingly be called) is a disaster. The only bright spot is that Missourians are far too conservative in nature to screw up on a California scale -- those socialist morons are TOAST (memo to CA FReepers: I'm referring to your state government, not you good citizens); it'll probably take about 10 years and a public default, but they're done, well done, stick a fork in 'em. Unless, of course, Wall Street ponies up for the bogus bonds they're about to issue, then nags the Regress to pay them off after the default.