“…Democrats and independents, of all races…” As in bike races??

I love how those dems just love to dish it out! Kinder is part of a group who brings a major bike race to Missouri, and all you can do is criticize!!

As an independent, I couldn’t care less one way or the other about the bike race. The Blunt-Kinder medicaid cuts are more than enough for me to vote against Kinder this time.

I love how so-called fiscal conservatives just love to praise spending money on bike races that lose money for the state while justifying health care cuts to kids and seniors because the state can’t afford them.

Shecky:

Please define “lose money”. How did it lose money? Did it have any economic on Missouri? Were hotel rooms sold? Lunches served? Gasoline sold? How much?

The budget is full of line items that “lose money” under your definition but which benefit Missouri none the less. Should we do away with them as well? Money for tourism? Money for films? Money for parks? Money for Music, art, sports parks and stadiums.

Think of all the money for Medicaid we would have if we got rid of all these other programs. The constatnt refrain of “medicaid cuts” is overly simplified at best and disingenuous at worst.

Nice try JK, but even the conservative Show Me Institute called the Tour of Missouri a money loser. Institue fellow Joseph Haslag: “I would agree with the narrow economic calculation of the rate of return; it was probably negative. ” Here’s the link: http://www.showmedaily.org/2007/09/tour-of-missour.html

And that was before Kinder got the state to pony up an additional $350,000 to “to cover revenue shortfalls from 2007.” Here’s that link:
http://www.mpnblog.com/2008/01/tour-of-missouri-had-26-million-impact.html

Meanwhile, if you’d care to play the overall economic impact game, we should apply it to Medicaid as well. For every dollar the state saved in its Medicaid cuts, far more dollars were lost by Missouri businesses and employees in higher insurance premiums. Plus, businesses lost money because of increased sick leave. More students would have missed school which will affect their academic progress and thereby affect their lifetime earnings. The state lost hundreds of millions (if not more) in federal matching funds for Medicaid because of the cuts. And at the end of the day, for every dollar that Matt Blunt and the GOP saved you, your health care costs increased by even more because of greater use of inefficient health care treatment like emergency rooms visits. It’s something called cost shifting, only in this case, the shifting actually increases the costs per taxpayer.

In reality, JK, it’s the constant refrain that the medicaid cuts saved us money that is overly simplified at best and disingenuous at worst. But hey, thanks for playing and better luck next time.

Nice work Shecky. Sorry about your luck, JK.

Well there you go. I shouldn’t even try to discuss this with you guys. You know it all. Shecky, anyone can analyze an issue by selectively using statistics and reports. I will bet that this is the first, last and only time you will ever cite to the Show Me Institute for anything. But it works for your witty banter and 30-second sound bite rhetoric.

So Shecks, let me ask you to defend all the money that Jay Nixon has spent sending us letters and postcards trumpeting the “No-Call List.” What is the economic impact of that PR stunt?

And finally, you still have not responded to my argument that your same simple refrain can be applied accross the board to many, many items financed in the budget. Where is your economic impact study for those?

See, the problem with you Schecks is that you don’t want to play, you just want to whine. Luck has nothing to do with it,.

Bravo to the no-call list. It’s worth the money spent marketing and introducing. I have better things to do than answer the phone and speak with people who are just going to waste my time.

JK, what in the world does the No Call List have to do with Peter Kinder, the Tour of Missouri or Medicaid? It’s a good public policy, and quite frankly it’s one of the better things Nixon has accomplished as Attorney General. But nice try tossing out a red herring there. Shall we discuss the 1814 Treaty of Ghent while we’re raising non sequiturs?

As for my not responding to your other argument, any time the state looks at spending money on something more esoteric or non-essential (whether it’s a bike race or the arts), it needs to balance those expenses against more pressing needs. Anyone who says otherwise is foolish. The problem that Kinder has is that he helped push through $1.35 million in funding for a one-week bicycle race at the same time he has argued that the state is in such dire financial straights that we have to cut health care to children. Democrats and others have said the cuts were unnecessary or went to far.

In no uncertain terms, Kinder made a very clear choice: funding a bicycle race over health care for children. And there’s simply no disputing that equation. Had Kinder said we need to cut all non-essential spending for arts, etc., then he’d have a leg to stand on in defending the Medicaid cuts. Instead, his funding for the bike race undercuts his defense of the Medicaid cuts. Either that, or it makes him look like a heartless guy who cares more about cycling than children. Take your pick, or choose them both if you’d rather.

Now, as for who’s whining, I believe it’s been the Republicans on here whining about folks criticizing Kinder and his state-sponsored bicycle race. Finally, my previous response included cogent arguments and some actual research, something which your rhetoric and ad hominem attacks are lacking. You see, JK, there is no problem with me. The real problem is with Republicans who make intellectually dishonest arguments, pat themselves on the back for cost shifting, and champion causes that in the amount to little more than fiddling while Rome burns.