KCUR57%

Kansas libraries could lose millions under Trump budget proposal 15%

By Roger Nomer13%

6/24/2026, 9:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 26 faulty reasoning types, including Halo Effect, Optimism Bias, and Indoctrination, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 32% saturation with 224 hits. Analysis detected 1,301 faulty-reasoning hits from 700 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 31% and a BS Rank of 15% (18,723 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 85.50% of the article peer group.

Kansas librarians are warning about potential cuts to local library programs in the next federal budget. 
The Trump administration has proposed to nearly zero out funding for the Institute of Museum and Library Services in next year’s budget, in a major step to shutting down the agency. 
The institute is the independent agency responsible for providing federal funds to libraries across the United States. 
“It's a small amount of funding in the grand scheme of the federal budget, but it makes a significant difference in the lives of children through senior citizens,” said Ray Walling, state librarian for Kansas. 
President Donald Trump has repeatedly targeted the institute for elimination. 
He issued an executive order calling for IMLS' end in early 2025. 
He then suggested cutting almost all of the institute’s funding in the 2026 budget. 
Congress instead restored the funding in a bill Trump later signed into law. 
The administration has once again suggested shutting down the agency. 
However, the House of Representatives Labor, Health and Human Services Subcommittee of Appropriations has recommended continued level funding. 
That recommendation will now go to the full House Appropriations Committee. 
The Senate Appropriations Subcommittee has yet to discuss the funding. 
“It's important we don't let our guard down necessarily, but also continue to advocate for the wonderful things we can do with that money to support all residents of the state,” Walling said. 
For Kansas libraries, IMLS grants would provide about $2.1 million, which is 30% of the Kansas State Library budget. 
The Missouri State Library receives $3.3 million. 
The total appropriation for all 50 states is around $298 million. 
Paul Hawkins, director of the South Central Kansas Library System, said public, academic and school libraries, as well as citizens and students, benefit from IMLS funding. 
“Among those statewide information resources are research databases like EBSCO genealogy records, such as Heritage Quest, and a language learning resource called Mango Languages,” Hawkins said. 
Another project supported by the ILMS is the statewide summer reading program. 
The funding provides manuals and other materials for participating libraries. 
Walling said early literacy programs remain an important resource for a healthy Kansas economy. 
“Summer reading programs are incredibly important to avoid the summer slide after students leave for the end of the school year,” Walling said. 
“Those skills are critical to their development and their eventual growth and inclusion in university or college or in the workforce.” 
The Kansas talking books program is a resource the state library provides in conjunction with the National Library Service. 
The program to support literacy among people with visual impairments is also supported by the IMLS. 
“It's a connection for them to the outside world,” Walling said. 
“It helps them stay connected, so I think it is a critical resource for them.” 
Interlibrary loans in Kansas would also be affected if the IMLS was eliminated. 
The system that allows libraries to communicate their needs and what's available is funded with IMLS grants. 
The subsidy for the actual cost of the delivery of resources between libraries using a courier service is also funded through them. 
Walling said without the IMLS funding, resources may have to be cut or reduced as the state can’t fund them on its own. 
It's a critical resource that allows Kansas libraries to have resources they otherwise couldn’t provide. 
Hawkins said Kansans concerned about the cuts can contact their lawmakers. 
Senator Jerry Moran is one of the key senators who serves on the Senate Appropriations Committee. 
“So Senator Moran hearing from Kansans about continued funding for the Institute of Museum and Library Services can make a real difference,” Hawkins said. 
“Librarians believe that reading and free access to good information are the foundations of our democratic society, and continued funding for the Institute of Museum and Library Services makes that possible.” 
Roger Nomer reports from the Wichita area for the Kansas News Service. 
You can email him at nomer@kmuw.org. 
The Kansas News Service is a collaboration of KCUR, Kansas Public Radio, KMUW and High Plains Public Radio. 
Kansas News Service stories and photos may be republished by news media at no cost with proper attribution and a link to ksnewsservice.org. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Roger Nomer: 1.2%Columbia Missourian: 1.7%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 4.3%Roger Nomer: 0.7%Columbia Missourian: 0.8%Anchoring Bias4.3%This article: 8.6%Roger Nomer: 1.0%Columbia Missourian: 2.7%Availability Heuristic8.6%This article: 1.0%Roger Nomer: 0.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic1.0%This article: 0.0%Roger Nomer: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Roger Nomer: 1.3%Columbia Missourian: 1.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 5.7%Roger Nomer: 2.6%Columbia Missourian: 5.5%Framing Effect5.7%This article: 1.3%Roger Nomer: 0.7%Columbia Missourian: 1.0%Loss Aversion1.3%This article: 0.0%Roger Nomer: 0.8%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Roger Nomer: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 13.1%Roger Nomer: 4.7%Columbia Missourian: 4.5%Optimism Bias13.1%This article: 9.1%Roger Nomer: 1.8%Columbia Missourian: 1.6%Pessimism Bias9.1%This article: 8.3%Roger Nomer: 2.2%Columbia Missourian: 5.4%Negativity Bias8.3%This article: 0.0%Roger Nomer: 0.4%Columbia Missourian: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Roger Nomer: 0.3%Columbia Missourian: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Roger Nomer: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 4.4%Roger Nomer: 2.4%Columbia Missourian: 1.6%In-Group Bias4.4%This article: 0.0%Roger Nomer: 0.5%Columbia Missourian: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 17.4%Roger Nomer: 1.3%Columbia Missourian: 2.4%Halo Effect17.4%This article: 0.0%Roger Nomer: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Roger Nomer: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 1.9%Roger Nomer: 0.8%Columbia Missourian: 0.9%Recency Bias1.9%This article: 0.0%Roger Nomer: 0.3%Columbia Missourian: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Roger Nomer: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Roger Nomer: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Roger Nomer: 0.3%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 6.7%Roger Nomer: 1.4%Columbia Missourian: 2.9%Appeal to Authority6.7%This article: 1.9%Roger Nomer: 1.7%Columbia Missourian: 1.1%False Dilemma1.9%This article: 0.0%Roger Nomer: 1.3%Columbia Missourian: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Roger Nomer: 0.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 5.9%Roger Nomer: 3.0%Columbia Missourian: 3.6%Hasty Generalization5.9%This article: 0.0%Roger Nomer: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Roger Nomer: 0.3%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 32.0%Roger Nomer: 8.9%Columbia Missourian: 5.2%Appeal to Emotion32.0%This article: 8.9%Roger Nomer: 0.6%Columbia Missourian: 0.6%Begging the Question8.9%This article: 8.3%Roger Nomer: 2.3%Columbia Missourian: 2.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)8.3%This article: 0.0%Roger Nomer: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 8.0%Roger Nomer: 0.4%Columbia Missourian: 0.4%Burden of Proof8.0%This article: 2.3%Roger Nomer: 0.8%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Appeal to Nature2.3%This article: 0.0%Roger Nomer: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Roger Nomer: 1.4%Columbia Missourian: 2.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Roger Nomer: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 5.9%Roger Nomer: 0.8%Columbia Missourian: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)5.9%This article: 0.0%Roger Nomer: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Roger Nomer: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Roger Nomer: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Roger Nomer: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 1.4%Roger Nomer: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy1.4%This article: 9.4%Roger Nomer: 0.5%Columbia Missourian: 0.8%Unattributed Quote9.4%This article: 5.0%Roger Nomer: 0.3%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection5.0%This article: 1.3%Roger Nomer: 0.7%Columbia Missourian: 2.9%Biased Writer Voice1.3%This article: 9.7%Roger Nomer: 1.5%Columbia Missourian: 1.3%Indoctrination9.7%This article: 0.0%Roger Nomer: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Roger Nomer: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 4.1%Roger Nomer: 0.5%Columbia Missourian: 1.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…4.1%

700 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers42%attributed speech407writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageRay Walling • 35 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageRay Walling • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coveragePaul Hawkins • 26 words • 0.0% coveragePaul Hawkins • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageRay Walling • 14 words • 0.0% coverageRay Walling • 23 words • 0.0% coverageRay Walling • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageRay Walling • 11 words • 0.0% coverageRay Walling • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageRay Walling • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coveragePaul Hawkins • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coveragePaul Hawkins • 24 words • 100.0% coveragePaul Hawkins • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Ray Walling

100%flagged-word coverage
175 attributed words60% of attributed speech57% writer coverage
0%10.0%20.0%Unattributed Quote+20.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Ray Walling: 20.0%20.0%Quote-first Misdirection+20.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Ray Walling: 20.0%20.0%Indoctrination+18.9 ptsWriter: 0.0%Ray Walling: 18.9%18.9%Attempt to Sell a Product -7.1 ptsWriter: 7.1%Ray Walling: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-2.2 ptsWriter: 2.2%Ray Walling: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.