Since President Trump took office, the term "deep state" has become popularized in American political discourse. We've all seen it the phrase, and some of us have used it.
But what, exactly, is it?
I had a general idea of what the term is supposed to describe, but had never really given it a lot of detailed thought until I saw someone use it in a discussion, then someone else asked them what they regarded the "deep state" to be.
That caused me to ponder the definition of the phrase, and I think I have come up with something that's pretty accurate.
"Deep state" means government civil service employees who oppose the elected leadership on policy or political grounds, and work from within to impede, sabotage, or resist the implementation of those policies. It also refers to political appointees who take their positions with their own agenda in mind and with the intent of instituting their own policies, instead of supporting and implementing the policies of the elected executive official for whom they work.
This is about the best simple definition I can think of to describe what can be a very complex situation. Boiled down, it means that there are forces within the government who are trying to thwart the implementation of official policy and working against the policy makers.
Elected executive officers, such as the American president or a state's governor, are entitled to put their own policies and initiatives into place. They are chosen by the entire electorate of the governed territory, and not by districts as are legislators. Legislative bodies have oversight and bill passage responsibilities, and in most cases are responsible for adopting or approving budgets, but the executive is in charge of developing policies and setting the tone of government. The executive has a number of high-level appointees that serve at his or her pleasure who are also responsible for implementing and administering policy. They are expected to be loyal to the executive and work to do the executive's wishes, subjugating their own ideas and desires in the process.
Career civil servants -- Kentucky refers to them as merit employees, because their employment is governed by the merit system established in Kentucky Revised Statutes Chapter 18A -- are expected to implement and administer the policies dictated by the elected and appointed executives. These bureaucrats can, and often do, provide input into decisions. Many times, they're asked by the elected and appointed officials to weigh in on policies that are being considered. But in the end, whether they are in agreement with those decisions or not, it's their duty to do what they're told.
Yet so many of them won't carry out their duties. They stonewall, slow-walk, resist, and sometimes refuse to do their duty. They continue to operate as they see fit, or as they did under previous executives whose ideologies are more in tune with their own.
On the federal level, the "deep state" seems to be entrenched in the State Department and in the intelligence community. For whatever reason, diplomats seem to embrace a liberal philosophy. The career employees there seem to think they're still working for Barack Obama and implementing his foreign policy. The Trump administration has reversed course and has made it known that it's operating from a position that American interests come first. That doesn't seem to sit well with a lot of the diplomatic bureaucracy.
There's a "deep state" alive and well in Kentucky state government as well. Given the state's history of hiring Democrats, the majority of the workforce resisted the changes that recent Republican governors Ernie Fletcher and Matt Bevin tried to make in the way things have always been done. They didn't like their Republican governor or appointed agency leaders, so they weren't going to help them institute reforms.
In the private sector, any employee who doesn't carry out policy is usually disciplined or fired. Unfortunately, the same governmental policies that protect career employees from political retaliation also allow them to be insubordinate without much fear of reprise. The result is a seriously handicapped policy implementation, especially when conservatives are in power and liberals continue to populate the bowels of the bureaucracy.
At least when a political appointee, who serves at the pleasure of the president or governor, can be fired when they go rogue and start pushing their own agenda instead of what their boss wants. And no, it's not obstruction of justice when they do.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is the "deep state." If anyone ever asks what you mean when you use that term, refer them to this definition. It may not be exact, but it's pretty close.
Monday, November 18, 2019
Sunday, November 17, 2019
Decision time for Rocky Adkins
(Personal disclosure: I know Rocky Adkins. He's not what I would call a friend, but instead a college acquaintance. I went to school with him at Morehead State, but did not really know him and had no classes with him. My most lengthy interaction with him came the Saturday morning when we took the GRE test together. I've seen him in person once since then. So this is written from the perspective of an observer with no personal partiality except for my ideology, which runs counter to Adkins'.)
Rocky Adkins faces some big decisions, and they must come soon.
Does the longtime state representative from northeastern Kentucky step out and try to seek his party's nomination for the U.S. Senate seat next year that Mitch McConnell will be defending? Will he stay in the Kentucky House of Representatives and try to lead his party back from the crushing defeat it suffered in 2016? Or will he take a position in the administration of incoming Gov. Andy Beshear?
Whatever he does, he'll have to do it in the next few weeks. Beshear takes office Dec. 10, and he'll have to have most of his key staffers named before then and ready to take their jobs.
Adkins and Matt Jones were the Democrats most often mentioned as likely to try to knock off perceived front-runner Amy McGrath in the Senate primary. Jones' decision a few days ago not to run makes it easier for Adkins to compete with McGrath in a one-on-one campaign. There are a few other Democrats who have announced their plans to runs, but they're non-factors.
Right now, McGrath seems to be the favored candidate among the national liberal backers and funders, but many Kentucky Democrats who so desperately want McConnell beaten don't think she's the right candidate to do it. They believe she's too liberal for the rural voters who will make the decision in the election, and who have voted for candidates like McConnell, President Trump, and Gov. Matt Bevin in the past. They point to her inability to unseat Congressman Andy Barr last year in Kentucky's second-most-liberal district in what was a "blue wave" election across the country. She's plagued by a recording in which she states she's farther left than anyone else in the Bluegrass State.
Many think Adkins' rural roots will appeal to conservative Democrats out in the state who have been rejecting the party's candidates in recent elections. He's from Elliott County and still lives there, having returned home after a basketball career at Morehead State University. He has a down-home demeanor and charmed voters during his gubernatorial campaign, then on the stump for Beshear in the general election. You'll find a whole lot of people who think he stands a better chance of ousting McConnell than McGrath will.
But while rural voters may decide the general election, the urban electorate will decide the primary. And McGrath's liberalism will appeal to those in Lexington and especially Louisville, where the Democrats dominate. It would take those voters looking past the most ideologically pure candidate in favor of the one who would be most attractive in a general election contest against McConnell.
But while rural voters may decide the general election, the urban electorate will decide the primary. And McGrath's liberalism will appeal to those in Lexington and especially Louisville, where the Democrats dominate. It would take those voters looking past the most ideologically pure candidate in favor of the one who would be most attractive in a general election contest against McConnell.
Adkins inherited his party's leadership role in the Kentucky House of Representatives in 2017 after the stunning defeat of House Speaker Greg Stumbo. Republicans were hoping that Stumbo would lose his speaker's post if their party took control of the chamber, but got a pleasant surprise when Stumbo lost his re-election bid and had to watch from the sidelines as a Republican got handed the speaker's gavel. Adkins has done an admirable job of holding his dwindling caucus together in the face of GOP control.
Ordinarily, Adkins would have until Jan. 30 to decide whether to run for the Senate or seek re-election to the House. But Beshear's impending inauguration moves that timeline up considerably.
Given his role in Beshear's successful campaign, Adkins' name has been mentioned for a high-level appointed position in the incoming administration. He's most frequently been linked to the secretary's position in my agency, the Transportation Cabinet. (That certainly wouldn't do me any good personally, since Adkins and I are politically opposite.) But he's also been suggested as a candidate to be named Beshear's chief of staff, which seems to be the new title for the position formerly known as Secretary of the Executive Cabinet, which was the role in which Crit Luallen served under Gov. Paul Patton.
He'll have to make that decision soon. His name is conspicuously absent from the list of transition team members Beshear announced last week, which would indicate that he's in the running for an appointment since he won't be advising the governor on whom to appoint. And he certainly wouldn't take a top-level appointed job in December, just to leave it in January to go out on the campaign trail.
I don't know how much of a risk-taker Adkins is, but a Senate campaign would be the riskiest move he could make. He'd have to forego much of the upcoming General Assembly session, in which the legislature will adopt a biennial budget and a state highway plan, to start stumping. Even as Democrats continue to lose traction across the state, he's in one of the safest legislative seats in the commonwealth. Re-election to the House is a shoo-in. And if he opts for a six-figure appointed job, he'll pad his state pension and be eligible to run again for elective office once Beshear's term is up (hopefully in four years.)
The upside to staying in the House or going to work for Beshear 2.0 is much higher than giving up both those options to take a chance on running for Senate, and facing the onslaught of out-of-state money that will come pouring in to support McGrath.
Adkins has been mum about his plans, and I have yet to see him comment on Jones' decision not to run.
Thanksgiving comes late this year. It's less than two weeks from the gubernatorial inauguration. The guess here is that his decision will be made well before then, so any indecision won't give him indigestion as he and his family enjoy their turkey dinner. That means the clock is ticking, and we'll hear something by the end of this week.
Saturday, November 16, 2019
More signs pointing to Beshear 2.0
After last week's gubernatorial election, I posited that Andy Beshear's administration has the potential to be much like that of his father, Steve Beshear. I noted that father and son are pretty much ideological twins, and championed the same issues. I even coined a nickname for the son's term -- Beshear 2.0. I've actually seen some others use that phrase since I came up with it, so at least I know this message is getting out. (More than 8,300 views of that particular column as of this writing.)
Now there's even more signs that point to Beshear 2.0 being a new (but not necessarily improved) version of Beshear 1.0.
Earlier this week, the state announced that General Fund and Road Fund receipts were up in October, and both funds are running a surplus for the current fiscal year. This will give the incoming administration a financial windfall from which to work as it and the General Assembly craft a biennial budget in the upcoming legislative session. Beshear is hoping to generate even more revenue for the state through the approval of casino gambling, which will take both a constitutional amendment passing the General Assembly and approval by the voters at the ballot box. It was one of the issues on which he campaigned, although he's been cautioned by the Senate leadership that a gambling amendment won't be passed in that chamber.
Sound familiar?
When Ernie Fletcher left office in 2007 and Beshear 1.0 took over, Fletcher left the incoming governor a budget surplus. Steve Beshear had campaigned on bringing casino gambling to the commonwealth. Casino interests had funded his campaign, and he was seeking to pay back that investment. Almost immediately upon taking office, the new governor started poor-mouthing and saying the state didn't have enough money to meet its obligations. That's one of the reasons that he used to justify the state employee furloughs.
Looks like a pattern developing. A Beshear beats an Republican governor in his re-election bid after campaigning in support of casinos. The outgoing governor leaves a budget surplus. Wonder what comes next?
And for even more evidence that Beshear 2.0 is on the way, look at the transition team he announced this week. It contains a whole lot of retreads from the 1.0 administration, including at least one transition chair who's in charge of the cabinet where he was forced out as secretary because of more than a few fishy conflict-of-interest situations.
There are a few other transition team selections that could be very interesting fodder if the state's press corps was interested in doing its job and subjecting Democrats to the same scrutiny they give Republicans. But Kentucky's media wouldn't be interested in examining the presence of someone who had a politically appointed job during the Beshear 1.0 term, yet had been fired from their state job years prior because of some pretty questionable behavior, now would they? (Yes, I know who it is, and have some background on what they did. I heard the story in my college years and got some details just a few months ago that helped fill in a lot of blanks.)
More signs are pointing to Andy Beshear's term truly being Beshear 2.0. And he hasn't even taken office yet. That's not a good thing.
Now there's even more signs that point to Beshear 2.0 being a new (but not necessarily improved) version of Beshear 1.0.
Earlier this week, the state announced that General Fund and Road Fund receipts were up in October, and both funds are running a surplus for the current fiscal year. This will give the incoming administration a financial windfall from which to work as it and the General Assembly craft a biennial budget in the upcoming legislative session. Beshear is hoping to generate even more revenue for the state through the approval of casino gambling, which will take both a constitutional amendment passing the General Assembly and approval by the voters at the ballot box. It was one of the issues on which he campaigned, although he's been cautioned by the Senate leadership that a gambling amendment won't be passed in that chamber.
Sound familiar?
When Ernie Fletcher left office in 2007 and Beshear 1.0 took over, Fletcher left the incoming governor a budget surplus. Steve Beshear had campaigned on bringing casino gambling to the commonwealth. Casino interests had funded his campaign, and he was seeking to pay back that investment. Almost immediately upon taking office, the new governor started poor-mouthing and saying the state didn't have enough money to meet its obligations. That's one of the reasons that he used to justify the state employee furloughs.
Looks like a pattern developing. A Beshear beats an Republican governor in his re-election bid after campaigning in support of casinos. The outgoing governor leaves a budget surplus. Wonder what comes next?
And for even more evidence that Beshear 2.0 is on the way, look at the transition team he announced this week. It contains a whole lot of retreads from the 1.0 administration, including at least one transition chair who's in charge of the cabinet where he was forced out as secretary because of more than a few fishy conflict-of-interest situations.
There are a few other transition team selections that could be very interesting fodder if the state's press corps was interested in doing its job and subjecting Democrats to the same scrutiny they give Republicans. But Kentucky's media wouldn't be interested in examining the presence of someone who had a politically appointed job during the Beshear 1.0 term, yet had been fired from their state job years prior because of some pretty questionable behavior, now would they? (Yes, I know who it is, and have some background on what they did. I heard the story in my college years and got some details just a few months ago that helped fill in a lot of blanks.)
More signs are pointing to Andy Beshear's term truly being Beshear 2.0. And he hasn't even taken office yet. That's not a good thing.
Friday, November 15, 2019
Common sense and a fragile ego, or greed and an oversized ego: Which won out in Matt Jones' decision?
Outside of the fallout from Kentucky's gubernatorial election, the biggest political news in the state broke Friday, when Matt Jones announced that he would not run in next year's Democrat primary for the chance to unseat U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell.
Jones had been publicly toying with running for Senate for months, and his indecision was beginning to hit him in the bank account. He'd already been ousted as host of the "Hey Kentucky" television show on WLEX-TV in Lexington. Last week, he had to step away from his role on the Kentucky Sports Radio statewide program that discusses University of Kentucky sports when Jones isn't bleating about politics, after the Republican Party of Kentucky filed a complaint alleging that Jones' work on KSR amounts to an illegal corporate campaign contribution.
Even before Jones made his political ideology known, I wasn't a fan. I haven't worked as sportswriter for years, but I still have some friends in the business. They tell me Jones is one of the most disliked presences on the UK sports beat. He's not popular on press row; everyone who's ever discussed him with me talks about how arrogant and egotistical he is.
(Don't believe me? Read these Herald-Leader and Courier-Journal profiles of Jones and KSR for some unflattering views.)
Jones hails from southeastern Kentucky, the same general area as a couple of true legends of Wildcat journalism, those being Oscar Combs and Cawood Ledford. Although Jones has built a popular statewide radio show, he'll never enjoy the stature that Combs and Ledford have in the annals of UK broadcasting. And that knowledge has to eat at him daily. (I'm told by some who've covered the Cats in the past that Ledford wasn't exactly beloved among those who dealt with him on press row either, but he had a reputation that Jones will never have.)
Somewhere along the line, his sports show detoured into politics. Jones has been hugely critical of conservative Republicans despite the fact that his mother was a Republican elected official in Bell County for years. How did his apple roll so far from the family tree? Was it from the years he spent practicing law in Louisville? Or maybe during his years as a student at -- wait for it -- Duke? (Yes, Matt Jones, rabid Kentucky Wildcats fan, is a Dukie.)
One of Jones' favorite political targets has been McConnell, and he's in the process of writing a book critical of the Senate majority leader. He's been flirting with entering a political for a while now.
Seems that he'll be waiting a bit longer.
Right now, the front-runner for the nomination is Amy McGrath, the failed congressional candidate who couldn't beat a Republican incumbent in Kentucky's second-most-liberal district in a "blue wave" election year. Jones has been saying for awhile now that although he thinks McConnell can be beaten and needs to be beaten, McGrath isn't the candidate to do it. Apparently, Jones realized that he's not the candidate to do it either.
Why? Two guesses here. First is that Jones didn't want to take the financial hit that being away from his KSR show would involve. "Hey Kentucky" has already moved on with a new host, so he'll have to find a new television outlet if he desires. After his short involuntary break from KSR, Jones will be back on the radio briefly, then plans to take an extended vacation. Once he comes back, he can once again be in the spotlight. His adoring fandom can continue to stroke his ego and welcome him back.
A-ha. There's that question of that ego. It's obvious that Jones craves the adulation that UK fans give him. But someone must have advised him that his personal popularity and name recognition wouldn't necessarily translate into success at the ballot box. Heather French Henry, Kentucky's former Miss America, found that out last week. Presuming McConnell's the nominee, any campaign involving him will be expensive and nasty. A loss would be humiliating. And he wasn't guaranteed the nomination. Most of the big out-of-state money and support are already committed to McGrath, and at least one other formidable possible Democrat candidate (Rocky Adkins) is still on the fence. Had Jones won the primary, he'd be on the ballot next year as a Democrat in a state that has huge Donald Trump coattails. Did he wise up and decide not to subject his ego to being popped by the electorate of a state that's increasingly rejecting his ideology?
As stated before, I'm not a KSR fan. I don't quite understand the show's popularity. It's as if UK fans are lapping up anything relating to the Big Blue without regard to its source. I find Jones to be irritating, over the top, and obnoxious. I don't listen to him, and I try not to even click on a link to the KSR website. If I do, it's usually an accident and I didn't look to see where the link led. So I wasn't out there tweeting #FreeMattJones after he went off the air following the Federal Election Commission complaint.
But at least, there will be no more "will he or won't he" speculation from Kentucky's political pundits. That decision has been made. McGrath's path to the nomination may have gotten easier, but Jones will still have his microphone to criticize both her and McConnell nonstop on his sports show, with the occasional lament about how John Calipari's teams can't shoot free throws, or if last year was the best level of success that the football team can hope for.
Jones had been publicly toying with running for Senate for months, and his indecision was beginning to hit him in the bank account. He'd already been ousted as host of the "Hey Kentucky" television show on WLEX-TV in Lexington. Last week, he had to step away from his role on the Kentucky Sports Radio statewide program that discusses University of Kentucky sports when Jones isn't bleating about politics, after the Republican Party of Kentucky filed a complaint alleging that Jones' work on KSR amounts to an illegal corporate campaign contribution.
Even before Jones made his political ideology known, I wasn't a fan. I haven't worked as sportswriter for years, but I still have some friends in the business. They tell me Jones is one of the most disliked presences on the UK sports beat. He's not popular on press row; everyone who's ever discussed him with me talks about how arrogant and egotistical he is.
(Don't believe me? Read these Herald-Leader and Courier-Journal profiles of Jones and KSR for some unflattering views.)
Jones hails from southeastern Kentucky, the same general area as a couple of true legends of Wildcat journalism, those being Oscar Combs and Cawood Ledford. Although Jones has built a popular statewide radio show, he'll never enjoy the stature that Combs and Ledford have in the annals of UK broadcasting. And that knowledge has to eat at him daily. (I'm told by some who've covered the Cats in the past that Ledford wasn't exactly beloved among those who dealt with him on press row either, but he had a reputation that Jones will never have.)
Somewhere along the line, his sports show detoured into politics. Jones has been hugely critical of conservative Republicans despite the fact that his mother was a Republican elected official in Bell County for years. How did his apple roll so far from the family tree? Was it from the years he spent practicing law in Louisville? Or maybe during his years as a student at -- wait for it -- Duke? (Yes, Matt Jones, rabid Kentucky Wildcats fan, is a Dukie.)
One of Jones' favorite political targets has been McConnell, and he's in the process of writing a book critical of the Senate majority leader. He's been flirting with entering a political for a while now.
Seems that he'll be waiting a bit longer.
Right now, the front-runner for the nomination is Amy McGrath, the failed congressional candidate who couldn't beat a Republican incumbent in Kentucky's second-most-liberal district in a "blue wave" election year. Jones has been saying for awhile now that although he thinks McConnell can be beaten and needs to be beaten, McGrath isn't the candidate to do it. Apparently, Jones realized that he's not the candidate to do it either.
Why? Two guesses here. First is that Jones didn't want to take the financial hit that being away from his KSR show would involve. "Hey Kentucky" has already moved on with a new host, so he'll have to find a new television outlet if he desires. After his short involuntary break from KSR, Jones will be back on the radio briefly, then plans to take an extended vacation. Once he comes back, he can once again be in the spotlight. His adoring fandom can continue to stroke his ego and welcome him back.
A-ha. There's that question of that ego. It's obvious that Jones craves the adulation that UK fans give him. But someone must have advised him that his personal popularity and name recognition wouldn't necessarily translate into success at the ballot box. Heather French Henry, Kentucky's former Miss America, found that out last week. Presuming McConnell's the nominee, any campaign involving him will be expensive and nasty. A loss would be humiliating. And he wasn't guaranteed the nomination. Most of the big out-of-state money and support are already committed to McGrath, and at least one other formidable possible Democrat candidate (Rocky Adkins) is still on the fence. Had Jones won the primary, he'd be on the ballot next year as a Democrat in a state that has huge Donald Trump coattails. Did he wise up and decide not to subject his ego to being popped by the electorate of a state that's increasingly rejecting his ideology?
As stated before, I'm not a KSR fan. I don't quite understand the show's popularity. It's as if UK fans are lapping up anything relating to the Big Blue without regard to its source. I find Jones to be irritating, over the top, and obnoxious. I don't listen to him, and I try not to even click on a link to the KSR website. If I do, it's usually an accident and I didn't look to see where the link led. So I wasn't out there tweeting #FreeMattJones after he went off the air following the Federal Election Commission complaint.
But at least, there will be no more "will he or won't he" speculation from Kentucky's political pundits. That decision has been made. McGrath's path to the nomination may have gotten easier, but Jones will still have his microphone to criticize both her and McConnell nonstop on his sports show, with the occasional lament about how John Calipari's teams can't shoot free throws, or if last year was the best level of success that the football team can hope for.
Success should be praised, not punished
Walmart and Dollar General are the epitome of American success stories.
Both started out as lone businesses in small towns, and ended up as huge corporations.
Walmart, as everyone knows, is the retail king in the United States. Dollar General has been a staple of county seats in this region for decades, is rapidly expanding, and you can find multiple stores in some rural counties where Walmart will never locate. My home county recently got its second DG location. In adjacent Estill County, only a half-hour from the larger retail centers of Richmond and Winchester, there are four of what some old-timers call "General Dollar."
There are some similarities. Walmart got its start in Bentonville, Ark., in the shadows of the Ozarks. Dollar General was founded in Scottsville, Ky., in the Appalachian foothills of south-central Kentucky, after the Turner family began the concept by converting their general merchanside store in Springfield, Ky., into a Dollar General. Both of these are smaller, mostly rural states in flyover country, far from the corporate capitals of the country.
Walmart has remained headquartered in Bentonville, causing that town to grow at a decent clip. Dollar General relocated from Scottsville to the suburbs of nearby Nashville a few years ago, probably because of Tennessee's more-business-friendly tax structure, but still maintains a decent presence in its hometown.
Neither Sam Walton nor J.L. and Cal Turner could foresee what their retail ventures would turn into. They were probably amazed at the success of their concept. There are hundreds of other instances of family-owned businesses growing from a single store or a handful of locations into a regional or national chain.
And it's this kind of success that conservatives should be championing and promoting, not criticizing. There's no reason the next Walmart isn't opening up on some street corner or some strip mall in some small town in some rural county somewhere between the coasts.
That's why it was disturbing to see Republican U.S. Senate candidate Wesley Morgan criticize both Walmart and Dollar General in a recent social media post. Morgan is a former state representative from Madison County who lost his seat when he ran afoul of Kentucky's former House leadership and drew an establishment-backed primary challenger. He owns a handful of liquor stores, including one of the two that opened in Irvine when that city went wet a few years ago. Unless something happens between now and next May, I fully intend to support and vote for him in the Republican primary. But his criticism of two American success stories bothers me.
Morgan is touting himself as the conservative alternative to Mitch McConnell, who's definitely the personification of "establishment Republican." In his social media posting that was critical of Walmart and Dollar General, he said he would be supportive of small businesses. Isn't it possible to support small businesses without being critical of bigger ones?
Oftimes, small businesses can't compete with bigger chains on price, so they have to rely on something else. Dollar General can't sell merchandise as cheaply as Walmart, so it counters by having more convenient locations. If you can pick up something at Dollar General on your way home, it can be worth it to pay a little more instead of driving to the nearest Walmart. And that's often the lure of independent businesses. Pay a little more in your hometown instead of traveling to a bigger city to shop at a big box. Customer service is another drawing card for small outlets, as is stocking unusual or hard-to-find items. Sometimes you can't find some exotic food item in a Walmart Supercenter, but your local grocer either has it on the shelf, or can order it for you.
The point here is that conservatives are champions of the free market. We don't take sides. We let the market sort things out. We support equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. If Sam Walton or the Turner family can find success, there's no reason the hometown entrepreneur down the street from you can't do the same if they see fit.
Some small business owners are happy to run one or two locations and have no designs on expansion. Others would love to take their stores regional or national. We should be supporting them all and criticizing none of them -- and in the case of Dollar General, proud that a Kentucky-founded company is enjoying such success. DG is adding to the employment rolls and tax base in counties all over Kentucky. We should appreciate that.
Both started out as lone businesses in small towns, and ended up as huge corporations.
Walmart, as everyone knows, is the retail king in the United States. Dollar General has been a staple of county seats in this region for decades, is rapidly expanding, and you can find multiple stores in some rural counties where Walmart will never locate. My home county recently got its second DG location. In adjacent Estill County, only a half-hour from the larger retail centers of Richmond and Winchester, there are four of what some old-timers call "General Dollar."
There are some similarities. Walmart got its start in Bentonville, Ark., in the shadows of the Ozarks. Dollar General was founded in Scottsville, Ky., in the Appalachian foothills of south-central Kentucky, after the Turner family began the concept by converting their general merchanside store in Springfield, Ky., into a Dollar General. Both of these are smaller, mostly rural states in flyover country, far from the corporate capitals of the country.
Walmart has remained headquartered in Bentonville, causing that town to grow at a decent clip. Dollar General relocated from Scottsville to the suburbs of nearby Nashville a few years ago, probably because of Tennessee's more-business-friendly tax structure, but still maintains a decent presence in its hometown.
Neither Sam Walton nor J.L. and Cal Turner could foresee what their retail ventures would turn into. They were probably amazed at the success of their concept. There are hundreds of other instances of family-owned businesses growing from a single store or a handful of locations into a regional or national chain.
And it's this kind of success that conservatives should be championing and promoting, not criticizing. There's no reason the next Walmart isn't opening up on some street corner or some strip mall in some small town in some rural county somewhere between the coasts.
That's why it was disturbing to see Republican U.S. Senate candidate Wesley Morgan criticize both Walmart and Dollar General in a recent social media post. Morgan is a former state representative from Madison County who lost his seat when he ran afoul of Kentucky's former House leadership and drew an establishment-backed primary challenger. He owns a handful of liquor stores, including one of the two that opened in Irvine when that city went wet a few years ago. Unless something happens between now and next May, I fully intend to support and vote for him in the Republican primary. But his criticism of two American success stories bothers me.
Morgan is touting himself as the conservative alternative to Mitch McConnell, who's definitely the personification of "establishment Republican." In his social media posting that was critical of Walmart and Dollar General, he said he would be supportive of small businesses. Isn't it possible to support small businesses without being critical of bigger ones?
Oftimes, small businesses can't compete with bigger chains on price, so they have to rely on something else. Dollar General can't sell merchandise as cheaply as Walmart, so it counters by having more convenient locations. If you can pick up something at Dollar General on your way home, it can be worth it to pay a little more instead of driving to the nearest Walmart. And that's often the lure of independent businesses. Pay a little more in your hometown instead of traveling to a bigger city to shop at a big box. Customer service is another drawing card for small outlets, as is stocking unusual or hard-to-find items. Sometimes you can't find some exotic food item in a Walmart Supercenter, but your local grocer either has it on the shelf, or can order it for you.
The point here is that conservatives are champions of the free market. We don't take sides. We let the market sort things out. We support equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. If Sam Walton or the Turner family can find success, there's no reason the hometown entrepreneur down the street from you can't do the same if they see fit.
Some small business owners are happy to run one or two locations and have no designs on expansion. Others would love to take their stores regional or national. We should be supporting them all and criticizing none of them -- and in the case of Dollar General, proud that a Kentucky-founded company is enjoying such success. DG is adding to the employment rolls and tax base in counties all over Kentucky. We should appreciate that.
Tuesday, November 12, 2019
Conservatives continue to face obstacles in their quest to make their points
If you want to get a reaction from a liberal, just say that the news is slanted in their favor. They'll deny the leftward tilt, even as newspaper after newspaper, and broadcast outlet after broadcast outlet, continues to skew its coverage in favor of the left and offers opinion pieces and editorials that bash President Trump and Republicans in government on a daily basis.
In Kentucky, the two leading daily newspapers have relentlessly gone after Gov. Matt Bevin since he's been in office. They also failed to adequately cover Greg Stumbo's abuse of power during his term as attorney general. Both papers endorsed both Andy Beshear for governor and Stumbo for attorney general, and after the election, one of the Courier-Journal's news reporters wrote an opinion column gloating over Bevin's loss.
Conservatives have Fox News (actually, that's on a decreasing basis these days outside the prime-time pundit lineup), Sinclair Broadcasting, and powerful radio talk shows by Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, and others. There are a few websites out there, notably Breitbart and RedState, but not as many as what's on the other side. And that's pretty much it. Liberals dominate the rest of the media. The New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, the news wings of the major broadcast networks, a whole lot of online outlets (Politico, Slate, Salon, Mediaite, the Huffington Post, and the list goes on) and just about everywhere else. Even The Wall Street Journal is no longer reliably conservative, leaning more toward an establishment position on many issues. And many of what were formerly staunchly conservative/Republican venues have gone in the tank for the "never Trumpers" to the point they're more left than right these days.
The uphill climb extends to social media. Many users of Facebook and Twitter have complained of posts being removed, "shadow banning," the reach of conservative pages being throttled, increasingly tightening definitions of "hate speech" to include such things as espousing deeply-held religious views, and what have you. Management at those two companies deny they are censoring rightist views, but there's just too much evidence out there that proves otherwise.
And last week, Facebook pretty much confirmed all the suspicions when it announced that it would no longer allow mentions of the widely-known name of the whistleblower whose hatred for Trump initiated the impeachment inquiry.
The whistleblower's name has been frequently reported in some media outlets. Donald Trump Jr. retweeted a news story that identified him. But Facebook is not allowing the sharing of those stories, even from legitimate sources such as The Washington Examiner.
Even a mention of his name without any context whatsoever will be removed, which is something I found out when I posted his name only without any other information. No news story, no noting of him as the whistleblower. Just the name.
Anyone with a critical eye knows the impeachment is fraudulent. The whistleblower is a known Joe Biden fan who didn't like something he heard during Trump's infamous phone call, and decided that he needed to complain about it. He's just another of those who overstepped his authority in an attempt to overturn an action with which he disagrees by a superior whom he doesn't like. He's the latest example to prove that the Deep State really does exist and is seeking to undermine the president's policies. He should be called to account and explain to the public why he felt Trump's comment was wrong and needed to be reported, when there were several others who were on the call who had no issues with it.
The real issue remains Biden's admitted personal intervention to get the Ukrainian prosector fired in order to secure the release of American funding. If anyone needs to be impeached, Biden should be retroactively.
During Trump's rally in Lexington last week, Sen. Rand Paul stole the show with his demand that the press do its job and name the whistleblower and hold him to the same scrutiny as it does Trump's supporters and defenders. You can still hear the crickets chirping, though, as the mainstream press hasn't seen fit to do any investigating into what's now commonly-known information. And even if the NYT or WaPo decided to name him, Facebook wouldn't allow those stories to be shared.
Had this been an insider blowing the whistle on something President Obama did, you can be sure they would be rushing to identify him and impugn his motives. But with the roles reverse, they feel obligated to protect his identity.
So the uphill battle continues. Conservatives continue facing obstacles in getting their information and opinions out. It just serves to build the mistrust we have in the mainstream press. When we can't count on the media to present all sides of the issues, we look elsewhere.
In Kentucky, the two leading daily newspapers have relentlessly gone after Gov. Matt Bevin since he's been in office. They also failed to adequately cover Greg Stumbo's abuse of power during his term as attorney general. Both papers endorsed both Andy Beshear for governor and Stumbo for attorney general, and after the election, one of the Courier-Journal's news reporters wrote an opinion column gloating over Bevin's loss.
Conservatives have Fox News (actually, that's on a decreasing basis these days outside the prime-time pundit lineup), Sinclair Broadcasting, and powerful radio talk shows by Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, and others. There are a few websites out there, notably Breitbart and RedState, but not as many as what's on the other side. And that's pretty much it. Liberals dominate the rest of the media. The New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, the news wings of the major broadcast networks, a whole lot of online outlets (Politico, Slate, Salon, Mediaite, the Huffington Post, and the list goes on) and just about everywhere else. Even The Wall Street Journal is no longer reliably conservative, leaning more toward an establishment position on many issues. And many of what were formerly staunchly conservative/Republican venues have gone in the tank for the "never Trumpers" to the point they're more left than right these days.
The uphill climb extends to social media. Many users of Facebook and Twitter have complained of posts being removed, "shadow banning," the reach of conservative pages being throttled, increasingly tightening definitions of "hate speech" to include such things as espousing deeply-held religious views, and what have you. Management at those two companies deny they are censoring rightist views, but there's just too much evidence out there that proves otherwise.
And last week, Facebook pretty much confirmed all the suspicions when it announced that it would no longer allow mentions of the widely-known name of the whistleblower whose hatred for Trump initiated the impeachment inquiry.
The whistleblower's name has been frequently reported in some media outlets. Donald Trump Jr. retweeted a news story that identified him. But Facebook is not allowing the sharing of those stories, even from legitimate sources such as The Washington Examiner.
Even a mention of his name without any context whatsoever will be removed, which is something I found out when I posted his name only without any other information. No news story, no noting of him as the whistleblower. Just the name.
Anyone with a critical eye knows the impeachment is fraudulent. The whistleblower is a known Joe Biden fan who didn't like something he heard during Trump's infamous phone call, and decided that he needed to complain about it. He's just another of those who overstepped his authority in an attempt to overturn an action with which he disagrees by a superior whom he doesn't like. He's the latest example to prove that the Deep State really does exist and is seeking to undermine the president's policies. He should be called to account and explain to the public why he felt Trump's comment was wrong and needed to be reported, when there were several others who were on the call who had no issues with it.
The real issue remains Biden's admitted personal intervention to get the Ukrainian prosector fired in order to secure the release of American funding. If anyone needs to be impeached, Biden should be retroactively.
During Trump's rally in Lexington last week, Sen. Rand Paul stole the show with his demand that the press do its job and name the whistleblower and hold him to the same scrutiny as it does Trump's supporters and defenders. You can still hear the crickets chirping, though, as the mainstream press hasn't seen fit to do any investigating into what's now commonly-known information. And even if the NYT or WaPo decided to name him, Facebook wouldn't allow those stories to be shared.
Had this been an insider blowing the whistle on something President Obama did, you can be sure they would be rushing to identify him and impugn his motives. But with the roles reverse, they feel obligated to protect his identity.
So the uphill battle continues. Conservatives continue facing obstacles in getting their information and opinions out. It just serves to build the mistrust we have in the mainstream press. When we can't count on the media to present all sides of the issues, we look elsewhere.
Monday, November 11, 2019
Thank a veteran (a tribute to my father)
Today is Veterans Day. Lots of people get the meaning of today confused with two other holidays.
Memorial Day is the day we remember and honor those who gave their life in the service of our country.
Armed Forces Day is when we extend our thanks to those currently serving.
And today, Veterans Day, we respect those who served and returned home from that service, and are either still living or died as veterans and not active-duty personnel.
Like most everyone my age, I had a number of veterans in my family. But the one I most respected was my dad.
He graduated from Lee County High School in 1950 and entered the workforce. But the United States was in the midst of a military conflict with Korea, and we had a draft back then, so the Army called and my dad answered the call.
He paid a dear price for his service. As a result of injuries suffered in Korea, he lost his left leg above the knee and had nerve damage in his left arm and hand.
For many people, that would have brought a devastating end to their future and their hope. But for my dad, it was a new beginning.
Dad enrolled in Berea College and earned his degree in education. He became a teacher in the Lee County school system. He married my mom, and they had two sons. Dad worked hard to make a life for his family. His handicap didn't slow him down. Even with one leg and without the full use of one hand, he could outwork me in the yard or garden until he was well into his 60s. He raised a huge garden and took care not only of his own homestead, but that of his widowed mother, who lived a mile away. All of my dad's siblings had migrated to Bullitt County, and he had been working in Louisville before going to the Army, so he felt an obligation to care for his mother as well as the rest of us.
In the early 1980s, he had some health problems that required a couple of lengthy hospitalizations. So, after 24 years as a teacher, he retired on disability. The timing ended up being right. My mom developed a terminal illness the year he retired, and he spent the last year of her life taking her back and forth to Lexington for treatments. At 56 years old, my dad became a widower.
Both of us boys were still home at the time of mom's death, but we ended up following careers elsewhere. Dad remained independent, caring for himself and staying busy with outside activities, although it became obvious the older he got that he was slowing down. I ended up moving back to Lee County in 2002, and was able to help him some.
Eventually, his body wore out. The artificial leg wasn't easy to use, and his good knee had seen the Itis family take up residence. His mobility was greatly reduced, he started using a crutch and eventually his wheelchair, and quit driving, and made the decision to go to the Thomson-Hood Veterans Center in Wilmore. The timing of that decision was good, as well. Not too long after he went there, he suffered a stroke or some sort of health issue that basically rendered him bedfast. He died in 2010, eight months shy of his 80th birthday, after being in the vets' nursing home for a little more than two years.
Dad never talked much about his service, or his injuries, and I never really asked. He never complained about what had happened in his life. He more than made the best of it. I could never hope to match his physical strength or his work ethic. Life seems overwhelming to me, but I never was gravely injured on foreign soil or had to adjust to a completely new way of life, relearn how to walk, or go through life without the full use of my body.
I've had so many of his former students recall him fondly and tell me that he was the best teacher they ever had. He just touched those lives for one year out of the 12 they spent in school, but he was a permanent fixture in mine. At home, Dad was quiet, but he was stubborn and he was opinionated. He didn't express his views often to acquaintances or non-relatives, but when he did, you could be certain he felt strongly about it. We agreed on a lot, but not everything. And even now, I find out that most of the time, he was right and I was wrong about someone or something.
I looked up to my dad in every way. He was an imposing physical presence, and even when I got to be as big as he was, I still saw a bigger-than-life man. He could be firm sometimes -- you didn't want to get a spanking from him -- but he had a heart of gold and was so generous to his family. This big, stoic, non-emotional man cried when Mom died and he cried again when her dog died a few years later.
I'll never be the man my dad was. I'm not tough enough to go through military training or endure the rigors that service would entail. Service affects different people in different ways, and sometimes it's hard to understand why a veteran might have the opinions they do on certain topics, but they've lived something I could never survive.
That's why I honor and respect the service of everyone who put on the uniform. Whether they served in peacetime or in battle, they've made a sacrifice that many of us could not do. I probably won't be able to thank every veteran I know personally, but I do appreciate them. You should too.
Memorial Day is the day we remember and honor those who gave their life in the service of our country.
Armed Forces Day is when we extend our thanks to those currently serving.
And today, Veterans Day, we respect those who served and returned home from that service, and are either still living or died as veterans and not active-duty personnel.
Like most everyone my age, I had a number of veterans in my family. But the one I most respected was my dad.
He graduated from Lee County High School in 1950 and entered the workforce. But the United States was in the midst of a military conflict with Korea, and we had a draft back then, so the Army called and my dad answered the call.
He paid a dear price for his service. As a result of injuries suffered in Korea, he lost his left leg above the knee and had nerve damage in his left arm and hand.
For many people, that would have brought a devastating end to their future and their hope. But for my dad, it was a new beginning.
Dad enrolled in Berea College and earned his degree in education. He became a teacher in the Lee County school system. He married my mom, and they had two sons. Dad worked hard to make a life for his family. His handicap didn't slow him down. Even with one leg and without the full use of one hand, he could outwork me in the yard or garden until he was well into his 60s. He raised a huge garden and took care not only of his own homestead, but that of his widowed mother, who lived a mile away. All of my dad's siblings had migrated to Bullitt County, and he had been working in Louisville before going to the Army, so he felt an obligation to care for his mother as well as the rest of us.
In the early 1980s, he had some health problems that required a couple of lengthy hospitalizations. So, after 24 years as a teacher, he retired on disability. The timing ended up being right. My mom developed a terminal illness the year he retired, and he spent the last year of her life taking her back and forth to Lexington for treatments. At 56 years old, my dad became a widower.
Both of us boys were still home at the time of mom's death, but we ended up following careers elsewhere. Dad remained independent, caring for himself and staying busy with outside activities, although it became obvious the older he got that he was slowing down. I ended up moving back to Lee County in 2002, and was able to help him some.
Eventually, his body wore out. The artificial leg wasn't easy to use, and his good knee had seen the Itis family take up residence. His mobility was greatly reduced, he started using a crutch and eventually his wheelchair, and quit driving, and made the decision to go to the Thomson-Hood Veterans Center in Wilmore. The timing of that decision was good, as well. Not too long after he went there, he suffered a stroke or some sort of health issue that basically rendered him bedfast. He died in 2010, eight months shy of his 80th birthday, after being in the vets' nursing home for a little more than two years.
Dad never talked much about his service, or his injuries, and I never really asked. He never complained about what had happened in his life. He more than made the best of it. I could never hope to match his physical strength or his work ethic. Life seems overwhelming to me, but I never was gravely injured on foreign soil or had to adjust to a completely new way of life, relearn how to walk, or go through life without the full use of my body.
I've had so many of his former students recall him fondly and tell me that he was the best teacher they ever had. He just touched those lives for one year out of the 12 they spent in school, but he was a permanent fixture in mine. At home, Dad was quiet, but he was stubborn and he was opinionated. He didn't express his views often to acquaintances or non-relatives, but when he did, you could be certain he felt strongly about it. We agreed on a lot, but not everything. And even now, I find out that most of the time, he was right and I was wrong about someone or something.
I looked up to my dad in every way. He was an imposing physical presence, and even when I got to be as big as he was, I still saw a bigger-than-life man. He could be firm sometimes -- you didn't want to get a spanking from him -- but he had a heart of gold and was so generous to his family. This big, stoic, non-emotional man cried when Mom died and he cried again when her dog died a few years later.
I'll never be the man my dad was. I'm not tough enough to go through military training or endure the rigors that service would entail. Service affects different people in different ways, and sometimes it's hard to understand why a veteran might have the opinions they do on certain topics, but they've lived something I could never survive.
That's why I honor and respect the service of everyone who put on the uniform. Whether they served in peacetime or in battle, they've made a sacrifice that many of us could not do. I probably won't be able to thank every veteran I know personally, but I do appreciate them. You should too.
Saturday, November 9, 2019
"A name so easily forgettable," and a name you should remember
After I wrote my piece earlier this week about possible gubernatorial candidates in 2023, I saw an interview with state Rep. Robert Goforth, who ran against Gov. Matt Bevin in the Republican primary and lost.
My first thought was, "I forgot about him in my rundown of candidates," but then I realized that I hadn't given Goforth any thought at all. I flashed back to the comment Bevin had about him when asked about him months after the primary. "Who? It's a name that's easily forgettable."
And it's true. The likelihood is that Goforth will be a non-factor four years from now. In fact, it's likely that he won't even be in public service.
A popular rumor that circulated when Goforth first entered the GOP primary was that he was a plant by Rep. Jeff Hoover, the former speaker of the House who was basically forced out of his leadership position in a sexting scandal, and who has since decided to retire from his House seat. When the behavior of Hoover and others in the legislature became known, Bevin was very vocal in his calls for Hoover to step down. It didn't set well with the longtime legislator from Russell County and the first Republican House speaker in modern history.
Goforth outperformed Bevin in the Republican primary in the eastern, southeastern, and south-central counties of the current 5th District and the "old 5th" that is is home turf. While many found that alarming, it's easily understandable. People in this area tend to vote for their home-region candidates. Goforth's from Laurel County, and Bevin's from Louisville. And there's a distinct anti-Louisville bias in rural Kentucky. Any alarm that his performance against Bevin in the primary was a strong signal for the general election got shot down once the returns came in. Bevin beat or held his own against Andy Beshear in the Democrat-dominated counties of the area, and did as expected in the GOP counties. In fact, Bevin's largest percentage of victory came from Jackson County, one of the counties in Goforth's state House district.
Goforth got into politics upon the retirement for health reasons of Jackson County's Marie Rader. (Personal disclaimer: I know Marie Rader and consider her a friend). He's basically a first-term legislator who got the party's nomination for a special election in a safe GOP district, which ensured his election.
Outside of his gubernatorial run, some of his votes and statements have angered a number of conservatives to the point where it's said that he will have a credible challenger in next year's primary and will be lucky to be renominated.
So, instead of being a serious contender to run for governor in four years, it's more likely that he will be out of politics and looking back on his brief moment in the spotlight as a near-spoiler in the primary.
Goforth may be a name easily forgotten, but Stan Cave is a name I will always remember. I didn't include him in my analysis of possible gubernatorial candidates, but he is the first person I would line up for to support should he decide to run.
When it became apparent that Matt Bevin would not be re-elected governor, and thus as a result that Ralph Alvarado would not be the leading candidate to succeed him, I posted to Facebook, "Let me be the first to say, Stan Cave for Governor 2023!" He probably thought I was joking, but I was, and remain, serious.
I first met Stan back when he was serving as chief of staff for Gov. Ernie Fletcher, at a work event in Estill County. We knew of each other, due to mutual friends, but had never met in person. It was like running into a long-lost brother. He served in the General Assembly with Fletcher when he was a state representative, and is an attorney best known for his work with the Family Foundation. We've reconnected on social media and he's been a source of inspiration and advice.
I'm convinced he has the background and knowledge to be a great governor. He's right on the issues and is a genuinely good man. I've long thought he should get back into politics, as he has a servant's heart and is passionate about a number of issues. Chief among them is horse racing and the safety of the horses. Every time there's a racing accident and a horse is euthanized, he's angered. He thinks more could be done to regulate the sport and governments are turning a blind eye to what's going on. He's been as critical of the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission under a Republican governor as he has been the Democrats.
Stan commented when I shared my piece on the 2023 contenders, sharing his own thoughts, and I told him I had left him out of the listing, but I still believe he'd be the best candidate the Republicans could field. I'm about ready to start the #DraftStanCave movement.
Stan Cave is the best of the best. I'll never forget his kindnesses to me. He'd make Kentucky a great governor. Maybe we can convince him to run.
Stan commented when I shared my piece on the 2023 contenders, sharing his own thoughts, and I told him I had left him out of the listing, but I still believe he'd be the best candidate the Republicans could field. I'm about ready to start the #DraftStanCave movement.
Stan Cave is the best of the best. I'll never forget his kindnesses to me. He'd make Kentucky a great governor. Maybe we can convince him to run.
Friday, November 8, 2019
State employees right to worry about Beshear 2.0
As a state employee, I've ridden out three gubernatorial transitions, and am getting ready for my fourth. None were what you would call friendly transfers of power.
My first one was from Democrat Brereton Jones to fellow Democrat Paul Patton in 1995. Even though Patton had served as lieutenant governor under Jones, back in the days when those two offices were elected separately, they weren't exactly buddies. While they didn't have the contentious relationship that Jones had experienced when he was Wallace Wilkinson's lieutenant governor, they had issues.
I was out of state government when Patton surrendered the governorship to Republican Ernie Fletcher, but was back in public service when Fletcher lost his re-election bid to Steve Beshear.
I was here when Beshear gave way to Republican Matt Bevin four years ago, and now here I am when Bevin will seemingly move aside for Democrat Andy Beshear.
Most state government merit employees don't see a tremendous change in their day-to-day duties when an administration turns over, but it's more uncomfortable for some than others. In my case, I report to a non-merit supervisor, so any gubernatorial change might mean a new boss for me. That's never a fun scenario, although all my bosses have been great to me over the years.
For whatever reason, the state government workforce has been a reliable constituency for Democrats. It's possibly because so many employees owe their jobs to the patronage system that the Democrats ran for years, yet have denied ever existed. They were convinced that the Fletcher administration was terrible for them and the Republicans who ran state government during that four-year term hated them. Many lies were told about Fletcher's treatment of merit system employees. No employees with status were fired; the only employee who was fired was on probation, and his management showed ample reasons for that decision.
In retrospect, the Fletcher administration was the last one that really showed that it valued the career employees who earn their living serving the state's taxpayers.
Certainly, the Steve Beshear years were awful. Employees dealt with no raises and then furloughs, which caused them to lose several days' pay each year. Even though minuscule raises were granted during Beshear's last two years in office, the reality is that any state employee who stayed in the same position during his eight years lost money out of their paychecks. Add to that his administration's inability to negotiate decent health insurance policies, and their embrace of Obamacare and the changes it required in the benefits offered to employees, and that resulted in an even greater monetary cost.
While it's true that the Bevin administration never granted across-the-board pay raises for all employees, there were a lot of adjustments made. Several job classifications were raised a grade -- for example, from Grade 13 to Grade 14 -- resulting in more pay. A number of other vital job classifications saw their salaries increased. A new midpoint schedule was implemented for purposes of recruiting new employees and retaining existing workers. New job classification series were established in some agencies to give employees a promotional path.
State law requires that employees receive a 5 percent pay raise each year (it's in KRS 18A.355) but increments of that level haven't been given since Patton's term. Raises under Fletcher's administration ranged in the 2-3 percent level, and Beshear never gave more than a 2 percent raise, but that didn't make up for the furloughs. And no across-the-board raises were given under Bevin. The budget authors always use the line, "notwithstanding the provisions of..." to get around the statutory language. There's a move afoot to repeal the 5 percent requirement and replace it with an annual cost-of-living raise, but that would still be subject to "notwithstanding" language when the state's budget is prepared.
The transition from Bevin back to another Beshear has many state employees, me included, worried. For the most part, public sector salaries are less than what folks in the private sector earn. The lack of raises has really hurt state workers, to the point that many leave for worse jobs that pay better. Snowplow drivers with their CDLs become over-the-road truckers to provide for their families. They're gone from home, but the money puts food on the table and the job provides insurance for the kids.
Memes have been floating around social media since Tuesday's election of a grinning Steve Beshear, sometimes with his wife in the photo, basically saying, "Look at those stupid people. We robbed their pensions blind, and they were dumb enough to elect my (our) son."
Steve and Andy Beshear may be father and son, but they're ideological twins. On issue after issue -- abortion, the Medicaid expansion that will end up busting the state budget, casino gambing, etc. -- there's not any difference in their views. So why should their attitudes toward public employees be any better?
Steve Beshear underfunded the pensions of public employees and teachers. Do those who voted for Andy, especially the teachers, really expect him to be any different? Why did they vote against someone who actually funded their pensions and tried to preserve them for the future, other than being upset about some blunt things he said?
Any state employee or teacher who voted for Andy Beshear is like a chicken voting for Harland Sanders, or a cow voting for Dave Thomas or Ronald McDonald.
Andy Beshear promised to give teachers a $2,000 raise, but where's that money going to come from? And what about state employees? Don't they deserve raises too?
Beshear 2.0 is setting up to be just like Beshear 1.0. The Fletcher administration left Steve Beshear a budget surplus, but Beshear immediately started poor-mouthing the financial situation upon taking office. He was never able to push casino gambling through as a new funding source, so he convinced legislative leaders they needed to furlough state employees to make up the shortfall. (Senate President David Williams later lamented supporting that move, saying it was one of the worst mistakes he ever made; the Democrats who led the House never echoed a similar sentiment.)
Last month, the Bevin administration announced a surplus in the state's General Fund. Andy Beshear has also campaigned on bringing casino gambling to Kentucky, but has been told by Senate leaders that the proposal will go nowhere. Will he start complaining about a tight budget when he takes office and balance it on the backs of the state workers like his daddy did?
I've already let my social circle know that I'm on the job market. If I can find something that pays better in my area, I'll have no choice but to jump at the offer. I'm giving serious thought to retiring six years shy of qualifying for full benefits and taking a private-sector job at a reduced salary if it means more take-home pay when my pension is added to my paycheck. The election of Andy Beshear makes that thought look even more appealing.
Beshear 2.0 worries me. If you're a public employee concerned about your salary or pension, you should be worried too. And if you voted for him under those circumstances, you'll have to suffer the consequences. Be careful of what you wish for sometimes. You just may get it.
My first one was from Democrat Brereton Jones to fellow Democrat Paul Patton in 1995. Even though Patton had served as lieutenant governor under Jones, back in the days when those two offices were elected separately, they weren't exactly buddies. While they didn't have the contentious relationship that Jones had experienced when he was Wallace Wilkinson's lieutenant governor, they had issues.
I was out of state government when Patton surrendered the governorship to Republican Ernie Fletcher, but was back in public service when Fletcher lost his re-election bid to Steve Beshear.
I was here when Beshear gave way to Republican Matt Bevin four years ago, and now here I am when Bevin will seemingly move aside for Democrat Andy Beshear.
Most state government merit employees don't see a tremendous change in their day-to-day duties when an administration turns over, but it's more uncomfortable for some than others. In my case, I report to a non-merit supervisor, so any gubernatorial change might mean a new boss for me. That's never a fun scenario, although all my bosses have been great to me over the years.
For whatever reason, the state government workforce has been a reliable constituency for Democrats. It's possibly because so many employees owe their jobs to the patronage system that the Democrats ran for years, yet have denied ever existed. They were convinced that the Fletcher administration was terrible for them and the Republicans who ran state government during that four-year term hated them. Many lies were told about Fletcher's treatment of merit system employees. No employees with status were fired; the only employee who was fired was on probation, and his management showed ample reasons for that decision.
In retrospect, the Fletcher administration was the last one that really showed that it valued the career employees who earn their living serving the state's taxpayers.
Certainly, the Steve Beshear years were awful. Employees dealt with no raises and then furloughs, which caused them to lose several days' pay each year. Even though minuscule raises were granted during Beshear's last two years in office, the reality is that any state employee who stayed in the same position during his eight years lost money out of their paychecks. Add to that his administration's inability to negotiate decent health insurance policies, and their embrace of Obamacare and the changes it required in the benefits offered to employees, and that resulted in an even greater monetary cost.
While it's true that the Bevin administration never granted across-the-board pay raises for all employees, there were a lot of adjustments made. Several job classifications were raised a grade -- for example, from Grade 13 to Grade 14 -- resulting in more pay. A number of other vital job classifications saw their salaries increased. A new midpoint schedule was implemented for purposes of recruiting new employees and retaining existing workers. New job classification series were established in some agencies to give employees a promotional path.
State law requires that employees receive a 5 percent pay raise each year (it's in KRS 18A.355) but increments of that level haven't been given since Patton's term. Raises under Fletcher's administration ranged in the 2-3 percent level, and Beshear never gave more than a 2 percent raise, but that didn't make up for the furloughs. And no across-the-board raises were given under Bevin. The budget authors always use the line, "notwithstanding the provisions of..." to get around the statutory language. There's a move afoot to repeal the 5 percent requirement and replace it with an annual cost-of-living raise, but that would still be subject to "notwithstanding" language when the state's budget is prepared.
The transition from Bevin back to another Beshear has many state employees, me included, worried. For the most part, public sector salaries are less than what folks in the private sector earn. The lack of raises has really hurt state workers, to the point that many leave for worse jobs that pay better. Snowplow drivers with their CDLs become over-the-road truckers to provide for their families. They're gone from home, but the money puts food on the table and the job provides insurance for the kids.
Memes have been floating around social media since Tuesday's election of a grinning Steve Beshear, sometimes with his wife in the photo, basically saying, "Look at those stupid people. We robbed their pensions blind, and they were dumb enough to elect my (our) son."
Steve and Andy Beshear may be father and son, but they're ideological twins. On issue after issue -- abortion, the Medicaid expansion that will end up busting the state budget, casino gambing, etc. -- there's not any difference in their views. So why should their attitudes toward public employees be any better?
Steve Beshear underfunded the pensions of public employees and teachers. Do those who voted for Andy, especially the teachers, really expect him to be any different? Why did they vote against someone who actually funded their pensions and tried to preserve them for the future, other than being upset about some blunt things he said?
Any state employee or teacher who voted for Andy Beshear is like a chicken voting for Harland Sanders, or a cow voting for Dave Thomas or Ronald McDonald.
Andy Beshear promised to give teachers a $2,000 raise, but where's that money going to come from? And what about state employees? Don't they deserve raises too?
Beshear 2.0 is setting up to be just like Beshear 1.0. The Fletcher administration left Steve Beshear a budget surplus, but Beshear immediately started poor-mouthing the financial situation upon taking office. He was never able to push casino gambling through as a new funding source, so he convinced legislative leaders they needed to furlough state employees to make up the shortfall. (Senate President David Williams later lamented supporting that move, saying it was one of the worst mistakes he ever made; the Democrats who led the House never echoed a similar sentiment.)
Last month, the Bevin administration announced a surplus in the state's General Fund. Andy Beshear has also campaigned on bringing casino gambling to Kentucky, but has been told by Senate leaders that the proposal will go nowhere. Will he start complaining about a tight budget when he takes office and balance it on the backs of the state workers like his daddy did?
I've already let my social circle know that I'm on the job market. If I can find something that pays better in my area, I'll have no choice but to jump at the offer. I'm giving serious thought to retiring six years shy of qualifying for full benefits and taking a private-sector job at a reduced salary if it means more take-home pay when my pension is added to my paycheck. The election of Andy Beshear makes that thought look even more appealing.
Beshear 2.0 worries me. If you're a public employee concerned about your salary or pension, you should be worried too. And if you voted for him under those circumstances, you'll have to suffer the consequences. Be careful of what you wish for sometimes. You just may get it.
The process must be respected in review of gubernatorial election
Constitutional attorney, author, and radio and television host Mark Levin has a name for Republicans who seem to flee at the first sign of controversy or dispute with liberals and Democrats. He calls them "French Republicans."
Others, including former Louisiana governor and presidential candidate Bobby Jindal, refer to them as the "Surrender Caucus."
Others, including former Louisiana governor and presidential candidate Bobby Jindal, refer to them as the "Surrender Caucus."
Now, it seems that this bunch is setting up a presence in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. It's one reason that those of us who consider ourselves strong, principled conservatives get so frustrated with so many elected Republicans. They're too willing to concede or give in to the Democrats instead of standing strong.
With an extremely close contest between Gov. Matt Bevin and Andy Beshear, the governor is rightly looking into his options. First on the table is a recanvass, which he has requested, and which will occur next week. That's a simple process that takes place on a county-by-county basis. Vote totals are checked and the results are added again to ensure that no calculation mistakes were made. The margin of around 5,100 votes makes it unlikely that things will significantly change, but in an election where two votes per precinct made the difference, it's possible that a recording or mathematical error could alter the total. It's as possible that Beshear would pick up votes as it is Bevin would.
From there, it gets tricky. Kentucky law does not allow gubernatorial candidates to request a formal recount, as it does for local offices. A recount is a more involved process that includes examining voting machines to make sure they were working properly and recording votes as they were cast. The candidate who requests the recount is required to pay for it, and it involves a court process.
If Bevin thinks there is reason to move past a recanvass, he is required to contest the election with the General Assembly. This happened last year, when a legislative candidate lost by one vote and went through the procedure. The legislature forms a committee of randomly-selected members, eight from the House of Representatives and three from the Senate. The committee then hears testimony, reviews evidence, can order a formal recount, and makes a recommendation for the full legislature's decision.
Bevin has alluded to some improprieties in the election, but as of this writing, has offered no specifics. There's been anecdotal evidence, though, of problems. One precinct in Lexington didn't open until 6:30 a.m. because no one from the school system came to open the building. Some have reported that some paper ballot users were given ballots pre-marked for Beshear and other Democrats (one of the best arguments against using paper ballots that can be made). Others have mentioned other issues. It's been stated that in some Louisville precincts, neither Bevin nor Libertarian candidate John Hicks received a single vote; all of the ballots went to Beshear. And there's an infamous screenshot of a tweet, which is probably a fake based on the way the location is spelled "Louiville" instead of "Louisville," in which someone claims to have shredded a box of Bevin ballots.
That last is most likely a not-so-clever Photoshop job, but is there enough anecdotal evidence for Bevin to proceed with contesting the election? He said in his news conference that his team is in the process of gathering information and taking affidavits of those who have information about improprieties.
This is as it should be. There's a process in place, and we should all want fair and free elections where everyone's vote is recorded as cast and there is no fraud. But you wouldn't know it judging from the remarks of a number of Republicans, who seem willing to let a Democrat take office even if he earned that office improperly.
Even some legislators are saying that Bevin should give up the fight. Suppose he does, and then incontrovertible evidence of misdeeds comes to light after Beshear takes office and starts making changes? Would they be OK with that? When Senate President Robert Stivers pointed out how the process works, the national liberal media quickly started the "Republicans are going to steal the election" mantra.
Back in 1995, Paul Patton defeated Larry Forgy by a statewide margin of more than 21,000 votes. In that election, like this one just concluded, Jefferson County made the difference. Forgy alleged voter fraud, saying that the election was stolen from him in Louisville, and actually ended up with some indictments to prove his claims. Four people, including two high-level Patton aides, were charged. The indictments were later dismissed by a special judge, but reinstated by appellate courts. Patton ended up pardoning them, removing any possibility of determining for certain if he had won the election fairly, to quote then-Attorney General Ben Chandler. (There's a very interesting local angle to that story that might bear telling at some point in the future).
Bevin's margin of loss to Beshear is much less than Forgy's margin was against Patton. Although Forgy did not contest the election, the later criminal cases did call into question the election's integrity.
Does Bevin not deserve the right to know that he lost fairly and squarely? Does this state not deserve to know as well? Wouldn't Beshear want to know that his victory was genuine? Probably not, because his post-election comments were basically, "We won, you lost, it's over."
Does Bevin not deserve the right to know that he lost fairly and squarely? Does this state not deserve to know as well? Wouldn't Beshear want to know that his victory was genuine? Probably not, because his post-election comments were basically, "We won, you lost, it's over."
It's true that Bevin had a prickly relationship even with members of his own party in the General Assembly, but these people should be worried more about the integrity of the election than they are making peace and moving on. So many are worried about what a contested election will do to the state, and what might happen if the legislature ends up deciding that Bevin is the actual winner. They say that with GOP supermajorities in both houses, and Republicans in the major watchdog offices of attorney general and auditor, they can hold Beshear and his agenda in check. They should be more worried about the possibility of an improperly-elected governor running the state.
So, let the process move forward. It's there for a reason. Maybe things need to be changed to provide for a recount for gubernatorial races, like exists for local races. But the current setup is what they have to work with now. If Bevin is satisfied with the results after the recanvass, then fine. He's an honorable man. But if he finds something that convinces him that he needs to contest the election, then he has that right. It's our law. And members of both parties need to respect that. The "Surrender Caucus" needs to stand down, and the "French Republicans" need to go take a bath and put on some deodorant.
Thursday, November 7, 2019
Looking ahead to 2023: Who are the Republicans' best options to take down Beshear?
The race for governor had not even been officially declared for Andy Beshear on Tuesday night, and one political pundit on Kentucky Educational Television's election-night coverage was declaring re-elected Agriculture Commissioner Ryan Quarles as the front-runner for the 2023 Republican nomination.
It's a logical name to throw out there, but is it the logical name?
The same week as the election may seem to be too early to start discussing who the Republicans should choose to take on Beshear in four years, but the reality is that the GOP needs to start thinking about this race now and begin working on its plan to unseat the new governor.
Much like the University of Kentucky's 2014-15 basketball season, the roster is loaded. (In all honesty, this year's slate was loaded as well, but Beshear played the role of Wisconsin.) All the statewide officers elected on Tuesday won by decisive margins, some against candidates with high name recognition and years of service, so it's a deep bench. Three of the officeholders will be term-limited and won't be able to seek re-election (the aforementioned Quarles, Auditor Mike Harmon, and Treasurer Allison Ball.) They'll possibly be looking to step up. Attorney General Daniel Cameron and Secretary of State Michael Adams will be in their first terms, and may choose to seek re-election than a move up at that point in their political careers.
All would definitely be formidable opponents for an incumbent Beshear. The three existing officeholders have done great jobs in their current positions. Ball led the ticket for the Republicans and has rejuvenated the duties of what is really a minor office. Harmon has done a methodical job as auditor, conducting himself in a bipartisan, impartial fashion. And Quarles has worked to modernize the state's agriculture industry, still a major economic engine, and is moving forward as hemp becomes a factor. Cameron and Adams are both attorneys. Cameron brings experience with Mitch McConnell, the leader of both the United States Senate and the state's rejuvenated Republican Party. Adams has experience working with other state executives in his role as an election lawyer.
Much depends on each individual's personal ambitions. Harmon and Quarles were both state legislators before moving into their executive elected positions. Ball is the mother of a young child and may prefer family time over the demands that the governorship would impose on her schedule.
Do any of these individuals stand out? Will they be jockeying amongst themselves for position at the top of the discussion list prior to the actual filing begins?
These are the first names that come to mind when you start talking about 2023 contenders, but they aren't the only ones. Rep. Jamie Comer lost the GOP primary to Bevin by only 83 votes in 2015, but found new political life when Ed Whitfield retired and Comer took his place as 1st District congressman. It seems that Comer has settled into his D.C. career, but sometimes it appears as if he never got over losing that race four years ago, and still has his eye on the governor's office.
None of the other members of the federal delegation would seem to be in the mix. All of them (Brett Guthrie, Thomas Massie, Hal Rogers, and Andy Barr) appear to be content with serving in Congress, and really have never looked to have designs on a Frankfort office during their tenures.
There may be some state legislators who are interested. Much as Rocky Adkins ran for the Democratic nomination this year, there might be a Republican who has their eyes on a bigger prize. It will be interesting to see if any outspoken leaders or fresh faces emerge as the General Assembly conducts business for the next few sessions. David Williams, when he was Senate president, sought to move up. There doesn't seem to be any indication that his successor, Robert Stivers, would be interested in following suit.
And, is there an unknown quantity out there? Another business person interested in stepping into politics? A Matt Bevin, a Wallace Wilkinson, a John Y. Brown, or even a Donald Trump? No one saw Bevin's rise to the governor's office coming, especially after his landslide loss to McConnell in the 2014 GOP Senate primary. Yet he pulled the upset in the primary, and then again in the general election.
Some may say it's too early to start looking toward 2023, but they're wrong. The time to start planning Beshear's defeat is now. There's a good team to choose from, and possibly some other players will emerge as we move forward. Keep an eye out for these political figures, and be on the lookout for an unknown, when campaigning starts for the next governor's race three years from now.
It's a logical name to throw out there, but is it the logical name?
The same week as the election may seem to be too early to start discussing who the Republicans should choose to take on Beshear in four years, but the reality is that the GOP needs to start thinking about this race now and begin working on its plan to unseat the new governor.
Much like the University of Kentucky's 2014-15 basketball season, the roster is loaded. (In all honesty, this year's slate was loaded as well, but Beshear played the role of Wisconsin.) All the statewide officers elected on Tuesday won by decisive margins, some against candidates with high name recognition and years of service, so it's a deep bench. Three of the officeholders will be term-limited and won't be able to seek re-election (the aforementioned Quarles, Auditor Mike Harmon, and Treasurer Allison Ball.) They'll possibly be looking to step up. Attorney General Daniel Cameron and Secretary of State Michael Adams will be in their first terms, and may choose to seek re-election than a move up at that point in their political careers.
All would definitely be formidable opponents for an incumbent Beshear. The three existing officeholders have done great jobs in their current positions. Ball led the ticket for the Republicans and has rejuvenated the duties of what is really a minor office. Harmon has done a methodical job as auditor, conducting himself in a bipartisan, impartial fashion. And Quarles has worked to modernize the state's agriculture industry, still a major economic engine, and is moving forward as hemp becomes a factor. Cameron and Adams are both attorneys. Cameron brings experience with Mitch McConnell, the leader of both the United States Senate and the state's rejuvenated Republican Party. Adams has experience working with other state executives in his role as an election lawyer.
Much depends on each individual's personal ambitions. Harmon and Quarles were both state legislators before moving into their executive elected positions. Ball is the mother of a young child and may prefer family time over the demands that the governorship would impose on her schedule.
Do any of these individuals stand out? Will they be jockeying amongst themselves for position at the top of the discussion list prior to the actual filing begins?
These are the first names that come to mind when you start talking about 2023 contenders, but they aren't the only ones. Rep. Jamie Comer lost the GOP primary to Bevin by only 83 votes in 2015, but found new political life when Ed Whitfield retired and Comer took his place as 1st District congressman. It seems that Comer has settled into his D.C. career, but sometimes it appears as if he never got over losing that race four years ago, and still has his eye on the governor's office.
None of the other members of the federal delegation would seem to be in the mix. All of them (Brett Guthrie, Thomas Massie, Hal Rogers, and Andy Barr) appear to be content with serving in Congress, and really have never looked to have designs on a Frankfort office during their tenures.
There may be some state legislators who are interested. Much as Rocky Adkins ran for the Democratic nomination this year, there might be a Republican who has their eyes on a bigger prize. It will be interesting to see if any outspoken leaders or fresh faces emerge as the General Assembly conducts business for the next few sessions. David Williams, when he was Senate president, sought to move up. There doesn't seem to be any indication that his successor, Robert Stivers, would be interested in following suit.
And, is there an unknown quantity out there? Another business person interested in stepping into politics? A Matt Bevin, a Wallace Wilkinson, a John Y. Brown, or even a Donald Trump? No one saw Bevin's rise to the governor's office coming, especially after his landslide loss to McConnell in the 2014 GOP Senate primary. Yet he pulled the upset in the primary, and then again in the general election.
Some may say it's too early to start looking toward 2023, but they're wrong. The time to start planning Beshear's defeat is now. There's a good team to choose from, and possibly some other players will emerge as we move forward. Keep an eye out for these political figures, and be on the lookout for an unknown, when campaigning starts for the next governor's race three years from now.
Daniel Cameron's mission, should he choose to accept it
It's pretty much a fact that Ernie Fletcher would have been re-elected as Kentucky's governor in 2007 if not for the actions of Attorney General Greg Stumbo.
Stumbo took an exaggerated allegation of misconduct into political influence in hiring, turned it into a prosecution of Fletcher and many in his administration, and then the Democrats were successfully able to use the "scandal" to bring down Fletcher and elect Steve Beshear in his place.
Volumes could be written on how Stumbo misused his authority, how the press failed to report facts that would have shifted public opinion on Fletcher, and how the entire investigation was sour grapes from a political party angry because they'd been denied the governor's office for the first time in more than three decades.
But it's all said and done now, and on Tuesday Kentucky voters rejected Stumbo's attempt to take the attorney general's seat back over. But the fact remains that if not for Stumbo's personnel probe, there would have been no negatives in the way of Fletcher's re-election.
To a lesser extent, it could be argued that current Attorney General Andy Beshear played a huge role in Gov. Matt Bevin's loss on Tuesday. While it's true that Bevin's own comments were the major factor in why teachers led the charge to deny him re-election, Beshear's constant parade to the courthouse to sue Bevin's administration didn't hurt. And while -- surprise, surprise -- the media didn't report that Bevin won more of those legal battles than did Beshear, Beshear got all the positive press from them. Beshear even got praise from Stumbo for challenging the committee substitute legislative process, which is something Stumbo used often during his days as a legislator and House speaker.
So, this is the situation into which steps Attorney General-elect Daniel Cameron. As a Republican, he'll be going up against Democrat Beshear, who is moving up into the governor's office. What will Cameron do? Will he be as Stumbo was to Fletcher, or Beshear was to Bevin? Or will he be a go-along-to-get-along type, reflective of the attitude of his mentor, Sen. Mitch McConnell, who frequently angers conservatives for his willingness to acquiesce to liberals and not stand up against them and for conservative principles?
Cameron has already said he will do his job without regard for his personal beliefs, which is more than either Beshear or his predecessor, Jack Conway, did. Both of them refused to defend duly-passed state laws from court challenges. Watch police-themed television shows, such as "Law & Order: Special Victims Unit," and you'll frequently hear the phrase, "We don't get to pick the vic(tim)." This is similar. The attorney general's job is to defend state laws, whether the officeholder agrees with the law or not. The decision on the constitutionality of a law is not for the AG's office to decide. That falls to the courts.
But will Cameron be as aggressive in going after Beshear as Stumbo was Fletcher (criminally) or Beshear was Bevin (civilly)? For the sake of stopping his liberal agenda, we can only hope.
It's possible Cameron will be tested early. The legislature is still controlled by Republicans, with supermajorities in both houses. If the legislature has any gumption, it will ignore Beshear's budget proposals and move forward with its own agenda. Hopefully, this will include more pension reforms and school reforms. With the change in administration in the Executive Branch, it's doubtful that Beshear's Labor Cabinet will take any action should teachers engage in another illegal sickout to come to Frankfort and protest during the General Assembly session. It will be up to Cameron to prosecute them, since it's already been established that these sickouts are indeed against the law. Here's hoping he will.
With the GOP's sweep of all statewide office except the governor's race by commanding margins, the party has a clear mandate. And there are lots of rising young stars holding those offices. The governor's race in 2023 has to already be on the minds of some of them. Lots of people have already tagged Cameron as one of the brightest of those rising stars.
This is Cameron's chance to shine in a state that's trending Republican in every way except total voter registration. Does he become the face of the opposition to stand in the way of Andy Beshear undoing the gains of the last four years? Or does he stand aside and let this state go backwards? Here's hoping he lives up to the mission that's now set before him.
Stumbo took an exaggerated allegation of misconduct into political influence in hiring, turned it into a prosecution of Fletcher and many in his administration, and then the Democrats were successfully able to use the "scandal" to bring down Fletcher and elect Steve Beshear in his place.
Volumes could be written on how Stumbo misused his authority, how the press failed to report facts that would have shifted public opinion on Fletcher, and how the entire investigation was sour grapes from a political party angry because they'd been denied the governor's office for the first time in more than three decades.
But it's all said and done now, and on Tuesday Kentucky voters rejected Stumbo's attempt to take the attorney general's seat back over. But the fact remains that if not for Stumbo's personnel probe, there would have been no negatives in the way of Fletcher's re-election.
To a lesser extent, it could be argued that current Attorney General Andy Beshear played a huge role in Gov. Matt Bevin's loss on Tuesday. While it's true that Bevin's own comments were the major factor in why teachers led the charge to deny him re-election, Beshear's constant parade to the courthouse to sue Bevin's administration didn't hurt. And while -- surprise, surprise -- the media didn't report that Bevin won more of those legal battles than did Beshear, Beshear got all the positive press from them. Beshear even got praise from Stumbo for challenging the committee substitute legislative process, which is something Stumbo used often during his days as a legislator and House speaker.
So, this is the situation into which steps Attorney General-elect Daniel Cameron. As a Republican, he'll be going up against Democrat Beshear, who is moving up into the governor's office. What will Cameron do? Will he be as Stumbo was to Fletcher, or Beshear was to Bevin? Or will he be a go-along-to-get-along type, reflective of the attitude of his mentor, Sen. Mitch McConnell, who frequently angers conservatives for his willingness to acquiesce to liberals and not stand up against them and for conservative principles?
Cameron has already said he will do his job without regard for his personal beliefs, which is more than either Beshear or his predecessor, Jack Conway, did. Both of them refused to defend duly-passed state laws from court challenges. Watch police-themed television shows, such as "Law & Order: Special Victims Unit," and you'll frequently hear the phrase, "We don't get to pick the vic(tim)." This is similar. The attorney general's job is to defend state laws, whether the officeholder agrees with the law or not. The decision on the constitutionality of a law is not for the AG's office to decide. That falls to the courts.
But will Cameron be as aggressive in going after Beshear as Stumbo was Fletcher (criminally) or Beshear was Bevin (civilly)? For the sake of stopping his liberal agenda, we can only hope.
It's possible Cameron will be tested early. The legislature is still controlled by Republicans, with supermajorities in both houses. If the legislature has any gumption, it will ignore Beshear's budget proposals and move forward with its own agenda. Hopefully, this will include more pension reforms and school reforms. With the change in administration in the Executive Branch, it's doubtful that Beshear's Labor Cabinet will take any action should teachers engage in another illegal sickout to come to Frankfort and protest during the General Assembly session. It will be up to Cameron to prosecute them, since it's already been established that these sickouts are indeed against the law. Here's hoping he will.
With the GOP's sweep of all statewide office except the governor's race by commanding margins, the party has a clear mandate. And there are lots of rising young stars holding those offices. The governor's race in 2023 has to already be on the minds of some of them. Lots of people have already tagged Cameron as one of the brightest of those rising stars.
This is Cameron's chance to shine in a state that's trending Republican in every way except total voter registration. Does he become the face of the opposition to stand in the way of Andy Beshear undoing the gains of the last four years? Or does he stand aside and let this state go backwards? Here's hoping he lives up to the mission that's now set before him.
Wednesday, November 6, 2019
The commonwealth's next steps after Kentucky's statewide elections
Kentucky conservatives got a mixed outcome from Tuesday's elections. They dominated every statewide race except the one at the top that counts the most, and even now that race is too close to call.
If things hold up, presumptive Gov. Andy Beshear will be a Democrat on an island of Republicans in Frankfort. Every other constitutional office and both houses of the General Assembly will be in the hands of his opposition, which hopefully will serve as a major buffer against the damage he will do this state.
It's frustrating to see the commonwealth take a step backwards, given that it will take at least 30 years of uninterrupted Republican rule to undo all the damage the Democrats have done to the state during their decades in power. Beshear will be able to reverse much of what Matt Bevin did via executive order, assuming the legislature or new Attorney General Daniel Cameron don't challenge him. Do these Republicans have the gumption to do the right thing, or will they -- like the GOP is prone to do -- go along to get along? Will they give Beshear a honeymoon or will they stand on their principles?
Of course, Beshear actually has to be sworn into office first. With a statewide margin of around 5,000 votes, and more than a few questions about irregularities, Bevin is wisely pursuing a recanvass of the votes. This will involve checking totals from voting machines and adding them up again to ensure the total is as originally reported. I saw one comment that if only two voters in each Kentucky voting precinct had voted for Bevin instead of Beshear, Bevin would have been re-elected.
Beyond a recanvass, Kentucky's law for requesting a recount in a state election is a bit of an oddity. If this was a local election, then a candidate requesting a recount would simply ask for one with the local board of elections and the court system. It's a formal process, paid for by the requestor, that involves extensive examination of the voting machines to make sure votes were accurately recorded. But for state elections, such as the gubernatorial race, the requestor has to make that request of the General Assembly via contesting the election. The House and Senate assemble a committee that guides the process, and then the legislature makes the decision. A tight legislative race went through this process last year until the petitioner withdrew the request. Should a 5,000-vote margin hold up through the process, there can be little doubt that the legislature would declare Beshear the winner. But if things get dicey, it's possible that the Republican legislature could choose the Republican incumbent as the winner. That would most certainly trigger a court case that could leave the outcome undecided as next year's biennial budget session gets underway.
But those are far-fetched scenarios. The likelihood is that Andy Beshear is, indeed, going to be the governor when December rolls into January.
So, what happens then? Beshear is a minority of one going up against the rest of Frankfort. How much of his agenda and his budget will the Republican-controlled House and Senate be willing to give him? Will the legislature proceed on its own priorities and override any Beshear vetoes? How many victories do they allow the new governor to have as he, in essence, immediately starts campaigning for re-election in four years?
The wild cards in the deck are Cameron and Auditor Mike Harmon. Will Cameron, as attorney general, do to Beshear what Beshear did to Bevin? Looking back to 2003-07, will Cameron and Harmon play the roles of Greg Stumbo and Crit Luallen with Beshear as Ernie Fletcher? And how much posturing will take place among officeholders Cameron, Harmon, Ryan Quarles, Michael Adams, and Allison Ball, with the GOP gubernatorial nomination for 2023 now wide-open?
The biggest winners in the whole equation may be the taxpayers of Kentucky. Once the General Assembly started holding annual sessions, one of the greatest lines concerning Bluegrass State politics became void. There used to be an old joke about how the state would be better off if the legislature met for two days every 60 years instead of 60 days every two years. With a Democrat in the Governor's Office and Republicans controlling a supermajority in both houses of the legislature, gridlock may rule the day. And if nothing's getting passed, no one's taxes are being increased and no one's freedoms are being taken away. That's a benefit for all of us.
It's an interesting time in Kentucky government. None of us have ever seen this particular situation before. It's likely to be a wild ride, so to quote NASCAR announcer and former crew chief Larry MacReynolds, "reach up and pull those belts tight one more time."
If things hold up, presumptive Gov. Andy Beshear will be a Democrat on an island of Republicans in Frankfort. Every other constitutional office and both houses of the General Assembly will be in the hands of his opposition, which hopefully will serve as a major buffer against the damage he will do this state.
It's frustrating to see the commonwealth take a step backwards, given that it will take at least 30 years of uninterrupted Republican rule to undo all the damage the Democrats have done to the state during their decades in power. Beshear will be able to reverse much of what Matt Bevin did via executive order, assuming the legislature or new Attorney General Daniel Cameron don't challenge him. Do these Republicans have the gumption to do the right thing, or will they -- like the GOP is prone to do -- go along to get along? Will they give Beshear a honeymoon or will they stand on their principles?
Of course, Beshear actually has to be sworn into office first. With a statewide margin of around 5,000 votes, and more than a few questions about irregularities, Bevin is wisely pursuing a recanvass of the votes. This will involve checking totals from voting machines and adding them up again to ensure the total is as originally reported. I saw one comment that if only two voters in each Kentucky voting precinct had voted for Bevin instead of Beshear, Bevin would have been re-elected.
Beyond a recanvass, Kentucky's law for requesting a recount in a state election is a bit of an oddity. If this was a local election, then a candidate requesting a recount would simply ask for one with the local board of elections and the court system. It's a formal process, paid for by the requestor, that involves extensive examination of the voting machines to make sure votes were accurately recorded. But for state elections, such as the gubernatorial race, the requestor has to make that request of the General Assembly via contesting the election. The House and Senate assemble a committee that guides the process, and then the legislature makes the decision. A tight legislative race went through this process last year until the petitioner withdrew the request. Should a 5,000-vote margin hold up through the process, there can be little doubt that the legislature would declare Beshear the winner. But if things get dicey, it's possible that the Republican legislature could choose the Republican incumbent as the winner. That would most certainly trigger a court case that could leave the outcome undecided as next year's biennial budget session gets underway.
But those are far-fetched scenarios. The likelihood is that Andy Beshear is, indeed, going to be the governor when December rolls into January.
So, what happens then? Beshear is a minority of one going up against the rest of Frankfort. How much of his agenda and his budget will the Republican-controlled House and Senate be willing to give him? Will the legislature proceed on its own priorities and override any Beshear vetoes? How many victories do they allow the new governor to have as he, in essence, immediately starts campaigning for re-election in four years?
The wild cards in the deck are Cameron and Auditor Mike Harmon. Will Cameron, as attorney general, do to Beshear what Beshear did to Bevin? Looking back to 2003-07, will Cameron and Harmon play the roles of Greg Stumbo and Crit Luallen with Beshear as Ernie Fletcher? And how much posturing will take place among officeholders Cameron, Harmon, Ryan Quarles, Michael Adams, and Allison Ball, with the GOP gubernatorial nomination for 2023 now wide-open?
The biggest winners in the whole equation may be the taxpayers of Kentucky. Once the General Assembly started holding annual sessions, one of the greatest lines concerning Bluegrass State politics became void. There used to be an old joke about how the state would be better off if the legislature met for two days every 60 years instead of 60 days every two years. With a Democrat in the Governor's Office and Republicans controlling a supermajority in both houses of the legislature, gridlock may rule the day. And if nothing's getting passed, no one's taxes are being increased and no one's freedoms are being taken away. That's a benefit for all of us.
It's an interesting time in Kentucky government. None of us have ever seen this particular situation before. It's likely to be a wild ride, so to quote NASCAR announcer and former crew chief Larry MacReynolds, "reach up and pull those belts tight one more time."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)