Time to reform public pensions in Kentucky

The issue on which former Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin was strongest is probably the issue that caused his loss in his 2019 re-election campaign.

Bevin constantly talked about how Kentucky's chronically underfunded public pension plans for government employees and public educators were a ticking time bomb in the state's financial well being. For years, the state failed to adequately fund pensions to meet their obligations. Not only did he stress the need to provide adequate funds, but he pointed out that the current system was unsustainable and needed to be reformed, as a dwindling number of current employees could not continue to keep the pensions of a growing number of retirees afloat.

One on one or in small groups, Bevin was meticulous and eloquent in explaining the situation. He noted how prior governors (dating back to Paul Patton) had failed to include full pension funding in their budgets they submitted to the legislature, and how the General Assembly had failed to add in adequate funding. He constantly stressed that government has a legal, financial, and moral obligation to pay retirees and current employees what they're owed. And he also pointed out that something is going to have to be done if future employees are to have a retirement plan.

The state manages several different pension systems, all with varying degrees of financial health. But there's a key difference between one of them -- the retirement system for teachers -- and the rest.

When Social Security was established, for whatever reason, the teachers retirement system declined to participate. Teachers don't pay into Social Security, and thus are unable to draw when they retire. And unless they have worked other jobs where they do pay into Social Security for a substantial period of time, they aren't entitled to draw. Even then, there are limitations on how much they're eligible for.

As previously noted, Bevin was great at explaining the pension situation on a small scale or individualized basis. But, facing a hostile press corps, his public statements on the matter were twisted and misinterpreted by reporters, and his remarks and proposals were savaged by teachers who didn't understand the problem.

Most current state employees -- think those who drive snowplows, patch potholes, process unemployment claims, investigate child abuse, etc. -- will draw not only their defined benefit pension, but Social Security. Since teachers don't get Social Security, they're adamant about future hires not being moved from their current system to a 401(k)-like defined contribution plan the way newly-hired state workers were a few years ago.

Word has it that when a pension reform plan was being formulated a few years ago, it would have moved future teachers into the same type of system as now exists for the new tier of state workers. Teachers would have become eligible for Social Security, and their state pension plan would be a defined contribution plan. But for whatever reason, that proposal was rejected by the Kentucky Education Association.

Since then, Kentucky may have changed governors, but Republicans have strengthened their hold on the legislature. They passed a pension reform bill two years ago, but it was overturned on a legal technicality, not on the merits of the bill itself. The General Assembly hoped to readdress the matter last year, but the session was cut short by the emergence of the Wuhan Chinese virus and legislation ground to a halt.

Now, when the legislature comes back into session in February, they're said to be again looking at pension reform. Bevin's not around to be the villain anymore, and the legislature can definitely override any veto Gov. Andy Beshear may issue. This may be the best time to enact real, meaningful reform that preserves and protects the existing system while ensuring stability and availability for all future employees.

At a minimum, here's what needs to happen.

• Fully fund the existing systems for current employees and retirees. Under Bevin, pensions were fully funded by the state for the first time in years. The state must continue to provide the actuarially-required contribution to keep the funds solvent, especially since the various pension funds' investments may not survive a stock market crash.
• Fund those systems using existing revenue streams. Various education groups, including KEA and "120 Wrong," like to shout, "Find Funding First!" In other words, they're advocating for tax increases to fund the pensions. But taxpayers balk, and rightly so, when their tax dollars go to provide retirements for others that are better than their own retirement plans are or will be. If you're going to have to get by on Social Security or what you've managed to save, why would you want to prop up someone else's retirement plan? In addition, the economy is fragile enough now as it is due to the goverment's response to the virus. People are out of work and businesses are closing. They certainly can't afford tax increases, especially when that money will go directly into the pockets of those who really haven't been impacted by the government-ordered closures or limitations.
• Move future teachers into a Social Security plan. There is no reason not to do this. And it would prove beneficial to them if they come from, or move to, jobs where they do pay into Social Security. It makes no sense for teachers to be treated differently than social workers -- or, for that matter, teachers and other certified school staff and the classified employees, such as janitors, cooks, and bus drivers, who participate in the County Employees Retirement System (an offshoot of the state employees system) and thus pay into and draw Social Security. If this is done, then future hires can be enrolled in a defined contribution plan since they'll have Social Security as a backup, just as newly hired state employees do.
  
• Increase the retirement age and/or years of service requirement for eligibility to draw full retirement benefits. The current levels are ridiculously low. As of now, a state employee or teacher can retire after 27 years of service with full benefits. That means, if you start work when you're 23 years old, you can work 27 years and retire when you're 50. If you live until you're 80, you'll have drawn benefits longer than you worked. This contributes greatly to the system's unsustainability. And there are a large number of employees who work that minimum, or buy time and work even less, and then retire with full benefits and go to work in the private sector, often making more money than they did on the public payroll. Requiring 30 years of service before retirement is entirely reasonable. A 35-year requirement is even more so. Requiring that same 23-year-old to work 35 years means they'd retire at 58, which is still a lot younger than the retirement age for many private-sector employees.

It will be interesting to see how any reform efforts play out in this legislative session. It's a short 30-day session, and the General Assembly has to tackle a one-year budget because last year's biennial session got cut short. There are a number of other matters that need addressing, and the body may have to take up impeachment of the governor after a citizens' petition was filed. And they will have to get all this done quickly enough to leave time to come back to override any gubernatorial vetoes that may be issued.

But pension changes need to come sooner, rather than later. Politicians kicked that can down the road far too many times. Bevin was prescient on the issue, but his inability to get the point across to the general populace just delayed what must be inevitable. If Bevin had enjoyed the chance to make the case for reform on a smaller scale, without the hostility from the press and those who willfully misrepresented his goals, it could have been done by now. But the opportunity is now before the legislature, and they need to take advantage of that chance before any more damage is done.

Donald Trump's greatest accomplishment

 Out of all of President Trump's achievements -- and despite what his detractors say, he had a large number of them -- the greatest one of all was not in policy. It was a political accomplishment, and it's one that will loom large even after he is out of office, especially as the fallout from last week's rushed second impeachment continues.

If nothing else, Donald Trump has exposed all the faux conservatives and "in name only" Republicans that infest and plague the Republican Party. He is forcing the GOP to have a reckoning. Will Republicans stand strong and fight for what's right, or will they acquiesce and fold and surrender to the liberals in the name of getting along or preserving decorum?

I admit being a late comer to the Trump train. Ted Cruz was my first choice among all the candidates who sought the presidency in 2016. Trump certainly wasn't in my list of favorites, but he was infinitely preferable to weak candidates like Jeb Bush, John Kasich, and other squishy pretend conservatives. I agreed with most of Trump's policy positions, but his demeanor on the campaign trail -- especially during the nomination process -- was a bit off-putting. But Trump's straightforward approach won over a majority of Republican voters in the primaries and caucuses, and he improbably ended up with the nomination.

Up until the last few days of the general election campaign, I intended to write someone in. (Former Kentucky Gov. Ernie Fletcher is my go-to write-in choice for just about every race where I can't stomach those on the ballot). But since Kentucky doesn't count write-in votes unless that person has officially filed to be a write-in candidate, and none of the third-party candidates appealed to me, I decided to vote for Trump because casting my ballot for him was the only way to express my contempt for Hillary Clinton.

I warmed to Trump as his campaign wound down and he rallied his supporters, but like most Americans, I was astonished that he won. Astonished, but pleased. I was thrilled that Hillary wasn't going to be president, but I was also glad to see Trump win because I was on board with most of his policies.

And that's the thing with most of his RINO (Republican in name only) or COIN (conservative only in name) detractors. Those people have little to nothing in common politically with Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden. But their "never-Trumpism" led them to sell out their beliefs. Bill Kristol has become a laughing stock. The con artists at the Lincoln Project can't even pretend to be Republicans or conservatives anymore. And the so-called conservative pundits (think David Brooks, David Frum, etc.) are anything but conservative. If Bush, Kasich, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, or any of the other Republicans who ran in 2016 had won and implemented the exact same policies as Trump, those same folks would have been drooling all over themselves chanting "four more years!"

I've long maintained that while Donald Trump isn't a conservative, he's governed as a conservative. His wins during his four years in office read like a conservative's letter to Santa Claus. Sure, Trump wasn't conventional, but look what doing things the way they've always been done got accomplished.

And then there's Mitch McConnell. Kentucky's senior senator has long frustrated the base of his party. His hostility to conservatives and his willingness to cave in to liberal demands has long aggravated those who don't want Republicans to be Democrat-lite. McConnell's move away from Trump has prompted an unheard-of movement within many in the Republican Party of Kentucky to censure him. Conservative local party leaders may force a statewide vote to call McConnell out.

The base wants Republicans to have spines. They want them to stand on principle and not surrender. McConnell stands for nothing but himself.

McConnell swept to victory in easier than anticipated fashion last fall. Challenger Amy McGrath was one of the most qualified opponents McConnell has ever faced, yet McConnell steamrolled her in November. Part of that can be attributed to McGrath failing to inspire her base, and also to "candidate fatigue." A good chunk of the state had grown tired of her during her failed run for Congress two years prior, and her message of being a retired Marine and a mother just didn't resonate. But the biggest reason McConnell, who remains deeply unpopular among members of his own party, was able to win so convincingly is that he rode Trump's coattails to victory. Had Trump not topped the ticket, McConnell's margin would have been much smaller.

But once McConnell's new term was secured, he had no need for Trump, with whom he'd always had a tenuous relationship. McConnell cautioned Senate Republicans against challenging the presidential election results. McConnell also falsely blamed Trump for losses in the two Georgia runoff elections that handed Democrats control of the Senate by virtue of Vice President Kamala Harris' tiebreaking vote. (Remember, McConnell himself is the one who bears the blame, as his opposition to $2,000 stimulus payments to Americans was the key issue in the Georgia races.)

Now, McConnell is signaling that he's open to voting to convict Trump on the spurious impeachment charges. Even though Trump will be out of office and unable to be removed, the theory is that the ultimate goal is to prevent Trump from running again for another term in 2024. There's already open speculation on how well McConnell and President Biden will work togehter to broker deals, showing that McConnell will be more interested in giving in than standing strong.

The establishment types are rushing to say that the party needs to purge itself of Trump and his supporters. Of course they are. Grassroots movements such as the tea party or "Make America Great Again" threaten the establishment's grip on power. McConnell will find it easier to deal with Biden, a longtime Senate colleague, than with Trump. The RINOs and COINs only want the GOP base when it comes time for elections. Once they've used the rank-and-file voters, they discard them.

Trump was effective because he was unconventional. Since he didn't come from a political background, he wasn't beholden to the establishment. The party elites weren't able to keep him from getting the nomination. In fact, the 2016 process was novel because the last two Republicans standing, Trump and Cruz, were far from the leaders' top choices. Some unlikely Trump allies emerged, including Cruz and Sen. Rand Paul and, to a lesser extent, Sen. Lindsey Graham. But on the flip side, some of Trump's early allies, like Christie, have become opponents.

Trump's post-presidency shadow will loom large over the GOP. The base has already shown it's no longer willing to be led around by the nose and be force-fed candidates like Mitt Romney and John McCain. Trump will no doubt campaign against politicians who turned against him, including Georgia's governor and secretary of state, the 10 Republicans in the House who voted for his second impeachment, and any senators who vote to remove him from an office he will no longer occupy.

Frauds like the pretend conservatives in the Lincoln Project and others will continue to promote liberal candidates and ideology in their zeal to punish anyone who backed Trump, but they'll find themselves up against increasing backlash from grassroots conservatives, and even their newfound liberal friends will eventually turn on them once they're no longer of any use.

The incoming Biden administration is already indicating it will reverse some of Trump's greatest policy accomplishments. Biden wants the United States back in the Paris climate accord, back in the Iran nuclear deal, and out of any guidelines that restrict those from nations that sponsor terrorism from entering the country.

Policies come and go. But Trump's enduring accomplishment -- exposing the pretenders among Republicans -- can't be taken away. In fact, it will continue as the "Make America Great Again" movement itself continues. Among all those things for which we should be grateful to Trump, shining a light on those snakes and swamp dwellers may be what those of us who care about conservatism appreciate most.

UK basketball protest: The left continues to steal our joy

I had been a fan of the University of Kentucky basketball team all my life. It's one of many things I inherited from my father.

As far back as I can recall, my dad followed the fortunes of the Wildcats. He remembered when Claude Sullivan, not Cawood Ledford, was the radio voice of the team. He had an old battery-powered Channel Master AM radio we called "Coach Rupp" that he took along if we went on overnight trips during basketball season so he could tune to clear-channel WHAS-AM to listen to the games. He was especially interested in the fortunes of Larry Stamper, a Lee County native who went on to play for Rupp and started for the Cats in his junior year, Rupp's final season. (I think Stamper may have been a former student of my dad's in elementary school in Lee County, but I'm not positive.)

Dad didn't get too outwardly emotional during the games, but one notable exception was the 1975 Mideast Region finals when UK knocked off Indiana. Earlier that year, on its way to an unbeaten regular season, Indiana had drilled UK in a game marked by their coach, the volatile Bob Knight, whacking his up-until-then friend and fishing buddy Joe B. Hall in the back of the head. As the rematch game wound down, Dad would clap his hands at every UK basket or defensive stop. Even my mother, who was not at all a sports fan, got in on the excitement. For all the big games the Cats played in their lives (my mom died in 1986; my dad in 2010), I never saw either of them get as worked up as they did over that UK win.

My dad was a disabled veteran. He lost a leg and suffered other life-altering injuries in Korea in service to the United States. I hesitate to ponder on what he would have thought about what happened Saturday in Gainesville, Fla., when the UK basketball team knelt in protest during the playing of the national anthem.

When someone says or does something that others find offensive, they're frequently told to look at it from the other person's perspective. What matters is not how it was meant, but how it was viewed. Yet that doesn't seem to apply anytime there is a national anthem protest. Those who see it as a slight against this country and its veterans are told that it really isn't, that it means something else, and they're wrong for perceiving it in that manner.

But beyond that, there is a time and a place to make an opinion known. During the national anthem prior to a public event is not one of those places.

UK has defended the protest as a player-initiated action. Coach John Calipari gave it his approval and even participated, and it was later lauded by Athletic Director Mitch Barnhart and UK President Eli Capilouto. College basketball players, as tall and muscular and talented as they are, are still basically kids. What they needed in this time was adult guidance, not acquiescence and encouragement.

Each of the players has an outsized voice that can be used to make a point. They all have social media accounts which they often use to break news about their futures. Look how many UK football players, in the past week, used social media to announce they're staying at UK for another season, transferring to another school, or declaring for the NFL draft. Nothing is stopping the players from posting their thoughts on social media, or other online outlets -- maybe even a blog, like this one. They are constantly being interviewed by press outlets. Why not offer opinions and speak quotable quotes during those sessions?

When kneeling during the national anthem first became a hot topic a few years ago when Colin Kaepernick did it before an NFL game, I've often wondered what would happen if a regular person did it. I occasionally attend work functions at which "The Star-Spangled Banner" is played. How long would I have a job if I knelt? Yet the UK players are being praised in some quarters, and those who speak out in disgust automatically get falsely labeled as "racist."

The backlash to what happened Saturday came quickly. I learned of it during the first half and confirmed it just before halftime. I changed channels on the TV, switched my social media profile pics to anti-UK images, and washed my hands of the Wildcats.

 

The disdain has gone farther. The jailer and sheriff in Laurel County staged a public burning of their UK apparel, and initiated a drive in which they're collecting UK clothing items to donate to a homeless shelter in exchange for a shirt expressing support for law enforcement. The fiscal court of Knox County in southeastern Kentucky passed a resolution condemning the action. And Kentucky Senate President Robert Stivers gave an impassioned speech denouncing the act on the Senate floor.

The United States has its faults, but we're still the greatest country in the world. I had hopes that this anti-American poison would escape Kentucky, but I was sadly wrong. Now I'm left with no sports to watch. I was never athletic enough to play sports, but I've always been a fan. The left has snuffed out that joy.

I acknowledge that most celebrities (entertainers and pro athletes) are liberals, although I don't know why. You'd think they'd oppose high taxes and would prefer to make their own decisions on what causes are worthy of their support, instead of the government taking their money and spending it. And most college students these days also lean left. We all know this, yet we continue to be fans and support their work. But sometimes, a line is crossed.

As much as my dad enjoyed the Wildcats, he was also a Cincinnati Reds fan. That trait, too, is something I inherited from him. I used to stay up at night to listen to the West Coast games. I gave up major league baseball after the 1994 players' strike. The greed of those players just was too much for me to take. At the time, the minimum major league salary was around $110,000 a year and the average salary was close to $1 million. For that kind of money, I would stand knee-deep in manure eight hours a day. I couldn't -- and still can't -- fathom a work stoppage by people who made that much income.

My interest in the NFL waned over the years, replaced by NASCAR. My dad had become a NASCAR fan and I'd spend Sunday afternoons with him, and the races were usually on. Kaepernick, and the NFL's refusal to sanction him for his actions, ended my interest in pro football. Given its southern roots and the feelings of its fan base, I figured NASCAR would be immune from any national anthem protests. But when the sanctioning body gave its blessing to kneeling last spring when racing resumed after its Wuhan Chinese virus hiatus, that was it. I gave up being a NASCAR fan and quit watching the races.

So now, sports fandom is gone. I'm definitely not a fan of hockey or soccer, nor of golf -- and if I was a golf fan, I'd give that up after the PGA's politically-based decision to pull its 2022 championship from a Donald Trump-owned course.

It will be interesting to see what happens as the backlash from Saturday continues. Will attendance drop (once Rupp Arena's capacity is back to normal)? Will merchandise sales fall? Will television ratings for the games plummet? Indications are that more Kentuckians are opposed to the protest than support it.

As for me, the NASCAR thing was tough, but this is harder. This is the loss of something I've enjoyed my entire life. I have lots of fond memories of UK basketball. Larry Stamper representing Beattyville as a Wildcat. The aforementioned 1975 Indiana game. The 1978 national championship. Jeff Ginnan, another Lee County player, walking on and getting a start during his final home game. The Unforgettables. The improbable 1998 national championship.

Kentucky basketball died for me at approximately 6 p.m. EST on Saturday,  Jan. 9, 2021. I'm left with a lot of good memories -- and a few pieces of clothing which will never be worn again, and an incredible sense of loss.

Mitch McConnell's greatest political miscalculation cost him his leadership job

Friends and political foes alike of U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell, Kentucky's longest-serving senator who is -- for now, anyway -- the majority leader of the upper chamber have long noted and praised his political acumen and wily ways.

From the time he first burst upon the statewide political scene in 1984, unleashing bloodhounds in his television advertisements in his successful effort to unseat incumbent Walter "Dee" Huddleston, the native of Alabama who became a Louisvillian has been regarded as a political genius. He was always able to predict the changing tides and adapt to them, picking campaign themes and using various aspects of Senate rules and procedures to win elections and move into a leadership position.

In fact, last year, McConnell campaigned for re-election by emphasizing his leadership position and the benefits of that clout to the people of Kentucky. He won by a wider than expected margin over his challenger, Amy McGrath, due in no small part to the coattails of President Trump (and McGrath's own unlikeability, along with voter fatigue from her 2018 congressional run against Andy Barr.) McConnell frequently could be heard saying how much he enjoyed being Senate majority leader; that it was his lifelong dream to hold that position. He seemed to relish the job and the power it conveyed.

But McConnell's political prowess failed him when it came time to hold on to the Republicans' razor-thin majority in the Senate. The so-called political genius cut his own throat when he opposed increased direct stimulus payments to Americans while at the same time supporting outlandish sums of money going to foreign countries for dubious purposes. "$10 million for gender studies in Pakistan" became the source of information for memes aplenty. A review of the spending included in the omnibus funding bill, passed in tandem with the Wuhan Chinese virus relief legislation, led to outrage over the spending allocated to foreign aid while giving Americans crumbs.

As a direct result of McConnell's stance against $2,000 stimulus checks, the Republicans lost both runoff Georgia Senate races earlier this week. While there were other factors, including Republicans staying home because they were suspicious of the same types of vote fraud they saw in the November election in which Joe Biden won over Trump, it's been noted that the stimulus checks were the main reason independent and undecided voters went for the Democrats over the incumbent Republicans in what were very close races.

The increased stimulus payments had bipartisan support from voters and senators, including Georgia Republican Sens. David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler. President Trump was an enthusiastic backer of the plan. Yet as Senate majority leader, McConnell steadfastly opposed the higher amounts and the foreign aid cuts Trump wanted. He refused to allow a direct vote on the $2,000 stimulus, instead tying the matter to two unrelated subjects favored by Trump but stridently opposed by Democrats. He shut down efforts by members of his own party to get a standalone vote on the higher payments.

McConnell singlehandedly killed the upgraded stimulus payments. Democrats campaigning in Georgia seized on that act. And it cost McConnell his leadership position. All McConnell had to do was go along with his party's president and a bipartisan coalition of legislators from both the Senate and the House of Representatives, and the Senate would have remained in Republican hands. The GOP would most likely have won at least one of the races, if not both of them. Even a split in the runoffs would have given Republicans a 51-49 advantage -- not enough to withstand any defections from RINOs like Mitt Romney, Ben Sasse, Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, and others, on specific votes; but definitely enough to keep McConnell as leader.

Instead, the Senate is now at 50-50. Kamala Harris, as vice president, will break any ties. A Democrat from California has already been tabbed as her replacement when she resigns her Senate seat to assume the vice presidency. So if the leadership vote is 50 apiece for McConnell and the utterly disgusting Chuck Schumer, there's no question how Harris will vote. Schumer will gain control of the Senate's reins and McConnell will have his political power neutered and he'll be rendered impotent.

There's little doubt the Senate majority will work to reduce the outsized power the minority has in that body. Unlike the House, where a simple majority is all that's required for most decisions, the Senate's rules grant the minority much more ability to block or influence legislation. Cloture rules require 60 votes to end debate on a measure and bring it up for a vote. Since rules changes can be determined by a simple minority, it's conceivable that the Democrats will eliminate the filibuster. Under current rules, McConnell could potentially still throw blocks, but if the new leadership wants, it can cut his legs out from under him.

It didn't have to be this way. But for all his talk about how he relished being the Senate's leader, he took that position away from himself. He hasn't really said why, and no one has really asked him. Surely he knows that the simple act of moving spending away from wasteful, laughable foreign destinations to the bank accounts of Americans who have suffered from government decisions made in response to the virus, would have preserved his majority.

Could it be that he didn't want to provide Trump with a policy victory? Even though McConnell's popularity in Kentucky is nowhere near that of Trump's, and the president's presence at the top of the ticket benefitted McConnell's re-election, it's widely thought that McConnell has never been as supportive of Trump as Kentucky Republicans would prefer. McConnell used Trump to get elected to what will likely be his last term in the Senate, but after that achievement, he cast Trump aside.

There's a reason McConnell isn't a Republican favorite in his home state. Many regard him as too liberal and not in touch with the party's base. His hostility to conservatives and tea party principles is evident. That's why many conservatives, although they fear the country's direction under a Biden presidency and with the liberals in control of both chambers of Congress, will enjoy seeing McConnell's fall from power. Especially since it was of his own doing.

The American people will likely get those $2,000 stimulus payments after all, although they may have to wait a few weeks for the additional $1,400 to drop into their accounts or mailboxes on top of the $600 they got this week. But McConnell lost his leadership position, and for no good purpose. The act he opposed, and the opposition to which cost him his job, is going to happen anyway.

Mitch McConnell could have remained Senate majority leader, and Americans' bank accounts could have been made a little healthier. That would be a win-win for everyone. Instead, McConnell lost, Americans will still probably get the increased payments, but the country will suffer long-term damage at the hands of the new majority.

Forgive some of us if we take delight in watching McConnell's fall from power.