Time to rein in power of appointed boards, give control to elected officials

One of the most memorable stories I covered during my time as editor of the Citizen Voice & Times in Irvine was a controversy over sewer service rates.

In the early 1990s, a sewer system was built to serve portions of Estill County on the south side of the Kentucky River, primarily the West Irvine area. State law required customers to abandon their septic tanks and hook on to the municipal sewage system when it came online, so dozens of Estill County residents and businesses began using the new system.

Customers were shocked when they started receiving bills for the service. Their utility bills went up an average of 150 percent. What had been $40 water bills suddenly became $100 bills for combined water and sewage service. The increases posed real financial problems to many, including those on fixed incomes.

Residents complained to the Estill County Fiscal Court and the county judge-executive, but those elected officials were powerless to do anything about the bills. The water and sewer systems were operated by an entity called the Estill County Water District No. 1; a name I always found amusing, because in all my years of working in Irvine I never heard of there being another water district. Although the water commissioners were appointed by elected officials, the fiscal court had no authority over their actions.

Because there was so much community outrage, the water commissioners were invited – strongly encouraged might be a better term – by the county judge-executive to attend a fiscal court meeting and explain the rates to angered customers. None of the water board members came to the meeting to face the music.

One reason the incident sticks out in my mind is because it’s one of the few times during my newspaper career I quoted someone using profanity in a news story. One of the chief complainants addressed the fiscal court after the board members turned out to be no-shows, saying something along the lines of “I can’t believe we have three water commissioners who don’t give enough of a damn to be here tonight to face the public.”

But another reason is that there’s renewed public anguish over appointed boards and commissions being able to act without any oversight from elected officials.

This has been controversial in a number of counties, where agencies such as extension service boards or library boards have approved tax increases or expenditures for large, and often unneeded, construction projects. Taxpayers are upset because their elected officials have no say about the tax increases. At a time when people’s budgets are already stretched thin and government resources need to be spent wisely, many of these agencies act as if they are flush with cash. These times call for fiscal frugality by public agencies in economically troubled communities, not wasteful spending on unnecessary projects such as new buildings when the existing facilities are just fine.

Fiscal courts have to approve the tax rates set by these special districts, but that’s only so those property taxes can be included on the tax bills. The elected officials cannot veto the tax rates.

There have been a few efforts to change that, and to put the final say over tax rates into the hands of elected officials who are accountable to the voters, but those efforts have been met with resistance. The last time such a law was proposed in the Kentucky General Assembly, the claim was made that giving fiscal courts approval or veto power would, in effect, turn those special district taxes into county taxes, and would hurt counties’ bonding ability. There’s a simple workaround for that. Merely specify in the law that the special district taxes are not to be considered county taxes, and bonding companies or lenders cannot take those rates into consideration when evaluating funding for county projects. Problem solved.

Critics of the proposal to give fiscal courts more oversight of special districts’ actions also say that there is already accountability because the board members are chosen by elected officials. While that’s true, most of those appointments are made in obscurity. Very few people can probably name the members of their local library board. And the average citizen probably doesn’t know when their extension service board meets so they can lobby against tax increases.

A quarter-century ago, that Estill County water board purposefully ignored the concerns of its customers and constituents. The members were eventually replaced, and the way they brushed off citizens’ very real monetary concerns was a key reason. Still, the fiscal court at the time had no ability to step in and address the problems. Similarly, they have no way to act in the voters’ interests when appointed bodies try to increase taxes.

That needs to change. There are ways to bring the actions of rogue or tone-deaf appointed boards under the control of the people’s elected representatives. It’s time that local elected officials were given that power.

GOP caucus: The guest of honor will miss the party

After the Republican Party of Kentucky announced its plan to hold a presidential nominating caucus, rather than a primary, to enable U.S. Sen. Rand Paul to run for re-election and for the presidency at the same time, there was always an undercurrent of thought that Paul wouldn’t even be in the running by the time his made-to-order caucus took place.

I hope those who predicted that outcome placed winning bets on the Super Bowl, because they were right on the money. Two days after the Iowa caucuses, Paul dropped out of the presidential race.

That leaves Kentucky Republicans with a Saturday, March 5 presidential caucus that was designed to benefit only one person who now won’t benefit from it at all. Paul’s name will still be on the caucus ballot, but a vote for him will be wasted.

The odds were good that Paul wouldn’t have won the Kentucky caucus. Although he touts his attendance record as proof that he’s working for Kentucky in the Senate, there are a lot of people in both parties who think Paul has furthered his own personal political ambitions during his Senate term and hasn’t acted in Kentucky’s best interests. At the time of this writing, no polling has been released about Republican voters’ preferences, but it’s safe to say that Paul wouldn’t be leading if polls had been taken. Excitement for Donald Trump in Kentucky seems to be on par with the rest of the country, and both Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio seem to have generated enthusiastic followers in the Bluegrass State as well.

So, Paul’s departure from the race leaves Kentucky Republicans with a caucus that the party leadership never really supported, but approved as a favor to him. How do they feel now? Will they be inclined to grant him any more favors?

Some Republicans are still promoting the caucus as a good thing, saying it will make Kentucky relevant in the nominating process since the nominee has traditionally been all but chosen by the time of the normal May primary. But turnout for the Saturday caucus will likely be abysmal. In fact, not all counties are hosting a caucus. Republicans in nine of Kentucky’s counties will have to travel to another county to cast a vote, and there’s a rather egregious example of that in this region.

Owsley County chose not to have a caucus. Republicans there who wish to participate will have to travel to Lee County to vote. It’s only 11 miles from Booneville to Beattyville, but it will still be an inconvenience for Owsley residents who live in the far reaches of the county to drive to Beattyville. But the worst example is Estill County. Estill residents will have to travel the 27 long, torturous miles to McKee across a narrow, winding and hilly road to vote. Instead of combining with Madison or Powell counties, which are much closer and easier to access, Estill County instead will be caucusing with Jackson County. That makes little sense.

Absentee ballots are also an option, but the realistic view is that unless Republicans, especially those in counties not holding caucuses, are very fired up about a certain candidate, they’ll choose not to participate. The low turnout will be reminiscent of Kentucky’s 1988 participation in the “Super Tuesday” presidential primary, and the 2016 caucus will go down in history as a failed experiment that was of no help to the one person it was designed to benefit.

Paul’s campaign agreed to pay most of the costs of the caucuses, with candidate filing fees expected to take up the slack. Will he hold up his end of the bargain, or will the RPK be stuck with the bills? As this is written, no prominent Kentucky Republicans or party leaders have commented on the status of the caucus or on Paul’s withdrawal from the presidential race.

Some Republicans were concerned that Paul’s faltering presidential bid would negatively affect his Senate re-election campaign. Paul got a high-profile Democratic opponent last week in Lexington Mayor Jim Gray. Paul’s exit from the presidential race before the Kentucky caucus makes one wonder if perhaps his camp doesn’t regard Gray as more of a threat than they let on.

To date, Paul has not endorsed a candidate. Rick Santorum, who finished second to Mitt Romney in 2012 but failed to gain traction this time around, also withdrew from the race last week and endorsed Rubio. If Paul does endorse an ex-rival, we’ll have to see if that provides a bump for that candidate in Kentucky.

After the caucus was created at the insistence of Kentucky’s junior senator, I dubbed it the “GOPaulcus.” Now, the guest of honor at that party won’t even be in attendance. Bluegrass Republicans have to be a little embarrassed about that. And if some of them are angry, that’s justifiable, too.

Will the willfully ignorant doom our country?

Not a day goes by that I don’t worry about the future of our country. Too many people either refuse to face facts or remain willfully ignorant of what’s going on in the world. They remain so blinded by their own preconceived notions and ideologies that they turn their backs on the truth.

We’re nearly two decades beyond the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, yet it’s not hard to find someone who still claims that he was impeached over a (insert crude name for a sex act here.) That’s simply not true. Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice because he lied under oath in a court case. He also lost his law license because of those actions, and I have yet to hear of anyone ever being disbarred because they engaged in oral sex.

That’s just one of many examples of people not comprehending the truth and therefore not being willing to face facts. Because they either like Clinton or they dislike Republicans, they continue to put forth a false narrative that too many gullible people believe.

Need another example? Look back to last week, when news broke that a federal court ruled that Kentucky cannot deny tax breaks to the Ark Encounter project being built in Grant County, and Gov. Matt Bevin’s administration announced it agreed with the ruling and would not appeal it. Answers in Genesis filed the suit after the administration of former Gov. Steve Beshear reneged on its commitment to offer the tax incentives.

The court decision did not set well within the militant atheist community. They immediately took to their blogs and claimed that the state would be spending tax money to promote Christianity; specifically the account of the Great Flood and the building of Noah’s Ark, and that this was a violation of the First Amendment’s “mandate” of separation of church and state.

Except this isn’t what’s happening at all. The state is spending no money on the “Ark Park.” Instead, it is granting tax incentives to the project to recoup some of the construction costs. The facility will merely not have to pay the full amount of taxes it otherwise would if not granted the incentives. Instead of the state getting X number of dollars in new taxes generated from the “Ark Park,” it will get X minus the money the park gets to keep for itself. The state will still see an increase in tax revenue from the project, just not 100 percent of the proceeds. Letting an entity keep more of its revenue for itself is not the same thing as spending tax dollars on it. No one else’s tax dollars will be spent on the project, not even any of those paid by the protesting atheists.

The First Amendment prohibits governments from establishing an official religion or from preventing anyone from practicing the religion of their choice. It does not require that government and religion be kept separate. The origin of the phrase “wall of separation between church and state” in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association is well-documented, but the flawed use of the phrase in interpreting the First Amendment has resulted in needless troubles for decades. The idea that the use of Bible verses in “A Charlie Brown Christmas” as performed in a Johnson County public school, the presence of a cross on a water tower in Wilmore or the presence of a picture of Jesus Christ in Breathitt County equals the government adopting Christianity as its official religion is a stretch of the largest possible magnitude.

Claiming that allowing Answers in Genesis and the Ark Encounter to keep some of the new tax revenue it generates that would otherwise go to the state is a First Amendment violation is a similar stretch. It might be different if tax money was being appropriated out of the General Fund to give to Answers in Genesis, but that’s not the case here. No money paid by anyone else is going to the “Ark Park.”

It’s fine if you have a philosophical disagreement with a politician. Heck, I have as many or more complaints about establishment Republicans and Congressional leaders as I do with President Barack Obama and others of the liberal mindset. You and I may have different opinions on abortion, Obamacare, national defense or any other issue. But if you’re going to criticize a specific action, you should do so on a factual basis. There’s an old saying that you’re entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

I heard that some people took exception to my recent column in which I described the criticisms of some of Gov. Bevin’s actions as being rooted in cluelessness. I stand by that statement. Just about every complaint I saw about Bevin’s executive orders cited a falsehood and relied on a complete misunderstanding of what actually happened, especially those comments made by non-Kentuckians who got incorrect information from national blogs and websites.

Feel free to disagree with Bevin’s rescission of the minimum wage increase for state employees, but don’t claim that his order took money out of the pockets of those who had already gotten the raise. Don’t like the decision to take county clerks’ names off of marriage licenses? Go ahead and complain, but don’t say that it discriminates against anyone or makes it more difficult for anyone to get a license.

Since those widely-misunderstood executive orders were issued last month, Bevin’s done even more to draw misguided ire from his opponents. Following through on a campaign promise, he started the process to do away with Kynect, Kentucky’s health care exchange which was established under the Affordable Care Act. That really prompted the cacophony of the clueless to go into full song, as they claimed that Kentuckians would lose their health insurance and thousands would die.

Kynect is just one source of health insurance. The federal exchange and website remain, as do private insurance agents. Saying that people will no longer have access to health insurance once Kynect is gone is like saying people will starve if one grocery store closes. There are other grocery stores, and there are other marketplaces for health insurance.

Again, it’s all right if you have an ideological difference with the new governor. I don’t agree with all of his plans and policies and philosophies. But please, if you’re going to criticize a specific action, do it from a factual base. Don’t make up stuff or claim things that aren’t true. Educate yourself on the issues. Seek alternative news sources besides those that reinforce your views. Look beyond your preconceived notions or ideological persuasions. Don’t be willfully ignorant or intentionally clueless. Healthy debate is good for society, but only if all the debaters are knowledgeable.

Can the Trump train be derailed?

(Note -- this was written and submitted to newspapers in my area in mid-January, well before the Iowa caucuses.)

Several months ago, I made a couple of political predictions.

First was that the novelty of Donald Trump as a Republican presidential candidate would fade, and he would fall from contention for the nomination as other candidates ramped up their campaigns.

Second was that as usual, the Republican establishment’s favored candidate – in this case, then-perceived frontrunner Jeb Bush – would end up with the nomination instead of a conservative or outsider candidate.

It looks as if I could be wrong on both counts. It’s becoming increasingly obvious that Bush’s candidacy is washed up and going nowhere. And it’s looking entirely possible that Trump could end up winning the nomination.

That latter fact has the GOP establishment frightened to death. They keep saying Trump is unelectable in a general election matchup against Hillary Clinton, but that’s just a front. Their real fear is that they are losing influence over the party, its members and the selection process for candidates.

That’s why the establishment has also turned its guns on Ted Cruz, who has emerged as Trump’s stiffest competition. Seeing that Bush’s fortunes are ebbing, the party’s elites are starting to throw their support to Marco Rubio. At one time a conservative favorite alongside Cruz, Rubio’s stands have alienated many in the party’s base as he’s seemingly started to move to the left on some issues, particularly immigration. Rubio has disappointed many who had high hopes for him when he, Cruz, Utah’s Mike Lee and Kentucky’s Rand Paul went to the Senate as conservative voices to stand against the liberals in both parties.

No matter what outrageous comment Trump may make, and no matter what barbs his rivals throw his way, he seems to be unscathed. In recent weeks Trump has taken flak over his comments on Muslims, but his message continues to resonate with an American public that sees the rise of ISIS and an increase in Islamic terrorism on foreign soil and in the United States and increasingly feels the federal government is not doing enough to stop it. They also see the evidence that the economy isn’t as rosy as President Barack Obama makes it out to be, and they worry about their jobs. They see ineffective politicians in both parties and want someone new to deal with the myriad of problems this country faces.

After last week’s Republican debate in South Carolina, many political observers noted that they think the race is down to three candidates – Trump, Cruz and Rubio. Of course, this is before the first vote is cast in an election or a caucus. Rubio will have the establishment’s support, while Trump and Cruz will split the vote among those who don’t fall in line with what the party’s elders dictate. Cruz will dominate among constitutional conservatives, while Trump will continue to appeal to those who want a complete outsider. If Trump finally does flame out or commit political suicide – and so far, he seems invulnerable to any damage, even the self-inflicted kind – what will become of his supporters? Will they migrate to Cruz, or will they flock to another outsider such as Carly Fiorina or Dr. Ben Carson, assuming they’ll still be in the race?

And what of the Democrats? Bernie Sanders is proving to be a pest that Hillary Clinton can’t get rid of, like a fly that keeps buzzing around her head. Hillary will never be confused with a conservative, but she’s been campaigning to the right of Sanders lately on a number of issues. She’s having to walk a fine line between keeping her liberal constituency happy while at the same time distancing herself from the impossible pie-in-the-sky proposals Sanders makes.

There’s also rich irony in last week’s announcement that Moveon.org has endorsed Sanders over Hillary. Remember that this is the same group that was formed to support her husband during his impeachment proceedings. That comes as Hillary is starting to get more criticism from those who claim she’s hypocritical by campaigning on so-called women’s issues while at the same time criticizing those who accused her husband of untoward sexual advances and acts.

Also, who knows what will come of the ongoing investigation into her use of a private email server while she was secretary of state? A growing number of legal scholars think she will be prosecuted – and some predict a showdown between the FBI, which will push for criminal charges to be filed, and Attorney General Loretta Lynch, who will push back against that effort. An unflattering movie about her involvement in the Benghazi fiasco won’t help matters for her.

What can the Democrats do if her candidacy collapses? What if she does come under indictment for the email scandal? Sanders generates the same feelings among the Democratic establishment as Trump does for the GOP. The best alternate candidate, Vice President Joe Biden, opted out of a run for the presidency, but he continues to publicly second-guess that decision. Might he suddenly emerge as his party’s savior?

The conventions are still months away. Lots can happen. And, as noted earlier, the first vote has not yet been cast. And with the frontrunners (Trump and Hillary) having their own unique vulnerabilities, the political landscape can change dramatically in a matter of minutes. Still, Hillary has shown herself to be coated in Teflon despite lots of faults, and so far Trump hasn’t been knocked off his game either by himself or by one of his opponents.

Buckle up, political junkies. The ride’s about to get interesting.

Bevin causes consternation among the clueless

Matt Bevin has barely been in office as Kentucky governor for a month, yet he’s already caused a sharp rise in the blood pressure of Bluegrass liberals through a handful of actions taken either to reverse the acts of his predecessor or to remedy his inaction.

Even before Bevin took office, his critics were out in full force. Reading the online comments on news stories and the anti-Bevin editorials published by the state’s two largest papers offers some keen insight into the amount of what’s often called “butt-hurt” suffered by those who opposed him. They cannot believe that Kentuckians had the audacity to elect a conservative Republican governor after years of Democrats being at the helm.

About two weeks ago, Bevin issues a series of executive orders that really ramped up the criticism, on a statewide and national scale. Unfortunately for the critics, they’re attacking with less than a full knowledge or understanding of the facts and issues.

Probably the most misunderstood order was the rescission of Steve Beshear’s unilateral order increasing the minimum wage for state employees from $7.25 per hour to $10.10. Beshear took his action without gaining approval from the General Assembly, which is required by state law to budget and appropriate funding for state salaries. Bevin’s order rescinded the minimum wage increase for future hires, but specifically stated that no employee who had already gotten a raise from $7.25 to $10.10 would have that pay increase taken away.

As happens so often when the national blogs and websites get hold of a Kentucky story, they got critical facts wrong. They also communicated a mistaken narrative that the minimum wage for all Kentuckians had been increased by Beshear, and that Bevin had stripped that raise, which is blatantly untrue. Still others, including an anonymous Kentucky blog written by a foul-mouthed individual who identifies himself only as “Yellow Dog,” claimed that raises had actually been taken away from those who had already received them.

One doesn’t go on a left-leaning site like Daily Kos or Politico or Huffington Post and expect the commenters to be well-informed conservatives. So, you can probably guess what the uninformed denizens of those sites had to say. Without knowing the facts, poster after poster berated Bevin for sticking it to the poor working people of Kentucky. Apparently, these people can find their way to their favorite propaganda sites, but don’t know how to use Google to find out the truth behind the minimum wage rescission.

Bevin’s order also eliminated the employee advisory council. This was a bone thrown to the labor unions who helped Paul Patton get elected in 1995. Ernie Fletcher abolished it when he took office in 2003, but Beshear brought it back in 2007.

Again, those unfamiliar with Kentucky went crazy, claiming that the new governor had taken away the voice of state employees. And again, their claims were untrue. Kentucky employee wages and benefits are set through state law and administrative regulation, which means they require legislative approval. Kentucky has no collective bargaining process for state employees. State workers are free to contact elected officials with their requests, but in the end, those things are set by law and not through negotiations. Bevin’s order merely did away with a toothless tiger; an agency with no authority or power.

The role of the legislature also was a key factor in Bevin’s decision to eliminate the blanket restoration of voting rights to felons granted by Beshear. While Bevin in general supports the concept of felons automatically regaining the right to vote after they serve their sentences, he thinks such a policy should be passed by the legislature, and if necessary, by Kentucky’s voters via an amendment to the state constitution.

To no one’s surprise, the usual cries of “voter suppression” and “racism” came from the usual sources; again without regard for the facts. Governors have always had the ability to grant pardons and restore civil rights, but this has typically been done on an individual basis and is often done in one fell swoop late in a governor’s term. Bevin and others had questions about Beshear’s blanket, automatic voting rights restoration process, and the new governor wants to see that any changes to the way that’s done are done in accordance with the law.

And none of that takes into account his order to have the name of the county clerk removed from marriage licenses. This one really got the left up in arms. They railed against the change as a victory for bigotry, when in reality this does not affect the ability of same-sex couples to marry whatsoever. Leaders from both parties had clamored for a change after some county clerks expressed reservations about having their names appear on marriage licenses granted to same-sex couples. They had asked Beshear to either call a special legislative session or issue an executive order pertaining to the matter, but he refused to do either. This led to the controversy that swirled around Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis and turned both Morehead and Grayson into media circuses when Davis was jailed in Carter County for refusing to comply with a federal judge’s order that she issue marriage licenses to all applicants.

It’s just not Bevin’s executive orders that have caused consternation among the clueless. Last week, the state was forced to make substantial cuts to its Road Fund budget due to declining gasoline tax revenues. A large percentage of those cuts were to funds allocated to cities and counties for municipal and rural roads, and were required by law since local governments’ road funding is determined by a statutory formula.

This is a problem that can be placed at the feet of both parties. State leaders have known for at least two years that gasoline tax revenue would be declining, as the price of gas has steadily declined. Legislators failed to prop up the tax’s “floor” two years ago amid fears that it would be construed as a tax increase. The new, higher “floor” they approved last year was not nearly enough to offset the decrease in revenue.

Even though these Road Fund cuts would have taken place even if Jack Conway had won the governor’s race, or if Beshear was still in office, Bevin’s critics didn’t miss the chance to accuse him of slashing and burning in his attempt to kill the government. The typical anti-tea party rhetoric was on full display from those who didn’t bother to investigate why the cuts were necessary.

Bevin has made no secret of the fact that he’s inheriting a troubled state budget. Medicaid funding and fixing the pension shortfall will be two twin obstacles he faces as he tries to reverse the decades-long course the state’s been on under leadership of the opposite party. He doesn’t want to cut essential services, but the state’s obligations will cause him and the General Assembly to have to take a good, hard look at exactly what is essential and what isn’t.

It doesn’t help when his critics, especially those who aren’t in Kentucky and don’t really know what’s going on within the borders of the Bluegrass State, go off half-cocked with their complaints and criticisms without first educating themselves.

Bevin didn’t take money away from the lowest-paid state employees, he didn’t strip state workers of their negotiating power, and he didn’t make it harder for same-sex couples to get married. Those are facts, whether Kentucky liberals and national bloggers want to accept them or not.

Democrats’ theory on recent Kentucky election losses will be tested in 2016

After devastating statewide losses in the last two general elections in Kentucky, bluegrass Democrats are frantically trying to figure out how they can stem the rising Republican tide in what was once a stronghold for their party.

Jack Conway’s surprising loss to Matt Bevin in this year’s gubernatorial election, coupled with Alison Lundergan Grimes’ poll-busting failure to unseat incumbent U. S. Sen. Mitch McConnell last year, has the Kentucky Democratic Party scrambling to answer questions about their future.

One answer, frequently mentioned by the more liberal wing of the party, is that Conway and Grimes were too conservative. These activists believe the best way for Democrats to win elections in Kentucky is to nominate leftist candidates.

Republicans have to be salivating at those prospects. One can almost see the party leaders, in the best tradition of Brer Rabbit, yelling, “Please don’t throw us in that briar patch!”

For years I’ve maintained that Kentucky Democrats are nothing like their cousins from Massachusetts or San Francisco. Kentucky Democrats are generally much more conservative on cultural and moral issues than are Democrats on the coasts and in the northeast. Someone like the late Teddy Kennedy or Nancy Pelosi would have a great deal of trouble being elected anywhere in Kentucky besides the liberal enclaves of Louisville and a few ZIP codes in Lexington.

Conway and Grimes had to stake out positions to the right of the national party in order to have any chance at all of being elected in Kentucky. To do otherwise would have resulted in even greater losses than what they suffered. There aren’t enough true liberals in Kentucky who could have rallied to their sides to offset more conservative Democrats – what used to be called “blue dog Democrats” – who would either vote for the Republican who more closely represents their beliefs, or not vote altogether.

The Democrats’ theory got a bit of a test last year. Elisabeth Jensen, an Elizabeth Warren-wannabe, challenged first-term incumbent Andy Barr for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. Barr had defeated an incumbent with a golden Kentucky political surname, Ben Chandler, two years prior despite the 6th District having been gerrymandered to be more favorable to Democrats. Not only does it contain Democrat fortress counties like Franklin and Fayette, but three other counties where Conway beat Bevin (Bath, Bourbon and Nicholas). And that fails to mention Wolfe County, which is also now in the 6th District but has absolutely no business being there from either a geographical or sociological perspective, which also went for Conway over Bevin. Despite those advantages, Jensen lost to Barr by a larger margin than Grimes lost to McConnell.

If Kentucky Democrats need more liberal candidates to win elections, then why didn’t a liberal like Jensen beat Barr in a favorable district? Possibly because hard-core liberalism doesn’t go over well in most parts of Kentucky?

Liberal pundits and some activists, however, continue to pound home the point that liberal candidates can succeed; and are, in fact, the only obstacle keeping Kentucky from future Republican dominance. They’ll get a perfect chance to prove that assertion next year, when Democrat voters go to the polls in May to choose a presidential nominee.

To hear national liberal crusaders tell it, Sen. Bernie Sanders is the perfect candidate. He wants to tax everyone into oblivion and then give free stuff to everybody. He’s represented Vermont in the Senate as an independent for years, but he’s an admitted socialist, which would seem to make him the ideal candidate for the Democratic National Committee. Sanders makes Hillary Clinton, herself a fairly radical liberal, look like a conservative.

If Kentucky Democrats are serious about their party needing more liberal candidates, then they should turn out in droves to nominate Sanders. But that’s not likely to happen. Sanders will be lucky to pull 25 percent of the vote in May, and Clinton will win the Kentucky primary in a landslide. And then she will lose in the general election despite her husband’s sustained popularity here and despite the support of the state’s leading Democrats like Grimes and Greg Stumbo.

Democrats are losing their grip on power in Kentucky for several reasons. Not being liberal enough is not one of them. Much of the electorate’s dissatisfaction with them stems from their failure to move Kentucky forward despite decades of control. A sudden lurch to the left isn’t going to fix what’s wrong with their party or their policies.

As Kentucky Democrats lose power, Stumbo loses grip on reality

After Republican Simeon Willis left office as Kentucky’s governor in December 1947, Democrats began to obtain a stranglehold on political power in the state.

Two decades later, Louie Nunn was elected as a Republican, but he governed as a Democrat, which many think contributed to the GOP’s exile to the desert of Kentucky’s politics for an even longer period of time. Nunn’s backing of an increase in the state sales tax from three to five cents spawned the derisive term “Nunn’s Nickel” and the unflattering nickname “Nickel Louie.” One might say that Nunn was Kentucky’s first RINO (Republican In Name Only).

Between 1971, when Nunn left office, and 2003, when Ernie Fletcher became the state’s first governor in 32 years, Democrats consolidated power in state government. The Frankfort bureaucracy was stocked with fellow travelers and like-minded workers. For most of those 32 years, Democrats had unchecked power. Not until 1999, when Republicans took control of the state Senate, were there any restraints on what the Democrats did.

During those three decades, absolute power corrupted absolutely. Democrats came to see control of the state as their birthright, and they didn’t take kindly to threats to their authority. The hostility they showed Fletcher was a prime example. But now, the challenges to the entrenched power structure are coming faster and more frequently than ever before. And the old-line Democrats don’t know how to respond, except to lash out as they see their power eroding.

Since Republicans took control of the Senate and Fletcher ended the 32-year drought in gubernatorial victories, the GOP has been steadily gaining traction. Voter registration figures, once solidly in the Democrats’ corner by nearly a 2:1 margin, have trended solidly for the GOP. The figure is now about 1.3:1 and is inching closer to 50-50 each year. Republicans are gaining ground in wresting control of the House of Representatives from the Democrats. And last month, the state again elected a Republican governor in Matt Bevin.

Bevin’s upset victory over Attorney General Jack Conway has really threatened the Democrats’ power. And no one is showing the stress of that threat more than House Speaker Greg Stumbo.

Stumbo first showed signs of losing it on Election Night, when he delivered a bizarre rant that mixed religion and politics in a way that I thought was anathema to Democrats. He basically said the Republicans don’t have a monopoly on morality and called on Democrats to challenge them. His comments led many to wonder if perhaps he hadn’t been at the hotel bar drowning his sorrows before he took to the stage.

The rant would have been hilarious if it wasn’t so sad. As long as Democrats continue to support legalized abortion as a voluntary method of birth control, they have no moral authority whatsoever on any subject. And Stumbo’s own personal track record further undermines his credibility.

If Election Night was bad for Stumbo, things have only gotten worse since. State Rep. Denny Butler, a retired police officer, announced he was switching to the Republican Party, and he said it was largely because House leadership – meaning Stumbo – had not been attentive to his concerns about law enforcement issues. Stumbo didn’t say much then, but when Bevin appointed Rep. John Tilley to a cabinet position, the speaker went off. He began questioning the integrity of both Tilley and Butler, both of whom had enjoyed stellar reputations across partisan aisles. He accused them of selling out, hinted at criminal activity, and railed at Bevin and the state GOP for offering improper inducements. Although most Democrats appeared to be pleased with Tilley’s hiring, calling him a good fit for the job, Stumbo couldn’t be gracious enough to congratulate him. And although Stumbo denied any knowledge of the distasteful stunt someone pulled by placing a “For Sale” sign on Tilley’s House chambers desk, his protests rang hollow.

And all of this was before Bevin last week appointed another Democrat lawmaker, Tonya Pullin, to an administrative law judge position.

There was always the possibility that some Democrats, sensing the inevitable, would change their party registrations in advance of next year’s House elections. Besides Butler, there’s talk that possibly a half-dozen more will switch. The possibility of the Bevin administration giving more jobs to House Democrats also looms.

Kentucky Republicans have made no secret that they want to “Flip the House” in next year’s elections. That’s a goal of both Bevin and U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell. But even with state government trending Republican, it’s not a done deal. Two Republican representatives (Mike Harmon and Ryan Quarles) were elected to statewide office, and Democrats are expected to try very hard to win those seats when the special elections occur. There’s no guarantee that Republicans can win the special elections to replace Tilley and Pullin, since Democrats dominate voter registration figures in their districts. But Republicans sense blood in the water. They think a combination of party changes and electoral victories will give them control of the House to go along with the Senate and the Governor’s Office, giving them a chance to move Kentucky forward after decades of stagnation and regression.

State GOP leaders hope to challenge every incumbent they feel is vulnerable. In my own district, a Republican retired educator is planning to take on a first-term incumbent and is already at work on the campaign trail.

Republicans running against incumbent Democrats need to make Stumbo’s speakership an issue, especially given his classless remarks since the gubernatorial election. They need to publicly challenge sitting Democrats to denounce and condemn Stumbo, and to distance themselves from him. They need to ask those sitting legislators if they are comfortable with Stumbo being the leader of their chamber and their party.

I still can’t believe that Stumbo was ever able to become House speaker. After giving up the attorney general’s office for an ill-fated run for lieutenant governor, Stumbo strong-armed his hand-picked replacement in the General Assembly into stepping down so he could regain his seat. Then he somehow managed to wrest control of the chamber from Jody Richards. While I never thought much of Richards’ politics, I never heard a disparaging word said about him as a person. He certainly doesn’t have the well-known baggage that Stumbo does. That the Democrats would choose someone like Stumbo over a person of Richards’ character doesn’t speak well of their judgment. They should be made to pay a political price, and if Stumbo continues to come unhinged as he sees his power evaporating, they’ll have even more to try to excuse or defend.

Most of Kentucky’s leading Democrats have accepted their political losses with some dignity. Jack Conway and Adam Edelen have been classy in defeat. But Stumbo is part of the old line of Kentucky Democrats who have held power for decades and don’t want to give it up. Expect more meltdowns from him as control continues to slip from his grasp.

Much can be cut from state budget, if Bevin knows where to look

Every time I go to Frankfort, I pass by the office of an obscure state agency. I’ve never heard of anything this agency has ever done. As far as I know, it’s never been in the news for anything. I’m not exactly sure what its duties are. All I know is that it’s a state agency that consumes dollars from the state budget.

Since the agency has an office that’s separate from any other state facilities, it’s a safe bet that the state pays rent on the building. Since there’s an office, that means there’s a staff that must be paid. It also means there are bills for electricity and telephones and water and other services.

I recently heard that this obscure state agency was looking to hire a public relations person. I have never seen this agency in the news. I have never seen any press releases issued by this agency, or by any other agency touting this office’s work. If this office has labored in obscurity to this point, why does it need publicity now?

What’s the name of this agency? That’s irrelevant to this discussion. The fact is that such an agency exists, and it has several other siblings scattered across state government. It seems to me that this agency is ripe for abolition, with its functions being absorbed into other existing cabinets and departments. There are several agencies that would be perfect fits. The office expenses could be abolished, personnel costs absorbed through attrition and some money saved within the state budget.

Many of us believe that the government has strayed far from the duties for which it was intended. While it’s true that federal overreach is a hot topic, and the 10th Amendment and the concept of “reserved powers” would seem to give much governmental authority to the states, there’s still a widespread belief that government at all levels does too much, and too many things it was never meant to do. Personally, I struggle with the concept that the founders and framers would endorse the idea of government-paid health care.

We keep being reminded that times are lean. Former Gov. Steve Beshear frequently talked of shortfalls in the state budget and the number of cuts he had to make. He seemed to be fond of making overall cuts to the budget instead of targeted cuts to weed out unnecessary and duplicative programs.

New Gov. Matt Bevin has a golden opportunity to rein in the scope and power of Kentucky’s state government. Here’s hoping he will take full advantage of the chance that has been given him.

Bevin won’t be able to do anything immediately, unless he and his budget wizards are really good. He will have to present a budget for the upcoming biennium to the General Assembly barely a month into his term, which began last week. It’s likely he will be able to submit nothing more than a continuation budget until he and his staff get a handle on things in Frankfort. Plus, he’s sure to face opposition from the House of Representatives, currently under control of House Speaker Greg Stumbo and the Democrats, if he attempts wholesale cuts or implementation of new programs.

But in 2018, there’s real potential. By that time, the governor’s staff will have had a chance to review the offices and programs in state government. They should be able to pick out the ones that do very little, are duplicates of other efforts or don’t provide what is truly an essential service to the public. In addition, there’s a good likelihood that the House will be “flipped” from control by the Democrats to the Republicans in next year’s state legislative elections, which will give him two chambers that will be friendlier to his proposals. Bevin and Sen. Mitch McConnell may still be on tenuous terms, according to some, but they’re united in their goal of “flipping” the House next year. And even if Republicans don’t succeed in gaining control of the House, Bevin can omit those wasteful, duplicative and nonvital programs in his budget, then use the line-item veto to strike them if the House includes them.

We all agree that there are things the government must do for the betterment of society. Enforcing the law and building and maintaining roads are just a couple of those essential services. But there are many offices, agencies, commissions, boards, bureaus, departments and divisions tucked away in the recesses of state government, consuming resources but providing questionable benefit. The vast majority of Kentuckians wouldn’t miss them if they disappeared, especially if their important functions could be taken over elsewhere. And the taxpayers would appreciate a break and the opportunity to keep more of what they earn.

Some fear that Gov. Bevin is going to take a “slash and burn” approach to state government. I don’t foresee that happening. I think he will be reasonable and measured with the needed downsizing. He and his advisors will evaluate the cost of each function against the value. When the unneeded and redundant programs are eliminated, there will be more money available to meet the vital needs of the state without increasing taxes. And there are many areas of state government that are desperately underfunded, and not just the pension either, although that situation’s gotten most of the attention. Unneeded offices and programs are sucking money away from areas where it needs to be spent.

It’s been nothing short of amazing to watch Bevin’s opponents melt down on social media, in the press and in online comments on news stories. They don’t realize that the Medicaid expansion they’re championing is unsustainable over the long term. Projections vary, but the consensus is that it may be sustainable for a year or two but will not be sustainable after 2020, especially when federal funding dries up. How can the state pay for it without a devastating tax increase? And no one seems to be asking the bigger question of why it’s the state’s responsibility to provide health insurance anyway.

New Kentucky governors really don’t get a chance to settle into the office and get their programs in place. There’s only a month between the election and the inauguration. Then there’s only about a month before they and their new personnel have to present a budget. So it’s much too early for Bevin’s big-government liberal detractors to jump up and down about how he’s damaging the state.

Matt Bevin’s only been governor for a little over a week now. He’s still making appointments to his staff and trying to figure out the lay of Frankfort, being that he arrived as an outsider businessman instead of a career politician. He has the opportunity to make a real and lasting mark on the commonwealth. He can begin by identifying and eliminating wasteful and duplicative spending, such as for that obscure little agency I pass by on my way into Frankfort.

Eastern Kentucky cannot accommodate an influx of Middle Eastern refugees

Last month’s terrorist attack in France, committed by Islamic extremists, sparked an intense debate across America on whether or not we should accept refugees from the Middle East.

Those opposed raise the very real possibility that some of those radical Muslim terrorists might mix in with the refugees so they can bring their jihad against American values to American soil.

And in a stance so ironic that it would break the sturdiest of irony meters, if such things existed, many of the same people who scream “separation of church and state” declare that it would be un-Christianlike of the United States to turn the refugees away.

A number of governors have opposed the placement of refugees in their states, while others have said the refugees will be welcome. In Kentucky, there’s a divided opinion between the outgoing and incoming administrations. Ex-Gov. Steve Beshear – and I cannot tell you how good it feels to be able to call him “ex-governor” – said, before he left office, that Kentucky should allow the refugees to come here. New Gov. Matt Bevin – and I cannot tell you happy I am to be able to say that – thinks they should be excluded until we get a better vetting system in place to separate the terrorists from those who are seeing refuge.

Two weeks ago, an eastern Kentuckian offered up one of those typical liberal feel-good solutions that sounds appealing on its face, but withers under logical scrutiny.

Dee Davis of Whitesburg, president of the Center for Rural Strategies and publisher of The Daily Yonder website, wrote a column that was later picked up by the Lexington Herald-Leader in which he advocated for bringing as many refugees to rural eastern Kentucky as possible.

(Interestingly, I discovered when researching this column that The Daily Yonder was founded by former Herald-Leader columnist and reporter Bill Bishop, who never saw a rural economic development strategy that he didn’t hate.)

There are a number of problems with Mr. Davis’ recommendations that have nothing to do with terrorism or an influx of Muslim refugees from a different culture (although I’m sure things might get pretty heated pretty quick the first time one of the refugees wandered into a mountain grocery store and saw the meat department chock full of bacon, ham and other pork products.)

Does Davis live in the same eastern Kentucky as I do? It’s doubtful, because this area is not physically or financially able to accommodate or support an influx of refugees. There are

We’ve had refugees come here before. Probably the most prominent was the patriarch of the Dawahare family. He came to New York City from Syria to escape religious persecution, met and married a native of Wise County, Va. (which borders Letcher County), eventually moved across the mountain to Kentucky and started a business that evolved into Dawahares. The legendary clothing store became well-known in the mountains and in Lexington before it finally succumbed to the changing tides of the retail business.

But times are different now than when Dawahare came here around the turn of the last century. He arrived in the mountains in the midst of a coal boom. Coal’s in a bust cycle now. The climate that was hospitable to his entrepreneurial efforts just isn’t there now.

Rural eastern Kentucky simply does not have the housing to accommodate a large number of immigrants. Decent privately-owned rental housing is scarce in many small towns, and since many of the refugees are leaving with only the clothes they’re wearing, it’s not likely that they’re going to be buying homes. There are already worries in one mountain county about a possible housing shortage. One of the alternatives for extending the Mountain Parkway from Salyersville to Prestonsburg involves widening existing KY 114. If this option is chosen, approximately 120 families would be forced to find new homes, and Floyd County does not have enough available housing to accommodate those who would be displaced. Given the economic situation in many rural counties, it’s not likely that there’s going to be a boom of new housing construction simply to accommodate the refugees.

And if they do find housing, what are they going to do? Mountain counties suffer from chronic joblessness. Kentucky just released unemployment data from October, and the top (or bottom) 10 counties are all in eastern Kentucky. A number of layoffs have been announced since that information was compiled. Even an entrepreneur like Serur Frank Dawahare Sr. would have a hard time selling merchandise to a clientele that has trouble keeping their lights on and their families fed.

Can we afford to provide government benefits for those who come here but are unemployed or underemployed? We’re constantly reminded just how dependent the people of this region are on various government aid programs. And that leads us back to the housing question. Pick a small town, and you’ll probably find that most of the rental properties are subsidized government apartment complexes. There are usually long waiting lists for those. And, as many have pointed out, shouldn’t we be taking care of our own before we start accepting those from elsewhere?

Then, there’s the matter of education. Because of declining enrollments, many mountain school districts are closing older schools. If the school systems haven’t sold the old buildings, the state is not likely to let them reopen the facilities. The tax base in most of these counties cannot support additional levies to fund new school construction, and local residents in many communities don’t want their taxes raised. (In Lee County, twice in the last two years, voters by wide margins have rejected a tax increase for school construction). Budget cuts are forcing some school districts to lay off teachers, and those who remain are being stretched thin to cover essential subjects. These school systems cannot afford to hire English-as-a-second-language teachers to work with the children of refugees.

These few items jumped immediately to the top of my mind as soon as I read Davis’ column. While his piece seemingly purports to answer some of the questions, upon closer inspection his reasoning falls apart. I’m sure that with deeper scrutiny, even more compelling reasons could be found as to why the wholesale resettling of refugees in this area simply won’t work.

If the refugees can come here, contribute to society in a meaningful way and not be a drain on it, and assimilate into American culture, then I’d have no problem with them arriving in this area. But there’s no way that we can accommodate them given our current state of affairs. This area simply doesn’t have the facilities or opportunities they need to flourish in the United States.

Some cautionary words for the Bevin administration; or, there’s still a snake in the grass

Twelve years ago, I was writing a column for a now-defunct website called kyrepublicans.com. I had become acquainted with the site’s owner during the Ernie Fletcher gubernatorial campaign, and he invited me to contribute to his site upon learning of my journalism background.

About the time of Fletcher’s inauguration in 2003, I wrote a column for that site entitled “Snakes in the Grass.” In that column, I cautioned the Fletcher administration about partisan foes Crit Luallen, who had been elected auditor; and Greg Stumbo, who had won the attorney general’s race. It was obvious to me that those two would use their offices in any way possible to try to bring down Kentucky’s first Republican governor since the 1960s.

I wish I had as much luck predicting lottery numbers as I did in forecasting the Democrats’ behavior. While Luallen didn’t go after the Fletcher administration (she seemed instead to target local Republican officeholders), Stumbo certainly did.

A brief history of the “scandal” that plagued Fletcher’s term is in order. A Transportation Cabinet personnel official had been a classmate of Fletcher’s at Lafayette High School in Lexington. This employee had hoped to parlay his connection to Fletcher into a cushy appointed state government position. However, he and Fletcher were not friends in school, and Fletcher didn’t remember him from their days at Lafayette. When the employee was publicly embarrassed that Fletcher said he didn’t remember him at a state government event at the Transportation office building, he retaliated. Personnel decisions that he had approved and said were OK suddenly became illegal. Instead of taking his concerns to the state Personnel Board, he went straight to the attorney general’s office. Legitimate questions were raised as to if he had illegally obtained the emails he used to bolser his allegations.

Naturally, he found a receptive audience in Stumbo and his minions. Stumbo was looking for a way to take down the Republican governor and soften him up so the Democrats could reclaim the Governor’s Mansion in 2007, and Stumbo himself was considering running. (He eventually ran as Bruce Lunsford’s running mate). The lead prosecutor had been an outspoken supporter of former Attorney General Ben Chandler, whom Fletcher defeated in 2003. The grand jury was tainted by members who had so many conflicts of interest that it would have been impossible for them to impartially evaluate the evidence and testimony presented during the investigation. (For example, one of the grand jurors was married to a member of Stumbo’s investigative staff).

None of these details were ever reported by the mainstream press, which was also hostile to Fletcher, although they were readily available to anyone who wanted to dig. In fact, a few enterprising bloggers made those inconvenient truths public but the media never picked up on them, to the public’s detriment. Many believe that the Fletcher administration illegally fired lots of merit system employees. That just isn’t true. Only one merit system employee who had openly supported Chandler was fired, and he was still on probation, which meant he could be let go for any reason or for no reason at all. There’s no evidence that any civil service employee was fired for political reasons.

What resulted was a partisan, politically-motivated witch hunt that resulted in the Democrats winning back the Governor’s Office in 2007. Although Stumbo didn’t win, his party did, and he found his way back into power by reclaiming his legislative seat and then leading a coup against House Speaker Jody Richards.

The press and the Democrats were hostile to Fletcher, to be sure, but that looks almost tame compared to the disdain and outright hatred they’re showing Gov.-elect Matt Bevin. Read the editorials written by the Lexington Herald-Leader and The Courier-Journal since the election, check the comments section on post-election news stories or go back and listen to what can only be described as the rambling, incoherent rant by Stumbo on Election Night that many suspect was fueled by one too many attempts to drown his sorrow.

Which brings us back to that snake in the grass.

Just as Fletcher faced a hostile attorney general, so too will Bevin. Andy Beshear squeaked by in his race, and it’s a given that he will be just as motivated to take down Bevin as Stumbo was Fletcher.

An extra bonus is in sight for Beshear. There’s currently a leadership vacuum in the Kentucky Democratic Party. With the losses by the party’s presumed leaders, Jack Conway and Adam Edelen, the KDP appears rudderless. Its top two officials are Beshear and Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes. Their fathers, Steve Beshear and Jerry Lundergan, are two old-line party stalwarts who, coincidentally, are old personal and political foes who don’t get along at all. At this very early stage, Andy and Alison have to be considered two prime candidates to try to retake the governorship for the Democrats in four years. Alison’s office has no investigatory powers, but Andy’s does. And if he successfully uses them to soften up Bevin, his personal stock within the party goes up.

What the Fletcher administration was trying to do with its Governor’s Personnel Initiative was an attempt to reverse decades of abuse of state hiring practices. During the past eight years, things have regressed back to where they were in the days of Ford, Carroll, Collins, Jones and Patton. Much like Fletcher did upon taking office in 2003, Bevin faces a personnel situation that’s in need of correcting. And if his administration tries to fix what’s been broken again, will Andy Beshear follow in Greg Stumbo’s footsteps?

True, some of Fletcher’s appointees made some mistakes. They paid a price, too. The ones who slipped up were fired. But things were never what Stumbo or the daily papers made them out to be.

So as Matt Bevin takes office and sets up his administration, they would be wise to keep a close eye on Andy Beshear. He has plenty of motivation for going after the Republican governor. It would benefit his party, which is rapidly losing its grip on a Kentucky government and political machine it’s controlled for decades. And it would benefit him personally, as he builds his bona fides to step into a leadership role for a party that seems to be lost at sea.

My advice to the new administration would be to keep the grass trimmed way, way down, so that the Andy Beshear snake is visible at all times. Don’t let that snake slither into tall grass, where it can hide and strike the way the Greg Stumbo snake did.