Us or Him?

There have been a whole lot of statements recently regarding the GOP and its policy positions, particularly in light of the recent CPAC gathering and its slate of speakers. In the process of building steam for a GOP presidential run by an as-yet-unidentified candidate, and countless down ticket races, there has been an urge to make great shifts in policy ideals. Many have made statements on the lines of making the GOP more "inclusive" or otherwise more palatable.

I certainly don't have a problem with including more people in the party - that is a desire that I believe every member of our party shares. What concerns me is the path to adding those party members that seems to be taking shape.

Take for example the following passage from a recent post online:

Yes, that will please the social conservatives and the religious right within the Republican Party, but there are more than a few sectors within the Republicans' big tent who believe it is adherance to the demands from those former groups that have led to the definition of the Republican Party as stale and out-of-touch; to the forwarding of high-level candidates who pass the limited litmus tests of some within the party but who don't have sufficient viability on a grander stage. The result: High-level losses and the need for reconsideration.

The article is available here:

http://www.gopusa.com/freshink/2013/03/18/rand-paul-two-visions/?subscriber=1

What scares me the most is the party's willingness to change for the sake of winning - regardless of what we're changing. The Republican Party has to be about more than than catering to the 'winning' demographic or social segment. We must first remember the Authority from whom all blessings flow.

Consider this final quote from the same piece:

There are natural allies who are at each other's throats over single issues on which there must be accommodation to allow for survival.

What's frightening to me is the growing belief that there are bedrock places where 'accommodation' or compromise or concession 'must' be made. Gay marriage? Abortion? Surely a more widely palatable position on these two hot button topics exists - that'd be the easy way out. But what has changed? Has God's Word changed on life or marriage? Or has man's faithful reliance on its guidance and principles been shaken?

God is unchanging. His Word is unchanging.

As long as any Party puts God at the forefront of its policy initiatives it will be in the right.

Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned. John 15:4-6

Lake Barkley Community Day

Like many of you I have many fond memories of weekends and holidays down at Lake Barkley. From July 4th weekends with sparklers and the massive fireworks launched from the beach, to Father's and Mother's Day holidays with a huge family gathered around tables near a window at the Lodge overlooking the water, to cruising the lake in the runabout and learning (or failing) to ski, Lake Barkley has many connections to my past. Sadly, Lake Barkley State Resort Park, like others across the Commonwealth these days, is struggling. But that's where we come in! WKDZ/WHVO Radio is organizing a Community Volunteer Clean-Up day! Check out their announcement here! Take the Notice and Volunteer forms below and PASS IT ON!!

Preserve Our History

Appreciate the Services Offered

Share Through Tourism

Sustain the Parks Through Community Service

VOLUNTEER DAY AT LAKE BARKLEY STATE RESORT PARK

MAY 18TH 2013 - 8AM-5PM

Lunch to be Provided!

Good Stewardship - Cutting Benefit Fraud

God charges us each with responsibility for all He provides us.  In our homes, our paychecks, our food and other material provisions, we must be good stewards and not waste what we have been given.  The important lesson to remember is that none of the 'stuff' we have is ours to begin with.  Likewise, the General Assembly must be a good steward of the tax dollars that are paid in each year.  Unfortunately, it is abundantly clear that the Commonwealth of Kentucky is not an all-around good steward of what we all pay in each year. I have filed a handful of bills that I promised I would work to pass if God blessed me with a win for the Senate, and SB 179 is one of those bills.  Senate Bill 179 is a brief bill that substantially restrictions the use and transfer of state-funded "EBT" cards.  There is a large market for these cards and too many end up in the hands of someone other than the needy child or family that needed them in the first place, and too many are eventually exchanged for cash and ultimately used for the purchase of controlled substances, alcohol and the like.

Here it is:

SB179

Smelters & Energy Rates

In the last week I have received a number of calls and emails urging me to vote "No" on Senate Bill 71 and/or House Bill 211. These companion bills relate to two aluminum smelters in Western Kentucky and how they purchase energy. There is a heated debate on whether these bills will have an impact on consumer energy rates. I have not decided how I will vote on this legislation, but I did want to share with you an op-ed written by Rep. Ben Waide from Madisonville - who has the smelters in his backyard. I know calls and emails are going out urging you to urge me and the rest of the General Assembly to stand against these bills, but I wanted to offer this information below so you can see the other side of the argument.

In the meantime, I am continuing to speak with utility and smelter company representatives to determine the best course of action for the 3rd District.

OFFICE OF STATE REPRESENTATIVE BEN WAIDE

BIG RIVERS and 2000 Jobs FRANKFORT, Ky. (February 18, 2013) – On August 21st 2012, Century Aluminum of Hawesville KY, an aluminum smelter plant, gave their one year notice to Big Rivers Electric that they would no longer be purchasing power from the cooperative. In December 2012, Big Rivers notified the Kentucky Public Service Commission (PSC) that they intended to ask for a rate increase to make up for the lost revenue from Century. That rate request was officially filed with the PSC on January 15th 2013 and would increase electric rates for the remaining Big Rivers customers by almost 75 million dollars per year.

This proposed increase was the proverbial last straw for Rio Tinto/ Alcan; another aluminum smelter located in Sebree KY. They gave their one year notice on January 31st that they would no longer be buying their power from Big Rivers. As a result, Big Rivers representatives have reported they will be seeking another rate increase from the PSC in order to make up for the lost revenue from Rio Tinto / Alcan.

The combined rate increase from these two requests is estimated to be 110 million dollars per year. For individual customers it will be a 30-40% increase in one year.

Once the first notice was given in August 2012, the rate payers fate was sealed. That means the remaining Big Rivers customers were going to have a huge increase in their electric bills and there was nothing that could stop it. No legislation in Frankfort had anything to do with a rate increase.

However, as a legislator, I still wanted to try to keep the smelters in Kentucky and save the jobs associated with those smelters.

On February 5 2013, a group of Western Kentucky legislators led by Senator Joe Bowen and Representative Tommy Thompson, filed 2 bills in an effort to save the 2000 jobs affected by the potential loss of these two smelters. I am a sponsor of one of those bills. Since they both have the same language I will call it the bill.

The bill would make a way for the two smelters to stay in Kentucky and keep 2000 jobs from leaving the state in one year. Specifically, it would allow the smelters to purchase their power from the open market instead of buying it from Big Rivers; which they are already not going to do. This means that the smelters could buy their power for $39 per megawatt hour (MWh) on the open market instead of the proposed $60/MWh.

As a Kenergy customer, I received an email and phone calls that told me to contact my representative and oppose the bill because it would force remaining customers like me to pay for the “extra expenses” and “incremental costs” of transmitting power to the smelters from the open market.

What they are talking about is the 10 million dollars per year it will cost to keep the Coleman Electric Plant running to supply Century a stable power supply. They are also talking about the Midwest Independent System Operator (MISO) transmission construction costs that will be a direct result of the smelter's load.

Well, this claim IS NOT TRUE. In fact, the bill specifies that the cost of “transmission and distribution services” will be paid for by the smelters at a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) approved rate. This is in Section 2 subsection 7C for those who wish to look it up. What's more, Century's Associate General Counsel John DeZee has maintained throughout the discussions that Century will pay all additional costs incurred by Big Rivers.

I also believe there has been some confusion on the part of Kenergy regarding the 10 million dollars. They claim the 10 million for operating the Coleman plant will be an additional cost to customers. However, the PSC confirmed to me that the 10 million is already included in the January 15th rate increase request. I have spoken to all parties involved and I truly believe this is a point of confusion.

It is NOT TRUE that the remaining customers might have to pay transition costs if the smelters wish to return to Big Rivers in the future. The smelters have agreed to forgo any return to the co-op. Although the smelters have stated this, it is included in a revised version (“committee substitute”) of the bill (HB 211) to make sure Big Rivers is not vulnerable.

It is also NOT TRUE that the bill would deregulate electricity in Kentucky. These two smelters are the only entities in the whole state that would qualify to buy power on the open market under this bill. Kenergy states this on their own website. No one in Frankfort is proposing to do anything that would affect the statewide certified territories. It does not open any doors or create any new ways to deregulate the state.

I will always be a champion of coal fired electricity. We have so much coal that electricity ought to be cheap. Unfortunately, things are not the way they ought to be.

Big Rivers has been in financial trouble for many years. They are hundreds of millions of dollars in debt. The EPA adds costly regulations every year and the smelters make up 70% of their business. Even if Big Rivers wanted to lower rates they probably could not.

What they could do is help protect 2000 jobs. Past agreements between Big Rivers and the smelters are not suicide pacts with the people of Western Kentucky. A new agreement could be reached that allows the smelters to stay and Big Rivers associated costs to be covered.

The bill introduced in Frankfort does not increase anyone's electric bills. The increase that is coming was triggered in August of last year and we cannot do anything to stop it.

It is my hope a new agreement will be reached while there is still time to save 2000 jobs. If achieved, this agreement would remove any need for legislation out of Frankfort and that's the way things ought to be in the first place.

Ben Waide State Representative 10th District

Pension Problems

UPDATE: The primary, and only remaining, sponsor of SB 144 withdrew his sponsorship earlier today, February 19th, in the Senate chamber, effectively killing the bill!

As many of you are aware, Kentucky faces a tremendous financial crisis in its public pension system. To date, the funds are over $33 Billion in the hole, and we continue to dig ourselves deeper - until now. Last week, the Kentucky Senate passed a bipartisan bill, Senate Bill 2, that makes broad changes to the way public employees' retirement accounts are managed and grown. The plan proposed in SB2 is neither a "defined benefit" plan (like what is currently in place), nor is it a "defined contribution" plan, such as a 401(k). Rather, SB2 creates a hybrid, "cash-balance" plan. There are two important things to note about SB2:

1. The bill does not do anything to the Teachers Retirement System.
2. The bill only affects new hires after July 1, 2013.

Many of you have contacted me over the last two days, however, about a newly filed bill, Senate Bill 144. This well-intentioned bill, sponsored by Sen. Chris McDaniel, takes a substantial step in righting the sinking pension ship. However, I believe the bill goes further than necessary. As many of you have noted, and correctly so I believe, SB144 carves away the income earned above your base pay scale.

...payments for overtime, compensatory time, living allowances, expense reimbursements, lump-sum payments for accrued vacation leave, lump-sum bonuses, severance payments, lump-sum payments for accrued sick leave, uniform and equipment allowances, employer-provided payments for service purchases, or any other payments determined by the board to be in excess of the employee's base regular rate of pay...

It is important to note that SB144 is technically valid, in that these payments above base pay are not part of whats called the "inviolable contract." In other words, while the Commonwealth is obligated by law to honor the base pay part of retirement, it is not technically required to honor all the payments above and beyond it.

However, while I am prepared to make difficult decisions - even politically unsafe and unpopular decisions - to address our pension problems (after all, if we don't fix it now no one will have anything waiting for them when they retire), but I believe SB144 goes too far. I would rather that everything that has been accumulated up to this point by employees be kept in place and honored. While the Commonwealth may not have the same obligation to honor these amounts as with base pay, I simply believe its the right thing to do. State employees worked extra hours, avoided calling in sick, etc., believing that this time would be accruing to their benefit down the road. It'll hurt financially, but I can't justify robbing folks of what they expected (and worked) to get.

While it's not widely popular, I might (emphasis on the "might") be ok with eliminating these payments above base pay going forward on a sliding scale based on tenure of service. For example, if you've got 30 years of service under your belt nothing is changed; if you've got 20 years in we tinker with the calculations a bit; if you've got 10 years in we tinker with the calculation a bunch; and if you've got 5 years in or less we tinker the most. That's the only fair and equitable way to handle the change and still keep the funds afloat - though I'm happy to hear your suggestions! Call me at 502-564-8100 (ask for me), leave a message for any legislator by calling 800-372-7181, or email me by visiting the Contact page (it comes straight to me).

In the meantime, rest assured that SB144 in its current state does not have my support. I hope to work with Sen. McDaniel (who is a fantastic senator that is working hard to bring Kentucky's fiscal house back into order) to create a solution that makes hard changes but does so in a fair and equitable way.