Kentucky 45th in Fiscal Condition

George Mason University's Mercatus Center has done a 50 state survey of state financial conditions.  Kentucky falls near the bottom at 45th. No surprise there.

Mercatus came up with a composite score based on five different variables: cash solvency for short term funding; budget solvency; long run solvency; service level solvency; and trust fund solvency.

The question becomes:  what do Jack Conway and Matt Bevin propose to do about it?

Any business contemplating relocating would look to this survey, or one like it, to evaluate the fiscal health of a state.  No one wants to move a business to a state that is likely to default, or face a massive tax hike. So the ability of Kentucky to manage its finances sensibly has real-world consequences for employment -- and for making Kentucky a place where our children want to remain as adults.

Judicial Nominations Update

Politico has a good read on the status of judicial nominations now that Mitch McConnell is Senate Majority Leader.  Lots of accusations about why the pace of confirmation is so slow.

This is an issue that has implications for Kentucky. as we have several vacancies in the district courts and one on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit.

To be sure, the president has wide latitude on whom he chooses to nominate. However, I take comfort in knowing that McConnell will ensure that the Senate makes a searching inquiry of each nominee. The Senate has that right and indeed duty.

Obama's days in office are drawing to a close, thank God. But the judges he nominates, if confirmed, will have life tenure. Their impact will reach far into the future and affect the daily lives of numerous Americans. It is therefore important that Republicans take the time to look closely at these nominees.

Thoughts on Obergefell

The Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, finding a fundamental right to gay marriage, was so expected as to be anti-climactic.

Conservatives lost this battle long ago. It's over, culturally. It has been over ever since the ABC sitcom Modern Family hit the air with it's portrayal of the popular gay couple, Mitchell and Cam.

I have long thought that the Church should not be in the contract business. Instead, it would have been preferable if American wedding ritual was more like the French:  go to the court house to have a government official conduct the marriage, and then, for those so inclined, go to the church and receive the sacrament of marriage.

Instead, we allow members of the clergy to act as an agent of the state, performing a government function simultaneously with bestowing a sacrament. The cost of that convenience is Obergefell.

A bifurcation along the lines of the French marriage ritual recognizes that marriage is two things:  a contract, and a sacrament.  As long as adults are competent to give consent, I have no problem with two people of the same sex entering a contract to formalize their relationship. That comports with an understanding of limited government.

That's why I thought it was a mistake for conservatives to oppose civil unions.  It's true that this reasoning applies with equal force to polygamy.  It's also true that the Supreme Court's reasoning would encompass polygamy. That's not a battle worth fighting; if adults choose to organize themselves in that manner, it's no one's business. Again, that's viewing marriage as a contract, freely entered into.

However, I worry that marriage as sacrament is endangered. There will be calls to revoke the tax exempt status of those churches that refuse to conduct gay weddings.  Calls for "tolerance" will not extend to tolerating the religious convictions of those who believe in the biblical definition of marriage as being reserved for one man and one women. This assault on freedom of worship has already begun.  It will get worse, I fear. The implications for the nature and survival of our country are serious. Gay marriage cannot and will not destroy America; stripping citizens of the right to worship freely very well could.

The Church has seen worse. It's important to remember that and to keep a historical perspective as the assault on Christianity gets more aggressive. Sure, it would be a terrible thing to have one's church lose its tax exempt status.  But it's not the same as being martyred.  As Russell Moore wrote this past week, the Supreme Court cannot put Jesus Christ back in the grave. He is still alive.  Still sovereign, even in the fallout of Obergefell. That means we should be of good courage and not let our hearts grow dismayed.

So the appropriate response to the Supreme Court's decision is prayer for America.  Lots and lots of prayer that the Lord will continue to bless and keep this great nation.

SCOTUS Upholds SCOTUScare

The Supreme Court of the United States has once again saved Obamacare, this time on the validity of giving Obamacare tax subsidies to people who live in states that have not established the insurance exchanges; the law requires a state established exchange as a prerequisite to getting the tax subsidy.

No matter, according to the majority.  A state is not really a state or something. The words don't matter. Why look at the actual language of the statute when we can look to policy goals and context? Up is down and down is up: the majority found Congress' statutory language ambiguous and yet divined Congressional intent as clear. Logically, the Court cannot have it both ways.

Chief Justice Roberts once again joined the left, this time accompanied by Justice Anthony Kennedy, to uphold the vote 6-3.

This is a shameful moment in the history of the Court. This is a true erosion in the rule of law in this country, The Court disregarded clear language.  "Established by a state" is not an obscure term of art. that requires nuanced legal reasoning. Any fifth grader could read the phrase and understand that the federal government is not a "state."

A few choice morsels from Justice Scalia's dissent:

• “The Court holds that when the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act says ‘Exchange established by the State’ it means ‘Exchange established by the State or the Federal Government.’ That is of course quite absurd.
• ”“You would think the answer would be obvious—so obvious there would hardly be a need for the Supreme Court to hear a case about it. . . . Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is “established by the State
• .”It is not our place to judge the quality of the care and deliberation that went into this or any other law. . . . Much less is it our place to make everything come out right when Congress does not do its job properly. It is up to Congress to design its laws with care, and it is up to the people to hold them to account if they fail to carry out that responsibility

  
Justice Scalia is right in dissent. Having now rewritten the statute to save it -- twice -- the name should be changed from Obamacare to SCOTUScare.  

Keep Hamilton on the $10

Here's my Courier-Journal column on why I think Alexander Hamilton should remain on the ten dollar bill.  With thanks to the C-J for giving me permission to reprint:

Poor Alexander Hamilton has become the Rodney Dangerfield of paper money: he "don't get no respect."

Efforts are afoot to replace Hamilton on the ten-dollar bill. Harriet Tubman, the escaped slave turned abolitionist, has been mentioned as a replacement and appears to be the leading contender.

For the record, Harriet Tubman rocks. Not only did she advance the cause of abolition and women's suffrage, but she also was a Republican and embraced her second amendment right to carry a gun as a spy for the Union Army. Tubman is worthy of honor.

It does not follow, however, that, Alexander Hamilton should be cast aside to make way for Harriet Tubman. This is a false conflict — not an "either or" situation.

Ten-dollar bill features Alexander Hamilton (Photo: U.S. Treasury)

It's true that Hamilton is not as well known as those founding fathers who went on to become president. That's a pity, because he was a fascinating man — and not just because Vice President Aaron Burr killed him in a duel. Perhaps the new Broadway musical Hamilton will boost his name ID.

As the first Secretary of the Treasury, Hamilton established the foundation of our nation's economy and monetary system, which is why he, of all the founders, should be commemorated on actual currency. He is, after all, the American who established the U.S. Mint.

Hamilton was one of three authors of the Federalist Papers; he wrote 51 of the 85 essays. Hamilton's writings were instrumental in convincing Americans to adopt the new Constitution. Hamilton was an early abolitionist and a founder of the New York Manumission Society, which advocated ending slavery in the 1790s, many years before that cause became widespread.

Hamilton's accomplishments are all the more remarkable given the adversity he overcame. Hamilton was born illegitimate, back when the term "bastard" was a real stigma. He immigrated to this country from the Caribbean and was orphaned at a young age. Immigrants and those who are born out of wedlock should therefore celebrate Hamilton as proof that this is a country of second chances, where one can go on to greatness despite the most humble and shameful of beginnings.

THE COURIER-JOURNAL

Bridget Bush | GOP should support OTC birth control

Before Hamilton graced the ten-dollar bill, that honor belonged to Andrew Jackson (who is now on the twenty-dollar bill). Some would say that Jackson has been on two bills too many. Democrats celebrate Jackson as the founder of their party. But Jackson's legacy is a mixed bag, particularly with respect to his treatment of Native Americans. Those who take umbrage at the name of the Washington Redskins overlook the fact that every time they pay with a $20, they are honoring the man responsible for the Trail of Tears. To the extent that we need to banish dead white men from currency to make room for Tubman, Jackson should be first in line.

I wonder how Tubman would feel about displacing Hamilton. It seems so impolite, like forcing someone to move from a general admission seat they already occupy.

Why not bring back the thousand-dollar bill and put Tubman on that? Higher denominations are disfavored and therefore not circulated, supposedly because they make crime and money laundering easier. It is hard to see, however, how forcing a drug dealer to carry ten hundreds rather than one thousand-dollar bill reduces crime. Given inflation, a thousand dollars isn't really that large a bill.

One of the reasons given for tossing Hamilton off the ten-dollar bill is that bill it is slated to be redone. That's just the Treasury Department deferring to a self-imposed schedule. There is no need for a schedule to revise currency. And if such schedule leads to bad decisions — such as scrapping Hamilton — then that schedule itself should be revised.

The Secretary of the Treasury, Jack Lew, is the D.C. bureaucrat who wants to replace Hamilton. Lew needs to reflect on the history of the founder of his department.

Fortunately, there are people outside of Washington, D.C. who have more respect for Lew's predecessor. The Alexander Hamilton History Society, founded and based in Louisville, has created an online petition to retain their namesake on the currency. The Society meets every third Saturday at the St. Matthews's branch of the Louisville Free Public Library to hear lectures regarding Hamilton and other founding fathers. Hamilton supporters may sign the petition at the AHHSKY website: http://ahhsky.wix.com/ahhs-ky

As the society's website cautions, quoting President Calvin Coolidge regarding Hamilton: "When America ceases to remember his greatness, America will no longer be great."

Yarmuth Announces He Will Seek Reelection

Congressman John Yarmuth has been telling people for some time that he would run again. Still, I am a little surprised. Yarumuth has to be increasingly frustrated as the House has become increasingly Republican. He has more seniority but less influence.

As a practical matter, unless JCPS does something dramatic to turn around public schools in Jefferson County, those families who are Republican( or independent but lean conservative) will continue to make their homes in Oldham County.

As a result, I see little point in Republicans even fielding a candidate to challenge Yarmuth. The voter registration gap is insurmountable as things now stand. The presence of a Republican on the ballot just forces Yarumuth to gear up his GOTV operation, which hurts other Republicans (say, in Metro Council races) who might otherwise be competitive.

The reality is that we are stuck with Yarmuth for another term.

Get Ready For Jack Conway 2.0

I hear that Jack Conway is getting some training on how to become a better candidate.  Presumably this includes public speaking and something along the Dale Carnegie course of How to Make Friends and Influence People.

Conway is not much of a speaker.  He's tried different personas.  There was pugilistic Jack Conway at Fancy Farm, boasting that he's "one tough son of a b***h."  Then there was sensitive Jack Conway, weeping about his decision not to appeal the gay marriage case.

His hair, along the way, has gone through more iterations of highlights than the Breck Girl.

So what will a new and improved Conway look and sound like?  Will the consultants have settled upon one hair color?

Is it possible to teach charisma?  I am doubtful.

Conway said on Derby Day that he wanted to run against Matt Bevin. Conway got his wish, and may soon learn the lesson of be careful what you wish for.

Regardless of how one feels about Bevin, he is a very talented speaker.  He doesn't need to take charisma classes. Stylistically, the comparison will not be flattering to Conway.  

ICMY: Why Raising the Minimum Wage is a Terrible Idea

Given Gov. Steve Beshear's executive order raising the minimum wage for state employees, this is a good time to reprint my Courier-Journal column on why raising the minimum wage hurts those it is supposed to help.

With thanks to the C-J for permission to reprint:

Bill Clinton, angling to become First Dude, is running around the country urging an increase of the federal minimum wage, which now stands at $7.25 an hour. This is Slick Willie at his most cynical.

As president, Clinton opposed the late Sen. Ted Kennedy's plan to index the minimum wage to the cost of living, to go up automatically. Instead, Clinton chose an increase, without indexing. Reviewing documents recently released by the Clinton Presidential Library, the Huffington Post concluded that central to the Clinton administration's rejection of Kennedy's indexing proposal was this: "[S]ince the minimum wage would automatically rise each year, it would take away a good political issue for those who believe the minimum wage is an important tool to help low-income families."

That is, Clinton chose to throw a little something to poor people to win votes, but not permanently — so that Democrats could repeat the same manipulation whenever necessary to survive an election.

Republicans could extinguish the issue forever by agreeing to index the minimum wage. That would be a mistake, however, because the minimum wage is bad economic policy that actually hurts those it purports to help.

“When the government forces a private employer to pay workers more, that employer will either pass the cost along to consumers in higher prices, or it will use fewer workers.”

Bridget Bush

No politician can outlaw the law of supply and demand. When the government forces a private employer to pay workers more, that employer will either pass the cost along to consumers in higher prices, or it will use fewer workers, plus improved technology where possible, to do the same work. That means layoffs, reduced hours and fewer jobs for unskilled workers.

To be sure, those lucky enough to still have a job will make more with an increase, but for those who are laid off or unable to find an entry level job, the increase will be cold comfort: Their income will be zero. Democrats overlook that there is no right in this country to a job. The government cannot outlaw unemployment — it cannot order private employers to hire. By raising the minimum wage, Democrats would price out of the labor market the least productive, most unskilled. Delaying that critical first job for these citizens makes it that much harder to escape poverty.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office in February released a study of the Obama administration's call to increase the minimum wage to $10.10. The CBO projected that Obama's proposal would eliminate 500,000 jobs and perhaps as many as 1 million jobs.

Consider, moreover, who would get cut. Of the half-million jobs that the CBO projects would disappear if the Obama increase is enacted, two-thirds belong to women. The layoffs and lost opportunity for work that a minimum wage hike would cause therefore would hit women disproportionately hard. Minority youths — who already have nearly double the unemployment rates of white youths — likewise would suffer disproportionately. Indeed, the unintended consequence of Democrats raising the minimum wage produces outcomes that — if caused by Republicans — would be slammed as sexist and racist.

Increasing the minimum wage distracts from the more serious issue of how to improve workers' skills so that entry level jobs are the first step in long, productive careers, and not a purgatory where the unskilled languish until the next time Democrats decide to give them a raise with other people's money.

Workers whose productivity exceeds that of the minimum wage will earn more than the minimum wage. So instead of hiking the minimum wage, the better course would be to ensure that every American who wants a decent education can get one, regardless of neighborhood or income. That will only occur when poor Americans have access through vouchers and charter schools to alternatives to those schools that have served them so poorly to date.

The minimum wage is also a liberty issue. The minimum wage forbids workers from accepting, and employers from offering, less than whatever wage the government has decreed. If private employers got together and colluded about setting a wage, it would be an antitrust violation. Yet when the government does it, Democrats call it fairness.

Our federal system generally permits states to raise the minimum wage higher than the federal minimum. That's why Moveon.org is running a "sign the petition" drive to increase the minimum wage in Kentucky.

Progressive bastion SeaTac, Wash., recently increased its minimum wages to $15 an hour. Look for higher prices and cut services at Seattle's airport. Here in Louisville, Jefferson County Attorney Mike O'Connell informed the Metro Council that it may legally raise the minimum wage; it is not — at this point — pre-empted by state law. It might be legal, but it is still a mistake. Raising Louisville's minimum wage will send jobs to surrounding counties. It will increase prices for those too poor to have transportation for bargain shopping.

Instead of "feeling our pain," Bill Clinton and those "progressives" who revere him should stop inflicting pain by recycling failed policies, like the minimum wage, that do real damage.

Beshear Waves Magic Wand!

Gov. Steve Beshear has raised the minimum wage of state employees, including those who work for state contractors, by executive order.

The new wage will be $10.10 per hour.  "Tipped" employees will also get a raise, which leads to the question of why the Commonwealth has "tipped" employees on its payroll to begin with.

All of this will cost Kentucky $1.58 million. Because, don't you know, Kentucky is just awash in excess money, so Beshear decided to spread the wealth around.

Beshear was frustrated that he could not get the Kentucky legislature to raise the minimum wage, so he did it by executive order.  (Remind you of anyone?)  That means the next governor can undo the executive order if he so chooses.

I've written on my opposition to raising the minimum wage previously in the Courier-Journal.

Mitch Reaches Across the Aisle

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was the only Republican (or at least the only nationally-known Republican) to attend Beau Biden's funeral yesterday in Delaware.

Also attending from Kentucky:   Democrats Jack Conway and Jerry Lundergan.

I am proud of McConnell for that gracious act of compassion he demonstrated by going to the funeral.  He and Vice President Joe Biden served in the Senate together for more than two decades; they are friends and colleagues, notwithstanding that they sat on opposite sides of the aisle.  It was therefore entirely appropriate for McConnell to pay his respects to the Vice President's late son.

What I do not understand, however, is why McConnell was the only Republican present.  The U.S. Senate is a small club. Many Republicans served with Biden for years. I wouldn't expect the entire Republican caucus to attend.  But no one else, other than McConnell?  That's shameful.

This was not about policy or politics. This was about a father losing a son, made sadder still by the fact that he has lost one before.  Moreover, because the Vice President presides over the Senate, he still has a connection to that institution.  He is still a colleague.

My suspicion is that Republicans wanted to avoid the risk of being photographed with any of the prominent Democrats who attended:  the Obamas, the Kennedys.  And then such photo surfacing in a primary.  Sure, there are politicians cynical and mean-spirited enough to take advantage of such a photograph, and to the extent they try that, voters should punish them resoundingly.

McConnell's thoughtfulness to Biden explains why he and Biden have been able to get real work done on behalf of the country when the president was intransigent. McConnell well knows that at the end of the day, successful governance requires functioning relationships.

ICYMI: C-J Column - Sell the Pill OTC

Here's my Courier-Journal column on why Republicans should support making birth control pills available.

Thanks to the C-J for giving me permission to reprint it here:

A group of Senate Republicans has introduced legislation on something all Republicans should support: a step toward making birth control pills available over the counter (OTC). This is good policy and good politics. It puts to rest the fake War on Women narrative that Republicans have a secret plan to bring back chastity belts.

Colorado Republican Sen. Corey Gardner beat Democrat Sen. Mark "Uterus" Udall last year partly due to Gardner's pledge to work to make birth control pills available OTC. Props to Gardner for keeping his word, and to Republican Senators Kelly Ayotte, Joni Ernst, Richard Burr, Ron Johnson and Thom Tillis for co-sponsoring.

Birth control pills have been around for 50 years. They are safe and effective. To be sure, oral contraceptives carry certain risks, such as the occurrence of a blood clot. But those risks are very rare — less common than blood clots during or after pregnancy.

Even aspirin poses risks, yet it is available OTC. So is "Plan B," the emergency contraceptive that is taken after sex. Chemically, it is a very strong version of the same hormones commonly found in birth control pills. It makes no sense for Plan B, but not birth control pills, to be sold over the counter.

Many doctors agree. The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists (ACOG) opined in 2012 that: "Weighing the risks versus the benefits based on currently available data [oral contraceptives] should be available over the counter."

Although the ACOG recommends that women continue to get routine screenings for cervical cancer and sexually transmitted diseases, it made clear that a pelvic exam is not necessary and should not be required to get oral contraceptives. Further, it found that women can competently and safely evaluate their own risk factors by using a checklist. (Imagine: treating women like grown ups.) Some women will prefer to discuss family planning with a doctor, and that's fine. Let it be their choice, not a requirement,

THE COURIER-JOURNAL

Medical review panels would help patients, health care

In addition to its safety, the pill works, but only if it's used. But women can't take what they can't get with reasonable convenience.

The ACOG noted that unintended pregnancy "remains a major public health issue" in this country; OTC birth control pills would "improve access and use, and possibly decrease unintended pregnancy rates."

The Center for Disease Control estimates that 50 percent of all pregnancies are unplanned. Studies suggest that OTC birth control pills could cut that number in half, which has huge public health implications: For a young girl trying to finish high school, the ability to buy the pill OTC could allow her to escape poverty.

Every abortion stems from an unwanted pregnancy. Pro-life Republicans therefore should support making birth control pills accessible. Those who have moral objections to contraception should consider that the prescriptive status of the pill has no bearing on the morality of using it.

Access to birth control pills is particularly important for states like Kentucky with large rural areas and a shortage of medical providers. Finding and getting in to see the doctor is difficult and time-consuming — even if the doctor's visit is "free" under Obamacare. Forcing women to see their doctor for a birth control pill prescription wastes the time of patient and doctor and makes it harder for everyone else to get seen.

It's important to note that the issue of paying for birth control pills is wholly separate from the issue of whether it is medically necessary to require a prescription. Insurance companies could still cover the cost.

Regardless of who pays, making the pill available OTC will drive the price down. There are approximately 100 versions of the pill. Making contraceptives available over the counter should cause prices to drop and products to improve. The allergy medicine Zyrtec, for example, cost $90 a month by prescription 20 years ago. Now a year's supply of the generic OTC costs $30. Deregulation and competition save consumers money.

THE COURIER-JOURNAL

Dems’ student loan ‘relief’ will make college cost more

The U.S is way behind the rest of the world on this issue. Most countries allow women to buy oral contraceptives without prescription. That makes the U.S. less free in this regard than, for example, Kuwait. How bizarre that it's easier to buy the pill in Kuwait than in America.

Under current federal law, the pill cannot become available OTC until the pharmaceutical manufacturers so request. Gardner's legislation encourages them to apply by waiving the filing fee and providing priority FDA review. Big Pharma needs to be encouraged, strongly, to apply now. After a half century of use, there is no need for expensive, time-consuming studies. If pharmaceutical companies don't apply, Congress should revise the relevant statutes to allow consumers to make the request.

Republicans don't want to outlaw birth control. To the contrary, let's make it cheaper and easier for women to obtain.

Another Take on the "Unity" Dinner

Fascinating how two people can attend the same event and perceive it so differently.  I blogged previously about one friend's take on the Lincoln Day "Unity" Dinner. (Scroll down.)  Today, I heard a different take from another friend.

This Republican described the crowd's reaction as "polite."  "People clapped and stood at the appropriate times."  He thought the Bevin video on McConnell was funny but too late. A year too late. At this point, he viewed it as useless.

The crowd struck him as subdued for a state-wide Lincoln Day dinner in an election year. He said many privately expressed angst about Bevin's nomination.

For the down-ticket races, however, he sensed considerable enthusiasm. My friend speculated that Alison Ball and Whitney Westerfield will be the beneficiaries of money and volunteer time that normally would be directed to the top of the ticket.  His sense was that although everyone or nearly everyone who attended the dinner will vote for Bevin in November, for many Republicans, that will not extend to giving Bevin time, talent and treasure.

Bevin Unifies Party

Matt Bevin apparently surpassed expectations at tonight's Republican Party Lincoln Day Dinner, unofficially billed as the unity dinner.

Although I did not attend, I am told by a long-time party activist -- who donated to a Bevin rival in the primary -- that Bevin's performance was so good, it made him green with envy.

Bevin began with a video that made the crowd roar with laughter. Importantly, however, the humor was tasteful and respectful of McConnell, while poking fun at Bevin's perceived lack of support for McConnell.

 The self-deprecating video began with Bevin in bed, waking up to his alarm . . . wearing his Team Mitch shirt.  When his wife asks him to take it off so she can wash it, he peels it off to reveal . . . another Team Mitch shirt in a different color. The video also included a vignette on Bevin, like a besotted teenager, talking to McConnell on the phone, saying "No, you hang up." I am told people were laughing so hard they were crying.

At the video's conclusion, the crowd gave a standing ovation.  More importantly, this crowd of Republicans, two thirds of whom voted for someone else, were surprised and delighted. Many had not expected to actually like Bevin or be enthusiastic about his candidacy to this extent

Bevin then followed up with a speech strong on conservative policy solutions for Kentucky's problems.. He underscored the consequences of Republicans failing to win the governor's mansion.  As Bevin put it, there is the Right Way, and there is the Con-way.  It's a little corny, but Bevin made people excited about his candidacy who had not contemplated that as a possibility. This was a crowd who would have shown up in the polls in November to vote for the Republican nominee, Bevin or not.  He had their vote, but now, he has their support, and that means manpower, expertise, connections and maybe donations.

You can view the video below:




"Happy Together" from Steven Reese on Vimeo.

Let's Support the Republican Nominees

Matt Bevin was not my first choice. But I have no doubt that he would be a much better governor than Jack Conway.  At last week's Jefferson County Lincoln Day Dinner, Bevin gave an outstanding speech.  Amidst a group of strong speeches, he stood out. Apparently he did that at Lincoln Day dinners across the state.

Bevin was a much-improved candidate this time, compared to his run against Mitch McConnell.  Whoever has been coaching him has added a polish and discipline that was not there previously.  He is telegenic and articulate. I like what he says on the issues.

 Many of us feel like we don't know Matt Bevin. And yet when I see his family, I can't help but smile. It takes a certain selflessness to adopt that many kid; I know at least that much about him, and it's a good start.

I am really excited about Bevin's running mate, Janeen Hampton, What a compelling life story. She  illustrates how conservative principals empower people to escape poverty. She gave a great speech last night and I look forward to hearing much more from her.  

Here's my unsolicited advice for Bevin. Having chosen to become the standard-bearer for the Kentucky Republican Party, Bevin would be well-served to show some respect to the man who made Kentucky a two-party state:  Mitch McConnell.  Bevin's willingness to do that will determine whether McConnell Republicans merely vote for him or go further -- write checks and walk precincts. It's time for a McConnell-Bevin Bourbon Summit.

The Benefits of Seniority

This illustrates why it was so important for Kentucky to reelect Mitch McConnell.  I have a client whose business is heavily dependent on Medicare reimbursement.  Recent federal legislation to fix the rates for physicians had the unintended effect of delaying reimbursement for my client. As the delay dragged on, the cash flow for his business dried up to the point that he could not meet payroll. He was going to have to close his business. Two hundred jobs in a very poor part of the state were jeopardized,

My client reached out to McConnell's office and within two days, a high-ranking official from CMS had called in response. The situation has now been resolved.

Any U.S. Senator would have tried to help a constituent in this manner.  The fact that Kentucky's U.S. Senator is Majority Leader, however, allowed my client to get the relief he needed in two days.  When was the last time you heard of anything getting done that fast in Washington?

McConnell's seniority saved two hundred Kentuckians from losing their jobs. We are so, so fortunate to have Mitch as our senator.

Allison Ball For Treasurer

Allison Ball has my enthusiastic support for the Republican nomination for State Treasurer -- and has since she announced last year.

I first met Allison at a Women For Team Mitch event during the Senate primary. She gave an outstanding speech. Allison is soft-spoken and petite, so it is startling to hear her speak in public: she is a firebrand, bare-knuckled conservative.

I have kept in touch with Allison at Federalist Society events. She is so committed to the ideals of the Federalist Society that she has traveled from Prestonsburg to Louisville just to make our luncheon events. (For any non-lawyers who aren't aware, the Federalist Society promotes limited government, rule of law and personal responsibility.)

Allison's hard work in the party is such that at the Jefferson County Lincoln Day dinner the other night, Allison got the biggest round of applause -- even though she's from the other end of the state. She is well-known and well-liked among active Republicans, which is why she should win the primary handily.

I am grateful for her willingness to serve and see State Treasurer as the first of many positions of  public service she will hold in the Commonwealth.

Heiner Has Edge at Jeff Co. Lincoln Day Dinner

Last night all four candidates for the Republican nomination for governor made their "closing arguments" at the Jefferson County Republican Party's Lincoln Day Dinner.

Each of these candidates gave good speeches.  Based on audience reaction, it appears that Heiner had the edge among this crowd, followed by Comer.

Bevin is a much more polished speaker this time around.  However, his refusal to unequivocally endorse Sen. McConnell caused many to react to his remarks with stony silence.

Will T. Scott went last.  He proved as colorful expected.  He coupled a great sense of humor with substance. It's unfortunate he doesn't have the resources to be more than a spoiler in this campaign. Frankly, I don't understand what he is doing.  He is not going to win.  Not gonna happen.  He's just creating a situation that subjects the party to the risk of nominating a candidate who is so badly damaged (Comer) or unpredictable (Bevin) as to ensure that we do not win the general election.

ICYMI: Medical Review Panels

The Courier-Journal has graciously given permission to me to reprint my C-J columns in full here.  I've had a request for this one on Medical Review Panels, so here it is.

As the current legislative session draws to a close, the Kentucky House, controlled by the Democrats, remains the place where good ideas go to die. The latest example (one of many) is Medical Review Panels (MRPs). Republicans passed legislation to create MRPs in the Senate, but if that bill even makes it to a vote on the House floor, its defeat is certain — just another consequence of Republicans failing to flip the House last November.

Here’s how the legislation would work.

Anyone who felt that he or she (or a deceased family member) was the victim of medical malpractice would file a claim to the MRP, before that claim could be filed in court. The patient and medical provider would each nominate a physician to serve on the panel, and those two would nominate a third. The MRP would have 6 months to review the claim and rule on whether the medical provider — doctor, nurse, nursing home or whoever — violated the standard of care. The MRP ruling would be admissible in court but non-binding.

The part that the trial lawyers gloss over: If the patient does not agree with the MRP ruling, he or she can still go to court and sue the provider. MRPs do not “close the courthouse door” on injured plaintiffs. Indeed, the statute of limitations would be tolled during the MRP process.

The point of MRPs is to quickly sort valid claims from frivolous ones. This is good for both plaintiff victims and defendant health care providers. Litigation is stressful and time-consuming for both sides of a suit. It is not uncommon for a case to take several years before it gets to a jury.

Victims should be compensated if a medical provider was negligent, that is, did not act the way a reasonable medical provider in the same circumstances would have acted, resulting in injury. MRPs provide a path for victims to be compensated in months, rather than years. And because of the streamlined process before a panel of three doctors — essentially experts — the victim should be able to keep a higher percentage than he would with the typical contingency fee case, where a trial lawyer has to hire expensive expert witnesses to testify at trial.

Most medical malpractice cases that go to a jury result in the plaintiff losing. If a plaintiff is going to lose eventually, far better to find out sooner rather than later. That allows the plaintiff to move on and saves the judicial waste of a needless jury trial.

On the other hand, if the MRP finds that a health care provider violated the standard of care, that reality check counsels the provider and insurance carrier to settle, quickly. The faster the settlement, the less money that is expended on needless defense costs. And the sooner the victim is compensated.

But parties to potential malpractice actions aren’t the only ones who could benefit from sorting valid from frivolous claims. Fear of being sued causes doctors to practice defensive medicine, running needless tests out of an overabundance of caution. High patient deductibles and co-pays have made patients more cost-conscious: unnecessary tests now come out of our pockets. All patients therefore have a stake in seeing MRPs enacted.

Without a mechanism like MRPs, the high cost of litigation leads insurers of health care providers to settle just to save the cost and uncertainty of going to trial; even frivolous claims are expensive to defend. That translates into higher insurance premiums for doctors, which in turn drives up health care costs for all of us.

Malpractice insurance premiums, moreover, are an important factor in recruiting and retaining doctors to practice in Kentucky. We already have a shortage of physicians here, exacerbated by Gov. Steve Beshear’s expansion of Medicaid. That means longer wait times for all of us to get in to see our doctors.

Kentucky has a physician shortage in 47 counties. Sadly, these counties tend to have the highest percentage of chronically ill citizens. Further, Kentucky’s doctors are retiring faster than they can be replaced by graduates from local medical schools; the shortage will get worse. Anything we can do to stabilize malpractice insurance gives us a competitive advantage in recruiting young doctors to relocate here from out of state.

This will become particularly important when the two Ohio River bridges are completed, because Indiana has enacted MRP legislation. It is about to become much more convenient for a health care provider who wants to live in Louisville but work in Indiana to save on malpractice premiums.

MRPs are just one more example of where Kentucky is falling behind neighboring states with which we compete. Those out-of-state lawyers advertising on buses and billboards cannot vote in Kentucky. But they can and do donate to Democrat candidates for state representative.

My C-J Column on Hal Heiner

I tweeted this on the EIBKY feed but it show up on the blog, so here's my Courier-Journal column in which I explain why I have chosen to support Hal Heiner.

Here's an excerpt:

Three of the four candidates seem pretty bright. However, Heiner’s intellect is tempered by a humility that will prevent him from governing reactively. He thinks before he speaks and acts — a rare trait in those seeking office. I admire the way he actually listens to people rather than looking over their head for someone more important to chat up.

I appreciate Heiner’s background as a successful businessman who has met a payroll. The notion that he did not truly “create” jobs but simply lured employers to Kentucky is beside the point. A job is a job. To the person cashing the paycheck, it makes no difference how the employer wound up here.

Likewise, the fact that Heiner has a business park in Indiana gives him precisely what our next governor needs: real world experience in understanding how the states surrounding Kentucky are competing with us and winning. I see Heiner as the candidate most likely to provide leadership on issues like tax reform and right to work that Kentucky needs to regain its competitive edge against neighboring states.

Then there is is the issue of school choice. Heiner doesn’t just support the concept of school choice, he has advocated for it relentlessly. We won’t see school choice until Republicans take control of the Kentucky House, but that day is coming. Heiner is best equipped to implement school choice when that occurs.

This will give poor children in failing schools an opportunity for a quality education. The impact that this would have on individuals and our Commonwealth would be transformative. Heiner understands this and will get it done. To that end, Governor Heiner could expand upon Sen. Rand Paul’s outreach to minorities, who are understandably frustrated with the lousy schools that do not equip their children to escape poverty. Eventually, this could lead to Republicans becoming the majority party in Kentucky. In any event, it is the right thing to do.

There is also the issue of temperament. Heiner comports himself with dignity. He demonstrates maturity of judgment. That’s why I trust him to not embarrass Kentucky. He doesn't frequent the cockfighting circuit. I want a governor who won’t elicit headlines that make us wince. And I want a governor who won’t use the office as a springboard to another office.

I appreciate Heiner’s loyalty to the Republican party; I have no doubt he supported Mitch McConnell in the last election. Note that no one asks him this.

Pam Platt Leaving C-J

Pam Platt will serve her last day as Editorial Director for the Courier-Journal next Friday.  Pam recruited me last year to write my column that has appeared every third Wednesday this past year.

I was dubious about writing for the C-J when Pam first called.  My politics, after all, are considerably to the right of Pam and the C-J.   I didn't think I'd last beyond the first column.

Pam and I met and she assured me that so long as I (1) disclosed conflicts of interest and (2) understood that I would not be the paper's ombudsmen -- that it was not my job to offer constructive criticism of the paper-- then I could write about whatever I wanted, taking any position I wanted.

She honored her word. Even though some of my columns drew progressive outrage, Pam never tried to tone me down. She never changed more than correct a typo.

She was always gracious and accommodating.  I am sad that she is leaving and wish her all the best.

Hal Heiner's Hard Work Paying Off

Hal Heiner has been driving around the state for more than a year. I thought he was nuts to start his campaign early, but it is paying off.  Not only in terms of the polls:  Heiner is a much-improved candidate compared to when he ran for Mayor of Louisville a few years back.

Heiner's speaking is more charismatic.  He has the proverbial fire in the belly, that was so lacking before.  I also notice a difference in him as a retail politician. He seems much more comfortable making small talk with strangers than before.

 He is the same smart, humble and creative man who almost became Mayor, just a much better politician.

I went to a fundraiser for Heiner recently; it was packed -- so crowded that a woman fainted, a la Obama.  I knew only one person, and he was not someone I usually run into at fundraisers. The rest of the crowd did even look familiar. Heiner's primary is drawing in people beyond the usual party activists.  That's good for him, and certainly good for the party.

Already Bored By Billary

Interesting that Hillary chose to move up her announcement rather than wait until this summer, as previously planned.  I think her botched handling of the Email-gate -- and the fact that she had no team in place to respond to that scandal -- made her feel the need to mobilize.

There is an odd juxtaposition at play.  On the one hand Hillary tries to gin up excitement for how historic it would be to have a woman president. On the other hand, she has been around for several decades now. There is no longer anything shiny or new about her or what she offers.  And this is not a slam on her age or appearance.

Most of us understand that politicians age and get wrinkles, just like the rest of us. Her physical appearance is not what is tiresome about Hillary.

What is tiresome is that Clintonesque secrecy and sense of entitlement.  None of her scandals happen in a vacuum.  The facts may change, but the pattern remains: the Clintons think and act as if the rules do not apply to them.  And having knowingly disregarded the rules, the need for secrecy becomes paramount.  In email-gate, we see the confluence of these two impulses:  they break rules to protect their secrets.

What is undermining Hillary's candidacy from the outset is the feeling, and the reality, that we have seen this show before.  It's like a re-run of I Love Lucy  We know that Lucy is going to get in some hair-brained escapade, and we know that at the end of the episode she will wriggle her way out of it and do something similar next time.    

Ted Cruz's "Captive"Audience

Sen. Ted Cruz chose to announce his candidacy for the Republican nomination for president at Liberty University, Virginia, founded by the Rev. Jerry Falwell. Cruz undoubtedly chose this backdrop to tout his conservative bona fides.

However, those 10,000 students who attended the Cruz announcement were forced to attend:  convocation is mandatory at Liberty University. In fact, students who skip it are fined.

Certainly Liberty University's ties to Falwell were intended to appeal to evangelical voters, an important block in the conservative coalition.

However, the forced attendance of the students infringes upon the freedom of association of the students. At its most basic, conservatism is about expanding liberty. Mandates -- including mandates to listen to a speaker or face a fine -- are the antithesis of liberty.

Those students who wore the Stand With Rand t-shirts to the rally made the point that although they could be forced to attend Cruz's announcement, their vote is still their own.

#StandWithStudents Rally

The following is from Eric Bush, a junior at St. Xavier High School who attended the Prichard Committee's Stand With Students Rally in Frankfort this morning.

If you follow this blog, you are probably aware of the Prichard Committee Student Voice Team's efforts to pass HB-236, which would allow students a seat on superintendent hiring committees. Although I was not involved with the writing and lobbying of this bill, several of my friends were and I have been following it throughout its course in the legislature.

The bill passed the house 88-5, but has not yet been voted on in the Senate. Two controversial amendments were recently added in the Senate which put the bill's passage at risk. Students involved with the bill organized a rally to support passing a clean version of the bill which took place this morning on the Capitol steps. The energy level at the rally was high and students from across the state were excited with the chance of passing their bill.

More than 300 students attended the Stand With Students rally

Sen. Max Wise speaking about the importance of student voice

Unfortunately, the chances of HB-236 passing are slim, especially with the legislative session ending tomorrow. The best chance the bill has is through political maneuvering that would attach it to a last minute monster bill that encompasses a wide variety of topics. But if HB-263 doesn't pass tomorrow, you can bet we'll be back next year.

Kentucky High School Students Lobbying in Frankfort on Student Voice Bill

The six-thousand high school students in Kentucky who participate in the Y Club have been closely following the fate of the Student Voice Bill.  That's the bill to include a student on school superintendent search committees (school boards would retain the power to ultimately pick the superintendent).

As I have written previously, the Student Voice Bill enjoyed almost unanimous bi-partisan support.  Then two Republicans tarted it up with extraneous -- and controversial-- amendments.

Many high school students are in Frankfort today to demonstrate support for the bill.  Even students from private schools, who would not be directly affected by the bill, are in Frankfort calling for a vote on a clean bill minus the controversial amendments.

It now looks like Sen. Embry will drop his amendment, the so-called "Bathroom Bill" (requiring transgender students to use the restroom that reflects their biological status, not preference).  Good for Sen. Embry.  Regardless of one's opinion of the Bathroom Bill, it deserves to pass or fail on its own; attaching it to the Student Voice Bill was just tainting the Republican brand for the students who had worked so hard to get the Student Voice Bill as far as it came this session.

Unfortunately, it appears that Sen. Robinson is not prepared to withdraw his amendment regarding religious speech in schools.  Again, the issue is not Robinson's religious speech bill but rather his cynical use of the School Voice Bill to try to get it enacted.  Robinson needs to take the long view:  he is seriously angering students who, if not now eligible to vote, will be eligible shortly.  Robinson is making Republicans look like jerks in front of the next generation of voters.  Someone please talk some sense into him.

Jack Richardson's on the KY Caucus

Jack Richardson, who served for many years as the Jefferson County GOP Chair, agreed to provide a copy of the remarks he delivered the the Kentucky Republican Executive Committee on March 7, 2015, when it voted to hold a caucus in stead of a a primary.

Jack makes some important points that are relevant for the particular circumstances in 2016 due to Sen. Paul's presidential run. But as Jack notes, this is not just a one-time issue.  Unless and until Kentucky moves its primary up, to give us a real say in the presidential primaries, I think we should stick with a caucus in presidential election years.

Jack attended the planning meeting for the caucus this yesterday and reports that those charged with making it a reality are enthusiastic and committed to making this work.

Here are excerpts from Jack's remarks:

We have two issues here today and I want to address the first one and that is Kentucky’s Republican Party’s paralysis by analysis problem.  We desperately need change but we secure our second place status in a state that should have been Red long ago because of a status quo that is protected by either lethargy or over analysis, and sometimes it’s hard to tell the difference between the two. We need not look far for examples.  Last November Republicans had an historical electoral result across the nation. The Democrats had only two bright spots, Iowa and the Kentucky house. No change there. 

We have talked for decades about Kentucky’s irrelevance in the Presidential primaries. It’s amazing to me that anyone even bothers to turn out and vote because by the time Kentucky’s primary gets here the decision is essentially a fait au complet.  Oh, but we talk, and we talk, and talk and talk. But, God forbid that anyone actually propose to do anything about it. Never fear though, there is always that old faithful security blanket of talk, talk, talk.  If anything threatens to change the status quo, we just talk it or analyze it to death and we keep cozy in our old sameness. 

As usual, for things to change, it takes someone, a catalyst to bring about that change, but unfortunately, in Kentucky, that lone southern state that stubbornly refuses to turn red, they will be faced by that same affliction of paralysis by analysis. 

We need to become relevant and particularly so in the Presidential Primary and the caucus will do that.  We need to become a state worthy of its two world leaders, Sen. McConnell and Sen. Paul.  We as a party need to be a help to these two world leaders, not a hindrance. 

That brings me to my second point. The caucus is right and good for Kentucky, Kentucky Republicans and the Kentucky Republican party. Contrary to one remark I heard about this being just about Sen. Paul, this is not just about Sen. Rand Paul. But, arguendo, if so, so what?

I was Chairman of the Jefferson County Republican party for nearly 10 years. One of the first things I told my membership was:  know your job description.  I said, none of you are a US Senator and not likely to be. We are here to help not hinder.  The same goes for this committee. 99.9 % chance that no one here will ever be a US Senator. We are committee members. We are the Indians, not the chiefs. 

Six years ago there was a man, a little known doctor from Bowling Green, Kentucky.  Today that man, is listed in Time Magazine, is one of the top 100 most influential people in the world. He didn’t get there by committee. He has extra ordinary talents and political instincts. We didn’t give him permission to do what he has done. He didn’t need our permission to be great, he just was.  He didn’t talk and talk and talk about it………………he just did it. He’s in the top 100, we are not. We need to be worthy of our two world leaders.  

Sen. Rand Paul has earned the right to be the captain of the ship, or the chief as it may be. Just as Mitch has earned that right and deserved our cooperation last year, he got it.  Now he’s the leader of the US Senate. What a marvelous honor that is for our state. What great recognition that brings to Kentucky. 

Sen. Rand Paul is known from coast to coast and seen on all the nightly news shows. He has brought great distinction to our state.  Both of our US Senators are world class, and national leaders.  What other states can boast of such.  

This Caucus issue is not about Rand, but if so, so what?  Who cares? For years when Mitch needed or wanted something he got it and deserved it and we are all the better for it.  Now it’s Rand’s turn and he has done this state proud. And, this country desperately needs the kind of leadership he will provide.  I see our job description as a committee of being helpers, not hinderers. Let’s show the rest of the country the faith and confidence we have in our great senator. Let’s begin the needed change for the Republican Party of Kentucky by making Kentucky relevant in the Presidential nominee selection process. 

Sen. Paul has extraordinary political instincts and has parlayed them into being in the top 100 of the world’s most influential people in just six years.  He has earned the right to our help and I for one am not going to supplant my judgment for his proven success and political instincts. 

As I told Mr. Youngman at the Lexington Herald in a recent interview, you can take any idea and pick it to death. It’s easy to snipe. This is not the time or the place to do that. All of our leaders have endorsed this caucus measure.

It’s time to break from the past. It’s time to make a change. It’s time to stop talking and start doing.It’s time to stop saying can’t and start saying let’s do it.It’s time to stop navel gazing and wringing our hands and to start looking forward with courage, faith, boldness and action. It’s time to Nike up and “Just do it.”It’s time to be united lest we fall.It’s time to measure up to the greatness of our two US Senators.It’s time to support our Sen. Paul and to support the caucus initiative.Its time – now let’s just do this! 

GOP Legislators Teach KY Students Cynicism

This is not helpful publicity for Kentucky.  The Washington Post is covering the saga of the Prtichard Committee's Student Voice Project.  That initiative resulted in proposed legislation to allow a high school student representative to serve on superintendent search committees. (School boards would still make the final selection.)

It has strong bipartisan support in both chambers.  At the last minute, however, Republican legislators tacked on controversial and completely unrelated amendments that threaten to doom the bill.

Sen. C.E. Embry (R-Morgantown) added an amendment to ban transgender students from using school bathrooms other than what matches their anatomical gender.

Sen. Albert Robinson (R-London) added a bill to protect religious speech in schools.

The content of the amendments, and what one thinks about them, is beside the point.  They have absolutely nothing to do with the Student Voice bill.

The students who drafted and have been testifying for the Student Voice bill are Kentucky's brightest.  They are among the smartest, most articulate students in the state. These are kids we want to stay in the Commonwealth.

That two Republicans would destroy their hard work reflects very poorly on our party. This will have bad fall-out for the Republican Party's efforts to appeal to young people.  Again, the underlying bill has broad bipartisan support.  Pass it already.

High school students across the state are watching this. These are citizens who will be eligible to vote, in many instances, next year.

Embry and Robinson need to withdraw their amendments and fight those battles separately.

My C-J Column: Pro Medical Review Panels

My column will appear in tomorrow's Courier-Journal but is already up.  Here's the link.

Medical Review Panels, to my mind, make good sense as a ways to quickly compensate injured victims but also expose frivolous claims that would otherwise drag on for years.

The issue intrigued me when I learned that a medical provider I respect located his practice in Indiana, rather than Kentucky, because Indiana has Medical Review Panels.

Kentucky needs to look closely at what states like Indiana are doing.  We are falling behind these states for a reason.; let's cherry-pick those policies that give Indiana a competitive advantage.

The Caucus Was The Right Thing to Do

The Executive Committee of the Republican Party of Kentucky made the right decision to switch from a primary to a caucus this year. We need to look after our own, and if this allows Sen. Rand Paul to explore running for president while keeping his Senate seat, then that is a good thing.

I have mixed feelings about the caucus being for this year only.  It is ridiculous that Kentucky's primary is not until May. That makes us completely irrelevant with respect to having any say on who our presidential nominee will be. I would therefore like to see the primary moved to Super Tuesday in March, or switch to a caucus permanently.

Many in the party are concerned about the cost and logistics of a caucus.  I think it could draw in Republicans who regularly vote in primaries but have not taken the step of volunteering.  That could be a very good thing in Jefferson County, in particular.

We'll see how it plays out.  This year, the Paul campaign will pay the cost of the caucus. That gives the party the chance to experiment with this format without spending any resources.

My C-J Column on Local Option Sales Tax

Sorry I forgot to link this earlier.  I am not a fan of the proposed local option sales tax. 

This will be an interesting vote in the Kentucky Senate to smoke out the RINOs, as it has done in the General Assembly.

There is no point in even controlling the Senate if Republicans are going to use their power to raise our taxes.   

Bibi: Why I'm Speaking to Congress

Great read in the New York Post, in which Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu explains why he accepted John Boehner's invitation to speak to Congress.

He puts the lie to Democrats' assertion that this is just a stunt to boost Bibi's prospects for Israel.  Rather, this is about persuading Congress from acquiescing in an Obama - Iran deal that could lead to the destruction of Israel.

Congressman John Yarmuth, instead of boycotting the speech, should go.  Listen and learn.

The Field is Set

After weeks of rumors, we finally know the primary slate for Kentucky's constitutional offices.

I was surprised that Allison Lundergan-Grimes did not run for governor Many had speculated in recent days that her father wanted her to run against Andy Beshear, given the longstanding animosity between the Lundergan and Beshear families.  I had heard the day before Grimes lost by 16 points to Mitch McConnell that her father was already, at that time, lining up support for her to run for governor.

Plainly, she enjoyed the speculation, and therefore not only fueled it but did not extinguish it -- file for reelection -- until the penultimate day.

Jack Conway failed to draw an opponent (other than Geoff Young, more of a gadfly). Nonetheless, Conway is unlikely to win, in my opinion.  Democrats privately said as much and tried with no success to find an alternative to Conway.

Dave Adams gave me a laugh when he pointed out that Young is Buddhist. In a nod to Conway's disastrous Aqua Buddha ad against Rand Paul, Adams points out that "Conway has a pretty bad track record with the Buddha."   

I look forward to seeing what Conway's Aqua Buddha moment will be in this campaign. I view that as an inevitability, stemming from Conway taking himself way too seriously.

There will probably be some hilarity on the Republican side, now that Matt Bevin is running. Reporters will need to check his daily schedule to see if he's attending any cock fights.

Here's My CJ Column

The topic is Louisville's proposed Bike Share program.  Here's the link. Although Darryl Isaacs was not riding a Bike Share bicycle, his accident underscores my concerns about bikes in heavy traffic.  Here's wishing Mr. Isaacs a speedy recovery.

Shaking It Up In The KY House, A Little

CN/2 is reporting that Kentucky House Republicans have created a new position in party leadership: Chair of the House GOP Campaign Committee.

Rep. Jonathan Shell will fill the new role; he was elected unanimously  House Minority Leader Jeff Hoover (who was reelected despite a challenge) created the new position with a view to taking over the House majority in 2016.

I am glad the caucus recognized that it needs to try something new after November's disappointment of  Republicans failing to take the House yet again despite Mitch McConnell's 15 point win.  I'm pleased that House Republicans didn't wait to get started.

Shell, according to Hoover, is hard-working and has taken the initiative on fund-raising in the past.  He will continue to focus on fundraising as well as candidate recruitment. He points out in his interview that House Republicans raised an "unprecedented" $500,000 last election.

Raising money is not enough.  There needs to be an autopsy on what went wrong last cycle. Did the "unprecedented" money raised go to pay political consultants who promise much but deliver little?  What will be done differently this time?

Until Shell can give a sober and detached assessment of the mistakes of 2014, he will have a hard time convincing donors to give once more to "flip the House."  Indeed, we have heard so much in recent years about plans to "flip the House" that the expression has become hackneyed, sort of a code for impending defeat.

So Shell's first task should be to come up with a replacement slogan for "flip the House."