Kentucky.

Tonight I'm Renee Shaw.

We thank you so much for joining us this evening.

We continue our coverage of the 2026 Kentucky General Assembly in regular session.

The session began last Tuesday.

It's a 60 day session that will include work on Kentucky's two year budget.

But there is so much more.

Powell lawmakers address child care in the state, and what are the chances lawmakers will take up Governor Andy Beshear?

Perennial call for universal pre-K for four year olds.

Will Kentucky take another stab at redrawing congressional boundaries, as other states have done, looking to do or have rejected?

And what about the big concerns around K through 12?

Education?

Banning DEI addressing funding disparities, splitting up the state's largest school district, and even handling violent students in the classroom.

With close to 500 bills already filed at the end of day five of the 60 day session.

What are legislative leaders top items on their to do list?

We'll ask them.

We've got four legislative leaders in our Lexington studio tonight.

State Senator Robert Stivers, a Republican from Manchester and Senate president, state Senator Cassie Chambers Armstrong, a Democrat from Louisville and Senate minority whip, state Representative David Osborne, a Republican from prospect and House speaker.

And state Representative Lindsay Burke, a Democrat from Lexington and House Minority Caucus chair.

We certainly want to hear from you tonight.

You can send your questions and comments by X. Formerly known as Twitter, at Pub Affairs KET.

You can send an email to KY Tonight at Keturah or use the web form at Keturah KY Tonight.

Or you can give us a call the good old fashioned way at one (800) 494-7605.

Well welcome everyone, ladies and gentlemen.

Feeling pretty good on day going on day six.

Feel great.

Feel great game day.

Yeah.

So far so good.

Things are good.

Well let's just talk about I asked the group last week about the new chambers and how that's affecting things.

And of course that was the eve before you got in there.

So, speaker Osborne, how are you feeling about the new chambers?

And do you think it's going to help with expediting the flow of legislation and conversation this session at all?

>> You know, it's different.

And I guess there's certainly it's nice to have heat that comes on and and off when you ask it to.

It's nice to have good lighting.

It's nice to have internet access.

All those things are, are are nice.

But it's it's just not the same.

And because there is something about walking into the halls of the Capitol building that that inspires you and, and I think it, it, it drives home to, to everybody of, of all political persuasions, the importance of the work that we do.

It's really difficult to find that inspiration in the halls of the new chamber.

It really is.

So as I continue to tell our members, you know, find your inspiration from from outside because you're not going to find them in that room.

But the work that we will do is every bit as important.

And we have to we have to take it that way.

But it's it's just a building.

>> Yeah.

Thank you.

President.

What do you agree with that.

>> Yeah.

It's pretty dull and ours is smaller.

So it it's created a little bit of logistical problems.

Probably the one positive is it's not as far as a walk from our main offices to our temporary chambers.

But I agree, when you walked in in the rotunda, past the governor's office, the attorney general's office, up the second floor where the Supreme Court is, and then to the third floor where the respective chambers are.

If you didn't get a certain sense of awe about man, we're here.

This is this is a big deal.

Because it is.

So it's it just doesn't have that aura about it that the Capitol has.

>> And for many lawmakers, they may never return to the Capitol.

Now we're going to call it the new old Capitol, since we have an old state capitol.

>> Jimmy Higdon will finish his career.

That's right.

There will probably be other people who will finish their careers, never going back to the old Capitol.

>> And their capacity that they're in now.

That's correct.

So how do you all view it?

Does it feel different to you and is different bad?

>> So I'll say I miss the people.

For me, it's not so much about the building, but I miss when you walk into the Capitol.

The Capitol belongs to the people.

And whether it's a school group that's there getting a tour, whether it's just people milling about, just sort of taking care of their business.

I miss seeing the people because now we can go from the annex to the chambers without seeing anyone other than staff and other elected officials.

And I understand there are logistical reasons, and it's a smaller chambers and sort of dealing with all the realities that we have to deal with, but it makes you feel a little more siloed, makes you have to work more to continue to feel connected to the people that we represent and the people that we serve.

>> Yeah.

Do you see it that way, Representative Burke?

>> I do, I think I agree with everyone who has weighed in so far, because it's true that this new space has lots of bells and whistles that are a pleasant addition, but it lacks the gravitas of the Capitol we're used to.

And I hope as session goes on and more people start showing up for different lobby days and things like that, that will get some of that hustle and bustle that makes being in the Capitol such a pleasure.

>> Well, and perhaps when the committee schedule picks up a little bit more earnestly, and we know that from looking at the calendar on both the House and Senate, there's an hour scheduled for committee hearings as opposed to two hours in the past.

So I want to ask, what is the intention behind kind of abbreviating that committee hearing time, and do you think it will expedite action?

>> I don't know what the House committee hearings are.

We we tried to pick and choose based on prior history, which committees took longer and and looked at giving them better positions, better timing.

You know, naturally, in a budget session, the appropriations and revenue and the transportation chair are going to have a lot longer type of hearings and more access to committee rooms.

But that's it's nothing in particular.

It's just that we wanted to try to make sure there was ample time, but not wasted time.

>> So is it a way to kind of take we've got 500 bills and counting and it's going on day six.

Is it a way to kind of say, these are going to be where we're going to spend our time on these priority measures.

>> And actually think, if you look back at our previous calendars, we've always had two hour blocks that we've tried to narrow it down to to one hour meeting times.

We are still on two hour blocks for for committee assignments.

We meet at eight, ten and 12 on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday.

That is so since we are in kind of a state of of change a little bit, it's so everybody knows from from 8:00 until 9:00 they're going to be in there.

It may spill over from time to time.

And certainly there's the ability to do that.

But it's trying to to focus.

Our bodies work more than anything.

>> So I mentioned and you want to comment on that real quick.

>> I was just going to say one thing that I like to keep in mind and remind folks is efficiency is not always the most important value when we're legislating.

So whenever we're legislating, it's not just about how quickly can we get things done, how quickly can we move things along?

Legislation by design is supposed to be a little clunky, because you're supposed to have people with different opinions and ideas, and really everyone having the opportunity to come in and feel heard and be heard and express their opposition.

And so that's something that I hope as we shift schedules and our in new chambers and all of that, that yes, efficiency is important, but it's not always the most important thing.

The most important thing is making sure that people really are represented and feel represented.

And so I hope we can keep that in mind as the session moves forward as well.

>> So one of the issues that we've heard about and in other states is about redistricting.

Representative Burke and I know that there is a plan and by House Democrats to address this, or a couple of them have filed legislation to deal with this, we know that Texas has gone ahead with this.

Florida is considering it, possibly in this regular session or in a special session that the governor calls.

Indiana has rejected the idea, but California went ahead.

And this is all about maybe the push to shore up some of those seats in the midterm elections and prospects for GOP.

So tell us about the idea that has come across from your caucus to deal with the whole debacle over mid-decade redistricting.

>> Yes.

Well, Representative Anne Dunworth of Lexington has filed a bill that is modeled after how Lexington City Council's redistricting process occurs involves creating a nonpartisan commission and utilizing commission recommendations so that this redistricting process is not politicized and seized upon by either party.

I think you can look to states like Michigan for a similar model.

There are places all over the country that utilize these nonpartisan commissions, and I think that that's really what our our constituents would want us to do.

They expect us to meet their needs.

And when we're fighting over things like how many congressmen, sorry, how many districts where the districts are, those are not the things that our constituents are asking of us.

They're not what we need.

And so I hope that we won't be focused on that during this session when we have so many other important things like the budget to deal with.

>> Is there an appetite in either Senate or House leadership to do mid district mid decade redistricting?

>> Oh, you want to start.

You want.

>> Me to look?

We've had no conversation about it quite frankly.

You know, I will point out that, you know, there's been exactly one redistricting plan in the last 40 years.

It was found to be unconstitutional.

I mean, to be constitutional.

Excuse me.

And that was the one we passed this past in 2022.

I guess it was.

And, you know, we're proud of that.

We're proud of the fact that we did it right.

And the courts affirmed that we have, frankly, had the only place that I have heard the concept of redistricting has come from outside sources.

Quite frankly, I haven't heard it from majority, minority, Senate, House.

You know, there's speculation because it has been a national news item.

But but as far as our conversations have gone, it's just it's not been an issue.

>> Nothing.

Burger in the Senate.

>> No.

And I came just after the redistricting.

I was a product of redistricting.

And I go back and I've given people the history lessons.

They like to talk about how the Republicans created the first congressional district.

But if you look at 92, that district was created by the Democrats to look like that, and the second district was created to look like that because they were trying to beat Hal Rogers in the fifth district.

So they moved a lot of his constituents out to try to beat him, putting him into Old Seventh.

Well, when it came back, they moved enough Republicans into district one to district two that then it allowed Ron Lewis and Ed Whitfield to get elected, and they didn't beat Congressman Rogers.

So instead of sweeping the board, they split the board.

And so I think the same type of thing from a history lesson, you got to be careful what you do.

If you're being political.

From that perspective, you take the most heavily Democratic district in the area and start diluting it in an effort to to to take it out.

You may wind up losing a couple of your seats because you then made a base.

And I'm talking pure politics.

You made a base mad.

That will come out and, you know, vote to elect their person.

So there's not been any discussion among my group, nor have I had any calls from anybody.

But actually, I did have a call with some people out of the white House.

I told them, I don't think this is a good idea, and they've never heard from them at any time since.

>> Push on that.

Not at all.

Resistance.

All right.

Let's talk about pre-K.

I think we're all on one accord on pre-K, right.

So last week we carried the governor's state of the Commonwealth and Budget address, and he again made the push for this time $40.5 million in the fiscal year beginning July 2027 for the initial phase of pre-K for all program, which would be implemented over the course of of several years.

And then we heard the governor at the Kentucky Chamber dinner where you all attended, and you two spoke, where he reminded lawmakers that back in the year 2016, when then Governor Matt Bevin, a Republican, was governor, there was he had vetoed a measure that would have expanded preschool eligibility to kids up to 200% of the federal poverty level, up from 160%.

The Senate voted for that.

Then.

Senator Stivers, what was your position back in 2016, and how does that look similar or different than your position now?

>> Well, I've never been a big supporter of universal pre-K, and I don't remember that in 2016.

But to me, it is the agreement on daycare.

The need for quality daycare is not the issue, it is what quality daycare looks like.

And we know it's an impediment to some people getting back into the workforce.

But when you start thinking about placing this universal pre-K with the K through 12 system, then it has a lot of logistical problems.

And I heard from superintendents and other people just recently when we had snow days.

Who makes the decision for that school board employee to come in and work?

Well, they've got to work.

If that hospital worker is going to go or the person at the grocery store is going to go to work, they have to be there.

They can't take off those days.

And those are the examples that people call me back and say, we don't know how this works logistically.

If you make it a school function and it's different.

In Clay County or Owsley County than it is in Louisville, as to what a daycare model should look like.

>> What what would it look like in Louisville?

And do you see some credence in what President Stivers is saying in opposition?

>> Well, we're finding out because Louisville is under the leadership of our mayor.

We now have five by five, which is expanding opportunities for early learning to every child.

And I will say, I agree that daycare access is important, but I actually don't like the term daycare because I think it minimizes what we're talking about.

What we're really talking about are early learning opportunities for children, for our littlest learners.

As a parent of a preschooler, I see every day the way that it impacts him and the things that he learns and the way he came home the other day and explained surface tension to me.

He is four years old and came home and explained surface tension to me.

And we know when we look at the data that those early learning opportunities, whether we're talking about two year olds, three year olds, four year olds, we get back whatever we invest into it.

And sure, are there logistics we have to work out.

Absolutely.

That's why the governor's pre-K for all advisory board has a whole bunch of members with a whole bunch of expertise to solve them.

We can solve big things.

I believe government can solve big things.

We've done big things before, and investing in pre-K for all would be a game changer for Kentucky kids.

We know that it impacts every outcome that we could care about.

From crime rates to lifetime career earnings.

We have a broad coalition of support, from businesses to parents to early childhood educators.

I can't understand why we're not doing something about it.

>> Well, Caleb Brown, who is CEO of the conservative group Bluegrass Institute for Public Policy Solutions, wrote a piece back in the fall that got printed in November, and he talked about this being an expensive experiment.

And he said researchers from Vanderbilt University followed 3000 low income children through sixth grade with alarming results.

Children who attended Tennessee's voluntary pre-K program fared worse on a range of metrics compared with children who didn't.

The academic gains were that they observed in pre-K faded by the end of kindergarten.

Even the worst negative effects grew larger over time.

Children who were in pre-K program scored lower on achievement tests in both third and sixth grade compared to their peers who did not attend.

And by the sixth grade, he said, pre-K attendees were more likely to be in special education.

So when you hear those dire outcomes, what gives you confidence that Kentucky should proceed in a similar direction as Tennessee?

>> Well, without looking at that specific research, I can't comment on the quality of the research that was used.

What I do know is that there are many other studies that underscore the success that comes along with the investment and universal pre-K for all, and we can look at other states.

So if we treat the idea as something that can be shopped in the laboratory of states, we can find successful examples all over the country where different state governments have cracked this nut.

And are any of them perfect?

No, they're probably not.

But each one of them has created a structure.

They've all been able to figure it out.

They've each done it in their own way.

And so Kentucky has the opportunity now to do it our own way.

I think the governor's proposal of phasing it in slowly over time makes a lot of sense, because if we are looking at public school infrastructure, no, we can't go pre-K for all overnight.

My two sons are both in a position where they could benefit if we would do this.

Right now, my family pays as much for daycare as we do for our mortgage, and families just can't sustain that.

I'm working two jobs.

My husband's working another job.

If we want families to go out and work 3 or 4 jobs, then they might be able to afford child care.

But this program allows families to get back to work.

It allows caring parents to know that their children are in a good place, that they're getting high quality.

Education, and that they're being well cared for so that parents don't worry when they're at work.

>> And school readiness has been one of the arguments for early pre-K, but you certainly don't want the kind of results that Tennessee is experiencing, because it doesn't seem like those kids are kindergarten or school ready.

So quality is important.

>> Quality is very important.

I wonder about that study specifically.

The thing that comes to mind for me is that, unfortunately, the social determinants of educational success that are set from the very beginning for most families, those are going to continue through life.

So if you're born to a parent who has low educational attainment and just came out of the correctional facility when you were born, that's going to be true for the rest of your life.

What we can do is try and monitor, use all the data sources, and do what we can to support families so that students have the best set of opportunities in front of them.

>> Speaker Osborne what could be a possible solution to the childcare crisis in Kentucky if it's not universal pre-K?

>> You know, as far as the universal pre-K conversation goes, I still haven't had a conversation with the governor on it.

And I think that based on this last proposal, that really is not pre-K for all, it's pre-K for a few more.

But I will well, I agree with the sentiment.

I will disagree with with Senator Cassidy Armstrong.

Chambers Armstrong, excuse me just a little bit.

I think that there is a very distinct difference between early childhood education and childcare, and I think that each equally important, each vitally important to families across the Commonwealth.

But, but but different.

I mean, there are some incredible things going on in the early childhood education space that are showing phenomenal results.

You look at the.

The parents first teacher program that Arkansas has.

It's making generational strides for for impoverished kids down there and impoverished families down there that we haven't even gotten to talk about here yet.

But and then you look at some of the public private partnerships in, in childcare that Samara Heavrin has worked on continuing to work on, she's getting ready to to introduce a new measure regarding childcare and how the the public and private sectors can work together on that.

I think that there's some some things that we can do.

I think there are things we must do, but I don't believe that there's a tremendous amount of support for the the universal pre-K model.

>> And if I could just respond, well, I would say that daycare is not the only form of early childhood education.

It should always be early childhood education.

When we talk about access to childcare, we've got, as you were pointing out, Renee, talk about access to high quality childcare.

That means when that child is in that care setting, that child is being engaged, that child is learning, that child is benefiting.

Because what we know, and I'm talking as a mom, parents aren't going to leave their kids in settings that they don't feel like are a good fit for their family, that they don't feel like are benefiting their child.

And so we can really have a win win here.

We can provide that care for those parents to go to work, to earn that income, to contribute to their communities.

But we can also make sure that that child is learning things because it does take a village.

It takes all of us contributing, helping our kids learn and grow.

And so we really can't have a solution that benefits everyone in this situation.

>> How much does the state pony up for such quality early learning experiences?

>> Well, the question you know here, and I'm going to kind of digress to who did this study.

Vanderbilt isn't Podunk University.

It's got a tremendously good academic reputation.

In fact, I believe that's the governor's alma mater, if I'm not mistaken.

But to this and I'm going to back I'm a parent.

I have four children.

Thinking about what we did for our children.

We had daycare of various sorts, but not universal pre-K.

We didn't go to special classes and Clay County Manchester they've done all right.

Master's level biomedical engineer, you know, marketing degree, you know, take take your choice.

But I think when you look at that study, that study will tell you, because that studies a few years old, that study will tell you where the better emphasis is, is in that first, second, third and fourth grade year to make sure that they're on level at third and fourth grade, not pre first through four.

And that's what that study reflects that kids be kids.

>> So if I can just say I feel like someone needs to defend all the data supporting pre-K briefly.

And I promise I won't run through all the studies.

But there are places you can find them.

There have been a lot of studies that have shown if kids have access to pre-K, they're less likely to become justice involved.

If kids have access to pre-K, they have higher educational scores in third grade and in fifth grade.

On reading and math.

There have been studies that have shown that kids that have access to pre-K are more likely to graduate and more likely to have higher earnings throughout their careers.

So there's a whole bunch of data.

I haven't seen this particular study.

I'll go read this particular study.

It's going to take a whole lot of evidence to convince me that from what I have seen, that pre-K is not the best thing that we can do to invest in our children and in making sure that all of our children are ready to learn the first day they enter kindergarten.

I will just whenever I showed up on Louisville Metro Council, we had this office for youth development, and as a young mom, I was like, great, let's talk about developing our youth.

Are we talking about, you know, three year olds, four year olds, what are we doing?

And all of the programs were focused on kids 16 to 25, which is a really important group to focus on.

We should absolutely be investing in our young people that need those investments when they reach that age.

But it kind of struck me, why aren't we focusing on families at the beginning?

Why aren't we passing policies that help families and kids get that running start?

Why aren't we doing things?

Whether it's daycare, whether it's pre-K, whether it's making diapers affordable, why aren't we really taking our resources and and investing in families early?

Because in my mind, that's what makes sense.

>> So what are the early investments in families from this side of the table?

What are you doing to help the type of situations that Senator Cassie Armstrong come?

Chambers is talking about chambers.

>> Armstrong.

I answered.

>> We both messed that up.

Yeah.

>> Cassie K we'll get it right.

>> I'm going to go back to where to my premise about having students ready by third and fourth grade levels.

And if I'm not badly mistaken, some of the first bills that were ever introduced were introduced by Jack Westwood to make sure that we had reading programs.

>> And he's a Republican.

>> Senator, a Republican senator that came in in 1997 with me, that that was one of the first bills he got passed.

And it was kind of unusual for a minority party member to actually pass a bill.

Right.

But those were some of the things that we have focused on consistently is how you have those one through four grades, one through four, to make sure l and reading level, because that's in virtually every study that I've seen that if they're on that level at grade, grade 3 or 4, their likelihood of success is greatly enhanced.

And that's where we focused our efforts.

>> But if they were behind by the time they get to the third grade, it's too late for many of them.

>> By the time they get to the third or fourth grade level.

So that's where you have to make sure when they're at first, second, third and fourth.

And it is you know, there are studies.

I'm aware of this study.

That's how I knew it was several years old.

I've seen the studies.

There are studies that contradict each other, but you can see this one, which again, Vanderbilt did.

And they understand research protocol as well as anybody about what you do to make sure you get the appropriate results based on blind type of circumstances.

And so we followed that for a long time because Tennessee attempted to do that.

And, you know, I've heard some past governors, why do we always want to be like Tennessee?

I think that was Steve Beshear's comment.

So, you know, we watched what Tennessee did.

They didn't they tried to do it and they backed away from it.

>> Well, Renee, if I could just jump in because I think you asked a really important question, I'm not sure we got a full answer to it.

I think what what we're hearing here is that we all agree we should be investing in families.

And, you know, I have a post-it note that I keep in my bathroom on the mirror that says one out of every five Kentucky kids lives in poverty.

And I ask myself every single day when I look at that post-it note, what did I do today about that?

Because those are all of our kids.

That's all of our responsibility to do things to help those children.

And I was thinking about last session and I started thinking about the bills we passed, and I'm not sure I can think of a single bill that was dedicated to child poverty measures that was not, you know, we're going to help everyone and help kids in the process.

But we are tackling that problem of child poverty.

One out of five kids in our communities living in poverty, and something we should all do something about every day.

We all own that problem.

And so I would like to work with anyone of any political party, in any chamber, on legislation to help our families that are living in poverty.

That's why I filed legislation around refundable child tax credit.

I've been championing diaper affordability, lots of programs to to help these kids.

And so I would like to hear from the other side of the aisle, what are the initiatives that they're excited about in that space?

>> I'll yield to you all.

>> Well, again, Cassie, 1 in 5 kids in Kentucky don't live in a vacuum.

And so I don't think you can attack it in one level.

You know, you've got to attack it in a multifaceted then you've got to attack it from from an opioid addiction standpoint.

You've got to attack it, attack it from a workforce preparedness standpoint.

We've invested record numbers of dollars in in public education.

We've invested dramatically in opioid and and drug addiction.

You know, we we have the largest single public private partnership on childcare that we've ever had.

And it will be eclipsed dramatically this year.

So you can't look at it in a vacuum.

And that's that's the problem with an individual program.

An individual program will not solve vast problems.

It's got to be done on a holistic basis, and we attack it from every facet.

>> Well, I'm looking forward to attacking it with you because I will say, what worries me sometimes is that we pass a lot of programs, we pass a lot of legislation, but people out there are hurting.

It's a scary time for a lot of people right now.

When we look at these pressure points in legislation and in policies, those are pain points for people out in our communities right now.

And so I do think that what people want from us is for us to to come together and really deliver policies that are going to help make people's lives better.

>> So this is a drastic departure from what we've been talking about.

But this question comes from Janice Taylor from Jefferson County.

What is the chance Kentucky State retirees will receive a cost of living increase?

It's been 14 years.

>> You know.

Well, I'll I'll start with that.

Even though the budget will start in the House, there's no way to answer a budget question right now because we've talked about some issues here that may have budgetary implications.

So when you look at this to try to silo and say, this one issue is going to be done or this one issue is going to be done, you have to look at it.

And I've always used this term, you have to budget in the context of the whole.

And so you have to look at all the priorities and what is needed.

And with that, you know, will we or won't we?

It's hard to say where everything will finish up.

You just can't do that at this point time.

But as the.

Session goes through and the House, the governor's budget is reviewed, what they're going to do, and then we'll get it in the Senate, then those things will come to light as to what we're going to, what type of whichever, how much we're going to put in K through 12, how much we're going to put in post-secondary, what we're going to do in the retirements.

>> Yeah.

Has Chairman Petrie already finished the state budget plan?

>> It is not finished.

It is well in progress.

>> When will it be delivered or do you anticipate when it will be delivered?

>> I would expect within the next week.

>> Within the next week.

>> To ten days.

Yes.

>> Okay.

You care to give us any kind of spoilers on what to expect as some top priorities?

Do you know.

>> I would say to stay tuned.

I mean, look, we're going to take the same approach to, to the budget as, as we have for the last several years.

And that is, you know, to be very, very pragmatic about about how we utilize taxpayer dollars.

We will we will spend based on our, our needs and not our wants, you know, and those two things are dramatically different.

>> Do you anticipate cuts to any kind of state programs, agencies or services.

>> Constantly trying to evaluate every program that we spend dollars on?

Because I think clearly there are some that work extremely well.

And and we may want to increase those programs.

There are some that may not be delivering the results that we would like, and we may need to take some dollars away from those.

So it's a constant evaluation of how we best utilize those, those state dollars.

And I think that, you know, there's nothing to suggest that we won't approach it the same way.

I do believe that we will continue.

You will continue to see us.

Utilize the route of two separate budget bills, one that will be the the normal operating budget of the Commonwealth that addresses ongoing operations and another that will address one time spending measures, one time investments that we will make with with some of our excess reserves.

>> Representative Burke, what's your optimism or pessimism about the budget process and the outcome?

>> Well, as the newest member of this panel, I will tell you that I've only had the privilege of being involved in one budget session so far.

And so coming into this next budget session, I'm hopeful that we will take advantage of the opportunities that are before us, especially as it comes to this budget reserve trust fund.

That's at a level where we can safely borrow from those dollars and still maintain enough of a surplus there so that we are secure, and no matter what kind of disaster might come, we still have the dollars we need in place.

So I'm cautiously optimistic, but hopeful.

>> What's the prospects for borrowing or taking money from the budget reserve trust fund or Rainy Day fund, as it's sometimes called.

>> Redirecting that.

>> Well, both of you.

>> Well, I'll say this, and I think David and I are both on the same page.

We're going to we're not going to take money from the budget reserve trust fund, to which are one time dollars to fund recurring expenditures.

You know, I think the governor I'm not sure.

So I don't want to say with Definitiveness made some recommendations like that.

That's what got us into trouble.

That's what we started digging out from in 2016.

That's what got us such bad bond ratings.

That and a pension system that was, you know, on the verge of just total bankruptcy.

So that's something that will not happen.

I just can't see it happening in any way.

Because when you look at this and this is wonky, you know, the first thing you hear from the bond rating agencies, which are neutral, they're not political.

They sit there and look and say, you're using one time dollars to pay recurring expenses.

Why are you going to pay for those recurring expenses next year when you don't have those one time dollars?

And that's how your bond ratings and your operating ratings get downgraded?

So from my perspective, and I won't speak for the speaker, that won't happen in the Senate.

>> I would agree.

I think that, you know, for for several years, some of our surrounding states have been held out as, as kind of an ideal of, you know, a growing Midwestern or southern economy.

And, and they have they've had tremendous success in some of those states.

And we are behind on some level.

But I also think they got very comfortable in spending money that we never had.

And so when you see some of our states, both our north and our south, that are are making dramatic budget cuts, having real budget shortfalls, it's because they weren't as as practical about spending their one time dollars as, as maybe we were.

And while that sure, it made us maybe a little bit envious from time to time when we looked at the things they were spending money on right now, it makes us it makes us very comfortable and and where we are with the budget and our reserves and our ability to to fund government as it should be.

>> So the $156 million shortfall doesn't scare you any, right.

>> It doesn't.

>> It's not.

>> A shortfall.

>> And you know, it's you know.

>> What is.

>> It then.

If it's not a shortfall.

>> It's not a shortfall.

A shortfall is where your revenues aren't enough to cover your expenses.

We did not budget.

If let's say you make $50,000, do you spend your $50,000 every year?

No you don't.

We didn't spend the full revenues we were to receive.

So it's not a shortfall.

>> What is it then?

>> It's we just didn't make as much money.

But we have more than enough money to cover the recurring expenses.

And then if you want to take a two year budget, all we did, we finished last year's budget $131 million above this year.

They're saying maybe 150 below receipts, not below the expenditures that we put in there.

So it's not a shortfall.

>> You understand it that way, Senator?

>> Yeah.

Well, I was just about to say I'm glad my friends on the other side of the aisle are feeling so confident, because when I look at the budget numbers, I am not feeling confident at all.

And specifically when I look at what's happening in Washington, DC, I want to be very clear.

I believe it's going to be devastating for the state of Kentucky.

We are looking at projections showing 200,000 Kentuckians possibly losing their health insurance, as many as 34 rural hospitals closing.

And sometimes I say these numbers and folks are like, well, those projections, those are, you know, down the road we have time to do things about them.

There's a hospital in Louisville that decided not to move forward with its birthing center because of changes to Medicaid out of the federal, the federal legislation that's happening right now.

That was going to be the first place West of 65 that women in Louisville could give birth the only place.

And that was going to be a big deal.

And that's not happening because of what happened in Washington, DC.

And so I believe you look at these projections.

What's happening in Washington, DC is going to be very impactful.

And what worries me is I don't hear folks standing up and saying, this is going to hurt our communities.

This is something that is not good for Kentuckians.

This is going to hurt the people that I represent.

This is going to hurt our state.

And I believe that we have that obligation when we feel like things are going to be bad for Kentucky to stand up and to say.

>> That, well, Jeff Sims from Caldwell County is saying that he says he's asking what are the biggest financial concerns from federal funding cuts to this biennial budget?

So he's kind of echoing your sentiment.

How do you feel about it, Representative Burke?

>> The budget cuts when it relates to Medicaid are the most troubling.

And I'm really grateful that the legislature brought back the Medicaid Oversight Advisory Board to take a look at that and see what we can do.

>> To finalize their recommendations today.

>> Yes.

And the bad news is, we don't have enough money to fix all of that.

And I don't think that we have the political will to do it either.

So I am very concerned about how those kinds of cuts are going to play out across the state and what it is that we'll do to try and shore up Kentucky families so that a health disaster doesn't become a financial disaster.

>> How do you mitigate that concern?

>> You know, it always intrigues me about how, oh, this is going to happen or that's going to happen.

But then when you actually see the proof of what happens, it contradicts what people are saying.

I know the hospitals that were listed, I know the phone calls that were made to hospital administrators to say, would you sign a letter that your hospital is going to close?

And they said, no, we're not.

One of them is in my hometown.

They got the call and they said, we're not going to close.

Whoever put us on that list was wrong.

So I think it's really seriously inappropriate to create this type of angst and anxiety for the purpose of a political argument.

Then here's the other thing.

All I've heard is, wait a minute, you're cutting the income tax.

You're cutting the income tax.

You're ruining ruining our base.

Well, let's talk about cutting the income tax.

Does anybody here on the other side know how much our income tax grew the first six months of the year?

Close to 8%.

Wait a minute.

We've been cutting the taxes, but it's growing.

I don't hear anybody talking about that because they don't want to carry that political narrative because it's wrong.

>> How is it growing?

Explain that to us.

>> Because when you do this, we become a growth state.

People move here.

It's just like what happened in the bourbon industry.

We cut taxes, but when we cut the taxes, the base expanded.

And so it's not five of us paying taxes, it's 20 of us paying taxes.

We don't risk putting an individual at any greater tax liability because we bring more people into work.

And if you want to address a lot of the social ills and woes, give people economic opportunity, they're less likely to get into drugs.

They're less likely to do something wrong.

They're more likely to take care of their families.

That's the way you cure a lot of these things.

>> I want to go back to what President Stivers was saying about health care.

I do think it's connected to economic growth, because I think people can't access health care and can't be healthy.

You're not going to have an economy that grows.

But I believe that those numbers about hospitals came out of the Trump administration.

Those were from the federal government controlled by his political party.

Many of the projections about the specific hospitals and what I'll say is, I have not heard any hospitals saying, yeah, we're about to close today.

>> You just said 34.

We're going to close.

>> What I not today.

What I have heard people saying is that we are already beginning to change the services that we offer and the care that we provide because of the changes to the Medicaid program and our ability to make ends meet.

And so when we're talking about places, you know, this President Stivers, rural Kentucky, we already have a lot of health care deserts.

And when we have hospitals that have to start walking back, the care that they're providing, it's going to be that care.

That's sort of the the low dollar, low value, and that's going to make it harder for people to drive and get the care they need.

>> You know, now you've changed your argument.

You've changed from closing to rolling back certain areas of health care, to different terms.

>> Well, I, I believe the I hope I'm wrong.

I never root against Kentucky.

I never root against Kentucky families.

I never root against Kentucky outcomes.

I'm not going to root against Kentucky health care.

I hope I'm wrong.

What I'm saying is that that's what the projections are, the projections that we have seen, say, 34 hospitals, up to 34 hospitals will close.

>> And you don't think phone calls were made to ask people to sign letters saying, yeah, we're going to close.

>> Well, I would love to see those letters.

And again, I.

>> Hope I didn't sign them, but they were asked to.

>> Well, so I think what I am saying is I don't think anyone can disagree that there have been changes to the Medicaid program that are going to make it a lot more financially difficult for health care providers in the state to make ends meet and provide care.

>> Hasn't the Kentucky Hospital Association come out and said that this could put something 30 something odd?

Hospitals at risk, particularly rural hospitals?

>> I have yet to see a single hospital come out and say that they will close.

>> All right.

We're going to put a pin in that, and I'm sure we'll have further discussion on that as we go down the road.

>> Sure, sure.

>> Let's talk about the changes in Medicaid.

I mean, obviously, uncertainty is always the enemy of good budgeting, and we do have some degree of uncertainty out there.

But one of the certainties we do know is that the report revealed $800 million was was inappropriately spent out of the Medicaid program this past year.

So there are efficiencies that we're going to find what degree those efficiencies will close the gaps that we have.

But we know that that in one audit report, we found over $800 million that was paid to people that were not eligible.

These were people that were claiming benefits in multiple states.

You know, that alone is an enormous hole.

And then you you think that that is just one tiny little, little silo of the enormity of the Medicaid program.

And I believe that that the the recommendations that are coming out of Medicaid Oversight and Advisory Board this this year bill that will be introduced probably next week will be transformational.

I think that the the the positive things that we will be able to do in the Medicaid space are going to be dramatic.

>> Yeah.

And we'll make space to make sure that we talk about that.

So speaking of uncertainty, there is uncertainty around the future of Blue Oval SK, the Hardin County plant, after Ford Motor and Escalon ended their EV battery partnership, Ford says it will retool the facility to make data center battery systems more than 300, or close to $300 million in tax incentives was given toward this project.

Is this another Brady Industries?

And can the legislature recover those tax incentives from that project?

And and how do you avoid a Brady industry circa Matt.

>> Bevin you you make me laugh because the only thing that was at risk from the state at that time was $15 million.

And we got the $15 million back.

>> Now you're talking 300 million.

>> Now you're talking 300 million, but you're also talking about a lot more than that.

You're talking about what was there 1600 people working now that are laid off?

Well, let's talk about all the other money we had to invest down there for.

I think there was a couple of fire departments and some.

Water and sewer that were.

Yeah, the educational CTCs had to upgrade its facility and they're losing money because of this.

This is about the biggest.

Well, no, it's about it is the biggest economic boondoggle we've been in.

And and so now we've got all this money invested.

They advised us they're going to be a year before they retool, which to me means they can't meet the metrics for the incentives that were given for the upfront money.

Totally different.

This is what the governor wanted to do.

He wanted to front the money instead of having it over a 20 year period.

He wanted to bring it back and do a present value.

We supported that.

I don't know if we'll do it again because this has become really a mess.

>> Can you recover some of that upfront money?

>> Oh, we have clawback provisions within within the statute and within the agreements.

>> And so that can just be exercised.

Is that a vote that has to happen?

How does that happen?

>> No, I think there's a couple different ways that can happen.

I think the economic development cabinet can say, hey, look, you haven't done this and if they don't want to do it, then you get into litigation.

>> Speaker Osborne.

>> Contractual obligation, just like just like any other loan.

You know, I think that everybody is certainly going to going to hope that that this this retooling is going to be effective.

And, you know, they're going to spend another billion dollars on top of what they've already spent down there, which, you know, that will do great things for our, our our sales tax numbers.

But it's not going to do anything as far as putting jobs on the line.

But you would you would expect that, you know, if they're going to invest another billion dollars down there, that there would be some reasonable expectation of employment, but they're going to be in default of the of the contract.

And I think just as, as with any other contract, you know, there are enforceable provisions in there.

>> And we do want to look last thing we want to do is see it collapse.

Right.

We do not want to see that.

But we have to also understand it's our job to protect the tax dollars that were invested in that community.

And it's beyond those which were just incentives.

>> This side.

Have a comment about this?

>> Yeah, I think President Stivers probably knows that I'm a bit of an optimist, but I will say I agree with the speaker I am and and the president.

I am rooting for this project even where we are today.

I think it's okay to be disappointed about where we are today, but even where we are today, it is still the largest single economic investment in the history of Kentucky.

It is still a big deal, and we all want it to thrive and to succeed because we're all rooting for Team Kentucky.

This isn't happening in a vacuum.

We've seen changes with the Trump administration targeting the the EV facilities.

And so and I think we have to be honest about how those changes impacted this program and this investment.

But I am rooting for it, and I am hopeful that we will still be able to turn this into something that is good for our people.

>> Any further comment there?

>> Completely agree.

I do think that the retooling is going to be a success, and that we're going to see those jobs bounce back, and not only will that be a great success for Western Kentucky, it's going to be something that we look back on in the future and say, even though it was a bumpy ride, I'm glad we went on it.

>> Yeah.

So a couple of lightning round questions here from viewers.

This question from Louisville.

Does the legislature plan to pass legislation to build an educational facility for inmates in Boyle County?

>> I'm unaware of any initiative in Boyle County.

>> Boyle County.

B.o.y Lee a viewer from Louisville which.

>> Unaware of that type of.

>> Request that might be.

>> Yeah.

>> Haven't gotten an email about.

>> That one.

>> Okay.

Yeah.

Do you know this could be a viewer from your your area?

>> Okay.

>> I will tell you that Representative Decker is working on a bill with Ryan Quarles at KTC, right, for some reentry education programs.

I don't know if that may be what they're referring to, but.

But that bill will be filed probably within the next couple of days.

>> Yeah.

>> Do you think positively that kind of measure?

>> Yeah.

There's several things that have been bounced around.

It's even up at KCC in West Liberty.

They talked about the Marion Adjustment Center possibly being a location, but I know that they have been looking at that, and it's probably a good investment to give people who are going to get back into the system, out of the corrections system, to have some type of job skills or training.

>> So this question, I'm going to kind of paraphrase and clarify.

So they ask please explain the House bill regarding local police given Ice authority and did it or did not pass?

Well, it was just filed.

I'm assuming that you're talking about this bill by representative TJ Roberts would require all Kentucky police agencies, including KSP, to enter federal agreements with Ice under a certain program.

And, of course, Beshear has authority over the Kentucky State Police.

So tell us more about this if you have more to say about it.

>> Speaker Osborne, I.

>> Can't tell you much more about it.

I know that the bill is filed and I've seen some some reports on it, but we haven't we haven't had any conversations as a caucus or anything like that.

So I can't really tell you any of the specific details as to to what it may entail at this point.

>> Yeah.

There's another immigration measure related measure.

This one, there's two House Bill eight 186 and House Bill 259.

This is about banning immigrant citizens from holding local and state elected offices.

Naturalized citizenship.

Your thoughts on this, Representative Burke?

>> To just be blunt, it's un-American.

That's an un-American measure, and it's unconstitutional.

We need to get our heads straight and focus on the things that our constituents need, and legislating about preventing U.S.

citizens from holding office, is not it?

>> I think that Bill's got some 14th Amendment problems.

>> Okay.

And that's coming from the speaker of the House on a House measure.

So we'll see if that moves anywhere.

Let's talk a little bit about governor's powers.

And five minutes or so that we have remaining.

Will there be efforts to either shift or limit more executive powers?

And if we think their support for checks and balances, how does this square with the perception of President Donald Trump's expansion of executive power?

Is there any kind of conflict, in your view, about, regardless of the level of government, what what executive power should be?

>> Well, there always should be checks and balances.

That's the way our framers and drafters of our constitutions put these things together.

And I say these the federal Constitution, the state constitution.

Now, you have to look at it totally different at the federal level, because we don't have the dealings with foreign entities.

And if you want to go back to the 13 colonies and you want to go back and look at all the letters between Madison and Jefferson and Washington, and when we were basically a confederacy to a democracy in the Constitution that was drafted.

This is why we went to a centralized government to deal with foreign affairs.

And so I think a lot of the things you're seeing is how a president deals with foreign affairs.

We don't deal with foreign affairs.

Never will.

It's not perceived to be.

But there should always be checks and balances.

And the Kentucky Constitution is such that the governor has certain enumerated powers within the Constitution, or that which is prescribed by law.

There is not a Transportation Secretary in the Constitution.

We defined it.

We can redefine it.

But, you know, so it's there.

It's our it's our prerogative.

But there's not a lot of discussion about that.

You know, the budget's the ultimate policy document.

And I think that's what we're going to be focused on.

>> Any concerns about what's been done in the past as prelude to future.

>> No.

I when we talk about changing the balance of power, that's a really weighty thing.

President Stivers was just talking about the history of democracy.

It's really weighty when you start messing with that balance of power.

I remember a few years ago when we had a fight about who got to assign the parking spaces in the Capitol parking lot, whether it was the executive or the legislative branch.

And I just remember thinking, this is what people are sending us here for.

You know, it was one of those moments where I don't believe that that's what the people sitting at home want us to be, to be talking about.

They want us to be solving their problems.

And so I say that just by way of balance, of power is really weighty thing.

I don't like it when we have these skirmishes around the edges.

I like it when we can come together and really focus on what matters to people when they're sitting down on the tables in the evening.

And I think for the most part, our balance of powers is doing just fine.

>> Any other comment on that?

>> No.

>> And I'll say, you know, balance of power, because I have been around here a long time.

And if you want to look at the governor's Office of AG Policy that was created by Paul Paton because he didn't like Billy Ray Smith, who is the current Democrat AG commissioner, and he wanted control of the tobacco settlement proceeds.

So they took it away from him.

And that was actually Democrats against Democrats.

So that's kind of a repetitive thing, a redundant thing where it's kind of wasteful spending to where you have a constitutionally prescribed office with certain powers, but they're taken away by the governor's Office of ag Policy because he could do it.

So that's not a good use of balance, of power.

And you will see that throughout the history of Kentucky.

And some things need to be rebalanced.

Some things just need to be redone because it's a wasteful use of money.

>> So this is we got one minute and 35 seconds.

Education Jake, split the district.

Keep it whole.

>> You have a new superintendent.

It is my opinion that you should let that superintendent have time to create a record before you do anything else.

>> Speaker Osborne is a member in your caucus that's filed a bill that would split CSI.

These really underperforming schools, split the district.

>> You know, Jefferson County Public Schools is going to continue to be a dominant point of conversation, probably for the next several years, quite frankly.

Not only are they educating, you know, a sixth of our kids in the state, but they also have the largest majority of failing schools in the state.

And the fact of the matter is, it is it is such magnitude that we don't have a choice but to pay attention to it.

I think that there are a lot of smart people that have come up with a lot of smart ideas about how to tackle JCPS.

The fact of the matter is, I don't know that any of those smart people are experts in how to restructure Jefferson County public schools.

I do believe it deserves a heady conversation.

I do believe that it will continue to get an unbelievable amount of attention.

I have great hopes for the new superintendent.

I am unbelievably concerned about the reports I heard from the Chief Financial officer of Jefferson County Public Schools.

That goes to leave it there saying he withheld information.

>> All right, we'll have to leave it there.

We'll pick that up a little later, perhaps on Kentucky edition, which you can join us for tomorrow night at 630.

Take good care.