►
From YouTube: House Standing Committee on Appropriations & Revenue (3-3-22) - Upon Adjournment of House Chambers
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
Good
afternoon
everyone,
I
now
call
this
meeting
of
the
house
standing
committee
on
appropriations
and
revenue
meeting
number
seven
duly
open
for
transaction
and
business.
If
you
can,
please
everyone,
please
silence
your
phones
or
better,
yet
maybe
put
them
on
airplane
mode.
All
right
at
this
time
will
the
clerk
please
call
the
roll.
B
B
Representative
hatton
here
in
the
room
representative,
mccool
here,
representative
nemes,
representative
palumbo,
here
in
my
office.
Thank
you,
representative,
parente
here
in
the
room
representative,
raymond
here,
representative
reilly,
here,
representative
santoro,
here,
representative
tipton,
representative
wilner,
here
chair
reed
here
in
the.
A
A
A
Raise
your
right
hand,
you
solemnly
swear
to
tell
the
truth
the
whole
truth
and
nothing
but
the
truth
so
help
you,
god,
you
may
please
proceed.
We
have
a
committee
sub
number
two
there's
a
motion
and
a
second
all,
those
in
favor,
please
signify
by
saying
aye,
all
those
opposed,
nay,
committee,
sub
number
two
is
adopted.
Sir.
You
may
proceed.
Thank
you,
mr.
E
Chairman,
thank
you.
Members.
We
have
house
bill
244
with
committee
substitute
which
the
judicial
branch
budget
judicial
branch
budget
is
mainly
a
continuation
budget
from
years
past,
especially
prior
year
passed.
I
will
not
go
through
every
piece
at
least
an
initial
presentation,
but
bringing
to
certain
highlights
therein
no
particular
order.
E
E
The
source
funding
has
been
changed
from
general
fund
to
arpa
funds.
The
judicial
branch
has
been
so
kind
as
to
do
research
on
the
issue
and
have
convinced
me
and
others
that
arpa
source
funding
is
appropriate.
So
we
have
moved
that
as
far
as
construction
capital,
construction,
leslie
county
was
in
prior
version
and
remains.
E
E
Part
of
the
reasoning
for
the
two
thousand
dollar
base
increase
for
unelected
staff
is
that
we
are,
as
an
all
other
branch
context,
we're
dealing
with.
How
do
we
retain
workers
and
how
do
we
recruit
workers
and
we're
missing
positions,
and
we
need
to
get
those
filled
so
that
constituents
are
receiving
the
services
that
they
need
to
the
judicial
branch
and
also
to
help
out
or
at
least
start
to
assist,
what
may
be
a
disparity
between
the
executive
branch
scale
and
the
judicial
branch
scale?
F
E
C
C
E
Yeah,
I
won't
get
it
exactly
correct
and
I've
been
in
talks
with
with
the
aoc
and
the
chief
about
this,
and
I'm
not
going
to
even
attempt
to
tell
you
this
is
what
they
want.
E
I
think
what
they
were
looking
for
was
a
simple
dollar
figure
increase
a
bump
in
the
base
and
approach
it
that
way,
we
decided
to
do
it
with
a
base
increase
as
well
as
a
six
percent,
and
just
so
we
all
know
understand
that
this
is
passing
out
of
a
committee
in
the
house
and
then
whatever
we
stake
ground
on
and
then
we'll
deal
with,
that
in
the
senate.
Also.
E
I'm
going
to
assume
so
because
I
think
that
they're,
I
think
that
their
request
was
either
7,
500
or
10
000
increase
in
just
base,
without
a
percentage
with
that.
So
if
you
look
at
2000
somebody's
making,
50
000.,
52
or
48
and
two
gets
you
to
50
and
50
with
a
six
percent
increase,
that's
not
going
to
equate
to
everything!
So
sometimes
if
the
case
is
made
strong
enough,
you
can
get
close
to
what
you
ask.
If
there's
some
holes
in
it,
you
get
a
little
further
away.
A
G
C
A
F
C
C
Briefly,
explain
my
vote.
I'm
going
to
vote
yes
today,
but
I
will
encourage
my
colleagues
to
help
see
that
the
chief
justice
gets
what
he
requests
for
us.
Thank
you.
D
Explain
my
vote,
please.
Yes,
I
am
going
to
pass
at
this
time
because
I
still
have
hope
that
we
could
maybe
get
a
floor
amendment
on
that
would
do
the
full
increase
that
is
so
very
richly
deserved,
especially
by
our
non-elected
staff.
D
D
Briefly,
explain
if
I
white-
yes,
sir.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I've
been
involved
in
judicial
budgets
in
some
way
or
some
capacity
since
2004.
one
is
the
requester,
and
I
want
to
note
that
in
every
single
budget
the
request
has
been
made
was
more
than
was
funded,
and
so
that's
not
anything
unusual.
D
This
budget,
while
obviously
all
of
us
want
more
raises
for
all
of
our
employees,
certainly
not
electeds.
We've
done
more
for
non-electeds
in
the
court
of
justice
than
other
areas,
and
certainly
more
for
the
circuit
clerks
will
wish.
We
had
some
more
for
there.
We
all
do,
I
think,
and
we're
going
to
work
toward
that.
I
do
want
to
note
the
most
important
thing
this
is
my
highlight,
and
that
is
our
judges
have
been
falling
further
and
further
behind
in
their
pay
in
the
last
12
years
or
so.
D
This
is
a
significant
step
forward
for
our
judges
in
getting
them
where
we
believe
that
they
should
be
compared
to
lawyers
in
the
state,
but
also
compared
to
other
judges
throughout
the
country.
So
this
is
a
big
step
for
them
got
work
to
do
on
some
other
things.
In
this
all
budgets,
as
we
always
do,
but
great
step
forward
for
judges,
so
I
want
to
thank
you
for
bringing
this.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
Yes.
J
D
F
F
A
H
We
heard
such
a
compelling
presentation
from
chief
justice
mentor
minton
excuse
me
and
how
really
dire
the
situation
is
with
staffing
and
with
judges
being
underpaid,
to
the
extent
where
the
quality
of
the
judiciary
is
really
at
risk,
and
while
I
agree
with
representative
nemes
and
others
who
said
that
this
is
a
significant
step
forward,
I
don't
feel
that
it's
enough
and
I
feel
like
we're
at
an
unusual
time
right
now
where
we
could
afford
to
do
more,
and
so
I'm
gonna
cast
a
no
vote
today.
Thank
you.
E
A
A
E
Thank
you,
mr
chairman
house,
bill
243
as
filed.
Is
the
legislative
branch
budget
bill
proposed
largely
it
is
a
and-
and
everyone
should
take
great
comfort
in
the
fact
of
it-
is
only
seven
pages,
as
opposed
to
everything
else
we're
dealing
with
so
of
those
seven
pages.
It
is
largely
a
continuation
budget,
continuation
of
current
services
and
base
operating
expenses.
E
There
are
some
operating
expenses
that
increased.
As
we
all
know,
there's
been
additional
space
that
we
are
occupying
and
using
as
well
as
the
charge
per
square.
Footage
has
increased
also,
so
we
have
accounted
for
that
increased
rent
for
additional
space
in
the
capital
annex
we
do
have,
as
we've
discussed
in
the
prior
budget,
a
salary
increment
of
six
percent
for
staff
and
legislators
and
what
we
have
done-
and
this
is
always
a
charged
issue-
it
seems
we
simply
took
language
from
2008
and
moved
that
into
current,
and
the
reason
we
took
2008
language
is.
E
C
C
D
G
C
D
Explain
my
vote
please.
While
I'm
happy
to
see
legislative
raises
for
the
staff
of
the
legislative
branch,
I
can't
in
good
conscience
vote
yes
to
increase
my
my
own
salary
without
any
mandated
pay
increase
for
teachers
in
this
state.
So
I
don't
know.
D
I
K
D
F
F
H
D
E
I
just
want
to
clarify
one
thing:
I
remain
a
yes
on
the
bill
and
we
cannot
give
raises
to
ourselves.
So
it's
a
non-issue.
It
can
only
happen
in
the
next
cycle,
which
means
anyone
better
not
be
too
presumptive
about
whether
you
re-elect
yourself
or
not
so
no
raises
to
ourselves,
but
we're
looking
at
the
next
legislative
cycle.
Thank
you.
It
is
a
yes.
A
G
E
E
It
is
a
topic
that
has
been
discussed
for
over
a
hundred
years
and
it
has
a
topic
that
I've
been
discussing
with
many
over
the
last
year.
Two
three
four
and
there
are
essentially
two
main
divisions
in
my
mind,
but
some
others
may
break
it
down
into
further
divisions.
E
There
is
an
individual
income
tax
provision,
and
that
is.
A
If
we
may,
if
do,
I
have
a
motion
to
thank
you.
A
E
Right
so
house
bill
8,
as
amended
by
committee,
sub
3.,
again
back
to
two
big
divisions.
For
me,
two
different
categories:
one
is
an
individual
income
tax
component
and
then
we
have
sales,
tax
and
other
stuff
all
right
on
the
individual
income
tax.
I
think
this
section,
with
the
with
the
exception
of
changing
trigger
numbers,
is
almost
identical
or
identical
to
what
has
been
in
the
original
bill
and
simply
the
structural
setup.
E
E
There
is
no
hard
down.
There
is
no
forced
down
from
four
to
zero.
It
is
based
on.
If
revenues
are
sufficient
to
meet
triggers
predetermined,
then
we
can
go
down
either
a
half
a
point
or
a
full
point
in
a
given
year
until
we
reach
zero,
no
more
than
a
point
in
a
year
and
once
ratcheted
down
the
rate
does
not
float
back
up,
and
that
is
essentially
section
one
of
what's
before
us
and
I
would
indicate
just
make
sure
we're
all
clear.
E
I've
only
talked
about
personal
income
tax
and,
as
we've
I've
stated
before,
there
is
no
addressing
of
corporate
income
tax
or
llet
taxes
or
anything
else
out
there.
So
we
are
only
addressing
personal
income
tax
and
that
is
it
and
to
reduce
that
rate,
ultimately
from
five
percent
to
zero,
five
to
four
beginning
january
1,
2023
and
then
from
four
to
zero
over
time
as
revenues.
Permit
second
big
section
to
the
bill
and
I'm
not
trying
to
go
to
a
particular
page.
E
E
And
those
will
start
and
I'm
not
going
to
read
them
all
off
or
I'm
going
to
try
to
refrain
from
doing
so.
But
there
are
a
list
of
things:
photography:
marketing,
unsolicited
telemarketing,
public
opinion,
research,
polling
services,
lobbying,
executive,
employee
recruitment
websites,
facsimiles
private
mail
rooms,
bodyguards
monitoring,
security
system,
monitoring
services,
private
investigation-
and
here
I
go
reading
all
them
process
server
services
and
some
others
that
go
into
leisure
type
things.
E
We
have
attempted
to
stay
away
from
anything
that
that
at
least
I've
determined
to
be
something
that
is
an
essential
to
the
living
of
a
person
that
tries
to
get
over
to
entertainment
issues
and
things
that
are
not
going
to
affect
people
as
much
where
they
live
on
an
ordinary
daily
basis.
I
will
note
that,
despite
all
of
a
lot
of
fire
burning
prior
to
this
bill
being
filed,
the
structure
of
government
from
five
to
zero
does
not
include
does
not
does
not
include
any
tax
upon
groceries.
E
E
E
E
There
is
simply
across
all
transport
of
persons,
a
six
percent
tax
put
upon
the
service
itself,
so,
whether
that
be
peer-to-peer,
tnc
share,
ride,
sharing
or
rentals
or
car
rentals
limousine
services.
All
of
those
things
are
being
hit
being
put
with
a
six
percent
tax,
without
exception
shred
across
the
board.
E
You
will
see
a
section
I
want
to
make
sure
I
clarify
this,
mr
chairman,
because
I'm
afraid
it
may
get
misunderstood.
There
is
a
transient
room
tax.
Some
people
call
airbnb
tax,
those
type
things.
There
is
no
new
tax
being
proposed
in
this
bill
on
those
type
services.
What
we
are
doing
this
bill
is
making
sure
that
local
taxes
to
be
collected
already
we're
making
clear
do
that
as
we
found
out,
the
big
services
seem
to
have
contractual
relationships
with
larger
local
governments
and
they
pay
pretty
regularly,
but
with
smaller
counties
and
cities.
E
E
Throughout
the
remainder
of
the
bill,
essentially
you'll
see
things
that
are
sometimes
non-codified
language.
Some
things
are
not
public
private
partnership,
a
statutory
change
to
make
sure
certain
things
don't
expire.
There
is
one
of
interests
that
the
department
of
revenue
asked
for
that.
We
included
that
said
that
the
dor
should
cease
and
not
be
allowed
to
collect
past
due
medical
bills.
On
behalf
of
uk,
that
was
seemed
to
be
a
singular
issue
and
I'm
not
sure
how
that
got
started.
E
Also
a
second
type
of
tax,
not
on
the
same
activity.
That's
upon
the
charging
then
we're
trying
to
get
an
equivalency
on
when
a
car
is
brought
into
kentucky
or
purchased,
and
each
year
we
all
pay
usage
taxes.
We
have
what's
called
in
here,
a
battery
reclamation.
I
call
it
mitigation
fee.
As
we
all
know,
electric
vehicles
and
hybrids
electrics
in
particular
have
several
batteries
in
them
and
I
think
we've
all
heard
about
tire
disposal
issues
with
combustible
engines
in
the
near
future.
E
E
There
would
also
be
a
tax
imposed
for
battery
reclamation
to
the
amount
of
140
on
an
electric
vehicle
and
70
on
hybrids,
because
they
don't
have
as
many
batteries
in
them
we've
also
in
the
sub
dealt
with
electric
motorcycles
separately
because
they
use
the
roads
in
a
different
way
and
their
batteries
are
different.
So
we
put
them
at
70
with
the
hybrids
rather
than
140,
with
a
full-on
ev
automobile
that
we
all
would
normally
think
about
the
well.
That's
enough
on
that.
If
someone's
got
questions.
E
Most
of
the
rest
of
the
sections
that
follow
thereafter
are
going
to
be
renewal
of
non-codified
language.
As
you
change
things
in
the
stacks
tax
structure,
we
have
to
make
sure
that
all
the
other
provisions
that
apply-
we
renew
those
and
say
yes,
they
apply
here
also,
but
no
changes
on
those
things.
E
Mr
chairman,
I
think
that's
the
main
part
of
the
bill.
There
is
one
other
section,
the
committee
sub
and
first
off
you
will.
I
forgot
what
the
bill
number
is
and
I
apologize.
But
if
you
look
representative
plessy
was
working
on
a
parallel
track
to
myself
and
others
on
the
ev
charging
and
the
ev
battery
reclamation,
and
so
I
give
a
lot
of
credit
to
him
for
the
language
in
this
bill.
Relative
to
that,
unfortunately,
he's
not
here,
but
I
would
love
for
him
to
have
gone
through
that.
E
I
want
to
give
him
full
credit
for
that.
I
asked
him
if
I
could
co-opt
his
language,
and
he
said
yes,
so
I
did
in
large
part
and
modified
it
and
made
it
my
own
a
little
bit,
but
it's
largely
his
and
I
think
it's
a
good
idea
and
it's
a
good
structure
to
it
now,
along
with
that,
I
also
co-opted
a
little
more
language.
E
Representative
fleming
and
myself
have
worked
on
tax
modernization
ever
since
17
and-
and
there
is
a
particular
piece
that
I
asked
him
to
continue
to
work
on,
and
then
we
have
co-opted
that
language
with
his
graciousness
and
let
me
put
it
in
there
with
a
slight
change
and
mr
chairman,
if
I
would,
if
you
will
I'd
like
for
him,
to
explain
the
portion
regarding
tax
amnesty,
please.
G
You,
mr
chairman,
and
I
appreciate
the
chairman
petrie
for
this
partnership
and
making
sure
we
have
a
significant
shift
in
our
tax
structure,
so
we
can
grow
population
and
help
create
as
much
wealth
for
those
low
income
folks
in
order
to
go
forward.
What
the
chairman
mentioned
is
a
tax
embassy
and
basically
it's
it's
used
by
city
and
states
throughout
the
decades
as
a
tool
to
catch
up
on
tax.
Delinquencies
consideration
is
made
to
alleviate
the
interests
and
penalties
in
order
to
encourage
the
payment
of
pass-through
liabilities.
G
G
Currently
we
have
250
million
dollars
since
outstanding,
but
I
suspect
it's
higher
due
because
of
the
collection
efforts
were
relaxed
during
the
coven.
This
program
is
to
apply
to
state
taxes,
and
if
a
taxpayer
who
participated
in
this
program
and
fails
to
file
future
returns,
they
will
be
subject
to
penalties,
interest
and
cost
of
collection.
G
Those
who
are
under
audit
are
still
eligible,
but
if
they
receive
notice
for
any
type
of
criminal
investigation,
they
are
not,
and
just
as
a
point
of
reference
to
other
states
who
have
gone
through
this
process.
Take
indiana
indiana
had
a
goal
of
65
million
and
they
collected
255
million
louisiana
collected
around
466
million
and
they
had
a
goal:
150
million.
That's
what
it
is
in
a
nutshell,
and
I
think
it's
it's
a
good.
It's
a
it's
a
good
program.
G
We
did
put
some
information
there
in
terms
of
how
we're
going
to
procure
it-
and
I
explained
to
this
committee
a
couple
of
days
ago.
I
can't
remember
when,
but
a
couple
days
ago,
everything's
blurry
together
is
that
we
we
we
are
sensitive
to
to
the
department
of
resources
and
they're
in
their
workforce,
and
so
there
we
put
a
provision
to
give
them
the
opportunity
to
procure
this
with
the
private
sector,
but
obviously
they
will
oversee
this
and
manage
this.
G
Just
like
a
project
manager
make
sure
everything
is
is
up
to
snuff.
So
with
that,
mr
chairman,
that
sort
of
concludes
the
tax
embassy
description.
A
Thank
you,
sir.
Before
we
move
forward,
I
just
want
to
personally
thank
you
for
this
epic
day
in
commonwealth
of
kentucky
with
hb8,
I
know
all
the
hours
and
time
and
thought
process
and
that
you
have
put
into
this
tax
modernization
package
that
moves
kentucky
commonwealth
forward.
So
thank
you
very
much,
mr.
E
E
Sure
call,
mr
chairman,
thank
you,
and
I
don't
want
to
belabor
this,
but
understand
that
chairman
reed
has
been
involved
in
neighbors.
Just
like
budget
has
been
involved
in
every
single
meeting,
every
single
discussion,
text,
email
and
and
on
and
on
and
on
and
jennifer
hayes
sitting
up
to
his
left
has
has
assisted
us
in
great
ways.
You
could
not
imagine
trying
to
educate
us
on
things
that
are
extraordinarily
complicated
and
and
and
frank
willie
over
here
y'all
know
how
he
is
on
the
budget.
E
He
has
been
extraordinarily
instrumental
and
jacob
estes
has
been
also
he's
right
there
in
the
middle
of
everything,
and
had
some
good
suggestions
and
caught
a
couple
of
things
to
build
at
the
last
minute.
We've
got
them
fixed,
so
I
appreciate
all
the
work
on
that.
It
doesn't
matter
where
you
where
you
fall
on
the
bill.
E
I
believe
this
is
a
monumental
shift
change
of
the
barge.
It
doesn't
change
overnight.
It
changes
the
barge
a
little
and
I
believe
it
makes
it
in
a
healthier.
It
puts
it
in
a
healthier
direction.
I
appreciate
all
of
y'all's
work
on
this.
It
couldn't
have
done
it
without
you,
and
I
mean
that
in
all
sincerity,
thank
you,
mr
chairman.
D
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
Is
there
a
fiscal
note
available.
E
And
representative
hatton
I
apologize
when
I
sat
down.
I
saw
your
text
and
I
apologized
for
that.
I
think
you
maybe
hit
me
30
minutes
or
so
beforehand.
There
is
a
physical
note
and
I'll
be
glad
to
share
my
copy
with
you.
It's
going
to
be
of
limited
value
in
some
senses.
It's
helpful
on
the
explanation
side
to
go
through
things.
It
is
geared
toward
the
original
bill,
not
the
sub,
so
that's
a
little
off
and
then
the
other
thing
is.
E
Is
that
the
numbers
that
they're
using
do
not
account
for
the
increase
in
revenue
that
would
be
coming
in
as
well
as
they
account
fully
for
all
the
expenses
that
are
passing
or
appropriations
that
are
passing
through
the
house
side.
So
whatever
was
in
the
budget
plus
anything
else,
that's
been
going
through.
They
add
those
on
as
expenses
with
a
reduction
of
revenue
and
an
increase
of
the
expense.
E
It's
going
to
show
a
negative
on
paper,
but
I
can't
trust
that
at
this
point,
because
other
we
would
be
looking
at
house
bill
one
rather
than
any
other
expenditures
or
appropriations
that
might
be
going
out
plus
we
could
take
account
of
what's
going
to
happen
as
far
as
a
what
should
be
a
pretty
significant
carryover
from
this
current
fiscal
year.
Those
things
aren't
accounted
for
now.
I
will
just
to
make
sure
everyone's
clear
about
this.
E
There's
no
set
of
circumstances
under
which
I'm
going
to
try
to
push
a
bill
through
the
general
assembly
that
will
not
balance
out
at
the
end
of
the
day
and
that'll
just
have
to
be
dealt
with,
but
unfortunately
we
don't
have
the
budget
back
from
the
senate.
Those
numbers
are
not
set
and
appropriations
sometimes
work
until
the
end
of
the
session,
as
you
know,
but
I
have
no
intention-
and
I
have
every
intention
of
not
doing
anything
other
than
that.
D
Yeah
well,
with
all
due
respect,
mr
chair,
pursuant
to
rule
52,
I
would
move
that
we
vote
to
request
a
fiscal
note,
that's
accurate
and
can
let
us
know
exactly
what
the
fiscal
impact
of
this
bill
will
be
and
to
delay
further
consideration
in
voting
on
this
bill.
Until
we
have
a
fiscal
note,.
E
If
I
could
explain
just
real
quickly
as
far
as
having
a
physical
note,
yes,
as
far
as
the
caveats
I
put
to
it,
yes,
based
on
their
numbers,
it's
as
accurate
as
they're
going
to
get
because
they're
going
to
use
the
same
method
every
time
they
rework
it
and
those
deficiencies
and
the
method
will
be
there,
regardless
of
how
many
times
they
work.
The
physical
note.
A
K
K
Okay,
first
off
sir
you're
taxing
summer
camp,
I
know
you're
gonna
get
picked
on
for
each
little
expansion
of
the
sales
tax.
My
big
question
is
what
the
general
assembly
really
intends
to
do
with
the
1.2
billion
dollars
in
unappropriated
funds.
E
One
my
comments
on
the
senate
plan
is
are
going
to
be
limited
because
I've
not
had
a
lot
of
discussion
about
the
sourcing
and
how
they're
funding
the
full
physical
impact
of
that
bill.
We
have
been
working
on
this
a
lot.
Theirs
came
out.
It
is
simpler
than
ours
and
less
pages
than
ours,
but
we
still
do
not
have
data
as
far
as
how
they're
going
to
source
it.
I'm
sure
they
have
figured
that
out,
but
I'm
not
certain.
E
As
far
as
is
there
a
coordinated
effort,
I
would
love
to
tell
you
that
there
is,
but
I
can't
I'm
not
going
to
lie
to
you
about
it.
Okay,
so
there
is
no
coordinated
effort
of
a
one-two
punch.
There
is
no
conspiracy
theory
there,
unfortunately
there's
no
there
there.
I
wish
there
were
so
they
have
their
plan.
We
have
our
plan.
A
big
difference
between
the
two
plans
is
simply
this:
that
is
a
rebate
in
a
short
amount
of
time
to
certain
segments
of
the
population.
E
What
we're
proposing
is
a
different
way
of
approaching
the
taxation
structure
in
kentucky,
and
it
is
a
much
much
longer
look
than
what
they
proposed
now.
You
mentioned
the
1.1
unappropriated
funds,
without
knowing
their
sourcing
mechanisms,
without
confirming
that,
I
can't
tell
you
whether
or
not
they're,
looking
at
the
same
money
that
we're
looking
at
and
that's
just
a
limit
of
my
information.
K
We've
been
passing
appropriation
bills
so
far
this
session,
I
think
the
the
most
critical
might
be
the
20
million
dollar.
Something
read
to
succeed,
act.
E
It
was
around
11
million.
I
believe
yes,
but
it
wasn't
an
additional
appropriation
that
appropriation
was
an
early
literacy
program
referenced
in
house
bill,
1
committee,
sub
1
and
the
pro
the
bill
that
we
passed
through
here
was
to
clarify
exactly
where
that
money
was
supposed
to
go.
You
probably
got
the
20
million
from
when
representative
tipton
testified
about
that
bill.
He
said
we
already
appropriated,
10
million
and
kde
had
pledged
to
put
in
another
10
or
11
million
on
top
of
that.
So
that
probably
got
you
to
the
20.
okay.
E
In
the
method
of
the
way,
the
method
by
which
the
physical
note
is
analyzed,
everything
that
has
been
passed
through
the
house
is
added
up
as
an
expense,
a
deduction
against
income.
Of
course,
those
things
we've
passed
to
the
house.
None
of
those
appropriations
have
come
back
from
the
senate
and
we've
concurred
or
they've
agreed
with
us.
So
we
don't
have
any
final
appropriations,
but
the
method
that's
used
on
the
physical
note
doesn't
look
for
that.
It
just
looks:
what's
left
the
house.
K
K
So
the
people
at
the
at
the
bottom
end
of
our
economic
spectrum
are
not
better
off
they're,
worse
off
in
my
mind,
because
the
gap
is
wider.
If
we
go
down
to
zero,
I
think
some
people
are
going
to
get
two
dollars
a
week
from
that
cut
and
some
people
are
going
to
get
a
thousand
dollars
a
week.
So
how
are
the
people
who
are
going
to
get
two
dollars
a
week,
not
relatively
worse
off.
E
Two
things
you
can:
we
have
to
be
careful
when
we
look
at
it
and
careful
in
conversations
about
whether
we're
using
absolute
dollars
or
using
relative
proportions.
So
if
everyone
is
getting
taxed
to
five
percent
and
everyone
is
then
taxed
four
percent,
then
everyone's
got
an
equal
reduction
in
percentages.
E
If
you
look
at
for
absolute
dollar
effect
of
those
reduction
of
equal
percentages,
then
of
course
you're
going
to
have
different
outcomes
because
you
have
different
outcomes.
You
have
different
inputs,
some
people
put
in
five
billion,
some
people
put
in
five
dollars,
some
people
put
in
none
and
as
far
as
what
about
the
lowest
income
earners
or
lowest
income
lowest
income
that
have
taxable
income,
you
can
look
at
different
reports.
We've
got
three
or
four
from
the
economists
in
lrc,
so
I'm
going
to
just
give
an
approximate
for
conversation
today.
E
When
you
take
together
that
context,
along
with
all
of
the
social
supports
for
lower
income,
and
you
look
at
all
the
programs
and
non-profit
area
for
those
lower
income,
there's
a
lot
of
support
structures
already
there.
Secondly,
and
also
point
to
this,
as
I
indicated
in
the
presentation,
we're
not
taxing
groceries,
we're
not
taxing
medical
and
we're
not
taxing
your
home
utilities.
E
Those
home
utilities
are
going
to
be
worth
more
to
a
lower
income
than
a
higher
income
because
they
have
the
disposable
income
to
meet
whatever.
Is
there
the
same
thing
on
groceries,
those
essentials?
Those
are
going
to
be
more
valuable
to
someone
with
a
lower
income
than
a
higher
income.
I
can't
pull
the
numbers
off
the
top
of
my
head,
but
if
you
take
those
two,
those
three
big
expenditures
where
we
don't
collect
the
tax,
we
give
a
subsidy
out.
E
So
if
you
disregard
all
of
that,
and
then
you
just
focus
on
this
bill
on
personal
income
tax,
then
yeah
you
go
wait
a
minute
somebody's
getting
too
much
money
in
absolute,
even
though
we
have
equal
percentages.
E
K
We
do
have
to
be
careful
how
we
talk
about
it,
because
people
earning
twenty
thousand
dollars
are
not
better
off
in
any
regard.
So
my
final
question
is
about
something
called
the
kansas
experiment.
C
K
It's
on
wikipedia
under
kansas
experiment-
and
this
was
2012
when
the
governor
and
the
legislature
in
kansas,
cut
their
income
tax
and
took
some
other
measures
and
it
had
such
a
devastating
impact
on
state
revenue
that
they
repealed
it.
Five
years
later,
what's
different
here,.
E
E
So,
for
instance,
if
you
have
a
downward
trajectory
in
revenue
or
giving
a
tax
break
as
a
before,
you
actually
start
to
increase
your
revenues.
You
get
caught
in
a
negative
and
that's
what
happened
in
kansas.
They
just
simply
did
not
see
that
coming.
That's
not
what
we
have
here.
We
have
the
money.
We
have
the
funding
for
five
to
four,
which
is
basically
reducing
our
revenues
to
meet
our
budgetary
needs.
Our
appropriation
needs.
We
have
that
from
four
to
zero.
E
We
do
not
go
out
in
front
of
our
skis
and
reduce
our
revenues
before
they're
there.
So
we're
not
counting.
Oh
wait
a
minute.
We
have
to
get
a
certain
amount
of
money
that
comes
later
on.
No.
If
the
revenue
trigger
is
not
hit,
we
don't
go
down
so
we're
always
after
the
fact
of
when
revenues
arrive
rather
than
reducing
before
the
revenues
come
kansas
got
it
backwards.
F
Tipton.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
do
have
two
questions
I'll
ask
them
one
at
a
time,
and
I
may
make
a
few
comments.
Mr
chairman,
in
the
original
house
bill
8,
there
was
a
provision.
I
believe
that
included
advertising
being
added
to
the
sales
tax.
We've
heard
a
lot
of
discussion
about,
and
I
believe,
could
you
could
you
verify
what
the
sub
says
regard
to
sales
tax
edition
to
advertising
type
items?
I.
E
Appreciate
that
I've
received
questions
about
the
advertising
about
the
advertising
issue
and
advertising
is
broad.
First,
it
could
encompass
anything
from
television
ads
to
radio
ads
to
newspaper
ads
to
ads
placed
to
the
venue
to
ads
placed
on
a
card
and
an
event
center.
All
kinds
of
things
newspapers
had
said:
double
taxation.
E
Well,
the
advertisement
is
attached
on
the
person
placing
the
ad
the
subscription
is
the
person
that
is
actually
subscribing,
there's
no
tax
on
the
on
the
newspaper
in
either
one
of
those
we
also
heard
from
some
broadcasters.
I
think
that
talked
about
free
speech
and
we
can't
tax
that
we
already
tax
speech.
That's
through
a
commercial
venue.
I
think
every
one
of
our
campaigns
have
to
pay
to
get
time
to
speak.
E
We
don't
get
free
speech,
you
can't
go
to
a
television
station
or
radio
and
go
hey.
I
need
15
minutes.
Put
me
on,
I'm
not
going
to
pay
you
anything.
So
not
a
really
good
argument
there.
What
was
a
good
argument?
I've
sat
down
and
talked
with
kpa.
I
think
they
would
be
fine
with
house
bill
8,
as
proposed
with
no
committee
sub,
it's
fair
as
to
radio
and
television.
That's
where
we
started
getting
some
difficulties.
Unanticipated
newspaper
markets,
especially
local
papers,
are
geographically
bound
for
the
most
part.
E
That's
where
their
value
and
their
readership
comes
from.
When
you
go
to
airwaves
and
television
waves
that
go
across
imaginary
state
lines
without
any
difficulty,
then
you
end
up
with
competitive
problems
between
states,
so
cincinnati,
indianapolis,
evansville,
cape
girard,
nashville
huntington.
All
of
those
might
have
an
advantage
over
kentucky
business
because
of
the
way
those
airwaves
flow
without
without
interruption.
E
Broadcast
television
and
radio
started
going.
Okay,
we
may
have
an
issue
there
and
I
don't
want
to
get
into
a
competitive
disadvantage.
I
think
it
would
be
a
matter
of
degrees,
but
I
don't
want
to
do
that.
Okay,
I
don't
want
to
have
an
oops
newspaper
would
have
been
fine
when
you
start
trying
to
redefine
those
things
and
jennifer
hayes
does
a
great
job
with
those
definitions
you
run
into
extraordinary
difficulty,
okay,
and
at
that
point
we
could
not.
E
I
could
not,
in
good
faith,
try
to
get
to
a
definition
that
I
would
have
a
level
of
confidence
in
that
I
could
talk
to
the
members
of
this
committee
and
to
the
members
of
the
body
as
a
whole
and
say:
yes,
we
can
do
this
without
great
difficulty.
There
will
be
some
cleanup,
but
nothing
more
than
that.
I
could
not
get
there
on
an
issue.
So
committee
sub
removes
advertising
in
its
entirety,
so
newspapers,
radio
broadcasting
any
of
those
other
issues
that
surround
advertising.
E
F
Mr
chair,
if
I
could
add
a
follow-up
question,
this
is
actually
for
representative
fleming.
Yes,
sir,
we
had
in
committee
earlier
this
week
the
you're
led
actually
bill
on
tax
amnesty.
I
forget
the
number
right
now
in
the
committee
sub
is
that
language
consistent
with
what
we
discussed
in
your
bill
that
was
presented
this
week
and
one
question
was
brought
up.
There
was
some
discussion
about.
If
somebody
abuses
the
system,
they
go
apply
for
tax
amnesty
at
some
point
down
the
road
they're
delinquent.
G
The
the
the
information-
basically
I
mean
yes
in
terms
of
the
information
is
in
the
committee
sub
and
so
forth.
I
mentioned
a
few
minutes
ago
that
if
they
fail
to
provide
or
file
returns
over
a
certain
period
of
time
after
the
program,
then
they've
got
to
pay
them.
Full
they've
got
to
pay
the
penalties,
cost
of
collection,
interest
and
so
forth,
so
so
that
that
is
in
there.
E
E
Representative
fleming
had
focused
on
making
sure
that
we
have
an
rfp
process
to
have
a
third
party
come
in
and
took
great
pain
and
detail
to
make
sure
that
it
was
customer
service.
Oriented
not
just
go,
get
the
money
but
make
sure
there
are
metrics
about.
Do
they
have
experience.
Do
they
have
the
personnel?
Can
they
return?
The
calls?
Can
they
work
through
these
things,
rather
than
just
collect
the
money
that
remains
in
there,
but
in
conversations
with
dor,
they
have
expressed
some
concern
that
what
if
we
don't
get
a
successful
rfp?
E
What
if
no
one
applies
or
someone
not
worthy
enough
to
handle
kentuckian's
business
is
in
the
mix.
So
we've
simply
said:
if
you
do
not
have
a
successful
rfp,
we
put
a
backstop
that
said
that
dor
will
conduct
it
themselves,
but
we
also
made
sure
that
the
timing
that
dor
would
enact
that
or
if
there
was
no
successful
rsp
made
sure
that
we
went
past
or
gave
them
leeway
to
go
past
the
next
tax
season,
so
they
would
be
able
to
absorb
that
in
their
existing
bandwidth.
F
F
There
are
different
philosophical
viewpoints
on
the
best
approach
to
make.
I
have
always
personally
believed
that
the
more
you
tax
productivity,
the
less
productivity
that
you're
going
to
receive
people
when
taxes
based
on
consumption
sales,
tax
people
can
make
choices
about
what's
important
to
them
to
spend
their
hard
earned
money
on.
We
already
have
ser.
As
you
mentioned,
we
have
many
tax
expenditures
to
protect
those
key
essential
areas
like
food
prescription,
medicine,
our
primary
residence,
so
those
are
already
in
place-
and
I
appreciate
your
approach
to
this.
F
We
talked
in
the
previous
judicial
budget
in
the
legislative
budget
about
the
pay
increases
if
this
goes
into
effect
on
january
1st,
not
only
will
our
state
employees
all
across
the
state,
but
our
private
sector
employees
are
going
to
get
a
1
pay
increase.
That
is
more
dollars
in
their
pocket
that
they
can
choose
to
spend
and
invest
in
our
local
communities.
F
Our
ultimate
goal
was:
we
want
to
build
our
stuff.
We
will
make
our
state
better
for
everyone,
and
we
recognize
that
we
have
to
have
business.
We
have
to
have
workforce,
so
the
work
of
the
general
assembly
is
not
just
about
this
bill
or
this
bill.
It's
collectively
how
we
can
work
together.
We
have
a
lot
of
workforce
issues.
F
I
hope
we
continue
to
work
on
all
these
issues,
but
I
do
support
the
concept
of
the
reduction
in
the
income
tax,
putting
more
money
and
those
people
are
out
there
working
every
day
to
invest
in
our
in
our
state.
Thank
you.
E
Mr
chairman,
if
I
may
yes,
sir
thank
you
representative
tipton
for
speaking
on
that-
and
I
just
want
to
make
sure
for
clarification
purposes.
Everyone
understands.
If
you
have
taxable
income
in
kentucky
personal
taxable
income
from
whatever
source,
then
this
would
result
in
a
reduction
of
your
rate
from
five
to
four
percent.
E
So
you
mentioned
state
employees,
judicial,
all
the
issues
that
we've
talked
about
and
in
our
house
bill,
1
committee
sub
1.
We
have
tried
to
address
social
workers
specifically
with
a
different
structure:
a
state
employees,
ksp
we've
dealt
with
several
pushing
money
out
to
the
locals
discretionary,
so
they
can
deal
with
teachers
and
all
their
staff.
E
E
Committee
sub
section
1
their
rate,
will
go
from
five
to
four
percent,
which
is
a
one
point:
reduction
in
about
a
20
point
overall
percentage,
wise
gotta,
look
at
absolutes
and
percentages,
so
a
20
rate
reduction
reduction
in
the
rate
and
then
a
one
point,
absolute
from
five
to
four,
and
that
goes
across
the
board
to
anybody
that
has
taxable
income,
including
those
that
are
interested
in
colas,
those
that
are
retirees
so
for
the
sum,
because
that
one
percent,
once
it
goes,
it
stays
there
forever.
So
it's
an
increase
for
everyone.
E
C
G
I
believe
you're
seeing
a
significant
shift,
as
the
chairman
says,
and
what
and
where
we're
going,
what
we're
doing
we
got
to
figure
out
who
we
are
and
where
we're
going
in
between
those
two
items
puts
us
in
a
very
strong
position
and
going
forward,
so
we
can
increase
our
population
and
to
help
help
those
where
they
need
to
be
helped,
so
that
one
for
that
one
or
100
basis
points
one
percent.
However,
you
want
to
classify
it.
Is
it's
a
significant?
It's
a
significant
impact.
G
H
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
thank
you
for
the
discussion
and
you
know
philosophical
differences.
It
won't
come
as
a
surprise
to
you
that
I
have
a
different
philosophy
about
all
this
and
I
just
I
want
to
acknowledge
that.
H
So,
but
you
know
I
acknowledge,
I
live
in
the
land
of
reality
and
that's
not
the
direction
we're
going,
and
I
I
do
understand
that
so
as
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
I
understand
some
things
here,
and
so
when
we
lower
the
income
tax
rate,
one
percent
we're
going
to
lose
about
a
billion
dollars
in
revenue
that
we're
going
to
make
up
in
these
new
taxes.
E
Close
okay
again
I
would,
I
would
differentiate
between
the
the
percentage
drop
from
five
percent
to
four
percent
and
then
four
percent
to
zero.
Okay.
So
yes,
on
current
numbers,
you
can
look
at
it
and
go
a
point
drop
from
five
to
four
four
to
three
looking
at
roughly
a
little
more
than
a
billion
dollars,
every
time
that
happens
on
current
numbers,
but
as
far
as
understand
that
the
five
to
four
is
a
forced
drop
and
the
rest
of
them
are
on
triggers.
E
So
whether
or
not
they
their
those
triggers
are
not
dependent
upon
us.
Expanding
the
base
and
gathering
more
revenues
in
the
expectation
on
projections.
Estimates
now
is
that
revenues
will
continue
to
increase
and
we're
just
taking
a
modest
increase,
and
if
you
do
that
over
about
a
eight
to
ten
year
period,
most
years
you
would
hit
a
trigger.
So
we
could
continue
to
drop
if
those
revenues
stagnate
and
if
you
had
no
base
expansion
whatsoever.
E
As
long
as
revenues
hit
the
trigger,
then
the
rate
still
drops.
So
the
dependency
is
not
necessarily
there.
The
expansion
of
the
base
assists
in
more
revenue,
but
the
expansion
of
the
base
is
not
the
method
by
which
we
get
to
the
revenue
increases.
They
do
occur
organically,
they
do
occur,
occur
for
other
reasons.
They
also
occur
for
if
you
run
a
better
economic
climate
beyond
our
control
or
a
better
economic
climate.
E
H
A
quick
follow-up,
yes,
so
the
additional
the
additional
sales
tax
that
we're
looking
at,
and
thank
you
for
that
explanation.
The
additional
sales
tax
that
we're
looking
at.
I
don't
see
anything
on
there
that
horrifies
me
right,
but
are
we
going
to
get
you
know,
you're,
not
taxing,
groceries,
you're,
not
taxing
medicines.
All
of
that
are
we
going
to
get
pushback
from
industries
who
are
being
taxed
more
and
do
we
have?
Are
we
going
to
be
able
to
withstand
pressure
that
we're
going
to
get
from
groups
that
say
well,
don't
tax
us
more.
E
I
don't
know,
and
the
thing
about
it
is,
is
that
I
know
senator
mcdaniel
has
pointed
this
out
multiple
times.
He
keeps
on
his
desk
a
booklet
from
about
a
hundred
years
ago,
where
people
were
saying
what's
wrong
with
the
tax
code
and
it
needs
to
be
changed
and
it's
been
gone
going
ever
since
politically
I
mean
I
can
look
at
everybody
in
this
room
and
everybody
in
this
committee.
E
You
know
there
are
two
things
I
can
say
in
any
room
and
everyone
tightens
up
and
then
thinks
I
need
to
get
out
generally,
I
can
say
sex
in
a
courtroom
and
everybody
goes
juries
and
everybody
else
start
looking
around
or
you
can
say
tax
and
everybody
does
the
same
thing
and
sometimes
worse
what
we
have
to
do,
and
this
is
much
like
the
judicial,
redistricting
or
reapportionment
that
we've
talked
about
in
judiciary.
Recently.
E
I
asked
that
members
put
aside,
what's
happening
to
me,
what's
happening
to
my
and
think
about
the
commonwealth
as
a
whole.
We
can
have
philosophical
differences
about
to
how
to
get
there,
but
if
we
elevate
the
consideration
of
how
do
we
make
kentucky
healthier
economically
and
how
does
it
lift
everyone?
E
How
do
we
avoid
hurting
anyone
in
particular
unfairly
and
trying
to
lift
and
look
at
a
better
method
will
turn
out
fine?
We
may
disagree
on
the
how
but
we've
got
the
same
direction,
and
I
hope
we
have
enough
members
that
go.
This
is
the
right
thing
to
do.
It's
not
going
to
make
everyone
happy.
There's
no
way,
you
could
say
the
word
tax
and
make
everybody
happy.
E
E
C
Okay,
first
of
all,
I
think
you,
I
think
you
already
answered
my
first
question,
which
the
reduction
in
income
tax
rate
of
about
one
percent
is
equates
to
about
one
billion
dollars
in
current
dollars.
Is
that
correct
a
little
over
a
billion.
E
E
I
know
you
do
I'm
just
making
sure
that
I'm
not
and
I'm
not
being
clear
enough
for
everybody
else,
so
we're
not
that,
but
on
the
sales
base,
expansion,
okay,
first
com,
first
estimate
back
on
what
was
in
house
bill
8
was
around
in
a
full
year,
would
be
approximately
160
million
dollars.
E
E
E
E
Not
use
it
not
using
a
surplus,
I
just
want
to
make
sure
I'm
clear:
okay,
we're
not
affecting
we're
not
proposing
any
changes
to
the
reserve
trust
fund,
so
some
people
would
consider
that
a
reference
to
that
no
okay.
This
is
based
on
increased
revenues
organically
or
with
the
assistance
of
an
expansion
of
the
base
to
get
us
to
a
trigger
that
would
result
in
a
reduction
of
the
rate,
either
by
a
half
point
or
a
full
point.
C
Okay,
so
I
think
I
get
it
now.
Okay-
and
you
know
I
I
was
around
when
you
guys
came
in
we-
we
all
came
in
together.
As
you
know-
and
I
remember
2018,
it
was
the
first
step
that
was
the
hardest
step.
It
was
if,
if
you
want
to
go
to
consumptive
based
tax,
which
you
guys
want
to
do,
we
had
a
progressive
tax
tax
system.
We
went
to
a
flat
rate
tax
system.
C
The
only
way
you
could
do
that
on
that
first
step
is,
is
to
cut
taxes
for
for
the
higher
income,
people
and
and
and
raise
that
rate
to
for
the
the
lowest
and
and
the
smallest
of
small
businesses,
and-
and
so
so,
that's
tough
and
now,
as
we
continue
moving
forward
to
me,
this
is
just
a
a
continued
shift
of
the
tax
burden
where,
if
you,
if
you
look
at
how
much
is
paid
relative
to
how
much
income
somebody's
having
because
of
sales
tax,
let's
face
it,
it's
a
flat
tax
and
we're
getting
rid
of
a
progressive
tax
system.
C
E
E
So
really
it
was
an
effective
flat
tax,
but
not
that
there
was
a
slight
difference
somewhere.
It
was
truly
flattened
in
in
18
to
be
that,
but
the
rate
reduced
on
on
the
personal
tax
income
rate
reduced
and
the
sales
tax
rate
did
not
increase.
It
was
an
expansion
of
the
base,
then
the
time.
The
context
then
is
entirely
different
than
it
is
now.
E
They
were
not
able
to
budget
at
that
time
for
various
reasons,
any
kind
of
unappropriated
funds,
so
the
only
way
that
you
could
look
is
at
an
18
viewpoint
of
oh
we're
going
to
lose
some
money
on
revenue
by
reducing
the
rate,
but
we've
got
to
make
it
up
or
make
up
a
good
portion
of
it
somewhere
else.
That's
not
the
mindset.
That's
in
house
bill,
eight,
the
context.
The
time
is
entirely
different
and
the
structure
is
entirely
different.
A
All
right
at
this
time
we
have
four
individuals
that
have
signed
up
to
speak
on
this
matter.
I
just
want
to
make
the
rumor
aware
that
I'm
I'm
shooting
for
a
hard
six
o'clock
vote
if
we
can,
if
we
can
just
so
for
those
four
individuals,
if
we
can
keep
it
around
five
minutes,
there's
some
give
and
take
there,
obviously,
but
if
we
can
just
kind
of
keep
it
around
five
minutes,
I
would
be
grateful.
First
up
is
jenny
from
120.
After
this.
D
A
Jenny,
if
you
could
just
introduce
yourself
for
the
record
and
then
I'll
swear
you
in
okay,
hi.
K
K
Good
afternoon
my
name
is
dr
jenny,
ward
beaulander
and
I'm
a
teacher
at
henry
clay,
high
school
and
an
adjunct,
professor
at
georgetown
college.
I'm
here
today
representing
kentucky
120
united
aft,
and
I
want
to
start
by
thanking
you
all
for
allowing
me
to
speak
to
you
today
on
behalf
of
my
union,
to
express
our
thoughts
on
house
bill.
8.
kentucky
120,
united
aft
members
had
many
questions
when
we
began
looking
at
house
bill
8.
K
But
our
first
major
question
was:
how
are
we
going
to
replace
the
40
percent
of
the
state's
budget
that
we
lost
by
cutting
income
tax?
This
becomes
especially
concerning
when
you
realize
that
41.7
percent
of
the
state's
budget
is
currently
allocated
to
k-12
education,
and
while
we
recognize
that
the
cuts
to
the
state
income
are
incremental,
the
resulting
increases
in
taxes
on
goods
and
services
meant
to
replace
them
at
a
glance,
didn't
appear
to
be
able
to
make
up
that
shortfall.
K
K
K
I
shudder
to
think
what
that
price
tag
will
look
like
when
my
daughter
enrolls
in
2035,
especially
with
the
directions
we
are
taking
as
the
limited
money
allocated
to
our
public
universities,
will
likely
run
completely
dry
with
these
cuts
to
income
taxes
house
bill
8
looks
to
be
entirely
too
close
to
the
kansas
experiment,
for
my
comfort,
with
the
tax
cuts
that
they
bragged
would
boost
their
economy
and
put
more
money
in
people's
pockets.
Unfortunately,
the
opposite
ended
up
being
true.
K
They
too
believed
it
would
stimulate
economic
growth
in
their
state
and
were
proven
horribly
wrong.
Florida
and
tennessee
have
also
made
similar
tax
changes
like
kansas
did,
but
the
loss
in
state
revenue
was
replaced
by
a
thriving,
robust
tourist
industry
that
simply
just
doesn't
exist
here
in
that
same
volume,
making
us
much
more
in
line
to
have
the
exact
same
results
as
kansas.
K
A
How
you
doing
please
have
a
seat
there
at
the
table.
Please
introduce
yourself
with
the
record
hello.
My
name
is
angela
rao
and
I
am
from
brown
county.
I
am
a
kftc
economic,
I'm
sorry
I'll
take
this
off.
I
am
a
brown
county,
kftc
chapter
member.
I
also
serve
on
the
economic
justice
committee
of
kftc
and
some
of
my
things
I
will
say
as
a
kftc
member
and
then
some
as
a
citizen
kftc.
We
have
been
studying
this
bill.
A
H
A
You
may
perceive
we
have
been
studying
this
bill
and
it
is
very
theoretical
and
representative
petrie.
A
I
work
in
higher
education,
so
obviously
funding
being
cut
to
higher
education
is
an
issue
we
already
have
cuts,
services
and
personnel
and
staff
at
the
university.
So
any
reduction
in
fundings
is
only
going
to
increase
the
more
of
us
losing
our
positions
and
not
being
able
to
get
salary
wages
and
such
it's
just
it's
all
very
theoretical.
A
So
it's
hard
to
say
like
we
can't
we
don't
know
like
he
said
you
don't
have
the
fiscal
note,
because
you
so
you
don't
know
exactly
what
is
going
to
happen,
because
this
no
income
tax
has
been
in
kentucky
the
way
it
is.
But
there
are
other
states
like
tennessee
and
kansas
and
other
places
that
have
had
the
no
income,
taxes
and
those
are
all
very
negative
and
they're
very
regressive.
They
end
up
with
people
on
the
lower
income,
paying
more
and
speaking
of
the
bevin
taxes
I
currently
am
also
under
the
poverty
level.
A
A
I
went
from
getting
returns
to
paying
in
taxes
and
my
taxes
that
I
have
paid
in
have
went
up
every
year,
even
though
my
income
has
basically
stayed
the
same
so
and
theoretically,
he
says
you
know
like
oh
we're
all
going
to
get
this
money
back
and
everybody
will
have
money
in
their
pocket.
Well,
you
know
104
dollars
to
me
with
33
000
a
year
is
not
the
same
as
a
hundred
dollars
or
a
thousand
dollars
to
someone
making.
A
You
know
a
hundred
thousand
dollars
a
year
and
then
also
another
thing
that
needs
to
be
taken
into
account.
The
I
agree
that
graduated
taxes
would
be
the
best
thing
to
rise
us
to
bring
the
boat
up
and
all
of
us
have
better
chances
and
better
opportunities,
because
before
it
was
technically
sort
of
progressive,
but
not
perfect,
but
at
least
before
so,
for
instance,
in
2016,
I
took
my
state
tax
return
and
my
federal
tax
return
and
started
a
individual
development
account
with
the
kentucky
domestic
violence
association
and
bought
my
vehicle
with
it.
A
My
first
like
new
to
me
vehicle
and
then
before
that
I've
been
divorced
since
2005,
and
I
always
took
my
taxes
and
I
paid
up
my
rent
and
utilities
and
everything
that
I
could
so
not
all
of
us
go
waste
our
taxes
and
buy
you
know
everything
and
theoretically,
yes,
we
would
have
money
to
you,
know:
consumption
taxes,
you
have
the
choice
to
what
you
spent
your
money
on.
That
is
not
true.
If
you
live
in
poverty,
because
there
are
many
of
us
who
can't
afford
to
buy,
groceries
can't
afford
to
pay
your
rent.
A
A
So
my
point
is
is
that
we
should
have
a
more
progressive
tax
rate
instead
of
making
it
worrying
about
businesses
and
things
if
we
really
want
kentucky
to
get
better
and
we
want
to
bring
people
up
and
be
able
to
climb
out,
you
see
that
meme
of
the
person
in
poverty
and
they're
trying
really
hard
to
pull
themselves
up.
That's
what
we
are
doing.
That's
what
people
in
eastern
kentucky
are
truly
trying
to
do
so.
A
A
J
A
J
J
J
J
And
based
upon
other
states
that
cut
income
tax,
we
know
that
the
regressive
sales
tax
increases
will
be
coming
may
not
happen.
Today
may
not
happen
this
year,
but
they
will
be
coming
low-income
families,
and
in
these
days
even
many
of
us
who
consider
ourselves
middle
class,
spend
a
large
share
of
all
of
every
paycheck
to
make
ends
meet.
J
A
I
Thank
you,
chairman
reid
and
chairman
petry,
and
members
of
the
committee
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
be
here
today
on
house
bill
8..
You
know,
kentucky
has
a
large
revenue
surplus
currently,
but
I
think,
as
everyone
is
recognized
that
is
temporary
and
is
it
is
the
result
of
federal
aid.
What's
beyond
that,
for
our
budget
is
very
uncertain,
but
lawmakers
are
constitutionally
required
to
pass
a
balanced
budget.
I
However,
hb8
will
ensure
budgets
are
grossly
imbalanced
in
the
near
future
and
become
more
imbalanced
over
time,
leading
inevitably
to
massive
budget
cuts,
a
failure
to
meet
obligations
like
pensions
and
or
huge
tax
increases
on
middle
and
low-income
kentuckians.
You
know
the
income
tax,
the
individual
income
tax
brings
in
40
percent
of
our
revenue.
It's
equaled
about
the
same
share
that
we
spend
on
our
entire
k-12
public
school
system.
I
I
haven't
seen
the
fiscal
note,
but
we
just
heard
information
shared
that
160
million
dollars
would
be
raised
from
the
services.
I
However,
in
the
committee
substitute
advertising,
which
is
the
largest
service
in
the
original
bill,
has
been
taken
out,
so
we're
looking
at
a
set
of
services
that
raise
about
10
percent
of
what
is
lost
from
a
one
point
cut
the
initial
one
point
cut
in
the
income
tax,
so
we
will
lose
one
point,
wait
basically
1.2
billion
and
only
gain
about
10
percent.
Of
that
back,
that's
even
that's.
Just
initially
the
triggers
in
the
bill
to
lower
the
income
tax
in
the
future
are
sure
to
be
surpassed
simply
because
of
price
inflation.
I
I
We
have
not
doubled
the
size
of
state
government
in
the
last
20
years.
In
fact,
we
have
6
800
fewer
state
employees
today
than
we
had
20
years
ago,
but
double
the
revenue.
That's
how
inflation
works.
This
bill
sets
triggers
based
on
nominal
dollar
amounts
in
the
future.
That
will
be
surpassed
that
will
trigger
automatic
cuts
that
the
the
bill
does
not
replace.
So
the
legislation
automatically
digs
a
deeper
and
deeper
hole
over
time
and
provides
no
answer
as
to
how
we
will
fill
it.
I
So
the
cost
for
this
biennium
is
basically
a
billion,
a
billion
and
a
half
because
it
takes
effect
halfway
through
the
first
year
of
the
fiscal
year.
We
know
that
there
are
extra
revenues
because
of
this
one-time
stimulus,
and
that
will
cover
that
now,
but
those
revenues
won't
be
there
to
cover
the
gap.
The
next
budget,
when
the
hole
gets
bigger,
it
will
be
based
on
a
preliminary
estimate,
a
little
over
two
billion
dollars
in
next
biennium,
we're
talking
about
the
gap
and
then
buying
them
after
that
will
be
over
three
billion
in
ten
years.
I
It
will
be
five
to
six
billion
dollars,
because
the
the
triggers
will
continue
to
be
hit
and
we'll
just
get
bigger.
Over
time
till
we
lose
the
income
tax,
which
is
40
of
our
revenue,
so
that
just
leaves
a
big
magic
asterisk
about
in
hba.
That
is
just
not
paid
for
and
you,
the
simple
truth.
Is
you
can't
get
something
for
nothing?
I
We
will
lack
the
capacity
to
address
and
much
more
we'll,
have
difficulty
continuing
to
pay
down
our
pension
obligations
and
meeting
our
other
financial
obligations
as
a
state,
and
it
will
also
force
tax
increases.
The
only
tax,
that's
anywhere
close
to
replacing
what
we
would
lose
from
the
income
tax
would
be
the
sales
tax
which
hits
middle
and
low
income
people.
The
most
house
bill.
8
disproportionately
takes
billions
of
dollars
out
of
the
budget
and
disproportionately
gives
it
to
the
wealthy
65
of
the
dollars
will
go
to
the
top
20
percent
of
people.
I
37
of
the
dollars
will
go
to
the
top
five
percent
of
people,
and
the
big
winners
are
the
people
at
the
very
top.
The
top
one
percent
will
receive
an
average
tax
cut
of
11
000
in
the
first
year.
From
this
one
point
cut
and
with
the
complete
elimination
of
the
income
tax,
they
will
receive
a
55
000
cut
on
average
every
year.
I
I
I
I
I
It
up
sure.
Okay,
absolutely
other
states
have
tried
this
experiment.
We've
talked
about
kansas,
but
it's
not
just
kansas.
Around
the
same
time,
arizona,
north
carolina,
ohio,
maine
and
wisconsin
also
passed
income
tax
cuts.
They
all
saw
substantial
budget
cuts.
As
a
result,
they
all
had
economic
growth
that
was
slower
than
the
national
average
in
the
period
after
the
cuts
take
take
effect.
So
it's
it's
a
dangerous
path
to
go
down
to
assume
that
we
will
be
able
to
fill
the
gap
with
population
growth
and
economic
activity.
I
I
will
stop
there
and
just
say
that
the
bill
from
hba
won't
come
in
this
session
because
we
have
extra
monies,
but
it
will
come
and
it
will
mean
larger
class
sizes,
a
sicker
population,
lower
educational
attainment,
a
hampered
court
system,
increased
pension
liabilities,
shuttered
state
parks
and
other
fallout
or
higher
taxes
on
the
people
who
can
pay
them
lease.
This
is
the
most
consequential
bill
affecting
our
budget
in
nearly
100
years.
I
A
E
Briefly,
if
I
may
one,
I
appreciate
the
questions
from
members.
I
appreciate
the
presentations
from
members
in
the
in
the
audience.
It's
actually
very
helpful
to
me
and
I
hope,
helpful
to
others
the
comments
I've
heard,
I
think,
still
stem
from
an
understanding
of
house
bill,
8
and
its
structure.
That's
fundamentally
mistaken.
E
Also
from
that
house
bill
1
to
house
bill
8,
it's
interesting
that
it
was
a
historic
budget
and
how
much
money
went
into
k
through
12.
How
much
money
went
into
higher
ed,
how
much
money
went
into
medicaid,
how
much
money
went
into
pensions?
How
much
money
went
into
raises
how
much
money
went
into
seo
waivers?
How
much
money
wanted
to
stand
for
those
waivers
and
on
and
on
and
on?
E
K
H
D
C
K
D
E
A
With
18,
yes,
votes,
six,
no
votes,
zero
passes,
hb
eight,
as
amended
by
committee,
sub
number
three
passes,
favorably
same
show
on
the
house
floor.
The
chair
will
now
entertain
a
motion.
Title
amendment
motion,
there's
a
there's,
a
motion
and
second
on
the
titleman,
all
those
in
favor,
please
signify
by
saying
aye,
all
those
opposed,
nay
entitlement
passes.