Published: July 01, 2009 04:45 pm      

In Your View — 07/02/09

Incentives stress retention of jobs

In the recent special session of the Kentucky General Assembly, House Bill 3, which contained a broad array of changes to Kentucky’s economic development incentives, was passed with widespread support, including Governor Steve Beshear.

A key feature which we have strongly supported for several years is an incentive program for existing manufacturers that reinvest in plant and equipment. As a result of this legislation, qualifying companies can recoup up to 50 percent of the amount expended for equipment and facilities, and up to 100 percent of the amount expended for skills upgrade training.

To qualify, a company must have eligible expenditures of at least $2.5 million and agree to maintain at least 85 percent of its full-time employees. The incentives are a credit against corporate income taxes and Limited Liability Entity Taxes. A key feature of this legislation is that no new jobs must be created as a result of the reinvestment, but existing jobs must be retained.

From the time we brought the need for incentives for our existing industry to the attention of our legislators several years ago, our entire delegation has been extremely supportive.

On behalf of the manufacturers of northeastern Kentucky, a sincere “thank you” to Senators Walter Blevins and Charlie Borders, and Representatives Rocky Adkins, Tanya Pullin, Kevin Sinnette and Robin Webb.

Without a doubt, job retention is just as important, if not more important, than job recruitment because of the excellent wages and benefits provided by manufacturers in our region.

Jim Purgerson, President, Ashland Alliance



EPA’s ‘finding’ will encourage lawsuits

Most people around Kentucky and the U.S. agree that it’s time we do something about greenhouse gas emissions. It’s a laudable goal and one that is widely supported.

What is not so good is the way the Environmental Protection Agency is considering going about it. EPA recently released a proposed “endangerment finding” that said that greenhouse gas emissions constitute an endangerment to public health. On the surface, it sounds like a reasonable finding, but, when you go deeper, you find that it is fraught with problems.

Once you link greenhouse gas emissions to health risks, immediately the lawyers come knocking with lawsuits against any entity that emits greenhouse gas emissions. This little legal maneuver could cost businesses, utility companies, and even farmers millions of dollars — money they may pass on to consumers to cover their own costs.

The EPA should act responsibly and change the finding of endangerment to health to a finding of endangerment to welfare. The effect on reducing greenhouse gas emissions would be the same, but frivolous lawsuits and excessive liability would be avoided.

Bill Brockman, Lexington