Letters to the editor: Feb. 28

Colleges whine too much

I’m really tired of reading about University of Kentucky President Eli Capilouto and other Kentucky public university presidents testifying in Frankfort about “draconian” budget cuts and threatening tuition increases.

Instead of complaining and threatening, they should be looking for ways to cut costs at their respective institutions of higher learning.

One place to start would be to reduce bloated administrative costs that have exploded in recent years. Higher-education cost inflation leads all sectors in the U.S. economy, and it’s due to the ladling on of expensive, additional layers of non-productive bureaucracy that creates no added value to the quality of education.

Why should our public universities be exempt from the same belt-tightening responsibility that businesses constantly face to remain competitive?

I don’t agree with Gov. Matt Bevin on everything, but unlike his predecessor, Bevin and his team recognize what it will take to get Kentucky’s fiscal house in order and I commend their effort.

The university presidents should stop complaining and get with the program.

‘Spouse’ best alternative

What ever happened to the word “spouse”? It’s simple, gender-neutral and already widely used. Even the most traditional of couples must surely have referred to themselves as spouses at some point or allowed others to do so without taking offense.

It seems to me that what really offends our opponents is the prospect of having to treat same-sex couples as equal to themselves. That’s why they want separate forms and separate language.

Illinois provides an example of using one form for all couples. When my wife and I got married there in 2014, the clerk asked us if we wished to be designated “Bride 1 and Bride 2” or “Spouse 1 and Spouse 2.”

We chose the term spouse because it was familiar and gender-neutral. Since then, we’ve grown more comfortable with the term wife. But that’s a matter of personal preference.

Kentucky should keep one form and give every couple the same options.

Put a Y at CentrePointe

The lengthy saga of the proposed CentrePointe development has resulted in an eyesore in the middle of town. Surely we can do better.

I offer this suggestion: Find a developer with vision and adequate funding who will work with the administration of the Central Kentucky YMCA to build a multi-use project that will feature a new, expanded facility in the heart of the city surrounded by condominiums, with retail on the street level.

Putting a new Y in the development would guarantee a steady stream of people to frequent any retail establishments included in the project and serve as an enticement for condominium buyers.

A new Y could offer expanded programs while providing readily accessible facilities for all users, something the much beloved but sadly outdated High Street Y cannot offer.

Such a proposal requires much discussion, planning and fund-raising by all parties involved, but it is possible. A case study is provided by Minneapolis, where an older downtown Y was replaced by a new one as part of a mixed-use development in 1989.

Lexington offers a well-educated, welcoming population; a healthy economy; numerous educational assets; a reverence for history; and an increasingly vibrant city center. Why not a new Y at CentrePointe?

False budget choice

Jane Driskell’s recent commentary regarding Gov. Matt Bevin’s budget proposal presents a false choice: slash programs for education, behavioral health and other programs, or continue to underfund the teacher and state employee retirement systems.

There is, of course, a third option: increase state government revenue.

Driskell’s approach is what the current administration wants: create dissent between those in favor of continued or expanded government services and those who are or will be government retirees.

Former Gov. Steve Beshear’s blue ribbon commission on tax reform and the Kentucky Center for Economic Policy have laid out in considerable detail opportunities for increasing tax revenue while making the tax code much more fair.

Driskell seems to think that the retirement reforms of the Beshear administration, a hybrid 401(k) plan coupled with a promise by the legislature to finally fully fund the actuarial required contribution, is a magic fix. It is not, despite what the Pew “experts” have to say.

So let’s do three things:

▪ Reject the false choice in Bevin’s budget proposal.

▪ Don’t buy the argument that the legislative “fix” during Beshear’s second term is sufficient to make up for his first-term neglect or the decade-long legislative underfunding.

▪ The legislature should show some guts and put tax reform on the agenda.

This story was originally published February 27, 2016 at 2:32 PM with the headline "Letters to the editor: Feb. 28."