Governor Patrick Morrisey took to social media Friday evening.

“West Virginians are still waiting for the Legislature to deliver meaningful income tax relief to our citizens,” Morrisey posted. “Today is Day 52 of the 60-day session. Time is running out. Demand your Delegate and Senator pass income tax cuts NOW!”

A question to Morrisey on X asking whether the post should be interpreted to mean five percent is too little — or whether he would reject such a deal as part of a budget agreement — went unanswered.

.@MorriseyWV is this post to be interpreted as 5 percent is not enough and / or not a deal you’ll accept? https://t.co/22IEgR6kgD

— T.J. Meadows, Co-Host MetroNews Talkline (@TJMeadows304) March 6, 2026

My view is the governor thinks 5 percent is not meaningful.

Morrisey made the post after a few important developments that add context.

The House and Senate had just reached an agreement on the state’s next fiscal year budget. While that budget does not contemplate a 10 percent tax cut, prevailing wisdom around the Capitol suggests House leaders stand ready to allow the governor a 5 percent cut generated through reduced revenue estimates from his office. After all, the legislature may not change the governor’s revenue estimates and funding the cut via lower estimates doesn’t directly require cuts on the expense side.

Senate Finance Chair Jason Barrett has said the 5 percent is important to the Senate. There’s no reason for the Senate to pass on a relatively sure thing they’ve already ironed out with the House. As Barrett said, the latest version represents the final compromise with the House. The parties have reached agreement – it’s done.

Plus, the governor surely knows – the legislature all but wrote it in crayon – any such cut wouldn’t come before the budget is back in their hands to handle any line-item veto.

Why would he make a post knowing these things, unless unhappy with the amount?

Given that calculus, the governor’s post reads as something close to an outright rejection of the legislature’s plan and the five percent. Morrisey appears willing to forgo a deal — one where everyone could claim a win — for the opportunity to potentially bank more political capital from the failure to achieve what he considers “meaningful” tax relief. A failure he would lay at the feet of the legislature.

That strategy could backfire.

Morrisey’s post, along with the reposts that followed, drew mixed reactions. Many responses pointed to poor road conditions and suggested tax cuts should wait until infrastructure improves. Water system needs were mentioned frequently, and special education funding surfaced in the comments as well, along with a bent to focus on property taxes instead of the income tax.

Legislators are no doubt paying attention to those reactions and could use them to their advantage — especially in the House. You’ll recall that chamber originally messaged their desire for no incremental tax cut beyond the current trigger mechanism.

The legislature’s passing the budget early already weakened the governor’s line-item veto power. This self-imposed push now risks something else: Morrisey losing any tax cut altogether. Anecdotally, social media feedback suggests many voters would be comfortable with that outcome.

If House leaders — who remain firmly in the driver’s seat on this issue — respond by simply leaving the five-percent tax cut bill in a desk drawer and instead direct the surplus created by the already lowered revenue estimates toward roads, water systems, or special education, the governor loses the battle entirely.

And if Morrisey ultimately accepts the five-percent deal after this heavily-viewed public post, he risks looking politically weakened against a legislature that stood its ground. What could have been framed as a negotiated victory suddenly looks like a retreat on his part.

It almost feels as though the legislature handed the governor enough rope, confident he might use it.

Looking further ahead, there’s another complication. If voters ultimately receive better roads instead of a modest income tax cut — just as voters seemingly want — how does the governor campaign on the issue later? It becomes difficult to argue lawmakers should be replaced for refusing to cut taxes when the result is infrastructure improvements many voters were asking for in the first place.

Whether the post was carefully calculated or simply off-the-cuff, Morrisey has backed himself into a corner. How — and how successfully — he navigates out of it remains to be seen. But, the great ones always find a way. Maybe Morrisey will or maybe he won’t?

The post Social Media Post May Backfire on Morrisey appeared first on WV MetroNews.

The big story coming out of the Capitol Thursday was the budget. The Senate amended its budget after receiving the House’s version and then rolled the document back across the Capitol. The House passed the compromise measure Thursday evening.

Veteran newsman Brad McElhinny has all the details.

A few observations — and a few hopes — as we close in on the final week of the session.

The House now holds the strongest hand moving forward — essentially all of the leverage. Legislators around the Capitol were quick to point out the governor would receive the budget Friday. The implication was that legislative clerks would turn the document around quickly in order to start the five-day clock on the governor. Under the Constitution, he has only five days to review the budget and issue any line-item vetoes.

The House and Senate are largely in lockstep at this point. If the governor redlines any provisions, the Legislature will still be in session and can easily override any line-item veto it does not like. Moving the budget this early effectively strips the governor of much of his leverage — a goal the House appeared to have from the beginning.

There is additional motivation beyond the political embarrassment that comes with having vetoes overridden. The issue of the tax cut is also looming. The governor created headroom for that proposal by reducing his revenue estimates by roughly five percent as opposed to any cuts in his budget.

But as House Finance Chairman Vernon Criss has repeatedly reminded anyone who will listen, the budget is an expenditure bill. It does not produce a tax cut. That requires a separate law. The governor can set the revenue estimates as he pleases, but minus a law to lower taxes, the lower revenue estimates would end up producing a surplus.

The tax cut bill is still sitting on Chairman Criss’ desk in House Finance. And it may end up producing more than just the governor agreeing to play nice with his line-item veto pen.

TEAM West Virginia — House Bill 4001 — is, in my view, the single best proposal currently on the table to change the trajectory of West Virginia’s economy. Successful ventures don’t cut their way to prosperity; they grow their way there. The structure TEAM West Virginia would create could help do exactly that — removing much of the politics from the process and focusing solely on closing economic development deals. That should be the metric that matters and we should let experienced developers lead the way without interference.

The House gave up quite a bit in the budget negotiations with the Senate — items the governor also wanted. The Hope Scholarship is funded at five quarters using surplus dollars as opposed to general revenue and legislation that would add guardrails died. That’s a win. The House also appears willing to meet in the middle on a five-percent tax cut. That’s reasonable give-and-take and the governor can claim a clear win beyond the current trigger mechanism. He can legitimately claim to be a tax cutter in his own right.

My hope is that TEAM West Virginia becomes part of the final agreement, or already is, between the House, Senate, and the governor. Admittedly, that may not happen, but my hope reflects reality – the state needs this program.

If holding the five-percent tax cut bill in reserve helps move Governor Morrisey — some say he’s not the biggest fan — toward supporting TEAM West Virginia and a firm agreement to make it law, then so be it. A deal on the program’s merits would be preferable, but time is of the essence and how it gets done isn’t as important as ensuring it does.

Otherwise, West Virginia risks missing one of its best opportunities to grow the economy, keep our people here, and build long-term prosperity. Too big a gamble not to pull out all the stops to see the program become law.

The course of legislative events between now and Day 60 will prove the hypothesis right or wrong. Here’s hoping it’s right.

The post House Holds the Leverage as Budget Moves to Morrisey appeared first on WV MetroNews.

Raylee’s Law is less than a page long. It’s somewhat surprising that such a succinct bill has generated so much controversy.

House Bill 5669 — named after Raylee Browning — would prohibit a county school board from approving home instruction for a currently enrolled public-school student if there is a pending child abuse or neglect investigation involving the child’s custodial parent, guardian, or proposed instructor. But the restriction applies only when that investigation was initiated by school personnel under mandatory reporting laws.

Under the bill, the county superintendent must be notified when such a report is filed and confirm within 48 hours whether an investigation has been opened. If so, home instruction is paused during the investigation. If the complaint is not substantiated within seven calendar days — and no other eligibility issues exist — the student must be permitted to begin home instruction.

A similar bill in the Senate failed to clear committee and prompted a discharge motion from Sen. Joey Garcia on the floor Monday. That effort failed.

The proposal has become a flashpoint for a few homeschool advocates, who argue it represents government overreach and an attack on school choice.

But that claim weakens under scrutiny, particularly when considering what the bill does not do.

The legislation applies only when an investigation is triggered by school personnel under mandatory reporting requirements. Reports from any other source would not prevent a student from homeschooling.

Truancy is not a trigger in the bill.

And if parents have already notified school officials of their intent to withdraw their child for homeschooling, private, or parochial education, a subsequent report would not activate the restriction.

Additionally, the House version requires that any such report be substantiated within seven days. If it is not, the student must be allowed to begin home instruction or transfer schools.

Still, critics remain concerned.

“This bill has gross overreach on parental choice and the decisions that parents have on the direction of the education of their children,” said Roy Ramey of the West Virginia Home Educators Association during a House Education meeting Monday.

Ramey raised concerns about families seeking to escape bullying, curriculum disputes, or conflicts with school personnel. He argued the decision to homeschool is deliberate and thoughtful — not made “willy nilly.” He warned of the possibility that school personnel could file preemptive reports as a means to stop the transfer to homeschool if they suspect a family intends to withdraw a child.

Ramey noted he wasn’t casting accusations against school personnel but was instead pointing out potential downfalls of the law.

Another hypothetical raised in committee discussion: what if the reporting teacher is the one abusing the child and uses the report to prevent the student from leaving?

Sen. Amy Nichole Grady, a public-school teacher and supporter of the bill, said on Talkline Tuesday the bill would not apply if parents are removing a student due to suspected abuse by school personnel.

Mandatory reporters filing a false claim is a misdemeanor under West Virginia law

Ultimately, this debate comes down to balancing parental rights with child protection.

Homeschooling is a lawful and valuable educational option in West Virginia. Nothing in this bill eliminates that right. Instead, Raylee’s Law narrowly addresses a specific concern: preventing a parent or guardian who is under investigation for abuse from removing a child from public view during that investigation. A means to ensure any parent under legitimate suspicion may not slip into the night.

The bill is targeted, time-limited, and tied directly to existing mandatory reporting laws. It does not apply broadly but is instead surgical in application. And it includes a clear, short window for resolution.

Reasonable people can debate its merits. But it’s not a sweeping attack on homeschooling as some would have people believe. It’s a narrowly tailored child-protection measure that holds with common sense.

Confusing possibility with probability – the idea that a teacher might use the law for a nefarious purpose compared to the odds of that happening – is not reasonable justification to kill the bill, especially with the safeguard Grady noted.

Del. Shawn Fluharty, an architect of the legislation, says the bill will receive an up or down vote in the House. Good.

Senate leadership should ensure the same if the bill passes the House.  Lawmakers on both ends of the Capitol shouldn’t hesitate to pass it and Governor Morrisey should eagerly sign it.

To share your thoughts, visit the MetroNews facebook page.

The post Raylee’s Law Protects Kids appeared first on WV MetroNews.

Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is dead. Good. His killing marks the end of one of the most consequential and purely evil figures in modern Middle Eastern history — a man whose regime defined itself in opposition to the United States, Israel, and the Western world.

For decades, Khamenei presided over a government openly hostile to American interests. The historical record reflects that hostility clearly.

The confrontation between Iran and the United States began almost immediately after the 1979 Iranian Revolution, when revolutionary students seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and held 66 Americans hostage for 444 days — a crisis that severed diplomatic relations and reshaped U.S.–Iran relations for generations.

Violence soon expanded beyond Iran’s borders. In 1983, a suicide bombing destroyed the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, killing 63 people, including 17 Americans. Six months later, a truck bomb leveled the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, killing 241 American service members.

Hezbollah, widely assessed by U.S. intelligence officials to have been organized, trained, and supported by Iran, was blamed for those attacks. The pattern continued through the 1980s with additional embassy bombings, kidnappings, and assassinations carried out by Iranian-backed militants across Lebanon and the region.

In later decades, the conflict shifted to proxy battlefields in Iraq and Syria. During the Iraq War, U.S. officials accused Iran of supplying explosively formed penetrators to Shiite militias — weapons linked to the deaths of hundreds of American troops.

Tensions again escalated in 2019 when a rocket attack on Iraq’s K-1 Air Base killed a U.S. civilian contractor. Washington blamed Kata’ib Hezbollah, an Iran-backed militia. Days later, militia supporters stormed the U.S. Embassy compound in Baghdad, leading to the U.S. strike that killed IRGC commander Qassem Soleimani. Iran responded directly in January 2020, launching ballistic missiles at U.S. bases in Iraq and injuring more than 100 American service members — a rare instance of overt state-to-state military confrontation.

The proxy conflict intensified again following the October 7, 2023 Hamas attacks on Israel. Iran-aligned militias carried out repeated rocket and drone strikes against U.S. forces across Iraq and Syria. The deadliest came in January 2024, when a drone attack on the U.S. outpost known as Tower 22 in Jordan killed three American service members and wounded dozens more.

Beyond the battlefield, U.S. authorities have repeatedly disrupted alleged Iranian-linked plots abroad and even on American soil, including a 2011 plot targeting the Saudi ambassador in Washington and later alleged assassination schemes against former U.S. officials.

Across four decades, the strategy attributed to Tehran remained consistent: avoid full conventional war with the United States while projecting power through proxy organizations — Hezbollah in Lebanon, militia groups in Iraq, the Houthis in Yemen, and aligned forces operating throughout the region.

That history raises an unavoidable question: how long is too long? Surely, Khamenei and his circle had it coming.

President Donald Trump is a polarizing figure. Opinions about him are firmly set. Much of the heat he receives is well earned and justifiably raised. He’s often narcissistic, crude, and short on the truth among other flaws.

But it’s worth asking whether public reaction would differ if the same action had been taken by a president viewed as more traditionally presidential. A president viewed as a good guy and not a heel. The policy itself — not merely the personality behind it — deserves examination.

What comes next matters most.

The death of a leader does not automatically bring peace. But it better ensures a non-nuclear Iran, an opportunity for the Iranian people to determine their own future, and perhaps a path toward greater regional stability.

Americans will debate the wisdom of this moment — they should. Debate is healthy in a democracy and all viewpoints deserve consideration. Someone who raises concerns over U.S. action in Iran — or outright opposes it — should not be villainized or labeled unpatriotic. Their voice is protected by the same rights protecting those of supporters and wholly required in a democracy. What good is debate if everyone always agrees?

But amid disagreement, one principle should remain constant: support for the men and women in uniform carrying out national policy, and prayers for both our troops and the leaders charged with decisions that carry enormous consequence.

Many West Virginians will need the love and support of neighbors moving forward as they deal with the knowledge that family and friends serving in the region are close to harm. May they find peace in this time and may their loved ones remain safe and protected as they serve our country.

To share your thoughts, visit the MetroNews facebook page.

The post Long History with Iran Adds Context to War Decision appeared first on WV MetroNews.

Friday commentaries lately have taken the form of a legislative download from the week. So, here goes.

Governor Patrick Morrisey teased a major economic development announcement on social media just days ago. Thursday, he delivered: a $4 billion intelligence center — what most people simply call a data center — headed to Berkeley County. It’s welcome news and a significant investment in the state. Brad McElhinny has the full story.

This one belongs to the governor. The win is clearly his — a project secured entirely during his administration, without credit carried over from prior leadership. Local economic developers and lawmakers certainly played important roles, and the governor acknowledged that appropriately. But after criticism that the administration had yet to land a marquee project, this announcement helps change that narrative.

Success, however, carries its own burden. One win creates expectations for many more. It will take more wins to silence critics, along with tax dollars actually hitting the bank.

Not long after the announcement, Delegate Daniel Linville of Cabell County was outside the Capitol running those tax numbers. Using an Excel calculator he built around last year’s passed funding formula, Linville estimated roughly $54 million annually in new tax revenue flowing to state coffers.

Berkeley County would retain 30 percent — just over $16 million. Roughly $27 million would flow to the Personal Income Tax Reduction Fund. A little more than $2.7 million each would go to the Water Development Fund and the Electric Grid Stabilization Fund. The remaining $5.4 million would be distributed statewide under existing formulas.

That means counties benefiting even without hosting the project. According to Linville’s calculations, Cabell County would see just over $300,000 annually. Mercer County nearly $194,000. McDowell County about $62,000. He ran each county.

Not a bad payday, especially when another county handled the heavy lift.

Which raises a fair question: why oppose projects like this instead of hoping one lands in your own backyard? Especially odd considering much criticism comes from those living in counties that could desperately use the revenue

Meanwhile, TEAM West Virginia, the JobsOhio-style economic development initiative long discussed at the Capitol, remains unfinished business.

The concept originated in the House. An early agreement anticipated the Senate introducing the bill and taking the lead. That never happened for reasons passing understanding.

TEAM West Virginia is about as close to a no-brainer as policy proposals get. House leadership has now taken control of the effort, fast-tracking House Bill 4001 to establish the program.

The likely reality is this: if a Senate version failed to advance earlier, support inside that chamber may still be uncertain. Advocates quietly acknowledge the uphill path ahead and some worry the Governor’s Office has not fully embraced the concept either.

It would be a mistake to conclude Thursday’s data-center announcement proves TEAM West Virginia unnecessary. The opposite is true. Programs like this exist to make successes happen faster and more often — shortening timelines and improving the state’s competitiveness for future investment.

As Delegate Matthew Rohrbach noted on Talkline, 49 other states aggressively compete for economic development opportunities. West Virginia must do the same.

Failure to pass TEAM West Virginia would represent one of the largest missed opportunities of this legislative session — perhaps several sessions. There’s still time to avoid that outcome.

The Hope Scholarship deal appears to be a good one. The issue isn’t finished — it will almost certainly return next year — but allowing time for enrollment data and calmer discussion between now and then is a sensible path forward.

The House budget pulls LEDA (Legislative Economic Development Assistance) dollars out of the governor’s span of control, instead placing those dollars within the State Treasurer’s office. No surprise after the dust up earlier this year. Legislators don’t believe the governor should have a say in scrutinizing their grant allocations, especially given the legislative approval process. Placing the dollars elsewhere is the legislature removing his opinion from the process indefinitely and a message on their refusal to surrender prerogative when it comes to the purse strings.

And finally, a lighter moment.

First Lady Denise Morrisey stopped by the AARP broadcast location Thursday just after we wrapped the show. Having never met her before, it was nice to visit. She spoke proudly about her granddaughter — as any grandparent would — and graciously endured a few stories about my kids.

Plainly, the governor married up. Many of us, including me, can say the same; the governor will forgive stating the obvious as he surely would agree.

The First Lady mentioned speculation that House Finance Chairman Vernon Criss may have been unhappy about she and the governor attending a recent House Finance committee meeting involving Hope Scholarship discussions.

Her point was straightforward: the meetings are public and held in a public building. That’s true.

The tension, real or perceived, likely comes down to tradition. Governors rarely attend legislative committee meetings unless invited — and first ladies almost never do. Mrs. Morrisey has attended several. That is certainly her prerogative.

Some lawmakers view uninvited attendance as similar to a friend dropping by without notice. Others see no issue at all.

It’s understandable that some may also feel the practice is a bit heavy handed resembling a pressure tactic.

I’m told Chairman Criss did not mind either the governor or first lady being present. That seems about right. Criss has been around a while and has a thick skin. It would take much more to concern him.

Enjoy the weekend!

The post A Data Center Deal, Moving TEAM WV, Pushing the Governor Out of LEDA & More appeared first on WV MetroNews.

Sources close to the process say a deal has been reached on the House Finance–originated bill that would place various levels of restrictions on the Hope Scholarship beginning in fiscal year 2027. Thursday’s happenings should confirm whether that understanding holds.

As the agreement currently stands, there would be no substantive changes to the Hope Scholarship for the upcoming program year. The only adjustment would be a cash-flow management change, shifting payments from two distributions per year to four quarterly installments.

NEWS from Dave Wilson: Future of bill making changes to Hope Scholarship remains uncertain

A good deal is one where every party gains something and leaves something behind. By that definition, this appears to be a good deal.

Hope Scholars and their families would not have to navigate new eligibility rules or restrictions, or lose any amount of funding already promised for the coming year from a proposed cap. Even small rule changes this close to a program year create uncertainty, and avoiding that disruption is beneficial. Quarterly payments may be less convenient for some families, but they should not create material hardship.

Legislators concerned about rising enrollment — more so the financial obligations that follow — have raised legitimate fiscal questions. Those concerns are now formally on the record. With another full year of participation data ahead, lawmakers will have clearer enrollment projections before revisiting the issue. One consistent refrain during debate has been: wait until we have better numbers. This agreement does exactly that, preserving the ability to reconsider the program’s fiscal impact next year.

The originating bill also appears to have served another purpose: leverage in the broader budget negotiations quietly underway between House and Senate leadership. By introducing potential Hope changes, the House created political space for Senate members to prioritize protecting the scholarship program over supporting the governor’s proposed tax cut.

NEWS from Brad McElhinny: The House bakes its version of the budget bill and adds some spice

Fiscal conservatives skeptical of the governor’s budget — particularly the proposed 10 percent personal income tax reduction — secured something significant in return. Medicaid and most Hope Scholarship spending are now positioned within general revenue funding, relying on tax dollars reasonably expected to materialize rather than surplus dollars that may or may not appear. That aligns with the fiscal best practice of funding ongoing obligations with general revenue dollars. Combined with leaving some general revenue unallocated for contingency, this approach reflects a more cautious fiscal posture. Spending every dollar allocated – general or surplus – without a cushion is NOT fiscally responsible.

Fiscal policy aside, however, the manner in which the budget process is unfolding raises concerns.

During Wednesday’s budget presentation from the floor, House Finance Chairman Vernon Criss noted that while Governor Patrick Morrisey appeared in his committee – unusual for a governor – during Hope Scholarship discussions, the governor has not met directly with him or Vice Chairman Clay Riley regarding the budget itself.

It’s no secret that Criss and Morrisey have a strained relationship. Personal chemistry is not required for governing, but communication is. The absence of direct outreach to key House Finance leaders has puzzled lawmakers and reinforces concerns about the governor’s ability to build the legislative relationships necessary to advance his agenda.

As one legislator privately observed this week: “If I were governor, I’d be up here every day working with legislators to get buy-in. He doesn’t do that.”

Nothing is final until a budget bill is passed and signed.

The expectation inside the Capitol is that the Legislature will ultimately pass a budget, however, early enough in the session to allow time for overrides of any line-item vetoes the governor may issue.

It remains to be seen how the politics of the budget process will or will not affect the upcoming Republican primary campaigns… betting it will is not unsound.

The post Legislators Appear to Have a Deal on Hope Scholarship appeared first on WV MetroNews.

Did you watch 60 Minutes Sunday night?

The segment, titled “Left Behind,” profiled McDowell County and the continued struggles of its people.

McDowell Countians likely appreciate the attention. But the story has been told before — many times — and little has changed. There is little reason to believe this report alone will alter the county’s trajectory.

Residents correctly note their situation has worsened over time. Political control has shifted between parties in Washington and Charleston, yet outcomes remain largely the same. That reality points to a hard truth.

McDowell’s problems are not primarily political. They are economic, geographic, and topographic — and problems like these are rarely solved through politics alone.

Government funding matters, and public investment will always play a role. But the more difficult ingredient may be sacrifice — difficult decisions made by the community itself about what the county’s future should look like.

Consider the numbers.

McDowell County generated just under $533 million in GDP in 2023, an improvement from prior years. Yet poverty rates have reached as high as 37 percent, more than three times the national average. About 17,000 people live in the county today, down from roughly 19,000 at the last census.

Unemployment has improved — 9.6 percent as of last December, compared with more than 16 percent in July 2020, according to Federal Reserve data. Still, it’s difficult to determine how much of that decline reflects job growth versus population loss or workers leaving the labor force altogether.

The county covers approximately 535 square miles, almost entirely mountainous terrain. More than 21 percent of residents are over age 65.

Those statistics reveal deeper structural challenges:

• GDP per square mile sits just under $1 million. That sounds substantial until compared nationally, where averages range from $5–6 million, with West Virginia itself around $1.6 – 2 million.
• Population density stands near 35 people per square mile. The U.S. average is about 94, West Virginia roughly 75, and Kanawha County nearly 280. A huge delta.

These figures illustrate McDowell County’s central dilemma: building and maintaining modern infrastructure across rugged terrain, vast distances, and a limited economic base.

If McDowell County is to survive long-term, the community faces an uncomfortable question — whether its future requires consolidation into denser population centers? A question other West Virginia counties may soon face too.

Popular? Certainly not.
Necessary? Absolutely, minus a miracle.

Ten towns remain scattered across the landscape. Water systems originally built with coal-era revenues are aging, while the tax base that supported them has diminished. Constructing entirely new systems across the county may be unrealistic, while investment in a centralized hub — such as Welch — could prove more sustainable.

The same question applies to electric infrastructure. Miles of distribution lines serve a shrinking population. Would service costs fall if residents lived closer together? Yes. Would modernization become more feasible if infrastructure demands were concentrated rather than dispersed? Yes.

A larger, more centralized population could also create palatable conditions for entrepreneurship and private investment that remain challenged today.

Plainly put, the McDowell County of the past cannot simply be restored. It must be reinvented.

What that reinvention looks like should be decided by the community itself — if it is willing to have that conversation. Without it, meaningful change is unlikely.

Relocation from outlying areas toward a central community like Welch would be difficult. It would carry emotional, cultural, and generational consequences and sacrifice.

But if consolidation represents the only viable path forward, the harder question becomes unavoidable: Is a painful transition preferable to continued decline or ceasing to exist altogether?

That’s up to residents. But if they are willing to try, that collaboration, that willingness opens the door to funding conversations that could lead to meaningful change and survival.

The post 60 Minutes Prompts Larger, More Meaningful Questions appeared first on WV MetroNews.

As much as numbers are to be loved — tools of logic that cut through emotion — the state budget is ultimately about politics. Those politics are now fully visible after House Finance released its committee substitute.

Veteran newsman Brad McElhinny has the full story.

There are several things to like about the House’s budget.

• First, it aligns with sound financial planning. Good budgeters don’t bet on the come when paying for obligations they know exist. Medicaid must be funded. Hope Scholarship commitments must be funded. Both are requirements under West Virginia law. Covering those expenses with general revenue — money reasonably certain to materialize — is more responsible than relying on surplus dollars that may or may not appear. History – surpluses ran in the past – is no guarantee of future success.
• Second, House Finance left roughly $30 million in general revenue unallocated for fiscal year 2027. The Governor’s proposal and the Senate version both spent every available dollar. The House chose a different approach: plan for uncertainty. Emergencies happen. Revenues fluctuate. Leaving a contingency provides stability when the unexpected occurs. Yes, West Virginia maintains more than $1 billion in rainy day funds. But those dollars are meant for true “break-the-glass” moments. Using them for routine pressures creates future obligations to replenish reserves and invites scrutiny from credit markets, potentially increasing borrowing costs for state projects.

None of that, however, is the real political story.

A mentor once framed opinions this way: take what I’m about to say, add a few bucks, and you might be able to buy a cup of coffee.

So be it here, too.

This budget exercise represents the House — and its leadership — pushing back on Governor Morrisey.

The evidence is ample: the House budget includes zero funding for the governor’s requested income tax cut. No ten percent. No five percent. Nothing. That’s not just fiscal prudence, it’s messaging.

Governor Morrisey faces an uncomfortable distinction, as one lawmaker put it privately: he’s the only one in the Capitol to have never cut taxes. Governors before him — primarily Jim Justice — did so heavily. Joining that club carries obvious political value.

The challenge for Morrisey is arithmetic and economic growth.

West Virginia can’t spend every penny it has without contingency — a Dave Ramsey-like emergency fund to cover routine expenses. The governor’s budget and the Senate’s budget don’t provide for such, and that’s fiscally concerning.

If economic growth were occurring, the existing trigger mechanism would automatically result in further income tax reductions. That hasn’t happened either, leading one to believe the economy isn’t growing fast enough to go beyond the originally conceived trigger structure.

West Virginia has already reduced revenue substantially through prior tax cuts. Funding another personal income tax reduction now requires either significant spending cuts — politically difficult or beyond just cost control — or replacing lost revenue with another tax. That’s hardly a compelling way to brand oneself a tax cutter and even a tax on vape products only yields $22 million of the $250 million required.

All of this unfolds while many West Virginians still drive on substandard roads, special education funding remains strained, and child welfare reforms require additional investment. The list is long.

Frankly, while an additional income tax cut might personally benefit some more than others, many residents would likely choose smoother roads, stronger schools, or better services over the relatively modest return they would see from another reduction. Remember, it’s 5 to 10 percent of the current bracket percentage – 4.82 percent in the top bracket currently compared to 4.34 percent as proposed in the Senate committee substitute – not an overall cut on effective rates.

Enter the Hope Scholarship and the effort to place guardrails around it.

Yes, reviewing allowable expenses is worthwhile. Continuous evaluation of public programs should always occur.

But policy review may not be the only motivation.

Operating again under the coffee metaphor — and political reality — Governor Morrisey appears to have stronger allies in the Senate than in the House.

“He’s got juice in the Senate, but not in the House,” as one lawmaker told me this week.

Fiscal conservatives in the Senate understand that dynamic, which helps explain why House members may be doing the heavier lifting early.

If the final negotiated budget resembles the House version — and that seems likely — passage will still require votes from senators aligned with the governor. Those votes may not come easily.

That’s where Hope Scholarship legislation could become leverage.

Revising the program creates negotiating pressure. It offers the House a bargaining chip: support the House’s more fiscally cautious budget, and the scholarship program remains largely untouched.

NEWS from Brad McElhinny: Legislation to refine the Hope Scholarship roils the Capitol

Meanwhile, the governor retains political tools of his own. A recent press release highlighting balances in Morrisey-aligned political action committees appeared less informational and more strategic — a reminder that campaign resources can be deployed for or against legislators who stand in support or opposition, respectively.

Many senators face credible primary threats, often from challengers with personal wealth or strong fundraising networks.

Do the math, and the dynamic becomes probable: senators must weigh loyalty to the governor against downside political risk of going against his budget desires, while the House uses potential Hope Scholarship changes to secure the budget framework it prefers — one that also denies the governor a signature tax-cut victory.

Architects of the strategy probably feel more senators “in the jackpot,” as one umpire famously said, are more likely to go with a no tax cut budget to protect Hope from restrictions, than would go against that budget and risk restrictions, thus abandoning loyalty to the governor.

All of this while insiders say they can move a budget out of the legislature early enough to block any gubernatorial line-item veto while still in regular session.

Governor Morrisey weighed in late Thursday afternoon via X.

“Tax cuts and school choice used to be page one of the Republican platform— guess House Finance Chair Vernon Criss hasn’t gotten that far,” Morrisey posted.

Reactions varied.

Would this analysis buy a cup of coffee on its own, or do I still need a few dollars to go with it?

The post Hope and Budget in the Game of Politics appeared first on WV MetroNews.

The state budget is the talk of the Capitol.

Each chamber alternates taking the lead on the budget, and this is the Senate’s year. The version passed out of Senate Finance on Monday makes several high-level moves.

Governor Morrisey identified roughly $125 million in offsets in his proposed budget — enough to cover a 5 percent personal income tax reduction. He left it to the Legislature to find the remaining 5 percent. With an election approaching, many lawmakers feel that left them in a tough spot: the appeal of an additional tax cut compared to the state’s ability to afford it.

Senate Finance proposed a tax on vape products expected to raise about $22 million, leaving $103 million in additional offsets it identified to close the gap. An offset is a budget tradeoff… choosing to cut or not fund some spending, or raise other revenue, to pay for a tax cut or new spending while keeping the budget balanced.

This document (Budget Presentation FY2027 with Surplus explanation) and the Senate’s budget bill outline broadly where those maneuvers occur.

Another major change involves Medicaid. The Senate moved Medicaid funding to the front of the budget, meaning it would be funded with general revenue. The Governor’s version contemplated using surplus dollars — revenue collected above official estimates. Surpluses may or may not come to fruition based on actual collections as remitted to the state. Granted, West Virginia has ran surplus after surplus in recent years, some say because of artificially lowered revenue estimates as set by the governor.

Medicaid is best presented in the front of the budget, a good move on the Senate’s part.

The Hope Scholarship is another major edit, at least in how it is funded. Hope was moved to the back of the budget to be funded with surplus dollars. The Senate reduced the Governor’s request by $38 million based on revised utilization rates presented by State Treasurer Larry Pack. Should a staple like Hope be in the back of the budget as opposed to the front? That’s debatable depending on your financial philosophy and bents around cashflow management.

Whether funded from one bucket or another — general revenue or surplus — both programs must ultimately be paid for.

Medicaid is non-negotiable because underfunding risks losing federal match dollars. That’s a non-starter.

Hope participants likewise expect their scholarship dollars, and state code establishes eligibility requirements creating a clear obligation for the state – at least for now minus any changes. And if changes are made, they likely won’t be well received. Who wants to give up a benefit they are currently realizing? Nobody.

Here’s what really sticks out. Practically speaking, both the Senate’s version and the Governor’s version of the budget would spend nearly every dollar the state could reasonably expect to collect – general revenue or surplus. That leaves little to no cushion and limited if any contingency planning.

Anyone who manages a budget is getting nervous right about now.

Traditionally, back-of-the-budget items are treated as “nice to haves” if finances allow. Not all surplus dollars are typically allocated in advance, preserving flexibility for unforeseen needs — items like emergency support for Hancock County Schools when it could not meet payroll due to financial mismanagement. Senate Finance advanced an $8 million measure Tuesday for that purpose, funded from unallocated surplus dollars.

What happens if another school system finds itself in need in fiscal ’27 when monies aren’t there for supplemental funding bills?

Timing also matters. Passing a budget from Committee this early from the lead chamber — on day 34 — allows the House to potentially move quickly. If both chambers agree on a budget and pass it before adjournment, lawmakers retain leverage to override any line-item vetoes from the governor. That becomes much harder once the session ends.

Politically, Governor Morrisey has more allies in the Senate than in the House. House Finance Chairman Vernon Criss is known for fiscal prudence and is not considered a Morrisey ally. Some fiscally conservative senators may be quietly counting on Criss to take a harder line on spending — or on the size of any tax cut.

That turns focus to Thursday when Criss’ plans to, at a minimum, address the budget in House Finance. That should provide a clearer signal on whether a personal income tax cut has a realistic path forward and to what degree the House may take the metaphorical sledgehammer to the Senate’s budget.

West Virginia faces real needs. Roads, special education funding, and child welfare among others — none of which currently see comprehensive game-changing increases in this proposal. Lawmakers must weigh whether residents prefer improved services now – with potential personal income tax cuts later through the already-enacted trigger mechanism – over an additional 10 percent cut today.

That’s the decision – the reckoning among their own ranks – lawmakers face.

The post Breaking Down the Budget appeared first on WV MetroNews.

Debate is enjoyable. It advances issues, brings new ideas to light, and serves as a civic good. But — there’s always a “but” — when debate shifts from those virtues to arguments rooted in anger, when it becomes more about defeating someone than seeking a good outcome, it turns from good to bad.

Visiting a church Sunday morning to attend a baptism, the pastor delivered a metaphorical frying pan to the side of the head — and it was past due. Upfront, you needn’t be religious or spiritual to see the virtue in this text.

The key verse was James 1:19: “Understand this, my beloved brothers and sisters. Let everyone be quick to hear, slow to speak, and slow to anger.” In other words, be a careful listener, a thoughtful speaker, and a patient, forgiving person.

That prompted a moment of reflection that led to an “ouch” moment.

Day in and day out on Talkline and social media, debate over one question or another unfolds. Opinions — grounded in fact, at least conceptually — are readily offered. But too often, those responses come with the aim of proving someone wrong, of winning the argument. Too often they come without fully contemplating another’s words, and that can lead to anger.

It may be disguised in professional language and a thin attempt at civility, but it’s still anger. And even if others don’t see it, it’s there.

For avoidance of doubt, I’m talking squarely about me. My failure. My pride. My inability to be better.

Yes, it’s human instinct, but that shouldn’t be an excuse when better is possible.

Listening Sunday, internal monologue wrestled with that reality. Wouldn’t it be better if civil discourse remained civil, not a contest of right versus wrong? What if listening came first, with compassion for differing viewpoints? That might strengthen relationships and raise the level of care we show one another.

A bit of shame settled in at this point. A necessary reckoning that helps push past ego toward something better.

This struggle is likely not unique to my experience. Imagine what could be accomplished if the teachings of James guided our political discourse. The potential for betterment could be limitless.

So, as the issues of the day are discussed, feel free to hold this standard close. Offer reminders to listen first, speak carefully, and avoid anger — wrongfully aimed passion — when advocating any position. Call me out!

Winning a point isn’t worth losing sight of our shared humanity or the care we should have for one another.

If this is a familiar struggle, consider joining in the effort to do better. There’s room for everyone, and progress comes faster together.

Advocate strongly. Be steadfast in your beliefs. Defend them fiercely. Conviction is valuable. But carry the lessons of James along the way.

Be well.

The post Wakeup Call: Civic Discourse Shouldn’t be Fueled in Anger appeared first on WV MetroNews.

Let’s go rapid-fire on Capitol happenings from this week…

My Talkline tenure is only a little more than a year old, but politics has long been a pastime. From early fascination with West Virginia politics to a prior professional life tracking more than a dozen statehouses across the country — plus D.C. — a surprising, even startling, thing or two has come along the way.

Experience established, rarely has there been a more direct or caustic attack on the business community at the state level – at least from a chamber floor – than what House Majority Leader Pat McGeehan delivered this week.

“Perhaps they (the West Virginia Chamber and other business associations) oppose it (E-Verify) because a lot of the associations you just named love to make money at the expense of our people through illegal labor,” McGeehan said.

That’s a broad brush applied without evidence. Any business evaluating West Virginia could hardly be blamed for pausing after rhetoric like that. Politically speaking, Democrat challenger Quincy Wilson may have just received the best soundbite imaginable for a general election matchup.

Governor Morrisey continues pressing for a 10 percent personal income tax reduction this session. Whether it happens seems a matter of perspective.

Senate Majority Whip Ben Queen noted on Talkline that the Senate is working to find a path to 10 percent. House Speaker Roger Hanshaw, also on Talkline and in a press conference, pointed out the House was only presented a five-percent plan from the executive — suggesting the governor must first put a detailed 10-percent proposal on the table.

Prediction: 10 percent likely clears the Senate but runs into resistance in the House. Politically, that could leave the House absorbing criticism in an election cycle, though the chamber has increasingly styled itself these days as the home of fiscal caution under the dome. There’s value in that role. There’s also some political upside in opposing the governor here if properly messaged.

Several seasoned Capitol observers believe, however, the cut ultimately reaches the finish line. In an election year, few want to campaign against a tax reduction. Time will test that assumption.

On the school aid formula and special education funding, both chambers are exploring options, but the session clock is ticking and consensus remains elusive.

One lawmaker says it requires a special session. Another says a special session won’t work because of budget implications. The issue is multifaceted, and complexity slows movement.

Someone will need to quarterback the effort to move it. Senate Education Chair Amy Nichole Grady said on Talkline that she’s ready for that job and has asked the governor to make it so.

Realistically, increased special education funding — even if it falls short of the full need — may be the most achievable outcome this session. At best, it buys time and will help somewhat in filling what many see as the largest gap.

Kudos to Secretary of State Kris Warner on his decision to not release West Virginia voter information to the Department of Justice (DOJ) as requested and re-requested. West Virginia law is clear on the matter and Warner chose the rule of law over political pressure to acquiesce – no doubt extraordinary pressure at that.

Beyond Warner’s good example is the poor example DOJ chose to place front and center. If any agency should value the rule of law above all else, it most certainly should be the Department of Justice. Yet the department not once, but twice asked Warner to violate the law. Why? Surely, they can read and understand West Virginia law as clearly as Warner did. That question deserves an answer and action to ensure such an ask – an illegal one – doesn’t happen again.

The post Halfway Home at the Legislature appeared first on WV MetroNews.

Republicans were once known as a party supportive of business, especially small businesses. Judging from those pushing new mandates on private employers to use the E-Verify system, the evidence — at least as it pertains to some in the House — points in a different direction.

House Bill 4198, sponsored by Del. Elias Coop-Gonzalez, places several new requirements on private businesses.

First, it requires every covered employer to enroll in E-Verify and maintain an active employer account. Participation isn’t optional. If you are an employer under this article, you must be in the system.

Next, when someone is hired, the employer may put that person to work, but only provisionally. The new hire works conditionally while their eligibility is checked. The employer must still complete the verification even if the employee leaves or is terminated within the first three business days. A short stint on the job does not remove the obligation.

If E-Verify cannot confirm that a worker is authorized to work in the United States, the employer may not hire, continue to employ, or rehire that individual. Continued employment would violate the rule.

Finally, the bill imposes a record-keeping duty. Verification records must be kept for the duration of employment or at least three years — whichever is longer. The intent is to ensure a paper trail for audits or compliance reviews.

Taken together, the provision makes E-Verify a routine and documented part of hiring: enroll, verify every hire, act on the results, and retain the records.

Federal law already requires employers to complete I-9 forms and, in some cases, to use E-Verify. Noncompliance carries penalties, including fines. There is already a mechanism to ensure illegals can’t work here.

HB 4198 would have layered on additional state penalties that run into the thousands, although many of those were stripped out after delegates learned leveraging fines for enforcement was not in the state’s purview legally.

On third reading with right to amend Tuesday, the bill as amended was passed after lengthy debate.

If lawmakers wanted to signal that the state is unfriendly to business, this approach risks doing just that. Should companies employ individuals who are not legally authorized to work? Of course not. But the federal government already has a compliance framework in place that businesses are following.

In remarks to Del. David McCormick, House Majority Leader Pat McGeehan suggested the West Virginia Chamber of Commerce and other business associations like it oppose the mandate because they benefit from employing illegal labor.

“Perhaps they oppose it because a lot of the associations you just named love to make money at the expense of our people through illegal labor,” McGeehan said.

McCormick rejected that claim outright — and rightly so, it was a cheap shot.

Businesses in this state meet market needs here, pay taxes here, and employ West Virginians — many of them constituents of the very lawmakers advancing these proposals. Casting broad accusations at the business community serves little purpose.

Members of the West Virginia Chamber of Commerce and the entire business community would be justified in asking for an apology for having their standards unjustly questioned so publicly. McGeehan, who will face former WVU football great Quincy Wilson in November, knows better. Perhaps Wilson is more pro-business? Voters can make that decision.

More broadly, the state inserting itself deeper into this process looks less like sound policy and more like political messaging on a controversial national issue. Many of the delegates supporting this bill have never made a payroll or run a business. That lack of experience can show when mandates are crafted without regard to operational realities or an understanding of the rigors of business.

Government already shifted its burden of eligibility verification onto businesses through the I-9 federal system. Fine. But why add another layer in West Virginia?

The post E-Verify Bill is Blatantly Anti-Business appeared first on WV MetroNews.

Dave Allen asked me to hang out for a bit last Friday on MetroNews Midday. Radio with Mr. Allen is always fun, so the invitation was my pleasure.

Coincidentally, that same time slot aligned with floor remarks in the Senate from Ohio County’s Laura Wakim Chapman. She shared her thoughts on Senate Joint Resolution 19 — a proposal that would require a governor to be born in West Virginia as a condition of eligibility.

Keep in mind, Senator Rupie Phillips, the sponsor of the resolution — now co-sponsored by Greenbrier County Senator Vince Deeds — said a day earlier on Talkline that he intends to modify it. His preferred change would drop the birth requirement and instead increase the current five-year residency requirement to 30 years.

Chapman either wasn’t aware of Phillips’ updated position or chose to focus on the original language. She made clear she’s not a fan of the idea, defending Governor Patrick Morrisey’s record while expressing disappointment in the resolution.

Phillips later rose to clarify his intent to amend the proposal.

Good idea or bad, the resolution has people talking.

Phillips later remarked on Midday that if his aim were to target Morrisey specifically, he would have pursued a recall mechanism rather than a residency change.

That raised a broader question: would today’s strained relationship — the lack of trust and lack of smooth coordination between the executive and legislative branches — exist if Morrisey had won a majority in the Republican gubernatorial primary? Probably not.

More Republicans voted for someone other than Morrisey than did Republicans who voted for him — 150,741 votes for other candidates compared to 75,148 for Morrisey. With no runoff, a 33 percent plurality secured the nomination.

Yes, Morrisey went on to win the general election with nearly 62 percent of the vote. But that doesn’t necessarily mean Republicans who opposed him in the primary embraced him later as much as they opposed the Democratic alternative. Factionalism was almost inevitable, and here we are.

Add to that the decision to close Republican primaries to independents — a move that can make plurality wins more likely — and the state’s preemptive ban on ranked-choice voting.

Meanwhile, Governor Morrisey has not hesitated to weigh in on primary contests rather than staying neutral to unify the party afterward. That’s within his rights, but it isn’t without political consequences.

Then there’s the frustration among some lawmakers over what they see as sleight-of-hand budgeting — asking for a 10 percent personal income tax cut while budgeting for only five, despite an existing trigger system already in law. Candidly, when Mr. Wilson and I spoke to Grover Norquist, the takeaway was: stay the course. It seemed more like Norquist was supportive of the current trigger mechanism than altering it.

Viewed in totality, it’s not surprising some legislators are receptive to Phillips’ resolution. They’re fed up.

But the deeper issue isn’t today’s tensions, it’s the longer-term questions SJR19 has surfaced.

For example: should West Virginia adopt primary runoffs to avoid plurality nominees? Are party primaries even necessary if conventions could select nominees? Wouldn’t that be a more equitable use of tax dollars, especially since independent voters are banned from the primary?

One social media follower raised an intriguing idea that rises to the top: the jungle primary.

A jungle primary, formally a nonpartisan blanket primary, places every candidate — Republican, Democrat, Independent — on the same ballot. Voters choose among all candidates at once.

If someone wins more than 50 percent, the race is over. If not, the top two finishers advance to a runoff, even if they’re from the same party.

The goal is to let voters, not parties, narrow the field and to push candidates to appeal to a broad electorate from day one.

Instead of the traditional primary-then-general sequence, a jungle primary starts with one large contest and only holds a second round if needed. More efficient and a more equitable use of tax dollars.

And don’t tell me this kind of election is unfair to Republicans – Louisiana used it since 1975 and it was used when Republicans began to take back the state in the early 90’s including winning the governor’s mansion various times in the last 45 years. It’s sad they are scrapping it now, but that’s more about control than anything else… same thinking that banned a rank choice system here.

West Virginia may be far from adopting such a system. But in a state with one dominant party and growing internal factions producing plurality primary winners, it may be time to at least examine alternatives including a simple runoff in party primaries.

Even if Phillips’ resolution dies in a Senate committee — some say the House would eagerly move it if given the chance — it has already sparked meaningful discussion. And there’s nothing wrong with that.

The post Rupie’s Resolution Sparks Deeper Question appeared first on WV MetroNews.

Friday commentaries — even when posted on Thursday night for the early crowd — sometimes offer a chance to opine on multiple issues at a time. That’s especially true during the legislative session. A fan of presenting things in threes, here you go…

Senate Bill 680

Much discussion has centered on whether the state can afford another five-percent personal income tax cut. Governor Morrisey has publicly pushed for a 10-percent cut while only budgeting for five.

Senators Rose, Chapman and Rucker want to go further, faster. Senate Bill 680 would fully eliminate the personal income tax and the corporate net income tax.

This is where principle meets fiscal reality. Philosophically, taxing labor strikes as punitive — a taking right off the top that may disincentivize work. But in fiscal 2025, the personal income tax generated roughly $2.13 billion for West Virginia. That out of a little more than $5 billion in general revenue.

Businesses appear to pay a lot in taxes on paper, but in practice those taxes become costs passed on to consumers. A tax on business is a tax on the consumer. Every business model ultimately looks at post-tax return in making capital deployment decisions. The corporate net income tax brought in about $376 million in fiscal 2025.

The issue with SB 680 is that it repeals taxes without replacing the revenue. Perhaps unpopular to say, but some level of taxation is necessary. The most likely alternatives would be consumption or luxury taxes. Both more easily controlled by taxpayers and both more broadly assessed.

Pulling $2.5 billion in revenue without a well-articulated, systematic plan to cut $2.5 billion in services — or replace it — is financially imprudent. It’s just more of the latest strain of populist politics built on bold promises and thin plans, all setting up the familiar campaign refrain: “I tried, they stopped me… send me back and we’ll try again.”

If a comprehensive plan emerges to fully eliminate these taxes responsibly, count me among those ready for the debate.

TEAM WV / JobsOhio Model

Marshall University visited the Capitol this week. Brad Smith, as always, made time for a Talkline interview. His leadership at Intuit is well documented. Less known outside business circles is his work with Eric Ries and The Lean Startup — a framework that reshaped Intuit and many other companies. It’s worth the read and provides insight into his business journey.

Smith’s record — he likes to call himself Brad from Kenova – commands respect. When asked about a JobsOhio-style model for West Virginia, his enthusiasm was clear. He’s supportive and working with Charleston to bring it to fruition.

So here’s the question: when you have a former Fortune 300 CEO, a board member at Amazon and JPMorgan, and a fully vested West Virginian pointing you in the right direction… why aren’t we heeding advice more closely?

At Day 23 of the session (as of this writing), why hasn’t a bill advanced? Why isn’t the governor championing it without reservation?

Yes, Speaker Hanshaw and others are engaged. But this feels like a no-brainer: an experienced voice offering insight into what corporate America looks for, and the legislature seems too casual about seizing the opportunity. All legislators should be all in on the initiative, but apparently they are not given the lack of urgency.

SJR 19 — Governor “Born in West Virginia” Amendment

Senator Rupie Phillips wants voters to weigh in on whether gubernatorial candidates should be native-born West Virginians. He told Talkline he plans to modify the current birth proposal to instead expand the residency requirement from five years to 30.

Some question whether he’s serious. He is, and he’s not alone. Supporters argue Governor Morrisey doesn’t fully grasp the lived experience of West Virginians. They see his tenure as politically strategic rather than rooted in long-term state commitment. One lawmaker told me: He’s (Morrisey) not about what he can do for West Virginia, he’s about what West Virginia can do for him.

Voters can judge that characterization for themselves – it is after all best reckoned as an individual decision. If Phillips has his way, West Virginians will get that chance on an upcoming ballot.

Whether one views the resolution as serious or symbolic, it’s fair to say the governor may have invited scrutiny. Morrisey and the legislature never got off on the right foot last year. The problem persists. This year, taking sides in legislative primaries and PAC messaging about using dollars against legislators who stand in the way of advancing the Morrisey agenda isn’t exactly Dale Carnegie-style politics.

Morrisey’s wikipedia page notes he moved to Jefferson County in 2006, some 20 years ago.

It’s unclear whether the resolution will move in committee. The strongest case for advancing it is simple: let the people decide, rather than politicians who may have a stake in the outcome one way or another. What legislator wants to stifle the voice of the people which is politically the voice of God?

And politically speaking, Phillips may be taking one for the team. He supports the idea fully but isn’t on the 2026 ballot. Others who might agree with him don’t have that luxury, instead facing a ’26 primary. They owe him one.

First Lady Denise Morrisey, born in Nebraska, addressed the resolution Thursday on Facebook saying she was personally offended by it. Morrisey noted her upbringing in a military family moving time and again framing the policy as military unfriendly and a discouragement to military members who may wish to run for office in West Virginia one day.

Fair points but Phillips’ restructuring of the resolution from a birth to residency requirement somewhat diminishes the weight of those counterpoints placing the focus on how long someone should live here before they become eligible to hold the governorship. The resolution would not alter criteria for any other elected positions including House or Senate or elected positions within the Board of Public Works.

“If I ever wanted to run for Governor – which I do not – are you suggesting that I have to go back to Nebraska,” she asked rhetorically in a social media post.

Mrs. Morrisey no doubt knows she would have to reside there for at least five years under Nebraska law to be eligible to sit in the governor’s chair. Whether five years is too short or too long for that state is best answered by Nebraskans, just as this question – no matter the reason it has emerged – would be best answered by West Virginians via the polls.

Thanks for the indulgence of a longer piece today. As Lincoln supposedly said, “I could write shorter sermons, but when I get started, I’m too lazy to stop.”

Enjoy the weekend.

The post No Income Tax at All, Listening to a Pro, and the Hurdle to be Governor appeared first on WV MetroNews.

My writing often reflects my influences — Jefferson, Adams, Madison, and the occasional turn from the Federalist Papers among others. History, and those who lived it, can be a roadmap for moving forward. It offers progress without relearning the hard lessons others have already paid for — a chance to learn from missteps instead of repeating them.

But today’s piece draws on a more modern renaissance man — a purveyor of opinion and a staple of popular culture: Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson.

One of his catchphrases is simple and declarative: “Know your role…”

What’s Mr. Johnson saying? Bluntly, he’s telling people to understand their place as it is appropriate.

Lawmakers would do well to internalize that advice when crafting new laws or repealing old ones.

Senate Bill 694 is as straightforward as its title: removing the county residency requirement for a county superintendent of schools.

NEWS from Brad McElhinny: Legislation would lift state requirement for superintendents to live in county or county over

If you’re surprised — or disappointed — to learn such a requirement exists, you’re likely not alone.

Do parents care more about where a superintendent lives, or whether that superintendent is qualified and has a record of achievement? The answer is obvious.

Residency mandates are relics of a protectionist era, designed to keep “outsiders” out — even if that outsider is simply from a nearby county or another part of the state. That mindset belongs to a bygone time.

Imagine if the private sector worked this way. Today’s most successful companies recruit globally, drawing talent from wherever it exists. Remote work and telecommuting are not novelties; they are standard practice.

My first career in business delivered days collaborating with teammates across the continental U.S. and sometimes Europe. That reach brought the best minds to the table and produced results that would have been impossible under a “live where you work” rule. Imagine telling a stockholder: we really like this person, and they do a great job, but they have to live in the city or county to work here. Laughable in the modern world. A good way to go bankrupt.

At a time when West Virginia is striving to improve its education system, when strong leadership is needed, new ideas and when the best candidate might live in Charleston but work in Beckley or Wheeling — dare live across the state line but wish to work in West Virginia – why limit the pool? What’s the downside to giving county boards more options? There isn’t one.

This should be an easy bill to move through the legislature and it should be amended pulling all residency restrictions off.

More than that, it should prompt a broader question in the legislative process: Is this policy goal truly within the legislature’s role in promoting the general welfare? And if so, is a new law required, or is removing an old one the better reform?

That question alone would improve much of policymaking. Limited government cannot be achieved by piling on more rules and regulations. Sometimes the most conservative reform is restraint or even pulling back – yes, giving up power.

In this case, that means leaving decisions like hiring a superintendent to local boards, unencumbered by a mandate on where that person must live.

The post Know Your Role appeared first on WV MetroNews.

West Virginia Gov. Patrick Morrisey wasted no time wading into a Northern Panhandle state Senate contest — even before the filing period officially closed.

Around 9:30 p.m. Friday, Morrisey posted on X:

“The race between conservative State Senator Laura Chapman and radical lefty Shawn Fluharty will be one of the defining races in the WV state senate this year. We don’t need a Bernie bro in the WV Senate — such a clear difference between these two candidates. Common sense conservatism versus lefty extremism. This race is one of the top contests of the 2026 cycle. Get ready!!”

Here’s the problem: Chapman is NOT unchallenged in the Republican primary. Maybe it slipped the Governor’s memory (sarcasm emphasized).

COMMENTARY from Hoppy Kercheval: 2026 Republican Primary Election may lead to Senate shake-up

Joe Eddy, an engineer and former head of Eagle Manufacturing, is running against incumbent Laura Wakim Chapman in Senate District 1. By framing the contest as Chapman vs. Fluharty, Morrisey effectively pretends the GOP primary doesn’t exist. A fantasy unaligned with reality.

And, that’s not a small oversight. It’s a signal. One that clearly acknowledges the divide in the state Republican party and picks one side over the other by the state’s chief executive.

By ignoring Eddy’s challenge, Morrisey is telegraphing to Republicans that he’s backing the current Senate establishment — often described as the “populist” wing — over the challengers, who tend to be more traditional, business-focused conservatives.

Longtime Republican operative Greg Thomas offered this take when asked to comment on the Governor’s X post:

“Joe Eddy is in a strong position to win the Senate District 1 Republican primary, and he is clearly the best conservative candidate to keep the seat GOP in the general,” Thomas said. “As the former head of a West Virginia-based manufacturing company with over 400 employees, Joe Eddy is a proven job creator. Joe Eddy has served as an advisor to President Donald Trump on manufacturing issues, and he is a strong conservative who will run a Republican-funded, aggressive campaign in both the primary and general elections.”

Eddy — and others like him, many recruited by Sen. Tom Takubo — are likely viewed by Morrisey as potential obstacles to his agenda… an agenda the governor needs to produce fruit for re-election.  It’s not because they’re liberals – they are not – but because they place a higher premium on economic issues than on the social battles further to the extreme.

Asked for comment on his post, a Morrisey spokesperson responded:

“Governor Morrisey has worked closely with State Senator Laura Chapman on a variety of health care, economic development and emergency management issues and believes her hard work for her constituents and her conservative record merits reelection, especially over one of the most far-left members of the House of Delegates. Chapman is the frontrunner to win that race, in part because she supports the Governor’s intense focus on economic development and making West Virginia more affordable.”

Thomas said on Talkline last week that populist Republicans have run out of runway on social issues.

“We took care of the social issues. We outlawed abortion in WV with exceptions; we banned transgendered surgeries… we did all of the things you would want to do. Now we have this new group that comes in and it’s like they’re… like they’re jealous they didn’t get to vote on this stuff. So, they come up with these new fringe things and the next thing you know we’re talking about anti-vax.”

Which gets to the real point: Morrisey’s move looks less like a drive-by shot at Fluharty and more like an attempt to make a midterm primary about his own self-preservation — a tactic premised on the belief that the general election won’t be competitive in a deeply red state. A reality that means he needs his brand of Republican in office and not that of another who could weaken him leading up to 2028.

That may or may not be a good move in the long run, but it is a definitive move.

Once a governor jumps into primaries early — instead of staying neutral until nominees are chosen — he invites scrutiny otherwise unmerited or unlikely to emerge.

If Eddy wins the primary, and by what margin, Morrisey risks alienating Republicans in the Panhandle who supported Eddy. And for what? Only to completely ensure they will not vote for him (Morrisey) in a gubernatorial primary?

‘Sorry, Joe, I’m with you now instead of Chapman…’ doesn’t seem to cut it. Could anyone blame Eddy for saying, ‘Thanks, but no thanks Governor?’

So, if it wasn’t clear which faction Governor Morrisey favors, it is now. Time will prove his post – his revelation – a good move or not.

The post Morrisey Dives into Senate Race, Reveals Faction Preference appeared first on WV MetroNews.

Some issues make news because they stir emotion or seem far outside the mainstream. Commentators – I’m a talk show host, not a reporter – sometimes get criticized for even talking about them. The argument goes like this: you know it’s not going anywhere, so why give it airtime or whatever real estate one has to give?

That’s a fair criticism, but I personally don’t accept it.

When a bill is introduced, regardless of its odds of passage, it offers a window into how a lawmaker thinks and what they consider important. No single proposal should define a legislator, but voters deserve to know how legislative time is being spent and what personal priorities are being established. That larger picture can’t be understood if these efforts go undiscussed and that larger picture should frame decisions at the polls.

With that in mind, consider two recent proposals.

The Aitken Bible
Senate Bill 388 would require every public school in the state to make a copy of the Aitken Bible available in all fourth, eighth and 10th-grade social studies classrooms, including public charter schools.

A bit of history matters here.

The Aitken Bible is recognized as the first complete English-language Bible printed in the United States. It was produced in 1782 in Philadelphia by Robert Aitken during the closing years of the American Revolution.

Before independence, most Bibles in the colonies were imported from Britain. Wartime disruptions made those imports scarce, prompting Aitken to print a full King James Bible domestically. His work caught the attention of the Congress of the Confederation, which formally approved the project and recommended it to the public — an unusual endorsement, even for that era.

Although roughly 10,000 copies were printed, the venture was not financially successful. Once British trade resumed, cheaper imported Bibles returned to the market, and today only a few dozen original copies are known to survive.

That history is worth teaching. But teaching it does not require mandating a specific modern reprint in every classroom.

Two senators, one Democrat and one Republican, both Catholic, tried to amend the bill to also allow use of the American Catholic Bible. That effort failed.

That’s where this moves from history lesson to policy problem.

The Aitken Bible is a King James Bible. Why single out one translation when you really don’t need it physically present to discuss historical context? Why not also allow the New International Version, the Contemporary English Version, the Catholic Bible, or texts from other faith traditions in schools as well?

Limiting the requirement to one specific version abandons the government neutrality on religion that protects both the majority and the minority. Today that might not feel consequential. In a less uniformly Christian future, it might.

Put me down as supportive of placing Bibles in school libraries — all versions, alongside texts from other religions. Need help paying for the Bibles? Call me. But mandating one version for classroom availability – unintentional as it may be – crosses from education into preference. How would the Danbury Baptists feel about that?

A better approach would be to revise the bill to allow any and all religious texts, provided no public money is used to purchase them. Or simply leave the decision to schools and teachers. Neutrality is the better path.

Candidly, the entire debate seems a bit like legalism to me –- the ongoing battle of Appalachian tradition versus the Gospel — what is foundational, clearly revealed and true in Scripture.

The bill passed the Senate and moves to the House. Veteran newsman Brad McElhinny filed a full report.

Editor’s note: I tend to read / study the Amplified Bible and the New Living Translation with help from a few commentaries. My Bible app has more than 3,700 versions in nearly 2,400 languages. I’d suggest asking a pastor for help in picking the best version for you.

Partisan Mandates in Municipal Elections
House Bill 4080 would require all municipal elections to be conducted on a partisan basis. Many West Virginia cities currently choose not to do that.

This effort cuts against the long-standing conservative principle of local control and would further sideline independent voters.

The West Virginia Republican Party chose to close its primary to independents. Agree or disagree, that was the party’s decision to make. But a state mandate forcing cities to run partisan elections – codified – is different. It sends a message to voters who reject party labels that their independence doesn’t count and that punishment will follow if not abandoned.

For a growing share of West Virginians, that’s more than frustrating. It feels dismissive.

Most voters don’t choose their city council member based on party affiliation. They care about garbage pickup, functioning sewer systems and safe streets. Turning every local race into a partisan contest risks importing national political fights into issues that are, at their core, practical and local.

Pushing partisanship into every corner of civic life looks less like reform and more like an attempt to force voters into one camp or another – a camp they don’t want to be in. It diminishes unaffiliated voters and undermines the idea that communities should decide how to run their own elections.

This bill was pulled from committee agenda and remains at markup stage in House Judiciary; a sign the legislative process is doing its job. But voters should still ask their representatives what they think of it.

Ultimately, you – the individual voter – are the arbiter of what matters and what doesn’t. Best of luck as you decide.

The post Bibles and Partisan Mandates appeared first on WV MetroNews.

Is social media the new Big Tobacco? That’s the argument now being tested in a Los Angeles courtroom, where the first of several lawsuits against major social media companies got underway this week.

At the heart of the cases is a familiar accusation: did companies intentionally design their platforms to hook children? Maybe they did. Maybe they didn’t. That’s what courts will decide.

Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, TikTok, and Snapchat are among the defendants in current and pending litigation. According to one report, the lawsuits involve thousands of individual plaintiffs, hundreds of school districts, and dozens of state attorneys general, with more cases expected this year.

The stats are a bit disturbing.

• Average daily use per Gallup: Teens (ages 13 to 17) spend about 4.8 hours per day on social media on average, with over half (51%) reporting at least 4 hours per day. Girls tend to spend more time than boys (about 5.3 hrs vs. 4.4 hrs).
• Pew Research: Nearly half of teens say they are online “almost constantly.”
• National Library of Medicine: Up to 95% of teens (ages 13 to 17) report using at least one social media platform, and more than a third use them almost constantly.

Is social media bad for kids? Probably. And, as with most things, the answer likely depends on how much exposure they have and at what age.

According to a study from the organization Common Sense, children are being introduced to screens earlier than ever. Four in ten have a tablet by the age of two, and nearly one in four owns a personal cellphone by eight. While total screen time has held steady at roughly two and a half hours a day, how kids spend that time has changed dramatically. Gaming alone has jumped 65 percent in just four years. Traditional television viewing is fading, replaced by short-form video on platforms like TikTok and YouTube Shorts. The result is a far more fragmented and immersive media landscape.

Missing from much of the public dialogue is an uncomfortable question: where does parental responsibility fit into this conversation?

If social media has harmed children, don’t parents who allowed — or failed to limit — their kids’ time on these platforms bear some share of the responsibility? What about the decision to buy those connected devices at such a young age? Failing to set screen-time limits? Handing a smartphone to a child and hoping for the best?

Simply blaming Big Tech feels a little too easy.

And where does this road lead? If these lawsuits succeed, what stops the next wave — against AI developers like ChatGPT, or whatever technology comes next? Will fear of litigation fundamentally reshape the internet and its evolution? At some point, companies will ask: why innovate if success only guarantees a lawsuit that drains resources and discourages progress?

None of this is to deny that social media is different. Algorithms are more powerful. Content is more targeted. Platforms are engineered to keep users scrolling. But distraction itself is not new.

Television, video games, and other digital diversions have been around for decades. Parents have long known that allowing children to zone out for hours — whether in front of a screen or otherwise — isn’t a net positive.

If we fail to assign responsibility where it belongs, we’ll never see meaningful change. The buck ultimately stops with parents. They can cut internet access. Take away devices. Replace endless scrolling with a ball and bat, a book, or a puzzle.

That doesn’t mean Big Tech is blameless. If companies knowingly caused harm — and litigants can prove that – Tech should face serious consequences.

But treating social media companies as the sole villain is incomplete. It sidesteps a deeper and more troubling trend in American life: a lack of sustained investment in our children. Investment that takes time, attention, and effort — often at the expense of pursuits adults deem more urgent or convenient.

A serious solution requires more than lawsuits. It requires a measured, deliberate effort to protect kids from harm and to recommit to the hard, unglamorous work of raising them to become healthy, productive citizens.

The post Social Media on Trial appeared first on WV MetroNews.

Ice and snow frustrate us. Storms cause problems. They send people scrambling to grocery stores, make travel dangerous, and force changes to plans. In short, winter weather messes with our lives. No denying that fact.

But sometimes, it comes with an unexpected upside.

West Virginia is an energy state. In recent months, three new natural gas power plants have been announced. Those investments promise more reliable and affordable electricity, on top of what the state already produces from its existing generation fleet.

And here’s the key point: small as we are, West Virginia often produces more electricity than it needs. Sometimes even in high-demand situations.

When temperatures drop, demand for electricity rises. And that increase can actually benefit West Virginians.

Consider this: as of 3 p.m. Sunday afternoon, West Virginia was exporting nearly 2,700 megawatts of electricity to other load-serving entities — utilities and generation providers — within PJM. Put simply, the state’s power plants (mostly regulated) had enough power to meet in-state demand and could sell the excess into the regional market.

Click to View: PJM State Import / Export Map

Those exports generate revenue – profits that largely and ultimately flow back to West Virginia ratepayers, helping offset costs when utilities need to buy power from the grid.

Yes, it can get complicated and markets aren’t absent nuance. But this is one of the reasons West Virginia participates in a regional market like PJM, rather than operating a stand-alone system like Texas does with ERCOT. The next time someone suggests to you we should be like Texas, smile and walk away. That would be a huge mistake.

Participation in a wholesale market gives the state flexibility – the ability to both buy and sell electricity. And as more power plants come online here, PJM participation provides a ready pathway for megawatts made in West Virginia to reach broader markets. Minus a market, we can’t get our product to the point of sale.

Looking ahead, electricity demand is only going to grow – driven by artificial intelligence, data centers, and other energy-intensive uses we may not yet fully understand or even have imagined.

Expanding the state’s supply of both merchant and regulated generation allows West Virginia to do what it has long done best: extract resources responsibly, create megawatts, and sell power all in a transparent market with clear market rules and guidelines.

That means jobs. A broader tax base. And more opportunity than we have today.

So while the ice, snow, and cold may be disrupting your day, they also offer a reminder of the opportunity West Virginia holds as an energy exporter — an opportunity worth understanding and one we should continue to pursue. It’s our best opportunity moving forward. One we should be proud of.

Stay safe out there!

Editor’s Note: For the latest PJM Generation fuel mix statistics, click here

As of 6 p.m. Sunday, January 25:

• Natural gas fueled 39 percent of generation
• Nuclear fueled 26 percent of generation
• Coal fueled 21 percent of generation
• Renewables fueled 7 percent of generation
• Oil and other resources fueled 7 percent of generation

The post Storm Also a Reminder of Opportunity appeared first on WV MetroNews.

West Virginia has a school-finance problem, and it appears deeper than many first understood.

A State Department of Education analysis indicates the cost of serving special education students exceeded the revenue available to fund those services by $224 million in fiscal year 2025. Total expenditures related to special education totaled more than $584 million while available revenue to fund those needs equaled only $360 million.

Late Wednesday into early Thursday morning, lawmakers were hit with a flood of outreach from county school superintendents — all 55 counties, in fact. Ahead of a House Finance budget hearing with State Superintendent Michele Blatt, each county superintendent forwarded a simple, one-page document to their respective lawmakers that included four bullet points:

• Number of special education students in the county
• Total revenue allocated (fed and state) for special education
• Total special education expenditures
• Total revenue minus expenditures

That last bullet was bolded and in red. And in almost every county, it was a negative number — a deficit.

The gaps ranged from losses of a few million dollars to tens of millions. Berkeley County, according to an analysis from the State Office of School Finance obtained by MetroNews, posted the largest deficit: more than $38 million — and that’s just for fiscal year 2025.

NEWS from BRAD McELHINNY: Superintendent focuses on funding based on student enrollment, special education costs

West Virginia’s education system serves 49,402 special education students. That classification is determined under federal law — the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Note: a disability alone does not automatically mean a student is classified as a special education student.

Only six counties reported positive line-item balances, meaning special education revenues exceeded or balanced with expenses: Braxton, Calhoun, Gilmer, Monroe, Webster, and Wirt. Four of those counties — Calhoun, Gilmer, Webster and Wirt — receive additional state dollars because enrollment falls short of the much-discussed 1,400-student marker.

So how are counties covering the gap? A few ways.

Some counties have healthy unrestricted fund balances, giving them the ability to make up the difference. But that comes at a cost… it dilutes reserves that might otherwise be used for capital projects or unexpected expenses — essentially tapping the savings meant to protect a system’s fiscal stability. Building those balances back with such high outflows seems improbable if not impossible.

Most counties don’t have significant unrestricted funds. Many also lack an excess levy and are contending with low balances. Those counties cover the gap by diverting money and services from outside special education to meet federal compliance standards. That becomes a zero-sum game — taking from one student to meet the needs of another.

Failing to meet compliance standards risks the loss of federal dollars, which would only widen the chasm.

The need to revise the school-aid formula is well known and generally agreed upon. Generations have come and gone since it was meaningfully reviewed and revised to match modern realities.

Can efficiencies narrow the gap? Maybe, and that exercise is worth undertaking. But it’s doubtful efficiencies alone eliminate the imbalance.

Zig Ziglar once said, “The first step in solving a problem is to recognize that it does exist.” Good advice.

This situation is a problem. Hope Scholarship or no Hope Scholarship, this is a problem. Pro school choice or not, this is a problem. It’s not about pitting one versus the other as is popular among some at the Capitol. It’s about what should be easy to agree on: doing both public education and school choice well.

Many legislators who received one-pagers Thursday say the information surprised them. That surprise should spur action. It’s time to tackle the school-aid formula and address the special education funding gap that clearly exists.

All children deserve our best efforts. Some children need more support, and we owe that to them. West Virginia must ensure our school systems have the resources to meet that challenge. If we deny our kids that now, we’ll pay even more when they become adults.

The post Special Education Need Exceeds Funding appeared first on WV MetroNews.

House Bill 4574 sailed through committee and passed the House in a single day. The measure creates a financial safety net for county school systems that fall into fiscal peril.

Brad McElhinny: House votes for $8 million emergency fund for distressed county school boards

The immediate catalyst was Hancock County Schools. Plainly, the system is broke. 

Intended to provide stability following a state takeover and to eliminate uncertainty about making payroll, the bill as passed Monday falls short when it comes to the necessity of consequence. 

Yes, the legislation establishes conditions that must be met to obtain and retain emergency funding. But it stops short of the most meaningful accountability measure available: removal of the local board of education.

The county’s financial officer, superintendent, and assistant superintendent have already been dismissed. Yet the elected board that approved budgets, personnel levels, and administrative leadership remains intact.

While sections of the bill gesture toward the possibility of terminating board members, the language is vague and noncommittal. It does not clearly or decisively ensure accountability.

It’s murky at best.

Absent a new board, where is the deterrent? Where is the assurance that fiduciary responsibility will be taken seriously?

County boards of education approve personnel decisions. A single call to the West Virginia Department of Education revealed that Hancock County was 140 positions over formula. Did the board not know this? If it did, why were corrective steps not taken? Were the right financial questions ever asked… questions that might have surfaced this crisis before it reached the brink?

These questions, and many others, deserve answers. The people of Hancock County – and frankly the taxpayers of the entire state, whose dollars will now plug the hole – are owed a full findings report.

That takes time. So does impeachment or formal removal of a board member. Due process should always prevail over expediency.

But there is a cleaner, faster accountability mechanism available.

If a school system requires money from this emergency fund, the bill should mandate the resignation of every sitting board member as a condition of receiving those funds. No resignations, no money.

In the private sector, boards are ultimately responsible for outcomes like this. The same principle should apply here. A captain asleep in his quarters is still responsible when the ship runs aground. Hancock County’s board is responsible for the actions of the managers it hired and retained.

Some will argue this disenfranchises Hancock County voters. After all, they elected these board members.

Maybe.

But the taxpayers financing this bailout live in Cabell, Raleigh, Monongalia, Ohio County, and beyond. Their interests matter too.

Reason and prudence demand that taxpayer dollars not become more good money after bad.

A new administration and a new board together are far better positioned to ensure financial discipline than a new administration alone.

Finally, a consequence this severe may give pause to those seeking these seats in the future. Do they possess the financial and managerial competence required? Do they understand how to say no when a county is hundreds of positions over formula with no way to pay?

The Legislature should appropriate this money. Workers must be paid. Obligations must be met. Hancock County students and employees did nothing wrong.

But unless the board is held accountable, nothing prevents this from happening again.

The Senate should consider such a move, or something akin to it, before passing the bill.

The post School Bailout Bill Lacks Ultimate Consequence appeared first on WV MetroNews.

Listen to “White House Calls Out PJM on Data Center Costs” on Spreaker.

The prospect of data centers locating in the Mountain State has fueled intense debate over the past few years. Some welcome the idea, viewing these facilities as much-needed tax generators for West Virginia’s economy. Others strongly oppose them, seeing data centers as industrial intrusions that threaten water supplies, generate noise and light pollution, and scar scenic landscapes.

Another question now dominates the debate: will data centers drive up electricity prices in West Virginia? That concern looms especially large in a state with one of the lowest per-capita incomes in the nation, where many households already struggle to pay their electric bills.

The politics of affordability, it seems, has overtaken nearly every other concern.

To understand how we arrived here, it helps to flash back a few years. A company called Talen Energy proposed a deal within PJM – the region’s electric grid operator – that raised alarms across the industry. The arrangement involved powering a large Amazon data center in Pennsylvania using generation from an adjacent power plant, in a way that critics argued could shift costs onto other customers.

American Electric Power and Exelon filed a complaint with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), seeking to block the deal and ensure those costs were not socialized across the broader customer base, while Talen paid little or nothing but still enjoyed the benefit of connecting to the grid. That dispute marked the genesis of an issue now familiar to many who follow energy markets: whether data-center development in the United States should be subsidized, directly or indirectly, by everyday ratepayers.

Fast forward to Friday. The Trump Administration – along with several governors from the mid-Atlantic PJM region, including West Virginia Governor Patrick Morrisey – released a proposal aimed at addressing the risk of escalating energy costs tied to data-center growth. At its core, the plan seeks to reaffirm a foundational principle of electric ratemaking: costs should follow cost causers.

BLOOMBERG: How Trump Is Pushing Tech Giants to Fund New Power Plants as Utility Bills Rise

Specifically, the White House is urging PJM to conduct a one-time “emergency” capacity auction that would require data centers to directly pay for new power plants, rather than potentially shifting those costs onto other customers. While analysts correctly note the proposal has no binding authority and would require FERC approval, the signal is unmistakable. This is about restoring discipline to cost allocation – not an overnight market overhaul.

Here’s why the concept makes sense, and why FERC should seriously consider directing PJM to move forward.

Capacity prices have surged in recent auctions as projected data-center demand has ballooned, all while the auction has failed to produce a level of capacity needed to meet reliability targets. West Virginia utilities, however, are largely insulated from these increases. Many own their own generation capacity – meaning they don’t need to rely on PJM auctions and do not – or they hold excess capacity that can actually return value to ratepayers when capacity prices rise. This move has kept your bill much lower than it would have been if the state’s utilities participated in the auction or did so without mitigation. Read some of my past commentaries if you want to understand how capacity works.

Now… plainly stated, West Virginia is, first and foremost, an energy state. Recall my proposed bumper sticker: West Virginia — We Make Megawatts. A standalone capacity auction tied specifically to data-center demand, structured as a long-term, take-or-pay commitment – 15 years as proposed – would give power producers the certainty they need to invest in new generation.

And where better to build those plants than West Virginia? We have the natural gas. We have the coal. We have a desire to expand into the nuclear realm. And we have communities that understand energy development.

Candidly, FERC holds the keys. Principles documents and political statements don’t move wholesale energy markets – regulatory orders do. But the underlying idea here is sound. It reinforces cost causation: if you create the demand, you should pay for the infrastructure required to meet it.

West Virginia can cash in on that demand. It opens the door to new power-plant construction in West Virginia without burdening in-state ratepayers. In fact, it could benefit them. Higher demand for our natural resources means new investment, increased severance tax revenue, more jobs, and stronger local tax bases. Power plants don’t just generate electricity, they generate opportunity.

Governor Morrisey was right to add his name alongside those of other regional governors. West Virginia lawmakers, policy makers and ratepayers should support it too. Onward and upward.

PJM released its own plan on Friday to address the issue. The regional grid operator said it was not consulted or advised ahead of the White House’s release.

The Edison Electric Institute, a trade group representing the country’s largest electric utilities, issued a statement Friday in support of the Trump administration’s plan.

Editor’s Note: Meadows is a former federal policy director for American Electric Power. His opinions regarding the wholesale electricity market, regulatory bodies and fuel generation mix are entirely his own and do not reflect the thinking of any organization including MetroNews and WVRC Media.

The post White House, Governors Call Out PJM on Data Center Costs appeared first on WV MetroNews.

The West Virginia Senate and House both gaveled in Wednesday, officially kicking off the 60-day legislative session, followed later that evening by Governor Morrisey’s State of the State address.

Here are a few rapid-fire, off-the-cuff observations.

One: Senator Laura Wakim Chapman published a letter Tuesday announcing her resignation as chair of the Senate Health and Human Resources Committee. She says Senate President Randy Smith demanded a promise of support from her – a loyalty she apparently was not comfortable providing. She later elaborated with Talkline regular Amelia Knisley of West Virginia Watch, arguing that senators from the Eastern Panhandle wield disproportionate power, allegedly at the expense of the Northern Panhandle and the rest of the state. Chapman claimed the region holds too many committee chairmanships.

Here’s the oxymoron: if you believe the Northern Panhandle is underrepresented, why resign a chair position – thereby further diminishing your district’s voice? That rationale feels incomplete, and frankly, flawed.

Candidly, committee chairs serve at the pleasure of the Senate president as an extension of his leadership team. Asking a chair to be aligned with the president’s vision doesn’t seem unreasonable so much as it seems a sensible prerequisite for service. Senator Brian Helton now chairs the committee. His district, it would appear, ended up with more influence than it had just a few days ago.

Two: Smith appeared on Talkline Wednesday from the Capitol and addressed criticism that he hadn’t rolled out a formal agenda. He noted that he’s not flashy and didn’t feel the need to hold a press conference to promote one. Smith is not a typical Senate leader; he appears more comfortable with collaboration than calling every shot. Leadership styles vary — and ultimately, nobody in Normalville, West Virginia cares which style is used as long as it produces results. Smith now has 60 days to show those results.

Worth mentioning, TEAM WV – the Jobs Ohio-like undertaking championed publicly by Speaker Roger Hanshaw – is actually a brainchild of the Senate and the bill to make it so will originate there. Top down or bottom up, that says something of an agenda, no? You can decide for yourself.

More impressive, however, was what Smith didn’t do this week.

Everyone around the Capitol was talking about Chapman’s departure, and Smith had every opportunity to take the low road – to criticize her performance or spin a narrative suggesting the body was better off without her as chair. He didn’t. Instead, he expressed genuine care for her, praised the job she did, wished her well, and said he loved her. All of that on Wednesday’s Talkline.

Somewhere in this state, there’s a young person – a young man or woman – who, for reasons known only to their Maker, is wired to love politics and government. The kid I used to be. That young person saw Smith’s grace in that moment and understood its significance. It made an impression. Good on Mr. Smith for setting that example. That’s more the move of a statesman than politician.

Three: WVU economist John Deskins was in the House – literally – Wednesday morning, delivering an update on the state’s economic outlook. He acknowledged he doesn’t enjoy delivering bad news, but the data are challenging: the lowest labor-force participation rate in the nation, more deaths than births, an economy crying for diversity, and among the lowest per-capita income levels in the country.

There are bright spots. A handful of counties are growing, and Deskins projects modest statewide growth. He sees data centers as a premier opportunity for West Virginia. He’s right. People would be wise to pushback less on data centers, at least in this former businessman’s assessment.

About a week ago, a comparison of GDP per capita — West Virginia versus the G7 — caught my attention. GDP per capita is often a more useful international comparison than household or per-capita income.

Based on 2024 data, West Virginia posted $57,710 – second lowest among U.S. states. Yet that figure still places us ahead of Canada, Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Italy, and Japan.

Yes, we face real challenges. Yes, many states are ahead of us. But perspective matters. West Virginia remains well ahead of several developed nations. In an off-air conversation, Deskins agreed, noting he often makes that point himself.

Four: The governor’s State of the State address was largely what you’d expect — polished and well-rehearsed. These speeches are always part pep rally; that’s the job.

The governor touted more than $4 billion in new investment, though many around the Capitol quietly question how much of that investment can be credited exclusively to Morrisey — particularly power-plant projects that were already in motion before his tenure.

Some also pointed to Morrisey not giving former Governor now U.S. Senator Jim Justice due credit on his investments to better state roads. The “long overdue” comment regarding a proposed $100 million beyond normal funding for roads did not go unnoticed. Justice of course spearheaded the $2.8 billion Roads to Prosperity program. Justice’s toll increases and unlimited E-ZPass program yielded $600 million in new investment in the ten counties surrounding the turnpike, according to a release at the time.

Politics is politics. Credit disputes are inevitable. And yes, posturing is ongoing and strong regarding the Republican gubernatorial primary in 2028 – more than two years away.

Back to the address… When it came to vision, however, the speech was light on specifics. The “how” matters. Proposing a 10 percent personal income-tax cut while simultaneously projecting a $200 million budget gap in fiscal year 2028 — growing to $411 million by fiscal year 2031 — feels contradictory. Morrisey insists the state can afford it. On Talkline Thursday he called for the state to “act boldly” in moving forward.

The Legislature appears less convinced. House Finance Chair Vernon Criss — best described as fiscally conservative, fiscally deliberate, and deeply seasoned in state finances — noted on Talkline that West Virginia already has a tax-cut plan with built-in triggers. Criss favors predictability and gradual reductions over time. He wants to avoid putting the state in a position that future lawmakers must clean up. A prudent concern. He also understands that state employees need raises; West Virginia continues to struggle to keep pace with inflation, even in modest inflationary periods, let alone recent years of higher rates.

Five: Ivermectin is back. Senate Bill 42 would allow its procuring over the counter from pharmacists without physician prescription. The drug’s use outside of fighting certain parasites and conditions such as lice and scabies came to fruition during COVID. Those who back it say it’s relatively harmless and people should have access to it as a matter of personal freedom. Others says its use is entirely political. Senator Tom Takubo, who serves on Senate Health and is a pulmonologist, said doctors tried it during COVID and it didn’t work. He agreed it is relatively benign in small doses, but could be quite harmful in large doses.

My take: to each his own. You can buy this stuff at your local farm supply store. If you want it, you can easily get it. We have larger problems so if passing the bill saves time for bigger things… fine. That said, if a doctor tells me it doesn’t work – Takubo is a board-certified pulmonologist who cited in his committee remarks peer-reviewed studies and firsthand clinical work with the drug – I’d go with the good doctor over some folks who believe it works wonders.

All told, the session is underway; legislators are easing in. Safe and steady is often the norm in election years. Still, with real challenges — child welfare, lagging economic development, school-aid formula issues, and more — the moment demands action, and quickly.

The post This and That from Legislative Week One appeared first on WV MetroNews.

Most political buzz around the Capitol is squarely focused on the Republican supermajorities in both chambers, and on the governor’s State of the State address Wednesday night.

Democrats are small in number — just nine members in the House and two in the Senate — so their issues can struggle to compete for attention.

After a “kitchen table” tour around the state, Democrats say they’re focused on four key areas: utility bills, childcare, healthcare, and housing.

There’s little doubt those issues are front-and-center for many West Virginia families. The real question is what, specifically, Democrats would do to fix them. That’s where it gets complicated.

Running against utilities — in elections or by casting them as the villain during a session — isn’t new. One of the best to ever do it was a Virginia legislator named Ward Armstrong. He rarely ran against another candidate so much as he ran against electric rates: he was David; the utilities were Goliath. He played the role well.

But Armstrong probably understood there wasn’t much he could actually do to lower prices.

West Virginia Democrats may find the same.

One idea that surfaces from time to time is electing Public Service Commissioners. Some states already do that. But there’s no concrete evidence establishing causation that elected commissioners produce lower rates. Why? Because much of ratemaking is governed by statute and regulatory mechanisms. Commissioners are bound by those rules. Yes, it’s complicated. Yes, there’s nuance. But that’s the 50,000-foot truth.

Cheaper bills come from more people and more businesses — more load to spread fixed costs over a broader base. True of gas and true of water as well.

A rate freeze — also floated as a fix — typically just delays the pain. It can lead to a larger increase later, or discourage investment needed to maintain and improve reliability. Neither outcome is desirable.

What about housing?

Is the problem supply, or cost? Realistically, it’s both — and both are problems markets solve best over time. Developers build where economic conditions justify investment; more supply, in turn, moderates price. Rental markets aren’t much different.

The state is already in on financing. The West Virginia Housing Development Fund is a state-created public agency that helps expand affordable housing by financing residential projects for low- and moderate-income families. Since its founding in 1969, it has issued more than $4.5 billion in bonds and supported the development of more than 165,000 housing units statewide.

Healthcare is largely a federal issue. On Talkline Tuesday, Delegate Mike Pushkin pointed to the “Medicaid cliff” — what happens when someone’s income rises slightly and they lose Medicaid coverage altogether, rather than having benefits phase out gradually.

While the state likely can’t eliminate that cliff on its own — much of that is federal — it may be able to soften the landing with timing changes, transitional coverage options, or administrative flexibility.

Childcare also came up last session. Several organizations, including the West Virginia Chamber of Commerce, pushed a “tri-share” model: one-third paid by the employer, one-third by the state, and one-third by the family. It’s worthy of discussion. But some employers may struggle to afford their share, and expanding government programs runs headlong into another reality: West Virginia’s political appetite to cut spending and taxes.

Still, Democrats deserve the benefit of the doubt — and the time — to fully explain the mechanics of what they’re proposing.

And even if they have the roadmap and the Xs and Os worked out, Dems face a Republican supermajority that may not be eager to hand them policy wins — and the political capital that comes with wins — especially in an election year.

So, can Dems deliver? Ask me on Day 61.

The post Can West Virginia Dems Deliver? appeared first on WV MetroNews.

West Virginia Republicans have gone and done it — again — as the saying goes.

This weekend’s GOP Winter Meeting presented an opportunity to re-examine the decision to close the Republican primary to Independent voters. That opportunity never saw the light of day.

Instead, the issue was ultimately dismissed without a direct vote, somewhat cloaked in parliamentary procedure. A member’s motion to rescind the original amendment to close the primary met another motion to postpone indefinitely the motion to rescind. The vote to postpone was adopted through a voice vote — conveniently avoiding a recorded tally that would have put names to positions. A motion to adjourn quickly followed. It smells of accountability by omission, not unlike the kid in right field hoping the ball never comes his way.

Veteran newsman and friend of Talkline Steven Allen Adams filed a full report Saturday.

To be clear, this is a decision squarely within the party’s authority. It is their primary. They are entitled to manage it as they see fit. That point is not in dispute.

The real question is whether Independent voters — now solidly locked out — will continue to support Republican candidates in general elections.

Here’s the reality: Republicans make up just 43 percent of registered voters in West Virginia. That pattern largely holds county by county. Translation: Republicans do not win statewide elections without Independent support or crossover votes from Democrats.

A poll conducted by the West Virginia Leadership Fund found that 64 percent of Independent voters cast a ballot for Donald Trump, compared with 20 percent for Joe Biden. Yet the same survey shows that 70 percent of Independents are not considering switching their registration to Republican. Nearly two-thirds say they are less likely — or unsure they would — vote for Republican candidates in the general election if excluded from voting in the GOP primary.

Those driving this decision within the party appear unfazed by such data.

“Unfortunately, this was pushed by elected state leaders,” said former state GOP chair Melody Potter in a facebook post. “I witnessed this from being [brought] back up, being discussed, and being voted on. The issue is important enough that it should’ve been discussed and voted on regardless of the results. I never thought I would see the day that people were shut down. This was no fault of the chairman… This is nothing short of divisive and it’s sad.”

Governor Morrisey was reportedly supportive of the move to close the primary when the idea first emerged.  Multiple sources in the party say his mind is unchanged on the matter. Those in his camp are said to have actively lobbied this go around as well to keep primaries closed.

Potter is right. This is protectionist politics at its finest; it ignores the temperament of many Independent voters who are deeply conservative in outlook. Their only “offense” is a refusal to affiliate with a political environment they view as absolutist, rigid, and hostile to the individualism they value.

Again, Republicans are free to run their primary however they wish.

But consequences follow choices.

Republican operative Rob Cornelius appeared on Talkline last week and was asked whether Republicans can win general elections without Independent voters. His response: “Well yeah, we’ve won every election, they’re pretty much unnecessary now because Independents will vote for whatever they want.”

The follow-up question was direct: You have no problem if they don’t vote Republican in the general election because they’re excluded from the primary?

“They don’t care,” Cornelius said. “Independents don’t care. By virtue of the way they register, they’ve demonstrated their lack of concern in the process.”

Listen to the full interview with Cornelius here.

And so, the issue is framed.

Will Independent voters care? Are they truly unnecessary? Can Republicans win while dismissing them entirely?

Maybe.

But with only 43 percent of registered voters, that dismissal — that banishment to the kids’ table — may prove a step too far.

Independent voters would be entirely within their rights to ask every Republican candidate this fall whether they support or oppose an open primary — and to weigh that answer when casting their ballots.

Prediction: those Republicans challenging incumbent Republicans, especially in the Senate, will make this an issue. It perfectly captures the juxtaposition of traditional conservatives to that of new populist conservatives.

Dems will seize on it as well in the general election saying Republican candidates do not value Independent voters and actively tried to diminish the power of their votes.

Just as Republicans have the right to manage their primary as they see fit, they also bear the consequences of that decision.

Time will determine whether they chose wisely, or not.

The post GOP Keeps Independents Locked Out appeared first on WV MetroNews.

Data that crossed my desk this week stopped me cold… the kind of information that could stop a team of oxen in its tracks.

Some of West Virginia’s county school systems are well run and financially sound. Others? It’s not unfair to say they’re driving straight toward a cliff, the danger plainly visible, foot pressed firmly on the accelerator instead of the brake.

Two county systems – Boone and Hancock – have failed to submit financial reports to the State Department of Education. As a result, the Office of School Operations and Finance has no idea how much cash these systems actually have on hand — the unencumbered funds needed to meet payroll, pay bills, and keep the lights on. Why haven’t they submitted this most basic financial data? That remains unknown and is deeply alarming.

Hancock County Schools’ problems have been documented since December. The bottom line appears simple: no one was paying close enough attention to see mismanagement. Financial statements were produced, but bank reconciliations were never completed. And without reconciliations, financials are meaningless — they don’t confirm whether reported assets are real or available. In recent days, even the question of how the system passed prior audits has been met with blank stares. That situation demands investigation.

While some county systems show solid footing and spending decisions aligned with their revenue streams, others are teetering on the brink.

Wayne County Schools, serving nearly 5,700 students, has an excess levy — yet its ratio of available cash on hand to its approved levy balance sits at just 2.11 percent. The lower the percentage – let’s call it the (unencumbered) cash to levy ratio for simplicity – the closer to deficit a system is. Two percent leaves no room for error.

Note: Unencumbered balances are those not already promised, reserved or legally committed for something else.

The picture worsens when you consider staffing. Wayne County is operating at 62 teachers and 78 service personnel above what the state funding formula provides. All of this while having only $1.63 million (unencumbered) in the bank to cover payroll and routine expenses.

If an individual has $1.63 million in the bank, you’re doing quite well. A school system with that amount of money given Wayne’s obligations is flirting with disaster. One payroll could wipe that entire sum out and it has to cover more than just payroll. Never mind any unforeseen maintenance problems, bus breakdowns or higher than anticipated utility bills from the next polar vortex.

Building utilization in Wayne County? 44.4 percent. What’s that mean? Basically, the system is using only 44 percent of the building space it has available. Wayne operates 18 schools across 506 square miles.

Taylor County Schools faces similar pressure. With just over 2,000 students, the county has $622,000 in available (unencumbered) cash. Staffing exceeds formula allocations by 30 teachers and 43 service personnel. Its cash-to-levy ratio? 1.94 percent – the lowest ratio in the state other than Roane which is at negative 7 percent operating in deficit having utilized state loans to make payroll in the past.

A representative for Taylor County Schools said the $622,000 (unencumbered) fund balance reported does not reflect current balances.

“The dollar figures that were reported were that of September 2025 and a representation of funds available after all of our obligations had been met at that time,” said Superintendent Dr. John Stallings. “In no way are those figures an accurate representation of actual current ‘Cash on Hand’ nor the financial status of the county school system.”

Greenbrier County is a combined 124 positions over formula with $2.6 million cash on hand. The system’s cash to levy ratio is better at about 4.5 percent but far from healthy.

Yet even among counties with limited revenue and obstacles, some have demonstrated discipline and foresight avoiding these looming pitfalls.

Hardy County Schools, serving more than 2,100 students and operating without an excess levy, has a building utilization rate of 60 percent. Its available cash-to-levy ratio stands at 12 percent, with nearly $3 million on hand. Staffing is close to formula: two teachers and nine service personnel above allocation — and notably, under the allocated number of aides.

Barbour County recently made the difficult decision to undertake consolidation, no doubt an effort to keep the system financially stable. It currently has $6.7 million in the bank and is operating at nearly 27 percent cash to levy. The system does not have an excess levy. While not as severe as other systems, Barbour is over total formula allocation by 29 positions.

Despite challenging economic headwinds, Clay County Schools has an excess levy and stands at $5.17 million cash on hand – 28 percent cash to levy. The system is under formula by two teachers and two aides, but does run 7 positions over on service personnel.

The contrast is telling.

Some counties enjoy abundant resources. Marshall County, buoyed by shale gas development, has $122 million cash on hand. 78 percent cash to levy, the highest in the state. Good for them.

Larger more economically diversified counties like Kanawha, Monongalia and Berkeley are all operating over formula for total positions, but enjoy excess levies standing at 19, 16 and 15 percent cash to levy respectively.

Putnam County reported $42 million cash on hand – 33 percent cash to levy serving almost 8,400 students. Putnam has an excess levy and is 120 positions over formula.

Twelve counties – Calhoun, Doddridge, Gilmer, Pendleton, Pleasants, Pocahontas, Ritchie, Summers, Tucker, Tyler, Webster and Wirt – receive an additional cumulative $25 million in state funding over formula allocation based on student enrollment and population density metrics as prescribed in code. Implemented in another time, is that practice sustainable in today’s fiscal environment? Is it equitable when other counties just as stressed have figured out how to make it work?

For counties with fewer advantages, the difference often comes down to choices. Some made hard decisions to control operating costs. Others did not. Many within the State Department of Education say local boards splurged during the COVID era — using one-time federal dollars for ongoing expenses, particularly salaries, and expanding full-time staffing levels. When that money dried up — and workforce reduction failed to materialize — financial stress set in.

Yes, the Legislature should revisit the school-aid formula.

That said, no amount of tweaking — or even a full rewrite — can fix poor local financial management and poor operational decisions. It can’t reconcile books that don’t tie to bank balances. It can’t compensate for weak internal controls that could prevent employee fraud costing millions as has happened in at least one system.

School Financial Operations Officer Uriah Cummings said this week on Talkline that if he were responsible for some of these systems, he’d be losing sleep at night. I haven’t lost sleep yet, but this issue has weighed heavily on my mind all week.

It should weigh on every legislator. Every school board member. Every administrator. The governor. The State Education Department. Everyone. In fairness, some get it, but many – especially it appears at local levels – do not.

Left uncorrected… well, I don’t even care to say what could come next.

The post Some School Systems Near Financial Disaster appeared first on WV MetroNews.

Two years ago this month, West Virginia Republicans made a significant move: they voted to close their primary elections.

Why? Certain factions within the party — reportedly including then-gubernatorial hopeful Patrick Morrisey and U.S. Senate hopeful Alex Mooney — believed the change would benefit more right-leaning candidates.

This marked a sharp departure from the open primary system in place since 1986, a system widely viewed as critical to Republicans wresting legislative control from Democrats as the state shifted more conservative.

Wary of backlash and facing insufficient time to notify Independent and unaffiliated voters, party leaders delayed implementation. The change was approved but set to take effect with the 2026 primary.

Last summer, there was discussion about repealing the decision before the first closed primary occurred. That effort never gained traction.

Now, open primary supporters are set to make their case again at this Saturday’s GOP Winter Meeting in Charleston.

By and large, those favoring an open primary are traditional Republicans — focused first on economic development, pro-business policies, tax cuts, and growth. Those supporting a closed primary are often described as Republican populists — more focused on social issues, skeptical of large industry, and highly engaged on topics like compulsory vaccination mandates, DEI, and ESG.

Nobody fits neatly into either box, but that framing generally captures the divide.

Here’s why it matters.

Just as Republicans needed Independent voters to gain legislative control in late 2014 and early 2015, they still need them today.

According to the latest voter registration data:

• Republicans make up 42.47 percent of registered voters.
• Democrats account for 27.7 percent.
• Independents represent 25.46 percent.

That totals more than 95 percent of registered voters, with the remainder spread among minor parties.

Put simply, a Republican candidate for statewide office cannot win a general election without Independent support. In most counties, the math bears that out as well in a legislative race.

Take Kanawha County as an example: Republicans number roughly 44,000 voters, while Democrats and Independents together total about 72,000. Assuming good turnout among all factions in a general contest, a Republican can’t win on their own party’s support alone.

Republican leaders are betting Independents will continue to back GOP candidates in general elections — as they have done in the past – even if those voters are shut out of Republican primaries, denied a chance to weigh in on primary options.

Some data quietly circulating around the state suggests otherwise.

A poll conducted in November and shared on the condition of anonymity asked a simple question:

“The West Virginia Republican Party recently made a rule that only registered Republicans can vote in the Republican primary election in West Virginia.
After hearing this, which of the following best represents your opinion?”

Respondents were given two options:

• I am more likely to change my registration to Republican so I can vote in the Republican primary.
• I am more likely to remain an Independent and vote in the Democrat primary election, which still allows Democrats and Independents to participate.

The results were striking:

• 17 percent said they would change their registration to Republican and vote in the primary.
• 57 percent said they would remain Independent and vote in the Democratic primary.
• 26 percent said they didn’t know or felt the question didn’t apply.

It’s only one question, and follow-ups would add valuable context. That puts the results in a “grain of salt” status.

But — and this is a big but — the response is significant enough that Republicans should be paying close attention.

That 57 percent matters.

There won’t be many competitive Democratic primaries. Democrats have struggled to fill ballots in West Virginia. An Independent playing spoiler in a Dem primary to better setup Republicans in November is juice not worth the squeeze.

So why would Independents vote at all if they can’t vote in the Republican primary?

As a protest.

And that raises a critical question: Is a bloc of Independents willing to “throw an elbow” in the primary likely to be in a forgiving mood come November? Nobody knows — and that uncertainty alone should concern Republicans.

Independents have leverage. They’ve used it before.

How quickly would Republicans reconsider reopening the primary if they take a hit? Are they comfortable trading a supermajority for a slimmer majority? Are they comfortable with the risk of losing a majority? Is that possibility probable or extremely remote?

Republicans who never wanted to close the primary – fearful of what Independents might do – have taken notice once again.

That concern has spurred more detailed polling on the issue by groups with larger resources. Results are expected as early as Thursday and won’t quietly circulate as the November poll did. These numbers are meant to stir debate on the issue and force reconsideration Saturday.

Ultimately, the outcome will come down to the numbers in each camp — numbers sufficient to clear parliamentary hurdles and reverse the party’s previous decision, or not.

A tall order and the outcome is unclear.

But if that early November polling holds up under broader scrutiny, Republicans may be taking a real gamble if the primary remains closed.

Perhaps it would be better to welcome Independents recognizing the roll they played in establishing Republican control than to make an enemy of them — at least until Republicans have built a registered voter base large enough to win without relying on Independents.

The post Closed Republican Primary Debate Heats Up, Again appeared first on WV MetroNews.

U.S. forces captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife in the early hours of Saturday morning, acting on orders from President Donald Trump. Later that day, speaking from Mar-a-Lago, Mr. Trump said the United States would “run Venezuela.” By Sunday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio walked that back on the talk shows, saying instead that the U.S. would pursue change through an oil blockade.

The only certainty in all of this? The situation is a classic wait and see.

Maduro is evil. Full stop. His ouster is good for Venezuelans and for anyone who abhors dictatorship and socialism. That part is easy.

But was it America’s job to remove him – especially during a presidency defined by “America First?” Is this move truly America First? Most Republicans say yes. Democrats are quick to say no and have heavily criticized the decision.

Welcome to politics.

Republicans support their president – partly out of agreement, partly because dissent has proven costly, and partly because politics is tribal: us versus them. Democrats, for their part, were always going to condemn the move. They need an argument to campaign on if this goes sideways.

That’s not a pejorative take on either party. It’s simply the game of politics – a game as old as any ever played.

Still, legitimate questions abound.

Should Congress – or at least the Gang of Eight – have been consulted before taking action against a sovereign nation and capturing its leader? The Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war. Then again, George H.W. Bush made a similar call with Manuel Noriega – one can make a case Maduro is worse than Noriega, so why not use the precedent as established? Or are we here because Congress continues to abdicate its constitutional responsibilities?

Is the president being fully truthful with the American people? He said the U.S. would run Venezuela. A day later, his secretary of state said the plan was pressure through an oil blockade. If Maduro is gone but Delcy Rodríguez remains, is that meaningful change – or just rearranging pieces on the board? Isn’t she just as bad? Can real reform happen without nation-building or a true regime change? Both of which have proven costly to the U.S. and yielded limited success in the past.

And is this really about Venezuela – or about China, Russia, and other U.S. adversaries? Is the president sending a message, reasserting control over the Western Hemisphere, and demonstrating resolve through action?

There’s also the oil question. Venezuela nationalized American oil assets in the 1970s. Exxon has still not been fully compensated, despite international rulings. Chevron continues to operate there, but will major U.S. oil companies really rush back to reinvest and rebuild, as Trump suggested, given the uncertainty ahead? What stops Rodríguez from repeating Maduro’s playbook?

As for drugs, there are bigger fish to fry – starting with Mexico.

There are so many questions, so many angles, and so many players that anyone claiming certainty – whether an average American, a think-tank analyst, a member of Congress, or a national editorial board issuing its latest piece on the matter – is almost certainly overstating their grasp of events.

The reality is simple: we’re in it now. Maduro’s removal alone may be too little to produce meaningful change. Can we stop there if nothing changes? The path forward remains unclear. President Trump can press ahead aggressively or take a more limited, stunted approach. Either way, it is far too early to know how this ends.

Uncertainty is the only certainty.

Shakespeare had it right:
“If you can look into the seeds of time,
And say which grain will grow and which will not,
Speak then to me.”

No mortal can do that. Nobody knows how this ends. Anyone who claims otherwise is either foolish or lying.

The post Venezuela is “Wait and See” appeared first on WV MetroNews.

Next week marks one year since Dave Wilson and I inherited MetroNews Talkline. It still feels a little unreal.

Flash back to the year 2000. I cracked a mic a time or two at West Virginia Radio Charleston on what was then 98.7 The Beat with Woody Woods. College brought me to Morgantown, and a few folks in the Charleston office reached out on my behalf to the late Lacy Neff — longtime WVAQ program director (PD) and multiple Marconi Award winner. His talent was unprecedented. I miss him.

Lacy was gracious enough to offer me a weekend shift on his station.

Like any good PD, he wanted an air-check. I made the trek to Sabraton, walked into the Greer Building, and knocked on the West Virginia Radio headquarters door upstairs. Hoppy Kercheval answered.

Foreshadowing? Maybe.

I wanted to meet Lacy. He was on the air at the time, but I hoped to push my way back to his studio to make my pitch. The dutiful vice president of operations told me he wasn’t available — as he should have — and agreed to give him the tape. We still air-checked with cassettes back then, believe it or not.

Funny — I’ve often wondered what Kercheval thought of this skinny, wet-behind-the-ears kid dropping off that tape. I should ask him. Odds are he doesn’t remember it. I wouldn’t if I were him.

Anyway, Lacy gave me a shot. It was my chance to succeed or fail. A few months later, he gave me the night shift from 7 p.m. to midnight — a great shift in a college town. I worked there until I graduated in 2003.

Restless and eager to make my mark, I explored opportunities outside of media after graduation. Not a journalism major, I began my first career in corporate America in January 2004.

Fast forward to October 2024. Hoppy reached out. You may remember, I subbed for him for a few years before my job became so consuming, I didn’t have the time anymore. He told me he planned to retire. Having met WVRC Media President and CEO George Pelletier a few months earlier, it felt like things were lining up.

But talk about a 180.

At 44, working my way up the corporate ladder — with a stop at a startup along the way — I had reached a level where you start to matter a bit. Everyone matters but you get it… More meetings with C-suite folks and real relationships with them. More access. More influence. More decisions to make. A future-looking portfolio with real significance, and a clear path to move to higher levels.

Do I give that up? I had been thinking about doing something different, but thinking and a real opportunity are two different things.

Thankfully, neither my wife nor I are hyper-consumers. We live a low-key, far-below-our-means lifestyle, so trading money for meaning wasn’t a hinderance. Don’t misunderstand — I’m paid very well for what I do. My point is this: if you prepare and live sensibly with margin, you can afford to trade a job you like that may pay a lot of money, for a passion that fulfills you beyond what a job ever could. That’s one reason I harp so much on teaching sound personal finance to our kids.

Still, growing in a company can be addicting. It feeds your ego. Starting young in corporate America, I was hooked on that — as much as I cringe to admit it.

Walking away wasn’t easy. The hard work, long hours, an occasional night until 3 a.m. to turn something around that popped up without notice, all done to reach a certain point wouldn’t matter. Was it all for naught?

Talking with people close to me, praying, and sitting quietly thinking about later life — wondering how I’d cope knowing I never tried — fairly quickly led to a peace about moving forward.

Sure, the fact that I’m not Hoppy was a concern, but not a big one. Will people still listen? Will they accept me? Will they think I’m terrible and tune out, leading to my being sacked? Perhaps. Fear, though, is no reason to pass on a great opportunity. It’s a liar meant to trick you into accepting less.

So early in November, I called my former boss — a person I respect and frankly esteem. She’s brilliant, almost always the smartest person in the room, yet humble and caring. I’d still jump off a bridge for her if she asked knowing I’d somehow land safely.

She didn’t hesitate. Instantly, she affirmed this was something I had to do. You can see why I think so much of her and continue to.

Now, hundreds of shows and commentaries later, I wake up each day eager to do what I do — fully aware of how blessed I am.

A seed planted 25 years ago has grown into what I do today. I’m grateful to God for his graces, and I’m grateful to you for listening to the show and reading commentaries. I know some agree with me, while some disagree, and that’s okay. Right or wrong, my goal is to share ideas and encourage discussion – that’s the only way we reach the sweet spot.

You make a part of my life I truly love possible, and I’m indebted to you for that.

Here’s to a great 2026 of sharing ideas, debating issues, and growing alongside each other.

Be well!

The post What a Difference a Year Makes appeared first on WV MetroNews.

The policy arrives as student debt remains a massive national burden, topping $1.6 trillion, with millions of borrowers either already in default or at risk of slipping into it. Critics argue that wage garnishment will fall hardest on those already struggling financially, particularly lower-income households and individuals receiving public assistance, who are statistically more likely to default. With household budgets strained by higher living costs and economic uncertainty, the decision carries political and economic risk — raising fresh questions about how aggressively the government should pursue repayment when many borrowers remain under pressure.

West Virginia by the numbers

• $7.4 billion in student loan debt is held by state residents

• $32,343 is the average student loan balance

• 228,800 student borrowers live in West Virginia

• 47.4% are under the age of 35

• 12.9% of state residents carry student loan debt

• Among indebted borrowers:

  • 17.2% owe less than $5,000

  • 21.3% owe between $20,000 and $40,000 (average $28,484)

  • 1.49% owe more than $200,000

In West Virginia, the average unpaid student loan balance is less than the national average.

A few more facts

• Federal student loans account for 91.6% of all student loan debt; 8.43% is private, including $30.7 billion in refinanced loans

• The average federal student loan balance is $39,075; total average balance (including private loans) may reach $42,673

• 11.3% of federal student loan dollars were delinquent as of Q2 2025; 1.61% of private student loans were in default as of Q1 2024

• The average public university student borrows $31,960 to earn a bachelor’s degree

• 55% of Americans support cancellation of up to $10,000 per borrower; 47% support cancellation of up to $50,000

• 33.4% of borrowers owe $10,000 or less in federal debt; 76.4% owe $40,000 or less

• 31% of Americans oppose student loan debt cancellation

What does it all mean?

Wage garnishment isn’t just fair — it’s overdue, much like the accounts of many borrowers. Loans are financial instruments, not social experiments, and they must be treated accordingly. Borrowers received services in exchange for borrowed tuition dollars. The value of those services — high or low — belongs to the borrower alone. Either way, repayment is still required.

Some argue borrowers were too young to understand what they were signing. But the law recognizes adulthood at 18 — a status that carries real responsibility. We do not excuse missed car payments because a borrower was young or inexperienced, nor do we suspend repossession because someone got in over their head. Student loans should not be treated differently.

This is the reality of credit, and financial leverage: debt is indifferent to what it purchases or how it is used. It only demands repayment, with a return. Asking taxpayers to indefinitely ignore non-payment merely positions the debt for eventual forgiveness — effectively granting a free ride to some at the expense of those who paid their loans, made sacrifices to afford college, or chose not to attend at all.

Beyond the inflationary risk and the already bloated national debt worsened by write-offs, there is a deeper concern: moral hazard. Moral hazard is an economic concept describing situations where individuals take on greater risk because they do not bear the full consequences of their actions.

That is the lesson leniency teaches. In a nation already struggling with fiscal discipline and basic financial literacy, refusing to collect and enforce repayment sends a corrosive signal — that paying one’s bills is optional if hardship can be demonstrated after the fact. It discourages front-end responsibility, careful borrowing decisions, and honest risk assessment.

That message is like poison. It accelerates a dangerous path for both the nation and its citizens.

President Trump is right to restart wage garnishment. Consequence in the marketplace must not be diluted — even slightly. When it is, chaos follows. And chaos serves no one in the long run.

The post Garnishing Wages Overdue appeared first on WV MetroNews.