Public Comments

1. Pass this bill please!

What exactly are we doing with this bill?

From what I am reading, the primary outcome appears to be: large corporations receive substantial tax credits, and citizens may receive a handful of jobs in return. Is that truly the intended balance?

Why are we granting massive tax credits to enormous data centers and corporations simply for being expensive? Large-scale infrastructure projects already come with significant capital backing. Why does a corporation investing tens or hundreds of millions of dollars require additional public subsidy from a state that consistently emphasizes budget constraints?

I am particularly concerned about the provision allowing companies to offset taxes tied to employee withholding. If tax relief is being applied to income generated by employees’ labor, why does that benefit not go directly to the employees themselves? If the justification is job creation, shouldn’t working citizens see direct financial benefit rather than corporations reducing their own tax liability?

Additionally, the minimum qualification standard is structured as an “OR” requirement — meaning a corporation can qualify by investing $2.5 million without necessarily creating meaningful long-term employment. Why is there no stronger “AND” requirement that ensures both substantial investment and substantial job creation? Without that safeguard, it appears possible for large corporations to receive significant tax advantages with minimal obligation to the working class.

Many working-class citizens of West Virginia are already struggling with rising costs of living, housing, and healthcare. It is difficult to understand why the state’s priority seems to be expanding tax flexibility for major corporations rather than strengthening direct economic stability for the people whose labor sustains the state economy.

If the citizens who power West Virginia’s economy are not the primary priority, then what is?

1. Shifts Decision-Making from Statute to Administrative Rulemaking The proposed legislation removes detailed graduation standard language from statute and delegates authority to the State Board of Education to promulgate those requirements by rule. This significantly shifts responsibility for defining diploma criteria from the Legislature — where elected representatives debate and vote on policy — to an administrative body outside direct legislative approval. Current legislative discussion shows the Board would set not only common requirements but detailed pathway criteria by rule, including workforce and military pathways.  
2. Undefined Scope of Board Authority The bill text before the Legislature authorizes the Board to define graduation pathways — but the specifics of what the Board might include are not clearly constrained in statute. For example, there is no express limit on additional requirements the Board might adopt beyond core academic credits; this creates uncertainty for students, parents, and educators about what will ultimately be required.  
3. Potential for Inconsistent Local Implementation Because the requirements will be set through rulemaking, local school districts and county boards will have to interpret and operationalize those rules without the benefit of detailed statutory guidance. This could lead to inconsistent expectations across counties or unanticipated instructional burdens.
4. Transparency and Public Input Concerns Rulemaking can limit public awareness and input compared to statute: • Rule proposals are often technical and subject to shorter comment periods. • Rules may be amended or adopted without full legislative debate. This reduces opportunities for a broad public airing of proposed graduation standards before they take effect.
5. Context of Broader Education Policy Changes This bill is part of a broader legislative session that has seen multiple significant education policy changes — including proposals on school discipline, cell phone use, and curriculum pathways — which collectively affect students’ educational experience. Graduation requirements should be carefully considered by the Legislature with clear statutory language rather than delegated through rulemaking without sufficient guardrails.  

Please help out our State by legalizing this plant for recreational use. It has been proven to be safer than alcohol with almost endless possibilities from the tax benefits. The people of our great State deserve to be able to get a leg up instead of always being behind. You all have the power to make that change. Be that change. Thank you.

I’d like to request WV consider allowing edibles in dispensary’s. It makes no sense to allow cannabis for medical purposes but force you to smoke the carcinogens, potentially harming your lungs and cause cancer.

• Insert A: Amend §9-5-15 — Create the Expert Panel on Rare Diseases and Personalized Medicine within the Medicaid drug utilization review program
• Insert B: Amend §16-22-3 — Give the Bureau for Public Health access to the panel for specified newborn screening decisions
• Insert C: Amend §33-2-10 — Require the Insurance Commissioner to seek panel input before finalizing rules materially affecting rare disease access
• Insert D: Transition provision — Dissolve the existing RDAC, transfer records, repeal §16-5CC

• 16-22-3 — Newborn Screening Insertion. In subsection (d), after the existing language directing the Bureau for Public Health to propose legislative rules, add a new subsection (e):