ALEC Waxman Markey Opposition Letter

Dear Representative:

On behalf of the undersigned 186 state and national leaders, Legislators, heads of think-tanks, activist groups, business owners and organizations representing millions of American families, taxpayers and energy consumers, we urge you to oppose H.R. 2454, “The American Clean Energy and Security Act,” also known as the Waxman-Markey plan (or Cap-and-Trade/Capand-Tax).

This bill was recently passed out of the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee and we are urging all members of Congress to oppose consideration of this bill. This bill raises taxes on American families, increases the cost of energy, and eliminates American jobs. These are not proposals we can support.

The Waxman-Markey bill you are asked to consider will increase energy costs by $1,500 annually for the typical family of four. Further, the Heritage Foundation estimates that even with the estimated 26 percent reduction in electricity use, electric bills will increase $754 with the Waxman-Markey plan.

Additionally, from 2012 to 2035, a typical family will spend $12,200 more on its electric bill than in the absence of Waxman-Markey.

Despite the attempts in Waxman-Markey to decrease gas consumption by 15 percent, gas prices will still increase. As a result of the Waxman-Markey plan, an average American family of four will pay an additional $596 for gas usage in 2035. From 2012 to 2035, the Waxman-Markey plan will cost them an additional $7,500 in gas costs.

Before all the damage is done from Waxman-Markey, a family of four will see its direct energy costs rise by $22,800 from 2012 to 2035.

The Waxman-Markey plan does not just raise taxes and increase energy costs; it is expected to end 1,105,000 American jobs annually. The proposed Cap-and-Trade scheme will result in a loss of nearly 2,500,000 million American jobs. America needs economic policies that lead to job creation, not job destruction. This proposal is not something we are prepared to accept.

Table I - Percentage of Electricity that Meets Congress’ Definition of ‘Carbon-Free Renewable’ Energy for Each State

AL 2.5 HI 5.4 MA 0.7 NM 4.5 SD 1.9
AK 0.2 ID 5.5 MI 2.0 NY 1.6 TN 1.0
AZ 0.1 IL 1.4 MN 9.2 NC 1.5 TX 3.9
AR 2.9 IN 0.3 MS 3.1 ND 4.7 UT 0.6
CA 12.6 IA 7.3 MO 0.2 OH 0.3 VT 7.1
CO 5.9 KS 3.8 MT 2.3 OK 3.4 VA 2.9
CT 0.1 KY 0.5 NE 0.8 OR 5.8 WA 4.4
DE 2.1 LA 3.1 NV 3.8 PA 0.9 WV 0.4
FL 1.3 ME 23.8 NH 5.0 RI 2.1 WI 2.6
GA 2.3 MD 0.5 NJ 0.4 SC 1.7 WY 2.0

As indicated in Table I, the Waxman-Markey-mandated Federal Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) (which requires the nation to derive 10 percent of electricity from renewable sources by 2012 and 25 percent by 2025) is simply unrealistic given our current situation. Fourteen states (in bold boxes) are currently receiving less than one percent of their electricity from “renewable” sources.

Forcing this unrealistic mandate without an opt-in option or state-defining renewable option will do nothing more than increase the cost of electricity on rate paying consumers.

States that cannot meet with RES will be face monetary penalties from the federal government. These penalties will be passed onto consumers in the form of higher fees and taxes which they simply cannot afford. Further, by not allowing states to define what is “renewable” in their region, the bill inaccurately assumes that Maine has the same resources available as California. This illconceived logic should not be part of any national energy strategy.

Further, the bill calls for the 2050 CO2 emissions rate to be 83 percent lower than the 2005 emissions rate. However, as seen in Table II, 36 states (in bold boxes) produce their energy using over 80 percent carbon-based fuels. This proposal will cripple state economies, as energy is overwhelmingly derived from carbon-based fuels. Sadly, consumers will experience negative effects from unrealistic goals when they result in higher taxes, increased fees, and higher prices.
Table II - State Percentage of Energy Supplied by Carbon-Based Fuels

AL 76.3 HI 94.9 MA 90.8 NM 97.8 SD 84.1
AK 97.8 ID 64.6 MI 86.8 NY 77.5 TN 81.8
AZ 80.9 IL 46.6 MN 85.4 NC 78.1 TX 95.0
AR 77.5 IN 98.6 MS 85.1 ND 95.9 UT 98.3
CA 82.7 IA 90.4 MO 93.6 OH 94.0 VT 52.9
CO 97.6 KS 89.5 MT 79.9 OK 97.0 VA 81.1
CT 75.1 KY 97.4 NE 83.5 OR 59.3 WA 53.1
DE 99.4 LA 91.1 NV 92.1 PA 80.4 WV 98.5
FL 87.4 ME 64.5 NH 68.0 RI 97.0 WI 86.2
GA 81.8 MD 84.6 NJ 84.3 SC 65.8 WY 97.8

A recent poll indicated that 52 percent of registered American voters oppose the cap-and-trade
policy contained in the Waxman-Markey plan. Fifty-eight percent said they were unwilling to pay additional money for electricity to combat climate change. Sixty-eight percent disagreed with the notion that Congress should enact a carbon tax to encourage consumers to decrease their electricity usage. In addition, more than 50 percent opposed any carbon tax used to fund energy research.

Moreover, 73 percent of respondents placed the economy first among issue priorities. Based on the evidence above and many other detrimental effects of this disastrous bill, we urge you to oppose the Waxman-Markey Cap-and-Trade/Cap-and-Tax bill as a tax increase that American families simply cannot afford, and energy policy that we cannot accept.

For more information, contact Brian Johnson at Americans for Tax Reform at bjohnson@atr.org or 202-785-0266.

Sincerely,

Alabama Policy Institute, Gary Palmer
Alabama State Representative Greg Wren
Alabama State Senator Steve French
Alliance for Worker Freedom, Brian M Johnson
American Civil Rights Union
American Conservative Union, David Keene
American Council for Health Care Reform, William Shaker
American Shareholders Association, Ryan Ellis
American Solutions, Dan Varroney
Americans for Prosperity, Tim Phillips
Americans for Tax Reform, Grover Norquist
Americans for the Preservation of Liberty, David Ridenour
Arizona State Representative Cecil Ash
Arizona State Representative Daniel Patterson
Arizona State Representative Debbie Lesko
Arizona State Representative John McComish
Arizona State Representative Nancy Barto
Arizona State Senate Majority Whip Pamela Gorman
Arizona State Senator Jack Harper
Arizona State Senator John Nelson
Arizona State Senator Johnny Key
Arizona State Senator Ron Gould
Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce
Arizona State Senator Sylvia Allen
Center for Fiscal Accountability, Sandra Fabry
Center for Individual Freedom, Jeffrey Mazzella
Charles W. Baird, Ph.D., Professor of Economics, Emeritus, CSU East Bay
Citizen Outreach Project, Doug Bandow
Citizens for Responsible Government, Joseph Andrews
Citizens United, Chuck Muth
Clean Oceans Technology Coalition, Joel C. Mandelman
Club for Growth, Andy Roth
College Republican National Committee
Colorado State Senator Scott Renfroe
Connecticut Center-Right Coalition, D. Dowd Muska
Connecticut State Representative Bill Hamzy
Connecticut State Representative John Piscopo
Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, Erica Gordon
Eagle Forum, Phyllis Schlafly
Ethan Allen Institute, John McCalughry
Evergreen Freedom Foundation, Amber Gunn
Florida Center-Right Coalition, Rick Watson
Florida State Representative Alan Hays, DMD
Florida State Representative Sandra Adams
FRCAction, Tom McClusky
FreedomWorks, Matt Kibbe
Frontiers of Freedom, George Landrith
Georgia Eagle Forum, Nancy Schaefer
Georgia State Representative Ed Setzler
Georgia State Representative Melvin Everson
Georgia State Representative Randy Nix
Georgia State Representative Tom Rice
Georgia State Representative Wendell Willard
Georgia State Senate Majority Leader Chip Rogers
Georgia State Senator Chip Rogers
Grassroots Institute of Hawaii, Dick Rowland
Hawaii State Senator Sam Slom
Hispanic Leadership Fund, Mario Lopez
Illinois Policy Institute, John Tillman
Illinois State Representative Dave Winters
Independence Institute, Jon Caldara
Indiana Eagle Forum, Pat Schneider
Indiana State Representative Cindy Noe
Indiana State Representative Eric Koch
Indiana State Representative Jeff Thompson
Indiana State Representative William Ruppel
Indiana State Senator Brandt Hershman
Institute for Liberty, Andrew Langer
Kansas State Senator Mary Pilcher-Cook
Kansas State Representative Don Meyers
Kansas State Representative Marc Rhoades
Kansas State Representative Sharon Schwartz
Kansas State Senator Tim Huelskamp
Kentucky State Representative Mike Harmon
Let Freedom Ring, Colin Hanna
Louisiana Republican National Committeeman, W. Ross Little, Jr.
Louisiana State Representative Nickie Monica
Louisiana State Representative Scott Simon
Maryland Center-Right Coalition, Richard Falknor
Maryland State Delegate Nic Kipke
Maryland State Representative Richard Sossi
Maryland State Delegate Gail Bates
Michigan Eagle Forum, Violet Vestevich
Minnesota Eagle Forum, Bonnie Nugent
Minnesota State Senator Mike Jungbauer
Mississippi Center for Public Policy, Forest Thigpen
Mississippi State Representative Becky Currie
Missouri State Representative Bob Nance
Missouri State Representative Cynthia Davis
Missouri State Representative Dwight Scharnhost
Missouri State Representative Shane Schoeller
Missouri State Representative Stanley Cox
Missouri State Representative Tim Flook
Missouri State Representative Walter Bivins
Missouri State Senator Jim Lembke
Montana State Representative Bob Lake
Montana State Representative Cary Smith
Montana State Representative Chas Vincent
Montana State Representative Gary MacLaren
Montana State Representative Mike Miller
National Center for Public Policy Research, Amy Ridenour
National Taxpayers Union, Duane Pardee
Nevada Eagle Forum, Janine Hansen
New Hampshire State Representative Betsey McKinney
New Hampshire State Representative Beverly Rodeschin
New Hampshire State Representative Jennifer Coffey
New Hampshire State Representative John Reagan
New Jersey State Assemblyman Michael J. Doherty
New Mexico Former State Representative Frank Bird
New Mexico Former State Representative Justine Fox-Young
New Mexico Former State Representative, Senator & Lieutenant Governor Jack Stahl
New Mexico Former State Senator Mickey D. Barnett
New Mexico Republican Party, John E. Rockwell
New Mexico Shooting Sports Association, Paul Lisle
New Mexico State Senator Steve Neville
New Mexico, Bernalillo County Sheriff, Darren P. White
New York Assemblyman Greg Ball
North Carolina Deputy Republican Senate Leader Neal Hunt
North Carolina State Representative George Cleveland
North Carolina State Representative Mitch Gillespie
North Carolina State Representative Pat McElraft
North Dakota State Representative Chuck Damschen
North Dakota State Representative Ken Svedjan
Ohio State House Assistant Minority Whip Sean Chichelli,
Ohio State House Minority Whip John Adamns,
Ohio State Senator Bob Gibbs
Ohio State Senator Kevin Coughlin
Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs, Inc., Brandon Dutcher
Oklahoma State Representative Colby Schwartz
Oklahoma State Representative Leslie Osborn
Oklahoma State Representative Mike Sanders
Oregon State Representative Matt Wingard
Oregon State Representative George Gilman
Oregon State Representative John Huffman
Pelican Institute for Public Policy, Kevin Kane
Pennsylvania Eagle Forum, Fran Bevan
Pennsylvania State Representative Daryl Metcalfe
Pennsylvania State Representative Jeff Pyle
Pennsylvania State Representative Kathy Rapp
Pennsylvania State Representative Matthew Baker
Project 21, Deneen Borelli
Property Rights Alliance, Kelsey Zahourek
Quantum Communications, Charlie Gerow
RightMarch.com, Dr. William Greene
Samuel Properties, Ltd., Patty Terrell
Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council, Karen Karrigan
Smart Business Hawaii, Sam Slom
Society of American Florists, Jeanne Ramsay
South Carolina State Senator David Thomas
South Dakota State Representative Val Rausch
Talbott Advisors, Inc., Fenton R. Talbott
Tennessee Eagle Forum, Bobbie Patray
Tennessee State Representative Ben West, Jr.
Tennessee State Representative Susan Lynn
Texas Eagle Forum, Cathie Adams
Texas State Representative Joe Driver
The Harbour League, Eli Gold
The Rule of Law Committee, Bill Shaker
Utah State Representative Bradley Daw
Utah State Representative Lorie Fowlke
Utah State Senator Ralph Okerlund
Virginia House of Delegates Member Kathy Byron
Washington State Minority Whip Bill Hinkle
Washington State Representative Jan Angel
Washington State Representative Shelly Short
Washington State Senator Val Stevens
West Virginia House of Delegates Member Troy Andes
West Virginia State Delegate Jonathan Miller
West Virginia State Delegate Ronald Walters, Sr.
West Virginia State Representative Troy Andes
Wisconsin State Representative John Nygren
Wisconsin State Representative Leah Vukmir
Wisconsin State Representative Mike Huebsch
Wisconsin State Representative Robin Vos
Wyoming State Representative Allen Jaggi
Wyoming State Representative Amy Edmonds
Wyoming State Representative David Miller
Wyoming State Representative Peter S. “Pete” Illoway
Wyoming State Representative Sue Wallis

ALEC on Cap and Trade

Click here: http://www.alec.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Cap_and_Trade

In 2008, ALEC adopted the following position on climate change:

"Climate change is a historical phenomenon and the debate will continue on the significance of natural and anthropogenic contributions. ALEC will continue to monitor the issue and support the use of sound science.

Regardless, the economy is becoming more energy efficient. Each year we emit less carbon dioxide per dollar of economic output. In fact, carbon dioxide emissions per dollar of GDP declined 41.3 percent between 1981 and 2005. This impressive improvement has taken place without greenhouse gas emissions regulations or taxes."

Oppose the Cap and Trade 'Tax' Increase Bill, H.R. 2454

Click the link below to take action on this issue.:http://www.votervoice.net/link/forward/jbs223753.aspx

Stimulus reason for All Payer Claims Database?

Ruin Your Health With the Obama Stimulus Plan
Betsy McCaughey

Understanding Cap-and-trade

Don't understand cap-and-trade? Listen to this...

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=105285865&ft=1&f=94427042

HB2318 - Governor's Energy Bill

Mandating Politics

The traditional police powers of government are health, safety, welfare and morals.

This means that the state might see fit to intercede through laws by limiting your activity if there is an unseen danger in what you do that could have a significant effect on another individual; thus jeopardizing that individual's right to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness in a tangible way.

For instance; health inspections have increased cleanliness, cutting down on diseases that could severely impact your health. Safety inspections ensure that unseen dangers, like in electrical wiring or gas hook-ups, are minimized. Welfare typically refers to some sort of fraud - it is why we inspect bank records. Morals normally refer to activity, perhaps that concerning drugs or alcohol.

Strangely, the state is wanting to add energy efficiency to it's police powers. HB2318 changes Tennessee code 68-120-101, the law on statewide building construction safety standards, to include energy efficiency.

It is one thing for the state to take precautions because something may seriously jeopardize your health, or safety, or all that you have worked to earn, or to keep you from being a danger to others when you are under the influence of drugs or alcohol, but to police energy efficiency?

People already have an incentive to build energy efficient homes or to purchase energy efficient appliances - its called a utility bill.

For the state to get involved and create mandates is for the state to become involved in political decisions that favor some parts and supplies over others; certain businesses over other businesses; certain policies and political philosophies other others.

People naturally balance what they can afford with what they will save and examine the margins to see how far they want to go. Mandating politics is not good policy - and it moves us further still from freedom.

Economic Liberty and the Constitution, Part 1

by Jacob G. Hornberger, June 2002

Police powers and mercantilism

...The courts, however, had not limited the concept of “police powers” to laws proscribing violent crimes, such as murder, rape, theft, and burglary. Instead, the concept had been vaguely defined as the power to enact laws relating to the “safety, health, morals, and general welfare” of the public, a definition that opened up a Pandora’s box that harkened back to the era of mercantilism, an economic system that characterized European life during the 1600s and 1700s.

Under the old mercantilist system, the government had the power to regulate the most minute aspects of people’s economic affairs. Consider, for example, the cloak industry. The government prescribed how many cloaks should be produced in the nation, as well as sizes and colors. Regulations even outlined exactly how the nation’s weavers were to do their weaving.

Why were these extensive regulations necessary? Because if the government did not regulate the production of cloaks, it was believed, there existed the distinct possibility that people might end up with no cloaks to wear, which would mean that they might very well freeze to death. After all, what if everyone forgot to make cloaks one year? Or what if they didn’t make them in sizes that would fit the people?

Section by Section Analysis - All Payer Claims Database

Title: Bill Number: HB2289/SB2239


This brief document summarizes some of the major components to HB2289 (SB2239) which is currently being considered by the Tennessee General Assembly.


Summary

The bill creates a government database of Tennesseans’ private healthcare claims. Each Tennessean that has private health insurance would be listed in the database, and all claims for care that they receive would be transmitted to the state by private health insurance companies for compilation in the database.

For example, if you went to the doctor today with a cold, and again on Friday with bronchitis, then by Monday you were admitted to the hospital with pneumonia all of that data would be submitted to the state so that the department of finance and administration can follow the progress of your illness and treatment.

The enormity of this database cannot be overstated. For instance, Blue Cross / Blue Shield processes 38,000 insurance claims per hour. Each of the claims would become part of the database.

Several New England states and Minnesota have already instituted similar databases. Minnesota’s health dept has recently begun dictating health protocols to doctors and insurance companies - what business the state has interfering in private healthcare transactions is yet unanswered.

As outlined in the bill, the government wants the private healthcare data of her citizens’ so that the Commissioner of the TN Department of Finance and Administration (presently Dave Goetz) can carry out several stated objectives including:

Improve health care accessibility and affordability,

Identify health care needs,

Determine the capacity and distribution of existing health care resources,

Evaluate the effectiveness of programs on patient outcomes,

Review costs,

Provide publicly available information on providers’ quality of care.

REMEMBER! This data is privately paid for information on private individuals who are making claims to private insurance companies. Frankly, the government has no business having such private information or performing any of the above duties when you privately pay for your healthcare.



Section by Section Analysis

Section 1; Adds the National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA) to the Tennessee Code under insurance company utilization review agents in 56-6-704.

NCQA is a non-profit organization that “promotes the adoption of strategies that we believe will improve care, enhance service and reduce costs, such as paying providers based on performance, leveraging the Web to give consumers more information, disease management and physician-level measurement.”

In a letter dated March 6, 2009 to President Obama from this non-profit organization praised the president for his White House Healthcare Summit and for moving us toward “comprehensive health care reform we need.”

Their criteria for which insurance companies must comply contains 6011 data fields on patients for evaluating cost and quality. Some large insurance companies already belong to this organization and comply with the 6011 data sets - however, others do not already comply.

Amendment 1

Section 3 - Definitions;

Bill contains no definition for;

· All Payer Claims Database
· National Standards in Section 3 (c)(2)(A) or Section 3 (f)(1)(C).
· HEDIS information in Section 3 (f)(2)(A). Some HEDIS information is based solely on surveys.
· National multi-collaborative stakeholders found in Section 3 (c).


Section 3 (c); Tennessee Health Information Committee

· No requirements for meetings of the committee or for the call of meetings or for the format.
· There is no sunrise date for the committee.
· Under the proposed law, the Commissioner of Finance and Administration would take recommendations from the newly established “Tennessee Health Information Committee.” The committee is to be comprised of 19 members, only one of whom “represent[s] health care consumers”; all of whom may view all of the information on the database. It is unclear why oversight of the database and the functions is housed within the Department of Finance and Administration, as opposed to the TN Department of Health.

Section 3 (c)(2)(A); Calls for the committee to develop a description of data sets based on “national standards” - National standards is not defined.

Protected Health Information; Not any specific part of the bill restricts the submission of “Protected Health Information” (PHI) to the state of Tennessee - “Protected Health Information” is a dataset of 18 fields of personal information identified by HIPAA’s Privacy Rules. The bill does not preclude the state from getting your PHI; only three of the 18 fields of the PHI may not be included in the Database. In fact, HIPAA expressly allows the government to receive your Personal Health Information - http://privacyruleandresearch.nih.gov/pr_08.asp.

All through the bill it implies that the state will have Protected Health Information.
See:

Section 3 (c)(3)(A) & (B)
Section 3 (c)(5)
Section 3 (d)(1) - one of the most obvious spots
Section 3 (f)(2) - another very obvious spot
Section 3 (d)(2)(A) asserts that “source” or “draft” information used to construct or populate the database will exist.

Nowhere does it state that the data set will be fully de-identified before the state receives the information from the insurance companies.

Section 3 (c)(2)(B); Requires the Committee to develop a method for the submission of data. NO METHOD IS DESCRIBED IN THE BILL.

Once an all payer claims database is established health insurance issuers must submit data in a standardized, electronic form, for inclusion in the database. The data submitted will include information on patients, their claims, the quality of care received, pricing rates, costs of care, and possibly other information in conformity with the National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA).

Section 3 (d)(2)(b); The information will be made available to virtually any branch of state government.

Section 3 (e); Excludes only three pieces of personal information from the All Claims Database; name, address, and social security number. This is startling to anyone that knows anything about datasets and privacy. HIPAA identifies 18 fields of protected health information that must be excluded in order for complete privacy to be assured. The inclusion of any of the remaining 18 fields puts patient privacy at risk.

This section should expressly state that none of the 18 fields of Protected Health Information will ever be received by the government.

Section 3 (f)(1)(A); States that all group health plans and health insurance issuers shall provide electronic health insurance claims and eligibility data in accordance with the committee and state rule. Why is eligibility data included if we do not know the persons identity? Again, there is no statement that Protected Health Information will be omitted.

Section 3 (f)(1)(B); Allows the committee and the commissioner to request any additional information from insurance companies that they deem.

Section 3 (f)(1)(C); States the committee and commissioner shall strive for standards and procedures that reflect “national standards”. No definition of national standards exists in the bill.

Section 3 (f)(2)(B); This unfunded mandate forces insurance companies to change the way they receive claims from providers to the very same format that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services requires claims to be submitted.

Section 3 (f)(3); Insurance companies that fail to submit patient information to the state shall be fined up to $100 each day of delay. It is unclear whether this fine applies to the failure to file all records, or whether it is assessed per record.

Fiscal note: The TN General Assembly Fiscal Review Committee notes that the legislation will increase State expenditures by more than $200,000. That is an improbable amount for such an expansive database with continuing analysis. In Minnesota the compilation of the data base cost $1.2 million for just the first 18 months and the analysis was $3 million.



Additional Analysis
By TCPR

Vagueness – The bill’s language is extremely vague when describing the “duties” of the Commissioner of Finance and Administration with regards to his utilization of this database. For instance, one duty is “evaluating the effectiveness of intervention programs on improving patient outcomes.” It is unclear by what standards the commissioner is to use when making such evaluations.

Effectiveness – It is unlikely that a database, while comprehensive in nature, will allow members of the newly created TN Health Information Committee (THIC) to develop meaningful and effective recommendations that increase public health without years of extensive analysis. Billions of dollars are spent each year in the U.S. to improve public health yet the fiscal note for this legislation is just over $200,000. The likelihood of success with such a meager expenditure, especially among a myriad of other, more sophisticated research, is weak at best.

Access to Data – The proposed legislation gives access to otherwise private and confidential health care data to any “departments of state government” if the information is disclosed with the purpose of achieving the duties (of the Commissioner of Finance and Administration). Given the vagueness of the “duties” as noted supra, access to this sensitive information is given to nearly any governmental agency in the state of Tennessee.

As with all public databases, there is a significant chance the information could become compromised. This could occur from a computer “hacker” or from someone within state government (as was the case in the State Trooper’s office last year). Exposure to liability should this sensitive data become publically available is virtually infinite and could open the state to decades of litigation from around the country. Also troubling is the potential to cross-reference health care data with other databases such as school records, criminal records, and travel logs.

It should also be noted that numerous public websites already exist that allow consumers to “shop” for a health care provider that meets their needs. These websites exist without sharing identifiable or sensitive information. Thus the state already has data from which to study health care from a public policy perspective.

Privacy – As the proposed law is written, patients and health care providers are unable to exempt themselves from this database. Similarly, there is no “opt-in” provision that would apply the new law to only those choosing to be a part of the government maintained database. The law states that it will comport with all applicable Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) regulations, however this is misleading. HIPAA, by its own terms, does allow for private health care information to be shared with state agencies in certain instances and this law seems to fall within those rules. HIPAA does, however, seem to establish a reasonable expectation of privacy (between patient, provider, and insurer) and this law may unconstitutionally violate that constitutional right.

TN Residents Only? – The bill, by inference only, seems to apply only to Tennessee residents however, it is not clear that lawmakers have contemplated how to the law should apply to part-time residents, those that visit TN-based health care providers, those that work for a TN-based company though they live out of state, Tennesseans with out of state dependents, etc. Requiring insurance companies to submit data without a way to meaningfully limit the law to Tennesseans subjects both insurance companies and the state to great litigation exposure.

Costs to Consumers & Insurers – The legislation’s current fiscal note is less than $200,000 but this only takes the cost to the state government into account. Furthermore, even the fiscal note is a gross under-estimate. In Minnesota, where similar legislation passed, the cost of the program exceeded $4 million in less than 4 years. Insurance companies are likely to incur great costs when forced to conform to an electronic form as prepared by the NCQA. These costs are likely to be passed along, eventually, to consumers. Thus the stated goal of “improving…affordability of patient health care and health care coverage” is thwarted from the start.

Finally, insurance companies will have to disclose otherwise proprietary information which, according to the proposed law, is subject to “public release” via report. While this could lead to greater price transparency, it could also lead to forcing insurance companies to exit the state in favor of states that allow them to retain some competitive advantage. Again, the stated goal of “improving accessibility” could be drastically harmed if this legislation becomes a law.

Hagar the Horrible

State Wants Medical Records Database WSMV

Opponents: Gov't Shouldn't Get Involved In Individuals' Health
Reported By Cara Kumari

"The purpose here is to build as broad a set of population health data as possible so that we can really improve quality of care and efof care in Tennessee," said Finance Commissioner Dave Goetz.


http://www.wsmv.com/health/19593168/detail.html

Cap-and-Trade article in the Tennessean

Please see my article in the Tennessean on cap-and-trade -
http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2009905280319

"This energy policy to reduce carbon emissions is neither upfront nor affordable. Cap and trade is a complex and confusing scheme that will do little to help the environment."

Eagle Forum wants to help you fight state attack on your medical privacy

http://www.tneagleforum.org/custpage.cfm/frm/40436/sec_id/40436

Tennessee Center for Policy Research on Claims Database

The Tennessee Center for Policy Research has issued a fascinating analysis of the All Payer Claims Database and issued their analysis for review.


State Wants to Collect Private Healthcare Data

"Costs to Consumers & Insurers – The legislation’s current fiscal note is less than $200,000 but this only takes the cost to the state government into account.

Furthermore, even the fiscal note is a gross under-estimate. In Minnesota, where similar legislation passed, the cost of the program exceeded $4 million in less than 4 years. Insurance companies are likely to incur great costs when forced to conform to an electronic form as prepared by the NCQA.

These costs are likely to be passed along, eventually, to consumers. Thus the stated goal of “improving…affordability of patient health care and health care coverage” is thwarted from the start."

All Claims Payer Database Commentary

Blue Collar Muse doesn't like All Claims Payer Database either -

"Of all the Orwellian nightmares people have suggested you be concerned about, it would be difficult to find one more universally despised than the idea one’s medical records are available to the state. "

See full article here http://conservablogs.com/bluecollarmuse/2009/05/26/tn-hb2289-gives-goverment-access-to-private-medical-information/

HJR108 PASSES HOUSE

HJR 108 passed the Tennessee House tonight!

Thank you for your support.


The Resolution now moves to the Senate where Senator Jamie Woodson will carry the bill.

The vote was 85 Ayes, 2 Noes, 3 present not voting and 9 not voting.

Rep. Susan Lynn

All Payer Claims Database - Update 2

The All Payer Claims Database seeks to establish a comprehensive database for the private healthcare transactions of every Tennessean by forcing insurance companies to turn their claims data over to the state through the passage of HB2289.

But wait, this is your privately paid for information! The state is not entitled to this information. Yet, the Administration hopes to convince state legislators that the state has a rational state interest to review your private healthcare data.

The bill lists several reasons but truly each are items you should, and do, privately determine for yourself.

As the Administration tries to comfort state legislators with assuring words stating that your identity will not be disclosed. An important question remains, disclosed by whom? All though the bill it sounds as if the state will know your identity. But the state protests that it will comply with all HIPAA Privacy Rules concerning your Private Health Information (PHI).

So are we to assume that the insurance companies cannot turn your identity or PHI over to the state? No we should not. That is because while HIPAA’s privacy rules protect your PHI from disclosure for private use, HIPAA rules allow disclosure without authorization for several other purposes.

That’s right; your private health information can be disclosed without your consent to public health authorities and health oversight agencies for the prevention or control of disease, injury, or disability, and for oversight activities authorized by law.

So when the state says it will comply with HIPAA Privacy Rules you should answer back - Big Deal!

Please remember, you have the right to self determination, and that is largely why our founding fathers broke away from Great Britain and formed our great nation. The peoples' natural rights - their right to self determination was being abridged by an overbearing government.

Be jealous of your privacy and defend it. Our forefathers and many more since died for your right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Do not give up so easily that for which they paid so dear a price.

I know I will never stop defending your rights but your voice will help make a difference - http://www.capitol.tn.gov/.

Thousands of records 'lost' by NHS

Thousands of personal medical records have been lost by the NHS in the UK.

An article published yesterday tells how "A total of 140 security breaches were reported within the NHS between January and April this year."


Additional related articles can be found here.

ALEC: Cap & Trade - A New Tax on Energy

...For example, a recent study by CRA International for the National Black Chamber of Commerce concluded the legislation would cost the U.S. economy $350 billion and 2.3 million to 2.7 million jobs each year from now to 2030. This is a net loss meaning they took into account all the “green” jobs the bill promises to create. To read that study, click here.

Read ALEC brief.

All Payer Claims Database update

Tennessee state government wants to get into the healthcare business big time! There is pending legislation to collect all of the data on your privately paid for healthcare transactions.

The Governor’s administration is pushing HB2289. As amended the bill claims that the state government needs your information to;

“Improve the accessibility and affordability of patient health care and health care coverage”

“Identify health and health care needs and inform on health and health care policy”

“Determine the capacity and distribution of existing health care resources”

“Evaluate the effectiveness of intervention programs on improving patient outcomes”

“Review costs among various treatment settings, providers, and approaches”

“Provide publicly available information on health care providers’ quality of care”

The plan is to mandate that your insurance company transmit all of your healthcare transactions to the state. You will be assigned a unique encrypted patient identifier by your insurance company. This identifier will be used by the state to track all of your healthcare transactions so that they can evaluate you according to the criteria listed above. Your doctor will also receive a unique healthcare provider identifier; but he or she will be fully identifiable.

What if you should want to opt-out? Well, you can’t. We tried very hard in the House Government Operations Committee this week to make that possible for you and your doctor but we were defeated on a party line vote. Should your insurance company refuse to comply with handing over your information it will receive a $100.00 per day fine from the state.

I want you to understand the breadth and the enormity of this plan. I asked just one of the major health insurance companies in Tennessee how many claims they process. 32,000 per hour; or 256,000 per day was the answer.

So I ask you to consider; why does the state of Tennessee need that much data, and that much detail about your healthcare transactions?

I asked a few public policy groups to take a look at the legislation. They responded with alarm. Some of their comments are that “…this is an avenue to centralized control over medical decisions...and the building of a brand new expensive bureaucracy that will use the data to issue reports to further secure their control over medical decision-making.” And, “Whoa. This bill is very scary. Not only is there no opt-out provision, but looking at claims data is the way to implement price controls.”

From what I’ve been able to learn several states have recently instituted similar databases and several more are considering bills at this time. Most all use a company called the Maine Health Information Center which is affiliated with the National Claims Data Management System. These are non-profit organizations set up to accept and analyze massive amounts of healthcare data.

Recently a similar plan was instituted in Minnesota. The cost was $1.2 million for the databasing of claims data on all Minnesotans for just the first 18 months. Additional costs for analyzing the data are $3.0 million dollars per year.

Yet the state of Tennessee claims that this bill will cost Tennessee little more than $200,000 per year. Perhaps that is because the bulk of the cost is borne by your insurance company.

I fail to see how legislators mandating insurance companies to turn over your healthcare transactions to the state cannot violate the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution; unreasonable searches and seizures. Surely, passage of this legislation would constitute a seizure by the state of Tennessee of private, and privately paid for detailed information for which the state has no business having and for which they have no compelling, rational or legitimate use.

Outgoing administrations often start thinking of their next job early. Perhaps the Governor and some of his cabinet members have big plans in the ever growing healthcare information field.

I hope that you are concerned about this bill because your voice does make a difference. This is one bill that should go away. Please take the time to contact your legislator to learn more and to express your feelings about this legislation; http://www.capitol.tn.gov/.

Word of the day

Thank you to Tom Lee for our word of the day as the Chair always tries to avoid this activity in Government Operations -

kerfuffle

Part of Speech: n
Definition: disorder, commotion; also written curfuffle, kafuffle, gefuffle

All Payer Claims Database

What is the All Payer Claims Database? That is the name of the system the Governor’s administration wants to put in place to collect all of the data on your healthcare transactions - whether you are private pay, insurance pay, Medicare or Medicaid.

The government claims it needs your information to;

“Improve the accessibility and affordability of patient health care and health care coverage”

“Identify health and health care needs and inform on health and health care policy”

“Determine the capacity and distribution of existing health care resources”

“Evaluate the effectiveness of intervention programs on improving patient outcomes”

“Review costs among various treatment settings, providers, and approaches”

“Provide publicly available information on health care providers’ quality of care”

I asked a few public policy groups to take a look at the legislation. They responded with alarm. Some of their comments are that “…this is an avenue to centralized control over medical decisions...and the building of a brand new expensive bureaucracy that will use the data to issue reports to further secure their control over medical decision-making.” And, “Whoa. This bill is very scary. Not only is there no opt-out provision, but looking at claims data is the way to implement price controls.”

The administration claims through all of this your identity will be safe because the government will give you a unique encrypted patient identifier. Your doctor will receive a unique health care provider identifier as well. But wait, if the government is giving you the identifier wouldn’t that mean they know who you are or else how can they give it to you…and why?

What if you should want to opt-out? Well, you can’t. And should your doctor refuse to comply with giving over your information he or she will receive a $100.00 per day fine from the state.

Recently a similar plan was instituted in Minnesota. The cost was $1.2 million for the databasing of claims data on all Minnesotans for just the first 18 months. Additional costs for analyzing the data are $3.0 million dollars per year. The next phase of educating physicians was another $100,000+, and about $45,000 per year in expenses for the state’s health dept. Of course the cost to the doctors for sending the data has never been calculated.

But the state claims that this bill will cost little more than $10,000 per year.

I hope that you are concerned about this bill because your voice does make a difference. This is one bill that should go away. We do not need to collect such data, and some believe that such collection may violate the Fourth Amendment.

Brushing up on energy schemes

There are several energy schemes with which we need to acquaint ourselves because of their potential damage to our pocketbooks.

Just imagine the suffering your family and your budget would face if they were all put into effect.

Legislation in the federal and state government is trying to accomplish this right now.

They are plans that violate good business ethics and economic fairness. We need to be aware of these schemes and the damage they will do. Sadly, our own American government is trying to impose them.

Renewable Portfolio Standards
Require increased production of energy from renewable sources. These sources are not necessarily less expensive or more efficient than other sources.

RES Credit Trading Programs
Renewable energy credits are tradable environmental commodities which represent proof that 1 megawatt-hour (MWh) of electricity was generated from an eligible renewable energy resource1. Many power generating companies don't or can't readily use renewable sources of energy to produce power for their customers. Therefore, under this scheme, they will have to purchase the credits from power companies that do use renewable sources so that they can prove to the federal government that renewable sources were used. Obviously, this added cost whose only legitimate effect is to make power more expensive for customers.

Cap & Trade
Is a regulatory scheme used to control pollution by placing a cap on large manufacturers’ emissions. Should they stay under their assigned cap they can trade (or sell) the unused portion of their cap to another manufacturer that has exceeded their assigned cap. This does virtually nothing to decrease pollution, or encourage increased production, but it obviously increases manufacturing costs.

Decoupling Mechanisms
Refers to the disassociation of a utility's profits from the actual volume of a customers' usage. Instead a given rate of return is aligned with revenue targets; rates are annually adjusted based on these targets. The point is to disconnect the utility's desire for net revenue from sales volume. Most customers expect to be charged for the volume of fuel they use, plus average fixed costs and a fair profit. Decoupling destroys the formula used for years which is most fair to consumers.

Utility Conservation Programs
Utilities are incentivized to sell less product by encouraging energy conservation among their customers. They are rewarded for the decrease in product sales volume due to the conservation efforts with annual price increases to make up for their lost net revenue. Fair market practices dictate that if a consumer conserves they should receive the benefit for their conservation efforts. Under this scheme the utility receives a rate increase for any conservation efforts whether aided by the utility or accomplished by the customer.

RINs Trading Programs
Renewable Identification Numbers are assigned to batches of fuel that have been blended with ethanol. Oil companies use the RINs numbers to prove to the federal government that they are meeting the federal mandates for ethanol blending. Small retailers want the state to prevent the oil companies from restricting their ability to blend. This is because when the retailers do the blending themselves they are given possession of the RINs number. The small retailers then sell the number back to the oil companies because they need the number to prove to the federal government that the fuel was indeed blended. This transaction costs up to 12 cents per gallon. Guess who really pays for this? You, the consumer.

Automobile Carbon Taxes
Next on the horizon is the idea to tax you for your car's emissions. I don't have a lot of information on this yet but look out for this as well.

Tea Party Photos

I just received some Tea Party photos from the Nashville party.

Label me

So I don’t like the idea of local governments enacting menu labeling...

I received an email from a friend who was not happy to learn that I am the sponsor of a bill to clarify that local governments may not enact menu labeling; a growing trend where government requires restaurants to provide patrons information on the nutritional content of their offerings.

Supporters of menu labeling love the idea because they feel it will surely cure the “obesity epidemic”; even though American society has grown heavier not slimmer since other food labeling laws have come into effect.

Objectors say they see menu labeling as more of the nanny-state government movement. Further, it creates a burden on citizens (business owners) that is far too great. Modifying menus or ingredients becomes inflexible due to the expense of changing menu board, menu and drive through signage; additionally utilizing a lab to determine the nutritional content of offerings is exceedingly expensive. It is consumers that will pay these costs through higher prices.

Many question if the added expense is actually useful enough to pay for. Isn’t it common knowledge that if starchy potatoes fried in oil can make you fat then supersized starchy potatoes fried in oil will probably make you, well, fatter?

However, my friend’s email, and my bill, raise a whole new issue. She feels that local governments are closest to the people and are more inclined to understand what laws they need therefore I should not be trying to stop them from employing such an ordinance if they want to do so.

It is very important to understand that the only reason local governments exist is because the state has granted them a Charter to exist. A Charter is like a Constitution and grants local governments permission to govern themselves through ordinances within the range of their Chartered powers.

To be clear, Local government ordinances cannot circumvent state law. For instance, local governments cannot make their own criminal laws; it would violate equal protection of the law for there to be varying penalties for murder in different counties or communities.

Local governments can fill a void in state law if there is no state law on the subject in effect, and the ordinance is inside of the powers specified in their Charter.

In time the state sometimes finds it necessary to take action and impose an overriding state law to replace a selection of dissimilar ordinances on the same issue. For example, the state may find that varying ordinances among the local governments are too numerous, too differentiated, and in need of standardization due to a compelling, a rational or a legitimate burden created for citizens to comply with. Local menu labeling ordinances are a good example of this.

If a requirement for menu labeling is ever put in place I hope people can agree that it is truly a measure that would be best imposed broadly, perhaps by the federal government, because even the variance among the states creates too great a compliance burden for citizens.

Harvard University was one of the first to require menu labeling. They have abandoned the project due to complaints that it aggravated students' eating disorders. If you want to read more about the Food Police there is a very good article by the Consumer Rights League. I recently had Jim Terry from Consumer Rights speak at my task force at ALEC.

Yep, you can officially "label me" as one of those that is not in favor of government instituted menu labeling on any level for many reasons.

Mt. Juliet Tea Party

Thanks to Sherrie Orange for organizing and recording our Tea Party!

KIMSEY WINS!!!

This morning Matthew Kimsey beat out many other well qualified interns to become the 2009 Governor of the Intern General Assembly.

Matthew is the intern for Rep. Susan Lynn, Chairman of the House Government Operations Committee. She was asked if she feels her endorsement had any influence on the race.

"Matthew is a spectacular intern. I'm so proud. I knew he could do it! He's learned so much. I think his qualifications and his excellent candidate commercial speak for themselves." Said Rep. Lynn.

Matthew is under the direct supervision of Cyndie Todd, assistant to Rep. Lynn.

Ms. Todd was asked if she thought Matthew's issues propelled him to victory. She stated "No, I think it was all that time on Facebook that paid off for him. Now maybe he'll stop lallygagging and get some work done. There's just not enough room in this office for two politicians."

CONGRATULATIONS MATTHEW!!

WE KNEW YOU COULD DO IT!!!

From Cyndie and Rep. Lynn!!!

Join the Facebook HJR 108 Group

HJR 108 is a Resolution to support state sovereignty and the Tenth Amendment.

Join the HJR 108 Facebook group and show your support for state sovereignty.

HJR 108 will be heard in the House on Tuesday, March 31 at noon.

Legislative Survey

Please click here to participate in my new legislative survey!

Thank you!

Rep. Susan Lynn

HJR 108 State Sovereignty

State sovereignty is a big deal to state legislators; hopefully, it is to you as well. It is what keeps the federal government from over stepping its constitutional bounds.

Today many state legislators, including some in Tennessee, have decided it is time to affirm state sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and demand the federal government halt its practice of assuming powers and of imposing mandates upon the states for purposes not enumerated by the Constitution.

The history of the formation of our federal government is long and complex but what the framers sought was a government that protected man’s natural rights; declared by the Declaration of Independence to be the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; better interpreted to mean that all men, by nature are equally free and independent with the right to work, acquire property and pursue their own individual happiness.

When the Constitution was drawn, the various states in existence already had Constitutions with several enumerated rights. Therefore, many of the framers believed that it was not necessary to include individual rights in a federal constitution. They feared that in doing so, the Constitution might incorrectly be construed as a document which limited the rights of the people and of the states.

Eventually the supporters of a bill of rights won out, and the Bill of Rights was drafted to guarantee equal rights for all Americans but compromise also brought the Tenth Amendment guaranteeing limits on federal power;

1. Freedoms of speech, press and religion

2. People's right to keep and bear arms

3. Protection from quartering troops

4. To be free of unreasonable searches and seizures

5. Right to due process and the prohibition of double jeopardy

6. Trial by jury and other rights of the accused

7. Right to civil trial by jury

8. Prohibition of excessive bail, as well as prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment

9. Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights

10. Powers reserved for the states and people

As you can see, the various rights are not necessarily rights that exist in the state of nature but rather rights designed to affirm and protect our natural rights; for example, freedom of the press protects liberty, and trial by jury protects life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The state sovereignty movement seeks to remind the federal government that the Tenth Amendment ensures that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

After all, the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states. However today, in 2009, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government. Many powers and federal mandates are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution; this limits our freedom and costs taxpayers untold billions of dollars - or should I say trillions?

I believe that it is time we step forth as other states are doing and affirm Tennessee's sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States. We should also demand that the federal government halt and reverse its practice of assuming powers and of imposing mandates upon the states for purposes not enumerated by the Constitution. Tennessee HJR 108 will do just that. With your support, hopefully, we can begin to reverse the federal power grab.

Populism Ignites in Chicago

Rick Santelli on CNBC's Squawk Box

The trading floor buzz on whether the government's plan to save the economy will actually help the markets.

Obama's Rhetoric Is the Real 'Catastrophe'

In 1932, automobile production shriveled by 90%
By BRADLEY R. SCHILLER, Wall Street Journal


"Consider the job losses that Mr. Obama always cites:

In the last year, the U.S. economy shed 3.4 million jobs - 2.2% of the labor force. From November 1981 to October 1982, 2.4 million jobs were lost - 2.2% of the labor force, the same as now.

Job losses in the Great Depression: 1930, the economy shed 4.8% of the labor force. In 1931, 6.5%. 1932, another 7.1%. Jobs were being lost at double or triple the rate of 2008-09 or 1981-82.

Unemployment rates: The latest survey pegs U.S. unemployment at 7.6%. 1982 peak (10.8%). Peak in 1932 (25.2%). You simply can't equate 7.6% unemployment with the Great Depression.

Real gross domestic product (GDP) rose in 2008, despite a bad fourth quarter. The Congressional Budget Office projects a GDP decline of 2% in 2009. That's comparable to 1982, when GDP contracted by 1.9%. It is nothing like 1930, when GDP fell by 9%, or 1931, when GDP contracted by another 8%, or 1932, when it fell yet another 13%.

Auto production last year declined by roughly 25%. That looks good compared to 1932, when production shriveled by 90%.

The failure of a couple of dozen banks in 2008 just doesn't compare to over 10,000 bank failures in 1933, or even the 3,000-plus bank (Savings & Loan) failures in 1987-88.

Stockholders can take some solace from the fact that the recent stock market debacle doesn't come close to the 90% devaluation of the early 1930s."

Mr. Schiller, an economics professor at the University of Nevada, Reno, is the author of "The Economy Today" (McGraw-Hill, 2007).

Thank you StateHouseCall.org

TN Lawmaker Pushing to Discontinue CON

Cites Feds warning that protectionist regs "undercut consumer choice, stifle innovation and weaken markets' ability to contain costs"

By Mark Todd Engler

CatholicVote.org

CatholicVote.org

Posted using ShareThis

DOJ and FTC issue joint statement on CON

Agencies Say CON Laws Undercut Consumer Choice, Stifle Innovation andWeaken Markets' Ability to Contain Health Care Costs

WASHINGTON — In a joint statement to the Illinois Task Force on Health Planning Reform, the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) stated the agencies' position regarding certificate-of-need (CON) laws, saying that the laws undercut consumer choice, stifle innovation and weaken markets' ability to contain health care costs. Today's statement reiterates the agencies' ongoing efforts to promote competition in health care.

State CON programs generally prevent firms from entering certain areas of the health care market unless they can demonstrate to state authorities that there is an unmet need for their services...

Ralph Bristol Show WWTN 99.7

Thank you Ralph Bristol for having me on your show this morning.

Listen to the clip.

First posted information about Kent Williams in 2007

The Tennessee Politics Blog posted an item about Kent Williams' comments which received a lot of comments on April 2, 2007.

Jama Oliver posted on April 2, 2007.

TOPIX Posted a number of items on April 12, 2007 and after.

The first media contact about Kent Williams 2009

This morning Jason Mumpower misspoke and stated that I contacted the the media.

That is not true.

The first media contact that I received was by email below. Days later when I spoke to Mr. Kleinheider I told him that I didn't want to talk about it.

This is all exactly why women don't come forward with such complaints. It is very difficult for me to understand why if a woman requests to be treated professionally, and needs assistance to make that happen, she is later condemned as though she was the perpetrator.

Thank you Chris Clem

Thank you to former State Representative Chris Clem who writes in response to a public letter from Speaker Williams' sister;

http://politics.nashvillepost.com/2009/01/22/chris-clem-on-the-kent-williams-sexual-harassment-allegations/

Comment on media access to member complaint

What follows is a timeline for the recent events of this week and before.

Nearly two years ago, an incident occurred which was witnessed by a few. It has been well documented so I will not go into further detail except to say that I sought assistance from my leadership because I did not feel that I was being taken seriously in my request to be treated with professional courtesy.

At that time, a group of Nashville bloggers found out about the incident; they recounted the events on their blogs. The Nashville media observed the discourse and contacted me for comment. I declined to comment on the incident and so did my leadership.

After the election last week, I was contacted by a Nashville blogger that had knowledge of the incident two years earlier. He asked me if I would like to comment on his blog. I declined once more and immediately called my caucus leader to inform him that I was contacted by the blogger. We agreed to remain firm in our position not to comment on the incident.

On Sunday night the press started calling me. I refused to comment. Their phone calls persisted all day on Monday at which time I still refused to comment. In addition, they repeatedly contacted my leadership. In the early evening on Monday some media informed our press secretary that they intended to issue a public records request to our leadership for any information pertaining to the incident. When leadership arrived at the office on Tuesday morning members of the media were waiting with their requests for public information.

Until this time I was unaware that a file existed. However, in retrospect, it does make sense that the leader would document a serious incident even if only to safeguard his own actions. Although he has received much criticism, I can only imagine the critique if he had refused to hand over the file. Considering all that the leader has been through, I think that he has been very professional about everything.

I hope you will understand if I do not wish to comment any further on the incident. I believe that the information that has already been made public speaks for itself.

Thank you for the many kind words of support. I know that I have done nothing wrong. It is a difficult situation that one cannot ever win. That is why I sought to handle it privately.

Cover Tennessee Expanding

Thank you to Heartland's Healthcare News for asking for my comments on
Cover Tennessee.

Thomas Sowell

The recent demonstrations over gay marriage has caused me to look up Sowell's articles where he explains that marriage really limits the rights of individuals', it does not expand them.

"Marriage is not a right extended to individuals by the government. It is a restriction on the rights they already have." 2005

"In other words, marriage imposes legal restrictions, taking away rights that individuals might otherwise have." 2006

Thank You Ralph

Ralph Bristol of the Morning News on Supertalk 99.7 FM has asked me to become a permanent cast member on his show. I will be on to talk about state government each Monday at 6:40 am.

Thank You Slater and the Nashville Post

Thank you to Michael Slater of West Tennessee's TJ Radio Network and to the Nashville Post for the mention today about my interview with Slater on the Copeland Cap.

Sam's Mention

Thank you! For the mention by Sam's Club CEO Doug McMillon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4U1oAjOlQQ&eurl=http://politics.nashvillepost.com/page/2/

Susan Lynn did what?

My opponent is trying to say I voted wrong...you be the judge.

He attacks on Big Oil, education and the minimum wage.

Big Oil

Each year the House Democrats pass a resolution for the US Congress asking them to investigate the oil companies for price gouging. This is done for partisan reasons and passes with a scant few votes.

Is the resolution effective? No. Not once has it ever even been acknowledged by the US Congress.

The Republicans try to amend the bill to ask the US Congress to drill domestically. The Democrats kill this amendment!

So this year I tried to explain a little economics to the Democrats and that is that oil is a commodity. If the price of oil goes up on the Commodities Exchange the price of oil, and the price of gasoline, will follow. The oil companies buy the oil for refining and must pay the commodity price. This price is passed on to us as consumers.

I further explained that while the oil companies make profits in the billions of dollars, as a percent of revenue they earn about 8% profit. Sure they earn a lot dollar-wise because they sell a whole lot of gasoline.I also pointed out that while oil company profits are 8% of revenue, left leaning companies like Google earn profits at 30% of revenue. Should we investigate Google for price gouging too?

And I asked, what about the drug companies, most make 20%, 22%, even 30% profit - and most drugs are paid for with tax payer dollars - Now frankly that sounds like something to investigate.

And what about the taxes they pay? Businesses like oil companies actually pay billions of dollars more in taxes than they make in profit, taxes passed on to you and me when we make a purchase. Why don't they think the government is tax gouging?

There are only 7 American oil companies. They have direct access to only about 7% of the world's oil. Foreign nations and foreign oil companies control 93% of the world's oil. Why would the Democrats want to weaken our American oil companies by attacking them and refusing to enable domestic drilling?

Many Americans are invested in American oil companies through their pension fund, retirement plans and money markets. Why would Democrats want to weaken these companies and destroy American savings?

If anything funny was going on with the recent spike in oil it was on the Commodities Exchange and this IS being investigated by the federal government without a request from the Tennessee General Assembly being at all necessary.


Improving our schools

My opponent implies that I voted against our schools - NOT TRUE!

The bill he is referring to, HB2354 is the cigarette tax. The bill barely passed, receiving only 59 votes out of 99.

In actuality, I voted against using the cigarette tax, a declining source of revenue, to fund education.

If we are serious about funding education we will fund education out of the General Fund and not with a source of revenue that is in decline - leaving our school children short.

Last year the Governor cut $69 million dollars out of the education budget because the cigarette tax had come up short in collections.

I believe it is immoral for school children to have to depend on smokers for their education, and it makes me angry that things such as a bunker would be funded and education would be cut. The Republicans have a plan to fund education first - a plan the Democrats killed in a tabling motion - see amendment 3, Democrat motion to lay on the table.

Raising the Minimum Wage

My opponent obviously wants Tennessee to have our own minimum wage, separate from the federal minimum wage because that is what the Democrats tried to pass - it failed.

He also seems to approve of that wage being linked to the Consumer Price Index - an idea that uses circular reasoning.

This bill is considered to be a JOB KILLER BILL by small business owners (NFIB, Tennessee Chamber of Commerce).

It is clear that the best way to help a low wage person make more money is by improving their skills so that their labor is worth more to an employer. It is not by causing inflation in the economy which only makes the low wage person's life more difficult.

Please see my article: Circular Reasoning and the Minimum Wage. This article about this bill was published by a national magazine and received much praise.

By the way, the bill my opponent mentions in the mailer is not the Minimum Wage Bill - it is HB3402 a bill that exempts from the County Powers Relief Act any county in which at least 51 percent of the real property is owned by the federal government and dedicated as a national forest...it didn't pass either.

Eyeing Your Pension

Are 401(k)s safe from congressional Democrats?

By JAMES TARANTO

"If you have a 401(k) or equivalent retirement plan, you've probably been watching nervously the past few weeks as your nest egg has shrunken owing to the current turmoil in the markets.
Well, it could be worse. But don't take heart, for what we mean is it could get worse. The market turmoil has some politicians on Capitol Hill eyeing the end of the 401(k) as we know it. "
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122477680834462659.html

The Age of Prosperity is Over

Art Laffer's WSJ Opinion

"Every $100 billion in bailout requires at least $130 billion in taxes, where the $30 billion extra is the cost of getting government involved.

If you don't believe me, just watch how Congress and Barney Frank run the banks. If you thought they did a bad job running the post office, Amtrak, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the military, just wait till you see what they'll do with Wall Street."

Read more - http://ssomail.charter.net/do/redirect?url=http%253A%252F%252Fonline.wsj.com%252Farticle%252FSB122506830024970697.html

How to Read the Constitution

The following is an excerpt from Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas's Wriston Lecture to the Manhattan Institute last Thursday

The Wall Street Journal, October 20, 2008, Read article... http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122445985683948619.html

"The Declaration of Independence sets out the basic underlying principle of our Constitution. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed . . . ."

The framers structured the Constitution to assure that our national government be by the consent of the people. To do this, they limited its powers. The national government was to be strong enough to protect us from each other and from foreign enemies, but not so strong as to tyrannize us. "

Obama Is Wrong About Colombia

Labor unions are much safer under Uribe.

Barack Obama gets his facts wrong during the presidential debate. The Americas columnist Mary Anastasia O'Grady explains the gaffe to Kelsey Hubbard.

Wall Street Journal, Oct. 20, 2008

Link...http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122445952046648609.html

Link video...http://online.wsj.com/video/obama-misspeaks/171CEB77-7B3E-4FFB-BE20-D81A31990AF3.html

Obama's Carbon Ultimatum

The coming offer you won't be able to refuse.

The Wall Street Journal, Opinion, October 20, 2008

"Normally a democracy reaches consensus through political debate and persuasion, but apparently for Mr. Obama that option is merely a nuisance. It's another example of "change" you'll be given no choice but to believe in."

Read more...http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122445812003548473.html

A Liberal Supermajority

Get ready for 'change' we haven't seen since 1965, or 1933

The Wall Stree Journal, Opinion, October 17, 2008

If the current polls hold, Barack Obama will win the White House on November 4 and Democrats will consolidate their Congressional majorities, probably with a filibuster-proof Senate or very close to it. Without the ability to filibuster, the Senate would become like the House, able to pass whatever the majority wants.

Though we doubt most Americans realize it, this would be one of the most profound political and ideological shifts in U.S. history. Liberals would dominate the entire government in a way they haven't since 1965, or 1933. In other words, the election would mark the restoration of the activist government that fell out of public favor in the 1970s. If the U.S. really is entering a period of unchecked left-wing ascendancy, Americans at least ought to understand what they will be getting, especially with the media cheering it all on.

Read the rest...http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122420205889842989.html

McGovern on Check Card

My PartyShould Respect Secret Union Ballots


By GEORGE MCGOVERN

August 8, 2008

Wall Stree Journal


As a congressman, senator and one-time Democratic nominee for the presidency, I've participated in my share of vigorous public debates over issues of great consequence. And the public has been free to accept or reject the decisions I made when they walked into a ballot booth, drew the curtain and cast their vote. I didn't always win, but I always respected the process.


Voting is an immense privilege.


That is why I am concerned about a new development that could deny this freedom to many Americans. As a longtime friend of labor unions, I must raise my voice against pending legislation I see as a disturbing and undemocratic overreach not in the interest of either management or labor.


The legislation is called the Employee Free Choice Act, and I am sad to say it runs counter to ideals that were once at the core of the labor movement. Instead of providing a voice for the unheard, EFCA risks silencing those who would speak.


The key provision of EFCA is a change in the mechanism by which unions are formed and recognized. Instead of a private election with a secret ballot overseen by an impartial federal board, union organizers would simply need to gather signatures from more than 50% of the employees in a workplace or bargaining unit, a system known as "card-check." There are many documented cases where workers have been pressured, harassed, tricked and intimidated into signing cards that have led to mandatory payment of dues.


Under EFCA, workers could lose the freedom to express their will in private, the right to make a decision without anyone peering over their shoulder, free from fear of reprisal.


There's no question that unions have done much good for this country. Their tenacious efforts have benefited millions of workers and helped build a strong middle class. They gave workers a new voice and pushed for laws that protect individuals from unfair treatment. They have been a friend to the Democratic Party, and so I oppose this legislation respectfully and with care.
To my friends supporting EFCA I say this: We cannot be a party that strips working Americans of the right to a secret-ballot election. We are the party that has always defended the rights of the working class. To fail to ensure the right to vote free of intimidation and coercion from all sides would be a betrayal of what we have always championed.


Some of the most respected Democratic members of Congress -- including Reps. Marcy Kaptur of Ohio, George Miller and Pete Stark of California, and Barney Frank of Massachusetts -- have advised that workers in developing countries such as Mexico insist on the secret ballot when voting as to whether or not their workplaces should have a union. We should have no less for employees in our country.


I worry that there has been too little discussion about EFCA's true ramifications, and I think much of the congressional support is based on a desire to give our friends among union leaders what they want. But part of being a good steward of democracy means telling our friends "no" when they press for a course that in the long run may weaken labor and disrupt a tried and trusted method for conducting honest elections.


While it is never pleasant to stand against one's party or one's friends, there are times when such actions are necessary -- as with my early and lonely opposition to the Vietnam War. I hope some of my friends in Congress will re-evaluate their support for this legislation. Because as Americans, we should strive to ensure that all of us enjoy the freedom of expression and freedom from fear that is our ideal and our right.


Mr. McGovern is a former senator from South Dakota and the 1972 Democratic presidential candidate.

Wall Street Journal Editorial

$4 Gasbags

Wall Street Journal, June 12, 2008; Page A16

Anyone wondering why U.S. energy policy is so dysfunctional need only review Congress's recent antics. Members have debated ideas ranging from suing OPEC to the Senate's carbon tax-and-regulation monstrosity, to a windfall profits tax on oil companies, to new punishments for "price gouging" – everything except expanding domestic energy supplies.

Amid $135 oil, it ought to be an easy, bipartisan victory to lift the political restrictions on energy exploration and production. Record-high fuel costs are hitting consumers and business like a huge tax increase. Yet the U.S. remains one of the only countries in the world that chooses as a matter of policy to lock up its natural resources. The Chinese think we're insane and self-destructive, while the Saudis laugh all the way to the bank.

There are two separate moratoria on offshore drilling: One is a ban that Congress has attached to every budget since 1982, and the other is a 1990 executive order that President Bush has waived in only a few cases. Republicans made failing attempts to overcome both when they ran Congress, but current Democratic leaders and their green masters remain adamantly opposed.

The new political opportunity amid record prices is to convince enough rank-and-file Democrats that they'll suffer at the polls if they don't break with this antiexploration ideology.

While energy "independence" is an impossible dream, there's no doubt the U.S. has vast undeveloped fossil-fuel deposits. A tiny corner of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge contains an estimated 10.4 billion barrels of oil and would be the largest producing oil field in the Northern Hemisphere. Yet the Senate blocked that development as recently as last month. The Outer Continental Shelf is estimated to contain some 86 billion barrels of oil, plus 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Yet of the shelf's 1.76 billion acres, 85% is off-limits and 97% is undeveloped.

Engineers recently perfected refining solid shale rock into diesel or gas, which may amount to the largest oil supply in the world – perhaps as much as 1.8 trillion barrels in the American West. That's enough to meet current U.S. oil demand for more than two centuries. Yet as late as 2007, Democrats attached a rider to the energy bill that prohibits leasing the federal interior lands that contain at least 80% of America's oil shale. The key vote was cast by liberal Senator Ken Salazar from Colorado, of all places.

These supply guesses are probably conservative, because the only way to know for sure is to drill exploratory wells. Yet most of Alaska and offshore are cut off even from modern seismic testing. Many areas haven't been examined since the 1960s, when exploration technology was far more primitive. This has led to the believe-it-or-not situation in which the Chinese are prepping to drill in Cuban waters less than 60 miles off the Florida coast. American companies are banned from drilling in American waters nearby.

Yes, we know, increased drilling is no energy cure-all; new projects take about a decade to come on line. Then again, more than a few experts say that new production could affect price as the market perceives a new U.S. seriousness to increase supplies. Part of today's futures speculation is based on the assumption that supplies will remain tight for years to come, even as Chinese and Indian demand surges.

Nor would merely repealing the exploration bans be enough. Between 2000 and 2007, the drilling of exploratory oil wells climbed 138%, but over the same period domestic crude oil production decreased 12.4% and fell to the lowest levels since 1947. Refineries for gasoline are stretched to the limit, but multiple regulatory barriers impede new construction or even expansions at existing facilities. Then there is the inevitable lawsuit downpour from the environmental lobby.

Democrats are going to have to grow up. The oil-rich areas they want to leave untouched are accessible with minimal environmental disturbance, thanks to modern technology. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita flattened terminals across the Gulf of Mexico but didn't cause a single oil spill. As for anticarbon theology, oil will be indispensable over the next half-century and probably longer, like it or not. Airplanes will never fly on woodchips, and you won't be able to charge your car with a windmill for some time, if ever.

Public anger over fuel prices could hardly come at a worse time for the GOP, since voters tend to blame a flagging economy on the party that occupies the White House. But the opportunity is to offer a reform alternative to Barack Obama and the high-price energy status quo he embraces. It looks like the public is increasingly ready for . . . change. In a May Gallup poll, 57% favored "allowing drilling in U.S. coastal and wilderness areas now off limits." Just 20% blamed the increase in gas prices on Big Oil, like Mr. Obama does.

Recent weeks have seen some GOP stirrings on Capitol Hill, but John McCain has so far refused to jettison his green posturings, such as his belief in carbon caps and his animus against offshore development. A good reason for a rethink would be $4 gas. At present, it is charitable to call Mr. McCain's energy ideas incoherent, and it may cost him the election.

George Will Column

George Will's column below is a great illustration of how the suffering caused by today's high energy prices is not just a problem caused by the Congress' current energy policies but it is a problem brought about over the last ten, twenty, thirty or more years.

Instead of voting to keep America strong they have weakened America and our quality of life. Such policies will always have a greater impact on the poor. As we can see by the high prices of energy, food and clothing, they do.

The Gas Prices We Deserve

By George F. Will

Thursday, June 5, 2008; Page A19, The Washington Post


Rising in the Senate on May 13, Chuck Schumer, the New York Democrat, explained: "I rise to discuss rising energy prices." The president was heading to Saudi Arabia to seek an increase in its oil production, and Schumer's gorge was rising.

Saudi Arabia, he said, "holds the key to reducing gasoline prices at home in the short term." Therefore arms sales to that kingdom should be blocked unless it "increases its oil production by one million barrels per day," which would cause the price of gasoline to fall "50 cents a gallon almost immediately."

Can a senator, with so many things on his mind, know so precisely how the price of gasoline would respond to that increase in the oil supply? Schumer does know that if you increase the supply of something, the price of it probably will fall. That is why he and 96 other senators recently voted to increase the supply of oil on the market by stopping the flow of oil into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which protects against major physical interruptions. Seventy-one of the 97 senators who voted to stop filling the reserve also oppose drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

One million barrels is what might today be flowing from ANWR if in 1995 President Bill Clinton had not vetoed legislation to permit drilling there. One million barrels produce 27 million gallons of gasoline and diesel fuel. Seventy-two of today's senators -- including Schumer, of course, and 38 other Democrats, including Barack Obama, and 33 Republicans, including John McCain -- have voted to keep ANWR's estimated 10.4 billion barrels of oil off the market.

So Schumer, according to Schumer, is complicit in taking $10 away from every American who buys 20 gallons of gasoline. "Democracy," said H.L. Mencken, "is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard." The common people of New York want Schumer to be their senator, so they should pipe down about gasoline prices, which are a predictable consequence of their political choice.

Also disqualified from complaining are all voters who sent to Washington senators and representatives who have voted to keep ANWR's oil in the ground and who voted to put 85 percent of America's offshore territory off-limits to drilling. The U.S. Minerals Management Service says that restricted area contains perhaps 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas -- 10 times as much oil and 20 times as much natural gas as Americans use in a year.

Drilling is underway 60 miles off Florida. The drilling is being done by China, in cooperation with Cuba, which is drilling closer to South Florida than U.S. companies are.

ANWR is larger than the combined areas of five states (Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware), and drilling along its coastal plain would be confined to a space one-sixth the size of Washington's Dulles airport. Offshore? Hurricanes Katrina and Rita destroyed or damaged hundreds of drilling rigs without causing a large spill. There has not been a significant spill from an offshore U.S. well since 1969. Of the more than 7 billion barrels of oil pumped offshore in the past 25 years, 0.001 percent -- that is one-thousandth of 1 percent -- has been spilled. Louisiana has more than 3,200 rigs offshore -- and a thriving commercial fishing industry.

In his book "Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of 'Energy Independence,' " Robert Bryce says Brazil's energy success has little to do with its much-discussed ethanol production and much to do with its increased oil production, the vast majority of which comes from off Brazil's shore. Investor's Business Daily reports that Brazil, "which recently made a major oil discovery almost in sight of Rio's beaches," has leased most of the world's deep-sea drilling rigs.

In September 2006, two U.S. companies announced that their Jack No. 2 well, in the Gulf 270 miles southwest of New Orleans, had tapped a field with perhaps 15 billion barrels of oil, which would increase America's proven reserves by 50 percent. Just probing four miles below the Gulf's floor costs $100 million. Congress's response to such expenditures is to propose increasing the oil companies' tax burdens.

America says to foreign producers: We prefer not to pump our oil, so please pump more of yours, thereby lowering its value, for our benefit. Let it not be said that America has no energy policy.

georgewill@washpost.com

Value Added School Performance

Tennessee's value-added evaluation system is frequently lauded across the country as a very good way to measure student achievement and school performance.

Today I received an easy to use tool to determine how your child's school performs.

The Education Consumers Foundation is pleased to give you direct access to information on the value-added achievement of all the schools in Tennessee.

Please visit https://owa.legislature.state.tn.us/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://srv.ezinedirector.net/?n=2266692%26s=44101708 to explore the schools in your area.

Tennessean Column May 2008

Recently the Tennessean published my guest column below with a rebuttel written by Rep. Mike McDonald and the final word given by the Tennessean editorial staff.

I was very proud that the Tennessean agreed with me that the state should not use its power to legislate property rights away from individuals.



State Should Respect Property Rights

Buyer beware - children learn the phrase, adults experience its meaning, and attorneys are trained in its certainty.

Most learn from their mistakes and go on. However, the state's recent attempt to either buy its way out of a regretful deal or legislate its way out of the deal should raise citizen's interest.

The Governor’s administration may be commended for greatly increasing our state park land. However, after a recent acquisition, it was learned that the purchase price didn’t include certain rights, among them logging. Naturally, the timber company that owned the trees kept on harvesting. The environmentalist outcry caused the Governor to include $82 million dollars in last year’s budget to purchase said trees, et. el.

Now we find out another “regretful” deal neglected to purchase the mineral rights to the Cumberland Trails State Park. Not surprisingly, the rock harvesters that own the rocks continue to harvest them. Like most minors, they don’t earn very much. Some of them supplement their earnings with food stamps.

The mining activity is not pretty. As the harvesters work to fulfill the nations latest fad; “green” building materials, several environmental groups are upset by the disturbance of the land to obtain the rock. Thus far the harvesters have followed the law and regulations; stabilizing the land and complying with water pollution rules. But objectors want a state park to look natural and untouched. And who wouldn’t?

The harvesters offered to sell their mineral rights to the state for appraised value but the state refused choosing instead to file suit. When the judge sided with the harvesters, the state decided to legislate the embarrassment away by proposing a law so restrictive that the harvesters may just give up - effectively; an unconstitutional taking of private property. Tennessee’s citizens should be treated better than this.

Some believe that the end justifies the means. I ask, is it fair to purchase land without all of the rights, and at less than full market value, and then legislate the harvesters’ ability to exercise their property right away? If an end, no matter how strongly desired, is brought about by bad means are we not compelled to work for a better end brought about by acceptable means?

As children we learned that a deal is a deal, and to honor our agreements. As adults we learn the significance and sanctity of a contract. We are careful to agree on terms acceptable to both parties prior to a sale. We can’t change the past. The right thing now is to purchase the mineral rights for a fair value.

Prosperous is the nation that is able to utilize her rich natural resources, and wise is the nation that cares for the environment. However, if laws are made so restrictive that those resources cannot be gathered; if a nation cannot acquire her coal, her timber, her minerals, her oil and gas; then that nation and her people will suffer unnecessarily.

Tennessean Column Dec 2, 2007

Republicans vigilant on available funds
By State Representative Susan Lynn

State tax revenues are suffering as collections are currently $135 million below their mark. Before wish lists for the new session are even considered, many want to know how the state will manage our way through a budget already more than $100 million dollars short in the first quarter.

Last May, legislators debated over the Copeland Cap; a constitutional amendment that limits the growth of the budget to the growth in personal income. Signs of a softening economy worried Republicans as they cautioned against spending every penny of the massive $1.5 billion surplus, plus an additional $220 million dollar cigarette tax increase on new programs. In addition, it was difficult to understand how by spending so much more money we could not have been exceeding the Constitutional limit of the Copeland Cap by far more than was stated.

But we’ll have to manage. Most business managers will adjust to the economic downturn by making tough decisions like restraining spending, reducing new hires, curtailing unnecessary travel, and by putting expansion plans on hold. The state should do no less.

It is clear that 2008 may not be the time to fill wish lists by starting new programs or expanding old ones; after all, we can’t continue to ignore the inflationary demands of necessary commodities forever such as those needed to repair and build new roads. It is time to concentrate on government’s core basis for existence; those things that have an immediate impact on justice, health, safety or supply.

The Department of Education is hoping for an additional $133 million dollars next year to help fully fund the newly revised basic education plan. A little more controversial is a request of $30 million dollars to expand the pre-k program by 38%. The department notes that this addition to the currently $80 million program would help to advance the state toward universal pre-k; an $196 million goal.

Some may call legislators who are cautious about such an expansion mean spirited; others realists. We already have a burgeoning state budget shortfall. There will likely be local government budget shortfalls. Many local school systems are struggling to afford a desperate need to repair or to build new schools just to accommodate the current students. And there is much data that indicates no long term beneficial effect from early education.
Many wonder, why not just concentrate on what we already know needs improvement, and that which will save money in the long run - accountability. How much more would taxpayer dollars be multiplied by ensuring greater accountability?

Getting through this revenue downturn will require restraint, leadership and cooperation. We were proud of how our state employees efficiently handled the departmental budget cuts in 2003 and 2004. No doubt they will handle 2008 with the very same degree of professionalism.

Republicans will continue to respect the taxpayer’s hard work by remaining good stewards of the dollars they provide, and by displaying an understanding for the pressures they face in their own family budgets every day.

Florida & Iowa reform CON law

"Florida and Iowa legislators have passed bills that will reform their respective certificate-of-need processes."

Florida simplifies the process, and establishes a "loser pays" provision to discourage lawsuits meant only to obstruct the process.

Iowa's CON legislation has not passed both houses. "The bill would let replacement critical-access hospitals serving 75 percent of the same area, providing 75 percent of the same services and keeping 75 percent of the same staff avoid the CON process entirely."

Another attempt to repeal CON

The Birmingham News reports of the Alabama Policy Institute's mission to repeal the state's Certificate of Need law.

"there's no evidence the regulation has reduced health care costs and some evidence that it increases them. Instead, the laws have limited innovation and patients' choice...Michael Morrisey, an health economist at the University of Alabama at Birmingham

This joins a recent article by Fierce Healthcare and the Florida Governor's work to end his state's certificate of need program.

Thirteen other sates have recently repealed the CON.

Please see my recent blog post on CON.

A Must Read

Mandates for Change
By ARNOLD KLING, Wall Street Journal, February 13, 2008

If the Democrats win, they won't be able to increase spending much. But boy, will they regulate...

Thank You

Thank you to Ralph Bristol, Super Talk 99.7 - WWTN and to Mike Slater - WTJS - 1390.

Each interviewed me about my bill HB 2948 - a bill to base licensure of occupations and professions on factual data that proves or disproves a need for licensure.

Thank you to American Family Radio for recenly inviting me to talk about my article on Democratic Socialism.

Florida gov wants to end CON law

Fierce Healthcare reports that Florida's governor wants to end his state's certificate of need program for acute-care hospitals. The article reveals that 13 states have recently repealed the CON.

This is good news. Please see my recent blog post on CON.

Bills would put vote in people's hands

Tennessean Column, February 01, 2008

The legislature's Voter Confidence Act Study Committee met last week and approved two very important pieces of legislation to require paper ballots for the new voting technology used in Tennessee. Now the bills head back to the elections subcommittee for reconsideration.

Voters may like the new touch-screen electronic voting equipment but, in retrospect, many are concerned it doesn't increase voter confidence for secure elections at all.

High on the list of noted problems is that Tennessee's new machines are run completely by computer software programs. No paper ballot is produced to back up information or to perform random audits of machine totals for accuracy.

Because the machines employ computer software, few have the skill or ability to verify the software source code for voting integrity. In addition, almost no one has the opportunity to verify the source code. Further, no law requires the source code to be stored for comparison at a later date.

Risk of foul play is real

Even so, a comparison of source code may not reveal if there was tampering. Recent congressional testimony and a report issued by Princeton University's School of Engineering each demonstrate how easily a virus, created to steal an election, can be uploaded into electronic voting machines and then erase all indication of itself after voting is complete, thus eliminating all evidence of foul play.

A simple, verifiable paper trail would help to alleviate many concerns for voters. As each voter casts his or her vote, they verify their choices on an anonymous paper record. Once voting is complete, random audits comparing the paper record to the electronic totals help to confirm the accuracy of the election.

A better alternative may be the optical-scanning machine, which requires each voter to mark a paper ballot. Then, the vote is counted by a scanner. The advantage of this system is that the ballot is retained, it is available for a recount, and it can be stored indefinitely.

Because of the concerns over ballotless voting equipment, some states reconsidered their use of electronic equipment in the 2006 elections. Congress is currently considering banning equipment without a paper ballot and funding replacement machines.

Tennessee House Bill 1256 would mandate replacement of all electronic voting machines without a paper ballot at a cost of $25 million. I believe that the General Assembly should commit to fund this legislation whether or not Congress sends us the money. HB 1282, legislation that I have sponsored each year since 2004, will ensure that going forward, all new voting equipment purchased in Tennessee will have a paper ballot.

A frightening quote by Joseph Stalin states, "Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything." Tyranny relies on secret processes controlled by a scant few. The Voter Confidence Act Study Committee has voted to put the ballot back into the hands of the people. Let us pray the General Assembly will ultimately vote to do the same.

State Rep. Susan Lynn, R-Mt. Juliet, is secretary of the Voter Confidence Act Study Committee.
E-mail: rep.susan.lynn@legislature.state.tn.us

The Tennessee Republican Primary Explained

By: Don Johnson, Executive Director of the Shelby County Republican Party

The Presidential Preference

Your first vote is for a Presidential Preference, or who you want to be the Republican nominee for President. It is the results of this vote that is used to determine how many delegates each Presidential candidate gets out of Tennessee.

Some states are "Winner-take-all", but Tennessee's delegates are allocated proportionally (unless one candidate were to get 2/3rds of the vote) so several candidates are likely to receive statewide delegates or delegates in any of our 9 Congressional Districts. A Presidential candidate must get at least 20% of the vote in either jurisdiction in order to get any delegates.

Here is an example using some previous Republican Presidents

Let's say the statewide result were something like this example:

Tennessee Republican Primary

Statewide vote

Lincoln, Abraham 30%

Reagan, Ronald: 28%

Eisenhower, Dwight 22%

Ford, Gerald 15%

Hoover, Herbert 6%

Ford and Hoover would not receive any delegates because they did not meet the 20% threshold. Delegates would be allocated based on the votes received by Lincoln, Reagan, and Eisenhower. Since 12 delegates are available statewide the distribution would be as follows:

5 delegate spots are for Lincoln

4 delegate spots are for Reagan

3 delegate spots are for Eisenhower

Each Congressional District also elects 3 delegates. Essentially the first place winner gets two and the second place finisher in that district gets one delegate spot:

Tennessee Republican Primary

9th District Results

Eisenhower, Dwight: 36%

Reagan, Ronald: 31%

Lincoln, Abraham: 22%

Ford, Gerald: 8%

Hoover, Herbert: 3%

Additionally, Thirteen delegates are chosen by the Tennessee Republican Party's State Executive Committee and the three RNC members (our State Chairwoman, National Committeeman and Committeewoman) also attend the convention as delegates.

These delegates are not pledged to any particular candidate and you don't have to worry about them on your ballot. This will make a total of fifty-five Tennesseans that will represent all Tennessee Republicans at the National Convention in St. Paul, Minnesota.

Voting for Delegates

After you have chosen your Presidential preference, the Republican Party lets the voters decide which individuals get to represent their favored candidate at the Convention.

Essentially, delegates pledged to each Presidential candidate are running against one another in order to get a ticket to represent their man at the Convention. If, using the above example, Lincoln gets 5 statewide delegate spots; the top 5 vote-getting delegate candidates pledged to him will go to the convention.

Do I have to bother voting for delegates at all?

You do not have to vote for any delegates in order for your Presidential Preference to count.

What if my Presidential preference doesn't have 12 statewide delegates (or 3 Congressional district delegates) to vote for?

You can just vote for the ones that are there, or vote for delegates for other Presidential candidates. It will not hurt your Presidential preference.

Can I vote for delegates for other Presidential candidates?

You have the option to vote for delegates who are pledged to candidates other than your own. Using the example above, lets say you are a Reagan supporter but you have a friend from church who is running as a delegate pledged to Lincoln. You can vote for Reagan, which helps him get more delegate spots, and vote for your friend under "Delegates pledged to Abraham Lincoln" to help him/her win the right to represent Lincoln at the Convention.

Finally, a candidate we can vote for

How about this fine man for our Republican Presidential candidate?

Click here

Democratic Socialism

As we head into another legislative Session and Presidential election year, many are concerned about our elected officials proposing evermore socialist policies and programs. Our nation seems to be split - some want to stop this advance, and clearly others want it to progress.

The late, great economist Milton Friedman often reminded us that throughout history there have been oppressive governments that impose totalitarian socialism on the people – causing untold tyranny, servitude, and misery. As Americans, we reject such oppression.

Yet, many of the very same Americans who regard totalitarian socialism as something evil do not seem to see a problem with democratic socialism.

If it is agreed that socialism takes away our freedom, imposes heavy taxes, and creates heaps of inefficient government bureaucracy, why then is socialism any more palatable just because a legislator votes for it through the democratic process than if a dictator imposes it?

Is it really possible to take freedom away in a kinder gentler manner? As government programs become ever more elaborate and expensive just how much will it ultimately cost to buy the compliance of America?

Today, there seems to be societal confusion over just what constitutes a "right." A constituent asked me, “Do you believe healthcare is a right?” “No, I don’t” was my reply and I went on to explain that if a so called “right” takes something from another person to provide that right to you it is not a right.

My right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness costs others nothing and yet I delight in each of those rights everyday. My right to freedom of speech, religion and my property costs others nothing as well. The government doesn’t provide rights to me – they are mine, given to me by God. The government protects my rights for me.

Socialized healthcare is not a right but a government program. All socialism, democratic or totalitarian, is born of a “Plan” by politicians that think they know better how to spend your money and pretend to care more about your children than you do.

How is it accomplished? It is a gradual process to pass laws that destroy the free market and bring us to our knees begging for government intervention.

However, such programs are destined to be laced with coercion, power struggles, turf wars and pressure from special interests that are assured to grant you less power, choice and money. Ask yourself, do you really want to pathetically beg some politician for something that you should decide for yourself?

Our free enterprise system has produced the greatest nation the world has ever known. Experience shows us that government programs don’t perform market activities as well as the free market. It is time to remind ourselves of the distinction between a "right" and a "program"; "protection" and "provision."

Socialism fosters rationing, inferior quality, poor service, stunted innovation and undermines motivation. Some politicians may have very smooth words that tempt your better judgment and buy your compliance but beware, their rhetoric costs more than we can afford.

Buying Compliance

As we head into another legislative Session and Presidential election year, many are very concerned about our elected officials proposing evermore socialist policies and programs. Our nation seems to be split - some want to stop this advance, and clearly others want to progress with it.

The late, great economist Milton Friedman often reminded us that throughout history there have been oppressive governments that impose totalitarian socialism on the people – causing untold tyranny, servitude, and misery. As Americans, we reject such oppression.

Yet, many of the very same Americans who regard totalitarian socialism as something evil do not seem to see a problem with democratic socialism.

If it is agreed that socialism takes away our freedom, imposes heavy taxes, and creates heaps of inefficient government bureaucracy, why then is socialism any more palatable just because a legislator votes for it through the democratic process than if a dictator imposes it?

Is it really possible to take freedom away in a kinder gentler manner? As government programs become ever more elaborate and expensive just how much will it ultimately cost to buy the compliance of an entire state or a nation?

The genius of our founding fathers is unmatched in the history of civilization. They created a nation based on the blessings of liberty, personal responsibility and free enterprise. Never before had such freedom or prosperity been known.

Far from being anarchists, they formed our government to determine, arbitrate and enforce rules that protect our rights and punish those who would violate our freedom.

But today, there seems to be confusion over just what constitutes a "right." A constituent once asked me, “Do you think healthcare is a right?” “No, I don’t” was my reply and I went on to explain that if a so called “right” takes something from another person to provide that right to you it is not a right.

My right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness costs others nothing and yet I delight in each of those rights everyday. My right to freedom of speech, religion and my property costs others nothing as well. The government doesn’t provide those rights to me – they are mine, given to me by God. The government protects those rights for me...and for you.

Yet, if you say "I have a right to healthcare," you are expressing an expectation to get all the healthcare you want for free. However, if it is your right, why must others suffer to pay for it?

Socialized healthcare is not a right but a government program. All socialism, democratic or totalitarian, is born of a politician with a “Plan.” He typically thinks he knows better how to spend your money, and pretends to care more about your children than you do. All in a scheme to force your dollars out of your pocket into the government coffers for some program that will provide him power and make him immortal. However, the program is destined to be laced with coercion, power struggles, turf wars and pressure from special interests that are assured to grant you less and less power, and less of your own money for time immemorial. Before you know it, you’re pathetically begging some politician for something that you should decide on for yourself.

The carrot to take away your freedom? How do they buy your compliance? They promise you that "they and they alone" will give you something for “free” – in reality, they are offering to purchase your vote with your own money.

Our free enterprise system has produced great riches; therefore, it is tempting for politicians to come up with a “plan” to smooth over the bumps in life. However, the original plan for our nation is a plan that produces the most freedom and prosperity through the protection of our rights. Would taxes be so high if we stuck to the basic elements of:

1. Providing protection for our citizens inside and outside of our national boundaries
2. Effective laws and courts to preserve order and provide justice, interpret and enforce private contracts, pronounce punishment, grant restitution, foster competitive markets and counter monopolies
3. Providing a strong monetary framework and banking system
4. And protection of the truly helpless (generally the insane and children)

Experience shows us that government just doesn’t perform market activities as well as the free market. Socialism fosters rationing, poor quality, poor service, stunted innovation and undermines motivation. Politicians may have some very smooth words that tempt your better judgment and attempt to buy your compliance but truly their rhetoric will only bankrupt us all.

White Ribbon Week

Its WRAP week – will you wear a white ribbon?

WRAP stands for white ribbons against pornography. Its founders are fighting the objectification of women and the dehumanization of both female and male participants in pornography.

Sound familiar? The mainstream women’s movement gave up on this idea long ago. Instead, now sending the message it’s not exploitation if a woman exploits herself – It is power.

Many of the founders of WRAP are thirty something’s that have fled the porn industry to turn their lives around. Their heartbreaking testimonies tell of their own exposure as children to pornographic materials their parents had hidden in the house. This led to desensitization, early experimentation, abuse and, for them, careers in the porn industry. Their mission now is to spread the message of how the secret of pornography often leads both children and adults into destructive sexual addictions that tear families apart and destroy careers.

WRAP’s fight is not only against the formal porn industry but the many ways it spills over into the mainstream media today. In fact, the porn industry makes more revenue than all major television and cable news networks combined. No wonder these mainstream TV channels air some of the questionable programming that they do – the numbers tell them that this is what people want to see.

Often promoting rape and other anti-social behaviors, WRAP points to the increasing sexual violence and molestation of children by adults and authority figures as behaviors extending from the porn industry.

The statistics are staggering. Law enforcement tells us that they are able to track the Internet viewing of child pornography. It is a problem that not only endangers children worldwide but right here in our city. They also know that so-called “adult” pornography is commonly used by pedophiles to desensitize their child victim and break down their resistance to sexual acts.

The Supreme Court has ruled that obscenity is not protected speech so we do have laws to protect people that don’t want themselves or their children to be exposed. What WRAP is trying to wake us up to is the addiction, the objectification, the desensitizing effects, and the crimes that extend from the industry. Recognizing the harm to children, women and men worldwide, they’re asking for you and me to think about it and make a commitment not to support this industry.

When we pay to go see or rent many R rated movies, subscribe to cable movie channels such as Showtime, even watching some evening network TV programming we're supporing an extention of this industry.

If I had one wish, I’d wish that I could tell each young woman today, your femininity is a lovely gift that is part of what makes you the special young lady that you are but please know you don’t ever need to exploit your sexuality to prove your worth to anyone.

To mothers, I’d urge them, protect your children from graphic images on the Internet and in the media like a mama bear protecting her cubs. “Not my child!” should be your cry if anyone exposes your children to graphic images.

And to Fathers, guarding your family from every harm is your first priority. It’s important.

Indeed WRAP wants all of us to know that guarding society starts first with guarding ourselves.

Tennessee Receives a C on Campaign Finance

The California Voter Foundation has just completed a nationwide study to grade and rank the states' campaign finance disclosure laws.

Tennessee received a C and ranked 28th out of 50 states.

The California Voter Foundation produces very good data on voting and campaign finance laws. I have depended on them for years to learn what other states are doing.

The report makes some suggestions for Tennessee including:

Add additional search fields to the contributions database, such as donor employer and zip code, and contribution amount.

Summaries of candidates’ campaign financing are available from 1996 through 2006 and include totals raised and spent by each candidate, including totals from each reporting period.

The Big CON

Stacey Campfield writes about the Tennessean's article on certificates of need.

I filed a bill this year to do away with the CON process in Tennessee. The history of CON is very interesting. The process was never meant to prevent private investment dollars from investing in health care facilities but that is exactly what the CON process does.

A Brief History of CON

CON evolved out of the Depression and WWII; at a time when private dollars to build healthcare facilities were more than scarce. In order to expand the local hospital or to buy a much needed piece of equipment, communities formed committees that worked to raise charitable dollars, and to decide how to spend those dollars.

After the war, the federal government began to aid the local groups by offering grants as assistance. By the 1960's, the American Hospital Association successfully convinced the New York State legislature to pass a state law making the process a state function. Only their process not only "planned" how to spend charitable dollars, and government grant dollars, but it additionally had the insidious ability to restrict private investment dollars. This meant that in order to build a new facility private investors now had to seek permission from the state in the form of a certificate of need, a.k.a. CON.

Ten years later, AHA successfully passed CON legislation at the federal level. However, the federal law was repealed in only three years as analysts quickly realized the negative effects on competition, innovation and price.

Unfortunately, the AHA and other lobbyists were able to convince most states to keep their CON laws. Today, 32 states require certificates of need for varying items.

CON is protectionism at its worst. A CON costs an incredible amount of money, time and hassle to get.

Read More About CON

A great little book by the John Locke Foundation, Certificate-of-Need, It's Time For Repeal, explains the process quite well. Here is a review.

Energy Bill Guest Column

Please see my Sunday guest column in the Tennessean on the federal energy bill below.

Other recent blog posts concerning issues related to the energy bill include.

Who owns big oil anyway?

Is the cure worse than the disease?



Congress must reconsider energy bills to get it right
By State Representative Susan Lynn

What amounts to a lackluster performance by both chambers of Congress has left the United States with pieces of energy legislation that would jeopardize America’s long-term energy security rather than advance it. Our country needs all forms of energy. Yet, the current legislative juncture has been driven by partisanship and short-sighted thinking and the result does nothing to boost access to domestic resources or strengthen America’s ability to secure energy from the global market.

Facilitating access to the vast domestic energy resources housed within our borders is one of the smartest things that lawmakers could consider as the Senate and House bills go to a conference committee for negotiations. But as they stand, the current bills would hinder the ability of domestic energy companies to reliably meet our nation’s increasing demand – translating into job losses, rising energy costs and financial hardship for the millions of Americans whose pensions are invested in U.S. oil companies.

Regrettably, this faulty legislation is rife with counterintuitive measures that will increase U.S. dependence on foreign oil. Higher taxes on the oil industry are sure to impede the technological advances that have led to recent energy finds. For instance, a record-setting find 175 miles off Louisiana’s coast in late 2006 was possible only by drilling more than 28,000 feet below the water’s surface. With no spills and no work incidents at this site – as well as a promising new source of domestic oil – the billions of dollars in reinvestments from oil companies are obviously paying off to enhance U.S. energy security.

Hampering the progress of our domestic energy producers only concedes further competitive advantages to foreign energy firms by restricting the assets that American oil companies have available to fund the financially risky exploration and development projects common to the energy industry. Energy development is investment-intensive and long-term in scope, so Congress should do all it can to see that domestic energy companies can remain competitive with the nationalized foreign firms that aggressively pursue resource-rich lands without the burden of undue taxes.

Lawmakers need to refocus their attention on the vital role reliable energy supply plays in the United States’ ability to continue any future economic growth. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 made progress toward long-term energy security, passing with bipartisan majorities in both the House and Senate. Today, however, Congress seems determined to rebuke traditional energy sources in hopes that federally-mandated investments in new sources will somehow make up the difference.

The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that fossil fuels will continue to meet approximately 85 percent of U.S. energy demand over the next two decades. So clearly, environmentally sound development of the petroleum resources within our borders should be a logical component of any legislation intended for the President’s signature. In their present form, the short-sighted House and Senate bills would undermine our long-term energy security and national economic outlook. If lawmakers in Washington want to show real leadership, they should kill this legislation before it sees the light of day.

Susan Lynn
State Representative
57th District Tennessee

Susan Lynn is the Public Sector Chairman of the American Legislative Exchange Council’s Commerce, Insurance and Economic Development Task Force.

ALEC issues PR on Law of the Sea Treaty

For Immediate Release:
Contact: Michael Hough
(202) 557-8490
October 10, 2007


Sea Treaty Threatens States’ and Nation’s Sovereignty

WASHINGTON, D.C.—On Thursday October 4, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing on the Law of the Sea Treaty (L.O.S.T). The treaty, which was originally rejected by President Ronald Reagan in 1982, has been revived with the support of the Bush Administration. The treaty threatens our nation's sovereignty by allowing the United Nations (UN) to regulate sea and land pollution and enact global taxes.

Environmental protection provisions in L.O.S.T will impact all states. Unbelievably, the treaty allows the UN to regulate pollution from "land-based sources." This will have a direct impact on all states. According to Tennessee Representative Susan Lynn, Chair of ALEC's Commerce, Insurance, and Economic Development Task Force, "The people of my state expect lawmakers, not unelected bureaucrats at the UN to make environmental and tax policy."

Aside from regulating our environmental polices, L.O.S.T empowers the International Seabed Authority (ISA) to impose taxes on American companies. Natural gas and oil companies, which export minerals more than 200 miles off shore, will be forced to pay seven percent of their profits to the I.S.A. Lynn added that "This treaty a terrible idea that would give the United Nations control over 7/10ths of the earth's surface. We must cautious about giving away such sovereignty because he who rules the sea will one day rule the land."

Furthermore, the UN body that will administer L.O.S.T only gives the U.S. one vote and no veto authority. This will, in effect, allow an international body to impose environmental regulations and tax policy on our citizens without even the support of our representative at the UN-let alone voters.

###

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is dedicated to developing model policies based on the Jeffersonian principles of free markets, limited government, federalism, and individual liberty. ALEC is the nation's largest nonpartisan, individual membership organization of state legislators, with more than 2,400 legislator members from all 50 states, and 86 former members serving in the U.S. Congress. www.alec.org


Jorge E. Amselle
Director, Public Affairs
American Legislative Exchange Council
1129 20th Street, NW, Suite 500
Washington, DC 20036
JAmselle@ALEC.org
(202) 742-8536
FAX (202) 466-3801

Community Enhancement Grants

The State of Tennessee had a large budget surplus this year. So did several other states. I joined many Tennessee legislators in a call to resist spending every last penny, and do like other states have recently done, and institute a fair way to refund the budget surplus to the taxpayers.

In the end, the eventual compromise brought some satisfaction to the refunders as a combination of two sales tax holidays, a 1/2 cent reduction in the sales tax on food, and the more controversial Community Enhancement Grant Program were included in the final budget.

Initially, the plan for Community Enhancement Grants raised eyebrows because of the highly prejudicial process which gave individual legislators sole discretion to decide whom to give $100,000 and $300,000 to in their district.

Citizens criticized this process and rightly so. Ordinarily, government grants give fair notice of opportunity to all, have an application process, employ objective determination and a list of goals. And, of course, all government grants contain an assurance of nondiscrimination and post-grant auditing to ensure accountability.

Some may recall how strongly I objected to the proposal because it allowed for too many conflicts of interest. Nothing was to prevent a politician from “buying” political endearment and payback, or seeking kickbacks on grant funds. It was certainly possible that an elected official may direct money to a board on which he or she serves and thereby have a direct hand in spending the taxpayer’s funds. Therefore, I rejected this idea, and I did not create my own list of favored organizations in my district to whom I would grant money.

However, the final proposal voted on by the legislature in the appropriations bill created a much fairer process. This version formed a $20 million dollar grant fund administered by the secretary of state’s office. It also outlined who is eligible, gave a stated purpose, fair notice, created an application process, made applications easily available to all, and mandated an audit provision making organizations accountable for the taxpayer’s money.

Now the question remaining is, how will the secretary of state fairly distribute $20 million in available grant funds to over $185 million in grant requests? Secretary Darnell has asked for input from the legislators to figure this out. Will legislators suggest sticking to their original grant lists to the exclusion of many worthy organizations that qualified for the money? Will he evenly distribute the funds, giving each organization the same amount? Surely, even this process is still very complicated.

I must state that from the beginning I believed the best way to refund your money to you is through a sales tax holiday – perhaps at Christmas. That way you can use your money for any purpose, including gifts to non-profit organizations if you choose.

It is difficult to determine if we will have another massive tax surplus but the successive years of sales tax holidays and now enhancement grants seem to indicate that our tax rate is simply set too high. Certainly lowering the sales tax would be the best way to ensure your money is well spent, and that tax rates don’t raise more money than our budget requires.

The return of the Cable Choice Bill

Debate is expected to resume in January on the Competitive Cable and Video Services Act better known as The Cable Choice Bill.

So just what is all the controversy about?

Consumers clearly want more choice of providers when it comes to television services, and quite naturally, cable companies don’t. However, unknown to most consumers is that cities use their tax dollars to pay a powerful lobbying organization to help conduct the bitter fight against the bill.

The debate is over whether cable companies should continue to obtain local franchise agreements in order to operate or if the legislature should allow the creation of a single statewide franchise agreement which would permit operators to serve the entire state.

Currently, cable companies must obtain the right to provide service by going city to city to negotiate a franchise agreement with local government officials. We looked at dozens of such agreements last year – each is essentially similar except some do insist on certain perks such as that service is provided free to city hall and the mayor’s office, etc.

Simple math reveals that with hundreds and hundreds of cities in our state such redundancy of legal work is very costly to consumers. The current process also leaves huge gaps in service for those outside of the “franchised” area. In fact, last year the FCC found that the local franchise agreement is the very cause of the vast lack of access to cable services, and that the process discourages competition among providers because it is too time consuming and costly. Providers just tend to concede certain territories to each other.

Last year the legislature heard the many concerns of our local governments and worked hard to address each one by rewriting the bill to state that local governments retain audit, build out, customer service, local franchises, PEG channels, police powers, total control of public right of way and local tax provisions. Franchise fees are paid directly to local governments. All federal laws still apply, and there is non-discrimination based on race or income.

Plus, this new process has the added benefit, and potential, to provide real competition and service to all.

We do not require telephone companies or internet service providers to operate using the same local franchise agreement process; rather, they operate statewide, taking advantage of economies of scale. In fact, the local franchise process is what has allowed companies to cherry pick the most lucrative towns and cities for years leaving many areas without competition and service.

Statewide franchising is a way to streamline the work required to obtain a contract to operate, stimulate the capital investment necessary to expand service, and encourage a competitive atmosphere among providers, thereby creating real choice and competition for every consumer in our state.

By State Representative Susan Lynn
Word count: 454

Liberals Will Never Give Up

Illegal immigrants are issued ID cards in some places...

For some reason the Progressive States Network has been sending TN representatives their e-mail newsletter. I always read it because it is very important to watch what the other side is up to.

Their latest news letter has a story about states issueing illegal aliens state ID cards. Something we fought very hard to eliminate in Tennessee.

They add

ACTION PENDING ELSEWHERE ...Lawmakers are considering municipal ID cards (for illegal aliens):

• San Francisco Supervisor Tom Ammiano introduced legislation last month to create a city ID card. "We can't say, 'You can come to my house and clean my toilet, but then you have no right to civic participation,'" he says.

• New York City Councilman Hiram Monserrate introduced a measure in July to create city ID cards, aide Wayne Mahlke says.

• Bruno Barreiro, chairman of the Miami-Dade County Board of County Commissioners, says he is drafting and ordinance for county IDs.

• Ashok Kumar, a supervisor in Dane County, Wis., plans to introduce a measure this month.

The Lesson - Liberals will never, ever give up!

Having your cake and eating it too

Did SR Illegally Vote?

Harold Ford Sr has filed for a Homestead Tax exemption in Florida. In order to file for such an exemption one must swear the home in question is one's permanent primary residence.

However, Tennessee law requires that in order to vote in Tennessee one's pernaent residence must be in Tennessee.

Ford asks advice on eligibility (Commercial Appeal/Aaronson)

"(Ford) May rescind Florida tax exemption to ensure vote is legal following a report in The Commercial Appeal Wednesday that questioned his eligibility to vote in Memphis, former congressman Harold Ford Sr. said he has hired lawyers to advise him whether he was entitled to cast an early ballot Sept. 27. As the newspaper reported, Ford filed for a Florida homestead tax exemption on his $2.5 million home on Miami Beach's Fisher Island, telling Miami-Dade County officials the home was his primary and permanent residence. Tennessee law requires voters to keep their permanent residence in the Volunteer State, and voters may only have one permanent residence. After making a homestead declaration in Florida, Ford was potentially ineligible when he participated in early voting at the Pyramid Recovery Center. "We're looking at it from a legal standpoint," Ford said, adding: "If Tennessee doesn't allow us to do this, then we'll be happy to rescind (the Florida tax exemption)."

Is the Cure Worse than the Disease?

The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) met for it's 20th Round Table on Sustainable Development in September. They have produced a report on Biofuels called Biofuels : Is the Cure Worse Than the Disease ?

The report is a must read for policy makers, taxpayers and anyone concerned about the environment.

Among some of the findings:

The rush to energy crops threatens to cause food shortages and damage to biodiversity with limited benefits.

Second-generation technologies hold promise but depend on technological breakthroughs.

The economic outlook for biofuels seems fragile.

Government policies supporting and protecting domestic production of biofuels are inefficient…

...are not cost-effective….

More from the report:

Overall environmental impacts

105. Most biofuels have an overall environmental performance that is worse then gasoline, though their relative performance differs considerably (Fig. 8). EMPA gave maize-based ethanol in the USA a poor environmental score, whereas it determined that ethanol from sugar beets and sugarcane are only moderately better than gasoline in terms of their overall environmental impacts. Biodiesel scores negatively as well, in general. Only when waste products such as recycled cooking oils are used do their overall environmental performances fare better than that of gasoline. Biofuels made from woody biomass rated better than gasoline in all cases.


6.4 Cost-effectiveness of government support policies


114. The overall cost-effectiveness of biofuels seems to be low in almost all cases. Costs are relatively high per unit of fossil energy displaced or per unit of CO2 emissions reduced. To displace one litre equivalent of fossil fuel, for example, would cost between $0.66 and $1.40 in the United States. In the European Union these costs are even higher. And that is in addition to what customers pay for the fuel at the pump. In several cases the use of biofuels is roughly doubling the cost of transportation energy for consumers and taxpayers together. Such high rates of subsidisation might perhaps be considered reasonable if the industry was new, and ethanol and biodiesel were being made on a small-scale, experimental basis using advanced technologies, but most of the support is directed at production from mature, first-generation manufacturing plants.


115. In a similar vein, the cost of obtaining a unit of CO2-equivalent reduction through subsidies to biofuels is well over $500 per tonne of CO2-equivalent avoided for corn-based ethanol in the United States, for example, even when assuming an efficient plant uses low-carbon fuels for processing. In Switzerland and Australia the results are hardly any better, although the ranges are large depending on the feedstock. The implication of these calculations is that one could have achieved far more reductions for the same amount of money by simply purchasing CO2-equivalent offsets at the market price.

Tax & Spin

This could be written about any state...

It's a time-tested script. Liberals enact mandated spending increases and create a structural deficit, while claiming to be fiscally responsible. The structural deficit becomes a real deficit, and we have a budget crisis. The governor makes minor budget reductions. The drumbeat for higher taxes begins. The governor calls a special session.

...it happens to be about Maryland.

Voter ID

Press accounts state that the Supreme Court may not rule on a case challenging an Indiana Voter ID law until June 2008. The law has already been upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit. Opponents to the new law appealed on the basis that the new law causes mass disenfranchisement of certain voters. The law requires registered voters to show a government-issued photo identification card before they can cast a vote.

Reasonable Voter ID Laws printed this week in the Washington Times makes great points about some of the opponents' illogical objections.

Critics of such voter ID laws say they have a depressing effect on voter turnout. This despite the fact that voter turnout is on the rise (with experts predicting still higher turnout in 2008). One would think that the 10 percent or so of the population that does not have a government ID would use the law as further motivation to obtain one. Such IDs are vital to obtain employment, open a bank account, qualify for government entitlement programs and even purchase certain goods and services. There is little excuse for any American or legal citizen not to obtain either a driver's license or non-driving ID.

Kentucky ACLU Lawsuit Dismissed in Federal Court

ACLU's Lawsuit Against The Ten Commandments In Public Schools Is Dismissed

A federal court has dismissed a lawsuit that was filed by the ACLU against a school board in Harlan County in Kentucky over a display that includes the Ten Commandments.

Since 2005, the ACLU has lost serveral Ten Commandments cases.

The display hangs in several schools and in the district office. To see a picture of one of the displays that hangs above the cafeteria doors, go to www.LC.org/images/10comm_harlan_cafeteria.jpg.
News Release

Presidential Quiz

Someone sent me this Presidential candidate selection tool. Answer a few questions and it gives you your candidate. It looks like they might be collecting data too but it is anonymous.

The test claims that "The scores at the end are pretty black & white--either you agree with the candidate's positions or don't. Personalities and party affiliations don't come into it."


I most agreed with Fred Thompson - the only area where we differed was energy.

The candidate I least agreed with was Hillary Clinton - scoring a 5 - we only agreed on the death penalty. We differed on Iraq, Immigration, Taxes, Stem-Cell Research, Health Care, Abortion, Social Security, Line-Item Veto, Energy and Marriage.

Who Owns Big Oil Anyway?

In response to liberal politicians' plan to heavily tax Big Oil profits, API, a national trade association that represents all aspects of America’s oil and natural gas industry conducted a study to find out just who is profiting from the oil and gas industry corporate profits.

In other words; who owns big oil?

API hired Robert Shapiro, noted economist and former Undersecretary of Commerce under President Clinton to find out who owns the stock in America's oil and natural gas industry and just who is profiting from high profits.

The study revealed that:

Almost 43 percent of oil and natural gas company shares are owned by mutual funds and asset management companies that have mutual funds. Mutual funds manage accounts for 55 million U.S. households with a median income of $68,700.

Twenty seven percent of shares are owned by other institutional investors like pension funds. In 2004, more than 2,600 pension funds run by federal, state and local governments held almost $64 billion in shares of U.S. oil and natural gas companies. These funds represent the major retirement security for the nation’s current and retired soldiers, teachers, and police and fire personnel at every level of government.

Fourteen percent of shares are held in IRA and other personal retirement accounts. Forty five million U.S. households have IRA and other personal retirement accounts, with an average account value of just over $22,000.

Fourteen percent of shares are owned by individual investors who purchase stocks on the open market.

1.5% of shares are owned by corporate insiders – company executives and CEO’s.

As you can see, taxing profits will only take money from your pension, retirement account, mutual fund or stock earnings; a plan which simply takes your wealth away from you and transfers it to government bureaucrats with no promise of lower prices at the pump.

So instead of taxing profits just what can we do to make the prices come down to reasonable levels that we all can afford? Increase supply. Increasing the supply of energy sources is the only way to make the price go down in any meaningful and real way.

Cigarette Police

I just received this press release from the Department of Revenue.

I guess we've finally succeeded in making ordinary criminals out of ordinary smokers.

State of Tennessee

Department of Revenue

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: SOPHIE MOERY
September 21, 2007 (615) 741-2461 (office)
(615) 545-1734 (cell)


REVENUE plans for cigarette surveillance at state line

Transporting more than two cartons across state line is illegal

NASHVILLE, Tenn. ¾ The Tennessee Department of Revenue’s Special Investigations Section will be conducting surveillance of out-of-state tobacco retailers located near the state line for Tennessee residents purchasing cigarettes. On July 1, 2007, Tennessee’s cigarette tax increased from 20 cents per pack to 62 cents per pack.

“As a result of this legislation, Tennesseans may travel to neighboring states to purchase cigarettes in order to avoid paying Tennessee cigarette tax,” said Revenue Commissioner Reagan Farr. “Tennesseans should know that the law requires cigarettes purchased outside of the state to bear a Tennessee tobacco stamp, otherwise the cigarettes may be considered contraband.”

Possessing more than 20 packs (or two cartons) of cigarettes not bearing Tennessee revenue stamps is a misdemeanor. Such products and any vehicle(s) used to transport them are subject to seizure. Possession of more than 25 cartons of untaxed cigarettes is a Class E felony.

“If Revenue agents believe that an individual is transporting more than two cartons of cigarettes into Tennessee, the vehicle carrying the cigarettes will be stopped and searched,” Commissioner Farr said. “If more than two cartons are found, the cigarettes will be seized and agents have the discretion to make arrests and seize the vehicle.”

Public Chapter 368 increased the tax on cigarettes from $0.20 to $0.62 per pack. Additional revenue from the increase is earmarked for education (approximately $195 million annually), agricultural enhancements ($21 million annually) and trauma centers statewide ($12 million annually). The Department of Revenue administers the collection and enforcement of Tennessee tobacco taxes.

The Department of Revenue is responsible for the administration of state tax laws and motor vehicle title and registration laws established by the legislature and the collection of taxes and fees associated with those laws. The Department of Revenue collects approximately 92 percent of total state tax revenue. During the 2006-2007 fiscal year, the department collected $11.0 billion in state taxes and fees. In addition to collecting state taxes, $1.9 billion of local sales tax was collected by the department for local governments during the 2006-2007 fiscal year. Besides collecting taxes, the department enforces the revenue laws fairly and impartially in an effort to encourage voluntary taxpayer compliance. The department also apportions revenue collections for distribution to the various state funds and local units of government. To learn more about the department, log on to www.Tennessee.gov/revenue.

This press release can be accessed online at http://state.tn.us/revenue/newsreleases/2007/cigenforce.htm.

Ethics Code

I first submitted this ethics code as part of an article in the Lebanon Democrat in 2006. I posted it on my blog soon after the blog was created. I developed the code during the Special Session on Ethics based on our oath of office and by studing ethics codes for other professions.

It is surprising that the General Assembly does not agree on a general code of ethics from year to year. Perhaps, it is about time that we do.


Ethics Code

A legislator is a public servant working to protect the rights of the citizens and to clarify rights and laws for the common good.

We hold that there is certain behavior that the legislative branch should not engage in.

It is clear and uncontroversial that legislators should;

Uphold the Constitutions of the state of Tennessee and the United States of America and make no law to the contrary to either.

Abide by all laws of the state of Tennessee and the United States of America.

Vote without affection, favor, partiality, or prejudice.

Vote for no law injurious to the people.

Not lessen or abridge the rights and privileges of the people.

Not seek to profit from their position.

Not employ intimidation, threat or coercion for personal, financial or political gain.

Report illegal behavior of other legislators or others.

Not use the resources of the state for personal use.

Not accept gifts given due to their position or for the performance of their duties.

Contributions to campaigns should be accepted with the understanding between both parties that they procure no influence, nor promise of any vote, service or favor.

When involved in the important act of forging consensus, policy makers should commit to screen all information through their own values, convictions, and principles; employing the virtues of honesty and integrity, and should reject the influence of all conflicts of interest by using their core values as a template to place over the decisions that they face.

Legislators should not therefore perform any task or deed in direct conflict with conscience or contrary to the best interest of their constituency or the state.



This code is a proposed list of general expectations for those in a positioin of public trust but it is by no means all encompassing. Laws may certainly be derived from this list for legislators to abide by.

Let us all remember, it is always good to have a healthy skepticism of our government and public officials.

##

ADHD & Food Additives

Some Food Additives Raise Hyperactivity, Study Finds

This morning’s New York Times reports on a study of food additives and hyperactivity confirming that food additives can cause some children to become hyperactive. The study was financed by Britain’s Foods Standards Agency and printed in the very reputable British medical journal The Lancet. Reuters also printed an article.

This is not the first study to confirm such results (and click here). But it has extremely important implications for children and our education system.

In fact, Appleton Central High School, an alternative school in Appleton, WI, has displayed a commitment to good nutrition by providing an additive free diet in conjunction with Natural Ovens Bakery for their students for years. They have reported much improved behavior and learning; click here, here, here, and here.

Eventually, the improved dietary standards proved so successful that the entire school system now uses such an approach.

Our Story

For me, this study further confirms my own experiences. At three years of age my son was diagnosed with ADHD. At that time pediatricians did not put such a young child on medication. It was a good thing too; otherwise I might never have sought out a book by Dr. Benjamin Feingold, called Why Your Child is Hyperactive (also available here).

Dr. Feingold, an allergist and pediatrician, explained that some children are generally predisposed to be sensitive to certain chemicals which are used as additives in the foods we regularly consume in our modern diet. In susceptible children, such additives can cause behavior, learning, health and motor skills problems.

In addition to his hyperactivity, my son’s problems were numerous; he had trouble staying on the paper when he colored as well as difficulty with drawing shapes. He suffered frequent rashes, headaches and tummy aches. He had persistent bad dreams, mild speech difficulties, and acute sensitivity to low base noises. We had also observed that he couldn’t run but the doctor told us this was actually caused by a problem with his gait when he walked – all of these symptoms were classic signs of the behavior, learning, health and motor skills problems that Feingold had described in his book.

Although the symptoms of the children in the book mirrored my young son’s, it was difficult to accept that these chemicals could possibly be affecting him. Still, I had three years before they’d try him on any medication so I put up everything in our home that Dr. Feingold had identified as a possible culprit and I kept a diary of the experience.

To my astonishment, in three days I had a normal little boy! At first I was very timid to believe that his new diet could have produced such a dramatic change in his behavior. I kept journaling in the diet diary. Soon it became quite obvious that when an infraction occurred his behavior deteriorated and then improved after three days of careful adherence to his new diet.

Our friends and family could see the change in him and were happy for us. Our pediatrician, he never conceded that the diet was of any help – we just agreed to disagree. His new diet was much healthier anyway. Nothing artificially flavored, colored, or preserved. If one reads an MSDS sheet on food additives it is very obvious that we could all benefit from such a diet.

Our son actually wanted to stay on the diet. He didn’t like the way he felt when he ate the chemical additives. He never needed medications. His teachers never complained that he was a discipline problem or nor did he have any scholastic problems. And the little boy who couldn’t run actually received four different college scholarships to run cross-country when he graduated from high school.

I have volunteered for the Feingold Association of the United States for over twenty years now; at times being much more active than in the last few years. Yet, I continue to speak on the subject whenever asked.

The Feingold Association is a tremendous help to families. They publish a grocery shopping list full of foods without chemical additives that the child can eat. It makes finding a cereal, or bread or anything else much easier on trips to the supermarket.

I am speaking about our experiences at the Incredible Families Parenting Conference this Saturday, September 8, at 9:45 am at The Grace Place, located at The Hermitage Church of God, 4316 Central Pike, Hermitage TN.

I hope this new study makes a difference for families. I think such information is one reason why I never cease to believe in the victory of the human spirit.

New Blog

State Representative Matthew Hill has a new job and a new blog.

He has returned to radio as the host of Good Morning Tri-Cities.

A blog comes with the job. The blog accepts posts from listeners. He's also invited established bloggers to participate.

Too good not to share

I just started reading Milton Friedman’s Capitalism and Freedom. It’s already too good not to share.

In the introduction Friedman comments on that very famous line by John Kennedy

"Ask not what your country can do for you but ask what you can do for your country."

Friedman notes the paternalistic view of asking what your country can do for you. It implies that government is a “patron,” and the “citizen the ward,” or that government is a servant to the citizen, a caretaker, a provider, and “a grantor of favors and gifts.” This view is very much at odds with a free mans view of his own individual responsibility and control over his own destiny.

Conversely, asking what you can do for your country implies that government is an organism or a “master;” a powerful deity over man to be “blindly worshiped or served.”

Friedman goes on to state that “a free man will neither ask what his country can do for him nor what he can do for his country” because to a free man our country is merely a collection of individuals, not some thing over or above him, and not some thing to care for and provide for him. Government is a collection of citizens with a "common heritage and loyal to common traditions."

He notes that a free man will ask “what can I and my compatriots do through government to help us discharge our individual responsibilities, to achieve our several goals and purposes and, above all, to protect our freedom?” "And how can we keep the government we create from becoming a Frankenstein that will destroy the very freedom we establish it to protect?"

He goes on to state that concentration of power is a great threat to freedom.


“Let us provide us a road to get here and there. Enabling each to greet all we see, merchandizing to earn a fee, and bringing our families closer to we” Unknown.

Irritating Liberals with Healthy Wisconsin

My friends in the Wisconsin state legislature and I have apparently hit a nerve today due to our fight against Healthy Wisconsin, here too.

A post on The Huffington Post.com by David Sorota blasts us for our efforts to fight the legislation. David is a board member of the Progressive States Network, the body that is working for universal healthcare at the state level.

Ridiculous Textbooks used in Tennessee

Ben Cunningham recently embedded a YouTube video on his blog by a Seattle Fox News 13 meteorologist and weather newscaster, M.J. McDermott.

(I have not mastered the magic of embedding yet so I have a link below to YouTube).

The video highlights the ridiculous techniques taught by two particular math textbooks that are in use today; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tr1qee-bTZI.

As a student, I enjoyed math very much but I feel these procedures would have caused me great frustration in 5th grade. I showed the video to my daughter, a good English / history type student, and she said she would have been in tears…literally.

It is certainly NOT the optimal way to learn multiplication and division.

I checked the list of selected books for use in Tennessee classrooms; these two books are on the list.

The list is compiled by the State Textbook Commission according to T.C.A. 49-6-2201---2209 and 49-3-310.

I cannot tell you if YOUR child's school is using these books because the list contains an assortment of textbooks from which to choose. Each school district selects their choice of curriculum from the list established by the Commission. If you are concerned, call and ask your child’s school.

Work done by committee is never perfect, and the textbook business is a huge, high pressure, competitive industry containing some wild and often ridiculous ideas about learning.

This illustrates very well why parents need to be vigilant and involved in their child’s education. It goes without saying, but when your child is issued his or her textbooks – review them. If one just doesn’t make sense, bring it to the attention of your child’s teacher, the principal and the school board.

Better yet, get a group of concerned parents together and ask to review the choices before they are actually purchased.

If you live in a school district that is performing well the chances are they are not using these books – but it is your right as a parent and a taxpayer to ask.

Dr. Milton Friedman

The great Nobel Prize winning economist, Dr. Milton Friedman's birthday was last week.

I was quite fortunate to meet him, just for a moment, last summer. He died a few short months later in November. It is funny how meeting someone so great, even for a brief moment, can have an impact on one.

He was so frail that he gave his speech sitting down in a handsome wingback chair. His lovely wife, Rose, by his side.

He spoke that day about the importance of choice in education.

A commentary on him contains one of his classic quotes on government spending.

What a master of human nature he was...

"There are four ways in which you can spend money.

You can spend your own money on yourself. When you do that, why then you really watch out what you’re doing, and you try to get the most for your money.

Then you can spend your own money on somebody else. For example, I buy a birthday present for someone. Well, then I’m not so careful about the content of the present, but I’m very careful about the cost.

I can spend somebody else’s money on myself. And if I spend somebody else’s money on myself, then I’m sure going to have a good lunch!

Finally, I can spend somebody else’s money on somebody else. And if I spend somebody else’s money on somebody else, I’m not concerned about how much it is, and I’m not concerned about what I get.

And that’s government. And that’s close to 40% of our national income."
MF

State Comptroller's New Immigration Report

The State of Tennessee Comptroller of the Treasury's office has completed a new report called Immigration Issues in Tennessee.

The report is a must read for anyone interested in illegal immigration in Tennessee and how our dollars are spent.

The report was complied by the Offices of Research and Education Accountibility .

To see all of the available reports click here.

Michael DelGiorno / 99.7 FM

Thank you host Michael DelGiorno and Super Talk 99.7 for inviting me to be on your show this morning to talk about the Nashville City Paper's article on invalid voters.

This is a very important issue and I appreciate your interest.

Spending Priorities

Researching government regulation theory brings to mind an important question regarding the Minnesota bridge tragedy;

How many tax dollars are wasted on do-gooder ideas while responsibilities that have immediate health, safety or supply concerns are put off or neglected?

TDOT reports that Tennessee has 346 structurally deficient on-system bridges (those owned and maintained by the state). There are 660 structurally deficient off-system bridges (those on roads owned and maintained by local governments).

A colleague of mine in the House is angered today because a state contracted service provider near his own business that recently lost their state contract closed their doors yesterday as a “housing agency” and opened their doors today with a new sign that reads “Walk-in Clinic and Haircuts.”

Yes, they will be giving state paid for haircuts. He’s unsure as of yet what the walk-in clinic is all about – the facility is certainly not equipped to be a clinic nor do the operators seem to him to be qualified.

He states the neighboring businesses are often upset because this “service provider” often has the police at their door and a disorderly clientele.

In the meantime, how many tax dollars are we wasting on things like hair cuts?

We must prioritize government spending and provide only for those things that one is unable to do for ones self because it is an impossibility; because there are immediate health, safety or supply concerns. Not because someone feels some might not have “access” as is so often the cry in committee.

How many of the people who died in the Mississippi river last night would be capable of determining if a bridge is safe for travel, or would be able to make the repairs? That IS the government’s job.

How many were even informed that the bridge was considered structurally deficient and had the opportunity to make the choice as to whether to travel that route or not?

People will find housing or get a hair cut on their own.

We’ve got to develop principles and priorities for government spending so that we can stop liberal do-gooder ideas that waste millions upon billions of dollars and take care of things like structurally deficient bridges which jeopardize lives everyday.

Healthy Wisconsin...Coming to Tennessee?

Yesterday I participated in a conference call about Healthy Wisconsin; the healthcare legislation recently passed by the Democrat controlled Wisconsin State Senate.

Why? Not because I support government controlled single payer healthcare but because this conference call, intended to push the same reforms to legislators in other states, was a chance to learn what the other side is up to.

The Wall Street Journal states, unless the Republican controlled House can defeat the plan, Wisconsin may well become “Michael Moore’s Medical Dream State.”

This disturbing view inside this amazingly organized liberal think tank revealed the long-term planning and strategy of this organization that has been able to gather support from an 85,000 member coalition made up of Wisconsin’s unions and progressive activists.

It is clear that unions are excited because they see great savings ahead as they are able to unload their healthcare liabilities on the taxpayers of the state of Wisconsin.

The plan includes every bad incentive possible. Among them; consumer driven ideas are out, high taxes and price controls in, more required mandates, rationing, forced participation by employees and employers; but don’t worry - one doesn’t even need to have a job to obtain the insurance.

One of the more impossible claims is that the plan will pay for expensive and controversial experimental treatments. Examining state run healthcare in other countries, not only are experimental treatments not paid for but, one waits for months and months for even conventional treatments.

The Senate sponsor, State Senator Erpenbach, used twisted class warfare techniques as he compared the Healthy Wisconsin plan to the generous benefits and low premiums the Wisconsin state legislature affords itself (he pays just over $60 per month for his entire family). In stead of saying “I’m part of the cost shifting problem,” the senator falsely promises that everyone will have the same unlimited benefits and low rates that he has. Perhaps hoping the listening simpletons would not note that the miracle of his privileged policy and impossibly low rate, never before available to the masses, is heavily subsidized by the masses – as too would be Healthy Wisconsin.

Besides using self generated polling, petitions, pod casts, press releases, election propaganda, and faith based claims – they admittedly solicited “independent reports” from like-minded progressive groups to back up their claims of rich savings for businesses and grand estimates of the positive economic impact for the state.

The creator of one report expressed her great pleasure for having been "asked" to "help" with this immense effort to bring government controlled healthcare to Wisconsin. She noted that she didn’t mind that she was given less than one week to produce her "in-depth" independent report. She made it clear that her data was rehashed from one other liberal report without which she never could have produced her information so quickly. She ended with an attempt to solicit business by stating her group is capable of producing other such reports with the same short notice and, I presume, the same 'careful' research.

Their claims cannot possibly add up in Wisconsin or anywhere else. Let's hope Republicans in Wisconsin's state house will realize that all these wolves in do-gooder clothing really want is to legislatively gain control of the healthcare industry and then they can wield their power and make their fortunes.

WSJ Tax Hike Scorecard

This morning's Wall Street Journal has a disturbing tax hike scorecard on the opinion page.

The Journal notes;

"It's all the more remarkable given that federal tax revenues as a share of GDP are currently above their modern historical level. The latest budget estimate is that fiscal 2007 revenues will reach 18.8% of GDP, compared to the 40-year historical average of 18.3%. Tax revenues this year are rising by nearly 8%, following increases of 11.8% in 2006 and 14.6% in 2005. The budget deficit is down to 1.5% of GDP, and falling. But apparently Democrats still think Americans are undertaxed."

Some of the proposed hikes noted;

• A Senate Finance Committee plan to raise the federal tobacco tax by 61 cents to a total of $1 a pack to finance the Schip health-care expansion. The Senate figures this will raise $35 billion in revenue over five years, if you choose to believe this tax increase won't produce even more tax-free cigarette sales from Indian reservations.

• The so-called "Blackstone tax" on private equity partnerships that go public, raising their 15% rate to the regular corporate tax rate of 35%. This bipartisan Senate proposal hasn't been scored yet for revenues but may well pass Congress.

• A tax increase on the "carried interest" of hedge funds and private equity to 35% from 15%. This has been introduced in the House and endorsed by Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel and the major Democratic Presidential candidates.

• New York Senator Chuck Schumer tells the New York Times that he'll oppose this unless the tax increase also applies to real estate and other partnerships that also now pay the 15% carried interest tax rate. To put it another way, Mr. Schumer is saying he'll only support the higher tax rate if it applies to more people. Meanwhile, by playing this "good cop" role, Mr. Schumer is raising millions of dollars in campaign contributions from hedge funds and private equity for Democratic Senate candidates running in 2008. Brilliant.

• Higher withholding taxes on the U.S. subsidiaries of foreign companies -- in essence a tax increase on foreign investment in America. This $7.5 billion tax proposal from Texas Democrat Lloyd Doggett came out of nowhere last week to appear in the House farm bill to pay for more agriculture subsidies. It passed.

• Raise the capital gains rate to 28% from the current 15%. This would repeal not only the capital gains tax cut of 2003 but also the tax cut (to 20% from 28%) that Bill Clinton signed into law in 1997. Presidential candidate John Edwards proposed this 86% increase in the capital gains tax last week, and he's been echoed in recent days by such Democratic tax sachems as Alan Blinder and Leonard Burman. Mr. Blinder thinks capital gains should be taxed no differently than regular income, which means the tax rate would rise to 39.6% if the 2003 tax cuts expire in 2010. The last time the U.S. had a capital gains rate that high was 1978 -- the Jimmy Carter era.

• Deny the domestic manufacturing deduction to oil producers. This is part of the Senate Finance Committee's energy bill and is estimated to raise $11.4 billion over 10 years. How this will increase domestic oil production amid $77 a barrel oil and widespread clamor for "energy independence" is one of those mysteries that Congress prefers not to explain.

• A levy on oil and gas produced from deep-water leases in the Gulf of Mexico. This tax on domestic energy production is also part of the subsidy-fest known as the House farm bill and would allegedly raise $6.1 billion.

• A tax surcharge of 4.3 percentage points on income of more than $500,000, which would take the top marginal rate to 39.3%. A leading tax writer on Ways and Means, Massachusetts Democrat Richard Neal, promoted this idea in June as a way to prevent this year's increase in the Alternative Minimum Tax. Mr. Neal told the Washington Post that his plan had broad support from Democratic leaders and that "Everybody's on board." Other Democrats balked after that story appeared and Mr. Rangel told us not to believe it, but something's clearly in the air because Democratic tax guru Mr. Burman is also pushing a four-percentage-point income tax surcharge to pay for AMT relief.

Unfortunately, these ideas are not all they have.

New Political Blog

I recently spoke to a group of young people with sight, hearing and mobility limitations at the capitol. They seek to become involved and educated about the political process because of their disabilities, but also because of their incredable love for, and pride in, our country.

One of the young people informs me he has a blog; Confessions of a Conservative (with security protections). He writes very well about politics on his blog. He hopes to be a lawyer someday and work for "our great nation." It is very interesting to learn the opinions of our future leaders.

Alex reminds us that not only are gender and race no encumbrance for achievement but he reminds us that such physical limitations too are merely physical, and do not limit our thoughts, opinions or drive for a better future.

Best of luck to you Alex! You're an inspiration. Here is your letter.

Mrs. Lynn,

My name is Alex (withheld). I was part of the Tennessee Youth Leadership Forum you met with on Wednesday, July 11.

I apologize for the delay in writing you, but I have been busy. I wanted to take an opportunity to thank you for speaking to us, because I did not get a chance to do so properly. I had the chance to ask you a question, and I felt you did so quite adequately.

I am totally blind and have been for nearly my entire life. Despite my blindness, I refuse to call it a disability. Instead it is a limitation. A disability is something that I feel renders someone incapable of changing their circumstances. A limitation is something that can be adapted and overcome with hard work, ingenuity, and a desire to succeed.

This leads to my point. I hope to one day enter the law profession and eventually politics. I am already writing a political blog to help me become more familiar with the political atmosphere. I have a strong desire to serve this great nation and the people in it. I found your speech to be very encouraging to both myself and anyone else who desired the same as I.

Many people are shocked when they hear of my goals, but you spoke as if you would expect nothing less of someone with the limitations such as those displayed by the students in the forum. Every word you spoke seemed to be sincere and honest. You handled every question with the utmost care. Your attitude undoubtedly restores confidence in government for more than just a few people. Thank you for your service to your district and Tennessee, and for upholding the values you obviously feel to be true.

Sincerely
Alex

ALEC

The American Legislative Exchange Council's annual conference met last week. Over 2000 members of ALEC came together to promote economic and political freedom in our state legislatures.

My Commerce task force learned a lot, and had very lively discussions and voting on several issues.

The working groups, sub-committees and task forces brought to us some of the brightest conservative thinkers in the country.

I was thrilled to meet and have a conversation with President Bush. He was very friendly and down to earth.

Former Congressman Billy Tauzin gave an inspiring speech about medical research and the need to keep the free market.

Mr. Bernard Poussot, Vice Chairman of Wyeth updated us on advances in research.

Former Congressman Dick Armey gave an incredible speech on economics that geeks like me could listen to all day long.

Neal Cavuto, Your World, FOX News, gave us food for thought when he spoke about the good things capitalism has accomplished in the world.

John Fund, OpinionJournal.com, The Wall Street Journal, spoke intelligently about a vast array of things as only Fund can.

Presidential candidate and former Governor, Mike Huckabee was truly inspiring as his speech unfolded in waves about issues with vision.

And former Senator Fred Thompson uplifted and reinforced the legislators by speaking about federalism and states rights.

All in all, the conference was very educational.


An aside; on Saturday afternoon my brother drove in from Maryland and we ventured out to visit our parent's first home. It is a very pretty row house on Waverly Street where we were each born quite a few years ago.

Invalid Voters

The Nashville City Paper reports that the State Election Commissioner has finally responded their questions as to how many voters may have registered to vote using an invalid Social Security Number...Answer 62.

Might I suppose the reply to my three letters is in the mail?

Regulation and Our Liberty

Since session ended, I have been busily studying government regulation, and observing media accounts of the effect of such regulation on our lives.

Accounts have been amazing, from the conversation over reintroducing the fairness doctrine to the licensure of occupations which pose no threat to the public. We need government to consider certain principles before imposing such regulations on us; regulations that often result in law and policies that restrict competition, may have unreasonable compliance costs, and often promote the interests, or beliefs and views, of firms or pressure-groups over consumers.

As chairman of the American Legislative Exchange Council’s Commerce Task Force I actually find myself in a position to do something about it; not just in Tennessee, but in the entire nation.

This week ALEC will meet in Philadelphia for our annual conference. I am going to give an impassioned call to my fellow legislators to help roll back the tide of government invading our lives and from hurting consumers. We’ll attempt to provide tools for legislators to judge regulatory ideas. The goal is to identify the difference between patronage and when unregulated practice can clearly harm or endanger the health, safety, or supply of goods or services to the public, and if the potential for the harm is easily recognizable and not remote or dependent upon tenuous argument.

We’ll hear from the Department of Justice, the Institute for Justice and others. We’ll also work to develop model legislation to bring home to all 50 states.

One of our attorneys at the legislature encouraged me by giving me a little history lesson. He stated that with President Carter and prior, the build up of regulation got pretty intense; hurting competition, choice and opportunity. Then with Ronald Reagan there was a huge roll back in the states and federal government. Since that time regulation has been building again. No one really remembers the roll back times in the 80’s.

I am excited about this opportunity. I hope we will serve you well.

Shared Parenting

Rep. Stacey Campfield discusses shared parenting on his blog today.

I'd really like to know your thoughts about this. So far, the bill has never made it out of committee and I am not on the committee that hears the bill...but just the same, I'd like to know your thoughts.

Let's Talk Frank

I'll be on blogger Terry Frank's radio show this afternoon in the 3 o'clock hour discussing the Copeland Cap and other matters.

Let's Talk Frank airs on 850 WKVL Knoxville, 1290 WATO Oak Ridge, 1140 WLOD Loudon and 1400 WGAP Maryville.

Thanks Terry.

President Visits Nashville

A good friend got me in to see the President in Nashville yesterday. I feel like I got to see the President that the major TV media doesn’t allow us to see. It seems the only thing we ever get to see is a deer in the headlights.

Yesterday the President was bold, brave, commanding, out spoken, confident, charming, quick witted, thoughtful, decisive and compassionate.

I want to assure you, he’s our President, and he was awesome!

Thank goodness we have studies to tell us what is "fair"

None of us resent anyone receiving a good salary; especially if they do a good job. That’s what we all hope for.

I think what bothers us about the Governor’s recent raises for his commissioners is this; he’s violated a tenet of capitalism, and in doing so, he's offended us, the taxpayers.

Labor is a commodity just like any other input of production. Every business manager wants to please the stockholders by keeping expenses as low as possible and profits high.

As such, buyers (employers) negotiate to pay as little as they can while still getting the quality they want, and sellers (employees) negotiate to get as high a salary as they can by promoting their skills.

One thing that is really funny to me is that not only would most employers not pay for a study like this, but if they did and the results came back like this one, they’d probably lock it in a file cabinet for the next ten years and feel very satisfied that they’d done a very good job of hiring talent.

So when the governor raises the salaries of current employees by such an extraordinary amount due to a study of what’s “fair” we realize he isn’t looking out for us, the stockholders.

We think "fair" is what they agreed to work for.

If someone is threatening to leave and the Governor wants to keep him or her, sure, offer more money to stay. But why just raise their salary when we the taxpayers apparently had a bargain?

He’s basically violated a tenet of capitalism for a tenet of socialism.

In socialism, all workers are equal drones. Never mind performance, experience, skills of persuasion, talent, initiative, instinct and enthusiasm – all should make the government study regulated rate.

I have a wage study of my own, wages for commissioners in Tennessee are - exactly what we've been paying. Apparently, despite valuable skills and abilities, the prestige, honor and future resume benefit of being a commissioner in a governor’s administration has in the past made up for any wage disadvantage when compared to the private sector.

Studies are just that…a study. They are not instructions on how much we should pay but an indicator of what the free market is bearing at the time. It doesn't mean we need to conform. We should continue to negotiate as we always have to get the best qualified person for the job. A study can indicate if we are paying too much and can also indicate that we’re getting a really good deal.

Investigating the Copeland Cap

Today I am requesting that the state Attorney General clarify if the administration must use appropriations to determine the extent of state budget growth as per the Constitution (Article 2, Section 24), and state law, (TCA 9-4-5203).


I'd like to thank Ben Cunningham and Bill Hobbs for reporting on this previously and today. Their posts explain the measure very well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4eo3UIkoj8

Rex and the City

In today’s Nashville City Paper, Rex Noseworthy, of “Rex and the City,” makes some humorous and true comments about the Tennessean’s recent correction of an article regarding the excessive number of bills and congratulatory resolutions the state legislature filed during session.

I didn't think the stats on the chart looked quite right myself and still don't.

After reading the Tennessean's article, one of my colleagues commented to me "You know, during the income tax battle they wouldn't let me pass a single bill; not even to name a bridge. So was I an effective legislator? We don't have an income tax do we?"

Maybe the newspapers should report what happens and the public and the editorial pages should decide who is effective and ineffective from now on. :-)

From Rex in the City…

“Recently, The Tennessean calculated its most successful/least successful state legislators by determining the number of bills they passed and the percentage of the bills they sponsored that were actually approved.

The newspaper picked what it called the three most successful and least successful legislators from the mid-state, and ran a chart on its Web site showing the stats on all 132 state lawmakers.

The, ahem, science behind this method is certainly up to debate. Some might argue the most effective legislators are the one who pass the fewest laws, period. Another argument might be the most successful legislators are the ones who can get through a legislative session without getting indicted. But, we digress.

The real problem was, according to sources on the Hill, the Tennessean got 100 percent of the lawmakers’ stats wrong. Sources have said House Republican Leader Jason Mumpower had a lengthy meeting at 1100 Broadway last week to explain how to use the proper methodology in figuring out how many bills a lawmaker passed.

The Gannett daily followed with a correction last week and after formulating new stats, proclaimed a new list of most/least successful lawmakers. Overall, it was a big screw up, and a fairly presumptuous story given the fact that The Tennessean rarely covers the Legislature anymore, typically running Associated Press stories instead.

For instance, House Majority Leader Gary Odom of Nashville was proclaimed one of the most successful lawmakers. While Odom is adept, his role as Democratic leader makes him the primary House sponsor on the majority of Gov. Phil Bredesen’s legislation. Bredesen’s legislation usually passes the Democratic-controlled House.

It also didn’t appear that the story gave the lawmakers deemed least successful a chance to defend themselves. Rex hears some lawmakers were irate and have heard about it from constituents upset that they’re represented by what The Tennessean determines as the least successful legislator. CP”

Excessive Number of Bills

Today Rep. Stacey Campfield and Tennessee Politics Blog each write about the Tennessean's article regarding the excessive number of bills and congratulatory resolutions the state legislature filed during session.

The Tennessean's article states that they reviewed over 6000 documents. While the number of filings is probably far too large (depending on what you might personally think is important), the total number of bills, House Joint Resolutions, Senate Joint Resolutions, House Resolutions and Senate Resolutions amounted to 4114.

The total number of House bills filed was 2416, or an average of 24.4 per House member. HJR’s 702 or 7.1 per member. HR’s 215 or 2.1 per member.

The total number of Senate bills filed was 2395, or an average of 72.6 per Senate member. SJR’s 589 or 17.8 per member. SR’s 193 or 5.8 per member.

This means that 21 House bills had no Senate companion bill. However, the member can have a Senator file a companion when the Session resumes in January, 08. If none is filed, the bill dies.

I think the stats in the article might be off. My stats said I filed 40 bills - I filed 34 (extremely important) bills. The number of resolutions I filed was correct at 13. Eleven of my bill ideas were enacted in the following manner; I passed seven bills, three ideas were amended in to other bills opening the same section of law, and one idea received funding in the Governor's budget although no legislation passed.

To rate a legislator effective or ineffective is not entirely fair. Gary Odum passes a far greater number of bills than most because, as Majority Leader, he is asked to file all of the administration's bills. The Majority Leader's job is to represent an administration of the same party. The same goes for committee chairmen. They carry the work of the committee for the administration or for "housekeeping" purposes.

There are so many types of bills that it is very hard to rate these things. There are general bills, local bills, simple amending bills that change happy to glad, technical bills, bills that create a whole new way of doing things or a whole new idea. The latter type of bill may take years to pass because people have to get used to the idea, or it may cost money and the legislator has to find a way to do it cheaply.

Stacey is correct; they are supposed to charge our mail accounts for the Resolutions.

No doubt that some over do it on the Resolutions. But you'd be surprised, some people actually break down and cry when they've been recognized by the state for a long and supportive marriage, a job well done or a life well lived.

Recommit Ourselves to Freedom

Two hundred and thirty one years ago our founding fathers dissolved their political bands with the British Crown and gave us the gift of self-government. A government governed of the people, for the people and by the people. They declared it “self-evident” that all men are created equal and bestowed by our creator with inalienable rights; life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness among them.

A land of limited government where laws would govern all and afford no one special rights or treatment. Yet, everyday government does create special laws due to pressure-group action seeking to make the government impose regulations, restrictions, and expenses on citizens that the group has been unable to persuade an individual to do on their own. Just as often, industries demand to be regulated because it will create scarcity and raise prices.

Numerous examples of attempts to direct the will of others abound. The question is, how jealous are we of our rights and of the rights of our brothers? How much are we willing to allow government, our self-government, to take from us and impose on us?

Regulation theory states a need for the government to regulate industries that have immediate health, safety or supply concerns for the public or market. However, legislatures often go much further than this. It seems that public action upon commerce has been replaced by public action at the legislature to promote or ban anything an interest group decides it does or does not like. The danger is, regardless of liberty and freedom, once legislators fear the constituency in favor of action has grown too large the legislature will take action.

The “Fairness Doctrine,” or forcing radio to grant equal time to both sides of a political point of view, has been resurrected. Sure radio with its limited bandwidth rightly receives some government regulation. Without it competing stations might be chaotically broadcasting over each other.

Apart from its supply concerns, regulators discovered that radio also has an ability to aid the public interest by immediately broadcasting important information such as news, weather or emergency notices. Radio also cannot incite riot or panic, express gross indecency, or perpetuate fraud because these things can affect immediate health, safety or supply concerns too. Other than such general concerns, the business of radio should be left free to creatively produce programming that will sell and generate the highest rates determined by listenership.

I personally think its going to be great to go into restaurants in Tennessee and not have to smell smoke. I don’t like smoke. Although I didn’t vote to ban smoking in restaurants because restaurant owners have always been free to ban smoking any time they wanted; it’s their restaurant. Further, studies state that second hand smoke concerns are overblown, and the body recovers completely from such casual exposure.

But just as important, why haven’t patrons simply refused to patronize restaurants if they don’t like the environment and force owners to change instead of legislatively forcing their will upon their brother at his establishment?

Commerce does work. When a local newspaper recently posted a list of handgun carry permit holders on their Web site readers immediately responded with their intense disapproval. The link was removed within hours. No legislative action was required to make this happen, and the public can still make legitimate requests for information should they need it.

What about minimum wage? We know several things; we know most minimum wage earners are students, retired or part-time and supported by other income sources; these workers actually have the ability to earn more if they choose. We know the majority of the ‘poor’ already make more than minimum wage. We know that the young and unskilled lose out on on-the-job training opportunities due to the artificial wage. We know that in a free market economy prices must be subjective - related to employers' needs. So wages must be allowed to rise and fall as supply and demand dictates – that includes the price of labor. So why do we legislate a minimum wage? Plainly, pressure groups make us feel guilty for our own wage. However, shouldn’t we just let willing buyers and willing sellers deal with each other?

Our own legislature has an endless list of pressure group regulation. This year the legislature and the Governor ignored a letter from the U.S. Department of Justice on a piece of legislation stating that it would cause “significant harm to consumers” by disallowing certain discounts because the industry doesn’t want them: this bill became law.

One tender idea mandated title lenders give discounts to military veterans and their families. It is true that veterans have sacrificed for all of us, and title lenders don’t win many popularity contests. But the fact is, these are legal private businesses. If any business owner wants to give discounts to veterans on their own that is noble. For a legislator to force such discounts is just plain voter patronage. At least the federal government allows a tax break for charitable contributions. With my cherished son in the military, I didn’t have to worry about being accused of being against our veterans – but other legislators certainly did worry.

And then some legislation is designed to feed business to other industries. One new law change mandates that certain would-be licensees serve three years in apprenticeship instead of one, and that they pay for a designated number of post high school class hours instead of home study before taking the licensing exam. Sure more experience and formal education is always good but there was no proof of any harm that’s been done without it. By the way, there is only one school in the state that licensees can attend, no curriculum for this idea, the board couldn’t state what licensees need to learn, nor could the school tell us how much the course will cost – the bill passed.

This year interior designers desired to be licensed. Designers wrote tons of emails to legislators attempting to convince us of the necessity to license their occupation. It is difficult to detect any immediate health, safety or supply concerns...the bill was taken off notice.

When a group of geologists came to us this year wanting increased regulation of their licensure they accidentally revealed their real compliant when they stated that geologists from other states were doing business in Tennessee. Still, they got what they were hoping for.

Government shouldn’t be attempting to aid businesses by boosting their sales, prices or wages – this hurts you, the consumer. Government shouldn't create unnecessary entry barriers to occupations; hindering opportunity and competition. Government should allow you unfettered participation in business and activities that don't have immediate health, safety or supply concerns. And each of us should exercise our economic power and freedom upon commerce instead of running to government.

This July 4th as we celebrate freedom, let us recommit ourselves to freedom and be ever vigilant to demand that government allow us to live freely.

Choosing Performance

Tennessee lost a great opportunity for education this Session. While school choice is producing results in other areas, Tennessee’s plan is to pour $500 million more dollars into the BEP; the same’ol bureaucratic system of government monopoly of education believing it does things more fairly and produces a better outcome than anything else.

If that were true, we should have HUD build all the houses, the FDA produce all the food, and the department of health provide all of the medical care.

The BEP is a funding formula not an education plan. It funds the expenses of the classroom; it doesn’t dictate what occurs in the classroom. It can’t change the operations of the school, the teacher in front of our students; nor can it improve classroom expectations or discipline.

Under the new plan the cost of educating at-risk children receives full funding by the state.

However, “at-risk” is determined by income not by achievement. In years past, the definition of an “at-risk student” was actually performance based; defined by whether a student was two or more years behind in his or her reading grade level.

Because of the income based definition, the number of at-risk students in Tennessee is very large; Over half of our students or 493,921 children.

However, just because one is economically disadvantaged does not necessarily mean one is a poor student. Doesn’t it seem right that what we should really measure is achievement, and target new dollars to those students, at any income level, that need extra help?

Just how will we measure whether this money is producing results? If the measure is parental income, more money to the school can not change that. We may as well give the money to the parents, raise their income and totally eliminate the number of at-risk children.

The ELL plan funds children who can’t speak English at a greater teacher/student ratio than the teacher/student ratio for English speaking children. But shouldn’t every classroom have a reasonable teacher/student ratio?

Inside legislative plaza, it’s pretty well understood that the plan to increase the state share of paying teacher's salaries covers-up the fact that due to the new distribution formula many districts (over 70 counties) are actually losing money on the new plan.

How will this new money translate into the classroom? Not as you might think, the new law “eliminates (the) current requirement that BEP funds earned in the instructional positions component be spent for instructional positions.”

Is the new $500 million dollar plan the best path? More likely it seems contrived to win legislative support by playing to various demographic and geographic areas.

The truth is, the administration could have made schools accountable for years with our current laws but willingness to take tough action has been painfully lacking.

Sadly, questions in committee were too many; answers from the administration too few; and the process for spending one half billion dollars too rushed.

Opportunity was lost for the citizens of Tennessee. The legislature should have insisted on school choice for students.

Right now New Orleans is doing exciting things with charter schools. Philadelphia schools, taken over by the state five years ago, have seen vast improvements under a system where competition between schools has produced student achievement and innovative new ideas.

In many places in Europe, the idea of being locked into a local school just because you live in the area is unheard of. Schools work hard to produce results because parents are empowered to act as consumers. A school that doesn’t educate well will face competition from other schools that do. A poor school won’t have any students and will either improve to gain more students or will close.

Maybe some families don't have the means to live in the wealthiest town in the state but what does that have to do with their child’s education? Why shouldn’t every child attend a school his or her parents approve of and one that caters to the interests of the child.

Yes, opportunity was lost, and the real tragedy is that for years children have been getting another year older in a system that never really changes.

Time to Review Republican Ideals

My great hope is that when the last opinion article is written on this half of the legislative session, Republican ideals will shine through, or at least that there will be great evidence that they were fought for.

Ideals such as:

• No new taxes
• Protect the unborn
• No wasteful spending
• Return surplus money
• Encourage self-reliance
• Create choice in education
• Fight for open government
• Lower the sales tax on food
• Consumer driven healthcare
• Promote commerce and competition
• Fight illegal immigration on the state level

Pork and Beans

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents...." James Madison, father of the United States Constitution, made this statement with the firm belief that our republic needed checks and balances to limit the influence of special interests, even the special interests of benevolence.

Was he speaking of government grants to life saving fire halls? Probably not. It was about tax funds expended for the designs of special interests.

The problem is that guilt is often associated with "benevolence" and who wants to criticize and risk being called cold hearted or stingy? However, taxes are not collected for discretionary purposes. Most still believe that the agreement between the citizens and the government is to provide protection, promote commerce, educate the population, and to provide important protection from sanitary and public health threats.

Largely, we do have checks and balances. However, when it comes to subjective appropriations like many the Governor is proposing in his supplemental budget, gifts the Tennessee Center for Policy Research's report calls “goodies and giveaways,” we all realize that few checks and balances are employed. We may rationalize such gifts but reports reveal that they are often to organizations directed by political campaign contributors.

If one disregards guilt and asks the tough questions that are asked for any other expenditure of public funds, one should ask where is the objective design, list of goals, application and determination process, assurance of nondiscrimination, and fair notice of opportunity for all who may wish to benefit from such expenditures of public funds? In addition, how will accountability and efficiency be determined for the fruits of the taxpayer’s labor?

What about purpose? Do the grants strictly meet the purpose for which government is intended or are they just something nice to do? Most could be content to do nice things with other people’s money all day long; especially if it created endearment.

It is sad that such expenditures are exactly enough so that the taxpayers cannot enjoy a decrease in their own taxes to spend their own funds as they see fit.

Certainly the children of a single mother making $27,000 per year might enjoy a publicly supported history project, if, and to whatever extent, they actually spend time reviewing it. But does she really have the latitude in her budget for us to spend money on such items? Does not the “family unit,” and ensuring its strength, aid society in far greater ways and much more permanently? Shouldn't other people, private people with ability, be supporting such projects?

In truth, the government’s contribution to non-profit organizations is their tax exempt status. Because their mission is to perform a ‘public good’ non-profits are granted the privilege and benefit of not having to pay taxes on purchases, property and income. However, in return, they must prove their utility through reporting.

The fact is too many conflicts abound to spend public funds in such a manner. A politician could buy political endearment and payback for past and future support. Or an elected official may serve on the board of a recipient organization and thereby have a direct hand in spending the taxpayer’s funds. The ability to make such appropriations is not simply a right, or entitlement, of being elected.

James Madison was incredibly intelligent; enough to realize that there are no limits to the provision of benevolence when a huge treasury, guilt and political gain tango with each other.

No new tax / no pork budget alternative should not be ignored

Someone asked me if I was at all concerned that the groups in my district not chosen to receive a community enhancement grant would be unhappy with me.

My answer, “Not at all.” In the first place, each has no possible way of knowing if I would have picked them or not.

Second, even in districts where legislators gave grants, the vast majority of groups were left out. Unlike most government grants, there was no fair notice, or process, by which any group was provided an opportunity to apply and compete for the money.

An alternative “no new taxes, no pork” budget that uses the revenue surplus responsibly is not only possible; it’s done. The budget fully funds the priorities outlined in the Administration’s budget while addressing legislators’ concerns.

Right now, I’m afraid the administration is winning the battle of convincing our local school officials that in order to fund education, we must have a $219 million tax increase. I think this alternative budget gives evidence that is simply not true.

The revised budget has several prongs: providing tax relief, funding the Basic Education Plan 2.0 at 50 percent (the same level the Administration is now proposing), and allowing state government to live within its means. Other highlights include:

No tax increase
No pork
3% state employee raise
Funds the last 1/3 of compression pay for state employees
Funds a crime package to increase penalties on sexual predators
Includes a $21 million farm grant program
Adds 136.6 million to the Rainy Day Fund
Allows $100 million for K-12 capital outlay improvements from lottery reserves
Restores $32.8 million in recurring road funding
$115 million dollar reduction in sales tax on food
$210 million dollars to higher education capital projects and operations

The money is here, it’s a matter of prioritizing needs just as families must do with their own budgets. And I know for sure that a budget with no new taxes, relief from the sales tax on food, and no pork is important to my constituents.

Currently, the state of Tennessee has a rainy day fund of $497 million, with a proposed $36.6 million to be added in the Governor’s plan. The state will have over $680 million recurring, and $833 million in one-time money. These over-collections and the unprecedented revenue growth that Tennessee is experiencing is certainly a reason to return some of the money in the form of sales tax relief on food. In fact, this is a unique opportunity to help everyone in this state, across the board.

Even after all these initiatives are funded, including reducing the sales tax, the budget has a remaining balance of $26 million in non-recurring and $5.4 million in recurring funds left over.

On Friday, I visited a dialysis clinic in Gallatin. Seeing the totally debilitating effects of renal failure is shocking. I havn't heard any word about funding the spend down program to aid patients disabled by this or other completely debilitating illnesses but it seems to me this is a community enhancement that is hard to beat.

Truth in Humor - News Sentinel

Tennessean Column

I won’t be sending a portion of the budget surplus back to my district in the form of community grants to government and private organizations - therefore I was asked to write this column.

Yes, this year Tennessee is blessed with another large budget surplus; $1.3 billion dollars in recurring and non-recurring funds. The plan seems to be to spend every penny and raise other taxes even more.

I feel the tremendous surplus, and the fact that our state budget even has the ability to grow at more than twice the rate of the economy, points out an important and obvious fact: Tennessee’s citizens are over taxed.

The Copeland Constitutional Amendment Cap restricts the rate of state budget growth to the estimated rate of growth of the economy. Thus, if the economy is projected to grow at 3%, constitutionally, this year’s budget may only be 3% more than last year’s budget.

The intent is to make sure spending is sustainable, and probably to ensure that the citizens will see excess revenue returned to them.

Due to the large surplus, and the plans to spend it, the budget is expected top the cap by two fold. Which only serves to point out the obvious; we are collecting tax dollars faster than the economy is growing – this should not be.

I feel we should recognize this opportunity to cut the sales tax on food, vote to restore and replenish what we had to take from various departments and local governments in lean times, save more for the future, and keep the state budget from becoming ever more difficult to sustain; thus proving to the taxpayers that we are faithful with their funds.

We should always strive to improve education but how much more would taxpayer dollars be multiplied by ensuring accountability?

We should not forget that the economy is cyclical, and consider the economic indicators before deciding raise the bar on spending to new heights.

Overall, economic growth is slower this year than in any of the last 18 successive quarters; consumer activity is slowing as well. It is true that industrial production is rising but unfortunately prices are increasing. Unemployment is very low and capacity utilization is creeping up; each of these events is often indicative of impending recession.

As I survey our nation and see angry taxpayers literally storming their state capitals as we did just five years ago, I can’t help but wonder as we seek to spend every penny of the surplus if the taxpayers will ever win.

Economic freedom is freedom itself. It’s freedom from stress and pressure, and the misery that sinks in when there’s more month than paycheck.

I can understand why compassionate legislators would want to help organizations in their district; however, we can justify giving other peoples money away all day long.

Personally, I can’t think of anything the residents of my district need more than a reduction in the sales tax. This would truly give money back to each and every taxpayer in a meaningful way.

Education Plan

The Governor has announced a $475 million plan for education in Tennessee. It calls for reworking the BEP funding formula, fully funding the cost of at-risk students, paying for student growth in the year it occurs, fully funding the cost of educating students who can't speak English, and paying 75% of the total for teacher’s salaries.

Many are asking how will reworking the BEP actually improve education in our schools? One concerned teacher told me that 90% of the students in her school are "at-risk."

The BEP is a funding formula not an education plan. It funds the expenses of the classroom; it doesn’t dictate what occurs in the classroom. It can’t change the teacher in front of our students nor can it improve classroom expectations or discipline.

Governor Bredesen’s plan calls for full funding for teaching at-risk students.

In Tennessee, the definition of an at-risk student is income based; defined by whether a student is entitled to the free and reduced lunch program based on his or her parent's income.

At the start of the school year, students are sent home with a free and reduced lunch form – income information on the form is not verified for accuracy. Not that anyone would lie just to get lunch but we’re basing a huge increase in state spending on that form.

In years past, the definition of an at-risk student was actually performance based; defined by whether a student was two or more years behind in his or her grade level for reading.

Under the income based definition, the number of at-risk students in Tennessee is very large. The 2006 Statewide Report Card doesn’t have an “at-risk” category. But it does state that 53% of Tennessee's 933,688 students are defined as economically disadvantaged; or 493,921 children.

However, according to the same report card, being economically disadvantaged doesn’t necessarily mean one is a poor student. For instance, 85% of economically disadvantaged high school students rate proficient or advanced in reading. For K – 8, 82% of the students rate as well.

Obviously, being economically disadvantaged does not mean one is intellectually disadvantaged.

So the problem is, how will we measure if the extra money is helping at-risk students? If being at risk is based on income, what if a parent’s income doesn’t improve year after year? Might we be better off simply giving money to the parents, improving their income, and decreasing the number of at-risk students?

I’m just being silly to point out that we need to look at test results, and teacher’s opinions of student classroom behavior and willingness to learn, to define at-risk. Not whether a student receives free and reduced lunch.

The concerned teacher above told me that there is an attitude problem affecting learning in our schools. She stated that while 90% of the students in her school are at-risk, most are well behaved and good students. Only 10% are actually two or more years behind in reading grade level; these same students are also the major cause of the majority of discipline problems. For these students, it is a badge of honor to receive in-school suspension where they literally do nothing all day. It is a badge of honor to be taken from the school in hand-cuffs by the police – sadly, these students are in middle school.

She’d like to see a helpful daylong in-school suspension program that actually teaches skills such as; how to behave in the classroom; how to study and do homework; research skills; reading and math skills practice.

Sure more money will usually make any operation easier to run. But somehow I think we should listen to teachers when it comes to at-risk students. More money will not automatically translate into better results if we're measuring the wrong factor.

Report card Part I: http://www.k-12.state.tn.us/rptcrd06/state1.asp?S=999
Report card Part II: http://www.k-12.state.tn.us/rptcrd06/state2.asp?S=999

Tobacco Tax Survey

Please respond to this one question survey on the tobacco tax.
LINK: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=585413811059

EDUCATION FIRST

The Governor has announced a $475 million plan for education in Tennessee. In a year when we have over $1 billion dollars in over collected taxes, the governor wants to raise taxes through a tobacco tax in order to fund his improvements to education.

His education plan includes reworking the BEP funding formula by shifting funds to urban areas. In addition, he proposes that the state fully fund the cost of at-risk students, fund student growth in the year it occurs, fully fund the cost of educating students who can't speak English, and have the state pay 75% of the total for teacher’s salaries.

He further stated his intention to use the broad powers currently in the law to make failing schools perform. Republican's noted that none of those things have ever been employed by the state. He also stated that we need to demand more from our colleges that educate teachers to ensure teachers specialize in the subject matter they intend to teach.

BUDGET FACTS

A few budget facts:

• State budget in fiscal year 2002: $17.5 billion.
• Governor’s proposed state budget fiscal year 2007: $27.48 billion.
• In the past five years expenditures have increased 57%.
• 2007 tax revenue growth; $939 million dollars ($439 million in recurring funds and $500 million in non-recurring funds).
• $50,000/minute; the amount of money the state of Tennessee currently spends each day.
• The State Funding Board meets next week; they are expected to announce up to an additional $300 million dollars over collected taxes.

The Cable Choice Bill

Who would guess that the creation of a single franchise agreement in a small Pennsylvania town could stir such emotion at the Tennessee state capitol 60 years later?

A bill, supported by 71% of Tennesseans, called the Competitive Cable and Video Services Act is meant to expand service, infuse new technology and create competition among providers in the television service market.

However, lobbyists for local governments and the cable industry are working overtime trying to defeat the bill. Their common ground is in retaining the old system of local franchising agreements and build-out, which together have tended to hurt consumers and rural areas by allowing companies to select the more populated and profitable markets and keep out the competition.

Cable and the cities maintain that competition is already possible among cable providers because communities can enter into agreements with as many providers as they chose.

Yet, most consumers know very well that just doesn’t happen. It doesn’t happen because the large capital investment needed to build-out a television service network is usually too cost prohibitive to be accomplished based on a small market with an artificially mandated contractual timeline.

To understand why the bill's sponsors want statewide franchising, it is helpful to review the history of local franchising.

The cabling of television sets began in 1947, in a small town, 90 miles away from the large television transmitting antennas of Philadelphia. A TV store owner, tired of poor reception and poor sales, installed an antenna on a ridge top and ran a cable down the mountain to his store and several homes along the way.

When a group of business men heard of his ingenuity, they organized a business and obtained permission from their local officials to run cable on the condition that the company pay a fee for the right – the local franchise was born.

Unfortunately, the idea of improving reception in small communities soon became mired in federal regulation. For more than twenty years the service remained unprofitable and capital for growth was difficult to obtain.

Regulation aside, paying for television reception seemed ridiculous until the début of HBO in 1972. The high quality programming quickly enticed city dwellers to pay for service. As demand increased, federal restrictions soon loosened, and new, innovative cable channels helped the industry to grow.

Television service is no longer the primitive antenna on a mountain top capable of serving only a single community. It is satellite technology serving the nation. It follows suit that the costly system of negotiating local franchise agreements with hundreds of local governments, state by state, also seems out of date.

The legislature has heard the many concerns of our local governments and has worked hard to address each one by rewriting the bill.

Contractual agreements often have some negative unintended consequences. However, once we discover them we should not allow them to perpetuate. We do not require telephone companies or internet service providers to operate using the same local franchise agreement process; rather, they operate statewide, taking advantage of economies of scale. In fact, the local franchise process is what has allowed companies to cherry pick the best towns and cities for years leaving rural areas without service.

Statewide franchising is a way to streamline the work required to obtain a contract to operate, stimulate the capital investment necessary to expand service, and encourage a competitive atmosphere among providers, thereby creating real choice and competition for every consumer in our state.

Representative Lynn represents the 57th House District in Tennessee, and she is the Chairman of the American Legislative Exchange Councils Commerce Task Force. Rep.susan.lynn@legislature.state.tn.us.

Deal Breaker

Of all the issues large and small one matter seems to be a deal breaker in the question of whether we will have competition among television service providers. Build-out, or forcing a company to build-out service to unprofitable areas, is a point so contentious that inclusion may make or break the future of the bill currently before the Tennessee legislature.

The legislation has been amended to address most of the cities’ fears. However, the cable company, and the lobbyists for the cities, are insisting that build-out provisions are an issue of fairness for consumers and must be strong. They insist that state franchisees shouldn’t be allowed to pick over urban areas leaving rural areas without service. Yet for years, the practice has been to establish local franchises in densely populated areas with forced buildout only to those rural areas on the fringe.

The bill's sponsor claims that build-out stipulations prevent competition in the market and should not be included; he sights the FCC's recent directive concerning the detrimental effects local franchising has had on competition.

This deal breaker needs to be examined.

Logically, cable’s dogged insistence upon build-out doesn’t really make sense. Why would anyone insist that their competitor be required to build their network out everywhere? If another newspaper came to town, established newspapers wouldn’t insist that they be “forced” to set up distribution citywide. Such insistence would only make it easier for customers to buy the new product.

The answer is simple, because cable knows build-out cannot be accomplished; the large capital investment associated with building-out a video network is too cost prohibitive to be accomplished based on any artificially mandated timeline.

In the past, the first cable provider in an area faced expensive build-out demands but customers eagerly purchased the new service. Total market share, higher rates and avoidance of unprofitable market areas balanced the expensive demands of building-out. Traditionally, second-comers don’t find the same eager customers that the first provider did, so the expenses associated with build-out requirements are more difficult, if not impossible, to recoup in an effective timely manner.

Another question; why should the lobbyists for the cities care about build-out? They claim it is an issue of fairness. But most city residents already have at least one TV service provider. This bill won’t deprive them of programming. As new networks establish in a neighborhood, customers will have a choice of providers.

In reality, the build-out provisions meant to provide fairness have another "beneficial" side effect; increased franchise fees. Cities receive a franchise fee based on gross revenue of up to 5%. Costly build-out serves to inflate rates and franchise fees. However as noted, for second-comers, build-out keeps most out of the market entirely. Thus build-out requirements serve to reduce the risks of competition; lower rates, lower gross revenue and lower franchise fees.

Broad statewide build-out requirements will only serve to increase rates or possibly even prohibit any competition; one would expect the opposition to demand this deal breaker.

Like any business, TV service providers must be able to take advantage of economies of scale. If competitors tried to live up to broad build-out requirements, rural communities, currently without any television service provider other than satellite, would probably not be able to afford the rates build-out would produce.

Even without build-out, next-comers will have a hard time gaining market share unless they offer a spectacular product - which the competition will then compete with. Ultimately, consumers will be the winners in this scenario.

Build-out is a deal breaker that increases rates short term and long term by stemming competition. Without competition, innovation is slow, and rates are kept high long after the capital investment costs have been recouped.

Taxes, Surpluses & Public Policy

Guest Column

By: State Representative Susan Lynn
475 Words


The Governor is asking Tennesseans to help him put schools first by supporting his “Schools First” education proposal which is to enact HB2354; a .40 cents per pack, $219 million cigarette tax increase.

However, like the tobacco settlement dollars, this legislation places the money in the general fund; it is not earmarked for education. None of the money will build one school, and much of the money must be matched by local governments. This is a great concern.

When the Governor came into office he had the “benefit” of a $1 billion tax increase from the prior administration. Yet teachers and state employees have fallen behind due to one time bonuses instead of actual raises. Lottery funds continue sit idle in mass surplus instead of being used to construct new schools. And as our schools become ever more overcrowded due to illegal immigration the Governor declares the problem to be a federal issue. The final disappointment, the April Sales Tax Holiday, so helpful for families with school age children, has been stricken from next year's budget.

Since 2002, tax revenues have grown by a tremendous 39%. With such revenue growth, it shouldn’t be difficult to put “schools first” if schools are truly the Governor’s priority. In fact, the Republican proposal to put "schools first" by funding the education budget before all other expenditures would truly do just that.

Tennessee’s low cigarette tax attracts purchasers from six of the eight states that border her. If enacted, Tennessee’s cigarette tax will be higher than all eight.

We know the cigarette tax is an unreliable and declining source of revenue. If the Governor truly wants to put "schools first", why is he putting them last by hinging their future on a tax increase instead of using the natural revenue growth that we have been experiencing? Why does he seek to put "schools first" by depending on an unreliable, declining and undedicated source of revenue like the cigarette tax? Why not support the Republican proposal to put "schools first" by establishing the education budget first before funding other needs? Why should our children’s future depend on the continued poor health habits of others?

In addition, the Governor argues that increasing the tobacco tax is good health policy. If increasing the tax on tobacco products is a rationale for protecting the health of our citizens why not use a revenue neutral proposal such as one that would lower the sales tax on food to accomplish this task?

As the administration’s own figures show, this year’s tax growth at over $439 million in recurring funds, and an additional $500 million in non-recurring funds, is more than enough money to put "schools first". These figures are expected to increase after the funding board meets on May 1.

As a Republican, I am in support of putting schools first in a fiscally responsible way by using natural revenue growth, and by funding education first before the rest of the budget.

For more information, please contact:

Susan Lynn
State Representative
57th District

215 War Memorial Building
Nashville, TN 37243-0157

615-741-7462

http://www2.blogger.com/www.repsusanlynn.com
http://www.susan-lynn.blogspot.com/

To subscribe to Rep. Lynn's Weekly Legislative Wrap click here http://www.repsusanlynn.com/Weeklywrap.html

Circular Reasoning and Minimum Wage

For most of us, our entry into the working world started at minimum wage. We knew it wasn’t a way of life but an opportunity to learn and experience the real world.

Unfortunately, some command and control politicians paint a picture that minimum wage workers are in a perpetual state and only government control of the economy will save them.

Some states have created their own minimum wage that is set higher than the federal wage. Other states try to offset inflation by linking their minimum wage to the Consumer Price Index. As the CPI rises, the state’s minimum wage goes up accordingly.

This year Tennessee Democrats are offering a similar minimum wage bill liked to CPI. The idea is to aid minimum wage workers in keeping up with inflation and give employers predictability for wage increases.

It sounds reasonable but the fact is that mandated wage hikes actually hurt the very people they are trying to aid; low-skilled and entry-level employees. Such hikes force employers to make strategic decisions to overcome the increased cost the wage presents. Low-skilled and entry-level employees lose out on-the-job training opportunities as employers seek new ways to require fewer employees and higher skilled workers; they may leave jobs vacant, reduce hours, forgo raises, and if possible raise prices in order to pay the higher wage. All of these effects make jobs either more competitive or life more expensive.

If that’s not bad enough, the idea of indexing the wage to CPI uses circular reasoning and creates inflation in the economy. The problem lies with the CPI indicator itself. CPI is a measure of the rise or fall in prices of commonly used goods and services as compared to a benchmark year.

CPI is not an index that is unaffected by increased wages - in fact, it can be seen as a measure of the effect of such inflation.

If the bill passes, any increase in CPI translates into higher wages, which produces higher costs, which translates into higher prices, thus a higher CPI results, and thereby triggering another increase in minimum wage - this effect is circular and compounding.

The truth is two thirds (2/3) of all who start a job at minimum wage make more money inside of a year. Most are students, retired persons or second income earners who are perfectly capable of earning their way to a higher wage.

Yes, a portion are poorly educated, low-skilled workers who truly struggle to get by. And we do several things to help the truly poor and none of them ask any one individual employer to make the sacrifice. The earned income tax credit multiplies the earnings of the poor while providing an incentive to work. Food stamps allow the seller of food to get their price while increasing the buying power of the poor. Private charitable organizations supply food and clothing to those in need. Homeownership is the number one way to build personal wealth. The state of Tennessee and groups like Habitat for Humanity help low income workers become home owners. Medical helps like TennCare and county health departments also lend assistance.

However, above all other helps, education is the very best way to ensure escape from a lifetime of poverty and increase earning power. GED programs, career colleges, technical schools and traditional colleges are the best way to ensure that the earning power of a poorly educated, low skilled worker is tangibly increased.

America has a rich history of people who started with very little and through hard work, motivation and opportunity, carved out a piece of the American dream. We don’t need to build inflation into our economy and make that dream more difficult to achieve.

Rep. Stacey Campfield

Rep. Stacey Campfield did a wonderful job this morning debating Heddy Weinburg of the ACLU on News Channel 5's channel 50+.

Campfield discussed his bill to mandate death certificates for aborted fetuses.

Have Joy - Christmas is Legal

This year we are once more in a public debate with the politically correct crowd over the word Christmas and related religious expression. Most of us are filled with joy at this time of year and want to celebrate by saying merry Christmas, singing carols, wearing clothing displaying a Christmas message and with a community Christmas tree or nativity display. It seems that many are reacting to the pressure by removing Christmas and religious displays from our view.

We have no need to fear because it is legally okay to say Merry Christmas. It seems that misunderstandings over the origin and meaning of the phrase “separation of church and state” have encouraged a few to embark on a mission to remove all references to religion from schools, government buildings, public property and even attempt to change the public lexicon.

The phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear in the Constitution. It originated in 1802 in a private letter from Thomas Jefferson to a group of Baptist ministers in Danbury, Connecticut – 13 years after the First Amendment was passed. Courts have consistently ruled since then that eliminating all signs of religion from the public square is just as unconstitutional as establishing a religion.

In response to recent efforts to censor Christmas in our country, it might help to clarify the forms of religious expression that are legal under the Constitution in case law.

1. Students are free to express their religious beliefs in school. As long as it’s not materially disruptive, students may express their beliefs verbally with phrases such as “Merry Christmas”; through clothing that conveys religious messages with words, colors, or symbols; or through written materials like school assignments, religious cards, gifts, or tracts given to teachers and classmates (Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 U.S. 444 [1938]; Westfield High School L .I. F. E. Club v. City of Westfield, 249 F. Supp.2d 98 [D. Mass. 2003].

2. At school, students can sing Christmas carols at concerts, teach the biblical origins of Christmas, and perform the Christmas story of Mary, Joseph, Jesus, and the shepherds. The Constitution does not require the exclusion of religion from public institutions. Christmas is part of our heritage and ingrained in our culture; therefore, expression of it through art and music and teaching of it as history serve both a religious and secular purpose. Provided these activities promote the “advancement of the students’ knowledge of our society’s cultural and religious heritage; an opportunity for students to perform a full range of music, poetry, and drama that is likely to be of interest to the students and their audience,” any of these activities can be conducted in public schools without creating an Establishment Clause problem (Flory v. Sioux Falls School District, 619 F. 2d 1311 [6th Cir. 1980]; Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S.39 [1980].

3. Nativity displays can be placed in schools, parks, and government buildings. No Supreme Court decision has ever forbidden a private citizen from setting up a nativity display in a public park, as parks, streets, and sidewalks are all public forums traditionally devoted to “assembly and debate.” Such displays may also be placed in public buildings provided the government has opened the property for expressive activity. The Free Exercise Clause assures religious speakers the same access to public forums given to secular speakers (Americans United for Separation of Church and State v. City of Grand Rapids, 980 F. 2d1538 [1992]. Nor can private citizens be forced to include objects such as snowmen in their faith-based displays (West Virginia v. Burnette, 319 U. S. 624, [1943].

Furthermore, even under current decisions, city governments may include a nativity in a seasonal display provided 1) there are a sufficient number of secular objects along with religious ones, 2) the secular objects are in a close proximity to the religious ones, and 3) overall, the display is sufficiently secular (Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668,671 [1984].

The U. S. Constitution, laws and court decisions are all constructed to protect and permit religious expression in both public schools and government buildings. Attempts to remove Christ from Christmas do not stem from the Constitution, but from those who simply seek to silence the Christian message. That very act is a violation of the Constitution.

Thank you for taking the time to read this article and for this opportunity to clarify the legal position on keeping Christmas and many other forms of religious expression a vital part of our community.

Merry Christmas and my best wishes for a joyous New Year.


Susan Lynn
State Representative
57th District, Tennessee
www.repsusanlynn.com

Thank You and a Perspective on the Elections

Dear Friends,

I have so much to thank you for that it is difficult to know where to start.

Thank you, first and foremost, for the privilege of representing you for two more years in the Tennessee General Assembly. It is challenging, thrilling, a great responsibility, a great honor, and at times, so humbling, I truly feel unworthy. Thank you from the bottom of my heart.

As always, you know that you can speak to me anytime about an issue. You always have my confidentiality and, I will always work as hard as I can to help you.

Thank you to so many who volunteered for the GOTV phone calls and voter ID phone calls. Your efforts made a huge difference in Wilson County - Bob Corker received a wide, wide margin of the vote, we maintained the state Senate, the marriage amendment passed and, to my great surprise, I received the second highest number of votes out of all House races in the state of Tennessee - THANK YOU!

Thank you for not becoming annoyed with all of the election emails. Your patience is appreciated!!!

Now, a little perspective on what happened in the state House, Senate and U.S. Senate on election night.

Prior to the election, some of the House Democrats were openly stating that not only would the Republican House members not win any additional seats but that the Democrats would win back several of our current House seats.

Indeed, things did not look good for TN House Republicans. Two weeks prior to the election, polling showed at least four of our Republican members would lose their seats - this was a shock to us!! One week later, several more of our incumbents were in trouble! However, last minute efforts, some changes on the national scene and a change in direction in the US Senate race turned the day around.

In the end, the Tennessee House Republicans maintained all of our incumbent seats - we didn't pick up any seats but we didn't lose one member!

In addition, although we lost a seat in the state Senate, we maintained the Senate by re-electing Senator Beavers in Wilson County - thanks to you!!

Third, Bob Corker, Senator Bob Corker now, won a very hard fought race against Harold Ford jr.!!!

Forth, the marriage amendment passed overwhelmingly!!!!

So actually, it is the Tennessee Democrats who had a very bad night on Tuesday. In spite of the poor national climate for Republicans, they couldn't unseat one Republican House member, they missed getting back the state Senate, they lost the US Senate seat they were seeking - where nationally, Democrats won a lot of US Senate seats. And Tennesseans expressed what I believed all along was their true belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman!

Even though Democrats drifted to the right to try to win - they just couldn't get the job done in Tennessee!

Most sincerely,

Susan

Susan Lynn
State Representative 57th District

215 War Memorial Building Nashville, Tennessee 37243

Tel - 615-741-7462
Cell – 615-596-2363

www.repsusanlynn.com

Secure Elections? We can do better

By: State Representative Susan Lynn
Tennessee General Assembly
349 words


Voters may like the new touch screen voting technology used for elections but in retrospect many agree that it doesn’t increase voter confidence for secure elections at all.

High on the list of noted problems is that