About Me
- ...
- Business, Free Enterprise and Constitutional Issues; Pro-Life and Pro Second Amendment. Susan Lynn is a member of the Tennessee General Assembly. She serves as Chairman of the Consumer and Human Resources subcommittee, a member of the Finance Ways and Means Committee and the Ethics Committee. She holds a BS in economics and a minor in history.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Guest Column in Today's Tennessean
Guest editorial: Take closer look at Climategate
By Rep. Susan Lynn
Not many Tennesseans were thinking about Todd Stern this month. With the holiday season upon us and unemployment hovering above 10 percent, we have had plenty to preoccupy ourselves and our families. But unfortunately we need to take the time to know who Mr. Stern is and what he has been up to. He served as President Obama’s chief negotiator in Copenhagen, Denmark during December’s two-week long United Nations Climate Change Conference.
The purpose of this conference was to develop an international treaty by which the nations of the world would reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. The outcome was a twelve-paragraph, non-binding document referred to as the Copenhagen Accord. This quick-read boils down to what you might call a lose-lose for the United States. First, we promise to develop aggressive (which means costly) greenhouse gas reduction measures at home. Second, we promise to funnel some money now and lots of money later through UN bureaucrats to developing nations to pay for their greenhouse gas reductions and to compensate them for coping with the effects of climate change.
If this sounds a bit unfair, you should know it’s designed to be. The opening paragraph of the Accord states very clearly that the principle by which the world’s nations will combat climate change is one of “common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities.” This sounds eerily similar to the famous Marxist axiom, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” America must pay because America is rich.
As many pundits predicted, this Copenhagen conference was no victory for Mr. Obama and the world’s climate change alarmists. A non-binding agreement is just that. Still, it would have been preferable to see Mr. Stern and the rest of the nations’ representatives announce halfway through negotiations they had become appalled by their own collective hubris and decided to go home early. Because while you and I were busy working and taking care of our families, a roomful of elite diplomats were deciding on how much we should pay up each year as penance to the world for our productivity.
But the real issue is the science. The Accord premises its “deep cuts in global emissions” on the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report. The IPCC is the lynchpin for alarmists’ scientific claims. Several of its scientific leaders including lead authors of its reports were caught recently in questionable scientific practices when hundreds of their own emails were released to the public. This scandal, known as Climategate, has confirmed what many in the scientific community have been saying; climate change has become too politicized and the integrity of the science has suffered for it.
As alarming as this revelation is, it shouldn’t be a surprise. The amount of money and ideological fervor surrounding climate change is enough to corrupt almost anyone. It’s become a cause too big to fail. The nineteenth century humorist Artemus Ward wrote, “It ain’t so much the things we don’t know that get us in trouble. It’s the things we know that ain’t so.” For too long alarmists have dismissed anything that threatened their belief in catastrophic global warming. This is dangerous. We need open hearings on Climategate and a moratorium on Mr. Stern’s international efforts.
State Representative Susan Lynn is in her fourth term in the Tennessee state House. She chairs the Government Operations Committee and serves as national Chair for the Commerce Task Force for ALEC.ORG.
By Rep. Susan Lynn
Not many Tennesseans were thinking about Todd Stern this month. With the holiday season upon us and unemployment hovering above 10 percent, we have had plenty to preoccupy ourselves and our families. But unfortunately we need to take the time to know who Mr. Stern is and what he has been up to. He served as President Obama’s chief negotiator in Copenhagen, Denmark during December’s two-week long United Nations Climate Change Conference.
The purpose of this conference was to develop an international treaty by which the nations of the world would reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. The outcome was a twelve-paragraph, non-binding document referred to as the Copenhagen Accord. This quick-read boils down to what you might call a lose-lose for the United States. First, we promise to develop aggressive (which means costly) greenhouse gas reduction measures at home. Second, we promise to funnel some money now and lots of money later through UN bureaucrats to developing nations to pay for their greenhouse gas reductions and to compensate them for coping with the effects of climate change.
If this sounds a bit unfair, you should know it’s designed to be. The opening paragraph of the Accord states very clearly that the principle by which the world’s nations will combat climate change is one of “common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities.” This sounds eerily similar to the famous Marxist axiom, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” America must pay because America is rich.
As many pundits predicted, this Copenhagen conference was no victory for Mr. Obama and the world’s climate change alarmists. A non-binding agreement is just that. Still, it would have been preferable to see Mr. Stern and the rest of the nations’ representatives announce halfway through negotiations they had become appalled by their own collective hubris and decided to go home early. Because while you and I were busy working and taking care of our families, a roomful of elite diplomats were deciding on how much we should pay up each year as penance to the world for our productivity.
But the real issue is the science. The Accord premises its “deep cuts in global emissions” on the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report. The IPCC is the lynchpin for alarmists’ scientific claims. Several of its scientific leaders including lead authors of its reports were caught recently in questionable scientific practices when hundreds of their own emails were released to the public. This scandal, known as Climategate, has confirmed what many in the scientific community have been saying; climate change has become too politicized and the integrity of the science has suffered for it.
As alarming as this revelation is, it shouldn’t be a surprise. The amount of money and ideological fervor surrounding climate change is enough to corrupt almost anyone. It’s become a cause too big to fail. The nineteenth century humorist Artemus Ward wrote, “It ain’t so much the things we don’t know that get us in trouble. It’s the things we know that ain’t so.” For too long alarmists have dismissed anything that threatened their belief in catastrophic global warming. This is dangerous. We need open hearings on Climategate and a moratorium on Mr. Stern’s international efforts.
State Representative Susan Lynn is in her fourth term in the Tennessee state House. She chairs the Government Operations Committee and serves as national Chair for the Commerce Task Force for ALEC.ORG.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Tennessean
Susan Lynn planning constitutional amendment on health care
By: Chas SiskPublished on December 29, 2009
State Rep. Susan Lynn, R-Mt. Juliet, said in a radio interview yesterday that she is prepping a state constitutional amendment meant to strike down any requirement that Tennessee residents purchase health insurance as part of reform legislation. Lynn also says she will support a bill nullifying the federal law if the state’s attorney general does not file a suit challenging the law, in an interview with the Mike Church Show.
Yeah, it’s my understanding that a nullification bill is going to be filed in Tennessee. And also I have a constitutional amendment that we’ll put into our state constitution that, you know, people have the right to choose their own healthcare, that the government cannot force them into anything. And so, you know, we’ll see how that will go. Constitutional amendments, though, in Tennessee are a very lengthy process. They take really about six years or more. So the nullification bill would really be much more effective.
A complete transcript and audio of the interview, which was broadcast over the Sirius Patriot satellite channel, is available here.
By: Chas SiskPublished on December 29, 2009
State Rep. Susan Lynn, R-Mt. Juliet, said in a radio interview yesterday that she is prepping a state constitutional amendment meant to strike down any requirement that Tennessee residents purchase health insurance as part of reform legislation. Lynn also says she will support a bill nullifying the federal law if the state’s attorney general does not file a suit challenging the law, in an interview with the Mike Church Show.
Yeah, it’s my understanding that a nullification bill is going to be filed in Tennessee. And also I have a constitutional amendment that we’ll put into our state constitution that, you know, people have the right to choose their own healthcare, that the government cannot force them into anything. And so, you know, we’ll see how that will go. Constitutional amendments, though, in Tennessee are a very lengthy process. They take really about six years or more. So the nullification bill would really be much more effective.
A complete transcript and audio of the interview, which was broadcast over the Sirius Patriot satellite channel, is available here.
Interesting Opportunity
Free Internet Course On American Constitutional Law
Beginning on January 17, 2010, Henry Mark Holzer will be offering an Internet course, consisting of ten lectures, on the subject of American constitutional law.
His reasons for doing so, a complete syllabus for the ten lectures, and general information about the course can be found at www.henrymarkholzer.citymax.com/f/con_law_course.pdf.
Beginning on January 17, 2010, Henry Mark Holzer will be offering an Internet course, consisting of ten lectures, on the subject of American constitutional law.
His reasons for doing so, a complete syllabus for the ten lectures, and general information about the course can be found at www.henrymarkholzer.citymax.com/f/con_law_course.pdf.
Monday, December 28, 2009
Mike Church Show
Please listen to State Rep. Susan Lynn on the Mike Church Show this morning at 9am.
http://www.mikechurch.com/
Audio of the show:
http://www.mikechurch.com/mikes_audio/On-Air%20Interview/Joint_Interview_Susan_Lynn_Carl_Wimmer_281209.mp3
http://www.mikechurch.com/
Audio of the show:
http://www.mikechurch.com/mikes_audio/On-Air%20Interview/Joint_Interview_Susan_Lynn_Carl_Wimmer_281209.mp3
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Basic American Principles
Principles are important - without them we get off track and lose our way. Many believe that our federal government has lost its way while others just don't understand why so many object to the "change" taking place today.
Let's look at some of the foundational principles of American government; the principles that made our nation great.
The purpose of our government is to secure our rights
The Declaration of Independence established the American view of the rights of man and the duties of government. "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." They concluded by stating that our "separate but equal station" with Britain and other governments of the world would give us "full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do."
Our Constitution, drafted in 1787, used the Declaration of Independence as a guide to governance. The Constitution up-holds the purpose of our government, to secure our rights, and provides seventeen specific powers to the federal government in Article 1, Section 8. Two years later a Bill of Rights was added by the states in order to prevent misconstruction and abuse of federal powers; succeeding amendments bring the total number of enumerated federal powers to 30. None of those 30 powers grant general legislative authority to the federal government. In fact, such powers belong only to the states; called police powers – states pass laws to secure the rights of individuals.
So what they created is the freest county in the world - with a government that recognizes mans' unalienable rights, and whose purpose is to secure those rights for its citizens. In the United States, all have freedom and all understand that we can express our freedoms until we infringe upon another's freedom. Except where individual actions may infringe on the unalienable and Constitutional rights of another, our government is to stay out of the affairs of the people and of business.
Our government cannot take-away or infringe on our rights
Our nation, our Constitutional Republic is based upon natural rights. But just what are unalienable rights and Constitutional rights? An unalienable right is a natural right granted to man by our Creator; described ever so simply as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in our Declaration of Independence and it is also a Constitutional right. Life is, well, life. Examples of liberty are freedom to believe, or become, or protect yourself; a right to your speech, your reputation, and the things you create. Pursuit of happiness is freedom to make your own way, own your own property or live anywhere; a right to what you earn.
Constitutional rights such as trial by jury, to bear arms and vote don't seem natural. They are not natural, but they do serve to directly secure our natural rights. For instance, who judges our actions is very important because we can lose our liberty as punishment. Arms are not natural - but protecting yourself, especially from your own government, is a natural right. Therefore, the right to bear arms serves to secure your natural rights. The right to vote protects your right to self-determination and liberty, even speech. All in all, unalienable or Constitutional, our rights are rights which no government can take-away, question or alter, they are unalienable. No social contract can cause us to surrender these rights.
Rights are of no cost to anyone else
My freedom of speech costs you nothing. Your freedom of religion costs me nothing.
The liberal error; confusing needs with rights; confusing positive and negative
What liberals tend to do is to believe that they can "create" rights out of needs and then demand those rights from the government in the form of services - such as for health care. The liberals’ major mistake is that they not only misunderstand what rights are but they also misinterpret rights as "positive rights" - in other words, that the government has an obligation to provide a particular right to each citizen.
For example, we have laws against crime, and in the past there have been times when citizens have sued the government because the police didn't arrive in time to prevent that crime. While you have a natural right not to be harmed, there is no right to expect that the government will prevent you from becoming a victim of a crime; the government is not at any fault or liability in this instance.
Liberals need to understand that rights are natural and negative. There cannot be a natural right to health care. Making health care a right requires infringing upon your rights and the rights of others. Aches and pains are natural but there is no natural right that someone must tend to your every ache or pain. To take resources (money, labor or goods) from one to give to another violates our natural right to our own property. For the government to force you to buy something that is not for the purpose of protecting the rights of another, such as liability car insurance, is a taking of your property in direct violation of your rights.
America is about freedom
Defending our nation from foreign invaders, serving justice through the courts and constructing an orderly monetary and bankruptcy system are enumerated powers in the Constitution. Each of those federal powers helps to secure the continuance of our government, our liberty and our property. Government financing of health care is not an enumerated power of the federal government nor is health care a natural right.
In fact today, the federal government does thousands of things not enumerated in the Constitution - and although it has become customary in Washington, this is why millions object. You can’t fundamentally change the fact that the whole point and most unique feature of our American government is that the government cannot infringe or take-away our natural, unalienable or Constitutional rights.
Federal legislators have had a good time through the 20th and now 21st century infringing on the states, and satisfying the Liberals by creating all kinds of programs and laws that spend trillions and trillions of dollars, all of it at direct expense to individual freedom and liberty and states’ rights.
What most of us want liberals to understand is that the most important basic principle of our American government is – America is about freedom. The citizen is in charge. He is not just a funding source for the federal legislators - there are limits to federal power and purpose. It is the American people that have always solved the problems of our nation - and we must be free in order to continue to do so.
By Rep. Susan Lynn
District 57
Tennessee
Let's look at some of the foundational principles of American government; the principles that made our nation great.
The purpose of our government is to secure our rights
The Declaration of Independence established the American view of the rights of man and the duties of government. "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." They concluded by stating that our "separate but equal station" with Britain and other governments of the world would give us "full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do."
Our Constitution, drafted in 1787, used the Declaration of Independence as a guide to governance. The Constitution up-holds the purpose of our government, to secure our rights, and provides seventeen specific powers to the federal government in Article 1, Section 8. Two years later a Bill of Rights was added by the states in order to prevent misconstruction and abuse of federal powers; succeeding amendments bring the total number of enumerated federal powers to 30. None of those 30 powers grant general legislative authority to the federal government. In fact, such powers belong only to the states; called police powers – states pass laws to secure the rights of individuals.
So what they created is the freest county in the world - with a government that recognizes mans' unalienable rights, and whose purpose is to secure those rights for its citizens. In the United States, all have freedom and all understand that we can express our freedoms until we infringe upon another's freedom. Except where individual actions may infringe on the unalienable and Constitutional rights of another, our government is to stay out of the affairs of the people and of business.
Our government cannot take-away or infringe on our rights
Our nation, our Constitutional Republic is based upon natural rights. But just what are unalienable rights and Constitutional rights? An unalienable right is a natural right granted to man by our Creator; described ever so simply as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in our Declaration of Independence and it is also a Constitutional right. Life is, well, life. Examples of liberty are freedom to believe, or become, or protect yourself; a right to your speech, your reputation, and the things you create. Pursuit of happiness is freedom to make your own way, own your own property or live anywhere; a right to what you earn.
Constitutional rights such as trial by jury, to bear arms and vote don't seem natural. They are not natural, but they do serve to directly secure our natural rights. For instance, who judges our actions is very important because we can lose our liberty as punishment. Arms are not natural - but protecting yourself, especially from your own government, is a natural right. Therefore, the right to bear arms serves to secure your natural rights. The right to vote protects your right to self-determination and liberty, even speech. All in all, unalienable or Constitutional, our rights are rights which no government can take-away, question or alter, they are unalienable. No social contract can cause us to surrender these rights.
Rights are of no cost to anyone else
My freedom of speech costs you nothing. Your freedom of religion costs me nothing.
The liberal error; confusing needs with rights; confusing positive and negative
What liberals tend to do is to believe that they can "create" rights out of needs and then demand those rights from the government in the form of services - such as for health care. The liberals’ major mistake is that they not only misunderstand what rights are but they also misinterpret rights as "positive rights" - in other words, that the government has an obligation to provide a particular right to each citizen.
For example, we have laws against crime, and in the past there have been times when citizens have sued the government because the police didn't arrive in time to prevent that crime. While you have a natural right not to be harmed, there is no right to expect that the government will prevent you from becoming a victim of a crime; the government is not at any fault or liability in this instance.
Liberals need to understand that rights are natural and negative. There cannot be a natural right to health care. Making health care a right requires infringing upon your rights and the rights of others. Aches and pains are natural but there is no natural right that someone must tend to your every ache or pain. To take resources (money, labor or goods) from one to give to another violates our natural right to our own property. For the government to force you to buy something that is not for the purpose of protecting the rights of another, such as liability car insurance, is a taking of your property in direct violation of your rights.
America is about freedom
Defending our nation from foreign invaders, serving justice through the courts and constructing an orderly monetary and bankruptcy system are enumerated powers in the Constitution. Each of those federal powers helps to secure the continuance of our government, our liberty and our property. Government financing of health care is not an enumerated power of the federal government nor is health care a natural right.
In fact today, the federal government does thousands of things not enumerated in the Constitution - and although it has become customary in Washington, this is why millions object. You can’t fundamentally change the fact that the whole point and most unique feature of our American government is that the government cannot infringe or take-away our natural, unalienable or Constitutional rights.
Federal legislators have had a good time through the 20th and now 21st century infringing on the states, and satisfying the Liberals by creating all kinds of programs and laws that spend trillions and trillions of dollars, all of it at direct expense to individual freedom and liberty and states’ rights.
What most of us want liberals to understand is that the most important basic principle of our American government is – America is about freedom. The citizen is in charge. He is not just a funding source for the federal legislators - there are limits to federal power and purpose. It is the American people that have always solved the problems of our nation - and we must be free in order to continue to do so.
By Rep. Susan Lynn
District 57
Tennessee
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
State Sovereignty
As you know, Tennessee has called on several national organizations to form working groups on federalism and state sovereignty.
This Wall Street Journal article describes well what we are examining in ALEC.ORG's Federalism and Sovereignty working group.
The States Can Check Washington's Power
States should be able to directly propose constitutional amendments.
This Wall Street Journal article describes well what we are examining in ALEC.ORG's Federalism and Sovereignty working group.
The States Can Check Washington's Power
States should be able to directly propose constitutional amendments.
Monday, December 21, 2009
Campaign for Liberty
Thank you Campaign for Liberty for the nice mention
Anger With the Federal Government Is Not Enough
Chuck Baldwin
Campaign For Liberty
Saturday, Dec 19th, 2009
According to Rasmussen Reports, "Seventy-one percent (71%) of voters nationwide say they're at least somewhat angry about the current policies of the federal government. That figure includes 46% who are Very Angry...
Anger With the Federal Government Is Not Enough
Chuck Baldwin
Campaign For Liberty
Saturday, Dec 19th, 2009
According to Rasmussen Reports, "Seventy-one percent (71%) of voters nationwide say they're at least somewhat angry about the current policies of the federal government. That figure includes 46% who are Very Angry...
Press Release
House of Representatives
State of Tennessee
State of Tennessee
Contact: Debra Maggart (615) 207-5424
Susan Lynn (615) 596-2363
rep.susan.lynn@capitol.tn.gov
rep.debra.maggart@capitol.tn.gov
Susan Lynn (615) 596-2363
rep.susan.lynn@capitol.tn.gov
rep.debra.maggart@capitol.tn.gov
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
State Representatives Ask State Attorney General to intervene in federal healthcare legislation
(December 21, 2009, NASHVILLE) -- On Monday, State Representatives Susan Lynn (R-Lebanon) and Debra Young Maggart (R-Hendersonville) asked Tennessee State Attorney General Robert Cooper to prepare to take the appropriate legal action against the federal government in the event HR 3200, the controversial federal healthcare reform legislation, passes into law. The legislators requested this action in order to grant Tennessee relief from the unfunded mandate contained in the bill that Tennessee complies with the expansion of the federal Medicaid program.
The letter notes that under the bill Tennessee would be forced to expand the state’s Medicaid program potentially costing the citizens of the state $1.4 billion dollars in additional state taxpayer funds annually.
“Such an increase would place a great burden on the citizens of this state. It is clear by the wording of the legislation itself that not every state would face a similar and equal burden,” stated Rep. Debra Maggart.
Lynn explained that, “We see this as a violation of equal protection of the law, an affront to our sovereignty, and as a breach of the U.S. Constitution.”
Lynn and Maggart noted that the passage of this bill is imminent so it is important that the AG prepare now to take immediate action, and they referenced Governor Bredesen’s recent comment that “we can’t print money.” The great issue for the states is that states are not allowed to borrow money for operations expenses. “Obviously, this is something that many in Washington just don’t understand,” stated Lynn.
###
Monday, November 30, 2009
The federal government wants us to save more?
Recently U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was quoted as saying “Everyone is going to come to terms with the fact that we are gong to (have to) save more in the United States…If the U.S. starts saving more, that changes the whole world’s economic reality.”
Geithner isn’t wrong, saving more would help the economy; he’s just sounding a little too much like Marie Antoinette - elite and out of touch with the suffering general public.
For those of us that live in the real world, we can’t imagine where Mr. Geithner thinks we will get the money to save. Is he really so unaware of the millions of unemployed and the underemployed? Does he really not realize that those who are working are afraid of losing their jobs? We are facing a historically unprecedented federal budget deficit, and colossal federal debt which could raise taxes to enormous proportions; perhaps 30-35% of GDP. Soon we will be expected to support a massive new healthcare program which promises to tax everything that moves, along with a not too distant cap & trade scheme to pick our pockets.
How much better if instead of taking our money and spending it, if Washington would help this country by incentivizing more savings. Then, even if the deficit stayed large, the increase in private savings would provide more financial capital for private investment which would grow the economy and help put people back to work. It would also make the US economy less reliant on foreign investment.
There are many ways to incentivize private savings but one great way would be to scrap the federal health care program now being debated and instead return insurance to its rightful place - a product one buys hoping that one will never have to use - then strongly incentivize health savings accounts; a product where people save for the regular health maintenance of life.
Unfortunately today, “health insurance” is misnamed and thereby misunderstood - it has transitioned into a health maintenance product instead of an actual insurance product. This transition has created impractical expectations, poor incentives, and loss of consumer influence in the healthcare marketplace.
As a nation, we need to have a public discussion about our expectations. Routine health maintenance, like maintenance for your car or home, is just a part of life that one is wise to look after.
It is evident that any “insurance” product that will pay for routine health maintenance costs is going to be very expensive for a variety of reasons; increased consumption, lack of transparency and consumerism, and a lack of competition to name a few. The natural response of insurance companies is to stabilize these effects by setting limits, second guessing the decisions of doctors’, by excluding tests and treatments, and raising rates to cover costs. It is clear that the expectations of the consumer and those of the insurance company are at odds with each other; a federal government plan would surely produce similar results with the added disadvantage that it will literally take an act of Congress for unhappy constituents, unable to flee the program, to make any changes.
Health maintenance plans should be labeled and marketed as such - not insurance. Actual insurance should be returned to its rightful place; insuring for major emergencies and illness. The federal government should find better ways to incentivize participation in health savings accounts; the savings for minor illnesses which build up tax free, growing over time - eventually used for retirement or inheritable. This would help return power to consumers; granting more freedom in healthcare decisions. It would also increase private savings providing us an end-run around the problem of a large federal deficit.
Geithner isn’t wrong, saving more would help the economy; he’s just sounding a little too much like Marie Antoinette - elite and out of touch with the suffering general public.
For those of us that live in the real world, we can’t imagine where Mr. Geithner thinks we will get the money to save. Is he really so unaware of the millions of unemployed and the underemployed? Does he really not realize that those who are working are afraid of losing their jobs? We are facing a historically unprecedented federal budget deficit, and colossal federal debt which could raise taxes to enormous proportions; perhaps 30-35% of GDP. Soon we will be expected to support a massive new healthcare program which promises to tax everything that moves, along with a not too distant cap & trade scheme to pick our pockets.
How much better if instead of taking our money and spending it, if Washington would help this country by incentivizing more savings. Then, even if the deficit stayed large, the increase in private savings would provide more financial capital for private investment which would grow the economy and help put people back to work. It would also make the US economy less reliant on foreign investment.
There are many ways to incentivize private savings but one great way would be to scrap the federal health care program now being debated and instead return insurance to its rightful place - a product one buys hoping that one will never have to use - then strongly incentivize health savings accounts; a product where people save for the regular health maintenance of life.
Unfortunately today, “health insurance” is misnamed and thereby misunderstood - it has transitioned into a health maintenance product instead of an actual insurance product. This transition has created impractical expectations, poor incentives, and loss of consumer influence in the healthcare marketplace.
As a nation, we need to have a public discussion about our expectations. Routine health maintenance, like maintenance for your car or home, is just a part of life that one is wise to look after.
It is evident that any “insurance” product that will pay for routine health maintenance costs is going to be very expensive for a variety of reasons; increased consumption, lack of transparency and consumerism, and a lack of competition to name a few. The natural response of insurance companies is to stabilize these effects by setting limits, second guessing the decisions of doctors’, by excluding tests and treatments, and raising rates to cover costs. It is clear that the expectations of the consumer and those of the insurance company are at odds with each other; a federal government plan would surely produce similar results with the added disadvantage that it will literally take an act of Congress for unhappy constituents, unable to flee the program, to make any changes.
Health maintenance plans should be labeled and marketed as such - not insurance. Actual insurance should be returned to its rightful place; insuring for major emergencies and illness. The federal government should find better ways to incentivize participation in health savings accounts; the savings for minor illnesses which build up tax free, growing over time - eventually used for retirement or inheritable. This would help return power to consumers; granting more freedom in healthcare decisions. It would also increase private savings providing us an end-run around the problem of a large federal deficit.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Press Release on Sate Sovereignty Committee
Press Release
Contact: Cyndie Todd 615-741-7462
November 18, 2009
Special Committee on State Sovereignty Approves Letter to the States
Letter to National Legislator Organizations
Contact: Cyndie Todd 615-741-7462
November 18, 2009
Special Committee on State Sovereignty Approves Letter to the States
Letter to National Legislator Organizations
The Special Committee on State Sovereignty met yesterday as per the requirements of HJR 108; a resolution to the US Congress from the Tennessee General Assembly in support of the Tenth Amendment. The resolution created a committee of Conference and Correspondence to communicate the resolution to the legislatures of the 49 other states, and to call for a joint working group between the states to enumerate the abuses of authority by the federal government and to seek repeal of the assumption of powers and the imposed mandates.
At the last meeting the committee decided to ask the three national organizations for state legislators to help with this endeavor by asking each to form independent working groups, task forces or committees. The idea is the have the organizations independently examine the words of our founding documents and the founders’ intent, legal history, the infringements of the federal government, the effect on the people and the states, develop a plan to seek repeal of the assumption of powers and the imposed mandates and conduct all other matters appropriate for the committee.
Also on the committee agenda was the approval of the Letter to the States authored by the committee’s chairman, Rep. Susan Lynn, at last month’s meeting. The letter was amended to include a statement that the committee is “not in favor at this time of any solution that would include a Constitutional Convention; risking that our beloved Constitution could by opened up and perhaps gravely altered.”
A third item on the agenda was a request from Rep. Karen Camper to include the NCBSL - The National Caucus of Black State Legislators in the organizations that will be asked to form committees, working groups or task forces.
The three other organizations that will be asked to create committees, working groups or task forces are theAmerican Legislative Exchange Council, the Council of State Governments and the National Conference of State Legislatures.
State Representative Susan Lynn (R - Lebanon) Chairman of the committee stated “I am happy that the committee unanimously approved all three agenda items and that Tennessee is a leader in this effort.”
##
Letter to the states approved by Joint Sovereignty Committee
Letter to the states
We send greetings from the Tennessee General Assembly. On June 23, 2009, House Joint Resolution 108, the State Sovereignty Resolution, was signed by Governor Phil Bredesen. The Resolution created a committee which has as its charge to:
· Communicate the resolution to the legislatures of the several states,
· Assure them that this State continues in the same esteem of their friendship,
· Call for a joint working group between the states to enumerate the abuses of authority by the federal government, and
· Seek repeal of the assumption of powers and the imposed mandates.
It is for that purpose that this letter addresses your honorable body.
In 1776, our founding fathers declared our freedom in the magnificent Declaration of Independence; our guide to governance. They established a nation of free and independent states. Declaring that the purpose of our political system is to secure for its citizens’ their natural rights. The Constitution authorizes the national government to carry out seventeen enumerated powers in Article 1, Section 8 and the powers of several of the ensuing amendments.
At the time of the Constitutional ratification process James Madison drafted the “Virginia Plan” to give Congress general legislative authority and to empower the national judiciary to hear any case that might cause friction among the states, to give the congress a veto over state laws, to empower the national government to use the military against the states, and to eliminate the states’ accustomed role in selecting members of Congress. Each one of these proposals was soundly defeated. In fact, Madison made many more attempts to authorize a national veto over state laws, and these were repeatedly defeated as well.
There are clear limits to the power of the federal government and clear realms of power for the states. However, the simple and clear expression of purpose, to secure our natural rights, has evolved into the modern expectation that the national government has an obligation to ensure our life, to create our liberty, and fund our pursuit of happiness.
The national government has become a complex system of programs whose purposes lie outside of the responsibilities of the enumerated powers and of securing our natural rights; programs that benefit some while others must pay.
Today, the federal government seeks to control the salaries of those employed by private business, to change the provisions of private of contracts, to nationalize banks, insurers and auto manufacturers, and to dictate to every person in the land what his or her medical choices will be.Forcing property from employers to provide healthcare, legislating what individuals are and are not entitled to, and using the labor of some so that others can receive money that they did not earn goes far beyond securing natural rights, and the enumerated powers in the Constitution.
The role of our American government has been blurred, bent, and breached. The rights endowed to us by our creator must be restored. To be sure, the People created the federal government to be their agent for certain enumerated purposes only. The Constitutional ratifying structure was created so it would be clear that it was the People, and not the States, that were doing the ratifying.
The Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that which has been delegated by the people to the federal government, and also that which is absolutely necessary to advancing those powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution of the United States. The rest is to be handled by the state governments, or locally, by the people themselves.
The Constitution does not include a congressional power to override state laws. It does not give the judicial branch unlimited jurisdiction over all matters. It does not provide Congress with the power to legislate over everything. This is verified by the simple fact that attempts to make these principles part of the Constitution were soundly rejected by its signers.
With this in mind, any federal attempt to legislate beyond the Constitutional limits of Congress’ authority is a usurpation of state sovereignty - and unconstitutional.Governments and political leaders are best held accountable to the will of the people when government is local. The people of a state know what is best for them; authorities, potentially thousands of miles away, governing their lives is opposed to the very notion of freedom.
Our committee wishes to express that we are not in favor of any solution that would include a Constitutional Convention; risking that our beloved Constitution could be opened up and perhaps gravely altered.
Our plan is to ask the Council of State Governments, the American Legislative Exchange Council, the National Conference of State Legislatures and the National Caucus of Black State Legislators to form working groups, task forces or committees. Such groups would independently examine the words of our founding documents and the founders’ intent, legal history, the infringements of the federal government, the effect on the people and the states, develop a plan to seek repeal of the assumption of powers and the imposed mandates, and conduct all other matters appropriate for the committee.
We invite your state to join with us in asking for such working groups and supporting them with your attendance. We further encourage you to pass similar resolutions in support of the Tenth Amendment.
In Liberty,
Susan Lynn
State Representative
We send greetings from the Tennessee General Assembly. On June 23, 2009, House Joint Resolution 108, the State Sovereignty Resolution, was signed by Governor Phil Bredesen. The Resolution created a committee which has as its charge to:
· Communicate the resolution to the legislatures of the several states,
· Assure them that this State continues in the same esteem of their friendship,
· Call for a joint working group between the states to enumerate the abuses of authority by the federal government, and
· Seek repeal of the assumption of powers and the imposed mandates.
It is for that purpose that this letter addresses your honorable body.
In 1776, our founding fathers declared our freedom in the magnificent Declaration of Independence; our guide to governance. They established a nation of free and independent states. Declaring that the purpose of our political system is to secure for its citizens’ their natural rights. The Constitution authorizes the national government to carry out seventeen enumerated powers in Article 1, Section 8 and the powers of several of the ensuing amendments.
At the time of the Constitutional ratification process James Madison drafted the “Virginia Plan” to give Congress general legislative authority and to empower the national judiciary to hear any case that might cause friction among the states, to give the congress a veto over state laws, to empower the national government to use the military against the states, and to eliminate the states’ accustomed role in selecting members of Congress. Each one of these proposals was soundly defeated. In fact, Madison made many more attempts to authorize a national veto over state laws, and these were repeatedly defeated as well.
There are clear limits to the power of the federal government and clear realms of power for the states. However, the simple and clear expression of purpose, to secure our natural rights, has evolved into the modern expectation that the national government has an obligation to ensure our life, to create our liberty, and fund our pursuit of happiness.
The national government has become a complex system of programs whose purposes lie outside of the responsibilities of the enumerated powers and of securing our natural rights; programs that benefit some while others must pay.
Today, the federal government seeks to control the salaries of those employed by private business, to change the provisions of private of contracts, to nationalize banks, insurers and auto manufacturers, and to dictate to every person in the land what his or her medical choices will be.Forcing property from employers to provide healthcare, legislating what individuals are and are not entitled to, and using the labor of some so that others can receive money that they did not earn goes far beyond securing natural rights, and the enumerated powers in the Constitution.
The role of our American government has been blurred, bent, and breached. The rights endowed to us by our creator must be restored. To be sure, the People created the federal government to be their agent for certain enumerated purposes only. The Constitutional ratifying structure was created so it would be clear that it was the People, and not the States, that were doing the ratifying.
The Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that which has been delegated by the people to the federal government, and also that which is absolutely necessary to advancing those powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution of the United States. The rest is to be handled by the state governments, or locally, by the people themselves.
The Constitution does not include a congressional power to override state laws. It does not give the judicial branch unlimited jurisdiction over all matters. It does not provide Congress with the power to legislate over everything. This is verified by the simple fact that attempts to make these principles part of the Constitution were soundly rejected by its signers.
With this in mind, any federal attempt to legislate beyond the Constitutional limits of Congress’ authority is a usurpation of state sovereignty - and unconstitutional.Governments and political leaders are best held accountable to the will of the people when government is local. The people of a state know what is best for them; authorities, potentially thousands of miles away, governing their lives is opposed to the very notion of freedom.
Our committee wishes to express that we are not in favor of any solution that would include a Constitutional Convention; risking that our beloved Constitution could be opened up and perhaps gravely altered.
Our plan is to ask the Council of State Governments, the American Legislative Exchange Council, the National Conference of State Legislatures and the National Caucus of Black State Legislators to form working groups, task forces or committees. Such groups would independently examine the words of our founding documents and the founders’ intent, legal history, the infringements of the federal government, the effect on the people and the states, develop a plan to seek repeal of the assumption of powers and the imposed mandates, and conduct all other matters appropriate for the committee.
We invite your state to join with us in asking for such working groups and supporting them with your attendance. We further encourage you to pass similar resolutions in support of the Tenth Amendment.
In Liberty,
Susan Lynn
State Representative
Thursday, November 05, 2009
Liberty News Radio
Rep. Lynn will be a guest on Liberty News Radio at 10 am central time today to talk about HJR 108.
Listen live on the internet here: http://libertynewsradio.com/listen.php
Call In Number: 866-986-NEWS
Listen live on the internet here: http://libertynewsradio.com/listen.php
Call In Number: 866-986-NEWS
Tuesday, November 03, 2009
The Work of Gov Ops
New rules by the Department of Health for the Division of Emergency Medical Services regarding ambulance sanitation, safety standards, equipment and supplies require periodic safety inspections at least annually, and/or every 30,000 miles after a vehicle registers 200,000 miles, whichever occurs first. This is a prudent measure that will help assure that the vehicle is mechanically safe, roadworthy and maintained to federal and state laws.
However, the Government Operations Committee was concerned last week by a provision in the new rule that prohibits the transfer of ownership of an ambulance that is older than five model years or with an odometer mileage in excess of 200,000 miles. In this day and age, vehicles older than five years are very common. The Government Operations Committee felt that to prohibit a county, municipality or ambulance service in our state from being able to resell or to purchase an ambulance that may in actuality have years of good operational service left is simply forcing greater expense on our locals.
This morning I received a notice from the Department of Health that they have removed provision O from the rules. Therefore, the rules provide that ambulance vehicles will have annual inspections by a certified mechanic with records maintained and submitted for licensure; and after 200,000 miles, an inspection every 30,000 miles.
However, the Government Operations Committee was concerned last week by a provision in the new rule that prohibits the transfer of ownership of an ambulance that is older than five model years or with an odometer mileage in excess of 200,000 miles. In this day and age, vehicles older than five years are very common. The Government Operations Committee felt that to prohibit a county, municipality or ambulance service in our state from being able to resell or to purchase an ambulance that may in actuality have years of good operational service left is simply forcing greater expense on our locals.
This morning I received a notice from the Department of Health that they have removed provision O from the rules. Therefore, the rules provide that ambulance vehicles will have annual inspections by a certified mechanic with records maintained and submitted for licensure; and after 200,000 miles, an inspection every 30,000 miles.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Susan on The Mike Church Show
Please listen Monday, November 2 at 8am central time
Susan will be a guest on the Mike Church Show on Sirius Patriot Radio
to discuss the State Sovereignty Resolution.
Susan will be a guest on the Mike Church Show on Sirius Patriot Radio
to discuss the State Sovereignty Resolution.
Tennessee Proclaims White Ribbons Against Pornography Week
http://news.christiansunite.com/Religion_News/religion08686.shtml
by Staff October 30, 2009
NASHVILLE, (christiansunite.com) -- October 25-November 1, 2009, is White Ribbon Against Pornography Week ( www.moralityinmedia.org). The State of Tennessee proclamation encourages citizens to recognize WRAP Week by wearing or displaying white ribbons as a sign of their commitment to community standards of decency and to show support for the enforcement of obscenity laws. White ribbons may be purchased at www.wrapfamily.com. An excerpt from the Tennessee proclamation states:
"Whereas, pornography degrades and dehumanizes both female and male participants; and Whereas, pornography presents youth with a false and distorted image of human sexuality, devoid of love, commitment, and responsibility; andWhereas, pornography features criminal and other anti-social behaviors, including adultery, bestiality, incest, child abuse, prostitution, teen promiscuity, unsafe sex, and the degradation, rape, and torture of women; andWhereas, pornography leads males and females into sexual addictions that prevent and tear marriages apart; and
Whereas, the explosion of obscenity helps create the demand for women and children trafficked into sexual slavery; and
Whereas, the Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment does not protect obscenity and that legitimate governmental interests are furthered by enforcing obscenity laws, including the protection of morality, public safety, the community environment, and family life; and
Whereas, a poll conducted by Harris Interactive in July 2006 found that 73 percent of adult Americans think that viewing pornographic Web sites and videos is morally unacceptable; therefore,
I, Kent Williams, Speaker of the House of Representatives of the One Hundred Sixth General Assembly of the State of Tennessee, at the request of and in conjunction with Representative Susan Lynn, do hereby proclaim that we recognize October 25 through November 1, 2009, as "White Ribbon Against Pornography Week" in Tennessee and encourage all citizens to wear or display white ribbons as a sign of their commitment to community standards of decency and their support for enforcement of laws against obscene materials."
Girls Against Porn would like to thank Representative Susan Lynn, of the 57th House District, and the State of Tennessee House of Representatives for proclaiming it WRAP Week.
Girls Against Porn is an on-line resource and action coalition for women who have a loved one involved in porn, and for anyone who wishes to assist in the fight against porn and support the enforcement of obscenity laws.
by Staff October 30, 2009
NASHVILLE, (christiansunite.com) -- October 25-November 1, 2009, is White Ribbon Against Pornography Week ( www.moralityinmedia.org). The State of Tennessee proclamation encourages citizens to recognize WRAP Week by wearing or displaying white ribbons as a sign of their commitment to community standards of decency and to show support for the enforcement of obscenity laws. White ribbons may be purchased at www.wrapfamily.com. An excerpt from the Tennessee proclamation states:
"Whereas, pornography degrades and dehumanizes both female and male participants; and Whereas, pornography presents youth with a false and distorted image of human sexuality, devoid of love, commitment, and responsibility; andWhereas, pornography features criminal and other anti-social behaviors, including adultery, bestiality, incest, child abuse, prostitution, teen promiscuity, unsafe sex, and the degradation, rape, and torture of women; andWhereas, pornography leads males and females into sexual addictions that prevent and tear marriages apart; and
Whereas, the explosion of obscenity helps create the demand for women and children trafficked into sexual slavery; and
Whereas, the Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment does not protect obscenity and that legitimate governmental interests are furthered by enforcing obscenity laws, including the protection of morality, public safety, the community environment, and family life; and
Whereas, a poll conducted by Harris Interactive in July 2006 found that 73 percent of adult Americans think that viewing pornographic Web sites and videos is morally unacceptable; therefore,
I, Kent Williams, Speaker of the House of Representatives of the One Hundred Sixth General Assembly of the State of Tennessee, at the request of and in conjunction with Representative Susan Lynn, do hereby proclaim that we recognize October 25 through November 1, 2009, as "White Ribbon Against Pornography Week" in Tennessee and encourage all citizens to wear or display white ribbons as a sign of their commitment to community standards of decency and their support for enforcement of laws against obscene materials."
Girls Against Porn would like to thank Representative Susan Lynn, of the 57th House District, and the State of Tennessee House of Representatives for proclaiming it WRAP Week.
Girls Against Porn is an on-line resource and action coalition for women who have a loved one involved in porn, and for anyone who wishes to assist in the fight against porn and support the enforcement of obscenity laws.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Great article in the Politico
Mandate insurance is unconstitutional
By: Ken Klukowski
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=6E1D8A47-18FE-70B2-A8BB46B59644DE2B
By: Ken Klukowski
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=6E1D8A47-18FE-70B2-A8BB46B59644DE2B
Special Joint Committee on Workers' Comp.
Committee working works toward lifting the burden on sub-contractors while protecting small business
A special committee for Workers’ Compensation met on Thursday afternoon to discuss the affects of Public Chapter 1041. Rep. Susan Lynn was appointed to serve on the committee by Chairman Judd Matheny. The goal of the committee is to lift the burden on sub-contractors while protecting small business from lawsuits.
PC 1041 was passed in 2008 and will go into affect on December 31, 2009. It requires sole proprietors, partners, and members of limited liability companies in the construction industry to be covered for workers compensation. There is an exception for construction owners with no employees who get paid exclusively from homeowners.
Implementation of the bill was already delayed once due to the concerns of small sub-contractors; those making less than $30,000 a year who may have to pay as much as $3000 to $6000 for premium on themselves.
The meeting had a number of speakers including Susan Ritter, Vice President of the Home Builders Association of TN. Ritter stated that according to the University of Tennessee, construction employment in Tennessee has fallen by 29,000 jobs; overall Tennessee has experienced an 80% drop in housing starts, and workers’ compensation premiums have fallen from a total of $12 million in 2008 to $6.4 million which shows that payrolls have dropped almost 50% this year.
Rep. Debra Maggart of Hendersonville stated that most legislators thought the bill would help small business owners because subs often elect not to be covered by workers’ comp due to the expense but after they suffer an injury they sue the small business owner and his or her workers’ comp must pay; this has been court president for since 1933. Insurance company representatives stated that this situation has been a concern for the insurance industry too because they must pay claims for people who have never paid premiums into the system.
Bob Pitts from the Workers’ Com. Advisory Council stated that workers’ compensation is a no fault insurance program to protect those who are injured. “This issue has been debated for about 33 years” and that “the legislation that the General Assembly passed in 2008 was debated for three years…there is no easy solution to this problem.”
The committee came up with a number of solutions; short term, to delay implementation; long term, to establish a minimum and maximum payroll for the construction industry where workers’ comp is concerned; project cost limitations such as for jobs under $30,000; reduce the loss cost multiplier; a deductable for the assigned risk plan; and, to do away with the need to be doubly insured - if one has health insurance with occupational coverage there would be no need to also have workers’ comp.
Labor and Workforce Development Commissioner, James Neeley, stated that he would take the liberty of giving 60 days on any fines or penalties in order to allow time for the General Assembly to act on legislation in January - thus voiding all fines and penalties should the General Assembly take action.
Chairman Matheny concluded the committee by thanking all who came to speak and stating that the Governor’s office has been very cooperative in helping to solve this issue.
##
A special committee for Workers’ Compensation met on Thursday afternoon to discuss the affects of Public Chapter 1041. Rep. Susan Lynn was appointed to serve on the committee by Chairman Judd Matheny. The goal of the committee is to lift the burden on sub-contractors while protecting small business from lawsuits.
PC 1041 was passed in 2008 and will go into affect on December 31, 2009. It requires sole proprietors, partners, and members of limited liability companies in the construction industry to be covered for workers compensation. There is an exception for construction owners with no employees who get paid exclusively from homeowners.
Implementation of the bill was already delayed once due to the concerns of small sub-contractors; those making less than $30,000 a year who may have to pay as much as $3000 to $6000 for premium on themselves.
The meeting had a number of speakers including Susan Ritter, Vice President of the Home Builders Association of TN. Ritter stated that according to the University of Tennessee, construction employment in Tennessee has fallen by 29,000 jobs; overall Tennessee has experienced an 80% drop in housing starts, and workers’ compensation premiums have fallen from a total of $12 million in 2008 to $6.4 million which shows that payrolls have dropped almost 50% this year.
Rep. Debra Maggart of Hendersonville stated that most legislators thought the bill would help small business owners because subs often elect not to be covered by workers’ comp due to the expense but after they suffer an injury they sue the small business owner and his or her workers’ comp must pay; this has been court president for since 1933. Insurance company representatives stated that this situation has been a concern for the insurance industry too because they must pay claims for people who have never paid premiums into the system.
Bob Pitts from the Workers’ Com. Advisory Council stated that workers’ compensation is a no fault insurance program to protect those who are injured. “This issue has been debated for about 33 years” and that “the legislation that the General Assembly passed in 2008 was debated for three years…there is no easy solution to this problem.”
The committee came up with a number of solutions; short term, to delay implementation; long term, to establish a minimum and maximum payroll for the construction industry where workers’ comp is concerned; project cost limitations such as for jobs under $30,000; reduce the loss cost multiplier; a deductable for the assigned risk plan; and, to do away with the need to be doubly insured - if one has health insurance with occupational coverage there would be no need to also have workers’ comp.
Labor and Workforce Development Commissioner, James Neeley, stated that he would take the liberty of giving 60 days on any fines or penalties in order to allow time for the General Assembly to act on legislation in January - thus voiding all fines and penalties should the General Assembly take action.
Chairman Matheny concluded the committee by thanking all who came to speak and stating that the Governor’s office has been very cooperative in helping to solve this issue.
##
Friday, October 23, 2009
Lynn to Chair Special Committee on State Sovereignty
The Special Committee on State Sovereignty met this week to fulfill the requirements of HJR 108; a resolution to the to the US Congress from the Tennessee General Assembly in support of the Tenth Amendment. The resolution calls for a committee of Conference and Correspondence to communicate the resolution to the legislatures of the several states, and to call for a joint working group between the states to enumerate the abuses of authority by the federal government and to seek repeal of the assumption of powers and the imposed mandates.
State Representative Susan Lynn (R - Lebanon) was elected Chairman of the committee and State Representative Ron Lollar (R-Memphis) Secretary.
Representative Lynn proposed the letter below to send to the states. She authored the letter which outlines the purpose of American government, the abuses of the federal government and to ask for the states to join Tennessee in working to enumerate and repeal such actions.
The committee will additionally seek the assistance of the American Legislative Exchange Council, the Council of State Governments and the National Conference of State Legislatures. The committee will author a letter to the groups to asking for assistance in forming working groups of state legislators from the various states to create a plan of action to defend of the Tenth Amendment.
Others members of the committee are Senator Douglas Henry, Senator Bill Ketron, Senator Tim Burchett, Senator Randy McNally, Representative Phillip Johnson, Representative Richard Floyd.
The committee will meet again in a month.
Letter to the states
We send greetings from the Tennessee General Assembly. On June 23, 2009, House Joint Resolution 108, the State Sovereignty Resolution, was signed by Governor Phil Bredesen. The Resolution created a committee which has as its charge to:
· Communicate the resolution to the legislatures of the several states,
· Assure them that this State continues in the same esteem of their friendship,
· Call for a joint working group between the states to enumerate the abuses of authority by the federal government, and
· Seek repeal of the assumption of powers and the imposed mandates.
It is for that purpose that this letter addresses your honorable body.
In 1776, our founding fathers declared our freedom in the magnificent Declaration of Independence; our guide to governance. They established a nation of free and independent states. Declaring that the purpose of our political system is to secure for its citizens’ their natural rights. The Constitution authorizes the national government to carry out seventeen enumerated powers in Article 1, Section 8 and the powers of several of the ensuing amendments.
At the time of the Constitutional ratification process James Madison drafted the “Virginia Plan” to give Congress general legislative authority and to empower the national judiciary to hear any case that might cause friction among the states, to give the congress a veto over state laws, to empower the national government to use the military against the states, and to eliminate the states’ accustomed role in selecting members of Congress. Each one of these proposals was soundly defeated. In fact, Madison made many more attempts to authorize a national veto over state laws, and these were repeatedly defeated as well.
There are clear limits to the power of the federal government and clear realms of power for the states. However, the simple and clear expression of purpose, to secure our natural rights, has evolved into the modern expectation that the national government has an obligation to ensure our life, to create our liberty, and fund our pursuit of happiness.
The national government has become a complex system of programs whose purposes lie outside of the responsibilities of the enumerated powers and of securing our natural rights; programs that benefit some while others must pay.
Today, the federal government seeks to control the salaries of those employed by private business, to change the provisions of private of contracts, to nationalize banks, insurers and auto manufacturers, and to dictate to every person in the land what his or her medical choices will be.
Forcing property from employers to provide healthcare, legislating what individuals are and are not entitled to, and using the labor of some so that others can receive money that they did not earn goes far beyond securing natural rights, and the enumerated powers in the Constitution.
The role of our American government has been blurred, bent, and breached. The rights endowed to us by our creator must be restored.
To be sure, the People created the federal government to be their agent for certain enumerated purposes only. The Constitutional ratifying structure was created so it would be clear that it was the People, and not the States, that were doing the ratifying.
The Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that which has been delegated by the people to the federal government, and also that which is absolutely necessary to advancing those powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution of the United States. The rest is to be handled by the state governments, or locally, by the people themselves.
The Constitution does not include a congressional power to override state laws. It does not give the judicial branch unlimited jurisdiction over all matters. It does not provide Congress with the power to legislate over everything. This is verified by the simple fact that attempts to make these principles part of the Constitution were soundly rejected by its signers.
With this in mind, any federal attempt to legislate beyond the Constitutional limits of Congress’ authority is a usurpation of state sovereignty - and unconstitutional.
Governments and political leaders are best held accountable to the will of the people when government is local. The people of a state know what is best for them; authorities, potentially thousands of miles away, governing their lives is opposed to the very notion of freedom.
We invite your state to join with us to form a joint working group between the states to enumerate the abuses of authority by the federal government and to seek repeal of the assumption of powers and the imposed mandates.
In Liberty,
Susan Lynn
State Representative
State Representative Susan Lynn (R - Lebanon) was elected Chairman of the committee and State Representative Ron Lollar (R-Memphis) Secretary.
Representative Lynn proposed the letter below to send to the states. She authored the letter which outlines the purpose of American government, the abuses of the federal government and to ask for the states to join Tennessee in working to enumerate and repeal such actions.
The committee will additionally seek the assistance of the American Legislative Exchange Council, the Council of State Governments and the National Conference of State Legislatures. The committee will author a letter to the groups to asking for assistance in forming working groups of state legislators from the various states to create a plan of action to defend of the Tenth Amendment.
Others members of the committee are Senator Douglas Henry, Senator Bill Ketron, Senator Tim Burchett, Senator Randy McNally, Representative Phillip Johnson, Representative Richard Floyd.
The committee will meet again in a month.
Letter to the states
We send greetings from the Tennessee General Assembly. On June 23, 2009, House Joint Resolution 108, the State Sovereignty Resolution, was signed by Governor Phil Bredesen. The Resolution created a committee which has as its charge to:
· Communicate the resolution to the legislatures of the several states,
· Assure them that this State continues in the same esteem of their friendship,
· Call for a joint working group between the states to enumerate the abuses of authority by the federal government, and
· Seek repeal of the assumption of powers and the imposed mandates.
It is for that purpose that this letter addresses your honorable body.
In 1776, our founding fathers declared our freedom in the magnificent Declaration of Independence; our guide to governance. They established a nation of free and independent states. Declaring that the purpose of our political system is to secure for its citizens’ their natural rights. The Constitution authorizes the national government to carry out seventeen enumerated powers in Article 1, Section 8 and the powers of several of the ensuing amendments.
At the time of the Constitutional ratification process James Madison drafted the “Virginia Plan” to give Congress general legislative authority and to empower the national judiciary to hear any case that might cause friction among the states, to give the congress a veto over state laws, to empower the national government to use the military against the states, and to eliminate the states’ accustomed role in selecting members of Congress. Each one of these proposals was soundly defeated. In fact, Madison made many more attempts to authorize a national veto over state laws, and these were repeatedly defeated as well.
There are clear limits to the power of the federal government and clear realms of power for the states. However, the simple and clear expression of purpose, to secure our natural rights, has evolved into the modern expectation that the national government has an obligation to ensure our life, to create our liberty, and fund our pursuit of happiness.
The national government has become a complex system of programs whose purposes lie outside of the responsibilities of the enumerated powers and of securing our natural rights; programs that benefit some while others must pay.
Today, the federal government seeks to control the salaries of those employed by private business, to change the provisions of private of contracts, to nationalize banks, insurers and auto manufacturers, and to dictate to every person in the land what his or her medical choices will be.
Forcing property from employers to provide healthcare, legislating what individuals are and are not entitled to, and using the labor of some so that others can receive money that they did not earn goes far beyond securing natural rights, and the enumerated powers in the Constitution.
The role of our American government has been blurred, bent, and breached. The rights endowed to us by our creator must be restored.
To be sure, the People created the federal government to be their agent for certain enumerated purposes only. The Constitutional ratifying structure was created so it would be clear that it was the People, and not the States, that were doing the ratifying.
The Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that which has been delegated by the people to the federal government, and also that which is absolutely necessary to advancing those powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution of the United States. The rest is to be handled by the state governments, or locally, by the people themselves.
The Constitution does not include a congressional power to override state laws. It does not give the judicial branch unlimited jurisdiction over all matters. It does not provide Congress with the power to legislate over everything. This is verified by the simple fact that attempts to make these principles part of the Constitution were soundly rejected by its signers.
With this in mind, any federal attempt to legislate beyond the Constitutional limits of Congress’ authority is a usurpation of state sovereignty - and unconstitutional.
Governments and political leaders are best held accountable to the will of the people when government is local. The people of a state know what is best for them; authorities, potentially thousands of miles away, governing their lives is opposed to the very notion of freedom.
We invite your state to join with us to form a joint working group between the states to enumerate the abuses of authority by the federal government and to seek repeal of the assumption of powers and the imposed mandates.
In Liberty,
Susan Lynn
State Representative
ALEC Healthcare Release
PRESS RELEASE
For Immediate Release: Contact: Jorge Amselle
October 22, 2009 (202) 742-8536
jamselle@alec.org
Rep. Susan Lynn Tells Congress “No” to ObamaCare
Joins 1,800 State Lawmakers in Nationwide Effort to Preserve States’ Rights; Stop Single-Payer
NASHVILLE, TN – State Representative Susan Lynn (R-Lebanon) signed onto an official letter from the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) to Congressional leaders expressing the will of more than 1,800 state legislators opposing federal reform efforts—particularly, the Medicare-modeled “public plan” and a national health insurance exchange—which will trample states’ rights and lead Americans down the road to single-payer health care.
“Constitutionally, insurance is not the domain of the federal government but of the states,” said Rep. Lynn. “The real problem is that over the last 35 years states have allowed health insurance products to morph in ways that have served to hurt consumers - this problem started in the states and the solution lies with the states. A federal solution will not fix the problems within the states - it is past time we roll-up our sleeves and change things on the state level.”
The members of ALEC—the nation’s largest nonpartisan, individual membership association of state legislators—recently approved the Resolution on Preserving States’ Rights Regarding Federal Health Insurance Exchanges and a Public Plan, which deems the federal public plan anti-competitive and calls the proposed national health insurance exchange a “federal takeover” of the states’ role in regulating health insurance.
“The government will never compete unless it can change the rules to win,” says Iowa Representative Linda Upmeyer, minority whip, family nurse practitioner, and chair of ALEC’s Health and Human Services Task Force. “It’s an unlevel playing field when a public plan can shift costs to our state’s private insurers because of low doctor and hospital reimbursement rates, and then raid the federal Treasury for unlimited subsidies,” she added.
In the ALEC letter to Congress, ALEC’s lawmakers criticized the federal push to shift health care decisionmaking to Washington. “We all share the goal that patients deserve to choose their own quality, affordable, private health coverage,” the letter states. “But health reform shouldn’t just be the job of the federal government.”
—30—
The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is the nation's largest nonpartisan, individual membership organization of state legislators.
For Immediate Release: Contact: Jorge Amselle
October 22, 2009 (202) 742-8536
jamselle@alec.org
Rep. Susan Lynn Tells Congress “No” to ObamaCare
Joins 1,800 State Lawmakers in Nationwide Effort to Preserve States’ Rights; Stop Single-Payer
NASHVILLE, TN – State Representative Susan Lynn (R-Lebanon) signed onto an official letter from the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) to Congressional leaders expressing the will of more than 1,800 state legislators opposing federal reform efforts—particularly, the Medicare-modeled “public plan” and a national health insurance exchange—which will trample states’ rights and lead Americans down the road to single-payer health care.
“Constitutionally, insurance is not the domain of the federal government but of the states,” said Rep. Lynn. “The real problem is that over the last 35 years states have allowed health insurance products to morph in ways that have served to hurt consumers - this problem started in the states and the solution lies with the states. A federal solution will not fix the problems within the states - it is past time we roll-up our sleeves and change things on the state level.”
The members of ALEC—the nation’s largest nonpartisan, individual membership association of state legislators—recently approved the Resolution on Preserving States’ Rights Regarding Federal Health Insurance Exchanges and a Public Plan, which deems the federal public plan anti-competitive and calls the proposed national health insurance exchange a “federal takeover” of the states’ role in regulating health insurance.
“The government will never compete unless it can change the rules to win,” says Iowa Representative Linda Upmeyer, minority whip, family nurse practitioner, and chair of ALEC’s Health and Human Services Task Force. “It’s an unlevel playing field when a public plan can shift costs to our state’s private insurers because of low doctor and hospital reimbursement rates, and then raid the federal Treasury for unlimited subsidies,” she added.
In the ALEC letter to Congress, ALEC’s lawmakers criticized the federal push to shift health care decisionmaking to Washington. “We all share the goal that patients deserve to choose their own quality, affordable, private health coverage,” the letter states. “But health reform shouldn’t just be the job of the federal government.”
—30—
The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is the nation's largest nonpartisan, individual membership organization of state legislators.
Thank you Edgycater.blogspot.com
Thank you Edgycater.blobspot.com for your post;
http://edgycater.blogspot.com/2009/10/patriot-stands-tennessee-state.html
http://edgycater.blogspot.com/2009/10/patriot-stands-tennessee-state.html
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
First Draft of Letter to the States
I really wanted to include some additional history in the letter to the states on state sovereignty but it was just too long but here is the first draft of the letter.
We send greetings from the Tennessee General Assembly. On June 23, 2009, House Joint Resolution 108, the State Sovereignty Resolution, was signed by Governor Phil Bredesen. The Resolution created a committee which has as its charge to:
· Communicate the resolution to the legislatures of the several states,
· Assure them that this State continues in the same esteem of their friendship,
· Call for a joint working group between the states to enumerate the abuses of authority by the federal government, and
· Seek repeal of the assumption of powers and the imposed mandates.
On July 4, 1776 our founding fathers declared their independence from the government of Great Britain; thus the united colonies became free and independent states.
The Declaration of Independence established the American view of the rights of man and the duties of government. “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.” They concluded by stating that our “separate but equal station” with Britain and other governments of the world would give us “full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do.”
In 1787, using the model of the Declaration of Independence as a guide to governance, and following the short lived Articles of Confederation; a Constitution was written which provides seventeen specific powers of the federal government (Article 1, Section 8).
In 1789, a Bill of Rights was crafted because “the Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers”; thus “extending the ground of public confidence in the Government.”
The Bill of Rights consists of natural rights and rights that serve to secure our natural rights. They make clear that all natural rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights are protected, and clarify that powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved for the states and the people. The ensuing amendments either do likewise or establish additional powers and terms for our government.
Therefore, we are a collection of free and independent states; the purpose of our political system is to secure for its citizens’ their natural rights; and our national government is authorized to carry out the seventeen enumerated powers and powers of the ensuing amendments.
At the time of the Constitutional ratification process James Madison drafted the “Virginia Plan” to give Congress general legislative authority and to empower the national judiciary to hear any case that might cause friction among the states, to give the congress a veto over state laws, to empower the national government to use the military against the states, and to eliminate the states’ accustomed role in selecting members of Congress. Each one of these proposals was soundly defeated. In fact, Madison made many more attempts to authorize a national veto over state laws, and these were repeatedly defeated as well.
So there are clear limits to the power of the federal government. However, today the simple and clear expression of purpose has turned into the modern expectation that the national government has an obligation to ensure our life, to create our liberty, and fund our pursuit of happiness. The national government has become a complex system of programs whose purposes lie outside of the responsibilities of the enumerated powers and of securing our natural rights; programs that benefit some while others must pay.
Today, the federal government seeks to control the salaries of those employed by private business, to change the provisions of private of contracts, to nationalize banks, insurers and auto manufacturers, and to dictate to every person in the land what his or her medical choices will be.
Forcing property from employers to provide healthcare, legislating what individuals are and are not entitled to, and using the labor of some so that others can receive money that they did not earn goes far beyond securing natural rights and the enumerated powers.
The role of our American government has been blurred, bent, and breached. Adherence to the specific powers and the fundamental American ideal that our government is based on the theory of natural rights expressed ever so simply as the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and that no government can deny these rights; the rights endowed to us by our creator must be restored.
To be sure, the People created the federal government to be their agent for certain enumerated purposes only. The Constitutional ratifying structure was created so it would be clear that it was the People, and not the States, that were doing the ratifying.
The Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that which has been delegated by the people to the federal government, and also that which is absolutely necessary to advancing those powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution of the United States. The rest is to be handled by the state governments, or locally, by the people themselves.
The Constitution does not include a congressional power to override state laws. It does not give the judicial branch unlimited jurisdiction over all matters. It does not provide Congress with the power to legislate over everything. This is verified by the simple fact that attempts to make these principles part of the Constitution were soundly rejected by its signers.
With this in mind, any federal attempt to legislate beyond the Constitutional limits of Congress’ authority is a usurpation of state sovereignty - and unconstitutional.
Governments and political leaders are best held accountable to the will of the people when government is local. The people of a state know what is best for them; authorities, potentially thousands of miles away, governing their lives is opposed to the very notion of freedom.
We invite your state to join with us to form a joint working group between the states to enumerate the abuses of authority by the federal government and to seek repeal of the assumption of powers and the imposed mandates.
We send greetings from the Tennessee General Assembly. On June 23, 2009, House Joint Resolution 108, the State Sovereignty Resolution, was signed by Governor Phil Bredesen. The Resolution created a committee which has as its charge to:
· Communicate the resolution to the legislatures of the several states,
· Assure them that this State continues in the same esteem of their friendship,
· Call for a joint working group between the states to enumerate the abuses of authority by the federal government, and
· Seek repeal of the assumption of powers and the imposed mandates.
On July 4, 1776 our founding fathers declared their independence from the government of Great Britain; thus the united colonies became free and independent states.
The Declaration of Independence established the American view of the rights of man and the duties of government. “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.” They concluded by stating that our “separate but equal station” with Britain and other governments of the world would give us “full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do.”
In 1787, using the model of the Declaration of Independence as a guide to governance, and following the short lived Articles of Confederation; a Constitution was written which provides seventeen specific powers of the federal government (Article 1, Section 8).
In 1789, a Bill of Rights was crafted because “the Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers”; thus “extending the ground of public confidence in the Government.”
The Bill of Rights consists of natural rights and rights that serve to secure our natural rights. They make clear that all natural rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights are protected, and clarify that powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved for the states and the people. The ensuing amendments either do likewise or establish additional powers and terms for our government.
Therefore, we are a collection of free and independent states; the purpose of our political system is to secure for its citizens’ their natural rights; and our national government is authorized to carry out the seventeen enumerated powers and powers of the ensuing amendments.
At the time of the Constitutional ratification process James Madison drafted the “Virginia Plan” to give Congress general legislative authority and to empower the national judiciary to hear any case that might cause friction among the states, to give the congress a veto over state laws, to empower the national government to use the military against the states, and to eliminate the states’ accustomed role in selecting members of Congress. Each one of these proposals was soundly defeated. In fact, Madison made many more attempts to authorize a national veto over state laws, and these were repeatedly defeated as well.
So there are clear limits to the power of the federal government. However, today the simple and clear expression of purpose has turned into the modern expectation that the national government has an obligation to ensure our life, to create our liberty, and fund our pursuit of happiness. The national government has become a complex system of programs whose purposes lie outside of the responsibilities of the enumerated powers and of securing our natural rights; programs that benefit some while others must pay.
Today, the federal government seeks to control the salaries of those employed by private business, to change the provisions of private of contracts, to nationalize banks, insurers and auto manufacturers, and to dictate to every person in the land what his or her medical choices will be.
Forcing property from employers to provide healthcare, legislating what individuals are and are not entitled to, and using the labor of some so that others can receive money that they did not earn goes far beyond securing natural rights and the enumerated powers.
The role of our American government has been blurred, bent, and breached. Adherence to the specific powers and the fundamental American ideal that our government is based on the theory of natural rights expressed ever so simply as the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and that no government can deny these rights; the rights endowed to us by our creator must be restored.
To be sure, the People created the federal government to be their agent for certain enumerated purposes only. The Constitutional ratifying structure was created so it would be clear that it was the People, and not the States, that were doing the ratifying.
The Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that which has been delegated by the people to the federal government, and also that which is absolutely necessary to advancing those powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution of the United States. The rest is to be handled by the state governments, or locally, by the people themselves.
The Constitution does not include a congressional power to override state laws. It does not give the judicial branch unlimited jurisdiction over all matters. It does not provide Congress with the power to legislate over everything. This is verified by the simple fact that attempts to make these principles part of the Constitution were soundly rejected by its signers.
With this in mind, any federal attempt to legislate beyond the Constitutional limits of Congress’ authority is a usurpation of state sovereignty - and unconstitutional.
Governments and political leaders are best held accountable to the will of the people when government is local. The people of a state know what is best for them; authorities, potentially thousands of miles away, governing their lives is opposed to the very notion of freedom.
We invite your state to join with us to form a joint working group between the states to enumerate the abuses of authority by the federal government and to seek repeal of the assumption of powers and the imposed mandates.
Tenth Amendment Center Mention
Thank you Tenth Amendment Center for mentioning my work on state sovereignty on your blog: http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/10/20/they-cant-push-us-around-forever/#
Tuesday, October 06, 2009
Wall Street Journal Mention
The Wall Street Journal wrote about my Tennessean article on LCFS
Tennessee Pols to Lamar Alexander: Forget About Low-Carbon Fuel Standards
In certain circles, Tennessee senator Lamar Alexander is a hero on energy matters. His relentless crusade for nuclear power, for instance, became virtually the sum total of GOP energy prescriptions. But that doesn’t mean all of Sen. Alexander’s energy ideas get a warm welcome—even within the Republican party.
His support for a low-carbon fuel standard—essentially a plan to penalize “dirty” fuels such as Canadian oil sands–is rankling some rank-and-file Republicans back in his native Tennessee.
State Rep. Susan Lynn fired off a letter last Friday chiding Sen. Alexander for even flirting with the idea; Sen. Alexander has repeatedly said that such a standard could help the environment without raising energy prices.
“At its core, a [low carbon fuel standard] would initiate a direct ban on the importation of some of our most secure and affordable sources of energy,” she wrote. “It would necessarily expand America’s already dangerous dependence on foreign, unstable energy from suppliers half-a-world away…”
She urged Sen. Alexander to use his position on the Senate Environment and Public Works committee “to stand up for the energy interests of Tennessee and prevent this plan from advancing any further.”
This is just the latest salvo in the low-carbon fuel wars—a public broadside against an energy policy that doesn’t actually exist.
There was a low-carbon fuel standard in the first version of the Waxman-Markey bill; it later disappeared. It has yet to appear in the Senate climate bill. Yet the very idea of a low-carbon fuel standard that could put Canadian oil off limits has the energy-security crowd mobilizing.
What’s interesting is that Rep. Lynn doesn’t just represent Tennessee’s 57th district. She also chairs the American Legislative Exchange Council’s task force on commerce, insurance, and economic development. ALEC is a group of about 2,000 state legislators fighting for free-market, small-government solutions and helps craft state-level legislation.
ALEC already bitterly opposed the cap-and-trade plans in Congress this year; it apparently finds a low-carbon fuel standard a sorry alternative. That doesn’t leave many options if Washington—or states—are going to tackle carbon emissions.
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/10/06/tennessee-pols-to-lamar-alexander-forget-about-low-carbon-fuel-standards/tab/print/
Tennessee Pols to Lamar Alexander: Forget About Low-Carbon Fuel Standards
In certain circles, Tennessee senator Lamar Alexander is a hero on energy matters. His relentless crusade for nuclear power, for instance, became virtually the sum total of GOP energy prescriptions. But that doesn’t mean all of Sen. Alexander’s energy ideas get a warm welcome—even within the Republican party.
His support for a low-carbon fuel standard—essentially a plan to penalize “dirty” fuels such as Canadian oil sands–is rankling some rank-and-file Republicans back in his native Tennessee.
State Rep. Susan Lynn fired off a letter last Friday chiding Sen. Alexander for even flirting with the idea; Sen. Alexander has repeatedly said that such a standard could help the environment without raising energy prices.
“At its core, a [low carbon fuel standard] would initiate a direct ban on the importation of some of our most secure and affordable sources of energy,” she wrote. “It would necessarily expand America’s already dangerous dependence on foreign, unstable energy from suppliers half-a-world away…”
She urged Sen. Alexander to use his position on the Senate Environment and Public Works committee “to stand up for the energy interests of Tennessee and prevent this plan from advancing any further.”
This is just the latest salvo in the low-carbon fuel wars—a public broadside against an energy policy that doesn’t actually exist.
There was a low-carbon fuel standard in the first version of the Waxman-Markey bill; it later disappeared. It has yet to appear in the Senate climate bill. Yet the very idea of a low-carbon fuel standard that could put Canadian oil off limits has the energy-security crowd mobilizing.
What’s interesting is that Rep. Lynn doesn’t just represent Tennessee’s 57th district. She also chairs the American Legislative Exchange Council’s task force on commerce, insurance, and economic development. ALEC is a group of about 2,000 state legislators fighting for free-market, small-government solutions and helps craft state-level legislation.
ALEC already bitterly opposed the cap-and-trade plans in Congress this year; it apparently finds a low-carbon fuel standard a sorry alternative. That doesn’t leave many options if Washington—or states—are going to tackle carbon emissions.
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/10/06/tennessee-pols-to-lamar-alexander-forget-about-low-carbon-fuel-standards/tab/print/
Saturday, October 03, 2009
Tennessean Column
Not Your Average Fuel Economy
By
Rep. Susan Lynn
Earlier this month, the Obama administration revealed its new Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFÉ) standards which will require new vehicle fleets to average 35.5 mpg by 2016. You may recall an earlier announcement in May, but the details had not been worked out yet. As usual, the devil is in the details. Now we learn through a plan released jointly by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Transportation that the new standards come with a subtle but startling twist. In addition to meeting more stringent fuel standards, for the first time new vehicles will have to meet greenhouse gas emission targets as well.
The campaign to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in this country is nothing new. Most notoriously, this summer the U.S. House of Representatives approved the Waxman Markey Cap-and-Trade bill designed to raise prices on the energy sources we rely on the most. But not everyone may be aware of an ongoing strategy to skirt Congress and implement greenhouse gas restrictions via the EPA’s authority under the Clean Air Act (CAA). President Obama wasted no time instructing his EPA administrator Lisa Jackson in February to take the necessary steps to classify greenhouses gases, such as carbon dioxide, as pollutants, a necessary precondition for regulation.
This approach is almost universally recognized as problematic even by proponents of emissions cuts since the CAA is designed to control local pollutants, not ubiquitous and natural gases critical to life on the planet. But in a year of tea parties, spirited town halls and a more cautious upper chamber of Congress, proponents will take what they can get—even if it causes serious problems for the country and its economy. The new greenhouse gas vehicle emissions standard is just the beginning of a multi-step strategy to meet the goals of Waxman-Markey legislation without the nuisance of legislative approval.
Indeed, just seven days after the new vehicle standard was released the EPA announced it would begin monitoring greenhouse gas emissions from not just mobile sources like cars and trucks but stationary sources like businesses and energy sources. This gets tricky. To sidestep some of the larger (but not the only) problems associated with using the CAA, the EPA plans to ignore the CAA’s trigger emission level of 250 tons per year and arbitrarily substitute 25,000 tons per year. This might sound like good news for those who like to see the government tread as lightly as possible on our economy. The problem is this will surely invite litigation by environmentalists who want to see the CAA followed as written. The result will be a regulatory cascade in doses they hope will be small enough for us to swallow. Many are calling this move a breach in the separation of powers since the executive branch is blatantly manipulating the letter of the law to suit its own purposes. In response, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) has indicated she will offer an amendment to EPA’s 2010 fiscal spending bill that would halt this effort to regulate stationary sources.
Fuel economy standards, even the ones we are used to, are misguided. Fuel efficiency gains drive up the price of cars and usually come at the additional cost of vehicle weight which makes our cars less safe. Couple this with an unprecedented greenhouse gas regulatory scheme and this administration is pushing the nation headlong down a tricky regulatory road that promises to cause legal, economic and safety problems for our country. Meanwhile many of us naively thought that when it comes to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, we were making this decision together through our elected leaders in Congress.
Susan Lynn, R-Lebanon, is Chairman of the House Government Operations Committee and is in her fourth term.
This article was submitted in September but the newspaper published it on October 2nd - the first line should have been changed to say "last month."
By
Rep. Susan Lynn
Earlier this month, the Obama administration revealed its new Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFÉ) standards which will require new vehicle fleets to average 35.5 mpg by 2016. You may recall an earlier announcement in May, but the details had not been worked out yet. As usual, the devil is in the details. Now we learn through a plan released jointly by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Transportation that the new standards come with a subtle but startling twist. In addition to meeting more stringent fuel standards, for the first time new vehicles will have to meet greenhouse gas emission targets as well.
The campaign to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in this country is nothing new. Most notoriously, this summer the U.S. House of Representatives approved the Waxman Markey Cap-and-Trade bill designed to raise prices on the energy sources we rely on the most. But not everyone may be aware of an ongoing strategy to skirt Congress and implement greenhouse gas restrictions via the EPA’s authority under the Clean Air Act (CAA). President Obama wasted no time instructing his EPA administrator Lisa Jackson in February to take the necessary steps to classify greenhouses gases, such as carbon dioxide, as pollutants, a necessary precondition for regulation.
This approach is almost universally recognized as problematic even by proponents of emissions cuts since the CAA is designed to control local pollutants, not ubiquitous and natural gases critical to life on the planet. But in a year of tea parties, spirited town halls and a more cautious upper chamber of Congress, proponents will take what they can get—even if it causes serious problems for the country and its economy. The new greenhouse gas vehicle emissions standard is just the beginning of a multi-step strategy to meet the goals of Waxman-Markey legislation without the nuisance of legislative approval.
Indeed, just seven days after the new vehicle standard was released the EPA announced it would begin monitoring greenhouse gas emissions from not just mobile sources like cars and trucks but stationary sources like businesses and energy sources. This gets tricky. To sidestep some of the larger (but not the only) problems associated with using the CAA, the EPA plans to ignore the CAA’s trigger emission level of 250 tons per year and arbitrarily substitute 25,000 tons per year. This might sound like good news for those who like to see the government tread as lightly as possible on our economy. The problem is this will surely invite litigation by environmentalists who want to see the CAA followed as written. The result will be a regulatory cascade in doses they hope will be small enough for us to swallow. Many are calling this move a breach in the separation of powers since the executive branch is blatantly manipulating the letter of the law to suit its own purposes. In response, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) has indicated she will offer an amendment to EPA’s 2010 fiscal spending bill that would halt this effort to regulate stationary sources.
Fuel economy standards, even the ones we are used to, are misguided. Fuel efficiency gains drive up the price of cars and usually come at the additional cost of vehicle weight which makes our cars less safe. Couple this with an unprecedented greenhouse gas regulatory scheme and this administration is pushing the nation headlong down a tricky regulatory road that promises to cause legal, economic and safety problems for our country. Meanwhile many of us naively thought that when it comes to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, we were making this decision together through our elected leaders in Congress.
Susan Lynn, R-Lebanon, is Chairman of the House Government Operations Committee and is in her fourth term.
This article was submitted in September but the newspaper published it on October 2nd - the first line should have been changed to say "last month."
Wednesday, September 09, 2009
Monday, September 07, 2009
Reason's Taxpayer's Guide to the Stimulus
Where is all that stimulus money going?
Reason Foundation’s Taxpayer’s Guide to the Stimulus breaks down each section of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to explain just how all that money is being spent, who is spending it, and what the whole stimulus means in layman's terms.
Reason Foundation’s Taxpayer’s Guide to the Stimulus breaks down each section of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to explain just how all that money is being spent, who is spending it, and what the whole stimulus means in layman's terms.
Tuesday, September 01, 2009
Next Step: Sovereignty Pledge
Lebanon, TN, August 31, 2009 – In response to what many see as a Congress that doesn’t represent their interests, State Legislators in thirty-seven states around the country have introduced resolutions affirming their sovereignty under the 10th Amendment to the Constitution. The next step? State Representative Susan Lynn (R) Lebanon is the first Tennessee legislator that has signed a pledge which promises much more.
“As the sponsor of Tennessee’s State Sovereignty Resolution, I’m happy to set a good example and be the first to sign the pledge promising to uphold state sovereignty.” Said Rep. Lynn.
While supporters have strongly backed sovereignty resolutions, many are wondering what the next step in holding our representatives accountable? According to Michael Boldin, founder of the Tenth Amendment Center, the 10th Amendment Pledge is a promise to do just that.
“Not only does the pledge affirm that it’s The People who are sovereign in the American system,” said Boldin, “but also, legislators who sign it are promising to take the next step – which is to nullify, or render void and inoperative, specific federal laws within the boundaries of this State.”
Nullification efforts have already stopped the Bush-era Real ID Act from being implemented. The Obama administration, recognizing the power of this state-level rebellion recently announced that they were looking to “repeal and replace” the law.
Supporters see this as a blueprint for other laws that they see as unconstitutional. Both Alaska and Tennessee have passed versions of a “The State Sovereignty Resolution”. And, according to the Tenth Amendment Center, as many as ten states will be considering legislation to effectively ban any future national health care plan.
“We must never forget nor cease to remind all that the states created the federal government and designed its powers to have limits.” Said Lynn
About State Representative Susan Lynn
Susan Lynn represents the 57th Legislative District in the Tennessee House of Representatives, serves as chairman of the House Government Operations Committee and sits on the Calendar & Rules and the Commerce Committees as well as the Small Business Sub-Committee.
About the Tenth Amendment Center:
The Tenth Amendment Center, a Los Angeles-based think tank founded in 2006, acts as an educational forum on issues related to the 10th Amendment and Constitutional governance. http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/
State Pledge
As a public office holder I promise that, as long as I hold office:
1. My votes will always be in favor of the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this State. Every issue. Every time. No exceptions. No excuses.
2. I do, and will continue to, oppose any and all efforts by the federal government to act beyond its Constitutional authority.
3. I will proactively introduce and support measures designed to adhere to the Tenth Amendment and preserve, to their fullest extent, the powers of the People in my district, and of the legislators and administrations of my State.
4. I will introduce, sponsor and support resolutions affirming the sovereignty of the People of this State under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
5. I will introduce, sponsor, and support legislation that nullifies, within my state, actions of the federal government which exceed its Constitutional authority.
6. I will introduce, sponsor and support legislation that provides such relief as is necessary and proper to provide fair redress to the citizens of my State in response to actions by the federal government which exceeds its Constitutional authority.
7. I will introduce, sponsor and support legislation which refuses federal funding made on condition that my State comply with federal mandates not authorized by the Constitution.
8. I will only vote in favor of a bill that I have thoroughly read, considered and understood.
9. I will be accountable to voters. Upon request, I will make public every vote I cast while in office.
10. I will keep this pledge public, and will provide a link on my website which directs constituents to the text of this pledge.
“As the sponsor of Tennessee’s State Sovereignty Resolution, I’m happy to set a good example and be the first to sign the pledge promising to uphold state sovereignty.” Said Rep. Lynn.
While supporters have strongly backed sovereignty resolutions, many are wondering what the next step in holding our representatives accountable? According to Michael Boldin, founder of the Tenth Amendment Center, the 10th Amendment Pledge is a promise to do just that.
“Not only does the pledge affirm that it’s The People who are sovereign in the American system,” said Boldin, “but also, legislators who sign it are promising to take the next step – which is to nullify, or render void and inoperative, specific federal laws within the boundaries of this State.”
Nullification efforts have already stopped the Bush-era Real ID Act from being implemented. The Obama administration, recognizing the power of this state-level rebellion recently announced that they were looking to “repeal and replace” the law.
Supporters see this as a blueprint for other laws that they see as unconstitutional. Both Alaska and Tennessee have passed versions of a “The State Sovereignty Resolution”. And, according to the Tenth Amendment Center, as many as ten states will be considering legislation to effectively ban any future national health care plan.
“We must never forget nor cease to remind all that the states created the federal government and designed its powers to have limits.” Said Lynn
About State Representative Susan Lynn
Susan Lynn represents the 57th Legislative District in the Tennessee House of Representatives, serves as chairman of the House Government Operations Committee and sits on the Calendar & Rules and the Commerce Committees as well as the Small Business Sub-Committee.
About the Tenth Amendment Center:
The Tenth Amendment Center, a Los Angeles-based think tank founded in 2006, acts as an educational forum on issues related to the 10th Amendment and Constitutional governance. http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/
State Pledge
As a public office holder I promise that, as long as I hold office:
1. My votes will always be in favor of the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this State. Every issue. Every time. No exceptions. No excuses.
2. I do, and will continue to, oppose any and all efforts by the federal government to act beyond its Constitutional authority.
3. I will proactively introduce and support measures designed to adhere to the Tenth Amendment and preserve, to their fullest extent, the powers of the People in my district, and of the legislators and administrations of my State.
4. I will introduce, sponsor and support resolutions affirming the sovereignty of the People of this State under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
5. I will introduce, sponsor, and support legislation that nullifies, within my state, actions of the federal government which exceed its Constitutional authority.
6. I will introduce, sponsor and support legislation that provides such relief as is necessary and proper to provide fair redress to the citizens of my State in response to actions by the federal government which exceeds its Constitutional authority.
7. I will introduce, sponsor and support legislation which refuses federal funding made on condition that my State comply with federal mandates not authorized by the Constitution.
8. I will only vote in favor of a bill that I have thoroughly read, considered and understood.
9. I will be accountable to voters. Upon request, I will make public every vote I cast while in office.
10. I will keep this pledge public, and will provide a link on my website which directs constituents to the text of this pledge.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Tennessee Comes Out on Short End Under LCFS
Published in Saturday's Nashville Tennessean
By State Representative Susan Lynn, 57th District
TennesseeThe Waxman-Markey legislation has received a lot of attention for its Cap & Trade scheme; its been passed by the US House of Representatives and is currently being considered by the US Senate. Yet little has been made of something called LCFS or Low-Carbon Fuel Standards which would fundamentally alter the way in which Americans acquire, process and consume energy.
The New York Times reported that LCFS could be “extremely costly.”
A group of professors from California and North Carolina said the plan “cannot be efficient.”
And a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations said it “would exacerbate energy security problems without delivering compensating climate benefits.”
Unfortunately for Tennessee, our senior senator seems to be supportive of talk for a future Public Act requiring LCFS in the United States Code.Advocates claim that LCFS policy is a pain-free way to clean up our transportation sector while cutting down on tailpipe emissions of carbon dioxide.
Pain free? The laws of natural science and political science suggest otherwise. Despite Congress’s best efforts, the carbon content of the fuel in our gas tank is constant – emitting 19.4 pounds of carbon dioxide no matter where you get the gas, what kind of vehicle you put it in, or even which number octane you choose.
Yet to LCFS proponents, everybody wins – that is assuming you don’t drive a car, heat a home, or need a job.
The scheme attempts to take a bite out of global greenhouse gas emissions by having the federal government assign a carbon score to various fuel supplies based on the amount of energy it takes to bring those fuels through each stage of its production process – from finding the oil, to acquiring it, to transporting it, to refining it, and finally to using it in our vehicles in the form of gasoline or diesel.
As mentioned, since all fuels emit the same amount of carbon dioxide during combustion, what LCFS is really addressing is those fuels that are more energy intensive to bring to market.
Eliminate from circulation the reliable, affordable, fuels from friendly sources that dominate the market -- like the 2.5 million barrels of Canadian crude we import a day, and much of California’s and Colorado’s oil -- and we can clear the path for less affordable and less politically friendly forms of energy to have a stronger footing in our marketplace.
The scheme would initiate a de facto ban on North American oil purchases – crude oil from Canada, Mexico and much of the mid-Atlantic that policymakers in Washington find too “heavy” for their discriminating tastes.
Why aren’t LCFS advocates tripping over themselves to let you in on exactly who produces the “light, sweet” crude oil they desire? Maybe it’s because the answer is the Middle East, Africa, and just about every unstable, dictatorial regime in between.
Show of hands: Who prefers oil from Canada – our most important trading partner – over supplies controlled by OPEC?
Discriminating against North American energy would not only weaken our economic position in the global economy but it also would be a major blow to our national security.
So, what would a successful LCFS deliver? Increased American dependence on foreign oil. Check. More good-paying American jobs sent overseas. Check. Higher energy costs for every consumer. Check. And, since the “heavy” oil we reject will be gobbled up by our chief global competitors in India and China, higher worldwide carbon emissions to boot. Checkmate.
Let’s speak-up and let’em know we don't like any explanation of this one.
Start Representative Susan Lynn is the Chairman of the Government Operations Committee in the state of Tennessee House of Representatives; she is in her fourth term. She is the Chairman of the Commerce, Insurance and Economic Development Task Force for the American Legislative Exchange Council; an organization of 2000 conservative, free market legislators from across the nation (alec.org).
By State Representative Susan Lynn, 57th District
TennesseeThe Waxman-Markey legislation has received a lot of attention for its Cap & Trade scheme; its been passed by the US House of Representatives and is currently being considered by the US Senate. Yet little has been made of something called LCFS or Low-Carbon Fuel Standards which would fundamentally alter the way in which Americans acquire, process and consume energy.
The New York Times reported that LCFS could be “extremely costly.”
A group of professors from California and North Carolina said the plan “cannot be efficient.”
And a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations said it “would exacerbate energy security problems without delivering compensating climate benefits.”
Unfortunately for Tennessee, our senior senator seems to be supportive of talk for a future Public Act requiring LCFS in the United States Code.Advocates claim that LCFS policy is a pain-free way to clean up our transportation sector while cutting down on tailpipe emissions of carbon dioxide.
Pain free? The laws of natural science and political science suggest otherwise. Despite Congress’s best efforts, the carbon content of the fuel in our gas tank is constant – emitting 19.4 pounds of carbon dioxide no matter where you get the gas, what kind of vehicle you put it in, or even which number octane you choose.
Yet to LCFS proponents, everybody wins – that is assuming you don’t drive a car, heat a home, or need a job.
The scheme attempts to take a bite out of global greenhouse gas emissions by having the federal government assign a carbon score to various fuel supplies based on the amount of energy it takes to bring those fuels through each stage of its production process – from finding the oil, to acquiring it, to transporting it, to refining it, and finally to using it in our vehicles in the form of gasoline or diesel.
As mentioned, since all fuels emit the same amount of carbon dioxide during combustion, what LCFS is really addressing is those fuels that are more energy intensive to bring to market.
Eliminate from circulation the reliable, affordable, fuels from friendly sources that dominate the market -- like the 2.5 million barrels of Canadian crude we import a day, and much of California’s and Colorado’s oil -- and we can clear the path for less affordable and less politically friendly forms of energy to have a stronger footing in our marketplace.
The scheme would initiate a de facto ban on North American oil purchases – crude oil from Canada, Mexico and much of the mid-Atlantic that policymakers in Washington find too “heavy” for their discriminating tastes.
Why aren’t LCFS advocates tripping over themselves to let you in on exactly who produces the “light, sweet” crude oil they desire? Maybe it’s because the answer is the Middle East, Africa, and just about every unstable, dictatorial regime in between.
Show of hands: Who prefers oil from Canada – our most important trading partner – over supplies controlled by OPEC?
Discriminating against North American energy would not only weaken our economic position in the global economy but it also would be a major blow to our national security.
So, what would a successful LCFS deliver? Increased American dependence on foreign oil. Check. More good-paying American jobs sent overseas. Check. Higher energy costs for every consumer. Check. And, since the “heavy” oil we reject will be gobbled up by our chief global competitors in India and China, higher worldwide carbon emissions to boot. Checkmate.
Let’s speak-up and let’em know we don't like any explanation of this one.
Start Representative Susan Lynn is the Chairman of the Government Operations Committee in the state of Tennessee House of Representatives; she is in her fourth term. She is the Chairman of the Commerce, Insurance and Economic Development Task Force for the American Legislative Exchange Council; an organization of 2000 conservative, free market legislators from across the nation (alec.org).
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
RNC Honors Women's Equality Day
Michael Steele and the RNC choose to honor Women's Equality Day today with a video saluting women in GOP politics.
I am very honored to be included in this salute; my GOP family heritage extends back to the WHIGs with my ancestor President William Henry Harrison.
Thank you to the RNC for remembering this great day, to the GOP for helping to grant women the right to vote and to Tennessee for being the 20th state to ratify the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which officially made womens' right to vote a permanent part of our Constitution.
I am very honored to be included in this salute; my GOP family heritage extends back to the WHIGs with my ancestor President William Henry Harrison.
Thank you to the RNC for remembering this great day, to the GOP for helping to grant women the right to vote and to Tennessee for being the 20th state to ratify the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which officially made womens' right to vote a permanent part of our Constitution.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Energy Citizens
Energy Citizens is hosting a rally against the Cap & Trade bill at the Wild Horse Saloon.
I will be speaking along with State Senator Jack Johnson and talk radio host Ralph Bristol.
The event is on Tuesday, August 25, 2009. Doors open at 11:30 am. Rally begins at 12:30 pm.
Energy Citizens web site: http://energycitizens.org/.
I will be speaking along with State Senator Jack Johnson and talk radio host Ralph Bristol.
The event is on Tuesday, August 25, 2009. Doors open at 11:30 am. Rally begins at 12:30 pm.
Energy Citizens web site: http://energycitizens.org/.
Photo of Senate Announcement
Susan with husband Michael and family friend Col. Mackey. Mt. Juliet, TN.
August 17, 2009
Monday, August 17, 2009
Remarks from Press Conference
I want to thank my husband Michael for being here to support me and for helping me to arrive at my decision here today. I wish our son was here too, but he is a Staff Sergeant in the TN Air Guard and he is in Africa right now, and our sweet daughter Grace and her husband Ben are working this morning.
I first ran for the office of state representative at 38 years old. My first year of service was at 39, and now at 45 I want to say thank you once again to the people of my district for allowing me to serve them and to state that serving in the Tennessee General Assembly has been one of the greatest privileges and opportunities of my life.
With that same sense of gratitude to the voters, I announce that I will file next April to run for state senate in district 17 in order to expand and extend the mission of public service on which I embarked in 2002.
My first professional job was working for Scientific Utility Products Corporation as a manufacturer’s sales representative; there I studied important disciplines like service, delivery and follow-up from authors that seem like friends such as Harvey McKay, Zig Zigler, and Dale Carnegie. Believe it or not, their witness helped lead me to Christ. I learned about excellence from Nicklaus Golf Equipment - what a wonderful organization. At the Colony Hotel I was taught precision. From Lee Harrison; multi-tasking and on my own I learned compassion for the small business person.
Each of these jobs in their own way prepared me for running for public office.
But when I say that for me, public service is a mission, it really is. A mission I have fully dedicated myself to so that I can serve my fellow citizens as their voice in a way that they would do for themselves.
Since our state senator's announcement this past June that she intends to seek the office of Wilson County Mayor in 2010, I have spent time traveling throughout the 17th District in order to meet the people and visit with the local elected officials. This wonderful experience has brought me many new friends, and I have learned much about the strengths and needs of the area.
It is evident that an attentive and experienced legislator is what is necessary to immediately start meeting the needs of the area. I would be proud to accept the challenge of working for my fellow citizens throughout the 17th district to help with the many infrastructure, economic development and education needs of the area; whether working to bring new jobs to Clay County, voting to finance the repair of bridges in Smith and DeKalb Counties or helping with school improvements in the upper Cumberland region; I pledge to the citizens that I will do my best to help with the crucial needs of the area just as I have dedicated myself to the issues of Sumner and Wilson Counties over the past seven years.
Through my strong conservative convictions I work to support Jeffersonian Principles such as limited government, states' rights, free enterprise and our constitutional rights. By traveling the 17th district what I have found is that the citizens of the area are like me; they’re conservative; and I am proud to share my strong conservative record with them; much of which is documented on my new website at http://www.votesusanlynn.com/.
I look forward to working for the citizens of the 17th district and will make sure that government stays within the bounds of its purpose, ensures that free enterprise is easily conducted, offers a quality education to get our young people off to the best start and so that government creates and maintains safe transportation corridors.
With great excitement, I look forward to undertaking this challenge.
If you are in the 17th district, I ask you today for your vote and for your support.
Thank you for being here.
I first ran for the office of state representative at 38 years old. My first year of service was at 39, and now at 45 I want to say thank you once again to the people of my district for allowing me to serve them and to state that serving in the Tennessee General Assembly has been one of the greatest privileges and opportunities of my life.
With that same sense of gratitude to the voters, I announce that I will file next April to run for state senate in district 17 in order to expand and extend the mission of public service on which I embarked in 2002.
My first professional job was working for Scientific Utility Products Corporation as a manufacturer’s sales representative; there I studied important disciplines like service, delivery and follow-up from authors that seem like friends such as Harvey McKay, Zig Zigler, and Dale Carnegie. Believe it or not, their witness helped lead me to Christ. I learned about excellence from Nicklaus Golf Equipment - what a wonderful organization. At the Colony Hotel I was taught precision. From Lee Harrison; multi-tasking and on my own I learned compassion for the small business person.
Each of these jobs in their own way prepared me for running for public office.
But when I say that for me, public service is a mission, it really is. A mission I have fully dedicated myself to so that I can serve my fellow citizens as their voice in a way that they would do for themselves.
Since our state senator's announcement this past June that she intends to seek the office of Wilson County Mayor in 2010, I have spent time traveling throughout the 17th District in order to meet the people and visit with the local elected officials. This wonderful experience has brought me many new friends, and I have learned much about the strengths and needs of the area.
It is evident that an attentive and experienced legislator is what is necessary to immediately start meeting the needs of the area. I would be proud to accept the challenge of working for my fellow citizens throughout the 17th district to help with the many infrastructure, economic development and education needs of the area; whether working to bring new jobs to Clay County, voting to finance the repair of bridges in Smith and DeKalb Counties or helping with school improvements in the upper Cumberland region; I pledge to the citizens that I will do my best to help with the crucial needs of the area just as I have dedicated myself to the issues of Sumner and Wilson Counties over the past seven years.
Through my strong conservative convictions I work to support Jeffersonian Principles such as limited government, states' rights, free enterprise and our constitutional rights. By traveling the 17th district what I have found is that the citizens of the area are like me; they’re conservative; and I am proud to share my strong conservative record with them; much of which is documented on my new website at http://www.votesusanlynn.com/.
I look forward to working for the citizens of the 17th district and will make sure that government stays within the bounds of its purpose, ensures that free enterprise is easily conducted, offers a quality education to get our young people off to the best start and so that government creates and maintains safe transportation corridors.
With great excitement, I look forward to undertaking this challenge.
If you are in the 17th district, I ask you today for your vote and for your support.
Thank you for being here.
Lynn for State Senate Press Release
State Rep. Susan Lynn (R- Lebanon) announces her intention to seek
District 17 State Senate Seat
District 17 State Senate Seat
MOUNT JULIET, TN-Representative Susan Lynn has announced her intention to file a petition next year for the 17th District Tennessee State Senate seat being vacated by State Senator Mae Beavers (R-Mount Juliet). Addressing local business leaders, residents and friends at the Mt. Juliet Chamber of Commerce, Representative Lynn stated that "serving in the Tennessee General Assembly has been one of the greatest privileges and opportunities of my life. Today, I announce that I am running for state senate in order to expand and extend the mission of public service on which I embarked in 2002."
The Representative explained her approach of reaching her decision to run for higher office by stating that "Since our state senator's announcement this past June that she intends to seek the office of Wilson County Mayor in 2010, I have spent time traveling throughout the 17th District in order to meet the people and visit with the local elected officials." She continued, "This wonderful experience has brought me many new friends, and I have learned much about the strengths and needs of the area."
The 17th Senatorial District is composed of , Cannon, Clay, DeKalb, Macon, Smith, Trousdale, Wilson and a portion of Sumner County in Hendersonville. Lynn further stated, "It is evident that an attentive and experienced legislator is what is necessary to immediately start meeting the needs of the area. I would be proud to accept the challenge of working for my fellow citizens throughout the 17th district to help with the many infrastructure, economic development and education needs of the area; whether working to bring new jobs to Clay County, voting to finance the repair of bridges in Smith and DeKalb Counties or helping to fund school improvements in the upper Cumberland region; I pledge to the citizens that I will do my best to help with the crucial needs of the area just as I have dedicated myself to the issues of Sumner and Wilson Counties over the past seven years."
Noting her service as a conservative legislator who works to support Jeffersonian Principles such as limited government, states' rights, capitalism and our constitutional rights, Lynn mentioned several examples of her work that are now law such as the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Tennessee State Sovereignty Resolution and the Religious Freedom Protection Act. "The citizens of the district are conservative; I am proud to share my strong conservative record with them; much of which is documented on my new website at votesusanlynn.com."
Lynn assured that she remains firmly and unshakably against a state income tax and continues to sponsor legislation to lower the sales tax on food; "years ago, I was on a special task force that drafted a bill for a sales tax holiday which I now vote to support annually in order help my district with the expenses of raising a family."
Susan Lynn has represented the 57th Legislative District in the Tennessee House of Representatives since 2002 when it was first redistricted. She is the chairman of the House Government Operations Committee and a member of the House Calendar & Rules Committee. Further, she has served for seven years on the House Commerce Committee and the Small Business Sub-Committee. In addition to her legislative duties, Rep. Lynn serves as Task Force Chairman of the Commerce, Insurance and Economic Development Task Force for the influential American Legislative Exchange Council. She holds a Bachelor of Science degree in economics with a minor history. A member of the First Baptist Church of Mt. Juliet, Rep. Lynn makes her home in Lebanon with her husband Michael. They have two adult children - Michael Lynn, Jr., a staff sergeant in the Tennessee Air Guard, who is engaged to wed SSG. Alissa Saunders; and a daughter, Mrs. Grace Douchette and husband Benjamin; both are employed by Publix Supermarkets.
###
NOTE: The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is the nation's largest nonpartisan, individual membership organization of state legislators, with over 2,000 legislator members from all fifty states, and 85 former members serving in the U.S. Congress. www.alec.org
Tuesday, August 04, 2009
City Paper Sizes up Senate Races
State Senate could get extreme
Sunday, August 2, 2009 at 11:00pm
http://www.nashvillecitypaper.com/content/city-voices/post-politics-state-senate-could-get-extreme
Sunday, August 2, 2009 at 11:00pm
http://www.nashvillecitypaper.com/content/city-voices/post-politics-state-senate-could-get-extreme
Friday, June 26, 2009
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 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
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 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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)