Susan M. Lynn

Nashville Tennessean, September 14, 2011
By Susan Lynn

I believe the United States Constitution is indeed far mightier than any individual, any politician or any political party. But things are not looking good.

For instance, when the president of the United States refers to the Constitution as a “rigid idea” in a speech before a televised joint session of the U.S. Congress, a very poor example is set. When the mayor of America’s largest city states on live TV that the words “separation of church and state’’ are found in the U.S. Constitution, one surmises that he has probably never read the entire document.

When the Congress cedes law-making authority to unelected boards and commissions in the administrative branch they reveal a profound lack of understanding for their constitutional duties and authority.

When lawmakers feel entitled to take over 1/6 of the U.S. free market economy by means of a mammoth law, authority for which is nowhere found in the Constitution and whose corner stone is a mandate that imposes force and penalty on ordinary citizens who have committed no crime or wrong, the superciliousness is profound.

And when a federal court rejects a challenge to this law by the citizens of a state by concluding that “a state has no interest in the rights of its individual citizens sufficient to justify such an invasion of federal sovereignty’’ and this conclusion is reached even though that same court calls the law in question a “harsh regime’’ on taxpayers, one cannot help but recall the tyrannical list of grievances enumerated by our forefathers against King George of England.

All government is simply a voluntary association of individuals who unite for a purpose. The stated purpose of the United States government is to “secure’’ the enjoyment of our Absolute Rights, simply stated as “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’’ and to protect this compact of “Free and Independent States’’ by use of “full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, [and] contract Alliances.’’

The Constitution grants power to the elected representatives to make decisions for the few items expressly enumerated but it does not allow the majority arbitrary power to take away the liberties to which the people are entitled; they are withdrawn from the province of ordinary lawmaking.

As Charles Nordoff wrote in Politics for Young Americans “Laws should be few in number and simple in structure; they should rigidly avoid granting special privileges or immunities to individuals, but should be general in their application; and they ought never to interfere with the liberty of men to move about peaceably from place to place; to discuss freely public affairs and questions; to engage in whatever honest occupation pleases them; to produce whatever seems to them most suitable; and to exchange what they have produced where they please, and for what they most desire.’’

The United States Constitution is a bright shining example of freedom to the rest of the world, and it is strong enough to withstand hubris, ignorance and abdication of duty because the people, once awakened, will always respond to their duty which lies at the ballot box.

Susan Lynn served in the Tennessee General Assembly from 2002-2008. She was chairman of the Government Operations Committee in the House.

President's Jobs Speech

2011-09-08T18:03:00.000-07:00

President's speech was unbearably disappointing - we are going to be suffering under this recession for a very long time with no end in sight.

This is not a jobs act but a tax act. He says it is paid for but he told us he doesn't have a plan to pay for it.

His make work projects are meant to supply jobs for union workers and government employees - is that really a problem? The problem is not that Americans can't get from their homes to work because there is no road to get there but that there is no job to go to.

Because people respond to incentives, his $4000 tax credit to hire a worker who has been unemployed for six months will, if employers decide that they can hire someone, ensure that anyone newly unemployed can expect to be unemployed for at least six months - they are off the job market.

His credit for raises will ensure that any manager in a position to dole out raises will give himself a raise but will he actually be able to afford to give one to others?

Employers are left to consider, can I really afford to hire someone because if I do and I get the $4000 tax credit and then because the economy is so unstable and I have to lay-off an employee I'm stuck with another person on my unemployment rolls for years, much more than the $4000 credit.

Worst of all, he shows that he is completely unwilling to do anything about the policies that are foiling our economy. For business, the uncertainty lies in the anticipated expense of Health Care Reform, the policies that are raising our energy prices, raising commodity prices, nonsensical regulations and expensive business taxes including unemployment.

BIG ANNOUNCEMENT

2011-09-01T07:02:00.000-07:00

BIG ANNOUNCEMENT TODAY

on the Big Joe Show!

Please listen today at 9am to 880am THE BIG MOUTH.

TRA: My Op Ed in Today's Tennessean

2011-07-06T04:39:00.000-07:00

Regulator could be phased out

Tennesseans need an independent utility oversight entity

No one knows better than I that we have a lot of departments, boards and commissions in Tennessee; more than 270 — that’s a lot of deck chairs on the ship.

The legislature’s Government Operations Committee reviews every one of these agencies, including the Tennessee Regulatory Authority (TRA). Each year, Gov Ops decides to eliminate a few of these agencies because their duties prove no longer necessary, while other lawmakers legislatively act to create more.

To reduce size and cost of government, the Haslam administration is kicking around the idea of doing away with the TRA; perhaps dispersing its duties among other areas of government. The TRA is the agency that regulates monopolistic utilities in Tennessee, and despite some recent reform, regulating monopolies like gas, water, sewer, electric and telephone utilities is still absolutely necessary.

TRA is housed in the legislative branch to ensure independence. It decides economic matters, not environmental. It is funded by fees and taxes from the utilities it regulates. Ideas to create efficiency deserve consideration, because we do need to streamline and reduce the size of government. But simply doing away with TRA by dispersing duties among other agencies probably won’t reduce the size of government, just the overall number of agencies.
Elimination probably won’t produce savings, either, because no matter where TRA’s duties are eventually housed, the duties would still need to be performed.

There also is the question of dispersing staff. Utility economics and law are complex and specialized. Dispersal could produce staff that generalize rather than specialize.

Every state has a utility regulator, and TRA functions as a central place for consumers to go with their utility concerns — perhaps to the chagrin of the utilities but definitely to the empowerment of consumers. Monopolies receive the most restrictive form of government intervention, and housing these entities in a common area serves to isolate them from other businesses that do not need such a high degree of regulation.

TRA’s apparent embrace of green concepts in utility economics has been frustrating, but that is an ideological rather than structural problem. Structurally speaking, I’ve often wondered why the Utility Management Review Board and Water & Wastewater Financing Board are not housed under TRA rather than the comptroller.

We could do many things to streamline and reduce the size and cost of state government, as well as the number of regulations. Recession is a good time to re-examine all agencies and unpack the laws and rules that govern them, reconsidering each from the ground up, reviewing their constitutional purpose, the law, and regulations according to a specified series of very important considerations.

Some states have employed a decision matrix to help discover areas for reform; moving their state from disorder to order, reducing entry barriers for business, and helping citizens more easily find services.

Practically everyone is for reducing the size and cost of government, but removing the deck chairs just to force people to find a seat somewhere else doesn’t streamline or reduce the size of government — just the overall number of deck chairs.

Former state Rep. Susan Lynn served on the state legislature’s Government Operations Committee from 2002 to 2010, eventually rising to the position of chairman.

http://www.tennessean.com/article/20110706/OPINION03/307060076/Regulator-could-phased-out?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|Opinion|p

Gossip and Slander Violate Constitutional Rights

2011-07-06T04:35:00.000-07:00

We recently read in the Tennessean about objections to a new Tennessee law on cyberbullying - where one can be charged with a crime for posting a photo on-line that makes another feel threatened. A photo that makes you feel threatened? What about actual harm?

A genuine problem was revealed in a recent episode of 20/20 and followed up by our own News 2. They report on anonymous posts on blogs and of media that will say just about anything without fact checking. Now this is something that causes actual harm - the internet is forever and there is no way to ensure a verbal retraction on radio will reach the same listeners who first heard the defamatory statement. It is very difficult to remedy such posts and broadcasts. We should address this problem as consumers by demanding that such behavior be modified and by making tort law more clear for victims of extreme cases.

More than just blogs and radio shows that fly fast and loose with vile gossip, libel and slander - why does anyone hold any regard for peers and co-workers who pretend to be “in the know” but in reality, they are causing harm and destruction to another person’s reputation. “They say…”, “I’ve heard…”, “some say…” such are the destructive tools in the toolbox of the gossip and slanderer.

I recall my mother, a gracious woman of high morals and ethics, warning me and my siblings “do not listen to gossip,” “do not repeat gossip,” and “do not reveal anything about someone that could embarrass him or her – even if it is true.”

My father, a sharp business man, cautioned me time and again, "Susan, only believe 10% of what you hear people say." "10%? Daddy?!" I replied the first time I ever really thought about what he was saying. With furrowed eye brows and great insistence in his voice he replied, "Yes, people will say absolutely anything to advantage their position which usually has the effect of hurting someone else...most likely YOU. You have got to have facts, and numbers and quality data."

The English scholar William Blackstone wrote that each man is entitled by natural right to the “Security of his good name and reputation from the art of detraction and slander.” What has happened to society? Were so many really never taught these lessons on ethics and legalities?

The object of the slander is not the person of whom we should think ill - judging the witless victim as if he or she is guilty as charged. But it is the gossiper, the slander that we should reject and send packing for their bad, if not downright evil and possibly illegal behavior.

Such deeds are all too common today. I know a manager at a local store. Behind his back an assistant manager has set out to discredit and undermine him through exaggerations, mis-characterizations and outright lies. Little does this assistant manager realize that should she succeed in causing the manager to lose his job he certainly has a case against her in tort law. That is why employers should not put up with such behavior – it is their deep pockets that may pay for the actions of the slanderer.

I know an attractive, hard working young woman with a delightful personality; always willing to do what is needed at work. A co-worker has it in for her. She sows bad seeds with other workers and managers in order to defame and detract from this young woman. This activity is distressing. My young friend worries about what will be made-up next behind her back, and about the effect that it may have on her career. Little does her co-worker realize that she is robbing my friend of her constitutional right to live in peace and of much more.

Take the world of politics – I know an elected official whose opponent sowed bad seeds with a group of voters saying that she and her husband were in bankruptcy and losing their home – it was a complete lie. The opponent also spread falsities about her positions and lied about her votes. Then he had his employee file a false report on the candidate which led to vicious defamation in the media by outlets where he routinely purchased ads. This same official suffered for years from attacks and gossip by detractors via email, blogs and spoken word. They started rumors of affairs, tried to paint her as being difficult to work with, rumors of tax delinquencies, and they would often apply pressure to groups in hope of forcing them to cancel this official’s invitation to speak. All of this was extremely distressing, difficult to battle and defending herself exhausting but more than that it is a violation of this official’s constitutional rights.

I have a book on ethics from the 1890’s. The chapter on justice reads as follows: “People can do injustice by their thoughts. When we hear complaints or accusations against any person, and readily believe them, without knowing what the accused might say in self-defense, we are generally unjust. We must therefore be careful, and not judge hastily; and we must not, even in our minds condemn the absent unheard person. We should not like to be judged and condemned thus; and it is unjust for us to form opinions in this way about others.”

Here is a rule of thumb:

Those who gossip and slander are wrong doers.

Those who listen to gossip and slander are also doing wrong.

Those who repeat gossip and slander are wrong doers.

Those who judge the victim of gossip and slander without a hearing are doing wrong.

And those who refuse to reveal the identity of the slanderer to the victim but feel justified with having merely alerted the victim to the slander are also doing wrong. The victim deserves justice - and the gossiper deserves to be confronted. Such activity leaves the victim to worry about the source of the gossip, how to measure the damage, and the number of people that are privy to the lie.

I urge all – be better than this. Be better Christians than this. Have more regard for the rights of others than this. Refuse to listen. Refuse to repeat what you hear. Reject the gossiper, and reject the slanderer; those who artfully seek to paint some poor soul badly in your eyes; robbing the victim of the right to a hearing and of their reputation.

From what I've seen, Dad was absolutely right, people will say anything. And as my mother taught us, rejecting gossip is the best way to stop it.

Tennessean Editorial - May 3, 2011

2011-05-03T08:12:00.000-07:00

Banks try to hasten foreclosures in state

Bill would hurt homeowners' chance at best price

By Susan Lynn

Tennessee has one of the least restrictive foreclosure processes in the country. But Tennessee Bankers hope to make foreclosure simpler in Tennessee.

Tennessee is one of only five (5) "non-judicial review" states. We rank near the top for ease and speed of foreclosures; no courts, no judges, no long drawn-out process. All a bank need do is:

1. Serve a single letter of notification to the homeowner.

2. Publish three (3) public notices of foreclosure in the area newspaper.

3. Sell the property at auction.

The only way to slow down the process is to file bankruptcy. Coincidentally, Tennessee has one of the highest bankruptcy rates in the country.

But a bill written by the Tennessee Bankers Association would simplify the process further to a single notice in the newspaper with no property description or even an address in the ad; just the deed book and page number from the county register of deeds office. The deed book and page number? Who could possibly understand where the property is while sitting at their kitchen table? One printing? Have I missed something? Isn’t the point to encourage interest in the auction?

Foreclosure is a forced sale, and the debtor must make up any shortage between the difference in the amount received from the foreclosure sale and the amount that they owe to the bank. Advertisement of the sale serves to ensure that our free market system of competition will increase the likelihood that bidders attend and drive up the price so that the debtor will incur as small of a deficiency as possible. The three advertisements and description help by notifying the public of the sale.

In other states, banks have to go before a judge – it can take a year or more to foreclose. Tennessee bankers are fortunate to operate in a non-judicial review state.

There is a time worn reason why the law requires that notices be published three times in the newspaper. The legal term is constructive notice; it relieves banks of liability should a debtor claim that he or she did not receive notice by mail. The thrice publication is considered ample notice that the debtor could not have missed. Situations abound where elderly, separated or divorcing persons had no idea their home was being foreclosed upon. Some were too embarrassed to seek help. But notice in the paper helped rescue their home. In other instances, buyers, upon seeing an ad, have made an offer to the debtor and foreclosure was prevented. Each of these circumstances would be much less likely with fewer notices and such a vague description.

Banks also complain that notices are currently too long and thus advertising is costly. But the length of the ad is actually their own fault. The current law only requires a “brief description” and does not require the lengthy legal language that the banks customarily print; but even as it is done now the average cost of an ad is about $230.

This is not a conservative or liberal issue but one of fairness. A property owner deserves to get the best price for their home in a forced sale. The public deserves to know that a government proscribed procedure, foreclosure, is creating an opportunity. In return, the bank is deemed to have acted in good faith when foreclosing on a home.

http://www.tennessean.com/article/20110503/OPINION03/305030018/Banks-try-hasten-foreclosures

Public Notice Bills Threaten Democracy

2011-04-25T06:25:00.000-07:00

Requested by and published in the Hendersonville Star News and the Gallatin News Examiner on April 21, 2011.

By Susan Lynn

Never, ever stop paying attention – advice from my mother regarding politics. But a whole slew of bills affecting public notice and public records may make it much more difficult for Tennesseans to pay attention to what their government is doing.

Several bills will end newspaper publication of public notices - instead listing them only on government websites. Things like the sample ballot before elections, tax and fee increases, zoning changes and annexations. Other bills will reduce notices to one publication – like foreclosures. One bill will allow a fee for you to simply view a public record. And another set to pass will close 911 calls to the media!

The effect of these policy changes to our open government laws will be a less informed citizenry. Many Tennesseans still do not have internet access – primarily senior citizens, young, low income individuals and the poorly educated. But even of those that have access – public notices are generally mundane – few will seek them out on a regular basis. I can hear the politicians now, scornfully blaming the citizen who is upset that he or she didn’t know of a zoning change or tax increase for not dutifully checking the government web site.

Tennessee has one of the least restrictive foreclosure laws in the county – no courts, no judge, just mail a notice of sale to the address on hand, publish the notice of sale three times in the newspaper and then foreclose. Constructive notice – publishing the notice three times in the paper - has helped family members and friends save homes from foreclosure. Reducing visibility to one printing will reduce the odds of assistance.

Charging a fee to view public records is simply outrageous – these are our records. It is our government. We should have full access to any government record as long as the information is not restricted due to some confidential nature; like social security numbers, health records or school records.

Talk about protecting criminals and wife beaters! Denying the media access to 911 calls – unless the caller signs a release – hurts our society and protects criminals. Is it not common sense that callers will likely be a little embarrassed by their panic and so refuse to sign a release? How will callers even be located? But most important the reality is this, there is no expectation of privacy when a crime or emergency is reported – it is the same thing as yelling help out on the street.

The target of all of these bills seems to be the media; to either reduce their revenue or to increase their costs. But the victim is you and me. Most people think it is a worthwhile expense to pay for traffic lights and stop signs – and not simply post of list of dangerous intersections on a government web site. Publication of government’s intent to take some action that may limit or change our rights, or that may take our property in the place where the community looks to learn of the local happenings; news, sports, births, deaths, opinions and local events, is not a trivial expense to be done away with in lean budget years or a weapon to be used against those who report on government actions but rather public notice is an essential price of democracy.

Susan Lynn was in the Tennessee General Assembly from 2002 until 2010. For more information on these bills visit www.publicnoticetn.com. Email Susan at susan.lynn@charter.net.

###

Reposted from EPPC. EPPC has entered in to a project to defend open government in Tennessee called Public Notice: under threat. Several pieces of legislation threaten to end public notices in Tennessee's newspapers including notices of upcoming elections, zoning changes, rate increases and many others.

Bills Treaten Open Government

2011-04-11T17:54:00.000-07:00

Heard this week in Tennessee three bills harmful to open government; bills violate several constitutional provisions and legal doctrines.

Issue Brief SB1951 / HB1875
Will Charge Citizens a Fee to View Public Records

SB1951 / HB1875 will be heard on Tuesday, April 12. It allows citizens to be charged to view a public record and, if left un-amended, will allow citizens to be charged a fee for a portion of the actual production of the record, not just for the creation of photo copies as the law exists now (see below).

Issue Brief SB1299 / HB1920

Bill Threatens to Break Several Legal Doctrines

Bill 1299/House Bill 1920 will be heard in the House Judiciary Subcommittee on April 13. The bill would decrease the number of publications necessary prior to foreclosing on a property from three to one, decrease relevant information contained in the notice, and the bill states that the law would allow errors in the public notice. EPPC finds that this bill violates several important constitutional and judicial doctrines such as constructive notice, due process, fundamental fairness and the vagueness doctrine (see below).

Issue Brief SB115/ HB284
Bill on Public Notice Seeks to End Publication in First Major Tennessee County

Senate Bill 115 and House bill 284 creates a pilot project in Knox County to allow public notices to be posted on the Internet rather than in a newspaper. The bills will be heard in the Senate State and Local Government Committee on April 12 and in the House Judiciary Committee on April 13, 2011. EPPC's Issue Brief examines many of the important principles that this idea violates, and questions the need for this legislation (see below).

Focus - Issue Brief SB1951 / HB1875

Bill Would Charge You to View a Public Record

Bill allows citizens to be charged to view a public record and, if left un-amended, will allow citizens to be charged a fee for a portion of the actual production of the record, not just for the creation of photo copies as the law exists now.

1. Article 1, Section 1 of the Tennessee constitution reads: All power inherent in the people — Government under their control. That all power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness; for the advancement of those ends they have at all times, an unalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform, or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper.

How can the people be reasonably considered to be in control of their own government if they are to be charged a fee for viewing the records of that government? How can the people retain the unalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish the government if they are to be charged a fee to access the records of that government. A fee creates an encumbrance to freedom, an unreasonable policy for access to information, an encumbrance to discovery over compliance with the rule of law, and an unreasonable barrier to reform of the government.

2. If your money is taxed away from you, you have a right to know the purpose and to see the evidence for whatever it is your taxes are paying.

3. The people do not yield their sovereignty to the government agencies that serve them.

4. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know.

5. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may maintain control over the instruments that they have created.

The work contained in public records is work for which the people have already paid through their taxes, and the viewing of this work should not impose an additional tax on the people.

Inspection fee is an injustice to citizens. Cash Cow to Government.

It is no secret that some elected officials, government officials and employees there of do not like being asked for public records – however, it is the right of every Tennessean to view or obtain copies of any public record that is not considered confidential by law.

This bill would create a $1.7 million in additional revenue for state and local government while closing government to citizens who merely want to make sure their government is operating as it should.

This bill would remove the provision in the TCA that disallows assessment of a fee to inspect or view a public record. Current law states in 10-7-503 (a) (7) (A) “ a records custodian may not require a written request or assess a charge to view a public record. This bill would delete “or assess a charge” from the law. Citizens can control the activities of their government only to the extent that they are able to know what their government is doing and how their tax dollars are being spent. Citizens own their government and all records held by their government. To assess a fee to citizens to view public records is a grave injustice to the citizens and to democracy, and will certainly prevent some from pursuing records.

Bill’s provision to charge a fee for actual labor costs for producing the records is broad and open to ethical problems.

Under current law a records custodian may not charge for inspection or viewing of public records - 10-7-503 (a) (7) (A). However, a custodian may charge for copies or duplication of records (TCA 10-7-506). A schedule of charges set by the Open Records Counsel of the state of Tennessee sets the rate at 15 cents per page and 50 cents per page for color copies.

Never to be taken into consideration is the reason for which records are requested – whether personal, educational or commercial.

An additional fee is allowed for some records which may have commercial value such as for maps or geographic data – however, this additional fee may not be charged to persons requesting these materials for personal use or to the news media – such pays no cost to view a record of commercial value or for the production of that record but only the cost of reproduction of any requested copies.

For those seeking the records for commercial value, the Open records Counsel of the state of Tennessee has created a schedule to help determine a fair rate for records of commercial value to include “labor charges” – time necessary to locate, retrieve, review, redact, and copy the records, the use of an outside vendor to produce copies of any maps or geographic data, or any cost for retrieval from outside archives or other storage which may impose a cost to the records custodian. In addition, the law allows for the recovery of actual development of the record at a fraction of the actual cost - 10-7-506(c).

SB1951 / HB1875 will, for the first time, allow an additional fee similar to the fee charged for commercial records of value, such as for maps or geographical information, to be charged for all records – even to individuals and to the news media.

Burden of Production.

The legal doctrine of burden of production is an obligation to come forward with sufficient evidence to support a particular proposition of fact. Taxpayers spend a great deal of money to support their government. It is not unreasonable that government should always have upon it the burden to produce evidence of its work, without charge, for the public to inspect.

Focus - Issue Brief SB1299 / HB1920

Bill Threatens to Break Several Legal Doctrines

Bill 1299/House Bill 1920 will be heard this week. The bill would decrease the number of publications necessary prior to foreclosing on a property from three to one, decrease relevant information contained in the notice, and the bill states that the law would allow errors in the public notice. Important constitutional and judicial doctrines such as constructive notice, due process, fundamental fairness and the vagueness doctrine are violated by this bill.

Bill Violates the Legal Doctrine of Constructive Notice

This bill decreases the number of publications for the public notice from three to one – thus violating a legal canon called constructive notice; the publication of a public notice three times. Courts allow constructive notice as a relief from liability for any claim of ignorance of the action. Should a debtor willfully avoid notice by not opening their mail or claiming that they never received the notice of foreclosure the maxim of constructive notice provides protection for the bank or other entity; it is allowed by courts as legal proof that notice of the action was provided to the individual and or to the community.

Violates Procedural Due Process, Fundamental Fairness Doctrine and Vagueness Doctrines.

Procedural due process of the law provides that any government action that unfairly deprives an individual of life, liberty, or property is unconstitutional. This bill changes the standard description of property used for generations in foreclosure matters whereby one can easily identify through the ad the property being taken. This bill would require only a “concise” description of the land in question; which means only a reference to the deed book and page in the county register of deeds office that contains the complete legal description of the property – it is not reasonable to believe that most citizens would be able to understand that the legal notice of foreclosure is identifying their property by reading such a technical description in the newspaper thus a procedural violation of due process would exist.

An additional violation of due process set forth by the language of this bill is found in language that states “Any error or defect in the common description of the land shall not in any way void any sale of the land.” This violates what is called the fundamental fairness doctrine which is synonymous with due process.

The vagueness doctrine is a legal principle which states that law that does not provide a “person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, proscribed or claimed” is unconstitutionally vague. This bill seems to allow language in legal notices which is intentionally vague and lacking in commonly useful information by changing the level of detail and standard description historically used to identify the property being taken.

Focus - Issue Brief SB115/ HB284

Bill on Public Notice Seeks to End Publication in First Major Tennessee County

The Purpose of Public Notices.

The policy of publishing public notices is built upon an important principle behind our Constitution and state law – that is, if the government intends to take some action that will limit or change our rights, or that may take our property, then government must go out and seek to provide public notice to the community.

Premise of the Bill is a Red Herring.

The stated premise of the bill, to allow legal notices to be posted on the Internet is a red herring because a local government simply does not need permission from the Tennessee General Assembly to post public notices up on a website.

Bill Harms Democratic Process – Creates Less Informed Citizenry – Saves Little Money.

Lack of Internet Access a Problem in Tennessee.

Many still lack internet access in Tennessee. Studies show that 57% of adults over the age of 65 do not use the Internet. 52% of Hispanics do not use the Internet. 49% of African Americans do not use the Internet. Among non high school graduates, only 25% use the internet, and less than 50% of people that have only graduated from high school have access. It is simply not reasonable to expect that any of these people would know when a public notice vital to their interests should be sought.

Hypothetical Reasonable Person Doctrine vs Reasonable Government.

Currently, public notice requirements operate in a way that provides for reasonableness in government relations with citizens. This is because the community cannot be reasonably expected to know when to seek information from the government to learn what actions may be taken.

This bill reverses this concept and places the onus on the citizen to seek public notices, by internet or by visiting a government office, rather than by using the historically successful means of community publication.

However, how is a reasonable person to know when he or she should seek to retrieve a notice? The maxim of the hypothetical reasonable person states that a reasonable person behaves in a way that is legally appropriate - a reasonable person will behave in a way that protects their own interests or their rights. A zoning change, annexation, tax increase, or even an election holds some interest for the reasonable person.

Publication in the Community Forgoes Ethical and Legal Questions.

Currently citizens do not have to bicker with government over the publication of public notices in the Community. Newspaper publication provides proof to each side that a notice was published in an appropriate newspaper of general circulation For the government to take over this responsibility lays the process open to ethical and legal questions over the posting, accuracy, timeliness and even criticism over the location and appearance of the notices on the government web site.

Bill Expands Local Government – Estimated Cost is Not Realistic.

This bill expands local government by establishing a new responsibility. Yet, the fiscal note on the bill claims that there will be no expense to the county for the implementation of this bill. Newspaper employees take care to make sure that public notice is accurate before printing, that notices are archived and that a legal affidavit is always produced and available to prove publication of public notices. The county government’s idea to create and maintain a searchable website for public notices is not a simple one. Public notices have intricate legalities that must be seen to in order to avoid liability. The fiscal note on the bill does not take into account website fabrication, server storage, or a worker to ensure that the notices and publication meets the law.

Threats to Open Government

2011-04-03T19:11:00.000-07:00

This week several bills threaten open government and civil society in Tennessee; they seek to end newspaper publication of public notices by various means. All will be heard in either the House or the Senate State and Local Government Committee.

My First Amendment rights are curtailed until next November. By law, I cannot at this time speak to a legislator, or write him or her about a piece of legislation. However, I may give you my opinion, and you are free to do whatever you choose.

Czar of Determination

One bill empowers the secretary of state to make a “determination” regarding whether or not a publication is a "newspaper of general circulation" for the purpose of public notices. There is already a definition in state law for a newspaper of general circulation – and this definition has never proven to be a problem.

To allow the secretary of state to become the Czar of determining whether or not a newspaper is one of general circulation puts too much power in one person’s hands. It becomes a subjective “ruling” that is in reality an improper role for the office. Our nation operates by the rule of law – the law defines and determines whether or not something is so, not a sole individual. This bill creates a new power for an elected official, and crosses an important the boundary between the private and public sector. The duties of the secretary of state are to carefully preserve the records of the state of Tennessee and to make them available to the public, to “certify” the results of elections upon receipt from counties, and to record incorporations and trademarks. There is no other similar, arbitrary power for one individual in state government regarding a business.

End Community Publication of Eminent Domain

Another bill will do away with the publication of eminent domain takings by municipalities. By law, land owners must be notified by mail, and a notice must also be published in the area newspaper of general circulation. There are several good reasons for this publication; first, just in case the landowner does not receive the notice; second, so that adjacent land owners are aware of the taking; Third, so that the rest of the community is aware of the taking and therefore, they can reason whether or not there is an effect on their own property or, if in general, the government seems to be taking an excess amount of land.

End Community Publication of Public Notices Entirely

This bill would end publication of public notices in Knox County, and instead place them on an official government web site. 25% of Tennesseans have no internet access, and of those that do few will seek to read the notices buried on some government website – they’re simply seen as too mundane to seek out. The state policy of publishing public notices is built upon an important principle behind our Constitution and state law – that is, if the government intends to take some action that will limit or change our rights, or that may take our property, then government must go out and seek to provide public notice to the community. The halls of government have never been enough because too few enter through its doors – it is the same with government web sites.

When candidates are running for office a promise transparency and accountability is quite common. We also want thrift but a less informed citizenry is not worth saving a little money in a tight budget year. Few will ever seek to browse through mundane public notices on a website, and many Tennesseans still have no Internet access. Newspaper publication informs the community and preserves democracy.

If you would like more information on these bills, please visit www.publicnoticetn.com - or www.capitol.tn.gov.

Tennessean guest editorial: Right to know under attack

2011-03-17T04:38:00.000-07:00

This session, the state legislature will consider a bill that will remove the requirement that a sample ballot shall be published in the newspaper five days before an election. Frustration over budget problems is leading some legislators down a path that I believe is destructive to a civil society. Some 10 different proposals would delete the necessity for public notice or allow notice to be on websites instead of in newspapers of general circulation.

These bills are truly the slippery slope, and we must urge the legislature to resist such ideas. The public-notice requirement is both constitutional and in state law. It is built upon an important principle: If the government intends to take some action that will limit or change our rights, or that may take our property, then government must provide public notice to the community.

Access to the Internet is still limited in Tennessee, but even of those who do have access, government websites are not exactly popular URLs. It is doubtful that people would pursue investigating the vast variety of notices on the Web.

Notice has always been in a newspaper of general circulation for a very important reason: Community notification creates an essential dialogue on policy issues and problems. The effects of community publication are no small thing to consider. As a society, we discuss what we believe, how we shall live. And we ask, is this just? Notices spur us to action — corporately or as just one lone, principled believer.

Third-party involvement is vital

Inside the halls of government has never been enough to constitute public notice — too few enter through the doors to constitute an informed citizenry. Placing the notice in the hands of a third party for publication ensures that the rights of the second party are protected, and that the intent of the first party is clearly set forth. This is not possible with a government website — traffic is infrequent, information is notoriously difficult to find and often out of date, links break, information can be edited or even deleted. Public notice is not merely a simple posting but a precise legally worded document.

Publication of government's intent to take some action in the place where the community looks to learn of the local happenings — news, sports, births, deaths, opinions and local events — is not a trivial expense to be done away with in lean budget years but rather an essential price of democracy. Rate increases, ballots for elections, meeting notices, annexations and zoning changes, financial reports, constitutional amendments and many other important notices should not exit the public forum and instead be tucked away on a web site where they will rarely be viewed in a regular and timely manner … surely, many will never look at them at all.

Most newspapers of general circulation post the notices on their websites but it is the printing — creation of a permanent record — and the circulation of the notice in the community where all can see it and decide upon its fate that serves to secure our republic.

Public Notice: Under Threat

2011-03-15T14:40:00.000-07:00

This year several bills have the State Legislature considering doing away with the publication of public notices in local newspapers in order to save money.

Before you conclude that this is a good idea, consider a few facts.

The state Constitution and state law require publication of public notices. This is due to an important principle of civil societies: if the government is going to take some action to limit or change our rights, or take away our property, it must go out and seek to provide public notice to the citizens of the potential action. It is not mandatory that you read it but a good faith effort must be made by the state to provide the information.

Publication has always meant that the notice must be outside of Government's own halls; in newspapers of general circulation where the community can read them. But to get around this provision, the legislature wants the government to publish legal notices on the state's website and charge for the posting.

While this may sound like an efficient way to gain a new stream of revenue; this sort of publication does not meet the standard of the past; that publication is outside of government's own halls.

In recent weeks we’ve seen governments around the world “switch off” the Internet denying access to its citizens. An Internet switch is currently being considered in Washington. In such a case, what would happen to the notice that the government is constitutionally required to provide?

Meanwhile, over 669,800 out of 2.2 million Tennessee households are still without Internet access (1). This means that those citizens’ chances of ever seeing a public notice will be equal to zero.

The elderly are the most vulnerable because only 28% of those 65 and older use the internet.(2) While most of our legislators have a college degree, and 80% of those with a college degree have the internet,(3) legislators must remember, that equates to only 19.6% of Tennesseans.(4) Only 35% of those without a high school diploma use the internet. And a full 40% of those with a high school diploma still have no internet in their home.

But even of those adults that have the internet – fully 50% say they never seek online news. Will they ever really look at a government web site for legal notices?

The state budget is $29 billion dollars.

It costs a just tenths of a cent per person to print a statewide legal notice informing Tennesseans of a state Constitutional Amendment - about $17,000.

It costs just a few hundred dollars for your election commission to publish the ballot for upcoming elections. In danger too is publication of utility rate increases, annexations, zoning changes and city or county meeting notices.

Consider that the expense for most notices is not born by the government but by individuals who are seeking a court ordered legal claim to your property, to put you under lien, or to take some legal action that will affect your family. Public notice ensures that there is an attempt to reach out and notify you of some action that may affect your rights.

Most newspapers of general circulation post the notices on their Websites but it is the printing; creation of a permanent record, and the circulation of the notice in the community where all can see it and decide upon its fate that serves to secure our Republic. Truly, publication is an essential price of democracy.

Susan Lynn was state representative in the 57^th House district from 2002-2010. She is leading EPPC – Education, Public Policy Consulting, a 501 (c)3. For more information visit www.publicnoticetn.com.

1. http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s1156.pdf
2. http://www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/10statab/infocomm.pdf
3. http://www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/10statab/infocomm.pdf
4. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/47000.html

Antitrust, Unions & the Wall Street Journal

2011-02-28T08:57:00.001-08:00

.
I have been saying for years now that collective bargaining violates antitrust law. My theory was greeted quietly yet thoughtfully at first in 2007 at ALEC but I've stood by it.

On Friday, I created a pop culture cartoon on the anti-collective bargaining bill to explain my theory.

Now, finally, in today's Wall Street Journal a Professor of Economics at Harvard University is stating the very same thing; that collective bargaining is a violation of Antitrust.

"For a teachers union, collective bargaining means that suppliers of teacher services to all public school systems in a state—or even across states—can collude with regard to acceptable wages, benefits and working conditions. An analogy for business would be for all providers of airline transportation to assemble to fix ticket prices, capacity and so on. From this perspective, collective bargaining on a broad scale is more similar to an antitrust violation than to a civil liberty."

I hope the logic of this thinking will quickly spread - it is about time...

Susan Lynn

NOTE: When the law is unjust we see ill effects. That is why laws get changed. Special treatment; excluding the activities of particular special interest groups from the law does not make it just. Why did they need to be excluded in the first place? What have the effects been? Others comment "what about all the good for which unions have worked?" If the law is changed unions can and always will still exist. In fact, many associations (guilds, industry groups, special interest groups, whatever you want to call them) successfully work for the passage of very good laws (and some bad ones) all the time and they don't need collective bargaining to do so.

Today's Tennessean Guest Editorial

2011-01-19T05:55:00.000-08:00

Please see my guest editorial in today's Tennessean. They named it:

Special interests pull strings on government diet rules

Please visit my Facebook Notes section to see two articles that provide further information on this subject:

1. Diet mentioned in my Tennessean guest editorial.
2. The Diet.
I also wrote a 2007 blog post on the subject located here.

Last week, the U.S. Department of Agriculture published a proposed rule on nutrition standards for school lunches funded by the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010. The bill’s been criticized for expanding schools’ responsibility for outcomes while providing only 6 cents extra per child per meal to accomplish goals.

I have a personal interest in good nutrition for children. At age 3, my son was diagnosed with attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder.

We were told there was no cure but that when he was old enough (6) he could be treated with Ritalin. Giving Ritalin to a 6-year-old was unacceptable to me. My research led me to the Feingold Diet; primarily, avoidance of synthetic food additives.

After just three days of strict adherence to the diet, I had a normal little boy. He never needed Ritalin. He excelled in school, graduating with honors. Today, he serves in the Tennessee Air Guard — something, had we used Ritalin, he could not do.

After achieving success in their alternative school, an entire school district in Wisconsin is using a similar diet. And Chefs as Parents, a Washington-based nonprofit organization dedicated to serving freshly prepared, additive-free whole foods in schools, is successfully going well beyond federal minimum standards.
Although thousands of families have found help, similar dietary solutions are neither recommended by the government nor part of the USDA’s new rules.

As the former chairman of the House Government Operations Committee — the committee in the Tennessee Legislature that approves rules — I can tell you that rules are developed by consensus; that means there is great influence from special interests.

Sometimes that is good, sometimes bad; how should we view these rules?

No basis for federal authority

Constitutionally, the feds typically cite the General Welfare Clause as authority to produce such rules, but the clause really only applies to the general welfare of the nation within the confines of the federal government’s 30 enumerated powers — there is no authority over school lunches.

As a states’-rights issue, states alone have police powers over behavior; but even then, only over behavior that infringes on the constitutional rights of others. But let’s be real: Federal money comes with strings. School-lunch funding is no exception.

What of objectivity? Do we trust that the USDA’s directive is truly objective — free of Washington special-interest influence?

Parents, school districts and organizations are taking action — avoiding FDA-approved synthetic food additives, which were initially approved with the good intention of extending the shelf-life of the food supply.
But the ancillary effect is that whole, fresh, vital foods have been supplanted by an overwhelming array of highly processed, chemical-laden, nutrient-poor foods, high in refined sugars and carbohydrates. They’re cheaper, quicker and easier to serve, and abundant but unfortunately, they produce obesity, poor health and problem behavior.

Clearly, America is suffering from a health/nutrition problem. But solutions to most social problems are not typically found in government rule-making sessions manipulated by special interests but rather in the hearts, minds and homes of the American people. It’s called a movement — try it on.

Susan Lynn is a former Tennessee state representative. She invites readers to view her Facebook notes for more information on the diet mentioned in this guest editorial.

Thank You!

2010-11-02T10:32:00.000-07:00

Dear Friends,

I write this letter to you on my last day in office to say thank you very much for the honor of serving as your state Representative for the last eight years. It has truly been one of the greatest pleasures of my life - one that I will remember fondly always.

Over the last several weeks since the Primary Election, I have been busy winding up work in my legislative office; helping constituents, checking on the progress of road projects and working to ensure that the several pieces of legislation on which I was working are delivered to competent hands for future passage.

I appreciate everything you have done to help me while I was in office. I thank you for all of your support, and I look forward to our continued friendship.

Once again, let me say how grateful I am to you for the last eight years. Thank you for every special memory.

Sincerely,

Susan Lynn
State Representative
57th District, Tennessee

Tennessean - Right to Hunt and Fish

2010-11-02T07:10:00.000-07:00

Susan Lynn's Ratings and Endorsements for state Senate

2010-08-04T10:59:00.000-07:00

Tennessee Right to Life Endorsement List

2010-08-04T08:58:00.001-07:00

Susan Lynn onece again meets all pro-life criteria by the Tennessee Right to Life Political Action Committee. The announcement was made via the TNRL PAC 2010 Tennessee State Legislative Endorsement List.

"I am very proud to be consistently rated as 100% prolife by Tennessee Right to Life throughout my time in the state legislature" stated Rep. Susan Lynn.

Susan Lynn has worked hard for the pro-life cause in the Tennessee General Assembly by co-sponsoring SJR 127, a Constitutional Amendment that will allow protections for women; Susan defunded Planned Parenthood in 2008 with an amendment to the state budget to realign funding for family planning services and this year Susan sponsored the Anti-Coersion Act, a law that will place a sign in places where abortions are performed to notify women that it is illegal for anyone to coerce them to have an abortion.

"Being included on this list gives assurance to voters that they can count on me to be a consistant prolife vote for them in the state legislature." added Lynn.

All listed candidates have returned 100% pro-life surveys and have also been personally interviewed by members of TRL PAC. Each meets criteria as a pro-life candidate and members of Tennessee Right to Life may be confident in voting for any one of them.

For more information, please contact: Daniel Diffenderfer, Campaign Manager, Susan Lynn for State Senate - 615-406-3914.

Lynn receives highest rating of A+ from the NRA

2010-08-04T08:49:00.000-07:00

The National Rifle Association (NRA) has announced that Susan Lynn has received a rating of A+; the organization’s highest ranking. An A+ indicates a legislator with not only an excellent voting record on all critical NRA issues, but who has also made a vigorous effort to promote and defend the Second Amendment.

Lynn stated “I am honored by this rating, and grateful that the NRA has acted to recognize my strong support of the Second Amendment.”

The National Rifle Association is the nation’s leading gun rights organization. This is the fifth election that Susan Lynn, a candidate for the State Senate in the 17th district and consistent advocate of individual freedoms, has received such recognition from the organization.

For more information; visit http://www.nrapvf.org/Elections/State.aspx?y=2010&State=TN or call 615-596-2363.

Susan Lynn Endorsed by Sumner United for Responsible Government!

2010-08-04T08:44:00.000-07:00

Sumner United for Responsible Government, one of the largest and most active tea party groups in Tennessee, has selected Susan Lynn as their first ever political endorsement. Susan is running in the Republican primary for Tennessee Senate District 17.

As a State Representative Susan has consistently been the most vocal and effective advocate for the principles of individual liberty and state sovereignty in the Tennessee legislature. She has a deep and abiding commitment to the U.S. Constitution, which is reflected in her numerous bills reclaiming Tennessee's state sovereignty and protecting Tennesseans from an intrusive federal government. Susan established and now leads a committee that is communicating and recruiting other states to work together to protect the rights of the States and individual citizens. She continuously introduces and passes legislation that protects citizens from government and protects Tennessee from federal overreach. She is the definition of a tea party candidate.

Susan has been an unstoppable force in reigning in government spending, taxes, and waste and supporting Tennessee values. Her record on taxes, illegal immigration, support for small business, crime, life and education is impeccable.

We urge you to make a donation to Susan Lynn today and volunteer to help with her campaign. Susan is running against an entrenched State Senator and will need every bit of your support. Visit Susan's website: http://www.repsusanlynn.com/

JB Williams Endorses Susan Lynn

2010-07-28T21:38:00.000-07:00

Thank you to Conservative Journalist JB Williams for your endorsement

"Beavers’ personal ambition won out over honorable statesmanship and the best interest of the people of Tennessee. Don’t expect to hear this truth from Beavers sycophant Steve Gill.

But it is for this reason that I hereby endorse TN Rep. Susan Lynn for Tennessee’s District 17 Senate seat.

I further request that ALL conservative Americans seeking honest conservative leadership in government join me in supporting Ms. Lynn’s campaign to end the politics of old in the Tennessee Senate..."

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/24854

Blue Collar Muse Endorsement

2010-07-28T21:36:00.000-07:00

Thank you Ken Marerro for your endorsement...

I am excited and proud to wholeheartedly endorse Susan, without reservation, and encourage you to donate to her campaign, to volunteer for her campaign and on election day, I urge you to cast your vote for perhaps Tennessee’s finest legislator, Susan Lynn....

http://conservablogs.com/bluecollarmuse/2010/06/21/susan-lynn-the-superior-candidate-for-tn-senate-district-17/

Wilson County Republican Assembly Endorses Susan Lynn for State Senate

2010-07-28T21:35:00.000-07:00

The Wilson County Republican Assembly recently announced their endorsement of Rep. Susan Lynn for State Senate.

“Rep. Susan Lynn is a true, conservative leader who has worked to promote strength and unity within the local Republican community for years. Rep. Lynn works tirelessly to promote Tennessee’s state sovereignty, reduce government spending and waste, protect our second amendment rights, and to protect the rights of the unborn,” said WCRA President Michael Cole.

“I’m honored to receive the endorsement of the Wilson County Republican Assembly,” said Rep. Lynn. “I believe the Wilson County Republican Assembly’s endorsement of my bid for State Senate is indicative of the mood of Wilson County. The groundswell of support we’ve seen the last few weeks is incredible.”

Rep. Lynn announced her bid for State Senate after Senator Mae Beavers decided to run for County Mayor in June of 2009. After Senator Mae Beavers reversed that decision in March, Rep. Lynn said she felt “ethically bound” to keep her word and continue in her bid for State Senate.

The Wilson County Republican Assembly is the seventh conservative organization to endorse Rep. Susan Lynn’s candidacy for State Senate. The WCRA joined Sumner United for Responsible Government, Cross County Patriots, the Tennessee Tea Party Coalition, the Lone Star Tea Party, the Smoky Mountain Tea Party Patriots, and The Tea Party Patriots.

##

Tea Party in Tennessee Endorses Susan Lynn for State Senate

2010-07-28T07:38:00.000-07:00

Rep. Susan Lynn’s bid for State Senate continued to gain momentum when she picked up another endorsement by a conservative organization when the Tri-Cities Tea Party-912 Group endorsed her bid for State Senate.

“We would like to express our support of Rep. Susan Lynn for State Senate. Rep. Lynn has been the most outspoken proponent of state sovereignty in the state legislature for years,” said Doug White, a founding member of the organization.

Rep. Susan Lynn passed a resolution to create “The Conference and Correspondent’s Committee on State Sovereignty” in the Fall of 2009, gaining statewide and national media attention for the state sovereignty movement.

“The 10th amendment is something I’ve been passionate about my entire life. Tennesseans are tired of the Federal Government encroaching upon their personal liberties. I created the committee on state sovereignty as a way to fight back against an increasingly-intrusive federal government,” said Rep. Lynn.

“I’m finding an incredible amount of grassroots support in my campaign. For years, I’ve fought for lower taxes, the second amendment, and the rights of the unborn in the state legislature. I will provide that same type of leadership in the State Senate.”

Earlier this week, Rep. Lynn announced an endorsement by the Wilson County Republican Assembly; joining leaders of eight conservative organizations who have publicly endorsed her bid for State Senate; including Sumner United for Responsible Government, the Cross County Patriots, the Tennessee Tea Party Coalition, the Lone Star Tea Party, the Smoky Mountain Tea Party Patriots, The Tea Party Patriots, and the Tri-Cities Tea Party-912 Group.

##

For Immediate Release
July 21, 2010
For more information call Daniel Diffenderfer - 615-406-3914

Cagney, "You're a Grand Old Flag", from Yankee Doodle Dandy(1942)

2010-07-05T12:49:00.000-07:00

Groups endorse Susan Lynn for State Senate

2010-06-30T05:48:00.000-07:00

I'm proud to announce that I've been endorsed by five tea parties in Tennessee, Sumner County SURG and by conservative blogger, Ken Marerro.

Please take a moment to read these endorsements.

Rep. Susan Lynn
Candidate for State Senate
District 17

www.VoteSusanLynn.com

SURG Endorses Susan Lynn for State Senate

2010-06-16T18:07:00.000-07:00

Susan Lynn Endorsed by Sumner United for Responsible Government!

Sumner United for Responsible Government, one of the largest and most active tea party groups in Tennessee, has selected Susan Lynn as their first ever political endorsement. Susan is running in the Republican primary for Tennessee Senate District 17.

As a State Representative Susan has consistently been the most vocal and effective advocate for the principles of individual liberty and state sovereignty in the Tennessee legislature. She has a deep and abiding commitment to the U.S. Constitution, which is reflected in her numerous bills reclaiming Tennessee's state sovereignty and protecting Tennesseans from an intrusive federal government. Susan established and now leads a committee that is communicating and recruiting other states to work together to protect the rights of the States and individual citizens. She continuously introduces and passes legislation that protects citizens from government and protects Tennessee from federal overreach. She is the definition of a tea party candidate.

Susan has been an unstoppable force in reigning in government spending, taxes, and waste and supporting Tennessee values. Her record on taxes, illegal immigration, support for small business, crime, life and education is impeccable.

We urge you to make a donation to Susan Lynn today and volunteer to help with her campaign. Susan is running against an entrenched State Senator and will need every bit of your support. Visit Susan's website: http://www.repsusanlynn.com

Thank you John Smaldone & friends!!!

2010-06-16T13:35:00.000-07:00

FROM THE DESK OF JOHN A. SMALDONE

Cross County Patriots

Tennessee Tea Party Coalition

Loan Star Tea Party
Smoky Mountain Tea Party Patriots
The Tea Party Patriots

P.O. Box 5688Maryville, TN 37802

865-982-5180

E-Mail: john@usa-godandcountry-petition.com

2010 THE YEAR OF RECONING, THE YEAR WE MUST VOTE
THE YEAR WE MUST VOTE FOR THE RIGHT PEOPLE

We have endorsed what I feel are three of the most qualified people for the job they will be taking on. I would like you to know something about these people so you can judge for yourself.

Susan Lynn is running for state senator of Tennessee. Where do you begin about Susan. Her life is consumed with her love and passion for the state of Tennessee. Let me tell you a little about Susan, than you will know why we need to support and vote for her.

Susan Lynn has represented the 57th Legislative District in the Tennessee House of Representatives for the 106th, 105th, 104th and 103rd General Assemblies. She is chairman of the House Government Operations Committee, and serves on the Calendar & Rules and Commerce Committees as well as the Small Business Sub-Committee.

Susan has been the recipient of the Legislator of the Year Award by the Greater Nashville Regional Council; the Guardian of Small Business and the Champion of Small Business awards from NFIB and recipient of the Hann’s Seidel memorial fellowship.

Her endorsements have included Tennessee Right to Life, NRA, National Federation of Independent Businesses, Tennessee Chamber of Commerce, Local police and Firefighters.

She holds a Bachelor of Science degree in economics and a minor in history from Tennessee State University where she graduated Cum Laude.

I could go on and on about Susan. You need to go to her website and see all that she has accomplished for the state of Tennessee and Our country. Susan’s website will give you an in-depth look at her past voting record as well as all the committees she is on and all of her accomplishments. Please got to Susan’s website and study the candidate. Once you do, you will have no problem voting YES for Susan Lynn.

http://www.votesusanlynn.com/

Rep. Lynn's Newsletter for June 6, 2010

2010-06-09T05:00:00.000-07:00

Please read my newsletter on my web site

The American Conservaitve - mentions Rep. Lynn's work

2010-06-06T06:25:00.000-07:00

States’ Fights
Nullification makes a comeback—and not just on the Right
By Jeff Taylor

Inside Baseball on the Health Care Freedom Act(s)

2010-06-04T06:00:00.000-07:00

There is some confusion over the bills so here is the inside baseball.

There are two bills and a Constitutional Amendment. One bill and the Constitutional Amendment are now dead.

(HB2622/SB2560)I filed the Health Care Freedom Act on January 14th and gave the Senate companion to Senator Diane Black. My bill is model legislation from the American Legislative Exchange Council (http://www.alec.org/). I am a Task Force Chairman at ALEC. We worked on this bill all last summer and fall through conference calls – then passed it as national model legislation at ALEC’s December meeting in Washington DC. It is being run all over the country and has passed in many states. The Attorney General opined that my bill is Constitutional.

HB3433/SB3498) Senator Beavers filed another version of the bill on January 28, one which she also named the Health Care Freedom Act. She gave the House companion bill to Rep. Harwell to run. Harwell felt bad when she realized that Beavers had filed a bill similar to mine so she asked me to take over the bill. I refused saying I was concerned about political appearances. So after a couple of more weeks of talking it over, Harwell gave the bill to Rep. Bell on 2/22/10. It was found to be un-Constitutional by the AG. Beavers has stated that her bill is not the ALEC model legislation however it was created by an ALEC state chairman.

HJR745 - I also filed a Constitutional Amendment, called the Health Care Freedom Act, to amend the Tennessee Constitution to do the same thing.

Both bills and the Constitutional Amendment made it out of Industrial Impact Committee and the Commerce Committee in the House. Bell’s bill (Mae’s) and my Constitutional Amendment made it to the Finance Committee. Bell’s bill died in Finance because the Speaker voted against it. He said because it is unconstitutional and because Rep. Odom read something out of the federal legislation that influenced him. My Constitutional Amendment died in Finance too.

My Health Care Freedom Act bill made it to the Calendar and Rules Committee (it didn’t have to go to Finance Com) where it has averted death many times and been held up waiting for my Senate sponsor to take action on the bill. At this point, all of the Senate committees are closed so right now the bill cannot be run. However, my Senate sponsor says she is working hard to get a committee open so she can run the bill. I hope so.

Speaker Williams voted for my bill in Calendar and Rules Committee yesterday afternoon because it is Constitutional - so now the bill is on the floor calendar. To get the bill voted out of Calendar Committee, and close the debate so we could take the vote or else the Democrats would have prevented us from calling the question indefinately, I had to promise that I won’t run the bill on the floor unless the Senate version makes it out of the Senate Committee.

I hope and pray that the bill makes it out of the Senate committee…stay tuned.

In addition, I filed HJR704, to send a message to Congress about the health care bill and their mandates on us. It was a HUGE two hour floor fight to get it passed. So far, it has not passed in the Senate either. I hope you will watch the video of the floor fight. It was a battle but I really loved defending this legislation.

GOLDWATER INSTITUTE'S NOTES
ALEC'S NOTES ON BILL

Boards and Commissions the Subject of Political Points of View

2010-05-21T15:50:00.000-07:00

As Session ends, the House and the Senate differ on amendments for legislation regarding appointments to boards and commissions, and the bills may head to conference committee. In question is whether appointments to a handful of regulatory boards and commissions should be strictly political appointments or if a merit based system is best; one which provides the regulated industries a say in who represents their profession or trade.

Approximately 112 different professions and trades are licensed by regulatory boards and commissions in Tennessee. This represents thousands of business people across our state. As a result, each licensed individual is subject to an extensive amount of state law and regulation over what they do.

The duty of a board or commission involves issuing licenses to practice, deciding on certain industry regulations and standards, and hearing complaints against a licensee.

Boards and commissions typically include members of the executive branch of state government such as the Commissioner of Health, Labor, or Commerce. Other appointees may include members of the legislative branch such as state legislators, the State Treasurer, Comptroller or Secretary of State. Members of the regulated profession or trade are also appointed to serve. In addition, a consumer member is appointed.

Boards often meet a few days a month. Members are not paid but some boards and commissions have the authority to grant a per diem for compensation of gas and hotel expenses - typically up to $50.00 a day maximum. “Some members do complain that their service poses a significant loss of time and income – so finding dedicated individuals to serve is critical.” stated State Rep. Susan Lynn, Chairman of the House Government Operations Committee.

Most board and commission members are appointed by the governor. However, a few select boards require a very high degree of technical knowledge, commitment and experience. For these, the General Assembly has developed a process that allows the regulated professions and trades to nominate individuals that they feel are qualified, experienced and willing to make a personal sacrifice to represent their industry.

The current process requires that several nominations are received from the industry with a final decision made by the Governor. If the Governor finds all nominees are unsatisfactory, he may reject all nominations and request more from the industry. “The current process has worked well and the industry has felt as if it is well represented. Who doesn’t realize that it is only natural to every politician to appoint people that will best serve their own self-interest not society as a whole? Or at least that is the publics’ strong perception. The current process has taken that kind of politics out of the mix, and allowed the regulated business people to have a voice.” stated Chairman Lynn; House sponsor of the bills in question.

However this year the Senate Gov. Ops. Committee wants to remove any say by the regulated trades and professions over who will serve their industry. Instead, the Senate has proposed leaving the appointments for these technical boards strictly up to the Governor; a process which creates fear over political patronage and the injection unnecessary politics into the process. The Senate committee concedes that no one has requested their proposed change but they still want to make all appointments political appointments starting this year.

Lynn noted that “it is not only industry that will lose their ability to ensure competent and knowledgeable representatives on boards of vital interest to them – local governments too will lose the same opportunity.”

This week Attorney General Bob Cooper stated in an opinion requested by Senator Bo Watson, Chairman of the Senate Government Operations Committee, that the current process of allowing the trades and professions to submit nominations from which the Governor shall choose is indeed constitutional.

The Air Pollution Control Board makes regulatory decisions which are crucial to business and industry in our state regarding air pollution as well as to those groups with environmental concerns. The interests and views of the two sides can at times differ greatly.

The point has always been to nominate people to the Air Pollution Control Board based on merit; people that truly understand the technical aspects of the issue. Environmental and business trades currently nominate members to serve. It is in each sides best interest to recommend to the governor the most highly qualified and competent voice they can find. However, if the board is subject to strictly political appointments the fear is that sides will be prevented from having who they perceive to be the very best representative for their side of the cause.

“The Senate’s amendments are very governmentcentric. They assume politicians’ and government know best. The regulated industries are already subject to the whims and opinions of politicians to a very high degree. Politicians create the law that governs their trade, then a board made up of politicians and political appointees makes regulations for what they can and cannot do, and also judges how they do their jobs. To me, the few boards and commissions that have industry nominations are the most Republican. It is the people that make nominations to these boards and commissions but for some reason the Senate wants to take away the peoples’ voice.” stated Chairman Lynn.

“I have reviewed the legislation from the Senate and listened to legislators and concerned parties. I have not heard from Governor Bredesen…he has not stated that he wants sole decision making authority over appointments to these boards and commissions but I have heard from realtors, dentists, architects, engineers, chiropractors, auto dealers and physicians who are afraid of mere political appointees representing them. One individual said to me “Look, government is supposed to be for the people, by the people and of the people – why is the Senate trying to exclude us from the process and hand absolutely everything over to the politicians?” Stated Lynn.

Lynn further commented “I understand how he feels. Right now I am trying to pass another bill that would ensure that initial rules created for licensure can never be emergency rules because emergency rules exclude public input.”

Lynn added “There are nearly 2000 appointments to be made on boards and commissions each year – the Governor could literally spend all day, every day, looking for people to serve. The current process, while it may not be perfect, does cut down on that work for a small quantity while making sure that the people are involved and have a voice.”

Susan Lynn is a four term Tennessee state House member and Chairman of the House Government Operations Committee. She is also the Chairman of the Commerce, Insurance and Economic Development Task Force at the American Legislative Exchange Council; currently in her second term. She is the only member of the Tennessee House ever appointed by ALEC to chair a Task Force.

An Evening with Ann Coulter

2010-05-13T18:42:00.000-07:00

The National Fiscal Conservative P.A.C. is pleased to announce their inaugural event, an evening with Ann Coulter.

The date and time are May 29, 2010 from 5:30-9:00pm at the Sheraton Downtown Nashville. The evening will feature a Meet and Greet with Ann, an elegant 3 course dinner and a program to follow culminating with Ann’s remarks as the highlight of the event. The final item on the agenda is a book signing.

Space is limited and seating is reserved with the best seats going to the first to register.

Also Appearing: Con Hunley, Marsha Blackburn, Glen Casada, and Jack Johnson.

The cost for the event is $175 per person to attend the pre-event networking with a cash bar, dinner, program, Ann’s remarks and the book signing. Seating will be “Reserved” by name with reservations being assigned from the front of the room to the back of the room on a first come-first served basis. We're holding a silent auction of some very special Conservatively themed art work specially created for this event. There will also be a special presentation that evening the likes of which you have never seen before!

Tickets for the Meet and Greet with Ann are available at $500 per ticket. This grants access to the entire evening, beginning with the Meet and Greet at 5:30 through the book signing. There are only 48 of these tickets available. Each table for the evening will seat 12 persons. Table sponsorships are available for $3500 per table. Table sponsorships include the entire evening’s events AND 2 tickets to the 5:30 Meet and Greet with Ann. Table sponsors will receive priority table assignment.

You may pay for your tickets online at their website or by mailing your check with a note as to the seating package you desire to: NFC PAC Attn: “An Evening with Ann” 236 Gardenridge Drive Franklin, TN 37069

Download a flyer for An Evening with Ann Coulter for more information.

Tennessean Column

2010-04-18T05:37:00.001-07:00

Please see my guest column in today's Tennessean

Taxing the oil and gas industries is a roadblock to economic stability

I believe that we Tennesseans are forward-looking, innovative people. Just think of all the great marvels that came from our state: country music, the typewriter ribbon, the touch-screen monitor, miniature golf and nuclear research. Unfortunately, with a state unemployment rate averaging 10 percent, Tennesseans are lacking opportunities to utilize their ingenuity. President Barack Obama has said jobs are his top priority — well then, he can start creating them through an industry that already supports more than 9 million American workers: the U.S. oil and natural gas industry. Exploration and production of untapped domestic oil and natural gas resources would create hundreds of thousands of new jobs and generate more than $1.7 trillion in revenue. That's money desperately needed to help meet Tennessee's $1 billion budget shortfall, build roads and schools in our cities and fund health-care initiatives. People get it.

Here in the Volunteer State, we can begin by expanding and upgrading projects associated with Canadian oil sands. A study by the Canadian Energy Research Institute estimates that by allowing our neighbors to the north develop their rich and abundant resources, Tennessee could gain 7,000 new indirect and direct jobs — including well-paying jobs in refining — between 2011 and 2015. The study also projects that we'll see an added economic value of $598 million by 2015.

President Obama's recent decision to allow offshore energy development in the Outer Continental Shelf moves Tennesseans an inch closer toward those economic benefits, but we cannot afford to inch along. People understand this. In fact, 72 percent of registered voters are in favor of offshore drilling, according to a recent Rasmussen survey.

We want the president to take prompt action to ensure our state and nation will see recovery, while securing America's energy future and decreasing our dependence on foreign oil. His support for misguided policies, including cap and trade and $80 billion in tax increases on the U.S. oil and natural gas industry, are roadblocks to job growth and economic revival. These proposals would discourage investment and pass on added costs to consumers and businesses, while increasing our dependence on imported energy.

The president has offered rhetoric on harnessing America's oil and natural gas resources to breathe life back into our state and national economies. I sincerely hope he takes swift, but wise, steps to make that happen. As I imagine all of the great innovations that have yet to be born in our state, I know that Tennesseans are eager to put their skills to work.

State Rep. Susan Lynn, R-Mt. Juliet, represents the 57th Legislative District and is chairman of the American Legislative Exchange Council Commerce, Insurance and Economic Development Task Force.

Constitutional Amendment Protecting Freedom of Health Care Rights Passes Committee

2010-04-13T09:47:00.000-07:00

(NASHVILLE, TN) – Rep. Susan Lynn this morning passed HJR 745 out of the House Commerce Committee. The measure is a Constitutional Amendment to the Tennessee Constitution that would prohibit laws or rules that would compel any person, employer, or health care provider to participate in any health care system.

The amendment is directed at protecting the rights of Tennesseans from any government that would require them to purchase a health insurance project.

"This bill is a necessary step in light of what we see our federal Government passing and attempting to enact," said Rep. Lynn.

The resolution will be heard next in the House Finance, Ways & Means Committee.

Representative Lynn serves House District 57, which consists of part of Sumner and Wilson Counties. She is serving in her fourth term in the Tennessee House of Representatives. Her work includes serving as on the House Government Operations Committee as well as serving on the House Commerce Committee.

###

AG Opinion: Constitutionally Valid

2010-04-13T09:39:00.000-07:00

AG Opinion: Lynn's Health Care Freedom Bill Constitutionally Valid

(NASHVILLE, TN) – Tennessee Attorney General Robert E. Cooper, Jr. today issued an opinion that HB2622 – the Health Care Freedom Act sponsored by State Representative Susan Lynn (R – Lebanon) - is constitutionally valid; the Opinion number 10-47.

“The language in this bill was carefully crafted by the American Legislative Exchange Council and I was confident that the AG would conclude that it is constitutional,” said Rep. Lynn.

The bill today was deferred one week by the House Commerce Committee. It will be heard Tuesday, April 20th at 10 a.m.

Representative Lynn serves House District 57, which consists of part of Sumner and Wilson Counties. She is serving in her fourth term in the Tennessee House of Representatives. Her work includes serving as on the House Government Operations Committee as well as serving on the House Commerce Committee.

###

HJR704 Passes House 66/29

2010-04-13T09:03:00.000-07:00

(NASHVILLE, TN) – State Representative Susan Lynn defended for an hour and a half on Monday night on the House floor the need for a House Joint Resolution to the U.S. Congress that expresses opposition to the institution of new federal review, oversight, or preemption of state health insurance laws, the creation of a federal health insurance exchange or connector, and the creation of a federal health insurance plan (public plan) option.

Days earlier the measure easily passed the Commerce Committee, with the committee recognizing that Tennessee's insurance laws stand to be preempted by the federal health care legislation and that Tennessee will have to implement a very complicated and expensive the federal insurance exchange should the federal legislation come into full effect.

A great deal of debate on the House floor centered around concerns that some members have concerning the uninsured. "The measure is not about the uninsured but about the hundreds of thousands that are insured and satisfied with their insurance coverage; coverage that stands to change due to the new federal law” stated Rep. Lynn. “Insurance laws are the state’s responsibility, not the federal governments."

The bills finally passed after an attempt to table the measure, and to amend the measure were successfully defeated, in addition, motions to re-refer the bill to committee were also held off. The final vote was 66 to 29.

Representative Lynn serves House District 57, which consists of part of Sumner and Wilson Counties. She is serving in her fourth term in the Tennessee House of Representatives. Her work includes serving as on the House Government Operations Committee as well as serving on the House Commerce Committee.

Link to video clip http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillNumber=HJR0704 Click on video clips. Click on Floor Video - Video. Once the video starts click on HJR0704 under the video.

Video from News Channel 4 http://www.wsmv.com/video/23135068/index.html
###

Anti-coercion bill passes Tennessee House

2010-04-01T13:09:00.000-07:00

(NASHVILLE, TN) – Representative Susan Lynn (R-Lebanon) today passed the Freedom From Coercion Act on the floor of the House of Representatives.

The bill, passing with bi-partisan co-sponsorships, concerns current law which states that it is illegal to coerce a woman to have an abortion. The bill requires facilities where abortions are performed to post signage informing that it is illegal for anyone to coerce a woman to have an abortion.

House Government Operations chairman Susan Lynn (R-Lebanon) stated “This bill was inspired by a woman who was coerced to have an abortion at the age of 17 - thirty years went by before she sought help for her grief over the event. She subsequently learned that such coercion is not uncommon for women. This legislation is her attempt to try to make a difference. I am honored that I could play a part.”

The Senate version, sponsored by Senator Jack Johnson (R-Franklin), was passed in the Senate on the same day.

Representative Lynn serves House District 57, which consists of part of Sumner and Wilson Counties. She is serving in her third term in the Tennessee House of Representatives. Her work includes serving as on the House Government Operations Committee as well as serving on the House Commerce Committee.

###

Tennessean Column 4/1/2010

2010-04-01T12:29:00.002-07:00

Labeling is just more government control

Last year, I passed an anti-menu-labeling bill that was subsequently vetoed by the governor. We overrode the veto in the House and Senate after reconvening in January, which put the law into effect in Tennessee.

As chairwoman of the American Legislative Exchange Council's Commerce Task Force, a national state legislator organization, I proposed and passed anti-menu-labeling model legislation for the states.

Now we learn that the federal health-care bill contains menu-labeling dictates for restaurant menus, menu boards, drive-through displays and vending machines. A few local and state governments have similar regulations. The evidence varies about whether menu labeling is effective.

Regulation will cost consumers

Some studies show that as few as one in six consumers actually use the information to make purchasing decisions. Harvard University removed menu-labeling information in its dining halls in the fall of 2008 due to concerns from parents and friends over students who developed eating disorders. As a result, other schools have avoided the idea altogether.

What can't be legislated are the motivations of consumers; for instance, another study showed that consumers significantly increased total energy, fat grams, carbohydrate grams and decreased protein and energy from protein when exposed to menu labeling information. It seems that people become overly concerned with calorie information rather than the more important matters of nutrition and variety.

Just as concerning as the misuse of information is the great monetary cost that consumers must suffer. Replacing menus, menu boards and handouts and testing food is expensive. Determining the number of calories in a food item is a matter of science — the food must be burned and the amount of heat it emits determines its calories. In several states the requirement has opened restaurants up to class-action lawsuits due to claims of inaccurate calorie and nutrition counts.
There are loopholes; menu specials, custom orders and ingredient substitutions are exempted —for now.

But where is the principle that allows the federal government to impose such a mandate on restaurants?

The fault is mainly due to a modern misinterpretation of the Commerce clause of the Constitution. Until roughly 1942, the Commerce clause was well understood to be a power of the federal government used only to remove impediments to trade between the states — such as tariffs charged by one state on goods moving through to another state. The idea was to limit state legislatures from restricting trade between each other, thus allowing consumers and merchants freedom to trade. It was never to allow the federal government to decide what commerce will be legal or not legal or what regulations will apply to trades and services.
In addition, such regulations are simply not anywhere part of the federal government's 30 enumerated powers. Further, there must be a constitutional violation of rights in order for government to force us all to incur such expense. What right is being secured by the imposition of menu labeling?

Is it even likely that anyone unschooled on proper diet will even appreciate the information on a menu board? Would not those that already understand know proper choices? Certainly people of good conscience are not fooled by their own purchasing decisions. Federal menu labeling is more big government control.

http://www.tennessean.com/article/20100401/OPINION01/4010331/1007

Susan's Weekly Newsletter

2010-03-14T20:28:00.000-07:00

Please read my weekly newsletter March 11, 2010

Susan's Weekly Newsletter

2010-03-05T12:30:00.000-08:00

Please read Susan's weekly newsletter, 2/5/10

Tennessee Profile of Susan

2010-02-28T18:27:00.000-08:00

Susan Lynn pushes state sovereignty for Tennessee
Lawmaker offers voice to libertarian outrage

State Rep. Susan Lynn says she isn't trying to fight the political battles of the Civil War again. But she isn't afraid to push to restore Tennessee's "sovereignty."

Lynn believes it's time Tennesseans reworked their relationship with the federal government. And she says one of her jobs as a state legislator is to open that dialogue, even if it means sparking confrontation with political leaders in Washington, D.C.

"For a very long time, the federal government has been growing and growing and becoming a bigger and bigger deal," Lynn said last week. "Maybe it's time to pull out the document. … Have we just allowed it and looked the other way when they have passed some laws, some acts, that are not what they're charged with doing constitutionally?"

With libertarian outrage toward the federal government seemingly on the rise — a force that is shaping everything from the debate over health-care reform to the field for this fall's elections — Lynn has become one of its foremost champions in the Tennessee legislature.

The Mt. Juliet Republican has pushed for a court challenge of Democratic-led health-care reform legislation, led a committee of lawmakers that accused the federal government of abusing its powers, pressed a U.S. senator not to support new fuel standards, and filed a bill that would ban the tagging and tracking of human beings.

And those are just a few of the causes Lynn has taken up over the past six months.

Critics have derided Lynn as, at best, an ineffective lawmaker distracted by ideological battles and, at worst, a grandstander who wants to reopen battles settled by the Civil War.

Last fall, the state Democratic Party described a Lynn-led initiative as "lunacy" that showed Lynn and other lawmakers had "embarked on the crazy train."

"There is a coterie of Republican legislators who stand off so far to the right that a moderate Republican would have a hard time including them in the party," Chip Forrester, the state Democratic Party chairman, said last week. "She certainly fits with that group."

But Lynn, who gave up her job as a small-business consultant to work as a state representative full time, says she is willing to trade short-term legislative victories if it means other lawmakers can be brought around to her way of thinking.

"With my views on free enterprise and my views on constitutional rights, I hope that I bring a lot to the conversation," Lynn said in an hourlong interview with The Tennessean last week. "I know that there's times when, maybe, things that I said one or two years ago, other legislators are saying it now. … When they hear it for the first time, it might seem ideological, but hopefully it's based in truth and other people will use that."

Rise to chairwoman

Ideologue or not, Lynn has risen to become the chairwoman of the House Government Operations Committee, a body that reviews regulations, oversees state policies and can recommend creating or terminating state agencies.

Lynn also is the only Republican to have returned registration papers in the race to succeed state Sen. Mae Beavers, R-Mt. Juliet, who has stated plans to run for Wilson County mayor. (Aubrey Givens, a Lebanon attorney, has registered for the Democratic primary.)

As a committee chairwoman, Lynn would already have been one of the most prominent lawmakers in the state House of Representatives this session. The position has frequently made her the prime House sponsor on bills dealing with government.

"She's very thoughtful and a good legislator," said Sen. Bill Ketron, R-Murfreesboro, who has co-sponsored eight bills with Lynn this session. "She researches very well."

Lynn also has raised her profile by inserting herself into national debates.

She and state Rep. Debra Maggart, R-Hendersonville, sent a letter to Attorney General Bob Cooper that urged him to consider legal action against the health-care reform bill, earning the two a mention on Fox News. And a public call she made for U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander to reconsider his stance on a low-carbon fuel standard was written up by The Wall Street Journal when it appeared that Alexander had changed his mind on the matter.

Lynn, 45, was first elected to the legislature in 2002. Despite having moved to Middle Tennessee only five years before, Lynn beat sign company owner Bobby Joslin in the primary and former Mt. Juliet City Manager Danny Farmer in the general election.

"One of the big changes you've seen in the legislature is that a lot of the communities that used to be rock-bed Democratic are now electing Republicans," said Pat Nolan, a longtime legislative observer who hosts a weekly politics show on Nashville television station WTVF. "Wilson County started changing over to Republican sooner than any other."

Two years later, Lynn faced a primary challenge from Mt. Juliet real estate agent Tom Wood, who said she was not conservative enough for the 57th legislative district. Lynn won even though Beavers, who had previously represented the area, had endorsed Wood.

"Both Senator Beavers and I have very strong views, but the number of things that we have agreed on far outweigh the things that we have disagreed on," Lynn said. "I respect Senator Beavers, and I respect her record of public service, and I am excited about her bid for Wilson County mayor. I look forward to working with her in the future."

Statewide attention was focused on Lynn in the aftermath of the surprise election of Speaker Kent Williams last year. Lynn had complained to Republican leadership that Williams had made an inappropriate remark to her in 2007, and after Williams, R-Elizabethton, joined with Democrats to choose himself as speaker, the file on that complaint was released to the news media.

Lynn says now that she had not intended for the complaint to be made public and that she now has a productive working relationship with Williams, who appointed her to lead the Government Operations Committee under his power-sharing plan for the House.
"Trust me, all of that never comes up," she said.

Government limited

Lynn says she believes government should act only to protect "your life, your safety, your welfare and even the morals of the community." But she places constraints on how much government should act in each of those areas.

Lynn opposes provisions of the federal health-care reform bills that would require individuals to buy health insurance, though supporters might argue that such a law would lead to longer life spans and promote the general welfare.

Lynn, who grew up Catholic in Newburgh, N.Y., but now describes herself a born-again Southern Baptist, also says that her definition of community morals is limited only to issues such as age restrictions on alcohol and the sale of wine in grocery stores. On the latter matter, Lynn says she supports letting cities and counties hold referendums.

"Right now, we leave it up to the communities to vote on whether to allow liquor stores," she said. "Why did the legislature make that law? The legislature made that law because we wanted each community to reflect their morals."

Lynn's government philosophy has sometimes led her to take up bills that have seemed out of the ordinary. This year, she has pushed a measure to ban any business or government entity from requiring people to implant a tracking device anywhere on their bodies.

Lynn said she filed the bill after hearing that businesses had marketed radio tracking devices as an alternative to security badges and a way to keep up with Alzheimer's patients. The conservative Eagle Forum and the American Civil Liberties Union support Lynn's bill.

"This is a product on the market, and it's not hard to look down the road and see that it certainly could become more and more prevalent," she said. "Maybe people start saying, to get insurance you have to have this (device)."

Last fall, Lynn chaired a joint Senate and House committee that sent a letter to lawmakers in the other 49 states urging them to support state sovereignty under the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The invocation of the so-called states' rights amendment led critics to say that she was trying to reopen the political battles of the 19th century, when Southern political leaders argued that states' rights protected slavery. The argument eventually led to the concept of nullification — the idea that states could declare federal laws unenforceable within their borders.

Lynn said she has not called for nullification, but she said the thinking behind nullification had merit. She said Northern states frequently resisted enforcement of federal laws such as the Fugitive Slave Act, which made it illegal to help slaves escape to free states.

Lynn is not alone in the legislature in expressing support for states' rights positions. A 10th Amendment resolution she sponsored last year passed the House on an 85-2 vote and the Senate unanimously.

These days, Lynn frequently finds herself one of several lawmakers sponsoring bills dealing with state sovereignty.

Earlier this month, she began to push for passing the Health Care Freedom Act, a bill that would have challenged the health insurance mandate. But before a hearing was held on that measure, the Senate passed the Tennessee Health Freedom Act, a similar measure sponsored by Beavers.

Lynn is now pushing for an amendment to the Tennessee Constitution that would declare a health insurance mandate illegal in Tennessee. For her, the mandate is simply another example of the federal government overreaching.

"They want to pass state laws that are really in the purview of the states," she said. "And I just think, if they want to be state legislators, they ought to run for the state legislature."

Susan's Weekly Newsletter

2010-02-28T18:21:00.000-08:00

Read Susan's Newsletter 2/26/10

Susan's Weekly Legislative Newsletter

2010-02-21T15:14:00.000-08:00

Read Susan's newsletter 2/19/10

Free Enterprise Constitutional Amendment

2010-02-20T22:00:00.000-08:00

By State Representative Susan Lynn

Each of us grew up understanding that free enterprise is our economic system in the United States. So we can be forgiven for being a little confused lately because today the federal government is seeking 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 effectually eliminate any free market that may have still existed in healthcare.

Seeking to hold-on to the vestiges of the system that has made our country great, I recently drafted and passed model legislation at the American Legislative Exchange Council’s winter meeting to create a Constitutional Amendment on free enterprise; “It is the policy of the state of Tennessee that a free enterprise system shall govern trade and commerce in this state to promote the dispersion of economic and political power and the general welfare of all the people.” To date, only Utah has such a reassuring clause in their state Constitution.

By definition, a free enterprise economy is an economic system controlled chiefly by individuals and private companies; not the government.

Characteristics include economic freedom which allows people to decide how they will earn and spend their income; goods and services are produced and allocated through supply and demand by voluntary exchanges; private ownership of property and of the means of production is the key; and profit is not a bad word but greeted by freedom.

This wonderful system creates an incentive to work which causes capitalist societies to achieve a higher standard of living than do societies with other economic systems.

One ALEC member asked if this amendment was saying that there should be no regulation of business at all. Do we approve of stealing, of fraud, or abuse of natural resources I asked. No, whether done by an individual or a business such actions clearly violate the Constitutional rights of others. Unfortunately, such a question belies a misunderstanding as fundamental as the misunderstandings that have created the free-market killing regulations we see being enacted today.

HJR 722 will ensure that free enterprise remains the policy of our state and nation; this is extremely important. However, it is up to each to study our founding documents to gain a proper understanding of the role of government so that we don’t enact any laws upon people or business that are beyond of the principle of securing our Constitutional rights.

State Representative Susan Lynn is the Chairman of the Government Operations Committee in the Tennessee House and Chairman of the Commerce Task Force for the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC.ORG).

State Sovereignty Web Page

2010-02-12T08:28:00.000-08:00

Please visit my new web page on my state sovereignty wrok. It is located at www.repsusanlynn.com, click on Policy at the top of the page.

Food Police Override

2010-02-09T19:14:00.000-08:00

House Joins Senate in Overriding Veto of Menu Bill

http://blogs.knoxnews.com/humphrey/2010/02/house-joins-senate-in-overridi.html

Victory over the Food Police

2010-02-09T18:56:00.000-08:00

A mention on MSNBC about the override of Gov. Phil Bredesen's veto of the anti-menu labeling bill to limit local authority on requiring calorie counts to be listed on restaurant menus last night.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35309622/displaymode/1176/rstry/35309629/

Vouching for real reform

2010-01-16T20:51:00.000-08:00

Last year the General Assembly broadened the charter schools law in Tennessee giving hope to many more students in struggling schools. This year, what was working out to be a pretty disappointing piece of legislation on education reform has ended up providing genuine promise for the children of our state.

The first few sections of the Race to the Top bill may read well, but by comparison to current law, they do not vest the Commissioner of Education with any revolutionary new powers or responsibility for failing schools. The major item is that a name is coined for state governance over failing schools; “Achievement School District.”

The next part has an appearance of conflict of interest; a full 80% of the committee charged with creating new guidelines and criteria for which teachers and principals will be evaluated is made up of teachers and principals, and a few other education policy makers…no sweeping change here either. Quickly abandoned was the idea of a large group of assorted citizens such as parents and business people playing a role in education by developing an objective and effective standard outside the status quo.

Further, the new standard doesn’t have to lead to the dismissal of a poor teacher…it could, but only if a local school will actually act to dismiss him or her for a poor evaluation - that hasn’t been happening in low achieving areas and this bill won’t ensure that it does…or maybe it will…more on that later.

So where is the revolutionary change that will not just win $485,000,000 in grant money but much more importantly, will actually help students in low performing schools; raising Tennessee from the bottom of national education rankings to nearer the top?

The state has had the ability to take over a failing school for a very long time. But the threat of that actually happening was virtually zero because of funding - if the state did actually take over a school, the state’s taxpayers would have to foot the entire cost of running the school because there was no mechanism in the law to make the locals pay their portion of the cost for educating their students from a failed school that was taken over by the state.

Saving the day was a discrete amendment added to the bill that will allow for the Achievement School District to use state BEP funds and local funds to operate a school placed in alternative governance. Not only does this make it much more probable that the state will take over a failing school but the threat of takeover will more than likely force administrators whose teachers do not achieve annual yearly progress to make key changes about who should be teaching their students in order to avoid takeover.

Further, an “Achievement School District” breaks out of the status quo by not only allowing schools to be run by another governmental entity, but also by non-profits (opening the door to the Gates Foundation and others) and, strikingly, the DOE can even contract with individuals.

Including individuals was a curious provision which never really seemed to receive an answer that revealed a logical purpose in committee. Not until the funding amendment created the possibility that a school could really be placed in alternative governance and that the governance could be provided by an individual was it realized late last night that this seems to be assembling the parts for a voucher system for these long suffering students. If individuals can contract with the state to educate a student, that may mean that parents could be the contractor and use those funds to seek their choice of desired education for their child.

Although provided few clear answers, probably so as to leave the legislation sufficiently vague and aiding passage, this bill could be one of the most sweeping reforms that Tennessee has ever undertaken.

The hope of federal money is no reason to vote for a bill but it is no reason to vote against it either. In fact, until I realized what the assembling of these parts could do, I voted against the bill because I didn't like several parts of the bill. As I stated on the radio last week, the only reason to vote for a bill is if it is good policy for the people of our state which in the end HB5 turns out to be.

State governments are the great laboratories of reform, and many states will vouch that charter schools and vouchers give children trapped in low performing schools, or with special needs or learning disabilities real options for their education and their future. Why not break out of politics and status quo? Why not use education dollars as efficiently as possible by matching the needs of the child to the school that can best meet those needs?

13 States AGs Threaten Lawsuites - Click Link

2010-01-02T16:35:00.000-08:00

By MEG KINNARD, Associated Press Writer Meg Kinnard, Associated Press Writer – Thu Dec 31, 12:45 am ET

COLUMBIA, S.C. – Republican attorneys general in 13 states say congressional leaders must remove Nebraska's political deal from the federal health care reform bill or face legal action, according to a letter provided to The Associated Press Wednesday...

Listen to Rep. Lynn on 1510WLAC AM this morning

2010-01-02T06:34:00.000-08:00

Ben Cunningham & Ken Marrero, substituting for Steve Gill, talk to Susan about her work on State Sovereignty this morning @ 10 am, 12/2/10.

Click on Listen Live @ http://www.wlac.com/main.html

Benn Cunningham is a founder of Tennessee Tax Revolt.
Ken Marrero is the founder of of Tennessee Conservalliance.

Governor Rick Perry Letter

2009-12-31T19:46:00.000-08:00

A remarkable letter from Texas Governor Rick Perry

Guest Column in Today's Tennessean

2009-12-30T04:17:00.000-08:00

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.

Tennessean

2009-12-29T18:18:00.000-08:00

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.

Interesting Opportunity

2009-12-29T17:59:00.000-08:00

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.

Mike Church Show

2009-12-28T05:11:00.001-08:00

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

Basic American Principles

2009-12-23T15:22:00.000-08:00

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

State Sovereignty

2009-12-22T19:52:00.001-08:00

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.

Thanks Foxnews for the mention

2009-12-22T12:35:00.000-08:00

Health Care Bill Could Face String of Legal Challenges

News Channel 4

2009-12-22T11:02:00.000-08:00

Watch interview on letter to the Attorney General regarding health care bill here

Thank you Uncle Phil for the mention!

2009-12-21T18:49:00.000-08:00

Phil Valentine mentioned Rep. Maggart's and my letter to the State A.G.

Listen to the radio spot

Campaign for Liberty

2009-12-21T15:04:00.000-08:00

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...

Press Release

2009-12-21T14:39:00.000-08:00

House of Representatives
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

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.

###

The federal government wants us to save more?

2009-11-30T05:01:00.000-08:00

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.

Press Release on Sate Sovereignty Committee

2009-11-18T07:40:00.000-08:00

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

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

2009-11-18T07:33:00.000-08:00

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

Liberty News Radio

2009-11-05T07:34:00.000-08:00

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

The Work of Gov Ops

2009-11-03T08:13:00.000-08:00

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.

Susan on The Mike Church Show

2009-10-30T12:56:00.000-07:00

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.

Tennessee Proclaims White Ribbons Against Pornography Week

2009-10-30T12:43:00.000-07:00

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.

Great article in the Politico

2009-10-25T20:17:00.000-07:00

Mandate insurance is unconstitutional
By: Ken Klukowski

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=6E1D8A47-18FE-70B2-A8BB46B59644DE2B

Special Joint Committee on Workers' Comp.

2009-10-25T18:50:00.000-07:00

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.

##

Lynn to Chair Special Committee on State Sovereignty

2009-10-23T18:35:00.000-07:00

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

ALEC Healthcare Release

2009-10-23T04:25:00.000-07:00

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.

Thank you Edgycater.blogspot.com

2009-10-23T04:23:00.000-07:00

Thank you Edgycater.blobspot.com for your post;

http://edgycater.blogspot.com/2009/10/patriot-stands-tennessee-state.html

First Draft of Letter to the States

2009-10-21T19:55:00.000-07:00

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.

Tenth Amendment Center Mention

2009-10-21T19:40:00.000-07:00

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/#

Wall Street Journal Mention

2009-10-06T11:58:00.001-07:00

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/

Tennessean Column

2009-10-03T04:51:00.000-07:00

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."

ALEC Ranks Cap & Trade Winners and Losers

2009-09-09T07:54:00.000-07:00

ALEC’s Cap-and-Trade webpage

Tennessee's Rank

Religious Freedom Protection Act

2009-09-07T06:47:00.000-07:00

A quiet victory for religious freedom

Reason's Taxpayer's Guide to the Stimulus

2009-09-07T06:31:00.000-07:00

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.

Next Step: Sovereignty Pledge

2009-09-01T11:31:00.000-07:00

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.

Tennessee Comes Out on Short End Under LCFS

2009-08-31T16:16:00.000-07:00

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).

RNC Honors Women's Equality Day

2009-08-26T13:52:00.000-07:00

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.

Energy Citizens

2009-08-18T19:24:00.000-07:00

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/.

Photo of Senate Announcement

2009-08-18T06:27:00.001-07:00

Susan with husband Michael and family friend Col. Mackey.

Mt. Juliet, TN.

August 17, 2009

Remarks from Press Conference

2009-08-17T17:02:00.000-07:00

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.

Lynn for State Senate Press Release

2009-08-17T16:57:00.000-07:00

State Rep. Susan Lynn (R- Lebanon) announces her intention to seek
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

City Paper Sizes up Senate Races

2009-08-04T18:29:00.000-07:00

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

ALEC Waxman Markey Opposition Letter

2009-06-26T08:47:00.000-07:00

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

ALEC on Cap and Trade

2009-06-25T12:11:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

2009-06-25T12:03:00.001-07:00

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

Stimulus reason for All Payer Claims Database?

2009-06-24T18:21:00.000-07:00

Ruin Your Health With the Obama Stimulus Plan
Betsy McCaughey

Understanding Cap-and-trade

2009-06-22T14:22:00.000-07:00

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

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

HB2318 - Governor's Energy Bill

2009-06-08T08:41:00.001-07:00

Mandating Politics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Economic Liberty and the Constitution, Part 1

2009-06-05T14:58:00.000-07:00

by Jacob G. Hornberger, June 2002

Police powers and mercantilism

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

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

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

Section by Section Analysis - All Payer Claims Database

2009-06-02T07:13:00.000-07:00

Title: Bill Number: HB2289/SB2239

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

Summary

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

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

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

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

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

Improve health care accessibility and affordability,

Identify health care needs,

Determine the capacity and distribution of existing health care resources,

Evaluate the effectiveness of programs on patient outcomes,

Review costs,

Provide publicly available information on providers’ quality of care.

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

Section by Section Analysis

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

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

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

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

Amendment 1

Section 3 - Definitions;

Bill contains no definition for;

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

Section 3 (c); Tennessee Health Information Committee

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additional Analysis
By TCPR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hagar the Horrible

2009-05-30T19:16:00.001-07:00

State Wants Medical Records Database WSMV

2009-05-30T19:10:00.000-07:00

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

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

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