Too good not to share

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Irritating Liberals with Healthy Wisconsin

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

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

Ridiculous Textbooks used in Tennessee

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Milton Friedman

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

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

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

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

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

What a master of human nature he was...

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

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

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

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

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

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

State Comptroller's New Immigration Report

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

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

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

To see all of the available reports click here.

Michael DelGiorno / 99.7 FM

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

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

Spending Priorities

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Healthy Wisconsin...Coming to Tennessee?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WSJ Tax Hike Scorecard

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

The Journal notes;

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

Some of the proposed hikes noted;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unfortunately, these ideas are not all they have.

New Political Blog

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

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

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

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

Mrs. Lynn,

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely
Alex

ALEC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All in all, the conference was very educational.


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

Invalid Voters

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

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

Regulation and Our Liberty

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shared Parenting

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

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

Let's Talk Frank

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

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

Thanks Terry.

President Visits Nashville

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Investigating the Copeland Cap

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


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

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

Rex and the City

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

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

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

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

From Rex in the City…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Excessive Number of Bills

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommit Ourselves to Freedom

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Choosing Performance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Time to Review Republican Ideals

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

Ideals such as:

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

Pork and Beans

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Truth in Humor - News Sentinel

Tennessean Column

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Education Plan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tobacco Tax Survey

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

EDUCATION FIRST

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

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

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

BUDGET FACTS

A few budget facts:

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

The Cable Choice Bill

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deal Breaker

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

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

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

This deal breaker needs to be examined.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Build-out is a deal breaker that increases rates short term and long term by stemming competition. Without competition, innovation is slow, and rates are kept high long after the capital investment costs have been recouped.

Taxes, Surpluses & Public Policy

Guest Column

By: State Representative Susan Lynn
475 Words


The Governor is asking Tennesseans to help him put schools first by supporting his “Schools First” education proposal which is to enact HB2354; a .40 cents per pack, $219 million cigarette tax increase.

However, like the tobacco settlement dollars, this legislation places the money in the general fund; it is not earmarked for education. None of the money will build one school, and much of the money must be matched by local governments. This is a great concern.

When the Governor came into office he had the “benefit” of a $1 billion tax increase from the prior administration. Yet teachers and state employees have fallen behind due to one time bonuses instead of actual raises. Lottery funds continue sit idle in mass surplus instead of being used to construct new schools. And as our schools become ever more overcrowded due to illegal immigration the Governor declares the problem to be a federal issue. The final disappointment, the April Sales Tax Holiday, so helpful for families with school age children, has been stricken from next year's budget.

Since 2002, tax revenues have grown by a tremendous 39%. With such revenue growth, it shouldn’t be difficult to put “schools first” if schools are truly the Governor’s priority. In fact, the Republican proposal to put "schools first" by funding the education budget before all other expenditures would truly do just that.

Tennessee’s low cigarette tax attracts purchasers from six of the eight states that border her. If enacted, Tennessee’s cigarette tax will be higher than all eight.

We know the cigarette tax is an unreliable and declining source of revenue. If the Governor truly wants to put "schools first", why is he putting them last by hinging their future on a tax increase instead of using the natural revenue growth that we have been experiencing? Why does he seek to put "schools first" by depending on an unreliable, declining and undedicated source of revenue like the cigarette tax? Why not support the Republican proposal to put "schools first" by establishing the education budget first before funding other needs? Why should our children’s future depend on the continued poor health habits of others?

In addition, the Governor argues that increasing the tobacco tax is good health policy. If increasing the tax on tobacco products is a rationale for protecting the health of our citizens why not use a revenue neutral proposal such as one that would lower the sales tax on food to accomplish this task?

As the administration’s own figures show, this year’s tax growth at over $439 million in recurring funds, and an additional $500 million in non-recurring funds, is more than enough money to put "schools first". These figures are expected to increase after the funding board meets on May 1.

As a Republican, I am in support of putting schools first in a fiscally responsible way by using natural revenue growth, and by funding education first before the rest of the budget.

For more information, please contact:

Susan Lynn
State Representative
57th District

215 War Memorial Building
Nashville, TN 37243-0157

615-741-7462

http://www2.blogger.com/www.repsusanlynn.com
http://www.susan-lynn.blogspot.com/

To subscribe to Rep. Lynn's Weekly Legislative Wrap click here http://www.repsusanlynn.com/Weeklywrap.html

Circular Reasoning and Minimum Wage

For most of us, our entry into the working world started at minimum wage. We knew it wasn’t a way of life but an opportunity to learn and experience the real world.

Unfortunately, some command and control politicians paint a picture that minimum wage workers are in a perpetual state and only government control of the economy will save them.

Some states have created their own minimum wage that is set higher than the federal wage. Other states try to offset inflation by linking their minimum wage to the Consumer Price Index. As the CPI rises, the state’s minimum wage goes up accordingly.

This year Tennessee Democrats are offering a similar minimum wage bill liked to CPI. The idea is to aid minimum wage workers in keeping up with inflation and give employers predictability for wage increases.

It sounds reasonable but the fact is that mandated wage hikes actually hurt the very people they are trying to aid; low-skilled and entry-level employees. Such hikes force employers to make strategic decisions to overcome the increased cost the wage presents. Low-skilled and entry-level employees lose out on-the-job training opportunities as employers seek new ways to require fewer employees and higher skilled workers; they may leave jobs vacant, reduce hours, forgo raises, and if possible raise prices in order to pay the higher wage. All of these effects make jobs either more competitive or life more expensive.

If that’s not bad enough, the idea of indexing the wage to CPI uses circular reasoning and creates inflation in the economy. The problem lies with the CPI indicator itself. CPI is a measure of the rise or fall in prices of commonly used goods and services as compared to a benchmark year.

CPI is not an index that is unaffected by increased wages - in fact, it can be seen as a measure of the effect of such inflation.

If the bill passes, any increase in CPI translates into higher wages, which produces higher costs, which translates into higher prices, thus a higher CPI results, and thereby triggering another increase in minimum wage - this effect is circular and compounding.

The truth is two thirds (2/3) of all who start a job at minimum wage make more money inside of a year. Most are students, retired persons or second income earners who are perfectly capable of earning their way to a higher wage.

Yes, a portion are poorly educated, low-skilled workers who truly struggle to get by. And we do several things to help the truly poor and none of them ask any one individual employer to make the sacrifice. The earned income tax credit multiplies the earnings of the poor while providing an incentive to work. Food stamps allow the seller of food to get their price while increasing the buying power of the poor. Private charitable organizations supply food and clothing to those in need. Homeownership is the number one way to build personal wealth. The state of Tennessee and groups like Habitat for Humanity help low income workers become home owners. Medical helps like TennCare and county health departments also lend assistance.

However, above all other helps, education is the very best way to ensure escape from a lifetime of poverty and increase earning power. GED programs, career colleges, technical schools and traditional colleges are the best way to ensure that the earning power of a poorly educated, low skilled worker is tangibly increased.

America has a rich history of people who started with very little and through hard work, motivation and opportunity, carved out a piece of the American dream. We don’t need to build inflation into our economy and make that dream more difficult to achieve.

Rep. Stacey Campfield

Rep. Stacey Campfield did a wonderful job this morning debating Heddy Weinburg of the ACLU on News Channel 5's channel 50+.

Campfield discussed his bill to mandate death certificates for aborted fetuses.

Have Joy - Christmas is Legal

This year we are once more in a public debate with the politically correct crowd over the word Christmas and related religious expression. Most of us are filled with joy at this time of year and want to celebrate by saying merry Christmas, singing carols, wearing clothing displaying a Christmas message and with a community Christmas tree or nativity display. It seems that many are reacting to the pressure by removing Christmas and religious displays from our view.

We have no need to fear because it is legally okay to say Merry Christmas. It seems that misunderstandings over the origin and meaning of the phrase “separation of church and state” have encouraged a few to embark on a mission to remove all references to religion from schools, government buildings, public property and even attempt to change the public lexicon.

The phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear in the Constitution. It originated in 1802 in a private letter from Thomas Jefferson to a group of Baptist ministers in Danbury, Connecticut – 13 years after the First Amendment was passed. Courts have consistently ruled since then that eliminating all signs of religion from the public square is just as unconstitutional as establishing a religion.

In response to recent efforts to censor Christmas in our country, it might help to clarify the forms of religious expression that are legal under the Constitution in case law.

1. Students are free to express their religious beliefs in school. As long as it’s not materially disruptive, students may express their beliefs verbally with phrases such as “Merry Christmas”; through clothing that conveys religious messages with words, colors, or symbols; or through written materials like school assignments, religious cards, gifts, or tracts given to teachers and classmates (Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 U.S. 444 [1938]; Westfield High School L .I. F. E. Club v. City of Westfield, 249 F. Supp.2d 98 [D. Mass. 2003].

2. At school, students can sing Christmas carols at concerts, teach the biblical origins of Christmas, and perform the Christmas story of Mary, Joseph, Jesus, and the shepherds. The Constitution does not require the exclusion of religion from public institutions. Christmas is part of our heritage and ingrained in our culture; therefore, expression of it through art and music and teaching of it as history serve both a religious and secular purpose. Provided these activities promote the “advancement of the students’ knowledge of our society’s cultural and religious heritage; an opportunity for students to perform a full range of music, poetry, and drama that is likely to be of interest to the students and their audience,” any of these activities can be conducted in public schools without creating an Establishment Clause problem (Flory v. Sioux Falls School District, 619 F. 2d 1311 [6th Cir. 1980]; Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S.39 [1980].

3. Nativity displays can be placed in schools, parks, and government buildings. No Supreme Court decision has ever forbidden a private citizen from setting up a nativity display in a public park, as parks, streets, and sidewalks are all public forums traditionally devoted to “assembly and debate.” Such displays may also be placed in public buildings provided the government has opened the property for expressive activity. The Free Exercise Clause assures religious speakers the same access to public forums given to secular speakers (Americans United for Separation of Church and State v. City of Grand Rapids, 980 F. 2d1538 [1992]. Nor can private citizens be forced to include objects such as snowmen in their faith-based displays (West Virginia v. Burnette, 319 U. S. 624, [1943].

Furthermore, even under current decisions, city governments may include a nativity in a seasonal display provided 1) there are a sufficient number of secular objects along with religious ones, 2) the secular objects are in a close proximity to the religious ones, and 3) overall, the display is sufficiently secular (Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668,671 [1984].

The U. S. Constitution, laws and court decisions are all constructed to protect and permit religious expression in both public schools and government buildings. Attempts to remove Christ from Christmas do not stem from the Constitution, but from those who simply seek to silence the Christian message. That very act is a violation of the Constitution.

Thank you for taking the time to read this article and for this opportunity to clarify the legal position on keeping Christmas and many other forms of religious expression a vital part of our community.

Merry Christmas and my best wishes for a joyous New Year.


Susan Lynn
State Representative
57th District, Tennessee
www.repsusanlynn.com

Thank You and a Perspective on the Elections

Dear Friends,

I have so much to thank you for that it is difficult to know where to start.

Thank you, first and foremost, for the privilege of representing you for two more years in the Tennessee General Assembly. It is challenging, thrilling, a great responsibility, a great honor, and at times, so humbling, I truly feel unworthy. Thank you from the bottom of my heart.

As always, you know that you can speak to me anytime about an issue. You always have my confidentiality and, I will always work as hard as I can to help you.

Thank you to so many who volunteered for the GOTV phone calls and voter ID phone calls. Your efforts made a huge difference in Wilson County - Bob Corker received a wide, wide margin of the vote, we maintained the state Senate, the marriage amendment passed and, to my great surprise, I received the second highest number of votes out of all House races in the state of Tennessee - THANK YOU!

Thank you for not becoming annoyed with all of the election emails. Your patience is appreciated!!!

Now, a little perspective on what happened in the state House, Senate and U.S. Senate on election night.

Prior to the election, some of the House Democrats were openly stating that not only would the Republican House members not win any additional seats but that the Democrats would win back several of our current House seats.

Indeed, things did not look good for TN House Republicans. Two weeks prior to the election, polling showed at least four of our Republican members would lose their seats - this was a shock to us!! One week later, several more of our incumbents were in trouble! However, last minute efforts, some changes on the national scene and a change in direction in the US Senate race turned the day around.

In the end, the Tennessee House Republicans maintained all of our incumbent seats - we didn't pick up any seats but we didn't lose one member!

In addition, although we lost a seat in the state Senate, we maintained the Senate by re-electing Senator Beavers in Wilson County - thanks to you!!

Third, Bob Corker, Senator Bob Corker now, won a very hard fought race against Harold Ford jr.!!!

Forth, the marriage amendment passed overwhelmingly!!!!

So actually, it is the Tennessee Democrats who had a very bad night on Tuesday. In spite of the poor national climate for Republicans, they couldn't unseat one Republican House member, they missed getting back the state Senate, they lost the US Senate seat they were seeking - where nationally, Democrats won a lot of US Senate seats. And Tennesseans expressed what I believed all along was their true belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman!

Even though Democrats drifted to the right to try to win - they just couldn't get the job done in Tennessee!

Most sincerely,

Susan

Susan Lynn
State Representative 57th District

215 War Memorial Building Nashville, Tennessee 37243

Tel - 615-741-7462
Cell – 615-596-2363

www.repsusanlynn.com

Secure Elections? We can do better

By: State Representative Susan Lynn
Tennessee General Assembly
349 words


Voters may like the new touch screen voting technology used for elections but in retrospect many agree that it doesn’t increase voter confidence for secure elections at all.

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

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

Recently, Princeton University’s School of Engineering and Applied Science demonstrated how easily a virus, created to steal an election, can be uploaded into electronic voting machines and then erase all indication of itself after voting is complete; thus, eliminating all evidence of foul play. The report and video demonstration can be viewed at http://itpolicy.princeton.edu/voting/.

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

Because of these concerns, some states like Connecticut, Maryland, and New Mexico are reconsidering their use of electronic voting equipment that does not employ a paper trail for the upcoming November elections.

Unfortunately, for the past three years, numerous opportunities to pass state legislation requiring the use of paper trails for electronic voting equipment, and for the archiving of computer source code with the Secretary of State’s office have been passed up in Tennessee, (HB 312 and HB 313).

Tennessee should follow the lead of the other states. Before touch screen voting equipment is used for our elections we should ensure voter confidence and ballot integrity by employing systems to back up information and make audits possible.

Susan Lynn
State Representative 57th District
215 War Memorial Building Nashville, Tennessee 37243

ACLU attempts to silence a community

The ACLU lost an important lawsuit in the Tennessee Supreme Court this past summer. They attempted to keep Tennesseans from voting on the Marriage Amendment ballot question in November. Because they lost, you will have the opportunity to vote on what marriage means in Tennessee.

Now the ACLU is attacking on another front, they are trying to use the courts to defeat the First Amendment right Wilson Countian’s to express their faith by meeting to pray in our community.

The ACLU should know better because of similar failed battles in other states.

Again and again the courts have held that religious speech is protected under the First Amendment. (i.e., Good News Club v. Milford Central School District, 533 U.S. 98 (2001), Lamb's Chapel v. Ctr. Moriches Union Free Sch. Dist., 508 U.S. 384 (1993); Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263 (1981))

Among court findings;

· Both students and teachers retain their First Amendment liberties while on campus.

· Students have an individual constitutional right to display their faith as long as they do not disrupt classroom learning by doing so.

· If schools allow other groups to advertise their events through school bulletin boards, school PA systems, general posting of student flyers, or other means, the school cannot forbid the same means of advertising for religious events.

· A government body may not suppress or exclude the speech of private parties just because the speech is religious or contains a religious perspective.

The Supreme Court has clearly stated: “Our precedent establishes that private religious speech, far from being a First Amendment orphan, is as fully protected under the Free Speech Clause as secular private expression” and "[i]t can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."

It is hard to miss the irony of the ACLU, a group that purports to protect free speech, seeking to use the courts to bully and silence. Their attempt to keep you from voting on what marriage means in Tennessee failed. Hopefully, their attempt to silence citizens who wish to join together and express their faith will fail as well.

Budget Surplus Should be Returned

Every year when the General Assembly works on the budget huge numbers start flying around and it is difficult to understand what is really going on. This year is no different. Thankfully, the talk is of budget surpluses not shortfalls.

Recently, we’ve heard numbers predicting the budget surplus to be as low as $51 million to as high as $700 million. Just what is the real number?

Legislators are as confused as anybody so I spent my Sunday afternoon at the General Assembly budget hearing in Nashville to better understand the figures. Let me share what I’ve learned.

To understand all of the budgetspeak it’s important to understand five terms; current tax revenue projections; next year’s tax revenue projections; the Copeland Cap; recurring funds and non-recurring funds.

For the current fiscal year, tax revenues are $162,900,000 over collected. In other words, it’s the end of the year, we’ve got extra money, and legislators want to spend it.

Constitutionally, we can’t spend all $162.9 million. The Copeland Cap Constitutional Amendment declares the state government cannot spend more percentage-wise than the economy grows. Thus, if the economy is projected to grow at 3%, this year’s budget can only be 3% more than last year’s budget.

The growth in the current budget was smaller than the rate of growth of the economy. Because constitutionally, the General Assembly may spend up to the growth rate of the economy, we may spend $111,600,000 of the $162.9 million surplus. $51 million of the surplus revenue exceeds the growth in the economy. Therefore we cannot spend that money without overriding the Copeland Cap.

Now, onto the budget surplus for next fiscal year; when the Governor proposed his budget back in February, he received his revenue projections from the State Treasurer. However, revised projections indicate we’ll receive $328,600,000 more tax revenue than the ‘06-‘07 budget proposes to spend. Therefore, plans are being made to spend that extra money too.

Some of that money is recurring funds; funds we expect to come in year after year. Some of the money is non-recurring funds. Therefore, it is important not to spend the non-recurring funds on recurring expenses.

The bottom line is Tennessee has $491,500,000 of un-budgeted surplus revenue. That figure includes the current surplus, next year’s surplus and the funds over the Copeland Cap limit.

Finding ways to spend the money is never a problem. For instance, Cover Tennessee, Cover Kids, and the risk pool were not in the Governor’s February budget and must be funded. State employee raises and capital projects are important but so is setting aside money in the rainy day fund.

However, the right thing to do would be to give surplus money back to the taxpayers. Clearly, the $51 million indicates that Tennessee collected revenue faster than the economy grew. Perhaps, an indication the economy in Tennessee is very healthy. But it’s also a sign that our tax rates are simply set too high.

Giving money back to the citizens through a reduction in the sales tax on food would be a great way to do something that every Tennessean could enjoy everyday.