$4 Gasbags
Wall Street Journal, June 12, 2008; Page A16
Anyone wondering why U.S. energy policy is so dysfunctional need only review Congress's recent antics. Members have debated ideas ranging from suing OPEC to the Senate's carbon tax-and-regulation monstrosity, to a windfall profits tax on oil companies, to new punishments for "price gouging" – everything except expanding domestic energy supplies.
Amid $135 oil, it ought to be an easy, bipartisan victory to lift the political restrictions on energy exploration and production. Record-high fuel costs are hitting consumers and business like a huge tax increase. Yet the U.S. remains one of the only countries in the world that chooses as a matter of policy to lock up its natural resources. The Chinese think we're insane and self-destructive, while the Saudis laugh all the way to the bank.
There are two separate moratoria on offshore drilling: One is a ban that Congress has attached to every budget since 1982, and the other is a 1990 executive order that President Bush has waived in only a few cases. Republicans made failing attempts to overcome both when they ran Congress, but current Democratic leaders and their green masters remain adamantly opposed.
The new political opportunity amid record prices is to convince enough rank-and-file Democrats that they'll suffer at the polls if they don't break with this antiexploration ideology.
While energy "independence" is an impossible dream, there's no doubt the U.S. has vast undeveloped fossil-fuel deposits. A tiny corner of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge contains an estimated 10.4 billion barrels of oil and would be the largest producing oil field in the Northern Hemisphere. Yet the Senate blocked that development as recently as last month. The Outer Continental Shelf is estimated to contain some 86 billion barrels of oil, plus 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Yet of the shelf's 1.76 billion acres, 85% is off-limits and 97% is undeveloped.
Engineers recently perfected refining solid shale rock into diesel or gas, which may amount to the largest oil supply in the world – perhaps as much as 1.8 trillion barrels in the American West. That's enough to meet current U.S. oil demand for more than two centuries. Yet as late as 2007, Democrats attached a rider to the energy bill that prohibits leasing the federal interior lands that contain at least 80% of America's oil shale. The key vote was cast by liberal Senator Ken Salazar from Colorado, of all places.
These supply guesses are probably conservative, because the only way to know for sure is to drill exploratory wells. Yet most of Alaska and offshore are cut off even from modern seismic testing. Many areas haven't been examined since the 1960s, when exploration technology was far more primitive. This has led to the believe-it-or-not situation in which the Chinese are prepping to drill in Cuban waters less than 60 miles off the Florida coast. American companies are banned from drilling in American waters nearby.
Yes, we know, increased drilling is no energy cure-all; new projects take about a decade to come on line. Then again, more than a few experts say that new production could affect price as the market perceives a new U.S. seriousness to increase supplies. Part of today's futures speculation is based on the assumption that supplies will remain tight for years to come, even as Chinese and Indian demand surges.
Nor would merely repealing the exploration bans be enough. Between 2000 and 2007, the drilling of exploratory oil wells climbed 138%, but over the same period domestic crude oil production decreased 12.4% and fell to the lowest levels since 1947. Refineries for gasoline are stretched to the limit, but multiple regulatory barriers impede new construction or even expansions at existing facilities. Then there is the inevitable lawsuit downpour from the environmental lobby.
Democrats are going to have to grow up. The oil-rich areas they want to leave untouched are accessible with minimal environmental disturbance, thanks to modern technology. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita flattened terminals across the Gulf of Mexico but didn't cause a single oil spill. As for anticarbon theology, oil will be indispensable over the next half-century and probably longer, like it or not. Airplanes will never fly on woodchips, and you won't be able to charge your car with a windmill for some time, if ever.
Public anger over fuel prices could hardly come at a worse time for the GOP, since voters tend to blame a flagging economy on the party that occupies the White House. But the opportunity is to offer a reform alternative to Barack Obama and the high-price energy status quo he embraces. It looks like the public is increasingly ready for . . . change. In a May Gallup poll, 57% favored "allowing drilling in U.S. coastal and wilderness areas now off limits." Just 20% blamed the increase in gas prices on Big Oil, like Mr. Obama does.
Recent weeks have seen some GOP stirrings on Capitol Hill, but John McCain has so far refused to jettison his green posturings, such as his belief in carbon caps and his animus against offshore development. A good reason for a rethink would be $4 gas. At present, it is charitable to call Mr. McCain's energy ideas incoherent, and it may cost him the election.
About Me
- ...
- Business, Free Enterprise and Constitutional Issues; Pro-Life and Pro Second Amendment. Susan Lynn is a member of the Tennessee General Assembly. She serves as Chairman of the Consumer and Human Resources subcommittee, a member of the Finance Ways and Means Committee and the Ethics Committee. She holds a BS in economics and a minor in history.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Saturday, June 07, 2008
George Will Column
George Will's column below is a great illustration of how the suffering caused by today's high energy prices is not just a problem caused by the Congress' current energy policies but it is a problem brought about over the last ten, twenty, thirty or more years.
Instead of voting to keep America strong they have weakened America and our quality of life. Such policies will always have a greater impact on the poor. As we can see by the high prices of energy, food and clothing, they do.
Instead of voting to keep America strong they have weakened America and our quality of life. Such policies will always have a greater impact on the poor. As we can see by the high prices of energy, food and clothing, they do.
The Gas Prices We Deserve
By George F. Will
Thursday, June 5, 2008; Page A19, The Washington Post
Rising in the Senate on May 13, Chuck Schumer, the New York Democrat, explained: "I rise to discuss rising energy prices." The president was heading to Saudi Arabia to seek an increase in its oil production, and Schumer's gorge was rising.
Saudi Arabia, he said, "holds the key to reducing gasoline prices at home in the short term." Therefore arms sales to that kingdom should be blocked unless it "increases its oil production by one million barrels per day," which would cause the price of gasoline to fall "50 cents a gallon almost immediately."
Can a senator, with so many things on his mind, know so precisely how the price of gasoline would respond to that increase in the oil supply? Schumer does know that if you increase the supply of something, the price of it probably will fall. That is why he and 96 other senators recently voted to increase the supply of oil on the market by stopping the flow of oil into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which protects against major physical interruptions. Seventy-one of the 97 senators who voted to stop filling the reserve also oppose drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
One million barrels is what might today be flowing from ANWR if in 1995 President Bill Clinton had not vetoed legislation to permit drilling there. One million barrels produce 27 million gallons of gasoline and diesel fuel. Seventy-two of today's senators -- including Schumer, of course, and 38 other Democrats, including Barack Obama, and 33 Republicans, including John McCain -- have voted to keep ANWR's estimated 10.4 billion barrels of oil off the market.
So Schumer, according to Schumer, is complicit in taking $10 away from every American who buys 20 gallons of gasoline. "Democracy," said H.L. Mencken, "is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard." The common people of New York want Schumer to be their senator, so they should pipe down about gasoline prices, which are a predictable consequence of their political choice.
Also disqualified from complaining are all voters who sent to Washington senators and representatives who have voted to keep ANWR's oil in the ground and who voted to put 85 percent of America's offshore territory off-limits to drilling. The U.S. Minerals Management Service says that restricted area contains perhaps 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas -- 10 times as much oil and 20 times as much natural gas as Americans use in a year.
Drilling is underway 60 miles off Florida. The drilling is being done by China, in cooperation with Cuba, which is drilling closer to South Florida than U.S. companies are.
ANWR is larger than the combined areas of five states (Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware), and drilling along its coastal plain would be confined to a space one-sixth the size of Washington's Dulles airport. Offshore? Hurricanes Katrina and Rita destroyed or damaged hundreds of drilling rigs without causing a large spill. There has not been a significant spill from an offshore U.S. well since 1969. Of the more than 7 billion barrels of oil pumped offshore in the past 25 years, 0.001 percent -- that is one-thousandth of 1 percent -- has been spilled. Louisiana has more than 3,200 rigs offshore -- and a thriving commercial fishing industry.
In his book "Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of 'Energy Independence,' " Robert Bryce says Brazil's energy success has little to do with its much-discussed ethanol production and much to do with its increased oil production, the vast majority of which comes from off Brazil's shore. Investor's Business Daily reports that Brazil, "which recently made a major oil discovery almost in sight of Rio's beaches," has leased most of the world's deep-sea drilling rigs.
In September 2006, two U.S. companies announced that their Jack No. 2 well, in the Gulf 270 miles southwest of New Orleans, had tapped a field with perhaps 15 billion barrels of oil, which would increase America's proven reserves by 50 percent. Just probing four miles below the Gulf's floor costs $100 million. Congress's response to such expenditures is to propose increasing the oil companies' tax burdens.
America says to foreign producers: We prefer not to pump our oil, so please pump more of yours, thereby lowering its value, for our benefit. Let it not be said that America has no energy policy.
georgewill@washpost.com
Thursday, June 5, 2008; Page A19, The Washington Post
Rising in the Senate on May 13, Chuck Schumer, the New York Democrat, explained: "I rise to discuss rising energy prices." The president was heading to Saudi Arabia to seek an increase in its oil production, and Schumer's gorge was rising.
Saudi Arabia, he said, "holds the key to reducing gasoline prices at home in the short term." Therefore arms sales to that kingdom should be blocked unless it "increases its oil production by one million barrels per day," which would cause the price of gasoline to fall "50 cents a gallon almost immediately."
Can a senator, with so many things on his mind, know so precisely how the price of gasoline would respond to that increase in the oil supply? Schumer does know that if you increase the supply of something, the price of it probably will fall. That is why he and 96 other senators recently voted to increase the supply of oil on the market by stopping the flow of oil into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which protects against major physical interruptions. Seventy-one of the 97 senators who voted to stop filling the reserve also oppose drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
One million barrels is what might today be flowing from ANWR if in 1995 President Bill Clinton had not vetoed legislation to permit drilling there. One million barrels produce 27 million gallons of gasoline and diesel fuel. Seventy-two of today's senators -- including Schumer, of course, and 38 other Democrats, including Barack Obama, and 33 Republicans, including John McCain -- have voted to keep ANWR's estimated 10.4 billion barrels of oil off the market.
So Schumer, according to Schumer, is complicit in taking $10 away from every American who buys 20 gallons of gasoline. "Democracy," said H.L. Mencken, "is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard." The common people of New York want Schumer to be their senator, so they should pipe down about gasoline prices, which are a predictable consequence of their political choice.
Also disqualified from complaining are all voters who sent to Washington senators and representatives who have voted to keep ANWR's oil in the ground and who voted to put 85 percent of America's offshore territory off-limits to drilling. The U.S. Minerals Management Service says that restricted area contains perhaps 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas -- 10 times as much oil and 20 times as much natural gas as Americans use in a year.
Drilling is underway 60 miles off Florida. The drilling is being done by China, in cooperation with Cuba, which is drilling closer to South Florida than U.S. companies are.
ANWR is larger than the combined areas of five states (Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware), and drilling along its coastal plain would be confined to a space one-sixth the size of Washington's Dulles airport. Offshore? Hurricanes Katrina and Rita destroyed or damaged hundreds of drilling rigs without causing a large spill. There has not been a significant spill from an offshore U.S. well since 1969. Of the more than 7 billion barrels of oil pumped offshore in the past 25 years, 0.001 percent -- that is one-thousandth of 1 percent -- has been spilled. Louisiana has more than 3,200 rigs offshore -- and a thriving commercial fishing industry.
In his book "Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of 'Energy Independence,' " Robert Bryce says Brazil's energy success has little to do with its much-discussed ethanol production and much to do with its increased oil production, the vast majority of which comes from off Brazil's shore. Investor's Business Daily reports that Brazil, "which recently made a major oil discovery almost in sight of Rio's beaches," has leased most of the world's deep-sea drilling rigs.
In September 2006, two U.S. companies announced that their Jack No. 2 well, in the Gulf 270 miles southwest of New Orleans, had tapped a field with perhaps 15 billion barrels of oil, which would increase America's proven reserves by 50 percent. Just probing four miles below the Gulf's floor costs $100 million. Congress's response to such expenditures is to propose increasing the oil companies' tax burdens.
America says to foreign producers: We prefer not to pump our oil, so please pump more of yours, thereby lowering its value, for our benefit. Let it not be said that America has no energy policy.
georgewill@washpost.com
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
Value Added School Performance
Tennessee's value-added evaluation system is frequently lauded across the country as a very good way to measure student achievement and school performance.
Today I received an easy to use tool to determine how your child's school performs.
The Education Consumers Foundation is pleased to give you direct access to information on the value-added achievement of all the schools in Tennessee.
Please visit https://owa.legislature.state.tn.us/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://srv.ezinedirector.net/?n=2266692%26s=44101708 to explore the schools in your area.
Today I received an easy to use tool to determine how your child's school performs.
The Education Consumers Foundation is pleased to give you direct access to information on the value-added achievement of all the schools in Tennessee.
Please visit https://owa.legislature.state.tn.us/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://srv.ezinedirector.net/?n=2266692%26s=44101708 to explore the schools in your area.
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
Tennessean Column May 2008
Recently the Tennessean published my guest column below with a rebuttel written by Rep. Mike McDonald and the final word given by the Tennessean editorial staff.
I was very proud that the Tennessean agreed with me that the state should not use its power to legislate property rights away from individuals.
State Should Respect Property Rights
Buyer beware - children learn the phrase, adults experience its meaning, and attorneys are trained in its certainty.
Most learn from their mistakes and go on. However, the state's recent attempt to either buy its way out of a regretful deal or legislate its way out of the deal should raise citizen's interest.
The Governor’s administration may be commended for greatly increasing our state park land. However, after a recent acquisition, it was learned that the purchase price didn’t include certain rights, among them logging. Naturally, the timber company that owned the trees kept on harvesting. The environmentalist outcry caused the Governor to include $82 million dollars in last year’s budget to purchase said trees, et. el.
Now we find out another “regretful” deal neglected to purchase the mineral rights to the Cumberland Trails State Park. Not surprisingly, the rock harvesters that own the rocks continue to harvest them. Like most minors, they don’t earn very much. Some of them supplement their earnings with food stamps.
The mining activity is not pretty. As the harvesters work to fulfill the nations latest fad; “green” building materials, several environmental groups are upset by the disturbance of the land to obtain the rock. Thus far the harvesters have followed the law and regulations; stabilizing the land and complying with water pollution rules. But objectors want a state park to look natural and untouched. And who wouldn’t?
The harvesters offered to sell their mineral rights to the state for appraised value but the state refused choosing instead to file suit. When the judge sided with the harvesters, the state decided to legislate the embarrassment away by proposing a law so restrictive that the harvesters may just give up - effectively; an unconstitutional taking of private property. Tennessee’s citizens should be treated better than this.
Some believe that the end justifies the means. I ask, is it fair to purchase land without all of the rights, and at less than full market value, and then legislate the harvesters’ ability to exercise their property right away? If an end, no matter how strongly desired, is brought about by bad means are we not compelled to work for a better end brought about by acceptable means?
As children we learned that a deal is a deal, and to honor our agreements. As adults we learn the significance and sanctity of a contract. We are careful to agree on terms acceptable to both parties prior to a sale. We can’t change the past. The right thing now is to purchase the mineral rights for a fair value.
Prosperous is the nation that is able to utilize her rich natural resources, and wise is the nation that cares for the environment. However, if laws are made so restrictive that those resources cannot be gathered; if a nation cannot acquire her coal, her timber, her minerals, her oil and gas; then that nation and her people will suffer unnecessarily.
I was very proud that the Tennessean agreed with me that the state should not use its power to legislate property rights away from individuals.
State Should Respect Property Rights
Buyer beware - children learn the phrase, adults experience its meaning, and attorneys are trained in its certainty.
Most learn from their mistakes and go on. However, the state's recent attempt to either buy its way out of a regretful deal or legislate its way out of the deal should raise citizen's interest.
The Governor’s administration may be commended for greatly increasing our state park land. However, after a recent acquisition, it was learned that the purchase price didn’t include certain rights, among them logging. Naturally, the timber company that owned the trees kept on harvesting. The environmentalist outcry caused the Governor to include $82 million dollars in last year’s budget to purchase said trees, et. el.
Now we find out another “regretful” deal neglected to purchase the mineral rights to the Cumberland Trails State Park. Not surprisingly, the rock harvesters that own the rocks continue to harvest them. Like most minors, they don’t earn very much. Some of them supplement their earnings with food stamps.
The mining activity is not pretty. As the harvesters work to fulfill the nations latest fad; “green” building materials, several environmental groups are upset by the disturbance of the land to obtain the rock. Thus far the harvesters have followed the law and regulations; stabilizing the land and complying with water pollution rules. But objectors want a state park to look natural and untouched. And who wouldn’t?
The harvesters offered to sell their mineral rights to the state for appraised value but the state refused choosing instead to file suit. When the judge sided with the harvesters, the state decided to legislate the embarrassment away by proposing a law so restrictive that the harvesters may just give up - effectively; an unconstitutional taking of private property. Tennessee’s citizens should be treated better than this.
Some believe that the end justifies the means. I ask, is it fair to purchase land without all of the rights, and at less than full market value, and then legislate the harvesters’ ability to exercise their property right away? If an end, no matter how strongly desired, is brought about by bad means are we not compelled to work for a better end brought about by acceptable means?
As children we learned that a deal is a deal, and to honor our agreements. As adults we learn the significance and sanctity of a contract. We are careful to agree on terms acceptable to both parties prior to a sale. We can’t change the past. The right thing now is to purchase the mineral rights for a fair value.
Prosperous is the nation that is able to utilize her rich natural resources, and wise is the nation that cares for the environment. However, if laws are made so restrictive that those resources cannot be gathered; if a nation cannot acquire her coal, her timber, her minerals, her oil and gas; then that nation and her people will suffer unnecessarily.
Tennessean Column Dec 2, 2007
Republicans vigilant on available funds
By State Representative Susan Lynn
State tax revenues are suffering as collections are currently $135 million below their mark. Before wish lists for the new session are even considered, many want to know how the state will manage our way through a budget already more than $100 million dollars short in the first quarter.
Last May, legislators debated over the Copeland Cap; a constitutional amendment that limits the growth of the budget to the growth in personal income. Signs of a softening economy worried Republicans as they cautioned against spending every penny of the massive $1.5 billion surplus, plus an additional $220 million dollar cigarette tax increase on new programs. In addition, it was difficult to understand how by spending so much more money we could not have been exceeding the Constitutional limit of the Copeland Cap by far more than was stated.
But we’ll have to manage. Most business managers will adjust to the economic downturn by making tough decisions like restraining spending, reducing new hires, curtailing unnecessary travel, and by putting expansion plans on hold. The state should do no less.
It is clear that 2008 may not be the time to fill wish lists by starting new programs or expanding old ones; after all, we can’t continue to ignore the inflationary demands of necessary commodities forever such as those needed to repair and build new roads. It is time to concentrate on government’s core basis for existence; those things that have an immediate impact on justice, health, safety or supply.
The Department of Education is hoping for an additional $133 million dollars next year to help fully fund the newly revised basic education plan. A little more controversial is a request of $30 million dollars to expand the pre-k program by 38%. The department notes that this addition to the currently $80 million program would help to advance the state toward universal pre-k; an $196 million goal.
Some may call legislators who are cautious about such an expansion mean spirited; others realists. We already have a burgeoning state budget shortfall. There will likely be local government budget shortfalls. Many local school systems are struggling to afford a desperate need to repair or to build new schools just to accommodate the current students. And there is much data that indicates no long term beneficial effect from early education.
Many wonder, why not just concentrate on what we already know needs improvement, and that which will save money in the long run - accountability. How much more would taxpayer dollars be multiplied by ensuring greater accountability?
Getting through this revenue downturn will require restraint, leadership and cooperation. We were proud of how our state employees efficiently handled the departmental budget cuts in 2003 and 2004. No doubt they will handle 2008 with the very same degree of professionalism.
Republicans will continue to respect the taxpayer’s hard work by remaining good stewards of the dollars they provide, and by displaying an understanding for the pressures they face in their own family budgets every day.
By State Representative Susan Lynn
State tax revenues are suffering as collections are currently $135 million below their mark. Before wish lists for the new session are even considered, many want to know how the state will manage our way through a budget already more than $100 million dollars short in the first quarter.
Last May, legislators debated over the Copeland Cap; a constitutional amendment that limits the growth of the budget to the growth in personal income. Signs of a softening economy worried Republicans as they cautioned against spending every penny of the massive $1.5 billion surplus, plus an additional $220 million dollar cigarette tax increase on new programs. In addition, it was difficult to understand how by spending so much more money we could not have been exceeding the Constitutional limit of the Copeland Cap by far more than was stated.
But we’ll have to manage. Most business managers will adjust to the economic downturn by making tough decisions like restraining spending, reducing new hires, curtailing unnecessary travel, and by putting expansion plans on hold. The state should do no less.
It is clear that 2008 may not be the time to fill wish lists by starting new programs or expanding old ones; after all, we can’t continue to ignore the inflationary demands of necessary commodities forever such as those needed to repair and build new roads. It is time to concentrate on government’s core basis for existence; those things that have an immediate impact on justice, health, safety or supply.
The Department of Education is hoping for an additional $133 million dollars next year to help fully fund the newly revised basic education plan. A little more controversial is a request of $30 million dollars to expand the pre-k program by 38%. The department notes that this addition to the currently $80 million program would help to advance the state toward universal pre-k; an $196 million goal.
Some may call legislators who are cautious about such an expansion mean spirited; others realists. We already have a burgeoning state budget shortfall. There will likely be local government budget shortfalls. Many local school systems are struggling to afford a desperate need to repair or to build new schools just to accommodate the current students. And there is much data that indicates no long term beneficial effect from early education.
Many wonder, why not just concentrate on what we already know needs improvement, and that which will save money in the long run - accountability. How much more would taxpayer dollars be multiplied by ensuring greater accountability?
Getting through this revenue downturn will require restraint, leadership and cooperation. We were proud of how our state employees efficiently handled the departmental budget cuts in 2003 and 2004. No doubt they will handle 2008 with the very same degree of professionalism.
Republicans will continue to respect the taxpayer’s hard work by remaining good stewards of the dollars they provide, and by displaying an understanding for the pressures they face in their own family budgets every day.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Florida & Iowa reform CON law
"Florida and Iowa legislators have passed bills that will reform their respective certificate-of-need processes."
Florida simplifies the process, and establishes a "loser pays" provision to discourage lawsuits meant only to obstruct the process.
Iowa's CON legislation has not passed both houses. "The bill would let replacement critical-access hospitals serving 75 percent of the same area, providing 75 percent of the same services and keeping 75 percent of the same staff avoid the CON process entirely."
Florida simplifies the process, and establishes a "loser pays" provision to discourage lawsuits meant only to obstruct the process.
Iowa's CON legislation has not passed both houses. "The bill would let replacement critical-access hospitals serving 75 percent of the same area, providing 75 percent of the same services and keeping 75 percent of the same staff avoid the CON process entirely."
Monday, February 18, 2008
Another attempt to repeal CON
The Birmingham News reports of the Alabama Policy Institute's mission to repeal the state's Certificate of Need law.
"there's no evidence the regulation has reduced health care costs and some evidence that it increases them. Instead, the laws have limited innovation and patients' choice...Michael Morrisey, an health economist at the University of Alabama at Birmingham
This joins a recent article by Fierce Healthcare and the Florida Governor's work to end his state's certificate of need program.
Thirteen other sates have recently repealed the CON.
Please see my recent blog post on CON.
"there's no evidence the regulation has reduced health care costs and some evidence that it increases them. Instead, the laws have limited innovation and patients' choice...Michael Morrisey, an health economist at the University of Alabama at Birmingham
This joins a recent article by Fierce Healthcare and the Florida Governor's work to end his state's certificate of need program.
Thirteen other sates have recently repealed the CON.
Please see my recent blog post on CON.
A Must Read
Mandates for Change
By ARNOLD KLING, Wall Street Journal, February 13, 2008
If the Democrats win, they won't be able to increase spending much. But boy, will they regulate...
By ARNOLD KLING, Wall Street Journal, February 13, 2008
If the Democrats win, they won't be able to increase spending much. But boy, will they regulate...
Thank You
Thank you to Ralph Bristol, Super Talk 99.7 - WWTN and to Mike Slater - WTJS - 1390.
Each interviewed me about my bill HB 2948 - a bill to base licensure of occupations and professions on factual data that proves or disproves a need for licensure.
Thank you to American Family Radio for recenly inviting me to talk about my article on Democratic Socialism.
Each interviewed me about my bill HB 2948 - a bill to base licensure of occupations and professions on factual data that proves or disproves a need for licensure.
Thank you to American Family Radio for recenly inviting me to talk about my article on Democratic Socialism.
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
Florida gov wants to end CON law
Fierce Healthcare reports that Florida's governor wants to end his state's certificate of need program for acute-care hospitals. The article reveals that 13 states have recently repealed the CON.
This is good news. Please see my recent blog post on CON.
This is good news. Please see my recent blog post on CON.
Friday, February 01, 2008
Bills would put vote in people's hands
Tennessean Column, February 01, 2008
The legislature's Voter Confidence Act Study Committee met last week and approved two very important pieces of legislation to require paper ballots for the new voting technology used in Tennessee. Now the bills head back to the elections subcommittee for reconsideration.
Voters may like the new touch-screen electronic voting equipment but, in retrospect, many are concerned it doesn't increase voter confidence for secure elections at all.
High on the list of noted problems is that Tennessee's new machines are run completely by computer software programs. No paper ballot is produced to back up information or to perform random audits of machine totals for accuracy.
Because the machines employ computer software, few have the skill or ability to verify the software source code for voting integrity. In addition, almost no one has the opportunity to verify the source code. Further, no law requires the source code to be stored for comparison at a later date.
Risk of foul play is real
Even so, a comparison of source code may not reveal if there was tampering. Recent congressional testimony and a report issued by Princeton University's School of Engineering each demonstrate how easily a virus, created to steal an election, can be uploaded into electronic voting machines and then erase all indication of itself after voting is complete, thus eliminating all evidence of foul play.
A simple, verifiable paper trail would help to alleviate many concerns for voters. As each voter casts his or her vote, they verify their choices on an anonymous paper record. Once voting is complete, random audits comparing the paper record to the electronic totals help to confirm the accuracy of the election.
A better alternative may be the optical-scanning machine, which requires each voter to mark a paper ballot. Then, the vote is counted by a scanner. The advantage of this system is that the ballot is retained, it is available for a recount, and it can be stored indefinitely.
Because of the concerns over ballotless voting equipment, some states reconsidered their use of electronic equipment in the 2006 elections. Congress is currently considering banning equipment without a paper ballot and funding replacement machines.
Tennessee House Bill 1256 would mandate replacement of all electronic voting machines without a paper ballot at a cost of $25 million. I believe that the General Assembly should commit to fund this legislation whether or not Congress sends us the money. HB 1282, legislation that I have sponsored each year since 2004, will ensure that going forward, all new voting equipment purchased in Tennessee will have a paper ballot.
A frightening quote by Joseph Stalin states, "Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything." Tyranny relies on secret processes controlled by a scant few. The Voter Confidence Act Study Committee has voted to put the ballot back into the hands of the people. Let us pray the General Assembly will ultimately vote to do the same.
State Rep. Susan Lynn, R-Mt. Juliet, is secretary of the Voter Confidence Act Study Committee.
E-mail: rep.susan.lynn@legislature.state.tn.us
The legislature's Voter Confidence Act Study Committee met last week and approved two very important pieces of legislation to require paper ballots for the new voting technology used in Tennessee. Now the bills head back to the elections subcommittee for reconsideration.
Voters may like the new touch-screen electronic voting equipment but, in retrospect, many are concerned it doesn't increase voter confidence for secure elections at all.
High on the list of noted problems is that Tennessee's new machines are run completely by computer software programs. No paper ballot is produced to back up information or to perform random audits of machine totals for accuracy.
Because the machines employ computer software, few have the skill or ability to verify the software source code for voting integrity. In addition, almost no one has the opportunity to verify the source code. Further, no law requires the source code to be stored for comparison at a later date.
Risk of foul play is real
Even so, a comparison of source code may not reveal if there was tampering. Recent congressional testimony and a report issued by Princeton University's School of Engineering each demonstrate how easily a virus, created to steal an election, can be uploaded into electronic voting machines and then erase all indication of itself after voting is complete, thus eliminating all evidence of foul play.
A simple, verifiable paper trail would help to alleviate many concerns for voters. As each voter casts his or her vote, they verify their choices on an anonymous paper record. Once voting is complete, random audits comparing the paper record to the electronic totals help to confirm the accuracy of the election.
A better alternative may be the optical-scanning machine, which requires each voter to mark a paper ballot. Then, the vote is counted by a scanner. The advantage of this system is that the ballot is retained, it is available for a recount, and it can be stored indefinitely.
Because of the concerns over ballotless voting equipment, some states reconsidered their use of electronic equipment in the 2006 elections. Congress is currently considering banning equipment without a paper ballot and funding replacement machines.
Tennessee House Bill 1256 would mandate replacement of all electronic voting machines without a paper ballot at a cost of $25 million. I believe that the General Assembly should commit to fund this legislation whether or not Congress sends us the money. HB 1282, legislation that I have sponsored each year since 2004, will ensure that going forward, all new voting equipment purchased in Tennessee will have a paper ballot.
A frightening quote by Joseph Stalin states, "Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything." Tyranny relies on secret processes controlled by a scant few. The Voter Confidence Act Study Committee has voted to put the ballot back into the hands of the people. Let us pray the General Assembly will ultimately vote to do the same.
State Rep. Susan Lynn, R-Mt. Juliet, is secretary of the Voter Confidence Act Study Committee.
E-mail: rep.susan.lynn@legislature.state.tn.us
The Tennessee Republican Primary Explained
By: Don Johnson, Executive Director of the Shelby County Republican Party
The Presidential Preference
Your first vote is for a Presidential Preference, or who you want to be the Republican nominee for President. It is the results of this vote that is used to determine how many delegates each Presidential candidate gets out of Tennessee.
Some states are "Winner-take-all", but Tennessee's delegates are allocated proportionally (unless one candidate were to get 2/3rds of the vote) so several candidates are likely to receive statewide delegates or delegates in any of our 9 Congressional Districts. A Presidential candidate must get at least 20% of the vote in either jurisdiction in order to get any delegates.
Here is an example using some previous Republican Presidents
Let's say the statewide result were something like this example:
Tennessee Republican Primary
Statewide vote
Lincoln, Abraham 30%
Reagan, Ronald: 28%
Eisenhower, Dwight 22%
Ford, Gerald 15%
Hoover, Herbert 6%
Ford and Hoover would not receive any delegates because they did not meet the 20% threshold. Delegates would be allocated based on the votes received by Lincoln, Reagan, and Eisenhower. Since 12 delegates are available statewide the distribution would be as follows:
5 delegate spots are for Lincoln
4 delegate spots are for Reagan
3 delegate spots are for Eisenhower
Each Congressional District also elects 3 delegates. Essentially the first place winner gets two and the second place finisher in that district gets one delegate spot:
Tennessee Republican Primary
9th District Results
Eisenhower, Dwight: 36%
Reagan, Ronald: 31%
Lincoln, Abraham: 22%
Ford, Gerald: 8%
Hoover, Herbert: 3%
Additionally, Thirteen delegates are chosen by the Tennessee Republican Party's State Executive Committee and the three RNC members (our State Chairwoman, National Committeeman and Committeewoman) also attend the convention as delegates.
These delegates are not pledged to any particular candidate and you don't have to worry about them on your ballot. This will make a total of fifty-five Tennesseans that will represent all Tennessee Republicans at the National Convention in St. Paul, Minnesota.
Voting for Delegates
After you have chosen your Presidential preference, the Republican Party lets the voters decide which individuals get to represent their favored candidate at the Convention.
Essentially, delegates pledged to each Presidential candidate are running against one another in order to get a ticket to represent their man at the Convention. If, using the above example, Lincoln gets 5 statewide delegate spots; the top 5 vote-getting delegate candidates pledged to him will go to the convention.
Do I have to bother voting for delegates at all?
You do not have to vote for any delegates in order for your Presidential Preference to count.
What if my Presidential preference doesn't have 12 statewide delegates (or 3 Congressional district delegates) to vote for?
You can just vote for the ones that are there, or vote for delegates for other Presidential candidates. It will not hurt your Presidential preference.
Can I vote for delegates for other Presidential candidates?
You have the option to vote for delegates who are pledged to candidates other than your own. Using the example above, lets say you are a Reagan supporter but you have a friend from church who is running as a delegate pledged to Lincoln. You can vote for Reagan, which helps him get more delegate spots, and vote for your friend under "Delegates pledged to Abraham Lincoln" to help him/her win the right to represent Lincoln at the Convention.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Friday, January 11, 2008
Democratic Socialism
As we head into another legislative Session and Presidential election year, many are concerned about our elected officials proposing evermore socialist policies and programs. Our nation seems to be split - some want to stop this advance, and clearly others want it to progress.
The late, great economist Milton Friedman often reminded us that throughout history there have been oppressive governments that impose totalitarian socialism on the people – causing untold tyranny, servitude, and misery. As Americans, we reject such oppression.
Yet, many of the very same Americans who regard totalitarian socialism as something evil do not seem to see a problem with democratic socialism.
If it is agreed that socialism takes away our freedom, imposes heavy taxes, and creates heaps of inefficient government bureaucracy, why then is socialism any more palatable just because a legislator votes for it through the democratic process than if a dictator imposes it?
Is it really possible to take freedom away in a kinder gentler manner? As government programs become ever more elaborate and expensive just how much will it ultimately cost to buy the compliance of America?
Today, there seems to be societal confusion over just what constitutes a "right." A constituent asked me, “Do you believe healthcare is a right?” “No, I don’t” was my reply and I went on to explain that if a so called “right” takes something from another person to provide that right to you it is not a right.
My right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness costs others nothing and yet I delight in each of those rights everyday. My right to freedom of speech, religion and my property costs others nothing as well. The government doesn’t provide rights to me – they are mine, given to me by God. The government protects my rights for me.
Socialized healthcare is not a right but a government program. All socialism, democratic or totalitarian, is born of a “Plan” by politicians that think they know better how to spend your money and pretend to care more about your children than you do.
How is it accomplished? It is a gradual process to pass laws that destroy the free market and bring us to our knees begging for government intervention.
However, such programs are destined to be laced with coercion, power struggles, turf wars and pressure from special interests that are assured to grant you less power, choice and money. Ask yourself, do you really want to pathetically beg some politician for something that you should decide for yourself?
Our free enterprise system has produced the greatest nation the world has ever known. Experience shows us that government programs don’t perform market activities as well as the free market. It is time to remind ourselves of the distinction between a "right" and a "program"; "protection" and "provision."
Socialism fosters rationing, inferior quality, poor service, stunted innovation and undermines motivation. Some politicians may have very smooth words that tempt your better judgment and buy your compliance but beware, their rhetoric costs more than we can afford.
The late, great economist Milton Friedman often reminded us that throughout history there have been oppressive governments that impose totalitarian socialism on the people – causing untold tyranny, servitude, and misery. As Americans, we reject such oppression.
Yet, many of the very same Americans who regard totalitarian socialism as something evil do not seem to see a problem with democratic socialism.
If it is agreed that socialism takes away our freedom, imposes heavy taxes, and creates heaps of inefficient government bureaucracy, why then is socialism any more palatable just because a legislator votes for it through the democratic process than if a dictator imposes it?
Is it really possible to take freedom away in a kinder gentler manner? As government programs become ever more elaborate and expensive just how much will it ultimately cost to buy the compliance of America?
Today, there seems to be societal confusion over just what constitutes a "right." A constituent asked me, “Do you believe healthcare is a right?” “No, I don’t” was my reply and I went on to explain that if a so called “right” takes something from another person to provide that right to you it is not a right.
My right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness costs others nothing and yet I delight in each of those rights everyday. My right to freedom of speech, religion and my property costs others nothing as well. The government doesn’t provide rights to me – they are mine, given to me by God. The government protects my rights for me.
Socialized healthcare is not a right but a government program. All socialism, democratic or totalitarian, is born of a “Plan” by politicians that think they know better how to spend your money and pretend to care more about your children than you do.
How is it accomplished? It is a gradual process to pass laws that destroy the free market and bring us to our knees begging for government intervention.
However, such programs are destined to be laced with coercion, power struggles, turf wars and pressure from special interests that are assured to grant you less power, choice and money. Ask yourself, do you really want to pathetically beg some politician for something that you should decide for yourself?
Our free enterprise system has produced the greatest nation the world has ever known. Experience shows us that government programs don’t perform market activities as well as the free market. It is time to remind ourselves of the distinction between a "right" and a "program"; "protection" and "provision."
Socialism fosters rationing, inferior quality, poor service, stunted innovation and undermines motivation. Some politicians may have very smooth words that tempt your better judgment and buy your compliance but beware, their rhetoric costs more than we can afford.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Buying Compliance
As we head into another legislative Session and Presidential election year, many are very concerned about our elected officials proposing evermore socialist policies and programs. Our nation seems to be split - some want to stop this advance, and clearly others want to progress with it.
The late, great economist Milton Friedman often reminded us that throughout history there have been oppressive governments that impose totalitarian socialism on the people – causing untold tyranny, servitude, and misery. As Americans, we reject such oppression.
Yet, many of the very same Americans who regard totalitarian socialism as something evil do not seem to see a problem with democratic socialism.
If it is agreed that socialism takes away our freedom, imposes heavy taxes, and creates heaps of inefficient government bureaucracy, why then is socialism any more palatable just because a legislator votes for it through the democratic process than if a dictator imposes it?
Is it really possible to take freedom away in a kinder gentler manner? As government programs become ever more elaborate and expensive just how much will it ultimately cost to buy the compliance of an entire state or a nation?
The genius of our founding fathers is unmatched in the history of civilization. They created a nation based on the blessings of liberty, personal responsibility and free enterprise. Never before had such freedom or prosperity been known.
Far from being anarchists, they formed our government to determine, arbitrate and enforce rules that protect our rights and punish those who would violate our freedom.
But today, there seems to be confusion over just what constitutes a "right." A constituent once asked me, “Do you think healthcare is a right?” “No, I don’t” was my reply and I went on to explain that if a so called “right” takes something from another person to provide that right to you it is not a right.
My right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness costs others nothing and yet I delight in each of those rights everyday. My right to freedom of speech, religion and my property costs others nothing as well. The government doesn’t provide those rights to me – they are mine, given to me by God. The government protects those rights for me...and for you.
Yet, if you say "I have a right to healthcare," you are expressing an expectation to get all the healthcare you want for free. However, if it is your right, why must others suffer to pay for it?
Socialized healthcare is not a right but a government program. All socialism, democratic or totalitarian, is born of a politician with a “Plan.” He typically thinks he knows better how to spend your money, and pretends to care more about your children than you do. All in a scheme to force your dollars out of your pocket into the government coffers for some program that will provide him power and make him immortal. However, the program is destined to be laced with coercion, power struggles, turf wars and pressure from special interests that are assured to grant you less and less power, and less of your own money for time immemorial. Before you know it, you’re pathetically begging some politician for something that you should decide on for yourself.
The carrot to take away your freedom? How do they buy your compliance? They promise you that "they and they alone" will give you something for “free” – in reality, they are offering to purchase your vote with your own money.
Our free enterprise system has produced great riches; therefore, it is tempting for politicians to come up with a “plan” to smooth over the bumps in life. However, the original plan for our nation is a plan that produces the most freedom and prosperity through the protection of our rights. Would taxes be so high if we stuck to the basic elements of:
The late, great economist Milton Friedman often reminded us that throughout history there have been oppressive governments that impose totalitarian socialism on the people – causing untold tyranny, servitude, and misery. As Americans, we reject such oppression.
Yet, many of the very same Americans who regard totalitarian socialism as something evil do not seem to see a problem with democratic socialism.
If it is agreed that socialism takes away our freedom, imposes heavy taxes, and creates heaps of inefficient government bureaucracy, why then is socialism any more palatable just because a legislator votes for it through the democratic process than if a dictator imposes it?
Is it really possible to take freedom away in a kinder gentler manner? As government programs become ever more elaborate and expensive just how much will it ultimately cost to buy the compliance of an entire state or a nation?
The genius of our founding fathers is unmatched in the history of civilization. They created a nation based on the blessings of liberty, personal responsibility and free enterprise. Never before had such freedom or prosperity been known.
Far from being anarchists, they formed our government to determine, arbitrate and enforce rules that protect our rights and punish those who would violate our freedom.
But today, there seems to be confusion over just what constitutes a "right." A constituent once asked me, “Do you think healthcare is a right?” “No, I don’t” was my reply and I went on to explain that if a so called “right” takes something from another person to provide that right to you it is not a right.
My right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness costs others nothing and yet I delight in each of those rights everyday. My right to freedom of speech, religion and my property costs others nothing as well. The government doesn’t provide those rights to me – they are mine, given to me by God. The government protects those rights for me...and for you.
Yet, if you say "I have a right to healthcare," you are expressing an expectation to get all the healthcare you want for free. However, if it is your right, why must others suffer to pay for it?
Socialized healthcare is not a right but a government program. All socialism, democratic or totalitarian, is born of a politician with a “Plan.” He typically thinks he knows better how to spend your money, and pretends to care more about your children than you do. All in a scheme to force your dollars out of your pocket into the government coffers for some program that will provide him power and make him immortal. However, the program is destined to be laced with coercion, power struggles, turf wars and pressure from special interests that are assured to grant you less and less power, and less of your own money for time immemorial. Before you know it, you’re pathetically begging some politician for something that you should decide on for yourself.
The carrot to take away your freedom? How do they buy your compliance? They promise you that "they and they alone" will give you something for “free” – in reality, they are offering to purchase your vote with your own money.
Our free enterprise system has produced great riches; therefore, it is tempting for politicians to come up with a “plan” to smooth over the bumps in life. However, the original plan for our nation is a plan that produces the most freedom and prosperity through the protection of our rights. Would taxes be so high if we stuck to the basic elements of:
- Providing protection for our citizens inside and outside of our national boundaries
- Effective laws and courts to preserve order and provide justice, interpret and enforce private contracts, pronounce punishment, grant restitution, foster competitive markets and counter monopolies
- Providing a strong monetary framework and banking system
- And protection of the truly helpless (generally the insane and children)
Experience shows us that government just doesn’t perform market activities as well as the free market. Socialism fosters rationing, poor quality, poor service, stunted innovation and undermines motivation. Politicians may have some very smooth words that tempt your better judgment and attempt to buy your compliance but truly their rhetoric will only bankrupt us all.
Monday, November 05, 2007
White Ribbon Week
Its WRAP week – will you wear a white ribbon?
WRAP stands for white ribbons against pornography. Its founders are fighting the objectification of women and the dehumanization of both female and male participants in pornography.
Sound familiar? The mainstream women’s movement gave up on this idea long ago. Instead, now sending the message it’s not exploitation if a woman exploits herself – It is power.
Many of the founders of WRAP are thirty something’s that have fled the porn industry to turn their lives around. Their heartbreaking testimonies tell of their own exposure as children to pornographic materials their parents had hidden in the house. This led to desensitization, early experimentation, abuse and, for them, careers in the porn industry. Their mission now is to spread the message of how the secret of pornography often leads both children and adults into destructive sexual addictions that tear families apart and destroy careers.
WRAP’s fight is not only against the formal porn industry but the many ways it spills over into the mainstream media today. In fact, the porn industry makes more revenue than all major television and cable news networks combined. No wonder these mainstream TV channels air some of the questionable programming that they do – the numbers tell them that this is what people want to see.
Often promoting rape and other anti-social behaviors, WRAP points to the increasing sexual violence and molestation of children by adults and authority figures as behaviors extending from the porn industry.
The statistics are staggering. Law enforcement tells us that they are able to track the Internet viewing of child pornography. It is a problem that not only endangers children worldwide but right here in our city. They also know that so-called “adult” pornography is commonly used by pedophiles to desensitize their child victim and break down their resistance to sexual acts.
The Supreme Court has ruled that obscenity is not protected speech so we do have laws to protect people that don’t want themselves or their children to be exposed. What WRAP is trying to wake us up to is the addiction, the objectification, the desensitizing effects, and the crimes that extend from the industry. Recognizing the harm to children, women and men worldwide, they’re asking for you and me to think about it and make a commitment not to support this industry.
When we pay to go see or rent many R rated movies, subscribe to cable movie channels such as Showtime, even watching some evening network TV programming we're supporing an extention of this industry.
If I had one wish, I’d wish that I could tell each young woman today, your femininity is a lovely gift that is part of what makes you the special young lady that you are but please know you don’t ever need to exploit your sexuality to prove your worth to anyone.
To mothers, I’d urge them, protect your children from graphic images on the Internet and in the media like a mama bear protecting her cubs. “Not my child!” should be your cry if anyone exposes your children to graphic images.
And to Fathers, guarding your family from every harm is your first priority. It’s important.
Indeed WRAP wants all of us to know that guarding society starts first with guarding ourselves.
WRAP stands for white ribbons against pornography. Its founders are fighting the objectification of women and the dehumanization of both female and male participants in pornography.
Sound familiar? The mainstream women’s movement gave up on this idea long ago. Instead, now sending the message it’s not exploitation if a woman exploits herself – It is power.
Many of the founders of WRAP are thirty something’s that have fled the porn industry to turn their lives around. Their heartbreaking testimonies tell of their own exposure as children to pornographic materials their parents had hidden in the house. This led to desensitization, early experimentation, abuse and, for them, careers in the porn industry. Their mission now is to spread the message of how the secret of pornography often leads both children and adults into destructive sexual addictions that tear families apart and destroy careers.
WRAP’s fight is not only against the formal porn industry but the many ways it spills over into the mainstream media today. In fact, the porn industry makes more revenue than all major television and cable news networks combined. No wonder these mainstream TV channels air some of the questionable programming that they do – the numbers tell them that this is what people want to see.
Often promoting rape and other anti-social behaviors, WRAP points to the increasing sexual violence and molestation of children by adults and authority figures as behaviors extending from the porn industry.
The statistics are staggering. Law enforcement tells us that they are able to track the Internet viewing of child pornography. It is a problem that not only endangers children worldwide but right here in our city. They also know that so-called “adult” pornography is commonly used by pedophiles to desensitize their child victim and break down their resistance to sexual acts.
The Supreme Court has ruled that obscenity is not protected speech so we do have laws to protect people that don’t want themselves or their children to be exposed. What WRAP is trying to wake us up to is the addiction, the objectification, the desensitizing effects, and the crimes that extend from the industry. Recognizing the harm to children, women and men worldwide, they’re asking for you and me to think about it and make a commitment not to support this industry.
When we pay to go see or rent many R rated movies, subscribe to cable movie channels such as Showtime, even watching some evening network TV programming we're supporing an extention of this industry.
If I had one wish, I’d wish that I could tell each young woman today, your femininity is a lovely gift that is part of what makes you the special young lady that you are but please know you don’t ever need to exploit your sexuality to prove your worth to anyone.
To mothers, I’d urge them, protect your children from graphic images on the Internet and in the media like a mama bear protecting her cubs. “Not my child!” should be your cry if anyone exposes your children to graphic images.
And to Fathers, guarding your family from every harm is your first priority. It’s important.
Indeed WRAP wants all of us to know that guarding society starts first with guarding ourselves.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Tennessee Receives a C on Campaign Finance
The California Voter Foundation has just completed a nationwide study to grade and rank the states' campaign finance disclosure laws.
Tennessee received a C and ranked 28th out of 50 states.
The California Voter Foundation produces very good data on voting and campaign finance laws. I have depended on them for years to learn what other states are doing.
The report makes some suggestions for Tennessee including:
Tennessee received a C and ranked 28th out of 50 states.
The California Voter Foundation produces very good data on voting and campaign finance laws. I have depended on them for years to learn what other states are doing.
The report makes some suggestions for Tennessee including:
Add additional search fields to the contributions database, such as donor employer and zip code, and contribution amount.
Summaries of candidates’ campaign financing are available from 1996 through 2006 and include totals raised and spent by each candidate, including totals from each reporting period.
Monday, October 15, 2007
The Big CON
Stacey Campfield writes about the Tennessean's article on certificates of need.
I filed a bill this year to do away with the CON process in Tennessee. The history of CON is very interesting. The process was never meant to prevent private investment dollars from investing in health care facilities but that is exactly what the CON process does.
A Brief History of CON
CON evolved out of the Depression and WWII; at a time when private dollars to build healthcare facilities were more than scarce. In order to expand the local hospital or to buy a much needed piece of equipment, communities formed committees that worked to raise charitable dollars, and to decide how to spend those dollars.
After the war, the federal government began to aid the local groups by offering grants as assistance. By the 1960's, the American Hospital Association successfully convinced the New York State legislature to pass a state law making the process a state function. Only their process not only "planned" how to spend charitable dollars, and government grant dollars, but it additionally had the insidious ability to restrict private investment dollars. This meant that in order to build a new facility private investors now had to seek permission from the state in the form of a certificate of need, a.k.a. CON.
Ten years later, AHA successfully passed CON legislation at the federal level. However, the federal law was repealed in only three years as analysts quickly realized the negative effects on competition, innovation and price.
Unfortunately, the AHA and other lobbyists were able to convince most states to keep their CON laws. Today, 32 states require certificates of need for varying items.
CON is protectionism at its worst. A CON costs an incredible amount of money, time and hassle to get.
I filed a bill this year to do away with the CON process in Tennessee. The history of CON is very interesting. The process was never meant to prevent private investment dollars from investing in health care facilities but that is exactly what the CON process does.
A Brief History of CON
CON evolved out of the Depression and WWII; at a time when private dollars to build healthcare facilities were more than scarce. In order to expand the local hospital or to buy a much needed piece of equipment, communities formed committees that worked to raise charitable dollars, and to decide how to spend those dollars.
After the war, the federal government began to aid the local groups by offering grants as assistance. By the 1960's, the American Hospital Association successfully convinced the New York State legislature to pass a state law making the process a state function. Only their process not only "planned" how to spend charitable dollars, and government grant dollars, but it additionally had the insidious ability to restrict private investment dollars. This meant that in order to build a new facility private investors now had to seek permission from the state in the form of a certificate of need, a.k.a. CON.
Ten years later, AHA successfully passed CON legislation at the federal level. However, the federal law was repealed in only three years as analysts quickly realized the negative effects on competition, innovation and price.
Unfortunately, the AHA and other lobbyists were able to convince most states to keep their CON laws. Today, 32 states require certificates of need for varying items.
CON is protectionism at its worst. A CON costs an incredible amount of money, time and hassle to get.
Read More About CON
A great little book by the John Locke Foundation, Certificate-of-Need, It's Time For Repeal, explains the process quite well. Here is a review.Energy Bill Guest Column
Please see my Sunday guest column in the Tennessean on the federal energy bill below.
Other recent blog posts concerning issues related to the energy bill include.
Who owns big oil anyway?
Is the cure worse than the disease?
Congress must reconsider energy bills to get it right
By State Representative Susan Lynn
What amounts to a lackluster performance by both chambers of Congress has left the United States with pieces of energy legislation that would jeopardize America’s long-term energy security rather than advance it. Our country needs all forms of energy. Yet, the current legislative juncture has been driven by partisanship and short-sighted thinking and the result does nothing to boost access to domestic resources or strengthen America’s ability to secure energy from the global market.
Facilitating access to the vast domestic energy resources housed within our borders is one of the smartest things that lawmakers could consider as the Senate and House bills go to a conference committee for negotiations. But as they stand, the current bills would hinder the ability of domestic energy companies to reliably meet our nation’s increasing demand – translating into job losses, rising energy costs and financial hardship for the millions of Americans whose pensions are invested in U.S. oil companies.
Regrettably, this faulty legislation is rife with counterintuitive measures that will increase U.S. dependence on foreign oil. Higher taxes on the oil industry are sure to impede the technological advances that have led to recent energy finds. For instance, a record-setting find 175 miles off Louisiana’s coast in late 2006 was possible only by drilling more than 28,000 feet below the water’s surface. With no spills and no work incidents at this site – as well as a promising new source of domestic oil – the billions of dollars in reinvestments from oil companies are obviously paying off to enhance U.S. energy security.
Hampering the progress of our domestic energy producers only concedes further competitive advantages to foreign energy firms by restricting the assets that American oil companies have available to fund the financially risky exploration and development projects common to the energy industry. Energy development is investment-intensive and long-term in scope, so Congress should do all it can to see that domestic energy companies can remain competitive with the nationalized foreign firms that aggressively pursue resource-rich lands without the burden of undue taxes.
Lawmakers need to refocus their attention on the vital role reliable energy supply plays in the United States’ ability to continue any future economic growth. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 made progress toward long-term energy security, passing with bipartisan majorities in both the House and Senate. Today, however, Congress seems determined to rebuke traditional energy sources in hopes that federally-mandated investments in new sources will somehow make up the difference.
The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that fossil fuels will continue to meet approximately 85 percent of U.S. energy demand over the next two decades. So clearly, environmentally sound development of the petroleum resources within our borders should be a logical component of any legislation intended for the President’s signature. In their present form, the short-sighted House and Senate bills would undermine our long-term energy security and national economic outlook. If lawmakers in Washington want to show real leadership, they should kill this legislation before it sees the light of day.
Susan Lynn
State Representative
57th District Tennessee
Susan Lynn is the Public Sector Chairman of the American Legislative Exchange Council’s Commerce, Insurance and Economic Development Task Force.
Other recent blog posts concerning issues related to the energy bill include.
Who owns big oil anyway?
Is the cure worse than the disease?
Congress must reconsider energy bills to get it right
By State Representative Susan Lynn
What amounts to a lackluster performance by both chambers of Congress has left the United States with pieces of energy legislation that would jeopardize America’s long-term energy security rather than advance it. Our country needs all forms of energy. Yet, the current legislative juncture has been driven by partisanship and short-sighted thinking and the result does nothing to boost access to domestic resources or strengthen America’s ability to secure energy from the global market.
Facilitating access to the vast domestic energy resources housed within our borders is one of the smartest things that lawmakers could consider as the Senate and House bills go to a conference committee for negotiations. But as they stand, the current bills would hinder the ability of domestic energy companies to reliably meet our nation’s increasing demand – translating into job losses, rising energy costs and financial hardship for the millions of Americans whose pensions are invested in U.S. oil companies.
Regrettably, this faulty legislation is rife with counterintuitive measures that will increase U.S. dependence on foreign oil. Higher taxes on the oil industry are sure to impede the technological advances that have led to recent energy finds. For instance, a record-setting find 175 miles off Louisiana’s coast in late 2006 was possible only by drilling more than 28,000 feet below the water’s surface. With no spills and no work incidents at this site – as well as a promising new source of domestic oil – the billions of dollars in reinvestments from oil companies are obviously paying off to enhance U.S. energy security.
Hampering the progress of our domestic energy producers only concedes further competitive advantages to foreign energy firms by restricting the assets that American oil companies have available to fund the financially risky exploration and development projects common to the energy industry. Energy development is investment-intensive and long-term in scope, so Congress should do all it can to see that domestic energy companies can remain competitive with the nationalized foreign firms that aggressively pursue resource-rich lands without the burden of undue taxes.
Lawmakers need to refocus their attention on the vital role reliable energy supply plays in the United States’ ability to continue any future economic growth. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 made progress toward long-term energy security, passing with bipartisan majorities in both the House and Senate. Today, however, Congress seems determined to rebuke traditional energy sources in hopes that federally-mandated investments in new sources will somehow make up the difference.
The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that fossil fuels will continue to meet approximately 85 percent of U.S. energy demand over the next two decades. So clearly, environmentally sound development of the petroleum resources within our borders should be a logical component of any legislation intended for the President’s signature. In their present form, the short-sighted House and Senate bills would undermine our long-term energy security and national economic outlook. If lawmakers in Washington want to show real leadership, they should kill this legislation before it sees the light of day.
Susan Lynn
State Representative
57th District Tennessee
Susan Lynn is the Public Sector Chairman of the American Legislative Exchange Council’s Commerce, Insurance and Economic Development Task Force.
ALEC issues PR on Law of the Sea Treaty
For Immediate Release:
Contact: Michael Hough
(202) 557-8490
October 10, 2007
Sea Treaty Threatens States’ and Nation’s Sovereignty
WASHINGTON, D.C.—On Thursday October 4, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing on the Law of the Sea Treaty (L.O.S.T). The treaty, which was originally rejected by President Ronald Reagan in 1982, has been revived with the support of the Bush Administration. The treaty threatens our nation's sovereignty by allowing the United Nations (UN) to regulate sea and land pollution and enact global taxes.
Environmental protection provisions in L.O.S.T will impact all states. Unbelievably, the treaty allows the UN to regulate pollution from "land-based sources." This will have a direct impact on all states. According to Tennessee Representative Susan Lynn, Chair of ALEC's Commerce, Insurance, and Economic Development Task Force, "The people of my state expect lawmakers, not unelected bureaucrats at the UN to make environmental and tax policy."
Aside from regulating our environmental polices, L.O.S.T empowers the International Seabed Authority (ISA) to impose taxes on American companies. Natural gas and oil companies, which export minerals more than 200 miles off shore, will be forced to pay seven percent of their profits to the I.S.A. Lynn added that "This treaty a terrible idea that would give the United Nations control over 7/10ths of the earth's surface. We must cautious about giving away such sovereignty because he who rules the sea will one day rule the land."
Furthermore, the UN body that will administer L.O.S.T only gives the U.S. one vote and no veto authority. This will, in effect, allow an international body to impose environmental regulations and tax policy on our citizens without even the support of our representative at the UN-let alone voters.
###
The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is dedicated to developing model policies based on the Jeffersonian principles of free markets, limited government, federalism, and individual liberty. ALEC is the nation's largest nonpartisan, individual membership organization of state legislators, with more than 2,400 legislator members from all 50 states, and 86 former members serving in the U.S. Congress. www.alec.org
Jorge E. Amselle
Director, Public Affairs
American Legislative Exchange Council
1129 20th Street, NW, Suite 500
Washington, DC 20036
JAmselle@ALEC.org
(202) 742-8536
FAX (202) 466-3801
Contact: Michael Hough
(202) 557-8490
October 10, 2007
Sea Treaty Threatens States’ and Nation’s Sovereignty
WASHINGTON, D.C.—On Thursday October 4, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing on the Law of the Sea Treaty (L.O.S.T). The treaty, which was originally rejected by President Ronald Reagan in 1982, has been revived with the support of the Bush Administration. The treaty threatens our nation's sovereignty by allowing the United Nations (UN) to regulate sea and land pollution and enact global taxes.
Environmental protection provisions in L.O.S.T will impact all states. Unbelievably, the treaty allows the UN to regulate pollution from "land-based sources." This will have a direct impact on all states. According to Tennessee Representative Susan Lynn, Chair of ALEC's Commerce, Insurance, and Economic Development Task Force, "The people of my state expect lawmakers, not unelected bureaucrats at the UN to make environmental and tax policy."
Aside from regulating our environmental polices, L.O.S.T empowers the International Seabed Authority (ISA) to impose taxes on American companies. Natural gas and oil companies, which export minerals more than 200 miles off shore, will be forced to pay seven percent of their profits to the I.S.A. Lynn added that "This treaty a terrible idea that would give the United Nations control over 7/10ths of the earth's surface. We must cautious about giving away such sovereignty because he who rules the sea will one day rule the land."
Furthermore, the UN body that will administer L.O.S.T only gives the U.S. one vote and no veto authority. This will, in effect, allow an international body to impose environmental regulations and tax policy on our citizens without even the support of our representative at the UN-let alone voters.
###
The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is dedicated to developing model policies based on the Jeffersonian principles of free markets, limited government, federalism, and individual liberty. ALEC is the nation's largest nonpartisan, individual membership organization of state legislators, with more than 2,400 legislator members from all 50 states, and 86 former members serving in the U.S. Congress. www.alec.org
Jorge E. Amselle
Director, Public Affairs
American Legislative Exchange Council
1129 20th Street, NW, Suite 500
Washington, DC 20036
JAmselle@ALEC.org
(202) 742-8536
FAX (202) 466-3801
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Community Enhancement Grants
The State of Tennessee had a large budget surplus this year. So did several other states. I joined many Tennessee legislators in a call to resist spending every last penny, and do like other states have recently done, and institute a fair way to refund the budget surplus to the taxpayers.
In the end, the eventual compromise brought some satisfaction to the refunders as a combination of two sales tax holidays, a 1/2 cent reduction in the sales tax on food, and the more controversial Community Enhancement Grant Program were included in the final budget.
Initially, the plan for Community Enhancement Grants raised eyebrows because of the highly prejudicial process which gave individual legislators sole discretion to decide whom to give $100,000 and $300,000 to in their district.
Citizens criticized this process and rightly so. Ordinarily, government grants give fair notice of opportunity to all, have an application process, employ objective determination and a list of goals. And, of course, all government grants contain an assurance of nondiscrimination and post-grant auditing to ensure accountability.
Some may recall how strongly I objected to the proposal because it allowed for too many conflicts of interest. Nothing was to prevent a politician from “buying” political endearment and payback, or seeking kickbacks on grant funds. It was certainly possible that an elected official may direct money to a board on which he or she serves and thereby have a direct hand in spending the taxpayer’s funds. Therefore, I rejected this idea, and I did not create my own list of favored organizations in my district to whom I would grant money.
However, the final proposal voted on by the legislature in the appropriations bill created a much fairer process. This version formed a $20 million dollar grant fund administered by the secretary of state’s office. It also outlined who is eligible, gave a stated purpose, fair notice, created an application process, made applications easily available to all, and mandated an audit provision making organizations accountable for the taxpayer’s money.
Now the question remaining is, how will the secretary of state fairly distribute $20 million in available grant funds to over $185 million in grant requests? Secretary Darnell has asked for input from the legislators to figure this out. Will legislators suggest sticking to their original grant lists to the exclusion of many worthy organizations that qualified for the money? Will he evenly distribute the funds, giving each organization the same amount? Surely, even this process is still very complicated.
I must state that from the beginning I believed the best way to refund your money to you is through a sales tax holiday – perhaps at Christmas. That way you can use your money for any purpose, including gifts to non-profit organizations if you choose.
It is difficult to determine if we will have another massive tax surplus but the successive years of sales tax holidays and now enhancement grants seem to indicate that our tax rate is simply set too high. Certainly lowering the sales tax would be the best way to ensure your money is well spent, and that tax rates don’t raise more money than our budget requires.
In the end, the eventual compromise brought some satisfaction to the refunders as a combination of two sales tax holidays, a 1/2 cent reduction in the sales tax on food, and the more controversial Community Enhancement Grant Program were included in the final budget.
Initially, the plan for Community Enhancement Grants raised eyebrows because of the highly prejudicial process which gave individual legislators sole discretion to decide whom to give $100,000 and $300,000 to in their district.
Citizens criticized this process and rightly so. Ordinarily, government grants give fair notice of opportunity to all, have an application process, employ objective determination and a list of goals. And, of course, all government grants contain an assurance of nondiscrimination and post-grant auditing to ensure accountability.
Some may recall how strongly I objected to the proposal because it allowed for too many conflicts of interest. Nothing was to prevent a politician from “buying” political endearment and payback, or seeking kickbacks on grant funds. It was certainly possible that an elected official may direct money to a board on which he or she serves and thereby have a direct hand in spending the taxpayer’s funds. Therefore, I rejected this idea, and I did not create my own list of favored organizations in my district to whom I would grant money.
However, the final proposal voted on by the legislature in the appropriations bill created a much fairer process. This version formed a $20 million dollar grant fund administered by the secretary of state’s office. It also outlined who is eligible, gave a stated purpose, fair notice, created an application process, made applications easily available to all, and mandated an audit provision making organizations accountable for the taxpayer’s money.
Now the question remaining is, how will the secretary of state fairly distribute $20 million in available grant funds to over $185 million in grant requests? Secretary Darnell has asked for input from the legislators to figure this out. Will legislators suggest sticking to their original grant lists to the exclusion of many worthy organizations that qualified for the money? Will he evenly distribute the funds, giving each organization the same amount? Surely, even this process is still very complicated.
I must state that from the beginning I believed the best way to refund your money to you is through a sales tax holiday – perhaps at Christmas. That way you can use your money for any purpose, including gifts to non-profit organizations if you choose.
It is difficult to determine if we will have another massive tax surplus but the successive years of sales tax holidays and now enhancement grants seem to indicate that our tax rate is simply set too high. Certainly lowering the sales tax would be the best way to ensure your money is well spent, and that tax rates don’t raise more money than our budget requires.
The return of the Cable Choice Bill
Debate is expected to resume in January on the Competitive Cable and Video Services Act better known as The Cable Choice Bill.
So just what is all the controversy about?
Consumers clearly want more choice of providers when it comes to television services, and quite naturally, cable companies don’t. However, unknown to most consumers is that cities use their tax dollars to pay a powerful lobbying organization to help conduct the bitter fight against the bill.
The debate is over whether cable companies should continue to obtain local franchise agreements in order to operate or if the legislature should allow the creation of a single statewide franchise agreement which would permit operators to serve the entire state.
Currently, cable companies must obtain the right to provide service by going city to city to negotiate a franchise agreement with local government officials. We looked at dozens of such agreements last year – each is essentially similar except some do insist on certain perks such as that service is provided free to city hall and the mayor’s office, etc.
Simple math reveals that with hundreds and hundreds of cities in our state such redundancy of legal work is very costly to consumers. The current process also leaves huge gaps in service for those outside of the “franchised” area. In fact, last year the FCC found that the local franchise agreement is the very cause of the vast lack of access to cable services, and that the process discourages competition among providers because it is too time consuming and costly. Providers just tend to concede certain territories to each other.
Last year the legislature heard the many concerns of our local governments and worked hard to address each one by rewriting the bill to state that local governments retain audit, build out, customer service, local franchises, PEG channels, police powers, total control of public right of way and local tax provisions. Franchise fees are paid directly to local governments. All federal laws still apply, and there is non-discrimination based on race or income.
Plus, this new process has the added benefit, and potential, to provide real competition and service to all.
We do not require telephone companies or internet service providers to operate using the same local franchise agreement process; rather, they operate statewide, taking advantage of economies of scale. In fact, the local franchise process is what has allowed companies to cherry pick the most lucrative towns and cities for years leaving many areas without competition and service.
Statewide franchising is a way to streamline the work required to obtain a contract to operate, stimulate the capital investment necessary to expand service, and encourage a competitive atmosphere among providers, thereby creating real choice and competition for every consumer in our state.
By State Representative Susan Lynn
Word count: 454
So just what is all the controversy about?
Consumers clearly want more choice of providers when it comes to television services, and quite naturally, cable companies don’t. However, unknown to most consumers is that cities use their tax dollars to pay a powerful lobbying organization to help conduct the bitter fight against the bill.
The debate is over whether cable companies should continue to obtain local franchise agreements in order to operate or if the legislature should allow the creation of a single statewide franchise agreement which would permit operators to serve the entire state.
Currently, cable companies must obtain the right to provide service by going city to city to negotiate a franchise agreement with local government officials. We looked at dozens of such agreements last year – each is essentially similar except some do insist on certain perks such as that service is provided free to city hall and the mayor’s office, etc.
Simple math reveals that with hundreds and hundreds of cities in our state such redundancy of legal work is very costly to consumers. The current process also leaves huge gaps in service for those outside of the “franchised” area. In fact, last year the FCC found that the local franchise agreement is the very cause of the vast lack of access to cable services, and that the process discourages competition among providers because it is too time consuming and costly. Providers just tend to concede certain territories to each other.
Last year the legislature heard the many concerns of our local governments and worked hard to address each one by rewriting the bill to state that local governments retain audit, build out, customer service, local franchises, PEG channels, police powers, total control of public right of way and local tax provisions. Franchise fees are paid directly to local governments. All federal laws still apply, and there is non-discrimination based on race or income.
Plus, this new process has the added benefit, and potential, to provide real competition and service to all.
We do not require telephone companies or internet service providers to operate using the same local franchise agreement process; rather, they operate statewide, taking advantage of economies of scale. In fact, the local franchise process is what has allowed companies to cherry pick the most lucrative towns and cities for years leaving many areas without competition and service.
Statewide franchising is a way to streamline the work required to obtain a contract to operate, stimulate the capital investment necessary to expand service, and encourage a competitive atmosphere among providers, thereby creating real choice and competition for every consumer in our state.
By State Representative Susan Lynn
Word count: 454
Thursday, October 04, 2007
Liberals Will Never Give Up
Illegal immigrants are issued ID cards in some places...
For some reason the Progressive States Network has been sending TN representatives their e-mail newsletter. I always read it because it is very important to watch what the other side is up to.
Their latest news letter has a story about states issueing illegal aliens state ID cards. Something we fought very hard to eliminate in Tennessee.
They add
ACTION PENDING ELSEWHERE ...Lawmakers are considering municipal ID cards (for illegal aliens):
• San Francisco Supervisor Tom Ammiano introduced legislation last month to create a city ID card. "We can't say, 'You can come to my house and clean my toilet, but then you have no right to civic participation,'" he says.
• New York City Councilman Hiram Monserrate introduced a measure in July to create city ID cards, aide Wayne Mahlke says.
• Bruno Barreiro, chairman of the Miami-Dade County Board of County Commissioners, says he is drafting and ordinance for county IDs.
• Ashok Kumar, a supervisor in Dane County, Wis., plans to introduce a measure this month.
The Lesson - Liberals will never, ever give up!
For some reason the Progressive States Network has been sending TN representatives their e-mail newsletter. I always read it because it is very important to watch what the other side is up to.
Their latest news letter has a story about states issueing illegal aliens state ID cards. Something we fought very hard to eliminate in Tennessee.
They add
ACTION PENDING ELSEWHERE ...Lawmakers are considering municipal ID cards (for illegal aliens):
• San Francisco Supervisor Tom Ammiano introduced legislation last month to create a city ID card. "We can't say, 'You can come to my house and clean my toilet, but then you have no right to civic participation,'" he says.
• New York City Councilman Hiram Monserrate introduced a measure in July to create city ID cards, aide Wayne Mahlke says.
• Bruno Barreiro, chairman of the Miami-Dade County Board of County Commissioners, says he is drafting and ordinance for county IDs.
• Ashok Kumar, a supervisor in Dane County, Wis., plans to introduce a measure this month.
The Lesson - Liberals will never, ever give up!
Having your cake and eating it too
Did SR Illegally Vote?
Harold Ford Sr has filed for a Homestead Tax exemption in Florida. In order to file for such an exemption one must swear the home in question is one's permanent primary residence.
However, Tennessee law requires that in order to vote in Tennessee one's pernaent residence must be in Tennessee.
Ford asks advice on eligibility (Commercial Appeal/Aaronson)
Harold Ford Sr has filed for a Homestead Tax exemption in Florida. In order to file for such an exemption one must swear the home in question is one's permanent primary residence.
However, Tennessee law requires that in order to vote in Tennessee one's pernaent residence must be in Tennessee.
Ford asks advice on eligibility (Commercial Appeal/Aaronson)
"(Ford) May rescind Florida tax exemption to ensure vote is legal following a report in The Commercial Appeal Wednesday that questioned his eligibility to vote in Memphis, former congressman Harold Ford Sr. said he has hired lawyers to advise him whether he was entitled to cast an early ballot Sept. 27. As the newspaper reported, Ford filed for a Florida homestead tax exemption on his $2.5 million home on Miami Beach's Fisher Island, telling Miami-Dade County officials the home was his primary and permanent residence. Tennessee law requires voters to keep their permanent residence in the Volunteer State, and voters may only have one permanent residence. After making a homestead declaration in Florida, Ford was potentially ineligible when he participated in early voting at the Pyramid Recovery Center. "We're looking at it from a legal standpoint," Ford said, adding: "If Tennessee doesn't allow us to do this, then we'll be happy to rescind (the Florida tax exemption)."
Is the Cure Worse than the Disease?
The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) met for it's 20th Round Table on Sustainable Development in September. They have produced a report on Biofuels called Biofuels : Is the Cure Worse Than the Disease ?
The report is a must read for policy makers, taxpayers and anyone concerned about the environment.
Among some of the findings:
More from the report:
Overall environmental impacts
105. Most biofuels have an overall environmental performance that is worse then gasoline, though their relative performance differs considerably (Fig. 8). EMPA gave maize-based ethanol in the USA a poor environmental score, whereas it determined that ethanol from sugar beets and sugarcane are only moderately better than gasoline in terms of their overall environmental impacts. Biodiesel scores negatively as well, in general. Only when waste products such as recycled cooking oils are used do their overall environmental performances fare better than that of gasoline. Biofuels made from woody biomass rated better than gasoline in all cases.
6.4 Cost-effectiveness of government support policies
114. The overall cost-effectiveness of biofuels seems to be low in almost all cases. Costs are relatively high per unit of fossil energy displaced or per unit of CO2 emissions reduced. To displace one litre equivalent of fossil fuel, for example, would cost between $0.66 and $1.40 in the United States. In the European Union these costs are even higher. And that is in addition to what customers pay for the fuel at the pump. In several cases the use of biofuels is roughly doubling the cost of transportation energy for consumers and taxpayers together. Such high rates of subsidisation might perhaps be considered reasonable if the industry was new, and ethanol and biodiesel were being made on a small-scale, experimental basis using advanced technologies, but most of the support is directed at production from mature, first-generation manufacturing plants.
115. In a similar vein, the cost of obtaining a unit of CO2-equivalent reduction through subsidies to biofuels is well over $500 per tonne of CO2-equivalent avoided for corn-based ethanol in the United States, for example, even when assuming an efficient plant uses low-carbon fuels for processing. In Switzerland and Australia the results are hardly any better, although the ranges are large depending on the feedstock. The implication of these calculations is that one could have achieved far more reductions for the same amount of money by simply purchasing CO2-equivalent offsets at the market price.
The report is a must read for policy makers, taxpayers and anyone concerned about the environment.
Among some of the findings:
The rush to energy crops threatens to cause food shortages and damage to biodiversity with limited benefits.
Second-generation technologies hold promise but depend on technological breakthroughs.
The economic outlook for biofuels seems fragile.
Government policies supporting and protecting domestic production of biofuels are inefficient…
...are not cost-effective….
More from the report:
Overall environmental impacts
105. Most biofuels have an overall environmental performance that is worse then gasoline, though their relative performance differs considerably (Fig. 8). EMPA gave maize-based ethanol in the USA a poor environmental score, whereas it determined that ethanol from sugar beets and sugarcane are only moderately better than gasoline in terms of their overall environmental impacts. Biodiesel scores negatively as well, in general. Only when waste products such as recycled cooking oils are used do their overall environmental performances fare better than that of gasoline. Biofuels made from woody biomass rated better than gasoline in all cases.
6.4 Cost-effectiveness of government support policies
114. The overall cost-effectiveness of biofuels seems to be low in almost all cases. Costs are relatively high per unit of fossil energy displaced or per unit of CO2 emissions reduced. To displace one litre equivalent of fossil fuel, for example, would cost between $0.66 and $1.40 in the United States. In the European Union these costs are even higher. And that is in addition to what customers pay for the fuel at the pump. In several cases the use of biofuels is roughly doubling the cost of transportation energy for consumers and taxpayers together. Such high rates of subsidisation might perhaps be considered reasonable if the industry was new, and ethanol and biodiesel were being made on a small-scale, experimental basis using advanced technologies, but most of the support is directed at production from mature, first-generation manufacturing plants.
115. In a similar vein, the cost of obtaining a unit of CO2-equivalent reduction through subsidies to biofuels is well over $500 per tonne of CO2-equivalent avoided for corn-based ethanol in the United States, for example, even when assuming an efficient plant uses low-carbon fuels for processing. In Switzerland and Australia the results are hardly any better, although the ranges are large depending on the feedstock. The implication of these calculations is that one could have achieved far more reductions for the same amount of money by simply purchasing CO2-equivalent offsets at the market price.
Tax & Spin
This could be written about any state...
It's a time-tested script. Liberals enact mandated spending increases and create a structural deficit, while claiming to be fiscally responsible. The structural deficit becomes a real deficit, and we have a budget crisis. The governor makes minor budget reductions. The drumbeat for higher taxes begins. The governor calls a special session.
...it happens to be about Maryland.
Voter ID
Press accounts state that the Supreme Court may not rule on a case challenging an Indiana Voter ID law until June 2008. The law has already been upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit. Opponents to the new law appealed on the basis that the new law causes mass disenfranchisement of certain voters. The law requires registered voters to show a government-issued photo identification card before they can cast a vote.
Reasonable Voter ID Laws printed this week in the Washington Times makes great points about some of the opponents' illogical objections.
Reasonable Voter ID Laws printed this week in the Washington Times makes great points about some of the opponents' illogical objections.
Critics of such voter ID laws say they have a depressing effect on voter turnout. This despite the fact that voter turnout is on the rise (with experts predicting still higher turnout in 2008). One would think that the 10 percent or so of the population that does not have a government ID would use the law as further motivation to obtain one. Such IDs are vital to obtain employment, open a bank account, qualify for government entitlement programs and even purchase certain goods and services. There is little excuse for any American or legal citizen not to obtain either a driver's license or non-driving ID.
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
Kentucky ACLU Lawsuit Dismissed in Federal Court
ACLU's Lawsuit Against The Ten Commandments In Public Schools Is Dismissed
A federal court has dismissed a lawsuit that was filed by the ACLU against a school board in Harlan County in Kentucky over a display that includes the Ten Commandments.
Since 2005, the ACLU has lost serveral Ten Commandments cases.
The display hangs in several schools and in the district office. To see a picture of one of the displays that hangs above the cafeteria doors, go to www.LC.org/images/10comm_harlan_cafeteria.jpg.
News Release
A federal court has dismissed a lawsuit that was filed by the ACLU against a school board in Harlan County in Kentucky over a display that includes the Ten Commandments.
Since 2005, the ACLU has lost serveral Ten Commandments cases.
The display hangs in several schools and in the district office. To see a picture of one of the displays that hangs above the cafeteria doors, go to www.LC.org/images/10comm_harlan_cafeteria.jpg.
News Release
Friday, September 28, 2007
Presidential Quiz
Someone sent me this Presidential candidate selection tool. Answer a few questions and it gives you your candidate. It looks like they might be collecting data too but it is anonymous.
The test claims that "The scores at the end are pretty black & white--either you agree with the candidate's positions or don't. Personalities and party affiliations don't come into it."
I most agreed with Fred Thompson - the only area where we differed was energy.
The candidate I least agreed with was Hillary Clinton - scoring a 5 - we only agreed on the death penalty. We differed on Iraq, Immigration, Taxes, Stem-Cell Research, Health Care, Abortion, Social Security, Line-Item Veto, Energy and Marriage.
The test claims that "The scores at the end are pretty black & white--either you agree with the candidate's positions or don't. Personalities and party affiliations don't come into it."
I most agreed with Fred Thompson - the only area where we differed was energy.
The candidate I least agreed with was Hillary Clinton - scoring a 5 - we only agreed on the death penalty. We differed on Iraq, Immigration, Taxes, Stem-Cell Research, Health Care, Abortion, Social Security, Line-Item Veto, Energy and Marriage.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Who Owns Big Oil Anyway?
In response to liberal politicians' plan to heavily tax Big Oil profits, API, a national trade association that represents all aspects of America’s oil and natural gas industry conducted a study to find out just who is profiting from the oil and gas industry corporate profits.
In other words; who owns big oil?
API hired Robert Shapiro, noted economist and former Undersecretary of Commerce under President Clinton to find out who owns the stock in America's oil and natural gas industry and just who is profiting from high profits.
The study revealed that:
Almost 43 percent of oil and natural gas company shares are owned by mutual funds and asset management companies that have mutual funds. Mutual funds manage accounts for 55 million U.S. households with a median income of $68,700.
Twenty seven percent of shares are owned by other institutional investors like pension funds. In 2004, more than 2,600 pension funds run by federal, state and local governments held almost $64 billion in shares of U.S. oil and natural gas companies. These funds represent the major retirement security for the nation’s current and retired soldiers, teachers, and police and fire personnel at every level of government.
Fourteen percent of shares are held in IRA and other personal retirement accounts. Forty five million U.S. households have IRA and other personal retirement accounts, with an average account value of just over $22,000.
Fourteen percent of shares are owned by individual investors who purchase stocks on the open market.
1.5% of shares are owned by corporate insiders – company executives and CEO’s.
As you can see, taxing profits will only take money from your pension, retirement account, mutual fund or stock earnings; a plan which simply takes your wealth away from you and transfers it to government bureaucrats with no promise of lower prices at the pump.
So instead of taxing profits just what can we do to make the prices come down to reasonable levels that we all can afford? Increase supply. Increasing the supply of energy sources is the only way to make the price go down in any meaningful and real way.
Friday, September 21, 2007
Cigarette Police
I just received this press release from the Department of Revenue.
I guess we've finally succeeded in making ordinary criminals out of ordinary smokers.
I guess we've finally succeeded in making ordinary criminals out of ordinary smokers.
State of Tennessee
Department of Revenue
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: SOPHIE MOERY
September 21, 2007 (615) 741-2461 (office)
(615) 545-1734 (cell)
REVENUE plans for cigarette surveillance at state line
Transporting more than two cartons across state line is illegal
NASHVILLE, Tenn. ¾ The Tennessee Department of Revenue’s Special Investigations Section will be conducting surveillance of out-of-state tobacco retailers located near the state line for Tennessee residents purchasing cigarettes. On July 1, 2007, Tennessee’s cigarette tax increased from 20 cents per pack to 62 cents per pack.
“As a result of this legislation, Tennesseans may travel to neighboring states to purchase cigarettes in order to avoid paying Tennessee cigarette tax,” said Revenue Commissioner Reagan Farr. “Tennesseans should know that the law requires cigarettes purchased outside of the state to bear a Tennessee tobacco stamp, otherwise the cigarettes may be considered contraband.”
Possessing more than 20 packs (or two cartons) of cigarettes not bearing Tennessee revenue stamps is a misdemeanor. Such products and any vehicle(s) used to transport them are subject to seizure. Possession of more than 25 cartons of untaxed cigarettes is a Class E felony.
“If Revenue agents believe that an individual is transporting more than two cartons of cigarettes into Tennessee, the vehicle carrying the cigarettes will be stopped and searched,” Commissioner Farr said. “If more than two cartons are found, the cigarettes will be seized and agents have the discretion to make arrests and seize the vehicle.”
Public Chapter 368 increased the tax on cigarettes from $0.20 to $0.62 per pack. Additional revenue from the increase is earmarked for education (approximately $195 million annually), agricultural enhancements ($21 million annually) and trauma centers statewide ($12 million annually). The Department of Revenue administers the collection and enforcement of Tennessee tobacco taxes.
The Department of Revenue is responsible for the administration of state tax laws and motor vehicle title and registration laws established by the legislature and the collection of taxes and fees associated with those laws. The Department of Revenue collects approximately 92 percent of total state tax revenue. During the 2006-2007 fiscal year, the department collected $11.0 billion in state taxes and fees. In addition to collecting state taxes, $1.9 billion of local sales tax was collected by the department for local governments during the 2006-2007 fiscal year. Besides collecting taxes, the department enforces the revenue laws fairly and impartially in an effort to encourage voluntary taxpayer compliance. The department also apportions revenue collections for distribution to the various state funds and local units of government. To learn more about the department, log on to www.Tennessee.gov/revenue.
This press release can be accessed online at http://state.tn.us/revenue/newsreleases/2007/cigenforce.htm.
Friday, September 14, 2007
Ethics Code
I first submitted this ethics code as part of an article in the Lebanon Democrat in 2006. I posted it on my blog soon after the blog was created. I developed the code during the Special Session on Ethics based on our oath of office and by studing ethics codes for other professions.
It is surprising that the General Assembly does not agree on a general code of ethics from year to year. Perhaps, it is about time that we do.
Ethics Code
A legislator is a public servant working to protect the rights of the citizens and to clarify rights and laws for the common good.
We hold that there is certain behavior that the legislative branch should not engage in.
It is clear and uncontroversial that legislators should;
Uphold the Constitutions of the state of Tennessee and the United States of America and make no law to the contrary to either.
Abide by all laws of the state of Tennessee and the United States of America.
Vote without affection, favor, partiality, or prejudice.
Vote for no law injurious to the people.
Not lessen or abridge the rights and privileges of the people.
Not seek to profit from their position.
Not employ intimidation, threat or coercion for personal, financial or political gain.
Report illegal behavior of other legislators or others.
Not use the resources of the state for personal use.
Not accept gifts given due to their position or for the performance of their duties.
Contributions to campaigns should be accepted with the understanding between both parties that they procure no influence, nor promise of any vote, service or favor.
When involved in the important act of forging consensus, policy makers should commit to screen all information through their own values, convictions, and principles; employing the virtues of honesty and integrity, and should reject the influence of all conflicts of interest by using their core values as a template to place over the decisions that they face.
Legislators should not therefore perform any task or deed in direct conflict with conscience or contrary to the best interest of their constituency or the state.
This code is a proposed list of general expectations for those in a positioin of public trust but it is by no means all encompassing. Laws may certainly be derived from this list for legislators to abide by.
Let us all remember, it is always good to have a healthy skepticism of our government and public officials.
##
It is surprising that the General Assembly does not agree on a general code of ethics from year to year. Perhaps, it is about time that we do.
Ethics Code
A legislator is a public servant working to protect the rights of the citizens and to clarify rights and laws for the common good.
We hold that there is certain behavior that the legislative branch should not engage in.
It is clear and uncontroversial that legislators should;
Uphold the Constitutions of the state of Tennessee and the United States of America and make no law to the contrary to either.
Abide by all laws of the state of Tennessee and the United States of America.
Vote without affection, favor, partiality, or prejudice.
Vote for no law injurious to the people.
Not lessen or abridge the rights and privileges of the people.
Not seek to profit from their position.
Not employ intimidation, threat or coercion for personal, financial or political gain.
Report illegal behavior of other legislators or others.
Not use the resources of the state for personal use.
Not accept gifts given due to their position or for the performance of their duties.
Contributions to campaigns should be accepted with the understanding between both parties that they procure no influence, nor promise of any vote, service or favor.
When involved in the important act of forging consensus, policy makers should commit to screen all information through their own values, convictions, and principles; employing the virtues of honesty and integrity, and should reject the influence of all conflicts of interest by using their core values as a template to place over the decisions that they face.
Legislators should not therefore perform any task or deed in direct conflict with conscience or contrary to the best interest of their constituency or the state.
This code is a proposed list of general expectations for those in a positioin of public trust but it is by no means all encompassing. Laws may certainly be derived from this list for legislators to abide by.
Let us all remember, it is always good to have a healthy skepticism of our government and public officials.
##
Thursday, September 06, 2007
ADHD & Food Additives
Some Food Additives Raise Hyperactivity, Study Finds
This morning’s New York Times reports on a study of food additives and hyperactivity confirming that food additives can cause some children to become hyperactive. The study was financed by Britain’s Foods Standards Agency and printed in the very reputable British medical journal The Lancet. Reuters also printed an article.
This is not the first study to confirm such results (and click here). But it has extremely important implications for children and our education system.
In fact, Appleton Central High School, an alternative school in Appleton, WI, has displayed a commitment to good nutrition by providing an additive free diet in conjunction with Natural Ovens Bakery for their students for years. They have reported much improved behavior and learning; click here, here, here, and here.
Eventually, the improved dietary standards proved so successful that the entire school system now uses such an approach.
Our Story
For me, this study further confirms my own experiences. At three years of age my son was diagnosed with ADHD. At that time pediatricians did not put such a young child on medication. It was a good thing too; otherwise I might never have sought out a book by Dr. Benjamin Feingold, called Why Your Child is Hyperactive (also available here).
Dr. Feingold, an allergist and pediatrician, explained that some children are generally predisposed to be sensitive to certain chemicals which are used as additives in the foods we regularly consume in our modern diet. In susceptible children, such additives can cause behavior, learning, health and motor skills problems.
In addition to his hyperactivity, my son’s problems were numerous; he had trouble staying on the paper when he colored as well as difficulty with drawing shapes. He suffered frequent rashes, headaches and tummy aches. He had persistent bad dreams, mild speech difficulties, and acute sensitivity to low base noises. We had also observed that he couldn’t run but the doctor told us this was actually caused by a problem with his gait when he walked – all of these symptoms were classic signs of the behavior, learning, health and motor skills problems that Feingold had described in his book.
Although the symptoms of the children in the book mirrored my young son’s, it was difficult to accept that these chemicals could possibly be affecting him. Still, I had three years before they’d try him on any medication so I put up everything in our home that Dr. Feingold had identified as a possible culprit and I kept a diary of the experience.
To my astonishment, in three days I had a normal little boy! At first I was very timid to believe that his new diet could have produced such a dramatic change in his behavior. I kept journaling in the diet diary. Soon it became quite obvious that when an infraction occurred his behavior deteriorated and then improved after three days of careful adherence to his new diet.
Our friends and family could see the change in him and were happy for us. Our pediatrician, he never conceded that the diet was of any help – we just agreed to disagree. His new diet was much healthier anyway. Nothing artificially flavored, colored, or preserved. If one reads an MSDS sheet on food additives it is very obvious that we could all benefit from such a diet.
Our son actually wanted to stay on the diet. He didn’t like the way he felt when he ate the chemical additives. He never needed medications. His teachers never complained that he was a discipline problem or nor did he have any scholastic problems. And the little boy who couldn’t run actually received four different college scholarships to run cross-country when he graduated from high school.
I have volunteered for the Feingold Association of the United States for over twenty years now; at times being much more active than in the last few years. Yet, I continue to speak on the subject whenever asked.
The Feingold Association is a tremendous help to families. They publish a grocery shopping list full of foods without chemical additives that the child can eat. It makes finding a cereal, or bread or anything else much easier on trips to the supermarket.
I am speaking about our experiences at the Incredible Families Parenting Conference this Saturday, September 8, at 9:45 am at The Grace Place, located at The Hermitage Church of God, 4316 Central Pike, Hermitage TN.
I hope this new study makes a difference for families. I think such information is one reason why I never cease to believe in the victory of the human spirit.
This morning’s New York Times reports on a study of food additives and hyperactivity confirming that food additives can cause some children to become hyperactive. The study was financed by Britain’s Foods Standards Agency and printed in the very reputable British medical journal The Lancet. Reuters also printed an article.
This is not the first study to confirm such results (and click here). But it has extremely important implications for children and our education system.
In fact, Appleton Central High School, an alternative school in Appleton, WI, has displayed a commitment to good nutrition by providing an additive free diet in conjunction with Natural Ovens Bakery for their students for years. They have reported much improved behavior and learning; click here, here, here, and here.
Eventually, the improved dietary standards proved so successful that the entire school system now uses such an approach.
Our Story
For me, this study further confirms my own experiences. At three years of age my son was diagnosed with ADHD. At that time pediatricians did not put such a young child on medication. It was a good thing too; otherwise I might never have sought out a book by Dr. Benjamin Feingold, called Why Your Child is Hyperactive (also available here).
Dr. Feingold, an allergist and pediatrician, explained that some children are generally predisposed to be sensitive to certain chemicals which are used as additives in the foods we regularly consume in our modern diet. In susceptible children, such additives can cause behavior, learning, health and motor skills problems.
In addition to his hyperactivity, my son’s problems were numerous; he had trouble staying on the paper when he colored as well as difficulty with drawing shapes. He suffered frequent rashes, headaches and tummy aches. He had persistent bad dreams, mild speech difficulties, and acute sensitivity to low base noises. We had also observed that he couldn’t run but the doctor told us this was actually caused by a problem with his gait when he walked – all of these symptoms were classic signs of the behavior, learning, health and motor skills problems that Feingold had described in his book.
Although the symptoms of the children in the book mirrored my young son’s, it was difficult to accept that these chemicals could possibly be affecting him. Still, I had three years before they’d try him on any medication so I put up everything in our home that Dr. Feingold had identified as a possible culprit and I kept a diary of the experience.
To my astonishment, in three days I had a normal little boy! At first I was very timid to believe that his new diet could have produced such a dramatic change in his behavior. I kept journaling in the diet diary. Soon it became quite obvious that when an infraction occurred his behavior deteriorated and then improved after three days of careful adherence to his new diet.
Our friends and family could see the change in him and were happy for us. Our pediatrician, he never conceded that the diet was of any help – we just agreed to disagree. His new diet was much healthier anyway. Nothing artificially flavored, colored, or preserved. If one reads an MSDS sheet on food additives it is very obvious that we could all benefit from such a diet.
Our son actually wanted to stay on the diet. He didn’t like the way he felt when he ate the chemical additives. He never needed medications. His teachers never complained that he was a discipline problem or nor did he have any scholastic problems. And the little boy who couldn’t run actually received four different college scholarships to run cross-country when he graduated from high school.
I have volunteered for the Feingold Association of the United States for over twenty years now; at times being much more active than in the last few years. Yet, I continue to speak on the subject whenever asked.
The Feingold Association is a tremendous help to families. They publish a grocery shopping list full of foods without chemical additives that the child can eat. It makes finding a cereal, or bread or anything else much easier on trips to the supermarket.
I am speaking about our experiences at the Incredible Families Parenting Conference this Saturday, September 8, at 9:45 am at The Grace Place, located at The Hermitage Church of God, 4316 Central Pike, Hermitage TN.
I hope this new study makes a difference for families. I think such information is one reason why I never cease to believe in the victory of the human spirit.
Friday, August 17, 2007
New Blog
State Representative Matthew Hill has a new job and a new blog.
He has returned to radio as the host of Good Morning Tri-Cities.
A blog comes with the job. The blog accepts posts from listeners. He's also invited established bloggers to participate.
He has returned to radio as the host of Good Morning Tri-Cities.
A blog comes with the job. The blog accepts posts from listeners. He's also invited established bloggers to participate.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
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.
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.
Monday, August 13, 2007
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.
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.
Tuesday, August 07, 2007
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.
(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.
Sunday, August 05, 2007
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...
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
Friday, August 03, 2007
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.
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.
Thursday, August 02, 2007
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.
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)