The All Payer Claims Database seeks to establish a comprehensive database for the private healthcare transactions of every Tennessean by forcing insurance companies to turn their claims data over to the state through the passage of HB2289.
But wait, this is your privately paid for information! The state is not entitled to this information. Yet, the Administration hopes to convince state legislators that the state has a rational state interest to review your private healthcare data.
The bill lists several reasons but truly each are items you should, and do, privately determine for yourself.
As the Administration tries to comfort state legislators with assuring words stating that your identity will not be disclosed. An important question remains, disclosed by whom? All though the bill it sounds as if the state will know your identity. But the state protests that it will comply with all HIPAA Privacy Rules concerning your Private Health Information (PHI).
So are we to assume that the insurance companies cannot turn your identity or PHI over to the state? No we should not. That is because while HIPAA’s privacy rules protect your PHI from disclosure for private use, HIPAA rules allow disclosure without authorization for several other purposes.
That’s right; your private health information can be disclosed without your consent to public health authorities and health oversight agencies for the prevention or control of disease, injury, or disability, and for oversight activities authorized by law.
So when the state says it will comply with HIPAA Privacy Rules you should answer back - Big Deal!
Please remember, you have the right to self determination, and that is largely why our founding fathers broke away from Great Britain and formed our great nation. The peoples' natural rights - their right to self determination was being abridged by an overbearing government.
Be jealous of your privacy and defend it. Our forefathers and many more since died for your right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Do not give up so easily that for which they paid so dear a price.
I know I will never stop defending your rights but your voice will help make a difference - http://www.capitol.tn.gov/.
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.
Monday, May 25, 2009
Thousands of records 'lost' by NHS
Thousands of personal medical records have been lost by the NHS in the UK.
An article published yesterday tells how "A total of 140 security breaches were reported within the NHS between January and April this year."
Additional related articles can be found here.
An article published yesterday tells how "A total of 140 security breaches were reported within the NHS between January and April this year."
Additional related articles can be found here.
Friday, May 22, 2009
ALEC: Cap & Trade - A New Tax on Energy
...For example, a recent study by CRA International for the National Black Chamber of Commerce concluded the legislation would cost the U.S. economy $350 billion and 2.3 million to 2.7 million jobs each year from now to 2030. This is a net loss meaning they took into account all the “green” jobs the bill promises to create. To read that study, click here.
Read ALEC brief.
Read ALEC brief.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
All Payer Claims Database update
Tennessee state government wants to get into the healthcare business big time! There is pending legislation to collect all of the data on your privately paid for healthcare transactions.
The Governor’s administration is pushing HB2289. As amended the bill claims that the state government needs your information to;
“Improve the accessibility and affordability of patient health care and health care coverage”
“Identify health and health care needs and inform on health and health care policy”
“Determine the capacity and distribution of existing health care resources”
“Evaluate the effectiveness of intervention programs on improving patient outcomes”
“Review costs among various treatment settings, providers, and approaches”
“Provide publicly available information on health care providers’ quality of care”
The plan is to mandate that your insurance company transmit all of your healthcare transactions to the state. You will be assigned a unique encrypted patient identifier by your insurance company. This identifier will be used by the state to track all of your healthcare transactions so that they can evaluate you according to the criteria listed above. Your doctor will also receive a unique healthcare provider identifier; but he or she will be fully identifiable.
What if you should want to opt-out? Well, you can’t. We tried very hard in the House Government Operations Committee this week to make that possible for you and your doctor but we were defeated on a party line vote. Should your insurance company refuse to comply with handing over your information it will receive a $100.00 per day fine from the state.
I want you to understand the breadth and the enormity of this plan. I asked just one of the major health insurance companies in Tennessee how many claims they process. 32,000 per hour; or 256,000 per day was the answer.
So I ask you to consider; why does the state of Tennessee need that much data, and that much detail about your healthcare transactions?
I asked a few public policy groups to take a look at the legislation. They responded with alarm. Some of their comments are that “…this is an avenue to centralized control over medical decisions...and the building of a brand new expensive bureaucracy that will use the data to issue reports to further secure their control over medical decision-making.” And, “Whoa. This bill is very scary. Not only is there no opt-out provision, but looking at claims data is the way to implement price controls.”
From what I’ve been able to learn several states have recently instituted similar databases and several more are considering bills at this time. Most all use a company called the Maine Health Information Center which is affiliated with the National Claims Data Management System. These are non-profit organizations set up to accept and analyze massive amounts of healthcare data.
Recently a similar plan was instituted in Minnesota. The cost was $1.2 million for the databasing of claims data on all Minnesotans for just the first 18 months. Additional costs for analyzing the data are $3.0 million dollars per year.
Yet the state of Tennessee claims that this bill will cost Tennessee little more than $200,000 per year. Perhaps that is because the bulk of the cost is borne by your insurance company.
I fail to see how legislators mandating insurance companies to turn over your healthcare transactions to the state cannot violate the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution; unreasonable searches and seizures. Surely, passage of this legislation would constitute a seizure by the state of Tennessee of private, and privately paid for detailed information for which the state has no business having and for which they have no compelling, rational or legitimate use.
Outgoing administrations often start thinking of their next job early. Perhaps the Governor and some of his cabinet members have big plans in the ever growing healthcare information field.
I hope that you are concerned about this bill because your voice does make a difference. This is one bill that should go away. Please take the time to contact your legislator to learn more and to express your feelings about this legislation; http://www.capitol.tn.gov/.
The Governor’s administration is pushing HB2289. As amended the bill claims that the state government needs your information to;
“Improve the accessibility and affordability of patient health care and health care coverage”
“Identify health and health care needs and inform on health and health care policy”
“Determine the capacity and distribution of existing health care resources”
“Evaluate the effectiveness of intervention programs on improving patient outcomes”
“Review costs among various treatment settings, providers, and approaches”
“Provide publicly available information on health care providers’ quality of care”
The plan is to mandate that your insurance company transmit all of your healthcare transactions to the state. You will be assigned a unique encrypted patient identifier by your insurance company. This identifier will be used by the state to track all of your healthcare transactions so that they can evaluate you according to the criteria listed above. Your doctor will also receive a unique healthcare provider identifier; but he or she will be fully identifiable.
What if you should want to opt-out? Well, you can’t. We tried very hard in the House Government Operations Committee this week to make that possible for you and your doctor but we were defeated on a party line vote. Should your insurance company refuse to comply with handing over your information it will receive a $100.00 per day fine from the state.
I want you to understand the breadth and the enormity of this plan. I asked just one of the major health insurance companies in Tennessee how many claims they process. 32,000 per hour; or 256,000 per day was the answer.
So I ask you to consider; why does the state of Tennessee need that much data, and that much detail about your healthcare transactions?
I asked a few public policy groups to take a look at the legislation. They responded with alarm. Some of their comments are that “…this is an avenue to centralized control over medical decisions...and the building of a brand new expensive bureaucracy that will use the data to issue reports to further secure their control over medical decision-making.” And, “Whoa. This bill is very scary. Not only is there no opt-out provision, but looking at claims data is the way to implement price controls.”
From what I’ve been able to learn several states have recently instituted similar databases and several more are considering bills at this time. Most all use a company called the Maine Health Information Center which is affiliated with the National Claims Data Management System. These are non-profit organizations set up to accept and analyze massive amounts of healthcare data.
Recently a similar plan was instituted in Minnesota. The cost was $1.2 million for the databasing of claims data on all Minnesotans for just the first 18 months. Additional costs for analyzing the data are $3.0 million dollars per year.
Yet the state of Tennessee claims that this bill will cost Tennessee little more than $200,000 per year. Perhaps that is because the bulk of the cost is borne by your insurance company.
I fail to see how legislators mandating insurance companies to turn over your healthcare transactions to the state cannot violate the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution; unreasonable searches and seizures. Surely, passage of this legislation would constitute a seizure by the state of Tennessee of private, and privately paid for detailed information for which the state has no business having and for which they have no compelling, rational or legitimate use.
Outgoing administrations often start thinking of their next job early. Perhaps the Governor and some of his cabinet members have big plans in the ever growing healthcare information field.
I hope that you are concerned about this bill because your voice does make a difference. This is one bill that should go away. Please take the time to contact your legislator to learn more and to express your feelings about this legislation; http://www.capitol.tn.gov/.
Monday, May 18, 2009
Word of the day
Sunday, May 17, 2009
All Payer Claims Database
What is the All Payer Claims Database? That is the name of the system the Governor’s administration wants to put in place to collect all of the data on your healthcare transactions - whether you are private pay, insurance pay, Medicare or Medicaid.
The government claims it needs your information to;
“Improve the accessibility and affordability of patient health care and health care coverage”
“Identify health and health care needs and inform on health and health care policy”
“Determine the capacity and distribution of existing health care resources”
“Evaluate the effectiveness of intervention programs on improving patient outcomes”
“Review costs among various treatment settings, providers, and approaches”
“Provide publicly available information on health care providers’ quality of care”
I asked a few public policy groups to take a look at the legislation. They responded with alarm. Some of their comments are that “…this is an avenue to centralized control over medical decisions...and the building of a brand new expensive bureaucracy that will use the data to issue reports to further secure their control over medical decision-making.” And, “Whoa. This bill is very scary. Not only is there no opt-out provision, but looking at claims data is the way to implement price controls.”
The administration claims through all of this your identity will be safe because the government will give you a unique encrypted patient identifier. Your doctor will receive a unique health care provider identifier as well. But wait, if the government is giving you the identifier wouldn’t that mean they know who you are or else how can they give it to you…and why?
What if you should want to opt-out? Well, you can’t. And should your doctor refuse to comply with giving over your information he or she will receive a $100.00 per day fine from the state.
Recently a similar plan was instituted in Minnesota. The cost was $1.2 million for the databasing of claims data on all Minnesotans for just the first 18 months. Additional costs for analyzing the data are $3.0 million dollars per year. The next phase of educating physicians was another $100,000+, and about $45,000 per year in expenses for the state’s health dept. Of course the cost to the doctors for sending the data has never been calculated.
But the state claims that this bill will cost little more than $10,000 per year.
I hope that you are concerned about this bill because your voice does make a difference. This is one bill that should go away. We do not need to collect such data, and some believe that such collection may violate the Fourth Amendment.
The government claims it needs your information to;
“Improve the accessibility and affordability of patient health care and health care coverage”
“Identify health and health care needs and inform on health and health care policy”
“Determine the capacity and distribution of existing health care resources”
“Evaluate the effectiveness of intervention programs on improving patient outcomes”
“Review costs among various treatment settings, providers, and approaches”
“Provide publicly available information on health care providers’ quality of care”
I asked a few public policy groups to take a look at the legislation. They responded with alarm. Some of their comments are that “…this is an avenue to centralized control over medical decisions...and the building of a brand new expensive bureaucracy that will use the data to issue reports to further secure their control over medical decision-making.” And, “Whoa. This bill is very scary. Not only is there no opt-out provision, but looking at claims data is the way to implement price controls.”
The administration claims through all of this your identity will be safe because the government will give you a unique encrypted patient identifier. Your doctor will receive a unique health care provider identifier as well. But wait, if the government is giving you the identifier wouldn’t that mean they know who you are or else how can they give it to you…and why?
What if you should want to opt-out? Well, you can’t. And should your doctor refuse to comply with giving over your information he or she will receive a $100.00 per day fine from the state.
Recently a similar plan was instituted in Minnesota. The cost was $1.2 million for the databasing of claims data on all Minnesotans for just the first 18 months. Additional costs for analyzing the data are $3.0 million dollars per year. The next phase of educating physicians was another $100,000+, and about $45,000 per year in expenses for the state’s health dept. Of course the cost to the doctors for sending the data has never been calculated.
But the state claims that this bill will cost little more than $10,000 per year.
I hope that you are concerned about this bill because your voice does make a difference. This is one bill that should go away. We do not need to collect such data, and some believe that such collection may violate the Fourth Amendment.
Sunday, May 03, 2009
Brushing up on energy schemes
There are several energy schemes with which we need to acquaint ourselves because of their potential damage to our pocketbooks.
Just imagine the suffering your family and your budget would face if they were all put into effect.
Legislation in the federal and state government is trying to accomplish this right now.
They are plans that violate good business ethics and economic fairness. We need to be aware of these schemes and the damage they will do. Sadly, our own American government is trying to impose them.
Renewable Portfolio Standards
Require increased production of energy from renewable sources. These sources are not necessarily less expensive or more efficient than other sources.
RES Credit Trading Programs
Renewable energy credits are tradable environmental commodities which represent proof that 1 megawatt-hour (MWh) of electricity was generated from an eligible renewable energy resource1. Many power generating companies don't or can't readily use renewable sources of energy to produce power for their customers. Therefore, under this scheme, they will have to purchase the credits from power companies that do use renewable sources so that they can prove to the federal government that renewable sources were used. Obviously, this added cost whose only legitimate effect is to make power more expensive for customers.
Cap & Trade
Is a regulatory scheme used to control pollution by placing a cap on large manufacturers’ emissions. Should they stay under their assigned cap they can trade (or sell) the unused portion of their cap to another manufacturer that has exceeded their assigned cap. This does virtually nothing to decrease pollution, or encourage increased production, but it obviously increases manufacturing costs.
Decoupling Mechanisms
Refers to the disassociation of a utility's profits from the actual volume of a customers' usage. Instead a given rate of return is aligned with revenue targets; rates are annually adjusted based on these targets. The point is to disconnect the utility's desire for net revenue from sales volume. Most customers expect to be charged for the volume of fuel they use, plus average fixed costs and a fair profit. Decoupling destroys the formula used for years which is most fair to consumers.
Utility Conservation Programs
Utilities are incentivized to sell less product by encouraging energy conservation among their customers. They are rewarded for the decrease in product sales volume due to the conservation efforts with annual price increases to make up for their lost net revenue. Fair market practices dictate that if a consumer conserves they should receive the benefit for their conservation efforts. Under this scheme the utility receives a rate increase for any conservation efforts whether aided by the utility or accomplished by the customer.
RINs Trading Programs
Renewable Identification Numbers are assigned to batches of fuel that have been blended with ethanol. Oil companies use the RINs numbers to prove to the federal government that they are meeting the federal mandates for ethanol blending. Small retailers want the state to prevent the oil companies from restricting their ability to blend. This is because when the retailers do the blending themselves they are given possession of the RINs number. The small retailers then sell the number back to the oil companies because they need the number to prove to the federal government that the fuel was indeed blended. This transaction costs up to 12 cents per gallon. Guess who really pays for this? You, the consumer.
Automobile Carbon Taxes
Next on the horizon is the idea to tax you for your car's emissions. I don't have a lot of information on this yet but look out for this as well.
Just imagine the suffering your family and your budget would face if they were all put into effect.
Legislation in the federal and state government is trying to accomplish this right now.
They are plans that violate good business ethics and economic fairness. We need to be aware of these schemes and the damage they will do. Sadly, our own American government is trying to impose them.
Renewable Portfolio Standards
Require increased production of energy from renewable sources. These sources are not necessarily less expensive or more efficient than other sources.
RES Credit Trading Programs
Renewable energy credits are tradable environmental commodities which represent proof that 1 megawatt-hour (MWh) of electricity was generated from an eligible renewable energy resource1. Many power generating companies don't or can't readily use renewable sources of energy to produce power for their customers. Therefore, under this scheme, they will have to purchase the credits from power companies that do use renewable sources so that they can prove to the federal government that renewable sources were used. Obviously, this added cost whose only legitimate effect is to make power more expensive for customers.
Cap & Trade
Is a regulatory scheme used to control pollution by placing a cap on large manufacturers’ emissions. Should they stay under their assigned cap they can trade (or sell) the unused portion of their cap to another manufacturer that has exceeded their assigned cap. This does virtually nothing to decrease pollution, or encourage increased production, but it obviously increases manufacturing costs.
Decoupling Mechanisms
Refers to the disassociation of a utility's profits from the actual volume of a customers' usage. Instead a given rate of return is aligned with revenue targets; rates are annually adjusted based on these targets. The point is to disconnect the utility's desire for net revenue from sales volume. Most customers expect to be charged for the volume of fuel they use, plus average fixed costs and a fair profit. Decoupling destroys the formula used for years which is most fair to consumers.
Utility Conservation Programs
Utilities are incentivized to sell less product by encouraging energy conservation among their customers. They are rewarded for the decrease in product sales volume due to the conservation efforts with annual price increases to make up for their lost net revenue. Fair market practices dictate that if a consumer conserves they should receive the benefit for their conservation efforts. Under this scheme the utility receives a rate increase for any conservation efforts whether aided by the utility or accomplished by the customer.
RINs Trading Programs
Renewable Identification Numbers are assigned to batches of fuel that have been blended with ethanol. Oil companies use the RINs numbers to prove to the federal government that they are meeting the federal mandates for ethanol blending. Small retailers want the state to prevent the oil companies from restricting their ability to blend. This is because when the retailers do the blending themselves they are given possession of the RINs number. The small retailers then sell the number back to the oil companies because they need the number to prove to the federal government that the fuel was indeed blended. This transaction costs up to 12 cents per gallon. Guess who really pays for this? You, the consumer.
Automobile Carbon Taxes
Next on the horizon is the idea to tax you for your car's emissions. I don't have a lot of information on this yet but look out for this as well.
Saturday, May 02, 2009
Friday, May 01, 2009
Label me
So I don’t like the idea of local governments enacting menu labeling...
I received an email from a friend who was not happy to learn that I am the sponsor of a bill to clarify that local governments may not enact menu labeling; a growing trend where government requires restaurants to provide patrons information on the nutritional content of their offerings.
Supporters of menu labeling love the idea because they feel it will surely cure the “obesity epidemic”; even though American society has grown heavier not slimmer since other food labeling laws have come into effect.
Objectors say they see menu labeling as more of the nanny-state government movement. Further, it creates a burden on citizens (business owners) that is far too great. Modifying menus or ingredients becomes inflexible due to the expense of changing menu board, menu and drive through signage; additionally utilizing a lab to determine the nutritional content of offerings is exceedingly expensive. It is consumers that will pay these costs through higher prices.
Many question if the added expense is actually useful enough to pay for. Isn’t it common knowledge that if starchy potatoes fried in oil can make you fat then supersized starchy potatoes fried in oil will probably make you, well, fatter?
However, my friend’s email, and my bill, raise a whole new issue. She feels that local governments are closest to the people and are more inclined to understand what laws they need therefore I should not be trying to stop them from employing such an ordinance if they want to do so.
It is very important to understand that the only reason local governments exist is because the state has granted them a Charter to exist. A Charter is like a Constitution and grants local governments permission to govern themselves through ordinances within the range of their Chartered powers.
To be clear, Local government ordinances cannot circumvent state law. For instance, local governments cannot make their own criminal laws; it would violate equal protection of the law for there to be varying penalties for murder in different counties or communities.
Local governments can fill a void in state law if there is no state law on the subject in effect, and the ordinance is inside of the powers specified in their Charter.
In time the state sometimes finds it necessary to take action and impose an overriding state law to replace a selection of dissimilar ordinances on the same issue. For example, the state may find that varying ordinances among the local governments are too numerous, too differentiated, and in need of standardization due to a compelling, a rational or a legitimate burden created for citizens to comply with. Local menu labeling ordinances are a good example of this.
If a requirement for menu labeling is ever put in place I hope people can agree that it is truly a measure that would be best imposed broadly, perhaps by the federal government, because even the variance among the states creates too great a compliance burden for citizens.
Harvard University was one of the first to require menu labeling. They have abandoned the project due to complaints that it aggravated students' eating disorders. If you want to read more about the Food Police there is a very good article by the Consumer Rights League. I recently had Jim Terry from Consumer Rights speak at my task force at ALEC.
Yep, you can officially "label me" as one of those that is not in favor of government instituted menu labeling on any level for many reasons.
I received an email from a friend who was not happy to learn that I am the sponsor of a bill to clarify that local governments may not enact menu labeling; a growing trend where government requires restaurants to provide patrons information on the nutritional content of their offerings.
Supporters of menu labeling love the idea because they feel it will surely cure the “obesity epidemic”; even though American society has grown heavier not slimmer since other food labeling laws have come into effect.
Objectors say they see menu labeling as more of the nanny-state government movement. Further, it creates a burden on citizens (business owners) that is far too great. Modifying menus or ingredients becomes inflexible due to the expense of changing menu board, menu and drive through signage; additionally utilizing a lab to determine the nutritional content of offerings is exceedingly expensive. It is consumers that will pay these costs through higher prices.
Many question if the added expense is actually useful enough to pay for. Isn’t it common knowledge that if starchy potatoes fried in oil can make you fat then supersized starchy potatoes fried in oil will probably make you, well, fatter?
However, my friend’s email, and my bill, raise a whole new issue. She feels that local governments are closest to the people and are more inclined to understand what laws they need therefore I should not be trying to stop them from employing such an ordinance if they want to do so.
It is very important to understand that the only reason local governments exist is because the state has granted them a Charter to exist. A Charter is like a Constitution and grants local governments permission to govern themselves through ordinances within the range of their Chartered powers.
To be clear, Local government ordinances cannot circumvent state law. For instance, local governments cannot make their own criminal laws; it would violate equal protection of the law for there to be varying penalties for murder in different counties or communities.
Local governments can fill a void in state law if there is no state law on the subject in effect, and the ordinance is inside of the powers specified in their Charter.
In time the state sometimes finds it necessary to take action and impose an overriding state law to replace a selection of dissimilar ordinances on the same issue. For example, the state may find that varying ordinances among the local governments are too numerous, too differentiated, and in need of standardization due to a compelling, a rational or a legitimate burden created for citizens to comply with. Local menu labeling ordinances are a good example of this.
If a requirement for menu labeling is ever put in place I hope people can agree that it is truly a measure that would be best imposed broadly, perhaps by the federal government, because even the variance among the states creates too great a compliance burden for citizens.
Harvard University was one of the first to require menu labeling. They have abandoned the project due to complaints that it aggravated students' eating disorders. If you want to read more about the Food Police there is a very good article by the Consumer Rights League. I recently had Jim Terry from Consumer Rights speak at my task force at ALEC.
Yep, you can officially "label me" as one of those that is not in favor of government instituted menu labeling on any level for many reasons.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Friday, April 17, 2009
KIMSEY WINS!!!
This morning Matthew Kimsey beat out many other well qualified interns to become the 2009 Governor of the Intern General Assembly.
Matthew is the intern for Rep. Susan Lynn, Chairman of the House Government Operations Committee. She was asked if she feels her endorsement had any influence on the race.
Matthew is the intern for Rep. Susan Lynn, Chairman of the House Government Operations Committee. She was asked if she feels her endorsement had any influence on the race.
"Matthew is a spectacular intern. I'm so proud. I knew he could do it! He's learned so much. I think his qualifications and his excellent candidate commercial speak for themselves." Said Rep. Lynn.
Matthew is under the direct supervision of Cyndie Todd, assistant to Rep. Lynn.
Ms. Todd was asked if she thought Matthew's issues propelled him to victory. She stated "No, I think it was all that time on Facebook that paid off for him. Now maybe he'll stop lallygagging and get some work done. There's just not enough room in this office for two politicians."
CONGRATULATIONS MATTHEW!!
WE KNEW YOU COULD DO IT!!!
From Cyndie and Rep. Lynn!!!
Friday, March 27, 2009
Join the Facebook HJR 108 Group
HJR 108 is a Resolution to support state sovereignty and the Tenth Amendment.
Join the HJR 108 Facebook group and show your support for state sovereignty.
HJR 108 will be heard in the House on Tuesday, March 31 at noon.
Join the HJR 108 Facebook group and show your support for state sovereignty.
HJR 108 will be heard in the House on Tuesday, March 31 at noon.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Sunday, February 22, 2009
HJR 108 State Sovereignty
State sovereignty is a big deal to state legislators; hopefully, it is to you as well. It is what keeps the federal government from over stepping its constitutional bounds.
Today many state legislators, including some in Tennessee, have decided it is time to affirm state sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and demand the federal government halt its practice of assuming powers and of imposing mandates upon the states for purposes not enumerated by the Constitution.
The history of the formation of our federal government is long and complex but what the framers sought was a government that protected man’s natural rights; declared by the Declaration of Independence to be the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; better interpreted to mean that all men, by nature are equally free and independent with the right to work, acquire property and pursue their own individual happiness.
When the Constitution was drawn, the various states in existence already had Constitutions with several enumerated rights. Therefore, many of the framers believed that it was not necessary to include individual rights in a federal constitution. They feared that in doing so, the Constitution might incorrectly be construed as a document which limited the rights of the people and of the states.
Eventually the supporters of a bill of rights won out, and the Bill of Rights was drafted to guarantee equal rights for all Americans but compromise also brought the Tenth Amendment guaranteeing limits on federal power;
1. Freedoms of speech, press and religion
2. People's right to keep and bear arms
3. Protection from quartering troops
4. To be free of unreasonable searches and seizures
5. Right to due process and the prohibition of double jeopardy
6. Trial by jury and other rights of the accused
7. Right to civil trial by jury
8. Prohibition of excessive bail, as well as prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment
9. Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights
10. Powers reserved for the states and people
As you can see, the various rights are not necessarily rights that exist in the state of nature but rather rights designed to affirm and protect our natural rights; for example, freedom of the press protects liberty, and trial by jury protects life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
The state sovereignty movement seeks to remind the federal government that the Tenth Amendment ensures that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
After all, the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states. However today, in 2009, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government. Many powers and federal mandates are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution; this limits our freedom and costs taxpayers untold billions of dollars - or should I say trillions?
I believe that it is time we step forth as other states are doing and affirm Tennessee's sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States. We should also demand that the federal government halt and reverse its practice of assuming powers and of imposing mandates upon the states for purposes not enumerated by the Constitution. Tennessee HJR 108 will do just that. With your support, hopefully, we can begin to reverse the federal power grab.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Populism Ignites in Chicago
Rick Santelli on CNBC's Squawk Box
The trading floor buzz on whether the government's plan to save the economy will actually help the markets.
The trading floor buzz on whether the government's plan to save the economy will actually help the markets.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Obama's Rhetoric Is the Real 'Catastrophe'
In 1932, automobile production shriveled by 90%
By BRADLEY R. SCHILLER, Wall Street Journal
"Consider the job losses that Mr. Obama always cites:
In the last year, the U.S. economy shed 3.4 million jobs - 2.2% of the labor force. From November 1981 to October 1982, 2.4 million jobs were lost - 2.2% of the labor force, the same as now.
Job losses in the Great Depression: 1930, the economy shed 4.8% of the labor force. In 1931, 6.5%. 1932, another 7.1%. Jobs were being lost at double or triple the rate of 2008-09 or 1981-82.
Unemployment rates: The latest survey pegs U.S. unemployment at 7.6%. 1982 peak (10.8%). Peak in 1932 (25.2%). You simply can't equate 7.6% unemployment with the Great Depression.
Real gross domestic product (GDP) rose in 2008, despite a bad fourth quarter. The Congressional Budget Office projects a GDP decline of 2% in 2009. That's comparable to 1982, when GDP contracted by 1.9%. It is nothing like 1930, when GDP fell by 9%, or 1931, when GDP contracted by another 8%, or 1932, when it fell yet another 13%.
Auto production last year declined by roughly 25%. That looks good compared to 1932, when production shriveled by 90%.
The failure of a couple of dozen banks in 2008 just doesn't compare to over 10,000 bank failures in 1933, or even the 3,000-plus bank (Savings & Loan) failures in 1987-88.
Stockholders can take some solace from the fact that the recent stock market debacle doesn't come close to the 90% devaluation of the early 1930s."
Mr. Schiller, an economics professor at the University of Nevada, Reno, is the author of "The Economy Today" (McGraw-Hill, 2007).
By BRADLEY R. SCHILLER, Wall Street Journal
"Consider the job losses that Mr. Obama always cites:
In the last year, the U.S. economy shed 3.4 million jobs - 2.2% of the labor force. From November 1981 to October 1982, 2.4 million jobs were lost - 2.2% of the labor force, the same as now.
Job losses in the Great Depression: 1930, the economy shed 4.8% of the labor force. In 1931, 6.5%. 1932, another 7.1%. Jobs were being lost at double or triple the rate of 2008-09 or 1981-82.
Unemployment rates: The latest survey pegs U.S. unemployment at 7.6%. 1982 peak (10.8%). Peak in 1932 (25.2%). You simply can't equate 7.6% unemployment with the Great Depression.
Real gross domestic product (GDP) rose in 2008, despite a bad fourth quarter. The Congressional Budget Office projects a GDP decline of 2% in 2009. That's comparable to 1982, when GDP contracted by 1.9%. It is nothing like 1930, when GDP fell by 9%, or 1931, when GDP contracted by another 8%, or 1932, when it fell yet another 13%.
Auto production last year declined by roughly 25%. That looks good compared to 1932, when production shriveled by 90%.
The failure of a couple of dozen banks in 2008 just doesn't compare to over 10,000 bank failures in 1933, or even the 3,000-plus bank (Savings & Loan) failures in 1987-88.
Stockholders can take some solace from the fact that the recent stock market debacle doesn't come close to the 90% devaluation of the early 1930s."
Mr. Schiller, an economics professor at the University of Nevada, Reno, is the author of "The Economy Today" (McGraw-Hill, 2007).
Friday, January 30, 2009
Thank you StateHouseCall.org
TN Lawmaker Pushing to Discontinue CON
Cites Feds warning that protectionist regs "undercut consumer choice, stifle innovation and weaken markets' ability to contain costs"
By Mark Todd Engler
Cites Feds warning that protectionist regs "undercut consumer choice, stifle innovation and weaken markets' ability to contain costs"
By Mark Todd Engler
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
DOJ and FTC issue joint statement on CON
Agencies Say CON Laws Undercut Consumer Choice, Stifle Innovation andWeaken Markets' Ability to Contain Health Care Costs
WASHINGTON — In a joint statement to the Illinois Task Force on Health Planning Reform, the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) stated the agencies' position regarding certificate-of-need (CON) laws, saying that the laws undercut consumer choice, stifle innovation and weaken markets' ability to contain health care costs. Today's statement reiterates the agencies' ongoing efforts to promote competition in health care.
State CON programs generally prevent firms from entering certain areas of the health care market unless they can demonstrate to state authorities that there is an unmet need for their services...
WASHINGTON — In a joint statement to the Illinois Task Force on Health Planning Reform, the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) stated the agencies' position regarding certificate-of-need (CON) laws, saying that the laws undercut consumer choice, stifle innovation and weaken markets' ability to contain health care costs. Today's statement reiterates the agencies' ongoing efforts to promote competition in health care.
State CON programs generally prevent firms from entering certain areas of the health care market unless they can demonstrate to state authorities that there is an unmet need for their services...
Monday, January 26, 2009
Friday, January 23, 2009
First posted information about Kent Williams in 2007
The Tennessee Politics Blog posted an item about Kent Williams' comments which received a lot of comments on April 2, 2007.
Jama Oliver posted on April 2, 2007.
TOPIX Posted a number of items on April 12, 2007 and after.
Jama Oliver posted on April 2, 2007.
TOPIX Posted a number of items on April 12, 2007 and after.
The first media contact about Kent Williams 2009
This morning Jason Mumpower misspoke and stated that I contacted the the media.
That is not true.
The first media contact that I received was by email below. Days later when I spoke to Mr. Kleinheider I told him that I didn't want to talk about it.
This is all exactly why women don't come forward with such complaints. It is very difficult for me to understand why if a woman requests to be treated professionally, and needs assistance to make that happen, she is later condemned as though she was the perpetrator.
That is not true.
The first media contact that I received was by email below. Days later when I spoke to Mr. Kleinheider I told him that I didn't want to talk about it.
This is all exactly why women don't come forward with such complaints. It is very difficult for me to understand why if a woman requests to be treated professionally, and needs assistance to make that happen, she is later condemned as though she was the perpetrator.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Thank you Chris Clem
Thank you to former State Representative Chris Clem who writes in response to a public letter from Speaker Williams' sister;
http://politics.nashvillepost.com/2009/01/22/chris-clem-on-the-kent-williams-sexual-harassment-allegations/
http://politics.nashvillepost.com/2009/01/22/chris-clem-on-the-kent-williams-sexual-harassment-allegations/
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Comment on media access to member complaint
What follows is a timeline for the recent events of this week and before.
Nearly two years ago, an incident occurred which was witnessed by a few. It has been well documented so I will not go into further detail except to say that I sought assistance from my leadership because I did not feel that I was being taken seriously in my request to be treated with professional courtesy.
At that time, a group of Nashville bloggers found out about the incident; they recounted the events on their blogs. The Nashville media observed the discourse and contacted me for comment. I declined to comment on the incident and so did my leadership.
After the election last week, I was contacted by a Nashville blogger that had knowledge of the incident two years earlier. He asked me if I would like to comment on his blog. I declined once more and immediately called my caucus leader to inform him that I was contacted by the blogger. We agreed to remain firm in our position not to comment on the incident.
On Sunday night the press started calling me. I refused to comment. Their phone calls persisted all day on Monday at which time I still refused to comment. In addition, they repeatedly contacted my leadership. In the early evening on Monday some media informed our press secretary that they intended to issue a public records request to our leadership for any information pertaining to the incident. When leadership arrived at the office on Tuesday morning members of the media were waiting with their requests for public information.
Until this time I was unaware that a file existed. However, in retrospect, it does make sense that the leader would document a serious incident even if only to safeguard his own actions. Although he has received much criticism, I can only imagine the critique if he had refused to hand over the file. Considering all that the leader has been through, I think that he has been very professional about everything.
I hope you will understand if I do not wish to comment any further on the incident. I believe that the information that has already been made public speaks for itself.
Thank you for the many kind words of support. I know that I have done nothing wrong. It is a difficult situation that one cannot ever win. That is why I sought to handle it privately.
Nearly two years ago, an incident occurred which was witnessed by a few. It has been well documented so I will not go into further detail except to say that I sought assistance from my leadership because I did not feel that I was being taken seriously in my request to be treated with professional courtesy.
At that time, a group of Nashville bloggers found out about the incident; they recounted the events on their blogs. The Nashville media observed the discourse and contacted me for comment. I declined to comment on the incident and so did my leadership.
After the election last week, I was contacted by a Nashville blogger that had knowledge of the incident two years earlier. He asked me if I would like to comment on his blog. I declined once more and immediately called my caucus leader to inform him that I was contacted by the blogger. We agreed to remain firm in our position not to comment on the incident.
On Sunday night the press started calling me. I refused to comment. Their phone calls persisted all day on Monday at which time I still refused to comment. In addition, they repeatedly contacted my leadership. In the early evening on Monday some media informed our press secretary that they intended to issue a public records request to our leadership for any information pertaining to the incident. When leadership arrived at the office on Tuesday morning members of the media were waiting with their requests for public information.
Until this time I was unaware that a file existed. However, in retrospect, it does make sense that the leader would document a serious incident even if only to safeguard his own actions. Although he has received much criticism, I can only imagine the critique if he had refused to hand over the file. Considering all that the leader has been through, I think that he has been very professional about everything.
I hope you will understand if I do not wish to comment any further on the incident. I believe that the information that has already been made public speaks for itself.
Thank you for the many kind words of support. I know that I have done nothing wrong. It is a difficult situation that one cannot ever win. That is why I sought to handle it privately.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Cover Tennessee Expanding
Thank you to Heartland's Healthcare News for asking for my comments on
Cover Tennessee.
Cover Tennessee.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Thomas Sowell
The recent demonstrations over gay marriage has caused me to look up Sowell's articles where he explains that marriage really limits the rights of individuals', it does not expand them.
"Marriage is not a right extended to individuals by the government. It is a restriction on the rights they already have." 2005
"In other words, marriage imposes legal restrictions, taking away rights that individuals might otherwise have." 2006
"Marriage is not a right extended to individuals by the government. It is a restriction on the rights they already have." 2005
"In other words, marriage imposes legal restrictions, taking away rights that individuals might otherwise have." 2006
Friday, November 14, 2008
Thank You Ralph
Ralph Bristol of the Morning News on Supertalk 99.7 FM has asked me to become a permanent cast member on his show. I will be on to talk about state government each Monday at 6:40 am.
Thank You Slater and the Nashville Post
Thank you to Michael Slater of West Tennessee's TJ Radio Network and to the Nashville Post for the mention today about my interview with Slater on the Copeland Cap.
Friday, November 07, 2008
Sam's Mention
Thank you! For the mention by Sam's Club CEO Doug McMillon.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4U1oAjOlQQ&eurl=http://politics.nashvillepost.com/page/2/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4U1oAjOlQQ&eurl=http://politics.nashvillepost.com/page/2/
Monday, November 03, 2008
Susan Lynn did what?
My opponent is trying to say I voted wrong...you be the judge.
He attacks on Big Oil, education and the minimum wage.
Big Oil
Each year the House Democrats pass a resolution for the US Congress asking them to investigate the oil companies for price gouging. This is done for partisan reasons and passes with a scant few votes.
Is the resolution effective? No. Not once has it ever even been acknowledged by the US Congress.
The Republicans try to amend the bill to ask the US Congress to drill domestically. The Democrats kill this amendment!
So this year I tried to explain a little economics to the Democrats and that is that oil is a commodity. If the price of oil goes up on the Commodities Exchange the price of oil, and the price of gasoline, will follow. The oil companies buy the oil for refining and must pay the commodity price. This price is passed on to us as consumers.
I further explained that while the oil companies make profits in the billions of dollars, as a percent of revenue they earn about 8% profit. Sure they earn a lot dollar-wise because they sell a whole lot of gasoline.I also pointed out that while oil company profits are 8% of revenue, left leaning companies like Google earn profits at 30% of revenue. Should we investigate Google for price gouging too?
And I asked, what about the drug companies, most make 20%, 22%, even 30% profit - and most drugs are paid for with tax payer dollars - Now frankly that sounds like something to investigate.
And what about the taxes they pay? Businesses like oil companies actually pay billions of dollars more in taxes than they make in profit, taxes passed on to you and me when we make a purchase. Why don't they think the government is tax gouging?
There are only 7 American oil companies. They have direct access to only about 7% of the world's oil. Foreign nations and foreign oil companies control 93% of the world's oil. Why would the Democrats want to weaken our American oil companies by attacking them and refusing to enable domestic drilling?
Many Americans are invested in American oil companies through their pension fund, retirement plans and money markets. Why would Democrats want to weaken these companies and destroy American savings?
If anything funny was going on with the recent spike in oil it was on the Commodities Exchange and this IS being investigated by the federal government without a request from the Tennessee General Assembly being at all necessary.
Improving our schools
My opponent implies that I voted against our schools - NOT TRUE!
The bill he is referring to, HB2354 is the cigarette tax. The bill barely passed, receiving only 59 votes out of 99.
In actuality, I voted against using the cigarette tax, a declining source of revenue, to fund education.
If we are serious about funding education we will fund education out of the General Fund and not with a source of revenue that is in decline - leaving our school children short.
Last year the Governor cut $69 million dollars out of the education budget because the cigarette tax had come up short in collections.
I believe it is immoral for school children to have to depend on smokers for their education, and it makes me angry that things such as a bunker would be funded and education would be cut. The Republicans have a plan to fund education first - a plan the Democrats killed in a tabling motion - see amendment 3, Democrat motion to lay on the table.
Raising the Minimum Wage
My opponent obviously wants Tennessee to have our own minimum wage, separate from the federal minimum wage because that is what the Democrats tried to pass - it failed.
He also seems to approve of that wage being linked to the Consumer Price Index - an idea that uses circular reasoning.
This bill is considered to be a JOB KILLER BILL by small business owners (NFIB, Tennessee Chamber of Commerce).
It is clear that the best way to help a low wage person make more money is by improving their skills so that their labor is worth more to an employer. It is not by causing inflation in the economy which only makes the low wage person's life more difficult.
Please see my article: Circular Reasoning and the Minimum Wage. This article about this bill was published by a national magazine and received much praise.
By the way, the bill my opponent mentions in the mailer is not the Minimum Wage Bill - it is HB3402 a bill that exempts from the County Powers Relief Act any county in which at least 51 percent of the real property is owned by the federal government and dedicated as a national forest...it didn't pass either.
He attacks on Big Oil, education and the minimum wage.
Big OilEach year the House Democrats pass a resolution for the US Congress asking them to investigate the oil companies for price gouging. This is done for partisan reasons and passes with a scant few votes.
Is the resolution effective? No. Not once has it ever even been acknowledged by the US Congress.
The Republicans try to amend the bill to ask the US Congress to drill domestically. The Democrats kill this amendment!
So this year I tried to explain a little economics to the Democrats and that is that oil is a commodity. If the price of oil goes up on the Commodities Exchange the price of oil, and the price of gasoline, will follow. The oil companies buy the oil for refining and must pay the commodity price. This price is passed on to us as consumers.
I further explained that while the oil companies make profits in the billions of dollars, as a percent of revenue they earn about 8% profit. Sure they earn a lot dollar-wise because they sell a whole lot of gasoline.I also pointed out that while oil company profits are 8% of revenue, left leaning companies like Google earn profits at 30% of revenue. Should we investigate Google for price gouging too?
And I asked, what about the drug companies, most make 20%, 22%, even 30% profit - and most drugs are paid for with tax payer dollars - Now frankly that sounds like something to investigate.
And what about the taxes they pay? Businesses like oil companies actually pay billions of dollars more in taxes than they make in profit, taxes passed on to you and me when we make a purchase. Why don't they think the government is tax gouging?
There are only 7 American oil companies. They have direct access to only about 7% of the world's oil. Foreign nations and foreign oil companies control 93% of the world's oil. Why would the Democrats want to weaken our American oil companies by attacking them and refusing to enable domestic drilling?
Many Americans are invested in American oil companies through their pension fund, retirement plans and money markets. Why would Democrats want to weaken these companies and destroy American savings?
If anything funny was going on with the recent spike in oil it was on the Commodities Exchange and this IS being investigated by the federal government without a request from the Tennessee General Assembly being at all necessary.
Improving our schools
My opponent implies that I voted against our schools - NOT TRUE!
The bill he is referring to, HB2354 is the cigarette tax. The bill barely passed, receiving only 59 votes out of 99.
In actuality, I voted against using the cigarette tax, a declining source of revenue, to fund education.
If we are serious about funding education we will fund education out of the General Fund and not with a source of revenue that is in decline - leaving our school children short.
Last year the Governor cut $69 million dollars out of the education budget because the cigarette tax had come up short in collections.
I believe it is immoral for school children to have to depend on smokers for their education, and it makes me angry that things such as a bunker would be funded and education would be cut. The Republicans have a plan to fund education first - a plan the Democrats killed in a tabling motion - see amendment 3, Democrat motion to lay on the table.
Raising the Minimum Wage
My opponent obviously wants Tennessee to have our own minimum wage, separate from the federal minimum wage because that is what the Democrats tried to pass - it failed.
He also seems to approve of that wage being linked to the Consumer Price Index - an idea that uses circular reasoning.
This bill is considered to be a JOB KILLER BILL by small business owners (NFIB, Tennessee Chamber of Commerce).
It is clear that the best way to help a low wage person make more money is by improving their skills so that their labor is worth more to an employer. It is not by causing inflation in the economy which only makes the low wage person's life more difficult.
Please see my article: Circular Reasoning and the Minimum Wage. This article about this bill was published by a national magazine and received much praise.
By the way, the bill my opponent mentions in the mailer is not the Minimum Wage Bill - it is HB3402 a bill that exempts from the County Powers Relief Act any county in which at least 51 percent of the real property is owned by the federal government and dedicated as a national forest...it didn't pass either.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Eyeing Your Pension
Are 401(k)s safe from congressional Democrats?
By JAMES TARANTO
"If you have a 401(k) or equivalent retirement plan, you've probably been watching nervously the past few weeks as your nest egg has shrunken owing to the current turmoil in the markets.
Well, it could be worse. But don't take heart, for what we mean is it could get worse. The market turmoil has some politicians on Capitol Hill eyeing the end of the 401(k) as we know it. "
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122477680834462659.html
By JAMES TARANTO
"If you have a 401(k) or equivalent retirement plan, you've probably been watching nervously the past few weeks as your nest egg has shrunken owing to the current turmoil in the markets.
Well, it could be worse. But don't take heart, for what we mean is it could get worse. The market turmoil has some politicians on Capitol Hill eyeing the end of the 401(k) as we know it. "
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122477680834462659.html
The Age of Prosperity is Over
Art Laffer's WSJ Opinion
"Every $100 billion in bailout requires at least $130 billion in taxes, where the $30 billion extra is the cost of getting government involved.
If you don't believe me, just watch how Congress and Barney Frank run the banks. If you thought they did a bad job running the post office, Amtrak, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the military, just wait till you see what they'll do with Wall Street."
Read more - http://ssomail.charter.net/do/redirect?url=http%253A%252F%252Fonline.wsj.com%252Farticle%252FSB122506830024970697.html
"Every $100 billion in bailout requires at least $130 billion in taxes, where the $30 billion extra is the cost of getting government involved.
If you don't believe me, just watch how Congress and Barney Frank run the banks. If you thought they did a bad job running the post office, Amtrak, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the military, just wait till you see what they'll do with Wall Street."
Read more - http://ssomail.charter.net/do/redirect?url=http%253A%252F%252Fonline.wsj.com%252Farticle%252FSB122506830024970697.html
Sunday, October 19, 2008
How to Read the Constitution
The following is an excerpt from Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas's Wriston Lecture to the Manhattan Institute last Thursday
The Wall Street Journal, October 20, 2008, Read article... http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122445985683948619.html
"The Declaration of Independence sets out the basic underlying principle of our Constitution. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed . . . ."
The framers structured the Constitution to assure that our national government be by the consent of the people. To do this, they limited its powers. The national government was to be strong enough to protect us from each other and from foreign enemies, but not so strong as to tyrannize us. "
The Wall Street Journal, October 20, 2008, Read article... http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122445985683948619.html
"The Declaration of Independence sets out the basic underlying principle of our Constitution. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed . . . ."
The framers structured the Constitution to assure that our national government be by the consent of the people. To do this, they limited its powers. The national government was to be strong enough to protect us from each other and from foreign enemies, but not so strong as to tyrannize us. "
Obama Is Wrong About Colombia
Labor unions are much safer under Uribe.
Barack Obama gets his facts wrong during the presidential debate. The Americas columnist Mary Anastasia O'Grady explains the gaffe to Kelsey Hubbard.
Wall Street Journal, Oct. 20, 2008
Link...http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122445952046648609.html
Link video...http://online.wsj.com/video/obama-misspeaks/171CEB77-7B3E-4FFB-BE20-D81A31990AF3.html
Barack Obama gets his facts wrong during the presidential debate. The Americas columnist Mary Anastasia O'Grady explains the gaffe to Kelsey Hubbard.
Wall Street Journal, Oct. 20, 2008
Link...http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122445952046648609.html
Link video...http://online.wsj.com/video/obama-misspeaks/171CEB77-7B3E-4FFB-BE20-D81A31990AF3.html
Obama's Carbon Ultimatum
The coming offer you won't be able to refuse.
The Wall Street Journal, Opinion, October 20, 2008
"Normally a democracy reaches consensus through political debate and persuasion, but apparently for Mr. Obama that option is merely a nuisance. It's another example of "change" you'll be given no choice but to believe in."
Read more...http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122445812003548473.html
The Wall Street Journal, Opinion, October 20, 2008
"Normally a democracy reaches consensus through political debate and persuasion, but apparently for Mr. Obama that option is merely a nuisance. It's another example of "change" you'll be given no choice but to believe in."
Read more...http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122445812003548473.html
A Liberal Supermajority
Get ready for 'change' we haven't seen since 1965, or 1933
The Wall Stree Journal, Opinion, October 17, 2008
The Wall Stree Journal, Opinion, October 17, 2008
If the current polls hold, Barack Obama will win the White House on November 4 and Democrats will consolidate their Congressional majorities, probably with a filibuster-proof Senate or very close to it. Without the ability to filibuster, the Senate would become like the House, able to pass whatever the majority wants.
Though we doubt most Americans realize it, this would be one of the most profound political and ideological shifts in U.S. history. Liberals would dominate the entire government in a way they haven't since 1965, or 1933. In other words, the election would mark the restoration of the activist government that fell out of public favor in the 1970s. If the U.S. really is entering a period of unchecked left-wing ascendancy, Americans at least ought to understand what they will be getting, especially with the media cheering it all on.
Read the rest...http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122420205889842989.html
Though we doubt most Americans realize it, this would be one of the most profound political and ideological shifts in U.S. history. Liberals would dominate the entire government in a way they haven't since 1965, or 1933. In other words, the election would mark the restoration of the activist government that fell out of public favor in the 1970s. If the U.S. really is entering a period of unchecked left-wing ascendancy, Americans at least ought to understand what they will be getting, especially with the media cheering it all on.
Read the rest...http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122420205889842989.html
Friday, August 08, 2008
McGovern on Check Card
My PartyShould Respect Secret Union Ballots
By GEORGE MCGOVERN
August 8, 2008
Wall Stree Journal
As a congressman, senator and one-time Democratic nominee for the presidency, I've participated in my share of vigorous public debates over issues of great consequence. And the public has been free to accept or reject the decisions I made when they walked into a ballot booth, drew the curtain and cast their vote. I didn't always win, but I always respected the process.
Voting is an immense privilege.
That is why I am concerned about a new development that could deny this freedom to many Americans. As a longtime friend of labor unions, I must raise my voice against pending legislation I see as a disturbing and undemocratic overreach not in the interest of either management or labor.
The legislation is called the Employee Free Choice Act, and I am sad to say it runs counter to ideals that were once at the core of the labor movement. Instead of providing a voice for the unheard, EFCA risks silencing those who would speak.
The key provision of EFCA is a change in the mechanism by which unions are formed and recognized. Instead of a private election with a secret ballot overseen by an impartial federal board, union organizers would simply need to gather signatures from more than 50% of the employees in a workplace or bargaining unit, a system known as "card-check." There are many documented cases where workers have been pressured, harassed, tricked and intimidated into signing cards that have led to mandatory payment of dues.
Under EFCA, workers could lose the freedom to express their will in private, the right to make a decision without anyone peering over their shoulder, free from fear of reprisal.
There's no question that unions have done much good for this country. Their tenacious efforts have benefited millions of workers and helped build a strong middle class. They gave workers a new voice and pushed for laws that protect individuals from unfair treatment. They have been a friend to the Democratic Party, and so I oppose this legislation respectfully and with care.
To my friends supporting EFCA I say this: We cannot be a party that strips working Americans of the right to a secret-ballot election. We are the party that has always defended the rights of the working class. To fail to ensure the right to vote free of intimidation and coercion from all sides would be a betrayal of what we have always championed.
Some of the most respected Democratic members of Congress -- including Reps. Marcy Kaptur of Ohio, George Miller and Pete Stark of California, and Barney Frank of Massachusetts -- have advised that workers in developing countries such as Mexico insist on the secret ballot when voting as to whether or not their workplaces should have a union. We should have no less for employees in our country.
I worry that there has been too little discussion about EFCA's true ramifications, and I think much of the congressional support is based on a desire to give our friends among union leaders what they want. But part of being a good steward of democracy means telling our friends "no" when they press for a course that in the long run may weaken labor and disrupt a tried and trusted method for conducting honest elections.
While it is never pleasant to stand against one's party or one's friends, there are times when such actions are necessary -- as with my early and lonely opposition to the Vietnam War. I hope some of my friends in Congress will re-evaluate their support for this legislation. Because as Americans, we should strive to ensure that all of us enjoy the freedom of expression and freedom from fear that is our ideal and our right.
Mr. McGovern is a former senator from South Dakota and the 1972 Democratic presidential candidate.
By GEORGE MCGOVERN
August 8, 2008
Wall Stree Journal
As a congressman, senator and one-time Democratic nominee for the presidency, I've participated in my share of vigorous public debates over issues of great consequence. And the public has been free to accept or reject the decisions I made when they walked into a ballot booth, drew the curtain and cast their vote. I didn't always win, but I always respected the process.
Voting is an immense privilege.
That is why I am concerned about a new development that could deny this freedom to many Americans. As a longtime friend of labor unions, I must raise my voice against pending legislation I see as a disturbing and undemocratic overreach not in the interest of either management or labor.
The legislation is called the Employee Free Choice Act, and I am sad to say it runs counter to ideals that were once at the core of the labor movement. Instead of providing a voice for the unheard, EFCA risks silencing those who would speak.
The key provision of EFCA is a change in the mechanism by which unions are formed and recognized. Instead of a private election with a secret ballot overseen by an impartial federal board, union organizers would simply need to gather signatures from more than 50% of the employees in a workplace or bargaining unit, a system known as "card-check." There are many documented cases where workers have been pressured, harassed, tricked and intimidated into signing cards that have led to mandatory payment of dues.
Under EFCA, workers could lose the freedom to express their will in private, the right to make a decision without anyone peering over their shoulder, free from fear of reprisal.
There's no question that unions have done much good for this country. Their tenacious efforts have benefited millions of workers and helped build a strong middle class. They gave workers a new voice and pushed for laws that protect individuals from unfair treatment. They have been a friend to the Democratic Party, and so I oppose this legislation respectfully and with care.
To my friends supporting EFCA I say this: We cannot be a party that strips working Americans of the right to a secret-ballot election. We are the party that has always defended the rights of the working class. To fail to ensure the right to vote free of intimidation and coercion from all sides would be a betrayal of what we have always championed.
Some of the most respected Democratic members of Congress -- including Reps. Marcy Kaptur of Ohio, George Miller and Pete Stark of California, and Barney Frank of Massachusetts -- have advised that workers in developing countries such as Mexico insist on the secret ballot when voting as to whether or not their workplaces should have a union. We should have no less for employees in our country.
I worry that there has been too little discussion about EFCA's true ramifications, and I think much of the congressional support is based on a desire to give our friends among union leaders what they want. But part of being a good steward of democracy means telling our friends "no" when they press for a course that in the long run may weaken labor and disrupt a tried and trusted method for conducting honest elections.
While it is never pleasant to stand against one's party or one's friends, there are times when such actions are necessary -- as with my early and lonely opposition to the Vietnam War. I hope some of my friends in Congress will re-evaluate their support for this legislation. Because as Americans, we should strive to ensure that all of us enjoy the freedom of expression and freedom from fear that is our ideal and our right.
Mr. McGovern is a former senator from South Dakota and the 1972 Democratic presidential candidate.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Wall Street Journal Editorial
$4 Gasbags
Wall Street Journal, June 12, 2008; Page A16
Anyone wondering why U.S. energy policy is so dysfunctional need only review Congress's recent antics. Members have debated ideas ranging from suing OPEC to the Senate's carbon tax-and-regulation monstrosity, to a windfall profits tax on oil companies, to new punishments for "price gouging" – everything except expanding domestic energy supplies.
Amid $135 oil, it ought to be an easy, bipartisan victory to lift the political restrictions on energy exploration and production. Record-high fuel costs are hitting consumers and business like a huge tax increase. Yet the U.S. remains one of the only countries in the world that chooses as a matter of policy to lock up its natural resources. The Chinese think we're insane and self-destructive, while the Saudis laugh all the way to the bank.
There are two separate moratoria on offshore drilling: One is a ban that Congress has attached to every budget since 1982, and the other is a 1990 executive order that President Bush has waived in only a few cases. Republicans made failing attempts to overcome both when they ran Congress, but current Democratic leaders and their green masters remain adamantly opposed.
The new political opportunity amid record prices is to convince enough rank-and-file Democrats that they'll suffer at the polls if they don't break with this antiexploration ideology.
While energy "independence" is an impossible dream, there's no doubt the U.S. has vast undeveloped fossil-fuel deposits. A tiny corner of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge contains an estimated 10.4 billion barrels of oil and would be the largest producing oil field in the Northern Hemisphere. Yet the Senate blocked that development as recently as last month. The Outer Continental Shelf is estimated to contain some 86 billion barrels of oil, plus 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Yet of the shelf's 1.76 billion acres, 85% is off-limits and 97% is undeveloped.
Engineers recently perfected refining solid shale rock into diesel or gas, which may amount to the largest oil supply in the world – perhaps as much as 1.8 trillion barrels in the American West. That's enough to meet current U.S. oil demand for more than two centuries. Yet as late as 2007, Democrats attached a rider to the energy bill that prohibits leasing the federal interior lands that contain at least 80% of America's oil shale. The key vote was cast by liberal Senator Ken Salazar from Colorado, of all places.
These supply guesses are probably conservative, because the only way to know for sure is to drill exploratory wells. Yet most of Alaska and offshore are cut off even from modern seismic testing. Many areas haven't been examined since the 1960s, when exploration technology was far more primitive. This has led to the believe-it-or-not situation in which the Chinese are prepping to drill in Cuban waters less than 60 miles off the Florida coast. American companies are banned from drilling in American waters nearby.
Yes, we know, increased drilling is no energy cure-all; new projects take about a decade to come on line. Then again, more than a few experts say that new production could affect price as the market perceives a new U.S. seriousness to increase supplies. Part of today's futures speculation is based on the assumption that supplies will remain tight for years to come, even as Chinese and Indian demand surges.
Nor would merely repealing the exploration bans be enough. Between 2000 and 2007, the drilling of exploratory oil wells climbed 138%, but over the same period domestic crude oil production decreased 12.4% and fell to the lowest levels since 1947. Refineries for gasoline are stretched to the limit, but multiple regulatory barriers impede new construction or even expansions at existing facilities. Then there is the inevitable lawsuit downpour from the environmental lobby.
Democrats are going to have to grow up. The oil-rich areas they want to leave untouched are accessible with minimal environmental disturbance, thanks to modern technology. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita flattened terminals across the Gulf of Mexico but didn't cause a single oil spill. As for anticarbon theology, oil will be indispensable over the next half-century and probably longer, like it or not. Airplanes will never fly on woodchips, and you won't be able to charge your car with a windmill for some time, if ever.
Public anger over fuel prices could hardly come at a worse time for the GOP, since voters tend to blame a flagging economy on the party that occupies the White House. But the opportunity is to offer a reform alternative to Barack Obama and the high-price energy status quo he embraces. It looks like the public is increasingly ready for . . . change. In a May Gallup poll, 57% favored "allowing drilling in U.S. coastal and wilderness areas now off limits." Just 20% blamed the increase in gas prices on Big Oil, like Mr. Obama does.
Recent weeks have seen some GOP stirrings on Capitol Hill, but John McCain has so far refused to jettison his green posturings, such as his belief in carbon caps and his animus against offshore development. A good reason for a rethink would be $4 gas. At present, it is charitable to call Mr. McCain's energy ideas incoherent, and it may cost him the election.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)