Recently U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was quoted as saying “Everyone is going to come to terms with the fact that we are gong to (have to) save more in the United States…If the U.S. starts saving more, that changes the whole world’s economic reality.”
Geithner isn’t wrong, saving more would help the economy; he’s just sounding a little too much like Marie Antoinette - elite and out of touch with the suffering general public.
For those of us that live in the real world, we can’t imagine where Mr. Geithner thinks we will get the money to save. Is he really so unaware of the millions of unemployed and the underemployed? Does he really not realize that those who are working are afraid of losing their jobs? We are facing a historically unprecedented federal budget deficit, and colossal federal debt which could raise taxes to enormous proportions; perhaps 30-35% of GDP. Soon we will be expected to support a massive new healthcare program which promises to tax everything that moves, along with a not too distant cap & trade scheme to pick our pockets.
How much better if instead of taking our money and spending it, if Washington would help this country by incentivizing more savings. Then, even if the deficit stayed large, the increase in private savings would provide more financial capital for private investment which would grow the economy and help put people back to work. It would also make the US economy less reliant on foreign investment.
There are many ways to incentivize private savings but one great way would be to scrap the federal health care program now being debated and instead return insurance to its rightful place - a product one buys hoping that one will never have to use - then strongly incentivize health savings accounts; a product where people save for the regular health maintenance of life.
Unfortunately today, “health insurance” is misnamed and thereby misunderstood - it has transitioned into a health maintenance product instead of an actual insurance product. This transition has created impractical expectations, poor incentives, and loss of consumer influence in the healthcare marketplace.
As a nation, we need to have a public discussion about our expectations. Routine health maintenance, like maintenance for your car or home, is just a part of life that one is wise to look after.
It is evident that any “insurance” product that will pay for routine health maintenance costs is going to be very expensive for a variety of reasons; increased consumption, lack of transparency and consumerism, and a lack of competition to name a few. The natural response of insurance companies is to stabilize these effects by setting limits, second guessing the decisions of doctors’, by excluding tests and treatments, and raising rates to cover costs. It is clear that the expectations of the consumer and those of the insurance company are at odds with each other; a federal government plan would surely produce similar results with the added disadvantage that it will literally take an act of Congress for unhappy constituents, unable to flee the program, to make any changes.
Health maintenance plans should be labeled and marketed as such - not insurance. Actual insurance should be returned to its rightful place; insuring for major emergencies and illness. The federal government should find better ways to incentivize participation in health savings accounts; the savings for minor illnesses which build up tax free, growing over time - eventually used for retirement or inheritable. This would help return power to consumers; granting more freedom in healthcare decisions. It would also increase private savings providing us an end-run around the problem of a large federal deficit.
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, November 30, 2009
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Press Release on Sate Sovereignty Committee
Press Release
Contact: Cyndie Todd 615-741-7462
November 18, 2009
Special Committee on State Sovereignty Approves Letter to the States
Letter to National Legislator Organizations
Contact: Cyndie Todd 615-741-7462
November 18, 2009
Special Committee on State Sovereignty Approves Letter to the States
Letter to National Legislator Organizations
The Special Committee on State Sovereignty met yesterday as per the requirements of HJR 108; a resolution to the US Congress from the Tennessee General Assembly in support of the Tenth Amendment. The resolution created a committee of Conference and Correspondence to communicate the resolution to the legislatures of the 49 other states, and to call for a joint working group between the states to enumerate the abuses of authority by the federal government and to seek repeal of the assumption of powers and the imposed mandates.
At the last meeting the committee decided to ask the three national organizations for state legislators to help with this endeavor by asking each to form independent working groups, task forces or committees. The idea is the have the organizations independently examine the words of our founding documents and the founders’ intent, legal history, the infringements of the federal government, the effect on the people and the states, develop a plan to seek repeal of the assumption of powers and the imposed mandates and conduct all other matters appropriate for the committee.
Also on the committee agenda was the approval of the Letter to the States authored by the committee’s chairman, Rep. Susan Lynn, at last month’s meeting. The letter was amended to include a statement that the committee is “not in favor at this time of any solution that would include a Constitutional Convention; risking that our beloved Constitution could by opened up and perhaps gravely altered.”
A third item on the agenda was a request from Rep. Karen Camper to include the NCBSL - The National Caucus of Black State Legislators in the organizations that will be asked to form committees, working groups or task forces.
The three other organizations that will be asked to create committees, working groups or task forces are theAmerican Legislative Exchange Council, the Council of State Governments and the National Conference of State Legislatures.
State Representative Susan Lynn (R - Lebanon) Chairman of the committee stated “I am happy that the committee unanimously approved all three agenda items and that Tennessee is a leader in this effort.”
##
Letter to the states approved by Joint Sovereignty Committee
Letter to the states
We send greetings from the Tennessee General Assembly. On June 23, 2009, House Joint Resolution 108, the State Sovereignty Resolution, was signed by Governor Phil Bredesen. The Resolution created a committee which has as its charge to:
· Communicate the resolution to the legislatures of the several states,
· Assure them that this State continues in the same esteem of their friendship,
· Call for a joint working group between the states to enumerate the abuses of authority by the federal government, and
· Seek repeal of the assumption of powers and the imposed mandates.
It is for that purpose that this letter addresses your honorable body.
In 1776, our founding fathers declared our freedom in the magnificent Declaration of Independence; our guide to governance. They established a nation of free and independent states. Declaring that the purpose of our political system is to secure for its citizens’ their natural rights. The Constitution authorizes the national government to carry out seventeen enumerated powers in Article 1, Section 8 and the powers of several of the ensuing amendments.
At the time of the Constitutional ratification process James Madison drafted the “Virginia Plan” to give Congress general legislative authority and to empower the national judiciary to hear any case that might cause friction among the states, to give the congress a veto over state laws, to empower the national government to use the military against the states, and to eliminate the states’ accustomed role in selecting members of Congress. Each one of these proposals was soundly defeated. In fact, Madison made many more attempts to authorize a national veto over state laws, and these were repeatedly defeated as well.
There are clear limits to the power of the federal government and clear realms of power for the states. However, the simple and clear expression of purpose, to secure our natural rights, has evolved into the modern expectation that the national government has an obligation to ensure our life, to create our liberty, and fund our pursuit of happiness.
The national government has become a complex system of programs whose purposes lie outside of the responsibilities of the enumerated powers and of securing our natural rights; programs that benefit some while others must pay.
Today, the federal government seeks to control the salaries of those employed by private business, to change the provisions of private of contracts, to nationalize banks, insurers and auto manufacturers, and to dictate to every person in the land what his or her medical choices will be.Forcing property from employers to provide healthcare, legislating what individuals are and are not entitled to, and using the labor of some so that others can receive money that they did not earn goes far beyond securing natural rights, and the enumerated powers in the Constitution.
The role of our American government has been blurred, bent, and breached. The rights endowed to us by our creator must be restored. To be sure, the People created the federal government to be their agent for certain enumerated purposes only. The Constitutional ratifying structure was created so it would be clear that it was the People, and not the States, that were doing the ratifying.
The Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that which has been delegated by the people to the federal government, and also that which is absolutely necessary to advancing those powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution of the United States. The rest is to be handled by the state governments, or locally, by the people themselves.
The Constitution does not include a congressional power to override state laws. It does not give the judicial branch unlimited jurisdiction over all matters. It does not provide Congress with the power to legislate over everything. This is verified by the simple fact that attempts to make these principles part of the Constitution were soundly rejected by its signers.
With this in mind, any federal attempt to legislate beyond the Constitutional limits of Congress’ authority is a usurpation of state sovereignty - and unconstitutional.Governments and political leaders are best held accountable to the will of the people when government is local. The people of a state know what is best for them; authorities, potentially thousands of miles away, governing their lives is opposed to the very notion of freedom.
Our committee wishes to express that we are not in favor of any solution that would include a Constitutional Convention; risking that our beloved Constitution could be opened up and perhaps gravely altered.
Our plan is to ask the Council of State Governments, the American Legislative Exchange Council, the National Conference of State Legislatures and the National Caucus of Black State Legislators to form working groups, task forces or committees. Such groups would independently examine the words of our founding documents and the founders’ intent, legal history, the infringements of the federal government, the effect on the people and the states, develop a plan to seek repeal of the assumption of powers and the imposed mandates, and conduct all other matters appropriate for the committee.
We invite your state to join with us in asking for such working groups and supporting them with your attendance. We further encourage you to pass similar resolutions in support of the Tenth Amendment.
In Liberty,
Susan Lynn
State Representative
We send greetings from the Tennessee General Assembly. On June 23, 2009, House Joint Resolution 108, the State Sovereignty Resolution, was signed by Governor Phil Bredesen. The Resolution created a committee which has as its charge to:
· Communicate the resolution to the legislatures of the several states,
· Assure them that this State continues in the same esteem of their friendship,
· Call for a joint working group between the states to enumerate the abuses of authority by the federal government, and
· Seek repeal of the assumption of powers and the imposed mandates.
It is for that purpose that this letter addresses your honorable body.
In 1776, our founding fathers declared our freedom in the magnificent Declaration of Independence; our guide to governance. They established a nation of free and independent states. Declaring that the purpose of our political system is to secure for its citizens’ their natural rights. The Constitution authorizes the national government to carry out seventeen enumerated powers in Article 1, Section 8 and the powers of several of the ensuing amendments.
At the time of the Constitutional ratification process James Madison drafted the “Virginia Plan” to give Congress general legislative authority and to empower the national judiciary to hear any case that might cause friction among the states, to give the congress a veto over state laws, to empower the national government to use the military against the states, and to eliminate the states’ accustomed role in selecting members of Congress. Each one of these proposals was soundly defeated. In fact, Madison made many more attempts to authorize a national veto over state laws, and these were repeatedly defeated as well.
There are clear limits to the power of the federal government and clear realms of power for the states. However, the simple and clear expression of purpose, to secure our natural rights, has evolved into the modern expectation that the national government has an obligation to ensure our life, to create our liberty, and fund our pursuit of happiness.
The national government has become a complex system of programs whose purposes lie outside of the responsibilities of the enumerated powers and of securing our natural rights; programs that benefit some while others must pay.
Today, the federal government seeks to control the salaries of those employed by private business, to change the provisions of private of contracts, to nationalize banks, insurers and auto manufacturers, and to dictate to every person in the land what his or her medical choices will be.Forcing property from employers to provide healthcare, legislating what individuals are and are not entitled to, and using the labor of some so that others can receive money that they did not earn goes far beyond securing natural rights, and the enumerated powers in the Constitution.
The role of our American government has been blurred, bent, and breached. The rights endowed to us by our creator must be restored. To be sure, the People created the federal government to be their agent for certain enumerated purposes only. The Constitutional ratifying structure was created so it would be clear that it was the People, and not the States, that were doing the ratifying.
The Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that which has been delegated by the people to the federal government, and also that which is absolutely necessary to advancing those powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution of the United States. The rest is to be handled by the state governments, or locally, by the people themselves.
The Constitution does not include a congressional power to override state laws. It does not give the judicial branch unlimited jurisdiction over all matters. It does not provide Congress with the power to legislate over everything. This is verified by the simple fact that attempts to make these principles part of the Constitution were soundly rejected by its signers.
With this in mind, any federal attempt to legislate beyond the Constitutional limits of Congress’ authority is a usurpation of state sovereignty - and unconstitutional.Governments and political leaders are best held accountable to the will of the people when government is local. The people of a state know what is best for them; authorities, potentially thousands of miles away, governing their lives is opposed to the very notion of freedom.
Our committee wishes to express that we are not in favor of any solution that would include a Constitutional Convention; risking that our beloved Constitution could be opened up and perhaps gravely altered.
Our plan is to ask the Council of State Governments, the American Legislative Exchange Council, the National Conference of State Legislatures and the National Caucus of Black State Legislators to form working groups, task forces or committees. Such groups would independently examine the words of our founding documents and the founders’ intent, legal history, the infringements of the federal government, the effect on the people and the states, develop a plan to seek repeal of the assumption of powers and the imposed mandates, and conduct all other matters appropriate for the committee.
We invite your state to join with us in asking for such working groups and supporting them with your attendance. We further encourage you to pass similar resolutions in support of the Tenth Amendment.
In Liberty,
Susan Lynn
State Representative
Thursday, November 05, 2009
Liberty News Radio
Rep. Lynn will be a guest on Liberty News Radio at 10 am central time today to talk about HJR 108.
Listen live on the internet here: http://libertynewsradio.com/listen.php
Call In Number: 866-986-NEWS
Listen live on the internet here: http://libertynewsradio.com/listen.php
Call In Number: 866-986-NEWS
Tuesday, November 03, 2009
The Work of Gov Ops
New rules by the Department of Health for the Division of Emergency Medical Services regarding ambulance sanitation, safety standards, equipment and supplies require periodic safety inspections at least annually, and/or every 30,000 miles after a vehicle registers 200,000 miles, whichever occurs first. This is a prudent measure that will help assure that the vehicle is mechanically safe, roadworthy and maintained to federal and state laws.
However, the Government Operations Committee was concerned last week by a provision in the new rule that prohibits the transfer of ownership of an ambulance that is older than five model years or with an odometer mileage in excess of 200,000 miles. In this day and age, vehicles older than five years are very common. The Government Operations Committee felt that to prohibit a county, municipality or ambulance service in our state from being able to resell or to purchase an ambulance that may in actuality have years of good operational service left is simply forcing greater expense on our locals.
This morning I received a notice from the Department of Health that they have removed provision O from the rules. Therefore, the rules provide that ambulance vehicles will have annual inspections by a certified mechanic with records maintained and submitted for licensure; and after 200,000 miles, an inspection every 30,000 miles.
However, the Government Operations Committee was concerned last week by a provision in the new rule that prohibits the transfer of ownership of an ambulance that is older than five model years or with an odometer mileage in excess of 200,000 miles. In this day and age, vehicles older than five years are very common. The Government Operations Committee felt that to prohibit a county, municipality or ambulance service in our state from being able to resell or to purchase an ambulance that may in actuality have years of good operational service left is simply forcing greater expense on our locals.
This morning I received a notice from the Department of Health that they have removed provision O from the rules. Therefore, the rules provide that ambulance vehicles will have annual inspections by a certified mechanic with records maintained and submitted for licensure; and after 200,000 miles, an inspection every 30,000 miles.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Susan on The Mike Church Show
Please listen Monday, November 2 at 8am central time
Susan will be a guest on the Mike Church Show on Sirius Patriot Radio
to discuss the State Sovereignty Resolution.
Susan will be a guest on the Mike Church Show on Sirius Patriot Radio
to discuss the State Sovereignty Resolution.
Tennessee Proclaims White Ribbons Against Pornography Week
http://news.christiansunite.com/Religion_News/religion08686.shtml
by Staff October 30, 2009
NASHVILLE, (christiansunite.com) -- October 25-November 1, 2009, is White Ribbon Against Pornography Week ( www.moralityinmedia.org). The State of Tennessee proclamation encourages citizens to recognize WRAP Week by wearing or displaying white ribbons as a sign of their commitment to community standards of decency and to show support for the enforcement of obscenity laws. White ribbons may be purchased at www.wrapfamily.com. An excerpt from the Tennessee proclamation states:
"Whereas, pornography degrades and dehumanizes both female and male participants; and Whereas, pornography presents youth with a false and distorted image of human sexuality, devoid of love, commitment, and responsibility; andWhereas, pornography features criminal and other anti-social behaviors, including adultery, bestiality, incest, child abuse, prostitution, teen promiscuity, unsafe sex, and the degradation, rape, and torture of women; andWhereas, pornography leads males and females into sexual addictions that prevent and tear marriages apart; and
Whereas, the explosion of obscenity helps create the demand for women and children trafficked into sexual slavery; and
Whereas, the Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment does not protect obscenity and that legitimate governmental interests are furthered by enforcing obscenity laws, including the protection of morality, public safety, the community environment, and family life; and
Whereas, a poll conducted by Harris Interactive in July 2006 found that 73 percent of adult Americans think that viewing pornographic Web sites and videos is morally unacceptable; therefore,
I, Kent Williams, Speaker of the House of Representatives of the One Hundred Sixth General Assembly of the State of Tennessee, at the request of and in conjunction with Representative Susan Lynn, do hereby proclaim that we recognize October 25 through November 1, 2009, as "White Ribbon Against Pornography Week" in Tennessee and encourage all citizens to wear or display white ribbons as a sign of their commitment to community standards of decency and their support for enforcement of laws against obscene materials."
Girls Against Porn would like to thank Representative Susan Lynn, of the 57th House District, and the State of Tennessee House of Representatives for proclaiming it WRAP Week.
Girls Against Porn is an on-line resource and action coalition for women who have a loved one involved in porn, and for anyone who wishes to assist in the fight against porn and support the enforcement of obscenity laws.
by Staff October 30, 2009
NASHVILLE, (christiansunite.com) -- October 25-November 1, 2009, is White Ribbon Against Pornography Week ( www.moralityinmedia.org). The State of Tennessee proclamation encourages citizens to recognize WRAP Week by wearing or displaying white ribbons as a sign of their commitment to community standards of decency and to show support for the enforcement of obscenity laws. White ribbons may be purchased at www.wrapfamily.com. An excerpt from the Tennessee proclamation states:
"Whereas, pornography degrades and dehumanizes both female and male participants; and Whereas, pornography presents youth with a false and distorted image of human sexuality, devoid of love, commitment, and responsibility; andWhereas, pornography features criminal and other anti-social behaviors, including adultery, bestiality, incest, child abuse, prostitution, teen promiscuity, unsafe sex, and the degradation, rape, and torture of women; andWhereas, pornography leads males and females into sexual addictions that prevent and tear marriages apart; and
Whereas, the explosion of obscenity helps create the demand for women and children trafficked into sexual slavery; and
Whereas, the Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment does not protect obscenity and that legitimate governmental interests are furthered by enforcing obscenity laws, including the protection of morality, public safety, the community environment, and family life; and
Whereas, a poll conducted by Harris Interactive in July 2006 found that 73 percent of adult Americans think that viewing pornographic Web sites and videos is morally unacceptable; therefore,
I, Kent Williams, Speaker of the House of Representatives of the One Hundred Sixth General Assembly of the State of Tennessee, at the request of and in conjunction with Representative Susan Lynn, do hereby proclaim that we recognize October 25 through November 1, 2009, as "White Ribbon Against Pornography Week" in Tennessee and encourage all citizens to wear or display white ribbons as a sign of their commitment to community standards of decency and their support for enforcement of laws against obscene materials."
Girls Against Porn would like to thank Representative Susan Lynn, of the 57th House District, and the State of Tennessee House of Representatives for proclaiming it WRAP Week.
Girls Against Porn is an on-line resource and action coalition for women who have a loved one involved in porn, and for anyone who wishes to assist in the fight against porn and support the enforcement of obscenity laws.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Great article in the Politico
Mandate insurance is unconstitutional
By: Ken Klukowski
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=6E1D8A47-18FE-70B2-A8BB46B59644DE2B
By: Ken Klukowski
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=6E1D8A47-18FE-70B2-A8BB46B59644DE2B
Special Joint Committee on Workers' Comp.
Committee working works toward lifting the burden on sub-contractors while protecting small business
A special committee for Workers’ Compensation met on Thursday afternoon to discuss the affects of Public Chapter 1041. Rep. Susan Lynn was appointed to serve on the committee by Chairman Judd Matheny. The goal of the committee is to lift the burden on sub-contractors while protecting small business from lawsuits.
PC 1041 was passed in 2008 and will go into affect on December 31, 2009. It requires sole proprietors, partners, and members of limited liability companies in the construction industry to be covered for workers compensation. There is an exception for construction owners with no employees who get paid exclusively from homeowners.
Implementation of the bill was already delayed once due to the concerns of small sub-contractors; those making less than $30,000 a year who may have to pay as much as $3000 to $6000 for premium on themselves.
The meeting had a number of speakers including Susan Ritter, Vice President of the Home Builders Association of TN. Ritter stated that according to the University of Tennessee, construction employment in Tennessee has fallen by 29,000 jobs; overall Tennessee has experienced an 80% drop in housing starts, and workers’ compensation premiums have fallen from a total of $12 million in 2008 to $6.4 million which shows that payrolls have dropped almost 50% this year.
Rep. Debra Maggart of Hendersonville stated that most legislators thought the bill would help small business owners because subs often elect not to be covered by workers’ comp due to the expense but after they suffer an injury they sue the small business owner and his or her workers’ comp must pay; this has been court president for since 1933. Insurance company representatives stated that this situation has been a concern for the insurance industry too because they must pay claims for people who have never paid premiums into the system.
Bob Pitts from the Workers’ Com. Advisory Council stated that workers’ compensation is a no fault insurance program to protect those who are injured. “This issue has been debated for about 33 years” and that “the legislation that the General Assembly passed in 2008 was debated for three years…there is no easy solution to this problem.”
The committee came up with a number of solutions; short term, to delay implementation; long term, to establish a minimum and maximum payroll for the construction industry where workers’ comp is concerned; project cost limitations such as for jobs under $30,000; reduce the loss cost multiplier; a deductable for the assigned risk plan; and, to do away with the need to be doubly insured - if one has health insurance with occupational coverage there would be no need to also have workers’ comp.
Labor and Workforce Development Commissioner, James Neeley, stated that he would take the liberty of giving 60 days on any fines or penalties in order to allow time for the General Assembly to act on legislation in January - thus voiding all fines and penalties should the General Assembly take action.
Chairman Matheny concluded the committee by thanking all who came to speak and stating that the Governor’s office has been very cooperative in helping to solve this issue.
##
A special committee for Workers’ Compensation met on Thursday afternoon to discuss the affects of Public Chapter 1041. Rep. Susan Lynn was appointed to serve on the committee by Chairman Judd Matheny. The goal of the committee is to lift the burden on sub-contractors while protecting small business from lawsuits.
PC 1041 was passed in 2008 and will go into affect on December 31, 2009. It requires sole proprietors, partners, and members of limited liability companies in the construction industry to be covered for workers compensation. There is an exception for construction owners with no employees who get paid exclusively from homeowners.
Implementation of the bill was already delayed once due to the concerns of small sub-contractors; those making less than $30,000 a year who may have to pay as much as $3000 to $6000 for premium on themselves.
The meeting had a number of speakers including Susan Ritter, Vice President of the Home Builders Association of TN. Ritter stated that according to the University of Tennessee, construction employment in Tennessee has fallen by 29,000 jobs; overall Tennessee has experienced an 80% drop in housing starts, and workers’ compensation premiums have fallen from a total of $12 million in 2008 to $6.4 million which shows that payrolls have dropped almost 50% this year.
Rep. Debra Maggart of Hendersonville stated that most legislators thought the bill would help small business owners because subs often elect not to be covered by workers’ comp due to the expense but after they suffer an injury they sue the small business owner and his or her workers’ comp must pay; this has been court president for since 1933. Insurance company representatives stated that this situation has been a concern for the insurance industry too because they must pay claims for people who have never paid premiums into the system.
Bob Pitts from the Workers’ Com. Advisory Council stated that workers’ compensation is a no fault insurance program to protect those who are injured. “This issue has been debated for about 33 years” and that “the legislation that the General Assembly passed in 2008 was debated for three years…there is no easy solution to this problem.”
The committee came up with a number of solutions; short term, to delay implementation; long term, to establish a minimum and maximum payroll for the construction industry where workers’ comp is concerned; project cost limitations such as for jobs under $30,000; reduce the loss cost multiplier; a deductable for the assigned risk plan; and, to do away with the need to be doubly insured - if one has health insurance with occupational coverage there would be no need to also have workers’ comp.
Labor and Workforce Development Commissioner, James Neeley, stated that he would take the liberty of giving 60 days on any fines or penalties in order to allow time for the General Assembly to act on legislation in January - thus voiding all fines and penalties should the General Assembly take action.
Chairman Matheny concluded the committee by thanking all who came to speak and stating that the Governor’s office has been very cooperative in helping to solve this issue.
##
Friday, October 23, 2009
Lynn to Chair Special Committee on State Sovereignty
The Special Committee on State Sovereignty met this week to fulfill the requirements of HJR 108; a resolution to the to the US Congress from the Tennessee General Assembly in support of the Tenth Amendment. The resolution calls for a committee of Conference and Correspondence to communicate the resolution to the legislatures of the several states, and to call for a joint working group between the states to enumerate the abuses of authority by the federal government and to seek repeal of the assumption of powers and the imposed mandates.
State Representative Susan Lynn (R - Lebanon) was elected Chairman of the committee and State Representative Ron Lollar (R-Memphis) Secretary.
Representative Lynn proposed the letter below to send to the states. She authored the letter which outlines the purpose of American government, the abuses of the federal government and to ask for the states to join Tennessee in working to enumerate and repeal such actions.
The committee will additionally seek the assistance of the American Legislative Exchange Council, the Council of State Governments and the National Conference of State Legislatures. The committee will author a letter to the groups to asking for assistance in forming working groups of state legislators from the various states to create a plan of action to defend of the Tenth Amendment.
Others members of the committee are Senator Douglas Henry, Senator Bill Ketron, Senator Tim Burchett, Senator Randy McNally, Representative Phillip Johnson, Representative Richard Floyd.
The committee will meet again in a month.
Letter to the states
We send greetings from the Tennessee General Assembly. On June 23, 2009, House Joint Resolution 108, the State Sovereignty Resolution, was signed by Governor Phil Bredesen. The Resolution created a committee which has as its charge to:
· Communicate the resolution to the legislatures of the several states,
· Assure them that this State continues in the same esteem of their friendship,
· Call for a joint working group between the states to enumerate the abuses of authority by the federal government, and
· Seek repeal of the assumption of powers and the imposed mandates.
It is for that purpose that this letter addresses your honorable body.
In 1776, our founding fathers declared our freedom in the magnificent Declaration of Independence; our guide to governance. They established a nation of free and independent states. Declaring that the purpose of our political system is to secure for its citizens’ their natural rights. The Constitution authorizes the national government to carry out seventeen enumerated powers in Article 1, Section 8 and the powers of several of the ensuing amendments.
At the time of the Constitutional ratification process James Madison drafted the “Virginia Plan” to give Congress general legislative authority and to empower the national judiciary to hear any case that might cause friction among the states, to give the congress a veto over state laws, to empower the national government to use the military against the states, and to eliminate the states’ accustomed role in selecting members of Congress. Each one of these proposals was soundly defeated. In fact, Madison made many more attempts to authorize a national veto over state laws, and these were repeatedly defeated as well.
There are clear limits to the power of the federal government and clear realms of power for the states. However, the simple and clear expression of purpose, to secure our natural rights, has evolved into the modern expectation that the national government has an obligation to ensure our life, to create our liberty, and fund our pursuit of happiness.
The national government has become a complex system of programs whose purposes lie outside of the responsibilities of the enumerated powers and of securing our natural rights; programs that benefit some while others must pay.
Today, the federal government seeks to control the salaries of those employed by private business, to change the provisions of private of contracts, to nationalize banks, insurers and auto manufacturers, and to dictate to every person in the land what his or her medical choices will be.
Forcing property from employers to provide healthcare, legislating what individuals are and are not entitled to, and using the labor of some so that others can receive money that they did not earn goes far beyond securing natural rights, and the enumerated powers in the Constitution.
The role of our American government has been blurred, bent, and breached. The rights endowed to us by our creator must be restored.
To be sure, the People created the federal government to be their agent for certain enumerated purposes only. The Constitutional ratifying structure was created so it would be clear that it was the People, and not the States, that were doing the ratifying.
The Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that which has been delegated by the people to the federal government, and also that which is absolutely necessary to advancing those powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution of the United States. The rest is to be handled by the state governments, or locally, by the people themselves.
The Constitution does not include a congressional power to override state laws. It does not give the judicial branch unlimited jurisdiction over all matters. It does not provide Congress with the power to legislate over everything. This is verified by the simple fact that attempts to make these principles part of the Constitution were soundly rejected by its signers.
With this in mind, any federal attempt to legislate beyond the Constitutional limits of Congress’ authority is a usurpation of state sovereignty - and unconstitutional.
Governments and political leaders are best held accountable to the will of the people when government is local. The people of a state know what is best for them; authorities, potentially thousands of miles away, governing their lives is opposed to the very notion of freedom.
We invite your state to join with us to form a joint working group between the states to enumerate the abuses of authority by the federal government and to seek repeal of the assumption of powers and the imposed mandates.
In Liberty,
Susan Lynn
State Representative
State Representative Susan Lynn (R - Lebanon) was elected Chairman of the committee and State Representative Ron Lollar (R-Memphis) Secretary.
Representative Lynn proposed the letter below to send to the states. She authored the letter which outlines the purpose of American government, the abuses of the federal government and to ask for the states to join Tennessee in working to enumerate and repeal such actions.
The committee will additionally seek the assistance of the American Legislative Exchange Council, the Council of State Governments and the National Conference of State Legislatures. The committee will author a letter to the groups to asking for assistance in forming working groups of state legislators from the various states to create a plan of action to defend of the Tenth Amendment.
Others members of the committee are Senator Douglas Henry, Senator Bill Ketron, Senator Tim Burchett, Senator Randy McNally, Representative Phillip Johnson, Representative Richard Floyd.
The committee will meet again in a month.
Letter to the states
We send greetings from the Tennessee General Assembly. On June 23, 2009, House Joint Resolution 108, the State Sovereignty Resolution, was signed by Governor Phil Bredesen. The Resolution created a committee which has as its charge to:
· Communicate the resolution to the legislatures of the several states,
· Assure them that this State continues in the same esteem of their friendship,
· Call for a joint working group between the states to enumerate the abuses of authority by the federal government, and
· Seek repeal of the assumption of powers and the imposed mandates.
It is for that purpose that this letter addresses your honorable body.
In 1776, our founding fathers declared our freedom in the magnificent Declaration of Independence; our guide to governance. They established a nation of free and independent states. Declaring that the purpose of our political system is to secure for its citizens’ their natural rights. The Constitution authorizes the national government to carry out seventeen enumerated powers in Article 1, Section 8 and the powers of several of the ensuing amendments.
At the time of the Constitutional ratification process James Madison drafted the “Virginia Plan” to give Congress general legislative authority and to empower the national judiciary to hear any case that might cause friction among the states, to give the congress a veto over state laws, to empower the national government to use the military against the states, and to eliminate the states’ accustomed role in selecting members of Congress. Each one of these proposals was soundly defeated. In fact, Madison made many more attempts to authorize a national veto over state laws, and these were repeatedly defeated as well.
There are clear limits to the power of the federal government and clear realms of power for the states. However, the simple and clear expression of purpose, to secure our natural rights, has evolved into the modern expectation that the national government has an obligation to ensure our life, to create our liberty, and fund our pursuit of happiness.
The national government has become a complex system of programs whose purposes lie outside of the responsibilities of the enumerated powers and of securing our natural rights; programs that benefit some while others must pay.
Today, the federal government seeks to control the salaries of those employed by private business, to change the provisions of private of contracts, to nationalize banks, insurers and auto manufacturers, and to dictate to every person in the land what his or her medical choices will be.
Forcing property from employers to provide healthcare, legislating what individuals are and are not entitled to, and using the labor of some so that others can receive money that they did not earn goes far beyond securing natural rights, and the enumerated powers in the Constitution.
The role of our American government has been blurred, bent, and breached. The rights endowed to us by our creator must be restored.
To be sure, the People created the federal government to be their agent for certain enumerated purposes only. The Constitutional ratifying structure was created so it would be clear that it was the People, and not the States, that were doing the ratifying.
The Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that which has been delegated by the people to the federal government, and also that which is absolutely necessary to advancing those powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution of the United States. The rest is to be handled by the state governments, or locally, by the people themselves.
The Constitution does not include a congressional power to override state laws. It does not give the judicial branch unlimited jurisdiction over all matters. It does not provide Congress with the power to legislate over everything. This is verified by the simple fact that attempts to make these principles part of the Constitution were soundly rejected by its signers.
With this in mind, any federal attempt to legislate beyond the Constitutional limits of Congress’ authority is a usurpation of state sovereignty - and unconstitutional.
Governments and political leaders are best held accountable to the will of the people when government is local. The people of a state know what is best for them; authorities, potentially thousands of miles away, governing their lives is opposed to the very notion of freedom.
We invite your state to join with us to form a joint working group between the states to enumerate the abuses of authority by the federal government and to seek repeal of the assumption of powers and the imposed mandates.
In Liberty,
Susan Lynn
State Representative
ALEC Healthcare Release
PRESS RELEASE
For Immediate Release: Contact: Jorge Amselle
October 22, 2009 (202) 742-8536
jamselle@alec.org
Rep. Susan Lynn Tells Congress “No” to ObamaCare
Joins 1,800 State Lawmakers in Nationwide Effort to Preserve States’ Rights; Stop Single-Payer
NASHVILLE, TN – State Representative Susan Lynn (R-Lebanon) signed onto an official letter from the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) to Congressional leaders expressing the will of more than 1,800 state legislators opposing federal reform efforts—particularly, the Medicare-modeled “public plan” and a national health insurance exchange—which will trample states’ rights and lead Americans down the road to single-payer health care.
“Constitutionally, insurance is not the domain of the federal government but of the states,” said Rep. Lynn. “The real problem is that over the last 35 years states have allowed health insurance products to morph in ways that have served to hurt consumers - this problem started in the states and the solution lies with the states. A federal solution will not fix the problems within the states - it is past time we roll-up our sleeves and change things on the state level.”
The members of ALEC—the nation’s largest nonpartisan, individual membership association of state legislators—recently approved the Resolution on Preserving States’ Rights Regarding Federal Health Insurance Exchanges and a Public Plan, which deems the federal public plan anti-competitive and calls the proposed national health insurance exchange a “federal takeover” of the states’ role in regulating health insurance.
“The government will never compete unless it can change the rules to win,” says Iowa Representative Linda Upmeyer, minority whip, family nurse practitioner, and chair of ALEC’s Health and Human Services Task Force. “It’s an unlevel playing field when a public plan can shift costs to our state’s private insurers because of low doctor and hospital reimbursement rates, and then raid the federal Treasury for unlimited subsidies,” she added.
In the ALEC letter to Congress, ALEC’s lawmakers criticized the federal push to shift health care decisionmaking to Washington. “We all share the goal that patients deserve to choose their own quality, affordable, private health coverage,” the letter states. “But health reform shouldn’t just be the job of the federal government.”
—30—
The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is the nation's largest nonpartisan, individual membership organization of state legislators.
For Immediate Release: Contact: Jorge Amselle
October 22, 2009 (202) 742-8536
jamselle@alec.org
Rep. Susan Lynn Tells Congress “No” to ObamaCare
Joins 1,800 State Lawmakers in Nationwide Effort to Preserve States’ Rights; Stop Single-Payer
NASHVILLE, TN – State Representative Susan Lynn (R-Lebanon) signed onto an official letter from the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) to Congressional leaders expressing the will of more than 1,800 state legislators opposing federal reform efforts—particularly, the Medicare-modeled “public plan” and a national health insurance exchange—which will trample states’ rights and lead Americans down the road to single-payer health care.
“Constitutionally, insurance is not the domain of the federal government but of the states,” said Rep. Lynn. “The real problem is that over the last 35 years states have allowed health insurance products to morph in ways that have served to hurt consumers - this problem started in the states and the solution lies with the states. A federal solution will not fix the problems within the states - it is past time we roll-up our sleeves and change things on the state level.”
The members of ALEC—the nation’s largest nonpartisan, individual membership association of state legislators—recently approved the Resolution on Preserving States’ Rights Regarding Federal Health Insurance Exchanges and a Public Plan, which deems the federal public plan anti-competitive and calls the proposed national health insurance exchange a “federal takeover” of the states’ role in regulating health insurance.
“The government will never compete unless it can change the rules to win,” says Iowa Representative Linda Upmeyer, minority whip, family nurse practitioner, and chair of ALEC’s Health and Human Services Task Force. “It’s an unlevel playing field when a public plan can shift costs to our state’s private insurers because of low doctor and hospital reimbursement rates, and then raid the federal Treasury for unlimited subsidies,” she added.
In the ALEC letter to Congress, ALEC’s lawmakers criticized the federal push to shift health care decisionmaking to Washington. “We all share the goal that patients deserve to choose their own quality, affordable, private health coverage,” the letter states. “But health reform shouldn’t just be the job of the federal government.”
—30—
The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is the nation's largest nonpartisan, individual membership organization of state legislators.
Thank you Edgycater.blogspot.com
Thank you Edgycater.blobspot.com for your post;
http://edgycater.blogspot.com/2009/10/patriot-stands-tennessee-state.html
http://edgycater.blogspot.com/2009/10/patriot-stands-tennessee-state.html
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
First Draft of Letter to the States
I really wanted to include some additional history in the letter to the states on state sovereignty but it was just too long but here is the first draft of the letter.
We send greetings from the Tennessee General Assembly. On June 23, 2009, House Joint Resolution 108, the State Sovereignty Resolution, was signed by Governor Phil Bredesen. The Resolution created a committee which has as its charge to:
· Communicate the resolution to the legislatures of the several states,
· Assure them that this State continues in the same esteem of their friendship,
· Call for a joint working group between the states to enumerate the abuses of authority by the federal government, and
· Seek repeal of the assumption of powers and the imposed mandates.
On July 4, 1776 our founding fathers declared their independence from the government of Great Britain; thus the united colonies became free and independent states.
The Declaration of Independence established the American view of the rights of man and the duties of government. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” They concluded by stating that our “separate but equal station” with Britain and other governments of the world would give us “full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do.”
In 1787, using the model of the Declaration of Independence as a guide to governance, and following the short lived Articles of Confederation; a Constitution was written which provides seventeen specific powers of the federal government (Article 1, Section 8).
In 1789, a Bill of Rights was crafted because “the Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers”; thus “extending the ground of public confidence in the Government.”
The Bill of Rights consists of natural rights and rights that serve to secure our natural rights. They make clear that all natural rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights are protected, and clarify that powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved for the states and the people. The ensuing amendments either do likewise or establish additional powers and terms for our government.
Therefore, we are a collection of free and independent states; the purpose of our political system is to secure for its citizens’ their natural rights; and our national government is authorized to carry out the seventeen enumerated powers and powers of the ensuing amendments.
At the time of the Constitutional ratification process James Madison drafted the “Virginia Plan” to give Congress general legislative authority and to empower the national judiciary to hear any case that might cause friction among the states, to give the congress a veto over state laws, to empower the national government to use the military against the states, and to eliminate the states’ accustomed role in selecting members of Congress. Each one of these proposals was soundly defeated. In fact, Madison made many more attempts to authorize a national veto over state laws, and these were repeatedly defeated as well.
So there are clear limits to the power of the federal government. However, today the simple and clear expression of purpose has turned into the modern expectation that the national government has an obligation to ensure our life, to create our liberty, and fund our pursuit of happiness. The national government has become a complex system of programs whose purposes lie outside of the responsibilities of the enumerated powers and of securing our natural rights; programs that benefit some while others must pay.
Today, the federal government seeks to control the salaries of those employed by private business, to change the provisions of private of contracts, to nationalize banks, insurers and auto manufacturers, and to dictate to every person in the land what his or her medical choices will be.
Forcing property from employers to provide healthcare, legislating what individuals are and are not entitled to, and using the labor of some so that others can receive money that they did not earn goes far beyond securing natural rights and the enumerated powers.
The role of our American government has been blurred, bent, and breached. Adherence to the specific powers and the fundamental American ideal that our government is based on the theory of natural rights expressed ever so simply as the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and that no government can deny these rights; the rights endowed to us by our creator must be restored.
To be sure, the People created the federal government to be their agent for certain enumerated purposes only. The Constitutional ratifying structure was created so it would be clear that it was the People, and not the States, that were doing the ratifying.
The Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that which has been delegated by the people to the federal government, and also that which is absolutely necessary to advancing those powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution of the United States. The rest is to be handled by the state governments, or locally, by the people themselves.
The Constitution does not include a congressional power to override state laws. It does not give the judicial branch unlimited jurisdiction over all matters. It does not provide Congress with the power to legislate over everything. This is verified by the simple fact that attempts to make these principles part of the Constitution were soundly rejected by its signers.
With this in mind, any federal attempt to legislate beyond the Constitutional limits of Congress’ authority is a usurpation of state sovereignty - and unconstitutional.
Governments and political leaders are best held accountable to the will of the people when government is local. The people of a state know what is best for them; authorities, potentially thousands of miles away, governing their lives is opposed to the very notion of freedom.
We invite your state to join with us to form a joint working group between the states to enumerate the abuses of authority by the federal government and to seek repeal of the assumption of powers and the imposed mandates.
We send greetings from the Tennessee General Assembly. On June 23, 2009, House Joint Resolution 108, the State Sovereignty Resolution, was signed by Governor Phil Bredesen. The Resolution created a committee which has as its charge to:
· Communicate the resolution to the legislatures of the several states,
· Assure them that this State continues in the same esteem of their friendship,
· Call for a joint working group between the states to enumerate the abuses of authority by the federal government, and
· Seek repeal of the assumption of powers and the imposed mandates.
On July 4, 1776 our founding fathers declared their independence from the government of Great Britain; thus the united colonies became free and independent states.
The Declaration of Independence established the American view of the rights of man and the duties of government. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” They concluded by stating that our “separate but equal station” with Britain and other governments of the world would give us “full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do.”
In 1787, using the model of the Declaration of Independence as a guide to governance, and following the short lived Articles of Confederation; a Constitution was written which provides seventeen specific powers of the federal government (Article 1, Section 8).
In 1789, a Bill of Rights was crafted because “the Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers”; thus “extending the ground of public confidence in the Government.”
The Bill of Rights consists of natural rights and rights that serve to secure our natural rights. They make clear that all natural rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights are protected, and clarify that powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved for the states and the people. The ensuing amendments either do likewise or establish additional powers and terms for our government.
Therefore, we are a collection of free and independent states; the purpose of our political system is to secure for its citizens’ their natural rights; and our national government is authorized to carry out the seventeen enumerated powers and powers of the ensuing amendments.
At the time of the Constitutional ratification process James Madison drafted the “Virginia Plan” to give Congress general legislative authority and to empower the national judiciary to hear any case that might cause friction among the states, to give the congress a veto over state laws, to empower the national government to use the military against the states, and to eliminate the states’ accustomed role in selecting members of Congress. Each one of these proposals was soundly defeated. In fact, Madison made many more attempts to authorize a national veto over state laws, and these were repeatedly defeated as well.
So there are clear limits to the power of the federal government. However, today the simple and clear expression of purpose has turned into the modern expectation that the national government has an obligation to ensure our life, to create our liberty, and fund our pursuit of happiness. The national government has become a complex system of programs whose purposes lie outside of the responsibilities of the enumerated powers and of securing our natural rights; programs that benefit some while others must pay.
Today, the federal government seeks to control the salaries of those employed by private business, to change the provisions of private of contracts, to nationalize banks, insurers and auto manufacturers, and to dictate to every person in the land what his or her medical choices will be.
Forcing property from employers to provide healthcare, legislating what individuals are and are not entitled to, and using the labor of some so that others can receive money that they did not earn goes far beyond securing natural rights and the enumerated powers.
The role of our American government has been blurred, bent, and breached. Adherence to the specific powers and the fundamental American ideal that our government is based on the theory of natural rights expressed ever so simply as the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and that no government can deny these rights; the rights endowed to us by our creator must be restored.
To be sure, the People created the federal government to be their agent for certain enumerated purposes only. The Constitutional ratifying structure was created so it would be clear that it was the People, and not the States, that were doing the ratifying.
The Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that which has been delegated by the people to the federal government, and also that which is absolutely necessary to advancing those powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution of the United States. The rest is to be handled by the state governments, or locally, by the people themselves.
The Constitution does not include a congressional power to override state laws. It does not give the judicial branch unlimited jurisdiction over all matters. It does not provide Congress with the power to legislate over everything. This is verified by the simple fact that attempts to make these principles part of the Constitution were soundly rejected by its signers.
With this in mind, any federal attempt to legislate beyond the Constitutional limits of Congress’ authority is a usurpation of state sovereignty - and unconstitutional.
Governments and political leaders are best held accountable to the will of the people when government is local. The people of a state know what is best for them; authorities, potentially thousands of miles away, governing their lives is opposed to the very notion of freedom.
We invite your state to join with us to form a joint working group between the states to enumerate the abuses of authority by the federal government and to seek repeal of the assumption of powers and the imposed mandates.
Tenth Amendment Center Mention
Thank you Tenth Amendment Center for mentioning my work on state sovereignty on your blog: http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/10/20/they-cant-push-us-around-forever/#
Tuesday, October 06, 2009
Wall Street Journal Mention
The Wall Street Journal wrote about my Tennessean article on LCFS
Tennessee Pols to Lamar Alexander: Forget About Low-Carbon Fuel Standards
In certain circles, Tennessee senator Lamar Alexander is a hero on energy matters. His relentless crusade for nuclear power, for instance, became virtually the sum total of GOP energy prescriptions. But that doesn’t mean all of Sen. Alexander’s energy ideas get a warm welcome—even within the Republican party.
His support for a low-carbon fuel standard—essentially a plan to penalize “dirty” fuels such as Canadian oil sands–is rankling some rank-and-file Republicans back in his native Tennessee.
State Rep. Susan Lynn fired off a letter last Friday chiding Sen. Alexander for even flirting with the idea; Sen. Alexander has repeatedly said that such a standard could help the environment without raising energy prices.
“At its core, a [low carbon fuel standard] would initiate a direct ban on the importation of some of our most secure and affordable sources of energy,” she wrote. “It would necessarily expand America’s already dangerous dependence on foreign, unstable energy from suppliers half-a-world away…”
She urged Sen. Alexander to use his position on the Senate Environment and Public Works committee “to stand up for the energy interests of Tennessee and prevent this plan from advancing any further.”
This is just the latest salvo in the low-carbon fuel wars—a public broadside against an energy policy that doesn’t actually exist.
There was a low-carbon fuel standard in the first version of the Waxman-Markey bill; it later disappeared. It has yet to appear in the Senate climate bill. Yet the very idea of a low-carbon fuel standard that could put Canadian oil off limits has the energy-security crowd mobilizing.
What’s interesting is that Rep. Lynn doesn’t just represent Tennessee’s 57th district. She also chairs the American Legislative Exchange Council’s task force on commerce, insurance, and economic development. ALEC is a group of about 2,000 state legislators fighting for free-market, small-government solutions and helps craft state-level legislation.
ALEC already bitterly opposed the cap-and-trade plans in Congress this year; it apparently finds a low-carbon fuel standard a sorry alternative. That doesn’t leave many options if Washington—or states—are going to tackle carbon emissions.
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/10/06/tennessee-pols-to-lamar-alexander-forget-about-low-carbon-fuel-standards/tab/print/
Tennessee Pols to Lamar Alexander: Forget About Low-Carbon Fuel Standards
In certain circles, Tennessee senator Lamar Alexander is a hero on energy matters. His relentless crusade for nuclear power, for instance, became virtually the sum total of GOP energy prescriptions. But that doesn’t mean all of Sen. Alexander’s energy ideas get a warm welcome—even within the Republican party.
His support for a low-carbon fuel standard—essentially a plan to penalize “dirty” fuels such as Canadian oil sands–is rankling some rank-and-file Republicans back in his native Tennessee.
State Rep. Susan Lynn fired off a letter last Friday chiding Sen. Alexander for even flirting with the idea; Sen. Alexander has repeatedly said that such a standard could help the environment without raising energy prices.
“At its core, a [low carbon fuel standard] would initiate a direct ban on the importation of some of our most secure and affordable sources of energy,” she wrote. “It would necessarily expand America’s already dangerous dependence on foreign, unstable energy from suppliers half-a-world away…”
She urged Sen. Alexander to use his position on the Senate Environment and Public Works committee “to stand up for the energy interests of Tennessee and prevent this plan from advancing any further.”
This is just the latest salvo in the low-carbon fuel wars—a public broadside against an energy policy that doesn’t actually exist.
There was a low-carbon fuel standard in the first version of the Waxman-Markey bill; it later disappeared. It has yet to appear in the Senate climate bill. Yet the very idea of a low-carbon fuel standard that could put Canadian oil off limits has the energy-security crowd mobilizing.
What’s interesting is that Rep. Lynn doesn’t just represent Tennessee’s 57th district. She also chairs the American Legislative Exchange Council’s task force on commerce, insurance, and economic development. ALEC is a group of about 2,000 state legislators fighting for free-market, small-government solutions and helps craft state-level legislation.
ALEC already bitterly opposed the cap-and-trade plans in Congress this year; it apparently finds a low-carbon fuel standard a sorry alternative. That doesn’t leave many options if Washington—or states—are going to tackle carbon emissions.
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/10/06/tennessee-pols-to-lamar-alexander-forget-about-low-carbon-fuel-standards/tab/print/
Saturday, October 03, 2009
Tennessean Column
Not Your Average Fuel Economy
By
Rep. Susan Lynn
Earlier this month, the Obama administration revealed its new Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFÉ) standards which will require new vehicle fleets to average 35.5 mpg by 2016. You may recall an earlier announcement in May, but the details had not been worked out yet. As usual, the devil is in the details. Now we learn through a plan released jointly by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Transportation that the new standards come with a subtle but startling twist. In addition to meeting more stringent fuel standards, for the first time new vehicles will have to meet greenhouse gas emission targets as well.
The campaign to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in this country is nothing new. Most notoriously, this summer the U.S. House of Representatives approved the Waxman Markey Cap-and-Trade bill designed to raise prices on the energy sources we rely on the most. But not everyone may be aware of an ongoing strategy to skirt Congress and implement greenhouse gas restrictions via the EPA’s authority under the Clean Air Act (CAA). President Obama wasted no time instructing his EPA administrator Lisa Jackson in February to take the necessary steps to classify greenhouses gases, such as carbon dioxide, as pollutants, a necessary precondition for regulation.
This approach is almost universally recognized as problematic even by proponents of emissions cuts since the CAA is designed to control local pollutants, not ubiquitous and natural gases critical to life on the planet. But in a year of tea parties, spirited town halls and a more cautious upper chamber of Congress, proponents will take what they can get—even if it causes serious problems for the country and its economy. The new greenhouse gas vehicle emissions standard is just the beginning of a multi-step strategy to meet the goals of Waxman-Markey legislation without the nuisance of legislative approval.
Indeed, just seven days after the new vehicle standard was released the EPA announced it would begin monitoring greenhouse gas emissions from not just mobile sources like cars and trucks but stationary sources like businesses and energy sources. This gets tricky. To sidestep some of the larger (but not the only) problems associated with using the CAA, the EPA plans to ignore the CAA’s trigger emission level of 250 tons per year and arbitrarily substitute 25,000 tons per year. This might sound like good news for those who like to see the government tread as lightly as possible on our economy. The problem is this will surely invite litigation by environmentalists who want to see the CAA followed as written. The result will be a regulatory cascade in doses they hope will be small enough for us to swallow. Many are calling this move a breach in the separation of powers since the executive branch is blatantly manipulating the letter of the law to suit its own purposes. In response, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) has indicated she will offer an amendment to EPA’s 2010 fiscal spending bill that would halt this effort to regulate stationary sources.
Fuel economy standards, even the ones we are used to, are misguided. Fuel efficiency gains drive up the price of cars and usually come at the additional cost of vehicle weight which makes our cars less safe. Couple this with an unprecedented greenhouse gas regulatory scheme and this administration is pushing the nation headlong down a tricky regulatory road that promises to cause legal, economic and safety problems for our country. Meanwhile many of us naively thought that when it comes to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, we were making this decision together through our elected leaders in Congress.
Susan Lynn, R-Lebanon, is Chairman of the House Government Operations Committee and is in her fourth term.
This article was submitted in September but the newspaper published it on October 2nd - the first line should have been changed to say "last month."
By
Rep. Susan Lynn
Earlier this month, the Obama administration revealed its new Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFÉ) standards which will require new vehicle fleets to average 35.5 mpg by 2016. You may recall an earlier announcement in May, but the details had not been worked out yet. As usual, the devil is in the details. Now we learn through a plan released jointly by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Transportation that the new standards come with a subtle but startling twist. In addition to meeting more stringent fuel standards, for the first time new vehicles will have to meet greenhouse gas emission targets as well.
The campaign to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in this country is nothing new. Most notoriously, this summer the U.S. House of Representatives approved the Waxman Markey Cap-and-Trade bill designed to raise prices on the energy sources we rely on the most. But not everyone may be aware of an ongoing strategy to skirt Congress and implement greenhouse gas restrictions via the EPA’s authority under the Clean Air Act (CAA). President Obama wasted no time instructing his EPA administrator Lisa Jackson in February to take the necessary steps to classify greenhouses gases, such as carbon dioxide, as pollutants, a necessary precondition for regulation.
This approach is almost universally recognized as problematic even by proponents of emissions cuts since the CAA is designed to control local pollutants, not ubiquitous and natural gases critical to life on the planet. But in a year of tea parties, spirited town halls and a more cautious upper chamber of Congress, proponents will take what they can get—even if it causes serious problems for the country and its economy. The new greenhouse gas vehicle emissions standard is just the beginning of a multi-step strategy to meet the goals of Waxman-Markey legislation without the nuisance of legislative approval.
Indeed, just seven days after the new vehicle standard was released the EPA announced it would begin monitoring greenhouse gas emissions from not just mobile sources like cars and trucks but stationary sources like businesses and energy sources. This gets tricky. To sidestep some of the larger (but not the only) problems associated with using the CAA, the EPA plans to ignore the CAA’s trigger emission level of 250 tons per year and arbitrarily substitute 25,000 tons per year. This might sound like good news for those who like to see the government tread as lightly as possible on our economy. The problem is this will surely invite litigation by environmentalists who want to see the CAA followed as written. The result will be a regulatory cascade in doses they hope will be small enough for us to swallow. Many are calling this move a breach in the separation of powers since the executive branch is blatantly manipulating the letter of the law to suit its own purposes. In response, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) has indicated she will offer an amendment to EPA’s 2010 fiscal spending bill that would halt this effort to regulate stationary sources.
Fuel economy standards, even the ones we are used to, are misguided. Fuel efficiency gains drive up the price of cars and usually come at the additional cost of vehicle weight which makes our cars less safe. Couple this with an unprecedented greenhouse gas regulatory scheme and this administration is pushing the nation headlong down a tricky regulatory road that promises to cause legal, economic and safety problems for our country. Meanwhile many of us naively thought that when it comes to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, we were making this decision together through our elected leaders in Congress.
Susan Lynn, R-Lebanon, is Chairman of the House Government Operations Committee and is in her fourth term.
This article was submitted in September but the newspaper published it on October 2nd - the first line should have been changed to say "last month."
Wednesday, September 09, 2009
Monday, September 07, 2009
Reason's Taxpayer's Guide to the Stimulus
Where is all that stimulus money going?
Reason Foundation’s Taxpayer’s Guide to the Stimulus breaks down each section of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to explain just how all that money is being spent, who is spending it, and what the whole stimulus means in layman's terms.
Reason Foundation’s Taxpayer’s Guide to the Stimulus breaks down each section of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to explain just how all that money is being spent, who is spending it, and what the whole stimulus means in layman's terms.
Tuesday, September 01, 2009
Next Step: Sovereignty Pledge
Lebanon, TN, August 31, 2009 – In response to what many see as a Congress that doesn’t represent their interests, State Legislators in thirty-seven states around the country have introduced resolutions affirming their sovereignty under the 10th Amendment to the Constitution. The next step? State Representative Susan Lynn (R) Lebanon is the first Tennessee legislator that has signed a pledge which promises much more.
“As the sponsor of Tennessee’s State Sovereignty Resolution, I’m happy to set a good example and be the first to sign the pledge promising to uphold state sovereignty.” Said Rep. Lynn.
While supporters have strongly backed sovereignty resolutions, many are wondering what the next step in holding our representatives accountable? According to Michael Boldin, founder of the Tenth Amendment Center, the 10th Amendment Pledge is a promise to do just that.
“Not only does the pledge affirm that it’s The People who are sovereign in the American system,” said Boldin, “but also, legislators who sign it are promising to take the next step – which is to nullify, or render void and inoperative, specific federal laws within the boundaries of this State.”
Nullification efforts have already stopped the Bush-era Real ID Act from being implemented. The Obama administration, recognizing the power of this state-level rebellion recently announced that they were looking to “repeal and replace” the law.
Supporters see this as a blueprint for other laws that they see as unconstitutional. Both Alaska and Tennessee have passed versions of a “The State Sovereignty Resolution”. And, according to the Tenth Amendment Center, as many as ten states will be considering legislation to effectively ban any future national health care plan.
“We must never forget nor cease to remind all that the states created the federal government and designed its powers to have limits.” Said Lynn
About State Representative Susan Lynn
Susan Lynn represents the 57th Legislative District in the Tennessee House of Representatives, serves as chairman of the House Government Operations Committee and sits on the Calendar & Rules and the Commerce Committees as well as the Small Business Sub-Committee.
About the Tenth Amendment Center:
The Tenth Amendment Center, a Los Angeles-based think tank founded in 2006, acts as an educational forum on issues related to the 10th Amendment and Constitutional governance. http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/
State Pledge
As a public office holder I promise that, as long as I hold office:
1. My votes will always be in favor of the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this State. Every issue. Every time. No exceptions. No excuses.
2. I do, and will continue to, oppose any and all efforts by the federal government to act beyond its Constitutional authority.
3. I will proactively introduce and support measures designed to adhere to the Tenth Amendment and preserve, to their fullest extent, the powers of the People in my district, and of the legislators and administrations of my State.
4. I will introduce, sponsor and support resolutions affirming the sovereignty of the People of this State under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
5. I will introduce, sponsor, and support legislation that nullifies, within my state, actions of the federal government which exceed its Constitutional authority.
6. I will introduce, sponsor and support legislation that provides such relief as is necessary and proper to provide fair redress to the citizens of my State in response to actions by the federal government which exceeds its Constitutional authority.
7. I will introduce, sponsor and support legislation which refuses federal funding made on condition that my State comply with federal mandates not authorized by the Constitution.
8. I will only vote in favor of a bill that I have thoroughly read, considered and understood.
9. I will be accountable to voters. Upon request, I will make public every vote I cast while in office.
10. I will keep this pledge public, and will provide a link on my website which directs constituents to the text of this pledge.
“As the sponsor of Tennessee’s State Sovereignty Resolution, I’m happy to set a good example and be the first to sign the pledge promising to uphold state sovereignty.” Said Rep. Lynn.
While supporters have strongly backed sovereignty resolutions, many are wondering what the next step in holding our representatives accountable? According to Michael Boldin, founder of the Tenth Amendment Center, the 10th Amendment Pledge is a promise to do just that.
“Not only does the pledge affirm that it’s The People who are sovereign in the American system,” said Boldin, “but also, legislators who sign it are promising to take the next step – which is to nullify, or render void and inoperative, specific federal laws within the boundaries of this State.”
Nullification efforts have already stopped the Bush-era Real ID Act from being implemented. The Obama administration, recognizing the power of this state-level rebellion recently announced that they were looking to “repeal and replace” the law.
Supporters see this as a blueprint for other laws that they see as unconstitutional. Both Alaska and Tennessee have passed versions of a “The State Sovereignty Resolution”. And, according to the Tenth Amendment Center, as many as ten states will be considering legislation to effectively ban any future national health care plan.
“We must never forget nor cease to remind all that the states created the federal government and designed its powers to have limits.” Said Lynn
About State Representative Susan Lynn
Susan Lynn represents the 57th Legislative District in the Tennessee House of Representatives, serves as chairman of the House Government Operations Committee and sits on the Calendar & Rules and the Commerce Committees as well as the Small Business Sub-Committee.
About the Tenth Amendment Center:
The Tenth Amendment Center, a Los Angeles-based think tank founded in 2006, acts as an educational forum on issues related to the 10th Amendment and Constitutional governance. http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/
State Pledge
As a public office holder I promise that, as long as I hold office:
1. My votes will always be in favor of the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this State. Every issue. Every time. No exceptions. No excuses.
2. I do, and will continue to, oppose any and all efforts by the federal government to act beyond its Constitutional authority.
3. I will proactively introduce and support measures designed to adhere to the Tenth Amendment and preserve, to their fullest extent, the powers of the People in my district, and of the legislators and administrations of my State.
4. I will introduce, sponsor and support resolutions affirming the sovereignty of the People of this State under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
5. I will introduce, sponsor, and support legislation that nullifies, within my state, actions of the federal government which exceed its Constitutional authority.
6. I will introduce, sponsor and support legislation that provides such relief as is necessary and proper to provide fair redress to the citizens of my State in response to actions by the federal government which exceeds its Constitutional authority.
7. I will introduce, sponsor and support legislation which refuses federal funding made on condition that my State comply with federal mandates not authorized by the Constitution.
8. I will only vote in favor of a bill that I have thoroughly read, considered and understood.
9. I will be accountable to voters. Upon request, I will make public every vote I cast while in office.
10. I will keep this pledge public, and will provide a link on my website which directs constituents to the text of this pledge.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Tennessee Comes Out on Short End Under LCFS
Published in Saturday's Nashville Tennessean
By State Representative Susan Lynn, 57th District
TennesseeThe Waxman-Markey legislation has received a lot of attention for its Cap & Trade scheme; its been passed by the US House of Representatives and is currently being considered by the US Senate. Yet little has been made of something called LCFS or Low-Carbon Fuel Standards which would fundamentally alter the way in which Americans acquire, process and consume energy.
The New York Times reported that LCFS could be “extremely costly.”
A group of professors from California and North Carolina said the plan “cannot be efficient.”
And a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations said it “would exacerbate energy security problems without delivering compensating climate benefits.”
Unfortunately for Tennessee, our senior senator seems to be supportive of talk for a future Public Act requiring LCFS in the United States Code.Advocates claim that LCFS policy is a pain-free way to clean up our transportation sector while cutting down on tailpipe emissions of carbon dioxide.
Pain free? The laws of natural science and political science suggest otherwise. Despite Congress’s best efforts, the carbon content of the fuel in our gas tank is constant – emitting 19.4 pounds of carbon dioxide no matter where you get the gas, what kind of vehicle you put it in, or even which number octane you choose.
Yet to LCFS proponents, everybody wins – that is assuming you don’t drive a car, heat a home, or need a job.
The scheme attempts to take a bite out of global greenhouse gas emissions by having the federal government assign a carbon score to various fuel supplies based on the amount of energy it takes to bring those fuels through each stage of its production process – from finding the oil, to acquiring it, to transporting it, to refining it, and finally to using it in our vehicles in the form of gasoline or diesel.
As mentioned, since all fuels emit the same amount of carbon dioxide during combustion, what LCFS is really addressing is those fuels that are more energy intensive to bring to market.
Eliminate from circulation the reliable, affordable, fuels from friendly sources that dominate the market -- like the 2.5 million barrels of Canadian crude we import a day, and much of California’s and Colorado’s oil -- and we can clear the path for less affordable and less politically friendly forms of energy to have a stronger footing in our marketplace.
The scheme would initiate a de facto ban on North American oil purchases – crude oil from Canada, Mexico and much of the mid-Atlantic that policymakers in Washington find too “heavy” for their discriminating tastes.
Why aren’t LCFS advocates tripping over themselves to let you in on exactly who produces the “light, sweet” crude oil they desire? Maybe it’s because the answer is the Middle East, Africa, and just about every unstable, dictatorial regime in between.
Show of hands: Who prefers oil from Canada – our most important trading partner – over supplies controlled by OPEC?
Discriminating against North American energy would not only weaken our economic position in the global economy but it also would be a major blow to our national security.
So, what would a successful LCFS deliver? Increased American dependence on foreign oil. Check. More good-paying American jobs sent overseas. Check. Higher energy costs for every consumer. Check. And, since the “heavy” oil we reject will be gobbled up by our chief global competitors in India and China, higher worldwide carbon emissions to boot. Checkmate.
Let’s speak-up and let’em know we don't like any explanation of this one.
Start Representative Susan Lynn is the Chairman of the Government Operations Committee in the state of Tennessee House of Representatives; she is in her fourth term. She is the Chairman of the Commerce, Insurance and Economic Development Task Force for the American Legislative Exchange Council; an organization of 2000 conservative, free market legislators from across the nation (alec.org).
By State Representative Susan Lynn, 57th District
TennesseeThe Waxman-Markey legislation has received a lot of attention for its Cap & Trade scheme; its been passed by the US House of Representatives and is currently being considered by the US Senate. Yet little has been made of something called LCFS or Low-Carbon Fuel Standards which would fundamentally alter the way in which Americans acquire, process and consume energy.
The New York Times reported that LCFS could be “extremely costly.”
A group of professors from California and North Carolina said the plan “cannot be efficient.”
And a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations said it “would exacerbate energy security problems without delivering compensating climate benefits.”
Unfortunately for Tennessee, our senior senator seems to be supportive of talk for a future Public Act requiring LCFS in the United States Code.Advocates claim that LCFS policy is a pain-free way to clean up our transportation sector while cutting down on tailpipe emissions of carbon dioxide.
Pain free? The laws of natural science and political science suggest otherwise. Despite Congress’s best efforts, the carbon content of the fuel in our gas tank is constant – emitting 19.4 pounds of carbon dioxide no matter where you get the gas, what kind of vehicle you put it in, or even which number octane you choose.
Yet to LCFS proponents, everybody wins – that is assuming you don’t drive a car, heat a home, or need a job.
The scheme attempts to take a bite out of global greenhouse gas emissions by having the federal government assign a carbon score to various fuel supplies based on the amount of energy it takes to bring those fuels through each stage of its production process – from finding the oil, to acquiring it, to transporting it, to refining it, and finally to using it in our vehicles in the form of gasoline or diesel.
As mentioned, since all fuels emit the same amount of carbon dioxide during combustion, what LCFS is really addressing is those fuels that are more energy intensive to bring to market.
Eliminate from circulation the reliable, affordable, fuels from friendly sources that dominate the market -- like the 2.5 million barrels of Canadian crude we import a day, and much of California’s and Colorado’s oil -- and we can clear the path for less affordable and less politically friendly forms of energy to have a stronger footing in our marketplace.
The scheme would initiate a de facto ban on North American oil purchases – crude oil from Canada, Mexico and much of the mid-Atlantic that policymakers in Washington find too “heavy” for their discriminating tastes.
Why aren’t LCFS advocates tripping over themselves to let you in on exactly who produces the “light, sweet” crude oil they desire? Maybe it’s because the answer is the Middle East, Africa, and just about every unstable, dictatorial regime in between.
Show of hands: Who prefers oil from Canada – our most important trading partner – over supplies controlled by OPEC?
Discriminating against North American energy would not only weaken our economic position in the global economy but it also would be a major blow to our national security.
So, what would a successful LCFS deliver? Increased American dependence on foreign oil. Check. More good-paying American jobs sent overseas. Check. Higher energy costs for every consumer. Check. And, since the “heavy” oil we reject will be gobbled up by our chief global competitors in India and China, higher worldwide carbon emissions to boot. Checkmate.
Let’s speak-up and let’em know we don't like any explanation of this one.
Start Representative Susan Lynn is the Chairman of the Government Operations Committee in the state of Tennessee House of Representatives; she is in her fourth term. She is the Chairman of the Commerce, Insurance and Economic Development Task Force for the American Legislative Exchange Council; an organization of 2000 conservative, free market legislators from across the nation (alec.org).
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
RNC Honors Women's Equality Day
Michael Steele and the RNC choose to honor Women's Equality Day today with a video saluting women in GOP politics.
I am very honored to be included in this salute; my GOP family heritage extends back to the WHIGs with my ancestor President William Henry Harrison.
Thank you to the RNC for remembering this great day, to the GOP for helping to grant women the right to vote and to Tennessee for being the 20th state to ratify the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which officially made womens' right to vote a permanent part of our Constitution.
I am very honored to be included in this salute; my GOP family heritage extends back to the WHIGs with my ancestor President William Henry Harrison.
Thank you to the RNC for remembering this great day, to the GOP for helping to grant women the right to vote and to Tennessee for being the 20th state to ratify the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which officially made womens' right to vote a permanent part of our Constitution.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Energy Citizens
Energy Citizens is hosting a rally against the Cap & Trade bill at the Wild Horse Saloon.
I will be speaking along with State Senator Jack Johnson and talk radio host Ralph Bristol.
The event is on Tuesday, August 25, 2009. Doors open at 11:30 am. Rally begins at 12:30 pm.
Energy Citizens web site: http://energycitizens.org/.
I will be speaking along with State Senator Jack Johnson and talk radio host Ralph Bristol.
The event is on Tuesday, August 25, 2009. Doors open at 11:30 am. Rally begins at 12:30 pm.
Energy Citizens web site: http://energycitizens.org/.
Photo of Senate Announcement
Susan with husband Michael and family friend Col. Mackey. Mt. Juliet, TN.
August 17, 2009
Monday, August 17, 2009
Remarks from Press Conference
I want to thank my husband Michael for being here to support me and for helping me to arrive at my decision here today. I wish our son was here too, but he is a Staff Sergeant in the TN Air Guard and he is in Africa right now, and our sweet daughter Grace and her husband Ben are working this morning.
I first ran for the office of state representative at 38 years old. My first year of service was at 39, and now at 45 I want to say thank you once again to the people of my district for allowing me to serve them and to state that serving in the Tennessee General Assembly has been one of the greatest privileges and opportunities of my life.
With that same sense of gratitude to the voters, I announce that I will file next April to run for state senate in district 17 in order to expand and extend the mission of public service on which I embarked in 2002.
My first professional job was working for Scientific Utility Products Corporation as a manufacturer’s sales representative; there I studied important disciplines like service, delivery and follow-up from authors that seem like friends such as Harvey McKay, Zig Zigler, and Dale Carnegie. Believe it or not, their witness helped lead me to Christ. I learned about excellence from Nicklaus Golf Equipment - what a wonderful organization. At the Colony Hotel I was taught precision. From Lee Harrison; multi-tasking and on my own I learned compassion for the small business person.
Each of these jobs in their own way prepared me for running for public office.
But when I say that for me, public service is a mission, it really is. A mission I have fully dedicated myself to so that I can serve my fellow citizens as their voice in a way that they would do for themselves.
Since our state senator's announcement this past June that she intends to seek the office of Wilson County Mayor in 2010, I have spent time traveling throughout the 17th District in order to meet the people and visit with the local elected officials. This wonderful experience has brought me many new friends, and I have learned much about the strengths and needs of the area.
It is evident that an attentive and experienced legislator is what is necessary to immediately start meeting the needs of the area. I would be proud to accept the challenge of working for my fellow citizens throughout the 17th district to help with the many infrastructure, economic development and education needs of the area; whether working to bring new jobs to Clay County, voting to finance the repair of bridges in Smith and DeKalb Counties or helping with school improvements in the upper Cumberland region; I pledge to the citizens that I will do my best to help with the crucial needs of the area just as I have dedicated myself to the issues of Sumner and Wilson Counties over the past seven years.
Through my strong conservative convictions I work to support Jeffersonian Principles such as limited government, states' rights, free enterprise and our constitutional rights. By traveling the 17th district what I have found is that the citizens of the area are like me; they’re conservative; and I am proud to share my strong conservative record with them; much of which is documented on my new website at http://www.votesusanlynn.com/.
I look forward to working for the citizens of the 17th district and will make sure that government stays within the bounds of its purpose, ensures that free enterprise is easily conducted, offers a quality education to get our young people off to the best start and so that government creates and maintains safe transportation corridors.
With great excitement, I look forward to undertaking this challenge.
If you are in the 17th district, I ask you today for your vote and for your support.
Thank you for being here.
I first ran for the office of state representative at 38 years old. My first year of service was at 39, and now at 45 I want to say thank you once again to the people of my district for allowing me to serve them and to state that serving in the Tennessee General Assembly has been one of the greatest privileges and opportunities of my life.
With that same sense of gratitude to the voters, I announce that I will file next April to run for state senate in district 17 in order to expand and extend the mission of public service on which I embarked in 2002.
My first professional job was working for Scientific Utility Products Corporation as a manufacturer’s sales representative; there I studied important disciplines like service, delivery and follow-up from authors that seem like friends such as Harvey McKay, Zig Zigler, and Dale Carnegie. Believe it or not, their witness helped lead me to Christ. I learned about excellence from Nicklaus Golf Equipment - what a wonderful organization. At the Colony Hotel I was taught precision. From Lee Harrison; multi-tasking and on my own I learned compassion for the small business person.
Each of these jobs in their own way prepared me for running for public office.
But when I say that for me, public service is a mission, it really is. A mission I have fully dedicated myself to so that I can serve my fellow citizens as their voice in a way that they would do for themselves.
Since our state senator's announcement this past June that she intends to seek the office of Wilson County Mayor in 2010, I have spent time traveling throughout the 17th District in order to meet the people and visit with the local elected officials. This wonderful experience has brought me many new friends, and I have learned much about the strengths and needs of the area.
It is evident that an attentive and experienced legislator is what is necessary to immediately start meeting the needs of the area. I would be proud to accept the challenge of working for my fellow citizens throughout the 17th district to help with the many infrastructure, economic development and education needs of the area; whether working to bring new jobs to Clay County, voting to finance the repair of bridges in Smith and DeKalb Counties or helping with school improvements in the upper Cumberland region; I pledge to the citizens that I will do my best to help with the crucial needs of the area just as I have dedicated myself to the issues of Sumner and Wilson Counties over the past seven years.
Through my strong conservative convictions I work to support Jeffersonian Principles such as limited government, states' rights, free enterprise and our constitutional rights. By traveling the 17th district what I have found is that the citizens of the area are like me; they’re conservative; and I am proud to share my strong conservative record with them; much of which is documented on my new website at http://www.votesusanlynn.com/.
I look forward to working for the citizens of the 17th district and will make sure that government stays within the bounds of its purpose, ensures that free enterprise is easily conducted, offers a quality education to get our young people off to the best start and so that government creates and maintains safe transportation corridors.
With great excitement, I look forward to undertaking this challenge.
If you are in the 17th district, I ask you today for your vote and for your support.
Thank you for being here.
Lynn for State Senate Press Release
State Rep. Susan Lynn (R- Lebanon) announces her intention to seek
District 17 State Senate Seat
District 17 State Senate Seat
MOUNT JULIET, TN-Representative Susan Lynn has announced her intention to file a petition next year for the 17th District Tennessee State Senate seat being vacated by State Senator Mae Beavers (R-Mount Juliet). Addressing local business leaders, residents and friends at the Mt. Juliet Chamber of Commerce, Representative Lynn stated that "serving in the Tennessee General Assembly has been one of the greatest privileges and opportunities of my life. Today, I announce that I am running for state senate in order to expand and extend the mission of public service on which I embarked in 2002."
The Representative explained her approach of reaching her decision to run for higher office by stating that "Since our state senator's announcement this past June that she intends to seek the office of Wilson County Mayor in 2010, I have spent time traveling throughout the 17th District in order to meet the people and visit with the local elected officials." She continued, "This wonderful experience has brought me many new friends, and I have learned much about the strengths and needs of the area."
The 17th Senatorial District is composed of , Cannon, Clay, DeKalb, Macon, Smith, Trousdale, Wilson and a portion of Sumner County in Hendersonville. Lynn further stated, "It is evident that an attentive and experienced legislator is what is necessary to immediately start meeting the needs of the area. I would be proud to accept the challenge of working for my fellow citizens throughout the 17th district to help with the many infrastructure, economic development and education needs of the area; whether working to bring new jobs to Clay County, voting to finance the repair of bridges in Smith and DeKalb Counties or helping to fund school improvements in the upper Cumberland region; I pledge to the citizens that I will do my best to help with the crucial needs of the area just as I have dedicated myself to the issues of Sumner and Wilson Counties over the past seven years."
Noting her service as a conservative legislator who works to support Jeffersonian Principles such as limited government, states' rights, capitalism and our constitutional rights, Lynn mentioned several examples of her work that are now law such as the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Tennessee State Sovereignty Resolution and the Religious Freedom Protection Act. "The citizens of the district are conservative; I am proud to share my strong conservative record with them; much of which is documented on my new website at votesusanlynn.com."
Lynn assured that she remains firmly and unshakably against a state income tax and continues to sponsor legislation to lower the sales tax on food; "years ago, I was on a special task force that drafted a bill for a sales tax holiday which I now vote to support annually in order help my district with the expenses of raising a family."
Susan Lynn has represented the 57th Legislative District in the Tennessee House of Representatives since 2002 when it was first redistricted. She is the chairman of the House Government Operations Committee and a member of the House Calendar & Rules Committee. Further, she has served for seven years on the House Commerce Committee and the Small Business Sub-Committee. In addition to her legislative duties, Rep. Lynn serves as Task Force Chairman of the Commerce, Insurance and Economic Development Task Force for the influential American Legislative Exchange Council. She holds a Bachelor of Science degree in economics with a minor history. A member of the First Baptist Church of Mt. Juliet, Rep. Lynn makes her home in Lebanon with her husband Michael. They have two adult children - Michael Lynn, Jr., a staff sergeant in the Tennessee Air Guard, who is engaged to wed SSG. Alissa Saunders; and a daughter, Mrs. Grace Douchette and husband Benjamin; both are employed by Publix Supermarkets.
###
NOTE: The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is the nation's largest nonpartisan, individual membership organization of state legislators, with over 2,000 legislator members from all fifty states, and 85 former members serving in the U.S. Congress. www.alec.org
Tuesday, August 04, 2009
City Paper Sizes up Senate Races
State Senate could get extreme
Sunday, August 2, 2009 at 11:00pm
http://www.nashvillecitypaper.com/content/city-voices/post-politics-state-senate-could-get-extreme
Sunday, August 2, 2009 at 11:00pm
http://www.nashvillecitypaper.com/content/city-voices/post-politics-state-senate-could-get-extreme
Friday, June 26, 2009
ALEC Waxman Markey Opposition Letter
Dear Representative:
On behalf of the undersigned 186 state and national leaders, Legislators, heads of think-tanks, activist groups, business owners and organizations representing millions of American families, taxpayers and energy consumers, we urge you to oppose H.R. 2454, “The American Clean Energy and Security Act,” also known as the Waxman-Markey plan (or Cap-and-Trade/Capand-Tax).
This bill was recently passed out of the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee and we are urging all members of Congress to oppose consideration of this bill. This bill raises taxes on American families, increases the cost of energy, and eliminates American jobs. These are not proposals we can support.
The Waxman-Markey bill you are asked to consider will increase energy costs by $1,500 annually for the typical family of four. Further, the Heritage Foundation estimates that even with the estimated 26 percent reduction in electricity use, electric bills will increase $754 with the Waxman-Markey plan.
Additionally, from 2012 to 2035, a typical family will spend $12,200 more on its electric bill than in the absence of Waxman-Markey.
Despite the attempts in Waxman-Markey to decrease gas consumption by 15 percent, gas prices will still increase. As a result of the Waxman-Markey plan, an average American family of four will pay an additional $596 for gas usage in 2035. From 2012 to 2035, the Waxman-Markey plan will cost them an additional $7,500 in gas costs.
Before all the damage is done from Waxman-Markey, a family of four will see its direct energy costs rise by $22,800 from 2012 to 2035.
The Waxman-Markey plan does not just raise taxes and increase energy costs; it is expected to end 1,105,000 American jobs annually. The proposed Cap-and-Trade scheme will result in a loss of nearly 2,500,000 million American jobs. America needs economic policies that lead to job creation, not job destruction. This proposal is not something we are prepared to accept.
Table I - Percentage of Electricity that Meets Congress’ Definition of ‘Carbon-Free Renewable’ Energy for Each State
AL 2.5 HI 5.4 MA 0.7 NM 4.5 SD 1.9
AK 0.2 ID 5.5 MI 2.0 NY 1.6 TN 1.0
AZ 0.1 IL 1.4 MN 9.2 NC 1.5 TX 3.9
AR 2.9 IN 0.3 MS 3.1 ND 4.7 UT 0.6
CA 12.6 IA 7.3 MO 0.2 OH 0.3 VT 7.1
CO 5.9 KS 3.8 MT 2.3 OK 3.4 VA 2.9
CT 0.1 KY 0.5 NE 0.8 OR 5.8 WA 4.4
DE 2.1 LA 3.1 NV 3.8 PA 0.9 WV 0.4
FL 1.3 ME 23.8 NH 5.0 RI 2.1 WI 2.6
GA 2.3 MD 0.5 NJ 0.4 SC 1.7 WY 2.0
As indicated in Table I, the Waxman-Markey-mandated Federal Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) (which requires the nation to derive 10 percent of electricity from renewable sources by 2012 and 25 percent by 2025) is simply unrealistic given our current situation. Fourteen states (in bold boxes) are currently receiving less than one percent of their electricity from “renewable” sources.
Forcing this unrealistic mandate without an opt-in option or state-defining renewable option will do nothing more than increase the cost of electricity on rate paying consumers.
States that cannot meet with RES will be face monetary penalties from the federal government. These penalties will be passed onto consumers in the form of higher fees and taxes which they simply cannot afford. Further, by not allowing states to define what is “renewable” in their region, the bill inaccurately assumes that Maine has the same resources available as California. This illconceived logic should not be part of any national energy strategy.
Further, the bill calls for the 2050 CO2 emissions rate to be 83 percent lower than the 2005 emissions rate. However, as seen in Table II, 36 states (in bold boxes) produce their energy using over 80 percent carbon-based fuels. This proposal will cripple state economies, as energy is overwhelmingly derived from carbon-based fuels. Sadly, consumers will experience negative effects from unrealistic goals when they result in higher taxes, increased fees, and higher prices.
Table II - State Percentage of Energy Supplied by Carbon-Based Fuels
AL 76.3 HI 94.9 MA 90.8 NM 97.8 SD 84.1
AK 97.8 ID 64.6 MI 86.8 NY 77.5 TN 81.8
AZ 80.9 IL 46.6 MN 85.4 NC 78.1 TX 95.0
AR 77.5 IN 98.6 MS 85.1 ND 95.9 UT 98.3
CA 82.7 IA 90.4 MO 93.6 OH 94.0 VT 52.9
CO 97.6 KS 89.5 MT 79.9 OK 97.0 VA 81.1
CT 75.1 KY 97.4 NE 83.5 OR 59.3 WA 53.1
DE 99.4 LA 91.1 NV 92.1 PA 80.4 WV 98.5
FL 87.4 ME 64.5 NH 68.0 RI 97.0 WI 86.2
GA 81.8 MD 84.6 NJ 84.3 SC 65.8 WY 97.8
A recent poll indicated that 52 percent of registered American voters oppose the cap-and-trade
policy contained in the Waxman-Markey plan. Fifty-eight percent said they were unwilling to pay additional money for electricity to combat climate change. Sixty-eight percent disagreed with the notion that Congress should enact a carbon tax to encourage consumers to decrease their electricity usage. In addition, more than 50 percent opposed any carbon tax used to fund energy research.
Moreover, 73 percent of respondents placed the economy first among issue priorities. Based on the evidence above and many other detrimental effects of this disastrous bill, we urge you to oppose the Waxman-Markey Cap-and-Trade/Cap-and-Tax bill as a tax increase that American families simply cannot afford, and energy policy that we cannot accept.
For more information, contact Brian Johnson at Americans for Tax Reform at bjohnson@atr.org or 202-785-0266.
Sincerely,
Alabama Policy Institute, Gary Palmer
Alabama State Representative Greg Wren
Alabama State Senator Steve French
Alliance for Worker Freedom, Brian M Johnson
American Civil Rights Union
American Conservative Union, David Keene
American Council for Health Care Reform, William Shaker
American Shareholders Association, Ryan Ellis
American Solutions, Dan Varroney
Americans for Prosperity, Tim Phillips
Americans for Tax Reform, Grover Norquist
Americans for the Preservation of Liberty, David Ridenour
Arizona State Representative Cecil Ash
Arizona State Representative Debbie Lesko
Arizona State Representative John McComish
Arizona State Representative Nancy Barto
Arizona State Senate Majority Whip Pamela Gorman
Arizona State Senator Jack Harper
Arizona State Senator John Nelson
Arizona State Senator Johnny Key
Arizona State Senator Ron Gould
Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce
Arizona State Senator Sylvia Allen
Center for Fiscal Accountability, Sandra Fabry
Center for Individual Freedom, Jeffrey Mazzella
Charles W. Baird, Ph.D., Professor of Economics, Emeritus, CSU East Bay
Citizen Outreach Project, Doug Bandow
Citizens for Responsible Government, Joseph Andrews
Citizens United, Chuck Muth
Clean Oceans Technology Coalition, Joel C. Mandelman
Club for Growth, Andy Roth
College Republican National Committee
Colorado State Senator Scott Renfroe
Connecticut Center-Right Coalition, D. Dowd Muska
Connecticut State Representative Bill Hamzy
Connecticut State Representative John Piscopo
Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, Erica Gordon
Eagle Forum, Phyllis Schlafly
Ethan Allen Institute, John McCalughry
Evergreen Freedom Foundation, Amber Gunn
Florida Center-Right Coalition, Rick Watson
Florida State Representative Alan Hays, DMD
Florida State Representative Sandra Adams
FRCAction, Tom McClusky
FreedomWorks, Matt Kibbe
Frontiers of Freedom, George Landrith
Georgia Eagle Forum, Nancy Schaefer
Georgia State Representative Ed Setzler
Georgia State Representative Melvin Everson
Georgia State Representative Randy Nix
Georgia State Representative Tom Rice
Georgia State Representative Wendell Willard
Georgia State Senate Majority Leader Chip Rogers
Georgia State Senator Chip Rogers
Grassroots Institute of Hawaii, Dick Rowland
Hawaii State Senator Sam Slom
Hispanic Leadership Fund, Mario Lopez
Illinois Policy Institute, John Tillman
Illinois State Representative Dave Winters
Independence Institute, Jon Caldara
Indiana Eagle Forum, Pat Schneider
Indiana State Representative Cindy Noe
Indiana State Representative Eric Koch
Indiana State Representative Jeff Thompson
Indiana State Representative William Ruppel
Indiana State Senator Brandt Hershman
Institute for Liberty, Andrew Langer
Kansas State Senator Mary Pilcher-Cook
Kansas State Representative Don Meyers
Kansas State Representative Marc Rhoades
Kansas State Representative Sharon Schwartz
Kansas State Senator Tim Huelskamp
Kentucky State Representative Mike Harmon
Let Freedom Ring, Colin Hanna
Louisiana Republican National Committeeman, W. Ross Little, Jr.
Louisiana State Representative Nickie Monica
Louisiana State Representative Scott Simon
Maryland Center-Right Coalition, Richard Falknor
Maryland State Delegate Nic Kipke
Maryland State Representative Richard Sossi
Maryland State Delegate Gail Bates
Michigan Eagle Forum, Violet Vestevich
Minnesota Eagle Forum, Bonnie Nugent
Minnesota State Senator Mike Jungbauer
Mississippi Center for Public Policy, Forest Thigpen
Mississippi State Representative Becky Currie
Missouri State Representative Bob Nance
Missouri State Representative Cynthia Davis
Missouri State Representative Dwight Scharnhost
Missouri State Representative Shane Schoeller
Missouri State Representative Stanley Cox
Missouri State Representative Tim Flook
Missouri State Representative Walter Bivins
Missouri State Senator Jim Lembke
Montana State Representative Bob Lake
Montana State Representative Cary Smith
Montana State Representative Chas Vincent
Montana State Representative Gary MacLaren
Montana State Representative Mike Miller
National Center for Public Policy Research, Amy Ridenour
National Taxpayers Union, Duane Pardee
Nevada Eagle Forum, Janine Hansen
New Hampshire State Representative Betsey McKinney
New Hampshire State Representative Beverly Rodeschin
New Hampshire State Representative Jennifer Coffey
New Hampshire State Representative John Reagan
New Jersey State Assemblyman Michael J. Doherty
New Mexico Former State Representative Frank Bird
New Mexico Former State Representative Justine Fox-Young
New Mexico Former State Representative, Senator & Lieutenant Governor Jack Stahl
New Mexico Former State Senator Mickey D. Barnett
New Mexico Republican Party, John E. Rockwell
New Mexico Shooting Sports Association, Paul Lisle
New Mexico State Senator Steve Neville
New Mexico, Bernalillo County Sheriff, Darren P. White
New York Assemblyman Greg Ball
North Carolina Deputy Republican Senate Leader Neal Hunt
North Carolina State Representative George Cleveland
North Carolina State Representative Mitch Gillespie
North Carolina State Representative Pat McElraft
North Dakota State Representative Chuck Damschen
North Dakota State Representative Ken Svedjan
Ohio State House Assistant Minority Whip Sean Chichelli,
Ohio State House Minority Whip John Adamns,
Ohio State Senator Bob Gibbs
Ohio State Senator Kevin Coughlin
Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs, Inc., Brandon Dutcher
Oklahoma State Representative Colby Schwartz
Oklahoma State Representative Leslie Osborn
Oklahoma State Representative Mike Sanders
Oregon State Representative Matt Wingard
Oregon State Representative George Gilman
Oregon State Representative John Huffman
Pelican Institute for Public Policy, Kevin Kane
Pennsylvania Eagle Forum, Fran Bevan
Pennsylvania State Representative Daryl Metcalfe
Pennsylvania State Representative Jeff Pyle
Pennsylvania State Representative Kathy Rapp
Pennsylvania State Representative Matthew Baker
Project 21, Deneen Borelli
Property Rights Alliance, Kelsey Zahourek
Quantum Communications, Charlie Gerow
RightMarch.com, Dr. William Greene
Samuel Properties, Ltd., Patty Terrell
Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council, Karen Karrigan
Smart Business Hawaii, Sam Slom
Society of American Florists, Jeanne Ramsay
South Carolina State Senator David Thomas
South Dakota State Representative Val Rausch
Talbott Advisors, Inc., Fenton R. Talbott
Tennessee Eagle Forum, Bobbie Patray
Tennessee State Representative Ben West, Jr.
Tennessee State Representative Susan Lynn
Texas Eagle Forum, Cathie Adams
Texas State Representative Joe Driver
The Harbour League, Eli Gold
The Rule of Law Committee, Bill Shaker
Utah State Representative Bradley Daw
Utah State Representative Lorie Fowlke
Utah State Senator Ralph Okerlund
Virginia House of Delegates Member Kathy Byron
Washington State Minority Whip Bill Hinkle
Washington State Representative Jan Angel
Washington State Representative Shelly Short
Washington State Senator Val Stevens
West Virginia House of Delegates Member Troy Andes
West Virginia State Delegate Jonathan Miller
West Virginia State Delegate Ronald Walters, Sr.
West Virginia State Representative Troy Andes
Wisconsin State Representative John Nygren
Wisconsin State Representative Leah Vukmir
Wisconsin State Representative Mike Huebsch
Wisconsin State Representative Robin Vos
Wyoming State Representative Allen Jaggi
Wyoming State Representative Amy Edmonds
Wyoming State Representative David Miller
Wyoming State Representative Peter S. “Pete” Illoway
Wyoming State Representative Sue Wallis
On behalf of the undersigned 186 state and national leaders, Legislators, heads of think-tanks, activist groups, business owners and organizations representing millions of American families, taxpayers and energy consumers, we urge you to oppose H.R. 2454, “The American Clean Energy and Security Act,” also known as the Waxman-Markey plan (or Cap-and-Trade/Capand-Tax).
This bill was recently passed out of the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee and we are urging all members of Congress to oppose consideration of this bill. This bill raises taxes on American families, increases the cost of energy, and eliminates American jobs. These are not proposals we can support.
The Waxman-Markey bill you are asked to consider will increase energy costs by $1,500 annually for the typical family of four. Further, the Heritage Foundation estimates that even with the estimated 26 percent reduction in electricity use, electric bills will increase $754 with the Waxman-Markey plan.
Additionally, from 2012 to 2035, a typical family will spend $12,200 more on its electric bill than in the absence of Waxman-Markey.
Despite the attempts in Waxman-Markey to decrease gas consumption by 15 percent, gas prices will still increase. As a result of the Waxman-Markey plan, an average American family of four will pay an additional $596 for gas usage in 2035. From 2012 to 2035, the Waxman-Markey plan will cost them an additional $7,500 in gas costs.
Before all the damage is done from Waxman-Markey, a family of four will see its direct energy costs rise by $22,800 from 2012 to 2035.
The Waxman-Markey plan does not just raise taxes and increase energy costs; it is expected to end 1,105,000 American jobs annually. The proposed Cap-and-Trade scheme will result in a loss of nearly 2,500,000 million American jobs. America needs economic policies that lead to job creation, not job destruction. This proposal is not something we are prepared to accept.
Table I - Percentage of Electricity that Meets Congress’ Definition of ‘Carbon-Free Renewable’ Energy for Each State
AL 2.5 HI 5.4 MA 0.7 NM 4.5 SD 1.9
AK 0.2 ID 5.5 MI 2.0 NY 1.6 TN 1.0
AZ 0.1 IL 1.4 MN 9.2 NC 1.5 TX 3.9
AR 2.9 IN 0.3 MS 3.1 ND 4.7 UT 0.6
CA 12.6 IA 7.3 MO 0.2 OH 0.3 VT 7.1
CO 5.9 KS 3.8 MT 2.3 OK 3.4 VA 2.9
CT 0.1 KY 0.5 NE 0.8 OR 5.8 WA 4.4
DE 2.1 LA 3.1 NV 3.8 PA 0.9 WV 0.4
FL 1.3 ME 23.8 NH 5.0 RI 2.1 WI 2.6
GA 2.3 MD 0.5 NJ 0.4 SC 1.7 WY 2.0
As indicated in Table I, the Waxman-Markey-mandated Federal Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) (which requires the nation to derive 10 percent of electricity from renewable sources by 2012 and 25 percent by 2025) is simply unrealistic given our current situation. Fourteen states (in bold boxes) are currently receiving less than one percent of their electricity from “renewable” sources.
Forcing this unrealistic mandate without an opt-in option or state-defining renewable option will do nothing more than increase the cost of electricity on rate paying consumers.
States that cannot meet with RES will be face monetary penalties from the federal government. These penalties will be passed onto consumers in the form of higher fees and taxes which they simply cannot afford. Further, by not allowing states to define what is “renewable” in their region, the bill inaccurately assumes that Maine has the same resources available as California. This illconceived logic should not be part of any national energy strategy.
Further, the bill calls for the 2050 CO2 emissions rate to be 83 percent lower than the 2005 emissions rate. However, as seen in Table II, 36 states (in bold boxes) produce their energy using over 80 percent carbon-based fuels. This proposal will cripple state economies, as energy is overwhelmingly derived from carbon-based fuels. Sadly, consumers will experience negative effects from unrealistic goals when they result in higher taxes, increased fees, and higher prices.
Table II - State Percentage of Energy Supplied by Carbon-Based Fuels
AL 76.3 HI 94.9 MA 90.8 NM 97.8 SD 84.1
AK 97.8 ID 64.6 MI 86.8 NY 77.5 TN 81.8
AZ 80.9 IL 46.6 MN 85.4 NC 78.1 TX 95.0
AR 77.5 IN 98.6 MS 85.1 ND 95.9 UT 98.3
CA 82.7 IA 90.4 MO 93.6 OH 94.0 VT 52.9
CO 97.6 KS 89.5 MT 79.9 OK 97.0 VA 81.1
CT 75.1 KY 97.4 NE 83.5 OR 59.3 WA 53.1
DE 99.4 LA 91.1 NV 92.1 PA 80.4 WV 98.5
FL 87.4 ME 64.5 NH 68.0 RI 97.0 WI 86.2
GA 81.8 MD 84.6 NJ 84.3 SC 65.8 WY 97.8
A recent poll indicated that 52 percent of registered American voters oppose the cap-and-trade
policy contained in the Waxman-Markey plan. Fifty-eight percent said they were unwilling to pay additional money for electricity to combat climate change. Sixty-eight percent disagreed with the notion that Congress should enact a carbon tax to encourage consumers to decrease their electricity usage. In addition, more than 50 percent opposed any carbon tax used to fund energy research.
Moreover, 73 percent of respondents placed the economy first among issue priorities. Based on the evidence above and many other detrimental effects of this disastrous bill, we urge you to oppose the Waxman-Markey Cap-and-Trade/Cap-and-Tax bill as a tax increase that American families simply cannot afford, and energy policy that we cannot accept.
For more information, contact Brian Johnson at Americans for Tax Reform at bjohnson@atr.org or 202-785-0266.
Sincerely,
Alabama Policy Institute, Gary Palmer
Alabama State Representative Greg Wren
Alabama State Senator Steve French
Alliance for Worker Freedom, Brian M Johnson
American Civil Rights Union
American Conservative Union, David Keene
American Council for Health Care Reform, William Shaker
American Shareholders Association, Ryan Ellis
American Solutions, Dan Varroney
Americans for Prosperity, Tim Phillips
Americans for Tax Reform, Grover Norquist
Americans for the Preservation of Liberty, David Ridenour
Arizona State Representative Cecil Ash
Arizona State Representative Debbie Lesko
Arizona State Representative John McComish
Arizona State Representative Nancy Barto
Arizona State Senate Majority Whip Pamela Gorman
Arizona State Senator Jack Harper
Arizona State Senator John Nelson
Arizona State Senator Johnny Key
Arizona State Senator Ron Gould
Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce
Arizona State Senator Sylvia Allen
Center for Fiscal Accountability, Sandra Fabry
Center for Individual Freedom, Jeffrey Mazzella
Charles W. Baird, Ph.D., Professor of Economics, Emeritus, CSU East Bay
Citizen Outreach Project, Doug Bandow
Citizens for Responsible Government, Joseph Andrews
Citizens United, Chuck Muth
Clean Oceans Technology Coalition, Joel C. Mandelman
Club for Growth, Andy Roth
College Republican National Committee
Colorado State Senator Scott Renfroe
Connecticut Center-Right Coalition, D. Dowd Muska
Connecticut State Representative Bill Hamzy
Connecticut State Representative John Piscopo
Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, Erica Gordon
Eagle Forum, Phyllis Schlafly
Ethan Allen Institute, John McCalughry
Evergreen Freedom Foundation, Amber Gunn
Florida Center-Right Coalition, Rick Watson
Florida State Representative Alan Hays, DMD
Florida State Representative Sandra Adams
FRCAction, Tom McClusky
FreedomWorks, Matt Kibbe
Frontiers of Freedom, George Landrith
Georgia Eagle Forum, Nancy Schaefer
Georgia State Representative Ed Setzler
Georgia State Representative Melvin Everson
Georgia State Representative Randy Nix
Georgia State Representative Tom Rice
Georgia State Representative Wendell Willard
Georgia State Senate Majority Leader Chip Rogers
Georgia State Senator Chip Rogers
Grassroots Institute of Hawaii, Dick Rowland
Hawaii State Senator Sam Slom
Hispanic Leadership Fund, Mario Lopez
Illinois Policy Institute, John Tillman
Illinois State Representative Dave Winters
Independence Institute, Jon Caldara
Indiana Eagle Forum, Pat Schneider
Indiana State Representative Cindy Noe
Indiana State Representative Eric Koch
Indiana State Representative Jeff Thompson
Indiana State Representative William Ruppel
Indiana State Senator Brandt Hershman
Institute for Liberty, Andrew Langer
Kansas State Senator Mary Pilcher-Cook
Kansas State Representative Don Meyers
Kansas State Representative Marc Rhoades
Kansas State Representative Sharon Schwartz
Kansas State Senator Tim Huelskamp
Kentucky State Representative Mike Harmon
Let Freedom Ring, Colin Hanna
Louisiana Republican National Committeeman, W. Ross Little, Jr.
Louisiana State Representative Nickie Monica
Louisiana State Representative Scott Simon
Maryland Center-Right Coalition, Richard Falknor
Maryland State Delegate Nic Kipke
Maryland State Representative Richard Sossi
Maryland State Delegate Gail Bates
Michigan Eagle Forum, Violet Vestevich
Minnesota Eagle Forum, Bonnie Nugent
Minnesota State Senator Mike Jungbauer
Mississippi Center for Public Policy, Forest Thigpen
Mississippi State Representative Becky Currie
Missouri State Representative Bob Nance
Missouri State Representative Cynthia Davis
Missouri State Representative Dwight Scharnhost
Missouri State Representative Shane Schoeller
Missouri State Representative Stanley Cox
Missouri State Representative Tim Flook
Missouri State Representative Walter Bivins
Missouri State Senator Jim Lembke
Montana State Representative Bob Lake
Montana State Representative Cary Smith
Montana State Representative Chas Vincent
Montana State Representative Gary MacLaren
Montana State Representative Mike Miller
National Center for Public Policy Research, Amy Ridenour
National Taxpayers Union, Duane Pardee
Nevada Eagle Forum, Janine Hansen
New Hampshire State Representative Betsey McKinney
New Hampshire State Representative Beverly Rodeschin
New Hampshire State Representative Jennifer Coffey
New Hampshire State Representative John Reagan
New Jersey State Assemblyman Michael J. Doherty
New Mexico Former State Representative Frank Bird
New Mexico Former State Representative Justine Fox-Young
New Mexico Former State Representative, Senator & Lieutenant Governor Jack Stahl
New Mexico Former State Senator Mickey D. Barnett
New Mexico Republican Party, John E. Rockwell
New Mexico Shooting Sports Association, Paul Lisle
New Mexico State Senator Steve Neville
New Mexico, Bernalillo County Sheriff, Darren P. White
New York Assemblyman Greg Ball
North Carolina Deputy Republican Senate Leader Neal Hunt
North Carolina State Representative George Cleveland
North Carolina State Representative Mitch Gillespie
North Carolina State Representative Pat McElraft
North Dakota State Representative Chuck Damschen
North Dakota State Representative Ken Svedjan
Ohio State House Assistant Minority Whip Sean Chichelli,
Ohio State House Minority Whip John Adamns,
Ohio State Senator Bob Gibbs
Ohio State Senator Kevin Coughlin
Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs, Inc., Brandon Dutcher
Oklahoma State Representative Colby Schwartz
Oklahoma State Representative Leslie Osborn
Oklahoma State Representative Mike Sanders
Oregon State Representative Matt Wingard
Oregon State Representative George Gilman
Oregon State Representative John Huffman
Pelican Institute for Public Policy, Kevin Kane
Pennsylvania Eagle Forum, Fran Bevan
Pennsylvania State Representative Daryl Metcalfe
Pennsylvania State Representative Jeff Pyle
Pennsylvania State Representative Kathy Rapp
Pennsylvania State Representative Matthew Baker
Project 21, Deneen Borelli
Property Rights Alliance, Kelsey Zahourek
Quantum Communications, Charlie Gerow
RightMarch.com, Dr. William Greene
Samuel Properties, Ltd., Patty Terrell
Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council, Karen Karrigan
Smart Business Hawaii, Sam Slom
Society of American Florists, Jeanne Ramsay
South Carolina State Senator David Thomas
South Dakota State Representative Val Rausch
Talbott Advisors, Inc., Fenton R. Talbott
Tennessee Eagle Forum, Bobbie Patray
Tennessee State Representative Ben West, Jr.
Tennessee State Representative Susan Lynn
Texas Eagle Forum, Cathie Adams
Texas State Representative Joe Driver
The Harbour League, Eli Gold
The Rule of Law Committee, Bill Shaker
Utah State Representative Bradley Daw
Utah State Representative Lorie Fowlke
Utah State Senator Ralph Okerlund
Virginia House of Delegates Member Kathy Byron
Washington State Minority Whip Bill Hinkle
Washington State Representative Jan Angel
Washington State Representative Shelly Short
Washington State Senator Val Stevens
West Virginia House of Delegates Member Troy Andes
West Virginia State Delegate Jonathan Miller
West Virginia State Delegate Ronald Walters, Sr.
West Virginia State Representative Troy Andes
Wisconsin State Representative John Nygren
Wisconsin State Representative Leah Vukmir
Wisconsin State Representative Mike Huebsch
Wisconsin State Representative Robin Vos
Wyoming State Representative Allen Jaggi
Wyoming State Representative Amy Edmonds
Wyoming State Representative David Miller
Wyoming State Representative Peter S. “Pete” Illoway
Wyoming State Representative Sue Wallis
Thursday, June 25, 2009
ALEC on Cap and Trade
Click here: http://www.alec.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Cap_and_Trade
In 2008, ALEC adopted the following position on climate change:
"Climate change is a historical phenomenon and the debate will continue on the significance of natural and anthropogenic contributions. ALEC will continue to monitor the issue and support the use of sound science.
Regardless, the economy is becoming more energy efficient. Each year we emit less carbon dioxide per dollar of economic output. In fact, carbon dioxide emissions per dollar of GDP declined 41.3 percent between 1981 and 2005. This impressive improvement has taken place without greenhouse gas emissions regulations or taxes."
In 2008, ALEC adopted the following position on climate change:
"Climate change is a historical phenomenon and the debate will continue on the significance of natural and anthropogenic contributions. ALEC will continue to monitor the issue and support the use of sound science.
Regardless, the economy is becoming more energy efficient. Each year we emit less carbon dioxide per dollar of economic output. In fact, carbon dioxide emissions per dollar of GDP declined 41.3 percent between 1981 and 2005. This impressive improvement has taken place without greenhouse gas emissions regulations or taxes."
Oppose the Cap and Trade 'Tax' Increase Bill, H.R. 2454
Click the link below to take action on this issue.:http://www.votervoice.net/link/forward/jbs223753.aspx
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Monday, June 22, 2009
Understanding Cap-and-trade
Don't understand cap-and-trade? Listen to this...
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=105285865&ft=1&f=94427042
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=105285865&ft=1&f=94427042
Monday, June 08, 2009
HB2318 - Governor's Energy Bill
Mandating Politics
The traditional police powers of government are health, safety, welfare and morals.
This means that the state might see fit to intercede through laws by limiting your activity if there is an unseen danger in what you do that could have a significant effect on another individual; thus jeopardizing that individual's right to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness in a tangible way.
For instance; health inspections have increased cleanliness, cutting down on diseases that could severely impact your health. Safety inspections ensure that unseen dangers, like in electrical wiring or gas hook-ups, are minimized. Welfare typically refers to some sort of fraud - it is why we inspect bank records. Morals normally refer to activity, perhaps that concerning drugs or alcohol.
Strangely, the state is wanting to add energy efficiency to it's police powers. HB2318 changes Tennessee code 68-120-101, the law on statewide building construction safety standards, to include energy efficiency.
It is one thing for the state to take precautions because something may seriously jeopardize your health, or safety, or all that you have worked to earn, or to keep you from being a danger to others when you are under the influence of drugs or alcohol, but to police energy efficiency?
People already have an incentive to build energy efficient homes or to purchase energy efficient appliances - its called a utility bill.
For the state to get involved and create mandates is for the state to become involved in political decisions that favor some parts and supplies over others; certain businesses over other businesses; certain policies and political philosophies other others.
People naturally balance what they can afford with what they will save and examine the margins to see how far they want to go. Mandating politics is not good policy - and it moves us further still from freedom.
The traditional police powers of government are health, safety, welfare and morals.
This means that the state might see fit to intercede through laws by limiting your activity if there is an unseen danger in what you do that could have a significant effect on another individual; thus jeopardizing that individual's right to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness in a tangible way.
For instance; health inspections have increased cleanliness, cutting down on diseases that could severely impact your health. Safety inspections ensure that unseen dangers, like in electrical wiring or gas hook-ups, are minimized. Welfare typically refers to some sort of fraud - it is why we inspect bank records. Morals normally refer to activity, perhaps that concerning drugs or alcohol.
Strangely, the state is wanting to add energy efficiency to it's police powers. HB2318 changes Tennessee code 68-120-101, the law on statewide building construction safety standards, to include energy efficiency.
It is one thing for the state to take precautions because something may seriously jeopardize your health, or safety, or all that you have worked to earn, or to keep you from being a danger to others when you are under the influence of drugs or alcohol, but to police energy efficiency?
People already have an incentive to build energy efficient homes or to purchase energy efficient appliances - its called a utility bill.
For the state to get involved and create mandates is for the state to become involved in political decisions that favor some parts and supplies over others; certain businesses over other businesses; certain policies and political philosophies other others.
People naturally balance what they can afford with what they will save and examine the margins to see how far they want to go. Mandating politics is not good policy - and it moves us further still from freedom.
Friday, June 05, 2009
Economic Liberty and the Constitution, Part 1
by Jacob G. Hornberger, June 2002
Police powers and mercantilism
...The courts, however, had not limited the concept of “police powers” to laws proscribing violent crimes, such as murder, rape, theft, and burglary. Instead, the concept had been vaguely defined as the power to enact laws relating to the “safety, health, morals, and general welfare” of the public, a definition that opened up a Pandora’s box that harkened back to the era of mercantilism, an economic system that characterized European life during the 1600s and 1700s.
Under the old mercantilist system, the government had the power to regulate the most minute aspects of people’s economic affairs. Consider, for example, the cloak industry. The government prescribed how many cloaks should be produced in the nation, as well as sizes and colors. Regulations even outlined exactly how the nation’s weavers were to do their weaving.
Why were these extensive regulations necessary? Because if the government did not regulate the production of cloaks, it was believed, there existed the distinct possibility that people might end up with no cloaks to wear, which would mean that they might very well freeze to death. After all, what if everyone forgot to make cloaks one year? Or what if they didn’t make them in sizes that would fit the people?
Police powers and mercantilism
...The courts, however, had not limited the concept of “police powers” to laws proscribing violent crimes, such as murder, rape, theft, and burglary. Instead, the concept had been vaguely defined as the power to enact laws relating to the “safety, health, morals, and general welfare” of the public, a definition that opened up a Pandora’s box that harkened back to the era of mercantilism, an economic system that characterized European life during the 1600s and 1700s.
Under the old mercantilist system, the government had the power to regulate the most minute aspects of people’s economic affairs. Consider, for example, the cloak industry. The government prescribed how many cloaks should be produced in the nation, as well as sizes and colors. Regulations even outlined exactly how the nation’s weavers were to do their weaving.
Why were these extensive regulations necessary? Because if the government did not regulate the production of cloaks, it was believed, there existed the distinct possibility that people might end up with no cloaks to wear, which would mean that they might very well freeze to death. After all, what if everyone forgot to make cloaks one year? Or what if they didn’t make them in sizes that would fit the people?
Tuesday, June 02, 2009
Section by Section Analysis - All Payer Claims Database
Title: Bill Number: HB2289/SB2239
This brief document summarizes some of the major components to HB2289 (SB2239) which is currently being considered by the Tennessee General Assembly.
Summary
The bill creates a government database of Tennesseans’ private healthcare claims. Each Tennessean that has private health insurance would be listed in the database, and all claims for care that they receive would be transmitted to the state by private health insurance companies for compilation in the database.
For example, if you went to the doctor today with a cold, and again on Friday with bronchitis, then by Monday you were admitted to the hospital with pneumonia all of that data would be submitted to the state so that the department of finance and administration can follow the progress of your illness and treatment.
The enormity of this database cannot be overstated. For instance, Blue Cross / Blue Shield processes 38,000 insurance claims per hour. Each of the claims would become part of the database.
Several New England states and Minnesota have already instituted similar databases. Minnesota’s health dept has recently begun dictating health protocols to doctors and insurance companies - what business the state has interfering in private healthcare transactions is yet unanswered.
As outlined in the bill, the government wants the private healthcare data of her citizens’ so that the Commissioner of the TN Department of Finance and Administration (presently Dave Goetz) can carry out several stated objectives including:
Improve health care accessibility and affordability,
Identify health care needs,
Determine the capacity and distribution of existing health care resources,
Evaluate the effectiveness of programs on patient outcomes,
Review costs,
Provide publicly available information on providers’ quality of care.
REMEMBER! This data is privately paid for information on private individuals who are making claims to private insurance companies. Frankly, the government has no business having such private information or performing any of the above duties when you privately pay for your healthcare.
Section by Section Analysis
Section 1; Adds the National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA) to the Tennessee Code under insurance company utilization review agents in 56-6-704.
NCQA is a non-profit organization that “promotes the adoption of strategies that we believe will improve care, enhance service and reduce costs, such as paying providers based on performance, leveraging the Web to give consumers more information, disease management and physician-level measurement.”
In a letter dated March 6, 2009 to President Obama from this non-profit organization praised the president for his White House Healthcare Summit and for moving us toward “comprehensive health care reform we need.”
Their criteria for which insurance companies must comply contains 6011 data fields on patients for evaluating cost and quality. Some large insurance companies already belong to this organization and comply with the 6011 data sets - however, others do not already comply.
Amendment 1
Section 3 - Definitions;
Bill contains no definition for;
· All Payer Claims Database
· National Standards in Section 3 (c)(2)(A) or Section 3 (f)(1)(C).
· HEDIS information in Section 3 (f)(2)(A). Some HEDIS information is based solely on surveys.
· National multi-collaborative stakeholders found in Section 3 (c).
Section 3 (c); Tennessee Health Information Committee
· No requirements for meetings of the committee or for the call of meetings or for the format.
· There is no sunrise date for the committee.
· Under the proposed law, the Commissioner of Finance and Administration would take recommendations from the newly established “Tennessee Health Information Committee.” The committee is to be comprised of 19 members, only one of whom “represent[s] health care consumers”; all of whom may view all of the information on the database. It is unclear why oversight of the database and the functions is housed within the Department of Finance and Administration, as opposed to the TN Department of Health.
Section 3 (c)(2)(A); Calls for the committee to develop a description of data sets based on “national standards” - National standards is not defined.
Protected Health Information; Not any specific part of the bill restricts the submission of “Protected Health Information” (PHI) to the state of Tennessee - “Protected Health Information” is a dataset of 18 fields of personal information identified by HIPAA’s Privacy Rules. The bill does not preclude the state from getting your PHI; only three of the 18 fields of the PHI may not be included in the Database. In fact, HIPAA expressly allows the government to receive your Personal Health Information - http://privacyruleandresearch.nih.gov/pr_08.asp.
All through the bill it implies that the state will have Protected Health Information.
See:
Section 3 (c)(3)(A) & (B)
Section 3 (c)(5)
Section 3 (d)(1) - one of the most obvious spots
Section 3 (f)(2) - another very obvious spot
Section 3 (d)(2)(A) asserts that “source” or “draft” information used to construct or populate the database will exist.
Nowhere does it state that the data set will be fully de-identified before the state receives the information from the insurance companies.
Section 3 (c)(2)(B); Requires the Committee to develop a method for the submission of data. NO METHOD IS DESCRIBED IN THE BILL.
Once an all payer claims database is established health insurance issuers must submit data in a standardized, electronic form, for inclusion in the database. The data submitted will include information on patients, their claims, the quality of care received, pricing rates, costs of care, and possibly other information in conformity with the National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA).
Section 3 (d)(2)(b); The information will be made available to virtually any branch of state government.
Section 3 (e); Excludes only three pieces of personal information from the All Claims Database; name, address, and social security number. This is startling to anyone that knows anything about datasets and privacy. HIPAA identifies 18 fields of protected health information that must be excluded in order for complete privacy to be assured. The inclusion of any of the remaining 18 fields puts patient privacy at risk.
This section should expressly state that none of the 18 fields of Protected Health Information will ever be received by the government.
Section 3 (f)(1)(A); States that all group health plans and health insurance issuers shall provide electronic health insurance claims and eligibility data in accordance with the committee and state rule. Why is eligibility data included if we do not know the persons identity? Again, there is no statement that Protected Health Information will be omitted.
Section 3 (f)(1)(B); Allows the committee and the commissioner to request any additional information from insurance companies that they deem.
Section 3 (f)(1)(C); States the committee and commissioner shall strive for standards and procedures that reflect “national standards”. No definition of national standards exists in the bill.
Section 3 (f)(2)(B); This unfunded mandate forces insurance companies to change the way they receive claims from providers to the very same format that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services requires claims to be submitted.
Section 3 (f)(3); Insurance companies that fail to submit patient information to the state shall be fined up to $100 each day of delay. It is unclear whether this fine applies to the failure to file all records, or whether it is assessed per record.
Fiscal note: The TN General Assembly Fiscal Review Committee notes that the legislation will increase State expenditures by more than $200,000. That is an improbable amount for such an expansive database with continuing analysis. In Minnesota the compilation of the data base cost $1.2 million for just the first 18 months and the analysis was $3 million.
Additional Analysis
By TCPR
Vagueness – The bill’s language is extremely vague when describing the “duties” of the Commissioner of Finance and Administration with regards to his utilization of this database. For instance, one duty is “evaluating the effectiveness of intervention programs on improving patient outcomes.” It is unclear by what standards the commissioner is to use when making such evaluations.
Effectiveness – It is unlikely that a database, while comprehensive in nature, will allow members of the newly created TN Health Information Committee (THIC) to develop meaningful and effective recommendations that increase public health without years of extensive analysis. Billions of dollars are spent each year in the U.S. to improve public health yet the fiscal note for this legislation is just over $200,000. The likelihood of success with such a meager expenditure, especially among a myriad of other, more sophisticated research, is weak at best.
Access to Data – The proposed legislation gives access to otherwise private and confidential health care data to any “departments of state government” if the information is disclosed with the purpose of achieving the duties (of the Commissioner of Finance and Administration). Given the vagueness of the “duties” as noted supra, access to this sensitive information is given to nearly any governmental agency in the state of Tennessee.
As with all public databases, there is a significant chance the information could become compromised. This could occur from a computer “hacker” or from someone within state government (as was the case in the State Trooper’s office last year). Exposure to liability should this sensitive data become publically available is virtually infinite and could open the state to decades of litigation from around the country. Also troubling is the potential to cross-reference health care data with other databases such as school records, criminal records, and travel logs.
It should also be noted that numerous public websites already exist that allow consumers to “shop” for a health care provider that meets their needs. These websites exist without sharing identifiable or sensitive information. Thus the state already has data from which to study health care from a public policy perspective.
Privacy – As the proposed law is written, patients and health care providers are unable to exempt themselves from this database. Similarly, there is no “opt-in” provision that would apply the new law to only those choosing to be a part of the government maintained database. The law states that it will comport with all applicable Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) regulations, however this is misleading. HIPAA, by its own terms, does allow for private health care information to be shared with state agencies in certain instances and this law seems to fall within those rules. HIPAA does, however, seem to establish a reasonable expectation of privacy (between patient, provider, and insurer) and this law may unconstitutionally violate that constitutional right.
TN Residents Only? – The bill, by inference only, seems to apply only to Tennessee residents however, it is not clear that lawmakers have contemplated how to the law should apply to part-time residents, those that visit TN-based health care providers, those that work for a TN-based company though they live out of state, Tennesseans with out of state dependents, etc. Requiring insurance companies to submit data without a way to meaningfully limit the law to Tennesseans subjects both insurance companies and the state to great litigation exposure.
Costs to Consumers & Insurers – The legislation’s current fiscal note is less than $200,000 but this only takes the cost to the state government into account. Furthermore, even the fiscal note is a gross under-estimate. In Minnesota, where similar legislation passed, the cost of the program exceeded $4 million in less than 4 years. Insurance companies are likely to incur great costs when forced to conform to an electronic form as prepared by the NCQA. These costs are likely to be passed along, eventually, to consumers. Thus the stated goal of “improving…affordability of patient health care and health care coverage” is thwarted from the start.
Finally, insurance companies will have to disclose otherwise proprietary information which, according to the proposed law, is subject to “public release” via report. While this could lead to greater price transparency, it could also lead to forcing insurance companies to exit the state in favor of states that allow them to retain some competitive advantage. Again, the stated goal of “improving accessibility” could be drastically harmed if this legislation becomes a law.
This brief document summarizes some of the major components to HB2289 (SB2239) which is currently being considered by the Tennessee General Assembly.
Summary
The bill creates a government database of Tennesseans’ private healthcare claims. Each Tennessean that has private health insurance would be listed in the database, and all claims for care that they receive would be transmitted to the state by private health insurance companies for compilation in the database.
For example, if you went to the doctor today with a cold, and again on Friday with bronchitis, then by Monday you were admitted to the hospital with pneumonia all of that data would be submitted to the state so that the department of finance and administration can follow the progress of your illness and treatment.
The enormity of this database cannot be overstated. For instance, Blue Cross / Blue Shield processes 38,000 insurance claims per hour. Each of the claims would become part of the database.
Several New England states and Minnesota have already instituted similar databases. Minnesota’s health dept has recently begun dictating health protocols to doctors and insurance companies - what business the state has interfering in private healthcare transactions is yet unanswered.
As outlined in the bill, the government wants the private healthcare data of her citizens’ so that the Commissioner of the TN Department of Finance and Administration (presently Dave Goetz) can carry out several stated objectives including:
Improve health care accessibility and affordability,
Identify health care needs,
Determine the capacity and distribution of existing health care resources,
Evaluate the effectiveness of programs on patient outcomes,
Review costs,
Provide publicly available information on providers’ quality of care.
REMEMBER! This data is privately paid for information on private individuals who are making claims to private insurance companies. Frankly, the government has no business having such private information or performing any of the above duties when you privately pay for your healthcare.
Section by Section Analysis
Section 1; Adds the National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA) to the Tennessee Code under insurance company utilization review agents in 56-6-704.
NCQA is a non-profit organization that “promotes the adoption of strategies that we believe will improve care, enhance service and reduce costs, such as paying providers based on performance, leveraging the Web to give consumers more information, disease management and physician-level measurement.”
In a letter dated March 6, 2009 to President Obama from this non-profit organization praised the president for his White House Healthcare Summit and for moving us toward “comprehensive health care reform we need.”
Their criteria for which insurance companies must comply contains 6011 data fields on patients for evaluating cost and quality. Some large insurance companies already belong to this organization and comply with the 6011 data sets - however, others do not already comply.
Amendment 1
Section 3 - Definitions;
Bill contains no definition for;
· All Payer Claims Database
· National Standards in Section 3 (c)(2)(A) or Section 3 (f)(1)(C).
· HEDIS information in Section 3 (f)(2)(A). Some HEDIS information is based solely on surveys.
· National multi-collaborative stakeholders found in Section 3 (c).
Section 3 (c); Tennessee Health Information Committee
· No requirements for meetings of the committee or for the call of meetings or for the format.
· There is no sunrise date for the committee.
· Under the proposed law, the Commissioner of Finance and Administration would take recommendations from the newly established “Tennessee Health Information Committee.” The committee is to be comprised of 19 members, only one of whom “represent[s] health care consumers”; all of whom may view all of the information on the database. It is unclear why oversight of the database and the functions is housed within the Department of Finance and Administration, as opposed to the TN Department of Health.
Section 3 (c)(2)(A); Calls for the committee to develop a description of data sets based on “national standards” - National standards is not defined.
Protected Health Information; Not any specific part of the bill restricts the submission of “Protected Health Information” (PHI) to the state of Tennessee - “Protected Health Information” is a dataset of 18 fields of personal information identified by HIPAA’s Privacy Rules. The bill does not preclude the state from getting your PHI; only three of the 18 fields of the PHI may not be included in the Database. In fact, HIPAA expressly allows the government to receive your Personal Health Information - http://privacyruleandresearch.nih.gov/pr_08.asp.
All through the bill it implies that the state will have Protected Health Information.
See:
Section 3 (c)(3)(A) & (B)
Section 3 (c)(5)
Section 3 (d)(1) - one of the most obvious spots
Section 3 (f)(2) - another very obvious spot
Section 3 (d)(2)(A) asserts that “source” or “draft” information used to construct or populate the database will exist.
Nowhere does it state that the data set will be fully de-identified before the state receives the information from the insurance companies.
Section 3 (c)(2)(B); Requires the Committee to develop a method for the submission of data. NO METHOD IS DESCRIBED IN THE BILL.
Once an all payer claims database is established health insurance issuers must submit data in a standardized, electronic form, for inclusion in the database. The data submitted will include information on patients, their claims, the quality of care received, pricing rates, costs of care, and possibly other information in conformity with the National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA).
Section 3 (d)(2)(b); The information will be made available to virtually any branch of state government.
Section 3 (e); Excludes only three pieces of personal information from the All Claims Database; name, address, and social security number. This is startling to anyone that knows anything about datasets and privacy. HIPAA identifies 18 fields of protected health information that must be excluded in order for complete privacy to be assured. The inclusion of any of the remaining 18 fields puts patient privacy at risk.
This section should expressly state that none of the 18 fields of Protected Health Information will ever be received by the government.
Section 3 (f)(1)(A); States that all group health plans and health insurance issuers shall provide electronic health insurance claims and eligibility data in accordance with the committee and state rule. Why is eligibility data included if we do not know the persons identity? Again, there is no statement that Protected Health Information will be omitted.
Section 3 (f)(1)(B); Allows the committee and the commissioner to request any additional information from insurance companies that they deem.
Section 3 (f)(1)(C); States the committee and commissioner shall strive for standards and procedures that reflect “national standards”. No definition of national standards exists in the bill.
Section 3 (f)(2)(B); This unfunded mandate forces insurance companies to change the way they receive claims from providers to the very same format that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services requires claims to be submitted.
Section 3 (f)(3); Insurance companies that fail to submit patient information to the state shall be fined up to $100 each day of delay. It is unclear whether this fine applies to the failure to file all records, or whether it is assessed per record.
Fiscal note: The TN General Assembly Fiscal Review Committee notes that the legislation will increase State expenditures by more than $200,000. That is an improbable amount for such an expansive database with continuing analysis. In Minnesota the compilation of the data base cost $1.2 million for just the first 18 months and the analysis was $3 million.
Additional Analysis
By TCPR
Vagueness – The bill’s language is extremely vague when describing the “duties” of the Commissioner of Finance and Administration with regards to his utilization of this database. For instance, one duty is “evaluating the effectiveness of intervention programs on improving patient outcomes.” It is unclear by what standards the commissioner is to use when making such evaluations.
Effectiveness – It is unlikely that a database, while comprehensive in nature, will allow members of the newly created TN Health Information Committee (THIC) to develop meaningful and effective recommendations that increase public health without years of extensive analysis. Billions of dollars are spent each year in the U.S. to improve public health yet the fiscal note for this legislation is just over $200,000. The likelihood of success with such a meager expenditure, especially among a myriad of other, more sophisticated research, is weak at best.
Access to Data – The proposed legislation gives access to otherwise private and confidential health care data to any “departments of state government” if the information is disclosed with the purpose of achieving the duties (of the Commissioner of Finance and Administration). Given the vagueness of the “duties” as noted supra, access to this sensitive information is given to nearly any governmental agency in the state of Tennessee.
As with all public databases, there is a significant chance the information could become compromised. This could occur from a computer “hacker” or from someone within state government (as was the case in the State Trooper’s office last year). Exposure to liability should this sensitive data become publically available is virtually infinite and could open the state to decades of litigation from around the country. Also troubling is the potential to cross-reference health care data with other databases such as school records, criminal records, and travel logs.
It should also be noted that numerous public websites already exist that allow consumers to “shop” for a health care provider that meets their needs. These websites exist without sharing identifiable or sensitive information. Thus the state already has data from which to study health care from a public policy perspective.
Privacy – As the proposed law is written, patients and health care providers are unable to exempt themselves from this database. Similarly, there is no “opt-in” provision that would apply the new law to only those choosing to be a part of the government maintained database. The law states that it will comport with all applicable Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) regulations, however this is misleading. HIPAA, by its own terms, does allow for private health care information to be shared with state agencies in certain instances and this law seems to fall within those rules. HIPAA does, however, seem to establish a reasonable expectation of privacy (between patient, provider, and insurer) and this law may unconstitutionally violate that constitutional right.
TN Residents Only? – The bill, by inference only, seems to apply only to Tennessee residents however, it is not clear that lawmakers have contemplated how to the law should apply to part-time residents, those that visit TN-based health care providers, those that work for a TN-based company though they live out of state, Tennesseans with out of state dependents, etc. Requiring insurance companies to submit data without a way to meaningfully limit the law to Tennesseans subjects both insurance companies and the state to great litigation exposure.
Costs to Consumers & Insurers – The legislation’s current fiscal note is less than $200,000 but this only takes the cost to the state government into account. Furthermore, even the fiscal note is a gross under-estimate. In Minnesota, where similar legislation passed, the cost of the program exceeded $4 million in less than 4 years. Insurance companies are likely to incur great costs when forced to conform to an electronic form as prepared by the NCQA. These costs are likely to be passed along, eventually, to consumers. Thus the stated goal of “improving…affordability of patient health care and health care coverage” is thwarted from the start.
Finally, insurance companies will have to disclose otherwise proprietary information which, according to the proposed law, is subject to “public release” via report. While this could lead to greater price transparency, it could also lead to forcing insurance companies to exit the state in favor of states that allow them to retain some competitive advantage. Again, the stated goal of “improving accessibility” could be drastically harmed if this legislation becomes a law.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)