June 30, 2005

Newton Expulsion Resolution In Stark Contrast to Democrat Inaction

NASHVILLE - New Tennessee Democrat Party Chairman Bob Tuke declined to ask for the resignation of two Democratic state senators indicted on federal felony corruption charges - state Sen. Ward Crutchfield and state Sen. Kathryn Bowers - when offered the opportunity to do so during an appearance on the radio show Steve Gill Mornings Wednesday morning on 99.7 WTN .

Tuke indicated that he does not see the state party as having any responsibility for what members do after they are elected.

Tuke is not alone in failing to call on the indicted legislators from his own party to step aside - neither has Democrat Gov. Phil Bredesen or the Democratic leader of the state Senate, John Wilder.

By contrast, Tennessee Republican Party Chairman Bob Davis has asked Republican House member Chris Newton to resign in the wake of his arrest on bribery charges in connection with the Operation Tennessee Waltz FBI sting operation - and state Rep. Chris Clem has filed a resolution calling for the explusion of Rep. Newton from the state House. Here is the audio clip, which runs 1:14.

Davis will appear on Steve Gill Mornings on Friday July 1. My guess is he'll show a lot more leadership on the issue of restoring the intergrity and public credbility of the state legislature than has Mr. Tuke, Sen. Wilder or Gov. Bredesen so far.

Harwell Issues Statement on Kelo

Tennessee State Rep. Beth Harwell, a candidate for the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Sen. Bill Frist at the end of 2006, has issued a brief statement regarding the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. New London eviscerating private property rights in America.

Harwell:

"I am outraged at the recent Supreme Court decision regarding eminent domain. I continue to believe that this is a state issue and I plan on introducing legislation in January to ensure that private property is protected."

-30-

You can see my coverage of Kelo at the following links:

Questions for the Senate Candidates – June 23
Bryant Campaign Responds on Kelo Decision – June 23
Hilleary Responds on Kelo Questions – June 24
Bryant Responds on Kelo Questions - June 24
Kelo Update June 26
Campfield on Kelo – June 26
Kurita Responds on Kelo Questions – June 27
Harold Ford Jr. Calls Kelo Decision "A Positive" – June 27
Cornwall: Kelo "a sad day for economic freedom." – June 27
Post-Kelo: Churches Are Especially Vulnerable – June 28
Protecting Church From State - June 28, 2005

Resolution Filed to Expel Newton

This will be in your morning newspaper tomorrow...
NASHVILLE - State Rep. Chris Clem has filed a resolution to expel indicted state Rep. Chris Newton, R-Cleveland, from the Tennessee House of Representatives. Clem, a Republican from Lookout Mountain, says he has 12 other Republican House members willing to sign on as co-sponsors of the resolution to expel Newton, who is one of four sitting lawmakers facing federal felony corruption charges stemming from the Operation Tennessee Waltz undercover sting in which FBI agents taped lawmakers accepting bribes from a front company seeking their help in passing a piece of legislation.

Expulsion is different from impeachment. The state Constitution allows the legislature to impeach governors, judges, secretary of state, comptroller and treasurer. In an impeachment, the House votes to impeach (indict) and then the Senate votes to convict and remove from office. However, the state constitution does not allow impeachment of legislators.

Instead, the House is allowed to expel a House member and the Senate is allowed to expel a Senate member. "That is exactly what this House Resolution 167 seeks to do," Newton said.

No Democratic member of the state Senate has yet filed a resolution to expel state Sen. Kathryn Bowers, D-Memphis, or state Sen. Ward Crutchfield, D-Chattanooga, who are facing similar federal felony corruption charges as Newton for allegedly accepting bribes. The fourth indicted lawmaker, state Sen. John Ford, D-Memphis, has already resigned.

Clem says Republicans in the House are right to take the lead in demanding that Newton, a fellow Republican, resign, and should expel him from the House if he refuses to resign.

"As you recall, it was Senate Republican Howard Baker and RNC Chairman George Bush who first approached republican Nixon and asked for his resignation. Likewise, it was Democrat Ned McWhorter who first approached Democrat Gov. Ray Blanton and asked him to resign," said Clem. "It does not do much good for the opposing party to demand resignations. Each party (like each legislative chamber) must first clean up its own mess."

Noting that Tennessee Republican Party Chairman Bob Davis has already called for Newton's resignation, Clem said, "It certainly carries a lot more weight when the leadership of your own party calls for your resignation. Unfortunately, in the instant case the party affiliation is a bit complicated. Chris Newton has been rumored for years to be threatening to switch parties. He is a close confidant of Jimmy Naifeh. He is one of Naifeh's chairmen. Newton has also opposed and thwarted Republican initiatives while at the same time attended Democrat leadership meetings.

"When State Republican Chairman Bob Davis asked Newton to resign, Chris was not very responsive. Likewise, as members sign onto this resolution to expel Chris from the House, Chris does not appear concerned. I am now convinced that Chris Newton would be more responsive if Democrat leadership approaches him to ask for his resignation," Clem said.

In a related development, a former friend and political ally of Newtown has issued a stirring call for his friend to resign. J.C. Bowman, a native of Cleveland, Tennessee, who ran for the state House in 1994, the same year Newton was elected in a nearby district.

"Chris (Newton) was always a supporter of term limits and in fact campaigned on them. In 1996 he sponsored legislation that set as a maximum limit of 12 years for state representatives and senators. Since he was elected in 1994, message to Chris, the time to go is now and your time is up anyway," Bowman wrote in a long essay posted on his website.

"I like Chris Newton," Bowman said. "People should pray for him and support him on a personal level, and maybe we are no longer friends in his book. But only a true friend would tell Chris Newton that the time has come for him to step down before he is either removed for ethics violations by his colleagues or his constituents. Everyday he remains as a Tennessee Representative is an insult to the hard working people who elected him and those he serves whether he is guilty or not.

"What makes this column especially painful is the need I have to exert some of the small influence I possess to call upon a long time friend Chris Newton, to step down from political office as a Tennessee Representative for his alleged role in this sordid affair. Chris was quoted in the June 6, 2005, Tennessean saying: 'You find out who your true friends are during times of tribulations like this.'

"You also find out who your true public servants are as well, Chris. So cancel my Christmas card if you must, but no man is above the law and it is time to put your constituents in front of your self-interest in this case. Your real friends should be telling you that as well."

Bowman is currently director for the Center for Education Innovation at Florida State University. Before that, he served as the Director for the Florida Department of Education Choice Office and as the Chief Policy Analyst of the Education Policy Unit for Florida Gov. Jeb Bush.

"Hydroplane Racing is Like NASCAR on Water"

... and it's coming to Nashville's J. Percy Priest Lake Sept 9-11. Check it out at MusicCityHydroFest.com if you're interested.

The ticket price seems reasonable.

Nashville "Wheel Tax" Increase May Not Be Legal

It has come to my attention that the $20 county car registraion fee increase passed by Nashville's Metro Council Monday night was not passed by the two-thirds majority required by state law.

However, Ben Cunningham of Tennessee Tax Revolt tells me that, apparently in order to both get around the 2/3rds requirement and to sidestep a provision of state law that allows citizens to reject a "wheel tax" increase via a petition drive and referendum, the council designated the $20 as some kind of secondary fee, not actually a wheel tax increase, even though it only comes due when you renew your car registration.

Hmmm... Here is the ordinance. It increases "the amount of the annual commercial vehicle regulatory license and the motor vehicle regulatory license" by $20 respectively.

, when you register your car and pay the wheel tax you get what everyone calls a "Metro Sticker.". Metro may call it a "Metro sticker," but even The Tennessean knows that's just a euphemism for "wheel tax." As the paper reported back on June 2:

Increasing the wheel tax would require either the General Assembly to authorize the change through a private act; Metro voters to back it in a referendum; or Metro Council to approve it twice by a two-thirds majority.

The ordinance increasing Nashville's wheel tax by $20 passed 26-10 with three abstentions and one member of the 40-member Metro Council not present on June 28 and by 22-3 with 11 abstentions and 3 not present on June 21.

Here is what the Tennessee Code says about wheel tax increases:

Sec. 5-8-102(c):

(c) Motor Vehicle Tax - Imposition.
(1) No resolution authorizing such motor vehicle privilege tax shall take effect unless it is approved by a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the county legislative body at two (2) consecutive, regularly scheduled meetings or unless it is approved by a majority of the number of qualified voters of the county voting in an election on the question of whether or not the tax should be levied.

Tennessee Code allows says that voters in a county can force a wheel tax increase to a referendum by gathering the signatures of registered voters on a petition amounting to ten percent of the votes cast in the county in the last gubernatorial election, within 30 days of final approval of such resolution by the county legislative body, then the county election commission shall call an election on the question of whether or not the tax should be levied in accordance with the provisions of this section.

It appears to me that Nashville's wheel tax increase was not legally passed - but if they evaded the provisions of state law by designating the wheel tax increase as something other than a wheel tax increase, well, that seems awfully fishy.

The $20 wheel tax increase is expected to raise about $9 million in new revenue for the city - a tiny fraction of Nashville's $1.44 billion budget. Metro Council and Nashville Mayor Bill Purcell ought to just cancel the wheel tax increase, as it appears not to have been legally passed.

If they don't, then some lawyer looking to make a name for himself among the rather large number of anti-tax voters in the Nashville area might want to look into it and see if there is grounds for a lawsuit to stop the wheel tax increase.

UPDATE: Metro councilman David Briley, in a comment posted over at PithInTheWind.com, says Nashville-Davidson County's wheel tax is exempt from that section of state law because its wheel tax was authorized years earlier by a "private act" passed by the state legislature. I find the argument unpersuasive as TCA 5-8-102 nowhere exempts any county from its provisions.

Briley says Metro Council's lawyer agreed with his view, that Nashville is exempt from TCA 5-8-102, but of course that opinion has not been tested in court.

There are two ways it could: First, a lawsuit challenging the higher wheel tax on the basis of the vote not meeting the 2/3rds requirement. And, second, if a petition drive gathered the necessary signatures for a referendum but the Council took the position that Nashville's wheel tax is exempt from the provisions of TCA 5-8-102, it would set the stage for one heck of an interesting legal battle.

By the way, there were 165,310 votes cast in Davidson County in the last gubernatorial election, so it would take 16,531 legitimate signatures of registered Davidson County voters to qualify for a referendum. In the next 30 days. That's 551 signatures a day. I can't sign the petition, but I work and if someone organizes the petition drive, I'll gather as many signatures as I can - and even make the petition available on my blog for downloading so people can sign it and send it in.

UPDATE: Briley, a lawyer as well as a member of the Metro Council, has posted more comments over at the Pith blog, noting that he did some research and found that it wasn't a private act that established the Metro sticker after all, but two court cases. Rutherford v. City of Nashville (1935) and City of Chattanooga v. Veatch (1957). Briley writes:

Essentially, the Court held that a vehicle tax is within the police power of the City. The Chattanooga case also held that a law of general application did not trump the City's police power in this respect. Same result, different logic. Sorry about any confusion.

You would think so - otherwise every county in Tennessee could raise its wheel tax without complying with TCA 5-8-102.

I'm thinking the best way to test this is for someone to organize a petition drive, gather the required number of signatures, and then sue the city of Nashville if Metro Council won't put the wheel tax to a referendum.

UPDATE: The debate on this issue over in the comments at PithInTheWind.com, linked above, has been very good, very instructive, with various contributors providing very good research. Don't miss it as the debate and commenting is still going on...

June 29, 2005

The Next Iranian Hostage Crisis

Some previous American president signed an executive order forbidding the assassination of foreign leaders. I wish we could make an exception for Iran's President-elect Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who deserves it.

Ahmadinejad was one of the perpetrators of the takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1979, an act of war against the United States that has never been avenged.

My views on foreign policy were forged during the 444 days of that hostage crisis, when a America was rendered impotent by Islamofascist thugs because America was lead by a weak and vacillating miserable failure of a president who allowed a group of thugs to lead America around by the nose for more than a year, until enough Americans got tired of it and elected Ronald Reagan.

WikiPedia:

In 1979, Ahmadinejad was the head representative of IUST to the student gatherings that met with the Ayatollah Khomeini. In these sessions, the foundations of the first Office for Strengthening Unity (daftar-e tahkim-e vahdat), the student organization behind seizure of the United States embassy which led to the Iran hostage crisis, were created. During the seizure of the embassy, Ahmadinejad suggested a simultaneous attempt against the Soviet Union embassy, which was voted down.

As a young student, Ahmadinejad joined an ultraconservative faction of the Office for Strengthening Unity, the radical student group spawned by the 1979 Islamic Revolution and staged the capture of the US Embassy. According to reports, Ahmadinejad attended planning meetings for the US Embassy takeover and at these meetings lobbied for a simultaneous takeover of the Soviet Embassy.

Ahmadinejad was in charge of security during the occupation, a key role that put him in direct contact with the nascent security organizations of the clerical regime and the Islamic Revolutionary Guards, which he later joined.

After the 444-day occupation of the U.S. embassy, Ahmadinejad joined the special forces of the Islamic Revolutionary Prosecutor’s Office, based in Evin Prison. The "Revolutionary Prosecutor" was Assadollah Lajevardi, who earned the nickname the Butcher of Evin after the execution of thousands of political dissidents in the 1980s.

Defectors from the clerical regime's security forces have revealed that Ahmadinejad led the firing squads that carried out many of the executions. He personally fired coup de grace shots at the heads of prisoners after their execution and became known as "Tir Khalas Zan" (literally, the Terminator).

Twenty six years after, the mass-murdering thug is now the president-elect of Iran, and soon his government will have nukes, and the civilized world will face the worst possible nightmare scenario: a nuclear-armed terrorism-exporting Islamofascist regime.

It's a good thing America has a major military presence in Afghanistan and Iraq, two countries that border Iran. Because the Iranian hostage crisis isn't over yet.

UPDATE: Former hostages say Ahmadinejad indeed was among the hostage-takers - and was one of the ringleaders - though Iran is denying it.

"He was one of the top two or three leaders," said retired Army Col. Charles Scott, 73, a former hostage. "The new president of Iran is a terrorist."

More from the AP, from al-Jazeera, the BBC and Reuters.

Back to Iran

TEHRAN — In a trip financed by his online fans, Hossein Derakhshan, the godfather of the Iranian blogosphere, returned to his native country last week to cover the presidential election after five years of self-imposed exile. Read about it here in the Los Angeles Times.

Help Wanted

Here's a job ad perfect for a New York City blogger looking a part-time freelance gig. And here's a job ad seeking a blogger to write about IT support issues for small business. Pay is low in both cases.

Thanks to Blogs, Nashvillians Still Have Right to Fight $20 "Wheel Tax" Increase

Nashvillians will pay higher property taxes and $20 more per year for their car registrations under a new city budget passed by the city's Metro Council last night.

While the newspaper stories don't mention it, the $20 wheel tax increase may not yet be a done deal. Thanks to bloggers, the citizens of Nashville still have the right under state law to force a referendum on that tax increase via a petition drive.

Why do I credit bloggers? Because, earlier this year, several bloggers including myself worked very hard to publicize legislation pending in the state legislature that would have stripped the referendum right out of state law led to that proposed legislation being abandoned by its sponsors.

The legislation - pushed by a lobbyist representing the state's county governments who mislead legislators about the bill's true impact - was virtually ignored by the mainstream Tennessee news media, but covered extensively on the blogs including in-depth coverage here and reports on various other Tennessee blogs. As the real intent of the legislation was exposed, legislators who had sponsored it abandoned the bill.

I haven't heard of anyone organizing a petition drive to kill the wheel tax increase yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if it happens.

Road Trip

Just a random picture I took a few weeks ago...

Co-Opted by the MSM

WKRN's Nashville Is Talking blog is having Nashville-area bloggers "guest blog" at the site on weekends, so that the blog can be updated daily even as their paid blogger gets all lazy and slothful and doesn't blog on the weekends. I'll be guest-blogging there on July 9-10. I'll also be taking WKRN's "Video 101 for Bloggers" that Saturday, so part of the time I'll be blogging from inside the belly of the beast.

Playin' Hardball

Blake Wylie did a little Hardball blogging last night.

June 28, 2005

Crude Facts

Here's an interesting report I just ran across on the US Government Accountability Office website titled Motor Fuels: Understanding the Factors the Influence the Retail Price of Gasoline. Interestingly, the 61-page May 2005 report doesn't say the reason that we're paying so much less at the pump now is because President George "Dubya" Bush invaded Iraq and stole Iraq's oil.

Related: Here's a Congressional Research Service briefing from April on policy options Congress might consider to address the high price of gasoline. I haven't read it, but you're welcome to do so and give me your thoughts...

Blackburn Statement on War

U.S. Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., has released a statement in advance of President Bush's nationally televised address updating the progress in the War on Terror...

"Contrary to what some would tell the American people, Iraq is not a quagmire, Guantanamo Bay is not a gulag, and our soldiers are not Nazi-like. We're at war, our military is performing spectacularly, and America should be proud and thankful for what we've been able to achieve since September 11th. We've watched liberal leaders in Congress trample the truth about President Bush's aggressive war on terrorism to score political points. Their behavior does nothing to help win this war. I hope the President tells America exactly where we are at this point in our struggle against the global terrorist network. I believe we've got terrorist organizations on the run like never before. They've never been so aggressively pursued, and the President deserves a great deal of credit for leading this effort. The American people want this plague of terrorism hunted down and eliminated, not appeased or contained. There's no doubt that we've experienced both successes and setbacks, but the goal we're reaching for is worth the struggle. The bloodshed breaks our hearts, but it also reminds us that losing this war is not an option. May God bless our troops and their families."

UPDATE: The President gave a very good speech tonight that should reassure the American people that we're on the right track in Iraq and the overall War on Terror and that - contrary to what the Democrats want you to believe - we are winning in Iraq. President Bush also very effectively dismantled the argument of some on the Left such as John Kerry and others who say we should set a deadline for American troop withdrawal from Iraq. Of course, to set a deadline for withdrawal is to set a date for defeat.

Clippard Declines to Run Against Bredesen

The Tennessee Republican Party still doesn't have a candidate to run aainst the stumbling, wounded, vulnerable Gov. Phil Bredesen as banker and businessman B.C. "Scooter" Clippard, Jr., has decided to to run.

NashvillePost.com reports that Clippard has decided, after after taking a few months to test the campaign waters, not to run because, "according to Clippard, to run an effective campaign against incumbent governor Phil Bredesen in 2006 would require the use of negative tactics that he says would erode many of the positive relationships he and his wife have with Democrats across the state."

Clippard stated that he is "just not prepared to campaign like that." Clippard added that he does believe he has a future place in public service somewhere down the road, perhaps at a time when the political arena "is ripe for a fiscal conservative who doesn’t want to run a negative, bashing campaign."

Clippard's reason not to run shows why he shouldn't be governor: It's not negative or "bashing" to campaign against Bredesen's record of failing to fix TennCare, of cutting hundreds of thousands of sick/old/poor/disabled people off from their healthcare, and of failing to provide leadership on the issue of legislative ethics. It's truthful campaigning.

If Clippard lacked the stomach to tell the people of Tennessee the unvarnished truth about Bredesen, he lacked the right stuff to be governor.

Now, the focus shifts to state Rep. Beth Harwell...

Protecting Church From State

Bob Krumm, soon to be added to my blogroll, has some suggestions for a post-Kelo amendment to the state constitution. It's pretty good. I'd add a provision that bars state or local governments from ever using eminent domain to seize any church, synagogue, mosque, temple or other religiously-affiliated property (such as a church-run school or charitable mission) for any reason.

The Kelo decision empowers government to seize property and give it to another owner solely to increase the government's tax revenue - the property does not have to be blighted and the project does not have to be for public use, such as a road, school or public facility. It only needs to be a project that will increase government tax revenues. In the new post-Kelo era, religiously-affiliated property is especially vulnerable as it is usually exempt from property taxes - any use of the property would, therefore, increase tax revenues.

An amendment to the constitution - state or federal - barring government from using eminent domain to seize religiously-affiliated property under any circumstances would be in keeping with the vision of religious freeom guaranteed by our country's Founding Fathers - and would be a powerful campaign weapon against any incubment who failed to vote for it.

Interviewed...

I was just interviewed by Michael Davis of the Chattanooga Times Free Press regarding blogs and their impact on Tennessee politics. When the story comes out, I'll let you know - but I won't be able to link to it because the paper locks their online content behind a pay screen.

Questions For Corker

The Ed Bryant for Senate campaign is continuing to hammer rival Republican candidate Bob Corker for his ties to the most liberal labor union in the nation with a new press release asking two key questions that Corker - who has been fund-raising heavily among Democrats rather than Republicans - has so far failed to answer.

The questions: What has Mr. Corker done to become the only Republican candidate for federal office in America supported by the IBEW? And: Why is Mr. Corker now trying to hide his ties to labor unions that he proudly touted during his campaign for Mayor of Chattanooga?

You can read the press release here.

Bredesen Ignores Open Records Request

Given that Gov. Phil Bredesen has told two conflicting stories about his conversations with then-state Sen. John Ford regarding TennCare and Ford's client Doral Dental, I two weeks ago today submitted a request to the governor's office under the state's open record laws for copies of all emails, written communications, memos and transcripts of telephone conversations, from January 2003 through the present day regarding OmniCare and Doral Dental between the governor's office, TennCare administrators, the governor's legislative staff, the Department of Finance and Administration, and (now former) state Sen. John Ford.

The governor's office has not responded or even acknowledged the request.

What are they hiding?
____________________________________________________________
For more scrutiny of the Bredesen record, see Bredesen Watch.

Post-Kelo: Churches Are Especially Vulnerable

In the wake of the Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. New London, houses of worship - churches, synagogues, temples and mosques - may be most at risk of government seizure, warns Donald Sensing...

It's not our homes that are most at risk despite this case. It’s America’s churches, synagogues and mosques. If the purported intention of such property condemnation and seizure is increasing tax revenue, as Justice Stevens clearly believed it was, then there is no kind of building more vulnerable than a house of worship, for the simple reason that cities do not collect property taxes from houses of worship, nor any other kind of tax.

Furthermore, churches especially tend to occupy choice urban and suburban real estate because when towns were founded, one of the very earliest buildings to be erected was a church, almost always several churches of different denominations. In every city and town in America you will find churches sitting on what is now some of the most valuable land there.

But remember, U.S. Rep. Harold Ford Jr., a candidate for the U.S. Senate, thinks the Kelo decision is a "positive" thing.

Late to the Party

The Tennessean today concludes its three-part series on the culture of corruption at the state legislature. A good round-up, with an interesting paragraph noting that Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen "says he favors more disclosure of what lobbyists do."

Oh, really? Then why, Gov. Bredesen, when legislation was proposed a few months ago to require more such disclosure from lobbysists, where you nowhere to be found in the effort to try to get it passed? Why only now, with the legislature having gone home, are you suddenly interested in the ethics of the lawmakers who make our laws and the lobbyists who try to influence them?

Until the Operation Tennessee Waltz arrests of five sitting and former lawmakers on charges of recieving bribes from lobbyists, Gov. Bredesen, you simply didn't care about the issue of legislative and lobbyist ethics. That's documented fact. Worse, when state Rep. Frank Buck, long a crusader for ethics reform, asked you to provide leadership on legislative ethics reform two years ago, you, Gov. Bredesen, refused to help. And even now that the Waltz scandal has made ethics ripe for you, Gov. Bredesen, to engage in a little political grandstanding, the very first people your administration consulted in beginning to craft proposed ethics reforms for lobbyists and legislators is the lobbyists themselves, the very people who ought to be excluded from the ethics reform debate.

Gov. Bredesen, please read the Tennessean's sidebar today looking at seven sensible ethics reforms covering lobbyists and legislators, and why they haven't already become law in Tennessee like they are in many other states. One reason they aren't already law here is that, for more than two years - until the Waltz scandal made it a politically opportune time for you to suddenly show interest in legislative ethics, you failed to provide Tennessee the kind of leadership it desperately needed.

The corrupt culture of Capitol Hill was there long before Bredesen was elected governor, but he very deliberately did nothing to change it. For that, he ought to apologize to the people of Tennessee.

June 27, 2005

Cornwall: Kelo "a sad day for economic freedom."

Entrepreneurship professor Jeff Cornwall calls the Kelo decision "a sad day for the economic freedom of both the small businesses and the individual citizens of America." Cornwall, professor of management and director of the Center for Entrepreneurship , and also a blogger, writes:

I remember how angry I felt the day that the city of Richfield, MN announced that they would move to condemn people's houses and small businesses to allow Best Buy to build a new corporate headquarters. I did not know any of these people personally, but I was still angry about such an abuse of power. Private property is the foundation of our economy and our society. While there may be public projects important enough to require such drastic action, building a new corporate headquarters was not such a critical public good.

What was even more frustrating was that at that time I held an endowed chair in entrepreneurship and small business named after the late wife of Best Buy founder Richard Schulze.

Today the Supreme Court made such moves the law of the land. Not only will we now have to subsidize large corporations through tax breaks, but local governments can sweeten the deal even more by taking away our homes and our businesses to make way for these corporate giants to build their buildings wherever they like.

Harold Ford Jr. Calls Kelo Decision "A Positive"

Harold Ford Jr., a Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate from Tennessee, has endorsed the Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. New London, allowing local governments to seize provate property and give it to another private owner for purposes of econonmic development and to increase the government's tax revenue.

Blogging for Bryant has Ford's quote:

"I've always believed individual rights are a big thing..... but, I find value in the court's decision. As long as people are compensated fairly, I can appreciate the decision. Certain areas in our state are crying for development, if this decision helps - it's a positive."

Ford, by the way, has so far not answered the six questions I posed to all six candidates - both Republicans and Democrats - running for their party's nomination to succeed Sen. Bill Frist in the U.S. Senate from Tennessee. Those questions were posted on this blog last Thursday also emailed to the candidates. Responses have come in from Republicans Ed Bryant and Van Hilleary and Democrat Rosalind Kurita.

It's worth noting that Kurita, Ford's rival for the Democratic nomination, has taken a position on Kelo that is much more friendly to private property rights than has Ford.

Besides Ford, Republicans Bob Corker and Beth Harwell have not yet responded.

MEMO TO THE MEDIA: As a former journalist I know that one thing political reporters look for in covering a campaign is points of difference between the candidates. Well, now you have one - and on a very hot issue. Harold Ford Jr. thinks government ought to be allowed to take property away from poor people and give it to rich people who can redevelop it and pay more taxes. Repubicans Ed Bryant and Van Hilleary and Ford's fellow Democrat, Rosalind Kurita, disagree with him.

UPDATE: Here are two audio clips from the show, in Mp3 format. The first clip, which lasts about one minute, features Ford's initial response to Teddy Bart's first question about his view on the Kelo decision. The second clip, which lasts 3:21, features comments from Bart, comments from Democratic strategist Bill Fletcher talking about how the Kelo decision could become "a huge issue" (and a good issue for libertarians and conservatives), followed by more comments from Ford explaining why Kelo is a good thing.

Ford's comments show that he really doesn't understand Kelo. Before the Kelo ruling, governments already had the right to use their power of eminent domain to condemn blighted property for redevelopment, and even to involve private-sector companies in that redevelopment, so long as the new development served a public use, generally accepted to be a road, school or public facility of some kind. What Kelo did was to pave the way for govermnent to take private property and give it to someone else solely on the basis that the new owner might redevelop it into something that would generate more tax revenue.

Because nearly any property can theoretically be redeveloped into a more valuable property, thus generating more property tax revenue, what Harold Ford Jr. has called a "positive" Supreme Court decision in essence means that the government of Memphis could condemn any privately-owned piece of real estate in the city of Memphis - from blighted inner-city crack houses to the Peabody Hotel - and give it to another owner who would redevelop it into something that would generate more taxes.

In practice, Kelo means any local government can now take property from the less well-to-do and give it to the more well-to-do solely to increase the government's tax revenue.

Harold Ford Jr., then, favors the gross enlargement of government power to force you to sell your property to it for what the government - not you - deem to be proper compensation, even if you don't want to sell at any price - so that government may give your property to someone else.

Here are the audio clips: Clip 1 | Clip 2
Right-click either link to download.

Kurita Responds on Kelo Questions

Tennessee state Rep. Rosalind Kurita, now a candidate for the U.S. Senate from Tennessee, has answered the six questions I posed Thursday regarding the Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. New London. I posed the six questions on this blog and also in an email to all six candidates running for the U.S. Senate from Tennessee, promising to post their responses verbatim. Kurita chose to respond to all six questions in the form of a press release. Here is her response...

One day after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against private property owners in a case that has far-reaching implications for the future of property rights, Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Rosalind Kurita said the court was wrong in its decision and that she would fight for federal action to preserve the rights of private property owners.

"The Supreme Court got it wrong," Kurita said. "The unusual interpretation of the 5th Amendment by a majority on the court means private property rights are subject to the will of the powerful with no checks and balances. America was built on the principle of private property, and this decision flies in the face of what our Founding Fathers intended."

Kurita is referring to the Supreme Court's decision yesterday in the case Kelo v. City of New London. In that decision, the court ruled that government has the right to seize private property for other private development or to gain tax revenue even if the property is not blighted. The previous standard required that the development served some legitimate "public use" and in many cases, the homes or neighborhoods were blighted before they were condemned by governments for development of projects like parks and other improvements. Under this ruling, government leaders can transfer any privately-owned land in their jurisdiction to a private developer with little justification of the public benefit.

"This is a troubling precedent for all Americans. As a U.S. Senator, I'll stand and fight for the rights of property owners," Kurita said. "When the Supreme Court is wrong, they need to hear about it from our nation's leaders. Make no mistake; I'll be actively seeking solutions to correct this unfortunate decision by the nation's highest court."

Kurita said a founding principle of the United States was to protect citizens against the unchecked power of government. This ruling flies in the face of American principles. This ruling seems to say that "if you work hard and play by the rules, the government could seize your home." She noted that the ruling allows for government seizure of property not in extreme case of national security or to build a highway, but in cases where local government prefers to build businesses or other private developments in the place of neighborhoods.

-30-

A Fair Tax

Way back in December I wrote a post about a proposal for something called the Automated Payment Transaction Tax as a replacement for, essentially, the entire federal tax code. A reader has posted a new comment there today that I thought worth bringing to your attention...

The commenter, who blogs here, writes:

There's a much better proposal than the APT - the FairTax (H25 and S25 in the US House and Senate, respectively.

It's better than the APT because with the FairTax everyone who holds a Social Security card gets a monthly rebate to assure that they don't pay taxes at all up to the poverty level. In 2005, that's $183 a month for a single person. That assures that the truly poor pay no tax.

The FairTax gives everyone 100% of his/her pension or paycheck, repeals the income tax, social security taxes. corporate and employee taxes, capital gains and more yet still funds the US government at current rates.

Prices go down when those taxes are repealed because companies will no longer pass them along to customers. Paying the FairTax on every new item or service (used goods are not taxed) comes out about even, so we don't pay more.

Unlike the other tax proposals being considered now, the FairTax was developed and tested over a period of ten years by economists from Harvard, Rice, MIT, Stanford, the Cato Institute and others, so it's a serious, well-tested program rather than something dreamed up by professors or congressional lobbyists or tax aides.

The commission, by the way, has been given an additional two months to consider proposals, so don't expect the report as originally scheduled.

Learn more about this proposal that is enjoying massive grassroots support at www.fairtax.org.

Civic Pride

One of my favorite places along I-40 in Tennessee is about 45 minutes west of Nashville, a town called Bucksnort. Actually, I've never been to Bucksnort except for stopping at the gas station off the Bucksnort exit. But I like Bucksnort mainly because I can't believe anyone actually named their town Bucksnort. As Nashville continues to grow like kudzu, I have often said I know where the metro area's western expansion will come to a halt. Bucksnort. No one will ever buy nice homes in subdivisions called "Bucksnort Farms" or "Bucksnort Hills."

One enterprising Bucksnortian (Bucksnortist? Bucksnorter?) has Bucksnort.com emblazoned on the side of a barn along I-40, so I checked it out. Turns out it's for the Bucksnort Trout Ranch.

I may have to return to Bucksnort one day soon and take some more photographs.

The People's Legislature?

The Tennessean continues its three-part series examining the dysfunctional culture of the state legislature with its second part today looking at how the General Assembly often does its business by "closing itself off from the people it exists to serve" via secret meetings, closed records, unrecorded "votes" and more. Read the whole thing.

June 26, 2005

As Calls for Ethics Reform Grow Louder...

State Rep. Stacey Campfield has a long post the need for reform of ethics rules covering the state legislature and lobbyists - and also spotlights the incestuous relationship between lobbyists and the administration of Gov. Phil Bredesen.

Campfield:

It seems the heat is getting hotter on Governor Bredesen and he is not sure what to do. The people are screaming for reform, but the reform needed will directly hurt the Governor and his party. What am I talking about?

Well, lobbyists for starters. Many are good, low paid or voluteer lobbyists who work for a cause. But some receive 6 to 7 figures to influence laws and they do it well. The closer or tighter they are to the legislators or power the more they influence and the more money they can make.

Let's examine the Governor's cabinet-his “bastion of power and influence.” Governor Bredesen's head honcho in charge of handing out taxpayer funds and perks to companies is Matt Kisber, top brass over Economic Development. Mr. Kisber's wife is a well-paid lobbyist.

Dave Goetz, a former well-paid and very connected lobbyist, is now Finance Commissioner.

Jenna Lodge heads up General Services for the Governor. Her husband is lobbyist Dick Lodge.

Anna Windrow stepped down from serving on the Governor's staff for years and in just a few weeks managed to land some of the most plum lobbying contracts in the state.

Ford acted foolishly-and he was lazy. He took the money himself. If he had only told the E-Cycle people “I can only accept $1,000 from you or $5,000 from your PAC, but you can hire my son/spouse/daughter and pay them $100,000 to lobby me,” the FBI would still be empty handed.

Speaker Jimmy Naifeh and his lobbyist wife Betty Anderson seem to do quite well with their arrangement. We will never know how many figures they earn because they don't have to report it.(most suspect mid to high 6 figures)

Representative Joe Armstrong runs the committee that works on health care and TennCare. Think anyone might like to hire his wife? Yes, she too is a lobbyist and one of the best paid as well.

Campfield and state Rep. Beth Harwell each sponsored legislation to address these ethical issues but the legislation was killed in a Democratic-controlled subcommittee.

Campfield on Kelo

State Rep. Stacey Campfield, Tennessee's first blogging legislator, has some very good thoughts about private property rights and the Kelo v. New London decision handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday. Campfield is proposing legislation to reign in abuse of "eminent domain" powers by state and local governments in Tennessee. You can read all about it here.

Echo Chamber

Echoing what I've been saying for three long weeks now, Tennessean columnist Larry Daughtrey today notes that Gov. Phil Bredesen "wasn't much interested in legislative behavior a few months ago," even though now he is considering calling a special legislative session on legislator and lobbying ethics reform.

Daughtrey writes:

A special session may not be pretty. It will focus attention on the maneuverings of the lobbyist crowd to avoid meaningful reform. It will produce roll call votes in committees and on the floor to indicate which legislators are serious about producing results. It may even clarify the standards of conduct everyone expects from a part-time citizen legislature.

Sure, it could be politically explosive. Ramsey fears that the Democrats will try to take credit for cleaning up the system, and they will surely try. Democrats are suspicious that Republicans will use their Senate majority to put their own stamp on the issue and protect their favorite deep-pocket contributors.

Bredesen's ever-active pollsters have certainly told him what he could find out for free at any courthouse square coffee shop: Legislative ethics is now the hottest of Tennessee's political hot buttons, exceeding TennCare, education, abortion, highways and the right to carry your gun in a crowded bar.

The political danger is that nothing will happen. Bredesen will then be tarred as a weak leader who couldn't fix TennCare or the ethics mess as he campaigns for re-election next year. And legislative incumbents will face an even more hostile atmosphere.

Let's turn on the spotlight and make them all sweat.

The only problem with that is, both parties have their deep-pocketed contributors, and deep-pocketed contributors aren't the problem on Capitol Hill as there already are laws capping the amoung that a person can contribute to a lawmakers' campaign. The problem with the Tennessee legislature isn't that each party has some "deep-pocketed contributors" - the problems with the Tennessee legislature are a myriad of other things, ranging from not enough disclosure requirements on lobbyists to a complete lack of prohibition on legislators serving on committees that impact the industries or businesses in which they have a financial interest.

Daughtrey ignores all that and goes for the cheap shot at the GOP, the party that has "deep-pocketed contributors." But the biggest "deep-pocketed contributor" in Tennessee over the last few election cycles has given millions of dollars exclusively to Democrats, and helped bankroll the winning 2002 gubernatorial campaign. His name? Phil Bredesen.

Bredesen Bloviates While Sick Protestors Go Hungry

Sharon Cobb has continuing coverage of both the TennCare cuts protest at the state capitol and Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen's rather disastrous appearance at the National Press Club. Bredesen was at the National Press Club to discuss Medicaid reform while protesters were occupying his office to protest his unwillingness to reform TennCare instead of just slash a few hundred thousand people from the rolls - and the governor will not permit food and water to be brought in to the protestors, who will be locked in the capitol over the weekend. Cobb:

An ambulance is standing by at The Capitol to take out sick and exhausted protesters. Seems to me, it would better for all sides concerned if The Governor had simply let their families and friends bring food to them this weekend.

Anyone missing the irony of these people inside being denied food while protesting health care cuts, only to have an ambulance standing by to take them to a hospital where they won't be able to pay because their health insurance was just cut off?

How many people will die because of Bredesen's handling of TennCare?
____________________________________________________________
For more scrutiny of the Bredesen record, see Bredesen Watch.

Kelo Update

Blake Wylie has a very good post on the erosion of private property rights in America and the Supreme Court's atrocious ruling last week in Kelo v. New London. Asks Wylie, "Would you be calm if you finally woke up one day and realized you were no longer free?"

No.

Politics, Power and Privilege

The Tennessean today starts its three-part series, Culture on the Hill: Politcs, Power, Privilege, a look at how lobbyists run Tennessee's legislators to a large degree, and how legislators "close themselves off from the people they serve and use their own power to further insulate themselves and protect their culture."

The contemptuous reception some gave the ethics bill illustrates how a mix of politics, power and privilege ferments a culture of isolationism on Capitol Hill. Undercover federal agents easily ingratiated themselves in that culture, passing out thousands of dollars in return for favors.

The allegations suggest that Tennessee's legislature is susceptible to exploitation. Although ethics legislation passed with fanfare, several efforts to require more — or more regular — disclosure of the details of power and politics were killed.

The legislature insulates itself from the public with secret meetings, a lack of oversight of members' own conduct and open-government laws they have imposed on other governments but not themselves.

Rarely has the intersection of money and influence in Tennessee government been under more scrutiny than this year. The federal bribery sting capped a legislative session dominated by discussions of ethics.

While the federal indictments allege major corruption, critics say the confluence of money and power is at the heart of the culture on Capitol Hill, playing out in small, corrosive and legal ways every day.

The people didn't beat down the doors of the capitol that day. But they should have.

June 25, 2005

I'm Baaaaack

...I'm back from Memphis, happily. None of the other candidates for the U.S. Senate from Tennessee have yet responded to my questions re the Kelo decision since I received responses from Ed Bryant and Van Hilleary.

I'll be sending the campaigns and/or offices of candidates Harold Ford Jr., Rosalind Kurita, Beth Harwell and Bob Corker another email on Monday to remind them.

Limited blogging until then.

June 24, 2005

Bryant Responds on Kelo Questions

Former U.S. Rep. Ed Bryant, now a candidate for the U.S. Senate from Tennessee, has answered the six questions I posed Thursday regarding the Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. New London. I posed the six questions on this blog and also in an email to all six candidates running for the U.S. Senate from Tennessee, promising to post their responses verbatim. Bryant chose to respond to all six questions in the form of a single essay. Here is his response...

The U.S. Supreme Court decision Kelo v. New London takes a radical turn on the important issue of private property rights. The ruling is a blow to our Constitution’s 5th Amendment, and I believe it is devastating to private property rights. The court got it wrong!

Traditionally, state and local government could acquire private property, even against the owner’s will, through its eminent domain authority. This power was limited strictly to projects clearly within the realm of the greater public use, such as highways, utilities, schools, or to revitalize blighted areas. This Kelo decision expands the public use requirement so that the eminent domain power now is available for the purpose of boosting economic growth and tax revenue through commercial development.

The effect of this is to permit one’s home to be taken over objection and be converted to a private store or office building.

This 5-4 decision is a far-reaching, dangerous precedent and creates a gaping hole in the 5th Amendment and private property rights in America. I agree with the sentiments of Justice O’Connor in her dissent when she argued, "cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers."

Our Founding Fathers understood that liberty was intimately tied to private property rights. John Adams said, "The moment that the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the Laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. Property must be sacred or liberty cannot exist."

I believe we have a legal and moral duty to protect the private property interests of all Americans. When I served in Congress, I was committed to standing up for the rights of property owners, and will continue to work to limit government infringement of property rights as the next U.S. Senator from Tennessee.

Finally, the Kelo decision shows that court appointments matter. With my legal background, I’m in a unique position to actually serve on the Senate Judiciary Committee. There I can have a major impact on the confirmation of judges who will strictly interpret the Constitution and not legislate from the bench. We must confirm judges who understand and appreciate that freedom to own property IS a constitutional right, not to be impaired by a government able to seize your home for the benefit of those with power and political influence.

-30-

Hilleary Responds on Kelo Questions

Former U.S. Rep. Van Hilleary, now a candidate for the U.S. Senate from Tennessee, has answered the six questions I posed Thursday regarding the Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. New London. I posed the six questions on this blog and also in an email to all six candidates running for the U.S. Senate from Tennessee, promising to post their responses verbatim. Hilleary chose to respond to the six questions in Q&A format. Here is Hilleary's response...

Do you believe this to be a good or bad decision, legally? Why?
This decision violates the clear intent of the takings clause in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which is to restrict the ability of the government to take private property. The Amendment limits government takings to public use and requires just compensation for the property owner. That "public use" restriction has over time been held to include government facilities used by the public at large, such as schools and roads, and in limited cases for private entities with a public purpose, like common-carrier railroads. This Kelo decision explodes these restrictions and assigns a broader government latitude to take private property from one owner and transfer it to another private owner for the sole reason that the second owner is likely to upgrade it economically. This expansion of allowed takings clearly violates the narrow and restrictive intent of the Fifth Amendment right to private property ownership. As Justice O'Connor's dissent states, under this decision all private property is now vulnerable to a capricious taking.

Do you believe this to be a good or bad decision from a moral standpoint? Why?
The Kelo decision is troubling from a moral perspective because it puts the legislative body in a position to extinguish one private use of property for no clear compelling common good defined by a public use. The court effectively holds that a legislature's preference -- even a whim or passing fashion -- is suitable grounds for a taking. Taken to its extreme, this finding means that to avoid a taking, property owners must not only utilize property to their liking, but also to the legislature's liking. This court-sanctioned favoritism undermines the moral foundation of our legal system, the right of all individuals to equal and impartial treatment by the government.

Do you believe this to be a good or bad decision from a public policy point of view? Why?
By lowering the burden of proof for government takings for the purpose of economic development, this decision will inevitably widen government latitude for takings of other types. In Congress, I was among a group of property rights advocates who attempted to call attention to the alarming practice of regulatory takings, by which a government entity abusively prohibits a private property owners from profitably using their property through regulation, without compensation of any kind. These efforts to reduce unconstitutional regulatory takings will undoubtedly be set back by this decision and overzealous bureaucrats who seek to increase abusive regualtory takings will be emboldened.

Do you believe this to be a good or bad decision for economic reasons? Why?
This decision will have negative economic consequences for two reasons. First, it creates a disincentive for private property owners in distressed areas to upgrade property on their own. In the Kelo case, a municipality condemned property in a distressed area for ec