Integrity vs Political Expediency

Expediency - the doing or consideration of what is of selfish use or advantage rather than of what is right or just; self-interest.

Unless something goofy happens, we will not be electing a new TN house Speaker until January 2011. In the meantime, the debate whirls around letting current Speaker Kent Williams back into the Republican folds after his dastardly dash to the leadership position this past January. On Saturday, the GOP State Executive Committee will address the Williams reinstatement case.

The memory of the Speaker gamemanship maneuver still stings for some. Many of us political junkies were at the capitol that day for the historically significant vote. The GOP house majority had only been seen once in over a century. The message from the people had said "change"...and that included Tennessee as well. Thug rule had permeated the Tennessee legislature for way too long. The Tennessee Waltz was only a thumb in the dike. The people spoke loud and clear. And then the beast we call "politics" entered the room.

There were several of our brethren celebrating at Williams' victory party that night because they knew their chairmanships or other coveted appointments would be given by Williams. That is how the game is played.

To be fair, Williams didn't do a bad job as Speaker this past session, however, he did fragment a purpose...which I guess was the goal of the politicians all along. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. No matter what side of the aisle you sit on. It is always the people who lose when the devil gets his way.

So if I were sitting on that panel, I would have to go with Oscar Brock on this one. Integrity trumps expediency. I wish Jimmy Stewart's Mr. Smith would come to Nashville on Saturday.


GOP leadership seeks to block Williams from rejoining party

By: Andy Sher

NASHVILLE — Eighteen Tennessee Republican Party Executive Committee members are urging colleagues on the 63-member panel to reject any attempt to restore the GOP credentials of state House Speaker Kent Williams.

A letter to executive committee members dated Saturday warned that “the possibility exists that a motion to restore Kent Williams’ credentials as a bona-fide Republican will be raised at the next meeting of the State Executive Committee.” The panel meets Saturday.

“We pledge to uphold the decision of the State Executive Committee to bar Mr. Williams from appearing on the ballot as a Republican and ask for you to join our stand on principle in this matter,” said the letter from the group of 18, which includes Oscar Brock of Lookout Mountain and Dr. John Stanbery of Cleveland.

In January, Rep. Williams, of Elizabethton, voted with all 49 House Democrats to elect himself speaker over Republican Leader Jason Mumpower, of Bristol.

Then-Tennessee Republican Party Chairman Robin Smith, citing support from state executive committee members, later invoked her power to keep Rep. Williams from seeking re-election to the House as a Republican.

Since then Rep. Williams, who describes himself as a “Carter County Republican,” has sought to get himself reinstated. He supported Republican House members’ positions on a variety of issues this past legislative session and gave money to Republican Pat Marsh of Shelbyville, who ran in and won a special election.

A number of state House Republicans support his reinstatement.

Speaker Williams was not available for comment Monday.

Mrs. Smith gave up the chairmanship to run for Congress. Her successor, Chris Devaney, has said he is inclined to listen to executive committee members on the issue.

Mr. Brock said he’s standing on principle and doesn’t want to yield to “political expediency.”

“I think there’s times when honor and honesty and integrity matter, and this guy has displayed none,” Mr. Brock said.

“We think we have the vote to keep it (reinstatement) from happening, which I suspect and hope means the motion won’t be brought.”

Bobby Jindal

Bold moves have just been made by potential 2012 GOP Presidential Candidate Bobby Jindal. Alot of our GOP state Governors and Legislatures have been grumbling about the implications of our new stimulus package now that the details are coming to light. I was in a philosophical dilemma about it as well. I really think this is where "the devil is in the details" saying really hits home.

Any lawyer or legislator knows that clauses or even words in a document can change the entire purpose of any legal directive or legislative initiative. I am currently dealing with legislation that was written beautifully, passed and became an Act in Tennessee. There was one word switch during an amendment process, "May" instead of "Shall", that changed everything. 5 years later, over 880,000 constituents in Tennessee are still dealing with the repercussions. And let me tell you, changing ANYTHING in Nashville, once it is in place, is a daunting process to say the least.

Bobby Jindal knows that about his own home state legislative process and has responded accordingly. That took some major political cajones. I like that.

The strings attached to the current Administration's money purse may be too far reaching for our more conservative state leaders. Now let's see what everyone does now that this hand has been played.


Jindal catches flak for rejecting federal cash
February 22, 2009 By Robert Travis ScottCapital bureau

BATON ROUGE -- After becoming the first governor in the nation to reject a piece of President Barack Obama's economic stimulus package, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal defended his stance Saturday amid an outcry from the lieutenant governor and several state lawmakers who disagree with him.

The debate about Jindal's position on the stimulus plan coincides with a key moment in his continuing rise to national prominence, including his role as the Republican Party's pick to respond on national TV to Obama's address to Congress on Tuesday night.

Jindal traveled Saturday to Washington, D.C., to attend the National Governors Association conference, meet with the president and appear today on NBC's "Meet the Press."

His position on the stimulus already has earned him national media attention at a time when many other governors attending the same conference are seeking the limelight.

"It has always been very complicated to be a spokesperson for the nation and a spokesperson for the state at the same time, because those interests do not always line up," said Lt. Gov. Mitch Landrieu, a Democrat and brother of Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., one of the architects of the federal stimulus bill passed last week.

Mitch Landrieu, three state senators and Rep. Karen Carter-Peterson, D-New Orleans, held a conference call with reporters Saturday afternoon to say that Louisiana should fully embrace the federal stimulus money. They said Jindal's statements are sending the wrong message to Washington.

Agriculture Commissioner Mike Strain also joined the call to praise the stimulus bill's assistance to farmers.

Jindal is prepared to accept nearly all of the roughly $3.8 billion in financing and tax cuts that Louisiana is in line to receive under the stimulus bill, with much of the money available to help close a looming state budget gap of about $1.75 billion.

But the governor said Friday he would refuse $98 million for federal unemployment assistance because he said it comes with strings that would obligate the state to make permanent, costly changes in its law and would mean higher taxes and more administrative headaches for businesses.

The unemployment money, which would run out in about two years, would significantly broaden the conditions for drawing jobless compensation, with benefits available to people who have held a job for as little as three months before becoming unemployed, nine months less than the current standard.

The $98 million would not count toward closing the state's budget shortfall.

Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, a Republican, also has expressed reservations about taking the unemployment money, and Jindal said several other states are taking a close look at it.

"I don't think you're going to find this is an issue unique to Louisiana," Jindal said. "If you read the stimulus law, it actually requires permanent changes in state law. I don't think that's responsible. It's not good policy."

Speaking to reporters Saturday before departing for Washington, Jindal said his administration is looking at the stimulus bill "line by line, program by program" to see whether other programs in it should be rejected. In particular, he said, he is looking closely at the strings attached to the federal money for welfare assistance.

"Just philosophically, if I were altering the welfare provisions, I would have done it differently," Jindal said.

But no decision has made on whether to accept the welfare money, he said.

By scrutinizing the expansion of unemployment and welfare benefits, Jindal is focusing attention on two policy areas that often have separated Democrats from Republicans.

He said that although he found some of the provisions for jobless benefits in the stimulus bill "objectionable," his main reason for refusing the federal money was the potential future cost in business taxes.

Mitch Landrieu said Jindal's rhetoric and decisions could hurt the state directly because of the lost stimulus money and indirectly because the state is seeking other federal recovery and grant money.

"Instead of getting reluctant about receiving it, we should be aggressive about getting as much as we can," Landrieu said.

Sen. Robert Adley, R-Benton, who joined Landrieu on the media call, said, "We should never put ourselves in a position where we say we don't want it."

Adley said he does not think the unemployment benefits need to tie the state permanently to the program and that the Legislature could control the program's impact in later years.

. . . . . . .

Intestinal Fortitude

Wow. This one got me thinking. However much I hate all the bailouts, would I actually agree to putting my money where my mouth is?

This concept definitely requires a gut check.

Should Tennessee refuse bailout funds earmarked for the state?February 3, 2009 by Ken Marrero
What a difference an hour or two can make.

This morning I attended two meetings. The first featured WTN talk show host Ralph Bristol from Nashville’s Morning News and the second featured Jason Mumpower, the GOP Majority Leader for the TN House. The bailout and the Government’s role in influencing the lives of citizens via dispensing cash was a topic at both meetings.

In the first meeting, Bristol addressed Mitch McConnell’s plans to impact the US mortgage market. Linking to the Fox News story, Bristol noted,

McConnell on Monday demanded an amendment to President Obama’s “economic stimulus” package to give government-backed, 4% loans to homeowners – any credit-worthy borrower, including those who are seeking to refinance their loans. McConnell estimates it will save the average homeowner $466 a month — $5,600 a year, or – over the life of a 30-year mortgage — $167, 760.

He went on to say even though he stood to personally benefit from such a proposal he opposed it on principle because it was wrong for Government to be involved in the mortgage industry in such a fashion. It was little more than an appeal to voters to support him and his party because they were promising to impact citizen’s lives in ways the Constitution did not allow for. He added that until those who did not stand to benefit from a measure could vote for it and those who stood to benefit from a measure could vote against it - both votes on principle as opposed to personal benefit - the country would be at the mercy of whichever politician or political party promised the most. It was the general consensus of the meeting that sort of governance was currently the norm and there was little confidence, human nature being what it is, such tactics by Government could be stopped.

In the second meeting, Leader Mumpower mentioned Federal Bailout money in the context of how it might impact Tennessee’s state budget. Mumpower said he had some concerns about bailouts and noted Governor Bredesen might delay releasing his budget proposal until after it was clear how much money Tennessee was scheduled to receive. During the Q&A session, I asked Leader Mumpower what discussion the GOP caucus might have had about simply refusing to accept bailout money; sending it back instead on general principle. Mumpower responded the GOP Caucus had not had substantive discussions on the matter and that budget conversations would be upcoming but that there were those in the caucus who shared that sentiment.

After the meeting broke up a reporter for the Memphis Commercial Appeal approached me and asked me what my thoughts on the idea of refusing bailout money were. I responded that until people were willing to do the right thing regardless of personal cost, few substantive accomplishments would be realized. Those people who believe bailouts and faux Stimulus Packages are wrong have an obligation to back up their words with their actions or their words could rightly be questioned. The reporter noted that he had asked two elected representatives, also in attendance, to comment on the idea of refusing the money. He noted one simply laughed and walked away while another said if constituents found out that sort of money had been turned down when it could have been used to improve their district there would be trouble. These were Republican lawmakers. One would guess of the more conservative bent.

It’s not an outrageous proposition. Haley Barbour is considering it for Mississippi. So is Mark Sanford in South Carolina. Predictably, there has been a knee jerk reaction against the idea, with no discussion of the idea’s merit. Hopefully, the issue will get a fair consideration and airing both in the public square and in Legislative Plaza. It’s time to stand up for what we believe. If bailouts are bad, then so is taking bailout money. If bailouts are a good thing, then let’s have bailouts for everyone and not just a few. I’m curious to see what discussion this will bring to the Hill. Stay tuned …

Pork

While I sit here waiting for my bills to come out of legal, I am reminded of the earmark bs that seems to permeate state and federal government. Both McCain and Pres. Obama campaigned for "change" in government processes. Clean it up, make it fairer, get back to basics. Getting rid of earmarks was at the top of both of their lists. That federal "pork" adds up to HUGE tax dollars that could go elsewhere (like balancing the budget or getting rid of debt), and it adds a slimy film to state and federal politics in general.

So here we are again, wrangling over what "pork" actually means. Semantics. Let's hold their feet to the fire on this one.

GOP weapon: Obama earmarks pledge
By LISA LERER & CARRIE BUDOFF BROWN | 1/26/09 8:57 PM EST
Politico

As Barack Obama meets with Republicans Tuesday, some in the GOP have enlisted an unlikely ally to derail his $825 billion stimulus plan – Barack Obama.

They’re using Obama’s pledge to keep earmarks out of the massive bill to criticize Democrats in Congress – saying projects like family-planning funding and arts spending in the House version are exactly the kind of pork-barrel spending Obama promised he’d fight.

“Many conservatives are just getting upset that Barack Obama comes into office talking about change and his first big initiative is a massive $800 billion dollar pork barrel project,” said Brian Darling, director of U.S. Senate Relations at the conservative Heritage Foundation. “If he wants to cut wasteful spending the first the thing he should do is veto his own stimulus bill.”

At issue is a list of programs that Republicans say will do little to stimulate economic recovery, including $21 million to sod the National Mall, $50 million to fund the National Endowment of the Arts and $650 million for digital TV coupons. Republicans also have seized on millions that would be spent under the bill to expand family-planning services in the states.

The projects are a fraction of the massive spending bill – and Democrats dispute that they’re pork. But the items have given Republicans a hook to rally opposition to the bill, on conservative talk-radio and elsewhere.

And they’ve put Obama in an uncomfortable spot. He swept into Washington promising to find a new way of doing business in the Capitol, one that would be more focused on bipartisan compromise and less on wasteful special interest earmarks.

The Republican objections also erased any hope Obama had for quick passage of the bill, requiring a heavy lobbying effort on Capitol Hill that is bringing Obama himself to meet with Republicans in both chambers Tuesday.

Obama’s team also recognizes they won’t be able to approve of every aspect of the final bill – what he hopes will be the signature achievement of the first 100 days.

See Also
Power, politics, gossip on daily call
Obama: U.S. not your enemy
Republicans chew on DeMint
"There is a role for the (Congress) to play and we won't agree with everything," said one administration official. "It means there will be things in there we don't necessarily agree with."

The Senate version of the bill dropped some of the most controversial projects including the money for the National Mall and arts funding. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she has “no apologies” for the family-planning funds, which will take the burden off those programs in fiscally strapped states.

Still, Obama has stepped up his efforts to sell the bill, highlighting not just job creation but other goals like helping students go to college, lowering energy bills, and preserving health insurance for workers.

“This is not just a short-term program to boost employment,” said Obama in his weekly radio address. “It’s one that will invest in our most important priorities like energy and education, health care and a new infrastructure that are necessary to keep us strong and competitive in the 21st century.”

Obama hoped to have a stimulus bill waiting for his signature on his first day in office. The administration now hopes the bill is done by mid-February – a deadline Republicans seem to doubt will happen.

Republican lawmakers argue that the spending is too targeted on special interest programs and focuses on issues traditionally backed by more liberal members and their key constituencies. They believe the money would be better used to fund tax cuts, rather than more spending.

Democrats say the projects are legitimate ways to save jobs and help struggling families. For example, one administration official argued that spending $200 million to rehabilitate the National Mall would generate hundreds of jobs.

“There is more bang for the buck,” said Pelosi on ABC’s This Week on Sunday, “by investing in food stamps and in unemployment insurance than in any tax cut.”

The administration put out this counterargument to Republicans who are pulling out projects in an attempt to cast the bill as weighted down with pork: "The cost of doing nothing is dramatically higher."