It Matters Who Governs - Monteagle

Many of you have read previous posts where I have ranted about the ineptness of my local government...especially when it came to infrastructure issues. We have had a complete systemic failure in our sewer treatment functions, we have run out of water and we have had horrendous audit reports with issues that haven't been corrected in 20 years. Now if that isn't bad leadership, I really don't what is. But hey, we allowed it to happen. It does matter who governs folks.

Fast forward to the elections of 2008, one woman decided to run for city council. She wanted to make a difference in the community that she loved. She was elected in spite of some of the local naysayers. She was off-handedly given the task of getting grants for the town. What harm could she do there. They didn't know Marilyn Nixon.

Identifying needs, finding grant money, getting the paperwork done and taking the steps necessary to get those grants is an arduous task even for the most functional of local governments. But Marilyn doggedly pursued the courses of action to make it happen. She fortunately had two, sometimes three other votes on the council that saw the logic and the possibilities. It does matter who governs folks.

Yesterday, the state announced that Monteagle was #1 on the list for Clean Water Stimulus money in Tennessee. Our local government had failed so badly at providing vital services, that we beat out all the other deserving local governments in Tennessee for this top dog spot in Obama's "free" cash extravaganza.

But no matter how I feel politically about all this Stimulus bs, I say "Go Girl" to Marilyn Nixon. Sometimes it takes a woman to get the job done. It does matter who governs.

Tennessee is preparing to spend $77 million in stimulus money on clean water and drinking water projects, including several local ones.

Topping the state's priority list of more than 300 projects are eight Southeast Tennessee water improvement projects for which state officials are offering quick funding opportunities.

For drinking water funding, the Ocoee Utility District in Polk and Bradley counties, the Big Creek Utility District in Grundy County and South Pittsburg in Marion County have chances to get a total of a little more than $10 million.

For clean water projects, Monteagle, serving Grundy, Marion and Franklin counties; Ocoee Utility District; Benton in Polk County; plus Cleveland and Athens may receive more than $14.6 million.

Tisha Calabrese-Benton, spokeswoman for the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, said money is allocated through the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. She said the money will be combined with state funds for low-interest loans and grants.

If local communities decline the money or can't make deadlines, other communities will be considered according to the state's priority list, Ms. Calabrese-Benton said.

The federal money -- $57 million for sewer facilities and more than $20 million for planning, design and construction of drinking water facilities -- must be obligated by Feb. 17, 2010, state officials said. Utilities, water authorities or communities must have a signed construction contract or must have begun construction by the same date.

Many area utility officials could not be reached for comment Thursday, but Ocoee Utility District Manager Tim Lawson said his district has decided to put on hold a plan to build a water treatment system. The $1.6 million in funding will go to another project.

"We are proceeding with the drinking water application," Mr. Lawson said.

Two planned extensions will serve several hundred homes in Polk and Bradley counties, he said.

"We just don't think it's feasible for us to be able to start the (sewer) work by February, which we would have to do," Mr. Lawson said.

The state also is set to receive $458,806 to implement water quality management planning projects, including grants to three Tennessee development districts to conduct green infrastructure needs analyses.

American Dream

As I sit here juggling 7 different projects in 5 different fields of expertise, I start to scratch my head and laugh. Living in paradise has its complications.

I live pretty simply, but there are things in my life that need to be funded. When I moved to the mountains, I traded a "normal" life for one that required a great deal of creativity to survive financially. There are not that many jobs locally that need a great PR gal (or can afford one), so I started finding other opportunities that could capitalize on my unique skillsets. My current resume reads like a person with ADD. It is all over the board.

The common denominator is an entrepreneurial spirit. I totally understand the hardships associated with being out on your own. Insurance, taxes, liability, employees, liability, taxes, insurance, economy, overhead, taxes, liability, insurance. Each start-up business has its demons, but the benefits to making your own way by your own expertise is truly a thrilling and fulfilling endeavor...in fact, second only to being a parent. Owning your own business is truly the great American Dream.

So as we try to figure this economy thing out, I am thinking some of the greatest businesses were started during the worst of times. We are Americans and that is what we do best. That stimulus money should be stimulating us.

Entrepreneurs are best stimulus for the economy
Posted by Carl J. Schramm/ NJ Voices Guest Blogger March 04, 2009

The day after the House of Representatives voted on the stimulus package, I met with a Democratic member of Congress.

He told me, "I know the package won't begin to create enough jobs and certainly not now when we need them." Worse, he worried, "The voters will be on to this by the 4th of July and they won't support more spending then because they don't support it now.

"How," he asked, "do we get out?"

Those in charge in Washington think they know the answer: take a pledge from the Keynesian playbook. Spend (and borrow) massively and hope that government will spur demand and revive the economy.


The congressman knows better. This bill had everything to do with necessary political theater, and nothing to do with basic economics. Anecdotal experience and observation have taught him what drives growth: individual activity in thriving communities.

But what drives that activity is the "animal spirits" of entrepreneurs. And no one understood that better than another long-dead economist - one whose work is vastly more sound than John Maynard Keynes' and directly applicable to current times.

Joseph Schumpeter is best known for the concept of "creative destruction," which asserts that economies flourish only to the extent that entrepreneurs disturb the status quo. Entrepreneurs are job creators. More entrepreneurs mean more growth and more prosperity for all. Or, to put the equation in terms fit for our times, E=R: entrepreneurship equals recovery.

Only private enterprise -- in particular high-growth start-ups -- will create the jobs and the wealth to right America's listing economy. That is, if we let them.

What our economy most needs is another outbreak of entrepreneurial energy. It is waiting to happen all around us. As people face layoffs, many take with them wonderful ideas for entirely new products and services. Layoffs are tough, but they need not spell doom. The average age of those who found high-tech companies in this country is 39. In fact, twice as many founders are older than 50 as are younger than 25. The end of one career can be the beginning of another.

Some people getting pink slips might have ideas that could become entire new industries. Indeed, some of America's largest and most successful firms were started in recessions or bear markets or both -- including General Electric (founded in the wake of the Panic of 1873), IBM (started in the last year of the recession that followed the Panic of 1893), United Technologies (same year as the 1929 crash), Microsoft (1975 depth of "stagflation") and Guess (1981, worst post-World War II recession to date).

If Schumpeter were available to take a 3 a.m. call from a nervous president unsure if his stimulus policy will stimulate, he would say that the most important thing government can do is step out of the way and let the talented next generation of entrepreneurs do their work unhindered. But he might also recommend certain modest steps -- most of them not incorporated into the stimulus bill -- to help entrepreneurs work their magic.

First, encourage risk-taking through tax policy: exempt entrepreneurs from payroll taxes. In fact, a year-long moratorium on payroll taxes could have the economy back up inside of a year.

Second, exempt entrepreneurial businesses from capital gains taxes. The president promised as much during the campaign. Somehow, the Congressional scribes forget to get it into the stimulus package. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) tried to reinsert it as an amendment, but was blocked by members of the president's own party. Perhaps the president could prevail on the Congressional leadership to reintroduce this provision as a separate bill.

Third, focus on the needs of new businesses for affordable health coverage by telling insurance companies they can compete across state lines with a bare bones "entrepreneurs' policy."

Fourth, encourage the world's brightest students to come here, study, and become entrepreneurs. Over 40 percent of the growth of the Silicon Valley in the 1990s came at the hands of foreign-born entrepreneurs.

Finally, put some government spending into research and development for defense. We need more sophisticated protections against biologics and tactical terrorist weaponry, including cyber-assaults. Spending in these areas would bring forth thousands of new companies whose innovations and new jobs would be of great benefit to our economy, while helping America focus on the one place in modern society where seeking order is well-advised, namely, world affairs.

This is the way out. Over half of Americans aspire to start a business. In other words, the people who will save our economy are not mysterious: they are you and me. President Obama promised, "Yes we can!" American entrepreneurs are ready. They just need a little help. Schumpeter, not Keynes, shows the way.
Carl J. Schramm is president and CEO of the Kauffman Foundation and coauthor of Good Capitalism, Bad Capitalism.

Dave Ramsey

I started taking Dave Ramsey's Financial Peace University classes at my church. I thought it would be very informative both personally and professionally. So far, I concur on both levels and I am just on week 3 of 13.

Personally, I now realize how much money I spend on frivilous crap every week. Don't get me wrong, I have become very frugal in my old age, but I still found many holes in my methods once I put a microscope to it. Dave's approach is very straight forward and very logical...eerily so.

Professionally, the whole Dave Ramsey money logic is a paradigm shift in most Conventional Wisdom business theories. Which of course got me thinking about our current economic situation and how politics affect the before and after solutions.

What got me thinking about this was the Leased car discussion yesterday. I will be the first person to admit that I rely on professional advice for things I am not well versed on. I remember back in the day when my company was Leasing cars instead of purchasing them because of "tax benefits". So did that mean that the government was incentivizing companies to make bad money decisions? Because let me tell you, after Dave Ramsey's class yesterday, Leasing a car is the LAST thing you should be doing.

So now I start extrapolating. What other policies are being passed that incentivize companies to make bad money decisions? Is that where the debt-is-good business lobby comes in? Can't you see a well connected and convincing lobbyist telling a harried group of politicians that their product HELPS people, we just need this one little clause to make that happen. Sounds relatively innocent and then Voila, another layer of hell added to the broken system. I guess that is why I get freaked out when our legislators are "at work". I always think "How many more layers are we adding this year". No wonder I fear more government in our lives.

I don't have the answers, but I do know that Dave Ramsey's message speaks to me on many levels. It reminds me that we need to get back to basics, both personally and professionally. We need a paradigm shift.

Dave Ramsey for President!

Personal Responsibility

A friend of mine suggested that I attend a local Lent service last night because he thought it fit perfectly into my personal spiritual quest. Being intrigued, I decided to attend. He was right, it was a very moving experience which led me to do a little more research on the practices of Lent and the meaning behind them since I am relatively new to the organized program. My church handles Lent differently than the church I went to, but the premise is really still the same. A personal, thoughtful and giving journey before the Easter celebration. There is also alot of personal sacrifice involved in the journey. That hit home.

Well you know I will find a way to relate politics in pretty much everything that I do. It is a worldview I can't seem to escape. As a conservative, I feel personal sacrifice and personal responsibility are the cornerstones of my political convictions. Government is not the answer, it is up to each and every one of us to step up to the plate. During this economic downturn, we are all going to have to cinch our belts, quit whining and remember what is important in life. Lent is just a great reminder to do so.

Chuck's mom and my Grandma Nell are two peas in a pod.

An 87-Year-Old's Economic Survival Guide
by Chuck Norris
Posted 02/24/2009 ET
Updated 02/24/2009 ET

An old Spanish proverb says, "An ounce of mother is worth a pound of clergy." I believe that value holds, in or out of a recession. And seeing as my 87-year-old mother lived through the Great Depression, I think her value (and that of those like her) will increase through these tough economic times because her insider wisdom can help us all.

Mother was about 10 years old when her eight-member family endured the thick of those recessive days in rural Wilson, Okla., which only has a population of 1,600 today. The recurring droughts across the heartland during that period dried up the job market, making it worse in the Midwest than it even was in the rest of the country. Over the years, my grandpa worked multiple jobs, from the oil fields to the cotton fields, and he was even a night watchman. The family members did what they could to contribute, but most of them were simply too young to play a major part.

In 1933, when President Franklin Roosevelt took office, his administration, through the Works Project Administration, brought about the employment of millions in civil construction projects, from bridges to dams to airports to roads. My grandfather traveled about 90 miles for a day's work to help build the Lake Murray dam. But with a far smaller ratio of jobs to potential laborers, if Grandpa worked five days a month (at $1.80 a day), it was a good month.

Like most families, my mother's family didn't have running water or electricity. And Granny did her best to keep the outhouse clean, with Grandpa helping by regularly depositing lye to control the odors. (You can imagine how the hot, humid Oklahoma summers turned that outside commode into one smelly closet-sized sauna.) A "scavenger wagon" came by once a week and cleaned out the hole, which had a small chairlike contraption over it with the center punched out. (They once had a two-seater in there, which allowed for two people to enjoy each other's company and conversation. Mom told me that she always felt a little upper-class when she sat with someone else!) By the way, and I'm not trying to be crude, toilet tissue wasn't around, so they used pages from Montgomery Ward catalogs (and you wondered why the catalogs were so thick). No joke -- they preferred the non-glossy pages. I'll let you figure out why.

Got the picture? With that in mind, I turn to a recent conversation I had with my mother. I asked her, "How would you encourage the average American to weather the economic storms of today?"

Here's her advice, in her words:

-- "Get back to the basics. Simplify your life. Live within your means. People have got to be willing to downsize and be OK with it. We must quit borrowing and cut spending. Be grateful for what you have, especially your health and loved ones. Be content with what you have, and remember the stuff will never make you happy. Never. Back then, we didn't have one-hundredth of what people do today, and yet we seemed happier than most today, even during the Great Depression.

-- "Be humble and willing to work. Back then, any work was good work. We picked cotton, picked up cans, scrap metal, whatever it took to get by. Where's that work ethic today? If someone's not being paid $10 an hour today, they're whining and unwilling to work, even if they don't have a job. The message from yesteryear is don't be too proud to do whatever it takes to meet the financial needs of your family.

-- "Be rich in love. We didn't have much. In fact, we had nothing at all, compared to people today, but we had each other. We were poor, but rich in love. We've lost the value of family and friends today, and we've got to gain it back if we're ever to get back on track. If we lose all our stuff and still have one another and our health, what have we really lost?

-- "Be a part of a community. Today people are much more alone, much more isolated. We used to be close with our neighbors. If one person had a bigger or better garden or orchard, they shared the vegetables and fruits with others in need. Society has shifted from caring for one another to being dependent upon government aid and welfare. That is why so many today trust in government to deliver them. They've forgotten an America that used to rally around one another in smaller clusters, called neighborhoods and communities. We must rekindle those local communal fires and relearn the power of that age-old commandment, 'Love thy neighbor.'

-- "Help someone else. We never quit helping others back then. Today too many people are consumed with their own problems and only helping themselves. 'What's in it for me?' is the question most are asking. But back then, it was, 'What can I do to help my neighbor, too?' I love Rick Warren's book The Purpose Driven Life, and especially his thought, 'We were created for community, designed to be a blessing to others.' Most of all, helping others gets our minds off of our problems and puts things into better perspective.

-- "Lean upon God for help and strength. We didn't just have each other to lean on, but we had God, too. We all attended church and belonged to a faith community. Church was the hub of society, the community core and rallying point. Today people turn to government the way we used to turn to churches. It's been that way ever since Herbert Hoover's alleged promise of a 'chicken in every pot' and President Roosevelt's New Deal. Too many have abandoned faith and community. We trust in money more than God. And maybe that's a reason why we're in this economic pickle."

Now that's conventional wisdom that should be shouted and posted in every corridor of government, every community across America, and every blog on the Internet.

Call me overly pragmatic, but I think a little practical wisdom and encouragement is what we all need about now. Mom always was good for that. She still is.

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.

. . . . . . .

Stimulus Today

I haven't seen the final outcome of what is packed in the several hundred page document, but if it reflects any of these statements, I will probably lose my mind...again.

Here’s how The Associated Press explained it: “Undocumented immigrants who are not eligible for a Social Security number can file tax returns with an alternative number. A House-passed version of the economic recovery bill, and one making its way through the Senate, would allow anyone with such a number, called an individual taxpayer identification number (TIN), to qualify for the tax credits.”
In case you didn’t know it, any illegal can get a TIN number from Social Security, no questions asked.
This means illegals who broke the law to get here will be eligible immediately for federal cash — up to $1,000!
It gets worse. Let me detail for you some facts from the “stimulus”:
• More than $4 billion is earmarked for "neighborhood stabilization activities" — money that will go to groups like ACORN, which worked closely with the Obama campaign, the same group accused of massive voter fraud.
• Almost half of the proposed spending will directly benefit the Service Employees International Union, federal, state, and municipal employee unions, or other Democratic-controlled unions, according to writer Ben Stein.
• $600 million goes for news cars for top government bureaucrats.
• Obama promised major infrastructure projects — yet only 5 percent of all the money goes for this.
• $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts.
• $75 million to fund anti-smoking programs.
• $650 million for the switch from analog television to digital.
• $335 million to help prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.
• $600 million for “climate change” research programs.
This is just a small part of the long laundry list of trivial, weird, and simply outrageous programs being funded in the Obama stimulus bill, which goes on for 680 pages — so long no one in the House was believed to have read it before voting for it!
Just to show you the tremendous waste, there is so much money appropriated in this bill you could give every unemployed person in the nation a check for $75,000 for the amount being spent.

He and his Democratic allies are simply wasting hundreds of billions of our money in a clear “payoff” to Democratic Party interest groups and unions that backed him and the Democrats in Congress during the last election.
Tom DeLay put it best when he said Obama’s program is “just complete, out-and-out writing of checks to people that don’t pay taxes. These are welfare checks that are called tax cuts.”
Scary?
You better believe it. The Democrats are making Freddy Krueger look like a reasonable fellow.

Conspiracy Theory?

I think this topic was covered in an earlier post during election season, but it begs repeating since we just passed a bill that brings us one step further into government control. Thanks for sharing Ed.

Gang, in case you haven't noticed the Senate just voted in the scamulous bill, 61 to 37. We're getting screwed by the very people we voted into office. This is the most expensive government spending program in the history of the planet, and even worse the Congress/President in less than a month are about to push our country over a slippery slope to Socialism/Communism from which we may never recover. What's ridiculous is that Arlen Spector (one of 3 Republicans supporting this in the Senate) was on Fox News this morning being questioned about some of the healthcare provisions which he admitted he had no idea were in the bill. As a matter of fact, it was evident that he hadn't even read the bill.

Don't think that all of this was something that was just dreamed up since Obama was elected. I, for one, think what's happening is a more sinister plan the Democrats (and some Republicans) have been planning for years. All they needed was a Democratic President, control of the House and Senate, and an economic crisis (which they created while the Republicans were asleep at the wheel with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) to get 'er done. Well guess what? Why do you think they say this has to be done NOW, it CANT WAIT. That's because they're pushing this through without open debate and hope to keep the details as much as possible under the radar of the general public.

So, it's done. What you're witnessing is a hostile takeover of every aspect of YOUR life by the government. It's a "coupe de tat", which is often called a "coup" defined as the sudden unconstitutional overthrow of a government by a (typically small) part of the state establishment (usually the military bt not in this case-yet) to replace the branch of the stricken government, either with another civil government or with a military government. All done very peacefully without a shot fired.

There's nothing you or I can do about it until the next time we vote for members of the House and Senate; however, the President in the past day or two has just changed how the next Census will be managed (instead of going through the Commerce Department it will now be managed directly out of the office of the President) so the Democrats can reapportion how the districts are laid out, assuring them they will maintain a majority position in the government.

In case you've never read the 10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto per Karl Marx (as shown in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Communist_Manifesto) here they are:
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public
purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank
with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the
State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the
bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil
generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially
for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of
the distinction between town and country, by a more equal distribution of the
population over the country.
10.Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's
factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial
production.[6]

According to the Communist Manifesto, all these were prior conditions for a transition from capitalism to communism.
Any of these look familiar? Did you see the front page of the Newsweek magazine yesterday? "Whether we like it or not—or even whether many people have thought much about it or not—the numbers clearly suggest that we are headed in a more European (aka Socialist) direction." http://www.newsweek.com/id/183663

If you really want to get scared go google "End Game" or "Civilian Inmate Detention Camp" or look at http://blog.puppetgov.com/wp-content/2008/11/r210_35.pdf

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 …

Stimulus 101

My West Point friend sent this one to me. I am was so amused that I had to post it.

Subject: Stimulus Package Explained

Sometime this year, taxpayers will receive an Economic Stimulus Payment.
This is a very exciting new program that I will explain using the Q and A format:

"Q. What is an Economic Stimulus Payment?
"A. It is money that the federal government will send to taxpayers.

"Q. Where will the government get this money?
"A. From taxpayers.

"Q. So the government is giving me back my own money?
"A. No, they are borrowing it from China. Your children are expected to repay the Chinese.

"Q. What is the purpose of this payment?
"A. The plan is that you will use the money to purchase a high-definition TV set, thus stimulating the economy.

"Q. But isn't that stimulating the economy of China ?
"A. Shut up."


Below is some helpful advice on how to best help the US economy by spending your stimulus check wisely:

If you spend that money at Wal-Mart, all the money will go to China.

If you spend it on gasoline it will go to Hugo Chavez, the Arabs and Al Queda

If you purchase a computer it will go to Taiwan .

If you purchase fruit and vegetables it will go to Mexico, Honduras, and Guatemala (unless you buy organic).

If you buy a car it will go to Japan and Korea .

If you purchase prescription drugs it will go to India

If you purchase heroin it will go to the Taliban in Afghanistan

If you give it to a charitable cause, it will go to Nigeria .

And none of it will help the American economy.

We need to keep that money here in America . You can keep the money in America by spending it at yard sales, going to a baseball game, drinking beer (domestic ONLY), or getting tattoos, since those are the only businesses still in the US.