Rep. Joe Carr demands apology from Daniel Horwitz

by Daniel Horwitz

 

Daniel Horwitz

On January 16, 2013, Rod Williams posted this article criticizing State Representative Joe Carr (R-48) for introducing House Bill 42.  (For readers who have not followed the lively debate concerning HB 42 that has taken place both on this blog and elsewhere, the bill calls for the arrest and criminal prosecution of any Federal agent who attempts to enforce certain Federal gun control laws here in the state of Tennessee.)  After noting – correctly – that HB 42 would be a clear violation of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Rod Williams was in turn subjected to sharp criticism from several fringe members of his party.  In defense of Mr. Williams, I then posted two articles on this blog – “Rod Williams is Right About the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution” and a response to Tracy Tarum – in which I made the following three statements criticizing Representative Carr:

 

 (1) “There is absolutely no excuse for disregarding the Constitution in order to score a few cheap political points”;

 

(2) “If I were one of [Joe Carr’s] constituents, I would consider his refusal to comply with [his oath to uphold the Constitution] to be every bit as disqualifying as his belief that women who have been violently raped can’t become pregnant”; and

 

(3) In response to a hypothetical alluding to Joe Carr, I suggested that he had “introduce[d] a bill calling for the arrest of Federal agents in order to gin up support from his base in anticipation of a primary challenge to a Congressman beleaguered by a recent abortion scandal.”

 

 As a result of these criticisms, I received several email messages (copied below) from Representative Carr requesting that I refrain from “impugn[ing his] integrity by commenting without having discussed” with him his motives for filing House Bill 42.  He also asked me to “post a retraction in those publications that [I] opined about [his motives] for filing House Bill 42.”  Representative Carr then informed me that my speculation that he had introduced HB 42 solely in an effort to gin up support from his base was “more than just unfortunate it is inaccurate,” not to mention “unfounded and unsubstantiated.”  Finally, he further questioned why I had linked to “a liberal article from the Nashville Scene about a conversation [concerning the capacity of rape victims to become pregnant] that was taken out of context.”

 

In response to the above requests, I informed Representative Carr that I would be happy to post a retraction if he would “explain to me the actual reasons why [he] filed HB 42, as well as divulge the person or persons whom [he had] consulted with respect to [its] constitutionality.”  I also explained to him that I had not known “that the conversation reported in the Scene was taken out of context,” and that if he “would be willing to elucidate [his] position on the issue of rape and pregnancy further so as to place it in its proper context, I would gladly run that correction as well.”  Furthermore, I explained to him that I “seriously doubt that anybody is operating under the false impression that I consulted with [him] about this bill before questioning [his] motives.”  Finally, I noted that “[g]iven what I believe to be the obvious unconstitutionality of [his] bill, and given that [his] decision to introduce HB 42 coincided so closely with [his] announcement that [he] would seek the 4th Congressional District seat, I think that my speculation regarding [his] intentions was a far cry from “‘unfounded.’” 

 

My requests for the above clarifications were each rebuffed, and I was also accused of having “an ulterior motive apart from whether HB42 is constitutional.”  Representative Carr further informed me that he hoped that I would “change [my] mind about the use of tactics regarding politics of personal destruction.”  Thus, in an effort to clear the record to his complete satisfaction, I would like to offer the following clarification:

 

I do not know Joe Carr personally, and although I have followed much of his work, I have never had any contact with him prior to our recent email exchange.  I also did not speak with Representative Carr at any point before speculating about why he had introduced HB 42.  If anyone was operating under the impression that I knew Joe Carr or had consulted with him before criticizing him for introducing HB 42, I deeply apologize.  To set the record straight, although I am certainly not a fellow “conservative Republican” (as he put it), I also have no “ulterior motive” in this matter.  For the sake of balance, I have also been sharply critical of the Democratic Metro Council in this blog, the Tennessean and elsewhere for the protectionist regulations that the Transportation Licensing Commission has imposed upon Nashville’s taxi and limousine industries, and I have no intention of ending this criticism until the market is allowed to operate freely.

 

Having clarified that I do not know Joe Carr personally and have never met him, let me also emphasize the fact that I still have absolutely no reason to believe that his decision to introduce HB 42 was anything but a well-timed yet completely shameless political stunt.  HB 42 is a bill that is so obviously unconstitutional that only believers in “natural law” and God-given rights to firearms and high capacity ammunition clips will rise up to defend it.  It was also reported by the Tennessean and other news outlets on December 20, 2012 that Representative Carr had formed an exploratory committee to “determine the viability of a successful run” against 4th Congressional District Representative Scott DesJarlais, whose political career has probably come to a close after his multi-faceted abortion scandal became public last year.  Given that Representative Carr introduced the obviously-unconstitutional-but-apparently-very-popular HB 42 on January 15th – a mere twenty-six days after announcing he would run for Congress – the connection seems fairly clear to me.  If Joe Carr would be willing to explain to me or anyone else why I’m so off-base in this critique, however, I will continue to welcome the clarification.

Below are the email exchanges:

On Jan 26, 2013, at 7:21 AM, Joe Carr <joecarr48@gmail.com> wrote:

Mr. Horwitz, 

I hope this email finds you doing well. To my knowledge you and I have never met nor spoke. You have on several different occasions felt it necessary to comment and opine on my motives for filing House Bill 42. You do not know my motives and you can only impugn my integrity by commenting without having discussed the issue with me first. I respectfully ask that you refrain from doing so further. Your comment that I was motivated by a desire to "gin up support from his base in anticipation of a primary challenge"  is more than just unfortunate it is inaccurate.

I would be grateful if you would post a retraction in those publications that you have opined about motives my for filing House Bill 42.

Regards,

Joe Carr

State Representative District 48

205 War Memorial Building

Nashville, TN 37243

615-741-2180

______________________________________

 On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Daniel Horwitz <daniel.a.horwitz@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Representative Carr,

Thank you for your email and public service.  

 If you would be so kind as to explain to me the actual reasons why you filed HB 42, as well as divulge the person or persons whom you consulted with respect to the constitutionality of this bill, I would be more than happy to post the correction if Rod Williams accepts it for publication.  

Thanks very much,

Daniel Horwitz

daniel.a.horwitz@vanderbilt.edu; daniel.a.horwitz@gmail.com

Cornell University, BA 2010

Vanderbilt Law School, JD Candidate 2013

___________________________________________

 On Jan 26, 2013, at 9:42 AM, Joe Carr <joecarr48@gmail.com> wrote:

Mr. Horwitz,

You posted comments about me and my motives before contacting me or speaking with me about the bill. I will be glad to discuss why I filed the bill and who I consulted with as soon as you publish an acknowledgement that your opinions were published without having contacted me first. 

In addition I have presumed you to be a conservative republican although I don't know this to be factually correct. None the less can you explain to me the relevance of you linking a liberal article from the Nashville Scene about a conversation that was taken out of context?

Regards,

Joe Carr

______________________________________

On Jan 26, 2013, at 10:20 AM, Daniel Horwitz <daniel.a.horwitz@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Representative Carr,

You are an elected official, and I am merely a concerned citizen.  For better or worse -- and I think for better -- public criticism comes with the territory of elected public service, and I seriously doubt that anybody is operating under the false impression that I consulted with you about this bill before questioning your motives.  With respect, I will not pursue a correction until I have some reason to believe that my speculation about your intentions was inaccurate.  As noted previously, however, if you would be so kind as to provide me with those reasons, I'd be happy to present them publicly for a larger conservative audience.  

For clarification, I am not a Republican, nor am I a conservative as that term is traditionally used today.  I did not, however, know that the conversation reported in the Scene was taken out of context, which I think is important.  Thus, if you would be willing to elucidate your position on the issue of rape and pregnancy further so as to place it in its proper context, I would gladly run that correction as well.  I also think that a whole lot of voters would appreciate it if you would precisely detail your position on abortion in the case of rape, as well as explain the reasons why you take whatever position you hold.  

Sincerely,

Daniel Horwitz

daniel.a.horwitz@vanderbilt.edu; daniel.a.horwitz@gmail.com

Cornell University, BA 2010

Vanderbilt Law School, JD Candidate 2013

 _____________________________________________

 On Jan 26, 2013, at 11:02 AM, Joe Carr <joecarr48@gmail.com> wrote:

Mr. Horowitz,

It was you who made an unfounded and unsubstantiated accusation as to my motives regarding HB42 and matters unrelated to the bill. It is not my responsibility to prove them wrong.

It is obvious from your response that you have an ulterior motive apart from whether HB42 is constitutional. I don't know what your motives are and at this point it doesn't matter. I will say I did expect better from a obviously very talented 3rd year law student.

I hope you change your mind about the use of tactics regarding politics of personal destruction. 

Blessings,

Joe Carr

Sent from my iPhone

____________________________________________

On Jan 26, 2013, at 12:10 PM, Daniel Horwitz <daniel.a.horwitz@gmail.com> wrote:

 Dear Representative Carr,

I have no "ulterior motives."  I simply take an interest in our state's politics, and I take seriously my elected representatives' obligation to comply with constitutional governance.

Given what I believe to be the obvious unconstitutionality of your bill, and given that your decision to introduce HB 42 coincided so closely with your announcement that you would seek the 4th Congressional District seat, I think that my speculation regarding your intentions was a far cry from "unfounded."  Again, I would welcome your clarification regarding any of the criticisms that I have levied against you, and I suspect that your constituents would as well.  

Best,

Daniel Horwitz

daniel.a.horwitz@vanderbilt.edu; daniel.a.horwitz@gmail.com

Cornell University, BA 2010

Vanderbilt Law School, JD Candidate 2013

Daniel Horwitz is a third year law student at Vanderbilt University Law School, where he is the Vice President of Law Students for Social Justice.  He can be contacted at daniel.a.horwitz@vanderbilt.edu.

 I  extend to Representative Carr the opportunity to respond to this blog post should he so desire. Rod

 

Top Stories

Thoughts about guns-in-trunks and property rights

While I have been critical of the proposed "guns-in-trunks" legislation, I would like to clarify my position. I am not as opposed to the actual legislation as I am the way it has been presented and pushed. The bill will soon come to a vote and undoubtedly it will pass. If I were in the State legislature and my constituents had lobbied me to support this bill, I would most likely vote for it also, so I am not critical of those who are going to vote for the proposal.

I have been critical of the argument that when an employer or other private property owner prohibits you from carrying a gun on to his property that is somehow a violation of your Second Amendment rights. It is not. That is no more a violation of your Second Amendment rights than if The Tennessean chooses not to print your letter-to-the-editor is a violation of your freedom of the speech rights guaranteed in the First Amendment. If a shopping mall owner says you may not distribute the Watchtower in his shopping mall parking lot, that is not a violation of your freedom of speech rights or your freedom of religion rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. All of our constitutional rights are protections against government, not restrictions on our fellow citizens. Forcing someone to allow guns on their property is a violation of private property rights. It is a taking of another's rights to their property.

My second criticism is the way the gun lobby used raw political power and bullied those who would not bend to their will. Because former chair of the Republican caucus Debra Maggart, a solid conservative and herself an advocate of second amendment rights and an NRA member and gun owner, would not push the bill through last session the gun lobby slandered her and threw massive amounts of money into her campaign in an effort to defeat her and they were successful. I find that highly offensive. I find such raw political power frightening. I don't like bullies.

If I think that taking away the right of a property owner to determine who may bring a weapon onto his property is an infringement on his property rights, then how can I now say I would most likely support it? Our rights are not absolute. We already accept many restrictions on our private property rights. Zoning says you cannot operate a garbage dump in a residential neighborhood. At one time many of this questions of how far you could go in using your property that distracted from your neighbors enjoyment of his property was a matter of common law, but now we have codified these laws.

We accept that you cannot raise pigs in a residential community. Here in Nashville, you may now raise chickens but the number is limited and you must get a permit. We accept that that is a grant from government, not a right. We accept that the government can tell you how much of your lot can be occupied by your structure and how tall you can build it and that you cannot park on the grass in your own yard. While we accept many zoning laws and building codes that restrict what we can do with our property, if a private property owner is operating a business, we accept even more restrictions. There are many ways in which we tell the owner of a business not only what he may not do, but what he must do. We accept that the government tells you how many parking spaces you must have based on the type of business you have. A real estate office does not have to have as many parking spaces as a restaurant. Businesses must make reasonable efforts to accommodate the handicapped. If your sale alcohol you must stop serving by 2 AM. We already accept many restrictions on the rights of property owners.

I only barely remember it, but I remember the civil rights movements when Blacks could not go to movie theaters or eat in restaurants or stay in motels. Most people in the South thought that was perfectly OK. The effort to require that owners of businesses serving the public accommodate anyone regardless of color or race was met with strong opposition. Sure, some of it, maybe most of it, was based on bigotry, but there were those who made a principled argument that for the government to require a restaurant to serve people the owner did not want to serve was an infringement on the property rights of the owner.

Most recently we have seen government requiring most eating and drinking establishments to ban smoking. I myself miss smoke-filled bars and enjoy smoking while drinking. I think that was a government over reach and think each establishment should get to decide their own policy. On the other hand, I support an end to "whites only" policies although I accept that both are infringements on the rights of property owners.

How do I square this circle? One does not have to be consistent. Rights are not absolute and sometimes policies are judgment calls decided by the political process. Let us go back to what I said earlier, that if a shopping mall owner prohibits you from distributing the watchtower on his property, your First Amendment rights have not been violated. You have no right to proselytize on the property of another. If I was a legislator, I would not support legislation saying a mall owner must let you distribute religious tracts on his property. Now, consider a mall owner who said you were not permitted to have a Bible in the glove compartment of your car while in the parking lot of his mall. That is still not a violation of your First Amendment rights, however I would support legislation saying mall owners could not impose such restrictions.

Top Stories

Tony Roberts seeks reelection as 2nd Vice Chair of the Davidson County Republican Party

Tony Roberts

Tony Roberts of Nashville has announced his candidacy for reelection to the position of 2nd Vice Chair of the Davidson County Republican Party.  Tony is a single father of two daughters and a realtor specializing in residential and commercial real estate.

He is a leader and one of the founders of the Conservative Groups of Middle Tennessee. He is presently the chair of the newly founded GOP Minority Coalition of Tennessee. He has also worked as an officer of elections for the past 12 years for the Davidson County Election Commission in representing the Republican Party. He has held fundraisers for local candidates for city council and for state house races. He also has worked walking door-to-door for candidates and worked the phone banks.

Tony has worked with many conservative groups including the College Republicans and Young Republicans. He was a past vice chair of the Davidson County Republican Assembly. He is a member of the Latino Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, West Wilson Chamber of Commerce, West Wilson Rotary Club, involved with the Chinese Chamber of Commerce, vice president of the board of directors for the Wilson County Arts Alliance, member of the Tea Party, member of the Tennessee Republican Assembly, member of the Center Right Coalition, member of Eagle Forum, member of the Standard Club of Nashville, and a member of the City Club of Nashville. He is a member of the Cathedral of Incarnation of Nashville where he serves as an usher. His education includes a BA from the University of Tennessee, a BS and an MBA from the University of Phoenix.

Tony wants to organize the Party from the precinct level up and for the Party to be inclusive of all Republicans.  Opening up the doors of participation are the tools to grow the party, he says. “How does one know who we are as conservatives and Republicans without the knowledge of what we believe and how we plan to achieve our goals. We as Republicans too often stand on the sidelines as cheerleaders hoping our philosophies will be heard. We are in an economic and a constitutional war with present leaders infringing on our rights as free citizens. I have been in the trenches for years and feel that we must take our positions and make a stand or this nation will fall by the wayside as so many nations have fallen in the past."

The goals for 2014 must be strategically formulated in the year 2013, says Tony. "We must participate in the building of grassroots participation and the vetting of true candidates for the cause. They must be trained in the execution of our beliefs and not waver."

Top Stories

Congratulations John Ryder

John Ryder

At last Tuesday's First Tuesday, we were told that some news would be forthcoming regarding our guest speaker. Now we know what it is. John Ryder has been named the new general counsel of the Republican National Committee.

Mr Ryder is a Republican Party national committeeman from Tennessee, first elected in 1996. He served from 1996 to 2004 and again from 2008 to the present. He chairs the RNC's redistricting committee and also the Presidential Nominating Schedule Committee. He is a member of the law firm Harris, Shelton, Hanover and Walsh located in Memphis.

Mr. Ryder was a very interesting guest speaker last Tuesday, talking about what is going on behind the scene in the Party and sharing his insights into the challenges and opportunities we face as a party. That was the second time I have heard him speak. He is impressive.The Party will be well-served by Mr. Ryder. Congratulations!

Top Stories

TN bill would require ultrasound before abortion

Senator Jim Tracy has introduced a bill that would require women to undergo a “transabdominal ultrasound” and wait at least 24 hours before going forward with an abortion.(link). A transabdominal ultrasound is the procedure where the women belly is coated with lotion and a wand-like devise is rubbed across her belly. The procedure allows the women to see the baby she is carrying and hear the heartbeat.

This is a good  bill and needs to pass. If more women had to come face to face with the reality that the abortion they are about to have really is the killing of the baby they are carrying, there would no doubt be fewer additions. If they had to hear the beating of the heart and see the pictures of the baby in the womb and then think about it for a day, I am sure many would choose to let their baby live. 

As expected, Democrats are opposed.  "Tennessee's women should not have to suffer more intrusive laws that violate their right to privacy just so Sen. Tracy can polish his conservative credentials in his race against Congressman Scott DesJarlais," said Nashville Representative Sherry Jones. "Republicans have spent the past three years complaining about how the government shouldn't stand between a patient and their doctor, but with this legislation, that is exactly what they are trying to do."(link)

What can one say about an attitude like that? Sherry Jones and people like her want nothing to cause a women to think twice before killing her child. They view fewer abortions as a bad thing and can see nothing but evil intent on the part of those who want to cause a women to think twice and contemplate what she is about to do before she takes the step that takes a human life. Sherry Jones has been an outspoken critic of DHS and has displayed concern for children who died in state custody, yet she can be so cavalier about a measure that may cause a women to contemplate what she is doing before she kills her own unborn child.

Top Stories

Donelson-Hermitage-Old Hickory Conservative Breakfast Group meets Sat. Feb. 9th

Sponsored by

Davidson County Republican Party

SATURDAY, February 9th, 2013

8:30 am – Dutch Treat - Breakfast & Social

9:00 am - Meeting

SHONEY'S

546 Donelson Pike  37214

Guest Speaker

Scott Arvin

Marketing Manager

Wake Up America

Dedicated to defending our Constitutional

Liberty and ready to fight the Socialist Progressive Threat

.

Presented by Alex and Kathyrn Stillwell

Chairmen of the Donelson-Hermitage Conservative Group

astillwell@moneyconcepts.com or 615-773-2775

Top Stories

Council meeting of 2/05/2013 with notation and commentary

Above is the video of Tuesday night's council meeting. It is 2 hours and 19 minutes long.

There are nine bills on public hearing.

Most of them are zoning issue that would impact no one except the immediate neighbors of the proposed rezoning so I not going to attempt to describe this purely local bills, except to call attention to them.

BILL NO. BL2013-348 would rezone 81.70 acres in midtown. This apparently is part of that proposed massive rezoning that was to coincide with the new east-west bus mass transit proposal, however I am not sure of that. In any event it is deferred until May 7th.  

BILL NO. BL2013-351 is a rezoning in mid town that proves controversial. The discussion starts at 7:55 in the video and does not end until 43:02 and it passes.

BILL NO. BL2013-353 sponsored by Councilman Tenpenny is a bill that would rezone a piece of property in Woodbine to benefit a tire recapper and it generates quite a bit of public comment. I find this interesting because this is the former district I used to represent many years ago and I still have an interest in things that happen in my old district and because the local Internet group has been abuzz with discussion about this , and also because Rick Williams, a citizen activist who many of us know, speaks in favor of it and former Council member Anna Page speaks in opposition. This bill was disapproved by the Planning Commission but passes on a voice vote. (see 43:56 to 1:31:18)

BILL NO. BL2013-354: This ordinance would delete the "historic home event provisions" in their entirety and would create a new use called “special events center” to be permitted in the mixed-use, office, and commercial districts, and permitted with conditions in the mixed-use neighborhood and commercial neighborhood zoning districts. These events would not be allowed in residential zoning districts.

I really don't know what the impact of this would be and thankfully it is deferred indefinitely. There are some old historic homes in Nashville which are permitted to act as bed and breakfast facilities and to host events such as weddings and receptions and corporate retreats.  Some of these old homes are so grand that it not allowed to operate in this capacity they would probably deteriorate and eventually become condemned and be lost forever. I live in a neighborhood with one of these historic homes that operates in this fashion. Some neighbors have relentlessly tried to prohibit it's operation, opposing horse-drawn carriages delivering brides to the home for weddings, counting cars to try to catch the venue violating the valet parking requirements and timing the required ending time of events to catch people not leaving by the required time. I actually think having this historic home in my neighborhood is a plus, but some neighbors try to drive them out of business. I hope this ordinance is not an attempt to destroy the operation of these historic homes.

There are twelve resolutions, all were originally on the consent agenda however 558 and 559 are removed from the consent agenda.  A resolution is on the consent agenda if it passed the committees to which it was assigned unanimously. Bills on the consent agenda are usually not controversial and tend to be routine matters, such as accepting grants from the Federal or State Government or authorizing the Department of Law to settle claims against the city or appropriating money from the 4% fund. Resolutions on the consent agenda are passed by a single vote of the Council rather than being considered individually. However, any member of the body may have a bill pulled off of the consent agenda. All that remain on the consent agenda pass.

The resolutions amending the Capital Improvements Budget and Program (RESOLUTIONNO. RS2013-558) and the bonding authority for additions to the Capital Improvements budget (RESOLUTIONNO. RS2013-559),  which authorize and funds the improvement to the rear of the Bridgestone Arena which will now be across from the front of the new Music City Center and the relocation of the central police precinct, which is now located in the Bridgestone Arena on Broadway, are substituted and pass.  The substitutes are only minor changes. Given that we have already built the new conventions center, in my view, these improvements seem reasonable. These resolutions pass without opposition.

Bills on First reading almost always pass. There are twenty bills on first reading. They are considered as a group and are seldom discussed. First reading is a formality that allows the bill to be considered. Bills are not assigned to committee or analyzed by council staff until after they have passed first reading.  

 Bill 360, which is another bill concerning the pay and benefits, including health insurance benefits, of former Metro Council members is passed on first and differed indefinitely. Council remember Evans explains why (1:40:25).

Bills on Second Reading: It is on Second reading, after bills have been to committee, that discussion usually takes place.  There are only three bills on second reading and none of them are of any importance.

Bills on Third Reading: Third Reading is the final reading. If a bill passes third reading it becomes law unless it is vetoed by the Mayor, which has only rarely happened. Below are the bills of interest on third reading.

• SUBSTITUTE BILL NO. BL2012-283 is the new Metro Solicitation bill that would impose new regulations on commercial door-to-door solicitors. (Read more about this issue.)  This bill is deferred until the first meeting in March.

• BILL NO. BL2012-320 is the bill that would reduce the health insurance benefit to future former Metro Council members. This benefit currently costs Metro approximately $300,000 per year. Due to term limits there are a growing number of former metro council members. This cost is going to continue to increase. This bill passed second reading by a vote of 25 to 13.

Here is how council members voted on second reading:

"Ayes”- Barry, Steine, Garrett, Tygard, Banks, Scott Davis, Westerholm, Pridemore, Jernigan, Glover, Stites, Stanley, Claiborne, Tenpenny, Allen, Baker, Langster, Weiner, Holleman, McGuire, Harmon, Blalock, Dominy, Todd, Mitchell (25);
"Noes”- Maynard, Matthews, Harrison, Hunt, Bennett, Pardue, Moore, Gilmore, Evans, Johnson, Potts, Bedne, Dowell (13).

On third reading it fails. These are the members who voted for it an third: Tygerd, Banks, Glover, Stites, Clairborne, Holeman, McGuire, Harmon, and Mitchell.

The logic for the defeat is to have a full comprehensive compensation study to include a consideration of the size of our forty-member council.  

I am very disappointed that some of whom I think of as the "good" council members voted against this bill. Congratulation for Claiborne for trying. (See the discussion at 1:49:22 - 1:59:09)

BILL NO.BL2013-338 by Tygard and Dominy says that no sole source contract for the purchase of goods or services in excess of $250,000 may be entered into unless the contract has been approved by a resolution adopted by the council by twenty-one affirmative votes. Unfortunately, this bill is amended to exempt contracts  for development services, which means the city's contract with the Chamber for Partnership 2020 will not have to have Council approval. This is too bad. This is still a good bill but does not address the serious issue of Partnership 2020. It passes. 

BILLNO. BL2013-339 and BILL NO.BL2013-340 are more incentives to private business to get them to stay or relocate to Nashville. Councilman Stites tries to amend the bill to require that companies getting these incentives be accountable for the job creation they promise in exchange for tax abatement.  Councilman McGuire argues against the Stites amendment. 

Councilman Stites has been the lone voice critical of these incentives. This time he picks up some support. Stites does a great job arguing his position. Also, congratulations to Councilman Duvall. "Folks, we are giving away the people's money,"  he says. 

This practice must end or every company that stays or locates to Nashville will expect a bribe for doing so. While Stites loses, it looks like the idea that performance standards accompany tax incentive deals is gaining ground. Five council members vote against the deal: Stites, Standley, Gilmore, Dominy, and Duvall. 

(See 2:00:49- 2:15:02) (See the Tennessean and City Paper articles below to learn more about the issue.)

Below is the Tennessean's coverage:

Metro Council signs off on arena improvements, other spending

 by Joey Garrison, The Tennessean, Feb 5, 2013- Major exterior upgrades are in store for Bridgestone Arena's south side, including new retail and restaurants to anchor a second stadium entrance, as part of a $110 million capital plan the Metro Council approved Tuesday.

Also Tuesday, the council agreed to forfeit millions of dollars in tax revenue for the promise of job creation after approving separate property tax discounts for Nashville-based AmSurg Corp and Seattle's Oberto beef jerky. The deals are intended to spur investments from the companies. (link)

Here is the City Paper coverage: 

Council passes AmSurg, Oberto tax breaks despite last-minute amendment effort

By Steven Hale, City Paper,Tuesday, February 5, 2013 - 
...
Councilman Josh Stites, a consistent opponent of Metro’s tax incentive packages, offered amendments that would have required the companies to reach job-creation benchmarks in order to receive the full tax break. They were defeated, but the idea of including more accountability in similar deals going forward found support. (link)

Top Stories

Joe Carr has added Thomsen Smith to his campaign "exploratory committee."

Representative Joe Carr has added Thomsen Smith to his campaign "exploratory committee."  Smith, who is a heavy-hitter will lead the fundraising for the Carr committee. Already on board are Republican heavy wights Lee Beaman, who is chairing the committee, and Dr. Nate Schott as treasure.

Thomsen Smith runs RAAMPAC (Republicans Achieving a Majority PAC) for Lieutenant Governor Ron Ramsey. He has worked for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, Bill Frist and Fred Thompson for US Senate, Lamar Alexander and Fred Thompson for President, Ron Ramsey for Governor, and the Tennessee Republican Party under four Chairmen. Thomsen’s past Congressional clients include Ed Bryant for Congress, John Linder for Congress (GA), Mark Norris for Congress, Stephen Fincher for Congress, and Jim Tracy for Congress in 2010.

State Representative Carr is running for the U. S. seat currently occupied  by Scott DesJarlais in the 4th Congressional District. Carr has most recently gained media attention by proposing a bill that says that if the Federal Government passes any new legislation  regarding gun control that not only will the state not enforce it, but local law enforcement personnel will be required to arrest federal agents enforcing new federal gun laws in Tennessee. 

DesJarlais is the ethically challenged Congressman who ran as a pro-life candidate who tried to talk a mistress into having an abortion and who did encourage his then wife, now ex-wife, to have two abortions, which she had.  Also, he is a medical doctor and in violation of ethical standards slept with at least two of his patients, one of which we know he prescribed drugs for, which apparently makes the offense of sleeping with a patient somehow even more offensive. Anyway, he is a deeply flawed human being and a hypocrite who needs to be defeated in a primary challenge. The primary will be in 2014 and since the district leans heavily Republican, the winner of that primary will most likely win the general election.

In addition to.Joe Carr who is exploring running against Desjarlais, State Senator Jim Tracy has also announced he is running.. Senator Tracy has received the endorsement of Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey, former Republican Gov. Winfield Dunn, Senate Speaker Bo Watson, Senator Mark Green, and others. This is going to be a long campaign, expensive and hard fought. Hopefully no other major candidates will get in the race. It would be a shame if the vote was slit so many ways that Desjarlais remained the Party's candidate.

Top Stories

What happened in the Council Feb, 5, 2013: Bridgestone improvements and more corporate welfare

Here is the video of last night's council meeting. It is 2 hours and 19 minutes long. I have not watched it yet myself. If you wait, I will watch if for you and tell you what is important and where to go in the video to see the rousing rhetoric, passionate speeches and exciting debates. I also may tell you what to think about it. If you can't wait, have at it.

Below is the Tennessean's coverage:

Metro Council signs off on arena improvements, other spending

 by Joey Garrison, The Tennessean, Feb 5, 2013- Major exterior upgrades are in store for Bridgestone Arena's south side, including new retail and restaurants to anchor a second stadium entrance, as part of a $110 million capital plan the Metro Council approved Tuesday.

Also Tuesday, the council agreed to forfeit millions of dollars in tax revenue for the promise of job creation after approving separate property tax discounts for Nashville-based AmSurg Corp and Seattle's Oberto beef jerky. The deals are intended to spur investments from the companies. (link)

Here is the City Paper coverage: 

Council passes AmSurg, Oberto tax breaks despite last-minute amendment effort

By Steven Hale, City Paper,Tuesday, February 5, 2013 - 
...
Councilman Josh Stites, a consistent opponent of Metro’s tax incentive packages, offered amendments that would have required the companies to reach job-creation benchmarks in order to receive the full tax break. They were defeated, but the idea of including more accountability in similar deals going forward found support. (link)

Top Stories

New TN office of 'repealer' would target useless or unreasonable laws to sweep away

TN Lawmakers Create Office of the Repealer to Shrink Government

By Blue Collar Muse- Tennessee state GOP lawmakers Representative Glen Casada and Senator Jack Johnson, both from Franklin, announced they have filed HB 500 and SB 595 to modify the TCA and create the Office of the Repealer.

Under the direction of the Office of Tennessee’s Secretary of State, Tre Hargett, the Office of the Repealer would be tasked with “Investigating and collecting information regarding the state’s laws and rules and regulations to determine instances in which such laws and rules and regulations are unreasonable, unduly burdensome, duplicative, contradictory or unnecessary;”  Casada, Johnson propose 'repealer' to cut state laws

The Tennessean ‎- by Chas Sisk ‎

Glen Casada and state Sen. Jack Johnson, both Franklin Republicans, have filed a bill that would create an Office of the Repealer, whose job ..

My Comment: This is the kind of creative thinking we need to shrink government. Thank you to Glen Casada and Jack Johnson. This is a good start. Next, we need a process to systematically review every license or permit issued by State government to determine if they are necessary and if they are, are the requirements and cost reasonable or excessive. I would start with training for beautician. To protect me from a bad haircut why does the government require hair stylist spend thousands of dollars and two years in training. A bad haircut will grow out.  

The State government should also look at prohibiting local governments from passing laws that unduly regulate, license or fix prices. Metro Nashville's limo price fixing is the kind of law that the State should not allow. The Republicans have a super majority: use it.

Top Stories

Senate panel sends income tax ban to floor vote

Senate panel sends income tax ban to floor vote 

The Senate Finance Committee has advanced a proposed constitutional amendment to explicitly ban a state income tax to a full floor vote.
more>>

Comment: We are nailing the coffin shut on a state income tax. Good! The measure still has to pass both the House and the Senate by two-thirds vote before it can go to the public, but I suspect that will happen and I suspect that in 2014 the voters of Tennessee will pass a constitutional amendment that will bury a State income tax forever. 

Top Stories

Ken Jakes was not allowed to Speak at NES 'dog and pony' show

Ken Jakes was not allowed to address the special joint Metro council committee meeting last night called to review a recent NES audit that revealed massive criminal activity and mismanagement.  Jakes is the person who simply as a concerned citizen investigated and exposed massive corruption and criminal activity at NES.  As the person who knows more about the criminal activity and the culture of corruption at NES than anyone else, in my view, he should have been allowed to address the Council.  It is disappointing that no one on the joint committee spoke up even advocating that Jakes be allowed to address the Council.  Instead, the Council only heard from NES.  Apparently, NES spokesmen were permitted to equivocate, explain, and wiggle their way out of the charges against the agency being taken seriously. I was not at the meeting and am hoping Channel 3 filmed it.  If so, I will post it.  I am also looking for more information about what happened.

Since Ken Jakes was afraid he would not be allowed to speak, he had emailed a list of suggested questions for Council member to ask. Below is an excerpt of that email:

The illegal contract between Gaylord and NES was made and entered into by Decosta Jenkins.

Ask him does the contract have his signature on it indicating his knowledge and acceptance.

Ask him if he has the Back ground profession of a CPA.

Ask him how on earth a man with a CPA back ground with expertise in accounting would not know it was illegal to swap 71,000.00 dollars of public funds for free gifts and perks for himself and other high ranking management of NES  when it did not benefit the rate payers at all.

Ask him did he use or accept from the contract any of the following free perks or gifts

1. free golf passes

2. free show tickets

3. free dinner and show tickets

4. free parking passes

5. free room nights in the Opryland Hotel.

In the Metro Charter Under article 42 and 43 appendix three ( Electric Power Board ) it states the following :

The officers, agents and employees of the board are prohibited from appropriating or using any of the moneys, revenues, assets or property of the board, or of the metropolitan government, or its credit either directly or indirectly by way of donations for festivities, exhibits, shows, lectures, pageants, excursions, decorations, or parades, and shall not give or grant to any person or persons any reduction or other benefit of any kind in rates or service by the board.

Read this and ask the Chairman is this not a clear definition as to what Decosta Jenkins entered into with the contract between Gaylord.

Ask Decosta Jenkins if he believes that good leadership leads by example and is it not correct that the NES employee manual under 2.02 ( b ) prohibits employees from accepting the free perks from Gaylord in the illegal contract and how can he lead if he excepted the free perks himself.

Ask Decosta Jenkins, if he stated on channel 5 that the 17/million bid rigging contract was an error on his part. Ask Decosta Jenkins if the rate payers are paying him 345,000.00 dollars a year salary plus other benefits and considerations to make 17/million dollar errors. Ask the Chairman if he believes the rate payers believe they got the best return on their 17/million dollar investment with no competition in the bidding process. 
( Illegal contract with Gaylord --------Decosta Jenkins)
17/ million dollar bid rigging contract -------Decosta Jenkins )

Nes had 160 credit cards issued, they have now since my findings and other issues by the Comptroller reduced it to 11 credit cards, wow !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

They had employees making charges on NES credit cards on Ebay, Amazon, BabiesRus, employees taking surplus from NES and listing on ebay and selling, Credit Card issued to an individual who was not even an employee of NES.

Employees willfully and intentional falsifying government documents for reimbursements and payments from NES.Lavish meals on Credit Card while in Nashville not Traveling ( Are you ready to party, my opinion ). 

All this under the watch and leadership of --------Decosta Jenkins ( who is minding the store ? Why are we paying him 345,000.00 a year ?)

NES establishing a PRECEDENT, that anything goes within NES. They are not above the law. I am sure when I get this to the Federal District Attorney he will see it for what it is, public corruption in the worst way.

Please ask these questions and others that you have. The rate payers need justice.

How much of this was asked and how hard council members pushed, I don't know.  According to Ken Jakes, the NES performance was a "dog and pony" show and NES avoided straight answers. Below are excerpts from a follow up email to some members of the metro Council:

I want to thank you for attending the meeting regarding NES and also inform of some misleading statements.

Charlie and Phil, I recall both of you addressing if Decosta Jenkins had received any of the free perks. He responded back he used a room that he paid for and a golf pass. He never mentioned that he used dinner show tickets. I have emails to verify that.

He also stated that they did not ask GAYLORD for the free perks they just provided. This is totally false. The contract calls for the specific invoice number and dollar amount not to be paid in exchange for the free perks. How can this not be asking for them ?

Did everyone notice how much there answers were of the present instead of the past. They did and Decosta did use free perks in the past regardless of what they did this past Christmas after the issue was being investigated.

Their answers were nothing more then a dog and Pony show for the public. And I don't believe in my opinion that the Chair gave an honest answer regarding if his company had these issues, the employee would hold that position.

Let me just say thank you and let you all know that it is not over yet. There are avenues that can be taken to get this to the US District Attorney and I make that commitment to you all.

I am glad to see Ken is not going to let this drop. I wish a member of the  Council would take up this cause. Corruption like this should not go unchallenged and unpunished. Also, I hope some ambitious attorney sees the failure of Torry Johnson to indict as a campaign issue and Johnson finds himself facing a serious challenge next election.

Just an observation:  Back when newspapers had more staff and we had two local dailies, they would have been competing for this story. There would have been daily exposure of the corruption and the press would have dug deep. Now, with one half of a newspaper their is less scrutiny of things like this. While citizen activist and bloggers can fill some of the void left by the absence of newspapers, the absence of aggressive investigative reporters makes corruption much easier to get away with.

Top Stories