What's on the Council Agenda for 6/5/2018: public hearing on the budget, addressing Metro pension mismanagement, the Donelson Transit-Oriented Redevelopment Plan, stopping the fairground giveaway.

By Rod Williams - The Metro Council will meet Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 6:30 PM in the Council chamber at the Metro Courthouse. Here is a copy of the Council agenda and the staff analysis for those who want to watch the Council meeting and follow along.  Below is a summary of what is on the agenda and what I perceive to be the most important.

Nominations to the Industrial Development Board:  Nomination are made from the floor for seats

on the board and then at the next meeting the council elects members from among those nominated. I believe there are four seats to be filled. This is not generally something the public cares much about but these seats are highly sought after and among business interest this is of considerable interest. This Board controls a lot of money. It develops property then leases it to businesses. This is one of ways the Council bribes companies to locate in Nashville by giving sweetheart deals to favored companies. Another way of looking at it is that this is a tool to incentivize companies to locate in Nashville.  Since the property remains the property of Metro Government and thus exempt from property taxes, companies awarded these deals do not have to pay property taxes but instead pay "payment in lieu of taxes" or PILOT, which is often much less than they would pay in taxes. Also, the IDB may do the same for developers of affordable housing.

Confirmation  of mayoral appointments to boards and commission: There are a total of  eleven appointments to be confirmed. Normally this is a routine matter and the council rarely rejects a mayoral appointment. 

Public Hearing on the operating budget and the capital improvements budget: Bill BL2018-1184 is the operating budget and Bill BL2018-1196 is the capital improvements budget.

The current Fiscal Year 2018 budget is for  $2.21 billion. The mayor’s proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2019 represents an overall increase of $20.4 million. This year's budget does not call for a tax increase.

At the budget hearings expect person after person to call for more spending for schools, parks, libraries, sidewalks, General Hospital, and other pet projects. Unfortunately, Nashville's conservatives  are not very active and seem not to care a great deal about local government.  They only get motivated about once ever eight years or so to oppose a proposed tax increase.  While liberals are active day in and day out and are at every budget hearing asking for more spending, conservatives are not to be seen calling for less spending except in the years of a proposed tax increase. It is not surprising that liberals always win.

This public hearing would be a great opportunity for people to voice concern about our massively expensive sidewalk program that builds very few sidewalk, our continued funding of the unnecessary General Hospital and the scam of excessive police and firemen overtime pay and the giveaway of ten prime acres of fairground property.

This year expect to hear from a lot of metro employees upset that the budget does not include funding for their promised cost of living pay increase and from school advocates upset that the schools requested budget was not fully funded.

One thing to note about this budget is that it anticipates insufficient money held in reserves.  The budget is broken into six separate funds such as the General Services General District General Fund and the School Debt Service Fund and four others. Metro has a policy that the city should maintain a balance of at least 5% reserves in each of these funds.  This is simple prudence and sound money management.  This budget does not do that. The Urban Services District Debt Services Fund would drop to as low as 2.3%.  Metro is like a household that is one unexpected auto repair bill from missing a mortgage payment or getting the light cut off. With the pension liability of the city and retiree health cost liability as well as debt obligations,  if we have a natural disaster or lose an existing sports franchise or if Trump's promised trade war causes an economic downturn, Metro could face some very hard choices. For a more detailed explanation of what is in the budget see the staff analysis. To become an expert on the Metro budget, see Citizens' Guide to the Metro Budget.

The capital improvements budget is not really a budget. It appropriates no money. It is a planning documents that prioritizes capital spending projects and list the source of the funding. Before something can be funded by the Council, it has to be in the Capital Improvements Budget. A lot of items in the CIB will never be funded. How many of those listed as a high priority get funded depends on  how much money  the Council puts into debt service to finance projects. Putting something in the CIB does not necessarily mean it gets build, but if it is not in the budget it certainly doesn't.

Resolutions:  There are 29 resolutions on the agenda. All resolutions are on the "consent agenda" initially but if there are any negative votes in committee they are taken off of consent.  Also any council member may ask to have an item taken off of consent or to have his abstention or dissenting vote recorded. All items on consent are passed by a single vote instead of being voted on individually.

There are several resolution to accept grant money.  Some of them require a local match and some do not.  There are a couple resolutions to settle law suits out of court.  None of the resolutions on the agenda are particularly controversial or of particular interest. Here is one of interest.

Resolution RS2018-1180  proposes three amendments to the Metro Charter. If approved by the Council they would go before the public to be voted on in a referendum. The first concerns the line of succession in the event of a vacancy in the office of mayor. The second changes the way we elect someone to fill a vacancy in the office of vice mayor or district council member by speeding up the process and the third would establish  the positions of President Pro Tempore and Deputy President Pro Tempore of the Metro Council within the Charter. Currently, these positions exist only as designations within the Council’s Rules of Procedure. I don't have strong feeling pro or con about any of these.

Resolution RS2018-1243 by Robert Swope and Steve Glover is an attempt to do something about Metro's money mismanagement. It ask the "Investment Committee
of the Metropolitan Employee Benefit Board, the Metropolitan Finance Department, and the Metropolitan Office of the Treasurer to review contracts pertaining to the management of Metro’s pension fund and to explore other options for pension fund management that would lower management fees and other expenses related to the pension fund. This should include exploring whether Metro’s pension fund could be managed by the Tennessee Consolidated Retirement System.

In the "whereas" clauses this resolution reveals the fact that the "pension fund, as of June 30, 2017, had assets of nearly $3 billion," and "investment expenses associated with Metro’s pension fund totaled over $39 million." I suggest those who care about the financial well being or our city to read this resolution. 

Resolution RS2018-1245  is "resolution supporting and encouraging economic equality for women." It repeats the often made deceptive claim that women are underpaid compared to men because women earn only 79% of what men do. It ignores that women make different choices. When other variables are held constant, there is no pay gap. For more on this see The ‘Wage Gap’ Myth That Won’t Die - WSJ,  or The Gender Pay Gap is a Complete Myth - CBS News. This is a meaningless resolution and accomplishes nothing, so it may not be worth wasting council time trying to debunk the myth, but it is galling that the Council continues to support such nonsense. I wish someone would challenge this resolution but I don't expect it.  If I were in the Council, I may not would take to the floor to argue the issue but I would at least be recorded as abstaining.

Bills on Introduction and First Reading: There are 48 bills on first reading. Bills on First Reading are normally considered as a group and are seldom discussed. First reading is a formality that allows the bill to be considered. Unless a bill is ridiculously atrocious it should be passed on first reading. Bills are not assigned to committee or analyzed by council staff until after they have passed first reading. I have not carefully reviewed the bills on first reading, but will before second reading. There is one bill on First Reading that is very significant. Bill BL2018-1205  would save the fairgrounds by prohibiting the giveaway of the tea acres that is slated to be given to the developers of the planned soccer stadium. This is a good bill. I don't think anyone would try to kill it on first reading but they may.

Bills on Second Reading: There are 13 bills on Second Reading. Here are the bill of significance:

Substitute BL2018-1139 approving the Donelson Transit-Oriented Redevelopment Plan. There is a new authority given to cities to plan, facilitate and guide develop around transit stops to encourage a certain kind of development around those stops and to give cities the authority to issue Tax Increment Financing bonds for improvements in the designated area. This would be the first time this authority has been used. This designation would apply to the Donelson stop on The Nashville Star line. There is a lot of detail in the staff analysis for those who want to know more. I have no problem with this concept.  Previous I had expressed a concern is that this might confer the power of eminent domain to MDHA for use in this area.  I have since spoken to the sponsor and have been assured this is not the case. With that assurance, I support this bill.

 Bill BL2018-1157  establishes a 50 foot floodway buffer along the Cumberland River and

A House on a cliff on the Tennessee River

prohibits variances. The floodway is the river channel and adjacent low lying areas that would be underwater in a 100 year flood. No new construction could occur in this area and no existing building could be expanded. Suppose within the fifty foot buffer, the property sit on a high cliff a hundred foot drop to the river. Should that property not be allowed to be developed?  That property could have less impact on the river than a property miles away.  Also, building in the area adjacent to a 100 year floodway does not add to the potential for flooding if displacement is applied. Displacement means that if any capacity for the land to hold water is decreased on one part of a parcel, then more capacity must be added elsewhere. As an example, if a home is build and near the front of the property, the lot is build up by adding so many cubic yards of dirt to a low area, then the same amount of earth would have to be removed elsewhere.

This would also appear to be a  "taking" property. If someone has a right to develop their property and that right is taken from them,  that is a "taking" even if the owner retains legal title. If property is taken the owner should be compensated and it should only be taken for a public purpose. The public purpose may be to reduce flood risk. That may be a valid public purpose, but the owner should be compensated if his land is now worth less because it cannot be developed. Also, there is a proposed development of a boat-oriented development along the Cumberland with canals and boat docks. This type of development could not occur if this rule was in place and if there were no variances permitted.

Bill BL2018-1185 sets the tax levy which does not change the current tax levy so does not raise taxes.

Bill BL2018-1186   is essentially an extension of an existing tax relief program that has been in existence for many years. This is a good bill. It allows elderly homeowners to stay in their home and not be forced out because of increased property taxes.

Bills on Third Reading. There are  11 of them. Most are rezoning bills and of little interest.

Top Stories

And now for some economic news,...

As the budget battle rages, President Obama is urging congress to go on a spending spree and he is promoting more free stuff from the government, such as free college for all and free child care for working parents and more spending on infrastructure. He is calling his welfare state policies "middle class economic."

In his State of the Union address in January President Obama took credit for a rebounding economy saying, "Tonight, after a breakthrough year for America, our economy is growing and creating jobs at the fastest pace since 1999…The shadow of crisis has passed, and the State of the Union is strong…At this moment—with a growing economy, shrinking deficits, bustling industry, and booming energy production—we have risen from recession freer to write our own future better than any other nation on earth." He also said, ""Our unemployment rate is now lower than it was before the financial crisis."

The unemployment rate is lower because so many people are no longer in the work force; not because they found jobs. The labor force participation rate is the lowest it has been since 1978. People who do not want to retire are taking early retirement, women are dropping out to stay home with children and many people have just given up looking for work.

From the Bureau of labor statistics.

The Federal Reserve has projected zero economic growth for the first quarter. See the green line in the chart below.

 As a percentage of the GDP, our national debt is greater than at any time other than World War II.

The National dept as a percentage of GDP

 The National debt continues to climb.

A look at the federal budget shows that over half of the budget is spend on social security, medicare and medicaid and other safety net programs.  9% of the budget is interest on the debt and that percentage will grow as the debt grows, yet President Obama is critical of every effort to curtail spending and wants to spend more.

Meanwhile, Food stamp use is at an all time high.

It is pretty depressing, and I have lost faith in the American people to think that they are smart enough not to think there is no end to free stuff.  I am afraid America's days as a great nation are behind us and I am not hopeful that there is time to turn things around. We must keep trying, but the future looks pretty gloomy. If Obamacare takes root and is not overturned, that will be a larger constituency for more spending and less austerity and measures that inhibit economic growth. At some point, our currency will not be the worlds reserve currency and our cost of borrowing will increase.  With more spending, and more debt and more regulations of economic activity, economic growth will fall. Then, the debt will cause painful inflation.

Will somebody tell me I'm wrong and cheer me up?

Top Stories

Corker Votes Against Spending Bill. Alexander votes for it. Marsha Blackurn votes for it.

U.S. Senator Bob Corker was one of 17 Senators who voted against final passage of a $1.012 trillion discretionary spending bill. He released the following statement:

I cannot support a funding bill that violates the only real progress we have made in getting our fiscal house in order over the past several years.  Instead of building on the gains we made in 2011, limiting discretionary spending, I’m very disappointed the Executive Branch and Congress continue to push for higher spending levels, like those contained in this bill, without enacting meaningful changes to mandatory programs that our country so desperately needs.

The Senate voted 72-26 for the measure.  All 53 Democrats, two independents and 17 Republicans voted for the bill. The 26 votes against it were all cast by Republicans. It increased spending by about $26 billion over fiscal year 2013, with most of the increase going to domestic programs.

Below is the list of Republicans in the Senators who voted in favor of the bill:  Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), Kelly Ayotte (N.H.), Roy Blunt (Mo.), John Boozman (Ark.), Dan Coats (In.), Thad Cochran (Miss.),Susan Collins (Maine), Mark Kirk (Ill.), Lindsey Graham (S.C.), Orrin Hatch (Utah), John Hoeven (N.D.), Johnny Isakson (Ga.), Jerry Moran (Kan.), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Richard Shelby (Ala.), David Vitter (La.), Roger Wicker (Miss.). (All Democrats voted in favor.)

Here are those Republicans who voted against it: John Barrasso (Wyo.), Richard Burr (N.C.), Bob Corker (Tenn.), John Cornyn (Texas), Mike Crapo (Idaho), Ted Cruz (Texas), Mike Enzi (Wyo.), Deb Fischer (Neb.), Jeff Flake (Ariz.), Chuck Grassley (Iowa), Dean Heller (Nev.), James Inhofe (Okla.), Mike Johanns (Neb.), Ron Johnson (Wis.), Mike Lee (Utah), John McCain (Ariz.), Mitch McConnell (Ky.), Rand Paul (Ky.), Rob Portman (Ohio), Jim Risch (Idaho), Pat Roberts (Kan.), Marco Rubio (Fla.), Tim Scott (S.C.), Jeff Sessions (Ala.), John Thune (S.D.). Pat Toomey (Pa.).

The bill passed the House by a vote of 359-67. Sixty-four of the 67 votes against it were Republicans. More House Republicans voted for the spending bill than voted against it.  In the House, five of Tennessee's 7 Republican's voted for the Bill. they are: Marsha Blackburn,
Chuck Fleischmann, Diane Black, Phil Roe, and Stephen Fincher. 

Voting against the bill were John Duncan, Jr, and Scott DesJarlais. Only three Democrats voted against the bill and none of the three were our Tennessee Representatives. To see how all members of the House of Representatives voted, follow this link. 

Top Stories

Reflections on the Debt Limit Compromise

The debt limit crisis is over. We dodged a bullet and I am glad.  I was worried.  Not only was I worried for our nation, but I was worried about the impact a default would have on me personally.  I am approaching retirement age and I did not want to see my life's savings tank. I am also glad to see that we avoided the crisis that would have ensued if Congress would have failed to raise the debt limit and Obama would have invoked the 14th.  Had he done so, we may have witnessed the largest Constitutional crisis since the Civil War. Had he invoked the 14th, I believe there would have been blood flowing in the streets. So, while I am glad Congress reached a last minute compromise that avoided a calamity, I am not popping any Champagne  corks.  I do not feel like celebrating.

Essentially, we have kicked the can down the road. We have bought a little time. I wanted to see larger spending cuts and a long-term solution like the CAP Act which would limit Congress's spending and a constitutional amendment that would force a balanced budget. This agreement, while it reduces future spending, it did not actually cut spending; it cut spending from the level that spending would have otherwise been if we had done nothing. Only in Washington is a spending increase called a spending cut.

Nevertheless, I think we have made a move in the right direction. The conversation has been changed from how much more can we spend to how much can we cut. That is a good thing.  I also like the debt commission created by the compromise, however one Congress can't bind a future Congress. In fact, a current Congress is not even bound by its own actions. It can repeal or modify anything it passes. There is nothing in the act that would force Congress to act responsibly. Congress has gone on record now however, and it will not be easy to undo what has been accomplished. This is a step in the right direction, but it is like turning an ocean liner; it can't turn on a dime.

Top Stories

Underwhelming Spending Cuts from Congress and Obama

Top Stories

Dear Katryna, I am so sorry that you are having financial difficulty and I wanted to respond

Dear Katryna,

I am so sorry that you are having financial difficulty and I wanted to respond to your letter. You say that Republican are cutting student aid. The way I understand it is that Republican are not cutting the amount of money being spend on student aid. The Republicans are proposing to cut $100-billion from the president's budget request and included in those cuts are cuts to student aid. During this recession so many people could not find jobs that many of them  have gone back to school so there has been an increase in demand for student aid and the Democrats proposed adding $5.7 billion to the Pell Grant program to cover the shortfall in the program.

Due to unexpected demand in the wake of the Great Recession, the Pell Grant program needs a funding fix to prevent grant cuts in 2011. So, the Democrats proposed the funding fix and the Republicans are proposing a reduction from the amount of that funding fix. The costs of the Pell Grant program have been growing at a rapid rate. More is going to be spend on Pell Grants and yet each Pell Grant recipient will get less under the Republican plan. Does that make sense to you?

Republicans are proposing to trim the maximum Pell Grant by 15 percent, or $845, from the current $5,550. Katryna, are you sure you are going to lose your student aid or just have a reduction? Now, some people who would have qualified for Pell grant under the Democrat spending level will not qualify under the Republican spending level but most will simply see a reduction in the amount of student aid. I don’t know if you will lose your student aid or not of course, but don’t jump to conclusions. The funding calculation is complicated and it is means tested so some people will qualify by virtue of qualifying for other programs and others will really lose their aid, but most will only see a reduction.

Did you know that President Obama is also proposing cut to the Pell Grant program? Obama's program cuts would end supplemental Pell Grants starting in summer 2012. Since 2009, students planning to attend summer school could apply for a second Pell Grant to pay for school year-round. Obama's proposal would do away with the year-round Pell Grant. MoveOn didn't explain that to you did they? The truth is that both Republicans and Democrats are proposing to spend more on Pell grants and both would reduce the amount of Pell grants anyone person could get, but the Republicans would cut more.

I think we have to cut a lot out of the federal budget, so no, I will not be asking Senator Corker to restore Pell grants to their former level. I am asking Corker to show courage and slash federal spending.

I know that losing your Pell Grant, if you do lose it, will be a hardship on you, but you see our nation is broke. Forty cents of every dollar the government spends is borrowed money. Our government is deeply indebted to the Chinese and others and we keep borrowing money to pay our expenses. We are much like a household that keeps taking out new loans to pay the payments on previous loans. 

The national debt is $14 Trillion dollars and it continues to increase at the rate of $4.11 billion per day and each citizen's share of this debt is $45,889.90. This is not sustainable. If we do not get a handle on this runaway spending, we will all lose the American dream and America will become a third world nation. I do not want to alarm you, but we can’t keep living on borrowed money for ever. Also, another problem is that the government is just creating money out of thin air. People refer to this as “printing money” although it is not really "printed money" but it is created as if it were printed and this can lead to rapid run-away inflation. So, unless the government gets a handle on spending we could see a rapid economic decline in the United States. We could see massive poverty never seen before in this nation. Painful cuts are necessary to stop spending more money than the nation can afford.

I know MoveOn wants you to feel resentment against rich people and blames our financial problems on the wealthy by saying they are not taxes enough. The wealthiest 5% of Americans pay half all taxes and the lower 50% of income earners pay no taxes. Also, job growth is created by wealthy Americans investing money. If we tax the wealthy more, we may have less job growth because we will have less investment. Higher taxes does not necessarily mean more tax collection despite what liberals will tell you. We do not have a problem in this country because we do not tax enough but because we spend too much.

Assuming you do lose your student aid, can you not qualify for student loans? If your education is a good investment, should you not be the one making the investment?

Katryna, you open your letter saying, "I never wanted a handout." Katryna, a grant is a handout. When the government gives you money and you don't have to pay it back, that is a handout. Also, Katryna you say you earned less than $4500 last year. You can't live on that. I bet you are living in subsidized public housing, getting food stamps, medicaid and you got the earned income tax credit last year. Am I right? I bet that in reality you are getting a lot of handouts. Is that not true?

Katryna, you say "I'm going to have to choose between paying rent or buying diapers." Have you thought about using cloth diapers and washing them out. People used to do that all the time. You don't have to buy diapers. You can rinse  them out in the commode and then wash them.

Katryna, I must ask you, where is your child's father? Is he paying child support? Did you have your child out of wedlock? You say you want to provide your daughter with the opportunities that your mother couldn't give you. You say nothing about your father. Your mother was a single mom, wasn't she? Did you do a really foolish thing and get pregnant without being married? I know that many do. In fact almost 70 percent of black children are born to single mothers. The disappearance of marriage in low-income communities is the major cause of child poverty in the U.S. today. Katryna, I think you should not blame your problems on Republicans but admit that your brought your problems on yourself, by your decision to have a child out of wedlock. Nevertheless, I do feel sorry for you.

Please continue to try to get out of poverty. Try to get student loans if you can't get the Pell Grant. If you do have to give up the dream of getting a nursing degree, please do not give up the dream of getting out of poverty. There is help available. Contact United Way or a good neighborhood community center to learn about job training programs and money management programs. A lot of poverty is due to poor decision making. Enroll in a life skills course and improve your life skills. Get a full time job.  Get out of the environment of public housing which creates a mindset that keeps people in poverty. And Katryna, please teach your child not to follow in your footsteps. Teach her that being a single Mom is foolish and most of the time it is a ticket to poverty.

I wish you the best.

Sincerly,
Rod

Dear fellow MoveOn member,

I never wanted a handout.

I just wanted to get my nursing degree and build the life I've dreamed of. I wanted to provide my daughter with the opportunities that my mother couldn't give me when I was growing up.

That's my dream, but I'm afraid my dream is about to die. 

Republicans are trying to cut the financial aid I rely on to pay my tuition. Last year, as a student, I couldn't find steady work and earned less than $4,500. If my financial aid is taken away from me, I won't be able to afford to get my nursing degree. 

Once again I'm going to have to choose between paying rent or buying diapers, between having heat or having enough food for my family to eat. Can you imagine the pain involved in making those choices?

Can you help save my dream? The Senate is on recess, and Senator Bob Corker is home in Tennessee. Can you call him in his district office in Nashville, and ask him to vote against any budget that makes cuts to education, health care, and Social Security, and puts corporations and millionaires above hardworking Americans like me?

Here's where to call:

Senator Bob Corker

Nashville office: 615-279-8125

Then, please report your call to MoveOn by clicking here:

http://pol.moveon.org/call?cp_id=1545&tg=FSTN_2&dofcs=1&dofcp=615-279-8125&id=26616-15255949-7pS3m_x&t=3

I recently got a part-time job at Walmart and with that money, along with my student aid, I'm now able to cover all my expenses. I even had enough money to get new glasses for the first time in six years. I've struggled to get this far, but I finally feel like I'm going to be able to make a good life for myself and my daughter.

Please, don't let the Republicans take all this away from me. You see, the cuts they want to make aren't abstract. And they aren't limited to student aid, either. They're trying to cut job training, food aid to women and children, and more. Congress doesn't seem to understand the consequences to people like me all across the country if these programs are cut.

Can you call Senator Bob Corker, and ask him to vote against any budget that makes cuts to education, health care, and Social Security, and puts corporations and millionaires above hardworking Americans like me?

Thank you.

–Katryna Wade, Arkansas

Top Stories

Tonight! Bob Corker's Town Hall Meeting on America’s Debt Crisis comes to Nashville

In an excerpt from a presentation delivered August 18, 2010 to the Chattanooga Chamber of Commerce, Senator Corker uses charts and graphs to illustrate Washington's spending trends and mounting debt.

Below are excerts from The Jackson Sun covereage of Corkers presentation in Jackson.

The rate of spending in America is similar to families going on lavish vacations and eating at expensive restaurants only to leave the tabs to their children, U.S. Sen. Bob Corker says.

The national debt is at a record $13.5 trillion and rising, Corker said. The current level of federal spending is akin to households making $48,000 a year but spending $70,000, he said.

Bob Corker will be bringin his Town Hall Meeting to Nashville Thursday, November 11. Below are the details:

SuperTalk 99.7 WTN’s Town Hall Meeting on America’s Debt Crisis
Moderator: Ralph Bristol, host of “Nashville’s Morning News”
Time: 6:00 p.m. CT - Doors open. The audience is asked to arrive no later than 6:45 p.m. CT.
7:00 - 8:30 p.m. CT - Town Hall and Q & A.
Location: Belmont University
Massey Performing Arts Center
1900 Belmont Boulevard
For more information, contact Sen. Corker’s Nashville field office at 615-279-8125

.

Top Stories

Sen Bob Corker rated "Hero" by Taxpayers Against Earmarks

Sen. Lamar Alexander rated a "Hooligan."

Taxpayers Against Earmarks (TAE) has a page on their website called "Heroes & Hooligans" used to recognize those in Congress standing up against wasteful spending and to help taxpayers hold those politicians accountable who refuse to stop earmarking. "To be a 'Hero,' a Member of Congress must have refrained from requesting any earmarks this year," states the TAE website. "'Hooligans' are those who have requested earmarks this fiscal year, even if they support efforts to reform or eliminate the practice of earmarking." They listed all members of Congress as either "heroes" or "Hooligans."

In the Senate there were only 10 "heroes," seven of them Republicans and three of them Democrats. John McCain and Scott Brown were other notable "heroes."

In the House, there were 178 "Heros," 173 of them Republicans and five of them Democrats. Tennessee Heroes were Marsha Blackburn, Jim Cooper (Yes, our own Jim Cooper), and John Duncan. All other Tennessee Congressmen were "Hooligans."

Of the 259 House "Hooligans," 253 were Democrats and only six were Republicans. One to the six Republican "Hooligans" was Ron Paul or Texas.

Top Stories

$200,000 for tattoo removal in Mission Hills, California

Rod:
You, as an American taxpayer, may have to limit your personal spending this year but, Congress is still on an unlimited spending spree with your money. This week the Senate will vote on yet another spending bill filled with huge budget increases and wasteful pork.

Last year Congress failed to pass 9 of the 12 appropriations bills to keep the government running, so they passed a Continuing Resolution for 2009, which kept spending to 2008 levels. Now, liberated from a presidential veto threat, they have rolled up those 9 bills into one massive Omnibus Appropriations bill that carries a $410 billion price tag. This is the second year in a row the budget bill has called for an 8% increase in spending, more than twice the rate of inflation. If you combine this spending with the just passed 'stimulus' bill, some agencies will receive an 80% increase for Fiscal Year 2009.

GO HERE AND SEND YOUR SENATORS A LETTER. TELL THEM YOU ARE FED UP WITH THIS SPENDING BINGE AND TO VOTE 'NO' ON H.R. 1105, THE OMNIBUS APPROPRIATIONS BILL

President Obama has promised to eliminate 'earmarks' in these spending bills, but he says this bill doesn't count because "it's last year's business". The result is a porkfest of 9,000 earmarks that continue to use your pocketbook to fund some ridiculous project some friend of a congressman or senator from back home thinks is cool. To name just a few:

• $1.8 million for swine odor and manure management in Iowa


• $1.9 million for the Pleasure Beach Water Taxi Service in Connecticut


• $238,000 for organizing Hawaiian sea voyages in ancient canoes


• $200,000 for tattoo removal in Mission Hills, California

You get the picture. If you are looking for change in Washington, you will not find it in this bill. It is business as usual for the special interests.
TAKE ACTION NOW BY EMAILING YOUR SENATORS AND URGE THEM TO VOTE 'NO' ON THE OMNIBUS, H.R. 1105

Here is what one senator had to say about this bill: "The bloated omnibus requires sacrifice from no one, least of all the government. It only exacerbates the problem and hastens the day of reckoning. Voters rightly demanded change in November's election, but this approach to spending represents business as usual in Washington, not the voters' mandate."

No, this was not a floor speech by a leading conservative, but a column by Democrat Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana published in the Wall Street Journal. The fact that a veteran Democrat in the Senate felt the need to go public with this criticism shows just how embarrassingly bad this bill is.

GO HERE AND CONTACT YOUR SENATORS DIRECTLY RIGHT NOW TO TELL THEM TO OPPOSE H.R.1105, THE OMNIBUS APPROPRIATIONS BILL

We at the American Conservative Union thank you for all you do to advance conservative free-market principles.
Sincerely,
Larry Hart
Director of Government Relations
American Conservative Union

Top Stories

Pork-laden Bailout Bill is Very Bitter Pill

I was relieved to see the House swallow hard and pass the bailout. The bailout is a bitter pill, but unfortunately it is necessary medicine to keep our ailing economy from dying. (See my post: Congress Should Pass the Palson Plan)

What disgust me in this whole mess, is that the bailout did not pass until it was sweetened with billions in pork. (I’m not mixing my metaphors; this is some very sweet pork.) It is disgusting that some in Congress had to get their favorite project included before they would support it. These congressmen would not pass it because it was the right thing to do but because they were bought.

Consider the following amendment to the bailout bill:

Sec. 503. Exemption from excise tax for certain wooden arrows designed for use by children.

Current law places an excise tax of 39 cents on the first sale by the manufacturer, producer, or importer of any shaft of a type used to produce certain types of arrows. This proposal would exempt from the excise tax any shaft consisting of all natural wood with no laminations or artificial means to enhance the spine of the shaft used in the manufacture of an arrow that measures 5/16 of an inch or less and is unsuited for use with a bow with a peak draw weight of 30 pounds or more. The proposal is effective for shafts first sold after the date of enactment. The estimated cost of the proposal is $2 million over ten years, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation.

According to Taxpayers for Common Sense, Oregon’s senators were the sponsors of the above provision which is a $200,000 benefit to a single company, Rose City Archery in Myrtle Point, Oregon. (read more)

Other sweeteners in the bill according to an article in the San Francisco Chronicle (link), included the following:

Racetracks: Earmark would allow auto racetrack owners to depreciate their facilities over seven years, saving the industry $100 million over two years.

Rum: Offers rum producers in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands a rebate on excise taxes worth $192 million over two years.

Wool: Reduces tariffs for U.S. makers of wool fabric that use imported yarn, worth $148 million over five years. The measure was pushed by Reps. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., and Melissa Bean, D-Ill.

Exxon Valdez: Plaintiffs in the suit over the 1989 oil spill could spread their tax payments on punitive damages over three years, cutting their tax bill by $49 million. The measure was backed by Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska.

American Samoa: Allows certain corporations to reduce their tax liability on income earned in American Samoa, at a cost of $33 million over two years.

Even Hollywood got something out of the Senate bill: renewal of a tax incentive worth nearly $48 million a year for film and TV producers who produce their work in the United States.

At a time when I did not think my contempt for Congress could get any lower, it just did. John McCain says he will change the culture of Washington and curtail pork barrel spending. I think it is possible to curtail it, but difficult. Congress needs a basic change in their operating rocedures to make pork barrel spending more transparent. One should not have to load a deserving bill with goodies, like hanging ornaments on a Christmas tree, in order to get it passed.

I served eleven years in the Metro Council of Nashville and years ago I served as a student intern with the State legislature for about three months. In both the State Senate and the Metro Council, one could not have a bill that was broader than the caption. That was a rule. That is not to say that there is not wasteful spending by both the Metro Council and the State government, but a bill could not be amended to include spending for a project totally unrelated to the topic of the bill. On a bill to authorize the issuance of tax increment financing bonds for the construction of a sports arena, one could not include funding for new sidewalks in Woodbine.

There was still wastful spending and deals were still make, but this rule made it more diffilcut to do than it would have been without the rule. Sometimes we need rules to keep us honest. Currently, the way Congress operates, holding a bill hostage and loading it with pork is encouraged. I believe that If Congress would adopt a rule that the body of a bill could not be broader than the caption of the bill, we would see a drastic decrease in spending such as was included in the bailout bill.

Top Stories

Bush is the biggest spender since LBJ

David Lightman McClatchy Newspapers


WASHINGTON — George W. Bush, despite all his recent bravado about being an apostle of small government and budget-slashing, is the biggest spending president since Lyndon B. Johnson. In fact, he's arguably an even bigger spender than LBJ.


“He’s a big government guy,” said Stephen Slivinski, the director of budget studies at Cato Institute, a libertarian research group.


The numbers are clear, credible and conclusive, added David Keating, the executive director of the Club for Growth, a budget-watchdog group. “He’s a big spender,” Keating said. “No question about it.”

Take almost any yardstick and Bush generally exceeds the spending of his predecessors. To continue (Bush is Biggest Spender)

When someone ask me why I am a Republican, one of my replies is, “Because I believe in fiscal responsibility and small government.” I will have to scratch that reason off my list. Rod

Top Stories