TBI says Wilson County Commissioner Misused Records

Promoted from Radio Free Mt. Juliet.

rom a story in today’s Tennessean “Wilson County Commissioner Chris Sorey used a state Web site to run unauthorized background checks on citizens, the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation says.”

“Helm would not identify those whose backgrounds were checked, but Mt. Juliet City Manager Randy Robertson has told his employees that the portal was used to run private information on some city employees and a person of prominence within the city.”

Sorey “was placed on routine, unpaid administrative leave on Nov. 6, said John Black, executive director of the Smyrna/Rutherford County Airport Authority. On Nov. 13, Sorey resigned to take a higher-paying job.”

As a result of the investigation, the TBI has blocked the Smyrna/Rutherford County Airport Authority from all access to the TBI’s “Criminal Justice Portal.”

“The TBI turned over its information to Rutherford County District Attorney William Whitesell, who did not seek a criminal investigation and said no charges are pending.”

You can read the rest of the story on the Tennessean’s web site here.

Bredesen Wants to Close Family Business Tax “Loophole”

Promoted from The Conservatarian.

It appears Governor Bredesen just doesn’t get it. The last thing you want to do in an economic downturn is raise taxes or implement new ones, which is just what Bredesen wants to do. He claims that the $45 million “loophole” is outrageous. I am of the opinion that government has never seen a hard-earned dollar it didn’t like, so it is out to claim more. No doubt, he feels it is the family business’ “patriotic duty” to pay these duties, to quote Joe Biden.

It is quite disingenuous for Gov. Bredesen to call this loophole “sinful”, especially when the state government is not looking to cut spending in the cold decisive manner my household does when we go over our budget.

Here’s an idea for the governor: cut each department that is not essential to the direct function of government first (the department, not the funds). See how much money you have left over, then get back to the honest and hardworking family businesses paying their fair share of taxes in the state. What the governor is trying to do is he is trying to create an income tax on a certain class of businesses, and this is just plain wrong. Tennessee taxpayers need to acknowledge the evil of this plan, and kill the idea again this year, as it was last year.

Tennessee’s Budget and its Taxes

As Stacey Campfield (R – TN 18) notes in his recent post, ‘Easy Money’, under the Bredesen administration, state expenditures in Tennessee have grown from $19 billion in 2002 to 2007’s $28 billion dollar budget buster!. That’s a 32% increase in just 6 years!

Given Phil Bredesen (D) has traveled the state raising fears of $500 million shortfalls, adjustments to which run as high as an additional $500 million, it might be prudent to look at some numbers, especially since folks like NIT’s Christian Grantham are suggesting an Income Tax yet again.

Tax increases are generally justified by citing corresponding necessary increases in expenses. What justification exists for Tennessee’s skyrocketing budget? I understand things cost more over time. But 32% more? Has the cost of living in Tennessee increased 32% in 6 years? The Social Security Administration allowed Cost of Living Allowance increases averaging just 3.6% annually since 2002. Applied to to Tennessee’s budget that would have produced growth from $19 billion to just $22,200,588,000 for the same 6 years. Since Tennessee successfully raised the $28 billion for 2007’s expenses, had it also adopted SSA’s standards, the state would have spent more each year and still had a $5.8 billion surplus last year.

That’s $1,933 per person in the state’s labor force or almost $1,000 for every man, woman and child in Tennessee! Which makes Christian Grantham’s proposal convoluted and unnecessary. If the Governor would simply stop spending money like a drunken sailor, Tennesseans would automatically get tax cuts. Bredesen could double the SSA’s COLA rate in spending and we’d still have a surplus. If the state just lived within budget constraints Government imposes on many of its citizens, there would be no shortfall and we could reduce taxes across the board with real tax cuts. Failing that, at a minimum we could better afford the one thing Grantham proposes I do agree with, weaning Tennessee from its own Welfare reliance.

Christian Grantham proposes reducing our sales tax and adding an income tax because, in his words,

When state budgets are tied to consumer driven tax revenues, hard times can hit government services when they are needed the most … It would also provide the steady revenues the state needs for long-term financial stability rather than ebbing and flowing with consumer spending.

Not only does this ignore the Economic horror associated with having both an Income and a Sales tax, but it fails to realize problems inherent in consumer driven tax revenues apply to income driven tax revenues, too. He should consider what is happening right now in Michigan. This on the heels of Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm (D) ramming a massive $1.6 billion tax increase down the throats of Michigan taxpayers last year. People don’t spend less in down times only because fears are fueling their decisions. Just as often people spend less because they are making less. Foolishly adding an income tax to generate revenue removes what little day-to-day control citizens have over their tax payments and means Government cares more about getting money for its purposes while refusing to consider the welfare of its citizens. If taxpayers don’t have extra money to spend on consumer items, they surely don’t have extra money to finance out of control Government expansion. It’s time to see Government sacrifice before asking citizens to do the same.

Grantham’s income tax idea may well be great for what he calls the “long term financial stability” of Tennessee. I’m more concerned with the long term financial stability of Tennesseans.

Blue Collar Muse

A Lesson in Limited Government from a TN Congressman

Promoted from Blue Collar Republican.

In the following, excerpted from the book The Life of Colonel David Crockett (1884), compiled by Edward S. Ellis, the famous American frontiersman, war hero, and congressman from Tennessee relates how he learned — from one of his own backwoods constituents — the vital importance of heeding the Constitution and the dangers of disregarding its restraints.

Crockett was then the lion of Washington. I was a great admirer of his character, and, having several friends who were intimate with him, I found no difficulty in making his acquaintance. I was fascinated with him, and he seemed to take a fancy to me.

I was one day in the lobby of the House of Representatives when a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support, rather, as I thought, because it afforded the speakers a fine opportunity for display than from the necessity of convincing anybody, for it seemed to me that everybody favored it. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose. Everybody expected, of course, that he was going to make one of his characteristic speeches in support of the bill. He commenced:

“Mr. Speaker — I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him. This government can owe no debts but for services rendered, and at a stipulated price. If it is a debt, how much is it? Has it been audited, and the amount due ascertained? If it is a debt, this is not the place to present it for payment, or to have its merits examined. If it is a debt, we owe more than we can ever hope to pay, for we owe the widow of every soldier who fought in the War of 1812 precisely the same amount. There is a woman in my neighborhood, the widow of as gallant a man as ever shouldered a musket. He fell in battle. She is as good in every respect as this lady, and is as poor. She is earning her daily bread by her daily labor; but if I were to introduce a bill to appropriate five or ten thousand dollars for her benefit, I should be laughed at, and my bill would not get five votes in this House. There are thousands of widows in the country just such as the one I have spoken of, but we never hear of any of these large debts to them. Sir, this is no debt. The government did not owe it to the deceased when he was alive; it could not contract it after he died. I do not wish to be rude, but I must be plain. Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much of our own money as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks.”He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.

Like many other young men, and old ones too, for that matter, who had not thought upon the subject, I desired the passage of the bill, and felt outraged at its defeat. I determined that I would persuade my friend Crockett to move a reconsideration the next day.

Previous engagements preventing me from seeing Crockett that night, I went early to his room the next morning and found him engaged in addressing and franking letters, a large pile of which lay upon his table.

I broke in upon him rather abruptly, by asking him what devil had possessed him to make that speech and defeat that bill yesterday. Without turning his head or looking up from his work, he replied:

“You see that I am very busy now; take a seat and cool yourself. I will be through in a few minutes, and then I will tell you all about it.”

He continued his employment for about ten minutes, and when he had finished he turned to me and said:

“Now, sir, I will answer your question. But thereby hangs a tale, and one of considerable length, to which you will have to listen.”

I listened, and this is the tale which I heard:

“Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. When we got there, I went to work, and I never worked as hard in my life as I did there for several hours. But, in spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made houseless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them, and everybody else seemed to feel the same way.

“The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done. I said everybody felt as I did. That was not quite so; for, though they perhaps sympathized as deeply with the sufferers as I did, there were a few of the members who did not think we had the right to indulge our sympathy or excite our charity at the expense of anybody but ourselves. They opposed the bill, and upon its passage demanded the yeas and nays. There were not enough of them to sustain the call, but many of us wanted our names to appear in favor of what we considered a praiseworthy measure, and we voted with them to sustain it. So the yeas and nays were recorded, and my name appeared on the journals in favor of the bill.

“The next summer, when it began to be time to think about the election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up, and I thought it was best to let the boys know that I had not forgot them, and that going to Congress had not made me too proud to go to see them.

“So I put a couple of shirts and a few twists of tobacco into my saddlebags, and put out. I had been out about a week and had found things going very smoothly, when, riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly, and was about turning his horse for another furrow when I said to him: ‘Don’t be in such a hurry, my friend; I want to have a little talk with you, and get better acquainted.’ He replied:

“‘I am very busy, and have but little time to talk, but if it does not take too long, I will listen to what you have to say.’

“I began: ‘Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and –’

“‘Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.’

“This was a sockdolager …. I begged him to tell me what was the matter.

“‘Well, Colonel, it is hardly worthwhile to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest …. But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is.’

“‘I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question.’

“‘No, Colonel, there’s no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?’

“‘Certainly it is, and I thought that was the last vote which anybody in the world would have found fault with.’

“‘Well, Colonel, where do you find in the Constitution any authority to give away the public money in charity?’

“Here was another sockdolager; for, when I began to think about it, I could not remember a thing in the Constitution that authorized it. I found I must take another tack, so I said:

“‘Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.’

“‘It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be intrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week’s pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.’”

“I have given you,” continued Crockett, “an imperfect account of what he said. Long before he was through, I was convinced that I had done wrong. He wound up by saying:

“‘So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you.’

“I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go to talking, he would set others to talking, and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:

“‘Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot.’

“He laughingly replied: ‘Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and, perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way.’

“‘If I don’t,’ said I, ‘I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them, Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it.’

“‘No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. This is Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you.’

“‘Well, I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-by. I must know your name.’

“‘My name is Bunce.’

“‘Not Horatio Bunce?’

“‘Yes.’

“‘Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me, but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend. You must let me shake your hand before I go.’

“We shook hands and parted.

“It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence and incorruptible integrity, and for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.

“At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before.

“Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before.

“I have told you Mr. Bunce converted me politically. He came nearer converting me religiously than I had ever been before. He did not make a very good Christian of me, as you know; but he has wrought upon my mind a conviction of the truth of Christianity, and upon my feelings a reverence for its purifying and elevating power such as I had never felt before.

“I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him — no, that is not the word — I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if every one who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the word by storm.

“But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue, and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted — at least, they all knew me.

“In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying:

“‘Fellow-citizens — I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only.’

“I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation as I have told it to you, and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:

“‘And now, fellow-citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.

“‘It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit of it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so.’

“He came upon the stand and said:

“‘Fellow-citizens — It affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today.’

“He went down, and there went up from that crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.

“I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.

“Now, sir,” concluded Crockett, “you know why I made that speech yesterday. I have had several thousand copies of it printed, and was directing them to my constituents when you came in.

“There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a week’s pay. There are in that House many’ very wealthy men — men who think nothing of spending a week’s pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased — a debt which could not be paid by money — and the insignificance and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $10,000, when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it.”

Conservatism and Intellectuals

Promoted from John Norris’ Appalachian Scribe.

Lots of debate lately about the role of intellectuals in the conservative movement. Anyone who’s been paying attention has surely noted the movement’s swing in a more populist direction. Notably, we have Rush Limbaugh calling out intellectuals for daring criticize Sarah Palin and Tennessee GOP Chair Robin Smith bashing “intellectual snobs”.

Now, nothing I am about to say should be construed as an endorsement of everything intellectual. As Thomas Sowell points out, intellectuals have been wrong countless times over the years. But to imply that intellectuals have no place in the GOP is not the way to success.

It is ironic that conservatism has become so populist. This is a new phenomena. If you read the writings of conservative leaders of the past (William F. Buckley and Russell Kirk, for instance), you will find constant warnings about the dangers of excess democracy. Such concerns should not be surprising. Conservatism is at least partially rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition which teaches us that we live in a fallen world and that human nature is essentially bad. Believing this, why then should we believe in the infallibility of the masses?

If you are more secular, then you should also appreciate that conservatism is rooted in our founding documents and in the political ideals of our Founding Fathers. Our Founders did not give us a democracy; they gave us a republic (something most seem to have forgotten). If you read their writings, you again you will find warnings about the dangers of too much democracy. The conservative populist cannot find much support here either.

Still, if one wants to win elections, one must appeal to the common man. Albert Jay Nock and Russell Kirk are great, but it’s hard to build a winning campaign on pessimism. So some comprises must be made, and intellectual ideas must be made practical. We can debate about political philosophy until the cows come home, but, unless we win an election, we can do little about it. The Barry Goldwaters and Ronald Reagans of the world were able to put ideas into action, and helped move America rightward. Both conservative intellectuals and populists should be able to agree that this is a great thing.

So if the GOP is to win again, it must keep both its intellectuals and its populists. Yes, intellectuals can be snobbish and yes they are sometimes wrong, but ideas can only spring from thoughts. If a movement is to succeed, it must have new ideas.