This is too good to get lost in the comments section of the previous post. This is futher explanation of how Metro has tried to stack the deck against competitors to the well-connected established limousine companies.
Syed A Bokhari has left a new comment on your post "Repeal of Limo Price Fixing on Metro Council Agend...":
Also, the ordinance requires a dispatch office
for even the one car owner. It is a limo business for last decades
lot of people were this business part time. They have a full time jobs.
And also, have sedan or limo to supplement their income. They drive
the car only on weekend to support their families. It is hard to make a
living with one job because of the slow economy or other contributing
factors.
What realistic numbers a small business owner afford an
office and a payroll of a full time dispatcher when he is making only a
couple hundred a week on weekends? The ordinance was written by the high
end limo companies that have fleets and full time office with
dispatchers so one car owners or a small guy cannot even survive. I
have a question for Brian McQuistion, tell me the numbers how a small
operator can afford all the expenses and pay the city licensing fees,
dispatch office, etc.????
I could see how you hate the small guys in
your open public meeting. You called security to a small guy when he
asked you about public safety and tried to put him out of a public
meeting, since you were a public servant you, Brian, violated his first
amendment right. Are you a public servant? I strongly believe an the
ordinance was an organized crime against small guys. I personally have
the largest discount car service in Nashville with the largest dispatch
office as well. But I started everything with one car. So they made sure
there will never be another Metro Livery born again.
Saturday, January 14, 2012
Friday, January 13, 2012
Responsible Borrowers Should not Bail out Reckless Borrowers
“Reducing the principal on home loans for borrowers who put no money down amounts to a massive wealth transfer from places like Tennessee, where most homeowners have borrowed responsibly, to places like California and New York, where exotic mortgages were widely used to finance a speculative housing boom,” Corker said. “It is absolutely egregious that the Federal Reserve would insert itself in this manner and ask people in Tennessee who played by the rules to bail out reckless borrowers in other parts of the country. A program like this one that reduces principal for a few million underwater borrowers would come at a substantial cost to American taxpayers and responsible borrowers everywhere.”
Senator Corker has introduced the Residential Mortgage Market Privatization and Standardization Act in an effort to start a real conversation in Washington about the need to responsibly unwind government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and gradually end dependence on the government for housing finance.
I agree with Senator Corker and like Senator Corker I am a proponent of expanding homeownership opportunity. However, there is a wrong way and a right way to do it. Irresponsible behavior should not be subsidized and encouraged. Many homeowners somehow feel they should be bailed out because their home did not increase in value or because they owe more on their home than its current value. There was never a guarantee that home values would always increase.
Homeowners who got a conforming loan should not bail out those who got an adjustable, 80/20, negative amortization, pick-your-payment, interest-only or other type of "creative financing" product. Homeowners who bought a reasonably priced home should not bail out those who bought more home than they could afford. Those who planned for their retirement and either had their home paid for by the time they retired or had a reasonable mortgage payment they could afford on their retirement income, should not bail out those who at age 50 got a 30-year mortgage and upon retiring at age 65 can no longer afford their mortgage. Those who paid a reasonable downpayment should not bail out those who got into a home with no money down. Responsible people should not have to bail out irresponsible people.
Woodbine Really Needs Another Used Car Lot
In response to a question asked in the new South Nashville Free Press of Councilman Tenpenny about what is being done to enhance and develop the Nolensville Road corridor, he replies, "We have Enterprise Rent A Car leasing property on the corner of Melrose, which will give the property a $100,000-$150,000 upgrade."
Oops! Where has Councilman Tenpenny been? As long as I can remember the community has been trying to get anything but another used car lot. If given a multiple choice question, "which would your rather have in Woodbine, another used car lot, a strip club or a crack house?", I am not sure which the engaged citizens of Woodbine would choose. Former Council Member Amanda McClendon worked to change the zoning in order to discourage used car lots. Woodbine wants "downtown Woodbine" to resemble something like Hillsboro Village with an international flare. They want it to be a destination for dining and shopping. Maybe a bookstore or coffee shop would be nice or a little boutique or a fresh vegetable stand. Another used car lot will not be viewed as enhancing the corridor.
Oops! Where has Councilman Tenpenny been? As long as I can remember the community has been trying to get anything but another used car lot. If given a multiple choice question, "which would your rather have in Woodbine, another used car lot, a strip club or a crack house?", I am not sure which the engaged citizens of Woodbine would choose. Former Council Member Amanda McClendon worked to change the zoning in order to discourage used car lots. Woodbine wants "downtown Woodbine" to resemble something like Hillsboro Village with an international flare. They want it to be a destination for dining and shopping. Maybe a bookstore or coffee shop would be nice or a little boutique or a fresh vegetable stand. Another used car lot will not be viewed as enhancing the corridor.
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Why I am Supporting Rick Santorum
By Gene Wisdom
This year’s field of Republican candidates doesn’t give one a lot of hope. Fault lies both with the candidates (there is no Ronald Reagan) and us the Republican voters (there is no Ronald Reagan). We had our dream candidate in the 1980’s and are still looking for that hero. We keep hoping Reagan will top the next hill and fight off the liberals for us again. He ain’t there, folks.
And we see a reprise of 1980--George Bush played by Mitt Romney and a bunch of Gipper wannabees auditioning for the role. Mind you, if there is a role to strive for it is that of Ronald Reagan—principled conservative, who knew deeply what he believed and had been in the trenches struggling for those values, stepping onto the stage as a voice for the first real conservative Presidential candidate, Barry Goldwater. Reagan further was the voice for, well, Reagan Democrats, understanding that everyone benefits from a freer economy and society, not just the wealthy.
“Where is our Reagan? Where is our Reagan”, we cry. Our nation’s predicament is perhaps more dire than then—a Democratic President with a history deep in American socialism, who has buried our grandchildren in government debt, adding crushing layers of regulation to a weakened economy, bows to foreign leaders, and has sought to strip our military capabilities to the bone. And recently tossed the Constitution to the curb with illegal appointments. He makes Jimmy Carter, by comparison, look like a cross between Milton Friedman and George Patton.
Do we have someone, though, principled to the core, who fits quite comfortably into President Reagan’s boots? I believe we do, in Rick Santorum.
In areas that matter to conservatives, Santorum is one of us. On social issues, he is of course opposed to abortion. As a Catholic of deep faith, he is also opposed to contraception. While not a kooky, extreme idea (it is a core tenet of Catholic teaching) it is certainly a minority position even among conservatives. He has specifically said he would be against imposing that view. It is a personal position of morality. Are conservatives so co-opted by the mainstream that we have no appreciation for firm moral values?
Same-sex marriage is also an area to ask this question. There are certainly different positions in a spectrum of opposition to this experiment ranging from Ron Paul’s personal opposition while saying that marriage is a personal event that has no place for government at all to Rick Santorum’s position that the family is such a central institution (nay, THE, central institution) that it must be protected on a national level and that societal order calls for avoiding a hodgepodge of state laws. I don’t know what the polls say but I would venture to guess that even the mainstream in this modernized society agrees with conservative affirmation of traditional marriage between a man and a woman. Modernization is not necessarily progress. That is a core understanding of conservatism.
It is these same core values that animate Santorum’s principled belief in limited government. Government is not the key to a stable and secure society—strong families are. Government should not replace fathers, an insight reinforced by the studies and insights of George Gilder, Charles Murray and neoconservative Democrat Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
Neither should government replace the market. Ronald Reagan knew that freedom was both right and that it works. Rick Santorum sups from that same wellspring of values. Many cling to this notion that Rick Santorum can play only one note when the truth is he knows well the symphony that is conservative political philosophy. His program is one that speaks to stopping the madness of crushing federal spending and deficits, and regulations that stifle production and jobs.
Do I agree with all that Rick Santorum proposes? Of course not. On his website he proposes freezing defense spending. With military budgets already slashed and military capabilities withering in a world brimming with challenges around the globe it is shortsighted even though rooted in the knowledge we can’t send future generations over the cliff of national bankruptcy. Our military capabilities, that is, our ability to defend our interests (which does include keeping commitments to allies) around the world are already cut into muscle. Our Navy is at pre-World War I levels, the Air Force mission is severely compromised as the F-22 was frozen and now there is talk of cutting the F-35. Our nuclear arsenal is aging and losing reliability while the missile defense program to protect us from nuclear attacks by such freak states as North Korea and Iran, not to mention the growing threat of China’s nuclear arsenal and the renewed threat of a rebuilding Russian arsenal, continues to be cut. I do believe, though, that Rick Santorum has voiced a clear understanding of the threats to our nation and that he will act intelligently on that understanding.
Electability? Let’s not forget a key reason conservative voters have been so passionate about finding the right candidate in this race—Barack Obama. He is the reason that any Republican starts with a strong measure of electability in this race. His Administration has been a failure at nearly every level, except that of advancing this country on the path to socialism, economic ruin, and weakening us militarily.
Even the successes of the defensive war against radical Islam are due to the measures put in place by his predecessor and which Obama opposed in 2008. Rick Santorum understands this is a war begun by barbarian enemies. It is a war that requires both clear sight and resolution. The “electable” candidate has neither. Clear sight would have kept Governor Romney from flip-flopping on important issues and from defending the program that inspired Obamacare.
But Obama’s failures do not guarantee Santorum’s success against him. It does, however, give him a baseline to work with. He has added to that baseline with firm values and a firm understanding of the principles that conservatives understand to be the bedrock of America and the reason for her exceptionalism.
Electability? That is what some said Gerald Ford had against Jimmy Carter in 1976. He failed where the clear-eyed conservative beat Carter four years later. Had we nominated the candidate in 1976 who had “that vision thing” that Bush 41 derided we might have avoided the four painful Jimmy Carter years. Electability in the case of Gerald Ford, and I believe Mitt Romney may not mean clarity of values.
Rod, you asked why you should vote for my candidate. You should vote for Rick Santorum because both you and he are conservatives. You may disagree on some important, even key, areas but at bottom he is a candidate who holds deeply to the view that government is not the source of our nation’s strength, and certainly that a bigger, stronger government actually saps that strength. He doesn’t hold to the atomistic individualism of Ron Paul, nor the muddle-headed “pragmatic” establishment Republicanism of Mitt Romney. Nor is he simply a committed 2nd and 10th Amendment conservative who doesn’t understand the roots of those beliefs as I believe is the case with Rick Perry. Vote for Senator Santorum because he is a clear-thinking, well-spoken conservative who believes firmly in reducing the role and size of government and keeping our nation free and secure.
Just like you do.
Gene submitted this article in response to my call for readers to tell me who they are supporting for the Republican presidential nominee and why. I would like to hear from you. Please leave a comment or submit an essay for publication and please vote in the poll posted to the left.
 |
| Vicki and Gene Wisdom |
And we see a reprise of 1980--George Bush played by Mitt Romney and a bunch of Gipper wannabees auditioning for the role. Mind you, if there is a role to strive for it is that of Ronald Reagan—principled conservative, who knew deeply what he believed and had been in the trenches struggling for those values, stepping onto the stage as a voice for the first real conservative Presidential candidate, Barry Goldwater. Reagan further was the voice for, well, Reagan Democrats, understanding that everyone benefits from a freer economy and society, not just the wealthy.
“Where is our Reagan? Where is our Reagan”, we cry. Our nation’s predicament is perhaps more dire than then—a Democratic President with a history deep in American socialism, who has buried our grandchildren in government debt, adding crushing layers of regulation to a weakened economy, bows to foreign leaders, and has sought to strip our military capabilities to the bone. And recently tossed the Constitution to the curb with illegal appointments. He makes Jimmy Carter, by comparison, look like a cross between Milton Friedman and George Patton.
Do we have someone, though, principled to the core, who fits quite comfortably into President Reagan’s boots? I believe we do, in Rick Santorum.
In areas that matter to conservatives, Santorum is one of us. On social issues, he is of course opposed to abortion. As a Catholic of deep faith, he is also opposed to contraception. While not a kooky, extreme idea (it is a core tenet of Catholic teaching) it is certainly a minority position even among conservatives. He has specifically said he would be against imposing that view. It is a personal position of morality. Are conservatives so co-opted by the mainstream that we have no appreciation for firm moral values?
Same-sex marriage is also an area to ask this question. There are certainly different positions in a spectrum of opposition to this experiment ranging from Ron Paul’s personal opposition while saying that marriage is a personal event that has no place for government at all to Rick Santorum’s position that the family is such a central institution (nay, THE, central institution) that it must be protected on a national level and that societal order calls for avoiding a hodgepodge of state laws. I don’t know what the polls say but I would venture to guess that even the mainstream in this modernized society agrees with conservative affirmation of traditional marriage between a man and a woman. Modernization is not necessarily progress. That is a core understanding of conservatism.
It is these same core values that animate Santorum’s principled belief in limited government. Government is not the key to a stable and secure society—strong families are. Government should not replace fathers, an insight reinforced by the studies and insights of George Gilder, Charles Murray and neoconservative Democrat Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
Neither should government replace the market. Ronald Reagan knew that freedom was both right and that it works. Rick Santorum sups from that same wellspring of values. Many cling to this notion that Rick Santorum can play only one note when the truth is he knows well the symphony that is conservative political philosophy. His program is one that speaks to stopping the madness of crushing federal spending and deficits, and regulations that stifle production and jobs.
Do I agree with all that Rick Santorum proposes? Of course not. On his website he proposes freezing defense spending. With military budgets already slashed and military capabilities withering in a world brimming with challenges around the globe it is shortsighted even though rooted in the knowledge we can’t send future generations over the cliff of national bankruptcy. Our military capabilities, that is, our ability to defend our interests (which does include keeping commitments to allies) around the world are already cut into muscle. Our Navy is at pre-World War I levels, the Air Force mission is severely compromised as the F-22 was frozen and now there is talk of cutting the F-35. Our nuclear arsenal is aging and losing reliability while the missile defense program to protect us from nuclear attacks by such freak states as North Korea and Iran, not to mention the growing threat of China’s nuclear arsenal and the renewed threat of a rebuilding Russian arsenal, continues to be cut. I do believe, though, that Rick Santorum has voiced a clear understanding of the threats to our nation and that he will act intelligently on that understanding.
Electability? Let’s not forget a key reason conservative voters have been so passionate about finding the right candidate in this race—Barack Obama. He is the reason that any Republican starts with a strong measure of electability in this race. His Administration has been a failure at nearly every level, except that of advancing this country on the path to socialism, economic ruin, and weakening us militarily.
Even the successes of the defensive war against radical Islam are due to the measures put in place by his predecessor and which Obama opposed in 2008. Rick Santorum understands this is a war begun by barbarian enemies. It is a war that requires both clear sight and resolution. The “electable” candidate has neither. Clear sight would have kept Governor Romney from flip-flopping on important issues and from defending the program that inspired Obamacare.
But Obama’s failures do not guarantee Santorum’s success against him. It does, however, give him a baseline to work with. He has added to that baseline with firm values and a firm understanding of the principles that conservatives understand to be the bedrock of America and the reason for her exceptionalism.
Electability? That is what some said Gerald Ford had against Jimmy Carter in 1976. He failed where the clear-eyed conservative beat Carter four years later. Had we nominated the candidate in 1976 who had “that vision thing” that Bush 41 derided we might have avoided the four painful Jimmy Carter years. Electability in the case of Gerald Ford, and I believe Mitt Romney may not mean clarity of values.
Rod, you asked why you should vote for my candidate. You should vote for Rick Santorum because both you and he are conservatives. You may disagree on some important, even key, areas but at bottom he is a candidate who holds deeply to the view that government is not the source of our nation’s strength, and certainly that a bigger, stronger government actually saps that strength. He doesn’t hold to the atomistic individualism of Ron Paul, nor the muddle-headed “pragmatic” establishment Republicanism of Mitt Romney. Nor is he simply a committed 2nd and 10th Amendment conservative who doesn’t understand the roots of those beliefs as I believe is the case with Rick Perry. Vote for Senator Santorum because he is a clear-thinking, well-spoken conservative who believes firmly in reducing the role and size of government and keeping our nation free and secure.
Just like you do.
Gene Wisdom is an Alabama native, has lived in the Nashville area since 2007. He, his wife Vicki, and their dog Savannah live near Nolensville.
For Whom Would you Vote in the South Carolina Primary?
The polls just closed in New Hampshire with former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney in the lead, Ron Paul looks to be in second and Jon Huntsman in third. More detailed information should be available soon.
So, where do we go from here? Herman Cain is gone, Michelle Backman is gone and everyone else looks damaged. Mitt Romney keeps winning and leading in the polls, yet I hardly ever hear anyone who seems really thrilled by his candidacy. Will Romney be the nominee? Can you support him? Will South Carolina narrow the field to only one potential competitor to Romney? Who will that be?
As all who follow politics know, the Iowa caucus was won by Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum closely followed. Below are the results of the Iowa caucus.
After Santorum's come-from-way- behind win in Iowa, I am going to take a closer look at Santorum but fear his emphasis on social issues will not play well in a general election. I just don't think that is where our party's emphasis should be. While I do think that one can hold a moral view that is different than one's policy objectives as President, I am still turned off by Santorum's views on birth control. I don't think he would try to ban birth control, mind you; I just have a hard time embracing one with those views. However, that would not be a factor in my support for him if he otherwise inspired or motivated me. I really don't know what it is, but I can't get excited about Santorum. He just doesn't look like the kind of guy I would want to have a beer with.
I have been a supporter of Newt Gingrich, getting on the Newt bandwagon in early November after about a week each of liking Bachman, Cain and Perry. I had a hard time getting very enthused about any of our candidates then I saw a debate between Cain and Gringrich and was so impressed with Gingrich that I remembered why I liked him so much when he was Speaker. I am still hanging in there with Newt but am now a weak supporter. My enthusiasm is waning. I am beginning to think electability is a more important factor than other factors. I am now not so sure Republicans should gamble on Newt. I still think he is the smartest of the bunch, but not sure he can win a general election against Obama. For the many people who primarily vote based on a gut lever reaction rather than thinking much about the issue, I am afraid Newt negatives would outweigh his positives.
No matter that Ron Paul has done well in the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary, I just do not believe he will be the Republican nominee. He is just too far outside the mainstream. I just hope the libertarian Republicans do not go play in the Libertarian Party. A defection from a defeated Ron Paul would guarantee an Obama election.
I have been opposed to Mitt Romney, but I am not sure there is an alternative who has electability. I so fear that our country will hardly be recognizable if we have four more years of Obama, that I may go with the electable Romney over smart guy Newt. I also going to give Mitt another chance to convince me he is sufficiently conservative to deserve my support and he will lead the country rather than chase opinion polls.
I attended First Tuesday last week and a secret poll was taken of those attending. First Tuesday is an important monthly Republican luncheon here in Nashville. It is hard to estimate the attendance but maybe two to three hundred people attend. In the First Tuesday poll, Mitt Romney was the overwhelming favorite. Of course First Tuesday is attended by committed Republican who can take a long lunch break and may reflect a more establishment point of view than the average Republican voter. Still, I was surprised by the level of support for Mitt. I did not take notes but he got about half of all votes cast at this event.
I ran a pre-Iowa poll here on Disgruntled Republican. The poll was up for about ten days and sixty-eight people voted. It ended the day of the Iowa primary. I wanted to see who visitors of this blog supported. Newt Gingrich came in first getting 26% of the votes cast, followed by Ron Paul in second place with 25% and then Mitt Romney. Below are the totals:
Newt Gingrich 18 (26%)
Ron Paul 17 (25%)
Mitt Romney 12 (17%)
Jon Huntsman 6 (8%)
Rick Perry 6 (8%)
Michele Bachmann 6 (8%)
Rick Santorum 3 (4%)
Please tell me who you support and why I should get behind your candidate. Any good essays will be posted as stand alone post in addition to being printed in the comments section of this post.
I am posted a new poll. If you were voting in the South Carolina Primary, for whom would you vote? Please cast your vote in the poll to the left. This poll will run from now through Saturday, January 21, 2012, the day of the South Carolina primary. This poll is only running for ten days. Please vote. Despite withdrawing from the race, the names Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain and Gary Johnson will still appear on the South Carolina ballot.
So, where do we go from here? Herman Cain is gone, Michelle Backman is gone and everyone else looks damaged. Mitt Romney keeps winning and leading in the polls, yet I hardly ever hear anyone who seems really thrilled by his candidacy. Will Romney be the nominee? Can you support him? Will South Carolina narrow the field to only one potential competitor to Romney? Who will that be?
As all who follow politics know, the Iowa caucus was won by Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum closely followed. Below are the results of the Iowa caucus.
| Mitt Romney | 30,015 | 24.6% |  |
| Rick Santorum | 30,007 | 24.5% | |
| Ron Paul | 26,219 | 21.4% | |
| Newt Gingrich | 16,251 | 13.3% | |
| Rick Perry | 12,604 | 10.3% | |
After Santorum's come-from-way- behind win in Iowa, I am going to take a closer look at Santorum but fear his emphasis on social issues will not play well in a general election. I just don't think that is where our party's emphasis should be. While I do think that one can hold a moral view that is different than one's policy objectives as President, I am still turned off by Santorum's views on birth control. I don't think he would try to ban birth control, mind you; I just have a hard time embracing one with those views. However, that would not be a factor in my support for him if he otherwise inspired or motivated me. I really don't know what it is, but I can't get excited about Santorum. He just doesn't look like the kind of guy I would want to have a beer with.
I have been a supporter of Newt Gingrich, getting on the Newt bandwagon in early November after about a week each of liking Bachman, Cain and Perry. I had a hard time getting very enthused about any of our candidates then I saw a debate between Cain and Gringrich and was so impressed with Gingrich that I remembered why I liked him so much when he was Speaker. I am still hanging in there with Newt but am now a weak supporter. My enthusiasm is waning. I am beginning to think electability is a more important factor than other factors. I am now not so sure Republicans should gamble on Newt. I still think he is the smartest of the bunch, but not sure he can win a general election against Obama. For the many people who primarily vote based on a gut lever reaction rather than thinking much about the issue, I am afraid Newt negatives would outweigh his positives.
No matter that Ron Paul has done well in the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary, I just do not believe he will be the Republican nominee. He is just too far outside the mainstream. I just hope the libertarian Republicans do not go play in the Libertarian Party. A defection from a defeated Ron Paul would guarantee an Obama election.
I have been opposed to Mitt Romney, but I am not sure there is an alternative who has electability. I so fear that our country will hardly be recognizable if we have four more years of Obama, that I may go with the electable Romney over smart guy Newt. I also going to give Mitt another chance to convince me he is sufficiently conservative to deserve my support and he will lead the country rather than chase opinion polls.
I attended First Tuesday last week and a secret poll was taken of those attending. First Tuesday is an important monthly Republican luncheon here in Nashville. It is hard to estimate the attendance but maybe two to three hundred people attend. In the First Tuesday poll, Mitt Romney was the overwhelming favorite. Of course First Tuesday is attended by committed Republican who can take a long lunch break and may reflect a more establishment point of view than the average Republican voter. Still, I was surprised by the level of support for Mitt. I did not take notes but he got about half of all votes cast at this event.
I ran a pre-Iowa poll here on Disgruntled Republican. The poll was up for about ten days and sixty-eight people voted. It ended the day of the Iowa primary. I wanted to see who visitors of this blog supported. Newt Gingrich came in first getting 26% of the votes cast, followed by Ron Paul in second place with 25% and then Mitt Romney. Below are the totals:
Newt Gingrich 18 (26%)
Ron Paul 17 (25%)
Mitt Romney 12 (17%)
Jon Huntsman 6 (8%)
Rick Perry 6 (8%)
Michele Bachmann 6 (8%)
Rick Santorum 3 (4%)
Please tell me who you support and why I should get behind your candidate. Any good essays will be posted as stand alone post in addition to being printed in the comments section of this post.
I am posted a new poll. If you were voting in the South Carolina Primary, for whom would you vote? Please cast your vote in the poll to the left. This poll will run from now through Saturday, January 21, 2012, the day of the South Carolina primary. This poll is only running for ten days. Please vote. Despite withdrawing from the race, the names Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain and Gary Johnson will still appear on the South Carolina ballot.
It is Time for Wine
HAPPY NEW YEAR!
The 2012 legislative session is set to begin today, Jan. 10, and Red White and Food wants you to know that we are back and stronger than ever before. The 2012 Tennessee General Assembly will confront many issues this year. While liquor laws are not likely to be a priority, that does not mean that we have to back down from the progress we have made. Red White and Food is 26,000 members strong. Your participation has made an incredible difference in the success of our campaign to bring wine to Tennessee’s retail food stores.
Our plans for new legislation are still being finalized, but one thing is certain: State lawmakers must hear your voice this session. They will have to confront what many media outlets have already picked up on – the significant divide between their own opinions and those of their constituents. Just look at a 2011 poll conducted by Middle Tennessee State University that shows nearly 70 percent of Tennessee voters want to buy wine where they shop for food.
Since last session, both the House and Senate State and Local Government committees have undergone changes in leadership. Rep. Bob Ramsey, R-Maryville, now chairs the House State and Local Government Committee and Rep. Ryan Haynes, R-Knoxville, chairs the subcommittee, while Sen. Jack Johnson, R-Franklin, has been appointed as vice chairman to the Senate State and Local Government Committee. These committees are extremely important to our efforts, so check out the RWF key legislators page to see if your legislator is among them. Here’s what you can do today to make a difference in this campaign:
The 2012 legislative session is set to begin today, Jan. 10, and Red White and Food wants you to know that we are back and stronger than ever before. The 2012 Tennessee General Assembly will confront many issues this year. While liquor laws are not likely to be a priority, that does not mean that we have to back down from the progress we have made. Red White and Food is 26,000 members strong. Your participation has made an incredible difference in the success of our campaign to bring wine to Tennessee’s retail food stores.
Our plans for new legislation are still being finalized, but one thing is certain: State lawmakers must hear your voice this session. They will have to confront what many media outlets have already picked up on – the significant divide between their own opinions and those of their constituents. Just look at a 2011 poll conducted by Middle Tennessee State University that shows nearly 70 percent of Tennessee voters want to buy wine where they shop for food.
Since last session, both the House and Senate State and Local Government committees have undergone changes in leadership. Rep. Bob Ramsey, R-Maryville, now chairs the House State and Local Government Committee and Rep. Ryan Haynes, R-Knoxville, chairs the subcommittee, while Sen. Jack Johnson, R-Franklin, has been appointed as vice chairman to the Senate State and Local Government Committee. These committees are extremely important to our efforts, so check out the RWF key legislators page to see if your legislator is among them. Here’s what you can do today to make a difference in this campaign:
- Spread the word. Tell three friends about Red White and Food and ask them to join our coalition.
- Like our Facebook page.
- Follow us on Twitter.
- Read the most recent media coverage, including a column from The Tennessean’s Gail Kerr, News Channel 5’s report on how Voters May Decide Wine in Grocery Stores, and editorials from the Johnson City Press, Clarksville Leaf Chronicle and Chattanooga Times Free Press.
We’ll be in touch in the weeks to come about our
plans for the legislative session and to share details about our legislation
when it is filed. And as always, we’ll be asking you to contact your
legislators in support of this effort.
Here’s to a victory for wine and consumers in 2012.
Cheers,
The Red White and Food Team
Here’s to a victory for wine and consumers in 2012.
Cheers,
The Red White and Food Team
Here’s to a victory for wine and consumers in 2012.
I'll drink to that. Rod
Councilman Tenpenny and the Chainsaw Incident
What happens when you find your Metro councilman in your backyard, flanked by 20 people with chainsaws?: The Bamboo Jungle
Posting in The 16th District Voice on Facebook, Councilman Tenpenny says, "I wish they could get their facts right."
Posting in The 16th District Voice on Facebook, Councilman Tenpenny says, "I wish they could get their facts right."
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
No Chickens says Sylvan Park
From the Nashville Neighbors Google Group:
"At our annual membership meeting in Dec, we voted to oppose this bill. It can
not and will not be enforced. It pits neighbor against neighbor plus who wants
to have chickens 25 ft from their house with the smell and the noise."
Wendell Goodman
President, Historic Sylvan Park Inc.
"At our annual membership meeting in Dec, we voted to oppose this bill. It can
not and will not be enforced. It pits neighbor against neighbor plus who wants
to have chickens 25 ft from their house with the smell and the noise."
Wendell Goodman
President, Historic Sylvan Park Inc.
School Board Meeting 1-10-2012: Board Supports The Dream Act for Illegal Immigrants
The Metro Board of Education passed at their January 10th School Board meeting a resolution expressing support for the Dream Act and calling upon the state legislature to support it. Astonishingly, this resolution passed with absolutely no discussion and it passed unanimously.
See 15:10 in the below video to watch the School Board in action on this issue.
The Dream Act would allow access to higher education for illegal alien young people who were brought to this country as children by their parents. Currently, while a public school system must educate children of illegal aliens through high school, a child who is an illegal alien may graduate high school with honors and then be unable to attend a state college on a scholarship and, if they try to pay their own way, they can not get the in-state tuition rate. The Dream Act would allow illegal immigrant children to attend college on the same terms as citizens and if they completed college they would then be allowed to become American Citizens. Another provision of the Dream Act says that if illegal alien young adults brought to this country as children by their parents, will honorably serve in the US military, they may be granted citizenship. I do not know what were the specifics of the resolution the School Board adopted.
Many people view the Dream Act as amnesty and it is controversial. Quite frankly, I favor some form of the Dream Act. For those who were brought here as children and have been educated in an American public school, upon graduation I think it is shameful that they are then told they can not legally get a job or go to school. They are Americanized. Culturally they are Americans. Many have only a vague memory of their home country if any memory at all. They may not even speak their native language. It is time for at least a little compassion. Having said that however, I am appalled that no one on the School Board even thought this resolution was worthy of discussion. You would think that out of a nine member board there would be at least one person who would make the "this-is-amnesty" argument. You would think there would be at least one member who would say, "let us defer this a meeting and think about it." You would think some one would ask what are the specifics of what we are endorsing. While I support the Dream Act for a very young child, I am not so sure I support if for a "child" just a day shy of 18 or 21. We have way too much group-think on the Metro School Board and we have too few inquiring minds.
In other action
The Board voted to support lowering the teacher-student ratio for English-learner population from 30 to 20 in the Basic Education Program funding formula. (16:17) This is explained.
Charter Schools: A resolution is presented opposing a state proposal to allow multiple charter school "authorizers." (See 21:49) Apparently, some school districts are so opposed to charter schools that they routinely reject all proposals. At the state level their is a proposal that would allow the state to authorize charter schools. The "advocacy" committee of the School Board had recommended this resolution opposing multiple authorizers unanimously. School Board Member Michael W. Haynes spoke in opposition to the proposal arguing the advantages of entrepreneurial charter schools and the need for multiple authorizers. Member North argued in favor of the resolution. The vote was 8 for the resolution and only Haynes voting in opposition. I am impressed by Michael Haynes. At least there is one independent voice on the school board.
There is a presentation and lengthy discussion of the advance placement course program. Again, Mr. Haynes distinguishes himself by asking probing and insightful questions.
See 15:10 in the below video to watch the School Board in action on this issue.
The Dream Act would allow access to higher education for illegal alien young people who were brought to this country as children by their parents. Currently, while a public school system must educate children of illegal aliens through high school, a child who is an illegal alien may graduate high school with honors and then be unable to attend a state college on a scholarship and, if they try to pay their own way, they can not get the in-state tuition rate. The Dream Act would allow illegal immigrant children to attend college on the same terms as citizens and if they completed college they would then be allowed to become American Citizens. Another provision of the Dream Act says that if illegal alien young adults brought to this country as children by their parents, will honorably serve in the US military, they may be granted citizenship. I do not know what were the specifics of the resolution the School Board adopted.
Many people view the Dream Act as amnesty and it is controversial. Quite frankly, I favor some form of the Dream Act. For those who were brought here as children and have been educated in an American public school, upon graduation I think it is shameful that they are then told they can not legally get a job or go to school. They are Americanized. Culturally they are Americans. Many have only a vague memory of their home country if any memory at all. They may not even speak their native language. It is time for at least a little compassion. Having said that however, I am appalled that no one on the School Board even thought this resolution was worthy of discussion. You would think that out of a nine member board there would be at least one person who would make the "this-is-amnesty" argument. You would think there would be at least one member who would say, "let us defer this a meeting and think about it." You would think some one would ask what are the specifics of what we are endorsing. While I support the Dream Act for a very young child, I am not so sure I support if for a "child" just a day shy of 18 or 21. We have way too much group-think on the Metro School Board and we have too few inquiring minds.
In other action
The Board voted to support lowering the teacher-student ratio for English-learner population from 30 to 20 in the Basic Education Program funding formula. (16:17) This is explained.
 |
| Michael W. Hayes |
There is a presentation and lengthy discussion of the advance placement course program. Again, Mr. Haynes distinguishes himself by asking probing and insightful questions.
Governor Haslam Endorces Mitt Romney
Governor Bill Haslam today endorsed Mitt Romney for the Republican presidential nominee. This is not a big surprise since his father and brother had already publicly endorsed Romney.
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Karl Dean: What do You Think About a Property Tax Increase and Some Other Stuff?
Dean pollster tests mood on property tax hike, other second-term issues
By Joey Garrison, City Paper, Tuesday, January 10, 2012 at 12:12am
A future property tax increase is the underlying topic a pollster, working for Mayor Karl Dean, tested in a recent phone survey that weighed the mood of Nashvillians on a range of Metro issues.(link)
Look out, I think we are going to see a push for a property tax increase.
By Joey Garrison, City Paper, Tuesday, January 10, 2012 at 12:12am
A future property tax increase is the underlying topic a pollster, working for Mayor Karl Dean, tested in a recent phone survey that weighed the mood of Nashvillians on a range of Metro issues.(link)
Look out, I think we are going to see a push for a property tax increase.
Enclave: The "Keep Karl Dean in Office until 2016" Act
Enclave: The "Keep Karl Dean in Office until 2016" Act: According to the Tennessee Leger Twitter feed the bill designed to extend Mayor Dean's last term of office (and use the higher visibility o...
I don't yet know what is behind this, but thought it interesting.
I don't yet know what is behind this, but thought it interesting.
The Governor's Agenda: Lower Grocery Tax, Lower Death Tax, Jobs, Education
Today Governor Bill Haslam announced his legislative agenda. Among the priorities he listed was a reduction in the sales tax on groceries (how be it a modest reduction), a long-sought objective of state Democrats. Another proposal was a reduction in the death tax achieved by raising the inheritance tax threshold. Other priorities include jobs and education reform. Below is Governors statement:
As you may know, today marks the start of this year's legislative session. And just a few minutes ago in the Old Supreme Court Chambers, I announced my 2012 legislative package aimed at moving Tennessee forward. This year, my focus remains: working to make Tennessee the No. 1 state in the Southeast for high quality jobs. We hope to get closer to this goal through economic development efforts, meaningful education reform, a more efficient and effective state government and improved public safety. Our 2012 legislative package is aimed at impacting key issues that are absolutely crucial to tackle now. Here’s a sampling of these issues:These examples just scratch the surface of what we're working on in 2012. Thanks so much for your support and please feel free to share your feedback.
- Strengthening the Department of Economic and Community Development’s FastTrack program by budgeting more for the grant program and giving the department more flexibility in utilizing those grants to attract and grow Tennessee jobs
- Lowering the state portion of the sales tax on food from 5.5 percent to 5.0 percent over three years.
- Providing innovation opportunities to local school districts by eliminating the outdated requirement of state and local salary schedules based strictly on seniority and training.
- Taking a first step in reaching my goal of raising the state's inheritance tax exemption from $1 million to $5 million by increasing it to $1.25 million to lower the burden on family farmers and family business owners as these businesses span generations
- Restructuring a number of state boards and commissions to eliminate duplicative functions and provide more accountability and oversight of these agencies
- Addressing a number of public safety issues including prescription drug abuse, tougher sentencing for certain types of gang-related crimes, tougher sentencing for gun possession by those with prior violent felony convictions and mandatory jail time for repeat domestic violence offenders
- Updating and reforming the state’s antiquated employment system through the TEAM Act (Tennessee Excellence Accountability and Management) by simplifying the hiring process, providing flexibility to retain and reward outstanding employees and streamlining the appeals process for employees. (Watch a video detailing some of the employment issues facing the state »)
Following the Governors statement, Lt. Governor Ron Ramsey released a statement of support of the Governors agenda saying: "I am excited to work with Gov. Haslam to move Tennessee forward towards more jobs, less spending and smaller government. The governor has chosen his priorities well. This is a solid agenda that our unified Republican majority can proudly stand behind."
This looks like a good agenda. Add legalizing wine in grocery stores, adopt the redistricting plan, pass this agenda, balance the budget, go home.
This looks like a good agenda. Add legalizing wine in grocery stores, adopt the redistricting plan, pass this agenda, balance the budget, go home.
Watch your Money and Women. The State Legislature is Back in Town.
The legislature is back in session starting today. It promises to be a shorter than usual session. Issues will include creating jobs, education reform, redistricting, cutting taxes, the Hope Scholarship and wine. This will be the first time since reconstruction that we have had the Governors Office, the House and the Senate all in the hands of Republicans. Hopefully some good legislation will be passed and hopefully this will be the year that the coalition of liquor lobbyist and puritans can be defeated and we can join the modern world and get wine in the grocery stores.
For a take on what others expect, see below:
Knox News Hemphrey on the Hill.
The Tennessean, TN lawmakers gear up for fast session, re-election
The Commercial Appeal, College funds, taxes top Tennessee legislature's agenda
For a take on what others expect, see below:
Knox News Hemphrey on the Hill.
The Tennessean, TN lawmakers gear up for fast session, re-election
The Commercial Appeal, College funds, taxes top Tennessee legislature's agenda
Sunday, January 08, 2012
Duane Dominy to Talk Chicken Bill
I have scheduled a meeting to discuss the Urban Chicken Ordinance on Saturday, January 14th, 12 p.m. – 2 p.m., Antioch Church of Christ, 2142 Antioch Pike. All Southeast Davidson County residents are invited to attend. I hope to see you there! Duane Dominy
MLK Day Nashville to Feature Dr. Steve Perry
Dr. Perry is the best selling author of Man Up! Nobody is Coming to Save Us and his book on education, Push Has to Come to Shove: Getting Our Kids the Education They Deserve--Even If It Means Picking a Fight. He is passionate about education reform and was the principal of one of the best performing schools in America, one that sends 100% of its mostly minority students to four-year colleges. He has been a regular contributor on issues of education for CNN, MSNBC, and Fox. Dr. Perry is also on a national college tour where he discusses issues ranging from personal responsibility to educational reform.
Martin Luther King Day is MONDAY, JANUARY 16, 2012. For more info, click here.
Update: Nashboro Village Not Ready to Give up Promised Golf Course for Park
 |
| Karen Johnson |
This could be a big challenge for Karen Johnson. It will be interesting to see how she handles it. In my opinion Karen Johnson is one of the council members worth watching. She is smart, attractive and charismatic. While obviously liberal she has friends across the political spectrum. And while she is Black, like Joe Biden said about Barack Obama, she "is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy." Well, not "guy" but otherwise you could say that could describe Karen. I predict that if Karen wants it, she could obtain higher office. Maybe "Mayor Johnson?"
Karen has so far distinguished herself by taking a free market position and auguring that a new cab company, Volunteer Cab, should be allowed to enter the market. In my view, that already makes Karen one of the "good councilmen."
Personally, unlike the comment of some of the park opponents, I think a park is an asset to a neighborhood not a detriment. However, many people pay a premium to live on a golf course. I can understand why those who bought in Nashboro Village to be on a golf course would not want to swap a golf course for a city park. With a $595,000 price tag and a threatened tax increase this year, all councilmen should be very conservative about spending this type of money. Half a million here and half a million there and soon you are talking about real money.
Immediately after posting the above I found this on Karen's blog:
Smart move, Karen.Metro Will Not Purchase Nashboro Golf Course
Posted: Jan 06, 2012 1:27 PM CSTUpdated: Jan 06, 2012 7:12 PM CST
NASHVILLE, Tenn. – Metro has pulled the plug on a plan to buy the Nashboro Village Golf Course, just one day after a community meeting raised big concerns.On Friday a Metro Councilwoman sent a letter to Metro Parks asking them to withdraw legislation that authorizes the purchase of the Nashboro Village Golf Course- and Parks Director Tommy Lynch says he will comply with that requestThe letter from councilwoman Karen Johnson stated that based on turnout at Thursday night's community meeting, it "is the strong preference of the neighbors" to have local attorney David Waynick purchase the property.Metro Parks had planned to buy the property, which closed in November, to use as an open green space as part of the Open Space Plan the city adopted two years ago.The $595,000 purchase price for the Nashboro Golf Club would come out of a $5 million previously set aside for open spaces that includes private donations from The Land Trust of Tennessee.Those who live in the area felt that the purchase and transformation will destroy their property values and ruin their neighborhood.