Senator Lamar Alexander on Suggesting ways to end this government shutdown

I spoke about ending the partial government shutdown on the Senate floor this week. You can watch here.

By Senator Lamar Alexander - Government shutdowns should be as off-limits to budget negotiations as chemical weapons are to warfare. Nevertheless, we are stuck in one.

In the summer of 2015, President Barack Obama invited me to meet with him at the White House. Our conversation that day in the Oval Office offers a lesson for resolving the current partial government shutdown. The president wanted to talk about our work in Congress to fix an education law called “No Child Left Behind.” If you think the current impasse on border security is complicated, try setting federal policy for 100,000 public schools. It’s like 100,000 spectators agreeing on which play to call at a University of Tennessee football game: Everyone is an expert. 

On that day, Obama told me there were three things that had to be in the legislation for him to sign it. I told the president that if he would not oppose the bill as it made its way through Congress, those three things would be in the final bill. On Dec. 10, 2015, Obama signed our legislation into law, calling it a “Christmas miracle” even though there were plenty of other provisions in it he didn’t like. “You kept your word,” he told me. “So did you,” I said.

Why, as a Republican, did I agree to a Democratic president’s requests with which I did not agree? Because I have read the Constitution and understand that if the president does not sign legislation, it does not become law.

Democrats should realize, as I did back then, that if an elected president has a legitimate objective, they should bend over backwards to accommodate it. Since President Trump made it clear he won’t sign any legislation to reopen the federal government without some increase in funding for border security, here are three options for where we could go from here:

• Go small: Give the president the $1.6 billion he asked for in this year’s budget request, which the bipartisan Senate Appropriations Committee approved. Provide an additional $1 billion to improve border security at ports of entry, which everyone concedes is needed.
• Go bigger: Pass the bill that 54 senators voted for last February, which combined a solution for children brought to the United States illegally (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA) and $25 billion in appropriated funding for border security over 10 years. The bill failed only because of last-minute White House opposition.
• Go really big: Begin the new Congress by creating a legal immigration system that secures our borders and defines legal status for those already here. In 2013, 68 senators — including all 54 Democrats — voted for such a bill, but the House refused to take it up. That bill included more than $40 billion and many other provisions to secure our borders.

Resolving this partial government shutdown by going really big on immigration could be Trump’s Nixon-to-China, Reagan-to-the-Berlin-Wall moment in history. I hope Democrats will negotiate with the president and come to an agreement so we can do what we were elected to do: make the government work for taxpayers, not shut it down.

Top Stories

The Alexander-Murray bill stabilizes insurance markets, saves money and nibbles away at Obamacare

by Lamar Alexander - Over the last four years, the 350,000 Tennesseans who purchase their health insurance in the individual market have seen their premiums skyrocket 176 percent. Our insurance commissioner has called the market in Tennessee "very near collapse."

Last week I announced that a group of 24 senators—12 Republicans and 12 Democrats— is cosponsoring the short-term bipartisan legislation I authored with Senator Patty Murray that will help stabilize premiums and expand access to insurance in the individual health insurance market for those Tennesseans and millions of other Americans. I've spoken to President Trump four times about our legislation and he encouraged me to reach a deal.

This week, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released its report finding that our bill will benefit taxpayers and consumers—not insurance companies. The president has said repeatedly and I have said repeatedly that our plan must not bail out insurance companies. We've written language to make sure it does not. Now the Congressional Budget Office says it does not. The analysis found the Alexander-Murray proposal would also reduce the federal deficit by $3.8 billion. So not only does it not cost anything, it saves the taxpayer money.

The Congressional Budget Office also found that a provision that would allow people over the age of 29 to purchase a new catastrophic insurance plan would bring healthy people into the market and lead to lower premiums.

Only about six percent of insured Americans get their health insurance in the individual market. This is where people who don't get insurance on the job or from the government purchase insurance. Imagine yourself, a 45-year-old songwriter in Nashville, who loses her job, has three kids, and goes out into the individual market and finds out she can't buy health insurance because no company is offering it. If we do not act, this is the kind of consequence we are talking about.

The agreement will protect Americans facing higher premiums this year, give states permanent, meaningful flexibility to create more choices among health insurance policies in the individual market, and includes new access to a ‘copper plan,’ which would allow people of all ages to purchase catastrophic insurance so a medical emergency does not become a financial emergency. I talked with Bret Baier of Fox News last Thursday about the conservative wins in the legislation and said I agree with President Trump 100 percent that insurance companies should not be bailed out.


My Comment:  I commend Lamar Alexander for his work on advancing a needed reform to  Obamacare that will stabilize the insurance market, save money and nibble away at Obamacare. Some Republicans do not want to do anything to improve Obamacare, instead hoping that it will utterly fail and thus improve the chances for a Republican repeal and replace. That is wrong on several levels, the way I see it. First of all, the people who will be without insurance if prices continue to skyrocket and if insurers pull out of the market place are real people who will be hurt. Secondly, instead of causing people to turn to a Republican alternative to Obamacare, the collapse of Obamacare may cause people to demand a larger roll for government. The collapse of Obamacare may lead to an acceptance of a nationalization of all healthcare.  If markets collapse instead of people turning to a Republican solution, "medicare for all" may gain appeal.

Alexander has been able to get Democrats to sign on to a bill that significantly nibbles away at Obamacare. It begins to jettison the idea that plans must cover a whole list of government mandated essential services. This bill allows the sale of catastrophic insurance plans.  That is a big deal.  It also allows for some state flexibility.  These may be small steps, but small steps may be all we are going to get and may be the only way forward.  I do not think Republicans can achieve wholesale repeal of Obamacare anytime soon, but "Obamacare" can be modified and reformed till it is unrecognizable.  Alexander has allowed Democrats a way to pull back from Obamacare without admitting they are doing so.  This allows Democrats to save face. Continuing down this path of nibbling away at Obamacare while simultaneously expanding consumer choice and market forces is probably the best we can get.  Lamar Alexander's bi-partisan approach to reforming Obamacare may be the best way forward to deal with a healthcare system that is still in crisis.

Top Stories

The Tennessean: New federal overtime rule could hurt Tennessee colleges

by Senator Lamar Alexander -Tennesseans have heard a lot of talk from the Obama administration about making college affordable and keeping costs down. So, it’s hard to see how President Barack Obama can justify the final overtime rule out of his Labor Department this week that could raise annual tuition at one Tennessee college by nearly $850 per student.

One of the most radical, out-of-touch aspects of the Obama administration’s agenda has been its labor agenda, and this new overtime rule is a glaring example of why I say that. It more than doubles the salary threshold under which employees qualify for overtime pay—from $23,660 to $47,476. This is a sudden and dramatic increase that Tennessee colleges tell me may not only impact tuition, but may force them to reduce employees’ hours and even lay off employees they would like to keep but can no longer afford.

Six Tennessee colleges have estimated that the rule could increase their operating costs by over $1 million per year, and two others tell me that the rule could increase their operating costs by $800,000 per year. Three more say their operating costs could increase by more than $500,000 per year.

These Tennessee colleges don’t oppose increasing the salary threshold so more employees qualify for overtime — they think it may be time for a reasonable update — but the administration’s rule does it too high and too fast, and the results will be bad for more than just colleges and students.

According to the National Retail Federation, the proposal could result in workers having their hours and benefits cut, fewer opportunities for advancement, and less flexibility and control over their own schedules.

Imagine how discouraging this rule will be to the working mother who can no longer negotiate her schedule to work from home when she needs, or the young restaurant assistant manager who loses his title and is relegated back to an hourly job, or to the job seeker who discovers that the only jobs available are part time.

Tens of thousands of Tennesseans who today are mid-management or professional employees are not going to like it one bit when their employer tells them that under this new rule they're going to be punching the time clock when they go in and out of work. For example, college soccer or baseball coaches aren’t going to like having to clock hours and limit the time they’re able to spend building the best teams possible during their season, as could be the case under this rule.

Today almost 16 million Americans, including 320,000 Tennesseans, already have unwanted free time when they’d rather be working — they’re stuck in part-time jobs while looking for full-time work, or they have no jobs at all. Instead of making our part-time economy worse, the administration should work with Congress to pursue policies that will create an environment for better job opportunities and more workplace flexibility.

I’ve introduced legislation with Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina to ensure the administration pursues a balanced and responsible approach to updating federal overtime rules. I will also introduce a Congressional Review Act resolution of disapproval to block the administration’s final rule.

Tennessee workers, students, colleges, nonprofits and businesses deserve better than this disastrous rule that will rip the economic ladder of opportunity out from under hard-working Tennesseans, take money out of students’ pockets, and make it even harder for employers and institutions to grow and create more jobs.

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) is chairman of the Senate education and labor committee. *Also ran in the Knoxville News Sentinel and the Maryville Daily Times

Top Stories

Lamar Alexander: We should not allow anyone to destroy the environment in the name of saving it.

by Senator Lamar Alexander - In 1867, when the naturalist John Muir first walked into the Cumberland Mountains, he wrote, “The scenery is far grander than any I ever before beheld. …Such an ocean of wooded, waving, swelling mountain beauty and grandeur is not to be described.”
    

In January, Apex Clean Energy announced that it would spoil that mountain beauty by building twenty-three forty-five story wind turbines in Cumberland County.

I urge citizens in Cumberland County—and all Tennesseans—to ask themselves ten questions before allowing these massive wind turbines and new transmission lines to destroy the beauty of our state.

I still can recall walking into Grassy Cove in Cumberland County one spectacular spring day in 1978 during my campaign for governor.  I had not seen a prettier sight.   Over the last few decades, pleasant weather and natural beauty have attracted thousands of retirees from Tennessee and across America to the Cumberland Plateau.

The proposed Crab Orchard Wind Project would be built less than 10 miles from Cumberland Mountain State Park, where for a half century Tennesseans and tourists have camped, fished and canoed alongside herons and belted kingfishers around Byrd Lake.

The proposed Crab Orchard Wind Project would be built less than 10 miles from Cumberland Mountain State Park, where for a half century Tennesseans and tourists have camped, fished and canoed alongside herons and belted kingfishers around Byrd Lake.

It will be fewer than five miles from Ozone Falls Scenic State Natural Area, where the 110-foot water fall is so picturesque that it was filmed as scenery in the movie “Jungle Book.”

Here are my ten questions:

1. How big are these wind turbines? Each one is over two times as tall as the skyboxes at the University of Tennessee football stadium, three times as tall as Ozone Falls and taller than the Statute of Liberty.   The blades on each one are as long as a football field. Their blinking lights can be seen for twenty miles. These are not your grandma’s windmills.
2. Will they disturb the neighborhood?  Here is what a New York Times review of the documentary “Windfall,” said about New York residents debating such turbines:  “Turbines are huge…with blades weighing seven tons and spinning at 150 miles an hour. They can fall over or send parts flying; struck by lightning, say, they can catch fire…and can generate a disorienting strobe effect in sunlight. Giant flickering shadows can tarnish a sunset’s glow on a landscape.”
3. How much electricity can the project produce? A puny amount, 71 megawatts. But, that’s only when the wind is blowing, which in Tennessee is only 18.4 % of the time according to the Energy Information Administration.
4. Does TVA need this electricity? No. Last year, TVA said there is “no immediate need for new base load plants after Watts Bar Unit 2 comes online,” and just last week TVA put up for sale its unfinished Bellefonte nuclear plant.
5. Don’t we need wind power’s carbon-free electricity to help with climate change?  No. Nuclear power is a more reliable option. Nuclear produces over 60% of our country’s carbon free electricity which is available 92% of the time.  Wind produces 15% of our country’s carbon-free electricity, but the wind often blows at night when electricity is not needed.
6. How many wind turbines would it take to equal one nuclear reactor? To equal the production of the new Watts Bar reactor, you would have to run three rows of these turbines along I-40 from Memphis to Knoxville—and don’t forget the transmission lines. Four reactors—each occupying roughly one square mile—would equal the production of a row of 45-story wind turbines strung the entire length of the 2,178-mile Appalachian Trail from Georgia to Maine.  Relying on wind power to produce electricity when nuclear reactors are available is the energy equivalent of going to war in sailboats when the nuclear navy is available.
7. Can you easily store large amounts of wind power and use it later when you need it? No.
8. So even if you build wind turbines, do you still need nuclear, coal or gas plants for the 80% of the time when the wind isn’t blowing in Tennessee?  Yes.
9. Then, why would anyone want to build wind power that TVA doesn’t need?  Because billions of dollars of wasteful federal taxpayer subsidies allow wind producers, in some markets, to give away wind power and still make a profit.
10. Who is going to guarantee that these giant wind turbines get taken down when they wear out in 20 years and after the subsidies go away? Good question.

Many communities where wind projects have been proposed have tried to stop them before they go up because once the wind turbines and new transmission lines are built, it is hard to take them down.  For example, watch the documentary “Windfall” that I mentioned earlier.

In October, the residents of Irasburg, Vermont, voted 274 to 9 against a plan to install a pair of 500-foot turbines on a ridgeline visible from their neighborhoods.

In New York, three counties opposed 500 to 600 foot wind turbines next to Lake Ontario. People in the town of Yates voted unanimously to oppose the project in order to “preserve their rural landscape.”

In Kent County, Maryland, the same company that is trying to put turbines in Cumberland County, Apex Clean Energy, tried to put down 25 to 35 500-foot turbines a quarter- to a half-mile apart across thousands of acres of farmland, where the air serves as a route for migratory geese.

According to the Baltimore Sun, Stephen S. Hershey Jr., a local state legislator, had introduced a bill that would give county officials the right to veto any large-scale wind project in their jurisdiction.

Hershey said he put the bill in after learning that the turbines would be nearly 500 feet tall and spread across an area of thousands of acres. He called that a "massive" footprint "in a relatively rural and bucolic area."

William W. Pickrum, president of the board of county commissioners, wrote the Senate committee that the project "will most certainly have a negative effect" on farming, boating and tourism in the county and hurt property values.

The legislation had the support of local conservation groups and of Washington College in Chestertown. The school's interim president, Jack S. Griswold, warned in a letter to school staff and supporters that the turbines would "despoil this scenic landscape."

What do you suppose John Muir would have written if his first view of the Cumberland Mountains had been massive, unsightly wind turbines instead of “waving, swelling mountain beauty?” What if he had seen sprawling transmission lines instead of “forest-clad hills?”

As a United States senator I have voted to save our mountaintops from destructive mining techniques. I am just as eager to protect mountaintops from unsightly windmills.

I have voted for federal clean air legislation and supported TVA’s plan to build carbon-free nuclear reactors, phase out its older, dirtier coal plants and put pollution control equipment on the remaining coal plants. Already the air is cleaner and our view of the mountains is better.  

I hope that citizens of Cumberland County—and all Tennesseans— will say a loud “no” to the out-of-state wind producers who are encouraged by billions in wasteful taxpayer subsidies to destroy our mountains.

Some say tourists will come to see the giant turbines.  Maybe once.   But do you really think tourists—or most Tennesseans—want to exchange a drive through the natural beauty of the Cumberland Mountains for a drive along 23 towers more than twice as tall as Neyland stadium whose flashing red lights can be seen for 20 miles?  If you do, just take another look at the photograph of what has happened to Palm Springs, California.  

If there is one thing Tennesseans agree on, it is pride in the natural beauty of our state. There are few places in our state more beautiful than Cumberland County.  We should not allow anyone to destroy the environment in the name of saving it.  

Top Stories

Alexander, let the market decide if phones can be used on airplanes

Senator Lamar Alexander said today that he would introduce legislation, if necessary, to prohibit the Federal Communication Commission from allowing the use of cell phones on air planes.  I do not support him on this and think he should butt out.

Up until recently cell phone use and other electronic devices were prohibited on air planes because there was concern that they could interfere with communications and present a safety risk. That has now been determined not to be the case. The FCC is considering lifting the ban.

There are a lot of things I don't like, but I don't necessarily think there ought to necessarily be a law against it. I don't like saggy baggy pants. I think they look ridiculous. I have seen young men, most often Black boys, have to hold their pants up with one hand. I understand this fashion originated as an imitation of prison clothing where men are not permitted to wear belts. The fashion is a sad commentary on the state of the Black community, but I wouldn't outlaw saggy pants.

I don't like facial piercing of the eyebrow or lips. It looks like it would hurt. It is disgusting. It makes me cringe,  but I don't want to make it against the law.

I hate rap music, but I don't think it ought to be a crime if someone plays it and I happen to overhear it.

I really don't like crying babies on airplanes or in restaurants or at concerts or movies or almost anywhere. Parents with crying babies should remove then from public spaces. On an air plane you can't, of course. Still, I would not want it to be a fifty dollar fine if your baby cries in public.

I really hate the peace sign and I hate the image of Che Guevara. They offend me. I don't, however, think they should be against the law. Neither do I think the hammer and sickle, the swastika or the confederate flag should be outlawed nor the Malcolm X baseball cap.

I never did think we should have outlawed smoking in public places. Ok, maybe on planes. I do remember when one could smoke on planes. As soon as the "no smoking" sign went off, half the plane lit up. It must have been hell for non-smokers. I remember when people used to smoke in elevators and almost everywhere. Long after smoking in public has become taboo in America, when I would vacation in foreign countries I was amazed at how smoking in public was still acceptable. So, while I would not want to return to smoking everywhere, I would permit smoking in bars. Actually I think if we removed all legal bans on smoking in places like airplanes, the airplanes themselves would prohibit it, so I don't think the ban needs to be a law. Anyway, I kind of like smoke-filled bars. In New Orleans you can still smoke in bars. I think it should be up to the establishment to establish their own smoking policy.

In Tennessee we have left it up to the restaurants to determine the policy on guns. Maybe that is some of that Tennessee conservative common sense Alexander talks about. A restaurant may ban guns in their establishment but it is not illegal for those with a carry permit who are packing to enter an establishment that sells alcohol.

I am often offended by others' cell phone use. Some people are downright rude talking in a loud voice while next to you in a restaurant for instance. I would hate to be on an air plane with the person sitting next to me talking non-stop on the phone for hours on end. However, I think if the government stays out of it, reasonable policies will develop. Some air lines may establish no cell phone policies and other air lines may ban them. If it is an important concern, that can be one more factor in choosing your airline. Some airlines may establish cell phone sections and non-cell phone sections. Some airlines may permit phone calls but restrict the duration of calls. Airlines will try to accommodate their passengers and this thing will work itself out. And, if government stays out of it some people may learn some manners and ask, "would it bother you, if I made a short phone call?"

Top Stories

Lamar Alexander blast delay of 2014 healthcare enrollment period as political act

 Says he’ll offer a legislative solution to reverse decision

MARYVILLE, Nov. 22 – U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), the senior Republican on the Senate health committee, released the following statement on a U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services announcement that it will delay the beginning of the next Obamacare enrollment season by one month, till Nov. 15, 2014, after the midterm elections, instead of beginning open enrollment season on the department’s previously announced date of Oct. 15:

The only American consumers this change will help are Democratic politicians who voted for Obamacare, because it delays disclosure of some of the law's most insidious effects until after the election.

Alexander will offer a legislative solution to provide Americans with proper notice of any premium increases before open enrollment on the exchanges begins, irrespective of political considerations, so that Americans will know what premiums they will have to pay in the exchanges before they open.

Top Stories

Senators Lamar Alexander, John Thune, & Orin Hatch aim to block union exemption from Obamacare tax

The President is trying to exempt his union buddies from a key tax provision of Obamacare and Senator Alexander and a couple other Senators are trying to stop him. Obamacare would not have passed without deceit and bribery and the massive lying that, "if you like your plan, you can keep it." Would it have passed if people would have know that unions would be except from a tax that would apply to other self-insured entities?

When a President can decide who a law applies to and to whom it does not apply, our democracy is in trouble. Democrats need to realize that next time it may be a Republican President deciding to whom a law applies. Regardless of party, rule of  law and basic fairness should be something we agree on.

The White House is considering exempting certain self-insured, self-administered insurance plans from the reinsurance fee, an exemption that would include the plans commonly held by union members, known as Taft Hartley plans. Unions have asked to be exempted from the tax.

Alexander, in a statement, described the reinsurance tax as another “job-killing” tax, blasting the White House.

“The administration should be embarrassed that it would consider exempting their union cronies without providing similar relief to our nation’s employers and faith-based and charitable organizations,” he said.(link)

Top Stories

More about that anti-Alexander protest that didn't happen last Sunday

The Tennessean, by Joey Garrison, September 23rd, 2013- It was supposed to be another public demonstration of disenchantment in what will surely be a long series of tea party protests targeting U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander before next year’s Republican primary.

Tea party and liberty advocates had a time and place: the home of Republican fundraiser Monty Lankford on Trinity Road in Franklin at 3:30 p.m. on Sunday, when the state’s most powerful Republicans would be gathering to raise money for the incumbent senator.

The memo went out to the press to be there. ...... The lead organizer himself, Matt Collins of the Tennessee Campaign for Liberty, wasn’t even present. (link)

Top Stories

Rep. Joe Carr Calls on Sen. Alexander to Change His Mind and Join Senators Cruz and Lee to Defund Obamacare

Joe Carr press release, September 19, 2013, Nashville, TN- House Speaker John Boehner announced the House will vote on a continuing resolution that defunds Obamacare, while still providing funding to keep the government open. The ball will then be in the Senate’s court.

“Senator Lamar Alexander has refused to join Senators Ted Cruz and Mike Lee to defund Obamacare claiming it would cause a government shutdown. Although Senator Lamar Alexander agrees with Obama on this point, it is false,” says Representative Joe Carr.

“Obamacare is bad for America and we should be doing everything possible to stop it. I choose to stand up and fight. I stand with Senators Cruz and Lee to defund this bad bill. I am calling on Sen. Alexander to change his mind and stand up with Senators Cruz, Lee, and the citizens of Tennessee to defund Obamacare,” said Representative Joe Carr.

Senator Alexander released an ad claiming he’s led the fight against Obamacare and stood up to the President. “He is trying to re-write history by ignoring his votes yet again. Senator Alexander stood with the President Obama on March 20, 2013, when he voted in favor of the FY2013 continuing resolution, which included funding for the implementation of Obamacare,” says Representative Joe Carr.

“Unfortunately, Senator Alexander is not fighting for Tennesseans by standing shoulder-to-shoulder with Senators Cruz and Lee who are leading the fight against Obamacare. Let’s hope he decides to stand with Tennesseans this time around by choosing to defund Obamacare,” said Representative Joe Carr.

Representative Joe Carr is an announced candidate running against Sen. Lamar Alexander in the 2014 Republican Primary. He is a principled conservative who believes that Washington needs to return to our founding core principles of personal responsibility, individual liberty, and free and fair markets.

Top Stories

Alexander: “No Family In Tennessee Should Ever Be Forced To Comply With The Mess And Mistakes Of Obamacare”

WASHINGTON, Sept. 12—The senior Republican on the U.S. Senate health committee this week joined in introducing a bill and an amendment to delay the health care law’s employer and individual mandates until 2015.

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) said: “Full repeal of this law is my goal—no family in Tennessee should ever be forced to comply with the mess and mistakes of Obamacare—but I hope even Democrats will be willing to see that families certainly shouldn’t have to next year when American businesses are getting a break. We need to repeal this law and start passing step-by-step reforms that transform the health care delivery system by putting patients back in charge, giving them more choices, and reducing the cost of health care so that more people can afford it.”

The Fairness for American Families amendment was introduced by Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Senator Dan Coats (R-Ind.) with Senators Alexander, John Cornyn (R-Texas), Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and John Barrasso (R-Wyo.)

Alexander also co-sponsored a bill introduced by Senator Coats earlier this week that would delay the health care law’s employer and individual mandates until 2015.
He is an original cosponsor of legislation introduced by Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) to fully defund the law.
Alexander voted against the health care bill after warning his colleagues it would be “an historic mistake,” and has since voted on the Senate floor to repeal or defund Obamacare 23 times since it became law, and overall to oppose or repeal Obamacare or its provisions more than 90 times.

Top Stories

Sen. Alexander responds to criticism of his record on Obamacare

The Senate Conservatives Fund radio ad attacks Alexander, claiming he has supported the Affordable Healthcare Act:

Alexander defends his record:

Top Stories

BEAT LAMAR to Invite Challengers to Speak at Statewide Candidate Forums

By CHQ Staff, 7/11/13 -... the BEAT LAMAR project will invite potential challengers to Senator Lamar Alexander to make their case to grassroots activists at BEAT LAMAR candidate forums in five locations across Tennessee beginning on August 31 and ending on September 28.....

Nashville---Saturday, August 31, co-hosted by a statewide coalition of Tea Party groups organized by Eric Stamper, co-founder of the Sumner United for Responsible Government. Location and time: TBD (link)

Top Stories

Brenda Lenard running against Lamar Alexander

While there is still no viable, qualified candidate running against Lamar Alexander, in addition to the professional wrestler guy, another candidate has thrown her hat in the ring. The other candidate is Brenda Lenard. She is a Black single mother of three raised in a public housing project in Atlanta, and a graduate student at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville. She has never held elective office. In 2012 she ran against Bob Corker.  A group called InvestigativeCheck claims she is a convicted felon guilty of writing bad checks and she had been guilty of "abusive filing" of bankruptcies. That story was published in the Daily Caller and other publications. Her campaign said of the the claim, it is "blatant erroneous and defamation of character."

You can visit her website at this link: Brenda Lenard for United States Senate.

Top Stories

Has Senator Jim Summerville withdrawn his support of Lamar Alexander?

On Channel 2's This Week, Steve Gill said that Senator Jim Summerville and Senator Mark Green had withdrawn their support from the reelection of Senator Lamar Alexander. I also see that claim on couple of websites. One is the websites is that of the Summer County Tea Party in an article by J. Lee Douglas of the 9.12 Tennessee group. The other website is quoting the Summer County Tea Party post.

A spokesman for Senator Green has issued a statement saying that Senator Green would not be appearing at a July 20th appearance with Senator Alexander because he had out of state guest in town “He and Senator Alexander are friends,” said the spokesperson. “Obviously, some have read more into this than there is and he wanted to make sure that you had the facts on it.” (link)

I can find no confirmation of the claim that Senator Summerville as withdrawn his support. I have emailed Senator Summerville asking him for confirmation of this claim. If he has done so, he has done so quietly. If I get a response or find other information that confirms or contradicts this I will update.

Correction: In a previous version of this post I had mistakenly confused Senator Mark Green with another Senator with the first name "Mark." It is now corrected. I regret the error and am please to set the record straight.

Top Stories

Senator Mark Geen is not withdrawing support from Alexander.

Senator Mark Green who was previously scheduled to be at a public appearance with Lamar Alexander in Smyrna on July 20th cancelled his appearance and rumors spread that he was withdrawing his support of Alexander. Senator Green's office has said he cancelled his appearance because he has out of town family coming to visit. (link)

Top Stories

Lamar Alexander and Marsha Blackburn betray conservative values and vote for the Farm Bill

One of the things that most disappoint me about Republican politicians is that they continue to vote against a market economy, free enterprise, and spending restraints when they vote for farm bills that provide price supports for farmers and other protections that insulate farmers from market forces, pay farmers for not farming, and distort agricultural production.

Many farmers and people from areas dependent on agriculture are conservative except, when it come to farm policy and there they want their subsidy and their government safety net just as much as the inner city welfare receipent. They are against other people getting welfare but do not view farm policy in the same light. They oppose increases in the Federal deficit for student loans or mass transit, but not for farm subsidies. They oppose government sponsored health insurance but love government crop insurnace. They oppose government intrusion in their lives except when it come to accepting a government check for not planting crops.  These people in the South and Mid-west who approve of government dictated soviet-style farm policy and agriculture welfare are otherwise conservative and they vote Republican, so Republicans who are othersize conservative support a social welfare, big-government farm policy despite it being inconsistent with core Republican values.

Thrusday, the farm bill that would have spend $940 billion over the next ten years went down in defeat. This is very unusual. In 2008 all but 14 senators and 109 House members voted to overrid President Bush’s veto of the farm bill. The reason this farm bill faile was not because Republicans decided to be consistent and vote against welfare, a growing deficit and cast a vote for free enterprise; it failed because Democrates did not think it spend enough on foods stamps.

In the House 62 Republicans who opposed it for the right reason, joined 172 Democrates who opposed it for the wrong reason and the farm bill was defeated. The bill passed the Senate by a vote of 66-27 votes.

In the Senate, Sen. Lamar Alexander was one of 18 Republicans to support the bill while Senator Corker opposed it.  I am dissappointed in the vote of Lamar Alexander and proud of Senator Corker.  I have supported both and will continue to do so, but am less enthsiastic about Lamar becasue of this vote.  His reelection is almost certainly assured. He could have afforded to vote the right way. He is not going to have a serious challenger from the left.   Maybe, he does think that he voted the right way. Maybe he is not really a beliver in free markets and limited government.  Anyway it is disappointing.

Here is how they voted in the House:

1st – Phil Roe (R) yes
2nd – John J. Duncan, Jr (R) no
3rd – Chuck Fleischmann (R) yes
4th – Scott DesJarlais (R) yes
5th – Jim Cooper (D) no
6th – Diane Black (R) yes
7th – Marsha Blackburn (R) yes
8th – Stephen Fincher (R) yes
9th – Steve Cohen (D) no

I have been a long time fan and supporter of Marsha Blackburn and have often admired her for the stands she has take on issues. She has been one of my favorite Representatives.  I am not going to fall out with someone over one vote, but I am very dissapointed. Also, I am disappointed in Diane Black. The only Representative in the Tennessee delegation who voted the right way for the right reason was Knoxville's John J. Duncan. Maybe John Duncan is someone to watch.

Top Stories

Lamar Alexander: Obama appointments unconstitutional

The Senate decides when it is in session – not the president. 

by Lamar Alexander and Phil Roe, USA Today, June 20, 2013- On January 4, 2012, President Obama made three so-called recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) while the Senate was not in recess. These appointments were unprecedented—no other president has made recess appointments while the Senate was in session.

A year later, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia unanimously held that the president's appointments violated the Constitution.
...
The president should withdraw these two nominations and submit new names for the Senate to consider. Until then, our legislation should be passed into law to provide certainty to the businesses and workers who rely on a functioning NLRB and to protect against the unrestrained tyranny of the executive branch of government. (link)

Top Stories

Alexander tells Reid, change the fillibuster rule and welcome Yucca Mountain

(Washington, DC) — A Republican lawmaker says if Majority Leader Harry Reid tries to change the Senate’s filibuster rule, the stalled nuclear waste dump in Nevada would be revived.
Tennessee Senator Lamar Alexander says, “a vote to end the filibuster is a vote to complete Yucca Mountain.”

Alexander says if Democrats repeal the 60-vote threshold, a “bipartisan majority” would vote to...(link)

Top Stories

Signs Point To Big Support For A Conservative Challenger To Senator Alexander, says Conservative HQ.

By CHQ Staff, 6/19/13 - The results are in from last weekend's canvas by the Real Conservatives National Committee's BEAT LAMAR project -- and they are very encouraging to any conservative contemplating taking on establishment Republican Senator Lamar Alexander of ...(link)

My Comment: You can't beat somebody with nobody and everybody who's anybody has already signed on as co-chairmen of Lamar's campaign. I don't think anyone can mount a credible campaign against Lamar. Also, Tennessee Republicans are pretty mainstream conservative and pretty independent and I think they are comfortable with Lamar.  Also, we have open primaries and lots of independents will vote in the Republican primary if there is an interesting contest, since the Democrats will probably not even mount a serious challenger, let alone two that could make a Democrat primary interesting. The independents who will vote in a Republican primary tend to be more moderate than the party activist. I just don't think Lamar has anything to worry about.

Top Stories

Conservative scores from the Heritage Foundation: Corker 53, Alexander 47, Jim Cooper 33.

This is a great tool from the Heritage Foundation. You can sort and filter the information several different ways. Here is the link: http://heritageactionscorecard.com//members.

One interesting observation is that there is very little overlap. There are only a handful of Republicans that are more liberal than the most conservative Democrat.  The most liberal Republican is Representative Chris Gibbons of New York with a score of 23.  The most conservative Democrat is Rep. Jim Cooper with a score of 33. 

Among Republican Senators Lamar Alexander scores a 47, the same score awarded Mississippi Senator Thad Cochran, making him more liberal than John McCain or  Senator Bob Corker each with a score of 53. Of the 41 Republican Senators only 3 are rated as more liberal than Alexander.

I find it interesting that Senator Lindsey Graham, who conservatives love to hate, has a respectable score of 59.

Only three Senators scored a perfect 100 and they are Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and Mike Lee. 

It is worth keeping in mind that this scoring is based on only 19 votes. Someone else may have chosen different issues and the scores may have been different. Also, if I was doing the scoring I would give more weight to some issues than to others. If you go to the site you can see the issues included in the scoring matrix and see how any representative or senator voted on that particular issue.

Top Stories