Bill would prevent government from picking winners, losers among Tennessee businesses during health emergencies.

By Jason Schaumburg, The Center Square, March 18, 2021 - The Business Fairness Act would allow a business, regardless of size, to remain open during health emergencies as long as it follows government-issued safety precautions and guidelines. 

“The issue is many small businesses wound up on an unlevel playing field (during the COVID-19 pandemic) due to various executive orders, forcing them to close while larger competitors were to stay open,” the bill’s sponsor in the Senate, Sen. Bill Powers, R-Clarksville, told the Senate Commerce and Labor Committee this week. “… We believe that all businesses are essential.”  (read more)

Top Stories

Scott Golden is the guest on the Tennessean's Tennessee Voices podcast. He says the divide within the Republican Party is overstated.

 

Scott Golden is the guest on the Tennessean's Tennessee Voices podcast.  He talks about the future of the party and the state GOP's efforts called "Red to the Roots," an effort to increase the number of Republicans elected to local office across the state. He provides insight into how the Republican parties in Tennessee function and the role of the State party. He also says the divide within the Republican Party is overstated. 

Top Stories

Does the national debt even matter? Modern Monetary Theory says it doesn't.

by Rod Williams, March 15, 2021- Recently I posted, SO, WHY DOES THE NATIONAL DEBT MATTER? I had also addressed the same topic in an essay, How will the $1.9 Trillion stimulus plan be paid for?  These essays were  prompted by the recently passed $1.9 trillion pandemic stimulus bill.  Our national debt was already $27.9 trillion before the passage of that bill. Also, that bill was not the last big spending bill Congress is likely to pass and to finance with borrowed money.  Congress is likely to pass an infrastructure bill, some form of a Green New Deal, maybe Medicare for All, maybe student loan forgiveness, and the Social Security Trust Fund runs dry in 2031 and Congress's fix is likely to call for spending even more borrowed money. We are talking more spending, more borrowing, and a lot more debt.

Forget for a moment the actual merits of the $1.9 Cova-19 stimulus bill which I opined on in a separate essay, Tax dollars to mismanaged cities and states is like giving crack to a crack addict, That essay dealt primarily with the part of the bill that bailed out mismanaged cities. For years, liberal cities were mismanaged. Cities borrowed money and debt payments became a bigger and bigger part of a city's budgets.  The biggest example of this mismanagement and the biggest reason certain cities are on the verge of economic insolvency is due to generous pension plans and retiree health care cost that were not adequately funded.  Not only were they often not adequately funded, but in many cases these obligations were not even acknowledged as debt.  However, beyond the issue of bailing out mismanaged cities, there was much else wrong with the bill.  I mentioned some of the other things wrong with the bill and compared it to a Christmas tree that congress just kept adorning with more shiny ornaments. Also, I pointed out that not only was much of the spending contained in the bill not only wasteful, but much of it was counterproductive and may actually slow an economic recovery and create a climate that traps more people in dependency and poverty.

If for a moment we ignore the issue of the merits of what is in the bill and look at the issue on the increased debt, as discussed in the first two essays, that issues would be of concern even if the bill was otherwise a wonderful bill. Our debt now exceeds our Gross National Product. I point out that the current level of debt is the highest if has ever been except for 1946 but at that time circumstances were much different than now. Just because that debt did not prove disastrous is no reason to think that our current level of debt may not be. To quickly summaries this is why I contend that the debt matters.  

• As we borrow more, it takes more of current revenue to pay interest on the debt. This means we have that much less to spend or we have to borrow even more just to meet current expenses. This means we do not have the money we need to fund things we need to fund.
• When savers buy U.S debt that pulls money out of the economy needed to fund economic growth. If savers buy government debt that is money not available to fund new technologies, research and development, and new business growth.
• When other countries, especially our adversaries such as China, own sizeable amounts of our debt that puts us at their mercy. They could wreck havoc on our economy by dumping our debt that they hold. This would drive up the cost of borrowing. 
• Debt of this size is likely to decrease the inability to meet a future crisis.  We are eating up our borrowing capacity.
• We are robbing from future generations. They are inheriting this debt.  They will pay for it by higher taxes or a lower standard of living.

In one of the essay's mentioned above I expressed amazement that not a single Democrat senator was concerned about borrowing and spending $1.9 trillion dollars. I said I assumed most of them were smart and well educated people. I said I found it hard to believe they could be at peace with this level of borrowing and spending. Maybe, I said, they subscribe to something called "Modern Monetary Theory,"  

I have not heard anyone who voted for the bill defend their decision based on a believe in MMT.  They simply talk about the need for the spending and what they see as the merits of the bill. They do not defend the size of the debt this creates; they ignore it and talk about something else.  While I think the bill fails on its merits, it is easier to argue merits of the package than to argue that debt is nothing to worry about.  So, while those who voted for this spending are not invoking MMT, some academics and think tanks and defenders of this level of debt are doing so.  This theory is providing the intellectual cover for a dangerous and reckless policy.

So what is Modern Monetary Theory? 

Modern Monetary Theory posits that debt is nothing to worry about if it is money created by the government. It is nothing to worry about if the money is created by what we euphemistically call "printing money," or "monetizing the debt." Most money is not actually dollar bills and coins printed and coined by the of course, but just units of accounting.  The money does not exist as a thing in reality. When the government creates money it doesn't actually run printing presses but pushes a few buttons on computers.  Technically, what happens is the treasury borrows from the Federal Reserve.  Money which did not exist before is created out of thin air. Currently of our $29 trillion dollar debt, the Federal Reserve owns $7.1 trillion. 

If we borrow from the Federal Reserve or "just print the money," then that solves the problem of pulling money out of the market that completes with money that could grow the economy because borrowing from the Federal Reserve doesn't do that. It solves the problem of a foreign power having the ability to wreck our economy by dumping our debt because we aren't borrowing from those foreign governments. Also, if we assume we are never going to pay it back it does not rob the next generation. Also, if it doesn't matter that we borrow, then we can just borrow more to address the next crisis. There is no limit to debt capacity. 

MMT argues that when the government spends money that previously did not exist (monetizes the debt i.e. borrowing from the Federal Reserve), that this is what creates the money.  New dollars in circulation creates demand which results in growth of new goods and services so the created money is not inflationary; it is overtaken by growth in economic activity. 

This sounds like magic. Why collect taxes at all?  Why not just "borrow" from the Federal Reserve to fund everything? MMT says there are limits. We can borrow all we "need." If we borrow more than we need this infusion of money into the economy could be inflationary. That is not much comfort.  If you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Elected politicians will see everything as a "need."

Critics of MMT caution than creating money in this fashion will lead to hyperinflation.  Proponents of MMT say it didn't at $15 trillion, or $20 trillion, or $25 trillion.  Why will it at $30 trillion or $35 trillion or some higher level?  

One thing wrong with this line of reasoning is that those lower numbers were debt held by foreign governments, and pension funds, and small investors and the Social Security Trust Fund.  That money was really taken from somewhere else; it was not just conjured up out of thin air.

The U.S. debt held by the Federal Reserve was only expanded in recent years. Up until the great recession of 2007 the Federal Reserve held less than $1 trillion in U. S. debt.  Since then it has shot up to $7.1 trillion and as recent as a year ago it was only about $4 trillion.  This theory that debt does not matter is untested.

It would be great to believe that we can spend all we "need," and never have to worry about debt.  It would be great to believe if we need more money, we just print it.  It would be great to believe in the tooth fairy and a big rock candy mountain.  It would be nice, but I'm not buying it.

MMT is still an unorthodox theory.  Most mainstream economist have not endorsed it. Nevertheless, it is providing an intellectual fig leaf for those who want to engage in reckless spending.  

With a theory to now support prolific borrowing and spending, a return to common sense is now going to be more difficult.  I am alarmed. I hate to be so pessimistic, but I think our best days are behind us.  We are heading downhill like a snowball headed for hell.  I used to think we could correct course the next election; now, not so much.  Republicans voted against the $1.9 stimulus and will no doubt vote against the future big ticket items. However, the Republican Party is not a unified party anymore and some Republicans are more interested in defeating other Republicans than in defeating Democrats.

Also, the Republican Party seems to not have a guiding philosophy anymore. The most popular Republican among Republicans is Donald Trump.  He threatened a veto of the December 2020, $900 billion pandemic stimulus spending bill because it only included direct payments of $600 per adult American rather than $2000.  $2,000 of direct payment is the amount Democrats wanted in bill.  When the leader of our party advocated irresponsible spending, it is hard for Republicans to have a firm foundation on which to oppose Democrat irresponsible spending.  We lost the moral authority for taking a principled stand to oppose Democrat irresponsibility.  The Republican Party is now more of a populist movement than a conservative movement and lacks the grounding necessary to fight a battle of ideas. It is hard to fight a battle against those who say stuff should be free.  Especially, when Republicans also often want free stuff, just different free stuff. 

With only an underrate degree in Economics, I do not have the credentials to be considered an expert on this topic, but I know enough to understand the issue. This is a layman's explanation of the issue and is somewhat simplified.  If one also considers the trillions of dollars that the Fed created to bail out banks that made bad mortgage loans, the reason for alarm is even greater. To learn more see these links: link, link, link, link, and link. 

Update, 3/16/2021: The following comment was made by Michael Dioguardi on my Facebook page,

While we do not seem to have anyone outright saying they are supporting massive debt based upon this theory, it cannot be ignored as being the basis for the amount of peacetime deficit spending we have undertaken. One of the more interesting aspects of MMT is the question of taxes. Basically, why should we have taxation. If debt and deficits no longer matter then what is the purpose of taxation. The answer is actually very revealing and the latest tax proposal is right in line with the MMT explanation for taxation. 

Here is what an MMT theorists says taxes do: 

1. as an instrument of fiscal policy to help stabilize the purchasing power of the dollar; 
2. to express public policy in the distribution of wealth and of income as in the case of the progressive income and estate taxes; 
3. to express public policy in subsidizing or in penalizing various industries and economic groups; and
4. to isolate and assess directly the costs of certain national benefits, such as highways and social security. (source: https://neweconomicperspectives.org/.../taxes-mmt...) 

I found these reasons very interesting as they are a combination of virtue signaling, punishment, economic control and central planning. But revenue to operate the government is not even a consideration.

Feel free to leave a comment or join the discussion on Facebook.  

Top Stories

Bill to make blocking a highway a felony and provide immunity to drivers who unintentionally injure or kill someone blocking a highway advances.

by Rod Williams, 3-13-2021 - During the summer BLM-Antifa insurrection we saw the insurrectionist repeatedly use the tactic of blocking highways to call attention to their cause.  

Blocking a highway can cause severe disruption to people's lives such as missed weddings, missed doctor's appointments, missed airline flights, missed picking up children from school and missed important work.  It can also cause death if someone is about to have a baby or rushing a sick relatives with chest pain to the doctor, or if police, fire and ambulances responding to emergencies are stuck in traffic. 

Liberals generally approved of the tactic of blocking roadways and liberal city governments, including our own Nashville government even helped the protestors in blocking traffic. This outraged me and many Americans. There were a few instances where people protesting in the roadway were hit by motorist.  Sometimes it was an accident and charges were not filed, sometimes the motorist was charged with a crime.  While purposely running down someone who is blocking traffic is not justified, my outrage is primarily reserved for those who block traffic.  One should not play in the street and blocking traffic should not be a form of protest that is abetted. 

A bill that would address this, HBO513, is working its way through the Tennessee General Assembly. It would make obstructing a highway a felony and it would also grant immunity to drivers who unintentionally injure or kill someone blocking a highway. The bill has advanced through the House Criminal Justice Committee and the Ways and Means Committee. In the Senate, the bill has passed Second Reading and been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. 

Currently obstructing a highway or street is a Class B or C misdemeanor, This would make it a Class E felony punishable by up to six years in prison and would also impose a mandatory $3,000 fine. I support this bill. It needs to pass. 

Top Stories

Update: Why the lights went out in Texas. It wasn't just because of windmills. It wasn't even mainly because of windmills.

by Rod Williams, March 2, 2021 - When the hard freeze, snow, and ice hit Texas in mid February and the lights went out, some, almost gleeful, climate change skeptics said, "See, see, windmills don't work."  My Facebook page was full of these type comments and memes.

Some windmills in Texas did freeze up, but that was only a minor part of the problem.  Even where there was a windmill failure in Texas that does not prove that windmills are a failed technology, as many of my Facebook friends wanted to claim.  In Texas, windmills are not designed to withstand days of sub-zero temperatures and freezing rain. Below about 4 degrees and they shut down. There is a reason why wind turbines in New York keep working in bitter cold weather unlike the ones in Texas. If you care to know why, follow the above link.

In less detail than the story linked above, the Wall Street Journal, explains it more succinctly: "Given the state’s normally warm climate, not all of Texas’ power plants are fully equipped with winterization measures—protections plants use to prevent freezing of pipes, sensors, motors and other components. In northern climates, many winterization measures are permanent and plants are housed within entire building structures for protection from the cold. But experts said that because of Texas’ summer heat, plant operators need to keep components exposed."

The same reason windmills failed in Texas is the same reason a nuclear power plant failed and natural gas failed.  They were not designed for that kind of weather. Actually, natural gas, not wind turbines, was the main driver of the Texas power shortage.

In Texas a lot of things happened to cause the power system to fail. A system that was not designed for days of below zero weather was a major part of the problem and not only windmills failed but so did one of Texas' two nuclear plants and natural gas plants.  Also, however, there was a more complex reason, involving having the wrong financial incentives in place for utilities and an inadequate power grid and regulatory failure. It is explained fully for anyone who wants to actually read an article rather than just consume individual factoids that support one's predetermined opinion or someone who wants to dig deeper than simply have their prejudices reinforced by a cute meme. 

Anytime, I post anything that looks at the nuances of a policy or disagrees with what Rush Limbaugh or some other dogmatic conservative talk show host has said on a subject or something Donald Trump may have said, I am denounced as a liberal or a RINO.  What happened to conservatives?  I know there are ideologically-driven, close-mined, and even conspiracy-believing people on the left, but I think the right end of the political spectrum, has them beat.  I used to think conservatives were so much more rational and reasonable than liberals; not so much anymore.  I don't think it is me that has changed; conservatives have become the know-nothing party of stupid people.  My friend Mark Rogers the other day said of something conservatives were arguing as, "crazier than a gang of QAnon worshipers trying to play Trivial Pursuit."  I love that and think it describes a lot of conservative reasoning these days.

If I reference a source other than one of the new simpleton right wing media publication, the source is rejected. If it is a mainstream source, forget it.  The Washington Post or New York Times or any other liberal mainstream source is simply dismissed as "fake news."  Even long established respected conservative journals are dismissed as "establishment," "RINO," "never Trumpers," "neo-con," or simply "liberal." The other day I referenced an article that appeared in Reason, and a commenter called Reason a liberal publication.  I often disagree with the editorial position of Reason. They are libertarian and I am a mainstream conservative, but they do publish well researched, thought-provoking articles.  I am afraid many opinionated Trump-type populist conservatives don't know the difference between "libertarian," and "librarian." 

Back to the topic at hand. Below are four articles that explain what went wrong in Texas. There are two articles from the Wall Street Journal and one from National Review.  These should be sources conservatives trust.  The other is from The Economist, which you may not know.  They have a more liberal position on some issues than I do, but they are rational, very data-driven, and provide deeply detailed in-depth reporting.   Rather than a journal of opinion, they are a weekly news magazine for people who want to be well-informed.  They are my favorite source for just hard news.

WSJ: Texas Spins Into the Wind

WSJ: The Texas Freeze: Why the Power Grid Failed  

National Review: Ask an Engineer

The Economist: The freeze in Texas exposes America’s infrastructural failings

3/13/2021 update: Here is another source that is essentially a conservative or libertarian trustworthy source explaining why there was a power failure in Texas.  For the new brand of know-nothing, don't-confuse-me-facts populist-conservatives, this will not matter.  They would prefer to trust a cute meme rather than a well-reasoned informed analysis. For everyone else, this confirms what is reported in the other sources and expands on that with additional detail.

Cato Institute: Some Preliminary Thoughts on the Texas Electricity Meltdown

Top Stories

Tennessee Bill Could Limit Unlawful Restrictions Placed On Churches During Emergencies

Rod's Comment:  This is one of those issues about which I honestly am not sure how I feel.  I guess that is why I make a poor pundit.  I often don't have certainty about an issue. Not everything is a case of black and white.  I see a lot of shades of gray. Sometimes my view develops over time and sometimes I even change my mind after reaching a first conclusion.  However, here is my thinking on the issue:

First of all, I believe the Covid-19 is a real and a serious health hazard. It is not just like the flu.  I wear a mask and take reasonable precautions.  I am not one who thinks wearing a mask is submission to government and wearing a mask marks me as someone who would willingly get in the boxcar. 

Secondly, however, I am bothered by the authority of the government to exercise the kind of authority exercised to close restaurants and retail establishments and bars and concerts and sporting events.  A reading of the right of the government to quarantine looks like it is a right to quarantine sick people, not healthy people.  However, enough scholars have argued government has this authority that I cautiously accept that assertion. Also, while I am a constitutionalist and a strict constructionist, the constitution is not a suicide pact. If to avoid a pending catastrophe, at times it may be necessary to take bold action and then determine the constitutionally of the action later, then I am OK with that.   

Thirdly, however, the authority of government to control religious activity or the power of religious institutions to control government action is different in kind than the power of the state to close a bar or sporting event.  The conflict between church and state is a different category than other conflicts that may seem similar. The First Amendment of the Bill of Rights recognizes this relationship between religion and state by stating, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."  And, it looks to me like prohibiting church gatherings are, "prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Fourth, however, this is the first time this situation arose.  Previously use of the power to quarantine was exercised against sick people.  During the polio scare of the 1950's pubic swimming pools were closed and there may be rare instances of where for health reasons, gatherings were prohibited but we have had nothing on this scale before.  This is the basically the first time we have had this situation.  If may never arise again.  If it does, it might be another hundred years before it does and it appears this period of government mandated quarantine is coming to an end.  If those who content the government exceeded their authority by closing churches have a case, let them take that case to court.  However, before they get far in the courts the ban on church gatherings will probably be lifted and the court is not very likely to consider a case in which the issue has already been resolved.

So, in conclusion,  this is one of those issues in which I would be in favor of "kicking the can down the road."  Put if off a year and see if there is still any passion around the issue. If not, then put it off until the issue comes up again. Not every issue has to be solved.  Sometimes, an issue can just be deferred and left for someone to deal with in the future.  I know that is not an inspiring "call to arms."  However, some issues can be deferred without any ill effects, especially when it is an issue that has resolved itself is unlikely to arise again anytime soon. So, send this bill to send to summer study.

Tennessee Bill Could Limit Unlawful Restrictions Placed On Churches During Emergencies 

The Tennessee Conservative – A new bill proposed by Representative Rusty Grills, from the 77th district, would limit the authority of county health officers in Tennessee if passed. 

On March 9, the Civil Justice Subcommittee voted to send the house bill forward to the full committee for another round of voting. The goal of the bill is mainly to keep the Tennessee Emergency Management Agency from imposing unlawful restrictions on churches during emergencies. 

A companion bill in the state Senate proposes the same thing. If passed, the bill “limits the present law authority of county health officers to order quarantines to protect the public health from an epidemic, and closures of public establishments by prohibiting county health officers from issuing an order that closes or limits the lawful operations of a church or religious organization and declaring any such order that it issues to be void and unenforceable.” (continue reading)

Top Stories

Victim Of Stalking & Violent Crime Shares Her Harrowing Story In Support of Lifetime Protection Bill

Rod's comment:  This is a powerful statement of a horrify real life experience that speaks to the need of this legislation.  

Victim Of Stalking & Violent Crime Shares Her Harrowing Story In Support of Lifetime Protection Bill

By Nikki Goeser, The Tennessee Conservative – The Tennessee State Senate unanimously passed the Lifetime Order of Protection Bill this week. The final vote will take place on Monday, March 15th on the House Floor. This bill is to help prevent victims of violent crimes from being re-victimized. 

My situation is only one example of why this legislation is needed here in TN. Unfortunately, there are other victims of horrific crimes in our state who need help also. 

On April 2, 2009, my life was turned upside down. Completely Shattered. My husband Ben was murdered in front of me by a man who was stalking me. This man’s name is Hank Wise. My husband and I were inside a restaurant and my stalker showed up out of nowhere. My husband had already asked him to leave me alone about a month prior. I realized at that point that I was being stalked. I asked management to remove him from the establishment. 

When management confronted him and asked him to leave, he pulled a .45 from under his jacket and came up behind my husband, shot him in the head, then stood over Ben and continued to fire 6 more rounds into him. In front of myself, 50 witnesses and security cameras. He put the gun back under his jacket and started to walk out like no one would know he was the shooter. 

I knelt beside my husband in a pool of his blood wishing his life back into him, but it was no use, Ben was dead. The horrific scene will be with me for the rest of my life. (continue reading)

Top Stories

Bold Patriot Institute presents part 5 of the History Channel video series, "The Revolution."

 

On Monday, February 8th, The Bold Patriot Institute started their journey through the History Channel special series called - "The Revolution." This is a series of 10 great video presentations with excellent narration and reenactments that delivers a very exciting learning experience. The series began in Boston in 1765... The 2nd presentation began with the battle at Lexington / Concord and covered the period up to the Declaration of Independence. The third session covered the writing of the Declaration of Independence. The fourth session covered the period from the retreat from New York to the battle of Trenton - roughly the second half of 1776. 

Monday's presentation is the fifth in the series and covers the period following the Battle of Trenton to the aid from France in mid-1777. These presentations have been particularly interesting and we urge everyone to be there.  These presentations are by The Bold Patriot Institute which is sponsored by the Bold Patriot Brewing Company, 410 39th. Avenue North, Nashville.

Top Stories

Council puts a halt to the closing of Knowles Home.

by Rod Williams - Finally, last year Metro closed the Bordeaux nursing homes. If Metro would have continued with its plan to close Knowles,  Metro would have finally been out of the nursing home business, but the Council intervened and stopped that from happening.  Now, a new ordinance requires a resolution by the council before discontinuing operations at Knowles Assisted Living facility. 

My view is that we should never have gotten in the nursing home business to start with and after the passage of Medicare which gave poor people health care choices, we should have closed our charity hospital.  Unfortunately, once government starts providing a service, it is very hard to discontinue it even if it is inefficient and no longer needed. 

Read more about this development at this link. 

Top Stories

Want a history lesson with that beer? Bold Patriot Brewery is here to serve.

The Tennessean - West Nashville neighbors Mark Rivers and Wayne Castor have a new place to hang out Monday nights to learn about history and talk politics over freshly brewed beers. 

They call it a "safe space." 

The new Bold Patriot Brewery is giving weekly early-American history lessons led by co-founder and ardent history buff Galen Walker. His grandson is the brewer and sometime-bartender. 

"If you don't learn history, you'll repeat it," Rivers said. "You're better off coming to a place like this to discuss opinions in a civil manner." Flintlock muskets decorate the door handles and taps, and the walls are covered in American Revolution-themed murals. 

... Like many people fleeing California, they found a welcome lower-tax haven in Nashville. (link)

Top Stories

Tennessee Historical Commission votes to remove Nathan Bedford Forrest bust from Capitol

by Rod Williams - The Tennessee Historical Commission has voted to remove the Nathan Bedford Forrest bust from the Tennessee Stat Capitol and I don't care much one way or the other.  If I had a vote and was convinced that this bust was deeply offensive to our Black brethren, I wouldn't block its removal.  This however is something that I do not get worked up a lot over either way.  The history of Nathan Bedford Forrest is mixed.  Some say he was a racist through and through responsible for the Fort Pillow massacre and was a Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan.  He also, however, ordered the Klan dissolved and spoke in favor of racial harmony and was undeniably a brave and talented cavalry officer.  

During the BLM/Antifa rebellion and riots of the summer we saw a large number of statures and monuments toppled or vandalized. The people doing the destruction were kind of indiscriminate and toppled any classical looking statures. Even statues of those who had nothing to do with the civil war or slavery and some who were even pro-emancipation were toppled.  Also in the woke spirit of the times, some places stripped the name of American founders such as Washington, Jefferson and Madison off of street signs, school buildings and place names because they had once been slave owners. 

While I don't feel strongly about the bust of Nathan Bedford Forrest, I do approve of the methodical deliberative manner with which the decision was made.  It was not a rushed decision reached in response to an iconoclastic frenzy.  

Top Stories

Proposed Constitutional amendment changing the way we select the Attorney General passes the Senate.

 By Rod Williams - SJR0001, the bill that proposes an amendment to the State Constitution to change the way the Attorney General is selected, passed the Senate by a vote of 25-7 on Monday and now goes to the House for consideration a second time.  It has already passed the house once but must now pass the house by a two-thirds majority.  If approved by the House then the proposed amendment would be on the ballot for consideration of the public at the next gubernatorial election.  

Currently in Tennessee the state's chief law enforcement official, the attorney general, is appointed to an eight-year term by the Supreme Court, behind closed doors in secret session. This is the way it has historically been done. However, for most or our history, the Supreme Court was elected or at least faced a yes-no retention election.  This at least resulted in some degree of making the process of choosing the AG democratic. Since 2014, the Supreme Court has been appointed by the governor and confirmed by the State legislature however, yet the process of selecting the attorney general has not changed. 

Tennessee is the only state that has the Supreme Court select the Attorney General. Attorney generals are elected in 43 states and appointed by the governor in five states and in Maine, the attorney general is chosen by the state legislature.

Under the proposed constitutional amendment, the Supreme Court would make the appointment to a six-year term but it would be made in open court with a recorded vote. Then, the appointment would be subject to confirmation or rejection by the state legislature within 60 days of the appointment.

I approve of this change. The job of Attorney General is not simply administrative or prosecuting crimes, but has a dimension of making policy. The AG determines law enforcement priorities and represents the State in lawsuits and offers legal opinions to the State legislature. In my view, the position should not be elective.  I do not want the chief lawyer for the state to have to pander to the popular sentiment of the moment. On the other hand, making the AG selected in secret by the Supreme Court makes the AG too independent of public sentiment and too obligated to the Supreme Court.  This proposal is a good compromise and strikes the right balance between an independent AG and yet an open and democratic process. 

The "no" votes came from Akbari, Campbell, Robinson, Yarbro, four of the Senate's six Democrats and from Republicans Lundberg, Stevens, and Walley,  For more on this issue follow this link. 

Top Stories