South End Grounds

You Heard It First Here

Jim Bryson will formally announce his candidacy for Governor on Monday at Noon. 

Details are forthcoming.....

UPDATE/CORRECTION:  The announcement will come out via a presser on Monday, early in the afternoon. A public event is scheduled for later in the week.  More to come....

ANOTHER UPDATE:  The press advisory has been delayed.  I'll let you know more details as they become available.  In the meantime, Bill Hobbs has started a fascinating new website that I'm sure you'll enjoy reading regularly through Election Day. 

Bryson for Governor

From the Nashville Post (subscription required):

NashvillePost.com has learned from political sources that State Sen. Jim Bryson (R-Franklin) is expected to formally declare early next week that he will challenge Phil Bredesen for the governor's office.

My sources confirm this to be the case as well.  Bryson has to officially file by Noon on Thursday so we'll know for sure by then.  More to come.

Here's another hint of what's to come.

Nissan and The Ethics Committee's Bill

My thoughts on the Nissan deal and the ethics committee's bill are hanging out at Bill Hobbs' site. 

Clarification

I clarified my comments in today's Tennessean over at Bill Hobbs' place. 

Politics at the Patrol

Brad Schrade continues The Tennessean's outstanding coverage of state government by shedding light on the politics of promotions at the Tennessee Highway Patrol.

Two-thirds of Tennessee Highway Patrol officers tapped for promotion under Gov. Phil Bredesen gave money to his campaign or had family or political patrons who did, a Tennessean investigation has found.

Among those with such connections, more than half were promoted over troopers who scored better on impartial exams or rankings, according to an analysis by the newspaper of three years of the patrol's promotions and proposed promotions.

---

The newspaper's analysis of three years of promotions, including 126 cases in which THP officers were either promoted or proposed for promotion since Bredesen took office in 2003, found:

• Sixty-two of the promoted officers — 49% — contributed or had close family members who contributed to the governor's campaign before they were promoted.

• Thirty-six officers who gave campaign money or whose family members gave to Bredesen advanced even though their promotion test scores or ratings were lower than those of other applicants. Among that group were Pitts' two sons, who are also state troopers.

• The patrol's promotion process is complemented by its "recommendation" system, in which candidates seek the blessing of political patrons and donors. Twenty-five officers who were promoted or proposed for promotion did not give to Bredesen, but had references who did. Of those officers, 13 were promoted over troopers who outscored them.

Gov. Bredesen's reaction:

Approached in August, Bredesen said he succeeded in removing politics from the promotions of the Nashville Police Department when he was mayor. He said he wants the Highway Patrol headed in that direction, too.

"We need to professionalize the department," Bredesen said. "We need especially to treat young people in the department in a way that they think the way they get ahead is to do a good job as opposed to making friendships. And I'm headed in that direction."

Contacted for comment on the specifics of this story, Bredesen spokeswoman Lydia Lenker last week said the governor was busy and therefore unavailable.

"Headed in that direction?"  How so, Governor?  As Schrade accurately points out, this problem is not unique to the Bredesen administration.  But to say that he's headed in the right direction, especially in light of the evidence that Schrade unearthed, is laughable. 

The way to fix this problem is fairly easy.  The article suggests Tennessee should adopt a law, similar to Kentucky's, forbidding political contributions from patrol officers.  I am leary to forbid any citizen from participating in politics to the extent they want to.  However, there is a model readily available to reform the promotion process.

The military promotes junior enlisted members based soley on a number.  In the Marine Corps, it is called a composite score or cutting score.  That score is the result of a formula that aggregates all of the appropriate data about a Marine -- physical fitness score, military education, years of service, time in grade, etc.  On a regular basis, the higher ups decide how many people they need to promote for each rank and in each job specialty.  If they need to promote 100 infantrymen to Corporal, the top 100 scores get promoted.  No politics, no recommendations, no favors.  The numbers tell the tale.  The Highway Patrol could easily implement a similar procedure to ensure that the most qualified and honorable Troopers advance through the ranks. 

---

Groundskeeper Note:  Excellent work by the Tennessean and Brad Schrade to put together this story.  It's well-sourced, thoroughly researched and unbiased in its approach.  Exactly what we should expect from a paper. 

Bredesen Poll Numbers Stuck in the Mud

Survey USA has released its most recent approval numbers of Phil Bredesen.  And there's not much in there for him to like.  For the fourth straight month, Bredesen is under 50% approval (48% in October) and his disapproval is almost as high.

There are as many people in the state predisposed to vote against Bredesen as there are for him.  For whom will these disaffected voters cast their ballot?

Around the Horn

I apologize for having to lump so many topics into one post, but I'm having to economize my time.

First, thanks to all who have commented, emailed and called about the Lil' Batgirl.  It's much appreciated.

---

The biggest news of the day is Leo Mazzone's departure from the Atlanta Braves.  Well, maybe not the biggest news, but it's huge to Braves fans.  He got offered a job to coach with his best friend, in his hometown where his parents and children live.  And as an added bonus, his salary is doubled.  I'll miss him, but I can't blame him.  At least he didn't go to the Yankees.

---

It turns out that Phil Bredesen can't order his staff not to take a lobbying job after they leave his employ.  At least he can't do it via executive order, so says his lawyer.  Of course, we find this out the day after he makes a public pronouncement that he will end the revolving door practice.  Didn't he think to ask his lawyer if this is legal before he made a big public to-do about it?  Was everyone but his lawyer in on the decision?  Looks like his press staff knew what was going on.  I find it pretty hard to believe that no one asked the legal staff about the legality of an executive order.  Who authors executive orders?  The lawyers. Oops.

This is classic Bredesen political opportunism.  Even in the off-chance that Bredesen didn't talk to his lawyers, he made the statement knowing that a second day story about him not being able to do it wouldn't make the waves that his first day story would.  Either he made the statement without clearing it through the Counsel's office first (which is irresponsible) or he did and blew it off knowing they could fix the problem in a manner that would draw as much attention as the initial announcement.  That's nefarious.

As I've stated before, I'm opposed to a revolving door law anyway.  It does nothing, absolutely nothing, to address real ethics problems and it will create more than a few.  It will drive lobbying underground.  If a legislator or executive branch employee wants to take a lobbying job, they will.  They'll just lobby in more subtle ways until their elimination period ends.  So we've traded registered lobbyists for a lobbyist who can't register, isnt' bound by the attendant disclosure laws but will still influence legislation, even if it isn't by way of lobbying. 

Revolving door bills look good in the newspaper but they're shoddy policy, just the kind of thing I would expect the Bredesen administration to champion.

---

Speaking of revolving doors, Kim McMillan seems to be walking through one everyday.  (Before you continue reading this post, I strongly urge you to read the entire Tennessean article.  So go away and do that now.)

Good, you're back.

Let's review.  Kim McMillan sponsors an ethics bill with a glaring loophole, one that she and her fellow lawyers get to walk through.  Even indicted, resigned and disgraced former State Senator John Ford sees that as a problem:

One of those arrested, former Sen. John Ford, D-Memphis, spoke out on McMillan's legislation during an April debate. Ford criticized the lawyer provision as "patently unconstitutional" and said it gave lawyers special treatment and allowed them to represent clients doing business with the state.

Ford has pleaded not guilty in the Tennessee Waltz sting.

The ethics law was aimed at elected officials such as Ford, who were taking money from firms to perform consultant work and pushing their interests before state boards, commissions and agencies.

"You can't hide behind being a lawyer on all of this stuff," Ford said during a heated speech before a packed Senate chamber. "Fifty percent of the lawyers I know don't practice law, they do consulting work."

And then McMillan, who is an incredibly smart woman, inexplicably does an not-so-smart thing by using the loophole to represent a client before the Tennessee Regulatory Authority, a state agency that McMillan oversees in her capacity as a legislator.  She obviously thought that a) no one would notice or b) her friends in the press corps wouldn't make a big to-do of it.  She's forgotten that things have changed over at The Tennessean.

Ah, Mr. Groundskeeper, aren't you okay with the revolving door?  Well, certain varieties of it.  The kind where a public official gives up their position to enter lobbying or consulting practice doesn't keep me awake at night.  That's a one way door.  The kind where an official continues in their capacity while representing businesses in front of the legislature or other state boards is problematic.  That's actually a revolving door they walk through everyday.

My question is this, is what McMillan did any different than what John Ford did by consulting for a company who was trying to get more TennCare business?  Both were representing a private business who was trying to expand their business.  In Ford's case the business was trying to get the state to do use the state for TennCare services.  In McMillan's case, she was trying to get a state agency to allow the business to provide new services.  That's the only distinction that I see.  What say you?  The comments section is open.

For more coverage:  McMillan's response is here and here. 
An AP story.
Tim Chavez weighs in on the issue. 
The Jackson Sun editorializes against McMillan.  Where are the other papers?  They weren't shy about excoriating Tre' Hargett for walking through the one-way door, what do they say about McMillan's daily revolving door?

Coming Soon: Toll Roads in Tennessee

A Bredesen administration official said the state should consider letting private corporations build roads for profit, according to today's Chattanooga Times-Free Press (paid subscription required).  Bredesen's Commissioner of Transportation Gerald Nicely said:

Within the next two to three years, we’re going to have to make some hard decisions on how we’re going to have to finance our system for the next two decades.

Citing problems with "slowing" gas tax receipts because of higher gas prices and more fuel efficient cars, officials are concerned that the gas tax "won't generate enough revenue to maintain roads in several years."  According to the paper, gas tax revenues increased or remained stable in each of the last 10 years, except for 2001.  More:

Kim Keelor, department spokeswoman, said officials don’t know how much extra money the state eventually will need for its roads. "(Gax tax revenues) are increasing a little bit but not keeping up at the rate at which projects are needed and demanded," Ms. Keelor said. Mr. Nicely said financing options such as toll roads will be "a major piece" of discussions about the Long Range Transportation Plan. "I think we need to start talking about them right now," he said. "I don’t think (we need to be) necessarily jumping into them in the next year."  [snip]

"As the years roll out, the buying power of [gas tax] money just gets chewed up badly," said John Horsley, executive director of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Those gas taxes can’t pay for the same amount of asphalt or labor they did 10 or 15 years ago, Mr. Horsley said. And with gas prices near $3 a gallon, most voters aren’t in the mood to approve a tax increase. "Legislators right now wouldn’t touch the gas tax with a 10-foot pole," he said. Mr. Horsley said the high gas prices probably will encourage people to drive less and to buy fuel-efficient vehicles instead of gas-guzzling Hummers and sport utility vehicles.

This is great news for environmentalists everywhere.  The high cost of gas, coupled with our tax on it, is causing people to drive less or turn to more fuel efficient cars.  It appears that the internal combustion engine is becoming a relic of the bad ole' days.  And, if people are driving less, then what's the demand for new roads?  If we're consuming less gas, do we not in turn have slowing demand for roads? Not according to liberal, environmental economics.

But this is perhaps the most galling line of the entire story:

Mr. Nicely said the proposed "Orange Route" beltway around Knoxville would be a good candidate for a public-private partnership. [meaning, toll road]

Phil Bredesen is viewed as nearly unbeatable in next year's Governor's race because of his supposed strength in Republican strongholds like Knox County.  Many credit his 2002 victory in Knoxville to radio ads he ran during rush hours about the traffic gridlock and how he planned to address it.  He famously declared that he was going to fire then-Transportation Commissioner Bruce Saltsman and replace him with someone who could fix Knoxville's traffic problems.  If that ad convinced anyone to vote for Bredesen, did they have in mind that Bredesen's Transportation Commissioner would propose a toll road as his solution?

So, what is really at play here?  In his first budget, Phil Bredesen took over $60 million from the road fund to pay for other government programs.  I suspect that the Bredesen administration feels that toll roads will ease the burden on the gas tax freeing that money up to move to other areas of government spending.  It's a classic Bredesen budgetary shell game. 

He can't have it both ways.  We're either driving less, which drives down the demand for new roads or we do have a demand for more roads, in which case the gas tax will grow along with the demand.  Either way, his proposed solution to fix Knoxville's traffic problems won't fly...or drive.

Governor BredEquivocation

Tennessee's papers are full of headlines like Bredesen Rules Out Income Tax in 2nd Term, Bredesen Rules Out Income Tax, and Read His Lips: No Income Taxes.  The last liner invokes memories of George H.W. Bush who kept a similar promise about as much as we can expect Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen to do.  After a close reading of his statements, Phil Bredesen will now be known on this blog as Governor BredEquivocation.

From The AP:

"I'm not interested in an income tax in a second term," Bredesen told reporters after a speech to the Nashville Rotary Club. "I don't think you need it. ... I don't think one is warranted and, frankly, I don't intend to propose one."

From the Nashville City Paper:

“We have carved out a niche in the world as a low tax state and I think a low tax state is a good place to be,” Bredesen said...

“I’m not interested in having an income tax in a second term,” Bredesen said. “I don’t think it’s warranted and frankly do not intend to propose one.”

“I’m more convinced today than when I took office that it’s not needed and that we can proceed just fine without it,”

And from the Knoxville News-Sentinel:

"I'm not interested in an income tax in a second term," Bredesen told reporters. "I don't think you need it. I don't think one is warranted and, frankly, I don't intend to propose one."

Asked if he was flatly ruling out support for a state income tax in a second term, the governor replied, "That's what I'm saying."

He added: "In answer to all the people who say, 'Oh, I know what you're doing. You're just waiting 'til your second term.' I'm just saying: No, that's not right.

"I'm more convinced today than when I took office that it's not needed."

Here are some other headlines I suggest for our state's newspapers; Nashville Is the State Capitol, The Vols Wear Orange (Did you see that LSU game?), The Braves Win Their Division, (That's 14 in a row), Marty Stuart Has Bad Hair and, what the heck, the tried but true old headline, Dog Bites Man.

Did you see the policy shift from Governor BredEquivocation's previous statements about an income tax?  I didn't.  I see a lot of words like, "I think," "I'm more convinced," "I'm not interested" and "I don't intend." These wiggle phrases are remarkably similar to the pablum BredEquivocation has been spewing his entire political career.

But let's give him the benefit of the doubt.  Let's take him at his word when he responds to a question about flatly ruling out an income tax by saying, "That's what I'm saying."  I'm still skeptical so I did a little checking around on what else Bredesen said.  A Capitol Hill source actually came down with a rather interesting transcript that wasn't reported.  Said Bredesen:

"I'm not interested in having an income tax in a second term. I don't think we need it. This past rolling 12 months our income, revenues have grown by six percent. I guess I say, 'How much do you want?' You know, inflation is 2.7 percent and our state revenues have grown by six. I think that, you know, that we've been successful in trimming some things out and we're going to continue to work on a number of other kinds of issues...  I don't think we need an income tax, frankly, and I don't intend to propose one."

It appears that Governor BredEquivocation is agreeing with something Bill Hobbs has been saying so often for so long that I recently noticed he was turning a little blue in the face.  Even in the face of tight budget times, our budget seems to grow faster than the general economy.  Because it does, we need to look at the state's spending and cap the rate of its growth.  If inflation moves at 2.7 and spending more than doubles that, doesn't it stand to reason that at some point the growth will no longer be tenable and some form of tax increase -- like an income tax -- will be necessary?  BredEquivocation is tacitly admitting that his own reckless spending will necessitate an income tax.  He's just banking on it not happening before he leaves office.  And if he's planning to run for President almost immediately after being sworn in for a second term as Governor, he's probably right that he won't need to push an income tax in his next term.  Nashville Mayor Bill Purcell can tell you a little bit about the fiscal wreck Phil BredEquivocation leaves when he sets his sights on a higher office.

A Republican candidate can mount an effective campaign by saying that they too are not interested in an income tax in the next four years.  Nor are they interested in one for a century after they leave office.  Therefore, they will rein in state spending by imposing real spending caps that will not only forestall the need for new taxes, but will eventually push taxes in the downward direction, something we've never seen in Tennessee.  In a campaign, a challenger must put daylight between themselves and the incumbent.  BredEquivocation is interested in some modicum of fiscal stability for the next four years.  The challenger is for true fiscal stability for as long as there is a Tennessee.  That's a lot of daylight.

Do not, however, mistake me.  I am not taking Phil BredEquivocation at his word.  His predecessor swore off an income tax in far more strident terms and we all know how that promise turned out.  Very little surprises me anymore.  Least of all, a lying politician.  It's just par for the course.  If Phil BredEquivocation gets a pass in next year's election, Tennessee will be left in fiscal tatters.  The evidence might not surface until after he leaves office, but "Read My Lips," it will happen.

 

An Unlikely Candidate for TennCare Director

Frank Cagle writes about a man who has had some novel ideas for reducing TennCare costs and nominates him to be TennCare director.  The man's name: Gordon Bonnyman.

The Bredesen Administration has tried to make Bonnyman the fall guy for all that ails TennCare.  They actually finger him as the reason that so many of his clients had to be disenrolled from the program.  I don't know Gordon Bonnyman so I can't begin to say what goes on his mind.  But I have trouble reconciling that he would opt to have some his clients kicked off TennCare rolls in order to preserve premium coverage for those who are lucky enough to remain in the program.  As Cagle points out, the only cost saving measure short of disenrollment that Phil Bredesen has implemented was Bonnyman's idea.  In fact, Bonnyman has put forth several ideas that taken together might reduce costs to a level that would preserve coverage for everyone that needs it.  Phil Bredesen wasn't even interested in trying.