No TARP For You Ron

State Rep. Mike Stewart is trying to keep the big banks and TARP recipients from buying off Tennessee's legislature:

Billing it as an early response to the Occupy Wall Street movement, Stewart’s “Main Street Recovery and Wall Street Accountability Act” would bar Tennessee political action committees and members of the state legislature from accepting financial support or contributions from any financial institution that took TARP funds and had more than $100 billion in assets between Jan. 1, 2007, and Dec. 31, 2010.

The measure would also create a study committee that would look into whether Wall Street executives could be prosecuted in Tennessee for the 2008 Wall Street crash, whether the state should impose new regulations on large banks and whether it should no longer work with the agencies that rate the state’s debt.

Its an interesting approach, and quite frankly I'm not entirely sure how legal it is, and is drafted in a way to appeal to both the most liberal and conservative opponents of America's financial institutions.

While the bill would ostensibly cover all banks, according to ProPublica there are 27 Tennessee financial institutions who would be directly effected by this bill should it go into effect.  The biggest bank being First Tennessee, which took nearly a billion in funds, which it paid back in full back in December of 2010 with a nice little profit of $171 million going toward the fund.  THDA is also on the list of TARP recipients for seeking and accepting 4HM money designed to aid unemployed homeowners who were hardest hit by the economic crisis.

First Horizon National	Bank	Tenn.	$867 M returned / $867 M disbursed	$171 M
Tennessee Housing Development Agency	State Housing Orgs	Tenn.	$12 M disbursed / $217 M committed	$0
Pinnacle Financial	Bank	Tenn.	$95 M disbursed	$13 M
Green Bankshares	Bank	Tenn.	$69 M returned / $72 M disbursed	$6 M
First South Bancorp, Inc.	Bank	Tenn.	$13 M returned / $50 M disbursed	$9 M
First Security Group	Bank	Tenn.	$33 M disbursed	$1 M
Tennessee Commerce Bancorp	Bank	Tenn.	$30 M disbursed	$3 M
Community First Bancshares	Bank	Tenn.	$20 M returned / $20 M disbursed	$4 M
Community First Inc	Bank	Tenn.	$18 M disbursed	$2 M
F&M Financial Corporation (TN)	Bank	Tenn.	$17 M disbursed	$2 M
Magna Bank	Bank	Tenn.	$14 M returned / $14 M disbursed	$2 M
Moneytree Corporation	Bank	Tenn.	$10 M returned / $10 M disbursed	$2 M
First Freedom Bancshares, Inc.	Bank	Tenn.	$9 M disbursed	$755 K
F&M Bancshares	Bank	Tenn.	$8 M disbursed	$952 K
Avenue Financial Holdings	Bank	Tenn.	$7 M returned / $7 M disbursed	$1 M
TriSummit Bank	Bank	Tenn.	$7 M disbursed	$706 K
ORNL Federal Credit Union	Mortgage Servicer	Tenn.	$8 K disbursed / $7 M committed	$0
Moscow Bancshares	Bank	Tenn.	$6 M disbursed	$868 K
Germantown Capital Corporation	Bank	Tenn.	$5 M disbursed	$661 K
Southern Heritage Bancshares, Inc.	Bank	Tenn.	$5 M returned / $5 M disbursed	$856 K
Peoples Bancshares of TN	Bank	Tenn.	$4 M disbursed	$511 K
CedarStone Bank	Bank	Tenn.	$4 M disbursed	$490 K
First Alliance Bancshares	Bank	Tenn.	$3 M disbursed	$398 K
Tennessee Valley Financial Holdings	Bank	Tenn.	$3 M disbursed	$146 K
Tri-State Bank of Memphis	Bank	Tenn.	$3 M disbursed	$246 K
Magna Bank (servicing)	Mortgage Servicer	Tenn.	$2 M committed	$0
Merchants and Planters Bancshares	Bank	Tenn.	$2 M returned / $2 M disbursed	$351 K

Conflicted Corker

(March 10, 2010 - Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images North America)

Tennessee's Junior Senator spoke up yesterday about the Republican game-playing regarding the payroll tax increase set to take effect on January 1st:

"Are Republicans getting killed now in public opinion? There's no question," Corker said Wednesday on CNBC.

"Both Republicans and Democrats have agreed that this is going to happen and probably the best thing to happen now is just to get it over with — one more policy blunder — but just get it over with and move on, because now it's been framed as a tax increase, which it's not," he said.

Corker was one of only ten Senators to vote against the Reid-McConnell compromise proposal which would extend the cut into January. Corker, who enthusiastically supported unpaid for extensions of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest few, is apparently not a fan of this tax cut for working families in Tennessee but thinks passage of an extension will allow Congress to deal with the "real issues that our country needs to deal with: our deficits, reforming entitlements, reforming taxes," which he erroneously believes will stimulate the economy.

Personally I'm not a terribly huge fan of the payroll tax cut as the most efficient method of demand-based stimulus, I think the initial credit in the ARRA was probably better because it put more money in the pockets of those most likely to spend it on products. However, any obstruction or objection by Corker on this payroll tax cut has to be viewed in the lens of his support for the failed supply-side tax policy we currently have in place, including permanent extensions for tax cuts going to those who need them the least. 

And when Corker talks "tax reform," what he and Republicans like him are generally talking about is "broadening the base" so they can lower tax rates for the wealthiest few, in some cases eliminate them entirely through the abolition of the inheritance and capital gains taxes, and raise rates on people who take advantage of credits and deductions designed to help working families pay for rent, college, food, etc...

So, in essence, Corker thinks Republicans should just go ahead and pass the payroll tax extension already so they can get back to the business of dismantling the social safety net and punishing working and middle class Americans for not being as rich as he and his buddies.

Its All About The Benjamins

Late last month Education Commissioner Kevin Huffman announced that Kathleen Airhart, former Director of Putnam County Schools, would be brought on to be his Deputy within the State Department of Education.

Today, in a comment to Bill Frist's SCORE education non-profit, Airhart notes what the Haslam administration has been too timid to discuss as of yet; without adaquate funding, Tennessee's education system will never be where it needs to be:

Currently my system expends $818 per pupil below the state average of $9,084. Multiply that by our approximate 10,000 students and we are an estimated $8,818,000 short of an average Tennessee school system budget. Putnam is not an isolated system in its funding difficulties. Underfunding of public education is a common occurrence across the state and will remain so until expectations of the importance of education are addressed and emphasized by communities and their elected officials.

A recent on-line article listed Tennessee as the state with the lowest debt per capita. That is great for taxpayers, however, the article also points out “many programs go underfunded. For example, it (Tennessee) spends less per capita than any state in the country on education. It also happens to have the 11th lowest percentage of adults with a high school diploma.” Nationally, Tennessee ranks last in K-12 education funding. A report by the U.S. Department of Education in 2008 indicated that $10,441 in adjusted dollars was the national per pupil average expenditure. Adjusted for inflation, that number would be higher. The harsh reality is, Tennessee can have great intentions to improve education, but until the funding issue is addressed for county systems like Putnam, it is an improbable change.

One wonders whether her addition to the team is a signal that our Republican Governor will start to address the dearth of public funding for education that is holding our state back.

William E. Haslam on Wealth Allocation

In a story in the Commercial Appeal about his low effective tax rate, Gov. Haslam comments on the subject of income inequality stating:

"There is a bigger gap there, that's true,'' Haslam said. "So the question is: Why? ... Is it solely tax policy? Is that what's driving the difference? Or are there a lot of other factors at play? And I think that's the discussion we should be having,'' he said, suggesting that inadequate education and the breakup of the traditional family might also be factors in the growing income gap.

Indeed, if only all kids had a strong 'traditional family,' assuming by traditional you mean phenomenally wealthy, and a quality education such as the one received at the elite Webb private school in Knoxville...if only more people had access to such things, I bet the wealth inequality gap would close a bit.  Hey, here's an idea.  While obviously we can't give everyone access to an elite private school or wealthy parents, we can use some of that accumulated wealth and use it to fund a quality public education system here in Tennessee.  Just a thought.

BRT It Will Be

While not the most intriguing option available to the Broadway-West End Corridor Study Committee, the choice to adopt a Bus Rapid Transit system to go from West End to East Nashville is probably the only financially viable option compared to the much more expensive light-rail or street car systems that were proposed. From Cass at the Tennessean:

The steering committee of the Broadway/West End Corridor Study agreed that bus rapid transit, which uses dedicated bus lanes to help commuters and other travelers move quickly and reduce congestion, is the way to go after learning that the only other feasible option, modern streetcars, would cost twice as much without substantially increasing ridership.

Mayor Karl Dean said other parts of the city will be “crying out” for similar bus service after the proposed plan gets up and running.

Of course, securing funding for this program is still not a gimme by any stretch, even with the lower $136 million price-tag compared to the billion+ figure that was being bandied about for a light-rail system.  But if Nashville is to continue to grow as an urban city, improving public transportation options will be an important component in attracting outside entities to the downtown area.

What Are We Paying You For?

How much he cares about consumers.

Sen. Corker had the temerity gall nerve balls idiotic insight to accuse the President of "playing games" because he's asked that the US Senate do its god damn job and vote for a head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that Congress created last year:

Cordray is extremely qualified for the position, yet the GOP is holding his nomination hostage because they disagree with the entire idea of the CFPB, preferring, as they said during the debate over Dodd-Frank, that bank profits take precedence over consumer protection. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has even said that the GOP won’t confirm any nominee, no matter who it is or what his/her qualifications are, until the Bureau’s structure is changed.

Despite all that, Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) today charged the administration with playing “political games” when it comes to the nomination, adding that he thinks people across the nation want to see the consumer watchdog’s powers watered down

Will someone, anyone, with an inclination towards doing the job of the people of Tennessee run against this empty suit? At the very least Mr. Corker (only people who do their actual job deserve the title "Senator"), will you please talk to some people who aren't part of the corporate elite who oppose consumer protections before making claims on behalf of what "most people" want?

Perry on Prayin'

Despite God's utter indifference to Rick Perry's prayers that he become the next President, he still believes in the concept so much that he had this to say about the matter:

I believe America’s best days are ahead of us if we return to our constitutional roots. I believe this nation was founded on Judeo-Christian values. But you don’t have to go to church every Sunday to know something is wrong in America where gays can openly serve in the military but our children can’t pray in school.

Alright Dick, we'll say this extra slow so you don't forget it. Kids. Can. Pray. In. School. "What?" Says a befuddled Rick Perry...yes, that's right, kids can pray in school. And you know who will defend their right to do so? The ACLU, that's who:

IS IT EVER OK TO PRAY IN SCHOOL?

Sure. Individual students have the right to pray whenever they want to, as long as they don't disrupt classroom instruction or other educational activities -- or try to force others to pray along with them. If a school official has told you that you can't pray at all during the school day, your right to exercise your religion is being violated. Contact your local ACLU for help.

What is not kosher or halal is teacher led, instructed, or commanded prayer. Meaning kids are free to give glory unto God, but they can't be forced or expected to do so. You know who agrees with this idea of personal prayer instead of forced community prayer? An often ignored figure in GOP Christian theory, Jesus Christ:

Matthew 6:5 "And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly."

How this has been perverted to mean, "thou must prayest before all school events lest ye incur the wrath of God almighty," is rather beyond me...but perverted so it was.

Also, as to the first knock against gay soldiers...I would argue that just as teachers shouldn't lead their students in prayer, so too officers shouldn't be allowed to force their troops to be gay, but neither should they force them to pretend to be straight.

Update:  Dick offers another in his series of "Letters from the American Taliban". 

Council to Vote on Vouchers

Four Metro Councilmembers: Karen Johnson, Lonnell Matthews, Fabian Bedne, Anthony Davis; have signed on to a resolution opposing the efforts by Glen Casada and others to interfere with our local education systems:

WHEREAS, on October 25, 2011, the Metropolitan Nashville Board of Public Education adopted a resolution by a vote of 8-0 opposing vouchers to fund private school tuition; and

WHEREAS, although the Metropolitan Council and the Board of Education have different roles regarding the education of children, we desire to work cooperatively to make decisions that are in the best interest of the children of this city as well as the taxpayers that fund the public school system; and

WHEREAS, it is fitting and proper that the Metropolitan Council show its support for the Board of Education’s decision to oppose school vouchers.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON COUNTY:

Section 1. The Metropolitan County Council hereby goes on record as supporting the Metropolitan Nashville Board of Public Education’s decision to oppose state legislation that would provide vouchers to pay for private school tuition.

For a primer on the voucher issue, look back to this report I did in early November on the House Education Committee's hearing on the matter.

Oldie But Goodie

Going through some archives for research and found this video of Obama speaking in Louisville during the 2006 elections.  Interesting to hear what he wanted to do then and what he's done since being President.  Especially around the one minute mark.

Namnesty

Would-be challenger to Congressman Jim Cooper, Bob Schwartz, is not too keen on Mittens' attacks on the GOP's retro pick of the day, Newt Gingrich:

For the record, Team Romney and, to a lesser extent, some of the second-tier candidates, accused Gingrich of offering a plan for “amnesty” for illegal immigrants during and after the most recent debate of Republican presidential candidates. In fact, Gingrich clearly indicated that no illegal immigrant should receive citizenship. Instead, Gingrich said that here should be some sort of status created for a limited (though probably large) group of people who entered the United States illegally, but since then have paid taxes, raised families, etc., for “25 years or so.” Gingrich specified that this group would not receive advantages of citizenship such as voting rights.

Team Romney incorrectly attacked Gingrich for “amnesty” while knowing full well that this is not what Gingrich had proposed. The attack is not accurate and, worse, it turns out to be yet another flip-flop. Romney himself had offered the same proposal in 2007. Does he think that the people won’t notice another flip-flop? It is just plain sad to think that Mitt Romney could be so brazen and desperate. Romney has access to the best policy and political levers that money can buy. How does he use them? He uses them to advance inaccuracy among the electorate, inaccuracy aimed solely for his political advantage.

I sort of agree and disagree with ol' Bob here. On the one hand, yes, Mittens is a hypocritical squishy flip-flopper whose only conviction is the desire to say whatever it takes to get elected to office. So, on that front, bravisimo Mr. Scwhartz.

However, this notion that Gingrich's half-assed novel approach to fixing our immigration system is somehow wholly divorced from the concept of "amnesty" is a bit of a stretch. Now, if "amnesty" is a full on pardon, what Gingrich is suggesting is perhaps a bit closer to a clemency, so from hence forth I'll dub his "not-amnesty-amnesty" program as namnesty.

Of course, we all know that even if Newt were to sustain his current lead in the polls, by next November he'll have trotted out about 15 other various iterations of some kind of immigration plan. For instance, further pressed out the idea he pulled out of his ass during a debate, Newt followed up with this idea on how to decipher if someone has been here "about 2 months" or 25 years:

We may want to think about a citizen board that can actually look at things and decide, is this a person that came in two months ago and doesn’t nearly have any ties here? Or is this a person who clearly is integrated into the society but unfortunately has been undocumented, therefore, we have to rethink how we are approaching them.

Right, because it would be silly to think that there should be some sort of impartial process regulating the process...just let a bunch of townsfolk go through their brown people population and decide who is worthy of staying or who'll get the boot.  That should go swimmingly.

This isn't all Newt's fault.  He obviously understands that the xenophobic tendencies of his party are hurting both the American economy and the GOP's long-term viability, so he is struggling to find some convoluted process by which to allow for amnesty in a way that wouldn't be thought of as amnesty.

Personally, I'm quite fine with the term amnesty.  Because, really, any plan that will rationally deal with the population of unauthorized immigrants in this country will be labeled "amnesty" anyway, so might as well just accept it and move on.  Whether its a "blanket amnesty" or "conditional amnesty" is really the question...and it doesn't seem either side of the aisle is talking about a blanket amnesty.  As for Gingrich's idea to allow them to stay without granting them "full citizenship"...if someone is deemed to be woven into the fabric of their community, how can someone say with a straight face that those people should be denied the ability to participate in our civic process?  If they are here to stay, they absolutely should have a voice in their community.  Basically, this is just a way to keep these immigrants as second class citizens.