Grading Taylor:

Mississippi 4^th District Democrat Rep. Gene Taylor In Review

                Since 1989, Gene Taylor (D-Bay St. Louis) has held the 4th Congressional District seat here in Southeast Mississippi.  Taylor, a former city councilman and state senator, is well versed in what it takes to win in this district, which by the way is one of, if not the most conservative Republican districts in the nation (no Democrat Presidential candidate has carried the 4th since 1956).  His voting record is a mixed bag; he has walked the tight rope between party and populist for many years and thus far has mastered it with only the occasional wobble which has quickly balanced.  He proclaims to be pro-life and pro-gun (anything else in Mississippi and he would have been out a long time ago), yet he has supported his party and its leaders inconspicuously (voting for Nancy Pelosi as Speaker) knowing that if he carried too much of the party's water he would be on the proverbial hot seat come election time.  He knows how to appear as if he is fighting for his constituents while not making too many waves in Washington D.C.  His tenure and party connections landed him an important seat on the Armed Services Committee and the Shipbuilding Caucus, making him increasingly valuable to his 4th District constituents.  But could 2010 be a perfect storm that even Taylor can't weather?

                Now that the qualifying date for Mississippi's 4^th Congressional District has come and gone, Taylor has drawn four challengers: Republicans State Rep. Steven Palazzo and Joe Tegerdine, Libertarian Tim Hampton, and Reformer Anna Jewel Revies.  While the two third-tier party candidates are realistically a stretch, the two Republicans, Palazzo and Tegerdine, perhaps have the best chance in years to take down the long-term representative.

I thought I would take a few minutes (with some help from various sources I've listed below) and give Democrat Rep. Gene Taylor his election review.  Take a few minutes and see what grade you would give Rep. Taylor based on his record:

·          Gov Track (www.govtrack.us) reports:

-          Gene Taylor missed 276 (2%) of 12,694 votes since Jan 23, 1990.

-          Taylor is a follower according to our statistical analysis of bills in this legislative session.  Taylor tends to cosponsor the bills of other members of Congress who do not cosponsor Taylor's own bills.

-          Gene Taylor has sponsored 34 bills since Jan 3, 1989, of which 20 haven't made it out of committee and 6 were successfully enacted, at least 5 of which were to name Post Office locations around the district.  Taylor has co-sponsored 1,215 bills during the same time period.

·          Open Secrets (www.opensecrets.org) reports:

-          During the 2009-2010 period to date, Taylor raised $238,949, spent $213,612, and has $225,779 cash on hand.

-          Taylor's top donors during the 2009-2010 election cycle were FedEx Corp. and General Dynamics (each with $6,000). Other donors of note include John Larson for Congress of Connecticut ($4,000), Operating Engineers Union ($5,000), National Rifle Association ($1,000), and NFL Vikings ($4,800).   The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.

-          Taylor receives most of his contributions from the following industries: sea transport ($22,750), transportation unions ($15,500), defense aerospace ($15,000), air transport ($12,500), lawyers and law firms ($12,000), defense electronics ($12,000), and building trade unions ($7,500).

-          During the 2009-2010 cycle to date, 61% of Taylor's contributions have come from In-State sources, with the majority from the Hattiesburg metro area.  The 2007-2008 cycle garnered 62% from In-State sources with the Hattiesburg constituency making up the majority of contributions as well. 

·         Project Vote Smart (www.votesmart.org) reports:

-          Project Vote Smart is a non-profit, non-partisan research organization that collects and distributes information on candidates for public office in the United States founded in 1992 by 40 national leaders, including Barry Goldwater, John McCain, former U.S. Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter.  The group administers the Political Courage Test.  The Political Courage Test is a key component of Project Vote Smart's Voter Self-Defense system.  Major leaders of the media, major parties and Project Vote Smart repetitiously ask candidates one central question: "Are you willing to tell citizens your positions on the issues you will most likely face on their behalf?"  The Political Courage Test is administered to all candidates for presidential, congressional, gubernatorial, and state legislative offices.  Taylor repeatedly refused to answer the 2008 Political Courage Test.

-          Taylor did complete the 1996 National Political Awareness Test.  Here's a few of his responses on a variety of issues (many of the questions had multiple choice answers):

Abortion:

Abortions should be legal only when the pregnancy resulted from incest or rape or when the life of the woman is endangered.

Affirmative Action:

The federal government should not provide any affirmative action programs.

Balanced Budget Amendment:

Do you support amending the US Constitution to require an annual balanced federal budget?  Yes.

Prayer in School:

Do you support amending the United States Constitution to allow voluntary prayer and/or moment of silence in public schools?  Yes.

Immigration:

Further limit the number of immigrants allowed into the country, Establish English as the official and recognized language of the United States, Restrict the eligibility of legal immigrants for certain social programs (i.e. AFDC, HUD housing, food stamps, etc.), and Children of illegal immigrants, born in the United States, should not automatically receive US citizenship.

Term Limits:  

No answer

Legislative Priorities:

Balance the budget Eliminate or reduce national debt.

                Hopefully this brief review stirs your curiosity as you begin to assess this 4^th Congressional District race.  There are numerous other points and resources that could be cited on Taylor but for the sake of space and time I will not attempt to delve further; I would, however, encourage you to do your homework on this race.  Grade Taylor's body of work and see if you believe we can do better in the 4^th District in 2010.

                Gene Taylor is not a bad guy; heck, he's not all that bad of a Congressman if you judge his body of work through a narrowed lens.  America and the future of our great nation are about something bigger than narrow, spin driven, seat ensuring issues that sound good on the campaign trail but are often forgotten in D.C.  We need a Congressman that will stand up and fight for Mississippi.  We need a Congressman who will stand on the principles of the Constitution, for the freedoms we hold dear, to speak against the ills of the day and actively support a different direction than what is being proposed by those now in leadership (leadership supported and encouraged by Taylor himself).  It would seem that we need a change in the 4th District, but I'll leave that up to you to decide.

Frank Corder,

Pascagoula City Councilman

Principled Government Starts at City Hall

                A few months ago, I met a gentleman at the National League of Cities conference in San Antonio named John McAlister.  John is a fellow City Council member from Gahanna, Ohio, a suburb of Columbus.  As we waited for a boat tour of the downtown San Antonio Riverwalk, John and I discussed politics in our hometowns, a common discussion at such conferences.  Soon our discussion turned to national politics and the challenges facing our country.  I learned of John's steadfast commitment to the oath of office he took as a City Councilman to uphold and defend the Constitution, an oath that City Council members and Boards of Aldermen take all across this country.  John is a strong believer that we can regain limited federal government by holding local politicians accountable for their votes.  I found his zeal for such thoughts refreshing and reassuring.

                One of many truths that can be gleaned from John McAlister can be found on his website, www.localpoliticians.net.  There he wrote, "If you check the background of your local member of the U.S. House of Representatives or the U.S. Senate you will find that most of these people started out in politics as a city council representative, county commissioner, etc.  Many went on to their state legislatures.  What if we were only sending people to higher office who had proved their worthiness of upholding the Constitution at the local level?  Might we then start to get state legislatures and a U.S. Congress made up of people who honor freedom and the founding principles of limited government and a government that secures our rights rather than tramples on them?"  How profound.

                Principled government - the kind of government that enriches individual liberty and freedom, upholds and defends the Constitution, and promotes the interest of the sum, not the part while maintaining as limited a role as possible - starts in the City Halls all around this country.  It is in the local communities, not the state capitols or Washington D.C. that a fundamental change can begin to reverse the course of the "nanny state" and rightful restoration can be made of our American foundations.  The continual overreaching of government can be combated best and most effectively by city officials who stand on solid principles and act at times against their own inclinations, with an eye on the Constitution and an ear listening to the voice of the people. 

                There are times, I will admit, when the will of the people is in direct contrast to the Constitution and to the principles of good Republic government.  Many, even some traditional conservatives, will accept more government intrusion into their personal lives and support laws that chip away at our Constitutional foundations for what could be seen as a humanitarian or medical cause or even for a slight bit of comfort all the while consigning the founding principles of our Republic to a mere afterthought.  Former President Ronald Reagan once said, "One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine.  It's very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project."  In recent days, we have seen such relegation of principles in cities around Mississippi, big government ideals disguised within seemingly worthwhile causes.  While there are numerous examples, one now up for debate in my city comes to mind - a smoking ban. 

Proponents of a smoking ban believe restaurants, bars, and other such establishments to be "public" places, which allow local governments to regulate such activity.  They use phrases such as, "Your right to smoke ends when my right to breath begins," and "If I want to eat in that restaurant I should be able to do so without breathing in smoke."  They point to the medical community's research that secondhand smoke is harmful.  They say that smokers cost society by way of increased likelihood for the need for medical treatment which in part falls on the general taxpayers.  Proponents also say that all such establishments should be mandated to comply with a smoking ban to level the playing field for all who do business in the area. 

I trust by now you can recognize the inherent flaws in the smoking ban proponents' arguments in terms of principled government.  In case you missed it, allow me to elaborate.  (To qualify my statements to follow, I do not smoke.  Actually, I personally do not care to be around smoke nor would I condone the use of cigarettes.  With that said, I will now continue.)

Restaurants, bars, and other such establishments are not "public" places as defined in government terms; they are privately owned businesses.  "Public" places are areas that are owned by the city, county, or state, such as parks, ball fields, and government buildings.  Private businesses can refuse service should they choose; public areas are accessible by all taxpayers. 

America was built on capitalism, free enterprise, and an entrepreneurial spirit.  Capitalism by definition is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods, characterized by a free competitive market and motivation by profit.  Capitalism has been the backbone of our society and has allowed our country to grow and expand more than any nation in the history of the world.  Allowing a person to decide what type of business they operate and how they manage that business has been what has made this country great.  A business owner's right to choose who their business will cater to and what services and goods they supply to the public is capitalism at its best.  So for me, as an elected official, to hamper in any manner a private business person's right to run their business as they see fit is a detriment to capitalism and our economic system.   That is what a smoking ban on private, commercial businesses does; it takes the business owner's right to choose who their business will cater to and disregards capitalism.  A smoking ban is over regulation, big government, and infringement on freedom at its core.

 Additionally, I personally find it disconcerting that business owners who support a smoking ban and that would be impacted by such an ordinance would essentially turn over the direction of their companies to a local governing body.   If a business owner wants to ban smoking in their establishment, then by all means post a no smoking sign and lead by example.  The truth is, however, that those who will not act on their own merit fear the loss of revenue it will cause if they act alone.  In their train of thought, if all such businesses are required to comply with a smoking ban, they stand to lose less customers and revenue because all of the like businesses in the area will be under the same mandate; there will not be an alternate choice for the consumer.  While I follow their thinking, I find it in stark contrast with my ideals of principled government.

As for the medical studies, yes, smoking is not healthy and secondhand smoke can be and often is harmful.  And yes, often times, poor choices by the few adversely cost the sum.  I would agree with those statements and concerns.  But please don't miss the greatness of our country here.  You and I have the choice to be a patron of any business we choose.  And those businesses will succeed or fail based on if you and I support them.  That is our freedom, our privilege in a society based on free enterprise.  Your patronage of a business will determine that business's health.  And if enough of us do not buy from a business it will inevitably die.  That is capitalism.  So if a business owner chooses to cater to smokers and provides such an atmosphere, it is that business owner's choice; he or she will succeed or fail based on that choice.  It is not up to me as a local elected official to mandate to a private business owner what he or she can and cannot do with their private business in terms of offering smoking within their establishment.  After all, the last time I checked, cigarettes and cigars were still legal products for sale and purchase in the United States.  Capitalism allows for success if the market will sustain it and failure if it cannot.  Why over regulate businesses if the market will ultimately decide their fate?  That's the greatness of free enterprise. 

This, of course, is just one example of where city leaders who are grounded in good, principled government can demonstrate their intent to uphold their oath of office and further the restoration of our founding ideals of government.  I can think of other examples as well, some even in our state government: "sin taxes," pseudoephedrine ban, etc.

As difficult as it may be to accept for some, the Constitution and principled government should never play second fiddle to personal comforts, charitable or humane endeavors, or yes, even religious viewpoints.  Indeed, faith and values influence our decisions and should play a profound role in our lives.  The founders of our country, however, never intended to allow government to legislate morality or mandate how an individual lives his or her life.  The point of government should be to foster an environment where everyone can prosper and achieve, while holding fast to their individual eccentricities that indeed make them autonomous and unique.  It is the proper role of government to provide equal opportunity for all to succeed, not mandate that we all succeed equally.  Thus it is both the challenge and the responsibility of local elected officials to uphold the principles of their oath while effectively guiding those they represent in the understanding of such fundamental basics of Republic governance. 

                To be a city official and to promote principled government is not an easy task.  City officials are not insulated from their constituents as are state and federal leaders.  City Hall is just around the corner, not hundreds of miles away.  Local politics is prevalent in the grocery stores, schools, churches, and corner drug store.  While state and federal leaders may encounter professional lobbyists and well funded special interest groups in their daily political world, city officials must hear from their friends, family, coworkers, pastors, and small business leaders every single day.  It is easy for a city leader to be torn between sound government principles and what may make their next day at work, the weekly trip to the store, or next Sunday morning a little easier to endure.  But expedience only breeds future governmental ills.  The sooner those serving in cities around the nation recognize their own strategic importance in the political struggles of the day, the sooner America will return to principled government.

                To quote Reagan once again, "I'm convinced that today the majority of Americans want what those first Americans wanted: A better life for themselves and their children; a minimum of government authority.  Very simply, they want to be left alone in peace and safety to take care of the family by earning an honest dollar and putting away some savings.  This may not sound too exciting, but there is something magnificent about it.  On the farm, on the street corner, in the factory and in the kitchen, millions of us ask nothing more, but certainly nothing less than to live our own lives according to our values - at peace with ourselves, our neighbors and the world."

America can experience a governmental awakening, but it will not start in the state capitols or Washington D.C.; it will start in the City Halls and family kitchens throughout this great country.  City leaders must be steadfast to uphold their oaths and choose daily to actively stand firm in principled government, and if they do, we will surely see a true American reformation.

Frank Corder,

Pascagoula City Councilman

Could Taylor Face a Democrat Challenger?

                Fourth Congressional District Democrat Incumbent Gene Taylor could be facing a challenge from within his own party.  That's the word out of a local Democrat party member with knowledge of the race. 

Speaking this morning on my radio show, "On the Edge" on WPMP 1580 AM (www.wpmpradio.com), the Jackson County Democrat member did confirm that there were some within the Mississippi Gulf Coast Democrat ranks that are actively seeking a challenger to the 20-year incumbent Congressman.

                At issue for the local Democrats is Taylor's vocal challenge of the President and other Congressional Democrat leaders on the usual party issues, namely health care reform.  Taylor, who is a long-time member of the Blue Dogs and touts himself as a conservative Democrat, has effectively rode the political party fence by opposing abortion, gun control, and other  conservative mantles while often times voting for and alongside the liberal House leadership.  Such stances have allowed Taylor to defray criticism at home while remaining relevant in D.C. 

                The shear notion that Taylor could face a challenger from within his own party adds to the already rising tide sweeping through the national political scene of those fed up with business as usual in Washington.  Such feeling was never more prevalent than with the win by Scott Brown in the recent Massachusetts Senate race.  Many believe Brown's win to be a precursor of things to come during the 2010 Congressional elections.  It seems that now, more than ever, people on both sides of the aisle want to know where their elected representatives stand on the issues of the day and don't want to wander on a consistent basis where their allegiance lies. 

                Taylor has already drawn two Republican challengers to date - State Rep. Steven Palazzo (R-District 116) and Petal Businessman Joe Tegerdine.  There are rumors within the Jackson County Republican Party, as was also revealed on "On the Edge" this morning by a local Republican party member, that State Senator Michael Watson (R-District 51) was exploring a run for the 4^th Congressional seat as well.  Watson, in a January 31 story by the Clarion Ledger, said that he is "not currently planning on" challenging Taylor for the seat. 

The qualifying deadline is March 1^st.  In politics, that's a long time for the landscape to change.

Frank Corder,

Pascagoula City Councilman

4^th Congressional District Race Heats Up:

Palazzo Throws His Hat in the Ring

                State Representative Steven Palazzo (R-District 116) announced this morning while on the Paul Gallo Show on Supertalk MS that he will throw his hat in the ring to challenge 4^th Congressional District Democrat Congressman Gene Taylor.  Palazzo must first face Joe Tegerdine in the Republican primary.  Tegerdine has already qualified to run for the seat and has been working to form a grassroots organization while visiting locations throughout the district.

                According to his state representative website, Palazzo is a native of the Mississippi Gulf Coast and has lived there his entire life with the exception of temporary work assignments and tours of duty in the US and overseas.  He is committed and dedicated to helping the MS Gulf Coast recover and meet the challenges ahead.  Palazzo touts his experience as a small business owner, CPA, and employee that has provided him with a keen insight and understanding of what it means to hold yourself and others accountable for their actions.  He understands the need for a balanced industry to sustain economic and job development.  Education is important to Palazzo as he sees it as the key to our future and creating a competitive workforce.  As a US Marine veteran of the Persian Gulf War and current Mississippi National Guardsman he understands the importance of promises made and promises kept to our active military, reserves, and retirees.  

                Palazzo made headlines recently when he requested Mississippi's Attorney General prepare for action against the federal government in case the pending health care legislation is passed in its current form.  In one interview, Palazzo stated, "The vast majority of American people oppose a government takeover of healthcare.  We are all seeing firsthand the bold corruption and calamitous nature of our federal government unfold in front of our eyes.  This is truly sickening to watch."

                The Jackson Free Press did a story on Palazzo recently as their Person of the Day.  The December 31, 2009 article spoke to the aforementioned letter to Attorney General Hood and other points.  Here's an excerpt:

"Mississippi legislators take an oath of office to never vote for any measure in exchange for a promise or vote for another measure or person," Palazzo wrote in his letter. "The blatant federal deal brokering to BUY votes is immoral and unethical."

Not content to merely castigate Congress' deal making, Palazzo also alleged that health-care reform would actually violate the Constitution.

"Furthermore, it is unconstitutional to pass such an unfunded mandate onto the states," he wrote. "Simply put, I along with a majority of Mississippians, see this as a violation of equal protection of the law, an affront to our sovereignty, and a breach of the U.S. Constitution."

Palazzo has carried the banner for right-wing national politics before, notably on a resolution from the 2009 legislative session recognizing Worker's Memorial Day, a commemoration supported by labor unions of Americans who have died on the job. The house bill, sponsored by Rep. Jim Evans, D-Jackson, sparked thirty minutes of bloviating on both sides, after Palazzo insisted on attaching an amendment that offered a veiled criticism of the proposed, union-supported Employee Free Choice Act a favorite bogeyman of conservative political commentators.

                It says something about the politics and character of Palazzo when the Jackson Free Press makes an issue of him.  The first part of the article starts with "While he represents Biloxi in the Mississippi Legislature, Rep. Steven Palazzo often seems to be acting on a national stage."  Could even they see potential?

Palazzo does bring conservative credibility to his Congressional run and will be able to actively compete with the Gulf Coast voting base.  He will also be a viable fundraiser, a must to effectively brand his name and message in the minds and hearts of the 4^th District electorate.  Palazzo brings to the table name recognition and a proven record of public service, both of which are weighty campaign needs especially taking on such an incumbent as Democrat Gene Taylor.  Additionally, Palazzo will be able to speak to the needs of the people of Mississippi and the hardships facing the state due in large part to the current Presidential administration as well Democrat controlled Congress.

I expect a gentlemanly race between Tegerdine and Palazzo.  Either way, we've seen what twenty years has given us in the 4th District.  I truly desire our nation to be more than it is today; America desperately needs the next generation of leaders to begin to take hold now, not tomorrow.  I encourage you all to consider the 2010 Congressional race and help America be more.

Frank Corder,

Pascagoula City Councilman

Voter ID Ballot Referendum Moving Forward

                Mississippi's Voter ID petition drive is moving forward and has acquired the numbers needed to continue the process to place the initiative on the state wide ballot. 

                The petition drive had to capture 90,000 signatures divided between the five old congressional districts.  According to sources close to the effort, over 22,000 signatures have been compiled in the First, Second, and Third Congressional Districts.  The Fourth District has just over 20,000 signatures and the old Fifth District has over 21,000.  In Circuit Clerk offices across the state there are several hundred more signatures awaiting certification and the certified totals in all districts are expected to rise.  The hope is to have each district exceed 22,000 signatures at the end of the effort and given the totals thus far it looks promising.  Plans are to deliver the petitions to the Secretary of State's office February 11^th.

                Many around the state have invested much of their time and effort to compile these signatures from walking streets and knocking on doors to businesses that have actively promoted and publicized the effort.  This has truly been a grassroots initiative to change the face of Mississippi's voting future.   

Showing an ID in order to prevent voter fraud just makes sense in the world in which we live.  Many around the state have united to demand accurate and honest elections by ensuring that each and every vote is cast in the proper manner.  Through the groundbreaking work of so many, there will be no more of the ploys and countless excuses to prevent Voter ID in Mississippi.  There will be no more of the good ole boy politics, no more of the "vote early and vote often" mentality that abounds throughout our state.  This one initiative will ensure that when you go to the polls and cast your ballot, your vote will count.  After all, you vote to make a difference and to be heard.  You vote because it's a right of our Republic.  You vote so that the will of the people can be accomplished.  So why not help protect this most sacred of all Republic rights and support the need for Voter ID.  Thanks to so many, we may all finally have that chance.

Frank Corder,
Pascagoula City Councilman

Peeking In:

The House Apportionment and Elections Committee

                After glancing through the Mississippi House of Representatives committees, I thought I would offer up for your deliberation a few bills currently under consideration in the House Apportionment and Elections Committee.  I have long considered this committee one of the most vital groups in state government given its subject matter.  Elections are the very fabric of our Republic and this committee indeed serves a crucial function. 

The bills below may never come out of committee and see the light of day on the House floor but they are definitely good conversation starters around the water cooler.

State Superintendent of Public Education

                Should we elect the State Superintendent of Public Education?  If Rep. John Moore (R-District 60) has his way, we just may have that opportunity. 

House Bill (HB) 491 provides for the election of the State Superintendent starting with the 2011 elections.  Under the bill, the State Superintendent would serve a four year term and follow the same electoral guidelines as the other eight state wide elected offices.  The compensation for the State Superintendent, as defined by this HB 491, would be equal to 90% of the salary of the Commissioner of Higher Education, which is currently the pay structure for the appointed position.  This equates to over $300,000 annually or $200,000 more than what the Governor is presently paid.  The bill would require the State Superintendent to hold at least a master's degree in any field and a minimum of five years experience in educational administration. 

Click here to read HB 491.

Political Party Switching

                In the past few months, we have seen quite a few Democrats switch parties (i.e. Simpson County, etc.).  It would seem plausible that such activity provoked Rep. Bob Evans (D-District 91) to file House Bill (HB) 1457.  And just for the record, District 91 does include Copiah, Covington, Jefferson Davis, Lawrence, and yes, Simpson counties.

                HB 1457 would prohibit an elected official from changing political party affiliation during their term in office.  Should a party switch be made, the bill states that a change of party affiliation would be considered a resignation from that elected office and the vacancy should be filled in a manner as provided by law for that office. 

Sour grapes?  Click here to read HB 1457. 

Mississippi's Version of the Fairness Doctrine Creeping In

                According to the Heritage Foundation, legislation known as the "fairness doctrine," entitled the "Fairness in Broadcasting Act," required broadcasters to "afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of public importance."  The fairness doctrine was overturned by the FCC in 1987.  The FCC discarded the rule because, contrary to its purpose, it failed to encourage the discussion of more controversial issues.  There were also concerns that it was in violation of First Amendment free speech principles.  Mississippi House Bill (HB) 144 authored by Rep. John Mayo (D-District 25) comes uncomfortably close to revisiting this failed, flawed federal legislation.

                HB 144 would require certain broadcasting stations (Supertalk MS, have you read this yet?) that receive public funds to afford equal opportunity in use of their stations to all candidates for office and would require stations to allow equal opportunity and time for rebuttals to positions taken by its on-air announcers or commentators during a certain period of time before an election. 

                I guess some people will try and skin a cat more than one way.  Click here to read HB 144. 

Judges and Party Affiliation

                Many around Mississippi, and even more so across the country, are sick and tired of liberal, activist judges.  While justice is supposed to be blind, often judges impose their hidden political ideologies into their rulings.  Wouldn't it be easier if we already knew their political bent before they got in office? 

Rep. John Moore (R-District 60) has filed House Bill (HB) 494 that would repeal the Nonpartisan Judicial Election Act, meaning that judges would be forced to identify their political party affiliation when qualifying to run for office.  Guess that's one way to uncover the truth.

Click here to read HB 494.  Also, click here to read my prior blog post on why "Party Matters." 

                These are just a few of the more interesting and thought provoking bills currently sitting in the House Apportionment and Elections Committee.  James Buchanan, our 15^th President, once said, "I love the noise of democracy."  It's high time we all made some noise to ensure the future of our Republic.  I would encourage you all to take the time to browse through the bills being considered during this legislative session.  Get involved in your local and state government.  Read and study for yourself.  Then, let your voice be heard. 

Frank Corder,

Pascagoula City Councilman

More Trial Lawyer Politics in Mississippi

                The Mississippi Association for Justice, formerly the Mississippi Trial Lawyers Association, has as its motto on its website (www.msaj.org) "Lawyers Representing People Not Corporations."  In theory, such a phrase would seem appropriate and be well received by most.  It suggests that there are trial lawyers who seek to rush to the rescue of the people of Mississippi as they fight for legal justice when facing the well-funded corporate giants who are ever prepared to defend their interests perhaps to the detriment of those citizens who can't.  Sounds plausible enough, even chivalrous.  But the truth is that many trial lawyers, seemingly more often than not, pursue frivolous lawsuits that drive up costs that ultimately are passed on to the average consumer.  They lurk and prey, waiting for just the right moment to strike.  When they pounce, they seek often exorbitant monetary damages where they feel they have the best chance to win and pad their own pocketbooks.  It's not really about the individual client or the cause; it's about their careers.  The same can be said of trial lawyers who get elected to public office.

                Trial lawyers who become elected public officials have a tendency to bring their "Lawyers Representing People Not Corporations" philosophy into the public policy arena.  Just as the story of Robin Hood is a good children's story but makes terrible economic and public policy, so too does this trial lawyer motto.  Here's an example.

                A bill has been filed in the Mississippi House of Representatives (HB 1007) that creates the duty for persons operating trains to keep a lookout for persons and property on railroad tracks.  Sounds innocent enough, right?  Keep reading for an excerpt from the bill below:

(1) (a) It shall be the duty of all persons running trains in this state upon any railroad to keep a constant lookout for all persons, including licensees and trespassers, and property upon the track of any and all railroads.

(b) If any person or property is killed or injured by the neglect of any employee of any railroad to keep a lookout, the company owning or operating any railroad or its agents, servants and employees shall be liable and responsible to the person injured for all damages resulting from neglect to keep a lookout.

(2) (a) In any action brought for failure to keep a lookout, contributory negligence shall not bar recovery of damages for any injury, property damage, or death where the negligence of the person injured or killed is of a lesser degree than the negligence of the employee or employees in charge of the train of the company.

(b) In all such actions accruing for negligence resulting in personal injuries or wrongful death or injury to property, the contributory negligence shall not prevent a recovery where any negligence of the person so injured, damaged or killed is of a lesser degree than any negligence of the person, firm or corporation causing the damage.  However, where contributory negligence is shown on the part of the person injured, damaged or killed, the amount of the recovery shall be diminished in proportion to such contributory negligence.

Did you catch what was written there?  Railroad companies, train operators, and their employees could be held liable if any person is injured or killed or if any property is harmed while on a track under the guise of the railroad employees' not "keeping a lookout."  Does the bill's author not believe that railroad employees who are traveling at such high rates of speed are not "keeping a lookout?"  How would such action even be proven?  Moreover, how realistic is it to believe that a train traveling at such speeds could essentially stop on a dime even if the operator saw a person or an object especially given the many twists and turns in Mississippi's tracks? 

The bill goes on to say that even if the person that is harmed is found to be at fault through "contributory negligence," the rail company could still be held liable.  The bill's author tries to sugarcoat this last part by adding that "the amount of the recovery shall be diminished in proportion to such contributory negligence."  "Diminished?"  Really?  The vagueness of the implication allows trial lawyers the opportunity to at least go after something under the banner of "representing people not corporations."

It shouldn't surprise you that the author of this bill is a trial lawyer himself - Rep. Brandon Jones (D-Pascagoula). 

It is bills and subsequent laws such as these that harm our economy, put companies out of business, cause job loss, increase costs to citizens, and ultimately create an environment that is detrimental to growth and prosperity for local communities.  The frivolous lawsuits that will come as a result of this bill if it passes will only serve to pad the pockets of trial lawyers around the state, giving them yet another avenue to continue the trend of attempting to play Robin Hood.

I wonder: Could this be a precursor to things to come?  Will we see more such attempts to encourage irresponsible litigation?  Could the tort reform progress we have seen in Mississippi be eroded by similar efforts?  Let's all hope for the sake of our state and our collective futures that this bill and others like it meet a quick, fiery death.

Frank Corder,

Pascagoula City Councilman

The Parents' Campaign Pushing for House Bill 392

                The Mississippi House of Representatives passed House Bill 392 yesterday.  The bill would achieve the House Democrats' plan to limit the amount that can be cut from the budget ($374 million) and force the Governor to raid the rainy day fund of $50 million to shore up state agencies and use $61 million in federal stimulus money, both one-time money sources which Gov. Barbour and many other fiscal conservatives have emphatically opposed.  Such notions play squarely in to Speaker Billy McCoy's theory of spend now, pray later.

                State Democrats and their related special interest groups are now trying to rally support for HB 392.  Just today, The Parents' Campaign sent out emails encouraging its readers to support HB 392 and to contact their Senators to support the bill as well.  They even provided a list of who voted for and against the measure.  Click here to view the vote record.  Here's the email:

The House of Representatives passed today House Bill 392, a good alternative to Governor Barbour's request for additional budget cuts authority.Please thank our legislators who voted in favor of this bill. We will need your help to get this bill through the Senate.

House Bill 392 allows the governor to exempt from cuts the Department of Corrections, the National Board Certified Teacher supplement, the Ayers settlement, the Veteran's Affairs Board (Nursing Homes), the Chickasaw Cession, debt service, and the courts. It also requires that the governor use the $61-million in available ARRA funds and $50-million from the state Rainy Day Fund before making further cuts.

According to House Education Chairman Cecil Brown, the measures in this bill would leave only $13-million in cuts necessary to balance the budget. There is $48-million in cuts that can still be made before all agencies reach the 5% threshold (which education has already reached).Therefore, under this plan, no additional cuts would need to be made to the education budget. 

We need to get this bill passed in the Senate. Please call your senator.Ask your senator to support HB 392 as it passed the House. 

Your phone call will be very important. It could help us save our schools from devastating cuts. Please ask your friends and family to call too. Our kids are counting on us!

                True to form, when the state Democrats struggle to get their way, they turn to beating the education drum and enlist their special interest groups to do their dirty work despite the realities at hand. 

                There continues to be a disconnect between the House leadership and Gov. Barbour as to just how dire the state's financial situation is now and could be in the near future.  Also at issue here is the seven year tug of war: McCoy and his liberal boys versus Gov. Barbour.  

The real question on this issue I believe is who do you trust more with the state budget: the state-wide elected, full-time fiscally conservative Governor who is seeking to uphold his constitutional duties for a balanced budget or district-elected, part-time House Democrat representatives who consistently bring to the table their own wish list of spend now, pray later programs?  Can you guess who I side with?

Frank Corder,
Pascagoula City Councilman