If the dollar has little value, then donate a few.

Thursday, April 28, 2005


Another big day on the hill-

Steve Gill and Bill Hobbs are really on their game. They have really put heat on Speaker Naifeh for his actions yesterday. The House was abuzz with the news of the NRA hustle that went down yesterday.

Many blogs like Nashville Files are reporting on the situation (and probably many more that I haven't had time to see). Bloggers have really drawn attention to the incident by sending e-mails, posting comments, and calling legislators.

Today we started the session and Representative Glen Casada was recognized. I'll try to describe how it happened:

Casada addressed Speaker Naifeh by making a motion that the House vote to reconsider the motion yesterday to send Rep. Curry Todd's bill…

But he didn't get to finish. Naifeh broke in: “You are out of order. Next motion!”

Later Rep. Casada was recognized again. He said something like “Mr. Speaker, under parliamentary procedure I invoke rule 40.”

There was silence.

The Speaker and his staff did not know what to do. They grabbed their procedure and law books and huddled. About 5 minutes passed.

If they did not follow the law again it would look even worse, and by stopping to read the law books, it would even be more obvious.

This rule allows for a motion to be reconsidered--the same thing we asked for earlier.

The speaker mumbled a bit and tried to say how the bill should not have been brought out of committee but he didn't know what else to do. We had him.

There had to be a vote to send it back to the subcommittee where it could be killed or let it move to full committee. Sending it back might be considered a vote against the bill, in other words an “anti-NRA” vote.

To let the bill move on we needed a 2/3 vote-66 votes.
The vote was 47 for, 42 against. It's going back to subcommittee.

Well, at least we were allowed to vote and a few were exposed for their actions. And most importantly, votes were recorded-as they should be in representative government.

Pre k passes and the student bll of rights

Well Pre-K passed the House. I am sure most of you can guess how I voted. Many of the issues I brought up were offered as amendments such as the books from birth program. Other amendments were brought to make the program for at risk children only, dividing the money among the 3 grand divisions equally,allowing private schools to have a shot at the money (vouchers). All these died along party lines.

Many representatives spoke to the facts posted on this blog, as well as other blogs. But in the end, the vote was 75 for, 21 against.

We'll see how the Senate handles the bill.

I began to present my Student Bill of rights and it went well. It is moving as I expected and I even picked up some bi-partisan support. The highlight had to be when the head man for Tennessee higher ed began to speak. He ended up helping me by accident.

He started out as expected by saying it's not needed, it's already covered, etc. When I asked about the weakness of it not being codified and the inability to enforce the rules with tenured professors, he agreed saying that the programs in place might affect just non-tenured teachers.

What happened next was very interesting. Unprompted, several other representatives from both sides of the political aisle started to talk about their own horror stories. And then they talked about stories told to them by their constituents years before I ever brought up this bill! Then probably most interesting of all to me, was one legislator told how he used to be a student government president and would have to deal with these complaints.

He told how most of the students were given the runaround and put off or brushed under the carpet. The Tennessee Higher Ed rep. said something to the effect of “well, we don't do that to all of them.”

My jaw hit the floor. I chimed in that he was ADMITTING it does happen to SOME of them?!?! He replied “yes, but not many”. I don't know what to say except thank you-he proved there is indeed a need for my bill. I answered a few more questions and then it was time to go.

What a day!

Wednesday, April 27, 2005


As I have said before, many Republican bills get killed in the subcommittee and committee system therefore many Republican bills never get a vote on the floor.

Today a bill slipped through that Naifeh didn't want out of committee. Some legislators did not show up for the vote and a pro-NRA bill (conceal carry) slipped through the sub-committee system.

Speaker Naifeh flipped out! His people did not want to have to vote on this bill. Some might risk losing their perfect NRA voting record (0 for 0).

Speaker Naifeh went to the chairman of the committee to let him know that if he did not ask to move the bill back to the sub-committee where it had passed, it would NOT BE GOOD!

The chairman agreed to make the motion, but not vote for it. These votes are made on the house floor and require a majority of 66 votes to move it back to the subcommittee. The dilemma? How to ram this vote through the legislature without having the legislators on record as a "yes" vote. Answer: Speaker Naifeh held a voice vote.

When it was brought up to move it back to subcommittee, we were ready. The motion was made and the Speaker passed it. I did not hear a single "yes" vote, but miraculously it passed! Now when a voice vote comes into question, five representatives have to raise their hands when the question is called for to get the vote recorded. The speaker tried to move on without recognizing us, but then more hands went up.

Speaker Naifeh was fuming and didn't know what to do. He yelled at us “PUT DOWN YOUR HANDS!!” He then tried to move on again.

Rep. Hargett was then recognized and stood up and said “Mr. Speaker I must object-point of order…”. Naifeh interrupted him--“I thought you wanted to speak on the next motion! You don't want to do this!!”

Leadership came forward for a side bar. When Rep. Hargett came back he shrugged his shoulders and said the Speaker was not going to recognize us no matter what.

So much for legislators following the rules and laws of representative government. These actions are more in line with a dictator, not a leader.

Theory of govt. Pre k

More on my thoughts about starting another bureaucracy based on a theory and sketchy information:

First, we need to start with good studies or at the very least, model a new idea after one that has proven to work.

I can't figure out why we are doing what we are doing right now on this Pre-K plan. If I were a doctor I would not hand out medicine before I knew the sickness. If I were a general in war I would not begin to invade without a clear goal to measure success.

If the state were a business, I would know not to expand when there are problems in the system that must be addressed first.

The real question is who is better equipped at raising children-the parents or the state. So far I have not heard any convincing evidence that this program will help Tennessee's children in the long run.

My personal philosophy is that more government is not the solution. A big problem is the breakdown in the family and therefore the difficulties associated with that breakdown. Studies reveal that more than any other factor-- more than race, nationality, or economic status--the parental participation in the child's education is the greatest barometer to success.

The real question is how to best encourage parental involvement in their children's education. The current plan involves giving up on the family unit. It appears we are waving the white flag while saying “We surrender! The family has failed!”

If taking children earlier doesn't work, then what next? Do we take them at 2 years---at birth? Parental responsibility is something we should encourage and support. Parental responsibilty must replace collective excuse making.

I disagree with the “it takes a village” mindset, instead we should do all we can to change the mindset to "it takes a family."

Some of the best education stories I've heard come from privately run programs. In one case, before the child was admitted to school, the parent had to attend classes where they were instructed how to read to their children (faster, slower, point things out in pictures).

In some cases the parents had to sit in a class and pick out a teacher. If the teacher ended up with too few students, then he/she didn't teach that year. Obviously teacher tenure was not in effect in this example.

Also, in some places, PARENTS get a report card on such things as attending meetings, volunteering at school, calling teacher about student progress, sitting in on a class, etc. Do these programs sound good? They usually cost a little more than half of what the Governor is proposing to spend and have proven to have effective results. And regarding vouchers (did I say a bad word?) to be used for these pre-K programs, they are off the table. In fact, the plan the Governor is pushing will likely kill off approximately half of these private run programs. In other words, instead of encouraging free enterprise and successful programs, the Governor wants the state to do the job for twice the cost, run private programs out of business, and get worse results. Brilliant.

I guess he and the legislators who vote for it can at least be assured of a NEA and TEA endorsement in their next elections.

Bob Dole once said "a government that will take control of the economy for the good of the people will next try to take control of the people for the good of the economy." It sounds like the Governor's plan is killing both birds with one stone.

Truancy is also a problem in this state, and while some counties are beginning to crack down, it still remains a problem. If children aren't at school, parents need to be held responsible.

There are many other ways to increase test scores, such as Dolly Parton's book from birth program. It seems to be having good results by sending an age appropriate book to a child on a monthly basis. I know when I was a kid if I received anything in the mail it was a huge deal to me. I harassed my mother non-stop until she read it to me. Kids can be persistent in this way (I'm sure you've witnessed it in the candy or cereal aisle).This program costs about $25.00 a year compaired to 5-9 thousand sound like a deal to you?

All of these ideas are low cost and involve changing the way things are currently done. At some point we have to start looking at the process instead of just adding another layer of bureaucracy. But often times the things that are logical aren't listened to by the powers that be. If we must go the state run road why not make the parents come to classes or be forced to pay for the pre K?

With a new Pre-K plan, be prepared for another big government bite.

Tuesday, April 26, 2005

Pre K

Education is very important to me-both personally and because I know it is important to my constituents as well. Making education the best it can be will take more than just funding.

Many people live by the theory that if you throw money at a problem or create another program, the problem will be solved-or improved.

Efficiency is important-in other words, where will get the most bang for the taxpayer buck so to speak.

Education spending raises questions. Where do we get the money? How much will the program cost long term? Short term? Is there a continuous source for the funding? If not, where will it come from later? Where should we allocate funding for the best results? We will be able to see results? How will we measure them? Is this the best investment of precious tax dollars? How has this worked elsewhere?

These are all questions I have asked about the Pre-K plan, and some answers vary depending on whom you ask and what their own goals are. I even asked the Governor's staff how this program is different from ideas proposed and passed by Lamar Alexander 20 years ago-but received no answer.

I have not made up my mind yet, but the facts so far are pushing me in one direction. There are amendments and facts to be put forward that may change my opinion-but at this point we will have to wait and see.

This pre-k plan is currently optional and will be initially funded by the lottery with a local buy in.

Here are some of the things I have learned:

Our states greatest weakness is in 8-12th grade. We don't graduate as many as we should, and those that do, don't go to college. The original goal of the lottery was to increase the number of students getting a college education.

I think before we start spending excess money, we should fully fund existing programs. Our K-4 students score the highest internationally. Once we get to 4-8, we have a drop off. Grades 8-12 drops off even more. Pre-K testing from other areas has had mixed results-some say no noticeable differences after grade 2, some say no difference after grade 4.

The Georgia model that is similar to ours reveals no noticeable difference at all. They have had this program for 10 years and spent over a billion dollars. (Please see the Georgia results in Drew Johnson's Policy Study on the Pre-K program. You can download or view this study at the Tennessee Center for Policy Research at www.tennesseepolicy.org)

I have heard statements made frequently about one study that showed “every $1.00 invested returns $7.00.” The Governor often quotes this statement. Unfortunately, the program is not at all like the one being proposed, nor has it been duplicated by anyone.

Many representatives wanted to discuss some of these questions and facts, and therefore held a press conference to openly discuss and address the issues and questions. The Governor and/or his office were invited to attend. But guess what? He did not appear and not one staff member showed up.

This is not an isolated incidence. Many representatives have questions. Since session began many have asked “how will children be tested?” “what will be considered a successful result?” etc.

The Governor's response? Silence.

Other areas of concern? The Governor reports an initial start up of 25 million from lottery money---an estimated 5,000 per child with voluntary enrollment.

But I have been told that amendments to keep this strictly voluntary have been killed. I will have to research this further for you.

The NEA wants this program in place ASAP. According to their own estimates, they predict a cost per child of 8,000-9,000 per child.

“Voluntary” tends to become mandatory (see teacher pay equalization suit) as soon as one person files a suit.

And while the Governor will initially use lottery money, he recommends tapping into the general fund in two years.

In two years it looks as if legislators will be faced with cutting other programs-such as after school programs, sports,higher ed, k-12 funding, etc. (It's happening in other states.)to pay for this program.

Or we will be faced with fighting the income tax again or another tax increase of sorts or both.

Will we end up cutting k-12 or make pre-K -12 make do with the same funding as k-12?

Many other questions are still unanswered. Crowding in schools? Schools will have 8 grades, instead of 7. Teacher shortages will only be worse-especially as pre-K requires a greater teacher to student ratio. Will teachers and resources be stretched even thinner?

Does this program sound good so far? More later…


Thursday, April 21, 2005


Ethics, ethics, ethics. We have a bill. Yes, it does some good and I will vote for it. It mostly deals with legislators and their actions. Unfortunately, it has little to do with lobbyists who are a big part of the problem. Some legislators have spouses who are paid lobbyists-and that is just one loophole. Legislators can no longer be paid lobbyists, yet their spouses can. All they must do is state that their spouse is a lobbyist and NOT disclose how much they bring in except to say it is over $200.00.

Many argue their spouse or income of their spouse has no input on their decision-making. IF this is true, I know many spouses who will beg to differ and many companies that may want a refund for fees paid to a spouse of a legislator

Another problem is lobbyists who sit on boards that have strong input on legislation (for example TWRA). This should also stop.

Hopefully this bill can serve as starting point for future legislation to deal with the problems that remain. I know many of my constituents keep requesting cleaner, open government. I will keep working towards that goal. This small step gives us hope.

Wednesday, April 20, 2005

student bill of rights,ethics,speed legislateing,b-ball

My bill on student rights was supposed to be heard in committee yesterday, but the committee ran long and it was pushed off for at least another week. Hopefully we will be able to hold a hearing on this bill and hear from students across the state. I have also received a call that David Horowitz may be able to come to Tennessee to speak on behalf of the bill. I am eager to hear what he has to say.

Ethics reform is being rushed in the committee to try to get it done by today. I hope we pass a good bill and not a bad one just because we are in a rush to have it done by the weekend.

Our leader spoke to us about what was going on in the committee for about 15 minutes then he had to return to the committee to finish working on it. The fifteen-minute discussion however, left many of us with more questions than when we first walked in. I am really eager to see some real ethics reform-but I also want it to be workable, understandable and functional.

I fear we may lose that in the rush. Felony classification for infractions was one of the provisions removed so far, and instead lowered to a misdemeanor.

Things are finally starting to speed up. For the longest time we moved slowly but now more bills of substance are starting to move. Most legislators wait to see how much money will be in the system before they push a bill that costs money. The finance committee killed many small bills which were not on the “Governor to do list” in order to make sure he and a few others had funds to do what they wanted.

I often hear that the end of legislative session is like trying to get a drink out of a fire hose: way too much, too fast and many times bills pass late because the volume is too great to digest or work to stop some bills. It's not that bad yet but it is speeding up.

Pat Summit visited yesterday. She is the great women's basketball coach from UT. She was very nice and spoke briefly. She just broke Dean Smith's record wins total. I think the only two left for her to go after are Jerry Tarkanian's record and Dick Baldwin's to be the coach with the most wins in college history. (B-ball pros: let me know if this is incorrect!) As impressive as her wins totals is, the graduation rate of her players is better. To me, that is the measure of greatness in her field that is often overlooked by many sports fans.

Tuesday, April 19, 2005

No ethics reform for you!

Sorry-- I have a senator who wants to write on this subject. I am waiting for that report so you can get a different voice on this subject. The senate bill came back to the House with amendments that put some teeth into ethics reform, and was more broad as to its scope. When it came back, it was killed again and sent off to a conference committee to try to work out the differences.

Today I will talk about the student bill of rights. This bill states that students at state funded universities should expect that

1. professors not grade them on the basis of their political or religious beliefs.

2. Teachers should follow the American Association of University Professors guidelines in that "teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject but they should be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter which has no relation to their subject".

3.Student funds should be distributed on a viewpoint neutral basis and taxpayer funded universities should maintain a posture of neutrality with respect to substantive political or religious differences.

4.Students should also have the right to be informed of the statewide policy if a student has a grievance.

Similar bills are being proposed in many states due to an escalating number of student complaints. As far as I know, the legal concept originated in Colorado and became popular as stories surfaced relating to the problems of a few teachers using up large chunks of class time espousing their personal political or religious points of view.

In some cases, many students feel speaking up or questioning their professors has cost them a grade. In Tennessee we have lottery funded scholarships and a lowered grade or two can permanently cost a student his scholarship.

When I was in college in upstate New York, I saw problems on many occasions. Most students got to the point that they feared speaking on any subject for fear of upsetting the professor. This is not a good learning environment.

Upon moving to Tennessee I discovered the problem is worse. Although it could be just that problems have accelerated since I was in school. An example is an experience I shared with university students not long ago. I helped set up a forum called the "Bush Bash" at the Univ. of Tenn. during the last presidential election. This event was intended to attract students from all points of view to come forward and talk about why they supported their candidate or why they did not support a candidate.

The event was small, though well advertised.
I had several students come up to the microphone and say things like “my professor would fail me if he knew I was here" or "this isn't being filmed for rebroadcast on campus TV is it?"

It is time to try to address this problem. Many schools do have procedures in place, but because of teacher tenure, being able to do anything about this problem is nearly impossible. I feel students should have the right to maintain their own points of view without it hurting their grade while also ensuring them the greatest ability to grow.

I also feel that students who pay for a biology class should not have to listen to an hour and a half of partisan or political attacks against an elected official or issue. This has nothing to do with the subject that the student paid to learn nor the state of Tenn. funded the professor to teach. I want to be clear that this is not a problem with all professors or all classes--but neither is sexual harassment or racial discrimination.

The goal of this bill is to protect freedoms of students to have points of view that may be different from their professor and to truly and genuinely open debate on our college campuses. Other than stating what I believe to be non-partisan statements of the rights students should have, the central force of the bill is to set up a statewide grievance procedure where a student can have his/her grievance heard.

Wednesday, April 13, 2005

more on reform

First to have real reform, you have to take the power to do this away
from the legislature. I'm not saying that the current group working on reform is bad or not doing the work, but there is, and will continue to be the perception of "the foxes guarding the hen house" telling the other foxes to "get out of the hen house." It does not look good no matter the result.

Other problems involve actual passage--as an example, look at the "reform" attempted last year. It passed both the House and Senate, yet Lt. Governor Wilder stopped reform while giving his flock coverage by appointing it to a summer study committee. Legislators were then able to go home to their districts and talk about how they passed a big reform bill so they could get re-elected. But there is only one little problem: oops! Lt. Governor Wilder never appointed a committee and it all disappeared.

Perhaps this ethics bill is floating somewhere in the cosmos. Maybe, just maybe, Wilder can call upon the ghost of some dead president to retrieve the bill before Tennessee taxpayers get taken to the cleaners... again. Perhaps Senator Ford could serve Wilder as a medium to channel the bill from its undisclosed location back into the halls of the legislature. I've heard of tabling a bill---but if it has been sent to the cosmos...well, that's a bit extreme.

I think a new independent nonpartisan group (maybe a branch of the election commission) needs to have power. A $50.00 fine is a joke for the money some are taking in.

As the late Senator Koella used to say, if we're going to pass a law, let's put some teeth into it. Let's forget about a $50 fine, and instead press real charges.

These criminals should be dealt with as harshly as those they took advantage of. In some cases, a felony charge is not out of the question.

The final piece of reform should be an elected state-wide Attorney General who does not have to tow the line for anyone but the taxpayers. That means not owing his/her job to the Tennessee Supreme Court. If the voters aren't satisfied, he/she can be voted out and someone who will do the job can be put in. That is accountability--and accountability is sorely lacking.

An appointed Attorney General only has to keep a few people happy, that is, the justices who appoint him.

Next time I'll discuss some of the rules I would hope this new group would come up with and why ....

Tuesday, April 12, 2005


Boy, you bloggers do your research. This is an e mail I received on my personal account. It had some good points and was pertinent to the subject, so I thought you all might like to see it. I am not saying I agree with it all, but it sure raises some good questions.

Dear Representative Campfield,

I really appreciate your blog.

First of all, many people know that Tennessee ranks near the bottom for open records, government, etc.

I wish you luck in your fight for dealing with these problems, however it is going to take a lot of help, a lot of courage, and media attention. Chavez at the Tennesseean is doing a good job at promoting reform and I have to say the Tennessean and News Channel 5 have been working hard to shine a non-partisan light on the subject.

I ask how we are going to accomplish reform when Speaker Naifeh's wife, Betty Anderson, is one of the most powerful lobbyists...period.

Many of your fellow bloggers have asked why Governor Bredesen is being so quiet on ethics reform and lobbyist disclosure. The mainstream media needs to join the bloggers in asking the question.

I have my own opinion---Bredesen doesn't want reform. Everyone seems to have forgotten that Gov. Bredesen's Finance Commissioner, Dave Goetz, is himself a lobbyist. Duren Cheek of the Tennessean wrote an article on
1/7/03 outlining Goetz.

Cheek was kind--but the facts he reported lead one to conclude that Goetz has no business being finance commissioner. He has a bachelor's degree in sociology from Univ. of Virginia. According to Cheek, Goetz is a "former television political reporter who has lobbied the state legislature for business interests for the past 15 years..." That doesn't mean he's an idiot, he's not. But qualified for the post? Not quite.

Could this affinity for PR over results explain why Bredesen is fumbling TennCare? The Governor has a man with no accounting experience running the show. He chose a lobbyist to sit in the most powerful of cabinet positions, so I don't think we can look forward to Governor Bredesen pushing any change in the status quo.

Monday, April 11, 2005

The reform problem

There is a big push on right now to do something about the ethics problems going on here in the legislature with lobbyists,lobbying and the flow of money ,and input that some people have and how they get it .Let me start by saying that most legislators and lobbyists are good and are not the issue.What we are now seeing in the papers on a daily basis is probably only a small part of the problem. Many times the problem comes in the contracts and the requirements needed to apply to bid for contracts or the scope of the contract. An example might be , the state needs to upgrade the electrical systems at their prisons. Instead of putting out a bid for electrical contractors in each region or for each prison, they will put out one bid for all the prisons. This cuts out many of the smaller local electrical contractors and allows only a few,or maybe one company to realistically fulfill the requirement. Many times this drives up the price with travel, lodging costs etc. This is where the lobbyists come in. The bigger companies and organizations have them and many times the smaller ones do not. This is also the area where we have problems ,a yes or no vote can help or hurt when these contracts or bills are written up or passed out or put in the budget. If it is in the budget usually someone will be making money off of it and that is where the lobbyists want to be. Lobbyists make sure that the people they represent are taken care of or at least not hurt. Many reps listen to all and make an informed decision with all the facts they have or have been told. Some tie it to who has given them a donation or who lives in their district .Some I fear vote because they or their spouse are paid to be lobbyists. When you hear the words "I take care of my friends" or "I can bring home the pork" watch out. The friends they speak of are not the kind you usually want a rep to have and if they bring home a piece of pork it is usually because they stole the entire pig in the first place . What do I think it will take to change it? Stay tuned...

Thursday, April 07, 2005

The bill

Here is the reason for the bill:
Many gun sites are now being replaced with lasers to sight in on a target. Police officers were being intimidated by having gun and/or non-gun laser pointed at them it also could cause eye dammage.My bill covers not only police but fire fighters and emergency personals ie. Ambulance workers imagine potential panic if you were an emergency rescue worker responding to a gunshot victim and the shooter had escaped ,then as you are working trying to save a life a laser dot appears on you or your partners chest some people do this as a joke or to stop the rescue or to cause fear I saw this happen first on a episode of "cops" (It might have been one of the other cop shows I dont know for sure) .I had spoken with fire fighters (they are many times the first responders on these type of incidents)as well as E.M.T.s and they loved this bill.well here is the bill I have removed the boilerplate that comes with every bill but it is house bill 0238 if any one wants to see it.

1a.It is an offense to knowingly activate and point a laser pointer or other device utilizing a laser beam at a person known to be a law enforcement officer, firefighters,emergency medical technician, or other emergency service personnel,wile in the performance of his or her official duties with the intent to place such person in fear of serious bodily injury or death.

that's it, about 60 or 70 words maybe 120 with the boilerplate that describes where in the law books it goes and the start date. I can see where major study is needed.Can't you?

Wednesday, April 06, 2005


Well my bill protecting police, firefighters and emergency workers was more or less killed today it roughly went like this I began to present my bill to the committee about 20 words in Ulysses Jones said something to the effect of this bill is so good we need to put it in committee and study it over the summer Curry Todd stuck up for the bill and said "this bill is cut and dry there is nothing to study its a good bill we should pass it" Ulysses came back and said no I think it needs to go to committee for the summer. The voice vote went down party lines and the bill was more or less killed. That is how bipartisanship works in the state house ,totally for the betterment of the state never personal.

Monday, April 04, 2005


Ok, let me start by saying that tenncare will not survive as it is, it needs and has always needed major reform. If changes can not or will not be made I hope we at least institute risk pools or the chips program so people can get some insurance. I went so far as to buy a book (with my own money) on reforming tenncare (patient power)for every legislator and the gov when I was elected. The book explains the medical savings account program and how it can turn around our states problem.I wish I could be a fly on the wall in the governor office....Cue the scooby doo dream sequence music....

GOVERNOR: OK guys it is really crunch time, I know I went up down and across this state promising how I could manage our way out of tenncare, but now its time to do it. I got every thing I wanted from Gordon but it still isn't enough. I need ideas. People have big expectations and this could hurt my run for president. Naifeh...?

NAIFEH: Well governor this one is tough we might have to go and do the unthinkable and admit we cant do this alone..

WILDER: Governor??...I am the governor why are you talking to that man???

GOVERNOR: But I had a plan,I am a millionaire I can do any thing.My plan must be the best. If my plan isn't the corner stone forget it all. I will scrap the whole thing before I admit I could not do it. Wilder???

WILDER: Butterfly...Pretty butterfly....

NEIFEH: Governor, that would be political suicide. We have to at least look like we are trying. If only we had a pro...

GOVERNOR: Yes, someone who might have seen the problems on a daily basis, some one who might give us some insight as to how to turn this around on a practical basis, someone with a history in medicine, someone like A..A..A....

NEIFEH:....A doctor??

GOVERNOR:YES!! Brilliant!! Do we have any in the house who we could tap for their knowledge?

NEIFEH: Well there is doctor Hensley. But..

GOVERNOR:We do,?? Well why didn't you tell me sooner!! I am sure you have him in charge of tenncare oversight so he should have been on this problem for a while and has probably made big changes already, or at least has ideas...

NEIFEH: Well actually...

GOVERNOR: What? He isn't in charge you must be kidding well at least he is on the committee,right??

NEIFEH: Well no, not exactly. He comes when he can and sits in the audience but he isn't allowed to vote.

GOVERNOR: Doesn't he want to be on the committee?

NEIFEH: Yes,but...

GOVERNOR: Neifeh, I didn't get you re-elected to make dumb decisions ,I am beginning to loose faith.

NEIFEH:But governor he is A...A..A REPUBLICAN...

GOVERNOR:.......I see.....

WILDER: Flower....

GOVERNOR: O.k. back to the original plan, scraping Tenncare, who can we blame??


Ok, let me start by saying that tenncare will not survive as it is ,it needs and has always needed major reform and if changes can not or will not be made at least institute risk pools or the chips program so people can get some insurance I went so far as to buy a book (with my own money)on reforming tenncare (patient power)for every legislator and the gov when I was elected it explains the medical savings account program and how it can turn around our states problem.I wish I could be a fly on the wall in the governor office....Cue the scooby doo dream sequence music....

GOVERNOR:OK guys it is really crunch time I know I went up down and across this state promising how I could manage our way out of tenncare but now its time to do it. I got every thing I wanted from Gordon but it still isn't enough I need ideas people have big expectations and this could hurt my run for president.Naifeh...?

NAIFEH:Well governor this one is tough we might have to go and do the unthinkable and admit we cant do this alone..

WILDER:governor??...I am the governor why are you talking to that man???

GOVERNOR:But I had a plan,I am a millionaire I can do any thing.my plan must be the best if my plan isn't the corner stone forget it all I will scrap the whole thing before I admit I could not do it. Wilder???

WILDER:Butterfly...Pretty butterfly....

NEIFEH:governor, that would be political suicide we have to at least look like we are trying .If only we had a pro...

GOVERNOR:yes, someone who might have seen the problems on a daily basis, some one who might give us some insight as to how to turn this around on a practical basis, someone with a history in medicine, someone like A..A..A....

NEIFEH:....A doctor??

GOVERNOR:YES!! Brilliant!! Do we have any in the house who we could tap for their knowledge?

NEIFEH: Well there is doctor Hensley.But..

GOVERNOR:We do,?? Well why didn't you tell me sooner. I am sure you have him in charge of tenncare oversight so he should have been on this problem for a while and has probably made big changes already or at least has ideas...

NEIFEH: Well actually...

GOVERNOR: What? He isn't in charge you must be kidding well at least he is on the committee,right??

NEIFEH:Well no not exactly. He comes when he can and sits in the audience but he isn't allowed to vote.

GOVERNOR:doesn't he want to be on the committee?


GOVERNOR:Neifeh ,I didn't get you re-elected to make dum decisions ,I am beginning to loose faith.

NEIFEH:But governor he is A...A..A REPUBLICAN...

GOVERNOR:.......I see.....


GOVERNOR:ok back to the original plan scraping Tenncare who can we blame??