Here’s some video I shot at the East Shelby Republican Club last week. In it, State Rep. Curry Todd explains that Tennessee is “flush with cash,” and that with the surplus, everyone wanted a “piece of the pie.” Rep. Todd signed on to a plan for each of the legislators to take a piece of this pie and feed it to his constituents, thus currying favor (pun intended) with the electorate, a process The Commercial Appeal labeled an “incumbent protection scheme.”

Rep. Todd’s pork request is here, made available online by the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. His particular slice of the pie was designated for the Shelby County Schools PTA and Education Foundation. Of course, there’s certainly nothing wrong with state money going to schools. The problem is how the money gets there. First, these expenditures need to be part of the overall budget process, so that the money is distributed fairly and appropriately among all programs and areas, in accordance with our priorities. If the budget for schools was too low, that’s a problem Rep. Todd and friends should have fixed on the front end. Second, individual legislators must not be allowed to sprinkle tax dollars wherever they please, effectively buying votes in the process. After all, how do you think the beneficiaries will vote next time around?

And if Rep. Todd can’t find $50,000 in the regular budget for the Shelby County PTA, and that money is needed, perhaps he should donate the $50,000+ he raised to run unopposed in the last election (see FAQ 19, F for proof that it can be done).

Meanwhile, although the state is “flush with cash,” Rep. Todd says “maybe that’s alright” that we have “one of the highest sales taxes in the nation,” and that he is “in favor of the tax” increase on cigarettes. That just doesn’t add up. If the state is flush with cash, then we don’t need to be raising taxes. Instead, we should be cutting taxes.

If, on the other hand, the state government needs all this extra cash, it ought to be budgeted in a responsible way. It was more than exasperating to see the state scramble to double-check our bridges after the one in Minnesota collapsed, and now to hear them call for putting in tolls. It’s time for our legislators to stop passing out animal crackers and start putting together real budgets that address real needs, and make a plan for how they will prevent and prepare for emergencies.

While we’re on the subject, let me note my displeasure with Rep. Todd on some other matters.

The first of these is the smoking ban he voted for. Like with the money for schools, there’s nothing wrong with protecting people from the dangers of second-hand smoke. But there is a problem with second-hand government taking away our liberties. Not only is the smoking ban an assault on our freedom, it’s also wholly unnecessary, for at least two reasons: 1. if you want to protect yourself from cigarette smoke, all you need to do is simply stop visiting establishments that allow smoking; 2. several businesses had already declared themselves smoke-free just prior to the smoking ban vote. Of course we need to protect ourselves from things that will harm our health, but we don’t need government to do that for us. What’s more dangerous than second-hand smoke is a government that continues to take away more and more of our freedoms. And the next wave is going to be food, with the government telling us what we can and can’t eat. Thanks, but I think we can take care of ourselves.

Now for the ironic grace note: while Rep. Todd was out taking away freedoms from business owners and their customers, he was also sponsoring a bill that would lift the mandatory motorcycle helmet law. So it’s ok for the government to stamp out our cigarettes, but the state can’t keep us from splattering our brains on the street?

Is it too much to ask for a little consistency?

And, finally, there’s the issue of guns, and our Second Amendment rights, which has been perceived to be one of Rep. Todd’s greatest strengths among conservative Republicans in his district. Rep. Todd sponsored H 411, which allows permit holders to take their firearms into restaurants that serve alcoholic beverages. But when he was “approached by another legislator about a push to allow handguns on college campuses,” he said, “I don’t know if this is the proper time to do that,” following the Virginia Tech shootings.

If it’s not a proper time to affirm the right of students to defend themselves in the aftermath of a psychopath’s rampage (who by the way murdered his victims in a “gun free zone”), when is there a proper time?