You can almost hear dueling banjos in the background. Moonshine stills have been outlawed in the state of Tennessee and elsewhere for quite some time, but Rep. Joe Carr (R-48) introduced a new bill that aims to change all that. Instead of focusing on our tremendous budget problems, Joe decided to legalize rogue liquor production.
Rep. Carr wasted 15 minutes of the legislature’s time today trying to pass HB 1720 to allow anyone to manufacture liquor in any county that has allowed by referendum liquor stores or sales of liquor by the drink.
If that sounds crazy to you, you are not alone.
In this embarassing video clip, Rep. Carr was met with wide opposition from some of his own House Republican colleagues. Rep. Stacey Campfield (R- 18) asked whether Rep. Carr had a buddy with a moonshine still. Perhaps his worst critic was Rep. Carr himself as this exchange with Rep. Henry Fincher (D-42) reveals.
FINCHER: This bill is expanding the number of counties in Tennessee where liquor can be manufactured correct?
CARR: Yes.
FINCHER: How many counties are you extending this to that don’t currently have that right now?
CARR: 41
FINCHER: 41 out of the 95 in the state of Tennessee are now going to be, if this bill passes, are going to be able to manufacture whiskey, brandy, vodka, all that stuff, right?
CARR: 41 counties in the state of Tennessee have had a voter referendum on liquor by the drink and retail package sales which, with, according to this bill, does authorize them to go through the local ordinance and zoning process to undertake and have a manufacturing facility that does that, yes sir.
FINCHER: OK, so they’re is going to be more liquor and more whiskey and more vodka running around out here in our state because of this bill, correct?
CARR: I wouldn’t assume so, I would assume that would, uh, you could assume that. Yes sir.
FINCHER: OK, is that a good thing for the state, that we have more liquor out there, more people drinking, more people drinking and driving, more people doing all the things that alcohol makes them do, sir?
CARR: Well I think you are making an assumption that I’m not willing to make, and we’re also providing jobs for farmers. We’re also providing jobs for entrepreneurs. So, like in any bill that comes before this house, sir, uh, there are good and questionable components to the bill. On the face, I think it’s a good bill and it deserves passage.
Rep. Carr would like for you to believe he’s working in Nashville for you. In this exchange, pay close attention to Rep. Carr’s mysterious lapse of memory when asked for the names of the three distillery groups Rep. Carr mentioned this bill is really for.
One of these “prevailing interests” as Rep. Carr called them just happens to be a distillery Rep. Carr said is interested in locating to Rutherford County, if only a legislator could pave their way. And he doesn’t know their name?
FINCHER: Are you aware of any studies that show it’s actually going to create jobs, that anyone’s going to be able to open up a big still to cook more whiskey. Has a study been done?
CARR: I’m not aware of a study, but I am aware of three groups that are interested in opening small distilleries in various parts of the state for the purpose of not just creating jobs but creating job opportunities both to farmers and to the local citizens where those distilleries would reside.
FINCHER: Who are these groups?
CARR: I, I, don’t know them by name, but I know there’s a group that interested in Humphries County. There’s a group in Davidson County, and there’s a group in Rutherford County.
FINCHER: OK, did any of these groups contribute to your campaign?
CARR: No.
FINCHER: Well, how do you know if you don’t know their name?
CARR: Because I know who contributed to my campaign.
FINCHER: But if you don’t know the three groups how do you know they didn’t contribute to your campaign?
CARR: Because I know who contributed to my came [sic] Representative.[Representative Casada is called out of order for shouting on the floor]
The concerns continued with numerous other representatives to the point that Rep. Carr made a motion to roll the bill into the next legislative calendar. That may give Rep. Carr more time to waste on behalf of the liquor lobby instead of working for the people of Rutherford County, but he might want to think about using the time more constructively.
This makes me embarrassed to be represented by this ignoramous.
If people in Lascassas want to make liquor like they did in the olden times that’s fine with me. I didn’t know there was so much interest in liquor among the voters of Lascassas, but I suspect Joe Carr is mistaken when he says everyone in Lascassas has told him they want the smell of liquor to stink up the place. I bet if you asked Joe at church this Sunday what liquor maker he’s helping he’ll tell you. I can’t imagine him wanting to lie at church with smart people looking him right in the eye like he did in that video. Does he really think we’re morons and that this bill is something the people of Lascassas dreamed up overnight?
Well, we know the bill is co-sponsored by a Democrat for a Democrat constituent, so let’s be careful not to make this too partisan. A couple of corrections also: (1) the bill, as written, only allows the manufacture of distilled spirits (subject to zoning, permitting and governance by the County Commission, Tennessee ABC, federal TTB and federal ATF) in a county to already has approved BOTH liquor by the drink AND retail package stores (the article above incorrectly states “…trying to pass HB 1720 to allow anyone to manufacture liquor in any county that has allowed by referendum liquor stores OR sales of liquor by the drink” (emphasis added)); (2) it seems to me that only shallow thinking could suggest that this bill isn’t “focusing on our tremendous budget problems.” In our Coffee county neighbor to the south, the George Dickel Distillery buys over 100,000 bushels of grain each year from local farmers and Jack Daniel’s buys an estimated 5.1 million bushels of grain each year; on an average $12 bottle of spirits the tax is over $7 — $2.14 of which is federal tax and the remainder is state and local tax; in 2006 Moore County hotels, restaurants, gas stations, retail trade and other businesses received on average $3,344 per day (or $1.22 million per year) in tourism dollars (needless to say, all related to Jack Daniel’s) according to a University of Tennessee economic impact study. So, it seems to me that this manufacturing bill is, in fact, focused on creating new manufacturing demand for local farm grains within Rutherford County, creating jobs within Rutherford County, increasing tourism within Rutherford County, and generating federal, state and local tax revenues (which illegal distillery operations don’t pay, that’s what makes them illegal — the very point made by another Tennessee Representative during Thursday’s House session). Carr did make an error by following the questioner’s line of argument that somehow manufacturing increases access. In Tennessee, access is determined by public referendum in two categories: liquor by the drink and retail package stores. Today in Rutherford County, one can go to a restaurant or package store and buy distilled spirits made in France, Poland, Sweden, Canada, Kentucky, Texas, Georgia, South Carolina,….). How much better for Rutherford County would it be if $0.04 of taxes on every liter manufactured in Rutherford County and sold anywhere in Tennessee was given to Rutherford County in a “home county earmark”? That’s what state law currently does for Coffee, Moore and Lincoln Counties. Finally, it’s worth noting if you’ll take the time to read the bill, this will not affect any “dry county” since a manufacturer still would be required to go through the public referendum process in those counties. TODAY, without a public referendum, these high tax-paying businesses can locate just south of Rutherford County in either Coffee County, Moore County or Lincoln County. Politics aside, this is good for Rutherford County. And if the bill gets defeated, either Coffee, Moore or Lincoln County can thank you because that’s where these new businesses will locate.
I think that would make a nice flyer to pass around Lascassas to explain to everyone what this bill means because not a single resident has asked Joe for this bill. Not a single person at Joe’s church has asked for more liquor in Lascassas, and we know that because Joe said the bill was written for three distillers whose names he’s mysteriously forgotten. It may take a couple of pages, but can you print that up and start handing it out around Lascassas, Frank? I’m willing to help. We can call ourselves the Defenders of Joe Carr and the Liquor Industry. They may get mad, but after they read every word of what you wrote they’ll be running through the streets singing the praises of Joe Carr’s passion for liquor.
Donna, you might try working with the facts. 1) A distllary in the community does not increase availability as Frank so logically pointed out. Try using less estrogen to think with. Your daddy may be able to help you with logic and critical thinking. 2) Second since you seem to act like a pleb and more than willing to take orders from men you don’t know I got one for you. Do a little research. Since Davidson, Humphrey’s and Rutherford County seem to want to create jobs in a recession by opening distillary’s in these counties you might want to know that the bill gives the authority to the local county commssion or city council to determine whether they would actually permit a distillary in same. Donna, try reading the bill before commenting. Finally you might be interested to know Gary Odom, Mike Turner and Harry Tidwell (co-sponsor) and a host of other Davidson County democrats are for it. They see the need for jobs. A good democrat sees the need for more well paying jobs.
Mike, let’s start with the facts Rep. Joe Carr presented on the floor of the House when he said that the presence of a distillery does increase the availability of liquor. In fact, here’s exactly what he said:
Mike, is Rep Carr just making that up, or does he know what he’s talking about?
I guess if Gary Odom, Mike Turner and Harry Tidwell’s names are all over it then we should dig the ditches a little deeper for all the liquor Joe Carr says will start flowing. This is one I don’t meet eye to eye with Joe Carr on. We don’t need jobs making liquor. We need family jobs and I think someone might have coaxed Joe Carr into this. It sure would be good to see him drop his name from this bill so we can move on. Everyone is talking about it and I suspect he’ll hear from a few folks at church this morning who don’t want liquor jobs anymore than they want strip club jobs.
Practically speaking, I think the fine people of Lascassas are absolutely 100% safe and won’t have to worry about new tax paying, job producing businesses like this — much less very many “family jobs” like wagon wheel making or peat moss farming — locating in Lascassas. With the Middle Point Landfill on East Jefferson Pike in Lascassas being the biggest landfill in Tennessee, taking in 1.2 million tons of waste each year — about 14 percent of all of Tennessee’s trash — I think it’s pretty safe to predict that a pure-water distillery won’t be locating anywhere near Lascassas during its next 1,000 years of underground trash decomposition (no promises about strip clubs, however, since they’re commonly known to set up shop atop closed landfills). It is the decomposing trash that’s creating that gaseous smell in the air in Lascassas, right? Dig the ditches deeper, yes, but only so we can deal with the existing sewage runoff in Lascassas. Even most illegal, non-tax paying stills have moved out of the area, right? A move to restore quality control, I imagine. Maybe we should all stop drinking the Lascassas water (or is that Koolaid)? It seems to be affecting our ability to think logically. After church tonight, I plan on looking in the attic for my “house for sale” sign so I can move out of the Middle Ages (aka Middle Point Ages). We in Lascassas deserve our harsh, jobless economy,… the noxious gas is clouding our judgment. Stay away from Lascassas, not because of our torch-burning narrow-mindedness (we’re actually good “family business” people), but because you can do so much better elsewhere.
Dear Representative Carr, call me – we’ll stroll down to one of the many Lascassas retail package stores (but avert our eyes whenever we bump into your fellow church goers who, no doubt, will be buying up the place), we’ll purchase a bottle of wine or spirits manufactured in Kentucky, Texas, France, Mexico or Russia (because the fine citizens of Lascassas already have access to those products, right?), I’ll drink a little but you won’t because I’m sure – from the tone of your brothers and sisters – that you don’t (but I will not get drunk because, in all sincerity, we all can agree that, like hypocrisy, would be a sin), we’ll read aloud John 2:1-11 and Luke 7:18-35 (without doing mental gymnastics and without further propagating a lie to ourselves), and then we’ll talk about area churches you can visit that are more committed to expressing the miraculous love of Jesus Christ to a needy world,… even a Savior who would turn water into bountiful wine for the blessing of His wedding hosts, in their moment of need, when His mother — chosen by God and blessed among women — asked Him to.
I know plenty of people that make their own spirits without the consent of the law! Is it possible that Carr could think of nothing else better than a distillery bill to bring to the floor of the House of Representatives?
Pete, seriously, you need to at least do your research and, before making silly comments about “nothing else better” to do, check online at http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/sponsorlist/default.aspx?ID=H480 and you’ll actually see that, with all due respect to how hard you must work in your job for the public benefit of Rutherford County and Tennessee at large, Representative Carr has sponsored a number of other good bills for the benefit of us all, too (including some which, while I might not support, might even be good for you):
Murfreesboro - As introduced, subject to local approval, clarifies certain ambiguities existing within those Murfreesboro city charter provisions that set forth disciplinary policies and procedures for municipal employees.
Alcoholic Offenses - As introduced, creates a misdemeanor offense to knowingly allow a minor to drink or possess alcoholic beverages or knowingly fail to stop a minor from drinking or possessing alcoholic beverages while the minor is present on real property owned or otherwise possessed by the offender; establishes certain exceptions.
Driver Licenses - Amends TCA Title 55, Chapter 50, Part 3.
Criminal Offenses - As introduced, creates a Class A misdemeanor offense for a person to knowingly provide, transfer, or submit to any other person false identification for the purposes of obtaining or maintaining employment.
Lottery, Scholarships and Programs - As introduced, requires TSAC to set a greater amount for the dual enrollment award per credit hour for courses taken at eligible four-year postsecondary institutions and certain eligible two-year postsecondary institutions than the amount of the award per credit hour for courses taken at eligible two-year postsecondary institutions.
Lottery, Scholarships and Programs - As introduced, permits HOPE scholarship students to receive scholarship award for any semester or other period during the year in which they are enrolled.
Highway Signs - As introduced, “Thomas Hutchinson Bridge,” U.S. Highway 231 in Rutherford County.
Immigrants - As introduced, requires all state agencies and political subdivisions to verify eligibility of all individuals 18 years of age or older before providing public benefits by using the federal “systematic alien verification for entitlements” or “SAVE” program, with limited exceptions.
Local Government, General - As introduced, requires local governments and law enforcement to cooperate with federal officials on immigration status of any person in the state and prohibits local governments from enacting sanctuary policies toward immigrants.
Employees, Employers - As introduced, conforms Tennessee’s law relative to drug-free workplace testing to U.S. department of transportation rules pertaining to workplace drug and alcohol testing.
Municipal Government - As introduced, allows municipalities to take special census at their own expense any time between regular decennial federal censuses.
Criminal Offenses - As introduced, creates a Class A misdemeanor offense for a person to knowingly provide, transfer, or submit to any other person false identification for the purposes of obtaining or maintaining employment.
Motor Vehicles - As introduced, requires county clerks to verify county of residence of persons obtaining or renewing motor vehicle registrations; requires applicant to pay wheel taxes for previous years the applicant failed to pay the applicable wheel tax to the county where the applicant resides.
Rutherford County - As introduced, subject to local approval, imposes application of wheel tax on Rutherford County residents for operation of motor vehicles on any highway in the county by removing present exception for operation on state highways.
Rep. Joe Carr is a good man trying to do a good job for more than just the narrow interests of any one of us. I bet your day was pretty busy, too, huh? Any chance you’re related to Thomas Hutchinson? I’m not, but I’m sure it’s still a good bridge for me and my family to drive over.
Blah, Blah, Blah!
Beth, so you believe Carr is actually trying to do the will of a majority of his constituents by legalizing moonshine? You really believe that the 48th district of Tennessee is calling for this, and the other 41 counties too? Do you realize that Carr never even bothered to call the representatives of those counties before bring up this silly bill? You don’t think this is simply an attempt to reward a few ‘investors’ in his campaign? If so, you are quite naive.
Let’s see,… in response to the comment “is it possible that Carr could think of nothing better to do” I copied Rep. Carr’s sponsored bills directly from a legislative website to show that he actually had quite a lot to do and was doing it (fact). In response to the statement that “not a single person at Joe’s church has asked for more liquor in Lascassas” I merely pointed out that liquor by the drink and retail package stores already had been approved by a majority (yes majority) of Rutherford County residents, the point being that access is determined by retail sales laws not manufacturing laws (fact). As a fellow Christian with a less stringent view than some of my brothers and sisters about the morality of responsible alcohol consumption I referred interested persons to John 2:1-11 and Luke 7:18-35 (fact, subject to priesthood of the believer interpretation). My prayer is that the Holy Spirit will convict some soul, in the privacy of his or her own devotional, to read and ponder these passages.
On the other hand, I am trying to be accurate when I point out what seems to me to be the frailty of arguments made by others. For instance, on “legalizing moonshine,” it seems to me moonshine is illegal by its very definition because a moonshiner isn’t licensed and doesn’t pay taxes, so I’m not sure what this labeling actually accomplishes (again, within a 5 minute drive of where ever you are in Rutherford County you can buy beer, wine and spirits in your neighborhood restaurant and your neighborhood package store all day today, tomorrow, next week, the week after that, and so on — so the product of moonshining, if you choose to call it that, appears to me to be readily available in Rutherford County already and willingly purchased by a large number of Rutherford County residents — it’s just that those products are manufactured by moonshiners located in Russia, France, Poland, Mexico, Kentucky, Coffee County, Moore County, Lincoln County and so on).
On “majority of his constituents,” see prior reference to the community standard already approved by a majority for liquor by the drink and retail package. And, yes, ultimately I believe that a majority of counties that already have established their community standards by approving liquor by the drink and retail package stores support the opportunity for the manufacture of products that are already legal to buy in those counties so that those counties can generate tax revenues, grow jobs, sell local agricultural grains and increase tourism.
On “never even bothered to call the representatives of those counties,” a Democrat from another county actually co-sponsored the bill, the bill has been approved by an overwhelming majority of (perhaps unanimously by) the bi-partisan 18-member House State and Local Government Committee and a majority of the bi-partisan 30-member House Finance Committee, so somehow I’m not convinced that your argument is accurate, and I’m also not sure that the legislative process works in the way you’ve imagined.
On “reward for a few investors in his campaign,” Rep. Carr has stated that no constituent supportive of this bill has contributed a single dime to his campaign, most, in fact, are Democrats, and the Speaker of the House called this line of unsupported questioning “out of order” in Rep. Carr’s defense. While I’m sure it’s convenient to charge a politician with conflict of interest, I’m 100% confident that you don’t have the facts to back up that speculation. And yet somehow your personal ethics allow you to feel confident making these baseless allegations. Call me naive if you want, Joseph, truth is in hoping for the best sometimes I can be a bit innocent-minded, but at least I’m willing to supply facts instead of innuendo and question marks.
The DNJ poll shows Rep. Carr’s distillary bill is supported by 65% of those respondents. Joseph and Donna might want to pay attention to that salient little fact.
I can’t wait to hear Rep. Carr start quoting an unscientific web poll that I myself voted in at least 25 times. How many times did you vote, Mike? Do a real scientific poll, maybe one outside Rep. Carr’s church on Sunday then we’ll talk.
Donna, don’t be obtuse. The citizens of Rutherford County have already had a very scientific and very accurate poll. As a matter of fact there were two of these polls. They are called referendums and they both passed overwhelmingly an not coincendentally by the same margin in the current DNJ poll. So despite the “chicken little” attitude, you not only lost this argument based on the facts, you then lost in the forum of public opinion. All you have left is a silly gratuitious assumption which by the way is just as easily and gratuitiously denied.
Mike, that was the best clarification of the referendum I’ve seen. Let me re-read that: a vote to allow package stores is also a vote to allow the entire liquor industry to roll into to town. And Rep. Joe Carr believes the same way, because here’s exactly what he said about what it means to have it his way after he thought about it for a split second.
FINCHER: OK, so they’re is going to be more liquor and more whiskey and more vodka running around out here in our state because of this bill, correct?
CARR: I wouldn’t assume so, I would assume that would, uh, you could assume that. Yes sir.
I’ll put that exchange at the top of my poll and pass it around the parking lot of Joe Carr’s church on Sunday. What do you think the results will look like?
Why do you Dems even care? Dems are typically the ones that support welfare, gay marriage, abortions, etc. Surely you all can’t be thinking these things soberly. You bunch of hypocrites. Drop the coat hangers!
Интересно написано. А это все на основе личного опыта?Позвольте поинтересоваться
Jam,
apparently you ain’t from around here. Democrats in Tennessee tend to be conservative and just less silly than republicans.
Many thanks for this specific article, I will attach this website to my rss feeds, a friend basically informed me relating to this a week ago. this may be the best