Income, Health Insurance, Housing, and Education Measures in Tennessee’s Counties

by Rod Williams, Jan. 23, 2026- I love data. Being a student of political science and economics and having worked in a field where I had to work with data in securing grants, and simply caring about facts, and being analytical by nature, I like exploring data and seeing where it leads me. I also simply like knowing stuff.

I like fact-based arguments. It is not that two people cannot look at the same data and draw different conclusions, but at least when conclusions are based on data, there is a rational basis for one's opinion. It seems that more and more people take the view that an uninformed opinion is as valid as an informed opinion. Sadly, it seems, we are living in a post-truth era in which fewer people base their opinions on facts. In fact, it seems that often fact-based views are suspect, and a shared prejudice is more persuasive than a fact-driven opinion.

If you like data, The Sycamore Institute has released a treasure trove of data about Tennessee gleaned from analysis of U.S Census data. It is searchable and easy to use. One can look at poverty rates, homeownership rates, public assistance rates, housing cost-burdened rates, education levels, and much more, and compare them across grand divisions, or counties, or urban vs rural, and look at data broken down within these comparisons by age groups or other factors. 

Here is some information I found insightful:

Income by County: It varies greatly, and that is not a great surprise but interesting. 

• Williamson County, with a median household income of $131,202 is the county with the highest median household income in the state.
• Lake County, with a median household income of $30,500 is the county with the lowest.
• Davidson County's median household income is $75,664.
• Shelby County's median household income is $62,337
• Knox County's median household income is $71,662
• Hamilton County's is $72,568

Education:

• Williamson County is the most educated county in the state, with 61.8% of the people over the age of 25 having at least a bachelor's degree.
• In Hancock County, only 8.6% of the people over the age of 25 have a bachelor's degree. 

Homeownership rates: Having spent most of my career working in the field of promoting homeownership, I was surprised to find the rate of homeownership as high as it is. Also, this is one area that surprised me. There is not as much variation county to county of this measure as in other measures. Also, there is no noticeable correlation with education or income. 

• Van Buren County has the highest rate of  household homeownership at 84.7%
• Lake County has the lowest rate of homeownership at 45.3%
• Davidson County has a household homeownership rate of 53.4%
• Shelby County has a household homeownership rate of 54.6%

 

Top Stories

Where Have the 'Don't Tread on Me' Republicans Gone?

 Many conservatives are embracing big government, from police-state immigration tactics to socialist economic policies.

by Steven Greenhut, Reason, 1.23.2026 - ... There's no hope for anyone cheering, but "responsible" conservatives have a rationale for defending these actions: It's better than having Democrats in charge. Had, say, Kamala Harris won the presidency, she would have imposed socialistic policies, they say. That's probably true, but have you noticed the latest policy plans from Donald Trump? His economic proposals echo the Democratic platform. ... 

First, he plans to cap interest rates on credit cards at 10%. ... 

Second, he said he's "immediately taking steps to ban large institutional investors from buying more single-family homes…People live in homes, not corporations." ... 

Third, he's embraced various policies that let the federal government interfere with the governance of private companies. He has proposed a cap on compensation for CEOs of defense contractors. He has called for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which are government-sponsored enterprises, to buy $200 billion in mortgage bonds from the private market to potentially lower mortgage rates. He has muscled private companies such as Intel to sell portions of their companies to the government. This gives the president and the feds power to dictate corporate policy—a longstanding goal of democratic socialists.

Fourth, the president is expanding handouts to individual Americans. He's proposed $2,000 tariff-dividend checks, which is reminiscent of Joe Biden's ... 

These are the types of easy-button leftist solutions that always make matters worse because they interfere with the workings of the free market. (read it all)

Top Stories

Manufacturing Employment Continues to Fall

by Clark Packard and Alfredo Carrillo Obregon, CATO Institute, Jan. 16, 2026 - The latest Bureau of Labor Statistics jobs report offers a stark reminder that US manufacturing continues to struggle. Manufacturing employment fell again in December 2025, marking the third consecutive year with negative net annual job growth. This persistent decline comes despite the Trump administration’s stated goal of revitalizing domestic manufacturing, and data increasingly suggest that the administration’s own policies—particularly, its erratic use of tariffs—are a significant part of the problem.

To be clear, US manufacturing employment did not enter 2025 on a high. After rebounding sharply from the pandemic-induced recession from April 2020 to late 2022, US manufacturing employment entered a period of persistent decline. The sector posted net job losses in six months of 2024, shedding 105,000 workers from the previous year. Following a slight rebound in the first quarter of 2025, the sector then registered net job losses in each of the last eight months of the year (Figure 1). By December 2025, the sector employed nearly 70,000 fewer workers than a year earlier (Figure 2).

Of course, these data alone cannot identify the precise causes of this prolonged contraction in US manufacturing employment. Multiple factors—including higher prices, tighter monetary policy, changes in demand and consumer preferences, and longer-term structural shifts—all likely play a factor. Still, recent industry surveys and manufacturer testimonies suggest that tariff-driven cost increases and uncertainty were meaningful contributors in 2025. Once again, a familiar pattern has emerged: protection for a politically favored industry imposes direct costs on a much larger set of downstream firms that depend on affordable inputs to compete.

Survey evidence reinforces this conclusion. For instance, the December 2025 ISM Manufacturing Purchasing Manager’s Index, a widely watched measure of the US factory activity based on a monthly survey of supply chain executives, fell to 47.9—the lowest reading of the year and the sector’s tenth consecutive month of contraction. (Above 50 indicates expansion; below 50 indicates contraction.) In fact, the reading was the lowest of 2025. The PMI’s sub-indices tracking orders and prices, as well as testimonies offered by the surveyed executives, repeatedly point to higher input costs and trade policy uncertainty driven by the administration’s tariff regime as key headwinds.

This is hardly surprising. US manufacturing is deeply integrated into global supply chains, with imported intermediate inputs and capital equipment accounting for over half of US imports. Broad-based tariffs, therefore, function as a tax on domestic production. This is especially true for steel, aluminum, and copper, which are crucial inputs for a wide range of manufactured products. Unsurprisingly, US prices for these metals increased relative to foreign prices in 2025. As Figure 3 illustrates, the steel tariffs in particular have exacerbated a long-standing gap between US and international steel prices.

The employment data reveal who benefits and who pays. Manufacturing subsectors tied to primary metal production were among the few to add jobs in 2025. In contrast, far larger downstream sectors that rely on these metals—including machinery, computers, and transportation equipment—experienced some of the steepest job losses.[1] (See Figure 1). This asymmetry underscores a central flaw of protectionist policy: it delivers concentrated benefits to a narrow set of producers while imposing diffuse but far higher costs on the broader manufacturing sector.

As we documented in a recent paper, this is not a new phenomenon. Indeed, it’s entirely consistent with the six-decade history of US steel protectionism.

Furthermore, trade policy uncertainty impairs companies’ ability to confidently plan ahead. With 2025 registering the highest measured levels of trade policy uncertainty on record (Figure 5), it’s unsurprising that both the ISM and the Association for Supply Chain Management (ASCM) report continued hesitancy among manufacturing firms to invest and hire. 

Beyond higher input costs and uncertainty, the growing complexity of the US tariff system is also harming US manufacturers. As the ASCM’s Abe Eshkenzai recently noted, navigating this complexity has become an “administrative burden” that siphons resources away from actual production. Time (and money) spent validating tariff codes and tracking rule changes—not to mention paying import-related customs fees—is time not spent selling more products or investing in additional capacity. But with firms facing thousands of dollars in fines for non-compliance, they have little choice but to navigate the labyrinth of import regulations.

US manufacturing remains a vital and competitive sector, but tariffs are an impediment to industrial success. The steel industry’s experience is instructive. As documented in our comprehensive Cato analysis, more than 60 years of steel protectionism have failed to revive the industry while harming downstream manufacturers. The 2025 data are just the latest chapter in this dismal record.

For the sake of American manufacturing, policymakers should finally learn the lesson and remove the tariffs. But given the administration’s recent rhetoric, longstanding judicial deference to certain presidential tariff authorities, and the political economy that keeps steel protection entrenched, we won’t hold our breath.

[1] Notably, employment in the fabricated metal products industry also increased. This is, perhaps in large part, due to non-trade economic factors (i.e., falling interest rates and demand from other industries), but it should also be noted that the Trump administration’s Section 232 tariffs now cover a significant number of steel, aluminum, and copper derivatives.

Top Stories

Councilmember Joy Styles Announces Mayoral Run

Joy Styles

by Hannah Herner, Nashville Scene, Jan. 21, 2026 - District 32 Metro Councilmember Joy Styles has announced her intention to run for Nashville mayor in 2027. 

Styles, who has served the Antioch area as a councilmember since 2019, is the second candidate to officially challenge first-term Mayor Freddie O’Connell, should he choose to run for reelection. As reported by the Nashville Banner, the only other candidate to have officially entered the race is Lou Wilbanks, a West Nashville development skeptic.

“I'm running because Nashville needs a fighter, someone who is going to fight for you and your neighborhood,” Styles told reporters during a Tuesday press conference.   ... Styles has pushed back on additional affordable housing in Antioch,... Styles herself — along with Metro Human Relations Commission executive director Davie Tucker — was the subject of an ethics investigation in 2024. The two were found to have behaved improperly toward two Metro Arts employees. ... worked to create the Nashville Office of Entertainment ... “Councilmember Joy Styles is at war with the mayor’s office. The outspoken second-term councilmember has made no secret of her disdain for Mayor Freddie O’Connell’s approach to — well, pretty much everything.” ...  calls O’Connell’s focus on public safety “smoke and mirrors.” ... (read it all)

Top Stories

Tennessee Attorney General Secures Settlement with Metropolis Parking to Stop Deceptive Practices and Provide Free Parking Program

Office of the Attorney General, State of Tennessee, Jan. 12, 2026-  Today, Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti announced a settlement with Metropolis Technologies, Inc. (Metropolis), ending a years-long investigation by the Attorney General’s Office into the private parking company. Metropolis will pay $8.75 million to cover consumer refunds, litigation costs, and a free parking program. Metropolis will also be required to implement numerous changes to its business practices to promote transparency and protect consumers.

Two years ago, the Attorney General’s Office launched its investigation into Metropolis following more than one hundred consumer complaints about unclear pricing and inadequate signage at Metropolis parking lots, as well as misleading communications about parking fees and violation notices. The investigation revealed that Metropolis misled consumers about its prices with inaccurate signs, charged surprise fees due to technology glitches, made obtaining refunds nearly impossible, and created confusion with notices that looked like government bills. To date, the Office has received over 300 complaints related to Metropolis.

“Tennesseans work hard for their money, and when they park they deserve a clear price up front and no shenanigans with bogus charges and stonewalling customer service,” said Attorney General Skrmetti. “My office is here to protect consumers and hold companies accountable, and this is exactly the type of situation where we need to step in. I’m proud of the work of my consumer team and glad that Metropolis has agreed to make things right. If the company does not follow through and do right by Tennessee consumers, we stand ready to take further action.”

In addition to funding consumer refunds, under the settlement, Metropolis will:

• Create and implement the Tennessee Parking Program, which will provide $2.25 million in credits for free parking sessions for eligible Tennessee consumers;
• Display clear signage with accurate rates at every lot entrance, showing current active rates and the customer support phone number;
• Send text messages with rates upon entry to lots that use license plate reader technology;
• Never charge more than what is posted on the signage;
• Give consumers a 15-minute grace period to enter and exit with no charge in lots using license plate reader technology;
• Stop implying affiliation with any local or state agency in electronic or mailed notices;
• Comply with all state and local booting regulations;
• Automatically issue refunds where their technology malfunctions and wrongfully charges a consumer; and
• Evaluate each refund request individually.

Tennessee consumers can be on the lookout for two things:

Tennessee Parking Program: If you have Tennessee plates and park for an individual parking session at participating Metropolis lots in Nashville, Knoxville, or Memphis, you’re eligible for up to $30 in free parking credits. Metropolis will notify eligible parkers via email.

Refunds for past overcharges: If you paid for parking at a Metropolis lot between July 1, 2021, and January 6, 2026, and believe you were overcharged, you may be eligible for a refund.

Attorney General Skrmetti will make an announcement on how to file a claim as soon as details are available.

Read the final order.

Rod's Comment: This is welcome news. I have heard lots of complaints about parking practices in Nashville. It is like weather and traffic; a topic that comes up in casual conversation.  I am not sure Metropolis is the only culprit, but I have heard people complain of parking without knowing how much they were being charged and parking at one rate and billed another rate. I don't know if Metropolis is the company doing this, but I have heard of people parking where they did not see a sign indicating there was a charge for parking and coming back and finding a boot on their car. It is good to see these complaints being addressed. 

Top Stories

Tennessee’s Education Freedom Scholarship Program Enters Second Year with Record Interest, Receives 50,304 Applications So Far

Office of the Govenor, State of Tennessee,  Thursday, January 15, 2026 - Today, Tennessee Governor Bill Lee announced that the Tennessee Department of Education (TDOE) has received more than 50,304 new and renewal applications for Education Freedom Scholarships (EFS), with approximately half of the applicants applying for income prioritized scholarships. Families are encouraged to continue applying through January 30.

“As demand for Education Freedom Scholarships continues to grow, I look forward to working with the General Assembly to increase the number of available scholarships for the 2026-27 school year,” said Gov. Lee. “It’s clear that Tennessee parents want choices when it comes to their child’s education, and expanding access to this program will ensure every child has an opportunity to thrive, regardless of income or zip code.”

Key Highlights:

•  Almost 100% of previously enrolled families have already applied to renew, indicating strong parent satisfaction.
•  2026-27 applications have already exceeded the previous year’s total by more than 7,500 applications.
• 18 more schools have already registered to participate in the 2026-27 school year, and the full list of participating schools is available here.

Interested families are encouraged to continue applying for the program, as the application review process is just beginning. If the Department receive more applications for the 2026-27 school year than scholarships available, scholarships will be awarded based on the prioritization outlined here, and a waitlist will be established, should additional seats become available.

TDOE began accepting renewal applications for the 2026-27 school year on December 9, 2025, for students enrolled in the first year of the program, resulting in 18,507 applications submitted. The Department began accepting new applications for the program on January 13, 2026, resulting in 31,797 applications submitted within less than 48 hours of the portal opening. The Department will continue to accept new and renewal applications through January 30, 2026, at 4 p.m. CST.

“Entering the program’s second year with even more interest statewide is a clear indicator that the EFS Program is successfully expanding educational choices for families,” said Lizzette Reynolds, Commissioner of Education. “We are proud to support this initiative as it continues to grow and meet the needs of all Tennessee families.”

During the Tennessee General Assembly’s extraordinary legislative session in January 2025, legislators passed the Education Freedom Act, and Gov. Lee signed the landmark legislation on February 12, 2025, to establish Tennessee’s universal school choice program into law. The Tennessee EFS Program is also guided by the State Board of Education Rule 0520-01-24.

To learn more about the EFS Program and access additional resources, visit the EFS webpage.

Top Stories

The Greenland War of 2026

by The Editorial Board, Wall Street Journal, Jan. 20, 2026- For more than 75 years, the fondest dream of Russian strategy has been to divide Western Europe from the U.S. and break the NATO alliance. That is now a possibility as President Trump presses his campaign to capture Greenland no matter what the locals or its Denmark owner thinks.

Mr. Trump on Saturday threatened to impose a 10% tariff starting Feb. 1 on a handful of European countries that have opposed his attempt to obtain U.S. sovereignty over Greenland. The tariff would jump to 25% on June 1. Presumably this tariff would come on top of the rates Mr. Trump already negotiated in trade deals last year (10% for Britain, 15% for the European Union).

... Mr. Trump is taking reckless risk with the NATO alliance that advances U.S. interests in the arctic.... The economics are nonsensical too. ...The Greenland Tariff War of 2026 imperils other U.S. priorities. ...No one should underestimate the shock his Greenland project is producing among allies. Along with his tariffs and his tilt toward Russia against Ukraine, he is alienating Western Europe in a way that will be hard to repair. It’s true that Europe may not be in a position to resist if Mr. Trump really wants to go to war over the island. But say good-bye to NATO.

The sad irony is that China and Russia may be the biggest winners, ... Whether or not Mr. Trump believes it, the U.S. needs friends in the world. (read it all at this link)

Top Stories

Harwood Salon Luncheon: A Half Century of the Bank Secrecy Act

 Tickets remain. 

From Harwood Salon:

Join us in Nashville for a luncheon with Jarett Decker, Joey Jacobs Chair of Excellence in Accounting and Professor of Practice at MTSU. 

Since the passage of the first anti-money laundering law in 1970, the Bank Secrecy Act, the United States has steadily expanded financial surveillance. Banks and an ever-growing range of private industries now face severe penalties if they fail to monitor and report customer activity to law enforcement. In 1989, the United States and its G7 partners exported this model globally, creating a system that today reaches more than 200 countries and jurisdictions.

Despite its enormous scope, the global anti–money laundering regime remains strikingly ineffective. Credible estimates suggest it intercepts less than one percent of illicit financial flows. What it does far more effectively is erode financial privacy, increase costs on ordinary people, and strengthen surveillance tools that can be readily adopted by authoritarian governments abroad.

In this conversation, Jarett Decker, Jacobs Chair of Excellence in Accounting and Professor of Practice at Middle Tennessee State University, will examine how anti-money laundering regulations operate in practice and why their real-world effects often diverge from their stated goals. Drawing on his background in U.S. and global financial regulation and criminal law, Decker will explore how these regulatory structures impact individual freedom, economic opportunity, and the rule of law. He will also discuss recent developments suggesting the possibility for change.

This discussion supports AIER’s mission by highlighting how financial surveillance affects everyday life and economic vitality. Understanding the unintended consequences of expansive regulation helps clarify where reforms are needed to protect privacy, promote a more open economy, and preserve the conditions that allow individuals and businesses to flourish.

Harwood Salons – Nashville is made possible through the generosity of supporters like you. We encourage you to become a member or make a donation to support the American Institute for Economic Research and ensure the continuation of these important events. All donations are tax-deductible and directly contribute to sustaining Harwood Salons – Nashville.

Registration Required.

• Membership Options
• Sustaining Members: $100/yr
• Founding Members: $500 (One-time)
• 1933 Club Members: $1,000/yr

Support Harwood Salons – Nashville by becoming a member or making a tax-deductible donation using the Join or Donate button below. Your tax-deductible contribution will ensure Harwood Salons – Nashville continue to thrive.

Donate

Agenda 

• 11:30 AM – 11:40 AM – Arrivals and Seating
• 11:45 AM – 12:00 PM – Meal service begins
• 12:00 PM – 1:00 PM – Presentation & Q&A
• 1:00 PM – 1:30 PM – Departures

About the Speaker

Jarett Decker (Jerry) is the Joey Jacobs Chair of Excellence in Accounting and Professor of Practice at Middle Tennessee State University.  A lawyer and CPA, he is the former Head of the World Bank’s Centre for Financial Reporting Reform in Vienna, Austria, where he advised governments in developing and former communist countries on financial regulation, mostly in Eastern Europe and Southeast Asia. Before the World Bank, Decker was the first person to serve as Chief Trial Counsel for the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board –the accounting watchdog created in response to Enron–where he established the program of disciplinary litigation against Big Four and other auditors.  He has also served as Senior Trial Counsel for the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. He is currently developing a program in international anti-money laundering for the Master of Accounting program at MTSU and taught the first course last fall.  He has published articles in Reason magazine, the New York Times, The National Interest, and the American Institute for Economic Research’s website.  Decker began his career as a criminal trial lawyer defending the constitutional rights of the accused, including in money laundering cases.

Top Stories

Tearing Apart NATO, over a Trinket

by Jim Geraghty, National Review, Mourning Jolt, Jan. 20, 2026- On the menu today: In a saner and better world, we would be having a serious discussion of the 25th Amendment of the Constitution right now.

Trump’s Unhinged Greenland Threat

President Trump, to Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre:

Dear Jonas: Considering your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace, although it will always be predominant, but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States of America. Denmark cannot protect that land from Russia or China, and why do they have a “right of ownership” anyway? There are no written documents, it’s only that a boat landed there hundreds of years ago, but we had boats landing there, also. I have done more for NATO than any other person since its founding, and now, NATO should do something for the United States. The World is not secure unless we have Complete and Total Control of Greenland. Thank you! President DJT

The Norwegian prime minister posted:

I can confirm that this is a text message that I received yesterday afternoon from President Trump. It came in response to a short text message from me to President Trump sent earlier on the same day, on behalf of myself and the President of Finland Alexander Stubb.

Oh, where to begin? The president’s diatribe is unhinged, false, or bonkers in at least ten ways.

One: The Norwegian government does not award the Nobel Peace Prize; the Nobel committee does; its members are appointed by the Norwegian parliament; current members of the Norwegian government or parliament are barred from serving on the committee.

Two: The nomination deadline for the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize was January 31, 2025. Even if you think Trump’s accomplishments in his first year warrant him receiving a Nobel Peace Prize, he had only been in office for eleven days when the nomination deadline passed. (Yes, Barack Obama was named the winner in 2009, in a move that was widely seen as an embarrassment for everyone involved. Then-White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel chewed out the Norwegian ambassador over it.)

Three: Trump has not “stopped 8 wars plus.” Let’s give him credit for Israel and Hamas, and Israel and Iran. Everything else is an exaggeration, either about the intensity of the conflict or the U.S. role in ameliorating it. Trump’s persistent boast that he ended the shooting war between India and Pakistan is a serious, and entirely unnecessary, irritant to the Indian government.

Four: When Trump writes, “Denmark cannot protect that land from Russia or China,” that country won’t have to protect Greenland alone, so long as Denmark is a member of NATO. If Russia or China were to attack Greenland, the United States would be treaty-bound to help defend it and repel the invaders.

Five: Despite what the president claims, there are indeed written documents affirming Danish sovereignty over Greenland.

In 1916, the U.S. government formally recognized Greenland as Danish territory, stating, “The undersigned Secretary of State of the United States of America, duly authorized by his Government, has the honor to declare that the Government of the United States of America will not object to the Danish Government extending their political and economic interests to the whole of Greenland.”

A 1951 pact between the countries on the mutual defense of Greenland stated, “The Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Kingdom of Denmark, in order to promote stability and well-being in the North Atlantic Treaty area by uniting their efforts for collective defense and for the preservation of peace and security and for the development of their collective capacity to resist armed attack, will each take such measures as are necessary or appropriate to carry out expeditiously their respective and joint responsibilities in Greenland.”

In 1954, the United Nations recognized and declared, “Greenland freely decided on its integration within the Kingdom of Denmark on an equal constitutional and administrative basis with the other parts of Denmark.”

The Danes have been on Greenland since 1721.

Six: When Trump says, “we had boats landing there, also” . . . who is the “we” in that sentence? Trump’s ancestors in Germany and Scotland?

Keep in mind, the United States didn’t declare its independence, and thus its existence as a sovereign state, until 55 years after Danes arrived in Greenland.

Seven: Trump can claim he’s “done more for NATO than any other person since its founding,” but former Secretary of State Dean Acheson; West German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer; former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher; and former U.S. Presidents Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan could not be reached for comment. Heck, you could argue Bill Clinton did more to shape NATO, with the invitations to Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic to join the alliance.

Not only has Trump not done more for NATO than anyone else in history, but he’s also currently the most likely threat to its continued unity.

Eight: Trump demands, “NATO should do something for the United States.”

The only time NATO has invoked Article Five in its 75-year history was after the 9/11 attacks in 2001, when all 18 members (at that time) pledged to support the U.S. response to al-Qaeda and that Taliban. At the new NATO headquarters in Brussels, Belgium, a memorial composed of a piece of mangled steel from the 107th floor of the World Trade Center’s North Tower sits atop a pedestal.

In the long occupation of Afghanistan, the United Kingdom lost 457 service members; Canada lost 159; France lost 90; Germany lost 62; Italy lost 53; Poland lost 44; Denmark lost 43; Spain lost 35; Romania lost 27; the Netherlands lost 25; Turkey lost 15; the Czech Republic lost 14; Norway lost ten; Estonia lost nine; Hungary lost seven; Sweden lost five; Latvia lost four; Slovakia lost three; Finland and Portugal lost two each; and Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Lithuania, and Montenegro lost one each.

In the war in Iraq, the United Kingdom lost 179 service members, Italy lost 33, Poland lost 30, Bulgaria lost 13, Spain lost 11, Denmark lost seven, Slovakia lost four, Latvia lost three, Estonia and the Netherlands lost two each, and the Czech Republic and Hungary each lost one.

(By the way, the U.S. ally that suffered the fourth-most casualties in Iraq? Ukraine. But hey, just because those guys stood with us when we asked for help doesn’t mean we have to help them out, right?)

There are many depressing facets of the president’s tirade, but one of the biggest is that these casualties, and the efforts of our longtime allies over seven and a half decades, probably never crossed the president’s mind.

Nine: Trump contends, “The World is not secure unless we have Complete and Total Control of Greenland.”

As many have observed, up until Trump took office, the U.S. and Denmark largely agreed on their roles protecting the island. I hate to disrupt a good controversy with facts, but the U.S. already plays a significant role in the national defense and economy of Greenland. The island is the location of the Pentagon’s northernmost installation, Pituffik Space Base (pronounced “bee-doo-FEEK”), formerly known as Thule Air Base.

Ten: Trump sounds like an angry toddler throwing a tantrum; in his recent interview with the New York Times, Trump emphasized that his priority is to own Greenland because of his feelings, and ownership is “what I feel is psychologically needed for success”:

David E. Sanger: In Greenland, we had START. In the 1951 agreement, though, it says the United States can reopen these bases anytime you want. You can send as many troops as you want.

President Trump: That’s right.

Sanger: And you haven’t done it. How come?

Trump: Because I want to do it properly.

Sanger: And properly means own it?

Trump: Really it is, to me, it’s ownership. Ownership is very important.

Sanger: Why is ownership important here?

Trump: Because that’s what I feel is psychologically needed for success. I think that ownership gives you a thing that you can’t do, whether you’re talking about a lease or a treaty. Ownership gives you things and elements that you can’t get from just signing a document, that you can have a base.

Katie Rogers: Psychologically important to you or to the United States?

Trump: Psychologically important for me. Now, maybe another president would feel differently, but so far I’ve been right about everything.

Remember, if you object to a 79-year-old American president threatening war against a longtime NATO ally, and explicitly saying it was because he wasn’t given a Nobel Peace Prize, there are Americans who will insist that your objection is a sign of “Trump Derangement Syndrome.”

There is indeed derangement going on around here, but not from the sources these folks claim.

Trump may well order some sort of military operation to seize Greenland, he may not. But ask yourself, what sorts of outcomes are likely when the president has so little control over his temper and emotional incontinence that he explicitly states that he wants “Complete and Total Control of Greenland” because he didn’t get the Nobel Peace Prize, in a text to foreign leaders?

I am again reminded of a line of dialogue from The Dark Knight: “What exactly did you think they were gonna do?”

How exactly do you expect good outcomes to be generated by a president who is so erratic, unhinged, ill-informed, and irrational?

In a saner, better world, Trump cabinet officials would be turning to each other and discussing invoking the 25th Amendment, which states:

Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Oh, no one in the current cabinet would ever dare utter the thought. They’re all Trump loyalists, and if they can distinguish the best interests of the country from their own personal ambitions and access to power, they’re hiding that ability well.

No one seriously discussed invoking the 25th Amendment with former President Joe Biden, either, even though he couldn’t remember the names of longtime aides; Tony Blinken had to remind the president why he was meeting with a foreign leader; Biden didn’t recognize DNC chairman Jaime Harrison in meetings; Virginia Senator Mark Warner ended a phone call with Biden concluding that the president had no idea what was going on in his own counterterrorism policy; a cabinet secretary described Biden as “disoriented” and “out of it,” mouth agape in a 2023 meeting; and Biden forgot the name of Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and referred to him as “the black man” in an interview with BET.

After one president who went senile in office and another who is nuttier than a Payday candy bar, we can only conclude that the 25th Amendment of the Constitution is just there for decoration.

Top Stories

Why Credit Card Interest Caps Will Backfire—Again

by Jack Salmon, The Unseen and The Unsaid!, Jan. 17, 2026 - President Trump’s recent proposal to impose a 10% cap on credit card interest rates is being marketed as a straightforward way to help households struggling with high borrowing costs. The political appeal is obvious. Credit card APRs are salient, unpopular and easy to demonize.

But interest rate caps, usury laws by another name, are among the most studied and most consistently disappointing forms of economic regulation. Across countries, the evidence points in the same direction: When governments cap interest rates below market-clearing levels, credit does not become cheaper in any meaningful sense. It becomes scarcer, less transparent and more distorted.

An interest rate is the price of borrowing, and like any price it reflects underlying costs. For credit cards, those costs include funding, servicing, fraud, compliance, capital requirements and default risk. A borrower with a higher probability of default must be charged a higher rate for lending to make sense at all.

The World Bank puts the point bluntly: If interest rate caps are set so low that lenders cannot cover their costs and earn a risk-adjusted return, lending simply becomes uneconomic. The relevant question is not whether banks could earn less on some accounts, but whether entire segments of borrowers can be served at the capped rate.

For a large share of credit card users—especially younger borrowers, lower-income households and those with thinner or riskier credit histories—the answer is no.

How Credit Card Issuers Will Adjust

When interest rate caps bind lenders’ behavior, lenders do not passively accept lower returns. They adjust along multiple margins, many of which are not fully visible to consumers and are hard to regulate.

1. Reduced Access and Tighter Underwriting

The most obvious response to an interest rate cap is credit rationing. Decades of research show that credit supply is highly sensitive to price restrictions. When rates are capped, issuers tighten approval standards, reduce credit limits or stop offering products altogether to riskier borrowers.

This reduction in access is not evenly distributed. It falls disproportionately on borrowers with lower credit scores, unstable income or limited credit histories—the very consumers the policy is meant to help.

2. Higher Fees and Back-End Charges

If only interest rates are capped, issuers can and will shift costs elsewhere. Lenders frequently respond by increasing noninterest fees, including annual fees, late fees, balance transfer fees, foreign transaction fees and penalty charges.

Some of these fees are easier for consumers to avoid than interest; many are not. The overall cost of borrowing does not necessarily fall, but it becomes less transparent and harder to compare across products, particularly for consumers with limited financial literacy.

3. Weaker Rewards and Less Generous Benefits

Credit card rewards—cash back, airline miles, points, purchase protections—are not free. They are financed largely by interest income from revolving balances and interchange revenue.

A binding interest rate cap would put pressure on that revenue stream. Issuers would respond by:

• Reducing cash-back percentages
• Devaluing points and miles
• Raising redemption thresholds
• Eliminating ancillary benefits such as extended warranties or travel insurance

These changes are less politically visible than higher APRs, but they represent a real reduction in consumer surplus, especially for middle-income households who pay off balances intermittently but value rewards.

4. Product Simplification and Fewer Options

Risk-based pricing allows issuers to offer a wide range of products tailored to different borrowers. Rate caps compress that range. Cards designed for subprime or near-prime consumers become unviable, leaving a smaller, more standardized set of products aimed at safer borrowers.

Evidence from Countries That Have Tried This Before

Chile: Credit Caps Lowered Access

In 2013, Chile reduced the maximum legal interest rate on consumer loans from 54% to 36%. A 2019 study by Carlos Madeira in the Journal of Banking & Finance used matched household and bank data to estimate the impact.

The findings are clear:

• Nearly 10% of borrowers were excluded from bank credit
• Credit access fell sharply for borrowers whose risk-adjusted rates were just above the cap
• The negative effects were strongest for younger, less educated and poorer households
• The policy did not lower borrowing costs for these groups. It simply removed them from the market.

Colombia: Higher Caps, More Access

Colombia provides a useful contrast. In 2007, the government raised the interest rate ceiling for microcredit loans while keeping other caps unchanged. Using a difference-in-differences design and the full credit registry, researchers found that higher allowable rates:

• Increased new microcredit lending
• Increased new loans by 4.5% for every percentage-point increase in the cap,
• Expanded total loan portfolios
• Reduced average loan size and maturity, improving borrower-loan matching
• Allowing higher interest rates expanded access to credit, whereas capping them had previously constrained it.

The United Kingdom: Fewer Loans, Worse Selection

When the U.K. introduced a cap on high-cost short-term credit in 2015, acceptance rates at the final stage of loan applications fell sharply, from around 50% to 30% within a year.

The Financial Conduct Authority anticipated a decline of 11% in loan volume and a 21% drop in the number of borrowers. The actual declines resulting from the interest rate cap were 56% and 53% respectively.

Rejected applicants were disproportionately younger, poorer and more likely to be unemployed. The cap reduced lending volume without eliminating demand.

When formal credit becomes less available, demand does not disappear. Borrowers turn to alternatives: informal lenders, employer advances, overdrafts or illegal credit markets. These options are often more expensive, less transparent and less regulated.

Interest rate caps often push borrowers out of the formal financial system and into precisely the kinds of arrangements policymakers claim to oppose.

The Bottom Line

A 10% cap on credit card interest rates would not make credit broadly more affordable. It would reshuffle costs, restrict access, reduce rewards and narrow consumer choice. The headline APR would fall, but many households would be worse off, either excluded from credit entirely or paying more in less visible ways.

As my colleague Veronique de Rugy noted last month:

“The strange new alliance between democratic socialists and nationalist populists isn’t a sign of political healing. It’s a sign that people have lost their grip on basic economics. They’ve decided that markets can be bullied, risk forbidden and prices commanded into submission. But magical thinking still produces real-world shortages when put into practice.”

Usury laws are politically attractive because they focus on prices. But prices in credit markets coordinate risk. When policymakers override the prices, the risk adjustments do not disappear; they show up elsewhere, to the detriment of consumers.

Jack Salmon is a Research Fellow and Gibbs Scholar at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, where he focuses on economic and fiscal policy, with an emphasis on federal budgets, taxation, economic growth, and institutional analysis.

Rod's Comment: Nothing Donald Trump proposes or does should surprise me anymore, and it doesn't. Donald Trump is an economic illiterate. I am somewhat surprised that more Republicans just accept whatever he proposes. They know better. This is the kind of policy one would expect from Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders. 

Top Stories

5% of People Detained By ICE Have Violent Convictions, 73% No Convictions

by David J. Bier, Cato Institute, published Nov. 24, 2025 -President Donald Trump premised his mass deportation agenda on the idea that he will be “returning millions and millions of criminal aliens.” Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem has repeatedly claimed that they are arresting the “worst of the worst.” New nonpublic data from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) leaked to the Cato Institute reveal a different story.

• Of people booked into ICE custody this fiscal year (since October 1, 2025):
• Nearly three in four (73 percent) had no criminal conviction.
• Nearly half had no criminal conviction nor even any pending criminal charges.
• Only 8 percent had a violent or property criminal conviction.
• Only 5 percent had a violent criminal conviction.
• A majority of criminal convicts had vice, immigration, or traffic convictions.

The appendix table at the end of this report provides the detailed breakdown of the data by detailed type of crime.

The earliest data I obtained that was reported in this way comes from April 26, 2025. Compared with October 2024 to April 2025—before the White House shifted focus completely away from criminals—80 percent of the increase in daily ICE book-ins have come from individuals without criminal convictions.

Since October 1, only 8 percent of detained persons had either a violent or property crime. As many people were detained with an immigration conviction (e.g., illegal entry/​reentry) as violent convicts.

In its posts on this subject, DHS and ICE often include people with pending criminal charges as “criminal arrests,” even though these people have never been found guilty, and the charges are often minor and regularly dismissed. ICE is depriving these people of due process by arresting them prior to a conviction. Nonetheless, ICE data show that nearly half (47 percent) of all ICE detainees this fiscal year

Other data sources support the conclusions from the number of ICE book-ins. The Deportation Data Project, which is run by UC Berkeley Law School in collaboration with the UCLA School of Law’s Center for Immigration Law and Policy, has obtained data on ICE arrests via the Freedom of Information Act. ICE arrests are individuals charged as removable by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, so it excludes people arrested by Border Patrol and referred to ICE for detention who are included in the data above.

This arrest dataset also does not disclose the type of crime committed. In any case, it similarly shows that by late July, 67 percent of ICE arrests were of people without criminal convictions. It also shows that by late July, nearly 40 percent of ICE arrests were of people without criminal convictions or criminal charges. This is a dramatic change from President Joseph Biden’s policies under which only one in 10 arrests were individuals without any criminal conviction or charge.

More important than the share of arrests is the absolute number of these arrests. Already by late July, ICE arrests of immigrants without criminal convictions had increased by 571 percent from the weekly average to start the calendar year. ICE arrests of immigrants without criminal convictions or criminal charges increased a staggering 1,500 percent since January 1.

Finally, the last data source comes from public data directly from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement website, showing that by mid-November, 69 percent of current ICE detainees who were arrested by ICE had no criminal conviction and 40 percent had no criminal charge. The number of people in detention who were convicted of a crime and had no pending charges increased a staggering 2,370 percent since January from fewer than 1,000 to over 21,000.

The ICE data show that the share of immigrants detained after an ICE arrest who had criminal convictions has fallen in half since January from 62 percent of detainees to 31 percent in November. At the same time, the share of detainees without a criminal conviction or criminal charge has exploded from 6 percent to 40 percent of detainees.

The same ICE dataset shows that in November 2025, 70 percent of those who ICE deported had no criminal conviction, and 43 percent had no criminal conviction or criminal charge. Across all available datasets, it is clear that the Trump administration is not living up to its promises to deport millions and millions of criminals or to prioritize the worst of the worse. So far, the administration has removed barely 90,000 individuals with criminal convictions and fewer than 150,000 individuals with convictions or pending charges.

President Trump’s deportation agenda does not match the campaign promises that he made nor the rhetoric from his officials. The president has already recognized that deportations are hurting the US economy in deporting good workers. But perhaps more importantly, the agenda is taking resources away from targeting true public safety threats, whether from immigrants or Americans. ICE should redirect its resources back toward serious public safety threats.

Rod's Comment: I know that for many of Trump's most ardent supporters, this doesn't matter; they are not to be confused with facts. They are simply anti-immigrant and do not even care if legal immigrants are rounded up and deported, nor do they care if first-generation American citizens are deported. For others who believed Trump would deport "the worst of the worst," it should matter that you were lied to, and that is not who Trump is deporting. To see more of the data supporting the text of this article, follow this link. 

Top Stories

Trump Announces Tariffs on European Countries Opposing Greenland Takeover

 by Rod Williams, Jan. 17, 2026- Every day is another, I-can't-believe-it-day, but now I can believe it.  There are no limits to Trumps disreguard for the constitution, crealty, brazenness, petulant childishness, corruption, narcissistic behavior, economic illiteracy, and stupidity. Every time, I think he can't get worse, he does.

I never thought we would threaten the military annexation of the territory of a member of a NATO country. I never thought a fellow democratic state would ever need to fear an invasion from the United States, but here we are.

Today, Trump stepped up his campaign against our NATO allies. In response to Trump's repeated threats to annex Greenland, the nations of Britain, France, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Finland and the Netherlands have all announced in recent days that they would send small numbers of troops to Greenland for joint exercises with the Danish military. In retaliation, Trump said he would impose 10 percent tariffs on imports of all goods from those countries starting Feb. 1, increasing to 25 percent on June 1. He said it would only be removed after a deal is reached for “the Complete and Total purchase of Greenland.” Read more about it at this link.

For the first time in my life, I am ashamed to be an American. I am a Vietnam veteran and proud of my military service, and I have always honored those who served our nation in the armed forces. Now, if I were advising someone contemplating joining the US miliray, I would advise them not to do it. The US is no longer a force for good in the world, but a bully nation acting on the principle that might makes right. We are now the bad guys. 

If the US gets in a shooting war with the military of Greenland, Britain, France, Germany, Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands, my sympathy will lie with Greenland, Britain, France, Germany, Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands. 

I now expect more bad behavior from Trump. I expect things to get worse before they get better. If Trump imposes martial law and suspends the midterms, I am not going to be shocked.  I cannot think of anything Trump might do that would shock me anymore.

Top Stories