Ralph Bristol

 by Ralph Bristol, Facebook, May 9, 2026- John Rose, my congressman, is running for governor, against Marsha Blackburn, our U.S. Senator. 

I don’t know if this is John’s first commercial, but it’s the first one I’ve seen, and I thought it was pretty good – very positive, highlighting his own qualities and accomplishments, which appear impressive, but for reasons we all know, he just couldn’t help himself. 

He had to include a positive statement about President Trump in his commercial. He’s “tough, like Trump,” which he said twice in 30 seconds. 

At least he picked one of Trump’s potentially best characteristics, instead of his worst – his economic policies.  But his references to Trump significantly detract from the value of his commercial for everyone but Trump’s MAGA base. 

So, it’s a matter of mathematics whether the inclusion makes the commercial better or worse, as a campaign tool.  Did it win voters or lose them?  His pollsters obviously think it will win primary voters. 

It didn’t necessarily lose me, but it overcame the positive reaction I had to the rest of the commercial.  

I haven’t seen Marsha’s first commercial yet.  The first ones are always the most positive, and then they start to turn ugly.  I know Marsha much better, as a policy maker, than John, and neither leaves a positive policy impression, so I am likely as not to write in a different name for governor, since I have no knowledge of any of the other candidates, and one of these two will almost certainly be the eventual winner. 

This interests Boomer Power only in that one of them will be in a position to either help or hurt my mission to control the cost of the federal government, since half of what state governments spend comes from the federal government, which remain in danger of letting its debt create the worst recession the world has ever seen – greater than the Great Depression.

It will be a lot like the Great Depression, except that the world’s people, especially Americans, are MUCH more dependent on government help than they were then.  And, that will disappear, because the U.S. government will no longer have access to affordable credit to finance that help – and people will be on their own for the first times in generations.  

Both John and Marsha helped usher in the debt that is the greatest single, domestic threat to our nation and our constitution.  Unless one of them expresses convincing contrition and persuades me that they can and will spend their gubernatorial terms repairing their damage to our federal budget, I’ll likely be voting for someone else. \

Ralph Bristol is the former long-time morning talk radio host broadcasting on Supertalk 99.7 WTN. He was one of the less provocative and bombastic of conservative radio personalities, more thoughtful and grounded in conservative ideas. He left talk radio in 2018 and retired. He lives in Nashville. 

Rod's Comment: 
I had the same reaction as Ralph. I know I will not vote for Marsha. She has been a shameless Trump bootlicker. I had assumed I would vote for John Rose. After seeing his commercial, in which he goes out of his way to wrap himself in Trump's mantle, I am unsure whom I will vote for. 

Top Stories

U.S. Deficit Projected to Hit $2 Trillion, Double Fiscal Target

by Brett Rowland, The Center Square, May 8, 2026- The federal government is projected to post a $2 trillion deficit in fiscal year 2026, double the 3% of GDP target that has bipartisan support in Congress, according to Treasury's quarterly refunding documents.

The $2 trillion figure in fiscal year 2026 is up from $1.7 trillion last year. The Office of Management and Budget projects a deficit of $2.065 trillion, primary dealers surveyed by Treasury projected a median of $1.950 trillion and the Congressional Budget Office's February 2026 baseline projected $1.853 trillion.

Will McBride, the Tax Foundation's chief economist, said the numbers show Congress isn't taking action to address financial warnings about the U.S. debt.

"It indicates Congress and the administration are still ignoring the dangers of an unsustainable debt trajectory and actively making it worse rather than addressing it," McBride told The Center Square. "The effect is to make a crisis more likely to happen sooner rather than later."

The projections come from Treasury's quarterly refunding presentation to the Treasury Borrowing Advisory Committee, a panel of bond market participants that advises the department on debt management, making them among the most closely watched fiscal disclosures in financial markets.

A bipartisan resolution pending in Congress, House Resolution 981, would set a fiscal target of reducing the federal deficit to 3% of GDP or less by 2030. The measure has drawn support from both parties, with 18 co-sponsors including Rep. Jodey Arrington, R-Texas, Blue Dog Co-Chairs Jared Golden, D-Maine, and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, D-Wash., and the resolution's lead sponsors, Reps. Bill Huizenga, R-Mich., and Scott Peters, D-Calif.

Huizenga said the 3% target remains the right goal despite the widening gap.

"We've been on the wrong fiscal path for far too long," Huizenga told The Center Square. "The point of the resolution is to get Republicans and Democrats – in Congress, across the federal government, and throughout the private sector – to show agreement and rally around 3% as the most practical, immediate target to address the fiscal crisis."

Arrington, the House Budget Committee chairman, said the nation is "sleepwalking off of a cliff" on its fiscal trajectory.

"The federal deficit has not fallen below 3% of GDP since 2015," Arrington said. "According to current projections, it will continue to exceed 5% of GDP every year for the next three decades. Throughout our history, deficits this large have only appeared in the shadow of wars and economic collapse."

Arrington called for "a combination of discretionary spending discipline, pro-growth economic policies and entitlement reform" to address the problem.

The federal government has not recorded a budget surplus since 2001. Since then, spending has outpaced revenues every year, with deficits ballooning during the COVID-19 pandemic. The fiscal year 2025 deficit was $1.7 trillion, roughly 6% of GDP, and the new Treasury projections suggest fiscal year 2026 will be worse. The last time the federal government ran a deficit below the 3% of GDP threshold proposed in HR 981 was 2015, according to the resolution's own text.

Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, said the trajectory is alarming.

"$2 trillion deficits used to be unheard of, and then they only occurred during major recessions – it's beyond scary that $2 trillion deficits are now the norm," she said in a statement.

Rep. Scott Peters, D-Calif., said the projections confirm the deficit is heading in the wrong direction.

"Congress needs to change course immediately," Peters told The Center Square, calling on lawmakers to pass his Fiscal Commission Act, which would appoint a bipartisan panel of Democrats, Republicans and independent experts to recommend changes to both taxes and spending to reduce borrowing.

A recent survey by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation found that 92% of voters – including 89% of Republicans, 92% of independents and 94% of Democrats – are concerned the national debt is driving up their personal cost of living. The foundation's U.S. Fiscal Confidence Index fell to a 22-month low of 42 in April, reflecting what the organization described as voters' desire for elected leaders to address the country's fiscal challenges.

"The rising national debt has effectively become a kitchen table issue for Americans because it contributes to rising costs across the economy, from grocery bills to car payments," said Michael A. Peterson, CEO of the Peterson Foundation.

The deficit projections come despite repeated commitments from the administration to address the nation's fiscal trajectory. In a March 2025 address to Congress, President Donald Trump pledged to balance the federal budget for the first time in 24 years. In his February 2026 State of the Union, Trump attributed a potential balanced budget to fraud elimination, saying his administration could balance the budget overnight if it found enough fraud.

The deficit trajectory is compounding the government's debt burden. The federal government spent more than $1 trillion servicing its debt in fiscal year 2025, more than it spent on national defense, and that figure is projected to grow. The national debt passed 100% of GDP in March, according to Treasury data. The Government Accountability Office, the nonpartisan research arm of Congress, warned in April that the nation's fiscal path is "unsustainable" and poses "serious economic, security, and social challenges if not addressed."

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has long acknowledged the deficit problem. Before his confirmation, he publicly championed a "3-3-3" plan that included cutting the budget deficit to 3% of GDP by 2028, and during his January 2025 Senate confirmation hearing testified that federal spending was "out of control." His most recent congressional testimony, delivered April 22, focused on tax cuts and IRS modernization without addressing the deficit trajectory shown in his department's own quarterly refunding documents released two weeks later.

In response to a request for comment, Treasury pointed to economic growth projections and a fraud elimination task force announced in March. The GAO has estimated the federal government loses between $233 billion and $521 billion annually to fraud, based on data for fiscal years 2018 through 2022, a fraction of the projected $2 trillion deficit.

Rod's Comment: 
This is alarming and unsustainable. Also, keep in mind that the Social Security Trust Fund will be out of money in 2032. Congress will not allow benefits to be cut to 77% of their current level and will most likely fund the SS deficit from the general fund, leading to even more deficit spending. Also, while America is still the world's reserve currency and people still want our debt, there are signs that that position is weakening. The U.S. government is increasingly relying on short-term debt instruments to fund our massive budget deficits, rather than issuing a balanced mix of long-term bonds.  Donald Trump has increased deficit spending and grown the national debt. Unfortunately, if Democrats take back the reins of government, I do not expect them to do a better job. I am gloomy about America's future prospects. I don't expect future generations to have it as good as we have it. We are rolling downhill like a snowball headed for hell. 

Top Stories

Poll Shows Marsha Blackburn with Wide Lead in Governor's Race

The Beacon Center, May 8, 2026- Today, we released the latest installment of the Beacon Poll, a statewide survey of 1,200 Tennessee voters featuring questions about voters’ views on energy sources and production in Tennessee, the condition of roads and what revenue sources could be used to improve them, and political approval ratings at the state and federal level.

As the gubernatorial primaries draw near, Marsha Blackburn continues to expand her already commanding lead in the Republican primary. Blackburn now garners 63% of the vote, up from 56% in January, giving her a 53-point lead over Congressman John Rose (10%) and a 58-point lead over state Rep. Monty Fritts (5%).

On the Democratic side, the most popular candidate by far is “Not Sure” at 62%, leaving the field wide open. Jerri Green has a slight edge over the rest of the field at 14%, followed closely by Kevin Lee McCants (11%) and Carnita Atwater (8%). While Green currently has only a 3-point lead, she is nearly a 90% favorite to win the primary, according to Polymarket.

In this year’s first hypothetical general election matchup for governor, with the candidates chosen based on current Polymarket odds, Senator Blackburn opens with a massive 24-point lead on Democratic frontrunner Jerri Green.

Top Stories

‘An Existential Crisis’: Residents Pay for Nashville Boom, Says Financial Times

by Rod Williams, May 6, 2026 - The Financial Times has published an article addressing the rising cost of living in Nashville, focusing on rising property taxes. The article is behind a paywall and reading it is not worth the hassle of registering in order to get your one free article. For any informed Nashvillian, the article does not tell you anything you don't already know. It is the fact that it is in the Financial Times and the story will reach a wider audience that is newsworthy, not what the article says.

To summarize the piece, property taxes have increased substantially, and some locals are being priced out of the city. A lot of people who live here could not afford to buy here if they did not already own their own home. Local businesses as well as residents are being hit. Unfortunately, the article implies that the problem is not a bloated city government, but that we do not have an income tax. The politician they chose to feature in addressing the issue of Nashville's affordability is woke socialist Rep. Aftyn Behn.

Here is an excerpt:

‘An Existential Crisis’: Residents Pay for Nashville Boom

Claire Jones in Nashville and Ian Hodgson in Washington, Financial Times, Published May 4 2026 -After a long career in show business, Tom Morales was looking forward to leaving Acme Feed & Seed, his Nashville music venue, to his children. But a letter from the city last October changed everything.

Morales’s property taxes had jumped from $129,000 a year to $589,000. “You just open up the envelope and say, ‘What? This can’t be right,’” said Morales. “Having a business you can give to your kids is something you dream about. I was like, ‘Oh my God, I’ve just ruined their lives.’”

“We were thinking it would go up 30, 40 per cent; I could never have imagined it was going to go up 380 or 400 per cent,” added his daughter, Lauren.

Morales is not alone. Nashville has transformed over the past decade as big business and new residents moved in, lured by Tennessee’s zero income tax rate and a booming tourism economy. (read more)

Top Stories

Ex-Trump lawyer claims religious freedom only applies to Christians

Mark Rogers

by Mark Rogers, Facebook, May 5, 2026 - For those who foolishly think 'Christian Nationalism' is a liberal myth, here is a prominent Republican media figure named Jenna Ellis who worked in the White House. She is promoting the incredibly unconstitutional (and even more un-American) idea that religious freedom in America only applies to Christians. 

The fact that the Framers didn't specify such an idea should have been more than enough for Ms. Ellis. Her classes in American History in Jr. High and High School, and in college should have educated her. Her class in Constitutional Law should have tipped her off to the stupidity of this position.

But... NO. Here she is endorsing the sort of hateful stupidity that Western Civilization has sought to put behind us since the end of the Wars of Religion in the 17th Century. For 400 years, America and other nations have worked to build pluralistic societies based on Western Ideas. This sort of madness is aimed at reversing that progress. 

It would be comforting to think Ms. Ellis was only a freakish outlier, but, sadly, that is not true. More and more we see calls for giving preference to Christianity in law and even enacting laws based on extremist interpretations of Christian Scripture. 

And denying equal rights to practitioners of Islam and Hinduism and Buddhism won't be the end. What is to stop these ayatollahs from deciding that Mormonism isn't 'Christian?', or Christian Science? Or Methodism? 

People spreading hateful nonsense like this need to be confronted. In today's hyper-partisan America, extremist ideas have a bad habit of finding promoters among con men and cynical opportunists and not bright people who like simple, if really bad, ideas. And then they start spreading... like cancer. Best to introduce the chemo of Truth before they metastasize.

Mark Rogers has long been active in Republican Party politics and is an astute observer of political trends and events and Republican politics.  He is well known as a successful Republican campaign manager and political consultant. He has also served in government and the non-profit sector. He is currently exiled from the Republican Party. He lives in Nashville.

 

Top Stories

Metro Nashville Public Schools Superintendent Spent $20k for luxury travel Over Two Years.

 

WSMV, May 4, 2026 - MNPS Superintendent Dr. Adrienne Battle spent $19,293 on travel over the past two years, including a $700 dinner for her and staff and hotel rooms at luxury properties, according to receipts on her district credit card.

Battle’s travel spending vastly outpaced her superintendent peers in Tennessee. Memphis Shelby County Schools’ superintendent spent $721 on travel in the same time period. Williamson County’s superintendent spent $8,120.95. Sumner County’s superintendent spent $1,021.38. Rutherford and Wilson County superintendents spent zero on travel.

The examination of Battle’s spending follows a $6.5 million lawsuit settlement and a $165,000 office suite remodel.

Top Stories

A Republic is a Form of Democracy

by Rod Williams, May 4, 2026 - In Facebook exchanges with idiots or sometimes in face-to-face exchanges with them, I will say something like Trump is a threat to our democracy or we must defend democracy and the person I am talking to will say, "We're not a democracy; we are a republic."  

It is exasperating. There is no use even trying to engage such idiots. I try to explain that a republic is a form of democracy, but I think it goes over their head.  Sometimes, to preempt the retort, I will say, "Trump is a threat to our republican form of democracy," but that should not be necessary.  A republic is a form of democracy. America is a democracy.

Top Stories

 

Top Stories

Housing First is a Failure

by Rod Williams, May 2, 2026- When I was first elected to the Metro Council, way back in 1980, homelessness was becoming an issue of increasing local concern in Nashville. We have always had some level of homelessness, but at that time, it was becoming more visible and increasing.

I was appointed, along with Councilman Ludye Wallace, to co-chair a special committee on homelessness. We held hearings and made fact-finding visits to the various agencies that assisted the homeless. I learned a lot and developed a deep admiration for those who work in the field of addressing the issue and serving Nashville's homeless.  

The committee made a set of recommendations, but quite frankly, I do not recall what most of them were. One of the recommendations was to create a local agency to serve the homeless, which the city did. The mission of the agency was to connect the homeless with the services that could serve them.  

Some other findings of our committee were that enforcement of zoning ordinances prohibiting the subdividing of large homes into multiple small living units, and the closing of "flop houses" that rented rooms by the night in areas where such rentals were not permitted, may have been a contributing factor to growing homelessness. I am not sure we had any recommendation on this, but it was a finding, I believe. 

Another finding was that there were no shortages of places where a homeless person could get a meal. In fact, there was a lot of duplication in feeding the homeless, but there was a shortage of housing and other services.  Another observation was that the Nashville Rescue Mission was the largest provider of shelter for the homeless, but that even when beds were available, many of the homeless would not avail themselves of the services of that agency because of safety concerns and some of the rules of the organization, which some of the homeless did not want to follow. We also found there was a shortage of places for families or women, and almost no place that would accept a homeless person who had a dog, which some homeless people did. 

At the time of our investigation, I believe the homeless population was 1500, counted as those in shelters or on the street. Of course, this does not count those who are temporarily living with families or couch surfing. Now the population of the homeless is 2180. While that is a significant increase, if you compare the size of Nashville then to now, that is not that much of an increase.

During this period of investigation, I volunteered for a couple of nights with the Room in the Inn program and met and talked to the homeless. One thing I learned is that the reasons for homelessness and how one becomes homeless vary considerably. As one might expect, mental illness and drug and alcohol abuse are contributing factors to homelessness, but not all homeless people fit those categories. 

Another thing I learned from involvement in the work of the committee was that the homeless are often not the same group of people from one time to the next time.  Some people will fall into homelessness and then their fortunes will change, or they will get their act together and stop being homeless, but then, after a while of being housed, may fall into homelessness again. Another observation is that some of the homeless move around a lot. They may have been homeless in some other city before moving to Nashville. So, the 2200 or so people on the streets in Nashville this year are not all of the same people who were homeless last year. 

After my service in the Council, I became the Director of Housing Services for a non-profit organization here in Nashville. In that position, I did not work directly with the community serving the homeless but often interacted with people in that field and would attend meetings where homelessness was part of the conversation. I remained informed of what was happening in the field of homeless services. 

Along about 1990's and continuing up until the present, more and more homeless advocates promote a concept called "Housing First." This is the idea that, instead of requiring people to qualify for assistance, such as getting off drugs or enrolling in a treatment program, that permanent supportive housing be provided regardless of the person's circumstances. 

I was always skeptical of the concept. If one is given housing with no conditions, it seems to me that that would create more homelessness. In the article below from The Independent Institute, the record of the policy of Housing First is examined and deemed a failure.  

Housing First is an Evidence-Based Failure

By Christopher J. Calton, The Independent Institute, December 5, 2025- “Housing First is an evidence-based solution to homelessness!”

This refrain is repeated ad nauseum in homelessness circles. The pronouncement has begun to resemble a religious creed—a ritualistic profession of devotion to prevailing homelessness policy, and true believers will not have their faith shaken by empirical observation to the contrary.

Those who are more agnostic toward homelessness policy, however, might reasonably express disbelief at the claim that Housing First is an evidence-based solution. Before Housing First became federal policy in 2013, homelessness was steadily declining, even during the Great Recession, and continued to fall modestly until in 2016. Since then, however, homelessness has ballooned by 42 percent, even as homelessness spending has skyrocketed.

What, then, explains the unwavering belief among Housing First evangelicals that their solution to homelessness is “evidence-based”?

The alleged success of Housing First does not come from aggregated homelessness data, but from case studies of different homelessness programs. The Clinton-era strategy for addressing homelessness was a treatment-oriented approach known as “Housing Readiness,” which used housing as an incentive for clients to participate in services, such as substance-abuse treatment and work training programs, with the goal of helping them achieve self-sufficiency.

Housing First took a different approach, making services optional and offering people permanently subsidized housing, with the more modest goal of “housing stability.” The original experiments focused on chronically homeless individuals who suffered from a severe mental illness—people for whom self-sufficiency would likely be impossible.

By redefining the measure of success from “self-sufficiency” to “housing stability,” the engineers of Housing First were able to claim resounding victories over the older approach. Their earth-shattering discovery was that housing stability is greater when housing is subsidized than when it is not subsidized. But, crucially, these successes are confined to the people who are accepted into the program, not the homeless population overall.

Under Housing Readiness programs, roughly one-third of participants remained stably housed, but they also lived independently. This means that when they exited the program, the resources they benefited from could be directed to others.

The primary focus of Housing First, by contrast, is “permanent-supportive housing,” which essentially makes people lifelong wards of the state. The subsidies that sustain them continue to draw from homelessness budgets, leaving fewer resources available for people who are still on the streets.

In other words, Housing First may achieve greater housing stability for the lucky few who get accepted, but Housing Readiness programs were able to serve a much larger population at significantly lower cost.

The problem is exacerbated by Housing First’s emphasis on the chronically homeless. One pillar of Housing First is the mandate that service providers prioritize the most severe cases, which sounds great in theory but works horribly in practice. Because of the scarcity of permanent-supportive housing, outreach workers administer “vulnerability assessment tests” to see who should qualify for placement. Those who have recently fallen into homelessness and, with temporary support, have the greatest chance of achieving self-sufficiency are typically deemed insufficiently vulnerable. Unworthy of assistance, they are often neglected until their condition deteriorates and their homelessness becomes chronic.

The ironic result is that chronic homelessness has grown at an even faster pace than overall homelessness, having doubled since 2016. As economists David Lucas and Christopher Boudreaux explain, “the raw data make clear that chronic homelessness proved not to be the ‘golden goose’ of the evidence-based policy as had been anticipated, but rather the ‘canary in the coal mine’—indicative of a profound disconnect between the intentions and outcomes of this state-led mission.”

Housing First is designed to keep people in the system, rather than shepherding them out of it. This has created the mechanism by which both homelessness and homelessness spending continuously grow—a handful of beneficiaries monopolize available resources while the bulk of the homeless population is left wanting.

After more than a decade of Housing First as federal policy, it is time to admit that this so-called “evidence-based solution” has been an unambiguous disaster.

Top Stories

 

Top Stories

Tennessee Gets a Lot of Bang for the Buck in Education Spending

 

by Rod Williams, April 29, 2026 - A report has been released by the National Education Association calculating how much each state and the District of Columbia spends on public education. The Tennessean reports it this way: "Tennessee ranks dead last in student spending, report shows."

Here is an excerpt from the Tennessean article:

Tennessee spent $12,147 per student during the 2024-25 school year, according to a report released by the National Education Association on April 10. The number is based upon spending across the average daily attendance numbers in Tennessee schools.

That puts Tennessee at No. 51 on the list, which includes all 50 states and the District of Columbia, and marks a three-place drop from the previous year. By comparison, the national average was $18,826. The District of Columbia topped the list at $34,579, which had a razor-thin lead over New York at $34,577.

The article then quotes some Democratic politicians lamenting the fact, such as the following: 

Tennessee just hit rock bottom — dead last in the country for what we spend on our public school students," Lamar said in an April 28 news release. "While Gov. Lee and Republicans were busy shoveling hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars into their private school voucher scam, they left nearly a million kids in Tennessee's public schools with less funding per student than anywhere else in the nation. This isn't an accident — it's a choice. And Tennessee families are paying the price."

The article does quote a Tennessee Department of Education official saying, "While per-pupil spending is a significant factor, research and experience show that increased funding alone does not always translate to improved outcomes. Instead of assuming that higher spending always leads to better performance, we prioritize evidence-based investments designed to support student achievement."

I am pleased to see the Tennessean offer this side of the story. Other news outlets made no attempt to provide a rebuttal to those who awfulize that we are not spending more. Instead of being something to lament, I think that the fact that we do much better with less should be something to celebrate.

Look at the graphic from a U.S News and World Report at the top of this page. In pre-K - 12th grade, Tennessee is ranked the 18th best state in the nation. If you look at Wallet Hub's ranking, for "quality ranking," Tennessee ranks 14th in education quality. 

Now take a look at the top spender in the nation, Washington D.C. U.S News and World Report does not rank Washington D.C, but Wallet Hub gives it a quality ranking of 21. So Tennessee spends only 35% of what Washington D.C spends and yet our performance is ranked seven points better. We rank 14th best and Washington D.C ranks 21st best. 

I do not think this report from the NEA is something to lament, but instead something to celebrate. 

Top Stories

Charlie Hatcher, Candidate Challenging Andy Ogles for TN-05 Seat, to Address Bellevue Breakfast Club Gathering, May 2nd.

 From Lonnie Spevak:

Dr. Charlie Hatcher

Greetings Breakfast Club Members,

Please join us for the next Bellevue Breakfast Club gathering on Saturday, May 2 at 8:30 a.m. at Plantation Pub.

We’re pleased to welcome Dr. Charlie Hatcher, former Tennessee Commissioner of Agriculture and candidate for Congress in TN 5, as our featured speaker.

Dr. Hatcher served as Tennessee’s 38th Commissioner of Agriculture from 2019 to 2025, appointed by Governor Bill Lee. With more than 20 years in veterinary practice and a decade as Tennessee’s State Veterinarian, he brings deep expertise in animal health, agriculture policy, and leadership at both the state and national levels. His service includes leadership roles with the American Association of Bovine Practitioners, the United States Animal Health Association, and the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture.

A fifth-generation Tennessean and tenth-generation American farmer, Dr. Hatcher and his family operate a seventh-generation dairy farm in College Grove dating back to 1847. Their operations—including Hatcher Family Dairy, Rock-N-Country Veterinary Services, and Battle Mountain Farm—are recognized across the region for excellence in dairy production and agritourism.

Dr. Hatcher currently brings his experience and perspective to the public arena as a candidate for Congress in Tennessee’s 5th District.

This will be a great opportunity to hear firsthand insights on agriculture, leadership, and the future of our region.

We hope to see you there.

Best regards,

Lonnie

Top Stories