I Spoke too Soon. The Democrats Still Don't Get it.

May 2, 2025

by Rod Williams, May 3, 2025- Back in March, I posted Could it be that the Democratic Party is Becoming Normal Again. I observed that the Davidson County Democrat Party had stopped tagging the signature line of letters with the writers preferred pronoun. This made me think that maybe there were scaling back the identity politics and culture war stuff and going to be more normal. 

I spoke too soon. I received a communication from the DCDP yesterday and the chair of the Party again tagged himself as a "he, him, his." This is too bad. With Trumpism a threat to our Democracy, one would think the Democrat Party would want to be a serious responsible center-left party. No, they would prefer to be the silly party.

There are a lot of reasons Trump won the election, but I contend that a major reason is because the Democrats cannot be taken seriously. With a demagogue like Trump, who had already once attempted a coup, heading the ticket it seems like a Democrat victory should have been a slam dunk.  However, people don't like Democrats. They engage in too much virtue signaling and look down their elitist noses at normal people. They are not relatable. While we did not have to view a lot of campaign commercials here in Tennessee, in the battleground states one of the commercials considered the most influential was a Republican commercial that said, "She is for 'they-them'; he is for you."

Many Democrats just don't get it. They think they lost the recent election because America is a misogynist racist county, and they don't need to make any changes. They think identity politics and self-righteous virtue signaling is still a winning formula. Fortunately, Democrats are doing a lot of soul searching and there are a lot of sane voices within the Party and liberal-leaning pundits who are recognizing that the Party has been captured by the cultural left-wing fringe and that Dems have a problem. I have seen people like Fareed Zacaria and James Carvel and a bunch of others say the party should step back from fringe identity politics and make a more centrist appeal. 

It could go either way. I think we need a center-right party in America and a center-left party. What we have are two parties captured by the irrational and most extreme elements of the fringe. 

Top Stories

If Other Governments Do It, Why Shouldn’t We?

by Lawrence W. Reed, Foundation for Economic Education, April 29, 2025- “If tariffs are so bad for an economy,” asks a popular meme making the rounds these days, “then why do 170 countries have tariffs on American goods?”

Implicit in the question is a dubious assumption, namely, that the governments of those 170 countries would never do anything that didn’t make good sense for their people.

Are you kidding me?

Sometimes, government officials consult the best and most objective experts, carefully weigh the evidence in the scales of justice, and then thoughtfully and magnanimously do the right thing for everybody. They may even ask the Almighty for guidance along the way. I just can’t remember the last time they conducted their business in this fashion.

Government officials usually slop some grease on the squeaky wheel and accept a little campaign grease in return. Bismarck warned us more than a century ago, “To retain respect for sausages and laws, one must not watch them in the making.”

Who do you suppose lobbied those 170 governments for tariffs against American goods? I can assure you that it wasn’t “the masses.”

Public choice economists explain this in terms of “regulatory capture,” when politically connected industries steer policy to serve themselves. The costs are spread thin across millions of people, while the benefits land on the few who lobbied for them. As the late Murray Rothbard put it, if you want to know who pushed for something, just ask, Cui bono?

In a recent year, the European Union as a bloc tariffed US wine at about twice the rate per bottle than the US taxed imports of European wines. This means consumers on both sides of the Atlantic are paying more for wine than they would if there were no tariffs at all.

As an average wine drinker, I bristle at the thought, but I don’t imbibe enough to make it worth my time to write my congressman a letter, let alone buy a plane ticket to Washington to accost him in person.

Likewise in Europe, who do you think hires the lobbyists in Brussels? The winemakers, not the consumers.

So stop with the “lots of governments do it, so it must be good” nonsense. When the politicians in those 170 countries deprive their people of products from America or force them to pay more for them through tariffs, they’re doing them no favors.

They’re doing the bidding of the politically well-connected at the expense of everybody else. The same is likely true when we in America slap tariffs on foreigners. It’s as if producers in both regions (the real beneficiaries of tariffs) are shooting at their competition, and customers are caught in the crossfire.

Most governments of the world tax and spend too much and waste a lot of money. That’s no reason to copy them. Most are up to their collective necks in debt too, which is nothing to envy. Most governments also run lousy public schools when they could get twice the education at half the price if they relied instead on the private sector.

Few things that governments do are models of excellence, efficiency, or plain common sense. If other governments are doing it, that might be a good argument for us not to.

Top Stories

Higher Property Taxes Increase the COST of housing for Everyone

 

Top Stories

Donald Trump must be the first president in history to say that his policies will deprive American children of toys.

 We Need Cheap Stuff, and Lots of It

By Rich Lowry, National Review, May 2, 2025 - He said of goods from China that might go missing: “Much of it we don’t need.”

Then, he elaborated the point: “Well, maybe the children will have two dolls instead of 30 dolls, you know? And maybe the two dolls will cost a couple of bucks more than they would normally.”

At that moment, Trump surely made history. He must be the first president in history to say that his policies will deprive American children of toys. The American Girl Disney Princess Cinderella Doll may be collateral damage in a trade war that is supposed to reduce our strategic dependence on China.

What Trump was ultimately dismissing is abundance, which is one of the marvels of our system. Fewer choices at a greater cost — whether of dolls or other goods — simply means a lower standard of living. (read more)

Top Stories

Don't Freakout Over the Recent Property Reappraisal. It Does Not Raise Your Taxes. However, It is an Opportunity for the Politicians to Raise Your Taxes.

by Rod Williams, May 1, 2025- Property owners in Nashville have received their property reappraisal notices and many are freaking out. Nashville property values skyrocketed 45% in the latest assessment. That, however, does not necessarily mean your property taxes will go up. 

When there is a mass reappraisal, because of Tennessee’s “revenue neutral” property tax requirement, the new reappraisal cannot bring in more revenue than the county received before the reappraisal. Nashville’s total tax revenue must remain the same. So, following the reappraisal, the Metro Council must adopt a new tax rate, called the "certified tax rate." This rate can bring in no more tax revenue than the rate prior to the reappraisal. 

So, if your reappraised value is no more than 45% above the old appraisal, your tax bill should not increase. Some parts of town would realize a tax decrease because some areas increased in value less than the average increase of 45%. If your individual piece of property ends up being taxed more, it could be due to your property appreciating in value more than the average increase in value. That is equalization.

The purpose of a reappraisal is not to bring in more revenue. The purpose is equalization. If someone's property doubled in value and someone else's went up by only 25%, then the reappraisal is to ensure that both property owners pay a property tax reflective of the value of their property. 

What to be aware of is that politicians often use the reappraisal as an opportunity to slip in a tax increase. Often in the year of the reappraisal, the Council will pass the mandated certified tax rate, then the very next item on the agenda is to raise that rate.  So, while the new rate is lower than the rate in effect prior to the reappraisal, it is higher than the certified rate. 

It appears that O'Connell does intend to do what I have described above; proposed a rate lower than the current tax rate, but higher than the certified tax rate. If we end up with a property tax increase it is not the result of the reappraisal but the result of Mayor O'Connell and the Metro Council. 

Top Stories

Trying to be Self-sufficient in Agricultural Products is a Dumb Idea. It will not Help Our Farmers.

by Rod Williams, April 6, 2025- It is amazing the amount of false information one sees on social media these days. It has always been bad, but it seems to me to be getting worse. 

In addition to the information that is simply false, there is a lot as opinions that are uninformed opinions or based on faulty logic. One is the meme to the right, that has been in my Facebook feed a lot recently.

First of all, the U.S. exports a wide range of agricultural products, with soybeans, corn, beef, pork, poultry, and dairy products being among the top exports. We also export a significant amount of wheat, fruits, tree nuts, cotton, and various processed food items. Does the poster of this meme, also want foreign nations to stop buying U. S. exports?

If the U. S. prohibits the sale of food grown in other countries; other counties will prohibit the sale of American products in their countries. This would be a big deal. The U.S exports a lot of agricultural products. If each nations tries to be self-sufficient our farmers will be worse off, not better.

Secondly, I will miss bananas of avocadoes and a lot of other foods. I will miss fresh vegetables in winter. I guess the posters of this meme enjoys a bland diet.

Thirdly, I wonder if the poster of such meme's has ever heard of the law of comparative advantage. In simply terms, the law of comparative advantage says even if we can produce something cheaper than another country, it would still be in our best interest to specialize in the things we are best at and not try to do everything. 

 

Top Stories

Did J. D. Vance Kill the Pope?

by Rod Williams, April 26, 2025- Now, I'm not alleging J. D Vance killed the pope. As Tucker Carlson would say, I'm simply asking questions. 

While on a trip to Italy last week with his family, Vice President Vance visited with Pope Francis. In fact, he was one of the last officials to meet with Pope Francis prior to his death. 

I am not Catholic and don't spend a lot of time following what happens in the Catholic church but as a casual observer it seems to me that Pope Francis was a pretty liberal pope. The last two popes prior to Pope Francis had turned away from and denounced "liberation theology." While not exactly embracing it, Pope Francis was much more friendly to it. 

Pope Francis also often criticized the Trump policy toward immigration but without mentioning Trump by name. He was also tolerant of homosexuality.  

J. D. Vance was raised as an evangelical and converted to Catholicism in 2019 when he was 35-year-old. He was drawn to the church teachings on family and social order and its desire to instill virtue in modern society. Could J. D. Vance have held resentment toward the pope for moving the Church away from these core values that led to Vance's conversion. Could he have been angry at the Pope for attempted to derail the Trump agenda? Just asking. 

While I am not endorsing a theory that suggest J. D. Vance killed the pope, if one did advance such a theory it would seem to be as plausible as other popular conspiracy theories.  Surely this theory has as much to recommend it as Chemtrails, as 9-11-was-an-inside-job, as the moon landing was faked, as the CIA killed Kennedy, as the government bombed the levees and caused the flooding or New Orleans, or that the 2020 election was stolen. 

If anyone can make a case that the 2020 election was stolen, surely, they can make the case that J.D. Vance killed the pope.

Top Stories

Densification On the Ropes in Woodbine

by MEGAN PODSIEDLIK, The Pamphleteer, April 28, 2025 -Last Thursday, the Metro Planning Commission rejected Councilmember Ginny Welsch’s blanket rezoning bills, including all substitute amendments. In spite of the backlash Welsch has received from constituents over her robust upzoning proposals, she told the Metro Planning Commission that this plan is actually a scaled-back version of what she originally intended to introduce.

The bills have been presented as an affordable housing solution focused on increasing density, an offshoot of proposals suggested by NEST supporters last year. As before, the pushback against such initiatives has taken on a life of its own, and the Commission’s decision to vote down Welsch’s legislation received applause from those in attendance at last week’s meeting.

Before the public comment period, Councilmember Welsch shared that she spent a year researching Woodbine’s zoning history, and made the decision to introduce the legislation after recognizing that “the entire district was down-zoned from R zoning to RS zoning in 2003”—something she claims has hindered growth in the area. She also said that her proposed Urban Design Overlay “encourages middle class housing by allowing more units on a lot, decreasing the building height, and limiting the square footage of multi-family units,” but would withdraw her UDO if Planning releases new bulk standards for RM-20 and RM-40 zoning “that encourage context-sensitive, middle-scale housing” in June. 

Those in support of the legislation were invited to speak first. Recognizing she was among the minority in the room, McKenzie Beaver of Woodbine stepped up to the mic. She stated that she believes the changes would encourage positive development in the areas where there are “a large number of vacant homes, which are often occupied by squatters,” and informed the Commission of “sketchy stores,” safety issues, and used needles discarded in the streets.

“Woodbine consists of small homes on relatively large lots, which is something that cannot be sustained long-term in a city like Nashville,” continued Beaver. “I would rather have more input into how our neighborhood evolves, rather than fight it and regret the inevitable changes that will eventually come regardless, or be left out of Nashville's growth altogether.”

Residents in opposition to the legislation showed up in full force. While many agreed that the area needs thoughtful change, the majority were turned off by Welsch's one-size-fits-all plan. Instead of feeling as though they’ve been presented with a reasonable solution, several speakers felt disrespected by the proposal and the process.

​​”I received a Planning Commission notice…five days before the first community meeting happened,” said Mitch Miller of Glencliff. “The community meeting was held on a holiday, had standing-room only flowing out the back door, there was no parking available—I had to park illegally to attend—[and] residents were told they were not allowed to ask questions on site. A week later, I'm here.” Miller went on to categorize the zoning proposals as “too sweeping of a change to delve out in one blow.”

Councilmember Welsch followed up the public hearing by assuring everyone her plan “doesn't force change.” Instead, “it gives long-time homeowners options to add a small unit for family, to downsize and stay in the neighborhood, or to use their land in new ways that reflect the community values, or to do nothing.” She emphasized that “you can keep your backyard,” and stated multiple times that her proposal—“modeled, basically, on Portland”—isn’t radical.

Planning Commission Vice Chair Jessica Farr, who has personal ties to Woodbine having helped with homeowner education and free tax assistance in the area, supported Councilmember Welsch’s intentions, but disagreed with her approach.

“I don't see protections here that work, that would address the concerns of gentrification,” she said. “I know the UDO will have some impact on design, but it's not going to keep housing affordable and it's not going to keep opportunities there for people who are currently living in that neighborhood.” Farr also stated that, in her 11 years on the Commission, she has never seen a room so full of people opposed to a proposal.

During the Commission meeting, Councilmember Welsch informed the body that another community event was scheduled for this week, though the Metro Calendar reflects that her May 1 meeting has been canceled. 

Top Stories

Property Tax Protest, May 1, 2025

 From The Davidson County Republican Party:

We are going to show up at the 62nd Annual State of Metro address, to be given by Mayor Freddie O'Connell, and be a visible opposition for his plan to increase property taxes. We need people to help create signs that say "NO NEW TAXES" and help distribute them to volunteers. If you can help with transportation, organizing carpools from a nearby parking lot, anything helps.

Everything we do to put pressure on the Mayor will encourage him to keep the property tax increase lower than expected is a win for us. Help us get organized! (link)

Top Stories

Dave Chappelle : Stop giving us Chinese jobs, I want to wear Nikes … not make them!

Top Stories

Do Most Americans Really Want to Work in a Factory or Aspire for their Kid to Work in a Factory?

 

by Scott Lincicome, The Dispatch, April 30, 2025-  A longstanding goal of American politicians on the left and the right—including and especially the last two U.S. presidents—is to boost not just American manufacturing but American manufacturing jobs. Just yesterday, in fact, President Donald Trump celebrated his first 100 days at a Michigan community college, where he praised his tariffs and claimed to be “taking back our jobs and protecting our great American auto workers.” And almost every time the president or anyone else in his orbit defends current U.S. trade policy in the media, they’ll cite factory jobs—particularly those for high-school educated Americans—as a primary and clearly necessary aim.

The Trump folks certainly aren’t alone. Central to most economic nationalists’ support for blanket tariffs, industrial subsidies, and related government policies is that a dramatic increase in the number of Americans working in manufacturing—a return to days when industrial workers were 20 or even 30 percent of the workforce as opposed to the roughly 8 percent today—would be both feasible and desirable for both the workers and the nation. Implement a giant tariff wall, so these theories go, and you’ll have millions of Americans lined up for shifts at now-busy U.S. factories across the country, and the country will prosper as a result.

In reality, however, there are many reasons to doubt that many millions of Americans—you’d need to add roughly 20 million new factory workers to our current 13 million to get to 20 percent of the US workforce in manufacturing—are itching to work in a factory, that the jobs they filled would necessarily be good ones, or that such an increase would even be possible today, especially via trade policy. 

... In general, U.S. manufacturing is a sector in need of more workers, not one in need of more jobs. ... Then there are wages, where American manufacturing jobs’ premium over services jobs disappeared years ago. In 2023 and 2024, in fact, hourly earnings for blue collar (aka “production and nonsupervisory”) workers in manufacturing paid significantly less on average than the same workers got paid in the services sector: ...Many “worked really hard to send their kids to school so that they wouldn’t have to work in the factories anymore,” ... High-enough tariffs might be able to reshore labor intensive industries like textiles (at a massive cost, of course), but—because there’s no vast surplus of available, eager labor—doing so would inevitably come from shifting finite resources away from the higher-value activities in which our workforce specializes today.  (read more)

Top Stories

Did Amazon Fold? Will Not Show Tariffs Contribution to Prices

by Rod Williams, April 30, 2025- It sure didn't take Amazon long to fold. After an initial report that Amazon was going to post the amount that tariffs contribute to the cost of an item on things they sell, the White House lashed out at Amazon and said if they did, it would be considered a "hostile and political act." That was day before yesterday. 

Yesterday according to a report by CNN, Trump called Amazon founder Jeff Bezos to complain about the rumored plan. Amazon put out a statement that same day saying "The team that runs our ultra low-cost Amazon Haul store considered the idea of listing import charges on certain products. This was never approved and is not going to happen."

So, did Amazon fold or was it all a big misunderstanding? I don't know but it looks like folding to me. I hope others will take Amazon's plan and run with it. 

If people who know better were not such cowards, Trump could not get away with what it does. Republican politician, Universities, Law firms, and the media are all bending to Trumps will. When the government is so powerful that it can cause you severe pain, if you do not bend and when we have a ruthless strong man intend on making people bend to his will, it takes courage to resist. 

If we do not resist, then our country will slide further and further into authoritarianism. In ways big and small, we all need to resist. Admittedly, this is difficult. I will not march under the banner of left-wingers like Bernie Sanders and AOC. I will speak out however, contribute funds to reasonable responsible organizations pushing back against Trump, and subscribe to journals, and podcast that oppose Trump's authoritarianism.  I may march against Trump when it is not assumed to be a march for wokeness and socialism. 

The one thing that gives me hope is Trump's slipping poll numbers. If his popularity hits about 35% or maybe as low as 42% or so, I suspect Republican politicians will grow a pair. I suspect CBS will support journalistic integrity for 60 minuets. I suspect Amazon will not be afraid to post the amount of the price of an item is attributable to tariffs. 

We need to do more than hope that Trump's approval numbers continue to drop, we need to help make it happen. Amazon posting the portion of the price of an item attributable to tariffs would have helped make it happen. 

Top Stories

Amazon to List Tariff Contribution to Price of Individual Products. White House Calls this a 'Hostile and Political Act

by Rod Williams, April 29, 2029- Just yesterday, I was thinking that retailers should push back against the tariffs by itemizing on receipts something like, "portion of bill due to tariffs." I was thinking it should be at Kroger's, at Walmart, at bars and restaurants. I would hope every retailer would do it and it would become the norm. 

One limitation of such a program is that domestically produced products also increase in price due to the impact of tariffs and that is more difficult to calculate and is in flux, but showing the direct cost of tariffs to the consumer for imported products should not be that difficult to show. It could not only be on the receipt but a statement on the package could say something like, "$1.09 of the retail price of this product is due to tariffs."  When ordering online, the statement could be shown on the screen when viewing the product.

I opened my computer this morning and one of the first things I saw was this: Amazon listing tariff prices is a 'hostile and political act,' White House says.  YES! 

Here is more from the news account:

The White House on Tuesday slammed Amazon's reported plans to list the costs of President Donald Trump's tariffs next to the total prices of products, signaling an emerging clash between the online retailer's founder, Jeff Bezos, and Trump.

"I just got off the phone with the president about the Amazon announcement. This is a hostile and political act by Amazon," White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said at an April 29 briefing with reporters.

The article goes on to report of Trump's whine that, Amazon didn't do this due to Biden's inflation and that Amazon is in bed with a Chinees propaganda arm.  

This is significant, I think. You may recall that Jeff Bezos founder, executive chairman, and former president and CEO of Amazon cozied up to Trump during the campaign. Bezos also owns The Washington Post, the legendary, legacy, liberal newspaper. Under normal circumstances the WP would have endorsed the Democrat candidate even if a normal Republican was the nominee; with Trump the nominee there is no doubt that had the editorial board been allowed to operate independently, they would have endorsed Kamala Harris. Bezos kept that from happening.

Everyone who knows anything about economics and who is not somehow blinded by the allure of Trump, knows tariffs and a trade war is a really terrible idea. Some Trump supporters are simply ignorant of economics and have faith in Trump; others who know better are either intimidated or have something to gain from going along with whatever Trump wants. It looks like Jeff Bezos is not going to pretend anymore that Trump tariff policies are cost-free.

I hope Amazon follows through and I hope everyone else follows suit. For Amazon to take this step is a bold move. The Trump administration has shown they will intimidate and selectively use the power of government to coerce their critics to bend to their will. In many ways the Trump administration resembles a mafia crime family and is the way governments operate in many nations without a democratic tradition and the rule of law. The Trump administration could threaten to declare Amazon a monopoly and break it up. There are labor laws and various other regulatory levers of power the administration could use to break Amazon's will to follow through. 

While Trump could intimidate Amazon to fold, I sense that we are at a turning point where we are going to see meaningful pushback against Trump.  Harvard did not fold. Maybe Amazon won't fold.  I think we are about to see someone say, "the emperor has not clothes." We might be starting to see, the Trump house of cards collapse. 

Top Stories

What ‘Buying American’ Really Means

By David M. Drucker, The Dispatch, April 28, 2025 - There’s this great scene in the 1984 film Moscow on the Hudson. The late actor Robin Williams’ character, a Russian musician who defected from the Soviet Union, is shopping in an American grocery store for the first time and, overwhelmed by the several coffee brands to choose from on the shelves, nearly has a nervous breakdown.

As a 13-year-old watching this flick at the height of the Cold War, I found this amusing, but was more struck by the defection scene itself, which is punctuated by a police officer telling the Soviet handlers trying to stop Williams: “This is New York City, the man can do whatever he wants.” That line, to me, was the essence of American freedom and what differentiated the United States from the USSR. But I’ve been thinking about this movie, and the grocery store scene, anew lately amid President Donald Trump slapping tariffs on virtually all foreign commodities and products imported from nearly every country on earth.

That Americans can purchase the product of their choice among countless available domestic and foreign brands is a quintessential part of living in a free society. 

... many economists warn that not only will the president’s liberal use of tariffs fail to deliver the economic miracle he promises, the result will yield fewer consumer choices. ... Americans will have less freedom to buy the products they prefer. ... “Now we’re told that you can’t buy French wine even if they want to sell it to you because the common good is going to force you to buy a wine you want less in the United States,”... Seventy-five percent of the world’s GDP is produced outside of the United States. ... some commodities, like diamonds and certain rare earth minerals, aren’t sourceable at all in the U.S., while some products, like bananas and coffee beans, aren’t sufficiently available domestically to satisfy demand.

“The notion that we can make everything in America defies the reality that we have our own climate, our own natural resources that’s different than what’s available elsewhere,” she said ... “Republicans used to be in favor of free trade—both for economic benefit and as a fundamental human right to be able to buy and sell as one please,” ... (link) 

(The article is behind a pay wall. The Dispatch is a conservative voice that stands for things Republicans used to stand for such as free trade, the rule of law, American leadership in the world and a strong national defense and selective security, and the Constitution. Please consider subscribing.)

Top Stories

General Assembly ends without passing student immigration bill

by Kim Jarrett, The Center Square, Apr 23, 2025 - A bill that would have allowed Tennessee school districts to ban undocumented students died in the House of Representatives amid concerns it would impact federal funding.

House Bill 793/Senate Bill 836 was not revived before the General Assembly ended the 2025 session on Tuesday evening.

The state receives $1.1 billion in federal funding each year. That amount was deemed at risk to the consequences of the proposed law in relation to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, according to the bill's fiscal note.

Title VI protections extend to undocumented individuals in the United States, the note said.

"Violations of federal civil rights laws may place this funding at risk, however, the specific amount at risk is undetermined," analysts wrote in the bill's fiscal note.

The Senate passed its version of the bill last Thursday, with supporters calling the bill a "financial" decision and opponents questioning the moral cost. Senate Bill 836, sponsored by Sen. Bo Watson, R-Hixson, received "no" votes from some Republicans.

Lisa Sherman Luna, executive director of the Tennessee Immigrant & Refugee Rights Coalition, testified against the bill as it moved through committee.

"This is a major victory – and it belongs to all the children, parents, educators, faith leaders, business owners, veterans, partner organizations, and the bipartisan coalition of Republicans and Democrats who stood up for education for all children," Luna said in a statement.

Another controversial education bill also failed. House and Senate leaders could not agree on a bill that would have cleared the way for a takeover of the Memphis Shelby County Schools. Rep. Mark White, R-Memphis, said the school system needed to do better with the money it received every year. An estimated 130,000 Memphis residents don't have a high school diploma, he said.

Democrats said the bill was an attempt to take over the schools and create more charter schools. A forensic audit of the school system is being conducted and will be completed next year.

The House and Senate passed the nearly $60 billion budget last week.

Gov. Bill Lee praised the General Assembly, specifically $1 billion for road projects and more than $450 million in disaster relief for Hurricane Helene victims.

“We’ve passed strategic legislative and budget measures to improve infrastructure, invest in education, strengthen our workforce, and solidify Tennessee’s position as a leader in next-generation nuclear energy,” Lee said. “I thank the General Assembly for its partnership and continued commitment to responsible fiscal stewardship and innovation to improve the lives of the people we serve.”

Top Stories

Tennessee has second-lowest gas price in the U.S.

by Kim Jarrett, The Center Square, Apr 21, 2025 - Tennessee's gas prices are second only to Mississippi at $2.70 on average for a gallon of regular unleaded, according to AAA.

Mississippi's average gas price is $2.68.

The price is 2 cents lower than last week and a penny more than last month for Tennessee motorists, the organization said Monday.

Demand declined last week, according to the Energy Information Association. The end of spring break is part of the reason, according to AAA.

The price is 20 cents lower than Tennessee's neighbor to the south. The average cost of a gallon of gas is $2.92 in Georgia.

The swing in gas prices could be attributed to economics, according to AAA.

“Lately, oil prices have taken a dive, presumably swayed by uncertainty about the economy and worries about a recession sneaking up on us,” said Montrae Waiters, AAA-The Auto Club Group spokeswoman for Georgia. “Because of this, demand is down, and we have not seen crude oil prices this low in several years. If we continue this trend, we could keep seeing pump prices drop as we roll into summer.”

Motorists are paying more at the pump in Johnson City, where the average price is $2.84. Cleveland has the least expensive gas at $2.55.

The national average is $3.15 a gallon. California has the most expensive gas at $4.84 a gallon.

Top Stories

Over 1,500 Economists Agree: Trump's Tariffs Are Terrible

Trade and Tariffs Declaration

A Statement on the Principles of American Prosperity

America’s prosperity is today, as it has always been, rooted in principles of entrepreneurship and voluntary economic exchange. For 250 years, the United States of America has demonstrated to the world that a people left free to innovate and produce for themselves, and for all who trade with them, will enjoy increasing abundance, higher standards of living, and greater security both economically and militarily.

Since taking office in 2025, the Trump Administration has adopted steep protective tariffs by unilateral executive decrees. These measures have injected uncertainty and chaos into the global economy through wildly fluctuating rates and ever-changing orders. Cumulatively, they impose the largest tax increase on trade in almost a century. The proponents of tariffs portray these measures as acts of ‘economic liberation.’ Instead, tariffs invert the principles of liberty that ushered in an American-led age of human freedom and prosperity.

America’s Founding Fathers rejected the bestowing of political favors and the imposition of Mercantilism. In his instructions to Virginia delegates to the Continental Congress in 1774, Thomas Jefferson urged them to stand for the American colonists’ right to “the exercise of a free trade with all parts of the world.” Two years later, the Declaration of Independence enumerated the causes that impelled those colonies to revolution, among them a protest against King George III “For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world.”

Today, we face a series of executive actions based upon assertions that:

• Misconstrue our nation’s history
• Misunderstand our nation’s current economic condition
• Misdiagnose the nature of our nation’s economic ills
• Repudiate long-standing and widely accepted economic first principles

We, the undersigned, find it necessary to offer the following corrective observations on the foundations of American prosperity, which is built upon principles of “peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations.”

Overwhelming economic evidence shows that freedom to trade is associated with higher per-capita incomes, faster rates of economic growth, and enhanced economic efficiency.

The American economy is a global economy that uses nearly two thirds of its imports as inputs for domestic production.

The current administration’s tariffs are motivated by a mistaken understanding of the economic conditions faced by ordinary Americans. We anticipate that American workers will incur the brunt of these misguided policies in the form of increased prices and the risk of a self-inflicted recession.

Contrary to widespread fears, U.S. trade deficits are not evidence of U.S. economic decline or of unfair trade practices abroad. Nor do these “deficits” inflict damage on the U.S. economy. Quite the opposite is true. U.S. trade deficits reflect global investors’ high confidence in the U.S. economy. And these investments, in turn, further strengthen the productive economy — and demand for the U.S. dollar.

The “reciprocal” tariff rates being threatened and imposed by the United States upon other countries are calculated using an erroneous and improvised formula with no basis in economic reality. The calculations deviate from established methods for calculating reciprocal tariffs, as specified in Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974.

The administration’s protectionist policies repeat the catastrophic errors of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930, which was opposed by 1,028 economists. These scholars understood that protectionist tariffs would provoke a retaliatory trade war, thereby exacerbating the very same Great Depression that it was intended to solve. Rates resembling Smoot-Hawley are being imposed upon a significantly more integrated global economy, risking a similarly devastating outcome for ordinary Americans.

The “Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises” was constitutionally reserved to Congress as the direct and explicit representatives of the people. The April 2 tariffs have been imposed without that body’s consent, and without any intelligible guiding principle. Instead the judgment and rightful power reserved to Congress, and so to the people, has been replaced by unilateral executive decrees, justified by improvised claims of emergency under a statute that does not even contemplate authorizing tariffs. This seizure of power is unconstitutional.

The window to reverse these incoherent and damaging policies is closing. We remain hopeful, however, that sound economic principles, empirical evidence, and the warnings of history will prevail over the protectionist mythologies of the moment.

As economists and scholars in related fields, we invite the American public, and indeed the world, to join us in rejecting this misguided path of tariff-induced harm. Instead, we reiterate a commitment to the foundational principles articulated by George Washington in his Farewell Address:

“Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing.”

On April 18, 2025, this statement was issued by:

Vernon Smith: Nobel laureate in Economic Sciences (2002), in recognition of his pioneering work in the field of experimental economics. George L. Argyros Endowed Chair in Finance and Economics at Chapman University. PhD in Economics from Harvard University

James Heckman: Nobel laureate in Economic Sciences (2000), in recognition of his research of econometric techniques, early human capital formation, and public policy impacts. Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago. PhD in Economics from Princeton University.

Phil Gramm: Former U.S. Senator from Texas, economist, and author. Played a pivotal role in shaping U.S. economic policy, including the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. An advocate of fiscal responsibility and deregulation. PhD in Economics from University of Georgia.

Richard Vedder: Distinguished Professor of Economics Emeritus at Ohio University. Served as a Senior Economist on the Joint Economic Committee of Congress. Researches higher education and unemployment. PhD in Economics from the University of Illinois.

Robert Higgs: Former Professor of Economics at University of Washington, and retired Senior Fellow in Political Economy at the Independent Institute. Founding editor of the Independent Review. Researches government growth and GDP accounting. PhD in Economics from Johns Hopkins University.

Benjamin Powell: Professor of Economics in the Rawls College of Business, Executive Director of the Free Market Institute at Texas Tech University, and Senior Fellow with the Independent Institute. Researches immigration and poverty. PhD in Economics from George Mason University.

William F. Shughart II: Professor of Economics at Utah State University, former editor-in-chief of Public Choice, and former president of the Public Choice Society and Southern Economics Association. Researches antitrust and the economics of government. PhD in Economics from Texas A&M University.

David R. Henderson: Professor of Economics Emeritus at Naval Postgraduate School, recipient of the Rear Admiral John Jay Schieffelin Award, and Senior Economist for the Council of Economic Advisors during the Reagan administration. PhD in Economics from UCLA.

Randall G. Holcombe: Professor of Economics at Florida State University, Senior Fellow at the James Madison Institute, and former member of the Council of Economic Advisors for Florida Governor Jeb Bush. Researches the Economics of government. PhD in Economics from Virginia Polytechnic.

Phillip W. Magness: Senior Fellow at the Independent Institute and the David J. Theroux Chair in Political Economy. Researches the economic history of the United States, focusing on taxation, trade, and economic inequality. PhD in Public Policy from George Mason University.

Donald J. Boudreaux: Professor of Economics at George Mason University. Former President of the Foundation for Economic Education. Researches of international trade, antitrust, law and economics, public choice. PhD in Economics from Auburn University and JD from the University of Virginia.

Mario J. Rizzo: Professor of Economics at New York University. Director of the Foundations of the Market Economy Program. Researches law and economics, ethics and economics, and Austrian Economics. PhD in Economics from the University of Chicago.

Peter J. Boettke: Distinguished University Professor of Economics and Philosophy at George Mason University, Director of the F. A. Hayek Program for Advanced Study in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics. Researches Austrian economics, institutional economics, and Soviet economic history. PhD in Economics from George Mason University.

Deirdre N. McCloskey: Distinguished Professor Emerita of Economics and History at University of Illinois-Chicago. Senior Fellow and Isaiah Berlin Chair in Liberal Thought at the Cato Institute. Researches economic history, economic theory, and statistics. PhD in Economics from Harvard University.

Lawrence White: Professor of Economics at George Mason University. Co-editor of Econ Journal Watch and a Distinguished Senior Fellow of the Hayek Program. Researches theory and history of banking and money. PhD in Economics from UCLA.

N. Gregory Mankiw: Robert M. Beren Professor of Economics at Harvard University. Chairman of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers from 2003-2005 and former adviser to the Congressional Budget Office and the Federal Reserve. Researches monetary and fiscal policy and economic growth. PhD in Economics from Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Kenneth Elzinga: Robert C. Taylor Professor of Economics at the University of Virginia. Researches antitrust and has provided expert testimony for several antitrust cases. PhD in Economics from Michigan State University.

Robert Whaples: Professor of Economics at Wake Forest University. Recipient of the Allan Nevins Prize. Editor of the Independent Review. Researches American Economic History. PhD in Economics from University of Pennsylvania.

Michael Munger: Professor of Political Science, Public Policy, and Economics at Duke University. Former staff economist at the Federal Trade Commission for the Reagan Administration. Researches markets, regulation, and government institutions. PhD in Economics from Washington University in St. Louis.

Claudia Williamson Kramer: Professor of Economics at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. Director of the Center for Economic Education. Researches the intersection of applied economic development and political economy. PhD in Economics from West Virginia University.

Robert Lawson: Fullinwider: Chair in Economic Freedom at Southern Methodist University. Director of the Bridwell Institute for Economic Freedom and Senior Fellow at the Fraser Institute. Founding co-author of the Fraser Institute’s Economic Freedom of the World annual report. PhD in Economics from Florida State University.

Sam Peltzman: Professor of Economics Emeritus at the University of Chicago. Director emeritus of the George J. Stigler Center for the Study of the Economy and the State at the University of Chicago. PhD in Economics from University of Chicago.

Lee James Alston: Professor Emeritus of Economics and Law at Indiana University Bloomington. Research associate at the National Bureau for Economic Research and former president of the International Society for the New Institutional Economics. Researches institutions, beliefs and contracts. PhD in Economics from University of Washington.

Steve H. Hanke: Professor of Applied Economics at Johns Hopkins University, Senior Economist on President Reagan’s Council of Economic Advisers and Senior Adviser to the Joint Economic Committee (1984-1988). PhD in Economics from University of Colorado Boulder.

Robert F. Engle: Nobel laureate in Economic Sciences (2003),  in recognition of his research on autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity. Professor Emeritus of Finance at NYU Stern School of Business and Co-Founding President of the Society for Financial Econometrics. PhD in Economics from Cornell University.

Rod's Comment: 

For a list of the co-signers consisting of respected economists, renowned policy experts, and influential business leaders, follow this link. The public is invited to sign the declaration and may do so at this link. 

The list of economists signing this declaration is impressive, including many Noble prize-winning economists and advisors to presidents, members of prestigious foundations and professors at elite universities. 

The virtue of free trade has been an accepted fact among enlightened people since first enunciated by Adam Smith in the Wealth of Nations in 1776. While there have been advocates of mercantilism and protectionism since that time, for the most part enlighten opinion understood the value of free trade. While the Democrat Party, beholden to labor unions, always had a faction advocating protectionism, for the most part, at least since World War II, there has been a bipartisan acceptance of the wisdom of free trade, and both American political parties have moved to advance it.  I would like to hope that in just 90 days that decades old acceptance of the wisdom of free trade did not just evaporate. 

I still think there are some open-minded people, some who even voted for Trump, who will see such a list as the above and think these distinguished economists may know more about economics than Donald Trump, Fox News TV host, and their Facebook friends. 

Many MAGA folks however are a lost cause. An element of populism is distrust of experts and a belief that an uninformed opinion is as valuable as an informed opinion. Among some, there is almost a pride in ignorance and a view that whatever policy advocated by Donald Trump must be the correct view. It is a faith. As we see the results of Trump Tariffs, I hope that some will begin to lose their faith. 

Top Stories

CM Jenny Welsch's Radical Rezoning of Woodbine Faces a Tougher Path After Planning Commission Disapproval

CM Jenny Welsch

by Austin Hornbostel Austin, The Tennessean, April 27, 2025- A significant rezoning proposal for southeast Nashville’s Glencliff, Woodbine and Radnor neighborhoods now faces a tougher path to approval.

Metro Council Member Ginny Welsch, who represents the neighborhoods in District 16, recently proposed a blanket rezoning that would have seen hundreds of acres worth of properties reclassified from single-family zoning to higher-density categories allowing for up to 20 or 40 units per acre.

The proposal was on the Metro Planning Commission’s agenda on April 24, when Planning Department staff recommended against approving the plan as submitted and instead suggested a scaled-back plan affecting fewer properties. But instead of either of those two options, the Planning Commission chose a third route: rejecting both Welsch’s plan and the substitute from planning staff.

With a recommendation for disapproval, the proposal now needs a higher number of votes to move forward in the Metro Nashville Council. Instead of a simple majority, it will need 27 votes in favor.

... Welsch, for her part, appears poised to continue to push for her version of the proposal.  

... 263 people submitted public comments ahead of the meeting in opposition to the rezoning plan, (read more)

Top Stories