A Victory for the Right to Earn a Living in Tennessee

by Adam Shelton, The Goldwater Institute, September 25, 2025 - In another victory for the right to earn a living, the Tennessee Supreme Court has ruled that the government cannot deny admission of a highly qualified attorney to the Tennessee Bar just because he went to law school in another country. The decision vindicates the principle, rooted in the Tennessee Constitution, that the state cannot create arbitrary barriers to honest work and adds to the Goldwater Institute’s record of defending economic liberty.

That principle was tested in the case of Bishoy Fam, a Texas attorney who became the target of the state’s licensing bureaucracy for obtaining a law degree outside of the United States. Government bureaucrats have no business stopping qualified professionals like Fam from doing their jobs. But as the Goldwater Institute and the Beacon Center of Tennessee noted in a brief supporting Bishoy’s constitutional right to earn a living, that’s exactly what the government did. Thankfully, the state Supreme Court put an end to this injustice.

Bishoy is a highly qualified lawyer who earned his law degree from Edinburgh Law School in Scotland and a master of law degree from Southern Methodist University in Texas. He scored high enough on the Uniform Bar Exam to qualify for admission in Tennessee, and he is already licensed to practice law in Texas.  But when Bishoy attempted to become licensed in Tennessee, the state’s Board of Law Examiners denied him permission.

The reason: the board failed to take Bishoy’s full education into account. It also ignored any serious consideration of whether denying Fam the right to practice law in Tennessee was necessary to protect the state’s residents.

Bishoy has both a constitutional and a statutory right to earn a living—a right that applies to everyone, even those entering highly-regulated fields like the legal profession.

Ensuring that lawyers are well educated is an important consideration. But the state cannot do so in a way that arbitrarily excludes individuals who received their legal education in a foreign country. Rather, the state must make an individualized determination that weighs all of an applicant’s credentials and considers the requirements of the Tennessee Constitution and the state’s Right to Earn a Living Act.

The Tennessee Constitution protects the right to earn a living through a “law of the land” clause, which dates all the way back to 1215 and the Magna Carta. By 1796, when the state adopted its first Constitution, it was well understood that this clause protected the right to earn a living and was broad enough to make government-granted monopolies legally dubious, because they interfered with that right. The state’s Supreme Court recognized this principle well into the 20th century, even going so far as to call it a fundamental right.

Additionally, Tennessee’s Right to Earn a Living Act, much like the Arizona Right to Earn a Living Act developed by Goldwater, provides a framework for how licensing agencies should go about making such determinations. The Act reaffirms that Tennesseans have a fundamental right to earn a living and explains that the government cannot interfere with this right unless it is demonstrably necessary to protect the health, safety, or welfare of the people.

This is not the first time this has happened in Tennessee. Three years ago, the Board denied another qualified applicant, Violaine Panasci, admission to the Tennessee Bar. Goldwater filed a brief in support of her as well. She, like Bishoy, was granted the right to practice by the Tennessee Supreme Court.

Bishoy’s victory is notable, but it shouldn’t have been necessary. Government agencies— especially the Tennessee Board of Law Examiners—should take the Supreme Court’s consistent decisions on this matter and stop raising barriers that keep qualified professionals from doing their jobs.

You can read the brief here.

Adam Shelton is a Staff Attorney at the Goldwater Institute.

Top Stories

But, Does Nashville Really Need 90,000 New Housing Units by 2034? Will More Units Solve the Problem?

by The Pamphleteer, Oct. 9, 2025- Chris Remke takes a pickaxe to Metro's claim that we need 90,000 new housing units by 2034. As Chris reveals, the city's Unified Housing Strategy vastly overestimates population growth over the next ten years and thus, anticipated housing needs.

The UHS projection anticipates an additional 175,000 people moving to Nashville between 2020 and 2034 – that comes out to 12,500 residents moving to town per year. In actuality, over the past four years, the city has added only 13,621 residents, which translates to approximately 3,205 residents per year.

Read the whole story from Chris below and finish it over on his Substack.

✰   ✰   ✰

Nashville’s housing debate has turned into a numbers game. Big projections, big promises, and bigger development pipelines dominate the conversation. Yet behind the spreadsheets and zoning maps lies a much simpler truth: the supply is there — the affordability is not.

For fifteen years, the city has chased the idea that if we build enough market-rate housing, affordability will follow. That theory, once plausible, now collapses under its own data. The Unified Housing Strategy (UHS) and the Housing & Infrastructure Study (H&I) — the two cornerstone planning documents guiding Metro’s decisions — do not tell the same story. In fact, they reveal the gap at the center of Nashville’s housing crisis.

Nashville is still shell-shocked from a decade of runaway growth. The roads, schools, and storm drains tell the story better than any policy brief. People see it, feel it, and no longer buy the idea that “more growth will fix what growth broke.” Until Metro leaders face the reality that the problem is not a shortage of rooftops but a shortage of affordability and infrastructure, the public will keep tuning them out. Voters have learned the difference between building a city and just building on one — and they are done being told that the cure for congestion, displacement, and rising costs is simply to build more of the same.  (Continue Reading)

Top Stories

Here's The Deal on Health Care subsidies

Ralph Bristol

by Ralph Bristol, Facebook, Oct. 10, 2025- Republicans and Democrats are negotiating an amendment to the enhanced Obamacare subsidies as a condition of reopening the government. 

The Wall Street Journal reports: 

• Informal discussions have centered on extending enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies temporarily, but with new guardrails meant to trim aid for higher-income families. One cutoff point that has been discussed among Democrats: limiting the subsidies to households at or below $200,000 of income, rather than leaving the benefit uncapped.

• Sen. Angus King (I., Maine), who caucuses with the Democrats, has dubbed his approach the “two and two”—a two-year extension of the subsidy capped at $200,000 of income. Sen. Mark Kelly (D., Ariz.) said that a cap would be hard to implement this year, but that discussions were occurring about reducing the subsidy by limiting the benefit to people earning above a certain percentage of the federal poverty line, with some members aiming for the $200,000 cap.

It’s not clear whether they mean they would cap it for an individual earning $200,000 or a family (a married couple) earning $200,000.  

Initially, Obamacare cut off the premium tax credits (subsidies for health insurance premiums) at 400% of FPL.  The “enhanced” credits eliminated that ceiling and increased the subsidies for all the other levels. 

Republicans and Democrats in the Senate have apparently agreed to find a new income ceiling to receive the credits and extend them for two more years.  I’ve heard nothing about changes to the other income levels.

The original Obamacare premium tax credits covered 75% or the population that was not receiving Medicaid, Medicare, or employer-sponsored insurance, all of which are subsidized by taxpayers.  The enhanced subsidies covered 100% of the population.  Initially, eligible people were required to get it, and fined if they didn’t. Republicans reduced the fine to $0 in the 2017 Tax Cut and Jobs Act, so while it’s technically still mandatory, there’s no penalty for not getting it. 

The enhancement also reduced the effective premium for those at 300-400% of FPL from 9.83% of their income to 8.5%, leaving those above 400% of FPL at 8.5%. 

If you are single and make $200,000, 8.5% of your income is $17,000 ($1,416/month).  That’s far above the unsubsidized cost of a Silver Plan ($500-$650/month) and about the same as the average unsubsidized Silver Plan for a family ($1,500-$1,700/month).  So, it seems like the argument is much ado about not much, but the enhancement also lowered the premiums for those making less than 400% of FPL.   Here’s the comparison.

FPL Range Original ACA (Pre-2021) Enhanced ARPA/IRA (2021–2025)

100–133% 2.07% of income 0% of income

133–150% 3.10–4.14% 0–2%

150–200% 4.14–6.52% 2–4%

200–250% 6.52–8.33% 4–6%

250–300% 8.33–9.83% 6–8.5%

300–400% 9.83% flat (cap) 8.5% flat (cap)

>400% No subsidy Capped at 8.5% of income (new eligibility)

The estimated total cost of the enhanced subsidies is $450 billion over 10 years.

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 Addendum: For more on this topic, see, Who Gets Healthcare Subsidies Under the Affordable Care Act - WSJ, and Obamacare Will Survive This Election—The Fight Will Be About Paying for It - WSJ

Top Stories

BREAKING: Federal judge grants Illinois restraining order against Trump for Guard deployment

By Jim Talamonti | The Center Square 23 mins ago - A federal judge has granted the state of Illinois’ request for a temporary restraining order to prevent the Trump administration and the U.S. Army from deploying the National Guard in Illinois.

The city of Chicago joined the state in the lawsuit, which was announced Monday morning by Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul.

Judge April Perry made the ruling from the bench Thursday at the Everett McKinley Dirksen U.S. Courthouse in downtown Chicago.

Perry said not even the most ardent Federalist, Alexander Hamilton, believed one state’s militia could be sent to another state for political retribution.

Christopher Wells, division chief of the Illinois Attorney General’s Office, said there is no rebellion in Illinois to justify the deployment of federal troops.

“War and insurrection are heavy words, and the people who wrote the Constitution did not use them lightly,” Wells said in his opening remarks.

Wells cited the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Operation Midway Blitz and argued that federal immigration law is being enforced in Illinois.

“So where is the problem?” Wells asked.

Wells said the the administration has shown animus toward Illinois and the court should restore constitutional balance.

“What the president has done to Illinois is illegal and lawless,” Wells argued.

U.S. Deputy Attorney General Eric Hamilton said the court should deny the state’s motion. Hamilton referred to recent protests at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Broadview and said one “agitator” ripped the beard off the face of an officer, guns were found with two protesters and an improvised explosive device was found at the facility.

Hamilton said “cartels and gangs” placed a $10,000 bounty on a Customs and Border Protection chief.

“In the last week, immigration enforcement vehicles have been rammed by other vehicles at least twice,” Hamilton continued.

Hamilton said it is enough for there to be “danger of a rebellion” and not an actual rebellion for the president to deploy federalized National Guard troops.

“This deployment is lawful,” Hamilton said.

Hamilton said the federal government offered Gov. J.B. Pritzker the opportunity to deploy the Illinois National Guard and keep army troops in Illinois under the governor’s command.

“That offer remains open to Gov. Pritzker today,” Hamilton said.

Perry granted attorneys for both sides three extra minutes of opening arguments after they exceeded the allotted time she provided.

The judge asked Hamilton about the number of National Guard troops to be deployed, which was currently set at about 200 from Texas and 300 from Illinois, but Hamilton did not say there was any maximum number.

Perry asked if the troops could be deployed outside Cook County anywhere in Illinois.

“It could be,” Hamilton answered.

Perry said the court had not received a request for additional federal protection at the Dirksen federal building on Friday.

Perry asked Hamilton for a distinction between the National Guard and law enforcement.

“The Guard are not authorized to carry out arrests or anything like that,” Hamilton said, adding that the troops could “temporarily detain.”

The judge asked if the Guard could engage in traffic control or “brandish weapons” in the street.

“I don’t have information to provide on that,” Hamilton said.

“Are they allowed to pursue individuals or vehicles?” Perry asked.

“I don’t recall anything like that,” Hamilton replied.

“Will they be solving crime in Chicago?” Perry asked.

“Certainly, to an extent. The mission is a federally protective one,” Hamilton said, citing the violence aimed at immigration enforcement officers.

Hamilton said the Guard deployment was not intended to solve all crime in Chicago.

“This is a federal protective mission,” Hamilton said.

Perry said there is a disconnect between the federal government’s court filings and Trump’s public statements.

“The president is entitled to great deference here,” Hamilton argued.

The judge said she understood that the president was entitled to deference but she was troubled by which specific actions the Guard would employ to “solve crime.”

“Even plaintiffs agree that there has been violence,” Hamilton said.

Perry cited the arrest of two protesters with guns who faced charges that were later dropped and said people exercising their Second Amendment right was not evidence of criminality.

The judge suggested that, under Hamilton’s arguments, any nonviolent protest could be considered a rebellion and any federal agency that needs “an assist” could get National Guard deployment.

The judge said the case might be different if the administration only argued for Guard deployment at federal property and in support of federal immigration enforcement.

“I am very much struggling to figure out where this would ever stop,” Perry said.

The judge referred to potential issues with “peaceful protesters” several times and questioned whether “petty acts of vandalism” were preventing federal officials from enforcing the law.

Perry then questioned Wells and asked if he believed the president could take 500 soldiers from Naval Station Great Lakes and send them down to Broadview?

“We have a significant line between state and local law enforcement and the military,” Wells said.

Wells discussed public virtues and said the Trump administration had a “terrifying” pattern of conduct.

Wells said the president did have power and was using it.

“This court can check that power,” Wells said.

In his concluding remarks, Hamilton argued that the current situation represents an unusual threat to federal personnel and property.

“The president’s judgment is unreviewable,” Hamilton said.

The deputy attorney general cited “deference to the president” multiple times.

Gov. J.B. Pritzker spoke earlier Wednesday and expressed confidence the judge would rule in favor of his state.

“So imagine what the social media will look like when National Guard troops are having to turn around and turn tail and head back to Texas when they’re ordered to do so. I think they should take notice that is exactly what will happen,” Pritzker asserted.

Earlier Wednesday, Pritzker said Trump and his attorneys made court filings to try to make federal deployments look legal.

“They’re saying it’s about protecting a facility. They’re saying it’s about protecting ICE officers, agents. The president repeatedly, even after all the claims that this is about protecting facilities and people, because he started with he wants to deploy people because of crime,” Pritzker said.

Trump also spoke Wednesday and thanked Texas Gov. Greg Abbott.

“Governor Abbott, he gave us 400 troops without even a question. We have other governors likewise doing what has to be done, because they know we have to confront crime,” the president said.

Trump questioned why the governor would want to block the National Guard deployment.

“I don’t understand why Pritzker’s trying to protect people that are really bad,” Trump said.

U.S. Army Major General Niave Knell of U.S. Northern Command stated in a court filing late Wednesday that there were approximately 200 federalized National Guard personnel in Illinois. Knell stated that the scope of the National Guard activities would be in response to requests by federal government agents and agencies only when they are related to the protection of federal personnel performing official functions.

Knell said there was a request the Department of Homeland Security for protection support at the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Broadview. The second request was from the Federal Protective Service to support protection at the federal courthouse in Friday, Oct. 10, due to “two high-profile cases” involving DHS activities and personnel.

On Thursday morning, Virginia M. Kendall, chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division, released a statement saying that the U.S. Marshals Service has jurisdiction over interior and exterior security at the Dirksen courthouse.

“While the Federal Protective Service has authority in most federal buildings, the United States Marshals Service has that primary responsibility at the Dirksen Courthouse. I trust and rely upon the men and women of the United States Marshals Service and the Court Security Officers to provide security at the Dirksen Courthouse; this includes the perimeter of the building. At no point did I, nor did the Building Security Committee, authorize or request the National Guard's assistance to secure the Dirksen Courthouse,” the judge stated.

U.S. Northern Command announced Wednesday evening, the Texas National Guard are employed in the greater Chicago area. 

"Approximately 200 soldiers from various units of the Texas National Guard and approximately 300 soldiers from various units of the Illinois National Guard were activated into a Title 10 status and have arrived in the greater Chicago area," the agency said. 

The guardsmen were mobilized for an initial period of 60 days.

The village of Broadview said approximately 45 Texas National Guard soldiers arrived Wednesday evening.

"During their patrols, Broadview police officers observed the vans parked in the rear of 2000 25th Ave and all of the guards were sleeping," a statement from the village said. "We let them sleep undisturbed. We hope that they will extend the same courtesy in the coming days to Broadview residents who deserve a good night’s sleep, too. #TiredTexans.”

Illinois State Police said in a statement their unified command with local, county and state emergency management and law enforcement is separate from the activities of the National Guard. ISP had previously announced then unified command's focus last week. 

"In addition to protecting the safety and rights of people peacefully expressing their views, these measures will also ensure that third parties that need access to the facility – including attorneys and legal representatives, people bringing medicine to detainees, and representatives from foreign consulates – will maintain clear points of access to the facility," ISP said Oct. 3.  

Rod's Comment: I'm pleased. 

Top Stories

Nashville federal judge finds “likelihood” prosecution of Kilmar Abrego Garcia is vindictive

Kilmar Abrego Garcia accompanied by his attorney, was released from the
Putnam County Jail on August 22, 2025.
(Photo: John Partipilo/ Tennessee Lookout)

by Anita Wadhwani, Nashville Outlook, October 6, 2025 - A federal judge in Nashville ruled that there is a “realistic likelihood” that the government behaved vindictively in bringing human smuggling charges against Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Maryland man wrongly deported to El Salvador before being brought to Tennessee in June to face criminal charges.

The 16-page ruling by U.S. District Judge Waverly Crenshaw on Friday opens the door for Abrego’s attorneys to seek documents and testimony from Trump administration officials about their public remarks in the case and the basis of their decision to bring criminal charges. 

Crenshaw noted that the government has repeatedly been thwarted in its months-long efforts to deport Abrego in one of the earliest – and highest profile – tests of the Trump administration’s mass deportation tactics.

“This has created a significant burden on and embarrassment to the Executive Branch, that must now expend additional time, resources, and international goodwill to remove Abrego to El Salvador or elsewhere,” he wrote.

Abrego, as he is identified in the Tennessee case, illegally entered the United States as a teen and worked as an apprentice sheet metal worker in Maryland. The 30-year-old married father was deported in March despite a standing stay of deportation to El Salvador issued in 2019 by an immigration judge. A federal prosecutor who admitted Abrego’s deportation was in error was fired after his statements and has since filed a claim of retaliation. 

Abrego currently faces potential deportation to the African country of Eswatini, government officials have told his attorneys. He is due to return to a Maryland court in that case on Friday.

In granting Abrego’s request to proceed with allegations the government behaved improperly, Crenshaw highlighted the timeline of official actions leading up to Abrego’s criminal charges in Tennessee as evidence of “potential unreasonableness of the prosecution.”

Abrego was deported on March 15 after a routine Maryland traffic stop. Nine days later, attorneys for Abrego successfully filed suit in a Maryland federal court challenging the deportation in a decision the government appealed. The Supreme Court concurred with the decision. 

Crenshaw noted that within “mere days” of the Supreme Court decision, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security reopened an investigation into a 2022 traffic stop in Tennessee, which resulted in neither a ticket nor an arrest at the time.

The government brought charges against Abrego less than a month after it started its reopened investigation — a remarkably swift investigation. A grand jury returned a two-count indictment a month later and Abrego was returned to Nashville to face charges. He has since been released pending trial and remains in the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Abrego has pleaded not guilty to the charges.

On the day of his indictment, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and others “celebrated the criminal charges against him” and said he would be found guilty, sentenced and deported again to El Salvador, Crenshaw wrote.

“Most tellingly,” the judge wrote, Homeland Security Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche revealed that the government started investigating Abrego after a judge in Maryland questioned the government’s decision, found that it had no right to deport him to El Salvador and accused the government of wrongdoing.

“Deputy Attorney General Blanche’s remarkable statements could directly establish the motivations for Abrego’s criminal charges stem from his exercise of constitutional and statutory rights to bring suit against the (federal government), rather than a genuine desire to prosecute him for alleged criminal misconduct,” Crenshaw wrote.

Prosecutors have denied that the government has acted with any “ill will” in the case.”

Crenshaw’s order contains no final conclusions on whether the case against Abrego should be dismissed due to vindictive prosecution, but instead greenlights a request by Abrego’s attorneys to proceed with collecting evidence to present at an evidentiary hearing. No date for the hearing has been set. 

Top Stories

Aftyn Behn is the Democrat Nominee for TN-07. She Won't Get My Vote.

by Rod Williams, Oct. 8, 2025- Since Donald Trump has a solid lock on the Republican Party and Republicans will not resist his authoritarianism, his disregard for the Constitution, or investigate his corruption and abuse of power, I have reluctantly concluded that the best thing that could happen is if Democrats could retake the House. I do not want them to take both chambers, and I want their margin to be very thin. I want just enough Dems to win to cause gridlock and for the House to be able to conduct oversight hearings. 

Despite concluding I wanted Trump's lock on the House broken, I voted in the Republican Primary to choose the Republican nominee for the upcoming special election to fill the vacancy for the Seventh Congressional District. I concluded that the 7th being an overwhelmingly Republican district, whoever wins the Republican nomination will most likely be the next congressman from the district. I wanted the best candidate we could get. 

After studying each of the candidates, I concluded Van Epps was the most sensible and least Trumpy of the 11 candidates running. I voted for him, voting early this year, which is something I rarely do. Right before election day, Donald Trump endorsed Van Epps and I regretted my vote. Had I waited until election day to vote, I would have had to take a second look at the candidates and may have actually voted in the Democratic primary instead of the Republican primary. I do not want to facilitate Trump's march toward authoritarianism. 

I thought that, despite a Democratic candidate being a long shot to win the general election, if I had not already voted, I would vote in the Democratic primary as a matter of conscience. I also thought that when the general election rolls around, I might vote for the Democratic nominee. 

Now that the primary is behind us, and I see that the Democratic nominee is Aftyn Behn, I don't think I can bring myself to cast a vote for the Democrat. Dems picked the worst of the candidates running. I might could vote for a Bo Mitchell; but not Aftyn Behn. 

I may just sit out this election. I have time to think about it, but it is a tough choice when one must choose between a radical leftist and a Trump loyalist.  I have not paid any attention to the independents who are running and despite an independent having no chance of winning, I may give them a look. I may determine that Van Epps, despite the Trump endorsement, is the least bad choice. However, I don't feel compelled to vote. When given two bad choices, it is okay not to choose. 

Aftyn Behn is a community organizer for the Tennessee Justice Center. She once disrupted the proceedings of the Tennessee House of Representatives and had to be removed from the chamber gallery. She is a pro-abortion activist. She had the endorsements of the Democratic Socialists of America and the Progressive Democrats of America in the primary. I can't to it. I can't vote for her. 

Top Stories

Three of the Four Trust Funds Are Within Seven Years of Insolvency.

 

From Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, Oct. 8, 2025- Some of the nation’s largest and most important programs are financed through government trust funds that collect dedicated revenues and then distribute those funds. This includes Social Security’s Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) and Disability Insurance (SSDI) programs, Medicare’s Hospital Insurance (HI) program, and the Highway Trust Fund (HTF).   These programs provide direct benefits to nearly 70 million Americans and serve or insure at least 200 million more through either cash benefits in case of retirement, disability, or death; health insurance for older Americans and those with disabilities; or construction and maintenance of interstate surface transportation.   Unfortunately, program costs have been outstripping dedicated revenue, and three of the four trust funds are within seven years of insolvency. Once the trust funds run out of reserves, the law requires an across-the-board cut in benefits or spending to match costs with revenue.   Changes are needed to rescue these trust funds from insolvency. Our new Trust Fund Solutions Initiative will put forward concrete and novel policy ideas for each of the major trust funds. In this piece, we explain that trust fund solutions can:   Prevent insolvency of the Social Security retirement, Medicare hospital, and Highway trust funds, otherwise expected within seven years. Avert deep across-the-board cuts, including a 24 percent Social Security benefit cut – about $18,400 for a typical couple turning 60 this year – a 12 percent Medicare cut, and a 46 percent highway spending cut. Improve the nation’s fiscal outlook and help stabilize the debt-to-GDP ratio. Accelerate economic growth and increase incomes and wealth. Offer an opportunity to better target benefits, encourage work and support savings, strengthen retirement security, support workers with disabilities, lower health care costs, maximize efficiency, and improve public investments.   With the insolvency of three major trust funds only seven years away or less, policymakers are running out of time to act. The longer policymakers delay, the fewer options will be available and the more painful the choices will be.   The looming insolvency of the trust funds is a major challenge but also offers an important opportunity. It’s time for trust fund solutions. Trust Fund Solutions Can Prevent Looming Insolvency   Three of the government’s largest and most important trust funds are within seven years of insolvency. Based on projections from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the Highway Trust Fund – which is mainly financed with a gas tax – will run out of reserves in 2028. Meanwhile, the Social Security retirement trust fund and Medicare Hospital Insurance trust fund, based on estimates from the programs’ own Trustees, will be insolvent by late 2032. And on a theoretically combined basis, the Social Security retirement and disability trust funds will run out in 2034.   CBO reaches similar conclusions on Social Security, estimating the retirement trust fund would run out in 2033 and the theoretically combined trust funds in 2034. Although CBO previously estimated the Medicare trust fund would run out in fiscal year 2052, that insolvency date is likely to be much sooner in light of the effects of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act and other changes.   In any case, legislative action is needed to prevent insolvency and continue to pay full benefits.

Expected insolvency dates are looming in the very near future. The Highway Trust Fund is less than three years from insolvency – before many recently-approved projects even break ground.   Meanwhile, Social Security’s and Medicare’s depleting trust funds are only seven years from exhaustion. In other words, the funds will run out when today’s 60-year-olds reach the Normal Retirement Age and when today’s youngest retirees turn 69. Most seniors on the program today will still be collecting benefits when the trust fund is exhausted. Trust Fund Solutions Can Prevent Sharp Benefit Cuts   Under the law, trust fund program outlays cannot exceed revenues after reserves are exhausted, meaning insolvency of each of the major trust funds threatens massive benefit and service cuts. Upon trust fund depletion, highway spending faces a 46 percent cut, Medicare providers face a 12 percent cut, and Social Security retirees face an across-the-board 24 percent benefit cut. By 2050, we estimate those cuts will grow to 74, 16, and 27 percent, respectively.

To put these cuts in context, the Social Security cuts would equal an $18,400 loss in annual benefits for a typical couple retiring at the start of 2033. The actual benefit reduction will differ based on earning history, family structure, and collection age, but will be large in almost all cases. At around the same time that Social Security runs dry, Medicare’s hospital fund will run out, forcing a 12 percent reduction in outlays. This could lead to a major disruption in access to care as Medicare stops or delays payments to hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, and other providers.   Federal highway and transportation spending, meanwhile, would be cut in half. As a practical matter, this would result in a freeze for all new projects and a slowdown in existing ones which could threaten the government’s ability to maintain safe and open highways, buses, ferries, and railways for many of the nation’s commuters, commercial drivers, and train passengers.  Trust Fund Solutions Can Improve the Nation’s Fiscal Outlook   In addition to preserving solvency and preventing deep across-the-board benefit cuts, trust fund solutions can reduce unified budget deficits and improve the nation’s fiscal outlook – at least relative to a scenario where scheduled spending continues regardless of available trust fund reserves, as in the CBO baseline (which by law is required to assume continued spending).   Based on CBO’s projections, the Social Security, Medicare, and Highway trust funds are projected to spend $4.3 trillion – or 1.1 percent of GDP – more than they collect in revenue over the next ten years. Their combined annual shortfall will grow to 1.7 percent of GDP by 2050 and continue to rise thereafter. This borrowing is a major driver of the country’s projected national debt.   Under CBO’s baseline, we project that debt will rise from nearly 100 percent of GDP today to 170 percent by 2060. If each trust fund program’s spending was limited to available revenue after reserves run out, debt would grow much more slowly to about 125 percent of GDP by 2060. In other words, simply avoiding borrowing or general revenue funding to finance Social Security, Medicare, and highways would close about two-thirds of the fiscal gap over the next 35 years.

More thoughtful and pro-growth reforms could go even further and fully stabilize the debt (albeit at too high a level). Such trust fund solutions could begin to phase in policy changes immediately, fully address 75-year shortfalls, put downward pressure on interest rates, and accelerate economic growth. One illustrative package we modelled would slow and then reverse the growth of debt, putting debt on a downward path toward 100 percent of GDP in the early 2060s. Trust Fund Solutions Can Grow the Economy and Boost Incomes   Restoring solvency to the major trust funds would not only prevent a deep benefit cut under current law and avoid massive borrowing in the event that the law is ignored, but it could also significantly improve economic growth and thus boost household income and wealth.   In 2023, CBO estimated that the very crude and simple policy of limiting Social Security benefits to available revenue – after a painful near-term disruption – would boost real Gross National Product (GNP) in 2050 by 3.7 percent as a result of smaller deficits relative to CBO’s baseline and more precautionary work and saving as Americans adjusted to lower benefits. This is the equivalent of a 0.2 percentage point increase in annual real GNP growth.   More thoughtful reforms could generate additional economic growth and do so with far less disruption. In 2019, CRFB’s Marc Goldwein, Maya MacGuineas, and Chris Towner released a pro-growth Social Security framework with revenue and benefit reforms that they estimated would boost real GNP growth by more than 8 percent – about 0.25 percent per year – by promoting work and saving while reducing deficits and improving economic certainty.  In 2021, staff of the Penn Wharton Budget Model (PWBM) put out an entitlement reform framework to increase revenue, slow the growth of Social Security benefits, and reduce Medicare costs. They estimated their plan would boost GDP by 5 percent by 2050 – about 0.2 percent per year – and presumably it would boost GNP significantly more.   And based on a 2012 CBO analysis, simply raising the major Social Security and Medicare ages by two years would boost output by 2.6 percent by 2060. Other reforms – from investing more efficiently in infrastructure to lowering the cost of health care – could generate further growth. Time for Novel Solutions   Restoring solvency to the Social Security, Medicare, and Highway trust funds will mean identifying a combination of policies to lower costs, increase dedicated revenue, or both.   Those policies could go beyond simply saving money by also helping to achieve other important policy goals such as better targeting benefits, improving retirement security, lowering health care costs, reducing work disincentives, promoting savings, encouraging productive aging, supporting workers with disabilities, cutting waste and abuse, more efficiently raising revenue, investing in higher-return infrastructure, improving program administration, and more broadly promoting stronger growth and higher standards of living.   Already, there are many well-known ideas to reduce Medicare costs, slow the growth of Social Security, secure highway funding, and improve revenue collection. Unfortunately, many of these ideas have become politicized, and most were developed decades ago and thus don’t fully reflect recent changes to the economy and health care systems.   The Trust Fund Solutions Initiative aims to supplement the existing library of options with a series of novel solutions that may help to re-invigorate discussion over how to best rescue the trust funds. Over the next two years, we will release a series of white papers introducing these novel solutions and using independent modeling to analyze their effects. Some of the proposals we will introduce may include:   A broad-based Employer Compensation Tax to replace employer-side payroll taxes. A Social Security COLA Cap to limit benefit growth for wealthy seniors. Medicare’s post-acute care payments and coverage reforms. A new Earn-As-You-Go benefit formula for Social Security that credits all years of work equally toward benefits and ends most existing work disincentives. A fee-based system to fund highway investments. Limits to six-figure benefits from the Social Security program. A new cost-effective program to fund medical residents and encourage primary care. Retirement age increases coupled with protections for vulnerable seniors. Reforms to the income taxation of Social Security benefits.   It is unlikely that any of these novel solutions will fix the financial imbalances of the major trust funds on their own. But in combination with each other or other thoughtful adjustments and reforms, these ideas could meaningfully advance solvency. Policymakers should add them to the existing menus of potential reforms and urgently begin the work of saving our trust funds.   New solutions will be published on the Trust Fund Solutions Initiative website. Conclusion   Within the next seven years, Americans are likely to face the insolvency of the Social Security, Medicare, and Highway trust funds, at which point the law requires deep across-the-board cuts. This includes a 46 percent cut in highway spending in just three years, a 12 percent cut to Medicare payments when today’s youngest Medicare beneficiaries are 72, and a 24 percent cut to Social Security retirement benefits when today’s youngest retirees are 69 and today’s 60-year-olds reach the normal retirement age.   Policymakers should urgently begin work to avoid these cuts and rescue the trust funds. Restoring trust fund solvency provides lawmakers with an opportunity to enact reforms while ensuring that these programs continue to function as intended. Thoughtful trust fund solutions can reduce deficits, stabilize the national debt, accelerate economic growth, reduce interest rates, lower health care costs, strengthen retirement security, support work, improve program administration, and enhance public investment.   There are numerous ways to achieve these goals. Unfortunately, excessive demagoguing, insufficient candor, and lack of political will have too often prevented policymakers from enacting well-known and thoroughly-vetted policy solutions.   At the same time, new realities call for new ideas. The Trust Fund Solutions Initiative will put forward a series of novel solutions that could help rescue the trust funds and perhaps reinvigorate the solvency debate. Our new trust fund solutions will aim to provide practical ways to restore financial balance to the trust funds and help address the economic and health challenges facing the country today. We encourage others to put forward solutions as well.   With the major trust funds only a few years from insolvency, there is little time to waste.   The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget does not endorse any particular solution to restore solvency to the Social Security, Medicare, and Highway trust funds. The novel policies presented in this series should be added to the library of potential options policymakers consider when crafting a broader reform package. The insolvency of each of the major trust funds is only seven years away or less, and trust fund solutions are urgently needed.

Top Stories

CM Ginny Welsch is Confused. She Thinks She is at the UN instead of the Metro Council

Top Stories

Dems Do Not Have the Moral High Ground; They Are Just Not the Immediate Threat.

by Rod Williams, Oct. 7, 2025- There is no doubt that Donald Trump has coarsened the dialogue. One could offer various examples. That being said, like so much liberal criticism of Donald Trump and his "basket of deplorables," it didn't all start with Donald Trump. From the use of lawfare, to contempt for freedom of speech, to promotion of violence, to violating the Constitution, to incivility, we are all supposed to pretend that this all originated with Donald Trump. It didn't. 

Donald Trump is an immediate threat, and resistance to Trump should be our focus. I am convinced he has the heart of an authoritarian and he is a threat to democracy. He is unique in that he will violate norms and he is unique in the degree of his administration's vindictiveness and abuse of power. However, he is unique in degree, not in kind. 

Donald Trump has broken norms and transferred power to the administrative branch. Even after Donald Trump passes from the scene, I am not sure we will return to normal. I see signs that the Democratic party is not committed to the same values I am. I fear that after the Trump era passes, we may get an illiberal liberal version of Donald Trump.

While I consider myself part of the resistance, I am uncomfortable with the self-righteous, sanctimonious, delusional, and selective outrage about Donald Trump and his administration. Where were all of the champions of democracy when Joe Biden, on his way out the door, tried to amend the Constitution by executive fiat? Where were all of the opponents of violence and advocates of civility when angry BLM mobs were burning buildings, toppling statues, looting, and beating innocent people back in 2020? 

Where are all of the advocates of civility and opponents of inflammatory rhetoric, and critics of incitement to violence when it comes to Jay Jones, the Democratic nominee for Virginia’s attorney general? 

Jones, a former member of the Virginia state house, is running in the November election for Attorney General, challenging incumbent Republican Jason Miyares. Jones has said some disgusting things. When former state legislator Joe Johnson Jr., a moderate Democrat with a long tenure in Virginia politics, passed away, he was eulogized by Virginia politicians of both parties. Jones said of those Republicans eulogizing Johnson, "“If those guys die before me, I will go to their funerals to piss on their graves” to “send them out awash in something.”

He also said, if he was trapped in a room with a gun and two bullets, alongside Hitler, Pol Pot, and Todd Gilbert (then the Republican speaker of the state house), he would shoot Gilbert — twice. 

These comments were inadvertently made public. However, Jay Jones has not tried to explain them away or apologize.  Can one imagine the outrage if a Republican had said something similar about a Democrat? Where are the Democrats calling on Jones to resign? Where is the outrage?

Like I said, Trump Republicans are saying and doing more bad things than Democrats, but not different kinds of things. Dems do not have the moral high ground; they are just not an immediate threat. 

Top Stories

Congress Should Eliminate the ‘Shutdown’ Charade

 by DOMINIC PINO, National Review, Oct. 7, 2025- The federal government has been out of money since 1835. That was the last year in which the U.S. had no national debt. So it might seem a little silly to say that the government has to shut down because it ran out of money on October 1. And, well, it is silly.

Government shutdowns are not a requirement of the Constitution or of common sense. They are the product of the interaction of statutes that Congress can and should change. Government shutdowns don’t improve the quality of governance or the country’s fiscal health, and Congress should end them forever.

... The political calculation for shutdowns often includes the belief that voters will feel the pain and demand a way out, which the party that caused the shutdown hopes will mean granting its wishes. But most voters feel no pain. Social Security checks still go out, and Medicare and Medicaid coverage continues during government shutdowns. Those programs, plus interest payments on the national debt, which also continue to be made during shutdowns, account for about three-quarters of all federal spending.

Those programs, plus interest payments, are also the long-run drivers of the national debt. The rest of the federal budget is roughly balanced over the long run. That means that a lapse in government funding causes the balanced part of the budget to stop while the deficit-causing part continues as before. It’s nonsensical.

... For most of the furloughed employees, a government shutdown is basically a strange type of vacation, because the duration of that vacation is decided by Congress. Furloughed workers are not allowed to work or even be signed on to government computer networks. Far from being a harsh punishment of faceless bureaucrats, shutdowns are kind of nice for them while they last. ...they are legally entitled to back pay once the shutdown is over. ... most workers don’t even miss a paycheck. ...most voters and federal workers don’t feel much pain from government shutdowns. ... what can Congress do to fix this system? (read more)

Top Stories

These Are the Candidates for the TN-O7 Republican Primary.

by Rod Williams, Oct. 6, 2025-  The primary election is tomorrow and 11 Republicans are on the ballot seeking the nomination to be the Republican candidate in the general election.

The Seventh Congressional District is overwhelmingly a Republican District, so whoever wins the Republican nomination will most likely be the next Congressman from that district. So, while we are more than likely going to end up with a Trump loyalist with no backbone to oppose Trump's march toward authoritarianism, I still think it is better to have a smart, thoughtful person who knows what he is doing is wrong rather than one who is an absolute non-thinking Trump sycophant. That is to say, I would rather have someone like Mark Green than someone like Andy Ogles.

I have already voted, voting on the last day of early voting. I voted for Matt Van Epps. Normally, I wait until Election Day to vote, but I was supposed to be out of town tomorrow. As it turns out, my plans fell through, and I am not out of town. If I had not already voted, I would have to rethink my vote. The reason is that Matt Van Epps has received the endorsement of Donald Trump. If Van Epps is Trump's preferred candidate, he can't be very good. 

I studied each of the candidates, read the mailers they sent me, visited their websites, examined their ads, took note of who was endorsing whom, and watched the videoed candidate forums, and reached my decision to vote for Matt Van Epps. I was confident I had selected the best candidate until he got the Trump endorcement. 

While all of the candidates to one degree or another, pledged their support for Donald Trump and his agenda, Van Epps seemed the least dogmatic. Many of the candidates seem like thoughtless followers in a cult rather than thoughtful people. In some ways, Van Epps is boring. He talks about policy. He doesn't rant about the social issues and doesn't go on about a stolen election. He doesn't spread conspiracy theories. He sounds reasonable and responsible. He seems to most resemble a pre-Trump era normal Republican. 

Reasoning that Van Epps seemed the least "Trumpy" of the candidates, I was surprised that Donald Trump endorsed Matt Van Epps. If I had not already voted, I might just skip voting, or I might vote in the Democratic primary or vote in the Republican primary for a different candidate. Since the Trump endorsement of Van Epps has caused me to rethink my own vote, I cannot offer much guidance as for whom to vote. 

Below are the Republican candidates for the Seventh Congressional District, with links to their websites, Facebook pages and other sources of information and prominent endorcements.

Jody Barrett

Rep. Jody Barrett: Dickson attorney Barrett has served in the Tennessee General Assembly since his 2020 election. Barrett received a perfect score from the Trumpian Tennessee Legislative Report Card, which is operated in partnership with Tennessee Stands. If you don't know Tennessee Stands, they are a kooky Trumpy outfit. Getting their endorsement is a disqualifier for me.

Barrett has come under a vicious, sleazzy attack by a group affiliated with the Club for Growth due to his opposition to Gov. Lee's school voucher program. While I personally support school choice, I think the attacks against Barrett are disgusting and I briefly considered voting for him simply because I am repulsed by the attack ads. For more on this and to see the ad, go to I am Almost Persuaded to Vote for Jody Barrett Due to this Disgusting Attack Ad.

Website: https://www.jodybarrettfortennessee.com/

Facebook page: Jody Barrett for Tennessee

Gino Bulso

Rep. Gino Bulso: A Brentwood trial lawyer specializing in personal injury suits, Bulso was elected to the legislature in 2022. He has said focusing on the national debt will be a priority. 

Website: https://votegino.com/

Facebook: Gino Bulso for Congress

Lee Reeves

Rep. Lee Reeves: Reeves, of Franklin, won the Republican primary for House District 65 by less than 100 votes in August 2024, before going on to win the general election. Reeves’ wife, Claire, serves on the Williamson County School Board. 

After Trump endorsed Van Epps, Reeves announced he was withdrawing from the race, but his name will still be on the ballot. 

Reeves has received the endorsement of Knox County Mayor Glenn Jacobs, Tennessee Senate Majority Leader Jack Johnson (R-Franklin), former Davidson County Republican Party Chairman Lonnie Spivak, and Country music artist John Rich. To read more about why these people support Reeves see, TN-7 Candidate Lee Reeves Picks Up Notable Endorsements from Tennessee Republican Leaders. 

Website: https://leereeves.com/

Facebook: Lee Reeves for Congress 

Matt Van Epps

Matt Van Epps: Van Epps is the former Tennessee commissioner of General Services under Gov. Bill Lee. Prior to that, he worked as vice president of Main Street Health, which coordinates care for Medicare patients in rural clinics. A graduate of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, Van Epps is a lieutenant colonel in the Tennessee National Guard. Van Epps. 

Van Epps has received the endorsement of President Donald J. Trump, Governor Bill Lee, Congressman Mark Green and Congressman Jim Jordan.   Also, he has been endorsed by a bunch of mayors and vice mayors and city councilmen of the various cities in the Seventh Congressional District.

Website: https://www.mattfortn.com/

Facebook: Matt Van Epps

Stewart Parks: Parks, a Nashville real estate agent, served time in federal prison for his participation in the Jan. 6, insurrection, in which he was charged with disorderly conduct, intent to impede and disrupt the operations of Congress and property theft. President Donald Trump pardoned Parks in January 2025 as part of his general pardon of those who took part in the J6 insurrection.  
Website: https://parksfortn.com/

Stewart Cooper: Cooper, of Franklin, works in sales for Flagler Technologies, a Florida-based provider of information technology services. His website says nothing Trumpian and that is a plus.

Website: https://www.cooper4congress.com/

Adolph Agbéko Dagan: No information is available for Dagan. I may vote for Daagan, simply because I know nothing about him and assume he is not a serious candidate, so a vote for Dagan, is sort like voting for "none of the above."

Mason Foley: Foley, of Franklin, served as a staff member for U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, from 2020-2022 before joining Main Street Health, which works with Medicaid patients in rural areas. 

Foley has received the endorsement of former Metro Nashville mayoral candidate Alice Rolli.

Among the candidates who are not being considered major candidates, it looks like Foley should be, and maybe the polls are wrong. He strikes me as top-tier material and he does have ads running on TV. I do not know how old he is, but he calls himself Gen Z and appears young. While his website pledges his support for the Trump agenda, he does not stoke the culture wars and his tone is less vitriolic than some of the other candidates. I am considering voting for him.

Website: Foley for Congress

Facebook: Foley for Congress

Jason D. Knight: Knight formerly served on the Clarksville City Council and is currently a member of the Montgomery County Commission. He works in information systems management and served nine years on active duty with the U.S. Army’s 101st Airborne Division, which is based in Clarksville. 

I like the tone of his campaign as expressed on his website and his common-sense, traditional conservative policy positions.  He checks the Trump loyalty box without overdoing it. I could vote for him.

Website: https://www.jasonknight.org/

Joe Leurs: Leurs is a retired non-commissioned officer with the U.S. Marines and retired from the Metro Nashville Police Department. Website: https://www.joeleurs-tn.com/

Tres Wittum: Wittum is a former Tennessee Senate staff member who ran for Congress in Tennessee’s 5th District in 2022. He also ran for U.S. Senate against incumbent Sen. Marsha Blackburn in 2024. Website: https://treswittum.com/

If you are considering voting in the Democrat primary, for information on Democratic candidates, see 

Meet the TN-07 Democratic Candidates

Top Stories