Metro's reserve fund balances are being permitted to drop below recommended levels.

In the recently passed fiscal year 2020 budget, several of Metro's reserve fund balances are being permitted to drop below recommended levels.  The following is from the Metro Council staff analysis:

Metro’s established policy is to maintain a fund balance equal to or greater than 5% for each of the six primary budgetary funds, the GSD General Fund, USD General Fund, and General Purpose School Operations Fund, as well as the three related primary debt service funds. However, three of these six funds will not meet this target in FY20.The Mayor’s proposed budget is projected to result in the following fund balance percentages by June 30, 2020:

•General Services District General Fund 5.0%
•General Services District Debt Service Fund 2.3%
•General Services District Schools Operations Fund 3.5%
•Schools Debt Service Fund 9.3%
•Urban Services District General Fund 5.1%
•Urban Services District Debt Service Fund 1.8%

Top Stories

We woke up freer to speak our mind today, than yesterday.

Daniel Horwitz

By Daniel Horwitz - If you woke up this morning feeling freer to speak your mind, there’s a reason: A little-noticed law with huge free speech benefits takes effect today. As of July 1, 2019, the “Tennessee Public Participation Act”—Tennessee’s first-ever meaningful Anti-SLAPP law—became effective and affords those who are sued for their speech a host of critical legal benefits.

Because litigation is often prohibitively expensive, bad actors can often intimidate critics into silence by threatening or filing baseless speech-based lawsuits asserting claims like defamation (libel or slander), false light invasion of privacy, business disparagement, or other questionable torts. When faced with the prospect of having to spend tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of dollars in legal fees to defend one’s legal right, for instance, to leave an unfavorable review of a business, self-censorship can also become an extremely attractive proposition. The result of such self-censorship is to undermine both individuals’ right to free speech and the public’s right to hear and receive information. (Read more of this essay and the text of the law. See, The “Tennessee Public Participation Act”⁠—Tennessee’s First-Ever Meaningful Anti-SLAPP Law⁠—Takes Effect Today)

Top Stories

Bellevue Breakfast Club - July

From Betty Hood:

Dear BRBC Friends,

Here's wishing you a Happy 4th of July on Thursday!!!

Saturday, July 6 at 8:15 am will be the monthly breakfast club meeting at the Corner Pub in the Woods on Hwy 100. Our guest speaker will be Bobbie Patray of Eagle Forum.  Bobbie has been and we hope she will continue to be a strong conservative advocate for us at the State Legislature. 

We encourage candidates for Metro Council to come and introduce yourselves to the group.

Happy birthday,  America!!!!

Betty

Top Stories

Congratulations Dr. Arthur Laffer on being awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Dr. Arthur B. Laffer was awarded the Presidential Metal of Freedom last week in ceremonies at the White House.  It is an honor well deserved.  

I have had the privilege of seeing Dr. Laffer speak on several occasions, once was a full lecture with slide shows and historical data to support his economic doctrine.  I have also had the opportunity to attend a reception in his honor.  He is charismatic, persuasive and charming.  His theory is so commonsensical and supported by experience that is hard for me to see how it still has detractors. 

Art Laffer was a member of President Reagan’s Economic Policy Advisory Board for both of his two terms. He also advised Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher on fiscal policy in the U.K. during the 1980s. He has been a faculty member at the University of Chicago, University of Southern California and Pepperdine University. Dr. Laffer received a B.A. in economics from Yale University in 1963. He received a MBA and a Ph.D. in economics from Stanford University in 1965 and 1972 respectively.

Dr. Laffer was the creator of “The Laffer Curve.” The Laffer Curve is one of the main theoretical constructs of supply-side economics, and is often used as a shorthand to sum up the entire pro-growth world view of supply-side economics.  However, the Laffer Curve itself simply illustrates the trade-off between tax rates and the total tax revenues actually collected by the government. Dr. Laffer is widely regarded as the father of Supply Side Economics. 

Supply-side economics emphasizes economic growth achieved by tax and fiscal policy that creates incentives to produce goods and services.  In particular, supply-side economics has focused primarily on lowering marginal tax rates with the purpose of increasing the after-tax rate of return from work and investment, which result in increases in supply. The broader supply-side policy mix points to the importance of sound money; free trade; less regulation; low, flat-rate taxes; and spending restraint, as the keys to real economic growth. 

These ideas are grounded in a classical economic analysis that understands that people adjust their behavior when the incentives change.  Accordingly, the lower the regulatory and trade barriers, and the lower and flatter the tax rate, the greater the incentive to produce.

Dr. Laffer currently lives in Nashville, Tennessee where he is the founder and chairman of Laffer Associates, an institutional economic research and consulting firm, as well as Laffer Investments, an institutional investment management firm utilizing diverse investment strategies.  The firms provide research and investment management services to a diverse group of clients, which includes institutions, pension funds, corporations, endowments, foundations, individuals and others.

A few years ago when I heard him speak, he said that he left California because of he mismanagement and high taxes.  He says he selected to move to Tennessee in large part because of our state was so low-tax and financially well-managed. We are fortunate to have him as a citizen of our state and our city.

Congratulations Dr. Laffer! 

(Much of the above is copied from this website and was not composed by Rod Williams. )

Top Stories

Tonight (6/30/2019) is the deadline to contribute to a candidate for 2nd quarter reporting.

From an Email:

Dear Rod,

The fundraising deadline ends tonight - Sunday, June 30 - at midnight and we are doing all that we can to finish the quarter as strong as possible. 

If you have already made a donation to my campaign this month - THANK YOU!

If not, I hope you will consider making a contribution before this very important fundraising period comes to a close tonight. It is our first deadline since getting in the race in April and I'd like to show my ciritics the depth of support we have from every area of Nashville. 

Your contribution of $5, $25, or $50 will help show that, community by community, friends are asking friends to support my campaign. Together, we can keep this strong momentum as we head towards Election Day. 

www.johncooperfornashville.com/endofquarter

Thanks again, 

John Cooper

Rod's Comment: Tonight (6/30/2019) is the deadline to contribute for inclusion of the contribution in a candidate's 2nd quarter reporting. A report of substantial contributions and money on hand shows who can make a strong finish in the last days of the campaign.  A lot of modest contributions can show a candidate has deep and broad-based community support. I just made another contributions to John Cooper.  I encourage you to make a contribution to Cooper, today, and any other candidates you are supporting. This is an important campaign date.

Top Stories

Who is winning the race for mayor. What the polls show.

A recent Tennessee Star/ Triton poll shows the following in the mayor's race (link):

• David Briley 27.8 percent
• Carol Swain 22 percent
• John Cooper 19.8 percent
• John Ray Clemmons  10.8 percent
• Undecided 19.5 percent

For any candidate to win, he must receive more than 50% of the vote or there will be a runoff between the two top contenders. Carol Swain is performing well  but I do not see a path to victory for her.  There is no way she will reach the 50%+ threshold.  If she makes a runoff, she will be crushed.  I think she is probably near her peak. I would be surprised if any significant number of the "undecided" break her way.

We must face the fact that Davidson County is a Democratic enclave. Davidson County has been solidly Democrat ever since the Civil War.  While most of the state has flipped to Republican, if anything, Davidson County has become more solidly Democrat.  Also, the old conservative Democrat is a thing of the past.  Nashville is a city dominated by very progressive Democrats. 

While the mayoral race is non-partisan, the citizens of Nashville are just not going to elect a Republican.  The best a Republican can do is garner about 35% of the vote. If one looks at the last presidential race, or governor's race, or Senate race, Republicans did not do well in Davidson County.  If a moderate talented pro-business person like David Fox who was only loosely affiliated with the Republican Party could not win, Carol Swain cannot win.  I wish it was different, but it is not. 

Unfortunately, Carol Swain has a record.  She is a scholar, an author and a pundit who has expressed her views in books and network TV news and webcast. I agree with most of her opinions on the cause of the dysfunction in the Black Community, on the sanctity of life, on the danger from radical Islam, immigration, and other issues, but in progressive Nashville she will be smeared as homophobic, Islamophobic, misogynist, xenophobic, and racist if she becomes a threat to the liberal establishment.  At this point they can play nice, but let her become a threat and the gloves will come off.  There is no reason to go after her now.  In fact, I bet Briley is hoping she is his runoff opponent, if he cannot win outright.

I like Carol Swain.  I supported her last time she ran and this election before Cooper got in the race, I supported her.  I sent her a contribution. She is smart, has a compelling life story, and I share her values. However, once John Cooper was in, I switched my support to him.  Even when supporting Swain, I did not think she could win.  When the choice was only between Briley and Clemmons, I was glad to have Carol in the race.  Briley would not solve our city's problems and Clemmons would make them worst are a faster rate, I reasoned, so even if Swain couldn't win, I wanted an alternative to two progressives who would continue down the wrong path.

I support John Cooper because I believe he will fix what is wrong with Nashville. He will change course.  He  has the knowledge and the commitment to fixing Nashville's finances. Nashville is booming, yet we cannot give employees a decent raise, our police and fire are understaffed, our schools are failing and getting worse, we can't build sidewalks, traffic is snarled, and our infrastructure is crumbling and we Nashvillians have the highest debt per person of any city in America. But, we are not undertaxed, in my view; we are mismanaged. The way I see it those are our major issues and the social issues are irrelevant. John Cooper is the person we need for mayor at this time.  I am sure there are issues with which I will not agree with him, but on the important issues he is much better than Briley and much, much better than Clemmons and he is electable.

Top Stories

Maximum Pressure for a Denuclearized Iran

Rep. Phil Roe

by Congressman Phil Roe - One of the first policy questions I was ever asked was, “Do you think Iran should have a nuclear weapon?” I remember my answer clear as day: “During the Vietnam War, I served nearly 13 months near the Demilitarized Zone in Korea. Does anyone believe the world is safer and more stable now that North Korea has the capability to develop nuclear weapons?” Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ support for militant groups abroad has helped destabilize the Middle East and represents a clear threat to U.S. regional security interests. Historically, the U.S. placed strong sanctions on Iran in response to their nuclear and terroristic activity, until the 2015 nuclear deal. These sanctions were a proven success in curbing Iran’s aggressive activity. 

On May 12, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia reported that four oil tankers and Saudi oil pipeline infrastructure had been attacked. Last week, Iran shot down a U.S. military drone in international airspace over the Strait of Hormuz, attacked two more oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman and attempted to shoot down another U.S. drone that was surveilling the attack. 

President Trump showed leadership and restraint when he decided against a military response to this latest aggression, instead deciding to impose new sanctions that would deny Iran’s leadership the financial resources for oppressive activity. War is never a desirable outcome, and I’m proud the President found a way to hold Iran accountable while leaving room for military escalation should their actions continue. The U.S. warned world leaders of the Iranians’ capacity to destabilize the region, and based on recent actions, that’s exactly what is happening. Our allies need to come together and accelerate sanctions to force the Iranians to the negotiating table. I am proud to support President Trump’s approach.

In 2015, the Obama administration negotiated the “Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action” (JCPOA), also known as the Iran nuclear agreement, which overwhelmingly relieved sanctions against Iran in hopes they would limit their nuclear program. However, that agreement fell short. The U.S. was denied access to certain Iranian military areas, Iran’s missile program was left unchecked, and its regional influence enabling human rights abuses was not addressed. That’s why I voted against the Iran Nuclear deal when it was brought before Congress, and why I strongly supported President Trump’s decision to pull out of the agreement to push the Iranian regime for additional concessions.

Since the moment the agreement was announced, strong bipartisan majorities in Congress – including myself – have voted against putting this agreement into place. Despite Congress’ opposition, the Obama administration pushed forward with their agreement. Now, many of the officials who negotiated this agreement are trying to push a false narrative that President Trump’s decision to pull out of the agreement is the cause of Iranian aggression. You have to ask yourself: why on earth would a country committed to denuclearization attack another country who also wants them to be denuclearized? This logic doesn’t add up.

On July 25, 2017, I was proud to vote for the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act which passed the House by a vote of 419 to 3. This legislation, which President Trump signed into law, establishes new sanctions and enhances existing sanctions, against Iran, Russia and North Korea. If we are going to achieve a diplomatic solution, which the president has made it clear that he prefers, it needs to be one that guarantees a nuclear-free Iran. 

This May, the administration ended a U.S. sanctions exception for the purchase of Iranian oil, ended waivers allowing countries to help Iran remain within stockpile limits of low-enriched uranium and of heavy water reactor fuel and accelerated plans to send a strike group to the Persian Gulf region. Additionally, the President issued an executive order freezing U.S. based assets of personal and entities determined to have conducted significant transactions with Iran’s iron, steel, aluminum or copper sectors. Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani responded by announcing Iran would no longer abide by the JCPOA on stockpiles of low-enriched uranium and heavy water, threatening to enrich it to a higher level. 

There are still Iranians that march through the streets chanting “Death to America.” We should take them at their word. While we do not want a war with Iran, any potential diplomatic solution also has to ensure American security. I will continue supporting President Trump’s actions to put American safety and security first, and I hope we can make real and lasting progress that ensures a future peace.

Phil Roe represents the First Congressional District of Tennessee in the U.S. House of Representatives. He is physician and co-chair of the House GOP Doctors Caucus and a member of the Health Caucus. Prior to serving in Congress, he served as the Mayor of Johnson City, Tennessee. 

Top Stories

It matters who governs and it matters who appoints Supreme Court justices.

by Rod Williams - It really matters who governs and it matters who appoints Supreme Court justices.  Yesterday the Court ruled five to four that it was not up to the Court to draw political boundaries for congressional districts but up to state legislators.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberst said, "We conclude that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts. Federal judges have no license to reallocate political power between the two major political parties, with no plausible grant of authority in the Constitution, and no legal standards to limit and direct their decisions."

It is refreshing to have a court that recognizes some questions are "political questions" not to be decided from the bench and that even judges are limited by "authority in the Constitution."  This would have been decided the other way if not for the appointment of Neil Gorsuch.

Unfortunately, the other decision handed down yesterday did not favor Republicans. The Court blocked a citizenship question from being added to the 2020 census. The Court did not permanently block the inclusion of the citizenship question but delayed it.  If the administration can delay the census, it still may be able to meet the Court's requirements for including it.

While I have not delved deeply into the courts opinion on the census issue, my initial thoughts are that  the court wrongly decided the case. Given the intrusive nosy nature of the census, asking one's citizenship status seems not that offensive and seems rational. It seems like the government should know how many citizens are in America.  If the census can ask you your race and ethnicity it seems like it should be allowed to ask you your citizenship status. The question was part of the census as recent as 1950. The argument against asking it is that asking the questions would result in illegal immigrants not answering the census and thus being undercounted in the census. The census is used for the allocation of congressional seats and to allocate federal funds to the States and if illegal immigrants did not answer the census then states with large number of illegals, such as Texas and California, would be allocated fewer representatives and receive fewer federal dollars.

While I am disappointing the census questions did not go our way, I am pleased that the ruling did not just outright ban asking the question which would have happened with a more liberal court and I am very pleased with the gerrymandering decision. If we can get one more conservative justice on the Court, our Democracy will be assured for decades to come.

Surprising no one, Tennessee Democrats criticized and  Republicans praised the Supreme Court ruling regarding gerrymandering. Congressman Jim Cooper called it "shortsighted and dangerous for our country."  Tennessee Republican Party Chairman Scott Golden said the Supreme Court decision "was the constitutionally correct" one. "District lines should be drawn by elected officials who are held accountable by the people they represent, not appointed federal judges or un-elected bureaucrats," he said.

For more on this topic see link,  link ,  link, link.

Top Stories

Nashville police union backs John Cooper for mayor

Nashville police union backs John Cooper for mayor, other Metro Council candidates

by Yihyun Jeong, The Tennessean - The Fraternal Order of Police  — which represents thousands of local, state and federal law enforcement personnel stationed in the Nashville area. — released their endorsements Monday for candidates running for Metro office. 

"I am honored to be endorsed by the Fraternal Order of Police," Cooper said in a statement. "Keeping people safe is the first job of government. Policing is a difficult and noble profession and the rank and file should be treated fairly by their superiors, just as the citizenry at large deserve to be treated fairly. It is the job of the mayor to set clear goals, provide the resources necessary, and hold people accountable for results." (read more)

Top Stories

The televised Channel 5 mayoral debate, part 2.

Top Stories

The televised Channel 5 mayoral debate, part 1.

If you were not one of the few who attended in person or did not watch it live last night, here is part 1 of the mayoral debate between the four serious candidates for mayor, sponsored by News Channel 5 and The Tennessean.

Quick takeaways and my impressions from this debate is that Ray Clemmons would drastically hike taxes and give the school board any amount of money they requested and is the only candidate who thinks the Council should have raised taxes.  Only Mayor Briley thinks Nashville is going in the right direction. All are concerned about traffic, and affordable housing and education. All talk about communities that are left behind.

Carol Swain does not sound much more conservative than any of the others in the debate except for Clemmons. She does say, "we do not have a revenue problem, but a spending problem."  I like that   She condemns the "good ole boy" network and corporations that get handouts. She has a focus, and rightly so I think, on building sidewalks and says only 19% of the city has sidewalks and we should focus on building sidewalks instead of bike lanes. I am disappointing that Carol Swain says when negotiating with companies she would get them to "invest" in the city in things like affordable housing, etc.  I do not want the city trying to extract payoffs businesses any more than I want the city to bribe them to come here.

Without getting lost in the weeds of too much details, Councilman Cooper, comes across as someone with a deep understanding of what is wrong with Metro's finances and a commitment to fixing it. He says the recently proposed tax increase would have raised property taxes on police and firemen and they would not have gotten a raise. He does a good job of explaining why the tax increase proposal was a bad idea. Briley does a credible jobs of explaining and defending his policies. He looks better in the debate than I though he would.

Top Stories

TOMORROW: 1st Televised Mayoral Debate

Tuesday, June 25th at 6pm

Belmont University 

Tickets are sold out, but you can still watch the debate live!  NewsChannel 5 will be airing the debate live, as well as streaming it on NewsChannel5.com. 

Top Stories