TN-07 Looks Like it Could Flip for the Democrats

by Rod Williams, Nov. 16, 2025- The above analysis shows that the 7th Congressional District is winnable by the Democratic nominee Aftyn Behn. It is hard to believe, but the analysis seems solid. 

I have not voted yet and am in a quandary about what to do. On the one hand, I think Trump needs to be stopped, Congress needs to reassert its authority, and Congress needs to conduct oversight.  I see Trump as a threat to America's continued existence as a democracy.  Republicans in Congress have shown no appetite for holding Trump accountable. In the abstract, I want to see Democrats retake the House. 

On the other hand, the Democratic voters of Tennessee's seventh congressional district nominated the most progressive candidate of the candidates running. Aftyn Behn has been a community organizer for Tennessee Justice Center and a community organizer for Indivisible and has advocated for an end to cash bail, defunding the police, and abolishing the Electoral College, and has advocated rolling back Tennessee's restriction on child genital mutilation procedures commonly called "gender affirming care." (1)  She has the endorsement of the Progressive Democrats of America.

As much as I want to see Trump's march toward authoritarianism stopped, I don't think I can vote for Aftyn Behn. I could have voted for Bo Mitchell; but not Aftyn Behn. I held my nose in 2024 and voted for Kamala Harris. That does not mean I will continue to vote for far-left candidates,  especially candidates for lesser offices.

I have watched videos and debates and visited his website, and familiarized myself with Republican candidate Matt Van Epps. I voted in the Republican primary and voted for him. I familiarized myself with all the Republican candidates running and perceived Van Epps to be the best-qualified and least Trumpy of the field. In this year's primary, I had to vote early due to being out of town on election day, and between the time I voted and primary election day, President Trump endorsed Van Epps. I was quite surprised. If I believed VanEpps would stand firm for conservative values against Trump's authoritarian nationalism, and he would not be just another Trump lackey, he would get my vote. 

If this were normal times, I would not think twice about for whom I would vote. Looking simply at their position on the issues, I would vote for Van Epps in a heartbeat. There would be no contest. However, these are not normal times.  Checking Trump's authoritarianism is the issue that may trump all others for me, but even that has limits. I can vote center-left in order to check Trump; I am not sure I can vote far-left. When I chose to vote for Harris over Trump, more was at stake. I was actually voting for who would occupy the highest office in the land, and Trump had attempted a coup, and Harris had not. In voting for one of 435 House members, less is at stake so the weight of the pressure to vote against my principles in order to curtail Trump's authoritarian polices is less intense. 

When Democrats did not stand a chance of winning the 7th, I had decided my vote didn't matter and I would just sit out the election. Now, that my vote would matter, I still may sit out the election but can not do so with the same peace of mind.

Top Stories

TROUBLE IN PARADISE?

Ralph Bristol

by Ralph Bristol, Facebook, Nov. 11, 2025- It may not be nothing that President Trump has black-balled Marjorie Taylor Greene. 

Or, it may be nothing.  

I don't know. 

I know the MAGA majority in Congress is slim, and if a high-profile political divorce like this creates another fissure in the base, it may not be strong enough to support Trump in future demands on Congress. 

WHAT HAPPENED?

President Donald Trump said Friday he no longer endorsed Marjorie 

Taylor Greene, the Georgia congresswoman and a former staunch ally, and that he would support a conservative challenge against her in the next Republican primary election if it were the right candidate.  In a Truth Social post Friday night, Trump said he “can’t take a ranting Lunatic’s call every day...” 

My specialty is policy, not politics, so - is this important, or just "same song, different verse" in the volatile history of Trump friendships?   The reason I ask is that Marjorie may just be the kind of person to make a few more waves than some of Trump's previous break-ups have done.  Some of them have made a little noise, but it's noise has been - well - let's just say not the kind of noise that made Marjorie famous - or infamous.

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. 

Top Stories

The Flawed Reasoning Arguing Against a 50-year Mortgage

Daniel Turklay

by Daniel Turklay, Facebook, Nov. 14, 2025-  For the record, I'm neither advocating for nor opposing 50-year mortgages. It's somewhat strange to even take a firm stance on this issue. Most of the objections to the 50-year mortgage just seem to be general objections to mortgages altogether. I was genuinely surprised to learn that 50-year options aren't currently permitted; I had assumed the 30-year norm resulted from established practices, banking risk assessments, and underwriting standards, not because it was apparently the maximum term allowed.

That said, while I remain personally impartial, the arguments against 50-year mortgages are full of flawed reasoning and selective (or flat-out dishonest) interpretations. It's difficult not to gravitate toward the supportive side simply by default. Proponents tend to be those who simply recognize that a 50-year loan operates in much the same way as a 30-year one, both in structure and purpose. If you have a solid grasp of how an amortization schedule functions, you'd probably be as inherently indifferent to this as I am.

Here are a few examples of those questionable objections:

"A 50-year mortgage is essentially renting from the bank!" Firstly, no it’s not. This pearl of wisdom overlooks that it's no more "renting" than a 30- or 15-year loan which, to be clear, is not renting at all. But if we're going to indulge this intentionally reductive notion and pretend any ongoing payment makes you a mere tenant, then fine: the 50-year version still outshines actual renting by locking in your "rent" against any hikes for five full decades. (Also, you own the place at the end, but I forgot that we’re forgetting about that for now.)

"The interest is heavily front-loaded!" Only if framed that way, but this arises naturally from borrowing the full amount at the outset. It's not a deliberate scheme to boost bank profits; it's simply the mathematics inherent to every amortization table. This applies equally to shorter-term loans.

"You'll rack up enormous interest—banks will thrive on it!" Lenders focus primarily on the interest rate rather than the duration. With a shorter loan, they can relend the funds multiple times within the same overall period, achieving similar gains. They really just want you to pay the money back so they can lend it again to somebody that they’ve more recently vetted and not somebody they deemed to be a good credit risk several years ago.

Indeed, sticking to minimum payments over 50 years will result in substantially higher total interest compared to a 30-year equivalent. However, that's purely the cost of extending the borrowing period at the same rate. You only pay the maximum if the loan runs to full term without additional contributions and nobody actually does that. But, and I'll cover this more later, practically nobody actually pays their loan like that.

Understanding amortization makes it straightforward to reduce the duration. For example, on a $350,000 loan at 6% over 50 years, an extra $5,000 toward principal in the first month eliminates over four years off the mortgage. Now you have a 46-year mortgage, but with the original, more affordable monthly payment. Doesn't seem so intimidating, does it?

That front-loading of interest is precisely what allows early overpayments to deliver substantial savings in time and expense. The effect wanes later as payments shift more toward principal. But this dynamic holds true across all mortgage terms.

Lastly, and this goes towards nearly every single objection to the 50-year term of the mortgage, almost no mortgages at all are paid for the full duration with only the minimum payments being made every month. Most people will throw additional money at the principal at some point. But even those that only pay the minimums will usually not make it to the end of the term because they’ll either a) refinance the house to get some of their equity out of it or b) sell the house after 5, 10, 15, or 20 years in which case the mortgage gets paid completely off at that time. In other words, almost nobody actually behaves in a way that gives the objections any persuasive value at all. The sad part is that those objecting either haven’t realized that or they’re being intentionally dishonest about that for reasons that aren’t entirely clear.

Daniel Turklay is a criminal defense trial attorney at Turklay Law, PLLC. He lives in Lebanon, Tennessee. 

Rod's Comment: I agree. 

In addition, almost no one keeps a 30-year mortgage for thirty years. The average time a person keeps a 30-year mortgage before selling the home or refinancing is approximately 8 to 12 years. I have paid off three thirty-year mortgages, and had none of them for thirty years. 

I spent most of my career as a housing counselor for a HUD-approved housing counseling agency and helped hundreds of poor people become homeowners. There are mortgages such as variable and graduated, which I would never recommend. I would not hesitate to recommend a 50-year mortgage to a person who would otherwise never become a homeowner.

Top Stories

Could This Be The End of Single-Family Zoning?

by Megan Podsiedlik, The Pamphleteer, Nov. 11, 2025 - Single-family zoning may become a mere suggestion within the Urban Services District (USD). In the heart of Nashville, single-family residential zoning districts (RS) require a Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit overlay in order for residents to pursue a permit to build a detached dwelling on their property. All that may change if the Metro Council passes a new bill that would allow DADUs for all RS zoning districts within the USD.

“If you have an aging parent, who has the right to tell you you cannot build a structure on your property to house them?” asked Councilmember Mike Cortese while addressing his colleagues during Tuesday’s council meeting. “If you have a child who's struggling financially, who has the right to tell you you cannot build a structure on your property to house them?”

Regarding affordability and property rights, the appeal cuts to the heart of the matter. But the solution comes with its own set of hurdles. 

Councilmember Courtney Johnston appreciates the bill—given that the current DADU Overlay process is “restrictive and difficult”—but wants to add some guardrails to keep the spirit of “accessory dwelling” intact.

“The amendment I put forth reduces the maximum size allowed from 850-1,200 square feet to 700-850, depending on whether your lot size is smaller or greater than 10,000 square feet,” Johnston told us. “In my opinion, 1,200 square feet exceeds the accessory nature of what is intended. Plainly said, a 1,200-square-foot unit is a house, not an accessory.”

While residents worry about infrastructure issues and neighbors building what is essentially equivalent to a second, full-sized home on a single-family lot, there are also enforcement concerns regarding the new legislation. Though the bill stipulates that the owner must occupy one of the units on the property, many are wary that landlords will take advantage of the new code.

During the community presentation on proposed Metro zoning changes two weeks ago, a District 15 resident disparaged Metro’s zoning enforcement, explaining how, despite rules and regulations, big development companies and corporations rent out units in ways that are supposed to be prohibited by Metro Code.

“What we're seeing is a lot of short-term rentals, because [these companies] say they're living in there,” she explained. “They have people come by, get the mail, etc.”

“The state has tied our hands when it comes to some types of short-term rental enforcement when it comes to noises and stuff like that,” said Councilmember Tom Cash during Tuesday’s council meeting. “It's really tough, because you have to take the person to court.” That said, Cash commended the efficiency of Metro’s code enforcement before asking the body to consider looking into community concerns. 

The bill that would expand/simplify codes for Detached Accessory Dwelling Units (DADUs) passed on second reading last week, and its final reading will be on December 4. A robust discussion about amendments proposed for the new zoning bills will be held during the Planning & Zoning Committee meeting on November 18.

Rod's Comment: I am not lamenting the end of single-family zoning, simply acknowledging it. What is before the Council would not force anyone to increase the density on their own property, but would allow their neighbor to build an accessory dwelling unit. There would still be communities with single-family-only housing as a result of restrictive covenants or planned communities with HOA's. I think Johnson's amendment is reasonable, and I think it is time to allow greater housing density in Nashville. 

Top Stories

Don't Hold Your Breath Waiting for That $2,000 Tariff Dividend. It Could Cost $600 Billion Per Year

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, Nov. 11, 2025-  President Trump proposed paying a dividend of “at least $2,000 a person” with new tariff revenue in a post on Truth Social this weekend. The post noted that “high income people” would be excluded from the dividend and also discussed paying down the national debt.

Assuming these dividends are designed like the COVID-era Economic Impact Payments, which went to both adults and children, we estimate each round of payments would cost about $600 billion. In comparison, President Trump’s new tariffs currently in effect have raised approximately $100 billion thus far and – including those tariffs that have been ruled illegal pending a Supreme Court appeal – are projected to raise about $300 billion per year.

While the President did not specify the frequency with which dividends would be paid, nor the precise amount (he said “at least $2,000 a person”), we estimate that $2,000 dividends would increase deficits by $6 trillion over ten years, assuming dividends are paid annually. This is roughly twice as much as President Trump’s tariffs are estimated to raise over the same time period.

Our analysis also shows:

• On a revenue neutral basis, current tariffs could be used to pay a $2,000 dividend every other year, starting in early 2027.
• If the Supreme Court upholds lower court rulings – in which case most of President Trump’s tariffs would be illegal – income from President Trump’s remaining tariffs would be sufficient to pay $2,000 dividends after seven years.
• Using income from tariffs to pay dividends would mean that income could not be used to reduce deficits or offset borrowing from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA).
• Using all the tariff revenue for rebates would push debt to 127% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by 2035 instead of 120% under current law; if $2,000 dividends are paid annually, debt would reach 134% GDP.

With our national debt quickly approaching an all-time high and annual budget deficits approaching $2 trillion per year, it is imperative that policymakers focus on actually reducing deficits and putting debt on a downward path. Additional tariff revenue should be used to reduce deficits – as several administration figures have stated is the intention – instead of passing that revenue onto taxpayers in the form of cash dividends.

Top Stories

Remembering the Fall of the Berline Wall

by Rod Williams, Nov. 9, 2025- Today will come and go with almost no mention that this day was the 36th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. It is a shame. November 9th should be a National holiday. Or better yet, it should be a worldwide holiday. It should rival a combination of New Year’s Eve and the 4th of July. There should be concerts, parades, dancing in the street, Champagne toast, ringing of church bells, and fireworks. 

On November 9, 1989 the Berlin Wall fell and the world changed forever. As the world watched, we did not know if Russia would send in troops to put down the rebellion or not. We did not know if East German guards would fire on their fellow citizens. In 1958 an uprising in Hungary was crushed. In 1968 the Czech rebellion was likewise suppressed. 

As we watched in 1989, it was hard to believe that the East German rebellion would end differently, but there was reason to hope. There was reason to believe that there were few true believers in Communism left behind the Iron Curtain. Gorbachev, to save Communism, had launched Perestroika and Glasnost, which had not saved Communism but sealed its fate. The Soviets had been forced to realize that they could not outspend the West in the arms race. The Solidarity union movement had sprung up in Poland and not been crushed and Catholicism had a Polish pope who was encouraging the Catholics behind the Iron Curtain to keep the faith, and America had a president who said his goal was not to co-exist with Communism but to defeat it. The West was more confident and the East seemed exhausted. 

With modern communications and contact between the captive peoples of the East and the free people of the West, Communist governments could no longer convince their people that Communism was a superior way to organize society. And, for the first time, attempts to spread Communism had failed. From the tiny island of Granada to Nicaragua to Afghanistan, attempts at expansion had met with failure. 

When the demonstrators in East Germany began chipping away at the wall, the guards did not fire, the Soviets did not send in tanks and the walls came tumbling down. It would still be a couple more years before the other Communist dominoes fell, but one by one they did, except for the two dysfunctional states of North Korea and Cuba. China did not fall, but morphed into a state that Marx or Mao would not recognize. It is only nominally communist. China became a mixed economy with a repressive authoritarian one-party government and it is now flexing its muscle and threatening its neighbors, but it is not spreading an ideology to change the world. 

From the time of the establishment of the first Communist state in Russia in 1917, Communism had steadily grown, taking root in country after country until by the time of the fall of the Berlin wall 34% of the world's population lived under Communist domination. And by peaceful means, Communism was gaining ground in much of the West, with “Euro-communism” gaining acceptance and becoming parties in coalition governments. 

For more than seventy years, freedom had been on the defensive and Communism had been ascending. During that time, approximately 100 million people were killed with brutal efficiency. Approximately 65 million were killed in China under Mao Zedong, 25 million in Leninist and Stalinist Russia, 2 million in Cambodia, and millions more in Eastern Europe, Africa, and Latin America. This was accomplished by mass murders, planned famines, working people to death in labor camps, and other ruthless methods. From the thousands of Cossacks slaughtered on the orders of Lenin to the victims of Mao’s “land reform,” the totals mounted. In addition to the millions of deaths, many more millions spend part of their lives in prison in the Gulag of Russia and the reeducation camps of Vietnam and China. Those who never spend part of their life in real prisons lived in societies with secret police, enforced conformity, thought control, fear, scarcity, and everyone spying on everyone else. 

While the world looks with horror on the approximate 11 million victims of Hitler’s Europe, for some reason, less attention has been paid to the 100 million victims of Communist tyranny. While the Nazi era lasted for only 11 years, the Communist terror began in 1917 and continues to this day. The story would be complete if the last Communist regime fell, but the fall of the Berlin Wall is a landmark event. By the fall of the wall, it was clear that Communism was not the wave of the future and that freedom would survive in the world. 

Not only would freedom survive in the world, but the world itself would survive. It is easy to forget what a dangerous place the world was on the eve of the fall of the Berlin Wall. The world's nuclear stockpiles had grown to 70,000 warheads, with an average destructive power about 20 times that of the weapons that were dropped on Japan. One deranged colonel, one failure of a radar system, or one misreading of intentions could have led to events that destroyed the world. We were one blink away from destruction of life on Earth. 

If there is any event in the history of the world worthy of celebrating, it should be the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Top Stories

 

Top Stories

Why We Do Not Need to Bring Back the Fairness Doctrine

Rod Williams: If this becomes the platform
 of the Democratic Party, I likely vote for
Trump's anointed successor.

Michael Dioguardi

by Michael Dioguardi, Guest Editorial, Nov. 9, 2025-The Fairness Doctrine represents one of the clearest examples of government overreach into the marketplace of ideas. By mandating that broadcasters present “contrasting viewpoints” on controversial issues, the government assumed the role of arbiter of truth and balance, effectively deciding which perspectives deserved airtime. This inherently conflicts with the First Amendment: free speech is not a privilege granted by the state, and the government has no legitimate authority to determine what constitutes fair or balanced discourse. In practice, the Doctrine chilled speech rather than enhancing it, as broadcasters often avoided controversial topics entirely to minimize regulatory risk, stifling genuine debate instead of fostering it.

Beyond its constitutional failings, the Fairness Doctrine limited the diversity and authenticity of public expression. Forcing outlets to artificially balance viewpoints treated the government as the ultimate curator of discourse, privileging conformity over creativity and dissent. Minority, unpopular, or novel perspectives were either suppressed or diluted, while established voices could manipulate the rules to their advantage. Far from promoting fairness, the Doctrine centralized control over information, undermined robust debate, and demonstrated the danger of granting the state the power to regulate the content of speech. It stands as a cautionary lesson for any modern proposal to regulate media or online platforms.

Micheale has spent years studying the Constitution, Federalists and Anti-Federalists papers, as well as key court decisions. He resides in Nashville.  

Rod's Comment: In addition to the excellent point Michael makes above, those who favor a return to the fairness doctrine should ask themselves if they want to have Trump-appointed people determining what is fairness when it comes to speech. 

Top Stories

Harwood Salon Presents Daniel Smith, "The Road to Serfdom in the 21st Century."

From Harwood Salon, Nov. 7, 2025-Join us in Nashville for an event with Daniel Smith, Director of the Political Economy Research Institute at MTSU. 

There is growing interest, especially among American youth, in socialism. Daniel J. Smith revives Friedrich Hayek’s 1944 warning in The Road to Serfdom that socialism—defined as state ownership of the economy—inevitably erodes democracy and leads to authoritarianism. Drawing on historical insights, modern critiques, and empirical evidence from Venezuela’s collapse to Nordic prosperity, Smith demonstrates how capitalism fosters civil liberties, academic freedom, and social capital. Countering claims that Hayek was “wrong,” he debunks common myths about socialism and calls for robust economic education to safeguard freedom.

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

Registration Required.

Agenda 

6:00 PM – 6:30 PM – Networking
6:30 PM – 7:15 PM – Presentation by Dr. Daniel Smith
7:15 PM – 7:30 PM – Q&A

About the Speaker

Daniel J. Smith is the Director of the Political Economy Research Institute and Professor of Economics at the Jones College of Business at Middle Tennessee State University. Dan is the North American Co-Editor of The Review of Austrian Economics and the Senior Fellow for Fiscal and Regulatory Policy at the Beacon Center of Tennessee. Smith has published over one hundred popular publications in national and regional outlets, including the Wall Street Journal, The Hill, and the Tennessean.

Top Stories

Trump Pardons Former Tennessee Speaker Glen Casada, Ex-chief of Staff. Robin Smith Seeks Pardon.

Glen Casada, Cade Cothren

by Sam Stockard, Tennessee Lookout, November 6, 2025 - Former Tennessee House Speaker Glen Casada and his ex-chief of staff reportedly received presidential pardons Thursday, just weeks after being sentenced to prison for government corruption convictions, according to news reports.

Casada’s attorney, Jonathan Farmer of Nashville, could not confirm the pardon Thursday evening.

But Casada told Channel 4 News via text message and the Tennessee Journal that President Donald Trump called him Thursday and granted him a full pardon.

Casada and his former chief of staff, Cade Cothren, did not respond to text messages or calls Thursday night to confirm the pardons.

In late September, Casada was sentenced to 36 months in prison for his role in a kickback scheme after a jury convicted him on multiple counts of fraud, bribery, theft, conspiracy and money laundering in connection with a shell company called Phoenix Solutions run by Cothren, who was sentenced to 30 months the previous week.

Defense attorneys were appealing the case to a higher court.

Attorneys for Casada and Cothren requested a mistrial after prosecutors inadvertently played an unredacted recording of an FBI interview with Casada that incriminated Cothren during their four-week trial that stretched from mid-April into May. They also sought a new trial just before sentencing, but U.S. District Court Judge Eli Richardson denied the request.

Casada and Cothren were convicted of setting up the secret company that tapped into the state’s postage and printing program that provides House members $3,000 a year for constituent mailers. Casada and former Rep. Robin Smith, who pleaded guilty and testified against the pair, steered lawmakers’ business to Phoenix Solutions, which was secretly run by Cothren with the front name of “Matthew Phoenix.”

Smith was recently sentenced to eight months for her role in the scheme. She is seeking a presidential pardon according to the Chattanooga Times Free Press.

Top Stories

Gov. Lee invites New York Businesses to Relocate to Tennessee Following Mamdani’s Mayoral Win

Top Stories

Tennessee Best in Nation in Per Capita Government Debt

By David Beasley, The Center Square contributor,  Nov 7, 2025 - Tennessee is among the states with the lowest amount of state and local government debt in the nation, according to a new study.

Tennessee is the best on the Reason Foundation’s ranking of per capita state government debt at $1,952. Government debts in Connecticut and New Jersey equate to $26,187 and $22,968 per resident, respectively, the two highest in the country.

In total debt, Tennessee's $13.49 billion is lower than 31 other states.

“State and local government debt includes both short- and long-term obligations – from salaries due at the end of this month to bonds maturing decades from now,” the Reason Foundation said. “The $6.1 trillion in liabilities includes $1.5 trillion in public pension obligations, and $958 billion for retiree health care obligations.”

With 7.3 million people, Tennessee is the 15th most populous state in the nation. It has no state income tax.

Earlier this month S&P confirmed Tennessee’s AAA rating for general obligation bonds, the best ranking available.

“Tennessee is leading the nation because of our longstanding bipartisan commitment to responsible fiscal management,” Gov. Bill Lee said in his budget proposal to the Legislature last February.

The state has invested in economic opportunities, reduced debt and increased cash reserves, the governor said.

The state has more than $2 billion in a “rainy day” fund for financial emergencies or economic downturns.

Tennessee is only one of nine U.S. states with no state income tax. The others are Florida, Texas, Washington, Alaska, Nevada, Wyoming, South Dakota and New Hampshire.

Tennessee’s state sales tax is 7%, which is in addition to some local government sales taxes.

Top Stories