SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATOR CROSSES THE LINE

Ralph Bristol

by Ralph Bristol, reposted from Facebook, July 5, 2025- I find it EXTREMELY inappropriate that the head of the Social Security Administration would send me a news release applauding the passage of the “One Big Beautiful Bill” (OBBB). 

The SSA should not comment on the passage of legislation, regardless of its impact.  The SSA is not a political institution. It is there to implement the laws, not judge them, one way or the other. Beyond that, some of the reasoning the SSA administrator uses in his celebration of the OBBB is sad. That which is not sad is false. 

“The bill ensures that nearly 90% of Social Security beneficiaries will no longer pay federal income taxes on their benefits,” SSA administrator Frank Bisignano reports with glee.  

He continues, “The new law includes a provision that eliminates federal income taxes on Social Security benefits for most beneficiaries, providing relief to individuals and couples. Additionally, it provides an enhanced deduction for taxpayers aged 65 and older, ensuring that retirees can keep more of what they have earned.”   I think he’s counting the same thing twice here, but that’s not my problem with his statement.

“Most” retirees. Not all. That’s the new GOP way. The only way Republicans ever cut spending is by increasing the means-testing on programs created by Democrats without means-testing (to get them to pass with Republican support). Republicans later means-tested them, and now, anytime they are faced with the need to cut spending, they means test them more. Republicans have become a one-trick, means-testing pony.  That pony can only carry so much.  It’s not a mule!

Bisignano continues in his emailed news released, “By significantly reducing the tax burden on benefits, this legislation reaffirms President Trump’s promise to protect Social Security and helps ensure that seniors can better enjoy the retirement they’ve earned."

Now that’s an outright lie. The tax on SS retirement benefits, passed as part of Reagan’s “fix” in the 1980s, went directly into the SS Trust Fund to stretch out the insolvency date of the program. The OBBB will move up that date, which has already moved up to 2033 from earlier projections of 2035. 

So now, the SSA, a non-political institution, has entered the political debate by (1) declaring the administrator’s abiding support of further means-testing (Boo!!!) and (2) spreading false information, via email, to Social Security beneficiaries. 

I hope I’m not along in finding this unacceptable.

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. 

Rods Comment: I totally agree! It is an outrage that Social Security is being politicalized. This is common however in authoritarian systems where there is little separation between the party in power and the government. Unfortunately, I expect more of this as we continue down this authoritarian path.

I also received the SS press release. I am posting it below.

Social Security Applauds Passage of Legislation Providing Historic Tax Relief for Seniors

The Social Security Administration (SSA) is celebrating the passage of the One Big, Beautiful Bill, a landmark piece of legislation that delivers long-awaited tax relief to millions of older Americans. The bill ensures that nearly 90% of Social Security beneficiaries will no longer pay federal income taxes on their benefits, providing meaningful and immediate relief to seniors who have spent a lifetime contributing to our nation's economy. “This is a historic step forward for America’s seniors,” said Social Security Commissioner Frank Bisignano. “For nearly 90 years, Social Security has been a cornerstone of economic security for older Americans. By significantly reducing the tax burden on benefits, this legislation reaffirms President Trump’s promise to protect Social Security and helps ensure that seniors can better enjoy the retirement they’ve earned." The new law includes a provision that eliminates federal income taxes on Social Security benefits for most beneficiaries, providing relief to individuals and couples. Additionally, it provides an enhanced deduction for taxpayers aged 65 and older, ensuring that retirees can keep more of what they have earned. Social Security remains committed to providing timely, accurate information to the public and will continue working closely with federal partners to ensure beneficiaries understand how this legislation may affect them.

Top Stories

THE END IS NEAR

Ralph Bristol

by Ralph Bristol, reposted from Facebook, July 2, 2025 -The insolvency of the Social Security and Medicare Trust funds is the single most predictable (and long-predicted) fiscal crisis in the history of the United States.  

Shortly after the Greenspan Commission, appointed by President Reagan, “saved” Social Security by raising the payroll tax, taxing benefits for the first time (in a means-tested way) and gradually raising the standard retirement age from 65 to 67, the trustees have released annual predictions about how long the Reagan rescue would last. 

The projected insolvency date has not changed much over the last four decades. It did change by one year recently, after a government-orchestrated dance with inflation, blamed on Covid-19 triggered the biggest monthly COLA increase since Reagan's dogged inflation. 

And now, the end is near. And so, we face the final curtain. My friends, I’ll say it clear. I’ll state my case, of which I’m certain. 

If President Trump doesn’t do it, and it appears unlikely that he will, the next president will do something about it, either in his first or second term. He won’t be able to avoid it. The end will not be near. It will be here. 

That assumes we have not already defaulted on our debt by then and the unstoppable force of the U.S. credit worthiness will be stopped by the immovable object of a bond market that slices up our credit card, which the silly monetary money theory people think has no limit. 

If he does it in his first term, he will do it expecting to be a one-term president, which makes it more likely that he will do it in his second term, which could make it more expensive for us – both those who pay for and those who receive the benefits. 

The Wall Street Journal, in an editorial this morning, wrote “If lawmakers acted tomorrow, restoring Social Security’s long-term solvency would require a 22% benefit cut for current and future beneficiaries, a payroll tax increase to 16%, up from the current 12%, or a combination of benefit cuts and tax hikes. If we waited until the trust fund was depleted, we would have to cut benefits by nearly 26%, or the payroll tax would have to rise to nearly 17%.”

NEITHER OF THOSE WILL HAPPEN

Because this was the most predictable economic fiscal crisis in history, I started warning about it when I first noticed it, which was when Jim DeMint was first running for Congress.  He and I created separate plans to reform Social Security by slowly transforming it from a pension system to a 401(k)-type system.  Only two people reading this, Marianna Leahy and Rick Tate, will remember that. 

In my plan, the same amount of money would be extracted from paychecks, and it would be mandatory, just like payroll taxes, but eventually, it would all go into a 401(k) plan instead of a pension plan.  I would have phased it in over 20 years to accommodate people who were closer to retirement at that time.  

DeMint’s plan was much less aggressive than mine, never converting completely into a 401(k)-type plan - always remaining a hybrid.  The Heritage Foundation, former President Bush, and a lot of states adopted something close to DeMint’s plan and ran with it, but 9-11 ended all talk of reforming Social Security– probably forever.  

The system is too close to insolvency to reform without increasing our nearly $2 trillion annual deficit to $3 instantly, and that would hasten the explosion of the debt bomb, the fuse of which is lit, but no-one knows it’s length, and no-one has had the courage, so far, to jump on it. 

When I introduced my plan to reform Social Security, I also predicted what would happen if we didn’t. That prediction has not changed.  I predicted that rather than significantly reducing benefits or increasing payroll taxes, Congress would simply convert Social Security into a partial welfare system, supported both by the flatter payroll tax and the increasingly progressive income tax, with more and more burden placed on the income tax. 

Instead of either reducing benefits 22% or increasing payroll by 17%, Congress will make up most of the difference with higher income taxes on an increasingly narrow band of the nation’s wealthy and even more borrowing, which will hasten the next, and much bigger crisis, the explosion of the debt bomb. 

Yes, there were times I'm sure they knew, they bit off more than they could chew. But through it all when there was doubt, they chewed it up and spit it out.  The record shows, they dodged the blow, and kicked it your way.

Ralph Bristol is the former long-time morning talk radio host broadcasting on  Supertalk 99.7 WTN. He left talk radio in 2018 and retired. He lives in Nashville. 

Top Stories

Nashville’s Mayor Would Rather Not Be Tangled in an Immigration Fight

by Rod Williams, July 1, 2025-After the ICE raids in Nashville last month, Mayor O'Connell expressed his disapproval of the raids and apparently inadvertently published the names of ICE agents. In response Rep. Andy Ogles launched a probe of the mayor's actions.  

Mayor O'Connell has released a slew of documents in response to the federal inquiry and the investigation continues demanded more documents, including communications related to Executive Order 30, which required city employees to report ICE interactions. It looks like Ogles in on a fishing expedition. 

I agree with those who say that the names of ICE agents should not be published, and Mayor O'Connell did that. However, from what I have gathered from news reports and from what the mayor has said, it appears that the names were already public records and that the mayor published them inadvertently. He has apologized. Maybe he should have been more cautious and slower to respond and that mistake could have been avoided. 

In addition to the publishing of names of ICE agents, the other thing the Congressional inquiry is looking at is The Belonging Fund. This private fund helps immigrants in time of crisis. If an illegal immigrant is picked up and deporting or put in long-term detention, the fund may step in and help meet the immediate needs of the left behind family of the immigrant with things like rent, utilities and food. The Ogles probe is seeking to determine if any public funds were used to fund that fund. If they were, I would agree that that is inappropriate. I would find it inappropriate because I don't think any public funds should go to any non-profit without going through a transparent process. 

I am not a fan of Mayor O'Connell. In the most recent mayoral race, I contributed money to and worked for his opponent. I am opposed to his recent tax hike. However, in this recent controversy, my sympathies are with the mayor.  I also share the mayor's concern about unidentified masked people stopping and snatching people and retaining them simply because they look Hispanic. The vendetta against Mayor O'Connell seems to be out of proportion to what the major did. Other than publishing those names, it appears that O'Connell did nothing inappropriate. The mayor expressed his opinion in opposition the raids. That should not be against the law.  

Below are news reports spreading more light on the topic.

Nashville’s Mayor Would Rather Not Be Tangled in an Immigration Fight

By Emily Cochrane, New York Times, June 24, 2025-  Mayor Freddie O’Connell of Nashville would rather be talking about the state of the sidewalks. New traffic signals. Even the increase in the property tax rate. Instead, he has been busy addressing the fallout from a round of federal immigration raids last month in his liberal-leaning city.

First, angry residents accused city officials of helping federal agents detain more than 100 people during the raids, which Mr. O’Connell, a first-term Democrat, quickly denied. After the outcry, he ordered city departments to let his office know about any outreach from immigration agents; he also expressed support for a community fund that seeks private donations for immigrant families.

Tennessee Republicans then demanded investigations into whether the mayor had violated state law. The state has banned local governments from adopting “sanctuary city” policies, which it describes as limiting cooperation with immigration enforcement and giving undocumented immigrants “the right to lawful presence.”

Mr. O’Connell drew more Republican wrath when his office published the names of some immigration agents who had contacted the city. He has maintained that the names were published accidentally because they were in public records, including summaries of emergency calls.

The city has since removed the names and denies violating state law. Nonetheless, two congressional committees are investigating the effect of Nashville’s policies on federal immigration enforcement.

The backlash demonstrates how Mr. O’Connell, 48, is caught between the laws of his deeply Republican state and the progressive leanings of many of his constituents. It is perhaps the biggest test yet of his cautious pragmatism, at a moment when local leaders are on the front lines of the Trump administration’s aggressive overhaul of federal policy.

.... Mr. O’Connell, far more a policy wonk than a progressive firebrand, has intentionally avoided becoming a resistance figure in office. He has focused his criticism of the raids on the refusal of immigration officials to disclose whom they detained and why.

In the interview, he expressed some exasperation that “a tempest in a teapot” over his recent order requiring city departments to share knowledge about federal immigration outreach was grabbing local attention, rather than the budget he just signed or the impact of proposed federal cuts on Nashville, a diverse city of just over 700,000.

... Mr. Ogles is a leading member of the deeply conservative House Freedom Caucus. He has leveled the loudest attacks against Mr. O’Connell, accusing him of intimidating immigration officials with his recent executive order and enabling criminal behavior by not supporting President Trump’s immigration crackdown.

The mayor’s “embrace of sanctuary lawlessness in Tennessee may very well be criminal,” Mr. Ogles said in a statement, calling Mr. O’Connell “a rogue mayor.” The documents that the mayor’s office turned over to Congress last week, Mr. Ogles added, “open multiple avenues of inquiry and raise serious questions the mayor must answer.” He did not provide details.

.... The mayor has also felt some heat from left-leaning constituents who say he could be doing more to openly support Nashville’s immigrant population. But now that Mr. Ogles is investigating Mr. O’Connell, some critics declined to publicly air their frustrations with the mayor, saying that they did not wish to undermine him or invite broader criticism. (read it all)

The below video is sympathetic to the Department of Homeland Security and Andy Ogles in this conflict with Mayor O'Connell but nevertheless is a good summary and is informative.

Top Stories

The Court Rightly Ruled on Nationwide Injunctions

by Rod Williams, June27, 2025- I am as about as never-Trumper as a lifelong Republican can be and as I have watched the Trump administration push the limits of Constitutional authority, I have been pleased to see the courts check Trump's actions. 

To me, it is clear that the 14th Amendment establishes birthright citizenship. In 1898 in the case of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark the Supreme Court confirmed that the 14th Amendment did so. So, when Trump tried to abolish birthright citizenship by executive order, I was glad his action was stopped by a federal judge.

The above being said, however, I nevertheless, am pleased with yesterday's Supreme Court ruling in Trump's favor. The Supreme Court ruled that federal district judges have no inherent authority to issue nationwide injunctions. The case before the Court was Trump v. CASA, Inc. 

In January President Trump issued an Executive Order that denied birthright citizenship to people born in the United States if their mothers were unlawfully or temporarily present in the United States and if their fathers were not citizens or lawful permanent residents. Advocacy groups files suits with various federal district courts and several courts issued nationwide preliminary injunctions preventing the government from enforcing the Executive Order anywhere in the country during litigation.

While I am pleased the Courts ruled the way I wanted them to rule in that case, I do not believe a single Federal District judge should have the authority to make a ruling that effects the whole nation. With 94 federal district courts, plaintiffs can judge shop and find a judge who will rule in their favor. With 94 different federal courts there are some ultra-liberal courts and some ultra-conservative courts.  

It is not just Trump critics who have judge shopped and stopped executive action nationwide.  Late in Biden's term he attempted to "forgive" student loans. The Supreme Court had already ruled that an earlier attempt to forgive student loans was illegal. Biden tried to achieve the same thing through other means and a U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia Brunswick Division issued a temporary restraining order against the Education Department from implementing a student loan debt relief plan.  I am pleased with that outcome but do not think that is the way policy should be made. A federal judge in southern rural Georgia should not make policy for the whole nation.

After the Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade, some pro-life doctors brought a suite in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas and got a nationwide injunction against the FDA's approval of the abortion drug mifepristone. I am okay with that policy outcome, but it should have been an issued debated and decided by the legislative branch, not the decision of one judge in Texas. 

Sometimes it is hard to separate one's pleasure with the outcome of an event and concern about how the event was achieved. It is easy to have the mindset that the ends justify the means. One may, as an example, approve of increased deportations, and stifle concerned about the violation of due process. Generally, I am as concerned, maybe more concerned, with the process than I am the outcome. We have all heard the saying, "what goes around, comes around." I don't buy that as a metaphysical maxim but in politics however, if one side bends a rule or uses an illegal tactic to get what it wants, then rest assured when political fortunes are reversed, the other side will do it.  If we stretch the structure of our democracy too often and too much, it may not hold.

Also, I don't think Donald Trump nor any other strong president, is not the only threat to a functioning democracy and our liberties. An unchecked electorate responding to the passion of the moment can run roughshod over minority interest and individual liberties. So can the legislative or the judicial branch. Just as we should be concerned with an imperial presidency, we should be concerned with an imperial judiciary. Separation of power, balance of power, and the constitutional framework makes our republic function. We should safeguard those arrangements and reject overreach even when we like the particular outcome.

As regards the Trump v. CASA, Inc decision, the court did not address the underlying issue of birthright citizenship. We can expect that issue to be litigated at a later time. For those who think this ruling by the court leaves Trump unchecked, plaintiffs still have the tool of class action lawsuits. Also, the CASA ruling leaves room for judges to order relief akin to a nationwide injunction when a state sues the federal government. Also, I suspect that if the Courts were less activist, the legislature would reclaim some of the authority that should be theirs. Many of the decisions decided by Courts should rightly be decided by the legislative branch instead of decided by one unelected judge. I suspect many elected representatives are cowardly because they are counting on the courts to do the job they should do. 

For more on this topic, see the following:

• A Welcome Start on Nationwide Injunctions | National Review
• Harvard Law Review: District Court Reform: Nationwide Injunctions
• The Federalist Society: Proposed Legislative Limits on Nationwide Injunctions
• Politico: Supreme Court leaves open the question of nationwide injunctions when states sue
• Supreme Court: 24A884 Trump v. CASA, Inc. (06/27/2025)
• The White House: “A BIG WIN”: Supreme Court Ends Excessive Nationwide Injunctions

Top Stories

Tennessee congressman Andy Ogles says deport NYC mayoral candidate Mamdani

By Christina Lengyel, The Center Square, June 27, 2025- In a move that is being celebrated in
right-wing social media circles and panned as racist by some on the left, Tennessee Congressman Rep. Andy Ogles has petitioned the Attorney General’s office to denaturalize and deport New York City mayoral candidate, Zohran Mamdani.

Mamdani, a Democrat, is a Shia Muslim of Indian descent and was born in Uganda. He immigrated to the United States with his parents at the age of seven and was naturalized in 2018.

In his letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi, Ogles claims Mamdani misrepresented himself on his citizenship paperwork.

Ogles points to a musical reference Mamdani made to freeing the Holy Land Five, a group of organizers who were prosecuted after the Holy Land Foundation was deemed a terrorist organization by the U.S. government for its support of the Palestinian cause. Their 2008 convictions raised questions amongst human rights groups and remains a controversial rallying point for critics of Israel and the U.S. to this day.

“If an individual publicly glorifies a group convicted of financing terrorism, it is entirely appropriate for federal authorities to inquire whether that individual engaged in non-public forms of support—such as organizational affiliation, fundraising or advocacy—that would have required disclosure on form N-400 or during a naturalization interview,” Ogles said.

The congressman maintains that the song lyric coupled with the fact that Mamdani “refused opportunities to reject the pro-terrorist rallying cry to ‘globalize the intifada’" create a troubling pattern that goes beyond First Amendment rights.

“Intifada” is an Arabic word meaning “to shudder” used by supporters of Palestine to encourage the “shaking off” of the Israeli regime. It has been used frequently to describe uprisings throughout Southwest Asia and North Africa during the 20th and 21st centuries.

Ogles has taken to posting about Mamdani, referring to him as “little Mohammad,” echoing derogatory speech frequently used against Arab-Americans and other Muslim Americans.

The congressman has also painted Mamdani as an antisemite. Mamdani, frequently faced with the accusation, has publicly expressed support and concern for Jews on numerous occasions. Politically, he has received significant support from within the Jewish community. 

Mamdani’s views on Israel and Palestine have played an outsize role in the race, while the candidate tried to keep his campaign focused on economic issues. Conflation of criticism of the Israeli government with antisemitism has been a major point of contention nationally since the Oct. 7, 2023 Hamas attacks.

While some pro-Palestinians in the U.S. support the occupied state’s right to armed resistance as allowed through Protocol I of the Geneva Convention, there is no clear consensus among Americans on the matter.

The U.S. movement has predominantly emphasized non-violence and has been led largely by college students. Nevertheless, the vicious attacks seen in Colorado, Washington D.C., and Pennsylvania in the name of Palestine have rocked the Jewish community and added tension to the divide between Americans on the issue.

Mamdani’s father is distinguished professor Mahmood Mamdani. His mother is filmmaker Mira Nair.

Rod's Comment: Andy Ogles is a despicable person and a disgrace. 

Top Stories

Register of Deeds Karen Johnson Selected to Attend Prestigious Harvard Kennedy School Executive Program

Metro Nashville Press Release, June 26, 2025 - Nashville Davidson County Register of Deeds Karen
Johnson has been selected to participate in the Senior Executives in State and Local Government program at the Harvard Kennedy School during the month of July.

The program, held on the Harvard Kennedy School campus in Cambridge, Massachusetts, brings together over 70 leaders from across the United States and around the world for three weeks of intensive learning, leadership development, and peer exchange. Participants represent a diverse mix of mayors, city managers, state agency directors, county commissioners, law enforcement officials, and other senior leaders in public service.

"I'm honored to join this extraordinary cohort of public servants, and I look forward to a shared experience with this unique opportunity," said Johnson. "I look forward to learning from Harvard faculty and from the experiences of fellow participants as we work together to strengthen our leadership skills and find new ways to serve our communities more effectively."

Led by renowned faculty from the Harvard Kennedy School, the program focuses on real-world problem solving, crisis management, negotiation, and leading in times of change. It offers a unique opportunity for senior officials to step away from day-to-day responsibilities and reflect, learn, and return to their organizations with renewed insight and energy.

For more information about the program, visit the Harvard Kennedy School website.

Rod's Comment: Congratulations, Karen. 

Top Stories

Tennessee Tourism Breaks Record Spending for Fourth Consecutive Year with $31.7B in 2024

Tennessee Dept. of Tourism press release, June 27, 2025- Tennessee’s tourism industry set a new record in 2024, generating $31.7 billion in direct visitor spending and welcoming 147 million visits, according to newly released data from Tourism Economics and the Tennessee Department of Tourist Development.

Tourism is a powerful economic driver across all 95 counties, generating $3.3 billion in state and local tax revenue – saving each Tennessee household $1,170 annually on average.

“Tennessee’s tourism momentum is built to last, creating jobs, fueling small businesses, delivering real returns on public investment and generating substantial tax revenues that directly benefit Tennesseans,” said Gov. Bill Lee. “I'm proud of the investments we've made to drive intentional growth, and welcome visitors from around the world to experience Tennessee's urban cities and small towns from Memphis to Mountain City.”

“I’m so grateful to our amazing tourism and hospitality industry for these remarkable results,” said Mark Ezell, Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Tourist Development. “The Tennessee Tourism team has been able to leverage bigger tourism budgets to help grow visitor spending over 35% in these last six years. We are leading the nation as one of just a few states that are aggressively growing tax revenue from non-Tennessee residents to benefit all seven million Tennesseans.”

By the Numbers: 2024 Economic Impact of Travel in Tennessee

• Record $31.7 billion in direct visitor spending, a 3.3% year-over-year increase
• 35.5% growth since 2018, more than double the national average of 16.7%
• Visitors spent $87 million per day in 2024
• $3.3 billion in state and local tax revenue in 2024, saving residents $1,170 in taxes each year

International Travel Surged in 2024

• 12.0% year-over-year increase in international visitor spending
• Each international visitor spent $1,278 on average - nearly six times more than a domestic visitor
• Note: These figures do not reflect the 2025 launch of new direct flights from Iceland and Ireland, which open new doors for European visitation

The data underscores the resilience of Tennessee’s tourism industry, which sustained growth despite a challenging year with major weather events, including Hurricane Helene.

In 2024, Tennessee awarded more tourism funding than ever before - investing $1.5 million in marketing grants, $2 million in Tourism Enhancement Grants and $13.75 million in ARPA funds. These investments support marketing and destination development at both the state and local level, help drive year-round visitation in all 95 counties and open new opportunities for rural communities to grow their tourism economies.

With new air service between Memphis and Knoxville; expanded routes into Nashville, Chattanooga and several regional airports; and luxury coach options like Vonlane and Gray Line, Tennessee is primed to attract even more visitors in 2025, with milestones like B.B. King’s 100th birthday in Memphis, Grand Ole Opry’s 100th anniversary in Nashville and Dollywood’s 40th anniversary. Events like MLB Speedway Classic at Bristol and IBMA in Chattanooga are also aimed to draw visitors. Programs like the upcoming MICHELIN Guide to the American South will continue to elevate Tennessee’s culinary brand.

The full 2024 Economic Impact on Travel Report and direct visitor spending data for all 95 counties will be released in September. The statewide report, including methodology, can be found here. All data is sourced from the Tennessee Department of Tourist Development and Tourism Economics, with national benchmarks provided by U.S. Travel Association.

Top Stories

U.S. Supreme Court rules for parents on LGBTQ storybooks

link

 By Esther Wickham, The Center Square, June 27, 2025 - The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision Friday, sided with parents in opting-out their children from school curriculum with LGBTQ storybooks. 

In the case Mahmoud v. Taylor, the court recognized parents have a constitutional right to opt their children out of, for religious reasons, content such as storybooks that push LGBTQ ideology.

"We have long recognized the rights of parents to direct 'the religious upbringing' of the children," Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the court's opinion. "And we have held that those rights are violated by government policies that substantially interfere with the religious development of children.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh concurred.

"Given the novelty of its ‘LGBTQ+-inclusive’ curriculum and no opt-out policy, if any party is pressing a progressive child rearing process in this litigation, clearly it is the [School] Board,” Kavanaugh said. “Such an unprecedented curriculum cannot ‘overbalance’ the parents’ ‘legitimate claims to the free exercise of religion.’”

link

This issue arose in 2022 when Montgomery County, the largest school district in Maryland and one of the most religiously diverse counties in the country, reversed its policy on letting parents opt-out their children from LGBTQ-related lessons.

The seven books originally purchased for the 2022-23 school year were "Born Ready," "Intersection Allies," "Love, Violet," "My Rainbow," "Prince & Knight," "Pride Puppy!" and "Uncle Bobby’s Wedding" – all with LGBTQ characters and themes.

The district’s associate superintendent for curriculum, Niki Hazel, explained the district decided to buy those books due to previous storybooks not fully representing all diverse families in their school district.

“The books used in its existing ELA curriculum were not representative of many students and families in Montgomery County because they did not include LGBTQ characters,” Hazel said in a U.S. Supreme Court declaration.

link

Following parents' frustration with reversing this opt-out policy, the Montgomery County Board of Education claimed these opt-outs were too difficult to manage and that it was too hard to find alternative activities for the excused students. 

In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, said this decision will isolate students from a diverse education. 

“Today’s ruling threatens the very essence of public education ... That decision guts our free-exercise precedent and strikes at the core premise of public schools: that children may come together to learn not the teachings of a particular faith, but a range of concepts and views that reflect our entire society,” said Sotomayor. “The reverberations of the Court’s error will be felt, I fear, for generations. Unable to condone that grave misjudgment, I dissent.” 

Eric Baxter, senior counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, the group representing the parents who were the plaintiffs in the case, said Friday's decision restored common sense in America. 

“This is a historic victory for parental rights in Maryland and across America. Kids shouldn’t be forced into conversations about drag queens, pride parades, or gender transitions without their parents’ permission,” Baxter said. “Today, the Court restored common sense and made clear that parents — not government —have the final say in how their children are raised.” 

Sarah Parshall Perry, vice president and legal fellow at Defending Education, said the court's decision should have been unanimous.

“In what should have been a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court in Mahmoud v. Taylor upheld by a 6-3 vote the rights of religious parents to opt their children out of LGBTQ themed curriculum," Perry said in a statement to The Center Square. "In a straightforward application of its earlier decision in Wisconsin v. Yoder, the Court wrote that it had long recognized the rights of parents to direct 'the religious upbringing' of their children, and that policies that interfere with the religious development of children violate the Constitution. Storybooks like those at issue in Mahmoud convey normative messages on sex and gender, and those messages can and often do conflict with the beliefs of parents and their children.”

Maryland parents Friday praised the court’s decision.

“The Supreme Court sent a powerful message today: Parents do not take a back seat to anyone when it comes to raising their kids. I am deeply grateful to have been part of this historic triumph for parental rights nationwide," said Grace Morrison, one of the Catholic plaintiffs. 

Rod's Comment: Hallelujah!

Top Stories

Council Members Sue Over TN Sanctuary City Restrictions

Zulfat Suara

Delishia Porterfield

Edited by Megan Podsiedlik, The Pamphleteer, June 25, 2025- Seven council members are suing over a Tennessee State Law established during this year’s special session that introduces harsher punishments for local policymakers who try to establish sanctuary cities. 

At-large council members Delishia Porterfield and Zulfat Suara, along with district council
members Clay Capp (District-6), Brenda Gadd (District-24), Sandra Sepulveda (District-30), Terry Vo (District 17), and Ginny Welsch (District 16) are listed as plaintiffs on the suit.

In 2019, a state law went into effect that prohibits state and local governmental entities and officials from adopting sanctuary policies. The General Assembly expanded on the law this February and established criminal penalties that go into effect on July 1. Any official convicted of proposing sanctuary policies will also be removed from office.

Terry Vo

Ginny Welsch

“This snapshot of the political climate demonstrates the State’s aggressive anti-
immigrant stance and the federal government’s equally aggressive efforts to attack any local governmental entities or officials that stand in the way of their immigration enforcement goals,” reads the complaint. “Local officials, therefore, face a profound and concrete likelihood of criminal prosecution under the Act.”

The council members are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee and claim the law violates First Amendment rights of locally elected officials. The ACLU has been involved in numerous lawsuits taken up against the state. Notably, they challenged Tennessee’s law that restricts gender-transition interventions for minors. The case was taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court, which ultimately upheld the state's authority to protect kids from life‑altering medical practices in an opinion that came down last week.

During a press conference last Wednesday, Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti acknowledged ACLU’s involvement in the courtroom battle when explaining the abundance of resources deployed to try to impose policy preferences through lawfare.

Rod's Comment: 

I support the State's ban on sanctuary cities in Tennessee.  Policies that prevent local law enforcement from sharing information about individuals with criminal records with federal immigration authorities can lead to the release of individuals with criminal histories back into the community. Also, it undermines the rule of law in general.  

Should Nashville pass sanctuary policies they would be invalid because of the State ban. That should be sufficient. With the State law in place prohibiting a city from adopting sanctuary policy, should a member of the Metro Council propose such policies, I am certain the Council's legal advisors would inform the Council member that what they were proposing was contrary to state law and advice the member not to introduce it. Should the member introduce it anyway, I would assume the legal analysis would advise the body that the proposed ordinance was contrary to state law, and that should the body adopt the ordinance it would be of no effect. Should the body pass the ordinance anyway, I assume the Nashville mayor would veto it. Should the Council override the veto, the Council would have engaged in some theater and passed an ordinance that would be of no effect. That should be all the safeguards we need to ensure Nashville does not become a sanctuary city. 

I think the recent law making it a crime to propose sanctuary policies was unnecessary and was a kiss-ass, suck-up attempt to show felty to Donald Trump. There are lots of things Metro Council cannot do, that I am sure some of the more liberal members of the Council would like to do. Metro Nashville cannot legalize abortion. Metro Nashville cannot pass so called "inclusionary zoning" forcing developers to build affordable housing. Metro cannot impose wage and price controls. Metro can't impose rent control. Metro cannot pass its own minimum wage law. Metro cannot legalize marijuana. In none of these cases is it a crime to propose an ordinance to accomplish these things. 

Having stated the above however, I think it is foolish to sue the state over the law criminalizing proposing sanctuary policies. Should the lawsuit prevail, what would have been accomplished? A member could then introduce an ordinance that should it pass would have no effect. That is the primary reason I oppose the lawsuit. Secondly, I would not want to be associated with these particular Council Members or the ACLU. 

Top Stories

Social Security's Financial Status is Worse than You think

 Truth in Accounting, June 20, 2025 -The recent analysis by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget regarding the 2025 Medicare Trustees’ Report highlights the looming challenges with Medicare and Social Security, but it only scratches the surface of the deeper fiscal issues our country faces. To understand the full financial reality, we must go beyond trust fund “solvency” and examine the actual commitments the federal government has made—and continues to make—without fully accounting for them.

As the Congressional Budget Office has noted:

In the public debate, ‘solvency’ means keeping the trust funds from exhausting their balances and ensuring the ability of the funds to finance promised benefits. Defined that way, however, trust fund solvency is not a meaningful measure of the government’s ability to meet its future obligations.

In other words, solvency in this context is more of a political or legal benchmark than an actual measure of financial health.

The more alarming reality is how much these programs consume of the federal budget. In 2008, spending on Social Security and Health and Human Services (including Medicare) made up 38% of the federal budget. In 2024, that share has grown to 44%, crowding out other priorities and worsening the deficit.

Despite this, Congress continues to make benefit promises without a full understanding—or accounting—of their long-term costs. For example, lawmakers recently expanded Social Security coverage to additional workers without fully assessing the impact on the already strained and largely symbolic trust funds. This is like buying a car knowing only the monthly payments, without understanding the total cost or whether you’ll be able to pay it off.

One of the clearest signs of how disconnected federal accounting is from reality lies in the federal balance sheet itself. According to the Treasury Department, only $241 billion of liabilities for Social Security and Medicare are included in official federal financial statements. This is a tiny fraction of the real financial picture: Social Security carries over $50 trillion in unfunded promises, while Medicare’s unfunded obligations exceed $60 trillion.

Why is this massive gap ignored in the financial statements? Because, as Steve Goss, Chief Actuary of Social Security, explained:

An overriding uncertainty exists under the Social Security (and all Federal Social Insurance) programs. This is the Government’s right and ability to alter potential future benefits. Until benefits become due and payable, there is no binding commitment over which a worker has control and so no liability can be recognized.

In plain terms, the federal government is not legally liable to pay any Social Security or Medicare benefits beyond the checks due next month. These are political promises, not binding obligations—yet millions of Americans base their retirement planning on the assumption that these promises will be honored.

Even the very concept of “trust funds” is misunderstood. The Treasury Department clarifies:

In the federal budget, the term ‘trust fund’ means only that the law requires a particular fund be accounted for separately, used only for a specified purpose, and designated as a trust fund. A change in law may change the future receipts and the terms under which the fund’s resources are spent.

This differs drastically from the private sector, where trust funds involve a fiduciary duty to manage someone else’s money for their benefit. In government, trust funds are little more than internal bookkeeping entries that Congress can change at any time.

At Truth in Accounting, we believe the public and lawmakers deserve honest, complete, and transparent accounting. That includes recognizing the full cost of Social Security and Medicare, understanding the long-term implications of policy changes, and being honest about what has been promised—and what has not.

Until we do so, we are not just engaging in poor financial management—we are undermining the American people's trust and passing unsustainable burdens onto future generations.

Top Stories

Massive Property Tax Increase in Nashville After Council Vote

Top Stories

Supreme Court Upholds Tennessee's Ban on Sex Reassignment Treatment for Minors.

Office of the Attorney General press release, June 18, 2025 -The United States Supreme Court today announced a landmark decision upholding Tennessee’s law restricting gender-transition interventions for minors and affirming the State's authority to protect kids from risky and unproven medical practices.

Tennessee’s lawmakers enacted the challenged legislation in response to a surge in the provision of puberty blockers, hormones, and surgeries to minors with gender-identity issues. These medical interventions often result in permanent physical changes and have life-altering effects, including irreversible loss of fertility. Numerous health authorities have concluded that the risks of these interventions outweigh any possible benefit.

"In today's historic Supreme Court win, the common sense of Tennessee voters prevailed over judicial activism," said Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti. "A bipartisan supermajority of Tennessee's elected representatives carefully considered the evidence and voted to protect kids from irreversible decisions they cannot yet fully understand.  I commend the Tennessee legislature and Governor Lee for their courage in passing this legislation and supporting our litigation despite withering opposition from the Biden administration, LGBT special interest groups, social justice activists, the American Medical Association, the American Bar Association, and even Hollywood."

As Chief Justice John Roberts writes in the 6-3 opinion of the Court: "This case carries with it the weight of fierce scientific and policy debates about the safety, efficacy, and propriety of medical treatments in an evolving field. The voices in these debates raise sincere concerns; the implications for all are profound. The Equal Protection Clause does not resolve these disagreements. Nor does it afford us license to decide them as we see best. Our role is not ‘to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic’ of the law before us, but only to ensure that it does not violate the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment. Having concluded it does not, we leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process."

"The rapid and unexplained rise in the number of kids seeking these life-altering interventions, despite the lack of supporting evidence, calls for careful scrutiny from our elected leaders," Attorney General Skrmetti asserted. "This victory transcends politics. It's about real Tennessee kids facing real struggles. Families across our state and our nation deserve solutions based on science, not ideology. Today's landmark decision recognizes that the Constitution lets us fulfill society's highest calling - protecting our kids."

To read a copy of the Supreme Court decision, please click here.

Top Stories