Readers address shrinking Metro Council and media distrust
Editor's note: Letters to the editor reflect the views of individual readers. Scroll to see how you can add your voice, whether you agree or disagree, or click on this link to fill out the form. We welcome diverse viewpoints.
Re: Metro Nashville Council can be cut in half, Tennessee Court of Appeals rules
Well, the General Assembly concocted another plot against Nashville. In their lack of wisdom, after years of Nashville's good governance, the Metro Council of 40 members was halved by state law. Now that the appeal has lost, it dictates that We The People's representatives will have double the area to represent.
If the Council is cut to 20, which includes one or two at-large members, then each Council member will need an Advisor, thus twenty Advisors. After voting for Advisors in a general election, they will be paired with a council member. Of course, the Council members will each have two votes for all business before them.
How's that for problem-solving? It would be messier and the loss of representation would be noticeable. However, We The People will have attempted to speak.
Elaine Hackerman, Nashville 37209
Re: I'm a journalist. Democrats made my job harder by hiding Biden's health decline.
Last week, Tennessean columnist Andrea Williams wrongly absolved the mainstream media for its role in covering up former President Joe Biden's cognitive decline. Worse, she cast the press as victims of a manipulative White House and Democrats desperate to retain power.Yes, Biden's inner circle misled the public. But instead of acting as watchdogs, much of the press corps rolled over — parroting White House talking points and ignoring clear signs that the man with the nuclear codes lacked the mental fitness to be this nation's commander in chief. It was a dereliction of duty that would shame state-run media in authoritarian regimes.I didn't vote for Biden or Donald Trump. But this goes beyond politics.Williams claims 'journalists were saying something' — just 'drowned out by a barrage of voices' trying to keep the White House blue. But how do you 'drown out' CNN or The New York Times? The White House doesn't control printing presses or network scripts. Reporters weren't silenced — they hesitated. Out of fear. Of being blamed for electing Trump. Of being attacked online. Of being wrong.So the story was buried.Mainstream outlets talked endlessly about Biden's age. But his mental fitness — the real issue — was largely ignored by legacy media.Some may want to pretend this never happened. But if journalism is to regain the public's trust, there must be a reckoning. And it's coming.
Sheila Burke, Nashville 37250
Re: In Nashville, everybody wants to be a millionaire — until they are
The elitist attitude of the letter writer towards the upcoming property tax increase fails to grasp the concept of house rich and grocery poor.
Home values may have gone up, but incomes not so much. Then there are those on a fixed income. Should folks who have lived in their homes, possibly for many years, sell those homes and leave Davidson County to live within their means?
An argument could be made that the last increase in property taxes, in addition to inflation, are the major factors in straining those means. There also seems to be an arbitrariness of taxes increasing based on an increase in home value. If home values and taxes go up 30%, will the residents of the county see a commensurate 30% increase in county services?
The letter writer goes on about alternative taxes that no one wants to pay for projects everyone loves. Fiscal responsibility and discipline should dictate that Metro Government be focused, and that it should prioritize paying for the fundamental things we need, not so much what we love.
It is not only every Tennessean that should be expected to live within their means, but government as well.
Anthony M. Prudenti, Hermitage 37076
Agree or disagree? Or have a view on another topic entirely? Send a letter of 250 words or fewer to letters@tennessean.com. Include your full name, city/town, ZIP and contact information for verification. Thanks for adding to the public conversation.
This article originally appeared on Nashville Tennessean: Readers address shrinking Metro Council and media distrust | Letters
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time Magazine
an hour ago
- Time Magazine
The History of the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit—And How it Could Improve Trump's ‘Big Beautiful Bill'
This April, over 150 Republicans and Democrats in Congress came together to introduce the Affordable Housing Credit Improvement Act. The bill aims to address a crisis plaguing nearly every U.S. city: the shortage of low-income and moderate-income housing. Nearly half of American renters spend over 50% of their income on housing, a level that experts consider 'cost burdened," according to the National Low-Income Housing Coalition. The bill works by expanding a tool—the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) —which has a long and bipartisan history. Everyone from businesspeople to housing advocates have enthusiastically supported it. The credit helps underwrite nearly all construction of affordable housing in the U.S. Whether Congress can pass the Affordable Housing Credit Improvement Act (AHCIA) may come down to whether its Republican boosters can get it into President Donald Trump's ' Big, Beautiful Bill," which the Senate is now working on. It would add cost to the legislation, which could cause rifts between GOP legislators. Yet, history indicates that including it could improve a key source of housing for America's 'working poor.' At the heart of the LIHTC is the idea of giving investors subsidies for building housing. This concept dates back to the era after World War II. Americans may be familiar with the Servicemen's Readjustment Act, the ' GI Bill,' which set up low-interest mortgages for veterans and other home buyers. It produced broad rings of single-family suburban homes around every city. Much less well-known, however, are a series of incentive programs the government enacted to spur the building of rental housing. Read More: A Look at Community Land Trusts and How They Combat the Affordable Housing Crisis During the late 1940s and early 1950s, the administration of Democrat Harry Truman used a tool called FHA 608 to quickly house veterans returning from World War II and the Korean War. It offered long-term loans and free project-planning assistance to apartment developers and guaranteed them a profit. In many cities, that produced more low-rent units than did the nascent U.S. Public Housing program. In the 1960s, another Democratic President, Lyndon B. Johnson, pushed a new set of subsidies. Housing was a top concern for Johnson as part of his War on Poverty —leading to his creation of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in 1965. His administration used two programs, FHA 221(d)3 and HUD 236, to provide depreciation tax breaks and ultra-low interest loans to private developers of low- and moderate-income apartments. As nationally syndicated financial columnist Sylvia Porter reported excitedly, 'There are unparalleled opportunities for profit awaiting you, the investor, in low-cost housing … as a result of the meshing of giant new housing and tax laws.' A savvy investor could use the 'big deductions … to offset your other highly taxed income'—a technique called a "tax shelter." As with the earlier Truman program, these subsidies to private developers 'far outdistanced the traditional public housing program' in producing new units, according to the United States Comptroller General Elmer Staats. During the 1980s, federal housing efforts ran headlong into a rising conservative movement, led by President Ronald Reagan. The right was determined to pare back government spending and slash programs. Congress moved to wipe out most aid to help build affordable housing and replace it with Section 8 vouchers. Instead of subsidizing construction, the government would pay landlords the difference between what a renter could afford and the market rate for rent. But business leaders and housing activists revolted. They insisted that Congress should create a strategy to stimulate construction of new units. In 1986, their efforts paid off as part of the sweeping, seminal bipartisan Tax Reform Act. Among its many provisions was the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit. LIHTC gave investors a tax credit—an update of the tax shelter idea—if they developed affordable housing or provided dollars to a non-profit doing that work. From 1986 through to today, the majority of affordable housing in the U.S. has been constructed with this credit. Local or state dollars often supplement it, but without LIHTC, many projects simply would not get built. The credit has worked pretty well for nearly 40 years, an impressive longevity. But two shortcomings have become apparent. The first is that when the Reagan Administration launched the program, the idea of mixed-income housing was not yet a goal. So LIHTC regulations favor projects that serve households that make 60% of an area's median income (AMI). That's an important demographic, including teachers, nurse assistants, food service managers, and other similarly situated individuals. But this target is too narrow on both ends. It often prices out the poorest Americans, who make 30% AMI or less, and it also offers nothing to people making 80% AMI, who increasingly need help with today's skyrocketing rents. A second shortcoming of LIHTC is that funding has not expanded since 1986, when both the population and its needs were dramatically smaller. The result is that, now, meaningful projects are excluded simply because of lack of available money. As Scott Farmer, the head of the North Carolina Housing Finance Agency told me in an interview, 'The worst part of our job is that we get 120 applications a year and can only fund 30 to 35. Those other deals are great deals, we just don't have enough resources to go around.' The new AHCIA bill recently introduced in Congress aims to address both of those problems. It would encourage landlords to mingle tenants at all incomes. Mixed-income projects have been considered best-practice for some 30 years now; the AHCIA will help regulations catch up with that reality. The AHCIA would also dramatically expand the available credits. It would re-institute a temporary increase of 12.5% that Congress approved in 2018 but later allowed to lapse. And it would boost the total by an another 50%, allowing hundreds of additional projects to become reality. The AHCIA has serious support on both side of the aisle in Washington. Its Senate co-sponsors include conservative Republicans Todd Young of Indiana and Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, along with liberal Democrats Ron Wyden of Oregon and Maria Cantwell of Washington. The House version of the bill already has 130 cosponsors. The difficulty in passing the bill may not be opposition. Rather, it's that relatively small tax-related proposals like AHCIA rarely get enacted as stand-alone legislation. Instead, they often get swept up into fierce and partisan debates over taxes and spending. That's precisely what's happening right now in the Capitol—President Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill' includes massive tax cuts along with reductions in social service programs such as Medicaid and SNAP (food stamps), increased funding for deportations and border security, and much more. Despite its broad support, the AHCIA could be overlooked amid the bigger battles. The question will be whether advocates of AHCIA can push some pieces of their legislation into this larger bill. The history provides at least some modest hope. The use of tax credits has deep roots, both among Republicans and Democrats, and a long track-record of success. When Congress adopted LIHTC back in 1986, it came as part of much bigger legislation—so that path is a genuine possibility. Will leaders in Congress take action in 2025? If they do, the Affordable Housing Credit Improvement Act has the potential to do a lot of good, to expand the housing supply, spur the economy, and help address the affordability crisis plaguing America. Tom Hanchett is a North Carolina-based historian. His new book Affordable Housing in Charlotte: What One City's History Tells Us About America's Pressing Problem is published by UNC Press.
Chicago Tribune
an hour ago
- Chicago Tribune
DuPage GOP to launch vote-by-mail pilot program to combat Democratic strides
After a spring election in which Democrats were victorious across the suburbs, DuPage County Republicans are launching a pilot program to encourage mail-in voting among their GOP base. Set to begin in earnest until later this summer, party officials have high hopes the initiative will help the GOP regain strength in DuPage, a once Republican stronghold that has been shifting blue for years now. 'For numerous cycles now, strong DuPage County Republican candidates have been defeated by lesser Democratic candidates who have benefitted to an enormous degree from vote-by-mail (VBM) voting,' DuPage GOP Chairman Kevin Coyne, a former Naperville City Council member, said in a statement on social media earlier this month. 'Those days are over effective today. … Numerous states have witnessed Republicans dominate vote-by-mail returns. DuPage County will be no different.' Through the pilot program, the local party will be encouraging Republican voters in select precincts across DuPage to sign up for the county's permanent vote-by-mail program, Coyne said in a call. Any eligible registered voter in DuPage can vote by mail ahead of an election. Voters can request to do so per election or opt into the county's permanent vote-by-mail program, which would sign them up to receive mail-in ballots each election. DuPage Republicans will be working with M3 Strategies, a Chicago-based political consulting firm, to conduct the pilot program later this summer, Coyne said. The hope is it will help get Republicans on 'equal footing' with Democrats in DuPage, he said. To date, significantly more Democratic primary voters are on the county's permanent vote-by-mail list, DuPage County Chief Deputy Clerk Adam Johnson. As of Wednesday, there was a total of 98,413 voters on the county's permanent vote-by-mail list, according to Johnson. That number divides into voters who have opted to receive mail-ballots for general elections only and those who have requested to also receive primary ballots, he said. The latter is how the county can glean the partisan divide in its vote-by-mail program as voters must request either a Democratic or Republican primary ballot. Current numbers show that 47,110 Democratic primary voters have signed up for the program compared to 19,525 Republican voters, Johnson said. Those totals have also grown since the 2022 primary election, which was the first in which the permanent vote-by-mail program was offered. In 2022, there were 20,482 Democratic primary voters compared to 8,009 Republican voters. 'The Democrats, to their credit, have done a really good job of getting their voters to sign up for it. Republicans have not,' Coyne said. 'Until we close that gap, it's going to be really, really hard for Republicans to win around here. … It's a massive advantage that they have right now, and we simply have to address it.' Republicans were once at least as likely as Democrats to vote by mail, but the dynamics changed in 2020 when President Donald Trump turned against early in-person and mail voting. He spun conspiracies about the process and convinced his supporters to wait until Election Day to cast their ballots. The Republican Party also amplified dark rumors about mail ballots to explain Trump's 2020 loss. However, national messaging has shifted over the past couple of years, with the GOP changing course to encourage early and mail voting for the November 2024 election cycle. As far as if and to what extent the partisan divide in voting by mail impacts election results, that's hard to measure, said Stephen Maynard Caliendo, a dean and political science professor at North Central College in Naperville. That's the sort of question that runs into something called the ecological inference problem, which is the process of using aggregate data to draw conclusions about individual-level behavior, Caliendo said. 'In other words, there's no way to know whether vote-by-mail actually helped Democrats because we can't know … (who) the people (who voted by mail) exactly voted for,' he said. Still, research has tried to suss out an answer. A 2021 Stanford University study found that record rates of mail voting in 2020 amid the COVID-19 pandemic didn't help Democrats or lead to an increase in voting. The research was the latest in a number of studies finding no partisan benefit to mail voting. However, Caliendo said broadening ways to vote is a worthwhile pursuit. 'Even if you're wrong, even if it hasn't really hurt you,' he said, 'expanding vote by mail isn't going to hurt you among your own voters. … If (a party has) the resources to dedicate to this, it makes a lot of sense that they're going to do it. I encourage it because anytime … (we remove) barriers for people to vote, that's better for democracy.' Coyne promoted the county's permanent vote-by-mail program as a means of getting more information out to voters, even if they still opt to vote in person. 'You can still vote in person, even if you're registered for vote-by-mail balloting,' he said. 'But there's a lot of reasons to do it.' Receiving a ballot ahead of time in itself is an important notification that an election is going on, Johnson said. That's especially true for local consolidated elections in the spring 'when voters aren't seeing (the election) on the news every day,' he said. Coyne, who has chaired DuPage County Republicans since January, said devoting more energy to mail-in voting had 'always kind of been on our radar' but the results of the spring election made it clear action was needed. In April, Democrats pulled out wins in all 49 contested partisan races across the county, according to Dianne McGuire, vice chair of the Democratic Party of DuPage County. 'Until we stop complaining about vote-by-mail being here and accept that it is here and do something about it,' Coyne said, 'I think Republicans are going to have to deal with a lot of ugly elections.'
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Ex-congressman Billy Long confirmed as commissioner of the IRS, an agency he once sought to abolish
Advertisement Long will take over an IRS undergoing massive change, including layoffs and voluntary retirements of tens of thousands of workers and accusations that then-Trump adviser Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency mishandled sensitive taxpayer data. Unions and advocacy organizations have sued to block DOGE's access to the information. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The IRS was one of the highest-profile agencies still without a Senate-confirmed leader. Before Long's confirmation, the IRS shuffled through four acting leaders, including one who resigned over a deal between the IRS and the Department of Homeland Security to share immigrants' tax data with Immigration and Customs Enforcement and another whose appointment led to a fight between Musk and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. After leaving Congress to mount an unsuccessful bid for the U.S. Senate, Long worked with a firm that distributed the pandemic-era employee retention tax credit. That tax credit program was eventually shut down after then-IRS Commissioner Daniel Werfel determined that it was fraudulent. Advertisement Democrats called for a criminal investigation into Long's connections to other alleged tax credit loopholes. The lawmakers allege that firms connected to Long duped investors into spending millions of dollars to purchase fake tax credits. Long appeared before the Senate Finance Committee last month and denied any wrongdoing related to his involvement in the tax credit scheme. Ahead of the confirmation vote, Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, sent a letter to White House chief of staff Susie Wiles blasting the requisite FBI background check conducted on Long as a political appointee as inadequate. 'These issues were not adequately investigated,' Wyden wrote. 'In fact, the FBI's investigation, a process dictated by the White House, seemed designed to avoid substantively addressing any of these concerning public reports. It's almost as if the FBI is unable to read the newspaper.' Democratic lawmakers have also written to Long and his associated firms detailing concerns with what they call unusually timed contributions made to Long's defunct 2022 Senate campaign committee shortly after Trump nominated him. The IRS faces an uncertain future under Long. Tax experts have voiced concerns that the 2026 filing season could be hampered by the departure of so many tax collection workers. In April, The Associated Press reported that the IRS planned to cut as many as 20,000 staffers — up to 25% of the workforce. An IRS representative on Thursday confirmed the IRS had shed about that many workers but said the cuts amounted to approximately the same number of IRS jobs added under the Biden administration. Advertisement The fate of the Direct File program, the free electronic tax return filing system developed during President Joe Biden's Democratic administration, is also unclear. Republican lawmakers and commercial tax preparation companies had complained it was a waste of taxpayer money because free filing programs already exist, although they are hard to use. Long said during his confirmation hearing that it would be one of the first programs that come up for discussion if he were confirmed. Long is not the only Trump appointee to support dismantling an agency he was assigned to manage. Linda McMahon, the current education secretary, has repeatedly said she is trying to put herself out of a job by closing the federal department and transferring its work to the states. Rick Perry, Trump's energy secretary during his first term, called for abolishing the Energy Department during his bid for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination.
