WRFH/Radio Free Hillsdale 101.7 FM - Under the Radar: 02.21.25

Episode Date: February 24, 2025

This week on “Under the Radar,” hear about the new White House Faith Office, a bill that will support homeless veterans, a Supreme court case about separation of church and state, and more. I’m your host, Luke Miller, and on this show we’ll cover the news you didn’t catch this week from the mainstream media. While they’re covering the President’s latest tweets, here you can hear about the new legislation, executive orders, and Supreme Court decisions that affect you. Welcome to “Under the Radar.”

This is Under the Radar on Radio Free Hillsdale 101.7 FM. Now, here's your host, Luke Miller. This week on Under the Radar, hear about the new White House faith office, a bill that will support homeless veterans, a Supreme Court case about separation of church and state, and more. I'm your host, Luke Miller, and on this show, we'll cover the news you didn't catch this week from the mainstream media. While they're covering the president's latest tweets, here you can hear about the new legislation, executive orders, and Supreme Court decisions that affect you.

Welcome to Under the Radar. The first piece of news I have for you this week is an executive order signed by the president on February 7th, establishing the White House Faith Office. Now, this is a very interesting executive order. There's a couple things that it does. First of all, it acknowledges the value that faith-based institutions have in the cultural fabric of America. The problem is that people aren't engaging in these kinds of institutions anymore. Saw a startling statistic from Fifth Avenue Christian, which says that 80% of churches in America have no growth in attendance or have declining attendance, and there are less than half of the churches in America now than there were 100 years ago. So involvement in these institutions is at an all-time

low in the U.S. And conservatives want to combat the effects of that. That's the aim of this executive order. The executive order is very careful to use language that does not particularly endorse any religious faith. And that's certainly a requirement for this kind of executive order. The first thing that I thought of when I saw this was, well, how are you going to get around the separation of church and state problem because you can't have an executive order that is giving money to religious institutions operate as an alliance between the government and the church. But that's not what this executive order is doing. So the executive order says it will be the policy of the United States that faith-based

entities, community organizations, and houses of worship have tremendous ability to serve individuals, families, and communities through means that are different from those of government and with capacity and effectiveness that often exceeds that of government. These organizations lift people up, keep family strong, and solve problems at the local level. The executive branch of government wants faith-based entities, community organizations, and houses of worship to compete on a level playing field for grants to the fullest extent permitted by the law. So that is the end goal of this executive order, is to give those faith-based institutions, to give churches, to give religious schools and clubs and societies,

the ability to compete for federal grants because the federal government is essentially endorsing the effects of faith-based entities and community organizations within society. So the White House Faith Office will have a couple of specific operations. First of all, it's going to consult with particular leaders within these different faith-based entities from people of all different faiths within the United States. It says that the experts and leaders shall be identified based on their expertise in a broad range of areas in which faith-based entities, community organizations, and houses of worship operate, including protecting women and children, strengthening marriage and family, lifting

up individuals through work and self-sufficiency, defending religious liberty, combating anti-religious bias, promoting foster care and adoption programs, providing wholesome and effective education, preventing crime and prisoner reentry, and promoting recovery from substance abuse. Now, these are all great goals to have, and the White House Faith Office, after meeting with religious leaders within the community are going to make recommendations to the president regarding how they should give grants to these different kinds of institutions for the advancement of those particular goals. The one handicap that's going to be put on this, the way that the First Amendment separation of church and state is being interpreted by the courts, the federal

government cannot give more money through grants to institutions of one faith than to another, because that would be endorsing one over the other, and the government cannot do that. under the First Amendment. So this is going to require that after the White House Faith Office meets with those leaders, meets with those community leaders, and makes recommendations to the president, they're going to have to do so in a way that gives grants equally to different religions and their social institutions, which is not a bad thing at all. It's a great thing that the First Amendment is interpreted that way. It's a great thing that the government isn't endorsing one particular church or a domination over another. But it is also a great thing that the federal

government is supporting those faith-based institutions that have been proven to help society out so much, that do so much for fostering a good culture. And again, those kinds of entities, those kinds of clubs and churches are seeing their lowest attendance numbers ever, especially since COVID. But there has been a constant decline over the last 50 years in attendance and in participation in these kinds of institutions. So the federal government supporting those kinds of institutions as a culture-building strategy is a great thing. The next piece of news I have for you this week is a bill that passed through the House of Representatives called the Housing Unhoused Disabled Veterans Act. It was sponsored by Representative Brad Sherman of California.

And essentially what the bill does is it alters the eligibility requirements for the HUD housing program provided by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. So essentially the program, it provides rental housing for people who are of a certain income and family status and citizenship status. all of that good stuff. But what this bill does is it changes the eligibility requirements for, particularly for disabled veterans. The most important factor that they take into account when determining eligibility for this HUD public housing program is income. And before this bill was passed, they included in people's incomes disability insurance. The reason that this matters, particularly for disabled veterans, is the fact that most people who qualify for the HUD housing program are in the bottom economic quintile of income earners, the bottom 20%. And according to the

Brookings Institute, in the last couple of years, that lowest quintile income, the top of that is $30,000. The average of that is $16,120. Here's what that means. If you're someone who's on the edge of that income quintile split, then the amount of disability insurance that you get could make the difference into whether you get this kind of housing or not. Most people who are getting Social Security disability insurance are getting between $1,600 per month for around $12,000 to $16,000 per year. If that counts in your income,

which it currently does under the rules for this HUD program, you could be making half of that. You could be making $15,000 and you add in your disability insurance and then you don't qualify for HUD housing anymore, even though you really make much, much less than it says you do on paper. And common sense would dictate that disabled veterans in particular are probably receiving more disability insurance because the types of injuries that they get their disabilities from are more severe.

So that means that disabled veterans in particular, because of their types of injuries and because of the type of disability that they receive, are more likely to be kicked out of the elevators. for the HUD housing program if they were to go slightly over the income limit. So what the bill does is say just for veterans, disability insurance does not count as income when you're looking at eligibility for this HUD housing program. The reason that this really matters is that there's a lot of veterans who are getting a lot of disability insurance from the government from injuries that they've gotten fighting for

our country. A lot of these veterans got injuries while serving that inhibits. their ability to fully serve in the workforce now. And so that's the reason for the disability insurance is, well, if they can't work in the same capacity because of injuries that they received while in service, then they're not able to make the level of income that would get them out of the need for HUD program housing. But based off of the level of disability insurance that they're getting, they're no longer qualifying for it because the government is judging that they do earn enough to be able to

afford their own housing. Now, obviously, any public housing program is supposed to be a stepping stool to get people into being able to afford their own housing. But the fact that people who need disability insurance the most are having it count against them for government programs like this, especially when they're people who served our country, we're doing an incredible disservice to disabled veterans if we're not allowing them to qualify in the bottom economic quintile because of the level of disability insurance that they're receiving. If you're going to have a public housing program, I mean, public housing programs are supposed to be stepping stones to get people on their feet. But these are the exact kind of people that public housing programs are designed to help. People who physically, because of a disability, cannot do it on their own, especially when they're people who received their disability in service of this country. I think it's a great thing to reward that.

It's a just thing to reward that. I mean, you serve your country, your country should serve you back. So I think that this bill would be a great thing. I hope it passes through the Senate. I hope the president signs it. But it is a great step towards assisting homeless veterans. And not only that, but it's a great incentive for more people to join the military, for more people to serve if they see that their country is taking care of veterans when they are done serving. So that bill should pass the Senate soon.

Stay tuned for more. You're listening to Under the Radar with Luke Miller on Radio Free Hills. Still, 101.7 FM. The next piece of news I have for you this week is a Supreme Court case that tests whether the First Amendment separation of church and state applies equally to the state governments as it does to the federal government. The case is called the Catholic Charities Bureau versus Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission.

And essentially, what's happening here is that the state had decided to take away the CCB, the Catholic Charities Bureau, their tax-exempt status as a charity because of the method of their charitable actions. So all these charities and religious institutions are exempt from federal unemployment taxes under the 501C3 code of the IRS. However, they might still be eligible for state unemployment taxes, which is the case here, if they fit what's called the 4-for-20 rule. And the four for 20 rule essentially means that they, if they have at least four employees who are employed on the same day for 20 weeks total in a calendar year, then they are liable for state unemployment taxes, even though they're a charity, which is a pretty low

standard to meet. So this case is happening in Wisconsin, and they have sued the, the CCB, the Catholic Charity Bureau, is suing because their tax exempt status was. removed. The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that their motivations behind their charity was not religious, which is certainly very interesting. The judge who wrote the decision argued that the CCB is organized as a corporation separated from the Roman Catholic Church, which is true, that the CCB did not proselytize their employees or the people that they were trying to assist as a charity, and because those kinds of services that they were offering, like job training, and then food and shelter, those kinds of things, because those services could be offered by a

religious or a secular institution, then they did not qualify as a religious, as a religious charity, because the intention behind their charity could have been either religious or secular, which is an interesting take on it. The dissent was very interesting, a very, very long dissent, written by Justice Bradley in Wisconsin. He said, quote, apparently the majority would ask a car why it is being operated rather than asking the driver, which is a pretty funny take on it. He's essentially saying that the majority is saying that because the actions themselves are not particularly religious, then that means the people doing the actions aren't necessarily religious or having religious intentions. He says, if the majority's analysis seems ridiculous, that's because it is.

So harsh words from the dissent there, he says that the court belittles the Catholic charity's faith by mischaracterizing their religiously motivated charitable activities as secular in nature. And he says that the majority's test as to whether the intention of the charity is secular or religious prefers some types of worship, such as proselytizing over others like religiously motivated charity. And the dissent in that is arguing that the state is denying the CCB their First Amendment rights by basically saying that one type of religious practice is better than another. And then that would violate the, that would violate the establishment clause, which is the separation of church and state. It's a very interesting case. It's a very worrying case for religious Christians who are

worried about whether their church will have tax exempt status removed because of something like this. This is where it goes. This is the Wisconsin Supreme Court is nitpicking as to what the intentions behind a particular charitable action are. And because the church as an institution has organized this type of charity, but because the charity isn't necessarily preaching to people, the Wisconsin Supreme Court is saying that it doesn't qualify as a religious charity and therefore is not tax exempt, which seems to me to be ridiculous. the Supreme Court is likely to side against the Wisconsin Supreme Court and say that the state is violating the CCB's First Amendment rights here, although if they were to do the opposite, it would be a landmark case. If the Supreme Court were to side with the Wisconsin Supreme Court, that would essentially allow state courts to determine arbitrarily and not taking into account what the

church or institution says, whether that church or institution is acting out of a quote unquote religious intention. And that could matter because charitable institutions that act with a religious backing that are backed by the church, that are funded by the church, that are outreach arms of the church, those get particular tax exempt status, those get particular provisions by the government that allow them to operate because the government acknowledges how important they are. But secular charitable institutions don't get a lot of those same provisions that ones that are affiliated with the church do. Not only that, but it is important. to protect the church's rights in that regard because tax-exempt status for churches is what

allows them to operate. If churches and churches that have charitable arms attached to them are not given tax-exempt status, they will essentially have to shut down, even more than they're doing. Right now, churches are shutting down at a remarkable rate. There's 4,000 churches that are forced to close their doors every year, according to Fifth Avenue Church already. If these churches, on top of that have to pay unemployment taxes in the same way that secular charities do, they're not going to be able to survive. They can't get funding from other places because of separation in church and state. It's just not available to them. So it's really important for churches to maintain their tax exempt status or else we're going to see an even more dramatic

fallout of the number of churches that we have in the United States. That's already a problem. So if we see the Supreme Court uphold the Wisconsin Supreme Court's decision, that could really be a devastating thing for the, for the churches in the United States and the charities they run. So keep an eye on this case. As it proceeds, it will be argued in the next couple of weeks in the Supreme Court. The next piece of news I have for you this week is an executive order signed by the president on February 13th, establishing the president's Make America Healthy Again Commission. Now, you've likely heard about this from other sources of media, so I'm not going to harp on RFK and what this Make America Healthy Again Commission is going to do, but I did want to bring to light

one particular aspect of this executive order, which establishes that, quote, all federally funded health research should empower Americans through transparency and open source data and should avoid or eliminate conflicts of interest that skew outcomes and perpetuate distrust. I think this is a very important part of this executive order, particularly in the aftermath of COVID-19 and all the problems with lack of transparency and lack of trust in the federal health institutions, the NIH, the CDC, and then the organizations that we were involved in that were very, very secretive about what kinds of research they were doing, how they were doing it. We've withdrawn from the WHO over that kind of stuff. We even saw a lot of subpoenas served about the operations of the CDC

and NIH and just the lack of transparency that's involved there. So I think that this part of the executive order is really, really good. It's clearly been an emphasis to this Trump administration to be transparent. You're seeing the president give press conferences every day. You're seeing the new department of government efficiency is putting on their ex account and their website every single action that they're doing. And part of their goal is to promote government transparency. So it clearly seems to be a goal of this administration to be open with the American people. And the American people love that. The American people have been wanting that for a very long time. But particularly within the health industry, within the health sector of the federal government, the public was

really, really frustrated by that during COVID. And there seems to be a measure being taken in this executive order to make that CDC research and the NIH research, all the things that the federal government is doing to try to improve the health of the United States, to control disease and to promote healthy diet and all that kind of stuff that those institutions do. There's a concerted effort here within this executive order to make all that information transparent and open to the public. And that's a great thing. The last piece of news I have for you this week is another Supreme Court case arguing about whether the FCC violated the Constitution by essentially giving a private company the right to determine the amount of taxpayer dollars spent on a program. So the case is called the FCC, the Federal Communications Commission versus Consumers Research.

And what happened here was that the FCC was creating a universal service fund to pay for internet and wireless for underserved areas across the country. And in doing so, Congress delegated the fund to the FCC without specifying how much money would go into the fund. And then the FCC delegated that to a private company who was going to set projections about how much it would cost. And then the taxpayer dollars would have to go to whatever the private company said that the projections were in order to implement this program for wireless and internet in underserved areas, which is a program that started a couple years ago. never really came to fruition, but this is kind of why it hasn't come to fruition. It has been held up by this court case. And pretty much every court that this case has gone through has flipped back and forth on this decision. In a lower court, they said that it was constitutional. And then another court said it wasn't, and it's gone back and forth and back and forth. And now it's up to the Supreme Court.

Now, the arguments are essentially that, well, Congress is the one that the Constitution gives the power to levy taxes. There's a conval. concept called the non-delegation doctrine, which basically says that Congress is not supposed to delegate the authority to tax citizens to anyone, especially to a private company. They're also arguing that the FCC violated that by delegating it to a private company. This is going to be an interesting case. I think that it's pretty obvious that the Constitution does not allow for the delegation of taxing powers of determining how taxpayer dollars are spent to private companies. private companies are not constitutionally allowed to determine how taxpayer dollars are spent.

Congress has the power of appropriations. They have a power of levying taxes and of determining government budgets and giving those budget restrictions to the particular agencies. But those are supposed to be pretty specific. There's not supposed to be kind of an open-ended universal fund like Congress gave. So part of this lawsuit is going to set a precedent for what Congress can delegate to different executive agencies and it's also going to set a precedent about executive agencies working with private companies, but look forward to this case in the next few weeks. So to summarize this week, we had executive orders that created the White House Faith Office and enforced transparency within the health agencies, two court cases, one trying to protect religious charities, and the other trying to

prevent private companies from allotting themselves tax dollars, and a bill aimed at serving homeless veterans in the HUD housing program. Tune in next week for more. Well, that's all I have for day on Under the Radar. I'm your host, Luke Miller, and I want to thank you for listening and encourage you to tune back in next time for more coverage of the news that fell under the radar. You're listening to Radio Free Hillsdale 101.7 FM. Thanks for listening to Under the Radar with Luke Miller, here on Radio Free Hillsdale, 101.7 FM.