Ballot measures deliver big wins for progressive policy priorities
From education to abortion rights, minimum wage to family leave, progressive policy measures fared quite well in 2024, even amid Republican victories.
By Steve Benen – November 8, 2024
As the dust settles on the 2024 election cycle and the scope of Republican successes comes into view, some observers are drawing a predictable conclusion: If voters backed GOP candidates in such large numbers, it must be because the electorate agrees with the party on the major issues of the day.
Mark Penn, a former adviser to Bill and Hillary Clinton, for example, published a flawed election assessment to social media, which began, “America is a center right country at heart. Only 25 per cent are liberal and the other 75 per cent won’t be ruled by the 25.”
At a superficial level, I can appreciate how some arrive at conclusions like these. If most voters supported Donald Trump and Republican congressional candidates, the argument goes, then it stands to reason that voters prefer conservative ideas to progressive ideas.
But a closer look at some of the election results suggest the ideological lines aren’t nearly that clean. Trump and his party, for example, championed private school vouchers. But as The New York Times reported, voters in three states — including two red states where Trump won easily — rejected voucher schemes.
In Kentucky, nearly two-thirds of voters defeated a proposal to allow state tax dollars to fund private and charter schools. In Nebraska, 57% of voters approved a ballot initiative that repealed a small program intended to give low-income families tax dollars to pay for private-school tuition. In Colorado, votes are still being counted. But it looks likely that voters have narrowly rejected a broadly worded ballot measure that would have established a “right to school choice,” including in private schools and homeschool settings.
Note, Nebraska voters backed the GOP ticket by more than 20 points. In Kentucky, the margin was more than 30 points. But those same voters nevertheless took a good look at one of the Republican Party’s top educational priorities and said, “No thanks.”
What’s more, it wasn’t just vouchers. Voters in 10 states considered abortion-rights initiatives this year, and they passed in seven — including in some states Trump carried. (In Florida, a majority of voters supported an abortion-rights measure, but it wasn’t a large enough majority to pass.)
In ruby-red Missouri, where Republicans such as Trump and Sen. Josh Hawley won easily, voters also easily approved measures to raise the minimum wage and require employers to provide paid sick leave. Voters in Alaska, which also supported the GOP ticket by a wide margin, did the same thing, increasing the state’s minimum wage to $15 per hour and requiring employers to provide paid sick leave.
A few weeks before Election Day, YouGov conducted an interesting survey in which it asked respondents for their opinions about Trump’s and Kamala Harris’ policy priorities — except the twist was that participants weren’t told which policies were associated with which candidates.
The results were remarkable: Harris’ agenda was far more popular than Trump’s, but many people had no idea that the Democrat’s priorities were, in fact, her priorities.
Asked what they wanted, voters backed Harris’ vision. Asked who they wanted, voters backed the candidate offering the opposite of her vision.
To be sure, there’s room for a broader conversation about why many Americans who support progressive policies end up also supporting candidates who’ll reject those same progressive policies. But on a variety of key fronts, it’s nevertheless true that a true center-right nation, filled with an electorate where conservatism was ascendent, probably wouldn’t have backed quite so many progressive ballot measures.
The problem(s) with Trump claiming an ‘unprecedented’ mandate
The closer one looks at his claim to “an unprecedented and powerful mandate,” the worse the president-elect’s argument appears.
By Steve Benen – November 8, 2024
The idea behind an electoral mandate is pretty straightforward: Presidential candidates present voters with a series of ideas they want to pursue in office, and if they win, they claim that they have the nation’s support for that agenda. To stand in their way, the argument goes, is to reject the will of the American electorate.
Trump, claiming victory, said America gave him an ‘unprecedented mandate.’ … ‘America has given us an unprecedented and powerful mandate. We have taken back control of the Senate. Wow, that’s great.’
Let’s note at the outset that Republicans’ interest in presidential candidates and electoral mandates is, at best, selective.
In 2008, Barack Obama won roughly 53% of the popular vote and 365 electoral votes. Were GOP officials on Capitol Hill willing to grudgingly concede that the Democrat had earned a mandate? No, they were not. Four years later, when Obama became only the sixth president in American history to top 51% of the popular vote twice, did Republicans acknowledge the then-president’s mandate? Again, no.
In 2020, when Joe Biden won the popular vote by a fairly wide margin and ended up with the strongest support of any presidential challenger since FDR, did his opponents on the right respectfully recognize his mandate? Take a wild guess.
If you’re thinking that, under GOP rules, only GOP presidents’ mandates matter, you’re not alone.
But let’s put recent history aside and consider the core question of whether Trump has a legitimate claim to a popular mandate — because there’s ample room for skepticism.0 seconds of 12 minutes, 7 secondsVolume 90%
First, the president-elect might have a stronger case to make if he’d presented voters with a detailed governing blueprint, but he did not. Trump peddled some vague, bumper sticker–style talking points, but the post-policy president became a post-policy candidate, indifferent to the substance of governing. It’s difficult, in other words, to credibly claim a mandate for a set of proposals that, for the most part, didn’t exist in a meaningful way.
Second, Trump’s policy priorities (to the extent that they existed) weren’t especially popular. It’s fair to say the GOP candidate prevailed despite his ideas, not because of them.
Third, the idea that Trump’s mandate is “unprecedented” is demonstrably silly. Did he win? Yes. Did he win by historically enormous margins? Not even close. He might eke out a narrow popular-vote win, but plenty of other presidents fared far better. What’s more, he’ll probably finish with 312 electoral votes, which will rank 41st on the presidential history list.
Just so we’re all clear, my point is not to argue that Trump’s win is somehow illegitimate. He won fair and square, as Democratic leaders have been quick to acknowledge. I believe the electorate made a horrible mistake, but that doesn’t change the legitimacy of the outcome.
But if the president-elect and his allies are going to argue that his win was such a historic landslide that policymakers have no choice but to yield to his will because he’s the true voice of the nation — that is not an argument worth taking seriously.
Steve Benen is a producer for “The Rachel Maddow Show,” the editor of MaddowBlog and an MSNBC political contributor. He’s also the bestselling author of “Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans’ War on the Recent Past.”
The exact thing that helped Trump win could become a big problem for his presidency
Analysis by Matt Egan – November 7, 2024
Donald Trump rode a powerful wave of discontent over the cost of living back to the White House.
Voters, fed up with high prices on everything from groceries to car insurance, have ousted Democrats from power in Washington.
Trump reminded voters often that inflation wasn’t a problem when he was calling the shots. And he has promised to attack high prices by shaking things up.
But if he’s not careful, Trump could have an inflation problem of his own.
Not only that, but the bond market is already getting nervous about Trump’s plans to add trillions to the national debt. Bond yields have climbed sharply, a situation that will make it more expensive to get a mortgage or home equity loan and finance the purchase of a car.
“The lesson of this election shouldn’t go unnoticed by Republicans – inflation doesn’t sit well with voters, and they won’t forget,” Ryan Sweet, chief US economist at Oxford Economics, told CNN.
Of course, it’s far too early to know which of Trump’s campaign promises will become a reality. For now, Wall Street seems largely unfazed by the inflation warnings.
Investors appear to be betting that Trump won’t actually go forward with plans to impose tariffs on all $3 trillion of US imports, or that he won’t be able to deport millions of undocumented workers. And they may be right.
After all, there’s a long history of presidential candidates softening their approach once the votes are done being counted and the business of governing begins.
America’s affordability crisis
Voters made clear Tuesday their frustrations with the state of the economy.
Two-thirds (67%) of voters described the US economy as not good or poor, according to CNN exit polls.
Despite historically low unemployment, just 32% rated the economy as excellent or good.
And this proved to be pivotal in the outcome.
Among those who described the economy as not good or poor, 69% voted for Trump. Likewise, 40% of Latino voters indicated the economy was the No. 1 issue. Trump decisively carried Latino voters who picked the economy as the No. 1 issue.
The findings illustrate just how angry voters are about the cost of living.
Yes, the rate of inflation is down sharply. It peaked at a four-decade high of 9.1% in June 2022 when gas prices spiked above $5 a gallon.
But no, prices are not down.
“Though economists focus on the rate of price changes, consumers focus on the level of prices,” Sweet said. “The American consumer generally has a short memory, except for when it comes to prices. Many can tell you the price of gasoline, milk and bread down to the penny today versus four years ago.”
Prices vs. paychecks
And all too often, Americans are spending much more than they were when President Joe Biden took office.
Each month, the typical US household must spend $1,120 more than in January 2021 just to buy the same goods and services, according to Moody’s Analytics.
Paychecks are up by about the same amount ($1,192 more per month, on average) but that means many people must spend all their pay hikes just to get by. They’re treading water, not getting ahead.
And keep in mind, these are averages. For many others, wages have not kept up with inflation.
As CNN’s Phil Mattingly noted, Trump flipped multiple counties in Pennsylvania where wages have failed to keep up with prices.
On the campaign trail, Trump promised to not just get the rate of inflation down but to make prices plunge by deporting millions of undocumented people and unleashing fossil fuel production. In August, Trump said he would to get prices to “come down fast.”
“The price level for many consumer goods and services aren’t going to plunge,” Sweet said. “The level of prices for many things is permanently higher.”
Tariffs and deportations could lift prices
Not only that, but elements of the Trump agenda could spike prices – if they were enacted. Trump has held up tariffs as a magical fix to almost any problem, describing these taxes on imports as “the greatest thing ever invented.” He’s threatened to impose unthinkably high tariffs on friend and foe alike.
Trump’s promises to impose massive tariffs, deport millions of undocumented workers and potentially influence the Federal Reserve would weaken growth, boost inflation and lower employment, according to a recent working paper released by the Peterson Institute for International Economics. Inflation would climb to at least 6% by 2026, and by 2028, consumer prices would be 20% higher, the researchers found.
Trump has insisted that his trade agenda will not be inflationary, noting that price increases were modest during his administration even as he lobbed massive tariffs on China.
Still, Trump’s calls for across-the-board tariffs have alarmed mainstream economists. They point to study after study that shows Americans bore almost the entire cost of Trump’s tariffs on China.
Trump’s tariff proposals would cost the typical US household over $2,600 a year, according to a separate analysis from the Peterson Institute.
Slapping tariffs on apparel, toys, furniture, household appliances, footwear and travel goods alone would cost Americans at least $46 billion a year, according to the National Retail Federation, a trade group that represents retailers.
“We’re going to create the worst of both worlds: We’re going to have higher domestic prices for goods and some services…and we’re going to have no overall improvement to the jobs picture or the wage picture,” Daniel Alpert, managing partner at Westwood Capital, told CNN’s Allison Morrow.
Even Stephen Moore, a conservative economist who has been very supportive of the overall Trump agenda, recently told CNN he’s “not a big fan” of tariffs like what Trump has proposed.
“When Trump uses tariffs as a negotiating tool, I’m fine with that,” Moore said during a phone interview in late October. “But I don’t want to see us dramatically raise tariffs on imported goods. Tariffs are taxes. And my worry is, if you take it too far, you’re going to get into a tit-for-tat situation.”
And that raises one of the paramount economic questions of this next Trump era: Will he soften his economic proposals to avoid reigniting prices? Or will he triple-down on tariffs in a way that invites a return of inflation?
America will regret its decision to reelect Donald Trump
Max Burns, opinion contributor – November 6, 2024
A presidential campaign defined by personal hatreds, threats of political violence and two foiled assassination attempts ended on Tuesday in a mostly orderly election. No matter what the results ultimately show, Americans’ commitment to a fair and peaceful vote is a thumb in the eye to authoritarians both at home and abroad.
That’s about all the joy Democrats (and lovers of democracy) will find in yesterday’s election results. The fleeting optimism that washed over the party after Ann Selzer’s storied Iowa poll showed Kamala Harris unexpectedly leading Donald Trump by 3 points has crashed back to reality. In its place is the realization that democracy’s worst-case scenario is unfolding in real time.
Our democratic institutions are not ready for what comes next. Neither are the American people.
The Trump who will walk into the White House on Jan. 20 is a man steeped in unsettled vendettas, who came within a hair’s breadth of a string of federal felony convictions that he is now empowered to wipe away with a self-pardon — as if those offenses and so many others had never even happened. Trump will see his priorities as he has always seen them: party over country and self over all.
A man with 34 felony convictions can’t win the presidency in a nation where trust in institutions is high. It’s only in a culture where the justice system has long since lost its legitimacy that a man with such a thick criminal record as Trump glides by relatively unremarked. That one man can so effortlessly game American institutions to his own benefit says as much about the decrepit state of America’s institutions as it does about the moral decrepitude of the crook.
The nine years of the Trump era have taken a bat to our democracy, and Trump’s MAGA movement has exploited the nation’s systemic weakness at every turn. Political misinformation flooded social media networks owned by Trump’s key allies, or by Trump personally. Meanwhile, Trump and compliant Republican lawmakers torched public trust in the courts — first by appointing an ethically vacant Supreme Court, and later by urging his followers to hate and distrust not only the judges who tried him but the entire “rigged” justice system.
Trump is now set to return to the White House, and he’s made no secret of his lofty goals for a second term: gutting the civil service, destroying the independence of the Justice Department and seeking political and legal revenge on his lengthy list of personal enemies. Judging by yesterday’s election returns, a majority of Americans are eager to see Trump do exactly that.
The former and future president now inherits a nation deeply weakened by his own toxic brand of politics. Our divided and exhausted nation will now need to fend off the constant extralegal whims of a president who is also, thanks to the Supreme Court, functionally immune from prosecution for any act he undertakes. If Trump’s first term was any indication, we won’t need to wait long for our next constitutional crisis.
Believers in the rule of law are in for a rough four years, because though Trump contradicted himself countless times during this marathon campaign, he never wavered in his distaste for the rule of law or his admiration for strongman autocrats. Members of the press can expect Trump to at least try making good on his oft-repeated pledge to rewrite the nation’s press freedom and libel laws. The rest of us will be along for the bumpy and chaotic ride.
It matters that Trump won his office in a free and fair election. It matters that free people voluntarily chose to cloak Trump in power he will almost certainly abuse in far-reaching and destructive ways. Our country made the choice to walk down the dark path of Trump’s resentments and conspiracies. We will come to regret it.
Max Burns is a veteran Democratic strategist and founder of Third Degree Strategies.
The long and winding political campaign road is ending (we hope) on the doorsteps of the 60th U.S. Presidential Election. This is only my 16th, my first was just after I joined the Army. But I would wager no other election in our history will compare to 2024’s, in length, breadth, cost or more importantly, historical consequence.
Most clear thinking voters refuse to believe pollsters, who claim this is way, way, too close to predict. They insist it will again come down to the smallest percentage of voters in a handful of states. Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia, North Carolina, Arizona, and Nevada they say, hold the keys to the White House, and the fate of the Republic.
The residents of those swing states have suffered the brunt of the $16 billion onslaught of political ads. Thanks to the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the campaign finance floodgates sprung wide open to Corporate and special interest quid pro quo. This judicial abomination of the First Amendment has inflicted America with endless campaigning, astronomical expenditures and a potentially violent polarization. Too many MAGA faithful predict a Civil War on steroids, unless Trump is returned to his ordained position as their White Christian Savior and President.
But I’m not ready to give up on the American Experiment. I honestly and reasonably believe Kamala Harris could get between 6 and 15 million more popular votes that trump. The electoral congress is a bit uncertain, but the Dem’s should prevail; by how much depends on disaffected true Conservative Republicans. I believe the Democrats could take back the House of Representatives, and have an even chance at retaining the U.S. Senate. Hope springs eternal. Polling yesterday revealed a three point lead for V.P Harris, in Iowa of all states. And I like Colin Allred’s chances in Texas at last. The Democrats as usual, have enlisted highly qualified, intelligent, committed and honorable candidates across the country. The republi-cons have insisted on election denying, unthinking, dimwitted, sycophantic cult followers of trump Inc. Inquiring minds have to wonder why people who hate government and governing principles, run for positions running the government. I guess the answer is obvious.
OnSeptember 29, 2023 – Sarah Pruitt, a writer and editor based in New Hampshire wrote:
“The Founding Fathers Feared Political Factions Would Tear the Nation Apart”
“Today, it may seem impossible to imagine the U.S. government without its two leading political parties, Democrats and Republicans. But in 1787, when delegates to the Constitutional Convention gathered in Philadelphia to hash out the foundations of their new government, they entirely omitted political parties from the new nation’s founding document.”
“This was no accident. The framers of the new Constitution desperately wanted to avoid the divisions that had ripped England apart in the bloody civil wars of the 17th century. Many of them saw parties—or “factions,” as they called them—as corrupt relics of the monarchical British system that they wanted to discard in favor of a truly democratic government.”
‘“It was not that they didn’t think of parties,” says Willard Sterne Randall, professor emeritus of history at Champlain College and biographer of six of the Founding Fathers. “Just the idea of a party brought back bitter memories to some of them.”’
“George Washington’s family had fled England precisely to avoid the civil wars there, while Alexander Hamiltononce called political parties “the most fatal disease” of popular governments. James Madison, who worked with Hamilton to defend the new Constitution to the public in the Federalist Papers, wrote in Federalist 10 that one of the functions of a “well-constructed Union” should be “its tendency to break and control the violence of faction.”’
“In George Washington’s Farewell Address to the Nation, Washington and Hamilton worked closely together on the address, which took the form of a public letter to the American people. It was published in the Daily American Advertiser, a Philadelphia newspaper, on September 19, 1796, and later reprinted in papers throughout the country. The letter included three main principles:”
1. Importance of Unity:
“After opening with an explanation of his choice not to seek a third term, Washington’s farewell address urged Americans not to put their regional and sectional interests above the interests of the nation as a whole. “You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together,” Washington declared. “The Independence and Liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels, and joint efforts, of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.”
“Regions such as North, South, East and West should see their common interests rather than their differences, he continued. “Your Union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty and…the love of the one ought to endear you to the preservation of the other.”
2. The ‘Worst Enemy’ of Government: Loyalty to Party Over Nation:
“According to Washington, one of the chief dangers of letting regional loyalties dominate loyalty to the nation as a whole was that it would lead to factionalism, or the development of competing political parties. When Americans voted according to party loyalty, rather than the common interest of the nation, Washington feared it would foster a “spirit of revenge,” and enable the rise of “cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men” who would “usurp for themselves the reins of government; destroying afterward the very engines, which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”
“In fact, political parties had already begun to emerge by the time Washington stepped aside. Federalists, who drew their support largely from New England, advocated a strong national government and the fiscal programs created by Hamilton, the nation’s first secretary of the treasury. Republicans (later Democratic-Republicans) led by Southerners like Thomas Jefferson and Madison, opposed Hamilton’s economic policies. They also split with the Federalists in foreign policy, favoring a closer relationship with France over Great Britain.”
“Washington supported Hamilton’s financial programs and sided with the Federalists in supporting the Jay Treaty with Britain. By the end of his presidency, Washington was weathering increasingly bitter attacks from his Republican critics, and his farewell address represented his response to such attacks, as well as a more general statement of his principles.”
3. Danger of Foreign Entanglements:
“Just as regionalism would lead to the formation of political parties, Washington believed, partisanship would open the door to “foreign influence and corruption.” While he advocated for the United States to be on good terms with all nations, especially in commercial relations, he argued that “inveterate antipathies against particular Nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded.”
“Europe had its own, very complicated, set of interests, and the United States should keep its distance from European affairs, Washington believed. A foreign policy based on neutrality was the safest way to maintain national unity, and stability, in the United States. Although Washington saw the need for the nation to involve itself in foreign affairs in the case of war or other emergencies, he argued that it must “steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.” Sarah Pruitt, Updated July 6, 2023
Needless to say, the Founding Fathers would be stunned and appalled at the current state of our multi-billion dollar campaigns and political divide.
“Consider, for example, that after a wealthy 25-year-old man named George Washington, in 1757, bought “$195 worth of punch and hard cider for friends prior to an election,” the Virginia Legislature enacted a law prohibiting candidates, “or persons on their behalf,” from giving voters “money, meat, drink, entertainment or provision . . . any present, gift, reward or entertainment, etc. in order to be elected.”
That historic guard rail hasn’t dissuaded Elon Musk from pledging to give away $1 million each day to registered voters in battleground states, just for signing on the dotted line, and purportedly to vote for his BF Trump.
“Washington’s farewell address urged Americans not to put their regional and sectional interests above the interests of the nation as a whole.”
But Trump’s first and foremost principle, is to divide America into MAGA’s and everyone else. To pit his faithful against the others. To demonize immigrants, in spite of two of his wives and in-laws being recent immigrants. And most recently, to scare the bejesus out of as many American’s as possible, on the dangers of immigration from non-Christians.
Washington warned:The ‘Worst Enemy’ of Government: Loyalty to Party Over Nation:
It’s blaringly obvious that Trump and his myriad of sycophantic MAGAnians, are not loyal to the Republic or to our Democratic institutions, they’re government hating bomb throwers.
Washington feared:Danger of Foreign Entanglements:
But in this ever dangerous and fractured world, with growing numbers of anti-Democratic, autocratic, kleptocratic, theocratic and fascist regimes, NATO, the Indo-Pacific Alliance and other international pacts are necessarily more important than ever.
Unfortunately, trump and his followers are more aligned with leaders he admires and is clearly envious of; trump regards Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, Kim Jong-un, Viktor Orban, and Nicolás Maduro as great world leaders to be applauded and emulated.
Trump, cowardly and treasonous Republi-cons in Congress, Musk and other billionaire MAGA benefactors, and the millions of MAGA, hate filled sheeple, and most importantly, a majority of extreme right supreme court justices, have failed American Democracy on all three of Washington’s governing principles.
The MAGA Republi-cons in the U.S. Senate could have stopped trump, at any time in his 5 year reign of Anti-American terrorism, and then failed to convict him at his two impeachments. The supreme court could have reigned in trump, instead, they gave him free rein to subvert the Department of Justice’s attempts to hold him accountable for his crimes and also ruled to allow him to commit even more consequential malfeasances if he’s returned to the White House.
Numerous journalists and news organizations have attempted to shine a light through the trump smoke-screen of disinformation, conspiracy theories, and countless lies he used to subvert, the Grand Old Party, the conservative movement and MAGA-ward Christians. We know what trump accomplished in his first term. Above all, he attempted to overthrow our Democracy and Democratic institutions, and hired government hating, self-serving like-minded operatives to turn over federal and state power to the rich and powerful, to fossil fuel and extractive benefactors and to enemies foreign and domestic. No opportunity to enrich himself and his friends and family was left untapped. And we know what trump and the MAGA republi-cons in congress would inflict on America and the world if they get control of the White House and the congress. More on the order of massive budget busting tax cuts for the ultra-rich and tax dodging corporations, 80% of which will go, as before, to the top 1%.
But a second trump administration will be operating in “Katie bar the door” territory, thanks to the SCOTUS.
MAGA operatives published their plans in a 887-page book, which was written in part by the former president’s aides.
FactCheck.org®A Project of The Annenberg Public Policy Center enlightens: “Project 2025 provides a roadmap for “the next conservative President” to downsize the federal government and fundamentally change how it works, including the tax system, immigration enforcement, social welfare programs and energy policy, particularly those designed to address climate change.”
“It also wades deeply into the culture war that has been dividing the country. Project 2025 calls for abolishing the teaching of “‘critical race theory’ and ‘gender ideology’” in public schools, and “deleting” terms such as “diversity, equity and inclusion,” “gender equity,” and “reproductive health” from “every federal rule, agency regulation, contract, grant … and piece of legislation that exists.”
“The project is being led and funded by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative public policy think tank founded in 1973. In addition to Heritage, there are more than 100 conservative organizations on Project 2025’s advisory board. Among those “coalition partners” are the Center for Immigration Studies, Moms for Liberty, Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, Tea Party Patriots, Turning Point USA and America First Legal Foundation, which is headed by Stephen Miller, a former Trump senior adviser.”
“In fact, at least 140 people who worked in the Trump administration had a hand in Project 2025,” a CNN review found.
Government ‘efficiency’: Project 2025 proposes cutting federal spending and firing “supposedly ‘un-fireable’ federal bureaucrats.” (Separately, Trump has praised businessman Elon Musk for firing employees, and floated the idea of putting Musk in charge of a government efficiency commission.)
“The project recommends privatizing government functions, including the National Weather Service, Transportation Security Administration, or TSA, and the National Flood Insurance Program, as well as eliminating the Department of Education and scores of programs, bureaus and offices throughout government. The project also calls for removing the Biden administration’s expansion of Title IX, which bans sex discrimination in education, to include sexual orientation and gender identity. The courts have blocked the rule from taking effect.”
“As for other departments, the project calls for the “wholesale overhaul” of the Department of Housing and Urban Affairs, the “top-to-bottom overhaul” of the Department of Justice, and a return “to the right mission, the right size, and the right budget” at the Department of Homeland Security. The Justice Department overhaul would include “a plan to end immediately any policies, investigations, or cases that run contrary to law or Administration policies.”
“One frequent target for cuts are offices and programs that promote clean energy and monitor or mitigate the effects of climate change.”
“For example, the project calls for the dismantling of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which conducts research and issues reports on climate change. Project 2025 says “many” of NOAA’s functions can be “eliminated, sent to other agencies, privatized, or placed under the control of states and territories.”
“Social welfare programs: Project 2025 cites fraud and waste in safety net programs and calls for eliminating or reducing basic benefits for low-income individuals and families.”
“For Medicaid, Project 2025 proposes adding work requirements for beneficiaries and “time limits or lifetime caps … to disincentivize permanent dependence.” The health insurance program for low-income Americans covered nearly 74 million people in May, according to the latest data.”
“The conservative plan also calls for tightening work requirements for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly known as food stamps, and changing the eligibility requirements for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, which was created by the overhaul of the welfare system in 1996. New eligibility requirements would also reduce the number of students served by the national school breakfast and lunch programs — which were described in the book as “inefficient, wasteful” programs.”
“Project 2025 also seeks to incentivize at-home child care. “Instead of providing universal day care, funding should go to parents either to offset the cost of staying home with a child or to pay for familial, in-home childcare,” the plan states.”
“The plan calls for the elimination of Head Start, a program that funds education, health and social services programs for low-income children under 5 years old.”
I would personally like to thank all the critical thinking patriots – journalists, activists, fact based news organizations and others, for helping America to think critically about who’s attempting to turn our Democratic Republic over to anti-Democratic autocrats, self-serving kleptocrats, theocrats, misogynists, white national racists and fascists. They’ve gallantly tried to help turn the page on America’s trump presidential nightmare.
Hundreds of true conservative, Eisenhower and Regan Republican party faithful, who’ve been driven out of the party, or fled for their lives, have advocated for and endorsed Kamala Harris and Tim Walz in this consequential election. There are Republican’s for Harris, scientists for Harris, historian’s for Harris, Puerto Rican’s for Harris, Dad’s for Harris, White Dudes for Harris, Black Men for Harris, Mom’s for Harris and probably dozens that I haven’t heard about.
Some, like Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger and others, have went further and endorsed Democrats running against election denying trump apologists and January 6th sympathizers in congress. Many tens or hundreds of thousands have resigned themselves to vote against their long lost party. Virtually everyone who worked for trump in his administration have declared they would refuse to endorse or vote for trump in 2024.
trump, fearing another lost election, has become more unhinged from political reality. The MAGA rally lies and campaign promises have become more outrageous by the day. The twice impeached, 4 times indicted, thrice convicted felon, can’t help but envision himself spending time in a federal prison at the ripe old age of 80. If he loses, odds are favoring him fleeing the country before the Justice Department overcomes the $100 million dollars he’s spent trying to subvert a just reckoning. Also if he loses the election, the campaign faithful piggy-bank will dry up and he’ll be forced to spend his own dwindling wealth on his many legal defenses.
trump’s campaign rhetoric becomes darker and more ominous by the day. Aside from immigrants eating cats and dogs, something that should not even be repeated, trump blames immigrants for every crime, malady, immorality, and unfairness imposed on real white Christian citizens.
Kamala, on the other hand, preaches joy, inclusion, unity and optimism. Her message is somehow getting through the right-wing MAGA-phones, republi-con congressional treason and obfuscation, foreign interference, social media conspiracies, and trump’s fantasized, Democratic dystopian future.
Although Jeffrey Preston Bezos, American business magnate and oligarch best known as the founder, executive chairman, and former president and CEO of Amazon, decided to block a Washington Post endorsement of Vice President Kamala Harris for president, most of the Post’s journalists have voiced their choices in the election, through their reporting and writings. “Chief Executive and Publisher Will Lewis explained the decision not to endorse in this year’s presidential race or in future elections as a return to the Post’s roots: It has for years styled itself an “independent paper.” It’s too bad that More than 200,000 people had canceled their digital subscriptions to the paper. Don’t blame the messenger.
I, on the other hand, am not afraid of endorsing Kamala and Tim to bring America back from the abyss. I’m a Veteran who served my country for 3 years in the Army, in a nuclear missile artillery battalion. We had our missiles aimed at the Soviets and they had theirs aimed at us. I think I fell asleep 60 years ago, just woke up and nothing has changed. We’re still butting heads with the Russkies. We were required to have secret clearances to serve in our Pershing unit. We had monthly seminars from intelligence officers on the necessity of protecting secrets and documents, especially when we were out in public. We couldn’t even have a camera near the military Kaserne. They found a camera on one soldier and we never heard from him again. It shocks myself and fellow veterans how trump abused the national trust by illegally taking highly classified government secrets and documents from government intelligence agencies, and then refusing to turn them over when ordered by the courts, and also by recklessly storing them in a public bathroom. A president who betrays his country and his oath of office should not be returned to the White House. I can’t believe how any Veteran could vote for trump.
As a member of a dozen or so unions and working in manufacturing and construction, I vote for the folks who valiantly fought to stem the flight of manufacturing jobs offshore. Those were all Democrats, including Joe Biden, Three-term Democratic U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown, Independent Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, and many other Democrats. The republi-cons in congress greased the pathways and fought for tax incentives for corporations to offshore high-paying middle class jobs.
trump and J.D. Vance have already proposed trying to overturn the Joe Biden and Kamala Harris administrations Chips and Science Act. “The act authorizes roughly $280 billion in new funding to boost domestic research and manufacturing of semiconductors in the United States, for which it appropriates $52.7 billion. The act includes $39 billion in subsidies for chip manufacturing on U.S. soil along with 25% investment tax credits for costs of manufacturing equipment, and $13 billion for semiconductor research and workforce training, with the dual aim of strengthening American supply chain resilience and countering China.
“When the CHIPS and Science Act passed in 2022, it had bipartisan support. Lawmakers from both political parties hailed the law’s importance for reviving US chip-making capacity in the face of China’s growing influence in the semiconductor sector.”
“But in the final days of this presidential election cycle, the law has become a point of contention between the political parties, putting its future in doubt.”
On Friday, House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Republican who voted against the CHIPS Act, drew criticism after suggesting he would consider repealing the program under the Trump administration
“Analysts estimated that the act incentivized between 25 and 50 separate potential projects, with total projected investments of $160–200 billion and 25,000–45,000 new jobs.”
How can any laborer, union member or otherwise, vote for trump and his anti-labor supporters in congress, who overwhelmingly vote against labor issues at every chance.
President Biden, Vice President and Presidential Candidate Kamala Harris, her running mate Tim Walz and the Democratic party as a whole, are strong supporters of labor and labor unions.
The Democratic party, Vice President Kamala Harris and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz have always, and will always fight for women’s reproductive freedom and the right to make their own healthcare decisions, and to have access to safe and legal abortions. Harris wants to restore Roe v. Wade, which protects abortion up until the time of fetal viability or about 22 weeks. The vast majority of voters agree with her; 89%, think this election will have an impact on abortion rights, and 61% said it will have a “major” impact.
If trump and his MAGA Christian supporters regain control of the White House, a national abortion ban will be at the top of their to-do lists.
For all these reasons, and the fact that trump is the absolute worst, most vile inhabitant of the White House in U.S. history, I believe the Democrats and Kamala Harris will prevail in this election and will be able to turn the page on this ugly and divisive period in our history. As she says, we’re not going back. I just hope that a large resounding victory, might force the republi-cons to alter their anti-Democratic mind set.
So where does that leave the MAGA republi-cons and the unholy, un Christ-like prosperity Christians who went all in on trump’s campaign of grievance, revenge and retribution? They ignored the hundreds of red flags, the habitual lies, the rampant self-serving, the crimes, the indiscretions, the flagrant immorality, and the daily un-presidential conduct. Millions of true and faithful conservative Republicans have fled the party, or the party has left them in it’s toxic wake. Are there enough influential, authentic, conservative Republican’s like Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger, Mitt Romney and others, capable of resurrecting the Grand Old Party, or it it destined for the waste bin of history.
trump, Christian Nationalists, and MAGAnians in congress, believe scaring their faithful out of their wits, and holding together their coalition of disaffected, grievance based bro-crew faithful is enough to win trump a second term and keep him out of prison.
$170 million has already been wagered on this election, an abomination causing the founding fathers to turn over in their graves. Who will lose their political shirts.
I believe they’re wrong on all counts. The others, and especially women in every town and burb, in every corner of the nation are not settling for returning to the dark ages of female subjugation and purgatory. The women of America might just save the Republic.
I’ve Covered Authoritarians Abroad. Now I Fear One at Home.
By Nicholas Kristof, Opinion Columnist– November 2, 2024
With this presidential election seemingly a jump ball, what might American democracy and the world look like if Donald Trump is again elected president?
I think it’s hyperbole to suggest, as Hillary Clinton did, that a Trump election would be “the end of our country as we know it.” I don’t think that Trump could turn the United States into a dictatorship.
That said, in the course of four decades of covering the world, I’ve repeatedly seen charismatic leaders win democratic elections and then undermine those democracies. The populist left did that in Venezuela, Mexico and El Salvador, and the populist right did it in Hungary, India and Poland (Poland managed to claw its way back). In his lust for power, willingness to ignore democratic norms and eagerness to glorify himself and suppress opposition, Trump reminds me of those leaders.
“He is the most dangerous person to this country,” Mark Milley, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Bob Woodward.
It’s not that Trump would declare himself dictator for life, but he has already adopted the standard strongman approach of trying to weaponize the legal system to punish and intimidate critics. When he was president, he proposed prosecuting Clinton and did force a criminal investigation into former Secretary of State John Kerry.
“Sometimes revenge can be justified,” Trump said in June.
It’s worth noting that his efforts to prosecute Clinton and Kerry didn’t succeed, and American democracy survived his first term largely unscathed. Democratic institutions are stronger in the United States than in Hungary or Venezuela, and our system is less vulnerable.
It’s also true that in his first term, Trump’s autocratic inclinations were frustrated by incompetence and by frantic efforts by his own aides to impede him. What would be different in a second term is that he is better prepared and seems ready to bring in like-minded aides who would empower his antidemocratic efforts.
I’ve seen in many other countries how threats and revenge can intimidate the business community and civil society into grudging acquiescence. When Trump was in office, his administration reportedly took steps to hurt Jeff Bezos and his corporate interests, possibly costing him a $10 billion military contract for cloud computing. That may explain Bezos’ decision to withhold an endorsement in the presidential election by The Washington Post, which he owns.
When I was The Times’s bureau chief in Beijing many years ago and wrote tough articles about China’s prime minister, the Chinese government responded by aggressively auditing my taxes. So it felt familiar to learn that Trump told aides to use the I.R.S. to audit the taxes of his critics or those who wouldn’t do his bidding, like James Comey and Andrew McCabe of the F.B.I.
Aides initially resisted, but Comey and McCabe were later selected — supposedly randomly — for audits. Trump said he knew nothing about this, but his denials also felt straight out of the Chinese playbook. Officials in China would tell reporters things that we all knew were false not to persuade anyone but to confuse the issue or to establish the party line for followers to echo.
The first time I met Trump as a politician, he made absurd claims and then denied ever making them — and I felt I was transported back into meetings with Chinese officials whose relationship with truth and reality was not just casual but largely coincidental.
The First Amendment is long established in the United States, and it will survive. But Trump can undermine the free press by bullying corporate owners. After all, about a year ago, he called for NBC’s corporate owners to be investigated for treason because of the network’s coverage, and he suggested recently that ABC News should be punished for the way it managed the presidential debate.
“They’re a news organization,” he said of ABC News. “They have to be licensed to do it. They ought to take away their license.” Later he called for CBS to lose its license as well and said that “60 Minutes” “should be taken off the air, frankly.” National news organizations don’t actually need licenses, but their local affiliate TV stations do.
Trump has repeatedly called for changing libel laws to reduce protections for news organizations. Two years ago he called for imprisoning journalists who don’t reveal sources in national security cases and added gleefully that the prospect of prison rape would make journalists ready to give up sources. (I believe journalists are made of sterner stuff, and I’ve seen that in the raw courage of reporters risking their lives in autocracies like Russia.)
Just as alarming is Trump’s suggestion that he would use the armed forces against U.S. citizens. In October he suggested that the National Guard or military be deployed in America against “the enemy from within,” including “radical left lunatics.”
That kind of language may encourage more political violence of the type we already saw on Jan. 6. Trump seemed to acknowledge the risk in his April Time magazine interview, when he was asked about the possibility of post-election violence. “If we don’t win, you know, it depends,” he said ominously. “It always depends on the fairness of an election.”
Spare a moment as well to contemplate what a Trump election might mean internationally.
If Trump had been re-elected in 2020, Russian forces might now be in Kyiv, for Trump could never have mustered the international coalition and rounded up the assistance to keep Russia at bay (even if he had wanted to). Ukraine would probably have collapsed, Russia might have moved on to Moldova or Latvia, and NATO might well be an empty shell. Observing the fecklessness of the West, China would probably be more aggressive toward Taiwan and the South China Sea, so war might be more likely in Asia.
Trump presents himself as a strongman, but my sense from conversations with foreign officials and business leaders is that what he actually projects is weakness. He would damage the Atlantic alliance and threaten the network of countries that Joe Biden has knit together to restrain China, and he seems to discount the challenges from Moscow and Beijing.
Just last month, Trump described some of his American critics as “scum” and “a bigger enemy than China and Russia.” Perhaps that’s why Russia is interfering in the U.S. election with the apparent aim of helping Trump.
Similarly, some Chinese people joke that Trump’s Chinese name is Chuan Jianguo, or Build-the-Country Trump — meaning that for all Trump’s anti-China rhetoric, his chaotic approach and disregard for allies make China stronger.
Trump has little interest in foreign wars, but he can be reckless and inclined to escalate; the upshot is that early in his presidency we came “much closer than anyone would know” to war with North Korea, in Trump’s own words to Woodward. His defense secretary, James Mattis, was so worried that he slept in gym clothes for a time and installed a flashing light in his bathroom to alert him to a crisis if he happened to be showering.
None of us knows how events will unfold, and Trump would not achieve all his aims. Two years ago, he urged the “termination” of the Constitution, and that won’t happen. When he was in office and a federal circuit court blocked one of his programs, he told an aide to “cancel” the court — it didn’t work then, and it won’t next year.
But could Trump make the United States less democratic and make the world far more dangerous? Absolutely. We would be gambling with our future.
The New York Times editorial board is a group of opinion journalists whose views are informed by expertise, research, debate and certain longstanding values. It is separate from the newsroom.
By Jamelle Bouie, Opinion Columnist– November 2, 2024
To conclude my Friday column on the stakes of the 2024 presidential election, I quoted a passage from Sean Wilentz’s 2005 book on the rise of American democracy. Here’s the passage, which I want to quote again because it’s a great piece of prose and directly relevant to an observation I want to make.
Democracy is never a gift bestowed by benevolent, farseeing rulers who seek to reinforce their own legitimacy. It must always be fought for, by political coalitions that cut across distinctions of wealth, power and interest. It succeeds and survives only when it is rooted in the lives and expectations of its citizens and is continually reinvigorated in each generation. Democratic successes are never irreversible.
Democracy is on the ballot next Tuesday. Democracy was on the ballot four years ago, and it was on the ballot four years before that.
Will democracy ever not be on the ballot? Are we doomed to exist in a world in which every contest for national leadership has critical stakes for the American system of government?
I won’t say yes — but I won’t say no, either.
The reason I won’t say “yes” is that there is a real chance that the Republican Party will back away from the ideological hostility to democracy that defines the MAGA tendency. If Donald Trump loses — thus leading the party to its fourth consecutive defeat (in 2018, 2020, 2022 and 2024) overall in national elections — ambitious Republicans may finally decide that he and his movement are a dead end for the party. In that world, presidential elections will still have the highest stakes of any of our electoral contests, but we may not be fighting over the fate of self-government itself.
But the reason I won’t say “no” is that there will never be — and there arguably never has been — an election in which we won’t be faced with the choice of how inclusive or exclusive we want our democracy to be. Even in a hypothetical future in which the Republican Party is not led by a would-be autocrat, it will almost certainly still be a party that opposes mechanisms designed to make it easier to participate in the political process. It will still be a party that tries to use the counter-majoritarian elements of the American system to its benefit. It will still be a party that opposes the robust use of federal power to protect voting rights.
Democracy will continue to be on the ballot, in other words, because there will still be a partisan divide on whether you want democracy to be broader and more inclusive than it has been. And if we ever find ourselves in a place where that isn’t true, democracy will still be on the ballot for the simple reason that democracy is not a steady state. It will always demand that we participate and keep constant vigil.
What I Wrote
My Tuesday column was an analysis of Donald Trump’s rally at Madison Square Garden. In short, I wasn’t impressed.
I’m sure that to some observers, all of this — even the terrible racist jokes — looks like the confidence and resolve of a determined political movement. But I think it’s just the opposite. Far from showing strength, the Madison Square Garden rally showed that however vicious and virulent its leaders and supporters might be, the MAGA movement is a spent and exhausted force, even if it is not yet defeated.
My Friday column was on the stakes of the 2024 presidential election for the Constitution.
We were not given a democratic Constitution; we made one. We unraveled the elitist and hierarchical Constitution of the founders to build something that works for us — that conforms to our expectations. But nothing is permanent. What’s made can be unmade. And at the foundation of Donald Trump’s campaign is a promise to unmake our democratic Constitution.
New York Times Editorial Board Rips Apart Donald Trump in Single Paragraph
Liam Archacki – November 2, 2024
The editorial board of The New York Times just eviscerated Donald Trump in a single paragraph.
The piece, published on Saturday, was only the Times’ latest attack on the former president during the run-up to the election, but the searing indictment was all the more brutal for its brevity.
Rhetorically matter-of-fact, the piece succinctly lays out many of the reasons Trump’s critics think his second term would be disastrous for the country—the implicit point being that nobody really needs a lengthy review of all Trump’s actions; everyone already knows what he’s about.
Last week, the Times’ editorial board published a longer and nearly as scathing article urging voters not to elect Trump.
“Donald Trump has described at length the dangerous and disturbing actions he says he will take if he wins the presidency,” the piece reads. “We have two words for American voters: Believe him.”
Another even lengthier editorial called Kamala Harris, Trump’s Democratic opponent, “the only patriotic choice for president,” citing Harris’ vow to unite the country and describing Trump as “morally unfit for an office that asks its occupant to put the good of the nation above self-interest.”
Presidential endorsements from newspapers have been a point of debate in recent political discourse after The Washington Post’s owner, billionaire Jeff Bezos, blocked the paper’s planned endorsement of Kamala Harris. The decision prompted multiple resignations from the Post’s editorial board, and significant criticism from throughout the journalism world.
The billionaire owner of The Los Angeles Times, Patrick Soon-Shiong, also controversially ordered its editorial board not to endorse a presidential candidate.
Joining the Times’ in endorsing Harris are other major publications such as The Boston Globe, The Atlantic, and The New Yorker, among others. The New York Post endorsed Trump.
Biden is beating Trump on stocks. History shows markets do better under Democrats
Matt Egan, CNN – November 1, 2024
Yahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what’s in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience.
In 2020, former President Donald Trump warned that the historic stock market boom on his watch would implode if voters replaced him with Joe Biden.
“If you want your 401k’s and stocks…to disintegrate and disappear, vote for the Radical Left Do Nothing Democrats and Corrupt Joe Biden,” Trump tweeted in July 2020.
In reality, with Biden in the White House, the US stock market not only preserved those Trump-era gains, but generated even more massive ones for millions of Americans’ 401(k) plans, nest eggs and college savings plans.
The S&P 500, the gold-standard market index of 500 US stocks, has posted a compound annual growth rate of 14.1% from Biden’s November 2020 election through Thursday’s closing bell, according to veteran market strategist Sam Stovall of CFRA Research.
The market returns under Biden are the second best in modern history going back to 1945, Stovall found. The only stronger performance was during the booming dotcom days under former President Bill Clinton during the 1990s.
The findings are surprising given the relatively low marks Americans give Biden on the economy and how the issue remains a challenge for Vice President Kamala Harris, who Biden tapped to succeed him.
Yet the Biden-era gains reflect the US economy’s relentless rebound from the pandemic, the historic period of low unemployment and the artificial intelligence gold rush on Wall Steet.
“Biden benefited from the tech-fueled recovery following the shallow and swift bear markets of 2020 and 2022,” Stovall said.
Trump presided over market surge
But the market also boomed under Trump.
The S&P 500 enjoyed a compound annual growth rate of 12.1% from Trump’s surprise election in November 2016 through Biden’s 2020 victory, according to CFRA. That’s the third best performance in modern history, behind only Clinton and Biden.
“The Trump market was so strong because of a combination of very low inflation, very low interest rates and tax cuts,” said Stovall.
Another way to measure presidential market performance would be to start from the moment they are sworn in. By that metric, the S&P 500’s growth rate of 14.1% under Trump is second all-time, just ahead of 13.8% under Barack Obama and well ahead of the 10.3% under Biden.
However, Stovall said it makes more sense to start the clock at Election Day because that’s when markets start pricing in policy changes.
For instance, US stocks surged after Trump defeated Hillary Clinton in 2016 in a red wave that gave Republicans control of Congress. Wall Street immediately started betting that Trump would be able to enact his agenda, especially massive tax cuts that would juice corporate profits.
“Investors are anticipators. They don’t wait for the actuality,” Stovall said.
Despite a tech-led selloff on Thursday, the S&P 500 still ended October with a year-to-date gain of 19.6%. That makes 2024 its best election year through October since 1936, according to Bespoke Investment Group.
Democrats beat Republicans
History shows that the market tends to rise no matter which party is in power. However, contrary to popular belief that Republican presidents are better for the economy and the market, Democrats have enjoyed stronger market gains and faster economic growth.
The S&P 500’s growth rate under Democrats is 10% compared with 6.7% under Republicans, according to CFRA. Gross domestic product has averaged 3.9% under Democratic presidents, well ahead of the 2.4% under Republicans.
“Whether it is by coincidence or causation, historical evidence suggests that the market and economy perform better under Democratic presidential leadership,” Brian Belski, chief investment strategist at BMO Capital Markets, wrote in a note to clients earlier this week.
All Democratic presidents have enjoyed a rising stock market during their time in office, led by the 16.5% compound annual growth rate under Clinton.
Two Republicans presided over market downturns: Richard M. Nixon (-4.1% compound annual growth rate) and George W. Bush. Bush ranked last among the 14 presidents since 1945.
Part of that disparity could have to do with which presidents had recession occur during their terms.
Before early 2020, Trump was on track to be the first Republican president since 1945 to avoid a recession. But then Covid-19 crashed the economy, causing unemployment to skyrocket and GDP to crash.
By contrast, none of the Democratic presidents since 1945 have had a recession occur during their terms, according to CFRA.
Bush inherited the bursting of the dotcom bubble, which helped start a recession just a few months after he took office. Bush was also in office during the 2008 financial crisis and the Great Recession.
“Republican presidents – specifically Richard Nixon and George W. Bush – have had the misfortune of presiding over periods of economic deterioration rather than economic prosperity, leading to lower market returns,” Belski wrote.
Gridlock is good?
Of course, the composition of Congress plays a huge role in how much of a president’s campaign promises can become reality. When the opposing party controls Congress, there is a natural check on the White House that often prevents presidents from enacting controversial legislation.
Investors know this and there’s even an old market mantra that “gridlock is good” because it prevents Washington from meddling too much with the economy.
Indeed, Stovall found that the best market performance historically has occurred under a Democratic president with a split Congress. In those six years since 1945, where such a dynamic has been in place, the S&P 500 has enjoyed a sizzling growth rate of 16.8%.
Market returns have been weakest when there is a Republican president with a Democratic Congress.
Still, markets performed well in the past when there is unified government, with one party controlling the White House and both chambers of Congress.
And gridlock comes with risks because it can paralyze Congress on must-pass legislation such as the debt ceiling. It can also complicate and slow down rescue packages during times of crisis.
Tax cuts don’t necessarily boost stocks
One risk investors have been mulling this year is that some or all of the 2017 tax cuts are allowed to expire in 2025, causing rates to surge.
Trump has vowed to fully extend his signature tax law, but Democrats in Congress and Harris have called for rolling some of it back.
“The prospect of any sort of tax increase has always spooked investors since the perception is that higher rates would impede stock market performance potential,” BMO’s Belski wrote. “We understand the consternation, nobody wants to pay higher taxes, but the prevailing wisdom that tax hikes destroy markets is misguided if history is any sort of guide.”
BMO found that there is “little proof” that lower individual, corporate and capital gains tax rates boost the market.
In fact, the market has generally performed better during times of higher, not lower, tax rates across changes in all three categories, BMO found.
As with many things, presidents often get too much credit for market booms, and too much blame for the busts.
Although presidential decisions and landmark legislation can have a real impact, markets are influenced by other factors such as wars, interest rates and most importantly the timing of recessions.