For the final month before early voting begins for the 2024 presidential election, the freshly coronated Kamala Harris will continue to insist that she has the means to solve the inflation that she helped start as the vice president who cast the crucial tiebreaking votes to flood the economy with an extra $4 trillion of superfluous and ultimately punishing deficit spending.

But while Harris makes false promises for the future, she will try to distract and distort the record of the past economic destruction wrought by her and President Joe Biden. Lest anyone forget, the worst inflationary crisis in the past 40 years has not just broadly led to soaring prices and pinched paychecks across the board: A data analysis by the Washington Examiner proved that inflation has hit the working class at least 20% harder than the wealthy.

The consumer price index broadly tracks inflation by weighing goods and services in accordance with average consumption rates. For example, groceries comprise 8% of the CPI basket, while car insurance consists of about 3%. While the CPI is broadly useful as a constant measure of overall inflation trends, it obviously does not measure the actual inflation rate experienced by each individual consumer, much less those whose consumption patterns deviate from the norm.

Inflation is almost always regressive for practical reasons, as the higher earner can always downgrade from Whole Foods to Trader Joe’s, but the lower-income consumer cannot feed their kids fewer calories or use less gas to get work. But the main structural reason this bout of inflation brought by Bidenomics particularly punishes the working class is the total breakdown of budgets across the income spectrum.

The most recent Consumer Expenditure Survey published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in 2022 shows the average annual expenditures of the five tiers of earners. Whereas the highest 20% of earners, those making more than $200,000, only spent 6.1% of their annual budgets on groceries, the lowest quintile of earners, those making fewer than $20,000, spent 11.1% of their annual budgets on groceries. Similarly, lower-income earners spend more on homes they rent while the top quintile of earners spend more on homes they own.

To compare the inflation realized by the bottom quintile of earners versus the top, I have weighed the respective consumption patterns of the two quintiles against the cumulative inflation of each category since Biden and Harris took office in January 2021. The spending categories measured by the Consumption Expenditure Survey do not all have perfect analogs in the consumer price index, and I have intentionally excluded some spending categories, such as cash contributions and Social Security, because they aren’t exactly responding to inflation. Furthermore, I had to substitute the CES category of utilities, fuel, and public services with the close CPI substitute of energy. The only point where we have to deviate away from BLS data entirely is its most controversial category: shelter.

I have defended the BLS’s shelter pricing before on the grounds that it broadly tracks the consumer experience of both home buying and rental payments on average, but the top and bottom quintiles of earners are homogenous enough in their housing habits that we can use more precise data. More than 4 in 5 bottom quintile earners rent whereas nearly 9 in 10 of the top quintile of earners own their homes. But the BLS’s two main measures of shelter prices tend to lag at least a year behind the actual market movement, so while homeowners who pay flat rates thanks to mortgages actually have a much lower inflation burden from shelter, renters are paying even more than the CPI says. For that reason, I substituted the CPI’s rent measure with the Zillow Observed Rent Index, which tracks national average asking rents. Otherwise, unless otherwise noted, the inflation tabulated comes from the CPI.

As you can see, the inflation experienced by the average lowest quintile earner is 21.1% compared to the 17.6% borne by the average highest quintile earner. That means the inflation experienced by the lowest-income earners is at least 20% higher than the highest earners. While these numbers are, again, imperfect if only because we excluded categories too difficult to quantify such as “reading” or life insurance, they sandwich the cumulative CPI increase of 19.4% comfortably enough to say they are broadly representative of this inflation bout’s regressive effect.

The difference in these inflation burdens also results in different amounts of real wage changes. Using the official monthly updates to average weekly earnings indicates that the average full-time worker has a paycheck worth 4% less than when former President Donald Trump left office. However, using our more specific cumulative inflation measures against average nominal weekly wages, which, again, would, in reality, vary between the top and bottom of the income spectrums, we can ascertain that the highest earners would only take a 2% hit to their paychecks versus a 5% decrease in real wages for the lowest-income workers.

In reality, the discrepancy between the individual haves and have-nots is much greater. Consider the actual bottom quintile earner who only rents versus the top quintile earner who has been sitting pretty on the mortgage he locked in during the interest rate nadir of 2021. If we redirected all the shelter weight to reflect the majority of bottom quintile earners who only rent, the inflation realized jumps up to a staggering 32%. And for a wealthy homeowner whose shelter inflation is effectively zero because they have a fixed mortgage, that is, the overwhelming majority of the top quintile of earners, his inflation realized drops to just 12%.

Across the 3 1/2 years of the Biden-Harris administration, a low-income earner who only rents has experienced an annual inflation rate of more than 9%, nearly five times the Federal Reserve’s maximum inflation target of 2%. By contrast, the average wealthy homeowner has experienced an inflation rate of 3.4%, still intolerably high as a matter of monetary policy but dramatically less punitive than his less privileged counterpart.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER 

And what is Harris’s response to such a regressive and unequal result of Kamalanomics? To further induce housing demand in the form of a $25,000 credit to some 4 million first-time homebuyers. While Harris has considered the real cause of the crisis as an afterthought, offering some tax credits for specific home building, she still isn’t targeting the cause of our housing shortage: government zoning and construction regulation, not a lack of demand among either consumers to buy or companies to build.

A wiser politician, perhaps one not clinically petrified by the mere thought of empirical capitalism, would realize that the rising tide lifts all boats and that the homeowner vacancy rate of a near-record low 0.9% is directly fueling the persistence of high home prices and the continued surge of asking rents. The stark disparity between the inflation annoyance brought on the wealthy and the inflation destruction wielded against the working class only serves to illustrate how the road to financial hell is paved with policies that may be intended well but punish the least powerful in the electorate.

2024-08-16 19:46:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fopinion%2Fbeltway-confidential%2F3124065%2Finflation-hit-working-class-harder%2F?w=600&h=450, For the final month before early voting begins for the 2024 presidential election, the freshly coronated Kamala Harris will continue to insist that she has the means to solve the inflation that she helped start as the vice president who cast the crucial tiebreaking votes to flood the economy with an extra $4 trillion of,

For the final month before early voting begins for the 2024 presidential election, the freshly coronated Kamala Harris will continue to insist that she has the means to solve the inflation that she helped start as the vice president who cast the crucial tiebreaking votes to flood the economy with an extra $4 trillion of superfluous and ultimately punishing deficit spending.

But while Harris makes false promises for the future, she will try to distract and distort the record of the past economic destruction wrought by her and President Joe Biden. Lest anyone forget, the worst inflationary crisis in the past 40 years has not just broadly led to soaring prices and pinched paychecks across the board: A data analysis by the Washington Examiner proved that inflation has hit the working class at least 20% harder than the wealthy.

The consumer price index broadly tracks inflation by weighing goods and services in accordance with average consumption rates. For example, groceries comprise 8% of the CPI basket, while car insurance consists of about 3%. While the CPI is broadly useful as a constant measure of overall inflation trends, it obviously does not measure the actual inflation rate experienced by each individual consumer, much less those whose consumption patterns deviate from the norm.

Inflation is almost always regressive for practical reasons, as the higher earner can always downgrade from Whole Foods to Trader Joe’s, but the lower-income consumer cannot feed their kids fewer calories or use less gas to get work. But the main structural reason this bout of inflation brought by Bidenomics particularly punishes the working class is the total breakdown of budgets across the income spectrum.

The most recent Consumer Expenditure Survey published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in 2022 shows the average annual expenditures of the five tiers of earners. Whereas the highest 20% of earners, those making more than $200,000, only spent 6.1% of their annual budgets on groceries, the lowest quintile of earners, those making fewer than $20,000, spent 11.1% of their annual budgets on groceries. Similarly, lower-income earners spend more on homes they rent while the top quintile of earners spend more on homes they own.

To compare the inflation realized by the bottom quintile of earners versus the top, I have weighed the respective consumption patterns of the two quintiles against the cumulative inflation of each category since Biden and Harris took office in January 2021. The spending categories measured by the Consumption Expenditure Survey do not all have perfect analogs in the consumer price index, and I have intentionally excluded some spending categories, such as cash contributions and Social Security, because they aren’t exactly responding to inflation. Furthermore, I had to substitute the CES category of utilities, fuel, and public services with the close CPI substitute of energy. The only point where we have to deviate away from BLS data entirely is its most controversial category: shelter.

I have defended the BLS’s shelter pricing before on the grounds that it broadly tracks the consumer experience of both home buying and rental payments on average, but the top and bottom quintiles of earners are homogenous enough in their housing habits that we can use more precise data. More than 4 in 5 bottom quintile earners rent whereas nearly 9 in 10 of the top quintile of earners own their homes. But the BLS’s two main measures of shelter prices tend to lag at least a year behind the actual market movement, so while homeowners who pay flat rates thanks to mortgages actually have a much lower inflation burden from shelter, renters are paying even more than the CPI says. For that reason, I substituted the CPI’s rent measure with the Zillow Observed Rent Index, which tracks national average asking rents. Otherwise, unless otherwise noted, the inflation tabulated comes from the CPI.

As you can see, the inflation experienced by the average lowest quintile earner is 21.1% compared to the 17.6% borne by the average highest quintile earner. That means the inflation experienced by the lowest-income earners is at least 20% higher than the highest earners. While these numbers are, again, imperfect if only because we excluded categories too difficult to quantify such as “reading” or life insurance, they sandwich the cumulative CPI increase of 19.4% comfortably enough to say they are broadly representative of this inflation bout’s regressive effect.

The difference in these inflation burdens also results in different amounts of real wage changes. Using the official monthly updates to average weekly earnings indicates that the average full-time worker has a paycheck worth 4% less than when former President Donald Trump left office. However, using our more specific cumulative inflation measures against average nominal weekly wages, which, again, would, in reality, vary between the top and bottom of the income spectrums, we can ascertain that the highest earners would only take a 2% hit to their paychecks versus a 5% decrease in real wages for the lowest-income workers.

In reality, the discrepancy between the individual haves and have-nots is much greater. Consider the actual bottom quintile earner who only rents versus the top quintile earner who has been sitting pretty on the mortgage he locked in during the interest rate nadir of 2021. If we redirected all the shelter weight to reflect the majority of bottom quintile earners who only rent, the inflation realized jumps up to a staggering 32%. And for a wealthy homeowner whose shelter inflation is effectively zero because they have a fixed mortgage, that is, the overwhelming majority of the top quintile of earners, his inflation realized drops to just 12%.

Across the 3 1/2 years of the Biden-Harris administration, a low-income earner who only rents has experienced an annual inflation rate of more than 9%, nearly five times the Federal Reserve’s maximum inflation target of 2%. By contrast, the average wealthy homeowner has experienced an inflation rate of 3.4%, still intolerably high as a matter of monetary policy but dramatically less punitive than his less privileged counterpart.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER 

And what is Harris’s response to such a regressive and unequal result of Kamalanomics? To further induce housing demand in the form of a $25,000 credit to some 4 million first-time homebuyers. While Harris has considered the real cause of the crisis as an afterthought, offering some tax credits for specific home building, she still isn’t targeting the cause of our housing shortage: government zoning and construction regulation, not a lack of demand among either consumers to buy or companies to build.

A wiser politician, perhaps one not clinically petrified by the mere thought of empirical capitalism, would realize that the rising tide lifts all boats and that the homeowner vacancy rate of a near-record low 0.9% is directly fueling the persistence of high home prices and the continued surge of asking rents. The stark disparity between the inflation annoyance brought on the wealthy and the inflation destruction wielded against the working class only serves to illustrate how the road to financial hell is paved with policies that may be intended well but punish the least powerful in the electorate.

, For the final month before early voting begins for the 2024 presidential election, the freshly coronated Kamala Harris will continue to insist that she has the means to solve the inflation that she helped start as the vice president who cast the crucial tiebreaking votes to flood the economy with an extra $4 trillion of superfluous and ultimately punishing deficit spending. But while Harris makes false promises for the future, she will try to distract and distort the record of the past economic destruction wrought by her and President Joe Biden. Lest anyone forget, the worst inflationary crisis in the past 40 years has not just broadly led to soaring prices and pinched paychecks across the board: A data analysis by the Washington Examiner proved that inflation has hit the working class at least 20% harder than the wealthy. The consumer price index broadly tracks inflation by weighing goods and services in accordance with average consumption rates. For example, groceries comprise 8% of the CPI basket, while car insurance consists of about 3%. While the CPI is broadly useful as a constant measure of overall inflation trends, it obviously does not measure the actual inflation rate experienced by each individual consumer, much less those whose consumption patterns deviate from the norm. Inflation is almost always regressive for practical reasons, as the higher earner can always downgrade from Whole Foods to Trader Joe’s, but the lower-income consumer cannot feed their kids fewer calories or use less gas to get work. But the main structural reason this bout of inflation brought by Bidenomics particularly punishes the working class is the total breakdown of budgets across the income spectrum. The most recent Consumer Expenditure Survey published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in 2022 shows the average annual expenditures of the five tiers of earners. Whereas the highest 20% of earners, those making more than $200,000, only spent 6.1% of their annual budgets on groceries, the lowest quintile of earners, those making fewer than $20,000, spent 11.1% of their annual budgets on groceries. Similarly, lower-income earners spend more on homes they rent while the top quintile of earners spend more on homes they own. To compare the inflation realized by the bottom quintile of earners versus the top, I have weighed the respective consumption patterns of the two quintiles against the cumulative inflation of each category since Biden and Harris took office in January 2021. The spending categories measured by the Consumption Expenditure Survey do not all have perfect analogs in the consumer price index, and I have intentionally excluded some spending categories, such as cash contributions and Social Security, because they aren’t exactly responding to inflation. Furthermore, I had to substitute the CES category of utilities, fuel, and public services with the close CPI substitute of energy. The only point where we have to deviate away from BLS data entirely is its most controversial category: shelter. I have defended the BLS’s shelter pricing before on the grounds that it broadly tracks the consumer experience of both home buying and rental payments on average, but the top and bottom quintiles of earners are homogenous enough in their housing habits that we can use more precise data. More than 4 in 5 bottom quintile earners rent whereas nearly 9 in 10 of the top quintile of earners own their homes. But the BLS’s two main measures of shelter prices tend to lag at least a year behind the actual market movement, so while homeowners who pay flat rates thanks to mortgages actually have a much lower inflation burden from shelter, renters are paying even more than the CPI says. For that reason, I substituted the CPI’s rent measure with the Zillow Observed Rent Index, which tracks national average asking rents. Otherwise, unless otherwise noted, the inflation tabulated comes from the CPI. As you can see, the inflation experienced by the average lowest quintile earner is 21.1% compared to the 17.6% borne by the average highest quintile earner. That means the inflation experienced by the lowest-income earners is at least 20% higher than the highest earners. While these numbers are, again, imperfect if only because we excluded categories too difficult to quantify such as “reading” or life insurance, they sandwich the cumulative CPI increase of 19.4% comfortably enough to say they are broadly representative of this inflation bout’s regressive effect. The difference in these inflation burdens also results in different amounts of real wage changes. Using the official monthly updates to average weekly earnings indicates that the average full-time worker has a paycheck worth 4% less than when former President Donald Trump left office. However, using our more specific cumulative inflation measures against average nominal weekly wages, which, again, would, in reality, vary between the top and bottom of the income spectrums, we can ascertain that the highest earners would only take a 2% hit to their paychecks versus a 5% decrease in real wages for the lowest-income workers. In reality, the discrepancy between the individual haves and have-nots is much greater. Consider the actual bottom quintile earner who only rents versus the top quintile earner who has been sitting pretty on the mortgage he locked in during the interest rate nadir of 2021. If we redirected all the shelter weight to reflect the majority of bottom quintile earners who only rent, the inflation realized jumps up to a staggering 32%. And for a wealthy homeowner whose shelter inflation is effectively zero because they have a fixed mortgage, that is, the overwhelming majority of the top quintile of earners, his inflation realized drops to just 12%. Across the 3 1/2 years of the Biden-Harris administration, a low-income earner who only rents has experienced an annual inflation rate of more than 9%, nearly five times the Federal Reserve’s maximum inflation target of 2%. By contrast, the average wealthy homeowner has experienced an inflation rate of 3.4%, still intolerably high as a matter of monetary policy but dramatically less punitive than his less privileged counterpart. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER   And what is Harris’s response to such a regressive and unequal result of Kamalanomics? To further induce housing demand in the form of a $25,000 credit to some 4 million first-time homebuyers. While Harris has considered the real cause of the crisis as an afterthought, offering some tax credits for specific home building, she still isn’t targeting the cause of our housing shortage: government zoning and construction regulation, not a lack of demand among either consumers to buy or companies to build. A wiser politician, perhaps one not clinically petrified by the mere thought of empirical capitalism, would realize that the rising tide lifts all boats and that the homeowner vacancy rate of a near-record low 0.9% is directly fueling the persistence of high home prices and the continued surge of asking rents. The stark disparity between the inflation annoyance brought on the wealthy and the inflation destruction wielded against the working class only serves to illustrate how the road to financial hell is paved with policies that may be intended well but punish the least powerful in the electorate., , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/kamala-harris-bidenomics.webp, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Tiana Lowe Doescher,

While President Joe Biden gave Vice President Kamala Harris a short enough campaign season for her to evade any real scrutiny from Democratic hagiographers in the media, Harris could theoretically pull from her prior failed 2020 presidential bid to fill up her currently non-existent slate of policy proposals.

But even as Harris pretends she never endorsed nationalizing 30% of the nation’s economy and banning private health insurance and fracking, she has taken a full month to borrow from different presidential campaigns to construct a new fiscal policy agenda. From former President Richard Nixon, she is taking the tried and failed doctrine of price controls. And, oddly, she is trying to steal the current tax proposals of her opponents: Former president Donald Trump and Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH).

A mere matter of months after Trump broke from Republican orthodoxy to endorse exempting tips from personal income taxation for service workers, Harris announced that same policy as her first-ever economic proposal as her party’s presidential nominee. It’s weird enough to borrow your political opponent’s idea without attribution, but it’s even stranger that the Biden-Harris administration has intentionally beefed up IRS enforcement specifically to collect more from tipped workers. And its PRO Act proposal would jack up those same workers’ taxes even further. Harris is contradicting her own administration’s policy without admitting it.

Then, just a few days after Vance endorsed a $5,000 child tax credit, Harris announced her support for a $6,000 one.

Where Harris really takes the cake is her primary solution to the inflation created by her tiebreaking votes for the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan and $1.3 trillion Inflation Reduction Act. In response to a 20% increase in overall prices since she became vice president, and a 4% decrease in real average weekly wages, Harris has borrowed from a president who began the only inflationary cycle worse than the one stoked by her and Biden: Former President Richard Nixon.

Like Nixon, Harris wants to crush the inflation she created with literal price controls.

A version of a Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)-authored bill that Harris co-sponsored while she was in the Senate, the vice president’s new plan would freeze grocery prices nationwide by empowering the Federal Trade Commission, as well as state attorneys general, “to investigate and levy penalties on food companies that violate the federal ban.”

The Nixon shock was enacted with a similar purpose and resulted in predictable disaster. As Harris and Biden have tried to do with an unprecedented series of annual $2 trillion deficits, Nixon intentionally wanted to devalue the U.S. dollar, which he did successfully by blowing up the Bretton Woods international monetary system only to be met with catastrophic consequences, and use price controls to avoid the unavoidable consequence of inflation.

Although those Nixon price controls earned temporary plaudits from the economic illiterates at the New York Times, all they did was delay and exacerbate the inevitable. Long before the start of the Arab Oil embargo that has retroactively received disproportionate blame for the stagflation of the 70s, Nixon’s price controls produced dramatic shortages of gas and energy. When the price and wage controls, which Nixon said would last for only 90 days, were lifted two years later, inflation rapidly doubled from an annual rate of 3% in 1972 to 6% the year later and 11% the year after that.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Harris’s plan would prove no less idiotic and, given the target, perhaps would be even more so. Unlike the rest of the private industry, which generates an average profit margin of 8.5%, grocery stores only average a profit margin of a single percentage point. And unlike hotel prices, which are up 44% since Biden took office, and gasoline, which is up 49%, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has found that the prices of food at home, or groceries, have increased 21.08%, which is roughly on par with the overall consumer price index increase of almost 20%.

Harris may not want to borrow from her own prior flirtations with socialism, and stealing from Trump and Vance doesn’t exactly inspire confidence in her intellect. But poaching from the proto-communist experiments that created the only inflationary crisis worse than her own would make the implosion of Bidenomics seem like a warm-up to the main event.

2024-08-16 16:06:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fopinion%2F3122767%2Fkamala-harris-inflation-solution-nixon-price-controls-trump-tax-policy%2F?w=600&h=450, While President Joe Biden gave Vice President Kamala Harris a short enough campaign season for her to evade any real scrutiny from Democratic hagiographers in the media, Harris could theoretically pull from her prior failed 2020 presidential bid to fill up her currently non-existent slate of policy proposals. But even as Harris pretends she never,

While President Joe Biden gave Vice President Kamala Harris a short enough campaign season for her to evade any real scrutiny from Democratic hagiographers in the media, Harris could theoretically pull from her prior failed 2020 presidential bid to fill up her currently non-existent slate of policy proposals.

But even as Harris pretends she never endorsed nationalizing 30% of the nation’s economy and banning private health insurance and fracking, she has taken a full month to borrow from different presidential campaigns to construct a new fiscal policy agenda. From former President Richard Nixon, she is taking the tried and failed doctrine of price controls. And, oddly, she is trying to steal the current tax proposals of her opponents: Former president Donald Trump and Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH).

A mere matter of months after Trump broke from Republican orthodoxy to endorse exempting tips from personal income taxation for service workers, Harris announced that same policy as her first-ever economic proposal as her party’s presidential nominee. It’s weird enough to borrow your political opponent’s idea without attribution, but it’s even stranger that the Biden-Harris administration has intentionally beefed up IRS enforcement specifically to collect more from tipped workers. And its PRO Act proposal would jack up those same workers’ taxes even further. Harris is contradicting her own administration’s policy without admitting it.

Then, just a few days after Vance endorsed a $5,000 child tax credit, Harris announced her support for a $6,000 one.

Where Harris really takes the cake is her primary solution to the inflation created by her tiebreaking votes for the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan and $1.3 trillion Inflation Reduction Act. In response to a 20% increase in overall prices since she became vice president, and a 4% decrease in real average weekly wages, Harris has borrowed from a president who began the only inflationary cycle worse than the one stoked by her and Biden: Former President Richard Nixon.

Like Nixon, Harris wants to crush the inflation she created with literal price controls.

A version of a Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)-authored bill that Harris co-sponsored while she was in the Senate, the vice president’s new plan would freeze grocery prices nationwide by empowering the Federal Trade Commission, as well as state attorneys general, “to investigate and levy penalties on food companies that violate the federal ban.”

The Nixon shock was enacted with a similar purpose and resulted in predictable disaster. As Harris and Biden have tried to do with an unprecedented series of annual $2 trillion deficits, Nixon intentionally wanted to devalue the U.S. dollar, which he did successfully by blowing up the Bretton Woods international monetary system only to be met with catastrophic consequences, and use price controls to avoid the unavoidable consequence of inflation.

Although those Nixon price controls earned temporary plaudits from the economic illiterates at the New York Times, all they did was delay and exacerbate the inevitable. Long before the start of the Arab Oil embargo that has retroactively received disproportionate blame for the stagflation of the 70s, Nixon’s price controls produced dramatic shortages of gas and energy. When the price and wage controls, which Nixon said would last for only 90 days, were lifted two years later, inflation rapidly doubled from an annual rate of 3% in 1972 to 6% the year later and 11% the year after that.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Harris’s plan would prove no less idiotic and, given the target, perhaps would be even more so. Unlike the rest of the private industry, which generates an average profit margin of 8.5%, grocery stores only average a profit margin of a single percentage point. And unlike hotel prices, which are up 44% since Biden took office, and gasoline, which is up 49%, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has found that the prices of food at home, or groceries, have increased 21.08%, which is roughly on par with the overall consumer price index increase of almost 20%.

Harris may not want to borrow from her own prior flirtations with socialism, and stealing from Trump and Vance doesn’t exactly inspire confidence in her intellect. But poaching from the proto-communist experiments that created the only inflationary crisis worse than her own would make the implosion of Bidenomics seem like a warm-up to the main event.

, While President Joe Biden gave Vice President Kamala Harris a short enough campaign season for her to evade any real scrutiny from Democratic hagiographers in the media, Harris could theoretically pull from her prior failed 2020 presidential bid to fill up her currently non-existent slate of policy proposals. But even as Harris pretends she never endorsed nationalizing 30% of the nation’s economy and banning private health insurance and fracking, she has taken a full month to borrow from different presidential campaigns to construct a new fiscal policy agenda. From former President Richard Nixon, she is taking the tried and failed doctrine of price controls. And, oddly, she is trying to steal the current tax proposals of her opponents: Former president Donald Trump and Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH). A mere matter of months after Trump broke from Republican orthodoxy to endorse exempting tips from personal income taxation for service workers, Harris announced that same policy as her first-ever economic proposal as her party’s presidential nominee. It’s weird enough to borrow your political opponent’s idea without attribution, but it’s even stranger that the Biden-Harris administration has intentionally beefed up IRS enforcement specifically to collect more from tipped workers. And its PRO Act proposal would jack up those same workers’ taxes even further. Harris is contradicting her own administration’s policy without admitting it. Then, just a few days after Vance endorsed a $5,000 child tax credit, Harris announced her support for a $6,000 one. Where Harris really takes the cake is her primary solution to the inflation created by her tiebreaking votes for the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan and $1.3 trillion Inflation Reduction Act. In response to a 20% increase in overall prices since she became vice president, and a 4% decrease in real average weekly wages, Harris has borrowed from a president who began the only inflationary cycle worse than the one stoked by her and Biden: Former President Richard Nixon. Like Nixon, Harris wants to crush the inflation she created with literal price controls. A version of a Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)-authored bill that Harris co-sponsored while she was in the Senate, the vice president’s new plan would freeze grocery prices nationwide by empowering the Federal Trade Commission, as well as state attorneys general, “to investigate and levy penalties on food companies that violate the federal ban.” The Nixon shock was enacted with a similar purpose and resulted in predictable disaster. As Harris and Biden have tried to do with an unprecedented series of annual $2 trillion deficits, Nixon intentionally wanted to devalue the U.S. dollar, which he did successfully by blowing up the Bretton Woods international monetary system only to be met with catastrophic consequences, and use price controls to avoid the unavoidable consequence of inflation. Although those Nixon price controls earned temporary plaudits from the economic illiterates at the New York Times, all they did was delay and exacerbate the inevitable. Long before the start of the Arab Oil embargo that has retroactively received disproportionate blame for the stagflation of the 70s, Nixon’s price controls produced dramatic shortages of gas and energy. When the price and wage controls, which Nixon said would last for only 90 days, were lifted two years later, inflation rapidly doubled from an annual rate of 3% in 1972 to 6% the year later and 11% the year after that. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER Harris’s plan would prove no less idiotic and, given the target, perhaps would be even more so. Unlike the rest of the private industry, which generates an average profit margin of 8.5%, grocery stores only average a profit margin of a single percentage point. And unlike hotel prices, which are up 44% since Biden took office, and gasoline, which is up 49%, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has found that the prices of food at home, or groceries, have increased 21.08%, which is roughly on par with the overall consumer price index increase of almost 20%. Harris may not want to borrow from her own prior flirtations with socialism, and stealing from Trump and Vance doesn’t exactly inspire confidence in her intellect. But poaching from the proto-communist experiments that created the only inflationary crisis worse than her own would make the implosion of Bidenomics seem like a warm-up to the main event., , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/kamala-harris-bidenomics.webp, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Tiana Lowe Doescher,

In the 24 days Kamala Harris has spent as first de facto and then the definitive Democratic presidential nominee since President Joe Biden withdrew from reelection, the vice president has sat down for zero interviews and publicly spoken to the press for a total of 70 seconds. During that minute-long gaggle after a Michigan rally last week, Harris said she hoped to schedule, maybe, a single interview by the end of the month. After four years of Democrats lambasting former President Donald Trump as an existential threat to our fragile democratic experiment, the press seems positively indifferent to the notion that a candidate who has not received a single national primary vote in either 2020 or 2024 is heading to a presidential election without even one on-the-record interview with one of its own.

In other words, Harris knows all she has to do is ride out the shortest campaign in modern history and that the media will evidently cover for her.

Sure, CNN’s John Berman admirably pushed back on the Harris campaign when it lied about her schedule in response to queries about her evasion of the media, and the Washington Post editorial board said that Harris must speak with journalists “if she hopes to prevail.” But evidently, that’s not really true. Somewhat innocuously, if not irritatingly, the Democratic hagiographers in the corporate media have peddled the party line that Republicans are “weird,” Harris is “brat,” and her candidacy marks the greatest thing since sliced bread. More maliciously, most in the media have ignored that Harris is a radical who presided over a quadrupling of the influx of illegal immigrants into the United States and an average annual inflation rate of nearly 6% and advocated nationalizing some 30% of the economy before that.

But Harris is running out the clock because she can.

The president announced he could concede to the palace coup 25 days ago, announcing both his withdrawal and his endorsement of Harris on July 21. Harris has spent these past three-and-a-half weeks eschewing the press with the feeble excuse of the flurry of kickstarting a presidential campaign with fewer than 100 days until Election Day, and the Democratic National Convention next week has bought her essentially another fortnight of the media playing ball and pretending it’s normal for a party to depose the democratically elected candidate with a second-stringer who can’t lob softballs from Rachel Maddow, let alone beach balls from the Pod bros.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

After the DNC, Harris only has four weeks before early voting begins. The most crucial state of the Electoral College map, Pennsylvania, leads the calendar with early voting beginning on Sept. 16. Missouri allows select voters to begin casting early ballots the day after, and Minnesota, South Dakota, and Virginia all begin accepting early votes on Sept. 20.

Biden gave his party fewer than half as many days to replace him than even Lyndon Johnson did in 1968, and that was in an alien era when Election Day was no misnomer rather than our current reality of a 50-day election season. Only 57 days will have elapsed between Biden backing Harris as his coronated replacement and the start of early voting, and to date, Harris has spent nearly half of those days avoiding answering but one question from the press. And the perfectly compliant media may be fine with accommodating Democrats, but they ought not delude themselves into believing they’re enabling anything remotely democratic.

2024-08-14 23:00:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fopinion%2F3122080%2Fharris-wait-36-days-early-voting-press-letting-her%2F?w=600&h=450, In the 24 days Kamala Harris has spent as first de facto and then the definitive Democratic presidential nominee since President Joe Biden withdrew from reelection, the vice president has sat down for zero interviews and publicly spoken to the press for a total of 70 seconds. During that minute-long gaggle after a Michigan rally,

In the 24 days Kamala Harris has spent as first de facto and then the definitive Democratic presidential nominee since President Joe Biden withdrew from reelection, the vice president has sat down for zero interviews and publicly spoken to the press for a total of 70 seconds. During that minute-long gaggle after a Michigan rally last week, Harris said she hoped to schedule, maybe, a single interview by the end of the month. After four years of Democrats lambasting former President Donald Trump as an existential threat to our fragile democratic experiment, the press seems positively indifferent to the notion that a candidate who has not received a single national primary vote in either 2020 or 2024 is heading to a presidential election without even one on-the-record interview with one of its own.

In other words, Harris knows all she has to do is ride out the shortest campaign in modern history and that the media will evidently cover for her.

Sure, CNN’s John Berman admirably pushed back on the Harris campaign when it lied about her schedule in response to queries about her evasion of the media, and the Washington Post editorial board said that Harris must speak with journalists “if she hopes to prevail.” But evidently, that’s not really true. Somewhat innocuously, if not irritatingly, the Democratic hagiographers in the corporate media have peddled the party line that Republicans are “weird,” Harris is “brat,” and her candidacy marks the greatest thing since sliced bread. More maliciously, most in the media have ignored that Harris is a radical who presided over a quadrupling of the influx of illegal immigrants into the United States and an average annual inflation rate of nearly 6% and advocated nationalizing some 30% of the economy before that.

But Harris is running out the clock because she can.

The president announced he could concede to the palace coup 25 days ago, announcing both his withdrawal and his endorsement of Harris on July 21. Harris has spent these past three-and-a-half weeks eschewing the press with the feeble excuse of the flurry of kickstarting a presidential campaign with fewer than 100 days until Election Day, and the Democratic National Convention next week has bought her essentially another fortnight of the media playing ball and pretending it’s normal for a party to depose the democratically elected candidate with a second-stringer who can’t lob softballs from Rachel Maddow, let alone beach balls from the Pod bros.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

After the DNC, Harris only has four weeks before early voting begins. The most crucial state of the Electoral College map, Pennsylvania, leads the calendar with early voting beginning on Sept. 16. Missouri allows select voters to begin casting early ballots the day after, and Minnesota, South Dakota, and Virginia all begin accepting early votes on Sept. 20.

Biden gave his party fewer than half as many days to replace him than even Lyndon Johnson did in 1968, and that was in an alien era when Election Day was no misnomer rather than our current reality of a 50-day election season. Only 57 days will have elapsed between Biden backing Harris as his coronated replacement and the start of early voting, and to date, Harris has spent nearly half of those days avoiding answering but one question from the press. And the perfectly compliant media may be fine with accommodating Democrats, but they ought not delude themselves into believing they’re enabling anything remotely democratic.

, In the 24 days Kamala Harris has spent as first de facto and then the definitive Democratic presidential nominee since President Joe Biden withdrew from reelection, the vice president has sat down for zero interviews and publicly spoken to the press for a total of 70 seconds. During that minute-long gaggle after a Michigan rally last week, Harris said she hoped to schedule, maybe, a single interview by the end of the month. After four years of Democrats lambasting former President Donald Trump as an existential threat to our fragile democratic experiment, the press seems positively indifferent to the notion that a candidate who has not received a single national primary vote in either 2020 or 2024 is heading to a presidential election without even one on-the-record interview with one of its own. In other words, Harris knows all she has to do is ride out the shortest campaign in modern history and that the media will evidently cover for her. Sure, CNN’s John Berman admirably pushed back on the Harris campaign when it lied about her schedule in response to queries about her evasion of the media, and the Washington Post editorial board said that Harris must speak with journalists “if she hopes to prevail.” But evidently, that’s not really true. Somewhat innocuously, if not irritatingly, the Democratic hagiographers in the corporate media have peddled the party line that Republicans are “weird,” Harris is “brat,” and her candidacy marks the greatest thing since sliced bread. More maliciously, most in the media have ignored that Harris is a radical who presided over a quadrupling of the influx of illegal immigrants into the United States and an average annual inflation rate of nearly 6% and advocated nationalizing some 30% of the economy before that. But Harris is running out the clock because she can. The president announced he could concede to the palace coup 25 days ago, announcing both his withdrawal and his endorsement of Harris on July 21. Harris has spent these past three-and-a-half weeks eschewing the press with the feeble excuse of the flurry of kickstarting a presidential campaign with fewer than 100 days until Election Day, and the Democratic National Convention next week has bought her essentially another fortnight of the media playing ball and pretending it’s normal for a party to depose the democratically elected candidate with a second-stringer who can’t lob softballs from Rachel Maddow, let alone beach balls from the Pod bros. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER After the DNC, Harris only has four weeks before early voting begins. The most crucial state of the Electoral College map, Pennsylvania, leads the calendar with early voting beginning on Sept. 16. Missouri allows select voters to begin casting early ballots the day after, and Minnesota, South Dakota, and Virginia all begin accepting early votes on Sept. 20. Biden gave his party fewer than half as many days to replace him than even Lyndon Johnson did in 1968, and that was in an alien era when Election Day was no misnomer rather than our current reality of a 50-day election season. Only 57 days will have elapsed between Biden backing Harris as his coronated replacement and the start of early voting, and to date, Harris has spent nearly half of those days avoiding answering but one question from the press. And the perfectly compliant media may be fine with accommodating Democrats, but they ought not delude themselves into believing they’re enabling anything remotely democratic., , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/AP24221754693422.webp, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Tiana Lowe Doescher,

It has been 18 years since elite gymnastics adopted its open-ended scoring system, an adaptation introduced not a moment too soon, as it would be rather boring to watch Simone Biles score repeated perfect 10s over nine years of international competitions across little more than a decade. At her third consecutive Olympic Summer Games, Biles earned two individual gold medals and a silver medal on floor and cemented yet another gold for Team USA. Pushing 30 years old with no sign of peaking, Biles, now widely regarded as the greatest in the sport of all time, has transformed the sport with her sheer escalation of difficulty and entrenched America’s dominance not just in competition but also in judging.

The star-studded stands in Paris also saw the shadow of what once ruled the sport. Nadia Comaneci, the legendary Romanian who scored the first perfect 10 at the 1976 Games, has lived in America since escaping her then-communist homeland as a young woman, marrying an American, and becoming a citizen. But despite her stateside status as an international celebrity and philanthropist, Comaneci was in Paris as champion of Romania’s attempt to restore its former glory.

Starting with Comaneci’s explosion to stardom, Romania once reigned supreme over the sport in tandem with its Eastern Bloc neighbor of the Soviet Union, medaling in the team all-arounds at every Summer Olympics from 1976 to 2012 except for three. But as women’s artistic gymnastics has pivoted toward an emphasis on acrobatic difficulty and arguably away from, well, artistry, the Romanian obsession with precision and execution has fallen out of style next to Americans like Biles seemingly defying gravity.

After over a decade in the wilderness, Romania seemed almost set for a comeback, sending its first WAG team since 2012 to the Olympics. Though the team as a whole couldn’t compete with the West’s stranglehold over the early days of competition, Romania seemed slated to win on its final day, with two of its athletes tied in third place for floor. With her higher execution score breaking the tie, Ana Barbosu began to celebrate when the final competitor of the day, the United States’s Jordan Chiles, came in fifth.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

And yet, America won anyway. Appealing a judgment that her incomplete Gogean was not actually incomplete, Chiles won, leapfrogging not just Barbosu but also Sabrina Voinea, who, as it turns out, was docked points for stepping out of bounds when she did not. Comaneci rallied Romanians not just in Paris but also online to challenge the decision, with the country now challenging the results and its prime minister pledging to boycott the closing ceremonies if Voinea is not given her bronze.

What’s the truth? Chiles, never an excellent dancer like Biles, let alone Comaneci, probably didn’t complete her tour jete, and Voinea landed a routine of much greater difficulty with little obvious error. But the Eastern Bloc has fallen for good, and with it, its gymnastics tradition. The American style, ruthless in both athletic performance and its capture of rank-making and rank-breaking, is now in vogue.

2024-08-09 03:00:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fopinion%2F3114984%2Famerica-thwarts-romanias-comeback-womens-gymnastics%2F?w=600&h=450, It has been 18 years since elite gymnastics adopted its open-ended scoring system, an adaptation introduced not a moment too soon, as it would be rather boring to watch Simone Biles score repeated perfect 10s over nine years of international competitions across little more than a decade. At her third consecutive Olympic Summer Games, Biles,

It has been 18 years since elite gymnastics adopted its open-ended scoring system, an adaptation introduced not a moment too soon, as it would be rather boring to watch Simone Biles score repeated perfect 10s over nine years of international competitions across little more than a decade. At her third consecutive Olympic Summer Games, Biles earned two individual gold medals and a silver medal on floor and cemented yet another gold for Team USA. Pushing 30 years old with no sign of peaking, Biles, now widely regarded as the greatest in the sport of all time, has transformed the sport with her sheer escalation of difficulty and entrenched America’s dominance not just in competition but also in judging.

The star-studded stands in Paris also saw the shadow of what once ruled the sport. Nadia Comaneci, the legendary Romanian who scored the first perfect 10 at the 1976 Games, has lived in America since escaping her then-communist homeland as a young woman, marrying an American, and becoming a citizen. But despite her stateside status as an international celebrity and philanthropist, Comaneci was in Paris as champion of Romania’s attempt to restore its former glory.

Starting with Comaneci’s explosion to stardom, Romania once reigned supreme over the sport in tandem with its Eastern Bloc neighbor of the Soviet Union, medaling in the team all-arounds at every Summer Olympics from 1976 to 2012 except for three. But as women’s artistic gymnastics has pivoted toward an emphasis on acrobatic difficulty and arguably away from, well, artistry, the Romanian obsession with precision and execution has fallen out of style next to Americans like Biles seemingly defying gravity.

After over a decade in the wilderness, Romania seemed almost set for a comeback, sending its first WAG team since 2012 to the Olympics. Though the team as a whole couldn’t compete with the West’s stranglehold over the early days of competition, Romania seemed slated to win on its final day, with two of its athletes tied in third place for floor. With her higher execution score breaking the tie, Ana Barbosu began to celebrate when the final competitor of the day, the United States’s Jordan Chiles, came in fifth.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

And yet, America won anyway. Appealing a judgment that her incomplete Gogean was not actually incomplete, Chiles won, leapfrogging not just Barbosu but also Sabrina Voinea, who, as it turns out, was docked points for stepping out of bounds when she did not. Comaneci rallied Romanians not just in Paris but also online to challenge the decision, with the country now challenging the results and its prime minister pledging to boycott the closing ceremonies if Voinea is not given her bronze.

What’s the truth? Chiles, never an excellent dancer like Biles, let alone Comaneci, probably didn’t complete her tour jete, and Voinea landed a routine of much greater difficulty with little obvious error. But the Eastern Bloc has fallen for good, and with it, its gymnastics tradition. The American style, ruthless in both athletic performance and its capture of rank-making and rank-breaking, is now in vogue.

, It has been 18 years since elite gymnastics adopted its open-ended scoring system, an adaptation introduced not a moment too soon, as it would be rather boring to watch Simone Biles score repeated perfect 10s over nine years of international competitions across little more than a decade. At her third consecutive Olympic Summer Games, Biles earned two individual gold medals and a silver medal on floor and cemented yet another gold for Team USA. Pushing 30 years old with no sign of peaking, Biles, now widely regarded as the greatest in the sport of all time, has transformed the sport with her sheer escalation of difficulty and entrenched America’s dominance not just in competition but also in judging. The star-studded stands in Paris also saw the shadow of what once ruled the sport. Nadia Comaneci, the legendary Romanian who scored the first perfect 10 at the 1976 Games, has lived in America since escaping her then-communist homeland as a young woman, marrying an American, and becoming a citizen. But despite her stateside status as an international celebrity and philanthropist, Comaneci was in Paris as champion of Romania’s attempt to restore its former glory. Team USA from left to right, Jade Carey, Suni Lee, Simone Biles, Jordan Chiles and Hezly Rivera celebrate after winning the gold medal during the women’s artistic gymnastics team finals round of the 2024 Summer Olympics on July 30 in Paris. (Charlie Riedel/AP) Starting with Comaneci’s explosion to stardom, Romania once reigned supreme over the sport in tandem with its Eastern Bloc neighbor of the Soviet Union, medaling in the team all-arounds at every Summer Olympics from 1976 to 2012 except for three. But as women’s artistic gymnastics has pivoted toward an emphasis on acrobatic difficulty and arguably away from, well, artistry, the Romanian obsession with precision and execution has fallen out of style next to Americans like Biles seemingly defying gravity. After over a decade in the wilderness, Romania seemed almost set for a comeback, sending its first WAG team since 2012 to the Olympics. Though the team as a whole couldn’t compete with the West’s stranglehold over the early days of competition, Romania seemed slated to win on its final day, with two of its athletes tied in third place for floor. With her higher execution score breaking the tie, Ana Barbosu began to celebrate when the final competitor of the day, the United States’s Jordan Chiles, came in fifth. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER And yet, America won anyway. Appealing a judgment that her incomplete Gogean was not actually incomplete, Chiles won, leapfrogging not just Barbosu but also Sabrina Voinea, who, as it turns out, was docked points for stepping out of bounds when she did not. Comaneci rallied Romanians not just in Paris but also online to challenge the decision, with the country now challenging the results and its prime minister pledging to boycott the closing ceremonies if Voinea is not given her bronze. What’s the truth? Chiles, never an excellent dancer like Biles, let alone Comaneci, probably didn’t complete her tour jete, and Voinea landed a routine of much greater difficulty with little obvious error. But the Eastern Bloc has fallen for good, and with it, its gymnastics tradition. The American style, ruthless in both athletic performance and its capture of rank-making and rank-breaking, is now in vogue., , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/YL.AmericaThwarts.081424.webp, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Tiana Lowe Doescher,

The market meltdown triggered over the weekend remains, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average and S&P 500 down more than 2% at press time and the Nasdaq 100 broaching correction territory. In large part, Monday’s sell-off at the morning bell was instigated by the Bank of Japan’s rate hike, which effectively ended the country’s negative interest rate policy precedent and, in turn, led to a 12% crash of the Nikkei 225. But the market movement seems to be less about a fear of an imminent recession and more about the perils of geopolitical chaos sown in part by the failures of Joe Biden’s presidency and now the increasing odds that Vice President Kamala Harris succeeds in beating former President Donald Trump for a second term in office.

It’s true that July’s jobs report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics triggered the Sahm rule, which determines a recessionary cycle has begun when the three-month average unemployment rate reaches a half-point above the 12-month low. But July’s unemployment rate of 4.3% remains below the historic average of more than 5%, and perhaps more importantly, our persistently inverted yield curve has reverted to normal, a sign of confidence from Treasury investors that we’re actually moving away from the risks of a recession. The dramatic decrease in short-term Treasury yields, which have an inverse relationship with the value of a given Treasury itself, also signifies increasing confidence that the Federal Reserve will finally pivot and cut the federal funds rate from its 23-year high at next month’s Federal Open Market Committee meeting. Further bolstering the notion that U.S. bonds remain the global haven of value is Berkshire Hathaway’s recent reveal that Warren Buffett has amassed a quarter-trillion dollars of short-term Treasurys, more than the Fed itself has in its balance sheet.

All of this is to say that investors aren’t simply responding to the risks of a recession. Rather, the long-needed correction of asset bubbles inflated by rampant deficit spending — for the past 3 1/2 years, the inflationary fiscal policy of Bidenomics — has collided headlong into the practical ramifications of Biden’s foreign policy and the highest odds in months that Trump actually loses to a de facto extension of the Biden doctrine.

It’s not a coincidence that Monday’s mayhem has occurred in tandem with Trump’s most precipitous drop in the betting markets, which now have the Republican approaching a dead heat against Harris in their respective odds of winning the presidency. At the same time, the Biden doctrine of maximum appeasement of the Iranians has come to its logical conclusion. While this White House has never been confident in presiding over peace through strength in the Middle East, the power vacuum in the Oval Office has become particularly impossible for Tehran not to take advantage of. With Biden a lame duck vacationing in Delaware and Harris preoccupied with campaigning for the top job, Iran cleared out its airspace to make way for a full-scale incursion on Israel following a series of proxy attacks by Hezbollah and the Houthis.

Sure, some of the sell-off may be the usual desperation we see from Wall Street when it wants to goad the Fed into doing its bidding and reduce the price of borrowing with a premature rate cut. But part of it is the basic calculus that every investor, like every world leader, is weighing in their heads: If you are Iran or one of its proxies, do you begin your barrage of attacks on American allies such as Israel now, when the White House is effectively empty, or do you wait until Trump is in office?

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Some specific bad news in equities are a direct contradiction of the promises of Bidenomics. For example, Intel, which projected it would create more than 10,000 jobs as a consequence of the billions of dollars it received from the CHIPS Act, announced last week that it would actually be cutting 15,000 jobs, with the chip manufacturer’s stock plunging some 34% in the past five days.

But the leading economic indicators make it seem less like we’re approaching a technical recession caused by consumer demand, which remains robust, unemployment, which remains historically low, or a crunch on credit, which remains historically inexpensive when gauged by the federal funds rate and mortgage rates. Rather, a justified market correction has run alongside the exogenous reality that the American electorate may give us four more years of bad fiscal policy and even worse foreign policy.

2024-08-05 18:05:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fopinion%2F3110673%2Fmarkets-panicking-bidenomics-biden-harris-foreign-policy%2F?w=600&h=450, The market meltdown triggered over the weekend remains, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average and S&P 500 down more than 2% at press time and the Nasdaq 100 broaching correction territory. In large part, Monday’s sell-off at the morning bell was instigated by the Bank of Japan’s rate hike, which effectively ended the country’s negative,

The market meltdown triggered over the weekend remains, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average and S&P 500 down more than 2% at press time and the Nasdaq 100 broaching correction territory. In large part, Monday’s sell-off at the morning bell was instigated by the Bank of Japan’s rate hike, which effectively ended the country’s negative interest rate policy precedent and, in turn, led to a 12% crash of the Nikkei 225. But the market movement seems to be less about a fear of an imminent recession and more about the perils of geopolitical chaos sown in part by the failures of Joe Biden’s presidency and now the increasing odds that Vice President Kamala Harris succeeds in beating former President Donald Trump for a second term in office.

It’s true that July’s jobs report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics triggered the Sahm rule, which determines a recessionary cycle has begun when the three-month average unemployment rate reaches a half-point above the 12-month low. But July’s unemployment rate of 4.3% remains below the historic average of more than 5%, and perhaps more importantly, our persistently inverted yield curve has reverted to normal, a sign of confidence from Treasury investors that we’re actually moving away from the risks of a recession. The dramatic decrease in short-term Treasury yields, which have an inverse relationship with the value of a given Treasury itself, also signifies increasing confidence that the Federal Reserve will finally pivot and cut the federal funds rate from its 23-year high at next month’s Federal Open Market Committee meeting. Further bolstering the notion that U.S. bonds remain the global haven of value is Berkshire Hathaway’s recent reveal that Warren Buffett has amassed a quarter-trillion dollars of short-term Treasurys, more than the Fed itself has in its balance sheet.

All of this is to say that investors aren’t simply responding to the risks of a recession. Rather, the long-needed correction of asset bubbles inflated by rampant deficit spending — for the past 3 1/2 years, the inflationary fiscal policy of Bidenomics — has collided headlong into the practical ramifications of Biden’s foreign policy and the highest odds in months that Trump actually loses to a de facto extension of the Biden doctrine.

It’s not a coincidence that Monday’s mayhem has occurred in tandem with Trump’s most precipitous drop in the betting markets, which now have the Republican approaching a dead heat against Harris in their respective odds of winning the presidency. At the same time, the Biden doctrine of maximum appeasement of the Iranians has come to its logical conclusion. While this White House has never been confident in presiding over peace through strength in the Middle East, the power vacuum in the Oval Office has become particularly impossible for Tehran not to take advantage of. With Biden a lame duck vacationing in Delaware and Harris preoccupied with campaigning for the top job, Iran cleared out its airspace to make way for a full-scale incursion on Israel following a series of proxy attacks by Hezbollah and the Houthis.

Sure, some of the sell-off may be the usual desperation we see from Wall Street when it wants to goad the Fed into doing its bidding and reduce the price of borrowing with a premature rate cut. But part of it is the basic calculus that every investor, like every world leader, is weighing in their heads: If you are Iran or one of its proxies, do you begin your barrage of attacks on American allies such as Israel now, when the White House is effectively empty, or do you wait until Trump is in office?

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Some specific bad news in equities are a direct contradiction of the promises of Bidenomics. For example, Intel, which projected it would create more than 10,000 jobs as a consequence of the billions of dollars it received from the CHIPS Act, announced last week that it would actually be cutting 15,000 jobs, with the chip manufacturer’s stock plunging some 34% in the past five days.

But the leading economic indicators make it seem less like we’re approaching a technical recession caused by consumer demand, which remains robust, unemployment, which remains historically low, or a crunch on credit, which remains historically inexpensive when gauged by the federal funds rate and mortgage rates. Rather, a justified market correction has run alongside the exogenous reality that the American electorate may give us four more years of bad fiscal policy and even worse foreign policy.

, The market meltdown triggered over the weekend remains, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average and S&P 500 down more than 2% at press time and the Nasdaq 100 broaching correction territory. In large part, Monday’s sell-off at the morning bell was instigated by the Bank of Japan’s rate hike, which effectively ended the country’s negative interest rate policy precedent and, in turn, led to a 12% crash of the Nikkei 225. But the market movement seems to be less about a fear of an imminent recession and more about the perils of geopolitical chaos sown in part by the failures of Joe Biden’s presidency and now the increasing odds that Vice President Kamala Harris succeeds in beating former President Donald Trump for a second term in office. It’s true that July’s jobs report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics triggered the Sahm rule, which determines a recessionary cycle has begun when the three-month average unemployment rate reaches a half-point above the 12-month low. But July’s unemployment rate of 4.3% remains below the historic average of more than 5%, and perhaps more importantly, our persistently inverted yield curve has reverted to normal, a sign of confidence from Treasury investors that we’re actually moving away from the risks of a recession. The dramatic decrease in short-term Treasury yields, which have an inverse relationship with the value of a given Treasury itself, also signifies increasing confidence that the Federal Reserve will finally pivot and cut the federal funds rate from its 23-year high at next month’s Federal Open Market Committee meeting. Further bolstering the notion that U.S. bonds remain the global haven of value is Berkshire Hathaway’s recent reveal that Warren Buffett has amassed a quarter-trillion dollars of short-term Treasurys, more than the Fed itself has in its balance sheet. All of this is to say that investors aren’t simply responding to the risks of a recession. Rather, the long-needed correction of asset bubbles inflated by rampant deficit spending — for the past 3 1/2 years, the inflationary fiscal policy of Bidenomics — has collided headlong into the practical ramifications of Biden’s foreign policy and the highest odds in months that Trump actually loses to a de facto extension of the Biden doctrine. It’s not a coincidence that Monday’s mayhem has occurred in tandem with Trump’s most precipitous drop in the betting markets, which now have the Republican approaching a dead heat against Harris in their respective odds of winning the presidency. At the same time, the Biden doctrine of maximum appeasement of the Iranians has come to its logical conclusion. While this White House has never been confident in presiding over peace through strength in the Middle East, the power vacuum in the Oval Office has become particularly impossible for Tehran not to take advantage of. With Biden a lame duck vacationing in Delaware and Harris preoccupied with campaigning for the top job, Iran cleared out its airspace to make way for a full-scale incursion on Israel following a series of proxy attacks by Hezbollah and the Houthis. Sure, some of the sell-off may be the usual desperation we see from Wall Street when it wants to goad the Fed into doing its bidding and reduce the price of borrowing with a premature rate cut. But part of it is the basic calculus that every investor, like every world leader, is weighing in their heads: If you are Iran or one of its proxies, do you begin your barrage of attacks on American allies such as Israel now, when the White House is effectively empty, or do you wait until Trump is in office? CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER Some specific bad news in equities are a direct contradiction of the promises of Bidenomics. For example, Intel, which projected it would create more than 10,000 jobs as a consequence of the billions of dollars it received from the CHIPS Act, announced last week that it would actually be cutting 15,000 jobs, with the chip manufacturer’s stock plunging some 34% in the past five days. But the leading economic indicators make it seem less like we’re approaching a technical recession caused by consumer demand, which remains robust, unemployment, which remains historically low, or a crunch on credit, which remains historically inexpensive when gauged by the federal funds rate and mortgage rates. Rather, a justified market correction has run alongside the exogenous reality that the American electorate may give us four more years of bad fiscal policy and even worse foreign policy., , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/harris-job-guarantee.webp, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Tiana Lowe Doescher,

Plenty of the debates about transgender “rights” during the last decade have hinged on the theoretical, the exceptional, and the personal. But in Paris, the most practical, immediate, and apolitical circumstance is making the case against the notion of gender as a subjective identity. Two boxers, Imane Khelif of Algeria and Lin Yu-ting of Taiwan, have been allowed to compete in women’s boxing at the 2024 Olympics despite both being disqualified from previous competitions over multiple rounds of laboratory testing confirming the two have XY, or male, chromosomes.

While the boxing brouhaha first attracted online critics of the overreach of transgender rights superseding that of women, watching Khelif and Yu-Ting clobber the heck out of biological women had nothing to do with the politics of gender identity and everything to do with an XY person, one who may be intersex but likely went through some chemical and physical process of male puberty, beat up women with the standard XX chromosomes. For some odd reason, stripping the situation of the political context made some ostensible conservatives less angry about the situation, rather than more so.

This case, unlike plenty involving the ethics of allowing a person to fulfill the social gender roles opposite the biological sex into which they are born, is anything but complicated. Contrary to the International Olympic Committee’s embarrassing defense, people aren’t outraged because of “misleading information.” People are ticked off because they have eyes, and this situation marks the pinnacle of the problem transgender truthers have been warning us all was impending.

Whether transgender people can change the pronouns they use or what names they call themselves necessarily is a question of whether it is rude for others not to respect an adult’s wishes. And the growing social contagion of minors with gender dysphoria has become a lightning rod in the culture over the debate of whether a child who cannot consent to the act of sex is capable of ethically changing its gender. Including transgender women in women’s sports is a question of fairness, and in most educational settings regulated by Title IX, it’s a matter of the federal law that, as written, arguably insists that biological women and girls cannot be denied the athletic funds and subsequent scholarship opportunities of female sports to accommodate transgender women and girls.

But in any contact sport, especially one with the physical risks of boxing, safety must be the priority. Fairness is only a secondary concern, with respect and then maybe the social obligation that is “inclusion” only on the table to consider after the first two priorities are fulfilled.

It does not matter if Khelif and Yu-Ting identify as women, men, or any third thing in between. It doesn’t even matter if neither of the boxers knew that they were intersex prior to a few years ago, nor does it matter if they have external female genitalia. If they have XY chromosomes, and thus are dramatically likely to have undergone male puberty, resulting in a permanently stronger and denser physique with elevated testosterone levels, it is not safe to compete in boxing, of all sports, against an XX woman. That it is unfair is a secondary concern, and whether it is respectful or inclusive is irrelevant in this situation.

The reason we must be terribly vague about the medical status of these boxers is that the IOC intentionally rewrote the rules to allow for something like this to happen. The IOC’s “framework on fairness, inclusion and non-discrimination” now allows each sport to enact its own eligibility requirements so long as it does “not systematically exclude athletes from competition based upon their gender identity, physical appearance and/or sex variations” or determine fairness and safety with “medically unnecessary procedures or treatment” or “gynaecological examinations or similar forms of invasive physical examinations.”

So although the IOC continues to refer to and categorize the two boxers in question because their passports demarcate them as women, the public has no idea just how elevated their testosterone levels are. The most precise diagnosis given is “differences in sex development,” perhaps in a similar manifestation as former Olympic track champion Caster Semenya.

But the difference between Semenya and the boxers is that Semenya wasn’t trying to, well, box biological females. Even though Semenya has been required to take medications to lower her testosterone levels to compete, the reason was fairness, a concern that is indeed important, but as discussed above, secondary to safety.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

We can debate in the abstract whether basic manners take precedence over personal religious objections when choosing how to address an adult who identifies as transgender, and the debate over the intersection of choices of children versus the rights of parents to protect them is a relevant matter of public policy. At certain points, especially when we discuss adults with subjective preferences just trying to live their own lives, respect for personal autonomy should indeed be considered in coordination with fairness and objective reality.

But when the matter could literally hinge on life or death, imminent physical safety indeed trumps all.

2024-08-02 21:15:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fopinion%2Fbeltway-confidential%2F3109311%2Folympic-boxing-brouhaha-is-about-safety%2F?w=600&h=450, Plenty of the debates about transgender “rights” during the last decade have hinged on the theoretical, the exceptional, and the personal. But in Paris, the most practical, immediate, and apolitical circumstance is making the case against the notion of gender as a subjective identity. Two boxers, Imane Khelif of Algeria and Lin Yu-ting of Taiwan,

Plenty of the debates about transgender “rights” during the last decade have hinged on the theoretical, the exceptional, and the personal. But in Paris, the most practical, immediate, and apolitical circumstance is making the case against the notion of gender as a subjective identity. Two boxers, Imane Khelif of Algeria and Lin Yu-ting of Taiwan, have been allowed to compete in women’s boxing at the 2024 Olympics despite both being disqualified from previous competitions over multiple rounds of laboratory testing confirming the two have XY, or male, chromosomes.

While the boxing brouhaha first attracted online critics of the overreach of transgender rights superseding that of women, watching Khelif and Yu-Ting clobber the heck out of biological women had nothing to do with the politics of gender identity and everything to do with an XY person, one who may be intersex but likely went through some chemical and physical process of male puberty, beat up women with the standard XX chromosomes. For some odd reason, stripping the situation of the political context made some ostensible conservatives less angry about the situation, rather than more so.

This case, unlike plenty involving the ethics of allowing a person to fulfill the social gender roles opposite the biological sex into which they are born, is anything but complicated. Contrary to the International Olympic Committee’s embarrassing defense, people aren’t outraged because of “misleading information.” People are ticked off because they have eyes, and this situation marks the pinnacle of the problem transgender truthers have been warning us all was impending.

Whether transgender people can change the pronouns they use or what names they call themselves necessarily is a question of whether it is rude for others not to respect an adult’s wishes. And the growing social contagion of minors with gender dysphoria has become a lightning rod in the culture over the debate of whether a child who cannot consent to the act of sex is capable of ethically changing its gender. Including transgender women in women’s sports is a question of fairness, and in most educational settings regulated by Title IX, it’s a matter of the federal law that, as written, arguably insists that biological women and girls cannot be denied the athletic funds and subsequent scholarship opportunities of female sports to accommodate transgender women and girls.

But in any contact sport, especially one with the physical risks of boxing, safety must be the priority. Fairness is only a secondary concern, with respect and then maybe the social obligation that is “inclusion” only on the table to consider after the first two priorities are fulfilled.

It does not matter if Khelif and Yu-Ting identify as women, men, or any third thing in between. It doesn’t even matter if neither of the boxers knew that they were intersex prior to a few years ago, nor does it matter if they have external female genitalia. If they have XY chromosomes, and thus are dramatically likely to have undergone male puberty, resulting in a permanently stronger and denser physique with elevated testosterone levels, it is not safe to compete in boxing, of all sports, against an XX woman. That it is unfair is a secondary concern, and whether it is respectful or inclusive is irrelevant in this situation.

The reason we must be terribly vague about the medical status of these boxers is that the IOC intentionally rewrote the rules to allow for something like this to happen. The IOC’s “framework on fairness, inclusion and non-discrimination” now allows each sport to enact its own eligibility requirements so long as it does “not systematically exclude athletes from competition based upon their gender identity, physical appearance and/or sex variations” or determine fairness and safety with “medically unnecessary procedures or treatment” or “gynaecological examinations or similar forms of invasive physical examinations.”

So although the IOC continues to refer to and categorize the two boxers in question because their passports demarcate them as women, the public has no idea just how elevated their testosterone levels are. The most precise diagnosis given is “differences in sex development,” perhaps in a similar manifestation as former Olympic track champion Caster Semenya.

But the difference between Semenya and the boxers is that Semenya wasn’t trying to, well, box biological females. Even though Semenya has been required to take medications to lower her testosterone levels to compete, the reason was fairness, a concern that is indeed important, but as discussed above, secondary to safety.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

We can debate in the abstract whether basic manners take precedence over personal religious objections when choosing how to address an adult who identifies as transgender, and the debate over the intersection of choices of children versus the rights of parents to protect them is a relevant matter of public policy. At certain points, especially when we discuss adults with subjective preferences just trying to live their own lives, respect for personal autonomy should indeed be considered in coordination with fairness and objective reality.

But when the matter could literally hinge on life or death, imminent physical safety indeed trumps all.

, Plenty of the debates about transgender “rights” during the last decade have hinged on the theoretical, the exceptional, and the personal. But in Paris, the most practical, immediate, and apolitical circumstance is making the case against the notion of gender as a subjective identity. Two boxers, Imane Khelif of Algeria and Lin Yu-ting of Taiwan, have been allowed to compete in women’s boxing at the 2024 Olympics despite both being disqualified from previous competitions over multiple rounds of laboratory testing confirming the two have XY, or male, chromosomes. While the boxing brouhaha first attracted online critics of the overreach of transgender rights superseding that of women, watching Khelif and Yu-Ting clobber the heck out of biological women had nothing to do with the politics of gender identity and everything to do with an XY person, one who may be intersex but likely went through some chemical and physical process of male puberty, beat up women with the standard XX chromosomes. For some odd reason, stripping the situation of the political context made some ostensible conservatives less angry about the situation, rather than more so. It’s a complicated case, and the reactions it evokes are a reminiscent of how the medievals and early moderns struggled to deal with cases of indeterminate or somewhat indeterminate sex. But it’s cruel and mindless to shove it into a culture-war frame.— Sohrab Ahmari (@SohrabAhmari) August 1, 2024 This case, unlike plenty involving the ethics of allowing a person to fulfill the social gender roles opposite the biological sex into which they are born, is anything but complicated. Contrary to the International Olympic Committee’s embarrassing defense, people aren’t outraged because of “misleading information.” People are ticked off because they have eyes, and this situation marks the pinnacle of the problem transgender truthers have been warning us all was impending. Whether transgender people can change the pronouns they use or what names they call themselves necessarily is a question of whether it is rude for others not to respect an adult’s wishes. And the growing social contagion of minors with gender dysphoria has become a lightning rod in the culture over the debate of whether a child who cannot consent to the act of sex is capable of ethically changing its gender. Including transgender women in women’s sports is a question of fairness, and in most educational settings regulated by Title IX, it’s a matter of the federal law that, as written, arguably insists that biological women and girls cannot be denied the athletic funds and subsequent scholarship opportunities of female sports to accommodate transgender women and girls. But in any contact sport, especially one with the physical risks of boxing, safety must be the priority. Fairness is only a secondary concern, with respect and then maybe the social obligation that is “inclusion” only on the table to consider after the first two priorities are fulfilled. It does not matter if Khelif and Yu-Ting identify as women, men, or any third thing in between. It doesn’t even matter if neither of the boxers knew that they were intersex prior to a few years ago, nor does it matter if they have external female genitalia. If they have XY chromosomes, and thus are dramatically likely to have undergone male puberty, resulting in a permanently stronger and denser physique with elevated testosterone levels, it is not safe to compete in boxing, of all sports, against an XX woman. That it is unfair is a secondary concern, and whether it is respectful or inclusive is irrelevant in this situation. The reason we must be terribly vague about the medical status of these boxers is that the IOC intentionally rewrote the rules to allow for something like this to happen. The IOC’s “framework on fairness, inclusion and non-discrimination” now allows each sport to enact its own eligibility requirements so long as it does “not systematically exclude athletes from competition based upon their gender identity, physical appearance and/or sex variations” or determine fairness and safety with “medically unnecessary procedures or treatment” or “gynaecological examinations or similar forms of invasive physical examinations.” So although the IOC continues to refer to and categorize the two boxers in question because their passports demarcate them as women, the public has no idea just how elevated their testosterone levels are. The most precise diagnosis given is “differences in sex development,” perhaps in a similar manifestation as former Olympic track champion Caster Semenya. But the difference between Semenya and the boxers is that Semenya wasn’t trying to, well, box biological females. Even though Semenya has been required to take medications to lower her testosterone levels to compete, the reason was fairness, a concern that is indeed important, but as discussed above, secondary to safety. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER We can debate in the abstract whether basic manners take precedence over personal religious objections when choosing how to address an adult who identifies as transgender, and the debate over the intersection of choices of children versus the rights of parents to protect them is a relevant matter of public policy. At certain points, especially when we discuss adults with subjective preferences just trying to live their own lives, respect for personal autonomy should indeed be considered in coordination with fairness and objective reality. But when the matter could literally hinge on life or death, imminent physical safety indeed trumps all., , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/lin_yu-ting_olympics_win-1.webp, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Tiana Lowe Doescher,

The ordinary person’s primary objection to the presidential candidacy of Vice President Kamala Harris ought to lie in what she has done during the Biden administration (presiding over an annual 6% inflation rate, a record multi-million influx of illegal immigrants, etc.) and what she has advocated when pandering to the Democratic base (endorsing the full-scale elimination of private health insurance and fracking for example).

Former President Donald Trump has instead honed in on the dumbest rationale to attack Harris for who she is. Trump questioned why, after “only promoting Indian heritage,” the de facto Democratic presidential nominee “happened to turn black.”

It’s an idiotic political strategy to distract from Harris’s genuinely radical and incompetent record and, instead, question her immutable identity. But Trump also missed the real tragedy in the reason why Harris grew up with far less influence from her black heritage than her Indian-American upbringing: The historic and family-shattering misandry of family courts.

Harris’s father is Donald Harris, a Jamaican-American economist, and her late mother was Shyamala Gopalan, an Indian-American biomedical researcher. The pair met while attending the University of California, Berkeley, in 1962, when Gopalan was a Ph.D. candidate and Donald Harris was a master’s student, at the university’s Afro-American Association, the study group that would eventually establish the Black Panther Party. Although Gopalan would later maintain that she originally intended to move back to India, she married Donald Harris in 1963. Kamala Harris was born a year later, and her sister and close adviser, Maya Harris, was born in 1967.

Gopalan and Donald Harris’s marriage began to fall apart as their careers took off, with Kamala Harris eventually writing in her memoir that her parents “stopped being kind to one another” by the time she was just 5 years old. Gopalan and her daughters moved with Donald Harris to the Midwest when he scored limited professorship stints at the University of Illinois at Champagne-Urbana and then at Northwestern University, but Gopalan moved with her daughters back to the Bay Area in 1970 while Donald Harris was working a tenure-track position at the University of Wisconsin. Right when Donald Harris returned to the Bay Area to join the University of Stanford’s economics department in 1972, Gopalan filed for divorce.

While the vice president does celebrate her origins as the daughter of a marriage born of the Civil Rights Movement, she mostly glosses over her father in speeches and memoirs. Kamala Harris credits her mother, who was Hindu, for ingratiating her with black American culture. Gopalan brought her daughters to predominately black Baptist churches and immersed them in the community of the black academics she had befriended at Berkeley. The girls spent summers and weekends with their father in Palo Alto and occasional jaunts to Jamaica, but Meena Harris, Kamala Harris’s niece, insisted Donald Harris “was not around after the divorce.”

The truth may be a little more complicated. Gopalan, who went on to become a prolific cancer researcher and brought her then-school-aged daughters with her as she worked at Quebecois universities, died of the disease in 2009, and Donald Harris rarely makes public statements. When he made his only major public remark during Kamala Harris’s failed presidential bid in 2020, condemning her joke about smoking marijuana because she is half-Jamaican, Kamala Harris demurred in her response, further confirming a familial rift. But in an essay about his attempts to teach his daughters, granddaughter, and great-grandchildren about their Jamaican heritage, Donald Harris revealed that his relative absence from his daughters’ lives was far from a decision of his own making.

“This early phase of interaction with my children came to an abrupt halt in 1972 when, after a hard-fought custody battle in the family court of Oakland, California, the context of the relationship was placed within arbitrary limits imposed by a court-ordered divorce settlement based on the false assumption by the State of California that fathers cannot handle parenting (especially in the case of this father, ‘a neegroe from da eyelans’ was the Yankee stereotype, who might just end up eating his children for breakfast!),” wrote Donald Harris in a 2019 blog post. “Nevertheless, I persisted, never giving up on my love for my children or reneging on my responsibilities as their father.”

Similar to too many biracial children of divorce, a family court made the decision for Kamala Harris as to which culture would influence her more. While Gopalan clearly succeeded at awakening her daughter’s racial awareness as a black woman, Kamala Harris’s black father was legally limited in his ability to parent his own child. It’s a story common in plenty of biracial families, perhaps due to racial animus or xenophobia, but most likely due to the misandrist doctrine of the “tender years” fallacy.

A well-intentioned but dramatic overcorrection from the historical assumption that both wives and children were the legal property of a husband under common law, the tender years doctrine, adopted in American law throughout the 19th century, assumed that mothers should have sole or primary custody of children in their younger years. Although countless states have overturned the doctrine as unconstitutional and nominally now require courts to consider the best interest of the child, a technical transformation that occurred shortly after Donald Harris and Gopalan divorced, only recently have states mandated that individual judges default to joint custody when ruling on physical custody of children. The result is that family courts still tend to be heavily biased against men at the cost of children.

Going back to a 1989 Massachusetts custody allocation, the Department of Justice found that even when fathers actively sought out custody of their children, they only received joint physical custody 46% of the time and primary physical custody 29% of the time. In 2007, researchers in the North Carolina Law Review found that when mothers filed as plaintiffs seeking primary physical custody, they were granted it 81.5% of the time. But fathers filing as plaintiffs for primary physical custody were only rewarded with such in 33.7% of cases. Fast forward to 2016, and a government study of Washington state found that of contested custody disputes, three-quarters of mothers received majority custody. Misandry in the courtroom also translates into actual danger for children. Whereas the overwhelming majority of fathers who committed domestic violence were (correctly) granted zero residential time with their children, some 70% of mothers who had committed domestic abuse were rewarded residential time.

A less technical but more recent review of nationwide data by popular parenting scheduling tool Custody X Change found that in situations where both parents want custody over a child, fathers receive barely a third of custodial time. Ironically enough, purple states lead the way in correcting the problem, as the majority of arrangements studied were 50/50 joint custody agreements between parents. Only 40% of arrangements in blue states and 22% of arrangements in red states gave equal time to both mothers and fathers.

Ironically enough, Trump’s own running mate may have this origin story in common with Kamala Harris. Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH) famously did not reconnect with his own biological father, Donald Bowman, until he was an adolescent. Although Vance grew up believing Bowman was simply a deadbeat father who waived away his parental rights to allow Vance’s new stepfather to adopt him, again, the truth may have been more complicated.

“For the first time, I heard his side of the story: that the adoption had nothing to do with a desire to avoid child support and that, far from simply ‘giving me away,’ as Mom and Mamaw had said, Dad had hired multiple lawyers and done everything within reason to keep me,” Vance wrote in his book Hillbilly Elegy: A Memoir of a Family and Culture in Crisis.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Bowman said he only gave up because he “worried that the custody war was destroying” his son.

Statistically speaking, Kamala Harris lost far more than a deepened understanding of the Jamaican half of her heritage when a court decided to deprive her father of her custodial crime. Studies across the board seem to indicate that all children, Kamala Harris and Vance included, benefit emotionally, behaviorally, psychologically, and physically from co-equal parenting. That’s a less exciting political take to make, but for the Generation X and millennial children of the baby boomers and the 60s, the tales of Kamala Harris and Vance are all too common.

2024-08-01 20:53:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fopinion%2F3107293%2Fkey-family-history-jd-vance-kamala-harris-have-in-common%2F?w=600&h=450, The ordinary person’s primary objection to the presidential candidacy of Vice President Kamala Harris ought to lie in what she has done during the Biden administration (presiding over an annual 6% inflation rate, a record multi-million influx of illegal immigrants, etc.) and what she has advocated when pandering to the Democratic base (endorsing the full-scale,

The ordinary person’s primary objection to the presidential candidacy of Vice President Kamala Harris ought to lie in what she has done during the Biden administration (presiding over an annual 6% inflation rate, a record multi-million influx of illegal immigrants, etc.) and what she has advocated when pandering to the Democratic base (endorsing the full-scale elimination of private health insurance and fracking for example).

Former President Donald Trump has instead honed in on the dumbest rationale to attack Harris for who she is. Trump questioned why, after “only promoting Indian heritage,” the de facto Democratic presidential nominee “happened to turn black.”

It’s an idiotic political strategy to distract from Harris’s genuinely radical and incompetent record and, instead, question her immutable identity. But Trump also missed the real tragedy in the reason why Harris grew up with far less influence from her black heritage than her Indian-American upbringing: The historic and family-shattering misandry of family courts.

Harris’s father is Donald Harris, a Jamaican-American economist, and her late mother was Shyamala Gopalan, an Indian-American biomedical researcher. The pair met while attending the University of California, Berkeley, in 1962, when Gopalan was a Ph.D. candidate and Donald Harris was a master’s student, at the university’s Afro-American Association, the study group that would eventually establish the Black Panther Party. Although Gopalan would later maintain that she originally intended to move back to India, she married Donald Harris in 1963. Kamala Harris was born a year later, and her sister and close adviser, Maya Harris, was born in 1967.

Gopalan and Donald Harris’s marriage began to fall apart as their careers took off, with Kamala Harris eventually writing in her memoir that her parents “stopped being kind to one another” by the time she was just 5 years old. Gopalan and her daughters moved with Donald Harris to the Midwest when he scored limited professorship stints at the University of Illinois at Champagne-Urbana and then at Northwestern University, but Gopalan moved with her daughters back to the Bay Area in 1970 while Donald Harris was working a tenure-track position at the University of Wisconsin. Right when Donald Harris returned to the Bay Area to join the University of Stanford’s economics department in 1972, Gopalan filed for divorce.

While the vice president does celebrate her origins as the daughter of a marriage born of the Civil Rights Movement, she mostly glosses over her father in speeches and memoirs. Kamala Harris credits her mother, who was Hindu, for ingratiating her with black American culture. Gopalan brought her daughters to predominately black Baptist churches and immersed them in the community of the black academics she had befriended at Berkeley. The girls spent summers and weekends with their father in Palo Alto and occasional jaunts to Jamaica, but Meena Harris, Kamala Harris’s niece, insisted Donald Harris “was not around after the divorce.”

The truth may be a little more complicated. Gopalan, who went on to become a prolific cancer researcher and brought her then-school-aged daughters with her as she worked at Quebecois universities, died of the disease in 2009, and Donald Harris rarely makes public statements. When he made his only major public remark during Kamala Harris’s failed presidential bid in 2020, condemning her joke about smoking marijuana because she is half-Jamaican, Kamala Harris demurred in her response, further confirming a familial rift. But in an essay about his attempts to teach his daughters, granddaughter, and great-grandchildren about their Jamaican heritage, Donald Harris revealed that his relative absence from his daughters’ lives was far from a decision of his own making.

“This early phase of interaction with my children came to an abrupt halt in 1972 when, after a hard-fought custody battle in the family court of Oakland, California, the context of the relationship was placed within arbitrary limits imposed by a court-ordered divorce settlement based on the false assumption by the State of California that fathers cannot handle parenting (especially in the case of this father, ‘a neegroe from da eyelans’ was the Yankee stereotype, who might just end up eating his children for breakfast!),” wrote Donald Harris in a 2019 blog post. “Nevertheless, I persisted, never giving up on my love for my children or reneging on my responsibilities as their father.”

Similar to too many biracial children of divorce, a family court made the decision for Kamala Harris as to which culture would influence her more. While Gopalan clearly succeeded at awakening her daughter’s racial awareness as a black woman, Kamala Harris’s black father was legally limited in his ability to parent his own child. It’s a story common in plenty of biracial families, perhaps due to racial animus or xenophobia, but most likely due to the misandrist doctrine of the “tender years” fallacy.

A well-intentioned but dramatic overcorrection from the historical assumption that both wives and children were the legal property of a husband under common law, the tender years doctrine, adopted in American law throughout the 19th century, assumed that mothers should have sole or primary custody of children in their younger years. Although countless states have overturned the doctrine as unconstitutional and nominally now require courts to consider the best interest of the child, a technical transformation that occurred shortly after Donald Harris and Gopalan divorced, only recently have states mandated that individual judges default to joint custody when ruling on physical custody of children. The result is that family courts still tend to be heavily biased against men at the cost of children.

Going back to a 1989 Massachusetts custody allocation, the Department of Justice found that even when fathers actively sought out custody of their children, they only received joint physical custody 46% of the time and primary physical custody 29% of the time. In 2007, researchers in the North Carolina Law Review found that when mothers filed as plaintiffs seeking primary physical custody, they were granted it 81.5% of the time. But fathers filing as plaintiffs for primary physical custody were only rewarded with such in 33.7% of cases. Fast forward to 2016, and a government study of Washington state found that of contested custody disputes, three-quarters of mothers received majority custody. Misandry in the courtroom also translates into actual danger for children. Whereas the overwhelming majority of fathers who committed domestic violence were (correctly) granted zero residential time with their children, some 70% of mothers who had committed domestic abuse were rewarded residential time.

A less technical but more recent review of nationwide data by popular parenting scheduling tool Custody X Change found that in situations where both parents want custody over a child, fathers receive barely a third of custodial time. Ironically enough, purple states lead the way in correcting the problem, as the majority of arrangements studied were 50/50 joint custody agreements between parents. Only 40% of arrangements in blue states and 22% of arrangements in red states gave equal time to both mothers and fathers.

Ironically enough, Trump’s own running mate may have this origin story in common with Kamala Harris. Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH) famously did not reconnect with his own biological father, Donald Bowman, until he was an adolescent. Although Vance grew up believing Bowman was simply a deadbeat father who waived away his parental rights to allow Vance’s new stepfather to adopt him, again, the truth may have been more complicated.

“For the first time, I heard his side of the story: that the adoption had nothing to do with a desire to avoid child support and that, far from simply ‘giving me away,’ as Mom and Mamaw had said, Dad had hired multiple lawyers and done everything within reason to keep me,” Vance wrote in his book Hillbilly Elegy: A Memoir of a Family and Culture in Crisis.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Bowman said he only gave up because he “worried that the custody war was destroying” his son.

Statistically speaking, Kamala Harris lost far more than a deepened understanding of the Jamaican half of her heritage when a court decided to deprive her father of her custodial crime. Studies across the board seem to indicate that all children, Kamala Harris and Vance included, benefit emotionally, behaviorally, psychologically, and physically from co-equal parenting. That’s a less exciting political take to make, but for the Generation X and millennial children of the baby boomers and the 60s, the tales of Kamala Harris and Vance are all too common.

, The ordinary person’s primary objection to the presidential candidacy of Vice President Kamala Harris ought to lie in what she has done during the Biden administration (presiding over an annual 6% inflation rate, a record multi-million influx of illegal immigrants, etc.) and what she has advocated when pandering to the Democratic base (endorsing the full-scale elimination of private health insurance and fracking for example). Former President Donald Trump has instead honed in on the dumbest rationale to attack Harris for who she is. Trump questioned why, after “only promoting Indian heritage,” the de facto Democratic presidential nominee “happened to turn black.” It’s an idiotic political strategy to distract from Harris’s genuinely radical and incompetent record and, instead, question her immutable identity. But Trump also missed the real tragedy in the reason why Harris grew up with far less influence from her black heritage than her Indian-American upbringing: The historic and family-shattering misandry of family courts. Harris’s father is Donald Harris, a Jamaican-American economist, and her late mother was Shyamala Gopalan, an Indian-American biomedical researcher. The pair met while attending the University of California, Berkeley, in 1962, when Gopalan was a Ph.D. candidate and Donald Harris was a master’s student, at the university’s Afro-American Association, the study group that would eventually establish the Black Panther Party. Although Gopalan would later maintain that she originally intended to move back to India, she married Donald Harris in 1963. Kamala Harris was born a year later, and her sister and close adviser, Maya Harris, was born in 1967. Gopalan and Donald Harris’s marriage began to fall apart as their careers took off, with Kamala Harris eventually writing in her memoir that her parents “stopped being kind to one another” by the time she was just 5 years old. Gopalan and her daughters moved with Donald Harris to the Midwest when he scored limited professorship stints at the University of Illinois at Champagne-Urbana and then at Northwestern University, but Gopalan moved with her daughters back to the Bay Area in 1970 while Donald Harris was working a tenure-track position at the University of Wisconsin. Right when Donald Harris returned to the Bay Area to join the University of Stanford’s economics department in 1972, Gopalan filed for divorce. While the vice president does celebrate her origins as the daughter of a marriage born of the Civil Rights Movement, she mostly glosses over her father in speeches and memoirs. Kamala Harris credits her mother, who was Hindu, for ingratiating her with black American culture. Gopalan brought her daughters to predominately black Baptist churches and immersed them in the community of the black academics she had befriended at Berkeley. The girls spent summers and weekends with their father in Palo Alto and occasional jaunts to Jamaica, but Meena Harris, Kamala Harris’s niece, insisted Donald Harris “was not around after the divorce.” The truth may be a little more complicated. Gopalan, who went on to become a prolific cancer researcher and brought her then-school-aged daughters with her as she worked at Quebecois universities, died of the disease in 2009, and Donald Harris rarely makes public statements. When he made his only major public remark during Kamala Harris’s failed presidential bid in 2020, condemning her joke about smoking marijuana because she is half-Jamaican, Kamala Harris demurred in her response, further confirming a familial rift. But in an essay about his attempts to teach his daughters, granddaughter, and great-grandchildren about their Jamaican heritage, Donald Harris revealed that his relative absence from his daughters’ lives was far from a decision of his own making. “This early phase of interaction with my children came to an abrupt halt in 1972 when, after a hard-fought custody battle in the family court of Oakland, California, the context of the relationship was placed within arbitrary limits imposed by a court-ordered divorce settlement based on the false assumption by the State of California that fathers cannot handle parenting (especially in the case of this father, ‘a neegroe from da eyelans’ was the Yankee stereotype, who might just end up eating his children for breakfast!),” wrote Donald Harris in a 2019 blog post. “Nevertheless, I persisted, never giving up on my love for my children or reneging on my responsibilities as their father.” Similar to too many biracial children of divorce, a family court made the decision for Kamala Harris as to which culture would influence her more. While Gopalan clearly succeeded at awakening her daughter’s racial awareness as a black woman, Kamala Harris’s black father was legally limited in his ability to parent his own child. It’s a story common in plenty of biracial families, perhaps due to racial animus or xenophobia, but most likely due to the misandrist doctrine of the “tender years” fallacy. A well-intentioned but dramatic overcorrection from the historical assumption that both wives and children were the legal property of a husband under common law, the tender years doctrine, adopted in American law throughout the 19th century, assumed that mothers should have sole or primary custody of children in their younger years. Although countless states have overturned the doctrine as unconstitutional and nominally now require courts to consider the best interest of the child, a technical transformation that occurred shortly after Donald Harris and Gopalan divorced, only recently have states mandated that individual judges default to joint custody when ruling on physical custody of children. The result is that family courts still tend to be heavily biased against men at the cost of children. Going back to a 1989 Massachusetts custody allocation, the Department of Justice found that even when fathers actively sought out custody of their children, they only received joint physical custody 46% of the time and primary physical custody 29% of the time. In 2007, researchers in the North Carolina Law Review found that when mothers filed as plaintiffs seeking primary physical custody, they were granted it 81.5% of the time. But fathers filing as plaintiffs for primary physical custody were only rewarded with such in 33.7% of cases. Fast forward to 2016, and a government study of Washington state found that of contested custody disputes, three-quarters of mothers received majority custody. Misandry in the courtroom also translates into actual danger for children. Whereas the overwhelming majority of fathers who committed domestic violence were (correctly) granted zero residential time with their children, some 70% of mothers who had committed domestic abuse were rewarded residential time. A less technical but more recent review of nationwide data by popular parenting scheduling tool Custody X Change found that in situations where both parents want custody over a child, fathers receive barely a third of custodial time. Ironically enough, purple states lead the way in correcting the problem, as the majority of arrangements studied were 50/50 joint custody agreements between parents. Only 40% of arrangements in blue states and 22% of arrangements in red states gave equal time to both mothers and fathers. Ironically enough, Trump’s own running mate may have this origin story in common with Kamala Harris. Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH) famously did not reconnect with his own biological father, Donald Bowman, until he was an adolescent. Although Vance grew up believing Bowman was simply a deadbeat father who waived away his parental rights to allow Vance’s new stepfather to adopt him, again, the truth may have been more complicated. “For the first time, I heard his side of the story: that the adoption had nothing to do with a desire to avoid child support and that, far from simply ‘giving me away,’ as Mom and Mamaw had said, Dad had hired multiple lawyers and done everything within reason to keep me,” Vance wrote in his book Hillbilly Elegy: A Memoir of a Family and Culture in Crisis. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER Bowman said he only gave up because he “worried that the custody war was destroying” his son. Statistically speaking, Kamala Harris lost far more than a deepened understanding of the Jamaican half of her heritage when a court decided to deprive her father of her custodial crime. Studies across the board seem to indicate that all children, Kamala Harris and Vance included, benefit emotionally, behaviorally, psychologically, and physically from co-equal parenting. That’s a less exciting political take to make, but for the Generation X and millennial children of the baby boomers and the 60s, the tales of Kamala Harris and Vance are all too common., , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/vance-harris-debate.webp, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Tiana Lowe Doescher,

Without earning a single vote in either the 2020 or 2024 presidential primary, Vice President Kamala Harris has been safely installed by the Democratic Party as this cycle’s presidential nominee, with the vice president replacing President Joe Biden, who plucked her from the political ignominy of dropping out of the 2020 primary months before the Iowa caucuses. The public can be excused, then, for not knowing much about Harris or her leftism extremism.

Despite past panic over polling that indicated Harris is more unpopular than any other vice president in history, including former Vice President Dick Cheney after he shot a guy in the face, party allies in the press have all stepped in line behind Harris, memory-holing her radical record to rebrand the former California senator as electable. Sites such as Axios accused former President Donald Trump’s campaign of lying when it called Harris Biden’s “border czar,” even though Axios itself had referred to Harris as the nickname in the past, and the ostensibly nonpartisan GovTrack wiped its documentation of Harris’s voting record as the chamber’s most left-wing senator. The New York Times has outright branded Harris as a “moderate,” not in its opinion pieces but in supposedly objective news stories.

Harris, of course, is not a moderate, and if anyone lies otherwise, one only needs to look at Harris’s own words and affirmations.

Harris has overtly supported eliminating the private health insurance currently used by 226 million people in the United States, or more than two-thirds of the population, telling a CNN town hall in 2019, “let’s eliminate all that,” when asked point blank if she would ban private health coverage as president.

Harris may have walked back her previous support for Sen. Bernie Sanders’s (I-VT) stand-alone Medicare for All Act, which would have nationalized roughly a fifth of the economy to the tune of at least $32.6 trillion over a decade in 2019 dollars, according to an outdated Congressional Budget Office estimate. But Harris was an original co-sponsor of Sanders’s bill in 2017. In 2019, Harris became one of the original Senate co-sponsors for the Green New Deal, which called for effectively nationalizing the entire energy industry (8% of the U.S. economy) and provisions for a federal jobs guarantee and “universal healthcare programs.” On top of the GND’s ban of “all combustion-based power generation nuclear, biomass energy, large scale hydro, and waste-to-energy technologies,” Harris has also independently endorsed a ban on fracking for natural gas.

All in all, Harris has co-sponsored legislation to socialize nearly a third of our economy and add an extra $52 billion to $93 trillion (in 2019 dollars) to the national debt in the next decade.

During her tenure in the White House, annual crossings at the southern border have quadrupled to an average of more than 2 million migrants recorded coming into the country each year, no small shock considering Harris’s past promises to decriminalize the act of illegally invading sovereign territory. Her campaign may be insisting that she was only instructed to stem the flow of migrants from the Northern Triangle by addressing the “root causes” of emigration from the region. Yet, even if she was not the “border czar” but rather the “Northern Triangle czar,” she failed at that as well. The influx of Northern Triangle migrants into the southern border was five times higher in fiscal 2021 than in 2018. While Border Patrol reported “only” half a million crossings of Northern Triangle migrants in 2023, that’s still nearly quadruple the share that came over prior to the pandemic.

On the topics of the economy and crime, the two concerns voters across the board consider the country’s most pressing, Republicans have led Democrats in terms of public trust. Only on abortion, which Gallup found only 2% of the public prioritizes, do Democrats win. But between Trump and Harris specifically, Trump is actually the centrist on the matter, while Harris is the radical.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

The former president opposes federal abortion restrictions of any kind, promising to let states determine their own restrictions, and Trump has criticized more restrictive state laws, such as Florida’s six-week abortion ban, as a “terrible mistake.” Meanwhile, top Trump allies in the Senate have proposed federal protections for IVF and deregulation of oral contraceptives. By contrast, Harris supports federally legalizing abortion up until the point of birth and once voted against a bill that would require doctors to provide medical care to a fetus that survived a failed late-term abortion attempt. At Harris’s urging, the Biden administration has also attempted to repeal the Hyde Amendment to use taxpayer dollars to fund abortion. When a local activist released footage of Planned Parenthood employees discussing the prices they charge for selling fetal remains, the then-attorney general of California didn’t prosecute Planned Parenthood. Harris instead launched a criminal investigation and raid of the activist who exposed the barbarism.

Harris’s record of incompetence, from her career-long embrace of rent control to the annual average inflation rate of nearly 6% during her tenure as vice president, speaks for itself. But worse than her bumbling inability to achieve her goals is the sheer fanaticism of those goals in the first place.

2024-07-29 18:10:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fopinion%2F3102652%2Fbanning-fracking-to-private-health-insurance-kamala-harris-no-centrist%2F?w=600&h=450, Without earning a single vote in either the 2020 or 2024 presidential primary, Vice President Kamala Harris has been safely installed by the Democratic Party as this cycle’s presidential nominee, with the vice president replacing President Joe Biden, who plucked her from the political ignominy of dropping out of the 2020 primary months before the,

Without earning a single vote in either the 2020 or 2024 presidential primary, Vice President Kamala Harris has been safely installed by the Democratic Party as this cycle’s presidential nominee, with the vice president replacing President Joe Biden, who plucked her from the political ignominy of dropping out of the 2020 primary months before the Iowa caucuses. The public can be excused, then, for not knowing much about Harris or her leftism extremism.

Despite past panic over polling that indicated Harris is more unpopular than any other vice president in history, including former Vice President Dick Cheney after he shot a guy in the face, party allies in the press have all stepped in line behind Harris, memory-holing her radical record to rebrand the former California senator as electable. Sites such as Axios accused former President Donald Trump’s campaign of lying when it called Harris Biden’s “border czar,” even though Axios itself had referred to Harris as the nickname in the past, and the ostensibly nonpartisan GovTrack wiped its documentation of Harris’s voting record as the chamber’s most left-wing senator. The New York Times has outright branded Harris as a “moderate,” not in its opinion pieces but in supposedly objective news stories.

Harris, of course, is not a moderate, and if anyone lies otherwise, one only needs to look at Harris’s own words and affirmations.

Harris has overtly supported eliminating the private health insurance currently used by 226 million people in the United States, or more than two-thirds of the population, telling a CNN town hall in 2019, “let’s eliminate all that,” when asked point blank if she would ban private health coverage as president.

Harris may have walked back her previous support for Sen. Bernie Sanders’s (I-VT) stand-alone Medicare for All Act, which would have nationalized roughly a fifth of the economy to the tune of at least $32.6 trillion over a decade in 2019 dollars, according to an outdated Congressional Budget Office estimate. But Harris was an original co-sponsor of Sanders’s bill in 2017. In 2019, Harris became one of the original Senate co-sponsors for the Green New Deal, which called for effectively nationalizing the entire energy industry (8% of the U.S. economy) and provisions for a federal jobs guarantee and “universal healthcare programs.” On top of the GND’s ban of “all combustion-based power generation nuclear, biomass energy, large scale hydro, and waste-to-energy technologies,” Harris has also independently endorsed a ban on fracking for natural gas.

All in all, Harris has co-sponsored legislation to socialize nearly a third of our economy and add an extra $52 billion to $93 trillion (in 2019 dollars) to the national debt in the next decade.

During her tenure in the White House, annual crossings at the southern border have quadrupled to an average of more than 2 million migrants recorded coming into the country each year, no small shock considering Harris’s past promises to decriminalize the act of illegally invading sovereign territory. Her campaign may be insisting that she was only instructed to stem the flow of migrants from the Northern Triangle by addressing the “root causes” of emigration from the region. Yet, even if she was not the “border czar” but rather the “Northern Triangle czar,” she failed at that as well. The influx of Northern Triangle migrants into the southern border was five times higher in fiscal 2021 than in 2018. While Border Patrol reported “only” half a million crossings of Northern Triangle migrants in 2023, that’s still nearly quadruple the share that came over prior to the pandemic.

On the topics of the economy and crime, the two concerns voters across the board consider the country’s most pressing, Republicans have led Democrats in terms of public trust. Only on abortion, which Gallup found only 2% of the public prioritizes, do Democrats win. But between Trump and Harris specifically, Trump is actually the centrist on the matter, while Harris is the radical.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

The former president opposes federal abortion restrictions of any kind, promising to let states determine their own restrictions, and Trump has criticized more restrictive state laws, such as Florida’s six-week abortion ban, as a “terrible mistake.” Meanwhile, top Trump allies in the Senate have proposed federal protections for IVF and deregulation of oral contraceptives. By contrast, Harris supports federally legalizing abortion up until the point of birth and once voted against a bill that would require doctors to provide medical care to a fetus that survived a failed late-term abortion attempt. At Harris’s urging, the Biden administration has also attempted to repeal the Hyde Amendment to use taxpayer dollars to fund abortion. When a local activist released footage of Planned Parenthood employees discussing the prices they charge for selling fetal remains, the then-attorney general of California didn’t prosecute Planned Parenthood. Harris instead launched a criminal investigation and raid of the activist who exposed the barbarism.

Harris’s record of incompetence, from her career-long embrace of rent control to the annual average inflation rate of nearly 6% during her tenure as vice president, speaks for itself. But worse than her bumbling inability to achieve her goals is the sheer fanaticism of those goals in the first place.

, Without earning a single vote in either the 2020 or 2024 presidential primary, Vice President Kamala Harris has been safely installed by the Democratic Party as this cycle’s presidential nominee, with the vice president replacing President Joe Biden, who plucked her from the political ignominy of dropping out of the 2020 primary months before the Iowa caucuses. The public can be excused, then, for not knowing much about Harris or her leftism extremism. Despite past panic over polling that indicated Harris is more unpopular than any other vice president in history, including former Vice President Dick Cheney after he shot a guy in the face, party allies in the press have all stepped in line behind Harris, memory-holing her radical record to rebrand the former California senator as electable. Sites such as Axios accused former President Donald Trump’s campaign of lying when it called Harris Biden’s “border czar,” even though Axios itself had referred to Harris as the nickname in the past, and the ostensibly nonpartisan GovTrack wiped its documentation of Harris’s voting record as the chamber’s most left-wing senator. The New York Times has outright branded Harris as a “moderate,” not in its opinion pieces but in supposedly objective news stories. Harris, of course, is not a moderate, and if anyone lies otherwise, one only needs to look at Harris’s own words and affirmations. Harris has overtly supported eliminating the private health insurance currently used by 226 million people in the United States, or more than two-thirds of the population, telling a CNN town hall in 2019, “let’s eliminate all that,” when asked point blank if she would ban private health coverage as president. Harris may have walked back her previous support for Sen. Bernie Sanders’s (I-VT) stand-alone Medicare for All Act, which would have nationalized roughly a fifth of the economy to the tune of at least $32.6 trillion over a decade in 2019 dollars, according to an outdated Congressional Budget Office estimate. But Harris was an original co-sponsor of Sanders’s bill in 2017. In 2019, Harris became one of the original Senate co-sponsors for the Green New Deal, which called for effectively nationalizing the entire energy industry (8% of the U.S. economy) and provisions for a federal jobs guarantee and “universal healthcare programs.” On top of the GND’s ban of “all combustion-based power generation nuclear, biomass energy, large scale hydro, and waste-to-energy technologies,” Harris has also independently endorsed a ban on fracking for natural gas. All in all, Harris has co-sponsored legislation to socialize nearly a third of our economy and add an extra $52 billion to $93 trillion (in 2019 dollars) to the national debt in the next decade. During her tenure in the White House, annual crossings at the southern border have quadrupled to an average of more than 2 million migrants recorded coming into the country each year, no small shock considering Harris’s past promises to decriminalize the act of illegally invading sovereign territory. Her campaign may be insisting that she was only instructed to stem the flow of migrants from the Northern Triangle by addressing the “root causes” of emigration from the region. Yet, even if she was not the “border czar” but rather the “Northern Triangle czar,” she failed at that as well. The influx of Northern Triangle migrants into the southern border was five times higher in fiscal 2021 than in 2018. While Border Patrol reported “only” half a million crossings of Northern Triangle migrants in 2023, that’s still nearly quadruple the share that came over prior to the pandemic. On the topics of the economy and crime, the two concerns voters across the board consider the country’s most pressing, Republicans have led Democrats in terms of public trust. Only on abortion, which Gallup found only 2% of the public prioritizes, do Democrats win. But between Trump and Harris specifically, Trump is actually the centrist on the matter, while Harris is the radical. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER The former president opposes federal abortion restrictions of any kind, promising to let states determine their own restrictions, and Trump has criticized more restrictive state laws, such as Florida’s six-week abortion ban, as a “terrible mistake.” Meanwhile, top Trump allies in the Senate have proposed federal protections for IVF and deregulation of oral contraceptives. By contrast, Harris supports federally legalizing abortion up until the point of birth and once voted against a bill that would require doctors to provide medical care to a fetus that survived a failed late-term abortion attempt. At Harris’s urging, the Biden administration has also attempted to repeal the Hyde Amendment to use taxpayer dollars to fund abortion. When a local activist released footage of Planned Parenthood employees discussing the prices they charge for selling fetal remains, the then-attorney general of California didn’t prosecute Planned Parenthood. Harris instead launched a criminal investigation and raid of the activist who exposed the barbarism. Harris’s record of incompetence, from her career-long embrace of rent control to the annual average inflation rate of nearly 6% during her tenure as vice president, speaks for itself. But worse than her bumbling inability to achieve her goals is the sheer fanaticism of those goals in the first place., , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Harris_campaign_882.webp, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Tiana Lowe Doescher,

Without even completing a full term in office, President Joe Biden has already racked up more debt than any other president in the nation’s history, with nearly $7 trillion in deficit spending recorded by the Treasury as of May and the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projecting a four-year total of nearly $8 trillion of deficit spending accumulated by the end of this fiscal year. That’s some $2 trillion more than was spent by former President Donald Trump, even including pandemic-era spending.

But beyond the explicit burden of Biden’s spending are the equally unprecedented costs of his regulatory regime. Without passing a single law through Congress, the current White House has cost people trillions in taxpayer tolls and tens of thousands of dollars in annual household costs.

The Biden administration’s failure to heed the easiest rule of sound fiscal policy — first, even before spending a single cent, do no harm — isn’t just costing taxpayers and ordinary consumers. It’s also destroying our overall economic growth.

The good news for whoever succeeds Biden is that, unlike saving Social Security from its impending insolvency or replacing the leviathan of Medicare and Obamacare, undoing Biden’s regulatory policy by executive fiat requires merely the reverse.

For example, consider the Environmental Protection Agency’s new limit on polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS chemicals. Despite previous Pentagon warnings that limiting PFAS in water sources to dramatically lower levels than recommended by the World Health Organization would undermine national security, the Biden administration went forward with finalizing the rule, with the Federal Register publicly estimating the regulation will cost Uncle Sam some $177 million over the next three years.

Environmental regulations on appliances are passed onto consumers even more directly, with the Job Creators Network estimating that Biden’s new efficiency standards will increase the per unit cost of washing machines by $200 and gas furnaces by $494.

Across the 851 final rules issued by the Biden administration as of this April, the American Action Forum estimates that aggregate regulatory costs will amount to $1.63 trillion — orders of magnitude greater than the $308 billion in regulatory costs issued by former President Barack Obama at this point in his first term and $143 billion worth of regulatory costs slashed by Trump by this point in his presidency.

As of last year, economist Casey Mulligan estimated the annual household cost of Biden’s regulations at $10,000, projecting that if “regulatory costs continue to rise at the same rate as they did during the Obama administration, the total costs of Biden’s rulemaking over an eight-year period would almost reach $60,000 per household.” By contrast, the Trump administration reduced regulatory costs by $11,000 per household annually, even excluding the unprecedented deregulation and growth fueled by Operation Warp Speed.

The opportunity costs incurred by overzealous regulations are obvious and all-consuming. Beyond the financial price penalties to taxpayers and consumers, Biden’s limitation of drilling permits, not just for oil and natural gas but also for uranium and minerals such as cobalt, has artificially capped the job growth of the energy sector.

Hence, deregulation should not be understood primarily as a means of deficit reduction — which would be no small feat when the simple cost of paying interest on the national debt is up 42% in one year — but as a tool of economic growth overall. One study by Dutch economists found that reducing administrative costs by 25% results in a 1.4% increase in annual economic growth, while Portuguese economists discerned that legal deregulations can boost total factor productivity, a crucial economic input in a shrinking population, by 0.6%.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM RESTORING AMERICA

While Biden has benefited from rebound responses to the pandemic keeping gross domestic product growth artificially high, the Federal Reserve’s unilateral war on inflation shows signs of significantly slowing that economic growth as the election looms closer. And while any successor to Biden has a moral mandate to save entitlements from their points of bankruptcy in the next nine years and reduce our deficit from consecutive annual amounts of $2 trillion, getting the regulatory regime out of the way is an easy start to relieve consumers and taxpayers.

And, as was true when it was built up, deconstructing such a bureaucracy does not require a single vote by Congress.

2024-07-28 11:45:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Frestoring-america%2F3072312%2Fderegulating-way-back-to-prepandemic-prosperity%2F?w=600&h=450, Without even completing a full term in office, President Joe Biden has already racked up more debt than any other president in the nation’s history, with nearly $7 trillion in deficit spending recorded by the Treasury as of May and the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projecting a four-year total of nearly $8 trillion of deficit,

Without even completing a full term in office, President Joe Biden has already racked up more debt than any other president in the nation’s history, with nearly $7 trillion in deficit spending recorded by the Treasury as of May and the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projecting a four-year total of nearly $8 trillion of deficit spending accumulated by the end of this fiscal year. That’s some $2 trillion more than was spent by former President Donald Trump, even including pandemic-era spending.

But beyond the explicit burden of Biden’s spending are the equally unprecedented costs of his regulatory regime. Without passing a single law through Congress, the current White House has cost people trillions in taxpayer tolls and tens of thousands of dollars in annual household costs.

The Biden administration’s failure to heed the easiest rule of sound fiscal policy — first, even before spending a single cent, do no harm — isn’t just costing taxpayers and ordinary consumers. It’s also destroying our overall economic growth.

The good news for whoever succeeds Biden is that, unlike saving Social Security from its impending insolvency or replacing the leviathan of Medicare and Obamacare, undoing Biden’s regulatory policy by executive fiat requires merely the reverse.

For example, consider the Environmental Protection Agency’s new limit on polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS chemicals. Despite previous Pentagon warnings that limiting PFAS in water sources to dramatically lower levels than recommended by the World Health Organization would undermine national security, the Biden administration went forward with finalizing the rule, with the Federal Register publicly estimating the regulation will cost Uncle Sam some $177 million over the next three years.

Environmental regulations on appliances are passed onto consumers even more directly, with the Job Creators Network estimating that Biden’s new efficiency standards will increase the per unit cost of washing machines by $200 and gas furnaces by $494.

Across the 851 final rules issued by the Biden administration as of this April, the American Action Forum estimates that aggregate regulatory costs will amount to $1.63 trillion — orders of magnitude greater than the $308 billion in regulatory costs issued by former President Barack Obama at this point in his first term and $143 billion worth of regulatory costs slashed by Trump by this point in his presidency.

As of last year, economist Casey Mulligan estimated the annual household cost of Biden’s regulations at $10,000, projecting that if “regulatory costs continue to rise at the same rate as they did during the Obama administration, the total costs of Biden’s rulemaking over an eight-year period would almost reach $60,000 per household.” By contrast, the Trump administration reduced regulatory costs by $11,000 per household annually, even excluding the unprecedented deregulation and growth fueled by Operation Warp Speed.

The opportunity costs incurred by overzealous regulations are obvious and all-consuming. Beyond the financial price penalties to taxpayers and consumers, Biden’s limitation of drilling permits, not just for oil and natural gas but also for uranium and minerals such as cobalt, has artificially capped the job growth of the energy sector.

Hence, deregulation should not be understood primarily as a means of deficit reduction — which would be no small feat when the simple cost of paying interest on the national debt is up 42% in one year — but as a tool of economic growth overall. One study by Dutch economists found that reducing administrative costs by 25% results in a 1.4% increase in annual economic growth, while Portuguese economists discerned that legal deregulations can boost total factor productivity, a crucial economic input in a shrinking population, by 0.6%.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM RESTORING AMERICA

While Biden has benefited from rebound responses to the pandemic keeping gross domestic product growth artificially high, the Federal Reserve’s unilateral war on inflation shows signs of significantly slowing that economic growth as the election looms closer. And while any successor to Biden has a moral mandate to save entitlements from their points of bankruptcy in the next nine years and reduce our deficit from consecutive annual amounts of $2 trillion, getting the regulatory regime out of the way is an easy start to relieve consumers and taxpayers.

And, as was true when it was built up, deconstructing such a bureaucracy does not require a single vote by Congress.

, Without even completing a full term in office, President Joe Biden has already racked up more debt than any other president in the nation’s history, with nearly $7 trillion in deficit spending recorded by the Treasury as of May and the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projecting a four-year total of nearly $8 trillion of deficit spending accumulated by the end of this fiscal year. That’s some $2 trillion more than was spent by former President Donald Trump, even including pandemic-era spending. But beyond the explicit burden of Biden’s spending are the equally unprecedented costs of his regulatory regime. Without passing a single law through Congress, the current White House has cost people trillions in taxpayer tolls and tens of thousands of dollars in annual household costs. The Biden administration’s failure to heed the easiest rule of sound fiscal policy — first, even before spending a single cent, do no harm — isn’t just costing taxpayers and ordinary consumers. It’s also destroying our overall economic growth. The good news for whoever succeeds Biden is that, unlike saving Social Security from its impending insolvency or replacing the leviathan of Medicare and Obamacare, undoing Biden’s regulatory policy by executive fiat requires merely the reverse. For example, consider the Environmental Protection Agency’s new limit on polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS chemicals. Despite previous Pentagon warnings that limiting PFAS in water sources to dramatically lower levels than recommended by the World Health Organization would undermine national security, the Biden administration went forward with finalizing the rule, with the Federal Register publicly estimating the regulation will cost Uncle Sam some $177 million over the next three years. Environmental regulations on appliances are passed onto consumers even more directly, with the Job Creators Network estimating that Biden’s new efficiency standards will increase the per unit cost of washing machines by $200 and gas furnaces by $494. Across the 851 final rules issued by the Biden administration as of this April, the American Action Forum estimates that aggregate regulatory costs will amount to $1.63 trillion — orders of magnitude greater than the $308 billion in regulatory costs issued by former President Barack Obama at this point in his first term and $143 billion worth of regulatory costs slashed by Trump by this point in his presidency. As of last year, economist Casey Mulligan estimated the annual household cost of Biden’s regulations at $10,000, projecting that if “regulatory costs continue to rise at the same rate as they did during the Obama administration, the total costs of Biden’s rulemaking over an eight-year period would almost reach $60,000 per household.” By contrast, the Trump administration reduced regulatory costs by $11,000 per household annually, even excluding the unprecedented deregulation and growth fueled by Operation Warp Speed. The opportunity costs incurred by overzealous regulations are obvious and all-consuming. Beyond the financial price penalties to taxpayers and consumers, Biden’s limitation of drilling permits, not just for oil and natural gas but also for uranium and minerals such as cobalt, has artificially capped the job growth of the energy sector. Hence, deregulation should not be understood primarily as a means of deficit reduction — which would be no small feat when the simple cost of paying interest on the national debt is up 42% in one year — but as a tool of economic growth overall. One study by Dutch economists found that reducing administrative costs by 25% results in a 1.4% increase in annual economic growth, while Portuguese economists discerned that legal deregulations can boost total factor productivity, a crucial economic input in a shrinking population, by 0.6%. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM RESTORING AMERICA While Biden has benefited from rebound responses to the pandemic keeping gross domestic product growth artificially high, the Federal Reserve’s unilateral war on inflation shows signs of significantly slowing that economic growth as the election looms closer. And while any successor to Biden has a moral mandate to save entitlements from their points of bankruptcy in the next nine years and reduce our deficit from consecutive annual amounts of $2 trillion, getting the regulatory regime out of the way is an easy start to relieve consumers and taxpayers. And, as was true when it was built up, deconstructing such a bureaucracy does not require a single vote by Congress., , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Federal-reserve-crash.webp, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Tiana Lowe Doescher,

President Joe Biden’s eleventh-hour withdrawal from his 2024 reelection bid has rendered the Democratic Party resigned to the reality that it is stuck with his persistently lackluster vice president. Despite the uphill battle against the ascendant former President Donald Trump, liberal cheerleaders in the press are determined to make Kamala Harris happen. Again.

You may know Harris as the cackling career politician who launched her state career running a full 10 points behind fellow California Democrats in 2010 — Harris won the attorney general race by less than 1 point — and who launched her presidential ambitions by flaming out of the 2020 contest before the Iowa caucuses. But our media betters are attempting to reintroduce Harris to the public for the umpteenth time as a “Gen Z meme queen,” consummate “Black girl next door,” and champion of minority voters everywhere who has gone “cringe to cool in 24 hours.”

It’s fully possible that Harris, who, unlike her boss, has the stamina to run an actual campaign, may indeed ingratiate herself among the young and nonwhite voters who have long comprised the backbone of the Democratic electorate. But even in polling released around and after Biden announced he was making way for Harris in 2024, the presumptive party presidential nominee still lags far behind Biden’s 2020 performance with those key demographics.

In 2020, Trump won just 8% of black voters, while Biden won 92%. But in the latest Economist-YouGov poll testing Harris and Trump against each other as well as other third-party candidates, 14% of black voters reported supporting Trump with just 63% of black respondents supporting Harris. In a two-way race, Trump’s support among black voters increases to 22%, and in another poll, NPR-PBS found that Trump garners the support of 34% of black voters.

In 2020, Biden won 59% of Hispanics and Trump another 38%, a marked increase from past generations of Republicans. In a multiway race, the Economist found that Trump again earns the support of 38% of Hispanics but Harris’s support craters to just 44%. In a two-way race, Trump’s support surges to 41% in the Economist poll and 42% in a Yahoo News poll.

Trump earned the support of 35% of voters younger than 30 in 2020, while Biden won 59%. In a multiway race, Harris’s support measured by the Economist falls to 49% with under-30s, and in a two-way matchup polled by CNN, Harris earns the support of just 47% of voters aged 18 to 34, while Trump earns 43%.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Polls are indeed a mere snapshot in time. Maybe coconut memes and hanging out with Hollywood stars with help pave the way for Harris’s success among the young and nonwhite voters she requires to win the Electoral College. But Trump has already begun the realignment of the Latino vote, and if he indeed won the 21% of black voters who reported supporting him in a CBS poll, it would mark the single-best Republican performance with black voters since Richard Nixon’s 1960 loss to JFK.

Such a realignment would shatter the Democratic coalition in a way that might require the party to recreate its strategy from scratch. Harris indeed has the tools and the ability to show voters that she can work to earn their votes. But even the relatively young first black and first Asian vice president in the nation’s history is lagging far, far behind her octogenarian white boss just four years ago.

2024-07-24 20:23:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fopinion%2F3097899%2Fdespite-media-hype-kamala-harris-lags-bidens-2020-youth-minority-support%2F?w=600&h=450, President Joe Biden’s eleventh-hour withdrawal from his 2024 reelection bid has rendered the Democratic Party resigned to the reality that it is stuck with his persistently lackluster vice president. Despite the uphill battle against the ascendant former President Donald Trump, liberal cheerleaders in the press are determined to make Kamala Harris happen. Again. You may,

President Joe Biden’s eleventh-hour withdrawal from his 2024 reelection bid has rendered the Democratic Party resigned to the reality that it is stuck with his persistently lackluster vice president. Despite the uphill battle against the ascendant former President Donald Trump, liberal cheerleaders in the press are determined to make Kamala Harris happen. Again.

You may know Harris as the cackling career politician who launched her state career running a full 10 points behind fellow California Democrats in 2010 — Harris won the attorney general race by less than 1 point — and who launched her presidential ambitions by flaming out of the 2020 contest before the Iowa caucuses. But our media betters are attempting to reintroduce Harris to the public for the umpteenth time as a “Gen Z meme queen,” consummate “Black girl next door,” and champion of minority voters everywhere who has gone “cringe to cool in 24 hours.”

It’s fully possible that Harris, who, unlike her boss, has the stamina to run an actual campaign, may indeed ingratiate herself among the young and nonwhite voters who have long comprised the backbone of the Democratic electorate. But even in polling released around and after Biden announced he was making way for Harris in 2024, the presumptive party presidential nominee still lags far behind Biden’s 2020 performance with those key demographics.

In 2020, Trump won just 8% of black voters, while Biden won 92%. But in the latest Economist-YouGov poll testing Harris and Trump against each other as well as other third-party candidates, 14% of black voters reported supporting Trump with just 63% of black respondents supporting Harris. In a two-way race, Trump’s support among black voters increases to 22%, and in another poll, NPR-PBS found that Trump garners the support of 34% of black voters.

In 2020, Biden won 59% of Hispanics and Trump another 38%, a marked increase from past generations of Republicans. In a multiway race, the Economist found that Trump again earns the support of 38% of Hispanics but Harris’s support craters to just 44%. In a two-way race, Trump’s support surges to 41% in the Economist poll and 42% in a Yahoo News poll.

Trump earned the support of 35% of voters younger than 30 in 2020, while Biden won 59%. In a multiway race, Harris’s support measured by the Economist falls to 49% with under-30s, and in a two-way matchup polled by CNN, Harris earns the support of just 47% of voters aged 18 to 34, while Trump earns 43%.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Polls are indeed a mere snapshot in time. Maybe coconut memes and hanging out with Hollywood stars with help pave the way for Harris’s success among the young and nonwhite voters she requires to win the Electoral College. But Trump has already begun the realignment of the Latino vote, and if he indeed won the 21% of black voters who reported supporting him in a CBS poll, it would mark the single-best Republican performance with black voters since Richard Nixon’s 1960 loss to JFK.

Such a realignment would shatter the Democratic coalition in a way that might require the party to recreate its strategy from scratch. Harris indeed has the tools and the ability to show voters that she can work to earn their votes. But even the relatively young first black and first Asian vice president in the nation’s history is lagging far, far behind her octogenarian white boss just four years ago.

, President Joe Biden’s eleventh-hour withdrawal from his 2024 reelection bid has rendered the Democratic Party resigned to the reality that it is stuck with his persistently lackluster vice president. Despite the uphill battle against the ascendant former President Donald Trump, liberal cheerleaders in the press are determined to make Kamala Harris happen. Again. You may know Harris as the cackling career politician who launched her state career running a full 10 points behind fellow California Democrats in 2010 — Harris won the attorney general race by less than 1 point — and who launched her presidential ambitions by flaming out of the 2020 contest before the Iowa caucuses. But our media betters are attempting to reintroduce Harris to the public for the umpteenth time as a “Gen Z meme queen,” consummate “Black girl next door,” and champion of minority voters everywhere who has gone “cringe to cool in 24 hours.” It’s fully possible that Harris, who, unlike her boss, has the stamina to run an actual campaign, may indeed ingratiate herself among the young and nonwhite voters who have long comprised the backbone of the Democratic electorate. But even in polling released around and after Biden announced he was making way for Harris in 2024, the presumptive party presidential nominee still lags far behind Biden’s 2020 performance with those key demographics. In 2020, Trump won just 8% of black voters, while Biden won 92%. But in the latest Economist-YouGov poll testing Harris and Trump against each other as well as other third-party candidates, 14% of black voters reported supporting Trump with just 63% of black respondents supporting Harris. In a two-way race, Trump’s support among black voters increases to 22%, and in another poll, NPR-PBS found that Trump garners the support of 34% of black voters. In 2020, Biden won 59% of Hispanics and Trump another 38%, a marked increase from past generations of Republicans. In a multiway race, the Economist found that Trump again earns the support of 38% of Hispanics but Harris’s support craters to just 44%. In a two-way race, Trump’s support surges to 41% in the Economist poll and 42% in a Yahoo News poll. Trump earned the support of 35% of voters younger than 30 in 2020, while Biden won 59%. In a multiway race, Harris’s support measured by the Economist falls to 49% with under-30s, and in a two-way matchup polled by CNN, Harris earns the support of just 47% of voters aged 18 to 34, while Trump earns 43%. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER Polls are indeed a mere snapshot in time. Maybe coconut memes and hanging out with Hollywood stars with help pave the way for Harris’s success among the young and nonwhite voters she requires to win the Electoral College. But Trump has already begun the realignment of the Latino vote, and if he indeed won the 21% of black voters who reported supporting him in a CBS poll, it would mark the single-best Republican performance with black voters since Richard Nixon’s 1960 loss to JFK. Such a realignment would shatter the Democratic coalition in a way that might require the party to recreate its strategy from scratch. Harris indeed has the tools and the ability to show voters that she can work to earn their votes. But even the relatively young first black and first Asian vice president in the nation’s history is lagging far, far behind her octogenarian white boss just four years ago., , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/kamala-harris-donald-trump-2024-election-joe-biden-july.webp, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Tiana Lowe Doescher,