Wednesday, October 09, 2024

 

America Is So Ready for Kamala Harris

Imagine, for just a moment, if Kamala Harris’s supporters were prone to the sort of political idolatry that characterizes Donald Trump’s devotees. It’s a thought experiment suited to an election for which the word historic feels inadequate to capture either Harris’s political ascent or the sheer number of unprecedented events that led to it. There is the aberration of Trump, the twice-impeached, feloniously convicted, rape-adjudicated former president—a bitter old racist returned for a third time to usher in the white supremacist autocracy that his attempted coup failed to. In any election, President Joe Biden’s age and enfeeblement since taking office would have been an issue of concern, but under the threat of Trumpism, Biden’s disastrous debate performance jettisoned the false narrative that he alone was a bulwark for democracy. Harris—elected in 2020 as the first woman, first Black, and first South Asian vice president because her résumé of legislative and prosecutorial public service made her uniquely suited for the job—should have been recognized as a better candidate than both of those men from the start. And yet, as Biden’s post-debate numbers waned and Trump’s bandaged ear crystallized his MAGA martyrdom, but her unpopularity became a tired echo of 2016’s but her emails. The commentariat, which began sowing doubts about Harris’s viability nearly as soon as she assumed the vice presidency, even floated other names for consideration as Biden’s exit became increasingly probable. Minyon Moore, chair of the Democratic National Convention, said she watched with “fascination” as the media spun a tale she always knew was divorced from reality.

“The rules dictated a lot. What they did not understand was the rules,’’ Moore told me. “First of all, she campaigned for two years with Joe Biden. She raised money for Joe Biden. She took no shortcuts. What they were trying to do was put in place a process that did not exist…. Those 4,000 delegates literally voted for Joe Biden—but they also voted for his ticket. And she was a part of that ticket.”

When Biden, a record-breaking 107 days before the election, finally left the race and endorsed Harris, the act unexpectedly unleashed an outpouring of enthusiasm and joy, emotions rarely associated with politics in recent years. The mood shift not only proved Harris’s naysayers wrong but also revealed how Biden’s frailty and Trump’s darkness had drained the party to sepia tones. Harris’s run, quite unexpectedly, infused it with color and light again. If the left had the same sanctification tendencies as the Trumpian right, the improbable events leading to Harris’s nomination might have been cast as divine intervention—Jesus taking the wheel, only to hand the keys to Harris, so she might steer America away from Trumpism and back onto a righteous road.

But the Democratic Party is not a cult of personality, a fact proved by Biden’s withdrawal. Harris’s run produced a jubilance incomparable to anything seen since at least Barack Obama’s first run, and it may even have eclipsed that. Within hours of becoming the presumptive nominee, Harris was buoyed by organizers who had begun laying the groundwork for her run years before. A Zoom organized by Win With Black Women drew 44,000 participants, an unprecedented number that required the site’s engineers to increase capacity. The call ultimately raised $1.5 million in just three hours. At least a dozen other calls followed—South Asian Women for Harris, Win With Black Men, White Women: Answer the Call—each enlisting volunteers and strategizing for a Harris win. In mid-September, Voto Latino reported a 200 percent surge in its voter registrations since the day Harris replaced Biden. A senior analyst at TargetSmart, a data research firm, reported that registrations are up more than 85 percent among Black voters overall and a staggering 98 percent among Black women. Potential youth voters increased most impressively. In 13 states, registrations have gone up nearly 176 percent and 150 percent among 18- to 29-year-old Black and Hispanic women, respectively. Taylor Swift’s much-anticipated endorsement of Harris, which came moments after Harris thrashed Trump in the debate, drove “a 400 or 500 percent increase” in people going to vote.gov to register, according to a TargetSmart analyst. What’s more, young Democrats are 14 percent more enthusiastic about voting than their Republican counterparts. While party killjoys such as David Axelrod suggested Democrats were feeling “irrational exuberance,” and James Carville chastised their “giddy elation,” organizers were getting down to work and galvanizing people to get Harris elected. Those on the ground, doing the real heavy lifting, helped consolidate support for Harris, building a campaign powered not from the top down, but from the grassroots up.


How Harris Seized Her Moment

Of course, none of this would have happened if Harris hadn’t proved herself so ready to meet the moment. First and foremost, she and her team did a masterful job of staying out of the way while Biden deliberated. Even as rumors swirled around her, Harris kept her head down and remained “completely loyal to this administration,” to quote Moore. There were no leaks that suggested she was secretly angling for the boss’s job, no little hints that she wanted to push the old guy down the stairs. And then, on Sunday, July 21, after Biden’s announcement, Harris hunkered down with her team, working her way through a who’s who list of Democratic bigwigs. Within the first 10 hours, she had made roughly 100 calls, per The New York Times, nailing down endorsements and support from former presidents, members of Congress, and labor union and civil rights players from the Democratic coalition. Some of those relationships had likely been forged over the last year, during which Harris led administration outreach efforts on LGBTQ rights, gun reform, and Black civil and voting rights, and as she engaged with young voters on college campuses. Even before Roe v. Wade was struck down by the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority, Harris had become recognized as a forceful defender of reproductive freedom, attending abortion rights rallies and even becoming the first sitting vice president to visit an abortion clinic.

On Sunday, July 21, after Biden’s announcement, Harris hunkered down with her team, working her way through a who’s who list of Democratic bigwigs. Within the first 10 hours, she had made roughly 100 phone calls, nailing down endorsements and support from former presidents, members of Congress, and labor union and civil rights players from the Democratic coalition.

Aimee Allison, founder of She the People, an organization dedicated to helping elect women of color, emphasized Harris’s role as a liaison to those marginalized communities. “Her presence in the White House has been critical for constituencies who, frankly, didn’t have much access during Trump’s years. She made sure to play a very important convening role, welcoming groups who now are coming forward as part of the Kamala Harris coalition, organizing themselves,” Allison told me. “The respect that she’s shown to many, many groups—and she’s now seeing the results of this kind of politicking.”

It would be absurd to ignore the all-hands-on-deck efforts of a massive, dedicated Democratic machine working at full capacity to ensure a flawless transition. But Harris, during what one veteran strategist labeled “a perfect 48 hours,” deserves credit for stewarding the ship and keeping the operation steady. “The seamlessness of Ms. Harris’s ascent,” the Times reported, “impressed a range of party leaders after years of private sniping and second-guessing of her political skills.” Not for the first time, an underestimated Harris demonstrated a level of agility, skill, and savvy in keeping the campaign running with nary a misstep. Choosing Minnesota Governor Tim Walz as her running mate was yet another canny move.

Just as the inside game was expertly played, the outside game, the part visible to the electorate, may have been even stronger. Much has been made of Harris’s rallies—the lines forming hours before start time and snaking for blocks, the exuberant multiracial crowds dancing to music from the last decade (for which Harris-Walz campaign will not be sued), the supporters who appear rapt instead of driven to “exhaustion and boredom.” Yes, size matters, but not in the way Trump thinks. It’s a sign that momentum is on Harris’s side. But it’s also a testament to how her candidacy has brought together a diverse swath of voters who share an eagerness to get beyond the toxic divisions that have plagued the country since the rise of MAGA. For nearly a decade, Trump’s rallies have been hate contagions, their poisonous us-versus-them serum infecting the entire body politic. It’s been such a relief to witness the palpable joy of Harris’s audiences, a reflection of the campaign’s tone—a kind of uplifting feedback loop between the candidate and her supporters. A Harris presidency offers the opportunity to step out of the darkness of Trumpism into a sunny, expansive future that welcomes all. It’s the difference between staring mournfully backward and looking hopefully ahead, a task anathema to an embittered Trump, and one that a well-meaning but aged Biden could not quite muster the energy to pull off.

The very idea of patriotism is transformed when advanced by a Black, biracial daughter of immigrants. There is a sense that what is actually being invoked is the progressive idea that this country belongs to all of us. The right-wingers don’t own patriotism. The flag, the chant, and the ideals they represent were never theirs alone to define.

In articulating their vision for the country, Harris and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz have moved rally and conventiongoers to wave U.S. flags and chant “U-S-A, U-S-A,” normally a rarity at Democratic events. Republicans have long taken a proprietary approach to the ideas of freedom, liberty, and patriotism, treating them as property rather than principles, wielding them like empty slogans with brand value (when you use the word “freedom” so promiscuously that you rename french fries “freedom fries” in congressional cafeterias, as GOP lawmakers did briefly after 9/11, you’ve cheapened a valuable word). Those chants and flags carry a completely different resonance at Harris’s rallies than when they are invoked, and weaponized, by MAGA throngs. The very idea of patriotism is transformed when advanced by a Black, biracial daughter of immigrants. There is the sense that what is actually being invoked is the progressive idea that this country belongs to all of us. The right-wingers don’t own patriotism; in fact, they have presented a corrupt and exclusionary version of it. The flag, the chant, and the ideals they represent were never theirs alone to define. There’s something deeply powerful in reclaiming these symbols—in showing they can represent a diverse, forward-looking vision of the country rather than just a nostalgic one. This is a genuine show of patriotism—neither jingoistic nor nationalistic, but rooted in a deep love for the country and the belief that there is still work to be done.

“I’m of the notion that you can love something, critique it, and help to make it better, all at the same time. I think that has often been Black America’s relationship with America. We love our country just as much as anybody else, but we’ve often had to ask the question, does our country love us the same?” Jotaka Eaddy, founder of Win With Black Women, told me. “In this moment, we feel that, at least as it relates to breaking and shattering the barriers related to our representation, I think we’re continuing to see those barriers broken.”

She cited Langston Hughes’s famous poem I, Too, published in 1926—during the Harlem Renaissance, but long before Black Americans, even in New York City, enjoyed anything close to equality:

I, too, sing America.
I am the darker brother.
They send me to eat in the kitchen
When company comes,
But I laugh,
And eat well,
And grow strong.
Tomorrow,
I’ll be at the table
When company comes.
Nobody’ll dare
Say to me,
“Eat in the kitchen,”
Then.
Besides,
They’ll see how beautiful I am
And be ashamed—
I, too, am America.

“I think we, too, sing America,” Eaddy told me.


Generational Change and the Politics of Boomerism

Perhaps a factor in the excitement accompanying Harris’s rise is the sense that her candidacy may usher in a long-awaited generational shift in Democratic politics. Loosening the viselike grip of gerontocratic boomerism has also proved that there is an updated way campaigns can be run. If the 2016 election was all about how the “left can’t meme”—the mantra of alt-right shit-posters and 4chan edgelords who helped elect Trump—the 2024 election so far has been about Harris dominating the internet. From the outset, the campaign has made smart decisions, embracing the coconut memes and lime-green Brat color schemes. Its Taylor Swift–inspired friendship bracelets, made available shortly after the singer’s endorsement, quickly sold out. It’s funny to think that, should Harris win the election, Republicans will deserve just the teeniest nano-bit of credit for helping her get elected. It was the Republican National Convention, after all, that repackaged old clips of Harris in an effort to embarrass her. Instead, those images of Harris laughing and quoting her mother humanized her, before Trump’s racist and sexist attacks could begin to corrupt her image.

It goes beyond coconut memes. Consider how videos of Harris and Walz chatting about beloved albums and taco recipes did more to provide a portrait of the candidates on their own terms than so many Republican talking points disguised as gotcha interview questions. In the early days of the shortest U.S. presidential campaign in modern history, the pair’s ability to present themselves directly to voters was an incredible asset. That’s not to say Harris can ride social media alone to a win, but it’s certainly better than passively leaving the task to the media. Perhaps it took a campaign headed by a woman who was born after the invention of color television and Hula-Hoops, and who first won elective office in 2003, as the internet age was bursting into full flower, to understand the true direct-to-voter value of social media. Obama, also born after rock and roll was invented, is often called “the first social media president,” a label that fits to a certain degree. But during his inaugural and incumbent runs in 2008 and 2012, no social media sites had the audience or influence enjoyed by platforms today. Roughly 170 million Americans are currently on TikTok, which is used by almost two-thirds of Americans younger than 30, Pew Research reports, and nearly 40 percent of Americans under age 50. Both there and on the platform formerly known as Twitter—which since Elon Musk’s takeover has become a cesspool of right-wing misinformation, bots, and talking points too vile to dignify here—the KamalaHQ account trolls Trump, slices up humiliating Trump and JD Vance clips to repurpose as campaign ads on the fly, fact-checks Trump’s debate lies, boosts its favorable news content, and does a far better job than the mainstream media does of highlighting the madness of Trump and his MAGA acolytes in real time.


Illustration of Kamala Harris

It’s inspiring to see a Democratic Party that’s finally stopped volunteering its lunch money to bad-faith actors and insecure clowns. Likewise, the Harris team’s trolling of Trump online, and her face-to-face IRL baiting of his insecurities—demonstrated with such aplomb at the debate—have been delightful to watch. Calling Trump “dangerous,” “a bully,” or “a strongman” only emboldens him. He’s been curating an image as a tough guy since the 1980s, and he thrives, above all else, on being feared. But Trump isn’t powerful or strong. He’s a trust fund kid from Queens who weaponized his daddy issues into everyone else’s problem. Elevating him to strongman status only played into MAGA’s Trump-aggrandizing game. Perhaps a generation of Democrats from another era remain obsessed with civility, but sometimes you have to meet your opponents where they are—on the low road, where they’ve built a detour to electoral wins. Get on that road, knock them off it, and make sure you snap a pic of them falling so you can caption it and share it on your socials.

Harris seems to get this; hence the green light she’s given to a crack team of Gen Z staffers, who have approached attention-grabbing so differently than Biden did. Her campaign knows, for better or worse, that this election is about playing the attention game—a game Trump essentially created in his own image. Beating him at it is critical. Harris can’t meme her way to victory, but we’ve reached a point where capturing the American public’s attention is, in itself, a key part of winning. Part of that is knowing how to navigate online culture—and, more importantly, knowing how to push back hard when necessary, and using the digital town square to your advantage. For the first time, this year’s DNC credentialed more than 200 digital content creators. Among these was Brandy Star Merriweather, founder of BStarPR and a social media influencer who has used her platform to help engage fellow Gen Zers with Harris’s campaign.

“I love that the memes have been able to reach a demographic who may not be involved in politics or care to read it, but then they can look at a meme and kind of understand.... It’s beneficial to people who may not be in that world all the time hearing about policy,” Merriweather told me. “They are breaking down solutions in a way that anyone can consume. And I think doing it on social media, we’re quick—we love things quick, we love things that are pretty funny and witty. I’ve not seen a candidate do that before.”

Finally, the campaign’s approach on all these fronts is different from its predecessors because the electorate—the important question of who now constitutes “the people”—is different. In some ways, quite literally. An estimated 20 million baby boomers have died over the last eight years. In the same period, around 32 million young people have come of voting age, with nearly half of Gen Z voters identifying as people of color. This is a country that has grown Blacker, browner, and gayer than it was in 2016, the last time a woman appeared at the top of the ticket. The white backlash that has defined the era since Trump arrived has been challenged by progressive activism including #MeToo, Black Lives Matter, and the kind of women-led political organizing that helped elevate Harris’s candidacy.

All this is to say that while the country may not be as far along as many of us would hope, it is in a different place than it was eight years ago. If Harris has not touted her “firstness” as much as Hillary Clinton did, it is perhaps because she does not have to. The convention-breaking nature of her candidacy is apparent both in who she is as an embodied person and in what she stands for in terms of politics, morals, and outlook. Harris is able to personalize messaging about abortion, civil rights, gender equality, and more far better than Biden ever could. She represents so much more accurately who this country is today. We don’t need to yearn for a fictional yesteryear—to make America great again—because this is a better America we live in NOW.


Black Women Make History

America may very well be “the greatest democracy in the history of the world,” as Harris declared at the convention, but our democracy has also been terribly flawed by a legacy of exclusion and, often, plain old cruelty and sadism. The Founding Fathers’ so-called democratic vision was myopically limited by both white supremacy and patriarchy. And while we have made slow, painful steps toward inclusive democracy, each advance has been met by violent opposition and retrenchment. In nearly 250 years of American history, only one white woman has clinched a major party’s nomination, and the procession of white males into the Oval Office was disrupted by a Black man only once. Trump, in fact, was elected president by those seeking reassurance that Obama’s presidency neither heralded a turn to multiracial democracy nor diminished the enduring privileges of white mediocrity. In the split screen that was so often on display during the September 10 debate, Harris’s assured competence, in contrast to the sputtering incompetence of Trump—a man who after nine years could only hold up the “concepts of a plan” like so much sand running through his fingers—was a perfect encapsulation of a Black woman being twice as good as a white guy to get the same job.

Harris is no stranger to these presumptions. Amid the veepstakes of 2020, she was criticized as “too ambitious” for the role, which is another way of saying she “didn’t seem to know her place.” A mere six months into her vice presidency, outlets including Business Insider, The Washington Post, and Politico began publishing articles depicting the vice president as “a bully” who wasn’t diligent enough “to do the prep and the work”—but also—an “over-prepared” perfectionist who “berated” staff who didn’t meet her lofty standards. (One Biden staffer called it “a whisper campaign designed to sabotage her.”) An op-ed from The Hill written way back in November 2021 claimed she’d be “a 2024 problem for Biden and the Democrats,” calling her “an unpopular sharp-tongued incumbent female vice president.” And just recently, The Washington Post ran a piece suggesting that a potential shortcoming for Harris was her “demanding management style,” including her prosecutorial habit of “asking pointed questions” of staff. This included a former staffer’s lament that it was “stressful to brief her, because she’s read all the materials, has annotated it, and is prepared to talk through it.” You cannot imagine these criticisms lodged against a man because that is not a thing that happens. Make America Competent Again, I say.

Harris’s candidacy and her effort are in keeping with the persistent resolve of Black Americans—particularly Black women—to push America toward fulfilling its democratic ideals. It was Win With Black Women, a collective of prominent Black women formed in 2020 to elevate the image of Black women and support their pursuit of political office, that got the fundraising ball rolling, encouraging the parade of affinity groups that followed. Some moments have even seemed imbued with historical resonance. The night of August 22, when Harris appeared at the Democratic National Convention to accept the presidential nomination, marked 60 years to the day that civil rights activist Fannie Lou Hamer delivered a blistering and rule-changing speech at the 1964 convention in Atlantic City.

Hamer, co-founder of the interracial Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party, led the delegation to that convention to contest the seating of her home state’s all-white, segregationist delegation. In her searing testimony before the DNC’s Credentials Committee, Hamer detailed the horrific violence and abuses inflicted upon her by state-backed white aggressors for daring to vote. Hamer had been fired from her job and evicted from her home, and the Ku Klux Klan fired 16 bullets into the home where she sought refuge from the violence. (“The only thing they could do to me was to kill me,” she would tell a later interviewer, “and it seemed like they’d been trying to do that a little bit at a time ever since I could remember.”) After attending a workshop to learn how to register other Black Mississippians, she was arrested and thrown in the county jail, where she was beaten with billy clubs and sexually assaulted. She suffered permanent bodily damage, including the worsening of a limp resulting from a childhood bout with polio, a blood clot behind her eye that eventually left her nearly blind, and severe kidney damage. “All of this is on account we want to register,” Hamer noted in her speech, “to become first-class citizens.

”President Lyndon B. Johnson had already tried to muzzle Hamer through various advisers. In the middle of her testimony, he called an impromptu press conference to divert television cameras. But network news shows broadcast Hamer’s speech in full during prime time, effectively giving her a far bigger audience than if it had aired live. “I question America,” Hamer concluded. “Is this America, the land of the free and the home of the brave, where we have to sleep with our telephones off the hooks because our lives are threatened daily because we want to live as decent human beings in America?”

An illustration showing the mountain of influences that led to Kamala Harris's run for the presidency. Includes images of Coretta Scott King, Barbara Jordan, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Shirley Chisholm, Kamala Harris, Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, Zora Neale Hurston, and Ida B. Wells

Hamer would be elected as a delegate to the 1972 convention in Miami, the same year that Shirley Chisholm became the first Black woman to seek a major party’s nomination. Chisholm, who like Harris was both of West Indian descent and was the child of immigrants, had been the first Black woman elected to Congress in 1968. Four years later, without waiting for backing from a Democratic Party machine she knew would never come, Chisholm launched a campaign that was both truly independent and disruptive. “I am not the candidate of any political bosses or fat cats or special interests,” she stated in her announcement speech, delivered at one of the oldest Black churches in her hometown of Brooklyn, New York. Though she had expected to run up against the commingled toxicity of anti-Black racism and misogyny, or misogynoir, Chisholm was nonetheless disappointed by the lack of support she received from the overwhelmingly white, mainstream feminist movement, or Black civil rights figures. Neither the National Women’s Political Caucus nor the Congressional Black Caucus, both groups that Chisholm had co-founded, endorsed her, essentially citing pragmatism over principles, and a desperate need to beat Richard Nixon. Notably, Hamer boasted of voting for Chisholm on the first ballot, stating, “Men couldn’t have talked about the real issues in this country the way she did. They bow to political pressure, but Chisholm didn’t bow to anyone. She’s a great person, a Black person, and a great woman, and she’s working for the kinds of change that the National Women’s Political Caucus is working for. With the woman’s vote and the youth vote—far more than 50 percent—we can have a candidate like Chisholm in the White House one day.”

Chisholm would later write in her memoir, The Good Fight: “I ran for the presidency, despite hopeless odds, to demonstrate the sheer will and refusal to accept the status quo…. The next time a woman runs, or a Black, or a Jew or anyone from a group that the country is ‘not ready’ to elect to its highest office, I believe that he or she will be taken seriously from the start…. I ran because someone had to do it first. In this country everybody is supposed to be able to run for president, but that’s never really been true.”

Harris has nodded to that lineage. In her 2020 vice presidential victory speech, she paid tribute to the “women who fought and sacrificed so much for equality, and liberty, and justice for all,” paying specific homage to Black women, “who are too often overlooked, but so often prove that they are the backbone of our democracy.” She has embraced this debt throughout her life, and it is imbued in her biography. Alpha Kappa Alphas like Coretta Scott King and Toni Morrison. Divine Nine icon Barbara Jordan. Howard alums from Zora Neale Hurston to Toni Morrison to Thurgood Marshall. Her citation of these figures, all liberatory leaders who have made this union slightly less imperfect, is recognition of the shoulders on which she, and so many of us, stand.


What Comes Next

Three weeks out from voting day, if there’s anything that this campaign should have taught us, it’s that it’s impossible to predict what the final stretch will look like. Trump is desperate, and thus capable of anything, a prospect that is terrifying but in keeping with who he has always been. Perhaps there will be missteps from Harris, who needs to strengthen her support among noncollege voters. And some major external event could derail things at the last minute.

But we know this already: America, just as Shirley Chisholm hoped, is more than ready for Kamala Harris. From its inception, Harris’s campaign has been powered by the people. The surge in voter registrations, the grassroots organizers hitting the pavement, the supporters who have filled her rallies to capacity—all of these are a testament to the movement behind her campaign, which is driven from the ground up.

This is no ordinary campaign, but it’s exactly the campaign that we needed at this extraordinary moment. In it, there is the potential for an America brought a little closer to giving everyone a place at the table. Most Americans, I truly believe, would love to see an end to MAGA. Harris, along with millions of energized supporters, has the potential to shape a more promising future. Within that, a rejection of revanchist politics, a renewed push toward progress, and full-throated assertion—yet again—that we are not going back.

Lindsey Graham Compared Mar-a-Lago to North Korea: Bob Woodward

LONG LIVE THE GREAT LEADER

David Gardner
Tue, October 8, 2024 


Susan Walsh/Getty Images

One of Donald Trump’s closest confidantes has compared the former president’s Mar-a-Lago Florida estate to North Korea, according to an upcoming book by Watergate journalist Bob Woodward.

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) reportedly said: “Going to Mar-a-Lago is a little bit like going to North Korea. Everybody stands up and claps every time Trump comes in.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham (L) says people get to their feet and clap at Mar-a-Lago whenever Donald Trump walks in.
Win McNamee

Graham is quoted as saying that Biden won the 2020 election “fair and square,” but “Trump doesn’t like to hear that.”

A Trump supporter and “golfing buddy”, Graham has tried to give the GOP nominee advice for his 2024 campaign, writes Woodward in his book, War.

“You’ve got a problem with moderate women. The people that think that the earth is flat and we didn’t go to the moon, you’ve got them. Let that go,” he is said to have told Trump after the midterm elections.

CNN has obtained a copy of the book and it quotes Woodward as writing that Graham urged Trump not to dwell on his loss to Joe Biden in the 2020 election, telling him that if he returns to the White House “then January 6 won’t be your obituary.”

Trump allegedly called Graham a few days later to proudly exclaim: “I gave a speech today and I only mentioned the 2020 election twice!”

Woodward also writes about a March meeting between Graham and Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman when the South Carolina senator suggested calling Trump.

Woodward claims in his book that bin Salman ordered an aide to bring over a bag containing about 50 burner phones and pulled one out with the label, “TRUMP 45.” Another one was supposedly tagged with the name of Biden’s National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan.

The Trump campaign did not comment specifically on the excerpts about Lindsey Graham, but communications director Steven Cheung said: “None of these made up stories by Bob Woodward are true and are the work of a truly demented and deranged man who suffers from a debilitating case of Trump Derangement Syndrome.”

Cheung added: “President Trump gave him absolutely no access for this trash book that either belongs in the bargain bin of the fiction section of a discount bookstore or used as toilet tissue. “

 Daily Beast.
France’s minority government survives a no-confidence vote, 2 weeks after taking office

SYLVIE CORBET
Updated Tue, October 8, 2024 


PARIS (AP) — France’s minority government survived a no-confidence vote on Tuesday, two weeks after taking office, getting over the first hurdle placed by left-wing lawmakers to bring down new conservative Prime Minister Michel Barnier.

The vote was a key test for Barnier, whose Cabinet is forced to rely on the far right’s good will to be able to stay in power, as the nation grapples with economic challenges exacerbated by global inflation.

The no-confidence motion was brought by a left-wing coalition, the New Popular Front, composed of the hard-left France Unbowed, Socialists, Greens and Communists. It received 197 votes, far from the 289 votes needed to pass.


Following the June-July parliamentary elections, the National Assembly, France’s powerful lower house of parliament, is divided into three major blocs: the New Popular Front, Macron’s centrist allies and the far-right National Rally party. None of them won an outright majority.

The far-right National Rally group, which counts 125 lawmakers, abstained from voting the no-confidence motion. Far-right leader Marine Le Pen, herself a lawmaker, said she decided to “give a chance” to the government for now.

Barnier’s Cabinet is mostly composed of members of his Republicans party and centrists from French President Emmanuel Macron’s alliance who altogether count just over 210 lawmakers.

Left-wing lawmakers denounced the choice of Barnier as prime minister as they were not given a chance to form a minority government, despite securing the most seats at the National Assembly. This government “is a denial of the result of the most recent legislative elections,” the motion read.

Olivier Faure, head of the Socialist Party, denounced a “democratic hijacking,” adding that “on July 7, it was the New Popular Front that came out on top.”

Barnier strongly rejected Faure's accusations his government is “illegitimate.”

“I don’t need the government to be reminded it’s a minority one,” Barnier said. “Nobody has an absolute majority.”

The new government is soon to face its biggest challenge as Barnier made a priority of remedying France’s indebted public finances.

“The reality we have to tell the French is that we are spending too much… This cannot go on,” Barnier said.

“We must fix the (state) budget, reduce our public spending, and we will indeed be asking for an exceptional tax from companies and the wealthiest French people... It’s always better to seek to be responsible rather than popular.”

France is under pressure from the European Union’s executive body to reduce its colossal debt.

The country was placed earlier this year by the EU's executive arm under a formal procedure for running up excessive debt, the first step in a long process before any member state can be hemmed in and moved to take corrective action.

In his inaugural speech to parliament last week, Barnier said he will seek to reduce France’s deficit from an estimated 6% of Gross Domestic Product now to 5% next year through a 60 billion ($66 billion) budget squeeze, with the aim to reach 3% by 2029.

To do so, he promised to cut state expenses, spend money more “efficiently” and fight tax evasion and other frauds.

The government is to formally present its 2025 budget bill on Thursday, ahead of an expected heated debated at parliament, as labor unions and left-wing opposition parties prepare to push back against some austerity measures.
A picture of her grief gripped the world. A year on, Gaza woman haunted by memories

Reuters
Sun, October 6, 2024 







FILE PHOTO: A Palestinian woman embraces the body of her niece

KHAN YOUNIS, Gaza (Reuters) - The Reuters photograph of Inas Abu Maamar, face buried in the shrouded body of her dead five-year-old niece Saly, was taken days after Israel began its military offensive on Gaza.

It has become one of the most vivid images of Palestinian suffering during the year-long bombing of Gaza, Israel's response to Hamas' Oct. 7 attack.

Saly was killed with her mother, baby sister, grandparents, uncle, aunt and three cousins. Since then, Abu Maamar, 37, has also lost her sister, killed along with her four children in an airstrike in northern Gaza.

Abu Maamar has moved three times to avoid bombing, at one point spending four months living in a tent. Today, she is back in her home in Khan Younis, in southern Gaza. Cracks run through the corrugated roof; a shower curtain covers a window-sized hole in the wall.

"We lost all hope in everything," said Abu Maamar, sitting amid rubble in the small graveyard by the family house. Beneath the debris, she said, lay Saly's grave.

"Even the grave was not safe."

Hamas' attack on Oct. 7 killed around 1,200 people in Israel, mostly civilians, and about 250 people were taken hostage, according to Israeli tallies.

Israel's campaign in Gaza, with the declared goal of wiping out Hamas, has since killed at least 41,500 people, mostly civilians, according to Palestinian health authorities.

Israel's military has said its bombardment of Gaza is necessary to crush Hamas, which it accuses of hiding among the general Palestinian population. Hamas denies this. Israel says it tries to reduce harm to civilians.

AIRSTRIKE

Before Oct. 7, Gaza had faced an extensive Israeli blockade following Hamas' takeover of the Palestinian territory in 2007. There was little work and imports were severely restricted but her family was settled, Abu Maamar said.

Abu Maamar lived with her husband near her brother Ramez' family, allowing her to spend much of her time with her nieces Saly and Seba and her nephew Ahmed.

As bombing intensified near the house after Oct. 7, Ramez sheltered with his family at his in-laws' about 1 km (0.6 miles) away. It was hit in an airstrike the next day.

When Abu Maamar heard she went straight to the Nasser hospital in Khan Younis. There she saw Ahmed, then 4, and grabbed him by the hand. She found Saly, dead, in the mortuary.

"I tried to wake her up. I couldn't believe she was dead," she said.

It was there that Reuters photographer Mohammed Salem took the picture of Abu Maamar cradling her dead niece, her body wrapped in a white sheet. The image was named World Press Photo of the year and won a Pulitzer Prize along with other Reuters images of the Oct. 7 attack and war in Gaza.

DISPLACEMENT

Israel said it had attacked 5,000 Hamas targets in Gaza from Oct. 7 until Oct. 17, the day of the airstrike that killed Saly. Palestinian health authorities said about 3,000 people had been killed by that point, including 940 children.

Israel's military did not respond to a request for comment on the strike that killed Saly.

In a comment six days after her death about the killing of another family in a different airstrike in Khan Younis, a spokesperson for Israel's military said: "Hamas has entrenched itself among the civilian population throughout the Gaza Strip. So wherever a Hamas target arises, the IDF will strike at it in order to thwart the terrorist capabilities of the group, while taking feasible precautions to mitigate the harm to uninvolved civilians."

By December, with Palestinian authorities saying the death toll in Gaza had topped 15,000 and Israel preparing to expand its ground assault to southern Gaza, Abu Maamar and other family members moved to Mawasi, a beach area where displaced people sought refuge in tents. They moved twice more as Israeli forces battled Hamas across the south, ordering civilians first from Khan Younis and then the city of Rafah.

Now back home, Abu Maamar says there is no point moving any more. She picked up Saly's favourite outfit, a black dress with traditional red Palestinian embroidery, and pressed it to her face.

"We are just waiting for the cascade of blood to stop."

(Reporting by Mohammed Salem; Writing by Angus McDowall; Editing by Janet Lawrence)
Investigation finds widespread discrimination against Section 8 tenants in California

Associated Press
Tue, October 8, 2024 

FILE - A boy walks past an apartment building as people gather around an inflatable waterslide during a birthday party at the Nickerson Gardens housing project in the Watts neighborhood of Los Angeles, Wednesday, June 10, 2020. (AP Photo/Jae C. Hong, File)


LOS ANGELES (AP) — California tenants who held Section 8 housing vouchers were refused rental contracts by more than 200 landlords, including major real estate firms, according to an undercover investigation that found widespread discrimination in the state.

The investigative nonprofit Housing Rights Initiative announced Tuesday that it has filed complaints with the California Civil Rights Department, alleging landlords violated a state law against denying leases to renters who pay with vouchers. It seeks penalties against 203 companies and individuals.

The nonprofit is also pushing for more state funding to adequately enforce the law, which Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom signed in 2019.


“This historic filing serves as an opportunity for the Governor and his housing enforcement agency to enforce the very bill he signed into law and hold violators accountable,” the Housing Rights Initiative said in a statement.

Newsom's office referred comment on the filing to the state Civil Rights Department. Rishi Khalsa, a department spokesperson, said the agency is “deeply committed to using the tools at its disposal to combat discrimination in housing.” The department has reached more than 200 settlements related to similar discrimination in recent years, Khalsa said.

“We always welcome additional support to strengthen enforcement of civil rights and we continue to work with a range of partners in those efforts,” he said in an email Tuesday.

The goal of the Section 8 program, named for a component of the federal Housing Act, is to keep rental properties affordable and prevent homelessness, which has reached crisis levels in California. Under the program, which has a long waiting list, tenants typically pay about 30% of their income on rent, with the voucher covering the rest.

Over the course of a year, undercover investigators posing as prospective tenants reached out via text messages to landlords, property managers and real estate agents to determine compliance with California's fair housing laws. The investigation found voucher holders were explicitly discriminated against 44% of the time in San Francisco. Voucher denials took place in 53% of cases in Oakland, 58% in San Jose, and 70% in Los Angeles.

In one text message exchange, an agent with EXP Realty, a national brokerage firm, tells an investigator posing as a prospective tenant that utilities are included in the monthly rate for a rental unit. When informed that the tenant has a Section 8 voucher, the agent responds, “I don't work with that program," according to the investigation.

In another exchange, a broker with Sotheby’s International Realty replies to an investigator posing as a hopeful renter, “Oh sorry, owner not accepting Section 8.”

Representatives for EXP and Sotheby's didn't immediately respond Tuesday to emails seeking comment on the claims.

Kate Liggett, program director of Housing Rights Initiative, estimates the filing represents just a fraction of discrimination against Section 8 tenants in California.

"By exposing this widespread and harmful practice, we call on the State to provide agencies like the California Civil Rights Department with the resources they need to eradicate voucher discrimination once and for all,” Liggett said in a statement.
US considers breakup of Google in landmark search case

Reuters Published October 9, 2024 

The US said on Tuesday it may ask a judge to force Alphabet’s Google to divest parts of its business, such as its Chrome browser and Android operating system, that it says are used to maintain an illegal monopoly in online search.

In a landmark case, a judge found in August that Google, which processes 90 per cent of US internet searches, had built an illegal monopoly.

The Justice Department’s proposed remedies have the potential to reshape how Americans find information on the internet while shrinking Google’s revenues and giving its competitors more room to grow.

“Fully remedying these harms requires not only ending Google’s control of distribution today, but also ensuring Google cannot control the distribution of tomorrow,” the Justice Department said.

The proposed fixes will also aim to keep Google’s past dominance from extending to the burgeoning business of artificial intelligence, prosecutors said.

The Justice Department might also ask the court to end Google’s payments to have its search engine pre-installed or set as the default on new devices.

Google has made annual payments — $26.3 billion in 2021 — to companies including Apple and other device manufacturers to ensure that its search engine remained the default on smartphones and browsers, keeping its market share strong.

Google, which plans to appeal, said in a corporate blog post that the proposals were “radical” and said they “go far beyond the specific legal issues in this case.”

Google maintains that its search engine has won users with its quality, adding that it faces robust competition from Amazon and other sites, and that users can choose other search engines as their default.

The world’s fourth-largest company with a market capitalization of over $2 trillion, Alphabet is under mounting legal pressure from competitors and antitrust authorities.

A US judge ruled on Monday in a separate case that Google must open up its lucrative app store, Play, to greater competition, including making Android apps available from rival sources.

Google is also fighting a Justice Department case that seeks the breakup of its web advertising business.

As part of its efforts to prevent Google’s dominance from extending into AI, the Justice Department said it may seek to make available to rivals the indexes, data and models it uses for Google search and AI-assisted search features.

Other orders prosecutors may seek include restricting Google from entering agreements that limit other AI competitors’ access to web content and letting websites opt out of Google using their content to train AI models.

Google said the AI-related proposals could stifle the sector.

“There are enormous risks to the government putting its thumb on the scale of this vital industry skewing investment, distorting incentives, hobbling emerging business models all at precisely the moment that we need to encourage investment,” Google said.

The Justice Department is expected to file a more detailed proposal with the court by Nov 20. Google will have a chance to propose its own remedies by Dec 20.

US District Judge Amit Mehta’s ruling in Washington was a major win for antitrust enforcers who have brought an ambitious set of cases against Big Tech companies over the past four years.

The US has also sued Meta Platforms, Amazon.com and Apple claiming they illegally maintain monopolies.

Some of the ideas in the Justice Department’s proposals to break up Google had previously garnered support from Google’s smaller competitors such as reviews site Yelp and rival search engine company DuckDuckGo.

Yelp, which sued Google over search in August, says spinning off Google’s Chrome browser and AI services should be on the table.

Yelp also wants Google to be prohibited from giving preference to Google’s local business pages in search results.

 Biden's grade on the economy jumps to an A



Rick Newman · Senior Columnist
Tue, October 8, 2024

President Joe Biden came into office in 2021 with a strong economy that gradually weakened as inflation hammered Americans’ purchasing power. With inflation now fading, the Biden economy is once again looking as solid as it did when Biden’s term first began.

Since July, the Biden economy has improved two notches on the Yahoo Finance Bidenomics Report Card, from a B+ to a solid A. That’s the same mark our report card gave the economy during Biden’s first month in office, in January 2021.

Our Bidenomics Report Card tracks six metrics using data provided by Moody’s Analytics: total employment, manufacturing employment, real earnings adjusted for inflation, exports, the stock market’s performance, and GDP growth per capita. In each of those categories, we compare performance under the current president with seven prior presidents going back to Jimmy Carter in the 1970s at the same point in their first term. (Here’s our full methodology.)

Compared with those prior presidents, the Biden economy is strongest in three out of six categories: employment, manufacturing employment, and GDP growth. The Biden economy is third out of eight in stock performance and second out of five in exports (that data only goes back to 1993).

The weakest mark for Biden has come in average hourly earnings, because high inflation in 2022 and 2023 eroded the value of a typical paycheck. For seven months in 2022, Biden’s score on earnings was the lowest of the eight presidents.

But inflation has dropped from a peak of 10% in 2022 to just 2.5% now, which is close to normal. Real earnings growth under Biden flipped from negative to positive earlier this year, meaning that wages are once again growing by more than inflation. Biden now ranks third out of eight on real earnings growth, which is the main thing pushing his grade up.

An A grade on our report card isn’t exactly the same as a great economy. Since we’re comparing the current president to recent predecessors, our grade only reflects how he’s doing relative to them. There can still be notable weaknesses, such as housing and food costs that remain too high for many families on a budget.

Still, our A grade is consistent with many other analyses of the current economy. Employers have created more than 16 million jobs under Biden, the most during any presidential term. Earlier this year, manufacturing employment hit a 16-year high. There hasn’t been a recession in more than four years, and Goldman Sachs recently lowered its 12-month recession odds from 20% to 15%, in line with the historical average.

There's also been a notable improvement in voter trust for Democrats on the economy since Vice President Kamala Harris replaced Joe Biden as the party's presidential candidate over the summer. In several polls, Harris's rating on the economy is higher than Biden's was just a few months ago. That could be because voters simply find Harris more engaging or accessible, or it could reflect actual improvements in the economy that ordinary people are starting to notice. Whatever the cause, it obviously comes at the right time for Harris, with Election Day less than a month off.

That makes comparisons between the Joe Biden and Donald Trump economies more important than any other past president. Biden is out, but Harris is still the incumbent responsible for the Democrats' record. Trump has his own record, dating to his own term as president, giving voters a backward-looking guide to whether Harris or Trump will be better for the economy.


The data gives Harris, via Biden, a clear edge in three categories and Trump an edge in two. You can see how the two compare by clicking on each tab in the charts above. The Biden-Harris economy is the blue line in each of the charts.

Biden outdoes Trump in total employment, manufacturing employment, and GDP growth. At this point in Trump’s term, the COVID pandemic had triggered a deep, if brief, recession, which damaged Trump’s economic numbers. But Biden did better in all three categories even if you only compare the first three years of each term, excluding COVID from Trump’s record.

Trump has done better on inflation and on real income growth, which is related to inflation. For voters who feel like the economy was better under Trump, that’s probably related to incomes that consistently rose by more than inflation, both before and after COVID.

US President Joe Biden arrives to speak about the Biden-Harris administration's progress in replacing lead pipes and creating well paying jobs in Milwaukee, Wisc., Oct. 8, 2024. (MANDEL NGAN/AFP via Getty Images) · MANDEL NGAN via Getty Images

Drop Rick Newman a notefollow him on X, or sign up for his newsletter.

On stock performance, Biden leads Trump by a bit at the moment, but they’ve gone back and forth on that. We don’t include exports among the charts above because it’s not intuitive to consumers, but Biden has a strong edge there too.

Overall, the highest grade Trump earned when we ran the Trumponomics Report Card — with the same methodology as the Biden project — was an A-. Trump ended his term with a C because of the COVID disruptions. Barring anything disastrous, Biden seems likely to end his term next January with a B+ or better, and he could sustain the A grade he enjoys now.


Partisans can come up with plenty of pet reasons why Biden or Trump is better for the economy. In reality, the US president has less control over the economy than many people think. The US economy is a gargantuan organism affected by thousands of inputs from all over the world, and presidential policies are a tiny fraction of those.

There’s an important caveat, however: the vast amount of fiscal and monetary stimulus Congress and the Federal Reserve enacted in 2020 and 2021 to jolt the economy out of a COVID depression. Most of that happened during Trump’s final year in office, which prevented the immediate downturn from being a lot worse. Much of that also carried into Biden’s term, powering spending, hiring, and growth beyond what it probably would have been otherwise.

Biden signed yet another stimulus bill into law after taking office in 2021, which juiced the economy even more. That also contributed to the inflation that became Biden’s biggest economic vulnerability. And voters seem to have punished Biden more for high inflation than they rewarded him for a booming job market. Biden’s approval rating sank as inflation went up, but it never recovered as inflation came down. That leaves Biden with a huge asterisk next to his accurate claim of the most jobs created under any presidential term.

Whatever voters remember about the Biden or Trump economies, the old investing maxim probably applies: Past results don’t guarantee future performance. The next president almost certainly won’t ride an economy gassed up by unprecedented stimulus measures the way Trump and Biden both did. During the next few years, the economy could be driven more by things Americans don't get to vote on than by the one they do.

Rick Newman is a senior columnist for Yahoo Finance. Follow him on X at @rickjnewman.
Column: A conservative think tank says Trump policies would crater the economy — but it's being kind


Michael Hiltzik
Tue, October 8, 2024 

If you are wired into the flow of campaign news — as I am, for my sins — you will be inundated this week with reports of a new analysis of the fiscal impact of the economic proposals of Donald Trump and Kamala Harris.

Long story short: Trump's would be much worse in terms of increasing the federal debt than Harris'. According to the study issued Monday by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, Harris' policies would expand the debt by $3.5 trillion over 10 years, Trump's by $7.5 trillion.

These are eye-catching figures, to be sure. They're also completely worthless for assessing the true economic effect of the candidates' proposals, for several reasons.

The disappearance of migrant workers...dries up local demand at grocery stories, leasing offices, and other nontraded services. The resulting blow to demand for all workers overwhelms the reduction in supply of foreign workers.

The Peterson Institute for International Economics, on Trump's deportation plan

One is the committee's single-minded, indeed simple-minded, focus on the direct effect of the proposals on the federal deficit and national debt. That's not surprising, because (as I've reported in the past) the CRFB was created to be a deficit scold, funded by the late hedge-fund billionaire Peter G. "Pete" Peterson.

For instance, the CRFB has been a consistent voice, as was Peterson, in campaigns to cut Social Security and Medicare benefits on the preposterous grounds that the U.S., the richest country on Earth, can't afford the expense. (Peterson's foundation still provides a significant portion of the committee's budget.)


This focus on the national debt and the federal deficit as a linchpin of economic policy dates back to the 1940s among Republicans and the 1970s among Democrats. Throughout that period it made policymaking more austere and left the country without the resources to combat real economic needs such as poverty while increasing inequality.

The harvest, as economist Brad DeLong of UC Berkeley has noted, was the rise of a policy that failed everyone but the rich. Trump would continue that policy; Harris would continue the Biden administration's effort to return the U.S. to a government that serves all the people.

Another problem with the analysis is that the candidates' proposals are inchoate — as the committee acknowledges. The committee cobbled together their purported platforms from written policy statements, social media posts, and dubious other sources and then absurdly claimed that its effort helped to "clarify [the] policy details."

The worst shortcoming of the CRFB's analysis is that it's hopelessly narrow. Its focus is on the first-order effects of the individual proposals on federal income and spending, without paying much attention to the dynamic economic effects of those policies. Would the policy spur more growth over time, or less?

The committee estimates the direct cost of Harris' proposal to extend and increase the health insurance subsidies created by the Affordable Care Act and improved by the Biden administration at $350 billion to $600 billion over 10 years; but what would be the gains in gross domestic product from reducing the cost of healthcare for the average household?
The committee barely even acknowledges that this is a salient issue. It says that in some of its estimates it accounts for "dynamic feedback effects on revenue and spending," but also says, "we do not account for possible changes in GDP resulting from the candidates’ policies."

The committee's treatment of Trump's tariff proposals demonstrate the vacuum at the heart of its analysis. It treats the income from Trump's proposal — a 10% to 20% tariff on most imported goods and 60% on Chinese imports — as a revenue gain for the federal budget. Economists are all but unanimous in regarding tariffs as a tax on American consumers, however — in other words, a tax transferring household income to the Treasury.
Donald Trump's economic policies would destroy economic growth, according to an expert analysis. (Peterson Institute for International Economics)

The committee writes: "Such a significant change to trade policy could have economic and geopolitical repercussions that go beyond what a standard tax model would estimate." As a result, "the true economic impact is hard to predict." Thanks for nothing.

Uncertainties about the details of the candidates' proposals resulted in laughably wide ranges in the committee's fiscal estimates. The effect on the deficit and debt of Harris' proposals is estimated at zero to $8.1 trillion over 10 years. For Trump's plans, the range is $1.45 trillion to $15.15 trillion. What are voters or policy makers supposed to do with those figures?

The CRFB also reports a "central" estimate for both — $3.5 trillion expansion of debt for Harris, $7.5 trillion for Trump — but doesn't say much about how it arrived at those figures, other than to say that sometimes it just split the difference between the high and low estimates, and sometimes relied on estimates of the individual proposals by the Congressional Budget Office and the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation.

I asked the CRFB to comment on the shortcomings listed above, but haven't received a response.

Despite all that, the CRFB analysis showed up on the morning web pages of major newspapers and other media coast-to-coast on Monday, as though its conclusions were credible, solid and bankable. (Here at The Times, we passed.)

Consider the CRFB's treatment of Trump's deportation policy, which he has called "largest deportation program in American history," affecting at least 11 million undocumented immigrants and millions more who are in the U.S. legally.


The committee says that might increase the deficit by anywhere from zero to $1 trillion over a decade, with a middle-of-the-road estimate of $350 billion — "chiefly," it said, "by reducing the number of people paying federal taxes." It also cites unspecified "additional economic effects of immigration."

The CRFB might have profited from reading an analysis of the deportation proposal produced in March by the Peterson Institute for International Economics, which was also funded by Pete Peterson but, staffed by economic eggheads with a wider intellectual horizon, tends to take a more intelligent approach to economic policy.

"The immigrants being targeted for removal are the lifeblood of several parts of the US economy," the institute observed. "Their deportation will ... prompt US business owners to cut back or start fewer new businesses, ... while scaling back production to reflect the loss of consumers for their goods."

Read more: Column: The Biden economy is booming. Why aren't Americans happier with it?


The institute cited estimates that a deportation program in effect from 2008 to 2014 cost the jobs of 88,000 U.S. native workers for ever one million unauthorized immigrant workers deported. Arithmetic tells us that, in those terms, deporting 11 million immigrants would cost the jobs of about 968,000 U.S. natives.

"The disappearance of migrant workers ... dries up local demand at grocery stores, leasing offices, and other nontraded services," the institute reported. "The resulting blow to demand for all workers overwhelms the reduction in supply of foreign workers."

The institute was a lot more free-spoken than the CRFB about the effect of Trump's proposed policies on economic growth. Considering only the deportations, tariffs, and Trump's desire to exercise more control over the Federal Reserve System, it concluded that by the end of Trump's term, U.S. GDP would be as much as 9.7% lower than otherwise, employment would fall by as much as 9%, and inflation would climb by as much as 7.4 percentage points.

An overly sedulous focus on deficit reduction as economic policy has caused "real harm [for] the nation's most vulnerable groups, including millions of debt-saddled and downwardly mobile Americans," economic historian David Stein of the Roosevelt Institute and UC Santa Barbara wrote last month. When it became Democratic orthodoxy under Presidents Carter and Clinton, the party pivoted to "'Reagan Democrats' and suburban white voters at the expense of the labor and civil rights movements."

As the federal government pulled back, "state budgets were ravaged," Stein wrote. State and local services were slashed. The efforts to control federal debt forced households to take on more debt.

The deficit scolds are still at it and still have vastly more credibility than they deserve. That's clear from the CRFB's analysis and the alacrity with which it was republished as "news" Monday. Efforts to turn policy back to the point that it benefits everyone, not just the rich, still have a long way to go in this country.

This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.