Connect with us

Politics

Trump, Harris blasted for ignoring exploding budget deficit, as economists plead with both to 'get real'

Published

on

Trump, Harris blasted for ignoring exploding budget deficit, as economists plead with both to 'get real'

Economists told Fox News Digital that the economic proposals former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris have put forward would continue to increase the nation’s already ballooning budget deficit, noting that neither candidate seems particularly concerned with fiscal responsibility.

Neither Trump nor Harris has released dedicated policy plans for addressing the nation’s deficit. Trump’s 16-point policy plan on his website mentions the word “deficit” once. 

Meanwhile, Harris’ economic platform does mention the deficit several times and says Harris is “committed” to fiscal responsibility, but only suggests increasing taxes on the wealthy and corporations as a solution.

“I think the reason neither candidate is really talking about fiscal responsibility is because neither candidate is fiscally responsible,” said Tax Foundation senior economist Erica York. “Both have left a lot of details unspecified, so there’s questions still about how Harris’s spending policies would stack up. Would Trump really repeal all of the green energy tax credits? Would he really impose all of the tariffs he’s promised?”

When asked what message York had for Trump and Harris when it comes to the deficit, she told them to “get real.”

Advertisement

HARRIS CALLS TRUMP ‘ONE OF THE BIGGEST LOSERS EVER’ DURING ECONOMY SPEECH IN KEY BATTLEGROUND

“We face several challenges on the fiscal policy front, from debt and deficits to the need to compete with China, to the need to encourage entrepreneurship and work, and neither of the tax policy visions being outlined right now really come close to providing an answer to those challenges,” York said.

Rep. Thomas Massie, a Republican from Kentucky, wears a homemade national debt clock pin on Capitol Hill on Jan. 26, 2023.

Meanwhile, Kimberly Clausing, an economist with the Peterson Institute for International Economics, echoed York’s concerns, adding that she “does not think there’s been enough attention on the deficit this campaign season.”

“I don’t know whether to blame the candidates or the American attention span,” Clausing said. “Candidates have an incentive to cater to what the population wants to listen to, but there doesn’t seem to be a big drumbeat in favor of fiscal responsibility. And that’s a big contrast from some prior elections in at least my lifetime, where that issue was much more prominent.”

Advertisement

So far, in fiscal year 2024, the government is running a cumulative deficit of $1.9 trillion, according to the Bipartisan Policy Center’s “Deficit Tracker.” 

Revenues, meanwhile, have increased 11% through last month. The revenue increase, according to the deficit tracker, is largely the result of an increase in individual and corporate taxes, higher interest rates and a 20% decrease in individual income tax refunds. Trump’s economic proposals include extending tax cuts, reducing the corporate tax rate and exempting tips, overtime pay and social security benefits from one’s taxable income. Despite his plan to generate revenue through tariffs and repealing green energy tax credits, economists say it will not be enough to balance out the lost revenues from Trump’s tax cuts and other economic proposals.

Research from the Tax Foundation, a tax policy nonprofit in the nation’s capital, estimated that Trump’s deficit impact would be roughly a $4 trillion increase over ten years.

TRUMP, HARRIS SPENDING PLANS COULD WEIGH ON THE US ECONOMY, ANALYSIS SHOWS

However, according to Heritage Foundation economist Richard Stern, it is government spending and not tax cuts that are the real culprit when it comes to the ballooning deficit.  

Advertisement

“Though tax cuts can increase the deficit, it returns that money to the people that earned it. Deficit increases from more spending, on the other hand, means that the government is stealing even more and suppressing growth even more intensely,” Stern said. “Deficits created by way of tax cuts and spending increases are not the same. Tax cuts grow the economy and shrink deficits as a share of the economy, whereas more spending strangles the economy and stunts growth.”

The Treasury Department is seen near sunset in Washington. (AP Photo/Jon Elswick, File)

The Biden-Harris administration’s fiscal year 2024 budget proposed the highest sustained levels of spending in U.S. history, according to Republicans on the House Budget Committee. The committee also pointed out that the administration’s plan to add $82.2 trillion in spending over ten years, is 18% more than the historical average of the past half century.  

Since becoming the Democratic Party’s official nominee for president, Harris has said she will provide $25,000 housing subsidies for first-generation home buyers, implement $100 billion in tax credits for the manufacturing sector and increase small business tax credits by tenfold. She has also suggested support for increasing government spending to support families’ child care needs, while also expanding the child tax credit, among other proposals.

Overall, the Tax Foundation calculated that Harris would grow the deficit by roughly $1.5 trillion over ten years. 

Advertisement

BIDEN PLEDGES $7.3B IN ‘CLEAN ENERGY’ SPENDING WITH NATIONAL DEBT AT $35T

Among the deleterious downstream effects of an ever-growing deficit, according to Clausing, are increased interest rates and reduced creditworthiness for the country, which can be problematic at a time when global tensions are on edge. 

“If a new crisis comes along, whether it’s a pandemic or a national security crisis or a big recession, which are sometimes caused by things beyond our control. You know, those kinds of crises are really difficult to respond to without fiscal space,” Clausing said. “If you’re starting from a point where you’re kind of maxing out the credit card, it’s a little harder to respond to these emergencies.” 

Currently, China and Japan are the United States’ two largest foreign creditors.

Former President Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris (Getty Images)

Advertisement

When reached by Fox News Digital, the Harris campaign declined to comment. 

The vice president was endorsed this week by more than 400 left-leaning economists and former policymakers who served under Democrats. Additionally, Andrew Ross Sorkin, a financial columnist with the New York Times, insisted this week that Harris will be able to get much closer to balancing the national budget than Trump. 

When it comes to the electorate, voters have usually told pollsters they have more confidence in Trump than Harris when it comes to the economy, but reports have indicated Harris is gaining some of that ground back more recently. Trump’s advantage over Harris on the economy stands at only five points in a recent Fox News poll, and just two points in an AP/NORC survey.

“Dangerously Liberal Kamala Harris’ budget would add $17 trillion to the national debt by 2034 and also includes a $4.9 trillion tax hike — the largest in history — which would cost every American family nearly $40,000 per year, on top of the costs of record-high inflation,” Trump Campaign National Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told Fox News Digital. “Thanks to Kamalanomics, families are already struggling to afford gas and groceries, and President Trump will continue to highlight how Harris’ budget will compound these difficulties on hardworking Americans.” 

Advertisement

Get the latest updates from the 2024 campaign trail, exclusive interviews and more at our Fox News Digital election hub.

Politics

Trump takes unusual step, lets bipartisan housing bill become law unsigned amid SAVE pressure campaign

Published

on

Trump takes unusual step, lets bipartisan housing bill become law unsigned amid SAVE pressure campaign

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

A bipartisan housing bill became law Saturday at midnight after President Donald Trump declined to sign it, capping a weeks-long saga over whether the president would veto the measure amid frustrations with Congress over his stalled agenda.

Trump refused to sign the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act — legislation aimed at expanding the nation’s housing stock and lowering costs — in an attempt to pressure Congress to pass the SAVE America Act, despite the housing bill clearing both chambers with overwhelming majorities.

“I will not sign the Housing Bill, which has been fully approved by Congress and sent to the White House, in PROTEST over the fact that the United States Senate is not capable of passing THE SAVE AMERICA ACT, which is polling at 97% with the Republican Party, and very high with the non-politician Dumocrats,” he declared on Truth Social Friday morning. 

The Trump-backed election measure, which would require proof of citizenship to vote in federal elections and impose voter ID requirements, has struggled to overcome the Senate’s 60-vote threshold. 

Advertisement

Meanwhile, the House has not passed a version of the bill that includes the president’s proposed crackdown on mail-in voting and banning men from women’s sports.

President Donald Trump speaks in the Oval Office of the White House, Wednesday, June 3, 2026, in Washington. (Alex Brandon/AP)

HOUSE CONSERVATIVES DERAIL GOP AGENDA IN SAVE AMERICA ACT SHOWDOWN

Under the U.S. Constitution, Trump had 10 days, not including Sundays, to sign or veto the housing measure after the House formally transmitted the legislation to the White House in late June. The president ultimately chose neither option, allowing the measure to become law without his signature.

Though Trump declined to veto the legislation, he sharply criticized elements of the bill and argued it should not have been a legislative priority in recent weeks.

Advertisement

“It’s so unimportant … compared to the SAVE America Act,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office in late June. “I think the SAVE America Act is exactly what it says. It’s saving America from crooked elections.”

Trump went on to call the housing bill “a yawn,” adding, “compared to the SAVE America Act, just about everything is a big yawn.”

It would have taken a two-thirds majority in both chambers to override a veto — a margin the House and Senate exceeded when they passed the legislation. However, it remains unclear whether so many Republicans would have defied the president had he vetoed the bill.

Trump also appeared to criticize the bill over a provision restricting Wall Street investors from purchasing single-family homes — a policy he first proposed during his January State of the Union address and later urged Congress to pass. Trump previously argued the investor ban would give individual homebuyers a leg up against private equity firms in the housing market.

“I don’t want to hurt people that own houses, too,” Trump later told reporters, appearing to reference the provision. “These people, for the first time in their lives, they have valuable houses. They’ve become rich. I don’t want to hurt them either. What you want to do is what’s good for everyone, get the interest rates down.”

Advertisement

The law also aims to boost housing supply by streamlining federal environmental reviews, loosening rules around the construction of factory-built homes, and incentivizing local governments to modify their zoning laws to allow more housing, among roughly 60 provisions.

Trump’s souring on the legislation created headaches for Republicans, who touted the bill as an affordability win as voters grapple with high housing costs.

“It’s irresponsible to postpone signing the Housing bill due to the SAVE Act,” Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., a retiring lawmaker who lost re-election to a Trump-backed challenger, wrote on social media. “We need to start delivering relief to people for the high cost of housing ASAP!!”

Construction workers stand on the roof of homes under construction at a new housing development on June 24, 2026, in Valencia, Calif. (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

WARREN TELLS TRUMP TO ‘SIGN THE DAMN BILL’ AS BIPARTISAN HOUSING PACKAGE REMAINS STALLED IN WASHINGTON

Advertisement

Trump abruptly canceled a signing ceremony for the legislation at the U.S. Capitol in June with GOP leaders. The stage had already been set, with at least one senior Republican arriving unaware the president had called off the event shortly before it was scheduled to begin.

The president then declared he would not sign the legislation until Congress passed the SAVE America Act, despite Senate GOP leaders insisting the votes do not exist to advance the measure.

Trump has also expressed frustration with the Republican-controlled Senate for declining to weaken the legislative filibuster, which requires 60 votes to advance most legislation in the upper chamber.

“GET SMART REPUBLICANS, IF YOU DON’T, YOU WON’T BE IN OFFICE FOR LONG!” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post on Sunday.

Before Trump came out against the bill, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt called it “one of the most significant pieces of housing affordability legislation in American history” and said it included an array of policies “long championed” by Trump.

Advertisement

House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Republican from Louisiana, speaks during a news conference at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 15, 2025. (Eric Lee/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Meanwhile, Trump political operative James Blair touted the legislation for including the president’s Wall Street investor ban, which he referred to as a “signature commitment.”

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., has argued that Republicans will still promote the landmark housing bill ahead of November.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“We’ll still celebrate it, but he’s trying to make a point, and I think he’s making it very effectively,” the speaker recently told reporters, referring to Trump. “And the fact that you all ask me every three steps down the hallway illustrates that he has achieved the desired objective, and that is to make SAVE America the number one thing, because if we don’t get that right, everybody’s concerned about what happens next.”

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Politics

Trump administration clears path for controversial Mojave Desert water pipeline

Published

on

Trump administration clears path for controversial Mojave Desert water pipeline

The Trump administration has signed off on a company’s plan to convert an oil and gas pipeline to pump groundwater from the Mojave Desert to thirsty California cities for the first time, a lucrative venture that critics say threatens natural springs and wildlife.

The federal Bureau of Land Management released documents Thursday saying that Cadiz Inc.’s plan to repurpose 162 miles of the pipeline to transport water “will not significantly affect” the environment.

“We’re excited to achieve this pivotal milestone. After many years of planning and environmental review, the project has now reached the construction stage,” said Susan Kennedy, chair and chief executive of Cadiz.

Environmental advocates and leaders of Native tribes, who have been fighting the project, criticized the decision.

Advertisement

“This groundwater mining proposal would drain the desert and rob the Mojave of its rare springs and wildlife habitat,” said Chance Wilcox, California desert associate director of the National Parks Conservation Assn. “It’s indefensible that the Trump administration would once again try to revive the pointless Cadiz project, by defying decades of scientific warnings and refusing to conduct an environmental review of the groundwater mining.”

The application for the federal authorization was filed by the Fenner Gap Mutual Water Co. The documents say the company plans to build seven pump stations, three of them located on federal land managed by the agency.

The 30-inch steel pipeline runs underground from Cadiz’s desert property, near the town of Amboy, northward to the town of Mojave.

The BLM said in its authorization that repurposing the pipeline for water “would comply with all applicable statutes and regulations.” The agency said it has “reasonably determined that the impacts of groundwater withdrawal associated with Cadiz’s groundwater extraction project are outside the scope of analysis.”

Cadiz’s attempts to export water from its property 200 miles east of Los Angeles have drawn controversy for decades.

Advertisement

In 2019, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed legislation that requires the project to undergo scientific study and gain approval from the State Lands Commission before it can take water from the Mojave and sell it to California cities.

Activists opposing the company’s plans include civil rights leader Dolores Huerta.

“Cadiz spells destruction for water, sacred lands, and the desert economy,” Huerta said in a statement. “It is exactly this type of greed and injustice that I have dedicated my life to oppose.”

Leaders of nearby tribes have also objected to Cadiz’s plans to pump from the desert aquifer near the Mojave Trails National Monument and Mojave National Preserve.

“It is the living heart of the desert,” said Daniel Leivas, chairman of the Chemehuevi Indian Tribe. “To drain it would be to drain the life out of the entire desert. No profit is worth such desecration.”

Advertisement

Chairman Timothy Williams of the Fort Mojave Indian Tribe said the company’s plan “to pump and sell 25 times more groundwater each year than the aquifer can replenish would desecrate our traditional territories.”

“Pumping more groundwater than is sustainably replenished is not only negligent, but dangerous to the American Desert Southwest,” he said in the joint statement with other opponents of the project.

For years, while pursuing its plan to sell water far away, the company has been using wells on its property to irrigate nearly 2,000 acres of farmland growing lemons, grapes and other crops. It has drilled more wells in anticipation of being able to export water once the government approved its pipeline.

The company intends to pipe water to communities in San Bernardino County and says it’s “expected to provide one of the lowest-cost sources of new water in the drought-plagued Southwest.” It says the federal permit “marks a key milestone as we finalize project financing with prospective investors.”

Cadiz bought the 220-mile pipeline from El Paso Natural Gas in 2020. Once construction is completed, the company says the pipeline will be able to transport up to 25,000 acre-feet of water per year — about 5% of what Los Angeles uses each year.

Advertisement

The Los Angeles-based corporation is also seeking to build a new pipeline along a railroad right-of-way to transport water to the south.

Environmental groups have repeatedly filed lawsuits challenging the project.

Ileene Anderson, a senior scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity, called the Trump administration’s decision “a green light for environmental destruction.”

She said six of the proposed pumping stations slated to be built are in the habitat of desert tortoises, a species in decline.

“We’ve successfully fended off this project before and we’ll continue to fight to stop this zombie from coming back,” Anderson said.

Advertisement

In 2021, the Biden administration reversed a Trump administration decision that had cleared the way for Cadiz to pipe water across public land. In 2022, a federal judge scrapped the pipeline permit that the Trump administration had issued.

But during President Trump’s second term, the company has again made headway on its plans. In February, Cadiz announced that the federal Environmental Protection Agency had invited it to submit an application for a $194-million low-interest loan for the northern pipeline project.

The company said in May that it reached an agreement with the federal Bureau of Reclamation to provide funding for a review of its potential role in “augmenting water supplies” along the shrinking Colorado River.

The company has also been lobbying the Trump administration. The group Public Citizen said in a recent report that Cadiz, through its nonprofit Fenner Gap Mutual Water Co., enlisted former Interior Secretary David Bernhardt’s new lobbying firm, the Bernhardt Group, and has spent at least $330,000 on lobbying in 2025 and 2026.

Records show lobbyist Luke Johnson has repeatedly accompanied Kennedy at meetings with Interior Department officials.

Advertisement

“The extensive influence of David Bernhardt’s boutique lobbying firm on the agency he formerly led highlights how insider firms staffed with former Trump officials have grown in recent years,” said Alan Zibel, a research director with Public Citizen. He said Bernhardt and his lobbyists “have learned how to master influence-peddling in the anything-goes era of Trump 2.0.”

Earlier this month, an Arizona water agency announced it signed an initial “memorandum of understanding” agreement to buy up to 10,000 acre-feet of water per year from Cadiz’s Mojave Groundwater Bank. The Central Arizona Irrigation and Drainage District provides water to farmlands in Pinal County, where growers are dealing with water cutbacks.

The company said that for this to happen, it would need to build pipelines and reach deals to exchange water across state lines.

Members of California’s congressional delegation have raised concerns. In a recent letter to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, California Sens. Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla called for a thorough environmental review, saying that federal agencies and peer-reviewed scientific analyses have “warned of the significant and irreversible impacts that Cadiz’s project could have on federal lands and surrounding communities.”

Rep. Raul Ruiz (D-Indio) said in a letter to Burgum that he is concerned about the company’s long-standing effort to extract and export groundwater.

Advertisement

“The area I represent cannot afford to absorb the long-term costs of a commercially driven groundwater export scheme,” Ruiz said.

Continue Reading

Politics

Trump Promotes ‘Freedom Fuel’ Gas Stations as Gas Prices Rise Again

Published

on

President Trump has promoted a chain of newly rebranded gas stations across the Philadelphia area with lower gas prices. The New York Times has not been able to get detailed information about who is behind the stations. The Trump administration says it did not fund or subsidize the company.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending