Connect with us

Politics

Conservative economists pour cold water on Harris' new small-business tax proposal

Published

on

Conservative economists pour cold water on Harris' new small-business tax proposal

Conservative economists are pouring cold water on Vice President Kamala Harris’ new proposal aimed at reducing startup costs for new small businesses as part of her “Opportunity Economy” economic platform.

Harris unveiled new small-business tax proposals last week aimed at reducing the cost burden related to starting a new business. Among the proposals was a substantial increase in the standard tax deduction for small-business startup costs, from $5,000 to $50,000. “It’s essentially a tax cut for starting a small business,” the vice president said during a stump speech announcing the new proposal. “We’re going to help more small businesses and innovators get off the ground.”

Meanwhile, Harris has simultaneously expressed support for raising marginal tax rates for both corporations and individuals, which conservative economists argued would work to diminish the benefit received by the tenfold increase in the startup deduction. 

“She wants to increase taxes on all kinds of income, on all classifications of income, so no matter how the small business is ultimately structured, they will still be paying more,” conservative economist E.J. Antoni told Fox News Digital. “Now, is that going to be diminished by this increase in the tax deduction? Absolutely. But, then, why are you doing both? That doesn’t make any sense.”

NEW YORK REPUBLICAN WRANGLES WITH CNN HOST HITTING TRUMP’S ECONOMIC POLICIES

Advertisement

Under the Trump administration, standard deductions were increased while marginal tax rates were lowered, Antoni pointed out. Additionally, under former President Trump’s tax cut measures, small business owners were allowed to claim a deduction for their “qualified business income.” It will ultimately be up to Congress to decide whether to keep any of Trump’s expiring tax cuts.

Trump spoke at the Economic Club of New York on Thursday, during which he laid out plans like lowering the corporate tax rate from its current 21% to 15%. Trump’s first-term tax cuts reduced it previously from 35%.

“Harris wants to do the opposite [of Trump],” Antoni said. “She wants to increase the deduction, but then increase the marginal tax rates.”

The economy consistently ranks as the most important issue for voters heading into a presidential election.

PENNSYLVANIANS SOUND OFF ON WHERE THEY BELIEVE HARRIS STANDS ON KEY ISSUES

Advertisement

Robert Wolfe, a Harris supporter and former chairman of UBS Americas, a global wealth management firm, pointed out that the tax rate increase for individuals will only impact those making more than $400,000.

“We want small businesses being built,” Wolfe said. “And we know that the ramp-up phase takes time, and so the idea that we wouldn’t applaud small businesses and entrepreneurs getting tax credits doesn’t make sense to me.”

Richard Stern, director of the Grover M. Hermann Center for the Federal Budget at The Heritage Foundation, said that under current tax laws, new business owners can already deduct most early-stage expenses, like payroll and equipment costs. Startup expenses, meanwhile, are defined under the tax code as those costs incurred prior to a business being registered with the federal government, which, according to Stern, are typically pretty minimal. 

“Harris’ new tax deduction for small businesses isn’t a subsidy for starting a business per se,” he said. “It’s only useful if you actually spend $50K on pre-business expenses. So, this is disproportionately a subsidy for larger starting businesses.” 

Stern also agreed with Antoni’s take that Harris is essentially giving to small businesses with one hand, while taking from them with the other. 

Advertisement

Antoni, meanwhile, suggested that whoever is formulating economic policy for the Harris campaign is “building the train as it goes down the tracks.”

“It really seems like there were no policy proposals thought out ahead of time, and they are just throwing these things together,” he said.

CRITICS BLAST HARRIS’ GRASP OF INFLATION, ATTACK ON BUSINESS AHEAD OF POLICY SPEECH: ‘LUNATIC BEHAVIOR’

Vice President Kamala Harris helped create President Biden’s economic strategy known as “Bidenomics.” (Getty Images)

While right-wing economic experts argue Harris’ latest tax proposal would be diminished by her plans to raise taxes in other areas and do little to help inexperienced business owners start their first company, Roger Hochschild, a Harris supporter and former CEO at Discover Financial Services, says the move will be “critical to driving further economic growth.”

Advertisement

“I think she is very clear in her support of small businesses and acknowledging that they are the backbone of the economy,” Hochschild said. 

Rhett Buttle, a former 2020 Biden campaign adviser, echoed that sentiment. He said the increased tax deduction proves Harris’ “deep commitment” to entrepreneurs, according to NBC News. 

“There are broad strokes here to people from all walks of life,” he said. “Small business and entrepreneurship tends to be a great unifier in a world where people have starkly different political divisions,” Buttle said.

In addition to Harris’ new tax proposals for small businesses, she also laid out her plan this week for taxing capital gains. She wants to increase it to 33%, whereas Biden reportedly wants the current rate, which is at 23.8%, to be nearly doubled, according to The Wall Street Journal.

LIBERAL WASHINGTON POST EDITORIAL BOARD HAS SCATHING TAKE ON HARRIS’ ECONOMIC PLAN: ‘POPULIST GIMMICKS’

Advertisement

A restaurant worker holds up a receipt with a note that reads “Vote Trump No Tax on Tip,” signed by former President Trump at a Philadelphia sandwich shop.

Fox News Digital reached out to the Harris campaign for comment on the criticisms about her small-business tax proposal, but was only directed to a social media post of a small business owner speaking at a Harris campaign rally.

 

“Do you think that your small business is better off now, than it was under the Trump administration?” NBC’s Gabe Gutierrez asked the entrepreneur.

“Oh, without a doubt,” the business owner, Brad Smith, responded. “And I think the reason is everything to do with optimism — if you’re a doom-and-gloom candidate, or president, you are not going to start a business.”

Advertisement

Politics

Legal correspondent Paula Reid expected to join MS NOW after CNN departure

Published

on

Legal correspondent Paula Reid expected to join MS NOW after CNN departure

As CNN prepares for change under a new owner, the network’s chief legal affairs correspondent, Paula Reid, is heading for the exit and expected to jump to MS NOW.

The Washington-based Reid’s contract with CNN is up in several months and she has told the network she does not plan to renew. She is expected to sign on with CNN competitor MS NOW, according to people familiar with her plans who were not authorized to comment publicly.

A representative for MS NOW said the network does not comment on personnel matters but added, “as everyone in Washington knows, Paula Reid is an exceptional reporter, and any news organization would be fortunate to showcase her journalism.”

Reid‘s planned departure comes ahead of the impending merger of CNN parent Warner Bros. Discovery and Paramount. The combination has led to speculation over who will run CNN, and the uncertainty is said to have played a factor in Reid’s decision.

Reid joined CNN from CBS News in 2021.

Advertisement

CNN and Paramount’s CBS News will be combined after the merger, but the management structure is still under discussion. Paramount put Bari Weiss, founder of the heterodox digital news site the Free Press, in charge of CBS News in October, with a mandate to move the network’s coverage more to the political center. Based on the chaos that has ensued at CBS News under her watch, many CNN insiders are concerned over her possible stewardship of an even larger and more complex organization.

CBS News executives and on-air talent have pushed back at Weiss’ efforts to make changes at the division, which many insiders have viewed as an attempt to placate the Trump White House while Paramount seeks regulatory approvals needed ahead of closing the $111-billion Warner Bros. Discovery deal.

Internal resistance to Weiss has been strongest at the venerable news magazine “60 Minutes.” The program’s star correspondent Scott Pelley was fired last month after he confronted management over the dismissals of executive producer Tanya Simon and his on-air colleagues Sharyn Alfonsi and Cecilia Vega.

Weiss’ overhaul of the “CBS Evening News” with her handpicked anchor Tony Dokoupil has failed to improve the third-place program’s competitive position in the ratings. The program has also been criticized for some of its editorial decisions and logistical snafus.

CNN anchor Anderson Cooper has reportedly told colleagues he does not want to work for Weiss if the cable network is put under her purview. He already rejected an offer from Weiss to anchor the “CBS Evening News” and declined to renew his deal as a “60 Minutes” contributor after nearly two decades with the program.

Advertisement

The chaos at CBS has given pause to people at CNN. Larry Ellison, the tech billionaire and father of Paramount Chief Executive David Ellison, has reportedly promised Trump there will be sweeping changes to CNN after the merger.

Reid, 43, is among the many TV news correspondents and anchors that Trump has disparaged over the years, claiming they are unfair in their coverage. As White House correspondent for CBS News, Reid was known for asking tough questions of Trump during his White House briefings on the coronavirus.

Reid was a lawyer before becoming a journalist at CBS News in 2010. In addition to serving as White House correspondent for the network, she covered the Justice Department and the Supreme Court.

Reid would be another significant hire for MS NOW, the progressive-leaning channel that is rebuilding its roster after separating from NBC News and its parent, Comcast. The network formerly known as MSNBC is now part of Versant, a company with a stable of cable networks spun off by Comcast.

Peter Alexander, former chief White House correspondent for NBC News, is joining MS NOW as a morning anchor later this year. The network also hired former “CBS Mornings” executive producer Shauna Thomas as political director.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Top Trump official touts how DC makeover is proof America is rejecting ‘decline by choice’

Published

on

Top Trump official touts how DC makeover is proof America is rejecting ‘decline by choice’

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum is defending President Donald Trump’s many initiatives to address infrastructure in Washington, D.C., calling it a visible reminder that the country needs to actively press back against decline.

Advertisement

“Nations don’t crumble by fate — they decline by choice,” Burgum told Fox News Digital.

“From rehabilitating and installing historic memorials, statues, and fountains to removing hundreds of instances of graffiti and cleaning up crime on our streets, this administration is proving that American greatness is built through action,” he continued.

Burgum’s reasoning, which came ahead of the United States’ 250th Independence Day anniversary, addresses criticisms of the administration that have surfaced in recent weeks, casting doubt on whether Trump’s many renovation and construction initiatives in Washington, D.C. have been worth their price tag.

WHITE HOUSE SEIZES ON DELAYED OBAMA PRESIDENTIAL CENTER OPENING TO CROWN TRUMP ‘BUILDER-IN-CHIEF’

Split of sample tests in the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool. (@realDonaldTrump via Truth Social)

Advertisement

As part of the 250th celebration, Trump has spent $14.7 million to restore the Lincoln Memorial’s reflecting pool, allocated $250 million to restore the Kennedy Center and is on track to spend over $400 million on the construction of a ballroom at the White House.

Trump, in a Truth Social update about the reflecting pool, framed the efforts as part of a larger effort.

“We’ve cleaned, renovated and beautified over 45 monuments and memorials, 28 statues and 22 fountains in Washington, D.C. Things are really looking good in our nation’s capital. Add to that the fact that when I became president, crime was rampant. And now Washington, D.C. is one of the safest cities anywhere in the United States,” Trump wrote.

REPUBLICANS QUESTION TRUMP’S ‘PRIVATELY FUNDED’ BALLROOM AFTER REPORT POINTS TO TAXPAYER BURDEN

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum reacted during a meeting with Venezuela’s interim President Delcy Rodríguez at the Miraflores Presidential Palace on March 4, 2026, in Caracas, Venezuela. (Federico Parra/AFP via Getty Images)

Advertisement

The Department of the Interior, which has overseen many of the improvements, further updated its accomplishments ahead of July 4.

The city has removed 510 instances of graffiti, removed 154 homeless encampments, applied 212 tons of repair materials to roads and parkways, restored 280,000 square feet of roadway paving, rehabilitated 1,301 benches and fixed 1,913 lights.

Burgum said the repairs were emblematic of the administration’s aggressive posture towards addressing problems that had gone ignored in the past. In addition to these major improvements, DOI has restored and cleaned dozens of monuments and statues around DC. 

DOI also recently helped transform Meridian Hill Park, which got high praise on social media by DC residents, into a desirable place to visit with a restored fountain that had been under construction for years with very little movement. They also cleaned and restored some of the statues in the park, including the Joan of Arc statue and the James Buchanan Memorial.

FIRST ON FOX: TRUMP ADMIN TRANSFORMS DC HOTSPOT ONCE ROCKED BY GEORGE FLOYD PROTESTS IN SYMBOLIC REVERSAL

Advertisement

Washington DC city workers dismantle tents and remove personal belongings during a sweep of a homeless encampment in the Foggy Bottom neighborhood in Washington, DC, on August 14, 2025. (JIM WATSON/AFP via Getty Images)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“While others accept decline, President Trump and the Department of the Interior are restoring the heart of our nation’s capital,” Burgum said. “The Golden Age of America isn’t just a slogan, it’s being rebuilt, one landmark, one street and one victory at a time.”

Continue Reading

Politics

Commentary: Birthright citizenship ruling was a win for democracy — and a warning about erasing history

Published

on

Commentary: Birthright citizenship ruling was a win for democracy — and a warning about erasing history

This week’s narrow Supreme Court decision protecting birthright citizenship is rightly being hailed as a triumph for the American experiment.

By some, anyway.

Check out MAGA world and you’ll quickly find Trump surrogates and even elected leaders spouting a kind of extremist anti-immigrant sentiment that once, not so long ago, was considered intolerable in the public sphere.

This has included suggestions that go as far as banning pregnant women from traveling to the United States for fear they might give birth here, and — no joke — one notable commentator writing that demanding female immigrants be sterilized might be a solution.

President Trump’s homeland security advisor Stephen Miller said after the ruling that children of immigrants might not be “qualified to carry on or capable of executing the inheritance of this country.”

Advertisement

“We have people from all over the world, from Third World nations, nations that on their own would have never invented the wheel, let alone modern technology, let alone medicine, let alone air travel, and they can just come into the country, have a baby at a hospital, paid for it by you and me, and then that baby is automatically a citizen,” Miller said.

Before you tell me that the Supreme Court has spoken and this is a done deal, no matter if there’s more gross Miller mush, let me tell you about Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s written opinion and why it matters. It is, if read in the right light, a warning for what comes next — a fight to rewrite history to serve political aims.

“The odds were long and the stakes were high,” Jackson wrote about the creation of the 14th Amendment in 1866, which has long been understood as granting citizenship to any child born on U.S. soil and which was the focus of this case.

Still, she wrote, despite the unlikeliness of post-Civil War America rising to the challenge of inclusiveness, the amendment was always meant to do just that — because free Black people, recently emancipated but denied citizenship, “fought for the shared humanity of all people.”

Signs sit available for protesters to demonstrate outside the U.S. Supreme Court as President Trump arrives to attend oral arguments on April 1 in Washington, DC.

Advertisement

(Heather Diehl / Getty Images)

An alternative interpretation by MAGA world of this amendment and this history was the center of this case.

To greatly simplify, the 14th Amendment was originally a response to a Supreme Court decision, the Dred Scott case, that said freed Black slaves could not be U.S. citizens. MAGA world was arguing that the authors of the 14th Amendment never intended much more than that — citizenship for ex-slaves and their descendants.

While concurring with the majority of the court, Jackson also wrote her own summary that makes a vital point: Without history that includes the Black experience — as most of the arguments in this case did — we are left bereft of the suffering that has shaped our values and which gives us the empathy required to be a pluralistic society.

Advertisement

Black history — any non-white history, really — is the history of resistance and the road map to recovery from this dark era of hate.

It’s hard to call someone your fellow citizen if you take away their humanity — which is exactly what this case was attempting to do by splitting into factions those who would fight for equality and rewriting history with only the voices that match the current administration’s goals.

It was disappointing that the court, whose individual justices bounced around arguments from a myriad of sources outside of their erstwhile adherence to the ideas of originalism, did not call out that erasure more forcefully, and that it was left to Jackson to do so.

Jackson took that narrow idea that Black people — and the white legislators sympathetic to their cause — had only themselves in mind when crafting the 14th Amendment and attacked it head-on, arguing that if we just look at what Black people were saying at the time, the larger intent of the amendment becomes clear.

“This alternative account pitches Black Americans against immigrants when the advocates who promoted the Fourteenth Amendment did no such thing,” Jackson pointed out of the MAGA version of events. “Freed Blacks fought for the shared humanity of all people.”

Advertisement

That “universalist vision of belonging and citizenship,” she wrote, “eventually won the day.”

The 14th Amendment was largely written by Sen. Lyman Trumbull of Illinois, who took much of the basis of it from the legal arguments of Black intellectuals, including Frederick Douglass, the most influential Black statesman of the era.

Trumbull then argued in Congress that the amendment was meant to be inclusive — even of so-called “gypsies” and Chinese immigrants, who faced extreme racism, especially in California.

One congressman opposed to the measure warned that if it passed, Chinese immigrants would “overrun” California and “will double or treble the population.” At the same time, the Romani would likely continue to “wander in gangs” and “have no homes, pretend to own no land, live nowhere, settle as trespassers where ever they go, and whose sole merit is a universal swindle,” he warned.

Asked if the amendment would grant citizenship to those two controversial groups of immigrants, Jackson points out that Trumbull gave an unapologetic “undoubtedly,” again drawing on the universalist ideas of Douglass and others.

Advertisement

The “child of an Asiatic is just as much a citizen as the child of a European,” Trumbull said (and Jackson quoted, drawing from an amicus brief by Evan Bernick of Northern Illinois University and Jed Sugerman of Boston University).

“There is a serious breakdown on the court that reflects the breakdown and echo chambers in America,” Sugerman, the professor, told me Wednesday. “When it comes to history and originalism, you have to read more broadly than just the founding fathers that you liked.”

So the history of the 14th Amendment is right there — equality not just for Black Americans but for immigrant Americans — but it required Jackson to write her own opinion to put it on the court record.

Legal scholars aligned with Trump did Olympic-level gymnastics in this case to parse what the authors of the 14th Amendment meant with the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” — words that MAGA claimed were meant to secretly exclude undocumented immigrants.

Brown instead reminded us that outside of those white-only discussions when the amendment was written, it was the activism of Black people — their demand for colorblind equality — that actually shaped the final words that granted citizenship to all babies born within our borders.

Advertisement

Solidarity — the unbreakable strength of American democracy.

After the ruling, Trump wrote on social media that Congress could write legislation undoing birthright citizenship. Some pundits say that wouldn’t work, but I’m here to say Trump has managed a bunch of stuff that the pundits said wouldn’t work.

More chilling, and direct, were more comments from Miller.

“It’s an abomination,” he said of the ruling.

But “because of President Trump’s courage and leadership, we are now on the precipice. Yes, we were dealt a setback, but because of his courage alone, we’re on the precipice as a nation of being in a position to end this travesty once and for all, and that’s what we have to fight for.”

Advertisement

Miller and his ilk are seeking to rewrite history to justify their vision of the future of America.

Jackson alone in the court offered us both a warning and a path — a reminder that our history holds indisputable facts despite politics, and we erase them at our own peril.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending