Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bipartisan bill Friday making it a crime to farm octopuses for human consumption in California.

The new law makes it illegal to raise and breed octopuses in state waters or in aquaculture tanks based on land within the state. It also prevents business owners and operators from knowingly participating in the sale of an octopus — regardless of its provenance — that has been raised to be eaten by people.

The text of the law recognizes that octopuses are “highly intelligent, curious, problem-solving animals” that are conscious, sentient and experience “pain, stress, and fear, as well as pleasure, equanimity, and social bonds.” It goes on to note that in research studies, these eight-legged marine invertebrates have demonstrated long-term memory as well as the ability to recognize individual people.

In one experiment, eight giant Pacific octopuses were introduced to two people over a two-week period at the Seattle Aquarium. One of them always approached with food in hand, which they gave to the octopuses. The other carried a bristly stick, with which they used to scratch the cephalopods’ sensitive skin.

At the end of two weeks, the octopuses’ responses to the two people were significantly different. When the stick-carrier approached, the animals would move away and line up their water jets toward the offender so they could make a quick get-away if necessary. But when feeder came calling, they ambled up to the side of the tank and turned their jets away.

Proponents of the new law said it positions California as a leader in humane aquaculture. They point to a growing body of research that shows raising octopuses for food is cruel, inefficient and detrimental to the environment.

California is now the second state — after Washington — to prohibit octopus farming. Similar legislation has also been introduced in the U.S. Senate and in Hawaii.

“We know that what happens in California has an impact on what happens federally,” Jennifer Jacquet, a professor of environmental science and policy at the University of Miami, said when the bill cleared the legislature. “Americans want to keep octopuses wild.”

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.”

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.

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.”

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.  

“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. 

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)

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.” 

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

There is no end of put-downs that attach to the job of vice president, a position that’s widely treated as irrelevant when its occupant is not ignored altogether.

So it’s hardly surprising the modern history of vice presidential debates is notably lacking in both gravity and moments of true political significance. In fact, since the first match-up of presidential understudies nearly 50 years ago, precisely zero have made a shred of difference in the race for the White House.

“There are so many other factors to consider,” said Chris Devine, a University of Dayton professor who’s written extensively about the vice presidency. “It’s not that voters don’t care much about the vice presidential debate. It’s that compared to everything else, it doesn’t matter as much.”

Even so, tens of millions of viewers are expected to tune in Tuesday night when Ohio Sen. JD Vance and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz meet in the New York City studios of CBS News for 90 minutes of backing-and-forthing.

Why bother watching?

“Vice presidents actually do matter,” said Jody Baumgartner, an East Carolina University expert on the office. “They are another voice that’s close to the president.”

And while some vice presidents have had more influence than others — Dick Cheney, say, as opposed to Mike Pence — each has been second in line to the presidency and all have been that proverbial heartbeat from stepping into the Oval Office and assuming the presidency.

“So, at a minimum,” Baumgartner said, a vice presidential debate “gives us, the American citizens, a chance to get to know who that [person] is … a sense of who they are and what might be all about.”

Devine offered another reason to watch, assuming issues are your thing. Without the distracting histrionics of the blustering Republican nominee, the Vance-Walz face-off could prove more substantive than the two presidential debates that took place this summer.

“When Donald Trump’s a presidential candidate, you get a lot of personality and controversy and all that kind of stuff,” Devine said. “People might think this is a better forum in which to get, from the horse’s mouth, what the different presidential tickets actually stand for.”

Not that the debate is likely to change a great many minds.

“The reality is it’s probably, for most people, going to function as an outlet for them to cheer on JD Vance or to cheer on Tim Walz,” Devine said.

If issues aren’t your thing — it’s OK, we don’t judge! — you might want to tune in Tuesday night hoping for the odd or unexpected. Some of the most resonant political moments in recent history have taken place on the vice presidential debate stage.

In 1976, in the first-ever televised vice presidential debate, Republican Bob Dole notoriously described World War I, World War II and others that Americans fought in the 20th century as “Democrat wars.” The number of killed and wounded “would be … enough to fill the city of Detroit,” he went on, adding salt to the slur. It took Dole years to live down his image as a political hatchet man.

In 2008, Republican Sarah Palin prompted days of discussion by winking her way through a debate with Democrat Joe Biden. (She winked at least six times at 70 million viewers, the largest audience ever to watch a vice presidential debate. It marked the first and only time in history a vice presidential debate has drawn a bigger audience than the match-up of presidential contestants.)

Four years ago, as Pence and Harris were discussing systemic racism, a fly settled on the snowy expanse of Pence’s white coiffure — and ended up walking away with the evening’s affair. Researchers at New York University analyzed online activity during the 90-minute session, as well as two hours before and after the debate, and found the fly was mentioned nearly 30% more, on average, than Trump, Biden, Pence or Harris.

But arguably the most famous vice presidential debate took place in 1988 when Republican Dan Quayle faced Democrat Lloyd Bentsen. Quayle, who was 41 at the time, had gone through a rough initiation after his surprise selection to serve as George H.W. Bush’s running mate.

Asked for the umpteenth time about his relative youth, Quayle said he had more experience than others who’d run for president and as much congressional experience as John F. Kennedy when he sought the White House.

Bentsen, with a gunslinger’s glint to his eye, cooly responded, “Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy. I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you are no Jack Kennedy.”

Quayle’s stricken look — a rictus of shock and humiliation — spoke to the devastation of the rejoinder after which, it’s fair to say, his callow image never fully faded.

Not that it mattered.

“It’s the most conclusive, definitive loss by a vice presidential candidate in any debate ever,” said Northeastern University’s Alan Schroeder, who has written an authoritative history of the high-stakes political match-ups. And yet, just a few weeks later, Bush and Quayle romped to victory.

So don’t tune in supposing Tuesday’s event will decide the Harris-Trump contest.

But if you’re the kind whose tastes run more toward C-SPAN than SportsCenter, fix a drink or pop some popcorn and settle in with JD and Tim and debate moderators Norah O’Donnell and Margaret Brennan.

You could be in for an entertaining, or at least interesting, evening.