Americans emerged from President-elect Donald Trump’s surprise victory in last week’s election with passionate and polarized reactions, overall expressing tempered optimism about his presidency but unconvinced that he has a mandate to enact a sweeping new policy agenda, according to a Washington Post-Schar School national poll.
House and Senate GOP leaders plan to move lame duck legislation that funds the government at current levels into early next year, part of a strategy to split up any showdowns over a government shutdown and a debt ceiling hike.
We are unlikely to see a united government – that is, a single party dominating the legislative and executive branches – during all of the next president’s first term. According to various election forecasting models, it seems likely that the Democrats will take control of both the White House and the U.S. Senate in November. However, it is probable that the GOP will maintain a majority in the U.S. House of Representatives, even if they lose a few seats.
No matter who wins the White House on Nov. 8, a majority of the country will dislike the next president. Polling this week from Gallup shows that 56% of Americans view Hillary Clinton unfavorably, and 68% view Donald Trump unfavorably. These are record numbers for presidential candidates.
Thirty years ago tomorrow our government achieved what many now consider a monumental undertaking. A divided government came together and passed meaningful tax reform to boost the economy and make the tax system fairer. President Reagan signed it into law on October 22, 1986.
The U.S. budget deficit as a share of the economy widened for the first time in seven years, marking a turning point in the nation’s fiscal outlook as an aging population boosts government spending and debt.
WHEREVER I go these days, at home or abroad, people ask me the same question: what is happening in the American political system? How has a country that has benefited—perhaps more than any other—from immigration, trade and technological innovation suddenly developed a strain of anti-immigrant, anti-innovation protectionism? Why have some on the far left and even more on the far right embraced a crude populism that promises a return to a past that is not possible to restore—and that, for most Americans, never existed at all?
If you were one of the millions of Americans watching Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump debate on Monday night, it is likely that you strongly agreed with one candidate and disapproved of the other. It was also clear that there was little agreement between the candidates when it came to the array of policy issues discussed. But there was one bright spot of consensus. Both candidates did agree on the deteriorating condition of our roads, bridges and airports. Hillary Clinton spoke about how investing in infrastructure was an investment in America’s future, and Donald Trump decried the poor condition of New York’s LaGuardia Airport, likening it to something found in a Third World country.
By Rep. Ed Perlmutter (CO-07) In 2014, almost half of American adults had their personal information exposed – primarily through data breaches at large companies. According to Duo Security, data breaches targeting consumer information increased 62 percent from 2012 to…
As we saw again Monday night, when the candidates are not busily attacking one another they make bold promises for reforming everything from education and health care to taxes and the economy. What they neglect to mention is that in almost every case delivering on those promises would require Congress to pass new laws. And that is a huge problem, because without reforming Congress itself few if any of the candidate’s myriad promises will ever be implemented.
Acutely partisan and all but dysfunctional, Congress has completed its most elementary task after an intense weeks-long struggle, finalizing a deal to fund the government just days ahead of a shutdown deadline.