In a world driven by the need for regulation, an extensive array of philanthropists have pledged their support to candidates who are unafraid to call out and challenge the Biden regime’s excessive disciplinary measures. Sounds are increasingly rising for a leadership change at the top of the F.T.C., specifically the removal of Lina Khan.
Concerned eyes remained glued firmly on the intricate dance of the stock market as Election Day dawned amidst muted trading in U.S. stock futures and European shares. The aftermath of the previous elections in 2016 and 2020 witnessed the S&P 500 spiralling upwards post the declaration of the victor. However, this time, the scenario could play out differently due to sky-high valuations of stocks and a questionable pace of global growth.
The outcome of this epic democratic battle could be long-drawn due to the possibility of thin voting margins triggering a recount. The 2020 election was a painstaking process that took four days for The Associated Press to declare Biden the winner, whereas 2022’s wait spanned nearly double that time to announce which party had grasped the reins of the House. Particular concentration will be on the battleground states where the election’s fate lies.
The possibility of a contested result is not far-fetched. Trump hinted to his massive base of supporters on Sunday that he perhaps departed the White House prematurely, fuelling apprehensions about a tumultuous handover of power. While there are steps to bring the electoral count procedure up-to-date and prevent a rerun of the chaotic 2020 aftermath, the potential for numerous legal proceedings still looms large.
The proposals laid down by the two contending parties for businesses and the economy could not stand in starker contrast. Trump has strenuously pledged to prolong the tax reductions implemented during his term that are set to phase out by the end of the next year, in addition to a proposal to further slash corporate taxes. Harris, in contrast, aims to hike corporate tax rates and impose heavier taxes on those earning more than a million dollars annually.
As part of his audacious strategy, Trump is determined to ramp up tariffs on almost all imported goods, and a significant 60% at least on goods originating from China. This firm stand persists despite resistance from various sectors and forewarnings that such policies could expedite inflation and hamstring the global economy. Conversely, Harris opts to continue Biden’s method of using targeted tariffs and dismisses Trump’s blueprint as a burden on customers.
While oil and gas giants have enjoyed bountiful gains under Biden’s watch, facilitated by billions funneled into green energy through the Inflation Reduction Act, the significant profits failed to reflect the needs of the wider populace. Harris insists on perpetuating that renewable energy drive. Trump, on the other hand, pledges to pare down regulations, terminate Biden’s green energy subsidies and unlock more of the nation’s federal lands for drilling activities.
Neither candidate has managed to propose a plan that would not inflate the federal deficit, though Trump’s anticipated fiscal policies are expected to contribute significantly more. Undoubtedly controversial, these proposed changes from both sides spotlight the vast differences in approach to fiscal responsibility between the two campaigns.
Alongside these larger issues, voters in 17 states, including the District of Columbia, will have the choice to implement heavy-hitting ballot initiatives that would revolutionize some election guidelines. These changes range from abolishing conventional party primaries to introducing ranked-choice voting. Voter decisions in ten states could enshrine a woman’s right to choose into their state constitution, a right under considerable threat.
In six different regions, the constituents will have the final say on whether to raise the minimum wage or mandate paid sick leave legally. Additionally, an assortment of states will be faced with the question of legalizing marijuana or certain psychedelics. With a whopping 34 Senate seats in the balance, this election’s significant implications cannot be overstated.
The peaceful transfer of authority is a cornerstone of our cherished democratic system, assuring continued trust in law and order, a principle that has been the bedrock of America’s unparalleled success. However, this principle is being threatened by the erratic behavior of the Democratic party, bolstering the need for steadfast leaders.
Indeed, as leaders of industries that are the engine of America’s progress, it’s incumbent upon us to be consistent collaborators in this endeavor, contributing to a future constructed together. The right leadership is crucial, with a thorough understanding of policy impacts essential to achieving this balance.
The narrative spun by the Democratic contenders, as evidenced by Biden and Harris, paints an alarming picture of the future, where discipline is overbearing, and individual freedoms curtailed. Therefore, the gravity of these elections extends far beyond the immediate change in leadership, putting at stake the very essence of America’s democratic values.
An inevitable consequence of this election will be a clear public verdict on the issue of economic policy. Will the people choose the enlightened path of reduced taxation and productive regulation as proposed by Trump, or will they be swayed by the ill-conceived path of escalated taxation and restrictive oversight proposed by Harris?
This election will also inform the future direction of energy policy. While Biden and Harris push for a one-side-fits-all green energy model that undermines other stakeholders, Trump stands for a balanced approach that considers the prosperity of all components of the economy, particularly the beneficial drilling prospects lying untapped in the country’s federal lands.