2024 United States presidential election – TheNewsHub https://thenewshub.in Sat, 26 Oct 2024 01:52:44 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.6.2 Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris, paper reports https://thenewshub.in/2024/10/26/jeff-bezos-killed-washington-post-endorsement-of-kamala-harris-paper-reports/ https://thenewshub.in/2024/10/26/jeff-bezos-killed-washington-post-endorsement-of-kamala-harris-paper-reports/?noamp=mobile#respond Sat, 26 Oct 2024 01:52:44 +0000 https://thenewshub.in/2024/10/26/jeff-bezos-killed-washington-post-endorsement-of-kamala-harris-paper-reports/

The Washington Post Building at One Franklin Square Building in Washington, D.C., June 5, 2024.

Andrew Harnik | Getty Images

The Washington Post said Friday that it will not endorse a candidate in the presidential election this year — or ever again — breaking decades of tradition and sparking immediate criticism of the decision.

But the newspaper also published an article by two staff reporters revealing that editorial page staffers had drafted an endorsement of Democratic nominee Kamala Harris over GOP nominee Donald Trump in the election.

“The decision not to publish was made by The Post’s owner — Amazon founder Jeff Bezos,” the article said, citing two sources briefed on the events.

Trump, while president, had been critical of the billionaire Bezos and the Post, which he purchased in 2013.

The newspaper in 2016 and again in 2020 endorsed Trump’s election opponents, Hillary Clinton and President Joe Biden, in editorials that condemned the Republican in blunt terms.

In a 2019 lawsuit, Amazon claimed it had lost a $10 billion cloud computing contract with the Pentagon to Microsoft because Trump had used “improper pressure … to harm his perceived political enemy” Bezos.

The Post since 1976 had regularly endorsed candidates for president, except for the 1988 race. All those endorsements had been for Democrats.

In a statement to CNBC, when asked about Bezos’ purported role in killing the endorsement, Post chief communications officer Kathy Baird said, “This was a Washington Post decision to not endorse, and I would refer you to the publisher’s statement in full.”

The Post on Friday evening published a third article, signed by opinion columnists for the newspaper, who said, “The Washington Post’s decision not to make an endorsement in the presidential campaign is a terrible mistake.”

“It represents an abandonment of the fundamental editorial convictions of the newspaper that we love, and for which we have worked a combined 218 years,” the column said. “This is a moment for the institution to be making clear its commitment to democratic values, the rule of law and international alliances, and the threat that Donald Trump poses to them — the precise points The Post made in endorsing Trump’s opponents in 2016 and 2020.”

CNBC has requested comment from Amazon, where Bezos remains the largest shareholder.

Amazon founder Jeff Bezos arrives for his meeting with British Prime Minister Boris Johnson at the UK diplomatic residence in New York City, Sept. 20, 2021.

Michael M. Santiago | Getty Images News | Getty Images

Post publisher and chief executive Will Lewis, in an article published online explaining the decision, wrote, “The Washington Post will not be making an endorsement of a presidential candidate in this election. Nor in any future presidential election.”

“We are returning to our roots of not endorsing presidential candidates,” Lewis wrote.

“We recognize that this will be read in a range of ways, including as a tacit endorsement of one candidate, or as a condemnation of another, or as an abdication of responsibility,” he wrote.

“That is inevitable. We don’t see it that way. We see it as consistent with the values The Post has always stood for and what we hope for in a leader: character and courage in service to the American ethic, veneration for the rule of law, and respect for human freedom in all its aspects.”

Seven of the 13 paragraphs of Lewis’ article either quoted at length or referred to Post Editorial Board statements in 1960 and 1972 explaining the paper’s rationale for not endorsing presidential candidates in those years, which included its identity as “an independent newspaper.”

Lewis noted that the paper had endorsed Jimmy Carter in 1976 “for understandable reasons at the times” — which he did not identify.

“But we had it right before that, and this is what we are going back to,” Lewis wrote.

“Our job as the newspaper of the capital city of the most important country in the world is to be independent,” he wrote. “And that is what we are and will be.”

Post editor-at-large Robert Kagan, a member of the paper’s opinions section, resigned following the decision, multiple news outlets reported.

More than 10,000 reader comments were posted on Lewis’ article, many of them blasting the Post for its decision and saying they were canceling their subscriptions.

“The most consequential election in our country, a choice between Fascism and Democracy, and you sit out? Cowards. Unethical, fearful cowards,” wrote one comment. “Oh, and by the way, I’m canceling my subscription, because you are putting business ahead of ethics and morals.”

The announcement came days after Mariel Garza, the head of The Los Angeles Times‘ editorial board, resigned in protest after that paper’s owner, Patrick Soon-Shiong, decided against running a presidential endorsement.

“I am resigning because I want to make it clear that I am not okay with us being silent,” Garza told the Columbia Journalism Review. “In dangerous times, honest people need to stand up. This is how I’m standing up.”

Soon-Shiong, like Bezos, is a billionaire.

Marty Baron, the former editor of The Washington Post, called that paper’s decision “cowardice, with democracy as its casualty.”

″@realdonaldtrump will see this as an invitation to further intimidate owner @jeffbezos (and others),” Baron wrote. “Disturbing spinelessness at an institution famed for courage.”

The Washington Post Guild, the union that represents the newspaper’s staff, in a statement posted on the social media site X said it was “deeply concerned that The Washington Post — an American news institution in the nation’s capital — would make a decision to no longer endorse presidential candidates, especially a mere 11 days ahead of an immensely consequential election.”

“The message from our chief executive, Will Lewis — not from the Editorial Board itself — makes us concerned that management interfered with the work of our members in Editorial,” the Guild said in the statement, which noted the paper’s reporting about Bezos’ role in the decision.

“We are already seeing cancellations from once loyal readers,” the Guild said. “This decision undercuts the work of our members at a time when we should be building our readers’ trust, not losing it.”

Read more CNBC politics coverage

Former Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, whose stories about the Watergate break-in during the Nixon administration won the newspaper a Pulitzer Prize for Public Service, in a statement said, “We respect the traditional independence of the editorial page, but this decision 11 days out from the 2024 presidential election ignores the Washington Post’s own overwhelming reportorial evidence on the threat Donald Trump poses to democracy.”

“Under Jeff Bezos’s ownership, the Washington Post’s news operation has used its abundant resources to rigorously investigate the danger and damage a second Trump presidency could cause to the future of American democracy and that makes this decision even more surprising and disappointing, especially this late in the electoral process,” Woodward and Bernstein said.

Post columnist Karen Attiah, in a post on the social media site Threads, wrote, “Today has been an absolute stab in the back.”

“What an insult to those of us who have literally put our careers and lives on the line to call out threats to human rights and democracy,” Attiah wrote.

Rep. Ted Lieu, a Democrat from California, in his own tweet on the news wrote, “The first step towards fascism is when the free press cowers in fear.”

Trump in August told Fox Business News that Bezos called him after the Republican narrowly escaped an assassination attempt in July at a campaign rally in western Pennsylvania.

“He was very nice even though he owns The Washington Post,” Trump said of Bezos.

Bezos last posted on X on July 13, hours after the assassination attempt.

“Our former President showed tremendous grace and courage under literal fire tonight,” Bezos wrote in that tweet. “So thankful for his safety and so sad for the victims and their families.”

Trump on Friday met in Austin, Texas, with executives from the Bezos-owned space exploration company Blue Origin, among them CEO David Limp, the Associated Press reported

]]>
https://thenewshub.in/2024/10/26/jeff-bezos-killed-washington-post-endorsement-of-kamala-harris-paper-reports/feed/ 0
Drug costs, abortion, Obamacare: How Trump and Harris could change U.S. health care https://thenewshub.in/2024/10/19/drug-costs-abortion-obamacare-how-trump-and-harris-could-change-u-s-health-care/ https://thenewshub.in/2024/10/19/drug-costs-abortion-obamacare-how-trump-and-harris-could-change-u-s-health-care/?noamp=mobile#respond Sat, 19 Oct 2024 12:00:01 +0000 https://thenewshub.in/2024/10/19/drug-costs-abortion-obamacare-how-trump-and-harris-could-change-u-s-health-care/

President Donald Trump talks to the press outside the White House, July 19, 2019, left, and Democratic presidential nominee and U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris speaks to mark the one-year anniversary of the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks on Israel, at the vice president’s residence at the U.S. Naval Observatory in Washington, Oct. 7, 2024.

Getty Images (L) | Reuters (R)

Prescription drug costs. Abortion rights. The future of Obamacare

The fast-approaching presidential election between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump could lead to a huge range of outcomes for patients on those issues and others in the sprawling U.S. health system.

Both candidates are pledging to make care more affordable in the U.S., an outlier in the developed world due to its higher health-care spending, worse patient outcomes and barriers to access. But the candidates appear to have different approaches to doing so if elected. 

The candidates have not yet released detailed proposals on health policy, which ranks slightly lower than other issues at the top of voters’ minds, such as the economy. But each candidate’s track record provides a glimpse of what drug costs, health care and reproductive rights could look like over the next several years. 

“A Trump administration will try to slash federal health spending to pay for tax cuts and reduce the role of the federal government in health,” Drew Altman, CEO and president of health policy research organization KFF, told CNBC. He said a Harris administration “will build on existing programs, increasing federal spending to make health care more affordable for people.”

It wouldn’t be easy for either administration to make sweeping changes: The U.S. has a complicated and entrenched health-care system of doctors, insurers, drug manufacturers and other middlemen, which costs the nation more than $4 trillion a year. Any overhaul of the U.S. health-care system would also depend on which party controls Congress, and on the policies state lawmakers pass.

Despite spending more on health care than any other high-income country, the U.S. has the lowest life expectancy at birth, the highest rate of people with multiple chronic diseases and the highest maternal and infant death rate among those nations, according to a 2023 report published by The Commonwealth Fund, an independent research group.

Around half of American adults say it is difficult to afford health care, which can drive some patients into debt or lead them to put off necessary care, according to a May poll conducted by KFF. 

Here’s how Harris and Trump differ in their approaches to key health-care issues. 

nearly three times higher than those in other countries, according to the nonprofit research firm RAND. 

About 1 in 5 adults say they have not filled a prescription in the last year because of the cost, while roughly 1 in 10 say they have cut pills in half or skipped doses, according to the March KFF survey.

Activists protest the price of prescription drug costs in front of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services building in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 6, 2022.

Anna Moneymaker | Getty Images

Many of Trump’s efforts to rein in drug prices have either been temporary or not immediately effective, according to some health policy experts. On the campaign trail, the former president has also provided few specifics about his plans for lowering those costs. 

Some of Harris’ proposals are not fully fleshed out, but if elected she can build on the Biden administration’s efforts to save patients more money, experts said. 

Harris plans to expand certain provisions of President Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act, part of which aims to lower health-care costs for seniors enrolled in Medicare. In 2022, she cast the tie-breaking Senate vote to pass the legislation. 

Harris’ campaign says she intends to extend two provisions to all Americans, not just older adults in Medicare: a $35 limit on monthly insulin costs and a $2,000 annual cap on out-of-pocket drug spending. 

She also plans to expand and speed up the pace of Medicare drug price negotiations with manufacturers to cover more expensive drugs. The landmark policy, passed as part of the IRA, has faced fierce opposition from the pharmaceutical industry, as some companies have challenged its constitutionality in court. 

Trump has not indicated what he intends to do about IRA provisions.

Many Republicans have been vocal critics of the drug pricing negotiations, claiming they harm innovation and will lead to fewer cures, according to Dr. Mariana Socal, a health policy professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Trump made a similar argument in 2020 when he opposed a separate Democratic bill that would allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices. 

Still, Socal said a Trump administration wouldn’t have much flexibility to dismantle or scale back the law without change from Congress.

Some of Trump’s efforts to lower drug prices during his presidency “didn’t really come into fruition,” Socal added. 

In 2020, he signed an executive order to ensure Medicare didn’t pay more than the lowest price that select other developed countries pay for drugs. But the Biden administration ultimately rescinded that policy following a court order that blocked it. 

The Trump campaign this month said the former president would not try to renew the plan if reelected.

Also in 2020, Trump issued a rule setting up a path to import prescription drugs from Canada, where medication prices are 44% of those in the U.S. But it took years for the measure to gain momentum. The Biden administration only in January approved Florida’s plan to import some prescription treatments from Canada. 

Trump also set a $35-per-month cap on some insulin products for seniors through a temporary program that Medicare prescription drug plans, also known as Part D plans, could choose to join. The program was in effect from 2021 to 2023, and less than half of all Part D plans opted to participate each year, according to KFF. 

But that measure was much more limited than the Biden administration’s insulin price cap, which requires all Part D plans to charge no more than $35 per month for all covered insulin products. It also limits cost-sharing for insulin covered by Medicare Part B plans. 

Both administrations would likely continue to scrutinize pharmacy benefit managers, the drug supply chain middlemen who negotiate rebates with manufacturers on behalf of insurance plans, according to Dr. Stephen Patrick, chair of the health policy and management department at Emory University.

Lawmakers and the Biden administration have recently ramped up pressure on PBMs, accusing them of raking in profits while inflating prescription medication prices and harming U.S. patients and pharmacies. 

she would not back the program as president.

But Harris has supported the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, since she was a senator, consistently voting against bills to repeal the plan and reasserting her commitment to strengthen it during the presidential debate on Sept. 10.

The ACA was designed to extend health coverage to millions of uninsured Americans and implement reforms to the insurance market. The law expanded Medicaid eligibility, mandated that Americans purchase or otherwise obtain health insurance, and prohibited insurance companies from denying coverage due to preexisting conditions, among other provisions.

The IRA extended enhanced subsidies that made ACA health plans more affordable for millions of households through 2025 — a provision Harris plans to make permanent if elected, her campaign said. 

Harris may also work with Congress to try to extend Medicaid coverage in the 10 states that haven’t expanded it under the ACA, some experts said. Medicaid provides coverage for 81 million people, or more than 1 in 5 Americans, according to KFF.

The program is the largest source of federal funding to states. It covers low-income patients and families, as well as those with complex and costly needs, such as people with disabilities and individuals experiencing homelessness.

But if Republicans control even one branch of Congress, boosting Medicaid coverage will “be much tougher, if not impossible to do,” KFF’s Altman said.

Democrats face a difficult path to retaining their slim Senate majority, while Republicans are trying to cling to narrow control of the House.

Vice President Kamala Harris greets guests after speaking at an event celebrating the 13th anniversary of the Affordable Care Act in the East Room of the White House in Washington, D.C., March 23, 2023.

Nathan Posner | Anadolu | Getty Images

Meanwhile, Trump led multiple failed crusades to repeal the ACA during his first term. In a campaign video in April, Trump said he was not running on terminating the law and would rather make it “much, much better and far less money,” though he has provided no specific plans. Many Republicans have abandoned their promises to repeal the law after it grew more popular in recent years.

During the Sept. 10 debate, Trump reiterated his belief that the ACA was “lousy health care.” But he did not offer a replacement for the law when asked, saying only that he has “concepts of a plan.” 

KFF noted that Trump’s previous replacement proposals would have made the ACA less expensive for the federal government but raise out-of-pocket premiums for patients, lead to more uninsured Americans and increase risks for states. 

A Trump administration would likely have major implications for Medicaid, Altman said.

Notably, Trump has said he would not cut spending for Medicare and Social Security. But that makes Medicaid, which costs the federal government more than $600 billion a year, a target for severe cuts, Altman noted.

He said Trump could make fundamental changes to the program to curtail enrollment, such as lifetime limits on how many years people can get Medicaid coverage. 

A rally against Medicaid cuts in front of the U.S. Capitol on June 6, 2017.

Bill Clark | CQ-Roll Call, Inc. | Getty Images

Trump could also revisit some of his earlier attempts to reduce spending on Medicaid. As president, he approved eligibility restrictions such as work requirements, and proposed changing the way the federal government gives money to states for Medicaid into a “block grant” program. 

That refers to the government providing states with a fixed amount of money to administer and provide Medicaid services in exchange for more flexibility and less oversight.

The Biden administration withdrew some of those restrictions and encouraged waivers that would expand Medicaid coverage and reduce health disparities, which Harris would likely pursue if elected, experts said.

A Democratic House or Senate would likely block any of Trump’s sweeping changes to Medicaid, according to Altman. 

“My theory is that if the Democrats hold even one house in Congress, all of that will fail,” he said. “There’ll be a big debate, but it will fail. Medicaid is too big.”

a late August poll by The New York Times and Siena College. 

This is the first presidential election held since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the landmark ruling that established the constitutional right to abortion in the U.S. in 1973.

Abortion access in the U.S. has been in a state of flux in the roughly two years since the court’s decision, which has given conservative governors and legislatures the power to limit the procedure in their states. As of last year, more than 25 million women ages 15 to 44 lived in states where there are more restrictions on abortion than before the court’s ruling in 2022, PBS reported.

Vice President Kamala Harris speaks about Florida’s new 6-week abortion ban during an event at the Prime Osborn Convention Center in Jacksonville, Florida, May 1, 2024.

Joe Raedle | Getty Images

The future of abortion rights could look starkly different depending on which candidate holds office, according to Stacey Lee, professor of health law and ethics at the Johns Hopkins Carey Business School. That leaves the reproductive well-being of many women, especially lower-income people and people of color, hanging in the balance.

Harris has long been a staunch advocate of abortion access and has seized the opportunity to highlight what some health policy experts and voters consider the extreme and often inconsistent views of Trump and the broader Republican Party. 

She has blamed Trump, who appointed three members of the Supreme Court’s conservative majority, for the reversal of Roe v. Wade, and urged Congress to pass a national law codifying abortion rights. Democrats have not had enough votes in Congress to pass such protections under Biden.

Last month, Harris also said she supports eliminating the filibuster in the U.S. Senate to restore federal abortion protections as they existed under Roe v. Wade. The filibuster rule requires a 60-vote threshold for most legislation to pass, which makes it difficult for lawmakers to approve bills in a closely divided Senate.

Harris has also “been a firm proponent” of defending the availability of the abortion pill mifepristone, Lee said. Anti-abortion physicians squared off with the Food and Drug Administration in 2023 in an unprecedented legal battle over the agency’s more than two-decade-old approval of the medication. 

In June, the Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the challenge to mifepristone and sided with the Biden administration, meaning the commonly used medication could remain widely available. The administration’s FDA also revised restrictions on medication abortion, allowing certain certified retail pharmacies to dispense the pills. 

Meanwhile, Trump vaguely suggested in August that he would not rule out directing the FDA to revoke access to mifepristone. Just days later, his running mate, Sen. JD Vance, of Ohio, attempted to walk back those remarks. 

Trump’s comments appear to be a shift from his stance in June, when the former president said during a CNN debate that he “will not block” access to mifepristone.

During his time in office, Trump introduced several anti-abortion measures. That includes a “gag rule” that would have made clinics, such as Planned Parenthood, ineligible for federal health funds if they provided abortions or referrals for them. 

Vance this month also said a future Trump administration would defund Planned Parenthood.

But Trump has also waffled over the last few years on abortion policy, appearing to soften his stance on the issue to appeal to more moderate and independent voters.

He takes credit for Roe v. Wade’s demise since he reshaped the court, and his latest stance is that abortion policy should be set by the states. Earlier this year, however, Trump lamented that certain state laws go “too far.”

During a radio interview in March, Trump said he would consider a national ban on abortions around 15 weeks of pregnancy. 

But earlier this month, he said he would not support a federal abortion ban, writing in a post on X he would veto one. He added that he supports exceptions in cases of rape and incest and to save the life of a pregnant woman.

“It is difficult to find consistency within his policies, but that lack of consistency should amplify that perhaps anything is possible in terms of a more restrictive stance to abortion and reproductive rights,” Lee said. 

President Donald Trump arrives to speak at the 47th annual anti-abortion “March for Life” in Washington, D.C., Jan. 24, 2020.

Nicholas Kamm | Afp | Getty Images

Meanwhile, both Harris and Trump have recently expressed their support for in vitro fertilization, a type of fertility treatment performed outside of the body in a lab. It accounts for roughly 2% of births in the U.S. but is extremely costly for many low- and middle-income people who need the technology to start families. 

It became a campaign issue after the Alabama Supreme Court ruled in February that frozen embryos created during the IVF process could be considered children, which threatened the availability of those services in the state. 

Trump has called for the government or private insurers to pay for IVF treatment. Harris has said she would defend the right to both IVF and contraception, but has not specified how she would do so.

]]> https://thenewshub.in/2024/10/19/drug-costs-abortion-obamacare-how-trump-and-harris-could-change-u-s-health-care/feed/ 0 Trump or Harris? Here are the 2024 stakes for airlines, banks, EVs, health care and more https://thenewshub.in/2024/10/13/trump-or-harris-here-are-the-2024-stakes-for-airlines-banks-evs-health-care-and-more/ https://thenewshub.in/2024/10/13/trump-or-harris-here-are-the-2024-stakes-for-airlines-banks-evs-health-care-and-more/?noamp=mobile#respond Sun, 13 Oct 2024 13:36:31 +0000 https://thenewshub.in/2024/10/13/trump-or-harris-here-are-the-2024-stakes-for-airlines-banks-evs-health-care-and-more/

Former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris face off in the ABC presidential debate on Sept. 10, 2024.

Getty Images

With the U.S. election less than a month away, the country and its corporations are staring down two drastically different options.

For airlines, banks, electric vehicle makers, health-care companies, media firms, restaurants and tech giants, the outcome of the presidential contest could result in stark differences in the rules they’ll face, the mergers they’ll be allowed to pursue, and the taxes they’ll pay.

During his last time in power, former President Donald Trump slashed the corporate tax rate, imposed tariffs on Chinese goods, and sought to cut regulation and red tape and discourage immigration, ideas he’s expected to push again if he wins a second term.

In contrast, Vice President Kamala Harris has endorsed hiking the tax rate on corporations to 28% from the 21% rate enacted under Trump, a move that would require congressional approval. Most business executives expect Harris to broadly continue President Joe Biden‘s policies, including his war on so-called junk fees across industries.

Personnel is policy, as the saying goes, so the ramifications of the presidential race won’t become clear until the winner begins appointments for as many as a dozen key bodies, including the Treasury, Justice Department, Federal Trade Commission, and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

CNBC examined the stakes of the 2024 presidential election for some of corporate America’s biggest sectors. Here’s what a Harris or Trump administration could mean for business:

American Airlines and JetBlue Airways in the Northeast and JetBlue’s now-scuttled plan to buy budget carrier Spirit Airlines.

The previous Trump administration didn’t pursue those types of consumer protections. Industry members say that under Trump, they would expect a more favorable environment for mergers, though four airlines already control more than three-quarters of the U.S. market.

On the aerospace side, Boeing and the hundreds of suppliers that support it are seeking stability more than anything else.

Trump has said on the campaign trail that he supports additional tariffs of 10% or 20% and higher duties on goods from China. That could drive up the cost of producing aircraft and other components for aerospace companies, just as a labor and skills shortage after the pandemic drives up expenses.

Tariffs could also challenge the industry, if they spark retaliatory taxes or trade barriers to China and other countries, which are major buyers of aircraft from Boeing, a top U.S. exporter.

Leslie Josephs

JPMorgan Chase faced an onslaught of new rules this year as Biden appointees pursued the most significant slate of regulations since the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis.

Those efforts threaten tens of billions of dollars in industry revenue by slashing fees that banks impose on credit cards and overdrafts and radically revising the capital and risk framework they operate in. The fate of all of those measures is at risk if Trump is elected.

Trump is expected to nominate appointees for key financial regulators, including the CFPB, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation that could result in a weakening or killing off completely of the myriad rules in play.

“The Biden administration’s regulatory agenda across sectors has been very ambitious, especially in finance, and large swaths of it stand to be rolled back by Trump appointees if he wins,” said Tobin Marcus, head of U.S. policy at Wolfe Research.

Bank CEOs and consultants say it would be a relief if aspects of the Biden era — an aggressive CFPB, regulators who discouraged most mergers and elongated times for deal approvals — were dialed back.

“It certainly helps if the president is Republican, and the odds tilt more favorably for the industry if it’s a Republican sweep” in Congress, said the CEO of a bank with nearly $100 billion in assets who declined to be identified speaking about regulators.

Still, some observers point out that Trump 2.0 might not be as friendly to the industry as his first time in office.

Trump’s vice presidential pick, Sen. JD Vance, of Ohio, has often criticized Wall Street banks, and Trump last month began pushing an idea to cap credit card interest rates at 10%, a move that if enacted would have seismic implications for the industry.

Bankers also say that Harris won’t necessarily cater to traditional Democratic Party ideas that have made life tougher for banks. Unless Democrats seize both chambers of Congress as well as the presidency, it may be difficult to get agency heads approved if they’re considered partisan picks, experts note.

“I would not write off the vice president as someone who’s automatically going to go more progressive,” said Lindsey Johnson, head of the Consumer Bankers Association, a trade group for big U.S. retail banks.

Hugh Son

Inflation Reduction Act.

Harris hasn’t been as vocal a supporter of EVs lately amid slower-than-expected consumer adoption of the vehicles and consumer pushback. She has said she does not support an EV mandate such as the Zero-Emission Vehicles Act of 2019, which she cosponsored during her time as a senator, that would have required automakers to sell only electrified vehicles by 2040. Still, auto industry executives and officials expect a Harris presidency would be largely a continuation, though not a copy, of the past four years of Biden’s EV policy.

They expect some potential leniency on federal fuel economy regulations but minimal changes to the billions of dollars in incentives under the IRA.

Mike Wayland

more than $4 trillion a year.

Despite spending more on health care than any other wealthy country, the U.S. has the lowest life expectancy at birth, the highest rate of people with multiple chronic diseases and the highest maternal and infant death rates, according to the Commonwealth Fund, an independent research group.

Meanwhile, roughly half of American adults say it is difficult to afford health-care costs, which can drive some into debt or lead them to put off necessary care, according to a May poll conducted by health policy research organization KFF. 

Both Harris and Trump have taken aim at the pharmaceutical industry and proposed efforts to lower prescription drug prices in the U.S., which are nearly three times higher than those seen in other countries. 

But many of Trump’s efforts to lower costs have been temporary or not immediately effective, health policy experts said. Meanwhile, Harris, if elected, can build on existing efforts of the Biden administration to deliver savings to more patients, they said.

Harris specifically plans to expand certain provisions of the IRA, part of which aims to lower health-care costs for seniors enrolled in Medicare. Harris cast the tie-breaking Senate vote to pass the law in 2022. 

Her campaign says she plans to extend two provisions to all Americans, not just seniors: a $2,000 annual cap on out-of-pocket drug spending and a $35 limit on monthly insulin costs. 

Harris also intends to accelerate and expand a provision allowing Medicare to directly negotiate drug prices with manufacturers for the first time. Drugmakers fiercely oppose those price talks, with some challenging the effort’s constitutionality in court. 

Trump hasn’t publicly indicated what he intends to do about IRA provisions.

Some of Trump’s prior efforts to lower drug prices “didn’t really come into fruition” during his presidency, according to Dr. Mariana Socal, a professor of health policy and management at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

For example, he planned to use executive action to have Medicare pay no more than the lowest price that select other developed countries pay for drugs, a proposal that was blocked by court action and later rescinded

Trump also led multiple efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act, including its expansion of Medicaid to low-income adults. In a campaign video in April, Trump said he was not running on terminating the ACA and would rather make it “much, much better and far less money,” though he has provided no specific plans. 

He reiterated his belief that the ACA was “lousy health care” during his Sept. 10 debate with Harris. But when asked he did not offer a replacement proposal, saying only that he has “concepts of a plan.”

Annika Kim Constantino

Paramount Global and Skydance Media is set to move forward, with plans to close in the first half of 2025, many in media have said the Biden administration has broadly chilled deal-making.

“We just need an opportunity for deregulation, so companies can consolidate and do what we need to do even better,” Warner Bros. Discovery CEO David Zaslav said in July at Allen & Co.’s annual Sun Valley conference.

Media mogul John Malone recently told MoffettNathanson analysts that some deals are a nonstarter with this current Justice Department, including mergers between companies in the telecommunications and cable broadband space.

Still, it’s unclear how the regulatory environment could or would change depending on which party is in office. Disney was allowed to acquire Fox Corp.’s assets when Trump was in office, but his administration sued to block AT&T’s merger with Time Warner. Meanwhile, under Biden’s presidency, a federal judge blocked the sale of Simon & Schuster to Penguin Random House, but Amazon’s acquisition of MGM was approved. 

“My sense is, regardless of the election outcome, we are likely to remain in a similar tighter regulatory environment when looking at media industry dealmaking,” said Marc DeBevoise, CEO and board director of Brightcove, a streaming technology company.

When major media, and even tech, assets change hands, it could also mean increased scrutiny on those in control and whether it creates bias on the platforms.

“Overall, the government and FCC have always been most concerned with having a diversity of voices,” said Jonathan Miller, chief executive of Integrated Media, which specializes in digital media investment.
“But then [Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter] happened, and it’s clearly showing you can skew a platform to not just what the business needs, but to maybe your personal approach and whims,” he said.

Since Musk acquired the social media platform in 2022, changing its name to X, he has implemented sweeping changes including cutting staff and giving “amnesty” to previously suspended accounts, including Trump’s, which had been suspended following the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol insurrection. Musk has also faced widespread criticism from civil rights groups for the amplification of bigotry on the platform.

Musk has publicly endorsed Trump, and was recently on the campaign trail with the former president. “As you can see, I’m not just MAGA, I’m Dark MAGA,” Musk said at a recent event. The billionaire has raised funds for Republican causes, and Trump has suggested Musk could eventually play a role in his administration if the Republican candidate were to be reelected.

During his first term, Trump took a particularly hard stance against journalists, and pursued investigations into leaks from his administration to news organizations. Under Biden, the White House has been notably more amenable to journalists. 

Also top of mind for media executives — and government officials — is TikTok.

Lawmakers have argued that TikTok’s Chinese ownership could be a national security risk.

Earlier this year, Biden signed legislation that gives Chinese parent ByteDance until January to find a new owner for the platform or face a U.S. ban. TikTok has said the bill, the Protecting Americans From Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, which passed with bipartisan support, violates the First Amendment. The platform has sued the government to stop a potential ban.

While Trump was in office, he attempted to ban TikTok through an executive order, but the effort failed. However, he has more recently switched to supporting the platform, arguing that without it there’s less competition against Meta’s Facebook and other social media.

Lillian Rizzo and Alex Sherman

Washington Post previously reported.

In keeping with the campaign’s more labor-friendly approach, Harris is also pledging to eliminate the tip credit: In 37 states, employers only have to pay tipped workers the minimum wage as long as that hourly wage and tips add up to the area’s pay floor. Since 1991, the federal pay floor for tipped wages has been stuck at $2.13.

“In the short term, if [restaurants] have to pay higher wages to their waiters, they’re going to have to raise menu prices, which is going to lower demand,” said Michael Lynn, a tipping expert and Cornell University professor.

Amelia Lucas

has said she and Biden “reject the false choice that suggests we can either protect the public or advance innovation.” Last year, the White House issued an executive order that led to the formation of the Commerce Department’s U.S. AI Safety Institute, which is evaluating AI models from OpenAI and Anthropic.

Trump has committed to repealing the executive order.

A second Trump administration might also attempt to challenge a Securities and Exchange Commission rule that requires companies to disclose cybersecurity incidents. The White House said in January that more transparency “will incentivize corporate executives to invest in cybersecurity and cyber risk management.”

Trump’s running mate, Vance, co-sponsored a bill designed to end the rule. Andrew Garbarino, the House Republican who introduced an identical bill, has said the SEC rule increases cybersecurity risk and overlaps with existing law on incident reporting.

Also at stake in the election is the fate of dealmaking for tech investors and executives.

With Lina Khan helming the FTC, the top tech companies have been largely thwarted from making big acquisitions, though the Justice Department and European regulators have also created hurdles.

Tech transaction volume peaked at $1.5 trillion in 2021, then plummeted to $544 billion last year and $465 billion in 2024 as of September, according to Dealogic.

Many in the tech industry are critical of Khan and want her to be replaced should Harris win in November. Meanwhile, Vance, who worked in venture capital before entering politics, said as recently as February — before he was chosen as Trump’s running mate — that Khan was “doing a pretty good job.”

Khan, whom Biden nominated in 2021, has challenged Amazon and Meta on antitrust grounds and has said the FTC will investigate AI investments at Alphabet, Amazon and Microsoft.

Jordan Novet

]]> https://thenewshub.in/2024/10/13/trump-or-harris-here-are-the-2024-stakes-for-airlines-banks-evs-health-care-and-more/feed/ 0