Obama-Biden’s economy was a parched garden, Trumponomics made it bloom: Deroy Murdock

At their rambunctious debate on September 29, former Vice President Joe Biden said this about President Donald J. Trump: “We handed him a booming economy. He blew it.”

Not so fast, Sleepy Joe.

In fact, rather than “booming,” Biden and Obama bequeathed President Trump an economy that resembled a dehydrated garden. It was alive, but drooping. Obama-Biden’s recovery from the Great Recession was the most parched since the Great Depression.

The president treated the garden with Trumponomics: He irrigated it with the GOP’s Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (which every congressional Democrat opposed). He fertilized it with robust deregulation that junked eight old rules for every new one imposed. And he serenaded it with a pro-enterprise tone.


Job creators welcomed Trump’s words of gratitude and encouragement rather than the threats, class-warfare hectoring, and success shaming of Barack “You didn’t build that!” Obama.

The result?

President Trump’s garden flourished. Companies budded, entrepreneurs bloomed, and workers blossomed – often reaching unprecedented heights. As late as February, the U.S. economy in winter recalled an arboretum in April.

  • In terms of household finances, Trumponomics parted Obama’s gray skies and let the sun shine. Census Bureau data released September 15 show that inflation-adjusted median household income increased from $64,324 in 2018 to a record $68,703 in 2019, up 6.8 percent. This extra $4,379 in the typical American home is the largest one-year hike in this key barometer of well-being.

During Trump’s first three years, this metric advanced from $59,039 in 2016 to $68,703 in 2019. This $9,664 represents a 16.4 percent income boost (5.5 percent per annum on average) for everyday Americans.

Obama’s final three years featured an analogous income increase from

Economy, COVID dominate state House debate in Greenwich

GREENWICH — With a crowded slate of six candidates — who all practiced social distancing — the three races for the state House of Representatives in Greenwich were all combined into one debate Thursday night.

The League of Women Voters of Greenwich hosted the debate at Town Hall and streamed it via Zoom.

The match-ups saw Republican Kimberly Fiorello and Democrat Kathleen Stowe face off in the 149th District, which includes part of Stamford; incumbent Democrat Stephen Meskers and Republican challenger Joe Kelly in the 150th District; and incumbent Republican Harry Arora and Democratic challenger Hector Arzeno in the 151st District.

Under the format, the six candidates were part of the same debate. Issues like the economy, transportation and recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic dominated as they were asked the same questions.

All had time for reply but the format did not allow for much back and forth dialogue between the opponents. But on the topic of small business in the state, the candidates were in big agreement.

Stowe, vice chair of the Greenwich Board of Education, said she could speak personally about the opportunity for Connecticut as New Yorkers relocate here during the pandemic. She said the goal should be to persuade the new residents to stay — and to get businesses to move to Connecticut, too. Stowe, who has a background in investment banking and private equity, runs a financial technology company with her father. She said they were planning on leaving New York and possibly relocating their business to Connecticut.

“Once people see how wonderful Connecticut is they’ll want to stay here,” she said. “Businesses always come and they stay where they’re welcomed. … As a state, we should be recruiting companies just like mine. We have the key ingredients, but we need to enhance it with

Trump immigration restrictions expected to impact economy long after he leaves White House

Big tech firms like Google have been among the biggest beneficiaries of the H-1B visa program in recent years. <span class="copyright">(Associated Press)</span>
Big tech firms like Google have been among the biggest beneficiaries of the H-1B visa program in recent years. (Associated Press)

President Trump’s four-year crusade against immigration has pushed the number of foreign workers and other immigrants arriving on American shores down to the lowest level in decades.

That’s pleased Trump’s supporters, but it will almost certainly cost the nation dearly in the future, with slower job growth, fewer start-ups and a weaker overall economy, economists, business leaders and immigration analysts say.

Among the most damaging of Trump’s anti-immigration efforts, according to experts, is his renewed push to deny visas to foreign workers with special skills and expertise that U.S. companies need.

Two rules issued this week, one by the Labor Department and the other by the Department of Homeland Security, are expected to make it significantly harder for tech firms — many of them in California and elsewhere on the West Coast — to bring on workers from abroad under the so-called H-1B visa program.

Many economists say the rules will hurt the U.S. and help its foreign competitors. Robert Atkinson, president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a nonpartisan think tank, said he has started to see recruitment billboards placed by Canadians in Silicon Valley.

Trump officials have sought to frame the latest H-1B rules as a coronavirus-induced emergency to save American jobs, bypassing the public-comment period to impose some of the changes right away.

“Immediate action is needed to guard against the risk lower-cost foreign labor can pose,” Patrick Pizzella, the deputy secretary of Labor, told reporters Tuesday.

Yet the H1-B program, along with many other forms of legal immigration, has been in the administration’s crosshairs since Trump first took office, according to Sarah Pierce, an analyst with the Migration Policy Institute.

“This wasn’t something they

White House prioritizes Supreme Court pick over economy, jobs

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin were scheduled to have an important meeting yesterday afternoon on a possible economic aid package. Before they could connect, however, Donald Trump rendered their meeting moot: the negotiations, the president, were over.

Americans with economic concerns, Trump added, will have to wait “until after the election.” In the meantime, the Republican demanded that his team and its allies “focus full time” on Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Not surprisingly, this has quickly become the official White House line.

White House National Economic Council Director Larry Kudlow told CNBC on Wednesday that there was a “low probability” of approving additional legislation in time for the election … “We’ve only got four weeks to the election, and we have a justice of the Supreme Court to get passed. It’s too close to the election — not enough time to get stuff done at this stage in the game,” Kudlow said.

Right off the bat, we know this is politically unwise: polls show the American mainstream is far more concerned about the struggling economy than filling the vacancy on the high court. For Team Trump to ignore these attitudes during the election season is to take an unnecessary risk.

But more important is the fact that we know Kudlow’s wrong, and not just in the abstract. In the spring, when policymakers were focused on a hearty response to the coronavirus crisis, the CARES Act came together rather quickly. It didn’t take four weeks; it barely took one.

What’s more, it’s not like officials would need to start from scratch to craft a plan between now and Election Day: the House has already passed two ambitious aid packages, and bipartisan negotiations have been ongoing for weeks. A concerted effort