Thought of the Week:
As a kid, I just couldn’t stomach cooked green bell peppers, even those stuffed with ground beef and my grandmother’s homemade tomato sauce. I knew they were healthy and came from our back yard garden. And it went without saying that they were good for me—filled with antioxidants and packed with vitamins. It didn’t matter, my immature palate couldn’t handle the intense taste and aroma. The smell and flavor were too much, overwhelming even, and I spent many a stuffed pepper night alone at the kitchen table long after my mother had finished cleaning up, my father had come back from walking the dog, and my sister had gone to the family room to watch TV. That refusal to eat something nutritious, that everyone else seemed to devour with gusto reminds me of Democrats’ reluctance to not just embrace liquified natural gas (LNG) production and export but to seemingly want to sit defiantly at energy’s kitchen table. A new National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and PwC study shows that the Biden administration’s ongoing ban on new LNG export licenses is handcuffing an industry that could produce many more billions of dollars in revenue and threatens a staggering 900,000 jobs by 2044. While it remains unclear whether Vice President Harris would continue this pause as president or reverse course in a departure from her administration’s current position, she has stated that there is nothing she would have done differently than President Biden. The fact of the matter is that the LNG export industry has turned the U.S. into a powerhouse of clean energy, benefitted American trading partners, and served as a huge source of jobs and profit. At present, LNG exports support 222,450 jobs, result in $23.2 billion in labor income, contribute $43.8 billion to GDP, and provide $11.0 billion in tax and royalty revenues to federal, state, and local governments. Yet, those figures pale in comparison to the industry’s potential over the next two decades. At risk if the ban remains in place is as many as 901,250 jobs, in the range of $59.0 billion to $103.9 billion in labor income, as much as $215.7 billion in contributions to GDP, and between $26.9 billion and $47.7 billion in tax and royalty revenues that would benefit communities across the country. Interestingly, American public opinion is squarely behind the LNG export industry; a recent NAM poll showed that 87% of respondents agreed the U.S. should continue to export natural gas and 76% of respondents agreed with building more energy infrastructure, such as LNG export terminals; these numbers suggest that increasing LNG exports would be a winning political issue regardless of which side of the aisle one sits. We’ve heard surrogates for Vice President Harris asked about the pause, and the stock answer is generally along the lines of “LNG production and exports are at all-time highs,” which is true. Yet, what we never hear are the follow-ups: What about the jobs, income, contributions to GDP, and tax revenues that could be generated from lifting the pause? Wouldn’t expansion of LNG production and exports serve the transition to a cleaner energy future? Unlike my childhood tradeoff between green peppers’ taste and nutrition, with LNG exports the choice is not between what’s good for the economy and good for the planet—both are true.
Thought Leadership from our Consultants, Think Tanks, and Trade Associations
American Enterprise Institute (AEI) Asks Whether Either Party Could Build a Majority Coalition. In the U.S. political system, the purpose of parties is to form enduring national coalitions. At almost any point in history there was a majority party working to sustain a complex coalition and a minority party hoping to recapture the majority. Today, however, American politics features two minority parties, and neither seems interested in working to build a national coalition. Close elections and narrow majorities dominate electoral politics more than at any other point in history. Republicans rely on white working-class voters and are becoming increasingly weak among white college-educated voters. The GOP generally does poorly among non-white voters, and geographically dominates rural America; the party also performs much better in the outer suburbs than in more educated, affluent inner suburbs. They get beat badly in dense urban areas. The Democratic coalition has become dependent on the votes of college graduates, particularly white college graduates. Its weakness is among white working-class voters, still a large voting bloc despite its declining weight in the electorate. The non-white population continues to vote largely Democratic, but the margins are starting to decline, especially among Hispanic and working-class voters. Geographically, Democrats’ support is highly polarized—they dominate urban areas and run up ever-bigger margins in inner suburbs, but their strength diminishes away from the urban core; in rural America, their brand is toxic. What the Republican and Democratic coalitions have in common is enough strength to stalemate the other party but not enough to dominate. As a result, a toxic back-and-forth has defined American politics for a generation. To break the deadlock, Republicans could capitalize on Democratic cultural radicalism—on immigration, crime, and identity politics—energy realism, and patriotism. At the same time, Democrats hold clear advantages with positions on abortion, health care, and adherence to political norms. The key issues of economic prosperity and America’s place in the world lack an advantage for either party. Stalemate is not the U.S. system’s natural equilibrium. Both parties have avenues to build a durable majority, but they must recognize where they stand before acting to build a dominant coalition.
Carnegie Endowment Explores How Foreign Policy Factors into the Election. Conventional wisdom tells us that presidential elections are not decided by foreign policy issues. However, this year, the prominence of foreign policy topics since election campaigning began and their high profile in recent debates suggest these issues hold some importance for voters. A recent survey conducted by the Carnegie Endowment revealed significant insights into registered voters’ priorities concerning the foreign policy challenges that are prominent in this election cycle; among the findings:
- Immigration (50%) and climate change (40%) were the highest-ranked foreign policy concerns among all registered voters, followed by the Israel-Hamas war (35%) and the Russia-Ukraine war and relations with China (tied at 28%).
- Foreign policy concerns were similar for undecided voters. Climate change and immigration were tied for most important (42%), followed by the war between Israel and Hamas (30%).
- Among undecideds, over half lack confidence in either candidate’s ability, while a large minority preferred Trump regarding China, the Israel-Hamas war, immigration, and Russia-Ukraine. Harris was favored on climate change.
- The level of importance assigned to issues varied across racial groups. Black voters (48%) ranked climate change as their top foreign policy concern, while Hispanic (51%) and White (52%) voters prioritized immigration.
Global Policy Group Believes Uncertainty May Shape “Lame Duck” Session. House Speaker Johnson (R-LA) says the House will not return to Washington before the Election Day despite calls for Congress to do so to pass emergency disaster-relief legislation. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) says it spent nearly half of the disaster-relief funds appropriated for this fiscal year in just eight days due to Hurricanes Helene and Milton, while the Small Business Administration (SBA) has less than $100 million left in federal disaster loan funding. Speaker Johnson said the agencies have the funds they need for the moment, and additional funding will be a top item on the agenda when Congress returns for its post-election “lame duck” session—although lawmakers will also have other issues to address. Most notably, they will need to pass appropriations legislation for the remainder of the fiscal year, the annual National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), and a “farm bill.” It is also possible that when lawmakers return to Washington the week of November 11 they will do so at a time when the outcome of the presidential election has not yet been determined. With Vice President Harris and former-President Trump virtually deadlocked, the outcome of the contest may not be known for days or weeks after Election Day, especially since a wave of lawsuits are virtually certain to be filed after the election. In fact, dozens of voting-related lawsuits have already been filed. Any uncertainty surrounding the election result will only add to the tensions on Capitol Hill when lawmakers return next month.
“Inside Baseball”
Although you’ll hear that Congress is now in “recess” until a lame duck session is held following Election Day, actually, the legislative body is in session on a pro forma basis. Pro forma sessions are meetings of Congress held “in form only.” Either house of Congress can hold pro forma sessions. During such sessions, no votes are taken, and no legislative business is conducted. Officially, pro forma sessions are held to meet the “three-day rule” in Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution. The rule prohibits either chamber of Congress from not meeting for more than three consecutive calendar days during a congressional session without the approval of the other chamber. Pro forma sessions rarely last more than a few minutes as there are no constitutional restrictions on how long they must last or what business may be conducted. While any Senator or Representative can open and preside over a pro forma session, the attendance of other members is not required. In fact, most pro forma sessions are held before nearly empty chambers. Typically, a Senator or Representative from Virginia, Maryland, or Delaware is chosen to preside since members from other states have usually left Washington for vacations or meetings with constituents in their home districts/states. Scheduled long-term breaks, such as the August recess or district work periods, are provided for by passage of a joint resolution for adjournment. Unofficially, and somewhat controversially, the minority party in the Senate may hold pro forma sessions to prevent the president from making “recess appointments” to fill vacancies in federal offices that require Senate approval; as long as the Senate meets pro forma, Congress never officially adjourns, thus blocking the president from making recess appointments.
In Other Words
“I think it’s certainly reasonable to deport around a million people per year,” Senator Vance (R-OH), the Republican Vice-Presidential nominee, in an interview with the New York Times.
Did You Know
Almost a year after two giant pandas left for China, two new pandas have arrived at the Smithsonian’s National Zoo. Following an 8,000-mile trip, Qing Bao, a 3-year-old female, and Bao Li, a 3-year-old male, arrived at the zoo. The pandas will make their public debut on January 24, 2025.
Graph of the Week
Since 2023, there have been at least 165 election-related lawsuits filed across 37 challenging almost every facet of the presidential contest. More than half of the cases were filed in the seven swing states most likely to determine the outcome of the race. Republicans have been more active than Democrats, filing 55% of cases. Three weeks out from the election, judges continue to hand down decisions, and new cases are still being filed. The litigation is an ominous turn for the world’s oldest democracy. Judges aren’t supposed to decide who wins the White House, and even when courts don’t play a major role in the outcome, lawsuits can amplify the belief that vote counts can’t be trusted.
