The final New York Times/Siena College poll was released Friday, showing Trump and Harris in a dead tie nationally at 48%. The tie could signal good news for Trump, who was actually trailing Harris by 2 points in the same poll earlier this month.

On top of that, Democrats can and have won the national vote without winning the Electoral College.

“Trump Leads Among Men, White Voters, Midwest and South,” Siena College said in its release. “Harris Leads Among Women, Non-white Voters, Northeast and West.”

In the seven closest swing states, the races all remain basically within the margin of error, although Trump does hold a very narrow lead in all seven states, according to Real Clear Politics’ aggregation of recent polling.

Formerly competitive swing states like Florida and Ohio have gone for Trump by wide margins while Minnesota, New Mexico, and Colorado are in Harris’ camp in the latest polling.

FiveThirtyEight, another poll aggregator and analyzer, found Trump either tied or slightly ahead in the seven closest states of Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

Joe Rogan, who hosts the most popular podcast in America, released a taped interview with Trump. The 3-hour-long interview provided an unusually long conversation with Trump in a time when candidates are often protected by aides from invasive questioning.

Rogan has expressed mixed political opinions in the past. Rogan’s podcast is most popular among men, a demographic Harris is struggling to court.

Harris participated in a CNN Town Hall this week, where she attacked Trump on a range of issues including not joining her on CNN for a second debate.

Trump reportedly wanted a debate on Fox News.

Harris herself though faced pushback from CNN’s Anderson Cooper during the Town Hall and critics afterward for refusing to directly answer questions.

Longtime Democratic strategist and key staffer in the Obama administration David Axelrod critiqued Harris for her “word salad” answers.

“When she doesn’t want to answer a question, her habit is to kind of go to word salad city and she did that on a couple of answers,” Axelrod said on the CNN panel following the town hall. “One of them was on Israel. Anderson asked a direct question: would you be stronger on Israel than Trump, and there was a seven-minute answer, but none of it related to the question he was asking.”

Harris previously took fire for her lack of media interviews. Now, she is taking fire for her answers. Several media reports have indicated Democrats are worried that Harris has slipped from her momentum weeks ago.

“There is no joy left in the Democrat Party in the final week of the campaign,” Republican strategist Nate Brand told The Center Square. “Desperation has set in for Kamala and the left. At this point in the race, the winning team is normally the one having the most fun. From McDonald’s to Madison Square Garden, clearly Trump is having a good time. Bodes well for Republicans on Election Day.”

The libertarian Cato Institute released the report, which graded states by spending, revenue and taxes. The top ten states in the rankings starting at the top are Iowa, Nebraska, West Virginia, Arkansas, South Dakota, Montana, Hawaii, Georgia, Idaho, and Vermont.

The bottom ten states, according to the analysis, are New Mexico, Missouri, Oregon, Michigan, Wisconsin, Delaware, Washington, Maine, New York and lastly, Minnesota.

The bottom six states received a grade of “F.”

Walz’ poor rating comes just weeks before the presidential election where he and his running mate Vice President Kamala Harris are in a nearly tied race with former President Donald Trump and his running mate, Sen. J.D. Vance, R-Ohio.

The report explains the reasoning for Walz’ low score, pointing to a series of tax hikes under his leadership as well as spending increasing by 36% since 2022, from from about $52 billion to nearly $71 billion.

From the report:

In 2019, Walz’s budget would have added ‘$2 billion more in new spending and taxes would increase by $1.3 billion to pay for it, with the rest of the money coming from an existing surplus.’ But he compromised with the legislature, and the final tax increase was about $330 million annually. Walz also pushed for higher gas taxes and higher vehicle fees to raise about $1 billion annually for transportation, but those increases were rejected.

Walz pushed for more tax hikes in 2021. He proposed adding a new individual income tax rate of 10.85 percent above the current top rate of 9.85 percent, a surtax on capital gains and dividends, and a hike to the corporate tax rate from 9.8 percent to 11.25 percent. The proposals—which would have raised about $1.6 billion annually—were rejected by the legislature…

Walz hit the middle class with HF 2887, which raised taxes and fees on vehicles and transportation. The increases included indexing the gas tax for inflation, increasing vehicle registration taxes, raising fees on deliveries, and raising sales taxes in the Twin Cities area.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom appears to be taking actions to regulate gasoline on two fronts — through the legislature, and CARB, which consists of 14 voting members — 12 of whom are appointed by the governor without State Senate confirmation.

“In September of last year, CARB estimated that the change could lift gasoline prices 47 cents a gallon, or $6.4 billion a year,” reported the Los Angeles Times. “Other analysts put the price even higher — 65 cents a gallon, or $8.8 [billion] a year.”

It’s unclear how much the new refinery regulations — which would give the state power to tell refineries when they’re allowed to shut down for maintenance and repairs, and determine how much inventory of gasoline to maintain on hand in case refineries have to be shut down — would cost. However, a broad coalition of Republicans, Democrats, neighboring governors, and even labor unions is opposing the measure, which does seem ready to pass.

The small group of labor organizations that came out against the bill — employed in energy trades — shared a number of safety and even electoral concerns.

“This issue is readily being used against our candidate in those states and beyond,” wrote the coalition regarding the potential direct implications for the swing states of Arizona and Nevada that rely on California for gasoline, and the use of California’s climate positions as a tool to attack Democrats nationally more broadly. “If we cannot be heard and believed on issues that could jeopardize the lives of our members, something is very wrong in CA. Every member who votes for this bill should be prepared to answer if something goes wrong”

Assemblymember Joe Patterson, R-Rocklin, said that he believes most legislators actually no longer support the bill but feel strong-armed by the governor.

“The legislature honestly needs to stand up for itself and tell [Newsom] no. I’m guessing the vast majority of legislators want this bill to die,” said Patterson on X. “We shouldn’t do it just because of the Governor’s strange obsession with this weird policy to give bureaucrats power over gasoline production.”

CARB will be voting on the new amendments to the state’s low carbon fuel standard on November 8, just days after the presidential election, on whether or not to adopt new, stricter standards that will make it harder to generate LCFS credits, and require more LCFS credits to be purchased.

As can be seen in CARB data, the LCFS has been so successful that as of April 2024, the most recent data point, the reduction in carbon intensity of the state’s fuel system is already past the goal for 2026. While the widespread availability of LCFS credits has reduced emissions, the rapid scaling of the desired LCFS credit-producing technologies has also reduced the value of individual credits.

Should the new, more strict LCFS requirements be adopted, fewer credits would qualify, and the cost of credits would go up, but much of the billions of dollars invested in existing infrastructure to generate LCFS credits could turn worthless overnight.

California’s gas taxes are already the highest in the nation, with federal, state, and local taxes and fees adding approximately $1.62 per gallon, which is significantly more than the difference between California and national gas prices. If the LCFS is approved, California gasoline could cost approximately $2.09 to $2.27 per gallon more than the national average, a move that could drive more consumers to electric cars, or out of the state entirely.

The National Federation of Independent businesses on Monday released the survey, which showed small business uncertainty rose last month to the highest level ever recorded by NFIB.

“Small business owners are feeling more uncertain than ever,” NFIB Chief Economist Bill Dunkelberg said in a statement.

Small businesses have been crushed by inflation in recent years, with prices rising more than 20% since President Joe Biden took office. Pandemic-era shutdowns and supply chain issues also put many businesses in debt or drained their savings.

Many larger businesses had more reserves or access to capital to help them survive COVID while smaller businesses went under.

“Twenty-three percent of owners reported that inflation was their single most important problem in operating their business (higher input and labor costs), down one point from August but remaining the top issue,” NFIB said.

Inflation has slowed from its feverish pace earlier in Biden’s term, but prices remain elevated.

“A net negative 17% of all owners (seasonally adjusted) reported higher nominal sales in the past three months, down one point from August and the lowest reading of this year,” NFIB said. “The net percent of owners expecting higher real sales volumes rose nine points to a net negative 9% (seasonally adjusted).”

Small business owners have also reported difficulty with the labor market.

“Uncertainty makes owners hesitant to invest in capital spending and inventory, especially as inflation and financing costs continue to put pressure on their bottom lines,” Dunkelberg continued. “Although some hope lies ahead in the holiday sales season, many Main Street owners are left questioning whether future business conditions will improve.”

The analysis comes after House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith, R-Mo., House Budget Committee Chairman Jodey Arrington, R-Texas, and Senate Budget Committee Ranking Member Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, sent a letter to Director Phillip Swagel of the CBO questioning the budgetary impact of this new demonstration program.

A release from Swagel’s department said the increase in federal spending would range from $10 billion to $20 billion in 2025 compared to earlier projections.

“As predicted, the Biden-Harris Inflation Reduction Act not only quelled investment for new cures, but caused Medicare prescription drug plan premiums to skyrocket, and Democrats are scrambling to cover it up before the election,” Arrington said in a press release. “In July, the Biden-Harris CMS scrambled to create a new federal program that will send billions of tax dollars to large health insurance companies to cover up a massive flaw in their so-called Inflation Reduction Act.”

The new average plan bid for a standard Part D coverage increases by 179% for 2025 partly due to an underestimation of federal attributions to the Part D changes, according to the analysis.

Arrington continued, “Today, CBO confirmed that the administration’s election year Hail Mary will cost taxpayers an astounding $7 billion next year alone, and $21 billion over the planned three-year demo, adding to the more than $2 trillion in Biden-Harris executive spending.”

These plans typically expect monthly reinsurance, which means Medicare payments cover part of the costs of prescription drugs when the catastrophic threshold is reached.

Almost 60% of Part D enrollees are through Medicare Advantage plans and receive coverage through MA-PD plans. The rest are covered through what’s known as stand-alone prescription drug plans.

CBO expects the following changes for prescription drug plans in 2025:

• A $15 reduction for monthly PDPs. This would cost a total of $2.9 billion in federal funding.
• Increases in PDPs will be capped at $35 in 2024 and 2025, totaling $1.8 billion in federal funding.
• Risk corridor subsidies will increase for PDPs that have more than 2.5% of bids in 2025, resulting in $250 million of federal funding.

The budget office said the changes to temporary subsidies, combined with risk corridors, will increase federal spending by $5 billion in 2025, with $2 billion in net spending interest until 2034.

Policies included in the $891 billion Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 have changed the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit that was originally estimated to be $30 million over 10 years beginning in 2025.

This resulted in the sponsors of the Medicare prescription drug plan increasing plan bids and base beneficiary premiums for 2025 while reducing the number of plans that would be available to seniors in 2025.

“When Democrats unilaterally enacted major changes to Medicare two years ago, they set seniors up for new expenses and fewer options,” Grassley said in a release. “This nonpartisan CBO analysis confirms CMS’s cost-shifting plan is a dishonest election year gimmick to cover up those consequences.”

CMS is an acronym for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

The program would send federal money to large health insurance companies while falsely lowering the cost for seniors Part D premiums and potentially costing $7 billion in 2025, according to the analysis.

Grassley continued, “Rather than coming to the table and legitimately addressing its partisan mistakes, the Biden-Harris administration threw taxpayer dollars at the problems it created, putting Americans on the hook for tens of billions more dollars.”

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure said in a release, “Today’s final guidance for the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program builds off the success of the first 10 negotiated drug prices and continues the Biden-Harris administration’s commitment to provide millions of people with Medicare affordable access to innovative therapies.”

This is a contradiction from the reported number taxpayers will pay that was stated in the analysis.

Brooks-LaSure continued, “While saving Medicare and taxpayers billions of dollars, the negotiated prices will also provide people with Medicare a better deal on some of Medicare’s costliest prescription drugs, promoting necessary competition in the market, and ensuring Medicare is strong today and into the future.”

The temporary subsidies, announced in July, affect both those enrolled and the federal payments to Plan D premiums in 2025, 2026 and 2027, though certain policies have yet to be announced for 2026-27, meaning no budgetary estimation for both years.

The budget office said it expects $100 million in 2025 from each organization that controls and collects payments from the government on behalf of Part D plans.

Continuing that most of that would have been paid for by enrollees in the Part D program through premiums, “For that reason, the effect of CMS’s subsidies on plans’ revenues is much smaller than the federal cost. By providing larger federal subsidies to prescription drug plans, the federal payments to Part D plans effectively cover costs that would have been borne by Part D enrollees.”

“I believe in that old adage that as goes California, so goes the rest of the country.” – Kamala Harris

(The Center Square)—When Harris named Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz as her vice presidential nominee, the Democrats were thrilled since he looks like someone who’d be at home on a tractor, sporting a straw hat while tending to his crops. The left believes his facade will persuade moderate and middle-class voters to move left and support Democrats in November. But, the left is counting chickens before they hatch.

It wasn’t just happenstance that Harris chose progressive Walz as her right hand comrade to run with her in November. Waltz is not a low profile progressive whose name happened to pop up. During his first term as governor, Walz was constrained by a Republican majority in the Senate. But in his second term, the Minnesota state government turned far left, as solid blue as California.

Walz is very open about his views and as governor he has put them on auction. He has positioned himself as another Bernie Sanders, the socialist senator from Vermont. He revealed his philosophy on last week’s “White Dudes for Harris” fundraiser call when he said, “Don’t ever shy away from our progressive values. One person’s socialism is another person’s neighborliness.”

It usually takes months to vet a potential candidate for a high office. But since Biden was forced to step down by the DNC just before their convention, they didn’t have time to fully investigate Waltz’s background. As questions about his past and his policies have been revealed by opponents and the media, Democrats have been working overtime to re-image and hawk Walz to moderate voters.

It has been said that people judge you by the company you keep. When Harris announced that she had chosen Waltz as her running mate, those who were most excited about her choice include the progressive “Squad” members Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Jamaal Bowman of New York. Socialist Bernie Sanders also immediately expressed his approval.

“To me socialism means that we must work to reform a system that is corrupt.” – Bernie Sanders

Everyone already knows that Harris hails from the progressive bastion of progressive California. As a U.S. senator she gained the reputation as the most liberal member of the Senate in her first term. Harris’ record speaks for itself. She cast the most tie-breaking votes in Senate history to green-light the Democrats’ most radical, inflationary priorities. Her votes led to trillions of dollars of runaway spending by Democrats and the confirmation of many radical activist progressive federal judges.

Since Walz was a last minute pick by Harris, the American people did not know much about his policies or his past. And the liberal media did not have time to run cover for him like they’ve done for Harris since she’s been in office. Legislation Waltz has signed into law rivals that in California.

“I believe in diversity and I think the legislation I have signed into law proves this.” – Tim Walz

The seeming schism in Walz’s progressive ideological history has become a subject of red-hot national political debate since it was revealed that he was Harris’s running mate.

Since Walz was elected, Minnesota allows abortion on demand at any stage of pregnancy. Walz overturned a former “born alive” provision that offered protections for babies who survived an abortion.

Walz believes government is the answer. He thinks government should over-rule parents if it does not like decisions they make. He signed a trans-refuge bill to “protect children from their parents” who come to his state for gender-affirming care, like puberty blockers or sex-change surgery.

Walz signed a bill to provide K-12 students, regardless of need, free breakfast and lunch. It has cost millions of dollars and he raised taxes to finance it. Giving free stuff to everyone buys votes and increases dependence on government but it’s paid for by taxpayers, not the leftist politicians.

In typical progressive fashion, Walz signed legislation that requires menstrual products, such as tampons and sanitary napkins, to be provided in both boys’ and girls’ public school bathrooms.

“Gov Walz wants to insure all those who menstruate have access to period supplies.” – Lacey Gero

Walz has bucked the national trend of many other governors and continues to raise taxes to finance his many progressive programs. Jared Walczak of the Tax Foundation said, “Gov. Walz’s tax record is notable because of how much it contrasts with broader national trends. Walz is rare among his peers, to dramatically increase taxes while other governors have championed tax cuts.”

In 2023, he passed a bill making illegal aliens living in the U.S. eligible for driver’s licenses. He proposed giving illegal aliens free health insurance from the state’s low-income insurance plan. Walz supports laws that forbid local law enforcement from informing federal authorities about the status of illegal aliens that they arrest.

Walz, like Harris, changes his policy support for survival. While he was in Congress, he represented a very conservative Minnesota district. He crossed the aisle many times and supported bills that his conservative constituents told him to pass. In fact, at one time GovTrack rated Walz the 12th most politically right member of the House Democratic Caucus. Of course that was then – and this is now.

Democrats claim Walz will “bring normality back to the chaotic political environment,” just as Harris and Biden once promised. But most people see Walz as anything but a return to normalcy. And the Republican National Committee Chair Michael Whatley contended that the Harris and Walz team will “make up the most radical, far-left, progressive presidential ticket in the history of our country.”

There are many reasons why people are leaving states like Minnesota and California, which rank in the bottom 10 for net migration. Blue state progressive governors are raising taxes to patronize the illegal aliens and identity groups, at the expense of services used by taxpayers. They are funding drug addicts and the homeless programs, which encourages more to come. Their insane climate laws and other Orwellian politics make living in a blue state impossible and the people want out.

If Kamala Harris and Tim Walz win the election and take control of the House and the Senate, in four years America will be a clone of California. With progressives running America, California will have unprecedented influence on the laws passed by Congress. As the first California Democrat to win the White House, Harris will charter policies that replicate California’s ideology for all America.

Harris’ positions are so extreme they make Orwell’s Big Brother look liberal. Harris is the biggest remake of a candidate in political history. And we’ll see the real Kamala Harris on Nov. 6.

“In our age, there is no such thing as ‘keeping out of politics.’ All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia.” – George Orwell

Prior to the last budget funding showdown in March, House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-Louisiana, said in January that “any bill that does not secure the border is not acceptable.”

He also identified 64 examples of ways he says the Biden-Harris administration “worked to systematically undermine America’s border security.”

In February, House Republicans impeached Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas arguing he was derelict in his duty and violated the public trust by creating a border crisis. One month later, the majority of Republicans who voted to impeach him, passed a spending bill that funded programs he created they maintain are illegal.

While Americans complain about escalating crime caused by illegal border crossers who’ve inundated their communities, Congress funded the programs that brought them there – and are keeping them there – including DHS’ Shelter and Services Program grants funneling billions to primarily Democratic states, counties, cities as well as nonprofits.

Likewise, the U.S. Senate’s “strongest border security bill in history” the White House, Senate and House Democrats keep touting, co-authored by U.S. Sen. James Lankford, R-OK, allocated “an additional $1.4 billion in SSP funds, and provide additional needed tools and resources to respond to historic global migration,” DHS says – to fund caring for illegal border crossers released into the US.

DHS recently announced the latest round of SSP funding of $380 million—a drop in the bucket to overall spending authorized by Congress. This round “augments the $259.13 million in SSP grants that DHS distributed in April 2024 … which was authorized by Congress to support communities that are providing services to migrants,” DHS says.

The April DHS grant money was distributed after Congress in March passed a $1.2 trillion spending package to avoid a so-called government shutdown, despite Johnson’s and others’ claims, about requiring border security as a condition for passing it.

More than $780 million worth of SSP and the Emergency Food and Shelter Program – Humanitarian Awards grants were awarded in fiscal 2023 “which went to organizations and cities across the country,” DHS says. That’s after DHS awarded $640.9 million in fiscal 2024 “to enable non-federal entities to off-set allowable costs incurred for services associated with noncitizen migrant arrivals in their communities,” also authorized by Congress.

Here are examples of fiscal 2023 and fiscal 2024 grant recipients and the amounts they received.

The SSP grants are awarded in phases. One round in fiscal 2024, totaling $40.8 million, was awarded to:

• City/County of Denver, $5.9 million;
• District of Columbia, $2.7 million;
• City of Chicago, $3.8 million;
• Commonwealth of Massachusetts, nearly $4.9 million;
• NYC Office of Management and Budget, $20.4 million;
• City of Philadelphia over $3 million.
• That’s after $275 million was awarded to 55 recipients in the attached spreadsheet. Top recipients in one round of funding include:
• New York City’s Office of Management and Budget, $38.8 million;
• Pima County, Ariz., $21.8 million;
• Catholic Charities, Diocese of San Diego of $19.5 million;
• Maricopa County, $11.6 million, among others.

Democratic-led cities also received large payouts in one round of funding:

• Atlanta, $10.8 million;
• Chicago, $9.6 million;
• Denver, $5.8 million.

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts also cashed in, receiving nearly $7 million; the District of Columbia received $8.7 million; Illinois, $9.6 million, all in one round of funding.

Democratic controlled El Paso County has long received federal money to coordinate transporting illegal foreign nationals north to New York City, Chicago and Denver, The Center Square reported; Austin and San Antonio followed suit flying north “guests coming from the border,” to “proactively manage the flow of people” out of their cities.

These grants exclude others awarded through numerous other federal agencies, including FEMA, U.S. Health and Human Services and others.

Gov. Ron DeSantis, R-FL, U.S. Rep. Thomas Massie, R-KY, and several House Freedom Caucus members argue Congress has a constitutional requirement to stop funding the border crisis. DeSantis, a Freedom Caucus member when he served in Congress, has asked, “How many congressmen rail against Biden’s transgressions yet still vote to fund them?”

Massie said in January that “in March, when funding expires, we can put a rider in the next bill that says none of the money hereby appropriated can be used to countermand border security measures of the states.”

This didn’t happen. The majority of Republicans voted to keep spending taxpayer money on these programs. By July, a U.S. House Judiciary Committee report highlighted examples of how Congress was still funding the border crisis.

The poll was conducted between Aug. 12-16, surveying 1,003 registered voters in Arizona and yielding a 3.09% margin of error.

“For most of the election season, inflation, immigration, and abortion have been the top issues,” reads a report on the poll. “That’s still true – but a new issue, affordable housing, has officially cemented its status as a top-tier issue for Arizona voters. And, affordable housing’s importance is comparable to the other top issues – it’s high.”

However, neither Republicans nor Democrats have made affordable housing a major campaign point.

“Immigration, abortion, inflation – when these issues come up, the parties know what they’re talking about,” said David Byler, NPI chief of research. “And voters know who they trust. Housing is a different animal. Housing costs are just too high, and it’s becoming a bipartisan concern.”

According to a housing affordability study conducted by the University of Arizona, more than 30% of Arizonans are facing a housing burden, meaning that their housing costs consume more than 30% of their income.

“Households that are cost burdened are more likely to struggle to pay for other basic needs such as healthcare, childcare, transportation, and even food,” reads the study. There is a shortage of 133,684 affordable homes for Arizonans.

Low income households are not the only ones facing cost burdens, data shows that 37% of households that have “middle income” are still burdened when it comes to housing costs.

Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs has taken steps to help Arizonans with housing issues including a first-time home ownership assistance program, dedicating $13 million to help individuals with a down payment on a home.

“As someone who has struggled to make mortgage payments myself, I know how owning a home can help build a strong financial foundation and anchor families to the communities they love,” Hobbs said in an April 12 statement. “This new program will offer the freedom and independence that comes with homeownership that has been eluding many deserving Arizonans across the state.”

However, Arizonans are still struggling, making housing affordability a major issue that candidates can use to win the swing state.

“This is a rare opportunity for both parties – an important issue where neither side has a pre-existing advantage or even a defined message,” Byler said. “The party that figures out how to win on housing will benefit hugely.”