One concern about relying on the known health information of presidents and presidential candidates is that it is often misleading or incomplete. Politicians and their doctors play a gatekeeping role in deciding what information is publicly shared. For example, former Massachusetts Sen. Paul Tsongas and his physicians assured the public that he was cancer-free during his 1992 presidential bid, failing to reveal that his non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma had returned five years earlier. Tsongas died of the illness before his hypothetical first term would have ended.

More recently, Dr. Harold Bornstein acknowledged in 2018 that candidate Trump had dictated verbatim Bornstein’s 2015 letter stating that his patient would be “the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency.” Confidentiality laws, such as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), further constrain physicians who might wish to alert the public to concerns.

The level of impairment suffered by presidents during medical crises is usually only discovered in hindsight — whether Woodrow Wilson’s limitations after successive strokes, Franklin D. Roosevelt’s incapacitating cardiac disease, John F. Kennedy’s adrenal deficiency, Richard Nixon’s excess alcohol consumption or Ronald Reagan’s incipient Alzheimer’s dementia. It is a mistake to believe that similar health secrets could not be withheld from today’s press. A generation may pass before we learn with confidence whether Biden, Trump or any other contemporary president or candidate has suffered from a severe debility.

A second problem with such health information is that the lay person is often unable to assess it in any meaningful way. What was an average voter supposed to do with the knowledge that Nixon suffered from labile hypertension or that Republican nominees Gerald Ford, Mitt Romney and Bob Dole were united by histories of elevated cholesterol? Should longshot candidate Buddy Roemer’s diabetes have been disqualifying? Bernie Sanders’s hypothyroidism? What about Ross Perot’s resistance to providing any personal medical information at all?

Even a medical expert with an actuarial table will have a challenging time evaluating the significance of some diagnoses. For example, during the 2008 presidential campaign, New York Times medical correspondent Lawrence Altman analyzed the staging of John McCain’s melanoma, noting that whether it had been a stage IIA or stage III tumor — a matter not then clarified by his campaign — meant the difference between an estimated ten-year life expectancy of 36% vs. 60%. At that time, McCain had already survived eight years, further complicating the data’s significance.

As a medical historian, I was once asked how a prospective voter should compare the knowledge that McCain attempted suicide by hanging while a prisoner of war in 1968 with the fact that Barack Obama had a history of cigarette smoking. Candidly, I have no idea.

Yet the most important caveat regarding the health of presidents and presidential candidates is rarely if ever acknowledged: Even if every candidate’s complete medical history were disclosed in entirety, and voters based their decisions solely upon the health of these, that approach would not necessarily lead to the election of healthier or longer-lived presidents.

Often, in fact, history reveals the opposite. The most well-known example is that of Wendell Willkie, Franklin Roosevelt’s Republican challenger in 1940, a hale forty-eight-year-old who appeared far fitter than the older, wheelchair-bound incumbent. However, FDR’s ailments did not prevent him from reelection to another term four years later or from leading the nation during World War II, while Willkie was dead of a massive heart attack before the 1944 election.

According to physician-columnist Robert Steinbrook in 1992, candidates George H.W. Bush (age 68) and Ross Perot (age 62), had life expectancies of 13 years and 17 years, respectively. Bush lived another 26 years and Perot another 27. In 1996, a 72-year old male could have been expected to live to about 84; Bob Dole passed away at 98 in 2021.

The nature of the American presidency is like that of no other job, so both the competencies and health requirements to excel are unique. Some of our most revered presidents, from Lincoln to FDR to Reagan, have been our sickest, while several of our healthiest presidents are regarded as failures. Skills that might prove crucial in many occupations — such as physical agility, stamina, and even strong declarative memory — may prove less critical when someone is guided by armies of deputies and advisors. In contrast, sound judgment, which often comes with age or adversity, is essential for the job.

There are many reasons for voters to choose one presidential candidate over another. No evidence exists to suggest that underlying health issues have any significant bearing on how effectively they will run the country. By focusing on candidates’ medical records, rather than ideas, we do ourselves and the nation a disservice.

As a human being, I wish our presidents good health. As a physician, medical historian and citizen, I am far more concerned that they possess the wisdom to lead.

Dr. Jacob Appel is on the psychiatry faculty at the Icahn School of Medicine, where he teaches in the bioethics and history of medicine curriculum. He is the author of twenty books, including “Who Says You’re Dead?” (Algonquin, 2019).

Biden often seeks bipartisanship and has achieved it several critical times in his highly successful first term. 

 Biden understood the requirements of the post, rose to the occasion and unified the American people and NATO with great skill and success. 

 As the U.S. enters one of the most important presidential elections in history, consider the sheer number of dramatic risks that all who govern must address. 

 Under Biden, the U.S. confronted a once-in-a-century pandemic and the disastrous economy that followed.  

We confronted the illegal Russian invasion of Ukraine, which caused extreme carnage and has resulted in war crimes charges now pending at the International Criminal Court. 

 We are confronted by climate change so extreme that the Earth recently endured the hottest day in recorded history along with deadly floods. The changing climate causes horrifying health care crises in many areas of the country.  

 We are challenged by our previous president, who is facing substantial criminal indictments, may well face significant additional indictments and is using his indictments as his political strategy to divide and gridlock the nation when much of it hungers for unity.

 Biden’s achievements are historic and impressive because they were achieved in large measure through an ardent commitment to bipartisanship — at a time when bipartisanship takes wisdom, judgment, patience and good faith. 

 Biden’s achievements with NATO are historic and unprecedented. Consider the diversity of NATO nations that Biden has brought together and expanded. Consider their different perspectives, difference interests and histories, and the different set of national perspectives to which he has brought leadership and unity. 

 This week, with the agreement by Turkey to accept Sweden into NATO, the alliance now reaches across Europe. It is a historic and profound diplomatic achievement for all concerned. 

 It is no coincidence that bipartisan Biden and the Democrats were on the winning side of elections in 2018, 2020 and even in 2022.  

 Nor is it a coincidence that Trump and other partisan Republicans were on the losing side of many of those contests.  

 It is no coincidence that bipartisan Biden achieved so much on infrastructure, lower prescription drugs, job creation, economic growth, lifting the debt ceiling and other critical matters. 

 Nor is it a coincidence that bipartisan Biden offered and gave substantial bipartisan credit to Republicans who joined Democrats in enacting bipartisan legislation. That is what true bipartisanship means. 

 At a time when a divided America seeks bipartisan unity and a divided world seeks the democratic confidence and faith of a NATO that reaches out across the continent for the shared democratic vision, there is a magic to Biden’s bipartisanship that rings true in 2023. 

 With Biden, bipartisanship is not a tactic or strategy, it is a cause and philosophy and way of political life. 

 In America, bipartisanship is not a convenience or political style, it is the only way to make our democratic nation work as it should, and as it has since July 4, 1776. 

 With bipartisanship, America was what was born on July 4 and destined to get greater and larger as we became a more perfect union. 

 That is what makes America, America. That is what makes America great. 

 The ultimate bipartisan moment occurred on July 4 many years later. From his death bed, John Adams said that Thomas Jefferson lived. From his deathbed Thomas Jefferson died.   

 At that moment that same day they both died, and America lives today. It is better today than yesterday and will be better tomorrow than today. 

Budowsky served as an aide to former Sen. Lloyd Bentsen (D-Texas) and former Rep. Bill Alexander (D-Ark.), who was chief deputy majority whip of the House of Representatives.  

This is a very uncomfortable topic. But given that voters are choosing a president of the United States in 16 months, it needs to be part of the discussion — indeed, it already is. How likely is it that President Joe Biden would live to finish his second term if he were reelected?

Of course, anyone can die at any age for any number of reasons. But we know there are statistical probabilities relating to death, with a small percentage of young people and a larger percentage of seniors dying in any given year. Biden is 80 years old. He will turn 82 just a few weeks after the 2024 election, and would be 86 were he to finish a second term.

According to the Social Security Administration (SSA) “Cohort Life Expectancy” table, a male born in 1942 (Biden’s birth year) had a life expectancy at birth of 71.1 years. Of course, males born today have a much longer life expectancy, 82.3 years. But the longer a person lives, the longer he or she is expected to survive. For example, SSA estimates that a male born in 1942 who reached the age of 65 can, on average, expect to live another 12.8 years, which for Biden would take him to the age of 84 — about the middle of his second term.

The SSA also provides a life expectancy calculator, which says that a male born in 1942 who is still alive today (at 80) can expect to live another 8.4 years. That means that if Biden were to win his reelection bid, he would, on average, finish the term with a couple of years to spare.

But SSA’s calculator includes an important footnote: “The estimates of additional life expectancy do not take into account a wide number of factors such as current health, lifestyle, and family history that could increase or decrease life expectancy.”

Many people in their 80s are physically active and mentally alert. Harrison Ford is starring in the fifth Indiana Jones movie at age 80. Donald Trump at 77 is closing in on 80, and is still very physically active and high energy. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) at 81 is still capable of proposing wrong-headed, socialist-inspired economic policies with much fervor. And investing icon Warren Buffet is still dispensing investment wisdom at 92.

Given Biden’s obvious age and health challenges, what we really want to know is what the chances are that he would finish a second term.

Katia Iervasi, a lead writer and spokesperson at NerdWallet, puts it like this: “As you’d expect, the risk of dying increase as we age. For men, five-year [survival] odds stay in the single digits until their mid-50s, when longevity percentages begin to decrease more dramatically. At 70 years old, the majority of men are expected to live another 10 years, and a quarter are expected to live to see 90.”

According to Iervasi, an 80-year-old male like Biden has a 31.35 percent chance of dying in the next five years, and a 64.27 percent chance of dying within the next 10 years. In other words, there is almost a one-in-three chance Biden would not finish his second term.

But that estimate is an average. Biden’s health appears less than average, even for an 80-year-old, a point frequently discussed in the media. Moreover, Biden is president of the United States, one of the most stressful jobs in the world. We have seen a number of middle-aged men go into the White House and come out looking much older at the end of their second term. Eight years as commander in chief appears to dramatically age even a vigorous middle-aged man. And Biden is neither vigorous nor a middle-ager.

Given those factors, it might be reasonable to bump up Biden’s 31.35 percent chance of dying in office to perhaps 50 percent. Thus, it is highly possible, perhaps even probable, that a Biden reelection victory would result in Kamala Harris becoming the first female president.

Given Harris’s low poll ratings and dismal performance as vice president so far, that is not an outcome the large majority of voters want. But what would it mean for the country?

I have to think our allies are dreading, and our adversaries are relishing, the possibility of a President Harris. Russian President Vladimir Putin waited until Donald Trump was out of office and Biden was in to invade Ukraine. Could Chinese President Xi Jinping be waiting for Biden to be out of office, and Harris in, to invade Taiwan?

Merrill Matthews is a resident scholar with the Institute for Policy Innovation in Dallas, Texas. Follow him on Twitter @MerrillMatthews.

President Joe Biden suffers from stubbornly low ratings with American voters, in terms of his overall job approval, specifically on the issue of the economy. A very high number express a desire to vote for someone other than him or Trump in 2024, which will make it difficult for him to defeat any candidate less extreme than Trump. This is why the administration feels the need for this pitch.

To be sure, this effort is a strategic gamble due, to the choppiness of the economy over the better part of the last three years. 

Yet top economists, who have for over a year been saying a recession is on the horizon, are gradually revising their estimates for the better. Fortunately for the administration, the data bear this message out, with record job growth, steadily slowing inflation, billions in new infrastructure investment and a historically fast comeback in manufacturing.

However, Biden is missing the mark by going all in on the economy. 

First, the Biden administration has been using the same economic messaging since before the midterms, with virtually no impact on his job approval rating.  

Second, simply emphasizing the economy will not resonate with voters due to the record-high inflation they have had to deal with over the last couple of years. This has raised the cost of living significantly. Real wages have fallen, which has exacerbated the financial difficulties facing working-class Americans. The rise in interest rates that inflation necessitated has also served to increase the cost of credit. Voters will not soon forget this in 2024. 

Instead, to win back moderate and independent voters in the 2024 general election, Biden would be wise to run on a centrist message highlighting his bipartisan legislative successes as well as his efforts to reduce the deficit and the national debt.  

Winning these voters will be crucial, especially if Republican primary voters manage to nominate a mainstream, moderate alternative to Donald Trump. 

Looking forward, there are signs that the economy is coming back. More than 13 million jobs have been created since Biden took office, more than twice the combined total of Trump’s first three years. Wage growth has been ticking upward, closer to keeping pace with the falling inflation rate. Further, Biden’s legislation has drawn $500 billion in new private sector manufacturing and infrastructure investment across America. This has led to an unusually fast manufacturing comeback and 800,000 new jobs in the sector. 

Nevertheless, the administration’s bullish positioning on the economy faces serious headwinds in public opinion. A general sense of uncertainty and fears of a recession remains remarkably high. Pew Research’s latest survey found 27 percent of Americans view the economy as poor, and a June Quinnipiac University poll found that just 41 percent of Americans approve of Biden’s job on the economy. 

These data points underscore why the political gamble on “Bidenomics” at this time is commendable at best, yet dangerously risky at worst. The Biden administration, and frankly the Biden campaign by extension, are betting that most of the electorate simply isn’t yet fully informed on the specific details of Biden’s economic accomplishments, particularly the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill, CHIPS and Science Act and Inflation Reduction Act — and that by 2024, voters may be convinced the glass is actually half-full.  

The chorus from cabinet members and other senior officials touring the country is that Biden’s mix of bipartisan legislation and executive orders is in fact delivering for middle-class Americans and standing up to corporate special interests.  

Ironically, Biden and senior administration officials touting these accomplishments are often doing so alongside Republican lawmakers who voted against these very pieces of legislation. Thus, rather than the economy being the main pitch at these events, it should be the bipartisanship Biden has fostered. 

Further, Biden’s plan to campaign on Bidenomics could backfire immensely if the economy falls into a recession. Focusing more on bipartisanship and lowering the deficit — always a popular policy with voters — will lessen the risk that the president is taking by going all in on the economy. 

Indeed, absent an economic message that incorporates his admittedly impressive legislative record or a message that persuasively touts the bipartisan support he has built around his foreign policy agenda, especially as it relates to the war in Ukraine, Biden’s only remaining option will be going fully negative against the Republicans. 

If the economy is in good shape come the summer and fall of 2024, and Biden has successfully gotten the message to the American people about his bipartisan accomplishments, he may be able to overcome the strain that inflation has put on his presidency and win reelection. However, simply touting the economy after months of soaring inflation is a strategy doomed to fail.

Douglas E. Schoen is a political consultant who served as an advisor to President Clinton and to the 2020 presidential campaign of Michael Bloomberg. His new book is: “The End of Democracy? Russia and China on the Rise and America in Retreat.” 

Speaking to reporters Wednesday, President Biden falsely claimed that Russia is at war with Iraq. Russia is at war with Ukraine.

Russian President Vladimir Putin is “clearly losing the war in Iraq,” Biden told the press pool, “losing the war at home. And he has become a bit of a pariah around the world.”

On Tuesday, during an unrelated fundraising event in Chevy Chase, Md., Biden made the exact same slip-up, mistaking Ukraine for Iraq.

"If anybody told you … that we'd be able to bring all of Europe together in the onslaught on Iraq and get NATO to be completely united,” the president said, “I think they would have told you it's not likely.”

Although many journalists did a fine job this week highlighting the president’s apparent confusion regarding Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, one can’t help but feel as if the news industry as a whole is avoiding the obvious follow-up question. Namely, “Is Biden OK?”

It's not an unfair question, either, considering the Iraq/Ukraine gaffes were not an isolated series of incidents. They are simply the latest in a string of bizarre, confused and mostly unintelligible statements from Biden in the much longer string of bizarre, confused and mostly unintelligible statements that have come to define the Biden presidency.

"We have plans to build a railroad from the Pacific all the way across the Indian Ocean," the president said this month during an address before the League of Conservation Voters.

There is no such plan, of course, to build a railroad from the Pacific coast to the Indian Ocean. According to his White House handlers, the president was referring to a plan that would connect railroads across the African continent, linking ports on the Atlantic Ocean to ports on the Indian Ocean. Atlantic, Pacific. Tomato, tomato.

On June 19, the president promised to conserve 30 percent of U.S. lands and water by — the year he won the presidency?

"I've committed to — by 2020, we will have conserved 30 percent of all the lands and waters the United States has jurisdiction over and simultaneously reduce emissions to blunt climate impact," he said.

Following a June 16 speaking engagement at the University of Hartford in Connecticut, where Biden promoted gun control efforts, the president signed off by saying, “God save the Queen, man.”

The press pool, which observed and reported on the president’s address in real time, was left befuddled by his remarks, not least of all because Queen Elizabeth II is still dead, and her son is still king.

“Several of you have asked me why he might have said that,” the Dallas Morning News’s Todd Gillman said in his pool report. “I have no idea. Other poolers likewise have no idea.” The White House, for its part, claimed the president was merely sharing a joke with a member of the audience, a detail that apparently went unobserved by the entire White House press pool.

There’s also the fact that Biden keeps claiming his late son, Beau, died in Iraq. Beau did not die in Iraq. Beau died in Bethesda, Md., six years after returning from a tour of duty in Iraq.

During his 2022 State of the Union address [emphases added], Biden declared, “Putin may circle Kyiv with tanks, but he will never gain the hearts and souls of the Iranian people.”

In July of that same year, during his visit to Israel, the president said, “We must do every, every day — continue to bear witness, to keep alive the truth and honor of the Holocaust.” He corrected himself later, replacing “honor” with “horror.”

Earlier, during an event near the White House, Biden inquired about the whereabouts of the late Rep. Jackie Walorski (R-Ind.), whose death the president himself had commemorated in a public statement just weeks prior. The White House flag had been even flown at half-staff for two days following the congresswoman’s death.

Or how about when Biden accidentally endorsed regime change in Russia, when he said during an overseas trip in Poland: “For God’s sake, [Putin] cannot remain in power.” This one was a particular headache for Biden’s handlers.

One could go on, but you likely get the picture. The kindest thing that can be said of this president is that he has lost his fastball.

This isn't just about whether Biden has the stuff to finish this term, let alone serve a second one. This is also about why we in the media aren’t having a more robust debate regarding Biden’s mental acuity. The apparent lack of interest in the matter certainly feels like a change of pace for an industry that historically hasn't shied from the issue.

During the Trump years, for example, there was no shortage of coverage and commentary questioning the president’s physical and mental fitness. In those years, there were three parts to every sentence published by the press: A noun, a verb, and “Is Donald Trump insane?”

Psychiatrists became cable news famous overnight simply for their willingness to leverage their credentials against Trump. Earlier, when then-Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) ran for president in 2008, a popular newsroom theme at the time was, “Is he too old?” Then, there was former President George W. Bush, whose lifelong battle with the English language became so much fodder for media speculation and late-night jocularity. Lastly, of course, there’s former President Reagan, whose administration was dogged by the press's persistent questions regarding whether his brain had finally turned to mashed potatoes.

Fast-forward to 2023, and we see the current president confuse basic world events, praise rail projects that don’t exist, mourn war casualties that aren’t real, wander around stages and TV sets as if he is lost and struggle to make it through speaking engagements without getting flustered or exhausted. Yet, despite the press's normal reflex to ask whether the president is up to the demands of the office, we in the media have responded to Biden’s bizarre presidency with little more than a bored shrug.

The point here isn’t to highlight the press’s treatment of past presidents and presidential hopefuls, to shout “hypocrisy!” Rather, it's to state that the public deserves to know whether Biden is capable of performing the bare minimum required of his office. If anything falls under the heading of “public interest,” this is surely it. And yet the broader press, the industry tasked with asking and exploring this question, has staked out a position of casual indifference. 

But if ever there was a time to snap back to attention, to engage on the issue of “presidential fitness,” this is it. There’s a presidential election just around the corner. The time to get serious about "fitness," and to address it fairly and seriously, is now. Not for the sake of the media’s credibility, but for the sake of the public, which has every right to know whether the leading candidates for president are actually capable of carrying out their duties.

Becket Adams is a writer in Washington and program director for the National Journalism Center.

Such a person is a rarity in business and politics, as most want to go along to get along. While every presidential administration is filled to the brim with the “go along” types, there will also be a few who remain laser-focused on the harsh realities confronting the president.

No doubt there are a few such people in or around the Biden White House who are privately crunching numbers, scenarios and alleged evidence seeking to understand how much negative exposure and risk the president, his son, Hunter Biden, and those in their orbit may face.

“Sacrilege!” the liberal partisans will scream, highlighting the legal issues engulfing former President Donald Trump. “Our president is as pure as the driven snow,” they will insist. “Trump is the criminal. He is the one who should go to prison.” That narrative from that chorus will never change.

That said, politics can be a fickle, cruel and opportunistic business. Especially if some of the movers and shakers behind the scenes perceive a shift in power.

To be sure, Trump has his hands full with his current indictments and pending legal issues. But for those in or near the Biden White House seeking to candidly assess the legal threats to the president or his son, Trump’s woes do not matter in the least.

Suddenly, if you are an adviser to President Biden — or the Democratic National Committee — trying to honestly analyze the growing negative stories and alleged evidence swirling around the president and his son, it may seem as if the walls are closing in a bit more.

Negative stories and alleged evidence such as House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) bringing to light the existence of an FBI FD-1023 form detailing an informant’s claim that a Burisma executive paid $5 million each in bribes to then–Vice President Biden and his son. Alleged evidence such as Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) revealing that the FBI had redacted the part about the executive saying he had 17 audio recordings of conversations with Joe and Hunter Biden.

Alleged evidence such as the Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee releasing testimony from two IRS “whistleblowers” accusing the Justice Department of interfering in their investigation with the aim of protecting Hunter Biden. Testimony including a July 30, 2017, WhatsApp text allegedly showing Hunter Biden threatening a Chinese business partner who hadn’t fulfilled some unnamed “commitment.” “I am sitting here with my father,” the note says. 

“Who cares?” partisan Democrats will shout. “It’s just nonsense the Republicans are putting out there as a distraction. Trump is the one who is in legal jeopardy. Not our guy.” 

Trump is in legal jeopardy. But more than one politician from one political party can be in legal jeopardy at the same time. And “who cares?” I have no doubt that very powerful Democrats behind the scenes care. They will now be doing their own assessments of the situation.

At some point, certain powerful Democrats now circling the wagons around the Biden White House may decide the president and his son are in an untenable position, that their defense may no longer be in the best interests of the Democratic Party or the special interests that fund the party. 

If that point is reached, the foundation under the president and Hunter Biden will start to weaken dramatically. Cracks will appear and more negative stories — or evidence — may seep out.

Much of the mainstream media and the Democratic Party are salivating at the thought of Trump going to prison. But what if it is a Biden instead? The next few months will tell the tale. 

Douglas MacKinnon, a political and communications consultant, was a writer in the White House for Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, and former special assistant for policy and communications at the Pentagon during the last three years of the Bush administration.

Bidenomics is the embrace of Big Government, Big Labor and Big Spending. No wonder Americans are on edge; we’ve learned those are not the best ingredients for healthy, productive growth. (See: Obama and the worst-ever recovery from a recession.)

Here is the truth about the Biden economy: it is barely growing (real growth in the last quarter was 1.1 percent) despite massive federal stimulus. Trillions in spending have thrust our nation’s debt and deficits into the red zone and kicked off inflation, driving real wages lower for 26 consecutive months. Inflation hitting a 40-year high required one of the largest-ever increases in interest rates, which in turned caused three of the biggest bank failures in our nation’s history.

In addition to huge spending, any number of Biden policies, including the intentional squashing of our fossil fuels industries, the “Buy American at any price” union favoritism and the crushing ramp-up in business regulations, have spurred inflation. That is the nut of Bidenomics.   

White House spokesperson Olivia Dalton describes Biden’s economic policies as “incredibly popular.” Like most of Biden’s pitch, that is simply not true; RealClearPolitics places the average of his approval ratings on the economy at a minus 17, with 38 percent approving and 57 percent disapproving.

A Gallup poll showed a slight uptick in June in how Americans view their economic conditions, but it remained in deeply negative territory at -32. Only 19 percent rate the economy as excellent or good, compared to 44 percent who say it is poor. Problematic for Biden: Independents as well as Republicans are sour on the economy, and more than two-thirds of that critical group say it is getting worse.

It is said that a strong offense is the best defense. Biden is playing defense on numerous fronts — the border, crime, a lead-from-behind foreign policy — but has nonetheless chosen to make the state of our nation’s finances the centerpiece of his campaign.

It’s understandable; there are some data points he can contort into favorable accomplishments. He says his administration has created 13.4 million “new” jobs; in reality, the vast majority of those jobs have simply accompanied the country’s recovery from the COVID-induced shut-downs. In January 2020, before the pandemic caused millions to stay home, there were 158.7 million people working in the U.S.; last month, that number had only expanded to 160.7 million.

Biden crows about record-low unemployment, but neglects to mention that millions of workers disappeared during COVID, retired or are living off the expanded benefits contained in the American Rescue Plan. In January 2020, there were 95 million working-age adults “not in the labor force”; today that number has expanded to 99 million. That sure helps bring unemployment rates down.

But the bigger picture here is that Biden’s approach is one long favored by Democrats: he wants to build up the power of the state at the expense of private enterprise, guaranteeing lower productivity. He claims to be reducing inflation by encouraging competition. His radical FTC has blocked an unheard-of number of business combinations, in effect putting unelected ideologues in charge of allocating capital. That cannot turn out well.

When Biden throws hundreds of billions into changing the direction of our energy industries, he can claim “progress” on a radical climate agenda, but he will also have to explain to consumers why their electricity prices are rising at historically high rates, even as the cost of oil and natural gas is declining. He will also have to make excuses for the predicted power outages that two-thirds of Americans may face, according to the nation’s grid monitor.

It is worth noting that during most of Donald Trump’s four years in office, the country was quite optimistic about the economy. Indeed, people were so positive that the issue receded in importance, only to reclaim its “number one concern” status under Biden.

The most fascinating aspect of Joe Biden’s presidency is Americans’ profound pessimism, in spite of a solid jobs market. From 1952 until 2023, consumer confidence (as measured by the University of Michigan) in the United States averaged 86 points; the all-time low was 50, recorded in June of 2022.

Again: the worst consumer confidence in 70 years was posted 18 months into Joe Biden’s presidency, brought on by reports that prices had jumped 9.1 percent in June — the most since November 1981. The sudden surge in prices shocked Americans, and raised doubts about Biden’s spending spree as well as the people in charge, who ignored warnings and didn’t see it coming.

It is interesting to note that during Trump’s entire presidency, up until April of 2020 when the government began to shut down because of COVID, consumer sentiment stayed at or above the long-term average. Even in the second half of 2020, when the nation was gripped with fear and no vaccine had emerged, sentiment stayed above the levels posted under Biden.

Reeling from accusations of bribery and corruption, Joe Biden wants to change the topic; the president wants to talk about anything but his mounting legal troubles. Hence, his focus on the supposed success of “Bidenomics.”

You can’t blame him. He and his administration are staggering under a mounting pile of evidence — whistleblowers, eyewitness testimony, photos, text messages, bank records and emails from the laptop of his own son, Hunter Biden — that point to tax evasion, bribery and money laundering by Hunter Biden and also to the likely involvement of the president.

But Biden taking ownership of an economy that many see as on the verge of slipping into recession is risky. Putting his name on it could prove fatal to his reelection hopes.

Liz Peek is a former partner of major bracket Wall Street firm Wertheim & Company. Follow her on Twitter @lizpeek.

When I defended former President Trump against a Democratic effort to impeach and remove him on grounds that I believe are unconstitutional, I predicted that when the Republicans gained control of the House, they would use that precedent as a justification for trying to impeach the next Democratic president.

Sure enough, Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) has introduced articles of impeachment that replicated what the Democrats had done just three and a half years earlier.

In December 2019, Democrats charged Trump with “abuse of power” and “obstruction of Congress.” I argued, successfully, that these articles did not satisfy the constitutional criteria for impeachment: treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

Nearly all the Republicans in both Houses of Congress agreed with my argument that criminal-type behavior akin to treason or bribery is required, and they voted against the articles of impeachment passed by the Democratic House.

Now some of these same Republicans are supporting Biden’s impeachment on grounds similar to the ones they rejected when they were directed against the Republican president: “Abuse of power” (Article I), and “dereliction of duty.” (Article II).

These alleged grounds do not appear in the Constitution, and the second one was implicitly rejected by the Constitutional Convention when proposals to include “malpractice for neglect of duty,” “neglect in the execution of his office” and “maladministration” were withdrawn at the insistence of James Madison, the father of our Constitution.

Once again partisanship trumps principle, and consistently is regarded as a weakness in the game of political hardball.

The irony is that there might actually be constitutionally valid grounds for impeaching President Biden under two possible circumstances: 1) if it turns out that Biden’s son, Hunter, was actually sitting next to his father and was aware that he invoked the former vice president’s name when he communicated a threat to a Chinese businessman; and 2) if a high crime committed by a former vice president and future president during his interregnum as a private citizen can satisfy the criteria for impeachment. The first is a question of fact; the second is a matter of constitutional interpretation.

I personally doubt that Joe Biden was aware that his son was invoking his name and power when and if he sent that possibly extortionate message. But if that message is real, it certainly requires that Hunter Biden be placed under oath to admit or deny he sent the message; admit or deny that he was telling the truth when he said his father was sitting next to him; admit or deny that his father was aware he was sending the message; and admit or deny that his father was aware of the content of the message.

The allegation that a former vice president and current president may have been complicit in an arguable extortion plot is a serious one that requires further investigation. In the unlikely event that it were confirmed, it would raise a profound, difficult and unresolved question of constitutional interpretation: namely whether a president can be impeached and removed for a high crime committed before he assumed the presidency.

Extortion or attempted extortion is a high crime akin to bribery and thus — if proved — would be a constitutional ground for impeachment if it had been committed by a sitting president during his presidency. But what if it had been committed earlier?

Vice President Spiro Agnew was accused of engaging in extortion and bribery. Although the accusation was made during his vice presidency, the alleged bribery occurred while he was still governor of Maryland (though he allegedly received some of the payments while vice president).

He pleaded no contest to a tax felony as part of a plea bargain that included his resigning the vice presidency. Accordingly, we do not know whether he could have or would have been impeached for conviction while vice president of a serious felony he committed before assuming that office.

It is unlikely that this question will be presented in the Biden case, because credible evidence may not exist proving that Biden committed any impeachable offenses between the time he served as vice president and president — or at any other time. But we won’t know that unless the current allegations, which include claims of incriminating recordings, are thoroughly investigated.

If Republican House members are determined to impeach Biden, they should focus their investigative resources on specific allegations of serious crimes which, if true, may rise to the level of possibly impeachable offense. It will not do to rely on vague, partisan accusations of misconduct which, even if true, would not satisfy the criteria for impeaching and removing a duly elected president, as they themselves recently argued.

Alan Dershowitz, professor emeritus for Harvard Law School, is the author of numerous books, including his latest, “The Price of Principle” and “Get Trump.” He is also the host of The Dershow on Rumble. Follow him on Twitter @AlanDersh.

The reason for the reluctance to vote to install Su as labor secretary is obvious: Her radically pro-union tenure as California labor secretary has proven disastrous, drying up opportunities for independent-minded freelance employees in the state while letting fraud and abuse run rampant.

Capitol Hill got another reminder of Su’s unfitness at a House Education and Workforce Committee hearing earlier this month. Su demonstrated that she can’t even defend her own record. Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) had to threaten a subpoena just to bring Su before the committee, indicating that Su had done everything possible to avoid testifying.

At the June 7 hearing, Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-Calif.) asked Su very simple, direct questions about her record in his state, and specifically about Assembly Bill 5, a California law orchestrated and enforced by Su that forcibly reclassified many independent contractors in the state as full-time employees, upending their work arrangements. Presented repeatedly with the yes-or-no question of whether she thought AB 5 was a good law, Su would not give a straight answer.

Of course, given its results and its impact on workers, it would be difficult for anyone to defend AB 5. Su’s enforcement of AB 5 left a trail of destruction that devastated economic opportunities for Californians, all to please Su’s Big Labor political allies, whose aim was to cash in on gig workers and independent contractors as they became union dues-paying, full-time employees. AB5’s radical reclassification led to more than one million freelancers losing work in the wake of its passage, in addition to a tangle of ongoing litigation.

Most independent contractors — from Uber and Lyft drivers to songwriters, musicians, photographers, truck drivers and freelance writers — say they do not want to become employees and value the flexibility that independent contracting affords them. Faced with a brewing revolt, the California legislature created special carve-outs for some professions from AB 5, but others got trapped in the regulatory chaos. Even the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals opined that AB 5 and its enforcement may have had no legitimate policy objectives, and may have instead been motivated by “animus” toward Uber and other companies that play large roles in facilitating independent contracting.

Su also stumbled on questions probing the unprecedented payouts of $30 billion to $40 billion in COVID-era unemployment funds to criminals, scammers, and fraudsters that occurred under her oversight. When Kiley presented statements from both a California state auditor’s report and from the Democrat chair of the California Accountability and Administrative Review Committee that Su’s department had passed on doing simple things to stop the rampant fraud, Su couldn’t answer whether she would have done anything differently.

Su’s hemming and hawing is particularly concerning in someone aiming to head up the U.S. Department of Labor. To put the numbers into context, the Department of Labor's requested discretionary budget is only $15 billion. This means that Su lost to fraud more than twice the requested discretionary budget of the agency she will be responsible for managing in Washington, D.C.

Su’s difficulty defending her record stems from the fact that her record is indefensible: While the mismanaging of COVID-era relief funds may have just been due to mere incompetence, AB 5 and the forced unionism objectives behind it severely injured Californians’ economic opportunities and independence. Su played a pivotal role in inflicting those wounds.

Nonetheless, the Biden Administration is still pushing her nomination. The administration must repay its union boss cronies for their political support, and taking AB 5 nationwide with Su’s help would open enormous swaths of once-independent contractors to union control.

Combine that with the Biden Administration’s goal to eliminate Right to Work laws nationwide with the passage of the so-called “PRO Act,” and the forced-dues windfall for union officials is potentially unprecedented.

Americans and their senators should clearly understand that California is not a model for the rest of the nation — rather, it is a warning about what Biden and his nominee plan to do to the country. That certainly deserves a “no” vote.

Mark Mix is president of the National Right to Work Committee.