Stay up-to-date on the companies, people and issues that impact businesses in Syracuse, Central New York and beyond.
OPINION: Why is Joe Biden still the President?
Why is Joe Biden still the President of the United States? After dropping out of the 2024 presidential race and ceding the Democratic Party nomination and endorsing Vice President Kamala Harris for president, but in staying in office to serve out his term, the American people have a right to know why this decision was […]
Become a Central New York Business Journal subscriber and get immediate access to all of our subscriber-only content and much more.
Click here to purchase a paywall bypass link for this article.
Why is Joe Biden still the President of the United States?
After dropping out of the 2024 presidential race and ceding the Democratic Party nomination and endorsing Vice President Kamala Harris for president, but in staying in office to serve out his term, the American people have a right to know why this decision was reached.
The truth is, after his dismal performance in the June 27 debate with former President Donald Trump, and subsequent interviews and campaign appearances, Biden had difficulty completing his thoughts and spoke incoherently often enough that members of the president’s own party wanted him to step aside because he’s not up to the job.
Is there some sort of cognitive disorder that Democrats have kept a secret?
In a July 21 post on X, Biden stated, “I have decided not to accept the nomination and to focus all my energies on my duties as President for the remainder of my term. My very first decision as the party nominee in 2020 was to pick Kamala Harris as my Vice President. And it’s been the best decision I’ve made. Today I want to offer my full support and endorsement for Kamala to be the nominee of our party this year.”
Biden had been trailing Trump in national polls since September 2023, with not much change in the race—Trump’s last lead against Biden was an average of 3 percent, 47.7 percent-44.7 percent.
Whereas, in the sparse amount of polls done for a Trump-Harris race, Trump leads an average 48 percent-46.3 percent, not much better.
The implication is that Trump is leading the national popular vote whoever his opponent is, and that’s been true for almost a year now.
So, it’s not the polls per se. Harris does not necessarily give Democrats a better chance of retaining the White House. About 35 percent of Democrats wanted Biden to stay in the race in the latest AP-NORC poll taken July 11-15, and many of whom might now feel betrayed.
The fact is, no adequate explanation for Biden’s departure is being given, impacting Harris or whoever replaces Biden at the Democratic National Convention’s ability to keep the Democratic coalition together. This could put Harris or anyone else in an even worse position than Biden was to do well in November.
Another factor is that replacing the incumbent hasn’t worked. When Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson did not stand for reelection in 1952 and 1968, Republicans won relatively easily. They could try, but Dems’ argument still becomes “The country got so bad we had to replace the president. Would you still vote for us?” It’s a show of weakness.
So, it’s not the optics or history on their side either. Harris could wind up being something akin to a sacrificial lamb should Trump go on to easily win the election anyway.
No, Biden’s decision to step aside, fueled by calls of elected Democratic leaders and Democratic-leaning media organizations, is because he can no longer do the job, and certainly not for another four years.
If he couldn’t handle a debate, he cannot possibly handle negotiating with our nation’s adversaries, whether in Russia, China, Iran or North Korea, in order to keep the peace.
So, why is Biden still the president? Democrats would have to admit that they had been lying about Biden’s ability to discharge his constitutional duties. Kamala Harris most of all. If Biden truly has a condition that makes it so he cannot do the job, her own job under the 25th Amendment is to get a “written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office” by Cabinet officials that she signs to remove the president, requiring two-thirds majorities in both houses of Congress to have Biden removed.
Instead, Biden, for now, gets to stay in office and the country is left to pretend it was not because of anything to do with his abilities.
The implication is that this is a cover-up of Biden’s condition, which now continues. They’d rather leave a vacant president in office than do damage to their party.
In the meantime, the damage being done to the country is incalculable, when the preferred option is to destroy the presidency in order to “save” it. Now, the calls will come for Biden to resign the position outright.
But it is clear that Biden’s decision to step aside was not something he came to all by himself. He was pressured into this course.
If Biden is not fit to run, then he is not fit to serve. He should resign.
Robert Romano is the VP of public policy at Americans for Limited Government Foundation, the research arm of Americans for Limited Government, a libertarian political advocacy group. The organization conducts policy research and publishes reports with the goal of reducing the size of the government.
OPINION: Should politics stop at the water’s edge?
The United States faced fundamental decisions about foreign policy after World War II. Germany and Japan had been defeated, but the Soviet Union had emerged as a new threat. Mao Zedong’s forces were on the move in China. Would we engage or step away? That was the situation when Sen. Arthur Vandenberg coined one of
Become a Central New York Business Journal subscriber and get immediate access to all of our subscriber-only content and much more.
Click here to purchase a paywall bypass link for this article.
The United States faced fundamental decisions about foreign policy after World War II. Germany and Japan had been defeated, but the Soviet Union had emerged as a new threat. Mao Zedong’s forces were on the move in China. Would we engage or step away?
That was the situation when Sen. Arthur Vandenberg coined one of the most enduring aphorisms in American foreign affairs: “Politics stops at the water’s edge.”
Vandenberg, a Michigan Republican who chaired the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, worked with the administration of Democratic President Harry Truman to forge a bipartisan consensus that included support for the Marshall Plan, NATO, and the Truman Doctrine, which held that the U.S. would intervene when its allies were threatened. Those actions helped keep us safe and secure for generations.
Today, the idea that foreign policy might be off limits to politics can seem unrealistic, even quaint. Partisanship seems to pervade our lives, from the media we consume to the cars we drive to the food we eat.
Vandenberg’s aphorism both reflected and shaped reality for years. During the Cold War, both parties were reliably anticommunist and opposed to Soviet aggression, although Republicans may have been more hawkish in their rhetoric. Both parties favored alliances and engagement with our allies. Over time, the idea that politics should stop at the water’s edge developed a secondary meaning: that politicians shouldn’t air their partisan disputes when traveling overseas. The idea was that presenting a united front to our allies and adversaries would make America stronger.
We often think of the Vietnam War as dividing the country, but those divisions weren’t strictly partisan. The 1964 Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, authorizing escalation of the war, passed unanimously in the House and with only two negative votes in the Senate. In the 1968 presidential election, voters saw little difference between Republican Richard Nixon and Democrat Hubert Humphrey in how they would handle Vietnam.
Americans usually unite in times of crisis and war. After 9/11, only one member of Congress voted against authorizing the use of force against those who were responsible. Early support for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq was bipartisan, although support from both parties cooled as the wars dragged on.
Of course, political parties have always differed on how to conduct foreign policy. At the country’s founding, the Federalists favored international trade while the Jeffersonians focused on internal affairs. Even in 1948, when Vandenberg was working with Truman, some Republicans were accusing the president of being soft on communism.
Today, the foreign policy divides seem substantially wider. A key example is Ukraine, where Democrats are far more likely than Republicans to support military aid. Congressional Republicans aligned with former President Donald Trump blocked $60 billion for Ukraine for months before it was finally approved in April.
Other international issues also expose partisan fault lines. According to surveys by the Pew Research Center, most Democrats say our leaders should prioritize climate change while very few Republicans agree. Republicans are more likely than Democrats to say we should focus on supporting Israel, limiting immigration, and blocking the flow of illegal drugs into the country.
These disagreements are normal and healthy, and they should lead to vigorous debate. If America is going to serve as an example of democracy to the world, we need to show that we can disagree and do so publicly. The political process, which will always include partisanship, is the way we settle our differences.
But hopefully we can agree that our national interest should come before party interests. Vandenberg’s maxim is worth remembering, even if we don’t always follow it.
Lee Hamilton, 93, is a senior advisor for the Indiana University (IU) Center on Representative Government, distinguished scholar at the IU Hamilton Lugar School of Global and International Studies, and professor of practice at the IU O’Neill School of Public and Environmental Affairs. Hamilton, a Democrat, was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives for 34 years (1965-1999), representing a district in south-central Indiana.
Oneida County hotel occupancy dips in June
UTICA, N.Y. — Oneida County hotels posted a nearly 2 percent drop in guests in June, whereas two other important indicators of business performance improved.
Jefferson County hotel-occupancy rate flat in June, other hotel indicators rise
WATERTOWN — Jefferson County hotels registered a slight dip in overnight guests in June, as two other important indicators of hotel-business activity rose. The hotel-occupancy rate (rooms sold as a percentage of rooms available) in the North Country’s largest county slipped 0.4 percent to 58.6 percent in the sixth month of the year from June
Become a Central New York Business Journal subscriber and get immediate access to all of our subscriber-only content and much more.
Click here to purchase a paywall bypass link for this article.
WATERTOWN — Jefferson County hotels registered a slight dip in overnight guests in June, as two other important indicators of hotel-business activity rose.
The hotel-occupancy rate (rooms sold as a percentage of rooms available) in the North Country’s largest county slipped 0.4 percent to 58.6 percent in the sixth month of the year from June 2023, according to STR, a Tennessee–based hotel market data and analytics company. Year to date, hotel occupancy is off 1.5 percent to 47 percent.
Revenue per available room (RevPar), a key industry gauge that measures how much money hotels are bringing in per available room, increased 1.1 percent in Jefferson County to $70.59 in June, compared to the year-earlier month. Through June 30, RevPar was up 3.3 percent to $53.28.
The average daily rate (ADR), which represents the average rental rate for a sold room, went up 1.5 percent to $120.41 in June from the comparable month in 2023, per STR. Through the first half of 2024, ADR gained 4.8 percent to $113.40 in the county.
Ask Rusty: Why Aren’t I Exempt from Medicare Part B Premium?
Dear Rusty: Why, as I continue to work after age 65 and have FICA taxes taken from my check, am I (or anyone) also compelled
Aging Advocates CNY acquires Senior Home Care Solutions
MANLIUS, N.Y. — Aging Advocates CNY on Thursday announced it has acquired Senior Home Care Solutions of DeWitt in a deal that takes effect on Jan. 1, 2025. Aging Advocates CNY of Manlius is a privately owned, care-management practice that provides guidance and solutions to address aging-related needs, as described in the announcement. Founded by
Become a Central New York Business Journal subscriber and get immediate access to all of our subscriber-only content and much more.
Click here to purchase a paywall bypass link for this article.
MANLIUS, N.Y. — Aging Advocates CNY on Thursday announced it has acquired Senior Home Care Solutions of DeWitt in a deal that takes effect on Jan. 1, 2025.
Aging Advocates CNY of Manlius is a privately owned, care-management practice that provides guidance and solutions to address aging-related needs, as described in the announcement.
Founded by Sheila Ohstrom in 2010, Senior Home Care Solutions has provided support to seniors needing long-term and temporary assistance for non-medical in-home care.
In its announcement, Aging Advocates CNY didn’t provide any financial details of its acquisition agreement with Senior Home Care Solutions.
“This acquisition aligns with our mission to promote dignity and independence for our clients while providing peace of mind for their families,” Melissa Murphy, founder and CEO of Aging Advocates CNY, said in the announcement. “We have a great working relationship with Senior Home Care Solutions and deeply respect their service to the community. As our population ages, it’s crucial to maintain quality in-home care providers in Central New York.”
Ohstrom and Murphy also co-founded the nonprofit Living with Dementia CNY, which provides support, education, and resources to personal and professional caregivers of those affected by all types of dementia in Central New York. Ohstrom will remain involved with Senior Home Care Solutions in a consultant role after the acquisition in 2025 while focusing on her role as president of Living With Dementia CNY.
“This is an exciting time for both organizations and the Central New York area,” Ohstrom said. “By combining our strengths, we can better serve our clients and help more seniors remain in the safety and security of their own homes for as long as possible.”
Through this acquisition, Aging Advocates will absorb 60 employees from Senior Home Care Solutions, including part-time and full-time caregivers, and an office management team. This brings Aging Advocates’ total team to 70 employees.
Aging Advocates and Senior Home Care Solutions will continue to operate independently but will operate out of the same office, along with Living With Dementia CNY.
Cliff’s Local Market to complete fuel brand transition
MARCY, N.Y. — Throughout August, Cliff’s Local Market will convert eight existing Sunoco sites to CITGO-branded fuel as the company continues a brand initiative that
Chemung Financial profit slips more than 20 percent in second quarter
ELMIRA, N.Y. — Chemung Financial Corp. (NASDAQ: CHMG), the parent company of Chemung Canal Trust Company, recently reported that its profit declined more than 20
Business Systems of CNY, Inc. recently announced that Kevin Woytan and Mark Woytan have jointly stepped into the role of president and VP, and are
JetBlue to add another flight to Orlando at Syracuse airport in October
SYRACUSE, N.Y. — JetBlue Airways (NASDAQ: JBLU) plans to add another daily, nonstop flight from Syracuse Hancock International Airport (SYR) directly to Orlando International Airport
Stay up-to-date on the companies, people and issues that impact businesses in Syracuse, Central New York and beyond.