logo
The History of the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit—And How it Could Improve Trump's ‘Big Beautiful Bill'

The History of the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit—And How it Could Improve Trump's ‘Big Beautiful Bill'

Time​ Magazine21 hours ago

This April, over 150 Republicans and Democrats in Congress came together to introduce the Affordable Housing Credit Improvement Act. The bill aims to address a crisis plaguing nearly every U.S. city: the shortage of low-income and moderate-income housing. Nearly half of American renters spend over 50% of their income on housing, a level that experts consider 'cost burdened," according to the National Low-Income Housing Coalition.
The bill works by expanding a tool—the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) —which has a long and bipartisan history. Everyone from businesspeople to housing advocates have enthusiastically supported it. The credit helps underwrite nearly all construction of affordable housing in the U.S.
Whether Congress can pass the Affordable Housing Credit Improvement Act (AHCIA) may come down to whether its Republican boosters can get it into President Donald Trump's ' Big, Beautiful Bill," which the Senate is now working on. It would add cost to the legislation, which could cause rifts between GOP legislators. Yet, history indicates that including it could improve a key source of housing for America's 'working poor.'
At the heart of the LIHTC is the idea of giving investors subsidies for building housing. This concept dates back to the era after World War II. Americans may be familiar with the Servicemen's Readjustment Act, the ' GI Bill,' which set up low-interest mortgages for veterans and other home buyers. It produced broad rings of single-family suburban homes around every city. Much less well-known, however, are a series of incentive programs the government enacted to spur the building of rental housing.
Read More: A Look at Community Land Trusts and How They Combat the Affordable Housing Crisis
During the late 1940s and early 1950s, the administration of Democrat Harry Truman used a tool called FHA 608 to quickly house veterans returning from World War II and the Korean War. It offered long-term loans and free project-planning assistance to apartment developers and guaranteed them a profit. In many cities, that produced more low-rent units than did the nascent U.S. Public Housing program.
In the 1960s, another Democratic President, Lyndon B. Johnson, pushed a new set of subsidies. Housing was a top concern for Johnson as part of his War on Poverty —leading to his creation of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in 1965. His administration used two programs, FHA 221(d)3 and HUD 236, to provide depreciation tax breaks and ultra-low interest loans to private developers of low- and moderate-income apartments. As nationally syndicated financial columnist Sylvia Porter reported excitedly, 'There are unparalleled opportunities for profit awaiting you, the investor, in low-cost housing … as a result of the meshing of giant new housing and tax laws.' A savvy investor could use the 'big deductions … to offset your other highly taxed income'—a technique called a "tax shelter."
As with the earlier Truman program, these subsidies to private developers 'far outdistanced the traditional public housing program' in producing new units, according to the United States Comptroller General Elmer Staats.
During the 1980s, federal housing efforts ran headlong into a rising conservative movement, led by President Ronald Reagan. The right was determined to pare back government spending and slash programs. Congress moved to wipe out most aid to help build affordable housing and replace it with Section 8 vouchers. Instead of subsidizing construction, the government would pay landlords the difference between what a renter could afford and the market rate for rent.
But business leaders and housing activists revolted. They insisted that Congress should create a strategy to stimulate construction of new units. In 1986, their efforts paid off as part of the sweeping, seminal bipartisan Tax Reform Act. Among its many provisions was the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit. LIHTC gave investors a tax credit—an update of the tax shelter idea—if they developed affordable housing or provided dollars to a non-profit doing that work.
From 1986 through to today, the majority of affordable housing in the U.S. has been constructed with this credit. Local or state dollars often supplement it, but without LIHTC, many projects simply would not get built.
The credit has worked pretty well for nearly 40 years, an impressive longevity. But two shortcomings have become apparent.
The first is that when the Reagan Administration launched the program, the idea of mixed-income housing was not yet a goal. So LIHTC regulations favor projects that serve households that make 60% of an area's median income (AMI). That's an important demographic, including teachers, nurse assistants, food service managers, and other similarly situated individuals. But this target is too narrow on both ends. It often prices out the poorest Americans, who make 30% AMI or less, and it also offers nothing to people making 80% AMI, who increasingly need help with today's skyrocketing rents.
A second shortcoming of LIHTC is that funding has not expanded since 1986, when both the population and its needs were dramatically smaller. The result is that, now, meaningful projects are excluded simply because of lack of available money. As Scott Farmer, the head of the North Carolina Housing Finance Agency told me in an interview, 'The worst part of our job is that we get 120 applications a year and can only fund 30 to 35. Those other deals are great deals, we just don't have enough resources to go around.'
The new AHCIA bill recently introduced in Congress aims to address both of those problems.
It would encourage landlords to mingle tenants at all incomes. Mixed-income projects have been considered best-practice for some 30 years now; the AHCIA will help regulations catch up with that reality.
The AHCIA would also dramatically expand the available credits. It would re-institute a temporary increase of 12.5% that Congress approved in 2018 but later allowed to lapse. And it would boost the total by an another 50%, allowing hundreds of additional projects to become reality.
The AHCIA has serious support on both side of the aisle in Washington. Its Senate co-sponsors include conservative Republicans Todd Young of Indiana and Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, along with liberal Democrats Ron Wyden of Oregon and Maria Cantwell of Washington. The House version of the bill already has 130 cosponsors.
The difficulty in passing the bill may not be opposition. Rather, it's that relatively small tax-related proposals like AHCIA rarely get enacted as stand-alone legislation. Instead, they often get swept up into fierce and partisan debates over taxes and spending. That's precisely what's happening right now in the Capitol—President Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill' includes massive tax cuts along with reductions in social service programs such as Medicaid and SNAP (food stamps), increased funding for deportations and border security, and much more. Despite its broad support, the AHCIA could be overlooked amid the bigger battles.
The question will be whether advocates of AHCIA can push some pieces of their legislation into this larger bill. The history provides at least some modest hope. The use of tax credits has deep roots, both among Republicans and Democrats, and a long track-record of success. When Congress adopted LIHTC back in 1986, it came as part of much bigger legislation—so that path is a genuine possibility.
Will leaders in Congress take action in 2025? If they do, the Affordable Housing Credit Improvement Act has the potential to do a lot of good, to expand the housing supply, spur the economy, and help address the affordability crisis plaguing America.
Tom Hanchett is a North Carolina-based historian. His new book Affordable Housing in Charlotte: What One City's History Tells Us About America's Pressing Problem is published by UNC Press.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

US shifts military resources in Mideast in response to Israel strikes and possible Iran attack
US shifts military resources in Mideast in response to Israel strikes and possible Iran attack

Washington Post

time36 minutes ago

  • Washington Post

US shifts military resources in Mideast in response to Israel strikes and possible Iran attack

WASHINGTON — The United States is shifting military resources, including ships, in the Middle East in response to Israel's strikes on Iran and a possible retaliatory attack by Tehran, two U.S. officials said Friday. The Navy has directed the destroyer USS Thomas Hudner to begin sailing toward the Eastern Mediterranean and has directed a second destroyer to begin moving forward, so it can be available if requested by the White House. President Donald Trump is meeting with his National Security Council principals to discuss the situation. The two U.S. officials spoke on the condition of anonymity to provide details not yet made public. The forces in the region have been taking precautionary measures for days, including having military dependents voluntarily depart regional bases, in anticipation of the strikes and to protect those personnel in case of a large-scale response from Tehran. There are typically around 30,000 troops based in the Middle East. However, that number surged as high as 43,000 last October amid the ongoing tensions between Israel and Iran as well as continuous attacks on commercial and military ships in the Red Sea by the Iranian-backed Houthis in Yemen. The Hudner is an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer that is capable of defending against ballistic missiles. On Oct. 1, 2024, U.S. Navy destroyers fired about a dozen interceptors in defense of Israel as the country came under attack by more than 200 missiles fired by Iran.

Here's What Federal Troops Can (and Can't) Do While Deployed in LA
Here's What Federal Troops Can (and Can't) Do While Deployed in LA

WIRED

time37 minutes ago

  • WIRED

Here's What Federal Troops Can (and Can't) Do While Deployed in LA

Jun 13, 2025 9:48 AM Pentagon rules sharply limit US Marines and National Guard activity in Los Angeles, prohibiting arrests, surveillance, and other customary police work. Marine recruits march during a training exercise at Camp Pendleton, California. Photograph: Michael Macor/AP Photo For the first time in decades, active-duty US Marines are rolling into Los Angeles—not for disaster relief or training drills, but to guard federal buildings during a protest crackdown that legal experts say threatens long-standing limits on military power at home. The deployment, announced by President Donald Trump on Monday, involves more than 700 Marines from the 2nd Battalion, 7th Regiment of the 1st Marine Division, based at Camp Pendleton and Twentynine Palms. Mobilized under Title 10 orders, the Marines have been commanded to protect federal property and personnel from mounting protests over aggressive immigration raids and neighborhood sweeps. It is a rare and forceful use of federal military power on US soil. The mobilization follows Trump's June 7 order that federalized as many as 4,000 California national guardsmen, overriding the objections of state officials and igniting a national debate over the constitutional limits of his authority and igniting a high-stakes legal fight. A US district judge on Thursday ordered Trump to return control of the guardsmen to the state of California, saying the takeover was unlawful, only likely to inflame tensions in the city, and had deprived the state of resources necessary 'to fight fires, combat the fentanyl trade, and perform other critical functions.' The injunction was quickly stayed, however, by a federal appeals court, pending a hearing next week. Protests began Friday in Westlake, an immigrant-heavy neighborhood near downtown LA, where residents rallied in response to sweeping ICE raids that targeted day laborers outside local businesses. Demonstrators marched, held signs, and chanted for several hours before tensions escalated after police declared an unlawful assembly and advanced on the crowd. LAPD officers and federal agents deployed a range of crowd control weapons, including batons, tear gas, pepper spray, and flash-bang grenades. Reports from journalists and observers describe nonviolent protesters—and members of the press—being struck by rubber bullets and stun devices during the crackdown. Widespread protests are expected in LA and at some 2,000 other locations around the US this weekend. While the president holds broad emergency powers, legal scholars say that without invoking the Insurrection Act—a statute that permits domestic troop deployments only in cases of a rebellion or civil rights violations—federal law sharply limits what active-duty forces can do. Marines may not act as a posse comitatus , or function as law enforcement. They're barred from arrests, surveillance, and crowd control, and may only support police in narrowly defined ways, according to Defense Department rules. Pentagon directives governing 'civil disturbance operations' reinforce these limits. Federal troops are prohibited from arresting civilians, searching property, and collecting evidence. They may not conduct surveillance of US persons. That includes not just individuals but vehicles, locations, and 'transactions.' They may not serve as undercover agents, informants, or interrogators. Unless a crime is committed by a service member or on military property, Title 10 forces are likewise banned from engaging in any kind of forensics for the benefit of civilian police—unless they are willing to put in writing that such evidence was obtained by consent. That said, there are numerous scenarios in which the military can provide assistance to police, including by giving them 'information' obtained 'in the normal course' of their duties, unless applicable privacy laws prohibit it. Military members can also provide police with a wide variety of assistance so long as it's in a 'private capacity' and they're off duty. Additionally, they can provide 'expert advice,' so long as it doesn't count as serving a function core to civilian police work. The Department of Defense did not immediately respond to a request for comment; however, a staff member in the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy confirmed for WIRED by phone the current set of policies under which deployed federal troops must operate. There is one major caveat to the military's restrictions. During an 'extraordinary emergency,' military commanders may take limited, immediate action to prevent massive destruction or to restore critical public services, but only so long as presidential approval is 'impossible' to obtain in advance. And while military personnel are naturally expected to maintain order and discipline at all times, under no circumstances are they required to stand down when their lives, or the lives of others, are in immediate danger. Still, enforcement of these rules in the field is far from guaranteed. Legal experts warn that adherence often varies in chaotic environments. Trump administration officials have also demonstrated a willingness to skirt the law. Last week, homeland security secretary Kristi Noem asked the Pentagon to authorize military assistance in conducting arrests and to deploy drone surveillance, according to a letter obtained by The San Francisco Chronicle—a move experts say directly contradicts standing legal prohibitions. At a press conference on Thursday, Noem stated the federal government was on a mission to 'liberate' Los Angeles from 'socialists' and the 'leadership' of California governor Gavin Newsom and LA mayor Karen Bass. US Senator Alex Padilla, who represents the citizens of California, was forcibly removed from the press conference after attempting to question Noem. Outside the press conference room, federal agents forced the senator to the ground, where he was temporarily placed in handcuffs. Unlike the National Guard, which is well trained for domestic crowd control, active-duty Marines generally receive relatively little instruction in handling civil unrest. Those who do typically belong to military police or specialized security units. Nonetheless, the Marine Corps has published footage online showing various task forces training with riot-control tactics and 'nonlethal' weapons. Constitutional concerns do not arise, however, when Marines face off against foreign mobs—such as in civilian zones during the Afghanistan war or on the rare occasion protesters breach the perimeter of a US embassy. And wartime rules of engagement are far more lenient than the rules of force by which Marines must adhere domestically. In a statement on Wednesday, US Northern Command, which oversees military support to nonmilitary authorities in the contiguous 48 states, confirmed the Marines had undergone training in all 'mission essential tasks,' including 'de-escalation' and 'crowd control.' They will reportedly be accompanied by legal and law enforcement experts. Constitutional experts warn that deploying military forces against civilian demonstrators blurs the line between law enforcement and military power, potentially setting a dangerous precedent for unchecked presidential authority. The risk deepens, they say, if federal troops overstep their legal bounds. If lines are crossed, it could open a door that may not close easily—clearing the way for future crackdowns that erode Americans' hard-won civil liberties.

Whole Hog Politics: Trump enlists the military for politics
Whole Hog Politics: Trump enlists the military for politics

Yahoo

time38 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Whole Hog Politics: Trump enlists the military for politics

On the menu: Going nuclear; Fore!; Newsom uses Trump to get back in Dems' good graces; Moonbeam to moderate?; Masked bandit America's largest military base has had four names in the past five years. In 2023, the Biden administration rechristened the base in North Carolina as Fort Liberty, replacing the name given to it in 1918 by resentful Southerners in the Army who honored Confederate Gen. Braxton Bragg. In early 2025, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said that it would be Fort Bragg again, but with a twist. It would be for Roland Bragg, a hero paratrooper from Maine who served in World War II, rather than the bumbling Confederate general. Then this week, President Trump undid the twist and made it plain that the base, and all the others named for Confederates that had been changed by Trump's predecessor, were going back to their original namesakes. And he did it as part of what could only be described as political speech at Fort Bragg to an audience of soldiers who were screened for their political allegiances and responded with wild cheers for Trump's attacks on his political rivals. It all put me in mind of the Immovable Ladder of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. Acclaimed since at least the fourth century as the site of the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth, the church building has been under the joint governance of Greek, Coptic, Ethiopian and Syriac Orthodox sects, the Armenian Apostolic church and the Roman Catholics since the days of the Ottomans. Outside a window on the second story of the church, there is a rough, wooden ladder that has been there since at least 1721. No one knows when or why the ladder was placed there, but they do know that under the uneasy power-sharing arrangement between the sects, no one has the unilateral authority to move it, nor can anyone obtain the unanimous consent necessary to do so licitly. So fearful are the custodians of the church that any violations of the truce will end in rupture or even violence, that they do nothing. And so, the ladder has sat in the dry desert air for longer than the United States has been a nation. Now, you can't run a nation like a pilgrimage church, and certainly not a nation's military. A lot more than ladders have to get moved to keep the planet's apex power in position. But the ladder does, ahem, lead up to a valuable way of thinking about how to treat even minor issues when tensions and stakes are high. When things can be left alone, it is often wise to leave them be. The re-Confederate-ing of the military bases in the South is a small thing on its own, but so was their vestigial connection to the Confederacy in the first place. Other than Fort Robert E. Lee in Virginia, none of the other namesakes had lingered on in popular memory, except for perhaps Bragg's fellow bungler, George Pickett, most famous for a failed infantry charge. Joe Biden could have left those ladders leaning, but wanted to make a point. Now Trump has made the counterpoint, and we might expect that the next Democratic president may want to make the counter-counterpoint. None of that will make the American military better, but it will make it more political, and that's very bad news. Americans have long been suspicious about the idea of having a large standing army. One of the reasons it took us so long to get into the fray in World War II was that public sentiment demanded a nearly complete demobilization after World War I. For most of American history, the idea that there would be more than a million active-duty troops stationed inside the borders of the United States would have been a very unappealing one. Standing armies are expensive and, as the history of the world shows with crushing frequency, dangerous to the liberty of citizens. And yet, America's military is massively popular. An impressive 79 percent of U.S. adults said in a recent poll that they have confidence in the military to act in the public's best interests. Compare that with just 22 percent for the federal government as a whole, 47 percent for the Supreme Court, 26 percent for the presidency and 9 percent for Congress. It might be said that our military is the only federal institution that is actually succeeding these days, but certainly it is the only part of it that is broadly popular, enjoying strong public support regardless of which party is in power at any given time. That is because in the era of large standing armies since the start of the Cold War and especially since the institution of the all-volunteer force after the Vietnam War, our civilian and military leaders have worked very hard to keep politics out of the military. Even as the greedy goblins of partisanship ripped the wiring out of every other institution that worked, the military has stood apart. Lots of bad things happen in countries when the military is the only stable part of the government, but our highly professional, scrupulously restrained, civilian-controlled military has done an exceptionally good job of staying out of domestic politics. But now, domestic politics has stopped returning the favor. Trump's decision to host a massive military demonstration in the streets of Washington on Saturday would have been a dubious choice under any circumstances. The occasion is the Army's 250th birthday, which also happens to fall on the president's 79th birthday. Trump will review a force of 6,600 troops and 150 vehicles including Abrams tanks, Paladins and Strykers, as well as Black Hawk, Apache and Chinook helicopters overhead as they pass in front of the White House. It's something Trump wanted in his first term, but was refused by military leaders who said it would be too expensive and send the wrong message about the military's relationship to the government. Rolling tanks through the capital city just isn't something Americans typically do, until now. Also in the category of Trump this week realizing unachieved goals from his first term is his mobilization of the military to suppress riots. In the summer of 2020, Trump was stymied in his efforts to use military force to smash the riots that followed in the wake of the George Floyd protests. The protesters in Los Angeles, and the copycats that one assumes will follow at other protests against federal deportation raids, have given Trump the chance to finish another unrealized goal of his first term. You may think what Trump is doing with the protesters and rioters is correct, and it may even end up being considered legal, but the timing sure does stink. Does anyone imagine that, rightly or wrongly, the bipartisan esteem for the military won't take a hit in all this? Setting up clashes between the Marines and Americans at the same time as the president held a political rally for himself at an Army base and just ahead of a massive military parade down Constitution Avenue doesn't exactly reinforce the idea of an apolitical military. Indeed, one of the best reasons to not politicize the military is so that when a commander in chief has to use our forces in controversial ways, it can be free of any taint. If you want to be able to send the Marines to Compton, you'd better pass on the political spectacles. Biden's name games with the bases or the use of the military to advance domestic political issues certainly didn't help. He moved the ladder, and now Trump is picking it up and smashing it through a window. If our political leaders keep at this, we will end up with what Americans for so long feared: a partisan military. No good can ever come of that. Holy croakano! We welcome your feedback, so please email us with your tips, corrections, reactions, amplifications, etc. at WHOLEHOGPOLITICS@ . If you'd like to be considered for publication, please include your real name and hometown. If you don't want your comments to be made public, please specify. NUTRITIONAL INFORMATION Trump Job Performance Average Approval: 42% Average Disapproval: 53.6% Net Score: -11.6 points Change from one week ago: -1.7 points Change from one month ago: -0.4 points [Average includes: Gallup: 43% approve – 53% disapprove; Ipsos/Reuters: 42% approve – 52% disapprove; Marquette: 46% approve – 54% disapprove; ARG: 41% approve – 55% disapprove; Quinnipiac University: 38% approve – 54% disapprove] Americans going nuclear Do you favor or oppose more nuclear power plants to generate electricity? Now Favor: 59%Oppose: 39% Spring of 2021 Favor: 50% Oppose: 47% Spring of 2016 Favor: 43% Oppose: 54% [Pew Research Center surveys] ON THE SIDE: LAYING OUT OF SAM SNEAD'S BUNKER As the most venerable of all American golf tournaments gets underway, writer Brody Miller goes digging for a central piece of lore. The Athletic: 'There's a story about Oakmont Country Club the members love to tell. And they're right to tell it. Because it's the perfect story about the hardest golf course in America, the place just outside of Pittsburgh that is hosting the U.S. Open this week. It's the perfect story about the Fownes family, the father and son who built this course and believed so deeply in the sanctity of par that the famous W.C. Fownes' line goes: 'A shot poorly played should be a shot irrevocably lost.' And this story? The people of Oakmont always believed it to be factual. Until very recently. 'Well …' Oakmont historian David Moore says with a chuckle. 'There's a little debate about that right now.' It goes like this …' PRIME CUTS In Trump showdown, Newsom gets chance to dispel notions of appeasement: NBC News: 'The battle between the president and the governor of the country's largest state instantly turned [Gavin Newsom] into the face of resistance to President Donald Trump's expansive interpretation of the authorities of his office and mass-deportation campaign. Newsom, who is a potential 2028 Democratic presidential candidate, has been taking heavy criticism from within his own party over his efforts — in part through his new podcast — to cast himself in the role of conciliator. … On Monday, California sued Trump for using emergency powers to deploy National Guard troops to the Los Angeles area over the weekend. Trump, citing a statute that allows the president to activate the guard to repel a foreign invasion or quell a rebellion, accused Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass of failing to protect federal agents and property from demonstrators.' Cuomo nabs Bloomberg backing with less than two weeks to go: New York Times: 'Former Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg on Tuesday announced that he was backing former Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo in the New York City mayor's race, giving Mr. Cuomo an endorsement coveted by many of the Democratic candidates in the race. Mr. Bloomberg has a long record of helping Democratic candidates. … But he has mostly avoided endorsing mayoral candidates at the primary level in New York City, making his backing of Mr. Cuomo more notable. … The endorsement may also persuade some undecided voters who have criticisms of Mr. Cuomo's handling of the pandemic or who may have misgivings over his sexual harassment scandal, which led to his resignation as governor of New York in 2021. … Mr. Cuomo has led in polls ahead of the June 24 Democratic primary. But he has faced a surprisingly strong challenge from Zohran Mamdani, a state lawmaker from Queens and a democratic socialist. The endorsement comes two days before the second and final candidate debate on Thursday. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez endorsed Mr. Mamdani last week, and polls show the race narrowing.' Voters don't find beauty in Trump's big bill: The Hill: 'More than half of voters oppose the domestic policy bill that President Trump has pushed Republicans in Congress to pass by July 4, according to a poll released Wednesday. Quinnipiac University's national survey found less than a third of registered voters surveyed support Trump's agenda-setting One Big Beautiful Bill Act, while 53 percent oppose the legislation.' New Jersey gubernatorial race set for Ciattarelli and Sherrill: Associated Press: 'Republican Jack Ciattarelli, who had President Donald Trump's endorsement, and Democratic Rep. Mikie Sherrill won their primary elections in New Jersey's race for governor, setting the stage for a November election, poised to be fought in part over affordability and the president's policies… New Jersey has been reliably Democratic in Senate and presidential contests for decades. But the odd-year races for governor have tended to swing back and forth, and each of the last three GOP governors has won a second term.' SHORT ORDER Daughter of longtime Maine Rep. Chellie Pingree (D) joins crowded Democratic gubernatorial primary—WMTW After Tennessee Rep. Mark Green (R) announces plan to quit, a crowded field forms—Tennessee Lookout Youngkin sets Sept. 9 special election to fill Connolly's seat in Congress—Virginia Mercury Iowa state Sen. Zach Wahls (D) announces challenge to Republican Sen. Joni Ernst—The Hill TABLE TALK 'Gonna be a rumble out on the promenade.' 'The voters know who I am.' — Atlantic City, N.J., Mayor Marty Small Sr. explaining his primary victory in his reelection campaign, despite facing multiple criminal indictments along with his wife, Atlantic City School District Superintendent La'Quetta Small. Mayor Small has been in office since 2019, when his predecessor resigned after pleading guilty to wire fraud. MAILBAG 'Democrats should run the closest carbon copy of former California Gov. Jerry Brown that they can find: if not the 87-year-old man himself. Jerry transformed himself from Governor Moonbeam to a wise, fiscally responsible leader. After seven years in office, Brown turned a $27 million deficit into a $13.8 billion rainy day fund, which [Gov. Gavin Newsom] has quickly blown through, bringing us to a $12 billion deficit. As an American and conservative Republican, I would have no problem voting for a Jerry act-alike.' — Peter S. Krimmell, Glendora, Calif. Mr. Krimmell, I think that is very much what your current governor has in mind! National Republicans scoff and sneer at Newsom's recent reinvention as a foe of the excesses of wokeness and socialism, but he seems very much to have in mind a Brown-like reinvention. It certainly doesn't match with his record, especially on the fiscal matter to which you refer, but he would hardly be the first politician to undergo an ideological overhaul before seeking public office. Newsom's may be jarring to Republicans, but if he could somehow get through a progressive-leaning Democratic primary electorate (a big if), it might be hard to convince persuadable voters that he, a career-long flip-flopper, was actually a true believer in anything. Newsom's career prior to 2018 as member of the board of supervisors and then mayor in San Francisco or as Brown's lieutenant governor all point to a kind of squishy, corporatist, Clintonite Democrat. It seems much more believable that he was faking his radicalism in service of his ambitions within a radicalizing state party than that he had simply been suppressing his inner extremist for the previous 20 years. If the current and no doubt extended showdown with the Trump administration gives Newsom sufficient standing with the left, he might find it possible to shift his policy positions back to the center without disqualifying himself entirely with the Democrats' activist base. Donald Trump's rapid public ideological positioning from moderate Democrat to Reform Party to conservative Republican to pure populism suggests that many voters care little about consistency if they have a strong emotional attachment to the candidate. The more likely outcome is that Newsom will trip on his shoelaces amid all that fancy footwork, but stranger things have happened. All best, c 'I don't always agree with your conclusions but very much appreciate your view of both sides of an issue. Do you ever do personal appearances and public presentations? Also, what is 'Holy Croakano.'' — J. Stan Carpenter, Concord, N.C. Mr. Carpenter, I do get around a good bit for speeches and talks at colleges, etc. I don't know of anything near you or in the Charlotte area anytime soon, but keep a lookout. The more important question, though, is about croakano! I don't have a sufficient etymology for the word — pronounced kind of like volcano: cro-kuh-no. It is an excited utterance or interjection: a mild oath used in place of a more vulgar or blasphemous word. It came to me as a county colloquialism used by my father and, at least, his father before him in Cumberland County, Ill. Did they even have it when my branch of the Stirewalts left North Carolina in the 1820s? Who knows? There was a popular Canadian board game from the 19th century called crokinole, the name for which is thought to be from the French word croquignole, for a small biscuit. How that would have made itself into croakano and gotten to the crossroads town of Timothy, Ill., circa 1900 I couldn't guess, or it may be a false lead altogether. But as always, I invite you and all our readers to share the regional or family linguistic gems that you treasure with us so we can try to keep them alive. Yours in word nerddom, c You should email us! Write to WHOLEHOGPOLITICS@ with your tips, kudos, criticisms, insights, rediscovered words, wonderful names, recipes, and, always, good jokes. Please include your real name—at least first and last—and hometown. Make sure to let us know in the email if you want to keep your submission private. My colleague, the daring Meera Sehgal, and I will look for your emails and then share the most interesting ones and my responses here. Clickety clack! FOR DESSERT Dr. Doolittle, Kentucky style WHAS: 'A man from Murray, Kentucky, was arrested last week after police say he released a raccoon inside a business. This comes just months after the same man was arrested for attempting to evade police officers on a mule. On June 6, 2025, Murray Police Department responded to a call that a person had intentionally released a raccoon into an open business, and that he had fled the scene. Soon after, officers initiated a traffic stop on Jonathan Mason, 40. According to police, he refused to roll down his windows or exit his vehicle. Officers physically removed Mason from the vehicle. Investigators learned the raccoon that was released into the business bit a person, and that Mason was previously warned that he was not allowed on the property of the business.' Chris Stirewalt is the politics editor for The Hill and NewsNation, the host of The Hill Sunday on NewsNation and The CW, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and the author of books on politics and the media. MeeraSehgalcontributed to this report. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store