There's a fairly good chance that amid your perfunctory morning routine of tooth brushing and clothes-putting-on, you check the day's weather forecast, either on your phone or the TV. Now, with the 2024 presidential election looming, the modern meteorological facilities that guide that routine check-in are bracing for a potentially seismic disruption. 

What did the commentators say?
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and its various subsidiary offices — including the National Weather Service (NWS) — form a "colossal operation that has become one of the main drivers of the climate change alarm industry and, as such, is harmful to future U.S. prosperity," said The Heritage Foundation's ultra-conservative Project 2025 initiative, which hopes to guide a potential second Trump presidency. Accordingly, the NOAA and its departments "should be dismantled and many of its functions eliminated, sent to other agencies, privatized, or placed under the control of states and territories." 

The document cites a consultant report that determined that NWS forecast accuracy ranked behind private-sector meteorologists. However, those private-sector options "use government-funded observations to inform predictions," The Washington Post said. Project 2025's privatization plan would essentially force consumers to "pay for weather subscriptions," including "weather alert systems for emergencies" like hurricanes and earthquakes, The New Republic said. 

Although the privatization of the National Weather Service might produce private entities that are "better funded and, theoretically, less subject to political whims," The Atlantic said, this is "not the vision that Project 2025 lays out." Instead, the group envisions a "dramatically defunded NOAA whose husk is nonetheless hyper-responsive to the administration's politics."

What next?
There is a "0% chance" that any of Project 2025's recommendations for the NOAA or NWS "will ever be considered or implemented," former NOAA chief scientist Ryan Maue said on X. More likely, Maue said, would be "bipartisan legislation to split off NOAA" from the Commerce Department where it resides, and transform it into an independent agency like NASA.

Crucially, Project 2025's push for "collaboration with the private sector" already happens, said Rachel Cleetus, policy director in the climate and energy program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, to Poynter. The notion that the NOAA could be "broken up and somehow still be able to do this essential work, it won't be possible."

Kamala Harris entered the race against Donald Trump with a disadvantage: Voters trust him more on economic issues. Now she is putting forward an economic plan aimed at narrowing the gap, with a "focus on manufacturing and middle-class opportunities," said The Wall Street Journal. The centerpiece: A package of tax credits, totaling $100 million over 10 years, with the intent of "revitalizing factory towns and retooling existing factories" as well as raising wages and encouraging "union partnerships." 

Harris also has a goal of "25 million new small business applications in the first two years" of her White House term, said Forbes. Start-up small businesses currently get an initial $5,000 tax credit — Harris' plan would increase that to $50,000. Tax credits are at the heart of many Harris economic proposals: She is also seeking to expand credits for developers who build affordable housing and to restore the $3,600-a-year pandemic-era child tax credit for parents of young children.

'Practical solutions to problems'
Polls show voters are concerned that Harris is "too liberal," said Politico. The candidate says she is "pragmatic" on economic issues. "I believe we shouldn't be constrained by ideology, and instead, should seek practical solutions to problems," she said.

Harris and Trump "have many of the same stated goals for the economy," said The New York Times. Both want to slash regulations and middle class taxes, and encourage domestic manufacturing. It's their methods that diverge. Trump would use the stick of tariffs and import bans to achieve his goals, while Harris would emphasize the carrot of tax breaks. 

How to fix a 'mixed bag' economy?
If this plan is so good, "why hasn't the Biden-Harris administration been following it for the past four years?" Nicole Russell said at USA Today. The economy under this administration is a "mixed bag" — stocks are high and unemployment low, but "tens of millions of Americans say they're struggling" to pay their bills. 

Trump's advantage over Harris on the economy has "dropped dramatically in recent weeks," said The Washington Post. Early polls showed him with a double-digit lead on the topic — that has now dropped to a six-point edge.