Evelyn Reynolds

More stories

  • 88 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    Double-Barreled Economic Threat Puts Congress on Edge

    Republicans and Democrats disagree over how recent bank closures should impact the debt limit stalemate, and have taken divergent lessons from past economic crises.WASHINGTON — In 2008, an imminent collapse of the banking system consumed Congress before lawmakers delivered a bailout. Three years later, a debt limit crisis enveloped Washington and led to a series of spending cuts after a dangerous brush with default and a first-ever downgrade in the nation’s credit rating.Now unease about the banking system’s stability and a stalemate over raising the debt limit are engulfing the capital simultaneously, ratcheting up an already high level of financial anxiety as two economic challenges Congress has experienced before become intertwined.“The stakes are exceptionally high when you are dealing with what amounts to a one-two punch of economic peril,” said Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon and chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. “The messages that you send to the economy and the public with respect to banking and the full faith and credit of the United States — it doesn’t get more consequential than that.”Republicans and Democrats acknowledge it is a scary case of déjà vu times two. But they diverge sharply on how recent bank failures — and uncertainty over how Congress should respond to them, if at all — will influence the debt limit fight later this summer.At their just-concluded retreat in Florida, House Republicans took the line that shakiness in the banking system should strengthen their hand in the coming showdown over the debt limit. They argued that a Democrat-led spending spree spurred inflation, forced up interest rates and led to a precarious situation for all but the largest banks. The clear answer, to them, remains deep spending cuts, and they say they will still insist on cuts before making any move to raise the debt ceiling.Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen said on Tuesday that the president was willing to talk federal spending with Republicans, just not under the threat of a debt default.Pete Marovich for The New York Times“That should wake everybody up,” Speaker Kevin McCarthy, Republican of California, told reporters on Tuesday when asked about the intersection of banking stability and the debt limit. “Why are we having a crisis? Because the government spent too much and created inflation.”“I believe to get to a debt ceiling limit, you have to be spending less than we spent before,” he said.But Jerome H. Powell, the Fed chair, on Wednesday disputed the notion that spending remained the chief driver of inflation.“Spending was of course tremendously high during the pandemic,” he said at a news conference announcing an increase in interest rates. “As pandemic programs rolled off, spending actually came down.”“Fiscal impulse is actually not what’s driving inflation right now,” he said. “It was at the beginning perhaps, but that’s not the story right now.”Democrats say House Republicans are doing the exact opposite of what is required at a critical moment, even as the Fed offers assurances about the soundness of the banking system. They say the fallout from any banking instability should persuade Republicans that the last thing the economy needs is the specter of a default from a failure to raise the debt limit, which is projected to be reached as early as July without action by Congress.Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the majority leader, on Wednesday assailed the Republican stance as “reckless and truly clueless.”.css-1v2n82w{max-width:600px;width:calc(100% – 40px);margin-top:20px;margin-bottom:25px;height:auto;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;font-family:nyt-franklin;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1v2n82w{margin-left:20px;margin-right:20px;}}@media only screen and (min-width:1024px){.css-1v2n82w{width:600px;}}.css-161d8zr{width:40px;margin-bottom:18px;text-align:left;margin-left:0;color:var(–color-content-primary,#121212);border:1px solid var(–color-content-primary,#121212);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-161d8zr{width:30px;margin-bottom:15px;}}.css-tjtq43{line-height:25px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-tjtq43{line-height:24px;}}.css-x1k33h{font-family:nyt-cheltenham;font-size:19px;font-weight:700;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve{font-size:17px;font-weight:300;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve em{font-style:italic;}.css-1hvpcve strong{font-weight:bold;}.css-1hvpcve a{font-weight:500;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}.css-1c013uz{margin-top:18px;margin-bottom:22px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz{font-size:14px;margin-top:15px;margin-bottom:20px;}}.css-1c013uz a{color:var(–color-signal-editorial,#326891);-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;font-weight:500;font-size:16px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz a{font-size:13px;}}.css-1c013uz a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}How Times reporters cover politics. We rely on our journalists to be independent observers. So while Times staff members may vote, they are not allowed to endorse or campaign for candidates or political causes. This includes participating in marches or rallies in support of a movement or giving money to, or raising money for, any political candidate or election cause.Learn more about our process.“Instead of calling for calm, House Republicans are sowing chaos by threatening a default at a time when banks need stability,” he said. “The right answer is for Republicans in the House to stop saber-rattling, drop the hostage-taking and brinkmanship and work together, work in a bipartisan way, to extend the debt ceiling without strings attached.”Other Democrats shared those sentiments, dismissing calls from some Republicans to prioritize federal payments should Congress fail to agree on a debt-limit increase. They say that approach is unworkable and default by another name.“The banking crisis highlights the importance of paying our bills on time,” said Senator Chris Van Hollen, Democrat of Maryland and a member of the Banking Committee. “We don’t want to create any more uncertainty in the financial markets and the economy. Because of what happened with the banks, it is more important than ever that Republicans don’t allow us to get close to the cliff.”“Because of what happened with the banks, it is more important than ever that Republicans don’t allow us to get close to the cliff,” said Senator Chris Van Hollen, Democrat of Maryland.Pete Marovich for The New York TimesThe 2008 and 2011 economic crises were earthshaking events on Capitol Hill. In the fall of 2008, in response to warnings from Treasury and Fed officials that the nation’s banks were about go under, Congress dove into a titanic, market-rattling debate over the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, ultimately approving a historic government intervention in the economy.Three years later, a new House Republican majority and the Obama administration took their clash over spending to the brink of financial ruin, bringing the country close to a federal default before striking a last-minute deal on spending cuts cleared the way for an increase in the debt ceiling, averting disaster.Lawmakers say they drew many lessons from those painful experiences. But the two parties did not draw the same ones.For Democrats, the 2011 experience hardened their opposition to negotiating over increasing the debt limit, confirming their belief that it should be raised without conditions since it is simply making good on spending already approved by Congress, with the support of members of both political parties. Republicans, by contrast, say that same experience persuaded them that the only way to exact real spending cuts is to use the threat of a federal debt default as leverage.The clashing approaches now have the parties again dug in over increasing the debt limit. Scant progress has been made toward finding a resolution that could avoid undermining the economy, even as the banking system exhibits signs of stress.Some Republicans say that they see the high-profile failure of the Silicon Valley Bank as an isolated incident, in contrast to the widespread fear of a total banking collapse in 2008 before Congress intervened.“This is not ’08 and ’09 when the banking industry was crazy on their asset side,” said Senator Mike Braun, Republican of Indiana. “That side of the economy I think learned its lesson.”He and other Republicans said they need to continue to push for spending reductions as part of any agreement to raise the debt limit and called on Democrats and President Biden to drop their refusal to negotiate.“This is not just a one-way street,” said Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas. “Hopefully Biden and the administration will get real when it comes to negotiating something, rather than saying, ‘I am not going to negotiate anything.’”In an appearance on Tuesday before the American Bankers Association, Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen said that the president was willing to talk federal spending with Republicans, just not with the debt limit sword held at his throat.“Having this conversation needs to happen over time and in the appropriations process and not through the threat of forcing a default,” she told members of the group. “It is essential that Congress raise the debt ceiling and that they do it promptly in order not to inflict a truly catastrophic wound on our economy and our financial system.”Republicans and Democrats credit consumer confidence for holding off economic calamity and so far preventing Congress from entering the crisis atmosphere that permeated both 2008 and 2011. But there is no guarantee that confidence can be maintained, and lawmakers warn of the possibility of cascading events should the banking system become viewed as unstable or the debt limit standoff go on too long.“It has,” warned Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut, “the makings of a perfect storm.” More

  • 138 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    Powell and Yellen Suggest Need to Review Regulations After Bank Failures

    Proposals for more scrutiny of the financial sector are meeting resistance from industry and Congress.WASHINGTON — Two of the nation’s top economic policymakers on Wednesday said they were focused on determining how the failure of Silicon Valley Bank had happened and suggested changes to federal regulation and oversight might be needed to prevent future runs on American banks.The discussion of stricter oversight by Jerome H. Powell, the Federal Reserve chair, and Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen came as lawmakers, the financial industry and investors are working to figure out why Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank failed and as policymakers try to ensure other firms don’t suffer the same fate.At a news conference following the Fed’s announcement that it would raise interest rates by a quarter percentage point, Mr. Powell said he was focused on the question of what had gone wrong at Silicon Valley Bank, which was overseen by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.The Fed has initiated an internal review into the supervision and regulation of Silicon Valley Bank, with the central bank’s vice chair for supervision, Michael S. Barr, leading the probe. Asked at the news conference whether he would support an independent examination — one not conducted by the Fed — Mr. Powell said he would welcome more scrutiny.“There’s 100 percent certainty that there will be outside investigations,” he said.Mr. Powell criticized bank executives, who he said had “failed badly,” but also conceded that Fed supervisors had not been effective at preventing the bank from sliding into insolvency. He said he expected the central bank’s own report to outline concrete steps to avoid a repeat of the crisis.“Clearly we do need to strengthen supervision and regulation,” Mr. Powell said. “And I assume that there’ll be recommendations coming out of the report, and I plan on supporting them and supporting their implementation.”Ms. Yellen echoed his comments at a Senate hearing on Wednesday afternoon, saying policymakers needed to take a hard look at the troubles plaguing the banking industry, including what led to the downfalls of Silicon Valley Bank, on March 10, and Signature Bank, which was seized by regulators on March 12.“I absolutely think that it’s appropriate to conduct a very thorough review of what factors were responsible for the failure of these banks,” she said. “Certainly we should be reconsidering what we need to shore up regulation to prevent this.”Ms. Yellen said she supports legislation that would penalize executives whose actions lead to bank failures and restore rules that were rolled back during the Trump administration that gave the Financial Stability Oversight Council more power to scrutinize nonbank financial institutions.Economic policymakers are trying to figure out why Silicon Valley Bank failed and to ensure other firms don’t suffer the same fate.Ulysses Ortega for The New York TimesMs. Yellen also said that because bank runs “may more readily happen now,” it might make sense to update stress test models and bank liquidity requirements with new assumptions about how quickly deposits could flee. Mr. Powell also addressed the speed of the outflows of funds from Silicon Valley Bank, which was hastened by social media and the ease of moving money with smartphones, suggesting that new rules are needed to keep up with advances in technology.For the time being, Ms. Yellen said she was focused on using existing tools to restore confidence in the banking system.The Biden administration likely has little choice because of mounting resistance to new financial regulations within Congress and the banking industry. That opposition was clear on Wednesday as lawmakers and executives gathered at an American Bankers Association conference in Washington.Although there was widespread support for uncovering the roots of the current turmoil, influential lawmakers expressed a desire for caution in considering new curbs on the financial sector.“I think it’s too early to know whether or not new legislation will be necessary,” said Representative Patrick T. McHenry of North Carolina, the Republican chairman of the House Financial Services committee.Mr. McHenry warned that proposed increases to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation deposit insurance limit could lead to unintended consequences and “moral hazard,” and said that “firms need to be able to fail.”“If you have a hammer, the world looks like a nail,” Mr. McHenry said of the desire to impose more onerous regulations on banks.The banking industry, which has welcomed the government’s support of the sector this month, also urged lawmakers not to respond with more scrutiny.“We should not rush to make changes when we still do not fully know what happened and why,” Rob Nichols, chief executive of the American Bankers Association, said on Wednesday.But Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, said the failures of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank this month had shaken the nation’s trust in the banking system. He vowed to hold the executives of those banks accountable and press regulators to review what went wrong.Mr. Brown also called for legislation to “strengthen guardrails” and urged the bank lobbyists not to stand in the way.Representative Patrick T. McHenry warned that proposed increases to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation $250,000 deposit insurance limit could have unintended consequences.Sarah Silbiger for The New York TimesPresident Biden has decried rollbacks in financial regulation passed by Republicans and Democrats under his predecessor, President Donald J. Trump. But he has thus far offered only a small set of concrete proposals for new legislation or executive action to stabilize the financial system in its current turmoil.Last week, Mr. Biden called for Congress to strengthen regulators’ ability to penalize executives of failed banks. His proposals would allow regulators to claw back compensation that executives of medium-sized banks received before their institutions went under, broadening a penalty that currently applies only to executives of large banks. They also would lower the legal threshold that regulators need to clear in order to ban those executives from working in other parts of the financial system.Administration officials are privately debating what else, if anything, Mr. Biden might ask Congress to do — or announce his administration will do unilaterally — to shore up the banking system.Karine Jean-Pierre, the White House press secretary, repeatedly dodged questions from reporters this week about any new proposals Mr. Biden was considering. “We don’t want to let Congress off the hook,” she said on Tuesday. “We want Congress to continue to — to certainly — to take action. And so, we’re going to call on them to do just that.”Mr. Biden has given just one speech on bank regulation since his administration joined the Fed in announcing a rescue plan for Silicon Valley Bank depositors earlier this month. He last addressed the issue on March 17, in a brief exchange with reporters before boarding Marine One at the White House.In that exchange, Mr. Biden was asked: “Are you confident the bank crisis has calmed down?”He replied: “Yes.”Lawmakers pressed Ms. Yellen on whether the administration supported proposals that some members of Congress have offered to make bank customers, whose deposits are only federally guaranteed up to $250,000, feel more confident that their money is safe.Ms. Yellen demurred when asked about proposals to raise the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s cap on deposit insurance. Referring to recent moves to protect bank depositors, Ms. Yellen said during a speech at the A.B.A. gathering on Tuesday that “similar actions could be warranted if smaller institutions suffer deposit runs that pose the risk of contagion.”The Biden administration appears to have limited legal authority to unilaterally lift the deposit insurance cap, but financial sector analysts have speculated that the Treasury Department is studying whether it could utilize its Exchange Stabilization Fund, a pot of more than $200 billion of emergency money, to back bank deposits.“All she needs is approval from the president to tap into that basket,” Henrietta Treyz, director of economic policy research at Veda Partners, said of Ms. Yellen. “There are no other alternatives; there’s no chance of a bill passing Congress.”Ms. Yellen said on Wednesday that she was not considering such a move but rather would make case-by-case determinations of whether any banks facing runs pose a “systemic risk” to the economy.“I have not considered or discussed anything to do with blanket insurance or guarantees of all deposits,” Ms. Yellen said, adding that any changes to the deposit insurance limit would require legislation from Congress.Invoking the systemic-risk exception again would require approval from both the Fed and the F.D.I.C. At least one policymaker at the F.D.I.C. is skeptical that the exception should be applied to smaller banks, a person familiar with the situation said, which suggests that achieving consensus on such a move may not be a foregone conclusion.Uncertainty over any government plans to help further backstop banks loom large for the number of regional banks that have seen massive outflows of deposits and are exploring various ways to shore up their balance sheets. Both buyers and sellers are wary of striking a deal without full clarity on concessions the government might offer, two people familiar with the negotiations said.These include First Republic and Pacific Western Bank, which earlier Wednesday said, after tapping billions from an investment firm and the Federal Reserve, it was holding off on raising new capital in part because of depressed shares. Pacific Western has seen deposits fall 20 percent since the start of the year, while First Republic has lost nearly half.It is also unclear what concessions the F.D.I.C will offer as part of its efforts to sell the former Silicon Valley Bank. At least one bank, North Carolina-based First Citizens, has put forward an offer to buy that business, a person briefed on the matter said. The agency is now in the process of soliciting offers for various parts of SVB’s business including Silicon Valley Private Bank, an asset management firm, to discern whether it is more lucrative to sell the bank in pieces or as a whole.“We’ll need to wait and see what the bids are and what the least cost is to the deposit insurance fund,” said Julianne Breitbeil, a spokeswoman for the F.D.I.C, regarding any potential concessions the government plans to offer.The agency expects to issue an update on the sale process this weekend, Ms. Breitbeil said. More

  • 88 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    Fed Meeting Holds High Stakes for Biden

    The president is counting on the central bank to strike the right balance on jobs and inflation — and to prevent a spiraling financial crisis.WASHINGTON — The Federal Reserve’s decision on Wednesday on whether to raise rates at a precarious moment carries risks not just for the central bank, but also for President Biden.Mr. Biden was already relying on the Fed to maintain a delicate balance with its interest rate decisions, simultaneously taming rapid price growth while avoiding plunging the economy into recession. Now, he also needs the Fed chair, Jerome H. Powell, and his colleagues to avert a misstep that could hasten a full-blown financial crisis.Economists and investors are watching Wednesday’s decision closely, after the Fed and the administration intervened this month to shore up a suddenly shaky regional banking system following the failures of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank. So are administration officials, who publicly express support for Mr. Powell but, in some cases, have privately clashed with Fed officials over bank regulation and supervision in the midst of their joint financial rescue efforts.Forecasters generally expect Fed officials to continue their monthslong march of rate increases, in an effort to cool an inflation rate that is still far too hot for the Fed’s liking. But they expect policymakers to raise rates by only a quarter of a percentage point, to just above 4.75 percent — a smaller move than markets were pricing in before the bank troubles began.Some economists and former Fed officials have urged Mr. Powell and his colleagues to continue raising rates unabated, in order to project confidence in the system. Others have called on the Fed to pause its efforts, at least temporarily, to avoid dealing further losses to financial institutions holding large amounts of government bonds and other assets that have lost value amid the rapid rate increases of the past year.“Under the currently unsettled circumstances, the stakes are high,” Hung Tran, a former deputy director of the International Monetary Fund who is now at the Atlantic Council’s GeoEconomics Center, wrote in a blog post this week.“Disappointing market expectations could usher in additional sell-offs in financial markets, especially of bank shares and bonds, possibly requiring more bailouts,” he wrote. “On the other hand, the Fed needs also to communicate its intention to bring inflation back to its target in the medium term — a difficult but not impossible thing to do.”Economists and investors are watching the Fed’s decision closely.Haiyun Jiang/The New York TimesMr. Biden has for nearly a year professed his belief that the Fed could engineer a so-called soft landing as it raises interest rates, slowing the pace of job creation and bringing down inflation but not pushing the economy into recession. That would complete what the president frequently calls a transition to “steady and more stable growth.”It would also help Mr. Biden as he gears up for a widely expected announcement that he will seek re-election: History suggests that the president would be buoyed by an economy with low unemployment and historically normal levels of inflation in 2024..css-1v2n82w{max-width:600px;width:calc(100% – 40px);margin-top:20px;margin-bottom:25px;height:auto;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;font-family:nyt-franklin;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1v2n82w{margin-left:20px;margin-right:20px;}}@media only screen and (min-width:1024px){.css-1v2n82w{width:600px;}}.css-161d8zr{width:40px;margin-bottom:18px;text-align:left;margin-left:0;color:var(–color-content-primary,#121212);border:1px solid var(–color-content-primary,#121212);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-161d8zr{width:30px;margin-bottom:15px;}}.css-tjtq43{line-height:25px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-tjtq43{line-height:24px;}}.css-x1k33h{font-family:nyt-cheltenham;font-size:19px;font-weight:700;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve{font-size:17px;font-weight:300;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve em{font-style:italic;}.css-1hvpcve strong{font-weight:bold;}.css-1hvpcve a{font-weight:500;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}.css-1c013uz{margin-top:18px;margin-bottom:22px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz{font-size:14px;margin-top:15px;margin-bottom:20px;}}.css-1c013uz a{color:var(–color-signal-editorial,#326891);-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;font-weight:500;font-size:16px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz a{font-size:13px;}}.css-1c013uz a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}How Times reporters cover politics. We rely on our journalists to be independent observers. So while Times staff members may vote, they are not allowed to endorse or campaign for candidates or political causes. This includes participating in marches or rallies in support of a movement or giving money to, or raising money for, any political candidate or election cause.Learn more about our process.Through the beginning of the year, data suggested a soft landing could be in the works. But in recent months, price growth has picked up again. The economy continues to create jobs at a much faster pace than Mr. Biden said last year would be consistent with more stable growth. Fed officials were eyeing a more aggressive inflation-fighting stance before the banking crisis hit.Mr. Powell suggested in congressional testimony this month that the Fed could raise rates by as much as half a percentage point in the two-day meeting that ends on Wednesday. Days later, Silicon Valley Bank failed, followed by Signature Bank. The Fed, the Treasury Department and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation announced emergency measures to ensure that the banks’ depositors would have access to all their money, and that other regional banks could borrow from the Fed to prevent the rapid flight of deposits that had doomed Silicon Valley Bank.Mr. Biden will need further cooperation from Fed officials if more bank failures, or other events, threaten a full-scale financial crisis. Republicans control the House and appear unwilling to sign on for a potentially large government rescue of the financial system, like the bipartisan bank bailouts during the 2008 financial crisis.“It’s especially important when you can’t count on Congress,” said Jason Furman, a Harvard economist who led the White House Council of Economic Advisers under President Barack Obama. “We’re going to see the only game in town when it comes to financial stability is the White House and the Fed.”Administration officials have publicly lauded Mr. Powell since the Silicon Valley Bank failure. Karine Jean-Pierre, the White House press secretary, told reporters this week that there was no risk to Mr. Powell’s position as Fed chair from his handling of financial regulation.“The president has confidence in Jerome Powell,” she said.Ms. Jean-Pierre also reiterated the administration’s longstanding refusal to comment on Fed interest rate decisions. “They are independent,” she said, adding: “And they are going to make their decision — their monetary policy decision, as it relates to the interest rate, as it relates to dealing with inflation, which are clearly both connected. But I’m just not going to — we’re not going to comment on that from here.”There is wide debate on what interest rate announcement Mr. Biden should be hoping to hear on Wednesday afternoon.Some economists and commentators have pushed the Fed to hold off on raising rates entirely, contending that another increase risks further rattling the banking system — and consumers’ confidence in it.Liberal senators like Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, and progressive groups in Washington have urged the same for months but for a far different reason. They argue that continued rate increases could slam the brakes on economic growth and throw millions of Americans out of work, and they say the real drivers of inflation are corporate profiteering and snarled supply chains, which will not be tamed by higher borrowing costs.“I don’t think the Fed should be touching interest rate hikes with a 15-foot pole,” said Rakeen Mabud, the chief economist at the Groundwork Collaborative, a liberal policy group in Washington.“Tanking our labor market is not the way to a healthy economy, is not the way to stable prices,” Ms. Mabud said. “We have an additional imperative this month, which is that aggressive interest rate hikes are exactly what have created some of the instability that we’re seeing” in the financial system.Other economists, including some Democrats, have urged the Fed to raise rates even more swiftly to beat back inflation as soon as possible.“The whole reason we have independent central banks is so they think about things on a longer time horizon than the typical White House is able to,” Mr. Furman said. “So I think the Fed, insofar as it did anything to hurt Biden, it was that it raised rates too slowly.” More

  • 113 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Push to Insure Big Deposits Percolates on Capitol Hill

    The government insures only deposits of less than $250,000, but there is precedent for lifting that cap amid turmoil. It could happen again.WASHINGTON — Lawmakers are looking for ways to resolve a major concern that threatens to keep the banking industry in turmoil: The federal government insures bank deposits only up to $250,000.Some members of Congress are looking for ways to boost that cap, at least temporarily, in order to stop depositors from pulling their money out of smaller institutions that have been at center of recent bank runs.Representative Ro Khanna, Democrat of California, and other lawmakers are in talks about introducing bipartisan legislation as early as this week that would temporarily increase the deposit cap on transaction accounts, which are used for activities like payroll, with an eye on smaller banks. Such a move would potentially reprise a playbook used during the 2008 financial crisis and authorized at the onset of the coronavirus pandemic in 2020 to prevent depositors from pulling their money out.Others, including Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, have suggested lifting the deposit cap altogether.Any broad expansion to deposit insurance could require action from Congress because of legal changes made after the 2008 financial crisis, unless government agencies can find a workaround. The White House has not taken a public position, instead emphasizing the tools it has already rolled out to address banking troubles.Many lawmakers have yet to solidify their positions, and some have openly opposed lifting the cap, so it is not clear that legislation adjusting it even temporarily would pass. While such a move could calm nervous depositors, it could have drawbacks, including removing a big disincentive for banks to take on too much risk.Still, Senate staff members from both parties have been in early conversations about whether it would make sense to resurrect some version of the previous guarantees for uninsured deposits, according to a person familiar with the talks.Even after two weeks of aggressive government action to shore up the banking system, jitters remain about its safety after high-profile bank failures. Some worry that depositors whose accounts exceed the $250,000 limit may pull their money from smaller banks that seem more likely to crash without a government rescue. That could drive people toward bigger banks that are perceived as more likely to have a government guarantee — spurring more industry concentration.“I’m concerned about the danger to regional banking and community banking in this country,” Mr. Khanna said in an interview. He noted that if regional banks lose deposits as people turn to giant banking institutions that are deemed too big to fail, it could make it harder to get loans and other financing in the middle of the country, where community and regional banks play a major role.“This should be deeply concerning, that our regional banks are losing deposits, and losing the ability to lend, he said.Representative Ro Khanna said broad temporary expansions to deposit insurance would likely require action from Congress.T.J. Kirkpatrick for The New York TimesIf passed, a temporary guarantee on transaction deposits over the $250,000 federal insurance cap would be the latest step in a sweeping government response to an unfolding banking disaster.Silicon Valley Bank’s failure on March 10 has rattled the banking system. The bank was ill prepared to contend with the Federal Reserve’s interest rate increases: It held a lot of long-term bonds that had declined in value as well as an outsize share of uninsured deposits, which tend to be withdrawn at the first sign of trouble.Still, its demise focused attention on other weak spots in finance. Signature Bank has also failed, and First Republic Bank has been imperiled by outflows of deposits and a plunging stock price. In Europe, the Swiss government had to engineer the takeover of Credit Suisse by its competitor UBS.The U.S. government has responded to the turmoil with a volley of action. On March 12 it announced that it would guarantee the big depositors at Silicon Valley Bank and Signature. The Federal Reserve announced that it would set up an emergency lending program to make sure that banks had a workaround to avoid recognizing big losses if they — as Silicon Valley Bank did — needed to raise cash to cover withdrawals.And on Sunday, the Fed announced that it was making its regular operations to keep dollar financing flowing around the world more frequent, to try to prevent problems from extending to financial markets.For now, the administration has stressed that it will use the tools it is already deploying to protect depositors and ensure a healthy regional and community banking system.“We will use the tools we have to support community banks,” Michael Kikukawa, a White House spokesman, said Monday. “Since our administration and the regulators took decisive action last weekend, we have seen deposits stabilize at regional banks throughout the country, and, in some cases, outflows have modestly reversed.”The midsize Bank Coalition of America has urged federal regulators to extend Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation protection to all deposits for the next two years, saying in a letter late last week that it would halt an “exodus” of deposits from smaller banks.“It would be prudent to take further action,” Mr. Khanna said.Yet not even all banking groups agree that such a step is necessary, especially given that a higher insurance cap might incite more regulation or lead to higher fees.The midsize Bank Coalition of America has urged federal regulators to extend F.D.I.C. insurance to all deposits for the next two years.Al Drago for The New York TimesLifting the deposit cap temporarily could send a signal that the problem is worse than it is, said Anne Balcer, senior executive vice president of the Independent Community Bankers of America, a trade group for small U.S. banks. She said many of its member banks were seeing an increase in deposits.“Right now, we’re in a phase of let’s exercise restraint,” she said.There is precedent for temporarily expanding deposit insurance. In March 2020, Congress’s first major coronavirus relief package authorized the F.D.I.C. to temporarily lift the insurance cap on deposits.And in 2008, as panic coursed across Wall Street at the outset of the global financial crisis, the F.D.I.C. created a program that allowed for unlimited deposit insurance for transaction accounts that chose to join the program in exchange for an added fee.Peter Conti-Brown, a financial historian and a legal scholar at the University of Pennsylvania, said the 2010 Dodd-Frank law ended the option for the agencies to temporarily insure larger transaction accounts the way they did in 2008.Now, he said, the regulators would either need congressional approval, or lawmakers would have to pass legislation to enable such a broad-based backstop for deposits. While regulators were able to step in and promise to protect depositors at Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank, that is because the collapse at those banks was deemed to have the potential to cause broad problems across the financial system.For smaller banks, where failures would be much less likely to have systemwide implications, that means that uninsured depositors might not receive the same kind of protection in a pinch.In a nod to those worries, Janet L. Yellen, the Treasury secretary, suggested on Tuesday that even smaller banks could warrant a “systemic” classification in some cases, allowing the agencies to backstop their deposits.“The steps we took were not focused on aiding specific banks or classes of banks,” Ms. Yellen said in a speech. “And similar actions could be warranted if smaller institutions suffer deposit runs that pose the risk of contagion.”But the chances that such an approach — or another workaround that allows the government to take the action without passing legislation, such as tapping a pot of money at the Treasury called the Exchange Stabilization Fund — would be effective are not yet clear.Sheila Bair, who was chair of the F.D.I.C. from 2006 to 2011, said she thought that the Biden administration should propose legislation that would let the F.D.I.C. reconstitute a bigger deposit insurance program and use a “fast-track” legislative process to put it in place.While Dodd-Frank curbed the ability of the F.D.I.C. to restart the transaction account guarantee program on its own, it did provide for a streamlined process for future lawmakers to get it up and running again, she said.“I hope the president asks for it; I think it would settle things down pretty quickly,” Ms. Bair said in an interview. But some warned that enacting broad-based deposit insurance could set a dangerous precedent: signaling to bank managers that they can take risks unchecked, and leading to calls for more regulation to protect taxpayers from potential costs.Aaron Klein, a senior fellow in economic studies at the Brookings Institution, said he would oppose even a revamp of the 2008 deposit insurance because he thought it would be temporary in name only: It would reassert to big depositors that the government will come to the rescue.“If we think the market is going to believe that these things are temporary when they are constantly done in times of crisis,” he said, “then we’re deluding ourselves.”Alan Rappeport More

  • 150 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    A Big Question for the Fed: What Went Wrong With Bank Oversight?

    As the Federal Reserve reviews the failure of Silicon Valley Bank, and Congress prepares for hearings, bank oversight is getting a closer look.WASHINGTON — Jerome H. Powell is likely to face more than the typical questions about the Federal Reserve’s latest interest rate decision on Wednesday. The central bank chair will almost certainly be grilled about how and why his institution failed to stop problems at Silicon Valley Bank before it was too late.The collapse of Silicon Valley Bank, the largest bank failure since 2008, has prompted intense scrutiny of the Fed’s oversight as many wonder why the bank’s vulnerabilities were not promptly fixed.Many of the bank’s weaknesses seem, in hindsight, as if they should have been obvious to its regulators at the Fed. An outsize share of its deposits were over the $250,000 insurance limit, making depositors more likely to flee at the first sign of trouble and leaving the bank susceptible to runs.The bank had also grown rapidly, and its depositors were heavily concentrated in the volatile technology industry. It held a lot of long-term bonds, which lose market value when the Fed raises interest rates, as it has over the past year. Still, the bank had done little to protect itself against an increase in borrowing costs.Governors at the Fed Board in Washington allowed the bank to merge with a small bank in June 2021, after the first warning signs had surfaced and just months before Fed supervisors in San Francisco began to issue a volley of warnings about the company’s poor risk management. In 2022, the Fed repeatedly flagged problems to executives and barred the firm from growing through acquisition.But the Fed did not react decisively enough to prevent the bank’s problems from leading to its demise, a failure that has sent destabilizing jitters through the rest of the American financial system.Mr. Powell is likely to face several questions: What went wrong? Did examiners at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco fail to flag risks aggressively enough? Did the Fed’s board fail to follow up on noted weaknesses? Or was the lapse indicative of a broader problem — that is, did existing rules and oversight make it difficult to quickly address important flaws?Some Democrats have blamed regulatory rollbacks put into effect by the Fed in 2019 for weakening the system, and have pointed a finger at Mr. Powell.Julia Nikhinson for The New York TimesThe Fed has already announced a review of the bank’s collapse, with the inquiry set to conclude by May 1.“The events surrounding Silicon Valley Bank demand a thorough, transparent and swift review by the Federal Reserve,” Mr. Powell said in a statement last week.Congress is also planning to dig into what went awry, with committees in both the Senate and House planning hearings next week on the recent bank collapses.Investors and experts in financial regulation have been racing to figure out what went wrong even before the conclusion of those inquiries. Silicon Valley Bank had a business model that made it unusually vulnerable to a wave of rapid withdrawals. Even so, if its demise is evidence of a blind spot in how banks are overseen, then weaknesses could be more broadly spread throughout the banking system.“The SVB failure has not only gotten people asking the question, ‘Gee, are other banks in similar enough circumstances that they could be in danger?’” said Daniel Tarullo, a former Fed governor who oversaw post-2008 regulation and who is now a professor at Harvard. “It’s also been a wake-up call to look at banks generally.”Politicians have already begun assigning blame. Some Democrats have blasted regulatory rollbacks passed in 2018, and put into effect by the Fed in 2019, for weakening the system, and they have pointed a finger at Mr. Powell for failing to stop them.At the same time, a few Republicans have tried to lay the blame firmly with the San Francisco Fed, arguing that the blowup shouldn’t necessarily lead to more onerous regulation.“There’s a lot, obviously, that we don’t know yet,” said Lev Menand, who studies money and banking at Columbia Law School.Understanding what happened at Silicon Valley Bank requires understanding how bank oversight works — and particularly how it has evolved since the late 2010s.Different American regulators oversee different banks, but the Federal Reserve has jurisdiction over large bank holding companies, state member banks, foreign banks operating in the United States and some regional banks.The Fed’s Board of Governors, which is made up of seven politically appointed officials, is responsible for shaping regulations and setting out the basic rules that govern bank supervision. But day-to-day monitoring of banks is carried out by supervisors at the Fed’s 12 regional banks.President Barack Obama with, to his left, Sen. Christopher Dodd and Representative Barney Frank in 2010, after signing the Dodd-Frank financial reform act.Doug Mills/The New York TimesBefore the 2008 financial crisis, those quasi-private regional branches had a lot of discretion when it came to bank oversight. But in the wake of that meltdown, the supervision came to be run more centrally out of Washington. The Dodd-Frank law carved out a new role for one of the Fed’s governors — vice chair for bank supervision — giving the central bank’s examiners around the country a more clear-cut and formal boss.The idea was to make bank oversight both stricter and more fail-safe. Dodd-Frank also ramped up capital and liquidity requirements, forcing many banks to police their risk and keep easy-to-tap money on hand, and it instituted regular stress tests that served as health checkups for the biggest banks.But by the time the Fed’s first official vice chair for supervision was confirmed in 2017, the regulatory pendulum had swung back in the opposite direction. Randal K. Quarles, a pick by President Donald J. Trump, came into office pledging to pare back bank rules that many Republicans, in particular, deemed too onerous.“After the first wave of reform, and with the benefit of experience and reflection, some refinements will undoubtedly be in order,” Mr. Quarles said at his confirmation hearing.Some of those refinements came straight from Congress. In 2018, Republicans and many Democrats passed a law that lightened regulations on small banks. But the law did more than just relieve community banks. It also lifted the floor at which many strict bank rules kicked in, to $250 billion in assets.Mr. Quarles pushed the relief even further. For instance, banks with between $250 billion and $700 billion in assets were allowed to opt out of counting unrealized losses — the change in the market value of older bonds — from their capital calculations. While that would not have mattered in SVB’s case, given that the bank was beneath the $250 billion threshold, some Fed officials at the time warned that it and other changes could leave the banking system more vulnerable.Lael Brainard, who was then a Fed governor and now directs the National Economic Council, warned in a dissent that “distress of even noncomplex large banking organizations generally manifests first in liquidity stress and quickly transmits contagion through the financial system.”Randal K. Quarles, who was picked by President Donald J. Trump and started at the Fed in 2017, came into office pledging to pare back bank rules that were by then deemed too onerous.Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call, via Associated PressOther Fed officials, including Mr. Powell, voted for the changes.It is unclear how much any of the adjustments mattered in the case of Silicon Valley Bank. The bank most likely would have faced a stress test earlier had those changes not gone into place. Still, those annual assessments have rarely tested for the interest rate risks that undid the firm.Some have cited another of Mr. Quarles’s changes as potentially more consequential: He tried to make everyday bank supervision more predictable, leaving less of it up to individual examiners.While Mr. Quarles has said he failed to change supervision much, people both within and outside the Fed system have suggested that his mere shift in emphasis may have mattered.“That ethos might have been why supervisors felt like they couldn’t do more here,” said Peter Conti-Brown, an expert in financial regulation and a Fed historian at the University of Pennsylvania.Mr. Quarles, who stepped down from his position in October 2021, pushed back on the contention that he had made changes to supervision that allowed weaknesses to grow at Silicon Valley Bank.“I gave up the reins as vice chair for supervision a year and a half ago,” he said.Fed supervisors began to flag Silicon Valley Bank’s problems in earnest in the fall of 2021, after the bank had grown and faced a more extensive review. That process resulted in six citations, often called “matters requiring attention,” which are meant to spur executives to act. Additional deficiencies were identified in early 2023, shortly before the failure.A critical question, said Mr. Menand, is “were the supervisors content to spot problems and wait for them to be remediated?”But he noted that when it came to “bringing out the big guns” — backing up stern warnings with legal enforcement — supervisors must, in many ways, rely on the Fed Board in Washington. If bank leadership thought the Board was unlikely to react to their deficiencies, it might have made them less keen to fix the problems.Banks often have issues flagged by their supervisors, and those concerns are not always immediately resolved. In a rating system that tests for capital planning, liquidity risk management and governance and controls, consistently only about half of large banking institutions score as “satisfactory” across all three.But in the wake of Silicon Valley Bank’s collapse, how bank oversight is performed at the Fed could be in for some changes. Michael Barr, who President Biden appointed as the Fed’s vice chair for supervision, was carrying out a “holistic review” of bank oversight even before the failures. Either that or the review of what happened at SVB is now more likely to end in tighter controls, particularly at large regional banks.“There’s a lot of buck-passing,” said Mr. Conti-Brown. “I think it was likely a joint failure, and that’s part of the design of the system.” More

  • 138 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    U.S. Is Ready to Protect Smaller Banks if Necessary, Yellen Says

    The Treasury secretary pledged that the Biden administration would take additional steps as needed to support the banking system.Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen said pressures on the nation’s banking system were “stabilizing” in remarks to the American Bankers Association.Pete Marovich for The New York TimesWASHINGTON — Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen expressed confidence in the nation’s banks on Tuesday but said she was prepared to take additional action to safeguard smaller financial institutions as the Biden administration and federal regulators worked to contain fallout from fears over the stability of the banking system.Ms. Yellen, seeking to calm nerves as the U.S. financial system faces its worst turmoil in more than a decade, said the steps the administration and federal regulators had taken so far had helped restore confidence. But policymakers were focused on making sure that the broader banking system remained secure, she said.“Our intervention was necessary to protect the broader U.S. banking system,” Ms. Yellen said in remarks before the American Bankers Association, the industry’s leading lobbying group. “And similar actions could be warranted if smaller institutions suffer deposit runs that pose the risk of contagion.”She added: “The situation is stabilizing. And the U.S. banking system remains sound.”However, Ms. Yellen also underscored the gravity of the current situation. She said the stresses to the banking system, while not as dire as the 2008 financial meltdown, still constituted a “crisis” and pointed to the risk of bank runs spreading.“This is different than 2008; 2008 was a solvency crisis,” Ms. Yellen said. “Rather what we’re seeing are contagious bank runs.”In response to a question from Rob Nichols, the chief executive of the American Bankers Association, Ms. Yellen said she did not want to “speculate” about what regulatory changes might be necessary to prevent a similar situation from recurring.“There’s time to evaluate whether some adjustments are necessary in supervision and regulation to address the root causes of the crisis,” she said. “What I’m focused on is stabilizing our system and restoring the confidence of depositors.”She spoke as government officials contemplated additional options to stem the flow of deposits out of small and medium-size banks, and as concerns grew that more would need to be done.Ms. Yellen said recent federal actions after the failure of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank this month were intended to show that the Biden administration was dedicated to protecting the integrity of the system and ensuring that deposits were secure.In the past 10 days, federal regulators have used an emergency measure to guarantee the deposits of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank, initiated a new Federal Reserve program to make sure other banks can secure funds to meet the needs of their depositors and coordinated with 11 big banks that deposited $30 billion into First Republic, a wobbly regional bank..css-1v2n82w{max-width:600px;width:calc(100% – 40px);margin-top:20px;margin-bottom:25px;height:auto;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;font-family:nyt-franklin;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1v2n82w{margin-left:20px;margin-right:20px;}}@media only screen and (min-width:1024px){.css-1v2n82w{width:600px;}}.css-161d8zr{width:40px;margin-bottom:18px;text-align:left;margin-left:0;color:var(–color-content-primary,#121212);border:1px solid var(–color-content-primary,#121212);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-161d8zr{width:30px;margin-bottom:15px;}}.css-tjtq43{line-height:25px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-tjtq43{line-height:24px;}}.css-x1k33h{font-family:nyt-cheltenham;font-size:19px;font-weight:700;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve{font-size:17px;font-weight:300;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve em{font-style:italic;}.css-1hvpcve strong{font-weight:bold;}.css-1hvpcve a{font-weight:500;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}.css-1c013uz{margin-top:18px;margin-bottom:22px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz{font-size:14px;margin-top:15px;margin-bottom:20px;}}.css-1c013uz a{color:var(–color-signal-editorial,#326891);-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;font-weight:500;font-size:16px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz a{font-size:13px;}}.css-1c013uz a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}How Times reporters cover politics. We rely on our journalists to be independent observers. So while Times staff members may vote, they are not allowed to endorse or campaign for candidates or political causes. This includes participating in marches or rallies in support of a movement or giving money to, or raising money for, any political candidate or election cause.Learn more about our process.“The situation demanded a swift response,” Ms. Yellen said. “In the days that followed, the federal government delivered just that: decisive and forceful actions to strengthen public confidence in the U.S. banking system and protect the American economy.”Despite those efforts, the Fed’s campaign to raise interest rates to tame inflation has exposed weaknesses in the balance sheets of regional banks, rattling investors and raising fears that deposits are not safe.Ms. Yellen said the financial system was far stronger than it was 15 years ago but also called for an examination of how the recent bank failures occurred.“In the coming weeks, it will be vital for us to get a full accounting of exactly what happened in these bank failures,” she said. “We will need to re-examine our current regulatory and supervisory regimes and consider whether they are appropriate for the risks that banks face today.”The Federal Reserve, which is the primary regulator for banks, is undertaking a review of what happened with Silicon Valley Bank as well as looking more broadly at supervision and regulation.The uncertainty about regional banks has also led to concerns that the industry will further consolidate among big banks.Ms. Yellen made clear on Tuesday that banks of all sizes are important, highlighting how smaller banks have close ties to communities and bring competition to the system.“Large banks play an important role in our economy, but so do small and midsized banks,” she said. “These banks are heavily engaged in traditional banking services that provide vital credit and financial support to families and small businesses.”The Treasury secretary added that the fortunes of the U.S. banking system and its economy were inextricably tied.“You should rest assured that we will remain vigilant,” she said. More

  • 125 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Biden Warns That Climate Change Could Upend Federal Spending Programs

    A chapter in the new Economic Report of the President focuses on the growing risks to people and businesses from rising temperatures, and the government’s role in adapting to them.WASHINGTON — The Biden administration warned on Monday that a warming planet posed severe economic challenges for the United States, which would require the federal government to reassess its spending priorities and how it influenced behavior.Administration economists, in an annual report, said that reassessment should include a new look at the climate-adaptation implications of aid to farmers, wildland firefighting and wide swaths of safety-net programs like Medicaid and Medicare, as the government seeks to shield the poorest Americans from suffering the worst effects of climate change.The White House Council of Economic Advisers also warned that, left unchanged, federal policies like fighting forest fires and subsidizing crop insurance for farmers could continue to encourage Americans to live and work in areas at high risk of damage from warming temperatures and extreme weather — effectively forcing taxpayers across the country to pay for increasingly costly choices by people and businesses.The findings were contained in a chapter of the annual Economic Report of the President, which was released on Monday afternoon and this year focused on long-run challenges to the U.S. economy. They came on a day when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a body of experts convened by the United Nations, reported that Earth was barreling quickly toward a level of warming that would make it significantly more difficult for humans to manage drought, heat waves and other climate-related disasters.The White House report details evidence showing the United States is more vulnerable to the costs of extreme weather events than previously thought, while suggesting a series of policy shifts to ensure the poorest Americans do not foot the bill.“Climate change is here,” Cecilia Rouse, the departing chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, said in an interview. “And as we move forward, we’re going to have to be adapting to it and ensuring that we minimize the cost to families and businesses and others.”The report broadly suggests that climate change has upended the concept of risk in all corners of the American economy, distorting markets in ways that companies, people and policymakers have not fully kept up with. It also suggests that the federal government will be left with significantly higher costs in the future if it does not better identify those risks and correct those market distortions — like paying more to provide health care for victims of heat stroke or to rebuild coastal homes flooded in hurricanes.State and local officials, not the federal government, have authority where development happens, so people keep building in high-risk areas, a classic example of what economists call a moral hazard.Johnny Milano for The New York TimesFor example, the report cites evidence that private mortgage lenders are already offloading loans with a high exposure of climate risk to federally backed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It highlights how the federal flood insurance program, which essentially underwrites all home flooding insurance policies in the country, is at risk of insolvency.At a time when administration officials and the Federal Reserve are struggling to stabilize the nation’s financial system, the report warns that home buyers and corporate investors appear to be underestimating climate-related risks in their markets, which could lead to a financial crisis.“Rapid changes in asset prices or reassessments of the risks in response to a shifting climate could produce volatility and cascading instability in financial markets if not anticipated by regulators,” the report says..css-1v2n82w{max-width:600px;width:calc(100% – 40px);margin-top:20px;margin-bottom:25px;height:auto;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;font-family:nyt-franklin;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1v2n82w{margin-left:20px;margin-right:20px;}}@media only screen and (min-width:1024px){.css-1v2n82w{width:600px;}}.css-161d8zr{width:40px;margin-bottom:18px;text-align:left;margin-left:0;color:var(–color-content-primary,#121212);border:1px solid var(–color-content-primary,#121212);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-161d8zr{width:30px;margin-bottom:15px;}}.css-tjtq43{line-height:25px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-tjtq43{line-height:24px;}}.css-x1k33h{font-family:nyt-cheltenham;font-size:19px;font-weight:700;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve{font-size:17px;font-weight:300;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve em{font-style:italic;}.css-1hvpcve strong{font-weight:bold;}.css-1hvpcve a{font-weight:500;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}.css-1c013uz{margin-top:18px;margin-bottom:22px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz{font-size:14px;margin-top:15px;margin-bottom:20px;}}.css-1c013uz a{color:var(–color-signal-editorial,#326891);-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;font-weight:500;font-size:16px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz a{font-size:13px;}}.css-1c013uz a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}How Times reporters cover politics. We rely on our journalists to be independent observers. So while Times staff members may vote, they are not allowed to endorse or campaign for candidates or political causes. This includes participating in marches or rallies in support of a movement or giving money to, or raising money for, any political candidate or election cause.Learn more about our process.To address those dangers, the report offers components for a federal climate adaptation strategy. Its recommendations — some of them already in early stages through existing administration actions — include producing better information about climate risk, helping financial markets accurately price that risk and better protecting the most vulnerable from the effects of climate change.Perhaps the most significant proposal, and probably the most politically sensitive, is a call for Washington to exert more pressure on state and local officials, pushing them to be careful about where and how they let people build homes, businesses and infrastructure projects.That proposal would address a core problem that has hindered America’s efforts to adapt to climate change. When people build in places that are most exposed to the effects of climate change — along coastlines, near riverbanks, at the edge of forests prone to wildfires — state and local governments get most of the benefits, in the form of higher tax revenues and economic growth. But when flooding, fires or other major disasters happen, the federal government typically pays the bulk of the cost for responding and rebuilding.Yet for the most part, state and local officials, not the federal government, have authority over where and how development happens — so people keep building in high-risk areas, a classic example of what economists, including the authors of the report, call a moral hazard.In response, the document proposes using federal funds to change the behavior of state and local officials, by tying that money to state and local decisions. That approach has been tried before, with little success. In 2016, the Obama administration suggested adjusting the level of disaster aid provided to states, based on what steps they took to reduce their exposure to disasters. States objected, and the change never happened.Subsidizing crop insurance for farmers could continue to encourage Americans to work in areas at high risk of damage from warming temperatures and extreme weather, the Biden administration will warn.Mark Abramson for The New York TimesAdministration officials said they were already trying to leverage some spending from the infrastructure law President Biden signed in 2021 to influence state and local behavior. The report suggests much more aggressive action could be necessary.It also proposes a rethinking of the nation’s system of insuring against disasters — moving away from separate localized policies that cover fire, flooding and other events, and more toward a nationally mandated “multiperil catastrophe insurance” system that is backstopped by the federal government.Perhaps most sobering for Washington’s current fiscal moment — when Mr. Biden is battling with House Republicans who are seeking sharp cuts to federal spending and raising anew concerns over the growing national debt — is the report’s suggestion that climate effects could subject growing numbers of Americans to heat stroke, respiratory illnesses and other ailments in the years to come. That could further drive up government costs for health programs like Medicare and Medicaid.The Council of Economic Advisers has begun a yearslong effort to project those climate-related effects on future federal budgets, which it detailed in a highly technical paper released this month.The report released on Monday also included chapters on the economics of child care, higher education, digital assets and more.In reviewing Mr. Biden’s economic record, White House economists dived deep into the issue that has bedeviled the recovery on his watch: persistently high inflation. The report lists several explanations for why price growth has surprised administration and outside economists over the last two years but never settles on a primary driver. It does concede that pandemic relief spending under Mr. Biden and President Donald J. Trump may have played a role, by helping Americans save more than usual — and then begin to spend that extra savings.“If the drawdown of excess savings, with current income, boosted aggregate demand, it could have contributed to high inflation in 2021 and 2022,” the report says. More

  • 175 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    The Children of the Iraq War Have Grown Up, but Some Wounds Don’t Heal

    BAGHDAD — The thump of a car bomb explosion, then a whoosh of flame interrupting homework; the low boom of a roadside bomb and seconds later the shattering of glass jolting families awake; an apartment door being kicked open in the middle of the night and someone shouting in a foreign language; the pop, pop, pop of bullets whizzing past in a firefight and the bang of doors slamming as grown-ups drag children inside.For six years, during the war launched by the United States in 2003 and the sectarian conflict it gave birth to, this was the soundtrack of life in Iraq, and especially for those under age 26 — about 23 million people, nearly half of the population. Trauma was a daily event. Losses touched nearly every family.Now, especially in Baghdad, many young people want to move on. The cities have somewhat recovered from the war years, and more affluent young Iraqis frequent coffee shops, go to malls and attend live concerts. Even so, most conversations keep circling back to a relative who was killed, family members who were displaced or lingering doubts about Iraq’s future.Wars leave scars even when people survive with their bodies intact. The metallic whirring of helicopters, the flash of flares, the smell of burning after bombs, the taste of fear, the ache of something lost — all of these linger long after the fighting stops.“The war took away our childhood,” said Noor Nabih, 26, whose mother was wounded in crossfire from a passing American convoy and then seriously injured again in a bomb blast.Joao Silva, a New York Times photographer, and Alissa J. Rubin, a senior correspondent, recently talked to young Iraqis in Baghdad about their lives, their thoughts on the American invasion and the state of their country. Here are some of their stories.Mohammed Hassan Jawad Jassim, 25, at his home in Baghdad. He was blinded during protests in 2019.‘I was so scared I lay down on the ground.’Mohammed Hassan Jawad Jassim, 25Mohammed was 5 at the time of the invasion. Every explosion startled him. The first time he saw an American vehicle hit a roadside bomb, he said, the blast vibrated through him; then came a barrage of bullets.“I was so scared I lay down on the ground and pressed my face into the road,” he recalled.Before long, the U.S. soldiers began to knock at the family’s door in search of Shiite Muslim militia members loyal to the anti-American cleric Muqtada al Sadr. “I was afraid they were going to shoot,” he said.Mohammed with his mother.Family photos of Mohammed, before and after his injuries.Mohammed with his wife and children in Baghdad.With 17 sisters and brothers, and a father who could barely piece together a living working in a garage, Mohammed could not focus at school, and dropped out after second grade. “I had thoughts of death,” he said. “Sometimes I tied a blindfold around my eyes and sat in a dark room.”When he was 21, his daughter, Tabarak, was born and he wanted to get a government job but had no connections to politicians who could help him. Indignant, he joined the 2019 youth protests over government corruption and the Iranian presence in Iraq, known in the Arab world as the October Revolution.On his first day at the protests, a tear-gas canister exploded in his face, pulling one eye out its socket and damaging the other. His world went dark.Now his daughter is 4; he also has a 1-year old son, Adam.“My only wish is that I could have my eyesight so that I could see my children,” he said. “Adam came into the world after I was hit, so I have never seen him.Fadia Khalil Ibrahim Paulus Alo, 24, during rehearsal at the Baghdad Music and Ballet School.‘When I play, I forget where I am.’Fadi Khalil Ibrahim Paulus Alo, 26, and his sister, Fadia Khalil Ibrahim Paulus Alo, 24Throughout the war, Fadi and his sister, Fadia, found solace in the Baghdad Music and Ballet School.Many of their fellow Christians had fled Iraq, and the smell of smoke filled their lungs as they studied. American soldiers kept barging into their family’s fifth-floor apartment in search of insurgents, only to stop in their tracks when they saw the portrait of Jesus in prayer over the television.But the music school was a refuge for the siblings, a world of harmonies instead of explosions.“When I play, I forget where I am,” said Fadi, a computer auditor at the Central Bank of Iraq, as well as a flutist in the Iraqi National Orchestra.But when the notes fade, he wonders whether he can really spend the rest of his life in Iraq.Fadi at home with his family in Baghdad.Fadia in a gym in Baghdad.Fadi and Fadia at their church in Baghdad, the site of a 2010 attack by Al Qaeda that targeted worshipers at prayer. More than 100 people were taken hostage, and 52 were killed.Fadia is now a marketing agent for an Iraqi electronic payment system and a violist in the orchestra. When she was 12, a car bomb exploded at a municipal court next door to the school. She recalled the eerie silence right afterward and then screaming.After checking on her brother, she fetched a first-aid bag; bandaged the leg of the principal, which had been sliced by shrapnel; and helped first graders who had been cut by glass and shrapnel. “The children were so scared, so I knew what I had to do,” she said.“It was strange to be so calm when everyone was screaming and crying, but it came from God,” she said.Fadia loves the theme music from the film “LaLa Land” and Smetana dances. Unlike her brother, she sees her future in Iraq.“I am attached to this place,” she said. “When I am here, I feel at home.”Dalia Mazin Sedeeq Al-Hatim and Hussain Sarmad Kadhim Al-Bayati at their wedding reception.‘It was all beautiful until Hussain was shot.’Dalia Mazin Sedeeq Al-Hatim, 24; Hussain Sarmad Kadhim Al-Bayati, 26Dalia, 24, and Hussain, 26, met at the hospital where they were both pharmacists. It took Hussain just a month to know he wanted to marry Dalia and for Dalia to feel the same about Hussain.They had much in common. Both were from families that prized education; both had grown up with the sounds of war. Dalia remembered watching the Nickelodeon cartoon channel when bombs began to fall on Baghdad; Hussain remembered windows being blown out from a bomb blast.And both their families fled to Syria when the war came too close to home. Dalia’s school bus driver disappeared during the sectarian fighting and was later found dead, and the same happened to Hussain’s brother’s school bus driver.Dalia is a Sunni Muslim and Hussain is a Shia Muslim.Both newlyweds grew up with the sounds of war.Dalia and Hussain, both pharmacists, at her mother’s pharmacy in Baghdad.Their one difference — Dalia is a Sunni Muslim and Hussain is a Shia Muslim — did not matter to them, although they knew it might to others. “Even if our sect could be an obstacle, we agreed that it wouldn’t be,” Hussain said.“On the day I proposed to Dalia, my father insisted that I tell Dalia’s family that I am a Shia so it is clear and Dalia’s family won’t be surprised someday,” he said. “They said: ‘We do not care what sect you are. We care that you love our daughter and she loves you.’”Even before their Feb. 18 wedding day, the violence that is part of daily life touched them. Hussain was stabbed and shot during a robbery while working the night shift at a pharmacy.“It was all beautiful until Hussain was shot and now we were once again reminded of the reality of Baghdad,” Dalia said.They hope now, Hussain said, “for health and safety.”Sulaiman Fayadh Sulaiman has been paralyzed from the waist down since he was shot as a 3-year-old in 2003.‘I cannot see much of a future.’Sulaiman Fayadh Sulaiman, 22Sulaiman was 3 years old in August 2003, and having an early breakfast with his father in their family’s garden when, he recalled, “five bullets came to our house, four hit the wall and different parts of the house, and one hit me.”The bullet went through his abdominal wall and passed into his spine, paralyzing him from the waist down. Then, as he was being treated at a spinal injury hospital, a huge truck bomb targeting the United Nations headquarters next door badly damaged the hospital and buried him in rubble.Months later, his father brought him to the gate of an American base, hoping to find aid for the boy, since his initial injuries were caused by a skirmish with U.S. soldiers. A soldier told his father that he would bring Sulaiman to the United States for treatment, and that he “would send me back able to walk again.”Sulaiman arriving for archery practice at Al-Shaab stadium in Baghdad.Sulaiman at archery practice.Sulaiman at his home in Baghdad.But when they returned to the base, he said, “the soldiers at the gate said the soldier who was going to take me had been transferred two days before.”Years later the disappointment is still traced upon his face.Since then, Sulaiman has found flashes of joy as a member of the Iraqi Paralympic archery team, competing internationally. For brief moments, he said, as he holds his bow, fits his arrow and pulls the string, he can smile. But the happiness fades quickly.“I cannot see much of a future,” he said.Lt. Hamza Amer Chamis, center right, inspecting troops at the Baghdad Joint Command headquarters.‘To make my father be proud of me in the hereafter.’Hamza Amer Chamis, 24Hamza, 24, grew up with the military in his blood. His father had been a colonel when Saddam Hussein was in power, and rejoined the Iraqi Army, which the Americans initially dissolved, after it was reconstituted. He bonded with the American soldiers he worked with, rising to the rank of general.“My dream, my passion for becoming an officer, started at the age of 12,” Hamza recalled. “Our school had a costume party, and my father gave me his uniform with his rank and colors to wear. It was a great thing, and the next day I told him, ‘I want to become like you.’”But the family was seen as traitors by some of his father’s former army colleagues who had joined the insurgents fighting the American military. One group of militants tried to kidnap Hamza’s older brother. Then, in 2014, Hamza’s father was killed as he was fighting in Anbar against the country’s newest scourge, the Islamic State.Hamza at a checkpoint in Baghdad.Hamza helping his mother, Entisar, make coffee for guests at their family home in Baghdad.Hamza with his son and wife at home in Baghdad.From then on, he said, he wanted “to make my father be proud of me in the hereafter and feel that I did something for him, just as he raised and supported me.”Hamza graduated at the top of his class in military college and became the youngest lieutenant in the history of the post-2003 Iraqi Army. His first mission: to fight the remnants of the Islamic State, the same militants who killed his father.Now he is an officer in charge of security for the Joint Command, which includes the senior staff of the Iraq Armed Forces. His dream is to reach the same rank as his father.Noor Nabih with her son.‘I still have fear inside me.’Noor Nabih, 26Soft voiced and restrained, Noor recited her experiences of life after the invasion.She is a Sunni Muslim, from the religiously mixed area around Samarra about two hours north of Iraq’s capital, and at first the fighting did not touch her. But in 2005, she said, “we began to hear the sounds of gunfire and explosions.”“We knew it was the Americans, because the news was everywhere that this was an American war,” she recalled.Soon after, the family moved to Baghdad. But back in Samarra, her fathers’ four brothers were kidnapped by anti-American Sunni insurgents. The youngest, the one Noor was closest to, “was shot many times, his body was left by a rubbish heap.” Then the insurgents torched her grandfather’s house.Grocery shopping in Baghdad.Noor with her husband, Mustafa.“I do not feel safe in Iraq, period and if I have a chance to leave this country I will,” Noor said.When Noor was 11, the family returned to Samarra to put flowers on her uncle’s grave. As they drove, a firefight between U.S. troops and insurgents forced them to take a detour. A stray bullet flew through a window, hitting her mother in her side. They believed it came from the U.S. troops because of its caliber.   Her father instructed her to stop the bleeding with tissues, she said, but the blood soaked through. “I felt I had lost everything,” she said.Her mother survived, and the family fled to Syria for a time. Then, soon after they returned to Iraq, a bomb attached to the underside of her parents’ car by unknown people left her mother with a traumatic brain injury.“I do not feel safe in Iraq, period, and if I have a chance to leave this country I will,” Noor said. “I still have fear inside me every day, despite all my attempts to forget what I have seen.”Falih Hassan More