Biden, Joseph R Jr

Latest story

113 Shares14 Views

With Kamala Harris, U.S. Free Trade Skepticism May Continue

by

The vice president has been critical of past trade deals. But her record suggests she could push for trade measures that address environmental issues.In a 2019 presidential debate, Kamala Harris insisted, “I am not a protectionist Democrat.”But Ms. Harris is not a free-trade Democrat, either. She has said she would have opposed the North American Free Trade Agreement of 1992, which President Biden voted for while serving in the Senate, as well as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, an agreement supported by the Obama administration. And in 2020, she was one of only 10 senators to vote against the deal to replace NAFTA, the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement.As she pursues the presidential nomination, Ms. Harris’s views on trade and economic issues are likely to become a focal point. Yet unlike former President Donald J. Trump and his running mate, JD Vance, trade has never been a major focus for Ms. Harris. As a result, her positions on trade issues are not entirely known.William A. Reinsch, the Scholl Chair in International Business at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, called Ms. Harris “a bit of a blank slate, but one most likely to be filled in with trade skepticism.”In part that is because of her no vote on the U.S.M.C.A., which Mr. Reinsch said “leads me to assume she is part of the progressive wing of the party which is skeptical of trade agreements in general, and particularly of those that involve market access.” But, he said, “there’s not a lot out there to go on.”Still, in her time as a senator from California and as the vice president, Ms. Harris has adopted some recurring positions that hint at what trade policy might look like if she wins the White House. For example, on several occasions, her objection to trade deals revolved around a common issue: their impact on the environment, and their lack of measures to address climate change.While the U.S.M.C.A. was negotiated by the Trump administration, it won over many Democrats by including tougher protections for workers and the environment. But Ms. Harris concluded that the deal’s environmental provisions were “insufficient — and by not addressing climate change, the U.S.M.C.A. fails to meet the crises of this moment.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

More stories

  • 138 Shares26 Views

    in Economy

    2025 Could Be a Great Time to Be President, Economically Speaking

    by

    Trends already underway make for a sunny outlook over the next few years. The question is who will get to take credit.The next couple of years are shaping up to be solid for the U.S. economy. Inflation is returning to normal. As that happens, the Federal Reserve is preparing to cut interest rates. A huge burst of infrastructure spending under the Biden administration has taken time to ramp up, but projects both small and large are likely to break ground in earnest in 2025 and 2026.Things can always go wrong — the job market could cool more than expected, financial market problems could surface, and risks tied to the election in November could stoke uncertainty — but the base-case outlook is bright. The question now is who will get to take credit for it.One clear answer: It won’t be the person who shepherded some of the policies that are laying the positive groundwork. President Biden announced on Sunday that he was ending his candidacy for re-election, passing the Democratic baton to Vice President Kamala Harris.Mr. Biden isn’t entirely responsible for the sunny outlook. White House officials play a relatively minor role in slowing inflation and exert no direct control over interest rates. But big policy packages passed on his watch are helping to fuel a burst in green-energy, manufacturing and infrastructure investment that is expected to continue over the next several years. Expansions of dams and locks will be underway. Dozens of airport upgrades will be completed. Semiconductor factories will begin churning out chips.It’s a reminder that big and potentially transformative public investments can take time — and multiple political cycles — to play out. It could also be an opportunity for the next resident of the White House to take a victory lap.Former President Donald J. Trump is already hinting at an optimistic future on the campaign trail. The Republican platform, which he had a heavy hand in shaping, pledged to “destroy inflation” and vowed that interest rates would be lower while declaring that the Republican Party will be one of infrastructure and manufacturing. If economists’ most likely projections come true, those promises should be well within reach.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 63 Shares42 Views

    in Economy

    Can Kamala Harris Sell Bidenomics?

    by

    Much of President Biden’s agenda polls well, but voters roundly dislike his handling of the economy. That’s a campaign challenge for his vice president, as she mounts a presidential bid.President Biden has signed more major economic legislation than any other president has this century. He presided over record job growth and a recovery from pandemic recession that was the envy of the wealthy world. He crafted an ambitious, multinational industrial policy meant to help America and its allies rebuild strategic manufacturing capacity to counter China.But voters gave Mr. Biden little credit, focusing instead on the inflation surge that plagued much of Mr. Biden’s term.That shortcoming was jeopardizing Mr. Biden’s re-election chances well before he fumbled through a televised debate last month and re-inflamed questions about his age. Polls showed that the economy and prices topped voters’ issue concerns, and that they roundly preferred former President Donald J. Trump to Mr. Biden on the issue.As Mr. Biden steps away from the 2024 campaign and Vice President Kamala Harris tries to rally support for the presidential nomination, economic questions loom large over her candidacy.Will Ms. Harris, 59 and unburdened by the age questions that dogged Mr. Biden, fare any better at selling the Biden-Harris economic record — including its investments in low-emission energy, advanced manufacturing and other industries? Can she maintain Mr. Biden’s connection to certain blue-collar voters in pivotal states like Michigan and Pennsylvania, while re-engaging economically disaffected young voters who had grown disillusioned with the president?And can she overcome voter anger over inflation, which peaked at 9 percent in 2022 but has since fallen closer to the Federal Reserve’s target rate of 2 percent?We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 113 Shares39 Views

    in Economy

    A Harris Economy Could Prove More Progressive Than ‘Bidenomics’

    by

    At the first Democratic presidential debate in 2019, Kamala Harris, then a senator from California, unleashed a scathing critique of the Trump economy.The future vice president billed President Donald J. Trump’s tax cuts as a giveaway to the rich, argued that the booming stock market was leaving the middle class behind and warned that his reckless trade agenda was hurting farmers in the heartland.“Frankly, this economy is not working for working people,” Ms. Harris said. “For too long the rules have been written in the favor of the people who have the most and not in favor of the people who work the most.”As Ms. Harris prepares to potentially replace President Biden atop the Democratic ticket, she now faces the challenge of articulating her own vision for steering a U.S. economy that is still grappling with inflation while drawing sharp distinctions with Mr. Trump, who has promised more tax cuts and tariffs.Ms. Harris has been an ardent defender for the White House’s economic agenda during the Biden administration, promoting the benefits of legislation such as the American Rescue Plan of 2021 and the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. But as an attorney general and a senator, she was at times more progressive than the president, pushing for universal health care while calling for more generous tax benefits for working-class Americans and paying for them with bigger tax increases on companies.In recent weeks, Ms. Harris has embarked on an economic “opportunity tour,” making the case that wage increases have been outpacing inflation, that manufacturing jobs are growing and that Democrats have been fighting to forgive student loan debt. Those arguments now foreshadow the case she will be making to voters as she runs against Mr. Trump.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 100 Shares45 Views

    in Economy

    Biden Rent Cap Proposal Reignites Housing Policy Debate

    by

    A proposal to make landlords’ tax breaks contingent on rent limits has drawn industry pushback, progressive applause and some alternative approaches.When the Biden administration laid out a suite of plans this week to address housing affordability, it added a bold update to previous proposals — and sent the housing industry and the economics world buzzing.The White House called on Congress to pass legislation giving “corporate landlords” — defined by the White House as those with over 50 rental units — a choice to cap annual rent increases on existing units at 5 percent annually or lose federal tax breaks based on property depreciation.The proposal is expected to go largely unaddressed this year, with Congress in campaign mode. But public reaction has been lively.Tenant organizations and progressive leaders generally allied with the administration’s economic team cheered the news. Yet a range of economists, Wall Street analysts, real estate groups and landlord associations responded with forceful critiques, assailing the limits as counterproductive.“Increasing the supply of affordable rental housing nationwide — not politically motivated and self-defeating rent control proposals floated during election campaigns — is the best way to alleviate affordability constraints for renters,” Robert D. Broeksmit, the president of Mortgage Bankers Association, said in a statement.The policy would affect about 20 million units in the country, roughly half of all rental properties.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 138 Shares109 Views

    in Economy

    Trump’s Proposed Tax Cuts and Increased Tariffs Could Hurt Poorer Households

    by

    Some Republicans want to use revenue collected from higher duties on foreign goods to finance tax cuts. Economists say such a shift could widen the gap between the rich and the poor.When former President Donald J. Trump met with House Republicans last month, he touched on a mix of policies core to his economic agenda: cutting income taxes while also significantly raising tariffs on foreign goods.Mr. Trump told Republicans he would “love to raise tariffs” and cut income taxes on Americans, potentially to zero, said Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, Republican of Georgia.“Everyone was clapping in the room,” Ms. Greene said. “He said, ‘If you guys are going to go vote on something today, vote to lower taxes on Americans.’”Tariffs and tax cuts were core to Mr. Trump’s economic thinking while he was in the White House. If he wins in November, he is promising a much more aggressive approach, including potentially a blanket 10 percent tariff on nearly all imports and a 60 percent tax on Chinese goods.Mr. Trump and his supporters say that mixing tariffs with tax cuts will revitalize American businesses and manufacturing, boosting jobs and benefiting working-class Americans. And they see tariffs on foreign products as a lucrative source of revenue, one that could be used to offset a drop in tax receipts.Some economists have a different view, saying that cutting taxes while raising tariffs could have harmful consequences by widening the gap between the rich and the poor. Companies often pass on the cost of tariffs to consumers in the form of higher prices. As a result, economists say, lower-income households would be hit hardest by tariffs since they spend a greater share of their income on goods. Income taxes tend to fall more heavily on wealthier Americans since many low-income workers do not make enough money to owe federal income taxes.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 125 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Biden Policies Offer Benefits, but Little Political Payoff, in Pennsylvania

    by

    On a blighted industrial corridor in a struggling section of Erie, Pa., a long-abandoned iron factory has been humming with activity for the first time in decades. Construction crews have been removing barrels of toxic waste, knocking down crumbling walls and salvaging rusted tin roofing as they prepare to convert the cavernous space into an events venue, advanced manufacturing hub and brewery.The estimated $25 million project is the most ambitious undertaking the Erie County Redevelopment Authority has ever attempted. It was both kick-started and remains heavily funded by various pots of money coming from Biden administration programs.Yet there is no obvious sign of President Biden’s influence on the project. Instead, the politician who has taken credit for the Ironworks Square development effort most clearly is Representative Mike Kelly, a Pennsylvania Republican who voted against the 2021 bipartisan infrastructure law that is helping to fund the renovation.It is one example of a larger problem Mr. Biden faces in Pennsylvania, a swing state that could decide the winner of the 2024 election. In places like Erie, a long-struggling manufacturing hub bordering the Great Lake that is often an election bellwether, Mr. Biden is struggling to capitalize on his own economic policies even when they are providing real and visible benefits. Now, an assassination attempt on former President Donald J. Trump at a rally in Butler County, Pa., could further influence voters, though exactly how it will sway them remains unclear. But Mr. Biden’s standing in his home state was already growing precarious before a gunman opened fire on Saturday, killing one attendee and injuring Mr. Trump.In a poll of likely Pennsylvania voters conducted from July 9 to 11, just before the shooting, 48 percent said they would vote for Mr. Trump and 45 percent said they would vote for Mr. Biden in a two-way race.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 113 Shares153 Views

    in Economy

    Biden Announces Tariffs on Chinese Metals Routed Through Mexico

    by

    The measure aims to close a loophole that officials said allowed metals made partly in China to come into the United States duty free.The Biden administration took steps on Wednesday to prevent China from circumventing American tariffs on Chinese steel and aluminum by routing those imports through Mexico.The administration said it would impose tariffs on imports of Mexican metals that are partially made in China. American officials said the move would close a trade loophole that has allowed cheap, state-subsidized Chinese metals to circumvent existing U.S. tariffs.The United States will now impose a 25 percent tariff on Mexican steel that is melted or poured outside of North America before being turned into a finished product. Previously, that steel would have entered the country duty free.Mexican aluminum coming into the United States will face a tariff of 10 percent if it contains metal that has been smelted or cast in China, Belarus, Iran or Russia, said Lael Brainard, the director of the White House’s National Economic Council.Mexico, which recently increased its own tariffs on steel and aluminum from certain countries, will require importers to provide more information about where their steel products come from, the announcement said. The changes will take effect immediately.Officials in the Biden administration said the United States wanted to protect American factories that produce steel and aluminum, including those that have recently received new investments from government funds.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 100 Shares159 Views

    in Economy

    Trump Eyes Bigger Trade War in Second Term

    by

    The former president’s past tariffs raised prices for consumers and businesses, economists say. His next plan could tax 10 times as many imports.In March 2018, a day after announcing sweeping tariffs on metals imported from America’s allies and adversaries alike, President Donald J. Trump took to social media to share one of his central economic philosophies: “Trade wars are good, and easy to win.”As president, Mr. Trump presided over the biggest increase in U.S. tariffs since the Great Depression, hitting China, Canada, the European Union, Mexico, India and other governments with stiff levies. They hit back, imposing tariffs on American soybeans, whiskey, orange juice and motorcycles. U.S. agricultural exports plummeted, prompting Mr. Trump to send $23 billion to farmers to help offset losses.Now, as he runs for president again, Mr. Trump is promising to ratchet up his trade war to a much greater degree. He has proposed “universal baseline tariffs on most foreign products,” including higher levies on certain countries that devalue their currency. In interviews, he has floated plans for a 10 percent tariff on most imports and a tariff of 60 percent or more on Chinese goods. He has also posited cutting the federal income tax and relying on tariffs for revenue instead.Mr. Trump, who once proclaimed himself “Tariff Man,” has long argued that tariffs would boost American factories, end the gap between what America imported and what it exported and increase American jobs.His first round of levies hit more than $400 billion worth of imports, including steel, solar panels, washing machines and Chinese goods like smart watches, chemicals, bicycle helmets and motors. His rationale was that import taxes would revive American manufacturing, reduce reliance on foreign goods and allow U.S. companies to better compete against cheap products from China and other countries.Economists say the tariffs did reduce imports and encouraged U.S. factory production for certain industries, including steel, semiconductors and computer equipment. But that came at a very high cost, one that most likely offset any overall gains. Studies show that the tariffs resulted in higher prices for American consumers and factories that depend on foreign inputs, and reduced U.S. exports for certain goods that were subject to retaliation.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More