Biden, Joseph R Jr

More stories

  • 138 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    $15 minimum wage for federal contractors will take effect Jan. 30.

    by

    Employees of federal contractors will make at least $15 per hour under a final rule that the Labor Department announced Monday, providing a likely wage increase for over 300,000 workers, according to administration estimates.The wage floor will affect contracts that are executed or extended beginning on Jan. 30, 2022. The current minimum wage for contractors is $10.95 under a rule enacted by the Obama administration in 2014 and is scheduled to rise to $11.25 on Jan. 1. Both rules require that the minimum wage increase over time to account for inflation.Paul Light, an expert on the federal work force at New York University, has estimated that five million people work for employers that have federal contracts, including security guards, food workers, janitors and call center workers, but most already make more than $15 per hour. The rule will also apply to construction contracts entered into by the federal government.Labor Secretary Martin J. Walsh said in a statement that the rule “improves the economic security of these workers and their families, many of whom are women and people of color.”President Biden announced the rule in April when he signed an executive order directing the department to issue it. Mr. Biden’s announcement came amid a series of pro-labor moves by the administration, which included reversing Trump-era rules softening worker protections and enacting legislation that allocated tens of billions of dollars to strengthen union pension funds.Administration officials said they did not expect the minimum wage increase to result in significant job losses or cost increases, contending that the higher wage would improve productivity and reduce turnover, providing employers and the government with greater value.The federal minimum wage remains $7.25 per hour, though many cities and states have laws setting their wage floors substantially higher. The House of Representatives has passed a bill to raise the federal minimum to $15 per hour by 2025, but the legislation has not advanced in the Senate. More

  • 113 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    Elizabeth Warren Says She Will Oppose Jerome Powell’s Nomination

    by

    Senator Elizabeth Warren, the Massachusetts Democrat, said on Monday that she would not vote to confirm Jerome H. Powell for a second term as chair of the Federal Reserve, citing “failures on regulation, climate and ethics.”Ms. Warren, who has called Mr. Powell “a dangerous man,” had been pushing for President Biden to name Lael Brainard as the next chair of the central bank. Mr. Biden’s decision to name Ms. Brainard to the No. 2 spot at the Fed drew Ms. Warren’s support but she said she would continue to push for additional governors who support aggressive financial regulation.“It’s no secret I oppose Chair Jerome Powell’s renomination, and I will vote against him,” Ms. Warren said in a statement.Other powerful Democrats, along with Republican lawmakers expressed. support for Mr. Biden’s decision, saying it would keep the central bank on a steady course and protect its political independence at a time of inflation and economic uncertainty for the country.Senator Sherrod Brown, Democrat of Ohio and the chair of the Senate Banking Committee, which oversees the Fed, praised Mr. Powell’s role in helping the labor market heal from the pandemic downturn and giving workers greater bargaining power in terms of higher wages.“The Federal Reserve must continue to help steer our economic recovery in the right direction — toward full employment and an economy that empowers workers and their families,” Mr. Brown said. “I look forward to working with Powell to stand up to Wall Street and stand up for workers, so that they share in the prosperity they create.”Senator Jon Tester, a Montana Democrat, said on Twitter that the decision “a smart move.”Mr. Biden’s decision to reappoint Mr. Powell, who was first appointed by former President Donald J. Trump, returns the country to a long tradition in which presidents of both parties have embraced the Fed chairs selected by their predecessors, in an expression of support for the central bank’s political independence. Mr. Trump bucked the tradition, replacing Janet L. Yellen with Mr. Powell in 2018.Some progressive Democrats had urged Mr. Biden to also break with tradition and appoint someone else to the role. In addition to Ms. Warren, Senators Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Jeff Merkley of Oregon had called for Mr. Powell to be replaced, citing his views on climate change, financial regulation and an ethics scandal at the central bank.Mr. Whitehouse said in a statement on Monday that he was “disappointed” in the decision, adding that Mr. Powell had done too little to address climate change.“Our Fed Chair must devote immediate and thorough attention to the climate threat before it is too late,” Mr. Whitehouse said in the statement. “I sincerely hope that, if confirmed, Powell will reassess his past opposition to utilizing the Fed’s regulatory tools to minimize climate-related risks to the financial sector.”Americans for Financial Reform, a coalition of community, labor and civil rights groups, called the decision “a major disappointment to those of us who have fought for tougher regulation of Wall Street.”Mr. Biden’s decision to nominate Ms. Brainard for vice chair could help mollify some of those concerns. Some progressive groups had been pushing for Ms. Brainard to lead the central bank, in part because of her views on climate change and financial regulation.Mr. Whitehouse applauded Ms. Brainard’s nomination in his statement, saying “she clearly recognizes the gravity of the climate-related financial and economic risks facing our nation and will push the Fed to fully utilize its regulatory authorities in this space.”Other groups that have been critical of the Fed expressed support for the picks, particularly Ms. Brainard.The Fed Up Campaign, which advocates more accommodative monetary policies and full employment, said the Fed needed “to continue pro-employment, pro-wage growth, pro-racial justice macroeconomic policies for as long as economic conditions allow.”“Governor Brainard is a strong choice for Vice Chair, and we are expecting Biden to continue to name truly bold and pro-worker choices to the vacant governor seats,” the group said.Lawmakers also expressed support for the move, though some Republicans expressed concerns about Ms. Brainard, who has pushed for tougher financial regulations.Senator Patrick J. Toomey of Pennsylvania, the ranking member on the Senate Banking Committee, said that he disagreed with some of Mr. Powell’s decisions during the crisis, but that he would support his nomination.“When the pandemic hit in 2020, Chairman Powell acted swiftly and took extraordinary and necessary steps to help stabilize financial markets and the economy,” Mr. Toomey said in a statement.The senator expressed “concerns about regulatory policies that Governor Brainard would support as Vice Chair,” but said looked forward to discussing those issues.Both Mr. Powell and Ms. Brainard must win 60 votes in order to be confirmed by the Senate. More

  • 125 Shares139 Views

    in Economy

    Biden Sells Infrastructure Improvements as a Way to Counter China

    by

    Spending on roads, broadband internet and more will help revitalize U.S. competitiveness against its top economic adversary, the president says.President Biden said the newly signed infrastructure law would help the United States counter China in the battle to dominate the 21st-century economy, as broad swaths of his agenda remained stuck in Congress.Kenny Holston for The New York TimesWASHINGTON — President Biden on Tuesday began selling his $1 trillion infrastructure law, making the case that the money would do more than rebuild roads, bridges and railways. The law, he said, would help the United States regain its competitive edge against China.“We’re about to turn things around in a big way,” Mr. Biden said in remarks at a bridge over the Pemigewasset River, in snowy New Hampshire. “For example, because of this law, next year will be the first year in 20 years that American infrastructure investment will grow faster than China’s.”The president has cast the legislation as a giant leap for the United States in its battle with China to dominate the 21st-century economy, even though it does not include the full scope of his campaign promises to pour money into research and development and provide incentives for domestic manufacturing and other initiatives.“It’s an important step, although it’s not a huge one, if one thinks about the progress China has made in building up its physical and soft infrastructure,” said Eswar S. Prasad, an economist at Cornell University who specializes in trade policy. The infrastructure law “is a good defensive measure,” he added. “But will it fundamentally alter the dynamics? Not by itself.”Even as his administration begins spending the money in the law to upgrade bridges, broadband internet, water pipes and more, broad swaths of Mr. Biden’s agenda to compete economically with the Chinese remain stuck in Congress. A bill to significantly increase federal research and development spending on advanced batteries, semiconductors and other high-tech industries — which the president was forced to drop from his initial infrastructure proposal — has cleared the Senate but not the House, though administration officials expect it to eventually pass.Mr. Biden’s additional plans to stimulate more low-emissions energy production, including hundreds of billions of dollars in tax incentives, hinge on passage of a $1.85 trillion spending bill that Democrats have yet to find consensus on. That bill also contains spending on early childhood education, child care and other support for the work force that economists say will help the United States bolster the skills and productivity of its workers.If the president can shepherd those two bills through Congress, analysts say, he could have a foundation for a U.S. industrial policy that rivals Chinese investments in manufacturing and advanced technology. If he cannot, he will still have better transportation, energy and information sectors domestically, but his efforts to counter China will be incomplete.Chinese commentators have taken notice. An editorial this month in Global Times, a popular tabloid controlled by the country’s Communist Party, called the infrastructure bill a “feeble imitation of China” and said it was “tantamount to a fairy tale” that the measure alone would revitalize U.S. competitiveness.Mr. Biden has leaned into the issue as he sells Americans on the benefits of the law. Hours before he met virtually with President Xi Jinping of China on Monday, during a signing ceremony with hundreds of attendees at the White House, Mr. Biden put the countries’ economic rivalry front and center.“I truly believe that 50 years from now,” he said, “historians are going to look back at this moment and say, ‘That’s the moment America began to win the competition of the 21st century.’”Brian Deese, the director of Mr. Biden’s National Economic Council, said in an interview that the law would increase competitiveness and productivity through a variety of spending programs.“This bill is going to be a game-changer in getting Americans to work,” Mr. Deese said.He added that it would allow people to gain access to economic opportunities through better public transportation, roads and bridges, and provide high-speed internet, which he called “the lifeblood of the 21st-century economy.”China’s large investments in its own infrastructure, and its threat to U.S. dominance in new and longstanding global industries, loomed large over the congressional negotiations that produced the law. Democratic and Republican lawmakers are more attuned than ever to Chinese spending, thanks to Mr. Biden and President Donald J. Trump, who both put competition with China at the center of their presidential campaigns last year.Understand U.S.-China RelationsCard 1 of 6A tense era in U.S.-China ties. More

  • 113 Shares109 Views

    in Economy

    Biden Says Spending Bill Will Slow Inflation. But When?

    by

    The Biden administration has argued that its infrastructure and broader economic package will slow rapid price increases. But that will take time.Rocketing inflation has become a headache for U.S. consumers, and President Biden has a go-to prescription. He says a key way to help relieve increasing prices is to pass a $1.85 trillion collection of spending programs and tax cuts that is currently languishing in the Senate.A wide range of economists agree with the president — but only in part. They generally accept his argument that in the long run, the bill and his infrastructure plan could make businesses and their workers more productive, which would help to ease inflation as more goods and services are produced across the economy.But many researchers, including a forecasting firm that Mr. Biden often cites to support the economic benefits of his proposals, say the bill is structured in a way that could add to inflation next year, before prices have had time to cool off.Some economists and lawmakers worry about the timing, arguing that the risk of fueling more inflation when it has reached record highs outweighs the potential benefits of passing a big spending bill that could help to keep prices in check while addressing other social goals. Prices have picked up by 6.2 percent over the past year, the fastest pace in 31 years and far above the Federal Reserve’s inflation target.Others say that any near-term effect on prices would be small and easy enough for the Fed to offset later with interest rate increases, which can temper demand and cool a hot economy. They argue that potential inflationary risks are not a good reason for the Biden administration to curb its ambitions on priorities like broadening access to child care and easing the transition to cleaner energy sources.“It’s more likely a small positive for inflation in 2022, because it’s preventing a big reduction in spending that would otherwise have happened that year,” said Jason Furman, an economist at Harvard and a former chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers during the Obama administration. “The pros and cons of Build Back Better with regard to improvements in climate change and opportunity vastly dwarf any pros or cons on inflation.”Republicans have criticized Mr. Biden on inflation for months, seeking to derail his sprawling proposal to fight climate change, guarantee universal prekindergarten, expand access to health insurance, cap child care costs for low earners and the middle class and extend a lucrative new tax break for parents. They have argued that the bill’s spending, much of which is spread over several years, will push prices higher.Some centrist Democrats have also voiced similar concerns. A key holdout, Senator Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, has questioned whether high and rising prices should persuade lawmakers to tone down their ambitions.“West Virginians are concerned about rising inflation,” he said on Twitter last week. “We cannot throw caution to the wind & continue to pile on debt that our country can’t afford.”The bill remains in legislative limbo, with Democrats preparing to push it to a House vote as early as next week. But timing is uncertain in the Senate, where a vote is likely to be changed or delayed in response to Mr. Manchin’s concerns.The extent to which Mr. Biden’s $1.85 trillion bill exacerbates inflation largely depends on how much it stimulates the economy and whether Americans increase their spending as a result of the legislation — and when all of that occurs.Many economists say it could create a short-term stimulus because the plan is structured to raise money gradually by taxing wealthier Americans, who are less likely to spend each additional dollar they have, and redistribute it quickly to people who earn less and are more likely to spend newfound cash.Because of the difference in timing between when the government spends money and when it starts to bring in more revenue, the bill is expected to pump money into the economy in its early years. Moody’s Analytics — the firm that the White House typically cites when arguing in favor of its legislation — estimates that the government will spend $163 billion more on the package than it takes in next year. And the redistribution could make the money more potent as economic stimulus.“The spending is designed to go to the people who are more likely to spend it than to save it,” said Ben Ritz, the director of the Progressive Policy Institute’s Center for Funding America’s Future. But more than any specific program, “the bigger inflationary issue is the math.”White House economists have countered those arguments. If the bill passes, they say, it would do relatively little to spur increased consumer spending next year and not nearly enough to fully offset the loss of government stimulus to the economy as pandemic aid expires. That the program spends more heavily next year is a feature, they say, because it will partly blunt the economic drag as fiscal help fades. They note that the bill is intended to be offset completely by tax increases and other revenue savings.And they argue that by increasing the economy’s capacity to churn out goods and services, the president’s infrastructure plan and his broader program could both help to moderate costs over time.“If anything, these measures push back on inflationary pressures,” said Jared Bernstein, a member of Mr. Biden’s Council of Economic Advisers.Shoppers in New York last month. White House officials say that by increasing the economy’s capacity to churn out goods and services, the president’s plans could help moderate costs over time.Jutharat Pinyodoonyachet for The New York TimesLawrence H. Summers, the Harvard economist who loudly criticized the $1.9 trillion economic aid legislation that Mr. Biden signed this year, has said that he does not see the current plans as an inflationary threat. The infrastructure and broader spending packages are both spread over time and paid for, Mr. Summers has argued.There is less economic or political debate about Mr. Biden’s $1 trillion infrastructure plan, which cleared Congress last week and which the president will sign on Monday. Economists — including conservative ones — largely agree that it is likely to eventually expand the capacity of the economy, and that it is small and spread out enough that it will not meaningfully fuel faster inflation in the near term.Among Democrats, there is widespread support for the economic ambitions contained in the administration’s broader spending bill, which aims to create more equity for low- and middle-class earners and a bigger safety net for working parents. But the measure is drawing more complicated reviews when it comes to its immediate effect on inflation.Economists at Moody’s found in a recent analysis that the administration’s full agenda would slightly increase inflation in 2022, though they did not expect the program to ultimately raise it because of benefits that would later ease supply constraints. It estimates that with the infrastructure bill alone, inflation will be running at a 2.1 percent annual rate by the final quarter of next year. If the larger spending bill also passes, that grows to 2.5 percent.Understand the Supply Chain CrisisCard 1 of 5Covid’s impact on the supply chain continues. More

  • 138 Shares169 Views

    in Economy

    Biden Pledges to Tackle Rising Prices ‘Head On’ Amid Inflation Concerns

    by

    Whether it’s reporting on conflicts abroad and political divisions at home, or covering the latest style trends and scientific developments, Times Video journalists provide a revealing and unforgettable view of the world.Whether it’s reporting on conflicts abroad and political divisions at home, or covering the latest style trends and scientific developments, Times Video journalists provide a revealing and unforgettable view of the world. More

  • 125 Shares139 Views

    in Economy

    The Biggest Kink in America’s Supply Chain: Not Enough Truckers

    by

    WASHINGTON — Facing more than $50,000 in student debt, Michael Gary dropped out of college and took a truck driving job in 2012. It paid the bills, he said, and he could reduce his expenses if he lived mostly out of a truck.But over the years, the job strained his relationships. He was away from home for weeks at a time and could not prioritize his health: It took more than three years to schedule an optometry appointment, which he kept canceling because of his irregular work hours. He quit on Oct. 6.“I had no personal life outside of driving a truck,” said Mr. Gary, 58, a resident of Vancouver, Wash. “I finally had enough.”Truck drivers have been in short supply for years, but a wave of retirements combined with those simply quitting for less stressful jobs is exacerbating the supply chain crisis in the United States, leading to empty store shelves, panicked holiday shoppers and congestion at ports. Warehouses around the country are overflowing with products, and delivery times have stretched to months from days or weeks for many goods.A report released last month by the American Trucking Associations estimated that the industry is short 80,000 drivers, a record number, and one the association said could double by 2030 as more retire.Supply-chain problems stem from a number of factors, including an extraordinary surge in demand for goods and factory shutdowns abroad. But the situation has been compounded by a shortage of truckers and deteriorating conditions across the transportation sector, which have made it even harder for consumers to get the things they want when they want them.The phenomenon is rippling across the economy, weighing on growth, pushing up prices for consumers and depressing President Biden’s approval rating. But the White House has struggled with how to respond.On Tuesday, it announced a series of steps aimed at alleviating supply-chain problems, such as allowing ports to redirect other federal funds to efforts to ease backlogs. As part of the plan, the Port of Savannah could reallocate more than $8 million to convert existing inland facilities into five pop-up container yards in Georgia and North Carolina to help ships offload cargo more quickly.That followed an announcement by Mr. Biden last month that major ports and private companies would begin moving toward 24-hour operation in an effort to ease the gridlock. But early results suggest that trucking remains a major bottleneck in that effort, compounding congestion at the ports.The directors of the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach said that, at least initially, few additional truckers were showing up to take advantage of the extended hours.Gene Seroka, the executive director of the Port of Los Angeles, said his port had told the White House in July that about 30 percent of the port’s appointments for truckers went unused every day, largely because of shortages of drivers, the chassis they use to pull the loads and warehouse workers to unload items from trucks.“Here in the port complex, with all this cargo, we need more drivers,” Mr. Seroka said.The $1 trillion infrastructure bill that the House passed last week could help mitigate the shortage. The legislation includes a three-year pilot apprenticeship program that would allow commercial truck drivers as young as 18 to drive across state lines. In most states, people under 21 can receive a commercial driver’s license, but federal regulations restrict them from driving interstate routes.But industry experts said the program was unlikely to fix the immediate problem, given that it could take months to get underway and the fact that many people simply do not want to drive trucks.Mr. Biden said last month that he would consider deploying the National Guard to alleviate the trucker shortage, although a White House official said the administration was not actively pursuing the move.Meera Joshi, the deputy administrator of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, said the agency had focused on easing the process of obtaining a commercial driver’s license after states cut back licensing operations during the coronavirus pandemic. The agency has also extended the hours that certain drivers can work. “They are the absolute backbone of a big part of our supply chain,” Pete Buttigieg, the transportation secretary, said about truckers at a White House briefing on Monday. “We need to respect and, in my view, compensate them better than we have.”The shortage has alarmed trucking companies, which say there are not enough young people to replace those aging out of the work force. The stereotypes attached with the job, the isolating lifestyle and younger generations’ focus on pursuing four-year college degrees have made it difficult to entice drivers. Trucking companies have also struggled to retain workers: Turnover rates have reached as high as 90 percent for large carriers.In response, the companies have raised their wages. The average weekly earnings for long-distance drivers have increased about 21 percent since the start of 2019, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Last year, commercial truck drivers had a median wage of $47,130.On any given day this summer, dozens of container ships waited outside the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach to unload their cargo.Stella Kalinina for The New York TimesThe Port of Los Angeles. Trucking remains a major bottleneck in the effort to reduce congestion at U.S. ports.Stella Kalinina for The New York TimesTo pay for those increases, trucking companies are raising their rates. Jon Gold, the vice president of supply chain and customs policy at the National Retail Federation, said the driver shortage has contributed to steeper costs for retailers, which are trickling down to consumers and pushing up some of the prices at stores.“We are seeing cost increases at every step of the way in the transportation supply chain,” Mr. Gold said. “From ocean to truck to rail, costs are increasing.”Derek J. Leathers, the president and chief executive of Werner Enterprises in Omaha, which employs about 9,500 drivers, said its services cost about 15 percent more than prepandemic levels as driver salaries and equipment costs have climbed.The company is trying to hire about 700 truck drivers — up from about 300 before the pandemic — after demand swelled and retirements left the company short on workers. It has increased driver compensation by about 20 percent since the start of 2020 and expanded the number of driving academies it operates.“I’ve been in the business for over 30 years,” Mr. Leathers said. “I definitely think this is the tightest driver market I’ve seen in my career.”Understand the Supply Chain CrisisCard 1 of 5Covid’s impact on the supply chain continues. More

  • 150 Shares129 Views

    in Economy

    European Steel Plan Shows Biden’s Bid to Merge Climate and Trade Policy

    by

    A potential agreement on steel trade provides the clearest look yet at how the Biden administration plans to implement a trade policy that is both protectionist and progressiveWASHINGTON — President Biden has promised to use trade policy as a tool to mitigate climate change. This weekend, the administration provided its first look at how it plans to mesh those policy goals, saying the United States and the European Union would try to curb carbon emissions as part of a trade deal covering steel and aluminum.The arrangement, which American and European leaders aim to introduce by 2024, would use tariffs or other tools to encourage the production and trade of metals made with fewer carbon emissions in places including the United States and European Union, and block dirtier steel and aluminum produced in countries including China.If finalized, it would be the first time a U.S. trade agreement includes specific targets on carbon emissions, said Ben Beachy, the director of the Sierra Club’s Living Economy program.“No U.S. trade deal to date has even mentioned climate change, much less included binding climate standards,” said Mr. Beachy.The announcement was short on details, and negotiations with European leaders are likely to face multiple roadblocks. But it provided an outline for how the Biden administration hopes to knit together its concerns about trade and climate and work with allies to take on a recalcitrant China, at a time when progress on multicountry trade negotiations at the World Trade Organization has stalled.“The U.S. leads the world in our clean steel technology,” Gina Raimondo, the secretary of commerce, said in an interview on Monday. She said the United States would work with allies “to preference cleaner steel, which will create an incentive to make more investments in technology,” resulting in fewer carbon emissions and more jobs.In the same interview, Katherine Tai, the United States Trade Representative, said the potential agreement would restrict market access for countries that don’t meet certain carbon standards, or that engage in nonmarket practices and contribute to global overcapacity in the steel sector — accusations that are often levied at China.The effort would seek to build “a global arrangement that promotes not just fair trade in steel but also pro-climate and responsible trade in steel,” Ms. Tai said.Kevin Dempsey, the president of the American Iron and Steel Institute, said at an industry forum in Washington on Tuesday that the arrangement would be “positive for the U.S. industry,” which has the lowest carbon intensity per ton of steel of the major steel-producing countries.China accounts for nearly 60 percent of global steel production. Its use of a common steel-production method causes more than twice as much climate pollution as does the same technology in the United States, according to estimates by Global Efficiency Intelligence.In its announcement on Saturday, the Biden administration also said it had reached a deal to ease the tariffs that former President Donald J. Trump had imposed on European metals while the governments work toward the carbon accord.The United States would replace the 25 percent tariff on European steel and a 10 percent tariff on European aluminum with a so-called tariff-rate quota. In return, the European Union would drop the retaliatory tariffs it imposed on other American products, like bourbon and motorcycles.Under the new terms, 3.3 million metric tons of European steel would be allowed to enter the United States duty-free each year, with any steel above that volume subject to a 25 percent tariff.European producers would be allowed to ship 18,000 metric tons of unwrought aluminum, which often comes in the form of ingots, and 366,000 metric tons of wrought or semifinished aluminum into the United States each year, while volumes above that would be charged a 10 percent tariff, the commerce department said.To qualify for zero tariffs, the steel must be entirely made in the European Union — a provision designed to keep cheaper steel from countries including China and Russia from finding a backdoor into the United States via Europe.Supporters of free trade have criticized the Biden administration for relying on the same protectionist trade measures used by the Trump administration, which deployed both tariffs and quotas to protect domestic metal makers.Jake Colvin, the president of the National Foreign Trade Council, said the announcement would ratchet down trade tensions between the United States and Europe. But he called the trade barriers “an unwelcome form of managed trade” that would add costs and undermine American competitiveness.Ms. Tai said the administration had made a deliberate choice not to heed calls “for the president to just undo everything that the Trump administration had done on trade.”Mr. Biden’s plan, she said, “is that we formulate a worker-centered trade policy. And that means not actually going back to the way things were in 2015 and 2016, challenging us to do trade in a different way from how we’ve done it earlier, but also, critically, to challenge us to do trade in a way different from how the Trump administration did.”A factory in southern China that makes steel parts. The trade proposal would block dirtier steel and aluminum produced in countries including China.The New York TimesThe focus on carbon emissions differs from that of the Trump administration, which rejected any attempts to negotiate on carbon mitigation and withdrew the United States from the Paris Agreement on climate change.But negotiations with Europe will face challenges, among them developing a common methodology for measuring how much carbon is emitted as certain products are made. Still, the announcement suggests that the United States and Europe might be ready to work toward a collaborative approach on lowering carbon emissions, despite past differences on how the problem should be addressed.European leaders have long advocated an explicit price on the carbon dioxide that companies emit while making their products. In July, the European Union proposed a carbon border adjustment mechanism that would require companies to pay for carbon emissions produced outside Europe, to discourage manufacturers from evading Europe’s restrictions on pollution by moving abroad.An explicit tax on carbon has met with more resistance in the United States, where some politicians want to update regulatory requirements or put the onus on companies to invest in cleaner production technology.Todd Tucker, the director of governance studies at the Roosevelt Institute, said the latest announcement suggested that the European Union may be “a little bit more flexible” on how the United States and other partners would go about lowering emissions. Mr. Biden’s reconciliation bill, for example, contains a proposal for a “green bank” that could provide financing for firms to transition to cleaner technologies, he said.“If the U.S. ends up achieving decarbonization through more of an investments and industrial-policy approach, it seems like they’re OK with that,” Mr. Tucker said.Though the earliest negotiations over carbon emissions in the steel sector involve the European Union, the Biden administration says it wants to quickly extend the partnership to other countries.In twin announcements on Sunday, the Department of Commerce said it had begun close consultations with Japan and the United Kingdom “on bilateral and multilateral issues related to steel and aluminum,” with a focus on “the need for like-minded countries to take collective action.”Both Japan and the United Kingdom still face a 25 percent tariff on steel exports to the United States imposed by Mr. Trump.The talks suggest a template for how the Biden administration will try to engage allies to counter China’s growing economic heft and make progress on goals like climate and workers rights.The administration has rejected Mr. Trump’s “America First” approach to trade, saying the United States needs to work with like-minded countries. But they have also acknowledged that the inefficiency of negotiations at the World Trade Organization, and distanced themselves from broader, multicountry trade deals, like the Trans-Pacific Partnership.The announcements suggest that the Biden administration may not see comprehensive trade deals as the most effective way to accomplish many of its goals, but rather, industry-specific agreements among a limited number of democratic, free-market countries. That approach is similar to the cooperation the United States announced with the European Union for the civil aircraft industry in June.Ms. Raimondo said the agreement to ease the tariffs on the European Union was a “very significant achievement” that would help to alleviate supply chain problems and lower prices for companies that use steel and aluminum to make other products.“It’s all kind of a table setter to a global arrangement, whereby we work with our allies all over the world over the next couple of years,” she said. More

  • 138 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    Democrats Push for Agreement on Tax Deduction That Benefits the Rich

    by

    Lawmakers are coalescing around a deal to suspend a $10,000 cap on state and local tax deductions that was imposed during the Trump administration.WASHINGTON — Democrats were readying an agreement on Tuesday that would repeal a cap on the amount of state and local taxes that homeowners can deduct as part of a broader $1.85 trillion spending bill, a move that could amount to a significant tax cut for wealthy Americans in liberal states.But some liberals quickly balked at the emerging agreement, which would suspend a $10,000 cap on the so-called SALT deduction for five years, removing a limit that Republicans included in their 2017 tax package as a way to pay for cuts for corporations and the rich. The suspension would kick in for deductions related to property taxes and state and local income taxes accrued in 2021 and would run through 2025.If it passes, the deal would be a major concession to a handful of Democrats from high-income states like New York and New Jersey who have insisted on lifting the cap, in order to win their votes for President Biden’s social policy and climate change package.But liberal Democrats have scoffed at the push to include the costly proposal in the domestic policy package, particularly as party leaders have curtailed or eliminated other spending priorities as they pare down a $3.5 trillion blueprint to appease moderate and conservative-leaning Democrats.Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, the chairman of the Budget Committee, blasted the repeal on Tuesday as a giveaway to the rich that went against the Democrats’ priorities.“I think there is a compromise to be reached here, a middle ground, which says that for families earning less than $400,000, they can take a complete exemption, but not families earning more than that,” said Mr. Sanders, who had released a blistering statement criticizing the agreement. “What exists is unacceptable, and one way or another it will be dealt with.”It remains unclear whether the agreement would apply broadly or if Democrats planned to impose an income cap to prevent the wealthiest Americans from receiving what amounts to a tax cut.A straight repeal of the cap for every household that claims the deduction would siphon huge amounts of revenue from the federal government: about $90 billion per year, according to budget experts.To get around that, the five-year suspension assumes that the cap is reinstated in 2026 for another five years, allowing Democrats to use a budget sleight of hand to show its removal as revenue neutral in the traditional 10-year window that lawmakers look to when considering a bill’s impact on the federal deficit.Three people with knowledge of the emerging agreement described it on the condition of anonymity and cautioned that discussions were continuing. Details of the talks were first reported by Punchbowl News.With Republicans opposed to Mr. Biden’s domestic policy plan, Democrats must win the support of all 50 senators who caucus with the party and all but three House lawmakers for the plan to become law. That effort is further complicated because Democrats are using an arcane process known as budget reconciliation, which shields fiscal legislation from the 60-vote filibuster threshold in the Senate.Those restrictions mean that any lawmaker, particularly in the Senate, could effectively tank the legislation over his or her priorities, including insisting that the bill repeal SALT. Democrats from the high-income states that have been most affected by the limit have spent the past five years searching for an opportunity to roll it back for their constituents, despite complaints that it would largely benefit the wealthy.House Democrats including Representatives Tom Suozzi of New York, Mikie Sherrill of New Jersey and Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey have made clear that they will not support the broader spending package without a SALT repeal. Mr. Gottheimer wore a large button emblazoned with the words “no SALT, no dice” to votes on Capitol Hill on Tuesday. Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the majority leader, has also voiced support for getting rid of the cap.“We’ve been fighting for this for years,” Mr. Gottheimer said on Tuesday, adding that reinstating the full deduction would amount to giving “tax relief to families that deserve it and who got hosed in 2017.”Delaying the cap for five years in a 10-year window could effectively allow lawmakers to claim that the proposal would not have an impact on the package’s cost. Yet some Democrats appeared confident that lawmakers would act again in five years to prevent the cap from going back into effect.“It’ll be pretty clear when they get tax relief, it’s going to be hard to take that back,” Mr. Gottheimer said, referring to families in his district.The SALT limit resulted in tax increases for wealthier Americans beginning in 2018, particularly higher earners from high-tax states, and helped Democrats capture some House seats that Republicans previously held in New Jersey, California and elsewhere.The deduction is largely used by wealthy homeowners who itemize their deductions and live in states and cities with high taxes, which tend to be led by Democrats. Democrats accused Republicans of using the cap to pay for other tax cuts for the rich and to penalize liberal states.“My guess is the majority of Americans with a net worth of $50 to $300 million would get a tax cut under the Build Back Better plan with a full repeal of SALT,” Jason Furman, an economist at Harvard who was the chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers under President Barack Obama, said on Twitter on Tuesday. “The bill would do more for the super-rich than it does for climate change, childcare or preschool. That’s obscene.”But several lawmakers in the New York and New Jersey delegations have warned that their votes for the domestic policy package hinged on the inclusion of the provision, and Democrats have haggled for months over a possible solution.“We’re still going at it over it,” said Representative Richard E. Neal of Massachusetts, the Democratic chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, who joked on Tuesday that he had earned “a Ph.D. in the SALT deduction because it’s been argued from every perspective I can think of.”The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget described the repeal of the SALT cap as a “regressive” tax cut, estimating that it would cost $90 billion a year in lost government revenue. The wealthiest would make out the best, with a SALT cap repeal distributing more than $300,000 per household in the top 0.1 percent of earners and only $40 for a middle-income family over the first two years.“With the SALT cap repealed and current tax rates retained, in fact, the reconciliation package might actually offer a net tax cut for most high-income households,” the group said.The right-leaning Tax Foundation estimated that repealing the cap would increase after-tax income of the top 1 percent of earners by 2.8 percent, while the bottom 80 percent would get minimal benefit.Republicans seized on the agreement on Tuesday, accusing Democrats of hypocrisy for backing an “anti-progressive” handout.“First Democrats cut out paid leave,” J.P. Freire, a spokesman for Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee, said on Twitter. “Now they’re shoveling money to the rich.” More