Executive Orders and Memorandums

Latest story

163 Shares159 Views

Bharat Ramamurti, a Senior Biden Aide Who Helped Shape Economic Agenda, Is Leaving

by

Bharat Ramamurti supported the president’s competition agenda and pushed the administration to do more for student borrowers and salaried workersBharat Ramamurti, the last original senior member of President Biden’s National Economic Council, will leave the White House at the end of the month. His departure closes a chapter in Mr. Biden’s tenure that included a flurry of economic legislation directing large sums of federal money toward infrastructure, manufacturing, clean energy and other initiatives.Mr. Ramamurti, an N.E.C. deputy, has been a key player in Mr. Biden’s efforts to boost the economy through both legislation and executive action. That included Mr. Biden’s attempts to increase corporate competition — an initiative outlined in an executive order in 2021 — and his plan to forgive a wide swath of student loans, which the Supreme Court struck down.Mr. Ramamurti was a candidate to lead the N.E.C. when its first director under Mr. Biden, Brian Deese, stepped down in February. The position instead went to a former top Federal Reserve official, Lael Brainard.In an interview, Ms. Brainard praised Mr. Ramamurti for “outstanding judgment, collegiality, strategic sense, policy chops and communications.”Before joining Mr. Biden’s transition team after the 2020 presidential election, Mr. Ramamurti was a policy aide to Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, and the first member of the Congressional Oversight Commission charged with tracking some of the $2 trillion of economic stimulus approved by President Donald J. Trump amid the Covid-19 pandemic.Many observers expected Mr. Ramamurti to help link Mr. Biden’s economic team with Ms. Warren and other progressive Democrats in Congress on issues like student debt relief, where Mr. Biden’s plans called for less expansive action than the more liberal wing of his party had urged.Mr. Deese recalled that Mr. Ramamurti, in developing the ill-fated student debt proposal, was influential and pragmatic in expanding on Mr. Biden’s original promise of $10,000 in loan relief for lower-income and middle-class borrowers.Mr. Ramamurti was among those pushing for more expanded relief that could help Black students and other students of color with particularly large debt levels. He suggested several different ways to expand forgiveness in a targeted manner, at the request of Mr. Deese and Susan Rice, who was then the head of Mr. Biden’s Domestic Policy Council. The team eventually settled on a plan that offered an additional $10,000 in relief for students who had been eligible for federal Pell Grants, which benefit lower-income families.“In all of our work on college affordability, he was very conscious of racial equity and distributional impacts,” said Jared Bernstein, the chairman of Mr. Biden’s Council of Economic Advisers. In the student debt debate, he said, Mr. Ramamurti “brought a level of both policy expertise and emotion — which is a nice way of saying ‘pissed off’ — to those meetings.”Some of Mr. Ramamurti’s influence on policy was more durable — if less visible. Mr. Bernstein said he had successfully pushed other administration officials to be more aggressive in setting a Labor Department rule that expands the number of salaried workers who automatically qualify for time-and-a-half overtime pay after working 40 hours in a week.He coordinated the administration’s efforts to broker an agreement in early 2022 between the nation’s telecom giants and leading airlines over the deployment of 5G wireless towers near airports, which could have caused crippling disruptions in air travel.He also helped lead much of Mr. Biden’s competition agenda, including his efforts to crack down on so-called junk fees charged by banks, airlines and online ticketing agencies. That effort spanned cabinet agencies and several parts of the West Wing, and colleagues repeatedly praised Mr. Ramamurti’s coordination skills.It was a “major undertaking that could not have happened without Bharat’s ability to run good process and communicate so clearly and distill things down for people, including at all levels of the White House,” said Hannah Garden-Monheit, who now leads Mr. Biden’s competition council.Mr. Biden has seen significant turnover from his original economic team. Along with Mr. Deese and Ms. Rice, he lost his first C.E.A. chair, Cecilia Rouse, and several senior deputies across the White House. His first labor secretary, Marty Walsh, stepped down to become the head of the National Hockey League players’ union. More

More stories

  • 138 Shares109 Views

    in Economy

    Biden Orders Ban on New Investments in China’s Sensitive High-Tech Industries

    by

    The new limits, aimed at preventing American help to Beijing as it modernizes its military, escalate a conflict between the world’s two largest economies.President Biden escalated his confrontation with China on Wednesday by signing an executive order banning new American investment in key technology industries that could be used to enhance Beijing’s military capabilities, the latest in a series of moves putting more distance between the world’s two largest economies.The order will prohibit venture capital and private equity firms from pumping more money into Chinese efforts to develop semiconductors and other microelectronics, quantum computers and certain artificial intelligence applications. Administration officials stressed that the move was tailored to guard national security, but China is likely to see it as part of a wider campaign to contain its rise.“The Biden administration is committed to keeping America safe and defending America’s national security through appropriately protecting technologies that are critical to the next generation of military innovation,” the Treasury Department said in a statement. The statement emphasized that the executive order was a “narrowly targeted action” complementing existing export controls and that the administration maintained its “longstanding commitment to open investment.”Narrow or not, the new order comes at perhaps the most fraught moment in the U.S.-China relationship since President Richard M. Nixon and Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger opened a dialogue with Beijing in the early 1970s. A series of expanding export controls on key technologies to China has already triggered retaliation from Beijing, which recently announced the cutoff of metals like gallium that are critical for the Pentagon’s own supply chain.Mr. Biden has stressed that he wants to stabilize relations with China following a Cold War-style standoff over a spy balloon shot down after crossing through American airspace and the discovery of a broad Chinese effort to put malware into power grids and communications systems. He has sent Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken, Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen and other officials to renew talks with Chinese officials in recent months. Gina Raimondo, the commerce secretary, is expected to go to China in coming weeks.Indeed, the president seemed intent on not antagonizing Beijing with Wednesday’s order, making no comment about his action and leaving it to be announced through written material and background briefings by aides who declined to be identified.Still, China declared that it was “very disappointed” by the order, which it said was designed to “politicize and weaponize trade,” and it hinted at retaliation.“The latest investment restrictions will seriously undermine the interests of Chinese and American companies and investors, hinder the normal business cooperation between the two countries and lower the confidence of the international community in the U.S. business environment,” Liu Pengyu, a spokesman for the Chinese embassy, said in a statement.Administration officials said the president’s order is part of their effort to “de-risk” the relationship with China but not to “decouple” from it. Wednesday’s announcement, though, takes that effort to a new level. While export bans and concerns about Chinese investment in the United States have a long history, the United States has never before attempted such limits on the flow of investment into China.In fact, for the past few decades, the United States has encouraged American investors to deepen their ties in the Chinese economy, viewing that as a way to expand the web of interdependencies between the two countries that would gradually integrate Beijing into the Western economy and force it to play by Western rules.U.S. government reviews in recent years, however, concluded that investments in new technologies and joint ventures were fueling China’s military and its intelligence-collection capabilities, even if indirectly. American officials have been actively sharing intelligence reports with allies to make the case that Western investment is key to China’s military modernization plans — especially in space, cyberspace and the kind of computer power that would be needed to break Western encryption of critical communications.Administration officials cast the effort as one motivated entirely by national security concerns, not an attempt to gain economic advantage. But the order itself describes how difficult it is to separate the two, referring to China’s moves to “eliminate barriers between civilian and commercial sectors and military and defense industrial sectors.’’ It describes China’s focus on “acquiring and diverting the world’s cutting-edge technologies, for the purpose of achieving military dominance.”(The text of Mr. Biden’s order refers only to “countries of concern,” though an annex limits those to “the People’s Republic of China” and its two special administrative areas, Hong Kong and Macau.)Mr. Biden and his aides discussed joint efforts to limit high-tech investment with their counterparts at the recent Group of 7 summit meeting in Hiroshima, Japan. Several allies, including Britain and the European Union, have publicly indicated that they may follow suit. The outreach to other powers underscores that a U.S. ban may not be that effective by itself and would work only in conjunction with other major nations, including Japan and South Korea.The executive order, which also requires firms to notify the government of certain investments, coincides with a bipartisan effort in Congress to impose similar limits. An amendment along those lines by Senators Bob Casey, Democrat of Pennsylvania, and John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, was added to the Senate version of the annual defense authorization bill.Several Republicans criticized the president’s order as too little, too late and “riddled with loopholes,” as Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, put it.“It is long overdue, but the Biden administration finally recognized there is a serious problem with U.S. dollars funding China’s rise at our expense,” Mr. Rubio said. “However, this narrowly tailored proposal is almost laughable.”Representative Michael McCaul, Republican of Texas and chairman of the House Foreign Relations Committee, said the new order should go after existing investments as well as sectors like biotechnology and energy.“We need to stop the flow of American dollars and know-how supporting” China’s military and surveillance apparatus “rather than solely pursuing half measures that are taking too long to develop and go into effect,” Mr. McCaul said.The United States already prohibits or restricts the export of certain technologies and products to China. The new order effectively means that American money, expertise and prestige cannot be used to help China to develop its own versions of what it cannot buy from American companies.It was unclear how much money would be affected. American investors have already pulled back dramatically over the past two years. Venture capital investment in China has plummeted from a high of $43.8 billion in the last quarter of 2021 to $10.5 billion in the second quarter of this year, according to PitchBook, which tracks such trends. But the latest order could have a chilling effect on investment beyond the specific industries at stake.In a capital where the goal of opposing China is one of the few areas of bipartisan agreement, the only sounds of caution in Washington came from the business community. While trade groups praised the administration for consulting them, there was concern that the downward spiral in relations could speed a broader break between the world’s two largest economies.“We hope the final rules allow U.S. chip firms to compete on a level playing field and access key global markets, including China, to promote the long-term strength of the U.S. semiconductor industry and our ability to out-innovate global competitors,” the Semiconductor Industry Association said in a statement.Gabriel Wildau, a managing director at the consulting firm Teneo who focuses on political risk in China, said the direct effect of the executive order would be modest, given its limited scope, but that disclosure requirements embedded in the order could have a chilling effect.“Politicians increasingly regard corporate investments in China as a form of collusion with a foreign enemy, even when there is no allegation of illegality,” he said.The Treasury Department, which has already consulted with American executives about the forthcoming order, will begin formally taking comments before drafting rules to be put in place next year. But American firms may alter their investment strategies even before the rules take effect, knowing that they are coming.A series of expanding export controls on key technologies to China has already triggered retaliation from Beijing.Florence Lo/ReutersChina’s own investment restrictions are broader than the new American rules — they apply to all outbound investments, not just those in the United States. And they reflect a technology policy that in some ways is the opposite of the new American restrictions.China discouraged or halted most low-tech outbound investments, like purchases of real estate or even European soccer clubs. But China allowed and even encouraged further acquisitions of businesses with technologies that could offer geopolitical advantages, including investments in overseas businesses involved in aircraft production, robotics, artificial intelligence and heavy manufacturing.The latest move from Washington comes at a rare moment of vulnerability for the Chinese economy. Consumer prices in China, after barely rising for the previous several months, fell in July for the first time in more than two years, the country’s National Bureau of Statistics announced on Wednesday.While Chinese cities and some businesses have declared 2023 a “Year ›of Investing in China” in hopes of a post-Covid revival of their local economies, President Xi Jinping has created an environment that has made many American venture capital firms and other investors more cautious.Western companies that assess investment risk, like the Mintz Group, have been investigated and in some cases their offices have been raided. A Japanese executive was accused of espionage, and a new anti-espionage law has raised fears that ordinary business activities would be viewed by China as spying.The Biden administration’s previous moves to restrain sensitive economic relationships have taken a toll. China’s telecommunications champion, Huawei, has been almost completely blocked from the U.S. market, and American allies, starting with Australia, are ripping Huawei equipment out of their networks. China Telecom was banned by the Federal Communications Commission, which said it “is subject to exploitation, influence and control by the Chinese government.”At the same time, the United States — with the somewhat reluctant help of the Dutch government, Japan and South Korea — has gone to extraordinary lengths to prevent China from building up its own domestic capability to manufacture the most high-end microelectronics by itself.Washington has banned the export of the multimillion-dollar lithography equipment used to produce chips in hopes of limiting China’s progress while the United States tries to restore its own semiconductor industry. Taken together, it is an unprecedented effort to slow an adversary’s capabilities while speeding America’s own investment.Keith Bradsher More

  • 138 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    Biden Signs Executive Order That Aims to Make Child Care Cheaper

    by

    As President Biden prepares to announce his re-election campaign, he is seeking to make progress on a promise that has stalled in his first two years in office.President Biden said the executive order will make child and elder care more accessible for families.Doug Mills/The New York TimesWASHINGTON — President Biden signed an executive order on Tuesday directing federal agencies to find ways to make child care cheaper and more accessible, seeking to make progress on a promise he made that stalled in his first two years in office.In a ceremony in the White House Rose Garden, Mr. Biden described the order as one of the most sweeping efforts by any president to streamline the delivery of child care.“Almost every federal agency will collectively take over 50 actions to provide more peace of mind for families and dignity for care workers,” the president said to applause from an audience of families, administration officials, members of Congress and others.“The cost of care is too high for seniors in nursing homes, for working families with young children,” Mr. Biden added, wearing his aviator sunglasses on the brisk Washington afternoon. At the same time, he said, “pay for care workers is too low.”White House officials said the executive order was designed to address both sides of that problem by enacting new regulations and tweaking policies without needing vast new amounts of public funding.“The child care and long-term care systems in this country just don’t work well,” said Susan E. Rice, the director of the White House’s Domestic Policy Council. “The order includes more than 50 directives to nearly every agency to take action on fixing our child care and long-term care system.”Ms. Rice said the order would direct some agencies to lower co-pays for services. Other provisions will seek to make Medicare and Medicaid dollars go further. Still others will examine new ways to improve care for veterans and Native American tribes.She said the order “marshals the full resources of the federal government” to improve access to high-quality, affordable care.But the order does not deliver on the goal Mr. Biden himself identified at the beginning of his presidency, when he proposed $225 billion to fully cover child care for low-income Americans and an additional $200 billion for universal preschool.Those proposals failed to win support in Congress, and Mr. Biden abandoned them in favor of plans to bolster infrastructure and environmental spending.Now, as the president prepares to announce his re-election campaign, he is seeking to make progress on some big promises that have so far gone unfulfilled.In his remarks on Tuesday, Mr. Biden stressed that the executive order will help make it easier for families to afford to care for their children and their elderly parents, even without the kind of large investment he once envisioned.“If you live in a major American city, you can pay more than $17,000 a year, as all of you know, per child for child care in order to be able to go to work,” he said. “For a lot of families, that’s more than you pay for your rent.”He also used his remarks as an opportunity to contrast his policies with those of Republicans in Congress. He noted that on Monday, Speaker Kevin McCarthy proposed severe cuts in spending on domestic programs, excluding defense.Mr. Biden accused Mr. McCarthy and “MAGA Republicans” of supporting the wealthy by advocating cuts that will affect lower-income Americans, while they continue to support tax cuts for wealthy people put in place under President Donald J. Trump several years ago.“Critical programs for hardworking Americans that they count on will be slashed starting next year if he has his way,” Mr. Biden said of Mr. McCarthy.On Monday, Ms. Rice said Mr. Biden had not given up on winning approval for far greater government spending on child care.“We need to make serious investments,” she said, noting that Mr. Biden’s current budget would add billions of dollars of child care spending. “But in the meantime, we’re going to do everything we can to increase access to care and support care workers and family caregivers.”Some of the directives in Mr. Biden’s new order will not immediately produce results. One, for example, directs the Department of Health and Human Services “to consider issuing several regulations and guidance documents to improve the quality of home care jobs.” Officials said it would take time for those regulations to be developed, drafted and enacted.Other provisions might come more quickly. The Department of Veterans Affairs is “directed to consider expanding its veteran directed care program” to all of its medical centers. That program helps veterans hire personal care assistance. More

  • 113 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    ‘Most Pro-Union President’ Runs Into Doubts in Labor Ranks

    by

    Many union leaders say the Biden White House has delivered on its promises. But its handling of a freight rail dispute has given rise to detractors.Joseph R. Biden Jr. vowed to be “the most pro-union president you’ve ever seen.” And for the last two years, labor leaders have often lauded him for delivering on that promise.They cite appointees who are sympathetic to unions and a variety of pro-labor measures, like a pandemic relief bill that included tens of billions to shore up union pension funds.But in recent weeks, after Mr. Biden helped impose a contract on railroad workers that four unions had rejected, partly over its lack of paid sick days, many labor activists and scholars have begun to ask: How supportive is the president, really?To those reassessing Mr. Biden, the concern is that the president, by asking Congress to intervene and avert a strike, missed a rare opportunity to improve workers’ bargaining power in ways that could extend beyond the rail sector. They worry that the move essentially validated an employer strategy of waiting out workers in hopes that the pressure would fizzle.“Whether this group of workers has sick days or not on some level was not the issue,” said Kim Phillips-Fein, a historian at Columbia University who studies labor. “It was: What can people ask for and expect to win through collective action?”That Mr. Biden did not take a stronger stand, she added, “suggested a political blindness to what was really at stake.”At heart, the railroad episode has stirred a debate over what it means to be a pro-labor president.Defenders see Mr. Biden as unusually outspoken on behalf of workers’ rights. They cite his declaration during a unionization vote at an Amazon warehouse in Alabama that “there should be no intimidation, no coercion, no threats” — an unusual if carefully worded gesture of presidential solidarity — and his dismay that Kellogg planned to permanently replace striking workers.“He has helped create a mood in the country as it relates to unions that has helped propel the extraordinary organizing going on,” said Stuart Appelbaum, the president of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, which organized the unsuccessful drive at the Alabama warehouse and is challenging the result. Mr. Appelbaum added that Mr. Biden’s announcement during the campaign was “beyond what we’d hoped for.”The president’s backers also point to a raft of labor-friendly regulations and legislation. Mr. Biden issued an executive order requiring so-called project labor agreements on federal construction projects above $35 million — agreements with unions that set wages and work rules — and the major climate and health bill he signed created incentives for clean energy projects to pay wages similar to union rates.Celeste Drake, a senior White House labor adviser, said in a statement that Mr. Biden had made “lasting strides for workers and unions” and that many of his achievements were “passed on a razor’s edge of tight margins in Congress, often with Republican votes, where the president’s advocacy for unions as a means to rebuilding the middle class could have jeopardized everything.” (More than 70 percent of Americans approve of labor unions, according to a recent Gallup poll.)Liz Shuler, the president of the A.F.L.-C.I.O., who was the labor federation’s second-ranking official during the Obama presidency, said Mr. Biden’s administration had been far more solicitous of labor than the previous Democratic president, whom labor leaders sometimes criticized for backing free trade deals and contentious changes in education policy.“For the decisions made in the Obama administration, labor was often an afterthought,” Ms. Shuler said. “It’s the polar opposite with Biden. We’re included at the table ahead of time, before decisions are made.”Even the railway labor situation, in which Mr. Biden urged Congress to enact a contract that included significant wage gains and improvements in health benefits, ended up more favorable to workers than it probably would have under another administration, union officials say.The alternative view of Mr. Biden, put forth by many labor historians and activists, is that while the president has in fact been more obliging to unions and maintained better relationships with union leaders than his recent Democratic predecessors, the difference is one of degree rather than kind.They say that like his predecessors, Mr. Biden effectively seeks to manage the long-term decline of labor in a relatively humane way — by making favorable appointments and enacting measures that help at the margins — but has yet to take the sorts of risks that would restore power to workers.Mr. Biden has “gestured in interesting ways in certain moments,” said Gabriel Winant, a labor historian at the University of Chicago. “But it doesn’t seem like he has the stomach to see the gestures through.”For those who subscribe to this view, the rail labor dispute was a telling encapsulation of Mr. Biden’s approach: an instance in which the administration worked closely with many leaders of the dozen unions representing rail workers but angered portions of the rank and file. Members of four unions voted down the deal that the administration had helped broker but were not allowed to strike for a better one.Administration officials say that while Mr. Biden strongly supports the right to strike, the potential costs to the economy, which the industry said could be more than $2 billion per day, were simply too high to allow rail workers to walk off the job. They point out that a strike could have also posed health and safety risks — for example, by halting shipments of chemicals that ensure clean drinking water.But to critics, these risks were in some sense the point: They provided workers with a rare moment of leverage. They say Mr. Biden could have simply refused to sign any legislation that didn’t include paid sick days, then made clear that rail carriers were to blame for any disruption if they refused.Administration officials say the potential costs to the economy were simply too high to allow rail workers to walk off the job.Dustin Chambers for The New York Times“Biden in this case revealed that I’m your friend, but I won’t risk anything for you,” said Joseph A. McCartin, a historian at Georgetown University who has written extensively about transportation labor disputes.And if taking a more forceful stand on behalf of rail workers was high risk, Mr. McCartin said, it was also high reward: Because transportation infrastructure touches almost every part of the country, labor relations in that sector tend to reverberate widely.“Everybody sees it, everybody watches, everybody’s affected,” he said. An open letter to Mr. Biden last month, signed by Mr. McCartin and more than 400 other scholars, said federal interventions in transportation labor disputes “can set the tone for entire eras.”The letter cited the government’s move to grant rail workers an eight-hour workday to avoid a strike during World War I, which paved the way for similar gains by other workers in the 1930s. By contrast, the letter said, President Ronald Reagan’s firing of striking air traffic controllers in the early 1980s helped undermine the leverage of workers across the economy for decades.The contention among critics is that by effectively depriving rail workers of the right to strike, Mr. Biden has made it more difficult for other workers to use that tool — and, ultimately, to reverse the movement’s long-term decline.Strikes with strong backing from union membership “are the only way to win standard-setting contracts, and winning standard-setting contracts is the only way to rebuild the labor movement,” said Jane McAlevey, a scholar and longtime organizer. Her coming book, “Rules to Win By: Power and Participation in Union Negotiations,” documents the importance of aggressive labor actions in improving pay and working conditions.Workers and organizers at the forefront of recent union campaigns at companies like Starbucks and Amazon said they worried that Mr. Biden’s intervention in the rail labor dispute sent employers a message that the federal government would not punish them for anti-union behavior.“Everyone understands the significance of the president getting involved,” said Christian Smalls, the president of the Amazon Labor Union, which won an election to represent workers at a Staten Island warehouse in April. “To claim you’re the most pro-union president in history and do something like this contradicts everything.” (Amazon has challenged the union’s victory.)In some respects, it may have been unrealistic for labor activists to expect that Mr. Biden, who has carried himself as a middle-of-the-road Democrat for much of his career, would depart from the basic model of labor relations that has long prevailed in his party.But during the presidential campaign, Mr. Biden and some of his senior advisers discussed ways in which they hoped to break with longstanding economic orthodoxy in Washington, with its emphasis on free markets and a small role for government.Those who support more populist-minded policies say Mr. Biden has delivered in certain ways: enacting subsidies for domestic manufacturing and restrictions on trade with China and appointing regulators who have frequently gone to court to block large mergers.“There obviously has been progress made,” said Oren Cass, a former Republican policy aide and the founder of American Compass, which seeks to make conservatism more supportive of workers.Yet when it comes to labor, some say Mr. Biden has been less willing to rethink the reigning economic model.“If Biden had intervened in a way that was more favorable and sympathetic to the rail workers, that would have been a sign of him really breaking with that model, and the model itself no longer seeming to fit the current moment,” said Ms. Phillips-Fein, the Columbia historian. “That it didn’t happen suggests the limits of his political imagination.” More

  • 113 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Biden’s Big Dreams Meet the Limits of ‘Imperfect’ Tools

    by

    The student loan plan is the latest example of Democrats practicing the art of the possible on the nation’s most pressing economic challenges and ending up with risky or patchwork solutions.WASHINGTON — President Biden’s move this week to cancel student loan debt for tens of millions of borrowers and reduce future loan payments for millions more comes with a huge catch, economists warn: It does almost nothing to limit the skyrocketing cost of college and could very well fuel even faster tuition increases in the future.That downside is a direct consequence of Mr. Biden’s decision to use executive action to erase some or all student debt for individuals earning $125,000 a year or less, after failing to push debt forgiveness through Congress. Experts warn that schools could easily game the new structure Mr. Biden has created for higher education financing, cranking up prices and encouraging students to load up on debt with the expectation that it will never need to be paid in full.It is the latest example, along with energy and health care, of Democrats in Washington seeking to address the nation’s most pressing economic challenges by practicing the art of the possible — and ending up with imperfect solutions.There are practical political limits to what Mr. Biden and his party can accomplish in Washington.Democrats have razor-thin margins in the House and Senate. Their ranks include liberals who favor wholesale overhaul of sectors like energy and education and centrists who prefer more modest changes, if any. Republicans have opposed nearly all of Mr. Biden’s attempts, along with those of President Barack Obama starting more than a decade ago, to expand the reach of government into the economy. The Supreme Court’s conservative majority has sought to curb what it sees as executive branch overreach on issues like climate change.As a result, much of the structure of key markets, like college and health insurance, remains intact. Mr. Biden has scored victories on climate, health care and now — pending possible legal challenges — student debt, often by pushing the boundaries of executive authority. Even progressives calling on him to do more agree he could not impose European-style government control over the higher education or health care systems without the help of Congress.The president has dropped entire sections of his policy agenda as he sought paths to compromise. He has been left to leverage what appears to be the most powerful tool currently available to Democrats in a polarized nation — the spending power of the federal government — as they seek to tackle the challenges of rising temperatures and impeded access to higher education and health care.Arindrajit Dube, an economist at the University of Massachusetts Amherst who consulted with Mr. Biden’s aides on the student loan issue and supported his announcement this week, said in an interview that the debt cancellation plans were necessarily incomplete because Mr. Biden’s executive authority could reach only so far into the higher education system.“This is an imperfect tool,” Mr. Dube said, “that is however one that is at the president’s disposal, and he is using it.”But because the policies pursued by Mr. Biden and his party do comparatively little to affect the prices consumers pay in some parts of those markets, many experts warn, they risk raising costs to taxpayers and, in some cases, hurting some consumers they are trying to help.Mr. Biden’s plan would forgive up to $10,000 in student debt for individual borrowers earning $125,000 a year or less and households earning up to $250,000, with another $10,000 for Pell grant recipients.Cheriss May for The New York Times“You’ve done nothing that changes the structure of education” with Mr. Biden’s student loan moves, said R. Glenn Hubbard, a Columbia University economist who was the chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers under President George W. Bush. “All you’re going to do is raise the price.”Mr. Hubbard said Mr. Biden’s team had made similar missteps on energy, health care, climate and more. “I understand the politics, so I’m not making a naïve comment here,” Mr. Hubbard said. “But fixing through subsidies doesn’t get you there — or it gets you such market distortions, you really ought to worry.”Mr. Biden said on Wednesday that his administration would forgive up to $10,000 in student debt for individual borrowers earning $125,000 a year or less and households earning up to $250,000, with another $10,000 in relief for people from low-income families who received Pell grants in school.What’s in the Inflation Reduction ActCard 1 of 8What’s in the Inflation Reduction ActA substantive legislation. More

  • 100 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Who Qualifies For Biden’s Student Loan Forgiveness Plan

    by

    President Biden’s move means the student loan balances of millions of people could fall by as much as $20,000. This F.A.Q. explains how it will work.President Biden announced on Wednesday that the federal government would cancel up to $20,000 worth of federal student loans for millions of people. But not everyone with debt will qualify.The action includes rules that will maintain the balances of debtors who currently have high incomes. Those who do qualify will need to navigate the balky federal loan servicing system and keep a close eye on their accounts and credit reports for any mistakes.It also extends the pause on monthly student loan payments, which means that borrowers won’t have to resume payments until at least January, and provides details on a new proposal to create a more affordable income-driven repayment plan.What follows are questions you may have about the cancellation program with answers that have come from the White House, the Department of Education and student loan servicers.We will update this article in the coming days and weeks as more details become available.Who qualifies for loan cancellation?Individuals who are single and earn under $125,000 will qualify for the $10,000 in debt cancellation. If you’re married and file your taxes jointly or are a head of household, you qualify if your income is under $250,000.Eligibility will be based on your adjusted gross income. Income figures from either 2020 or 2021 can render you eligible, but 2022 income will not.If you received a Pell Grant and meet these income requirements, you could qualify for an extra $10,000 in cancellation.Loans obtained after June 30 are not eligible for relief.Which types of debt qualify?Only federal student loan debt is eligible. This includes PLUS loans, whether parents or graduate students took them out.Private loans are not eligible. Neither are many so-called F.F.E.L. loans, which stand for Federal Family Education Loan. If your F.F.E.L. loan was not eligible for the payment pause that began in 2020, it will not be eligible for the new cancellation.I didn’t finish my degree. Does that disqualify me?No.President Biden, speaking at Morehouse College and Clark Atlanta University, is also giving those who received Pell Grants the possibility of qualifying for another $10,000 in loan cancellation.Doug Mills/The New York TimesWhat’s the first thing I need to do if I qualify?Start by making sure that your loan servicer knows how to find you, so that you’ll be able to receive any guidance it provides and follow any instructions that it issues. Check that your postal address, your email address and your mobile phone number are listed accurately.If you don’t know who your servicer is, consult the Department of Education’s “Who is my loan servicer?” web page for instructions.Will the $10,000 in cancellation happen automatically, or do I need to submit a tax return or do something else to prove that I qualify?It depends. If you’re already enrolled in some kind of income-driven repayment plan and have submitted your most recent tax return to certify that income, your servicer and the Education Department know how much you earn and you should not need to do anything else. Still, keep an eye out for guidance from your servicer.What to Know About Student Loan Debt ReliefCard 1 of 5What to Know About Student Loan Debt ReliefMany will benefit. More

  • 88 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Biden Adopts Recommendations for Promoting Union Membership

    by

    The White House on Monday released a report outlining several dozen steps it intends to take to promote union membership and collective bargaining among both public and private sector employees.The report is the product of a task force that President Biden created through an executive order in April. A White House statement said the president had accepted the task force’s nearly 70 recommendations.Many of the steps would make it easier for federal workers and employees of contractors to unionize, including ensuring that union organizers have access to employees on federal property, which does not always happen today.The report also recommends creating preferences in federal grant and loan programs for employers who have strong labor standards, preventing employers from spending federal contract money on anti-union campaigns and making employees aware of their organizing rights.When the task force was created, some White House officials indicated that they supported considering labor union membership as a factor in awarding government contracts, but the task force recommendations generally did not emphasize this approach.Under federal procurement law, the government generally cannot deny contracts to companies it deems hostile to labor unions. But it may be able to consider a company’s posture toward unions as a factor in certain narrow cases — for example, when labor strife resulting from an aggressive anti-union campaign could substantially delay the provision of some important good or service.The executive order Mr. Biden signed creating the task force required it to submit recommendations within 180 days, at which point the president would review them.One key premise of the task force was that the National Labor Relations Act, the 1935 law that protects federal labor rights, explicitly encourage collective bargaining, and yet, according to the Biden White House, no previous administration had explored ways that the executive branch could do so systematically.The ambition of the task force was twofold: to enact policies for federal agencies and contractors that encourage unionization and to model best practices for employers in the public and private sectors.The president’s task force will submit a second report describing progress on its recommendations and proposing additional ones in six months.Union officials and labor experts consider Mr. Biden to be among the most pro-labor presidents ever. He moved quickly to oust Trump appointees viewed as unsympathetic to labor and to undo Trump-era rules that weakened protections for workers, and signed legislation that secured tens of billions of dollars to stabilize union pension plans.Mr. Biden has occasionally used his bully pulpit to urge employers not to undermine workers’ labor rights or bargaining positions, as when he warned against coercing workers who were weighing unionizing during a prominent union election at Amazon last year. He later called Kellogg’s plan to permanently replace striking workers “an existential attack” on its union members.Last week, Mr. Biden signed an executive order requiring so-called project labor agreements — agreements between construction unions and contractors that set wages and working conditions — on federal construction projects worth more than $35 million, a move that the White House estimates could affect nearly 200,000 workers. He had previously signed an executive order raising the minimum wage for federal contractors to $15 per hour from $10.95.But despite Mr. Biden’s backing, and polls showing widespread public support for unions, the rate of union membership nationwide remains stuck at a mere 10 percent, its lowest in decades.The Protecting the Right to Organize Act, or PRO Act, which Mr. Biden supports, would make it easier to unionize by preventing companies from holding mandatory anti-union meetings and imposing financial penalties on employers that retaliate against workers seeking to unionize. It passed the House in March but remains a long shot in the Senate. Democrats may seek to pass some of its provisions along party lines this year. More

  • 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