More stories

  • in

    Yellen Issues Debt Limit Warning to Congress

    The Treasury secretary urged Congress to protect the full faith and credit of the United States by raising the debt limit.Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen informed Congress on Friday that if lawmakers do not act to raise or suspend the nation’s debt limit as soon as Jan. 14 she would most likely need to begin using “extraordinary measures” to prevent the United States from defaulting on its debt.Ms. Yellen issued her warning about the debt limit — which caps the amount of money that the United States is authorized to borrow to fund the government and meet its financial obligations — at a fractious political moment. Republicans are set to take control of Washington next month, and President-elect Donald J. Trump has already called on Congress to abolish the debt limit before he seeks to push through a new round of tax cuts and other spending priorities.The debt limit was suspended in June 2023 after a contentious negotiation over federal spending, work requirements for receiving government benefits and funding for the Internal Revenue Service. That suspension is scheduled to expire on Jan. 2, forcing Treasury to begin using so-called extraordinary measures to allow the federal government to keep paying its bills.Those measures are essentially accounting maneuvers that keep the government from breaching the debt limit. They can include suspending certain types of investments in savings plans for government workers and health plans for retired postal workers.The United States borrows money to pay its bills and obligations, including funding for social safety net programs, interest on the national debt and salaries for members of the armed forces. If the United States is unable to raise the debt limit, it will soon be unable to make many of those payments, including to investors who have bought government debt.“I respectfully urge Congress to act to protect the full faith and credit of the United States,” Ms. Yellen said in a letter on Friday.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

  • in

    How a Government Shutdown Could Affect the Economy

    A federal government shutdown probably wouldn’t be enough to derail the solid U.S. economy. But it could inject more uncertainty into an already murky economic outlook.Funding for the federal government will lapse at the end of Friday if Congress doesn’t reach a deal to extend it. It is still possible that legislators will act in time to prevent a shutdown, or will restore funding quickly enough to avoid significant disruptions and minimize any economic impact.But if the standoff lasts beyond the weekend, most federal offices will not open Monday, and hundreds of thousands of government employees will be told not to work. Others will be required to work without pay until the government reopens.For those workers and their families, the consequences could be serious, especially if the impasse drags on. Federal law guarantees that government workers will eventually receive back pay, but that may not come in time for those living paycheck to paycheck. And the back-pay provisions don’t apply to consultants or contractors. During the last government shutdown — a partial lapse in funding in late 2018 and early 2019 — federal workers lined up at food pantries after going weeks without pay.For the economy as a whole, the effects of a shutdown are likely to be more modest. Many of the most important government programs, like Social Security and Medicare, would not be affected, and government services that are deemed “essential,” such as air traffic control and aviation security, can continue at least temporarily. Federal workers who put off purchases are likely to make them once their paychecks restart.Forecasters at Goldman Sachs estimate that a shutdown would exert a small but measurable drag on the economy, reducing quarterly economic growth by about 0.15 percentage points for every week the lapse in funding continues. Most of that toll, though not all, would reverse in the next quarter. Other forecasters have released similar estimates.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

  • in

    High on Hope, Wall St. Hears What It Wants From Trump

    Investors and executives are often emphasizing what they like in the president-elect’s agenda, while dismissing what they don’t as mere posturing.If you ask many a Wall Street investor, tax cuts are poised for extension, deregulation is all but guaranteed, immigration reform for high-skill workers has real potential and President-elect Donald J. Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) might just cut the deficit.Tariffs, by contrast, are a mere bargaining chip. Immigrant expulsions will probably be limited, and there is no way on earth that the incoming White House would meddle with the independent Federal Reserve.Hope has been riding high in financial markets and corporate boardrooms in the month-and-change since the presidential election. But it is often predicated on a bet: Many of the optimists are choosing to believe that the Trump promises they want to see fulfilled are going to become reality, while dismissing those they think would be bad for the economy as mere posturing.“A lot of people are using deductive reasoning and concluding that he’ll only do things that are good for the market,” said Julia Coronado, founder of the research firm MacroPolicy Perspectives. “They can ride this wave of hope-ium through the end of January,” she said, adding that much of it “feels delusional.”There’s a reason for the hope: Many investors believe that markets themselves will act as a bulwark against extreme proposals.Mr. Trump does care enormously about financial markets, and particularly the stock market. He points to it as a marker of success in a way that few if any presidents have ever done. And during his first term in office, he sometimes backed away from more extreme plans — like an idea to oust the Fed chair — when they caused markets to plummet.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

  • in

    Working-Class Voters Are Pivotal. Both Candidates Are Vying for Their Support.

    Kamala Harris’s plans offer a bigger boost for the working class, but Donald Trump seems to be convincing voters.Bernadette Daywalt had yet to decide whom to vote for in the presidential election. But the 69-year-old retiree said her decision would probably come down to economics.She and her 82-year-old sister have struggled to keep up with rising grocery prices over the past few years, and they now frequent a food pantry in the Philadelphia suburb where they live.“I think we’re headed downhill right now, with the cost of food, the cost of everything,” Ms. Daywalt said as she checked on her voter registration at an outreach van parked outside the Elmwood Park Zoo on a crisp October afternoon. She voted for Mr. Trump in 2016, and she felt better economically when he was president.Ms. Daywalt’s perceptions underscore a tough reality facing Democrats, who have been trying to recapture a working-class vote that has been slipping away from them.Many economists say Vice President Kamala Harris’s economic proposals would do more to help everyday Americans than the agenda put forward by former President Donald J. Trump. One model suggests that her package would boost post-tax income for the poorest Americans by 18 percent by 2026, much more than the 1.4 percent bump Mr. Trump’s ideas would offer.Income Effects of Trump vs. Harris Economic ProposalsAfter tax and transfers, estimates from the Penn Wharton Budget Model suggest that Kamala Harris’s proposals would boost low-income groups while costing rich ones.

    .dw-chart-subhed {
    line-height: 1;
    margin-bottom: 6px;
    font-family: nyt-franklin;
    color: #121212;
    font-size: 15px;
    font-weight: 700;
    }

    Percent Change as of 2026
    Notes: Percent changes are from the baseline expectation for income in 2026. Baseline income is about $20,000 for the bottom quintile, $81,400 for the middle quintile and $327,000 for the group in the 90-95 percent range.Source: Penn Wharton Budget ModelBy The New York TimesWe 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

  • in

    ‘Trump Trade’ of Large Tariffs and Deficits Looms as Market Braces for 2024 Election

    As investors have focused on the potential fiscal and economic impact of the Republican candidate’s proposals, yields on Treasury debt have risen.The $28 trillion Treasury market is arguably the most foundational financial market in the world. It’s where the U.S. government auctions its debt to investors who buy and trade that debt, influencing borrowing costs across the globe.It has also become one of the main places for investors to express their views on the race for the White House.Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald J. Trump have each pledged tax and spending policies that would most likely increase federal deficits, leading to more government borrowing.But it is Mr. Trump’s proposals — including steep tariffs and extra-large tax cuts — that investors have become focused on, especially as his odds of winning have risen in some betting markets.His policies have drawn higher estimates of government debt from economists. One nonpartisan group, for instance, has projected that Mr. Trump’s platform would lead to an additional $7.5 trillion in U.S. Treasury debt issuance over a decade — more than twice its estimate for Ms. Harris’s policies.“Trump wins, you short bonds” — bet that their value will fall and yields will rise further — and “lever up” on stocks, said David Cervantes, the founder of Pinebrook Capital, an asset management firm. He is a believer in what has come to be called the “Trump trade” in finance: a bet that Mr. Trump’s assuming power would boost inflation and interest rates but might also juice corporate earnings in the near term.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

  • in

    Trump Brags About His Math Skills and Economic Plans. Experts Say Both Are Shaky.

    In a combative interview, the former president hinted at even higher tariffs as an economic magic bullet.Former President Donald J. Trump has been offering up new tax cuts to nearly every group of voters that he meets in recent weeks, shaking the nerves of budget watchers and fiscal hawks who fear his expensive economic promises will explode the nation’s already bulging national debt.But on Tuesday, Mr. Trump made clear that he was unfazed by such concerns and offered a one-word solution: growth. Despite the doubts of economists from across the political spectrum, Mr. Trump said that he would just juice the economy by the force of his will and scoffed at suggestions that his pledges to abolish taxes on overtime, tips and Social Security benefits could cost as much as $15 trillion.“I was always very good at mathematics,” Mr. Trump told John Micklethwait, the editor in chief of Bloomberg News, in an interview at the Economic Club of Chicago.Faced with repeated questioning about how he could possibly grow the economy enough to pay for those tax cuts, Mr. Trump dismissed criticism of his ideas as misguided. He professed his love of tariffs and insisted that surging output would cover the cost of his plans.“We’re all about growth,” Mr. Trump said, adding that his mix of tax cuts and tariffs would force companies to invest in manufacturing in the United States.The national debt is approaching $36 trillion. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget projected last week that Mr. Trump’s economic agenda could cost as much as $15 trillion over a decade. Economists from the Peterson Institute for International Economics, a nonpartisan think tank, estimated last month that if Mr. Trump’s plans were enacted, the gross domestic product could be 9.7 percent lower than current forecasts, shrinking output and dampening consumer demand.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

  • in

    Trump’s Plans Could Increase National Debt Twice as Much as Harris’s Proposal

    A new analysis finds that Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald J. Trump’s plans would both add to the deficit, but Mr. Trump’s proposals could create a fiscal hole twice as big.Former President Donald J. Trump’s economic proposals could inflame the nation’s debt burden while ultimately raising costs for a vast majority of Americans, according to a pair of new economic analyses that are among the most in-depth studies to date of the Republican nominee’s plans.The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonpartisan group that seeks lower deficits, found that Mr. Trump’s various plans could add as much as $15 trillion to the nation’s debt over a decade. That is nearly twice as much as the economic plans being proposed by Vice President Kamala Harris.And an analysis from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a liberal think tank, found that Mr. Trump’s tax and tariff plans would, on average, amount to a tax increase for every income group except the top 5 percent of highest-earning Americans.The two new studies differ in some respects. The budget group looked at the cost of both candidates’ tax and spending plans over 10 years, while the tax institute focused on what the impacts of Mr. Trump’s tax and tariff plans would be in 2026. But together they show that Mr. Trump’s agenda could be both costly and regressive by placing a greater burden on those making the least amount of money.Over the course of his campaign, Mr. Trump has floated a flurry of potentially far-reaching policies, including exempting certain forms of pay from taxes and levying broad tariffs on nearly all imports to the United States. He also wants to extend elements of the tax law he enacted in 2017 that are set to expire after next year.“It’s almost difficult to come up with a tax plan that would raise taxes on most Americans, but still increase the deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars a year — and that’s what this does,” said Steve Wamhoff, the federal policy director at I.T.E.P.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

  • in

    Trump’s Plans Could Increase U.S. Debt While Raising Costs for Most Americans

    A new analysis estimates that the former president’s proposals could grow deficits by as much as $15 trillion over a decade.Former President Donald J. Trump’s economic proposals could inflame the nation’s debt burden while ultimately raising costs for a vast majority of Americans, according to a pair of new economic analyses that are among the most in-depth studies to date of the Republican nominee’s plans.The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonpartisan group that seeks lower deficits, found that Mr. Trump’s various plans could add as much as $15 trillion to the nation’s debt over a decade. That is nearly twice as much as the economic plans being proposed by Vice President Kamala Harris.And an analysis from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a liberal think tank, found that Mr. Trump’s tax and tariff plans would, on average, amount to a tax increase for every income group except the top 5 percent of highest-earning Americans.The two new studies differ in some respects. The budget group looked at the cost of both candidates’ tax and spending plans over 10 years, while the tax institute focused on what the impacts of Mr. Trump’s tax and tariff plans would be in 2026. But together they show that Mr. Trump’s agenda could be both costly and regressive by placing a greater burden on those making the least amount of money.Over the course of his campaign, Mr. Trump has floated a flurry of potentially far-reaching policies, including exempting certain forms of pay from taxes and levying broad tariffs on nearly all imports to the United States. He also wants to extend elements of the tax law he enacted in 2017 that are set to expire after next year.“It’s almost difficult to come up with a tax plan that would raise taxes on most Americans, but still increase the deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars a year — and that’s what this does,” Steve Wamhoff, the federal policy director at I.T.E.P., said.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