More stories

  • in

    Lutnick Remarks on Removing Government Spending in GDP Data Raises Fears

    Comments from a member of President Trump’s cabinet over the weekend have renewed concerns that the new administration could seek to interfere with federal statistics — especially if they start to show that the economy is slipping into a recession.In an interview on Fox News on Sunday, Howard Lutnick, the commerce secretary, suggested that he planned to change the way the government reports data on gross domestic product in order to remove the impact of government spending.“You know that governments historically have messed with G.D.P.,” he said. “They count government spending as part of G.D.P. So I’m going to separate those two and make it transparent.”It wasn’t immediately clear what Mr. Lutnick meant. The basic definition of gross domestic product is widely accepted internationally and has been unchanged for decades. It tallies consumer spending, private-sector investment, net exports, and government investment and spending to arrive at a broad measure of all goods and services produced in a country.The Bureau of Economic Analysis, which is part of Mr. Lutnick’s department, already produces a detailed breakdown of G.D.P. into its component parts. Many economists focus on a measure — known as “final sales to private domestic purchasers” — that excludes government spending and is often seen as a better indicator of underlying demand in the economy. That measure has generally shown stronger growth in recent quarters than overall G.D.P. figures.In recent weeks, however, there have been mounting signs elsewhere that the economy could be losing momentum. Consumer spending fell unexpectedly in January, applications for unemployment insurance have been creeping upward, and measures of housing construction and home sales have turned down. A forecasting model from the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta predicts that G.D.P. could contract sharply in the first quarter of the year, although most private forecasters still expect modest growth.Steady Growth, From Private and Government SpendingGovernment spending has contributed to G.D.P. growth in recent quarters, as private-sector growth has remained solid.

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

    Quarterly change in inflation-adjusted gross domestic product
    Notes: Change shown as seasonally adjusted annual rate. Private sector is total gross domestic product excluding government spending and investment. Government spending excludes transfer payments, including stimulus checks during the Covid-19 pandemic.”Source: Bureau of Economic AnalysisBy 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

    Markets and Corporate America Are Unfazed by Washington Chaos, for Now

    The federal budget debate has big implications for the economy. Businesses are betting that tax cuts will be extended and the math will work out.Even by Washington standards, the second Trump presidency has begun in frenetic fashion: mass firings at federal agencies, tariff threats against allies and foes alike, and haggling over how to get a Republican budget through a narrowly divided Congress.Business leaders and corporate investors are confident that things will turn out fine, at least for them. “Markets aren’t showing all that much concern,” Jason Pride, chief of investment strategy and research at the Glenmede Trust Company, noted.But that could change, with high-stakes implications for the markets and the U.S. economic outlook.Investors fully expect the tax cuts from President Trump’s first term, which mostly benefited businesses and the wealthy, to be fully extended before the end of the year. Trade groups including the Business Roundtable and the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors are confident the extension will be taken care of — especially since not doing so “would impose, effectively, a tax increase,” Mr. Pride added.Still, the arithmetic remains tenuous. The cost of extending the tax cuts may total $4 trillion over 10 years. That means Congress is being left to barter over what else can save or raise money, and whose federal benefits might be cut.The bond market — where traders price the risk of both inflation and an economic downturn — has, for its part, shimmied off moments of worry brought on by Mr. Trump’s boomeranging style of negotiation over tariffs. The bet is that the threats of an import tax are more a geopolitical tool than a key revenue raiser, as the administration has portrayed the tariffs in budget discussions.Some of the underlying calm stems from Wall Street’s confidence in Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. A billionaire hedge fund manager before assuming his new position, he has convinced many analysts that the ultimate suite of policies coming from the White House will be beneficial once it coalesces, and he “has also added to some optimism around lower deficits” in future budgets, according to Matt Luzzetti, the chief economist at Deutsche Bank.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

    Federal Debt Is Now Worrying Even Progressives

    Long a focus of conservatives, the level of public borrowing is starting to concern left-leaning economists. Proposed remedies still differ radically.The 119th Congress began, as it so often has in recent years, with calls from Republican politicians for wrestling down the national debt, which is near a record level relative to the size of the economy.But this time, the G.O.P. had company: Progressive economists and budget wonks, who have often dismissed finger-wagging about debt levels as a pretext for slashing spending on programs for the poor, are starting to ring alarm bells as well.What’s changed? In large part, long-term interest rates look unlikely to recede as quickly as had been hoped, forcing the federal government to make larger interest payments. And the Trump administration has promised to extend and expand its 2017 tax cuts, which will cost trillions if not matched by spending reductions.“I find it easier to stay calm about this threat when I think the interest rate is low and steady, and I think in the past year or so that steadiness has been dented,” said Jared Bernstein, who led the Council of Economic Advisers in the Biden administration. “If one party refuses to raise revenues, and the Democrats go along more than is fiscally healthy, that’s also a big part of the problem.”To be clear, conservative warnings on the debt have generally been met with little action over the past two decades. A paper by two political scientists and an economist recently concluded that after at least trying to constrain borrowing in the 1980s and 1990s, Republicans have “given up the pretense” of meaningful deficit reduction. Democrats and Republicans alike tend to express more concerns about fiscal responsibility when their party is out of power.Historically, the stock of debt as a share of the economy has risen sharply during wars and recessions. It peaked during World War II. In the 21st century, Congress has not managed to bring the debt back down during times of peace and economic growth.Revenues Are Not Keeping Up With Projected SpendingIf not addressed, debt will probably mount to unprecedented levels.

    Source: Congressional Budget OfficeBy The New York TimesSpending Has Been Creeping UpAs a share of economic output, mandatory outlays — mostly Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security — are growing fastest. But as debt rises, so do interest costs.

    Source: Office of Management and BudgetBy 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 Chose 8 Economic Experts Who Will Defend Tariffs and Lower Taxes

    President-elect Donald J. Trump has moved beyond the team-of-rivals approach from his first term and chosen economic aides who will defend tariffs and tax cuts.Alan RappeportAna Swanson and President-elect Donald J. Trump put economic policy at the center of his campaign and, in assembling his economic team, has turned to a group of Wall Street executives, economists, lawyers and academics to help carry out his plans to cut taxes, impose tariffs and slash regulations.In contrast to his first term, when Mr. Trump installed advisers who had disparate views about areas like free trade and tariffs, the men the president-elect has selected this time around have, at least for now, professed to be in sync with his agenda.Still, it remains to be seen how well his advisers work together and whether those with more traditionally conservative views will be willing to go along with Mr. Trump’s unconventional approach to economic policy.Scott BessentTreasury SecretaryStefani Reynolds/BloombergWe 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

    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