Health Insurance and Managed Care

Latest story

138 Shares189 Views

Boeing Workers Walk Off the Job in First Strike Since 2008

by

Thousands of workers who build commercial planes in the Seattle and Portland, Ore., areas rejected a tentative contract recommended by union leaders.Thousands of machinists and aerospace workers walked off the job on Friday, after rejecting a proposal that would have delivered raises and improvements to benefits but fell short of what the union initially sought.Lindsey Wasson for The New York TimesThousands of Boeing workers walked off the job on Friday after rejecting a contract offer from the company, a potentially costly disruption as Boeing tries to increase airplane production after a safety crisis.The strike, the first at Boeing in 16 years, is expected to bring operations to a halt in the Seattle area, home to most of Boeing’s commercial plane manufacturing. The slowdown could also further disrupt the company’s fragile supply chain.Kelly Ortberg, the company’s new chief executive, had urged employees to approve the deal. “A strike would put our shared recovery in jeopardy, further eroding trust with our customers,” he said in a video statement on Wednesday.Boeing plays a substantial role in the U.S. economy. It employs almost 150,000 people across the country — nearly half of them in Washington State — and is one of the nation’s largest exporters. The company, which also makes military jets, rockets, spacecraft and Air Force One, is a global symbol of America’s manufacturing strength.The union said the strike vote passed by 96 percent, well above the two-thirds required to initiate a walkout, after 95 percent rejected the proposed contract.The contract had been agreed upon by union leaders and company management on Sunday after months of talks. It included many gains for workers, but fell short of what the union initially sought. Union leaders had hoped to get bigger raises and other concessions from the company, but said it was still “the best contract we’ve negotiated in our history.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

More stories

  • 138 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    Trump and Harris Embody a Stark Partisan Divide on Fighting Poverty

    by

    The two presidential candidates can both point to records of pushing poverty rates down, but their approaches could hardly be more different.Follow the latest updates on the Harris and Trump campaigns.The presidential race between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald J. Trump presents the sharpest clash in antipoverty policy in at least a generation, and its outcome could shape the economic security of millions of low-income Americans.As the onset of the pandemic in early 2020 threatened to decimate the economy, Mr. Trump signed a large stimulus package that included substantial aid for the poor. When President Biden and Ms. Harris took office in 2021, their administration pushed more big aid expansions through Congress as part of their pandemic-recovery plan, driving the poverty rate still lower.But if the two candidates’ responses to that extraordinary period had elements in common, the lessons they took from it were very different.In the pandemic-era programs, now mostly expired or reduced, Ms. Harris and other Democrats found reinforcement of their faith in the government’s power to ameliorate hardship. If elected, she would seek to sustain or expand many of them, including subsidies for food, health care and housing, and revive a change to the child tax credit that essentially created a guaranteed income for families with children. Those policies helped temporarily cut the poverty rate by more than half from prepandemic levels.She backs a $15 federal minimum wage, which Republicans have fought, and is a vocal supporter of programs like subsidized child care and paid family leave meant to help balance work and family.Mr. Trump says little about his role in pandemic-era poverty programs, which many Republicans view as having been excessive and fraud-ridden. Instead, he touts his 2017 tax cuts, which he credits for boosting the economy and reducing poverty to a prepandemic low, and he has vowed to extend them when they expire next year. Most of the direct benefit from those cuts went to corporations and the wealthy.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 113 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    G.M.’s Contract Deal With U.A.W. Faces Surprisingly Stiff Opposition

    by

    Many longstanding General Motors workers have been voting against the tentative accord, which they feel insufficiently improves retirement benefits.A United Automobile Workers union vote on a tentative contract agreement with General Motors that provides record wage increases has run into unexpectedly strong resistance from veteran workers.Voting at most union locals has been completed and the final result, due as early as Thursday evening, will very likely be decided by a narrow margin. A majority of workers at several large plants in Michigan, Indiana and Tennessee rejected the contract, though union members at a large sport utility plant in Arlington, Texas, voted in favor of it.G.M., Ford Motor and Stellantis agreed to similar contracts with the union after U.A.W. members went on strike at select plants and warehouses. Workers walked off the job at the first three plants on Sept. 15 and stayed on strike for more than 40 days. It was the first time the union has struck all three automakers at the same time, though it did not shut down all of the factories of any company.The agreement appears to be headed for ratification at Ford and Stellantis, the maker of Chrysler, Jeep and Ram vehicles, by comfortable margins, according to running tallies the U.A.W. published online.At G.M., many veteran workers have opposed the contract because they want the company to contribute more money to retirement plans and the cost of health care for retirees.“I’ve heard from some traditional workers who said there wasn’t enough in there for them,” said David Green, director of the U.A.W. Region 2B, which includes Ohio, Indiana and a small part of Michigan. “The post-retirement health care is an issue for some people. For some people, it’s the pension contributions.”Mr. Green himself thinks the contract represents a big victory for union members. “This is the best contract I’ve seen since I started in 1989,” he said. “So I was happy with it.”General Motors declined to comment on the contract vote.The tentative contract raises the top wage by 25 percent, from $32 to more than $40 over four and a half years. The increase is more than the combined wage increases the union has won over the past 22 years, according to U.A.W. officials.Newer hires who are lower on the pay scale will see larger increases that take them to the new top wage. And workers who were recently hired will see their hourly pay double.The agreement also provides for cost-of-living adjustments that will nudge wages higher if inflation persists as well as enhanced company contributions to pensions and retirement plans, more paid time off and the ability to strike if any plant is closed during the term of the contract.The contract negotiations with G.M., Ford and Stellantis were led by the United Automobile Workers president, Shawn Fain, center, who was elected this year.Brittany Greeson for The New York TimesTo be ratified, the agreement must secure a simple majority. More than 46,000 U.A.W. workers work at G.M., although not all of them are likely to turn in ballots. More than 14,000 company employees took part in the targeted strikes.As of Wednesday afternoon, an online vote tally that the union maintains showed that just over 54 percent of the votes were in favor of the contract, but that tally did not include numbers from some big plants.If the tentative agreement is voted down, it would represent a big setback for the U.A.W. president, Shawn Fain, who was elected this year and promised to take a more aggressive approach in the contract talks in hopes of winning significant pay increases and reversing some of the concessions the union accepted in past contracts.He appeared to deliver that in what was widely regarded as a record deal. President Biden, who joined striking workers on the picket line in September at a G.M. site in Belleville, Mich., hailed Mr. Fain’s efforts. The president joined Mr. Fain last week at a plant in Belvidere, Ill., that Stellantis agreed to keep open after halting production this year.“I don’t think it diminishes Shawn Fain’s luster that much because of a close ratification vote,” said Arthur Wheaton, director of labor studies at Cornell University School of Industrial and Labor Relations. “It just means expectations were high, and had he not delivered as much as he did, it wouldn’t have passed.”After the contracts with the three Detroit automakers are ratified, Mr. Fain hopes to try to organize workers at nonunion plants in the South owned by Toyota, Honda and other foreign automakers, and the nonunion plants that Tesla operates in California and Texas.Since the terms of the U.A.W. agreements were announced, some of those companies have increased wages of factory workers. Toyota has told workers that it will raise hourly rates by 9 percent in January. Honda and Hyundai will lift wages 11 percent and 14 percent next year. Hyundai plans to increase wages 25 percent by 2028.“Everybody at those companies should say, ‘Thank you, U.A.W.,’” Mr. Wheaton said. “Those increases wouldn’t have happened without the new U.A.W. contract.” More

  • 75 Shares129 Views

    in Economy

    Doctors at Allina Health Form Union

    by

    The physicians, at Allina Health in Minnesota and Wisconsin, appear to be the largest group of unionized doctors in the private sector.In the latest sign of growing frustration among professionals, doctors employed by a large nonprofit health care system in Minnesota and Wisconsin have voted to unionize.The doctors, roughly 400 primary and urgent-care providers across more than 50 clinics operated by the Allina Health System, appear to be the largest group of unionized private-sector physicians in the United States. More than 150 nurse practitioners and physician assistants at the clinics were also eligible to vote and will be members of the union, which will be represented by a local of the Service Employees International Union.The result was 325 to 200, with 24 other ballots challenged, according to a tally sheet from the National Labor Relations Board, which conducted the vote. In a statement, Allina said, “While we are disappointed in the decision by some of our providers to be represented by a union, we remain committed to our ongoing work to create a culture where all employees feel supported and valued.”The doctors complained that chronic understaffing was leading to burnout and compromising patient safety.“In between patients, your doctor is dealing with prescription refills, phone calls and messages from patients, lab results,” said Dr. Cora Walsh, a family physician involved in the organizing campaign.“At an adequately staffed clinic, you have enough support to help take some of that workload,” Dr. Walsh added. “When staff levels fall, that work doesn’t go away.”Dr. Walsh estimated that she and her colleagues often spend an hour or two each night handling “inbox load” and worried that the shortages were increasing backlogs and the risk of mistakes.The union vote follows recent walkouts by pharmacists in the Kansas City area and elsewhere over similar concerns.A variety of professionals, including architects and tech workers, have sought to form unions in recent years, while others, like nurses and teachers, have waged strikes and aggressive contract bargaining campaigns.Some argue that employers have exploited their sense of mission to pay them less than their skills warrant, or to work them around the clock. Others contend that new business models or budget pressures are compromising their independence and interfering with their professional judgment.Increasingly, doctors appear to be expressing both concerns.“We feel like we’re not able to advocate for our patients,” said Dr. Matt Hoffman, another doctor involved in the organizing at Allina. Dr. Hoffman, referring to managers, added that “we’re not able to tell them what we need day to day.”Consolidation in the health care industry over the past two decades appears to underlie much of the frustration among doctors, many of whom now work for large health care systems.“When a physician ran his or her own practice, they made the decisions about the people and technology they surrounded themselves with,” Dr. Robert Wachter, chair of the department of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, said in an email. “Now, these decisions are made by administrators.”Doctors at Allina say that staffing was a concern before the pandemic, that Covid-19 pushed them to the brink and that staffing has never fully recovered to its prepandemic levels.Relatively low pay for clinical assistants and lab personnel appears to have contributed to the staffing issues, as these workers left for other fields in a tight job market. In some cases, doctors and other clinicians within the Allina system have quit or scaled back their hours, citing so-called moral injury — a sense that they couldn’t perform their jobs in accordance with their values.“We were promised that when we get through the acute phase of the pandemic, staffing would get better,” Dr. Walsh said. “But staffing never improved.”Allina, which takes in billions in revenue but has faced financial pressures and recently eliminated hundreds of positions, did not respond to questions about the doctors’ concerns.Joe Crane, the national organizing director for the Doctors Council of the S.E.I.U., which represents attending physicians, said that before the pandemic, he would receive about 50 inquiries a year from doctors interested in learning more about forming a union. He said he received more than 150 inquiries during the first month of the pandemic. (Mr. Crane was with another physicians’ union at the time.)Mr. Crane, citing the siloed nature of the medical profession, said that unionization among attending physicians had nonetheless proceeded slowly, but that the victory at Allina could create momentum.In March, more than 100 doctors voted to unionize at another Allina facility, a hospital with two locations. Dr. Alia Sharif, a physician involved in that union campaign, said doctors were under pressure there not to exceed length-of-stay guidelines for patients, even though many suffer from complex conditions that require more sustained care.Allina is appealing the outcome of that vote to the National Labor Relations Board in Washington; a board official rejected an earlier appeal.Even as rates of unionization have languished among attending physicians, they have increased substantially among medical residents. A sister union within the S.E.I.U., the Committee of Interns and Residents, has added thousands of members over the past few years.Dr. Wachter said this could herald an increase in unionization among doctors outside training programs. “When these physicians finish training and enter practice, they are more comfortable with a world in which unionization doesn’t automatically conflict with their notions of being a professional,” he wrote. More

  • 138 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    Poverty Rate Soared in 2022 as Aid Ended and Prices Rose

    by

    The increase in poverty reversed two years of large declines. Median income, adjusted for inflation, fell 2.3 percent to $74,580.Poverty increased sharply last year in the United States, particularly among children, as living costs rose and federal programs that provided aid to families during the pandemic were allowed to expire.The poverty rate rose to 12.4 percent in 2022 from 7.8 percent in 2021, the largest one-year jump on record, the Census Bureau said Tuesday. Poverty among children more than doubled, to 12.4 percent, from a record low of 5.2 percent the year before. Those figures are according to the Supplemental Poverty Measure, which factors in the impact of government assistance and geographical differences in the cost of living.The increases followed two years of historically large declines in poverty, driven primarily by safety net programs that were created or expanded during the pandemic. Those included a series of direct payments to households in 2020 and 2021, enhanced unemployment and nutrition benefits, increased rental assistance and an expanded child tax credit, which briefly provided a guaranteed income to families with children.Nearly all of those programs had expired by last year, however, leaving many families struggling to stay ahead of rising prices despite a strong job market and improving economy. Overall poverty now looks much the way it did in 2019, with the notable difference that financial hardship has declined among Black households, reflecting higher incomes in recent years.The Share of Children in Poverty More Than DoubledThe poverty rate for those under 18 rose to 12.4 percent last year.

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

    Share of each age group living in poverty
    Note: Data are the supplemental poverty rates, which adjust for geographic differences. The rates also include wage income, taxes and the fullest account of government aid.Source: Census BureauBy Karl RussellOne pandemic program that did not expire was a temporary freeze in Medicaid terminations, a move that allowed the program to cover more Americans than ever. Because of that program, the share of Americans without health insurance matched a record low last year of 7.9 percent. But states are unwinding that temporary coverage, and the uninsured rate has probably increased in recent months.The increasing cost of living added to the challenge last year. The poverty threshold, which is based on the cost of essential items like food and housing, rose sharply: A family of four living in a rental home was considered poor under the supplemental measure if the family’s income was less than $34,518 in 2022, up from $31,453 in 2021.Higher prices didn’t just hit the poor. Median household income, adjusted for inflation, fell 2.3 percent in 2022, to $74,580, as the fastest inflation since 1981 overwhelmed the impact of increased employment and rising wages.“People are working hard,” said Margaret O’Conor, who runs Common Pantry, a small food bank in Chicago. “They’re just not making ends meet, the cost of living is too much.” Rent in particular has soaked up a lot of people’s extra earnings.Common Pantry, like many food banks, had demand explode during the pandemic and then recede in 2021, when people received stimulus checks, enhanced unemployment benefits and the child tax credit, among other assistance. Then, as those programs lapsed, demand began to climb again.“2022 just threw us,” Ms. O’Conor said. “We were not expecting it. I don’t think any food pantry was really expecting it.”The White House, in a blog post previewing the report, argued that more recent data “tell a more optimistic story.” Inflation has cooled in recent months, while the job market has remained strong and wages continue to rise.The hot job market has had clear benefits for those able to take advantage of it. Many workers, especially in low-paying industries like hospitality and retail, experienced significant wage gains in 2022. Supersized unemployment benefits and other cash payments allowed workers to hold out for higher-paying jobs. Income for the poorest 20 percent of households — excluding tax credits and some other government benefits — rose 4.3 percent last year, adjusted for inflation. Income gains also outpaced inflation for the least educated workers.Those effects were more pronounced for women. The share of working women who were employed full time for the whole year reached 65.6 percent, the highest level on record — which also allowed real earnings to fall less for women than they did for men.The story was not as rosy for Americans over 65, for whom the poverty rate rose to 14.1 percent, despite an 8.7 percent cost-of-living increase in Social Security payments. Labor force participation among older people remains depressed, as many lost jobs and have had a difficult time re-entering the workplace.“People became more isolated, experienced significantly more health problems,” said Jess Maurer, the executive director of the Maine Council on Aging. “Older people had a harder time coming out of the pandemic, coming back into the community.”Inequality, as measured by the gap in pretax income between the richest and poorest 10 percent of households, narrowed, as most of the decrease in median incomes came from those at the middle and top of the wage distribution. Racial gaps also shrank, as white households lost ground to inflation, while inflation-adjusted income was little changed for other racial and ethnic groups.The “official” poverty rate — an older measure that is widely considered outdated because it excludes many of the government’s most important anti-poverty programs, among other shortcomings — was nearly flat last year, at 11.5 percent, reflecting the offsetting forces of higher prices and increased earnings of low-wage workers. By that measure, the poverty rate for Black Americans was 17.1 percent, the lowest rate on record.U.S. Poverty Increased Last YearThe supplemental poverty rate — which accounts for the impact of government programs — increased to to 12.4 percent last year, surpassing the official poverty rate, which was 11.5 percent.

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

    Share of the population living in poverty
    Note: The supplemental rate adjusts for geographic differences. It also includes wage income, taxes and the fullest account of government aid.Source: Census BureauBy Karl Russell“There has really been this resurgence in terms of the labor market fortunes of Black workers, particularly Black male workers,” said Michelle Holder, an economist at John Jay College in New York. “The most important element for people in my community is can we get a job, and if we can get a job, can we keep a job? And right now, both things look pretty darn good.”But those unable to work, or unable to work full-time, faced a one-two punch of higher costs and lost benefits in 2022 — problems that have continued this year. Increased federal nutrition benefits, one of the last vestiges of pandemic aid efforts, expired last spring. Factoring in the loss of benefits, real income fell for the poorest households in 2022, and inequality rose.“Tight labor markets are incredibly powerful, they’re really important, but they’re not sufficient,” said Elisabeth Jacobs, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute.When a high-risk pregnancy forced Amber Summers to leave her job in rural Southern Illinois in 2021, the expanded child tax credit provided a lifeline. The $250 monthly payments helped cover her mortgage and allowed her son, now 9, to play Little League Baseball for the first time.“It was financial stability and stress relief for our family,” she said.But when the payments lapsed at the end of 2021, the family’s finances quickly unraveled — especially after Ms. Summers’s husband, Tim, contracted Covid and lost his job as a cook. And while both of them have since returned to work, neither is receiving full-time hours, and they are falling further behind on their bills. Opportunities for better-paying jobs are limited in their area.“The child tax credit helped pull our family out of poverty for such a short period of time,” Ms. Summers, 32, said.Congress passed the expanded child tax credit as part of the American Rescue Plan, President Biden’s pandemic-relief package, in early 2021. But while other Covid-era relief programs were always intended to expire once the emergency passed, supporters hoped to make the expanded child credit permanent.That didn’t happen. Faced with united opposition from congressional Republicans as well as some conservative Democrats, Mr. Biden dropped his effort to extend the program at the end of 2021; a renewed push failed again last year. The rise in poverty in 2022, social policy experts said, was the inevitable result of that decision.“Today’s Census report shows the dire consequences of congressional Republicans’ refusal to extend the enhanced Child Tax Credit, even as they advance costly corporate tax cuts,” Mr. Biden said in a statement.Correspondingly, the highest increases in poverty were in the South, where research has shown the child tax credit had the greatest effect, and among Alaska Natives and American Indians, for whom the poverty rate rebounded to 23.2 percent.Critics of the child tax credit and other pandemic aid have argued that the rapid rebound in poverty after the programs’ expiration is evidence that the progress made against poverty in recent years was, in effect, artificial. Michael Strain, an economist at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, argued that programs that offer incentives to work — such as the earned-income tax credit and the standard child tax credit — have led to more sustainable gains.“Yes, this alleviated child poverty, but it didn’t really do a whole lot to encourage self-sufficiency,” he said.Progressives take a different lesson: Government programs succeeded in lifting millions of people out of poverty. An analysis by researchers at Columbia University on Tuesday found that child poverty would have been nearly 50 percent lower in 2022 if the expanded tax credit had remained in place. The programs might also have had longer-run benefits, they argue, but ended before those effects could be seen.“The last few years just illustrated in an incredible way the power of effective government intervention,” said Arloc Sherman, a vice president at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a progressive research organization. “The last couple years, through a plunge in poverty and what is now a record single-year increase in poverty in 2022, have shown that poverty is very much a policy choice.”Margot Sanger-Katz More

  • 125 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Biden Warns That Climate Change Could Upend Federal Spending Programs

    by

    A chapter in the new Economic Report of the President focuses on the growing risks to people and businesses from rising temperatures, and the government’s role in adapting to them.WASHINGTON — The Biden administration warned on Monday that a warming planet posed severe economic challenges for the United States, which would require the federal government to reassess its spending priorities and how it influenced behavior.Administration economists, in an annual report, said that reassessment should include a new look at the climate-adaptation implications of aid to farmers, wildland firefighting and wide swaths of safety-net programs like Medicaid and Medicare, as the government seeks to shield the poorest Americans from suffering the worst effects of climate change.The White House Council of Economic Advisers also warned that, left unchanged, federal policies like fighting forest fires and subsidizing crop insurance for farmers could continue to encourage Americans to live and work in areas at high risk of damage from warming temperatures and extreme weather — effectively forcing taxpayers across the country to pay for increasingly costly choices by people and businesses.The findings were contained in a chapter of the annual Economic Report of the President, which was released on Monday afternoon and this year focused on long-run challenges to the U.S. economy. They came on a day when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a body of experts convened by the United Nations, reported that Earth was barreling quickly toward a level of warming that would make it significantly more difficult for humans to manage drought, heat waves and other climate-related disasters.The White House report details evidence showing the United States is more vulnerable to the costs of extreme weather events than previously thought, while suggesting a series of policy shifts to ensure the poorest Americans do not foot the bill.“Climate change is here,” Cecilia Rouse, the departing chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, said in an interview. “And as we move forward, we’re going to have to be adapting to it and ensuring that we minimize the cost to families and businesses and others.”The report broadly suggests that climate change has upended the concept of risk in all corners of the American economy, distorting markets in ways that companies, people and policymakers have not fully kept up with. It also suggests that the federal government will be left with significantly higher costs in the future if it does not better identify those risks and correct those market distortions — like paying more to provide health care for victims of heat stroke or to rebuild coastal homes flooded in hurricanes.State and local officials, not the federal government, have authority where development happens, so people keep building in high-risk areas, a classic example of what economists call a moral hazard.Johnny Milano for The New York TimesFor example, the report cites evidence that private mortgage lenders are already offloading loans with a high exposure of climate risk to federally backed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It highlights how the federal flood insurance program, which essentially underwrites all home flooding insurance policies in the country, is at risk of insolvency.At a time when administration officials and the Federal Reserve are struggling to stabilize the nation’s financial system, the report warns that home buyers and corporate investors appear to be underestimating climate-related risks in their markets, which could lead to a financial crisis.“Rapid changes in asset prices or reassessments of the risks in response to a shifting climate could produce volatility and cascading instability in financial markets if not anticipated by regulators,” the report says..css-1v2n82w{max-width:600px;width:calc(100% – 40px);margin-top:20px;margin-bottom:25px;height:auto;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;font-family:nyt-franklin;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1v2n82w{margin-left:20px;margin-right:20px;}}@media only screen and (min-width:1024px){.css-1v2n82w{width:600px;}}.css-161d8zr{width:40px;margin-bottom:18px;text-align:left;margin-left:0;color:var(–color-content-primary,#121212);border:1px solid var(–color-content-primary,#121212);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-161d8zr{width:30px;margin-bottom:15px;}}.css-tjtq43{line-height:25px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-tjtq43{line-height:24px;}}.css-x1k33h{font-family:nyt-cheltenham;font-size:19px;font-weight:700;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve{font-size:17px;font-weight:300;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve em{font-style:italic;}.css-1hvpcve strong{font-weight:bold;}.css-1hvpcve a{font-weight:500;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}.css-1c013uz{margin-top:18px;margin-bottom:22px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz{font-size:14px;margin-top:15px;margin-bottom:20px;}}.css-1c013uz a{color:var(–color-signal-editorial,#326891);-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;font-weight:500;font-size:16px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz a{font-size:13px;}}.css-1c013uz a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}How Times reporters cover politics. We rely on our journalists to be independent observers. So while Times staff members may vote, they are not allowed to endorse or campaign for candidates or political causes. This includes participating in marches or rallies in support of a movement or giving money to, or raising money for, any political candidate or election cause.Learn more about our process.To address those dangers, the report offers components for a federal climate adaptation strategy. Its recommendations — some of them already in early stages through existing administration actions — include producing better information about climate risk, helping financial markets accurately price that risk and better protecting the most vulnerable from the effects of climate change.Perhaps the most significant proposal, and probably the most politically sensitive, is a call for Washington to exert more pressure on state and local officials, pushing them to be careful about where and how they let people build homes, businesses and infrastructure projects.That proposal would address a core problem that has hindered America’s efforts to adapt to climate change. When people build in places that are most exposed to the effects of climate change — along coastlines, near riverbanks, at the edge of forests prone to wildfires — state and local governments get most of the benefits, in the form of higher tax revenues and economic growth. But when flooding, fires or other major disasters happen, the federal government typically pays the bulk of the cost for responding and rebuilding.Yet for the most part, state and local officials, not the federal government, have authority over where and how development happens — so people keep building in high-risk areas, a classic example of what economists, including the authors of the report, call a moral hazard.In response, the document proposes using federal funds to change the behavior of state and local officials, by tying that money to state and local decisions. That approach has been tried before, with little success. In 2016, the Obama administration suggested adjusting the level of disaster aid provided to states, based on what steps they took to reduce their exposure to disasters. States objected, and the change never happened.Subsidizing crop insurance for farmers could continue to encourage Americans to work in areas at high risk of damage from warming temperatures and extreme weather, the Biden administration will warn.Mark Abramson for The New York TimesAdministration officials said they were already trying to leverage some spending from the infrastructure law President Biden signed in 2021 to influence state and local behavior. The report suggests much more aggressive action could be necessary.It also proposes a rethinking of the nation’s system of insuring against disasters — moving away from separate localized policies that cover fire, flooding and other events, and more toward a nationally mandated “multiperil catastrophe insurance” system that is backstopped by the federal government.Perhaps most sobering for Washington’s current fiscal moment — when Mr. Biden is battling with House Republicans who are seeking sharp cuts to federal spending and raising anew concerns over the growing national debt — is the report’s suggestion that climate effects could subject growing numbers of Americans to heat stroke, respiratory illnesses and other ailments in the years to come. That could further drive up government costs for health programs like Medicare and Medicaid.The Council of Economic Advisers has begun a yearslong effort to project those climate-related effects on future federal budgets, which it detailed in a highly technical paper released this month.The report released on Monday also included chapters on the economics of child care, higher education, digital assets and more.In reviewing Mr. Biden’s economic record, White House economists dived deep into the issue that has bedeviled the recovery on his watch: persistently high inflation. The report lists several explanations for why price growth has surprised administration and outside economists over the last two years but never settles on a primary driver. It does concede that pandemic relief spending under Mr. Biden and President Donald J. Trump may have played a role, by helping Americans save more than usual — and then begin to spend that extra savings.“If the drawdown of excess savings, with current income, boosted aggregate demand, it could have contributed to high inflation in 2021 and 2022,” the report says. More

  • 113 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Biden Budget Will Propose Tax Increase to Bolster Medicare

    by

    The president’s plan targets Americans earning more than $400,000 a year in an attempt to increase the program’s solvency by 25 years.WASHINGTON — President Biden, as part of his budget set for release on Thursday, will propose raising and expanding a tax on Americans earning more than $400,000 as part of a series of efforts to extend the solvency of Medicare by a quarter-century.In spotlighting his Medicare plans, Mr. Biden is seeking to sharpen a contrast with Republicans and cast himself as a protector of cherished retirement programs — both for his likely re-election campaign and for a looming congressional battle with House conservatives who are demanding steep cuts in federal spending in order to raise the nation’s borrowing limit.The early release of the Medicare proposals, detailed in a White House fact sheet on Tuesday, also underscored the degree to which Mr. Biden has fully embraced the political upside of taxing high earners. That is the case even though administration officials have conceded there is little chance those tax increases will pass Congress.The proposals would affect the so-called net investment income tax, which was enacted to help offset the cost of former President Barack Obama’s signature health care law. They would increase the tax rate to 5 percent from 3.8 percent for people earning above $400,000 a year and expand the income subject to it. Independent estimates from the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center and the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget suggest the changes could raise at least $350 billion, and possibly as much as $600 billion over the course of a decade. White House estimates are even higher: $700 billion in net new revenue over a decade, all from high earners.Mr. Biden is also proposing new cost savings for the government stemming from more aggressive negotiation over prescription drug prices. Those plans are almost certain to be rejected by Republicans, who won control of the House in November and roundly oppose both tax increases and Mr. Biden’s efforts to reduce pharmaceutical prices through regulation.The president’s emphasis on so-called entitlement programs is part of a sustained effort to claim a high ground with voters on both Medicare and Social Security and put Republicans in a difficult position as he clashes with conservatives on spending, taxes and debt.Health Care in the United StatesInsulin Prices: After years of mounting pressure, the drugmaker Eli Lilly said that it would significantly reduce the prices of several of its lifesaving insulin products.The Cost of Miracle Drugs: A wave of innovative medicines promise to cure devastating diseases. But when prices are too high, patients have to hunt for other ways to pay.Medicare: The Biden administration announced a rule targeting Medicare private plans that overcharge the federal government. The change strengthens the ability to audit plans and recover overpayments.‘Hospital at Home’ Movement: In a time of strained capacity, some medical institutions are figuring out how to create an inpatient level of care outside of hospitals.Medicare’s trustees estimate its hospital trust fund will be insolvent by 2028 without congressional action.Many Republicans have long supported cuts to the programs or raising their retirement ages to shore up the program’s finances and reduce federal spending. But others, aware of the potential voter backlash from touching popular programs, have grown wary of embracing the types of changes to the programs that were part of the Republican mainstream a decade ago. Former President Donald J. Trump vowed to protect both Social Security and Medicare and has urged Republicans to follow suit.Speaker Kevin McCarthy recently said he would not seek cuts to the programs in discussions with Mr. Biden over raising the debt limit, though more conservative members of his party are still pushing for reductions.“This debate over entitlements tied to the need to raise the federal debt ceiling has tied the party in knots,” said Larry Levitt, an executive vice president at the Kaiser Family Foundation, a health research group. “And I think President Biden is happy to engage in this debate and put forward proposals to sustain Medicare without cutting benefits or eligibility.”.css-1v2n82w{max-width:600px;width:calc(100% – 40px);margin-top:20px;margin-bottom:25px;height:auto;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;font-family:nyt-franklin;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1v2n82w{margin-left:20px;margin-right:20px;}}@media only screen and (min-width:1024px){.css-1v2n82w{width:600px;}}.css-161d8zr{width:40px;margin-bottom:18px;text-align:left;margin-left:0;color:var(–color-content-primary,#121212);border:1px solid var(–color-content-primary,#121212);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-161d8zr{width:30px;margin-bottom:15px;}}.css-tjtq43{line-height:25px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-tjtq43{line-height:24px;}}.css-x1k33h{font-family:nyt-cheltenham;font-size:19px;font-weight:700;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve{font-size:17px;font-weight:300;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve em{font-style:italic;}.css-1hvpcve strong{font-weight:bold;}.css-1hvpcve a{font-weight:500;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}.css-1c013uz{margin-top:18px;margin-bottom:22px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz{font-size:14px;margin-top:15px;margin-bottom:20px;}}.css-1c013uz a{color:var(–color-signal-editorial,#326891);-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;font-weight:500;font-size:16px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz a{font-size:13px;}}.css-1c013uz a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}How Times reporters cover politics. We rely on our journalists to be independent observers. So while Times staff members may vote, they are not allowed to endorse or campaign for candidates or political causes. This includes participating in marches or rallies in support of a movement or giving money to, or raising money for, any political candidate or election cause.Learn more about our process.Mr. Biden has refused to negotiate with Republicans over the debt limit, though he has said he is willing to discuss fiscal policy more broadly. He repeatedly attacked Republicans on Social Security and Medicare, vowing not to cut the programs and piling on when Republican lawmakers declared them off the table in budget talks.The president’s budget plan seeks to further that message, in part by employing accounting maneuvers to make Medicare appear more solvent by directly dedicating more federal revenues to its trust fund. The budget will dictate that both the new tax increases and the savings from spending on prescription drugs would be used to increase the trust fund that finances Medicare’s hospital benefits. It will also propose transferring the existing revenue stream from the net investment tax to feed Medicare’s trust fund.The White House anticipates that together the changes would total about $1.5 trillion over the next decade, ensuring the fund can pay Medicare’s hospital bills for an additional 25 years. The finances for the part of Medicare that pays for doctor’s visits, which is also projected to grow substantially in coming years, would be unaffected.“The budget I am releasing this week will make the Medicare trust fund solvent beyond 2050 without cutting a penny in benefits,” Mr. Biden wrote in an opinion piece for The New York Times on Tuesday. “In fact, we can get better value, making sure Americans receive better care for the money they pay into Medicare.”For the first time this year, Medicare will begin regulating the price of prescription drugs, using new powers Congress gave it in the Inflation Reduction Act, the tax, health and climate bill Mr. Biden signed late last summer. The president’s budget highlights the substantial savings that the reforms are expected to generate over time.The legislation allows Medicare to regulate the price of certain expensive drugs that have been on the market for several years. It also limits the amount all drugmakers can raise prices each year. Those reforms would save Medicare about $160 billion over a decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office.The changes to prescription drug prices accompanied changes to Medicare’s benefit that will also lower the costs of expensive drugs for its beneficiaries, by capping the total amount they can be asked to pay in a year for all their medicines and by limiting co-payments on insulin to $35 a month.Mr. Biden will propose expanding the drug negotiations by allowing the government to negotiate over a broader universe of medications. The White House estimates that those changes and other tweaks to the drug negotiation provision would save the government an additional $200 billion over 10 years, which it seeks to direct to the Medicare trust fund.The United States pays more than double the drug prices of other developed countries. But lowering those prices is projected to cause less investment in new drug technology. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the drug price reforms that passed last year will mean about 13 fewer drugs in the next 30 years, about a 1 percent reduction. The budget proposal would likely have a larger effect.Democrats cheered the proposals. Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, who chairs the finance committee, called them “proof positive that Medicare’s guarantee of quality health care for older Americans can be secured for the next generation without raising the eligibility age, cutting benefits or handing over the program to big insurance companies.”Mr. Biden did not propose other major new policies to reduce Medicare’s spending on health care in the coming years, according to the fact sheet. His proposal, like his previous budgets, omits a series of policies meant to reduce waste that were featured in budgets offered by Mr. Trump and Mr. Obama. The largest categories of Medicare spending — payments to doctors and hospitals — would be unchanged.Republicans are unlikely to go along. They have tried to overturn the entire Inflation Reduction Act, including the drug negotiations, which some members of the party say will hamper innovation in the pharmaceutical industry. They have also sought to roll back Mr. Biden’s tax increases on corporations and high earners.Mr. Biden’s plans drew mixed reactions from budget-focused groups in Washington on Tuesday. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget said it would “strongly support” the proposals but had reservations over shifting revenues from the government’s general fund to the Medicare trust fund. The National Taxpayers Union, which supports lower taxes and less federal spending, called those shifts “a gimmick, not a real reform.” More

  • 125 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Biden Hammers Republicans on the Economy, With Eye on 2024

    by

    The president has found a welcome foil in a new conservative House majority and its tax and spending plans, sharpening a potential re-election message.WASHINGTON — President Biden on Thursday assailed House Republicans over their tax and spending plans, including potential changes to popular retirement programs, ahead of what is likely to be a run for re-election.In a speech in Springfield, Va., Mr. Biden sought to reframe the economic narrative away from the rapid price increases that have dogged much of his first two years in office and toward his stewardship of an economy that has churned out steady growth and strong job gains.Mr. Biden, speaking to members of a steamfitters union, sought to take credit for the strength of the labor market, moderating inflation and news from the Commerce Department on Thursday morning that the economy had grown at an annualized pace of 2.9 percent at the end of last year. In contrast, he cast House Republicans and their economic policy proposals as roadblocks to continued improvement.“At the time I was sworn in, the pandemic was raging and the economy was reeling,” Mr. Biden said before ticking through the actions he had taken to aid the recovery. Those included $1.9 trillion in pandemic and economic aid; a bipartisan bill to repair and upgrade roads, bridges, water pipes and other infrastructure; and a sweeping industrial policy bill to spur domestic investment in advanced manufacturing sectors like semiconductors and speed research and development to seed new industries.Republicans have accused the Biden administration of fanning inflation by funneling too much federal money into the economy, and have called for deep spending cuts and other fiscal changes.Mr. Biden denounced those proposals, including a plan to replace federal income taxes with a national sales tax, curb safety net spending and risk a government default by refusing to raise the federal borrowing limit without deep spending cuts. Why, he asked, “would the Americans give up the progress we’ve made for the chaos they’re suggesting?”Speaker Kevin McCarthy and House Republicans have not yet released a detailed or unified economic agenda.Haiyun Jiang/The New York Times“I will not let anyone use the full faith and credit of the United States as a bargaining chip,” Mr. Biden said, reiterating his refusal to negotiate over raising the debt limit. “The United States of America — we pay our debts.”But the president also sought to reach out to working-class voters — in places like his native Scranton, Pa. — who have increasingly voted for Republicans in recent elections. Mr. Biden said those voters had been left behind by American economic policy in recent years, and he tried to woo them back by promising that his policies would continue to bring high-paying manufacturing jobs that do not require a college degree to people who feel “invisible” in the economy.“They remember, in my old neighborhoods, why the jobs went away,” Mr. Biden said, vowing that under his policies “nobody’s left behind.”The Biden PresidencyHere’s where the president stands as the third year of his term begins.State of the Union: President Biden will deliver his second State of the Union speech on Feb. 7, at a time when he faces an aggressive House controlled by Republicans and a special counsel investigation into the possible mishandling of classified information.Chief of Staff: Mr. Biden plans to name Jeffrey D. Zients, his former coronavirus response coordinator, as his next chief of staff. Mr. Zients will replace Ron Klain, who has run the White House since the president took office two years ago.Voting Rights: A year after promising a voting rights overhaul in a fiery speech, Mr. Biden delivered a more muted message at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta on Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday.The speech built on a pattern for Mr. Biden, who has found the new and narrow Republican majority to be both a political threat and an opportunity.Republicans in the chamber have begun a series of investigations into Mr. Biden, his family and his administration. They have also demanded deep cuts in federal spending in exchange for raising the borrowing limit, a position that risks an economic catastrophe given the huge sums of money that the United States borrows to pay for its financial obligations.The president has refused to tie any spending cuts to raising the debt limit and has called on Congress to increase the $31.4 trillion cap so the nation can continue paying its bills and avoid a federal default..css-1v2n82w{max-width:600px;width:calc(100% – 40px);margin-top:20px;margin-bottom:25px;height:auto;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;font-family:nyt-franklin;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1v2n82w{margin-left:20px;margin-right:20px;}}@media only screen and (min-width:1024px){.css-1v2n82w{width:600px;}}.css-161d8zr{width:40px;margin-bottom:18px;text-align:left;margin-left:0;color:var(–color-content-primary,#121212);border:1px solid var(–color-content-primary,#121212);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-161d8zr{width:30px;margin-bottom:15px;}}.css-tjtq43{line-height:25px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-tjtq43{line-height:24px;}}.css-x1k33h{font-family:nyt-cheltenham;font-size:19px;font-weight:700;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve{font-size:17px;font-weight:300;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve em{font-style:italic;}.css-1hvpcve strong{font-weight:bold;}.css-1hvpcve a{font-weight:500;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}.css-1c013uz{margin-top:18px;margin-bottom:22px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz{font-size:14px;margin-top:15px;margin-bottom:20px;}}.css-1c013uz a{color:var(–color-signal-editorial,#326891);-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;font-weight:500;font-size:16px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz a{font-size:13px;}}.css-1c013uz a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}How Times reporters cover politics. We rely on our journalists to be independent observers. So while Times staff members may vote, they are not allowed to endorse or campaign for candidates or political causes. This includes participating in marches or rallies in support of a movement or giving money to, or raising money for, any political candidate or election cause.Learn more about our process.But Mr. Biden, who is facing a divided Congress for the first time in his presidency, is increasingly acting as if the newly empowered conservatives have given him a political opening on economic policy. As he prepares for a likely re-election bid in 2024, he is seizing on the least popular proposals floated by House members to cast himself as a champion of the working class, retirees and economic progress.Mr. Biden’s speech on Thursday waded deep into policy details, including the acreage of western timber burned in fires linked to climate change, the global breakdown of advanced chip production and the average salary of new manufacturing jobs, as he recounted his legislative accomplishments.House Republicans have not yet released a detailed or unified economic agenda, and they have not made a clear set of demands for raising the debt limit, though they largely agree that Mr. Biden must accept significant spending curbs.But members and factions of the Republican conference have pushed for votes on a variety of proposals that have little support among voters, including raising the retirement age for Social Security and Medicare and replacing the federal income tax with a national sales tax.Mr. Biden has sought to brand the entire Republican Party with those proposals, even though it is not clear if the measures have majority support in the conference or will ever come to a vote. Former President Donald J. Trump, who has already announced his 2024 bid for the White House, has urged Republicans not to touch the safety-net programs. Other party leaders have urged Republicans not to rule out those cuts. “We should not draw lines in the sand or dismiss any option out of hand, but instead seriously discuss the trade-offs of proposals,” Senator Michael D. Crapo of Idaho, the top Republican on the Finance Committee, wrote in an opinion piece for Fox News, in which he called for Mr. Biden to negotiate over raising the debt limit.Representative Kevin Hern, Republican of Oklahoma, who sits on the House Ways and Means Committee, told a tax conference in Washington this week that there are “lots of problems” with the plan to replace the income tax with a so-called fair tax on consumption. Those include incentives for policymakers to allow prices to rise rapidly in the economy in order to generate more revenue from the sales tax, he noted.“Let’s just say it’s going to be very interesting,” Mr. Hern said at the D.C. Bar Taxation Community’s annual tax conference. “I haven’t found a Ways and Means member that’s for it.”Despite those internal disagreements, Mr. Biden has been happy to pick and choose unpopular Republican ideas and frame them as the true contrast to his economic agenda. He has pointedly refused to cut safety-net programs and threatened to veto such efforts.“The president is building an economy from the bottom up and the middle out, and protecting Social Security and Medicare,” Karine Jean-Pierre, the White House press secretary, told reporters this week. “Republicans want to cut Social Security, want to cut Medicare — programs Americans have earned, have paid in — and impose a 30 percent national sales tax that will increase taxes on working families. That is what they have said they want to do, and that is clearly their plan.”The focus on Republicans has allowed Mr. Biden to divert the economic conversation from inflation, which hit 40-year highs last year but receded in the past several months, though it remains above historical norms. On Thursday, he chided Republicans for a vote to reduce funding for I.R.S. enforcement against wealthy tax cheats — a move the Congressional Budget Office says would add to the budget deficit, and which Mr. Biden cast as inflationary.“They campaigned on inflation,” Mr. Biden said. “They didn’t say if elected, they planned to make it worse.”Progressive groups see an opportunity for Mr. Biden to score political points and define the economic issue before the 2024 campaign begins in earnest. That is in part because polls suggest Americans have little appetite for Social Security or Medicare cuts, and have far less focus on the national debt than House Republicans do.“It is a political gift,” said Lindsay Owens, the executive director of the Groundwork Collaborative, a liberal nonprofit in Washington. More

  • 138 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    Biden Tries to Reassure Voters on Health Care Costs Before Election

    by

    At an event in Southern California, the president says his administration is working to keep costs down and warns that Republicans will drive prices higher if they gain power.LOS ANGELES — President Biden on Friday tried to reassure Americans stung by high inflation that his administration was working to keep health care costs down, promising a community college audience in Southern California that he was committed to doing even more.But his remarks in Irvine, Calif. — the first of two West Coast speeches devoted to health care costs — come just days after government data revealed that overall inflation remains high as voters prepare to go to the polls for midterm elections early next month.Surveys show that Americans are deeply frustrated by the impact of sharply higher prices on their pocketbooks. They are expected to rebuke the president and his party in the elections, with most analysts predicting that Democrats will lose control of one or both chambers in Congress.Speaking to a friendly audience, Mr. Biden argued that Republicans would drive prices higher if they gained power. He noted their opposition to his efforts to allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices, which he said would force prices down for medication for millions of seniors. And he said Democrats had pushed through price caps on critical drugs like insulin.“If Republicans in Congress have their way, it’s going to mean the power we just gave Medicare to negotiate lower prescription drug prices and other costs over time goes away — gone,” Mr. Biden said, standing in front of signs that said “Lowering Costs for American Families.” “Two-thousand-dollar cap on prescription drugs goes away — gone. The $35 month cap on insulin for Medicare is gone.”The State of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsWith the primaries over, both parties are shifting their focus to the general election on Nov. 8.The Final Stretch: With less than one month until Election Day, Republicans remain favored to take over the House, but momentum in the pitched battle for the Senate has seesawed back and forth.A Surprising Battleground: New York has emerged from a haywire redistricting cycle as perhaps the most consequential congressional battleground in the country. For Democrats, the uncertainty is particularly jarring.Arizona’s Governor’s Race: Democrats are openly expressing their alarm that Katie Hobbs, the party’s nominee for governor in the state, is fumbling a chance to defeat Kari Lake in one of the most closely watched races.Herschel Walker: The Republican Senate nominee in Georgia reportedly paid for an ex-girlfriend’s abortion, but members of his party have learned to tolerate his behavior.Mr. Biden’s three-state, four-day trip is also intended to boost the fortunes of Democratic candidates by using the presidential bully pulpit to highlight the party’s accomplishments. On Wednesday in Colorado, he stood next to Michael Bennet, one of the state’s two Democratic senators, to announce a new national monument — a key campaign promise for the embattled lawmaker.In Los Angeles on Thursday, Mr. Biden hailed the use of money from his infrastructure legislation to help complete a new subway line. During his remarks, he made certain to single out Representative Karen Bass, a Democrat who had fought for a provision that directs jobs on the project to local workers.“Local workers can be first in line for these jobs thanks to Karen,” Mr. Biden said. “I really mean it, Karen. Thank you very much.”At the community college in Irvine, Mr. Biden focused his attention on health care — and on Representative Katie Porter, a two-term Democrat running for re-election in a key swing district in Orange County.Ms. Porter, who is facing Scott Baugh, a Republican former state assemblyman, pushed for the drug pricing measure. At the event on Friday, Mr. Biden singled her out, crediting the success of Democratic legislation to her efforts to fight on behalf of her constituents..css-1v2n82w{max-width:600px;width:calc(100% – 40px);margin-top:20px;margin-bottom:25px;height:auto;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;font-family:nyt-franklin;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1v2n82w{margin-left:20px;margin-right:20px;}}@media only screen and (min-width:1024px){.css-1v2n82w{width:600px;}}.css-161d8zr{width:40px;margin-bottom:18px;text-align:left;margin-left:0;color:var(–color-content-primary,#121212);border:1px solid var(–color-content-primary,#121212);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-161d8zr{width:30px;margin-bottom:15px;}}.css-tjtq43{line-height:25px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-tjtq43{line-height:24px;}}.css-x1k33h{font-family:nyt-cheltenham;font-size:19px;font-weight:700;line-height:25px;}.css-ok2gjs{font-size:17px;font-weight:300;line-height:25px;}.css-ok2gjs a{font-weight:500;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}.css-1c013uz{margin-top:18px;margin-bottom:22px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz{font-size:14px;margin-top:15px;margin-bottom:20px;}}.css-1c013uz a{color:var(–color-signal-editorial,#326891);-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;font-weight:500;font-size:16px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz a{font-size:13px;}}.css-1c013uz a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}How Times reporters cover politics. We rely on our journalists to be independent observers. So while Times staff members may vote, they are not allowed to endorse or campaign for candidates or political causes. This includes participating in marches or rallies in support of a movement or giving money to, or raising money for, any political candidate or election cause.Learn more about our process.“That’s why Katie’s leadership and the work of the Democrats in Congress was so consequential,” he said. “Katie, I’m not just being nice because I’m in your district. It happens to be true. No, no. I mean, you’re a fighter. You’re decent. You’re honorable and everybody respects you.”Friday’s event at the Irvine Valley Community College was an official one, not a campaign rally. But Ms. Porter used her time at the podium to assail Republicans.“Every single Republican in Washington voted against patients, against families and against taxpayers,” she said. “In the Senate, Republican politicians voted to limit how much Americans can save on prescription drugs and to prevent all patients from getting insulin. And House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy has vowed that next term it’s his priority to return Big Pharma its unchecked power to charge patients whatever it wants.”She called that a “slap in the face” to the Californians she represents.Republicans sought to portray the president’s efforts to bolster candidates’ prospects as in vain. “Joe Biden is the last person Democrat candidates want to see on the campaign trail,” Michael McAdams, the communications director for the National Republican Campaign Committee, said after the event, noting reports that Democrats recently shifted money away from some California districts to candidates need help more.“His policies are so unpopular House Democrats are being forced to abandon spending in California districts he won by double-digits,” Mr. McAdams said.Friday evening, Mr. Biden was scheduled to fly to Portland, Ore., a liberal community where the Democratic Party would not normally need the help of the sitting president. But Mr. Biden is hoping to help boost the fortunes of Tina Kotek, the Democratic candidate for governor.Although the state has not elected a Republican leader in decades, polls suggest that Ms. Kotek is in a tight, three-way race with Christine Drazan, the Republican candidate, and Betsy Johnson, a former Democrat who is being financed by Phil Knight, the co-founder of Nike. The White House is hoping that a visit by Mr. Biden will help underscore the party’s commitment to her.Republicans predicted that the president’s trip will not prevent their party from grabbing the top electoral prize in the state.“Joe Biden’s disastrous policies continue to hurt Oregon families, and there has been no bigger fan of his out-of-touch approach,” said Kaitlin Price, a spokeswoman for the Republican Governors Association, citing Ms. Kotek, Ms. Johnson and Kate Brown, the state’s current Democratic governor.“This last-ditch effort from national Democrats is proof of their hysteria as they watch Christine Drazan take hold of once deep-blue Oregon that is desperate for change,” Ms. Price said. More