Inflation Reduction Act of 2022

More stories

  • 75 Shares159 Views

    in Economy

    After Pandemic Rebound, U.S. Manufacturing Droops

    by

    The pandemic had a bright silver lining for Elkhart, Ind.The city, renowned as the capital of recreational vehicle production, had a surge in demand as cooped-up families took to the highways and avoided hotels. The cluster of manufacturers enjoyed record profits, and workers benefited as well: The metropolitan area’s unemployment rate sank to 1 percent in late 2021, and average weekly wages jumped 35 percent from their level in early 2020.That frenzy, however, has turned to a chill. Dealers, who stocked up on as many trailers and vans as they could, have been discounting them to clear their lots — and new orders have dried up. The area has lost nearly 7,000 manufacturing jobs over the past year, and unemployment is now above the national average. Thor Industries, which owns a wide portfolio of RV brands, saw its sales tumble 39.4 percent from the quarter a year ago.“In 2022, manufacturers overproduced, and you’re seeing some of the impact of that from the staffing standpoint,” said Chris Stager, chief executive of the Economic Development Corporation of Elkhart County. He foresees new projects propelled by recent federal energy and infrastructure legislation, but rising interest rates are taking a toll in the meantime.“It’s not bad, but it’s not what it was,” Mr. Stager said.That’s manufacturing in America in 2023.Factory construction is proceeding more rapidly than at any time in recent memory, heralding what may be a resurgence in domestic production powered by a move away from long, fragile supply chains and by the infusion of billions of dollars in public investment.At the same time, after an extraordinary boom fed by cooped-up consumers, manufacturing is suffering something of a hangover as retailers burn through bloated inventories. Inflation-fighting efforts by the Federal Reserve, which is expected to announce another interest-rate increase on Wednesday, have squelched big-ticket purchases. New orders have been declining since last summer, and a widely followed index of purchasing activity has been downbeat for six months.Working on sponge rubber automotive HVAC drain seals at Colonial.Whitten Sabbatini for The New York TimesManufacturing employment bounced back quickly after the pandemic — which is unusual for recessions — but has contracted for two months. While layoffs in the industry remain low, job openings and hires have sunk from recent highs.“It’s not one of these really concerning plunges, where we’re shedding a bunch of manufacturing jobs, but it seems kind of stalled,” said Scott Paul, president of the Alliance for American Manufacturing. “And I think the longer that lasts, the harder it’s going to be to rev things up.”A bigger question for the American economy is whether this heralds a broader downturn, since cooling demand for goods usually signifies that consumers are feeling financially strained. “Manufacturing is always at the forefront of the recession,” notes Barbara Denham, a senior economist at Oxford Economics.To understand the current slump, it’s important to dissect the manufacturing moment from which America is emerging.For example: Those new manufacturing jobs weren’t all for people making steel coils and oak cabinets. The production of consumable items — including food, beverages, and pharmaceuticals — represented an outsize portion of the job growth from 2020 through 2022. But it tends to pay less well, requires less training and has fewer unions than heavy manufacturing in airplanes and automobiles. And it can disappear more quickly as demand returns to normal.Factory employment bounced back, but is now leveling off Number of manufacturing jobs as a percentage of the total in February 2020

    Source: Bureau of Labor StatisticsBy The New York TimesThe pandemic-era manufacturing boom also didn’t happen equally in all places. States like Nevada, Arizona, Florida and Texas surged far above their prepandemic baselines, while longtime manufacturing centers — Michigan, Illinois, New York and Ohio — have not fully bounced back. That imbalance reflects recent migration trends, as people have moved out of urban areas for more space, more sunshine and a lower cost of living.The factory construction underway is poised to further reshape the geography of American manufacturing, with the largest increases in investment happening in the Mountain West.LaDon Byars, who runs Colonial Diversified Polymer Products, said reinforcing domestic supply chains would be worth the effort.Whitten Sabbatini for The New York TimesAll that new building is propelled by several factors. Former President Donald J. Trump’s trade war raised the cost of importing from China and other countries, while the pandemic snarled ports and idled suppliers, hurting manufacturers who depended on far-flung sourcing networks.In recent months, the war in Ukraine — for which the United States has furnished more than $36 billion in weaponry — has generated more long-term contracts for defense manufacturers, mostly restricted to domestic production.Steve Macias, a co-owner of a small machine shop in Phoenix, said orders from the semiconductor industry have slowed as the demand for home electronics crested. But in the past few weeks, he has been busy serving military clients — because the Defense Department has been getting planes and ships back into fighting shape, as well as refilling empty stores of munitions.“There was a lot of deferred maintenance,” Mr. Macias said. “So you’ve got two things going on — this kind of catch-up, and this war that broke out that nobody was really anticipating.”Finally, over the last two years the passage of three major bills — the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the CHIPS and Science Act — made available hundreds of billions of dollars for the production of items like semiconductors, solar panels, wind turbines and bridge spans. Private funders have rushed to capitalize on the opportunity, even if much of it is still in the planning stages.“A lot of manufacturers are reacting to what they see as a lot of long-term structural factors in their industry,” said Adam Ozimek, chief economist at the Economic Innovation Group, an entrepreneurship-focused think tank. “They’re seeing more demand for domestic production long term. That’s a bet on the future. It’s going to take a while to really translate to employment.”Even when it does, however, that investment might not yield as many jobs as factories with similar levels of output did in the past.Freshly built production lines tend to be more automated and more efficient than those designed in the 1950s and ’60s — which they need to be, to compete with the lower cost of labor overseas. And some companies are adding robots to their plants, given the difficulty of attracting and retaining enough skilled workers to replace those retiring. The median age of workers in manufacturing is two years older than the national median.“These facilities are desperate to try to get the work force,” said Mark Farris, chief executive of the Greenville Area Development Corporation in Greenville, S.C. “And instead, I think they’re convincing the officers of the company, ‘Let’s think about robotics, let’s think about 3-D printing, the technology investment that would take the place of those workers we cannot find.’”Employers’ ferocious need for factory workers is easingManufacturing job openings surged in 2021, but have receded.

    Bureau of Labor StatisticsBy The New York TimesFor businesses that depend on industries related to fossil fuels, the ramp-up in federal investment may just be enough to keep them afloat even as demand shifts to clean energy.Automobile manufacturers are important clients, and Ms. Byars is encouraged as federally funded projects are required to find their parts and raw materials in the United States.Whitten Sabbatini for The New York TimesLaDon Byars runs Colonial Diversified Polymer Products, which employs about 75 people in western Tennessee. The company has survived many cycles of outsourcing and offshoring, making molded rubber products like gaskets and mats for a variety of customers. Automobile manufacturers are important clients, and Ms. Byars knows that demand for parts that go into cars with internal combustion engines will start to wane.She has been encouraged, however, by the number of solicitations she has received as a result of rules that require federally funded projects to find their parts and raw materials in the United States, rather than overseas. It may be difficult and impede progress at first, but she thinks reinforcing domestic supply chains will work out better in the end, just like building new roads.“It takes a while before they get that intersection through — it’s a mess and traffic is backed up,” Ms. Byars said. “And then when they finally open it up, everything works so much smoother and better, and you don’t have the long delays. We might not even see the impact of not being dependent on other countries, and not having the supply chain disruptions, but I do think that’s what the long-term best interest for the American people is.” More

  • 113 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    The Debt Ceiling Debate Is About More Than Debt

    by

    Republicans’ opening bid to avert economic catastrophe by raising the nation’s borrowing limit focuses more on energy policy than reducing debt.WASHINGTON — Speaker Kevin McCarthy of California has repeatedly said that he and his fellow House Republicans are refusing to raise the nation’s borrowing limit, and risking economic catastrophe, to force a reckoning on America’s $31 trillion national debt.“Without exaggeration, America’s debt is a ticking time bomb that will detonate unless we take serious, responsible action,” he said this week.But the bill Mr. McCarthy introduced on Wednesday would only modestly change the nation’s debt trajectory. It also carries a second big objective that has little to do with debt: undercutting President Biden’s climate and clean energy agenda and increasing American production of fossil fuels.The legislation, which Republicans plan to vote on next week, is meant to force Mr. Biden to negotiate over raising the debt limit, which is currently capped at $31.4 trillion. Unless the cap is lifted, the federal government — which borrows huge sums of money to pay its bills — is expected to run out of cash as early as June. The House Rules Committee said on Friday that it will meet on Tuesday to consider the bill and possibly advance it to a floor vote.More than half the 320 pages of legislative text are a rehash of an energy bill that Republicans passed this year and that aimed to speed up leasing and permitting for oil and gas drilling. Republicans claim the bill would boost economic growth and bring in more revenue for the federal government, though the Congressional Budget Office projected it would slightly lose revenue.The Republican plan also gives priority to removing clean energy incentives that were included in Mr. Biden’s signature climate, health and tax law. That legislation, known as the Inflation Reduction Act, included tax credits and other provisions meant to encourage electric vehicle sales, advanced battery production, utility upgrades and a variety of energy efficiency efforts.The proposal does include provisions that would meaningfully reduce government spending and deficits, most notably by limiting total growth in certain types of federal spending from 2022 levels.The bill would claw back some unspent Covid relief money and impose new work requirements that could reduce federal spending on Medicaid and food assistance. It would block Mr. Biden’s proposal to forgive hundreds of billions of dollars in student loan debt and a related plan to reduce loan payments for low-income college graduates.As a result, it would reduce deficits by as much as $4.5 trillion over those 10 years, according to calculations by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget in Washington. The actual number could be much smaller; lawmakers could vote in the future to ignore spending caps, as they have in the past.Even if the entire estimated savings from the plan came to pass, it would still leave the nation a decade from now with total debt that was larger than the annual output of the economy — a level that Mr. McCarthy and other Republicans have frequently labeled a crisis.The Republican plan is estimated to reduce that ratio — known as debt-to-G.D.P. — in 2033 by about nine percentage points if fully enacted. By contrast, Mr. Biden’s latest budget, which raises trillions of dollars in new taxes from corporations and high earners and includes new spending on child care and education, would reduce the ratio by about six percentage points.Those reductions are a far cry from Republicans’ promises, after they won control of the House in November, to balance the budget in 10 years. That lowering of ambitions is partly the product of Republican leaders’ ruling out any cuts to the fast-rising costs of Social Security or Medicare, bowing to an onslaught of political attacks from Mr. Biden.The lower ambitions are also the result of party leaders’ unwillingness or inability to repeal most of the new spending programs Mr. Biden signed into law over the first two years of his presidency, often with bipartisan support.At the New York Stock Exchange on Monday, Mr. McCarthy accused the president and his party of already adding “$6 trillion to our nation’s debt burden,” ignoring the bipartisan support enjoyed by most of the spending Mr. Biden has signed into law.The speaker’s plan would effectively roll back one big bipartisan spending bill, which Mr. Biden signed at the end of 2022 to fund the government through this year. But the other big drivers of debt approved under Mr. Biden that are not singled out for repeal in the Republican bill include trillions in new spending on semiconductor manufacturing, health care for veterans exposed to toxic burn pits, and upgrades to critical infrastructure like bridges, water pipes and broadband.Some of that spending could potentially be reduced by congressional appropriators working under the proposed spending caps, but much of it is exempt from the cap or already out the door. Most of the $1.9 trillion economic aid plan Mr. Biden signed in March 2021, which Republicans blame for fueling high inflation, is already spent as well.The plan squarely targets the climate, health and tax bill that Democrats passed along party lines last summer by cutting that bill’s energy subsidies. It would also rescind additional enforcement dollars that the law sent to the Internal Revenue Service to crack down on wealthy tax cheats. The Congressional Budget Office says that change would cost the government about $100 billion in tax revenue.Taken together, those efforts reduce deficits by a bit over $100 billion, suggesting debt levels are not the primary consideration in targeting those provisions. The bill’s next 200 pages show what actually is: a sustained push to tilt federal support away from low-emission energy and further toward fossil fuels, including mandating new oil and gas leasing on federal lands and reducing barriers to the construction of new pipelines.Republicans say those efforts would save consumers money by reducing gasoline and heating costs. Democrats say they would halt progress on Mr. Biden’s efforts to galvanize domestic manufacturing growth and fight climate change.The plan “would cost Americans trillions in climate harm,” said Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, the Democratic chairman of the Budget Committee. “And it would shrink our economy by disinvesting in the technologies of tomorrow.”Republicans have positioned their fossil fuel efforts as a solution to a supposed production crisis in the United States. “I have spent the last two years working with the other side of the aisle, watching them systematically take this country apart when it comes to our natural resources,” Representative Jerry Carl of Alabama said last month before voting to pass the energy bill now embedded in the debt ceiling bill.Government statistics show a rosier picture for the industry. Oil production in the United States has nearly returned to record highs under Mr. Biden. The Energy Department projects it will smash records next year, led by output increases from Texas and New Mexico. Natural gas production has never been higher.White House officials warn that Republicans are risking a catastrophic default with their demands attached to raising the borrowing cap. “The way to have a real negotiation on the budget is for House Republicans to take threats of default, when it comes to the economy and what it could potentially do to the economy, off the table,” Karine Jean-Pierre, the White House press secretary, told reporters on Thursday.Mr. McCarthy has defended his entire set of demands as a complete package to reorient economic policy. But he mentioned energy only in passing in his speech to Wall Street.The issue he called a crisis — and the basis he cited for refusing to raise the borrowing limit without conditions — was fiscal policy and debt. Debt limit negotiations, he said, “are an opportunity to examine our nation’s finances.” More

  • 100 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    What’s in the House G.O.P. Debt Limit Bill

    by

    Republicans revealed a proposal on Wednesday that would cut federal spending and unravel parts of the Biden administration’s policy agenda in exchange for lifting the nation’s borrowing cap.WASHINGTON — House Republicans on Wednesday unveiled a bill that would cut billions in federal spending and roll back some of President Biden’s policy priorities in exchange for lifting the debt ceiling for one year.After trying and failing to coalesce lawmakers around a budget blueprint of their own, Republican leaders have instead framed the legislation as an opening offer to Democrats and a way to get the White House to come to the negotiating table.Mr. Biden has insisted that Republicans raise the debt limit without any conditions and said that he would not meet with them to discuss spending cuts until they passed their own fiscal plan.Speaker Kevin McCarthy said he would put the new legislation, which Republicans claim would save the nation $4.5 trillion, to a vote next week.Negotiations have so far been frozen, and time is running short: The United States, which has already hit a $31.4 trillion cap on how much money it can borrow, could run out of money to pay its bills as soon as June.That could have catastrophic effects, potentially leading to a global financial crisis and a painful recession in the United States.While the two sides could soon begin talks, Mr. Biden is unlikely to accept few, if any, of Mr. McCarthy’s proposals. Here is a look at what is in the bill.Rescind unspent Covid-19 relief fundsRepublicans proposed rescinding pandemic relief funds that have not yet been spent, which they estimated would return about $50 billion to $60 billion to the government’s coffers.In 2020 and 2021, Congress approved about $4.6 trillion in stimulus funding, which was intended to help the country recover from the effects of the coronavirus pandemic. Most of that money has been spent.But there is some leftover funding for programs that provide grants to health care providers, medical care for veterans, pension benefits and aid for public transit agencies. Some of the programs have unspent money because applications are still open or their funds do not expire until next year. Others, including one devised to help aircraft manufacturers pay for compensation costs, are not expected to use all of their allotted funds.Biden administration officials have pushed back on the effort, since they expect a majority of unspent relief funds to be used before they expire.Speaker Kevin McCarthy said he would put the new legislation regarding the debt ceiling to a vote next week. Haiyun Jiang/The New York TimesCap spending to fiscal 2022 levelsHouse Republicans have long complained that federal spending is out of control, and the conference began the year with the aspiration of balancing the budget in 10 years. But that would require deep spending cuts to popular federal programs, something G.O.P. leaders have been unable to coalesce their conference around. The bill instead aims to assuage conservatives by proposing freezing spending to last year’s levels.That would effectively force budget cuts. As costs of government programs rise with inflation over time, lawmakers would have to cut some programs to stay under the cap. That would require Republicans to identify spending cuts totaling $3.6 trillion over a decade, by their own calculations, and this bill does not outline them. Instead, House Republican leaders are punting those decisions to the Appropriations Committee.One fight appropriators will have to resolve is how to balance the cuts between defense-related spending and spending on other domestic programs, like environmental protection and education. House Republicans in particular have been loathe to adopt any cuts to military spending, but leaving those budgets intact would require steeper cuts to other programs.Democrats have sought to make that part of the proposal politically toxic. They released a memo on Thursday accusing Republicans of seeking to kill manufacturing jobs by cutting government subsidies for low-emission energy technology.Karine Jean-Pierre, the White House press secretary, said in a briefing that the White House was still reviewing the plan but broadly called it unserious and harmful to Americans “who are struggling everyday to make ends meet.”Even if Republicans succeeded in imposing the caps, there is no guarantee they would produce anywhere close to the promised savings. Lawmakers in the future could simply vote to ignore them, as they did frequently with the spending caps that President Barack Obama and congressional Republicans agreed on to avoid a debt default in 2011.Roll back some of the Biden administration’s climate measuresThe bill would undo major parts of the Biden administration’s landmark health, climate and tax law, which Democrats passed last year and named the Inflation Reduction Act.Republicans proposed repealing an array of energy tax credits in the law that aim to cut greenhouse gas emissions, including those that incentivize the use of previously owned electric vehicles and the production of clean electricity and fuel. Republican lawmakers claim the move would save about $271 billion to $1.2 trillion.The Republican plan also includes proposals in a separate energy bill that House G.O.P. lawmakers passed last month to bolster domestic energy production. Although that bill has not passed the Democratic-controlled Senate, it includes provisions that would expand mining and fossil fuel production in the country and speed up the construction of necessary infrastructure by reforming a permitting process that can take up to five years.Claw back funding from the Internal Revenue ServiceRepublicans also vowed to “defund Biden’s I.R.S. army” by rescinding the bulk of new funding that the tax collection agency was given to improve customer service and crack down on tax cheats.The Inflation Reduction Act approved $80 billion in additional funding for the I.R.S., which has been struggling to deal with backlogs of tax filings and answer taxpayer calls because of declining resources over the years.The funding has come under intense scrutiny from conservatives, who claim that they will be used to increase audit rates for average taxpayers. I.R.S. officials have reiterated that they will not raise audit rates above “historical levels” for taxpayers who earn less than $400,000 a year and will focus on increasing compliance among large corporations and wealthy people.Cutting that spending would actually add to federal deficits, the Congressional Budget Office estimated. That’s because the money is projected to help the I.R.S. crack down on taxpayers who do not pay what they owe — bringing in an estimated $200 billion in new revenue over a decade. That revenue would be lost if the funding is taken away.Impose stricter work requirements for food stamp and Medicaid recipientsThe proposal would enact more stringent work requirements for recipients of food stamps and Medicaid benefits, which Republicans claim would help attract more people to the work force and save about $110 billion to $120 billion. Republican leaders backed down from pursuing more drastic requirements after lawmakers who are facing challenging re-election battles in swing districts raised concerns.The measure would make able-bodied adults without dependents who receive both federal food assistance and Medicaid benefits subject to work requirements until they are 55 years old, raising the current age from 49. It also seeks to close a loophole Republicans have claimed that states abuse, which allows officials to exempt food assistance recipients from work requirements.The legislation bill would repeal the Biden administration’s plan to forgive up to $20,000 in student loan debt.Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesBlock student loan forgivenessThe bill would repeal the Biden administration’s actions to forgive up to $20,000 in student loan debt for millions of borrowers making under $125,000 a year. The move would wipe out more than $400 billion in debt, although the Supreme Court’s conservative majority appeared to be deeply skeptical of the legality of the plan ahead of an expected ruling by June.Republicans would also block a second student-loan change the Education Department has announced, which would reduce payments for future borrowers who go on to earn relatively low incomes after college. The department has estimated that plan would cost more than $100 billion over a decade, though the University of Pennsylvania’s Penn Wharton Budget Model pegs the cost at about $350 billion.Raise the debt limit through March 2024In exchange for the spending cuts and policy changes, Republicans would raise a statutory cap on how much the United States can borrow through March 2024, or until the nation’s debt grows to $32.9 trillion.That length of extension would be much shorter than Mr. Biden would prefer, guaranteeing another economy-rattling showdown as the presidential campaign heats up next year.The United States could default on its debt if both parties fail to reach an agreement. That could potentially lead to a financial crisis, damaging economic output and causing a deep recession if the country is unable to pay all its bills on time.The country might not be able to afford salaries for federal workers or Social Security checks, among other things. A debt default could also have global repercussions and destabilize bond markets across the world, since U.S. Treasury bonds are typically seen as one of the safest investments.Christopher Cameron More

  • 113 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    I.R.S. Unveils $80 Billion Plan to Overhaul Tax Collection

    by

    The 10-year strategy document outlines a focus on improving customer service and cracking down on tax evasion by corporations and the wealthy.WASHINGTON — The Internal Revenue Service on Thursday unveiled an $80 billion plan to transform itself into a “digital first” tax collector focused on customer service and cracking down on wealthy tax evaders. The move lays the groundwork for an ambitious 10-year overhaul of one of the most scrutinized arms of the federal government.The effort is a key part of President Biden’s economic agenda, which aims to reduce the nation’s $7 trillion of uncollected tax revenue and use the funds to combat climate change, curb prescription drug prices and pay for other initiatives prized by Democrats.The plan is also at the heart of the White House’s goal of making tax administration fairer. The report indicates that more than half the new money will be dedicated to ensuring that rich investors and large corporations cannot avoid paying the taxes that they owe.The $80 billion is the largest single infusion of funds in the agency’s history and was included in the Inflation Reduction Act, the sweeping climate and energy legislation that Democrats pushed through last year.According to the Biden administration, the investment will yield hundreds of billions of dollars in deficit reduction. But efforts to bolster the I.R.S. have drawn strong opposition from Republicans, who have long accused the agency of improperly targeting them.The report released Thursday was requested by Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen, whose department oversees the tax agency.In a memorandum to Ms. Yellen that accompanied the report, Daniel I. Werfel, the new I.R.S. commissioner, said he would focus new enforcement resources on “hiring the accountants, attorneys and data scientists needed to pursue high-income and high-wealth individuals, complex partnerships and large corporations that are not paying the taxes they owe.”Daniel I. Werfel, the new I.R.S. commissioner, said the agency’s staff expansion would aim to improve its ability to collect unpaid taxes from the wealthy and big corporations.Shuran Huang for The New York TimesThe I.R.S. has about 80,000 full-time employees, about 20 percent fewer than it had in 2010 even though the U.S. population is now larger and the tax system more complex. The agency’s resources have also declined over the years, as Republicans have sought to cut its funding and, in some cases, called for its abolition. The financial strain has led to backlogs of tax filings, delayed refunds, long waits for taxpayers who call the agency with questions and plunging audit rates.In recent months, the I.R.S. has ramped up hiring to improve its customer service capacity and has been racing to complete the processing of old tax returns, most of which were filed on paper rather than electronically.The plan released on Thursday details how the I.R.S. intends to become a “digital first” organization that provides “world class” service to taxpayers. That includes the replacement of antiquated technology and the introduction of systems that will allow taxpayers greater access to their financial information, easier communication with the I.R.S. and new ways to correct errors as returns are being filed.The most sweeping and politically sensitive changes involve enforcement. The I.R.S. plans to introduce more data analytics and machine-learning technology to better detect cheating, and it aims to bolster its teams of revenue agents and tax attorneys so that the agency is not overwhelmed when auditing complicated business partnerships or corporations.The I.R.S. plan repeatedly emphasizes that it will honor Ms. Yellen’s directive that the new money not be aimed at increasing audit rates for taxpayers who earn less than $400,000 a year — a pledge meant to align with Mr. Biden’s promise not to raise taxes on low- and middle-income Americans. The plan echoes Ms. Yellen’s assurance that those audit rates will not rise above “historical levels,” but does not specify the levels, suggesting that audit rates could rise above their existing levels.In a briefing for reporters on Thursday, however, Mr. Werfel said that in the near term, audit rates for those making less than $400,000 would not rise.“We have years of work ahead of us, where we will be 100 percent focused on building capacity for higher-income individuals and corporations,” he said.But Janet Holtzblatt, a senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, said it would be a challenge for the I.R.S. to determine whether taxpayers reporting an income under $400,000 were doing so legitimately, without being able to audit some of them initially. Ultimately, she said, the agency will need to decide on an acceptable audit rate for people under that income level.Mr. Werfel acknowledged that the I.R.S. would have to be alert in instances when taxpayers earn, for example, $5 million in a given year and $399,000 a year later.“We might take a second look at that,” he said.The plan lays out benchmarks for many of its goals, but it leaves unanswered questions.The I.R.S. is in the midst of a $15 million study to determine if it can create its own system enabling more taxpayers to file their federal returns online at no cost. This idea has met resistance from lobbying groups representing the tax preparation industry.The agency has faced criticism this year after the publication of a study that showed Black taxpayers are at least three times as likely as other taxpayers to face I.R.S. audits, even after the study accounted for the differences in the types of returns that each group is most likely to file. The plan includes using data to support “equity analyses” and says a key project will be developing procedures to evaluate the fairness of I.R.S. systems.The Treasury Department said earlier that the investment in the I.R.S. would lead to the hiring of 87,000 employees over 10 years, and has suggested that with anticipated attrition its head count could top 110,000 by the end of the decade. But the operating plan does not give an estimate for the agency’s eventual head count, and Wally Adeyemo, the deputy Treasury secretary, said on Thursday that I.R.S. did not want to be “locked in” to long-term hiring requirements before learning how new technology would affect its staffing needs.Mr. Werfel batted down claims by Republican lawmakers that the I.R.S. would be hiring thousands of armed “agents” to scrutinize middle-class taxpayers and small businesses. He said that only 3 percent of the I.R.S. work force was in the criminal investigations division, which has access to weapons, and that there were no plans to increase that percentage. The plan projects that the I.R.S. will hire more than 7,000 new enforcement employees over the next two years.Despite efforts to focus on technology and taxpayers services, the plan is likely to stoke criticism.Erin M. Collins, the national taxpayer advocate, wrote in a blog post on Thursday that the plan had the potential to transform tax administration but that the money was disproportionately invested in enforcement.“I believe Congress should reallocate I.R.S. funding to achieve a better balance with taxpayer service needs and IT modernization,” Ms. Collins, who serves as a watchdog for the I.R.S., wrote.The report notes that if the agency’s annual funding is curtailed over the coming years, some of the $80 billion might be needed to maintain its basic operations. That would force the I.R.S. to scale back its overhaul.House Republicans in January voted to pare the allocation, and Republican reaction to the report on Thursday indicated that the political fight over the I.R.S. will only intensify.“The Democrats are further weaponizing the most-feared agency in all of the federal government: the IRS,” Representative Mike Kelly, Republican of Pennsylvania and a member of the House Ways and Means Committee, said on Twitter. “Make no mistake — we are using money from hardworking American taxpayers to go after hardworking American taxpayers.”Former Gov. Nikki Haley of South Carolina, a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, said on Twitter, “Does anyone believe the IRS won’t go after middle America?” More

  • 138 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Lawmakers Rebuke Biden for Bypassing Congress in Trade Deal With Japan

    by

    A statement from two Democrats called the Biden administration’s deal “unacceptable,” saying it should have been made available to Congress and the public for review.WASHINGTON — Lawmakers on Tuesday issued a sharp rebuke of a limited trade deal the Biden administration reached with Japan, saying that it should have been made available to Congress and the public for review and that it lacked important protections for the environment and workers.In a statement viewed by The New York Times, Representative Richard E. Neal of Massachusetts, the Democratic ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, and Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon and the chairman of the Finance Committee, called the agreement “unacceptable.”“Without enforceable environmental or labor protections, the administration abandons worker-centric trade policy and jeopardizes our climate work by opening the door for another environmental catastrophe,” wrote the lawmakers, who are the two most powerful Democrats in Congress on trade issues.“Agreements should be developed transparently and made available to the public for meaningful review well before signing,” they added, “not after the ink is already dry.”The Biden administration announced late Monday that it had reached an agreement with Japan over supplies of critical minerals like lithium, cobalt and nickel, which are used to make car batteries. The agreement provides a potential workaround for the Biden administration in its disagreement with allies over the terms of the Inflation Reduction Act, which invests $370 billion to transition the United States to cleaner cars and energy sources.That law has angered some allies who were excluded from its benefits, which include generous tax incentives for companies that make electric vehicles in North America or source material for batteries from the United States or countries with which it has a free-trade agreement. That category does not include Japan or European Union countries.But because the Inflation Reduction Act does not technically define what constitutes a free-trade agreement, U.S. officials have found what they believe to be a workaround. They are arguing that countries will be able to meet the requirement by signing a more limited trade deal instead. The Treasury Department is expected to issue a proposed rule this week clarifying the provisions of the law..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.A fact sheet distributed late Monday by the Office of the United States Trade Representative said that the United States and Japan had promised to encourage higher labor and environmental standards for minerals that power electric vehicles. The parties also promised to promote more efficient use of resources and confer on how they review investments from foreign entities in the sector, among other pledges.In a call with reporters on Monday, a senior official said the Biden administration had consulted with Congress and received input from lawmakers. But the official said the administration had the authority to negotiate limited agreements without submitting them to Congress for approval.Katherine Tai, the United States trade representative, had been expected to sign the agreement on Tuesday.“It’s clear this agreement is one of convenience,” Mr. Neal and Mr. Wyden said in the statement. “As we warned Ambassador Tai last week, the administration does not have the authority to unilaterally enter into free trade agreements.”Administration officials have argued that key members of Congress always intended U.S. allies to be included in the law’s benefits. But other lawmakers have also criticized the Biden administration for sidestepping Congress’s authority over new trade deals, a tactic that the Trump administration also frequently used.In a statement on Tuesday, Representative Jason Smith, Republican of Missouri and the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, said the agreement with Japan did not shift critical mineral supply chains from China.“Equally shameful is the fact that the Biden administration is distorting the plain text of U.S. law to write as many green corporate welfare checks as possible,” Mr. Smith said. “The administration has not been transparent with the American people and has ignored major concerns raised by Congress, including failing to provide an analysis of the effects this agreement would have on American workers.”Representative Dan Kildee, Democrat of Michigan, said on Tuesday that the administration was taking the wrong approach with the deal.“I believe the administration must come to Congress if they want to enter new free trade pacts,” he said in a statement. More

  • 100 Shares169 Views

    in Economy

    U.S. and Japan Reach Deal on Battery Minerals

    by

    While the terms of the deal are limited, the agreement appears to provide a model for resolving recent trade spats between the United States and some of its closest allies.WASHINGTON — The United States and Japan have reached an agreement over supplies of the critical minerals used to make car batteries, a deal that will likely put to rest a contentious issue in the relationship with Japan and could be a model for resolving similar disputes with other trading partners.The agreement provides a potential workaround for the Biden administration in its disagreement not only with Japan, but with the European Union and other allies over the terms of its new climate legislation. The Inflation Reduction Act, which invests $370 billion to transition the United States to cleaner cars and energy sources, has angered some allies who were excluded from its benefits.While the scope of the agreement is limited, the Biden administration has also promoted the deal as the beginning of a new framework that the United States and its allies hope to build with like-minded countries to develop more stable supply chains for electric vehicles that do not rely as heavily on China. American officials have argued that China’s dominance of the global car battery industry, including the processing of the minerals needed to make the batteries, leaves the United States highly vulnerable.According to a fact sheet distributed by the Office of the United States Trade Representative late Monday, the United States and Japan promised to encourage higher labor and environmental standards for minerals that are key to powering electric vehicles, like lithium, cobalt and nickel. The countries said they would also promote more efficient use of resources and confer on how they reviewed investments from foreign entities in the sector, among other pledges.Katherine Tai, the United States trade representative, was expected to sign the agreement Tuesday alongside Koji Tomita, the Japanese ambassador to the United States. The United States and Europe are separately negotiating a similar agreement..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.Ms. Tai said the announcement was “proof of President Biden’s commitment to building resilient and secure supply chains.” She added that “Japan is one of our most valued trading partners, and this agreement will enable us to deepen our existing bilateral relationship.”The deal appears to be aimed at expanding certain provisions of the climate legislation, which offers generous tax incentives for electric vehicles that are built in North America or source the material for their batteries from the United States or countries with which the United States has a free-trade agreement. The United States has free-trade agreements with 20 countries but not the European Union or Japan, and foreign allies have complained that the legislation will disadvantage their companies and lure investment away from them.But since the Inflation Reduction Act does not technically define what constitutes a “free-trade agreement,” American officials have found what they believe to be a workaround. They are arguing that countries will be able to meet the requirement by signing a more limited trade deal instead. Later this week, the Treasury Department is expected to issue a proposed rule clarifying the law’s provisions.President Biden and the European Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, announced after a meeting earlier this month that their governments were pursuing a similar deal. But European officials said that arrangement could take more time to finalize, since the European Union must submit such agreements to its member states for their approval.While the administration argued that key members of Congress always intended American allies to be included in the law’s benefits, some lawmakers have protested these arrangements, saying the Biden administration is sidestepping Congress’s authority over new trade deals.“The executive branch, in my view, has begun to embrace a go-it-alone trade policy,” Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, said last week, as Ms. Tai testified before the committee. Congress’s role in U.S. trade policy “is black-letter law, colleagues, and it’s unacceptable to even offer the argument otherwise,” he added. More

  • 138 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    U.S. and Europe Angle for New Deal to Resolve Climate Spat

    by

    American and European officials are trying to reach agreement on the outlines of a limited trade deal that could help resolve a major rift over America’s new climate legislation.WASHINGTON — American and European officials meeting in Washington this week are trying to agree on the outlines of a limited trade deal that would allow European companies to qualify for some of the benefits of the Biden administration’s new climate legislation, in a bid to assuage a major source of tension between the allies.The governments hope to announce their intention to begin negotiations over such an agreement as soon as Friday, when President Biden is set to meet with Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission, at the White House.American officials have also been carrying out similar conversations with the governments of Japan and the United Kingdom to see if some type of limited new agreement could be struck that would also offer Japanese and British companies certain benefits under the law.At the center of the debate is the Inflation Reduction Act, a $370 billion bill that President Biden signed last year to try to mitigate climate change by transforming U.S. power generation and the car industry. The bill offers generous tax credits to American consumers to purchase new and used electric vehicles, but it imposes tough restrictions on the types of vehicles that can benefit from these rules, in ways that disadvantage foreign carmakers.The law specifies that, to receive a tax credit, cars must be assembled in North America and source the material for their batteries from North America, or from countries with which the United States has a free-trade agreement. Despite close ties, the United States does not have a free-trade agreement with the European Union, Japan or the United Kingdom.The passage of the law has prompted harsh criticism from allies, who say companies in their countries will be penalized. European officials have been particularly outspoken, arguing that the bill comes at a delicate time for a European economy that is already contending with disruptions from the war in Ukraine and skyrocketing energy prices.The dispute has raised the prospect of a subsidy war between the United States and the European Union, and threatened to strain relations at a time when both sides are trying to maintain a united front against Russia.“I don’t think U.S. government officials anticipated this level of pushback and this level of disdain against this massive climate bill,” said Olga Khakova, the deputy director for European energy security at the Atlantic Council’s Global Energy Center. But she said emotions had now subsided a bit. “We are in this mode right now where we want to find a solution.”An electric Volkswagen at a factory in Germany. Despite close ties, the United States and the European Union do not have a free-trade agreement.Jens Schlueter/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesThe rift has set off a scramble within the U.S. government to try to scrape together some type of new trade deal that could be signed with allied governments to allow their companies to benefit from some of the law’s tax credits. With such an agreement, for example, a company based in the European Union could help to supply lithium, nickel or other battery materials for electric vehicles made in North America.A Treasury official said that any new trade agreements would be evaluated during a rule-making process to ensure that they comply with the critical mineral requirements in the legislation. The official pointed to Chinese control over critical mineral extraction as a reason for the need to make the supply chains of the United States and like-minded partners strong.A U.S. official said that the administration had been engaged in ongoing consultations with Congress, and that those briefings, and conversations with unions and private industry, would continue in the coming weeks.The Treasury Department, in a white paper published in December, said that the Inflation Reduction Act did not define the term “free trade agreement,” and that the Treasury secretary could identify additional free-trade agreements for the purposes of the critical-minerals requirement going forward.Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen said last month that the Biden administration was considering limited trade deals focused on critical minerals as a solution, and she suggested that these could be done without the approval of Congress. She emphasized that the intent of the law was not for the United States to steal jobs from Europe and that the law was meant to be aligned with the administration’s “friend-shoring” agenda..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.“I think the word ‘free trade’ was meant to mean reliable friends and partners with whom we can feel we have secure supply chains,” Ms. Yellen said on the sidelines of the Group of 20 finance ministers meetings in India last month. “We’ve been very clear with Europe that this is not a subsidy war.”With input from the Office of the United States Trade Representative, officials from the Treasury Department have prepared a document spelling out what kind of deal would constitute a “free-trade agreement” for the purposes of the legislation, according to people familiar with the plans.It is not clear how quickly the solution could be completed, however, as the white paper said the Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service would seek public comment on “what criteria should be used to identify free-trade agreements for the purposes of the critical-minerals requirement.”In a briefing on Friday, a European official said Europe and the United States could announce by the end of this week a commitment to forge a new limited trade deal, most likely focused on supply chains for critical minerals. Unlike a traditional free-trade agreement, which entails reducing barriers to trade between partners, this agreement would not involve lowering tariffs on either side, and the parties would aim to flesh out the agreement in days or weeks, rather than months, the European official said.“I think the word ‘free trade’ was meant to mean reliable friends and partners with whom we can feel we have secure supply chains,” Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen said at the Group of 20 meeting last month.Aijaz Rahi/Associated PressThe official added that the agreement would need to be legally binding, and would still involve seeking some type of approval from European Union member states. In the United States, the agreement could come in the form of an executive order from the Biden administration, and without requiring the approval of Congress, the official suggested.One irony is that neither the European Union nor the United States is a major source of the critical minerals needed for electric vehicle batteries. But some officials have suggested that the partnership would form a foundation for a group that could be expanded over time to include countries with larger supplies of lithium, cobalt, nickel and other minerals.While analysts said a new deal with Europe could in practice satisfy the requirements of the law, it would not really resemble a free-trade agreement, as such agreements have come to be understood.Free-trade deals are legal agreements that the World Trade Organization defines as covering “substantially all trade” between countries, including a broad range of goods and, typically, services. They usually take years to negotiate and, in the United States, require the approval of Congress.Scott Lincicome, the director of general economics at the Cato Institute, said that the Biden administration’s authority to strike such trade pacts was questionable but that it was unlikely that anyone would try to mount a legal challenge to them.“Everyone in the room knows that this is not kosher, but there’s not really anything anybody can do about it,” Mr. Lincicome said.Political appetite for striking new free-trade deals has diminished in the United States in recent years, in part because of a perception that such pacts have helped multinational corporations move factories and jobs offshore.Efforts to strike expansive trade deals with Europe and a group of Asian countries during the Obama administration fizzled, in part because of that political opposition. During the Trump administration, the United States signed a series of limited trade deals with South Korea, Japan and China that were carried out through executive orders, not by congressional approval.Edward Alden, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, said that the limited deal would mollify the Europeans, and that U.S.-E.U. economic relations were too important “to not allow the Europeans under the tent in some way or another.” But it could escalate complaints from other trading partners, like South Korea, that don’t feel as though their concerns have been taken care of, he said.South Korea already has a comprehensive free-trade agreement with the United States, but it has other criticisms of the climate law, centering on how the current terms exclude electric vehicles made by Hyundai from receiving tax credits. “Once you make accommodations for one, the pressure grows to make accommodations for others,” he said.It remains unclear how Congress will respond. Lawmakers have expressed concerns that the administration is not adhering to the law’s original intent of promoting U.S. manufacturing. Many also disapprove of efforts by the executive branch to bypass congressional authority in approving trade deals.But Democrats may also be sympathetic to the effort to smooth over relations with Europeans, and reluctant to reopen debate over their signature climate legislation. And at least one key lawmaker, Senator Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West Virginia, has said he didn’t realize that the European Union lacked a free-trade agreement with the United States in the first place.Still, the dispute has elicited some criticism that American officials are going to great lengths to mollify Europeans, especially given that the European Union imposes some trade barriers on the United States, like a relatively high tariff on imported U.S. cars.John G. Murphy, the senior vice president for international policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said it was his group’s view that the Biden administration should fight against various E.U. policies that discriminate against American companies “with the same doggedness European officials have brought to their complaints about the I.R.A.” 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