Law and Legislation

Latest story

100 Shares30 Views

How a Government Shutdown Could Affect the Economy

by

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

More stories

  • 113 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Trump’s Trade Agenda Could Benefit Friends and Punish Rivals

    by

    Donald Trump has a record of pardoning favored companies from tariffs. Companies are once again lining up to try to influence him.The sweeping tariffs that President-elect Donald J. Trump imposed in his first term on foreign metals, machinery, clothing and other products were intended to have maximum impact around the world. They sought to shutter foreign factories, rework international supply chains and force companies to make big investments in the United States.But for many businesses, the most important consequences of the tariffs, enacted in 2018 and 2019, unfolded just a few blocks from the White House.In the face of pushback from companies reliant on foreign products, the Trump administration set up a process that allowed them to apply for special exemptions. The stakes were high: An exemption could relieve a company of tariffs as high as 25 percent, potentially giving it a big advantage over competitors.That ignited a swift and often successful lobbying effort, especially from Washington’s high-priced K Street law firms, which ended up applying for hundreds of thousands of tariff exemptions. The Office of the United States Trade Representative, which handled exclusions for the China tariffs, fielded more than 50,000 requests, while the Commerce Department received nearly 500,000 exclusion requests for the tariffs on steel and aluminum.As Mr. Trump dangles new and potentially more expensive tariffs, many companies are already angling to obtain relief. Lawyers and lobbyists in Washington say they are receiving an influx of requests from companies that want to hire their services, even before the full extent of the president-elect’s tariff plans becomes clear.In his first term, Mr. Trump imposed tariffs of as much as 25 percent on more than $300 billion in Chinese goods, and 10 percent to 25 percent on steel and aluminum from a variety of countries, including Canada, Mexico and Japan.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

  • 125 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    How Trump’s Tax Cuts and Tariffs Could Turn Into Law

    by

    Republicans are juggling complex political and tactical questions as they plan their congressional agenda next year.Republicans are starting to sketch out how to translate President-elect Donald J. Trump’s economic agenda into law, putting plans in place to bypass Democrats and approve multiple bills reshaping the nation’s tax and spending policies along party lines.With total control of Washington, Republicans have the rare — and often fleeting — opportunity to leave a lasting mark on federal policy. Some in the party are hoping to tee up big legislation for early next year and capitalize on Mr. Trump’s first 100 days.Much of the early planning revolves around the sweeping tax cuts the party passed and Mr. Trump signed into law in 2017, many of which will expire at the end of next year. Key Republicans are holding meetings about how to maneuver a bill extending the tax cuts through the Senate, while others are consulting economists for ideas to offset their roughly $4 trillion cost.Several questions loom over the Republican effort. They range from how fast the party should move next year to deeper political disagreements over which tax and spending policies to change. The overall cost of the legislation is a central preoccupation at a time of rising deficits. And whatever Republicans put together will most likely become a magnet for other issues the party has prioritized, including immigration.Here’s what to expect.A Difficult ProcessMost legislation needs a supermajority of 60 votes to pass the Senate. But for bills focused on taxes and spending, lawmakers can turn to a process called budget reconciliation that requires only a regular majority of 51 votes in the Senate.Reconciliation is a powerful but cumbersome tool. Its rules prevent lawmakers from passing policy changes unrelated to the budget, and lawmakers are only allowed to use reconciliation a limited number of times per year. Republicans could also raise the debt limit through the process.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

  • 100 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Trump’s Win Shows Limits of Biden’s Industrial Policy

    by

    When President Biden addressed the nation this week after a gutting election, his reflections on his economic legacy offered a glimpse into why Democrats were resoundingly defeated.The efforts by the Biden-Harris administration to reshape American manufacturing were the most ambitious economic plans in a generation, but most voters had yet to see the fruits of those policies.“We have legislation we passed that’s only now just really kicking in,” Mr. Biden said, explaining that a “vast majority” of the benefits from federal investments that his administration made would be felt over the next decade.Legislation enacted by the Biden-Harris administration was designed to pump hundreds of billions of dollars into the United States economy to develop domestic clean energy and semiconductor sectors. The investments were likened to a modern-day New Deal that would make American supply chains less reliant on foreign adversaries while creating thousands of jobs, including for workers without a college degree.But anger over more immediate and tangible economic issues — including rapid inflation and high mortgage rates — dwarfed optimism about factories that had yet to be built. That reality helped topple Vice President Kamala Harris’s campaign and showed the limits of industrial policy as a winning political strategy.In the days since Mr. Trump’s victory, current and former Biden administration officials have been grappling both privately and publicly with why their economic strategy did not prove to be more popular. They have comforted themselves with the fact that inflation has led to the defeat of incumbent leaders around the world, although most of those governments were also struggling with weak economies, whereas growth in the United States remains robust.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

  • 88 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    Trump’s Tax Proposals Face a Fiscal Reckoning

    by

    No tax on tips? Lower corporate taxes? No tax on Social Security benefits?The slew of tax cuts President-elect Donald J. Trump proposed in loosely defined slogans over the course of his victorious campaign will now face a fiscal reckoning in Washington. While Republicans are poised to control both chambers of Congress, opening a path for Mr. Trump’s plans, the party is now grappling with how far they can take another round of tax cuts.Mr. Trump’s ambitions for a second term will ultimately have to compete with the signature accomplishment from his first: the giant tax package that Republicans passed and Mr. Trump signed into law in 2017. Large swaths of that tax cut expire at the end of next year, setting up an expensive debate that could overshadow Mr. Trump’s other goals.“Nobody wants to acknowledge at all the sheer enormity of the challenge,” said Liam Donovan, a Republican strategist. “There’s a reckoning coming.”Unlike in 2016, when Mr. Trump’s victory surprised many in Washington, Republicans have spent months preparing for their return to power. They have been discussing using a fast-track budget process that skirts the supermajority requirement for legislation in the Senate, a tactic that would allow for a party-line passage of more tax cuts if Republicans ultimately keep control of the House.But lawmakers and advisers to Mr. Trump are undecided about how much money they can commit to lowering the nation’s taxes again. The cost of just preserving the status quo is steep. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that continuing all of the expiring provisions would cost roughly $4 trillion over a decade, and Mr. Trump’s campaign proposals could add trillions more to the debt.In interviews before the election, some Republicans said the party would have to show some fiscal discipline.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

  • 88 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    Alabama Prison Labor Program Faces Legal Challenges

    by

    In the back of a nondescript industrial park on the outskirts of Montgomery, Ala., past the corner of Eastern Boulevard and Plantation Way, there is a manufacturing plant run by Ju-Young, a car-part supplier for Hyundai. On a Tuesday in May, about half of the workers there — roughly 20 — were prisoners.Listen to this article with reporter commentaryThey were contracted to the company by the Alabama Department of Corrections as part of a “work-release” day labor program for inmates who, according to the state, have shown enough trustworthiness to work outside prison walls, alongside free citizens.The inmates bused there by the state make up just one crop of the thousands of imprisoned people sent to work for private businesses — who risk disciplinary action if they refuse.Sitting against a chain-link fence under the shade of a tree in the company parking lot, commiserating over small talk and cigarettes with fellow assembly workers, one of the imprisoned men, Carlos Anderson, argued that his predicament was simple. He could work a 40-hour week, at $12 an hour — and keep a small fraction of that after the state charges transportation and laundry fees, and takes a 40 percent cut of pretax wages — or he could face working for nothing at the prison.Under Alabama prison rules, there are thin lines between work incentives, forced labor and “involuntary servitude” — which reforms to the Alabama Constitution in 2022 banned. From the viewpoint of Mr. Anderson and more than a dozen other Alabama inmates interviewed by The New York Times, the ultimate message, in practice, is straightforward: Do this, or else.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

  • 125 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    California Tribal Casinos May Sue to Curb City Card Rooms

    by

    In the sprawl of Los Angeles County, a handful of casinos have operated for decades.There’s the crescent-shaped casino in Commerce, an industrial city off Interstate 5. A warehouse-like gambling parlor in Hawaiian Gardens, a short drive south. Two card rooms in Gardena, a nearby suburb.Beyond being places to gamble and unwind, they have two things in common. They generate a large portion of their cities’ revenue. And their existence may soon be challenged in court by California’s tribal nations.After a multimillion-dollar lobbying battle, state legislation signed into law last month allows Native American tribes, which own some of California’s largest and most lucrative casinos, to dispute the legality of certain games played inside these small, privately owned gambling halls.Tribes have argued that such casinos — also known as card rooms because they have only table games and not slot machines — have siphoned millions of dollars away from them.The new law opened a window until April 1 for tribes to take their case to state courts, where they had lacked legal standing. At particular issue is whether the card rooms offer games considered Las Vegas-style gambling, to which the tribes have exclusive rights in California.A group called the California Cardroom Alliance has said the law puts jobs at risk.Recent legislation allows Native American tribes to challenge the legality of certain games played in card rooms.Stella Kalinina for The New York TimesWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 113 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    How Mizzou Football Is Benefiting From State N.I.L. Laws

    by

    A state law allows high school athletes to earn endorsement money as long as they commit to attending a public university in Missouri. It’s having an effect.In his four-year career as Missouri’s starting quarterback, Brady Cook has thrown for 7,603 yards and 43 touchdowns. He led the Tigers to a victory in last year’s Cotton Bowl. And even after an upset loss over the weekend, his team is in a position to compete for a spot in the College Football Playoff.Perhaps even more impressive is Cook’s real estate portfolio, which stretches from Missouri to Georgia to Texas and includes interests in a half dozen apartment complexes, a medical building and a retirement home. He chose his assets using the business acumen he developed at the University of Missouri, where he will receive a master’s degree in business administration in December. But the financing was thanks to his right arm.“I am not going to tell you what I make,” said Cook, whose name, image and likeness, or N.I.L., deals are estimated to be worth $1.2 million annually, according to several databases. “But I will say that I have learned more about the business of business in the last year than any other time in my life.”The University of Missouri’s Every True Tiger marketing agency distributes money to the school’s athletes.Christopher Smith for The New York TimesIt is the early days of the N.I.L. era, which allows college athletes to earn money from their athletic talents. But more than $1.7 billion is already flooding through this burgeoning economy — 80 percent of it via collectives, which funnel booster money to players.The University of Missouri has created one of the most transparent mechanisms to make sure its student-athletes get paid and paid well, with the help of the state Legislature. Most donor-funded collectives raise a majority of their dollars from boosters, but in Missouri, a state law has allowed the university to create and fund a marketing agency, called Every True Tiger, that distributes money to its athletes.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

  • 138 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    E.V. Tax Credits Are a Plus, but Flaws Remain, Study Finds

    by

    The Inflation Reduction Act was a compromise between competing priorities. Evaluating the law on the effectiveness of the $7,500 tax credit for E.V.s is tricky.A team of economists has taken on a central component of the Inflation Reduction Act: the $7,500 tax credit for U.S.-made electric vehicles.The challenge in evaluating it is that the policy has sometimes conflicting goals. One is getting people to buy electric vehicles to lower carbon emissions and slow climate change. The other is strengthening U.S. auto manufacturing by denying subsidies to foreign companies, even for better or cheaper electric vehicles.That’s why totaling those pluses and minuses is complex, but overall the researchers found that Americans have seen a two-to-one return on their investment in the new electric vehicle subsidies. That includes environmental benefits, but mostly reflects a shift of profits to the United States. Before the climate law, tax credits were mainly used to buy foreign-made cars.“What the I.R.A. did was swing the pendulum the other way, and heavily subsidized American carmakers,” said Felix Tintelnot, an associate professor of economics at Duke University who was a co-author of the paper.Those benefits were undermined, however, by a loophole allowing dealers to apply the subsidy to leases of foreign-made electric vehicles. The provision sends profits to non-American companies, and since those foreign-made vehicles are on average heavier and less efficient, they impose more environmental and road-safety costs.Also, the researchers estimated that for every additional electric vehicle the new tax credits put on the road, about three other electric vehicle buyers would have made the purchases even without a $7,500 credit. That dilutes the effectiveness of the subsidies, which are forecast to cost as much as $390 billion through 2031. “The I.R.A. was worth the money invested,” said Jonathan Smoke, the chief economist at Cox Automotive, which provided some of the data used in the analysis. “But in essence, my conclusion is that we could do better.”How the Environmental and Safety Costs of Gas- and Electric-Powered Cars Stack UpMeasuring the cost to society of carbon emissions from driving and manufacturing, local air pollutants and the danger of crashes, a new economic analysis finds that some gas-powered vehicles are less damaging than electric and hybrid vehicles.

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

    The five least and most costly gas- and electric-powered vehicles
    Averages are weighted by the number of each model registered within each powertrain category. Total costs subtract fiscal benefits from gas taxes and electricity bills.Source: Hunt Allcott, Stanford; Joseph Shapiro, U.C. Berkeley; Reigner Kane and Max Maydanchik, University of Chicago; and Felix Tintelnot, Duke UniversityBy The New York TimesWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More