Law and Legislation

Latest story

125 Shares99 Views

Trump’s Big Policy Bill Puts U.S. on Perilous Fiscal Path

by

Among the most expensive pieces of legislation in years, the Republican legislation could reshape the country’s finances for a generation.Washington has not exactly won a reputation for fiscal discipline over the last few decades, as both Republicans and Democrats passed bills that have, bit by bit, degraded the nation’s finances.But the legislation that Republicans passed through the Senate on Tuesday stands apart in its harm to the budget, analysts say. Not only did an initial analysis show it adding at least $3.3 trillion to the nation’s debt over the next 10 years — making it among the most expensive bills in a generation — but it would also reduce the amount of tax revenue the country collects for decades. Such a shortfall could begin a seismic shift in the nation’s fiscal trajectory and raise the risk of a debt crisis.The threat is a reflection of the fact that Senate Republicans have voted to make tax cuts that the party first passed in 2017 a permanent feature of the tax code. That means the growth in the country’s debt, already at levels economists find alarming, would only accelerate as the bill shaves down the country’s main source of money.“We are looking at the most expensive piece of legislation probably since the 1960s,” said Jessica Riedl, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank. “The danger is that Congress is piling trillions of new borrowing on top of deficits that are already leaping.”Historically, lawmakers have been unable to make such a large change in the country’s finances without bipartisan support, helping contain how much debt is added at a time.That is because reconciliation, the special legislative procedure that Republicans used to avoid the filibuster in the Senate and pass the bill along party lines, has long included the requirement that bills cannot add to the debt for more than a decade. But Republicans decided to disregard that rule, relying on an accounting gimmick to argue that the $3.8 trillion cost of extending the 2017 tax cuts is actually zero and therefore they can continue indefinitely.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 Shares109 Views

    in Economy

    Senate Republicans Propose Key Tax Tweaks to House Bill

    by

    Party lawmakers proposed changes to the tax code that could offer the greatest benefit to businesses.Two weeks after the House adopted a sprawling package of tax cuts, Senate Republicans on Monday unveiled their legislative vision proposing a series of tweaks that would primarily enhance the benefits provided to businesses.The legislative text released by the Senate Finance Committee mirrors in broad strokes the effort the House adopted. Both aim to extend a set of tax cuts on individuals and corporations that will soon expire, which President Trump signed into law during his first term and has pushed to expand in his second.But the Senate tax proposal — just one piece of a much larger domestic policy bill — is not identical to the approach that House Republicans clinched late last month. In short, the Senate measure offers bigger tax benefits for corporations as well as older Americans. It would also change the way that party lawmakers aim to deliver on Mr. Trump’s promises to end taxes on tips and overtime.The tweaks could carry vast implications for millions of families and business owners, as Republicans continue to calibrate a costly bill that could alter the trajectory of the economy and shape the nation’s financial health for generations.Here are some of the changes to individuals’ and businesses’ taxes under consideration in the Senate.More generous corporate tax breaksIn a major win for businesses, Senate Republicans proposed to make permanent a set of generous deductions for research and development and other expenses, including machinery purchases. The House proposed to extend these measures, which were set to expire at the end of the year, but only on a temporary basis, as Republicans in the chamber looked for ways to shave costs from their already expensive legislation.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

  • 150 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    Democrats Hate Trump’s Policy Bill, but Love Some of Its Tax Cuts

    by

    There’s an undercurrent of Democratic support for elements of President Trump’s tax agenda, a dynamic that Republicans are trying to exploit as they make the case for enactment of their sprawling domestic legislation.Democrats have no shortage of criticism for the massive Republican policy bill winding its way through Congress carrying President Trump’s agenda. It would cost too much, they contend, rip health coverage and food assistance away from too many people and strip vital support from clean energy companies.When it comes to some of the tax cuts in the bill, however, Democrats have been less resistant. Some of them concede that they would support many of those provisions if they were not rolled into the larger piece of legislation. In recent weeks, they have taken pains to demonstrate that support.Last month, Senator Jacky Rosen, Democrat of Nevada, successfully moved to have the Senate unanimously approve a version of Mr. Trump’s “no tax on tips” proposal. While the effort was almost entirely symbolic — under the Constitution, the House must originate tax measures — it was still an opportunity for Democrats to go on the record backing a campaign promise of Mr. Trump’s that is broadly popular with the public.“I am not afraid to embrace a good idea, wherever it comes from,” Ms. Rosen said on the Senate floor at the time.The undercurrent of Democratic support for elements of the Republican tax agenda reflects the political potency of some of Mr. Trump’s campaign promises, even those that have been derided by tax policy experts. It also suggests that temporary provisions in the Republican bill, like exempting tips and overtime pay from the income tax, could ultimately become long-term features of the tax code.And it helps to explain why Mr. Trump and Republicans chose to wrap their policy agenda into one huge bill. By pairing the palatable tax cuts — including an extension of tax cuts set to expire at the end of the year — with less savory measures, like Medicaid cuts, Republicans can make the political case that anyone who fails to support the bill is voting for a tax increase.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

  • 150 Shares169 Views

    in Economy

    Trump’s Plan to Revive US Shipbuilding Would Take Billions and Many Years

    by

    President Trump and members of Congress want to revive U.S. shipbuilding with subsidies and penalties against Chinese-built ships. But there are obstacles.President Trump and some members of Congress want to revive a depleted American shipbuilding industry to compete with China, the world’s biggest maker of ships by far.It is such a daunting goal that some shipping experts say it is destined to fail. More hopeful analysts and industry executives say the Trump administration and Congress could succeed but only if they are willing to spend billions of dollars over many years.One of the places where Washington’s maritime dreams might take shape or fall apart is a shipyard on the southern edge of Philadelphia that was bought last year by one of the world’s largest shipbuilding companies, a South Korean conglomerate known as Hanwha.“The shipbuilding industry in America is ready to step up,” David Kim, the chief executive of Hanwha Philly Shipyard, said in an interview.But to do that, he said, the yard must have a steady stream of orders for new vessels. And the federal government will need policies that subsidize American-built ships and penalize the use of foreign vessels by shipping companies that call on U.S. ports.Last month, Mr. Trump issued an executive order aimed at revitalizing American shipbuilding. “We’re going to be spending a lot of money on shipbuilding,” he said when announcing the order. “We’re way, way, way behind.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 113 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    Republican Agenda Hits Familiar Obstacle: State and Local Taxes

    by

    A small group of Republicans is threatening to torpedo President Trump’s agenda over the state and local tax deduction, long a headache for both parties.It was perhaps inevitable that the Republican effort to pass a vast fiscal package this year would, at some point, get caught up in the thicket of the state and local tax deduction.After all, the deduction, often called SALT, has long had the potential to cause a political standoff. Many G.O.P. lawmakers abhor it and, in 2017, imposed a $10,000 limit on the amount of state and local taxes Americans can write off on their federal returns. But to pass a tax bill this year, the party will need the support of a motivated clutch of Republicans who have made lifting that cap the animating promise of their political careers.Those lawmakers, who represent high-tax states like New York and New Jersey where the deduction is cherished, say they are willing to tank the package over the issue. Representative Nick LaLota, Republican of New York, can already visualize voting against the bill.“There’s a green ‘yes’ button and there’s a red ‘no’ button to press. Come time, if there’s not enough SALT in this bill, I’m pressing the red ‘no’ button,” he said. “It is a hill I am willing to stake my entire congressional career on.”Attempts by House Republican leaders to reach a deal with members like Mr. LaLota yielded little progress this week, leaving the issue unresolved as G.O.P. lawmakers prepare to release the first draft of their tax bill next week. Along with Medicaid, the health care program for the poor that Republicans have targeted for cuts, the state and local tax deduction could determine the fate of the entire G.O.P. legislative agenda.That’s because any change to the current $10,000 limit would be incredibly expensive, threatening to swamp the overall Republican budget for tax cuts. Even a relatively modest change, like doubling the cap for married couples, would cost $230 billion over a decade, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. More generous alterations along the lines of what New York Republicans have demanded could surpass $1 trillion.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

    Here’s What 7 Americans Think of Trump’s First 100 Days

    by

    The first 100 days of President Trump’s second term have been a whirlwind of action, with the imposition of steep tariffs worldwide, the detention of immigrants and deep cuts to the federal work force.The New York Times has been talking with a group of voters who all cast their ballots in last November’s election with some trepidation. While they had expressed a range of hopes and concerns about the new administration, they have now seen enough to make some early judgments at the close of the first 100 days. (A recent Times/Siena College poll also found that majorities of voters, even many who approve of the job Mr. Trump is doing, view his first few months as “chaotic” and “scary.”)‘I don’t regret voting for him.’Jaime Escobar Jr., 46, from Roma, TexasAs mayor of the small border town of Roma, Jaime Escobar Jr. was accustomed to assessing whether strategies were working. At this point, Mr. Escobar remained mostly optimistic, but he was still wary.“I’m not saying I’m 100 percent happy with everything, but for the most part, I feel that Trump is tackling the issues that the American voters thought were important,” he said, referring to immigration and the economy. “I don’t regret voting for him.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 113 Shares139 Views

    in Economy

    Lawsuit Challenges Trump’s Legal Rationale for Tariffs on China

    by

    The New Civil Liberties Alliance — a nonprofit group that describes itself as battling “violations by the administrative state” — sued the federal government on Thursday over the means by which it imposed steep new levies on Chinese imports earlier this year.The new filing, which the group said was the first such lawsuit to challenge the Trump administration over its tariffs, set the stage for what may become a closely watched legal battle. It comes on the heels of President Trump’s separate announcement on Wednesday of broader, more extensive tariffs targeting many U.S. trading partners around the world.At issue are the tariffs that Mr. Trump announced on China in February and expanded in March. To impose them, Mr. Trump cited a 1970s law that generally grants the president sweeping powers during an economic emergency, known as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA.Mr. Trump charged that an influx of illegal drugs from China constituted a threat to the United States. But the alliance argued in the lawsuit, on behalf of Simplified, a Pensacola, Fla.-based company, that the administration had misapplied the law. Instead, the group said the law “does not allow a president to impose tariffs,” but rather is supposed to be reserved for putting in place trade embargoes and sanctions against “dangerous foreign actors.”Port Manatee in Palmetto, Fla., on TuesdayScott McIntyre for The New York TimesMr. Trump cited that same law as one of the legal justifications for the expansive global tariffs he announced with an executive order on Wednesday. That order raised the tariff rate on China to at least 54 percent, adding new levies on top of those that the president imposed earlier this year.Mr. Trump’s new order specifically described the U.S. trade deficit with other nations as “an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and economy of the United States.”For now, the alliance asked the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of Florida to block implementation and enforcement of the president’s earlier tariffs on China. “You can look through the statute all day long; you’re not going to see the president may put tariffs on the American people once he declares an emergency,” said John J. Vecchione, senior litigation counsel for the alliance.A spokesman for the White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. More

  • 125 Shares139 Views

    in Economy

    As Trump Squeezes the Immigrant Work Force, Employers Seek Relief

    by

    Businesses that rely on immigrants are pushing for legislation to ensure an adequate, legal flow of laborers from abroad as deportations ramp up.In recent weeks, managers of the nation’s resorts, plant nurseries, fish processors and racetracks started getting very worried.The Trump administration had yet to release a batch of H-2B visas — those available for seasonal businesses that often can’t find enough workers domestically to fulfill demand.Usually, the Department of Homeland Security releases them a few days after receiving more applications than the number of visas allowed for the second half of the year. That cap was reached on March 5, but no announcement came. Industry lobbyists got members of Congress to reach out on their behalf, put on a fund-raiser at Mar-a-Lago and sent a letter urging the administration to continue issuing the visas.“It needs to be done by April 1, otherwise we all get backed up,” said Greg Chiecko, the president of the Outdoor Amusement Business Association, which represents traveling carnival producers. “We’ve heard that they’re going to, but they’re being very deliberate in waiting a little bit.”Finally, last Wednesday, a news release announced that the visas would continue to flow, allowing businesses that banked on having them for the summer to move forward with their plans.But the anxiety reflected a deep uncertainty about where President Trump is headed on legal immigration programs, both temporary and permanent, as the administration ramps up deportations and moves to end the legal status of millions who arrived in recent years. Those actions will squeeze the labor supply that many employers depend on — and they’re using the crackdown to argue for broader channels for people to come and work.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

  • 163 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    They Want More Babies. Now They Have Friends in the Trump White House.

    by

    The American conservative movement has long worked to put the nuclear family at the center of cultural and economic life. Lately, it has added a twist. It wants to make those families bigger.As fertility rates have declined, a “pronatalist” cluster on the right wing has been making the argument that public policy should encourage more childbearing. With President Trump’s return to office, this group appears to have gotten closer to the center of power than ever before.Broadly speaking, they want measures like more support for families with several children; speedier and cheaper options for higher education that would allow Americans to start procreating earlier; help for those having trouble conceiving; and initiatives that elevate childbearing to a national service.Steps like the move by Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, a father of nine, to direct federal funds toward places with high marriage rates and birthrates are exactly what many have in mind.Movement on their priorities, however, has been slow. And in some cases, pronatalists have found the White House’s actions counterproductive.“So much has happened, and so much has been such a mixed bag,” said Patrick Brown, a fellow at the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center who is focused on family policy. “That’s going to be the tension, that angel on one shoulder and the devil on the other. At this stage, the devil seems to be winning out.”Fertility Rates Are Falling Across the WorldBut faster in some countries than in others.

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

    The average number of children born to a woman in select countries and regions
    E.U. refers to European Union countries, even before the bloc was formed.Source: The World BankBy 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