Law and Legislation

Latest story

113 Shares132 Views

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

More stories

  • 125 Shares93 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

  • 125 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    U.S. Infrastructure Improves, but Cuts May Imperil Progress, Report Says

    by

    A report card from an engineering group found that American roads, ports and other infrastructure got better last year but could be hurt if federal funding is reduced.Increased federal spending in recent years has helped to improve U.S. ports, roads, parks, public transit and levees, according to a report released on Tuesday by the American Society of Civil Engineers.But that progress could stagnate if those investments, some of which were put on hold after President Trump took office in January, aren’t sustained.Overall, the group gave the nation’s infrastructure a C grade, a mediocre rating but the best the country has received since the group’s first report card in 1998. Most infrastructure, including aviation, waterways and schools, earned a C or D grade; ports and rail did better. The group also projected a $3.7 trillion infrastructure funding shortfall over the next decade.“The report card demonstrates the crucial need for the new administration and Congress to continue sustained investment in infrastructure,” Darren Olson, the chairman of the society’s committee on America’s infrastructure, said on a call with reporters. “Better infrastructure is an efficient investment of taxpayer dollars that results in a stronger economy and prioritizes American jobs.”The report, which is now released every four years, has long noted that the United States spends too little on infrastructure. But that started to change in 2021, the group said, thanks to the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which authorized $1.2 trillion in funding under President Joseph R. Biden Jr. That investment is showing results, with grades having improved since the last report, in 2021, for nearly half the 18 categories that the group tracks.But in January, Mr. Trump froze much of the funding under that law and another aimed at addressing climate change, pending a review by his agencies. That halted a variety of programs, including those intended to help schools, farmers and small businesses.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 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    Trump Labor Nominee Lori Chavez-DeRemer Faces Pressure at Senate Hearing

    by

    Asked for her views on pro-labor legislation she backed as a House Republican, Lori Chavez-DeRemer said she would simply serve the president’s agenda.President Trump’s pick as labor secretary faced pointed questions from both parties at her Senate confirmation hearing on Wednesday over her past support for pro-union legislation, an issue that could complicate her nomination.The nominee, Lori Chavez-DeRemer, a former Republican congresswoman, was pressed repeatedly about her stand on the Protecting the Right to Organize Act, known as the PRO Act — a sweeping labor bill that sought to strengthen collective bargaining rights. She was a co-sponsor of the measure, a top Democratic priority that has yet to win passage, and one of few Republicans to back it.Asked if she continued to support it, Ms. Chavez-DeRemer demurred, saying she was no longer in Congress and would support Mr. Trump’s agenda.“I do not believe that the secretary of labor should write the laws,” she told the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, which conducted the hearing. “It will be up to the Congress to write those laws and to work together. What I believe is that the American worker deserves to be paid attention to.”But in response to questions from Rand Paul of Kentucky, one of several Republican senators who have expressed opposition to her confirmation, she said she no longer backed a portion of the legislation that Mr. Paul said undermined “right to work” states, where unionization efforts face stiff legal and political barriers.The unusual nature of Ms. Chavez-DeRemer’s nomination was apparent in the makeup of the audience in the committee room, which was packed with members of the Teamsters union, identifiable by their logo-emblazoned fleeces and jackets. The nominee played up her personal connection to the union on Wednesday, saying in her opening statement, “My journey is rooted in the values instilled by my father, a proud Teamster who worked tirelessly for over 30 years.”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 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    Federal Debt Is Now Worrying Even Progressives

    by

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

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

    Source: Office of Management and BudgetBy The New York TimesWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 75 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    What Did Trump’s Tax Cuts Do?

    by

    Economic upheaval caused by the pandemic has clouded analysts’ ability to understand the effects of the 2017 tax law. Republicans call it a huge success and want to extend it anyway.Seven years ago, when Republicans passed the most significant overhaul of the tax code in a generation, they were sure the law would supercharge investment, raise wages and shift the American economy into a higher gear.So did it?The answer, at least for now, is largely lost to history.A pandemic and a surge in inflation convulsed the global economy not long after the law passed in 2017, scrambling the data that analysts would have typically relied on to draw conclusions about whether the tax cuts helped the economy grow the way Republicans had promised.As a result, policymakers in Washington are now relying on only a partial understanding of the law’s past as they weigh committing roughly $5 trillion toward continuing it.“Basically, from 2020 the data is kind of useless,” said Alan Auerbach, an economics professor at the University of California, Berkeley, who counts Kevin Hassett, a top economic adviser to President-elect Donald J. Trump, among his former students.Economists have focused on just two years before the coronavirus pandemic, 2018 and 2019, to measure the law’s consequences for the most important economy in the world. But that’s a limited window for trying to discern whether the tax cuts prompted a cycle of investment and growth that can take years to play out.“In terms of looking at longer-run effects, pretty much just forget about it,” Mr. Auerbach said. “There’s just no way to control for the effects of Covid.”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