Law and Legislation

More stories

  • 88 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    Republican Votes Helped Washington Pile Up Debt

    by

    As they escalate a debt-limit standoff, House Republicans blame President Biden’s spending bills for an increase in deficits. Voting records show otherwise.WASHINGTON — President Biden will submit his latest budget request to Congress on Thursday, offering what his administration says will be $2 trillion in plans to reduce deficits and future growth of the national debt.Republicans, who are demanding deep spending cuts in exchange for raising the nation’s borrowing cap, will almost certainly greet that proposal with a familiar refrain: Mr. Biden and his party are to blame for ballooning the debt.But an analysis of House and Senate voting records, and of fiscal estimates of legislation prepared by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, shows that Republicans bear at least equal blame as Democrats for the biggest drivers of federal debt growth that passed Congress over the last two presidential administrations.The national debt has grown to $31.4 trillion from just under $6 trillion in 2000, bumping against the statutory limit on federal borrowing. That increase, which spanned the presidential administrations of two Republicans and two Democrats, has been fueled by tax cuts, wars, economic stimulus and the growing costs of retirement and health programs. Since 2017, when Donald J. Trump took the White House, Republicans and Democrats in Congress have joined together to pass a series of spending increases and tax cuts that the budget office projects will add trillions to the debt.The analysis is based on the forecasts that the C.B.O. regularly issues for the federal budget. They include descriptions of newly passed legislation that affects spending, revenues and deficits, tallying the costs of those new laws over the course of a decade. Going back to the start of Mr. Trump’s tenure, those reports highlight 13 new laws that, by the C.B.O.’s projections, will combine to add more than $11.5 trillion to the debt.Nearly three-quarters of that new debt was approved in bills that gained the support of a majority of Republicans in at least one chamber of Congress. Three-fifths of it was signed into law by Mr. Trump.Some of those bills were in response to emergencies, like the early rounds of stimulus payments to people and businesses during the pandemic. Others were routine appropriations bills, which increased spending on the military and on domestic issues like research and education.Understand the U.S. Debt CeilingCard 1 of 5What is the debt ceiling? More

  • 100 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    You’re Now a ‘Manager.’ Forget About Overtime Pay.

    by

    New evidence shows that many employers are mislabeling rank-and-file workers as managers to avoid paying them overtime.For four years beginning in 2014, Tiffany Palliser worked at Panera Bread in South Florida, making salads and operating the register for shifts that began at 5 a.m. and often ran late into the afternoon.Ms. Palliser estimates that she worked at least 50 hours a week on average. But she says she did not receive overtime pay.The reason? Panera officially considered her a manager and paid her an annual salary rather than on an hourly basis. Ms. Palliser said she was often told that “this is what you signed up for” by becoming an assistant manager.Federal law requires employers to pay time-and-a-half overtime to hourly workers after 40 hours, and to most salaried workers whose salary is below a certain amount, currently about $35,500 a year. Companies need not pay overtime to salaried employees who make above that amount if they are bona fide managers.Many employers say managers who earn relatively modest salaries have genuine responsibility and opportunities to advance. The National Retail Federation, a trade group, has written that such management positions are “key steps on the ladder of professional success, especially for many individuals who do not have college degrees.”But according to a recent paper by three academics, Lauren Cohen, Umit Gurun and N. Bugra Ozel, many companies provide salaries just above the federal cutoff to frontline workers and mislabel them as managers to deny them overtime.Because the legal definition of a manager is vague and little known — the employee’s “primary” job must be management, and the employee must have real authority — the mislabeled managers find it hard to push back, even if they mostly do grunt work.The paper found that from 2010 to 2018, manager titles in a large database of job postings were nearly five times as common among workers who were at the federal salary cutoff for mandatory overtime or just above it as they were among workers just below the cutoff.“To believe this would happen without this kind of gaming going on is ridiculous,” Dr. Cohen, a Harvard Business School professor, said in an interview.Under federal law, employers are required to pay time-and-a-half overtime to salaried workers after 40 hours if they make about $35,500 or less.Scott McIntyre for The New York TimesDr. Cohen and his co-authors estimate that the practice of mislabeling workers as managers to deny them overtime, which often relies on dubious-sounding titles like “lead reservationist” and “food cart manager,” cost the workers about $4 billion per year, or more than $3,000 per mislabeled employee.And the practice appears to be on the rise: Dr. Cohen said the number of jobs with dubious-sounding managerial titles grew over the period he and his co-authors studied.Federal data appear to underscore the trend, showing that the number of managers in the labor force increased more than 25 percent from 2010 to 2019, while the overall number of workers grew roughly half that percentage.From 2019 to 2021, the work force shrank by millions while the number of managers did not budge. Lawyers representing workers said they suspected that businesses mislabeled employees as managers even more often during the pandemic to save on overtime while they were short-handed.“There were shortages of people who had kids at home,” said Catherine Ruckelshaus, the general counsel of the National Employment Law Project, a worker advocacy group. “I’m sure that elevated the stakes.”But Ed Egee, a vice president at the National Retail Federation, argued that labor shortages most likely cut the other way, giving low-level managers the leverage to negotiate more favorable pay, benefits and schedules. “I would almost say there’s never been a time when those workers are more empowered,” he said. (Pay for all workers grew much faster than pay for managers from 2019 to 2021, though pay for managers grew slightly faster last year.)Experts say the denial of overtime pay is part of a broader strategy to drive down labor costs in recent decades by staffing stores with as few workers as possible. If a worker calls in sick, or more customers turn up than expected, the misclassified manager is often asked to perform the duties of a rank-and-file worker without additional cost to the employer.“This allows them to make sure they’re not staffing any more than they need to,” said Deirdre Aaron, a former Labor Department lawyer who has litigated numerous overtime cases in private practice. “They have assistant managers there who can pick up the slack.”Ms. Palliser said that her normal shift at Panera ran from 5 a.m. to 2 p.m., but that she was often called in to help close the store when it was short-staffed. If an employee did not show up for an afternoon shift, she typically had to stay late to cover.Gonzalo Espinosa said that he had often worked 80 hours a week as the manager of a Jack in the Box but that he had not received overtime pay.Max Whittaker for The New York Times“I would say, ‘My kids get out of school at 2. I have to go pick them up, I can’t keep doing this,’” said Ms. Palliser, who made from about $32,000 to $40,000 a year as an assistant manager. She said her husband later quit his job to help with their child-care responsibilities.She won a portion of a multimillion-dollar settlement under a lawsuit accusing a Panera franchisee, Covelli Enterprises, of failing to pay overtime to hundreds of assistant managers. Panera and representatives of the franchise did not respond to requests for comment.Gassan Marzuq, who earned a salary of around $40,000 a year as the manager of a Dunkin’ Donuts for several years until 2012, said in a lawsuit that he had worked roughly 70 hours or more in a typical week. He testified that he had spent 90 percent of his time on tasks like serving customers and cleaning, and that he could not delegate this work “because you’re always short on staff.”Mr. Marzuq eventually won a settlement worth $50,000. A lawyer for T.J. Donuts, the owner of the Dunkin’ Donuts franchise, said the company disputed Mr. Marzuq’s claims and maintained “that he was properly classified as a manager.”Workers and their lawyers said employers exploited their desire to move up the ranks in order to hold down labor costs.“Some of us want a better opportunity, a better life for our families,” said Gonzalo Espinosa, who said that in 2019 he often worked 80 hours a week as the manager of a Jack in the Box in California but that he did not receive overtime pay. “They use our weakness for their advantage.”Mr. Espinosa said his salary of just over $30,000 was based on an hourly wage of about $16 for a 40-hour workweek, implying that his true hourly wage was closer to half that amount — and well below the state’s minimum wage. The franchise did not respond to requests for comment.The paper by Dr. Cohen and his co-authors includes evidence that companies that are financially strapped are more likely to misclassify regular workers as managers, and that this tactic is especially common in low-wage industries like retail, dining and janitorial services.Still, lawyers who bring such cases say the practice also occurs regularly in white-collar industries such as tech and banking.When companies are financially strapped or in low-wage industries like retail and fast food, they are more likely to misclassify regular workers as managers, a recent report found.Max Whittaker for The New York Times“They have a job title like relationship manager or personal banker, and they greet you, try to get you to open account,” said Justin Swartz, a partner at the firm Outten & Golden. “They’re not managers at all.”Mr. Swartz, who estimated that he had helped bring more than two dozen overtime cases against banks, said some involved a so-called branch manager inside a big-box store who was the only bank employee on site and largely performed the duties of a teller.The practice appears to have become more difficult to root out in recent years, as more employers have required workers to sign contracts with mandatory arbitration clauses that preclude lawsuits.Many of the cases “are not economically viable anymore,” said Mr. Swartz, citing the increased difficulty of bringing them individually through arbitration.Some lawyers said only an increase in the limit below which workers automatically receive overtime pay is likely to meaningfully rein in misclassification. With a higher cutoff, simply paying workers overtime is often cheaper than avoiding overtime costs by substantially increasing their pay and labeling them managers.“That’s why companies fought it so hard under Obama,” said Ms. Aaron, a partner at Winebrake & Santillo, alluding to a 2016 Labor Department rule raising the overtime limit to about $47,500 from about $23,500. A federal judge suspended the rule, arguing that the Obama administration lacked the authority to raise the salary limit by such a large amount.The Trump administration later adopted the current cutoff of about $35,500, and the Biden administration has indicated that it will propose raising the cutoff substantially this year. Business groups say such a change will not help many workers because employers are likely to lower base wages to offset overtime pay. More

  • 138 Shares169 Views

    in Economy

    Biden’s Semiconductor Plan Bets on Federal Aid to Change Corporate Behavior

    by

    The administration says the conditions it has attached to $40 billion in new subsidies will help U.S. semiconductor makers compete globally. Some economists disagree.WASHINGTON — President Biden’s plan to plow billions of dollars into semiconductor manufacturing represents a sharp turn in American economic policy, one aimed at countering China by building up a single, critical industry. But Mr. Biden is going even further. He is using the money to change how corporations behave.If semiconductor manufacturers want a piece of the nearly $40 billion in aid that Mr. Biden’s administration began the process of handing out on Tuesday, they will need to provide child care for employees, run their plants on low-emission sources of energy, pay union wages for construction workers, shun stock buybacks and potentially share certain profits with the government.That decision is a bet on the power of the federal government to transform private industry. But it is also a distinct break from how the United States has traditionally engaged with corporate America. The president is essentially incorporating disparate policy objectives into a big spending bill that was sold as an effort to shore up a supply of semiconductors critical for the economy and national security.The approach could amplify the effects of the CHIPS Act and other economic bills Mr. Biden has signed into law over the past two years, by accomplishing multiple goals at the same time. Administration officials say the money and the guidelines will drive American industry toward Mr. Biden’s vision of an economy with more U.S. production, better conditions for workers and fewer of the fossil fuel emissions driving climate change.But in testing the limits of a new industrial policy, the strategy may also carry significant risks. Some economists, even some who favor robust federal spending to bolster strategic industries, say Mr. Biden is in danger of drowning his core economic goals.“Everyone acknowledges what we are trying to do here, in trying to make a larger, more globally competitive U.S. semiconductor industry, is a difficult challenge,” said Adam Ozimek, the chief economist for the Economic Innovation Group, a bipartisan think tank in Washington. “We’re making that challenge much harder by trying to accomplish another dozen unrelated things at once.“Advocates of industrial policy should worry that not only is this going to fail, but it’s going to discredit industrial policy for a generation,” Mr. Ozimek said.The Global Race for Computer ChipsU.S. Industrial Policy: In return for vast subsidies, the Biden administration is asking chip manufacturers to make promises about their workers and finances, including providing affordable child care.Arizona Factory: Internal doubts are mounting at Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, the world’s biggest maker of advanced chips, over its investment in a new factory in Phoenix.CHIPS Act: Semiconductor companies, which united to get the sprawling $280 billion bill approved last year, have set off a lobbying frenzy as they argue for more cash than their competitors.A Ramp-Up in Spending: Amid a tech cold war with China, U.S. companies have pledged nearly $200 billion for chip manufacturing projects since early 2020. But the investments have limits.Biden officials say that they are not asking companies to do anything outside their own commercial interests and that the steps they are taking are not meant to be punitive. They are emboldened by the amount of money they have to hand out and confident that companies will accept it with the conditions they have attached. If anything, those officials essentially say, they are not unduly burdening businesses; they are helping them do what is necessary to attract workers and avoid wasting federal dollars.In an interview, Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo repeatedly cast the lack of access to child care as an economic issue and a key contributor to the labor shortages that American manufacturers frequently complain they are experiencing. Entrenched bias against working women has prevented corporations and the government from addressing that issue, she said, in ways that have hurt companies.Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo has described the financial rules for companies that take federal funds as a way to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not wasted.Haiyun Jiang/The New York Times“I am kind of requiring them to pay attention to this because I know this is what they need to be successful,” Ms. Raimondo said.Ms. Raimondo has described the financial rules for companies that take federal funds as a way to ensure taxpayer dollars are not wasted. Requiring companies to share some unexpected upside profits with the government will encourage companies to be accurate and honest with their financial projections, so the department can send dollars where they are needed most. The limitations on stock buybacks will prevent taxpayer dollars from going to enrich company shareholders and chief executives, administration officials say.But after reviewing the rules, industry lobbyists and some economists said they worried companies would be forced to siphon money away from the new law’s central objectives. Several complained that administration officials had not coupled the CHIPS funding announcements with efforts to shrink, not expand, environmental regulations and other government rules covering construction projects..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.“We should be focused on removing regulatory barriers — particularly in the permitting space — and we have to be careful about adding ancillary new requirements that only increase cost and delay bringing production online,” said Neil Bradley, an executive vice president at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a heavyweight business organization in Washington.And some congressional Republicans accused the administration of undermining the intent of the law by trying to force liberal priorities on companies competing for subsidies.Representative Frank D. Lucas of Oklahoma, the chairman of the Science, Space and Technology Committee, said the administration had been “adamant” that the United States needed to incentivize chip production, or else companies would choose to build in other countries that offered more attractive policies.“That’s why it’s troubling that now that the administration has the $52 billion in funds they requested,” Mr. Lucas said, “they’re focusing less on the urgent need for chip production and more on attempting to impose their labor agenda on this critical industry.”For some foreign chip makers, investing in the United States is already provoking concerns about high costs and managerial challenges. And other countries have also continued to subsidize their own chip facilities aggressively, providing a potentially attractive alternative to investing in the United States.Economists largely agree that both the scale and practices of Mr. Biden’s industrial policy are signs of how dramatically the thinking about the government’s role in the economy has changed in Washington.A core reason for that shift is what has happened in East Asia, particularly China, where governments have made frequent use of state subsidies to shore up industries and capture global market share. Since American researchers invented the integrated circuit in the 1950s, Taiwan, South Korea, China, Israel and other locations have invested heavily in chips, helping to push production out of the United States.The U.S. share of global chips manufacturing has now dwindled to just 12 percent. American companies still design many of the world’s most cutting-edge chips; they just manufacture them offshore.Representative Frank D. Lucas of Oklahoma said the administration was “focusing less on the urgent need for chip production and more on attempting to impose their labor agenda on this critical industry.”Kenny Holston/The New York TimesShortages of chips and other critical products in the pandemic helped underscore how reliant the country is on foreign factories. More broadly, U.S. dependence on China for key products like electric vehicles, solar panels, steel and rare earth metals has helped to turn the tide in Washington toward a more interventionist economic policy and dampened concerns about government interference in markets.Both political parties are now broadly aligned behind the use of industrial policy to counter China’s economic dominance. Members of the Trump and Biden administrations, and Democratic and Republican lawmakers, helped create the CHIPS and Science Act, which Congress passed last summer by significant margins.The bill included several strict provisions for companies that receive subsidies, including a ban on using government funding for stock buybacks and dividends and a 10-year restriction on making investments in cutting-edge chip facilities in China. The bill also encouraged companies to offer work force training initiatives and team up with unions and educational institutions.The Biden administration appears confident that the $52 billion carrot it is offering to chip makers, suppliers and research facilities is a big enough incentive for companies to overpower any corporate complaints about the administration’s efforts to influence their behavior. Officials note that some chip makers already comply with some of the requirements in other locations: Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, which is building a new facility in Arizona, provides child care at several of its plants in Taiwan. Chip makers operating in other countries, China for example, may have to go to great lengths to support government initiatives or national security objectives.Chief executives have privately grumbled about the restrictions, but most continue to publicly praise the program. Most major semiconductor makers have already broken ground on expensive new U.S. facilities. Since early 2020, companies have pledged nearly $200 billion for U.S. chip manufacturing projects, many in anticipation of the funding.One of those companies, Intel, said in a release on Tuesday that the CHIPS guidelines released by the Commerce Department were “an important step for American semiconductor companies to be globally competitive and will help to restore balance in the global chip making industry.” The Semiconductor Industry Association said it was “carefully reviewing” the rules but welcomed the Commerce Department’s steps to set the program in motion.Clyde V. Prestowitz Jr., a former trade official and labor economist who has advocated industrial policy, said he was sympathetic to the Biden administration’s goals of maximizing the program’s benefit to the public, rather than company shareholders.“The policy is aimed at ensuring the security and increasing the well-being of all Americans,” he said. “It is not meant to be a special gift to the semiconductor companies.” More

  • 100 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    Labor Board Curbs Gag Rules in Severance Agreements

    by

    The National Labor Relations Board said severance pacts requiring confidentiality and nondisparagement violated a law on collective worker activity.The National Labor Relations Board has ruled that it is generally illegal for companies to offer severance agreements that prohibit workers from making potentially disparaging statements about the employer or from disclosing details of the agreement.The ruling by the board, which has a Democratic majority, overturns a pair of 2020 decisions, when the board was controlled by Republicans and found that such severance agreements were not illegal on their face. It continues the labor board’s worker- and union-friendly trajectory under appointees of President Biden.The earlier decisions held that the severance agreements were illegal only if accompanied by other circumstances making them suspect, such as the possibility that they were being used to cover up the illegal firing of employees who tried to form a union.Still, Anne Lofaso, a professor of labor law at West Virginia University, said the latest decision was limited to rights under the National Labor Relations Act, such as employees’ rights to draw attention to unsafe working conditions, or to engage in other activities that protect or benefit workers as a group.She said an employer could still offer workers a severance agreement requiring them to give up their right to sue over, say, race discrimination under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.In the ruling, issued Tuesday, the board said it was returning to longstanding precedent. The 2020 standard, it said, ignored the fact that a severance package with confidentiality or nondisparagement provisions could on its own “unlawfully restrain and coerce” workers’ labor rights.“It’s long been understood by the board and the courts that employers cannot ask individual employees to choose between receiving benefits and exercising their rights,” the board’s chairman, Lauren McFerran, said in a statement.Charlotte Garden, a professor of labor law at the University of Minnesota, said the 2020 approach had effectively tried to “narrow the rule to situations where an employer was trying to cover up their own previous unlawful activity and prohibit employees from talking about it.” The current ruling, she added, takes a broader view of when employees have the right to speak out.The case involved a Michigan hospital that permanently furloughed 11 union members during the pandemic. To receive severance benefits, they were required to sign an agreement that barred them from making statements that could disparage the hospital and from sharing the terms of the agreement.In furloughing the workers and offering them the agreement, the hospital also bypassed the union, depriving it of a chance to negotiate the terms, according to Tuesday’s ruling.In his dissent, Marvin Kaplan, the board’s lone Republican, argued that offering the severance agreement was illegal because the hospital circumvented the union, but not specifically because of its nondisclosure and nondisparagement provisions.Under Mr. Biden’s appointees, the labor board has moved relatively quickly to reinstate workers who it determines have been fired illegally. It has also issued rulings effectively expanding the financial remedies available to such workers and making it easier for a subset of employees within a workplace to unionize. More

  • 113 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    President Biden Is Not Backing Off His Big-Government Agenda

    by

    In his first appearance before a Republican House, the president renewed calls for large new economic programs and offered no concessions on federal spending.WASHINGTON — There were no economic pivots in President Biden’s first State of the Union address to a Republican House. He did not pare back his push to raise taxes on high earners or to spend big on new government programs. He offered no olive branches to conservatives who have accused him of running the country into crisis with government borrowing.It was a shift from Mr. Biden’s two most recent Democratic predecessors in the White House, who tacked toward a more conciliatory and limited-government approach to economic policy after losing at least one chamber of Congress. But on Tuesday night, Mr. Biden barreled ahead. The president renewed his calls for trillions of dollars of new federal programs, including for child care and community college, over the sometimes raucous objections of Republicans who have centered their fight with Mr. Biden on the issue of spending and debt. He did not name a single federal spending program he was willing to cut. He said he would work to reduce budget deficits, but by raising taxes on high earners and corporations, a position anathema to Republicans.The speech was not a blueprint to pass any of those proposals, which have little chance of becoming law during his first term.Instead, it was a defiant opening bid for a high-stakes clash over raising the nation’s borrowing limit. It was a no-quarter recommitment to a campaign theme aimed squarely at blue-collar voters in 2024 swing states, centered on expanding government in pursuit of what Mr. Biden calls “middle-out” economic policy.Aides say the choice to defy Republicans’ calls for Mr. Biden to change course on economic policy was deliberate, reflecting both the president’s deeply held convictions on policy and his belief that he has found a winning political message.It was also a bet that the economy, which has so far been a drag on Mr. Biden’s popularity, will ultimately prove to be a tailwind in his widely expected re-election campaign. Rapid price gains are beginning to ease, and jobs are plentiful, with the unemployment rate at its lowest point since 1969.Biden’s State of the Union AddressChallenging the G.O.P.: In the first State of the Union address of a new era of divided government, President Biden delivered a plea to Republicans for unity but vowed not to back off his economic agenda.State of Uncertainty: Mr. Biden used his speech to portray the United States as a country in recovery. But what he did not emphasize was that America also faces a lot of uncertainty in 2023.Foreign Policy: Mr. Biden spends his days confronting Russia and China. So it was especially striking that in his address, he chose to spend relatively little time on America’s global role.A Tense Exchange: Before the speech, Senator Mitt Romney admonished Representative George Santos, a fellow Republican, telling him he “shouldn’t have been there.”To that end, Mr. Biden spent much of the speech proclaiming that the American economy is faring better on his watch than his critics — or even many of his voters — concede. He dived into details about laws he has signed to invest in water pipes, semiconductor factories, electric vehicles and more, while promising those plans would bring high-paying jobs to workers without college degrees. He promised consumer-friendly crackdowns on credit card fees, social media companies and more. On Wednesday, Mr. Biden was headed to Wisconsin to promote his economic legislation, while his cabinet secretaries fanned out across the country to do the same.“We’re building an economy where no one’s left behind,” Mr. Biden said in his speech. “Jobs are coming back, pride is coming back, because choices we made in the last several years. You know, this is, in my view, a blue-collar blueprint to rebuild America and make a real difference in your lives at home.”“Here’s my message to all of you out there,” he added later. “I have your back.”Mr. Biden’s approach underscored how he has not regarded the Republican House takeover as a rebuke of his policies..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.It defied the example set by Mr. Biden’s Democratic predecessors after they lost House control in their first midterms. President Bill Clinton promised a new era of smaller government in 1995. President Barack Obama vowed in 2011 “to take responsibility for our deficit” and proposed what he called “painful cuts” to domestic spending.Mr. Biden offered no apology for his policies. He cast himself as more fiscally responsible than his immediate predecessor, former President Donald J. Trump, in claiming credit for a $1.7 trillion decline in the federal budget deficit last year. That improvement was largely the product of expiring pandemic aid programs, but Mr. Biden suggested he would take steps to keep winnowing the shortfall between what the government spent and what it earned through taxes and other revenue. He said his next budget, which will be released on March 9, would further reduce deficits by $2 trillion over a decade.In a sharp contrast with Republicans, he called for raising taxes on corporations and the wealthy as a way to show a commitment to deficit reduction in spite of his spending plans. His proposals included an expanded tax on stock buybacks and what would effectively be a sort of wealth tax on billionaires.He baited Republicans on a pair of politically cherished programs, Social Security and Medicare, drawing sustained jeers when he said some of his opponents wanted to sunset the programs. While hundreds of Republican lawmakers have signed on to plans to reduce spending on the safety net by raising retirement ages and other reductions in future benefits, Mr. Biden’s “sunset” accusation rests on the possible effects of a plan to reauthorize spending programs every five years, advanced by Senator Rick Scott of Florida, which has gained little traction among party leaders.Republicans called the speech a departure from Mr. Biden’s previous calls for unity and a disconnect on major economic issues.“While the president is busy taking a premature and undeserved victory lap, lauding legislation that Democrats passed on a party-line basis, families in West Virginia and America are struggling at every turn because many of the policies and priorities of this administration have made the American dream harder to attain,” Senator Shelley Moore Capito, Republican of West Virginia, said in a release after the address.Mr. Biden’s allies cheered. The president “delivered a bold blueprint for an economy that, at long last, puts working people first,” Liz Shuler, the president of the powerful A.F.L.-C.I.O. labor organization, said in a news release on Tuesday evening.Mr. Biden fashions himself a congressional deal maker, and on Tuesday, he outlined a handful of smaller-scale initiatives on other issues, like curbing the flow of fentanyl and regulating big tech, that might plausibly win bipartisan support in the new Congress. But the speech was not a recipe for economic compromise.The president re-upped calls for big new federal investments in child care and assistance for the elderly, community college, prekindergarten and health insurance. But he offered no plausible road to finishing the job, as he put it, on that long list of proposals, which he was unable to include in the wide array of economic legislation he signed in his first two years because of opposition from centrist Democrats in the Senate.What he did outline was a defiant negotiating posture, as he and Republican lawmakers battle over raising the $31.4 trillion federal borrowing limit, which the United States hit last month. That cap, which limits the government’s ability to borrow funds to pay for spending that Congress has already authorized, must be suspended or lifted later this year in order for the United States to continue paying its bills and avoid a financial crisis.Republicans are refusing to raise the limit unless Mr. Biden agrees to deep spending cuts. Mr. Biden has said he will refuse to bargain over the borrowing cap and on Tuesday night reminded Republicans that they had agreed to effectively increase the debt limit three times when Mr. Trump was president. Despite what both sides called a productive meeting at the White House last week between the president and Speaker Kevin McCarthy, Republican of California, Mr. Biden did not waver in that position on Tuesday.“We’re not going to be moved into being threatened to default on the debt,” Mr. Biden said.Mr. McCarthy, seated behind him, did not look pleased. More

  • 100 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    California Voters to Decide on Regulating Fast-Food Industry

    by

    Pre-empting a law signed last year, business groups forced a ballot initiative on state oversight of wages and working conditions.LOS ANGELES — A California law creating a council with broad authority to set wages and improve the working conditions of fast-food employees has been halted after restaurant and trade groups submitted enough signatures to place the issue before voters next year.Officials from the California secretary of state’s office announced late Tuesday that Save Local Restaurants, a broad coalition of small-business owners, large corporations, restaurateurs and franchisees, had turned in enough valid signatures to stop the law from taking effect.The group, which has raised millions of dollars to oppose the law, had to submit roughly 623,000 valid voter signatures by an early December deadline to place a question on the 2024 ballot asking California voters if the law should take effect.Legislation signed in September by Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, would set up a 10-member council of union representatives, employers and workers to oversee the fast-food industry’s labor practices in the state.The panel would have the authority to raise the minimum wage of fast-food workers to as much as $22 an hour — well above the statewide minimum of $15.50. In addition, the council would oversee health, safety and anti-discrimination regulations for nearly 550,000 fast-food workers statewide.More on CaliforniaA Wake of Tragedy: California is reeling after back-to-back mass shootings in Monterey Park and Half Moon Bay.Storms and Flooding: A barrage of powerful storms has surprised people in the state with an unrelenting period of extreme weather that has caused extensive damage across the state.New Laws: A new year doesn’t always usher in sweeping change, but in California, at least, it usually means a slate of new laws going into effect.Wildfires: California avoided a third year of catastrophic wildfires because of a combination of well-timed precipitation and favorable wind conditions — or “luck,” as experts put it.Opponents including the International Franchise Association and the National Restaurant Association argued that the measure, Assembly Bill 257, singled out their industry and would in turn burden businesses with higher labor costs that would be passed along to consumers in higher food prices.Matt Haller, president of the International Franchise Association, said the bill “was a solution in search of a problem that didn’t exist.”“Californians have spoken out to prevent this misguided policy from driving food prices higher and destroying local businesses and the jobs they create,” Mr. Haller said.Last year, the Center for Economic Forecasting and Development at the University of California, Riverside, released a study that estimated that employers would pass along one-third of labor compensation increases to consumers.But Mr. Newsom, in signing the measure, said it “gives hardworking fast-food workers a stronger voice and seat at the table to set fair wages and critical health and safety standards across the industry.”Mary Kay Henry, president of the Service Employees International Union, a staunch proponent of the measure, assailed fast-food corporations.“Instead of taking responsibility for ensuring workers who fuel their profits are paid a living wage and work in safe, healthy environments, corporations are continuing to drive a race to the bottom in the fast-food industry,” Ms. Henry said. “It’s morally wrong, and it’s bad business.”The effort to put the issue before voters follows a playbook used by large corporations to circumvent lawmakers in Sacramento. In 2019, state lawmakers passed a measure that required companies like Uber and Lyft to treat gig workers as employees. The companies opposed the measure and helped get a proposition on the 2020 ballot allowing them to treat drivers as independent contractors. The measure passed with nearly 60 percent of the vote.The fast-food law has been closely watched by the industry’s workers across California, including  Angelica Hernandez, 49, who has worked at McDonald’s restaurants in the Los Angeles area for 18 years.“We are undeterred, and we refuse to back down,” Ms. Hernandez said. “We can’t afford to wait to raise pay to keep up with the skyrocketing cost of living and provide for our families.”Alison Morantz, a professor at Stanford Law School who focuses on employment law, said what made the law unusual was “its holistic approach to addressing a wide range of problems in a traditionally nonunionized industry — not just low and stagnating wages, but also employment discrimination and poor safety practices.”“If it takes effect, it will be closely watched and could become a harbinger of similar efforts in other worker-friendly jurisdictions,” Ms. Morantz said. More

  • 175 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Climate Change May Bring New Era of Trade Wars, as E.U. and U.S. Spar

    by

    Countries are pursuing new solutions to try to mitigate climate change. More trade fights are likely to come hand in hand.WASHINGTON — Efforts to mitigate climate change are prompting countries across the world to embrace dramatically different policies toward industry and trade, bringing governments into conflict.These new clashes over climate policy are straining international alliances and the global trading system, hinting at a future in which policies aimed at staving off environmental catastrophe could also result in more frequent cross-border trade wars.In recent months, the United States and Europe have proposed or introduced subsidies, tariffs and other policies aimed at speeding the green energy transition. Proponents of the measures say governments must move aggressively to expand sources of cleaner energy and penalize the biggest emitters of planet-warming gases if they hope to avert a global climate disaster.But critics say these policies often put foreign countries and companies at a disadvantage, as governments subsidize their own industries or charge new tariffs on foreign products. The policies depart from a decades-long status quo in trade, in which the United States and Europe often joined forces through the World Trade Organization to try to knock down trade barriers and encourage countries to treat one another’s products more equally to boost global commerce.Now, new policies are pitting close allies against one another and widening fractures in an already fragile system of global trade governance, as countries try to contend with the existential challenge of climate change.“The climate crisis requires economic transformation at a scale and speed humanity has never attempted in our 5,000 years of written history,” said Todd N. Tucker, the director of industrial policy and trade at the Roosevelt Institute, who is an advocate for some of the measures. “Unsurprisingly, a task of this magnitude will require a new policy tool kit.”The current system of global trade funnels tens of millions of shipping containers stuffed with couches, clothing and car parts from foreign factories to the United States each year, often at astonishingly low prices. But the prices that consumers pay for these goods do not take into account the environmental harm generated by the far-off factories that make them, or by the container ships and cargo planes that carry them across the ocean.A factory in Chengde, China. U.S. officials believe they must lessen a dangerous dependence on goods from China.Fred Dufour/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesAmerican and European officials argue that more needs to be done to discourage trade in products made with more pollution or carbon emissions. And U.S. officials believe they must lessen a dangerous dependence on China in particular for the materials needed to power the green energy transition, like solar panels and electric vehicle batteries.The Biden administration is putting in place generous subsidies to encourage the production of clean energy technology in the United States, such as tax credits for consumers who buy American-made clean cars and companies building new plants for solar and wind power equipment. Both the United States and Europe are introducing taxes and tariffs aimed at encouraging less environmentally harmful ways of producing goods.Biden administration officials have expressed hopes that the climate transition could be a new opportunity for cooperation with allies. But so far, their initiatives seem to have mainly stirred controversy when the United States is already under attack for its response to recent trade rulings.The administration has publicly flouted several decisions of World Trade Organization panels that ruled against the United States in trade disputes involving national security issues. In two separate announcements in December, the Office of the United States Trade Representative said it would not change its policies to abide by W.T.O. decisions.But the biggest source of contention has been new tax credits for clean energy equipment and vehicles made in North America that were part of a sweeping climate and health policy bill that President Biden signed into law last year. European officials have called the measure a “job killer” and expressed fears they will lose out to the United States on new investments in batteries, green hydrogen, steel and other industries. In response, European Union officials began outlining their own plan this month to subsidize green energy industries — a move that critics fear will plunge the world into a costly and inefficient “subsidy war.”The United States and European Union have been searching for changes that could be made to mollify both sides before the U.S. tax-credit rules are settled in March. But the Biden administration appears to have only limited ability to change some of the law’s provisions. Members of Congress say they intentionally worded the law to benefit American manufacturing.Biden administration is putting in place subsidies to encourage the production of clean energy technology in the United States, such as tax credits for consumers who buy American-made clean cars.Brittany Greeson for The New York TimesEuropean officials have suggested that they could bring a trade case at the World Trade Organization that might be a prelude to imposing tariffs on American products in retaliation.Valdis Dombrovskis, the European commissioner for trade, said that the European Union was committed to finding solutions but that negotiations needed to make progress or the European Union would face “even stronger calls” to respond.“We need to follow the same rules of the game,” he said.Anne Krueger, a former official at the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, said the potential pain of American subsidies on Japan, South Korea and allies in Europe was “enormous.”“When you discriminate in favor of American companies and against the rest of the world, you’re hurting yourself and hurting others at the same time,” said Ms. Krueger, now a senior fellow at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University.But in a letter last week, a collection of prominent labor unions and environmental groups urged Mr. Biden to move forward with the plans without delays, saying outdated trade rules should not be used to undermine support for a new clean energy economy.“It’s time to end this circular firing squad where countries threaten and, if successful, weaken or repeal one another’s climate measures through trade and investment agreements,” said Melinda St. Louis, the director of the Global Trade Watch for Public Citizen, one of the groups behind the letter.Valdis Dombrovskis, the European commissioner for trade, has pressed the United States to negotiate more on its climate-related subsidies for American manufacturing.Stephanie Lecocq/EPA, via ShutterstockOther recent climate policies have also spurred controversy. In mid-December, the European Union took a major step toward a new climate-focused trade policy as it reached a preliminary agreement to impose a new carbon tariff on certain imports. The so-called carbon border adjustment mechanism would apply to products from all countries that failed to take strict actions to cut their greenhouse gas emissions.The move is aimed at ensuring that European companies that must follow strict environmental regulations are not put at a disadvantage to competitors in countries where laxer environmental rules allow companies to produce and sell goods more cheaply. While European officials argue that their policy complies with global trade rules in a way that U.S. clean energy subsidies do not, it has still rankled countries like China and Turkey.The Biden administration has also been trying to create an international group that would impose tariffs on steel and aluminum from countries with laxer environmental policies. In December, it sent the European Union a brief initial proposal for such a trade arrangement.The idea still has a long way to go to be realized. But even as it would break new ground in addressing climate change, the approach may also end up aggravating allies like Canada, Mexico, Brazil and South Korea, which together provided more than half of America’s foreign steel last year.Under the initial proposal, these countries would theoretically have to produce steel as cleanly as the United States and Europe, or face tariffs on their products.A steel plant in Belgium. Under the initial proposal, countries would theoretically have to produce steel as cleanly as the United States and Europe, or face tariffs.Kevin Faingnaert for The New York TimesProponents of new climate-focused trade measures say discriminating against foreign products, and goods made with greater carbon emissions, is exactly what governments need to build up clean energy industries and address climate change.“You really do need to rethink some of the fundamentals of the system,” said Ilana Solomon, an independent trade consultant who previously worked with the Sierra Club.Ms. Solomon and others have proposed a “climate peace clause,” under which governments would commit to refrain from using the World Trade Organization and other trade agreements to challenge one another’s climate policies for 10 years.“The complete legitimacy of the global trading system has never been more in question,” she said.In the United States, support appears to be growing among both Republicans and Democrats for more nationalist policies that would encourage domestic production and discourage imports of dirtier goods — but that would also most likely violate World Trade Organization rules.Most Republicans do not support the idea of a national price on carbon. But they have shown more willingness to raise tariffs on foreign products that are made in environmentally damaging ways, which they see as a way to protect American jobs from foreign competition.Robert E. Lighthizer, a chief trade negotiator for the Trump administration, said there was “great overlap” between Republicans and Democrats on the idea of using trade tools to discourage imports of polluting products from abroad.“I’m coming at it to get more American employed and with higher wages,” he said. “You shouldn’t be able to get an economic advantage over some guy working in Detroit, trying to support his family, from pollution, by manufacturing overseas.” More

  • 125 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Families Struggle as Pandemic Program Offering Free School Meals Ends

    by

    A federal benefit guaranteeing free school meals to millions more students has expired as food prices have risen. Many families are feeling the pinch.Like other parents, April Vazquez, a school nutrition specialist in Sioux Falls, S.D., is cutting coupons, buying in bulk and forgoing outings and restaurant meals. Still, a hot lunch in the school cafeteria for her three children is now a treat she has to carefully plan in her budget.The expiration of waivers that guaranteed free school meals for nearly 30 million students across the United States during the pandemic has meant that families like Ms. Vazquez’s who earn just over the income threshold no longer qualify for a federal program allowing children to eat at no cost.As pandemic-era assistance programs lapse and inflation reaches record highs, Ms. Vazquez is hardly alone. The number of students receiving free lunches decreased by about a third, to around 18.6 million in October, the latest month with available data. In comparison, about 20.3 million students ate free in October 2019, before the pandemic. That drop can be attributed to several factors, like being on the cusp of eligibility, lack of awareness that the program had ended by the start of the school year and fewer schools participating in the program overall.“It’s just making things a hell of a lot harder at the most difficult moment that I think American families have seen in a generation,” said Keri Rodrigues, co-founder and president of the National Parents Union network.For Ms. Vazquez, returning to a reality where she must pay full price for a school meal — about $3 or $4 for each child — is trying, and most days, her children bring a packed lunch. (Bagels, cream cheese and apples are typical; grapes and strawberries are rare because they are too expensive.)“It’s painful to know that my kids aren’t going to get free or reduced,” she said.The number of students receiving free lunches decreased by about a third, to about 18.6 million last October.Amber Ford for The New York TimesBefore the pandemic, Ms. Vazquez worked part-time as a special education assistant and her children teetered between qualifying for free or reduced-price meals year to year. But when she took a full-time job as a nutritionist in August 2021, her salary was just enough to bump her family above the income threshold for either benefit: about $42,000 annually for free meals for a family of five and $60,000 for reduced-price meals.“That was actually a worry when I applied for this position, because you don’t know what’s going to happen, am I going to get disqualified for this?” she said, adding that she ultimately took the job with a view toward long-term financial stability.Even as some parents have seen their wages increase and the criteria for free and reduced-price meals expand, those boons have done little to blunt the impact of rising food costs.From the 2019-20 school year to this school year, the income eligibility for free and reduced-price meals has increased by about 7.8 percent. Average hourly wage growth in that same period grew by 15.1 percent. Consumer prices, though, have risen by 15.4 percent, and food prices by 20.2 percent, surpassing wage growth.More on U.S. Schools and EducationChatGPT: OpenAI’s new chatbot is raising fears of students cheating on their homework. But its potential as an educational tool outweighs its risks, our columnist writes.Boosting Security: New federal data offers insight into the growing ways that schools have amped up security over the past five years, as gun incidents on school grounds have become more frequent.Teaching Climate Change: Many middle school science standards don’t explicitly mention climate change. But some educators are finding ways to integrate it into lessons. In Florida: The state will not allow a new Advanced Placement course on African American studies to be offered in its high schools, stating that the course is not “historically accurate.”In the Sioux Falls School District — where Ms. Vazquez works and where her children attend school — about 41 percent of children qualified for free or reduced-price lunch this school year, compared with about 49 percent before the pandemic, said its nutrition director, Gay Anderson. Some parents have remarked that they would be “better off missing half a week’s work to get that free meal,” she said.“The income eligibility guidelines are just not keeping pace with inflation, and families are barely making ends meet. So what we’re seeing is a lot of people are saying, ‘I can’t believe I don’t qualify as I always did.’ If they are making a dollar more, or whatever, that will do it,” Ms. Anderson said.At Wellington Exempted Village Schools in northeastern Ohio, Andrea Helton, the nutrition director, described denying the program to nearly 50 families in a school district of about 1,000 students. She recalled a single mother who lamented, “I missed the cutoff for reduced meals by $100 of gross income.”But Ms. Helton said, “There’s nothing I can do, and it’s heartbreaking.”Andrea Helton is the nutrition director at Wellington Exempted Village Schools in northeastern Ohio. Amber Ford for The New York TimesFamilies are also struggling to navigate a maze of new rules or, unaware that the program had ended, contending with having to pay for meals that had once been free.Megan, a mother of three school-aged children in Ms. Helton’s district who asked to be identified only by her first name because of privacy concerns, said that she had grown accustomed to the program. So when the school pressed her for money owed for unpaid lunches, “it was a shocker.”By the end of the fall semester, she had racked up $136 in debt.When Megan learned that holiday donations to the school district had wiped out that sum, “I just melted into a puddle because when you’re down to that last $100, the last thing you want to have to worry about is whether your kids are eating or not,” she said through tears.It is difficult to estimate how many students are now going hungry. But school officials and nutrition advocates point to proxy measurements — debt owed by families who cannot afford a school meal, for example, or the number of applications for free and reduced-price meals — as evidence of unmet need.In a survey released this month by the School Nutrition Association, 96.3 percent of school districts reported that meal debt had increased. Median debt rose to $5,164 per district through November, already higher than the $3,400 median reported for the entire school year in the group’s 2019 survey.The end of universal school meals has led fewer schools to participate in the program overall: 88 percent of public schools are operating a meal program this school year.Alyssa Schukar for The New York TimesAt school, Ms. Vazquez described witnessing children sitting in the cafeteria with packed lunches consisting of only a bag of chips or an apple. Others have inched toward the cash register with a lunch tray, a look of fear and recognition flashing across the “kid’s eyes when they see the computer, like, ‘Yeah, I know I’m negative, but I want to eat,’” she said.“You see other kids struggle and knowing, hey, I’m in the same boat,” she added. “I know exactly what you’re going through.”The end of universal school meals has led fewer schools to participate in the program overall: About 88 percent of public schools are operating a meal program this school year, compared with 94 percent in the previous school year, and 27.4 million children were eating a school lunch in October, compared with about 30 million in May, the last month of the school year with the program in place. That can create a vicious cycle in which lower participation translates to higher costs per meal, forcing schools to raise the price of a meal and squeezing out even more families, said Crystal FitzSimons of the Food Research and Action Center, which routinely talks to schools about their nutrition programs. Schools and families alike face other administrative and financial complications as school officials grapple with soaring wholesale costs and labor shortages, highlighting other challenges in increasing participation. Now officials must process paperwork to verify income eligibility, devote time and personnel for debt collection and plan ahead for expected revenue and reimbursement rates.At Prince William County Schools in Virginia, Adam T. Russo, the nutrition director, said his office has had to dedicate more resources for outreach and education to inform parents of the policy change. Already, he relies on a multilingual staff to serve the 90,000 students in his district, one of the most diverse in the state.Adam T. Russo relies on a multilingual staff to serve the 90,000 students in his district.Alyssa Schukar for The New York TimesFor many parents, he said, the process was new and potentially confusing given that universal free meals had been in place since some of their children had started school.“If your kid was in kindergarten, first grade, second grade, this is a completely foreign process to your family,” he said. “It’s been table stakes, and we’ve pulled the tablecloth out from under our families.”The application process, as well as the stigma associated with receiving a free or reduced-price lunch, can be prohibitive, advocates say. In 2019, even as some 29.6 million students were eligible for free or reduced-price meals, only 22 million received one, according to research. And about 20 percent of eligible households whose children did not receive either benefit reported food insecurity.“The effort it takes to make sure these resources actually hit those kids, for what that costs, it’s a hell of a lot easier to just say, listen, food is free,” Ms. Rodrigues said.The universal free school meal program pushed the federal cost of school nutrition programs from $18.7 billion in the 2019 fiscal year to $28.7 billion in the 2022 fiscal year, according to data from the Agriculture Department, which administers the program. The department does not have an official estimate of the cost of permanently enacting the policy, a spokeswoman said.Such an initiative has drawn widespread support, with polls showing 74 percent of voters and 90 percent of parents favoring the idea, but federal enactment seems unlikely. Republican lawmakers in Congress oppose permanently extending the policy, arguing that free meals should serve only the neediest and that pandemic-era policies must eventually end.Still, some states — and some parents — have been spurred to take action. For Amber Stewart, a mother of five in Duluth, Minn., the program was lifesaving.Before the pandemic, when the family owed money for meals, her daughter would receive a cold cheese sandwich and a carton of milk, signaling to classmates she could not afford the hot meal. Stern letters demanded repayment and warned of consequences.“Then the pandemic rolled around and everybody was eligible for the free meals, and they delivered it or you could go pick it up,” said Ms. Stewart, who asked to be identified by her maiden name. “It was amazing.”Intent on seeing the program enacted permanently, Ms. Stewart is now lobbying the Minnesota legislature to adopt universal free schools meals statewide, a policy that the governor recently endorsed. Under the new income guidelines, Ms. Stewart’s children now qualify for reduced-price meals. And because of a state law that covers the fees normally owed by families in that category, they are not charged the 35 or 50 cents for breakfast or lunch.That has been crucial, she said, because even after weekly trips to the food bank, she does not have nearly enough to get by.“Our money is really tight,” she said. “With the cost of groceries and everything, we’re barely making it.” More