Law and Legislation

More stories

  • 138 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Schumer Wields Political Heft in Bid for New York Chips Funds

    by

    The Senate majority leader helped deliver billions of dollars in federal funding for semiconductors. Now he’s pushing for his state to reap benefits.In a darkened hotel ballroom in San Jose, Calif., last November, the most powerful players in the semiconductor industry received a familiar sales pitch.Senator Chuck Schumer, the majority leader, appeared by video message to urge the industry titans at the Semiconductor Industry Association’s annual awards dinner to work together to strengthen American manufacturing of a critical technology — and to invest more in his home state of New York.“I ask that more of the industry consider investing in the Empire State, and if you do, you’ll find no greater champion in your corner than me, the Senate majority leader,” Mr. Schumer said, to cheers and laughs of recognition from a crowd accustomed to the senator’s solicitations.Amid growing fears about China’s dominance of technology and America’s loss of competitiveness, Mr. Schumer last year helped rally Congress to push through the biggest industrial policy programs the United States has seen a generation. The Biden administration is now preparing to invest tens of billions of dollars in the U.S. semiconductor industry in an effort to boost chip manufacturing across the country and lessen U.S. reliance on foreign factories.If Mr. Schumer gets his way, a substantial part of that funding will flow to New York.In his encounters with chip executives, Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo and President Biden himself, Mr. Schumer has openly and aggressively drawn on his political capital as majority leader to try to channel investment to his home state. During the months where Congress was debating whether to approve that funding, industry executives who set foot in Mr. Schumer’s office or spoke to him on the flip phone he carries in his breast pocket were asked when, not if, they would invest in New York.Mr. Schumer, a longtime China critic, primarily views the investments as critical to reducing America’s reliance on Beijing for a technology that powers everything from cars and dishwashers to missiles and fighter jets. Most chip production has moved to Asia in recent decades, leaving the U.S. economy highly vulnerable to shortages, as became apparent during the pandemic.But he also saw the opportunity to fulfill a more personal goal: securing investment that could revive the factory towns of his home state, which had been hollowed out through decades of competition with China. The move would also augment his local political support, attract donations from chip companies to fill Democratic coffers and cement his legacy as a proponent of upstate New York.“I cared about upstate and I cared about competition with China,” Mr. Schumer said in an interview in Albany in June. “When I drafted the legislation, I did things with New York companies in mind.”Senate majority leaders and other legislators have long used their clout to drive federal funds back home. But Mr. Schumer is capitalizing on his position at an opportune moment, as the United States prepares to invest nearly $53 billion in the sector, including $11 billion for chip research and $39 billion in manufacturing grants.Still, some critics have cautioned that economic and strategic factors, not political influence, must determine the investment decisions that could shape the U.S. economy for decades to come.A silicone wafer at the GlobalFoundries facility.Cindy Schultz for The New York TimesIf the proposed investments are realized, New York could become one of the country’s busiest hubs for chip production. Chip makers like GlobalFoundries, IBM, Onsemi and Wolfspeed are applying for funds to build or expand facilities there. Micron Technology, a memory chip maker, is proposing to invest up to $100 billion near Syracuse over the next two decades to build what would be the largest high-tech chips facility proposed in the United States, employing up to 9,000 people.Mr. Schumer is also pushing for New York to play a leading role in semiconductor research, as the headquarters of a new federal chip research organization.Competition for federal funding is expected to be fierce. By late June, the Commerce Department — which will dole out the funds — had received nearly 400 statements of interest from companies that intended to apply for money.“I suspect there will be many disappointed companies who feel that they should have a certain amount of money,” Ms. Raimondo said in February.New York has already faced some setbacks. Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Samsung and Intel, makers of the most cutting-edge types of logic chips, passed over the state in recent years in favor of Arizona, Texas and Ohio, where they are now building large facilities that could absorb a significant portion of government funding.Chip industry executives say practical factors, like the cost of electricity, land and capital, the availability of workers and the proximity of their suppliers, weigh heaviest in their decisions about where to invest.But the pressure from Mr. Schumer — and from other influential lawmakers, university presidents and company executives who helped secure the funding — raises questions about the role powerful political figures will play in the next chapter of American industrial policy.“I think there is and ought to be a lot of skepticism about political players having a major say in decision making over where these funds are spent,” said Chris Miller, an associate professor at Tufts University and the author of “Chip War: The Fight for the World’s Most Critical Technology.”“If you want effective industrial policy, you have to keep it as far away as possible from pork barrel politics,” he said.The Commerce Department has been hiring experts in finance and semiconductors to review company applications, and it has set up a selection committee to chose the board for the new research center, called the National Semiconductor Technology Center. The department appears to be trying to avoid any undue influence or favoritism.“Our awards will be entirely dependent upon the strength of applications and which projects will advance U.S. economic and national security interests,” the Commerce Department said in a statement.Mr. Schumer insists that New York will win federal dollars on its own merits, but he is also explicit about the benefit his position brings. In June, as he walked the sunlit halls of the Albany NanoTech Complex, a long-running chip research and educational facility, Mr. Schumer said he “did not close out a single discussion” with a semiconductor company without encouraging them to invest in New York.GlobalFoundries is among the chip makers that stand to benefit from the CHIPS act.Cindy Schultz for The New York TimesNew York has five main advantages, he told executives: Skilled workers, stemming from New York’s history of manufacturing. Cheap and plentiful water. Cheap hydropower. Shovel-ready sites for companies to build on.“And fifth, they had the majority leader,” he said.In a yellow-lit clean room behind Mr. Schumer, workers in white protective suits were tending to hundreds of millions of dollars of advanced machinery. On tracks overhead, mechanized metal pails whizzed by carrying silicon wafers, each roughly the size of a record, to and from the machines, where they would be imprinted with layers of intricate circuitry.Mr. Schumer paused to peer over his reading glasses at a smooth, white box the size of a mobile home: an extreme ultraviolet lithography machine, made by the Dutch firm ASML, arguably the most advanced piece of machinery ever developed.Albany NanoTech is the only public research facility in the United States with such a machine. The facility is applying for federal funding to build a new clean room in an adjacent parking lot, and it hopes to become home to part of the government’s new research center.“This is the perfect place,” Mr. Schumer said. “When we wrote the CHIPS and Science bill to set up a National Semiconductor Technology Center, I had Albany in mind. And I’m pushing to get it.”Mr. Schumer said he had personally made that case to a parade of administration officials he brought through the state. That included Mr. Biden, who was pitched on New York’s potential as the two men rode in a motorcade to hear Micron’s investment announcement last October.By his telling, Mr. Schumer’s efforts on behalf of upstate New York are a personal mission, stemming in part from an early challenge from a political opponent who told voters they would never see Mr. Schumer, a Brooklyn native, west of the Hudson River. As Mr. Schumer watched companies like General Motors, General Electric and Carrier shutter their New York facilities, he said, he vowed to do something to stop the flow of young people out of the state.Mr. Schumer had also been one of Congress’ earliest China hawks, particularly on the issue of Chinese currency manipulation. During a workout in 2019 in the Senate gym, Mr. Schumer began forming a plan with Senator Todd Young, Republican of Indiana, to bolster the U.S. economy by dedicating over $100 billion to technology research.It took two years — and an aggressive, coordinated lobbying effort between government and industry — to amass the support and momentum to turn that bill into law. Mr. Schumer and other key Republican and Democratic lawmakers enlisted company executives, university presidents and state officials to talk publicly about the importance of the funding, and put pressure on reluctant members of Congress.Mr. Schumer also worked closely with Ms. Raimondo to push the bill forward. He called her frequently as obstacles arose, including during Sunday Mass and her daughter’s 18th birthday party, she said in an interview in July 2022.As the bill progressed, the prospect of funding for new U.S. factories touched off an elaborate game of courtship among legislators, state officials and companies.The number of chip lobbyists in Washington multiplied. Companies like GlobalFoundries and Intel, which stood to benefit enormously from the legislation, hosted or attended fund-raisers and virtual events for Mr. Schumer in the months before the CHIPS Act was passed. From the beginning of 2021 through June 2023, political action committees linked with Mr. Schumer received more than $350,000 in donations from executives at chip companies and their suppliers, including a $5,000 donation from Intel’s chief executive, Pat Gelsinger, data from the Federal Election Commission shows.Mr. Schumer, right, viewed a model of a Micron facility with President Biden in Syracuse, N.Y. Micron has projected that the facility will employ up to 9,000 people.Kenny Holston for The New York TimesNew York played host to a series of chip companies considering potential investments, particularly for the plot that Micron now plans to build on. TSMC looked at the site in 2019 before it chose Arizona, and Intel considered the same location but ultimately chose Ohio.Micron was ready to write off New York because the state did not have a big enough site, Ryan McMahon, the local county executive, said. To win the final bid, the county spent tens of millions of dollars acquiring land, including buying out a street of homeowners, and running gas and electricity to the site, he said.“If Schumer didn’t introduce us, it’s one of those things, you wonder if it ever would have happened,” Mr. McMahon, a Republican, said.Mr. Schumer, along with other proponents, secured an investment tax credit in the chips legislation that Micron saw as key to making the economics of the project work. And at the urging of Gov. Kathy Hochul, New York state lawmakers passed their own chips subsidy bill to complement the federal one, approving up to $500 million a year in tax abatements to chip manufacturers.Micron has said it plans to start construction next year and complete the first $20 billion phrase of the factory by 2030. New York State has promised to give Micron $5.5 billion in tax credits over the life of the project if the company meets certain employment targets.As the biggest maker of memory chips with headquarters in the United States, Micron is seen as a likely candidate for a federal grant. But other developments have thrown the project into question: Micron has recently become the subject of a crackdown in China that could cost the company an eighth of its global revenues, potentially undercutting its ability to make ambitious investments.The deal has also been met with skepticism from local government watchdogs, who fear that Micron will become the latest firm to be offered taxpayer subsidies but fail to deliver the promised economic impact.“It might be good geostrategic policy for the United States,” said John Kaehny, executive director of Reinvent Albany, a watchdog focused on the New York government. “But for New York, it’s an incredibly low return on the investment of subsidy dollars.”For both Mr. Schumer and Governor Hochul, the Micron investment became a centerpiece of their electoral strategy last fall. With Republicans on their way to the best statewide showing in two decades, both Democrats packaged clips of themselves with Micron’s chief executive into TV ads that blanketed parts of the state otherwise wary of Democrats’ economic agenda.“Transformational for upstate New York, transformational for America,” Mr. Schumer said in one.Nicholas Fandos More

  • 113 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    Affirmative Action Ruling May Upend Diversity Hiring Policies, Too

    by

    The Supreme Court decision on college admissions could lead companies to alter recruitment and promotion practices to pre-empt legal challenges.As a legal matter, the Supreme Court’s rejection of race-conscious admissions in higher education does not in itself impede employers from pursuing diversity in the workplace.That, at least, is the conclusion of lawyers, diversity experts and political activists across the spectrum — from conservatives who say robust affirmative action programs are already illegal to liberals who argue that they are on firm legal ground.But many experts argue that as a practical matter, the ruling will discourage corporations from putting in place ambitious diversity policies in hiring and promotion — or prompt them to rein in existing policies — by encouraging lawsuits under the existing legal standard.After the decision on Thursday affecting college admissions, law firms encouraged companies to review their diversity policies.“I do worry about corporate counsels who see their main job as keeping organizations from getting sued — I do worry about hyper-compliance,” said Alvin B. Tillery Jr., director of the Center for the Study of Diversity and Democracy at Northwestern University, who advises employers on diversity policies.Programs to foster the hiring and promotion of African Americans and other minority workers have been prominent in corporate America in recent years, especially in the reckoning over race after the 2020 murder of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer.Even before the ruling in the college cases, corporations were feeling legal pressure over their diversity efforts. Over the past two years, a lawyer representing a free-market group has sent letters to American Airlines, McDonald’s and many other corporations demanding that they undo hiring policies that the group says are illegal.The free-market group, the National Center for Public Policy Research, acknowledged that the outcome on Thursday did not bear directly on its fight against affirmative-action in corporate America. “Today’s decision is not relevant; it dealt with a special carve-out for education,” said Scott Shepard, a fellow at the center.Mr. Shepard claimed victory nonetheless, arguing that the ruling would help deter employers who might be tempted overstep the law. “It couldn’t be clearer after the decision that fudging it at the edges” is not allowed, he said.(American Airlines and McDonald’s did not respond to requests for comment about their hiring and promotion policies.)Charlotte A. Burrows, who was designated chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission by President Biden, was also quick to declare that nothing had changed. She said the decision “does not address employer efforts to foster diverse and inclusive work forces or to engage the talents of all qualified workers, regardless of their background.”Some companies in the cross hairs of conservative groups underscored the point. “Novartis’s D.E.I. programs are narrowly tailored, fair, equitable and comply with existing law,” the drugmaker said in a statement, referring to diversity, equity and inclusion. Novartis, too, has received a letter from a lawyer representing Mr. Shepard’s group, demanding that it change its policy on hiring law firms.The Supreme Court’s ruling on affirmative action was largely silent on employment-related questions.Kenny Holston/The New York TimesBeyond government contractors, affirmative action policies in the private sector are largely voluntary and governed by state and federal civil rights law. These laws prohibit employers from basing hiring or promotion decisions on a characteristic like race or gender, whether in favor of a candidate or against.The exception, said Jason Schwartz, a partner at the law firm Gibson Dunn, is that companies can take race into account if members of a racial minority were previously excluded from a job category — say, an investment bank recruiting Black bankers after it excluded Black people from such jobs for decades. In some cases, employers can also take into account the historical exclusion of a minority group from an industry — like Black and Latino people in the software industry.In principle, the logic of the Supreme Court’s ruling on college admissions could threaten some of these programs, like those intended to address industrywide discrimination. But even here, the legal case may be a stretch because the way employers typically make decisions about hiring and promotion differs from the way colleges make admissions decisions.“What seems to bother the court is that the admissions programs at issue treated race as a plus without regard to the individual student,” Pauline Kim, a professor at Washington University in St. Louis who specializes in employment law, said in an email. But “employment decisions are more often individualized decisions,” focusing on the fit between a candidate and a job, she said.The more meaningful effect of the court’s decision is likely to be greater pressure on policies that were already on questionable legal ground. Those could include leadership acceleration programs or internship programs that are open only to members of underrepresented minority groups.Many companies may also find themselves vulnerable over policies that comply with civil rights law on paper but violate it in practice, said Mike Delikat, a partner at Orrick who specializes in employment law. For example, a company’s policy may encourage recruiters to seek a more diverse pool of candidates, from which hiring decisions are made without regard to race. But if recruiters carry out the policy in a way that effectively creates a racial quota, he said, that is illegal.“The devil is in the details,” Mr. Delikat said. “Were they interpreting that to mean, ‘Come back with 25 percent of the internship class that has to be from an underrepresented group, and if not you get dinged as a bad recruiter’?”The college admissions cases before the Supreme Court were largely silent on these employment-related questions. Nonetheless, Mr. Delikat said, his firm has been counseling clients ever since the court agreed to hear the cases that they should ensure that their policies are airtight because an increase in litigation is likely.That is partly because of the growing attack from the political right on corporate policies aimed at diversity in hiring and other social and environmental goals.Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida has signed legislation to limit diversity training in the workplace.Haiyun Jiang for The New York TimesGov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, who is seeking the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, has deplored “the woke mind virus” and proclaimed Florida “the state where woke goes to die.” The state has enacted legislation to limit diversity training in the workplace and has restricted state pension funds from basing investments on “woke environmental, social and corporate governance” considerations.Conservative legal groups have also mobilized on this front. A group run by Stephen Miller, a White House adviser in the Trump administration, contended in letters to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that the diversity and inclusion policies of several large companies were illegal and asked the commission to investigate. (Mr. Miller’s group did not respond to a request for comment about those cases.)The National Center for Public Policy Research, which is challenging corporate diversity policies, has sued Starbucks directors and officers after they refused to undo the company’s diversity and inclusion policies in response to a letter demanding that they do so. (Starbucks did not respond to a request for comment for this article, but its directors told the group that it was “not in the best interest of Starbucks to accept the demand and retract the policies.”)Mr. Shepard, the fellow at the center, said more lawsuits were “reasonably likely” if other companies did not accede to demands to rein in their diversity and inclusion policies.One modest way to do so, said David Lopez, a former general counsel for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, is to design policies that are race neutral but nonetheless likely to promote diversity — such as giving weight to whether a candidate has overcome significant obstacles.Mr. Lopez noted that, in the Supreme Court’s majority opinion, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. argued that a university could take into account the effect on a candidate of having overcome racial discrimination, as long as the school didn’t consider the candidate’s race per se.But Dr. Tillery of Northwestern said making such changes to business diversity programs could be an overreaction to the ruling. While the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 generally precludes basing individual hiring and promotion decisions explicitly on race, it allows employers to remove obstacles that prevent companies from having a more diverse work force. Examples include training managers and recruiters to ensure that they aren’t unconsciously discriminating against racial minorities, or advertising jobs on certain campuses to increase the universe of potential applicants.In the end, companies appear to face a greater threat of litigation over discrimination against members of minority groups than from litigation over discrimination against white people. According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, there were about 2,350 charges of that latter form of discrimination in employment in 2021, among about 21,000 race-based charges overall.“There’s an inherent interest in picking your poison,” Dr. Tillery said. “Is it a lawsuit from Stephen Miller’s right-wing group that doesn’t live in the real world? Or is it a lawsuit from someone who says you’re discriminating against your work force and can tweet about how sexist or racist you are?”He added, “I’ll take the Stephen Miller poison any day.”J. Edward Moreno More

  • 113 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Student Loan Pause Is Ending, With Consequences for Economy

    by

    Three years of relief from payments on $1.6 trillion in student debt allowed for other borrowing and spending — and will shift into reverse.A bedrock component of pandemic-era relief for households is coming to an end: The debt-limit deal struck by the White House and congressional Republicans requires that the pause on student loan payments be lifted no later than Aug. 30.By then, after more than three years in force, the forbearance on student debt will amount to about $185 billion that otherwise would have been paid, according to calculations by Goldman Sachs. The effects on borrowers’ lives have been profound. More subtle is how the pause affected the broader economy.Emerging research has found that in addition to freeing up cash, the repayment pause coincided with a marked improvement in borrowers’ credit scores, most likely because of cash infusions from other pandemic relief programs and the removal of student loan delinquencies from credit reports. That let people take on more debt to buy cars, homes and daily needs using credit cards — raising concerns that student debtors will now be hit by another monthly bill just when their budgets are already maxed out.“It’s going to quickly reverse all the progress that was made during the repayment pause,” said Laura Beamer, who researches higher education finance at the Jain Family Institute, “especially for those who took out new debt in mortgages or auto loans where they had the financial room because they weren’t paying their student loans.”The pause on payments, which under the CARES Act in March 2020 covered all borrowers with federally owned loans, is separate from the Biden administration’s proposal to forgive up to $20,000 in student debt. The Supreme Court is expected to rule on a challenge to that plan, which is subject to certain income limits, by the end of the month.The moratorium began as a way to relieve financial pressure on families when unemployment was soaring. To varying degrees, forbearance extended to housing, auto and consumer debt, with some private lenders taking part voluntarily.By May 2021, according to a paper from the Brookings Institution, 72 million borrowers had postponed $86.4 billion in loan payments, primarily on mortgages. The pause, whose users generally had greater financial distress than others, vastly diminished delinquencies and defaults of the sort that wreaked havoc during the recession a decade earlier.But while borrowers mostly started paying again on other debt, for about 42.3 million people the student debt hiatus — which took effect automatically for everyone with a federally owned loan, and stopped all interest from accruing — continued. The Biden administration issued nine extensions as it weighed options for permanent forgiveness, even as aid programs like expanded unemployment insurance, the beefed-up child tax credit and extra nutrition assistance expired.Student Loan Repayment Dropped PrecipitouslyMonthly payments received by the Treasury, annualized

    Source: Goldman Sachs analysis of Treasury Department dataBy The New York TimesTens of millions of borrowers, who, according to the Federal Reserve, paid $200 to $299 on average each month in 2019, will soon face the resumption of a bill that is often one of the largest line items in their household budgets.Jessica Musselwhite took on about $65,000 in loans to finance a master’s degree in arts administration and nonprofit management, which she finished in 2006. When she found a job related to her field, it paid $26,500 annually. Her $650 monthly student loan installments consumed half her take-home pay.She enrolled in an income-driven repayment program that made the payments more manageable. But with interest mounting, she struggled to make progress on the principal. By the time the pandemic started, even with a stable job at the University of Chicago, she owed more than she did when she graduated, along with credit card debt that she accumulated to buy groceries and other basics.Not having those payments allowed a new set of choices. It helped Ms. Musselwhite and her partner buy a little house on the South Side, and they got to work making improvements like better air conditioning. But that led to its own expenses — and even more debt.“The thing about having a lot of student loans, and working in a job that underpays, and then also being a person who is getting older, is that you want the things that your neighbors have and colleagues have,” said Ms. Musselwhite, 45. “I know financially that’s not always been the best decision.”Now the end of the repayment hiatus is looming. Ms. Musselwhite doesn’t know how much her monthly payments will be, but she’s thinking about where she might need to cut back — and her partner’s student loan payments will start coming due, too.As student debt loads have risen and incomes have stagnated in recent decades, Ms. Musselwhite’s experience of seeing her balance rise instead of sink has become common — 52.1 percent of borrowers were in that situation in 2020, according to an analysis by Ms. Beamer, the higher education researcher, and her co-authors at the Jain Family Institute, largely because interest has accumulated while debtors can afford only minimum payments, or even less.The share of borrowers with balances larger than when they started had been steadily growing until the pandemic and was far higher in census tracts where Black people are a plurality. Then it began to shrink, as those who continued loan payments were able to make progress while interest rates were set at zero.A few other outcomes of this extended breather have become clear.It disproportionately helped families with children, according to economists at the Federal Reserve. A greater share of Black families with children were eligible than white and Hispanic families, although their prepandemic monthly payments were smaller. (That reflects Black families’ lower incomes, not loan balances, which were higher; 53 percent of Black families were also not making payments before the pandemic.)What did borrowers do with the extra space in their budgets? Economists at the University of Chicago found that rather than paying down other debts, those eligible for the pause increased their leverage by 3 percent on average, or $1,200, compared with ineligible borrowers. Extra income can be magnified into greater spending by making minimum payments on lines of credit, which many found attractive, especially earlier in the pandemic when interest rates were low.Put another way, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau found that half of all borrowers whose student loan payments are scheduled to restart have other debts worth at least 10 percent more than they were before the pandemic.The effect may be most problematic for borrowers who were already delinquent on student loans before the pandemic. That population took on 12.3 percent more credit card debt and 4.6 percent more auto loan debt than distressed borrowers who were not eligible for the pause, according to a paper by finance professors at Yale University and Georgia Tech.In recent months, the paper found, those borrowers have started to become delinquent on their loans at higher rates — raising the concern that the resumption of student loan payments could drive more of them into default.“One of the things we’re prepping for is, once those student loan payments are going to come due, folks are going to have to make a choice between what do I pay and what do I not pay,” said David Flores, the director of client services with GreenPath Financial Wellness, a nonprofit counseling service. “And oftentimes, the credit cards are the ones that don’t get paid.”For now, Mr. Flores urges clients to enroll in income-driven repayment plans if they can. The Biden administration has proposed rules that would make such plans more generous.Further, the administration’s proposal for debt forgiveness, if upheld by the Supreme Court, would cut in half what would otherwise be a 0.2-percentage-point hit to growth in personal spending in 2023, according to researchers at Goldman Sachs.Whether or not debt forgiveness wins in court, the transition back to loan repayment might be rocky. Several large student loan servicers have ended their contracts with the Department of Education and transferred their portfolios to others, and the department is running short on funding for student loan processing.Some experts think the extended hiatus wasn’t necessarily a good thing, especially when it was costing the federal government about $5 billion a month by some estimates.“I think it made sense to do it. The real question is, at what point should it have been turned back on?” said Adam Looney, a professor at the University of Utah who testified before Congress on student loan policy in March.Ideally, the administration should have decided on reforms and ended the payment pause earlier in a coordinated way, Dr. Looney said. Regardless, ending the pause is going to constrain spending for millions of families. For Dan and Beth McConnell of Houston, who have $143,000 left to pay in loans for their two daughters’ undergraduate educations, the implications are stark.The pause in their monthly payments was especially helpful when Mr. McConnell, 61, was laid off as a marine geologist in late 2021. He’s doing some consulting work but doubts he’ll replace his prior income. That could mean dropping long-term care insurance, or digging into retirement accounts, when $1,700 monthly payments start up in the fall.“This is the brick through the window that’s breaking the retirement plans,” Mr. McConnell said. More

  • 138 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    U.K. Moves to Use Frozen Russian Assets to Help Ukraine Rebuild

    by

    As Russia’s ruinous attacks on Ukraine mount, Britain’s government is proposing legislation that would enable it to divert frozen Russian assets to the rebuilding of Ukraine and keep sanctions in place until Moscow pays compensation to its war-torn neighbor.The British announcement is in line with a decision last month at the annual Group of 7 meeting in Hiroshima, Japan, to freeze the estimated $300 billion worth of Russian assets held by banks and financial institutions in those countries — including Britain — “until Russia pays for the damage it has caused to Ukraine.”The issue of seized assets is highly contentious. While governments have the power to freeze assets, the European Central Bank has privately warned Brussels that confiscating Russian funds or giving the earned interest on those accounts to Ukraine could undermine confidence in the euro and shake financial stability, according to a report in The Financial Times. Investors might be reluctant to use euros as a reserve currency if they fear their funds could be grabbed.Ukraine’s reconstruction costs are estimated to top $411 billion, according to the most recent numbers from the World Bank, the European Commission and the United Nations. The ravaged landscape of the eastern city of Bakhmut, which President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine laid out at the G7 meeting, is just one sign of the damage. “You have to understand that there is nothing,” Mr. Zelensky told reporters. “They’ve destroyed everything. There are no buildings.”The bank’s estimate was calculated before the vast devastation unleashed by the destruction of the Kakhovka dam in southern Ukraine this month.Calls to seize Russian assets and use them for Ukraine’s reconstruction have increased as the war has stretched well into its second year. Last week, the United States Senate introduced a bipartisan bill to confiscate Russian assets and use them for Ukraine’s reconstruction. And the issue is also expected to come up at a Ukraine Recovery Conference being held in London on Wednesday and Thursday.Since Russia began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine early last year, Britain has frozen roughly $23 billion in assets and imposed sanctions on 1,550 individuals. The government’s latest proposal will require people under sanctions to disclose their holdings in Britain.“Through our new measures today, we’re strengthening the U.K.’s sanctions approach,” James Cleverly, Britain’s foreign secretary, said in a statement on Monday accompanying the announcement, “affirming that the U.K. is prepared to use sanctions to ensure Russia pays to repair the country it has so recklessly attacked.” More

  • 113 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    U.S. National Debt Tops $32 Trillion for First Time

    by

    The milestone follows a recent congressional showdown over lifting the debt ceiling. Another spending fight looms this year.The gross national debt exceeded $32 trillion for the first time on Friday, underscoring the country’s unsettling fiscal trajectory as Washington gears up for another fight over government spending.A Treasury Department report noted the milestone weeks after Congress agreed to suspend the nation’s statutory debt limit, ending a monthslong standoff.The $32 trillion mark arrived nine years sooner than prepandemic forecasts had projected, reflecting the trillions of dollars of emergency spending to address Covid-19’s impact along with a run of sluggish economic growth.Republicans and Democrats have expressed concern about the nation’s debt, but neither party has shown an appetite to tackle its biggest drivers, such as spending on Social Security and Medicare.The recent bipartisan agreement suspending the debt limit for two years cuts federal spending by $1.5 trillion over a decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office, by essentially freezing some funding that had been projected to increase next year and then limiting spending to 1 percent growth in 2025. But the debt is on track to top $50 trillion by the end of the decade even after newly passed spending cuts are taken into account.Mark Zandi, the chief economist of Moody’s Analytics, said during the standoff in May that spending cuts proposed by lawmakers failed to address the costs of social safety net programs. While avoiding a default would prevent an immediate crisis, he said, the ballooning debt is a persistent problem that needs to be addressed.“The nation’s daunting long-term fiscal challenges remain,” Mr. Zandi said.This week, the House Appropriations Committee began considering its next spending bills and, to appease the Republican majority’s ultraconservative wing, signaled that it would fund federal agencies at levels lower than President Biden and Speaker Kevin McCarthy had agreed to.A failure to pass and reconcile House and Senate bills by Oct. 1 could lead to a government shutdown. And if the individual bills are not approved by the end of the year, a 1 percent automatic cut will take effect.At the same time, House Republicans started considering a new round of tax cuts this week. The bill would expand the standard deduction for individual taxpayers and some business tax benefits that are intended to promote investment while curbing energy tax credits. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, which advocates lower spending levels, estimates that the proposed legislation would cost $80 billion over a decade or $1.1 trillion if the measures were made permanent.Some have called on Congress to form a bipartisan fiscal commission to tackle the long-term drivers of the national debt.“As we race past $32 trillion with no end in sight, it’s well past time to address the fundamental drivers of our debt, which are mandatory spending growth and the lack of sufficient revenues to fund it,” said Michael A. Peterson, the chief executive of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, which promotes deficit reduction.The Peterson Foundation expressed concern about projections that show the United States adding $127 trillion in debt over the next 30 years and interest costs consuming nearly 40 percent of all federal revenues by 2053.Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen defended the Biden administration’s handling of the nation’s finances at a House Financial Services Committee hearing this week, noting that the White House had released a budget this year reducing the deficit by $3 trillion. She also told the panel that interest rates were likely to decline over the medium term, making the debt burden more manageable.The Treasury secretary suggested that tax policies promoted by Republicans would worsen the fiscal situation.“They would benefit wealthy individuals and corporations and do nothing for working families,” Ms. Yellen said. “It’s not paid for, and it would exacerbate the debt.” More

  • 100 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    Oregon Town’s Marijuana Boom Yields Envy in Idaho

    by

    Tax revenue has surged since cannabis stores opened in Ontario, Ore., fueling a push in neighboring Idaho to legalize sales and get in on the action.For John Leeds, the hour-and-a-half commute to and from his job as assistant manager at Treasure Valley Cannabis Company is exhausting, but logistically unavoidable.Like nearly half of the other employees, Mr. Leeds, 39, lives in Idaho and travels along Interstate 84, past sprawling alfalfa and onion fields, to the marijuana shop just across the Oregon state line, where cannabis is legal.“It’s really two different worlds,” Mr. Leeds said. “A lot of whiplash on this issue just in a car ride up and down the highway.”Every day, hundreds of customers and workers like Mr. Leeds make the pilgrimage from Idaho to Ontario, Ore., a small city nestled along the Snake River that is home to 11 dispensaries — roughly one for every 1,000 residents. They can compare the aromas of various strains of marijuana and gather the staff’s insights on THC levels in edibles.The cannabis boom is helping to drive a thriving local economy — and tax revenues that have paid for new police positions, emergency response vehicles, and park and trail improvements.Missing out on the action has become increasingly frustrating to some politicians and longtime residents in Idaho, where the population and living costs have surged in recent years.Because the sale or possession of marijuana remains illegal at the federal level, many states — and in this case neighboring ones — have landed on drastically different approaches for whether and how to decriminalize, regulate and tax cannabis. Since 2012, 23 states have legalized it for recreational use, and more than three dozen allow medical marijuana.Eleven states, mostly conservative-leaning, have enacted extremely limited medical marijuana laws. Aside from cannabis-derived drugs approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for limited medical use, Idaho has not legalized any cannabis sales — a prohibition that has helped its more progressive neighbors.“Our cannabis market caters almost exclusively to Idaho residents,” said Ontario’s mayor, Debbie Folden. “This has been an economic boom unlike any this city has seen.”The patchwork of laws, which vary by state and often by county, have created similar commuter-propelled booms in other parts of the country as well, said Mason Tvert, a partner at VS Strategies, a national cannabis policy and public affairs firm in Denver.Texans travel to Colorado to stock up on their favorite strains or edibles, and Indiana residents make the trek to Michigan, he said. “Demand will be met by either the illegal market or by a legal market in another state,” Mr. Tvert said.That proposition, and the larger economic equation, are not lost on officials in Idaho.Last year, the state approached two million residents, a swell attributed largely to people moving from California and looking for overall cheaper costs of living. Only Florida grew faster.At the same time, property taxes have increased 20 percent since 2018, according to a report from the Idaho Center for Fiscal Policy, a nonpartisan group. And the state’s budget — currently showing a surplus — is expected to come under strain, the group noted, citing legislation that cut income taxes by roughly $500 million over three years even as population growth put new demands on health care, education and transportation.Some longtime residents of the state are tired of seeing the marijuana tax dollars go elsewhere as prices increase from the newer residents arriving.Legalizing and taxing cannabis sales could bring in revenue and help offset any budgetary concerns, said Joe Evans, a lead organizer for Kind Idaho, a group pushing to legalize medical marijuana.“That money should not be leaving the state of Idaho,” said Joe Evans, who supports the legalization of medical marijuana in the state.Ellen Hansen for The New York Times“That money should not be leaving the state of Idaho,” said Mr. Evans, who noted the entrepreneurial spirit of the region, home to Joe Albertson, who started a local grocery store chain, Albertsons, and laid the foundation for a multibillion-dollar national business.But for Mr. Evans, who served with the Army in Iraq and Afghanistan and knows fellow veterans who use cannabis for pain relief, legalization is also about something bigger than money. It is long past time, he said, for his state to legalize a substance that can offer relief for some medical conditions.Patients who use marijuana, especially older or chronically ill Idahoans, shouldn’t have to drive an hour or more to Oregon, he said.“This is about patient advocacy,” said Mr. Evans, who hopes the state will next year consider a measure to legalize cannabis for medicinal use.It would not be the first try.Initiatives to legalize cannabis for medicinal use failed to qualify for the ballot in 2012, 2014 and 2016. In 2020, supporters of a ballot measure suspended efforts to gather signatures because of the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic, and the next year a bipartisan group of state lawmakers introduced a medical marijuana bill that failed to get out of committee.As those efforts foundered, customers in Idaho increasingly made the trek to Oregon, where voters legalized cannabis for medical use in 1998 and for recreational use in 2014.Ontario, Ore., is home to 11 dispensaries — roughly one for every 1,000 residents.Ellen Hansen for The New York TimesFew areas in the state have benefited as much as Malheur County, home to Ontario.The city, which voted to legalize local recreational sales of marijuana in 2018, is the only part of the county with dispensaries. Even so, Malheur County racked up roughly $104 million in total cannabis sales last year, outpacing each of the state’s 35 other counties except Multnomah, which includes Portland.In 2020, the first full year in which Ontario allowed cannabis sales, the city took in $1.8 million in resulting tax revenue. The next year, the revenue increased 65 percent.The area is a conservative pocket in a progressive state — a movement called “Greater Idaho” wants the region to secede from Oregon and become part of Idaho — and Mayor Folden, an Ontario native, calls herself a conservative Republican.That hasn’t blocked the city’s emergence as a cannabis capital. The tax revenues, the mayor said, have been a municipal lifeline. But the city is stockpiling its reserves, Ms. Folden said, because she expects that within five years, Idaho will move ahead with some form of legalization.Treasure Valley Cannabis is one of the businesses that have led to a surge in tax revenue for Malheur County.Ellen Hansen for The New York Times“We know that this will not last forever, so we’re being prudent,” Ms. Folden said. “We know the economic winds, as they say, might shift.”In the fall, a poll for The Idaho Statesman, a Boise newspaper, found that 68 percent of residents backed legalizing marijuana for medicinal purposes. For recreational use, 48 percent supported legalization, while 41 percent were opposed.Gov. Brad Little of Idaho, who is in his second term, staunchly opposes marijuana legalization. In an emailed statement, Mr. Little, a Republican, said that “legalization of marijuana triggers numerous unintended consequences.”But some local politicians in Idaho have begun to consider the economics of the issue.Patrick Bageant, a Boise councilman, said the need for alternative forms of tax revenue was increasingly urgent.“Legalizing marijuana can help bring in different forms of cash,” Mr. Bageant said. “Just look around the country — we as a state should be more forward-looking.”Adam Watkins, a software engineer and a constituent of Mr. Bageant’s, has lived in the city’s West End neighborhood for the past decade. His home value has doubled since 2018, when he paid $3,200 in property taxes; now he pays close to $4,200.“You look around at other states that have legalized marijuana decades ago, when it comes to medical marijuana, and you just cannot help but think, why are we so backward on this issue?” said Mr. Watkins, who supports legalization for philosophical and fiscal reasons.“This is a drug with proven health effects, and we are just leaving this issue to other states to solve,” he added. “We are turning blindly, like this is not an issue, when it clearly is.”Back in Ontario on a recent afternoon, red, white and blue license plates emblazoned with the phrase “Scenic Idaho” lined the parking lot of Treasure Valley Cannabis. (A federal law prohibits transporting marijuana between states.)John Leeds commutes an hour and a half to and from his job at Treasure Valley Cannabis, where he manages a staff of 45.Ellen Hansen for The New York TimesMr. Leeds manages a staff of 45 employees four days a week. He used to work five days, but made a deal with the owner, Jeremy Archie, to work four to cut back on his commute.That day, Mr. Leeds and Mr. Archie walked the floor past vape pens, various strains of cannabis, and sweatshirts acclaiming the company and the state.They greeted customers and shared stories of patients battling health issues like cancer, who use their products to ease pain. On one wall hung a poster board proclaiming a 25 percent discount for customers car-pooling with at least three people.A small gesture of thanks, Mr. Archie said, for their Idaho customers.“The Idaho market has made this a very successful business,” he said. More

  • 113 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Biden’s Debt Ceiling Strategy: Win in the Fine Print

    by

    The president and his negotiators believe they worked out a deal that allowed Republicans to claim big spending cuts even as the reality was far more modest.Shalanda Young couldn’t sleep.A small team of Biden administration officials had spent the past two days in intense negotiations with House Republicans in an attempt to avert a catastrophic government default. Ms. Young, the White House budget director, had been trading proposals on federal spending caps with negotiators deputized by Speaker Kevin McCarthy, whose Republican caucus was refusing to raise the nation’s $31.4 trillion borrowing limit without deep cuts.Now, as she scrolled Netflix in search of “bad television” to distract her racing mind, Ms. Young had a sinking feeling. What if she cut a deal to reduce spending and raise the debt limit, only to see Republicans attempt to force through much deeper cuts when it came time to pass annual appropriations bills this fall?At work the next morning, Ms. Young asked her staff how to stop that from happening. They settled on a plan, which in essence would penalize Republicans’ most cherished spending programs if they failed to follow the contours of the agreement. Then they forced Republicans to include that plan in the legislative text codifying the deal.That approach reflected a broader strategy President Biden’s team followed in the debt limit negotiations, according to interviews with current and former administration officials, some Republicans and other people familiar with the talks.On Saturday, that strategy reached its conclusion as Mr. Biden signed the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 into law, just days before a potential default and following weeks of talks and a revolt from right-wing lawmakers in the House that put an agreement at risk of collapse.In pursuit of an agreement, the Biden team was willing to give Republicans victory after victory on political talking points, which they realized Mr. McCarthy needed to sell the bill to his conference. They let Mr. McCarthy’s team claim in the end that the deal included deep spending cuts, huge clawbacks of unspent federal coronavirus relief money and stringent work requirements for recipients of federal aid.But in the details of the text and the many side deals that accompanied it, the Biden team wanted to win on substance. With one large exception — a $20 billion cut in enforcement funding for the Internal Revenue Service — they believe they did.The way administration officials see it, the full final agreement’s spending cuts are nothing worse than they would have expected in regular appropriations bills passed by a divided Congress. They agreed to structure the cuts so they appeared to save $1.5 trillion over a decade in the eyes of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. But thanks to the side deals — including some accounting tricks — White House officials estimate that the actual cuts could total as little as $136 billion over the two enforceable years of the spending caps that are central to the agreement.Much of the $30 billion in clawed-back Covid-19 money was probably never going to be spent, Biden officials say, including dollars from an aviation manufacturing jobs program that had basically ended.At one point in the talks, administration officials offered to include in the deal more than 100 relief programs from which they were willing to rescind money. The final list spanned 20 pages of a 99-page bill, and Mr. McCarthy championed it on the House floor. But because much of the money was repurposed for other spending, the net savings added up to only about $11 billion over two years. One of the programs had a remaining balance of just $40.Many Democrats remain furious that the deal included new work requirements that could push 750,000 people off food stamps, which the Biden team begrudgingly concluded it had to accept.That measure alone could have tanked Democratic support for the deal in Congress, officials knew. So they sought to counterbalance it with efforts to expand food stamp eligibility for veterans, the homeless and others, which Republicans agreed to do. The budget office concluded that the changes would actually add recipients to the program, on net.Some Democrats and progressive groups have sharply criticized Mr. Biden for negotiating over the debt limit at all, denouncing the spending cuts and work requirements and saying he cemented Republicans’ ability to ransom the borrowing limit whenever a Democrat occupies the White House.Republican negotiators sold the deal as a game-changing blow to Mr. Biden’s spending ambitions. “They absolutely have tire tracks on them in this negotiation,” Representative Garret Graves of Louisiana said before the House vote on Wednesday.Mr. Biden views it differently. As the Senate prepared to pass the agreement on Thursday evening, he huddled with his chief of staff, Jeffrey D. Zients, along with Steve Ricchetti, counselor to the president, and other aides, in Mr. Zients’s office in the West Wing of the White House. Mr. Biden asked them what you might call a scorecard question: What percentage of Democrats in the House had voted for the deal, and what share were expected to in the Senate?When Mr. Ricchetti told him the number of Democrats would be larger, in both chambers, than the share of Republicans supporting the deal, Mr. Biden was pleased. It was validation, in his view, that he had cut a good deal.Mr. Zients referred to that vote share in an interview on Friday. “If you go back a few months ago, no one would have thought this was possible,” he said.It was not an assured outcome. The negotiating teams came to the table with divergent views of the drivers of federal debt in recent years. White House negotiators blamed Republican tax cuts. Republicans blamed Mr. Biden’s economic agenda, including a debt-financed Covid relief bill in 2021 and a bipartisan infrastructure bill later that year.The dispute occasionally grew profane. At one point, after Mr. Biden’s negotiators criticized the 2017 Republican tax cuts, a “very mild-mannered” aide to Mr. McCarthy stood up, shook his finger at the Biden team and hotly responded that their argument was nonsense, using a vulgarity, Mr. Graves recounted.Mr. Biden had insisted for months that he would not negotiate over raising the borrowing limit. But privately, many aides had been planning on talks all along — though they refused to admit those talks were linked to the debt limit. The Biden team reasoned that it would have to negotiate fiscal issues this year anyway, both on appropriations bills and on programs like food stamps that are included in a regularly reauthorized farm bill.Mr. Biden’s economic advisers, including Lael Brainard, the director of the National Economic Council, and Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen, were warning of catastrophic damage to the economy if the government could no longer pay its bills on time.The president appeared to score wins before the talks even started. He goaded Republicans into agreeing, in the midst of his State of the Union address, that Social Security and Medicare would be off limits in the talks — thanks to a spontaneous riff that grew out of a passage in his speech that he had worked on extensively in the days beforehand. He proposed a budget filled with tax increases on the rich and corporations that were meant to reduce debt, but he refused to engage Mr. McCarthy in serious talks until Republicans offered a spending plan of their own.In late April, the House passed a bill that included $4.7 trillion in savings from spending cuts, canceling clean-energy tax breaks and clawing back money for Covid relief and the I.R.S. It featured work requirements and measures to speed fossil fuel projects, and it raised the debt limit for one year.Mr. Biden, under fire from business groups and others who feared the standoff could result in the United States running out of money before the debt limit was raised, soon agreed to designate a team of negotiators. The White House team was led by officials including Ms. Young and one of her top aides, Michael Linden, who delayed his departure from the White House to help negotiate along with Louisa Terrell, the legislative affairs director, and Mr. Ricchetti.Mr. McCarthy’s negotiators gave Biden officials the impression that to reach agreement, they needed at least one talking point from every major aspect of the House Republican debt limit bill.The talks took a few surprising turns. Multiple White House officials say the Republican team briefly entertained relatively modest proposals to raise tax revenue, including closing loopholes that benefit some real-estate owners and people who trade cryptocurrency. Those discussions stalled quickly.Democrats agreed to fast-track a natural gas pipeline, in what officials concede was making good on a promise to Senator Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West Virginia, for backing Mr. Biden’s signature climate law last year.The spending caps ended up roughly where many Biden aides had predicted they would in private discussions months ago. But few White House officials believed they would have to give up $20 billion of the $80 billion that Democrats approved last year to help the I.R.S. crack down on tax cheats. Mr. Biden hammered out the amount in a final call with Mr. McCarthy.Ms. Young said that cut was painful. “And not just for me,” she added. “It’s something we talked to the president about many times. He cares deeply about this.”On Thursday evening in Mr. Zients’s office, the president and his team were focused on upsides. They had beaten back Republican attempts to cancel the climate law, to add new work requirements on Medicaid recipients and to impose binding spending caps for a decade. Mr. Biden was particularly pleased to spare key veterans’ programs from cuts.On Friday morning, Mr. Zients gathered core officials in his office, as he had every day, seven days a week, for several weeks running. Ms. Brainard and the economic team were relieved to have cleared the threat of default not just for this year, but through the next presidential election. Aides worked on honing Mr. Biden’s planned remarks in an Oval Office address on Friday evening.The speech started at 7:01 p.m., unusually promptly for Mr. Biden. By then, his staff was already celebrating. An hour earlier, happy hour had begun in Mr. Zients’s office.Catie Edmondson More

  • 113 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    Biden Praises Debt-Ceiling Deal in Address to the Nation

    by

    President Biden hailed a rare example of bipartisan cooperation in Washington on Friday, saying in his first prime-time address from the Oval Office that this week’s legislative budget deal averts economic calamity from a default on the nation’s debt.The legislation, known as the Fiscal Responsibility Act, passed the Senate late Thursday after receiving broad support in the House earlier in the week. The bill suspends the debt ceiling for two years and cuts back on spending.Seated behind the Resolute Desk, Mr. Biden said he would soon sign the measure into law and sought to reassure Americans that robust job growth — the economy added 339,000 jobs in May alone — would not be sidetracked by global fears about whether the United States is willing to pay its bills.“Essential to all the progress we’ve made in the last few years is keeping full faith and credit of the United States,” Mr. Biden said, adding: “Passing this budget agreement was critical. The stakes could not have been higher.”The speech was designed to double down on Mr. Biden’s longtime brand as a political deal-maker who is able to reach compromise with his rivals. His advisers believe that reputation is critical to his ability to win a second term in the White House.But Mr. Biden also used his remarks, which lasted about 12 minutes, to highlight achievements by his administration that are fiercely opposed by Republicans, and vowed to continue pushing a Democratic agenda that includes higher taxes on the wealthy, more spending on climate change and veterans and no cuts to health care or the social safety net.“No one got everything they wanted, but the American people got what they needed,” he said. He added that “we protected important priorities from Social Security to Medicare to Medicaid to veterans to our transformational investments in infrastructure and clean energy.”Mr. Biden went out of his way to praise House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, his chief Republican rival.“He and I, we and our teams, we were able to get along, get things done,” Mr. Biden said. “We were straightforward with one another, completely honest with one another and respectful with one another. Both sides operated in good faith.”The president said he would sign the bill on Saturday, two days before the so-called X-date, when the Treasury secretary said the government would run out of cash to pay its bills, a situation that economists have predicted would cause global uncertainty and turmoil.Presidents often reserve the Oval Office for addresses to the nation about war, economic crises or natural disasters. President Ronald Reagan delivered somber remarks from there after the space shuttle Challenger exploded in 1986. President Donald J. Trump announced pandemic restrictions from the Oval Office in early 2020.Mr. Biden’s decision to use the same venue on Friday underscores how close he believes the nation veered toward economic disaster.Mr. Biden and lawmakers had expressed optimism for weeks that they would reach an accord to avoid that outcome, but the deep disagreements between Democrats and Republicans kept the country — and the rest of the world — on edge until the votes were cast in both chambers.In the House, conservative Republicans initially revolted against Mr. McCarthy for failing to win more spending concessions from the president. Several threatened Mr. McCarthy’s speakership, but backed down amid robust support for the speaker from other Republicans.Some Democrats in the House and Senate also resisted the compromise, but the White House made the decision to largely keep quiet as the votes proceeded this week, hoping to avoid inflaming the conservative opposition and making Mr. McCarthy’s job harder.Mr. Biden has said on several occasions that he hoped to find a way to avoid a similar crisis over the debt ceiling in the future and has mentioned the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which says the debt of the United States “shall not be questioned.”Some legal experts believe that a president could use that passage to ignore the statutory debt limit, thereby avoiding the regular clashes between the parties. Mr. Biden said last month that he hoped to “find a rationale to take it to the courts to see whether or not the 14th Amendment is, in fact, something that would be able to stop it.”On Sunday, he said, “That’s another day.”Before the Oval Office speech, Mr. Biden was faced with anger among some progressives in his party that he had agreed to too many Republican demands during the negotiations.Some Democratic lawmakers voted against the debt ceiling legislation because of new work requirements that it imposes on some recipients of food assistance. White House officials have argued that the legislation removes work requirements for others, including the homeless and veterans.The president also angered some environmentalists by agreeing to approve construction of a natural gas pipeline through West Virginia and Virginia. Critics say the 300-mile Mountain Valley Pipeline will hurt wildlife and the environment as it cuts across the Appalachian Trail.For Mr. Biden, the debt ceiling deal helps to avoid undercutting the strong economy, which is a key selling point for his campaign.But his political advisers also have to be concerned about maintaining support from the coalition of voters who put him in office in 2020, some of whom have been disappointed with his achievements in climate, criminal justice and other areas. More