Law and Legislation

More stories

  • 88 Shares159 Views

    in Economy

    Here’s What’s in the Debt Ceiling Deal

    by

    Two years of spending caps, additional work requirements for food stamps and cuts to I.R.S. funding are among the components in the deal.The full legislative text of Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s agreement in principle with President Biden to suspend the nation’s borrowing limit revealed new and important details about the deal, which House lawmakers are expected to vote on this week.The centerpiece of the agreement remains a two-year suspension of the debt ceiling, which caps the total amount of money the government is allowed to borrow. Suspending that cap, which is now set at $31.4 trillion, would allow the government to keep borrowing money and pay its bills on time — as long as Congress passes the agreement before June 5, when Treasury has said the United States will run out of cash.In exchange for suspending the limit, Republicans demanded a range of policy concessions from Mr. Biden. Chief among them are limits on the growth of federal discretionary spending over the next two years. Mr. Biden also agreed to some new work requirements for certain recipients of food stamps and the Temporary Aid for Needy Families program.Both sides agreed to modest efforts meant to accelerate the permitting of some energy projects — and, in a surprise move, a fast track to construction for a new natural gas pipeline from West Virginia to Virginia that has been championed by Republican lawmakers and a key centrist Democrat.Here’s what the legislation would do:Temporarily suspends the debt limitThe deal suspends the nation’s $31.4 trillion borrowing limit until Jan. 2025. Suspending the debt limit for a period of time is different than setting it at a new fixed level. It essentially gives the Treasury Department the latitude to borrow as much money as it needs to pay the nation’s bills during that time period, plus a few months after the limit is reached, as the department employs accounting maneuvers to keep up payments.That’s different than the bill passed by House Republicans, which raised the limit by $1.5 trillion or through March 2024, whichever came first.Under the new legislation, the debt limit will be set at whatever level it has reached when the suspension ends. For political reasons, Republicans tend to prefer suspending the debt limit rather than raising it, because it allows them to say they did not technically green-light a higher debt limit.The suspension will kick the next potential fight over the nation’s debt load to 2025 — past the next presidential election.Caps and cuts spendingThe bill cuts so-called nondefense discretionary, which includes domestic law enforcement, forest management, scientific research and more — for the 2024 fiscal year. It would limit all discretionary spending to 1 percent growth in 2025, which is effectively a budget cut, because that is projected to be slower than the rate of inflation.The legislative text and White House officials tell different stories about how big those cuts actually are.Some parts are clear. The proposed military spending budget would increase to $886 billion next year, which is in line with what Mr. Biden requested in his 2024 budget proposal, and rise to $895 billion in 2025. Spending on veterans’ health care, including newly approved measures to assist veterans exposed to toxic burn pits, would also be funded at the levels of Mr. Biden’s proposed budget.Legislative text suggests nondefense discretionary outside of veterans’ programs would shrink in 2024 to about last year’s spending levels. But White House officials say a series of side deals with Republicans, including one related to funding for the Internal Revenue Service, will allow actual funding to be closer to this year’s levels.Although Republicans had initially called for 10 years of spending caps, this legislation includes just 2 years of caps and then switches to spending targets that are not bound by law — essentially, just suggestions.The White House estimates that the agreement will yield $1 trillion in savings over the course of a decade from reduced discretionary spending.A New York Times analysis of the proposal — using White House estimates of the actual funding levels in the agreement, not just the levels in the legislative text — suggests it would reduce federal spending by about $55 billion next year, compared with Congressional Budget Office forecasts, and by another $81 billion in 2025. If spending then returned to growing as the budget office forecasts, the total savings over a decade would be about $860 billion.Speaker Kevin McCarthy has said he believes a majority of his conference would vote for the deal.Haiyun Jiang for The New York TimesClaws back I.R.S. fundingThe legislation takes aim at one of President Biden’s biggest priorities — bolstering the I.R.S. to go after tax cheats and ensure companies and rich individuals are paying what they owe.Democrats included $80 billion to help the I.R.S. hire thousands more employees and update its antiquated technology in last year’s Inflation Reduction Act. The debt limit agreement would immediately rescind $1.38 billion from the I.R.S. and ultimately repurpose another $20 billion from the $80 billion it received through the Inflation Reduction Act.Administration officials said on Sunday that they had agreed to reprogram $10 billion of extra I.R.S. money in each of the 2024 and 2025 fiscal years, in order to maintain funding for some nondefense discretionary programs.The clawback will eat into the tax collection agency’s efforts to crack down on rich tax cheats. It is also a political win for Republicans, who have been outraged by the prospect of a beefed up I.R.S. and approved legislation in the House to rescind the entire $80 billion.Still, because of the leeway that the I.R.S. has over how and when it spends the money, the clawback might not affect the agency’s plans in the next few years. Officials said in a background call with reporters that they expected no disruptions whatsoever from the loss of that money in the short term.That’s likely because all of the $80 billion from the 2022 law was appropriated at once, but the agency planned to spend it over eight years. Officials suggested the I.R.S. might simply pull forward some of the money earmarked for later years, then return to Congress later to ask for more money.New work requirements for government benefitsThe legislation would impose new work requirements on older Americans who receive food stamps through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and who receive aid from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program.The bill imposes new work requirements for food stamps on adults ages 50 to 54 who don’t have children living in their home. Under current law, those work requirements only apply to people age 18 to 49. The age limit will be phased in over three years, beginning in fiscal year 2023. And it includes a technical change to the T.A.N.F. funding formula that could cause some states to divert dollars from the program.The bill would also exempt veterans, the homeless and people who were children in foster care from food-stamp work requirements — a move White House officials say will offset the program’s new requirements, and leave roughly the same number of Americans eligible for nutrition assistance moving forward.Still, the inclusion of new work requirements has drawn outrage from advocates for safety net assistance, who say it punishes vulnerable adults who are in need of food.“The agreement puts hundreds of thousands of older adults aged 50-54 at risk of losing food assistance, including a large number of women,” Sharon Parrott, president of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said in a statement.President Biden also agreed to some new work requirements for certain recipients of food stamps.Pete Marovich for The New York TimesPermitting reformThe agreement includes new measures to get energy projects approved more quickly by creating a lead agency to oversee reviews and require that they are completed in one to two years.The legislation also includes a win for Senator Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, a Democratic centrist, by approving permitting requests for the Mountain Valley Pipeline, a natural gas project in West Virginia. The $6.6 billion project is intended to carry gas about 300 miles from the Marcellus shale fields in West Virginia across nearly 1,000 streams and wetlands before ending in Virginia.Environmentalists, civil rights activists and many Democratic state lawmakers have opposed the project for years.The bill declares that “the timely completion of construction and operation of the Mountain Valley Pipeline is required in the national interest.”Mr. Manchin said on Twitter that he is proud to have secured the bipartisan support necessary to “get it across the finish line.” Republican members of the West Virginia delegation also claimed credit.Student loans and unspent Covid moneyThe bill officially puts an end to Mr. Biden’s freeze on student loan repayments by the end of August and restricts his ability to reinstate such a moratorium.It does not move forward with the measure that House Republicans wanted to include that would halt Mr. Biden’s policy to forgive between $10,000 and $20,000 in student loan debt for most borrowers. That initiative, which the Biden administration rolled out last year, is currently under review by the Supreme Court and could ultimately be blocked.The bill also claws back about $30 billion in unspent money from a previous Covid relief bill signed by Mr. Biden, which had been a top Republican priority entering negotiations. Some of that money will be repurposed to boost nondefense discretionary spending.According to an administration official, the deal leaves intact funding for two key Covid programs: Project NextGen, which aims to develop the next generation of coronavirus vaccines and treatments, and an initiative to offer free coronavirus shots to the uninsured.Preventing a government shutdownThe agreement only sets parameters for the next two years of spending. Congress must fill them in by passing a raft of spending bills later this year. Large fights loom in the details of those bills, raising the possibility that lawmakers will not agree to spending plans in time and the government will shut down.The agreement between Mr. Biden and Mr. McCarthy attempts to prod Congress to pass all its spending bills and avoid a shutdown, by threatening to reduce spending that is important to both parties. If lawmakers have not approved all 12 regular funding bills by the end of the year, the agreement tightens its spending caps. Nondefense discretionary spending would be set at one percent below current year levels, and it is possible that the I.R.S. would not see its $10 billion in funding for next year repurposed for other programs.The same levels would apply to defense and veterans’ spending — which would be, in effect, a significant cut to those programs compared to the agreed-upon caps. Democrats see the looming military cuts as a particularly strong incentive for Republicans to strike a deal to pass appropriations bills by the end of the year.What’s not in the billThe final agreement includes far less reduction in future debt than either side proposed.Republicans wanted much deeper spending cuts and stricter work requirements. They also wanted to repeal hundreds of billions of dollars in tax incentives signed by Mr. Biden to accelerate the transition to lower-emission energy sources and fight climate change. Mr. Biden wanted to raise taxes on corporations and high earners, and to take new steps to reduce Medicare’s spending on prescription drugs. None of those made it into the deal. More

  • 138 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    How to Enforce a Debt Deal: Through ‘Meat-Ax’ Cuts Nobody Wants

    by

    The debt-limit legislation includes a provision meant to force both sides to pass additional bills following through on their deal: the threat of automatic cuts if they fail to do so.The bipartisan legislation Congress passed this week to suspend the debt ceiling and impose spending caps contains an arcane but important provision aimed at forcing both sides to follow through on the deal struck by President Biden and Speaker Kevin McCarthy.The 99-page measure suspends the $31.4 trillion borrowing limit until January 2025. It cuts federal spending by $1.5 trillion over a decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office, by effectively freezing some funding that had been projected to increase next year and then limiting spending to 1 percent growth in 2025.But it also contains a number of side deals that never appear in its text but that were crucial to forging the bipartisan compromise, and that allowed both sides to claim they had gotten what they wanted out of it. To try to ensure that Congress abides by the agreement, negotiators used a time-tested technique that lawmakers have turned to for decades to enforce efforts to reduce the deficit: the threat of automatic, across-the-board spending cuts if they do not finish their work.Here’s how it works.A 1 percent cut unless spending bills are passed.Congress is supposed to pass 12 individual spending bills each year to keep the government funded. But for decades, lawmakers, unable to agree on those measures, have lumped them together into one enormous piece of legislation referred to as an “omnibus” spending bill and pushed them through against the threat of a shutdown.The debt-limit agreement imposes an automatic 1 percent cut on all spending — including on military and veterans programs, which were exempted from the caps in the compromise bill — unless all dozen bills are passed and signed into law by the end of the calendar year. Mandatory spending on programs such as Medicare and Social Security would be exempt.A wrinkle is that, because the fiscal year that drives Congress’s spending cycle ends before the calendar year does — on Sept. 30 — Congress would still need to pass a short-term bill to fund the government from October through December to avoid a shutdown.Republicans and Democrats both dread the cuts.The measure is a version of a plan offered by Representative Thomas Massie, Republican of Kentucky, a key vote to advancing the bill through the Rules Committee, who said he believed it would help avoid the Democratic-controlled Senate using the specter of a shutdown to force the House to swallow a bloated spending bill at the end of the year.“You get threatened and ransomed with a shutdown,” Mr. Massie said in an interview in late April describing the plan. “They’ll tell you, ‘If you don’t pass the Senate bill, there’s going to be a shutdown.’ I think we need to take that leverage away from anybody who would risk a shutdown to get more spending. Just take that off the table.”Some Republicans, including defense hawks, are livid about the measure, arguing that it would subject the Pentagon to irresponsible cuts. Senator Susan Collins of Maine, the top Republican on the Appropriations Committee and its defense subcommittee, called it a “harmful” provision that would leave a “threat hanging over” the Defense Department.“It would trigger an automatic, meat-ax, indiscriminate, across-the-board cut in our already inadequate defense budget and in the domestic, discretionary nondefense funding,” Ms. Collins said.Democrats, too, have a major incentive to avoid the cuts, since they have resisted reducing funding for federal programs all along.Without spending bills, major parts of the debt deal will die.Both parties stand to lose victories gained through handshake agreements during negotiations if Congress cannot pass its appropriations bills. Neither the White House nor House Republicans have published a full accounting of the agreements that do not appear in legislative text, but some have become clear.The deals allow Republicans to claim they are making deep cuts to certain spending categories while letting Democrats mitigate the pain of those cuts in the funding bills.One unwritten but agreed-upon compromise allows appropriators to repurpose $10 billion a year in 2024 and 2025 from the I.R.S. — a key priority of Republicans, who had opposed the additional enforcement funding championed by Mr. Biden and Democrats.Another side agreement, sought by Democrats, that would evaporate if the spending bills were not written designated $23 billion a year in domestic spending outside military funding as “emergency” spending, basically exempting that money from the caps in the deal.Jim Tankersley More

  • 138 Shares139 Views

    in Economy

    House Set to Vote on Debt Ceiling Bill Amid Republican Resistance

    by

    A bipartisan coalition was set to push through the compromise struck by Speaker Kevin McCarthy and President Biden, even as lawmakers in both parties signaled their displeasure with the plan.The House on Wednesday was poised to push through legislation negotiated by President Biden and Speaker Kevin McCarthy to suspend the debt ceiling and set federal spending limits, as a bipartisan coalition lined up to cast a critical vote to pull the nation back from the brink of economic catastrophe.The bill would defer the federal debt limit for two years — allowing the government to borrow unlimited sums as necessary to pay its obligations — while imposing two years of spending caps and a string of policy changes that Republicans demanded in exchange for allowing the country to avoid a disastrous default. The vote, expected Wednesday night, was coming days before the nation was projected to exhaust its borrowing power, and after a marathon set of talks between White House negotiators and top House Republicans.With both far-right and hard-left lawmakers in revolt over the deal, congressional leaders cobbled together a coalition of Republicans and Democrats willing to drag the bill over the finish line, throwing their support behind the compromise in an effort to break the fiscal stalemate that has gripped Washington for weeks.It nearly collapsed on its way to the House floor, when hard-right Republicans sought to block its consideration, and in a suspenseful scene, Democrats waited several minutes before swooping in to supply their votes for a procedural measure that allowed the plan to move ahead.Representative Dan Bishop of North Carolina, along with other hard-right House Freedom Caucus members, tried to block the procedure to advance the debt deal to a vote on Wednesday.Haiyun Jiang for The New York TimesThe deal would suspend the $31.4 trillion borrowing limit until January 2025. It would cut federal spending by $1.5 trillion over a decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office, by effectively freezing some funding that had been projected to increase next year and then limiting spending to 1 percent growth in 2025, which is considered a cut because it would be at a lower level than inflation. The legislation would also impose stricter work requirements for food stamps, claw back some funding for I.R.S. enforcement and unspent coronavirus relief money, speed the permitting of new energy projects and officially end Mr. Biden’s student loan repayment freeze.The compromise was structured with the aim of enticing votes from both parties, allowing Republicans to say that they succeeded in reducing some federal spending — even as funding for the military and veterans’ programs would continue to grow — while allowing Democrats to say they spared most domestic programs from significant cuts.Ahead of the series of votes on Wednesday, Mr. McCarthy urged his members to support the bill, framing it as a “small step putting us on the right track,” and promoting the spending cuts and work requirements Republicans won in the deal.“Everybody has a right to their own opinion,” he said. “But on history, I’d want to be here with this bill today.”In the Senate, both Democratic and Republican leaders said they would quickly take up the legislation and push to get the package to Mr. Biden as swiftly as possible, with Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the majority leader, warning that lawmakers would need to approve the bill without changes to meet the June 5 deadline when the Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen has said the government would default without action by Congress.“I cannot stress enough that we have no margin for error,” Mr. Schumer said. “Either we proceed quickly and send this bipartisan agreement to the president’s desk or the federal government will default for the first time ever.”Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the majority leader, warned that lawmakers would need to approve the bill without changes to meet a June 5 deadline to avert a default.Haiyun Jiang for The New York TimesPassage of the deal would be a major victory for Mr. McCarthy, a California Republican who faced a massive challenge in shepherding a debt-ceiling increase through a narrowly divided chamber populated by Republicans who have long refused to raise the borrowing limit. Few had expected that Mr. McCarthy would be able to unite his fractious conference around any such measure, much less one negotiated with Mr. Biden, without prompting an attempt by his right flank to oust him.As of Wednesday, no such effort had materialized, thought there still may be political consequences ahead for Mr. McCarthy. Representative Dan Bishop, Republican of North Carolina and a member of the ultraconservative Freedom Caucus, has publicly said that he considered the debt and spending deal grounds for removing Mr. McCarthy from his post. Another member of the group, Representative Ken Buck, Republican of Colorado, told CNN that its members would have “discussions about whether” to try to oust him.“I’m not suggesting the votes are there to remove the speaker, but the speaker promised that we would operate at 2022 appropriations levels when he got the support to be speaker,” Mr. Buck said. “He’s now changed that to 2023 levels plus one percent. That’s a major change for a lot of people.”Under the rules House Republicans adopted at the beginning of the year that helped Mr. McCarthy become speaker, any single lawmaker could call for a snap vote to depose him, a move that would require a majority of the House.Hard-right lawmakers were nonetheless furious over the compromise, savaging the bill and Mr. McCarthy’s handling of the negotiations as a betrayal.“No one sent us here to borrow an additional $4 trillion to get absolutely nothing in return,” said Representative Chip Roy, Republican of Texas, who promised “a reckoning about what just occurred.”In a dramatic display of their displeasure, 29 conservative Republicans took the unusual step of breaking ranks on a procedural vote to take up the legislation, normally a formality that passes entirely along party lines.In a dramatic tableau on the House floor, as the Republican defections piled up, imperiling the deal, Representative Hakeem Jeffries of New York, the minority leader, finally raised a green voting card in the air, signaling to fellow Democrats that it was time go ahead and bail Republicans out. A stream of centrist and veteran lawmakers — 52 in all — crowded into the well of the House and voted “yes,” rescuing the deal from collapse.After a pause on the floor when Republicans came up short on votes, Representative Hakeem Jeffries, the New York Democrat and minority leader, gave the assent to a group of Democrats to help move toward a vote on the deal.Kenny Holston/The New York TimesMr. Jeffries had gathered Democrats in the Capitol on Wednesday morning, along with top White House officials who had helped broker the deal, and urged them to back the compromise. He argued that Mr. Biden had successfully fended off the worst of Republicans’ demands, and reiterated that allowing the nation to default was not an option.“I made clear that I’m going to support legislation that is on the floor today,” Mr. Jeffries told reporters at a news conference after the meeting. “And I support it without hesitation or reservation or trepidation.”But progressive Democratics bristled at the package, and said they could not support new work requirements for safety net programs or incentivize Republicans from weaponizing the debt ceiling as a political cudgel.“Republicans need to own this vote,” said Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Democrat of New York, who took particular aim at changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and a measure to expedite production of a gas pipeline. “This was their deal, this was their negotiations. They’re the ones trying to come in and cut SNAP, cut environmental protections, trying to ram through an oil pipeline through a community that does not want it.”“Republicans need to own this vote,” said Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Democrat of New York, one of a group of Democrats displeased with Republican provisions in the bill.Kenny Holston/The New York Times“This has been a hostage situation,” Representative Greg Casar, Democrat of Texas, said. “We’re going to get out of the hostage situation. I appreciate the president negotiating down the ransom payment for the hostage. But I think it’s appropriate for progressives to say we never want to be in this situation again.”Adding to progressive discontent are provisions in the deal that claw back some unspent money from a previous pandemic relief bill, and reduce by $10 billion — to $70 billion from $80 billion — new enforcement funding for the I.R.S. to crack down on tax cheats. Other measures in the bill include a provision meant to speed the permitting of certain energy projects and a provision meant to force the president to find budget savings to offset the costs of a unilateral action, like forgiving student loans — though administration officials could circumvent that requirement.The deal also includes measures meant to avert a government shutdown later this year.Carl Hulse More

  • 100 Shares109 Views

    in Economy

    Debt Ceiling Deal Would Reinstate Student Loan Payments

    by

    The legislation would prevent President Biden from issuing another last-minute extension on the payments beyond the end of the summer.Follow for live updates as the House prepares for a vote on the debt limit deal.For millions of Americans with federal student loan debt, the payment holiday is about to end.Legislation to raise the debt ceiling and cut spending includes a provision that would require borrowers to begin repaying their loans again by the end of the summer after a yearslong pause imposed during the coronavirus pandemic.President Biden had already warned that the pause would end around the same time, but the legislation, if it passes in the coming days, would prevent him from issuing another last-minute extension, as he has already done several times.The end of the pause will affect millions of Americans who have taken out federal student loans to pay for college. Across the United States, 45 million people owe $1.6 trillion for such loans — more than Americans owe for any kind of consumer debt other than mortgages.The economic impact of the pandemic has faded since President Donald J. Trump first paused student loan payments in March 2020. Many Americans lost their jobs at the outset of the public health crisis, undercutting their ability to repay their loans on time. The number of jobs in the United States now exceeds prepandemic levels.Promoting the debt ceiling legislation over the weekend, Speaker Kevin McCarthy said on “Fox News Sunday” that it would end the pause on student loan payments “within 60 days of this being signed.”In fact, the legislation would follow the same timeline that the Biden administration had previously outlined, ending the pause on payments on Aug. 30 at the latest.A spokesman for Mr. McCarthy did not respond to an email seeking comment.Even with the pause ending, some borrowers may still see some relief if the Supreme Court allows Mr. Biden to move forward with a plan to forgive up to $20,000 in debt for some people with outstanding balances.Mr. Biden’s plan would cancel $10,000 of federal student loan debt for those who make under $125,000 a year. People who received Pell grants for low-income families could qualify for an additional $10,000 in debt cancellation.But the plan was challenged in court as an illegal use of executive authority, and during oral arguments in February, several justices appeared skeptical of the program. A ruling from the court could come at any time but is expected next month.White House officials have said repeatedly that they are confident in the legality of the president’s plan. But the debate about the plan, and the broader issue of student loans, has been fierce in Congress.Republicans have vowed to block the president’s plan if the courts do not. But they have so far failed to make good on that promise, despite repeated attempts.Last month, House Republicans passed a bill to raise the debt ceiling that would have blocked the student debt cancellation plan and ended the temporary pause on payments. That bill was shelved after negotiations began with the White House on the debt ceiling and spending cuts.Last week, the House passed a resolution that would use the Congressional Review Act to overturn the president’s debt cancellation plan. But the Senate has not taken up the measure, and Mr. Biden has said he would veto it.Instead, the compromise debt ceiling legislation now under consideration by lawmakers only requires ending the pause on payments — a move that the president had already said he would make. It would not block the debt cancellation plan.In addition, White House officials said the legislation would not deny the Biden administration the ability to pause student loan payments during a future emergency, as Republicans had sought to do.A spokesman for the White House said the president was pleased that Republicans had failed to block his debt cancellation plan in the debt ceiling legislation.“House Republicans weren’t able to take away a single penny of relief for the 40 million eligible borrowers, most of whom make less than $75,000 a year,” the spokesman, Abdullah Hasan, said. “The administration announced back in November that the current student loan payment pause would end this summer — this agreement makes no changes to that plan.” More

  • 150 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    White House and GOP Close In on Deal to Raise Debt Ceiling

    by

    The details had yet to be finalized, but negotiators were discussing a compromise that would allow Republicans to point to spending reductions and Democrats to say they had protected against large cuts.Top White House officials and Republican lawmakers were closing in Thursday on a deal that would raise the debt limit for two years while capping federal spending on everything but the military and veterans for the same period. Officials were racing to cement an agreement in time to avert a federal default that is projected in just one week.The deal taking shape would allow Republicans to say that they were reducing some federal spending — even as spending on the military and veterans’ programs would continue to grow — and allow Democrats to say they had spared most domestic programs from significant cuts.Negotiators from both sides were talking into the evening and beginning to draft legislative text, though some details remained in flux.“We’ve been talking to the White House all day, we’ve been going back and forth, and it’s not easy,” Mr. McCarthy told reporters as he left the Capitol on Thursday evening, declining to divulge what was under discussion. “It takes a while to make it happen, and we are working hard to make it happen.”The compromise, if it can be agreed upon and enacted, would raise the government’s borrowing limit for two years, past the 2024 election, according to three people familiar with it who insisted on anonymity to discuss a plan that was still being hammered out.The United States hit the legal limit, currently $31.4 trillion, in January and has been relying on accounting measures to avoid defaulting since then. The Treasury Department has projected it will exhaust its ability to pay bills on time as early as June 1.In exchange for lifting the debt limit, the deal would meet Republicans’ demand to cut some federal spending, albeit with the help of accounting maneuvers that would give both sides political cover for an agreement likely to be unpopular with large swaths of their base voters.It would impose caps on discretionary spending for two years, though those caps would apply differently to spending on the military than to nondefense discretionary spending. Spending on the military would grow next year, as would spending on some veterans’ care that falls under nondefense discretionary spending. The rest of nondefense discretionary spending would fall slightly — or roughly stay flat — compared with this year’s levels.The deal would also roll back $10 billion of the $80 billion Congress approved last year for an I.R.S. crackdown on high earners and corporations that evade taxes — funding that nonpartisan scorekeepers said would reduce the budget deficit by helping the government collect more of the tax revenue it is owed — though that provision was still under discussion. Democrats have championed the initiative, but Republicans have denounced it, claiming falsely that the money would be used to fund an army of auditors to go after working people.“The president and his negotiating team are fighting hard for his agenda, including for I.R.S. funding so it can provide better customer service to taxpayers and crack down on wealthy tax cheats,” a White House spokesman, Michael Kikukawa, said in an email on Thursday in response to a question about the provision.As the deal stood on Thursday, the I.R.S. money would essentially shift to nondefense discretionary spending, allowing Democrats to avoid further cuts in programs like education and environmental protection, according to people familiar with the pending agreement.The plan had yet to be finalized, and the bargainers continued to haggle over crucial details that could make or break any deal.“Nothing is done until you actually have a complete deal,” said Representative Patrick T. McHenry of North Carolina, one of the lead G.O.P. negotiators, who also declined to discuss the specifics of the negotiations. “Nothing’s resolved.”The cuts contained in the package were all but certain to be too modest to win the votes of hard-line fiscal conservatives in the House. Liberal groups were already complaining on Thursday about the reported deal to reduce the I.R.S. funding increase.But people familiar with the developing deal said that negotiators had agreed to fund military and veterans’ programs at the levels envisioned by President Biden in his budget for next year. They would reduce nondefense discretionary spending below this year’s levels — but much of that cut would be covered by the shift in the I.R.S. funding and other budgetary maneuvers. White House officials have contended those shifts would functionally make nondefense discretionary spending the same next year as it was this year.All discretionary spending would then grow at 1 percent in 2025, after which the caps would lift.Mr. McCarthy on Thursday had nodded to the idea that a compromise to avert a default would likely draw detractors from both parties.“I don’t think everybody is going to be happy at the end of the day,” he said. “That’s not how this system works.”Another provision of the deal seeks to avert a government shutdown later in the year, and would attempt to take away Republicans’ ability to seek deeper cuts to government programs and agencies through the appropriations process later in the year.The exact details on how such a measure would work remained unclear on Thursday evening. But it was based on a penalty of sorts, which would adjust the spending caps in the event that Congress failed to pass all 12 stand-alone spending bills that fund the government by the end of the calendar year.Negotiators were still at loggerheads over work requirements for social safety net programs and permitting reform for domestic energy and gas projects.“We have legislative work to do, policy work to do,” Mr. McHenry said. “The details of all that stuff really are consequential to us being able to get this thing through.”As negotiators inched closer to a deal, hard-right Republicans on Thursday were becoming increasingly anxious that Mr. McCarthy would sign off on a compromise they view as insufficiently conservative. Several right-wing Republicans have already vowed to oppose any compromise that retreats from cuts that were part of their debt-limit bill.“Republicans should not cut a bad deal,” Representative Chip Roy of Texas, an influential conservative, wrote on Twitter on Thursday morning, shortly after telling a local radio station that he was “going to have to go have some blunt conversations with my colleagues and the leadership team” because he did not like “the direction they are headed.”Representative Ralph Norman of South Carolina, said he was reserving judgment on how he would vote on a compromise until he saw the bill, but added: “What I’ve seen now is not good.”Former President Donald J. Trump, who has said that Republicans should force a default if they do not get what they want in the negotiations, also was weighing in. Mr. McCarthy told reporters he had spoken with Mr. Trump briefly about the negotiations — “it came up just for a second,” the speaker said. “He was talking about, ‘Make sure you get a good agreement.’”After playing a tee shot on his golf course outside of Washington, Mr. Trump approached a reporter for The New York Times, iPhone in hand, and showed a call with Speaker Kevin McCarthy.“It’s going to be an interesting thing — it’s not going to be that easy,” said Mr. Trump, who described his call with the speaker as “a little, quick talk.”“They’ve spent three years wasting money on nonsense,” he added, saying, “Republicans don’t want to see that, so I understand where they’re at.”Luke Broadwater More

  • 150 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    New York City Moves to Regulate How AI Is Used in Hiring

    by

    European lawmakers are finishing work on an A.I. act. The Biden administration and leaders in Congress have their plans for reining in artificial intelligence. Sam Altman, the chief executive of OpenAI, maker of the A.I. sensation ChatGPT, recommended the creation of a federal agency with oversight and licensing authority in Senate testimony last week. And the topic came up at the Group of 7 summit in Japan.Amid the sweeping plans and pledges, New York City has emerged as a modest pioneer in A.I. regulation.The city government passed a law in 2021 and adopted specific rules last month for one high-stakes application of the technology: hiring and promotion decisions. Enforcement begins in July.The city’s law requires companies using A.I. software in hiring to notify candidates that an automated system is being used. It also requires companies to have independent auditors check the technology annually for bias. Candidates can request and be told what data is being collected and analyzed. Companies will be fined for violations.New York City’s focused approach represents an important front in A.I. regulation. At some point, the broad-stroke principles developed by governments and international organizations, experts say, must be translated into details and definitions. Who is being affected by the technology? What are the benefits and harms? Who can intervene, and how?“Without a concrete use case, you are not in a position to answer those questions,” said Julia Stoyanovich, an associate professor at New York University and director of its Center for Responsible A.I.But even before it takes effect, the New York City law has been a magnet for criticism. Public interest advocates say it doesn’t go far enough, while business groups say it is impractical.The complaints from both camps point to the challenge of regulating A.I., which is advancing at a torrid pace with unknown consequences, stirring enthusiasm and anxiety.Uneasy compromises are inevitable.Ms. Stoyanovich is concerned that the city law has loopholes that may weaken it. “But it’s much better than not having a law,” she said. “And until you try to regulate, you won’t learn how.”The law applies to companies with workers in New York City, but labor experts expect it to influence practices nationally. At least four states — California, New Jersey, New York and Vermont — and the District of Columbia are also working on laws to regulate A.I. in hiring. And Illinois and Maryland have enacted laws limiting the use of specific A.I. technologies, often for workplace surveillance and the screening of job candidates.The New York City law emerged from a clash of sharply conflicting viewpoints. The City Council passed it during the final days of the administration of Mayor Bill de Blasio. Rounds of hearings and public comments, more than 100,000 words, came later — overseen by the city’s Department of Consumer and Worker Protection, the rule-making agency.The result, some critics say, is overly sympathetic to business interests.“What could have been a landmark law was watered down to lose effectiveness,” said Alexandra Givens, president of the Center for Democracy & Technology, a policy and civil rights organization.That’s because the law defines an “automated employment decision tool” as technology used “to substantially assist or replace discretionary decision making,” she said. The rules adopted by the city appear to interpret that phrasing narrowly so that A.I. software will require an audit only if it is the lone or primary factor in a hiring decision or is used to overrule a human, Ms. Givens said.That leaves out the main way the automated software is used, she said, with a hiring manager invariably making the final choice. The potential for A.I.-driven discrimination, she said, typically comes in screening hundreds or thousands of candidates down to a handful or in targeted online recruiting to generate a pool of candidates.Ms. Givens also criticized the law for limiting the kinds of groups measured for unfair treatment. It covers bias by sex, race and ethnicity, but not discrimination against older workers or those with disabilities.“My biggest concern is that this becomes the template nationally when we should be asking much more of our policymakers,” Ms. Givens said.“This is a significant regulatory success,” said Robert Holden, center, a member of the City Council who formerly led its committee on technology.Johnny Milano for The New York TimesThe law was narrowed to sharpen it and make sure it was focused and enforceable, city officials said. The Council and the worker protection agency heard from many voices, including public-interest activists and software companies. Its goal was to weigh trade-offs between innovation and potential harm, officials said.“This is a significant regulatory success toward ensuring that A.I. technology is used ethically and responsibly,” said Robert Holden, who was the chair of the Council committee on technology when the law was passed and remains a committee member.New York City is trying to address new technology in the context of federal workplace laws with guidelines on hiring that date to the 1970s. The main Equal Employment Opportunity Commission rule states that no practice or method of selection used by employers should have a “disparate impact” on a legally protected group like women or minorities.Businesses have criticized the law. In a filing this year, the Software Alliance, a trade group that includes Microsoft, SAP and Workday, said the requirement for independent audits of A.I. was “not feasible” because “the auditing landscape is nascent,” lacking standards and professional oversight bodies.But a nascent field is a market opportunity. The A.I. audit business, experts say, is only going to grow. It is already attracting law firms, consultants and start-ups.Companies that sell A.I. software to assist in hiring and promotion decisions have generally come to embrace regulation. Some have already undergone outside audits. They see the requirement as a potential competitive advantage, providing proof that their technology expands the pool of job candidates for companies and increases opportunity for workers.“We believe we can meet the law and show what good A.I. looks like,” said Roy Wang, general counsel of Eightfold AI, a Silicon Valley start-up that produces software used to assist hiring managers.The New York City law also takes an approach to regulating A.I. that may become the norm. The law’s key measurement is an “impact ratio,” or a calculation of the effect of using the software on a protected group of job candidates. It does not delve into how an algorithm makes decisions, a concept known as “explainability.”In life-affecting applications like hiring, critics say, people have a right to an explanation of how a decision was made. But A.I. like ChatGPT-style software is becoming more complex, perhaps putting the goal of explainable A.I. out of reach, some experts say.“The focus becomes the output of the algorithm, not the working of the algorithm,” said Ashley Casovan, executive director of the Responsible AI Institute, which is developing certifications for the safe use of A.I. applications in the workplace, health care and finance. More

  • 125 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    California Panel Calls for Billions in Reparations for Black Residents

    by

    A task force recommended that legislators enact a sweeping program to compensate for the economic harm from racism in the state’s history.A California panel approved recommendations on Saturday that could mean hundreds of billions of dollars in payments to Black residents to address past injustices. The proposals to state legislators are the nation’s most sweeping effort to devise a program of reparations.The nine-member Reparations Task Force, whose work is being closely monitored by politicians, historians and economists across the country, produced a detailed plan for how restitution should be handled to address a myriad of racist harms, including housing discrimination, mass incarceration and unequal access to health care.Created through a bill signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom in the wake of the nationwide racial justice protests after the murder of George Floyd in 2020, the panel has spent more than a year conducting research and holding listening sessions from the Bay Area to San Diego.It will be up to legislators to weigh the recommendations and decide whether to forge them into law, a political and fiscal challenge that has yet to be reckoned with.The task force’s final report, which is to be sent to lawmakers in Sacramento before a July 1 deadline, includes projected restitution estimates calculated by several economists working with the task force.One such estimate laid out in the report determined that to address the harms from redlining by banks, which disqualified people in Black neighborhoods from taking out mortgages and owning homes, eligible Black Californians should receive up to $148,099. That estimate is based on a figure of $3,366 for each year they lived in California from the early 1930s to the late 1970s, when federal redlining was most prevalent.To address the impact of overpolicing and mass incarceration, the report estimates, each eligible person would receive $115,260, or about $2,352 for each year of residency in California from 1971 to 2020, during the decades-long war on drugs.In theory, a lifelong state resident who is 71 years old, the average life expectancy, could be eligible for roughly $1.2 million in total compensation for housing discrimination, mass incarceration and additional harms outlined in the report.All of these estimates, the report notes, are preliminary and would require additional research from lawmakers to hash out specifics. The costs to the state were not outlined in the report, but totals from harms associated with housing and mass incarceration could exceed $500 billion, based on estimates from economists.While the panel members considered various methods for distributing reparations — some favored tuition or housing grants and others preferred direct cash payments — they ultimately recommended the direct payments.“The initial down payment is the beginning of a process of addressing historical injustices,” the report reads, “not the end of it.“Kamilah Moore, the chair, and Amos Brown, the vice chair, at the task force meeting on Saturday.Jason Henry for The New York TimesLast year, the task force, which is made up of elected officials, academics and lawyers, decided on the eligibility criteria, determining that any descendant of enslaved African Americans or of a “free Black person living in the United States prior to the end of the 19th century” should receive reparations.Still, on Saturday, there was sometimes contentious debate over clearly expressing the criteria in certain sections of the report — particularly regarding compensation.Should lawmakers pass legislation for payments, the panel suggested that a state agency be created to process claims and render payments, with elderly individuals getting priority. Nearly 6.5 percent of California residents, roughly 2.5 million, identify as Black or African American.“This is about closing the income and racial wealth gap in this country, and this is a step,” Gary Hoover, an economics professor at Tulane University who has studied reparations, said in an interview. “Wealth is sticky and is able to be transferred from generations. Reparations can close that stickiness.”In voting on its final report on Saturday on the Oakland campus of Mills College at Northeastern University, the panel also suggested that state legislators draw up a formal apology to Black residents. A preliminary report made public last year, outlined how enslaved Black people were forced to California during the Gold Rush era and how, in the 1950s and 1960s, racially restrictive covenants and redlining segregated Black Californians in many of the state’s largest cities.In emotional testimony for much of the past year, Black residents have stood before the panel often revealing personal stories of racial discrimination, lack of resources in communities because of redlining and trauma that has had negative effects on health and well-being.While the task force marked the first such effort by a state, a similar measure aimed at creating a commission to explore reparations has stalled in Congress for decades.Representative Barbara Lee speaking during the task force meeting on Saturday.Jason Henry for The New York TimesIn brief remarks before the panel on Saturday, Representative Barbara Lee, a Democrat whose district spans Oakland, lauded the work members have done.“California is leading on this issue,” said Ms. Lee, who is running for the U.S. Senate. “It’s a model for other states in search of reparative damage, realistic avenues for addressing the need for reparations.”The median wealth of Black households in the United States is $24,100, compared with $188,200 for white households, according to the most recent Federal Reserve Board Survey of Consumer Finances. In California, a recent report from the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California found for every $1 earned by white families, Black families earn 60 cents — the result of disparities in, among other things, education, and discrimination in the labor market.Assemblyman Reggie Jones-Sawyer, who is one of two state lawmakers on the panel, said he had spoken with Mr. Newsom in recent weeks and expressed optimism that legislation would be approved based on the panel’s report.“The reality is Black Californians have suffered, and continue to suffer, from institutional laws and policies within our state’s political, social, and economic landscape that have negated Blacks from achieving life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for generations,” said Mr. Jones-Sawyer, who represents a Los Angeles district. “This really is a trial against America’s original sin, slavery, and the repercussions it caused and the lingering effects in modern society.”Mr. Jones-Sawyer said he expected to present some form of legislation early next year.But the efforts and support for racial justice that followed Mr. Floyd’s death are now confronted with an economy that is shadowed by fears of a recession. In January, Mr. Newsom announced that the state faced a $22.5 billion deficit in the 2023-24 fiscal year, a turnaround from a $100 billion surplus a year ago.Nationwide, opinions on reparations are sharply divided by race. Last fall, a survey from the Pew Research Center found that 77 percent of Black Americans say the descendants of people enslaved in the United States should be repaid in some way, while 18 percent of white Americans say the same. Democrats were even split on the issue, with 49 percent opposed and 48 percent in support. Other polls on the issue have found similar splits.Even so, cities across the country have moved forward with reparations proposals. In 2021, officials in Evanston, Ill., a Chicago suburb, approved $10 million in reparations in the form of housing grants.More recently, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors has expressed support for reparations that could offer several million dollars. And in nearby Hayward, Calif., city officials are hearing proposals for reparations for land taken from Black and Latino families in the 1960s.Kamilah Moore, a lawyer who is chair of the California task force, said she was confident that the Legislature would “respect the task force’s official role as a legislative advisory body and work in good faith to turn our final proposals into legislation.”“It will soon be in their hands to act,” Ms. Moore said. More

  • 150 Shares129 Views

    in Economy

    House Democrats Move to Force a Debt-Limit Increase as Default Date Looms

    by

    House Democratic leaders who have been quietly planning a strategy to force a debt ceiling increase to avert default began taking steps on Tuesday to deploy their secret weapon.The only clue to the gambit was in the title of the otherwise obscure hodgepodge of a bill: “The Breaking the Gridlock Act.”But the 45-page legislation, introduced without fanfare in January by a little-known Democrat, Representative Mark DeSaulnier of California, is part of a confidential, previously unreported, strategy Democrats have been plotting for months to quietly smooth the way for action by Congress to avert a devastating federal default if debt ceiling talks remain deadlocked.With a possible default now projected as soon as June 1, Democrats on Tuesday began taking steps to deploy the secret weapon they have been holding in reserve. They started the process of trying to force a debt-limit increase bill to the floor through a so-called discharge petition that could bypass Republican leaders who have refused to raise the ceiling unless President Biden agrees to spending cuts and policy changes.“House Democrats are working to make sure we have all options at our disposal to avoid a default,” Representative Hakeem Jeffries, Democrat of New York and the minority leader, wrote in a letter he sent to colleagues on Tuesday. “The filing of a debt ceiling measure to be brought up on the discharge calendar preserves an important option. It is now time for MAGA Republicans to act in a bipartisan manner to pay America’s bills without extreme conditions.”An emergency rule Democrats introduced on Tuesday, during a pro forma session held while the House is in recess, would start the clock on a process that would allow them to begin collecting signatures as soon as May 16 on such a petition, which can force action on a bill if a majority of members sign on. The open-ended rule would provide a vehicle to bring Mr. DeSaulnier’s bill to the floor and amend it with a Democratic proposal — which has yet to be written — to resolve the debt limit crisis.The strategy is no silver bullet, and Democrats concede it is a long shot. Gathering enough signatures to force a bill to the floor would take at least five Republicans willing to cross party lines if all Democrats signed on, a threshold that Democrats concede will be difficult to reach. They have yet to settle on the debt ceiling proposal itself, and for the strategy to succeed, Democrats would likely need to negotiate with a handful of mainstream Republicans to settle on a measure they could accept.A handful of hard-right Republicans explicitly warned their colleagues on Tuesday not to go down that path. “House Republicans: don’t defect!” Senator Mike Lee of Utah wrote on Twitter.Still, Democrats argue that the prospect of a successful effort could force House Republicans into a more acceptable deal. And Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen’s announcement on Monday that a potential default was only weeks away spurred Democratic leaders to act.House Democratic leaders have for months played down the possibility of initiating a discharge petition as a way out of the stalemate. They are hesitant to budge from the party position, which Mr. Biden has articulated repeatedly, that Republicans should agree to raise the debt limit with no conditions or concessions on spending cuts.But behind the scenes, they were simultaneously taking steps to make sure a vehicle was available if needed.There were no signs on Tuesday of any momentum toward even a temporary resolution. Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the majority leader, brushed aside the idea of putting off a confrontation by passing a short-term debt limit increase, telling reporters: “We should not kick the can down the road.”And Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the minority leader, reiterated that he intended to leave the negotiations to Mr. Biden and Speaker Kevin McCarthy, again dashing the private hopes of some Democrats that the veteran Republican would ultimately cut a deal with them to allow the debt ceiling to be lifted, as he has done in the past.“There is no solution in the Senate,” Mr. McConnell said.The White House had no public comment on the discharge effort, according to Karine Jean-Pierre, the press secretary. Mr. Biden is scheduled next week to host Mr. McCarthy and other congressional leaders at the White House to discuss raising the debt limit. His goal at that meeting, a senior administration official said, will be to stress the importance of averting default and creating a separate negotiation to address other budget issues.The discharge petition process can be time-consuming and complicated, so House Democrats who devised the strategy started early and carefully crafted their legislative vehicle. Insiders privately refer to the measure as a “Swiss Army knife” bill — one intended to be referred to every single House committee in order to keep open as many opportunities as possible for forcing it to the floor.It would create a task force to help grandparents raising grandchildren, create a federal strategy for reducing earthquake risks, change the name of a law that governs stock trading by members of Congress, extend small business loans, protect veterans from the I.R.S., authorize a new Pentagon grant program to protect nonprofit organizations against terrorist attacks and more. The legislation was so broad and eclectic that it was referred to 20 committees, where it has sat idle for months. That was the point.Mr. DeSaulnier’s intent was never to pass the elements of the bill, though he favors them all. It was to create what is known on Capitol Hill as a shell of a bill that would ultimately serve as the basis for a discharge petition — and a way out of the debt limit standoff.“I wrote it in a way to be prepared,” said Mr. DeSaulnier, a former member of the Rules Committee who worked with Democratic procedural experts to craft legislation that could provide a debt-limit escape hatch. “I anticipated there would be these problems with the Republican caucus, whether it was abortion or the debt limit. I think it was the responsible thing as a legislator to do.”Democrats say the beauty of Mr. DeSaulnier’s bill — which Republicans have ignored — is that it long ago passed the threshold of being held in committee for at least 30 days, the minimum length of time to initiate a discharge petition to force action on legislation. Even so, in a memo sent to members on Tuesday, a U.S. Chamber of Commerce analysis projected that even if Democrats were able to draw enough support for their plan and advance it without further delay, the measure could take until June 12 or 13 to clear Congress — many days beyond the earliest date Ms. Yellen has warned the debt limit could be reached.Democrats said the fact that their bill would fall under the jurisdiction of so many committees gave them several options for moving forward.Mr. DeSaulnier was picked to sponsor the measure because his low profile meant there was likely to be little attention to his bill. In contrast, any legislation introduced by Representative Jim McGovern of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Rules Committee, would have drawn attention immediately, and Republicans might have been able to take action to derail it.Discharge petitions have spurred action in the past by prompting House leaders to move on issues rather than lose control of the floor through a guerrilla legislative effort. But the procedure is rarely successful and has produced a law in only a handful of cases, including the approval of major bipartisan campaign finance legislation in 2002. Congressional leaders of both parties have been disdainful of such efforts, since they effectively wrest control of the House floor from the majority.Democrats say that the current situation, with a default looming, showed that they were taking prudent precautions with Mr. DeSaulnier’s bill. Besides thwarting gridlock, the legislation says its purpose is also “to advance common-sense policy priorities.”Catie Edmondson More