Law and Legislation

More stories

  • 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

  • 125 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Is the Debt Limit Constitutional? Biden Aides Are Debating It.

    by

    As the government heads toward a possible default on its debt as soon as next month, officials are entertaining a legal theory that previous administrations ruled out.A standoff between House Republicans and President Biden over raising the nation’s borrowing limit has administration officials debating what to do if the government runs out of cash to pay its bills, including one option that previous administrations had deemed unthinkable.That option is effectively a constitutional challenge to the debt limit. Under the theory, the government would be required by the 14th Amendment to continue issuing new debt to pay bondholders, Social Security recipients, government employees and others, even if Congress fails to lift the limit before the so-called X-date.That theory rests on the 14th Amendment clause stating that “the validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.”Some legal scholars contend that language overrides the statutory borrowing limit, which currently caps federal debt at $31.4 trillion and requires congressional approval to raise or lift.Top economic and legal officials at the White House, the Treasury Department and the Justice Department have made that theory a subject of intense and unresolved debate in recent months, according to several people familiar with the discussions.It is unclear whether President Biden would support such a move, which would have serious ramifications for the economy and almost undoubtedly elicit legal challenges from Republicans. Continuing to issue debt in that situation would avoid an immediate disruption in consumer demand by maintaining government payments, but borrowing costs are likely to soar, at least temporarily.Still, the debate is taking on new urgency as the United States inches closer to default. Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen warned on Monday that the government could run out of cash as soon as June 1 if the borrowing cap is not lifted.Mr. Biden is set to meet with Speaker Kevin McCarthy of California at the White House on May 9 to discuss fiscal policy, along with other top congressional leaders from both parties. The president’s invitation was spurred by the accelerated warning of the arrival of the X-date.But it remains unclear what type of compromise may be reached in time to avoid a default. House Republicans have refused to raise or suspend the debt ceiling unless Mr. Biden accepts spending cuts, fossil fuel supports and a repeal of Democratic climate policies, contained in a bill that narrowly cleared the chamber last week.Mr. Biden has said Congress must raise the limit without conditions, though he has also said he is open to separate discussions about the nation’s fiscal path.A White House spokesman declined to comment on Tuesday.A group of legal scholars and some liberal activists have pushed the constitutional challenge to the borrowing limit for more than a decade. No previous administration has taken it up. Lawyers at the White House and the Justice and Treasury Departments have never issued formal opinions on the question. And legal scholars disagree about the constitutionality of such a move.“The Constitution’s text bars the federal government from defaulting on the debt — even a little, even for a short while,” Garrett Epps, a constitutional scholar at the University of Oregon’s law school, wrote in November. “There’s a case to be made that if Congress decides to default on the debt, the president has the power and the obligation to pay it without congressional permission, even if that requires borrowing more money to do so.”Other legal scholars say the limit is constitutional. “The statute is a necessary component of Congress’s power to borrow and has proved capable of serving as a useful catalyst for budgetary reform aimed at debt reduction,” Anita S. Krishnakumar, a Georgetown University law professor, wrote in a 2005 law review article.The president has repeatedly said it is the job of Congress to raise the limit to avoid an economically catastrophic default.Top officials, including Ms. Yellen and the White House press secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre, have sidestepped questions about whether they believe the Constitution would compel the government to continue borrowing to pay its bills after the X-date.ABC News asked Ms. Yellen amid a debt-ceiling standoff in 2021 if she would invoke the 14th Amendment to resolve it.“It’s Congress’s responsibility to show that they have the determination to pay the bills that the government amasses,” she said. “We shouldn’t be in a position where we need to consider whether or not the 14th Amendment applies. That’s a disastrous situation that the country shouldn’t be in.”The government reached the borrowing limit on Jan. 19, but Treasury officials deployed what are known as extraordinary measures to continue paying bills on time. The measures, which are essentially accounting maneuvers, are set to run out sometime in the next few months, possibly as soon as June 1. The government would default on its debt if Treasury stopped paying all bills. Economists have warned that could lead to financial crisis and recession.Progressive groups have encouraged Mr. Biden to take actions meant to circumvent Congress on the debt limit and continue uninterrupted spending, like minting a $1 trillion coin to deposit with the Federal Reserve. Internally, administration officials have rejected most of them. Publicly, Biden aides have said the only way to avert a crisis is for Congress to act.“I know you probably get tired of me saying this from here over and over again, but it is true,” Ms. Jean-Pierre said on Thursday, after referring a question about the 14th Amendment to the Treasury Department. “It is their constitutional duty to get this done.”But inside the administration, it remains an open question what Treasury would do if Congress does not raise the limit in time — because, many officials say, the law is unclear and so is the Constitution, which gives Congress the power to tax and spend.Officials who support invoking the 14th Amendment and continuing to issue new debt contend the government would be exposed to lawsuits either way. If it fails to continue paying its bills after the X-date, it could be sued by anyone who is not paid on time in the event of a default.Other officials have argued that the statutory borrowing limit is binding, and that an attempt to ignore it would draw an immediate legal challenge that would most likely rise quickly to the Supreme Court.There is a broad consensus on both sides of the debate that the move risks roiling financial markets. It is likely to cause a surge in short-term borrowing costs because investors would demand a premium to buy debt that could be invalidated by a court.The Moody’s Analytics economist Mark Zandi modeled such a situation this year and found it would create short-term economic damage but long-term gains if courts upheld the constitutional interpretation — by removing the threat of future brinkmanship over the limit.“The extraordinary uncertainty created by the constitutional crisis leads to a sell-off in financial markets until the Supreme Court rules,” Mr. Zandi wrote in March. Economic growth and job creation would be dampened briefly, he added, “but the economy avoids a recession and quickly rebounds.”Obama administration officials considered — and quickly discarded — the constitutional theory when Republicans refused to raise the limit in 2011 unless the president agreed to spending cuts. Treasury lawyers never issued a formal opinion on the question, and they have not yet this year, department officials said this week.But in a letter to the editor of The New York Times in 2011, George W. Madison, who was Treasury’s general counsel at the time, suggested that department officials did not subscribe to the theory. He was directly challenging an assertion by the constitutional law professor Laurence H. Tribe, who wrote in an opinion essay in The Times that Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner had pushed to embrace the 14th Amendment interpretation, which Mr. Tribe opposed.“Like every previous secretary of the Treasury who has confronted the question,” Mr. Madison wrote, “Secretary Geithner has always viewed the debt limit as a binding legal constraint that can only be raised by Congress.” More

  • 113 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    Biden Faces His First Big Choice on Debt Limit

    by

    After Republicans passed a bill that pairs spending cuts and fossil fuel support with raising the nation’s borrowing cap, the president must decide when and how to negotiateWASHINGTON — This week’s vote by House Republicans to couple deep spending cuts with an agreement to raise the debt limit for one year has put President Biden on the defensive, forcing him to confront a series of potentially painful choices at a perilous economic moment.Mr. Biden has long maintained that he would not negotiate spending cuts or other efforts to reduce the federal debt as part of discussions over raising the nation’s debt limit, which must be raised in order for the United States to keep borrowing money to pay its bills.But business groups, fiscal hawks and some congressional Democrats are calling on Mr. Biden to begin negotiating in earnest toward a deal that would avoid a default on the debt, which could come as soon as June or July.Mr. Biden and his aides now must choose how quickly to engage with Speaker Kevin McCarthy of California — along with Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York, the majority leader; Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the minority leader; and Representative Hakeem Jeffries of New York, the House minority leader — and on what terms.The president faces a cascading set of decisions as the nation, which has already bumped up against its $31.4 trillion debt limit, barrels toward default. He will need to find what, if any, common ground on spending cuts he has with Republicans, who do not share his preference for reducing the nation’s debt path largely by raising taxes on corporations and the rich. He will need to determine if he is prepared to sign any debt limit increase that is attached to conditions demanded by House conservatives.Ultimately, he may need to decide how aggressively to intervene in the delicate politics of House leadership. A potential debt-limit agreement could spur revolt by Mr. McCarthy’s most restless members, who laid the groundwork for the current brinkmanship when they held out against Mr. McCarthy’s ascension to the speaker’s gavel and retain the power to try to push him out.As administration officials describe it, they are all complicated choices. Mr. Biden and his aides do not want to encourage Republicans to habitually threaten economic collapse under Democratic presidents — and only under Democratic presidents — by allowing them to extract concessions to raise the limit now. They also recognize that a recession set off by default would hammer American families just as Mr. Biden is ramping up his re-election campaign, a dangerous scenario for an unpopular incumbent no matter which party voters blame for the default.House Speaker Kevin McCarthy after the House passed the debt limit bill.Kenny Holston/The New York TimesSome of Mr. Biden’s next steps are clear. To the chagrin of some House conservatives, there was no scenario in which the president would sign the bill that barely cleared the chamber on Wednesday. Along with raising the limit, it included spending cuts, new supports for oil and gas drilling and the near-total reversal of Mr. Biden’s signature law meant to fight climate change.“The president has made clear this bill has no chance of becoming law,” Karine Jean-Pierre, the White House press secretary, said on Wednesday after the vote. “In our history, we have never defaulted on our debt or failed to pay our bills. Congressional Republicans must act immediately and without conditions to avoid default.”But that does not mean Mr. Biden will be able to maintain his current posture toward Mr. McCarthy indefinitely. Administration officials have pushed business groups to pressure Republicans to pass a no-strings debt limit increase. But on Wednesday, leading business lobby groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable, lauded the House passage of the bill and called on Mr. Biden to engage.“Failing to raise the debt limit would trigger a strong market reaction with severe economic consequences, likely including widespread job losses, decimated retirement savings and serious hardship for millions of American families,” said Joshua Bolten, president and chief executive of the Business Roundtable. The group, he said, “is hopeful that today’s vote in the House will jump-start negotiations between Congress and the Biden administration on a bipartisan deal that takes default off the table and begins the hard work of dealing with our deficits and debt.”White House officials concede that Mr. Biden will have to convene negotiations with congressional leaders over taxes, spending and debt before the government runs out of money to pay its bills. In recent days, the president has suggested an openness to talk fiscal issues with Republicans, with the wink-nod stipulation that they have nothing to do with the borrowing limit.“I’m happy to meet with McCarthy, but not on whether or not the debt limit gets extended,” Mr. Biden told reporters at the White House on Wednesday. “That’s not negotiable.”Mr. Biden still sees his position in any fiscal talks, and the public debate around them, as a political winner. In the early months of this year, he demonized Republican plans that included cuts to safety-net programs and forced Mr. McCarthy to make Social Security and Medicare — the two largest drivers of federal spending growth in the years to come — untouchable in the Republican bill.More recently, officials across the administration have blasted the Republican bill for potentially cutting spending on popular programs for veterans, students and more. They are able to do that because the bill does not specify where the bulk of its spending reductions would come from, leaving the task to future congressional appropriators.In a White House memo obtained this week by The New York Times, officials sketch out what they believe Republicans would have to cut in order to satisfy the spending caps in their legislation, while keeping military spending intact. Over a decade, the reductions would include $500 billion for veterans’ health care, $300 billion from scientific and other research and $100 billion from the early childhood education program Head Start.Some administration officials privately suggest that a more modest version of spending caps, lasting for a few years at most, could plausibly form the centerpiece of an agreement to continue funding the government and raise the borrowing limit. Some business groups agree, though they would also like to see lawmakers add in a bipartisan effort to streamline government permitting for fossil fuels, clean energy and other projects, which they say would enhance economic growth.But many House Republicans appear in no mood to move from the bill that passed with only one vote to spare on Wednesday, raising the possibility that a deal with smaller spending cuts would need a combination of Republican and Democratic votes to pass the House — and potentially set off an effort by conservatives to depose Mr. McCarthy as speaker.Representative Ralph Norman of South Carolina, and a member of the Freedom Caucus, emerged from a closed-door briefing on the legislation ahead of the vote on Wednesday demanding that Republicans refuse to take anything less than their opening offer.“I wanted double what was in there,” Mr. Norman said. “I agreed to vote for it because that starts the ball and gets us in the arena to solve the debt problem. Now I’m not interested in anything coming back, anything but what we voted on.”Catie Edmondson More

  • 113 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    The Debt Ceiling Debate Is About More Than Debt

    by

    Republicans’ opening bid to avert economic catastrophe by raising the nation’s borrowing limit focuses more on energy policy than reducing debt.WASHINGTON — Speaker Kevin McCarthy of California has repeatedly said that he and his fellow House Republicans are refusing to raise the nation’s borrowing limit, and risking economic catastrophe, to force a reckoning on America’s $31 trillion national debt.“Without exaggeration, America’s debt is a ticking time bomb that will detonate unless we take serious, responsible action,” he said this week.But the bill Mr. McCarthy introduced on Wednesday would only modestly change the nation’s debt trajectory. It also carries a second big objective that has little to do with debt: undercutting President Biden’s climate and clean energy agenda and increasing American production of fossil fuels.The legislation, which Republicans plan to vote on next week, is meant to force Mr. Biden to negotiate over raising the debt limit, which is currently capped at $31.4 trillion. Unless the cap is lifted, the federal government — which borrows huge sums of money to pay its bills — is expected to run out of cash as early as June. The House Rules Committee said on Friday that it will meet on Tuesday to consider the bill and possibly advance it to a floor vote.More than half the 320 pages of legislative text are a rehash of an energy bill that Republicans passed this year and that aimed to speed up leasing and permitting for oil and gas drilling. Republicans claim the bill would boost economic growth and bring in more revenue for the federal government, though the Congressional Budget Office projected it would slightly lose revenue.The Republican plan also gives priority to removing clean energy incentives that were included in Mr. Biden’s signature climate, health and tax law. That legislation, known as the Inflation Reduction Act, included tax credits and other provisions meant to encourage electric vehicle sales, advanced battery production, utility upgrades and a variety of energy efficiency efforts.The proposal does include provisions that would meaningfully reduce government spending and deficits, most notably by limiting total growth in certain types of federal spending from 2022 levels.The bill would claw back some unspent Covid relief money and impose new work requirements that could reduce federal spending on Medicaid and food assistance. It would block Mr. Biden’s proposal to forgive hundreds of billions of dollars in student loan debt and a related plan to reduce loan payments for low-income college graduates.As a result, it would reduce deficits by as much as $4.5 trillion over those 10 years, according to calculations by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget in Washington. The actual number could be much smaller; lawmakers could vote in the future to ignore spending caps, as they have in the past.Even if the entire estimated savings from the plan came to pass, it would still leave the nation a decade from now with total debt that was larger than the annual output of the economy — a level that Mr. McCarthy and other Republicans have frequently labeled a crisis.The Republican plan is estimated to reduce that ratio — known as debt-to-G.D.P. — in 2033 by about nine percentage points if fully enacted. By contrast, Mr. Biden’s latest budget, which raises trillions of dollars in new taxes from corporations and high earners and includes new spending on child care and education, would reduce the ratio by about six percentage points.Those reductions are a far cry from Republicans’ promises, after they won control of the House in November, to balance the budget in 10 years. That lowering of ambitions is partly the product of Republican leaders’ ruling out any cuts to the fast-rising costs of Social Security or Medicare, bowing to an onslaught of political attacks from Mr. Biden.The lower ambitions are also the result of party leaders’ unwillingness or inability to repeal most of the new spending programs Mr. Biden signed into law over the first two years of his presidency, often with bipartisan support.At the New York Stock Exchange on Monday, Mr. McCarthy accused the president and his party of already adding “$6 trillion to our nation’s debt burden,” ignoring the bipartisan support enjoyed by most of the spending Mr. Biden has signed into law.The speaker’s plan would effectively roll back one big bipartisan spending bill, which Mr. Biden signed at the end of 2022 to fund the government through this year. But the other big drivers of debt approved under Mr. Biden that are not singled out for repeal in the Republican bill include trillions in new spending on semiconductor manufacturing, health care for veterans exposed to toxic burn pits, and upgrades to critical infrastructure like bridges, water pipes and broadband.Some of that spending could potentially be reduced by congressional appropriators working under the proposed spending caps, but much of it is exempt from the cap or already out the door. Most of the $1.9 trillion economic aid plan Mr. Biden signed in March 2021, which Republicans blame for fueling high inflation, is already spent as well.The plan squarely targets the climate, health and tax bill that Democrats passed along party lines last summer by cutting that bill’s energy subsidies. It would also rescind additional enforcement dollars that the law sent to the Internal Revenue Service to crack down on wealthy tax cheats. The Congressional Budget Office says that change would cost the government about $100 billion in tax revenue.Taken together, those efforts reduce deficits by a bit over $100 billion, suggesting debt levels are not the primary consideration in targeting those provisions. The bill’s next 200 pages show what actually is: a sustained push to tilt federal support away from low-emission energy and further toward fossil fuels, including mandating new oil and gas leasing on federal lands and reducing barriers to the construction of new pipelines.Republicans say those efforts would save consumers money by reducing gasoline and heating costs. Democrats say they would halt progress on Mr. Biden’s efforts to galvanize domestic manufacturing growth and fight climate change.The plan “would cost Americans trillions in climate harm,” said Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, the Democratic chairman of the Budget Committee. “And it would shrink our economy by disinvesting in the technologies of tomorrow.”Republicans have positioned their fossil fuel efforts as a solution to a supposed production crisis in the United States. “I have spent the last two years working with the other side of the aisle, watching them systematically take this country apart when it comes to our natural resources,” Representative Jerry Carl of Alabama said last month before voting to pass the energy bill now embedded in the debt ceiling bill.Government statistics show a rosier picture for the industry. Oil production in the United States has nearly returned to record highs under Mr. Biden. The Energy Department projects it will smash records next year, led by output increases from Texas and New Mexico. Natural gas production has never been higher.White House officials warn that Republicans are risking a catastrophic default with their demands attached to raising the borrowing cap. “The way to have a real negotiation on the budget is for House Republicans to take threats of default, when it comes to the economy and what it could potentially do to the economy, off the table,” Karine Jean-Pierre, the White House press secretary, told reporters on Thursday.Mr. McCarthy has defended his entire set of demands as a complete package to reorient economic policy. But he mentioned energy only in passing in his speech to Wall Street.The issue he called a crisis — and the basis he cited for refusing to raise the borrowing limit without conditions — was fiscal policy and debt. Debt limit negotiations, he said, “are an opportunity to examine our nation’s finances.” More

  • 100 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    Franchisers, Facing Challenges to Business Model, Punch Back

    by

    Discontented franchisees have found allies among state legislators and federal regulators in pushing for new laws and rules, but change has been slow.When you visit a McDonald’s, a Jiffy Lube or a Hilton Garden Inn, you may assume you’re visiting one business. More likely, you’re actually visiting two: the operator of that particular location, known as the franchisee, and the larger company that owns the intellectual property behind it, or the franchiser.Conflict is inherent in that relationship, but it has hit a boil in recent months, as franchisees say they’re being squeezed out of the profits their business generates through new fees, required vendors and constraints on their ability to sell.On Monday, the Government Accountability Office released a report finding that franchisees “do not enjoy the full benefit of the risks they bear,” citing interviews with dozens of small-business owners who said they lacked control over basic operations that determined their ability to earn a profit.They’ve found a sympathetic ear in the Biden administration and in several state legislatures, giving rise to a growing wave of proposals to limit the power of franchisers.Franchisers have been largely successful in heading off new laws and rules, which the chief executive of McDonald’s, Chris Kempczinski, has described as an existential threat.“The reality is that our business model is under attack,” he said in February at the convention of the International Franchise Association, a trade group for franchisers, franchisees and franchise suppliers. “If you’re not paying attention to these pieces of legislation because you think they don’t impact you, think again.”The chief executive of McDonald’s says the franchising industry’s business model is “under attack” because of a push for new laws and rules.Haiyun Jiang/The New York TimesFranchising has been a feature of American capitalism for decades, allowing brands to grow quickly using investment from entrepreneurs who commit their own capital in exchange for a business plan and a logo that consumers might recognize. The Federal Trade Commission requires franchisers to disclose factors including start-up costs and the company’s financial performance to those considering buying a franchise, and some state laws govern considerations like transfer rights.But much of the relationship is largely unregulated — changes a franchiser can make to contracts, for example, and which vendors can be required.Keith Miller, a Subway franchisee in California who has become an advocate for franchisee rights, said the lack of oversight had given rise to an increasing number of disputes. “There’s more of a squeeze on the franchisees than ever,” he said. Franchisees’ royalty payments used to cover things like marketing, new menus and sales tools, he added, but “now you seem to have to pay for your services.”The franchise industry says that its business model remains beneficial to individual owners, and that additional regulation would protect substandard franchisees at everyone else’s expense. Matthew Haller, chief executive of the International Franchise Association, cited a 2021 survey by the market research firm Franchise Business Review in which 82 percent of franchisees said they supported their corporate leadership.But legislative battles at the state level reflect rising tension.Hotel franchisees, squeezed by lost revenue during pandemic lockdowns, say they have also been hurt by the hotel brands’ loyalty programs, which require the hotelier to rent rooms at a reduced rate. A bill in New Jersey that would limit those loyalty programs, as well as rebates that brands can collect from vendors that franchisees are required to use, faces fierce opposition from the American Hotel and Lodging Association. In a statement, the association’s chief executive, Chip Rogers, said the bill would “completely undermine the foundation of hotel franchising by limiting a brand’s ability to enforce brand standards.”Laura Lee Blake, the chief executive of the 20,000-member Asian American Hotel Owners Association, said hoteliers had reached desperation. “There comes a point when you’ve tried and tried to meet with the franchisers to ask for changes, and they refuse to listen,” she said.In Arizona, legislation introduced to enhance franchisees’ ability to sell their businesses and prevent retaliation from franchisers if they band together in associations has also faced resistance. The bill was approved by two committees in February and March, but the International Franchise Association hired two lobbying firms to fight it. In a Republican caucus meeting, opponents attacked the legislation as a “sledgehammer” that would bring the government into private business relationships. The bill’s sponsor, Representative Anastasia Travers, a freshman Democrat, said she was taken aback by how quickly opposition snowballed, and ultimately gave up on it for the 2023 session.“Time has not been my friend,” Ms. Travers said.A similar bill in Arkansas, which the International Franchise Association initially said would be “the most extreme franchise regulation of any state,” was amended to strip entire sections, including one that would have prevented franchisers from imposing any requirement that “unreasonably changes” the financial terms of the relationship as a condition of renewal or sale.After the bill was slimmed down — leaving provisions such as one restoring the existing statute, which had been rendered ineffective by a subsequent law, and another requiring the franchiser to establish material cause before terminating the franchise — the industry group withdrew its opposition, allowing swift passage.A Subway location in New York. “There’s more of a squeeze on the franchisees than ever,” said Keith Miller, a Subway franchise owner in California.Carlo Allegri/ReutersIn an email to supporters before the votes, the franchise association’s vice president for state and local government relations, Jeff Hanscom, credited the Arkansas agribusiness giant Tyson Foods for being “instrumental in negotiating this outcome.” Tyson Foods did not respond to a request for comment.At the federal level, franchisers may face greater challenges.The Biden administration is moving on two fronts. One is the Federal Trade Commission, which issued a request in March for information about the ways in which franchisers control franchisees. The initiative could result in additional guidance or rules — putting the industry on high alert.The second front is the National Labor Relations Board, which has proposed making it easier for franchisers to be designated as “joint employers” that would be liable for the labor law violations of franchisees if they exerted significant control over working conditions. Franchisers maintain that this would “destroy” the business model, because it would subject them to unacceptable risks.Franchisers attribute the flurry of activity to union influence. The Service Employees International Union, in particular, has long fought to get McDonald’s designated as a joint employer so it would be easier to mount an organizing effort across the chain, rather than store by store.Robert Zarco, a Miami lawyer retained by an association of 1,000 McDonald’s owners, said that to avoid the joint-employer designation, and the extra liability it would bring, franchisers could choose to weaken their grip on franchisee operations.“If the company wants to not be considered a joint employer, it’s very simple to fix,” he said. “Unwind all those excessive controls that they have implemented that are outside of protecting the brand and the product and service quality.”The franchise association’s federal lobbying spending hit a high of $1.24 million in 2022, alongside millions more spent in recent years on federal elections, and doesn’t include money spent by the individual franchise brands.The high stakes are evident in other ways, as well.The Franchise Times, a 30-year-old independent trade publication with six editorial employees, writes about day-to-day events in the industry: acquisitions, executive leadership changes, technology trends. When strife arises, such as lawsuits and bankruptcies, it writes about those, too.The publication’s legal columnist, Beth Ewen, wrote several stories this year about Unleashed Brands, a portfolio of franchises that has drawn lawsuits from franchisees. In response, the company published a markup of one of Ms. Ewen’s stories in red pen font with “DEBUNKED” stamped across the top. (The organization had given similar treatment to an article about the company by The New York Times. Both publications stand by their reporting, and Unleashed did not ask for corrections.)In March, a new website popped up at the address “NoFranchiseTimes.com.” Its front page was devoted to an attack on what it called “editorial bias,” “denigrating the businesses that support their publication.”It called for the publication’s advertisers — which include law firms, vendors and brands — to cancel their purchases.Michael Browning Jr., the chief executive of Unleashed Brands and a member of the International Franchise Association’s board, emailed the trade group’s membership saying that while he had not created the website, he supported its message and thought the group should revoke The Franchise Times’s membership. Mr. Browning did not respond to a request for further comment.The association declined to revoke the membership, and the publication says its advertising revenue is up from last year. But to Ms. Ewen, a 35-year veteran of business reporting, the episode shows that the industry is trying to divert attention from real problems — and that some members are playing hardball.“They’re trying to hit at our business model and our ability to keep going,” she said. “There’s a lot of people spending a lot of time trying to get us and others to stop doing these stories.” More