Schumer, Charles E

Latest story

175 Shares119 Views

A Push for Tech Hubs in Overlooked Places Picks 31 to Vie for Money

by

A new federal program will be a test of whether spreading funds outside of big cities will result in economic gains, or in inefficiencies.The Biden administration said on Monday that it had chosen 31 regions as potential recipients of federal money that would seek to fund innovation in parts of the country that government investment overlooked in the past.The announcement was the first phase of a program that aims to establish so-called tech hubs around the country across a variety of cutting-edge industries, like quantum computing, precision medicine and clean energy. In the coming months, the regions will compete for a share of $500 million, with roughly five to 10 of the projects receiving up to about $75 million each, the administration said.The program will test a central idea of a bipartisan bill that lawmakers passed last year: that science and technology funding should not just be concentrated in Silicon Valley and a few thriving coastal regions but flow to parts of the country that are less populated or have historically received less government funding.Proponents of the program say these investments can tap into pools of workers and economic resources that are not reaching their full potential, and improve the American economy as well as its technological abilities.But it remains to be seen if dispatching money to more remote places, which struggle with issues like an outflow of young workers, will ultimately be the most efficient way to use government funding to promote technological gains.The 31 finalists were chosen from nearly 400 applicants, the Commerce Department said. They include proposals to manufacture semiconductors in New York and Oregon, design autonomous systems for transportation and agriculture in Oklahoma, research biotechnology in Indiana and process critical minerals in Missouri.In Washington on Monday, President Biden said these tech hubs would bring together private industry, educational institutions, state and local governments, tribes, and organized labor to produce “transformational” research.“We’re doing this from coast to coast, and in the heartland and red states and blue states, small towns, cities of all sizes,” Mr. Biden added. “All this is part of my strategy to invest in America and invest in Americans.”Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the majority leader, said in an interview on Monday that the tech hub program, which he had devised with Senator Todd Young, an Indiana Republican, had helped to secure bipartisan support for the CHIPS and Science Act last year.The legislation included $200 billion for basic scientific research, and more than $75 billion in grants and tax credits for semiconductor companies. It aimed to lower the country’s dependence on foreign manufacturers of computer chips and other critical technology.Mr. Schumer said “it was a very big selling point” for the overall bill that the funding was not just going to “three or four cities in blue states.”“There was such divisiveness in the country, the coasts and non-coasts, and a lot of it was because all these new tech and high-end industries were locating on the coasts,” he said. “And so we crafted the tech hub program to be spread throughout the middle of America.”Mr. Schumer was touring Buffalo, Rochester and Syracuse on Monday to celebrate the inclusion of two New York proposals, one focused on semiconductor manufacturing and the other on battery technology.“There’s a lot of talent here that’s not used,” he added.Mark Muro, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution’s Metropolitan Policy Program, described the tech hub program as “a grand experiment” in industrial policy.Mr. Muro said the United States had seen the incredible strength of concentrating technology investments in a few key places like Silicon Valley, where companies in related businesses can benefit by clustering together. But those investment patterns have also resulted in tremendous imbalances in the country’s economy, where “only a few places are truly prospering and much talent and much innovation is left on the table,” he said.“This is a whole different map,” Mr. Muro said, adding, “I think we need to make some experiments and some of them will probably be great investments.”The announcements tried to balance several competing goals of the tech hubs, including whether to invest in as many regions as possible — or whether to concentrate spending in a few areas in hopes of engineering radical economic improvement in those areas. They also reflected the high interest in the program from regional officials and their representatives in Congress.The administration is also trying to do as much as possible with initial funding for the program that remains well below the maximum levels lawmakers set in the CHIPS bill. While that bill authorized Congress to fund a variety of programs, lawmakers still need to greenlight actual money for many of the tech hub investments, as well as other programs.Given those financial constraints, some supporters of the program said on Monday that they hoped administration officials would ultimately focus most of the money on a small set of the announced hubs. Ideally, “you’d be extremely narrow about who gets funding,” said John Lettieri, president and chief executive of the Economic Innovation Group, a Washington think tank. “The more narrow the better.”The later round of funding announcements, he added, “is where we have to be pretty ruthless about shielding the process from politics as much as possible.”Madeleine Ngo More

More stories

  • 138 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Schumer Wields Political Heft in Bid for New York Chips Funds

    by

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

  • 138 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Time Is Running Out for Congress to Raise the Debt Ceiling

    by

    With a June 5 deadline looming, there is much to be done to prevent the default that leaders of both parties said would never happen.Senator Mitch McConnell had a message for Americans growing increasingly worried that the economy is going to crash if the federal debt ceiling is not raised: Just chill.“Look, I think everybody needs to relax,” Mr. McConnell, the Kentucky Republican and minority leader with deep experience in debt limit showdowns, told reporters back home earlier this week. “Regardless of what may be said about the talks on a day-to-day basis, the president and the speaker will reach an agreement. It will ultimately pass on a bipartisan vote in both the House and the Senate. The country will not default.”That may be a case of easier said than done. While Mr. McConnell, President Biden and Speaker Kevin McCarthy have repeatedly assured Americans that there will be no default, that guarantee is looking a little shakier with little more than a week to go before the U.S. Treasury is projected to run out of cash to pay its obligations.Even if negotiators agree to a deal soon — an outcome that appeared within reach but still had not materialized as talks continued on Friday — there is still much to be done, not the least of which is winning approval in the House and Senate. That outcome is nowhere near certain given rising uneasiness — and some outright opposition — on both the right and left. At this point, no one can be absolutely certain that the United States won’t tumble over the default cliff, even if no one involved wants that to happen. Time is short.President Biden said last weekend there was a chance a default could happen. “I can’t guarantee that they wouldn’t force a default by doing something outrageous,” he told reporters. “I can’t guarantee that.”Doug Mills/The New York Times“No one can guarantee there won’t be a default, if for no other reason than the clock is ticking down here pretty quickly,” said G. William Hoagland, a longtime Republican budget guru on Capitol Hill who is now a senior vice president at the Bipartisan Policy Center. “We are on thin ice in a big way.”Negotiators got some breathing room Friday afternoon with the Treasury secretary’s announcement that the default deadline had moved four days later, to June 5. But Congress will still be hard-pressed to act by then, and the brief extension might even be counterproductive, sapping some urgency to seal a deal.“We’re within the window of being able to perform this, and we have to come to some really tough terms in these closing hours,” said Representative Patrick T. McHenry, Republican of North Carolina and a lead negotiator for Mr. McCarthy. “We’re going back on final, important matters, and it’s just not resolved.”Since the beginning of the impasse, Mr. Biden and congressional leaders have sought to tamp down concern that a default would occur, essentially saying that it was unthinkable because Congress has narrowly avoided default before. After one of the high-level meetings at the White House, Senator Chuck Schumer, the New York Democrat and majority leader, cheered the fact that all four leaders had said default was off the table.Part of their motivation in offering these constant reassurances was to bolster their own forces, calm the public and keep the financial markets from cratering as the talks wore on.But President Biden changed his tune slightly during his visit to Japan last weekend, saying for the first time that if Republicans insisted on pushing the issue to the hilt, maybe default was an option after all.“I can’t guarantee that they wouldn’t force a default by doing something outrageous,” Mr. Biden told reporters. “I can’t guarantee that.”Representative Hakeem Jeffries, the top Democrat in the House, suggested some Republicans might want a default if they could benefit from it politically.Haiyun Jiang/The New York TimesRepresentative Hakeem Jeffries, Democratic of New York and the minority leader, expressed a similar sentiment when asked this week if he could still be certain the government would not default.“Not with this group,” he said, referring to Republicans, some of whom he suspects would not mind the financial chaos resulting from a default if they thought it could help them politically in 2024.Mr. McCarthy, the House leader and a California Republican, has also stated repeatedly that there would be no default and on Friday emphasized that he believed that a positive outcome would be the result.“I’m a total optimist,” he told reporters as negotiations continued with no apparent breakthrough.One way Mr. McCarthy has said a default could be avoided is for the Senate to pass and the president to sign the measure Republicans passed in the House raising the debt limit while making steep budget cuts and rolling back other Biden administration initiatives. But that is unlikely to happen even if the Treasury runs out of money. Mr. McCarthy has also ruled out an emergency short-term suspension of the debt ceiling.Representatives Garret Graves, left, and Patrick McHenry are two of the negotiators for the Republicans.Haiyun Jiang/The New York TimesEven an agreement between House Republicans and Mr. Biden would not end the drama; in some respects, it would be just the beginning.House Republicans have a 72-hour rule for the time between when the legislation is made public and when it is to be voted on, a timeline that pushes the showdown ever closer to the Treasury’s early June deadline.Plus, with hard-right elements of the Republican conference joining progressive Democrats in expressing reservations about the deal taking shape, Mr. McCarthy and Mr. Jeffries may have to thread the needle to produce the necessary votes from both sides to win approval of the deal.Mr. McCarthy and his leadership team will have to assess extremely accurately the number of Republicans committed to voting for any final budget deal with a debt limit increase attached. Then they will need to let Mr. Jeffries know the number of votes Democrats need to produce to make sure at least 218 lawmakers will support the package.House Republicans have a 72-hour rule for the time between when the legislation is made public and when it is to be voted on, which makes the deadline to tight.Kenny Holston/The New York TimesMiscalculation could mean disaster. With the nation in a dire financial crisis in September 2008, the House stunned the Bush administration by failing to pass its bank bailout program. In a chaotic turn of events on the House floor, the measure failed as many Republicans refused to back it despite presidential pleas and some Democrats balked as well. The stock market tumbled in real time as the vote unfolded. Four days later, rattled House members came back and approved the proposal with a few changes.Some believe that it might require a similar scenario now to push the debt limit plan through Congress — a failed vote and market drop that underscores the economic consequences of a default and motivates lawmakers to act. Others would prefer it not come to that given the potentially severe ramifications of even a brief default.“I have been of the optimistic view that it wouldn’t happen, but the longer it goes on, the more likely it seems to me,” said Mr. Hoagland, the budget expert. “Time has run out for getting this done, but I am just praying a default doesn’t happen.”Luke Broadwater More

  • 150 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    Biden Says He Is Confident America Will Not Default on Its Debts

    by

    Speaking just moments before he left for a diplomatic trip overseas, President Biden said a default would be “catastrophic.”President Biden said a failure by the U.S. to pay its bills would be “catastrophic” for the economy.Tom Brenner for The New York TimesPresident Biden, just moments before he departed on Wednesday for a diplomatic trip to Asia, said he was confident “America will not default” as congressional leaders in both parties offered some signs of optimism about eventually reaching a deal to raise the nation’s borrowing limit.“Every leader in the room understands the consequences if we failed to pay our bills,” Mr. Biden said at the White House on Wednesday before leaving for Hiroshima, Japan, to attend the Group of 7 meeting there. “And it would be catastrophic for the American economy and the American people.”Mr. Biden described his face-to-face meeting with congressional negotiators the day before as productive, “civil and respectful” and said both Democrats and Republicans agreed that the United States cannot default.But his decision to get a final word in on the negotiations signaled that even as he departs for a summit on the global economy, the White House is focused on averting an economic crisis back home.Mr. Biden decided to cut the trip to Asia short to be back for what he called “final negotiations” over the ceiling, the statutory cap on how much the government can borrow to finance its obligations. He is scheduled to return to Washington on Sunday, skipping planned visits to Papua New Guinea and Australia.Mr. Biden echoed the optimism offered by both Democratic and Republican leaders after Tuesday’s meeting.He has designated his senior adviser, Steve Ricchetti, and Shalanda Young, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, to speak to a team of negotiators representing congressional Republicans. Speaker Kevin McCarthy had also commended the move as a sign of progress on Tuesday.“We narrowed the group to meet and hammer out our differences,” Mr. Biden said, adding that the negotiating teams met on Tuesday night and will meet again on Wednesday.Time is running out for the two sides to reach a consensus.The government reached the $31.4 trillion debt limit on Jan. 19, and the Treasury Department has been using a series of accounting maneuvers to keep paying its bills. Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen reiterated that the United States could run out of money to pay its bills by June 1 if Congress does not raise or suspend the debt limit, potentially causing a recession or the elimination of jobs.Republicans have said they want to cut federal spending before lifting the ceiling, while Mr. Biden has said negotiating over the cuts must not be a requirement for raising the debt limit. Even so, Democrats have increasingly appeared open to reaching a compromise with Republicans. Both Democratic leaders from New York, Senator Chuck Schumer, the majority leader, and Representative Hakeem Jeffries, the minority leader, told reporters that passing a bipartisan bill in both chambers was the only way forward.Mr. Biden signaled he was open to a potential agreement for tougher work requirements on federal aid programs over the weekend, when he reminded the press that he had voted for such measures — with the exception of Medicaid — as a senator.Asked on Wednesday if he was still considering work requirements, Mr. Biden said it is possible, “but not anything of any consequence.”“I’m not going to accept any work requirements that’s going to have an impact on the medical health needs of people,” Mr. Biden said.Mr. Biden added that he did not believe cutting his overseas trip short would help China gain influence in the region. The administration has sought to bolster partnerships in the region to to counter China’s economic presence. But the ongoing talks forced Mr. Biden to cut stops in Papua New Guinea and Australia.Mr. Biden said he made sure to call Prime Minister Anthony Albanese of Australia on Tuesday to let him know of his decision to cancel part of his trip. While officials in the administration were still deciding whether they would shorten the trip, they also discussed sending a replacement, including Vice President Kamala Harris or Antony J. Blinken, the secretary of state, according to an official familiar with the matter.As of Wednesday morning, there were no such plans to send a substitute. More

  • 150 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Biden and McCarthy Show Optimism on Debt Ceiling but Remain Far Apart

    by

    President Biden and congressional leaders in both parties emerged from a White House meeting on Tuesday offering glimmers of hope about eventually reaching a deal to raise the nation’s borrowing limit, even as they conceded they were still far from averting a default that could come as soon as June 1.With time dwindling to strike a compromise that could make it through Congress in time to avoid an economic catastrophe, Mr. Biden said he would cut short a diplomatic trip to Asia to be on hand for a potential breakthrough. Speaker Kevin McCarthy, the California Republican, said it was possible that such a deal could materialize within days now that the president had agreed to dispatch his top advisers for stepped-up negotiations.“We just finished another good, productive meeting with our congressional leadership about a path forward to make sure that America does not default on its debt,” Mr. Biden said after the hourlong session in the Oval Office.Mr. McCarthy told reporters that he could see a deal reached “by the end of the week” — a marked change in tone after he had lamented the state of the talks just hours earlier. He exulted in a news release after the meeting that “negotiations are happening.”Still, he acknowledged that talks about spending cuts remained far apart and made it clear that the two sides had yet to agree on any policy proposals.Republicans and Democrats had both signaled that they saw the session on Tuesday as a make-or-break moment — much more significant than a similar gathering at the White House a week ago and more urgent with just 16 days before the country is projected to default on its debt.The meeting also appeared to wipe away any pretense by Democrats that they would accept only a clean debt limit increase without conditions from House Republicans. For weeks, Mr. Biden has maintained that negotiating over cuts must not be a condition for raising the limit and avoiding what could be a catastrophic default.But on Tuesday, both Democratic leaders from New York, Senator Chuck Schumer, the majority leader, and Representative Hakeem Jeffries, the minority leader, told reporters at the White House that passing a bipartisan bill in both chambers was the only way forward.“Hakeem and I are committed to getting that bipartisan bill done,” Mr. Schumer said. “We will not sacrifice our values,” he added. “They’ll probably not sacrifice their values. But we’ll have to come together on something that can avoid default. Default is a disaster.”The meeting came a day after Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen reiterated that the United States could run out of money to pay its bills by June 1 if Congress does not raise or suspend the debt limit, the statutory cap on how much the government can borrow to finance its obligations. Economists say that could eliminate jobs and cause a recession.The government reached the $31.4 trillion debt limit on Jan. 19, and the Treasury Department has been using a series of accounting maneuvers to keep paying its bills.Ms. Yellen warned on Tuesday that the United States faced “an economic and financial catastrophe” if it defaulted and said the standoff over the debt limit was already affecting financial markets and households.“We are already seeing the impacts of brinkmanship,” Ms. Yellen said in remarks at the Independent Community Bankers of America summit meeting.As Tuesday’s meeting started, Mr. Biden joked to reporters that “we’re having a wonderful time — everything’s going well.”But the session concluded without a breakthrough, even as broad areas of negotiation have emerged in recent days, including fixed caps on federal spending, reclaiming unspent funds designated for the Covid-19 emergency, stiffer work requirements for federal benefits and expedited permitting rules for energy projects.Mr. McCarthy commended Mr. Biden for designating two officials to negotiate directly with his office and with Representative Garret Graves of Louisiana, one of Mr. McCarthy’s top lieutenants. Mr. Biden picked his senior adviser, Steve Ricchetti, and Shalanda Young, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, according to people familiar with his choices.“The structure of how we negotiate has improved,” Mr. McCarthy said. “It now gives you a better opportunity, even though we only have a few days to get it done.”Mr. McCarthy also singled out the proposal to reclaim unspent Covid funds, which Republican officials believe could recoup $50 to $60 billion.“I think at the end of the day, it will be in the bill,” Mr. McCarthy said.He also told reporters on Tuesday that any deal must tighten work requirements for safety net programs like food stamps, a proposal in the bill the House G.O.P. passed that Mr. Biden showed some openness to over the weekend, but which progressives have declared unacceptable.“Remember what we’re talking about: able-bodied people with no dependents,” Mr. McCarthy said. “It helps people get into a job, and what does it mean when somebody gets a job? They get better pay.”Toughening work requirements for programs like food stamps has long been anathema to many Democrats, and the proposal would face fierce resistance in the Democratic-controlled Senate.“I cannot in good conscience support a debt ceiling proposal that pushes people into poverty,” Senator John Fetterman, Democrat of Pennsylvania, said in a statement on Tuesday. “We’re already addressing SNAP in a bipartisan way in the Farm Bill. But with default looming, jamming through harmful cuts to that program is reckless.”Karine Jean-Pierre, the White House press secretary, said on Tuesday that Mr. Biden “will not accept proposals that take away people’s health care, health coverage.”Administration officials have said they will not roll back any of the president’s signature legislation, particularly on climate change.As the talks appeared to gain some momentum, Mr. Biden said he would cut short an overseas diplomatic trip to Asia to be back in Washington for what he called “final negotiations” with congressional leaders. The president will still leave on Wednesday for Hiroshima, Japan, to attend the Group of 7 meeting there, but he will return Sunday, skipping planned visits to Papua New Guinea and Australia.Economists on Wall Street and in the White House have warned that a prolonged default could wipe out jobs and lead the country into a recession.Democrats said earlier in the day on Tuesday that they were awaiting the outcome of the meeting to determine how aggressively to push on an emergency plan they have been preparing for months to try to steer around opposition from Republican leaders and force a debt limit increase vote.Starting Tuesday, they have the opportunity to round up signatures for a special discharge petition that would automatically prompt such a vote if they won support from a majority of members of the House. Democrats would need at least five Republicans to join them to reach the necessary threshold of 218, and winning them over would be extremely difficult unless the crisis were at its peak.Lawmakers also said there was increasing talk of Mr. Biden invoking the 14th Amendment of the Constitution to raise the debt ceiling unilaterally, a move they acknowledged would draw a legal challenge — and which Ms. Yellen has questioned — but could still avert economic disaster.With so much uncertainty, Senate Democrats were also weighing whether they would be able to take a weeklong recess scheduled to begin on Monday, before the Memorial Day weekend.Alan Rappeport More

  • 150 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    Biden and McCarthy to Discuss Debt Limit as a Possible Default Looms

    by

    The president will host the House speaker and other congressional leaders at the White House on Tuesday to discuss their impasse over the debt ceiling and spending cuts.WASHINGTON — President Biden will meet with Speaker Kevin McCarthy at the White House on Tuesday in a critical face-to-face confrontation that will frame their showdown over the federal debt and spending in the weeks before the nation is set to default on its obligations for the first time in history.With the American and perhaps the global economy hanging in the balance, the meeting will be the first sit-down session between the Democratic president and Republican speaker since February. But even the terms of the discussion are in dispute: Mr. McCarthy insists the president negotiate a debt ceiling deal with him, while Mr. Biden insists the meeting will just be an opportunity to tell the speaker that there will be no negotiations over the limit.The meeting in the Oval Office will feature Mr. Biden, Mr. McCarthy and three other congressional leaders: Representative Hakeem Jeffries of New York, the Democratic leader in the House, and Senators Chuck Schumer of New York and Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Democratic and Republican leaders in the Senate. But Mr. Biden and Mr. McCarthy are the key players, locked in a political game of chicken to see who will blink first on raising the debt ceiling.With the federal government expected to default on its debt as soon as June 1 without an agreement, Mr. McCarthy and his Republican caucus have refused to raise the debt ceiling without commitments to major spending cuts. Mr. Biden has said he would discuss ways to reduce the deficit but has refused to link any spending decisions to the debt ceiling increase, arguing that Congress should simply raise the ceiling as it has for generations to pay for spending already approved.Karine Jean-Pierre, the White House press secretary, repeatedly referred to Mr. Biden’s meeting with Mr. McCarthy on Tuesday as a “conversation” rather than negotiations.Pete Marovich for The New York Times“We should not have House Republicans manufacturing a crisis on something that has been done 78 times since 1960,” Karine Jean-Pierre, the White House press secretary, said on Monday. “This is their constitutional duty. Congress must act. That’s what the president is going to make very clear with the leaders tomorrow.”The meeting that Mr. Biden has called, she added, will not involve any haggling over the debt ceiling. “I wouldn’t call it ‘debt ceiling negotiations,’” she said in reply to a reporter who used that phrase. “I would call it a conversation.” In fact, she was so intent on calling it a “conversation” that she used the word to describe the meeting 15 times during her briefing.Neither side expects any breakthrough at the session, scheduled for 4 p.m., but instead the leaders plan to use it to emphasize their positions in the dispute, in effect setting the parameters for the debate that will play out over the next few weeks. In recent years, such standoffs have not been resolved until the final hours and days before a deadline — or the deadline is extended.Mr. Biden has indicated that he is willing to have a separate discussion with Mr. McCarthy and the Republicans over spending that is not directly linked to the debt ceiling legislation. White House officials said the president plans to push Republicans to consider the tax increases and prescription drug savings he laid out in his most recent budget, which would reduce deficits by an estimated $3 trillion over 10 years, as part of a larger package to reduce debt accumulation over time.He is likely to challenge Republicans in Tuesday’s meeting to be more specific in the spending they would cut. He has hammered them for more than a week over the potential consequences — like reduced funding for veterans’ health services — that could result from the discretionary spending caps they included in a debt ceiling bill that passed the House late last month.Republicans have bristled at the president’s attacks on their legislation, calling them misleading. But they noted that unlike the Democrats, they at least have passed a measure to raise the debt ceiling, albeit conditioned on spending cuts. They argued that Mr. Biden and his Democratic allies have to come to the table with a counterproposal. Otherwise, they maintain, it would be the Democrats, not the Republicans, who failed to raise the debt ceiling, leading to a possible default.“They have to now step up and act like responsible leaders,” Representative Jodey C. Arrington, a Republican from Texas and the chairman of the House Budget Committee, said on CNBC on Monday. “We’ve done that, and we have set that example, and we have placed in their hands a list of proposals that we have gotten consensus on. It’s their time to respond, and the American people expect them to.” More

  • 88 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    Double-Barreled Economic Threat Puts Congress on Edge

    by

    Republicans and Democrats disagree over how recent bank closures should impact the debt limit stalemate, and have taken divergent lessons from past economic crises.WASHINGTON — In 2008, an imminent collapse of the banking system consumed Congress before lawmakers delivered a bailout. Three years later, a debt limit crisis enveloped Washington and led to a series of spending cuts after a dangerous brush with default and a first-ever downgrade in the nation’s credit rating.Now unease about the banking system’s stability and a stalemate over raising the debt limit are engulfing the capital simultaneously, ratcheting up an already high level of financial anxiety as two economic challenges Congress has experienced before become intertwined.“The stakes are exceptionally high when you are dealing with what amounts to a one-two punch of economic peril,” said Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon and chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. “The messages that you send to the economy and the public with respect to banking and the full faith and credit of the United States — it doesn’t get more consequential than that.”Republicans and Democrats acknowledge it is a scary case of déjà vu times two. But they diverge sharply on how recent bank failures — and uncertainty over how Congress should respond to them, if at all — will influence the debt limit fight later this summer.At their just-concluded retreat in Florida, House Republicans took the line that shakiness in the banking system should strengthen their hand in the coming showdown over the debt limit. They argued that a Democrat-led spending spree spurred inflation, forced up interest rates and led to a precarious situation for all but the largest banks. The clear answer, to them, remains deep spending cuts, and they say they will still insist on cuts before making any move to raise the debt ceiling.Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen said on Tuesday that the president was willing to talk federal spending with Republicans, just not under the threat of a debt default.Pete Marovich for The New York Times“That should wake everybody up,” Speaker Kevin McCarthy, Republican of California, told reporters on Tuesday when asked about the intersection of banking stability and the debt limit. “Why are we having a crisis? Because the government spent too much and created inflation.”“I believe to get to a debt ceiling limit, you have to be spending less than we spent before,” he said.But Jerome H. Powell, the Fed chair, on Wednesday disputed the notion that spending remained the chief driver of inflation.“Spending was of course tremendously high during the pandemic,” he said at a news conference announcing an increase in interest rates. “As pandemic programs rolled off, spending actually came down.”“Fiscal impulse is actually not what’s driving inflation right now,” he said. “It was at the beginning perhaps, but that’s not the story right now.”Democrats say House Republicans are doing the exact opposite of what is required at a critical moment, even as the Fed offers assurances about the soundness of the banking system. They say the fallout from any banking instability should persuade Republicans that the last thing the economy needs is the specter of a default from a failure to raise the debt limit, which is projected to be reached as early as July without action by Congress.Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the majority leader, on Wednesday assailed the Republican stance as “reckless and truly clueless.”.css-1v2n82w{max-width:600px;width:calc(100% – 40px);margin-top:20px;margin-bottom:25px;height:auto;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;font-family:nyt-franklin;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1v2n82w{margin-left:20px;margin-right:20px;}}@media only screen and (min-width:1024px){.css-1v2n82w{width:600px;}}.css-161d8zr{width:40px;margin-bottom:18px;text-align:left;margin-left:0;color:var(–color-content-primary,#121212);border:1px solid var(–color-content-primary,#121212);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-161d8zr{width:30px;margin-bottom:15px;}}.css-tjtq43{line-height:25px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-tjtq43{line-height:24px;}}.css-x1k33h{font-family:nyt-cheltenham;font-size:19px;font-weight:700;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve{font-size:17px;font-weight:300;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve em{font-style:italic;}.css-1hvpcve strong{font-weight:bold;}.css-1hvpcve a{font-weight:500;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}.css-1c013uz{margin-top:18px;margin-bottom:22px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz{font-size:14px;margin-top:15px;margin-bottom:20px;}}.css-1c013uz a{color:var(–color-signal-editorial,#326891);-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;font-weight:500;font-size:16px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz a{font-size:13px;}}.css-1c013uz a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}How Times reporters cover politics. We rely on our journalists to be independent observers. So while Times staff members may vote, they are not allowed to endorse or campaign for candidates or political causes. This includes participating in marches or rallies in support of a movement or giving money to, or raising money for, any political candidate or election cause.Learn more about our process.“Instead of calling for calm, House Republicans are sowing chaos by threatening a default at a time when banks need stability,” he said. “The right answer is for Republicans in the House to stop saber-rattling, drop the hostage-taking and brinkmanship and work together, work in a bipartisan way, to extend the debt ceiling without strings attached.”Other Democrats shared those sentiments, dismissing calls from some Republicans to prioritize federal payments should Congress fail to agree on a debt-limit increase. They say that approach is unworkable and default by another name.“The banking crisis highlights the importance of paying our bills on time,” said Senator Chris Van Hollen, Democrat of Maryland and a member of the Banking Committee. “We don’t want to create any more uncertainty in the financial markets and the economy. Because of what happened with the banks, it is more important than ever that Republicans don’t allow us to get close to the cliff.”“Because of what happened with the banks, it is more important than ever that Republicans don’t allow us to get close to the cliff,” said Senator Chris Van Hollen, Democrat of Maryland.Pete Marovich for The New York TimesThe 2008 and 2011 economic crises were earthshaking events on Capitol Hill. In the fall of 2008, in response to warnings from Treasury and Fed officials that the nation’s banks were about go under, Congress dove into a titanic, market-rattling debate over the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, ultimately approving a historic government intervention in the economy.Three years later, a new House Republican majority and the Obama administration took their clash over spending to the brink of financial ruin, bringing the country close to a federal default before striking a last-minute deal on spending cuts cleared the way for an increase in the debt ceiling, averting disaster.Lawmakers say they drew many lessons from those painful experiences. But the two parties did not draw the same ones.For Democrats, the 2011 experience hardened their opposition to negotiating over increasing the debt limit, confirming their belief that it should be raised without conditions since it is simply making good on spending already approved by Congress, with the support of members of both political parties. Republicans, by contrast, say that same experience persuaded them that the only way to exact real spending cuts is to use the threat of a federal debt default as leverage.The clashing approaches now have the parties again dug in over increasing the debt limit. Scant progress has been made toward finding a resolution that could avoid undermining the economy, even as the banking system exhibits signs of stress.Some Republicans say that they see the high-profile failure of the Silicon Valley Bank as an isolated incident, in contrast to the widespread fear of a total banking collapse in 2008 before Congress intervened.“This is not ’08 and ’09 when the banking industry was crazy on their asset side,” said Senator Mike Braun, Republican of Indiana. “That side of the economy I think learned its lesson.”He and other Republicans said they need to continue to push for spending reductions as part of any agreement to raise the debt limit and called on Democrats and President Biden to drop their refusal to negotiate.“This is not just a one-way street,” said Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas. “Hopefully Biden and the administration will get real when it comes to negotiating something, rather than saying, ‘I am not going to negotiate anything.’”In an appearance on Tuesday before the American Bankers Association, Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen said that the president was willing to talk federal spending with Republicans, just not with the debt limit sword held at his throat.“Having this conversation needs to happen over time and in the appropriations process and not through the threat of forcing a default,” she told members of the group. “It is essential that Congress raise the debt ceiling and that they do it promptly in order not to inflict a truly catastrophic wound on our economy and our financial system.”Republicans and Democrats credit consumer confidence for holding off economic calamity and so far preventing Congress from entering the crisis atmosphere that permeated both 2008 and 2011. But there is no guarantee that confidence can be maintained, and lawmakers warn of the possibility of cascading events should the banking system become viewed as unstable or the debt limit standoff go on too long.“It has,” warned Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut, “the makings of a perfect storm.” More

  • 100 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    The Carried Interest Loophole Survives Another Political Battle

    by

    The latest effort to narrow the preferential tax treatment used by private equity executives failed after Senator Kyrsten Sinema objected.WASHINGTON — Once again, carried interest carried the day.The last-minute removal by Senate Democrats of a provision in the climate and tax legislation that would narrow what is often referred to as the “carried interest loophole” represents the latest win for the private equity and hedge fund industries. For years, those businesses have successfully lobbied to kill bills that aimed to end or limit a quirk in the tax code that allows executives to pay lower tax rates than many of their salaried employees.In recent weeks, it appeared that the benefit could be scaled back, but a last-minute intervention by Senator Kyrsten Sinema, the Arizona Democrat, eliminated what would have been a $14 billion tax increase targeting private equity.Lawmakers’ inability to address a tax break that Democrats and some Republicans have called unfair underscores the influence of lobbyists for the finance industry and how difficult it can be to change the tax code.In addition to doing away with the carried interest provision, the deal Democratic leaders cut with Ms. Sinema included a 1 percent excise tax on stock buybacks and changes to a minimum corporate tax of 15 percent that favored manufacturers.On Friday, the private equity and hedge fund industries applauded the development, describing it as a win for small business.“The private equity industry directly employs over 11 million Americans, fuels thousands of small businesses and delivers the strongest returns for pensions,” said Drew Maloney, the chief executive of the American Investment Council, a lobbying group. “We encourage Congress to continue to support private capital investment in every state across our country.”Bryan Corbett, the chief executive of the Managed Funds Association, said: “We’re happy to see that there is bipartisan recognition of the role that private capital plays in growing businesses and the economy.”Carried interest is the percentage of an investment’s gains that a private equity partner or hedge fund manager takes as compensation. At most private equity firms and hedge funds, the share of profits paid to managers is about 20 percent.Under existing law, that money is taxed at a capital-gains rate of 20 percent for top earners. That’s about half the rate of the top individual income tax bracket, which is 37 percent. A tax law passed by Republicans in 2017 largely left the treatment of carried interest intact, after an intense lobbying campaign, but it did narrow the exemption by requiring executives to hold their investments for at least three years in order to enjoy preferential tax treatment.An agreement reached last week by Senator Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West Virginia, and Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the majority leader, would have extended that holding period to five years from three, while changing the way the period is calculated in hopes of reducing taxpayers’ ability to take advantage of the lower 20 percent tax rate.What’s in the Democrats’ Climate and Tax BillCard 1 of 6A new proposal. More

  • 150 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Carried Interest Is Back in the Headlines. Why It’s Not Going Away.

    by

    Changes demanded by Senator Kyrsten Sinema will preserve a tax loophole that Democrats have complained about for years.For years, Democrats and even some Republicans such as former President Donald J. Trump have called for closing the so-called carried interest loophole that allows wealthy hedge fund managers and private equity executives to pay lower tax rates than entry-level employees.Those efforts have always failed to make a big dent in the loophole — and the latest proposal to do so also faltered this week. Senate leaders announced on Thursday that they had agreed to drop a modest change to the tax provision in order to secure the vote of Senator Kyrsten Sinema, Democrat of Arizona, and ensure passage of their Inflation Reduction Act, a wide-ranging climate, health care and tax bill.An agreement reached last week between Senator Chuck Schumer, the majority leader, and Senator Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West Virginia, would have taken a small step in the direction of narrowing carried interest tax treatment. However, it would not have eliminated the loophole entirely and could still have allowed rich business executives to have smaller tax bills than their secretaries, a criticism lobbed by the investor Warren E. Buffett, who has long argued against the preferential tax treatment.The fate of the provision was always in doubt given the Democrats’ slim control of the Senate. And Ms. Sinema had previously opposed a carried interest measure in a much larger bill called Build Back Better, which never secured the 50 Senate votes needed — Republicans have been unified in their opposition to any tax increases.Had the legislation passed in the form that Mr. Schumer and Mr. Manchin presented it last week, the shrinking of the carried interest exception would have brought Democrats a tiny bit closer to realizing their vision of making the tax code more progressive.What is carried interest?Carried interest is the percentage of an investment’s gains that a private equity partner or hedge fund manager takes as compensation. At most private equity firms and hedge funds, the share of profits paid to managers is about 20 percent.Under existing law, that money is taxed at a capital-gains rate of 20 percent for top earners. That’s about half the rate of the top individual income tax bracket, which is 37 percent.The 2017 tax law passed by Republicans largely left the treatment of carried interest intact, after an intense business lobbying campaign, but did narrow the exemption by requiring private equity officials to hold their investments for at least three years before reaping preferential tax treatment on their carried interest income.What would the Manchin-Schumer agreement have done?The agreement between Mr. Manchin and Mr. Schumer would have further narrowed the exemption, in several ways. It would have extended that holding period to five years from three, while changing the way the period is calculated in hopes of reducing taxpayers’ ability to game the system and pay the lower 20 percent tax rate.Senate Democrats say the changes would have raised an estimated $14 billion over a decade, by forcing more income to be taxed at higher individual income tax rates — and less at the preferential rate.The longer holding period would have applied only to those who made $400,000 per year or more, in keeping with President Biden’s pledge not to raise taxes on those earning less than that amount.The tax provision echoed a measure that was initially included in the climate and tax bill that House Democrats passed last year but that stalled in the Senate. The carried interest language was removed amid concern that Ms. Sinema, who opposed the measure, would block the overall legislation.Why hasn’t the loophole been closed by now?Many Democrats have tried for years to completely eliminate the tax benefits private equity partners enjoy. Democrats have sought to redefine the management fees they get from partnerships as “gross income,” just like any other kind of income, and to treat capital gains from partners’ investments as ordinary income.Such a move was included in legislation proposed by House Democrats in 2015. The legislation would also have increased the penalties on investors who did not properly apply the proposed changes to their own tax filings.The private equity industry has fought back hard, rejecting outright the basic concepts on which the proposed changes were based.“No such loophole exists,” Steven B. Klinsky, the founder and chief executive of the private equity firm New Mountain Capital, wrote in an opinion article published in The New York Times in 2016. Mr. Klinsky said that when other taxes, including those levied by New York City and the state government, were accounted for, his effective tax rate was between 40 and 50 percent.What would the change have meant for private equity?The private equity industry has defended the tax treatment of carried interest, arguing that it creates incentives for entrepreneurship, healthy risk-taking and investment.The American Investment Council, a lobbying group for the private equity industry, described the proposal as a blow to small business.“Over 74 percent of private equity investment went to small businesses last year,” said Drew Maloney, chief executive of the council. “As small-business owners face rising costs and our economy faces serious headwinds, Washington should not move forward with a new tax on the private capital that is helping local employers survive and grow.”The Managed Funds Association said the changes to the tax code would hurt those who invested on behalf of pension funds and university endowments.“Current law recognizes the importance of long-term investment, but this proposal would punish entrepreneurs in investment partnerships by not affording them the benefit of long-term capital gains treatment,” said Bryan Corbett, the chief executive of the association.“It is crucial Congress avoids proposals that harm the ability of pensions, foundations and endowments to benefit from high-value, long-term investments that create opportunity for millions of Americans.”Jim Tankersley More