Senate

Latest story

125 Shares28 Views

Senate Votes to Rescind Some Trump Tariffs, With G.O.P. Support

by

The Senate on Wednesday approved a measure that would block some of the tariffs President Trump has imposed on Canada, with a handful of Republicans joining Democrats to pass a resolution that would halt levies set to take effect this week.The measure is all but certain to stall in the House, where G.O.P. leaders have moved preemptively to shut down any move to end Mr. Trump’s tariffs. But Senate passage of the measure on a vote of 51 to 48 — just hours after Mr. Trump unveiled sweeping tariffs on more than 100 trading partners, including the European Union, China, Britain and India — sent a signal of bipartisan congressional opposition to the president’s trade war.The resolution targets the emergency powers Mr. Trump invoked in February to impose sweeping tariffs on Canada, a move that has rattled markets and drawn bipartisan criticism from lawmakers concerned about the economic impact on their states and districts.Mr. Trump imposed the tariffs in an executive order that cited the International Economic Emergency Powers Act, a Cold War-era law that has most often been used to impose sanctions on rogue states and human rights violators. His administration argued that unchecked drug trafficking from Canada constituted a dire threat to American national security and used it as justification to unilaterally impose 25 percent tariffs on America’s closest trading partner.“The president has justified the imposition of these tariffs on, in my view, a made-up emergency,” said Senator Tim Kaine, Democrat of Virginia and the lead sponsor of the resolution. “The fentanyl emergency is from Mexico and China. It’s not from Canada.”The resolution, cosponsored by two fellow Democrats, Senators Mark Warner of Virginia and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, seeks to revoke the emergency declaration and, with it, Mr. Trump’s ability to enforce the tariffs set to go into effect on Wednesday.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

More stories

  • 125 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    Trump Labor Nominee Lori Chavez-DeRemer Faces Pressure at Senate Hearing

    by

    Asked for her views on pro-labor legislation she backed as a House Republican, Lori Chavez-DeRemer said she would simply serve the president’s agenda.President Trump’s pick as labor secretary faced pointed questions from both parties at her Senate confirmation hearing on Wednesday over her past support for pro-union legislation, an issue that could complicate her nomination.The nominee, Lori Chavez-DeRemer, a former Republican congresswoman, was pressed repeatedly about her stand on the Protecting the Right to Organize Act, known as the PRO Act — a sweeping labor bill that sought to strengthen collective bargaining rights. She was a co-sponsor of the measure, a top Democratic priority that has yet to win passage, and one of few Republicans to back it.Asked if she continued to support it, Ms. Chavez-DeRemer demurred, saying she was no longer in Congress and would support Mr. Trump’s agenda.“I do not believe that the secretary of labor should write the laws,” she told the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, which conducted the hearing. “It will be up to the Congress to write those laws and to work together. What I believe is that the American worker deserves to be paid attention to.”But in response to questions from Rand Paul of Kentucky, one of several Republican senators who have expressed opposition to her confirmation, she said she no longer backed a portion of the legislation that Mr. Paul said undermined “right to work” states, where unionization efforts face stiff legal and political barriers.The unusual nature of Ms. Chavez-DeRemer’s nomination was apparent in the makeup of the audience in the committee room, which was packed with members of the Teamsters union, identifiable by their logo-emblazoned fleeces and jackets. The nominee played up her personal connection to the union on Wednesday, saying in her opening statement, “My journey is rooted in the values instilled by my father, a proud Teamster who worked tirelessly for over 30 years.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 88 Shares129 Views

    in Economy

    Senate Confirms Howard Lutnick as Commerce Secretary

    by

    The Senate on Tuesday voted 51 to 45 to confirm Howard Lutnick to be President Trump’s commerce secretary, putting in place one of the administration’s top economic officials who will help oversee an agenda around tariffs and protectionism.Mr. Lutnick, who was the chief executive of the financial services firm Cantor Fitzgerald, became a central economic adviser to Mr. Trump over the past year and led his transition team. He has defended tariffs as a tool to protect U.S. industries from international competition, promoted lower corporate taxes and called for an expansion of energy production.As commerce secretary, Mr. Lutnick will take on a broad portfolio that includes defending U.S. business interests worldwide and overseeing restrictions on technology exports to countries like China.At his confirmation hearing last month, Mr. Lutnick said he would take a tough stance on the department’s oversight of technology sales to China and back up U.S. export controls with the threat of tariffs. He said the recent artificial intelligence technology released by the Chinese start-up DeepSeek had been underpinned by Meta’s open platform and chips sold by the U.S. company Nvidia.“We need to stop helping them,” Mr. Lutnick said of China, adding, “I’m going to be very strong on that.”As the United States resumes economic negotiations with the country, Mr. Lutnick is expected to play a central role. Mr. Trump said the new commerce secretary would oversee the work of the Office of the United States Trade Representative, which is traditionally the hub of trade policy.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 113 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

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

    by

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

  • 113 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

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

    by

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

  • 113 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    The Debt-Ceiling Deal Suggests Debt Will Keep Growing, Fast

    by

    The bipartisan deal to avert a government default this week featured modest cuts to a relatively small corner of the federal budget. As a curb on the growth of the nation’s $31.4 trillion debt load, it was a minor breakthrough, at best.It also showed how difficult — perhaps impossible — it could be for lawmakers to agree anytime soon on a major breakthrough to demonstrably reduce the nation’s debt load.There is no clear economic evidence that current debt levels are dragging on economic growth. Some economists contend that rising debt levels will hurt growth by making it harder for businesses to borrow money; others say spiraling future costs of government borrowing could unleash rapid inflation.But Washington is back to pretending to care about debt, which is poised to top $50 trillion by the end of the decade even after accounting for newly passed spending cuts.With that pretense comes the reality that the fundamental drivers of American politics all point toward the United States borrowing more, not less.The bipartisan agreement to suspend the debt ceiling for two years, which passed the Senate on Thursday, effectively sets overall discretionary spending levels over that period. The agreement cuts federal spending by $1.5 trillion over a decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office, by essentially freezing some funding that had been projected to increase next year and then limiting spending to 1 percent growth in 2025.But even with those savings, the agreement provides clear evidence that the nation’s overall debt load will not be shrinking anytime soon.Republicans cited that mounting debt burden as a reason to refuse to raise the limit, risking default and financial crisis, unless Mr. Biden agreed to measures to reduce future deficits. But negotiators from the White House and House Republican leadership could only agree to find major savings from nondefense discretionary spending.That’s the part of the budget that funds Pell grants, federal law enforcement and a wide range of domestic programs. As a share of the economy, it is well within historical levels, and it is projected to fall in the coming years. Currently, base discretionary spending accounts for less than one-eighth of the $6.3 trillion the government spends annually.The deal included no major cuts to military spending, which is larger than base nondefense discretionary spending. Early in the talks, both parties ruled out changes to the two largest drivers of federal spending growth over the next decade: Social Security and Medicare. The cost of those programs is expected to soar within 10 years as retiring baby boomers qualify for benefits.While Republicans at first balked when Mr. Biden accused them of wanting to cut those politically popular programs, they quickly switched to blaming the president for taking them off the table.Asked on Fox News on Wednesday why Republicans had not targeted the entire budget for cuts, Speaker Kevin McCarthy replied, “Because the president walled off all the others.”“The majority driver of the budget is mandatory spending,” he said. “It’s Medicare, Social Security, interest on the debt.”Negotiators for Mr. McCarthy effectively walled off the other half of the debt equation: revenue. They rebuffed Mr. Biden’s pitch to raise trillions of dollars from new taxes on corporations and high earners, and both sides wound up agreeing to cut funding for the Internal Revenue Service that was expected to bring in more money by cracking down on tax cheats.Instead, Republicans attempted to frame mounting national debt as solely a spending problem, not a tax-revenue problem, even though tax cuts by both parties have added trillions to the debt since the turn of the century.Republican leaders now appear poised to introduce a new round of tax-cut proposals, which would likely be financed with borrowed money, a move Democrats decried during the floor debate over the debt-ceiling deal.“Before the ink is dry on this bill, you will be pushing for $3.5 trillion in business tax cuts,” Representative Gwen Moore, Democrat of Wisconsin, said shortly before the final vote on the Fiscal Responsibility Act, as it is called, on Wednesday.Those comments reflected a lesson Democrats took from 2011, when Washington leaders last made a big show of pretending to care about debt in a bipartisan deal to raise the borrowing limit. That agreement, between President Barack Obama and Speaker John Boehner, limited discretionary spending growth for a decade, helping to drive down budget deficits for years.Many Democrats now believe those lower deficits gave Republicans the fiscal and political space they needed to pass a tax-cut package in 2017 under President Donald J. Trump that the Congressional Budget Office estimated would add nearly $2 trillion to the national debt. They have come to believe that Republicans would happily do the same again with any future budget deals — putting aside deficit concerns and effectively turning budget savings into new tax breaks.At the same time, both parties have grown more wary of cuts to Social Security and Medicare. Mr. Obama was willing to reduce future growth of retirement benefits by changing how they were tied to inflation; Mr. Biden is not. Mr. Trump won the White House after promising to protect both programs, in a break from past Republicans, and is currently slamming his rivals over possible cuts to the programs as he seeks the presidency again.All the while, the total amount of federal debt has more than doubled, to $31.4 trillion from just below $15 trillion in 2011. That growth has had no discernible effect on the performance of the economy. But it is projected to continue growing in the next decade, as retiring baby boomers draw more government benefits. The budget office estimated last month that debt held by the public would be nearly 20 percent larger in 2033, as a share of the economy, than it is today.Even under a generous score of the new agreement, which assumes Congress will effectively lock in two years of spending cuts over the full course of a decade, that growth will only fall by a few percentage points.Groups promoting debt reduction in Washington have celebrated the deal as a first step toward a larger compromise to reduce America’s reliance on borrowed money. But neither Mr. McCarthy nor Mr. Biden has shown any interest in what those groups want: a mix of significant cuts to retirement programs and increases in tax revenues.Mr. McCarthy suggested this week that he would soon form a bipartisan commission to scour the full federal budget “so we can find the waste and we can make the real decisions to really take care of this debt.”The 2011 debt deal produced a similar sort of commission, which issued recommendations on politically painful steps to reduce debt. Lawmakers discarded them. There’s no evidence they’d do anything else today. More

  • 138 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

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

    by

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

  • 138 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

  • 113 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    Military Spending Emerges as Big Dispute in Debt-Limit Talks

    by

    President Biden has offered to freeze discretionary spending, including for defense. Republicans want to spend more for the military, and cut more elsewhere.Funding for the military has emerged as a key sticking point in reaching an agreement to raise the nation’s borrowing limit and prevent a catastrophic default, with Republicans pushing to spare the Defense Department from spending caps and make deeper cuts to domestic programs like education.President Biden has balked at that demand, pointing to a long series of past budget agreements that either cut or increased military spending in tandem with discretionary programs outside of defense.How the sides resolve that issue will be critical for the final outcome of any debt deal. It remains possible that in order to reach a deal that prevents a default, Democrats will accept an agreement that allows military spending to grow even as nondefense spending falls or stays flat.Mr. Biden’s aides and congressional Republicans deputized by Speaker Kevin McCarthy are trying to negotiate an agreement to lift the borrowing limit before the government runs out of money to pay its bills on time, which could be as soon as June 1. Republicans have refused to raise the limit unless Mr. Biden agrees to cuts in federal spending outside of the military.The talks over spending cuts have narrowed in focus to mostly cover a relatively small corner of the budget — what is known as discretionary spending. That spending is split into two parts. One is money for the military, which the Congressional Budget Office estimates will total $792 billion for the current fiscal year. The other half funds a wide range of domestic programs, like Head Start preschool and college Pell Grants, and federal agencies like the Interior and Energy Departments. It will total $919 billion this year, the budget office estimates.A separate category known as mandatory spending has largely been deemed off limits in the talks. That spending, which is the primary driver of future spending growth, includes programs like Social Security and Medicare.Administration officials have proposed freezing both halves of discretionary spending for next year. That would amount to a budget cut, compared with projected spending, under the way the budget office accounts for spending levels. Spending for both parts of the discretionary budget would be allowed to grow at just 1 percent for the 2025 fiscal year. That could also amount to a budget cut since 1 percent would almost certainly be less than the rate of inflation. That proposal would save about $1 trillion over the span of a decade, compared with current budget office forecasts.Republicans rejected that plan at the bargaining table. They are pushing to cut nondefense spending in actual terms — meaning, spend fewer dollars on it next year than the government spent this year. They also want to allow military spending to continue to grow.“It just sends a bad message and Republicans feel like it would not be in our best interest to cut spending at this juncture, when you’re looking at China and Russia and a lot of instability around the world,” said Representative Robert B. Aderholt, Republican of Alabama, who sits on an Appropriations panel that oversees Pentagon spending. “That’s been the basic position that most Republicans have.”Mr. McCarthy sounded a similar note when speaking to reporters on Thursday. “Look, we’re always looking where we could find savings and others, but we live in a very dangerous world,” he said. He added, “I think the Pentagon has to actually have more resources.”Republicans included 10-year caps on discretionary spending in a bill they passed last month that also raised the debt ceiling through next year, and party leaders said they would exempt the military from those caps. Mr. Biden has vowed to veto the bill if it passes the Senate in its current form, which is unlikely.White House officials have hammered Republicans over concentrating their proposed discretionary savings on domestic programs, saying their bill would gut spending on border enforcement, some veterans’ care, Meals on Wheels for older Americans and a host of other popular programs.“Speaker McCarthy and I have a very different view of who should bear the burden of additional efforts to get our fiscal house in order,” Mr. Biden said on Thursday at the White House. “I don’t believe the whole burden should fall on the backs of the middle class and working-class Americans.”Congressional Democrats, including members of committees that oversee military spending, have attacked Republicans for focusing largely on nondefense programs.“If you’re going to freeze discretionary spending, there’s no reason on earth why defense shouldn’t be part of that conversation,” said Representative Adam Smith of Washington, the top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee. Republicans, he said, “are taking a hostage to advance their very narrow agenda. I’m not a fan of that. That’s not something I’m going to want to support.”Any agreement that increased military spending while freezing or cutting other discretionary spending would break from a budget-deal tradition that dates to 2011, when House Republicans refused to raise the debt limit until President Barack Obama agreed to spending cuts. The deal that avoided default was centered on spending caps that split their reductions evenly between defense and nondefense programs.The push to increase military funding while cutting more heavily elsewhere reflects a divide in the House Republican caucus. It includes a large faction of defense hawks who say the military budget is too small, alongside another large faction of spending hawks who want to significantly shrink the fiscal footprint of the federal government.Mr. McCarthy needs both factions to retain his hold on the speakership, which he narrowly won this year after a marathon week of efforts to secure the votes. And he will need to navigate them both as he tries to pass any debt-limit agreement with Mr. Biden through the House.Catie Edmondson More