Trump, Donald J

More stories

  • 113 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    With Kamala Harris, U.S. Free Trade Skepticism May Continue

    by

    The vice president has been critical of past trade deals. But her record suggests she could push for trade measures that address environmental issues.In a 2019 presidential debate, Kamala Harris insisted, “I am not a protectionist Democrat.”But Ms. Harris is not a free-trade Democrat, either. She has said she would have opposed the North American Free Trade Agreement of 1992, which President Biden voted for while serving in the Senate, as well as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, an agreement supported by the Obama administration. And in 2020, she was one of only 10 senators to vote against the deal to replace NAFTA, the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement.As she pursues the presidential nomination, Ms. Harris’s views on trade and economic issues are likely to become a focal point. Yet unlike former President Donald J. Trump and his running mate, JD Vance, trade has never been a major focus for Ms. Harris. As a result, her positions on trade issues are not entirely known.William A. Reinsch, the Scholl Chair in International Business at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, called Ms. Harris “a bit of a blank slate, but one most likely to be filled in with trade skepticism.”In part that is because of her no vote on the U.S.M.C.A., which Mr. Reinsch said “leads me to assume she is part of the progressive wing of the party which is skeptical of trade agreements in general, and particularly of those that involve market access.” But, he said, “there’s not a lot out there to go on.”Still, in her time as a senator from California and as the vice president, Ms. Harris has adopted some recurring positions that hint at what trade policy might look like if she wins the White House. For example, on several occasions, her objection to trade deals revolved around a common issue: their impact on the environment, and their lack of measures to address climate change.While the U.S.M.C.A. was negotiated by the Trump administration, it won over many Democrats by including tougher protections for workers and the environment. But Ms. Harris concluded that the deal’s environmental provisions were “insufficient — and by not addressing climate change, the U.S.M.C.A. fails to meet the crises of this moment.”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

  • 138 Shares139 Views

    in Economy

    2025 Could Be a Great Time to Be President, Economically Speaking

    by

    Trends already underway make for a sunny outlook over the next few years. The question is who will get to take credit.The next couple of years are shaping up to be solid for the U.S. economy. Inflation is returning to normal. As that happens, the Federal Reserve is preparing to cut interest rates. A huge burst of infrastructure spending under the Biden administration has taken time to ramp up, but projects both small and large are likely to break ground in earnest in 2025 and 2026.Things can always go wrong — the job market could cool more than expected, financial market problems could surface, and risks tied to the election in November could stoke uncertainty — but the base-case outlook is bright. The question now is who will get to take credit for it.One clear answer: It won’t be the person who shepherded some of the policies that are laying the positive groundwork. President Biden announced on Sunday that he was ending his candidacy for re-election, passing the Democratic baton to Vice President Kamala Harris.Mr. Biden isn’t entirely responsible for the sunny outlook. White House officials play a relatively minor role in slowing inflation and exert no direct control over interest rates. But big policy packages passed on his watch are helping to fuel a burst in green-energy, manufacturing and infrastructure investment that is expected to continue over the next several years. Expansions of dams and locks will be underway. Dozens of airport upgrades will be completed. Semiconductor factories will begin churning out chips.It’s a reminder that big and potentially transformative public investments can take time — and multiple political cycles — to play out. It could also be an opportunity for the next resident of the White House to take a victory lap.Former President Donald J. Trump is already hinting at an optimistic future on the campaign trail. The Republican platform, which he had a heavy hand in shaping, pledged to “destroy inflation” and vowed that interest rates would be lower while declaring that the Republican Party will be one of infrastructure and manufacturing. If economists’ most likely projections come true, those promises should be well within reach.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 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    A Harris Economy Could Prove More Progressive Than ‘Bidenomics’

    by

    At the first Democratic presidential debate in 2019, Kamala Harris, then a senator from California, unleashed a scathing critique of the Trump economy.The future vice president billed President Donald J. Trump’s tax cuts as a giveaway to the rich, argued that the booming stock market was leaving the middle class behind and warned that his reckless trade agenda was hurting farmers in the heartland.“Frankly, this economy is not working for working people,” Ms. Harris said. “For too long the rules have been written in the favor of the people who have the most and not in favor of the people who work the most.”As Ms. Harris prepares to potentially replace President Biden atop the Democratic ticket, she now faces the challenge of articulating her own vision for steering a U.S. economy that is still grappling with inflation while drawing sharp distinctions with Mr. Trump, who has promised more tax cuts and tariffs.Ms. Harris has been an ardent defender for the White House’s economic agenda during the Biden administration, promoting the benefits of legislation such as the American Rescue Plan of 2021 and the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. But as an attorney general and a senator, she was at times more progressive than the president, pushing for universal health care while calling for more generous tax benefits for working-class Americans and paying for them with bigger tax increases on companies.In recent weeks, Ms. Harris has embarked on an economic “opportunity tour,” making the case that wage increases have been outpacing inflation, that manufacturing jobs are growing and that Democrats have been fighting to forgive student loan debt. Those arguments now foreshadow the case she will be making to voters as she runs against Mr. Trump.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

  • 138 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    Trump’s Proposed Tax Cuts and Increased Tariffs Could Hurt Poorer Households

    by

    Some Republicans want to use revenue collected from higher duties on foreign goods to finance tax cuts. Economists say such a shift could widen the gap between the rich and the poor.When former President Donald J. Trump met with House Republicans last month, he touched on a mix of policies core to his economic agenda: cutting income taxes while also significantly raising tariffs on foreign goods.Mr. Trump told Republicans he would “love to raise tariffs” and cut income taxes on Americans, potentially to zero, said Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, Republican of Georgia.“Everyone was clapping in the room,” Ms. Greene said. “He said, ‘If you guys are going to go vote on something today, vote to lower taxes on Americans.’”Tariffs and tax cuts were core to Mr. Trump’s economic thinking while he was in the White House. If he wins in November, he is promising a much more aggressive approach, including potentially a blanket 10 percent tariff on nearly all imports and a 60 percent tax on Chinese goods.Mr. Trump and his supporters say that mixing tariffs with tax cuts will revitalize American businesses and manufacturing, boosting jobs and benefiting working-class Americans. And they see tariffs on foreign products as a lucrative source of revenue, one that could be used to offset a drop in tax receipts.Some economists have a different view, saying that cutting taxes while raising tariffs could have harmful consequences by widening the gap between the rich and the poor. Companies often pass on the cost of tariffs to consumers in the form of higher prices. As a result, economists say, lower-income households would be hit hardest by tariffs since they spend a greater share of their income on goods. Income taxes tend to fall more heavily on wealthier Americans since many low-income workers do not make enough money to owe federal income taxes.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

  • 100 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Trump-Vance Administration Could Herald New Era for Dollar

    by

    Both candidates on the Republican ticket have argued that the U.S. currency should be weaker to support American exports.Donald J. Trump’s selection of Ohio Senator J.D. Vance to be his vice-presidential nominee pairs him with a kindred spirit on trade, taxes and a tough stance on China. But it is their shared affinity for a weak dollar that could have the most sweeping implications for the United States and the global economy.In most cases, Mr. Trump likes his policies to be “strong,” but when it comes to the value of the dollar, he has long expressed a different view. Its strength, he has argued, has made it harder for American manufacturers to sell their products abroad to buyers that use weaker currencies. That’s because their money is worth so much less than the dollars that they need to make those purchases.“As your president, one would think that I would be thrilled with our very strong dollar,” Mr. Trump said in 2019, explaining that U.S. companies like Caterpillar and Boeing were struggling to compete. “I am not!”The dollar has been the world’s dominant currency since World War II, and central banks hold about 60 percent of their foreign exchange reserves in dollars, according to the Congressional Research Service.The United States has maintained a “strong dollar” policy since the 1990s, when Robert E. Rubin, the Treasury secretary at the time, declared that he did not view it as a threat to the ability of American business to compete abroad. The United States avoids taking measures to steer the strength of the dollar, and Treasury secretaries tend to argue that currency values should be determined by market forces. When countries, such as China, have acted to weaken their currencies, the U.S. has shamed them as currency manipulators.It is not clear how Mr. Trump would go about weakening the dollar. His Treasury Department could try to sell dollars to buy foreign currency or try to persuade the Federal Reserve to just print more dollars.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

  • 125 Shares169 Views

    in Economy

    Biden Policies Offer Benefits, but Little Political Payoff, in Pennsylvania

    by

    On a blighted industrial corridor in a struggling section of Erie, Pa., a long-abandoned iron factory has been humming with activity for the first time in decades. Construction crews have been removing barrels of toxic waste, knocking down crumbling walls and salvaging rusted tin roofing as they prepare to convert the cavernous space into an events venue, advanced manufacturing hub and brewery.The estimated $25 million project is the most ambitious undertaking the Erie County Redevelopment Authority has ever attempted. It was both kick-started and remains heavily funded by various pots of money coming from Biden administration programs.Yet there is no obvious sign of President Biden’s influence on the project. Instead, the politician who has taken credit for the Ironworks Square development effort most clearly is Representative Mike Kelly, a Pennsylvania Republican who voted against the 2021 bipartisan infrastructure law that is helping to fund the renovation.It is one example of a larger problem Mr. Biden faces in Pennsylvania, a swing state that could decide the winner of the 2024 election. In places like Erie, a long-struggling manufacturing hub bordering the Great Lake that is often an election bellwether, Mr. Biden is struggling to capitalize on his own economic policies even when they are providing real and visible benefits. Now, an assassination attempt on former President Donald J. Trump at a rally in Butler County, Pa., could further influence voters, though exactly how it will sway them remains unclear. But Mr. Biden’s standing in his home state was already growing precarious before a gunman opened fire on Saturday, killing one attendee and injuring Mr. Trump.In a poll of likely Pennsylvania voters conducted from July 9 to 11, just before the shooting, 48 percent said they would vote for Mr. Trump and 45 percent said they would vote for Mr. Biden in a two-way race.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

  • 163 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    Once a G.O.P. Rallying Cry, Debt and Deficits Fall From the Party’s Platform

    by

    Fiscal hawks are lamenting the transformation of the party that claimed to prize fiscal restraint and are warning of dire economic consequences.When Donald J. Trump ran for president in 2016, the official Republican platform called for imposing “firm caps on future debt” to “accelerate the repayment of the trillions we now owe.”When Mr. Trump sought a second term in 2020, the party’s platform pummeled Democrats for refusing to help Republicans rein in spending and proposed a constitutional requirement that the federal budget be balanced.Those ambitions were cast aside in the platform that the Republican Party unveiled this week ahead of its convention. Nowhere in the 16-page document do the words “debt” or “deficit” as they relate to the nation’s grim fiscal situation appear. The platform included only a glancing reference to slashing “wasteful” spending, a perennial Republican talking point.To budget hawks who have spent years warning that the United States is spending more than it can afford, the omissions signaled the completion of a Republican transformation from a party that once espoused fiscal restraint to one that is beholden to the ideology of Mr. Trump, who once billed himself the “king of debt.”“I am really shocked that the party that I grew up with is now a party that doesn’t think that debt and deficits matter,” said G. William Hoagland, the former top budget expert for Senate Republicans. “We’ve got a deficit deficiency syndrome going on in our party.”The U.S. national debt is approaching $35 trillion and is on pace to top $56 trillion over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office. At that point, the United States would be spending about as much on interest payments to its lenders — $1.7 trillion — as it does on Medicare.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

  • 125 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    One Obstacle for Trump’s Promises: This Isn’t the 2016 Economy

    by

    Donald J. Trump slapped tariffs on trading partners and cut taxes in his first term. But after inflation’s return, a repeat playbook would be riskier.When Donald J. Trump became president in 2017, prices had risen roughly 5 percent over the previous four years. If he were to win the race for the White House in 2024, he would be entering office at a time when they are up 20 percent and counting.That is a critically different economic backdrop for the kind of policies — tariffs and tax cuts — that the Republican contender has put at the center of his campaign.Mr. Trump regularly blames the Biden administration for the recent price surge, but inflation has been a global phenomenon since the onset of the coronavirus pandemic in 2020. Supply chain problems, shifting consumer spending patterns and other quirks related to pandemic lockdowns and their aftermath collided with stimulus-fueled demand to send costs shooting higher.The years of unusually rapid inflation that resulted have changed the nation’s economic picture in important ways. Businesses are more accustomed to adjusting prices and consumers are more used to those changes than they were before the pandemic, when costs had been quiescent for decades. Beyond that, the Federal Reserve has lifted interest rates to 5.3 percent in a bid to slow demand and wrestle the situation under control.That combination — jittery inflation expectations and higher interest rates — could make many of the ideas Mr. Trump talks about on the campaign trail either riskier or more costly than before, especially at a moment when the economy is running at full speed and unemployment is very low.Mr. Trump is suggesting tax cuts that could speed up the economy and add to the deficit, potentially boosting inflation and adding to the national debt at a time when it costs a lot for the government to borrow. He has talked about mass deportations at a moment when economists warn that losing a lot of would-be workers could cause labor shortages and push up prices. He promises to ramp up tariffs across the board — and drastically on China — in a move that might sharply increase import prices.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