United States Politics and Government

Latest story

150 Shares48 Views

Trump’s Plans Could Increase National Debt Twice as Much as Harris’s Proposal

by

A new analysis finds that Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald J. Trump’s plans would both add to the deficit, but Mr. Trump’s proposals could create a fiscal hole twice as big.Former President Donald J. Trump’s economic proposals could inflame the nation’s debt burden while ultimately raising costs for a vast majority of Americans, according to a pair of new economic analyses that are among the most in-depth studies to date of the Republican nominee’s plans.The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonpartisan group that seeks lower deficits, found that Mr. Trump’s various plans could add as much as $15 trillion to the nation’s debt over a decade. That is nearly twice as much as the economic plans being proposed by Vice President Kamala Harris.And an analysis from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a liberal think tank, found that Mr. Trump’s tax and tariff plans would, on average, amount to a tax increase for every income group except the top 5 percent of highest-earning Americans.The two new studies differ in some respects. The budget group looked at the cost of both candidates’ tax and spending plans over 10 years, while the tax institute focused on what the impacts of Mr. Trump’s tax and tariff plans would be in 2026. But together they show that Mr. Trump’s agenda could be both costly and regressive by placing a greater burden on those making the least amount of money.Over the course of his campaign, Mr. Trump has floated a flurry of potentially far-reaching policies, including exempting certain forms of pay from taxes and levying broad tariffs on nearly all imports to the United States. He also wants to extend elements of the tax law he enacted in 2017 that are set to expire after next year.“It’s almost difficult to come up with a tax plan that would raise taxes on most Americans, but still increase the deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars a year — and that’s what this does,” said Steve Wamhoff, the federal policy director at I.T.E.P.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

  • 150 Shares41 Views

    in Economy

    Trump’s Plans Could Increase U.S. Debt While Raising Costs for Most Americans

    by

    A new analysis estimates that the former president’s proposals could grow deficits by as much as $15 trillion over a decade.Former President Donald J. Trump’s economic proposals could inflame the nation’s debt burden while ultimately raising costs for a vast majority of Americans, according to a pair of new economic analyses that are among the most in-depth studies to date of the Republican nominee’s plans.The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonpartisan group that seeks lower deficits, found that Mr. Trump’s various plans could add as much as $15 trillion to the nation’s debt over a decade. That is nearly twice as much as the economic plans being proposed by Vice President Kamala Harris.And an analysis from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a liberal think tank, found that Mr. Trump’s tax and tariff plans would, on average, amount to a tax increase for every income group except the top 5 percent of highest-earning Americans.The two new studies differ in some respects. The budget group looked at the cost of both candidates’ tax and spending plans over 10 years, while the tax institute focused on what the impacts of Mr. Trump’s tax and tariff plans would be in 2026. But together they show that Mr. Trump’s agenda could be both costly and regressive by placing a greater burden on those making the least amount of money.Over the course of his campaign, Mr. Trump has floated a flurry of potentially far-reaching policies, including exempting certain forms of pay from taxes and levying broad tariffs on nearly all imports to the United States. He also wants to extend elements of the tax law he enacted in 2017 that are set to expire after next year.“It’s almost difficult to come up with a tax plan that would raise taxes on most Americans, but still increase the deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars a year — and that’s what this does,” Steve Wamhoff, the federal policy director at I.T.E.P., said.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

  • 175 Shares104 Views

    in Economy

    Trump and Harris Want to Revive Manufacturing, but How Much Could They Actually Do?

    by

    The policy focus on the industry has changed from job quantity to job quality. And while federal incentives matter, local factors are more important.In recent weeks, the presidential candidates have been tussling over a familiar campaign issue in postindustrial America: how to reinvigorate manufacturing.Former President Donald J. Trump has proposed stiff tariffs on nearly all imports as a way of forcing foreign companies to make their goods in the United States, an escalation of a strategy that did not work during his term. “We’re going to take their factories,” Mr. Trump declared recently.Building on the Biden administration’s approach, Vice President Kamala Harris has promised tax credits and more apprenticeships to strengthen factory towns and invest in advanced technologies, ensuring they “are not just invented in America but built here.”In truth, no president can single-handedly control the growth of specific industries. Larger economic forces like recessions and exchange rates tend to play a much more powerful role. But some policies can help or hinder their progress.Over the last four years, policy and macroeconomic factors have combined to begin reshaping the manufacturing industry. While job growth has been flat for the past two years — as interest rates have clamped down on expansion and a strong dollar has dulled exports — shifts in the composition and location of it are underway beneath the surface.But first, a more fundamental question: Why do politicians care so much about manufacturing, anyway?Which manufacturing sectors have been growing fastest?Domestic output of semiconductors and other electrical components has expanded by 30 percent since the beginning of 2020. Other products, not as much.

    Notes: The semiconductor category includes other components. Source: Federal ReserveBy The New York TimesWhere manufacturing jobs have shifted since the pandemicBetween January 2020 and March 2024, the West Coast and Northeast have lost factory employment while many states in the Southeast have gained.

    Source: Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, Labor DepartmentBy The New York TimesWe 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 Shares70 Views

    in Economy

    Biden Scrambles to Contain Economic and Political Fallout of Port Strike

    by

    The labor dispute has forced President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris into a complicated position just weeks before the election.President Biden urged the alliance representing port employers to present a fair offer to striking longshoremen on Tuesday as the White House scrambled to contain the economic and political fallout of the work stoppage at U.S. ports.“Collective bargaining is the best way for workers to get the pay and benefits they deserve,” Mr. Biden said in a statement. “Executive compensation has grown in line with those profits, and profits have been returned to shareholders at record rates. It’s only fair that workers, who put themselves at risk during the pandemic to keep ports open, see a meaningful increase in their wages as well.”The labor dispute between the roughly 45,000 workers and the port operators has forced Mr. Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris into a complicated position. A prolonged strike could send chills across the U.S. economy, creating shortages, layoffs and even higher prices for consumers just weeks before the presidential election.The strike began after a monthslong impasse between the longshoremen and the port operators. The workers had pushed for wage increases that exceeded what the group representing the operators had offered. The union is also fighting automation at its ports.Mr. Biden has said he would not use a federal labor law to force the workers back to work, despite pressure from Republicans to contain the potential economic pain.Invoking the almost 80-year-old law, known as the Taft-Hartley Act, could alienate unions and diminish crucial support among labor groups in battleground states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan just before the presidential election.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 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Port Strike on the East and Gulf Coasts: What to Know

    by

    Thousands of dockworkers who load and unload cargo ships could walk off the job on Tuesday, halting nearly all activity at ports from Maine to Texas.Thousands of unionized dockworkers on the East and Gulf Coasts could go on strike as early as Tuesday, stranding cargo and sending ripples through supply chains for consumer goods and manufacturing parts.A contract between the operators of port terminals and the International Longshoremen’s Association, covering workers who load and unload cargo ships at three dozen ports, is set to expire on Monday. Their facilities include massive container ports in New Jersey, Virginia, Georgia and Texas, as well as the Port of Baltimore, a major hub for the import and export of vehicles and heavy machinery.The port operators group, the United States Maritime Alliance, and the union remain at an impasse over wage increases. Federal officials have said President Biden is not planning to invoke a nearly 80-year-old law to force dockworkers back to work if they strike. It would be the first such walkout at all these ports since 1977.Which ports and goods would be affected?Workers at ports from Maine to Texas would walk off the job at 12:01 a.m. Tuesday. These ports handle about half of all goods shipped to the United States in containers. One of them, the Port of New York and New Jersey, is the third busiest in the country.Longshoremen play a crucial role in the movement of cargo. They are responsible for loading and unloading ships, and they secure vessels that arrive and depart from U.S. ports. For the most part, ocean transport to and from these ports can’t happen without them.Cargo that could be affected by the strike includes everyday consumer goods, like bananas, many of which come through a port in Delaware. Just over half of imported apparel, footwear and accessories also come through East Coast ports. Manufacturing parts and cars move through these ports, too.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 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    Harris Now Has an Economic Plan. Can It Best Trump’s Promises?

    by

    A central question in the final stretch of the election is if Vice President Kamala Harris’s proposals will cohere into an economic argument that can top former President Donald J. Trump’s.Vice President Kamala Harris has a plan for the economy: a glossy, 82-page booklet detailing proposals on housing, taxes and health care that her campaign handed out to supporters gathered at a campaign event in Pittsburgh this week.Former President Donald J. Trump has nothing so detailed. The issues section of his campaign website is spare. He has coughed up a string of four- or five-word slogans promising tax cuts, some of which even his advisers cannot fully explain. He has toyed with a tariff as high as 20 percent on every good imported into the United States, promised to deport millions of immigrants to reduce the demand for housing and boasted that he can halve energy prices in a year.Even with such an improvisational, loosely defined agenda, he is still leading Ms. Harris on the economy in polls, though his advantage is shrinking in some surveys. Many economists have warned that Mr. Trump’s promises, if turned into concrete policy, could slow growth, raise consumer prices and balloon the federal deficit.But many voters find Mr. Trump’s punchy promises easy to grasp. His basic message of lower taxes, less regulation and less trade with other countries helped carry him to the White House once before. A majority of Americans fondly remember the economy in the first three years of his administration, before the pandemic and years of elevated inflation.A central question in the final stretch of the presidential race is if Ms. Harris’s more detailed — but in many cases still not fully formed — stack of policy proposals will cohere into an economic argument that can top that.To a remarkable degree in a deeply polarized country, Ms. Harris and Mr. Trump have many of the same stated goals for the economy. Lower costs. Reduce regulations. Cut taxes for the middle class. Incentivize corporations to build their products in the United States.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 Shares151 Views

    in Economy

    Harris’s Economic Pitch: Capitalism for the Middle Class

    by

    In a major address in Pittsburgh, the vice president praised business and used technical language to court economy-minded voters skeptical of big government.Vice President Kamala Harris wants voters to know that she is not a socialist.That was the clear, unspoken theme of Ms. Harris’s nearly 40-minute economic policy speech in Pittsburgh on Wednesday. It was why she paraphrased Warren Buffett, cited a survey of top economists and praised entrepreneurs in language that echoed Republican Senator Mitt Romney’s presidential run a dozen years earlier.Ms. Harris is locked in a tight presidential race with former President Donald J. Trump. Polls show that the economy remains the biggest issue in the race and that many undecided voters have concerns about Ms. Harris’s ability to make things better. Mr. Trump has tried to deride Ms. Harris as a socialist, if not a communist. Polls suggest those attacks have raised doubts in some swing voters’ minds about how Ms. Harris would wield government power to manage the economy.And so, in what was billed as a major economic address with only weeks to go in the campaign, Ms. Harris sought to put those doubts to rest. In muted and technical language that seemed designed to court on-the-fence voters skeptical of the government’s ability to solve major economic problems, Ms. Harris embraced capitalism and called herself a pragmatist who would not govern by ideology.In front of an audience filled with business owners and entrepreneurs at the Economic Club of Pittsburgh, Ms. Harris promised to build an economy that gains strength from a growing middle class, grounded in “fairness, dignity and opportunity.”“I promise you I will be pragmatic in my approach,” she said. “I will engage in what Franklin Roosevelt called bold, persistent experimentation. Because I believe we shouldn’t be constrained by ideology, and instead should seek practical solutions to problems, realistic assessments of what is working and what is not, applying metrics to our analysis, applying facts to our analysis and stay focused, then, not only on the crises at hand but on our big goals, on what’s best for America over the long term.”A moment later, she added: “Look, I am a capitalist.”Ms. Harris could have chosen a different path — one that many progressives have urged her to take. She could have more clearly delineated who she sees as the villains of the economy — namely big corporations.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 Shares140 Views

    in Economy

    Trump’s Low-Tax, High-Tariff Strategy Could Clash With Economic Realities

    by

    The former president’s efforts to compel companies to remain in the United States had limited success while he was in the White House.As former President Donald J. Trump makes his closing economic argument ahead of the election, he is outlining a vision for a manufacturing renaissance that reprises a familiar pitch: Make goods in America and enjoy low taxes, or face punishing tariffs.Mr. Trump’s pitch combines the type of carrots-and-sharp-sticks approach that he called “America First” during his first term, when he imposed stiff tariffs on allies and competitors while lowering taxes on American firms.During a speech in Savannah, Ga., on Tuesday, Mr. Trump suggested he would go far beyond that initial approach and adopt what he rebranded a “new American industrialism.”The former president proposed creating “special” economic zones on federal land, areas that he said would enjoy low taxes and relaxed regulations. He called for companies that produce their products in the United States — regardless of where their headquarters are — to pay a corporate tax rate of 15 percent, down from the current rate of 21 percent. Businesses that try to route cars and other products into the United States from countries like Mexico would face tariffs as high as 200 percent.But Mr. Trump’s vision of a “manufacturing renaissance” comes when Americans are increasingly wary of foreign investment, particularly from Asia. And while he imposed steep tariffs during his presidency, his efforts to keep American companies from shifting production overseas ran into the harsh realities of lower-wage labor and technological advancements in other countries.While Mr. Trump was in office, manufacturing employment was essentially flat before the pandemic and had declined by the time he left office. In January 2021, the Alliance for American Manufacturing described his promises of an industrial resurgence as “mostly rhetoric.”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 Shares131 Views

    in Economy

    Harris to More Fully Detail Economic Plans

    by

    Vice President Kamala Harris is set to ramp up her economic message this week, with a speech reframing her policy vision and a lengthy new document describing her approach in more detail.Her focus on economic issues comes at a pivotal moment, as many voters remain skeptical of her ability to improve the economy, which has been a top issue in the presidential campaign.Ms. Harris’s economic speech in Pittsburgh on Wednesday and the policy blueprint, described by three people familiar with the matter, are part of an effort by Ms. Harris’s campaign to weave together various economic proposals into a broader, thematic message.Over the course of her truncated campaign, Ms. Harris has released plans to offer assistance to home buyers, expand the child tax credit and raise taxes on large corporations and high-income Americans. Like her Republican rival, former President Donald J. Trump, Ms. Harris has not offered detailed plans on many other issues. The expected document will be a roughly 80-page overview of her economic policy priorities, though it is unclear how many specifics it will include.A goal for Ms. Harris’s campaign is to present a tangible economic plan that it can contrast with Project 2025, a conservative policy blueprint that Mr. Trump has tried to distance himself from, according to one of the people familiar with the campaign’s thinking.The Harris campaign declined to comment.Many voters still say they want to know more about Ms. Harris, and the economy remains the top issue in the election. In recent polls of Arizona, Georgia and North Carolina conducted by The New York Times and Siena College, 12 percent of voters who are still open to changing their mind on a candidate said they had concerns about Ms. Harris’s handling of the economy. Mr. Trump led in all three states.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