United States Politics and Government

Latest story

113 Shares14 Views

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

More stories

  • 100 Shares30 Views

    in Economy

    On Economic Policy, Harris Has Played Limited Role

    by

    President Biden has not given his vice president an expansive economic portfolio. But she has engaged on issues of small-business lending, help for parents and more.Shortly after the Biden administration took office in 2021, Vice President Kamala Harris started calling the chief executives of large banks, including JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America.The federal government was making hundreds of billions of dollars available for banks to lend to small businesses to keep them afloat during the pandemic recession. Ms. Harris told the executives they needed to be lending more, faster, particularly to minority-owned businesses that data suggested were struggling to gain access to the money.The calls represented one of the earliest and most visible forays Ms. Harris made in devising and carrying out the Biden administration’s economic agenda, and illustrated the sort of economic policy niche that she has filled as vice president.Current and former administration officials, progressive leaders outside the White House and allies of Ms. Harris roundly agree that the vice president, who is now the leading candidate to secure the Democratic presidential nomination, did not play a major role in the creation of the sweeping economic legislation that has defined President Biden’s time in office.Ms. Harris was rarely a loud voice in major economic debates, like the ones over how to counter soaring inflation in 2021 and 2022. She did sometimes attend economic briefings, but was not always a big contributor in them. One attendee recalled her coming to an economic briefing, but simply listening to the presentation while Mr. Biden asked questions.Other officials say Ms. Harris largely focuses her questions for economists on how certain policies affect workers and families at a personal level — a trait she shares with the president.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 Shares44 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

  • 100 Shares50 Views

    in Economy

    Biden Rent Cap Proposal Reignites Housing Policy Debate

    by

    A proposal to make landlords’ tax breaks contingent on rent limits has drawn industry pushback, progressive applause and some alternative approaches.When the Biden administration laid out a suite of plans this week to address housing affordability, it added a bold update to previous proposals — and sent the housing industry and the economics world buzzing.The White House called on Congress to pass legislation giving “corporate landlords” — defined by the White House as those with over 50 rental units — a choice to cap annual rent increases on existing units at 5 percent annually or lose federal tax breaks based on property depreciation.The proposal is expected to go largely unaddressed this year, with Congress in campaign mode. But public reaction has been lively.Tenant organizations and progressive leaders generally allied with the administration’s economic team cheered the news. Yet a range of economists, Wall Street analysts, real estate groups and landlord associations responded with forceful critiques, assailing the limits as counterproductive.“Increasing the supply of affordable rental housing nationwide — not politically motivated and self-defeating rent control proposals floated during election campaigns — is the best way to alleviate affordability constraints for renters,” Robert D. Broeksmit, the president of Mortgage Bankers Association, said in a statement.The policy would affect about 20 million units in the country, roughly half of all rental properties.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 Shares60 Views

    in Economy

    No Taxes on Tips? A Trump Idea Gains Ground.

    by

    The sudden popularity of exempting tips from taxes is a reminder of the improvisational nature of economic policymaking under Donald Trump.In Donald J. Trump’s telling, the idea was born over dinner at his Las Vegas hotel, where the waitress serving his table complained about the burden of paying taxes on her tips.“I was actually surprised to hear it,” Mr. Trump said last month at a rally in Virginia, adding that he quickly decided to address the waitress’s problem with a new campaign pledge: “No taxes on tips!”The proposal has rapidly become more than just a rally talking point. The Republican Party has officially embraced it in its platform, and House Speaker Mike Johnson, Republican of Louisiana, has said he would “pass it as soon as we can.” Some Democrats are also warming to making tipped income tax-free, with the two senators representing Nevada, a swing state with large restaurant and casino industries, endorsing it.The sudden popularity of exempting tips from taxes is a reminder of the improvisational nature of economic policymaking under Mr. Trump. Several economists involved in advising the Trump campaign said they hadn’t heard of the idea until Mr. Trump announced it publicly. But Republicans now see it as a key way to appeal to working-class Americans during the campaign against President Biden.Mr. Trump has encouraged his supporters to leave a note on restaurant tabs telling service staff that a Trump victory in November means no taxes on tips. Roughly four million Americans work in jobs where tips are common, according to an estimate by the Budget Lab at Yale.“It’s not like a gang of economists sitting around a table came up with that,” Stephen Moore, a Trump economic adviser, said. “I thought, ‘I don’t know if he’s being serious or not’, but as a political matter it’s a home run.”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 Shares109 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 Shares111 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

  • 100 Shares70 Views

    in Economy

    I.M.F. Sees Signs of Cooling in U.S. Economy

    by

    The International Monetary Fund warned that inflation remained stubbornly high and that protectionism posed a risk to the global economic outlook.The United States economy is growing more slowly than expected and inflation remains stubbornly high around the world, two developments that pose risks to the global economy, the International Monetary Fund said on Tuesday.The I.M.F.’s most recent World Economic Outlook report underscored the lingering vulnerabilities that could derail a so-called soft landing for the world economy — one in which a global recession is avoided despite aggressive efforts by central banks to tame rapid inflation by making it more expensive to borrow money.The new report said the I.M.F. still expected growth in global output to hold steady at 3.2 percent in 2024. That would be unchanged from its April projections. The fund also expected growth to be slightly higher next year, at 3.3 percent. However, the closely watched projections included several caveats and warned that the global economy was in a “sticky spot.”Most notable were signs of weakness in the United States, which has helped power the global recovery from the pandemic. The I.M.F. now expects the United States economy to grow more slowly than it did previously as a result of weaker consumer spending and a softening job market.The report forecast that U.S. economic growth would increase to 2.6 percent in 2024 from 2.5 percent in 2023, a slight downgrade from its previous projection of 2.7 percent. “The United States shows increasing signs of cooling, especially in the labor market, after a strong 2023,” Pierre-Olivier Gourinchas, the I.M.F.’s chief economist, said in an essay that accompanied the report.Global inflation is still expected to ease to 5.9 percent this year from 6.7 percent in 2023. But the I.M.F. noted that prices for services remained hot. That could force central banks — which have raised interest rates to their highest levels in years — to keep borrowing costs elevated longer, putting growth at risk for both advanced and developing economies.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 Shares106 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