United States Politics and Government

More stories

  • 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

  • 125 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    Yellen Says Bid to Decouple From China Would Be ‘Disastrous’

    by

    The Treasury secretary, speaking to a House committee, said trade and investment were crucial in U.S.-Chinese relations.Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen said on Tuesday that it would be a mistake for the United States to try to “decouple” from China and called for deepening economic ties between the world’s two largest economies.The comments came as the Biden administration has been seeking to improve relations with China, which faced a setback this year when a Chinese surveillance balloon was found flying across the United States. Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken is planning to travel to Beijing next week, and Ms. Yellen hopes to make a trip there soon.Speaking at a House Financial Services Committee hearing on Tuesday, Ms. Yellen made clear that she believes the economic relationship with China is critical.“I think we gain and China gains from trade and investment that is as open as possible, and it would be disastrous for us to attempt to decouple from China,” Ms. Yellen said.The United States maintains tariffs that the Trump administration imposed on billions of dollars’ worth of Chinese imports, and the Biden administration is developing new restrictions on how U.S. companies can invest in China. But Ms. Yellen said that the United States intended only to “de-risk” the relationship and that it had no intention of inflicting economic harm on China.“I certainly do not think it is in our interest to stifle the economic progress of the Chinese people,” Ms. Yellen said. “China has succeeded in lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty, and I think that’s something that we should applaud.”Although she struck an accommodating tone, Ms. Yellen also laid out concerns likely to arise in meetings with her Chinese counterparts.Because of national security concerns, she said, the administration is considering restrictions on American private equity firms’ investments in Chinese firms that have connections with China’s military. She also said the Treasury Department was examining additional sanctions on China in response to human rights abuses against Uyghurs in Xinjiang.In recent months, the United States has been ratcheting up pressure on China to provide debt relief to Zambia and other developing countries. Ms. Yellen lamented that despite some signs of a willingness to cooperate and help poor countries avoid defaults, China had not done enough. She emphasized a growing need for international financial institutions like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to help the most vulnerable economies.“These institutions reflect American values,” Ms. Yellen said. “It serves as an important counterweight to nontransparent, unsustainable lending from others like China.”Asked about Ms. Yellen’s comments on Tuesday, Wang Wenbin, a spokesman for China’s Foreign Ministry, rejected the idea that the I.M.F. or the World Bank is meant to further American interests.“The I.M.F. is not the I.M.F. of the United States, nor is the World Bank for that matter,” he said. 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

  • 113 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    Biden Praises Debt-Ceiling Deal in Address to the Nation

    by

    President Biden hailed a rare example of bipartisan cooperation in Washington on Friday, saying in his first prime-time address from the Oval Office that this week’s legislative budget deal averts economic calamity from a default on the nation’s debt.The legislation, known as the Fiscal Responsibility Act, passed the Senate late Thursday after receiving broad support in the House earlier in the week. The bill suspends the debt ceiling for two years and cuts back on spending.Seated behind the Resolute Desk, Mr. Biden said he would soon sign the measure into law and sought to reassure Americans that robust job growth — the economy added 339,000 jobs in May alone — would not be sidetracked by global fears about whether the United States is willing to pay its bills.“Essential to all the progress we’ve made in the last few years is keeping full faith and credit of the United States,” Mr. Biden said, adding: “Passing this budget agreement was critical. The stakes could not have been higher.”The speech was designed to double down on Mr. Biden’s longtime brand as a political deal-maker who is able to reach compromise with his rivals. His advisers believe that reputation is critical to his ability to win a second term in the White House.But Mr. Biden also used his remarks, which lasted about 12 minutes, to highlight achievements by his administration that are fiercely opposed by Republicans, and vowed to continue pushing a Democratic agenda that includes higher taxes on the wealthy, more spending on climate change and veterans and no cuts to health care or the social safety net.“No one got everything they wanted, but the American people got what they needed,” he said. He added that “we protected important priorities from Social Security to Medicare to Medicaid to veterans to our transformational investments in infrastructure and clean energy.”Mr. Biden went out of his way to praise House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, his chief Republican rival.“He and I, we and our teams, we were able to get along, get things done,” Mr. Biden said. “We were straightforward with one another, completely honest with one another and respectful with one another. Both sides operated in good faith.”The president said he would sign the bill on Saturday, two days before the so-called X-date, when the Treasury secretary said the government would run out of cash to pay its bills, a situation that economists have predicted would cause global uncertainty and turmoil.Presidents often reserve the Oval Office for addresses to the nation about war, economic crises or natural disasters. President Ronald Reagan delivered somber remarks from there after the space shuttle Challenger exploded in 1986. President Donald J. Trump announced pandemic restrictions from the Oval Office in early 2020.Mr. Biden’s decision to use the same venue on Friday underscores how close he believes the nation veered toward economic disaster.Mr. Biden and lawmakers had expressed optimism for weeks that they would reach an accord to avoid that outcome, but the deep disagreements between Democrats and Republicans kept the country — and the rest of the world — on edge until the votes were cast in both chambers.In the House, conservative Republicans initially revolted against Mr. McCarthy for failing to win more spending concessions from the president. Several threatened Mr. McCarthy’s speakership, but backed down amid robust support for the speaker from other Republicans.Some Democrats in the House and Senate also resisted the compromise, but the White House made the decision to largely keep quiet as the votes proceeded this week, hoping to avoid inflaming the conservative opposition and making Mr. McCarthy’s job harder.Mr. Biden has said on several occasions that he hoped to find a way to avoid a similar crisis over the debt ceiling in the future and has mentioned the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which says the debt of the United States “shall not be questioned.”Some legal experts believe that a president could use that passage to ignore the statutory debt limit, thereby avoiding the regular clashes between the parties. Mr. Biden said last month that he hoped to “find a rationale to take it to the courts to see whether or not the 14th Amendment is, in fact, something that would be able to stop it.”On Sunday, he said, “That’s another day.”Before the Oval Office speech, Mr. Biden was faced with anger among some progressives in his party that he had agreed to too many Republican demands during the negotiations.Some Democratic lawmakers voted against the debt ceiling legislation because of new work requirements that it imposes on some recipients of food assistance. White House officials have argued that the legislation removes work requirements for others, including the homeless and veterans.The president also angered some environmentalists by agreeing to approve construction of a natural gas pipeline through West Virginia and Virginia. Critics say the 300-mile Mountain Valley Pipeline will hurt wildlife and the environment as it cuts across the Appalachian Trail.For Mr. Biden, the debt ceiling deal helps to avoid undercutting the strong economy, which is a key selling point for his campaign.But his political advisers also have to be concerned about maintaining support from the coalition of voters who put him in office in 2020, some of whom have been disappointed with his achievements in climate, criminal justice and other areas. More

  • 88 Shares159 Views

    in Economy

    Here’s What’s in the Debt Ceiling Deal

    by

    Two years of spending caps, additional work requirements for food stamps and cuts to I.R.S. funding are among the components in the deal.The full legislative text of Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s agreement in principle with President Biden to suspend the nation’s borrowing limit revealed new and important details about the deal, which House lawmakers are expected to vote on this week.The centerpiece of the agreement remains a two-year suspension of the debt ceiling, which caps the total amount of money the government is allowed to borrow. Suspending that cap, which is now set at $31.4 trillion, would allow the government to keep borrowing money and pay its bills on time — as long as Congress passes the agreement before June 5, when Treasury has said the United States will run out of cash.In exchange for suspending the limit, Republicans demanded a range of policy concessions from Mr. Biden. Chief among them are limits on the growth of federal discretionary spending over the next two years. Mr. Biden also agreed to some new work requirements for certain recipients of food stamps and the Temporary Aid for Needy Families program.Both sides agreed to modest efforts meant to accelerate the permitting of some energy projects — and, in a surprise move, a fast track to construction for a new natural gas pipeline from West Virginia to Virginia that has been championed by Republican lawmakers and a key centrist Democrat.Here’s what the legislation would do:Temporarily suspends the debt limitThe deal suspends the nation’s $31.4 trillion borrowing limit until Jan. 2025. Suspending the debt limit for a period of time is different than setting it at a new fixed level. It essentially gives the Treasury Department the latitude to borrow as much money as it needs to pay the nation’s bills during that time period, plus a few months after the limit is reached, as the department employs accounting maneuvers to keep up payments.That’s different than the bill passed by House Republicans, which raised the limit by $1.5 trillion or through March 2024, whichever came first.Under the new legislation, the debt limit will be set at whatever level it has reached when the suspension ends. For political reasons, Republicans tend to prefer suspending the debt limit rather than raising it, because it allows them to say they did not technically green-light a higher debt limit.The suspension will kick the next potential fight over the nation’s debt load to 2025 — past the next presidential election.Caps and cuts spendingThe bill cuts so-called nondefense discretionary, which includes domestic law enforcement, forest management, scientific research and more — for the 2024 fiscal year. It would limit all discretionary spending to 1 percent growth in 2025, which is effectively a budget cut, because that is projected to be slower than the rate of inflation.The legislative text and White House officials tell different stories about how big those cuts actually are.Some parts are clear. The proposed military spending budget would increase to $886 billion next year, which is in line with what Mr. Biden requested in his 2024 budget proposal, and rise to $895 billion in 2025. Spending on veterans’ health care, including newly approved measures to assist veterans exposed to toxic burn pits, would also be funded at the levels of Mr. Biden’s proposed budget.Legislative text suggests nondefense discretionary outside of veterans’ programs would shrink in 2024 to about last year’s spending levels. But White House officials say a series of side deals with Republicans, including one related to funding for the Internal Revenue Service, will allow actual funding to be closer to this year’s levels.Although Republicans had initially called for 10 years of spending caps, this legislation includes just 2 years of caps and then switches to spending targets that are not bound by law — essentially, just suggestions.The White House estimates that the agreement will yield $1 trillion in savings over the course of a decade from reduced discretionary spending.A New York Times analysis of the proposal — using White House estimates of the actual funding levels in the agreement, not just the levels in the legislative text — suggests it would reduce federal spending by about $55 billion next year, compared with Congressional Budget Office forecasts, and by another $81 billion in 2025. If spending then returned to growing as the budget office forecasts, the total savings over a decade would be about $860 billion.Speaker Kevin McCarthy has said he believes a majority of his conference would vote for the deal.Haiyun Jiang for The New York TimesClaws back I.R.S. fundingThe legislation takes aim at one of President Biden’s biggest priorities — bolstering the I.R.S. to go after tax cheats and ensure companies and rich individuals are paying what they owe.Democrats included $80 billion to help the I.R.S. hire thousands more employees and update its antiquated technology in last year’s Inflation Reduction Act. The debt limit agreement would immediately rescind $1.38 billion from the I.R.S. and ultimately repurpose another $20 billion from the $80 billion it received through the Inflation Reduction Act.Administration officials said on Sunday that they had agreed to reprogram $10 billion of extra I.R.S. money in each of the 2024 and 2025 fiscal years, in order to maintain funding for some nondefense discretionary programs.The clawback will eat into the tax collection agency’s efforts to crack down on rich tax cheats. It is also a political win for Republicans, who have been outraged by the prospect of a beefed up I.R.S. and approved legislation in the House to rescind the entire $80 billion.Still, because of the leeway that the I.R.S. has over how and when it spends the money, the clawback might not affect the agency’s plans in the next few years. Officials said in a background call with reporters that they expected no disruptions whatsoever from the loss of that money in the short term.That’s likely because all of the $80 billion from the 2022 law was appropriated at once, but the agency planned to spend it over eight years. Officials suggested the I.R.S. might simply pull forward some of the money earmarked for later years, then return to Congress later to ask for more money.New work requirements for government benefitsThe legislation would impose new work requirements on older Americans who receive food stamps through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and who receive aid from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program.The bill imposes new work requirements for food stamps on adults ages 50 to 54 who don’t have children living in their home. Under current law, those work requirements only apply to people age 18 to 49. The age limit will be phased in over three years, beginning in fiscal year 2023. And it includes a technical change to the T.A.N.F. funding formula that could cause some states to divert dollars from the program.The bill would also exempt veterans, the homeless and people who were children in foster care from food-stamp work requirements — a move White House officials say will offset the program’s new requirements, and leave roughly the same number of Americans eligible for nutrition assistance moving forward.Still, the inclusion of new work requirements has drawn outrage from advocates for safety net assistance, who say it punishes vulnerable adults who are in need of food.“The agreement puts hundreds of thousands of older adults aged 50-54 at risk of losing food assistance, including a large number of women,” Sharon Parrott, president of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said in a statement.President Biden also agreed to some new work requirements for certain recipients of food stamps.Pete Marovich for The New York TimesPermitting reformThe agreement includes new measures to get energy projects approved more quickly by creating a lead agency to oversee reviews and require that they are completed in one to two years.The legislation also includes a win for Senator Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, a Democratic centrist, by approving permitting requests for the Mountain Valley Pipeline, a natural gas project in West Virginia. The $6.6 billion project is intended to carry gas about 300 miles from the Marcellus shale fields in West Virginia across nearly 1,000 streams and wetlands before ending in Virginia.Environmentalists, civil rights activists and many Democratic state lawmakers have opposed the project for years.The bill declares that “the timely completion of construction and operation of the Mountain Valley Pipeline is required in the national interest.”Mr. Manchin said on Twitter that he is proud to have secured the bipartisan support necessary to “get it across the finish line.” Republican members of the West Virginia delegation also claimed credit.Student loans and unspent Covid moneyThe bill officially puts an end to Mr. Biden’s freeze on student loan repayments by the end of August and restricts his ability to reinstate such a moratorium.It does not move forward with the measure that House Republicans wanted to include that would halt Mr. Biden’s policy to forgive between $10,000 and $20,000 in student loan debt for most borrowers. That initiative, which the Biden administration rolled out last year, is currently under review by the Supreme Court and could ultimately be blocked.The bill also claws back about $30 billion in unspent money from a previous Covid relief bill signed by Mr. Biden, which had been a top Republican priority entering negotiations. Some of that money will be repurposed to boost nondefense discretionary spending.According to an administration official, the deal leaves intact funding for two key Covid programs: Project NextGen, which aims to develop the next generation of coronavirus vaccines and treatments, and an initiative to offer free coronavirus shots to the uninsured.Preventing a government shutdownThe agreement only sets parameters for the next two years of spending. Congress must fill them in by passing a raft of spending bills later this year. Large fights loom in the details of those bills, raising the possibility that lawmakers will not agree to spending plans in time and the government will shut down.The agreement between Mr. Biden and Mr. McCarthy attempts to prod Congress to pass all its spending bills and avoid a shutdown, by threatening to reduce spending that is important to both parties. If lawmakers have not approved all 12 regular funding bills by the end of the year, the agreement tightens its spending caps. Nondefense discretionary spending would be set at one percent below current year levels, and it is possible that the I.R.S. would not see its $10 billion in funding for next year repurposed for other programs.The same levels would apply to defense and veterans’ spending — which would be, in effect, a significant cut to those programs compared to the agreed-upon caps. Democrats see the looming military cuts as a particularly strong incentive for Republicans to strike a deal to pass appropriations bills by the end of the year.What’s not in the billThe final agreement includes far less reduction in future debt than either side proposed.Republicans wanted much deeper spending cuts and stricter work requirements. They also wanted to repeal hundreds of billions of dollars in tax incentives signed by Mr. Biden to accelerate the transition to lower-emission energy sources and fight climate change. Mr. Biden wanted to raise taxes on corporations and high earners, and to take new steps to reduce Medicare’s spending on prescription drugs. None of those made it into the deal. 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

  • 113 Shares109 Views

    in Economy

    Supreme Court Backs Employer in Suit Over Strike Losses

    by

    The justices ruled that federal labor law did not block state courts from ruling on a case regarding damage caused when workers walked off the job.The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that federal labor law did not protect a union from potential liability for damage that arose during a strike, and that a state court should resolve questions of liability.The majority found that if accusations by an employer are true, actions during a strike by a local Teamsters union were not even arguably protected by federal law because the union took “affirmative steps to endanger” the employer’s property “rather than reasonable precautions to mitigate that risk.” It asked the state court to decide the merits of the accusations.The opinion, written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Brett M. Kavanaugh.Three conservative justices backed more sweeping concurring opinions. A single justice, Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented.Some legal experts had said a union setback in the case would discourage workers from striking by making the union potentially liable for losses that an employer incurred during a work stoppage.“It will definitely lead to more expensive-to-resolve lawsuits against labor unions,” said Charlotte Garden, a law professor at the University of Minnesota who was an author of a brief in support of the union. Professor Garden did note, however, that the decision was less far-reaching in discouraging strike activity than it could have been.Others have argued that the ruling was necessary to prevent workers from intentionally harming an employer’s property, an act not protected by federal labor law, and that such restrictions do not jeopardize the right to strike.“Damages from intentional destruction of property are not inherent to the act of striking,” said Michael O’Neill of the Landmark Legal Foundation, a conservative legal advocacy group that submitted a brief in the case. As a result, Mr. O’Neill said, the law does not shield workers or unions from liability for such damage.The case, Glacier Northwest v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, No. 21-1449, involved unionized employees of a concrete mixing and pouring company who walked off the job during contract negotiations, leaving wet concrete in their trucks. The employer argued that it suffered substantial monetary losses because the abandoned concrete was unusable.The union argued that it had taken reasonable steps to avoid harming the employer’s property, as federal law requires, because workers kept their trucks running as they walked off the job. That allowed the company to dispose of the concrete without damage to the trucks. The union said the lost concrete amounted to the spoilage of a product, for which unions were not typically held liable.At issue were two key questions. The first was procedural: whether the case should be allowed to go forward in state court, as employers generally prefer. The alternative is that the state court — in this case, Washington — should step aside in favor of the National Labor Relations Board, the federal agency responsible for resolving labor disputes.The second question was about what economic damage is acceptable during a strike, and what amounts to vandalism — which federal labor law does not protect — of property or equipment.The two issues are linked because under legal precedent, the labor board is supposed to elbow aside state courts when the alleged actions during the strike are at least “arguably protected” by federal law.The Supreme Court ruled that the union’s actions, as alleged by the employer, were not arguably protected because the spoilage of the product was not merely an indirect result of the strike. Instead, the employer contended in a lawsuit, “the drivers prompted the creation of the perishable product” and then waited until the concrete was inside the trucks before walking off the job.“In so doing, they not only destroyed the concrete but also put Glacier’s trucks in harm’s way,” the majority opinion said. It sent the case back to Washington State court to be litigated.Sean M. O’Brien, the president of the Teamsters, issued a defiant statement after the decision was announced. “The Teamsters will strike any employer, when necessary, no matter their size or the depth of their pockets,” he said.The U.S. Chamber of Commerce said the court “got it right” in ruling that federal law “does not pre-empt state tort claims against a union for intentional destruction of an employer’s property during a labor dispute.”In a concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas agreed that the Washington State court should be allowed to take up the case. He wrote that in a future case, the Supreme Court should reconsider whether the National Labor Relations Board should have such wide latitude to take the first pass in such cases.Justice Jackson noted in her dissent that the labor board had issued its own complaint since the case was first filed in Washington State. In issuing its complaint, the labor board’s general counsel found that the strike activity was in fact protected. This by definition meant that the activity was “arguably protected,” Justice Jackson wrote, requiring the state court to stand down.The decision, which some experts said could cause unions to reconsider striking or take a more cautious approach when a perishable product could be harmed, followed a series of rulings that appeared to scale back the power of unions and workers.The court ruled in 2018 that companies could prohibit workers from collectively bringing legal actions against their employers, even though the National Labor Relations Act protects workers’ rights to engage in so-called concerted activities.In the same year, the court ruled that public-sector unions could no longer require nonmembers to pay fees that help fund bargaining and other activities that unions do on their behalf.In 2021, the court deemed unconstitutional a California regulation that gave unions access to agricultural employers’ property for recruitment.In interviews, union leaders said that the ruling on Thursday would further tilt an already uneven playing field toward employers, and that it was often not a strike itself but the threat of a strike that helped unions win concessions.“Without the threat of a strike, you have little leverage in negotiations,” said Stuart Appelbaum, the president of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, which has organized successful strikes.Mr. O’Neill’s group, the Landmark Legal Foundation, argued that a ruling against the employer could have jeopardized the labor peace that the National Labor Relations Act was enacted to assure, “placing workers and the public at risk” by essentially blessing acts of vandalism and sabotage.Unions and workers often deliberately plan strikes to exploit employers’ vulnerability — for example, Amazon workers walked out during the holiday season — and rely on an element of surprise to maximize the economic harm they inflict, and therefore the leverage the union gains.In the near term, unions that are contemplating strikes or already striking, such as unions representing Hollywood writers or United Parcel Service employees whose contract expires this summer, may have to take greater precautions to insulate themselves from legal liability.Such precautions will typically weaken the impact of strikes, said Ms. Garden, the University of Minnesota professor. “You could get unions prophylactically adopting less effective tactics — things like giving advance warning about strike, which gives the employer a lot more time to hire replacement workers,” she said.Other unions may simply decide not to strike at all out of fear of heightened legal exposure, she said.Further out, unions and their political allies may seek to enact legislation that explicitly exempts workers from liability for certain types of economic damage that arise during a strike.“There will be efforts in blue states to make the best of it, to do something protective,” said Sharon Block, a former Biden and Obama administration official who is a professor of practice at Harvard Law School.But even these laws could wind up being challenged before the Supreme Court, experts said.Adam Liptak More