United States Politics and Government

More stories

  • 163 Shares169 Views

    in Economy

    Don’t Call It a Bailout: Washington Is Haunted by the 2008 Financial Crisis

    by

    The colossal bailouts after the 2008 collapse arguably saved the global economy, but they also provoked a ferocious popular backlash.WASHINGTON — On that summer day in 2010 when he signed new legislation regulating the banks after the worst financial crash in generations, President Barack Obama declared, “There will be no more tax-funded bailouts. Period.” Standing over his right shoulder just inches away and clapping was his vice president, Joseph R. Biden Jr.Nearly 13 years later, Mr. Biden, now himself a president facing a banking crisis, appeared before television cameras on Monday to make clear that he remembered that moment even as he guaranteed depositors at failing institutions. “This is an important point: No losses will be borne by the taxpayers,” he vowed. “Let me repeat that: No losses will be borne by the taxpayers.”He could not even bring himself to utter the word “bailout.”Washington remains haunted by the specter of government intervention after the banking sector collapse that triggered the Great Recession, leaving leaders of both parties determined to avoid any repeat of that painful period. The colossal bailouts initiated under President George W. Bush and continued under Mr. Obama arguably saved the global economy but also provoked such a ferocious popular backlash that they transformed American politics to this day.The notion that “fat-cat bankers,” as Mr. Obama once called them, should be rescued by the government even as everyday Americans lost their jobs, their homes and their life savings so rankled the public that it gave birth to the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street movements and undermined the establishment across the political spectrum. In some ways, that popular revolt empowered populists like Donald J. Trump and Bernie Sanders, ultimately helping Mr. Trump to win the presidency.“Today’s populism is firmly rooted in 2008,” said Brendan Buck, a top adviser to two Republican House speakers, John A. Boehner and Paul D. Ryan, who were both eventually targeted by Tea Party rebels within their own party. “The bailouts not only fostered distrust of corporations, but cemented the notion that elites always do well while regular people pay the price. Bailouts were also followed by a large expansion of government, and while it all may have prevented much worse calamity, the recovery was slow.”Mr. Biden, of course, knows all that intimately. He saw it up close, watching the public uprising from his office in the West Wing while counseling Mr. Obama on how to respond. Even the separate economic stimulus package that Mr. Obama assigned Mr. Biden to manage came to be tainted because many Americans confused it with the bank bailouts.And so now, as he endeavors to head off a crisis of confidence after the failure of three financial institutions in recent days, Mr. Biden wants to avoid not just a run on the banks but a run on his credibility.“The term and the idea of bailouts are still highly toxic,” said Robert Gibbs, Mr. Obama’s first White House press secretary. He said Mr. Biden rightly focused on accountability for those responsible and sparing taxpayers the cost. “Those are two important lessons learned from 15 years ago. Emphasizing that the ones being helped are instead innocent bystanders who just had money in the bank is why a backlash on this action is less likely.”But Republicans were quick to pin both the crisis and potential resolution on Mr. Biden, accusing him of fostering economic troubles by stoking inflation with big spending and labeling government efforts to head off escalation of the crisis the Biden bailout.“Politically, if you ask me what’s the impact of bailing out rich techies in California — which is exactly how this will be played — then the answer is Donald Trump’s likelihood of re-election just went up three to four points,” said Mick Mulvaney, who came to Congress as a Tea Party champion and later served as Mr. Trump’s acting White House chief of staff.In repeating that taxpayers will not bear the cost of bailing out depositors at the failed banks, Mr. Biden noted that the cost will be financed by fees paid by other banks into the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, or F.D.I.C. What he did not mention was that a separate loan program that the Federal Reserve has opened to help keep money flowing through the banking system will be backed by taxpayer money. In a statement on Sunday, the Fed said it “does not anticipate that it will be necessary to draw on these backstop funds.”.css-1v2n82w{max-width:600px;width:calc(100% – 40px);margin-top:20px;margin-bottom:25px;height:auto;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;font-family:nyt-franklin;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1v2n82w{margin-left:20px;margin-right:20px;}}@media only screen and (min-width:1024px){.css-1v2n82w{width:600px;}}.css-161d8zr{width:40px;margin-bottom:18px;text-align:left;margin-left:0;color:var(–color-content-primary,#121212);border:1px solid var(–color-content-primary,#121212);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-161d8zr{width:30px;margin-bottom:15px;}}.css-tjtq43{line-height:25px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-tjtq43{line-height:24px;}}.css-x1k33h{font-family:nyt-cheltenham;font-size:19px;font-weight:700;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve{font-size:17px;font-weight:300;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve em{font-style:italic;}.css-1hvpcve strong{font-weight:bold;}.css-1hvpcve a{font-weight:500;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}.css-1c013uz{margin-top:18px;margin-bottom:22px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz{font-size:14px;margin-top:15px;margin-bottom:20px;}}.css-1c013uz a{color:var(–color-signal-editorial,#326891);-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;font-weight:500;font-size:16px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz a{font-size:13px;}}.css-1c013uz a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}How Times reporters cover politics. We rely on our journalists to be independent observers. So while Times staff members may vote, they are not allowed to endorse or campaign for candidates or political causes. This includes participating in marches or rallies in support of a movement or giving money to, or raising money for, any political candidate or election cause.Learn more about our process.The nuances did not matter to Mr. Biden’s critics. “Joe Biden is pretending this isn’t a bailout. It is,” Nikki Haley, the former ambassador to the United Nations now running for the Republican presidential nomination, said in a statement. “Now depositors at healthy banks are forced to subsidize Silicon Valley Bank’s mismanagement. When the Deposit Insurance Fund runs dry, all bank customers are on the hook. That’s a public bailout.”Other conservatives argued that a government rescue, however it is formulated, warps private markets and eliminates disincentives for financial institutions taking reckless risks because they can assume they too will eventually be saved, a concept called “moral hazard.”“Organizations that can’t manage risk should be allowed to fail, and taxpayers should not be forced to bailout the well-connected and wealthy because a bank prioritized woke causes above smart investing,” David M. McIntosh, a former Republican congressman from Indiana and president of the Club for Growth, a conservative advocacy organization, wrote on Twitter.But the White House adamantly rejected the comparison to the bailouts of the past, noting that the government is protecting depositors, not investors, while firing bank managers responsible for the trouble. “This is very different than what we saw in 2008,” Karine Jean-Pierre, the White House press secretary, told reporters.Michael Kikukawa, another White House spokesman, later said in a statement: “The president’s direction from the outset has been to respond in a way that protects hardworking Americans and small businesses, keeps our banking system strong and resilient, and ensures those responsible are held accountable. That’s exactly what his administration’s actions have done.”Mr. Biden, for his part, blamed Mr. Trump for the current crisis, saying “the last administration rolled back some of these requirements” in the Dodd-Frank law that Mr. Obama signed in 2010. Mr. Trump signed legislation passed by lawmakers in both parties in 2018 freeing thousands of small and medium-sized banks from some of the strict rules in the earlier law.The bailouts back then came in response to a banking crisis that seemed far more dangerous than what is currently evident. Some of the country’s most storied investment houses were collapsing in 2008 under the weight of risky mortgage-based securities, starting with Bear Stearns and later Lehman Brothers.Mr. Bush was warned that a cascade of failures could propel the country into another Great Depression. “If we’re really looking at another Great Depression,” he told aides, “you can be damn sure I’m going to be Roosevelt, not Hoover.”Casting aside his longstanding free-market philosophy, Mr. Bush asked Congress to authorize $700 billion for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, to prop up the banks. Aghast at the request just weeks before an election, the House rejected the plan, led by Mr. Bush’s fellow Republicans, sending the Dow Jones industrial average down 777 points, the largest single-day point drop in history to that point. Alarmed by the reaction, the House soon reversed course and approved a barely revised version of the plan.Mr. Obama and his running mate, Mr. Biden, both voted for the program and went on to win the election. Taking office in January 2009, they then inherited the bailout. In the end, about $443 billion of the $700 billion authorized was actually used to bolster banks, automakers and a giant insurance firm. As unpopular as it was, the injection of funds helped stabilize the economy.The ultimate cost of the bailouts of that period remains in dispute. Mr. Obama and others who were involved often say that they were all ultimately paid back by the companies that benefited from the funds. ProPublica, the nonprofit investigative news organization, calculated in 2019 that after repayments the federal government actually made a profit of $109 billion.But it depends on how you count the costs. Deborah J. Lucas, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, calculated that same year that the TARP program cost $90 billion in the end, a far cry from the original $700 billion. But other bailouts, most notably to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the federally backed home mortgage companies, brought the total cost of various bailouts to $498 billion in her estimation.Either way, critics on the left and right felt aggrieved. As recently as 2020, Mr. Sanders cited the issue in running against Mr. Biden for the Democratic nomination. “Joe bailed out the crooks on Wall Street that nearly destroyed our economy 12 years ago,” he said at a town hall.Mr. Biden stood by the decisions, maintaining they worked. “Had those banks all gone under, all those people Bernie says he cares about would be in deep trouble,” he said during a debate, adding, “This was about saving an economy, and it did save the economy.”The issue was not enough to cost Mr. Biden the nomination, but that did not mean voters remember the bailouts of the past fondly. “To many, it didn’t feel like it ‘worked,’ and that made it very easy to demagogue,” said Mr. Buck. “A long period of economic malaise also leads to people looking for something or someone to blame, which is the basis for populism. I firmly believe we don’t get Trump without the devastation of 2008.” More

  • 125 Shares109 Views

    in Economy

    In Budget Talks, Biden Rejects Hard Choices of the Past

    by

    The president has met Republican demands for debt reduction with a plan to trim deficits by taxing companies and the rich. Months after losing control of the House in 2010, President Barack Obama and his vice president, Joseph R. Biden Jr., released a budget proposal that bowed to Republican warnings about the need to rein in spending by promising a freeze in popular programs like education.Now president, Mr. Biden is confronting the same equation, with an emboldened new Republican majority in the House demanding deep spending cuts. But this time, Mr. Biden has made a sharp break from the past.His proposed budget does contain new steps to reduce deficits, but instead of talking about hard choices and freezing spending, Mr. Biden has pledged to defend popular federal programs from Republican attacks and instead rely almost exclusively on taxing corporations and high earners as the way to reduce the growth in the deficit by nearly $3 trillion over the next decade.The shifting strategy by Mr. Biden is rooted in his determination not to repeat political and economic mistakes from the Obama era, administration officials say privately. Economists now say economic mistakes from the Obama era slowed the recovery from the 2008 financial crisis. And publicly, officials point to polls to contend that voters side with the president on how to reduce deficits.“The American people are absolutely right that having the super-wealthy and special interests pay their fair share is the right way to reduce the deficit,” said Jesse Lee, a senior communications adviser to Mr. Biden’s National Economic Council.The budget fight is expected to drag out for months as both sides attempt to pin the blame on the other. Mr. Biden is attempting a different sort of budget triangulation from Mr. Obama’s plan, as he nods to concerns over the $31.4 trillion national debt but seeks to redefine the issue and turn conservatives’ longstanding antipathy toward tax increases into a negotiating and electoral weapon.“The Republicans have taken off the table making the wealthy and the well connected pay a little more to help reduce the national debt — that means they’re not really serious about the national debt,” Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, said in an interview.Understand Biden’s Budget ProposalPresident Biden proposed a $6.8 trillion budget that sought to increase spending on the military and social programs while also reducing future budget deficits.Recapturing a Centrist Identity: As he unveiled his proposal, Mr. Biden made curbing the budget gap one of his centerpiece promises. The move is part of a wider shift that sees the president speaking more to the concerns of the political middle.A Missing Plan for Social Security: Like the president’s previous budgets, his new proposal makes no mention of the program, which he promised to shore up during his 2020 campaign.N.Y. Transit Projects: President Biden’s budget plan routes about $1.2 billion to two of the biggest transit projects in New York City: the Second Avenue Subway extension and new train tunnels under the Hudson River.“Higher taxes aimed at billionaires and giant corporations that are hiding their money overseas would have very little effect on our economy, other than the ability to reduce the national debt or to invest more,” she said.House Republicans are refusing to raise a cap on the amount of debt the United States can have outstanding unless Mr. Biden agrees to large federal spending cuts, which could include slashing antipoverty programs and new measures meant to fight climate change. They say the current national debt load and new spending programs approved by the president are weighing on economic growth, partly by driving up borrowing costs for private businesses.They are trying to assemble their own budget proposal that can pass the House, likely centered on cuts to housing assistance, health care programs and other aid to the poor. In a caucus that fractures on key issues like how much to spend on the military and whether to raise retirement ages for Social Security and Medicare, members have found common purpose in skewering Mr. Biden’s fiscal plans.“After two years of economic failures, the American people desperately want results,” Representative Jason Smith of Missouri, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, said at the start of a hearing on Mr. Biden’s budget on Friday. “The budget before us today calls for $4.7 trillion in new taxes and sinks $6.9 trillion in new spending during a staggering debt crisis.”Mr. Biden has refused to negotiate directly over raising the debt limit but says he welcomes a conversation on the nation’s finances — on his own, populist terms.“What are they going to cut?” Mr. Biden mused to an audience in Philadelphia on Thursday, as he formally unveiled his budget and called on Republicans to follow suit..css-1v2n82w{max-width:600px;width:calc(100% – 40px);margin-top:20px;margin-bottom:25px;height:auto;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;font-family:nyt-franklin;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1v2n82w{margin-left:20px;margin-right:20px;}}@media only screen and (min-width:1024px){.css-1v2n82w{width:600px;}}.css-161d8zr{width:40px;margin-bottom:18px;text-align:left;margin-left:0;color:var(–color-content-primary,#121212);border:1px solid var(–color-content-primary,#121212);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-161d8zr{width:30px;margin-bottom:15px;}}.css-tjtq43{line-height:25px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-tjtq43{line-height:24px;}}.css-x1k33h{font-family:nyt-cheltenham;font-size:19px;font-weight:700;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve{font-size:17px;font-weight:300;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve em{font-style:italic;}.css-1hvpcve strong{font-weight:bold;}.css-1hvpcve a{font-weight:500;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}.css-1c013uz{margin-top:18px;margin-bottom:22px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz{font-size:14px;margin-top:15px;margin-bottom:20px;}}.css-1c013uz a{color:var(–color-signal-editorial,#326891);-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;font-weight:500;font-size:16px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz a{font-size:13px;}}.css-1c013uz a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}How Times reporters cover politics. We rely on our journalists to be independent observers. So while Times staff members may vote, they are not allowed to endorse or campaign for candidates or political causes. This includes participating in marches or rallies in support of a movement or giving money to, or raising money for, any political candidate or election cause.Learn more about our process.“What about Medicaid? What about the Affordable Care Act? What about veterans’ benefits? What about law enforcement? What about aid to rural communities? What about support for our military?” he asked. “What will they make — how will they make these numbers add up?”This debate is happening in an economic moment that is very different from 2011, when Mr. Obama issued his budget for the 2012 fiscal year.At that time, the gross national debt was about $15.5 trillion, or just under three-quarters of what was the annual output of the American economy. But the economy was nowhere close to recovering from the 2009 recession. The unemployment rate was 9 percent. The economy was running well below what economists call its potential — the amount of goods and services it would be producing at what you might call optimal performance.Then-President Barack Obama speaking about his budget proposal in 2009, with Mr. Biden, his vice president. Mr. Obama bowed to Republican demands to reduce deficits.Doug Mills/The New York TimesProgressive economists pushed Mr. Obama to take advantage of low interest rates to continue running large deficits and pump more money into the economy. After losing the House, though, he bowed to Republican demands to reduce deficits and pivoted the other way. His budget proposed caps on government spending and urged Congress “to act now to secure and strengthen Social Security for future generations” by taking steps to shore up its finances.A bout of brinkmanship later in 2011 between House Republicans and Mr. Obama nearly ended with the United States defaulting on its debt, before Mr. Obama agreed to a set of caps on future spending increases in exchange for lifting the limit. That deal helped cut the deficit by nearly two-thirds before Mr. Obama left office.Many economists have concluded that those measures dragged out the time it took for the economy to finally run hot enough to generate sustained wage gains for workers.Today’s economy has run so hot that the Federal Reserve is trying to cool it down to tame high inflation. Unemployment is 3.6 percent, and companies are having trouble finding workers. Republicans blame Mr. Biden’s spending policies for stoking inflation and say his tax proposals would further burden people and business owners already struggling with high prices.Progressive economists disagree — increasingly saying there is little threat to growth from large tax increases on companies and high earners.Even with his proposed savings, Mr. Biden’s budget still foresees the gross national debt increasing by about $18 trillion through 2033, to just above $50 trillion, or 128 percent of gross domestic product. It projects deficits to average about 1.5 percent more, as a share of the economy, than Mr. Obama projected in his 2012 budget. Yet administration economists say that under their plans, “the economic burden of debt would remain low.”Some progressive groups criticized Mr. Biden last week for focusing at all on deficit reduction in the budget. Others welcomed his emphasis on raising taxes for businesses and people earning more than $400,000.Budget hawks urged Mr. Biden last week to propose more — and more immediate — deficit reduction. Such reductions would pull consumer spending power out of the economy faster by raising taxes or reducing federal expenditures, or both. Advocates of deficit reduction said that could help ease price growth in the economy.Jerome H. Powell, the Fed chairman, told lawmakers in the House and Senate last week that federal tax and spending policy was “not contributing to inflation” today. He was pressed on that view by Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana, a Republican on the Budget Committee.“It’s undeniable that the only way we’re going to get this sticky inflation down is to attack it on the monetary side, which you’re doing, and on the fiscal side, which means Congress has got to reduce the rate of growth of spending and reduce — reduce the rate of growth of debt accumulation,” Mr. Kennedy said.“Now I get that you don’t want to get in the middle of that fight,” he added. “But the more we help on the fiscal side, the fewer people you’re going to have to put out of work. Isn’t that a fact?”“It could work out that way,” Mr. Powell replied. More

  • 138 Shares169 Views

    in Economy

    Biden’s $6.8 Trillion Budget Proposes New Social Programs and Higher Taxes

    by

    WASHINGTON — President Biden on Thursday proposed a $6.8 trillion budget that sought to increase spending on the military and a wide range of new social programs while also reducing future budget deficits, defying Republican calls to scale back government and reasserting his economic vision before an expected re-election campaign.The budget contains some $5 trillion in proposed tax increases on high earners and corporations over a decade, much of which would offset new spending programs aimed at the middle class and the poor. It seeks to reduce budget deficits by nearly $3 trillion over that time, compared with the country’s current path.It reaffirms Mr. Biden’s case that he can prevent the growing debt burden from weighing on the economy while expanding spending and protecting popular safety-net programs — almost entirely by asking companies and the wealthy to pay more in taxes.But after claiming credit for a $1.7 trillion decline in the annual deficit over the past year, Mr. Biden now sees the deficit increasing again in the 2024 fiscal year, to $1.8 trillion. The jump is larger than other forecasters, like the Congressional Budget Office, have projected. It is driven by rising costs of servicing the national debt as the Federal Reserve raises interest rates to curb inflation and by new programs the president is proposing that are not fully offset by tax increases in their first year.The plan drew swift criticism from Republicans, who are locked in an economically perilous debate with Mr. Biden over the borrowing limit, which House conservatives refuse to raise unless he agrees to sharp spending cuts.Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the top Republican on the Budget Committee, said Mr. Biden’s spending blueprint was “an unserious proposal and will be treated as such by both parties in Congress.”The budget plan, he said, “is a road map for fiscal ruin.”The proposals stand little chance of becoming law because Republicans won control of the House in November. Instead, Mr. Biden’s budget request was a political statement of values aimed at winning public opinion amid the debt-limit fight and a nascent 2024 campaign.He unveiled the plan formally on Thursday in Philadelphia. His budget would “lift the burden off families in America,” the president said during a swing-state speech meant to contrast his economic vision with that of Republicans who have called for spending cuts.“My budget is about investing in America and all of America,” Mr. Biden said during a roughly 50-minute speech to scores of union workers, Biden supporters and local Pennsylvania politicians. “Too many people have been left behind and treated like they’re invisible. Not anymore. I promise I see you.”The president emphasized a message of bolstering manufacturing, an effort many of his allies believe can sway blue-collar workers who in recent years have lost faith in the Democratic Party.The proposals in the budget showcased Mr. Biden’s early success in expanding the federal government’s role in the economy, and they reaffirmed his push for more. On Mr. Biden’s watch, its numbers show, domestic spending in areas like research and support for manufacturing has grown significantly larger as a share of the economy than was considered in the budget plans of the last Democratic administration, under President Barack Obama, when Mr. Biden was vice president.An Intel semiconductor manufacturing facility in New Albany, Ohio, is part of Mr. Biden’s plan to rebuild American manufacturing.Pete Marovich for The New York TimesIn his first two years as president, Mr. Biden signed laws to expand and rebuild critical infrastructure like water pipes and highways, bolster U.S. manufacturing of semiconductors and other high-tech goods, and accelerate a transition from fossil fuels toward low-emission sources of energy to fight climate change. He delivered military aid to Ukraine in its fight against Russia and signed a bipartisan law to increase federal medical care for military veterans exposed to toxic burn pits.He also left much of his economic agenda unfinished, a fact reflected in his budget, which renewed calls for programs that failed to pass muster when his party controlled Congress..css-1v2n82w{max-width:600px;width:calc(100% – 40px);margin-top:20px;margin-bottom:25px;height:auto;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;font-family:nyt-franklin;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1v2n82w{margin-left:20px;margin-right:20px;}}@media only screen and (min-width:1024px){.css-1v2n82w{width:600px;}}.css-161d8zr{width:40px;margin-bottom:18px;text-align:left;margin-left:0;color:var(–color-content-primary,#121212);border:1px solid var(–color-content-primary,#121212);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-161d8zr{width:30px;margin-bottom:15px;}}.css-tjtq43{line-height:25px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-tjtq43{line-height:24px;}}.css-x1k33h{font-family:nyt-cheltenham;font-size:19px;font-weight:700;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve{font-size:17px;font-weight:300;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve em{font-style:italic;}.css-1hvpcve strong{font-weight:bold;}.css-1hvpcve a{font-weight:500;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}.css-1c013uz{margin-top:18px;margin-bottom:22px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz{font-size:14px;margin-top:15px;margin-bottom:20px;}}.css-1c013uz a{color:var(–color-signal-editorial,#326891);-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;font-weight:500;font-size:16px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz a{font-size:13px;}}.css-1c013uz a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}How Times reporters cover politics. We rely on our journalists to be independent observers. So while Times staff members may vote, they are not allowed to endorse or campaign for candidates or political causes. This includes participating in marches or rallies in support of a movement or giving money to, or raising money for, any political candidate or election cause.Learn more about our process.“This president clearly believes the way to grow this economy is investing in the middle class and working families,” Shalanda D. Young, the director of the White House budget office, told reporters on Thursday.The president’s budget proposed $400 billion to deliver affordable child care for parents, $150 billion for home care for older Americans and disabled people, and nearly $400 billion to make permanent expanded health coverage assistance through the Affordable Care Act. He would spend $325 billion to guarantee paid leave for workers and nearly $300 billion combined for free community college and prekindergarten for students. He is seeking $100 billion in additional assistance to lower housing costs for homeowners and renters.Mr. Biden would reinstate for three years an expanded child tax credit, which was included in the economic aid bill he signed in 2021 but expired last year, as a means of reducing child poverty. He would make permanent a change in the credit that allows people to benefit from it in full even if they do not make enough money to owe federal income taxes. Together, the changes would cost more than $400 billion.To help offset costs, Mr. Biden proposed a series of tax increases on corporations and the wealthiest Americans. They include a 25 percent tax aimed at billionaires (he requested a similar tax last year but at a lower rate: 20 percent). He also called for quadrupling a tax on stock buybacks and renewed his push to roll back President Donald J. Trump’s tax cuts for high earners and to raise the corporate income tax rate to 28 percent from 21 percent.Mr. Biden proposed increasing and expanding a tax on Americans earning more than $400,000 as part of efforts to extend the solvency of Medicare by a quarter-century. He is also seeking new savings for the government based on more aggressive negotiation over prescription drug prices.But for the third consecutive budget, Mr. Biden did not put forth any new initiatives to extend the solvency of Social Security — unlike during the 2020 campaign, when he sought to expand benefits and bolster the program’s trust fund by effectively raising payroll taxes on people earning more than $400,000 a year.The budget offered few paths to compromise between Mr. Biden and Republicans on fiscal issues. One potential area of common ground was responding to what both parties call a growing military and economic threat from China. The budget proposed $9.1 billion in investments next year through the Pentagon’s “Pacific Deterrence Initiative,” which includes expenditures on new weapons systems that can be used to protect allies and defend U.S. interests in the region. It also asks for $400 million to a fund dedicated to countering the influence of the Chinese Communist Party abroad, such as exposing Chinese disinformation campaigns.The budget also refers to various domestic investments, which the administration argues are needed to make the U.S. economy more competitive with China. That includes money for domestic research into agriculture, an area where it says China has become the largest funder of research, as well as major investments in the manufacturing of semiconductors, clean energy products and other technologies in the United States.Still, Speaker Kevin McCarthy of California and his lieutenants reiterated on Thursday that they intended to insist on significant reductions in spending before they would consider allowing the federal debt limit to be raised — even though a stalemate over the debt limit could shake the world economy and endanger the retirement savings of millions of Americans.“We must cut wasteful government spending,” Mr. McCarthy and the other members of his leadership team said in a joint statement issued after Mr. Biden’s budget was released. “Our debt is one of the greatest threats to America, and the time to address this crisis is now.”The budget sees the gross national debt increasing by about $18 trillion through 2033, rising to just above $50 trillion. But the administration suggests that growth will not threaten the economy. “The economic burden of debt would remain low and in line with recent historical experience over the next decade,” administration officials wrote in the proposal.Last year’s budget painted a rosy and ultimately over-optimistic picture of the U.S. economy. The administration expected gross domestic product to grow 4.2 percent after adjusting for inflation, for instance, but it ultimately climbed by a more modest 2.1 percent.The new budget’s projections were more muted, with a caveat. The White House sees the economy growing by only 0.6 percent after adjusting for inflation this year, a weak pace that is in line with outside expectations. It also predicted a substantial increase in the unemployment rate — to 4.3 percent, a notable rise from 3.4 percent in January. Alongside that slowdown, inflation is expected to moderate.But officials noted that the administration completed its projections in November and that economic data had been stronger than expected since. Administration economists said in a blog post that unemployment “would likely be lower” than the official forecast in light of that.Much of the budget’s contents were holdovers from Mr. Biden’s previous proposals. But there were also a few new plans. One of them was a tax on the energy used in creating new digital currency assets, known as cryptocurrency mining. That practice relies on large amounts of electricity and generates emissions that contribute to climate change.Administration officials want to discourage the practice, which they say impedes the country’s energy transition. So they proposed a 30 percent tax on the electricity used in it, phased in over three years, whether that comes from an electric utility or a localized source like a home solar panel, on the theory that the energy involved would be put to better purpose in another use.Reporting was contributed by More

  • 138 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Rebecca Blank, Who Changed How Poverty Is Measured, Dies at 67

    by

    As an economics professor, she found serious flaws in how government determines who is poor in America. As under secretary of commerce, she fixed them.As far as her husband knows, Rebecca Blank threw a party with strawberries and champagne only once in her life.It was spring of 2010, and Ms. Blank was then the under secretary of commerce for economic affairs. Her guests were statisticians and economists in the civil service, the sort of people who write public reports on out-of-pocket medical expenses.But they were not celebrating a technocratic victory so much as a moral one: the first major overhaul of the government’s system for measuring poverty in nearly 50 years.The result was a powerful new statistical view of America’s poor, one that was far more accurate and that quantified the value of social welfare programs, blunting criticism that they had no effect.And that achievement was thanks, mainly, to Ms. Blank.She died at 67 on Feb. 17 at a hospice in Fitchburg, Wis. The cause was pancreatic cancer, her husband, Hanns Kuttner, said.The story of the calculation that Ms. Blank sought to reform — the Official Poverty Measure — is a parable of how skittishness and inertia can dictate government policy.The government’s definition of the poverty line was determined in 1963 by Mollie Orshansky, a little-known civil servant. She conceived of the poverty line as three times a family’s “subsistence food budget,” using as inspiration a 1955 public survey that found that families spent a third of their after-tax income on food.As food prices fell and housing costs rose over the last 60 years, that proportion grew ever more detached from reality. At the same time, poor people gained new forms of purchasing power outside of cash income, like food stamps, tax credits and housing subsidies.Yet the Official Poverty Measure remained the same.“There is no other economic statistic in use today that relies on 1955 data and methods developed in the early 1960s,” Ms. Blank told Congress in 2008. “The official poverty thresholds are numbers without any valid conceptual basis.”Nonetheless, one presidential administration after another declined to change the measure. This reluctance was dramatized in a 2001 episode of “The West Wing,” in which two White House spokesmen, fearing the political risk of newly defining millions of Americans as “poor,” try to weasel out of adopting a more realistic formula.The persistence of the old Official Poverty Measure put some of the government’s chief antipoverty programs at risk.“SNAP — what we used to call food stamps — and the earned-income tax credit, those two particularly stand out,” Robert Greenstein, founder of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a leading policy institute that advocates for the poor, said in a phone interview. “Under the Official Poverty Measure, it’s as if they don’t exist.”That mattered in Congress. “You’d have these very frustrating discussions,” Mr. Greenstein said. “A member would say, ‘I’m looking at the poverty rate now and 40 years ago, and they’re about the same, yet we have all these programs — they must be a failure.’ You’d have to explain, ‘Well the problem is in the poverty measure.’”In the 1990s, Ms. Blank, then an economics professor at Northwestern University, studied how to fix the poverty measure and recommended changes. For more than a decade, she got nowhere.But by the time of her 2008 congressional testimony, she had adopted a new approach. Rather than directly attack the Official Poverty Measure, she proposed that the government establish a revised measure alongside it. She hoped that this secondary measure would gradually replace the existing one, meanwhile providing a more accurate view.In 2009, after she joined the Department of Commerce under President Barack Obama, Ms. Blank set to work prodding the bureaucracy to implement something new.“Through her leadership, the Supplemental Poverty Measure was born,” David Johnson, the census bureau official in charge of computing the new measure, said in a phone interview.Beginning in 2011, the new measure joined the old one as features of annual Census Bureau reports. It changed the poverty calculus in numerous ways, for instance by using as a basis not merely food budgets but also an array of consumer expenditures, including on clothing and shelter. In addition, it updated the view of a family’s financial resources to take account of government benefits not issued as cash.Last year, when the Census Bureau wanted to determine the effect of the 2021 child tax credit on child poverty, it was able to do so thanks to the Supplemental Poverty Measure. (The tax credit helped bring child poverty to its lowest level on record, 5.2 percent, the bureau found. )“Becky Blank was a giant,” Mr. Greenstein said. “The introduction of the Supplemental Poverty Measure was probably without question the most important new development in poverty measurement in over 30 years.”It attracted bipartisan support. “There’s widespread agreement, that’s increased over the years, that the Supplemental Poverty Measure is a more accurate measure of people’s actual financial status,” said Ron Haskins, a former policy analyst for Republicans, including the former House speaker Paul Ryan and President George H.W. Bush.Rebecca Margaret Blank was born on Sept. 19, 1955, in Columbia, Mo., to Uel and Vernie (Backhaus) Blank. She grew up in Roseville, Minn., a suburb of the Twin Cities. Her father worked on behalf of the University of Minnesota to study and improve the local tourism industry. Her mother was a homemaker.Growing up, Becky participated in campaigns organized by the nonprofit advocacy group Bread for the World to write letters to members of Congress about the importance of combating hunger.She graduated from the University of Minnesota with a bachelor’s degree in economics in 1976 and earned a Ph.D. in the subject from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1983.At the Commerce Department, she attained the post of acting secretary briefly in 2011 and again from 2012-2013. She left to become chancellor of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, where she tangled with state Republicans who were trying to cut funding. One achievement was her creation of a scholarship program for Wisconsin students from poor families.Last year, Ms. Blank was set to become the next president of Northwestern University, prompting her and her husband to take a trip beforehand to Europe. They found themselves returning to destinations from their honeymoon in 1994, including Lünersee, an alpine lake in western Austria.While strolling around the lake, she became ill. Upon returning home, she was diagnosed with cancer. On July 11 — the day she was set to start her new job — she announced that she would have to decline the offer.In addition to her husband, she is survived by their daughter, Emily Kuttner, and her brother, Grant.The Official Poverty Measure that Ms. Blank had hoped to jettison remains in place, a monument to bureaucratic stasis. But scholars and other analysts, Mr. Greenstein said, now overwhelmingly use the tool that Ms. Blank imagined, fought for and established. More

  • 113 Shares139 Views

    in Economy

    Biden Will Release Dead-on-Arrival Budget, Picking Fight With GOP

    by

    The president’s plans have little in common with the budget Republicans are set to release this spring, as the nation hurtles toward a possible default on its debt.WASHINGTON — President Biden will propose a budget on Thursday that has no chance of driving tax or spending decisions in Congress this year, but instead will serve as a statement of political priorities as he clashes with Republicans over the size of the federal government.Mr. Biden’s budget proposal, the third of his presidency, is an attempt to advance a narrative that the president is committed to investing in American manufacturing, fighting corporate profiteering, reducing budget deficits and fending off conservative attacks on safety-net programs.It is expected to include what White House officials say will be nearly $3 trillion in new deficit reduction, largely from a familiar batch of tax increases on companies and high earners, along with robust spending on the military and policies to further Mr. Biden’s attempts to support high-tech factory jobs and fight climate change.Republicans are expected to offer a starkly different budget sometime this spring, one likely to be stocked with cuts to federal health programs and aid to the poor, in an effort to eliminate the budget deficit within a decade without raising taxes. Mr. Biden is certain to reject those proposals, and they may struggle to attract enough moderate Republican votes to pass the House.The competing documents will highlight the dearth of common ground for Mr. Biden and his opposition party on fiscal policy at a high-stakes moment for the government and the global economy. That is true even though both the president and congressional Republicans are embracing the politics of promising to reduce deficits and the growth of the national debt, which topped $31 trillion late last year.Republican leaders in the House have refused to raise a congressionally imposed cap on how much the federal government can borrow unless Mr. Biden agrees to steep cuts to federal spending in exchange. Given the United States borrows huge sums of money to pay its bills, that position risks plunging the economy into crisis if the government runs out of cash and defaults on its debt later this year.Mr. Biden has refused to tie any spending cuts to raising the borrowing cap, which does not authorize any new expenditures, but said he welcomes debate over how best to ease the nation’s debt burden.The parties’ entrenched positions set Washington up for several bruising months, at least, of debt-limit discussions. Economists warn the standoff will rattle investors and poses mounting threats to the global financial system.On Wednesday, Jerome H. Powell, the chair of the Federal Reserve, urged lawmakers not to play games, saying there is no way to prevent a financial meltdown without raising the borrowing cap.“Congress raising the debt ceiling is really the only alternative,” Mr. Powell told a House committee. “There are no rabbits in hats to be pulled out on this.”Jerome H. Powell, the chair of the Federal Reserve, told a House committee: “Congress raising the debt ceiling is really the only alternative.”Haiyun Jiang/The New York TimesPresidential budgets always offer visions for the nation’s fiscal policy that compete with those of their opposition — and budgets submitted by presidents to an opposition-dominated chamber of Congress rarely serve as more than messaging documents. Often, including under Mr. Biden, much of the budget fails to pass muster with the president’s own party.Mr. Biden failed to persuade a sufficient number of Democrats to pass many of the policy priorities outlined in his previous budget requests, like free community college and federally guaranteed paid leave. More than $2 trillion in tax increases from last year’s budget were never enacted despite Democrats’ control of Congress..css-1v2n82w{max-width:600px;width:calc(100% – 40px);margin-top:20px;margin-bottom:25px;height:auto;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;font-family:nyt-franklin;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1v2n82w{margin-left:20px;margin-right:20px;}}@media only screen and (min-width:1024px){.css-1v2n82w{width:600px;}}.css-161d8zr{width:40px;margin-bottom:18px;text-align:left;margin-left:0;color:var(–color-content-primary,#121212);border:1px solid var(–color-content-primary,#121212);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-161d8zr{width:30px;margin-bottom:15px;}}.css-tjtq43{line-height:25px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-tjtq43{line-height:24px;}}.css-x1k33h{font-family:nyt-cheltenham;font-size:19px;font-weight:700;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve{font-size:17px;font-weight:300;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve em{font-style:italic;}.css-1hvpcve strong{font-weight:bold;}.css-1hvpcve a{font-weight:500;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}.css-1c013uz{margin-top:18px;margin-bottom:22px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz{font-size:14px;margin-top:15px;margin-bottom:20px;}}.css-1c013uz a{color:var(–color-signal-editorial,#326891);-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;font-weight:500;font-size:16px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz a{font-size:13px;}}.css-1c013uz a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}How Times reporters cover politics. We rely on our journalists to be independent observers. So while Times staff members may vote, they are not allowed to endorse or campaign for candidates or political causes. This includes participating in marches or rallies in support of a movement or giving money to, or raising money for, any political candidate or election cause.Learn more about our process.Still, this year’s budget releases from Mr. Biden and House Republicans carry extra importance because of the stakes of the debt-limit fight — and the few paths to compromise on fiscal policy that the documents are expected to show.Mr. Biden’s budget will raise taxes on corporations and high earners, both to pay for his policy priorities and to reduce the growth in America’s reliance on borrowed money, including a 25 percent tax aimed at billionaires. Republicans will seek to cut taxes, including making permanent some temporary tax cuts approved under former President Donald J. Trump, and may seek to eliminate the budget deficit in 10 years by gutting huge swaths of federal spending. Mr. Biden will continue to push his vision of an expanded and empowered government hand in the economy, with new spending for child care, education and more. Republicans will seek to slash federal agencies and much of the health coverage provided by the Affordable Care Act, though it may be difficult for Speaker Kevin McCarthy of California to assemble a package of cuts that will satisfy hard-liners and centrists in his caucus alike.Leaders on both sides of the aisle are embracing the contrasts in their approach.Mr. Biden “is willing to do what Republicans are not: lower the deficit in a realistic, responsible way without cutting benefits that tens of millions of people rely on,” Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the majority leader, said in a brief speech on Wednesday. “Unlike Republicans, the president is also asking the richest of the rich to pay a little more of their fair share in taxes,” he added.Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, told reporters this week that Mr. Biden’s budget was “replete with what they would do if they could.”“Thank goodness the House is Republican,” Mr. McConnell said. “Massive tax increases, more spending, all of which the American people can thank the Republican House for, will not see the light of day.”Speaker Kevin McCarthy faces a challenge in coming up with cuts that will satisfy both hard-liners and centrists in the Republican caucus.Julia Nikhinson for The New York TimesRepublicans largely ignored the growth in deficits under Mr. Trump, including approving his tax cuts, which cost the federal government $2 trillion, and when joining with Democrats to pass trillions of dollars in economic aid amid the pandemic recession. Republicans joined Democrats three times to raise or suspend the debt limit without any spending cuts when Mr. Trump was in office. But after winning control of the House in November, Republican leaders have returned to warning that America’s debt load is hurting the U.S. economy and refusing to raise the debt limit unless Mr. Biden agrees to pare back federal spending.The Congressional Budget Office projects the budget deficit will grow slightly this fiscal year, from $1.375 trillion to $1.41 trillion, then continue to rise for the course of the decade, topping $2 trillion in 2032.Those increases are being driven in part by the rising costs of Medicare and Social Security as members of the baby boom generation retire, and by the growing cost of servicing the nation’s $31.4 trillion debt following a series of rapid interest rate increases by the Fed in a bid to tame high inflation. Mr. Powell told lawmakers on Wednesday that “it isn’t that the debt today is unsustainable. It’s that the path is unsustainable.”The director of the budget office, Phillip L. Swagel, briefed lawmakers about deficit projections on Wednesday at the Capitol, warning they would eventually need to raise taxes, cut spending or both in order to mitigate rising debt. The office’s projections “suggest that, over the long term, changes in fiscal policy would need to be made to address the rising costs of interest and mitigate other adverse consequences of high and rising debt,” Mr. Swagel wrote in a slide deck presented to lawmakers.From 2024 to 2033, the budget office projects, deficits will total more than $20 trillion, driving gross federal debt to nearly $52 trillion.Mr. Biden’s proposals, if enacted in full, would reduce that growth by about 15 percent. They are not likely to be. Republicans have tried already this year to repeal tax increases and the Medicare prescription drug savings measures he signed last year.Through new laws he has signed and executive actions he has issued, Mr. Biden has approved policies that would add about $5 trillion to the national debt over a decade, according to estimates by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget in Washington. Those include his 2021 economic aid law and debt relief for certain student loan borrowers, which is under challenge at the Supreme Court.It is unclear how Mr. Biden settled on the ultimate figure of nearly $3 trillion for his budget’s deficit reduction, or to what extent he agrees with Republicans who claim that the nation’s current levels of debt and deficits pose a risk to the economy.Karine Jean-Pierre, the White House press secretary, did not directly answer a reporter’s questions this week on how Mr. Biden arrived at his preferred level of deficit reduction or whether the path of growth in the national debt is hurting the economy.“The president understands his fiscal responsibility. He understands how important it is to lower the deficit,” Ms. Jean-Pierre said.“He’s going to put forward a fiscal budget that is going to be responsible,” she added.Catie Edmondson More

  • 138 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    U.S. and Europe Angle for New Deal to Resolve Climate Spat

    by

    American and European officials are trying to reach agreement on the outlines of a limited trade deal that could help resolve a major rift over America’s new climate legislation.WASHINGTON — American and European officials meeting in Washington this week are trying to agree on the outlines of a limited trade deal that would allow European companies to qualify for some of the benefits of the Biden administration’s new climate legislation, in a bid to assuage a major source of tension between the allies.The governments hope to announce their intention to begin negotiations over such an agreement as soon as Friday, when President Biden is set to meet with Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission, at the White House.American officials have also been carrying out similar conversations with the governments of Japan and the United Kingdom to see if some type of limited new agreement could be struck that would also offer Japanese and British companies certain benefits under the law.At the center of the debate is the Inflation Reduction Act, a $370 billion bill that President Biden signed last year to try to mitigate climate change by transforming U.S. power generation and the car industry. The bill offers generous tax credits to American consumers to purchase new and used electric vehicles, but it imposes tough restrictions on the types of vehicles that can benefit from these rules, in ways that disadvantage foreign carmakers.The law specifies that, to receive a tax credit, cars must be assembled in North America and source the material for their batteries from North America, or from countries with which the United States has a free-trade agreement. Despite close ties, the United States does not have a free-trade agreement with the European Union, Japan or the United Kingdom.The passage of the law has prompted harsh criticism from allies, who say companies in their countries will be penalized. European officials have been particularly outspoken, arguing that the bill comes at a delicate time for a European economy that is already contending with disruptions from the war in Ukraine and skyrocketing energy prices.The dispute has raised the prospect of a subsidy war between the United States and the European Union, and threatened to strain relations at a time when both sides are trying to maintain a united front against Russia.“I don’t think U.S. government officials anticipated this level of pushback and this level of disdain against this massive climate bill,” said Olga Khakova, the deputy director for European energy security at the Atlantic Council’s Global Energy Center. But she said emotions had now subsided a bit. “We are in this mode right now where we want to find a solution.”An electric Volkswagen at a factory in Germany. Despite close ties, the United States and the European Union do not have a free-trade agreement.Jens Schlueter/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesThe rift has set off a scramble within the U.S. government to try to scrape together some type of new trade deal that could be signed with allied governments to allow their companies to benefit from some of the law’s tax credits. With such an agreement, for example, a company based in the European Union could help to supply lithium, nickel or other battery materials for electric vehicles made in North America.A Treasury official said that any new trade agreements would be evaluated during a rule-making process to ensure that they comply with the critical mineral requirements in the legislation. The official pointed to Chinese control over critical mineral extraction as a reason for the need to make the supply chains of the United States and like-minded partners strong.A U.S. official said that the administration had been engaged in ongoing consultations with Congress, and that those briefings, and conversations with unions and private industry, would continue in the coming weeks.The Treasury Department, in a white paper published in December, said that the Inflation Reduction Act did not define the term “free trade agreement,” and that the Treasury secretary could identify additional free-trade agreements for the purposes of the critical-minerals requirement going forward.Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen said last month that the Biden administration was considering limited trade deals focused on critical minerals as a solution, and she suggested that these could be done without the approval of Congress. She emphasized that the intent of the law was not for the United States to steal jobs from Europe and that the law was meant to be aligned with the administration’s “friend-shoring” agenda..css-1v2n82w{max-width:600px;width:calc(100% – 40px);margin-top:20px;margin-bottom:25px;height:auto;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;font-family:nyt-franklin;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1v2n82w{margin-left:20px;margin-right:20px;}}@media only screen and (min-width:1024px){.css-1v2n82w{width:600px;}}.css-161d8zr{width:40px;margin-bottom:18px;text-align:left;margin-left:0;color:var(–color-content-primary,#121212);border:1px solid var(–color-content-primary,#121212);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-161d8zr{width:30px;margin-bottom:15px;}}.css-tjtq43{line-height:25px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-tjtq43{line-height:24px;}}.css-x1k33h{font-family:nyt-cheltenham;font-size:19px;font-weight:700;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve{font-size:17px;font-weight:300;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve em{font-style:italic;}.css-1hvpcve strong{font-weight:bold;}.css-1hvpcve a{font-weight:500;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}.css-1c013uz{margin-top:18px;margin-bottom:22px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz{font-size:14px;margin-top:15px;margin-bottom:20px;}}.css-1c013uz a{color:var(–color-signal-editorial,#326891);-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;font-weight:500;font-size:16px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz a{font-size:13px;}}.css-1c013uz a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}How Times reporters cover politics. We rely on our journalists to be independent observers. So while Times staff members may vote, they are not allowed to endorse or campaign for candidates or political causes. This includes participating in marches or rallies in support of a movement or giving money to, or raising money for, any political candidate or election cause.Learn more about our process.“I think the word ‘free trade’ was meant to mean reliable friends and partners with whom we can feel we have secure supply chains,” Ms. Yellen said on the sidelines of the Group of 20 finance ministers meetings in India last month. “We’ve been very clear with Europe that this is not a subsidy war.”With input from the Office of the United States Trade Representative, officials from the Treasury Department have prepared a document spelling out what kind of deal would constitute a “free-trade agreement” for the purposes of the legislation, according to people familiar with the plans.It is not clear how quickly the solution could be completed, however, as the white paper said the Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service would seek public comment on “what criteria should be used to identify free-trade agreements for the purposes of the critical-minerals requirement.”In a briefing on Friday, a European official said Europe and the United States could announce by the end of this week a commitment to forge a new limited trade deal, most likely focused on supply chains for critical minerals. Unlike a traditional free-trade agreement, which entails reducing barriers to trade between partners, this agreement would not involve lowering tariffs on either side, and the parties would aim to flesh out the agreement in days or weeks, rather than months, the European official said.“I think the word ‘free trade’ was meant to mean reliable friends and partners with whom we can feel we have secure supply chains,” Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen said at the Group of 20 meeting last month.Aijaz Rahi/Associated PressThe official added that the agreement would need to be legally binding, and would still involve seeking some type of approval from European Union member states. In the United States, the agreement could come in the form of an executive order from the Biden administration, and without requiring the approval of Congress, the official suggested.One irony is that neither the European Union nor the United States is a major source of the critical minerals needed for electric vehicle batteries. But some officials have suggested that the partnership would form a foundation for a group that could be expanded over time to include countries with larger supplies of lithium, cobalt, nickel and other minerals.While analysts said a new deal with Europe could in practice satisfy the requirements of the law, it would not really resemble a free-trade agreement, as such agreements have come to be understood.Free-trade deals are legal agreements that the World Trade Organization defines as covering “substantially all trade” between countries, including a broad range of goods and, typically, services. They usually take years to negotiate and, in the United States, require the approval of Congress.Scott Lincicome, the director of general economics at the Cato Institute, said that the Biden administration’s authority to strike such trade pacts was questionable but that it was unlikely that anyone would try to mount a legal challenge to them.“Everyone in the room knows that this is not kosher, but there’s not really anything anybody can do about it,” Mr. Lincicome said.Political appetite for striking new free-trade deals has diminished in the United States in recent years, in part because of a perception that such pacts have helped multinational corporations move factories and jobs offshore.Efforts to strike expansive trade deals with Europe and a group of Asian countries during the Obama administration fizzled, in part because of that political opposition. During the Trump administration, the United States signed a series of limited trade deals with South Korea, Japan and China that were carried out through executive orders, not by congressional approval.Edward Alden, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, said that the limited deal would mollify the Europeans, and that U.S.-E.U. economic relations were too important “to not allow the Europeans under the tent in some way or another.” But it could escalate complaints from other trading partners, like South Korea, that don’t feel as though their concerns have been taken care of, he said.South Korea already has a comprehensive free-trade agreement with the United States, but it has other criticisms of the climate law, centering on how the current terms exclude electric vehicles made by Hyundai from receiving tax credits. “Once you make accommodations for one, the pressure grows to make accommodations for others,” he said.It remains unclear how Congress will respond. Lawmakers have expressed concerns that the administration is not adhering to the law’s original intent of promoting U.S. manufacturing. Many also disapprove of efforts by the executive branch to bypass congressional authority in approving trade deals.But Democrats may also be sympathetic to the effort to smooth over relations with Europeans, and reluctant to reopen debate over their signature climate legislation. And at least one key lawmaker, Senator Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West Virginia, has said he didn’t realize that the European Union lacked a free-trade agreement with the United States in the first place.Still, the dispute has elicited some criticism that American officials are going to great lengths to mollify Europeans, especially given that the European Union imposes some trade barriers on the United States, like a relatively high tariff on imported U.S. cars.John G. Murphy, the senior vice president for international policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said it was his group’s view that the Biden administration should fight against various E.U. policies that discriminate against American companies “with the same doggedness European officials have brought to their complaints about the I.R.A.” More

  • 113 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Biden Budget Will Propose Tax Increase to Bolster Medicare

    by

    The president’s plan targets Americans earning more than $400,000 a year in an attempt to increase the program’s solvency by 25 years.WASHINGTON — President Biden, as part of his budget set for release on Thursday, will propose raising and expanding a tax on Americans earning more than $400,000 as part of a series of efforts to extend the solvency of Medicare by a quarter-century.In spotlighting his Medicare plans, Mr. Biden is seeking to sharpen a contrast with Republicans and cast himself as a protector of cherished retirement programs — both for his likely re-election campaign and for a looming congressional battle with House conservatives who are demanding steep cuts in federal spending in order to raise the nation’s borrowing limit.The early release of the Medicare proposals, detailed in a White House fact sheet on Tuesday, also underscored the degree to which Mr. Biden has fully embraced the political upside of taxing high earners. That is the case even though administration officials have conceded there is little chance those tax increases will pass Congress.The proposals would affect the so-called net investment income tax, which was enacted to help offset the cost of former President Barack Obama’s signature health care law. They would increase the tax rate to 5 percent from 3.8 percent for people earning above $400,000 a year and expand the income subject to it. Independent estimates from the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center and the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget suggest the changes could raise at least $350 billion, and possibly as much as $600 billion over the course of a decade. White House estimates are even higher: $700 billion in net new revenue over a decade, all from high earners.Mr. Biden is also proposing new cost savings for the government stemming from more aggressive negotiation over prescription drug prices. Those plans are almost certain to be rejected by Republicans, who won control of the House in November and roundly oppose both tax increases and Mr. Biden’s efforts to reduce pharmaceutical prices through regulation.The president’s emphasis on so-called entitlement programs is part of a sustained effort to claim a high ground with voters on both Medicare and Social Security and put Republicans in a difficult position as he clashes with conservatives on spending, taxes and debt.Health Care in the United StatesInsulin Prices: After years of mounting pressure, the drugmaker Eli Lilly said that it would significantly reduce the prices of several of its lifesaving insulin products.The Cost of Miracle Drugs: A wave of innovative medicines promise to cure devastating diseases. But when prices are too high, patients have to hunt for other ways to pay.Medicare: The Biden administration announced a rule targeting Medicare private plans that overcharge the federal government. The change strengthens the ability to audit plans and recover overpayments.‘Hospital at Home’ Movement: In a time of strained capacity, some medical institutions are figuring out how to create an inpatient level of care outside of hospitals.Medicare’s trustees estimate its hospital trust fund will be insolvent by 2028 without congressional action.Many Republicans have long supported cuts to the programs or raising their retirement ages to shore up the program’s finances and reduce federal spending. But others, aware of the potential voter backlash from touching popular programs, have grown wary of embracing the types of changes to the programs that were part of the Republican mainstream a decade ago. Former President Donald J. Trump vowed to protect both Social Security and Medicare and has urged Republicans to follow suit.Speaker Kevin McCarthy recently said he would not seek cuts to the programs in discussions with Mr. Biden over raising the debt limit, though more conservative members of his party are still pushing for reductions.“This debate over entitlements tied to the need to raise the federal debt ceiling has tied the party in knots,” said Larry Levitt, an executive vice president at the Kaiser Family Foundation, a health research group. “And I think President Biden is happy to engage in this debate and put forward proposals to sustain Medicare without cutting benefits or eligibility.”.css-1v2n82w{max-width:600px;width:calc(100% – 40px);margin-top:20px;margin-bottom:25px;height:auto;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;font-family:nyt-franklin;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1v2n82w{margin-left:20px;margin-right:20px;}}@media only screen and (min-width:1024px){.css-1v2n82w{width:600px;}}.css-161d8zr{width:40px;margin-bottom:18px;text-align:left;margin-left:0;color:var(–color-content-primary,#121212);border:1px solid var(–color-content-primary,#121212);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-161d8zr{width:30px;margin-bottom:15px;}}.css-tjtq43{line-height:25px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-tjtq43{line-height:24px;}}.css-x1k33h{font-family:nyt-cheltenham;font-size:19px;font-weight:700;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve{font-size:17px;font-weight:300;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve em{font-style:italic;}.css-1hvpcve strong{font-weight:bold;}.css-1hvpcve a{font-weight:500;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}.css-1c013uz{margin-top:18px;margin-bottom:22px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz{font-size:14px;margin-top:15px;margin-bottom:20px;}}.css-1c013uz a{color:var(–color-signal-editorial,#326891);-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;font-weight:500;font-size:16px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz a{font-size:13px;}}.css-1c013uz a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}How Times reporters cover politics. We rely on our journalists to be independent observers. So while Times staff members may vote, they are not allowed to endorse or campaign for candidates or political causes. This includes participating in marches or rallies in support of a movement or giving money to, or raising money for, any political candidate or election cause.Learn more about our process.Mr. Biden has refused to negotiate with Republicans over the debt limit, though he has said he is willing to discuss fiscal policy more broadly. He repeatedly attacked Republicans on Social Security and Medicare, vowing not to cut the programs and piling on when Republican lawmakers declared them off the table in budget talks.The president’s budget plan seeks to further that message, in part by employing accounting maneuvers to make Medicare appear more solvent by directly dedicating more federal revenues to its trust fund. The budget will dictate that both the new tax increases and the savings from spending on prescription drugs would be used to increase the trust fund that finances Medicare’s hospital benefits. It will also propose transferring the existing revenue stream from the net investment tax to feed Medicare’s trust fund.The White House anticipates that together the changes would total about $1.5 trillion over the next decade, ensuring the fund can pay Medicare’s hospital bills for an additional 25 years. The finances for the part of Medicare that pays for doctor’s visits, which is also projected to grow substantially in coming years, would be unaffected.“The budget I am releasing this week will make the Medicare trust fund solvent beyond 2050 without cutting a penny in benefits,” Mr. Biden wrote in an opinion piece for The New York Times on Tuesday. “In fact, we can get better value, making sure Americans receive better care for the money they pay into Medicare.”For the first time this year, Medicare will begin regulating the price of prescription drugs, using new powers Congress gave it in the Inflation Reduction Act, the tax, health and climate bill Mr. Biden signed late last summer. The president’s budget highlights the substantial savings that the reforms are expected to generate over time.The legislation allows Medicare to regulate the price of certain expensive drugs that have been on the market for several years. It also limits the amount all drugmakers can raise prices each year. Those reforms would save Medicare about $160 billion over a decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office.The changes to prescription drug prices accompanied changes to Medicare’s benefit that will also lower the costs of expensive drugs for its beneficiaries, by capping the total amount they can be asked to pay in a year for all their medicines and by limiting co-payments on insulin to $35 a month.Mr. Biden will propose expanding the drug negotiations by allowing the government to negotiate over a broader universe of medications. The White House estimates that those changes and other tweaks to the drug negotiation provision would save the government an additional $200 billion over 10 years, which it seeks to direct to the Medicare trust fund.The United States pays more than double the drug prices of other developed countries. But lowering those prices is projected to cause less investment in new drug technology. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the drug price reforms that passed last year will mean about 13 fewer drugs in the next 30 years, about a 1 percent reduction. The budget proposal would likely have a larger effect.Democrats cheered the proposals. Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, who chairs the finance committee, called them “proof positive that Medicare’s guarantee of quality health care for older Americans can be secured for the next generation without raising the eligibility age, cutting benefits or handing over the program to big insurance companies.”Mr. Biden did not propose other major new policies to reduce Medicare’s spending on health care in the coming years, according to the fact sheet. His proposal, like his previous budgets, omits a series of policies meant to reduce waste that were featured in budgets offered by Mr. Trump and Mr. Obama. The largest categories of Medicare spending — payments to doctors and hospitals — would be unchanged.Republicans are unlikely to go along. They have tried to overturn the entire Inflation Reduction Act, including the drug negotiations, which some members of the party say will hamper innovation in the pharmaceutical industry. They have also sought to roll back Mr. Biden’s tax increases on corporations and high earners.Mr. Biden’s plans drew mixed reactions from budget-focused groups in Washington on Tuesday. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget said it would “strongly support” the proposals but had reservations over shifting revenues from the government’s general fund to the Medicare trust fund. The National Taxpayers Union, which supports lower taxes and less federal spending, called those shifts “a gimmick, not a real reform.” More

  • 113 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Debt Default Would Cripple U.S. Economy, New Analysis Warns

    by

    As President Biden prepares to release his latest budget proposal, a top economist warned lawmakers that Republicans’ refusal to raise the nation’s borrowing cap could put millions out of work.WASHINGTON — The U.S. economy could quickly shed a million jobs and fall into recession if lawmakers fail to raise the nation’s borrowing limit before the federal government exhausts its ability to pay its bills on time, the chief economist of Moody’s Analytics, Mark Zandi, warned a Senate panel on Tuesday.The damage could spiral to seven million jobs lost and a 2008-style financial crisis in the event of a prolonged breach of the debt limit, in which House Republicans refuse for months to join Democrats in voting to raise the cap, Mr. Zandi and his colleagues Cristian deRitis and Bernard Yaros wrote in an analysis prepared for the Senate Banking Committee’s Subcommittee on Economic Policy.Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, held the subcommittee hearing on the debt limit, and its economic and financial consequences, at a moment of fiscal brinkmanship. House Republicans are demanding deep spending cuts from President Biden in exchange for voting to raise the debt limit, which caps how much money the government can borrow.That debate is likely to escalate when Mr. Biden releases his latest budget proposal on Thursday. The president is expected to propose reducing America’s reliance on borrowed money by raising taxes on high earners and corporations. But he almost certainly will not match the level of spending cuts that will satisfy Republican demands to balance the budget in a decade.The report also warns of stark economic damage if Mr. Biden, in an attempt to avert a default, agrees to those demands. In that scenario, the “dramatic” spending cuts that would be needed to balance the budget would push the economy into recession in 2024, cost the economy 2.6 million jobs and effectively destroy a year’s worth of economic growth over the next decade, Mr. Zandi and his colleagues wrote.The U.S. economy could quickly shed a million jobs and fall into recession if lawmakers fail to raise the nation’s borrowing limit.Michelle V. Agins/The New York Times“The only real option,” Mr. Zandi said in an interview before his testimony, “is for lawmakers to come to terms and increase the debt limit in a timely way. Any other scenario results in significant economic damage.”Understand the U.S. Debt CeilingCard 1 of 5What is the debt ceiling? More