Vance, J D

Latest story

138 Shares107 Views

Trump and Harris Embody a Stark Partisan Divide on Fighting Poverty

by

The two presidential candidates can both point to records of pushing poverty rates down, but their approaches could hardly be more different.Follow the latest updates on the Harris and Trump campaigns.The presidential race between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald J. Trump presents the sharpest clash in antipoverty policy in at least a generation, and its outcome could shape the economic security of millions of low-income Americans.As the onset of the pandemic in early 2020 threatened to decimate the economy, Mr. Trump signed a large stimulus package that included substantial aid for the poor. When President Biden and Ms. Harris took office in 2021, their administration pushed more big aid expansions through Congress as part of their pandemic-recovery plan, driving the poverty rate still lower.But if the two candidates’ responses to that extraordinary period had elements in common, the lessons they took from it were very different.In the pandemic-era programs, now mostly expired or reduced, Ms. Harris and other Democrats found reinforcement of their faith in the government’s power to ameliorate hardship. If elected, she would seek to sustain or expand many of them, including subsidies for food, health care and housing, and revive a change to the child tax credit that essentially created a guaranteed income for families with children. Those policies helped temporarily cut the poverty rate by more than half from prepandemic levels.She backs a $15 federal minimum wage, which Republicans have fought, and is a vocal supporter of programs like subsidized child care and paid family leave meant to help balance work and family.Mr. Trump says little about his role in pandemic-era poverty programs, which many Republicans view as having been excessive and fraud-ridden. Instead, he touts his 2017 tax cuts, which he credits for boosting the economy and reducing poverty to a prepandemic low, and he has vowed to extend them when they expire next year. Most of the direct benefit from those cuts went to corporations and the wealthy.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

More stories

  • 113 Shares121 Views

    in Economy

    Can the G.O.P. Really Become the Party of Workers?

    by

    The most surprising moment of this year’s Republican National Convention may have come on its first night, when the president of the Teamsters railed in prime time against corporate elites and denounced a “war against labor” by business groups. The gasps from some in the hall were almost audible on television.But in many ways, it was a little-noted speech the week before, by Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri, that was more revealing about the party’s evolving relationship with organized labor.If anything, Mr. Hawley, a rising Republican star who is one of the Senate’s most conservative members, seemed to outflank the Teamsters’ leader. His speech, delivered at the National Conservatism Conference, criticized Republicans who “cheerleaded for corporate tax cuts and low barriers for corporate trade, then watched these same corporations ship American jobs overseas.” Mr. Hawley concluded that, “in the choice between labor and capital,” his party must “start prioritizing the workingman.”Since at least the Nixon era, Republicans have nodded rhetorically at the working class, asserting that their party stands for the cultural values these voters hold dear. And for just as long, Democrats have called that pitch hollow, insisting that Republicans have sought to dupe blue-collar voters into supporting policies that benefit the wealthy. Speaker after speaker at the Democratic National Convention this week went on in this vein.Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri has become a leading voice among Republicans pushing for a new relationship with labor. Eric Lee/The New York TimesWhat’s far less common is for a Republican to agree with that critique. “The recent Republican Party, the 1990s party, privileged the money crowd in just about every possible way,” Mr. Hawley said in his speech.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 138 Shares169 Views

    in Economy

    JD Vance Pioneered ‘New Right’ Economics. Trump May Not Embrace It.

    by

    The vice-presidential nominee favors economic policies that help advance a socially conservative vision of American society — and that sometimes clash with Trump’s own plans.Senator JD Vance of Ohio, the Republican vice-presidential nominee, is a pioneer in what friends and critics alike call a new form of Republican economic thinking. It’s a vision to steer the economy toward advancing socially conservative goals, even when those policies defy conservative orthodoxy about government intervention in private markets.Those who know him well say Mr. Vance’s economic views have evolved to match his deepening commitment to social conservative causes, along with his growing anger at the role large companies play in shaping American society and politics.Mr. Vance has built his brief political career on that new brand of economic populism.He has championed efforts to reward families for having children, with tax breaks that some Republican economists say discourage people from working. He has also pushed to disempower large businesses, particularly tech companies that Mr. Vance and his allies say have used their market power to silence conservatives and hurt workers and children, through support for aggressive antitrust enforcement and even some corporate tax increases.“He’s a social conservative first,” said Michael R. Strain, an economist at the conservative American Enterprise Institute in Washington who has known Mr. Vance and discussed policy with him for years, well before he decided to enter politics.“The economic policy is in service of this broader social vision, where you don’t have to go to college to earn a middle-class wage,” Mr. Strain said. “Where your kids are safe from the tech companies. And where these big businesses, run by elites, are not a threat to local companies.”Since taking office in 2023, Mr. Vance has supported raising the minimum wage for people authorized to work in the United States, cast doubt on the virtues of corporate tax cuts and privately expressed admiration for some of the economic stances of Senator Elizabeth Warren, a liberal Democrat from Massachusetts, whom he has joined to push legislation cracking down on big banks. He has also called Lina Khan, the Federal Trade Commission chair whose aggressive antitrust agenda has angered business groups and many Republicans, one of the few Biden administration officials who is doing a “pretty good job.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 100 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Trump-Vance Administration Could Herald New Era for Dollar

    by

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