ReportWire

Tag: public finance

  • Congress faces time crunch on government funding and sweeping defense policy bill | CNN Politics

    Congress faces time crunch on government funding and sweeping defense policy bill | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Lawmakers on Capitol Hill are scrambling to try to fund the government and pass a sweeping defense policy bill before a new Congress is sworn in, but there are signs that both sides have struggled to reach agreement over these key outstanding issues.

    Government funding expires at the end of next week on December 16 – and it appears all but certain that lawmakers will have to pass a short-term extension as they try to reach a broader full-year funding agreement.

    Separately, the House has been expected to take up the National Defense Authorization bill for fiscal year 2023 this week, but it’s not yet clear when a vote will take place amid questions over whether certain controversial policy provisions will be included in the legislation – like eliminating a Covid-19 vaccine mandate for the military. Once the House has passed the bill, it would next have be taken up by the Senate.

    Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell warned on Tuesday that rather than passing a full-year funding bill, lawmakers may have to pass a short-term stop-gap measure to kick the can into early next year. This would set up a huge funding fight and create fears of a government shutdown early in the new Congress, when Republicans will take control of the House and would have to cut a deal with Democrats who run the Senate.

    On government funding legislation, McConnell said: “We don’t have agreement to do virtually anything, which can only leave us with the option of a short-term CR into early next year,” referring to a short-term bill known as a continuing resolution.

    He added: “We don’t even have an overall agreement on how much we’re going to spend, and we’re running out of time.”

    Despite the threat of a stop-gap, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer reiterated on Tuesday that senators are “working very hard” to reach a deal to fully fund the government before the upcoming deadline, but acknowledged that “there’s a lot of negotiating left to do.”

    Senate Republican Whip John Thune signaled Tuesday that he doesn’t have a “high level of confidence” both parties will be able to reach a deal on an omnibus government funding bill, as time is running short to pass that massive bill.

    “I don’t have a high level of confidence because I’m looking at the calendar,” the South Dakota Republican said. “It’ll be a very heavy lift, but who knows? I guess I would say is, you know, bring your Yuletide carols and all that stuff here because we may be singing to each other.”

    McConnell complained Tuesday that Democrats were preventing quick passage of the National Defense Authorization Act by trying to add unrelated items at the last minute that Republicans oppose.

    “Senate Democrats are still obstructing efforts to close out the NDAA by trying to jam in unrelated items with no relationship whatsoever to defense. We’re talking about a grab bag of miscellaneous pet priorities,” McConnell said in remarks on the Senate floor.

    “My colleagues across the aisle need to cut their unrelated hostage taking and put a bipartisan NDAA on the floor,” he added.

    Lawmakers released text of an agreement for the NDAA Tuesday night.

    The summary, released by the Senate Armed Services Committee, said it “requires the Secretary of Defense to rescind the mandate that members of the Armed Forces be vaccinated against COVID-19.”

    CNN reported earlier this week that the mandate was likely to be rescinded as part of the defense policy bill.

    In a tweeted statement Tuesday night, House GOP leader Kevin McCarthy said that “the end of President Biden’s military COVID vaccine mandate is a victory for our military and for common sense.”

    House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat, said earlier Tuesday that the House was considering eliminating the Covid-19 vaccine mandate for military members in order to gather enough Republican votes to pass the annual defense authorization. Republicans have said they will not support the NDAA with the vaccine mandate in place.

    Hoyer said at his weekly pen and pad with reporters that Democrats were not “willing” to give up the mandate, but that a compromise is required to get the NDAA across the finish line.

    “We’re not willing to give it up. This is not a question of will; it’s a question of how can we get something done? We have a very close vote in the Senate, very close vote in the House. And you just don’t get everything you want,” he said.

    Thune said of the defense policy bill, “I think the ransom the Democrats wanted for stripping the vaccine mandate is a whole bunch of things to include the permitting reform, but also some other things that are just going to be non-starters on our side, and I don’t think we’re going to get in the business of, you know, allowing them to hold us hostage.”

    This story has been updated with additional developments.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • US trade deficit edged up to $78.2 billion in October | CNN Business

    US trade deficit edged up to $78.2 billion in October | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    New York
    CNN Business
     — 

    The US trade gap edged only slightly higher in October than the month before, to $78.2 billion.

    The latest reading was up just 5.4%, less than half the pace of increase from the revised September reading, when the trade deficit jumped by 12.7% to $74.1 billion.

    A strong dollar and weaker global demand weighed on exports both months. A strong dollar makes US goods more expensive to foreign buyers and it also makes imports more affordable for US buyers. But economic slowdowns in overseas markets also hit US exports in the most recent readings.

    The latest report shows exports fell 0.7% in October compared to the month before, and are down nearly 2% from the record exports set in August. Most of the drop was in the export of goods, rather than services, which fell 4.4% compared to August.

    Oil prices have come down since earlier this year, according to data released in the report. The average price of crude oil imports in the month was $82.05 a barrel, down 5.7% from September, and down 21.7% from the peak in June.

    But the United States now exports more petroleum products, by dollars, than it imports. So a lower price of crude no longer helps the trade deficit the way it might have done in the past, when crude and petroleum product imports vastly exceeded exports.

    The deficit in the movement of goods between the United States and China narrowed significantly in the latest report, falling 22.6% to $28.9 billion from $37.3 billion, one factor in the smaller trade gap increase.

    Although most of that narrowing was due to a 31.3% jump in the export of US goods to China, compared to September, a 9.5% decline in US imports of Chinese goods was also a factor in the smaller trade deficit between the two countries.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • These are the end-of-year political showdowns that will help decide America’s future | CNN Politics

    These are the end-of-year political showdowns that will help decide America’s future | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    America is heading for a year-end political collision that will set the stage for showdowns between the new Republican-led House and the Democrats who still wield power in the Senate and White House.

    A fraught coda to the political battles of 2022 will decide who holds the government purse strings and how far the US will go in funding Ukraine’s war with Russia. It will showcase extremism in the incoming GOP-run House and the size of the Democratic Senate majority. And the 2024 presidential campaign is grinding into gear with ex-President Donald Trump stirring controversy on multiple fronts and President Joe Biden pondering a reelection bid.

    In Congress, a lame-duck session will see standoffs that could risk a government shutdown and over the must-lift US government borrowing limit, with grave implications for the economy.

    Meanwhile, House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy is scrambling to solidify support in his bid to become speaker in January, with a smaller-than-expected incoming majority giving his extreme pro-Trump colleagues extra power.

    And the House January 6 committee is poised to soon unveil its final report on Trump’s negligence and incitement leading up to the US Capitol insurrection. The findings, amid signs of acrimony inside the panel, could further color sentiment towards the ex-president as he seeks to build momentum after an underwhelming 2024 campaign launch – and as powerful donors, as well as prominent Republicans considering their own White House ambitions, are openly castigating Trump for hosting and then failing to disavow White nationalist and Holocaust denier Nick Fuentes. The special counsel probe into his hoarding of classified documents and 2020 election chicanery is also gathering pace.

    Trump is also one of the factors playing into the Georgia Senate runoff election on December 6 that could give Democrats slender breathing room in the chamber or extend the 50-50 split broken only by Vice President Kamala Harris’ tie-breaking vote that made Biden’s agenda so precarious for the last two years.

    These next few weeks will show the country has failed to fully process the trauma of the Trump presidency or to arrive at the sense of normality that Biden promised during the 2020 campaign – even as the two rivals maneuver ahead of a possible rematch in 2024. They will also stress the near impossibility of governing at a time when America is deeply split between two political poles since big questions are likely to get pushed down the road.

    Big issues not solved this December will be pitched into an even more volatile atmosphere by an aggressive GOP-controlled House primed to slam the White House with partisan investigations.

    There’s also the renewed threat of a freight rail strike that could again clog supply lines and fresh Democratic calls for more action on gun control after a tragic new spate of mass shootings. The Democrats have a massive agenda before relinquishing the House but have little political room or time to accomplish it.

    Still, Congress is expected to mark one milestone in the coming weeks. The Senate is expected to vote to codify rights to same-sex and interracial marriage after a procedural vote on the measure earlier in November demonstrated strong bipartisan support.

    Here is what to look out for in the coming weeks.

    Congress must pass a bill to fund the government by December 16 or risk a partial government shutdown. The administration has asked for $37.7 billion in aid for Ukraine, $10 billion for extended efforts to combat Covid-19 and an unspecified amount for disaster relief after hurricanes hit Florida and Puerto Rico.

    Democrats will remain in control of the House until the new Congress in 2023, but a major spending package will also still likely require agreement from 10 Republicans to beat a Senate filibuster. GOP senators are especially skeptical about the administration’s warnings that the US will suffer a relapse in its exit from the pandemic without billions more dollars in funding. And even getting a Democratic majority in the chamber to sign on could be a challenge since West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin could make another stand against another spurt of government spending, especially since he would face a tough race if he decides to run for reelection in 2024.

    There is likely sufficient support for new aid to Ukraine in the Senate, but funding President Volodymyr Zelensky’s war for democracy against Russia is set to become far less routine next year as pro-Trump House members, like Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, are vowing to halt aid needed for vital weapons and ammunition. They want the cash sent to reinforce the southern US border instead.

    The most serious showdown of the new Congress could come over raising the government’s borrowing limit that is due to be reached sometime next year. Failure to do so could trash faith in America’s willingness to pay its bills and send shockwaves through the US and global economy.

    McCarthy has already warned he will require spending concessions on key programs in return for allowing the government to borrow more money – a scenario that triggered several damaging fiscal showdowns during the Obama administration.

    To avoid a repeat, Democrats could use the waning days of their control of both chambers to raise the debt ceiling themselves, using a budgetary process known as reconciliation that could bypass a Senate filibuster. But the process is hugely complex, in terms of congressional choreography and time.

    Democratic Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said before Thanksgiving that the “best way to get it done, the way it’s been done the last two or three times is bipartisan.” But Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell didn’t express much interest in Schumer’s invitation sit down to sort out the issue, saying “I don’t think the debt limit issue is until sometime next year.”

    The House Republican leader has a big problem – finding the votes in the new GOP majority to fulfill his dream of becoming speaker.

    McCarthy staked out a series of hardline positions heading into the holiday in an apparent effort to appease pro-Trump lawmakers after several declared they won’t vote for him. The California lawmaker can afford to lose only a few GOP votes if he wants to be speaker.

    During a trip to the border last week, he warned Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas to resign or face possible impeachment next year. And he said he’ll follow through on a threat to throw high-profile Democrats, such as Reps. Adam Schiff, Eric Swalwell and Ilhan Omar, off of top committees next year.

    Speaking on CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday, Schiff accused McCarthy of adopting extremist positions for his own naked political gain.

    “Kevin McCarthy has no ideology, has no core set of beliefs,” Schiff told CNN’s Dana Bash, saying the top House Republican will do “whatever he needs to do to get the votes of the QAnon caucus within his conference.”

    McCarthy’s struggle to confirm his speakership lies partly in the smaller-than-expected GOP majority following the lack of an expected “red wave” in this month’s election. And it could be a preview of a volatile majority and the extent to which his tenure, if he does win the speakership, will be hostage to the whims of the far-right Freedom Caucus and pro-Trump lawyers who want to use their majority as a weapon against Biden. But McCarthy also has to worry that two years of relentless, partisan investigations could turn off voters and lead them to snatch away the party’s fragile edge in the House in the 2024 election.

    But before the 2024 election gets into full swing, there’s unfinished business from 2022. Democratic Sen. Raphael Warnock and Republican challenger Herschel Walker go head-to-head in a runoff on December 6 after neither broke the 50 percent threshold the first time around.

    Former President Barack Obama, who was the most effective Democratic messenger in the midterms, is due to campaign for Warnock on Thursday. Walker’s chances could depend on whether he is able to win over a significant block of Republican voters who couldn’t bring themselves to vote for him despite backing Republican Gov. Brian Kemp. Walker’s problem is that he’s a protégé of Trump, from whom Kemp kept a good distance.

    After Trump announced his 2024 campaign days after the midterms, Warnock and his supporters started framing the runoff as the first chance for Democrats to stop Trump’s bid to return to the White House. Their argument recalled complaints by many Republicans that Trump’s intervention in two 2020 Senate runoffs in Georgia cost the GOP the chance to control the Senate.

    This might all be about one seat. But holding the Senate 51-49 rather than 50-50 would be huge for Democrats because it would insulate them from the incapacitation of one of their members and could diminish the power of Manchin, who has been a stubborn brake on Biden’s aspirations for two years.

    The former president finds himself under unusual political pressure inside the Republican Party he has dominated since 2015. His backing of several losing, election-denying and unpolished candidates in the midterms angered many key figures in the party. His hosting of Fuentes at the same time as rapper Kanye West at his Mar-a-Lago estate worried Republicans who fear that while he may be a formidable candidate for the GOP presidential nomination, Trump’s empathy for the far-right will again doom him before a national electorate.

    Another potential Republican presidential candidate, outgoing Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson, condemned the incident as “very troubling” on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

    “I don’t think it’s a good idea for a leader that’s setting an example for the country or the party to meet with (an) avowed racist or anti-Semite,” Hutchinson said. “You want to diminish their strength, not empower them. Stay away from it.”

    Trump acknowledged the meeting in a Truth Social post, but claimed he knew nothing about Fuentes. He also did not disavow him or his views.

    This latest storm comes as the new special counsel Jack Smith, blasted by Trump as a “political hitman,” gets up to speed on the serious legal challenges facing the ex-president, who’s suffered several recent defeats in court in his bid to delay accountability. Trump’s early declaration of a campaign – apparently to quell the buzz around possible alternative Republican candidates like Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis – leaves the former president needing a way to create some traction in December and in the early months of the year when he might find it hardest to win political exposure.

    The opening stages of the campaign will begin to answer the central question of Trump’s 2024 run – whether his so far rock solid appeal to the GOP base will counter concerns in the wider party about his broader viability.

    Trump’s decision to jump in the race has also increased scrutiny of whether Biden, who turned 80 earlier this month, will decide to run for reelection. The president was asked by CNN’s Betsy Klein during his holiday vacation in Nantucket how his conversations about 2024 were going with his family.

    “We’re not having any. We’re celebrating,” Biden replied.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Todd and Julie Chrisley sentenced for fraud and tax crimes convictions | CNN

    Todd and Julie Chrisley sentenced for fraud and tax crimes convictions | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Reality TV Stars Julie and Todd Chrisley were sentenced to prison in federal court Monday.

    The “Chrisley Knows Best” couple were found guilty in June of conspiracy to defraud banks out of more than $30 million in fraudulent loans, CNN previously reported. In addition, they were found guilty of several tax crimes, including attempting to defraud the Internal Revenue Service.

    Judge Eleanor L. Ross sentenced Todd Chrisley to 12 years in prison with three years of supervised release. His wife Julie Chrisley was sentenced to seven years in prison and three years of supervised release. Their accountant Peter Tarantino was sentenced to three years in prison and three years of supervised released, Ryan Buchanan, US Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia, said during a press conference after the sentencing hearing.

    According to the Department of Justice, evidence in the case showed that the Chrisleys were able to obtain the loans by submitting false bank statements, audit reports and financial statements. The money was used to buy luxury cars, designer clothes, real estate and travel, a DOJ press release stated.

    Then, while earning millions of dollars on their former reality show, the Chrisleys, along with their accountant, conspired to defraud the IRS and evade collection of delinquent taxes.

    “Chrisley Knows Best” debuted in 2014 on the USA Network. New episodes, filmed prior to the trial, will debut sometime next year.

    In a short statement to CNN in June, one of Todd Chrisley’s attorneys, Bruce Morris, said they were, “disappointed in the verdict” and planned to appeal.

    CNN has reached out to representatives of the Chrisleys and Tarantino for comment on Monday’s sentencing.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Fed officials crushed investors’ hopes this week | CNN Business

    Fed officials crushed investors’ hopes this week | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    New York
    CNN Business
     — 

    Investors sleuthing for clues about what the Federal Reserve will decide during its December policy meeting got quite a few this week. But those hints about the future of monetary policy point to an outcome they won’t be very happy about.

    What’s happening: Federal Reserve officials made a series of speeches this week indicating that aggressive interest rate hikes to fight inflation would continue, souring investors’ hopes for a forthcoming central bank policy shift. On Thursday, St. Louis Federal Reserve President James Bullard said the central bank still has a lot of work to do before it brings inflation under control, sending the S&P 500 down more than 1% in early trading. It later pared losses.

    Bullard, a voting member on the rate-setting Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), said that the moves the Fed has made so far to fight inflation haven’t been sufficient. “To attain a sufficiently restrictive level, the policy rate will need to be increased further,” he said.

    Those comments come a day after Kansas City Fed President Esther George, a voting member of the FOMC, said to The Wall Street Journal that she’s “looking at a labor market that is so tight, I don’t know how you continue to bring this level of inflation down without having some real slowing, and maybe we even have contraction in the economy to get there.”

    San Francisco Fed President Mary Daly added on Wednesday that a pause in rate hikes was “off the table.”

    A numbers game: Fed officials should increase interest rates to somewhere between 5% and 7% to tamp inflation, Bullard said Thursday. Those numbers shocked investors, as they would require a series of significant and economically painful hikes which increase the chance of a hard landing.

    The current interest rate sits between 3.75% and 4% and the median FOMC participant projected a peak funds rate of 4.5-4.75% in September. If those numbers hold steady, Fed members would only raise rates by another three-quarters of a percentage point.

    But Fed Chair Powell said at the November meeting that the projections are likely to rise in December and if Bullard is correct, that means investors can expect another one to three percentage points in rate hikes.

    Dreams of a pivot: October’s softer-than-expected CPI and producer price reading bolstered investors’ hopes that the Fed might ease its aggressive rate hikes and sent markets soaring to their best day since 2020 last week.

    But messaging from Fed officials this week has brought Wall Street back down to earth.

    That’s because market rallies help to expand the economy, said Liz Ann Sonders, Managing Director and Chief Investment Strategist at Charles Schwab, which is the opposite of what the Fed is trying to do with its tightening policy. Fed officials could be attempting to do some “jawboning” via excessively hawkish speeches in order to bring markets down, she said.

    The bottom line: Investors listen closely to Bullard’s comments because he’s known for having looser lips than other Fed officials, Peter Boockvar, chief investment officer of Bleakley Financial Group, wrote in a note Thursday. But his hawkish predictions may have been “overboard,” especially since he won’t be a voting member of the FOMC next year.

    Still, Wall Street analysts are listening. Goldman Sachs raised its peak fed funds rate forecast on Thursday to 5-5.25%, up from 4.75-5%.

    A series of high-profile layoffs have rattled Big Tech this month.

    Amazon confirmed that layoffs had begun at the company and would continue into next year, just days after multiple outlets reported the e-commerce giant planned to cut around 10,000 employees. Facebook-parent Meta recently announced 11,000 job cuts, the largest in the company’s history. Twitter also announced widespread job cuts after Elon Musk bought the company for $44 billion.

    The series of high-profile layoff announcements prompted fears that the labor market was weakening and that a recession could be around the corner.

    Those fears aren’t unwarranted: The Federal Reserve is actively working to slow economic growth and tighten financial conditions to rebalance the white-hot labor market. Further layoffs in both tech and other industries are likely inevitable as the Fed continues to raise interest rates.

    But this wave of layoffs isn’t as significant as headlines might lead Americans to believe. Thursday’s weekly jobless claims actually fell by 4,000 to 222,000 in spite of the surge in tech job cuts.

    In a note on Thursday Goldman Sachs analysts outlined three reasons why the layoffs may not point to a looming recession in the US.

    First off, the tech industry accounts for a small share of aggregate employment in the US. While information technology companies account for 26% of the S&P 500 market cap, it accounts for less than 0.3% of total employment.

    Second, tech job openings remain well above their pre-pandemic level, so laid-off tech workers should have good chances of finding new jobs.

    Finally, tech worker layoffs have frequently spiked in the past without a corresponding increase in total layoffs and have not historically been a leading indicator of broader labor market deterioration, Goldman analysts found.

    “The main problem in the labor market is still that labor demand is too strong, not too weak,” they concluded.

    Mortgage rates dropped sharply last week following a series of economic reports that indicated inflation may finally be easing, reports my colleague Anna Bahney

    The 30-year fixed-rate mortgage averaged 6.61% in the week ending November 17, down from 7.08% the week before, according to Freddie Mac, the largest weekly drop since 1981.

    But that’s still significantly higher than a year ago when the 30-year fixed rate stood at 3.10%.

    “While the decline in mortgage rates is welcome news, there is still a long road ahead for the housing market,” said Sam Khater, Freddie Mac’s chief economist. “Inflation remains elevated, the Federal Reserve is likely to keep interest rates high and consumers will continue to feel the impact.”

    Affording a home remains a challenge for many home buyers. Mortgage rates are expected to remain volatile for the rest of the year. And prices remain elevated in many areas, especially where there is a very limited inventory of available homes for sale.

    Meanwhile, inflation and rising interest rates mean many would-be buyers are also facing tightened budgets.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • UK to raise $65 billion from windfall tax on energy companies | CNN Business

    UK to raise $65 billion from windfall tax on energy companies | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    London
    CNN Business
     — 

    The UK government is hiking a windfall tax on oil and gas companies and extending the levy to electricity generators, as it scrambles to balance its budget amid an economic downturn. It is also investing in nuclear power for the first time in decades.

    UK finance minister Jeremy Hunt announced the measures on Thursday while delivering the government’s medium-term budget, which laid out plans for higher taxes and cuts to public spending.

    Beginning January 1, the Energy Profits Levy on oil and gas companies will increase from 25% to 35% and remain in place until the end of March 2028. That takes the total tax on the sector to 75%, according to the Treasury.

    There will also be a new, temporary 45% levy on the excess profits of electricity generators over this period. In the United Kingdom, electricity prices are tied to wholesale gas prices, which means many power generators are also enjoying mega profits.

    Together, these measures will raise £14 billion ($16.5 billion) next year and more than £55 billion ($65 billion) between 2022 and 2028.

    There have been growing calls in Britain for higher taxes on the windfall profits of oil and gas companies, which have enjoyed record earnings this year thanks to rising prices driven by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

    At the same time, households and businesses are being squeezed by decades-high inflation as a result of spiraling energy and food bills. The annual rate of UK inflation rose to 11.1% in October, its highest level in 41 years.

    “I have no objection to windfall taxes if they are genuinely about windfall profits caused by unexpected increases in energy prices,” Hunt said in parliament on Thursday. “Any such tax should be temporary, not deter investment and recognize the cyclical nature of energy businesses,” he added.

    The United Kingdom will spend an additional £150 billion ($176.9 billion) on energy bills this year compared to pre-pandemic levels, according to Hunt. That’s the equivalent to paying for a second National Health Service.

    Hunt on Thursday also extended government support for energy bills by another 12 months until April 2024, but said average households should expect to pay £3,000 ($3,451) annually, up from £2,500 ($2,951) currently.

    As well as hiking energy taxes, Hunt affirmed a £700 million ($824 million) investment into Sizewell C, a nuclear power station operated by France’s EDF in the east of England.

    The deal was first announced by former prime minister Boris Johnson last September and is the first state backing for a nuclear project in over 30 years.

    It will provide power to the equivalent of six million homes for over 50 years and represents “the biggest step” in Britain’s “journey to energy independence,” Hunt said.

    Hunt reaffirmed the United Kingdom’s commitment to a 68% reduction in carbon emissions by 2030. “Last year nearly 40% of our electricity came from offshore wind, solar and other renewable sources,” he said.

    He added that from April 2025 electric vehicle drivers will no longer be exempt from paying car taxes.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Divided government is more productive than you think | CNN Politics

    Divided government is more productive than you think | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]

    A version of this story appeared in CNN’s What Matters newsletter. To get it in your inbox, sign up for free here.



    CNN
     — 

    Now that CNN has projected Republicans will win the House of Representatives, it’s time to consider a Washington where both parties have some control.

    Despite underperforming on Election Day, the GOP gains will have a major impact on what’s accomplished in the coming two years.

    Additional climate change policy? Don’t count on it. National abortion legislation? Not a chance. Voting rights? Not likely.

    Plus, Republicans have indicated they will use any leverage they can find – including the debt ceiling – to force spending cuts.

    While you might immediately think this is all a recipe for a stalemate in Washington, I was surprised to read the argument, backed up by research, that the US government actually overperforms during periods of divided government.

    Those periods are coming more and more frequently, by the way. While there used to be relatively long periods of a decade or more during which one party controlled all of Washington, recent presidents have lost control of the House.

    Barack Obama, Donald Trump and George W. Bush each saw their party lose the House. President Joe Biden will join that club.

    The two Republicans in the ’80s and ‘90s – Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush – both had productive presidencies and never enjoyed a sympathetic congressional majority. The last president to enjoy unified government throughout his presidency was Democrat Jimmy Carter, and voters did not look very kindly on him in the final analysis.

    What’s below are excerpts from separate phone conversations conducted before the midterm election with Frances Lee and James Curry, authors of the 2020 book, “The Limits of Party: Congress and Lawmaking in a Polarized Era.” Lee is a professor of politics and public affairs at Princeton University, and Curry is a political science professor at the University of Utah. What led me to them was their 2020 argument that divided government overperforms and unified government underperforms expectations.

    What should Americans know about divided government?

    LEE: It’s the normal state of affairs in our politics in the modern era. Since 1980, something like two-thirds of the time we’ve had a divided government.

    And yet you think about all the things that government has undertaken in the years since the Second World War. The role and scope of the US government is so much greater now than it was then. And a lot of that happened in divided government. Most of that has been under divided government time. …

    Unified government usually results in disappointment for the party in power, which is just exactly what we’ve seen here in (this) Congress. Democrats were unable to deliver on their bold agenda, and that’s not different than what Republicans faced when they had unified government and couldn’t pass repeal and replace of Obamacare.

    Now hold on. Republicans passed a massive tax cut bill with unified government. Democrats passed the Affordable Care Act and the Inflation Reduction Act, which included spending to address climate change. Those are the major accomplishments of recent years, no?

    CURRY: I think we’re making a mistake when we say that those are the three biggest things that have happened. For instance, earlier you talked about the American Rescue Plan (another Covid relief bill passed with only Democratic support) – it is not as significant as the CARES Act, which was the first major Covid relief legislation passed by Congress. It passed in March of 2020, and it passed on an overwhelming bipartisan basis.

    A lot of what was included in the American Rescue Plan were things that were initially set out under the CARES Act. Arguably the CARES Act was the single most important legislative accomplishment that we’ve had in this country in several decades.

    And there are other examples too … things like criminal justice reform that was passed with bipartisan support in 2018, and many others things that are just as significant from a public policy standpoint, including also the bipartisan infrastructure bill that Congress passed last year.

    They don’t have as much political significance, foremost because they were passed on a single-party basis. But I don’t think you can make the case that they’re necessarily more significant in terms of policy consequences for the country.

    (In a follow-up email, Curry said that Congress often flies its bipartisanship accomplishments under the radar as part of larger bills, which means they don’t get as much attention. He pointed to big-ticket items that passed quietly in 2019 as part of larger spending bills, including raising the age to buy tobacco to 21, pushing through the first major pay raise for federal employees in years and repealing unpopular Obamacare taxes. He has similar examples for each recent year. But if they are not contentious, they get less attention, he said.)

    Your argument is counter to the current narrative of American politics – that parties enact more on their own. Is that a media problem? A partisanship problem?

    LEE: I’m still blown away by how much was done on Covid. Basically the United States government spent 75% more in 2020 than it spent in 2019. All that was Covid.

    You’re talking about New Deal levels of spending and yet people just didn’t even seem to notice it because it was done on a bipartisan basis. We basically had a universal basic income in response to Covid and all the small business aid – it’s just extraordinary – and yet, it just seemed to pass people by as though nothing important occurred.

    I don’t think it’s just a media story. The media wrote stories about the Covid aid bills, but it just didn’t capture people’s attention.

    And I think that’s because it didn’t cut in favor of or against either party. When you don’t have a story that drives a partisan narrative, most people are just not that interested in it. Most people that pay attention to politics are not that interested in it. It lacks a rooting interest.

    What about the big things that need action? Immigration reform has eluded Congress for decades and climate change is an existential threat. How can divided government be preferable if Congress can’t come together to address these problems?

    CURRY: I’m not saying divided government is preferable, which I think is important. I’m just saying it doesn’t make that big a difference on a lot of these issues.

    So we’ve seen that list of issues you just mentioned – climate change, immigration, etc. These are issues that Congress has equally struggled to take big, bold action on under divided or unified government.

    On climate change, for instance, Democrats want to do big, bold things, but they aren’t able to go as far as they want to, because not only are there disagreements between the parties on how to address climate change, there are disagreements among Democrats about the best way to address climate and environmental legislation.

    On immigration, you have clear divisions across party lines, but also divisions within each party.

    LEE: Congress can pass legislation spending money or cutting taxes. The problem is it’s difficult to do things that create backlash. It’s hard to do serious climate legislation without being prepared to accept a backlash.

    Isn’t this just a structural problem then? If there was no requirement for a filibuster supermajority, couldn’t a simple majority of lawmakers be more effective?

    LEE: On the two examples that you just put forward – on immigration and climate – the filibuster has not been the obstacle to recent efforts.

    In immigration reform that Republicans attempted to do (under Trump), they couldn’t get majorities in either the House or Senate. Democrats were way short of a Senate majority when they tried to do climate legislation under Obama. They barely got out of the House.

    (Curry and Lee’s research shows the filibuster is not the primary culprit standing in the way of four out of five of the priorities that parties have failed to enact since 1985.)

    CURRY: We found a more common reason why the parties fail on the things that can be accomplished is because they are unable to unify internally about what to do. The filibuster matters, but it is far from the most significant thing.

    But certainly the legislation that passes under divided government is different than what would have passed under a unified government. The parties must compromise more. Whether the government is unified or divided matters, right?

    CURRY: It makes a difference certainly for precisely what is in these final policy bills. It certainly makes a difference for the politics of the moment. It really makes a difference for each side of the aisle in terms of being able to say, we got this much done or that much done that matches my hopes and dreams as a Democrat or a Republican.

    But it’s just sort of an overstated story that unified government means big, bold things happen and divided government means they don’t.

    Wouldn’t Washington work better if one party was more easily able to deliver on its goals when voters gave it power?

    CURRY: Whether it would be better if we had a situation like you have in more parliamentary-style governments where a party takes control, they pass what they will and stand to voters, I think it’s just in the eye of the beholder.

    On one hand, potentially, yes, because it’s very clear and clean from a party responsibility or electoral responsibility standpoint, where parties pass things and then voters can hold them accountable or not. On the other hand, then you would see more wild swings in policy from election to election.

    Does the growing number of swings in power in Congress mean American voters consciously prefer divided government?

    CURRY: I don’t think that Americans necessarily have a preference for divided government. That’s something that people sometimes say. It sounds nice.

    But the reality is that roughly since the 1980s and early 1990s, it’s been the case that electoral margins are really tight – you have relatively even numbers of Americans that prefer Democrats and Republicans. And so from election to election, based on turnout and swings back and forth, you get this constant back and forth of our electoral politics where one party is in control for two to four years and then the other party is in control.

    That’s really important because it has massive implications for our politics. If you have a political system and political dynamic like we have today, where each party thinks they can constantly win back control or lose control of the House, the Senate and the presidency, it ups the stakes for every single decision that’s going to be made.

    Everything is considered through a lens of how will this affect our partisan fortunes in the next election, and that makes things just naturally more contentious.

    Can we agree that ours is not a very effective way to govern?

    CURRY: It is certainly the case that Congress does not pass every single thing that every person wants it to. But I don’t think that is ever true of any government. Nor do I think that’s a reasonable bar to set a government against.

    The reality is Congress does a lot of stuff and does a lot more than people give it credit for, but it also fails to take action on a lot of policies. I think that’s just politics. That’s just government. It’s not just an American problem, and it’s not just a facet of our specific political system.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Britain is bringing back austerity. Here’s why | CNN Business

    Britain is bringing back austerity. Here’s why | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    London
    CNN Business
     — 

    The last time a British finance minister revealed tax and spending plans, markets went haywire and the country’s prime minister ultimately lost her job. The new government is not looking for a repeat performance.

    On Thursday, Chancellor Jeremy Hunt is due to unveil a budget that will aim to restore confidence in the United Kingdom’s ability to manage its public finances. But that may be easier said than done.

    The country is staring down the barrel of a grueling recession, and investors remain on edge as interest rates rise. That requires Hunt, who has acknowledged that Britain faces “extremely difficult” decisions, to pull off a delicate balancing act.

    Media reports indicate that the government is looking to come up with between £50 billion ($59 billion) and £60 billion ($70 billion) through a mix of tax increases and spending cuts, many of which may not take effect until after the next election in 2024.

    “If you do too much, too soon, you risk worsening the recession,” said Ben Zaranko, a senior research economist at the Institute for Fiscal Studies. “If you delay everything until after the next election, you risk not being seen as credible.”

    A new wave of austerity could help restore the government’s reputation with financial markets after the budget from former Prime Minister Liz Truss — which featured an unorthodox combination of major tax cuts and ramped-up borrowing — unleashed panic.

    But it will do little to ease fears about the country’s grim economic prospects. The United Kingdom is one of two G7 economies to have contracted in the third quarter. It’s now smaller than it was before the coronavirus pandemic. The Bank of England is forecasting a lengthy recession, which could stretch into 2024.

    New cuts could make matters worse. When the government adopted an austerity program in 2010 on the heels of the Great Recession, it shaved 1% off the country’s GDP, according to the UK budget watchdog. Just four years ago, former Prime Minister Theresa May pledged to bring nearly a decade of austerity to a close.

    Now, tax rises could further depress consumer confidence — already near a record low — and spending cuts risk placing further strain on public services that are already buckling under enormous pressure.

    Still, Hunt intends to show he has a plan to reduce government debt as a proportion of GDP in the medium-term. It currently stands at 98%. The Office for Budget Responsibility said in July that it could reach nearly 320% in 50 years.

    “We do have to do some tax rises, do some spending cuts, if we’re going to show we’re a country that pays our way,” Hunt told Sky News on Sunday.

    How did the United Kingdom get here? There’s no shortage of finger pointing.

    Part of the problem is global in nature. Interest rates have risen rapidly around the world as central banks attempt to rein in inflation. That’s pushed up borrowing costs for the government, dealing a shock after years in which money was cheap.

    At the same time, skyrocketing energy costs, exacerbated by Russia’s war in Ukraine, have compelled governments to step in to cushion the blow of crippling energy bills — shortly after they spent significant sums helping households and businesses through the pandemic.

    Hunt has scrapped plans to cap energy bills for typical households at £2,500 ($2,981) for the next two years. Instead, support will only be guaranteed until next spring. But the measures will still prove costly.

    The government can’t blame all its problems on the rest of the world, however.

    “You can just look at how the UK is performing relative to every other country in Europe, and it’s obvious there’s a UK-specific element to this,” Zaranko said.

    The United Kingdom’s exit from the European Union has weighed on trade and contributed to shortages of workers in key industries.

    “The UK economy as a whole has been permanently damaged by Brexit,” former Bank of England official Michael Saunders told Bloomberg TV this week. “If we hadn’t had Brexit, we probably wouldn’t be talking about an austerity budget this week. The need for tax rises, spending cuts wouldn’t be there.”

    And while inflation in the United States cooled more than expected in October, falling to 7.7%, it’s still rising sharply in the United Kingdom, reaching a 41-year high of 11.1% last month.

    That’s bolstering expectations that the Bank of England will need to keep raising interest rates and could hold them higher for longer, though recession may complicate those forecasts.

    The country’s labor market also remains extremely tight, with an employment rate lower than before the coronavirus hit and a record number of people who aren’t working due to long-term illness.

    “The UK does stand out in that labor supply has been very constrained, perhaps more so than in other countries,” said Ruth Gregory, senior UK economist at Capital Economics.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Former Trump Org. CFO testifies he didn’t pay taxes on $1.76 million in personal expenses | CNN Politics

    Former Trump Org. CFO testifies he didn’t pay taxes on $1.76 million in personal expenses | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Former Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg testified Tuesday that he knew he should have paid taxes on hundreds of thousands of dollars in benefits he received annually, including a company-paid Manhattan apartment that he said former President Donald Trump suggested he move into.

    Weisselberg testified for about 90 minutes during the criminal trial of the Trump Organization in Manhattan, calmly walking the jury through the growth of the company from 50 employees when he started there in 1986 into an umbrella organization that includes 500 entities.

    Under questioning by prosecutor Susan Hoffinger, Weisselberg answered “yes” as the prosecutor went through each of personal expenses he received from the Trump Org. – and that the company didn’t pay taxes on them from 2005 through 2017.

    One of those untaxed benefits Weisselberg received was a more than $7,000 per month 1200 square foot luxury apartment overlooking the Hudson River in Manhattan.

    The former CFO said Trump offered him the apartment in 2005 to cut his daily commute to Long Island where he lived at the time. Weisselberg sat down with Trump, who Weisselberg said asked him if he would consider moving into the city. Trump said, according to Weisselberg, it would “help you, help the company” and Weisselberg could work longer hours.

    Weisselberg said after speaking with his wife, they agreed to move in and Trump authorized the expense.

    He also said he expensed his utilities, phone, car leases and garage saying it was “part and parcel” with the apartment.

    Either Weisselberg or Trump would sign the rent checks for his apartment. In total, he received as much as $200,000 in untaxed compensation in a year from all those benefits, according to his testimony.

    Weisselberg testified had he asked for a raise the company would have had to pay him double – as much as $400,000, to cover the taxes.

    In all, Weisselberg said he didn’t pay taxes on approximately $1.76 million in personal expenses from 2005 through 2017.

    He acknowledged that he knowingly unreported his income on his tax forms to get the fringe benefits tax free, and he hid that information from the accountants at Mazars, he said, because he thought they would refuse to sign his tax returns had they known about it.

    Trump Organization Controller Jeff McConney knew the practice was illegal when he generated the false W-2 and 1099 tax forms on Weisselberg’s behalf, according to Weisselberg.

    McConney previously claimed on the stand that he didn’t think all of the expenses were handled improperly until an internal review years later.

    Weisselberg on Tuesday also acknowledged that he was stripped of the chief financial officer title after he was arrested and charged with 15 counts of tax fraud and grand larceny. Weisselberg, whose voice dropped to a whisper when discussing his crimes, said he continued to do most of the same work after he was indicted. That changed in October, several months after he pleaded guilty and agreed to testify, when Weisselberg said he began working from home and his contact with Eric Trump, who runs the company on a day-to-day basis, “stopped.”

    Weisselberg said he is on paid leave and still expects to receive a $500,000 bonus in January in addition to his $640,000 salary.

    The day Weisselberg finalized a plea deal with prosecutors in August, his son threw a birthday party for him at Trump Tower. Weisselberg attempted to downplay it, saying he regretted it, and that “it was a small cake.”

    Weisselberg is expected to continue on the stand Thursday morning.

    Two Trump Organization entities are charged with nine counts of tax fraud, grand larceny and falsifying business records in what prosecutors allege was a 15-year scheme to defraud tax authorities by failing to report and pay taxes on compensation provided to employees. The former president is not a defendant in the case and is not expected to be implicated in any wrongdoing.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Everything you need to know about Biden’s student loan forgiveness program | CNN Politics

    Everything you need to know about Biden’s student loan forgiveness program | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    President Joe Biden’s federal student loan forgiveness program, which promises to deliver up to $20,000 of debt relief for millions of borrowers, is on hold indefinitely as legal challenges work their way through the courts.

    About 26 million people had already applied by the time a federal district court judge struck down the program on November 10 – prompting the government to stop taking applications. No debt has been canceled thus far.

    The administration officially launched the application on October 17, following a brief “beta period” during which its team assessed whether tweaks were needed.

    If the courts ultimately allow the program to move forward, not every student loan borrower is eligible for the debt relief. First, only federally held student loans qualify. Private student loans are excluded.

    Second, high-income borrowers are generally excluded from receiving debt forgiveness. Individual borrowers who make less than $125,000 a year and married couples or heads of households who make less than $250,000 annually will see up to $10,000 of their federal student loan debt forgiven.

    If a qualifying borrower also received a federal Pell grant while enrolled in college, the individual is eligible for up to $20,000 of debt forgiveness. Pell grants are awarded to millions of low-income students each year, based on factors including their family’s size and income and the cost charged by their college. These borrowers are also more likely to struggle to repay their student debt and end up in default.

    Here’s what else borrowers need to know about the new student loan forgiveness plan:

    It’s unclear when, or if, borrowers will see debt relief under Biden’s program.

    Administration officials expected to be able to grant relief before federal student loan payments are set to resume in January, when the pandemic-related pause expires. But now that timeline is in jeopardy.

    The White House has said that it has already approved 16 million applications for debt relief. The Department of Education will hold on to that information so it can quickly process those borrowers’ relief if the government prevails in court.

    If and when the program moves forward, an estimated 8 million borrowers may receive debt relief automatically because the Department of Education already has their income on file.

    If the government restarts taking applications, borrowers can apply online here: https://studentaid.gov/debt-relief/application.

    Applicants can expect to receive an email confirmation once their application is successfully submitted. Then, borrowers will be notified by their loan servicer when the debt cancellation has been applied to their account.

    Borrowers were expected to have until December 31, 2023, to submit an application.

    There are a variety of federal student loans and not all are eligible for relief. Federal Direct Loans, including subsidized loans, unsubsidized loans, parent PLUS loans and graduate PLUS loans, are eligible.

    But federal student loans that are guaranteed by the government but held by private lenders are not eligible unless the borrower applied to consolidate those loans into a Direct Loan by September 29.

    The Department of Education initially said these privately held loans, many of which were made under the former Federal Family Education Loan program and Federal Perkins Loan program, would be eligible for the one-time forgiveness action – but reversed course in September when six Republican-led states sued the Biden administration, arguing that forgiving the privately held loans would financially hurt states and student loan servicers.

    Defaulted Federal Family Education Loans and defaulted Perkins Loans are still eligible for the debt relief even if they are privately held.

    If Biden’s program is allowed to move forward, eligibility is based on a borrower’s adjusted gross income for either tax year 2020 or 2021. Adjusted gross income can be lower than your total wages because it considers tax deductions and adjustments, like contributions made to a 401(k) retirement plan.

    A taxpayer’s adjusted gross income can be found on line 11 of IRS Form 1040.

    The Department of Education says it already had income information for nearly 8 million borrowers, likely because of financial aid forms or previously submitted income-driven repayment plan applications. If the program is allowed to move forward, those borrowers will automatically receive the debt relief if they meet the income requirement, unless they choose to opt out. The department has said it will email borrowers who will be considered for debt relief but don’t need to apply.

    Millions of other borrowers will need to apply for student loan forgiveness if the Department of Education doesn’t have their income information on file. When they submit the application, borrowers are required to self-attest that their income is under the eligibility threshold. They are required to certify that the information provided is accurate upon penalty of perjury.

    The Biden administration has said that applicants who are “more likely to exceed the income cutoff” will be required to submit additional information, like a tax transcript. Officials expect that just 5% of borrowers with eligible federal student loans would not qualify due to the income threshold.

    Borrowers will not have to pay federal income tax on the student loan debt forgiven, thanks to a provision in the American Rescue Plan Act that Congress passed last year.

    But it’s possible that some borrowers may have to pay state income tax on the amount of debt forgiven. There are a handful of states that may tax discharged debt if state legislative or administrative changes are not made beforehand, according to the Tax Policy Center. The tax liability could be hundreds of dollars, depending on the state.

    Yes, some current students are eligible. Eligibility for borrowers who filed the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, known as the FAFSA, as an independent will be based on the individual’s own household income.

    Eligibility for borrowers who are enrolled as dependent students, generally those under the age of 24, will be based on parental income for either 2020 or 2021.

    Yes, if your income meets the eligibility threshold.

    Yes, if your income meets the eligibility threshold. A parent borrower with federal Parent PLUS loans for multiple children is still only eligible for up to $20,000 of loan forgiveness.

    But a parent is only eligible for up to $20,000 in debt relief if he or she received a Pell grant for his or her own education. If only the child received a Pell grant, the parent is eligible for up to $10,000 in forgiveness.

    Most borrowers can log in to Studentaid.gov to see if they received a Pell grant while enrolled in college. Information about Pell grants received is displayed on the account dashboard and on the My Aid page. This is also where borrowers can find out how much they owe and what kind of loans they have.

    Borrowers who received a Pell grant before 1994 won’t see their Pell grant information online, but they are still eligible for the $20,000 in student loan forgiveness.

    As long as borrowers received at least one Pell grant, they are eligible.

    The Biden administration has said that eligible borrowers who have received Pell grants will automatically receive the additional debt relief.

    Yes, defaulted federal student loans are eligible for debt relief.

    For borrowers who have a remaining balance on their defaulted student loans after the cancellation is applied, there will be an opportunity to get out of default once payments resume in January 2023 as part of what the Department of Education is calling its “Fresh Start” initiative.

    The Biden administration is facing several lawsuits over the student loan forgiveness program. Many of the plaintiffs argue that the Department of Education is overstepping its authority.

    In one case, a federal judge in Texas struck down the program on November 10, declaring it illegal. The Department of Justice has appealed the ruling to the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals, but debt relief is on hold while that case plays out.

    Previously, the 8th US Circuit Court of Appeals put a temporary, administrative hold on the program on October 21, barring the administration from canceling loans covered under the policy while the court considers a challenge brought by six Republican-led states. The appeals court then granted an injunction on the program on November 14, which will remain in place until the appeals court, or the Supreme Court, issues a further order in the case.

    A lower court judge dismissed the lawsuit on October 20, ruling that the plaintiffs did not have the legal standing to bring the challenge.

    On the same day as the lower court dismissal, Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett rejected a separate challenge to Biden’s student loan forgiveness program, declining to take up an appeal brought by a Wisconsin taxpayers group.

    The Biden administration is also facing lawsuits from Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich and the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank.

    Lawyers for the government say that Congress gave the secretary of education “expansive authority to alleviate the hardship that federal student loan recipients may suffer as a result of national emergencies,” like the Covid-19 pandemic, according to a memo from the Department of Justice.

    Borrowers who have debt remaining after either $10,000 or $20,000 is wiped away could see their monthly payment amounts recalculated if they are enrolled in a standard repayment plan. Under a standard repayment plan, borrowers pay a fixed amount that ensures loans are paid off within 10 years.

    Borrowers who are already enrolled in an income-driven repayment plan are not likely to see their monthly payment amounts change due to the forgiveness, because their payments are based on household income and family size.

    Borrowers have not been required to make payments on their federal student loans since March 2020 because of the government’s pandemic-related pause. Biden has extended the pause through the end of this year, and payments will resume in January 2023.

    Along with Biden’s August announcement about canceling some federal student loan debt, he also said he would create a new plan that would make repayment more manageable for borrowers.

    There are currently several repayment plans available for federal student loan borrowers that lower monthly payments by capping them at a portion of their income.

    The new income-driven repayment plan that Biden is expected to propose would cap payments at 5% of a borrower’s discretionary income, down from 10% that is offered in most current plans, as well as reduce the amount of income that is considered discretionary. It would also forgive remaining balances after 10 years of repayment, instead of 20 years.

    Biden is also proposing that the new plan cover the borrower’s unpaid monthly interest. This could be very helpful for people whose monthly payments are so low that they don’t cover their monthly interest charge and end up seeing their balances explode, growing larger than what was originally borrowed.

    But we don’t know when these changes will take effect. The Department of Education has not provided any sense of timing, but has said it will propose a new rule to create the repayment plan. The department’s formal rule-making process usually includes soliciting public comments and can take months, if not more than a year.

    Yes. Borrowers have not been required to make payments on their federal student loans since March 13, 2020, because of the pandemic-related pause. But if borrowers did make payments, they are allowed to contact their loan servicer to request a refund.

    This story has been updated with additional information.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • What midterm elections could mean for the US economy | CNN Business

    What midterm elections could mean for the US economy | CNN Business

    [ad_1]

    A version of this story first appeared in CNN Business’ Before the Bell newsletter. Not a subscriber? You can sign up right here. You can listen to an audio version of the newsletter by clicking the same link.


    New York
    CNN Business
     — 

    Tuesday’s midterm elections come at a time of economic vulnerability for the United States. Recession predictions have largely turned to “when” not “if” and inflation remains stubbornly elevated. Americans are feeling the pain of rising interest rates and are facing a winter filled with geopolitical tension.

    The results of Tuesday’s election will determine the makeup of a Congressional body that holds the potential to enact policies that will fundamentally change the fiscal landscape.

    Here’s a look at what policy issues investors will pay particular attention to as they digest election results.

    Tax changes: Last week, President Joe Biden suggested he may impose a windfall tax on Big Oil companies after they recorded record profits on high gas prices. Republicans would be less likely to approve that windfall tax on oil company profits and also are generally not in favor of tax hikes on the wealthy, reports my colleague Paul R. La Monica.

    “What do midterms mean for the markets? If Republicans get the House, tax hikes are dead in the water,” said David Wagner, a portfolio manager with Aptus Capital Advisors.

    What about tax cuts? If Republicans do take control of Congress, it would be difficult to enact any major tax reductions without some backing from Democrats or President Biden, meaning there could be grandstanding without much action.

    Debt limit: The federal debt ceiling was last lifted in December 2021 and will likely be hit by the Treasury at some point next year. That means it will need to be raised again in order to ensure that America can borrow the money it needs to run its government and ensure the smooth operation of the market for US Treasuries, totaling roughly $24 trillion.

    A fight seems to be brewing between Democrats and Republicans. House Republicans indicate that they may ask for steep spending cuts in exchange for boosting the ceiling.

    If the government ends up divided and brinkmanship continues, there could be bad news for markets. The last time such gridlock occurred, under the Obama administration in 2011, the United States lost its perfect AAA credit rating from Standard & Poor and stocks dropped more than 5%.

    Spending: Democrats have indicated that they intend to focus on parts of the fiscal agenda proposed by President Biden in 2021 that have not yet become law, including expanding health coverage and child care tax credits. A Republican win or gridlock could table that. Goldman Sachs economists also note that a Democratic victory could likely increase the federal fiscal response in the event of recession, while Republicans would be more likely to avoid costly relief packages.

    Social Security: Popular programs like Social Security and Medicare face solvency issues long-term and the topic has become a hot-button issue on both sides of the aisle. The topic is so closely watched that even debating changes could impact consumer confidence, say analysts.

    Democratic Senator Joe Manchin said last week that spending changes must be made to shore up Social Security and other programs which he said were “going bankrupt.” He said at a Fortune CEO conference that he was in favor of bipartisan legislation within the next two years to confront entitlement programs that are facing “tremendous problems.” Republican Senator Rick Scott has proposed subjecting almost all federal spending programs to a renewal vote every five years. Analysts say that could make Social Security and Medicare more vulnerable to cuts.

    The Federal Reserve: Lawmakers have been increasingly speaking out against the pace of the Federal Reserve’s interest rate hikes meant to fight inflation. Democratic Senators Elizabeth Warren, alongside Banking Chair Sherrod Brown, John Hickenlooper and others have called on Fed Chair Jerome Powell to slow the pace of hikes.

    Now, Republicans are getting involved. Senator Pat Toomey, the top Republican on the Banking Committee, asked Powell last week to resist buying government debt if market conditions remain subdued. Expect more scrutiny from both parties after the elections.

    The stock market under President Biden started with a boom, but as we head into midterm elections, markets are going bust, reports my colleague Matt Egan.

    As of Monday, the S&P 500 has fallen by 1.2% since Biden took office in January 2021. That marks the second-worst performance during a president’s first 656 calendar days in office since former President Jimmy Carter, according to CFRA Research.

    Out of the 13 presidents since 1953, Biden ranks ninth in terms of stock market performance through this point in office, besting only former Presidents George W. Bush (-32.8%), Carter (-8.9%), Richard Nixon (-17.2%) and John F. Kennedy (-2.1%), according to CFRA.

    By contrast, Biden’s two immediate predecessors headed into their first midterm election with stock markets surging. The S&P 500 climbed 52.2% during the first 656 calendar days in office for former President Barack Obama and 23.9% under former President Donald Trump, according to CFRA.

    American consumers borrowed another $25 billion in September, according to newly released Federal Reserve data, as higher costs led to further dependence on credit cards and other loans, reports my colleague Alicia Wallace.

    In normal economic times, that would be a concerningly large jump, said Matthew Schulz, chief credit analyst for LendingTree, wrote in a tweet. “However, it is actually the second-smallest increase in the past year.” Economists were anticipating monthly growth of $30 billion, according to Refinitiv consensus estimates.

    The data is not adjusted for inflation, which is at decade highs and weighing heavily on Americans, outpacing wage gains and forcing consumers to rely more heavily on credit cards and their savings.

    In the second quarter of this year, credit card balances saw their largest year-over-year increases in more than two decades, according to separate data from the New York Federal Reserve. The third-quarter household debt and credit report is set to be released Nov. 15.

    Correction: A previous version of this article incorrectly stated the number of calendar days in the analysis as well as the stock market performance under various US presidents during that period.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Interest rates will keep rising. How high will they go? | CNN Business

    Interest rates will keep rising. How high will they go? | CNN Business

    [ad_1]

    A version of this story first appeared in CNN Business’ Before the Bell newsletter. Not a subscriber? You can sign up right here. You can listen to an audio version of the newsletter by clicking the same link.


    New York
    CNN Business
     — 

    What will the Federal Reserve do at its meeting in December? Analysts can speculate all they want, but Fed officials say they will be using hard economic data to make their next decision.

    That means key housing, labor, and inflation reports will likely have outsized effects on the market as investors speculate about what they might mean for the future of interest rates.

    What’s happening: No one can move markets like Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell — with just a few words on Wednesday he crushed investors’ hopes of an interest rate pivot and sent stocks plunging. “We have a ways to go,” said Powell of the Fed’s current hiking regime meant to fight persistent inflation. “It’s very premature, in my view, to think about or be talking about pausing.”

    But Powell did add an important caveat. The Fed could start to slow the pace of those painful hikes as soon as December. “Our decisions will depend on the totality of incoming data and their implications for the outlook for economic activity and inflation,” Powell said on Wednesday.

    So what will the Fed be looking at between today and its next policy decision on December 14?

    The labor market: The Fed’s biggest worry is the super-tight US labor market, and Friday’s jobs report isn’t likely to soothe any nerves.

    The government report is expected to show the economy added another 200,000 positions in October — down from last month, but still a very solid number as demand for employment continues to outpace the supply of labor.

    That means more inflation. Businesses have to pay higher wages to attract employees and are able to charge more for their goods and services. The Fed will be looking closely at hourly wage growth in the report. In September, wages rose by 5% from a year ago.

    There is a possible upside: Another jobs report in December is expected ahead of the Fed meeting. If both reports show a downward trajectory in employment, that could be enough to placate Fed officials, even if the unemployment rate remains historically low.

    Inflation data: Expect new data from two major indexes that measure the pace of inflation ahead of the next Federal Reserve meeting.

    The Consumer Price Index (CPI) for October, which tracks changes in the prices of a fixed set of goods and services, is out on November 10.

    Core CPI prices, which exclude oil and food, rose 0.6% in September month-over-month, matching August’s pace and coming in well above expectations of a 0.4% increase, not a great sign for the Fed. And analysts expect to see another large 0.5% increase in October.

    The Fed will also get to see October data from its favored measure of inflation, Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE), on December 1.

    PCE reflects changes in the prices of goods and services purchased by consumers in the United States. The Fed believes the measure is more accurate than CPI because it accounts for a wider range of purchases from a broader range of buyers.

    Core PCE climbed by 5.1% on an annual basis in September, higher than the August rate of 4.9% but below the consensus estimate of 5.2%, per Refinitiv.

    Housing: The housing market has been deeply impacted by the Fed’s efforts to fight inflation, and is one of the first areas of the economy to show signs of cooling.

    The 30-year fixed-rate mortgage averaged 6.95% last week, up from 3.09% just a year ago, and elevated borrowing costs are leading to a decline in demand.

    “The housing market was very overheated for the couple of years after the pandemic as demand increased and rates were low,” said Powell on Wednesday. “We do understand that that’s really where a very big effect of our policies is.”

    October’s new and existing home sales numbers, due on November 18 and 23, will show the continued impact of that policy ahead of the next meeting.

    The US economy is still standing strong in the face of rising interest rates, but things are softening much more quickly across the pond.

    The United Kingdom will face hard economic times and elevated interest rates well into next year, officials warned this week.

    The Bank of England raised interest rates by three-quarters of a percentage point on Thursday, the biggest hike in 33 years, as it attempts to fight soaring inflation.

    But the bank also issued a stark warning. It said that economic output is already contracting and that it expects a recession to continue through the first half of 2024 “as high energy prices and materially tighter financial conditions weigh on spending.”

    A two-year recession would be longer than the one that followed the 2008 global financial crisis, though the Bank of England said that any declines in GDP heading into 2024 would likely be relatively small.

    The central bank also doesn’t think inflation will start to fall back until next year. That will require more interest rate hikes in the coming months, warned policymakers.

    Elon Musk has been busy over at Twitter HQ. Aside from tweeting and deleting a conspiracy theory, he’s talked about implementing some big changes at his $44 billion acquisition. Here’s what’s happened so far:

    Layoffs begin: Elon Musk began laying off Twitter employees on Friday morning, according to a memo sent to staff. The email sent Thursday evening notified employees that they will receive a notice by 12 p.m. ET Friday that informs them of their employment status.

    The email added that “to help ensure the safety” of employees and Twitter’s systems, the company’s offices “will be temporarily closed and all badge access will be suspended.”

    Twitter had around 7,500 employees prior to Musk’s takeover.

    Several Twitter employees have already filed a class action lawsuit claiming that the layoffs violate the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act.

    The WARN Act requires any company with over 100 employees to give 60 days’ written notice if it intends to cut 50 jobs or more at a “single site of employment.”

    Consolidating strength: In less than a week since Musk acquired Twitter, the company’s C-suite appears to have almost entirely cleared out, through a mix of firings and resignations.

    Twitter’s board of directors was also dissolved last week, according to a securities filing.

    The company filing states that all previous members of Twitter’s board, including recently ousted CEO Parag Agrawal and chairman Bret Taylor, are no longer directors “in accordance with the terms of the merger agreement.” That makes Musk, according to the filing, “the sole director of Twitter.”

    Cashing blue checks’ checks: Musk on Tuesday said he planned to charge $8 a month for Twitter’s subscription service, called “Twitter Blue,” with the promise to let anyone pay to receive a coveted blue check mark to verify their account. That’s a steep haircut from his original plan to charge users $19.99 a month to get or keep a verified account.

    In a tweet, the world’s richest man used an expletive to describe his assessment of “Twitter’s current lords & peasants system for who has or doesn’t have a blue checkmark.” He added: “Power to the people! Blue for $8/month.”

    Advertisers hit pause: Elon Musk wrote an open letter to advertisers just hours before cementing his acquisition of Twitter, explaining that he didn’t want the platform to become a “free-for-all hellscape.” But that attempt at reassuring the advertising industry, which makes up the vast majority of Twitter’s business, doesn’t appear to be working.

    General Mills

    (GIS)
    , Mondelez International

    (MDLZ)
    , Pfizer

    (PFE)
    and Audi

    (AUDVF)
    have reportedly joined a growing list of companies hitting pause on their Twitter advertising in the wake of Musk’s acquisition.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Rep. Nancy Mace says she supports Kevin McCarthy’s debt ceiling strategy to force spending cuts | CNN Politics

    Rep. Nancy Mace says she supports Kevin McCarthy’s debt ceiling strategy to force spending cuts | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Rep. Nancy Mace on Sunday said she supports Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy’s strategy of refusing to lift the debt limit, if Republicans win back the House, unless Democrats in the White House agree to spending cuts.

    “And I can tell you, I sit on the Oversight Committee, where we look at waste, fraud, and abuse in the federal agency level, and there is waste in every single agency,” Mace said to CNN’s Jake Tapper on “State of the Union.”

    The Republican from South Carolina said that when Covid-19 began, businesses had to make tough decisions about how they would keep their doors open, and the federal government continued to get record revenue without making those tough decisions.

    “We can find ways to be more responsible with our spending, just like we forced companies and businesses to during Covid. So, that’s one of the ways that I would approach it,” she said.

    President Joe Biden said on Friday that he will not relent to Republican lawmakers threatening to send the nation into default if he doesn’t meet their demands but he doesn’t support Democrats’ efforts to abolish the debt limit entirely.

    When asked by Tapper about legislating and meeting with leaders of the Senate and people in the White House to come up with a way to reduce spending, Mace noted Republicans had been “shut out of many of those conversations.”

    “We have seen Republicans for a year-and-a-half now talk about more responsible spending, looking at the deficit spending in these bills that have been passed talking about how we can move this country forward. And we have been shut out.”

    In a separate appearance on “State of the Union” on Sunday, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders said he sided with increasing the debt ceiling.

    “But what Republicans are basically doing – and I hope everybody understands this – they are saying look, we are prepared to let the United States default on its debt, not raise the debt ceiling, unless – you talk about making cuts.”

    Sanders added “You know what they’re talking about? Cuts in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Is that irresponsible? It is absolutely irresponsible. You don’t use the debt ceiling to do that.”

    Mace also indicated to Tapper that she would not automatically be on board with impeaching Biden if Republicans take the House in November. However, she didn’t dismiss it completely either, noting allegations of high crimes and misdemeanors “would have to be investigated.”

    “I am not interested in playing tit-for-tat. I am not interested in retaliation. Impeachment has been weaponized over the years, and we’ve seen that. I really want us to be focused on the economy, on tackling inflation with responsible policy,” she said.

    Mace, who has travelled to Ukraine since the war began, dodged when asked if she supported McCarthy’s comment to Punchbowl that House Republicans would not write a “blank check” to Ukraine if they are in the majority.

    “It is something that we’re going to have to find balance on next year,” she said, due to the threat of a recession and Republican promises to cut government spending.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Democrats predict an ‘extremely busy’ lame duck. Here’s what’s on the agenda | CNN Politics

    Democrats predict an ‘extremely busy’ lame duck. Here’s what’s on the agenda | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    A packed legislative to-do list awaits Congress when it returns to session after the midterms – and Democrats, who currently control both chambers, will face a ticking clock to enact key priorities if Republicans win back the House or manage to flip the Senate in the upcoming elections.

    Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has predicted an “extremely busy” lame duck session – the period of time after the midterms and before a new Congress begins in January.

    “We still have much to do and many important bills to consider,” Schumer said in remarks on the Senate floor at the end of September. “Members should be prepared for an extremely, underline extremely, busy agenda in the last two months of this Congress.”

    The jam-packed agenda for the lame-duck session includes: Funding the government to avert a shutdown before the end of the calendar year, passage of the National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA, the annual must-pass legislation that sets the policy agenda and authorizes funding for the Department of Defense, as well as a vote in the Senate to protect same-sex marriage and the potential consideration of other key pieces of legislation.

    Democrats are still limited in what they can achieve, however, given their narrow majorities in both chambers. With a 50-50 partisan split in the Senate, Democrats lack the votes to overcome the filibuster’s 60-vote threshold – and do not have the votes to abolish the filibuster. As a result, major priorities for liberal voters – like the passage of legislation protecting access to abortion after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade – will still remain out of reach for the party for the foreseeable future.

    Government funding is the most pressing priority that lawmakers will confront during the lame duck. The current deadline for the expiration of funding is December 16 after the House and Senate passed an extension to avert a shutdown at the end of September.

    Since the funding bill is viewed as must-pass legislation it will likely become a magnet for other priorities that lawmakers may try to tack on to ride along with it. It’s possible that further aid for Ukraine could come up as Ukraine continues to counter Russia’s invasion of the country. While that funding has bipartisan support, some conservatives are balking at the pricey contributions to Ukraine and may scrutinize more closely additional requests from the administration, a dynamic that is dividing Republicans on this key issue.

    Democrats also want more funding for pandemic response, but Republicans have pushed back on that request.

    One issue that may come up during the government funding effort is money for the Department of Justice investigation into the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.

    A House Democratic aide told CNN that final fiscal year 2023 funding levels have yet to be determined. Justice Department needs and resources are part of this ongoing conversation, but under the leadership of Rep. Matt Cartwright, chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee on commerce, justice, science, and related agencies, the House bill included $34 million that would allow DOJ to fund these prosecutions without reducing their efforts in other areas.

    House Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Rosa DeLauro told CNN in a statement, “I look forward to working with my colleagues on the House and Senate appropriations committees and passing a final 2023 spending package by the December 16th deadline.”

    Meanwhile, the Senate has begun work on the NDAA, and is expected to pass the massive piece of legislation during the lame duck. Consideration of the wide-ranging bill could spark debate and a push for amendments over a variety of topics.

    Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa has called for punishing OPEC for its production cut by passing legislation that would hold foreign oil producers accountable for colluding to fix prices – and the senator has said he believes the measure can pass as an amendment to the NDAA. The legislation would clear the way for the Justice Department to sue Saudi Arabia and other OPEC nations for antitrust violations.

    Senate Democrats will also continue confirming judges to the federal bench nominated by President Joe Biden, a key priority for the party.

    A Senate vote to protect same-sex marriage is also on tap for the lame-duck session. In mid-September, the chamber punted on a vote until after the November midterm elections as negotiators asked for more time to lock down support – a move that could make it more likely the bill will ultimately pass the chamber.

    The bipartisan group of senators working on the bill said in a statement at the time, “We’ve asked Leader Schumer for additional time and we appreciate he has agreed. We are confident that when our legislation comes to the Senate floor for a vote, we will have the bipartisan support to pass the bill.” The bill would need at least 10 Republican votes to overcome a filibuster.

    Schumer has vowed to hold a vote on the bill, but the exact timing has not yet been locked in. Democrats have pushed for the vote after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, sparking fears that the court could take aim at same-sex marriage in the future.

    The Senate could take up legislation during the lame duck in response to the January 6, 2021, attack by a mob of pro-Trump supporters attempting to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.

    Over the summer, a bipartisan group of senators reached a deal to make it harder to overturn a certified presidential election. The proposal would still need, however, to be approved by both chambers. Notably, the Senate proposal has the backing of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican.

    “I strongly support the modest changes that our colleagues in the working group have fleshed out after literally months of detailed discussions,” McConnell said at the end of September. “I’ll proudly support the legislation, provided that nothing more than technical changes are made to its current form.”

    If the bill passes the Senate, it would also need to clear the House, which in September, passed its own version of legislation to make it harder to overturn a certified presidential election in the future by proposing changes to the Electoral Count Act.

    Passing a bill to to restrict lawmakers from trading stocks is a priority for a number of moderate House Democrats – who may continue to push for the issue to be taken up during the lame duck, though whether there will be a vote is still to be determined and other pressing must-pass items like government funding could crowd out the issue. The House did not vote on a proposal prior to the midterm elections.

    “It’s a complicated issue, as you can imagine, as a new rule for members they have to follow, and their families as I understand, so I think it deserves careful study to make sure if we do something, we do it right,” House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told CNN last month.

    Meanwhile, it’s not yet clear when exactly the nation will run up against the debt limit and it appears unlikely for now that Congress will act to resolve the issue during the lame-duck session, especially as other must-pass bills compete for floor time. But political battle lines are already being drawn and maneuvering is underway in Washington over the contentious and high-stakes issue.

    A group of House Democrats recently sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Schumer calling for legislation to “permanently undo the threat posed by the debt limit” during the post-election lame-duck session. The letter, led by Pennsylvania Rep. Brendan Boyle, was signed by several prominent House Democrats, including Caucus Chair Hakeem Jeffries of New York.

    Biden on Friday gave a window into how he’s preparing for a looming political showdown over the debt ceiling, stating unequivocally that he will not relent to Republican lawmakers threatening to send the nation into default if he doesn’t meet their demands, but adding that he doesn’t support efforts from within his own party to abolish the debt limit entirely.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • 3 things that will help reduce the sting of high inflation | CNN Business

    3 things that will help reduce the sting of high inflation | CNN Business

    [ad_1]

    There’s really nothing nice to say about inflation when it comes to your bottom line.

    It’s hard on your wallet. It’s hard on your savings because it reduces the buying power of the dollars you socked away. And it’s hard on your paycheck, because chances are your last raise did not keep pace with headline inflation, which the latest reading puts at 8.2%.

    But that same high inflation has led to a couple of changes that might offer you a little relief. And every little bit helps.

    Starting next year, your paycheck could be a little bigger thanks to inflation adjustments that the Internal Revenue Service will make to 2023 federal income tax brackets and other provisions.

    The net effect of those adjustments is this: More of your 2023 wages will be subject to lower tax rates than they were this year. And you may be able to deduct higher amounts of income.

    Here’s the skinny on that.

    When you save money in a tax-deferred workplace retirement plan like a 401(k) or 403(b), you can reduce your taxable income because you get a deduction for your contribution the year you make it. The more you save, the more you cut your tax bill.

    Starting next year, you will be allowed to contribute up to $22,500 into your 401(k), 403(b), most 457 plans or the Thrift Savings Plan for federal employees.

    That’s $2,000 – or roughly 9.8% – more than the current $20,500 federal contribution limit, a direct result of higher inflation. Those are the biggest adjustments made to the contribution limit in decades.

    More about those changes and changes to IRA contribution limits can be found here.

    Social Security recipients will receive an annual cost-of-living adjustment of 8.7% next year, the largest increase since 1981.

    The spike will boost retirees’ monthly payments by $146 to an estimated average of $1,827 for 2023.

    No one will be living large on that amount, but the extra cash will offset some of the higher prices for everyday expenses that seniors incur.

    Here’s more on the coming boost to Social Security checks, along with welcome news that there will be a drop in Medicare Part B premiums next year.

    CNN’s Tami Luhby contributed to this report

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Liz Truss Fast Facts | CNN

    Liz Truss Fast Facts | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Here’s a look at the life of Liz Truss, prime minister of the United Kingdom.

    Birth date: July 26, 1975

    Birth place: Oxford, England

    Birth name: Mary Elizabeth Truss

    Father: John Kenneth Truss, math professor

    Mother: Priscilla (Grasby) Truss, nurse and teacher

    Marriage: Hugh O’Leary (2000-present)

    Children: Frances, Liberty

    Education: Merton College, University of Oxford, B.A., 1993-1996

    Youngest female cabinet minister in UK history.

    Appointed the most ethnically diverse Cabinet in UK history.

    Former president of the Oxford University Liberal Democrats.

    Met her husband at the 1997 Conservative Party conference.

    As a child, joined her parents at protests against nuclear weapons and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.

    1994 – As a university student, Truss calls for abolishing the monarchy at a Liberal Democratic conference, “We do not believe people are born to rule.”

    1996 – Truss joins the Conservative Party.

    1996-2000 – Works for Shell, eventually becoming a commercial manager.

    2000-2005 – Economic director at Cable & Wireless.

    2006-2010 Councillor in the London borough of Greenwich.

    May 2006 – A Daily Mail article exposes an extramarital affair between Truss and MP Mark Field, who had been assigned to her as a political mentor. The affair is thought to have ended in June 2005.

    2008-2010 – Deputy director of Reform, a think tank.

    2009 – Truss is selected to be the Conservative MP candidate for South West Norfolk. After a demand by some local party members that she end her candidacy, citing her past affair with Field, Truss survives a vote and remains the candidate.

    2010 – Elected MP for South West Norfolk.

    2012 – Co-authors “Britannia Unchained: Global Lessons for Growth and Prosperity,” a book that describes the British people as ‘among the worst idlers in the world,’ who ‘are more interested in football and pop music’ than working hard.

    September 2012-July 2014 – Parliamentary Undersecretary of State for Education and Childcare.

    July 2014-July 2016 – Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

    February 20, 2016 – In a Twitter post, Truss announces that she supports the “Remain” position on Brexit.

    July 2016-June 2017 – Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice

    June 2017 – Truss is demoted to chief secretary to the Treasury. She serves in the position until July 2019.

    October 11, 2017 – Truss tells BBC2 she would now vote to leave the European Union if the Brexit referendum were to be held again, “I have changed my mind….I believed that there would be major economic problems. Those haven’t come to pass and I have also seen the opportunities.”

    July 2019-September 2021 – Secretary of State for International Trade and President of the Board of Trade

    September 2019 – Is appointed minister for women and equalities.

    December 2019 – Is appointed chief post-Brexit negotiator with the EU, tasked with settling the Northern Ireland protocol.

    September 15, 2021 – Is appointed foreign secretary.

    May 17, 2022 – In a statement delivered to the House of Commons, Truss announces she will introduce legislation to make changes to the Northern Ireland Protocol, a portion of Britain’s withdrawal agreement from the EU.

    July 10, 2022 – In an op-ed published in The Telegraph, Truss announces that she is joining the race to replace Prime Minister Boris Johnson as leader of the Conservative Party.

    September 5, 2022 – Is elected leader of the Conservative Party. In her victory speech, Truss promises a “bold plan” to cut taxes and build economic growth.

    September 6, 2022 – Appointed prime minister by Queen Elizabeth II at Balmoral Castle.

    September 20-21, 2022 – In her first foreign trip as prime minister, Truss meets with foreign leaders at the United Nations General Assembly, including US President Joe Biden and French President Emmanuel Macron.

    September 23, 2022 – Truss’ government announces sweeping tax cuts which would wipe £45 billion ($50 billion) off government revenues over the next five years, representing the largest cuts in 50 years.

    October 3, 2022 – Truss cancels her plan to slash the top rate of income tax, after a rebellion among lawmakers and a week of financial and economic turmoil.

    October 14, 2022 – Truss says she is scrapping plans to reverse a rise in business taxes, a move that will save £18 billion ($20 billion), after a revolt by investors and members of her own Conservative Party worried about the impact of soaring government borrowing at a time of decades-high inflation. Truss also fires finance minister Kwasi Kwarteng.

    October 20, 2022 – Truss announces her intention to resign just six weeks into her term after a growing number of her own Conservative Party’s lawmakers say they cannot support her any longer. She will remain prime minister until her successor is chosen.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The econ Nobel offers a timely warning about central banks’ power | CNN Business

    The econ Nobel offers a timely warning about central banks’ power | CNN Business

    [ad_1]

    This story is part of CNN Business’ Nightcap newsletter. To get it in your inbox, sign up for free, here.


    New York
    CNN Business
     — 

    The Nobel in economics is sort of the step-cousin of the Nobel family.

    It came about nearly 70 years after its literature and sciences counterparts, in 1969, and is technically called the “Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences.” It is awarded by the Swedish central bank, in honor of the namesake renaissance man Alfred Nobel who established the prizes.

    Some scholars really dislike the economics prize, including one of Nobel’s own descendants, who dismissed it as a “PR coup by economists.”

    But hey, it still comes with a cash prize. And it’s also pretty useful in reminding the world that economics as an academic field is, frankly, a barely understood hodge-podge of studies that is constantly evolving and so variable it’s almost useless outside of academia. (And I mean that with the utmost respect to economists, who, not unlike journalists, knew what they were doing when they chose their life of suffering.)

    Here’s the thing: Ben Bernanke, the former Federal Reserve chairman who guided the US economy through the 2008 financial crisis and subsequent recession, was awarded the Nobel in economics along with two other economists, Douglas Diamond and Philip Dybvig. (Congrats to all the winners, with apologies to Doug and Phil, who will forever be referred to in headlines about the Nobel as “and two other economists.”)

    Bernanke, who previously taught at Princeton and earned his Ph.D from MIT, received the award for his research on the Great Depression. In short, his work demonstrates that banks’ failures are often a cause, not merely a consequence, of financial crises.

    That was groundbreaking when he published it in 1983. Today, it’s conventional wisdom.

    WHY IT MATTERS

    The timing is everything here. The Nobel committee has been known to play politics (see: that time Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize after being in office for just eight months). And right now, it is using its spotlight to call attention to the high-stakes gamble playing out at central banks around the world, most notably the Fed.

    The rapid run-up in interest rates, led by the US central bank, is causing markets around the world to go haywire. And it’s especially bad news for emerging economies.

    Monetary tightening — especially when it is aggressive and synchronized across major economies — could inflict worse damage globally than the 2008 financial crisis and the 2020 pandemic, a United Nations agency warned earlier this month. It called the Fed’s policy “imprudent gamble” with the lives of those less fortunate.

    LESSONS FROM HISTORY

    On Monday, Diamond, one of the three newly minted Nobel laureates, acknowledged that the rate moves around the world were causing market instability.

    But he believes the system is more resilient than it used to be because of hard lessons learned from the 2008 crash, my colleague Julia Horowitz reports.

    “Recent memories of that crisis and improvements in regulatory policies around the world have left the system much, much less vulnerable,” Diamond said.

    Let’s hope he’s right.

    Oh hey, speaking of the Fed inflicting pain: We’re about to see big job losses, according to Bank of America.

    Under the rate hikes imposed by Jay Powell & Co, the US economy could see job growth cut in half during the fourth quarter of this year. Early next year, the bank expects to see losses of about 175,000 jobs a month.

    The litigation between Elon Musk and Twitter is officially on hold. The two sides now have until October 28 to work out a deal or once again gear up for a courtroom battle.

    The big question now is all about the money.

    Here’s the deal: Not even the world’s richest person has this kind of cash just lying around. Musk’s wealth is tied up in Tesla stock, which he can’t easily offload for a whole bunch of reasons. He needs to borrow the money, which means he’s got to get banks to pony up.

    By most accounts, he’ll be able to make it happen. But the Twitter deal is a harder pitch to make now than it was back in April, when Musk said he’d lined up more than $46 billion in financing, including two debt commitment letters from Morgan Stanley and other unnamed financial institutions, my colleague Clare Duffy writes.

    Musk has spent the past several months trashing Twitter as he sought to renege on his offer. Meanwhile, tech stocks have been hammered, ad revenues are declining, and the global economy has inched closer to a recession, sapping investor appetite for risk.

    Musk’s legal team said last week the banks that had committed debt financing previously were “working cooperatively to fund the close.”

    Twitter is, understandably, skeptical, given the many curve balls Musk has thrown at them since he got involved with the company earlier this year. The company raised concerns last week that a representative for one of the banks testified that Musk had not yet sent a borrowing notice and “has not otherwise communicated to them that he intends to close the transaction, let alone on any particular timeline.”

    What’s Musk’s endgame?

    No one knows, perhaps least of all Musk. But many legal experts following the case say Musk understood he’d likely lose at trial and then be forced to buy Twitter anyway. He’d rather buy the entire company than be deposed by Twitter’s lawyers and do further damage to Twitter in a trial.

    And the banks may not be able to walk away even if they want to.

    “The only way they could get out of it is to claim a material adverse effect and that Twitter has changed so much since they agreed to the deal that they no longer want to finance the deal,” said George Geis, professor of strategy at the UCLA Anderson School of Management.

    Even if the banks succeeded there, Musk may not be off the hook. The judge in the case could rule that Musk was at fault for the financing falling through — not a far-fetched notion after all the trash-talking — and order him to sue Morgan Stanley to provide the funds or close the deal without it.

    Bottom line, it seems like Musk will end up owning Twitter one way or another. And given his only vague musings about what he’d actually do with it, there are a whole host of unknowns lurking in Twitter’s future.

    Enjoying Nightcap? Sign up and you’ll get all of this, plus some other funny stuff we liked on the internet, in your inbox every night. (OK, most nights — we believe in a four-day work week around here.)

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • How meltdown in a $1 trillion market brought the UK to the brink of a financial crisis | CNN Business

    How meltdown in a $1 trillion market brought the UK to the brink of a financial crisis | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    London
    CNN Business
     — 

    Pension funds are designed to be dull. Their singular goal — earning enough money to make payouts to retirees — favors cool heads over brash risk takers.

    But as markets in the United Kingdom went haywire last week, hundreds of British pension fund managers found themselves at the center of a crisis that forced the Bank of England to step in to restore stability and avert a broader financial meltdown.

    All it took was one big shock. Following finance minister Kwasi Kwarteng’s announcement on Friday, Sept. 23 of plans to ramp up borrowing to pay for tax cuts, investors dumped the pound and UK government bonds, sending yields on some of that debt soaring at the fastest rate on record.

    The scale of the tumult put enormous pressure on many pension funds by upending an investing strategy that involves the use of derivatives to hedge their bets.

    As the price of government bonds crashed, the funds were asked to pony up billions of pounds in collateral. In a scramble for cash, investment managers were forced to sell whatever they could — including, in some cases, more government bonds. That sent yields even higher, sparking another wave of collateral calls.

    “It started to feed itself,” said Ben Gold, head of investment at XPS Pensions Group, a UK pensions consultancy. “Everyone was looking to sell and there was no buyer.”

    The Bank of England went into crisis mode. After working through the night of Tuesday, Sept. 27, it stepped into the market the next day with a pledge to buy up to £65 billion ($73 billion) in bonds if needed. That stopped the bleeding and averted what the central bank later told lawmakers was its worst fear: a “self-reinforcing spiral” and “widespread financial instability.”

    In a letter to the head of the UK Parliament’s Treasury Committee this week, the Bank of England said that if it hadn’t interceded, a number of funds would have defaulted, amplifying the strain on the financial system. It said its intervention was essential to “restore core market functioning.”

    Pension funds are now racing to raise money to refill their coffers. Yet there are questions about whether they can find their footing before the Bank of England’s emergency bond-buying is due to end on Oct. 14. And for a wider range of investors, the near-miss is a wake-up call.

    For the first time in decades, interest rates are rising quickly around the world. In that climate, markets are prone to accidents.

    “What the previous two weeks have told you is there can be a lot more volatility in markets,” said Barry Kenneth, chief investment officer at the Pension Protection Fund, which manages pensions for employees of UK companies that become insolvent. “It’s easy to invest when everything’s going up. It’s a lot more difficult to invest when you’re trying to catch a falling knife, or you’ve got to readjust to a new environment.”

    The first signs of trouble appeared among fund managers who focus on so-called “liability-driven investment,” or LDI, for pensions. Gold said he started to receive messages from worried clients over the weekend of Sept. 24-25.

    LDI is built on a straightforward premise: Pensions need enough money to pay what they owe retirees well into the future. To plan for payouts in 30 or 50 years, they buy long-dated bonds, while purchasing derivatives to hedge these bets. In the process, they have to put up collateral. If bond yields rise sharply, they are asked to put up even more collateral in what’s known as a “margin call.” This obscure corner of the market has grown rapidly in recent years, reaching a valuation of more £1 trillion ($1.1 trillion), according to the Bank of England.

    When bond yields rise slowly over time, it’s not a problem for pensions deploying LDI strategies, and actually helps their finances. But if bond yields shoot up very quickly, it’s a recipe for trouble. According to the Bank of England, the move in bond yields before it intervened was “unprecedented.” The four-day move in 30-year UK government bonds was more than twice what was seen during the highest-stress period of the pandemic.

    “The sharpness and the viciousness of the move is what really caught people out,” Kenneth said.

    The margin calls came in — and kept coming. The Pension Protection Fund said it faced a £1.6 billion call for cash. It was able to pay without dumping assets, but others were caught off guard, and were forced into a fire sale of government bonds, corporate debt and stocks to raise money. Gold estimated that at least half of the 400 pension programs that XPS advises faced collateral calls, and that across the industry, funds are now looking to fill a hole of between £100 billion and £150 billion.

    “When you push such large moves through the financial system, it makes sense that something would break,” said Rohan Khanna, a strategist at UBS.

    When market dysfunction sparks a chain reaction, it’s not just scary for investors. The Bank of England made clear in its letter that the bond market rout “may have led to an excessive and sudden tightening of financing conditions for the real economy” as borrowing costs skyrocketed. For many businesses and mortgage holders, they already have.

    So far, the Bank of England has only bought £3.8 billion in bonds, far less than it could have purchased. Still, the effort has sent a strong signal. Yields on longer-term bonds have dropped sharply, giving pension funds time to recoup — though they’ve recently started to rise again.

    “What the Bank of England has done is bought time for some of my peers out there,” Kenneth said.

    Still, Kenneth is concerned that if the program ends next week as scheduled, the task won’t be complete given the complexity of many pension funds. Daniela Russell, head of UK rates strategy at HSBC, warned in a recent note to clients that there’s a risk of a “cliff-edge,” especially since the Bank of England is moving ahead with previous plans to start selling bonds it bought during the pandemic at the end of the month.

    “It might be hoped that the precedent of BoE intervention continues to provide a backstop beyond this date, but this may not be sufficient to prevent a renewed vigorous sell-off in long-dated gilts,” she wrote.

    As central banks jack up interest rates at the fastest clip in decades, investors are nervous about the implications for their portfolios and for the economy. They’re holding more cash, which makes it harder to execute trades and can exacerbate jarring price moves.

    That makes a surprise event more likely to cause massive disruption, and the specter of the next shocker looms. Will it be a rough batch of economic data? Trouble at a global bank? Another political misstep in the United Kingdom?

    Gold said the pension industry as a whole is better prepared now, though he concedes it would be “naive” to think there couldn’t be another bout of instability.

    “You would need to see yields rise more quickly than we saw this time,” he said, noting the larger buffers funds are now amassing. “It would require something of absolutely historic proportions for that not to be enough, but you never know.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The bond market is crumbling. That’s bad for Wall Street and Main Street | CNN Business

    The bond market is crumbling. That’s bad for Wall Street and Main Street | CNN Business

    [ad_1]

    A version of this story first appeared in CNN Business’ Before the Bell newsletter. Not a subscriber? You can sign up right here. You can listen to an audio version of the newsletter by clicking the same link.


    New York
    CNN Business
     — 

    The global bond market is having a historically awful year.

    The yield on the 10-year US Treasury bond, a proxy for borrowing costs, briefly moved above 4% on Wednesday for the first time in 12 years. That’s a bad omen for Wall Street and Main Street.

    What’s happening: This hasn’t been a pretty year for US stocks. All three major indexes are in a bear market, down more than 20% from recent highs, and analysts predict more pain ahead. When things are this bad, investors seek safety in Treasury bonds, which have low returns but are also considered low-risk (As loans to the US government, Treasury notes are seen as a safe bet since there is little risk they won’t be paid back).

    But in 2022’s topsy-turvy economy, even that safe haven has become somewhat treacherous.

    Bond returns, or yields, rise as their prices fall. Under normal market conditions, a rising yield should mean that there’s less demand for bonds because investors would rather put their money into higher-risk (and higher-reward) stocks.

    Instead markets are plummeting, and investors are flocking out of risky stocks, but yields are going up. What gives?

    Blame the Fed. Persistent inflation has led the Federal Reserve to fight back by aggressively hiking interest rates, and as a result the yields on US Treasury bonds have soared.

    Economic turmoil in the United Kingdom and European Union has also caused the value of both the British pound and the euro to fall dramatically when compared to the US dollar. Dollar strength typically coincides with higher bond rates as well.

    So while we’d normally see a rising 10-year yield as a signal that US investors have a rosy economic outlook, that isn’t the case this time. Gloomy investors are predicting more interest rate hikes and a higher chance of recession.

    What it means: Portfolios are aching. Vanguard’s $514.5 billion Total Bond Market Index, the largest US bond fund, is down more than 15% so far this year. That puts it on track for its worst year since it was created in 1986. The iShares 20+ Year Treasury bond fund

    (TLT)
    (TLT) is down nearly 30% for the year.

    Stock investors are also nervously eyeing Treasuries. High yields make it more expensive for companies to borrow money, and that extra cost could lower earnings expectations. Companies with significant debt levels may not be able to afford higher financing costs at all.

    Main Street doesn’t get a break, either. An elevated 10-year Treasury return means more expensive loans on cars, credit cards and even student debt. It also means higher mortgage rates: The spike has already helped push the average rate for a 30-year mortgage above 6% for the first time since 2008.

    Going deeper: Still, investors are more nervous about the immediate future than the longer term. That’s spurred an inverted yield curve – when interest rates on short-term bonds move higher than those on long-term bonds. The inverted yield curve is a particularly ominous warning sign that has correctly predicted almost every recession over the past 60 years.

    The curve first inverted in April, and then again this summer. The two-year treasury yield has soared in the last week, and now hovers above 4.3%, deepening that gap.

    On Monday, a team at BNP Paribas predicted that the inverted gap between the two-year and 10-year Treasury yields could grow to its largest level since the early 1980s. Those years were marked by sticky inflation, interest rates near 20% and a very deep recession.

    What’s next: The bond market may face fresh volatility on Friday with the release of the Federal Reserve’s favored inflation measure, the Personal Consumption Expenditure Price Index for August. If the report comes in above expectations, expect bond yields to move even higher.

    The Bank of England held an emergency intervention to maintain economic stability in the UK on Wednesday. The central bank said it would buy long-dated UK government bonds “on whatever scale is necessary” to prevent a market crash.

    Investors around the globe have been dumping the British pound and UK bonds since the government on Friday unveiled a huge package of tax cuts, spending and increased borrowing aimed at getting the economy moving and protecting households and businesses from sky-high energy bills this winter, reports my colleague Mark Thompson.

    Markets fear the plan will drive up already persistent inflation, forcing the Bank of England to push interest rates as high as 6% next spring, from 2.25% at present. Mortgage markets have been in turmoil all week as lenders have struggled to price their loans. Hundreds of products have been withdrawn.

    “This repricing [of UK assets] has become more significant in the past day — and it is particularly affecting long-dated UK government debt,” the central bank said in its statement.

    “Were dysfunction in this market to continue or worsen, there would be a material risk to UK financial stability. This would lead to an unwarranted tightening of financing conditions and a reduction of the flow of credit to the real economy.”

    Many final salary, or defined-benefit, pension funds were particularly exposed to the dramatic sell-off in longer dated UK government bonds.

    “They would have been wiped out,” said Kerrin Rosenberg, UK chief executive of Cardano Investment.

    The central bank said it would buy long-dated UK government bonds until October 14.

    Steep drops in bond prices may be signaling doom and gloom for the economy, but some analysts say short-term bonds are still looking more attractive than equities right now.

    “Record low yields have kept fixed income in the shadow of equities for decades,” said analysts at BNY Mellon Wealth Management in a research note. “But the aggressive shift in Fed policy is beginning to change this.”

    Central banks around the globe have responded to elevated inflation by hiking interest rates– and bond yields have increased alongside them. The two-year US Treasury bond is currently yielding nearly 4%. That’s still a relatively low return, but better than the S&P 500’s dividend yield of around 1.7%.

    “For the first time in several years, bonds are attractive investment options. In addition to providing diversification versus equities…you now get paid for owning them,” wrote Barry Ritholtz of Ritholtz Wealth Management on Wednesday.

    Consider the alternative: the S&P is down more than 20% year to date.

    The US Bureau of Economic Analysis releases its third estimate for Q2 GDP and US weekly jobless claims.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • UK PM Liz Truss admits mistakes on controversial tax cuts plan, but doubles down on it anyway | CNN

    UK PM Liz Truss admits mistakes on controversial tax cuts plan, but doubles down on it anyway | CNN

    [ad_1]


    London
    CNN
     — 

    British Prime Minister Liz Truss admitted mistakes had been made with her government’s controversial “mini-budget” announced last week – which sent the pound to historic lows and sparked market chaos – but stood by her policies.

    Speaking to the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg on Sunday morning Truss said: “I do accept we should have laid the ground better and I’ve learned from that, and I’ll make sure I’ll do a better job of laying the ground in the future.”

    She said that she wanted “to tell people I understand their worries about what happened this week and I stand by the package we announced and I stand by the fact we announced it quickly.”

    Last week, Truss’ government announced that they would cut taxes by £45 billion ($48 billion) in a bid to get the UK economy moving again, with a package that includes scrapping the highest rate of income tax for top earners from 45% to 40% and a big increase in government borrowing to slash energy prices for millions of households and businesses this winter.

    Many leading economists described the unorthodox measures as a reckless gamble, noting that the measures came a day after the Bank of England warned that the country was already likely in a recession.

    Truss said the reforms were not agreed by her cabinet, but were a decision made by Chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng. “It was a decision the chancellor made,” she told the BBC.

    She doubled down on that decision however, saying that her government made the “right decision to borrow more this winter to face the extraordinary consequences we face,” referring to the energy crisis caused by the war in Ukraine. She claimed that the alternative would be for people to pay up to £6,000 in energy bills, and that inflation would be 5% higher.

    “We’re not living in a perfect world, we are living in a very difficult world, where governments around the world are taking tough decisions,” Truss said.

    Regarding the rising cost of living in the UK, namely the rise of mortgage rates, Truss said that is mostly driven by interest rates and is “a matter for the independent Bank of England.”

    The Bank of England said Wednesday it would buy UK government debt “on whatever scale is necessary” in an emergency intervention to halt a bond market crash that it warned could threaten financial stability.

    Meanwhile, Credit Suisse said that UK house prices could “easily” fall between 10% and 15% over the next 18 months if the Bank of England aggressively hikes interest rates to keep inflation in check.

    The fallout could make it harder for people to get approved for mortgages, and encourage prospective buyers to delay their purchases. A drop in demand would lead to falling prices.

    Truss defended her government’s policies to the BBC as the Conservative party’s annual conference kicked off in in Birmingham.

    The party is bitterly divided, with its poll ratings sinking lower than they were even under the disgraced leadership of Boris Johnson.

    On Sunday, that chill was evident, as Nadine Dorries, the former culture secretary who backed Truss to be prime minister, accused Truss of throwing Chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng “under a bus” in her BBC interview, when she said the tax cut decision were made by him and not the Cabinet.

    “One of @BorisJohnson faults was that he could sometimes be too loyal and he got that. However, there is a balance and throwing your Chancellor under a bus on the first day of conference really isn’t it. [Hope] things improve and settle down from now,” Dorries said on Twitter.

    Conservative members of parliament fear the combination of tax cuts along with huge public spending to help people cope with energy bills, rising inflation, rising interest rates and a falling pound are going to make winning the next general election impossible.

    [ad_2]

    Source link