ReportWire

Tag: taxes and taxation

  • Biden’s pick for IRS commissioner would face backlog of tax returns while gearing up for next filing season | CNN Politics

    Biden’s pick for IRS commissioner would face backlog of tax returns while gearing up for next filing season | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Even though the Internal Revenue Service has been steadily chipping away at its major backlog of tax filings, millions of individuals and businesses are still waiting for their tax returns to be fully processed and their refunds to be sent.

    Dealing with this mountain of paperwork, as well as deploying the nearly $80 billion that Congress gave the agency earlier this year, could fall to Daniel Werfel, whom President Joe Biden nominated last month to be the next IRS commissioner.

    Werfel, whose Senate confirmation hearing has yet to be scheduled, is no stranger to turmoil at the IRS. He served as acting commissioner for seven months in 2013 after his predecessor was forced to resign following the revelation that the agency targeted conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status for extra scrutiny.

    Prior to joining the IRS, Werfel worked for nearly 16 years at the White House’s Office of Management and Budget, serving as deputy controller and then federal controller. After leaving the government, he joined Boston Consulting Group, where he is a managing director and partner on the federal and public sector teams.

    “The management challenges are significant, both spending the money efficiently and wisely,” said John Koskinen, who served as IRS commissioner from 2013 to 2017. “It’ll be an interesting, but good challenge for him. I think he’s more than up to it.”

    During his time at the IRS, Werfel responded to numerous congressional investigations, the White House noted when it announced his nomination.

    If confirmed, he is expected to be called again to Capitol Hill. House Republicans, who will take charge of the chamber in January, plan to conduct multiple inquiries into the agency.

    “Will he cooperate with congressional oversight efforts, such as the pending requests related to the continuing large tax return backlog, Child Tax Credit administration, and the agency’s suspicious solicitation of millions of additional tax credit claims right before an election, among many others?” Texas Rep. Kevin Brady, the Republican leader of the House Ways and Means Committee, said when Werfel was nominated.

    The Covid-19 pandemic wreaked havoc on the IRS, which closed its offices for several months in 2020. Millions of paper returns and correspondence piled up in trailers during the shutdown.

    On top of that, Congress enacted several relief programs that were carried out by the agency in 2020 and 2021 – including three rounds of stimulus checks, a monthly child tax credit and an unemployment compensation exclusion – all of which added to the pressure on its staff.

    The agency has devoted more resources to clearing the massive backlog of paper returns and is moving more quickly than it did a year ago, National Taxpayer Advocate Erin Collins said during a Tax Policy Center panel discussion last month. But the IRS is still not where she would like it to be.

    There were still 3.2 million unprocessed individual returns as of November 25, according to the agency. Of these, 1.5 million are paper returns waiting to be reviewed and processed and 1.7 million are returns that require error correction or other special handling.

    The IRS also has 800,000 unprocessed amended individual tax returns as of late November. It could take more than 20 weeks for the filings to be processed.

    Those figures remain daunting with only a few weeks left before the agency shuts down its systems to prepare for the upcoming filing year. But they show the IRS is making progress. There were about 3 million individual paper returns and 1.3 million amended returns waiting to be processed as of October 21, Collins wrote in a blog post last month.

    As for business returns, Collins found there were more than 4 million in need of initial processing as well as several hundred thousand amended returns as of October 21.

    Plus, there are 6.3 million suspended returns, of which nearly 3 million were being reviewed for potential identity theft as of late October. And the agency has about 4.5 million pieces of correspondence awaiting processing.

    The IRS does not provide updated processing figures for business returns, correspondence or all suspended returns online.

    What’s more, the agency is only answering about one in 10 calls it receives. The rate was around 85% two decades ago.

    The IRS said it intends to be “healthy” by the end of the year, Collins wrote, but she questioned how the agency defines “healthy.”

    “Regardless of the IRS’ definition, none of the above taxpayers will see the IRS as ‘healthy’ until their return is worked,” she wrote.

    The IRS did not respond to requests for comment.

    The backlog stems in part from cuts to the agency’s budget and staffing levels over the past decade. The budget is down more than 15%, after adjusting for inflation, and staffing has shrunk to 1970s levels, former Commissioner Charles Rettig told a Senate committee earlier this year.

    The agency is already deploying part of the $80 billion in funding that it will receive over 10 years from the Democrats’ Inflation Reduction Act, which passed this summer.

    In October, the IRS announced it had hired 4,000 customer service representatives to answer phones and provide other taxpayer assistance. It said it intends to hire another 1,000 staffers by the end of the year.

    Many will be in place at the start of the 2023 tax season, and nearly all will be trained by Presidents’ Day in February, which is traditionally when the agency sees the highest call volumes.

    The IRS expects the phones to be answered at a much higher rate this upcoming season, the agency said.

    In addition, the IRS is looking to hire 700 people for its Taxpayer Assistance Centers across the country. It will be the first time in a decade that its more than 270 walk-in sites will be properly staffed, the agency said.

    While the upcoming tax filing season should be better than the last two, there are reasons for concern, said Larry Gray, national government liaison for the National Association of Tax Professionals. Since the new employees will still be learning, he questioned whether they will be as accurate or be able to answer questions as quickly as those with a few years under their belts.

    Plus, training the new hires is pulling experienced staffers away from processing the backlog.

    “We are moving in a direction to better,” said Gray. But “if you think the backlog is going to be gone, you are waking up in a dream.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The latest on Donald Trump’s many legal clouds | CNN Politics

    The latest on Donald Trump’s many legal clouds | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]

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



    CNN
     — 

    Former President Donald Trump has been campaigning in between his many different court appearances for much of the year.

    But his decision to attend the first day of his $250 million civil fraud trial in New York created another opportunity to appear on camera from inside a courtroom when the judge allowed photographers to document the moment before proceedings got underway.

    Keeping track of the dizzying array of civil and criminal cases is a full-time job.

    He is charged with crimes related to conduct:

    • Before his presidency – a hush money scheme that may have helped him win the White House in 2016.
    • During his presidency – his effort to stay in the White House by overturning the 2020 election.
    • After his presidency – his treatment of classified material and alleged attempts to hide it from the National Archives.

    Trump denies any wrongdoing and has pleaded not guilty in all of the criminal cases. He alleges a “witch hunt” against him. But each trial has its own distinct storyline to follow.

    Here’s an updated list of developments in Trump’s very complicated set of court cases, beginning with the one playing out in Manhattan this week.

    The civil fraud trial, unlike Trump’s multiple criminal indictments, does not carry the danger of a felony conviction and jail time, but it could very well cost him some of his most prized possessions, including Trump Tower.

    New York Attorney General Letitia James brought the $250 million lawsuit in September 2022, alleging that Trump and his co-defendants committed repeated fraud in inflating assets on financial statements to get better terms on commercial real estate loans and insurance policies.

    Judge Arthur Engoron has already ruled that Trump and his adult sons are liable for fraud for inflating the value of his golf courses, hotels and homes on financial statements to secure loans.

    The trial portion of the case, playing out in court in Manhattan, will assess what damages will be levied against Trump and how Engoron’s decision to strip Trump of his New York business licenses will play out.

    In May, a federal jury in Manhattan found Trump sexually abused former advice columnist E. Jean Carroll in a luxury department store dressing room in the mid-1990s and awarded her about $5 million.

    A separate civil defamation lawsuit will only need to decide how much money Trump has to pay her. That case for January 15 – the same day Iowa Republicans will hold their caucuses, the first date on the presidential primary calendar.

    In August, Trump was indicted by a federal grand jury in special counsel Jack Smith’s investigation into the aftermath of the 2020 election. The former president was arraigned in a Washington, DC, courtroom, where he pleaded not guilty.

    The case is based in part on a scheme to create slates of fake electors in key states won by President Joe Biden.

    In late September, Judge Tanya Chutkan rejected Trump’s request that she recuse herself from the case. Chutkan, a Barack Obama appointee, has overseen civil and criminal cases related to the January 6, 2021, insurrection and has repeatedly exceeded what prosecutors have requested for convicted rioters’ prison sentences.

    Chutkan set the trial’s start date for March 4, 2024, the day before Super Tuesday, when the largest batch of presidential primaries will occur. The trial marks the first of Trump’s criminal cases expected to proceed.

    Trump has been charged in Manhattan criminal court with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to his role in a hush money payment scheme involving adult film actress Stormy Daniels late in the 2016 presidential campaign.

    The former president pleaded not guilty at his April arraignment in Manhattan.

    Prosecutors, led by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, accuse Trump of falsifying business records with the intent to conceal $130,000 in payments to Daniels made by former Trump attorney and fixer Michael Cohen to guarantee her silence about an alleged affair.

    Trump has denied having an affair with Daniels.

    The trial was originally scheduled to begin in late March 2024, but Judge Juan Merchan has suggested the date could move. The next court date is scheduled for February.

    Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis is using racketeering violations to charge a broad criminal conspiracy against Trump and 18 others in their efforts to overturn Biden’s victory in Georgia.

    The probe was launched in 2021 following Trump’s call that January with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, in which the president pushed the Republican official to “find” votes to overturn the election results.

    The August indictment also includes how Trump’s team allegedly misled state officials in Georgia; organized fake electors; harassed an election worker; and breached election equipment in rural Coffee County, Georgia.

    One co-defendant, bail bondsman Scott Hall, has pleaded guilty to five counts in the case.

    Fulton County prosecutors have signaled they could offer plea deals to other co-defendants.

    Willis this week issued a subpoena to former New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik, a Trump ally, who in turn demanded an immunity deal in exchange for testimony.

    Trial for two co-defendants is expected to begin this month and could last three to five months. A trial date has not been set for Trump, who has pleaded not guilty.

    Federal criminal court in Florida: Mishandling classified material

    Trump has pleaded not guilty to 37 federal charges brought by Smith over his alleged mishandling of classified documents. Smith added three additional counts in a superseding indictment.

    The investigation centers on sensitive documents that Trump brought to his Mar-a-Lago residence in Florida after his White House term ended in January 2021.

    The National Archives, charged with collecting and sorting presidential material, has previously said that at least 15 boxes of White House records were recovered from Mar-a-Lago, including some classified records.

    Trump was also caught on tape in a 2021 meeting in Bedminster, New Jersey, where the former president discussed holding secret documents he did not declassify.

    Smith’s additional charges allege that Trump and his employees attempted to delete Mar-a-Lago security footage sought by the grand jury investigating the mishandling of the records.

    Trial is not expected until May, after most presidential primaries have concluded.

    There are other cases to note:

    Trump’s namesake business, the Trump Organization, was convicted in December by a New York jury of tax fraud, grand larceny and falsifying business records in what prosecutors say was a 15-year scheme to defraud tax authorities by failing to report and pay taxes on compensation provided to employees.

    Manhattan prosecutors told a jury the case was about “greed and cheating,” laying out a scheme within the Trump Organization to pay high-level executives in perks such as luxury cars and apartments without paying taxes on them.

    Former Trump Organization Chief Financial Officer Allen Weisselberg pleaded guilty to his role in the tax scheme. He was released after serving four months in jail at Rikers Island.

    Several members of the US Capitol Police and Washington, DC, Metropolitan Police are suing Trump, saying his words and actions incited the 2021 riot.

    The various cases accuse Trump of directing assault and battery; aiding and abetting assault and battery; and violating Washington laws that prohibit the incitement of riots and disorderly conduct.

    In August, Trump requested to put on hold the lawsuit related to the death of Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick, citing his various criminal trials. The estate of Sicknick, who died after responding to the attack on the Capitol, is suing two rioters involved in the attack and Trump for his alleged role in egging it on.

    Other lawsuits have been put on hold while a federal appeals court considers whether Trump had absolute immunity as the sitting president.

    Former top FBI counterintelligence official Peter Strzok, who was fired in 2018 after the revelation that he criticized Trump in text messages, sued the Justice Department, alleging he was terminated improperly.

    In summer 2017, former special counsel Robert Mueller removed Strzok from his team investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election after an internal investigation revealed texts with former FBI lawyer Lisa Page that could be read as exhibiting political bias.

    Strzok and Page were constant targets of verbal attacks by Trump and his allies, part of the larger ire the then-president expressed toward the FBI during the Russia investigation. Trump repeatedly and publicly called for Strzok’s ouster until he was fired in August 2018.

    Trump is set to be deposed this month as part of the case, according to Politico.

    A federal judge dismissed Trump’s lawsuit against Hillary Clinton, the Democratic National Committee, several ex-FBI officials and more than two dozen other people and entities that he claims conspired to undermine his 2016 campaign with fabricated information tying him to Russia.

    “What (Trump’s lawsuit) lacks in substance and legal support it seeks to substitute with length, hyperbole, and the settling of scores and grievances,” US District Judge Donald Middlebrooks wrote.

    Trump appealed the decision, but Middlebrooks also ruled that the former president and his attorneys are liable for nearly $1 million in sanctions for bringing the case.

    Trump launched a Hail Mary bid in July to revive the sprawling lawsuit, relying on a recent report from special counsel John Durham that criticized the FBI’s Trump-Russia probe.

    Trump’s former lawyer Cohen sued Trump, former Attorney General William Barr and others, alleging they put him back in jail to prevent him from promoting his upcoming book while under home confinement.

    Cohen was serving the remainder of his sentence for lying to Congress and campaign violations at home, due to Covid-19 concerns, when he started an anti-Trump social media campaign in summer 2020. Cohen said that he was sent back to prison in retaliation and that he spent 16 days in solitary confinement.

    A federal judge threw out the lawsuit in November. District Judge Lewis Liman said he was empathetic to Cohen’s position but that Supreme Court precedent bars him from allowing the case to move forward.

    Trump sued journalist Bob Woodward in January for alleged copyright violations, claiming Woodward released audio from their interviews without Trump’s consent.

    Woodward and publisher Simon & Schuster said Trump’s case is without merit and moved for its dismissal.

    Woodward conducted several interviews with Trump for his book “Rage,” published in September 2020. Woodward later released “The Trump Tapes,” an audiobook featuring eight hours of raw interviews with Trump interspersed with the author’s commentary.

    Trump-filed lawsuits: The New York Times, Mary Trump and CNN

    The former president is suing his niece and The New York Times in New York state court over the disclosure of his tax information.

    A New York judge dismissed The New York Times from Trump’s lawsuit regarding disclosure of his tax returns and ordered Trump to pay the newspaper’s legal fees. Trump is still suing his niece Mary Trump for disclosure of the tax documents. She had tried to sue him for defrauding her out of millions after the death of his father, but the suit was dismissed.

    [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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • Liz Truss faces her party faithful after a disastrous week. Many Conservatives fear defeat looms at UK’s next election | CNN

    Liz Truss faces her party faithful after a disastrous week. Many Conservatives fear defeat looms at UK’s next election | CNN

    [ad_1]


    London
    CNN
     — 

    Liz Truss’ first full week as British Prime Minister has not been an easy one. It began with the pound crashing to its lowest level in decades following her government’s mini-budget last Friday. It ended with her meeting the UK’s independent financial forecaster and having to explain herself after a week of economic chaos.

    This weekend, she will travel to Birmingham to attend her Conservative party’s annual conference, a meeting that could become a defining moment in her premiership.

    Her party is bitterly divided. Since becoming leader, poll ratings have sunk lower than they were even under the disgraced leadership of Boris Johnson. 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.

    Even her supporters privately say that while they support her tax cuts, the communication has been appalling and fear that she might never recover from her disastrous start. Many are comparing it to Black Wednesday in 1992, when sterling crashed sufficiently that the UK had to pull out of the European Exchange Rate Mechanism. Then-Prime Minister John Major never recovered from the crisis and despite an economic recovery, lost the next election in 1997.

    For now, no one expects the government to reverse its policy. “They are stuck with this. The thing with radical policy that shakes market confidence is that U-turning creates even more instability and won’t restore market confidence,” says one Conservative MP.

    Beyond how a U-turn might look to those outside, the more important reason Truss is likely to stick to her guns is that she sincerely believes that her economic plan is the right thing for Britain. Her supporters argue that the UK has had anemic growth for years. They believe that a more competitive tax system and new regulatory system is the best way to encourage investment, create jobs and grow the economy.

    In itself, this is not a controversial idea. What some fear is that the combination of tax cuts and borrowing to fund public spending is a disastrous combination of policies that have been poorly communicated at the worst possible time.

    “We look like reckless gamblers who only care about the people who can afford to lose the gamble,” one former Conservative minister told CNN earlier this week. “My fear is that it’s the final role of the dice to win the next election that has already backfired.”

    The idea that this is a gamble, Truss’ kitchen sink moment, to do something drastic and win the next election, is shared by other Conservatives.

    However, they are concerned that these policies have been cooked up by politicians who spend too much time in Westminster talking to people who agree with them, but are alienated from what average voters are concerned about.

    “Ordinary people are seeing their mortgages go up at a rate that outstrips any government support for energy bills or money saved through tax cuts,” says another former minister. “The crazy thing is that Boris [Johnson] won an 80-seat majority with an electoral coalition that still exists today. Ripping up his government’s policies and reinventing the wheel just wasn’t necessary.”

    The mood going into Conservative Party conference is undeniably bleak. Not everyone thinks that the next election is already lost, but most think the current situation is a mess that needs sorting out very quickly.

    “They need to explain their fiscal rules, cut spending on white elephant projects and not look like they are doing everything so hastily,” says a Conservative MP who supported Truss’ leadership campaign.

    Another Truss ally says: “The problem with Liz and Kwasi [Kwarteng, the finance minister] is they are both very intelligent and think about six moves ahead of everyone else. They need to explain their actions more clearly and give people the time to understand what they are trying to do.”

    And her critics also believe there are ways of turning this around without losing face. “They could keep the policies but roll them out slowly. Kick some stuff into the long grass so there isn’t so much immediate impact.”

    There is also the real possibility that her plans work. Sterling could recover, the economy could grow against the odds and she might have some real wins to take into next election, which is still probably over two years away.

    The question Conservatives are asking is, does Truss have the political talent, both herself and in the team around her, to win over the public?

    Her team is full of young people who are undeniably skilled, but in some cases lack the experience you’d typically associate with people who work for the leader of a country, many Conservatives believe. There is also a sense that the third change in leaders in six years has burned through the talent.

    There is still time for Truss to turn things around. But she is losing support from her own side, and there is already speculation that Conservative MPs are thinking about ways to get rid of her, which is incredible just weeks into her premiership.

    The official opposition Labour Party held their conference earlier this week, and the mood was one of cautious optimism. Almost everyone there, from corporate PRs to party activists, felt this was a party on the verge of power.

    In the coming week, Truss needs to address her own party faithful and give them something to be optimistic about. If she doesn’t, the sense of inevitability that power is slipping away from the Conservatives could become a self-fulfilling prophecy that drives the party into the wilderness after over a decade at the top of British politics.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • US officials troubled by controversial UK tax cut plan | CNN Business

    US officials troubled by controversial UK tax cut plan | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    US officials are increasingly troubled by the United Kingdom’s proposal to slash taxes at a time of crushing inflation, a plan that has ignited turbulence in financial markets.

    UK Prime Minister Liz Truss’s tax-cut plan has drawn criticism from economists and investors and prompted the Bank of England to calm panicked markets with an emergency intervention on Wednesday.

    The Biden administration, including the Treasury Department, is concerned by the UK’s tax-cut plan, an administration official familiar with the matter told CNN Thursday.

    The risk for the United States is that any trouble on the other side of the Atlantic could spill over to the global financial system and world economy.

    US Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo criticized Truss’s plan Wednesday, pointing out that the British pound has “plummeted” since the proposal was unveiled.

    “The policy of cutting taxes, and simultaneously increasing spending, isn’t one that is going to fight inflation in the short term or put you in good stead for long-term economic growth,” Raimondo said in response to a question at an event held by The Hamilton Project at the Brookings Institution.

    Raimondo sought to contrast the UK’s approach with that of the Biden administration.

    “We’re pursuing a different strategy … We’re taking inflation seriously, letting the Federal Reserve do its job, watching deficit spending,” she said. “Investors, businesspeople want to see world leaders taking inflation very seriously. And it’s hard to see that out of this new government.”

    Biden officials have conveyed their worries about the UK plan through the International Monetary Fund, according to Bloomberg News, which previously reported on the concerns of US officials.

    The United States is the largest shareholder in the IMF, which issued a rare criticism of the UK plan this week and urged the country’s officials to “reevaluate” the tax cuts.

    “Given elevated inflation pressures in many countries, including the UK, we do not recommend large and untargeted fiscal packages at this juncture, as it is important that fiscal policy does not work at cross purposes to monetary policy,” an IMF spokesperson said earlier this week.

    Truss defended her tax plan, telling CNN’s Jake Tapper last week that her government is incentivizing businesses to invest and helping ordinary people with their taxes.

    Some US officials have been careful not to directly criticize their UK counterparts.

    US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen on Tuesday declined to comment directly on the UK economic plan, though she noted the UK is dealing with “significant inflation problems” — just like the United States.

    Asked if she is concerned about disorderly markets, Yellen said “markets are functioning well” and she hasn’t seen liquidity problems emerge.

    Yet the large swings in bond and currency markets raise questions about just how well markets are functioning.

    A day after Yellen’s comments, the Bank of England announced an emergency intervention. The central bank promised to buy UK government debt “on whatever scale is necessary” to prevent a bond market crash and ease “dysfunction” in financial markets.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The UK is gripped by an economic crisis of its own making | CNN Business

    The UK is gripped by an economic crisis of its own making | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    London
    CNN Business
     — 

    A week ago, the Bank of England took a stab in the dark. It raised interest rates by a relatively modest half a percentage point to tackle inflation. It couldn’t know the scale of the storm that was about to break.

    Less than 24 hours later, the government of new UK Prime Minister Liz Truss unveiled its plan for the biggest tax cuts in 50 years, going all out for economic growth but blowing a huge hole in the nation’s finances and its credibility with investors.

    The pound crashed to a record low against the US dollar on Monday after UK finance minister Kwasi Kwarteng doubled-down on his bet by hinting at more tax cuts to come without explaining how to pay for them. Bond prices collapsed, sending borrowing costs soaring, sparking mayhem in the mortgage market and pushing pension funds to the brink of insolvency.

    Financial markets were already in a febrile state because of the rising risk of a global recession and the gyrations caused by three outsized rate increases from a US central bank on the warpath against inflation. Into that “pressure cooker” stumbled the new UK government.

    “You need to have strong, credible policies, and any policy missteps are punished,” said Chris Turner, global head of markets at ING.

    After verbal assurances by the UK Treasury and Bank of England failed to calm the panic — and the International Monetary Fund delivered a rare rebuke — the UK central bank pulled out its bazooka, saying Wednesday it would print £65 billion ($70 billion) to buy government bonds between now and October 14 — essentially protecting the economy from the fallout of the Truss’ growth plan.

    “While this is welcome, the fact that it needed to be done in the first place shows that the UK markets are in a perilous position,” said Paul Dales, chief UK economist at Capital Economics, commenting on the bank’s intervention.

    The emergency first aid stopped the bleeding. Bond prices recovered sharply and the pound steadied Wednesday against the dollar. But the wound hasn’t healed.

    The pound tumbled 1%, falling back below $1.08 early Thursday. UK government bonds were under pressure again, with the yield on 10-year debt climbing to 4.16%. UK stocks fell 2%.

    “It wouldn’t be a huge surprise if another problem in the financial markets popped up before long,” Dales added.

    The next few weeks will be critical. Mohamed El-Erian, who once helped run the world’s biggest bond fund and now advises Allianz

    (ALIZF)
    , said that the central bank had bought some time but would need to act again quickly to restore stability.

    “The Band-Aid may stop the bleeding, but the infection and the bleeding will get worse if they do not do more,” he told CNN’s Julia Chatterley.

    The Bank of England should announce an emergency rate hike of a full percentage point before its next scheduled meeting on November 3. The UK government should also postpone its tax cuts, El-Erian said.

    “It is doable, the window is there, but if they wait too long, that window is going to close,” he added.

    The UK government has previewed rolling announcements in the coming weeks about how it plans to change immigration policy and make it easier to build big infrastructure and energy projects to boost growth, culminating in a budget on November 23 at which it has promised to publish a detailed plan for reducing debt over the medium term.

    But it shows no sign of backing away from the fundamental policy choice of borrowing heavily to fund tax cuts that will mainly benefit the rich at a time of high inflation. And the UK Treasury says it won’t bring forward the November announcement.

    Truss, speaking publicly for the first time since the crisis erupted, blamed global market turmoil and the energy price shock from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine for this week’s chaos.

    “This is the right plan that we’ve set out,” she told local radio on Thursday.

    One big problem identified by investors, former central bankers and many leading economists is that her government only set out half a plan at best. It went ahead without an independent assessment from the country’s budget watchdog of the assumptions underlying the £45 billion ($48 billion) annual tax cuts, and their longer term impact on the economy. It fired the top Treasury civil servant earlier this month.

    Charlie Bean, former deputy governor at the Bank of England, told CNN Business that the government was guilty of “really stupid” decisions. His former boss at the bank, Mark Carney, accused the government of “undercutting” UK economic institutions, saying that had contributed to the “big knock” suffered by the country’s financial system this week.

    “This is an economic crisis. It is a crisis… that can be addressed by policymakers if they choose to address it,” he told the BBC.

    British newspapers have started to speculate that Truss will have to fire Kwarteng, her close friend and political soulmate, if she wants to regain the political initiative and prevent her government’s dire poll ratings from plunging even further.

    “Every single problem we have now is self-inflicted. We look like reckless gamblers who only care about the people who can afford to lose the gamble,” one former Conservative minister told CNN.

    But for now she’s trying to tough it out, and cling onto the Reaganite experiment.

    “Raising, postponing, or abandoning tax cuts will be avoided by Truss at all costs as such a reversal would be humiliating and could leave her looking like a lame duck prime minister,” wrote Mujtaba Rahman and Jens Larson at political risk consultancy Eurasia Group.

    The only alternative left to balance the books would be to slash government spending, and that would prove equally politically difficult as the country enters a recession with its public services under enormous strain and a restive workforce that has shown it’s ready to strike in large numbers over pay.

    “Truss and Kwarteng are now facing a severe economic crisis as the world’s financial markets wait for them to make policy changes that they and the Conservative party will find unpalatable,” the Eurasia analysts wrote.

    The foreign investors who keep the British economy solvent are left scratching their heads for another eight weeks, leaving plenty of time for doubts to surface again about the UK government’s commitment to responsible fiscal policymaking.

    “The message of financial markets is that there is a limit to unfunded spending and unfunded tax cuts in this environment and the price of those is much higher borrowing costs,” Carney said.

    That leaves the Bank of England in a tight spot. A week ago it was pressing the brakes on the economy to take the heat out of price increases, even as the government tried to juice growth. The task got even harder this week when it was forced to dust off its crisis playbook and bail out the government.

    It may not be long before it has to intervene again, this time with an emergency rate hike.

    “[Wednesday’s] intervention is designed to stabilize UK government bond prices, keep the bond market liquid and prevent financial instability but that won’t necessarily stop sterling falling further, with its attendant inflationary consequences,” Bean, the former central banker, told CNN Business.

    “I think there is still a good chance they will need to act ahead of the November meeting,” he added.

    — Julia Horowitz, Luke McGee, Anna Cooban, Rob North, Livvy Doherty and Morgan Povey contributed to this article.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • White House seeks to tackle food insecurity at first hunger conference since 1969 | CNN Politics

    White House seeks to tackle food insecurity at first hunger conference since 1969 | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Groceries cost 13.5% more than they did a year ago. Nearly 25 million adults live in households where there isn’t always enough to eat. Some 40% of food banks saw increased demand this summer.

    At a time when the affordability of food is in the spotlight, the Biden administration is hosting a White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition and Health on Wednesday with the goal of combating food insecurity and diet-related diseases.

    Overall, food insecurity has declined since former President Richard Nixon convened the first and only White House conference on food, nutrition and health in 1969, which led to nationwide expansions of the food stamp and school meals programs and the creation of the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, known as WIC, among other changes. General economic growth and the reduction in poverty have also contributed to the improvements in food security in recent decades.

    However, the Covid-19 pandemic and soaring inflation have increased the attention paid to food insecurity in the US over the past two years. The Biden administration released a 44-page playbook on Tuesday aimed at the “bold goal” of ending hunger by 2030 and increasing healthy eating and physical activity to reduce diet-related diseases.

    Among the key proposals: expand free school meals to 9 million more children by 2032; allow more people to qualify for food stamps; broaden the Summer Expanded Benefit Transfer program to more kids; increase funding for nutrition programs for senior citizens; and improve transportation to and from grocery stores and farmer’s markets, among other initiatives. Many of the efforts would need approval from Congress.

    President Joe Biden announced at the conference more than $8 billion in private and public sector commitments as part of the administration’s call to action.

    “In America, no child, no child should go to bed hungry,” Biden told those gathered at the conference Wednesday. “No parent should die of disease that can be prevented.”

    More than 100 organizations have made commitments, including hospitals and health care associations, tech companies, philanthropies and the food industry.

    At least $2.5 billion will be invested in start-up companies that are focused on solutions to hunger and food insecurity, according to the White House. More than $4 billion will be dedicated toward philanthropic efforts to improve access to nutritious food, promote healthy choices and increase physical activity.

    The President also urged Congress to make permanent the enhancement to the child tax credit, which was only in effect last year. Parents used the additional monthly funds to buy food and basic necessities, which Biden said helped cut child poverty in half and reduced food insecurity for families by 26%.

    Congress has poured billions into special pandemic assistance programs aimed at enabling struggling Americans to have enough food to feed themselves and their families – even as millions of jobs were lost in 2020.

    “That’s why it’s so consequential that at the onset of the Covid-19 recession, the combination of fiscal support to households – whether it is from the economic impact payments, unemployment insurance, refundable tax credits, enhanced SNAP benefits or pandemic EBT – all combined to prevent an increase in food insecurity over the past two years,” said Lauren Bauer, a fellow in economic studies at the Brookings Institution.

    The pandemic aid, particularly a temporary enhancement to the child tax credit, helped keep kids fed last year, Bauer and anti-hunger advocates maintain.

    Food insecurity among children fell in 2021, reversing a spike during the first year of the pandemic, according to a recent US Department of Agriculture report. Some 6.2% of households with children were unable at times to provide adequate, nutritious food for their kids last year, compared with 7.6% in 2020, the report found. Last year’s rate was not significantly different than the 2019 share.

    And the prevalence of food insecurity in the families who have kids dropped to 12.5% last year, the lowest since at least 1998, the earliest year that comparable records exist.

    But elderly Americans living alone and childless households both experienced an increase in food insecurity last year, the report found.

    Overall, the share of households contending with food insecurity remained statistically the same in 2021 as the year before.

    This lack of improvement in general food insecurity despite the surge in federal spending on food stamps, formally known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP, is a red flag for Angela Rachidi, senior fellow in poverty studies at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank.

    “When the solution is always ‘let’s just spend more on SNAP or spend more on school lunch or WIC,’ I think that that’s not always the best use of federal dollars,” she said.

    Rachidi would like to see more of an emphasis on nutrition and healthy eating, which are among the pillars of the White House conference.

    “Many more people in the US die from diet-related disease than die from hunger,” she said, noting the health problems caused by obesity, diabetes and other conditions.

    The pandemic aid that helped keep Americans afloat has largely been exhausted, and Congress has shown little appetite to dole out more assistance – even as high inflation is squeezing many families.

    The share of people who say they live in households where there was either sometimes or often not enough to eat in the last seven days has climbed to 11.5%, according to the most recent US Census Bureau Household Pulse Survey conducted in late July and early August.

    That’s up from the 10.2% recorded by the survey in late December and early January, just after the final monthly child tax credit payment was distributed. The share had been even lower in the late summer and early fall of 2021, when the monthly installments were being sent.

    Meanwhile, shopping in the supermarket is taking a bigger bite out of people’s wallets. Egg prices have skyrocketed nearly 40% over the past year, while flour is 23% costlier. Milk and bread are up 17% and 16% respectively, while chicken is nearly 17% more expensive.

    Starting next month, it will be a little easier for those in the food stamp program to afford groceries because the annual inflation adjustment will kick in. Beneficiaries will see an increase in benefits of 12%, or an average of $26 per person, per month. This comes on top of last year’s revision to the Thrifty Food Plan, upon which benefits are based, which raised the average monthly payment by $36 per person.

    Still, the upward march in prices has driven more people to food pantries, which are also struggling to stock the shelves amid higher prices.

    Some 40% of food banks reported seeing an increase in the number of people served in July compared with June, according to a survey conducted by Feeding America, which has more than 60,000 food pantries, meal programs and partner agencies in its network. The average increase was about 10% more people. Another 40% said demand remained about level.

    Many food pantries don’t have the resources to meet this increased demand, said Claire Babineaux-Fontenot, Feeding America’s CEO, noting that she’s seen sites with nearly empty shelves but long lines out the door.

    The network provided 1.4 billion fewer meals in the fiscal year ending June 30 than the year before.

    The USDA announced earlier this month that it will provide nearly $1.5 billion in additional funding for emergency food assistance, which will help alleviate the supply shortages at food banks and pantries.

    However, Feeding America feels more should be done. It recently surveyed nearly 36,000 people for their recommendations to end hunger. Many felt that food stamp benefits should be increased and eligibility should be expanded. Nearly half felt their communities need more food pantries, grocery stores and fresh food.

    The recent infusion of federal funds will help pantries distribute more food, though it doesn’t completely close the gap. And it will take time for the supplies to arrive, Babineaux-Fontenot said.

    “Today, people are going to be looking for ways to feed themselves and their family, and there will be scarce resources for them to do that,” she said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Fixing Social Security involves hard choices | CNN Politics

    Fixing Social Security involves hard choices | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    There’s a reason why politicians have long shied away from addressing Social Security’s massive financial problems. The commonly proposed solutions involve cutting benefits or raising taxes, which would spark an outcry from a range of powerful constituents, including senior citizens and the business community.

    The situation, however, is only growing more critical. The combined Social Security trust funds are projected to run dry in 2034, according to the latest annual report from the entitlement program’s trustees that was released last week. At that time, the funds’ reserves will be depleted, and the program’s continuing income will only cover 80% of benefits owed.

    The estimate is one year earlier than the trustees projected last year.

    About 66 million Americans received Social Security benefits in 2022. It’s a vital lifeline for many of them. Some 42% of elderly women and 37% of elderly men rely on the monthly payments for at least half their income, according to the Social Security Administration.

    Though congressional Republicans’ drive to cut spending amid debt ceiling negotiations this year has prompted renewed interest in the entitlement’s finances, little is likely to happen, experts say. The insolvency date is still too far in the future.

    The last time Congress enacted a major overhaul, in 1983, Social Security was only months away from being able to pay full benefits. At that time, Democratic lawmakers who controlled the House agreed with Senate Republicans and then-GOP President Ronald Reagan to increase payroll taxes and gradually raise the full retirement age from 65 to 67, among other reforms.

    While President Joe Biden has promised to strengthen Social Security and defend it from any cuts by Republicans, he has yet to lay out a concrete vision for protecting the program. It was not included in his annual budget proposal this year, though he did suggest a financial fix for Medicare, which is facing its own solvency issues.

    Asked about the president’s plan, the White House said that the budget “clearly states his principles for strengthening Social Security.”

    “He looks forward to working with Congress to responsibly strengthen Social Security by ensuring that high-income individuals pay their fair share, without increasing taxes on anyone making less than $400,000,” said Robyn Patterson, assistant press secretary at the White House.

    A multitude of proposals have been floated over the years to address Social Security’s shortfall, many of which have multiple measures.

    Several options focus on saving the entitlement program money, though left-leaning advocates and senior citizen groups are quick to point out that these moves are actually benefit cuts that they would strenuously oppose.

    One common proposal is raising the retirement age. Currently, Americans can start collecting Social Security benefits at 62, though doing so would reduce their lifetime payments by as much as 30%.

    The full retirement age, which had been 65 for much of the program’s existence, is slowly rising to 67 for Americans born in 1960 or later.

    Some policymakers advocate for raising the full retirement age to 70 for future retirees, bringing it more in line with changes in life expectancy. That would mean those retiring earlier than that would get smaller monthly checks than under current law.

    Doing so could wipe out about a third of the Social Security trust fund’s 75-year deficit.

    Last year, the conservative Republican Study Committee released a budget plan that called for raising the full retirement age for future retirees at a rate of three months per year until it is increased to 70 for those born in 1978. It would then link the retirement age to future increases in life expectancy, as well as adjust the number of working years included in benefit calculations to 40 years, up from 35 years.

    Other options include reducing benefits for higher-income Americans, which was also included in the Republican Study Committee’s budget plan.

    New retirees’ Social Security benefits are one-third higher today than they were for folks who retired 20 years ago, even after accounting for inflation, according to Andrew Biggs, senior fellow at the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute. Plus, the maximum Social Security benefit in the US is two to three times higher than the maximum retirement benefit in Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand.

    Biggs supports placing a cap on the maximum benefit that the highest-earning retirees can receive. The maximum benefit this year is about $43,000 and will rise to $59,000 by 2050, he said. Though such a cap would only solve about 10% to 15% of the long-term solvency gap, Biggs argues it’s one step, and it only affects those who he says don’t depend on the benefits.

    “We’re going way, way beyond a pure safety net program,” Biggs said at a recent webinar hosted by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a government watchdog group. “Here we’re looking at a retirement program for middle income and upper income people.”

    Other suggestions that have been floated include changing the formulas that determine the benefits Americans get upon retirement or the annual cost-of-living adjustment retirees receive to slow the growth of payments.

    The main way to bring more money into the Social Security system is to increase the amount of payroll taxes collected.

    A proposal popular among Democrats and left-leaning experts is to lift the wage cap so that higher-income earners have to shell out more in payroll taxes.

    The Social Security tax rate of 6.2% is levied on both employers and employees, for a total rate of 12.4%. However, in 2023, it’s only applied to annual wages of up to $160,200. (By contrast, Medicare’s 2.9% total payroll tax rate is applied to all wages, and higher-income Americans are subject to an additional 0.9% Medicare tax.)

    When payroll taxes for Social Security were first collected in 1937, about 92% of earnings from jobs covered by the program were subject to the payroll tax, according to the Congressional Budget Office. By 2020, that figure had fallen to about 83% as income inequality has increased.

    Several congressional Democrats have floated proposals to raise the amount of wages subject to the payroll tax. Rep. John Larson of Connecticut wants to apply the payroll tax to wages above $400,000, which he says would extend the program’s solvency by nine years.

    Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent, and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat, introduced a bill earlier this year that would make multiple changes to Social Security, including subjecting all income above $250,000 to the payroll tax and applying it to investment and business income. They say their reforms would extend the entitlement’s solvency for 75 years.

    But changing the wage cap could also alter the fundamental design of Social Security, in which retirees’ benefits are tied to the amount of taxes they paid into the system while working.

    For instance, the proposal from Sanders and Warren would not credit the additional taxed earnings toward benefits. That would increase the beneficial impact on solvency but would also raise resistance among some advocates who believe the link between taxes and benefits should be maintained.

    Another option is raising the payroll tax rate. Increasing it to a total of 16% would just about assure 75 years of solvency, said Marc Goldwein, senior policy director for the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

    Most lawmakers, however, would not find that type of tax hike very palatable, particularly not Republicans who control the House.

    While experts disagree on the best way to address Social Security’s shortfall, one thing they are generally united on is that waiting will only result in having to employ harsher solutions. But that isn’t spurring elected officials to action.

    “Nobody’s acting as if that’s something they’ve got to take seriously,” Biggs said. “So I’ll just be honest and say I’m worried about how this thing plays out.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Tax prep companies shared private taxpayer data with Google and Meta for years, congressional probe finds | CNN Business

    Tax prep companies shared private taxpayer data with Google and Meta for years, congressional probe finds | CNN Business

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Some of America’s largest tax-prep companies have spent years sharing Americans’ sensitive financial data with tech titans including Meta and Google in a potential violation of federal law — data that in some cases was misused for targeted advertising, according to a seven-month congressional investigation.

    The report highlights what legal experts described to CNN as a “five-alarm fire” for taxpayer privacy that could lead to government and private lawsuits, criminal penalties or perhaps even a “mortal blow” for some industry giants involved in the probe including TaxSlayer, H&R Block and TaxAct.

    Using visitor tracking technology embedded on their websites, the three tax-prep companies allegedly sent tens of millions of Americans’ personal information to the tech industry without consent or appropriate disclosures, according to the congressional report reviewed by CNN.

    Beyond ordinary personal data such as people’s names, phone numbers and email addresses, the list of information shared also included taxpayer data — details about people’s filing status, adjusted gross income, the size of their tax refunds and even information about the buttons and text fields they clicked on while filling out their tax forms, which could reveal what tax breaks they may have claimed or which government programs they use, according to the report.

    The report, which drew on congressional interviews and written testimony from Meta, Google and the tax-prep companies, also found that every taxpayer who used TaxAct’s IRS Free File service while the tracking was enabled would have had their information shared with the tech companies. Some of the tax-prep companies still do not know whether the data they shared continues to be held by the tech platforms, the report said.

    “On a scale from one to 10, this is a 15,” said David Vladeck, a law professor at Georgetown University and a former consumer protection chief at the Federal Trade Commission, the country’s top privacy watchdog. “This is as great as any privacy breach that I’ve seen other than exploiting kids. This is a five-alarm fire, if what we know about this so far is true.”

    It is also an example, Vladeck said, of why the United States needs federal legislation guaranteeing every American a basic right to data privacy — an issue that has languished in Congress for years despite electronic data becoming an ever-larger part of the global economy.

    The congressional findings represent the latest claims of wrongdoing to hit the embattled tax-prep industry after a report last year by the investigative journalism outlet The Markup highlighted the tracking practice.

    Wednesday’s bombshell report adds to those earlier revelations by identifying a previously unreported category of data that was allegedly being collected and shared: the webpage titles in online tax software that can reveal what tax forms users have accessed, said an aide to Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who helped lead the congressional probe. For example, taxpayers who entered information about their college savings contributions or rental income may have done so on webpages bearing titles reflecting that information, which would then have been shared with the tech companies, the aide said.

    During the probe, Meta told investigators it used the taxpayer data it received to target third-party ads to users of its platform and to train its artificial intelligence algorithms, the report said. The Warren aide told CNN it was unclear whether Meta knew it was inappropriately using taxpayer data at the time. A Meta spokesperson said the company instructs its partners not to use its tools to share sensitive information and that Meta’s systems are “designed to filter out potentially sensitive data it is able to detect.”

    The technology behind the data collection, known as a tracking pixel, is commonly used across the entire internet. A small snippet of code that website owners can insert onto their sites, tracking pixels gather information that can help companies, including but not limited to Meta and Google, understand the behavior or interests of website visitors.

    Because of the tracking technology used by TaxAct, TaxSlayer and H&R Block, “every single taxpayer who used their websites to file their taxes could have had at least some of their data shared,” the report said.

    The tax-prep companies at the center of the investigation told lawmakers the collected data had been scrambled to help protect privacy, according to the report. But the report also said some of the tax-prep firms themselves were not fully aware of how much information was being exposed to the tech platforms, and the report cited past FTC research concluding that even “anonymized” data can be easily reverse-engineered to identify a person.

    The pixels’ use in a taxpayer context resulted in the “reckless” sharing of legally protected data that could put taxpayers at risk, according to the report by Warren and her Democratic colleagues Sens. Ron Wyden; Richard Blumenthal; Tammy Duckworth; and Sheldon Whitehouse; Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent who caucuses with Democrats; and Democratic Rep. Katie Porter.

    The FTC, the Internal Revenue Service, the Justice Department and the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration “should fully investigate this matter and prosecute any company or individuals who violated the law,” the lawmakers wrote in a letter dated Tuesday to the agencies and obtained by CNN. The FTC and DOJ declined to comment; the IRS and TIGTA didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

    In a statement, H&R Block said it takes client privacy “very seriously, and we have taken steps to prevent the sharing of information via pixels.” Wednesday’s report said H&R Block had testified to using the tracking technology for “at least a couple of years.”

    TaxAct and TaxSlayer didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. The report said TaxAct had been using Meta’s tools since 2018 and Google’s since about 2014, while TaxSlayer began using Meta’s tools in 2018 and Google’s in 2011. The investigation found that all three tax-prep companies had discontinued their use of Meta’s pixel after The Markup’s report last November.

    Intuit, the maker of TurboTax, received an initial inquiry letter from the lawmakers in December but was not a focus of Wednesday’s report because the company did not use tracking pixels to the same extent, the investigation found.

    Tax preparation firms have faced mounting scrutiny in recent years amid reports that many have turned to data harvesting as a business model and that the largest among them have spent millions lobbying against legislation that could make it easier for Americans to file their tax returns. An IRS report this year found that 72% of Americans would be interested in using a free, electronic tax filing service if it were provided by the agency as an alternative to private online filing services. The IRS plans to launch a pilot version of that service to a limited number of taxpayers in the 2024 tax filing season.

    Google told CNN it prohibits business customers from uploading to its platform sensitive data that could be traced back to a person.

    “We have strict policies and technical features that prohibit Google Analytics customers from collecting data that could be used to identify an individual,” a Google spokesperson said. “Site owners — not Google — are in control of what information they collect and must inform their users of how it will be used. Additionally, Google has strict policies against advertising to people based on sensitive information.”

    Wednesday’s report focuses more heavily on Meta’s use of taxpayer data, the Warren aide told CNN, because Google did not appear to have used the information for its own commercial purposes as overtly as Meta and the investigation was unable to fully determine whether Google may have used the data for other applications.

    The allegations could nevertheless create extensive legal risk for both the tech companies as well as the tax-preparation firms, according to tax and privacy legal experts.

    The tax-prep companies could face billions in fines under US tax law if the federal government decides to sue, said Steven Rosenthal, a senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. In addition, the US government could seek criminal penalties.

    “The scope of ‘taxpayer information’ is broad by design,” Rosenthal said, adding that tax-prep companies can be sued for “knowingly” or “recklessly” leaking that information. “The companies shouldn’t be sharing it in a way that some third party could obtain it.”

    Theoretically, he said, the tax code also affords individual taxpayers the right to file private lawsuits against the tax-prep companies. But most if not all of those firms require customers to submit to mandatory arbitration that could realistically make bringing a private claim more challenging, said the Warren aide.

    Apart from the tax code, both the tech giants as well as the tax-prep firms could also face civil liability from the FTC — which can police data breaches and hold companies accountable for their commitments to user privacy — and potentially from state governments that have their own privacy laws on the books, said Vladeck.

    Depending on the strength of the allegations, the tax-prep companies could quickly be forced into a binding settlement, said a former FTC official who requested anonymity in order to speak more freely.

    “If the facts are really strong, these companies would probably rather settle than go to court. This is very embarrassing,” the former official said. “It could be a mortal blow to the tax prep companies.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Manchin rails against Biden’s clean energy plans as he faces tough political headwinds in West Virginia | CNN Politics

    Manchin rails against Biden’s clean energy plans as he faces tough political headwinds in West Virginia | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    West Virginia political observers were not surprised when Sen. Joe Manchin appeared on Fox News on Monday to make a stunning threat: He could be persuaded to vote to repeal his own bill, the Inflation Reduction Act, if the Biden administration pushed him far enough.

    The conservative Democratic senator reiterated this to CNN, saying he would “look for every opportunity to repeal my own bill” if the administration continued to use the IRA to steer the US quickly towards the clean energy transition and away from fossil fuels.

    The IRA, passed and signed into law last year, was a sweeping $750 billion bill that lowered prescription drug costs, raised taxes on large corporations, and invested $370 billion into new tax credits for cleaner energy. Even though Manchin carved out space for fossil fuels, the bill represents by far the biggest climate investment in US history.

    From the start, Manchin has insisted the IRA was an “energy security bill,” rather than a clean-energy bill. Still, experts said he must be sensitive to the idea that he ushered in what ended up being the nation’s largest climate law, given he represents West Virginia – a state where coal and natural gas reign supreme.

    Manchin’s repeal threat “was probably good politics,” West Virginia University political science professor Sam Workman told CNN. If he decides to seek reelection in 2024, the 75-year-old senator will face his toughest political fight yet, as popular West Virginia Republican Gov. Jim Justice jumped into the race this week.

    Justice’s bid for the seat “doesn’t change anything at all,” Manchin told CNN. But political experts from his home state see a man who is gearing up for a fight.

    Since delivering President Joe Biden one of his biggest legislative wins with the IRA last summer, Manchin has spent the last few months on a rampage against the administration, homing in on what he calls its “radical climate agenda.” Manchin has voted against Biden’s nominees for high-ranking administration positions, bashed new rules from the Environmental Protection Agency and Treasury Department and clashed with members of the president’s cabinet at Senate hearings.

    Manchin’s appearance on Fox to slam Biden and threaten to repeal the law he had an outsized role in writing “is a pretty good indicator to me that he’s running,” said John Kilwein, chair of West Virginia University’s political science department.

    Manchin has been silent on whether he’ll run for reelection, but as Justice announced his candidacy, Manchin expressed confidence. “Make no mistake, I will win any race I enter,” he said in a statement.

    The Democrat beat his Republican challenger by just three percentage points in 2018. And though Justice still must get through a primary against Republican Rep. Alex Mooney, the governor is already backed by Senate Republicans’ electoral arm and many in the state think he will present a serious challenge to Manchin.

    “Justice is a likable candidate – he takes that ‘aw shucks’ thing to the next level,” Kilwein said. “This is going to be [Manchin’s] toughest fight, but I think anyone who thinks this is going to be a piece of cake is wrong. I don’t think he’s going to be easy to beat.”

    Manchin is “in danger” politically, his Democratic colleague Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut told CNN.

    “Joe Manchin is the last remaining statewide elected Democrat [in West Virginia], and we want [him] back in the United States Senate,” Blumenthal said, adding Manchin was a “pillar of strength to Democrats in the last session.”

    Justice made little mention of Manchin during his official campaign launch but came out swinging against Biden and his agenda. On Friday, Justice told Fox News that Manchin “would be a formidable opponent” if he runs for reelection, but added that he’s “done some things that have really alienated an awful lot of West Virginians.”

    There is no denying that West Virginia is incredibly conservative; the state went nearly 40 percentage points for Trump in the 2020 election. But even with those fundamentals, political experts said Manchin has had tremendous staying power through retail politics and argue he can deliver for the state while standing up to Biden.

    “His whole appeal is a retail appeal; every blueberry festival, huckleberry festival, Joe Manchin’s there,” former West Virginia political science professor Patrick Hickey told CNN. “He’s a really smart and talented politician. He gets all the benefits that come from supporting (the IRA), but the next time he’s in West Virginia, he’ll be in a diner telling voters how terrible Biden is.”

    Behind the political rhetoric, the Inflation Reduction Act’s energy provisions could be a windfall for West Virginia, and Manchin is walking a tightrope in his messaging around the law.

    Despite blasting the Biden administration, Manchin has spent the past few months at home touting the benefits of the IRA and jobs it is already bringing to the state.

    Several major clean energy companies have invested hundreds of millions of dollars to build new manufacturing plants in the state: a battery factory, a new industrial facility totally powered by renewable energy, and a plant to make electric school buses.

    “The way Manchin talked about those, he’s crediting the IRA and saying, ‘see, these are the good things that have happened,’” said Angie Rosser, executive director of environmental group West Virginia Rivers. “Those are hundreds of jobs reaching into the thousands, which for our small state is a big, big deal.”

    The John E. Amos coal-fired power plant in Poca, West Virginia. Fossil fuel energy is still a mainstay in state.

    Rosser and others pointed out that Manchin designed the IRA specifically to deliver money to West Virginia, designing tax credits to incentivize more manufacturing in coal country and funding to help these communities during the transition to clean energy.

    Morgan King, a staff member of West Virginia Rivers, has been traveling across the state recently to talk to local officials about how they can apply for federal IRA funding. The response has been overwhelmingly positive, King told CNN.

    “We’ve spoken with people of all parties,” she said. “People don’t care [about] the politics of how this bill was created so long as this funding can make it into their communities. West Virginia is set to disproportionately benefit from this bill more than any other state.”

    Manchin has been at odds with the Biden administration on several fronts, but the administration’s climate policies and implementation of the Inflation Reduction Act seem to have struck a particular nerve – and Republicans have continued to heavily criticize the law.

    A political ad from Republican dark money group One Nation is already circulating in the state, claiming that the IRA would kill 100,000 jobs in West Virginia.

    “The notion that this is just a climate bill … it is damaging here in the state because we’re pretty far to the right on these issues, especially energy issues,” Workman said. “When you sell something as a climate bill, given the economic context here and our history, it’s somewhat harder for people to see indirect benefits like jobs.”

    Manchin recently voted alongside Republicans on Congressional Review Act bills to undo EPA emissions rules for heavy-duty trucks as well as a climate-focused Labor Department rule (Biden has already vetoed one and promised to veto the other). In March, Manchin tanked top Interior Department nominee Laura Daniel-Davis, claiming she wasn’t upholding a part of the IRA that mandates offshore oil drilling in certain federal waters.

    The dynamic has put Senate Democrats in a tough spot. Democrats have a slightly expanded Senate majority after the midterms, but the continued absence of California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who has been away from Washington as she recovers from shingles, has made for nailbiter votes.

    “He’s one of the most independent US senators out there,” Democratic Sen. Brian Schatz of Hawaii told CNN. “When he is frustrated, he’s not going to be shy about it. And right now, he’s obviously extremely frustrated with the administration, and that has to get sorted.”

    Manchin has also spent the last few months lobbing a steady stream of blistering statements aimed at Biden’s agencies. When the Environmental Protection Agency proposed strong new vehicle emissions regulations intended to push the US auto market towards electric vehicles in the next decade, Manchin said the agency was “lying to Americans” and called the regulations “radical” and “dangerous.”

    And when the Treasury Department issued guidance on IRA’s new EV tax credits – which were written by Manchin – the senator called it “horrific” and said it “completely ignores the intent” of his law.

    Some of his Democratic colleagues have panned his comments about repealing the IRA.

    “Maybe he should run for president,” Democratic Sen. Martin Heinrich of New Mexico told CNN. “He’s got one job; the president’s got another. The IRA is working.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Debt default could occur in early June, forecasters say, backing Yellen | CNN Politics

    Debt default could occur in early June, forecasters say, backing Yellen | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Two new analyses are backing Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen’s forecast that the nation could default on its debt – and unleash economic chaos – as soon as early June if Congress doesn’t act.

    The projections, which are roughly in line with those issued last week by Yellen and the Congressional Budget Office, add to the pressure on House Republicans and President Joe Biden, who may have only a few weeks to hammer out their vast differences over addressing the debt ceiling. Biden is meeting with congressional leaders Tuesday to work on a deal, the first movement in months.

    A weaker-than-expected tax season, spurred in part by disaster-related filing extensions for much of California and parts of Alabama and Georgia, has increased the odds that Treasury won’t have enough funds to pay the federal government’s bills in early June, according to an updated estimate released Tuesday by the Bipartisan Policy Center.

    “The coming weeks are critical for assessing the strength of government cash flows,” said Shai Akabas, the center’s director of economic policy. “If a solution is not reached before June, policymakers may be playing daily Russian roulette with the full faith and credit of the United States, risking financial disaster for their constituents and the country.”

    The so-called X-date, when the US could default, could arrive between early June and early August, according to the center. In February, it projected the default could take place during the summer or early fall.

    Meanwhile, Moody’s Analytics last week pegged the default date at June 8, significantly earlier than its prior projection of August 18. But the X-date could hit as soon as June 1 or as late as early August, according to that analysis.

    Cumulative income tax receipts are tracking more than 30% below collections a year ago, in part because of weaker capital gains revenue as a result of last year’s stock market declines, Moody’s said.

    Tax receipts are running $150 billion below government projections for fiscal year 2023, which began in October, according to a report issued Monday by the Penn Wharton Budget Model, an independent research organization. This is due mainly to a drop in capital gains income and weakening corporate profit margins.

    In Yellen’s letter to House Speaker Kevin McCarthy last week, she said the exact date of default is impossible to pinpoint since the amount of revenue the federal government collects and the amount it spends is variable. She noted it could come as early as June 1 but could be a number of weeks later.

    Even if the Treasury Department doesn’t completely run out of funds, it could be difficult for the agency to manage its payments and stay below the debt ceiling when it only has a tiny cash balance, Akabas said. How much revenue the agency collects in the next three weeks is critical to whether the nation will default next month.

    “Treasury is skating on very thin ice in the month of June. If it’s $10, $20, $30, $40 billion below what we anticipate, that means that they’re really going to be in a crunch situation,” he said of revenue.

    Unable to keep borrowing to pay the nation’s obligations, the Treasury Department has been using cash and “extraordinary measures” to avoid default since the US hit its $31.4 trillion debt ceiling in January.

    If government collections wind up being enough to keep Treasury’s coffers flush through early June, then it’s likely the government won’t default until later in the summer. The agency will get another injection of funds from second quarter estimated tax payments, which are due June 15, and from an extraordinary measure that becomes available at the end of that month.

    Investors are growing skittish about the debt ceiling impasse and a potential default.

    Last week, the Treasury Department sold $50 billion of four-week securities scheduled to mature on June 6 at a record 5.84%, the highest yield for any Treasury Department bill auction since 2000, Akabas noted.

    “Even now, the looming deadline is raising costs to the government and therefore, to all taxpayers,” he said.

    If the government was to default for the first time, it would trigger an economic meltdown in the US and send shock waves through the global financial system.

    If the default lasts for about a week, then close to 1 million jobs would be lost, including in the financial sector, which would be hard hit by the stock market declines, according to Moody’s. Also, the unemployment rate would jump to about 5% and the economy would contract by nearly half a percent.

    But if the impasse dragged on for six weeks, then more than 7 million jobs would be lost, the unemployment rate would soar above 8% and the economy would decline by more than 4%, according to Moody’s. The effects would still be felt a decade from now.

    [ad_2]

    Source link