[ad_1]
Social Security’s pending insolvency grabbed attention at the Republican presidential debate Wednesday night, with some candidates saying they would be willing to raise the full retirement age for young people just starting out.
“We have to raise the retirement age,” said former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie. “I have a son who’s in the audience tonight, who’s 30 years old. If he can’t adjust to a few years increase in Social Security retirement age over the next 40 years, I got bigger problems with him than his Social Security payments.”
Also see: ‘Rich people should not be collecting Social Security,’ Chris Christie says at GOP debate
Nikki Haley, the former South Carolina governor, said promises to current older adults must be kept, but young people just starting out should see higher retirement ages.
“What we need to do is keep our promises, those that have been promised should keep it,” Haley said. “But for like, my kids in their 20s, you go and you say ‘We’re going to change the rules.’ You change the retirement age for them.”
Currently, the full retirement age is 67 for those born in 1960 or later.
Read: Social Security is now projected to be unable to pay full benefits a year earlier than expected
Haley declined to cite a specific age that retirement should be raised to, but said it should reflect longer life expectancy.
Sen. Tim Scott, however, said he would protect Social Security for older adults and not raise the retirement age.
“Let me just say to my mama and every other mama or grandfather receiving Social Security: As president of the United States, I will protect your Social Security.”
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said he’d protect Social Security for seniors.
“I know a few people on Social Security and … my grandmother lived until 91 and Social Security was her sole source of income. And that’s true for a lot of seniors throughout this country,” DeSantis said. “So I’d say to seniors in America: Promise made, promise kept.”
When pressed whether he would raise the retirement age, he said: “So it’s one thing to peg it on life expectancy, but we have had a significant decline in life expectancy in this country, and that is the fact.”
[ad_2]
[ad_1]
The Social Security Administration said Wednesday it would review its overpayment procedures and policies, and may claw back any overpayments found.
During the 2022 fiscal year, the agency recovered $4.7 billion of overpayments, according to a report by the SSA’s Office of the Inspector General.
While payment accuracy rates are high, overpayments do happen given the number of people the agency serves, the number of changes in their circumstances and the complexity of the programs, the SSA said.
“Despite our high accuracy rates, I am putting together a team to review our overpayment policies and procedures to further improve how we serve our customers,” said Kilolo Kijakazi, acting commissioner of Social Security.
“There is misinformation in the media claiming that the Social Security Administration is attempting to collect $21 billion. This figure was derived from the total amount of overpayments that have occurred over the history of the programs,” the SSA said in a statement.
The announcement comes the week before Social Security’s cost-of-living adjustment, or COLA, is expected to be released.
The 2024 COLA for Social Security is expected to rise about 3.2%, according to estimates from the Senior Citizens League, a pro-senior think tank. That’s compared with an 8.7% increase for 2023, which was the highest COLA in more than 40 years amid high inflation.
Social Security is an important benefit for most Americans. Half of the population age 65 or older live in households that receive at least 50% of their family income from Social Security benefits, according to SSA data, and about 25% of senior households rely on Social Security benefits for at least 90% of their income.
“The government’s got to fix this,” Sen. Sherrod Brown, the Ohio Democrat who chairs a Senate panel that oversees Social Security, recently told KFF Health News on the subject of overpayments. Meanwhile, Rep. Mike Carey of Ohio, the No. 2 Republican on a House panel that oversees Social Security, has called for a congressional hearing to review the problem, according to the KFF Health News report.
Social Security pays $1.4 trillion in benefits to more than 71 million people each year. Only around 0.5% of Social Security payments are overpayments, the SSA said.
“For the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program, overpayments also represent a small percentage of payments — about 8% — but are higher due to the complexity in administering statutory income and resource limits and asset evaluations,” the agency said in the announcement.
If a person doesn’t agree that they’ve been overpaid, or believes the amount is incorrect, they can appeal. If they believe they shouldn’t have to pay the money back, they can request that the agency waive collection of the overpayment. There’s no time limit for filing a waiver.
The SSA said it is required by law to adjust benefits or recover debts when overpayments occur. The law allows Social Security to waive recovery in some cases.
[ad_2]
[ad_1]
American workers are feeling the pinch.
The median annual household income in the U.S. was $74,755 in 2022, a 0.8% decline from the previous year after adjusting for inflation, according to the latest data from the Census Bureau.
The decline in income is “disappointing,” said Sharon Parrott, president of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,…
[ad_2]
[ad_1]
Buying a Home Is Getting Out of Reach. How Much 7% Mortgage Rates Need to Fall.
[ad_2]
[ad_1]
My colleagues JP Aubry and Yimeng Yin just released an update on state and local pension plans. Their analysis compared 2023 to 2019 – the year before all the craziness began. Think of the unusual events that have occurred in the last few years: 1) the onset of COVID; 2) the subsequent COVID stimulus; 3) declining interest rates; 4) rising inflation; and then 5) rising interest rates.
Despite the volatility of asset values over this period, the 2023 funded status of state and local pension plans is about 78%, which is 5 percentage points higher than in 2019 (see Figure 1). Of course, the numbers for 2023 are estimates based on plan-by-plan projections, but these projections have an excellent track record.
While the aggregate funded ratio provides a useful measure of the public pension landscape at large, it also can obscure variations in funding at the plan level. Figure 2 separates the plans into thirds based on their current actuarial funded status. The average 2023 funded ratio for each group was 57.6% for the bottom third, 79.5% for the middle third, and 91.1% for the top third.
The major reason for the improvement in plans’ funded status is that, despite the turbulence in the economy, total annualized returns, which include interest and dividends, have risen noticeably for almost all major asset class indexes over the 2019-2023 period (see Figure 3). The exception over this short and volatile period is fixed-income assets, which have declined in value.
The effect of fixed income’s decline on overall portfolio performance has been modest because, since 2019, fixed income has averaged only about 20% of pension fund assets (see Figure 4).
So, things are looking a little better for state and local pensions. Yes, the funded ratios are biased upward because plans use the assumed return on their portfolios – roughly 7% – to discount promised benefits. That said, trends are important, and the trend is good.
Moreover, annual state and local benefit payments as a share of the economy are approaching their peak for two reasons. First, most pension plans do not fully index retiree benefits for inflation, which lowers the real value of benefits over time. Second, the benefit reductions for new hires – introduced in the wake of the Great Recession – have started to have an impact.
With liabilities in check and solid asset performance, maybe we can all relax a bit about the future of the state and local pension system.
[ad_2]
[ad_1]
The Supreme Court knocked down the Biden administration’s plan to cancel up to $20,000 in student debt for a wide swath of borrowers, the court announced Friday.
The decision means that the White House won’t move forward with the plan for now, though it’s possible officials could try to launch a new version of the debt-forgiveness initiative using a different legal authority. Roughly 26 million borrowers applied for or were automatically eligible for debt relief under the Biden administration’s plan, which canceled up to $10,000 in student debt for borrowers earning less than $125,000 and up to $20,000 in federal loans for borrowers who met that criteria and also used a Pell grant in college.
Americans owe $1.7 trillion of student loans and the White House had estimated that more than 40 million borrowers would benefit from the initiative. But almost as soon as the Biden administration announced the debt-forgiveness plan last year, opponents looked for ways to challenge it legally. Ultimately, two cases made it to the high court.
In one case, two student-loan borrowers sued over the debt-relief plan in part because the Department of Education didn’t submit it for public comment. That, they said, resulted in an initiative that arbitrarily left out or limited the amount of relief available to some student loan borrowers, like themselves. The suit filed by the borrowers was backed by the Job Creators Network, a conservative advocacy organization co-founded by Bernard Marcus, the co-founder of Home Depot, who also supported former President Donald Trump.
Six Republican-led states brought the other case on the basis that canceling debt could harm their state coffers.
The court considered two issues in these cases. The first is whether the plaintiffs had standing, or the ability to bring a lawsuit because they’ve been directly harmed by the policy. The second is whether the Biden administration overstepped in its executive authority when issuing the policy. In order for the justices to reach the second issue, or the merits of the case, they had to find that the plaintiffs had standing to sue.
Legal experts, including some who believed the Biden administration didn’t have the authority to authorize the debt-relief plan, were skeptical of the notion that the parties bringing the cases had standing to sue. During oral arguments in February, the court’s three liberal justices also questioned whether the parties who challenged debt forgiveness were actually injured by the policy.
In addition, one of the members of the court’s conservative wing, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, asked pointed questions about the six states’ argument that they had standing to sue in part because the debt-relief plan would injure the state of Missouri. That claim surrounded the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority, or MOHELA, a state-affiliated organization that services federal student loans. The states had argued if MOHELA lost accounts due to the debt-relief plan, its revenue would decline and that loss would hurt Missouri because of MOHELA’s ties to the state.
Despite these questions, Barrett agreed with the court’s five other conservative judges and found that the states have standing to sue. The three liberal justices dissented.
“MOHELA is, by law and function, an instrumentality of Missouri,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. “It was created by the State, is supervised by the State, and serves a public function. The harm to MOHELA in the performance of its public function is necessarily a direct injury to Missouri itself.”
The court’s decision in the states’ suit allowed the justices to get to the merits of the case. The parties challenging the debt-relief plan argued that the Department of Education went beyond the authority Congress delegated it in discharging student debt. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar argued to the justices that in canceling student debt, the Secretary of Education acted “within the heartland” of the authority Congress provided to him under the HEROES Act, a 2003 law that aims to ensure student-loan borrowers aren’t left worse off by a national emergency.
The court’s conservative majority sided with the states, with a 6-3 decision, striking down the debt-relief plan in its current form.
“The HEROES Act allows the Secretary to ‘waive or modify’ existing statutory or regulatory provisions applicable to financial assistance programs under the Education Act, but does not allow the Secretary to rewrite that statute to the extent of canceling $430 billion of student loan principal,” Roberts wrote.
In the months leading up to the court’s decision, White House officials said there was no backup plan for if the Supreme Court knocked down the debt-forgiveness initiative. Advocates and activists have said that student-loan repayments shouldn’t resume until the Biden administration fulfills its promise to cancel some student debt.
The bill President Joe Biden signed in June to raise the nation’s debt limit requires that the Department of Education end the pause on federal student loan, interest payments and collections 60 days after June 30, 2023. Interest on federal student loans will resume starting September 1 and payments will start to come due in October, according to the Department’s website.
Advocates and activists have said for years that the Higher Education Act provides the Secretary of Education with the authority to discharge student loans. In ruling that the HEROES Act didn’t authorize the Biden administration’s debt-relief plan, the court left the option open for the Biden administration to create a loan-forgiveness program authorized under the HEA.
The court’s decision marks the latest development in a more-than-decade-long push to get the government to cancel student debt en masse. The idea, which has its origins in the Occupy Wall Street movement, made it to the presidential campaign stage during the 2020 cycle and was adopted by the White House last year.
Proponents of student debt cancellation and the Biden administration, have expressed concern that without some kind of relief a large swath of borrowers could slip into delinquency and default with the return of student loan payments later this year.
[ad_2]
[ad_1]
With hundreds of wildfires still burning in Canada, a large swath of the U.S. Northeast continues to suffer under hazy skies and compromised air into Wednesday. In fact, according to an international gauge, New York City had the second-worst air in the world early Wednesday.
As of late Tuesday, Quebec’s forest fire prevention agency reported that more than 150 blazes were active, including more than 110 deemed out of control, the Associated Press reported. A hot, dry summer is expected for the province and beyond.
Related: Air quality worsens in U.S. as Canada faces toughest wildfire season on record
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said its Air Quality Index registers above 151 in some areas of the northeastern U.S., spreading down into the Mid-Atlantic region. The upper Midwest reported concerning issues to start the week as well. Once an Air Quality Index reading clears 100, it’s typically a warning to people who have respiratory conditions, including asthma, to take precautions.
The EPA established an AQI for five major air pollutants regulated by the 50-year-old Clean Air Act. The agency takes readings at more than 1,000 air-quality stations around the country and includes special sensors activated by smoke in particular, for real-time readings.
Each of these pollutants measured by the EPA requires a standard deemed important to public health:
Especially during wildfire season, fine particles in soot, ash and dust can fill the air. And because it’s nearly summer, the combination of smoke and hotter temperatures can generate more ozone pollution, which can aggravate respiratory issues.
Related: Cheery climate news? Cancer-linked ozone hole blamed on hairspray and A/C continues to close.
The EPA says to think of the AQI as a yardstick that runs from 0 to 500. The higher the AQI value, the greater the level of air pollution and the greater the health concern.
For example, an AQI value of 50 or below represents good air quality for essentially all the population. A reading above 100 typically means that the outdoor air remains safe for most, but seniors, pregnant people and children are at increased risk. Those with heart and lung disease may also be at greater risk. And an AQI value over 300 represents hazardous air quality that will impact to some degree nearly everyone exposed to the air, even healthy people.
Because remembering the severity of number ranges may be challenging, EPA has assigned a color to each range, with green and yellow representing the most favorable conditions, and orange, red, purple and maroon reflective of levels that are progressively worse, topping out at maroon or readings between 301 to 500.
For comparison, the record-setting wildfire years of 2020 and 2021 meant that outdoor air near Portland, Ore., on select days produced an AQI above 400.
A separate measurement, from the international site, IQ Air, shows New York City ranking second for worst air globally Wednesday, behind Delhi, India. Detroit ranked within the top 5.
Visit the government-run Air Now site for the latest readings.
You can also examine longer-term air quality by select region.
The EPA and public health officials warn citizens against regular exposure to fire-impacted air, especially for outdoor workers, even if local readings aren’t especially dangerous.
The effects of air pollution can be mild, like eye and throat irritation. But, for some, those effects turn serious, including heart and respiratory issues. And pollutants might linger longer than hazy, discolored skies persist, causing inflammation of the lung tissue and increasing vulnerability to infections.
Lingering particle measurements are picked up when the AQI tracks PM 2.5, which quantifies the concentration of particles smaller than 2.5 micrometers. When inhaled, these nearly undetectable particles can increase the risk of heart attack, select cancers and acute respiratory infections, especially in children and older adults.
Smokers, including those using vape pens, can invite added health risk with wildfire smoke exposure, say public health officials.
Read: Non-smoking lung cancer is on the rise. Blame pollution, says American Lung Association.
Read more at the EPA’s air-quality guide for particle pollution.
[ad_2]
[ad_1]
If there were no tax cheats in America, there would be no Social Security crisis. Benefits could be paid, and payroll taxes kept the same, for the next 75 years.
That’s not me talking. That’s math. It comes from the number crunchers at the Social Security Administration and the Internal Revenue Service.
And it explains why those of us who support Social Security should be pounding the table in outrage over one clause of the Biden-McCarthy debt ceiling deal: The part where the president has to retreat from his crackdown on tax cheats just so McCarthy and the House Republicans would agree to prevent America defaulting on its debts.
It’s just two years since the administration got into law an extra $80 billion for the IRS to beef up enforcement. That was supposed to include hiring an estimated 87,000 IRS agents.
OK, so nobody likes paying taxes and nobody likes the IRS. Cue the inevitable critiques of an IRS tax “army,” and so on. But this isn’t about whether taxes should be higher or lower. It’s about whether everyone should pay the taxes that they owe.
After all, if we’re going to cut taxes, shouldn’t they apply to those of us who obey the laws as well as those who don’t? Or do we just support the “Tax Cuts for Criminals” Act?
Why would any voter rally around a platform of “I stand with tax cheats?”
The Congressional Budget Office calculated that the extra funding for the IRS would have reduced the deficit, because it would more than pay for itself. But it’s now been cut by an estimated $21 billion out of $80 billion.
If this seems abstract, consider the context and how it affects you and your retirement — and the retirements of everyone you know.
Social Security is now running at an $80 billion annual deficit. That’s the amount benefits are expected to exceed payroll taxes this year. (So say the Social Security Administration’s trustees.)
Next year, that deficit is expected to top $150 billion. By 2026, we’re looking at $200 billion and rising. The trust fund will run out of cash by 2034, and without extra payroll taxes will have to slash benefits by a fifth or more.
Over the next 75 years, says the Congressional Budget Office, the entire funding gap for the program will average about 1.7% of gross domestic product per year.
Meanwhile, how much are tax cheats stealing from the rest of us? A multiple of that.
According to the most recent estimates from the IRS, tax cheats steal about $470 billion a year. And that figure is four years out of date, relating to 2019. That’s the figure after enforcement measures.
Oh, and the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration says that’s a lowball number.
But it still worked out at around 12% of all the taxes people were supposed to pay (including payroll taxes). And around 2.3% of GDP.
Over the next 10 years, based on similar ratios to GDP, that would come to another $3.3 billion.
Sure, Social Security’s trust fund is theoretically separate from the rest of Uncle Sam’s finances. But that’s an accounting issue: A distinction without a difference.
Social Security is America’s retirement plan. Few could retire in dignity without it. Yet it is facing a fiscal crisis. By 2034, without changes, the program will be forced to cut benefits — drastically.
Some people want to cut benefits. Others want to raise the retirement age, which also means cutting benefits. Others want to raise taxes on benefits — which also means cutting benefits. Others want to hike payroll taxes, either on all of us or (initially) only on very high earners.
At last — just 40 or so years out of date — some are starting to talk about investing some of the trust fund like nearly every other pension plan in the world, in high-returning stocks instead of just low-returning Treasury bonds.
(It is hard for me to believe that it’s now almost 16 years since I first wrote about this ridiculously obvious fix And, yes, I’ve been boring readers on the subject ever since, including here and most recently here, and, no, I have no plans to stop.)
But if investing some of the trust fund in stocks is a no-brainer, so, too, is insisting everyone obey the law and pay the taxes they actually owe each year. I mean, shouldn’t we do that before we think about raising taxes even further on those who abide by the law?
How could anyone object? Any party that believes in law and order would support enforcing, er, law and order on tax evasion. And any party of fiscal conservatism would support measures, like tax enforcement, to narrow the deficit.
And, actually, any party that truly supported lower taxes for all would be tough on tax evasion: It is precisely this $500 billion in evasion by a small, scofflaw minority that forces the rest of us to pay more. We have, quite literally, a tax on obeying the law.
One of the many arguments in favor of taxing assets or wealth, instead of just income, is that enforcement would be easier and evasion much harder.
Washington, D.C., seems to be a place where people come up with complex proposals just so they can avoid the simple, fair ones.
[ad_2]
[ad_1]
The Democratic president and Republican speaker spoke with each other Sunday evening as negotiators rushed to draft the bill text so lawmakers can review compromises that neither the hard-right or left flank is likely to support. Instead, the leaders are working to gather backing from the political middle as Congress hurries toward votes before a June 5 deadline to avert a damaging federal default.
“Good news,” Biden declared Sunday evening at the White House.
“The agreement prevents the worst possible crisis, a default, for the first time in our nation’s history,” he said. “Takes the threat of a catastrophic default off the table.”
The president urged both parties in Congress to come together for swift passage. “The speaker and I made clear from the start that the only way forward was a bipartisan agreement,” he said.
The compromise announced late Saturday includes spending cuts but risks angering some lawmakers as they take a closer look at the concessions. Biden told reporters at the White House upon his return from Delaware that he was confident the plan will make it to his desk.
McCarthy, too, was confident in remarks at the Capitol: “At the end of the day, people can look together to be able to pass this.”
The days ahead will determine whether Washington is again able to narrowly avoid a default on U.S. debt, as it has done many times before, or whether the global economy enters a potential crisis.
In the United States, a default could cause financial markets to freeze up and spark an international financial crisis. Analysts say millions of jobs would vanish, borrowing and unemployment rates would jump, and a stock-market plunge could erase trillions of dollars in household wealth. It would all but shatter the $24 trillion market for Treasury debt.
Anxious retirees and others were already making contingency plans for missed checks, with the next Social Security payments due soon as the world watches American leadership at stake.
McCarthy and his negotiators portrayed the deal as delivering for Republicans though it fell well short of the sweeping spending cuts they sought. Top White House officials were briefing Democratic lawmakers and phoning some directly to try to shore up support.
As Sunday dragged on, negotiators labored to write the bill text and lawmakers raised questions.
McCarthy told reporters at the Capitol on Sunday that the agreement “doesn’t get everything everybody wanted,” but that was to be expected in a divided government. Privately, he told lawmakers on a conference call that Democrats “got nothing” they wanted.
A White House statement from the president, issued after Biden and McCarthy spoke by phone Saturday evening and an agreement in principle followed, said the deal “prevents what could have been a catastrophic default.”
Support from both parties will be needed to win congressional approval before a projected June 5 government default on U.S. debts. Lawmakers are not expected to return to work from the Memorial Day weekend before Tuesday, at the earliest, and McCarthy has promised lawmakers he will abide by the rule to post any bill for 72 hours before voting.
Negotiators agreed to some Republican demands for increased work requirements for recipients of food stamps that House Democrats had called a nonstarter.
With the outlines of an agreement in place, the legislative package could be drafted and shared with lawmakers in time for House votes as soon as Wednesday, and later in the coming week in the Senate.
Central to the compromise is a two-year budget deal that would essentially hold spending flat for 2024, while boosting it for defense and veterans, and capping increases at 1% for 2025. That’s alongside raising the debt limit for two years, pushing the volatile political issue past the next presidential election.
Driving hard to impose tougher work requirements on government aid recipients, Republicans achieved some of what they wanted. It ensures people ages 49 to 54 with food stamp aid would have to meet work requirements if they are able-bodied and without dependents. Biden was able to secure waivers for veterans and homeless people.
The deal puts in place changes in the landmark National Environmental Policy Act designating “a single lead agency” to develop environmental reviews, in hopes of streamlining the process.
It halts some funds to hire new Internal Revenue Service agents as Republicans demanded, and rescinds some $30 billion for coronavirus relief, keeping $5 billion for developing the next generation of COVID-19 vaccines.
The deal came together after Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen told Congress that the United States could default on its debt obligations by June 5 — four days later than previously estimated — if lawmakers did not act in time. Lifting the nation’s debt limit, now at $31 trillion, allows more borrowing to pay bills already insurred.
McCarthy commands only a slim Republican majority in the House, where hard-right conservatives may resist any deal as insufficient as they try to slash spending. By compromising with Democrats, he risks losing support from his own members, setting up a career-challenging moment for the new speaker.
“I think you’re going to get a majority of Republicans voting for this bill,” McCarthy said on “Fox News Sunday,” adding that because Biden backed it, “I think there’s going to be a lot of Democrats that will vote for it, too.”
House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York said on CBS’ “Face the Nation” that he expected there will be Democratic support but he declined to provide a number. Asked whether he could guarantee there would not be a default, he said, “Yes.”
A 100-strong group of moderates in the New Democratic Coalition gave a crucial nod of support on Sunday, saying in a statement it was confident that Biden and his team “delivered a viable, bipartisan solution to end this crisis” and were working to ensure the agreement would receive support from both parties.
The coalition could provide enough support for McCarthy to make up for members in the right flank of his party who have expressed opposition before the bill’s wording was even released.
It also takes pressure off Biden, facing criticism from progressives for giving into what they call hostage-taking by Republicans.
Democratic Rep. Pramila Jayapal of Washington state, who leads the Congressional Progressive Caucus, told CBS that the White House and Jeffries should worry about whether caucus members will support the agreement.
[ad_2]
[ad_1]
WASHINGTON — President Joe Biden and House Speaker Kevin McCarthy reached an “agreement in principle” to raise the nation’s legal debt ceiling late Saturday as they raced to strike a deal to limit federal spending and avert a potentially disastrous U.S. default.
However, the agreement risks angering both Democratic and Republican sides with the concessions made to reach it. Negotiators agreed to some Republican demands for increased work requirements for recipients of food stamps that had sparked an uproar from House Democrats as a nonstarter.
Support from both parties will be needed to win congressional approval next week before a June 5 deadline.
The Democratic president and Republican speaker reached the agreement after the two spoke earlier Saturday evening by phone, said McCarthy. The country and the world have been watching and waiting for a resolution to a political standoff that threatened the U.S. and global economies.
“The agreement represents a compromise, which means not everyone gets what they want,” Biden said in a statement late Saturday night. “That’s the responsibility of governing,” he said.
Biden called the agreement “good news for the American people, because it prevents what could have been a catastrophic default and would have led to an economic recession, retirement accounts devastated, and millions of jobs lost.”
McCarthy in brief remarks at the Capitol, said that “we still have a lot of work to do.”
But the Republican speaker said: “I believe this is an agreement in principle that’s worthy of the American people.”
With the outlines of a deal in place, the legislative package could be drafted and shared with lawmakers in time for votes early next week in the House and later in the Senate.
Central to the package is a two-year budget deal that would hold spending flat for 2024 and impose limits for 2025 in exchange for raising the debt limit for two years, pushing the volatile political issue past the next presidential election.
The agreement would limit food stamp eligibility for able-bodied adults up to age 54, but Biden was able to secure waivers for veterans and the homeless.
The two sides had also reached for an ambitious overhaul of federal permitting to ease development of energy projects and transmission lines. Instead, the agreement puts in place changes in the the National Environmental Policy Act that will designate “a single lead agency” to develop economic reviews, in hopes of streamlining the process.
The deal came together after Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen told Congress that the United States could default on its debt obligations by June 5 — four days later than previously estimated — if lawmakers did not act in time to raise the federal debt ceiling. The extended “X-date” gave the two sides a bit of extra time as they scrambled for a deal.
Biden also spoke earlier in the day with Democratic leaders in Congress to discuss the status of the talks.
The Republican House speaker had gathered top allies behind closed doors at the Capitol as negotiators pushed for a deal that would avoid a first-ever government default while also making spending cuts that House Republicans are demanding.
But as another day dragged on with financial disaster looming closer, it had appeared some of the problems over policy issues that dogged talks all week remained unresolved.
Both sides have suggested one of the main holdups was a GOP effort to expand work requirements for recipients of food stamps and other federal aid programs, a longtime Republican goal that Democrats have strenuously opposed. The White House said the Republican proposals were “cruel and senseless.”
Biden has said the work requirements for Medicaid would be a nonstarter. He seemed potentially open to negotiating minor changes on food stamps, now known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, despite objections from rank-and-file Democrats.
McCarthy, who dashed out before the lunch hour Saturday and arrived back at the Capitol with a big box of takeout, declined to elaborate on those discussions. One of his negotiators, Louisiana Rep. Garret Graves, said there was “not a chance” that Republicans might relent on the work requirements issue.
Americans and the world were uneasily watching the negotiating brinkmanship that could throw the U.S. economy into chaos and sap world confidence in the nation’s leadership.
Anxious retirees and others were already making contingency plans for missed checks, with the next Social Security payments due next week.
Yellen said failure to act by the new date would “cause severe hardship to American families, harm our global leadership position and raise questions about our ability to defend our national security interests.”
The president, spending part of the weekend at Camp David, continued to talk with his negotiating team multiple times a day, signing off on offers and counteroffers.
Any deal would need to be a political compromise in a divided Congress. Many of the hard-right Trump-aligned Republicans in Congress have long been skeptical of the Treasury’s projections, and they are pressing McCarthy to hold out.
Lawmakers are not expected to return to work from the Memorial Day weekend before Tuesday, at the earliest, and McCarthy has promised lawmakers he will abide by the rule to post any bill for 72 hours before voting.
The Democratic-held Senate has largely stayed out of the negotiations, leaving the talks to Biden and McCarthy. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York has pledged to move quickly to send a compromise package to Biden’s desk.
Weeks of talks have failed to produce a deal in part because the Biden administration resisted for months on negotiating with McCarthy, arguing that the country’s full faith and credit should not be used as leverage to extract other partisan priorities.
But House Republicans united behind a plan to cut spending, narrowly passing legislation in late April that would raise the debt ceiling in exchange for the spending reductions.
With the outlines of a deal in place, the legislative package could be drafted and shared with lawmakers in time for votes early next week in the House and later in the Senate.
Central to the package is a two-year budget deal that would hold spending flat for 2024 and impose limits for 2025 in exchange for raising the debt limit for two years, pushing the volatile political issue past the next presidential election.
Background: What’s in the emerging debt-ceiling deal? A cut to IRS funding, among other items.
Negotiators agreed to some Republican demands for enhanced work requirements on recipients of food stamps that had sparked an uproar from House Democrats as a nonstarter.
Biden also spoke earlier in the day with Democratic leaders in Congress to discuss the status of the talks, according to three people familiar with the situation, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly.
The Republican House speaker had gathered top allies behind closed doors at the Capitol as negotiators pushed for a deal that would raise the nation’s borrowing limit and avoid a first-ever default on the federal debt, while also making spending cuts that House Republicans are demanding.
As he arrived at the Capitol early in the day, McCarthy said that Republican negotiators were “closer to an agreement.”
McCarthy’s comments had echoed the latest public assessment from Biden, who said Friday evening that bargainers were “very close.” Biden and McCarthy last met face-to-face on the matter Monday.
Their new discussion Saturday by phone came after Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen told Congress that the United States could default on its debt obligations by June 5 — four days later than previously estimated — if lawmakers do not act in time to raise the federal debt ceiling. The extended “X-date” gives the two sides a bit of extra time as they scramble for a deal.
Americans and the world were uneasily watching the negotiating brinkmanship that could throw the U.S. economy into chaos and sap world confidence in the nation’s leadership. House negotiators left the Capitol at 2 a.m. the night before, only to return hours later.
Failure to lift the borrowing limit, now $31 trillion, to pay the nation’s incurred bills, would send shockwaves through the U.S. and global economy. Yellen said failure to act by the new date would “cause severe hardship to American families, harm our global leadership position and raise questions about our ability to defend our national security interests.”
Anxious retirees and others were already making contingency plans for missed checks, with the next Social Security payments due next week.
[ad_2]
[ad_1]
Social Security has been a vital safety net for retirees, disabled individuals, and surviving family members for decades. However, the program is facing financial challenges that may necessitate changes in the coming years. Let’s explore three potential ways Social Security benefits could change in the future.
Adjustments to the full retirement age
One possible change could involve adjusting the full retirement age (FRA), which is the age at which individuals can receive full Social Security benefits. Currently set at 67 for those born in 1960 or later, some experts argue that increasing the full retirement age could help address the program’s funding shortfall. However, this change could mean longer working lives for future retirees and careful consideration of how it impacts individuals with physically demanding jobs or limited job opportunities later in life.
Read: Does it matter if Social Security checks are delayed?
This change would also result in a smaller benefit for the earliest filers at age 62, since the reductions are based on the amount of time between your filing age and the Full Retirement Age. If the FRA is increased to 68, for example, filing at age 62 would result in a benefit that is only 65% of your Full Retirement Age benefit amount.
In addition, unless the maximum filing age is adjusted, Delayed Retirement Credits (DRCs) would also be limited under such a scenario. Currently when your FRA is 67 you have the opportunity to increase your benefit by 24% (8% per year for DRCs), but if the FRA is 68, the increase would only be 16% at maximum.
Means-testing benefits
Another potential change is means-testing Social Security benefits. Means-testing would involve adjusting benefit amounts based on an individual’s income or assets. Supporters argue that this would ensure benefits are targeted to those who need them most, potentially reducing the strain on the program’s finances. However, critics express concerns about the potential impact on middle-income earners who have paid into the system throughout their working lives and rely on Social Security as a significant part of their retirement income.
Read: What happens to Social Security payments if no debt-ceiling deal is reached?
An interesting concept I’ve recently seen bandied about involves a trade-off between Social Security benefits and Required Minimum Distributions (RMDs) from retirement plans. Essentially an individual could forgo Social Security benefits (at least partially if not fully) in exchange for looser restrictions on RMDs – allowing for further deferral of taxation on retirement accounts.
Benefit reductions
In order to sustain the Social Security program, benefit reductions might be considered. This could involve various approaches such as adjusting the formula used to calculate benefits or implementing a scaling factor to reduce benefit amounts. While benefit reductions would aim to preserve the long-term viability of Social Security, they could pose challenges for retirees who rely heavily on those benefits to cover essential living expenses.
Also see: This is what’s most likely to knock your retirement off course
Most benefit reduction proposals in the pipeline are in concert with expanding the tax base, while at the same time limiting benefits to the upper echelons of earnings levels. In these cases the taxable wage base is either expanded or removed altogether, and the amounts above the current wage base are credited for benefits at a minuscule rate.
It’s important to note that any changes to Social Security benefits would likely be accompanied by broader discussions and careful consideration from policy makers. The goal would be to strike a balance between ensuring the program’s financial stability and protecting the well-being of current and future retirees.
As an individual planning for retirement, it’s crucial to stay informed about potential changes to Social Security benefits. Keeping track of legislative proposals and staying engaged in the conversation can help you adapt your retirement plans accordingly. Consider consulting with a financial adviser who specializes in retirement planning to assess the potential impact on your retirement income and explore other strategies to supplement your savings.
Read: This lawmaker’s ‘big idea’ could fix most—but not all—of the Social Security crisis
Social Security benefits may undergo changes in the future as policy makers grapple with the program’s financial challenges. Adjustments to the full retirement age, means-testing benefits, and benefit reductions are among the potential changes that could be considered. By staying informed and seeking professional guidance, you can navigate these potential changes and make informed decisions to secure your financial well-being during retirement.
[ad_2]
[ad_1]
Federal prosecutors have leveled a legal dropkick on former pro wrestler Ted DiBiase Jr., charging him with stealing millions of dollars meant to feed needy kids in a Mississippi scandal that has also tarnished the reputation of NFL hall of famer Brett Favre.
From the archives (September 2022): NFL star Brett Favre and Gov. Phil Bryant texted about how to use $5 million of welfare funds to build a new volleyball stadium
DiBiase,…
[ad_2]
[ad_1]
The numbers: The number of Americans who applied for unemployment benefits last week rose by 5,000 to 245,000 and pointed to a small erosion in a robust U.S. labor market.
New jobless claims increased from a revised 240,000 in the prior week, the Labor Department said Thursday. The figures are seasonally adjusted.
The number of people applying for unemployment benefits is one of the best barometers of whether the economy is getting better or worse.
New jobless claims are still very low, but they have risen from less than 200,000 in January in a sign the labor market has cooled slightly as higher interest rates dampen U.S. growth.
Key details: Thirty-five of the 53 U.S. states and territories that report jobless claims showed a decrease last week. Eighteen posted an increase.
Most of the increase in new jobless claims were in New York, where new filings typically rise during school breaks and fall immediately afterward.
Other states reported little change.
The number of people collecting unemployment benefits in the U.S., meanwhile, jumped by 61,000 to 1.87 million in the week ended April 8. That’s the highest level since November 2021.
The gradual increase in these so-called continuing claims suggests it’s taking longer for people who lose their jobs to find new ones.
Big picture: Wall Street is watching jobless benefits closely because it’s one of the first indicators to start blinking red when the U.S. is headed toward recession.
New jobless claims have crept higher this year after touching a 54-year low, pointing to some cooling in a hot labor market. But the labor market is still quite strong
The Federal Reserve wants the labor market to cool even further to temper a sharp increase in wages and help the bank combat high inflation. A series of interest-rate increases by the central bank have slowed the economy and eventually should curb the appetite for workers.
Looking ahead: “With talk of deteriorating economic conditions and in the wake of the recent bank failures, businesses may turn more cautious in their hiring practices,” said senior economic advisor Stuart Hoffman of PNC Financial Services.
“Our view remains that layoffs will rise less dramatically than normally might occur as companies do all they can to avoid shedding workers who have been incredibly difficult to recruit and retain,” said chief economist Joshua Shapiro of MFR Inc.
Market reaction: The Dow Jones Industrial Average
DJIA,
and S&P 500
SPX,
were set to open lower in Thursday trades.
[ad_2]
[ad_1]
The numbers: The number of Americans who applied for unemployment benefits last week slipped to a three-week low of 191,000, signaling little erosion in a strong U.S. labor market even as the economy faced fresh strains.
New U.S. applications for benefits fell by 1,000 from 192,000 in the prior week, the government said Thursday. .
The number of people applying for jobless benefits is one of the best barometers of whether the economy is getting better or worse. New unemployment applications remain near historically low levels.
Economists polled by The Wall Street Journal had forecast new claims to total 198,000 in the seven days ended March 18. The numbers are seasonally adjusted.
Key details: Twenty-eight of the 53 U.S. states and territories that report jobless claims showed a decrease last week. Twenty-five posted an increase.
Most of the changes were small except in Indiana.
One potential red flag: The number of raw or actual claims — before seasonal adjustments — was much higher last week compared to the same week a year earlier. But so far there’s little sign of a trend.
“Even the tens of thousands of recent [high-tech] layoffs have almost completely been absorbed by a powerful labor market that has plenty of expansion left in it,” contended Robert Frick, chief corporate economist at Navy Federal Credit Union.
The number of people collecting unemployment benefits across the country, meanwhile, rose by 14,000 to 1.69 million in the week ended March 11. That number is reported with a one-week lag.
These continuing claims are still low, but a gradual increase since last year suggests it’s taking longer for people who lose their jobs to find new ones.
Big picture: Jobless benefit claims are one of the first indicators to emit danger signals when the U.S. is headed toward recession. It’s still not flashing a red-light, or even a yellow one, as the economy comes under more duress.
The Federal Reserve, for instance, just raised interest rates to a nearly 16-year high. And the failure of Silicon Valley Bank has put more stress on the U.S. financial system.
Both of these actions could constrain the economy in the months ahead, curb hiring and potentially boost a low unemployment rate. If so, watch the trend in new jobless claims.
Looking ahead: “Most companies are either still hiring or are holding onto their employees and seeking other ways to cut costs,” said chief economist Joshua Shapiro of MFR Inc.
“This is consistent with our view that layoffs will rise less dramatically than normally might occur as companies do all they can to avoid shedding workers who have been incredibly difficult to recruit and retain.”
Market reaction: The Dow Jones Industrial Average
DJIA,
and S&P 500
SPX,
were set to open higher in Thursday trades. Stocks have been under pressure since the failure of SVB earlier this month.
[ad_2]
[ad_1]
There’s a very real possibility the government will stop issuing Social Security payments after the debt limit is hit.
Scary as that prospect is, however, the alternative might be even worse: A little-known provision of a 1996 law could be interpreted to allow the Social Security trust fund to be used not only to pay Social Security’s monthly checks but also to circumvent the debt limit and pay all the government’s otherwise overdue bills.
If that happens, any short-term relief to Social Security recipients would come with a potentially huge long-term price tag: The Social Security trust fund could be exhausted much sooner than currently projected—in just a couple of years, in fact.
These dire possibilities emerge from an analysis conducted by Steve Robinson, the chief economist for The Concord Coalition, a group that describes itself as “a nonpartisan organization dedicated to educating the public and finding common sense solutions to our nation’s fiscal policy challenges.”
An issue brief he wrote, entitled “Social Security’s Debt Limit Escape Clause,” is available on the group’s website.
Let me hasten to add that Robinson is not advocating that the Social Security trust fund be used in this way. In an interview, he instead stressed that he wrote his issue brief because we need to be aware not only that this “escape clause” exists but that its use could have unintended consequences. Though hardly anyone outside Washington knows that it even exists, and relatively few on Capitol Hill, the Treasury Department and the Social Security Administration are very much aware of it.
Read: ChatGPT is about to make the business of retirement planning and financial advice profoundly human
Before reviewing the details of this escape clause, it’s worth focusing on the political dynamics that surround it. Because the escape clause lessens the pressure on Congress and the president to come up with a solution to the debt crisis, neither side has an incentive to publicize its existence. But if the government is otherwise pushed to the edge of the fiscal cliff, and it’s facing the potentially huge consequences of an outright default (including the nonpayment of monthly Social Security checks), the political pressure to use the escape clause could be intense.
The 1996 law that creates the escape clause was passed in the wake of the government hitting its debt limit in 1995 and 1996. Ironically, the intent of that law was to prevent the Social Security trust fund from being used for anything other than paying Social Security benefits. But, Robinson explains, that’s unworkable in the real world. That’s because Social Security checks are sent out by the Treasury’s general account, and if that account is in default the checks would bounce.
Read: These 3 things will bring you happiness in retirement — and life
If and when the debt limit is hit, therefore, the only way—in practice—for Social Security checks to continue being issued and cleared through the banking system would be for the Social Security trust fund to “lend” the Treasury sufficient funds that it could pay all the government’s unmet obligations. (I put “lend” in quotes because that’s not exactly how it works; the key is that the “loan” can be structured in ways that don’t count against the debt limit. If you’re interested in reading more about the complex logistics involved, you should read Robinson’s issue brief.)
Therefore, if the debt limit is hit, which it is projected to do perhaps as early as June, Congress and the president will be on the horns of a huge dilemma:
You can appreciate why Congress and the president don’t want us to know that this escape clause exists. Once we are aware of it, they are put in a no-win situation.
So fasten your seat belts for a wild ride in coming months as both parties play political brinkmanship over the debt limit and, by extension, Social Security. With both sides by the day hardening their stances, there’s a very real possibility that the debt limit will be hit.
If that happens, we’ll be hearing a lot more about the little-known provision of a nearly 30-year-old law.
Mark Hulbert is a regular contributor to MarketWatch. His Hulbert Ratings tracks investment newsletters that pay a flat fee to be audited. He can be reached at mark@hulbertratings.com.
[ad_2]
[ad_1]
Rent growth is beginning to cool. But it’s descending from a heck of a peak.
Rental prices climbed 7.2% between September 2021 to September of this year, the largest annual increase since 1982, according to consumer price data released Thursday. Overall, shelter costs were also among the most significant drivers in rising consumer prices, along with the cost of food and medical care, the Labor Department said.
Still, it’s not all bad news for tenants. A new report from Realtor.com out Thursday found that nationwide, median rental prices in 50 large metros grew at their slowest annual pace in 16 months in September — at 7.8%. That marked the second consecutive month of single-digit year-over-year growth for 0-2 bedroom properties, and it meant that median asking rents fell by $12 in a month, Realtor.com said.
Housing inflation in the Consumer Price Index lags trends in the rental market, though, meaning the slowdown in rent growth might not register in the data for a while.
While median rental prices are still nearly 23% higher than they were two years ago, they’re no longer climbing at breakneck speeds with no end in sight. These days, economists say, that counts as a silver lining.
“After more than a year of double-digit yearly rent gains and nearly as many months of record-high rents, it’s especially important to see consistency before we confirm a major shift like the recent rental market cool-down,” Realtor.com Chief Economist Danielle Hale said in a statement. “But September data provides that evidence, as national rents continued to pull back from their latest all-time high registered just two months ago.”
“This return of more seasonal norms indicates that rental markets are charting a path back toward a more typical balance between supply and demand, compared to the previous year,” Hale added. “We expect rent growth to keep slowing in the months ahead, partly driven by the impact of inflation on renters’ budgets.”
Affordability, however, is worsening, Realtor.com said. Blame the fact that consumer prices are rising faster than wages.
(Realtor.com is operated by News Corp
NWSA,
subsidiary Move Inc., and MarketWatch is a unit of Dow Jones, which is also a subsidiary of News Corp.)
A Redfin
RDFN,
report out Thursday, meanwhile, said rents grew 9% year-over-year in September — the slowest pace since August 2021. Rents were still way up year-over-year in cities like Oklahoma City (24.1%), Pittsburgh (20%), and Indianapolis (17.9%.)
[ad_2]