thefiscaltimes--2020-09-22--Pentagon Used Coronavirus Funds for Military Supplies: Report

As part of the $ 2 trillion Cares Act in March , Congress allocated $ 1 billion to the Defense Department to help it “ prevent , prepare for , and respond to coronavirus.
” According to a Washington Post story Tuesday , much of that money has been used to pay for things that are not directly related to the pandemic , including aircraft parts and dress uniforms .
Pentagon officials say their use of the funds helps maintain capabilities in the defense industry during the coronavirus recession , but lawmakers have made it clear that the allocation was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ related to the pandemic , such as the production of personal protective equipment ( PPE ) .
According to a report from the House Committee on Appropriations cited by the Post , the “ expectation was that the Department would address the need for PPE industrial capacity rather than execute the funding for the [ defense industrial base ] .
” The repurposing of the money illustrates just how hard it is to ensure that trillions of dollars in coronavirus relief funds are used properly .
The Post ’ s Aaron Gregg and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 billion fund is just a fraction of the $ 3 trillion in emergency spending that Congress approved earlier this year to deal with the pandemic .
But it shows how the blizzard of bailout cash was — in some cases — redirected to firms that weren ’ t originally targeted for assistance .
It also shows how difficult it has been for officials to track how money is spent and — in the case of Congress — intervene when changes are made .
”

As part of the $2 trillion Cares Act in March, Congress allocated $1 billion to the Defense Department to help it “prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus.” According to a Washington Post story Tuesday, much of that money has been used to pay for things that are not directly related to the pandemic, including aircraft parts and dress uniforms.
Pentagon officials say their use of the funds helps maintain capabilities in the defense industry during the coronavirus recession, but lawmakers have made it clear that the allocation was intended to be used for items directly related to the pandemic, such as the production of personal protective equipment (PPE). According to a report from the House Committee on Appropriations cited by the Post, the “expectation was that the Department would address the need for PPE industrial capacity rather than execute the funding for the [defense industrial base].”
The repurposing of the money illustrates just how hard it is to ensure that trillions of dollars in coronavirus relief funds are used properly. The Post’s Aaron Gregg and Yeganeh Torbati report:
“The $1 billion fund is just a fraction of the $3 trillion in emergency spending that Congress approved earlier this year to deal with the pandemic. But it shows how the blizzard of bailout cash was — in some cases — redirected to firms that weren’t originally targeted for assistance. It also shows how difficult it has been for officials to track how money is spent and — in the case of Congress — intervene when changes are made.”


thefiscaltimes--2020-09-21--Debt Will Nearly Double by 2050: CBO

Debt Will Nearly Double by 2050: CBO

The national debt will increase to about twice the size of the economy over the next 30 years , the Congressional Budget Office said Monday in its latest long-term budget outlook .
Currently equal to about 98 % , the debt-to-GDP ratio is projected to increase to 195 % by 2050 , reaching levels never seen in the nation ’ s history .
The CBO said that the coronavirus recession has changed the outlook significantly : “ CBO now projects that debt as a percentage of GDP will be 45 percentage points higher in 2049 than the agency projected last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and 2021 contribute significantly to that difference .
The increase in those deficits results primarily from the effects of the pandemic and actions taken to respond to it.
” The CBO also warned about the risks involved with rising debt .
“ High and rising federal debt makes the economy more vulnerable to rising interest rates and , depending on how that debt is financed , rising inflation , ” CBO said .
“ The growing debt burden also raises borrowing costs , slowing the growth of the economy and national income , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fiscal crisis or a gradual decline in the value of Treasury securities.
” Still , CBO Director Phillip Swagel said in a statement that a crisis is not immediately at hand .
“ There is no set tipping point at which a fiscal crisis becomes likely or imminent , nor is there an identifiable point at which interest costs as a percentage of GDP become unsustainable , ” Swagel said .
“ But as the debt grows , the risks become greater .
”

The national debt will increase to about twice the size of the economy over the next 30 years, the Congressional Budget Office said Monday in its latest long-term budget outlook.
Currently equal to about 98%, the debt-to-GDP ratio is projected to increase to 195% by 2050, reaching levels never seen in the nation’s history.
The CBO said that the coronavirus recession has changed the outlook significantly: “CBO now projects that debt as a percentage of GDP will be 45 percentage points higher in 2049 than the agency projected last year. Larger projected deficits in 2020 and 2021 contribute significantly to that difference. The increase in those deficits results primarily from the effects of the pandemic and actions taken to respond to it.”
The CBO also warned about the risks involved with rising debt. “High and rising federal debt makes the economy more vulnerable to rising interest rates and, depending on how that debt is financed, rising inflation,” CBO said. “The growing debt burden also raises borrowing costs, slowing the growth of the economy and national income, and it increases the risk of a fiscal crisis or a gradual decline in the value of Treasury securities.”
Still, CBO Director Phillip Swagel said in a statement that a crisis is not immediately at hand. “There is no set tipping point at which a fiscal crisis becomes likely or imminent, nor is there an identifiable point at which interest costs as a percentage of GDP become unsustainable,” Swagel said. “But as the debt grows, the risks become greater.”


thefiscaltimes--2020-09-19--Election Gift for Florida? Trump Poised to Approve Drug Imports From Canada

Over the objections of drugmakers , the Trump administration is expected within weeks to finalize its plan that would allow states to import some prescription medicines from Canada .
Six states — Colorado , Florida , Maine , New Hampshire , New Mexico and Vermont — have passed laws allowing them to seek federal approval to buy drugs from Canada to give their residents access to lower-cost medicines .
But industry observers say the drug importation proposal under review by the administration is squarely aimed at Florida — the most populous swing state in the November election .
Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the urging of Florida Gov .
Ron DeSantis , a close Republican ally .
The DeSantis administration is so confident Trump will move ahead with allowing drug importation that it put out a request June 30 for private companies to bid on a three-year , $ 30 million contract to run the program .
It hopes to award the contract in December .
Industry experts say Florida is likely to be the first state to win federal approval for a drug importation plan — something that could occur before the November election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the politically astute thing to do , ” said Mara Baer , a health consultant who has worked with Colorado on its importation proposal .
Ben England , CEO of FDAImports , a consulting firm in Glen Burnie , Maryland , said the OMB typically has 60 days to review final rules , although he expects this one could be completed before Nov. 3 and predicted there ’ s a small chance it could get finalized and Florida ’ s request approved by then .
“ It ’ s an election year , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trying to use this as a talking point to say ‘ Look what we ’ ve accomplished , ’ ” he said .
Florida also makes sense because of the large number of retirees , who face high costs for medicines despite Medicare drug coverage .
The DeSantis administration did not respond to requests for comment .
Trump boasted about his importation plan during an October speech in The Villages , a large retirement community about 60 miles northwest of Orlando .
“ We will soon allow the safe and legal importation of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the country of Canada , where , believe it or not , they pay much less money for the exact same drug , ” Trump said , with DeSantis in attendance .
“ Stand up , Ron .
Boy , he wants this so badly.
” The Food and Drug Administration released a detailed proposal last December and sought comments .
A final plan was delivered Sept. 10 to the Office of Management and Budget for review , signaling it could be unveiled within weeks .
The proposal would regulate how states set @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Canada .
Prices are cheaper because Canada limits how much drugmakers can charge for medicines .
The United States lets free markets dictate drug prices .
The pharmaceutical industry signaled it will likely sue the Trump administration if it goes forward with its importation plans , saying the plan violates several federal laws and the U.S. Constitution .
But the most stinging rebuke of the Trump importation plan came from the Canadian government , which said the proposal would make it harder for Canadian citizens to get drugs , putting their health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all necessary measures to safeguard access for Canadians to needed drugs , ” the Canadian government wrote in a letter to the FDA about the draft proposal .
“ The Canadian drug market and manufacturing capacity are too small to meet the demand of both Canadian and American consumers for prescription drugs.
” Without buy-in from Canada , any plan to import medicines is unlikely to succeed , officials said .
Ena Backus , director of Health Care Reform in Vermont , who has worked on setting up an importation program there , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Our state importation program relies on a willing partner in Canada , ” she said .
For decades , Americans have been buying drugs from Canada for personal use — either by driving over the border , ordering medication on the internet or using storefronts that connect them to foreign pharmacies .
Though illegal , the FDA has generally permitted purchases for individual use .
About 4 million Americans import lower-cost medicines for personal use each year , and about 20 million say they or someone in their household have done @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in other countries , according to surveys .
The practice has been popular in Florida .
More than a dozen storefronts across the state help consumers connect to pharmacies in Canada and other countries .
Several cities , state and school districts in Florida help employees get drugs from Canada .
The administration ’ s proposal builds on a 2000 law that opened the door to allowing drug importation from Canada .
But that provision could take effect only if the Health and Human Services secretary certified importation as safe , something that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do .
The drug industry for years has said allowing drugs to be imported from Canada would disrupt the nation ’ s supply chain and make it easier for unsafe or counterfeit medications to enter the market .
Trump , who made lowering prescription drug prices a signature promise in his 2016 campaign , has been eager to fulfill his pledge .
In July 2019 , at Trump ’ s direction , HHS Secretary Alex Azar said the federal government was “ open for business ” on drug importation , a year after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The administration envisions a system in which a Canadian-licensed wholesaler buys directly from a manufacturer for drugs approved for sale in Canada and exports the drugs to a U.S. wholesaler/importer under contract to a state .
Florida ’ s legislation — approved in 2019 — would set up two importation programs .
The first would focus on getting drugs for state programs such as Medicaid , the Department of Corrections and county health departments .
State officials said they expect the programs would save the state about $ 150 million annually .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ broader state population .
In response to the draft rule , the states seeking to start a drug importation program suggested changes to the administration ’ s proposal .
“ Should the final rule not address these areas of concern , Colorado will struggle to find appropriate partners and realize significant savings for consumers , ” Kim Bimestefer , executive director of the Colorado Department of Health Care Policy & Financing , told the FDA in March .
Among the state ’ s concerns is that it would be limited to using only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the state fears prices might not be as low as officials hoped .
Bimestefer also noted that under the draft rule , the federal government would approve the importation program for only two years and states need a longer time frame to get buy-in from wholesalers and other partners .
Colorado officials estimate importing drugs from Canada could cut prices by 54 % for cancer drugs and 75 % for cardiac medicines .
The state also noted the diabetes drug Jardiance costs $ 400 a month in the United States and sells for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worry some of the most expensive drugs — including injectable and biologic medicines — were exempt from the federal rule .
Those drug classes are not allowed to be imported under the 2000 law .
However , in an executive order in July , Trump said he would allow insulin to be imported if Azar determined it is required for emergency medical care .
An HHS spokesman would not say whether Azar has done that .
Jane Horvath , a health policy consultant in College Park , Maryland , said the administration faces @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and running , including possible opposition from the pharmaceutical industry and limits on classes of drugs that can be sold over the border .
“ Despite the barriers , the programs are still quite worthwhile to pursue , ” she said .
Maine ’ s top health official said the administration should work with the Canadian government to address Canada ’ s concerns .
HHS officials refused to say whether such discussions have started .
Officials in Vermont , where the program would also include consumers covered by private insurance , remain hopeful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reduce the burden of health care costs on residents in our state , then it is important to pursue this option if there is a clear pathway forward , ” Backus said .

Over the objections of drugmakers, the Trump administration is expected within weeks to finalize its plan that would allow states to import some prescription medicines from Canada.
Six states — Colorado, Florida, Maine, New Hampshire, New Mexico and Vermont — have passed laws allowing them to seek federal approval to buy drugs from Canada to give their residents access to lower-cost medicines.
But industry observers say the drug importation proposal under review by the administration is squarely aimed at Florida — the most populous swing state in the November election. Trump’s support of the idea initially came at the urging of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a close Republican ally.
The DeSantis administration is so confident Trump will move ahead with allowing drug importation that it put out a request June 30 for private companies to bid on a three-year, $30 million contract to run the program. It hopes to award the contract in December.
Industry experts say Florida is likely to be the first state to win federal approval for a drug importation plan — something that could occur before the November election.
“Approving Florida would feel like the politically astute thing to do,” said Mara Baer, a health consultant who has worked with Colorado on its importation proposal.
Ben England, CEO of FDAImports, a consulting firm in Glen Burnie, Maryland, said the OMB typically has 60 days to review final rules, although he expects this one could be completed before Nov. 3 and predicted there’s a small chance it could get finalized and Florida’s request approved by then. “It’s an election year, so I do see the current administration trying to use this as a talking point to say ‘Look what we’ve accomplished,’” he said.
Florida also makes sense because of the large number of retirees, who face high costs for medicines despite Medicare drug coverage.
The DeSantis administration did not respond to requests for comment.
Trump boasted about his importation plan during an October speech in The Villages, a large retirement community about 60 miles northwest of Orlando. “We will soon allow the safe and legal importation of prescription drugs from other countries, including the country of Canada, where, believe it or not, they pay much less money for the exact same drug,” Trump said, with DeSantis in attendance. “Stand up, Ron. Boy, he wants this so badly.”
The Food and Drug Administration released a detailed proposal last December and sought comments. A final plan was delivered Sept. 10 to the Office of Management and Budget for review, signaling it could be unveiled within weeks.
The proposal would regulate how states set up their own programs for importing drugs from Canada.
Prices are cheaper because Canada limits how much drugmakers can charge for medicines. The United States lets free markets dictate drug prices.
The pharmaceutical industry signaled it will likely sue the Trump administration if it goes forward with its importation plans, saying the plan violates several federal laws and the U.S. Constitution.
But the most stinging rebuke of the Trump importation plan came from the Canadian government, which said the proposal would make it harder for Canadian citizens to get drugs, putting their health at risk.
“Canada will employ all necessary measures to safeguard access for Canadians to needed drugs,” the Canadian government wrote in a letter to the FDA about the draft proposal. “The Canadian drug market and manufacturing capacity are too small to meet the demand of both Canadian and American consumers for prescription drugs.”
Without buy-in from Canada, any plan to import medicines is unlikely to succeed, officials said.
Ena Backus, director of Health Care Reform in Vermont, who has worked on setting up an importation program there, said states will need help from Canada. “Our state importation program relies on a willing partner in Canada,” she said.
For decades, Americans have been buying drugs from Canada for personal use — either by driving over the border, ordering medication on the internet or using storefronts that connect them to foreign pharmacies. Though illegal, the FDA has generally permitted purchases for individual use.
About 4 million Americans import lower-cost medicines for personal use each year, and about 20 million say they or someone in their household have done so because the prices are much lower in other countries, according to surveys.
The practice has been popular in Florida. More than a dozen storefronts across the state help consumers connect to pharmacies in Canada and other countries. Several cities, state and school districts in Florida help employees get drugs from Canada.
The administration’s proposal builds on a 2000 law that opened the door to allowing drug importation from Canada. But that provision could take effect only if the Health and Human Services secretary certified importation as safe, something that Democratic and Republican administrations have refused to do.
The drug industry for years has said allowing drugs to be imported from Canada would disrupt the nation’s supply chain and make it easier for unsafe or counterfeit medications to enter the market.
Trump, who made lowering prescription drug prices a signature promise in his 2016 campaign, has been eager to fulfill his pledge. In July 2019, at Trump’s direction, HHS Secretary Alex Azar said the federal government was “open for business” on drug importation, a year after calling drug importation a “gimmick.”
The administration envisions a system in which a Canadian-licensed wholesaler buys directly from a manufacturer for drugs approved for sale in Canada and exports the drugs to a U.S. wholesaler/importer under contract to a state.
Florida’s legislation — approved in 2019 — would set up two importation programs. The first would focus on getting drugs for state programs such as Medicaid, the Department of Corrections and county health departments. State officials said they expect the programs would save the state about $150 million annually.
The second program would be geared to the broader state population.
In response to the draft rule, the states seeking to start a drug importation program suggested changes to the administration’s proposal.
“Should the final rule not address these areas of concern, Colorado will struggle to find appropriate partners and realize significant savings for consumers,” Kim Bimestefer, executive director of the Colorado Department of Health Care Policy & Financing, told the FDA in March.
Among the state’s concerns is that it would be limited to using only one Canadian wholesaler, and without competition the state fears prices might not be as low as officials hoped. Bimestefer also noted that under the draft rule, the federal government would approve the importation program for only two years and states need a longer time frame to get buy-in from wholesalers and other partners.
Colorado officials estimate importing drugs from Canada could cut prices by 54% for cancer drugs and 75% for cardiac medicines. The state also noted the diabetes drug Jardiance costs $400 a month in the United States and sells for $85 in Canada.
Several states worry some of the most expensive drugs — including injectable and biologic medicines — were exempt from the federal rule. Those drug classes are not allowed to be imported under the 2000 law.
However, in an executive order in July, Trump said he would allow insulin to be imported if Azar determined it is required for emergency medical care. An HHS spokesman would not say whether Azar has done that.
Jane Horvath, a health policy consultant in College Park, Maryland, said the administration faces several challenges getting an importation program up and running, including possible opposition from the pharmaceutical industry and limits on classes of drugs that can be sold over the border.
“Despite the barriers, the programs are still quite worthwhile to pursue,” she said.
Maine’s top health official said the administration should work with the Canadian government to address Canada’s concerns. HHS officials refused to say whether such discussions have started.
Officials in Vermont, where the program would also include consumers covered by private insurance, remain hopeful.
“Given that we want to reduce the burden of health care costs on residents in our state, then it is important to pursue this option if there is a clear pathway forward,” Backus said.


thefiscaltimes--2020-09-23--Trump Admin Has Shifted Billions Toward Its Covid-19 Vaccine Effort: Report

The Trump administration has said that Operation Warp Speed , its push to develop a Covid-19 vaccine with unprecedented speed , is a $ 10 billion program funded by Congress , which also provided “ other flexible funding.
” But Bloomberg News reports that the administration has shifted billions of dollars allocated to public-health programs toward the vaccine effort , growing its budget to as large as $ 18 billion .
A review of public records shows that government deals with private-sector partners under the program total almost $ 13 billion , according to Bloomberg .
“ One of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 6 billion pulled from $ 16.7 billion that had been allocated to the U.S. Strategic National Stockpile , which buys , holds and distributes crucial medical supplies in times of national crisis .
The money had originally been meant to replenish stocks of medical protective gear , ventilators , and Covid-19 testing supplies , all of which have experienced shortages at points during the pandemic .
“ The transfer , disclosed in a footnote buried on page 135 of a Government Accountability Office report this month about the U.S. response to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Services officials said that they had been unable to spend about $ 1 billion of the money allocated for the stockpile.
” The transfers are reportedly legal but raise questions about transparency and the ultimate effectiveness of the administration ’ s pandemic response .
The GAO report cited by Bloomberg reportedly also noted that shortages of PPE supplies remain .

The Trump administration has said that Operation Warp Speed, its push to develop a Covid-19 vaccine with unprecedented speed, is a $10 billion program funded by Congress, which also provided “other flexible funding.” But Bloomberg News reports that the administration has shifted billions of dollars allocated to public-health programs toward the vaccine effort, growing its budget to as large as $18 billion. A review of public records shows that government deals with private-sector partners under the program total almost $13 billion, according to Bloomberg.
John Tozzi, Riley Griffin and Shira Stein report:
“One of the biggest transfers came in August, with $6 billion pulled from $16.7 billion that had been allocated to the U.S. Strategic National Stockpile, which buys, holds and distributes crucial medical supplies in times of national crisis. The money had originally been meant to replenish stocks of medical protective gear, ventilators, and Covid-19 testing supplies, all of which have experienced shortages at points during the pandemic.
“The transfer, disclosed in a footnote buried on page 135 of a Government Accountability Office report this month about the U.S. response to the pandemic, came after Health and Human Services officials said that they had been unable to spend about $1 billion of the money allocated for the stockpile.”
The transfers are reportedly legal but raise questions about transparency and the ultimate effectiveness of the administration’s pandemic response. The GAO report cited by Bloomberg reportedly also noted that shortages of PPE supplies remain.


thefiscaltimes--2020-09-23--GAO Calls for Use of Fiscal Rules and Targets to Corral the Debt

The Government Accountability Office on Wednesday released a new analysis of the nation ’ s fiscal health , and the diagnosis is not good .
“ Our nation faces serious challenges at a time when the federal government is highly leveraged in debt by historical norms , ” the report says .
“ The imbalance between revenue and spending built into current law and policy have placed the nation on an unsustainable long-term fiscal path.
” To get a better handle on the fiscal situation , GAO recommends that lawmakers develop a long-term fiscal plan that relies on rules and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the future .
The agency ’ s 48-page report lays out a variety of options lawmakers could deploy , ranging from clearly defined limits on revenues and spending to targets for the size of the annual deficit , and examines how such tools have performed in other countries , including Germany and the Netherlands .
“ No process can force choices that policymakers are unwilling to make , ” the report says .
“ However , agreement on a fiscal goal can assist in framing the difficult choices that must then be made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and targets adopted .
”

The Government Accountability Office on Wednesday released a new analysis of the nation’s fiscal health, and the diagnosis is not good.
“Our nation faces serious challenges at a time when the federal government is highly leveraged in debt by historical norms,” the report says. “The imbalance between revenue and spending built into current law and policy have placed the nation on an unsustainable long-term fiscal path.”
To get a better handle on the fiscal situation, GAO recommends that lawmakers develop a long-term fiscal plan that relies on rules and targets to limit deficits now and in the future. The agency’s 48-page report lays out a variety of options lawmakers could deploy, ranging from clearly defined limits on revenues and spending to targets for the size of the annual deficit, and examines how such tools have performed in other countries, including Germany and the Netherlands.
“No process can force choices that policymakers are unwilling to make,” the report says. “However, agreement on a fiscal goal can assist in framing the difficult choices that must then be made in designing the mix of fiscal rules and targets adopted.”
Read the GAO report here.


thefiscaltimes--2020-09-22--Mnuchin, Powell Say Economy Needs More Coronavirus Aid

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell told lawmakers Tuesday that Congress ’ s early response to the coronavirus pandemic helped support the economy — but that more relief spending will be needed to sustain the recovery .
“ Household spending looks to have recovered about three-fourths of its earlier decline , likely owing in part to federal stimulus payments and expanded unemployment benefits , ” Powell told a hearing of the House Financial Services Committee .
The housing sector has rebounded and business investment shows signs of picking up , he said .
He noted , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and overall economic activity remain well shy of their pre-pandemic levels .
A faster recovery would require more help from Congress , he said .
“ We still have 11 million people out of the 22 million who were laid off in March and April , ” Powell said .
“ There 's a lot of work to do there — and you know our policies will support that — but it will go faster for those people if it 's all government working together.
” Powell has repeatedly urged Congress to provide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is likely to be needed , ” he said last week .
Mnuchin told lawmakers Tuesday that he believes a “ targeted ” relief package is still needed .
“ It should be focused on kids and jobs , and areas of the economy that are still hard-hit — particularly areas such as the travel business and restaurants , ” he said , according to Roll Call .
“ I think there 's broad bipartisan support for extending the [ Paycheck Protection Program ] to businesses that had revenue drops for a second @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reiterated that the administration supports another round of $ 1,200 stimulus checks .
Powell and Mnuchin both said that existing Fed and Treasury lending programs can ’ t take the place of congressional relief money .
“ I unfortunately think there ’ s not more we can do , ” Mnuchin said .
The public also wants another aid package : Nearly 90 % of likely voters say the government needs to pass another coronavirus relief package , according to a Financial Times-Peter G. Peterson Foundation poll released Tuesday .
The survey found @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more worried about the economy than public health , a 9-point rise from last month .
A plurality of voters , 39 % , say Democrats and Republicans are equally responsible for the failure to pass another relief bill so far .
Another 26 % say the blame lies with Republicans , while 23 % say Democrats are to blame .
The poll was of 1,003 likely voters conducted between September 9 and September 14 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points .
What ’ s next @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another relief package .
Despite widespread agreement that Congress needs to do more , these calls for additional stimulus won ’ t jumpstart stalled talks on another relief package .
The odds of a deal before Election Day likely only got smaller with the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the coming fight over her replacement on the Supreme Court .
Meanwhile , Bloomberg economist Andrew Husby projects that the lapse in enhanced unemployment benefits and small business assistance will subtract at least 5 percentage points from fourth-quarter growth and that growth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ little better than stall-speed.
” Goldman Sachs analysts similarly say that the lack of an additional stimulus package would likely lead them to downgrade their growth projections , according to Bloomberg News — but that the outlook could change significantly depending on the presidential election results .
“ If the 2020 election results in unified Democratic government , this would likely allow a President Biden to pass a large spending increase , ” Goldman economists reportedly wrote in a note Monday .
Powell and Mnuchin are set to testify Thursday before the @ @ @ @

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell told lawmakers Tuesday that Congress’s early response to the coronavirus pandemic helped support the economy — but that more relief spending will be needed to sustain the recovery.
“Household spending looks to have recovered about three-fourths of its earlier decline, likely owing in part to federal stimulus payments and expanded unemployment benefits,” Powell told a hearing of the House Financial Services Committee. The housing sector has rebounded and business investment shows signs of picking up, he said. He noted, though, that both the job market and overall economic activity remain well shy of their pre-pandemic levels. A faster recovery would require more help from Congress, he said.
“We still have 11 million people out of the 22 million who were laid off in March and April,” Powell said. “There's a lot of work to do there — and you know our policies will support that — but it will go faster for those people if it's all government working together.”
Powell has repeatedly urged Congress to provide more help. “More fiscal support is likely to be needed,” he said last week.
Mnuchin told lawmakers Tuesday that he believes a “targeted” relief package is still needed. “It should be focused on kids and jobs, and areas of the economy that are still hard-hit — particularly areas such as the travel business and restaurants,” he said, according to Roll Call. “I think there's broad bipartisan support for extending the [Paycheck Protection Program] to businesses that had revenue drops for a second check.” The Treasury secretary reportedly also reiterated that the administration supports another round of $1,200 stimulus checks.
Powell and Mnuchin both said that existing Fed and Treasury lending programs can’t take the place of congressional relief money. “I unfortunately think there’s not more we can do,” Mnuchin said.
The public also wants another aid package: Nearly 90% of likely voters say the government needs to pass another coronavirus relief package, according to a Financial Times-Peter G. Peterson Foundation poll released Tuesday. The survey found that 42% now say they are more worried about the economy than public health, a 9-point rise from last month. A plurality of voters, 39%, say Democrats and Republicans are equally responsible for the failure to pass another relief bill so far. Another 26% say the blame lies with Republicans, while 23% say Democrats are to blame.
The poll was of 1,003 likely voters conducted between September 9 and September 14 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
What’s next: Well, it’s not another relief package. Despite widespread agreement that Congress needs to do more, these calls for additional stimulus won’t jumpstart stalled talks on another relief package. The odds of a deal before Election Day likely only got smaller with the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the coming fight over her replacement on the Supreme Court.
Meanwhile, Bloomberg economist Andrew Husby projects that the lapse in enhanced unemployment benefits and small business assistance will subtract at least 5 percentage points from fourth-quarter growth and that growth over the coming two quarters will be “little better than stall-speed.”
Goldman Sachs analysts similarly say that the lack of an additional stimulus package would likely lead them to downgrade their growth projections, according to Bloomberg News — but that the outlook could change significantly depending on the presidential election results. “If the 2020 election results in unified Democratic government, this would likely allow a President Biden to pass a large spending increase,” Goldman economists reportedly wrote in a note Monday.
Powell and Mnuchin are set to testify Thursday before the Senate Banking Committee.


thefiscaltimes--2020-09-24--Many Obamacare Enrollees During Pandemic Couldn’t Pay Their Premiums

Many workers who lost their jobs and health coverage because of the pandemic signed up for Obamacare plans , with a dozen states that operate their own Affordable Care Act marketplaces offering special enrollment periods to help more people get insurance .
But Bloomberg Law ’ s Sara Hansard reports that a significant number of those new enrollees never actually got coverage — because they couldn ’ t pay their initial premiums : “ Almost one-third of some 20,000 Maryland enrollees from March through August didn ’ t activate their plans .
In Washington , one-fifth of a 27,000-enrollee sample @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of payment , a sign that Obamacare subsidies may not be enough to help uninsured people get coverage in a public health emergency .
“ People are enticed to sign up , but many are having trouble paying the first premium to start the coverage , Trinity College economics professor Gerardo Ruiz Sanchez found in a recent paper .
Once people make the first payment , they are entitled to a 90-day grace period if they don ’ t make subsequent payments before being cut off .
“ The findings indicate many people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ though subsidies are provided for those with incomes between 100 % and 400 % of the poverty level.
” Ruiz Sanchez ’ s paper reportedly found that people who lost coverage are less likely to pay their first premium than others signing up under the special enrollment option .
“ This provides some empirical evidence that there might be scope for considering a little bit of extra help for them , ” Ruiz Sanchez told Bloomberg .
“ If we ’ re discussing stimulus checks , if we ’ re discussing eviction bans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ little bit of help for people to keep their insurance .
”

Many workers who lost their jobs and health coverage because of the pandemic signed up for Obamacare plans, with a dozen states that operate their own Affordable Care Act marketplaces offering special enrollment periods to help more people get insurance. But Bloomberg Law’s Sara Hansard reports that a significant number of those new enrollees never actually got coverage — because they couldn’t pay their initial premiums:
“Almost one-third of some 20,000 Maryland enrollees from March through August didn’t activate their plans. In Washington, one-fifth of a 27,000-enrollee sample are still without coverage due to lack of payment, a sign that Obamacare subsidies may not be enough to help uninsured people get coverage in a public health emergency.
“People are enticed to sign up, but many are having trouble paying the first premium to start the coverage, Trinity College economics professor Gerardo Ruiz Sanchez found in a recent paper. Once people make the first payment, they are entitled to a 90-day grace period if they don’t make subsequent payments before being cut off.
“The findings indicate many people can’t afford ACA coverage even though subsidies are provided for those with incomes between 100% and 400% of the poverty level.”
Ruiz Sanchez’s paper reportedly found that people who lost coverage are less likely to pay their first premium than others signing up under the special enrollment option. “This provides some empirical evidence that there might be scope for considering a little bit of extra help for them,” Ruiz Sanchez told Bloomberg. “If we’re discussing stimulus checks, if we’re discussing eviction bans, why are we not discussing a little bit of help for people to keep their insurance.”
Read more at Bloomberg Law.


thefiscaltimes--2020-09-23--Top CEOs Call for 'Major' Coronavirus Stimulus

The CEOs of some of the country ’ s largest companies say the outlook for their businesses has improved somewhat compared to last quarter , but that the government must provide “ further major support ” for what remains a fragile economic recovery , according to a new survey .
The quarterly survey by the Business Roundtable , a non-profit association of chief executives of major companies , found that 24 % of CEOs said that business conditions either didn ’ t suffer , have recovered or will likely recover by the end of the year .
Another 40 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ next year , while 36 % said it will take until 2022 or later for a full recovery .
The CEO group surveyed 149 members from August 31 to September 16 .
It said its index measuring CEOs ' business outlooks climbed nearly 30 points to 64 , the first increase in nine quarters , but remains well below the historical average of 81.7 dating back to 2002 .
The business leader projected that the economy would shrink by 2.4 % for the year , a 1.4 percentage point increase from last quarter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Business Roundtable CEOs has improved , due in part to actions taken by policymakers earlier this year to help Americans , ” Joshua Bolten , Business Roundtable ’ s president and CEO , said in a statement accompanying the survey results .
“ But further major support from the federal government is necessary to prevent economic recovery from being derailed .
Failure to act , along with the lack of comprehensive and coordinated efforts to stop the spread of COVID-19 , would impose long term damage on the U.S. economy , hurting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ able to absorb the blow.
” Walmart CEO Doug McMillon , who also serves as the Business Roundtable ’ s chairman , also called on lawmakers to restart talks on another coronavirus relief bill .
“ Business Roundtable urges the administration and Congress to come back to the negotiating table and pass more legislation to further ease the economic challenges American workers , small businesses and suppliers are experiencing , ” he said .

The CEOs of some of the country’s largest companies say the outlook for their businesses has improved somewhat compared to last quarter, but that the government must provide “further major support” for what remains a fragile economic recovery, according to a new survey.
The quarterly survey by the Business Roundtable, a non-profit association of chief executives of major companies, found that 24% of CEOs said that business conditions either didn’t suffer, have recovered or will likely recover by the end of the year. Another 40% said they expect conditions to bounce back next year, while 36% said it will take until 2022 or later for a full recovery.
The CEO group surveyed 149 members from August 31 to September 16. It said its index measuring CEOs' business outlooks climbed nearly 30 points to 64, the first increase in nine quarters, but remains well below the historical average of 81.7 dating back to 2002. The business leader projected that the economy would shrink by 2.4% for the year, a 1.4 percentage point increase from last quarter’s estimate.
“The outlook of Business Roundtable CEOs has improved, due in part to actions taken by policymakers earlier this year to help Americans,” Joshua Bolten, Business Roundtable’s president and CEO, said in a statement accompanying the survey results. “But further major support from the federal government is necessary to prevent economic recovery from being derailed. Failure to act, along with the lack of comprehensive and coordinated efforts to stop the spread of COVID-19, would impose long term damage on the U.S. economy, hurting most the workers and small businesses least able to absorb the blow.”
Walmart CEO Doug McMillon, who also serves as the Business Roundtable’s chairman, also called on lawmakers to restart talks on another coronavirus relief bill. “Business Roundtable urges the administration and Congress to come back to the negotiating table and pass more legislation to further ease the economic challenges American workers, small businesses and suppliers are experiencing,” he said.


thefiscaltimes--2020-09-23--House Passes Bill to Avert Shutdown

House Passes Bill to Avert Shutdown

The shutdown threat disappeared as quickly as it arrived .
In a 359-to-57 vote Tuesday night , the House approved a continuing resolution to extend current funding levels through December 11 after Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-CA ) and the White House reached a deal to remove the threat of a government shutdown when the fiscal year ends on September 30 .
Earlier talks on the stopgap spending deal came crashing down late last week , raising the possibility of a last-minute funding crisis , but Pelosi and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin were able to revive the negotiations and come @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bill provides additional funding sought by negotiators from both sides of the aisle , including $ 8 billion for children ’ s nutrition programs and $ 21 billion to replenish the Commodity Credit Corporation , a Depression-era income assistance program that the Trump administration has used to bail out farmers hurt by the president ’ s trade policies .
The resolution also includes new guidelines that would prevent oil companies from benefiting from CCC funding .
What ’ s next : The bill will advance to the Senate .
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ publicly on the bill , but is expected to bring it up for a vote this week , and President Trump is expected to sign it soon after .
Senate may head home : If the bill is signed into law by the end of the week , senators may start their fall recess early .
“ My guess is if we wrap up the CR [ continuing resolution ] then yeah we probably should be done for at least a while , ” Senate Majority Whip John Thune ( R-SD ) said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to town if needed to vote on a coronavirus relief bill or a new Supreme Court justice .

The shutdown threat disappeared as quickly as it arrived.
In a 359-to-57 vote Tuesday night, the House approved a continuing resolution to extend current funding levels through December 11 after Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and the White House reached a deal to remove the threat of a government shutdown when the fiscal year ends on September 30.
Earlier talks on the stopgap spending deal came crashing down late last week, raising the possibility of a last-minute funding crisis, but Pelosi and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin were able to revive the negotiations and come to terms on Tuesday.
The House bill provides additional funding sought by negotiators from both sides of the aisle, including $8 billion for children’s nutrition programs and $21 billion to replenish the Commodity Credit Corporation, a Depression-era income assistance program that the Trump administration has used to bail out farmers hurt by the president’s trade policies. The resolution also includes new guidelines that would prevent oil companies from benefiting from CCC funding.
What’s next: The bill will advance to the Senate. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has not yet commented publicly on the bill, but is expected to bring it up for a vote this week, and President Trump is expected to sign it soon after.
Senate may head home: If the bill is signed into law by the end of the week, senators may start their fall recess early. “My guess is if we wrap up the CR [continuing resolution] then yeah we probably should be done for at least a while,” Senate Majority Whip John Thune (R-SD) said Wednesday, adding that lawmakers would return to town if needed to vote on a coronavirus relief bill or a new Supreme Court justice.


thefiscaltimes--2020-09-25--Court OKs Lawsuit Over Trump’s Emergency Border Wall Spending

A federal court cleared the way Friday for a lawsuit by House Democrats challenging President Trump ’ s use of emergency powers to redirect billions in public funds toward border wall construction .
Democrats have accused the White House of violating the Constitution by redirecting more than $ 6 billion toward the wall following Trump ’ s declaration of an emergency at the border in early 2019 .
In a unanimous decision , a three-judge panel on the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit partially overturned a lower court ’ s ruling that found that the House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the issue .
“ To put it simply , the Appropriations Clause requires two keys to unlock the Treasury , and the House holds one of those keys , ” the senior judge wrote in the 24-page decision .
“ The Executive Branch has , in a word , snatched the House ’ s key out of its hands.
” The judges rejected the legal theory put forward by White House lawyers , who argued that Congress needs veto-proof majorities in both houses to challenge the president ’ s use of public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ order upside down , ” the judge wrote .
“ The whole purpose of the appropriations clause ’ s structural protection is to deny the executive ‘ an unbounded power over the public purse of the nation , ’ and the power to ‘ apply all its moneyed resources at his pleasure .
’ ”

A federal court cleared the way Friday for a lawsuit by House Democrats challenging President Trump’s use of emergency powers to redirect billions in public funds toward border wall construction.
Democrats have accused the White House of violating the Constitution by redirecting more than $6 billion toward the wall following Trump’s declaration of an emergency at the border in early 2019. In a unanimous decision, a three-judge panel on the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit partially overturned a lower court’s ruling that found that the House did not have standing to challenge Trump on the issue.
“To put it simply, the Appropriations Clause requires two keys to unlock the Treasury, and the House holds one of those keys,” the senior judge wrote in the 24-page decision. “The Executive Branch has, in a word, snatched the House’s key out of its hands.”
The judges rejected the legal theory put forward by White House lawyers, who argued that Congress needs veto-proof majorities in both houses to challenge the president’s use of public funds. “That turns the constitutional order upside down,” the judge wrote. “The whole purpose of the appropriations clause’s structural protection is to deny the executive ‘an unbounded power over the public purse of the nation,’ and the power to ‘apply all its moneyed resources at his pleasure.’”


thefiscaltimes--2020-09-24--Layoffs Keep Coming, 27 Weeks Into the Crisis

About 870,000 people filed for state unemployment benefits in the week ending September 19 , the Labor Department said Thursday , a slight increase from the week before on a seasonally adjusted basis and well above economists ’ expectations .
An additional 630,000 people filed claims for Pandemic Unemployment Assistance , the federal program for self-employed and gig workers .
Taking all state and federal insurance programs together , about 26 million people were receiving some kind of unemployment benefits in the week ending September 5 , a drop of more than 3 million from the week before , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a substantial portion of that decrease came from California , as the state eliminated duplicate and fraudulent cases from its data . )
Nearly 62 million jobless claims have been filed since the pandemic began .
The jobs crisis isn ’ t over .
As economists have been saying for some time now , the job-loss numbers are better than they were at the beginning of the pandemic , but still far above levels seen in any economic crisis since the Great Depression .
“ It ’ s just an ongoing crisis in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Heidi Shierholz of the Economic Policy Institute .
This week ’ s numbers are “ an indicator of the pain that ’ s still out there , ” Ethan Harris of Bank of America told Bloomberg .
“ And it ’ s consistent with the idea that we ’ re getting past that phase where we ’ re kind of rebounding from that shutdown , and now we ’ re more to the grinding-forward phase with this massive headwind from the labor market.
” Joseph Brusuelas , chief economist at the consulting firm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suggests that the easy gains of the recovery ’ s early stages are likely in the rear-view mirror and the hard work of digging out of the economic abyss lies ahead.
” Winter could be worse .
AnnElizabeth Konkel , an economist for the career site Indeed , told The New York Times that the apparent slowdown in the job market recovery in recent weeks is particularly worrisome given that cold weather will start arriving soon , which could force some businesses to curtail their operations or even close amid worries about spreading @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re losing steam , which is definitely not good heading into the winter , ” she said .
Calls for more stimulus .
The report provided further evidence for some economists that another round of fiscal stimulus will be needed .
“ The recovery is losing momentum and further fiscal stimulus is needed to support jobs and incomes , ” Bloomberg economist Eliza Winger said .

About 870,000 people filed for state unemployment benefits in the week ending September 19, the Labor Department said Thursday, a slight increase from the week before on a seasonally adjusted basis and well above economists’ expectations. An additional 630,000 people filed claims for Pandemic Unemployment Assistance, the federal program for self-employed and gig workers.
Taking all state and federal insurance programs together, about 26 million people were receiving some kind of unemployment benefits in the week ending September 5, a drop of more than 3 million from the week before, the weekly report said. (However, a substantial portion of that decrease came from California, as the state eliminated duplicate and fraudulent cases from its data.)
Nearly 62 million jobless claims have been filed since the pandemic began.
The jobs crisis isn’t over. As economists have been saying for some time now, the job-loss numbers are better than they were at the beginning of the pandemic, but still far above levels seen in any economic crisis since the Great Depression. “It’s just an ongoing crisis in the labor market,” said economist Heidi Shierholz of the Economic Policy Institute.
This week’s numbers are “an indicator of the pain that’s still out there,” Ethan Harris of Bank of America told Bloomberg. “And it’s consistent with the idea that we’re getting past that phase where we’re kind of rebounding from that shutdown, and now we’re more to the grinding-forward phase with this massive headwind from the labor market.”
Joseph Brusuelas, chief economist at the consulting firm RSM, said the “stalling out suggests that the easy gains of the recovery’s early stages are likely in the rear-view mirror and the hard work of digging out of the economic abyss lies ahead.”
Winter could be worse. AnnElizabeth Konkel, an economist for the career site Indeed, told The New York Times that the apparent slowdown in the job market recovery in recent weeks is particularly worrisome given that cold weather will start arriving soon, which could force some businesses to curtail their operations or even close amid worries about spreading the virus indoors. “We’re losing steam, which is definitely not good heading into the winter,” she said.
Calls for more stimulus. The report provided further evidence for some economists that another round of fiscal stimulus will be needed. “The recovery is losing momentum and further fiscal stimulus is needed to support jobs and incomes,” Bloomberg economist Eliza Winger said.


thefiscaltimes--2020-09-24--Pelosi and Mnuchin Agree to Restart Stimulus Talks

Stalled coronavirus stimulus talks may be starting up again on Capitol Hill .
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-CA ) both said Thursday that they have agreed to revive their negotiations on another coronavirus relief bill .
“ The president and I want more support , ” Mnuchin told a hearing of the Senate Banking Committee .
“ I 've probably spoken to Speaker Pelosi 15 or 20 times in the last few days on the CR , and we 've agreed to continue to have discussions about the CARES Act.
” Pelosi told reporters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the negotiating table .
The two sides remain far apart , with Democrats pressing for a larger and broader package that would renew enhanced unemployment benefits , provide aid to state and local governments and deliver another round of direct payments to households , among other things .
The White House and Senate Republicans , meanwhile , have objected to the state aid and pushed for a narrower , more targeted approach .
“ Let 's pass things that we agree on quickly , and we can always come back and do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ according to The Hill .
“ It 's less of the issue of what the absolute number is.
” Senate Republicans previously failed to come together behind a $ 1 trillion proposal , but they did support a smaller plan totaling some $ 650 billion .
That package was blocked by Democrats who said was it insufficient .
Democrats prepare a new $ 2.4 trillion plan : The Democratic-led House passed a $ 3.4 trillion package in May , but party leaders have more recently sought a compromise deal worth around $ 2.2 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to restart talks , Pelosi has reportedly instructed House committee chairs to prepare another version of their package as a basis for renewed negotiations — or as a way for Democrats to show they are acting to address the crisis even if talks with the White House don ’ t go anywhere .
Pelosi , who has insisted on a comprehensive deal , has faced increasing pressure from centrists in her caucus to take up additional coronavirus relief measures , even narrower ones , ahead of November ’ s elections .
The House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ week , even without GOP support , Politico reports .
The new package is expected to cost $ 2.4 trillion .
Politico ’ s Heather Caygle , John Bresnahan and Sarah Ferris provide more details : “ The legislation is expected to contain popular provisions from the massive $ 3.4 trillion HEROES Act the House passed in May , including state and local funding and expanded unemployment benefits but likely for a shorter time frame than originally proposed , according to Democrats involved.
” The package will reportedly also include additional funding for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need that have developed in recent months .
Economy at risk : The economy shows signs of needing more support ( see more below ) and leading economists warn that the U.S. is at risk of repeating a costly mistake made after the Great Recession by cutting off government aid too quickly , Ben Casselman and Jeanna Smialek write in The New York Times on Thursday .
“ The lesson from the last crisis is that we had elevated unemployment for years , and it was a slow grind to work that down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas , told the Times .
“ We have a chance here , if we act quickly , to mitigate the lasting damage that we saw.
” The bottom line : The two sides show no signs they ’ ve moved any closer to clinching a deal .
As Senate Appropriations Chairman Richard Shelby ( R-AL ) said : “ There ’ s always a chance around here , as you know , but it is slim .
”

Stalled coronavirus stimulus talks may be starting up again on Capitol Hill. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) both said Thursday that they have agreed to revive their negotiations on another coronavirus relief bill.
“The president and I want more support,” Mnuchin told a hearing of the Senate Banking Committee. “I've probably spoken to Speaker Pelosi 15 or 20 times in the last few days on the CR, and we've agreed to continue to have discussions about the CARES Act.”
Pelosi told reporters that she hoped to soon be back at the negotiating table.
The two sides remain far apart, with Democrats pressing for a larger and broader package that would renew enhanced unemployment benefits, provide aid to state and local governments and deliver another round of direct payments to households, among other things.
The White House and Senate Republicans, meanwhile, have objected to the state aid and pushed for a narrower, more targeted approach. “Let's pass things that we agree on quickly, and we can always come back and do more,” Mnuchin said Thursday, according to The Hill. “It's less of the issue of what the absolute number is.”
Senate Republicans previously failed to come together behind a $1 trillion proposal, but they did support a smaller plan totaling some $650 billion. That package was blocked by Democrats who said was it insufficient.
Democrats prepare a new $2.4 trillion plan: The Democratic-led House passed a $3.4 trillion package in May, but party leaders have more recently sought a compromise deal worth around $2.2 trillion. Now, as she seeks to restart talks, Pelosi has reportedly instructed House committee chairs to prepare another version of their package as a basis for renewed negotiations — or as a way for Democrats to show they are acting to address the crisis even if talks with the White House don’t go anywhere. Pelosi, who has insisted on a comprehensive deal, has faced increasing pressure from centrists in her caucus to take up additional coronavirus relief measures, even narrower ones, ahead of November’s elections.
The House could vote on the new plan next week, even without GOP support, Politico reports.
The new package is expected to cost $2.4 trillion. Politico’s Heather Caygle, John Bresnahan and Sarah Ferris provide more details:
“The legislation is expected to contain popular provisions from the massive $3.4 trillion HEROES Act the House passed in May, including state and local funding and expanded unemployment benefits but likely for a shorter time frame than originally proposed, according to Democrats involved.”
The package will reportedly also include additional funding for airlines, restaurants and other areas of need that have developed in recent months.
Economy at risk: The economy shows signs of needing more support (see more below) and leading economists warn that the U.S. is at risk of repeating a costly mistake made after the Great Recession by cutting off government aid too quickly, Ben Casselman and Jeanna Smialek write in The New York Times on Thursday. “The lesson from the last crisis is that we had elevated unemployment for years, and it was a slow grind to work that down,” Robert S. Kaplan, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, told the Times. “We have a chance here, if we act quickly, to mitigate the lasting damage that we saw.”
The bottom line: The two sides show no signs they’ve moved any closer to clinching a deal. As Senate Appropriations Chairman Richard Shelby (R-AL) said: “There’s always a chance around here, as you know, but it is slim.”


thefiscaltimes--2020-09-28--US Household Wealth Grew From 2016 to 2019: Report

American households grew wealthier between 2016 and 2019 , according to the latest Survey of Consumer Finances released Monday by researchers at the Federal Reserve Bank .
But long-running patterns of inequality remained in place , leaving households in the top of the distribution much better prepared to weather the coronavirus crisis recession this year .
The report confirms a steady decline in relative wealth over the last 30 years for the bottom 90 % of the U.S. population ( the orange and blue lines in the chart below ) , and an increase for the top 10 % ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Affluent families have ... held a growing share of the nation ’ s wealth — savings amassed overtime , rather than the money a family earns in a given year — over recent decades , ” The New York Times ’ Jeanna Smialek wrote Monday .
“ They retained that advantage through 2019 .
In 1989 , the top 1 percent of wealth holders held about 30 percent of the nation ’ s net worth .
That jumped to nearly 40 percent in 2016 and was little changed in the latest survey .
@

American households grew wealthier between 2016 and 2019, according to the latest Survey of Consumer Finances released Monday by researchers at the Federal Reserve Bank. But long-running patterns of inequality remained in place, leaving households in the top of the distribution much better prepared to weather the coronavirus crisis recession this year.
The report confirms a steady decline in relative wealth over the last 30 years for the bottom 90% of the U.S. population (the orange and blue lines in the chart below), and an increase for the top 10% (yellow and green lines).
“Affluent families have ... held a growing share of the nation’s wealth — savings amassed overtime, rather than the money a family earns in a given year — over recent decades,” The New York Times’ Jeanna Smialek wrote Monday. “They retained that advantage through 2019. In 1989, the top 1 percent of wealth holders held about 30 percent of the nation’s net worth. That jumped to nearly 40 percent in 2016 and was little changed in the latest survey.”


thefiscaltimes--2020-09-25--Economy Would Do Better Under Biden Than Trump: Moody’s

The economy is widely seen to be a relative strength for President Trump , with voters giving him much higher approval ratings for his handling of economic issues than other areas .
But a new analysis from economists Mark Zandi and Bernard Yaros of Moody ’ s Analytics says that Joe Biden ’ s economic agenda would spur more growth than Trump ’ s .
Using an economic model the authors say is similar to those deployed by the Federal Reserve and the Congressional Budget Office , Zandi and Yaros estimated the impact of the candidate ’ s proposed policies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , infrastructure spending and health care access .
The strongest growth occurs in a scenario in which Biden is able to pass his agenda through a Congress controlled by his party : “ Largely because of Biden ’ s substantially more expansive fiscal policies , the economy would return to full employment more quickly coming out of the pandemic than under Trump—in the second half of 2022 under Biden compared with the first half of 2024 under Trump .
Biden ’ s reversal of Trump ’ s policies on foreign trade and immigration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , so that by the end of their terms in 2024 , real GDP would be $ 960 billion , or 4.5 % , larger under Biden than Trump .
This translates into 7.4 million more jobs under Biden than Trump.
” However , much depends on whether the election results in divided control of Congress .
Zandi and Yaros considered four possible election outcomes , including clean sweeps ( full control of the White House and both chambers of Congress by either party ) and scenarios that involve divided government ( Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hands , Trump wins but the House stays in Democratic hands ) .
The strongest economic results are seen in the Democratic clean sweep scenario , which the authors give a 20 % chance of occurring .
The other election scenarios result in weaker growth trajectories , and only modest differences overall ( see the chart below ) .
The election outcome the authors say is most likely — a Biden win with Republicans maintaining control of the Senate , which they give a 40 % chance of happening — produces the second-best @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Divided control with Trump keeping the White House is the third-best result , while the worst occurs with a Republican clean sweep .
Other notable findings from the analysis : Biden ’ s policies favor the middle class : “ Lower- and middle-income households benefit more from Biden ’ s policies than Trump ’ s .
Biden ramps up government spending on education , healthcare and other social programs , the benefits of which largely go to those in the bottom half of the income distribution .
Meanwhile , he meaningfully increases taxes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ businesses to help pay for it.
” While Trump ’ s favor the rich : “ Trump largely does the reverse .
He makes permanent the temporary tax cuts he implemented in his first term .
The benefits largely go to higher-income households and businesses , while government spending is scaled back on healthcare and a range of social programs , the benefits of which go mainly to those with lesser incomes and wealth.
” Bigger deficits under Biden : “ Biden ’ s policies will result in substantially larger federal budget deficits @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their terms as president .
Biden ’ s policies cost $ 2.5 trillion during his time as president on a static basis , while Trump ’ s add only a few hundred billion dollars.
” But the economic cost will be low : “ Negative economic fallout from Biden ’ s larger near-term deficits is mitigated significantly .
The reason : With the economy far from full employment and inflation moribund when Biden takes office , the Federal Reserve ’ s vows on employment and inflation mean it will keep interest rates very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ term.
” And the debt-to-GDP ratio would be similar after 10 years : `` [ T ] he stronger economic growth supported by Biden ’ s policies generates more tax revenue and less government spending .
The results are dynamic budget costs of closer to $ 2 trillion during his term .
The stronger growth and increase in GDP also mean that by the end of the decade , Biden ’ s and Trump ’ s policies result in a similar 130 % publicly traded federal government debt-to-GDP ratio .
This compares with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ''

The economy is widely seen to be a relative strength for President Trump, with voters giving him much higher approval ratings for his handling of economic issues than other areas. But a new analysis from economists Mark Zandi and Bernard Yaros of Moody’s Analytics says that Joe Biden’s economic agenda would spur more growth than Trump’s.
Using an economic model the authors say is similar to those deployed by the Federal Reserve and the Congressional Budget Office, Zandi and Yaros estimated the impact of the candidate’s proposed policies, including changes to the tax code, infrastructure spending and health care access. The strongest growth occurs in a scenario in which Biden is able to pass his agenda through a Congress controlled by his party:
“Largely because of Biden’s substantially more expansive fiscal policies, the economy would return to full employment more quickly coming out of the pandemic than under Trump—in the second half of 2022 under Biden compared with the first half of 2024 under Trump. Biden’s reversal of Trump’s policies on foreign trade and immigration would also contribute to stronger economic growth, so that by the end of their terms in 2024, real GDP would be $960 billion, or 4.5%, larger under Biden than Trump. This translates into 7.4 million more jobs under Biden than Trump.”
However, much depends on whether the election results in divided control of Congress. Zandi and Yaros considered four possible election outcomes, including clean sweeps (full control of the White House and both chambers of Congress by either party) and scenarios that involve divided government (Biden wins but the Senate stays in Republican hands, Trump wins but the House stays in Democratic hands). The strongest economic results are seen in the Democratic clean sweep scenario, which the authors give a 20% chance of occurring.
The other election scenarios result in weaker growth trajectories, and only modest differences overall (see the chart below). The election outcome the authors say is most likely — a Biden win with Republicans maintaining control of the Senate, which they give a 40% chance of happening — produces the second-best economic results over the next decade. Divided control with Trump keeping the White House is the third-best result, while the worst occurs with a Republican clean sweep.
Other notable findings from the analysis:
Biden’s policies favor the middle class: “Lower- and middle-income households benefit more from Biden’s policies than Trump’s. Biden ramps up government spending on education, healthcare and other social programs, the benefits of which largely go to those in the bottom half of the income distribution. Meanwhile, he meaningfully increases taxes on the well-to-do, financial institutions and businesses to help pay for it.”
While Trump’s favor the rich: “Trump largely does the reverse. He makes permanent the temporary tax cuts he implemented in his first term. The benefits largely go to higher-income households and businesses, while government spending is scaled back on healthcare and a range of social programs, the benefits of which go mainly to those with lesser incomes and wealth.”
Bigger deficits under Biden: “Biden’s policies will result in substantially larger federal budget deficits than Trump’s, particularly during their terms as president. Biden’s policies cost $2.5 trillion during his time as president on a static basis, while Trump’s add only a few hundred billion dollars.”
But the economic cost will be low: “Negative economic fallout from Biden’s larger near-term deficits is mitigated significantly. The reason: With the economy far from full employment and inflation moribund when Biden takes office, the Federal Reserve’s vows on employment and inflation mean it will keep interest rates very low for much of the next presidential term.”
And the debt-to-GDP ratio would be similar after 10 years: "[T]he stronger economic growth supported by Biden’s policies generates more tax revenue and less government spending. The results are dynamic budget costs of closer to $2 trillion during his term. The stronger growth and increase in GDP also mean that by the end of the decade, Biden’s and Trump’s policies result in a similar 130% publicly traded federal government debt-to-GDP ratio. This compares with 108% when they take office."
Read the report at Moody’s.


thefiscaltimes--2020-09-30--Senate Votes to Avert Shutdown

Senate Votes to Avert Shutdown

Facing a midnight deadline to avoid a government shutdown , the Senate on Wednesday evening passed a stopgap spending bill @ @ @ @ @ on until December 11 .
The vote was 84-10 .
Passed by the House last @ @ @ @ @ expected to head to President Trump ’ s desk later this evening .

Facing a midnight deadline to avoid a government shutdown, the Senate on Wednesday evening passed a stopgap spending bill that will keep the lights on until December 11. The vote was 84-10.
Passed by the House last week, the legislation is expected to head to President Trump’s desk later this evening.


thefiscaltimes--2020-09-30--States Can Get by Without Additional Federal Aid

National newspapers , including The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times , continue to publish news articles and editorials outlining the arguments for more federal aid to help state and local governments get through the current crisis .
Without additional federal revenue , many governments will indeed have to cut their spending or raise taxes , much as they did during the Great Recession .
As House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin resume negotiations on a coronavirus relief package , we must remember that the federal government has already borrowed heavily during this crisis , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ daunting than some experts anticipated a few months ago .
The “ Heroes Act , ” which was passed by the House of Representatives on May 15 , would allocate more than $ 1 trillion of additional aid to state and local governments .
A new $ 2.2 trillion proposal from House Democrats would provide $ 436 billion for state , local and tribal governments over one year .
But neither of those plans has enough support to pass in the Republican-controlled Senate .
The much smaller relief bill recently introduced by Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aid to states .
Meanwhile , due to the rebounding stock market and retail sales , the tax revenue situation in most states isn ’ t quite as bad as some feared early in the pandemic .
According to the Tax Foundation , state tax revenue in Fiscal Year ( FY ) 2021 is expected to be lower than pre-Covid-19 projections by $ 117.8 billion .
The sum of losses in both 2020 and 2021 projects to around $ 191 billion , and when combined with local tax revenue losses , grows to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economy recovers slowly , state and local tax revenues may continue to be low for an additional year or longer .
This is substantial , but consider that the federal government has already approved a total of $ 357 billion in aid to state and local governments , of which $ 150 billion is flexible enough to be used as each government decides .
This does not count considerable federal spending on unemployment compensation .
It appears that federal aid is enough to make up for the revenue loss of the average state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2021 .
It won ’ t , however , be enough to cover pension shortfalls in many states .
Pension shortfalls are the result of many years of underfunding , though the problem is made worse by the recession .
They can best be addressed by reform at the state level .
Not every state has same level of fiscal stress .
Some are facing particularly steep revenue declines , especially energy producing states .
But some of those same states also have large rainy day funds that will get them through .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ rainy day funds to pay for more than 10 % of their annual spending .
Other states have been more profligate , saving little or nothing during the recent economic boom .
If state leaders expect a federal bailout , it will be much easier not to save during an economic boom and to extend their shutdowns , further reducing their tax revenues .
When revenue declines , this gives state and local governments , like businesses , an opportunity to become more efficient .
There is no need to cut essential services @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which account for just 7 % of state and local government budgets .
Most state and local governments have lower-value or nonessential programs , and can also consider tough emergency measures such as temporarily freezing salaries , furloughing workers and delaying highway spending and new initiatives .
It would be better if states reduced their reliance on aid from the federal government , not only during crises , but also during normal times .
States are required to balance their budgets , while the federal government has can accumulate unlimited debt .
Even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , every dollar of federal aid to states comes from the same taxpayers who state and local governments serve .
If government borrowing is financed by Federal Reserve money creation , as has been the case recently , we may well pay for it with an inflation tax , as the money we have saved loses value and buys fewer goods and services in the future .
And if the federal government continues to expand its borrowing , we are likely to face a combination of higher inflation rates and higher tax rates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much of the additional debt the Federal Reserve buys .
More federal spending and debt will make it more difficult to pay all of the Social Security benefits that seniors have been told they can expect , since those benefits exceed payroll tax revenue by a growing amount each year .
A recession like we are now experiencing has reduced output and the incomes of many workers and business owners .
To cover the cost of the trillions recently spent on programs to help them , we will eventually have a large bill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that any additional federal spending and borrowing is absolutely necessary , because it will only make these costs more onerous .
Tracy C. Miller is a senior policy research editor with the Mercatus Center at George Mason University

National newspapers, including The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times, continue to publish news articles and editorials outlining the arguments for more federal aid to help state and local governments get through the current crisis. Without additional federal revenue, many governments will indeed have to cut their spending or raise taxes, much as they did during the Great Recession.
As House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin resume negotiations on a coronavirus relief package, we must remember that the federal government has already borrowed heavily during this crisis, and that state revenue shortfalls look less daunting than some experts anticipated a few months ago.
The “Heroes Act,” which was passed by the House of Representatives on May 15, would allocate more than $1 trillion of additional aid to state and local governments. A new $2.2 trillion proposal from House Democrats would provide $436 billion for state, local and tribal governments over one year. But neither of those plans has enough support to pass in the Republican-controlled Senate. The much smaller relief bill recently introduced by Senate Republicans does not include any additional federal aid to states.
Meanwhile, due to the rebounding stock market and retail sales, the tax revenue situation in most states isn’t quite as bad as some feared early in the pandemic.
According to the Tax Foundation, state tax revenue in Fiscal Year (FY) 2021 is expected to be lower than pre-Covid-19 projections by $117.8 billion. The sum of losses in both 2020 and 2021 projects to around $191 billion, and when combined with local tax revenue losses, grows to about $280 billion. If the economy recovers slowly, state and local tax revenues may continue to be low for an additional year or longer.
This is substantial, but consider that the federal government has already approved a total of $357 billion in aid to state and local governments, of which $150 billion is flexible enough to be used as each government decides. This does not count considerable federal spending on unemployment compensation.
It appears that federal aid is enough to make up for the revenue loss of the average state and locality in FY 2020 and FY 2021. It won’t, however, be enough to cover pension shortfalls in many states. Pension shortfalls are the result of many years of underfunding, though the problem is made worse by the recession. They can best be addressed by reform at the state level.
Not every state has same level of fiscal stress. Some are facing particularly steep revenue declines, especially energy producing states. But some of those same states also have large rainy day funds that will get them through. Overall, 18 states have large enough rainy day funds to pay for more than 10% of their annual spending. Other states have been more profligate, saving little or nothing during the recent economic boom.
If state leaders expect a federal bailout, it will be much easier not to save during an economic boom and to extend their shutdowns, further reducing their tax revenues.
When revenue declines, this gives state and local governments, like businesses, an opportunity to become more efficient. There is no need to cut essential services like police, fire and sanitation, which account for just 7% of state and local government budgets. Most state and local governments have lower-value or nonessential programs, and can also consider tough emergency measures such as temporarily freezing salaries, furloughing workers and delaying highway spending and new initiatives.
It would be better if states reduced their reliance on aid from the federal government, not only during crises, but also during normal times. States are required to balance their budgets, while the federal government has can accumulate unlimited debt. Even if it is financed by deficit spending, every dollar of federal aid to states comes from the same taxpayers who state and local governments serve.
If government borrowing is financed by Federal Reserve money creation, as has been the case recently, we may well pay for it with an inflation tax, as the money we have saved loses value and buys fewer goods and services in the future.
And if the federal government continues to expand its borrowing, we are likely to face a combination of higher inflation rates and higher tax rates in the future, depending on how much of the additional debt the Federal Reserve buys. More federal spending and debt will make it more difficult to pay all of the Social Security benefits that seniors have been told they can expect, since those benefits exceed payroll tax revenue by a growing amount each year.
A recession like we are now experiencing has reduced output and the incomes of many workers and business owners. To cover the cost of the trillions recently spent on programs to help them, we will eventually have a large bill to pay. We must make sure that any additional federal spending and borrowing is absolutely necessary, because it will only make these costs more onerous.
Tracy C. Miller is a senior policy research editor with the Mercatus Center at George Mason University


thefiscaltimes--2020-09-29--Stimulus Talks Resume as Pelosi Trims Coronavirus Bill to $2.2 Trillion

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-CA ) and Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin have resumed talks on a coronavirus relief bill after Democrats introduced a slimmed-down , $ 2.2 billion bill Monday evening .
Pelosi and Mnuchin spoke Monday evening and then discussed the new 2,152-page bill Tuesday morning , with Pelosi saying the conversation was `` positive . ''
The pair are scheduled to speak again Wednesday , when Mnuchin is expected to provide a detailed response to the Democratic proposal .
“ We ’ re in a negotiation , and hopefully we will come to a bipartisan agreement that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will pass and be signed by the president , ” Pelosi told MSNBC Tuesday .
What ’ s in the bill .
The bill is basically a reduced version of the $ 3.4 trillion Heroes Act the House passed in May .
Pelosi said Tuesday that the bill addresses all of the issues Democrats say are most important , including aid for state and local governments and additional unemployment assistance , but on a shorter timeline to lower the cost by more than $ 1 trillion .
“ When we reduced it , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” she said .
“ We just reduced the timeline as to how long those benefits would last.
” • $ 600 per week in enhanced unemployment benefits , lasting through January , • $ 25 billion to maintain payrolls in the airline industry , • an extension of the Paycheck Protection Program to aid small businesses .
Can it pass ?
Lawmakers are trying one last time to negotiate a relief package before the rapidly approaching election , but Pelosi ’ s smaller bill will still be a tough sell for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 1.2 trillion off her initial proposal , the two sides are still hundreds of billions of dollars apart .
Less than three weeks ago , the Republican-controlled Senate was unable to pass a $ 500 billion relief bill , and despite President Trump ’ s call for “ much higher numbers ” in the effort , there ’ s no sense that many minds have changed in the upper chamber .
Still , with Mnuchin reportedly open to a package worth as much as $ 1.5 trillion , there is some hope @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Time is running out .
The House is expected to leave town by the end of the week , leaving very little time to negotiate such a massive bill .
“ If no agreement seems likely , ” Politico Playbook said Tuesday , “ Pelosi and House Democratic leaders will hold a vote on their own $ 2.2 trillion bill as soon as Wednesday and then go home , guaranteeing that Congress won ’ t send more help until after Election Day .
”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin have resumed talks on a coronavirus relief bill after Democrats introduced a slimmed-down, $2.2 billion bill Monday evening.
Pelosi and Mnuchin spoke Monday evening and then discussed the new 2,152-page bill Tuesday morning, with Pelosi saying the conversation was "positive." The pair are scheduled to speak again Wednesday, when Mnuchin is expected to provide a detailed response to the Democratic proposal.
“We’re in a negotiation, and hopefully we will come to a bipartisan agreement that will remove all doubt that the legislation will pass and be signed by the president,” Pelosi told MSNBC Tuesday.
What’s in the bill. The bill is basically a reduced version of the $3.4 trillion Heroes Act the House passed in May. Pelosi said Tuesday that the bill addresses all of the issues Democrats say are most important, including aid for state and local governments and additional unemployment assistance, but on a shorter timeline to lower the cost by more than $1 trillion. “When we reduced it, we didn’t take out priorities,” she said. “We just reduced the timeline as to how long those benefits would last.”
Specific provisions include:
$600 per week in enhanced unemployment benefits, lasting through January,
another round of $1,200 stimulus payments,
$436 billion for state and local governments,
$225 billion for schools,
$75 billion for coronavirus testing and tracing programs,
$57 billion for childcare,
$25 billion to maintain payrolls in the airline industry,
$10 billion for food aid,
an extension of the Paycheck Protection Program to aid small businesses.
Can it pass? Lawmakers are trying one last time to negotiate a relief package before the rapidly approaching election, but Pelosi’s smaller bill will still be a tough sell for some Republicans. Even with Pelosi knocking $1.2 trillion off her initial proposal, the two sides are still hundreds of billions of dollars apart. Less than three weeks ago, the Republican-controlled Senate was unable to pass a $500 billion relief bill, and despite President Trump’s call for “much higher numbers” in the effort, there’s no sense that many minds have changed in the upper chamber. Still, with Mnuchin reportedly open to a package worth as much as $1.5 trillion, there is some hope that an agreement could be reached.
Time is running out. The House is expected to leave town by the end of the week, leaving very little time to negotiate such a massive bill. “If no agreement seems likely,” Politico Playbook said Tuesday, “Pelosi and House Democratic leaders will hold a vote on their own $2.2 trillion bill as soon as Wednesday and then go home, guaranteeing that Congress won’t send more help until after Election Day.”


thefiscaltimes--2020-09-28--Trump’s $750 Tax Bill

Trump’s $750 Tax Bill

The analysis released Sunday evening by The New York Times of President Trump ’ s tax filings stretching back over more than two decades has caused quite a stir as we enter the final weeks of the presidential campaign .
Among many other details , the report alleges that Trump paid $ 750 in federal income taxes in 2016 , the year he won the presidential election , and again in 2017 , the year he took office .
In ten of the 15 years before that , Trump paid no federal income taxes at all , the Times said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fake news ” and “ totally made up , ” despite bragging in the past that he doesn ’ t pay taxes .
( “ That makes me smart , ” he famously said in 2016 . )
He also accused the Times , somewhat paradoxically , of using “ illegally obtained information ” in its report .
We ’ ll leave it to the political experts to debate the effect the news might have on the presidential campaign , but we want to highlight a few comments on the Times report that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ broader picture of the U.S. tax system .
* Trump ’ s alleged income tax payments were exceptionally low : “ Taxes on wealthy Americans have declined sharply over the past few decades , and many use loopholes to reduce their taxes below the statutory rates .
But most affluent people still pay a lot of federal income tax .
In 2017 , the average federal income rate for the highest-earning .001 percent of tax filers — that is , the most affluent 1/100,000th slice of the population — was 24.1 percent , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ past two decades , Mr. Trump has paid about $ 400 million less in combined federal income taxes than a very wealthy person who paid the average for that group each year.
” ( David Leonhardt , The New York Times ) * More typical of low-income households : “ Looking at how federal individual income taxes are distributed by income , $ 750 would be less than what a typical family making $ 30K- $ 40K pays before credits , and less than what a family making $ 40K- $ 50K pays @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Evercore ISI ) * And less than the average family : “ The average middle-class American household paid approximately three times as much in federal income taxes in 2016 and 2017 as President Trump , a billionaire real estate mogul with properties and developments all over the world.
” ( Jeff Stein and Christopher Ingraham , Washington Post ) * Trump appears to be taking advantage of tried and true methods to avoid income taxes : “ One way to avoid taxes as a wealthy person : 1 ) Take advantage of tax @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investment real estate that is actually going up in value to offset income 2 ) Never sell 3 ) Unrealized capital gain goes to zero at death.
” “ Second way to avoid taxes as a wealthy person : 1 ) Own growth company .
Do n't pay dividends .
Invest in growth to minimize corp taxes 2 ) Do n't sell .
Your wealth = an unrealized , never-will-be-realized cap gain 3 ) Unrealized cap gain goes to zero at death.
” ( Steven T. Dennis , Bloomberg ) * Not a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the rich : “ Trump ’ s own history of avoiding tax payments – and often paying nothing -- is the other issue that should alarm the president ’ s supporters .
Trump and the Republican Party engineered a massive tax cut in 2017 that largely benefitted the most affluent Americans and the largest corporations in the U.S. Now we learn that the president who pushed a tax cut that didn ’ t deliver the economic stimulus he claimed it would , but feathered the nests of the most privileged , has rarely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Timothy L. O ’ Brien , Bloomberg )

The analysis released Sunday evening by The New York Times of President Trump’s tax filings stretching back over more than two decades has caused quite a stir as we enter the final weeks of the presidential campaign. Among many other details, the report alleges that Trump paid $750 in federal income taxes in 2016, the year he won the presidential election, and again in 2017, the year he took office. In ten of the 15 years before that, Trump paid no federal income taxes at all, the Times said.
Trump dismissed the report as “fake news” and “totally made up,” despite bragging in the past that he doesn’t pay taxes. (“That makes me smart,” he famously said in 2016.) He also accused the Times, somewhat paradoxically, of using “illegally obtained information” in its report.
We’ll leave it to the political experts to debate the effect the news might have on the presidential campaign, but we want to highlight a few comments on the Times report that help connect the alleged details with a broader picture of the U.S. tax system.
* Trump’s alleged income tax payments were exceptionally low: “Taxes on wealthy Americans have declined sharply over the past few decades, and many use loopholes to reduce their taxes below the statutory rates. But most affluent people still pay a lot of federal income tax. In 2017, the average federal income rate for the highest-earning .001 percent of tax filers — that is, the most affluent 1/100,000th slice of the population — was 24.1 percent, according to the I.R.S. Over the past two decades, Mr. Trump has paid about $400 million less in combined federal income taxes than a very wealthy person who paid the average for that group each year.” (David Leonhardt, The New York Times)
* More typical of low-income households: “Looking at how federal individual income taxes are distributed by income, $750 would be less than what a typical family making $30K-$40K pays before credits, and less than what a family making $40K-$50K pays after credits.” (Ernie Tedeschi, Evercore ISI)
* And less than the average family: “The average middle-class American household paid approximately three times as much in federal income taxes in 2016 and 2017 as President Trump, a billionaire real estate mogul with properties and developments all over the world.” (Jeff Stein and Christopher Ingraham, Washington Post)
* Trump appears to be taking advantage of tried and true methods to avoid income taxes: “One way to avoid taxes as a wealthy person: 1) Take advantage of tax laws that let you ‘depreciate’ investment real estate that is actually going up in value to offset income 2) Never sell 3) Unrealized capital gain goes to zero at death.”
“Second way to avoid taxes as a wealthy person: 1) Own growth company. Don't pay dividends. Invest in growth to minimize corp taxes 2) Don't sell. Your wealth = an unrealized, never-will-be-realized cap gain 3) Unrealized cap gain goes to zero at death.” (Steven T. Dennis, Bloomberg)
* Not a good look for more tax cuts for the rich: “Trump’s own history of avoiding tax payments – and often paying nothing -- is the other issue that should alarm the president’s supporters. Trump and the Republican Party engineered a massive tax cut in 2017 that largely benefitted the most affluent Americans and the largest corporations in the U.S. Now we learn that the president who pushed a tax cut that didn’t deliver the economic stimulus he claimed it would, but feathered the nests of the most privileged, has rarely paid taxes in recent years.” (Timothy L. O’Brien, Bloomberg)